35302 This report was prepared by Kathy MacKinnon, Karen Luz, Claudia Sobrevila, and Elisson Wright (Biodiversity Team), with contributions from Beverley McIntyre (ARD); Jessica Mott, Emilia Battaglini, Marjory-Anne Bromhead, Agi Kiss, and John Fraser Stewart (ECA); David Bonnardeaux and Marea Hatziolos (ENV); Tim Brown, Valerie Hickey, Bryony Morgan, Stephen Ling, Tony Whitten, and Robin Broadfield (EAP); Paola Agostini, Christophe Crepin, Indu Hewawasam, and Chris Warner (AFR); Isabel Braga, Carter Brandon, Douglas J. Graham, Adriana Moreira, Gunars Platais, Juan Pablo Ruiz, Keiko Ashida, and Jocelyne Albert (LAC); Malcolm Jansen (SAR); J.B. Collier, Allan Rotman, and Dahlia Lotayef (MNA); and Catherine Cassagne, Mark Eckstein, Richard Kaguamba, and Jeff Liebert from the International Finance Corporation. David Bonnardeaux, Bryony Morgan, and Elisson Wright prepared the portfolio data for this update of the biodiversity portfolio review. Valerie Hickey undertook the data analysis. Jim Cantrell was responsible for the design and layout. Thanks are due for the comments provided by many of the regional GEF coordinators and project task managers. This paper is a contribution to the ongoing review of the biodiversity portfolio of the World Bank Group. It is a work in progress and has not been formally cleared by Bank management. This publication is available online at www.worldbank.org/biodiversity. The Environment Department The World Bank Washington, D.C. The World Bank and Biodiversity Mountains to Coral Reefs © 2006 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA February 2006 All rights reserved. Design: Jim Cantrell, ENV,The World Bank Cover mountain photograph: Silhouette onYellow Mountains, Anhui Province, China by Keren Su/CORBIS; additional images for cover and throughout the text by: Manuel Zumbado (INBio); Olivier Langrand (CI); Kathy MacKinnon, Kirk Hamilton, and Claudia Sobrevila, (ENV),The World Bank Note: All dollars are U.S. dollars Contents Chapters 1 TheBankBiodiversityPortfolio 1 Introduction 1 Methods 2 Investment Trends 4 Regional Trends 8 2 ImplementingtheBiodiversityConvention 13 Supporting Protected Area Networks 13 Maintaining Biodiversity in Threatened Ecosystems 18 Freshwater Ecosystems, Wetlands, Rivers, Lakes, and Regional Seas 18 Marine Conservation 23 Island Biodiversity 28 Madagascar -- A Megadiversity Island 29 3 MainstreamingBiodiversityinDevelopment 33 Natural Resource Management Programs 33 Agriculture and Biodiversity 34 Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Infrastructure Projects 37 Valuing Ecosystem Services 40 Strengthening the Knowledge Base 42 4 WorkingwithCivilSociety 47 Indigenous Peoples, Protected Areas, and Conservation 47 Working with the Private Sector 49 NGO Partnerships for Conservation 51 Public-Private Partnerships 53 Engaging the Scientific Community 55 Focus on Youth and Learning 57 5 NewChallengesandOpportunities 59 Invasive Alien Species 60 Climate Change and Biodiversity 64 Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (FLEG) 66 -- iii -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Wildlife Trade 66 Improving Land Management 68 Monitoring for Impact 69 appendix TheWorldBankGroupBiodiversityPortfolio 73 Boxes 1.1 Laying the Foundation for Biodiversity Conservation in Mongolia 3 1.2 Innovation in Conservation -- The Development Marketplace Way 5 2.1 Conservation Production Landscapes -- Ecology and Economics 14 2.2 Conservation Achievements in Protected Areas in Honduras 15 2.3 Vietnam Conservation Fund -- Supporting Protected Areas Network 16 2.4 Making Protected Areas Relevant to the Development Agenda 17 2.5 Mainstreaming Conservation in the Cape Floristic Region 19 2.6 Management of Aquatic Resources in the Amazon Region 21 2.7 Management of Marine and Coastal Invasive Species 25 2.8 Marine Resources Are Big Business in the Philippines 26 2.9 San Andreas Biosphere Reserve -- Caribbean Jewel 27 2.10 Conserving Lowland Forests on Buton Island, Sulawesi 30 3.1 Doing No Harm -- World Bank Policies and Safeguards 37 3.2 Water, Livestock, and the Mongolian Wild Ass 38 3.3 Nakai Nam Theun -- Forest Conservation to Protect Hydropower 39 3.4 Ecomarkets in Costa Rica 41 3.5 Can Collecting Flies Benefit Conservation? 43 3.6 Partnerships for Progress -- Brazil National Biodiversity Project 44 4.1 Conservation and Sustainable Development in the Matavén Forest 49 4.2 Civil Society Advocacy and Influence on Policy and Development 54 4.3 From Flamingos to Penguins -- Partnerships for Conservation in Chile 56 5.1 An Invasives Information Network in Latin America and the Caribbean 61 5.2 Making Bereavement Bearable -- Invasive Trees for Coffins 63 5.3 Carbon Sequestration via the BioCarbon Fund 65 5.4 After the Tsunami -- Integrating Forest Protection into Recovery 67 5.5 Aral Sea -- Rehabilitation at a Site of Ecological Catastrophe 70 Figures 1.1 Annual biodiversity investments, including co-financing, FY1988­2005 6 1.2 Biodiversity investments by type of funding, FY1988­2005 (US$ 5.1 billion total) 6 1.3 Annual biodiversity investments and leveraged co-financing 7 1.4 Percentage of total Bank biodiversity investments, excluding co-financing, by funding source (1988­2005) 7 1.5 Percentage of GEF funds by type of project 7 1.6 Total biodiversity investments by region (1988­2005) 8 1.7 Number of Bank-GEF biodiversity projects by project type and region (1988­2005) 8 1.8 Bank-GEF investments by region (1988­2005) 9 1.9 Total investments and co-financing for biodiversity projects by region (1988­2005) 10 1.10 Co-financing by region (1988­2005) 10 1.11 Ratio of co-financing to Bank investments by region (1988­2005) 10 1.12 Ecosystem occurrence in WBG biodiversity portfolio (1988­2005) 11 taBles 1.1 Total biodiversity investments by year and funding source 6 1.2 Total biodiversity investments by region (1988­2005) 9 1.3 Biodiversity investments by region and funder, excluding co-financing (1988­2005) 9 -- iv -- 1 The Bank Biodiversity Portfolio Introduction The World Bank Group has a rich portfolio of biodiversity projects.Through lending and grant support to client T countries, it is one of the largest international funding he World Bank's overarching mission is to sources for biodiversity (World Bank, 2004a).This portfolio alleviate poverty and support sustainable review and update shows that between July 1988 and development.The conservation and June 2005, the World Bank approved 492 projects that sustainable use of natural ecosystems and biodiversity wholly or partially support biodiversity conservation and are critical elements of this mandate. Biodiversity is sustainable use.This biodiversity portfolio represents the foundation and mainstay of agriculture, forests, a $5-billion investment, including Bank contributions fisheries, soil conservation, and water quality. Biological and leveraged co-financing. Although this investment resources provide the raw materials for livelihoods, is a very small part of the Bank's overall lending, this sustenance, trade, medicines, and industry. Genetic biodiversity funding has made a substantial contribution diversity provides the basis for new breeding programs, to helping client countries meet their obligations under improved crops, enhanced agricultural production, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and to and food security. Natural habitats and ecosystems implementing work programs and priorities agreed by provide services--such as water flow, flood control, and the CBD. A substantial amount of that investment has coastal protection--that reduce human vulnerability to been dedicated to protected areas (World Bank, 2003a) natural hazards, including drought, floods, tsunamis, but there is an increasing focus on improving natural and hurricanes. Forests, grasslands, freshwater and resource management and mainstreaming biodiversity marine and other natural ecosystems provide global into forestry, coastal zone management, and agriculture. environmental benefits such as carbon sequestration, Beyond these"traditional"biodiversity sectors, the Bank biodiversity conservation, and nutrient and hydrological is also supporting innovative modalities for protection cycling. Sound ecosystem management provides and improved management of natural habitats through countless streams of benefits to, and opportunities for, Bank-funded energy and infrastructure projects, Carbon human societies, while also supporting the web of life. Fund projects, and Development Policy Lending (DPL). Biodiversity conservation contributes to environmental sustainability, a critical Millennium Development Goal Bank projects directly support biodiversity conservation (MDG) and a central pillar of World Bank assistance. and sustainable use in a range of natural habitats, from -- 1 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) mountains to coral reefs and from tropical evergreen the sustainability of protected area networks and in and monsoon forests to savanna grasslands and mainstreaming biodiversity in production landscapes. unique dryland, limestone, marine, and freshwater ecosystems. Many are in centers of recognized global This portfolio update incorporates both stand-alone importance for biodiversity: megadiversity hotspots, biodiversity projects and biodiversity-related sectoral remaining wilderness areas, the Global 200 Ecoregions projects--for example, a hydropower project in Lao PDR, described by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and an irrigation project in Iran, and ship-generated waste Endemic and Important Bird Areas (EBAs and IBAs). By management project in the Eastern Caribbean--that promoting investments in these locations the Bank is clearly describe and include biodiversity activities. helping countries to meet the 2010 targets of the CBD. It includes all such projects financed through the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development This portfolio review is a report for the Eighth Conference (IBRD), the International Development Association of the Parties to the CBD in Brazil in March 2006 and to the (IDA), the Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian GEF Assembly in South Africa in August 2006. It provides Rainforest (RFTF), and GEF projects executed through an update on previous reviews, which focused on specific the World Bank.The Bank's private sector arm, the ecosystems (forests and mountains) and themes (protected International Finance Corporation (IFC), contributes to areas), as well as previous overviews of the whole portfolio biodiversity conservation through private sector lending (World Bank, 2004a). It includes information on some and GEF grants; only the latter are included in this of the most recent highlights of the portfolio, including analysis. In addition to projects and project components initiatives to mainstream biodiversity into regional and with specific and direct biodiversity objectives (the national development programs as well as innovative biodiversity portfolio), the Bank funds many other financing mechanisms for biodiversity conservation. development projects that may also have positive, albeit indirect, impacts on biodiversity. For example, pollution abatement, sewage treatment, and cleaning up pollution discharge may enhance water quality in freshwater ecosystems and benefit freshwater biodiversity.This update, however, does not cover such indirect support. Methods This paper is based on the most recent update of the Additionally, a small but growing source of funding for World Bank biodiversity portfolio and summarizes protected areas and other biodiversity activities comes the efforts of the World Bank Group (alternatively, from special World Bank trust funds (see Box 1.1).The WBG, the World Bank, or the Bank) over the past 17 Bank contributes to biodiversity conservation through years (1988­2005) to promote the conservation and innovative programs funded by the Development Grant sustainable use of biodiversity.This period spans Facility (DGF) and the Bank Netherlands Partnership ratification and implementation of the Convention on Program (BNPP).The Development Grant Facility, sourced Biological Diversity as well as two major Earth Summits from Bank income, provides support to global partnerships in Rio de Janeiro and Johannesburg, and more than such as the World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest a decade of experience with implementation of the Conservation and Sustainable Use, the Critical Ecosystems Global Environment Facility (GEF). As an Implementing Partnership Fund (CEPF), and the Global Invasive Agency of the Global Environment Facility, the Bank has Species Programme (GISP). It has also contributed played a major role in supporting the objectives of the approximately $50 million annually to the Consultative Biodiversity Focal Area program, especially in promoting Group for International Agriculture Research (CGIAR) -- 2 -- The Bank Biodiversity Portfolio BOX 1.1 Laying the Foundation for Biodiversity Conservation in Mongolia Toward the end of 2004 the Bank was approached by the Netherlands Embassy in Beijing with the offer of $6 mil- lion to be used for environmental reform. A detailed proposal was assembled with feedback from the Mongolian and Netherlands governments, and a trust fund, known as NEMO, was established. Activities included a revision of legislation for toxic chemicals, understanding environmental conditions in secondary cities, tourism develop- ment impacts on the environment, and promoting heating efficiency; approximately $1.1 million was allocated for biodiversity activities, including the following: ReportingonWildlifeTrade -- The Wildlife Conservation Society office in Ulaanbaatar was contracted to prepare a major report on the illegal wildlife trade in Mongolia, looking especially at effective means of preventing the trade and suggesting initiatives for the sustainable management of certain valuable natural resources. Staff in China and Russia collaborated to provide regional data. Biodiversity Database -- The Zoological Society of London, together with the Mongolian Steppe Forward Programme, helped to establish a Mongolian Biodiversity Databank, starting with mammals and fish. Involving an active Steering Committee from government, academics, and NGOs, a week-long workshop resulted in assessments of all mammal and fish species against IUCN Red List criteria and a range of action plans for the most threatened or commercially important species, such as wild camel, wild ass, musk deer, and snow leopard. The database is hosted at the National University and will soon be expanded to include other vertebrates and certain plant groups. Faiths and Conservation -- A remarkable Conference on Northern Buddhism and the Environment (see www .buddhistecology.org) was held in the capital, Ulaanbaatar, in June 2005 with the support of the President's Contingency Fund. The President of Mongolia took a very active role and NEMO funds are being used to follow up recommendations through the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC). An "association" of northern Buddhists is being created to link monasteries and monks through information networks with NGOs and other entities work- ing in the environmental and development fields. Representatives from monasteries, NGOs, government, and tour companies will share information and ideas concerning the management of sacred sites for faith and conservation. A workshop will be held in cooperation with WWF Mongolia with monastic, government, and NGO participation to discuss the potential for monks to help with the official curriculum on environmental education. Small Grants Program -- Finally, NEMO funds were used to set up a $1 million small grant facility for conservation. Out of over 100 proposals, nearly 30 were approved to support work in national parks, environmental education (one by an environmental sumo wrestling team), and monitoring wildlife trade. networks for critical research to improve crops and assistance by supporting the implementation of the increase agricultural productivity.The DGF also provides Corporate and Regional Environmental Strategies of the cofunding to projects such as the Millennium Ecosystem World Bank. Currently, the Environment Window of BNPP Assessment, Global Coral Reef Targeted Research has a total of 49 active or recently approved projects. For project, and the International Assessment of Agricultural CY04, 17 projects were approved totaling $ 7.2 million, for Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). CY05, 23 projects totaling $10.13 million and for CY06, 9 proposals totaling $3.39 million. More than 50 percent Since 1998 the Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program of these projects are in Africa.The BNPP funding has has contributed $50 million through its Environment supported upstream analytical work to strengthen poverty- Window to mainstream the environmental dimension biodiversity linkages and Bank lending; provided resources of sustainable development into overall World Bank to strengthen new partnerships, e.g. with Global Witness -- 3 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) and the Alliance on Forest Governance; and resourced place in 105 countries and through 39 multi-country capacity building through initiatives to address invasive efforts. More than half of these projects (255) were alien species and local language field guides. Another approved since 2000, with 43 projects in FY05 alone. Bank program, the Development Marketplace (DM), is Many of these projects benefit from GEF funding. providing seed funding for innovative development ideas. An increasing focus on environment in the Development Bank biodiversity projects directly support biodiversity Marketplace has afforded the opportunity to support new conservation in a range of natural habitats, from temperate biodiversity initiatives and small grants in some of the forests to freshwater rivers and lakes, from large marine poorer countries. Several projects in 2004 and 16 of the ecosystems to high mountain habitats, and from some of 2005 winners were biodiversity projects (see Box 1.2). the most expansive tropical forest wildernesses to some of the most unique limestone landscapes. During the The Annex lists all Bank biodiversity projects included period between 1988 and 2005, the WBG committed over in the portfolio for the fiscal year in which they were $2.8 billion in loans and GEF resources and leveraged approved by the Bank Board or, in the case of GEF almost another $2.3 billion in co-financing, resulting medium-size projects (GEF MSPs), by the country in a total investment portfolio exceeding $5 billion. management unit.The source of funding, whether WBG (loans, credits, or grants) or co-financing from non-Bank Table 1.1 shows the total World Bank commitments sources, is noted for each project. Where there is more for biodiversity projects by year and funding source than one source of WBG financing in a project, these from 1988 to 2005. Cumulative WBG biodiversity components are assessed separately to avoid double funding for biodiversity projects during that period counting. Co-financing amounts include contributions totaled over $5.1 billion. Figure 1.1 summarizes from borrower governments, local beneficiaries, non- biodiversity investments from all funding sources. governmental organizations, bilateral donors, regional development banks, and United Nations agencies. As in previous reviews, biodiversity costs are determined Figure 1.1 gives an indication of the normal fluctuation of by itemizing each activity component. For each project, the funding cycles. Apparent surges in funding between figures have been estimated for total project cost, years are explained by bunching of a few large projects total biodiversity costs (WBG funds plus associated in some years or postponements of Board approval co-financing), and Bank biodiversity funding.The dates. Apparent decreases in overall funding levels in Annex provides a listing, by region, of all biodiversity one year are usually compensated in the next. Longer projects with their funding and key activities. preparation times due to the particular pace of country dialogue and the intricacies of biodiversity projects are also contributors to these fluctuations. Estimated 2005­07 figures lead us to believe that this characteristic pattern of annual variability in WBG biodiversity investments will InvestmentTrends continue. Comparisons between years are thus difficult to interpret and necessitate a longer-term view of biodiversity The biodiversity portfolio of the WBG has shown steady portfolio trends. Preliminary qualitative assessments of the growth over the past 17 years, especially since 1992 portfolio suggest that funding reflects and responds to the when GEF funding became available. Between 1988 diverse strategic conservation priorities of Bank clients. and 2005, the Bank approved 492 projects that fully or partially supported biodiversity conservation and Partner governments have borrowed 32 percent (down sustainable use.These biodiversity initiatives are taking from 39 percent in 2000) of the $5 billion investment -- 4 -- The Bank Biodiversity Portfolio BOX 1.2 Innovation in Conservation -- The Development Marketplace Way Development problems often require new solutions. The Development Marketplace provides seed funding for in- novative, small-scale development projects that offer creative, cutting-edge solutions to some of the most pressing social, economic, and environmental concerns of our time. Winning projects in 2005 ranged from providing nest sites to encourage rodent-eating barn owls in Chile to livelihood projects linked to protection of Ugandan gorillas and Russian tigers. Examples of DM projects include: HaTien:HabitatsandHandbags--TheacidsoilsoftheHaTienPlaininVietnamsupportamosaicofgrasslandand wetland ecosystems, which are being destroyed due to increased shrimp pond development and subsistence rice farming. The Khmer people live in poverty in the area--although they may work at the shrimp ponds, they see little of the profit. A DM project in 2003 sought to improve the benefits the Khmer people receive from woven household goods while encouraging the sustainable harvesting of rushes. The project has had direct positive impacts on the Sarus crane, an important symbol to the Buddhist Khmer people. The project established a wetland protected area of 2,890 ha in Phu My commune, Kien Luong District, Kien Giang Province, conserving the last remnant of Lepironia (Lepironia articulata ­ Cyperaceae) grassland in the Mekong Delta. Human disturbances and encroachment in the new protected area have been reduced and cranes are on the increase. The annual Sarus crane count, carried out in March 2005 in Cambodia and Vietnam by the International Crane Foundation, recorded 45 cranes in the project area, significantly more cranes than the year before. The project area is now included in the Kien Giang Biosphere Reserve being nominated to UNESCO by the Government of Vietnam. Chilis: Cash and Crop Protection -- Rural farmers in many parts of Africa suffer severe losses when wildlife such as elephants and buffalos raid their crops. Current farming practices serve to increase the risk of crop damage, as many crops are highly palatable to wildlife. Current crop protection is often ineffective, and killing problem animals is an option that both farmers and conservationists want to avoid. Chili peppers have proved to be a valuable cash crop that also effectively repels wildlife, including elephants and buffalo. A DM 2003 project has helped over 250 household farms in Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Mozambique to cultivate chili as a robust, and affordable, system of crop defense that is controlled by the community. At all the sites, crop depredations went down by at least 37 percent from the previous farming seasons. At the same time, on average each participant in the project reported an increase in income by as much as 52 percent owing to the sale of chili peppers. Duck Rangers -- Rice farming and raising mallard ducks are important livelihoods in the Philippines. Snails are an important food source for the ducks; otherwise farmers must rely on expensive commercial feed. In rice-growing areas, infestations of the invasive golden snail can destroy up to 60 percent of a crop. Rice farmers rely on chemical inputs like molluscicide (snail killer), fertilizer, insecticide, and herbicide, resulting in environmental degradation and significantly increasing the cost of production. Traditionally, rice and ducks are raised separately, but significant gains can be realized by raising both in the same field. The ducks can control the golden snail population, which will in turn improve rice field productivity. Duck farmers will benefit from cheaper duck feed, while rice farmers will gain from an environmentally friendly and inexpensive way to fight the destructive snail. The production of the "Duck Ranger"--a movable duck shed that will house the free-ranging ducks as they move from one place to another--will facilitate this integrated farming model. The project estimates that 17,340 farm families will benefit from this innovation. through IBRD loans or IDA credits, representing a GEF projects ($1.1 billion) and several trust funds ($87 total of $1.6 billion. Grants comprise 23 percent ($1.2 million).The remaining 45 percent of total funding ($2.3 billion) and were facilitated through Bank-executed billion) represents co-financing and parallel financing, -- 5 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Table 1.1 Total biodiversity investments by year and funding source ($ millions) Total Total Bank Total Co- Biodiversity Total GEF IDA IBRD Trust Funds Funding financing Funding 1988 0.00 2.86 3.79 0.00 6.65 8.95 15.60 1989 0.00 3.93 3.16 0.00 7.09 5.21 12.30 1990 0.00 14.22 129.26 0.00 143.48 91.00 234.48 1991 0.00 35.48 97.17 0.00 132.65 129.94 262.59 1992 23.20 125.97 91.21 0.00 240.37 130.17 370.55 1993 29.75 28.37 17.13 0.00 75.25 42.93 118.18 1994 51.27 54.01 27.94 0.00 133.21 63.75 196.97 1995 44.06 34.80 55.61 36.66 171.13 176.26 347.40 1996 73.95 5.07 40.89 0.00 119.91 79.98 199.89 1997 89.88 99.54 38.86 0.00 228.28 160.75 389.03 1998 90.47 132.30 39.02 0.20 261.99 290.79 552.79 1999 45.10 40.15 15.87 3.00 104.11 98.57 202.68 2000 52.11 13.85 49.68 6.90 122.54 53.58 176.12 2001 164.15 24.06 72.28 27.00 287.48 330.56 618.04 2002 144.55 38.99 21.35 4.33 209.22 144.57 353.79 2003 100.98 37.09 33.33 0.00 171.40 157.70 329.10 2004 100.81 57.32 38.95 4.39 201.47 269.72 471.19 2005 89.64 55.45 49.40 4.78 199.27 67.44 266.70 Totals 1,099.92 803.44 824.89 87.25 2,815.50 2,301.87 5,117.37 approximately equivalent to an additional 82 cents for million of IDA funds (34 percent) and $247 million of every dollar the World Bank invests in biodiversity (up from IBRD funds (30 percent) are linked to GEF financing; 70 cents per dollar invested by FY99). Figure 1.2 presents this is a trend that has become more common over the total biodiversity investment by funding source. Figure time.This indicates that a wide range of economies, 1.3 represents the total annual biodiversity investments including the poorer IDA-eligible countries, are by the Bank including the leveraged co-financing. borrowing for biodiversity conservation and sustainable The total number of biodiversity projects or projects use. It is expected that in the coming years countries with biodiversity components funded by IBRD and will remain interested in using IDA credits and IDA is 99 and 106 projects, respectively. Some $272 grants to supplement grant-based conservation. Figure 1.1 Annual biodiversity investments, including co-financing, FY1988­2005 800 snoilli 600 400 m$ 200 0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 -- 6 -- The Bank Biodiversity Portfolio Figure 1.2 Biodiversity investments by type of 39 percent of all financing (see Figure 1.4), with most of funding, FY1988­2005 ($ 5.1 billion total) the financing going to full-sized projects (see Figure 1.5). Loans Co-financing 32% 45% Figure 1.4 Percentage of total Bank biodiversity investments, excluding co-financing, by funding 23% source (1988­2005) Grants Trust funds 3% In the early stages of the review period (1989­1992), IBRD funded a few large projects.This is well illustrated IBRD by the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region, 29% Total GEF 39% where funding in the early period focused on large environmental projects such as the Brazilian Rondonia Natural Resource Management, Mato Grosso Natural 29% Resource Management, and National Environmental IDA projects, whose cumulative biodiversity investment totaled $200 million.The emphasis has since shifted to lending for a larger number of smaller-sized projects or components within larger projects, which indicates improved mainstreaming of biodiversity Figure 1.5 Percentage of GEF funds by type of conservation into broader development lending. project GEF EA GEF IFC The number of biodiversity projects as a whole has steadily 1% 3% increased over the review period, with 43 added in 2005, GEF MSP worth over $266 million. While the number of projects has 6% increased, the average investment per project has become smaller. Much of the increase is attributable to an increase in the number of GEF projects. More than half of all GEF REG projects are GEF-funded or projects with GEF components 90% blended with IBRD and IDA lending. GEF accounts for Figure 1.3 Annual biodiversity investments and leveraged co-financing Total Bank funding Total co-financing 350 s 300 250 200 million$ 150 100 50 0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 -- 7 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) RegionalTrends medium-sized projects, and regular GEF grants, both through the Bank and the IFC.The Bank's biodiversity The WBG is supporting conservation and sustainable use investments through GEF grant windows have more than of biodiversity worldwide.Table 1.2 and Figure 1.6 show doubled over the last five years to $1.1 billion in all regions. the cumulative biodiversity funding ($5.1 billion) from By the end of FY05, the Bank had 148 full or regular GEF all sources by region.The major share (39 percent) of all projects, as well as 29 biodiversity EAs (up from 19 in funding for biodiversity projects went to Latin America FY99) and 75 MSPs (up from 17 by FY99), spread across and the Caribbean ($2.0 billion), with 9 percent to South all Bank regions (see Figure 1.7). As shown in Figure 1.8 Asia (SAR), 26 percent to Africa (AFR), 14 percent to GEF funding for biodiversity mirrors regular lending. East Asia and the Pacific (EAP), and 6 percent to Eastern Together the Africa, EAP, and LAC regions jointly absorb Europe and Central Asia (ECA). Just over 2 percent of 73 percent of all biodiversity investments made through total biodiversity funding went to the Middle East and the GEF windows. Latin America and the Caribbean is the North Africa (MNA). A further 4 percent represents region with the highest GEF funding overall, a reflection biodiversity financing through global initiatives, such of the high biodiversity value of the region's ecosystems as the IFC Small and Medium Enterprise Fund, the and country capacity to prepare and implement projects. Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund, Coral Reef Targeted Research, and projects funded under the BNPP More than half of these GEF investments have gone Forests and Biodiversity windows. Over 65 percent of all toward protected area projects, but the Bank is increasingly biodiversity funding has gone to the LAC and AFR regions. seeking to promote the GEF mandate on mainstreaming biodiversity in production landscapes, especially where Figure 1.6 Total biodiversity investments by there are opportunities to integrate GEF-funded activities region (1988­2005) within Bank sector lending.To date the Bank has given less 2,500 attention to the biosafety agenda of the GEF, though pilot 2,000 projects have been developed for India and Colombia. 1,500 millions$ 1,000 The Bank is also increasingly looking at best practice 500 0 and lessons learned, to improve both the effectiveness AFR EAP ECA LAC MNA SAR of the GEF portfolio and overall Bank lending efforts. Table 1.3 shows IBRD and IDA funding by region, totaling $825 million and $803 million respectively. Figure 1.7 Number of Bank-GEF biodiversity Among the regions, LAC still has the largest share projects by project type and region (1988­2005) of IBRD biodiversity funding with $559 million (68 percent). Many of the LAC countries are among the SAR mid- to higher-income developing countries and are MNA GEF EA not eligible for IDA credits. Conversely, the relatively LAC GEF IFC ECA GEF REG poorer sub-Saharan African countries have received GEF MSP EAP the largest share of IDA funding, corresponding to 47 AFR percent (or $376 million) of total IDA biodiversity funds. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 As an implementing agency for the GEF, the WBG The introduction of GEF MSPs in 1997 made mid- channels GEF grants for enabling activities (EAs), sized grants more readily available to NGOs -- 8 -- The Bank Biodiversity Portfolio Table 1.2 Total biodiversity investments by region (1988­2005) Total Co- Total Percent Total Bank Financed Biodiversity of Total Investments Investments Investments Investments Region ($ millions) ($ millions) ($ millions) (percentage) AFR 664.06 691.28 1,355.34 26 EAP 475.84 240.44 716.28 14 ECA 203.47 107.3 310.76 6 LAC 1,034.82 941.42 1,976.24 39 MNA 77.41 51.71 129.12 2 SAR 277.34 167.85 445.19 9 Global 82.55 101.88 184.43 4 Figure 1.8 Bank-GEF investments by region have proved to be useful and cost-effective instruments (1988­2005) under the Biodiversity Focal Area to test new management models and demonstrate tangible biodiversity impacts SAR MNA at key sites even though it may be difficult to scale up 6% 5% AFR successful pilots into larger programs. MSP activities 25% with an effective local partner (e.g., NGOs) have proved especially useful for site-based conservation even within LAC 33% countries riven by civil strife and weak governance.The 15% EAP MSP grants have also provided the opportunity for greater community involvement in biodiversity management. 4% 12% Global ECA Fourteen of the 29 EAs implemented thus far have been in the Eastern Europe and Central Asia region. In ECA, and non-governmental stakeholders and as a result many of the client countries came into being with the allowed a rapid expansion of the biodiversity portfolio. breakup of the former Soviet Union; in those countries LAC is also the region with the most MSPs (34).The MSPs the Bank had little previous lending history. Assistance Table 1.3 Biodiversity investments by region and funder, excluding co-financing (1988­2005) ($ millions) GEF MSP GEF REG GEF IFC GEF EA GEF total IBRD IDA Trust funds Total AFR 12.80 256.62 0.48 0.95 270.83 16.73 376.07 0.43 664.06 EAP 12.71 136.66 15.19 1.22 165.78 175.52 133.32 1.23 475.84 ECA 5.03 118.61 0.00 3.15 126.79 47.68 28.42 0.59 203.47 Global 0.50 36.00 7.00 0.00 43.50 3.00 0.00 36.05 82.55 LAC 27.51 335.69 5.00 0.86 369.07 559.13 57.66 48.96 1,034.82 MNA 2.24 49.73 0.00 0.89 52.86 22.84 1.71 0.00 77.41 SAR 0.00 70.88 0.00 0.20 71.08 0.00 206.26 0.00 277.34 -- 9 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) for drafting biodiversity EAs was important in developing use in the LAC and Africa regions (see Figure 1.10). a dialogue, which has often led to Bank investment in This is consistent with previous portfolio reviews. broader biodiversity or natural resource management projects, often focusing on sustainable forest management. Figure 1.10 Co-financing by region (1988­2005) MNA As a result, the Bank has become the largest financier 2% SAR of biodiversity conservation in the ECA region, mainly 8% AFR through investment projects. A recent review lists 31% 54 Bank biodiversity projects in ECA for the period 1991­2002 (World Bank 2003b).The total financing for these projects is $1.23 billion, of which the biodiversity 43% LAC 11% investments from all sources totals $255 million (20 5% EAP percent). GEF has been the major source of financing ECA for biodiversity conservation (42 percent), with smaller but equal (29 percent) financing from IBRD/IDA and other sources, which includes the borrowers/recipients, Though co-financing amounts differ, it is clear from Figure bilateral organizations, and communities. Forest 1.11 that LAC and AFR regions attract over 80 percent of ecosystems received nearly half of the investments, co-financing for total Bank investments, whereas EAP and with substantially less but still important financing ECA attract about 50 cents for each Bank dollar invested. for biodiversity in wetland and marine ecosystems. This probably reflects greater government contributions Investments in grassland and desert ecosystems and in in LAC and greater access to other donor funds in agrobiodiversity have been relatively modest, though Africa. Overall, for GEF projects the ratio of leveraged it is expected these will increase in the future. funding against grant resources is 1 to 1.3. Specifically for MSPs, the ratio of leveraged co-financing is even higher, with $1.54 leveraged for every dollar of GEF grant. Overall, co-financing from client governments and other donors makes up 45 percent of the total biodiversity Figure 1.11 Ratio of co-financing to Bank investment; this reflects strong commitment for investments by region (1988­2005) biodiversity conservation at the national level and good support from other donors. Figure 1.9 shows 1.2 1 total regional investments including co-financing. 0.8 tioaR0.6 0.4 Figure 1.9 Total investments and co-financing 0.2 for biodiversity projects by region (1988­2005) 0 AFR EAP ECA LAC MNA SAR 1,200 1,000 Total invesments Total co-financing 800 Support in WBG-funded projects covers the entire range 600 millions$ of globally important ecosystems (see Figure 1.12). 