Biodiversity for a Livable Planet An Evaluation of World Bank Group Support for Biodiversity, Fiscal Years 2010–24 © 2025 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org ATTRIBUTION Please cite the report as: World Bank. 2025. Biodiversity for a Livable Planet: An Evaluation of World Bank Group Support for Biodiversity, Fiscal Years 2010–24. Independent Evaluation Group. Washington, DC: World Bank. COVER PHOTO Shutterstock/Media Lens King The cover photo of cocoa farmers in Africa demonstrates the positive relationship between policy incentives and reduced deforestation in biodiversity-rich areas. EDITING AND PRODUCTION Amanda O’Brien GRAPHIC DESIGN Luísa Ulhoa This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The bound- aries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissem- ination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Biodiversity for a Livable Planet An Evaluation of World Bank Group Support for Biodiversity, Fiscal Years 2010–24 October 9, 2025 Contents Abbreviations v Acknowledgments vi Overview viii 1. Background and Context����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Role of the World Bank Group 4 The Evaluation 5 2. Biodiversity Conservation ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������9  13 16 20 24 30 Connecting Climate and Biodiversity in Development Planning�������������������������36 3.  Country Partnership Frameworks 37 Country Climate and Development Reports 40 Integrating Biodiversity into Production Sectors��������������������������������������������������43 4.  World Bank Agriculture Investments 45 International Finance Corporation’s Agriculture Investment and Advisory 49 Sustainable Forest Management  53 Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture 58 Factors of Effectiveness Across Production Sectors  65 5. Biodiversity Offsets������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������73 Capacity Constraints 76 Information Disclosure Post-Board Approval 77 Implementation 77 ii Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations���������������������������������������������81 6.  Conclusions 81 Implications  83 Recommendations  84 Bibliography��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 86 Systematic Review of Tree Cover Change as a Biodiversity Proxy Indicator in Protected Areas 102 Boxes Lessons from the Resilient Natural Resource Management for Tourism Box 2.1.  and Growth Project 20 Protecting Biodiversity While Addressing Resource-Related Conflict Drivers 23 Box 2.2.  Madagascar’s Third Environment Program Support Project Shows Box 2.3.  the Importance of Using a Landscape-Level Approach 26 Native Species–Focused Restoration in Paraguay’s Atlantic Forest Achieved Box 2.4.  Landscape-Level Management and Inclusive Socioeconomic Gains 27 Strengthening Community Land and Resource Rights Through New Box 2.5.  Conservation Laws in Mozambique 28 Box 2.6. Best Practices in Land–Sea Connectivity 29 Box 4.1. Scaling Biodiversity-Friendly Rice Cultivation in the Mekong Delta 48 International Finance Corporation: Preferential Finance and Traceability Box 4.2.  Schemes in Tackling Commodity-Induced Deforestation, Brazil 51 Box 4.3. Approach to Sustainable Land Management and Production Forestry in Côte d’Ivoire 57 Box 4.4. Case Study: World Bank Assistance to Peru’s Fisheries Sector 62 International Finance Corporation Environmental and Social Services in Box 4.5.  Ecuador: Supporting Environmental Management in the Shrimp Sector  64 Evolution of World Bank Environmental and Social Framework and Box 5.1.  International Finance Corporation Sustainability Framework Requirements for Biodiversity Offsets 75 iii Figures Figure 2.1. World Bank–Financed Protected Areas over Time 12 World Bank Project Sites with Biodiversity Conservation Activities Across Figure 2.2.  Biomes 14 Figure 2.3. World Bank Project Sites Across Sub-Biomes 15 Share of Conservation-Focused Projects Applying Operational Policy Figure 2.4.  4.10 Versus Environmental and Social Standard 7 18 Management Effectiveness Scores in Sub-Saharan African Protected Figure 2.5.  Areas, by Subregion 22 Country Partnership Frameworks with Climate and Nature-Related Figure 3.1.  High-Level Objectives 39 Tables World Bank Conservation Project Sites Within Indigenous Territories Table 2.1.  17 Effective Fisheries Management Techniques by Global Practice Table 4.1.  60 Appendixes Appendix A. Evaluation Methods 110 Appendix B. Evaluation Portfolio 162 Appendix C. Country Diagnostics 221 Appendix D. Geospatial Analysis Protected Areas 230 iv Abbreviations CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CCDR Country Climate and Development Report COP Conference of the Parties CPF Country Partnership Framework EQ evaluation question ESF Environmental and Social Framework ESS Environmental and Social Standard EU European Union FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility GBF Global Biodiversity Framework GHG greenhouse gas IFC International Finance Corporation IPLCs Indigenous Peoples and local communities METT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool MIGA Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency OP Operational Policy PES Payments for Ecosystem Services PS6 Performance Standard on Environmental and Social Sustainability All dollar amounts are US dollars unless otherwise indicated. v Acknowledgments This report was prepared by an Independent Evaluation Group team led by Lauren Kelly (lead evaluation officer) and Joy Butscher (evaluation of- ficer), under the guidance of Penelope Jackson (manager, Planet), Carmen Nonay (director, Finance, Private Sector, Infrastructure, and Sustainable Development), and Sabine Bernabè (Director General, Evaluation). The core evaluation team included Ugo Amoretti (senior evaluation officer), Iren Bagdasarian (consultant), Unurjargal Demberel (evaluation officer), Christian Mather Freymeyer (consultant), Josh Fuchs (consultant), Azada Hussaini (evaluation officer), Cecil Philip John (data scientist, consultant), Xiaoyi Lu (extended-term consultant), Nina Rinnerberger (senior evaluation officer), and Gabriel Sandstrom Stephan (consultant). Sally Diana Reay Johnson (con- sultant) led the biodiversity offsets analyses. The marine and coastal analysis was conducted by Steve Fletcher and Antaya March (senior consultants). The Global Land Alliance—consisting of team members Malcolm Childress (executive director), Christen Corcoran (associate director), Gabriela Eklund (technical director), and Christina Kuntz (associate)—performed the land governance analyses, and Stephanie Keene (senior consultant) performed the safeguard policies and Environmental and Social Framework review for the portfolio of conservation-focused activities. Ashwin Bhouraskar (con- sultant) and Tobias Fast (strategy officer) conducted the review of Country Climate and Development Reports. Estelle Raimondo (head of Methods) pro- vided overall methods guidance. Harsh Anuj (data scientist) conducted the AI-assisted portfolio screening. Virginia Ziulu (data scientist) of the Methods Advisory Function led the geospatial analysis, together with Benny Istanto and Min Jaegal from the Development Economics Vice Presidency. Jeffrey Pagel (geospatial consultant) conducted the geographic representativeness and Indigenous Peoples territories analyses. Case studies were conducted by the following team members: for Brazil, Ugo Amoretti, Unurjargal Demberel, and John Redwood III (senior envi- ronment consultant); for Côte d’Ivoire, Lauren Kelly, Christian Mather Freymeyer, and Gabriel Sandstrom Stephan; for Ecuador, Iren Bagdasarian, vi   Unurjargal Demberel, and Edward Willsteed (senior fisheries consultant); for Mozambique, Azada Hussaini and John Redwood III; for Peru, Iren Bagdasarian and Edward Willsteed; for Viet Nam, Kevin Crockford (senior ag- riculture consultant) and Xiaoyi Lu. Jean-Jacques Alain Ildevert Ahouansou, Emelda Cudilla, and Romayne Pereira provided program support. The report was peer-reviewed by David Kaimowitz, chief program officer at the International Land and Forest Tenure Facility, formerly the manager of the Forest and Farm Facility at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the director of Natural Resources and Climate Change at the Ford Foundation, and the director general of the Center for International Forestry Research, and by Balakrishna Pisupati, head of the Biodiversity, Land and Governance Programme in the United Nations Environment Programme’s Division of Environmental Law and Conventions. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    vii Overview Biodiversity—the diversity of life at genetic, species, and ecosystem lev- els—is essential to sustaining human well-being, economic stability, and climate resilience, yet it is declining at a rate unprecedented in human history. Biodiversity underpins food security by supporting soil fertility, crop yields, and marine productivity, while increasing resistance to pests, disease, and climate risk. It also plays a vital role in climate mitigation and adapta- tion. Yet mammals, birds, amphibians, insects, plants, and marine life are vanishing tens to hundreds of times faster than in the past 10 million years (IPBES 2019), and wildlife populations have dropped by 73 percent on aver- age in just five decades (WWF 2024). More than 85 percent of wetlands have been lost, half of coral cover has disappeared, and one-third of global tree species are now at risk of extinction. These losses threaten the functioning of ecosystems that provide food, water, shelter, energy, medicine, and in- come—especially for the 79 percent of people living below the global poverty line who depend on nature (IIED 2014). High levels of biodiversity loss increase the likelihood of crossing ecological tipping points, with irreversible consequences for livelihoods, economic development, disaster exposure, and climate stability. The international community has committed to halting and reversing biodiversity loss, but progress remains below target. The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (2011–20) laid the foundation for global action to address the drivers of biodiversity loss, but most goals were not met. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in 2022, renewed ambition, aiming to conserve and manage at least 30 percent of all land and oceans by 2030. Yet a significant financing gap persists, particularly in directing resources to developing countries to implement commitments and to support Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs). The World Bank Group has articulated a strong corporate commitment to supporting a livable planet that is dependent on biodiversity outcomes. viii   The Corporate Scorecard tracks biodiversity-dependent indicators such as changes in natural capital wealth, the share of fish stocks within biologically sustainable limits, and the percentage of terrestrial and aquatic areas un- der protection. The Global Challenge Program on Forests for Development, Climate, and Biodiversity seeks to scale sustainable forest landscapes and ecosystem solutions for development, climate, and biodiversity outcomes. The Bank Group is a signatory to the Joint Statement by the Multilateral Development Banks on Nature, People and Planet, which emphasizes tackling nature and biodiversity loss, making nature-positive investments, and report- ing on progress. In Unlocking Nature-Smart Development: An Approach Paper on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, the Bank Group renewed its focus on biodiversity and nature, pledging to pursue a whole-of-economy approach to address drivers of biodiversity loss (World Bank Group 2021). Blue Biodiversity: Investing in Our, and Our Ocean’s, Future highlights the importance of conserv- ing aquatic biodiversity for social and economic benefits (World Bank 2024a). These initiatives build on more than 30 years of biodiversity commitments. This evaluation asked: How well is the Bank Group supporting clients to ad- dress biodiversity loss? We answer this question through two subquestions: (i) How is the World Bank addressing biodiversity challenges through con- servation-focused activities? and (ii) How well are the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) supporting activities with potential biodiversity benefits in key production sectors, and are those activities likely to achieve such benefits? A third question on managing risks to biodiversi- ty was integrated into questions (i) and (ii) and addressed in the portfolio review of biodiversity offsets. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    ix As per the Approach Paper, institutional coverage was based on portfolio presence. The evaluation covers World Bank conservation activities (FY 2010–24, chapter 2); World Bank and IFC production activities (FY15–24, chapter 4); and Bank Group experience with biodiversity offsets (FY15–24, chapter 5). It also examines strategic aspects across the Bank Group, no- tably on country engagement and links to climate change (chapter 3). The evaluation covers national, not global, convening efforts and excludes IFC’s Biodiversity Finance Reference Guide because of its nascency. We used a mixed methods approach that included literature reviews, AI- powered project identification, portfolio, geospatial and case analyses, and interviews. We developed an AI-powered classification tool based on keywords from the literature, enhanced with machine learning and manual verification, to identify portfolios. We assessed conservation activities against international best practice, using literature underpinning the Global Biodiversity Framework. In the absence of ecological monitoring data, we used results monitoring, and geospatial analyses to examine tree cover, as a proxy. While not sufficient, analyses of tree cover enabled us to test assumptions about the efficacy of protected forested areas; this was the first time such analyses had been done at the World Bank. Two expert literature- based reviews focusing on resource governance and Indigenous Peoples were commissioned to enhance the analyses. We conducted exploratory case studies to contextualize the mainstreaming analyses in Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Mozambique, Peru, and Viet Nam. We also conducted a review of Bank Group experience with biodiversity offsets (see appendix A). Biodiversity Conservation Although insufficient to achieve all biodiversity goals, conservation remains a key component of global biodiversity efforts, as also reflected in the World Bank’s portfolio. Protected areas are 33 percent more effective at reducing habitat loss than unprotected areas, although there is wide variability (Li et al. 2024). As such, a key biodiversity conservation approach used by the World Bank is support for protected areas. The evaluation identified and mapped 526 World Bank–supported protected area sites (out of 880 identi- fied sites) in 130 projects approved between FY10 and FY24. Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Overview We examined geographic representativeness and found that the World Bank prioritizes biodiversity conservation in areas with high species richness, with 85 percent of 880 protected sites located in dry (45 percent) and humid (40 percent) tropics. Conservation funding for deserts, drylands, mangroves, temperate forests, and flooded grasslands remains low, despite their eco- logical importance and role in carbon sequestration—a pattern reflected in global conservation finance. There is weak monitoring and therefore limited evidence of biodiversity outcomes. There is a lack of robust monitoring and reporting on biodi- versity outcomes in World Bank and IFC interventions. As a result, the x ability to credibly demonstrate and learn from biodiversity gains or losses is constrained. This shortfall is rooted in both project design and strate- gic gaps, including a lack of biodiversity experts able to support clients in incorporating appropriate ecological change metrics into projects at the preparation stage and accounting for these changes over time. Measuring biodiversity, forest recovery, and ecosystem resilience is inherently a long- term challenge, so monitoring frameworks need to be designed accordingly. In practice, the Bank Group has relied on process indicators that verify important biodiversity-related activities (such as management effectiveness and certification processes put in place) but that are insufficient to measure biodiversity outcomes. Tree cover data show that, in the context of rapid deforestation globally, World Bank–funded protected areas in tropical forests have on average suc- ceeded in maintaining tree cover. A systematic review of 52 peer-reviewed studies confirms that tree cover change is a valid proxy for biodiversity in tropical forest ecosystems, reporting significant positive correlations between tree cover and biodiversity indexes. Forests—especially tropical ones—harbor a large share of terrestrial biodiversity, and changes in tree cover correlate with changes in species richness and ecosystem health. Tree cover reflects ecosystem structure and connectivity, both of which are criti- cal for sustaining diverse biological communities. While it is a coarse proxy, it is often used when consistent, large-scale biodiversity data are lacking. Of the 526 protected area sites that we were able to map, 448 are in tropical forest areas. Using geospatial analyses, we estimate that the 448 sites, on Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    xi average, maintained tree cover at a rate of +2.0 percent after project closure and +3.1 percent during and just after implementation. The World Bank has applied landscape and seascape approaches to address biodiversity loss and increase resource productivity, though most projects lack reporting on species composition, ecological change, or tenure security. These approaches use territorial planning to integrate land, water, and biodi- versity considerations, emphasizing coordination, stakeholder engagement, and decentralized management—an approach seen in about half of the World Bank’s conservation-focused projects. Effective land- and seascape strategies require clear ecological objectives, spatial integration, cross-sector coordi- nation, outcome monitoring, long-term funding, and active management of trade-offs. However, few projects report on species composition (such as the use of diverse, native species) or document vegetation change or the securing of land and resource rights. While two-thirds of projects aim to strengthen community land and resource rights, only five track improve- ments in rights or tenure security (IPBES 2019; UNCCD 2019). The World Bank infrequently identifies and engages Indigenous Peoples in its conservation efforts, and when it has, activities have been concentrated in just a few countries. Indigenous Peoples manage over a quarter of the world’s land, including 40 percent of protected areas and one-third of intact forests. These lands experience less deforestation, slower biodiversity loss, and improved restoration and carbon storage compared with lands man- aged by external parties (Busch and Ferretti-Gallon 2023; Fa et al. 2020; Garnett et al. 2018). However, they are also severely threatened. The World Bank’s biodiversity Approach Paper deems the identification, engagement, and protection of IPLCs central to positive biodiversity outcomes. Using LandMark data, our geospatial analysis found that only 6 percent of World Bank conservation areas overlap with lands held or used by IPLCs, covering 12 sites in Indigenous territories and 23 within community lands in eight countries. Using a second data set that more thoroughly includes Indigenous lands in Africa (Garnett et al. 2018), we identified 83 project sites—14.2 per- cent of World Bank conservation areas—within Indigenous Peoples lands. These are in Brazil, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mexico, Mozambique, Panama, Peru, and Zambia. The share of conservation-focused projects that identify, engage, and protect Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Overview IPLCs in conservation, as measured by Environmental and Social Framework policies specific to Indigenous Peoples, indicates a relative decline when compared with the share under the safeguard policies. The proportion of conservation projects that apply Operational Policy 4.10 (Indigenous Peoples) and the subsequent Environmental and Social Standard 7 (Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities) has declined from 52 percent (Operational Policy 4.10) to 25 percent (Environmental and Social Standard 7). This trend is most evident in Sub-Saharan Africa, where most conservation projects are based. Projects in Sub-Saharan Africa under the Dedicated Grant Mechanism xii for IPLCs—which aims to provide direct support for their participation in sustainable forest management—also lack environmental and social risk management policies specific to Indigenous Peoples. Biodiversity and Climate The increased focus on climate change in Bank Group country engagements has not been coupled with a similar increase in focus on biodiversity, de- spite strong interlinkages. Most Country Partnership Frameworks (CPFs) are strongly aligned with global climate agreements, but no CPFs refer to glob- al biodiversity agreements or national biodiversity frameworks. The Bank Group does not optimize biodiversity benefits in the 72 percent of CPFs that have climate and nature objectives and rarely captures biodiversity-related results in CPFs. Optimizing and capturing biodiversity benefits is essential for CPFs with portfolios comprising a significant proportion of land under enhanced management on the Corporate Scorecard—in Chad, Ethiopia, Niger, and Senegal. Only 25 percent of Country Climate and Development Reports seek to restore habitats, while 80 percent recommend using natural habitats for carbon capture. Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Sectors Although they are few, cases where biodiversity has been integrated into ag- riculture and agribusiness activities demonstrate that economic–ecological win–wins are possible. Sustainable production practices are powerful means Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    xiii to address the drivers of biodiversity loss while achieving more sustain- able yields and income gains. A small share of the World Bank’s agriculture lending (17 of 247 projects) explicitly applied and measured biodiversi- ty-friendly practices such as plant and crop diversity, organic soil matter, reduced agrochemical use, and certified practices. Evaluated projects showed both positive biodiversity and economic results, with notable examples in China, Panama, and Viet Nam. Twenty-seven of 107 IFC investments pro- moted sustainable practices, using traceability and certification schemes and indicators. Notable efforts include support for deforestation-free soy pro- duction in Brazil and certifications for a fiberboard plant in Aisa and a fruit producer in South Africa. These examples occurred in vertically integrated businesses where companies had strong sustainability commitments. IFC had setbacks in more complex landscape-level efforts, such as supporting deforestation-free cocoa in West Africa. One-quarter of IFC’s agriculture and agribusiness-related advisory projects (17 of 67) supported more sustainable practices (such as crop rotation, soil management, avoided deforestation, and certification or traceability schemes), but a lack of appropriate indica- tors limits our ability to validate biodiversity-related results. The World Bank is advancing elements of fisheries management with po- tential biodiversity gains, but there is uneven application across Global Practices, and most projects are struggling to reconcile the long-term need for enhanced fisheries management with short-term food security and income needs. Projects emphasizing good fisheries management tend to originate in the environmental practice, but even in these cases, marine eco- system health is rarely measured. The small-scale fisheries sector faces the challenge of balancing the control of fishing activities with food security and employment aims. A notable World Bank fisheries project that demonstrat- ed income and employment benefits while reducing fishing pressure is the South-West Indian Ocean Fisheries Governance and Shared Growth project in East Africa. IFC has helped Ecuador become a leading producer of sustain- able and profitable commercial aquaculture. Payments for forest carbon have been an important vehicle for conserving natural forests and ecosystem services landscapes. With the support of the Forest Partnership Facility, clients have achieved 188 percent of the target for avoided deforestation within landscapes, totaling 14.5 million hectares across four countries; these activities in one case contributed to an increase in average farm yields of 25 percent. Restoration targets, however, have been Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Overview far from met. While clients have requested “quality carbon” and support for measuring its multiple benefits (biodiversity, climate change, and land), carbon finance programs have not supported the systematic capturing of biodiversity outcomes. Well-implemented sustainable forest management plans should yield biodi- versity benefits, but too few projects report on implementation or track and certify sustainable practices. Four of the 35 World Bank projects with sus- tainable forest management plans reported on actual implementation, while half reported on species composition when planting. Six of the 83 World Bank forest production projects cited certification or traceability schemes. xiv Good practices include the Ghana Tree Crop Diversification Project, which tracked traceable tree crop area, certification in cocoa, and premiums for cer- tified cocoa, and the Côte d’Ivoire Forest Investment Program, which planted native mahogany, tiama, and medicinal trees within cocoa agroforestry and restored native species in sensitive areas. The Rwanda Volcanoes Community Resilience Project (FY24–) mandates that at least 20 percent of species be native and empowers local communities to supply these seedlings. Incentives for Biodiversity-Positive Production Approaches We identified four key factors that enable integration of biodiversity into production: » Interministerial collaboration, especially between environmental and production ministries, and channeling of new information about applied research and technologies to extension services, firms, cooperatives, and resource users. » Alignment of public and private finance with emerging sustainability regulations and markets (such as the European Union Regulation on Deforestation-free Products) helps create economic incentives for biodiversity-positive production. » Availability of financial instruments to reduce up-front costs, buffer risk, and Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    xv secure land and resource rights and tenure. » Identification of entry points where production systems are reaching eco- logical limits—such as degraded soils due to overexploitation—can promote biodiversity-positive approaches that regenerate natural capital, productivity, and jobs. World Bank Group Biodiversity Offsets Biodiversity offsets are increasingly used across the Bank Group to manage residual environmental impacts, yet their effectiveness remains limited because of inherent complexity, weak institutional capacity, lack of transpar- ency, and inconsistent implementation. Biodiversity offsets are measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project development that persist after appropriate avoidance, minimization, and restoration measures have been taken. There has been uneven and incon- sistent updating of offset information after project Board approval, and the methodologies used to estimate biodiversity loss and gains are often unclear, falling short of international best practice. Although implementation status and quality vary across institutions and sectors, most implementation activi- ties are delayed or incomplete, undermining projects’ ability to estimate that offsets will likely deliver their intended conservation outcomes. Conclusions The Bank Group has laid a credible foundation for biodiversity action and now faces a critical implementation test: translating its high-level commit- ments into measurable biodiversity outcomes that deliver human well-being, food security, sustainable production, and jobs. The Bank Group’s attention to climate change has not been coupled with a focus on biodiversity in coun- try strategies. On conservation, ecological monitoring, inclusion of IPLCs, and investment in sustainable financing are needed to enhance the World Bank’s support for the 30×30 target agreed upon by clients under the Global Biodiversity Framework.  The integration of biodiversity in production sectors remains ad hoc and un- derleveraged, despite identified opportunities for scale. World Bank and IFC cases show that it is possible to reconcile biodiversity goals with economic growth, jobs, food security, and climate aims across agriculture, forestry, and Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Overview fisheries. However, the current approach remains fragmented, with biodiver- sity integration concentrated in a few country contexts and progressive firms rather than embedded across the portfolio. The challenges identified in implementing biodiversity offsets, of which there are ongoing examples in the World Bank, IFC, and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, indicate that institutional, technical, and fi- nancial strengthening is required to ensure that offsets function as credible, outcome-based conservation tools. Based on these conclusions, we propose the following four recommendations xvi to help the Bank Group support clients in achieving their livable planet goals. Recommendations The Bank Group should assist clients to identify, finance, and measure bio- diversity outcomes. To support this goal, the Bank Group should strengthen its internal capabilities. This will involve (i) using existing country diag- nostics (for example, Country Climate and Development Reports and CPFs) to identify biodiversity-relevant entry points; (ii) integrating biodiversi- ty finance initiatives into broader economic development strategies and making explicit the linkages between commitments and finance across biodiversity, climate, and land degradation; (iii) conducting ecological mon- itoring, including by using a combination of technology (for example, Earth observation tools) and validation methods (for example, habitat and species monitoring, soil health analysis) to improve measurement and reporting; and (iv) addressing internal biodiversity capacity constraints. The World Bank should engage, empower, and protect IPLCs to achieve sustainable and inclusive biodiversity outcomes at scale. This entails (i) internalizing and raising awareness about the role of Indigenous Peoples as effective stewards of biodiversity-rich landscapes; (ii) enhancing the iden- tification of IPLCs and placing these groups at the center of biodiversity solutions; (iii) strengthening resource rights to ensure sustainable biodi- versity outcomes; and (iv) in conservation efforts, enhancing collaboration between social development, Indigenous Peoples specialists, and environ- Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    xvii mental teams. The World Bank and IFC should proactively replicate and scale proven biodiversity-positive production models that deliver positive ecological, economic, and social outcomes. This involves (i) finding opportunities to introduce new production and agribusiness methods, supported by policies, regulations, and incentives that encourage biodiversity investment; (ii) tailoring successful interventions to local ecological and cultural contexts; (iii) augmenting the capacity of extension networks and/or revisiting advice provided by firms; and (iv) helping raise consumer awareness and demand for sustainable products. When piloting new approaches, underpin projects with robust monitoring, reporting, and adaptive learning systems to help teams track and adapt. The World Bank, IFC, and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency should actively address the gaps in offset projects regarding staff capacity, information disclosure, and project life cycle monitoring and supervision. The Bank Group should establish functional, recognized, and appropriately resourced biodiversity focal points across the Bank Group to provide access to experts and opportunities for sharing, peer review, and learning from off- set practice. Third-party verification for high-risk or high-impact projects, as good practice, is encouraged. Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Overview xviii 1 | Background and Context Biodiversity—encompassing the variety of life on Earth at genetic, species, and ecosystem levels—provides essential services that support human survival and well-being. Biodiversity is crucial for healthy ecosystems, supporting food, clean air and water, medicine, income, and climate stability. While high concentrations exist in the tropics—in tropical rainforests and coral reefs—biodiversity benefits all environments by supporting life-sustaining services. Biodiverse wetlands are natural filters that improve water quality, and biodiversity holds cultural significance, especially for Indigenous Peoples. The decline of biodiversity severely threatens ecosystem services, food and water security, economies, the environment, and human health. Biodiversity underpins global food security and livelihoods. A variety of wild species are vital to agriculture, especially pollinators that fertilize crops; more than 75 percent, or between $235 billion and $577 billion, of annual global food production depends on them (IPBES 2016). Biodiversity supports soil health, nutrient cycling, photosynthesis, and habitat provision. A lack of diverse soil organisms can result in decreased soil fertility, which may cause lower agricultural yields and increased risk of desertification. Diverse marine ecosystems bolster fish populations, boost disease resistance, and increase environmental adaptability (IIED 2014). Biodiversity also provides essen- tial resources—such as food, water, energy, and medicine—for 79 percent of those living below the poverty line. Biodiversity and climate change are intrinsically linked: biodiversity is essential for mitigating the effects of climate change, while climate change presents considerable risks to ecosystems and species. Diverse forests, wet- lands, oceans, and coastal ecosystems are carbon sinks, helping to regulate climates (Seymour et al. 2022). Mangroves store more carbon per unit area than terrestrial forests while also reducing disaster exposure and economic loss (Hochard et al. 2019; Sanderman et al. 2018). Restoring ecosystems en- hances disaster resilience. Climate change drives biodiversity loss by raising 1 temperatures, altering rainfall patterns, and causing extreme weather, lead- ing to habitat loss, species displacement, and extinction risks. However, biodiversity loss is occurring at an unprecedented pace, prompt- ing scientists to caution that we may be nearing critical thresholds that risk causing irreversible ecosystem degradation. Species across all groups are disappearing at rates tens to hundreds of times above the 10-million-year average (IPBES 2019). There has been a catastrophic 73 percent decline on average in the monitored wildlife population in just 50 years (1970–2020; WWF 2024). Approximately 50 percent of live coral reef cover and over 85 percent of wetlands have been lost. More than one-third of global tree species face extinction, highlighting deforestation’s threat to biodiversity. Between 1990 and 2020, 420 million hectares of forest were lost worldwide— an area equivalent in size to the European Union (EU). Notably, more than 90 percent of this deforestation took place in tropical regions. Such signifi- cant declines in healthy ecosystems are bringing the Earth closer to critical tipping points. There are five main drivers of biodiversity loss, mostly associated with human behaviors. The drivers are changes in land and sea use, direct ex- ploitation of organisms, invasive species, pollution, and climate change (IPBES 2019). Deforestation, urbanization, agricultural expansion, and infra- structure development contribute to habitat destruction and fragmentation, resulting in species decline and ecosystem loss. The expansion of beef, soy, and oil palm production has been a significant contributor to widespread deforestation and biodiversity decline. In 2023, 6.4 million and 62.6 million Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 1 hectares of native forests were clear-cut and degraded, respectively, at rates exceeding pre-2021 pledge levels. Poaching, overfishing, and unsustainable harvesting have led to population declines and extinctions. For example, 38 percent of global fish stocks are fished at unsustainable levels. Invasive species are associated with about 40 percent of endangered species listings. Air, water, and soil pollution harms wildlife and disrupts ecosystems, leading to biodiversity loss. Climate change is causing mass plant and animal mor- tality. Economic actors may not take responsibility for biodiversity loss since they do not receive all of its benefits. Limited awareness of ecosystem ser- vice value also restricts conservation efforts. 2 The international community has entered into agreements to halt and re- verse biodiversity loss, but implementation is insufficient. At the 1992 Earth Summit, 150 leaders signed the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to support conservation, sustainable biodiversity use, and equitable benefit sharing. Governments reconvened in Aichi in 2010 (at the 2010 Conference of the Parties, or COP10) and set 20 biodiversity targets. A decade later, most of the CBD objectives, but none of the targets, were achieved (CBD 2020). Parties to the CBD adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) in 2022 to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2050, while setting interim targets of effectively conserving and man- aging at least 30 percent of the Earth’s land and ocean by 2030. Sufficient funding has not been forthcoming: the GBF estimates that $700 billion is needed annually to achieve the targets. In Rome in 2025, parties agreed to mobilize $200 billion annually and to increase flows to developing countries but acknowledged the persistence of the financing gap. Global biodiversity agreements have increasingly recognized the importance of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) in protecting biodiversity. IPLCs manage 80 percent of global terrestrial biodiversity by exercising custom- ary rights over half of the world’s lands (IPBES 2019; RRI 2020). Forests overseen by Indigenous Peoples, whether formally recognized or governed by traditional practices, are significantly less prone to deforestation than those managed by ex- ternal entities (Blackman and Veit 2018; Ding et al. 2016; Fa et al. 2020; Nepstad and Schwartzman 2006; Walker et al. 2020). This underscores the vital role of Indigenous guardianship, yet Indigenous Peoples receive only 0.13 percent of Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    3 climate change funding, with their rights protected on just 10 percent of the land they inhabit (FAO 2021b; Garnett et al. 2018). Therefore, the GBF named IPLCs as key partners in biodiversity protection, restoration, and sustainable use. The 2024 United Nations Biodiversity Conference in Cali established a permanent subsidiary body for Indigenous Peoples, with a formal role in conservation deci- sion-making, and created the Cali Fund to ensure equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resources. However, national-level efforts do not always align with these global commitments because of unrecognized rights, forced evictions, mar- ginalization, threats from extractive industries, and inadequate financial support. Role of the World Bank Group The World Bank Group has articulated a strong corporate commitment to support a livable planet that is dependent on measurable biodiversity out- comes. In October 2023, the Bank Group reframed its vision to create a world free of poverty on a livable planet. Its Corporate Scorecard stresses that no country is immune to the declines in biodiversity that undermine develop- ment and exacerbate poverty. National challenges tracked on the Scorecard (client context indicators) focus on preserving and restoring biodiversity. These challenges include establishing economies with increased renewable natural capital, increasing and maintaining fish stocks within sustainable levels, and establishing and maintaining protected terrestrial and aquatic areas. The Bank Group results indicator, “hectares of terrestrial and aquat- ic areas under enhanced conservation/management,” requires projects to show evidence of improving the extent or condition of these areas, enhanc- ing biodiversity or other ecosystem services and addressing the drivers of nature loss.1 The Global Challenge Program on Forests for Development, Climate, and Biodiversity also seeks to scale up sustainable forest landscapes and ecosystem solutions to enhance development, climate, and biodiversity outcomes. The Bank Group was 1 of 10 multilateral development banks to sign the Joint Statement by the Multilateral Development Banks on Nature, People and Planet, which emphasizes tackling the drivers of nature and biodiversity loss, promoting nature-positive investments, and advancing progress reporting. The statement reads: “nature (including ecosystems and their biodiversity), plays a critical role in providing resources and services Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 1 that underpin and support the planet and people in terms of human health and wellbeing; economic growth, jobs, and livelihoods, food security; and air, water, and soil quality.” In Unlocking Nature-Smart Development: An Approach Paper on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, the Bank Group placed a renewed emphasis on biodiversity and nature, including the need to take a whole-of-economy approach. In this paper, the Bank Group highlights the importance of adopt- ing such an approach to address the drivers of biodiversity and ecosystem services loss by scaling up biodiversity financing, establishing a solid scien- tific and economic base for action, and implementing equitable and inclusive 4 measures to address the biodiversity crisis (World Bank Group 2021). Other sector studies, such as the Blue Biodiversity report (World Bank 2024a), highlight the importance of conserving aquatic biodiversity for social and economic benefits. These initiatives build on more than 30 years of biodi- versity commitments, including the 1990 publication The World Bank and the Environment: First Annual Report and the World Bank’s Environment Strategy (2012–22), Toward a Green, Clean, and Resilient World for All, which encompassed commitments to conserve and restore biodiversity while adopting more integrated, economywide approaches and innovative fi- nancing solutions. The World Bank also mitigates biodiversity risks through its Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) Environmental and Social Standard 6 (ESS6). The International Finance Corporation (IFC) also tracks its nature-based investments using a common set of principles. “Nature-positive” refers to increasing the resilience of our planet and societies to stop and reverse nature loss. This approach aims to enrich biodiversity, store carbon, purify water, and reduce pandemic risk. IFC also mitigates the risk of biodiver- sity loss through its Performance Standard on Environmental and Social Sustainability (PS6). The Evaluation This evaluation asked the following question: How well is the Bank Group Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    5 supporting clients to address biodiversity loss? To answer this question, we posed two main subquestions: » Evaluation question (EQ) 1: How well is the World Bank addressing biodiver- sity challenges through conservation-focused activities? » EQ2: How well are the World Bank and IFC supporting activities with poten- tial biodiversity benefits in key production sectors, and are those activities likely to achieve such benefits? A third question on addressing risks was subsumed into the first two ques- tions (using safeguards, ESF, and Performance Standards) and was addressed by covering the Bank Group’s experience with biodiversity offsets. The evaluation scope involves three dimensions. It covers the periods FY 2010–24 for conservation activities and FY15–24 for production activities. The longer time frame was needed to measure land-use change in the con- servation portfolio, and the shorter time frame was assigned to production activities, recognizing the recency of commitments to reintroduce bio- diversity commitments in production sectors, especially agriculture. The evaluation covers the World Bank for conservation-focused activities, the World Bank and IFC for production activities, and the Bank Group (the World Bank, IFC, and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency [MIGA]) for biodiversity offsets. The evaluation scope also covers the Bank Group’s en- gagement at a national level but not at a global convening level. We used triangulated methods to answer the EQs, which also contributed new knowledge for the Bank Group and the global community. Further infor- mation can be found in appendix A. » Literature and portfolio review. We conducted focused literature reviews to identify good practice and to identify the Bank Group’s commitments and its advantages. We deployed text analytics and search algorithms to process, analyze, and organize portfolio data. Our team developed specialized AI models that automatically classified and organized critical information into distinct portfolios (for conservation, integration, and offsets). We developed structured templates, integrating data visualization to analyze Bank Group performance against the literature and Bank Group commitments. » Geospatial analysis. We conducted geospatial analyses to identify World Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 1 Bank conservation activities for FY10–24. We identified protected areas (or other physical conservation areas) supported by the World Bank across 130 projects. Within these, we geolocated 880 unique sites with conservation activities. Of these, we matched 605 sites with the World Database on Protected Areas, which includes 305,198 registered areas (275 sites could not be matched). This marks the first time that the full range of World Bank– financed protected areas has been identified and mapped. Of the 605 sites, we have geospatial data points for 585 of them. For geolocated areas, we performed geospatial analysis to assess relevance (siting) and effectiveness (tree cover change over time, which we assessed using consistent spatial and temporal resolution, for the period FY16–24). We organized analysis of tree 6 cover into two cohorts: projects approved in FY10–14 and those approved in FY15–19. The first cohort assesses the impact of World Bank support after project close; the second cohort assesses project effects during and immediately after implementation. » Expert-led deep dives. Experts led in-depth analysis on land and resource rights, IPLCs, and biodiversity offsets to deepen portfolio results. » Review of core country diagnostics. We assessed the extent to which the Bank Group is integrating biodiversity into the most recent Country Partnership Framework (CPF) for each country or country grouping (n = 113) and in 57 disclosed Country Climate and Development Reports (CCDRs). » Exploratory case studies. We analyzed technical or policy mechanisms that had achieved positive ecological and economic effects from integrating biodi- versity into key production sectors; these case studies were conducted in Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Peru, and Viet Nam, and virtually for Mozambique. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    7 1 As per the World Bank Group Scorecard FY24–30 methodology note, the indicator measures the terrestrial and inland/marine aquatic areas (in millions of hectares) that are under en- hanced protection, conservation, restoration, or sustainable management through operations supported by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the International Development Association, IFC, and MIGA. This will include the results of work on diverse landscapes (for example, forests, grass and shrub lands, woodlands, wetlands, water bodies, watersheds, oases, and urban green and blue spaces) and seascapes (for example, ocean and coastal zones, including wetlands, deltas, mangroves, and reefs) that have been improved from a nature perspective. These are expected to improve the extent or condition of these areas relating to biodiversity or other ecosystem services and address drivers of nature loss. Relevant activities may reduce and reverse natural resource degradation, protect and enhance natural habitats and their ecosystem services, and thus provide nature benefits to dependent communities. This indicator does not include terrestrial or aquatic areas managed as offsets for project-related biodiversity impacts (public or private sector). Production landscapes or seascapes (for example, plantations, agriculture, and aquaculture areas) may be included where practices are applied that result in demonstratable benefits to nature, while not involv- ing conversion of natural habitats (World Bank Group 2025). Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 1 8 2 | Biodiversity Conservation Highlights Although not sufficient to achieve all biodiversity goals, conser- vation remains a key component in global biodiversity efforts, as reflected in the World Bank’s portfolio. For the first time, we mapped 526 World Bank–supported protected area sites (out of 880 identified sites) in 130 projects approved between FY 2010 and FY24. We examined geographic representativeness and found that the World Bank prioritizes biodiversity conservation in areas with high species richness, with 85 percent of 880 protected sites located in dry (45 percent) and humid (40 percent) tropics. Conservation funding for deserts, drylands, mangroves, temperate forests, and flooded grasslands remains low, despite their ecological importance. This pattern is reflective of wider trends in global con- servation finance. The World Bank’s monitoring and, therefore, evidence of biodi- versity outcomes are limited. There is a lack of robust monitoring and reporting on biodiversity outcomes. As a result, the ability to credibly demonstrate and learn from biodiversity gains or losses is constrained. This shortfall is rooted in both project design and stra- tegic gaps, including a lack of biodiversity experts able to support clients in incorporating appropriate ecological change metrics into projects at the preparation stage and accounting for these chang- es over time. Tree cover data show that, in the context of rapid global deforestation, World Bank–funded protected areas in tropical forests have on aver- age succeeded in maintaining tree cover. Of the 526 protected area sites that we could map, 448 are in tropical forest areas. Using geospa- tial analyses, we estimate that the 448 sites, on average, maintained tree cover at a rate of +2.0 percent after project close. 9  The World Bank has applied landscape and seascape approaches to address biodiversity loss and increase resource productivity, though most projects lack reporting on species composition, eco- logical change, or tenure security. Although Indigenous Peoples and local communities demonstrate effectiveness in protecting biodiversity, the World Bank infrequently identifies, engages with, and protects them in its conservation efforts; when it has, it has concentrated activities in just a few countries. The share of conservation-focused projects that identify, engage with, and protect Indigenous Peoples and local communities in conservation, as measured by Environmental and Social Framework policies specific to Indigenous Peoples, indicates a relative decline when compared with the share under the safeguard policies. Most World Bank efforts to support sustainable financing for con- servation including endowment funds, payments for environmental services, and ecotourism were successful, but these efforts have decelerated since 2015. More recently, the World Bank has led the way by developing and demonstrating the potential of innovative biodiversity-related financial instruments, including for blue bonds and wildlife bonds. Continued learning is essential to determine their replicability, scalability, and effectiveness in achieving biodi- versity outcomes. 10   Although insufficient to reach biodiversity goals on its own, conservation remains a critical component of global biodiversity efforts. Conservation is crucial for biodiversity, preventing species extinction, maintaining eco- system services, and boosting ecological resilience. Conservation supports human well-being by preserving ecosystem functions such as pollination, water purification, and carbon sequestration (Díaz et al. 2019). Protected areas, habitat restoration, and species management effectively slow bio- diversity decline; without them, bird and mammal extinction rates would be much higher (Bolam et al. 2021). Well-managed marine protected areas increase fish biomass and biodiversity (Edgar et al. 2014). A global study found that protected areas are 33 percent more effective at reducing habi- tat loss, including deforestation, than unprotected areas, while also noting the limited ability of protected areas to mitigate human pressure, as well as variability in relation to management practices, enforcement, and size (Li et al. 2024). This chapter covers World Bank support for conservation activities. It does not cover IFC or MIGA because they do not finance conservation. World Bank support for protected areas (and other effective area-based conservation measures) was higher in FY10–15 but has remained broadly consistent over the past decade (FY15–24), aligning with funding replen- ishment cycles. The World Bank frequently established protected areas to prevent biodiversity loss. We identified 139 lending projects approved between FY10 and FY24 that included conservation activities. Within these projects, we identified 880 conservation areas. While figure 2.1 shows a decrease in World Bank–financed protected areas since FY10–15, it also in- Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    11 dicates that support has remained consistent since then. The Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy Global Practice manages 80 percent of the portfolio, which is mostly located in Latin America and the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa. The project activities include the following: 1. The development and management of protected areas, tourism, employ- ment, and livelihoods 2. Wildlife protection and management; the prevention of poaching, traf- ficking, and human–wildlife conflict; habitat preservation; and the conservation of endangered species 3. Policies and institutions, legal and regulatory frameworks, capacity build- ing, and financing Figure 2.1. World Bank–Financed Protected Areas over Time 150 World Bank referenced World Bank referenced and WDPA matched 120 Protected areas supported (no.) 90 60 30 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Fiscal year of approval Source: Independent Evaluation Group, with WDPA data from April 2025. Note: Protected areas referenced by the World Bank that could not be matched with the WDPA are shown in light green; those that could be matched with the WDPA are shown in dark green. This chart includes duplicate protected areas if they have received support from multiple projects over time. WDPA = World Database on Protected Areas. The identification of good conservation practices from the literature and Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 2 World Bank commitments yielded five areas of inquiry, around which this chapter is organized. The five assessment areas are (i) geographic representa- tiveness, or the equitable and proportional representation of different biomes, ecosystems, and taxonomic groups; (ii) engagement and protection of IPLCs; (iii) ecological outcomes, monitoring, and reporting; (iv) ecological connectiv- ity, or the unimpeded movement of species and the flow of natural processes that sustain life across ecosystems, including shifts from fragmented protected areas to landscape approaches; and (v) sustainable finance. 