Biodiversity
Chapter Four The Biodiversity Focal Area
1. OPERATIONAL STRATEGY
Biodiversity loss is caused primarily by the degradation and fragmentation of "natural" areas; the introduction of alien species; and over-exploitation of biological resources. The GEF has developed a specific Operational Strategy for Biodiversity to address these causes, which is closely linked to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). (GEFDOC #12; See Box 4.1) A centerpiece of the strategy is to support representative ecosystems of global importance and country-driven biodiversity priorities and to integrate biodiversity conservation into national sustainable development. The strategy also emphasises in situ (i.e., within its natural surroundings) activities within and adjacent to protected areas, as well as sustainable use of biodiversity, guided by close monitoring of harvesting impacts. Where possible, biodiversity will be integrated into the climate change and international waters focal areas, as well as the cross-sectoral GEF policies for land degradation.
The Operational Strategy for Biodiversity outlines three categories of activities that will be funded through the GEF: (i) operational programmes; (ii) enabling activities; and (iii) short-term response measures.
Operational Programmes. Ecosystem-based operational programmes for long-term biodiversity protection and sustainable use will account for the bulk of GEF funding in the biodiversity area. Other considerations that will guide the development of activities in each operational programme are: underlying causes of biodiversity loss, stakeholder involvement and targeted research. (See Section 2)
Enabling activities. These activities—being emphasised in this early stage of the GEF—prepare the foundation for the design and implementation of effective response measures and generally cover planning and capacity building (e.g., preparation of national biodiversity strategies and action plans, implementation reports under the CBD, and assessments of biodiversity resources and threats).
Short-term response measures. These are activities that respond to urgent biodiversity needs (e.g., critical ecosystems under immediate threat) and/or meet the following criteria: cost-effective, high demonstration value, high degree of threat, important opportunity and high likelihood of success.
Box 4.1 The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at a Glance
The GEF serves as the "interim" financial mechanism of the CBD—a legally binding agreement committing 169 governments to take action to stem the worldwide loss of biological diversity (the variety and variability of all living organisms and the ecosystems of which they are a part). The convention's objectives are (i) conservation of biodiversity; (ii) sustainable use of its components; and (iii) fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from genetic resources. The CBD requires parties (governments that have ratified) to take a holistic, ecosystem approach, rather than a sectoral approach, to biodiversity conservation. It links biodiversity to food security, economic development, ethics and human survival.
All parties are required to implement a wide range of measures, such as:
• adopting national biodiversity strategies and action plans;
• establishing systems of protected areas;
• adopting incentive measures to promote conservation and sustainable use;
• restoring degraded habitats;
• conserving threatened species and ecosystems;
• minimising or avoiding adverse biodiversity impacts from the use of biological resources;
• respecting, preserving and maintaining knowledge, innovations and practices of local and indigenous communities; and
• ensuring safety related to biotechnology products ("biosafety").
Developed country parties are also required to provide financial and technical assistance to developing countries, and to facilitate technology transfer.
2. OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES
The four operational programmes for biodiversity are designed around ecosystem types:
Arid and semi-arid ecosystems. These projects, which primarily will be carried out in Africa, use integrated approaches to the conservation, sustainable use, and rehabilitation of dryland and endemic arid ecosystems.
Coastal, marine and freshwater ecosystems (including wetlands). These projects target: coral reefs, mangroves, lakes, rivers and estuaries, along with other critical aquatic areas, with particular attention to the needs of tropical islands, integrated coastal area development and regional cooperation.
Forest ecosystems. These projects involve establishing and strengthening systems of conservation areas, and demonstration and development of sustainable use methods in forestry.
Projects will focus primarily on tropical and temperate forest ecosystems that are at risk.
Mountain ecosystems. These projects target mountain ecosystems such as those in Meso-America, the Andes, Himalayas, Indochinese peninsula and East Africa. The programme will support sustainable land use of mountain slopes, linking mountains to lowlands with corridors and cooperative management of mountains and river basins.
Box 4.2 The GEF's Biodiversity Portfolio at a Glance
(This table provides key statistics summarising the current biodiversity portfolio.)
Total allocated funding $597 million
% of total GEF funds allocated to biodiversity work program 38.0%
Total projects approved for funding 156
• # of global projects (5)
• # of regional projects (11)
• # of national projects (140)
Source: GEF Quarterly Operational Report, June 1997. Aggregate figures for total funds disbursed in each focal area were not available at time of printing.
Box 4.3 A Sampling of Biodiversity Projects Funded by the GEF Patagonia Coastal Zone Management Programme for Biodiversity Conservation (Argentina).
With US $5 million in GEF allocations, this project aims to conserve globally significant Patagonian marine and coastal biodiversity (such as marine mammals) through implementing the protected areas programme of the Patagonian Coastal Zone Management Plan and by demonstrating the feasibility of "biodiversity-friendly" production practices and methods.