400 200 Forest ecosystems received a majority of the investments, 0 AFR EAP ECA LAC MNA SAR with more than half of all projects (262) focused on forest systems, including dry forests and rain forests. In line with the findings for total investments, 74 percent Fewer projects dealt with wetland ecosystems (149), of the $2.3 billion parallel and co-investment funding coastal and marine ecosystems (118), drylands (75), supports biodiversity conservation and sustainable and mountain ecosystems (72). Many projects provide -- 10 -- The Bank Biodiversity Portfolio support to protected areas and other conservation complemented by access to trust funds and lending initiatives across more than one major ecosystem. Over resources, can help to introduce biodiversity within the whole biodiversity portfolio, the largest amount of national agendas as a critical part of sustainable funding and support has gone to projects that include development.To date, the Bank is the major international expansion and strengthening of protected areas, funding source for biodiversity projects as well as a source including conservation activities in park buffer zones. of technical knowledge and expertise. Additionally the The Bank is committed to maintaining support for Bank has the convening power to facilitate participatory protected areas, but increasingly is seeking opportunities dialogue between client countries and networks of other to link such support to sectoral development programs relevant stakeholders on matters of regional biodiversity and biodiversity activities in the wider landscape. concern, such as forest law enforcement and governance, wildlife trade, and overharvesting of natural resources. Figure 1.12 Ecosystem occurrence in WBG biodiversity portfolio (1988­2005) 300 250 262 200 ts projec 150 of. 149 No 100 118 101 75 72 50 0 Forest Wetland Coastal Agro- Dryland Mountain and Marine ecosystems The scale and variety of Bank financing instruments provides multiple opportunities to integrate biodiversity concerns into development assistance and to address the root causes of biodiversity loss.The Bank's leadership and coordinating role within the donor community, -- 11 -- 2 Implementing the Biodiversity Convention Supporting Protected Area Networks and animals that threaten native species and habitats T within protected areas (India, Mauritius, Seychelles, he 168 nations that are signatories to South Africa); and, where appropriate, promoting greater the Convention on Biological Diversity community involvement in conservation management, (CBD) recognize that protected areas through community management areas, indigenous (PAs) are the cornerstones for biodiversity conservation. reserves, and sacred groves (Colombia, Ecuador, Ghana, Accordingly, at the Seventh Meeting of the Conference Peru). Other projects target landscape-level efforts of the Parties in Kuala Lumpur in 2004, they adopted an to strengthen linkages between protected areas and ambitious work program for protected areas.The goal surrounding forest, mountain, and production landscapes, is to support a global network of representative and including transboundary projects in the West Tien Shan of effectively managed terrestrial protected areas by 2010 Central Asia and the Maloti-Drakensberg mountains of with a similar target for marine protected areas by 2012. southern Africa. Several national and regional initiatives The WBG has an important role to play in helping client are under way to encourage more sustainable land use countries achieve these targets (World Bank 2003a, 2004). and strengthened forest protection in biological corridors Bank projects have financed creation of new reserves that link parks in the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor and expansion and strengthening of protected areas in (MBC). In the forests of the Brazilian Amazon, Congo forests, mountain, and dryland systems with increasing Basin, and the Russian Far East, the Bank is supporting attention being paid to freshwater and marine ecosystems. investments in some of the world's most extensive, and This WBG support is targeted at both individual reserves biologically rich, remaining wilderness areas. Offshore, and whole protected area systems with particular the Bank is supporting community management of coral emphasis on piloting innovative models of protected area reefs and marine protected areas in Samoa,Vietnam, management and financing to ensure their sustainability. and Indonesia, as well as conservation efforts in large marine ecosystems along the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef, Protected area support includes conservation planning and the coast of East Africa, and in the Indonesian seas. establishment of new protected areas to create effective and representative protected area networks (e.g., Brazilian Many of these PA projects target areas recognized as Amazon, Laos, Madagascar); improved management of global priorities for biodiversity, including World Heritage "paper parks"and existing protected areas (e.g., India, sites, such as Komodo (Indonesia), Cape Peninsula Pakistan, Uganda, Bolivia, Ecuador,Venezuela, Russia); (South Africa), Galapagos (Ecuador), and wetlands of buffer zone activities to reduce pressure on conservation international importance and Ramsar sites, such as areas (India, Indonesia); control of invasive exotic plants Berbak-Sembilang (Indonesia) and Sultan Salzigi wetlands -- 13 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) BOX 2.1 Conservation Production Landscapes -- Ecology and Economics There is growing recognition that sustainable development and protected areas are both necessary and reinforce one another. This is especially true in Brazil, which is a mega-diverse country with globally critical ecosystems, yet which has a large population of poor people who depend on natural resources for their livelihoods. The concept of conservation mosaics is relatively recent. It involves creating large areas that combine different types of protection regime--for example, a national park next to a private game reserve, a large farm employing ecologically friendly practices, an indigenous reserve, and a small factory employing sustainable techniques. Systematic conservation planning requires strategies for managing whole landscapes, including areas allocated to both production and protection. Protected areas alone are not adequate for nature conservation, but they are the cornerstone on which regional strategies are built. They must be complemented by off-reserve management. The combination of areas with different usage regimes can meet the needs of a wide range of actors while ensuring the conservation of critical habitats and species. Conservation mosaics are especially important in the Brazilian Amazon and Atlantic Forest ecosystems. These ecosystems are of critical global importance but under pressure from numerous demands for land use by a variety of stakeholders. In the Atlantic Forest, the Ecologic Corridors Project was an early pioneer in testing the mosaic ap- proach to conservation and has achieved important successes in building conservation corridors utilizing a range of protection regimes. Based on this experience, the Bank has supported the mosaic approach in the Amazon through the Amazon Region Protected Areas Project (ARPA). ARPA was established in 2004 with the catalytic support of the GEF, World Wildlife Fund (WWF)/World Bank Alliance, federal and state authorities, NGOs, and the Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rain Forest. KfW later joined as a major donor. ARPA works with federal, state, and municipal governments, local communities, protected areas management,andNGOstoensurethatamixofstrictprotectionandsustainableuseareasaddresstheneedsoflocal people while effectively conserving Amazonian ecosystems and species. Strict preservation areas are dedicated to conservation and scientific research. Sustainable use protected areas have the twin goals of biodiversity conserva- tion and livelihood provision for the communities living in them The overall goal of the project is to add 25 million hectares in new protected areas over the next 10 years, helping to consolidate the protected areas system. Within a decade, the project will result in a total of 70 million hectares, nearly 30 percent, of Amazon forested ecosystems under some form of effective protection and sustainable use. To date, the first phase of ARPA has created over 15 million ha of new protected areas, far exceeding expectations. A ProtectedAreasFundhasbeenestablishedandendowedwith$8.5million.Thesefundswillbededicatedtocovering the recurrent costs of the protected areas created under ARPA, so that protection of these critical sites continues. Perhaps just as important, ARPA has established relationships with diverse stakeholders throughout the Brazilian Amazon and created processes that allow funding to reach isolated protected areas, permitting much-needed conservation and development activities. The partnerships established under ARPA tie together numerous actors that might otherwise have been in conflict over conservation and land use strategies. Because the mosaic approach addresses the needs and priorities of many different stakeholders, and because all actors form an integral part of the decision making process, ARPA has contributed to a coalition dedicated to conserving the Amazon forest, one of the greatest natural resources on earth. (Turkey). Many sites lie within the Biodiversity Hotspots (IBAs) recognized by BirdLife International. In Colombia identified by Conservation International, the Global 200 the 10,019 hectare Selva de Florencia, an IBA, was declared Ecoregions promoted by World Wide Fund for Nature and/ a national park, marking the first time in Colombia that an or Endemic Bird Areas (EBAs) and Important Bird Areas IBA has received formal protection under this designation. -- 14 -- Implementing the Biodiversity Convention BOX 2.2 Conservation Achievements in Protected Areas in Honduras The Honduras Biodiversity in Priority Areas Project (PROBAP) was funded by GEF but linked to the IDA-financed Rural Land Management Project (PAAR) to promote conservation of biodiversity within the Honduran segment of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor. At the local level, it was expected that sustainable natural resource management would generate increased income, particularly for marginalized rural communities, as well as protect important environmental services. The project was expected to boost ecotourism, thereby diversifying local incomes and supporting the financial sustainability of the protected areas system. Then the unexpected happened. Honduras was ravaged by Hurricane Mitch, one of the worst natural disasters in Latin America in the twentieth century, and this was followed by a financial crisis as Honduras struggled to rebuild a devastated economy. In spite of these setbacks, the project achieved significant results in the Atlántida, La Mosquitia, and Olancho regions,includingdepartments,wheredevelopmentassistancehastraditionallybeenscarce.PROBAPmadespecific investments in 12 important protected areas, 38 percent of the total protected areas under SINAPH. The second and third-largest protected areas in the country were established (Patuca National Park and Tawakha Indigenous Reserve, respectively) and important advances were made in protecting biodiversity in all the key Honduran sites of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor. Capacity was developed at the Department of Protected Areas and Wildlife (DAPVS) and the Honduran National CouncilofProtectedAreas(CONAPH)forstrategicplanning,prioritysetting,andidentificationofco-funding.During the life of the project, PROBAP constituted more than half of the national government's operational budget for the management of the entire SINAPH system, but the project also laid the foundation for financial sustainability by establishing a Protected Areas Fund that will finance a decentralized PA system. Collaborativenetworksofpartnerswereestablishedtoworktowardtheprotectionandsustainableuseofbiological corridorsinAtlántida,alongthenorthernCaribbeancoastline,andintheareaoftheproposedCorazónTransboundary Reserve.DeforestationratesinthePatuca,Tawahka,andRus-RusReserveshavestabilizedat0.81percentperannum, well below the national average of 1.21 percent. The project increased community participation in protection of selectedprotectedareasandintroducedbiodiversity-friendlynaturalresourcemanagementpracticesthroughlocal community organizations and NGOs. Many of the local communities which benefited from the project are located in remote areas with high levels of poverty and little institutional presence of the national government. Two of the greatest challenges for protected areas are area management and financing strategy are well lack of capacity and lack of sufficient financing, especially advanced and will further strengthen national capacity. for regular operations. Most of the protected area projects, in all regions, are investing in early capacity Financial sustainability for long-term protection and building for strengthened PA management. InVietnam, management is a challenge for protected areas worldwide. Pu Luong-Cuc Phuong Limestone Conservation has Several projects provide innovative financing mechanisms, significantly raised staff capacity of the two nature both for protected area management and conservation reserves as well as the conservation consciousness of activities for buffer zone communities (Bhutan, Bolivia, neighboring communities.The Cambodia Biodiversity Peru,Vietnam, Uganda, and the Table Mountain Fund and Protected Areas Management Project has been in South Africa). Endowment funds and other financing able to strengthen PA capacity so that there have been mechanisms have helped to cover recurrent operational no major illegal logging activities withinVirachey costs (see Box 2.3) but it is clear that few protected area National Park in the last six­eight months. At the networks can be self-sustaining from tourism or other national level in Cambodia, preparation of a protected direct revenues and that most protected areas will always -- 15 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) require a basket of funding sources, including some depend on healthy natural ecosystems and abundant government support. Enlisting public support will also wildlife. Moreover, much of the best remaining depend on increased awareness of the multiple goods wildlife areas are poorly suited for alternative uses and benefits from protected areas and their relevance to such as agriculture.The Bank and other development sustainable development: ecosystem services, research, partners are assisting southern African countries to recreation, and even spiritual values (see Box 2.4). realize this potential by establishing transfrontier linkages aimed at creating a diverse and integrated Southern Africa offers an almost unique opportunity regional tourism circuit to rival any tourism attraction to link biodiversity conservation and protected areas in the world.To ensure environmental sustainability with sustainable economic development through and poverty alleviation impacts, the emphasis is on tourism.Tourism investment is growing rapidly, spatial planning and management at an ecosystem particularly involving"bush and beach"packages that level and on community participation and benefits. BOX 2.3 Vietnam Conservation Fund -- Supporting Protected Areas Network Most of Vietnam's protected areas are underfinanced and struggle to meet operational costs. The Vietnam Conserva- tion Fund (VCF), launched in 2005, is a pilot financing mechanism for conservation areas or special use forests (SUF) nationwide. The fund will provide small grants ($20,000­25,000 annually) on a competitive basis to improve manage- ment in SUFs of high biodiversity value. Grants from the VCF can be used to support a wide range of conservation- relatedactivities,includingengagingwithlocalcommunities,developingco-managementagreements,developing environmental education and awareness, habitat and species management, strengthening the implementation of laws and regulations for SUF management, capacity-building, management planning, and ecological monitoring. A linked Dutch-funded technical assistance fund will provide the necessary and complementary technical assistance tosupporttheconservationandmanagementactivitiesinselectedSUFs.TheVCFisasinkingfund,initiallyexpected to be utilized over six years, but it is being established as an efficient long-term conservation financing mechanism (with the expectation that donors and government will replenish the fund if it proves successful). The VCF is expected to provide support throughout Vietnam to the management of around 50 national parks (vuon quoc gia), nature conservation areas (khu bao ton thien nhien) and species/habitat conservation areas (khu bao ton loai/sinh canh) that meet specific eligibility criteria. Initially it will be tested in around 20 SUFs, including all eligible SUFs in the provinces of Thua Thien Hue, Quang Nam, Binh Dinh, and Quang Ngai. To access funds from the VCF, SUF management boards must submit proposals for activities that address priority issues defined in their operational management plans. Screening will ensure that funds are focused only on sites supporting biodiversity of global importance, priority conservation activities and cost-effective proposals with high likelihood of impact. Sites will be eligible for additional grants based on performance. It is expected that most funding will go to provincially managed SUFs since centrally managed SUFs already have access to considerable funding. An Operational Manual guides the operations of the VCF and describes the procedures for grant proposal review, approval, disbursement of funds, and reporting. The fund is designed to avoid the current "feast or famine" situation of short-term donor funding targeted at just a few sites. It will provide small grants for operations, more consistent and manageable within "normal" PA budgets. The monies are for essential conservation operations, not infrastructure, and will go directly to the PA management. The competitive nature of the fund and performance-basis for additional grants are designed to provide incentives to PA managers to use funds effectively. If this pilot fund proves successful, it could provide a useful model for strengthening other national PA networks. -- 16 -- Implementing the Biodiversity Convention The multi-phase, multi-donor Mozambique Transfrontier to provide the crucial"beach"element by promoting Conservation Areas (TFCA) program builds on the fact environmentally and socially sound tourism in the that Mozambique has large areas of rich biodiversity (but context of integrated coastal zone management, including high poverty) adjacent to well-established conservation marine protected areas.The Swaziland Biodiversity and tourism areas in neighboring Zimbabwe and Conservation and Participatory Development project South Africa. A first phase project, financed by the GEF, will provide support for participatory spatial planning laid the political and institutional groundwork for the within two broad"tourism and biodiversity"corridors multi-sectoral and inter-state cooperation needed for whose endpoints fall within transfrontier conservation the TFCA approach. A second phase, supported by IDA, areas.The success of these initiatives should be GEF, and bilateral partners, will focus on implementing considerably enhanced by an IFC-supported South improved management of the TFCAs, including embedded East African Integrated Tourism Investment Program protected areas, and tourism development on the (SEATIP), which will help to create incentives for ground. Similarly in Mozambique a project focusing on appropriate tourism investment based on environmental coastal and marine biodiversity management is helping sustainability and partnership with local communities. BOX 2.4 Making Protected Areas Relevant to the Development Agenda Increasingly conservationists are seeking ways to convince policy makers of the relevance of protected areas to sustainable development. Thus many mountain protected areas can be justified through provision of ecosystem services such as water, soil conservation, and protection of downstream and vulnerable communities from natural hazards such as floods and unstable hillsides. Except for cloud forests, it is not always possible to demonstrate clear linkages between forest cover and water quantity, but there does seem to be a direct relationship between forests and water quality. A number of Bank biodiversity projects have provided funding to protected areas in forest watersheds that safeguard the drinking supplies for some of the world's major cities. Thus a panda reserve in the Qinling mountains, China, protects the drinking water supplies for Xi'an. The Gunung Gede-Pangrango in Indonesia safeguards the drinking water supplies of Jakarta, Bogor, and Sukabumi and generates water with an estimated value of $1.5 billion annually for agriculture and domestic use. Similarly, Kerinci N.P. in Sumatra safeguards water supplies for more than 3.5 million people and 7 million hectares of agricultural land, while two of the Andean protected areas in Ecuador provide drinking water supplies for 80 percent of Quito's population. In South Africa the recognized value of the mountains of the Cape Peninsula and Drakensberg in providing water supplies for Cape Town, Johannesburg, and Durban has led to serious national investments in the Working for Water programs as well as biodiversity investments through the World Bank. Economic analysis can be a useful tool for demonstrating the benefits of PAs and conservation. A World Bank study showed that the economic benefits of biodiversity conservation far outweigh costs in Madagascar. Sustainable management of a network of 2.2 million hectares of forests and protected areas over a 15-year period was costed at $97 million (including opportunity costs forgone in future agricultural production) but would result in total benefits of $150­180 million. About 10­15 percent of these benefits are from direct payments for biodiversity conservation, 35­40 percent from ecotourism revenues, and 50 percent from watershed protection (primarily from averting the impacts of soil erosion on smallholder irrigated rice production). The study considers the political economy of potential winners and losers from forest conservation and points to the needs for equitable transfer mechanisms to close this gap, but it emphasizes that conservation will help to maintain or improve the welfare of at least half a million poor peasants. -- 17 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Maintaining Biodiversity inThreatened biodiversity conservation into sectoral programs as well as through integrated development planning (see Box 2.5). Ecosystems Although the global area in official protected areas has increased in recent years, it has become increasingly clear that protected areas alone will be insufficient to conserve all of the world's biodiversity. Growing human Freshwater Ecosystems,Wetlands, populations, continued expansion of agriculture, and Rivers, Lakes, and Regional Seas increasing natural resource use will greatly limit the possibility of strict protection in the future. Even where The conservation of aquatic or freshwater biodiversity has species are limited to a particular area that can be lagged considerably behind conservation of biodiversity strictly protected, the ecological processes that support in terrestrial or even marine sites even though freshwater them--fire, flood regimes, migration routes of seed habitats are key providers of food and livelihoods to many dispersers--require management at a broader landscape of the world's poorer communities. Expanding agriculture scale. Effective biodiversity conservation across all destroys, degrades, and fragments habitats, modifies ecological regions will require greater conservation efforts hydrological systems, degrades aquatic ecosystems with beyond the boundaries of protected area networks. runoff of agricultural chemicals, depletes freshwater This is especially true for some of the most threatened, supplies through irrigation, and introduces invasive alien fragmented, and remnant terrestrial habitats, such as species. Wetland drainage and infrastructure development limestone habitats and Mediterranean-type vegetation, destroy key natural habitats.The Red River Delta in the but even more significant for wetlands and freshwater north ofVietnam once supported a highly productive and marine ecosystems that are often neglected or fishery but is now almost devoid of fish due to extensive poorly represented in protected area networks. flood control infrastructure and the closure of floodplain fish breeding and nursery areas. Freshwater biodiversity In the Cape Floristic Region (CFR) in South Africa, the is poorly studied in many areas of the world, and impacts Bank is supporting explicit efforts to integrate biodiversity on water bodies near major cities have probably been issues into land use decisions and bioregional planning to so severe that much biodiversity has been lost before it better protect the unique fynbos vegetation and endemic was even identified. Lakes are particularly sensitive, due flora. Landscape conservation planning efforts hinge upon to the long time period required for water to circulate a combination of social, economic, and political factors through them. Lakes without outlets, such as LakeVictoria and cooperation between multiple stakeholders.The in East Africa, are doubly threatened due to high rates Cape Action Plan for the Environment (C.A.P.E.), created of endemism combined with an inability to flush out through a partnership between government agencies, pollutants or dilute the impacts of exotic invasive species. NGOs, research institutes, individual landowners, and the private sector, is the first bioregional plan to identify The threats to freshwater biodiversity and wetlands are conservation priorities for an entire floral region, including often very difficult to address because of the diffuse nature the marine, terrestrial, and aquatic environment.This of water resources and the impact of activities far beyond includes the development of a system of large and smaller the immediate boundaries of the water body. Non-point formally protected areas as well as buffers and corridors in sources of pollution, particularly agricultural runoff, are order to ensure that evolutionary processes can continue notoriously complex to control. Even point sources, such in the CFR. Key to this program is the mainstreaming of as factory discharges or untreated municipal sewage, -- 18 -- Implementing the Biodiversity Convention BOX 2.5 Mainstreaming Conservation in the Cape Floristic Region The Cape Floristic Region, is the smallest of the world's six floral kingdoms, protecting unique Mediterranean-type vegetation known as fynbos. It covers an area of 90,000 square kilometers and is the only floral kingdom to be located entirely within the geographical confines of a single country. The CFR is rich in species, with 9,600 species of vascular plants, many of them endemic. Some 127 mammal species, 300 birds, 142 reptiles, and 144 amphibians have also been recorded and the region is considered an endemic bird area. The invertebrate fauna is also very rich and notable for containing an assemblage of ancient taxa that have largely been extirpated elsewhere. The rich biodiversity of the CFR is under serious threat as a result of the conversion of natural habitat to permanent agriculture and to rangelands for cattle, sheep, and ostriches, inappropriate fire management, rapid and insensi- tive infrastructure development, overexploitation of marine resources and wild flowers, and infestation by alien species. Some important habitats have been reduced by over 90 percent, and less than 5 percent of land in the lowlands enjoys any conservation status. The region has therefore been identified as one of the world's "hottest" biodiversity hotpsots. The C.A.P.E. Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development Project is building institutional capacity and collaboration between multiple stakeholders, including government agencies, private landowners, and local com- munities to mainstream biodiversity conservation into the area's economic activities and enhance conservation of the Cape Floristic Region. The project will support the design of market-based mechanisms for conservation management,suchaspaymentforenvironmentalservices,aswellasmicro-enterpriseopportunitiesforconservation- related businesses, including small enterprises that improve livelihoods and social conditions for local communities. Biodiversity concerns will also be integrated into the activities of five watershed management agencies. On the protection side, management capacity will be strengthened for more effective management of protected areas, tourism development plans will be implemented, and stakeholders will receive direct and indirect benefits from protected areas. The project aims to expand the conservation area of the CFR by over 4,000 square kilometers, both in formal protected areas and through partnerships and conservancy agreements with private landowners. have their greatest impacts downriver from the origin of agricultural practices to better address agricultural the problem, so that the costs are borne by others than pollution from fertilizers and agricultural waste as in the polluters. Downstream communities may demand the Bulgaria wetlands. Others are targeting agricultural action on issues such as water quality, but the impacts practices in important watersheds in Rwanda and Turkey of pollution on aquatic biodiversity are both poorly or attempting to integrate freshwater biodiversity concerns recognized and have a very small constituency to demand into regional policies and programs (see Box 2.6). redress. Some impacts of development on hydrological systems, such as modified flood regimes or changes in Several projects have focused on wetland protection water temperature, have little or no impact on human and wetland restoration.The Indonesia Berbak- health but can alter aquatic and riparian ecosystems Sembilang Ecosystem project helped to establish the enormously. For all these reasons, the conservation of new Sembilang National Park, which protects some of freshwater biodiversity is a challenging field that is often the most important freshwater and mangrove swamps in overlooked in the general conservation landscape. Sumatra.The park adjoins the Berbak N.P., Indonesia's first Ramsar site, protecting the area of swamp forests Several projects in the Bank's portfolio have begun to available for populations of endangered Sumatran address these complex issues, for instance by changing rhino, tiger, and tapir. Coastal mudflats provide critical -- 19 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) feeding sites used by migrating waterbirds. Coastal natural habitats, competition for food and living space, mangroves protect nursery sites for marine fishes and and possibly introduced diseases and parasites have prawns. Forest fires and encroachment in the park combined to threaten the indigenous fauna and flora, area have been reduced and the project helped to resulting in the apparent extinction of some endemic establish good working relationships between local species. Environmental improvements in Lake Dianchi NGOs and local government, which increases the and its watershed are a major national priority, with likelihood of sustaining conservation outcomes. water quality data reported to the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) on a monthly basis. InYunnan, China, a team from the provincial university is working to restore and manage habitats around Lake An integrated wetland restoration plan and baseline Dianchi to secure the conservation of the remaining survey and monitoring program have been prepared endemic species of the lake and its immediate tributaries. including detailed activities for habitat restoration, The Dianchi basin is a"hotspot"of freshwater biodiversity bivalve restocking, endemic fish re-introduction, and with 24 indigenous fish species, at least 11 of which monitoring. Emergent macrophyte species have been are endemic, and dozens of endemic mollusk and planted in the pilot sites under a small works contract. crustacean species, found both in the lake itself and While searching throughout the province for endemic adjacent springs, often next to Buddhist temples. Since and indigenous aquatic species for reintroduction to Lake the 1950s, however, some 31 exotic fish species and a Dianchi, the team recorded two invasive species (golden variety of plant species have been introduced, although apple snail and Louisiana crayfish) for the first time in not all of these have persisted. Declining water quality Yunnan. With support from the Water Resources Agency (especially high phosphorus and nitrogen), loss of ofYunnan Province, steps are being taken to eradicate the snail from the most sensitive areas. Monitoring of lake ecosystem health will include surveys on fish, macrophyte, bivalves, and plankton species as well as water quality. A project supported under the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) in Madagascar focused on the Madagascar fish eagle and the wetland habitat it shares with indigenous people.The eagle, one of the rarest birds of prey, is making a tentative comeback thanks to the guardianship of local fishing communities. The Peregrine Fund is assisting with the legal transfer of control and management of natural resources from the Malagasy government to indigenous communities and the associations created to represent their interests. Recent surveys in the three adjoining freshwater lakes of Ankerika, Befotaka, and Soamalipo have identified 18 male and 9 female Madagascar fish eagles and now also 7 fledglings.Two community associations recently won approval from the government of Madagascar to manage wetland sites that provide important natural resources for their local villages and habitat for the fish eagle.The official handover from the Ministry for Environment, Water -- 20 -- Implementing the Biodiversity Convention BOX 2.6 Management of Aquatic Resources in the Amazon Region From a biodiversity perspective, the Amazon basin is unequalled; it is home to the world's richest assemblages of freshwater flora and fauna, including 3,000 fish species, approximately one third of the world's entire freshwater ichthyofauna. Many of the region's economic activities are based on the use of these freshwater resources, but they are increasingly at risk due to the uncontrolled and poorly planned expansion of high-impact activities in the basin. Such unchecked developments affect water quality, biodiversity, and the availability of fish resources. In addition, they lead to a growing number of conflicts among resource users, with fewer income generation opportunities for riverine dwellers (ribeirinhos), reduced employment, and impacts on health and quality of life of local communities, especially indigenous groups, from water contamination and poorer nutrition due to reduced availability of fish. The AquaBio project will support involvement of multiple stakeholders in an integrated management approach to the conservation and sustainable use of freshwater biodiversity through public policies and programs in the Brazilian Amazon River Basin. The objective is to reduce threats to the integrity of freshwater ecosystems in the Brazilian Amazon and to assure the conservation and sustainable use of its freshwater biodiversity. Lessons and results generated would identify good practices to mainstream aquatic biodiversity concerns into production landscapes and sectors and ensure proper attention to conservation and sustainable use of freshwater biodiversity in the decisionmaking processes of local watershed or sub-basin committees. A few activities will target all the states in the Brazilian Amazon, but most would focus on parts of three sub-basins selected to illustrate the main problems that afflict freshwater ecosystems in the Brazilian Amazon: (a) the lower and middle Negro River (high fishing pressure and presence of ornamental fisheries trade); (b) the headwaters of the Xingu River (impacts of land degradation on freshwater ecosystems); and (c) the lower Tocantins River, where constructionoftheTucuruíhydropowerdamhasimpactedfreshwaterfisheries.TheAquaBioProjectwillpromotethe adoption of a decentralized approach to ecosystem management, including support for participatory development and partial implementation of action programs in the three sub-basins, with institutional arrangements negotiated withusersofnaturalresources.Astrongtrainingandenvironmentaleducationprogramwillstrengthencapacityand improve stakeholder participation in implementation monitoring. The project will provide opportunities to better understand problems related to aquatic biodiversity and water resources management, to establish information and dissemination systems, and to set priorities and determine social and technical measures for handling water, biodiversity, and land and soil-related issues. Small investments and technical assistance for demonstration projects to promote sustainable land use and fishing practices will engage farmers, fishermen, indigenous people, and other resource users, to test new methodologies and technologies and determine what works and what does not. and Forests for a 10-year period marked a major success addition to ensuring that communities benefit from some for both the communities and The Peregrine Fund. of the revenues from the ecotourism lodges, the company is encouraging donations from sport fishermen and other In the Hovsgol region of Mongolia, the IFC is supporting partners to fund restoration of ancient monasteries.This a private conservation initiative in the Eg-Uur watershed, unique project, funded through the GEF, IFC, and the working with Sweetwater Travel to promote an ecotourism Bank's Development Marketplace, was featured in National project with many dimensions, including species Geographic Adventure magazine in December 2005. conservation of the six-foot taimen fish, river protection, angling tourism , scientific research, and conservation The Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ECA) region education. Support and participation of the nomadic includes six major regional seas, many highly polluted herders grazing their livestock in the valleys of the upper but still sustaining a high number of endemic fish Eg-Uur drainage is critical to conservation success. In species, as well as over 152 Ramsar sites (wetlands of -- 21 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) high international significance) covering an area of are endemic. Underwater"reefs"of giant sponges, a unique 13.6 million hectares.The Bank has supported several biological phenomenon, support a great diversity of fish, programs and projects that have targeted some of these crustaceans, mollusks, and other invertebrates. Several high biodiversity