12 Geographic Representativeness Geographic representativeness, a principle enshrined in the GBF, ensures that conservation areas cover all major ecosystems and species distributions. A diverse network of protected eco-regions boosts ecological resilience, maintains ecosystem functions, and helps species adapt to climate change threats. Focusing conservation efforts on popular parks, for example, leaves many species and habitats vulnerable to decline or extinction. Reflecting this importance, global targets call for ecological representativeness in con- servation efforts (CBD 1992, 2010; GBF target 3). By 2020, 15 percent of land and 7 percent of marine areas were classified as protected globally, but there were notable regional disparities (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2021). Arid areas and tropical dry broadleaf forests face especially low protection (Biber et al. 2022; Gaisberger et al. 2022). Other systems such as temperate grasslands, Mediterranean woodlands, peatlands, and the deep ocean also have low conservation coverage (Hoekstra et al. 2005). Expanding protections to these underrepresented biomes is crucial for achieving the global 30×30 target. The World Bank has focused its biodiversity conservation efforts on areas with high biodiversity richness, or endemism, within specific biomes in the tropics. Using geospatial analysis, we determined that 448 conservation sites in the portfolio of 139 projects are located within two main forest biomes: dry tropics (53 percent) and humid tropics (47 percent). Using a classifica- tion of 14 distinct biomes, we then determined that most conservation sites were positioned within tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests and Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    13 tropical and subtropical grasslands, savannas, and shrublands. The concen- tration of project sites in the former category is mainly due to activities in the Amazon Basin, the Congo Basin, the southern part of West Africa, and Southeast Asia. The World Bank’s portfolio has limited coverage of subtropical regions, des- erts, and mangroves, which are also underrepresented in global conservation efforts. Overall, clients managing significant desert, dryland, and mangrove areas are receiving less support (see figures 2.2 and 2.3). Only 4.8 percent of World Bank conservation sites are in tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forests. Deserts and xeric shrublands make up 18 percent of the global biome data set and support high biodiversity, including many endangered species (IUCN 2011). However, desert biomes account for just 2.2 percent of World Bank conservation sites. Deserts host 6 percent of the world’s population (Mortimore et al. 2009), who often rely on these ecosystems for livelihoods, food security, and climate resilience.1 Less than 2 percent of World Bank con- servation sites overlap with mangroves.2  orld Bank Project Sites with Biodiversity Conservation Figure 2.2. W Activities Across Biomes 120°W 60°W 0° 60°E 120°E Protected area sites Biomes Boreal Humid tropics Dry tropics Temperate Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: This map has been cleared by the World Bank Group cartography unit. Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 2 14 Figure 2.3. World Bank Project Sites Across Sub-Biomes Protected area sites Biomes Boreal forests, or taiga Montane grasslands and shrublands Tropical and subtropical coniferous forests Deserts and xeric shrublands n.a. Tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forests Flooded grasslands and savannas Temperate broadleaf and mixed forests Tropical and subtropical grasslands, savannas, and shrublands Mangroves Temperate conifer forests Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests Mediterranean forests, woodlands, and scrub Temperate grasslands, savannas, and shrublands Tundra Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: n.a.= not applicable;This map has been cleared by the World Bank Group cartography unit. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    15 Identifying, Empowering, and Protecting Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities to Achieve Conservation Aims There is compelling evidence that Indigenous Peoples are more effective stewards of biodiversity-rich landscapes than other groups. Indigenous Peoples, representing 6 percent of the population, manage more than a quarter of the world’s land surface, including 40 percent of terrestrial protected areas and intact landscapes, and one-third of global intact forests (Fa et al. 2020; Garnett et al. 2018; ILO 2019). Forests under Indigenous management are less prone to deforestation and degradation than those managed by external entities (Busch and Ferretti-Gallon 2023; Fa et al. 2020; FAO and FILAC 2021), with their stewardship reducing agriculture- driven deforestation (Pratzer et al. 2023). Biodiversity declines more slowly in Indigenous-managed lands, and these areas offer better restoration and carbon storage (Busch and Ferretti-Gallon 2023; Porter-Bolland et al. 2011; Stevens et al. 2014). Approximately 42 percent of global lands in good ecological condition are within IPLC lands (WWF et al. 2021). Unlocking Nature-Smart Development: An Approach Paper on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services highlights the essential role of IPLCs in achieving biodiversity goals (World Bank Group 2021). The paper states that effective conservation of natural habitats requires placing IPLCs, who rely on and help conserve nature, at the center. These communities have deep, place-based ecological knowledge developed over millennia, enhancing biodiversity Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 2 preservation (Dawson et al. 2024). Good governance (including land tenure security), equitable benefit sharing, and the preservation of local knowledge are crucial for their contribution to conservation (IPBES 2019). Yet the World Bank infrequently supports conservation activities within IPLC areas, and when it does, it tends to concentrate its activities in just a few countries. Evaluating the relationship between World Bank projects and IPLC lands is crucial for assessing the inclusivity and effectiveness of con- servation efforts. Geospatial analyses show that 6 percent of project sites (35 out of 585) are located within IPLC lands, with 12 project sites overlap- ping Indigenous Peoples territories and 23 located within local community 16 lands (table 2.1; LandMark platform data)—a minor overlap considering the extensive biodiversity encompassed within IPLC lands. These sites span eight countries: Brazil, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mexico, Mozambique, Panama, Peru, and Zambia. Because the LandMark data set underidentifies Indigenous Peoples lands in Africa, we used Garnett et al. (2018), which identifies 83 project sites within Indigenous Peoples lands, representing 14.2 percent of World Bank conservation sites.3  orld Bank Conservation Project Sites Within Indigenous Table 2.1. W Territories Distance from Project Sites Share of Total Data Source Indigenous Lands (no.) (%) LandMark Sites within Indigenous lands 35 6.0 LandMark Sites less than 10 kilometers from 48 8.2 Indigenous lands LandMark Sites 10–30 kilometers from 54 9.2 Indigenous lands LandMark Sites more than 30 kilometers from 448 76.6 Indigenous lands Total number of World Bank protected area sites 585 Garnett et al. Sites within Indigenous lands 83 14.2 (2018) Garnett et al. Sites less than 10 kilometers from 50 8.5 (2018) Indigenous lands Garnett et al. Sites 10–30 kilometers from 56 9.6 (2018) Indigenous lands Garnett et al. Sites more than 30 kilometers from 396 67.7 Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    17 (2018) Indigenous lands Total number of World Bank protected area sites 585 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. The share of conservation-focused projects that identify, engage, and protect IPLCs in conservation, as measured by ESF policies specific to Indigenous Peoples, indicates a relative decline compared with the share under safe- guard policies. Analyzing the incidence of conservation projects that apply the World Bank’s Operational Policy (OP) 4.10 (Indigenous Peoples) and the subsequent ESS7 (Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities) implemented from October 2018 onward, we note a decline in the proportion of projects using these policies to identify, engage, and protect Indigenous Peoples. Whereas 52 percent of conservation projects (49 out of 94) under safeguards applied OP 4.10 (Indigenous Peoples), 25 percent of conservation projects (8 out of 32) under the ESF applied ESS7 (see figure 2.4). This trend is most evident in Sub-Saharan Africa, where most conservation projects are based. The num- ber involved is limited, especially under the ESF, so this trend merits further analysis since new ESS7 provisions and clarifications could reasonably have been expected to increase ESS7’s application in comparison with OP 4.10.  hare of Conservation-Focused Projects Applying Figure 2.4. S Operational Policy 4.10 Versus Environmental and Social Standard 7 ESS7 Policy or standard OP 4.10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Share of conservation portfolio (%) Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: The conservation portfolio includes 126 investment project financing projects (of a portfolio of 139) and excludes development policy financing and category C/low-risk projects. ESS = Environmental and Social Standard; OP = Operational Policy. Projects in Sub-Saharan Africa under the Dedicated Grant Mechanism for Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 2 IPLCs—which aims to provide direct support, enabling their participation in sustainable forest management—lack environmental and social risk management policies specific to Indigenous Peoples. The Dedicated Grant Mechanism is a Climate Investment Fund financing window that provides direct grant support to IPLCs so that they can contribute time-tested ap- proaches to protecting and managing the natural environment. Among the 15 Dedicated Grant Mechanism projects within the scope of this eval- uation, OP 4.10 or ESS7 was applied across all 9 projects located in East Asia and Pacific, South Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, or globally. However, only 2 of the 6 Dedicated Grant Mechanism projects for IPLCs in Sub-Saharan Africa applied a risk management policy specific to Indigenous 18 Peoples (1 in the Democratic Republic of Congo applied OP 4.10), and the only Sub-Saharan African Dedicated Grant Mechanism project under the ESF, in the Republic of Congo, applied ESS7. Document reviews and interviews highlight several factors that may be contributing to the limited engagement of IPLCs in World Bank conservation activities: » In the conservation portfolio, the World Bank tends to support Indigenous Peoples who have existing legal recognition and clear collective land and resource rights under national law. According to our review of World Bank project documents, projects hosted by countries that have applied both OP 4.10 and ESS7 in the conservation context always protect or engage Indigenous communities that are recognized by the government and that possess collective land tenure rights recognized under national law. Further, the same Indigenous groups tend to be protected under both OP 4.10 and ESS7, and most of these groups have legally recognized land rights. » Engaging Indigenous communities may present new challenges because of new ESF requirements for free, prior, and informed consent under specified circumstances that may be especially common in the conservation context. Under the safeguard policies, only free, prior, and informed consultation was required. Furthermore, circumstances that are unique to or especially common in Indigenous territories may make project implementation more Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    19 complex. A deeper understanding of these dynamics requires an examination of project siting decisions, including the criteria used, the stakeholders in- volved, the obstacles encountered by environmental and social professionals, and the policy considerations shaping conservation efforts. Most conservation projects involve land or resource restriction risks that, if left unattended, can cause significant economic and social harm to IPLCs. Eighty-four percent of the World Bank conservation projects applied environmental and social risk management policies concerning land and re- sources, specifically OP 4.12 (Involuntary Resettlement) under the safeguard policies or ESS5 (Land Acquisition, Restrictions on Land Use and Involuntary Resettlement) under the ESF. Unresolved concerns about potential or re- alized restrictions on resource access can escalate, as illustrated by the Tanzania Inspection Panel (box 2.1).  essons from the Resilient Natural Resource Management for Box 2.1. L Tourism and Growth Project A World Bank Inspection Panel case concerning Tanzania’s Resilient Natural Resource Management for Tourism and Growth (REGROW) project has yielded vital lessons for effectively and safely engaging communities in protected area management. Approved in 2017, REGROW aimed to improve the management of natural resources, enhance tourism assets, and promote alternative livelihoods in and around Ruaha National Park. Between 2023 and 2024, two Requests for Inspection were submitted to the World Bank’s Inspection Panel. The Requests collectively alleged excessive use of force by park authorities aimed at restricting park access, imminent risk of forced evic- tion, and inadequate consultation. The Inspection Panel investigation found that the World Bank had not adequately identified and addressed the risks associated with po- tential community resettlement, conflicts arising from park access restrictions, and the impact of supporting an agency with a mandate to enforce park regulations on local communities dependent on the park’s natural resources. A World Bank Management Action Plan was put in place with corrective actions, while lessons derived from the project are being actively incorporated into a World Bank–wide review of projects with protected areas. These lessons include the need for the World Bank to thoroughly assess national laws that prohibit access or residence within protected areas before supporting such projects, the importance of robust process frameworks, and the necessity of proactive, open discussions with borrowers about security challenges in protected areas to clarify any sensitive or unresolved legacy issues, such as disputes over land rights or unresolved claims from affected communities. Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 2 Sources: World Bank Inspection Panel 2024; World Bank 2025a, 2025c. Ecological Outcomes, Monitoring, and Reporting Most World Bank projects with conservation activities do not monitor ecological outcomes. Quantitative ecological monitoring is crucial for un- derstanding biodiversity outcomes. By tracking species abundance, dispersal, genetic diversity, and ecosystem function, the effectiveness of conservation efforts can be evaluated. Advances in remote sensing, spatial data, and AI- based image monitoring enhance ecological monitoring possibilities. Yet 20 only 14 of the 139 projects in the World Bank portfolio with dedicated con- servation activities include indicators measuring ecological outcomes.4 More significantly, we found that only 39 of 3,049 indicators could yield ecologi- cal information related to the projects’ conservation aims. These indicators included data on species richness, ecological integrity, and ecosystem health, as well as sightings of key species, wildlife abundance indexes, bioindicators, habitat representation rates, and vegetation metrics. The most frequently occurring indicator, the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT), co-designed by the World Bank, allows comparisons of important process factors globally but lacks information on ecological outcomes. Tree cover data show that, in the context of rapid global deforestation, World Bank–funded protected areas in tropical forests have on average succeeded in maintaining tree cover. A systematic review of 52 peer-reviewed studies confirms that tree cover change is a valid proxy for biodiversity in tropical forest ecosystems, reporting significant positive correlations between tree cover and biodiversity indexes. Forests—especially tropical ones—harbor a large share of terrestrial biodiversity, and changes in tree cover correlate with changes in species richness and ecosystem health. Tree cover reflects ecosystem structure and connectivity, both of which are critical for sustain- ing diverse biological communities. While it is a coarse proxy, it is often used when consistent, large-scale biodiversity data are lacking. Of the 526 pro- tected area sites that we could map, 448 are located in tropical forest areas. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    21 Using geospatial analyses, we estimate that the 448 sites, on average, main- tained tree cover at a rate of +2.0 percent after project close and +3.1 percent during and just after implementation. This shows that these protected areas have helped maintain tree cover and have likely stemmed biodiversity loss in tropical forest areas. The World Bank helped strengthen management capacity for many Sub- Saharan African protected areas that have maintained or increased their tree cover. The baseline METT scores for closed projects with support for protected areas in Sub-Saharan Africa (25 projects) reveal that the World Bank targeted protected areas with low institutional capacity (or a low METT baseline), as shown in figure 2.5. Protected areas with such low baseline scores are considered “paper parks,” or protected areas that exist in name only. We also find that in closed projects, World Bank–supported Sub-Saharan African protected areas have improved management effective- ness by about 20 percentage points, on average, as depicted in figure 2.5. The average tree cover in Sub-Saharan African protected areas for closed projects with a METT score (25 projects encompassing 98 protected areas) is 1.9 per- cent, which is on par with the average for all projects with protected areas approved between FY10 and FY14. There is, of course, variation in tree cover in the Sub-Saharan Africa portfolio; these trends are discussed next.  anagement Effectiveness Scores in Sub-Saharan African Figure 2.5. M Protected Areas, by Subregion 100 90 80 69.3 70 63.0 55.8 57.2 METT score 60 50 42.7 39.3 40 30 20 10 0 Eastern and Southern Africa Western and Central Africa Region Average baseline Average target Average value at project completion Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 2 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: This figure is based on a subset of 33 indicators from 17 projects in Sub-Saharan Africa (of 25) that tracked METT score indicators in a comparable way that could be aggregated. METT = Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool. Enhanced protected area management can be linked to maintained tree cover in most World Bank–supported protected areas in Sub-Saharan Africa. Tree cover gain is associated with repeat investments, while loss occurs in situations of protracted conflict. In the FY10–19 cohort, 63.6 percent of Sub-Saharan African protected areas had near‑stable tree cover (±3 percent, exclusive), 30.2 percent increased by at least 3 percent, and 6.2 percent de- 22 clined by at least 3 percent. Protected areas that gained tree cover tended to receive more than one round of project support.5 Protected areas in proxim- ity to high-intensity conflict, however, lost more tree cover on average than protected areas in more stable locations. For example, in both Burundi and Mozambique, protected areas located in regions that experienced conflict events saw declines in tree cover, whereas protected areas in more sta- ble parts of the country saw tree cover gains.6 World Bank analytical work highlights the benefits of staying engaged in conflict-affected situations to maintain biodiversity gains, including by partnering with local communities (box 2.2). Other factors that explain performance have to do with the intend- ed use of the protected area and its associated level of protection. In Malawi, forest cover increased in national parks and wildlife reserves managed by the Department of National Parks and Wildlife, but it decreased in forest reserves managed by the Forestry Department, which suffered from low budget, staffing, and enforcement capacity. Teasing out further performance factors across the protected area portfolio could yield useful insights but would require expanded analyses outside of the scope of this evaluation.  rotecting Biodiversity While Addressing Resource-Related Box 2.2. P Conflict Drivers World Bank practice underscores the benefits of staying engaged during conflict to protect biodiversity, safeguard institutions, aid affected communities, and address natural resource–related instability. For example, the Sudan Sustainable Natural Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    23 Resources Management Project (FY 2013–23) met biodiversity and conservation goals despite a military takeover. It improved biodiversity at 28 sites and achieved 94 per- cent of its reforestation target, covering 39,150 hectares. The Burkina Faso Communal Climate Action and Landscape Management Project (FY22–) used advanced conflict assessments to identify low- to medium-risk areas where the World Bank could part- ner with local community leaders to continue to protect biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. The World Bank disengaged in conflict areas around Quirimbas National Park in the Mozambique Forest Investment Project (FY17–22); these areas, according to our geospatial analysis, experienced an estimated 4.07 percent decline in tree cover between FY16 and FY24. Sources: Ahmadnia et al. 2022; Independent Evaluation Group. Ecological Connectivity Ecological connectivity—the unimpeded movement of species across land- scapes and seascapes—is vital for biodiversity conservation. It supports genetic exchange, species dispersal, and ecosystem resilience, which are all crucial for sustaining biodiversity amid environmental changes (Hilty et al. 2020). Fragmentation from human activities and climate change isolates populations, causing genetic bottlenecks and local extinctions (Hilty et al. 2020). Connectivity structures such as ecological corridors, stepping-stone habitats, wildlife crossings, and marine protected area networks are effective in supporting biodiversity.7 Current efforts focus on landscape and seascape strategies, policies, and restoration to address biodiversity loss. Ecological Corridors Although the World Bank has infrequently supported connectivity structures when financing terrestrial protected areas, when it has done so it has been effective. A notable case is in the Brazilian Amazon. Only one-fifth (n = 18) of the projects supporting terrestrial protected areas helped develop, reha- bilitate, demarcate, or expand ecological corridors. The World Bank’s support for Brazil’s Amazon Region Protected Areas is a notable exception and has seen exceptional results. In Amazon Region Protected Areas, the World Bank helped protect 60 million hectares of land by establishing large contiguous protected areas rather than isolated patches; setting up buffer zones and sustainable-use areas to create stepping stones for species movement and Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 2 reduce habitat fragmentation; and linking Indigenous and conservation areas, allowing species movement and sustainable use of resources while respecting Indigenous land rights. Studies that include geospatial analyses show that deforestation rates were significantly lower in Amazon Region Protected Areas than in unprotected areas (Pellin et al. 2022; Soares-Filho et al. 2010).8 Elsewhere, our geospatial analyses—conducted for 35 areas in six closed projects that supported physical connectivity policies and actions— show that 66 percent of these areas increased tree cover between 2016 and 2024 (and had outcomes rated moderately satisfactory or better and positive protected area management effectiveness scores). 24 Landscape and Seascape-Level Approaches The World Bank has worked to integrate biodiversity and ecosystem services into landscape and seascape management, beyond protected areas and corri- dors. Unlocking Nature-Smart Development: An Approach Paper on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services recognizes that corridors are important for support- ing ecological connectivity but alone are insufficient to prevent habitat loss and fragmentation. Rather, in line with the literature, the World Bank pro- motes landscape-level approaches that seek to balance ecological, economic, and social goals, including by addressing the drivers of biodiversity loss. Between FY10 and FY24, the World Bank approved 59 projects using a land- scape-level approach that includes conservation activities; most of these projects were in Latin America and the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa, with some emerging in East Asia and Pacific and in Europe and Central Asia. The projects seek to use territorial planning—integrating land, water, and biodiversity considerations—to optimize ecosystem services and manage competing land use. They emphasize coordination, policy alignment, partic- ipation, and decentralized management. Tools such as small grants promote economic diversification and reduce pressure on fragile ecosystems. The Independent Evaluation Group’s 2021 assessment of Madagascar’s Third Environment Program Support Project highlights the need for an integrated approach to address the drivers of biodiversity loss (box 2.3). Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    25 Landscape-level projects often do not report on ecological considerations, such as species composition, or on outcomes. Landscape-level projects with conservation aims support afforestation, reforestation, or native forest res- toration. The composition of trees and other species is crucial for optimizing biodiversity in landscapes. Native mixed species planting or natural regen- eration can restore ecological and sustainable balance, as demonstrated by the World Bank’s restoration activities in the Atlantic Forest (box 2.4). Using nonnative or monoculture species can harm biodiversity and resilience by reducing soil fertility, altering hydrology, or supporting fewer native species. Yet only 44 percent of landscape-level projects with conservation activities (26 of the 59 projects) include species choice, and just 1 measures actual plantings (the Rwanda Volcanoes Community Resilience Project tracks the proportion of native tree seedlings). Also, only 2 of the 59 projects captured vegetation change using the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, while correcting for natural variability to strengthen the analysis robustness (in the Nigeria Agro-Climatic Resilience in Semi-Arid Landscapes Project and the Ghana Sustainable Land and Water Management Project). The rest use area-based indicators (93 percent) or relegate measurement to the bound- aries of protected areas (mostly using the METT). Without systematic monitoring and reporting on ecological outcomes, gaps remain in assessing species survival, ecosystem services, and ecological trade-offs.  adagascar’s Third Environment Program Support Project Box 2.3. M Shows the Importance of Using a Landscape-Level Approach Achieving biodiversity outcomes in Madagascar in areas characterized by high levels of food pressure requires a balanced approach. The World Bank has supported biodiversity conservation efforts in Madagascar since 1991 by creating national parks and forest corridors and building environmental and forest management capacity. The Independent Evaluation Group used satellite imagery to measure and compare deforestation rates between World Bank–supported and non–World Bank–supported areas. The analysis showed increased deforestation in both, with higher rates in the humid zones of World Bank–supported areas. Declining rice yields around protected areas likely worsened deforestation as communities expanded agricultural lands into forests. Despite livelihood support activities, there was no significant difference in incomes or reduction in forest fires between villages. Geospatial analysis revealed that the World Bank’s approach of expanding protected areas without addressing issues such as agricultural productivity and land tenure was insufficient to curb deforestation Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 2 and biodiversity loss. Source: World Bank 2021. Landscape-level approaches also fall short of achieving intended land and resource rights activities to ensure sustainable biodiversity gains. Secure land and resource rights foster sustainable land management, encourage in- vestments in conservation practices, and reduce conflict (IPBES 2019; Larson 2011; UNCCD 2019). Ninety-three percent of the 59 landscape-level proj- ects cite the need to secure communities’ land, tenure, or resource rights, of 26 which 39 financed a relevant activity. These activities included commitments to strengthen community-led resource governance (n = 33); tenure regular- ization or formalization (n = 16); and legislative or regulatory reforms (n = 5). However, projects with commitments to strengthen community rights main- ly reported on participation in resource management deliberative bodies (for example, community forest or watershed management committees; 20 out of 33 projects); 5 out of 16 projects tracked progress on tenure regularization and formalization;9 and 2 out of 5 projects tracked regulatory reforms. The conservation activities supported in Mozambique exemplify how strengthen- ing community land and resource rights can support biodiversity (box 2.5).  ative Species–Focused Restoration in Paraguay’s Atlantic Box 2.4. N Forest Achieved Landscape-Level Management and Inclusive Socioeconomic Gains The Paraguay Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Land Management Project restored 36,254 hectares of land using native species. Indigenous Peoples and local communities earned income by supporting reforestation and agroforestry activities, in- cluding by planting native yerba mate and fruit trees. Small farmers also gained income (and food security) by providing environmental services such as planting fruit trees and shade-grown crops and restoring riparian zones. The project relied on medium and large landowners to work at scale, supporting wider swaths of forest restoration and regeneration through agroforestry and sustainable forest management efforts. Across Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    27 the project area, native species were used to restore riparian zones and degraded areas to improve habitat connectivity and reduce soil erosion. Large-scale plantations of exotic species were avoided, while eucalyptus was planted in specific areas for fuelwood production and to conserve native forests. This approach improved habitat suitability for native fauna and provided economic benefits to participants. With a 75 percent survival rate, the project showed that community-driven restoration with site-adapted native species offers significant ecological and socioeconomic advantages. Source: World Bank 2017.  trengthening Community Land and Resource Rights Through Box 2.5. S New Conservation Laws in Mozambique The Mozambique Conservation Areas for Biodiversity and Development Project (FY 2015–20) strengthened community land and resource rights, established par- ticipatory Conservation Area Management Councils, and introduced local revenue distribution mechanisms. It supported legal reforms and the regazetting of land rights, reenforcing rural governance under a new Conservation Law allowing communities to remain in some protected areas if their land use supported biodiversity. By project close, five co-management agreements were formalized, community perceptions of benefits from conservation areas improved by 23 percent, and 2,052,100 hectares were under improved biodiversity protection (108 percent of the target). Sustainable forest management activities in and around two conservation areas also cut carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation from 1 million tons to 131,113 tons per year, far exceeding the 500,000-ton target. Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Biodiversity in Seascapes The World Bank’s marine biodiversity conservation efforts often highlight land–sea connectivity for sustainability, but many opportunities are missed. Twenty-eight of 46 marine conservation projects support land–sea con- nectivity, adhering to global best practices in environmental planning and Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 2 integrated management strategies. These projects consider how upstream activities, such as agriculture or urban development, affect downstream marine environments. Best practice examples are illustrated in box 2.6. Eighteen (of 46) marine conservation-focused projects neglect land–sea con- nections. For example, the Senegal Natural Resources Management Project focuses on land conservation but fails to address runoff affecting coastal biodiversity. The Grenada Second Fiscal Resilience and Blue Growth devel- opment policy credit recognizes land–sea connectivity but lacks actionable strategies to integrate watershed management into marine conservation. Synergies between marine biodiversity conservation and other sector ac- tivities, particularly fisheries management, can be enhanced through the 28 selective application of other effective area-based conservation measures, or sites outside protected areas that provide effective, long-term biodiversity conservation.10 But only the Fiji Tourism Development Program showed the potential of other effective area-based conservation measures to boost con- servation efforts beyond designated protected areas through actors such as Indigenous communities, the private sector, and government agencies. Box 2.6. Best Practices in Land–Sea Connectivity The best practices in land–sea connectivity highlight innovative approaches to inte- grating terrestrial and marine conservation strategies. The Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Strategic Ecosystem Management Project integrates forest and fisheries management to ensure that upstream land-use activities do not negatively affect downstream marine ecosystems. The Kenya Coastal Development Project and the Mozambique Conservation Areas for Biodiversity and Development Project emphasize the con- nection between terrestrial watershed management and marine ecosystem health, ensuring that upstream activities do not harm marine biodiversity. The Strengthening Biodiversity Conservation Through the National Protected Areas Project in Peru inte- grates both terrestrial and marine conservation. By implementing ecological corridors, the project maintains biological connectivity across landscapes, addressing land- based impacts on marine biodiversity. Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    29 The marine portfolio shows inconsistencies in handling displacement and access restrictions, with some projects having clear safeguards and others having vague or no commitments. Twenty-seven projects use Resettlement Policy Frameworks and Process Frameworks to address displacement risks, ensuring community participation, alternative livelihoods, and compensa- tion. Projects such as the Guinea-Bissau Biodiversity Conservation Project and the Caribbean Marine Biodiversity Program integrate displacement mit- igation into conservation planning by using participatory frameworks and benefit-sharing mechanisms. Eight projects acknowledge displacement risks but rely on broad commitments, such as “ensuring alternative livelihoods,” without structured compensation plans or legal frameworks. Although these projects recognize the risks, they lack clear, actionable safeguards to prevent disproportionate impacts on communities. For example, the Unleashing the Blue Economy of the Caribbean project mentions displacement risks but does not outline concrete mitigation measures. Some projects also reference economic displacement risks, such as the Ocean Partnerships for Sustainable Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation project, although it does not provide structured transition support for small-scale fishers affected by regulato- ry changes. Similarly, the Northern Mozambique Rural Resilience Project identifies risks but lacks a dedicated mitigation framework, instead relying on general economic resilience strategies that do not explicitly compensate affected groups. Twelve project documents make no mention of displace- ment measures. Sustainable Financing Sustainable financing for conservation activities is crucial for sustaining hard-won biodiversity gains. Most conserved areas suffer from financial challenges due to their public goods nature, resulting in habitat loss and diminished ecosystem services. Sustainable finance mechanisms, especially those that use adequate financial incentives or market-driven approaches to attract the private sector, help sustain biodiversity gains. Mechanisms that have proven effective in the World Bank’s portfolio for sustaining biodiver- sity protection include Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES),11 especially in IPLC areas; conservation or endowment funds; and—to a certain extent— ecotourism, which also provides job opportunities. The following analysis Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 2 covers the 139 World Bank lending projects with conservation activities. PES has shown good environmental and livelihood results, especially in community-held lands, but the World Bank’s support for PES has waned. PES is a market-based approach to conservation financing, initially championed by the World Bank, that is based on the principle that beneficiaries of ecosys- tem services (such as downstream users of clean water) should pay for them, while those who contribute to generating these services (upstream) should be compensated (Engel et al. 2008; Pagiola and Platais 2007; Wunder 2005, 2008). PES programs prioritizing IPLC territories have been particularly suc- cessful. Programs in Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Peru have 30 collectively supported Indigenous and tribal communities to preserve more than 4 million hectares of forest, representing 10 percent of these commu- nities’ titled lands. Research shows that these programs have not negatively affected voluntary community initiatives to manage and conserve biodiversi- ty sustainably. In Costa Rica and Mexico, these programs have enhanced the efforts of IPLC to manage their territories without compensation (FAO and FILAC 2021).12 The World Bank used PES to support conservation aims in 11 of the 139 projects identified. The 7 closed and validated projects—all rated moderately satisfactory or higher—supported PES in community landscapes and showed effective environmental and livelihood results. For example, PES contributed to a 20 percent reduction in deforestation in biodiversity corri- dors and excellent economic returns in Mexico, and it helped the Democratic Republic of Congo achieve an estimated 29.5 million tons of avoided carbon dioxide emissions—more than double the original target—by incentivizing agroforestry and land-use planning techniques.13 Yet despite these successes, the World Bank approved few projects with PES mechanisms in the second half of the evaluation period. The use of conservation trust funds was infrequent but largely effective. Conservation trust funds were implemented in 15 conservation projects, 12 of which were in Latin America and the Caribbean. All but one of these funds were established before FY15. Ten of these funds have demonstrated strong results, achieving significant capitalizations, positive rates of return, and broad protected area coverage. Notably, the Amazon Region Protected Areas Project Transition Fund reached 173 percent of its target capitalization, pro- viding sustainable financing through 2039. The Caribbean Biodiversity Fund Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    31 attained a market value of $98 million, supporting more than 100 conserva- tion projects in 12 Caribbean countries. Ecotourism activities have been effective in achieving local economic ben- efits, but links to biodiversity protection have not been measured. When conducted responsibly, ecotourism provides local communities with in- centives to protect forests, wildlife, and landscapes, thereby encouraging sustainable viewing and experiences instead of poaching or overharvesting, while also generating employment and distributive benefits. Thirty-two projects in the conservation portfolio included ecotourism activities. Of the 15 closed and validated projects, 87 percent were rated as moderate- ly satisfactory or higher, and 12 demonstrated positive results in terms of infrastructure improvement, training, increased visitation, revenue, and benefits to local livelihoods. For instance, in Sri Lanka, 5,000 households ex- perienced an increase in income through handicraft sales and guided tours. In Mozambique’s marine protected areas, 1,500 jobs were created, contrib- uting to enhanced park management scores. Meanwhile, Tunisia integrated ecotourism activities into a broader tourism framework to promote tourism diversification, resulting in additional income for more than 12,000 house- holds through tourism-related activities and a 30 percent increase in local employment within the project areas. However, no project has assessed the links between ecotourism and biodiversity (for example, avoided deforesta- tion or habitat preservation). Although traditional conservation finance tools are less common now, the World Bank has recently taken the lead in developing and showcasing spe- cialized biodiversity-related financial instruments such as blue bonds and wildlife bonds. As demonstration projects, these instruments have been enabled through concessional finance, including the Global Environment Facility and PROGREEN, which has helped de-risk these pioneering efforts. As shown in Making Waves: World Bank Support for the Blue Economy, 2012–23 (World Bank 2024c), the World Bank helped launch the world’s first sovereign blue bond with the government of the Seychelles, designed to fund sustain- able fisheries and the expansion of marine protected areas. Launched in 2018, the experience has helped raise global awareness about biodiversity finance and the potential of mobilizing private capital while also demonstrating the need to focus on lowering transaction costs, managing investor risk tolerance, Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 2 achieving scale, and ensuring sustained ecological and socioeconomic ben- efits (March et al. 2024; World Bank 2024c). Since 2022, the World Bank has succeeded in developing the Rhino Bond in South Africa, which links investor returns to biodiversity outcomes—specifically, increases in black rhino pop- ulations—and initial monitoring has shown encouraging results, including population growth exceeding original targets (World Bank 2025e). Building on this approach, a similar outcome-based “Chimpanzee Bond” is currently being developed in Rwanda, intended to finance chimpanzee habitat preser- vation through performance-linked investor payments. Given their nascency, continued learning is essential to determine their replicability, scalability, and ultimate effectiveness in achieving biodiversity objectives. 32 1  In addition to their social importance, deserts and other drylands hold nearly one-third of terrestrial global carbon stocks, offering significant potential for enhanced sequestration through improved land management (Trumper et al. 2008). 2  Mangroves account for just 0.2 percent of the total biome area in the global biome data set, making them the smallest of the 15 biome categories analyzed. By contrast, they make up 1.5 percent of project coverage in the World Bank conservation portfolio. Although this may initially suggest proportional attention, there are compelling reasons to expect greater prioritization of mangrove ecosystems. Mangroves sequester up to five times more carbon than terrestrial forests and can store it for centuries under the right conditions. They also provide critical protection from storm surges and extreme weather events, with investment returns estimated at four times their cost (UNEP 2021). Furthermore, for 1.5 billion people, fish is the most important source of protein, and in low-income, food-deficit countries, nearly 20 percent of animal protein comes from fish, making mangroves essential for sustaining coastal fisheries and livelihoods. Restoring mangroves could add up to 60 trillion commer- cially valuable fish and invertebrates to coastal waters annually, offering a powerful boost to global food security (UNEP 2021). Lastly, mangroves are vital biodiversity hotspots, but nearly half the mammal species that depend on these ecosystems are at risk of extinction. Although their geographic footprint is limited, the ecological and socioeconomic value of mangroves arguably warrants higher coverage than area-based metrics alone might suggest. 3  An important caveat with data from Garnett et al. (2018) is that we are unable to distinguish whether Indigenous Peoples areas are formally recognized by governments. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    33 4  P083813—DRC GEF Financing to PREPAN Project; P088520—Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement; P098538—Sustainable Land and Water Management; P108879—AFCC2/RI-Nyika Transfrontier Conservation Area Project; P110661—Sustainable Management and Biodiversity Conservation of the Lake Aibi Basin; P120561—Tunisia: Ecotourism and Conservation of Desert Biodiversity; P122383—Landscape Approach to Wildlife Conservation in Northeast China; P122419—Support to Protected Areas Management; P126361—Kihansi Catchment Conservation and Management Project; P129647—Peru Strengthening Sustainable Management of the Guano Islands, Isles and Capes National Reserve System Project; P130474—Management and Protection of Key Biodiversity Areas in Belize; P155642—Third South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Governance and Shared Growth Project (SWIOFish3); P166802—Mozambique Conservation Areas for Biodiversity and Development—Phase 2; P170466—Uganda Investing in Forests and Protected Areas for Climate-Smart Development Project. 5  Protected areas in Africa that received repeat World Bank support experienced greater posi- tive tree cover change on average. Of 138 protected areas in Sub-Saharan Africa that received support from a single World Bank project approved between FY10 and FY19, 67.4 percent had an average tree cover change of within ± 3 percent; 6.5 percent had an average tree cover decline of 3 percent or greater; and 26.1 percent had an average tree cover increase of 3 per- cent or greater. Of 39 Sub-Saharan African protected areas that received repeat World Bank support from projects approved between FY10 and FY19, 41 percent had an average tree cover change of within ± 3 percent; 2.6 percent had an average tree cover decline of 3 percent or greater; and 56.4 percent had an average tree cover increase of 3 percent or greater. 6  Conflict can affect forest cover negatively or positively based on conflict dynamics, but across the evaluation portfolio a decrease in tree cover at the protected area level has been shown to be associated with proximity to high-intensity conflict. In Mozambique, tree cover increased by an average of 6.1 percent in World Bank–supported protected areas, but Quirimbas National Park—located in Cabo Delgado province, which accounted for nearly 70 percent of all conflict events in the country during the project period—lost 4.9 percent, and the World Bank was forced to cancel project activities (see box 2.2). In Burundi, Bururi Forest Nature Reserve and Ruvubu National Park, located in relatively low-conflict provinces, gained about 5.5 percent, whereas tree cover in Kibira National Park, in a high‑conflict province, fell by 2.1 percent. For a region or province to be considered “high conflict,” it must be in the top five provinces by total number of conflict events and be the location of more than 5 percent of the total conflict events in the country. This analysis used conflict event data from Armed Conflict Location and Event Data, specifically the number of battles, explosions or remote violence, or violence against civilians. 7  Damschen et al. (2019) found that linked habitat patches retained more native plant species Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 2 over decades, while Olds et al. (2016) observed higher fish species richness and resilience in well-connected reef networks. 8  Soares-Filho et al. (2010) found that the expansion of protected areas in the Brazilian Amazon, including Amazon Region Protected Areas, was responsible for 37 percent of the region’s total reduction in deforestation between 2004 and 2006. The research highlighted that these protected areas effectively inhibited deforestation without causing leakage (that is, deforestation shifting to other areas). Pellin et al. (2022) analyzed 133 protected areas and found that total deforestation amounted to 276.63 square kilometers in 2020, with 226.37 square kilometers occurring within 90 sustainable-use protected areas (0.06 percent of this group’s total area) and 50.26 square kilometers occurring within 43 strictly protected areas 34 (0.01 percent of this group’s total area). These findings suggest that most deforestation took place within a few protected areas, indicating the effectiveness of well-managed protected areas in reducing deforestation. 9  These projects measured the registration of secured land plots, the issuance of land certifi- cates—including those bearing women’s names—and community or social forest management agreements or enterprises with formal tenure arrangements. 10  Area-based fisheries management can qualify as an “other effective area-based conservation measure” if it benefits biodiversity in the long run. For instance, community-managed fisher- ies refuges protecting critical marine habitats may be considered other effective area-based conservation measures. 11  Sometimes also referred to as Payments for Environmental Services. 12  These positive results were generated despite relatively modest government investment and considerable variation in the annual average payment per hectare (Mexico’s program was the better funded but only featured an annual average investment of $56 million per year, of which Indigenous Peoples received approximately 40 percent). Government funding for these programs in Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Mexico has declined or stagnated due to budget restraints, putting future progress in jeopardy (FAO and FILAC 2021). 13  In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Improved Forested Landscape Management Project implemented PES contracts across 89 percent of targeted chiefdoms to incentivize sustainable agroforestry and land-use planning. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    35 3 | Connecting Climate and Biodiversity in Development Planning Highlights Countries recognize the need to better connect climate and bio- diversity ambitions—as reflected in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity—and to align implementation. Most Country Partnership Frameworks are strongly aligned with global climate agreements but not with global biodiversity agree- ments or national biodiversity frameworks. The World Bank Group is not optimizing biodiversity benefits in Country Partnership Frameworks with climate and nature ob- jectives and often not capturing biodiversity-related results. Biodiversity considerations are most notably absent in Country Partnership Frameworks whose portfolios represent an outsized share of land being put under improved management in the Corporate Scorecard. In Country Climate and Development Reports, the link between biodiversity and climate change is often acknowledged for mit- igation purposes. However, recommendations to restore natural habitats to enhance carbon capture and enlarge biodiversity bene- fits are infrequent. Country Climate and Development Reports also rarely identify the biodiversity risks posed by climate change. 