A Highly Decentralized Approach to Biodiversity Protection and Use: The Bangassou Dense Forest Project (Central African Republic). With US $2.5 million in GEF allocations, and US $1 million in co-financing, this project will test highly decentralised and participatory approaches (e.g., community-based management, policy and tenure reforms) for sustainable management of the Bangassou Dense Forest—an area of particularly high species and ecosystem diversity.
Final Consolidation and Conservation of Azraq Wetlands and Dana Wildlands Project (Jordan). With US $2 million in GEF allocations, and US $1 million in co-financing, this project aims to develop strategies to protect two key ecosystems—addressing challenges posed by tourism and associated development—and to strengthen the capacity of a national NGO with a biodiversity and protected area mandate.
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants (Sri Lanka). With US $4.5 million in GEF allocations, and US $21 million in co-financing, this project will design and implement a medicinal plants conservation program, which includes support for research, monitoring, community organising and the development of improved sustainable marketing strategies.
Terra Capital Biodiversity Fund (Regional—Latin America). With US $5 million in GEF allocations, and US $50 million in co-financing, this project supports the establishment of a fund to make equity/quasi-equity investments in Latin American companies that sustainably use or protect biodiversity.
3. SUMMARY OF THE BIODIVERSITY PORTFOLIO
The Pilot Phase. During the GEF Pilot Phase, biodiversity projects financed a wide range of activities, including: support for protected areas, conservation training and education, species inventories, conservation and development, sustainable forestry techniques, gene banks and arboreta. The Independent Evaluation (GEFDOC #27; see Chapter 9) stated that the biodiversity investments in the Pilot Phase tended to be haphazard and that many may make only marginal contributions to conserving biodiversity.
Examples of activities that could be funded through the GEF:
• Development of national biodiversity strategies and action plans, including formulation of legislation and policy measures.
• Institutional strengthening and coordination of ministries.
• Creation of protected areas.
• Strengthening of protected area management and related infrastructure.
• Technical training for assessing, managing and monitoring biodiversity.
• Maintenance of knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities.
• Public awareness and environmental education on biodiversity issues.
• Strengthening of technical and social research capacity on biodiversity.
• Targeted research on species, ecosystems and the use of biodiversity.
• Transboundary and transnational biodiversity conservation efforts.
• Establishment of environmental or conservation trust funds.
• Ex-situ (i.e., outside its natural surroundings) conservation programmes.
• Restoration and rehabilitation of critical degraded ecosystems.
• Promotion of alternative livelihood options consistent with the CBD, such as ecotourism and non-timber forest products.
• Programmes supporting the sustainable use of biological resources.
• Activities related to resource tenure and ownership issues, including for indigenous and local communities.
• Capacity building for biodiversity mapping.
• Programmes to promote benefit-sharing from the use of biological resources.
4. NGO PERSPECTIVES
Some of the key NGO perspectives related to the biodiversity portfolio include:
More innovative projects. Some NGOs have expressed concern that GEF biodiversity projects have focused too heavily on traditional conservation approaches (e.g., protected areas) and need more emphasis on innovative approaches (e.g., supporting market transformation, sustainable use models, alternative livelihood activities and addressing underlying causes).
GEF as a catalyst in mainstreaming biodiversity. Many NGOs feel that GEF biodiversity projects involve putting a "green" gloss on development that is environmentally unsound, rather than making biodiversity a central consideration in development. NGOs generally would like to see a stronger.
GEF role in catalysing the integration of biodiversity conservation into the regular activities of the GEF Implementing Agencies and governments (so-called mainstreaming). Many NGOs have cited projects in the regular lending portfolio of the World Bank as counter-productive to GEF grants in the same country.
Some examples include World Bank commercial forestry loans to the Congo, Laos and Poland, which seem to support unsustainable timber harvesting and threaten biodiversity.
Underlying causes of biodiversity loss. Many NGOs assert that lasting solutions to biodiversity conservation problems require addressing underlying causes covering difficult policy and poverty-related issues, with the meaningful involvement of all stakeholders. They stress that conflicts and policy disagreement 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.
Global benefits and incremental costs. Many NGOs have asserted that these two concepts are not particularly applicable to biodiversity projects, since few biodiversity benefits are recognised as global per se, creating difficulties in identifying incremental costs. Many NGOs have also cited problems in reconciling the country-driven approach mandated by the CBD and the achievement of global biodiversity benefits, as required by the GEF Instrument.
Ecosystem approach. While the ecosystem programmatic approach has been welcomed generally, 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 more explicitly with reference to the Convention on Desertification. Other NGOs question the choice of the four priority ecosystems listed above. Some NGOs have suggested complementing the ecosystem approach with parallel programmatic approaches (e.g., 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 intensively 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; underlying causes of biodiversity loss; or other areas.
Prioritisation. Some NGOs have 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. Other NGOs question the ability to define globally representative ecosystems and are concerned that the current GEF approach may focus too much on global priorities rather than national ones.
CBD COP guidance. NGOs seem to have mixed views as to whether the CBD COP should provide more detailed guidance to the GEF, and what the priorities of such guidance might be. For example, should the COP provide more detailed guidance on ways in which the GEF could support sustainable use or benefit sharing? What would such guidance entail?