areas. A major program focuses on the large endemic fish inhabit the waters and form part of Black Sea and its coastal wetlands, which are important the prey of the endemic Baikal seal, the only land-locked resting and feeding sites for migratory birds and include seal species in the world.The diversity of adjacent the Danube delta wetlands, one of the world's best landscapes, from alpine tundra, mountain, and boreal temperate wetlands. On the opposite shore of the Black coniferous forests to steppe and semi-desert, together Sea, as part of the Georgia coastal management project, with the lake itself, constitute an area of exceptional GEF is providing support to strengthen management biological diversity, with 800 species of vascular plants of the Kolkheti wetlands, a Ramsar site that contains and over 200 species of terrestrial vertebrates. a mosaic of sphagnum and reed bed marshes and humid forests, which provide critical habitat for nearly Under the Russia Biodiversity Conservation project, 400 species of migratory and wintering birds. a common biodiversity policy and action plan was developed and implemented for three administrative Four of Russia's freshwater ecosystems and three of its units within the Baikal Natural Territory (BNT). Among marine ecosystems are Global 200 Priority Areas, including the program's innovations was the establishment of an Lake Baikal, the planet's oldest and deepest lake (1,637 m) environmental services market in the Baikal region, the and with a surface area of 31,500 km2 one of the largest. It first time in Russia that the value of ecosystem services contains 20 percent of the world's fresh water, sustaining had been estimated in terms of carbon sequestration and 2,635 species of plants and animals, two-thirds of which recreational value. A successful competitive small grants fund engaged more than 110,000 participants in 750 conservation-focused projects, ranging from replanting of riverine forests to restoration of grayling spawning grounds.The engagement of civil society has created a constituency for conservation that is likely to sustain project outcomes into the future. A specially established and publicly accessible ecotourism site, http://baikal.net/ travel, provides information on nature-based tourism that is expected to provide new livelihood options in the region. The Aral Sea and surrounding wetlands provide important habitat for many endemic species and migratory waterbirds in Central Asia as well as those in the deltas and river valleys of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya that feed it, which are now severely degraded by excessive diversions of river water for irrigation.The reduction of the Aral Sea, from 67,000 km2 to 30,000 km2, and a rise in salinity have led to collapse of the fisheries and desiccation of the river delta wetlands and have adversely affected the livelihoods of 3.5 million people living around the sea.To address this problem, the Syr Darya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project is financing -- 22 -- Implementing the Biodiversity Convention infrastructure to improve water flows to the Aral Sea protected areas (MPAs) (Indonesia,Vietnam,Yemen), and thereby restore the ecology of the Syr Darya delta public-private partnerships for park management and its associated wetlands and wildlife.The Kazakhstan (Komodo, Indonesia), and international transboundary Forest Protection and Reforestation project is accelerating cooperation (Mesoamerican Barrier Reef). Projects the spread of vegetative cover by planting up to 79,000 directly contribute to the objectives of the Convention hectares of dry seabed in the southern section of the on Biological Diversity, including the Jakarta mandate, Aral Sea, thereby stabilizing the sands and creating and to COP work programs on marine ecosystems, additional habitat for native wildlife (see Box 5.5). protected areas, islands and invasive alien species. The World Bank's Board recently approved a $51-million IDA Credit and $10-million GEF Grant for the Tanzania Marine and Coastal Environmental Management Marine Conservation Project.This project aims to strengthen sustainable management and improve governance and use of The Bank is addressing marine conservation issues Tanzania's 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone through a portfolio that covers all aspects of resource (EEZ), territorial seas, and inshore coastal resources. management--from integrated coastal zone It will result in enhanced revenue collection, reduced development (Black Sea, Mozambique,Tanzania) threats to the marine environment, and better livelihoods to targeted interventions to support community- for communities living in coastal districts and improved managed fisheries (Philippines, Samoa), marine institutional arrangements. Linked to project preparation, -- 23 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) the Bank prepared a book, Tanzania: Blueprint 2050: the two pilot sections of Balhaf-burum and Sharma- Sustaining the Marine Environment in Mainland Tanzania jethmun along the Gulf of Aden, with development and in Zanzibar. The blueprint helped to raise awareness of site-specific participatory management plans and at all levels of government and on both the mainland community development plans.The project has also and Zanzibar of the value of marine biodiversity and supported technical assistance and participatory the links between poverty, growth, and ecosystem workshops to strengthen the national framework for management.This enhanced awareness led to strong coastal zone management, including the legal and support for the project and mobilization of the $61-million regulatory framework and a cooperating network funding.The project will help to develop an ecologically of organizations.Training included development of representative and financially sustainable network of a curriculum forYemeni universities and increasing marine protected areas, building on a pledge that the the capacity and awareness of government and non- government made at the Durban Parks Congress.This government institutions and local stakeholders. network will comprise government-supported MPAs, privately-run MPAs, co-managed MPAs, and community- A new Bank- and GEF-funded project for protection based marine conservation areas, with an innovative of marine and coastal resources of the Gulf of Gabes, Marine Legacy Fund to ensure the sustainability of these Tunisia, addresses both site-specific and regional threats to conservation areas.The project will also build capacity in biodiversity. Part of the southern Mediterranean Sea, the the United Republic of Tanzania to monitor and manage Gulf of Gabes is a large shallow bay with relatively warm transboundary fish stocks. A coastal village fund will waters and high marine diversity, including extensive and promote diversification of livelihoods to ease the pressure unique sea grass beds that covered most of the seabed on the near-shore ecosystem and to promote enterprise until the late 1970s. In the last decades, destructive development to reduce poverty in coastal communities. fishing practices, over-fishing, and urban and industrial pollution have been the main threats contributing to In the Middle East and North Africa Region, the GEF the decline of the general sea grass cover.This is having provided funding for the preparation of the Strategic negative implications for the entire ecosystem, as sea Action Program (SAP) for the Red Sea and Gulf of grass beds provide habitat to numerous bottom-dwelling Aden, involving the nations of Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, species and help to stabilize the sediments. Four Tunisian Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, andYemen.The SAP institutions will collaborate to ensure inter-sectoral developed a regional framework for the sustainable cooperation on marine and coastal management issues. development of coastal and marine resources by Collaboration will be enhanced through common training identifying both preventative and curative measures and field experiences, as well as by integrated policy required at the regional, national, and local levels and strategic studies. A regional program will improve to maintain the rich and diverse coastal and marine baseline scientific knowledge, including inventory of sea resources of this unique region.The Bank was responsible grass beds, assessment of the status of marine species of for implementing two components: improvement of national and international significance, and an assessment coastal and marine environments by reducing navigation of the impacts of alien invasive species. Six pilot sites will risks and integrated coastal zone management (ICZM). benefit from participatory preparation of management The ICZM model has been used to develop the plans to address integrated coastal management issues. Master Plan for Aden ICZM, being prepared under the These management plans will focus on protecting Bank'sYemen Port Cities Development Program. natural resources while promoting socioeconomic development of local communities. New information Elsewhere inYemen support has been provided for on sea grass beds will be used to delimit the boundaries conservation of coastal and marine biodiversity in for one site which will be closed to fishing. Guidelines -- 24 -- Implementing the Biodiversity Convention will be prepared for improved fishing practices, and for effort. A six-year, $80-million program, COREMAP, will be dealing with vessel ballast waters and their risks for the implemented in 12 coastal districts, including 1,500 coastal introduction of new alien species (see also Box 2.7). villages and more than 500,000 residents.The centerpiece of these efforts will be collaboratively managed marine A growing body of empirical evidence suggests that reserves, many within existing marine parks of recognized marine reserves and"no fishing"zones can rejuvenate global value.The Government of Indonesia has committed depleted fish stocks in a matter of years when they are to a target of 30 percent of the total area of coral reefs in managed collaboratively with the resource users and each participating district to be set aside as collaboratively form the core of a wider multi-use marine protected managed and fully protected areas.The project will target area. Based on this premise, the Bank is supporting a some of the richest coral reefs off Sulawesi, the Aru islands, national effort in Indonesia to manage and restore coral and Indonesian Papua and builds on lessons learned from reefs in the world's richest marine hotspots. Many of the an earlier project which also focused on marine protected archipelago's coral reefs and the small-scale fisheries they areas and community management of coral reefs. support have reached a level and mode of exploitation where the only way to increase future production and local Elsewhere new marine protected areas have been incomes is to protect critical habitats and reduce fishing established and existing MPAs strengthened. Although BOX 2.7 Management of Marine and Coastal Invasive Species For the first time in East Africa, a pilot training course on the management of marine and coastal invasive species was held in Tanzania in November 2005. The course was run under the auspices of the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) with Bank funding from the BNPP program and in collaboration with the UNEP Regional Seas Programme. The training was attended by 24 participants from all the contracting parties to the Nairobi Convention (Comoros, Reunion, Kenya, Madagascar, Mozambique, Mauritius, Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa, and Tanzania) and included scientists and managers as well as representatives from ports authorities. Participants from non-IDA countries were sponsored by the Nairobi Convention. The training course consists of eight modules covering an introduction to invasive alien species (IAS), goals and principles, detection, prevention, response, incursion management, international response, national strategies, and communication and awareness. Each module included exercises. A field trip visited three sites at possible risk from marine and coastal invasives in the Bagamoyo area north of Dar es Salaam: a seaweed farm run by a community co-operative and using a seaweed species introduced from the Philippines; a fishing boat harbor where there is the risk of bio-fouling; and a salt pan, with the risk of pathogenic invasion carried in migratory birds, e.g. bird flu. The participantswerealsogiventheopportunitytodiscussnationalcasesofIASandwereaskedtobringdocumentation, publicity documents, legal provisions, etc., on IAS in their respective countries. This course is the latest in a series of capacity building initiatives in East Africa on the prevention, management, and eradication of invasive alien species through the GISP secretariat. GISP has a mandate from the CBD to raise awareness of IAS issues and build capacity to address IAS at the national and regional level. The Bank has been supporting the work of GISP since 2003 with funding from the BNPP and Development Grant Facility (DGF). Training modules, regional reports on national IAS priority needs, and other information can be found on the GISP Web site www.gisp.org. GISP has also released three reports to highlight the issue of IAS in Africa, Asia, and South America. The latest South America Invaded was released at the Eighth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD in Brazil in March 2006. -- 25 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) BOX 2.8 Marine Resources Are Big Business in the Philippines The Philippines is an archipelago of 7,100 islands, with a coastline of more than 39,000 km and a coastal population of more than 65 million. The marine and coastal ecosystems provide goods (fish, oil, gas, minerals, salt, construction materials) and services, such as shoreline protection, biodiversity, transportation, and recreation). Total fisheries yields are estimated to be worth $2.5 billion a year, 4 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP), with more than 1 million people employed in the fishing industry. The Philippines' beautiful beaches and rich coral reefs are favorite tourism and diving sites, with 2.43 million tourists generating almost $2 billion in tourist receipts in 2004 and providing employment for 6.2 million people. The economic values of these natural assets are considerable. Coral reefs are estimated to contribute at least $1.064 billion annually to the Philippine economy through sustainable fisheries, coastal protection, tourism, and recreation. Marine turtles provide an average revenue of $580,000 per year for consumption (meat, shell, eggs, bones, and leather for handicrafts) as compared to revenue of $1.6 million a year from turtle tourism, so turtles are worth far more alive. Direct benefits from mangroves (fish nurseries, construction materials) are estimated to be worth $600/ha annually or a total of $83 million. Sea grass beds are vital feeding grounds for fish, shrimps, crabs, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, dugongs, and marine turtles. All of these assets are threatened by degradation, overexploitation, and mismanagement. Annual catch per fisherman has probably declined by 30 percent since 1991. Economic costs of degradation and unsustainable harvesting are estimated at $125 million annually from lost catch due to overfishing and low recruitment. Net losses due to overfishing of 1 square kilometer of coral reef over 25 years is estimated to be $108,900. Costs of restoring the reef in Apo Reef N.P. were estimated at $517,000 after the MV Island Explorer ran aground. the Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project Matibane Reserve has been produced, and construction focused primarily on strengthened management of the of a field station for biological monitoring and other Cape Peninsula national park, it also established a pilot scientific and academic activities has begun. marine protection program and MPA, after detailed scientific and socioeconomic studies and extensive public Bank and GEF support helped to establish the first MPA in consultation. As part of the Mozambique Coastal and Vietnam. A key feature of theVietnam Hon Mun Marine Marine Biodiversity Management Project, macro-zoning Protected Area Project, financed through a GEF MSP, has plans have formed the basis for strategic analysis of been effective coordination between the community and the districts'natural resource­based potential and to municipal, provincial, and national governments.This initiate the investment activities based on biodiversity has led to the establishment of a sustainable Marine Park conservation and private sector development. An Authority for the Nha Trang Bay MPA.The MPA covers integrated development planning process has identified 16,000 hectares and includes Hon Mun and eight other pilot micro-projects that combine poverty reduction islands.Vietnam's coral reefs contain almost 400 species and coastal and marine biodiversity conservation, as of reef-building corals with 90 percent of the hard coral part of sustainable development. A manual has been species of the IndoPacific found inVietnamese waters. prepared for sustainable use of coastal resources and The greatest species richness is in the south, and the two NGOs are assisting communities to identify, waters of Nha Trang bay have more than 300 species. design, and implement demonstration projects. It Village advisory committees have been established in each is expected that two new conservation areas will be village in Nha Trang Bay, and regular meetings are held to gazetted. A first draft of the management plan for discuss management approaches and changes in access to -- 26 -- Implementing the Biodiversity Convention fishing grounds. A conservation fee has been introduced marine protected areas.The MPAs have been planned for every visitor to the MPA.These fees will be used to and managed by village committees working with the provide operational funds for the MPA but at least 10 World Conservation Union (IUCN) under a GEF MSP. percent of all fees collected will be re-allocated to villages Though it is too early to quantify biodiversity gains, within the MPA for appropriate development activities. there is general agreement that the abundance and size of fish and turtles, and the health of coral reefs and Spanning national borders, the Mesoamerican Barrier mangroves have substantially improved since the MPA Reef System (MBRS) project, involving Mexico, Belize, establishment. Local fishermen now report being able to Guatemala, and Honduras, has put in place a highly fish closer to the shore. Effective partnerships, particularly participatory process to address use of shared resources with the Peace Corps, led to the inclusion of the MPAs in and conservation of valuable transboundary ecosystems. the national social studies curriculum and in expanding Multi-sectoral National Barrier Reef Committees marine education programs in the two districts.The reflect diverse stakeholder interests in the sustainable two District Committees have also shown for the first use of the MBRS, while technical working groups at time that district-level governance can work in Samoa. the regional level oversee project implementation, review annual work plans, promote exchange of BOX 2.9 regional expertise, and sustain regional coordination. San Andreas Biosphere Transboundary commissions have been established on Reserve -- Caribbean Jewel the border areas of the MBRS (between Mexico and Belize, and between Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras) A medium-sized GEF grant to CORALINA (the local to address marine resource management concerns. environmental corporation) for the Caribbean ArchipelagoBiosphereReserveProjectculminated A training program has been established for marine intheestablishmentofa65,000-square-kilometer protected area managers, enabling them to design marine protected area in Colombian waters. and implement participatory management plans and One of the largest MPAs in the world, it protects monitor results using a common monitoring protocol. unique marine species and spectacular coral reefs. Comprehensive biodiversity and socioeconomic assessmentsoftheArchipelago'snorthern,central, Local fishermen have been trained for alternative and southern sections provided essential inputs livelihoods in the tourism and fisheries subsectors to the MPA's design. Participatory zoning agree- ments were obtained with local stakeholders, (e.g., sea kayaking, recreational diving , catch-and- demarcating no-take, no-entry, special use, and release sports fishing, and sustainable mariculture) to artisanal fishing zones. Conservation action plans relieve pressure on marine protected areas.The project and monitoring action plans were developed is supporting monitoring of Spawning Aggregations with high levels of community involvement to support the conservation of key species and MPA (SPAGs) of economically important and threatened reef enforcement. To build local capacity, the project fish, like Nassau grouper and snapper. Recommendations team designed and taught a college-level MPA for restricted fishing during spawning events have program, graduating 18 students from local been implemented through the collaborating fisheries communities,someofwhomwillworkintheMPA's management. An International Advisory Board departments. Sustainable tourism centered on the MPAs (IAB) with various experts on MPA management is being promoted through a regional tourism forum, and design met annually to support the entire as well as development and adoption of a regional process of the MPA's design and establishment. certification system for marine-based tourism enterprises. The IAB contributed valuable expertise and les- sons on best practices, as well as support through training and equipment donations and outreach In the Pacific, the Aleipata and Safata Marine Protected to scientific circles. Areas in Samoa were established as community-based -- 27 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) The two MPAs are considered the model for a planned species can be particularly devastating on islands, nationwide system of larger marine protected areas.The often wiping out a large part of the endemic species. committee structure has also been used effectively by local Human habitation leads to problems with water use chiefs to lobby the government for wider development and waste management, as well as outright habitat services in the two districts.The committees have further destruction, and economic development in the form been successful in banning sand mining and scuba of mass tourism can have severe impacts on the very fishing, influencing national policies on these issues. resources that attract tourists in the first place. Because of their unique contribution to global biodiversity and Overharvesting of reef fish is a major threat to tropical their extreme ecological vulnerability, the protection of coral reefs. An innovative project in the Philippines and island ecosystems has been given special emphasis under Indonesia aims to reverse overharvesting and provide the CBD and in the wider conservation community. livelihoods through training local fisherman in the protection and sustainable harvesting of ornamental The Indonesian archipelago consists of more than reef fish for the marine aquarium trade.The Marine 17,000 islands spanning two biogeographical realms, Aquarium Market Transformation Initiative (MAMTI) the Indomalayan or Oriental and Australian realms.The project uses a combination of market-based incentives, Greater Sunda islands (Sumatra, Java, and Borneo) have scientific information, public-private partnerships, strong biological affinities to mainland Asia whereas government policy and regulation, and active local New Guinea has strong links to flora and fauna of the community involvement to bring about certification of Australian continent.The islands in between, Sulawesi the entire supply chain on a global scale.There is unmet (formerly Celebes), Nusa Tenggara (Lesser Sundas), and demand for certified reef fish for the aquarium trade, the Moluccas (the fabled Spice Islands) lie in a special especially in Europe, so the project has focused on building biogeographical region named Wallacea after the scientist up a critical mass of certified exporters. Community Alfred Russel Wallace, a key contributor to the theory of stakeholders learn to develop and implement certified natural selection.The numerous islands of Wallacea have collection area management plans and are organized been separated from one another and the mainland for by local NGOs into collectors groups to market their a long time and show high levels of species endemism. harvests. In November 1995, the first MAC certifications The Bank is supporting several projects in this remarkable were awarded to two collection areas in Indonesia biogeographical region, helping to conserve island that had developed satisfactory management plans. forests and the unique species they harbor.Two projects with BirdLife International focus on strengthening protection of conservation areas in Halmahera and the islands of Sangihe and Talaud, part of the stepping stone bridge of islands from Sulawesi to the Philippines. Island Biodiversity Off southern Sulawesi, Operation Wallacea is working with local communities to test a new model of forest Islands play a critical role in the world's overall biological governance on the island of Buton (see Box 2.10). diversity, due to their high rates of endemism and unique ecosystems. Because of their isolation and restricted As noted, island ecosystems are especially vulnerable to ranges, island species and habitats are especially invasive alien species.The Bank has supported several vulnerable. Islands are prone to natural disasters island projects designed to manage or eradicate alien such as hurricanes, whose impacts are exacerbated by species and restore native flora and fauna, for instance climate variability and climate change. Invasive alien in the Seychelles (including Aldabra), Galapagos, and -- 28 -- Implementing the Biodiversity Convention BOX 2.10 Conserving Lowland Forests on Buton Island, Sulawesi The Lambusango Forest Conservation Project focuses on the protection of 60,000 ha of lowland evergreen forests in central Buton, S.E. Sulawesi. These lowland rain forests include two conservation areas--the Kakenauwe Nature Reserve forest and the Lambusango Hunting Reserve forest (total 25,163 ha)--under the provincial-level Conserva- tion Agency, as well as protected watershed and production forests (total 36,365 ha) under the jurisdiction of the District. The forests within this Lambusango Forest Management Area complex have been shown to have outstanding conservation value, with 21 vertebrate species new to science described here in the last three years. The proposed conservation area harbors populations of many threatened species, including one frog previously believed extinct plus numerous other reptile and amphibian species, 12 threatened birds, and two bats rarely recorded elsewhere. There also appear to be viable populations of flagship endemic species such as the Buton macaque and the anoa, a dwarf buffalo unique to Sulawesi. Most of central Buton's forests remain intact and are not subject to the commercial logging and planned oil palm plantations that so threaten the forests in the rest of Indonesia. Even so, the District-managed forests are being encroachedbylocalagriculturalistsandresettledrefugees,whiletheadjacentconservationareasarethreatenedby illegal, small-scale selective logging, rattan collection, and hunting. The Lambusango project is testing a new forest governance model by bringing both conservation and production forests together under a single management system, the Lambusango Community Forestry Forum formed in August 2005. With the support of the Head (Bupati) of Buton District, the Forum brings together representatives from government agencies, NGOs, universities, the media, and community coordinators for each of the six subdistricts encompassing the Lambusango forests. A GEF MSP through the Operation Wallacea Trust is supporting development of management and enforcement schemes for the forests in collaboration with the Forum members. New legislation in Indonesia allows granting of 35 year leases to local communities for forest areas adjacent to their villages. The leases only permit exploitation of the production forest areas and are tied to reciprocal commitments that require sustainable forest management andnohuntingor logginginthePAorlimitedproductionforests.Arattanlicensingschemeisalsobeingdeveloped to ensure that extraction of this resource is sustainable. A training and mentoring program for the forest ranger team is linked to recruitment of community Forest Guardians, an education and outreach program, and a chain saw amnesty and buy back scheme to reduce illegal logging. Operation Wallacea is a research tourism company involved in research at Lambusango since 1995. The research program is run by university academics and funded by visting research students (primarily undergraduates or Masters students). This research program and annual surveys provide quantifiable economic, social, and biological performance indicators to assess the success of management. A grant system enables participation of Indonesian graduate students in surveys and monitoring alongside international specialists. This will contribute to building capacity within Indonesia to expand the forest monitoring programs to other districts. Mauritius.The Mauritian Wildlife Foundation has reintroduced successfully, and 11 endangered plant successfully used a GEF MSP for restoration of the species were also introduced to Round Island. Intensive small Round Island ecosystem. Populations of endemic monitoring programs have been put in place to monitor species on Round Island have increased through habitat population dynamics, dispersal, and breeding success improvement, erosion control, selective weeding, and of key species such as boas and island petrels.To avoid re-establishment of populations of plants and animals that further introduction of invasive species, a quarantine had vanished due to human intervention. Five hectares procedure was developed that is now also being used for were restored (30 percent replanted), with 4 native species other islands. Although the project closed in February -- 29 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) 2005, both the local authorities and National Park and helped to create 10 new protected areas and strengthen Conservation Service have extended funding for the many"paper parks." Thirty-eight of these areas have island. Additionally, the Mauritian Wildlife Foundation been recognized as major tourist venues and 10 new (MWF), the implementing NGO, intends to continue ecotourism circuits have been laid out. Arrangements the restoration of the island for another year.The good have been put in place for active participation of progress on Round Island was a direct result of a strong communities in park management and revenues. A working relationship between the NGO, government third phase of the program, now under implementation, departments, the private sector, and other partners. will further strengthen management in another 21 protected areas and strengthen linkages between conservation and development for local communities. The Malagasy Minister of Environment, Water, and Madagascar -- A Megadiversity Island Forests officially created three new protected areas on December 30, 2005, bringing a further 875,000 hectares Madagascar is the world's fifth largest island, a unique of unique natural habitat under protection. Makira in natural laboratory of evolution. Once a part of the the northeast of the island, the Ankeniheny-Zahamena African continent, the island of Madagascar drifted corridor in the east, and Anjozorobe in the central into the Indian ocean millions of years ago, creating province of Antananarivo are home to some of the island's an evolutionary laboratory in the process.Today over most threatened species of fauna and flora, including 80 percent of the animals and plants found in this populations of many of Madagascar's endangered lemurs megadiversity hotspot are unique to the island nation. The World Bank and other donors have been supporting such as the Indri (Indri indri) and the black-and-white a three-phase, 15-year Environmental Protection ruffed lemur (Varecia variegata variegata).These areas also Program to mainstream environmental management play vital roles in connecting isolated habitat necessary into Madagascar's development agenda. Under the for the survival and continued evolution of the species second phase of this program, the Bank provided that make up some of the world's richest biodiversity. IDA and GEF funds to strengthen the country's new protected area system, including institutional support Madagascar is one of the 25 original biodiversity hotspots to the national park service (ANGAP).The project identified by Conservation International and one of the -- 30 -- Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development first to receive grant funding under the Critical Ecosystem and reserves to ensure that biodiversity conservation is Partnership Fund (CEPF), a Bank partnership with integrated with the sustainable use of natural resources. Conservation International. Under this program grants to The CEPF approach has been to complement protected the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and Conservation area creation by enhancing private sector conservation International supported participatory planning of two of initiatives that support small-scale enterprises. Around the newest protected areas. Earlier in 2005, a CEPF grant Zahamena National Park and the Daraina reserve, for to Association Fanamby helped in the creation of the example, grants to local NGOs MATEZA and Association 72,000-hectare Daraina reserve, officially known as the Fanamby supported efforts to help local communities Loky-Manambato Forest Station.Together, these areas farm sustainably, improve public health, and manage their have helped the Malagasy government reach its 2005 natural resource bases. Conservation groups working target of 1 million hectares of new protected areas, an on the island are looking at different ways to support important milestone on the way to fulfilling President sustainable financing for conservation for parks and local Marc Ravalomanana's pledge of bringing 10 percent of people. An IDA grant from the Bank will contribute to the the country under protected area management by 2008. endowment of a conservation trust fund, while carbon financing from the Bank's biocarbon program is being used CEPF's strategy in the region is to integrate local groups to maintain the Makira forest corridor, which links the and individuals in the management of protected areas major Masoala reserve to other important forest reserves. -- 31 -- 3 Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development T he Convention on Biological Diversity poverty alleviation, linking environmental protection requires state parties to integrate the to sustainable livelihoods. A major challenge is how to conservation and sustainable use of mainstream biodiversity into government programs, biological diversity into relevant sectoral or cross- normal development assistance, and poverty alleviation sectoral plans, programs, and policies.The mission of the programs (by promoting positive synergies), while World Bank is poverty alleviation. Consistent with that minimizing the negative impacts to biodiversity of mission, the Bank recognizes that biodiversity underpins potentially damaging infrastructure and other investments. human welfare and economic development and that many production sectors within national and local economies depend on biological diversity and natural ecosystems and the environmental services they provide. Accordingly, the Bank is seeking to promote development Natural Resource Management that encourages both biodiversity conservation and Programs The Bank has developed several natural resource management and forest programs that promote sustainable use of biodiversity through more sustainable land management, establishment of biological corridors, and monitoring of harvests in mountain forests (Cambodia, Georgia); integrated livestock and pasture management of grasslands (China, Kyrgiz Republic); reforestation and natural regeneration of watersheds and degraded pastures (Morocco,Turkey, Colombia); promotion of agroforestry systems such as shade coffee (El Salvador, Mexico); improved fire management in forest landscapes (Russia), and sustainable harvesting of non-timber forest products and medicinal plants (Ethiopia, Peru, Uganda). Several -- 33 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) projects provide financial incentives to encourage forest sustainable use on community lands and more equitable regeneration and strengthen forest protection (Colombia, sharing of benefits from the nation's rich biodiversity. Nicaragua, and Costa Rica). A notable feature of many of these programs is the increasing involvement of local community organizations in implementation, providing communities with a key stake in sustainable resource management and biodiversity conservation. Agriculture and Biodiversity The Albania Natural Resources Development Project Agriculture is one of the greatest threats to biodiversity (NRDP) built on lessons learned from the preceding worldwide. Expanding agriculture destroys and fragments Albania Forestry Project (AFP) and is leading to native habitat and impacts freshwater and marine reconstruction of natural forests, as well as sustainably biodiversity through the sedimentation and pollution of managed pastures and agriculture throughout most of water bodies.The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Albania's upland areas, building on community-based confirmed that agricultural land uses are both the forest and pasture management initiatives.The AFP dominant terrestrial influence on ecosystems and that piloted the formal return of usufruct rights to these without major changes in current farming practices and lands to 28 communes in the context of agreed plans to agricultural landscape management, many efforts to reconstruct and manage forests and pastures on areas that conserve biodiversity are likely to fail. At the same time, had been severely