36   Countries recognize the need to better connect climate and biodiversity ambitions—as reflected in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the CBD—and to align implementation. The need to identify and pursue synergistic solutions between climate and biodi- versity goals has been strongly articulated at the COPs and at the Fifteenth United Nations Biodiversity Conference. The World Bank Board has asked management to identify complementary actions, align resource mobilization strategies, and harmonize monitoring and reporting mechanisms for both con- ventions. In its three Nature and Development Briefs for the Fifteenth United Nations Biodiversity Conference, the World Bank stated that policy makers should incorporate considerations of nature, climate, and development into sector strategies and plans, including national plans for achieving climate mit- igation and adaptation goals (World Bank 2022a, 2022b, 2022c). In Unlocking Nature-Smart Development: An Approach Paper on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, the Bank Group stated that the country engagement process provides mechanisms to integrate biodiversity and ecosystem services into nation- al development strategies. In the 2021 Joint Statement by the Multilateral Development Banks on Nature, People and Planet, the Bank Group committed to helping clients update their national biodiversity strategies. As such, we assess the extent to which the Bank Group integrates biodiversi- ty into its CPFs and CCDRs. We assess the most recent CPFs (n = 113) and all 57 disclosed CCDRs. CPFs are the primary strategic document that outlines Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    37 the Bank Group’s engagement with a member country. CCDRs are designed to help countries prioritize actions to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs), en- hance adaptation, and achieve broader development goals. Country Partnership Frameworks Most CPFs are strongly aligned with global climate agreements but not with global biodiversity agreements or national biodiversity frameworks. Ninety percent of the 113 most recent CPFs (n = 102) articulate climate priorities, citing nationally determined contributions, the Paris Agreement, or Paris Alignment. However, no CPF refers explicitly to the global biodiversity agreements (the GBF, the CBD, or the Kunming-Montreal and Aichi targets), and only three CPFs (Ghana, Mexico, and Zambia) link Bank Group support to their respective national biodiversity strategies and action plans.1 The Bank Group is not optimizing biodiversity benefits in client engagements with climate and nature objectives and is often not capturing biodiversity-related results. Most CPFs aim to achieve climate change, sustainability, or resilience goals. Eighty-one of the 113 CPFs (72 percent) include high-level outcomes related to climate adaptation, disaster risk management (including the use of nature-based solutions such as mangrove restoration), natural resource management, climate mitigation, and low- carbon growth (figure 3.1). These themes provide opportunities to support biodiversity-positive choices and to help clients capture and report on biodiversity results where they exist. Only 20 CPFs report on biodiversity, most of which were approved after 2022. Eight track forest cover (Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Indonesia, Kenya, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Montenegro, and Panama), and eight track emission reduction from avoided degradation or deforestation (Burkina Faso, the Republic of Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lao PDR, Madagascar, Mexico, Mozambique, and Nepal). Notable CPFs that have strong metrics include Lesotho’s, which tracks natural resource depletion as a percentage of gross national income; Uzbekistan’s, which measures degraded land as a percentage of total land area; and Cambodia’s, Jamaica’s, and Sri Lanka’s, which use the Yale Environmental Performance Index. Biodiversity considerations are most notably absent in CPFs whose portfolios represent an outsized share of land being put under improved management in the Corporate Scorecard. The Corporate Scorecard tracks about 19.6 mil- lion hectares of land under enhanced management or conservation in 18 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 3 countries whose most recent CPFs do not articulate, capture, or report on biodiversity.2 This includes 11.7 million hectares of land in the Sahel (Chad, Niger, and Senegal), 7.2 million hectares in Ethiopia, 308,000 hectares in Somalia, 279,884 hectares in Europe and Central Asia (Albania, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, and Tajikistan), and 152,000 hectares in the Plurinational State of Bolivia. The World Bank is infrequently supporting and leveraging analytical work on valuing ecosystem services to inform integrated climate–biodiversity solutions at a national level. Valuing ecosystem services assigns economic, social, and ecological significance to the benefits provided by natural 38 systems. Quantifying ecosystem services helps governments and businesses incorporate environmental costs and benefits into decision-making. Even though the World Bank has supported natural wealth accounting in a few countries through its WAVES (Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services) program (2010–20), which often led to biodiversity- positive policy decisions (especially in Colombia, Costa Rica, and Guatemala),3 and even though the World Bank has expanded this type of analytical work to 31 countries, we only identified five CPFs that articulate how World Bank support for natural capital accounting has informed sustainable development planning: Cameroon, Lao PDR, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Zambia.  ountry Partnership Frameworks with Climate and Nature- Figure 3.1. C Related High-Level Objectives Climate adaptation and disaster 54 risk management Natural resource management 31 Financial and macroeconomic resilience 18 Energy sustainability and efficiency 17 Theme of CPF objectives Social protection and safety nets 12 Climate change mitigation and 12 low-carbon transition Water, sanitation, and waste management 11 Resilient infrastructure and urban resilience 10 Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    39 Productivity, climate-smart agriculture, 10 and resilient livelihoods Pollution and air quality management 4 Governance and institutional capacity 3 for environment and climate Biodiversity 2 Land administration 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 CPFs (no.; of 81 with environment, climate, and resilience HLOs) Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: Individual subobjectives were categorized into themes based on their dominant focus, while recognizing that there is overlap across these themes. CPF = Country Partnership Framework; HLO = high-level outcome. Country Climate and Development Reports Most CCDRs identify and address the need to use and conserve countries’ biodiversity-rich natural ecosystems to achieve national climate mitigation goals. Eighty percent of all CCDRs disclosed at the time of this review (57, covering 69 countries) identify and recommend that the World Bank help conserve natural ecosystems, especially forests, to support countries’ climate mitigation goals. Most recommend addressing deforestation, which is often caused by unsustainable agricultural expansion and livestock systems, to ensure that standing carbon sinks are not depleted and unable to contribute to meeting GHG reduction aims. There are missed opportunities in desert ecosystems, like in Jordan and Morocco, and in small island developing states in the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States to support terrestrial forests in addition to ocean resources. A growing number of CCDRs recom- mend using and conserving marine ecosystems as carbon sinks, including in Ghana, Maldives, Mozambique, and members of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. Only half of the CCDRs recommend conserving biodiversity to achieve adaptation goals. These CCDRs identify and recommend ways to conserve forests and strengthen protected areas to exploit nontimber value chains and develop ecotourism for the benefit of rural livelihoods, especially for resource-dependent communities. Less frequently, other CCDRs focus on increasing the sustainability of agriculture to boost productivity or on sup- porting sustainable fisheries management, including through blue economy Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 3 approaches that recommend developing marine protected areas to bene- fit both fisheries and tourism. Several CCDRs also propose nature-based solutions, including the conservation of mangroves and wetlands and the enhancement of coastal zones. Fewer CCDRs recommend restorative activities to enlarge mitigation op- portunities while enhancing biodiversity benefits. Of the 45 CCDRs that recommend using existing ecosystems as carbon sinks, only 14 recommend habitat restoration. Many other CCDRs recommend tree planting for car- bon capture and local economic benefits but do not articulate whether they recommend native or exotic fast-growing species, the latter of which 40 may run counter to biodiversity aims. Although restoration is not always possible—due to severely degraded areas not being capable of recovery or due to climate change and shifting biomes, for example—restoration is typically preferable because it maintains biodiversity and ecosystem stabil- ity (Busch et al. 2024). Other forms of natural restoration, such as wetland restoration, are highly effective for flood control and water purification. Grassland restoration is cheaper than afforestation and supports biodiversity and carbon sequestration. CCDRs also infrequently diagnose the risks that climate change poses to biodiversity. One-third (19 out of 57) of the CCDRs explicitly identify and address such risks. The diagnosis of risks is absent in many of the CPFs that look toward countries’ natural forests to support their nationally determined contributions. These risks are also undiagnosed in many countries with low resilience to climate change and a high reliance on biodiversity, such as those in Africa. Comprehensive discussions on climate change risks to forest ecosystems were found in the CCDRs for Romania, Senegal, and the Western Balkans. The Independent Evaluation Group’s evaluation on the blue econ- omy also found that CCDRs only partially identify the risks posed by climate change to marine and coastal areas, with scant reference to the impact of emerging marine sectors on the coastal and marine environment. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    41 1  Ghana’s CPF (FY22–26), under its objective on improved management of natural resources and climate change risks, includes technical and advisory support for updating the nation- al biodiversity strategy and action plans, institutionalizing natural capital accounting, and strengthening biodiversity monitoring to help integrate environmental and sustainability considerations into natural resource management. Mexico’s CPF (FY20–25) has an objective to “support the government in reaching its climate change goals,” which cites cross-sec- toral instruments including the National Climate Change Strategy, the National Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Strategy, the 2015 Law on Energy Transition, and the National Strategy on Biodiversity as being relevant to its Bank Group engagement agenda. Zambia’s CPF (FY25–29) links its objective to improve natural resources management and climate-smart agriculture with its second national biodiversity strategy and action plan (2015–25), which emphasizes conservation, sustainable resource management, and biodiversity protection. 2  Albania, Bangladesh, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Chad, the Comoros, Ethiopia, Haiti, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Lesotho, Moldova, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Somalia, Tajikistan, and Togo. 3  Since 2010, the World Bank has supported countries to develop natural capital accounts through three donor-funded programs: WAVES, WAVES+, and the Global Program on Sustainability. Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 3 42 4 | Integrating Biodiversity into Production Sectors Highlights Sustainable production practices are a powerful means to ad- dress the multifaceted drivers of biodiversity loss while achieving sustained yields, nutritious foods, and jobs. We identified World Bank and International Finance Corporation lending projects that demonstrate the plausibility of achieving economic–ecological win–wins that could be adapted to various contexts, replicated, and scaled, although these projects are not yet commonplace. World Bank and International Finance Corporation support for climate-smart agriculture has enhanced resilience to shocks, but some practices can harm biodiversity because of negative environ- mental effects. The World Bank’s use of forest carbon finance within landscapes has contributed to increased yields and revenues, while meeting targets for avoided deforestation and carbon sequestration. Forest carbon programs have fallen short of targets to restore degraded forest landscapes and have missed opportunities to track biodiver- sity gains. There is limited assurance of biodiversity outcomes in the forest production sector because of weak tracking of the implementa- tion of sustainable forest management plans. Reporting on forest certification was also frequently lacking in project documentation. A systematic rationale for species selection was absent in half of the forestry projects, constraining assessment of likely biodiversity outcomes and ecosystem resilience. 43  The World Bank is advancing elements of fisheries management with potential biodiversity gains, but there is uneven application across Global Practices, and most projects are struggling to recon- cile the long-term need for enhanced fisheries management with short-term food security and income needs. We identified four key factors of effectiveness in World Bank and International Finance Corporation support for integrating biodiver- sity into production areas: fostering interministerial collaboration and strong information flows, aligning finance with emerging sustainability regulations and markets, reducing adoption costs and risks through innovative financing and strengthening land and resource tenure and rights, and identifying entry points where pro- duction systems are reaching biological limits. 44   Sustainable production practices are a powerful means to address the multifaceted drivers of biodiversity loss while achieving sustained yield, jobs, and income gains. As stated by the World Bank, solutions to the global biodiversity crisis inevitably lie in the economic sectors that exert the greatest pressure on nature, including food, land use, and ocean use.1 As stated in Unlocking Nature-Smart Development, these economic sectors find themselves at a crossroads: they are central to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and satisfying the needs of a growing population, but their expanding footprint is also unsustainable (World Bank Group 2021). When soil, fish stocks, forests, and water supplies are degraded or destroyed, productivity drops and jobs disappear. Sustainable practices maintain or even improve these resources so that jobs can be sustained from one gen- eration to the next. In this chapter, we cover World Bank and IFC efforts to integrate biodiversity into three production areas: (i) agriculture and agribusiness, (ii) forestry, and (iii) fisheries and aquaculture. We then pres- ent cross-cutting lessons across these areas, derived from our portfolio review, case studies, and interviews. In this chapter, we do not cover other competing land uses with large footprints, such as extractives, energy, or infrastructure, nor do we address the wider built environment. World Bank Agriculture Investments Integrating biodiversity into agriculture yields long-term benefits for pro- Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    45 ductivity, human health, and welfare. Biodiversity supports ecosystem services such as pollination and soil fertility, enhancing crop productivi- ty. Biodiverse systems offer resilience to climate variability, disasters, and diseases, ensuring stable food production (Halwart 1998; Jarvis 2007; Pullin and White 2011). Mixed farming systems contribute to better nutrition and health, while local economies benefit from diversified income sources and sustainable agriculture jobs (Garrity et al. 2010). The use of natural predators and crop diversity also lowers pesticide dependence and reduces health and nutrition risks (IPBES 2016, 2019). The World Bank has long championed biodiversity-positive approaches in agricultural production systems. In Biodiversity and Agriculture, it was stated that “without biodiversity, agriculture cannot progress” (World Bank 1996, vii) to maintain ecological balance and productivity; Integrating Biodiversity in Agricultural Intensification developed strategies for incorporating agro- biodiversity into intensified agricultural systems (World Bank 1999); and in Biodiversity, Climate Change, and Adaptation, the World Bank advocated for genetic diversity and ecosystem-based approaches to achieve resilient produc- tion systems (World Bank 2008). The World Bank’s forthcoming report, Reboot Development: The Economics of a Livable Planet, examines the interconnected- ness of agriculture and biodiversity, demonstrating how agriculture affects and depends on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and how sustainable solu- tions can enhance agricultural resilience while preserving biodiversity. Climate-smart agriculture projects enhance resilience to shocks, but some practices may harm biodiversity because of negative environmental effects. Climate-smart agriculture is a suite of farming practices and technologies that can boost productivity, enhance resilience, and reduce GHG emissions.2 The World Bank approved 247 agriculture lending projects between FY15 and FY24.3 Over this period, the percentage of these projects that indicate they apply climate-smart agriculture tools has grown from 30 percent to 90 percent. Although climate-smart agricultural practices and technolo- gies can contribute to resilience (FAO 2013, 2021; World Bank 2020), those involving improved or modified varieties and intensified use of chemical in- puts may generate negative environmental externalities—including elevated emissions, nutrient runoff, and degradation of soil and water resources—par- ticularly where safe use and regulation are weak (Giller et al. 2021; Hellin and Fisher 2019; Sumberg et al. 2023). Most climate-smart agriculture proj- ects do not clarify how they followed environmental and social criteria to Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 4 evaluate trade-offs of high-input models, balancing yield maximization and short-term productivity with emission reductions, long-term sustainabili- ty, and labor demands (FAO 2013, 2021; Giller et al. 2021; Hellin and Fisher 2019; Sumberg et al. 2023). Managing these trade-offs is crucial to adapting strategies to local contexts and optimizing benefits across food security, livelihoods, adaptation, mitigation, and biodiversity goals (FAO 2013, 2021; Saj et al. 2017). We identified World Bank agricultural projects that demonstrate that economic–ecological win–win projects are possible, although these projects are not yet commonplace. Seventeen of 247 agriculture lending projects 46 in 10 countries (including 6 projects in China and 2 each in Panama and Zambia) had explicit designs that aligned with the literature on how to achieve biodiversity-positive outcomes.4 These projects demonstrated how to achieve and measure ecological and economic gains by using biodiversity- compatible approaches aligned with good practices in the literature. These practices included agroforestry, intercropping, composting, cover cropping, and integrated pest management—practices that have demonstrated strong potential to enhance resilience while sustaining environmental integrity and reducing reliance on external inputs (FAO 2013, 2021; Lipper et al. 2014; Saj et al. 2017; Tripathi et al. 2022). Although other projects may be achieving biodiversity gains, these are neither explicitly defined nor tracked with proxies that can be validated in line with metrics in the literature. On completion, 7 closed and validated projects, rated moderately satisfactory or higher, enhanced productivity, income, and yield sustainability. Specific results included increased plant and crop diversity, increased organic matter in soil, reduced deforestation and agrochemical use, and increased certification (for example, organic farming, sustainable agricultural practices, and reduced emissions). Illustrative results follow; a deeper analysis, including of contextual factors, is required to support the needed replication and scale. » The China Climate Smart Staple Crop Production Project (FY15–21), rat- ed satisfactory, reduced fertilizer and pesticide use, increased crop residue retention, and integrated trees into croplands, increasing yields by 8 percent and incomes by 14 percent.5 Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    47 » The Panama Sustainable Production Systems and Conservation of Biodiversity Project (FY15–20), rated satisfactory, mainstreamed biodiversity-friendly practices across 1,611 hectares of certified production landscapes. Business alliances and targeted support to more than 33,000 beneficiaries, including Indigenous and women farmers, generated an average internal rate of return of 36 percent and reinforced the market value of sustainable farming.6 » The Viet Nam Sustainable Agriculture Transformation Project (FY15–22), rated highly satisfactory, demonstrated that integrated technology packages reduced fertilizer and pesticide use by 35 percent and 48 percent, respective- ly; increased net profits by 32 percent; and raised rice yields by 5–10 percent, while also reducing postharvest losses and GHG emissions (box 4.1). Box 4.1. Scaling Biodiversity-Friendly Rice Cultivation in the Mekong Delta Viet Nam’s Mekong Delta drives economic growth and food security through intensive rice production, making it a leading exporter. However, practices such as double and triple cropping have caused deforestation, wetland degradation, pollution, biodiversity loss, and high greenhouse gas emissions. Viet Nam has identified the need to transition to more sustainable agricultural practices. The World Bank’s highly satisfactory–rat- ed Sustainable Agriculture Transformation Project (FY15–22) helped demonstrate the potential benefits of using new farming practices, such as 1M5R (One Must Do, Five Reductions), which requires the use of certified seed along with reductions in (i) seed sowing rates; (ii) pesticide, fertilizer, and water use; and (iii) postharvest losses. It also helped demonstrate the positive gains that can be achieved from the alternate wetting and drying technique, which supports soil aeration, leading to diverse soil organisms and methane emission reductions, both of which are good for ecosystem health. The achievements demonstrated by this project and these technologies have been multifaceted, with benefits exhibited for productivity, profit, and the environment. The adoption of the technology packages reduced fertilizer use by 35 percent and pesticide costs by 48 percent among participating rice farmers. Ninety-nine percent of participating farmers adopted alternate wetting and drying, reducing irrigation fre- quency by more than 30 percent. These efficiency gains contributed to a 32 percent increase in net profits per hectare, driven by lower input costs and improved product quality. Average rice yields rose to 7.5–7.8 tons per hectare—a 5–10 percent increase— while postharvest losses declined by 30 percent because of investments in improved storage, drying, and logistics infrastructure. Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 4 Factors of effectiveness included the successful transmission of applied research information among the International Rice Research Institute, the World Bank, various levels of government—especially decentralized levels—and farmer organizations and cooperatives. Also, lessons on livelihood diversification were made available by the Mekong Delta Integrated Climate Resilience and Sustainable Livelihoods Project (FY16–24), which also featured effective provincial agency coordination. The two investment operations, along with timely advisory services and analytics, informed the formulation of new government policies, strategies, regional main plans, and investment plans. This policy framework will be critical for the sustainable, biodiversity- friendly, and resilient development of the Delta region. 48 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. The World Bank has also positioned itself as a leader on the issue of re- purposing perverse agricultural subsidies whose environmental harm undermines productivity and intended long-term welfare gains, but it is too soon to evaluate results. The World Bank’s 2023 report Detox Development: Repurposing Environmentally Harmful Subsidies highlights the role of per- verse agricultural subsidies in causing deforestation, soil degradation, GHG emissions, and inefficient resource allocation and in further entrenching inequality (Damania et al. 2023). The World Bank has led this dialogue, as exhibited at COP28 in 2023, where it issued the Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems and Climate Action. This leadership led to 160 governments making a pledge to revisit their agrifood system poli- cies to achieve more sustainable and equitable food systems. Pursuant to this, the World Bank catalyzed the Food Systems 2030 Multi-Donor Trust Fund, housed in the World Bank, which is supporting 40 Agricultural Public Expenditure Reviews to identify reform options, together with seven pilot operations focused on repurposing perverse subsidies. International Finance Corporation’s Agriculture Investment and Advisory Integrating biodiversity considerations into agribusiness delivers strong financial, risk mitigation, and reputational returns, including in emerging markets. Biodiversity-friendly practices—such as agroforestry, integrated Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    49 pest management, and landscape restoration—have been shown to enhance yields and quality, reduce input costs, and provide access to green finance and premium markets. They also mitigate climate, pest, and supply chain risks; support compliance with tightening sustainability regulations (for example, the EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products); and strengthen brand value amid rising consumer and investor demand for sustainable sourcing. Conversely, biodiversity loss increases exposure to yield volatility, regulatory penalties, and reputational damage. Integrating biodiversity is thus not only environmentally beneficial but also a core business strategy that supports long-term profitability, resilience, and market competitiveness. A quarter of IFC’s agricultural investments included practices with potential biodiversity benefits. Twenty-seven of 107 IFC-financed investments in the agricultural industry (crop and animal production, excluding aquaculture) approved between FY15 and FY24 included practices with potential biodiver- sity benefits.7 Most investments focused on coffee (also in combination with other crops, such as cashew, cocoa, cotton, various spices, nuts, and tea) and sugarcane. Half of the projects (54 percent) were in Africa: there were several in Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Madagascar, South Africa, and Zambia, along with single projects in Malawi, Senegal, and the East Africa region, and an Africa regional project. Twenty percent were in Latin America (mostly in Brazil), and 15 percent were in East Asia and Pacific (mostly in Viet Nam). Three-quarters of IFC’s sustainable agribusiness investments use inter- nationally recognized traceability and certification systems, which are promising for achieving positive biodiversity outcomes. Internationally recognized systems include Good Agricultural Practices certification for soil, water, and pesticide management; the BONSUCRO system addressing bio- diversity risk management in the sugarcane sector; and Rainforest Alliance certification for habitat and species protection, wildlife corridors, and pol- lution control. Proprietary systems such as Nespresso AAA and the Olam Sustainability Framework are improving environmental criteria but often lack independent verification. IFC agribusiness investments with effective certification schemes often occur in vertically integrated models, with companies committed to sustain- ability. Ten sustainable investments were mature and reviewed, revealing greater success in biodiversity outcomes for projects linked to vertically integrated models. For example, an Asian fiberboard plant showed success- ful certification for a small plantation extension, and a southern African Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 4 fruit producer expanded existing certifications to 180 hectares. Conversely, landscape-level efforts yielded less positive results in addressing the drivers of biodiversity loss, such as unsuccessful deforestation-free cocoa shares in West Africa and nonreporting on traceability by an agribusiness distributor in Latin America. An exploratory case study in Brazil examined success- ful soy certification schemes amid high deforestation rates in a biodiverse region (box 4.2). Many of the bigger brands represented in this portfolio are pledging sustainable sourcing to gain competitive advantages in certain growing market segments. 50 nternational Finance Corporation: Preferential Finance Box 4.2. I and Traceability Schemes in Tackling Commodity-Induced Deforestation, Brazil In Brazil, the International Finance Corporation piloted a financial mechanism to incen- tivize good forest management in the soy industry, aiming to retain more biodiverse areas adjacent to profitable but responsible soy cropping. The investment involved one of the country’s largest soy exporters. In exchange for engaging in net-zero defor- estation commitments, the exporter received funding to set up an onlending program to farmers, which featured preferential interest rate rebates conditioned on meeting green lending targets (initially set at 50 percent, and increasing to 100 percent over time). The agreement required that the exporter not make purchases from supplier farms where habitat conversion had occurred and used stricter cut-off dates than previous commitments made by industry players. In practice, the exporter client pro- vided preferential financing and bonus payments to farmers that “gave up” their excess natural reserves, compensating them for land that could have been legally deforested for soy production under Brazilian law. As of 2023, the investment had helped achieve 26,943 hectares of avoided deforestation, a sizable achievement compared with the 30,000-hectare goal set for 2027. The investment was complemented by an advisory services to support traceabili- ty and monitoring of the supply chain and to help farmers obtain the Round Table on Responsible Soy certification—a holistic certification plan lasting five years that Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    51 ensures zero deforestation and conversion in soy production. The advisory support helped establish new certified production groups covering about 58,000 hectares, with results including (i) a 43 percent increase in one of the client’s sourced volumes of Round Table on Responsible Soy certified soy in 2024; (ii) a major soy trader ensuring that soy from third-party farms is deforestation-free and compliant with environmen- tal, human rights, and labor laws, as well as sectoral agreements such as the Soy Moratorium; and (iii) a trader increasing direct sourcing traceability in the Cerrado from 88 percent in 2022 to 95 percent in 2023. Although the International Finance Corporation is exploring opportunities to replicate this model, incentives are proving insufficient to cover the opportunity cost of inte- grating natural reserve conservation into soy production in perpetuity, estimated at US$200 per hectare per year. Moreover, only a small share of producers benefit from (continued) nternational Finance Corporation: Preferential Finance Box 4.2. I and Traceability Schemes in Tackling Commodity-Induced Deforestation, Brazil (cont.) price premiums for certified deforestation-free soy, and the cost of compliance limits engagement. Low soy prices and market volatility have also reduced the focus on sustainability and led to cuts in sustainability expenses by large traders. In addition, it is challenging for the government to regulate the use of reserves beyond legal compli- ance since a significant percentage of Brazil’s natural reserve is on privately owned land. A suggestion made by the International Finance Corporation in interviews is to fully use carbon markets to pool and use carbon credits from across plots, but this approach is untested. Requiring more discussion is the need to focus on the Forest Code and to introduce more sustainable and well-resourced payment for environ- mental services for targeted forest conservation goals. Much more work is needed on developing guidelines and metrics to measure and track biodiversity outcomes in soy production overall. Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Three IFC agribusiness investments show the potential of supporting regen- erative agricultural practices. Regenerative agriculture aims to improve soil health and ecosystems by rebuilding soil structure, sequestering carbon, and enhancing biodiversity. These principles can be applied throughout the agri- business value chain, from farm inputs to consumer markets. We found three Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 4 IFC projects using regenerative agriculture: Bhutanese farmers planting ha- zelnut trees to retain soil, offset carbon dioxide, and prevent deforestation; a Brazilian sugarcane project implementing sustainable practices to restore native vegetation; and an African coffee revival project planting native trees to protect rainforests. One-quarter of IFC’s agriculture- and agribusiness-related advisory projects are potentially supporting more sustainable practices. IFC implemented 67 advisory projects in Manufacturing, Agribusiness, and Services between FY15 and FY24. Of these, 17 may yield sustainability benefits, mostly in Africa (35 percent) and Latin America and the Caribbean (35 percent). Identified 52 sustainable practices include crop rotation, soil management techniques, avoided deforestation, and certification or traceability schemes. The crops and locations for such work were varied and included projects focused on soy, sugar, mangos, pepper, rice, and coffee. A lack of appropriate indica- tors limits our ability to validate outcomes. However, avoided deforestation goals—included in 7 of the 17 good practice advisory projects—have the potential to protect biodiversity and ecosystem services. Certification and traceability mechanisms using internationally accepted standards—also identified in 7 projects—are a good proxy for biodiversity protection. A good practice example was IFC’s support for sustainable pepper production in Viet Nam, which supported a company to build a 100 percent sustainable, trace- able, and certified pepper supply chain. These advisory services responded to a set of push and pull factors, including soil and land degradation resulting from conventional agricultural practices; overuse of agrochemicals, fertil- izers, and other nonsustainable practices; and global and regional policy shifts, such as the EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products. It is difficult to identify examples of the World Bank and IFC working togeth- er in production areas to achieve biodiversity outcomes. As the Bank Group has identified agribusiness (and relatedly, agribusiness jobs) as a priority client engagement area, it will be incumbent on the Bank Group to identify complementary actions to support sustainable agrifood system transforma- tions at the country level. One good practice example from the portfolio is IFC’s and the World Bank’s support for sustainable, high-quality coffee in Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    53 Ethiopia. IFC complemented a loan transaction to a multinational company known for its premium portioned coffee systems with an advisory initiative to increase farmer productivity by integrating a broad range of ecological considerations and wildlife preservation in the region of Oromia (Ethiopia). The BioCarbon Fund was leveraged to support training on shade trees, pre- vention of deforestation, and improvement of the quality of coffee produced in line with the company’s certification requirements. Sustainable Forest Management Healthy forests—and the ecosystem services they provide—underpin re- silient production landscapes. Forests mitigate climate change. They store about 861 gigatons of carbon (nearly a century’s worth of current annual fossil fuel emissions) and absorb approximately 7.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year (about 1.5 times the United States’ annual emissions), yet their clearance releases 12–20 percent of global GHG emissions (Harris et al. 2021; WRI 2022).8 Forests regulate local temperature and rainfall, enrich soils, recharge water, and supply habitat for pollinators and pest control species, cutting reliance on synthetic inputs.9 Globally, they gener- ate $1.5 trillion for national economies and support more than 19 million jobs, and it is estimated that the economic value of biodiversity to com- mercial forest productivity is up to $490 billion per year (Liang et al. 2016). Integrating trees into fields and pastures through agroforestry and silvopas- toral systems diversifies incomes and strengthens resilience (FAO 2022b), while production forests—whether natural or plantation—provide tim- ber and nontimber products vital to rural and Indigenous communities.10 Sustainable forest management can balance economic, social, and ecological goals,11 but progress is challenged by habitat fragmentation, undervalued ecosystem services, limited PES or biodiversity credits, tenure insecurity, fragmented mandates, weak enforcement, and critical data gaps on ecologi- cal thresholds.12 Forest Carbon Finance World Bank investments in forest carbon have contributed to increased yields and revenues for farmers, while meeting targets on avoided deforesta- tion and on carbon sequestration through the implementation of integrated mosaic approaches. Avoided deforestation preserves biodiversity and species habitats (Betts et al. 2017). The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 4 and the Forest Investment Program are two of the largest trust funds, global- ly, that focus on avoided deforestation, sustainable forest management, and integrated land use, with a combined total approved financing of $1.9 bil- lion. Many of the carbon projects have implemented mosaic approaches—a patchwork design of different land uses that can support biodiversity con- servation and productive livelihoods. As of December 2024, FCPF projects achieved 188 percent of the program target for avoided deforestation, to- taling 14.5 million hectares across Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Indonesia, and Viet Nam.13 FCPF activities in Ghana are credited with increasing average farm yields by 25 percent in rehabilitated areas and increasing revenues for tree nurseries (Baastel 2024). 54 However, forest carbon programs have fallen short on targets to restore degraded forest landscapes and have missed opportunities to systemati- cally monitor and report on biodiversity gains. As of December 2024, FCPF Emission Reductions program countries had achieved just 1.5 percent of the end-of-project target of 18.5 million hectares of restored forest (FCPF 2024). The BioCarbon Fund has faced similar challenges. Projects funded through the Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes aim to reforest or afforest 162,500 hectares of land by FY31. However, as of 2024, only 8 percent of this target had been achieved (BioCarbon Fund ISFL 2024). Moreover, attributing biodiversity benefits to these programs is challenging because of a lack of monitoring, with only 3 of 70 World Bank–financed forest carbon projects including relevant biodiversity indicators. The Forest Investment Program midterm evaluation reached similar conclusions, finding that biodiversi- ty benefits may be present but that “quantitative monitoring of biological diversity has been sparse” (Indufor and ICF 2024). Several FCPF countries attempted to capture biodiversity gains as well, but these efforts—under- taken in Indonesia, Madagascar, Mozambique, and Viet Nam—were not systematic and not validated and thus could not be aggregated and used for decision-making. Forest Production There is limited assurance of biodiversity outcomes in the forest production Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    55 sector because of weak implementation tracking of sustainable forest man- agement plans. The World Bank’s sustainable forest management portfolio of 83 lending projects shows the potential to contribute to biodiversity out- comes by promoting practices that conserve forest ecosystems. However, the absence of systematic reporting on the implementation of sustainable forest management plans—including key elements such as zoning, biodiversity safeguards, and enforcement measures—limits the ability to verify whether the intended biodiversity benefits are being realized. Of the 35 projects that included support for sustainable forest management plans, only 4 reported on actual implementation practices. As a result, the World Bank lacks a reli- able basis to assess the effectiveness of its forestry investments in delivering biodiversity-positive results. A good practice project—the Belarus Forestry Development Project—monitored and reported on thinning practices in young and middle-aged production forests according to approved manage- ment plans; thinning can lead to biodiversity benefits by increasing habitat complexity and supporting various plant and animal communities. Reporting on forest certification, which is required by the safeguard poli- cies and the ESF, was also lacking in project documentation. Certification verifies sustainable harvesting practices, responds to negative trends, and protects biodiversity. Despite the safeguard policies and the ESF requiring certification, only six production forest projects documented certification or traceability in their project documentation. For example, Ghana’s Tree Crop Diversification Project monitors traceable tree crop area, certification in cocoa, and price premiums for certified cocoa, and the Lao PDR Landscapes and Livelihoods Project reports on the production forest area certified for controlled wood or sustainable forest management. Some development policy operations focused on forest governance (that are not covered by the safeguard policies and ESF) also provide relevant information on forest management, including in the Lao PDR Green Resilient Growth development policy operations (1 and 2), which tracked certified areas for sustainable management. The Madagascar Reengagement development policy operation had a governance indicator on transparency regarding seized precious wood logs. The limited reporting on these metrics reveals a gap in ensuring the sustainable and lawful management of production forests that can maintain biodiversity benefits. A lack of systematic articulation of species selection in one-half of the for- estry projects—particularly the rationale for choosing native versus exotic Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 4 species—limits the ability to assess the projects’ biodiversity outcomes and long-term ecosystem resilience. Half of the forest production projects that include tree planting specify whether they support the restoration or plant- ing of native species. The remaining projects either do not clarify the species used or favor fast-growing, often exotic, monocultures for quicker economic returns and ease of management—particularly where supply chains favor uniform products such as eucalyptus or pine. However, this flexibility comes at a cost: monocultures reduce ecological resilience, provide limited habitat for native fauna, and weaken key ecosystem functions such as pollination, soil regeneration, and water retention. Using native species in forest pro- 56 duction is critical to sustaining biodiversity, as native trees maintain local ecological networks, provide habitats and food for indigenous fauna, and support long-term sustainability by enhancing the regenerative capacity of ecosystems (Chazdon et al. 2020). The absence of explicit trade-off analy- sis in project design—especially on balancing short-term productivity with long-term biodiversity gains—undermines the potential to achieve both environmental and economic outcomes. Projects such as the Côte d’Ivoire Forest Investment Program (FY18–23) stand out by planting native ma- hogany, tiama, and medicinal trees in cocoa agroforestry systems, and the Côte d’Ivoire Forest Investment Project Phase 2 (FY22–) commits to na- tive species restoration in sensitive areas (box 4.3). The Rwanda Volcanoes Community Resilience Project (FY24–) requires that at least 20 percent of the species used be native and empowers local communities to grow and supply these seedlings. Box 4.3.  Approach to Sustainable Land Management and Production Forestry in Côte d’Ivoire The Côte d’Ivoire Forest Investment Program (FY 2018–23) and the subsequent Forest Investment Project Phase 2 (FY22–) have used innovative project design within a landscape approach to strengthen state enforcement capacity in protected areas, formalize land tenure for cocoa farmers, and institute community-led forest manage- ment plans. Côte d’Ivoire has experienced significant deforestation, losing 5 million hectares since 1990. Current forest cover is estimated at just 9.2 percent of total land Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    57 territory. Cocoa plantations are a key driver of this deforestation, with an estimated 40 percent of total cocoa production taking place illegally within state forests, national parks, and other protected areas. Much of this production occurs in state-owned gazetted forests in the southwest of the country, where such planting was previously prohibited, and adjacent to one of the country’s few remaining biodiversity-rich areas, Taï National Park. Given that many gazetted forests adjacent to Taï National Park were degraded at a level of 75 percent or more and that enforcing the planting prohibition carried socioeconomic risks for smallholder farmers, the government of Côte d’Ivoire revised the country’s Forest Code to sanction cocoa planting within an agroforestry model. To continue cocoa cultivation within the designated gazetted forests, farmers must enter into a contract (continued) Box 4.3.  Approach to Sustainable Land Management and Production Forestry in Côte d’Ivoire (cont.) that stipulates they will plant between 50 and 400 trees per hectare, with the actual number based on the conservation value of the land. The farmers, who are paid for their agroforestry work, must also commit to zero-deforestation production, refrain from slash-and-burn practices, and limit further encroachment. The first Forest Investment Program was successful in restoring 22,719 hectares of degraded forests through agroforestry and restoration activities (reaching 111 percent of its target). Importantly, 66 percent, or nearly 15,000 hectares, of this restoration took place in key biological buffer zones between the Classified Forests of Haute Dodo and Rapides Grah and Taï National Park. The project’s active second phase is taking a biodiversity-conscious approach to agroforestry in these areas by limiting restoration planting to 20 preselected native species trees, including tiama and sipo mahogany. In addition to the innovative land tenure and agroforestry approach instituted in the southwest of the country, the Forest Investment Project Phase 2 has selected high- ly degraded areas in the center-north of the country for the development of 20,000 hectares of sustainably managed production forests. The project will fund plantations of teak, gmelina, and cassia siamea, the latter being a fast-growing species popular in Côte d’Ivoire for wood energy. In addition to these two activities, the project pro- vides funding for enforcement, capacity strengthening, and other activities around Taï National Park. As the project includes activities in degraded state forests, protected areas, and community lands, cross-ministerial coordination is vital to ensure success, with several ministries and government agencies involved in overseeing these activ- Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 4 ities. The second phase represents a significant increase in scope and budget, with funding increasing from US$15 million in phase 1 to US$148 million in phase 2 and land area targets increasing from 20,400 hectares to 1 million hectares. Sources: Independent Evaluation Group; World Bank 2024b, 2025b. Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture The fisheries and aquaculture sector is one of the most consequential driv- ers of change in marine and coastal ecosystems. As such, effective fisheries 58 management is needed to address biodiversity loss resulting from unsus- tainable practices. Unsustainable fisheries deplete fish stocks and damage ecosystems. Unsustainable aquaculture leads to habitat destruction, pol- lution, disease, and invasive species, threatening aquatic environments. Unsustainable practices decrease sector productivity, negatively affecting livelihoods, food security, and economic opportunities for coastal commu- nities (Crowder et al. 2008; Dulvy et al. 2006; McClanahan 2022). Effective fisheries management—including implementing sustainable fishing prac- tices, enforcing regulations, reducing bycatch, and protecting habitats—is needed to ensure sustainable production. Blue Biodiversity Analytical Work Although the World Bank’s Blue Biodiversity report identifies unsustain- able fisheries and aquaculture as key threats to aquatic biodiversity and highlights the importance of protection, it does not adequately address the complementary role of improved fisheries management (World Bank 2024a). Effective biodiversity outcomes require not only conservation but also the integration of sustainable fisheries practices that balance ecological integ- rity with the social and economic needs of coastal communities. Marine protected areas and marine spatial planning—proposed as solutions in the Blue Biodiversity report—can contribute to long-term economic, social, and environmental benefits (for example, fisheries productivity, tourism, and Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    59 climate and disaster resilience) but require complementary fisheries man- agement to secure these benefits. Effective fisheries management ensures sustainable fishing within and around marine protected areas, promoting healthy ecosystems. Fisheries management is also essential for clients to im- prove their percentage of fish stocks “within biologically sustainable levels,” a monitored Corporate Scorecard indicator.14 Small-Scale Fisheries Investments The World Bank is advancing elements of fisheries management, including by supporting fishing controls and rebuilding fish stocks, but these advances are concentrated in the Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy Global Practice. The World Bank approved 51 fisheries-related lending proj- ects between FY15 and FY24 (of which 48 are investment project financing and 25 are closed); these were mainly implemented by the Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy (69 percent) and Agriculture and Food (20 percent) Global Practices and were mainly located in East Asia and Pacific (43 percent) and in Eastern and Southern Africa, South Asia, Western and Central Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean (11–14 percent each). Europe and Central Asia and the Middle East and North Africa have minimal involvement, with 1 and 2 projects, respectively. About 45 percent of projects explicitly seek to support an ecosystem-based approach to fish- eries management, with all but one of these projects led by Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy (in Mozambique, where new fisheries shifted pressure to unassessed stocks and habitats). Evidence shows that an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management—which balances sustainable fishing with ecosystem health by considering multiple species, habitats, and ecological interactions—is good economics. A systematic literature review indicates that an ecosystem-based approach to fisher- ies management can lead to higher productivity and income in fisheries (Cucuzza et al. 2021).15 Table 4.1 presents the integration of fisheries man- agement techniques by Global Practice. These activities include direct reduced fishing efforts, enabling activities that support the control of fish- ing, activities explicitly designed to address environmental impacts, and proactive efforts to rebuild fish stocks.  ffective Fisheries Management Techniques by Global Table 4.1. E Practice (percent) Reducing Enabling Fishing Addressing Rebuilding Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 4 Global Fishing Efforts to Be Impacts on Depleted Practice Efforts Controlled Environment Stocks AGF (n = 10) 10 10 20 20 ENB (n = 35) 17 60 83 77 FCI (n = 1) 0 0 0 0 MTI (n = 3) 0 0 33 0 WAT (n = 2) 50 0a 100 100 Total (of 51) 16 43 67 60 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: AGF = Agriculture and Food; ENB = Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy; FCI = Finance, Competitiveness, and Innovation; MTI = Macroeconomics, Trade, and Investment; WAT = Water. a. In Cambodia, measures already existed that enabled the government to control fishing efforts, and 60 the project added additional protection zones. A particular challenge faced by the fisheries sector in implementing the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management is reconciling the need to control fishing with the aims of achieving food security and employment. This challenge is most acute in the artisanal fishing sector. Approximately 500 million people depend on small-scale fisheries for their welfare, mainly in developing countries (FAO et al. 2023). In the least-developed countries, seafood is the primary protein source for more than 50 percent of people and serves as an important social safety net (FAO 2022a). Although properly managed artisanal fisheries can be sustainable and have minimal negative environmental impacts, unsustainable practices within these fisheries can lead to overfishing, resource depletion, and ecosystem degradation, depend- ing on the fishing methods employed and the effectiveness of the regulatory frameworks governing these practices. Few World Bank fisheries projects have demonstrated measurable income gains while also reducing pressure on fisheries and achieving environmen- tal benefits. Although nearly all fisheries projects in the portfolio aimed to address livelihood constraints among small-scale fishers and aquaculture farmers—including through strategies intended to ease pressure on over- exploited fisheries—only one closed project clearly demonstrated increased incomes alongside positive environmental outcomes. Although 90 per- cent of projects included small-scale fisheries as primary beneficiaries, and 85 percent financed interventions such as value chain development, Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    61 fishery diversification, and postharvest loss reduction, only four projects reported measurable income gains (SWIOFISH [South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Governance and Shared Growth], Lake Victoria Environmental Management Project, and Peru National Program for Innovation in Fisheries and Aquaculture) and fishing restrictions that allowed stocks to recover (SWIOFISH and Togo Agricultural Sector Support Project). Even among these, only one project achieved outcomes that supported biodiversity and resource recovery while simultaneously improving livelihoods (SWIOFISH). This highlights a key implementation gap: although traditional small-scale fisheries can be environmentally sustainable when properly managed, the regulatory and monitoring frameworks needed to capture such benefits were often weak or absent. In some cases, expected social and ecological benefits were likely but unverifiable because of insufficient data collection, such as for projects in Madagascar and Mauritania. Peru’s plan to transform its fisheries and aquaculture sector to simulta- neously enhance livelihoods, food security, and marine ecosystem health yields lessons for future small-scale fisheries investments. The World Bank– supported National Program for Innovation in Fisheries and Aquaculture 2017–23 is the first of a multiphase approach designed to diversify the country’s fisheries sector to create jobs and stimulate growth, while reducing pressure on capture fisheries and, for aquaculture, improving productivity and species diversification while minimizing environmental impact. Thus, we undertook an exploratory case study to distill and share lessons on what works to achieve holistic fisheries management (box 4.4). Box 4.4. Case Study: World Bank Assistance to Peru’s Fisheries Sector In Peru, artisanal marine capture fisheries and emerging aquaculture subsectors had received little attention, despite their potential to expand opportunities for improved liveli- hoods and sustainable growth. A lack of data and basic and applied research was holding the sector back. The National Program for Innovation in Fisheries and Aquaculture (PNIPA) 2017–23 was conceived to support the government’s strategy to transition from an almost exclusive focus on the industrial exploitation of a single species—anchoveta—to a more di- versified sector that is increasingly reliant on productive activities (aquaculture) as opposed to extractive overexploitive activities (capture fisheries). PNIPA demonstrated that supporting innovation in fisheries and aquaculture can Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 4 generate solutions that address sustainability challenges, including reducing pressure on wild stocks. This was particularly successful where institutions and stakeholders worked together at local levels to generate situation-specific solutions. The project funded more than 1,800 innovation subprojects, developed through basic and applied research, with a focus on aquaculture as a strategy to reduce pressure on wild fisher- ies. The project implemented mechanisms that have the potential to positively impact biodiversity, spanning innovations in fisheries management and ecosystem health, sustainable aquaculture technologies, governance and policy contributions, and cli- mate resilience. The best evidence for improved performance of the aquaculture value chain comes from data on changes in production and profitability at the subproject 62 (continued)  ase Study: World Bank Assistance to Peru’s Fisheries Sector Box 4.4. C (cont.) level. The project avoided deepening reliance on capture fisheries by focusing on fishing projects that would increase value-added without increasing extraction—for instance, by improving cold chains—and on improving alternative activities to diversify income within the fishing subsector, through tourism. A key factor of success has been PNIPA’s support for policy and institutional strength- ening, including support for the coordination and alignment of mechanisms across regulatory, technical, and implementing agencies. The World Bank helped strengthen the capacity of the Ministry of Production, formalize SNIPA (the national innovation system), and influence the development of the national aquaculture policy. These engagements helped address coordination challenges among agencies, which were also affected by political instability. But while proxies suggest biodiversity gains can be achieved through these actions, biodiversity outcomes were not tracked, and a shift in funding emphasis from capture fisheries to aquaculture limited direct conservation impacts on marine biodiversity. This shift was in part attributed to the challenges of reforming artisanal fisheries where overcapacity was an issue. Although some projects supported habitat restoration, the lack of explicit ecosystem management principles meant that broader marine biodi- versity benefits were not systematically measured. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    63 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. The most constraining factor in understanding whether fisheries man- agement is leading to environmental and economic outcomes is the inconsistency of reporting on fisheries management plans. The adoption or use of a fisheries management plan was the most consistently used indicator in the portfolio (present in about half of the portfolio). If progress against the various activities articulated in the fisheries management plan is clearly elucidated in project reporting, then the fisheries management plan can be a good proxy for understanding productivity and biodiversity. Projects var- ied in their engagement in biological, economic, and social data collection, complicating the use of certain indicators as proxies for biodiversity. Only three projects included ancillary data collection to ensure proper implemen- tation of fisheries management plans. For example, the West Africa Regional Fishery Program’s project in Liberia uses World Bank Fishery Performance Indicators to measure ecological sustainability (Anderson et al. 2015). Similar efforts are seen in projects in Cambodia and Indonesia. Most proj- ects, however, track only the establishment of the plan. Aquaculture A key question for projects that support aquaculture is how to deliver in- creased production without irreversibly damaging associated ecosystems. Aquaculture can be damaging to marine environments if sustainable practic- es are not followed. Fish and shrimp farms discharge nutrient-rich effluents into surrounding waters, causing eutrophication that harms marine habitats and production (Abdullah et al. 2019). Mangroves and seabeds are often cleared for aquaculture, reducing biodiversity. High-density farms can spread disease and parasites, and antibiotics and chemicals harm other marine species. Regenerative aquaculture restores ecosystems, can improve biodi- versity, and has the potential to support food and job security. Thirty percent of the World Bank fisheries projects feature aquaculture as a novel or sup- plementary source of food and income, including to offset livelihood impacts on fisheries. Good practices in the World Bank’s portfolio include actions to integrate multitrophic aquaculture for the efficient use of effluents for filter feeders, such as mussels, oysters, and seaweed. IFC’s experience in Ecuador provides transferable insights into how aquaculture can work with nature to Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 4 deliver sustainable production and environmental outcomes (box 4.5). nternational Finance Corporation Environmental and Social Box 4.5. I Services in Ecuador: Supporting Environmental Management in the Shrimp Sector The International Finance Corporation (IFC) has played a key role in Ecuador’s transi- tion to becoming a global leader in sustainable and responsible shrimp production. IFC has assisted two major shrimp producers and exporters in Ecuador to build suffi- cient capacity to meet global industry certification standards by improving practices 64 (continued) nternational Finance Corporation Environmental and Social Box 4.5. I Services in Ecuador: Supporting Environmental Management in the Shrimp Sector (cont.) and preparing for various certifications. IFC’s environmental and social support has helped companies monitor and report on specific biodiversity indicators to ensure limited mangrove conversion and to encourage habitat restoration. Evidence indicates that shrimp production now complies with IFC and global certification standards, reducing pollution and contributing positively to the environment. IFC’s efforts have influenced the shrimp supply chain through the demonstration and replication of good practices. For example, the entire shrimp production industry has transitioned from using antibiotics to probiotics after an IFC demonstration. Challenges remain in promoting standards in Ecuador’s shrimp industry, especially for small producers. Reforestation efforts are minimal compared with ongoing degra- dation and urban expansion. Low market prices and slim profit margins make it costly for small producers to adopt certification practices. Security issues add to the costs, despite investments in surveillance. The limited capacity of regulatory bodies hinders effective control of illegal mangrove deforestation and shrimp theft. The energy effi- ciency efforts supported by IFC are not scalable, and power is unreliable. Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Factors of Effectiveness Across Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    65 Production Sectors We identified four key factors of effectiveness in World Bank and IFC support for integrating biodiversity in production areas: (i) fostering inter- ministry collaboration and strong information flows, (ii) aligning finance with emerging sustainability regulations and markets, (iii) reducing adoption costs and risks through innovative financing while strengthening land and resource tenure and rights, and (iv) identifying entry points where produc- tion systems are reaching biological limits. These factors are now discussed in turn. Interministerial collaboration and strong information flows facilitated the effective integration of biodiversity into production systems. This includ- ed coordination between environmental and production ministries and the translation of applied research into practical guidance delivered to firms, cooperatives, and resource users via provincial and regional offices and extension services. Production and environment ministries often have con- flicting policies. Production subsidies often favor high-input monocultures, rather than diversified or biodiversity-friendly systems. Technical advice to farmers and fishers rarely includes biodiversity, and there is a limited understanding of biodiversity benefits at the extension and resource user level. In successful experiences, such as Viet Nam’s Sustainable Agriculture Transformation Project, extension advice was shifted from a top-down structure to co-learning with lower levels of government and cooperatives, focusing on site-specific trials and training on innovative technologies. The World Bank and IFC have been able to tackle commodity-driven de- forestation by strategically aligning development finance with emerging regulatory drivers—such as the EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products—which create new markets for certified sustainable goods. In countries producing cocoa, coffee, and other forest-risk commodities, the Bank Group has effectively used the regulation as a policy entry point to support no-deforestation value chains. This support includes financing traceability systems, geolocation tools, and the certification processes re- quired for market access. Although the EU Regulation includes incentives for governments and cooperatives to create deforestation-free supply chains, Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 4 there are few direct incentives for individual farmers. Compliance is asso- ciated with high up-front and recurring costs for farmers and cooperatives, many of whom lack the institutional or financial capacity to absorb these costs independently. Therefore, effectiveness in this context also requires implementing complementary financing mechanisms during and after project closure to avoid a return to unsustainable practices once external support ends. The World Bank’s Forest Investment Program in Côte d’Ivoire has effectively targeted farmers by financing zero-deforestation contracts, creating participatory forest management plans with biodiversity consider- ations, and mapping flora and fauna to protect high-biodiversity areas. 66 World Bank and IFC support for innovative financing mechanisms has helped reduce the costs and risks of adopting sustainable practices, but these efforts need to be deepened. There are also missed opportunities related to limited support for land and resource tenure and rights. Few subsidies, price premiums, or market mechanisms reward biodiversity-positive approach- es, and there are high transaction costs in switching to integrated systems (for example, agroforestry or organic farming). Innovative finance can help internalize environmental externalities and incentivize sustainable land use (Dasgupta 2021; FAO 2023). At the portfolio level, 13 of the 17 good practice World Bank agriculture projects were supported by trust funds, including the Global Environment Facility, the Korea Green Growth Trust Fund, PROGREEN, the BioCarbon Fund, and Food Systems 2030. Facilitating access to premium pricing was also a core incentive. In Zambia, under the World Bank Community Markets for Conservation Landscape Management Project, producers readily adopted sustainable practices in response to pre- mium pricing and structured, compliance-based rewards. Preferential loan rates supported by IFC in Brazil have been key to promoting sustainable soy production. Missed opportunities are associated with the identified need to strengthen resource and land tenure rights to promote more effective re- source management. Identifying entry points where production systems are reaching ecological limits—such as degraded soils due to overexploitation—offers opportunities Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    67 to promote biodiversity-positive approaches that regenerate natural capital and ensure long-term productivity and jobs. Declining soil health and fertili- ty, falling water tables, dwindling fish stocks, and accelerated forest loss have increasingly signaled that input-intensive models are no longer viable for long-term growth, prompting producers and projects to adopt more sustain- able, nature-smart practices.16 In contexts where overexploitation has triggered productivity declines, the World Bank and IFC often focused on short-term recovery or resilience measures rather than on biodiversity-positive approaches that could regenerate natural capital and restore long-term productivity. This constrained the potential for transformative outcomes in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, where embedding biodiversity into production strategies could have aligned environmental recovery with economic revitalization. 1  The need to support sustainable production practices is a core commitment in the GBF. The GBF target 10 aims to “ensure that areas under agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry are managed sustainably, in particular through the sustainable use of biodiversity, including through a substantial increase of the application of biodiversity-friendly practices, such as sustainable intensification, agroecological and other innovative approaches.” 2  Although rooted in existing agricultural knowledge and principles, climate-smart agriculture is distinct in its explicit focus on addressing climate change in the agrifood system; its consid- eration of synergies and trade-offs among productivity, adaptation, and mitigation; and its context-specific application across diverse agroecological and socioeconomic contexts (World Bank Group 2024a). 3  The World Bank’s agriculture practice approved 247 projects (227 investment project financing, 1 development policy financing, and 19 Program-for-Results projects) between FY15 and FY17, of which 40 percent are in Africa; 12–20 percent are in Latin America and the Caribbean, East Asia and Pacific, and South Asia; and 6–9 percent are in the Middle East and North Africa and Europe and Central Asia. Of these projects, 102 were closed as of December 2024, of which 77 have an Implementation Completion and Results Report and 53 have an Implementation Completion and Results Report Review (with an 87 percent rating of mod- erately satisfactory or higher). Project components include research, extension and advisory services; irrigation and farm infrastructure; processing, marketing, and market linkages; livestock health; and food security and safety. 4  Four projects in Africa (one in Ethiopia, one in Ghana, and two in Zambia), one project in Bangladesh, six projects in China, one project in Kazakhstan, three projects in Latin America and the Caribbean (one in Mexico and two in Panama), one project in Myanmar, and one proj- Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 4 ect in Viet Nam, as follows: Bangladesh Program on Agricultural and Rural Transformation for Nutrition, Entrepreneurship, and Resilience in Bangladesh (PARTNER); China Climate Smart Staple Crop Production; China Hubei Smart and Sustainable Agriculture Project; China Climate Smart Management of Grassland Ecosystems; China Green Agricultural and Rural Revitalization Program-for-Results—Phase I; China Green Agricultural and Rural Revitalization Program-for-Results (Hubei and Hunan); China Sustainable Fodder Production and Low Methane Livestock Development Program-for-Results; Ethiopia Second Agricultural Growth Project; Ghana Tree Crop Diversification Project; Kazakhstan Sustainable Livestock Development Program-for-Results; Mexico Sustainable Productive Landscapes Project; Myanmar National Food and Agriculture System Project; Panama Sustainable Production Systems and Conservation of Biodiversity; Panama Sustainable Rural Development and 68 Biodiversity Conservation; Viet Nam Sustainable Agriculture Transformation Project; Zambia Integrated Forest Landscape Project; and Zambia Growth Opportunities Program. 5  The Global Environment Facility–funded Climate Smart Staple Crop Production Project in China (P144531, FY15–21) demonstrated strong environmental and development outcomes across 6,667 hectares of rice–wheat and wheat–corn systems. The project achieved a reduction of 29,782 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, 41 percent above target, and sequestered 99,565 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, more than double the original goal. These gains were driven by improved management of fertilizer and pesticide use, resulting in 572 tons of fertilizer reduction and 121 kilograms of pesticide reduction, as well as water-saving irrigation practic- es that conserved 1.45 million cubic meters of water. The project also promoted crop residue retention techniques, tree planting around croplands, and the integration of trees into cropping systems, which enhanced soil organic carbon and sequestered carbon in aboveground biomass. Participating farmers increased crop yields by 8 percent and net farm incomes by 14 percent, while exposure to climate-smart agriculture technologies through 30 farmer field schools and more than 25,000 training days built lasting capacity. The project also created approximately 2,000 rural jobs for women and lifted all participating households—12 percent of whom were initially below the national poverty line—out of extreme poverty by project close. The project also influenced national climate-smart agriculture policy and practice through the development of technical guidelines and monitoring methodologies. 6  The Global Environment Facility–funded Panama Sustainable Production Systems and Conservation of Biodiversity Project (P145621, FY15–20) mainstreamed biodiversity- friendly practices in productive activities in buffer zones and established business alliances Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    69 for the marketing of certified biodiversity-friendly products. The project supported the implementation of 30 business plans across more than 300 farms focused on organic agriculture, agroforestry, ecotourism, and sustainable livestock. As a result, 1,611 hectares of productive landscapes were certified under biodiversity-sensitive standards, exceeding the original target by 34 percent. Of the total certified land area, 626 hectares received the biodiversity-friendly products certification from the National Environmental Authority of Panama; 77 hectares received the organic products certification from the Authority of Panama for Control and Certification of Organic Products, under the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock; and 908 hectares received the appellation of origin certification from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, which requires compliance with a set of sustainability and biodiversity-friendly practices. These outcomes were supported by technical assistance and capacity building through 192 field school days, 153 training workshops, and regular on-site follow-up, reaching 33,806 beneficiaries—47 percent of whom were women and 60 percent were Indigenous. Five business alliances were formed to facilitate long-term marketing channels for certified products, with cooperatives and associations involved in the export of organic coffee, cacao, bananas, fruits, and horticulture. An economic analysis of 19 subprojects showed a strong internal rate of return of 36 percent, with an average net benefit of $192 per beneficiary per year—highlighting the financial viability and environmental value of investing in biodiversity-friendly production. 7  We identified other IFC investments that included broad sustainability language but did not articulate specific mechanisms aligned with the literature on biodiversity-positive practices. 8  At a global level, forests mitigate climate change impacts that threaten agricultural stability through extreme weather and shifting growing conditions (IPCC 2022). Approximately 10 mil- lion hectares of forest are lost annually (FAO 2022b). If this trend persists, the cumulative release of carbon could contribute to a 2.8–3.4°C rise in global temperatures above preindus- trial levels, exacerbating biodiversity loss and food insecurity. 9  At local levels, forests regulate climate, precipitation, and temperature, helping reduce heat stress and protect soil moisture, thereby creating favorable conditions for crops. They main- tain soil fertility through their root systems, which prevent erosion and enhance soil structure (Bonan 2008). Forests’ organic matter enriches agricultural lands with essential nutrients, and they play a vital role in the water cycle by supporting groundwater recharge, irrigation flows, and water quality (Ellison et al. 2017). Forests provide habitats for pollinators and natural pest predators, reducing reliance on synthetic inputs and enhancing crop resilience (IPBES 2016). 10  Production forests, which include both natural forests and plantations, supply timber and nontimber forest products—such as nuts, fruits, resins, medicinal plants, and fibers, which provide critical income and food security for rural and Indigenous communities—and support Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 4 biodiversity and carbon sequestration. 11  Sustainable forest management is widely recognized as a leading approach to managing production forests by balancing timber production with environmental and social sustain- ability. Defined by the United Nations and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations as a “dynamic and evolving concept, which aims to maintain and enhance the economic, social and environmental values of all types of forests, for the benefit of present and future generations,” sustainable forest management offers significant environmental, economic, and social benefits in managing production forests. Environmentally, sustainable forest management reduces deforestation and degradation by maintaining canopy cover and soil stability, which helps conserve biodiversity. Economically, sustainable forest management 70 ensures long-term timber yield through practices such as selective logging and provides mar- ket access and certification, enhancing profitability. Socially, sustainable forest management involves local communities in decision-making, supporting livelihoods and reducing conflicts, while promoting legal compliance and governance to curb illegal logging. Although alterna- tive approaches such as reduced-impact logging, agroforestry systems, and strict protection with plantation offsets offer complementary strategies, sustainable forest management remains the most widely endorsed framework for achieving sustainable forests, contingent on strong governance, financial support, and effective implementation. 12  Timber extraction often fragments forests, harming habitats, reducing species richness, and disrupting ecological processes. Short-term profit motives and undervalued ecosystem services discourage biodiversity-friendly practices, especially where PES or biodiversity credits are lacking. Tenure insecurity, limited involvement of IPLCs, and competing stake- holder interests further complicate sustainable forest management. Fragmented mandates in forestry, conservation, and land-use planning across agencies hinder integrated landscape management, and weak sector governance and enforcement in the sector is pervasive. Lack of biodiversity data, unclear ecological thresholds, and mismatched monitoring scales also impede effective adaptive management. 13  In Côte d’Ivoire, the Forest Investment Program (FY18–23) successfully piloted a perfor- mance-based plan for the planting of native trees across nearly 20,000 hectares of cocoa farms, mostly situated in biologically important buffer zones within state-owned forests (World Bank 2024b). In Indonesia, the BioCarbon Fund’s Jambi Sustainable Landscape Management Project promoted sustainable forest management alongside agricultural intensi- Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    71 fication and diversification, bringing 320,792 hectares of land under sustainable management and reestablishing 2,623 hectares of forests through planting and agroforestry schemes (BioCarbon Fund ISFL 2024). 14  This is the client context indicator being monitored by the Corporate Scorecard. It assesses whether fishing is conducted in a manner that does not deplete stocks or harm the overall health of the marine ecosystem. It aligns with Sustainable Development Goal indicator 14.4.1 on life under the sea: “proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels.” The proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels has been declining year on year. Globally, the proportion of overfished fisheries has risen from 10 percent in 1974 to 37 percent in 2021 (FAO 2024b), and in terms of biodiversity there is a persistent trend toward unsustainability (Cheung et al. 2025). 15  Specific activities that enhance effectiveness include building climate resilience into fish- eries management plans and strengthening the capacities of fisheries management bodies (including to enforce regulations), implementing inclusive governance, and transitioning to lower-impact fishing methods (Cheung et al. 2025). 16  For example, soil degradation, which affects 33 percent of global soils, has led to stagnating yields and rising input costs, with ongoing erosion expected to reduce crop productivity by up to 10 percent by 2050 (FAO and ITPS 2015). Similarly, groundwater depletion in regions such as South Asia has undermined irrigation systems, posing risks to agricultural productivity (FAO 2021a; Jasechko et al. 2024). In response, projects that diagnosed these limits early and paired technical packages with results-based incentives have shown success in raising yields while reducing fertilizer and pesticide costs (for example, projects in China and Viet Nam, and farmer-managed natural regeneration in Africa). In marine and coastal areas, ecosystem- based approaches have been crucial in restoring fish populations that underpin food security and livelihoods. These cases demonstrate that restoring natural capital is not an environmental co-benefit but a prerequisite for sustaining productivity once agroecosystems near their ecological thresholds. Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 4 72 5 | Biodiversity Offsets Highlights Biodiversity offsets are increasingly used in global conservation ef- forts, including in the World Bank Group’s Environmental and Social Frameworks. The last step in the mitigation hierarchy, biodiversity offsets are difficult to implement effectively since they require long-term, sustained financial and technical support to deliver their intended conservation outcomes. There are capacity and skills gaps related to identifying, supervis- ing, and managing biodiversity offsets within the Bank Group, and the extent of these gaps varies across the three institutions. There has been uneven and inconsistent updating of offset infor- mation after project Board approval, undermining transparency. The methods used to calculate biodiversity losses and gains are also rarely transparent, leading to potential inaccuracies in offset design and monitoring. Both of these performance gaps diverge from international best practice. Although implementation status and quality vary, most implemen- tation activities are delayed or incomplete, undermining the ability to estimate whether offsets will likely deliver their intended conser- vation outcomes. 73  This chapter focuses on Bank Group (World Bank, IFC, and MIGA) use of biodiversity offsets to address the significant residual adverse biodiver- sity impacts arising from development. To derive lessons from the Bank Group’s use of biodiversity offsets, we used a sequenced approach. First, we identified projects with offset activities. Then, we assessed (i) the alignment of biodiversity offset development against Bank Group environmental and social requirements and Bank Group supervision of client implementa- tion (survey work, stakeholder engagement, and documentation), and (ii) outcomes to the extent that monitoring and reporting data were available (including the principles of no net loss or net gain). Lastly, we conducted interviews with 20 senior experts in environmental and social fields to derive explanatory factors. The World Bank, IFC, and MIGA include biodiversity offsets within their ESFs, and their requirements have become more aligned over time (box 5.1). Biodiversity offsets are defined under ESS6 and PS6 as “measurable con- servation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project de- velopment, and persisting after appropriate avoidance, minimization, and restoration measures have been taken.” In simpler terms, this means taking actions such as protecting or restoring biodiversity in another location to compensate for unavoidable impacts that remain after all feasible steps to avoid or reduce harm have been taken. Positioned as the final step in the mitigation hierarchy—after avoidance, minimization, and restoration—off- sets aim to balance biodiversity losses with equivalent or greater gains. The Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 5 objective is to achieve no net loss or even net gain in biodiversity; in other words, to ensure that development does not come at the cost of irreversible impacts on biodiversity values. Today, the offset requirements in both PS6 and ESS6 are largely based on international best practice, or the internation- al Business and Biodiversity Offset Program. IFC’s extended exposure to and experience with implementing offsets, relative to the World Bank, is reflect- ed in the maturity of the approaches to offsetting within the institutions’ respective portfolios. 74  volution of World Bank Environmental and Social Framework Box 5.1. E and International Finance Corporation Sustainability Framework Requirements for Biodiversity Offsets The International Finance Corporation’s 2006 Performance Standard on Environmental and Social Sustainability highlighted offsets for achieving no net loss. This approach was further developed in the 2012 Performance Standard update and the associated 2019 Guidance Note. The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency adopted its Performance Standards, which align with those of the International Finance Corporation and include references to offsets, in 2013. The World Bank’s Operational Policy 4.04 (Natural Habitats; 2001, updated in 2013) required impacts to habitats to be mitigated through avoidance, minimization, and restoration but did not explicitly mention offsets. However, the policy included similar actions, such as establishing protected areas. Unlike the Performance Standard on Environmental and Social Sustainability, Operational Policy 4.04 did not aim for no net loss or reference the Business and Biodiversity Offset Program’s biodiversity offset principles, thereby allowing for flexibility. With the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Framework, launched in October 2018, the offset requirements among the World Bank Group institutions became better aligned. Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Biodiversity offsets are an increasingly used tool in global conservation Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    75 efforts, often driven by regulatory requirements, lender policies, and rep- utational risk management. The more frequent appearance of offsets may reflect not an increase in impact severity, but rather the more explicit and stringent requirements of ESS6, compared with the previous safeguard policies. For example, the prior OP 4.04 required mitigation of habitat im- pacts but did not mandate no net loss or explicitly require offsets. ESS6 now includes clearer expectations regarding critical habitat, residual impacts, and offset use as a last resort, bringing the World Bank in line with international good practice. Nevertheless, in practice, when no financing component for biodiversity offsets is included in the design of public sector projects, financ- ing them can be a major constraint. We identified a portfolio of 54 projects approved during the evaluation peri- od (FY15–24) that either explicitly indicated that biodiversity offsets would be incorporated per ESS6 and PS6 requirements or signaled requirements for potential offset measures if risks materialized downstream. This portfolio in- cluded 19 World Bank projects, 22 IFC projects, and five MIGA guarantees. In addition, there were eight joint operations (six jointly implemented by IFC and MIGA, one by IFC and the World Bank, and one by MIGA and the World Bank). The regional distribution of these projects is as follows: Latin America and the Caribbean, 13 projects; Western and Central Africa, 12 projects; South Asia, 11 projects; Eastern and Southern Africa, 7 projects; Europe and Central Asia, 6 projects; East Asia and Pacific, 2 projects; and Middle East and North Africa, 3 projects. Offset projects across IFC, the World Bank, and MIGA vary in sector and scope, addressing both small- and large-scale biodiversity impacts. For IFC, many of the smaller-scale offsets were associated with solar or wind proj- ects. For the World Bank, offset projects primarily focused on energy and infrastructure development. These included rural and regional transport connectivity operations, as well as energy-related initiatives such as gas or hydropower operations. MIGA operations with offsets were mainly hydro- power, wind power, and other energy-related operations, plus one mining and two infrastructure projects. All projects were rated high environmental and social risk, with one exception. Capacity Constraints There are capacity and skills gaps related to identifying, supervising, and managing biodiversity offsets at the World Bank. There was consensus Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 5 among the 20 environmental and social experts and environmental special- ists interviewed that there are significant capacity gaps within the World Bank related to identifying the need for biodiversity offsets and guiding their effective design and implementation, in line with ESS6. The World Bank lacks global and regional biodiversity leads to facilitate learning on biodi- versity offsets and ensure the consistent use of knowledge about standards and best practices. There was a focal point for offsets at the World Bank, but they have retired. Interviews indicate that there is insufficient guidance, training, peer-to-peer learning, and mentorship for staff working on offsets at the World Bank. However, IFC now has global and regional technical leads 76 for biodiversity who provide support, guidance, and a level of consistency for projects implementing PS6. MIGA has limited staff capacity in this area. Interviewees raised concerns about the difficulty of supervising offsets while also managing new projects, despite knowing that close monitoring of offset projects is critical to ensuring compliance and effectiveness and to generat- ing lessons and knowledge. Information Disclosure Post-Board Approval A lack of visibility on biodiversity offsets after project Board approval reduc- es transparency for public oversight and institutional learning and is out of step with evolving global best practices. Bank Group projects typically dis- close only preliminary information about biodiversity offsets before project Board approval. However, no evidence was found of post-Board disclosure of updates, even though all offsets reviewed had updates. This lack of visibility matters because much offset-related documentation is prepared post-Board approval because offsets take time to plan and implement. Not releasing updated offset information on key mitigants for the project (including biodi- versity action plans or biodiversity management plans post-Board approval) undermines accountability, public oversight, institutional and client learn- ing, risk management, and—ultimately—better outcomes. Global frameworks such as the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, the Global Reporting Initiative, and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards push for greater transparency on nature-related risks, including transparen- Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    77 cy for biodiversity offsets. Implementation Although the extent of offset implementation varied across projects, there is a tendency across the portfolio for the necessary assessments and sub- sequent implementation of enabling activities to be very delayed. These delays suggest that many projects will not be able to confidently say that offsets will be implemented according to the guidance after project end. It takes 20–30 years to achieve no net loss or no net gain. Therefore, we examine implementation status and quality during the project cycle to understand the probability of achieving positive biodiversity offset impacts over time. Since offsets vary in type, size, and scale, we examine imple- mentation across cohorts. The main patterns emerged less by institution and more by sector; therefore, the remainder of the chapter highlights challenges on a sector basis. Hydropower and Renewable Energy Offset implementation in the nine hydropower cases in the portfolio is signifi- cantly constrained by sector-specific complexities and inadequate financing, in part due to a lack of granularity on offset requirements in project documents. Strengthening early-stage assessments and upstream interventions can help enhance avoidance and result in more effective and adequately funded offsets. Biodiversity offsets in the hydropower sector included supporting terrestrial and riverine protected areas, rivers outside of the area of influence, afforesta- tion, and species translocation. Implementation was behind schedule for five of the nine projects with offsets that were three or more years into implemen- tation (and some were still preparing key documents six years after financing). Another closed project revealed unsatisfactory offset implementation. Implementation was progressing satisfactorily or well in only two projects. The challenges in hydropower projects stem from sector-specific factors, including the need to address both terrestrial and aquatic impacts; the increasing con- centration of projects within the same basin, which creates complex cumulative effects that are difficult to mitigate; limited budgets; very weak institutional capacity (Nepal and Pakistan); and a lack of capable implementing partners. In some projects, assessments also were insufficient. Two projects relied on con- trols on overfishing and riverine sand mining, despite no feasibility assessment on incentives and enforcement mechanisms. Reliance on afforestation imple- Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 5 mented by state authorities, with funding limited to three to five years, raises concerns about the long-term sustainability of these measures. The seven wind and solar projects in the portfolio, which involve smaller- scale and less complex offsets, are being implemented well, in line with the relevant guidance. For instance, one solar project created additional wetland areas to support a range-restricted frog species. Another wind project has been collaborating with regional landowners to enhance cattle management practices, improving habitat quality for a threatened species of bird. 78 Mining Strong financing, expert engagement, and established environmental capac- ity within mining companies have enabled more effective biodiversity offset implementation. Mining projects (n = 3) exhibited more advanced implemen- tation of offsets. A key factor is the choice and capacity of the client. In all cases, the clients were well-capitalized private sector firms, with advanced environmental, social, and governance programs. Implementation progress across mining projects is progressing well, including the establishment of a new national park in Western Africa to protect a large concentration of chimpanzees. All three projects had strong long-term financing, had en- gaged with both species and offset experts, and had capable implementation partners. Mining companies tend to have stronger, more established envi- ronmental, social, and governance capacity than hydropower companies, which may have contributed to more effective implementation. Transport The implementation of offset activities in transport infrastructure is, in most cases, challenged by a lack of information in project documentation about implementation status, by dropped components, or by delays. Of nine ma- ture transport projects that included offsets, three reported activities as “in progress,” with one completing a dolphin study to inform national conserva- Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    79 tion plans, assess potential impacts, and validate management measures but offering no other details, such as on the status of the species. Two projects removed components with high environmental risks and the related ESS6 actions. Offset implementation is delayed on another road project, pending detailed engineering design. Only two projects showed offset progress: one is in the final stages of establishing protected areas for threatened primates and wetland ecosystems, and the other has built underpasses for tiger con- nectivity and undertaken restoration efforts. High-Integrity Verification Establishing the credibility and effectiveness of offsets remains a challenge. Interviews with leading environmental and social experts suggested that, to ensure high-integrity biodiversity offsets, it would be worth exploring a verification framework akin to other rigorous certification models. Without robust verification systems, offsets risk becoming paper commitments rather than delivering real conservation outcomes. Key attributes of high-integrity offsets include standardized metrics of net loss and net gain, long-term monitoring to assess ecological effectiveness, independent verification to ensure transparency, engagement of IPLCs, and sustainable funding for long-term stewardship. An innovative, though challenging, idea expressed in the interviews was the development of a new verification body—potentially within the Bank Group, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, or a United Nations–linked organization—that could certify and monitor offsets globally. Outcome data could be hosted on open-access platforms such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility database or the UN Biodiversity Lab to enhance public accountability. In practice, such a change would be a long-term endeavor, but there are precedents for the effectiveness of verification practices in biodiversity and nature-based schemes where outcomes are monetized. Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 5 80 6 | Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations Conclusions The Bank Group has laid a credible foundation for biodiversity action but now faces a critical implementation test: translating its high-level commitments into measurable biodiversity outcomes that deliver on human well-being, food security, sustainable production, and jobs. The Bank Group has reframed its development vision to include a “livable planet,” articulated biodiversity-related corporate indicators tied to land and marine resource-use targets, and launched high-profile initiatives such as the Global Challenge Program on Forests for Development, Climate, and Biodiversity, signaling that biodiversity is no longer peripheral but central to its development mandate. The 2021 Joint Statement by the Multilateral Development Banks on Nature, People and Planet and the World Bank’s embrace of “nature-smart development” reflect growing recognition that biodiversity underpins climate mitigation, ecosystem resilience, and human welfare. Turning this vision into action will require connecting nature and climate objectives more systematically and financing integrated solutions that sustain ecosystems and the services they provide. Without stronger ecological monitoring, consistent inclusion of IPLCs, broader biome coverage, and renewed investment in sustainable conserva- tion financing, the World Bank’s contributions to biodiversity conservation will fall short of supporting countries in achieving the 30×30 target under the GBF. The World Bank has supported more than 880 protected areas, primarily in tropical forests. Tree cover analysis suggests that these invest- ments have likely helped maintain biodiversity, but the absence of ecological outcome monitoring means actual biodiversity gains remain unverified. Moreover, the World Bank has not systematically engaged IPLCs or strength- ened their tenure rights, despite clear evidence of their effectiveness as stewards of biodiversity. Finally, the World Bank has not maintained its 81 leadership in sustainable conservation financing, which is important to the durability of conservation gains after projects close. The integration of biodiversity in production sectors remains ad hoc and underleveraged, despite proven opportunities for scale. World Bank and IFC operations show that it is possible to reconcile biodiversity goals with economic growth, jobs, food security, and climate aims across agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. However, the current approach remains fragmented, with biodiversity integration being concentrated in a few country contexts and progressive firms rather than embedded across the portfolio. Biodiversity-positive outcomes in production sectors are more likely when World Bank and IFC support is grounded in four enabling conditions (or factors of effectiveness). First, interministerial collaboration and robust information flows—particularly between agricultural and environmental ministries—are essential to overcoming fragmentation and scaling inte- grated solutions. Second, aligning public and private finance with emerging sustainability regulations and markets (such as the EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products) helps create real economic incentives for biodiversity protection. Third, and relatedly, resource users are more likely to adopt biodiversity-positive practices when financial instruments reduce up-front costs and buffer risk and when they have secure land and resource tenure and rights. Finally, identifying entry points where production systems are reaching ecological limits—such as degraded soils due to overexploita- tion—offers opportunities to promote biodiversity-positive approaches that regenerate natural capital and ensure long-term productivity and jobs. Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 6 Biodiversity offsets are increasingly used across the Bank Group to manage re- sidual environmental impacts, yet their effectiveness remains limited because of weak institutional capacity, lack of transparency, and inconsistent imple- mentation. Offsets are unevenly and inconsistently updated or transparently monitored after project approval, and the methodologies used to estimate biodiversity loss and gains are often unclear, falling short of international best practice. These gaps undermine the credibility of offsets and reduce the likeli- hood that they will deliver their intended conservation outcomes. Significant institutional, technical, and financial strengthening is required to ensure that offsets function as credible, outcome-based conservation tools. 82 Implications Based on these conclusions, we propose four recommendations to help the Bank Group support clients in achieving their livable planet goals. These recommendations align with the Bank Group’s mission to end poverty on a livable planet, which reframes natural capital as a foundational asset for prosperity, jobs, resilience, and debt sustainability. The Corporate Scorecard necessitates a focus on biodiversity to achieve livable planet goals, including changes in renewable natural‑capital wealth, the share of fish stocks within biologically sustainable limits, and the percentage of terrestrial and aquatic areas under protection. Delivering on the Bank Group’s jobs agenda requires agrifood, fisheries, and forest value chains that remain productive as ecolog- ical limits tighten. Soil depletion, water stress, and declining fish stocks are already flattening yield curves and raising input costs; continued input-in- tensive growth risks lower long-term productivity and higher fiscal burdens. Clients are counting on the Bank Group to help them deliver on their glob- al biodiversity goals, including commitments to conserve 30 percent of the world’s land and oceans by 2030. This commitment hinges on the equita- ble participation of IPLCs, whose territories overlap with a large share of the planet’s remaining high-biodiversity areas. The Joint Statement by the Multilateral Development Banks on Nature, People and Planet and the Bank Group recognize IPLCs as essential stewards and commit to meaningful en- Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    83 gagement, benefit sharing, and rights-based approaches. A focus on sustainable production will likely be a central feature of the new country engagement model. As most clients prioritize the sustainable use of their natural resources in CPFs, it is likely that the Bank Group will be asked to play a strong role in helping clients to implement their sustain- able growth strategies over the long term. As the Bank Group rethinks and evolves its country engagement approach (World Bank 2025d), there will be opportunities to embed integrated climate and nature objectives where they matter most, including for growth, jobs, and macro-stability. By adopting a whole-of-economy, nature-smart approach, country engagements can har- ness the comparative strengths of the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA to create enabling environments, steer private capital, and de-risk investments toward sustainable models that deliver measurable economic, environmental, and social outcomes. Recommendations The Bank Group should assist clients to identify, finance, and measure bio- diversity outcomes. To support this goal, the Bank Group should strengthen its internal capabilities. This will involve: (i) utilizing existing country diagnostics (for example, CCDRs and CPFs) to identify biodiversity-relevant entry points; (ii) integrating biodiversity finance initiatives into broader economic development strategies and making explicit the linkages between commitments and finance across biodiversity, climate, and land degradation; (iii) conducting ecological monitoring including by using a combination of technology (for example, earth observation tools) and validation methods (for example, habitat and species monitoring, soil health analysis) to im- prove measurement and reporting; and (iv) addressing internal biodiversity capacity constraints. The World Bank should engage, empower, and protect IPLCs to achieve sustainable and inclusive biodiversity outcomes at scale. This entails (i) internalizing and raising awareness about the role of Indigenous Peoples as effective stewards of biodiversity-rich landscapes; (ii) enhancing the iden- tification of IPLCs and placing these groups at the center of biodiversity solutions; (iii) strengthening resource rights to ensure sustainable biodi- versity outcomes; and (iv) in conservation efforts, enhancing collaboration between social development, Indigenous Peoples specialists, and environ- Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Chapter 6 mental teams. The World Bank and IFC should proactively replicate and scale proven biodiversity-positive production models that deliver positive ecological, economic, and social outcomes. This involves (i) finding opportunities to introduce new production and agribusiness methods, supported by policies, regulations, and incentives that encourage biodiversity investment; (ii) tai- loring successful interventions to local ecological and cultural contexts; (iii) augmenting the capacity of extension networks and revisiting advice pro- vided by firms; and (iv) helping raise consumer awareness and demand for sustainable products. When piloting new approaches, underpin projects with 84 robust monitoring, reporting, and adaptive learning systems to help teams track and adapt. The World Bank, IFC, and MIGA should actively address the gaps in offset projects regarding staff capacity, information disclosure, and project life cy- cle monitoring and supervision. The Bank Group should establish functional, recognized, and appropriately resourced biodiversity focal points across the Bank Group to provide access to experts and opportunities for sharing, peer review, and learning from offset practice. Third-party verification for high- risk or high-impact projects, as a good practice, is encouraged. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    85 Bibliography Abdullah, S., B. Dhrubo, and H. Md Sazzad. 2019. “Environmental Impacts of Commercial Shrimp Farming in Coastal Zone of Bangladesh and Approaches for Sustainable Management.” International Journal of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resources 20 (3): 556038. https://doi.org/10.19080/ IJESNR.2019.20.556038. Ahmadnia, S., A. M. Christien, P. Girouard Spencer, T. Hart, and C. C. De Araujo Barbosa. 2022. Defueling Conflict Environment and Natural Resource Management as a Pathway to Peace. World Bank Group. Alcorn, J. B. 2014. Lessons Learned from Community Forestry in Latin America and Their Relevance for REDD+. Forest Carbon, Markets and Communities Program. Anderson, J. L., C. M. Anderson, J. Chu, et al. 2015. “The Fishery Performance Indicators: A Management Tool for Triple Bottom Line Outcomes.” PloS One 10 (5): e0122809. Baastel. 2024. Third Program Evaluation of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. Le Groupe Conseil Baastel. Baker, S., N. Constant, and P. Nicol. 2023. “Oceans Justice: Trade-Offs Between Sustainable Development Goals in the Seychelles.” Marine Policy 147: 105357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105357. BBOP (Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme). 2009a. Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook. BBOP. BBOP (Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme). 2009b. The BBOP Principles on Biodiversity Offsets. BBOP. BBOP (Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme). 2012. Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook Updated. BBOP. Betts, M. G., C. Wolf, W. J. Ripple, et al. 2017. “Global Forest Loss Disproportionately Erodes Biodiversity in Intact Landscapes.” Nature 547: 441–4. 86   Biber, M. F., A. Voskamp, and C. Hof. 2022. “Representation of the World’s Biophysical Conditions by the Global Protected Area Network.” Conservation Biology 36 (2): e13822. BioCarbon Fund ISFL (Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes). 2024. The BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes—2024 Annual Report. https://www.biocarbonfund-isfl.org/sites/default/files/2024-10/World%20Bank_ FY24-ISFL%20Report_WEB_R01.pdf. Blackman, A., and P. Veit. 2018. “Titled Amazon Indigenous Communities Cut Forest Carbon Emissions.” Ecological Economics 153 (November): 56–67. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.06.016. Bolam, F. C., L. Mair, M. Angelico, et al. 2021. “How Many Bird and Mammal Extinctions Has Recent Conservation Action Prevented?” Conservation Letters 14 (1): e12762. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12762. Bonan, G. B. 2008. “Forests and Climate Change: Forcings, Feedbacks, and the Climate Benefits of Forests.” Science 320 (5882): 1444–49. Brockerhoff, E. G., L. Barbaro, B. Castagneyrol, et al. 2017. “Forest Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning and the Provision of Ecosystem Services.” Biological Conservation 26: 3005–35. Bull, J. W., and N. Strange. 2018. “The Global Extent of Biodiversity Offset Implementation Under No Net Loss Policies.” Nature Sustainability 1 (12): Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    87 790–8. Busch, J., and K. Ferretti-Gallon. 2023. “What Drives and Stops Deforestation, Reforestation, and Forest Degradation? An Updated Meta-Analysis.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 17 (2): 234–55. https://doi. org/10.1086/725051. Busch, J., J. J. Bukoski, S. C. Cook-Patton, et al. 2024. “Cost-Effectiveness of Natural Forest Regeneration and Plantations for Climate Mitigation.” Nature Climate Change 14 (9): 996–1002. CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity. June 5, 1992, 1760 U.N.T.S. 79, CBD. CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2010. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. CBD COP10. CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2020. Report on the Administration of the Convention on Biological Diversity (January–June 2020): Note by the Executive Secretary. UNEP/CBD/QR/72. CBD. Chazdon, R. L., D. Lindenmayer, M. R. Guariguata, R. Crouzeilles, J. M. R. Benayas, and E. L. Chavero. 2020. “Fostering Natural Forest Regeneration on Former Agricultural Land Through Economic and Policy Interventions.” Environmental Research Letters 15 (4): 043002. Cheung, W. W. L., D. Pauly, and U. R. Sumaila. 2025. “Hope or Despair Revisited: Assessing Progress and New Challenges in Global Fisheries.” Fish and Fisheries 26 (2): 257–69. Climate Investment Funds. n.d. “Sustainable Forests.” Accessed February 21, 2025. https://www.cif.org/topics/sustainable-forests. Cook, N. J., T. Grillos, and K. P. Andersson. 2019. “Gender Quotas Increase the Equality and Effectiveness of Climate Policy Interventions.” Nature Climate Change 9 (4): 330–4. Crowder, L., E. Hazen, N. Avissar, R. Bjorkland, C. Latanich, and M. Ogburn. 2008. “The Impacts of Fisheries on Marine Ecosystems and the Transition to Ecosystem-Based Management.” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39: 259–78. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev. Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Bibliography ecolsys.39.110707.173406. Cucuzza, M., J. S. Stoll, and H. M. Leslie. 2021. “Evaluating the Theoretical and Prac­ tical Linkages Between Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management and Fisheries Co-Management.” Marine Policy 126 (April): 104390. Damania, R., E. Balseca, C. de Fontaubert, et al. 2023. Detox Development: Repurposing Environmentally Harmful Subsidies. World Bank. Damschen, E. I., L. A. Brudvig, M. A. Burt, et al. 2019. “Ongoing Accumulation of Plant Diversity Through Habitat Connectivity in an 18-Year Experiment.” Science 365 (6460): 1478–80. 88 Dasgupta, P. 2021. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. HM Treasury. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/final-report-the-economics-of- biodiversity-the-dasgupta-review. Dawson, N. M., B. Coolsaet, A. Bhardwaj, et al. 2024. “Is It Just Conservation? A Typology of Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ Roles in Conserving Biodiversity.” One Earth 7 (6): 1007–21. De Lacerda, L. D., A. R. D. Farias, R. L. R. Cunha-Lignon, and M. M. da Silva. 2021. “20-Years Cumulative Impact from Shrimp Farming on Mangroves of Northeast Brazil.” Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 4: 653096. https://doi. org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.653096. Devictor, V. 2025. “Resisting Conservation Backlashes.” Biological Conservation 308: 111233. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/biological-conservation. Di Sacco, A., K. A. Hardwick, D. Blakesley, et al. 2021. “Ten Golden Rules for Reforestation to Optimize Carbon Sequestration, Biodiversity Recovery and Livelihood Benefits.” Global Change Biology 27: 1328–48. Díaz, S., J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio, et al. 2019. Pervasive Human-Driven Decline of Life on Earth Points to the Need for Transformative Change. Science 366 (6471): eaax3100. Ding, H., P. Veit, E. Gray, K. Reytar, J.-C. Altamirano, and A. Blackman. 2016. Climate Benefits, Tenure Costs: The Economic Case for Securing Indigenous Land Rights in Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    89 the Amazon. World Resources Institute. Dulvy, N. K., S. Jennings, S. I. Rogers, and D. L. Maxwell. 2006. “Threat and Decline in Fishes: An Indicator of Marine Biodiversity.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63 (6): 1267–75. Dulvy, N. K., N. Pacoureau, C. L. Rigby, et al. 2021. “Overfishing Drives over One- Third of All Sharks and Rays Toward a Global Extinction Crisis.” Current Biology 31 (21): 4773–87. Edgar, G. J., R. D. Stuart-Smith, T. J. Willis, et al. 2014. “Global Conservation Outcomes Depend on Marine Protected Areas with Five Key Features.” Nature 506: 216–20. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13022. Ellison, D., C. E. Morris, B. Locatelli, et al. 2017. “Trees, Forests and Water: Cool Insights for a Hot World.” Global Environmental Change 43 (March): 51–61. Engel, S., S. Pagiola, and S. Wunder. 2008. “Designing Payments for Environmental Services in Theory and Practice: An Overview of the Issues.” Ecological Economics 65 (4): 663–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.011. Fa, J. E., I. D. Arroyo-Rodríguez, W. D. Newmark, et al. 2020. “Importance of Indigenous Peoples’ Lands for the Conservation of Intact Forest Landscapes.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 18 (3): 135–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/ fee.2148. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2013. Climate-Smart Agriculture Sourcebook. 1st ed. FAO. https://www.fao.org/3/a-i3325e.pdf. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2019. The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. FAO. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2020. The State of Food and Agriculture 2020: Overcoming Water Challenges in Agriculture. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb1447en. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2021a. The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture: Systems at Breaking Point—Synthesis Report 2021. FAO. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2021b. Synergies and Trade-Offs in Climate-Smart Agriculture—An Approach to Systematic Assessment. Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Bibliography FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5243en. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2022a. “Aquaculture Production.” In State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. FAO. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2022b. “Grazing with Trees—A Silvopastoral Approach to Managing and Restoring Trees.” Forestry Paper 187, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc2280en. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2023. The State of Food and Agriculture 2023: Revealing the True Cost of Food to Transform Agrifood Systems. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc7724en. 90 FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2024a. The State of Food and Agriculture 2024: Value-Driven Transformation of Agrifood Systems. FAO. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2024b. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024: Blue Transformation in Action. FAO. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2024c. The State of the World’s Forests 2024: Forest-Sector Innovations Towards a More Sustainable Future. FAO. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), Duke University, and WorldFish. 2023. Illuminating Hidden Harvests: The Contributions of Small- Scale Fisheries to Sustainable Development. FAO. https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/ illuminating-hidden-harvests-report-contributions-small-scale-fisheriessus- tainable. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) and FILAC (Fund for the Development of the Indigenous Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean). 2021. Forest Governance by Indigenous and Tribal Peoples: An Opportunity for Climate Action in Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO. https:// openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/6d5d544c-8709-4d64-af2e- 593d0ab8d066/content. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) and ITPS (Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils). 2015. Status of the World’s Soil Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    91 Resources (SWSR)—Main Report. FAO. FCPF (Forest Carbon Partnership Facility). 2024. Annual Report 2024. FCPF. https:// www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/default/files/documents/fcpf_fy24_ annual_report_for_web.pdf. Gaisberger, H., T. Fremout, T. So, et al. 2022. “Range-Wide Priority Setting for the Conservation and Restoration of Asian Rosewood Species Accounting for Multiple Threats and Ecogeographic Diversity.” Biological Conservation 270: 109560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109560. Garnett, S. T., N. D. Burgess, J. E. Fa, et al. 2018. “A Spatial Overview of the Global Importance of Indigenous Lands for Conservation.” Nature Sustainability 1 (7): 369–74. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6. Garrity, D. P., F. K. Akinnifesi, O. C. Ajayi, et al. 2010. “Evergreen Agriculture: A Robust Approach to Sustainable Food Security in Africa.” Food Security 2: 197–214. Georgia Institute of Technology. 2024. “Companies Are Still Committing to Net- Zero Emissions.” Georgia Institute of Technology. https://www.gatech.edu/ news/2024/11/20/companies-are-still-committing-net-zero-emissions. Giller, K. E., R. Hijbeek, J. A. Andersson, and J. Sumberg. 2021. “Regenerative Agriculture: An Agronomic Perspective.” Outlook on Agriculture 50 (1): 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727021998063. Halwart, M. 1998. “Trends in Rice-Fish Farming.” FAO Aquaculture Newsletter 20: 3–11. Harris, N. L., D. A. Gibbs, A. Baccini, et al. 2021. “Global Maps of Twenty-First Century Forest Carbon Fluxes.” Nature Climate Change 11: 234–40. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41558-020-00976-6. Hellin, J., and E. Fisher. 2019. “Climate-Smart Agriculture and Non-Agricultural Livelihood Transformation.” Climate 7 (4): 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/ cli7040048. Hilty, J., G. L. Worboys, A. Keeley, et al. 2020. “Guidelines for Conserving Connectivity Through Ecological Networks and Corridors.” Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series 30. IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/ node/49061. Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Bibliography Hochard, J. P., S. Hamilton, and E. B. Barbier. 2019. “Mangroves Shelter Coastal Economic Activity from Cyclones.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 116 (25): 12232–37. Hoekstra, J. M., T. M. Boucher, T. H. Ricketts, and C. Roberts. 2005. “Confronting a Biome Crisis: Global Disparities of Habitat Loss and Protection.” Ecology Letters 8 (1): 23–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00686.x. Howard, J., D. A. Andradi-Brown, V. Hagger, S. D. Sasmito, and J. Bosire. 2022. “Editorial: Drivers of Mangrove Forest Change and Its Effects on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 5: 989665. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.989665. 92 Hund, K. L., D. La Porta Arrobas, T. P. Fabregas Masllovet, T. J. Laing, and J. R. Drexhage. 2020. Minerals for Climate Action: The Mineral Intensity of the Clean Energy Transition. World Bank Group. IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). 2020. The Land Tenure Security Advantage: A Catalytic Asset for Sustainable and Inclusive Rural Transformation. IFAD. IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2022. Biodiversity Finance Reference Guide: Building on the Green Bond Principles and Green Loan Principles. https://www.ifc. org/content/dam/ifc/doc/mgrt/biodiversity-finance-reference-guide.pdf. IIED (International Institute for Environment and Development). 2014. IIED Annual Report 2013/14: Building Bridges. IIED. https://www.iied.org/g03844. ILO (International Labour Organization). 2019. Implementing the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention No. 169: Towards an Inclusive, Sustainable and Just Future. ILO. https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_735607.pdf. Indufor and ICF. 2024. Midterm Evaluation of the Forest Investment Program. Climate Investment Funds. Indufor North America. IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). 2016. The Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production. IPBES. IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    93 Services). 2019. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2022. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Summary for Policymakers. IPCC. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2011. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Version 2011.2). IUCN. http://www.redlist.org. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2012a. “Biodiversity Offsets and Related Compensatory Approaches.” Resolution 110. IUCN. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2012b. 2011 IUCN Annual Report: Solutions, Naturally. IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/ files/documents/2012-051.pdf. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2014. Biodiversity Offsets Technical Study Paper. IUCN. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2016. “IUCN Policy on Biodiversity Offsets.” IUCN. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2017. “Mangrove Restoration: Offering Two-for-One Solutions to Climate Change.” IUCN, January 20. https://iucn.org/news/forests/201701/mangrove-restoration- offering-two-one-solutions-climate-change. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2019. Global Inventory of Biodiversity Offset Policies (database). IUCN. Jarvis, D. I. 2007. Managing Biodiversity in Agricultural Ecosystems. Columbia University Press. Jasechko, S., H. Seybold, D. Perrone, et al. 2024. “Rapid Groundwater Decline and Some Cases of Recovery in Aquifers Globally.” Nature 625 (7996): 715–21. Kalischek, N., N. Lang, C. Renier, et al. 2023. “Cocoa Plantations are Associated with Deforestation in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana.” Nature Food 4: 384–93. Kauffman, J. B., A. F. Bernardino, T. O. Ferreira, N. W. Bolton, L. E. de O. Gomes, and Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Bibliography G. N. Nobrega. 2018. “Shrimp Ponds Lead to Massive Loss of Soil Carbon and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Northeastern Brazilian Mangroves.” Ecology and Evolution 8 (11): 5530–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4079. Lamb, D., P. D. Erskine, and J. A. Parrotta. 2005. “Restoration of Degraded Tropical Forest Landscapes.” Science 310: 1628–32. Larson, A. M. 2011. “Forest Tenure Reform in the Age of Climate Change: Lessons for REDD+.” Global Environmental Change 21 (2): 540–9. Leberger, R., I. M. D. Rosa, C. A. Guerra, F. Wolf, and H. M. Pereira. 2020. “Global Patterns of Forest Loss Across IUCN Categories of Protected Areas.” Biological Conservation 241: 108299. 94 Levis, C., J. Sarmento Rezende, J. P. Lima Barreto, et al. 2024. “Indigenizing Conservation Science for a Sustainable Amazon.” Science 386 (6727): 1229–32. Li, G., C. Fang, J. E. M. Watson, et al. 2024. “Mixed Effectiveness of Global Protected Areas in Resisting Habitat Loss.” Nature Communications 15: 8389. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41467-024-52693-9. Liang, J., T. W. Crowther, N. Picard, et al. 2016. “Positive Biodiversity-Productivity Relationship Predominant in Global Forests.” Science 354 (6309): aaf8957. Lipper, L., P. Thornton, B. M. Campbell, et al. 2014. “Climate-Smart Agriculture for Food Security.” Nature Climate Change 4: 1068–72. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nclimate2437. MacLeod, M. J., M. R. Hasan, D. H. F. Robb, and M. Mamun-Ur-Rashid. 2020. “Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global Aquaculture.” Scientific Reports 10: 11679. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-68231-8. March, A., T. Evans, S. Laing, and J. Raguain. 2024. “Evaluating the World’s First Sovereign Blue Bond: Lessons for Operationalising Blue Finance.” Commodities 3 (2): 151–67. McClanahan, T. R. 2022. “Fisheries Yields and Species Declines in Coral Reefs.” Environmental Research Letters 17 (4): 044023. McKenney, B. A., and J. M. Kiesecker. 2010. “Policy Development for Biodiversity Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    95 Offsets: A Review of Offset Frameworks.” Environmental Management 45 (1): 165–76. McShane, T. O., P. D. Hirsch, T. C. Trung, et al. 2011. “Hard Choices: Making Trade- Offs Between Biodiversity Conservation and Human Well-Being.” Biological Conservation 144 (3): 966–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038. Monterey Bay Aquarium. 2021. Seafood Watch: Whiteleg Shrimp. Monterey Bay Aquarium. Mortimore, M., S. Anderson, L. Cotula, et al. 2009. Dryland Opportunities: A New Paradigm for People, Ecosystems and Development. International Union for Conservation of Nature; International Institute for Environment and Development; United Nations Development Programme Drylands Development Centre. NASA Earth Observatory. 2024. “Shrimp Farms of the Guayas Estuary.” NASA Earth Observatory, August 29. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/153329/ shrimp-farms-of-the-guayas-estuary. Nasdaq. 2024. “HSBC Abandons Carbon Credits Trading Ambitions.” Nasdaq, November 21. www.nasdaq.com/articles/hsbc-abandons-carbon-credits- trading-ambitions. Nepstad, D., and S. Schwartzman. 2006. “Inhibition of Amazon Deforestation and Fire by Parks and Indigenous Lands.” Conservation Biology 20 (1): 65–73. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00351.x. Nunes, S., J. Verboom, and R. Alkemade. 2020. “Assessing Land-Based Mitigation Implications for Biodiversity.” Environmental Science and Policy 106: 68–76. Olds, A. D., R. M. Connolly, K. A. Pitt, et al. 2016. “Quantifying the Conservation Value of Seascape Connectivity: A Global Synthesis.” Global Ecology and Biogeography 25 (1): 3–15. Pagiola, S. 2019. “Paying for Ecosystem Services, a Successful Approach to Reducing Deforestation in Mexico.” World Bank Blogs, March 4. https://blogs.worldbank. org/en/latinamerica/paying-ecosystem-services-successful-approach-reducing- deforestation-mexico. Pagiola, S., and G. Platais. 2007. Payments for Environmental Services: From Theory to Practice. World Bank. https://www.scirp.org/reference/ referencespapers?referenceid=1923108. Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Bibliography Pellin, A., L. Dias, N. Soares, and F. Prado. 2022. “Management Effectiveness and Deforestation in Protected Areas of the Brazilian Amazon.” PARKS 28 (2): 45–54. https://parksjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/10.2305-IUCN. CH_.2022.PARKS-28-2AP.en-Pellin-et-al.pdf. Pillay, R., M. Venter, J. Aragon-Osejo, et al. 2021. “Tropical Forests Are Home to Over Half of the World’s Vertebrate Species.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 20: 10–15. Porter-Bolland, L., E. A. Ellis, M. R. Guariguata, et al. 2011. “Community Managed Forests and Forest Protected Areas: An Assessment of Their Conservation 96 Effectiveness Across the Tropics.” Forest Ecology and Management 268: 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.034. Pratzer, M., Á. Fernández-Llamazares, P. Meyfroidt, et al. 2023. “Agricultural Intensification, Indigenous Stewardship and Land Sparing in Tropical Dry Forests.” Nature Sustainability 6 (6): 671–82. Pullin, R. S. V., and P. G. White. 2011. Fish to 2020: Supply and Demand in Changing Global Markets. WorldFish Center. Robinson, B. E., M. B. Holland, and L. Naughton-Treves. 2014. “Does Secure Land Tenure Save Forests? A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Land Tenure and Tropical Deforestation.” Global Environmental Change 29: 281–93. Rooney, M., and K. Paul. 2017. “Assessing Policy and Carbon Price Settings for Incentivising Reforestation Activities in a Carbon Market: An Australian Perspective.” Land Use Policy 67: 725–32. RRI (Rights and Resources Initiative). 2020. Rights-Based Conservation: The Path to Preserving Earth’s Biological and Cultural Diversity? RRI. https://rightsandre- sources.org/publication/rights-based-conservation. Saj, S., E. Torquebiau, E. Hainzelin, J. Pages, and F. Maraux. 2017. “The Way Forward: An Agroecological Perspective for Climate-Smart Agriculture.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 250: 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. agee.2017.09.003. Sanderman, J., T. Hengl, G. Fiske, et al. 2018. “A Global Map of Mangrove Forest Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    97 Soil Carbon at 30 m Spatial Resolution.” Environmental Research Letters 13 (5): 055002. Santos, P. Z. F., R. Crouzeille, and J. B. B. Sansevero. 2018. “Can Agroforestry Systems Enhance Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Provision in Agricultural Landscapes? A Meta-Analysis for the Brazilian Atlantic Forest.” Forest Ecology and Management 433: 140–5. Seymour, F., M. Wolosin, and E. Gray. 2022. Not Just Carbon: Capturing All the Benefits of Forests for Stabilizing the Climate from Local to Global Scales. https://unfccc. int/sites/default/files/resource/202303061658---Not%20Just%20Carbon%20 -%20Submission%20to%20the%20First%20Global%20Stocktake.pdf. Soares-Filho, B., P. Moutinho, D. Nepstad, et al. 2010. “Role of Brazilian Amazon Protected Areas in Climate Change Mitigation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107 (24): 10821–6. https:// doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0913048107. Stevens, C., R. Winterbottom, J. Springer, and K. Reytar. 2014. Securing Rights, Combating Climate Change: How Strengthening Community Forest Rights Mitigates Climate Change. World Resources Institute. Sumberg, J., K. E. Giller, and D. Glover. 2023. “Evolving Meanings of ‘Principles’ in Agronomic Discourse.” Outlook on Agriculture 52 (4): 363–70. https://doi. org/10.1177/00307270231213659. Taher, T., C. E. Althaus, P. J. Tranter, and M. C. Evans. 2023. “Impacts of Shrimp Aquaculture on the Local Communities and Conservation of the World’s Largest Protected Mangrove Forest.” Environmental Science & Policy 417: 351–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.07.002. Tripathi, H. G., W. E. Kunin, H. E. Smith, et al. 2022. Climate-Smart Agriculture and Trade-Offs with Biodiversity and Crop Yield. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 6: 868870. Trumper, K., C. Ravilious, and B. Dickson. 2008. “Carbon in Drylands: Desertification, Climate Change and Carbon Finance.” UNEP. UNCCD (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification). 2019. “New and Emerging Issues: Land Tenure Note by the Secretariat.” ICCD/COP(14)/20, Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Bibliography August 14. UNCCD (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2024. “Securing Tenure to Restore Land and Safeguard Livelihoods.” Synergy Brief, May 2024. UNCCD; FAO. UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2021. Becoming #GenerationRestoration: Ecosystem Restoration for People, Nature and Climate. UNEP. UNEP-WCMC (United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre) and IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 98 2021. Protected Planet Report 2020. UNEP-WCMC; IUCN. https://livereport.pro- tectedplanet.net. Accessed October 16, 2024. UNEP-WCMC (United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre) and IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2024. Protected Planet Report 2024. UNEP-WCMC; IUCN. Walker, W., Z. Mehrabi, C. H. Graham, et al. 2023. “Overlapping Land Rights and Deforestation in Uganda: 20 Years of Evidence.” Global Environmental Change 82 (September): 102701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102701. Walker, W. S., S. R. Gorelik, A. Baccini, et al. 2020. “The Role of Forest Conversion, Degradation, and Disturbance in the Carbon Dynamics of Amazon Indigenous Territories and Protected Areas.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 117 (6): 3015–25. Warford, J. J., and Z. Partow. 1990. The World Bank and the Environment: First Annual Report, Fiscal 1990. World Bank. World Bank. 1996. Biodiversity and Agriculture: Implications for Conservation and Development. Technical Paper 321, World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank. org/curated/en/720871468764108972/pdf/multi-page.pdf. World Bank. 1999. Integrating Biodiversity in Agricultural Intensification: Toward Sound Practices. World Bank. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    99 World Bank. 2006. Agrological Approaches to Agricultural Development. World Bank. World Bank. 2008. Biodiversity, Climate Change and Adaptation: Nature-Based Solutions from the World Bank Portfolio. World Bank. World Bank. 2011. BioCarbon Fund Experience: Insights from Afforestation and Reforestation Clean Development Mechanism Projects. World Bank. World Bank. 2017. “Paraguay—Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Land Management in the Atlantic Forest of Eastern Paraguay Project.” Implementation Completion and Results Report ICR3922, World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/403931491977906373. World Bank. 2020. Climate-Smart Agriculture Implementation Brief: A Summary of Insights and Upscaling Opportunities Through the Africa Climate Business Plan. World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/33973. World Bank. 2021. “Madagascar—Third Environment Program Support Project.” Project Performance Assessment Report 158221, Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank. World Bank. 2022. Côte d’Ivoire–Second Phase of the Forest Investment Project. World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/168761656370618827. World Bank. 2023a. Local Stories Global Impact: Knowledge & Lessons from the Dedicated Grant Mechanism. World Bank. https://documents.worldbank.org/ en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/099429306202317611/ idu08b469b39045d9041e00963a04a2f4e81f353. World Bank. 2023b. Repurposing Agricultural Support Policies for Sustainable Food Systems: Toolkit. World Bank. World Bank. 2024a. Blue Biodiversity: Investing in Our, and Our Ocean’s, Future. World Bank. World Bank. 2024b. Côte d’Ivoire—Forest Investment Project. World Bank. http://docu- ments.worldbank.org/curated/en/099040124112021554. World Bank. 2024c. Making Waves: World Bank Support for the Blue Economy, 2012– 23. Independent Evaluation Group. World Bank. https://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/ sites/default/files/Data/Evaluation/files/Making_Waves-Blue_Economy.pdf. Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Bibliography World Bank. 2025a. “Factsheet on Tanzania’s REGROW Project and Next Steps.” https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/factsheet/2025/01/09/factsheet-on- tanzanias-regrow-project-and-next-steps. World Bank. 2025b. “Forest Investment Project Phase 2 (P175982): Sequence No: 5.” Implementation Status and Results Report ISR02840, World Bank. http:// documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099012025194589557. World Bank. 2025c. Management Report and Recommendation in Response to the Inspection Panel Investigation Report Tanzania Resilient Natural Resource Management for Tourism and Growth (REGROW) Project. https://www. 100 inspectionpanel.org/sites/default/files/cases/documents/165-Management%20 Report%20and%20Recommendation-28%20February%202025_0.pdf. World Bank. 2025d. Rethinking the Approach to WBG Country Engagement— Draft for Consultation. World Bank. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/ cbbdf270cfb6ca34da076f8a76bd4a26-0290012025/original/Rethinking-the- Approach-to-WBG-Country-Engagement.pdf. World Bank. 2025e. “Wildlife Conservation Bond Operation (P174097): Sequence No. 8.” Implementation Status and Results Report ISR03474, World Bank. http:// documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099053025190119109. World Bank Group. 2012. Toward a Green, Clean, and Resilient World for All: A World Bank Group Environment Strategy 2012–2022. World Bank Group. World Bank Group. 2021. Unlocking Nature-Smart Development: An Approach Paper on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. World Bank Group. World Bank Group. 2022a. Nature and Development Brief: Integrating Climate and Nature Action. World Bank Group. World Bank Group. 2022b. Nature and Development Brief: Investing in Nature for Green, Resilient, and Inclusive Growth. World Bank Group. World Bank Group. 2022c. Nature and Development Brief: Scaling Up Finance for Nature. World Bank Group. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    101 World Bank Group. 2024a. “Climate-Smart Agriculture.” World Bank Group. https:// www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climate-smart-agriculture. World Bank Group. 2024b. PROGREEN Annual Report 2024. World Bank Group. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/e2a07374775e7d- 38ca569d880aaa0e6d-0320052024/original/PROGREEN-Annual-Report-2024. pdf. World Bank Group. 2025. “WBG Scorecard FY24-FY30 Methodology Note.” World Bank Group. https://wbgscorecardcdn.worldbank.org/scorecard-methodology/ indicator/CSC_RES_TER_AQU_HECT/5.3.[RESULTS]_Terrestrial%20and%20 Aquatic%20Areas_20250416164620741.pdf. World Bank Inspection Panel. 2024. Inspection Panel Investigation Report: United Republic of Tanzania—Resilient Natural Resource Management for Tourism and Growth. World Bank Inspection Panel. https://www.inspectionpanel.org/ sites/default/files/cases/documents/165-Investigation%20Report-16%20 September%202024.pdf. WRI (World Resources Institute). 2022. State of Climate Action 2022. WRI. https:// www.wri.org/research/state-climate-action-2022. Wunder, S. 2005. “Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts.” Occasional Paper 42. Center for International Forestry Research. https:// montagneinrete.it/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/op-42-wunder-on-pay- ments_1495540914-1.pdf. Wunder, S. 2008. “Payments for Environmental Services and the Poor: Concepts and Preliminary Evidence.” Environment and Development Economics 13 (3): 279–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X08004282. Wunder, S., J. Börner, D. Ezzine-de-Blas, S. Feder, and S. Pagiola. 2020. “Payments for Environmental Services: Past Performance and Pending Potentials.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 12: 209–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-re- source-100518–094206. WWF (World Wildlife Fund). 2024. Living Planet Report 2024: A System in Peril. WWF. WWF (World Wildlife Fund), UNEP-WCMC (United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre), SGP/ICCA-GSI (Global Environment Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Bibliography Facility Small Grants Programme/ICCA Global Support Initiative), et al. 2021. The State of Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ Lands and Territories. https://wwflac.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/report_the_state_of_the_ indigenous_peoples_and_local_communities_lands_and_territories_1.pdf. Systematic Review of Tree Cover Change as a Biodiversity Proxy Indicator in Protected Areas Altamirano, A., R. Field, P. Aplin, A. Lara, and J. Rey-Benayas. 2010. “Woody Species Diversity in Temperate Andean Forests: The Need for New Conservation Strategies.” Biological Conservation 143 (9): 2080–91. 102 Araia, M. G., P. W. Chirwa, and S. Syampungani. 2020. “Do Strictly Protected Areas Protect Vulnerable Local Tree Species Better Than Human Land Use? Disentangling Conservation Value from Biodiversity Value.” Journal for Nature Conservation 58: 125919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125919. Bellón, B., J. Blanco, A. De Vos, F. de O. Roque, O. Pays, and P.-C. Renaud. 2020. “Integrated Landscape Change Analysis of Protected Areas and Their Surrounding Landscapes: Application in the Brazilian Cerrado.” Remote Sensing 12 (9): 1413. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12091413. Beresford, A. E., G. M. Buchanan, B. Phalan, et al. 2017. “Correlates of Long-Term Land-Cover Change and Protected Area Performance at Priority Conservation Sites in Africa.” Environmental Conservation 45 (1): 49–57. https://doi. org/10.1017/s0376892917000157. Bowker, J. N., A. De Vos, J. M. Ament, and G. S. Cumming. 2017. “Effectiveness of Africa’s Tropical Protected Areas for Maintaining Forest Cover.” Conservation Biology 31 (3): 559–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12851. Burivalova, Z., M. R. Bauert, S. Hassold, N. T. Fatroandrianjafinonjasolomiovazo, and L. P. Koh. 2015. “Relevance of Global Forest Change Data Set to Local Conservation: Case Study of Forest Degradation in Masoala National Park, Madagascar.” Biotropica 47 (2): 267–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12194. Chaurasia, A. N., R. M. Parmar, M. G. Dave, and N. S. R. Krishnayya. 2024. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    103 “Integrating Field- and Remote Sensing Data to Perceive Species Heterogeneity Across a Climate Gradient.” Scientific Reports 14 (1): 42. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-023-50812-y. Chen, H. L., R. L. Lewison, L. An, Y. H. Tsai, D. Stow, L. Shi, and S. Yang. 2020. “Assessing the Effects of Payments for Ecosystem Services Programs on Forest Structure and Species Biodiversity.” Biodiversity and Conservation 29 (7): 2123– 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-020-01953-3. Chitayat, A. B., M. Lewis, M. Anyelwisye, et al. 2024. “Development of Spatial Models and Maps for Tree Species Diversity and Biomass in a Miombo Ecosystem, Western Tanzania.” Applied Vegetation Science 27 (4): e70002. https://doi. org/10.1111/avsc.70002. Crowe, O., A. E. Beresford, G. M. Buchanan, et al. 2023. “A Global Assessment of Forest Integrity Within Key Biodiversity Areas.” Biological Conservation 286: 110293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110293. Haslem, A., J. Q. Radford, A. F. Bennett, et al. 2024. “Measuring the Ecological Outcomes of Fire: Metrics to Guide Fire Management.” Fire Ecology 20 (1): 99. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42408-024-00333-4. Higginbottom, T., N. Collar, I. Symeonakis, and S. Marsden. 2017. “All Forests Are Not Equal: Quantifying the Biodiversity Value of Remnant Mountain Forests in Java, Indonesia.” In 37th International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment, 8–12 May 2017, Tshwane, South Africa. Holmes, K., T. Nelson, N. Coops, and M. Wulder. 2013. “Biodiversity Indicators Show Climate Change Will Alter Vegetation in Parks and Protected Areas.” Diversity 5 (2): 352–73. https://doi.org/10.3390/d5020352. Kigonya, R., P. Byakagaba, E. Ssenyonjo, and C. Nakakaawa Jjunju. 2024. “‘Biodiversity Offsetting’ in Uganda’s Protected Areas: A Pathway to Restoration of Forest Biodiversity?” Environmental Management 73 (6): 1134–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-024-01982-6. Laurance, W. F., D. Carolina Useche, J. Rendeiro, et al. 2012. “Averting Biodiversity Collapse in Tropical Forest Protected Areas.” Nature 489 (7415): 290–4. https:// doi.org/10.1038/nature11318. Liang, M., M. Gonzalez-Roglich, P. Roehrdanz, et al. 2021. “Assessing Protected Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Bibliography Area’s Carbon Stocks and Ecological Structure at Regional-Scale Using Gedi Lidar.” SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3978725. Lung, T., M. K. Peters, N. Farwig, K. Böhning-Gaese, and G. Schaab. 2011. “Combining Long-Term Land Cover Time Series and Field Observations for Spatially Explicit Predictions on Changes in Tropical Forest Biodiversity.” International Journal of Remote Sensing 33 (1): 13–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2010.527867. Maure, L. A., M. F. Diniz, M. T. Pacheco Coelho, P. G. Molin, F. Rodrigues da Silva, and E. Hasui. 2023. “Biodiversity and Carbon Conservation Under the Ecosystem Stability of Tropical Forests.” Journal of Environmental Management 345: 118929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118929. 104 Monteiro, A. T., S. Rosa, F. Andreone, et al. 2023. “Anthropogenic Landscape Change and Amphibian Diversity in Tropical Montane Biodiversity Hotspots: Insights from Satellite Remote Sensing in the Madagascar Highlands.” Environment, Development and Sustainability 27 (3): 7219–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668- 023-04187-9. Muise, E. R., N. C. Coops, T. Hermosilla, and S. S. Ban. 2022. “Assessing Representation of Remote Sensing Derived Forest Structure and Land Cover Across a Network of Protected Areas.” Ecological Applications 32 (5): e2603. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2603. Neal, T. 2024. “Estimating the Effectiveness of Forest Protection Using Regression Discontinuity.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 127: 103021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2024.103021. Oldekop, J. A., A. J. Bebbington, K. Hennermann, et al. 2013. “Evaluating the Effects of Common-Pool Resource Institutions and Market Forces on Species Richness and Forest Cover in Ecuadorian Indigenous Kichwa Communities.” Conservation Letters 6 (2): 107–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263x.2012.00297.x. Purdon, A., M. A. Mole, J. Selier, J. Kruger, H. Mafumo, and P. I. Olivier. 2022. “Using the Rao’s Q Diversity Index as an Indicator of Protected Area Effectiveness in Conserving Biodiversity.” Ecological Informatics 72: 101920. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2022.101920. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    105 Rafanoharana, S. C., F. O. D. Andrianambinina, H. A. Rasamuel, P. O. Waeber, J. U. Ganzhorn, and L. Wilmé. 2023. “Tree Canopy Density Thresholds for Improved Forests Cover Estimation in Protected Areas of Madagascar.” Environmental Research Communications 5 (7): 071003. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ ace87f. Rampheri, M., T. Dube, and I. Dhau. 2020. “Use of Remotely Sensed Data to Estimate Tree Species Diversity as an Indicator of Biodiversity in Blouberg Nature Reserve, South Africa.” Geocarto International 37 (2): 526–42. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10106049.2020.1723717. Robinson, C. 2018. Landscape Patterns of Diversity, Wood Density, and Protected Areas in Forests of Costa Rica. University of California, Los Angeles. Russell-Smith, J., J. Evans, A. C. Edwards, and A. Simms. 2017. “Assessing Ecological Performance Thresholds in Fire-Prone Kakadu National Park, Northern Australia.” Ecosphere 8 (7): e01856. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1856. Shen, H., C. Feng, J. Tian, L. Fan, M. Cao, and W. Wang. 2024. “Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas Based on the States, Trends, and Relative Changes in Forest Ecosystem: A Case Study in the Three Parallel Rivers Region, China.” Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fevo.2024.1321974. Simkins, A. T., P. F. Donald, A. E. Beresford, et al. 2024. “Rates of Tree Cover Loss in Key Biodiversity Areas on Indigenous Peoples’ Lands.” Conservation Biology 38 (3): e14195. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14195. Stoudmann, N., J. Byrne, and V. Adams. 2025. “Effect of Reserve Protection Level and Governance on Tree Cover Loss and Gain.” Conservation Biology 39 (4): e14449. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14449. Struebig, M. J., A. Wilting, D. L. A. Gaveau, et al. 2015. “Targeted Conservation to Safeguard a Biodiversity Hotspot from Climate and Land-Cover Change.” Current Biology 25 (3): 372–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.11.067. Terraube, J., R. Gardiner, K. Hohwieler, C. H. Frère, and R. H. Cristescu. 2023. “Protected Area Coverage Has a Positive Effect on Koala Occurrence in Eastern Australia.” Biodiversity and Conservation 32 (7): 2495–11. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10531-023-02615-w. Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Bibliography Velasco-Rodríguez, A., A. Regos, I. C. González, N. Sillero, and S. Arenas-Castro. 2025. “Habitat Dynamics of Flagship Species for Conservation Prioritization in Southern Europe.” Conservation Biology 39 (4): e70067. https://doi.org/10.1111/ cobi.70067. Viña, A., and J. Liu. 2017. “Hidden Roles of Protected Areas in the Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” Ecosphere 8 (6): e01864. https://doi. org/10.1002/ecs2.1864. Waite, T. A., S. J. Corey, L. G. Campbell, A. K. Chhangani, J. Rice, and P. Robbins. 2009. “Satellite Sleuthing: Does Remotely Sensed Land-Cover Change Signal Ecological Degradation in a Protected Area?” Diversity and Distributions 15 (2): 106 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2008.00534.x. Wang, L., J. P. G. M. Cromsigt, R. Buitenwerf, et al. 2023. “Tree Cover and Its Heterogeneity in Natural Ecosystems Is Linked to Large Herbivore Biomass Globally.” One Earth 6 (12): 1759–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onee- ar.2023.10.007. Wegmann, M., L. Santini, B. Leutner, et al. 2014. “Role of African Protected Areas in Maintaining Connectivity for Large Mammals.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369 (1643): 20130193. https://doi. org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0193. Xia, H., H. Li, and A. V. Prishchepov. 2023. “Assessing Forest Conservation Outcomes of a Nature Reserve in a Subtropical Forest Ecosystem: Effectiveness, Spillover Effects, and Insights for Spatial Conservation Prioritization.” Biological Conservation 285: 110254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110254. Young, N. E., P. H. Evangelista, T. Mengitsu, and S. Leisz. 2020. “Twenty-Three Years of Forest Cover Change in Protected Areas Under Different Governance Strategies: A Case Study from Ethiopia’s Southern Highlands.” Land Use Policy 91: 104426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104426. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    107 APPENDIXES Independent Evaluation Group Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A. Evaluation Methods This appendix explains the methodological approach used in this evalua- tion. It includes a description of the evaluation design and questions, scope, portfolio identification and description, methods applied, and limitations. Evaluation Design and Questions This evaluation asked the overarching question: How well is the World Bank Group supporting clients to address biodiversity loss? This question was examined through two main evaluation questions (EQs): » EQ1: How well is the World Bank addressing biodiversity challenges through conservation-focused activities? » EQ2: How well are the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) supporting activities with potential biodiversity benefits in key produc- tion sectors, and are those activities likely to achieve such benefits? A third EQ—How well is the Bank Group supporting clients to manage risks affecting biodiversity at the project level?—was subsumed within the anal- yses of EQ1 and EQ2 and is also addressed through a dedicated analysis of biodiversity offsets that covers the World Bank, IFC, and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). To answer these questions, we triangulated findings generated through a set of mixed methods, both qualitative and quantitative. The questions were also further subdivided into a set of subquestions, as per the Approach Paper(World Bank 2024). The subquestions for EQ1—on conservation-focused activities—are as follows: » EQ1a. How well is the World Bank applying good practice approaches in its biodiversity conservation activities? » EQ1b. To what extent are biodiversity conservation activities designed to leverage the World Bank’s advantages? 110   » EQ1c. How well are biodiversity projects achieving their biodiversity goals? » EQ1d. How well are biodiversity projects articulating and achieving their multiple benefits (economic, development, climate)? The subquestions for EQ2—on integrating biodiversity into key production sectors—are as follows: » EQ2a. What has worked to enable the integration of activities with biodiver- sity benefits in engagements in key production sectors—in the Bank Group, with clients, and with resource users? » EQ2b. Do projects with potential biodiversity benefits include evidence on proxies for biodiversity benefits, and are they achieving those proxies? » EQ2c. How have activities with potential biodiversity benefits contributed to climate change benefits? The subquestions for EQ3—on biodiversity risk management—are as follows: » EQ3a. How well have biodiversity risk management policies been used to inform the design and support the effective implementation of projects that could have an adverse effect on biodiversity? » EQ3b. To the extent that evidence is available, has the application of biodiversity-related risk management policies mitigated biodiversity loss? Figure A.1 presents the evaluation design. For EQ1, which assesses the extent to which the World Bank is achieving biodiversity outcomes through Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    111 conservation-focused activities, methods include focused literature reviews, strategy reviews, portfolio review and analysis, geospatial analysis, and deep dives on (i) Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs), (ii) land and natural resource rights (LNR), and (iii) biodiversity offsets. For EQ2, which examines how well the World Bank and IFC are supporting biodiversity outcomes in key production sectors, the methods include focused literature reviews, portfolio reviews and analyses, and exploratory case studies. EQ3, on how well the Bank Group is supporting clients to manage risks affect- ing biodiversity at the project level, was addressed through the dedicated analysis of biodiversity offsets (covering the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA), the integration of environmental and social risk-related analysis into the portfolio review and deep dives under EQ1, and the sectoral portfolio and case study reviews under EQ2. This appendix also describes the methodology used to analyze core country-level diagnostics—Country Partnership Frameworks (CPFs) and Country Climate and Development Reports (CCDRs). Figure A.1. Evaluation Design How well is the Bank Group supporting clients to address biodiversity loss? EQ1. How well is the World Bank addressing biodiversity EQ2. How well is the World Bank Group supporting challenges through conservation focused activities? activities with potential biodiversity benefits in key production sectors, and are those activities likely to achieve such benefits? Geospatial analysis to Deep dives on risks related to geolocate conservation (i) LNR, (ii) IPLCs, and (iii) Exploratory Case Studies to provide explanatory areas and assess land Biodiversity offsets (covering Review of power about how the World Bank Group integrates cover dynamics transport, hydro, energy, mining) Core biodiversity considerations into production sectors Country Diagnostics Brazil, Côte d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Peru, and Viet Nam (in (CPFs and country); Mozambique (on desk) PRA of conservation-focused projects (n=139) CCDRs) to assess the PRA of key production sectors and associated PRA and deep dive assessment criteria and coding extent of biodiversity risks (agriculture, fisheries, aquaculture, protocols derived from literature and strategies: (i) geo- biodiversity forests) representativeness, (ii) ecological connectivity, (iii) integration ecological monitoring, (iv) engagement and protection of PRA assessment criteria and coding protocols derived IPLCs, and (v) sustainable financing from literature Focused literature review Review of World Bank Group Focused literature reviews on good practices in key to identify conservation strategies and commitments production sectors (agriculture, fisheries, aquaculture, good practices to identify Bank advantages forests) Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: EQ3—on how well the World Bank Group is supporting clients to manage risks affecting biodi- versity—was integrated into the analyses of EQ1 and EQ2. Specifically, EQ3 was examined through a dedicated analysis of biodiversity offsets (covering the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA), and integrated into the portfolio review and deep dives under EQ1 and the portfolio and case study reviews under EQ2. CCDR = Country Climate and Development Report; CPF = Country Partnership Framework; EQ = evaluation question; IFC = International Finance Corporation; IPLCs= Indigenous Peoples and local com- munities; LNR = land and natural resource rights; MIGA = Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency; PRA = portfolio review and analysis. Evaluation Scope This evaluation was scoped along three dimensions: time frame, institution- Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A al coverage, and level of engagement. Time frame. The evaluation includes World Bank, IFC, and MIGA projects approved during FY15–24, except for the conservation-focused portfolio, which includes projects approved from FY10 to FY24. This extended time frame was used to ensure the inclusion of closed projects with evaluative evidence on results, as EQ1 examines both the evolution of the World Bank’s engagement in conservation and the extent to which environmental and development results were achieved. Institutional coverage. As outlined in the Approach Paper, EQ1 on conserva- tion-focused activities covers the World Bank only, as IFC and MIGA do not 112 implement biodiversity conservation operations. EQ2 on biodiversity inte- gration into key production sectors covers both the World Bank and IFC. EQ2 excludes MIGA because the evaluation scope, as per the Approach Paper, did not include these activities. MIGA may undertake some relevant activities, but consultations with MIGA during the Approach Paper stage suggested that these are relatively few, and the evaluation might not add much value by covering them. The biodiversity offsets analysis includes all three Bank Group institutions: the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA. Engagement level. To manage scope, the evaluation focuses on national- level issues rather than the global convening power of the World Bank (for example, its activities at the Conferences of the Parties), as specified in the Approach Paper. Evaluating the Bank Group’s global convening efforts would have required a distinct methodological approach. Lessons on convening were also generated by a separate Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) evaluation of the Bank Group’s global convening efforts in 2020. In addition, the evaluation does not assess IFC’s Biodiversity Finance Reference Guide, which was launched alongside the evaluation and is too recent to evaluate. Evaluation Portfolio Identification and Classifications This section has two parts: the first describes the process used to identify the portfolios included in the evaluation for each EQ, and the second provides a Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    113 description of these portfolios. EQ1. Biodiversity Conservation World Bank First, we identified the universe of potentially relevant projects. To identify the World Bank’s conservation-focused portfolio (FY10–24), we first began by identifying projects tagged with the biodiversity theme code (theme code 834). Using this output, we manually screened projects (that is, their project development objectives, component titles, and indicator titles) to develop a search taxonomy of biodiversity-related terms, as outlined in box A.1. We then used this taxonomy for text mining to supplement the theme code search to ensure comprehensiveness. To do this, a string search was con- ducted in key text descriptions of projects (that is, project titles, project development objectives, key lending project document abstracts, project descriptions, activity summaries, component titles, component descriptions, and indicator titles).  earch Taxonomy Used for Text Mining to Identify Box A.1. S Conservation-Focused Portfolio biodiversity, biological corridor, biological divers, conservation area, conservation cor- ridor, critical habitat, ecological corridor, ecosystem value, fauna, flora, marine reserve, natural capital, natural habitat, payment for ecosystem service, payment for environ- mental service, payments for ecosystem service, payments for environmental service, poaching, protected area, specie, WAVES, wildlife. Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Next, to determine the relevant in-scope portfolio from the universe of potentially relevant projects, we used AI-assisted manual screening support- ed by an off-line, open-source, Mistral 7b model running on a World Bank power desktop machine with an NVIDIA GPU card. We developed specific prompts to categorize projects as in or out of scope based on a set of instructions and examples. We developed three prompts Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A tailored to the three lending instruments, and for each lending instrument, we used different text fields (that is, project development objectives, compo- nents, and indicators for investment project financing; project development objectives and disbursement-linked indicators for Program-for-Results; and project development objectives and prior actions for development policy operations). The prompts and text data were fed to the model systematically for the projects for which all necessary text data were available. The model was instructed to provide an “in/out” categorization for each project, along with a brief explanation—grounded in the data—for its decisions. The mod- el’s generation parameters and the prompts were optimized for accuracy (as opposed to creativity) through iterative testing with examples. 