degraded.The pilot was so successful the Millennium Project concluded that in many rural that the AFP was able to establish such plans and initiate areas with chronic hunger, achieving the MDG to reduce natural resource reconstruction in 130 communes. Hunger and Poverty will require significant increases in The NRDP will scale up this approach to include 218 agricultural production and productivity, as well as the communes, or most of the upland areas of Albania that rehabilitation of natural resources critical for food security. are prone to loss of forest cover and resource degradation, bringing both development and biodiversity benefits. The Bank has a large and expanding agriculture portfolio but few of these projects explicitly target biodiversity Similarly, a community-based project in Namibia is interventions, although some make good use of promoting an integrated ecosystem management agricultural practices, such as rotational cropping and soil approach that will provide benefits to rural landholders conservation measures, that are more ecologically friendly from the rapidly growing and high-value ecotourism and designed to increase harvest yields. More recently the market. Namibia has highly diverse ecosystems, ranging Bank has become engaged in developing a suite of pilot from arid savanna systems and dry woodland to wetlands, biodiversity conservation projects that target agriculture coastal systems, and deserts.These habitats support in and around protected areas or in larger landscapes of high levels of biodiversity and populations of globally conservation interest. Such projects usually try to change threatened species, including desert elephant, wild dog, production practices to provide greater biodiversity wattled crane, and slaty egret. Some 14 percent of the benefits (e.g., promotion of shade coffee) or attempt to country is included in state-run parks and reserves but substitute other income-earning opportunities for harmful many species of wildlife also range onto community agricultural practices. A few projects have also targeted lands.The project will support community-management policies in the agricultural sector, such as promotion of of wildlife resources and restoration and protection integrated pest management. Recent work has focused of key ecosystem processes in targeted community on more precise specification of impacts of agricultural conservancies to promote strengthened conservation and practices and on providing guidance at a global and -- 34 -- Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development How have past changes in agricultural biodiversity affected rural livelihoods and nutritional security? What are the impacts of climate change on agricultural biodiversity and the impacts of loss of agricultural biodiversity on climate change? The knowledge generated by the IAASTD will strengthen the capacity of institutions to design and implement integrated management approaches, appropriate policies, and incentive structures that could contribute to reducing the overall rate of natural resource loss and land degradation as well as enhancing landscape biodiversity in both production and protected areas. Sustainable agricultural practices will directly, and through improved natural resource management, contribute to improving livelihoods, food security, and health. "Ecoagriculture"is an umbrella term for a diverse set of regional level on how to improve agricultural production strategies for managing agricultural landscapes in ways while reducing its impacts on the natural world. that enhance both sustainable agricultural production and rural livelihoods and that also conserve or restore Following up on a commitment at the Earth Summit in biodiversity and ecosystem services at a meaningful 2002, the Bank with UNEP and other donors is supporting landscape scale.The Bank is working with Ecoagriculture The International Assessment of Agricultural Science Partners, a new NGO that is mobilizing partnerships and Technology for Development (IAASTD). One of the among farmers, conservationists, agriculturalists, public focal areas of the assessment will be an analysis of the land managers, agribusiness, and researchers to support, effects of agricultural policies, practices, technologies, and organizational arrangements on ecosystems and their goods and services, including biodiversity. Work began on the Global Assessment Report in December 2005. Some of the questions that are being addressed include: How can biodiversity be mainstreamed into the production landscape? How do initiatives, such as training in sustainable harvesting or pest ecology, affect the capacity of small- scale or subsistence producers to utilize threatened habitats without inflicting further harm? What are the economic and environmental ( including species biodiversity) concerns surrounding biomass production? How are intellectual property rights important to conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity? -- 35 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) develop, and promote ecoagriculture innovations.The Development programs for agriculture, especially Bank is supporting work led by Ecoagriculture Partners agroforestry programs and aquaculture, can facilitate to document and evaluate the social, economic, and both deliberate and unintentional introductions of ecological"case"for ecoagriculture.The project will invasive alien species (IAS). Such misjudgements and develop indicators and methods for documenting accidents are costly; indeed, their negative effects may ecoagriculture at a landscape scale, and test these be far greater and longer lasting than the positive through in-depth case studies. A draft "Toolkit"set of impacts of the aid programs from which they arose. basic indicators and methods is now being developed. IAS accidentally introduced through development assistance programs include itch grass, a major In Central America, a BNPP-funded project is looking at weed in cereals in South and Central America, and cattle production and exploring the relationships between a range of nematode pests. IAS problems resulting silvopastoral systems, biodiversity conservation, and from intentional introductions under development farmer livelihoods to determine how silvopastoral systems assistance programs include water hyacinth, tilapia fish can contribute to both conservation and development for aquaculture in Central America, and a number of goals.The large-scale conversion of forests to pastures in agroforestry trees and shrubs. Ironically, in some cases Central America has resulted in the loss of biodiversity the very characteristics that make a species attractive for and the disruption of ecological processes. Pastures are introduction under development assistance programs often poorly managed and quickly become degraded, (rapid growth, tolerance of a range of environmental with reduced pasture productivity. Currently, at least conditions, etc.) are the same properties that increase 30 percent of the region's pastures are considered to be the likelihood of the species becoming invasive. degraded and are of little economic and ecological value. The global spread of IAS as a result of international Silvopastoral systems combine trees and shrubs with aid programs is poorly documented but merits further livestock and pasture production and include dispersed study. It is of particular concern since aid programs are trees in pastures, live fences, fodder banks, and young directed at the most vulnerable human communities, secondary forests. The BNPP-funded study is being where a loss of agricultural production or ecosystem implemented in Honduras and Nicaragua in partnership services can have the most severe consequences for with the Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher livelihoods.The Bank is working with the Global Invasive Education Center (CATIE), an international non-profit, Species Programme (GISP) to better understand the civil association that is a renowned leader in natural implications of IAS on food production, food security, resource management and conservation in Latin America. and health, including assessment of best practice Through this partnership, the Bank will learn what sorts guidelines for avoiding the introduction of species known of improved cattle management practices can contribute to be invasive through Bank projects and programs. to biodiversity conservation while improving farmers' livelihoods, as well as demonstrating how research on impacts can be built into project design. Interest in modifying agricultural practices so that they are more compatible with biodiversity conservation is growing, but there is still little solid data about the impacts of Mainstreaming Biodiversity in commonly recommended changes in practice. Building Infrastructure Projects a research component into such projects is an important contribution to the body of knowledge about how to A major challenge for the Bank is how to minimize the lighten the impact of agriculture on the natural landscape. impacts on natural habitats and biological resources -- 36 -- Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development BOX 3.1 Doing No Harm -- World Bank Policies and Safeguards AllWorldBankprojectsmustcomplywitharangeofsafeguardpolicies thatcoverimportanttopicssuchaspesticides, indigenous peoples, dam safety, disputed areas, and resettlement. The World Bank Policy on Natural Habitats (OP 4.04) defines "natural habitats"as: land and water areas where (i) the ecosystems and biological communities are formed by native plant and animal species, and (ii) human activity has not essentially modified the area's primary ecological functions and determines that the Bank does not support projects involving the significant conversion of natural habitats unless there are no feasible alternatives for the project and its siting, and comprehensive analysis demonstrates that overall benefits from the project outweigh the environmental costs. The Bank does not support projects that involve the significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats. Theseincludeexistingprotectedareasandareasofficiallyproposedbygovernmentasprotectedareas,areasinitially recognized as protected by traditional local communities, and sites that maintain conditions vital for the viability of these protected areas. Additionally, the Bank recognizes globally important sites identified on supplemental lists prepared by the Bank or an authoritative source. Under OP 4.01 on Environmental Assessment, the Bank requires the borrower to make all reasonable investigation into the proximity of a project site and its area of influence to all possible "critical natural habitats." OP 4.04 also states that the Bank supports, and expects borrowers to apply, a precautionary approach to natural resource management to ensure opportunities for environmentally sustainable development. The World Bank Policy on Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10) applies to all investment projects for which a Project Concept Review takes place on or after July 1, 2005. The new policy aims to ensure that the development process fully respects the dignity, human rights, economies and cultures of Indigenous Peoples, and requires the borrower to engage in a process of free, prior and informed consultation with indigenous peoples in all projects that are proposed for Bank financing and affect indigenous peoples. It also states that such Bank-financed projects include measures to: (a) avoid potentially adverse effects on the Indigenous Peoples' communities; or (b) when avoidance is not feasible, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for such effects. Bank-financed projects are also designed to ensure that the Indigenous Peoples receive social and economic benefits that are culturally appropriate and gender and inter-generationally inclusive. of development lending and poverty alleviation emphasis on issues of governance and participation. strategies. Bank environmental assessment procedures On May 10, 2005, the Executive Directors approved a and safeguards require that Bank projects include revised policy on Indigenous Peoples (see Box 3.1). activities to mitigate any negative environmental impacts.These policies recognize that the impacts of It is often difficult to reconcile biodiversity benefits with rural development and infrastructure programs and local development needs, especially when working projects, as well as economic adjustment measures across sectors with multiple institutions and production- and development policy lending, must be carefully orientated stakeholders. During the last decade, however, formulated to avoid serious negative impacts on biological there has been an increasing tendency for projects to resources and natural habitats and the communities go beyond the"do no harm"requirement to actively who depend on them. In addition to the Bank's current incorporate additional components that promote Operational Policy to protect Natural Habitats (OP biodiversity conservation. Several large infrastructure 4.04), the Forests Operational Policy (OP 4.36) now projects for irrigation, flood control, water supply, and ensures appropriate attention to forest ecosystems urban development financed by the Bank during the last and forest-dependent peoples, placing increased decade have begun to implement innovative approaches -- 37 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) to natural habitat protection and compensation.These biodiversity by conserving one of the few remaining approaches range from supporting the establishment tugai (riverine) forests along the Amu Darya river. Water of new protected areas to restoring degraded wetlands quality and energy projects are also contributing to and ex-situ protection of endangered species such biodiversity conservation by providing small additional as the Kihansi spray toad from Tanzania, as well as funding to enhance habitat protection. In Estonia, the ecological research on affected species (see Box 3.2). Haapsalu and Matsalu Bays project was designed to improve water quality and ecological conditions in the Traditionally the irrigation and flood control portfolio Baltic Sea, but also supported coastal land use planning has emphasized bringing irrigation to croplands and and an ecosystem management program to maintain key improving flood control infrastructure to mitigate wildlife habitats and reduce agricultural non-point source natural disasters. Several projects are now also including pollution. In Lao PDR, the Nakai Nam Theun 2 project is components that support habitat protection.Thus, the safeguarding the watershed of a new hydropower dam Croatia Reconstruction Project for Eastern Slavonia and providing financial resources to protect the forests project, in addition to financing irrigation, wastewater, and wildlife along the Lao-Vietnam border (see Box 3.3). and flood control infrastructure, is also supporting protection of Kopacki Rit, a Ramsar wetland of global The application of the Bank's Natural Habitat policy has importance. Similarly, the Uzbekistan Drainage, Irrigation, been a key element for mainstreaming natural habitat and Wetlands Improvement project is mainstreaming protection in infrastructure sectors (roads, water and BOX 3.2 Water, Livestock, and the Mongolian Wild Ass Water in the Gobi desert region of Mongolia is a critical resource for human occupation, livestock production, and wildlifehabitat.Duringthecollectiveera,numerousmechanicalwellswerebuiltandmaintainedbythegovernment, greatly expanding both the temporal and spatial scale of human and livestock use. During the transition period (after 1990), most of these mechanical wells fell into disrepair, forcing herders and livestock to abandon large areas of Gobi pastureland. The Sustainable Livelihoods Project in the Gobi is rehabilitating and replacing some of the old wells. During a Bank supervision mission it was noted that this rehabilitation might be having a negative impact on the threatened wild ass (Equus hemionus or khulan) found in the area. Although the khulan do not use the wells, they may be displaced from parts of their range by the presence of humans and livestock. A common perception among herders is that the khulan compete for food and water with livestock; consequently they take action against them. A succession of hard winters following summer drought has also apparently resulted in increased poaching pressure on khulan for meat. Using funds from the Mongolia Trust Fund (NEMO), a research project is under way to investigate the present and upcoming changes in land use patterns in this region, attitudes of the local population towards khulan and their management, wild ass habitat use and movements, as well as mortality factors affecting them. Satellite collars have been put onto seven wild ass to monitor their movements in the field. Initial observations already provide some important findings, for example that the railway tracks through the Gobi may be a barrier to movements of the wild ass populations, with animals unable to cross the lines. The satellite telemetry is being done at the same time as fecal profiling and measures of forage growth to determine the quality of dietary material available to large herbivores. This should lead to recommendations about current livestock grazing strategies. The results of this research can be used to design a management program to mitigate conflict between the wild ass and herders over habitat use for livestock. -- 38 -- Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development sanitation, energy, municipal drainage) in the LAC region the Argentina Flood Protection Project led to the creation over the last decade. Approaches range from support for of natural reserves in the floodplain of the Parana River, the establishment and management of protected areas utilizing riverine forests as part of flood control measures. to restoring deteriorated ecosystems and supporting The Bolivia-Brazil Gas Pipeline Project created a in-situ protection of endangered species. Innovation in $1-million trust fund to support the long-term BOX 3.3 Nakai Nam Theun -- Forest Conservation to Protect Hydropower From the summer of 2008, the Nam Theun 2 hydropower project in central Lao PDR will inundate 450 sq km of the Nakai Plateau, including substantial areas of semi-natural forest habitat. To offset this impact, a Bank loan for the environment will provide an unprecedented level of support for conservation in the adjacent Nakai Nam Theun National Protected Area (NPA). At around 4,000 square kilometers including corridors, Nakai Nam Theun NPA is the largest single protected area in Lao with the most recorded species of birds (403 species) and a large number of mammals (89 species, excluding mice and rats). The PA sits upon the spine of Indochina, the Annamite mountain range, known for its network of paths, part of the Ho Chi Minh trail, and now renowned as a center of endemism and for recent discoveries of new mammals. The borders of Nakai Nam Theun stretch from wet evergreen forests along the Vietnamese border, home to the enigmatic Saola Pseudoryxnghetinhensis and other large mammals discovered in the 1990s, to the limestone karst formations of central Lao, from which the Kha Nyou Laonastes aenigmamus, the only known member of an entire family of rodents, was first described in 2005. Married to this biodiversity is an astonishing ethno-linguistic diversity. The people living in, and immediately around, the protected area include 28 linguistically distinct groups and can name a greater number of forest products than have been recorded from any other area in Lao. Under a new conservation authority established during the preparation of the Nam Theun 2 hydropower project, the PA will be managed according to an integrated conservation and development model. Village agreements will detail resource use rules and regulations consistent with PA zonation including controlled use and totally protected zones. Village conservation teams provide a platform for management of village resources in compliance with resource use agreements, and for broader biodiversity monitoring and enforcement. Sustainable alternative liveli- hood options will mitigate negative impacts resulting from restrictions on resource use in key core conservation areas. Communities will be empowered through provision of secure land rights, capacity building, recognition of indigenous knowledge, and equitable distribution of benefits to ensure that the most vulnerable (and often most forest-dependent) groups are included in the process. PreviousconservationeffortsinLaohavebeenunderminedbylackofstaffandlong-termfunding.Perhapsthemost promising innovation in Nakai-Nam Theun is a new financial and administrative model. The protected area covers around95percentofthecatchmentfortheNamTheun2hydropowerproject.Thehydropowerdeveloperwillpay$1 millionannuallyforPAprotectionoverthe30-yearconcessionperiod.TheGovernmentofLaoiskeentoapplysimilar financial models elsewhere as it exploits its abundant water resources to mobilize resources for poverty reduction while maintaining the biodiversity base critical to much of the rural population. The Nakai-Nam Theun Watershed Management and Protection Agency is operationally free to set salaries and administrative systems responsive to its needs, while remaining under the oversight of both national and local government and stakeholders. This funding for Nakai Nam Theun will be some two orders of magnitude greater than the total presently allocated from the central budget to the rest of the Lao protected areas system. The Bank is therefore establishing another fund for other local conservation areas to provide modest, demand-driven funding at a level appropriate to existing local capacity.Sustainedsupportforthefundwouldalsocomefromtherevenuesgeneratedbynaturalresourceindustries. Through direct financing, and promotion of integrated development models, the Bank is providing biodiversity funding over a sufficient time frame for conservation success to become its own champion in Lao PDR. -- 39 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) management of the Kaa Iya National Park in the re-assessed for designation as nature reserves, forest parks, Gran Chaco of Bolivia. At 3.4 million hectares, this is watershed forests, or areas for selective logging according one of the largest protected areas in Latin America. It to their biological and protection values.The program was proposed and is co-managed by an indigenous will promote biodiversity conservation, more sustainable group.The same project implemented a $7-million forest management, and a better understanding of the protected area program in Brazil which supported 12 critical ecosystem service role of watershed forests. federal and state parks in five states, including land acquisition, demarcation, management plans, and A regional project on Silvopastoral Approaches to park infrastructure.The project was a key promoter Ecosystem Management provides technical assistance of the creation of a new park in Brazil, the Serra do and payments to livestock producers who undertake Bodoquena National Park. It received the Bank's Green biodiversity-friendly land use changes in Colombia, Award in 2000 and the International Association for Costa Rica, and Nicaragua.The project's key objective Impact Assessment (IAIA) Corporate Award in 2001. is to demonstrate and measure the effects of payment incentives for environmental services on adoption of integrated silvopastoral farming systems in degraded pasture lands. Midway through execution, the project is contributing to improved soil and water quality of Valuing Ecosystem Services 12,000 ha of degraded pastures, improved biodiversity conservation and livestock production, and economic Protecting natural habitats and ecosystems can provide benefits to farmers from integrated management. social and economic benefits, both directly through Payments for environmental services (PES) have sustainable utilization of biological resources and indirectly been successful in promoting land use changes, through ecosystem services. Floodplain forests and with increased abundance of bird and insect species coastal mangroves act as safety barriers against natural found in agricultural lands and significant increases hazards such as floods, tsunamis, and hurricanes; coral of carbon sequestered. Not only do the integrated reefs shelter and protect shorelines; natural wetlands silvopastoral systems lead to greater productivity, filter pollutants and serve as nurseries for local fisheries. participating in the PES scheme has also fostered a greater environmental conscience among producers and An increasing number of projects are making explicit promoted social recognition for their contributions. linkages between sustainable use of mountain and forest ecosystems, biodiversity conservation, carbon A new project would address the widespread land sequestration, and watershed values associated with degradation in Ghana by promoting sustainable land erosion control, clean water supplies, and flood control. management through payments for environmental services In Ecuador and Argentina, flood control projects utilize (PES). Many individual farms are already using sustainable the natural storage and recharge properties of critical land management (SLM) practices but these are not widely forests and wetlands by integrating them into"living adopted at the watershed/ecosystem scale.The project with floods"strategies that incorporate forest protected will identify and address the local barriers to widespread areas and riparian corridors.The China Natural Forest adoption of SLM, including knowledge, technological, Protection Program was designed to ensure the long-term financial, policy, and institutional barriers.The history of protection of national forests in watershed catchments less than successful approaches in Africa to address land and to reduce the vulnerability of downstream villages degradation based on input provision (such as seedlings) and towns to flooding. Approximately 50 million hectares, underscores the critical need to focus on outcomes more than half the country's natural forests, will now be through performance-based incentives for promoting SLM -- 40 -- Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development BOX 3.4 Ecomarkets in Costa Rica Costa Rica's program of payments for environmental services (known as PSA) is an innovative and highly successful effort to voluntarily enlist private landholders to maintain and protect their forests. Since its inception in 1997, the PSA Program has been applied to a total of nearly 500,000 ha of privately owned forests. Since 2001, the program has received funding under the Bank/GEF Ecomarkets Project. More than 130,000 ha of priority biodiversity areas in the Costa Rican portion of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC) have been included in the program, Another 70,000 ha have been contracted on privately owned lands within other priority conservation areas, thus further contributing to the achievement of conservation and sustainable management goals. In 2000, only 22 female landholders participated in the program; by 2005 there were 474 women participating. In 2000, there were 2,850 ha of indigenous-community-owned lands in the program; by 2005 this figure had risen to 25,125 ha, an eightfold increase. The PSA Program has been funded primarily by allocating 3.5 percent of the national fuel tax to FONAFIFO. The PSA Program has also attracted significant co-financing from bilateral donors, including KfW, NORAD, and the Government of Japan. The Ecomarkets project has not only provided additional financing to expand the PSA Program, but also led to the re-focusing of the entire PSA Program on global and regional biodiversity conservation priorities, as well as on national social goals. National benefits include the maintenance of privately owned forests in important biological corridors; local conservation of biological diversity; major increases in the involvement of women landholders and indigenous communities with the PSA Program; direct payments to a relatively greater number of small rural landholders; and, most importantly, broad-scale public recognition that intact forests and their environmental services have value. The success of the Ecomarkets Project is based on a strong institution (FONAFIFO) that is capable of effectively and efficientlymanagingacomplexsystemofpaymentsforenvironmentalservices;thestronglegalframeworkandwide political support for the PSA Program through three successive administrations; and the nationwide support from civil society, particularly small- and medium-size landholders, as well as local and regional organizations (e.g., NGOs, cooperatives).ThePSAProgramandtheEcomarketsProjecthaveattractedwidespreadinternationalinterest,spurring several replication efforts. FONAFIFO has hosted official delegations from many countries wanting to study the PSA Program. The project has led to more effective conservation by creating linkages between geographically isolated protected areas through privately owned lands where biodiversity is legally protected through PSA contracts. (payments to farmers and communities on generation of Philippines--working with a network of business environmental services such as lower sedimentation, less partners, the Philippine Businesses for Social Progress flooding, carbon sequestration, agro-biodiversity, etc.). (PBSP).This group plans to set up a Business and The area of focus, the transitional belt and the watershed Environment Trust Fund, the first long-term, public- of theVolta River and lake basin, is critical both in terms private funding mechanism for environmental projects of the cost of land degradation as well as the potential in the country. One of its first projects is the"Water for benefits from investment in sustainable land management. Life"program to protect five watersheds in the southern forests of the Sierra Madre Corridor.The group set up In the Philippines, improved watershed management an awareness campaign and a CEO Forum on Business is being supported through a grant from the Critical and the Environment to advocate better corridor Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) to a consortium of management and lobby against development harmful conservation NGOs--Yakap Kalikasan, First Philippine to conservation. PBSP is also supporting reforestation Conservation Inc., and Conservation International- of 1,500 hectares within the proposed protected area -- 41 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) with native endangered dipterocarps and bamboo platform, appropriate for replication in other countries. replanting along 30,000 kilometers of riverbanks. The information is useful both to Costa Rica and other Conserving biodiversity and restoring ecological balance countries in the region and contributes to the Global to the watersheds should go some way to providing a Taxonomic Initiative endorsed by the CBD.The project supply of clean water for the metro Manila area. Local has produced a broad array of scientific, educational, businesses will benefit from a secure water supply, and and outreach materials that are in wide circulation and the protected forests will provide habitat for rare species. have generated revenues for INBio; built awareness among both the general public and decision makers; and attracted additional resources to support conservation and improved environmental management (see Box 3.5). Strengthening the Knowledge Base Elsewhere in LAC, a project focusing on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the High Andes Many Bank/GEF projects have created a wealth of Region of Colombia has dramatically increased the scientific information to underpin conservation and biological knowledge base. Replicable methodologies development decisions. Support to InBio under the have been designed for biodiversity assessment and Costa Rica Biodiversity Resource Development Project monitoring, filling major knowledge gaps in the Andes has led to enhanced information dissemination and region.Two hundred people were trained to undertake greater awareness of biodiversity issues and the value biodiversity inventories and another 50 people were of the resources. InBio has identified more than 250,000 trained in biodiversity collections management. A network specimens, representing about 10,000 species, of which (BIS Andes) with three regional Web sites has led to nearly 1,500 were new to science.The award-winning information exchange among regional entities and project biodiversity conservation information system maintains stakeholders. In Honduras, the Biodiversity in Priority a relational database with records on each specimen in Areas Project has supported the preparation of a map of its collection (more than 3 million, including non-Bank- all ecosystems in the country, allowing the identification funded collections). INBio's collecting, cataloguing, and of critically important areas regarding protected areas information dissemination activities are world-class.The and biodiversity; helped in the discovery of new species project has developed an inventory-based knowledge for Honduras; and produced concrete information on the -- 42 -- Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development BOX 3.5 Can Collecting Flies Benefit Conservation? In a rough kind of way, this was the question that the Costa Rican Institute of Biodiversity (INBio) set out to answer through this GEF-financed World Bank project of $7.0 million. The project started in 1998 and closed in December 2005. The project's global objective was to demonstrate that increased knowledge about species leads to a benefit for conservation by enabling more sustainable use of biodiversity and increasing awareness of its importance. Althoughtheprojectfinancedmanydiversecomponents,thebulkoffinancingwenttosupportfieldinventoriesand taxonomic research and collections for four groups of insects: butterflies, beetles, wasps, and--yes--flies! Through the project, over 3,000 new invertebrate species were described and 600,000 specimens identified to species level and recorded in an on-line database. So does it? The Bank and independent experts concluded that the answer is "Yes," or rather "Yes, in a round-about way..." It was not possible to demonstrate a clear-cut link between flies in a vial and conservation but INBio has shown the world that taxonomy and inventories can be linked to improved conservation. The most obvious link is that INBio's pool of expertise and information allows them to reach out to the public and push across information on biodiversity and conservation. Maybe politicians don't call about flies, but they call INBio because they are "the experts" and INBio's information is being demonstrably used in almost every major conservation decision in Costa Rica. Interestingly, the public turns out to be interested in flies too. The project financed both a field guide to flies and a game for children on Dipteran biology and both have proved to be very popular. At a more technical level, the wealth of biological inventory data at INBio is used for real decision making in Costa Rica in environmental impact analyses, decisions about park siting, and is factored into every park management plan. The key is not only having information but making it available. (INBio's biological database Atta can be found at www.inbio.ac.cr.) Work on biological information systems throughout the Americas continues to be supported throughtheBank'songoingprojecttosupporttheInter-AmericanBiodiversityInformationNetwork(IABIN),foundat www.iabin.net. INBio is one member of that network and its lessons learned are being passed on to other countries in the Americas. By clearly establishing the links between taxonomy and conservation, the project has made an important contribution to addressing the issue of the "taxonomic impediment," the widely recognized lack of basic taxonomic knowledge and research that limits many efforts to find applied uses for biodiversity. management of indicator species and ecosystem health. this project provides the scientific underpinning for The trustworthiness and the quality of the information environmental assessments and development decisions. that is being generated have caused greater interest in the national and international scientific community to Many Bank projects have explicit components for promote further research. By sharing information among education and outreach to increase transparency and concerned organizations in Brazil, the PROBIO project has participation and to create greater environmental established key partnerships for conservation (see Box 3.6). awareness among project beneficiaries and other stakeholders. In Nicaragua, for example, one of the most important additional impacts of the Atlantic In Indonesia, the Bank and GEF, through the Biological Corridor Project was the dramatic results in Biodiversity Collections project, supported upgrading improving environmental awareness of the Mesoamerican and documentation of the most important botanical Biological Corridor through environmental education and collections in South East Asia as well as restoration of communication campaigns and countless publications the national zoological collections.The information (including atlases available in indigenous languages). and new generation scientific capacity generated under Similarly, the Sangihe-Talaud Forest Conservation project -- 43 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) BOX 3.6 Partnerships for Progress -- Brazil National Biodiversity Project Launched in 1992, the National Biodiversity Program (PROBIO), which closed at the end of 2005, was fundamental in stimulating and consolidating Brazil's nascent strategy for biodiversity conservation. Over slightly more than a decade, the project, funded through the Rain Forest Trust Fund, succeeded in creating wide-ranging partnerships for conservation, producing and synthesizing information on Brazilian biodiversity and conservation strategies, incorporating biodiversity concerns into different economic sectors, contributing to the legal framework, serving as the basis for the National Biodiversity Policy, and establishing the institutional structure responsible for biodiversity in the Brazilian government. PROBIO is widely recognized as one of the most successful environmental projects in Brazil. The key to PROBIO's success has been a pioneering strategy of partnership and consensus building in which key