114 This preliminary AI-assisted categorization served to efficiently narrow the pool of projects by identifying those that potentially met or did not meet our evaluation scoping criteria. Subsequently, we conducted a manual verifica- tion to ensure the accuracy of the AI categorization and to adjust for any nuances or specific details the model might have missed. The manual verifi- cation involved reviewing the relevant text, including project development objectives, components, and indicators for each of the projects identified by the AI categorization process, to ensure that false positives were omitted from the portfolio. To reduce the chances of false negatives occurring, the search taxonomy used (see box A.1) was deliberately broad, with spot checks being conducted on projects to reduce the likelihood of relevant projects be- ing omitted from the portfolio. This blended approach helped achieve both efficiency and thoroughness in our identification process. During the portfolio review and analysis process, the portfolio was further refined to exclude false positives and negatives, with projects omitted or included based on the results of a detailed review and analysis of proj- ect documents including the Project Appraisal Documents (PADs) and Implementation Completion and Results Reports (ICRs). International Finance Corporation and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency As per the evaluation Approach Paper, IFC and MIGA were not included in the Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    115 EQ1 portfolio because they do not undertake conservation-focused activities. EQ2. Biodiversity Integration in Key Production Sectors This section outlines the methods used to identify the portfolio of World Bank and IFC projects with relevant production sector activities. As per the Approach Paper, the analysis focused on three sectors: (i) agriculture and agribusiness, (ii) forests, and (iii) fisheries and aquaculture. World Bank Lending Agriculture. To conduct the analysis of World Bank agriculture projects, we identified the universe of projects approved by the Agriculture and Food Global Practice during the evaluation time frame (FY15–24). Forests. Because forest-related projects are financed across Global Practices, we used relevant sector codes (AT—Forestry; AK—Public Administration— Agriculture, Fishing, and Forestry; AZ—Other Agriculture, Fishing, and Forestry) and theme codes (831—Forests Policies and Institutions) to iden- tify the forests portfolio. We also pulled all projects that included relevant keywords (that is, forest, wood, timber) in their project name, project de- velopment objective, component title, and indicators. Using this combined output, we manually screened projects (that is, their project names, project development objectives, component titles, and indicator titles) to identify those with in-scope activities such as forest carbon and forest production. Fisheries and aquaculture. To identify the fisheries and aquaculture portfolio, we used relevant sector codes (AF—Fisheries; AZ—Other Agriculture, Fishing, and Forestry) and theme codes (832—Fisheries Policies and Institutions). Using this output, we manually screened projects (that is, their project devel- opment objectives, component titles, and indicator titles) to identify those with in-scope activities such as fisheries management and aquaculture. International Finance Corporation Investments Step 1: Data extraction. We extracted project text data from the IFC Disclosure Portal for projects approved during the evaluation period cover- ing the following: (i) project description, (ii) overview fund, (iii) risk impact, (iv) environmental and social action plan, (v) review scope, (vi) environmen- tal and social information, (vii) impact, (viii) result, (ix) risk assessment, (x) Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A role, (xi) contribution, (xii) environmental and social issues, (xiii) sponsor, (xiv) cost nature, (xv) investment, (xvi) location, (xvii) environmental and social categorization rationale, (xviii) risk fund, (xix) risk impact, (xx) stake- holders, and (xxi) mitigation measures. Step 2: Data consolidation. We consolidated the text data, originally stored in multiple columns, into a single comprehensive text field for each project. Step 3: Keyword search. Using R, we conducted a search for predefined biodi- versity-related keywords and phrases across all the text columns mentioned in step 1 within the aggregated text. The list of keywords can be found in box A.2. 116  dditional Keyword Taxonomy Used for Text Mining to Identify Box A.2. A International Finance Corporation Portfolio climate smart ag; climate-smart ag; deforestation; Eucalyptus; fish; forest; good ag- ricultural practice; good agriculture practice; Pulp mill; smallholder; sustainable ag; traceability. Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Step 4: Initial project inclusion. Projects that contained at least one occur- rence of the keywords and phrases were included in our initial longlist. Step 5: Sector-based inclusion. In addition to keyword-triggered projects, we included projects from relevant sectors in our longlist. The list of relevant sectors is available in table A.1. Step 6: Manual preliminary screening (i): intercoder reliability exercise. We manually reviewed the text column of projects in the longlist, focusing on those that proactively adopted sustainable measures benefiting biodiversi- ty in land- or seascape production sectors. To ensure consistency, the team conducted a simultaneous review of 10 randomly selected projects, compar- ing results to ensure intercoder reliability. Step 7: Manual preliminary screening (ii): coding and validation. After Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    117 ensuring consistency among coders through the intercoder reliability exer- cise, we divided the longlist among team members. Each member coded the projects assigned to them. Step 8: Final selection. After the manual validation from steps 6 and 7, we identified 87 investment projects out of the initial 948 projects in the longlist. International Finance Corporation Advisory Step 1: Data extraction. We extracted text data for advisory projects ap- proved during the evaluation period, covering the following: (i) objectives statement, (ii) statement of market failure, (iii) statement of market fail- ure original, (iv) strategic relevance, (v) expected development impact for public disclosure, (vi) project description for public disclosure, (vii) project description, (viii) IFC role and additionality, (ix) context, (x) upstream com- ments, and (xi) MFD comments. Step 2: Data consolidation. We consolidated the text data, originally stored in multiple columns, into a single comprehensive text field for each project. Step 3: Keyword search. Using R, we conducted a search for predefined biodi- versity-related keywords and phrases within the aggregated text. The list of keywords can be found in box A.1. Step 4: Initial project inclusion. Projects that contained at least one occur- rence of the keywords or phrases were included in our initial longlist. Step 5: Primary business line–based inclusion. In addition to keyword-trig- gered projects, we included projects from relevant primary business lines in our longlist. The list of relevant primary business lines is provided in table A.1. Step 6: Manual preliminary screening (i): intercoder reliability exercise. We manually reviewed the text column of projects in the longlist, focusing on those that proactively adopted sustainable measures benefiting biodiversi- ty in land- or seascape production sectors. To ensure consistency, the team conducted a simultaneous review of 10 randomly selected projects, compar- ing results to ensure intercoder reliability. Step 7: Manual preliminary screening (ii): coding and validation. After ensuring consistency among coders through the intercoder reliability exer- cise, we divided the longlist among team members. Each member coded the Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A projects assigned to them. Step 8: Final selection. After the manual validation from steps 6 and 7, we identified 63 advisory projects out of the initial 218 projects in the longlist. 118 nternational Finance Corporation Business Lines and Sector Table A.1. I Codes Used to Identify Evaluation Question 2 Portfolio Business Line for IFC Advisory Tertiary Sector Name for IFC Investment Projects Services ESG Animal Aquaculture ESG—E&S Risk Management Cattle Farming ESG—Integrated ESG and Coffee, Cocoa, Tea Sustainability Dairy Products Diversified Edible Agricultural Crops Production MAS Fishing MAS—Agri Expertise Fruits and Vegetables MAS—Agribusiness: Industry Horticultural Products (Flowers) Standards Grains and Beans MAS—Agribusiness: SME Natural Fibers (Cotton, Sisal, Jute, and so on) Productivity Other Animal Production MAS—Agribusiness: Strategic Other Vegetable Oil Crops (Coconut, Rapeseed, Community Investment Peanut, Sunflower, and so on) MAS—Agribusiness Other Palm Oil Plantations MAS—Crop Production Palm Vegetable Oil MAS—Sustainable Protein Paperboard (Including Boxboard, Fiberboard) MAS—Forestry and Land Uses Plantation Forests Poultry Farming Sugarcane and Beets Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: E&S = environmental and social; ESG = environmental, social, and governance; IFC = International Finance Corporation; MAS = Manufacturing, Agribusiness, and Services; SME = small and medium enterprise. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    119 Biodiversity Offsets The biodiversity offsets portfolio across the World Bank, IFC, and MIGA was identified through a combination of counterpart collaboration and systemat- ic portfolio reviews. World Bank. For the World Bank, 16 projects under the Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) and 5 projects under the safeguard policies were identified as having offsets. The ESF projects were identified using the ESF 5.0 Master Report by filtering for projects that marked biodiversity offsets as relevant. Safeguard policies projects were identified through a struc- tured document review process, leveraging AI-assisted keyword searches to detect offset-related language in PADs and Integrated Safeguards Data Sheets, followed by a manual verification by the evaluation team. The man- ual verification process involved reviewing the text excerpts identified by the keyword search tool to ensure projects that referred to offsets or other relevant terms in project documents included offset activities within the project’s scope. False positives, such as instances where offsets or related terms were mentioned in a cursory fashion or in an irrelevant context, were screened out. The final list was also validated in semistructured interviews with environmental and social specialists during data collection activities. IFC. The IFC environmental, social, and governance (ESG) team provid- ed a list of 22 active and 7 closed projects approved within the evaluation timeline (FY15–24) that include biodiversity offsets as part of Performance Standard on Environmental and Social Sustainability (PS6) requirements. The evaluation team requested no-objection from investment officers and managers to access project documents. We received a few questions on how the project information would be used and clarified that the evaluation would present only portfolio-level trends and findings, with no reference to specific projects or partners. After this no-objection process, the IT/ESG360 team shared a bulk download of the available environmental and social files from the ESG dashboard. Several environmental and social documents related to biodiversity offsets were not available in the ESG dashboard, and the team requested these directly from project teams in coordination with the IFC ESG team. The evaluation team followed IFC’s privacy protocols throughout the evaluation process to ensure the confidentiality of sensitive information, including by following established guidelines on data protec- Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A tion, and ensured that all data were handled securely. MIGA. MIGA counterparts provided a list of 44 active and 12 terminated projects that applied PS6. The evaluation team identified 12 projects that in- volved biodiversity offsets. The final list was confirmed by MIGA’s ESG team. Portfolio Description EQ1. Biodiversity Conservation There were 139 World Bank lending projects (and 23 additional financing projects) approved between FY10 and FY24 within the scope of biodiversity 120 conservation activities, of which 47 are active and 92 are closed. Most of these projects are financed by the Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy Global Practice (n = 114; 83 percent). Of the 92 closed projects, 73 projects have ICRs, of which 62 have Implementation Completion and Results Report Reviews (ICRRs), according to data from the IEG DataHub (as of March 2025). Eighty-four percent of the closed and validated projects were rated moderately satisfactory or higher. A breakdown of the portfolio is provided in figures A.2–A.4.  orld Bank Conservation Portfolio by Global Practice and Figure A.2. W Project Status ENB 38 76 Global Practice AGR 3 5 MTI 2 5 URL 1 4 WA T 2 2 TRA 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Projects (no.) Active Closed Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: AGR = Agriculture and Food; ENB = Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy; MTI = Macroeconomics, Trade, and Investment; TRA = Transport; URL = Urban, Disaster Risk Management, Resilience, and Land; WAT = Water. Figure A.3. World Bank Conservation Portfolio by Region Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    121 LAC 43 ESA 35 WCA 28 Region EA P 16 SA 8 ECA 5 MENA 4 0 10 20 30 40 50 Projects (no.) Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: EAP = East Asia and Pacific; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; ESA = Eastern and Southern Africa; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; MENA = Middle East and North Africa; SA = South Asia; WCA = Western and Central Africa. Figure A.4. World Bank Conservation Portfolio by Approval Year 20 19 16 14 Projects (no.) 15 12 13 10 10 10 10 7 7 5 5 6 5 4 5 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Approval fiscal year Source: Independent Evaluation Group. EQ2. Biodiversity Integration in Key Production Sectors World Bank Lending Agriculture. There were 247 World Bank lending projects financed by the Agriculture and Food Global Practice approved between FY15 and FY24. Of these, 145 are active and 102 are closed. Of the 102 closed projects, 72 projects have an ICR, of which 53 have an ICRR (data from IEG DataHub as of March 2025). Eighty-seven percent of the closed and validated projects were rated moderately satisfactory or higher. A breakdown of the portfolio is provided in figures A.5–A.7.  orld Bank Agriculture Portfolio by Lending Instrument and Figure A.5. W Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A Project Status IPF 134 93 instrument Lending PforR 11 8 DPF 1 0 50 100 150 200 250 Projects (no.) Active Closed Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: DPF = development policy financing; IPF = investment project financing; PforR = Program-for- 122 Results. Figure A.6. World Bank Agriculture Portfolio by Region South Asia 50 Eastern and Southern Africa 47 Western and Central Africa 43 Region East Asia and the Pacific 36 Latin America and the Caribbean 30 Europe and Central Asia 23 MENA 16 Africa 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Projects (no.) Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: MENA = Middle East and North Africa. Figure A.7. World Bank Agriculture Portfolio by Approval Year 40 35 Projects (no.) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Approval fiscal year Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    123 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Forestry. There were 83 World Bank lending projects approved between FY15 and FY24 with in-scope forest production activities, of which 41 are active and 42 are closed. Most of these projects (n = 66; 80 percent) are financed by the Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy Global Practice. The remainder are divided among the Agriculture and Food (n = 9; 11 per- cent); Macroeconomics, Trade, and Investment (n = 5; 6 percent); Energy and Extractives (n = 2; 2 percent); and Poverty and Equity (n = 1; 1 percent) Global Practices. Of the 42 closed projects, 35 projects have ICRs, of which 28 have ICRRs (data from IEG DataHub as of April 2025). Eighty-six percent of the projects were rated moderately satisfactory or higher. A breakdown of the portfolio is provided in figures A.8–A.10. Figure A.8. World Bank Forest Production Portfolio by Global Practice ENV 66 Global Practice AGR 9 MTI 5 EA E 2 POV 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Projects (no.) Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: AGR = Agriculture, and Food; EAE = Energy and Extractives; ENB = Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy; MTI = Macroeconomics, Trade, and Investment; POV = Poverty and Equity. Figure A.9. World Bank Forest Production Portfolio by Region AFE 21 AFW 17 LCR 14 Region EA P 13 ECA 9 SA R 7 MNA 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 Projects (no.) Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: AFE = Eastern and Southern Africa; AFW = Western and Central Africa; EAP = East Asia and Pacific; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; LCR = Latin America and the Caribbean; MNA = Middle East and North Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A Africa; SAR = South Asia.  orld Bank Forest Production Projects (no.) Portfolio by Figure A.10. W Approval Year 15 13 Projects (no.) 10 10 10 10 9 8 8 7 6 5 2 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Fiscal year of approval 124 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Fisheries and aquaculture. There were 51 World Bank lending projects ap- proved between FY15 and FY24 with in-scope fisheries activities, of which 26 are active and 25 are closed. Most of these projects (68.6 percent; n = 35) are financed by the Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy Global Practice, while 20 percent (n = 10) are financed by the Agriculture and Food Global Practice. The remainder are divided among the Macroeconomics, Trade, and Investment (n = 3); Water (n = 2); and Finance, Competitiveness, and Innovation (n = 1) Global Practices, respectively. Of the 25 closed proj- ects, 20 projects have ICRs, of which 18 have ICRRs (data from IEG DataHub as of March 2025). Fifty percent of the projects were rated moderately satisfactory or higher. A breakdown of the portfolio is provided in figures A.11–A.13.  orld Bank Fisheries Portfolio by Global Practice and Figure A.11. W Project Status Environment, Natural Resources & the Blue… 18 17 Agriculture and Food 8 2 Global Practice Macroeconomics, Trade and Investment 3 Water 2 Finance, Competitiveness and Innovation 1 0 20 40 Projects (no.) Active Closed Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    125 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Figure A.12. World Bank Fisheries Portfolio by Region East Asia And Pacific 22 Eastern And Southern Africa 7 South Asia 6 Western And Central Africa 5 Region Latin America And Caribbean 5 Middle East And North Africa 2 Africa 2 Other 1 Europe A nd Central Asia 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 Projects (no.) Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Figure A.13. World Bank Fisheries Portfolio by Approval Year 14 12 Projects (no.) 10 8 6 4 2 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Approval fiscal year Source: Independent Evaluation Group. International Finance Corporation Investments and Advisory Agriculture. During FY15–24, IFC approved 107 investments in the agricul- tural crop production and animal production (excluding aquaculture and fishing) sectors. Of these, 60 projects are active and 47 are closed. IEG val- idated the results of 21 of these investment projects. Moreover, there were 37 advisory projects in these sectors, with implementation ongoing for 17 projects and completed for 20 projects. Among the completed projects, IEG has validated results for 9 projects. Forestry. Between FY15 and FY24, IFC approved 15 investments in the for- estry sector. These included 4 investments in plantation forests, 8 in pulp and paper manufacturing, and 3 in wood panel and wood product manufac- Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A turing. Of these, IEG has evaluated 2 investments, both of which were in the wood panel and wood product and pulp and paper manufacturing sectors. Additionally, there was one IFC advisory project mapped to the plantation forests (90 percent) and paperboard (10 percent) sectors, which has not been validated by IEG. No other advisory projects were identified in the pulp, pa- per, or wood manufacturing sectors. Fisheries and aquaculture. During FY15–24, IFC approved eight in- vestments in the fisheries and aquaculture sector. This included seven investments in aquaculture and one in fishing. Of the seven aquacul- ture projects, five were in Ecuador and were covered in our Ecuador case 126 study (refer to the Exploratory Case Studies section). The remaining two aquaculture projects were in China and focused on aquafeed production. The single fishing investment was in the Solomon Islands, where IFC fi- nanced the purchase of an additional fishing vessel, which triggered PS6. Additionally, there were three IFC advisory projects mapped to the aqua- culture and fishing sectors. IFC self-evaluated these advisory projects at completion, but only one of them has been validated by IEG. Biodiversity Offsets World Bank. For the World Bank, 16 projects under ESF and 5 projects under the safeguard policies were identified as having offsets. A breakdown of the portfolio is provided in figures A.14–A.16.  orld Bank Biodiversity Offsets Portfolio by Global Practice Figure A.14. W and Project Status Transport 10 Global Practice Energy and Extractives 4 2 Environment 3 Water 1 Digital 1 0 5 10 15 Projects (no.) Active Closed Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    127 Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Figure A.15. World Bank Biodiversity Offsets Portfolio by Approval Year 6 5 5 4 Projects (no.) 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Approval fiscal year Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Figure A.16. World Bank Biodiversity Offsets Portfolio by Region SA R 7 AFE 4 LCR 3 Region ECA 3 EA P 2 MENA 1 AFW 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Projects (no.) Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: AFE = Eastern and Southern Africa; AFW = Western and Central Africa; EAP = East Asia and Pacific; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; LCR = Latin America and the Caribbean; MENA = Middle East and North Africa; SAR = South Asia. IFC. For IFC, 29 projects were identified as having offsets as part of PS6 re- quirements (22 active and 7 closed) approved within the evaluation timeline (FY15–24). A breakdown of the portfolio is provided in figures A.17–A.18. nternational Finance Corporation Biodiversity Offsets Figure A.17. I Portfolio by Approval Year 7 6 6 6 Projects (no.) 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A 2 1 1 1 1 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Approval Fiscal Year Source: Independent Evaluation Group. 128 nternational Finance Corporation Biodiversity Offsets Figure A.18. I Portfolio by Region Western and Central Africa 11 Latin America and Caribbean 9 Region South Asia 4 Middle East and North Africa 2 Europe and Central Asia 2 Eastern and Southern Africa 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Projects (no.) Source: Independent Evaluation Group. MIGA. Twelve MIGA projects in scope involved biodiversity offsets. A break- down of the portfolio is provided in figures A.19–A.21.  ultilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Biodiversity Figure A.19. M Offsets Portfolio by Global Practice and Project Status Energy 7 1 Sector Infrastructure 2 1 Mining 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 Projects (no.) Active Closed Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    129 Source: Independent Evaluation Group.  ultilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Biodiversity Figure A.20. M Offsets Portfolio by Approval Fiscal Year 5 4 4 Projects (no.) 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Approval fiscal year Source: Independent Evaluation Group.  ultilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Biodiversity Figure A.21. M Offsets Portfolio by Region Western and Central Africa 4 Eastern and Southern Africa 3 Region Europe and Central Asia 2 Latin America and the Caribbean 1 South Asia 1 East Asia and the Pacific 1 0 1 2 3 4 Projects (no.) Source: Independent Evaluation Group. EQ1 Methods: How Well Is the World Bank Achieving Biodiversity Aims Through Its Conservation-Focused Activities? To assess the relevance and effectiveness of World Bank support for biodiver- sity conservation, we used several triangulated methods, including literature review, portfolio review and analysis, the geolocation of conservation activi- ties, and three thematic deep dives. We expand on these methods below. Focused Literature Review and Review of World Bank Group Strategies and Commitments First, we identified good practice conservation approaches enshrined in the global biodiversity conventions and associated targets, which were devel- Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A oped based on scientific literature. This included (i) the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted in 1992; (ii) the Aichi Biodiversity Targets 2011–2020; and (iii) the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) adopted in 2022, and associated targets. In total, 196 countries are members of the CBD, signifying near-universal participation among nations, which is also the case for the Kunming-Montreal GBF. Second, we identified the Bank Group’s advantages by reviewing its strat- egies and corporate commitments. This included (i) the World Bank’s Environment Strategy (2012–22), which lays out the World Bank’s commitments for supporting client countries to conserve and restore 130 critical biodiversity, and (ii) the 2021 Approach Paper entitled Unlocking Nature-Smart Development: An Approach Paper on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, which placed a renewed emphasis on biodiversity and nature. We also reviewed the commitments enshrined in the World Bank’s Global Challenge Program Forests for Development, Climate, and Biodiversity, which seeks to scale sustainable forest landscapes and ecosystem solutions to en- hance development, climate, and biodiversity outcomes. Portfolio Review and Analysis The literature review yielded five themes that reflect a combination of global best practice with the World Bank’s comparative advantage. The themes identified were as follows: 1. Geographic representativeness, or the equitable and proportional rep- resentation of different biomes, ecosystems, and taxonomic groups. Analyzing the portfolio through the lens of geographic representativeness is important for determining the relevance of World Bank conservation activities in relation to the protection and conservation of critical biomes and areas of high endemism. 2. Ecological connectivity, or the unimpeded movement of species and flow of natural processes that sustain life across ecosystems. Research indicates that enhancing the connectivity of protected areas and con- servation areas is critical in improving genetic diversity, enabling the Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    131 movement of wildlife species and enhancing ecosystem resilience through the reduction of habitat fragmentation. 3. Ecological monitoring and reporting of biodiversity outcomes. Quantitative ecological monitoring is crucial for understanding biodiver- sity outcomes. It is a priority within the GBF, providing essential data to assess and guide conservation actions. 4. Engagement and protection of IPLCs. The biodiversity Approach Paper highlights the essential role of IPLCs in achieving biodiversity goals (World Bank Group 2021). Local communities have deep, place-based ecological knowledge developed over millennia, enhancing biodiversity preservation. Good governance, including land tenure security, equitable benefit sharing, and preserving local knowledge, is crucial for their contri- bution to effective conservation. 5. Sustainable financing. Sustainable financing is crucial for biodiversity conservation because it ensures long-term funding to protect ecosystems, species, and natural resources. Many conservation initiatives face finan- cial shortfalls, leading to habitat degradation, species loss, and reduced ecosystem services. These five themes were incorporated into a portfolio coding protocol that also included basic project data, project theory, and other relevant variables. The result of this process was a detailed codebook that included all underly- ing portfolio variables, any relevant extracts from within project documents relevant to those themes, available results and indicator data for each proj- ect, and a series of flags for emergent issues identified in inductive coding. The enumerated parameters included in the coding protocol are outlined in box A.3. Box A.3. Coding Protocol for Conservation-Focused Projects Basic project data Project ID, name, country, source of finance, amount of finance Project development objective Project components Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A Project indicators Intended beneficiaries, also disaggregated Location of biodiversity areas (if possible) Project lessons Project theory as it pertains to biodiversity aims Stated theory or implicit theory Explicit or implied outcomes not included in the results framework 132 (continued) Box A.3. Coding Protocol for Conservation-Focused Projects (cont.) Identification of good practice approaches, including measurement thereof Ecological connectivity (for example, corridors, transfrontier areas) Use of climate science, or other scientific evidence to make conservation planning decisions Use of Indigenous knowledge to make conservation planning decisions Sustainable financing at the national and park level (for example, recurrent finance/ national budget; endowment funds; payment for environmental service) Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and local communities Support for land tenure security, access, or resource-use rights Use of relevant ecological monitoring techniques and indicators (for example, man- agement effectiveness tracking tools, quantitative monitoring of species or species markers, remote sensing/habitat assessments using satellite/LIDAR) Other (open cell for observations) Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    133 This coding protocol was then used as the basis for an in-depth portfolio review exercise across each variable, with each following a similar approach of keyword search, extraction, and content analysis. Keyword search and extraction. To test the keyword search and extraction process, the team undertook a pilot exercise with a selection of project docu- ments (PADs, ICRs) from a subset of the portfolio to determine the suitability of using a proprietary keyword search tool developed by the evaluation team. The tool is a script, built with a Python backend, and a graphical user inter- face, built with React, that allows for systematic searches for keywords using defined parameters within a collection of PDF documents. The tool is based on both the String-Similarity JavaScript library and proprietary searching and matching processes to account for fuzzy matching (where a specified percentage of characters in a word needs to match the chosen keyword to be considered a keyword mention) and intraword matching. The other features of the tool include data visualization, Excel exporting, and PDF viewing. The tool allowed for a parametric search based on identified keywords, in- cluding exact text, whole words, and proximity words, extracting all relevant data from the documents uploaded. The excerpts extracted by the tool were then exported to an Excel file and organized into a matrix that was combined with the portfolio codebook variables in box A.3. As a control measure, a manual review of the same subset of projects was undertaken using typical qualitative coding and extraction, with the results of the two exercises being compared. This allowed for the refinement of the parameters included in the keyword search tool. Having undertaken this pilot, we built out a finalized series of keywords for each thematic area. These keywords were searched for in PADs or equivalents (for example, program documents) and ICRs or equivalents of all 139 projects in the conservation portfolio using a proprietary keyword search and extraction tool developed by the evaluation team. The excerpts for each thematic area were exported to Excel and consolidated into a comprehensive portfolio matrix. For projects with completed and validated ICRs, the extraction and analysis of results indicators were undertaken. Where relevant, data from the geospa- tial analysis on variables such as tree cover change or crop change were also extracted. Content analysis. The consolidation of the above data into a comprehensive Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A portfolio matrix allowed for detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis that ultimately comprised: » The relevance of the portfolio’s activities in each thematic area in terms of alignment to best practice, the World Bank’s areas of comparative advantage, and strategic priorities. » The effectiveness of included activities for closed projects in each thematic area, based on the achievements of relevant intermediate results indicators and project development objectives and any explanatory factors included in project documents (ICRs, ICRRs, and Project Performance Assessment Reports, where available). 134 » A synthesis of lessons to identify evidence of best practices and any missed opportunities. Geospatial Analysis We conducted geospatial analyses to map the full range of conservation activities supported by the World Bank between FY10 and FY24, with the aim of evaluating relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability and identify- ing patterns across the portfolio. This involved identifying and geocoding unique conservation sites and performing geospatial analysis to assess land cover dynamics over time. For each geolocated protected area, we calculated annual tree cover percentages, along with other land cover categories such as cropland and built-up areas, using consistent spatial and temporal res- olution. This marks the first time that the full range of identifiable World Bank–financed conservation sites has been systematically mapped. We iden- tified the presence of protected or physically conserved areas in 130 of the 139 projects, encompassing 884 unique sites, including 605 protected areas validated against the April 2025 release of the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), which includes 305,198 registered sites. This section de- scribes the geospatial analysis methodology in detail. Identifying Protected Areas First, we used the IEG bulk download tool to download available PADs (or Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    135 equivalent) and ICRs (or equivalent) for each project in the conservation- focused portfolio. Second, we undertook a project document review of projects in the portfo- lio to identify relevant protected areas supported by the World Bank. This involved using AI-assisted text extraction to identify relevant passages of the documents and mentions of specific protected area names. This helped narrow the process of identifying individual protected areas. To complement this process, we conducted a thorough manual review of the surrounding text, as well as key components of the project documents, including project development objectives and project components, paying close attention to review any tabular or graphic information for the presence of protected area lists or maps. The protected areas identified during this process were recorded in a matrix with adjacent columns containing additional variables (such as project ID, country, Region, and approval year). Third, any relevant details on the protected area in question were recorded in adjacent columns. These details included whether the protected area was national or regional, the protected area’s location, and in what way the pro- tected area was supported by the corresponding project, among other things. Fourth, using the April 2025 edition of the WDPA, the team searched for the relevant country to identify either a verbatim or proximate protected area match with the name of each protected area identified in the project document review. Once a match was identified, it was recorded in an adjacent column of the pro- tected area matrix. The WDPA is the most comprehensive global database of marine and terrestrial protected areas. It is a joint project between the United Nations Environment Programme and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and is managed by the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre in collaboration with governments, nongovern- mental organizations, academia, and industry. The following is the complete list of parameters in the finalized protected area data set: 1. The project ID and project name 2. The country and Region 3. The name of the protected area found in the project documentation Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A 4. Important details corresponding to the protected area, if pertinent 5. The official WDPA indexed name of the protected area, if available 6. The official WDPA ID number of the protected area, if available Data Preparation The methodology relies on two primary spatial data sources: (i) the Global Edge-matched Subnational Boundaries data set for administrative bound- aries (https://fieldmaps.io/data), and (ii) the WDPA from Protected Planet (https://www.protectedplanet.net/en). These sources were selected for their 136 global coverage, standardization, and regular updates. To accommodate the various combinations of location information found in project documents, a comprehensive spatial database was created through a systematic union (https://gisgeography.com/union-tool) of administrative boundaries and protected areas. Data processing and structure. The data processing workflow involves sev- eral key steps: 1. Spatial data integration. Administrative boundaries and protected areas are processed through a union operation, creating comprehensive spatial units that capture all possible combinations of administrative areas and protected areas. This includes generating separate layers for: a. Administrative boundaries (levels 0, 1, and 2) b. Protected areas c. Combined administrative-protected area units Only polygons were used (that is, shapes that represent actual areas on a map, such as the full boundary of a district or a protected area), while points (which represent locations without area, like a single GPS coordinate) were excluded from the analysis. 2. Coordinate generation. Centroid coordinates (longitude and latitude) are calculated for each spatial unit to facilitate location data extraction (https:// Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    137 support.esri.com/en-us/knowledge-base/how-to-find-the-centroid-of-poly- gons-using-calculate-ge-000021849). This includes centroids for: a. Individual administrative units at each level b. Protected areas c. Combined administrative-protected area units 3. Data entry system. A structured data entry template was developed using spreadsheet functionality to ensure consistent data capture. The template features: a. Nested dropdown menus for standardized selection of administrative units and protected areas b. Dynamic validation rules using array formulas to ensure data integrity c. Automated coordinate assignment based on selected locations d. Capability to record multiple locations per project Quality assurance and data management. To maintain data quality and facilitate analysis, several control measures were implemented: 1. Standardization. All geographic names are standardized against au- thoritative sources, with relationships maintained between local and international nomenclature. 2. Flexibility. The data structure accommodates varying levels of geographic specificity, allowing for the recording of locations at any administrative level or protected area, either individually or in combination. 3. Automation. Python scripts were developed to: a. Organize and manage project documentation b. Clean and process spatial data c. Convert finalized data to GeoJSON format for visualization and analysis 4. Visualization. Final outputs were visualized using QGIS software, enabling both quality control and analytical representation of the project portfo- lio’s spatial distribution. Assessing Land Cover Dynamics Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A This section outlines the approach used to examine land cover dynamics within specific protected areas. The analysis focuses on assessing annual land cover changes from 2016 to 2024 (the period for which satellite imag- ery and data are available, as noted in the Limitations section), employing a series of data processing techniques designed to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the results while addressing potential gaps and inconsistencies in the data. 138 Data Sources Land cover data. The primary data source for the land cover analysis is the Dynamic World data set, which offers global near-time land cover clas- sification at a high spatial resolution of 10 meters. This data set provides a comprehensive classification of land cover into nine distinct categories, enabling detailed assessments of land use and land cover dynamics over time (table A.2). Table A.2. Land Cover Classes Class Description Class 0 Water—Includes both permanent and seasonal water bodies, such as lakes, rivers, and wetlands Class 1 Trees—Encompasses primary and secondary forests, as well as large- scale plantations Class 2 Grass—Natural grasslands, livestock pastures, and parks Class 3 Flooded vegetation—Mangroves and other inundated ecosystems Class 4 Crops—Includes row crops and paddy crops Class 5 Shrub and scrub—Sparse to dense open vegetation consisting of shrubs Class 6 Built area—Low- and high-density buildings, roads, and urban open space Class 7 Bare ground—Deserts and exposed rock Class 8 Snow and ice—Permanent and seasonal snow cover Source: Brown et al. 2022. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    139 Protected areas data. The unit of analysis for this study is the protected area. The geocoded project data used in this analysis, identified 605 unique and matched protected areas. These protected areas encompass a range of catego- ries, including marine, terrestrial, and hybrid protected areas. As the focus of the land cover analysis is solely on terrestrial ecosystems, marine areas were excluded from the analysis. Consequently, the analysis focuses on 526 pro- tected areas, of which 469 are terrestrial and 57 are hybrid in nature. A map illustrating the location of these protected areas is provided in figure A.22. The spatial boundaries of the protected areas were derived from the WDPA, a globally recognized repository that provides accurate geospatial data on the location and extent of protected areas, which allows for precise linking of spatial data to specific protected areas globally. Protected areas comprised of multiple polygons were dissolved for the analysis. To capture the broader land cover dynamics surrounding the protected areas, a 5-kilometer buffer zone was applied to each protected area boundary after reprojection of the original protected area boundaries into an appropriate coordinate reference system. This buffer accounts for potential external land cover changes that could influence the protected areas, thereby providing a more comprehensive assessment of land cover dynamics.  rotected Areas (Including a 5-Kilometer Buffer) Included in Figure A.22. P the Analysis Source: Independent Evaluation Group (based on protected area data from the World Database on Protected Areas). Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A Note: This map has been cleared by the World Bank Group cartography unit. Data Processing The land cover analysis was performed using Google Earth Engine with JavaScript, leveraging its powerful processing capabilities for large-scale geospatial data. Temporal range and data filtering. The analysis covers a nine-year period, from 2016 to 2024. For each year, land cover data are filtered to match the specific temporal and spatial boundaries of the protected areas. It is import- ant to note that Dynamic World data are available from June 27, 2015. To 140 ensure consistency and comparability across time, only complete years were included; therefore, 2015 was excluded from the analysis. Land cover classification. For each protected area and year, the Dynamic World data set provides pixel-level classifications of land cover. To derive the dominant land cover type for each protected area, a mode composite approach was applied. This technique selects the most frequent land cov- er classification per pixel across the year, effectively capturing the primary land cover type within each protected area. The mode composite approach accounts for temporal variations, such as seasonal or yearly fluctuations, ensuring that the selected classification represents the most consistent land cover type during the given period. Pixel counting and statistical aggregation. The analysis aggregates pixel- level land cover data within the spatial boundaries of each protected area. For each year and protected area, the total number of pixels corresponding to each land cover class is displayed as a histogram. This histogram approach quantifies the distribution of land cover types, allowing for the clear identification of the extent of each class within the protected area. The pixel counts are unweighted, meaning each pixel is treated equally, providing a straightforward assessment of land cover types based on the frequency of each classification within the spatial boundaries. This aggregation facilitates the quantification of land cover changes over time and enables the identification of trends across the nine-year study period. Batch processing and data export. To manage the large scale of the data Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    141 set, the data were processed in batches. This approach facilitates the efficient handling of the computational resources required for the analysis. Once the processing for each batch was complete, the results were exported in CSV format. The exported data included key information such as the protected area identifier, the year of analysis, and the pixel counts for each land cover class. Example Analysis: Land Cover Change in Mamunta-Mayosso Protected Area To illustrate the methodology applied in this study, this section presents a de- tailed analysis of land cover change in the Mamunta-Mayosso Protected Area (WDPA ID 555720436) over 2016–24. This example highlights key trends in deforestation and reforestation, as well as shifts in land cover composition. Land cover trends. Table A.3 presents the percentage distribution of land cover classes within the protected area for each year.  and Cover Distribution in Mamunta-Mayosso, Sierra Leone Table A.3. L (2016–24) (percent) Vegetation and Scrub Snow and Flooded Built Up Shrubs Water Crops Grass Trees Bare Ice Year 2016 46.46 6.42 0.11 1.70 43.64 0.31 0.19 1.18 0.00 2017 65.82 12.24 0.10 0.38 19.96 0.37 0.01 1.12 0.00 2018 63.05 5.45 0.09 0.32 29.70 0.29 0.02 1.09 0.00 2019 52.05 2.12 0.06 1.46 42.94 0.21 0.07 1.09 0.00 2020 53.22 3.70 0.08 1.31 40.16 0.32 0.09 1.12 0.00 2021 49.01 5.34 0.05 0.79 43.40 0.30 0.06 1.06 0.00 2022 54.94 3.39 0.06 0.84 39.11 0.26 0.31 1.09 0.00 2023 53.37 2.66 0.06 0.76 41.78 0.25 0.04 1.09 0.00 2024 56.37 2.40 0.07 1.11 38.61 0.20 0.14 1.10 0.00 Source: Independent Evaluation Group (based on Dynamic World data, accessed and processed using Google Earth Engine). The data indicate an overall increase in tree cover from 46.46 percent in 2016 to 56.37 percent in 2024, though with notable fluctuations. The peak occurred in 2017 at 65.82 percent, followed by a decline until 2021, when Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A tree cover reached its lowest point at 49.01 percent. Afterward, it gradually recovered. This suggests periods of afforestation or natural regeneration, potentially influenced by conservation efforts or environmental factors. Shrub and scrub cover has generally declined over time. Initially high at 43.64 percent in 2016, it dropped sharply to 19.96 percent in 2017 before partially recovering in subsequent years. By 2024, it stood at 38.61 percent, indicating a gradual transition of shrubland into either tree cover or other land types. Grass cover has followed a similar pattern, peaking at 12.24 per- cent in 2017 but then decreasing steadily to 2.40 percent in 2024, further supporting the notion of vegetation succession or land-use change. 142 Agricultural land, represented by crop cover, fluctuates without a clear trend. It started at 1.70 percent in 2016, dropped to a low of 0.32 percent in 2018, and then gradually increased to 1.11 percent by 2024. Built-up areas remain relatively stable, ranging between 0.20 percent and 0.37 percent, showing no significant expansion of urbanization. Meanwhile, bare land, though minimal, has slightly increased over time, from 0.01 percent in 2017 to 0.14 percent in 2024, suggesting minor land degradation. Water coverage has remained largely stable, fluctuating between 1.06 per- cent and 1.18 percent, while snow and ice are consistently absent throughout the data set. Overall, the trends suggest a general shift toward increasing tree cover at the expense of shrubs and grasslands, with relatively minor changes in agricultural, urban, and bare land. Visualization of land cover change. To further illustrate these trends, the stacked bar chart in figure A.23 depicts the relative proportion of each land cover class annually.  nnual Land Cover Composition in Mamunta-Mayosso, Figure A.23. A Sierra Leone (2016–24) 100% 90% Snow and Ice 80% Water Land cover class 70% (percentage) 60% Bare 50% Built-up Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    143 40% Shrubs and Scrub 30% Crops 20% 10% Flooded Vegetation 0% Grass 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Trees Year (calendar) Source: Independent Evaluation Group (based on Dynamic World data, accessed and processed using Google Earth Engine). In addition to the statistical trends, spatial patterns of land cover change are visualized through a series of annual land cover maps (figure A.24). These maps provide insights into the geographic distribution of different land cov- er types and help identify specific areas where deforestation, regeneration, or conversion to other land uses has occurred. Figure A.24. Annual Land Cover Maps of Mamunta-Mayosso (2016–24) Source: Independent Evaluation Group (based on Dynamic World data, accessed and processed using Google Earth Engine). Deep Dives To supplement and deepen the portfolio analyses, we commissioned industry and legal specialists to conduct thematic deep dives on (i) IPLCs, (ii) LNR, and (iii) biodiversity offsets. The selection of these three issues reflects their significance to the achievement of biodiversity outcomes, and the relative specialization associated with evaluating the aims and results of associated activities. We used emerging findings from these deep dives to guide inter- views with senior experts from the World Bank (and IFC and MIGA in the specific case of offsets) in these associated fields to add explanatory power Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A to these sections of the report. Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities To capture a holistic view of the engagement of IPLCs and other project- affected groups in the conservation-focused portfolio (see box A.4 for definitions and criteria), we employed a two-pronged approach that evaluates (i) the application of the Operational Policies (Safeguards) and the ESF to assess IPLC engagement, empowerment, and protection from a risk management perspective and (ii) geospatial analysis to provide insights into the spatial distribution of World Bank–supported conservation activities in 144 relation to IPLC lands. Box A.4. Definitions and Criteria Indigenous Peoples: The World Bank generally understands Indigenous Peoples to be distinct social and cultural groups that share collective ancestral ties to the lands and natural resources they inhabit or occupy, or from which they have been displaced. Under the Environmental and Social Framework, a group must possess four charac- teristics for Environmental and Social Standard (ESS) 7 to be applicable. These criteria can be summarized as follows: self-identification as a distinct Indigenous group that is recognized by others, collective attachment to geographically distinct areas, distinct customary institutions, and a distinct language or dialect (ESS7, para. 8). Local communities: The term “local communities” refers to groups of people residing in the same local area, possessing a long association with lands and natural resources, and embodying traditional lifestyles. The Environmental and Social Framework refers to local communities as project stakeholders, project-affected communities, and Sub- Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities that satisfy the criteria for ESS7. Other rural groups: This term refers to groups actually or potentially affected by a World Bank–financed conservation-focused project that are not Indigenous Peoples or local communities. They may include rural communities that have recently immi- grated to a project area, displaced persons, and other rural residents in the area of a World Bank–supported conservation project. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    145 Sources: ESF ESS7 (Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities) Guidance Note; Independent Evaluation Group. Safeguard policies and ESF analysis. To assess the engagement, em- powerment, and protection of IPLCs in conservation-focused projects, we conducted an analysis from a risk management perspective. This involved (i) examining the application of the World Bank’s Operational Policy 4.10 on Indigenous Peoples and the subsequent ESF Environmental and Social Standard (ESS) 7 on Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities and (ii) identifying trends and factors influencing their application. First, we examined the incidence of conservation-focused projects that apply these policies by analyzing data exported from the World Bank’s Standard Reports. While the ESF data on standards application was found to be re- liable, safeguard policies data were found to be incomplete and manually gap-filled from the operations portal and relevant project documentation. We then performed a trend analysis, comparing the results from the two cohorts (that is, projects under the safeguard policies versus those under the ESF), including regional and country-specific trends. This analysis identified the regions and countries where Indigenous Peoples are more consistently recognized and included in conservation projects. Additionally, we conducted project document reviews (for example, PADs, Environmental and Social Review Summaries, Environmental and Social Commitment Plans, Implementation Status and Results Reports, ICRs, and a select number of additional environmental and social analyses and risk man- agement documents) to collect qualitative data and deepen our understanding of how projects engaged, empowered, and protected Indigenous Peoples. Lastly, to validate our findings and explore explanatory factors, we conduct- ed interviews with relevant staff and management. Geospatial analysis. To further understand the relationship between the conservation-focused portfolio and IPLCs, we conducted a geospatial anal- ysis to assess the extent to which World Bank–supported conservation activities are situated within IPLC territories. We used geospatial data from Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A the LandMark platform and conducted spatial analyses to estimate the proportion of protected areas located within IPLC lands. We applied a spa- tial overlay technique to categorize project-supported protected areas based on their proximity to IPLC lands, distinguishing among sites located within IPLC territories, within 10 kilometers, 10–30 kilometers, or more than 30 kilometers away from IPLC lands. Recognizing the limitations of the LandMark data set, particularly its un- deridentification of Indigenous lands in Africa, we conducted additional analyses using a data set constructed by Garnett et al. (2018). This data set provided a broader perspective on Indigenous land stewardship by incor- porating de facto land management. We mapped the project sites using 146 this data set to identify those within Indigenous Peoples’ lands, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the spatial relationship between conser- vation-focused projects and IPLC territories. It is important to note that this data set does not distinguish whether the Indigenous Peoples’ areas are formally recognized by the government (box A.5). Box A.5. Technical Details of Data Sources LandMark: The LandMark data delineating Indigenous areas is sourced from a com- bination of official government records, community maps, and other verified sources to ensure accuracy and reliability. It includes spatial boundaries of Indigenous and community lands worldwide, distinguishing between lands that are legally recognized by governments and those where Indigenous Peoples have a claim but lack formal recognition. The data set is regularly updated and refined through collaboration with local organizations, governments, and Indigenous communities to reflect evolving land tenure status. By providing clear distinctions between recognized and unrec- ognized lands, LandMark highlights gaps in legal recognition and supports efforts to secure Indigenous land rights. Furthermore, the data set helps visualize the extent of Indigenous land stewardship, which is critical for conservation, climate resilience, and sustainable resource management. Garnett et al. (2018): The Indigenous land-use data set created by Garnett et al. (2018) compiles data from 127 sources, including cadastral records, participatory mapping ef- Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    147 forts, census-based models, and scholarly publications. It identifies Indigenous lands in 87 out of 235 countries or administratively independent entities, excluding uninhab- ited areas. The data set helps quantify the extent of Indigenous land management and its intersection with conservation priorities. By mapping these lands at a global scale, it provides a crucial foundation for recognizing Indigenous contributions to biodiversity protection and policy development. The LandMark data set offers a conservative estimate of Indigenous Peoples and local community lands, as it includes only areas that meet strict criteria for documented tenure rights. It prioritizes legally recognized and publicly available data, drawing from government records, nongovernmental organization reports, and contributions from Indigenous organizations. In contrast, the Garnett et al. (2018) data set takes a more expansive approach, integrating multiple sources to provide a broader estimate of (continued) Box A.5. Technical Details of Data Sources (cont.) Indigenous lands. It relies on peer-reviewed literature, academic books, and reputable data providers while also incorporating spatial data from platforms such as LandMark Global. By aggregating information from a wider range of sources, the Garnett et al. (2018) data set identifies more Indigenous Peoples and local community lands than LandMark, but it may also include territories with varying levels of formal recognition. These methodological differences highlight a key distinction: the LandMark data set offers a more conservative yet authoritative view of Indigenous Peoples and local community lands, whereas the Garnett et al. (2018) data set captures a wider spectrum of Indigenous land tenure, including areas with less formal documentation. Sources: Garnett et al. 2018; LandMark (https://landmarkmap.org/data-methods/methodology). Land and Natural Resource Rights To further explore the extent to which LNR were considered and supported in project design, we conducted an in-depth analysis of a subset of World Bank conservation-focused projects that explicitly pursued a landscape approach (58 projects out of 139). This cohort was selected because landscape-level projects inherently involve complex spatial interactions among multiple stakeholders (see box A.5), integrating protected areas with restricted access alongside production zones, resource-use areas, and reforestation, afforestation, and restoration activ- ities. As per the literature, these characteristics amplify potential LNR risks and Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A opportunities, necessitating explicit consideration of land tenure, access rights, and resource governance within project design. We conducted a review of project documents—including PADs, Implementation Status and Results Reports, and ICRs—focusing on identi- fying explicit considerations of, and activities supporting, land and resource tenure and rights within project design. Our review centered on several key criteria and LNR activities. First, we assessed the extent to which projects identified potential risks related to restrictions on rural communities’ access to land and resources by examining project documents for explicit acknowl- edgments of such risks, as well as the application of relevant environmental 148 and social risk management policies, specifically Operational Policy 4.12 (Involuntary Resettlement) and ESS5 (Land Acquisition, Restrictions on Land Use, and Involuntary Resettlement). We also coded project-financed activities according to the following LNR activ- ities: (i) strengthening community participation and community-led land and resource governance, (ii) supporting tenure regularization or formalization, and (iii) reinforcing legislative or regulatory reforms related to land and resource rights. Additionally, we examined the presence and types of indicators used by projects to track achievements in line with these same activity bundles. To identify trends over time, we analyzed the temporal distribution of projects that financed activities to strengthen community land and resource rights by categorizing projects based on their approval fiscal years. This analysis helped us understand the evolving commitment to these issues over different periods. To illustrate the practical implementation and outcomes of LNR consider- ations, we drew on our Mozambique case study (see also the Exploratory Case Studies section) and a desk-based review of a project in Tanzania. These illustrated achievements in strengthening community land and resource rights, participatory governance, and biodiversity protection, as well as the potential risks and consequences of insufficient consideration of community land and resource rights in project implementation. Biodiversity Offsets Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    149 We conducted a review of biodiversity offsets to explore the Bank Group’s efforts in addressing significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from de- velopment projects. Biodiversity offsets were analyzed as a deep dive under EQ1, given their relevance to conservation-focused activities and their role in mitigat- ing residual impacts on critical habitats and natural ecosystems. Offsets are most often applied in contexts where development activities overlap with areas of high biodiversity value—such as critical natural habitats or restoration landscapes— which are central to the conservation objectives examined under EQ1. To derive lessons from these initiatives, we employed a sequenced approach. First, we conducted a focused literature review to identify biodiversity offset good practice principles. Next, we conducted a portfolio review and analy- sis that (i) assessed the alignment of biodiversity offset development with the Bank Group’s environmental and social requirements, as well as the supervision of client implementation (including survey work, stakeholder engagement, and documentation), and (ii) evaluated the outcomes based on available monitoring and reporting data, focusing on principles such as no net loss or net gain. Finally, we derived explanatory factors through inter- views with senior environmental and social experts. Focused literature review. The literature review primarily referenced peer-re- viewed articles published in reputable academic journals. The geographic scope of biodiversity offset literature remained somewhat limited since most studies have been conducted in Australia, North America, and Western Europe, where offset legislation had been established for many years. The review followed a partially chronological and thematic structure, beginning with the definition of biodiversity offsets and their theoretical foundations. It then examined regulatory frameworks before addressing offset challenges, highlighting the methodological and implementation difficulties that kept much of the litera- ture theoretical. Finally, the review covered emerging research on real-world implementation, particularly in regions with long-standing offset mandates. Portfolio review and analysis. The portfolio analysis involved systematically reviewing project documentation to assess the extent to which biodiversi- ty offset good practice principles were met. Key questions included whether projects consistently identified and quantified residual impacts by applying the mitigation hierarchy; how offset activities were designed to achieve no net loss or net gain; the extent to which alternatives to offsetting were consid- Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A ered; whether stakeholder consultations reflected offset discussions; whether projects engaged independent experts; and the extent to which projects disclosed offsets-related documents. Additionally, it assessed financial provi- sions, long-term site security, and progress reported on offset implementation. The findings helped determine alignment with best practices, including com- pliance with ESS6 and PS6, and whether offset outcomes were achieved. Stakeholder interviews. The evaluation team conducted interviews with 23 environmental and social specialists and coordinators. Interviews were conduct- ed to gather internal perspectives on the implementation and effectiveness of biodiversity offsets and views on practical challenges and outcomes. Interview questions focused on the adequacy of guidance in safeguard policies, upstream 150 work, implementation and monitoring after project approval, offset due dil- igence, and institutional learning. The interview data were then analyzed thematically to identify recurring patterns and key insights. EQ2 Methods: How Well Are the World Bank and IFC Supporting Activities with Potential Biodiversity Benefits in Key Production Sectors, and Are Those Activities Likely to Achieve Such Benefits? We assessed the World Bank and IFC’s support for integrating biodiversi- ty into three key production sectors: (i) agriculture, including agroforestry and agribusiness; (ii) forestry; and (iii) fisheries and aquaculture. For each of these sectors, we gathered evidence using focused literature reviews and portfolio reviews and analyses, and to provide more explanatory power, we conducted exploratory case studies. Focused Literature Reviews We conducted AI-assisted focused literature reviews to identify good practic- es in the key production sectors covered—agriculture, including agroforestry and agribusiness; forestry; and fisheries and aquaculture—that have been empirically or theoretically linked to positive biodiversity outcomes. These reviews included academic research, technical guidance from reputable orga- nizations, and relevant gray literature to establish a taxonomy of practices Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    151 associated with biodiversity benefits within each sector. The resulting taxon- omy served as an essential reference to define and inform coding protocols used in the subsequent portfolio reviews and analyses for each sector. Portfolio Reviews and Analyses The portfolio reviews systematically assessed the World Bank and IFC-supported projects within each sector covered to determine the extent to which biodiver- sity considerations were integrated into project design and implementation. Drawing directly from the taxonomies developed through the literature reviews, detailed coding protocols were established, focusing on activities indicative of good practice for biodiversity integration. For each project—focusing particu- larly on project-financed activities and results framework indicators measuring associated results—we analyzed the presence and nature of biodiversity-related activities and assessed alignment with identified good practices. For active proj- ects, the review focused on project design, while for closed projects, both design and evidence of results were assessed. In addition, closed projects were reviewed for the application of the safe- guard policies and ESF requirements to respond to EQ3b: To the extent that evidence is available, has the application of biodiversity-related risk man- agement policies mitigated biodiversity loss? Exploratory Case Studies We conducted exploratory case studies to provide explanatory power about the ways that the Bank Group integrates biodiversity considerations into key production sectors. The unit of analysis was the technical or policy mech- anisms identified in projects in each country. We used an exploratory case design because of the nascency of this work in the Bank Group. Cases con- ducted in Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, Ecuador, Peru, and Viet Nam included local engagement with resources users; case studies conducted in Mozambique were conducted on desk with interviews. We selected case studies with interventions that were explicit in their intent to achieve biodiversity outcomes, or proxies thereof, to maximize the learn- ing potential from the cases. Other case selection criteria included (i) timing: activities needed to be mature enough for evaluation; (ii) geography: regional and country typology coverage; (iii) production sectors, covering agriculture, Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A forestry, fisheries, and aquaculture; and (iv) project mechanisms. The presence of IFC activities was also included as a criterion in a subset of cases. The case studies were guided by a detailed case protocol (see box A.6) to en- sure data collection and analytic consistency across cases. Case authors were experienced researchers with a combination of biodiversity, production sector, country and regional, and evaluation expertise. For each case study, interviews were conducted with relevant World Bank staff, government ministries and agencies, local government, project management and implementation units, regional organizations, local subject matter experts, donor agencies, nongov- ernmental organizations, civil society, and associations. 152 The purpose of the exploratory case studies was to contextualize and derive explanatory factors on integrating biodiversity into production sectors, given the nascency of these activities. The case studies were designed to capture evidence on (i) the level of adoption of biodiversity-sensitive approaches by client governments, firms, and resource users across relevant activities; (ii) the factors that supported or challenged this adoption (including de- velopment outcomes); (iii) the extent to which adopted approaches led to biodiversity proxies and, where feasible, climate change outcomes; and (iv) explanatory factors that influenced these outcomes. Case studies adopted a systems approach using triangulated evidence: they identified the drivers of biodiversity loss in each landscape and how World Bank and IFC interven- tions addressed those drivers, assessed resource governance and incentives, identified trade-offs faced by clients and resource users in adopting bio- diversity-relevant practices, and examined how the World Bank and IFC worked with other partners to achieve shared goals (where relevant). Case studies were designed to identify specific “mechanisms” used by the Bank Group to produce biodiversity benefits in each country and sectoral context. The case studies followed a structured approach outlined in box A.6. Box A.6. Exploratory Case Study Approach Step 1: Identification of the commitments made by the country to the goals per- taining to sustainable production outlined in the Global Biodiversity Framework. A review of relevant country literature, including National Biodiversity Strategies and Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    153 Action Plans, was undertaken to assess the extent of alignment with the commitments set out in the Global Biodiversity Framework. The review included an assessment of the recency of relevant commitments, their scale, and any financing committed for their fulfilment. This review was supplemented in primary data collection through semistructured interviews with in-country officials during the country visit. Step 2: Analysis of the role of the World Bank Group in the country in financing or con- tributing to sustainable production activities that enhance biodiversity outcomes. This step involved multiple components, including the following: (continued) Box A.6. Exploratory Case Study Approach (cont.) The selection of projects identified for data collection as part of the case studies was based on a selection criteria exercise described in the section above. An analysis of World Bank efforts in country to engage with government clients on activities at the policy or regulatory level that might contribute to enhancing biodiversity outcomes such as adjustments to policies that drive biodiversity loss, among other things. A review of relevant World Bank country-level documents (Systematic Country Diagnostics, Country Climate and Development Reports, and Country Partnership Frameworks) to assess the extent to which they integrate biodiversity considerations. Identification of all World Bank analytics and investments in the country that incorpo- rate biodiversity considerations, and selection of a targeted group of projects within this portfolio to be explored in detail. Analysis of the key sectoral events that coincided with and influenced the World Bank’s engagement in the country during the evaluation period (FY 2010 and FY24). This analysis was underpinned by a review of literature, project documentation, and consultation with key stakeholders in country. Step 3: A focused literature review of the biodiversity considerations relevant to each subsector(s) selected in each country. The literature review included several components: a synthesis of the predominant challenges to achieving biodiversity outcomes in the chosen subsector; a description Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A of the social, economic, and governance constraints to achievement of biodiversity outcomes; the integration of climate change as a cross-cutting consideration; an anal- ysis of the chief long-term constraints to producing sustainable biodiversity outcomes in the subsector (for example, lack of financing, institutional capacity); and good prac- tice examples of achievement of biodiversity outcomes in the chosen subsector(s). Step 4: An analysis of the specific mechanisms or approaches used in each rele- vant project by the World Bank that are likely to have biodiversity benefits. Efforts were made for each of these mechanisms to identify causal pathways through which they are expected to lead to behavior change and to document any relevant outcomes resulting from the use of this mechanism or approach. For example, this 154 (continued) Box A.6. Exploratory Case Study Approach (cont.) could entail the adoption of a climate and biodiversity-friendly agricultural practice likely to reduce the use of water and other natural resources, enhance soil health, and prevent land degradation. Step 5: The case analysis culminated in a case synthesis and overarching analysis, drawing on the multiple lines of evidence identified. This synthesis responded to the evaluation subquestions for EQ2, which included the documenting of good practice examples, innovations, lessons learned, any evidence of use of proxies for biodiversity benefits, and the contribution of biodiversity benefits to climate change benefits. Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Review of Core Country Diagnostics To assess the extent to which the World Bank is using the country engage- ment process to identify integrated actions while building national capacity for biodiversity planning, we undertook a review of CPFs and CCDRs. We reviewed 113 CPFs—representing the most recent CPF available for every country—and all 57 CCDRs (covering 69 countries) disclosed at the time of Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    155 this analysis. See appendix C for the list of CPFs and CCDRs included in the analysis. CPFs are the primary strategic document that outlines the Bank Group’s engagement with a client country. CCDRs are designed to help countries prioritize actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance adaptation, and achieve broader development goals. Country Partnership Framework Alignment with global climate and biodiversity commitments. We con- ducted parametric keyword searches and content analysis within the 113 CPFs to assess their alignment with global climate and biodiversity agreements. Each CPF was analyzed to determine whether it articulates climate priorities, including nationally determined contributions, the Paris Agreement, or Paris Alignment. Additionally, we examined whether CPFs explicitly mention global biodiversity agreements such as the GBF, the CBD, or the Kunming-Montreal and Aichi Biodiversity Targets. We also identi- fied whether CPFs articulate support linked to their respective National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans and Natural Capital Accounting. CPF high-level outcomes and objectives. We manually extracted, and thematically coded, CPF high-level outcomes and subobjectives in line with relevant themes. Relevant CPF high-level outcomes and subobjectives were categorized into themes based on the dominant focus (including in their rationale), while recognizing that there is overlap across these themes (table A.4). This thematic coding allowed us to understand the distribution of thematic focus areas and assess the extent to which these focus areas provide opportunities—both taken and not taken—to engage with clients on biodiversity and capture biodiversity benefits.  oding Categories for Country Partnership Framework Table A.4. C Subobjectives Thematic Code Description Climate Adaptation Enhancing resilience against climate change impacts, natural and Disaster Risk hazards (floods, droughts, hurricanes, earthquakes, and so on), Management and related risks. Strengthening preparedness, early-warning systems, recovery, and adaptive capacity of infrastructure, liveli- hoods, and ecosystems. Examples: “Enhance resilience to natural shocks”; “Build resilience to climate-related events”; “Strengthen multihazard disaster resilience.” Climate Change Reducing GHG emissions, promoting decarbonization, support- Mitigation and Low- ing low-carbon industries, and contributing to global climate Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A Carbon Transition goals (for example, the Paris Agreement, NDC implementation). Examples: “Scale up climate mitigation measures”; “Support the energy transition/reduce energy intensity.” Natural Resource Sustainable management of forests, fisheries, land, ecosystems, Management and so on. Includes preserving habitats, reforestation, sustain- able forestry, land degradation prevention, or conservation of wildlife. Examples: “Improved management of natural resources”; “Preserve and restore natural capital”; “Sustainable landscape management.” Water, Sanitation, and Ensuring water security, water resource management, sanitation, Waste Management solid waste management, wastewater treatment, and related in- frastructure. Examples: “Improve access to water, sanitation, and solid waste management”; “Enhance water security and sustain- ability”; “Efficient water resource management for resilience.” 156 (continued) Thematic Code Description Energy Sustainability Increasing renewable energy capacity (solar, wind, hydro, and Efficiency geothermal), promoting energy efficiency, and ensuring a sus- tainable energy supply. Often linked to low-carbon development but can be distinguished if the focus is specifically on energy systems. Examples: “Expand clean energy matrix”; “Enhanced energy sustainability and renewable energy resources”; “Energy efficiency improvements in utilities and industries.” Pollution and Air Reducing ambient air pollution, industrial pollution, marine plastic Quality Management pollution, and soil contamination, or improving broader environmen- tal quality (apart from GHG-focused mitigation). Examples: “Reduce air pollution in urban centers”; “Address plastic waste in coastal regions”; “Improve air, soil, water pollution control frameworks.” Resilient Resilience and sustainability in roads, transport, housing, and Infrastructure and urban planning. Ensuring cities adapt to climate change impacts Urban Resilience (sea-level rise, flooding), reduce congestion/pollution, and strengthen livability. Examples: “Improved transport connectiv- ity and safety” (with an explicit climate/disaster lens); “Promote green and resilient cities”; “Sustain and strengthen urban infra- structure to withstand climate shocks.” Financial and Strengthening a country’s financial capacity to cope with cli- Macroeconomic mate-related or disaster-related shocks. Building fiscal buffers, Resilience insurance mechanisms, contingent financing, or macrofiscal strategies for climate resilience. Examples: “Enhanced financial resilience”; “Strengthen capacity for macrofinancial sustainability/ reduce vulnerability to external shocks”; “Risk financing for disas- ters/catastrophe insurance frameworks.” Governance and Public sector reforms, policies, regulations, or institutional Institutional Capacity frameworks specifically geared toward better environmental or for Environment/ climate outcomes, for example, setting up climate governance Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    157 Climate structures, environmental agencies, or cross-sector coordina- tion. Examples: “Improve government’s effectiveness, efficiency, and transparency in climate/natural resource management”; “Strengthen institutional and financial framework for risk man- agement”; “Enhance capacity for climate finance and green budgeting.” Productivity, Climate- Focus on making agriculture, fisheries, or rural livelihoods more Smart Agriculture, resilient and sustainable under climate variability (crop diver- and Resilient sification, water-efficient irrigation, sustainable land practices, Livelihoods and so on). Examples: “Promote climate-resilient agriculture”; “Strengthen rural livelihoods through sustainable land and water use.” Biodiversity Explicit mention of biodiversity in objective. Examples: “Improved management of mining, natural resources, and biodiversity”; “Improved and climate-adaptive management of forests, biodi- versity, and protected areas.” (continued) Thematic Code Description Social Protection and Strengthening household and community resilience to shocks by Safety Nets enhancing social protection systems, improving livelihoods, and building crisis preparedness and response capacities, particu- larly for vulnerable and conflict-affected populations. Examples: “Strengthen crisis resilience for vulnerable, displaced, and conflict-affected populations”; “Improve efficiency and effective- ness of the social protection system”; “Strengthen mechanisms to protect people against shocks.” Land Administration Example: “Improve Land Titling and Administration.” Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: GHG = greenhouse gas; NDC = nationally determined contribution. CPF metrics. We also manually extracted and analyzed the metrics measured in CPFs—at both the high-level outcome and sublevel objective—to identify those metrics that could serve as proxies for biodiversity-related outcomes. Country Climate and Development Reports We reviewed each CCDR to extract and analyze relevant information on climate mitigation, adaptation strategies, and the climate–biodiversity risk nexus. First, we focused our content analysis on identifying how each CCDR addressed the use and conservation of natural ecosystems, such as forests and coastal and marine ecosystems, to achieve national climate mitigation goals. Additionally, we examined the recommended practices for mitigation, for example, habitat restoration versus reforestation or afforestation Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A activities. Second, we assessed the adaptation strategies presented to determine the extent to which CCDRs recommended using and conserving biodiversity-rich natural habitats to build resilience. Third, we explored the extent to which CCDRs diagnose the risks posed by climate change to biodiversity and the recommended measures to safeguard it. Limitations Portfolio Review and Analysis Missing documentation. Some identified lending operations that were found to be relevant lacked sufficient evidence and documentation in the 158 operations portal and could not therefore be included in the portfolio review and analysis (especially smaller trust funded activities). We excluded these projects because the information required to determine and code variables relevant to biodiversity efforts was not available. Geospatial Analysis Missing protected area names. In 25 of the 130 conservation-focused proj- ects that include support to protected areas, it was not possible to identify the names of the specific protected areas as they were not included in any project documentation. Furthermore, in 279 cases (out of 884), we could not match the names of the protected areas as found in the respective project documentation with the WDPA (despite extensive efforts to do so, including searches online). Last, 19 protected areas did not have shape files and were therefore excluded from the land cover analysis. Land cover change analysis. The geospatial analysis of land cover change relies on several key assumptions and is subject to certain limitations in- herent in the data and methodology. These considerations are important for interpreting the results accurately and understanding the potential sources of uncertainty. » Probabilistic nature of the Dynamic World model. The land cover classifica- tions used in this study are derived from the Dynamic World data set, which Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    159 is a probabilistic model rather than a deterministic classification. This means that each pixel is assigned a probability of belonging to different land cover classes, and the final classification represents the most likely class rather than a definitive ground-truth label. As a result, some classification uncer- tainty is expected, particularly in transitional or heterogeneous landscapes where multiple land cover types coexist within a single pixel. Several recent studies have analyzed recently developed global land-use/land cover models (Kerner et al. 2024; Venter et al. 2022; Wang et al. 2023), and we refer to these resources for a more detailed assessment of the limitations. » Impact of missing data and cloud cover. Optical satellite data, such as those used in Dynamic World, are susceptible to cloud cover, haze, and other atmospheric interferences, which can result in missing data for certain time periods. Although compositing techniques help mitigate these gaps, some areas may have fewer valid observations, potentially introducing noise or inconsistencies in the temporal analysis. This issue is particularly relevant in tropical regions, where persistent cloud cover can reduce the frequency of high-quality observations. » Although Dynamic World, which relies on Sentinel-2 L1C images, ex- cludes images with cloud cover greater than 35 percent from its land cover calculations, we observed that in some years the coverage was incomplete, likely due to persistent cloud cover. To address potential data quality issues, we implemented the following decision rule: (i) if a protected area-year had fewer than 80 percent valid pixels, it was excluded from the analysis, and (ii) if a protected area-year had 80 percent or more valid pixels, it was included, with weights assigned according to the percentage of valid pixels. This approach allowed us to calculate the weighted average percent- age of land cover for two periods, 2016–19 and 2020–24, and to estimate the change in land cover as the difference between these two periods. » Influence of mixed pixels and land cover transitions. Given the 10-meter spatial resolution of the data set, some pixels are likely to contain a mixture of multiple land cover types. This can lead to misclassifications, especially in areas where tree cover, shrubs, and grasslands intermingle. Additionally, land cover transitions (for example, forest degradation, regrowth, or seasonal changes in vegetation) may not be fully captured if the dominant class in a pixel does not change significantly over time. » Spatial and temporal resolution considerations. Although the 10-meter spatial Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix A resolution of Dynamic World allows for relatively fine-scale analysis, it may not detect small-scale changes such as selective logging, understory degradation, or small agricultural clearings. Additionally, the temporal resolution of the analysis is limited by the availability of cloud-free observations, meaning that some short- term disturbances or rapid land cover changes may not be fully captured. Biodiversity Offsets Analysis Due to resource constraints, the evaluation team could not conduct site visits or engage directly with client counterparts or beneficiaries on the topic of offsets. This limited the collection of firsthand data and hindered the ability to verify 160 information or assess the contextual factors influencing project outcomes. The evaluation team relied on different approaches to identify offset projects across institutions (IFC, MIGA, and the World Bank) because of limitations in access to documents and resource constraints. Although the list of MIGA and IFC projects with offsets was retrieved from ESG counterparts, the team relied on the Standard Reports and a combination of manual and large language model assessment. The World Bank does not have a centralized tracking tool for offsets, but the evaluation team met with several biodiversi- ty experts in the World Bank and received their input on the list of projects. References Brown, C. F., S. P. Brumby, B. Guzder-Williams, et al. 2022. “Dynamic World, Near Real-time Global 10 m Land Use Land Cover Mapping.” Scientific Data 9: 251. Garnett, S. T., N. D. Burgess, J. E. Fa, et al. 2018. “A Spatial Overview of the Global Importance of Indigenous Lands for Conservation.” Nature Sustainability 1 (7): 369–74. Kerner, H., C. Nakalembe, A. Yang, et al. 2024. “How Accurate Are Existing Land Cover Maps for Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa?” Scientific Data 11 (1): 486. Venter, Z. S., D. N. Barton, T. Chakraborty, T. Simensen, and G. Singh. 2022. “Global 10 m Land Use Land Cover Data Sets: A Comparison of Dynamic World, World Cover and Esri Land Cover.” Remote Sensing 14 (16): 4101. Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    161 Wang, Y., Y. Sun, X. Cao, Y. Wang, W. Zhang, and X. Cheng. 2023. “A Review of Regional and Global Scale Land Use/Land Cover Mapping Products Generated from Satellite Remote Sensing.” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 206: 311–34. World Bank. 2018. “ESF Guidance Note 7: Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities (ESS7).” World Bank. World Bank. 2024. Biodiversity for a Livable Planet: An Evaluation of World Bank Group Support for Biodiversity (FY15–24). Approach Paper. Independent Evaluation Group. World Bank. World Bank Group. 2021. Unlocking Nature-Smart Development: An Approach Paper on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. World Bank Group. Appendix B. Evaluation Portfolio Table B.1. World Bank Conservation Portfolio Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Project Year ID P086341 BR GEF Rio 2010 Closed Brazil LAC Environment, Grande do Sul Natural Biodiversity Resources, and Blue Economy P086528 Development, 2010 Closed South Africa AFE Environment, Empowerment Natural and Resources, and Conservation in Blue Economy the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park and Surrounding Region P091659 Argentina 2010 Closed Argentina LAC Agriculture and Grasslands Food Project (Mercosur) P091827 Sustainable 2010 Closed Brazil LAC Environment, Cerrado Natural Initiative Resources, and Blue Economy P094307 SL-GEF 2010 Closed Sierra Leone AFW Environment, Biodiversity Natural Conservation Resources, and Project Blue Economy P094335 Conservation of 2010 Closed Paraguay LAC Environment, Biodiversity and Natural Sustainable Resources, and Land Blue Economy Management in the Atlantic Forest of Eastern Paraguay 162   (continued) Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Project Year ID P095424 Strengthening 2010 Closed Peru LAC Environment, Biodiversity Natural Conservation Resources, and Through Blue Economy the National Protected Areas P095617 Northern 2010 Closed Botswana AFE Environment, Botswana Natural Human Wildlife Resources, and Coexistence Blue Economy Project P097985 Integrated 2010 Closed India SAR Environment, Coastal Zone Natural Management Resources, and Blue Economy P116152 Second 2010 Closed Peru LAC Environment, Programmatic Natural Environmental Resources, and DPL Blue Economy P117836 Land 2010 Closed Nicaragua LAC Urban, Administration Disaster Risk Project Management, (PRODEP) Resilience, and Additional Land Financing Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    163 P088520 Biodiversity 2011 Closed India SAR Environment, Conservation Natural and Rural Resources, and Livelihoods Blue Economy Improvement P094692 Kenya Coastal 2011 Closed Kenya AFE Environment, Development Natural Project Resources, and Blue Economy P098538 Sustainable 2011 Closed Ghana AFW Environment, Land and Water Natural Management Resources, and Blue Economy (continued) Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Project Year ID P100438 Adaptation 2011 Closed Mexico LAC Environment, to Climate Natural Change Resources, and Impacts on Blue Economy the Coastal Wetlands in the Gulf of Mexico P106680 Second Land 2011 Closed Honduras LAC Urban, Administration Disaster Risk Project Management, Resilience, and Land P107484 Madagascar 2011 Closed Madagascar AFE Environment, Additional Natural Finance-3rd Resources, and Environmental Blue Economy Program P108879 AFCC2/ 2011 Closed Africa Africa Environment, RI-Nyika Natural Transfrontier Resources, and Conservation Blue Economy Area Project P108882 Extension 2011 Closed Zambia AFE Environment, of Kasanka Natural Management Resources, and System to Blue Economy Lavushi Manda National Park P110661 Sustainable 2011 Closed China EAP Environment, Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B Management Natural and Biodiversity Resources, and Conservation Blue Economy of the Lake Aibi Basin P111205 EU Natura 2000 2011 Closed Croatia ECA Environment, Integration Natural Project Resources, and Blue Economy P111918 CL 2011 Closed Chile LAC Environment, Securitization Natural and Carbon Resources, and Sinks Project Blue Economy (continued) 164 Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Project Year ID P114580 Liberia: 2011 Closed Liberia AFW Environment, Expansion of Natural Protected Areas Resources, and Network—II Blue Economy P115836 Wetlands 2011 Closed Sierra Leone AFW Environment, Conservation Natural Project Resources, and Blue Economy P118713 Peru Third 2011 Closed Peru LAC Environment, Programmatic Natural Environmental Resources, and DPL Blue Economy P121210 APL on 2011 Closed South Asia SAR Environment, Strengthening Natural Regional Resources, and Cooperation Blue Economy for Wildlife Protection in Asia P122047 Guinea-Bissau 2011 Closed Guinea- AFW Environment, Biodiversity Bissau Natural Conservation Resources, and Project Blue Economy P122419 Support to 2011 Closed Benin AFW Environment, Protected Areas Natural Management Resources, and Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    165 Blue Economy P126193 Second Phase 2011 Closed South Asia SAR Environment, of the APL on Natural Strengthening Resources, and Regional Blue Economy Cooperation for Wildlife Protection in Asia P103470 Sustainable 2012 Closed OECS coun- LAC Environment, Financing and tries Natural Management Resources, and of Eastern Blue Economy Caribbean Marine Ecosystem Project (continued) Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Project Year ID P110112 Effective 2012 Closed Malawi AFE Environment, Management of Natural the Nkhotakota Resources, and Wildlife Blue Economy Reserve P112074 BR Sergipe 2012 Closed Brazil LAC Water Water P112106 Additional 2012 Closed Colombia LAC Environment, Financing for Natural the National Resources, and Protected Blue Economy Areas Project P114810 Amazon Region 2012 Closed Brazil LAC Environment, Protected Natural Areas Program Resources, and Phase II (GEF) Blue Economy P117617 Malawi: Shire 2012 Closed Malawi AFE Water River Basin Management Program (Phase I) Project P118018 Cameroon: 2012 Closed Cameroon AFW Environment, Ngoyla Mintom Natural Project Resources, and Blue Economy P122701 Wildlife 2012 Closed Viet Nam EAP Environment, Consumption Natural in Viet Nam: Resources, and Reforming Blue Economy Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B Policies and Practices to Strengthen Biodiversity Conservation P123922 Integrated 2012 Closed Togo AFW Environment, Disaster Natural and Land Resources, and Management Blue Economy Project P124085 Congo: Forest 2012 Closed Congo, Rep. AFW Environment, and Economic Natural Diversification Resources, and Project Blue Economy 166 (continued) Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Project Year ID P113860 LA-Nam 2013 Closed Lao PDR EAP Environment, Et-Phou Natural Louey Tiger Resources, and Landscape Blue Economy Conservation Project P120561 Tunisia: 2013 Closed Tunisia MENA Environment, Ecotourism and Natural Conservation Resources, and of Desert Blue Economy Biodiversity P121152 Second Land 2013 Closed Nicaragua LAC Urban, Administration Disaster Risk Project Management, (PRODEP II) Resilience, and Land P123923 Russia Forest 2013 Closed Russian ECA Environment, Fire Response Federation Natural Project Resources, and Blue Economy P127258 Sustainable 2013 Closed Burundi AFE Environment, Coffee Natural Landscape Resources, and Project Blue Economy P127490 Sustainable 2013 Closed Bhutan SAR Environment, Financing for Natural Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    167 Biodiversity Resources, and Conservation Blue Economy and Natural Resources Management P127861 JO-Badia 2013 Closed Jordan MENA Environment, Ecosystem and Natural Livelihoods Resources, and Blue Economy P083813 DRC GEF 2014 Closed Congo, Dem. AFE Environment, Financing Rep. Natural to PREPAN Resources, and Project Blue Economy (continued) Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Project Year ID P113794 Red Sea and 2014 Closed Middle East MENA Environment, Gulf of Aden and North Natural Strategic Africa Resources, and Ecosystem Blue Economy Management GEF Project P124018 Senegal— 2014 Closed Senegal AFW Agriculture and Sustainable Food and Inclusive Agribusiness Development Project P124625 Hwange- 2014 Closed Zimbabwe AFE Environment, Sanyati Natural Biological Resources, and Corridor Project Blue Economy P126361 Kihansi 2014 Closed Tanzania AFE Environment, Catchment Natural Conservation Resources, and and Blue Economy Management Project P127813 Coral Reef 2014 Closed Indonesia EAP Environment, Rehabilitation Natural and Resources, and Management Blue Economy Program— Coral Triangle Initiative Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B (COREMAP- CTI) P128393 Second Lao 2014 Closed Lao PDR EAP Environment, Environment Natural and Social Resources, and Project (former- Blue Economy ly Protected Area and Wildlife Project) P128887 Improved 2014 Closed Congo, Dem. AFE Environment, Forested Rep. Natural Landscape Resources, and Management Blue Economy Project (GEF Additional 168 Financing) (continued) Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Project Year ID P129156 Sudan 2014 Closed Sudan AFE Environment, Sustainable Natural Natural Resources, and Resources Blue Economy Management Project P129647 Peru 2014 Closed Peru LAC Environment, Strengthening Natural Sustainable Resources, and Management Blue Economy of the Guano Islands, Isles and Capes National Reserve System Project P131709 Coastal 2014 Closed Mexico LAC Environment, Watersheds Natural Conservation Resources, and in the Context Blue Economy of Climate Change Project P143914 Gabon— 2014 Closed Gabon AFW Environment, Sustainable Natural Management Resources, and of Critical Blue Economy Wetlands Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    169 Ecosystems P114294 Rural Corridors 2015 Closed Argentina LAC Environment, and Biodiversity Natural Resources, and Blue Economy P128968 BR Marine 2015 Closed Brazil LAC Environment, Protected Natural Areas Project Resources, and Blue Economy P130474 Management 2015 Closed Belize LAC Environment, and Protection Natural of Key Resources, and Biodiversity Blue Economy Areas in Belize P131408 BZ Marine 2015 Closed Belize LAC Environment, Conservation Natural and Climate Resources, and Adaptation Blue Economy (continued) Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Project Year ID P131655 Pacific Islands 2015 Closed Pacific EAP Environment, Regional Islands Natural Oceanscape Resources, and Program Forum Blue Economy Fisheries Agency P131965 Mozambique 2015 Closed Mozambique AFE Environment, Conservation Natural Areas for Resources, and Biodiversity and Blue Economy Development Project P132317 Philippine Rural 2015 Active Philippines EAP Agriculture and Development Food Project P144254 Zambia 2015 Closed Zambia AFE Agriculture and COMACO Food Landscape Management P144271 Forest 2015 Active Colombia LAC Environment, Conservation Natural and Resources, and Sustainability Blue Economy in the Heart of the Colombian Amazon P145621 Sustainable 2015 Closed Panama LAC Agriculture and Production Food Systems and Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B Conservation of Biodiversity P147015 Cape Verde 2015 Closed Cabo Verde AFW Macroeconomics, Ninth Poverty Trade, and Reduction Investment Support Credit P148183 Ghana FIP— 2015 Closed Ghana AFW Environment, Enhancing Natural Natural Forest Resources, and and Agroforest Blue Economy Landscapes Project (continued) 170 Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Project Year ID P150892 ProCerrado 2015 Closed Brazil LAC Environment, Federal Project Natural Resources, and Blue Economy P153301 Climate 2015 Closed Maldives SAR Environment, Change Natural Adaptation Resources, and Project Blue Economy P122383 Landscape 2016 Closed China EAP Environment, Approach Natural to Wildlife Resources, and Conservation Blue Economy in Northeast China P143185 Development 2016 Closed Brazil LAC Environment, of Systems Natural to Prevent Resources, and Forest Fires Blue Economy and Monitor Vegetation Cover in the Brazilian Cerrado P154114 Liberia Forest 2016 Closed Liberia AFW Environment, Sector Project Natural Resources, and Blue Economy Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    171 P156021 Ecosystem 2016 Closed Sri Lanka SAR Environment, Conservation Natural and Resources, and Management Blue Economy P154698 Sustainable 2017 Closed Madagascar AFE Environment, Landscape Natural Management Resources, and Project Blue Economy P157249 Wildlife and 2017 Closed Gabon AFW Environment, Human- Natural Elephant Resources, and Conflicts Blue Economy Management in the South of Gabon (continued) Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Project Year ID P160033 Mozambique 2017 Closed Mozambique AFE Environment, Forest Natural Investment Resources, and Project Blue Economy P161490 Zambia 2017 Closed Zambia AFE Agriculture and Integrated Food Forest Landscape Project (GEF) P150523 Tanzania: 2018 Closed Tanzania AFE Environment, Resilient Natural Natural Resources, and Resource Blue Economy Management for Tourism and Growth P155642 Third South 2018 Closed Eastern and AFE Environment, West Indian Southern Natural Ocean Fisheries Africa Resources, and Governance Blue Economy and Shared Growth Project (SWIOFish3) P158000 Amazon 2018 Active Brazil LAC Environment, Sustainable Natural Landscapes Resources, and Project Blue Economy P158805 Shire Valley 2018 Active Malawi AFE Water Transformation Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B Program— Phase 1 P160613 Burundi 2018 Closed Burundi AFE Environment, Landscape Natural Restoration Resources, and and Resilience Blue Economy Project P161973 Natural 2018 Closed Central AFW Environment, Resources African Natural Governance Republic Resources, and Project in CAR Blue Economy (continued) 172 Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Project Year ID P162337 West Africa 2018 Active Western and AFW Environment, Coastal Areas Central Africa Natural Resilience Resources, and Investment Blue Economy Project P162789 Forest 2018 Closed Côte d’Ivoire AFW Environment, Investment Natural Program Resources, and Blue Economy P162792 Strengthening 2018 Closed Viet Nam EAP Environment, Partnerships Natural to Protect Resources, and Endangered Blue Economy Wildlife in Viet Nam P163531 Nicaragua 2018 Closed Nicaragua LAC Urban, Property Rights Disaster Risk Strengthening Management, Project Resilience, and Land P164257 Promoting 2018 Closed Jamaica LAC Environment, Community- Natural Based Climate Resources, and Resilience in Blue Economy the Fisheries Sector Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    173 P161304 Sudan 2019 Closed Sudan AFE Environment, Sustainable Natural Natural Resources, and Resources Blue Economy Management Project (SSNRMP) Additional Financing (Phase 2) P161996 Sustainable 2019 Active Bangladesh SAR Environment, Forests and Natural Livelihoods Resources, and (SUFAL) Project Blue Economy P162594 Multipurpose 2019 Active Colombia LAC Urban, Cadaster Disaster Risk Project Management, Resilience, and Land (continued) Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Project Year ID P164764 Transforming 2019 Active Zambia AFE Environment, Landscapes for Natural Resilience and Resources, and Development Blue Economy in Zambia P165344 Cambodia 2019 Active Cambodia EAP Environment, Sustainable Natural Landscape and Resources, and Ecotourism Blue Economy Project P166802 Mozambique 2019 Active Mozambique AFE Environment, Conservation Natural Areas for Resources, and Biodiversity and Blue Economy Development— Phase 2 P167748 Grenada 2020 Closed Grenada LAC Macroeconomics, Second Fiscal Trade, and Resilience and Investment Blue Growth Development Policy Credit P167830 Orinoquia 2020 Active Colombia LAC Environment, Integrated Natural Sustainable Resources, and Landscapes Blue Economy P170466 Uganda 2020 Active Uganda AFE Environment, Investing in Natural Forests and Resources, and Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B Protected Blue Economy Areas for Climate-Smart Development Project P171611 Chad Local 2020 Active Chad AFW Environment, Development Natural and Adaptation Resources, and Project Blue Economy P166672 ID: Jambi 2021 Active Indonesia EAP Environment, Sustainable Natural Landscape Resources, and Management Blue Economy Project (J-SLMP) 174 (continued) Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Project Year ID P168613 Guinea Natural 2021 Active Guinea AFW Environment, Resources, Natural Mining and Resources, and Environmental Blue Economy Management Project P170559 Lao 2021 Active Lao PDR EAP Environment, Landscapes Natural and Livelihoods Resources, and Project Blue Economy P173017 GPSA 2021 Active Caribbean LAC Environment, Caribbean— Natural Collaborative Resources, and Social Blue Economy Accountability for Improved Governance in Protecting Biodiversity Hotspots Project P173464 Critical 2021 Active Caribbean LAC Environment, Ecosystem Natural Partnership Resources, and Fund— Blue Economy Caribbean Hotspot Project Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    175 P173558 Fiji Recovery 2021 Active Fiji EAP Macroeconomics, and Resilience Trade, and First Investment Development Policy Operation with a Catastrophe Deferred Drawdown Option P174002 Sustainable 2021 Active Mozambique AFE Agriculture and Rural Economy Food Program (continued) Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Project Year ID P174107 Panama 2021 Closed Panama LAC Macroeconomics, Pandemic Trade, and Response Investment and Growth Recovery Development Policy Operation P174337 Securing 2021 Closed Uganda AFE Environment, Uganda’s Natural Natural Resources, and Resource Base Blue Economy in Protected Areas Project P174635 Northern 2021 Active Mozambique AFE Environment, Mozambique Natural Rural Resilience Resources, and Project Blue Economy P166189 Northern 2022 Active Congo, Rep. AFW Environment, Congo Natural Agroforestry Resources, and Project Blue Economy P170213 Catalyzing 2022 Active South Africa AFE Environment, Financing and Natural Capacity for Resources, and the Biodiversity Blue Economy Economy Around Protected Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B Areas Project P170482 Communal 2022 Active Burkina Faso AFW Environment, Climate Action Natural and Landscape Resources, and Management Blue Economy Project P170846 Leveraging 2022 Active Dominica LAC Environment, Eco-Tourism Natural for Biodiversity Resources, and Protection in Blue Economy Dominica P171257 Brazil Amazon 2022 Active Brazil LAC Environment, Sustainable Natural Landscapes Resources, and Project Phase 2 Blue Economy 176 (continued) Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Project Year ID P171524 RESILAND 2022 Active Tajikistan ECA Environment, CA+ Program: Natural Tajikistan Resources, and Resilient Blue Economy Landscape Restoration Project P171833 Unleashing 2022 Active OECS coun- LAC Environment, the Blue tries Natural Economy of Resources, and the Caribbean Blue Economy (UBEC) P171933 Ghana 2022 Active Ghana AFW Environment, Landscape Natural Restoration and Resources, and Small-Scale Blue Economy Mining Project P172980 Coastal 2022 Active St. Vincent LAC Environment, and Marine and the Natural Ecosystems Grenadines Resources, and Management Blue Economy Strengthening Project P174097 Wildlife 2022 Active South Africa AFE Environment, Conservation Natural Bond Operation Resources, and Blue Economy Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    177 P174135 RESILAND 2022 Active Uzbekistan ECA Environment, CA+ Program: Natural Uzbekistan Resources, and Resilient Blue Economy Landscapes Restoration Project P175237 Agro-Climatic 2022 Active Nigeria AFW Environment, Resilience Natural in Semi-Arid Resources, and Landscapes Blue Economy (ACReSAL) P175669 Sustainable 2022 Active Argentina LAC Environment, Recovery of Natural Landscapes Resources, and and Livelihoods Blue Economy in Argentina Project (continued) Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Project Year ID P175930 Panama 2022 Closed Panama LAC Macroeconomics, Pandemic Trade, and Response Investment and Growth Recovery DPL 2 P175982 Forest 2022 Active Côte d’Ivoire AFW Environment, Investment Natural Project, Phase 2 