stakeholders from a variety of relevant disciplines and institutions framed problems, brainstormed solutions, and implementedtheseactivities.Becausetheprocesswasinclusive,interdisciplinary,andadaptive,theresultsachieved by PROBIO have received a high degree of acceptance and recognition and have been widely adopted. Through this multidisciplinary, participative process, PROBIO established 900 priority areas for biodiversity conservation in the key Brazilian biomes. These priority areas now frame conservation strategies within Brazil and have been widely adopted by institutions such as the National Petroleum Agency, the Brazilian Institute for the Environment, the National Forestry Program, and NGOs, as well as by numerous environmental projects. The innovative PROBIO process used in establishing these priority areas is now being replicated in other countries. PROBIO has financed 144 subprojects, ranging from biodiversity inventories to the management of endangered species and the economic potential of native species. These subprojects involved 284 institutions, creating an extensive network of partnerships between academic and private institutions, NGOs, and government bodies. These partnerships have endured and are generating enormous synergies in the fields of biodiversity research and conservation. Many subprojects have contributed critical information to the understanding and management of biodiversity in Brazil; at least seven were awarded prizes for work. In a November 2004 congress, the directors of these subprojects publicly recognized the importance PROBIO to their work and for biodiversity in Brazil, noting that without the program many of the advances made in the last 10 years would have been impossible. Information from the subprojects, and other PROBIO work, has been extensively disseminated widely in the form of workshops, books, articles, theses, videos, maps, school materials, and brochures. The network of PROBIO partnerships has been fundamental in raising the profile of biodiversity within Brazil, stimulating the adoption of biodiversity considerations in areas as disparate as oil exploration, timber production, and private sector develop- ment, as well as protected areas creation. A new generation of projects built on the PROBIO experience all have a high focus on partnerships between the public, private, non-profit, and academic sectors. The results of PROBIO now touch innumerable segments of Brazilian society and have had enormous impacts on the ground ­ a sign of the power of partnerships for conservation. in Indonesia has significantly increased conservation of local language field guides.The Bank Local Language awareness among local communities through innovative Field Guide Program has collaborated with national outreach activities, including sponsorship of sport and international NGOs and scientific institutions to events and regular weekly programs on local radio. produce more than 60 field guides in local languages, with another 30 in preparation. Funding has come Another useful way to build local capacity and to from Bank projects as well as the Bank Netherlands disseminate information more widely is the production Partnership Program and MacArthur Foundation.These -- 44 -- Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development field guides cover taxonomic groups as diverse as snails North India (in Urdu, Hindi, and Gujarati) and Birds of and amphibians, trees and orchids.They have proved East Georgia and Raptors and Owls of Georgia, some of to be key tools in promoting environmental awareness the most recent releases, are being used in ecotourism and capacity building in developing countries, where ventures and proving to be popular with national students lack of accessible information in local languages has and international tourists. A new call for proposals links hampered biodiversity training, park ranger capacity, and production of local language field guides explicitly to opportunities for local communities to benefit from their engagement of youth in preparation and dissemination. rich biological heritage.Thus field guides on the Birds of -- 45 -- 4 Working with Civil Society B iodiversity conservation cannot succeed Indigenous Peoples, Protected Areas, without the active involvement of all segments of human society. Around the and Conservation globe, civil society represented by NGOs, the private sector (individual landowners and the business community), Biological and cultural diversity are essential for scientific institutions, and local communities has played a sustainable development and global human security. key role in the effort to protect rare and threatened species, Many biodiversity-rich ecosystems overlap with territories manage protected areas, and increase understanding of historically owned and managed by Indigenous Peoples, the natural world. Although in many countries the State who represent some of the most threatened social has the primary responsibility for managing national minority groups. In recent years, there has been much parks, increasingly these responsibilities are being shared debate on whether global efforts to achieve conservation with civil society, and partnerships are being developed and biodiversity goals have been at the cost and exclusion for conservation, both within protected areas and in the of indigenous peoples.The World Bank cannot ignore this surrounding land and seascapes. In many Bank client debate. A review prepared in 2003 for the Parks Congress countries, NGOs work in co-management arrangements in Durban showed that of 232 protected area projects with national governments to raise funds and implement funded through GEF, IBRD, and IDA funding, at least park protection activities. Local communities and private a third of projects overlapped with indigenous people, landowners often manage and preserve areas of natural vegetation on which they depend for their livelihoods, and their lands, and their interests (World Bank, 2003).The throughout the world the vital role of indigenous people in Bank's indigenous policy has been a key legal instrument conserving unique and threatened habitats is increasingly to ensure that the voices of indigenous peoples are heard being acknowledged. Many Bank projects support the and their inalienable rights protected. Many projects have efforts of local communities, organized civil society, been successful in working with indigenous groups to and the business community to conserve biodiversity, integrate conservation and social objectives for sustainable encouraging the engagement of a diversity of actors to development. Other projects have faced challenges broaden the scope and enhance the impact of this work. in meeting both the human and biodiversity goals. -- 47 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Recent Bank reviews of the protected areas portfolio In some countries, protected areas have been titled to and studies on issues facing indigenous groups (for indigenous peoples and the Bank has been assisting them example, land tenure and utilization of indigenous to manage biodiversity. New management models for knowledge) identify some useful emerging lessons. conservation are being supported through indigenous One such review of 48 biodiversity projects in Latin reserves or co-management agreements with indigenous America shows that the Operational Policy on Indigenous communities in Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Panama, Costa Peoples has strengthened project effectiveness by Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Mexico. facilitating the participation of indigenous peoples Many of these projects address issues such as land tenure as partners in conservation actions. Broader issues and resource rights, traditional knowledge, participation, such as national legal frameworks and land tenure protected areas management and monitoring, gender, arrangements are best addressed through specific Bank tourism, capacity building, alternative sources of income, operations and land titling projects.The WBG has and the infrastructure needs of remote populations. been assisting several countries with land titling for In Colombia, 16 indigenous communities established Indigenous Peoples, for example through projects in a conservation area within their indigenous territory Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Central America. in the Matavén forests. Community leaders and other stakeholders benefited from site visits to other Areas of remaining wilderness and high biodiversity often conservation areas managed by indigenous communities, overlap with lands used by indigenous, and marginalized, such as the Kuna lands in Panama (see Box 4.1). communities.The establishment of new protected areas in such territories can lead to conflict between protected Elsewhere protected areas have been established that area managers and indigenous groups. Analysis shows a overlap indigenous lands, and project activities include general trend toward fewer conflicts between indigenous mapping of community lands and use rights. In the peoples and protected areas management where stronger Philippines, for instance, community lands and indigenous legislation on indigenous land rights is in place. For territories have been mapped within protected areas and instance, in Brazil and Colombia, which have some of are part of recognized park zoning.TheVirachey National the strongest indigenous legislation in Latin America, Park (VNP) includes one of the largest remaining expanses the collaboration between protected area managers, of intact forest left in Cambodia, home to numerous biologists, and indigenous people is clearer and less ethnic minorities.These communities are now settled conflictive.There are, however, exceptions to this trend, in along the rivers at the edge of the park. Park staff and particular where legislation is not adequately enforced. the indigenous Brou, Kravet, and Krueng communities are working together to map community lands and The Bank has recently issued a new publication, usufruct rights to articulate and implement long-term written by indigenous peoples from Colombia, sharing community resource management plans in lands that experiences of how to plan large indigenous territories overlap park boundaries.These plans will assist the for conservation, cultural survival, and development. Such communities to assert their rights against large-scale a"Life Plan"is conceptually similar to a development timber interests that are moving into the region. plan or management plan that incorporates the vision of the indigenous group. With GEF financing, a Life Plan is being developed for the Pemon Indigenous People Many projects have developed the capacity of local in Canaima National Park inVenezuela.The Life Plan beneficiaries, including indigenous peoples, through can be a tool to harmonize visions of the territory and early social assessments, capacity building activities its natural resources among all the park stakeholders, for local groups, participatory monitoring, and local particularly indigenous peoples and protected areas staff. consultation throughout the life of the project. Community -- 48 -- Working with Civil Society BOX 4.1 Conservation and Sustainable Development in the Matavén Forest With GEF funding through a medium-size project (MSP), 16 indigenous communities in Colombia led the land planning process to establish a conservation area as an extension of their already demarcated indigenous territory. The Matavén project engaged previously marginalized indigenous communities in conservation planning linked to a comprehensive organizational and land governance process. As a result, the national government recognized indigenous land rights over 900,000 hectares encompassing the central region of the Matavén Forest. This zone helped preserve the indigenous communities' cultural history and promoted the region's natural resource conserva- tion. Creation of an association of indigenous authorities (ACATISEMA), including leaders from the 16 indigenous resguardos (territories), helped facilitate the legal recognition and planning process that led to ecological zoning of the area. The project increased female participation in the design and execution of project activities and promoted handmade crafts as an economically and ecologically viable production alternative for Matavén communities. The project trained local representatives, reinforcing local communities' leadership capabilities and improving inter- resguardo communication. Several publications were created and distributed to convey information relevant to indigenous communities, validating their traditional, conservationist approach to natural resource management. The project was effective because it built upon the longstanding efforts of Fundación Etnollano, an NGO that has promoted participatory processes with indigenous communities in the Matavén Forest on themes of health, biodiversity, and sustainable production alternatives since 1985. capacity building and empowerment are some of the incomes, welfare, and status of local people. Often, most important local benefits from the biodiversity the original project investments have generated portfolio. As communities become better informed and new opportunities and improved the quality of life experienced, many are able to use this increased capacity in unexpected ways, including providing greater to solve other social problems through organized activity empowerment of women in village debate and decision and conflict resolution. Because of their experiences making. A new project, Biodiversity Conservation and with project activities, many community members are Rural Livelihoods, will build on these IEDP experiences able to access additional funding resources available to expand the successful ecodevelopment model to under other local and national programs for social achieve conservation at a landscape scale in six high- and development needs as well as conservation. biodiversity regions, including the Western Ghats. The India Ecodevelopment Project (IEDP), for instance, supported capacity building initiatives for more than 500 ecodevelopment committees around seven protected areas and enabled those communities to manage small Working with the Private Sector grants and access additional resources from other government programs as well as building the skills base Promoting private sector investment in biodiversity- to increase local livelihood opportunities. Several of friendly sustainable businesses has been a key undertaking the ecodevelopment communities were tribal peoples, of the International Finance Corporation (IFC).The IFC's some of the poorest and most disenfranchised peoples Environmental Finance Group incubates new"bio- in India.The IEDP has helped to free tribal communities businesses"and helps develop markets for businesses and other poor villagers from moneylenders, greatly that"use"biodiversity as their business platform. For increased understanding and cooperation between example, in South America the EcoEnterprises Fund communities and forestry officers, and improved the (EEF) is providing economic incentives for biodiversity -- 49 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) conservation by helping to build a network of innovative investment projects thus preserve the local culture and partnerships between non-profit organizations and private bring economic benefits to the indigenous community. sector businesses.The program empowers the community- EBFP has also invested in theVerdeVentures fund, based organizations to engage in small and medium-size which invests exclusively in private sector biodiversity- businesses that integrate biodiversity conservation conserving projects.Thus far,VerdeVentures has supported objectives in their business activities.The GEF contribution two ecotourism and sustainable fishing projects (in plays a catalytic role in effecting behavioral change among the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador, and in Ibo Island, the entrepreneurs and local communities.The EEF is Mozambique) as well as invested in"Wildlife Works." managed by The Nature Conservancy and benefits from The latter is a Kenyan textile company that contributes a investment from the Inter-American Development Bank. significant share of its earnings to conserve biodiversity and employs locals in return for their commitment to Another example of this model is provided by a project protect local wildlife and their ecosystem.Through its TA sponsor in the Philippines.The Asian Conservation activities, EBFP also creates and disseminates publications, Company (ACC) is a private equity investment holding brings together biodiversity players, and develops company that is purchasing majority ownership of financial instruments and tools to support the enabling companies operating in areas of important coastal or environment of private sector biodiversity parties. marine biodiversity. It then drives its investee companies toward biodiversity-friendly activities in their business IFC is also working to transform markets, using a in partnership with NGOs including WWF-Philippines combination of risk mitigation and business opportunity. and the El Nido Foundation.The project is designed to One such partnership is the Better Management provide a financial return for investors while generating Practices program with the World Wide Fund for a biodiversity "conservation return"via protection Nature (WWF). Since 2003 IFC and WWF, with the of critical habitats. Incremental GEF grant funding support of a number of agribusiness companies and complements financing from the ACC's portfolio investment banks, have been supporting the set-up companies. In order to address financial sustainability of four international, multi-stakeholder, roundtable questions, the project is designed such that the processes in four commodities: palm oil, sugar, cotton, contributions from ACC portfolio companies will sustain and soybeans.Together, the various players of the conservation activities at the end of GEF's funding. IFC also seeks to increase access and integration of biodiversity-friendly companies into mainstream financial markets.Through the GEF-funded Environmental Business Finance Program (EBFP), IFC lends and provides technical assistance (TA) to financial intermediaries to encourage them to finance and provide TA to micro-, small, and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) engaged in ecotourism, sustainable agriculture, sustainable fishing, sustainable forestry, and climate-change mitigation activities. As an example, EBFP has financed Egyptian project developer Environmental Quality International to develop sustainable agriculture (olives, dates, herbs, and cattle) and ecotourism ventures in the Siwa oasis by revitalizing traditional knowledge and practices.These -- 50 -- Working with Civil Society financing, production, processing, retail, and other groups in the business's activities, adds value to the business, in a given commodity value chain define, approve, and and does not become expendable when financial implement Better Management Practices (BMPs).These problems are encountered. Although it may be difficult to BMPs provide guidance on how to mitigate the impact implement biodiversity projects where strong community of commodity production, for example by promotion of participation is critical to success, the presence of highly ecological corridors within the production landscape. experienced NGOs and pre-existing profitable entities Thus the members of the Roundtable on Sustainable can often help overcome significant challenges. As an Pam Oil (RSPO--see www.sustainable-palmoil.org) example, the Inka Terra Association, an NGO, works have approved eight Principles and corresponding with the local community and a private sector firm, Criteria, one of which is to stop clearing primary forests Inka Terra Peru Company, to catalyze self-financing for production. Since the RSPO members account for initiatives within a 10,000-hectare ecological reserve in between 30 and 50 percent of the total world production Peru through the expansion of ecolodges, ecotourism of palm oil, this commitment in November 2005 may help attractions, aquaculture operations, animal breeding, substantially to reduce further tropical forest clearance. and environmental training. IFC has also provided a $5-million loan to Inka Terra Peru Company, an investor In order to share lessons learned in a more systematic in one of the lodges within the conservation area. way, IFC is launching a Biodiversity Good Practice Guide in the spring of 2006. Drawn from IFC's experience of working with private sector clients, it will comprise a Web-based manual for operations managers, supported by an Executive Brief, which targets company executives NGO Partnerships for Conservation and explains why biodiversity management is a strategic issue worthy of their attention.The achievement of Partnerships, both public-private partnerships and biodiversity benefits from private sector SMEs requires partnerships between different civil society actors, are full and thorough integration of clear biodiversity becoming increasingly important as the conservation investment guidelines and indicators with the business community realizes the importance of coordinating actions plan.Thus biodiversity conservation becomes embedded to increase impact on the ground.The World Bank has many partnerships with NGOs, both at the individual project level and also through special programs. Many of these partnerships support activities that will directly contribute to the CBD 2010 targets.Two high-level partnership programs with the international conservation NGOs, World Wide Fund for Nature and Conservation International (CI), are discussed below.Through these partnerships, the Bank is able to reach out to national and local NGOs in key biodiversity hotspots around the world. The World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use was formed in April 1998 as a response to the continued depletion of the world's forest biodiversity and the accompanying loss of goods and services essential for sustainable development. To date the Alliance has worked with governments, -- 51 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) the private sector, and civil society in 30 countries. By new initiative under the UNFCCC (Convention on Climate 2005 the Alliance had been successful in meeting its Change) to acknowledge avoided deforestation within targets for establishment of new protected areas (50 the Kyoto protocol will also provide new opportunities million hectares) and surpassing the target for area to strengthen Bank and Alliance forest initiatives.The of PAs under more effective management (75 million Alliance has developed and improved innovative tools and hectares). Improving forest management, however, proved best practices to identify high conservation value forests more challenging. By 2005 only 20 million hectares of (HCVF) and to enhance protected area management production forests in Bank client countries were under effectiveness, including the Rapid Assessment and independently certified sustainable management. Prioritization Methodology (RAPPAM) at the network level and the Protected Area Management Effectiveness A second phase of the Alliance partnership (2006­10) Tracking Tool for site-level monitoring. In partnership will continue to focus on strengthening protected area with others, the Alliance is currently moving forward networks and PA management but will give increased on developing a tracking tool for landscape-level forest attention to improved forest management and reducing management and restoration and on testing a monitoring degradation of forest habitats.The Alliance will explicitly tool for community-based forest management.The work to mainstream biodiversity conservation into Alliance has also developed a Questionnaire for Assessing production landscapes, accelerate the widespread the Comprehensiveness of Certification Schemes and adoption of effective forest management practices, and Systems (QACC) that will serve as a significant operational reduce rates of forest land degradation by encouraging instrument for guiding the implementation of the World adoption of best practices and corporate social and Bank's safeguards policies in the forestry sector. environmental responsibility.The Alliance has set new targets for 2010 with a strong emphasis on activities that link forest and biodiversity conservation to human The Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund (CEPF) was well-being and poverty alleviation.These targets are: launched in 2000 as a new and different approach to biodiversity conservation. It focuses on providing strategic assistance to engage nongovernmental Establish 25 million hectares of new forested organizations, community groups, and other civil protected areas society partners in conserving Earth's biodiversity Strengthen management of another 75 million hotspots. CEPF is a partnership between Conservation hectares of existing protected areas Improve management of 300 million hectares of forests International, the Global Environment Facility the outside PAs through independently certified sustain- World Bank, the Government of Japan, and the John able management, stepwise approaches to certification, D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, with each and community-based sustainable land management organization committed to providing $25 million to the Initiate 10 learning action pilots to restore forest goods program for a total of $125 million in grant funding. and environmental services of degraded forests through multistakeholder landscape planning and management The CEPF provides grant funding to civil society for Assist 10 private sector enterprises to gain invest- conservation efforts within the world's biodiversity ment approval from the Equator Principle Banks for hotspots, which together include 75 percent of global initiatives that improve forest conservation and forest biodiversity.To date, CEPF has awarded $73 million in management. grants to more than 570 partners in 15 regions covering 34 countries within 16 biodiversity hotspots in South and The Alliance work contributes to both the Protected Area Central America, Africa and Madagascar, the Caucasus and Forest work programs of the CBD and the objectives and East Asia. Each grant awarded helps implement a and priorities of the United Nations Forum on Forests. A region-specific investment strategy developed together -- 52 -- Working with Civil Society with diverse stakeholders and approved by the CEPF a"laboratory for sustainable development."In the Atlantic Donor Council. Grant recipients range from small Forest Hotspot, Brazil, a small grants program helped more farming cooperatives to international NGOs. Many than double to 18,000 hectares the amount of private land local and national groups supported by CEPF are often designated as reserves.The Peruvian NGO Asociación outside the reach of traditional funding mechanisms. para la Conservación del Patrimonio Cutivireni (ACPC or Association for the Conservation of the Cutivireni The CEPF supported civil society groups in six hotspots on Patrimony) helped make possible one of the largest mainland Africa and Madagascar during 2005, awarding reserves in the world.The 2.7 million hectare Alto Purús $5.5 million in new grants and bringing the total Africa National Park and Purús Communal Reserve combines a portfolio to $22.1 million. In the Cape Floristic Region traditional national park, a communal reserve that will be Hotspot, a program under the South African National jointly managed by indigenous communities and the state, Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) assisted 15 community and a territorial reserve for the indigenous group Mashco- groups to conserve four pilot sites in the Cape Flats Piro, who live in voluntary isolation from modern society. townships and created more than 80 income-generation opportunities, clearing alien species and restoring veld Now operating for five years, the CEPF has been in small coastal reserves.The program became a model deemed a highly successful program, and particularly for effectively engaging the urban poor in conservation. effective in strengthening NGO capability in some Cape Town councilors recently voted to replicate the regions where local NGOs are just beginning to program in other sites in the city's biodiversity network. emerge, such as southwest China. Project management and supervision have evolved over time with greater During 2005, CEPF provided support to local and inclusion of other conservation NGOs in addition to international NGOs and other civil society partners Conservation International. A second phase of the CEPF in six of Asia's hotspots, awarding $11.7 million in program is under discussion to consolidate strategic new grants to bring the overall Asia portfolio to $22.2 conservation and integrated ecosystem management in million. In Indonesia, a coalition of more than 20 local the active hotspots and to further strengthen local civil NGOs is working to secure 38,000 hectares of lowland society capacity to conserve and manage biodiversity forest on Sumatra (the new Tesso Nilo national park) in new areas of critical biodiversity importance such while also engaging the global business partners of as the Western Ghats of India and Indochina. Indonesian pulp and paper companies to take up sustainable purchasing and production policies. In China the CEPF helped strengthen nascent NGOs and advocacy groups lobbying against more dams in the Three Rivers region of southwest China. Public-Private Partnerships In Latin America, CEPF supported civil society In addition to global partnership programs directly organizations in the Atlantic Forests of Brazil, with the international NGOs, the WBG is supporting Mesoamerica, Chaco-Darien (Colombia and Ecuador), and many projects that strengthen collaboration between the Tropical Andes Hotspot, awarding $6.5 million in new governments and civil society. An IFC/GEF project grants within a total portfolio of $21.4 million committed for Komodo island, Indonesia, is testing a new model to date. In Costa Rica NGOs worked with landowners of PA management involving a franchise to the to create a 60,000-hectare national wildlife refuge. private sector and an international NGO,The Nature Containing strict conservation areas and multi-use zones Conservancy (TNC). Home of the amazing Komodo for ecotourism and agroforestry, the park has been dubbed dragon, Komodo is at the epicenter of marine species -- 53 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) BOX 4.2 Civil Society Advocacy and Influence on Policy and Development Civil society groups supported with modest grants from the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund have been able to influence development decisions in favor of biodiversity in at least eight biodiversity hotspots around the world. Caucasus-- In Armenia, efforts by a coalition of groups resulted in the government's 2005 decision to redirect part of a transnational highway originally planned to cut through the Shikahogh Reserve. This landmark decision is the first time that civil society has influenced developmental plans in the country. Eastern Arc and Coastal Forests of Tanzania and Kenya -- A TRAFFIC assessment of the illegal logging of the coastal forests of southern Tanzania helped lead to a one-year national indigenous hardwood harvest ban as well as harvest and trade restrictions, additional government forest staff and operational budget in all districts, and confiscation of significant quantities of illegally harvested timber products. Guinean Forests of West Africa (Upper Guinean Forest) -- The Liberian government reformed the country's protected area management policies, amending the New National Forestry Act of 2000 to define protected area types and permitted uses and prohibitions, including delineation and creation of Nimba Nature Reserve. Southern Mesoamerica -- A coalition of more than 15 Panamanian NGOs helped convince government officials to shelve plans for constructing a highway through Volcán Barú National Park, which forms part of La Amistad Biosphere Reserve. MountainsofSouthwestChina--AninitiativebyGreenEarthVolunteerstoraiseawarenessofthevalueofNujiang River helped convince the government to shelve plans to build a series of power generation dams along the river, which is located in a World Heritage Site. Sundaland (Sumatra) -- Local communities and organizations in Sumatra won cancellation of logging plans for nearly 50,000 hectares in the northwest of Bukit Tigapuluh National Park, one of the largest areas of remaining lowland forest in Sumatra. Under pressure from local NGOs, one of the world's largest pulp and paper producers instituted a logging moratorium in March 2002 in the proposed Tesso Nilo protected area. Tropical Andes (Vilcabamba-Amboró Corridor) -- Logging company Berna Sucesores agreed to give up the last remaining logging concession in the Pilón Lajas Biosphere Reserve and Indigenous Territory, after lengthy negotia- tions with CI and the Bolivian Protected Areas Service to protect the 195,000-acre site. The concession, granted to the company prior to the creation of the reserve in 1992, threatened the biodiversity of the million-acre reserve as well as the livelihood of thousands of indigenous people living in the region. Tumbes-Chocó Magdalena (Chocó-Manabí Corridor) -- In Colombia, the corridor concept was incorporated into policies of the Department of National Parks, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Transportation, Mining and Energy in Colombia, as well as into the 2005­07 environmental action plans of the country's regions. In Ecuador, the corridor concept was also integrated into development plans for Manabí Province. richness; the coral reefs in the Komodo N.P. are some operator to fund and manage park operations, while of the most diverse in the world in terms of coral and simultaneously providing revenues and livelihood fish species.TNC is working with a private tourism benefits to district government and local communities. -- 54 -- Working with Civil Society The Government of Chile has sought, in recent years, practices, pollution, coastal building construction, and to be innovative in the advancement of public/private the shipping and cruise line industries. In addition, there cooperation in its process of modernization of the is the impact of climate change, including increases in State. It has been open to private investment in the sea surface temperatures that can cause coral bleaching conservation sector, including the purchase of large and mortality; a rise in the sea level; increased storm tracts of land for establishment of private protected frequency and severity; and changes in ocean chemistry areas by Chileans and foreign investors. Many national that weaken the structure of coral reefs. Most of the 30 and international nongovernmental conservation million small-scale fishermen in the developing world organizations are working throughout the country in the are dependent in some form on coral reefs. More than conservation sector, supporting both public and private half the protein and essential nutrients in the diet of 400 initiatives. A new initiative involves a"cluster"of five million poor living in tropical coastal areas is supplied MSPs, all being implemented by different organizations by fish, much of which is dependent on healthy reefs. but working collaboratively to share lessons and Tourism based on diving and snorkeling in coral reefs experiences and contribute recommendations for the is important to many island nation economies.The design and implementation of a National Protected deterioration of coral reefs is a serious threat to the Areas System (NPAS) for Chile (see Box 4.3). environmental and economic security of many coastal nations. Already, 93 of the 109 countries with significant coral reef communities have suffered damage to them. To coordinate research efforts and address the key Engaging the Scientific Community outstanding questions about the health of coral reefs, the project is: Many Bank projects are working with national scientific institutions and several have small research components, Supporting targeted research on reef ecosystems in but a few projects focus primarily on scientific research and both rich and poor countries to fill critical gaps in the its application to practical management regimes.The Coral understanding of how coral reefs respond to various Reef Targeted Research and Capacity Building for Management forms of stress--from local human-induced stress to project represents the first phase of a 15-year Targeted global climate change Research Program to bring together the best science Building the capacity of marine scientists and natural from around the world on issues related to coral reef resource managers to implement science-based vulnerability and resilience.Through the project, scientists management in developing countries, where most coral will translate this knowledge into tools and policies reefs are found for decision makers.The Program partners the World Financing the tools and the means to link the research Bank, the Global Environment Facility, the University findings with local management to ensure that the of Queensland (Australia), the Intergovernmental results are translated into improved policies, from the Oceanographic Commission, the United States community to the global level, that affect the health of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and coral reefs and those who depend on them. research facilities in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. The project is focusing on those areas of the world that Coral reefs occupy only 0.1 percent of the ocean's have some of the most important coral reefs --establishing surface, yet they are the world's richest repository of "Centers of Excellence"in Mexico,Tanzania, and the marine biodiversity. However, many coral reefs are under Philippines and twinning these with existing Centers increasing threat from over-fishing and destructive fishing of Excellence in Australia.These Centers will serve as -- 55 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) BOX 4.3 From Flamingos to Penguins -- Partnerships for Conservation in Chile DecentralizingprotectedareamanagementisfundamentaltoChile'sprotectedareamanagementstrategy.Tofoster innovative public-private partnerships in protected area management, the GEF is supporting a "cluster" of five differ- ent MSPs. The five projects cover different protected area management categories, ranging from a national park to a biosphere reserve, and including a national reserve, private protected areas, and sustainable use landscape. All are areas of high global biodiversity value. From north to south, or "From Flamingos to Penguins," the projects are: Joint management of Los Flamencos National Reserve by the Atacama Indigenous Communities and the National Forestry Corporation (CONAF) AlandscapeapproachtoconservingtheuniquebiodiversityoftheNahuelbutaCoastalTemperateRainforest, presented by World Wildlife Fund Catalyzing the sustainability of Private Protected Areas in Chile through innovative financial mechanisms based on locally proven models, presented by Parques Para Chile Integration of the Puerto Eden community in the conservation of the Bernardo O'Higgins National Park, presented by the Wildlife Conservation Society Conservation and sustainable development of the Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve, presented by Omora Foundation and CONAMA region XII. The "Flamingos to Penguins" initiative covers some 9.2 million hectares of protected areas. The five projects were selected because they cover important biodiversity strategy and implementation issues and present favorable scenarios for developing replicable public/private partnerships. They will contribute to the national objective of conserving, at a minimum, 10 percent of each ecosystem found in the country. Each site will test different models to address financial sustainability, participation and co-management, participatory planning, education and capacity building, and legal and policy issues. Financialsustainabilitymodelswilltesttheadvantagesofincome-generatingactivities,paymentsforenvironmental services, user fees, and innovative landowner models. At different sites participation will involve indigenous com- munities, private landowners, fishermen, small farmers, private companies, government agencies (including the military), advisory councils for landscape planning, community and NGO co-management arrangements, and a wide range of public-private partnerships. Planning will cover issues ranging from landscape-level planning to planning for private lands based on economic incentives; integrating indigenous development needs and marine and terrestrial users with PAs; and planning for a biosphere reserve in a remote and fragile ecosystem. The different project sites will also address a range of capacity needs, everything from building capacity in indigenous communi- ties for sustainable income generation to strengthening forest stakeholder involvement in landscape conservation and training fishermen and farmers for conservation and sustainable use around a national park. At the policy level projects will support mainstreaming biodiversity themes into public education as well as development of policies forconservation-compatiblemarineandterrestrialresourceuse,decentralizedmanagementofprotectedareas,and contractual arrangements for co-management under different models, as well as local testing of Private Protected Areas regulations and incentives. The monitoring activities of the cluster are particularly important because they providenotonlyinformationonbiodiversityimpactbutalsoon-the-groundresultsthatwillinformthedevelopment of the national strategy on protected areas. This experiment in different management modalities should generate replicable lessons useful to other areas within Chile's diverse protected area system. -- 56 -- Working with Civil Society regional hubs for training scientists in cutting edge Formal education activities have also been supported techniques and for applying the findings in practical through a project focusing on conservation and ways to improve the management of reefs worldwide. sustainable use of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System Project in the Caribbean waters of Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and Belize. A marine curriculum guide has been produced for dissemination throughout the region, with teacher training concentrated in Focus onYouth and Learning transboundary areas.The project has also supported the development of public awareness campaigns Environmental education and awareness elements are targeted at youth and young professionals, including a being designed with greater emphasis on local contexts clearinghouse that collects, classifies, repackages, and and particular target groups, in order to highlight the distributes relevant information to youth groups. wealth of opportunities that a sustainably managed local environment can provide through local employment, Teacher training guides have been developed in the Cape recreational havens, and inspiration.The Conservation Floristic Region of South Africa.The Cape Peninsula of Medicinal and Herbal Plants Project in Jordan has Biodiversity Conservation Project has worked within the explicitly focused on youth programs. It is working country's progressive education system to enhance public closely with the Ministry of Education to disseminate understanding of the unique biodiversity assets contained information about medicinal and herbal plants and their in the Cape Floral Kingdom. The Cape Peninsula National importance in Jordan. Schools are being encouraged to Park--An Educator's Resource is a series of publications to establish or expand their nurseries and raise medicinal guide educators in using national parks, especially the and herbal plants for young people to plant at school Cape Peninsula National Park, to support environmental or take home to their gardens. At the tertiary level, learning in the school curriculum.The Educator's Resource technical colleges and universities are being lobbied to is based on the revised national educational curriculum, introduce or expand courses in medicinal and herbal linking park-based activities and content directly to plants and their products. Students at the MSc and public learning outcomes and assessment standards. Park PhD levels will conduct applied research with farmers officials, through the Environmental Experiences program, and the private sector in topics pertaining to various are introducing teachers from Cape Town schools to the aspects of medicinal and herbal plant establishment, national park, familiarizing them with the Resource Guide, tending, harvesting, and product manufacture. and encouraging educators to develop curriculum-based lesson plans that they can use both in the park and in the classroom.To date, 1,000 copies of the resource pack have Elsewhere, youth-focused programs are being been produced and distributed; over 100 teachers have implemented on a more regional and district-level scale. been trained in their use. An outreach program of school For example, a marine science curriculum, linked to and community visits to the park involved over 7,600 marine protected areas, was developed for secondary children and 1,600 adults between April and October 2004. schools in the districts of Aleipata and Safata of Upolu Island in Samoa, under a GEF MSP. By such means, young people, and their home communities, have Bank projects have encouraged and supported nature embraced the need to manage the coastal resources clubs (Africa, India) as mechanisms to provide informal sustainably to protect food and income sources, as well learning opportunities to young people and students. as the tourism potential of the area.The youth program On the Sangihe and Talaud islands, BirdLife Indonesia and educational curriculum has helped to strengthen has developed strong youth programs to conserve the social support for marine conservation in Samoa. distinct centers of forest endemism.Young people are -- 57 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) targeted through support of nature clubs, which provide distributed innovative bins for use on the city streets, opportunities to spend time in the forests and learn about which collect refuse and advertise nature. Inventive the native flora and fauna. One such club, Salam Lestari, fundraising that involves bake sales and recycled paper has 67 members, and free office space provided by local sales provides resources to facilitate the club's activities. government. It organizes summer forest camps but has Salam Lestari also counts on in-kind support from also become involved in other environmental issues, local government, as well as the young professionals of such as refuse collection in Tahuna. It has designed and Yayasan Sampiri (a local NGO) and BirdLife Indonesia. -- 58 -- 5 New Challenges and Opportunities W hile the World Bank investment of $5 communities who depend most heavily and directly on billion in biodiversity projects since biodiversity and are most hurt by its loss. Studies have 1988 may seem like a large sum, it shown that the poorer a family is, the more important pales in comparison to the need. Species are disappearing the role of natural resources in its livelihood strategy. In at an alarming rate, many of them before they are even rural areas in the developing world, most households known to science. Some areas, such as the deep sea regularly rely on natural products such as wood for fuel bottom, are still almost unknown to us, yet human actions and construction and wild foodstuffs. In rural Zimbabwe, are already impacting their fragile biodiversity. Even for instance, such products constitute 37 percent of total more alarming is the rate at which terrestrial habitats are household income. Wild products play a particularly being cleared, degraded, and fragmented, while aquatic significant role at times of increased vulnerability, when habitats are particularly vulnerable to the consequences crops fail or when stored food is scarce just before the next of pollution and habitat conversion far beyond their harvest. Wild herbs and traditional medicines play a vital boundaries. Humans have changed ecosystems more role in health care for many without access to the modern rapidly and extensively in the last 50 years than in any medical system; while many of these medicines have comparable period of human history. While changes to not been scientifically studied, some have proved quite ecosystems have enhanced the well-being of billions of effective in scientific trials and have been used to develop people, they have also caused a substantial and largely modern drugs against a host of maladies. Agricultural irreversible loss in biodiversity and have strained the biodiversity (agrobiodiversity) plays a particularly capacity of ecosystems to continue providing critical important role for poor farmers. Cultivating a number of services. As the world population continues to grow, different varieties of crops or breeds of animals can greatly pressures increase on natural habitats, species, and reduce vulnerability and smooth production fluctuations systems, yet many of the biological resources under threat due to variable climatic conditions, and traditional are fundamental to human subsistence and welfare. varieties of crops and animals often provide valuable genetic material for developing improved varieties. The global community is increasingly interested in the linkages between biodiversity and poverty, and The destruction and degradation of natural habitats may in particular the practical question of how to design open up new lands for agriculture and development yet programs that can strengthen biodiversity conservation may also bring new problems for local communities. and decrease poverty at the same time. It is the poorest Changes in ecosystems such as deforestation influence -- 59 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) the abundance of human pathogens such as malaria and Invasive Alien Species cholera, as well as the risk of emergence of new diseases; all have substantial costs in social and development terms. Invasive alien species (IAS) are now widely regarded Malaria, for example, now accounts for 11 percent of the as the second greatest threat to biodiversity after direct disease burden in Africa; had it been eliminated 35 years habitat destruction and fragmentation. Of even greater ago, the continent's gross domestic product would have concern is their economic impact.The economies increased by $100 billion. Inland fisheries from natural of developing countries typically rely heavily on the habitats such as rivers and lakes, and man-made habitats agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors. At the same such as reservoirs, water tanks, and even flooded ricefields, time, these biodiversity-based sectors are particularly are an important source of food for rural dwellers. vulnerable to the impacts of invasive species, which can The Mekong River inVietnam, for example, provides reduce the quantity (yield) or quality (value) of outputs more than 30,000 tons of fish annually, providing food or increase the costs of production by necessitating the and livelihoods for more than 48,000 fishermen in 250 implementation of expensive invasive species prevention communes.Yet wetland drainage and new infrastructure and control measures.This combination of factors means can have far-reaching impacts.Thus the Red River that the impacts of invasive species are more harshly Delta in the north ofVietnam, which once supported a felt in developing than in developed countries. In India, highly productive fishery, is now almost devoid of fish for example, annual costs attributed to invasive species control and damage were estimated at 20 percent of GDP due to extensive flood control infrastructure and the in 1999.The problem is further exacerbated by the fact closure of floodplain fish breeding and nursery areas. that most developing countries do not have the resources to adequately protect their borders and are therefore Reconciling biodiversity conservation and development also more prone to bioinvasions. A new information is a challenging task. As the Millennium Ecosystem network in LAC is helping to increase awareness about Assessment showed, we are living in times of IAS and species likely to become invasive (see Box 5.1). unprecedented global change. Habitat conversion and opening up of new wild lands, combined with expanding Studies of the economic impacts of invasive species have, trade, transport, and tourism, have opened up new for the most part, been undertaken at macroeconomic pathways for the spread of invasive alien species. New level, with alarming estimates of annual costs--for environmental challenges such as climate change put example, $13 billion in Australia, $50 billion in Brazil and increasing pressure on natural systems and exacerbate $143 billion in the United States. Within countries, though, degradation caused by poor land management. Over- it is generally rural communities, whose livelihoods are harvesting of forest products and wildlife is degrading and based on agriculture and natural resources, that are most emptying tropical forests, with serious consequences for at risk.This is particularly so in developing countries, rare species and local forest peoples. Over-exploitation where the majority of rural people are poor and largely and destruction of the world's coral reefs threaten species dependent on biodiversity-based products for food, diversity and reduce productivity. All of these problems fuel, and construction material. In Africa, for example, are compounded by issues of poor law enforcement and agriculture supports 80 percent of the population in rural weak governance.These new challenges require innovative areas, including 70 percent of impoverished and under- thinking, expeditious action, and even greater amounts of nourished people. Invasive species, such as the cassava funding in the years to come.This chapter highlights some mealy bug and larger grain borer, which have been known of these emerging issues and opportunities and presents to cause yield losses of up to 80 percent in staple foods, how the World Bank is beginning to respond to them. therefore have devastating consequences for food security. -- 60 -- New Challenges and Opportunities BOX 5.1 An Invasives Information Network in Latin America and the Caribbean A growing number of plants, animals, and pathogens are becoming invasive in natural areas, inland waters, oceans, croplands, and rangelands. These invasive species pose increasing risks to human health, native species, ecosystems, and national economies and are second only to habitat destruction as a cause of loss of biodiversity. Documenting current invasions, predicting new invasion sites, and preventing invasions are vital to the protection of biological diversity in all countries. Information on invasive species present in the Americas is incomplete, and that which is available is scattered in a varietyofpublishedandunpublishedaccountsanddatabases.Anticipatinginvasionsbynon-nativespeciesisdifficult, because access to information on their previous invasive ability is the best predictor of whether a new species will become invasive, but such information is mostly unavailable. Prediction of, and rapid response to, invasive species requires ready access to invasive species knowledge bases from many countries. Internet-accessible knowledge bases can provide crucial information for the early detection, eradication, and containment of invasive species and inform early action for species that have just arrived. The Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN) is an Internet-based forum for technical and scientific cooperation that seeks to promote greater coordination among Western Hemisphere countries in the collection, sharing, and use of biodiversity information relevant to decision making and education. As one of its six thematic priorities,IABINisaddressingtheneedforaregionalnetworkofinvasivespeciesknowledgebases.Withdirectaccess to national knowledge bases throughout the region, those addressing the invasive species challenge could easily obtain data on which species are invasive or potentially invasive in particular habitats, and use this information in their planning efforts. Agencies responsible for pest control could quickly determine if a species of interest has been invasive elsewhere. Importers of new non-native species (e.g., nurseries, botanical gardens, the pet industry) could access accounts of experiences abroad to make responsible business choices. Land managers could learn about control methods that have been useful in other areas, reducing the need to commit resources for experimentation and increasing the speed at which control efforts can begin. IABIN has sponsored pilot projects to begin exchanging information on invasive species in the Americas. The IABIN InvasivesInformationNetworkpilotparticipantswereArgentina,Brazil,Bahamas,Chile,DominicanRepublic,Ecuador, ElSalvador,Guatemala,Jamaica,Mexico,Paraguay,andtheUnitedStates.CountriesthathavejoinedsinceareBolivia, Colombia, Haiti, Peru, and Venezuela. These activities have produced a series of useful tools and products such as standards, national catalogues, an inter-operable search engine, fact sheets, and a thesaurus. In an effort to gain a better understanding of the true One case study investigated the impact of the triffid weed socioeconomic impact of invasive species, the Global Chromolaena odorata in Swaziland, where close to 70 Invasive Species Programme (GISP), with Bank funding, percent of the population relies on subsistence agriculture. commissioned a research project on the effects of invasive The weed was found to negatively affect subsistence species infestations on livelihoods, with a focus on poor farmers by reducing the area of arable land for planting rural communities.The effects of invasive species on crops and of pasture land for livestock grazing, limiting rural livelihoods are complex and varied. Invasive species the availability of water for crop irrigation, increasing the can be classified into four generic types, based on their cost of land clearing, and forcing the closure of cattle- ability to spread and the benefits/costs that they bring fattening ranches, resulting in the loss of this service to local communities--see table at top of next page. for livestock owners. Invasion by Chromolaena has also -- 61 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Aggressiveness Low High Low Undesirable, docile species Undesirable, aggressive species The species has negligible or low The species has no or limited direct or impact on rural people, because indirect benefits to people. It invades its invasivity is low. Hence it is rapidly and is often difficult to control. The easily controlled, although such impacts on rural livelihoods will be most control does represent a cost. It severe in the later phases of invasion. Rural currently has no known direct or communities are frequently unable to con- aitstr indirect use. trol the species without external help. High Useful, docile species Useful, aggressive species Not very invasive, the species is The species invades habitats rapidly and Beneficial easy to manage. Benefits can be may be difficult to control. It is useful to extracted from it, so rural people the invaded society and hence there is with limited livelihood options resistance to its complete removal. Har- will exploit it to maximum benefit. vesting by dependent communities is an Such exploitation will be suf- inadequate control measure, so abun- ficient to keep it in check in most dance and concomitant ecological costs situations. increase with time. impacted traditional healers, who report difficulties in Lantana is an annual operation. However, in recent years collecting medicinal plants in infested areas, as well several local communities have begun using Lantana as as a commercial plantation in the Highveld region, a craft material in place of bamboo and rattans, which which has had to implement costly chemical spraying have dwindled due to over extraction. Encouraging to control encroachment of the weed.Together these people to use Lantana in this way not only reduces impacts translate into loss of income, employment, pressure on native resources but also creates options and food security in a region that is already struggling for improving rural livelihoods. Large-scale harvesting to cope with high levels of poverty and HIV/AIDS. may even help control the spread of the species and Since the case study found no recognized benefit of the allow native biodiversity to regenerate and recover. weed to rural communities, Chromolaena is clearly an example of an undesirable and aggressive species. It is important to note, however, that an IAS with benefits for one group of rural stakeholders may have negative In contrast, a case study of Lantana camara, regarded consequences for others. In the Eastern Cape of South as one of the world's 10 worst invasive alien species, Africa, for example, the prickly pear Opuntia ficus-indica revealed that it is used in India as a hedge plant, as a provides a source of food and income for poor local source of paper pulp, fuelwood, and traditional medicine, communities but negatively impacts subsistence farmers and even as a craft material for weaving baskets and by reducing the carrying capacity of land for livestock. making furniture.The plant can therefore be classified Such complexities must be considered when developing as a useful but aggressive species. Invasion by Lantana is strategies on how best to tackle the invasive species known to cause significant changes in the structure and problem in developing countries. It is clear that in many function of forests by obstructing potential succession cases, communities have adapted to the presence of processes, interfering with fire regimes and pollination invasive species, in some cases even becoming dependent services, and displacing native flora and fauna. It is a on them for food, construction material, fuel wood recognized problem in protected areas, where clearing and even traditional medicine. On the other hand, it is -- 62 -- New Challenges and Opportunities BOX 5.2 Making Bereavement Bearable -- Invasive Trees for Coffins The costs of funerals are crippling for the poor in many developing countries and communities. Not only do these families have to cope with their loss, but the funeral costs associated with honoring the departed often increase the family debts and worsen the grip of poverty. In South Africa, many poor people are persuaded to spend significant amounts of money, often as much as R2,500 or more, on coffins for their loved ones. Yet it is estimated that these coffins could be provided at less than 20 percent of that price. The Working for Water (WfW) program in South Africa has come up with a practical solution, a simple but innovative idea that marries a low-cost service to employment programs and biodiversity conservation. One of the winners from the Bank's 2005 Development Marketplace is a project to manufacture eco-friendly coffins. Working for Water is a national program that clears invasive alien plants, thereby benefiting water security, the productive use of land, biodiversity conservation, and fire management. During 2004­05 the program provided employment and training to over 32,000 people from marginalized groups and cleared over 1 million hectares of invaded land across South Africa. This has yielded large amounts of timber from the cleared invasive trees. This timber can be put to good use to produce low-cost coffins. In partnership with the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC), WfW will establish a pilot project to create jobs in manufacturing quality coffins from invasives' wood and distribute the coffins through local faith-based organizations and community leaders. The poor will be assisted in dealing with their bereavement at the least possible financial cost, but with appropriate quality and dignity. The faith-based organizations will provide moral authority to withstand possible intimidation from extortionate competitors and will add significant additional value through the twinning of faith-based communities (e.g., dioceses) in resource-poor communities and in more affluent areas (both nationally and internationally). The partnership will also fund the growing of indigenous plants, in a labor-intensive manner, to assist in rehabilitation of areas cleared of invasives and in planting native trees in remembrance of those who have passed away. The partnership builds on other Bank-supported work to foster environmental advocacy through faith-based organizations. In the manufacture of the coffins and provision of nursery plants, the partnership will also seek to work with the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) to provide opportunities for the re-integration into society of former inmates (ex-offenders). In addition, the project will aim to partner with existing community-based coffin-makers for support and sustainability. The Eco-Friendly Coffins Project provides tangible environmental benefits through facilitatingthecontrolofinvasivealienplantsandsocialbenefitsthroughthecreationofemploymentopportunities in coffin manufacture and the growing of indigenous plants for rehabilitation and healing. Most of all, it seeks to give the poor the greatest possible dignity, at the lowest possible cost, in their time of bereavement, through the provision of quality Eco-Coffins and pastoral support around the funeral. It is a project that has the potential to be replicated in many parts of Africa and beyond. seldom that the entire community benefits from these implications might be. In South Africa, where clearance species, with the result that their presence has the of invasive trees is already creating considerable new potential to generate conflict. Moreover, there is a need employment opportunities, a new project funded through get a long-term perspective on the issue, both in terms a grant from the Bank's Development Marketplace is of what livelihood strategies were in place before the seeking to bring social and employment benefits by invasive species were introduced and what the future adding value to the cleared timber (see Box 5.2). -- 63 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Climate Change and Biodiversity produced by the researchers has proved very valuable in explaining the purpose of the project to local herders Global environmental change and its effects have already and administrators.These newsletters have been hand- started to undermine decades of development gains in delivered to all 39 families of herders and are read Africa and elsewhere. Climate change is a major threat avidly by herders and local officials alike; they were also to biodiversity, influencing habitat ranges, ecosystem distributed at local occasions such as National Day. function, livelihoods, agricultural productivity, and natural resource use. It can disrupt and transform natural Providing financial incentives to slow the process of ecosystems by changing the geographic ranges of species, climate change has obvious benefits for biodiversity. by altering relative success of species, and indirectly by About a third of the buildup of greenhouse gases in the altering disturbance regimes and ecosystem function. atmosphere is derived from land clearing and other land Climate change may be the most serious global threat to management practices. Activities to retain or increase the biodiversity and ecosystem integrity in the 21st century, amount of carbon in vegetation or soils--referred to as with enormous economic and social consequences. In "sinks"--can make a significant contribution to combating addition to increasing temperatures and influencing climate change. Many of these activities have additional climatic and rainfall regimes, the effects of climate benefits, such as improving soil fertility, improving crop change compound other environmental stresses such as growth, providing non-timber forest products, and land degradation, pollution, invasive species, and over- providing or maintaining species habitat.The Prototype exploitation to produce magnified impacts on biodiversity Carbon Fund (PCF) provides concessional financing for and biodiversity-based livelihoods. Although these activities that sequester carbon or reduce carbon emissions interactions and effects are very poorly understood, the (for example, afforestation, improved range management, compound and separate effects of these major threats or improved heating systems). In Romania and Moldova, will seriously transform ecosystems, reduce the services PCF is supporting afforestation projects that will yield they deliver, and foreclose development options. carbon trading benefits, as well as improved habitats for wildlife. A new forestry project in Guangxi, China, will In Mongolia, a targeted research project is focusing on use PCF and IBRD funding for reforestation efforts on gaining a better understanding of the impacts of climate critical watersheds adjacent to biodiversity-rich but highly change on biodiversity. A study of the dynamics of threatened forest reserves in karst habitats.The BioCarbon biodiversity loss and permafrost melt in Lake Hövsgöl Fund, capitalized at $200 million and administered by National Park in Mongolia requires an integrated the World Bank, provides carbon finance to poor farmers understanding of the ecology of the Hövsgöl watershed and rural communities to demonstrate and test projects and application of scientific information to identify the that sequester or conserve carbon in ecosystems and limits on use and off take that will ensure sustainable also provide biodiversity benefits.The Fund will finance management of natural resources in the watershed and learning projects in areas such as reforestation of degraded six tributary valleys. More than 20 studies have been grasslands, landscape rehabilitation through planting of initiated covering meteorology, permafrost, forest and corridors, and improved fire management (see Box 5.3). steppe dynamics, water chemistry stream and wetland ecology, and nomad socioeconomics. In addition to The Bank and the international community have primarily a globally unique research program on permafrost focused on mitigation activities for climate change, ecosystems, the project has also added significantly to especially in the energy sector, but whatever the success of Mongolia's biological research capacity by involving more the mitigation program, there is likely to be a significant than 30 young national researchers to work alongside degree of climate change. Increasingly, nations and international scientists.The Eastern Shore Newsletter communities will need to consider adaptation strategies. -- 64 -- New Challenges and Opportunities BOX 5.3 Carbon Sequestration via the BioCarbon Fund Inanefforttoharnessthecarbonmarkettoenhanceecosystemsandreducepoverty,theWorldBankhasmobilized a BioCarbon Fund to demonstrate projects that sequester or conserve carbon in forest and agro-ecosystems. The Fund, a public/private partnership, started operations in May 2004. It supports demonstration projects and "learn- ing-by-doing" through actual carbon purchase transactions across diverse LULUCF (land use, land-use change, and forestry) activities. Over 150 project proposals have been submitted for consideration by the BioCarbon Fund and a first group of 20 leading project candidates have been identified to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Projects that promote social benefits and biodiversity conservation in local communities include: Brazil: Reforestation around Hydro Reservoirs -- This project will allow the regeneration of native vegetation cover on approximately 5,576 hectares of conservation area, established around four reservoirs created by hydro- electric plants in the State of Săo Paulo. The chosen areas have been clear-cut but will be reforested using a mix of at least 80 different native species of plants per hectare. The recovery of the forest will not only increase critical habitats but also create vital animal corridors connecting the newly forested lands with existing conservation areas. It is also expected to increase the attractiveness of the areas for tourism. China:PearlRiverWatershedManagement--FourthousandhectareswillbeafforestedintheGuangxiZhuang Autonomous Region, which includes half of the Pearl River basin. Seventy-five percent of the species planted will be native. The reforested land will restore the connectivity of forests between the two nature reserves encompassed by the project (Mulun and Jiuwandashan Reserves in Huanjiang County). The use of the carbon sequestered by a plantation as a "virtual" cash crop will generate income for local communities. As the first life-size LULUCF project in China, it will also test how afforestation activities can generate high-quality emission reductions in greenhouse gases that can be measured, monitored, and certified. Kenya: Green Belt Movement -- This project will reforest 4,000 hectares of degraded public and private lands with high community access in the Aberdare Range and Mount Kenya watersheds. These forests host threatened fauna and are recognized as an Important Bird Area (IBA). The project will pay local communities and provide them with the technology and knowledge to reforest these lands and manage the new forest. Communities will be organized in Community Forest Associations (CFAs) that will develop and implement forest management plans. The long term goal is to use the re-grown forest in a sustainable manner for various products including fuelwood, charcoal, timber, and medicinal plants. For more information on the BioCarbon Fund and projects please visit http://carbonfinance.org. All peoples will have to adapt to new conditions, but the assessing the exposure of Bank projects to climate risks. A burden of adaptation will fall most heavily on the poor report on Drought in Andrha Pradesh: Long-term Impacts and of all nations and particularly on the poorest nations. Adaptation Strategies will be followed up with an initiative Climate change puts up to 40 percent of development to provide technical assistance and investment support investments at risk, including investments in water to drought-affected communities to develop adaptation management, agriculture, and biodiversity.The immediate strategies to reduce the impact of climate variability on challenges are to provide information and tools to reduce agriculture and water supplies. A new version of the toolkit the uncertainties, to assist in planning, and to explore will be available by midyear that will cover agriculture, novel financial instruments that might contribute to the water, rural infrastructure, and possibly biodiversity, issues costs of adaptation.The Bank has developed a toolkit for with particular focus on South Asia. Opportunities are also -- 65 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) being sought on how to incorporate adaptation to climate Leuser National Park, the Government of Indonesia change more fully into sustainable land management, has approved a $17.5-million project to strengthen including the TerrAfrica initiative (see below). protection and monitoring of the park (see Box 5.4). Forest Law Enforcement and WildlifeTrade Governance Like illegal logging, the increasing impact of the wildlife trade on biodiversity in tropical forests is a governance In addition to its lending portfolio and GEF grants, issue. Indeed, commercial logging often opens up the World Bank is working with governments and civil new forest areas to increased hunting and wildlife society on forest policy and research, governance, and exploitation. Wildlife has always provided a source of corruption. In support of the Forest Strategy and good subsistence food in many tropical forest regions, but governance, a major Bank initiative is focusing on Forest current harvests of wildlife for bushmeat and trade in Law Enforcement and Governance (FLEG). Illegal live animals and animal parts are far from sustainable. logging, and associated activities along the entire chain Tropical forests are often species-rich but species of custody to markets and consumers, is common in both occur at very low densities. Intensive hunting is fast developing and industrialized nations and in all major leading to the"empty forest syndrome,"where forests forest types--boreal, temperate, and tropical. Although remain but wildlife populations of many mammals the full scale of the problem is not known or quantifiable, and birds are much reduced or even locally extinct. it is conservatively estimated that governments may be losing as much as $5 billion annually in uncollected revenues from forest concessions, and an additional $10 In recent years, the Bank and many other agencies billion from illegal logging practices. Such illegal forestry have spent millions of dollars on programs aiming to operations are a major threat to biodiversity, sustainable conserve tropical forest biodiversity, reduce poverty of forest management, and good governance.The Bank now rural forest peoples, and promote sustainable natural has active FLEG programs in Eastern Europe and Central resource management.These investments are being Asia, Africa, and East Asia and the Pacific Regions. seriously compromised by wildlife harvesting for trade. The rate of harvesting is generally unsustainable, which has negative consequences on the biodiversity itself and The Bank is also assisting governments to improve forest on the livelihoods of rural forest peoples.The trade is also governance through specific projects and programs, potentially linked with zoonotic disease epidemics (e.g., including new GEF projects in Gabon, Cameroon, and the SARS, avian influenza, Ebola).Trade is generally illegal, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which are closely yet it is expanding as infrastructure networks expand and connected with ongoing forest policy reform programs. as hunting techniques become more sophisticated, aided In Indonesia, decentralization, weak law enforcement, by local hunters who often have few ready alternative and poor governance have led to an increase in forest sources of cash, creating an ever-widening spiral of exploitation and clearance. More recently, the aftermath wildlife loss and rural disempowerment. Addressing this of the tsunami devastation has put increasing pressure threat requires better understanding of the dynamics and on affected areas as villagers and communities seek drivers of the trade building local capacity to monitor and access to Aceh's forests for timber and other building manage that trade, and determining which species can be materials. In recognition of the increased threat to the harvested sustainably. Addressing this issue is important -- 66 -- New Challenges and Opportunities BOX 5.4 After the Tsunami -- Integrating Forest Protection into Recovery The earthquake and tsunami of December 2004 devastated Aceh's society, economy, infrastructure, and institutions, especially along the west coast. In this narrow coastal belt, communities and agricultural lands border directly on protected forests and karst mountain ranges of the Gunung Leuser National Park and Ecosystem in the south and the Ulu Masen Forest Complex in the north. Even within Indonesia, a recognized mega-diversity country, this area is unique, constituting the largest remaining contiguous forested area (3.3 million ha) with the richest assemblage of biodiversity in South East Asia, including tigers, elephants, rhinos, and orangutans. The Leuser National Park is already a World Heritage Site and the surrounding areas are among the most species-rich forests globally. These areas also provide valuable ecological services needed for Aceh's recovery, including water supply, flood prevention, erosion mitigation, and climate regulation. With the effective protection and improved conservation status of these areas, the project will create and sustain the largest biodiversity corridor in South East Asia. The need for building materials for reconstruction after the tsunami has created a high demand for timber supplies that could lead to widespread, uncontrolled logging from these protected forests. The Government of Indonesia, the Government of Aceh, the Aceh Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Agency (BRR), the donor community, and international NGOs engaged in reconstruction have recognized concerns and risks about illegal logging and forest destruction linked to the reconstruction process. The BRR and the Governor have adopted policies to prohibit logging of natural forest in Aceh and to promote a "green future" for the province. The Multi Donor Fund for Aceh and Nias is financing the project through a grant to two conservation NGOs with a long history in Aceh--Leuser International Foundation and Fauna & Flora International--with the World Bank as the partner agency to oversee implementation. The purpose of this project is to ensure environmental resources and services from the Leuser and Ulu Masen forest ecosystems are protected during the post-tsunami reconstruction process. The project helps mitigate negative impactsofreconstructioninterventionsontheforestsofAceh,mainstreamingenvironmentalconcernsintoplanning processes and building sustainable capacity and institutions for forest protection. It helps to ensure that ecosystem services provided by the forest are maintained, supporting Aceh's future social and economic development. The project also aims to support a multi-stakeholder governance framework to integrate environmental concerns into Aceh'sreconstructionanddevelopmentplanning.Projectactivitiesalsoincludeincreasingenvironmentalawareness and supporting community-based forest livelihoods. both for biodiversity conservation and for safeguarding threatened by bushmeat trade draining wildlife from the food security of those rural poor who depend on the forests to logging camps and beyond. In central wildlife for subsistence and as a nutritional safety net. Cameroon, the railway (CamRail) illegally carries wildlife from key landscapes to the luxury urban markets of The Bank is addressing this issue of unsustainable Yaounde and Douala. In the Ituri Forest Region of the harvesting of wildlife both directly through projects, such eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, loss of wildlife as the new generation of forest projects in the Congo to the bushmeat trade threatens the livelihoods of the Basin, as well as analytical studies and sector work. In local Mbuti and Efe peoples. Studies from these areas Africa a new study will look at hunting levels in pilot will be compared with similar programs along former sites critical to conserving important wildlife populations logging roads in eastern Cambodia and main access and sustaining rural livelihoods. It will examine wildlife roads in northern Sulawesi, Indonesia.This information trade along logging roads in northern Congo where will be used to identify best practices and to design the wildlife resources of the indigenous Pygmies are appropriate interventions in Bank forestry projects. -- 67 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Within East Asia, trade in wildlife is a major threat to and drive the trade and the use of regional trade routes. the integrity of the region's rich biodiversity. Economic An assessment will be made of the effectiveness of existing growth in East Asia has stimulated more personal wealth and potential regulatory and market-based interventions, and higher standards of living but unfortunately this in order to identify appropriate mechanisms to better economic growth has also stimulated more demand for regulate and reduce this unsustainable trade in wildlife. resources, including wildlife. East Asia is becoming a key supplier to the international wildlife market, both legal and illegal, besides being a centre for the consumption of wildlife derivates ranging from tiger bone medicines to shark fin cuisine. Much of the wildlife drained from Improving Land Management Indonesia and other countries in South East Asia finds its way to markets in China andVietnam. Wildlife is traded as The degradation of ecosystem services could grow food, traditional medicine, trophies, decorations, pets, zoo significantly worse during the first half of this century and exhibits, and for other live animal collections. If a species is a barrier to achieving the UN Millennium Development has a marketable value, then it is traded.The volume Goals.The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the of this trade is increasing; in the early 1990s, the illegal UK Commission for Africa have recognized that land wildlife trade inVietnam was conservatively estimated at degradation in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is increasingly $24 million annually. By 2002 it was estimated at $66.5 becoming a major problem. Up to 75 percent of Africa's million. Available evidence points to major declines in poor live in rural areas with livelihoods critically dependent the populations of many Asian wildlife species in trade. on the efficient use of increasingly scarce land, water, Such declines affect not only the species themselves, biodiversity, and nutrients. Land degradation marginalizes but also the livelihoods of the people who depend on efforts at all levels to secure Africa's long-term food them for food, medicines, income, and other uses. security, economic growth, rural land-use productivity, and ecosystem services. In addition, climate change could The causes of this illegal trade are complex and are rooted trigger large-scale migrations, intra-regional conflicts and in social, economic, cultural, and political structures. instability, and a breakdown of vital ecosystem services. The trade involves many different groups: hunters, For all of these reasons, the promotion of sustainable land the rural poor, government officials, consumers, and management (SLM) practices should figure prominently decision makers, all of whom need to be aware of the in strategies to advance sustainable development, trade and its dangers and problems. In order to better growth, and poverty reduction in this region of Africa. target resources and action intended to address these concerns, a World Bank project, using funding from the TerrAfrica is a multi-partner, programmatic platform on Bank-Netherlands Partnership Fund (BNPP), is focusing sustainable land management to reduce rural poverty, on the economic and social drivers of the wildlife trade increase food security, and improve environmental in four Southeast Asian countries: Cambodia, Indonesia, sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa.The BNPP has Lao PDR, andVietnam.The study will be carried out been supporting TerrAfrica since 2004 with a focus through a partnership with TRAFFIC International and on capacity building.TerrAfrica partners have worked will attempt to identify the causal relationships between in close collaboration to develop a draft joint work poverty, wildlife abundance, wildlife harvest, and trade program.This program is designed to support the by examining the flows of benefits and costs of trade and dissemination and sharing of regional knowledge, trade control measures to different stakeholders. It will consensus building on lessons learned, identification determine the linkages between supply and demand of gaps, and the development of common and characteristics in the context of the countries that supply harmonized strategies, methodologies, reporting, -- 68 -- New Challenges and Opportunities and monitoring and evaluation processes.The work program was endorsed by the TerrAfrica Executive Committee in October 2005 and many activities have already started or are in an active planning stage. The TerrAfrica Web site serves as one of the main tools to accommodate a continuous exchange of information among partners and allows them to be informed without delay on TerrAfrica progress and partner activities (see www.terrafrica.org).The TerrAfrica partners are sharing the responsibility for supporting countries in Sub-Saharan Africa to mainstream sustainable land management into national development frameworks such as PRSPs and sector policies as well as country strategy papers and programs of development partners.The World Bank, as part of its contribution to TerrAfrica, has already started providing guidance to PRSP teams (Burundi, Mauritania, Tanzania, and Uganda) and CAS teams (Burkina Faso, Ghana, Ethiopia, Guinea, Madagascar, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Senegal, and Tanzania) to address the SLM agenda.The major program planned under TerrAfrica is expected to produce benefits both for more sustainable land management and for biodiversity. rangelands. Although the project is being funded under the GEF program on land degradation, several activities, Habitat restoration as a conservation strategy is relatively especially those in the dry Aral seabed, are also particularly costly and complex compared with conserving areas relevant to the biodiversity focal area (see Box 5.5). of natural vegetation in their original state.There are some circumstances, however, in which restoration is the only choice. For instance, for ecosystems that have been largely destroyed, such as the Atlantic Forest of Brazil, restoration may be the only way to ensure the long-term integrity of the ecosystem. Similarly, restoration Monitoring for Impact may prove to be cost-effective when it restores not only The Convention on Biological Diversity has identified ecosystem function but also ecosystem services of value to specific biodiversity targets for 2010 to monitor local populations, such as the filtering services provided biodiversity trends and outcomes. Specific targets include by wetlands.The Kazakhstan Forest Protection and coverage and effectiveness of protected areas as well Reforestation project is being funded by a $5-million GEF as indicators for invasive alien species, sustainable use, grant, a $30-million World Bank loan, and government and sharing of benefits. Meeting, and monitoring, these co-financing of $28.8 million. Project activities include targets will require new tools and new ways of doing rehabilitation and effective management of 650,000 ha business. Objective measurement of biodiversity trends of damaged Irtysh pine forest in the northeast (Pavlodar and impacts is difficult, in part because biodiversity and East-Kazakhstan Oblasts) as well as rehabilitation management deals with ecological processes that are of dry Aral seabed and pilot restoration of sauxal generally long-term (e.g., changes in numbers of a -- 69 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) BOX 5.5 Aral Sea -- Rehabilitation at a Site of Ecological Catastrophe The decline of the Aral Sea, now about 35 percent of its former size and still shrinking rapidly, is one of the major environmental disasters in Central Asia in the last 100 years. In fact, the catastrophic decline of much of the Aral Sea basin's rich biodiversity (including many endemic species of birds, mammals, and fish), coupled with the loss of the sea's tempering effect on the basin's climatic conditions, represents an ecological loss of global significance. The seashore, which retreats 2­4 km a year, is now 150­200 km away from its original shoreline. This receding shoreline has exposed an estimated 4.2 million ha of former seabed, much of it land that is highly saline. While a new dam is helping to restore the smaller, northern sea, the degradation of the southern sea is likely to continue. Not all this exposed seabed remains bare ground; native halophytic plants cover the newly exposed land to some extent, the first step in a precarious natural revegetation process. These pioneering plants die out as salinity decreases, and unless a more diverse cover of grasses, shrubs, and small trees becomes established over the next few years, the land will become a mass of shifting dunes without permanent plant cover. Despite harsh ecological conditions, the Aral Sea lowland is home to surprisingly rich communities of flora and fauna whereversustainableplantcoverhasmanagedtobeestablished,includinggazelles,gophers,desertmonitors,sand rats, jerboas, lizards, and snakes. Wild boars, jackals, and deer can be found, especially near natural springs. The lowlands also include populations of species listed in the Red Data Book of Kazakhstan, such as the wild ass, saiga antelope, goitered gazelle, mountain sheep, and roe deer. The degraded dry Aral Seabed (DAS) is an extremely hostile natural environment, with temperature extremes in summer and winter, desiccating aridity, and very high wind strengths that delay natural revegetation processes. In Kazakhstan the total area of degraded DAS requiring rehabilitation is about 2.6 million ha, with revegetation, either natural or through planting schemes, estimated at only 80,000 ha. At the current rates of vegetation on the DAS in Kazakhstan, it would take well into the next century to turn the degraded seabed into ecologically productive land. Project interventions to plant 44,000 ha and directly sow 35,000 ha of the seabed will accelerate the vegeta- tion of approximately 118,500 ha in total, as natural regeneration will be facilitated on the open areas enclosed by the planting. This will help reverse land degradation, introduce new structure and functional integrity into the emerging ecosystem, significantly reduce localized wind erosion, and create new habitats for native flora and fauna. Designation of the area as a natural reserve will produce long-term biological benefits. population of a key species); because of this, changes the impact of the conservation activities on biodiversity, resulting from management may be slow to emerge. specifically trends in the rate of transformation of natural habitat and trends in indicator species within each Individual Bank projects have supported research and protected area.The other two socioeconomic indicators inventory programs designed to establish baseline are attempting to measure the use of natural resources, information and monitor biodiversity impact.The including area managed for sustainable use and number Honduran Protected Areas project has established a of inhabitants who adopt sustainable use practices.The database of biological monitoring in protected areas, population growth rate within the PA was also included, producing a detailed study on the rationalization of the as a pressure indicator that affects the management national system of protected areas of Honduras. A system of the PA.These indicators are assessed every year to of monitoring and evaluation designed for the Protected evaluate progress in consolidating conservation and Areas Fund (FANP) of Mexico, in 1998, includes four sustainable use of the biodiversity in the protected areas indicators.Two of these indicators are designed to measure of Mexico. Similarly, regular monitoring of key marine -- 70 -- New Challenges and Opportunities species in the Hon Mun MPA,Vietnam, has demonstrated capacity-building efforts within projects, weak institutional significant biodiversity impacts, including increased frameworks remain a challenge, as are the fragile linkages prevalence and size of fish and other marine organisms. between global environmental objectives and national or sector development priorities. Several projects have The Bank is taking steps to further improve monitoring been successful in achieving some of their small-scale and evaluation (M&E) through training on M&E for task conservation outcomes, yet outside development efforts, teams; development, with other partners, of appropriate including major government-supported development simple monitoring tools; and encouraging task teams initiatives, are threatening the biological integrity of to initiate collection of baseline data and monitorable project sites.Thus the rapid economic development indicators during project preparation. Under the of the Nha Trang Bay area is intensifying the threats Bank/WWF Alliance the Bank developed and tested a to the MPA. Similarly, the Kolkheti coastal wetland simple, site-level tracking tool for assessing management project in Georgia has achieved encouraging results effectiveness in protected areas; this tool has now in building capacity and engaging local communities. been adopted by the GEF as a requirement for all PA Nevertheless, these important coastal wetlands, a Ramsar projects from GEF-3 onwards. Based on the IUCN/World site, and the offshore marine reserve are threatened by Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) framework, development of an adjacent oil refinery and dredging this tool is designed primarily to assist protected-area of a channel through the marine reserve for tankers to managers to identify and address management needs. access the oil storage tanks. Newly revealed plans for Results are being collated from all projects using the oil exploration inVashlovani PA in Georgia also raise tool and will be analyzed as part of a global study being questions about government commitment and the undertaken collaboratively with WWF and the WCPA future of PAs in the face of economic development. of IUCN as a contribution to monitoring progress of the CBD PA work program. An adaptation of the management Unfortunately, such conflicts between biodiversity effectiveness tracking tool for use in marine protected conservation and national economic development areas is currently being field-tested in the Caribbean priorities are not atypical. Resolving these conflicts and East Asia.The tool is available on the Bank's will require greater efforts to integrate biodiversity and biodiversity Web site, www.worldbank.org/biodiversity. protected areas into the development mainstream. It will There is still a need to develop appropriate monitoring require increased understanding of the contribution of tools to better assess the effectiveness and impact of biodiversity goods and services to sustainable development mainstreaming biodiversity in production landscapes. and more recognition of costs and trade-offs of short-term The Bank/WWF Alliance is currently working to develop economic development versus long-term environmental a tracking tool for sustainable forest management. security. Increasingly the Bank, through both development lending and GEF projects, is seeking ways to influence Sustainability remains a key issue for many projects, policies and programs that will deliver development including sustainability of biodiversity gains.The most and environmental gains to enhance quality of life and common threat to sustainability is the lack of adequate quality of growth and to protect the global environment. long-term financing once project funding ceases. Despite -- 71 -- Appendix The World Bank Group Biodiversity Portfolio Biodiversity Projects and Components by Funding Source and Region FY1988­2005 -- 73 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 GLOBAL: 12 PROJECTS Global Small and Medium 1997 GEF 40.00 20.00 2.00 Scale Enterprise IFC * * * * * Program Global Forests and Biodi- 2000 BNPP 6.60 6.60 6.60 versity Window * * * Global Critical Ecosystems 2001 DGF 25.00 25.00 25.00 Partnership Fund * * * * * * * * Global Critical Ecosystems 2001 GEF 100.00 100.00 25.00 Partnership Fund REG * * * * * * * * Global Development 2003 GEF 2.15 1.08 0.50 Marketplace Climate MSP Change and Biodi- * versity Global Global Invasive 2004 BNPP 0.70 0.7 0.70 Species Programme * * * Global Global Invasive 2005 DGF 1.70 1.7 1.70 Species Programme * * * Global Forests Partner- 2004 DGF 1.55 1.55 1.55 ships Program * * * Global Millenium Ecosys- 2004 DGF 0.50 0.50 tem Assessment * * Global Environmental 2004 GEF 100.00 5.00 5.00 Business Finance IFC * * Program Global Coral Reef Targeted 2004 GEF 19.3 19.30 11.00 Research and Ca- REG pacity Building For * * Management Global Coral Reef Targeted 2004 DGF 3.00 3.00 3.00 Research and Ca- pacity Building For * * Management AFRICA REGION: 125 PROJECTS Benin Natural Resource 1992 IDA 24.40 1.70 0.99 Management * * * * * * Benin Environmental 1995 IDA 9.30 4.65 4.00 Management * * Benin National Parks Con- 2000 GEF 24.20 23.90 6.80 servation and Mana- REG * * * * gement Program Benin Management of For- 2002 GEF 27.00 27.00 6.00 ests and Adjacent REG * * * Lands Burkina Faso Environmental 1991 IDA 25.20 3.80 2.48 Management * Burkina Faso Community-Based 2001 IDA 114.85 3.82 2.22 Rural Development * * Burkina Faso Partnership for 2002 GEF 13.46 13.46 7.50 Natural Ecosystem REG Management -PRO- * * * NAGEN -- 74 -- 1 Institution building, policies, and 3 Public awareness and education strategic planning 4 Protected areas 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape Appendix -- The World Bank Group Biodiversity Portfolio Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Burkina Faso Sahel Integrated 2004 GEF 4.91 1.38 1.28 Lowland Ecosystem REG * Management Burundi Agricultural Rehabi- 2005 GEF 5.00 0.50 0.50 litation and Support * Project (PRASAB) Cameroon Biodiversity Conser- 1995 GEF 12.39 12.39 5.96 vation and Manage- REG * * * * * * ment Central Afri- Natural Resources 1990 IDA 26.2 3.00 2.18 can Republic Management * * * * * * * Central Afri- Livestock Develop- 1995 IDA 32.45 0.30 0.15 can Republic ment and Range- * * * land Management Chad Household Energy 1998 IDA 6.31 1.36 1.14 * * Chad Community Based 2005 GEF 6.00 6.00 6.00 Integrated Ecosys- REG tem Management * * * * * * * Chad Community Based 2005 IDA 46.00 8.39 2.80 Integrated Ecosys- tem Management * * * Congo Wildlands Protection 1993 GEF 13.90 13.90 10.10 and Management REG * * * * * * Cote d'Ivoire Forestry Sector 1990 IBRD 147.80 8.40 8.40 * * * Cote d'Ivoire Rural Land Manage- 1997 IDA 71.50 1.64 0.94 ment and Commu- nity Infrastructure * * * * * Development Eritrea National Biodiversity 1997 GEF EA 0.28 0.28 0.28 Strategy, Action * * Plan and Report Eritrea Assessment of 2002 GEF EA 0.19 0.185 0.17 Capacity Building Needs for Biodiver- sity, Participation in Clearing House * * Mechanism and Preparation of Sec- ond National Report Ethiopia Conservation and 2001 GEF 1.81 1.81 1.81 Sustainable Use of REG * * * * * * Medicinal Plants Ethiopia Conservation and 2001 IDA 3.37 3.37 0.78 Sustainable Use of * * * * Medicinal Plants Gabon Forestry and Envi- 1993 IDA 38.20 12.44 6.44 ronment * * * Gambia Integrated Coastal 2002 GEF 0.96 0.96 0.96 and Marine Biodi- MSP * versity Management Ghana Forest Resource 1989 IDA 64.60 5.10 3.11 Management * Ghana Coastal Wetlands 1993 GEF 8.30 8.30 7.20 Management REG * * * * 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous peoples -- 75 -- and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasive species Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ghana Environmental Re- 1993 IDA 27.60 0.99 0.66 source Management * * * Ghana Natural Resource 1998 GEF 9.40 8.70 8.70 Management REG * * * * * * Ghana Natural Resource 1998 IDA 23.80 14.30 5.59 Management I * * * * * * Ghana Northern Savanna 2002 GEF 16.80 16.80 7.90 Biodiversity Conser- REG * * * * * * * vation Project Ghana Community-based 2004 GEF 1.48 0.750 0.40 Integrated Natural MSP Resources Man- * * * * * * agement Project in Okyeman Guinea Forestry and Fishe- 1990 IDA 21.00 4.00 2.46 ries Management * * Guinea- Coastal and Biodi- 2005 IDA 6.31 1.87 0.00 Bissau versity Management * * * * Project Guinea- Coastal and Biodi- 2005 GEF 4.80 4.80 4.80 Bissau versity Management REG * * * * Project Kenya Forestry Develop- 1991 IDA 83.80 39.49 0.00 ment * * Kenya Protected Areas and 1992 IDA 143.00 143.00 60.00 Wildlife Services * * * * * Kenya National Biodiversity 1997 GEF EA 0.157 0.16 0.16 Strategy, Action * Plan and Report Kenya Tana River National 1997 GEF 7.14 7.14 6.20 Primate Reserve REG * * * Kenya Lewa Wildlife Con- 1999 GEF 3.94 3.94 0.75 servation MSP * * * Kenya Western Kenya In- 2005 GEF 8.50 7.2 3.15 tegrated Ecosystem REG * * * * * Management Lesotho Lesotho Highlands 1992 IBRD 2,414.00 5.55 4.60 Water: Phase IA * Lesotho Lesotho Highlands 1998 IBRD 1,132.00 33.35 1.56 Water -Phase IB * Lesotho Maloti-Drakens- 2002 GEF 8.40 8.40 7.32 berg Transfrontier REG Conservation and * * * * * * * Development Area Liberia Sapo National Park 2005 GEF 0.98 0.975 0.975 MSP * * * * Madagascar Forest Management 1988 IDA 22.60 9.20 2.86 and Protection * * * * * Madagascar Environment Project 1990 IDA 85.53 45.05 9.55 I * * * * * Madagascar Second Environ- 1997 GEF 20.80 20.80 12.80 ment Program REG * * * * * * * Madagascar Second Environ- 1997 IDA 134.20 56.00 12.52 ment Program * * * * * -- 76 -- 1 Institution building, policies, and 3 Public awareness and education strategic planning 4 Protected areas 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape Appendix -- The World Bank Group Biodiversity Portfolio Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Madagascar Third Environment 2004 GEF 9.00 9.00 9.00 Program REG * * * * * * Madagascar Third Environment 2004 IDA 148.9 71.50 19.50 Program * * * * * * Malawi Lake Malawi/Nyasa 1995 GEF 5.44 5.44 5.00 Biodiversity Conser- REG * * * vation Malawi Environmental 1997 IDA 13.7 6.85 6.20 Support * * * * Malawi Mulanje Biodiversity 2001 GEF 8.02 8.02 6.75 Conservation REG * * * * * * * * Mali Natural Resource 1992 IDA 32.1 6.78 4.31 Management * * * * * Mali Gourma Biodiversity 2005 GEF 9.08 9.08 5.5 Conservation REG * * * Mauritius Environmental Moni- 1991 IBRD 20.53 4.40 2.00 toring and Develo- * pment Mauritius Biodiversity Resto- 1996 GEF 1.60 1.60 1.20 ration REG * * * * * * Mauritius Restoration of 2001 GEF 1.40 1.40 0.75 Round Island MSP * * Mozambique Transfrontier Con- 1997 GEF 8.10 8.10 5.00 servation Areas Pilot REG and Institutional * * * * * Strengthening Mozambique Agricultural Sector 1999 IDA 216.50 25.10 1.00 Public Expenditure * * * * Program PROAGRI Mozambique Coastal & Marine 2000 GEF 4.1 4.10 4.10 Biovidersity Man- REG * * * * * * agement Project Mozambique Coastal & Marine 2000 IDA 6.40 6.40 5.60 Biovidersity Man- * * * * * * agement Project Namibia Integrated Commu- 2004 GEF 32.43 11.26 2.08 nity-Based Ecosys- REG * * * * tem Management Niger Community-based 2003 GEF 43.83 1.00 1.00 ecosystem manage- REG ment - Supplement * * * to the Community Action Program Nigeria Environmental 1992 IDA 37.90 3.30 2.18 Management * * * Nigeria Micro-watershed 2002 GEF 8.00 8.00 8.00 and Environmen- REG tal Management * * * Program Nigeria Micro-watershed 2002 IDA 107.35 12.88 12.00 and Environmen- tal Management * * * * * * Program 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous peoples -- 77 -- and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasive species Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Nigeria National Capac- 2003 GEF EA 0.23 0.056 0.056 ity Needs Self-As- sessment (NCSA) * * for Environmental Management Regional Coral Reef Monitor- 2001 GEF 2.41 2.41 0.74 ing Network in mem- MSP ber states of Indian * * * * Ocean Commission Regional East Lake Victoria Envi- 1997 GEF 38.5 8.51 7.63 Africa: Kenya, ronmental Manage- REG Tanzania and ment * * Uganda Regional East Lake Victoria Envi- 1997 IDA 39.10 4.85 4.36 Africa: Kenya, ronmental Manage- Tanzania and ment * * Uganda Regional Transboundary 2004 GEF 1.00 0.20 0.20 Diagnostic Analysis MSP and Strategic Action * * * * Program for Lake Victoria Basin Regional Transboundary 2004 IDA 5.60 1.12 0.60 Diagnostic Analysis and SAP Devel- * * * * opment for Lake Victoria Basin Regional Senegal River Basin 2004 GEF 21.20 0.15 0.15 Water and Environ- REG * * mental Management Regional Southern Africa 2000 GEF 0.89 0.89 0.73 - Southern Community MSP Africa Outreach Program * * * * Regional West Africa Pilot 1996 GEF 13.19 13.19 7.00 West Africa: Community-Based REG Burkina Faso Natural Resource * * * * * * * and Cote and Wildlife Man- D'Ivoire agement Regional Protection and 2005 GEF 13.32 1.735 1.735 (SADC) Strategic Uses REG of Groundwater Resources in the * * * Transboundary Limpopo Basin Regional: Regional Environ- 1997 GEF 19.79 19.79 4.10 Central Afri- ment Information REG can Countries Management Pro- * * * ject (REIMP) Regional: Western Indian 1999 GEF 4.64 1.17 0.98 Comoros, Ocean Oil Spill Con- REG Mauritius, tingency Planning * * Madagascar, Seychelles Rwanda Rural Sector Sup- 2001 IDA 53.00 18.97 18.97 port Project * * * * -- 78 -- 1 Institution building, policies, and 3 Public awareness and education strategic planning 4 Protected areas 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape Appendix -- The World Bank Group Biodiversity Portfolio Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Rwanda Integrated Manage- 2005 GEF 5.30 2.65 2.15 ment of Critical REG * * * * Ecosystems Project Sao Tome & BSAP, First National 2000 GEF EA 0.163 0.163 0.16 Príncipe Report and Clearing * House Mechanism Senegal Sustainable and 1997 GEF 4.70 4.70 4.70 Participatory Energy REG * * * Management Senegal Sustainable and 1997 IDA 15.2 4.38 1.50 Participatory Energy * * * * Management Senegal Energy Sector 1998 IDA 100.00 1.00 1.00 Adjustment * * Senegal Integrated Marine & 2004 IDA 11.49 11.49 10.00 Coastal Biodiversity * * * * Conservation Senegal Integrated Marine & 2004 GEF 5.00 5.00 5.00 Coastal Biodiversity REG * * * * Conservation Seychelles Biodiversity Conser- 1993 GEF 2.00 2.00 1.80 vation and Marine REG * * Pollution Abatement Seychelles Environment and 1993 IBRD 5.00 0.19 0.17 Transport * * * Seychelles Management of 1999 GEF 1.06 1.06 0.74 Avian Ecosystems MSP * * * * * * * in Seychelles Seychelles Marine Ecosystem 2000 GEF 1.40 1.40 0.74 Management MSP * * * * * * Seychelles Improving Manage- 2004 GEF 1.88 1.88 0.81 ment of NGO and MSP Privately Owned Na- ture Reserves and * * * * * High Biodiversity Islands South Africa Cape Peninsula 1998 GEF 91.2 91.20 12.30 Biodiversity REG * * * * * * * * South Africa Conservation of 1999 GEF 1.72 1.72 0.75 Globally Significant MSP Biodiversity in Agri- cultural Landscapes * * * * through Conserva- tion Farming South Africa Sustainable Pro- 2000 GEF 1.00 1.00 0.75 tected Area Devel- MSP opment in Nam- * * aqualand South Africa Conservation Plan- 2000 GEF 0.74 0.74 0.74 ning for Biodiversity MSP * * in the Thicket Biome South Africa Maloti-Drakens- 2002 GEF 7.93 7.93 7.93 berg Transfrontier REG Conservation and * * * * * * * Development Area 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous peoples -- 79 -- and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasive species Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 South Africa Richtersveld Com- 2003 GEF 2.45 2.45 0.88 munity Biodiversity MSP * * * * * Conservation South Africa Greater Addo 2004 GEF 40.07 39.94 5.50 Elephant National REG * * * Park Project South Africa C.A.P.E. Biodiversity 2004 GEF 55.13 55.13 9.00 and Sustainable De- REG * * * * * * * * * * velopment Project Tanzania Lower Kihansi Envi- 2002 IDA 6.40 6.40 6.30 ronmental Manage- * * * ment Project Tanzania Eastern Arc For- 2003 GEF 7.00 7.00 7.00 ests Conservation REG and Management * * * * * * Project Tanzania Forests Conserva- 2003 IDA 45.00 14.50 2.30 tion and Manage- * * * * * * ment Tanzania Innovations in 2004 GEF 2.21 1.10 0.88 Livestock & Wildlife MSP Integration Adjacent * * * * to Protected Areas Tanzania Lake Victoria En- 2005 IDA 3.60 0.81 0.79 vironmental Ma- nagement Project * * * * Second Supplemen- tal Credit Tanzania Lolkisale Biodiver- 2004 GEF 0.89 0.885 0.475 sity Conservation IFC * * Support Project Tanzania Marine and Coastal 2005 GEF 10.00 5.00 5.00 Environment Fisher- REG * * * * * ies Tanzania Marine and Coas- 2005 IDA 52.75 25.5 25.5 tal Environmental * * * * * Management Uganda Conservation of the 1995 GEF 4.89 4.89 4.00 Bwindi Impenetrable REG and Mgahinga Go- * * * * * * * rilla National Parks Uganda Environmental Ma- 1996 IDA 15.2 1.38 1.08 nagement Capacity * * Building Uganda National Biodiversity 1998 GEF EA 0.13 0.13 0.13 Strategy, Action * Plan and Report Uganda Kibale Forest Wild 1999 GEF 0.75 0.75 0.75 Coffee MSP * * * * * Uganda Institutional 1999 GEF 2.00 2.00 2.00 Capacity Building REG for Protected Areas * * * Management and Sustainable Use- -- 80 -- 1 Institution building, policies, and 3 Public awareness and education strategic planning 4 Protected areas 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape Appendix -- The World Bank Group Biodiversity Portfolio Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Uganda Institutional 1999 IDA 18.29 18.29 12.37 Capacity Building for Protected Areas * * * * Management and Sustainable Use- Uganda Supplemental Credit 2002 IDA 4.64 2.65 2.57 to the Lake Victoria Environmental Man- * * * * * agement Project Uganda Environment 2002 IDA 24.10 12.05 11.00 Management and * * Capacity Building II Uganda Institutional Ca- 2002 IDF 0.43 0.43 0.43 pacity Building for Integration of Indige- * * * nous Knowledge Uganda Protected Areas 2003 GEF 8.00 8.00 8.00 Management and REG Sustainable Use * * * * * Supplemental Credit Uganda Protected Areas 2003 IDA 30.00 30.00 27.00 Management and * * * * * Sustainable Use Zambia Environmental Sup- 1997 IDA 20.80 10.40 6.40 port Program * * * * Zambia Sustainable Land 2002 GEF 1.35 0.25 0.25 Management in the MSP Zambian Miombo * * * Woodland Ecosys- tem Zambia Support for Eco- 2005 IDA 28.15 10.18 10.18 nomic Expansion and Diversification * * * (SEED) Zambia SEED Biodiversity 2005 GEF 4.00 4.00 4.00 REG * * * Zimbabwe Park Rehabilitation 1998 GEF 5.00 5.00 5.00 and Conservation REG * * * * Zimbabwe Park Rehabilitation 1998 IDA 70.00 70.00 62.50 and Conservation * * * * * EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC REGION: 64 PROJECTS Cambodia Forest Concession 2000 IDA 5.42 1.10 0.98 Management and * * * Control Project Cambodia Biodiversity and 2001 GEF 3.00 3.00 2.75 Protected Areas REG * * * * * Management Cambodia Biodiversity and 2001 IDA 1.91 1.91 1.91 Protected Areas * * * * * Management China Biodiversity Con- 1993 GEF EA 0.40 0.40 0.40 servation Action * Plan China Environmental Tech- 1993 IDA 76.00 29.40 20.00 nical Assistance * * * 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous peoples -- 81 -- and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasive species Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 China Forest Resource 1994 IDA 333.10 20.55 12.34 Development and * * * * * Conservation China Nature Reserves 1995 GEF 23.60 23.60 17.90 Management REG * * * * * China Lake Dianchi Fresh- 2002 GEF 1.86 1.86 1.00 water Biodiversity MSP * * * * Restoration Project China Sustainable For- 2002 GEF 16.00 16.00 16.00 estry Development REG (Natural Forest * * * * * Protection) China Sustainable Forestry 2002 IBRD 214.58 26.85 11.75 Development I * * * China Gansu and Xinjiang 2003 GEF 10.50 8.30 8.30 Pastoral Develop- REG * * * * * * * ment China Gansu and Xinjiang 2003 IBRD 98.72 3.00 1.99 Pastoral Develop- * * * * * ment Indonesia First Forestry Institu- 1988 IBRD 63.00 6.40 3.79 tions and Conserva- * * * * tion Indonesia Second Forestry 1990 IBRD 33.10 3.10 1.87 Institutions and Con- * * * * * servation Indonesia Biodiversity Collec- 1994 GEF 11.40 11.40 7.20 tions REG * * * Indonesia Integrated Swamps 1994 IBRD 106.00 3.10 1.89 Development * * Indonesia Kerinci Seblat ICDP 1996 GEF 15.00 15.00 15.00 REG * * * * Indonesia Kerinci Seblat ICDP 1996 IBRD 32.20 32.20 19.20 * * * Indonesia Coral Reef Rehabili- 1998 GEF 4.10 4.10 4.10 tation and Manage- REG ment Project * * * * (COREMAP) Indonesia Coral Reef Manage- 1998 IBRD 8.70 8.70 6.90 ment and Reha- bilitation Project * * * * (COREMAP) Indonesia Biodiversity Strategy 2000 GEF EA 0.44 0.44 0.44 and Action Plan * - IBSAP Indonesia Conservation of 2000 GEF 1.04 0.74 0.74 Elephant Landscape MSP in Aceh Province, * * * * Sumatra Indonesia Greater Berbak- 2001 GEF 1.60 1.60 0.73 Sembilang Integrat- MSP ed Coastal Wet- * * * * * lands Conservation Indonesia Sangihe-Talaud Fo- 2002 GEF 1.14 1.14 0.82 rest Conservation MSP * * * * * * -- 82 -- 1 Institution building, policies, and 3 Public awareness and education strategic planning 4 Protected areas 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape Appendix -- The World Bank Group Biodiversity Portfolio Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Indonesia Indonesia Forests 2002 GEF 1.23 1.23 0.94 and Media Project MSP * (INFORM) Indonesia Coral Reef Manage- 2004 GEF 7.50 7.50 7.50 ment and Reha- REG bilitation Project * * * * * (COREMAP II) Indonesia Coral Reef Manage- 2004 IBRD 44.10 44.10 33.20 ment and Reha- bilitation Project * * * * * (COREMAP II) Indonesia Coral Reef Manage- 2004 IDA 23.00 23.00 23.00 ment and Reha- bilitation Project * * * * (COREMAP II) Indonesia Komodo Collabo- 2005 GEF 16.98 16.975 5.375 rative Management IFC * * Initiative (KCMI) Indonesia Lambusango Forest 2005 GEF 4.49 4.493 1.00 Conservation, MSP * * * * * Sulawesi Lao PDR Wildlife and Protect- 1994 GEF 5.00 5.00 5.00 ed Areas Conserva- REG * * * tion Lao PDR Forest Management 1994 IDA 15.3 7.75 4.35 and Conservation * * * * Lao PDR District Upland 1999 IDA 2.25 2.25 2.00 Development and * * * * * * Conservation Lao PDR Sustainable Forestry 2003 IDA 16.45 1.10 0.66 for Rural Develop- * * * * ment Project Lao PDR Lao Environment 2005 IDA 4.80 1.54 1.28 and Social Project * * * * * * * Lao PDR Nam Theun 2 Social 2005 IDA 24.00 5.00 5.00 and Environment * * * * * Lao PDR Bolikhamxay Biodi- 2005 GEF 1.61 1.612 0.999 versity Conservation MSP (Integrated Eco- * * * * system & Wildlife Management) Malaysia Sabah Land Settle- 1989 IBRD 216.00 1.20 1.20 ment and Environ- * * * mental Management Mongolia Assessment of 2000 GEF EA 0.23 0.22 0.2 Capacity Building Needs and Country * Specific Priorities in Biodiversity Mongolia Biodiversity Loss 2001 GEF 0.83 0.83 0.83 and Permafrost Melt MSP in Lake Hovsgol * * * * National Park Mongolia Conservation of the 2003 GEF 1.93 1.93 1.00 Eg-Uur Watershed MSP * * * * * 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous peoples -- 83 -- and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasive species Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mongolia Netherlands Mon- 2005 TF 6.00 1.225 1.225 golia Trust Fund for the Environment * * * (NEMO) Papua New National Biodiversity 1999 GEF EA 0.18 0.18 0.18 Guinea Strategy, Action * Plan and Report Papua New Forestry and Con- 2002 GEF 17.30 17.30 17.30 Guinea servation REG * * * * * Papua New Forestry and Con- 2002 IBRD 38.50 19.25 6.25 Guinea servation * * * Philippines Environment and 1991 IBRD 280.20 140.10 79.00 Natural Resources * * Sector Adjustment Philippines Environment and 1991 IDA 66.00 33.00 33.00 Natural Resources * * Sector Adjustment Philippines Conservation of 1994 GEF 22.86 22.86 20.00 Priority Protected REG * * * * * Areas Philippines Community Based 1998 IBRD 67.50 7.80 7.80 Resource Manage- * * * * ment Philippines Mindanao Rural De- 2000 GEF 1.30 1.30 1.30 velopment/Coastal REG Resource Conser- * * * * * * * vation Philippines Mindanao Rural 2000 IBRD 39.70 0.99 0.68 Development * * * Philippines Asian Conserva- 2004 GEF 16.90 16.90 1.60 tion Foundation IFC * * * * * * (Tranche I) Philippines Asian Conservation 2005 GEF 5.10 5.10 2.90 Company (Tranche IFC * * * * * II) Regional Marine Aquarium 2004 GEF 22.28 22.28 6.915 Market Transforma- IFC * * * * tion Initiative Regional Mekong River 2000 GEF 16.30 5.50 3.71 Commission Water REG * * * Utilization Project Samoa Marine Biodiversity 1999 GEF 1.10 1.10 0.90 Protection and Man- MSP * * * * agement Vietnam Forest Protection 1998 IDA 32.39 32.39 21.51 and Rural Develop- * * * * ment Vietnam Coastal Wetlands 2000 IDA 65.60 15.00 7.27 Protection and * * * Development Vietnam Hon Mun Marine 2001 GEF 2.17 2.17 1.00 Protected Area Pilot MSP * * * * * Vietnam Conservation of Pu 2001 GEF 1.31 1.31 0.75 Luong-Cuc Phuong MSP Limestone Land- * * * * * * scape -- 84 -- 1 Institution building, policies, and 3 Public awareness and education strategic planning 4 Protected areas 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape Appendix -- The World Bank Group Biodiversity Portfolio Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Vietnam Hai Van Range 2004 GEF 2.00 2.00 1.00 Green Corridor MSP * * * * * * Viet Nam Forest Sector 2004 IDA 57.70 8.17 0.02 Development * * Viet Nam Forest Sector 2004 GEF 9.00 9.00 9.00 Development REG * * * (Conservation Fund) Vietnam Intergrating water- 2005 GEF 1.74 1.739 1.00 shed and biodiver- MSP sity management * * * in Chu Yang Sin National Park EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA REGION: 78 PROJECTS Albania Forestry 1996 IDA 21.60 4.15 1.54 * * * Albania National Biodiversity 1997 GEF EA 0.96 0.96 0.96 Strategy, Action * Plan and Report Albania Fishery Develop- 2002 IDA 6.66 1.19 1.00 ment * * * * * Albania Integrated Water 2004 GEF 20 0.91 0.91 and Ecosystems REG Management * * * * * * Project Albania Assessment of 2005 EA 0.39 0.39 0.324 Capacity Building * Needs Albania Natural Resource 2005 IDA 19.40 1.90 1.90 Management * * * * Albania Natural Resource 2005 GEF 5.00 5.00 5.00 Management REG * * * * Armenia Natural Resources 2002 GEF 5.12 5.12 5.12 Management and REG * * * * * * * Poverty Reduction Armenia Natural Resources 2002 IDA 10.88 3.00 0.00 Management and * * * * * Poverty Reduction Azerbaijan Urgent Environ- 1998 IDA 24.50 9.00 7.35 mental Investment * * Project Azerbaijan Rural Environment 2005 IDA 12.10 12.10 8.00 Project * * Azerbaijan Rural Environment 2005 GEF 5.00 5.00 5.00 Project REG * * * * * * Belarus Forest Biodiversity 1993 GEF 1.25 1.25 1.00 Protection REG * * * * * Belarus Forestry Develop- 1994 IBRD 54.70 2.13 0.50 ment * * * Bosnia- Forestry 1998 IDA 20.20 1.85 0.64 Herzegovina * * * Bosnia- Environmental Ca- 2000 IDF 0.29 0.15 0.15 Herzegovina pacity Building * Bosnia- Forest Development 2003 IDA 5.09 1.80 1.32 Herzegovina and Conservation * * * * * 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous peoples -- 85 -- and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasive species Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Bulgaria Wetlands Restora- 2002 GEF 13.28 10.60 5.99 tion and Pollution REG * * * * * * Reduction Bulgaria Pomoriisko Lake 2005 GEF 2.15 0.79 0.67 Conservation, MSP Restoration and * * * Management Croatia National Biodiversity 1997 GEF EA 0.102 0.10 0.10 Strategy, Action * Plan and Report Croatia Coastal Forest 1997 IBRD 67.00 2.90 2.90 Reconstruction and * * * Protection Croatia Reconstruction 1998 IBRD 61.10 2.20 1.00 Project for Eastern Slavonia, Baranja * and Western Srijem Croatia Kopacki Rit Wetlan- 1999 GEF 2.36 2.36 0.75 ds Management MSP * * * * Croatia Karst Ecosystem 2002 GEF 8.37 8.37 5.07 Conservation REG * * * * * * Czech Biodiversity Pro- 1994 GEF 2.75 2.75 2.00 Republic tection REG * * * Czech National Biodiversity 1998 GEF EA 0.10 0.10 0.10 Republic Strategy, Action * Plan and Report Estonia Haapsalu and Mat- 1995 IBRD 8.37 0.48 0.11 salu Bays Environ- * * ment Estonia Agriculture 1996 IBRD 30.90 0.90 0.46 * Georgia National Biodiversity 1997 GEF EA 0.12 0.12 0.12 Strategy, Action * Plan and Report Georgia Integrated Coastal 1999 GEF 1.20 1.20 1.20 Management REG * * * Georgia Integrated Coastal 1999 IDA 6.30 4.80 2.60 Management * * Georgia Protected Areas 2001 GEF 30.30 30.30 8.70 Development REG * * * * * Georgia Forest Development 2003 IDA 21.34 5.00 3.67 * * * * * Kazakhstan Syr Darya Control 2001 IBRD 85.80 27.35 20.56 and North Aral Sea * Phase-I Kazakhstan Drylands Manage- 2003 GEF 9.70 0.46 0.25 ment REG * * * * Kyrgyz Re- National Biodiversity 1997 GEF EA 0.11 0.11 0.11 public Strategy, Action * Plan and Report Latvia Liepaja Environment 1995 IBRD 21.17 0.50 0.00 * Lithuania Klaipeda 1995 IBRD 23.10 1.50 0.00 Environment * * * Lithuania National Biodiversity 1997 GEF EA 0.07 0.07 0.07 Strategy, Action * Plan and Report -- 86 -- 1 Institution building, policies, and 3 Public awareness and education strategic planning 4 Protected areas 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape Appendix -- The World Bank Group Biodiversity Portfolio Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Macedonia National Strategy 2001 GEF EA 0.37 0.37 0.34 and Action Plan, National Report, Clearing House * Mechanism, Capac- ity Building Needs Moldova National Biodiversity 1998 GEF EA 0.13 0.13 0.13 Strategy, Action Plan and Report * (Phase I) Moldova Assessment of 2001 GEF EA 0.34 0.34 0.30 Capacity Building * Needs Moldova Biodiversity Conser- 2002 GEF 1.71 1.71 0.98 vation in the Lower MSP Dniester Delta * * * * * * Ecosystem Poland Forest Biodiversity 1992 GEF 6.20 6.20 4.50 Protection REG * * * * * Poland Forestry Develop- 1994 IBRD 335.40 14.00 2.00 ment * * * * Poland Rural Environmental 2000 GEF 15.80 0.75 0.75 Protection REG * * * Poland Rural Environmental 2000 IBRD 15.80 0.63 0.63 Protection * * * Regional Central Asia Trans- 1999 GEF 13.65 13.65 10.15 boundary Biodiver- REG * * * * sity Regional Lake Ohrid Conser- 1998 GEF 4.37 1.95 1.83 vation REG * * Regional Aral Sea Basin 1998 GEF 21.50 3.90 2.21 Program: Water and REG * Environmental Regional Baltic Sea Regional 2003 GEF 12.12 1.41 0.64 REG * * * * Romania Danube Delta Biodi- 1995 GEF 4.80 4.80 4.50 versity REG * * * * Romania Biodiversity Conser- 1999 GEF 8.80 8.80 5.50 vation REG * * * * Romania Agricultural Pollution 2002 GEF 10.80 1.09 0.52 Control REG * Romania Forest Development 2003 IBRD 31.89 2.44 1.91 Project * * * * Romania Afforestation of De- 2004 PCF 13.76 1.65 0.44 graded Agricultural * * Land Proto-Carbon Russia Biodiversity Conser- 1996 GEF 26.00 26.00 20.10 vation REG * * * * * * Russia Sustainable Forestry 2000 IBRD 74.5 11.20 9.02 Pilot * * * * Russia Khabarovsk Habitat 2002 GEF 1.75 1.75 0.75 Conservation MSP * * * * Slovak Biodiversity 1994 GEF 2.86 2.86 2.17 Republic Protection REG * * * * 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous peoples -- 87 -- and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasive species Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Slovak Repu- National Biodiversity 1997 GEF EA 0.077 0.08 0.08 blic Strategy, Action * Plan and Report Slovak Repu- Conservation and 2000 GEF 1.10 1.10 1.10 blic Sustainable Use of MSP Central European * * * Grasslands Slovenia National Biodiversity 1998 GEF EA 0.09 0.09 0.09 Strategy, Action * Plan and Report Tajikistan Community Water- 2004 IDA 15.29 shed Development * * * * Tajikistan Community Water- 2004 GEF 4.50 1.70 1.70 shed Development REG * * * * Tajikistan Dashtidzhum Biodi- 2004 GEF 0.97 0.97 0.775 versity Conservation MSP * * * and Risk Mitigation Turkey Eastern Anatolia 1993 IBRD 109.80 7.76 5.44 Watershed Rehabi- * * * litation Turkey In-Situ Conservation 1999 GEF 5.70 5.70 5.10 of Genetic Biodi- REG * * * * versity Turkey Biodiversity and 2000 GEF 11.54 11.54 8.19 Natural Resource REG * * * * * * * Management Turkey Anatolia Watershed 2004 IBRD 28.65 3.84 2.75 Rehabilitation * * Turkey Anatolia Watershed 2004 GEF 16.46 2.82 1.62 Rehabilitation REG * * Ukraine Transcarpathian 1994 GEF 0.58 0.58 0.50 Biodiversity Pro- REG * * * * * * tection Ukraine Danube Delta Biodi- 1995 GEF 1.74 1.74 1.50 versity REG * * * * * Ukraine National Biodiversity 1997 GEF EA 0.12 0.12 0.11 Strategy, Action Plan and Report. * Phase I Ukraine Assessment of 2001 GEF EA 0.37 0.37 0.32 Capacity-building * * Needs Ukraine Azov Black Sea 2002 GEF 6.90 6.90 6.90 Corridor Biodiversity REG * * * * * Conservation Uzbekistan Drainage, Irrigation 2003 IBRD 43.55 0.50 0.40 & Wetlands Im- * provement Project Uzbekistan Drainage, Irrigation 2003 IDA 31.00 0.50 0.40 & Wetlands Im- * provement Project LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN REGION: 163 PROJECTS Argentina Yacyreta Hydroelec- 1993 IBRD 2,591.10 4.50 4.50 tric Project II * * * * * -- 88 -- 1 Institution building, policies, and 3 Public awareness and education strategic planning 4 Protected areas 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape Appendix -- The World Bank Group Biodiversity Portfolio Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Argentina Forestry Develop- 1996 IBRD 26.20 7.62 4.65 ment * * * * Argentina Flood Protection 1997 IBRD 488.00 3.60 1.48 * * * * Argentina Native Forests and 1997 IBRD 30.00 30.00 19.50 Protected Areas * * * * * Argentina Biodiversity Conser- 1998 GEF 21.90 21.90 10.10 vation REG * * * * Argentina El Nino Emergency 1998 IBRD 60.00 0.65 0.43 Flood * Argentina Patagonia Coastal 2001 GEF 18.76 13.85 6.16 Contamination REG Prevention and * * * Sustainable Fisher- ies Management Argentina Indigenous Commu- 2001 IBRD 5.88 2.94 2.50 nity Development * * Belize Northern Belize 1999 GEF 3.88 3.88 0.72 Biological Corridors MSP Consolidation and * * * * * Maintenance Belize Roads and Munici- 2000 IBRD 18.38 0.18 0.18 pal Drainage Project * * Belize Community Man- 2003 GEF 1.07 1.07 0.81 agement Sarstoon MSP * * * * * * Temash Project Bolivia Biodiversity Conser- 1993 GEF 7.60 7.60 4.50 vation REG * * * * * Bolivia National Land Admi- 1995 IBRD 27.00 0.50 0.50 nistration * Bolivia PROMETA - 2001 GEF 1.13 1.13 0.72 Strengthening of MSP Private Sector * * * * * Conservation Bolivia Sustainability of the 2001 GEF 43.69 43.69 15.00 National System of REG * * * * * * Protected Areas Bolivia Indigenous Develo- 2001 IBRD 5.00 1.11 1.11 pment * * * * * Bolivia National Land Admi- 2002 IBRD 6.00 0.05 0.05 nistration - Supple- * * mental Brazil Land Management I 1989 IBRD 149.10 4.70 1.96 Project - Parana * * * * Brazil Land Management 1990 IBRD 76.30 4.30 1.98 II Project - Santa * * * * Catarina Brazil National Environ- 1990 IBRD 166.40 166.40 117.00 mental Project * * * * * Brazil Mato Grosso 1992 IBRD 285.70 48.50 44.70 Natural Resource * * * Management Brazil Rondonia Natural 1992 IBRD 228.90 38.70 35.90 Resource Manage- * * * ment 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous peoples -- 89 -- and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasive species Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Brazil Extractive Reserves 1995 RFTF 9.70 9.70 3.00 * * * * Brazil Indigenous Lands 1995 RFTF 20.90 20.90 2.10 * * * * Brazil Demonstration 1995 RFTF 22.00 22.00 3.00 Projects * * * * * * Brazil Science Centers 1995 RFTF 15.10 15.10 8.50 and Directed Re- * * * search Brazil Natural Resources 1995 RFTF 79.00 79.00 20.00 Policy * * Brazil National Biodiversity 1996 GEF 20.00 20.00 10.00 Project PROBIO REG * * * * * Brazil Brazilian Biodiversi- 1996 GEF 34.50 34.50 20.00 ty Fund (FUNBIO) REG * * * * Brazil Environmental 1996 IBRD 109.00 10.90 5.00 Conservation and * * * * Rehabilitation Brazil Rural Poverty Al- 1996 IBRD 175.00 24.80 10.00 leviation and Natrual Resources Manage- * * * * ment Project Brazil Forest Resources 1997 RFTF 20.00 2.00 0.00 Management * * * * * * * * Brazil Bahia Water 1998 IBRD 85.00 6.87 4.10 Resources Mana- * * * * * * gement Brazil Gas Sector Develo- 1998 IBRD 2,086.00 8.40 0.52 pment * * * * Brazil Federal Water 1998 IBRD 330.00 0.63 0.38 Resources Manage- * * ment - PROAGUA Brazil Land Management 1998 IBRD 124.70 10.72 4.73 III: Sao Paolo * * * * Brazil Fire Prevention and 1999 IBRD 20.00 20.00 15.00 Mobilization in the Amazon - PRO- * * * * * ARCO Brazil Fire Prevention and 1999 RFTF 2.00 2.00 1.00 Mobilization * * * * * Brazil Monitoring and 1999 RFTF 5.80 5.80 2.00 Analysis * Brazil Ceara Integrated 2000 IBRD 247.20 5.90 5.90 Water Resource Management Proj- * * * ect (PROGERIRH) Brazil Fire Prevention and 2001 RFTF 2.00 2.00 2.00 Mobilization in the Amazon - PROTE- * * * GER II Brazil Formoso River -- In- 2002 GEF 2.18 2.18 1.00 tegrated Watershed MSP Management and * * * * * * * Protection Brazil Parana Biodiversity 2002 GEF 8.00 8.00 8.00 Project REG * * * * * * * * -- 90 -- 1 Institution building, policies, and 3 Public awareness and education strategic planning 4 Protected areas 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape Appendix -- The World Bank Group Biodiversity Portfolio Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Brazil Santa Catarina 2002 IBRD 107.50 3.30 3.30 Natural Resources * * * * & Poverty Project Brazil Ecological Corridors 2002 RFTF 5.16 5.16 3.90 * * * * * * * Brazil Amazon Region 2003 GEF 81.50 81.50 30.00 Protected Areas REG * * * * * * * * Brazil Tocantins Sustaina- 2003 IBRD 100.00 12.70 10.10 ble Regional Devpt * * * * Brazil Ecosystem Restora- 2005 GEF 19.52 19.52 7.75 tion of Riparian For- REG * * * ests in Sao Paulo Brazil Integrated Eco- 2005 GEF 14.95 14.95 6.75 system Manage- REG ment in Productive Landscapes of the * * * * Northwestern Flumi- nense Brazil Atlantic Forest Sub- 2005 RFTF 0.80 0.8 0.8 program Phase I * * Brazil Support to Atlantic 2005 RFTF 0.93 0.934 0.934 Forest NGO Net- * work (RMA) Brazil Support to Sus- 2005 RFTF 0.48 0.12 0.12 tainable Business Practices in Rain * Forests Brazil First Programmatic 2005 IBRD 505.05 42 42 Reform Loan for Environmental Sus- * * tainability Brazil Sustainable Com- 2005 IBRD/ 6.81 2.72 2.40 munities IDA * * Chile Environmental Insti- 1993 IBRD 32.80 16.40 5.75 tutions Development * * Chile Valdivian Forest 2001 GEF 0.73 0.73 0.73 Zone: Private Pub- MSP lic Mechanisms for * * * * * Biodiversity Conser- vation Chile Conservation of the 2002 GEF 4.72 4.72 0.73 Santiago Foothills MSP * * * Colombia Natural Resour- 1994 IBRD 65.30 11.60 6.93 ce Management * * * * * Program Colombia Santa Fe Water 1996 IBRD 414.20 2.40 1.58 Supply and Sewer- * * * age Rehabilitation I Colombia Sustainable Use 1999 GEF 2.96 2.96 0.73 of Biodiversity in MSP Western Slope of * * * * * * Serrania del Baudo (Choco) Colombia Cartagena Water 1999 IBRD 117.00 0.41 0.41 Supply and Sewer- age Environmental * * * Management 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous peoples -- 91 -- and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasive species Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Colombia Archipelago of San 2000 GEF 4.16 4.16 0.98 Andres: Conserva- MSP tion and Sustainable * * * Use of the Marine Reserves Colombia Sierra Nevada 2000 IBRD 6.25 6.25 5.00 Sustainable Develo- * * * * * * * * pment Colombia Mataven Forest 2001 GEF 1.37 1.37 0.73 - Conservation and MSP Sustainable Devel- * * * opment Colombia Andean Region 2001 GEF 30.00 30.00 15.00 Conservation and REG Sustainable Use of * * * * * * * Biodiversity Colombia Capacity Building in 2003 GEF 4.45 4.45 1.98 Biosafety MSP * Colombia Community-based 2003 GEF 2.23 2.23 0.75 Management for the MSP Naya Conservation * * * * * * Corridor Colombia Amoya River Envi- 2004 PCF 101.40 2.00 0.00 ronmental Services * * Costa Rica Training Program for 1995 IDF 0.12 0.06 0.06 Sustainable Devel- opment of Indig- * * * enous People Costa Rica Biodiversity Resour- 1998 GEF 11.00 11.00 7.00 ces Development REG * * * * * * Costa Rica Institutional 1998 IDF 0.40 0.20 0.20 Strengthening on Gender in Natural * * * Resource Manage- ment and Agriculture Costa Rica EcoMarkets 2000 GEF 8.00 8.00 8.00 REG * * * * * Costa Rica EcoMarkets 2000 IBRD 41.20 27.47 21.53 * * * * * Costa Rica Training Program for 2000 IDF 0.30 0.15 0.15 Sustainable Devel- opment of Indig- * * enous People Costa Rica Sustainable Cacao 2001 GEF 3.01 3.01 0.72 Production in South- MSP * * * * * * eastern Costa Rica Dominican National Biodiversity 1998 GEF EA 0.25 0.25 0.25 Republic Strategy, Action * Plan and Report Dominican National Envi- 1998 IBRD 3.70 1.95 1.58 Republic ronmental Policy * * * Reform Ecuador Lower Guayas 1991 IBRD 97.50 1.80 1.09 Flood Control * * * * * Ecuador Rural Development 1992 IBRD 112.70 1.93 1.44 * * * * * -- 92 -- 1 Institution building, policies, and 3 Public awareness and education strategic planning 4 Protected areas 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape Appendix -- The World Bank Group Biodiversity Portfolio Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ecuador Biodiversity Pro- 1994 GEF 8.70 8.70 7.20 tection REG * * * * * * Ecuador Indigenous and 1998 IBRD 50.00 6.91 3.47 Afro-Ecuadorian Peoples Develop- * * * * * * * ment Ecuador Monitoring System 1999 GEF 1.59 1.59 0.94 for the Galapagos MSP * * * * * Islands Ecuador Wetland Priorities 1999 GEF 0.91 0.91 0.72 for Conservation MSP * * * * Action Ecuador Choco-Andean 2001 GEF 3.19 3.19 0.98 Corridor MSP * * * * Ecuador Coastal Albarradas: 2001 GEF 3.08 3.08 0.73 Rescuing Ancient MSP Knowledge and * * * * * Sustainable Use of Biodiversity Ecuador Poverty Reduc- 2001 IBRD 41.96 1.70 1.02 tion and Local Rural Development * * * * (PROLOCAL) Ecuador Biodiversity Conser- 2003 GEF 1.01 1.01 0.76 vation in Pastaza MSP * * * * Ecuador National System 2003 GEF 32.70 32.70 8.00 of Protected Areas REG * * * * * * Project El Salvador Promotion of Biodi- 1998 GEF 3.81 3.81 0.73 versity Conservation MSP with Coffee Land- * * * * * scapes El Salvador Environmental Ser- 2005 IBRD 9.50 9.50 5.00 vices Project * * * El Salvador Environmental Ser- 2005 GEF 5.00 5.00 5.00 vices Project REG * * * Grenada Dry Forest Biodiver- 2001 GEF 1.13 1.13 0.72 sity Conservation MSP * * * * * Guatemala Management 2000 GEF 1.66 1.66 0.72 and Protection of MSP Laguna del Tigre * * * * National Park Guatemala Western Altiplano 2001 GEF 8.00 8.00 8.00 Integrated Natural REG Resource Manage- * * * ment Guatemala Western Altiplano 2001 IBRD 47.60 47.60 32.80 Integrated Natural Resource Manage- * * * ment Guatemala Community Man- 2002 GEF 1.48 1.48 0.75 agement of the MSP * * * * * * * Bio-Itza Reserve Haiti Forest and Parks 1997 IDA 22.50 22.50 21.50 Protection Technical * * * Assistance 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous peoples -- 93 -- and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasive species Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Haiti National Biodiversity 1998 GEF EA 0.26 0.26 0.26 Strategy, Action * Plan and Report Honduras Environmental 1995 IDA 12.48 2.50 2.16 Development * * * Honduras Rural Land Mana- 1997 IDA 34.00 17.25 14.03 gement * * * * Honduras Biodiversity in Priori- 1998 GEF 9.50 9.50 7.00 ty Areas REG * * * * Honduras Interactive Environ- 1999 IDA 9.30 2.33 2.08 mental Learning and * * * * Science Promotion Honduras Rural Land Man- 2002 IDA 9.10 0.50 0.50 agement Project - * * * supplemental credit Honduras Sustainable Coastal 2002 IDA 6.04 1.51 1.25 Tourism * * * * Honduras Regional Develop- 2003 IDA 13.35 1.73 1.73 ment in the Copan * * * Valley Honduras Forests and Rural 2004 IDA 32.70 6.78 4.20 Productivity * * * * Mexico Decentralization and 1991 IBRD 1,362.70 40.00 15.08 Regional Develop- * * * * * * ment Mexico Protected Areas 1992 GEF 10.70 10.70 8.70 Program REG * * * * * * Mexico Environmental 1992 IBRD 60.77 13.23 4.30 Project * * * Mexico Northern Border En- 1994 IBRD 762.00 15.00 7.24 vironmental Project * * Mexico Protected Areas 1997 GEF 34.55 34.55 17.48 Program: Proposed REG * * * Restructuring Mexico Community Forestry 1997 IBRD 23.57 9.90 6.30 * * * * Mexico El Triunfo Biosphere 1999 GEF 2.12 2.12 0.73 Reserve: Habitat MSP Enhancement in * * * * * * Productive Lands- capes Mexico Sustainable Hill- 1999 GEF 0.72 0.72 0.50 Side Management MSP in Indigenous * * * Micro-catchments in Oaxaca Mexico Rural Development 2000 IBRD 73.00 4.25 4.25 in Marginal Areas * * * - APL II Mexico Indigenous and 2001 GEF 7.50 7.50 7.50 Community Biodi- REG versity Conservation * * * * * * * * (COINBIO) Mexico Mesoamerican Bio- 2001 GEF 85.80 85.80 14.84 logical Corridor REG * * * * * * -- 94 -- 1 Institution building, policies, and 3 Public awareness and education strategic planning 4 Protected areas 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape Appendix -- The World Bank Group Biodiversity Portfolio Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mexico Natural Disaster Ma- 2001 IBRD 658.30 1.28 0.78 nagement * * Mexico Indigenous and 2001 IBRD 11.20 11.20 2.60 Community Biodi- versity Conservation * * * * (COINBIO) Mexico Private Land Con- 2002 GEF 2.53 2.53 0.73 servation Mecha- MSP * * * nisms Project Mexico Consolidation of 2002 GEF 60.12 60.12 16.10 Protected Areas - REG * * * * * * * * SINAP II - Tranche I Mexico Consolidation of 2003 GEF 17.44 17.44 2.21 the Protected Area REG System SINAP II * * * * * * * * - Tranche II Mexico Community Forestry 2003 IBRD 28.90 1.80 1.80 II (PROCYMAF) * * * * Mexico Programmatic Envi- 2003 IBRD 202.00 2.83 2.83 ronment Structural * * * * * Adjustment Loan Nicaragua Agricultural Tech- 1994 IDA 57.80 0.50 0.38 nology and Land * * Management Nicaragua Atlantic Biological 1997 GEF 7.10 7.10 7.10 Corridor REG * * * * Nicaragua Rural Municipalities 1997 IBRD 40.40 7.65 5.68 * * * * * * Nicaragua Sustainable Forestry 1999 IDA 15.00 7.50 4.50 Investment Promo- * * * * * tion Nicaragua Barrier Removal 2001 GEF 12.08 12.08 0.73 and Forest Habitat MSP Conservation (Cof- * * * * * fee/Allspice) Nicaragua Land Administration 2002 IDA 38.50 5.17 4.37 * * * * * Panama Rural Poverty and 1997 IBRD 27.30 3.20 3.00 Natural Resources * * * * Panama Atlantic Mesoame- 1998 GEF 12.80 12.80 8.40 rican Biodiversity REG * * * * * * Corridor Panama Effective Protection 1999 GEF 2.23 2.23 0.73 with Community MSP Participation of the * * * * * New Protected Area of San Lorenzo Panama Land Administration 2001 IBRD 72.36 8.92 5.90 * * * * * Paraguay Natural Resources 1994 IBRD 79.10 14.83 9.38 Management * * * * * Paraguay Mbaracayú Biodi- 2003 GEF 3.00 3.00 0.97 versity MSP * * Peru Trust Fund for Parks 1995 GEF 7.86 7.86 5.00 and Protected Areas REG * * * * 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous peoples -- 95 -- and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasive species Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Peru Vilcabamba - 2000 GEF 1.14 1.14 0.73 Participatory MSP Conservation and Sustainable Devel- * * * * * * opment with Indig- enous Communities Peru Collaborative 2000 GEF 2.07 2.07 0.73 Management for the MSP Conservation and Sustainable Devel- * * * * * * * opment of the North- west Biosphere Reserve (Tumbes) Peru Indigenous and 2000 IBRD 6.70 3.35 2.50 Afro-Peruvian Peoples Develop- * * * * * * ment Peru Biodiversity Con- 2001 GEF 0.95 0.95 0.75 servation through MSP Sustainable Man- * * * * * * agement of the Nanay River Basin Peru Indigenous Manage- 2001 GEF 14.61 14.61 10.00 ment of Protected REG Areas in the Peru- * * * * * vian Amazon Peru Indigenous Manage- 2001 IBRD 8.14 8.14 5.00 ment of Protected Areas in the Peru- * * * * vian Amazon Peru Participatory 2003 GEF 32.81 32.81 14.80 Management of REG Protected Areas - * * * * * * * PROFONANPE II Peru Poison Dart Frog 2004 GEF 1.85 1.85 0.86 Ranching IFC * * * * * Peru Inka Terra: An In- 2004 GEF 12.12 12.12 0.75 novative Partnership IFC for Self-Financing Biodiversity Conser- * * * * * vation & Community Development Regional Ship-Generated Wa- 1995 GEF 5.50 0.20 0.20 OECS: Org. of ste Management REG Easter Carib- * * bean States Regional Terra Capita Fund 1998 GEF IFC 30.00 30.00 5.00 - South for Biodiversity and Central Enterprises * * * * America and Mexico Regional Conservation and 2001 GEF 24.20 24.20 11.00 - Central Sustainable Use of REG America the Mesoamerican * * * * * * Barrier Reef System (MBRS) -- 96 -- 1 Institution building, policies, and 3 Public awareness and education strategic planning 4 Protected areas 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape Appendix -- The World Bank Group Biodiversity Portfolio Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Regional Integrated Silvopas- 2002 GEF 8.45 8.45 4.50 Latin America toral Approaches to REG - Colombia, Ecosystem Manage- * * * * * Costa Rica, ment Ecuador Regional OECS Protected 2004 GEF 7.57 7.57 3.7 Areas and Associ- REG ated Sustainable * * * * * Livelihoods Regional Building the Inter- 2004 GEF 34.93 34.93 6.00 American Biodi- REG versity Information * * Network (IABIN) Regional Developing Con- 2004 DGF 1.20 1.20 1.20 nectivity between Biological and Geo- spatial Information * * in Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Integrated Ecosys- 2004 GEF 11.50 11.5 4 tem Management in REG Indigenous Com- * * * * * munities Saint Vincent National Biodiversity 1998 GEF EA 0.35 0.35 0.35 & the Grena- Strategy, Action * dines Plan and Report St. Lucia Water Supply 1990 IBRD 35.30 0.20 0.01 * St. Lucia Water Supply 1990 IDA 5.20 0.03 0.03 * St. Lucia Watershed and 1996 IDA 7.10 2.50 0.93 Environmental * * Management Uruguay Integrated Ecosys- 2005 GEF 7.00 7.00 7.00 tem Management REG * * * Uruguay Integrated Ecosys- 2005 IBRD 88.85 2.00 2.00 tem Management * * * Venezuela Inparques 1995 IBRD 95.90 95.90 55.00 * * * * * Venezuela Conservation and 1999 GEF 2.43 2.43 0.94 Sustainable Use of MSP * * * Llanos Ecoregion Venezuela Dhekuana Indig- 2005 GEF 1.10 1.10 0.75 enous Lands MSP * * * * * MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA REGION: 23 PROJECTS Algeria Pilot Forestry and 1992 IBRD 37.40 0.40 0.27 Watershed Manage- * * ment Algeria El Kala National 1994 GEF 9.56 9.56 7.20 Park and Wetlands REG * * * Management Algeria Second Rural Em- 2003 IBRD 142.89 14.34 9.54 ployment Project * * * Egypt Red Sea Coastal 1993 GEF 5.73 5.73 4.75 and Marine Re- REG * * * * * * source Management 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous peoples -- 97 -- and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasive species Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Egypt Matruh Resource 1993 IDA 29.50 1.70 1.27 Management * Egypt GEF component 2003 GEF 5.17 5.17 5.17 for Second Matruh REG Resource Manage- * * ment Egypt Nile Transbounda- 2003 GEF 43.60 2.71 2.71 ry Environmental REG * * * Action Plan Iran Irrigation Improve- 1993 IBRD 311.70 4.00 0.40 ment * * * Jordan Gulf of Aqaba En- 1996 GEF 12.67 0.95 0.65 vironmental Action REG * * * * * * Plan Jordan Second Tourism 1998 IBRD 44.00 9.00 6.55 Development * * * * * * Jordan Conservation of Me- 2003 GEF 14.21 14.21 5.00 dicinal and Herbal REG * * * * * Plants Project Morocco Lakhdar Watershed 1999 IBRD 5.80 0.66 0.46 Management Pilot * * * Morocco Protected Areas 2000 GEF 15.70 15.70 10.50 Management REG * * * * * Regional Strategic Action 1999 GEF 36.60 12.95 2.11 Plan for the Red REG * * * * * Sea Syria Conservation of 1999 GEF 1.43 1.43 0.75 Biodiversity and MSP Protected Areas * * * Management Tunisia Second Forestry 1993 IBRD 148.10 1.63 0.87 Development * * * Tunisia National Biodiversity 1997 GEF 0.89 0.89 0.89 Strategy, Action EA * Plan and Report Tunisia Protected Areas Ma- 2002 GEF 9.88 9.88 5.33 nagement Project REG * * * * * Tunisia Northwest Moun- 2003 IBRD 44.86 6.28 4.76 tain and Forestry Areas Development * * * * Project Tunisia Gulf of Gabes Ma- 2005 GEF 9.81 9.81 6.31 rine and Coastal Re- REG * * * * sources Protection Yemen Land and Water 1992 IDA 47.60 0.64 0.44 Conservation * Yemen Protected Areas 1999 GEF 1.42 0.74 0.74 Management MSP * * * * * Yemen Coastal Zone Man- 1999 GEF 1.56 0.75 0.75 agement along the MSP * * * * * * Gulf of Aden SOUTH ASIA REGION: 27 PROJECTS Bangladesh Forest Resources 1992 IDA 58.70 27.20 22.10 Management * * * * -- 98 -- 1 Institution building, policies, and 3 Public awareness and education strategic planning 4 Protected areas 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape Appendix -- The World Bank Group Biodiversity Portfolio Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Bangladesh Jamuna Bridge 1994 IDA 696.00 0.25 0.07 * * * Bangladesh Biodiversity Con- 1998 GEF 75.50 75.50 12.20 servation in the Sun- REG darbans Reserved * * * * Forest Bangladesh Fourth Fisheries 1999 GEF 5.00 5.00 5.00 -Aquatic Biodiversity REG * * * Conservation Bangladesh Fourth Fisheries 1999 IDA 55.80 32.20 15.60 * * * Bhutan Trust Fund for Envi- 1992 GEF 18.58 18.58 10.00 ronmental Conser- REG * * * * vation Bhutan Third Forestry Deve- 1994 IDA 8.90 1.80 1.09 lopment * * * * India West Bengal Fo- 1992 IDA 39.00 6.50 5.67 restry * * * * India Maharashtra Fo- 1992 IDA 142.00 31.24 27.28 restry * * * * India Andhra Pradesh 1994 IDA 89.10 28.80 25.02 Forestry * * * * India Forestry Research 1994 IDA 56.40 8.30 6.92 Education and * * * Extension India Madhya Pradesh 1995 IDA 67.30 31.10 26.80 Forestry * * * * * * * India Orissa Water 1996 IDA 345.50 1.80 1.52 Resources Conso- * * * lidation India Ecodevelopment 1997 GEF 20.00 20.00 20.00 REG * * * * * * India Ecodevelopment 1997 IDA 47.00 47.00 28.00 * * * * * * * India Environmental Man- 1997 IDA 65.29 5.34 4.09 agement Capacity Building and Techni- * * * cal Assistance India Uttar Pradesh 1998 IDA 65.01 19.93 16.23 Forestry * * * * * * * India Kerala Forestry 1998 IDA 47.00 19.70 16.35 * * * * * * India Capacity Building for 2003 GEF 3.07 0.60 0.20 Implementation of EA Cartagena Protocol * * * on Biosafety Pakistan Environmental Pro- 1992 IDA 57.20 6.40 3.00 tection and Resour- * * * * ce Conservation Pakistan Balochistan Natural 1994 IDA 17.80 4.65 3.84 Resources Mana- * * * * * gement Pakistan Punjab Forest Sec- 1995 IDA 33.75 2.29 1.69 tor Development * * * Pakistan Protected Areas 2001 GEF 10.75 10.75 10.08 Management REG * * * * 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous peoples -- 99 -- and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasive species Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Investments in Projects with a Biodiversity Component Biodiversity Activities Project Total Bank Funding total biodiv biodiv Country Project Name FY source (US$m) (US$m) (US$m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sri Lanka Forest Sector Deve- 1989 IDA 31.40 1.30 0.82 lopment * * * * * Sri Lanka Conservation and 1998 GEF 5.21 5.21 4.60 Sustainable Use of REG * * * * * * Medicinal Plants Sri Lanka Protected Area 2001 GEF 33.50 33.50 9.00 Management and REG Wildlife Conserva- * * * * tion Sri Lanka Land Administration 2001 IDA 6.93 0.25 0.18 and Management * * * * 1 Institution building, policies, and 3 Public awareness and education 6 Sustainable financing 8 Indigenous peoples strategic planning 4 Protected areas and market mechanisms 9 Agrobiodiversity 2 Inventory, research, and monitoring 5 Production landscape 7 Nature tourism 10 Invasive species -- 100 -- Bibliography Bennett, E.L., and Robinson, J.G. (2000). Hunting of Besancon) Pp. 285­289. CEMEX, Agrupacion Sierra Wildlife in Tropical Forests. Implications for Biodiversity Madre, Conservation International, Mexico. and Forest Peoples. Environment Department Paper No. 76. Biodiversity Series -- Impact Studies. World Bank. Pagiola, S., Agostini, P., Gobbi, J., de Haan, C., Ibrahim, Washington, D.C. M., Murgueitio, E., Ramírez, E., Rosales, M., and Ruíz, J.P. (2004). Paying for Biodiversity Conservation Services Bennett, E.L. (2004). Seeing the Wildlife and the Trees. in Agricultural Landscapes. Environment Department Improving Forest Certification for Conservation of Paper No. 96. Washington: World Bank. Wildlife. Discussion Paper. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Pierce, S., Cowling R., Sandwith, T., and MacKinnon, K. (2002). Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development. Case Hatziolos, M., and Staub, F. (2004). Score Card to Assess Studies from South Africa. World Bank, Washington, Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals for D.C. Marine Protected Areas. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Putz, F. E., Redford, K.H., Robinson, J.G. Fimbel, R. Blate, IUCN, World Bank, and The Nature Conservancy G.M. (2000). Biodiversity Conservation in the Context of (2004). How Much Is an Ecosystem Worth? Assessing Tropical Forest Management. Environment Department the Economic Value of Conservation. World Bank, Paper No. 75. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Roldan Ortega, Roque (2004). Models for Recognizing MacKinnon, K. (2004). Challenges and Opportunities Indigenous Land Rights in the Latin American Region. for Mountain Protected Areas: A Perspective from the Environment Department Paper No. 99. (English and World Bank. In Managing Mountain Protected Areas: Spanish). World Bank, Washington, D.C. Challenges and Responses for the 21st Century (editors D. Harmon and G.L. Worboys) Pp. 26­34. Andromeda Ruitenbeek, J. Hewawasam, I., and Ngoile, M. (2005). Editrice, Colledara, Italy. Tanzania: Blueprint 2050: Sustaining the Marine Environment in Mainland Tanzania and in Zanzibar. MacKinnon, K., Brylski, P., and Kiss, A. (2005). West World Bank, Washington, D.C. Tien Shan. At the Crossroads of Central Asia. In Transboundary Conservation. A New Vision for Protected Sfeir Younis, Alfredo (2004). Human Rights, Environment, Areas (editors R.A. Mittermeier, C.F. Kormos, C.G. and Forestry Discussion Paper. Environment Mittermeier, P. Robles Gil, T. Sandwith, and C. Department, World Bank, Washington, D.C. -- 101 -- Mountains to Coral Reefs (1988 ­ 2005) Stolton, S., Hockings, M., Dudley, N., MacKinnon, K. World Bank (2003a). Cornerstones for Conservation. World and Whitten, T. (2003). Reporting Progress in Protected Bank Assistance for Protected Areas 1988-2003. World Areas: A Site Level Management Effectiveness Tracking Bank, Washington, D.C. Tool. World Bank/WWF Alliance, Washington, D.C. World Bank (2003b). A Biodiversity Strategy for the Europe World Bank (2000a). Supporting the Web of Life: The World and Central Asian Region. World Bank, Washington, Bank and Biodiversity. A Portfolio Update. World Bank, D.C. Washington, D.C. World Bank (2004a). Ensuring the Future. The World Bank World Bank (2000b). The World Bank and the Global and Biodiversity. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Environment. A Progress Report. World Bank, World Bank (2004b). Indigenous Knowledge -- Local Washington, D.C. Pathways to Global Development. Africa Region. World Bank. Washington, D.C. World Bank (2002a). Biodiversity Conservation in Forest Ecosystems. World Bank Assistance 1992­2002. World World Bank (2005). Inheriting the Earth: Young People, Bank, Washington, D.C. the Environment, and the World Bank. World Bank, Washington, D.C. World Bank (2002b). Conservation of Biodiversity in Mountain Ecosystems -- At A Glance. World Bank, World Bank Biodiversity Web site: www.worldbank Washington, D.C. .org/biodiversity. -- 102 -- Printed on recycled paper with soy inks.