Resources, and Blue Economy P176575 Shire Valley 2022 Active Malawi AFE Water Transformation Program— Phase 2 P178224 Mexico 2022 Closed Mexico LAC Macroeconomics, Inclusive and Trade, and Sustainable Investment Economic Growth DPL P173391 Oceans for 2023 Active Indonesia EAP Environment, Prosperity Natural Project— Resources, and LAUTRA Blue Economy P175525 West Africa 2023 Active Western and AFW Environment, Coastal Areas Central Africa Natural Resilience Resources, and Investment Blue Economy Project 2 P177786 Climate- 2023 Active Congo, Rep. AFW Environment, Resilient and Natural Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B Inclusive Resources, and Livelihoods Blue Economy Project (ProClimat Congo) P178063 Panama 2023 Active Panama LAC Agriculture and Sustainable Food Rural Development and Biodiversity Conservation P178694 Fiji Tourism 2023 Active Fiji EAP Transport Development Program in 178 Vanua Levu (continued) Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Project Year ID P179008 PROGREEN 2023 Active Kazakhstan ECA Environment, Kazakhstan Natural Resilient Resources, and Landscapes Blue Economy Restoration Project P179612 Accelerating 2023 Active Morocco MENA Environment, Blue Economy Natural Development Resources, and in the Kingdom Blue Economy of Morocco P178161 Volcanoes 2024 Active Rwanda AFE Environment, Community Natural Resilience Resources, and Project Blue Economy P178401 China: Yellow 2024 Active China EAP Environment, River Basin Natural Ecological Resources, and Protection and Blue Economy Environmental Pollution Control Program (Gansu and Shandong) P179263 Mauritania 2024 Active Mauritania AFW Macroeconomics, Fiscal Trade, and Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    179 Management Investment and Resilience Development Policy Financing with a Catastrophe Deferred Drawdown Option P180982 Coastal 2024 Active São Tomé AFE Environment, Resilience and and Príncipe Natural Sustainable Resources, and Tourism Project Blue Economy Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: AFE = Eastern and Southern Africa; AFW = Western and Central Africa; APL = adaptable pro- gram loan; DPL = development policy loan;EAP = East Asia and Pacific; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; EU = European Union; FIP = Forest Investment Program;GEF = Global Environment Facility; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; MENA = Middle East and North Africa; OECS = Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States; SAR = South Asia. Table B.2. World Bank Agriculture Portfolio Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P106685 AR Socio- 2015 Closed Argentina LAC Agriculture and Economic Food Inclusion in Rural Areas P128307 PK: Sindh 2015 Closed Pakistan SAR Agriculture and Agricultural Food Growth Project P132317 Philippine Rural 2015 Active Philippines EAP Agriculture and Development Food Project P132623 Sustainable 2015 Closed India SAR Agriculture and Livelihoods and Food Adaptation to Climate Change P132739 Neeranchal 2015 Closed India SAR Agriculture and National Food Watershed Project P133261 Guizhou Rural 2015 Closed China EAP Agriculture and Development Food Project P133326 Poverty Alleviation 2015 Closed China EAP Agriculture and and Agriculture- Food Based Industry Pilot and Demonstration in Poor Areas Project Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B P143417 The Agriculture 2015 Closed Cameroon AFW Agriculture and Investment Food and Market Development Project P143608 Telangana Rural 2015 Closed India SAR Agriculture and Inclusive Growth Food Project P144254 Zambia COMACO 2015 Closed Zambia AFE Agriculture and Landscape Food Management P144497 Tanzania: 2015 Closed Tanzania AFE Agriculture and Expanding Rice Food Production 180 (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P144531 Climate Smart 2015 Closed China EAP Agriculture and Staple Crop Food Production P144994 EU/IPA 2015 Closed Montenegro ECA Agriculture and Agriculture Food and Rural Development Institution Building Project P145037 Agriculture Cluster 2015 Closed Uganda AFE Agriculture and Development Food Project P145055 Sustainable 2015 Closed Viet Nam EAP Agriculture and Agriculture Food Transformation Project P145162 Pasture and 2015 Closed Kyrgyz ECA Agriculture and Livestock Republic Food Management Improvement Project P145419 Creating Inclusive 2015 Closed India SAR Agriculture and Business Food Models for Marginalized Tribal Communities in Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    181 Odisha, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh P145621 Sustainable 2015 Closed Panama LAC Agriculture and Production Food Systems and Conservation of Biodiversity P145813 PK Sindh Irrigated 2015 Closed Pakistan SAR Agriculture and Agriculture Food Productivity Enhancement Project P146930 MZ Second 2015 Closed Mozambique AFE Agriculture and Agriculture Food Development Policy Operation (AgDPO-2) (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P147629 Agricultural 2015 Closed Myanmar EAP Agriculture and Development Food Support Project P147674 Regional Sahel 2015 Closed Western and AFW Agriculture and Pastoralism Central Africa Food Support Project P148114 Guinea 2015 Closed Guinea AFW Agriculture and Agricultural Food Support Project P148591 Second 2015 Closed Ethiopia AFE Agriculture and Agricultural Food Growth Project P148809 NI Caribbean 2015 Closed Nicaragua LAC Agriculture and Coast Food Food Security Project P148886 Second 2015 Closed Guinea- AFW Agriculture and Emergency Food Bissau Food Security Support Project P148927 Transformation of 2015 Closed Rwanda AFE Agriculture and Agriculture Sector Food Program Phase 3 Program-for- Results P149286 Uganda 2015 Closed Uganda AFE Agriculture and Multisectoral Food Food Security and Nutrition Project Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B P149553 Bangladesh 2015 Closed Bangladesh SAR Agriculture and NATP-2: National Food Agricultural Technology Program—Phase II Project P149605 Nuton Jibon 2015 Closed Bangladesh SAR Agriculture and Livelihood Food Improvement Project P151215 Emergency Food 2015 Closed Chad AFW Agriculture and and Livestock Food Crisis Response Project 182 (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P152024 Water for 2015 Closed Somalia AFE Agriculture and Agropastoral Food Livelihoods Pilot Project P152210 India: Andhra 2015 Closed India SAR Agriculture and Pradesh Rural Food Inclusive Growth Project P155039 Support to the 2015 Closed Africa AFR Agriculture and Rebuilding of Food the Agricultural Productivity in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia Project P125728 Southern 2016 Closed Tanzania AFE Agriculture and Agricultural Food Growth Corridor of Tanzania Investment Project P143307 AFR RI-Regional 2016 Closed Eastern and AFE Agriculture and Great Lakes Southern Food Integrated Africa Agriculture Development Project Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    183 P148737 Corredor Seco 2016 Active Honduras LAC Agriculture and Food Security Food Project P149620 Moz Agriculture 2016 Closed Mozambique AFE Agriculture and and Natural Food Resources Landscape Management Project P150631 KH-Land 2016 Closed Cambodia EAP Agriculture and Allocation for Food Social and Economic Development Project II (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P151469 Madagascar 2016 Closed Madagascar AFE Agriculture and Agriculture Rural Food Growth and Land Management Project P151744 Himachal Pradesh 2016 Closed India SAR Agriculture and Horticulture Food Development Project P151869 Burundi 2016 Closed Burundi AFE Agriculture and Coffee Sector Food Competitiveness Project P151963 Ecuador— 2016 Closed Ecuador LAC Agriculture and Sustainable Food Family Farming Modernization Project P153420 Climate Smart 2016 Closed Niger AFW Agriculture and Agriculture Food Support Project P153437 Smallholder 2016 Active Sierra Leone AFW Agriculture and Commercialization Food and Agribusiness Development Project P153713 Pastoralism and 2016 Closed Africa AFR Agriculture and Stability in the Food Sahel and Horn of Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B Africa (PASSHA) P156019 Sri Lanka 2016 Closed Sri Lanka SAR Agriculture and Agriculture Sector Food Modernization Project P159576 Bihar 2016 Closed India SAR Agriculture and Transformative Food Development Project P143795 Bhutan 2017 Closed Bhutan SAR Agriculture and Community- Food Based Rural Entrepreneurship Project 184 (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P146252 Indus Eco Region 2017 Closed Pakistan SAR Agriculture and Community Food Livelihood Project (IECLP) P148616 Agro-Processing, 2017 Closed Nigeria AFW Agriculture and Productivity Food Enhancement and Livelihood Improvement Support Project P150369 Ghana-Peri-Urban 2017 Closed Ghana AFW Agriculture and Commercial Food Vegetables Value Chains Project P153042 Inclusive 2017 Closed Philippines EAP Agriculture and Partnerships Food for Agricultural Competitiveness P153349 National 2017 Closed Kenya AFE Agriculture and Agricultural and Food Rural Inclusive Growth Project P153541 Shaanxi Poor Rural 2017 Closed China EAP Agriculture and Areas Community Food Development Project Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    185 P153613 Livestock Sector 2017 Closed Uzbekistan ECA Agriculture and Development Food Project P153892 Guangxi Rural 2017 Closed China EAP Agriculture and Poverty Alleviation Food Pilot Project P154447 Smallholder 2017 Closed Angola AFE Agriculture and Agriculture Food Development and Commercialization Project P154784 Kenya Climate 2017 Closed Kenya AFE Agriculture and Smart Agriculture Food Project P154908 Livestock 2017 Closed Cameroon AFW Agriculture and Development Food Project (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P155412 Integrated Dairy 2017 Active Kyrgyz ECA Agriculture and Productivity Republic Food Improvement Project P155513 Food Security 2017 Closed Bhutan SAR Agriculture and and Agriculture Food Productivity Project P155541 Sustainable 2017 Active Timor-Leste EAP Agriculture and Agriculture Food Productivity Improvement Project P158359 Agriculture 2017 Closed Armenia ECA Agriculture and Policy Monitoring Food and Evaluation Capacity Building Project P158434 Malawi 2017 Closed Malawi AFE Agriculture and Agricultural Food Commercialization Project P158798 Jharkhand 2017 Closed India SAR Agriculture and Opportunities for Food Harnessing Rural Growth Project P158958 OECS Regional 2017 Closed OECS coun- LAC Agriculture and Agriculture tries Food Competitiveness Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B Project P159737 National Targeted 2017 Closed Viet Nam EAP Agriculture and Programs Support Food Project P159760 MARD M&E 2017 Closed Viet Nam EAP Agriculture and Capacity Building Food for Agricultural Restructuring Plan Implementation (MECARP) P160570 Grain Storage 2017 Closed Mexico LAC Agriculture and and Information Food for Agricultural Competitiveness 186 (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P160606 Afghanistan 2017 Closed Afghanistan SAR Agriculture and Strategic Grain Food Reserve (SGR Project) P161490 Zambia Integrated 2017 Closed Zambia AFE Agriculture and Forest Landscape Food Project P161781 Great Lakes 2017 Active Burundi AFE Agriculture and Regional Food Integrated Agriculture Development Project P163559 South Sudan 2017 Closed South Sudan AFE Agriculture and Emergency Food Food and Nutrition Security Project P147009 Jiangxi Farm 2018 Active China EAP Agriculture and Produce Food Distribution System Development P147158 Paraiba 2018 Active Brazil LAC Agriculture and Sustainable Rural Food Development P151072 National 2018 Closed India SAR Agriculture and Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    187 Agricultural Higher Food Education Project P153115 Hunan Integrated 2018 Closed China EAP Agriculture and Management of Food Agricultural Land Pollution Project P155081 Support to 2018 Closed Côte d’Ivoire AFW Agriculture and Nutrition Sensitive Food Agriculture and Capacity Development of Small and Marginal Farmers P155617 Assam 2018 Active India SAR Agriculture and Agribusiness Food and Rural Transformation Project (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P156797 Nepal Livestock 2018 Closed Nepal SAR Agriculture and Sector Innovation Food Project P157702 Tamil Nadu Rural 2018 Active India SAR Agriculture and Transformation Food Project (TNRTP) P158346 Strengthening 2018 Closed Morocco MENA Agriculture and Agri-Food Value Food Chains P158522 Tamil Nadu 2018 Active India SAR Agriculture and Irrigated Food Agriculture Modernization Project P158810 Cashew 2018 Active Côte d’Ivoire AFW Agriculture and Value Chain Food Competitiveness Project P159052 Angola 2018 Active Angola AFE Agriculture and Commercial Food Agriculture Development Project (PDAC) P159382 Livestock and 2018 Active Ethiopia AFE Agriculture and Fisheries Sector Food Development Project P159476 Burkina Faso 2018 Closed Burkina Faso AFW Agriculture and Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B Livestock Sector Food Development Support Project P159835 Mexico: 2018 Active Mexico LAC Agriculture and Sustainable Food Productive Landscapes Project P159979 Commercial 2018 Closed Congo, Rep. AFW Agriculture and Agriculture Project Food P160408 Maharashtra 2018 Closed India SAR Agriculture and Project on Food Climate Resilient Agriculture 188 (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P160641 Mali Livestock 2018 Closed Mali AFW Agriculture and Sector Food Development Support Project (PADEL-M) P161473 Agriculture 2018 Active Lao PDR EAP Agriculture and Competitiveness Food Project P161876 Transformation of 2018 Closed Rwanda AFE Agriculture and Agriculture Sector Food Program 4 Phase 2 P162316 Integrated Risk 2018 Active Argentina LAC Agriculture and Management Food in the Rural Agroindustrial System P162446 Strengthening 2018 Closed Pakistan SAR Agriculture and Markets for Food Agriculture and Rural Transformation Punjab Program P162659 Smallholder 2018 Closed Yemen, Rep. MENA Agriculture and Agricultural Food Production Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    189 Restoration and Enhancement Project P162908 Resilient 2018 Closed Haiti LAC Agriculture and Productive Food Landscapes in Haiti P162956 Climate Resilient 2018 Closed Chad AFW Agriculture and Agriculture and Food Productivity Enhancement Project P163138 Guangxi Poverty 2018 Closed China EAP Agriculture and Reduction Food Program-for- Results (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P164424 Montenegro 2018 Active Montenegro ECA Agriculture and Second Food Institutional Development and Agriculture Strengthening Project P164431 Smallholder 2018 Closed Mozambique AFE Agriculture and Irrigated Food Agriculture and Market Access Project—IRRIGA 1 P164445 Second 2018 Closed Malawi AFE Agriculture and Agriculture Sector Food Wide Approach Support Project P166328 Emergency 2018 Active Dominica LAC Agriculture and Agricultural Food Livelihoods and Climate Resilience Project P160463 Andhra Pradesh 2019 Active India SAR Agriculture and Integrated Food Irrigation and Agriculture Transformation Project P160945 Smallholder 2019 Active Liberia AFW Agriculture and Agriculture Food Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B Transformation and Agribusiness Revitalization Project (STAR-P) P161246 Livestock 2019 Active Bangladesh SAR Agriculture and and Dairy Food Development Project P163260 DR Resilient 2019 Active Dominican LAC Agriculture and Agriculture Republic Food and Integrated Water Resources Management (continued) 190 Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P163264 Cambodia 2019 Active Cambodia EAP Agriculture and Agricultural Sector Food Diversification Project P163474 Khyber 2019 Active Pakistan SAR Agriculture and Pakhtunkhwa Food Irrigated Agriculture Improvement Project P163742 Climate Smart 2019 Active Sri Lanka SAR Agriculture and Irrigated Food Agriculture Project P163923 Adolescent 2019 Closed Malawi AFE Agriculture and Nutrition-Sensitive Food Agriculture Pilot Project P164052 Mali Drylands 2019 Active Mali AFW Agriculture and Development Food Project P164319 Food and 2019 Closed Nepal SAR Agriculture and Nutrition Security Food Enhancement Project P164326 Guinea Integrated 2019 Closed Guinea AFW Agriculture and Agricultural Food Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    191 Development Project (PDAIG) P164336 Lowlands 2019 Active Ethiopia AFE Agriculture and Livelihood Food Resilience Project P164443 Women’s 2019 Active Afghanistan SAR Agriculture and Economic Food Empowerment Rural Development Project P164486 Agricultural 2019 Active Eastern and AFE Agriculture and Productivity Southern Food Program for Africa Southern Africa— Angola and Lesotho (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P164509 Agricultural 2019 Closed Niger AFW Agriculture and and Livestock Food Transformation Project P164520 Sustainable 2019 Closed Rwanda AFE Agriculture and Agricultural Food Intensification and Food Security Project P165228 Smallholder 2019 Active Lesotho AFE Agriculture and Agriculture Food Development Project—II P165855 CAR—Agriculture 2019 Active Central AFW Agriculture and Recovery and African Food Agribusiness Republic Development Support Project (ARADSP) P166305 Ferghana Valley 2019 Active Uzbekistan ECA Agriculture and Rural Enterprise Food Development Project P166941 Accelerating 2019 Closed Ukraine ECA Agriculture and Private Investment Food in Agriculture Program P168385 Integrating 2019 Active Honduras LAC Agriculture and Innovation Food Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B for Rural Competitiveness in Honduras— COMRURAL II P158372 Agriculture 2020 Active Uzbekistan ECA Agriculture and Modernization Food Project P159292 Balochistan 2020 Active Pakistan SAR Agriculture and Livelihoods and Food Entrepreneurship Project (continued) 192 Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P163533 Odisha Integrated 2020 Active India SAR Agriculture and Irrigation Project Food for Climate Resilient Agriculture P164448 National Food 2020 Closed Myanmar EAP Agriculture and and Agriculture Food System Project P164967 Agriculture 2020 Active Senegal AFW Agriculture and and Livestock Food Competitiveness Program-for- Results P165129 Integrated 2020 Active India SAR Agriculture and Project for Source Food Sustainability and Climate Resilient Rain- Fed Agriculture in Himachal Pradesh P165873 Samoa Agriculture 2020 Active Samoa EAP Agriculture and and Fisheries Food Productivity and Marketing Project (SAFPROM) P165945 Livestock 2020 Active Mongolia EAP Agriculture and Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    193 Commercialization Food Project P166222 PNG Agriculture 2020 Active Papua New EAP Agriculture and Commercialization Guinea Food and Diversification Project P166279 Second Rural 2020 Active Jamaica LAC Agriculture and Economic Food Development Initiative (REDI II) Project P166853 Climate Smart 2020 Active China EAP Agriculture and Management Food of Grassland Ecosystems (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P167455 Ceara Rural 2020 Active Brazil LAC Agriculture and Sustainable Food Development and Competitiveness Phase II P167634 Serbia 2020 Active Serbia ECA Agriculture and Competitive Food Agriculture Project (SCAP) P167786 Strengthening 2020 Closed Serbia ECA Agriculture and Agriculture Sector Food Capacities for Evidence-Based Policy Making P167945 Burkina Faso 2020 Active Burkina Faso AFW Agriculture and Agriculture Food Resilience and Competitiveness Project P168014 Agriculture 2020 Active North ECA Agriculture and Modernization Macedonia Food Project P168061 Hubei Smart 2020 Active China EAP Agriculture and and Sustainable Food Agriculture Project P168132 Agricultural 2020 Active Benin AFW Agriculture and Competitiveness Food and Export Diversification Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B Project P168153 Market Access 2020 Active Paraguay LAC Agriculture and for Agricultural Food Products Project P168310 State of 2020 Active India SAR Agriculture and Maharashtra’s Food Agribusiness and Rural Transformation Project P169758 Henan Green 2020 Active China EAP Agriculture and Agriculture Fund Food Project (continued) 194 Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P170476 Exploring High- 2020 Closed Jordan MENA Agriculture and Value, Socially Food Inclusive and Water-Efficient Agriculture P171331 Land Allocation 2020 Active Cambodia EAP Agriculture and for Social and Food Economic Development Project III P173702 Emergency 2020 Active Eastern and AFE Agriculture and Locust Response Southern Food Program Africa P174170 Yemen Desert 2020 Closed Yemen, Rep. MENA Agriculture and Locust Response Food Project P161534 Climate-Smart 2021 Active Bangladesh SAR Agriculture and Agriculture Food and Water Management Project P162178 China Food Safety 2021 Active China EAP Agriculture and Improvement Food Project P164134 Nicaragua 2021 Active Nicaragua LAC Agriculture and Dry Corridor Food Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    195 Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture Project P164184 Guinea 2021 Active Guinea AFW Agriculture and Commercial Food Agriculture Development Project P166072 Valorization of 2021 Active Cameroon AFW Agriculture and Investments in Food the Valley of the Benue P169021 National 2021 Active Congo, Dem. AFE Agriculture and Agriculture Rep. Food Development Program (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P169120 South Sudan 2021 Active South Sudan AFE Agriculture and Resilient Food Agricultural Livelihoods Project P170215 Rural Enterprise 2021 Active Nepal SAR Agriculture and and Economic Food Development Project P170365 Sustainable 2021 Closed Kazakhstan ECA Agriculture and Livestock Food Development Program-for- Results P170419 Morocco Green 2021 Active Morocco MENA Agriculture and Generation Food Program-for- Results P170645 Chhattisgarh 2021 Active India SAR Agriculture and Inclusive Rural Food and Accelerated Agriculture Growth Project P171613 Côte d’Ivoire 2021 Active Côte d’Ivoire AFW Agriculture and Agri-Food Sector Food Development Project P173197 Regional Sahel 2021 Active Western and AFW Agriculture and Pastoralism Central Africa Food Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B Support Project II P173398 Accelerating 2021 Active Western and AFW Agriculture and Impacts of CGIAR Central Africa Food Climate Research for Africa (AICCRA) P173480 Responding to 2021 Closed Guatemala LAC Agriculture and COVID-19: Modern Food and Resilient Agri- Food Value Chains P174002 Sustainable Rural 2021 Active Mozambique AFE Agriculture and Economy Program Food (continued) 196 Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P174017 Support to 2021 Active Tunisia MENA Agriculture and Economic Food Recovery and Job Creation in the Agri-Food Sector and Rural Space P174314 Locust 2021 Closed Pakistan SAR Agriculture and Emergency and Food Food Security Project P174328 Innovation 2021 Active Honduras LAC Agriculture and for Rural Food Competitiveness Project— COMRURAL III P174336 Guinea-Bissau 2021 Closed Guinea- AFW Agriculture and Emergency Food Bissau Food Security Project P174348 Emergency 2021 Active Afghanistan SAR Agriculture and Agriculture and Food Food Supply Project P174546 Emergency 2021 Active Eastern and AFE Agriculture and Locust Response Southern Food Project Africa P175263 Liberia: Rural 2021 Active Liberia AFW Agriculture and Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    197 Economic Food Transformation Project P175641 Support to 2021 Closed Tunisia MENA Agriculture and Economic Food Recovery and Job Creation in the Agri-Food Sector and Rural North West P175645 Support to 2021 Closed Tunisia MENA Agriculture and Economic Food Recovery and Job Creation in the Agri-Food Sector and Rural South (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P175820 Resilience, 2021 Active Bangladesh SAR Agriculture and Entrepreneurship Food and Livelihood Improvement Project P175952 Strengthening 2021 Active Tajikistan ECA Agriculture and Resilience of the Food Agriculture Sector Project P176129 Yemen Food 2021 Active Yemen, Rep. MENA Agriculture and Security Response Food and Resilience Project P176754 Central African 2021 Active Central AFW Agriculture and Republic (CAR) African Food Emergency Food Republic Crisis Response Project P160865 Livestock 2022 Active Nigeria AFW Agriculture and Productivity Food and Resilience Support Project P171266 Agriculture 2022 Active Bosnia and ECA Agriculture and Resilience and Herzegovina Food Competitiveness Project P171462 Commercialization 2022 Active Rwanda AFE Agriculture and and De-Risking Food for Agricultural Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B Transformation Project P172187 Rejuvenating 2022 Active India SAR Agriculture and Watersheds Food for Agricultural Resilience Through Innovative Development P172592 Climate Resilient 2022 Active Belize LAC Agriculture and and Sustainable Food Agriculture Project P172769 West Africa Food 2022 Active Western and AFW Agriculture and System Resilience Central Africa Food Program (FSRP) 198 (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P173043 Solomon Islands 2022 Active Solomon EAP Agriculture and Agriculture Islands Food and Rural Transformation Project P173070 Gambia Inclusive 2022 Active Gambia, The AFW Agriculture and and Resilient Food Agricultural Value Chain Development Project (GIRAV) P173487 Agriculture 2022 Active Indonesia EAP Agriculture and Value Chain Food Development Project (ICARE) P174951 Cambodia 2022 Active Cambodia EAP Agriculture and Sustainable Food Livelihood for Indigenous Communities Project (CSLICP) P175011 Türkiye Climate 2022 Active Türkiye ECA Agriculture and Smart and Food Competitive Agricultural Growth Project Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    199 (TUCSAP) P176017 Second Rural 2022 Active Uzbekistan ECA Agriculture and Enterprise Food Development Project P176232 Uruguay Agro- 2022 Active Uruguay LAC Agriculture and Ecological and Food Climate Resilient Systems Project P176758 National 2022 Active Kenya AFE Agriculture and Agricultural Food Value Chain Development Project (NAVCDP) P176905 Climate Intelligent 2022 Active Argentina LAC Agriculture and and Inclusive Food Agri-Food Systems Project (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P177072 Emergency 2022 Active Haiti LAC Agriculture and Resilient Food Agriculture for Food Security Project P177305 Smallholder 2022 Active Angola AFE Agriculture and Agricultural Food Transformation Project P177590 Green Agricultural 2022 Active China EAP Agriculture and and Rural Food Revitalization Program-for- Results—Phase I P177782 Emergency 2022 Active Cameroon AFW Agriculture and Project to Combat Food the Food Crisis in Cameroon P178280 Emergency Food 2022 Active Afghanistan SAR Agriculture and Security Project Food P178566 Food Systems 2022 Active Eastern and AFE Agriculture and Resilience Southern Food Program for Africa Eastern and Southern Africa P178866 Lebanon: 2022 Closed Lebanon MENA Agriculture and Wheat Supply Food Emergency Response Project Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B P178926 Emergency 2022 Active Egypt, Arab MENA Agriculture and Food Security Rep. Food and Resilience Support Project P179010 Tunisia 2022 Active Tunisia MENA Agriculture and Emergency Food Food Security Response Project P167946 Agriculture 2023 Active Jordan MENA Agriculture and Resilience, Food Value Chain Development and Innovation (ARDI) Program (continued) 200 Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P168847 Mauritania 2023 Active Mauritania AFW Agriculture and Agriculture Food Development and Innovation Support Project P170035 Agriculture 2023 Active Moldova ECA Agriculture and Governance, Food Growth and Resilience Investment Project P172497 Sustainable 2023 Active Brazil LAC Agriculture and Multiple Use Food Landscape Consortia in Brazil P173296 Uganda Climate 2023 Active Uganda AFE Agriculture and Smart Agricultural Food Transformation Project P173866 Mindanao 2023 Active Philippines EAP Agriculture and Inclusive Food Agriculture Development Project P175269 Rural Livelihoods 2023 Active Madagascar AFE Agriculture and Productivity and Food Resilience Project Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    201 P175672 Innovation for 2023 Active Bolivia LAC Agriculture and Resilient Food Food Systems (Alianzas Rurales—PAR III) Project P176374 Program on 2023 Active Bangladesh SAR Agriculture and Agricultural Food and Rural Transformation for Nutrition, Entrepreneurship, and Resilience in Bangladesh (PARTNER) P176786 Punjab Resilient 2023 Active Pakistan SAR Agriculture and and Inclusive Food Agriculture Transformation (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P177671 Animal Health 2023 Active India SAR Agriculture and System Support Food for One Health Program (AHSSOH) P177816 Food Systems 2023 Active Eastern and AFE Agriculture and Resilience Southern Food Program for Africa Eastern and Southern Africa (Phase 3) FSRP P177825 Second 2023 Active Uzbekistan ECA Agriculture and Livestock Sector Food Development Project P178063 Panama 2023 Active Panama LAC Agriculture and Sustainable Rural Food Development and Biodiversity Conservation P178132 West Africa Food 2023 Active Western and AFW Agriculture and System Resilience Central Africa Food Program (FSRP) Phase 2 P178372 Zambia Growth 2023 Active Zambia AFE Agriculture and Opportunities Food Program P178418 Tripura Rural 2023 Active India SAR Agriculture and Economic Growth Food Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B and Service Delivery Project P178598 Burkina Faso 2023 Active Burkina Faso AFW Agriculture and Livestock Food Resilience and Competitiveness Project P178715 Climate Resilience 2023 Active Albania ECA Agriculture and and Agriculture Food Development Project (continued) 202 Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P178907 China Green 2023 Active China EAP Agriculture and Agricultural Food and Rural Revitalization Program-for- Results (Hubei and Hunan) P178988 Djibouti 2023 Active Djibouti MENA Agriculture and Emergency Food Food Security Crisis Response Project P179818 Tanzania 2023 Active Tanzania AFE Agriculture and Food Systems Food Resilience Program P180060 Ghana Tree Crop 2023 Active Ghana AFW Agriculture and Diversification Food Project P180334 Lebanon: Green 2023 Active Lebanon MENA Agriculture and Agri-Food Food Transformation for Economic Recovery (GATE) P180379 Philippine Rural 2023 Active Philippines EAP Agriculture and Development Food Project Scale-up Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    203 P155827 Eastern Province 2024 Active Zambia AFE Agriculture and Jurisdictional Food Sustainable Landscape Program— Emissions Reduction Project P174733 Virtual 2024 Active Mongolia EAP Agriculture and Cooperatives of Food Pastoral Livestock Communities P175723 Mato Grosso 2024 Active Brazil LAC Agriculture and Sustainable Food Development of Family Farming (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P176700 Connecting 2024 Active El Salvador LAC Agriculture and Farming Food Communities to Coastal Economies in El Balsamo— COSTA VIVA P177474 Piauí Pillars of 2024 Active Brazil LAC Agriculture and Growth and Social Food Inclusion Project 2 P178120 Resilient Agri- 2024 Active Kyrgyz ECA Agriculture and Food Clusters Republic Food Development Project P178836 Djibouti Agri- 2024 Active Djibouti MENA Agriculture and Food Value Chain Food Development Project P179003 Sindh Livestock 2024 Active Pakistan SAR Agriculture and and Aquaculture Food Sectors Transformation Project P179238 Chad Agribusiness 2024 Active Chad AFW Agriculture and and Rural Food Transformation Project P179276 Livestock and 2024 Active Niger AFW Agriculture and Agriculture Food Modernization Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B Project (LAMP) P179357 Uttarakhand 2024 Active India SAR Agriculture and Climate Food Responsive Rainfed Farming Project P179737 Improvement and 2024 Active Kosovo ECA Agriculture and Rehabilitation of Food Irrigation Systems Project P180076 Lowlands 2024 Active Ethiopia AFE Agriculture and Livelihood Food Resilience Project, Phase Two 204 (LLRP II) (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P180244 West Africa Food 2024 Active Western and AFW Agriculture and System Resilience Central Africa Food Program (FSRP) Phase 3 P180732 Ukraine 2024 Active Ukraine ECA Agriculture and Agriculture Food Recovery Inclusive Support Emergency (ARISE) Project P181021 Sustainable 2024 Active China EAP Agriculture and Fodder Production Food and Low Methane Livestock Development Program-for- Results P181077 Second 2024 Active Rwanda AFE Agriculture and Sustainable Food Agricultural Intensification and Food Security Project P181087 Food and 2024 Active Nepal SAR Agriculture and Nutrition Security Food Enhancement Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    205 Project II P181563 Technical 2024 Active Bangladesh SAR Agriculture and Assistance for Food Repurposing of Agricultural Public Support Towards a Sustainable Food System Transformation in Bangladesh Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: AFE = Eastern and Southern Africa; AFR = Africa; AFW = Western and Central Africa; EAP = East Asia and Pacific; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; EU = European Union; GEF = Global Environment Facility;IPA = Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; MENA = Middle East and North Africa; OECS = Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States; SAR = South Asia. Table B.3. World Bank Forest Production Portfolio Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P130474 Management and 2015 Closed Belize LAC ENV Protection of Key Biodiversity Areas in Belize P130492 Environmental 2015 Closed Albania ECA ENV Services P132846 Forests and 2015 Closed Argentina LAC ENV Community P144254 Zambia COMACO 2015 Closed Zambia AFE AGR Landscape Management P147760 Forestry 2015 Closed Belarus ECA ENV Development Project P148183 Ghana FIP— 2015 Closed Ghana AFW ENV Enhancing Natural Forest and Agroforest Landscapes Project P150503 MG- 2015 Closed Madagascar AFE MTI Reengagement DPO P144269 Promoting 2016 Closed Indonesia EAP ENV Sustainable Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B CBNRM and Institutional Development P148499 Saweto Dedicated 2016 Closed Peru LAC ENV Grant Mechanism in Peru P149049 Forest Dependent 2016 Closed Congo, Dem. AFE ENV Communities Rep. Support Project P149434 Local Forest 2016 Closed Burkina Faso AFW ENV Communities Support Project (continued) 206 Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P149620 Moz Agriculture 2016 Closed Mozambique AFE AGR and Natural Resources Landscape Management Project P151102 Integrated Forest 2016 Closed Kyrgyz ECA ENV Ecosystem Republic Management P151869 Burundi 2016 Closed Burundi AFE AGR Coffee Sector Competitiveness Project P154114 Liberia Forest 2016 Closed Liberia AFW ENV Sector Project P157919 Tunisia Forest 2016 Closed Tunisia MENA ENV Investment Plan Preparation Project P145316 Dedicated Grant 2017 Closed Ghana AFW ENV Mechanism for Local Communities Project P151030 Integrated 2017 Closed Tunisia MENA ENV Landscapes Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    207 Management in Lagging Regions Project P156475 Oromia National 2017 Closed Ethiopia AFE ENV Regional State Forested Landscape Program P159956 Green Resilient 2017 Closed Lao PDR EAP ENV Growth DPF P160033 Mozambique 2017 Closed Mozambique AFE ENV Forest Investment Project P160523 Nepal—Forest 2017 Closed Nepal SAR ENV Investment Plan Preparation Grant (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P161015 Energy Service 2017 Closed Benin AFW EAE Improvement Project P161490 Zambia Integrated 2017 Closed Zambia AFE AGR Forest Landscape Project P133803 India Ecosystems 2018 Closed India SAR ENV Service Improvement Project P151604 Mexico Dedicated 2018 Closed Mexico LAC ENV Grant Mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities P152322 Sudan—FCPF 2018 Closed Sudan AFE ENV REDD Readiness P157836 Meghalaya 2018 Closed India SAR ENV Community-Led Landscapes Management Project P158000 Amazon 2018 Active Brazil LAC ENV Sustainable Landscapes Project P159870 Zhejiang Qiandao 2018 Closed China EAP ENV Lake and Xin’an Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B River Basin Water Resources and Ecological Environment Protection Project P160680 Sustainable 2018 Closed Colombia LAC ENV Low-Carbon Development in Orinoquia Region Project P162789 Forest Investment 2018 Closed Côte d’Ivoire AFW ENV Program (continued) 208 Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P163358 Improving the 2018 Closed Rwanda AFE ENV Efficiency and Sustainability of Charcoal and Woodfuel Value Chains P164661 Strengthening 2018 Active Mexico LAC ENV Entrepreneurship in Productive Forest Landscapes P161996 Sustainable 2019 Active Bangladesh SAR ENV Forests & Livelihoods (SUFAL) Project P163023 Integrated Forest 2019 Active Peru LAC ENV Landscape Management Project in Atalaya, Ucayali P164764 Transforming 2019 Active Zambia AFE ENV Landscapes for Resilience and Development in Zambia P165344 Cambodia 2019 Active Cambodia EAP ENV Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    209 Sustainable Landscape and Ecotourism Project P166839 Lao PDR Green 2019 Closed Lao PDR EAP MTI Resilient Growth DPO 2 P167678 Gazetted Forests 2019 Active Benin AFW ENV Management Project P163004 Dedicated Grant 2020 Closed Côte d’Ivoire AFW ENV Mechanism for Côte d’Ivoire P164047 Forest Ecosystem 2020 Closed China EAP ENV Improvement in the Upper Reaches of Yangtze River Basin Program (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P165651 Sustainable 2020 Active Belarus ECA EAE Energy Scale-up Project P165742 ID: Strengthening 2020 Active Indonesia EAP ENV of Social Forestry in Indonesia P169505 Paraguay First 2020 Closed Paraguay LAC MTI Economic Management Development Policy Loan P169828 CDI Sustainable 2020 Closed Côte d’Ivoire AFW MTI and Inclusive Growth DPF1 P170466 Uganda Investing 2020 Active Uganda AFE ENV in Forests and Protected Areas for Climate-Smart Development Project P171006 Climate Change 2020 Closed Viet Nam EAP ENV and Green Growth DPF P162605 North Central 2021 Active Viet Nam EAP ENV Region ER Program P163484 Fiji Carbon Fund 2021 Active Fiji EAP ENV ER Program Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B P166244 ID: East 2021 Active Indonesia EAP ENV Kalimantan Project for ER Results P166672 ID: Jambi 2021 Active Indonesia EAP ENV Sustainable Landscape Management Project (J-SLMP) P169524 Albania Fiscal 2021 Closed Albania ECA MTI Sustainability and Growth DPF P170559 Lao Landscapes 2021 Active Lao PDR EAP ENV and Livelihoods Project 210 (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P170798 Forests for 2021 Active Nepal SAR ENV Prosperity Project P171577 Kazakhstan 2021 Active Kazakhstan ECA ENV Resilient Landscapes Restoration Project P172455 First Amazonas 2021 Closed Brazil LAC ENV Fiscal and Environmental Sustainability Programmatic DPF P174002 Sustainable Rural 2021 Active Mozambique AFE AGR Economy Program P174385 Second Ethiopia 2021 Active Ethiopia AFE ENV Resilient Landscapes and Livelihoods Project P174546 Emergency 2021 Active Eastern and AFE AGR Locust Response Southern Project Africa P174635 Northern 2021 Active Mozambique AFE ENV Mozambique Rural Resilience Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    211 Project P166189 Northern Congo 2022 Active Congo, Rep. AFW ENV Agroforestry Project P170482 Communal 2022 Active Burkina Faso AFW ENV Climate Action and Landscape Management Project P170848 Integrated 2022 Active Dominican LAC ENV Landscape Republic Management in Dominican Republic (continued) Watersheds Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P171524 RESILAND 2022 Active Tajikistan ECA ENV CA+ Program: Tajikistan Resilient Landscape Restoration Project P171933 Ghana Landscape 2022 Active Ghana AFW ENV Restoration and Small-Scale Mining Project P172079 Connecting 2022 Active Mexico LAC ENV Watershed Health with Sustainable Livestock and Agroforestry Production Project P174135 RESILAND 2022 Active Uzbekistan ECA ENV CA+ Program: Uzbekistan Resilient Landscapes Restoration Project P175669 Sustainable 2022 Active Argentina LAC ENV Recovery of Landscapes and Livelihoods in Argentina Project P175982 Forest Investment 2022 Active Côte d’Ivoire AFW ENV Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B Project, Phase 2 P176788 Equitable and 2022 Closed Colombia LAC POV Green Recovery DPF P151294 Oromia Forested 2023 Active Ethiopia AFE ENV Landscape Program— Emission Reduction Project P171720 Dedicated Grant 2023 Active Nepal SAR ENV Mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in 212 Nepal (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P175269 Rural Livelihoods 2023 Active Madagascar AFE AGR Productivity and Resilience Project P175915 Senegal: Natural 2023 Active Senegal AFW ENV Resources Management Project P177041 Mali Landscape 2023 Active Mali AFW ENV Restoration Project P177043 Niger Integrated 2023 Active Niger AFW ENV Landscape Management Project P177776 First Nepal 2023 Closed Nepal SAR ENV Green, Resilient and Inclusive Programmatic DPC P178642 Forest and 2023 Active Congo, Dem. AFE ENV Savanna Rep. Restoration Investment Program P179008 PROGREEN 2023 Active Kazakhstan ECA ENV Kazakhstan Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    213 Resilient Landscapes Restoration Project P180060 Ghana Tree Crop 2023 Active Ghana AFW AGR Diversification Project P155827 Eastern Province 2024 Active Zambia AFE AGR Jurisdictional Sustainable Landscape Program—ER Project (continued) Project ID Approval Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P178161 Volcanoes 2024 Active Rwanda AFE ENV Community Resilience Project Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: AFE = Eastern and Southern Africa; AFW = Western and Central Africa; AGR = Agriculture and Food; CBNRM = Community-Based Natural Resources Management; DPC = development poli- cy credit; DPF = development policy financing; DPO = development policy operation; EAE = Energy and Extractives; EAP = East Asia and Pacific; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; ENV = Environment, Natural Resources, and Blue Economy; ER = emission reduction; FCPF = Forest Carbon Partnership Facility; FIP = Forest Investment Program; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; MENA = Middle East and North Africa; MTI = Macroeconomics, Trade, and Investment; POV = Poverty and Equity; REDD = Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation; SAR = South Asia. Table B.4. World Bank Fisheries and Aquaculture Portfolio Approval Project ID Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P126773 West Africa 2015 Closed Western and AFW Environment, Region Fisheries Central Africa Natural Program AF Resources, and Guinea, Sierra Blue Economy Leone and Liberia P128437 Ocean 2015 Closed World Other Environment, Partnerships Natural for Sustainable Resources, and Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B Fisheries and Blue Economy Biodiversity Conservation P131655 Pacific Islands 2015 Closed Pacific EAP Environment, Regional Islands Natural Oceanscape Resources, and Program Forum Blue Economy Fisheries Agency P132123 AFCC2/RI-South 2015 Closed Eastern and AFE Environment, West Indian Southern Natural Ocean Fisheries Africa Resources, and Governance and Blue Economy Shared Growth Project 1 214 (continued) Approval Project ID Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P132317 Philippine Rural 2015 Active Philippines EAP Agriculture and Development Food Project P148647 Mekong 2016 Closed Cambodia EAP Water Integrated Water Resources Management Project—Phase III P149553 Bangladesh 2015 Closed Bangladesh SAR Agriculture and NATP-2: National Food Agricultural Technology Program—Phase II Project P149963 Tonga—Second 2015 Closed Tonga EAP Macroeconomics, Economic Trade, and Reform Support Investment Operation P149992 Mozambique— 2015 Closed Mozambique AFE Environment, Artisanal Natural Fisheries and Resources, and Climate Change Blue Economy P151058 Nouadhibou Eco- 2016 Closed Mauritania AFW Finance, Seafood Cluster Competitiveness Project and Innovation P151754 Pacific Islands 2015 Closed Micronesia, EAP Environment, Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    215 Regional Fed. Sts. Natural Oceanscape Resources, and Program— Blue Economy Federated States of Micronesia P151760 Pacific Islands 2015 Closed Marshall EAP Environment, Regional Islands Natural Oceanscape Resources, and Program— Blue Economy Republic of the Marshall Islands P151777 Pacific Islands 2015 Closed Solomon EAP Environment, Regional Islands Natural Oceanscape Resources, and Program— Blue Economy Solomon Islands (continued) Approval Project ID Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P151780 Pacific Islands 2015 Closed Tuvalu EAP Environment, Regional Natural Oceanscape Resources, and Program—Tuvalu Blue Economy P153370 Second South 2017 Closed Southern AFE Environment, West Indian Africa Natural Ocean Fisheries Resources, and Governance Blue Economy and Shared Growth Project— Madagascar P153466 AFFC2/RI- 2015 Closed Africa Africa Environment, Lake Victoria Natural Environmental Resources, and Management Blue Economy Project APL-1 AF P155642 Third South 2018 Closed Eastern and AFE Environment, West Indian Southern Natural Ocean Fisheries Africa Resources, and Governance Blue Economy and Shared Growth Project (SWIOFish3) P155902 National Program 2017 Closed Peru LAC Environment, for Innovation Natural in Fisheries and Resources, and Aquaculture Blue Economy P155961 Regional 2016 Closed Africa Africa Environment, Partnership for Natural Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B African Fisheries Resources, and Policy Reform Blue Economy (RAFIP) P157801 Sustainable 2017 Closed Maldives SAR Environment, Fisheries Natural Resources Resources, and Development Blue Economy Project (Fourth South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Governance and Shared Growth Project) 216 (continued) Approval Project ID Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P159382 Livestock and 2018 Active Ethiopia AFE Agriculture and Fisheries Sector Food Development Project P159447 Additional 2018 Closed Lao PDR EAP Water Financing for Mekong Integrated Water Resources Management (Lao PDR) P159637 PASA AF 2017 Closed Togo AFW Agriculture and Food P161534 Climate-Smart 2021 Active Bangladesh SAR Agriculture and Agriculture Food and Water Management Project P161568 Bangladesh 2019 Active Bangladesh SAR Environment, Sustainable Natural Coastal and Resources, and Marine Fisheries Blue Economy P161794 Fourth Economic 2018 Closed Kiribati EAP Macroeconomics, Reform Trade, and Development Investment Policy Operation Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    217 P163980 Marine Fisheries 2020 Active Kenya AFE Environment, and Socio- Natural Economic Resources, and Development Blue Economy Project P164257 Promoting 2018 Closed Jamaica LAC Environment, Community- Natural Based Climate Resources, and Resilience in the Blue Economy Fisheries Sector P164424 Montenegro 2018 Active Montenegro ECA Agriculture and Second Food Institutional Development and Agriculture Strengthening Project (continued) Approval Project ID Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P164941 Tonga: Pathway 2019 Active Tonga EAP Environment, to Sustainable Natural Oceans Resources, and Blue Economy P165821 Kiribati: Pacific 2020 Active Kiribati EAP Environment, Islands Regional Natural Oceanscape Resources, and Program Blue Economy P165873 Samoa 2020 Active Samoa EAP Agriculture and Agriculture Food and Fisheries Productivity and Marketing Project (SAFPROM) P166328 Emergency 2018 Active Dominica LAC Agriculture and Agricultural Food Livelihoods and Climate Resilience Project P167263 Kiribati Fifth 2019 Closed Kiribati EAP Macroeconomics, Economic Trade, and Reform Investment Development Policy Operation P168475 Costa Rica 2020 Active Costa Rica LAC Environment, Sustainable Natural Fisheries Resources, and Development Blue Economy Project Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B P171321 Caribbean Ocean 2020 Closed Caribbean LAC Environment, and Aquaculture Natural Sustainability Resources, and FaciliTy (COAST) Blue Economy Project P172012 Liberia 2022 Active Liberia AFW Environment, Sustainable Natural Management of Resources, and Fisheries Project Blue Economy P173391 Oceans for 2023 Active Indonesia EAP Environment, Prosperity Natural Project—LAUTRA Resources, and Blue Economy 218 (continued) Approval Project ID Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P173866 Mindanao 2023 Active Philippines EAP Agriculture and Inclusive Food Agriculture Development Project P174137 Philippine 2023 Active Philippines EAP Environment, Fisheries Natural and Coastal Resources, and Resiliency Project Blue Economy P174798 Fisheries Sector 2022 Active India SAR Environment, COVID-19 Natural Recovery Project Resources, and Blue Economy P175915 Senegal: Natural 2023 Active Senegal AFW Environment, Resources Natural Management Resources, and Project Blue Economy P177239 Solomon 2022 Active Solomon EAP Environment, Islands: Pacific Islands Natural Islands Regional Resources, and Oceanscape Blue Economy Program— Second Phase for Economic Resilience P177661 Forum Fisheries 2024 Active Pacific EAP Environment, Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    219 Agency: Pacific Islands Natural Islands Regional Resources, and Oceanscape Blue Economy Program— Second Phase for Economic Resilience P178032 Somali 2024 Active Somalia AFE Environment, Sustainable Natural Fisheries Resources, and Development Blue Economy Project—Badmaal P178143 Program on 2022 Active Middle East MENA Environment, Sustainable and North Natural (continued) Fishery Africa Resources, and Development in Blue Economy Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (SFISH) Approval Project ID Practice Country Project Project Region Global Status Name Fiscal Year P178544 Pacific Islands 2023 Active Marshall EAP Environment, Regional Islands Natural Oceanscape Resources, and Program— Blue Economy Second Phase for Economic Resilience P179242 Transforming 2023 Active South Asia SAR Environment, Fisheries Sector Natural Management Resources, and in South-West Blue Economy Indian Ocean Region and Maldives Project (TransFORM, SWIOFish5) P179599 Pacific Islands 2024 Active Tuvalu EAP Environment, Regional Natural Oceanscape Resources, and Program— Blue Economy Second Phase for Economic Resilience: Tuvalu P179612 Accelerating 2023 Active Morocco MENA Environment, Blue Economy Natural Development in Resources, and the Kingdom of Blue Economy Morocco P180379 Philippine Rural 2023 Active Philippines EAP Agriculture and Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix B Development Food Project Scale-up Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: AF = additional financing; AFE = Eastern and Southern Africa; AFW = Western and Central Africa;APL = adaptable program loan; EAP = East Asia and Pacific; ECA = Europe and Central Asia; LAC = Latin America and the Caribbean; MENA = Middle East and North Africa; SAR = South Asia. 220 Appendix C. Country Diagnostics Table C.1. List of Country Partnership Frameworks Lending CPF No. Economy Region Income Group Category Cycle 1 Afghanistan South Asia Low income IDA FY17–20 2 Albania Europe and Central Upper-middle IBRD FY23–27 Asia income 3 Argentina Latin America and the Upper-middle IBRD FY19–22 Caribbean income 4 Armenia Europe and Central Upper-middle IBRD FY19–23 Asia income 5 Azerbaijan Europe and Central Upper-middle IBRD FY16–20 Asia income 6 Bangladesh South Asia Lower-middle IDA FY23–27 income 7 Belarus Europe and Central Upper-middle IBRD FY18–22 Asia income 8 Belize Latin America and the Upper-middle Blend FY18–22 Caribbean income 9 Benin Western and Central Lower-middle IDA FY19–23 Africa income 10 Bhutan South Asia Lower-middle IDA FY21–24 income 11 Bolivia Latin America and the Lower-middle IBRD FY23–26 Caribbean income 12 Bosnia and Europe and Central Upper-middle IBRD FY23–27 Herzegovina Asia income 13 Botswana Eastern and Southern Upper-middle IBRD FY16–20 Africa income 14 Brazil Latin America and the Upper-middle IBRD FY24–28 Caribbean income 15 Bulgaria Europe and Central High income IBRD FY25–29 Asia 16 Burkina Faso Western and Central Low income IDA FY18–23 Africa 17 Burundi Eastern and Southern Low income IDA FY19–23 Africa 18 Cabo Verde Western and Central Lower-middle Blend FY20–25 Africa income 221 (continued) Lending CPF No. Economy Region Income Group Category Cycle 19 Cambodia East Asia and Pacific Lower-middle IDA FY25–29 income 20 Cameroon Western and Central Lower-middle Blend FY24–29 Africa income 21 Caribbean Latin America and the FY22–25 small states Caribbean 22 Central Western and Central Low income IDA FY21–25 African Africa Republic 23 Chad Western and Central Low income IDA FY16–20 Africa 24 Chile Latin America and the High income IBRD FY24–27 Caribbean 25 China East Asia and Pacific Upper-middle IBRD FY20–25 income 26 Colombia Latin America and the Upper-middle IBRD FY24–27 Caribbean income 27 Comoros Eastern and Southern Lower-middle IDA FY20–24 Africa income 28 Congo, Dem. Eastern and Southern Low income IDA FY22–26 Rep. Africa 29 Congo, Rep. Western and Central Lower-middle Blend FY20–24 Africa income 30 Costa Rica Latin America and the Upper-middle IBRD FY24–28 Caribbean income 31 Côte d’Ivoire Western and Central Lower-middle IDA FY23–27 Africa income 32 Croatia Europe and Central High income IBRD FY19–24 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix C Asia 33 Djibouti Middle East and Lower-middle IDA FY22–26 North Africa income 34 Dominican Latin America and the Upper-middle IBRD FY22–26 Republic Caribbean income 35 Ecuador Latin America and the Upper-middle IBRD FY19–23 Caribbean income 36 Egypt, Arab Middle East and Lower-middle IBRD FY23–27 Rep. North Africa income 37 El Salvador Latin America and the Upper-middle IBRD FY23–27 Caribbean income 38 Eswatini Eastern and Southern Lower-middle Blend FY24–28 Africa income 39 Ethiopia Eastern and Southern Low income IDA FY18–22 222 Africa (continued) Lending CPF No. Economy Region Income Group Category Cycle 40 Fiji East Asia and Pacific Upper-middle Blend FY21–24 income 41 Gabon Western and Central Upper-middle IBRD FY23–27 Africa income 42 Gambia, The Western and Central Low income IDA FY22–26 Africa 43 Georgia Europe and Central Upper-middle IBRD FY19–22 Asia income 44 Ghana Western and Central Lower-middle IDA FY22–26 Africa income 45 Guatemala Latin America and the Upper-middle IBRD FY24–27 Caribbean income 46 Guinea Western and Central Lower-middle IDA FY18–23 Africa income 47 Guinea- Western and Central Low income IDA FY18–21 Bissau Africa 48 Guyana Latin America and the High income IDA FY23–26 Caribbean 49 Haiti Latin America and the Lower-middle IDA FY16–19 Caribbean income 50 Honduras Latin America and the Lower-middle IDA FY23–27 Caribbean income 51 India South Asia Lower-middle IBRD FY18–22 income 52 Indonesia East Asia and Pacific Upper-middle IBRD FY21–25 income Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    223 53 Iraq Middle East and Upper-middle IBRD FY22–26 North Africa income 54 Jamaica Latin America and the Upper-middle IBRD FY24–27 Caribbean income 55 Jordan Middle East and Lower-middle IBRD FY24–29 North Africa income 56 Kazakhstan Europe and Central Upper-middle IBRD FY20–25 Asia income 57 Kenya Eastern and Southern Lower-middle Blend FY23–28 Africa income 58 Kosovo Europe and Central Upper-middle IDA FY23–27 Asia income 59 Kyrgyz Europe and Central Lower-middle IDA FY24–28 Republic Asia income 60 Lao PDR East Asia and Pacific Lower-middle IDA FY23–26 income (continued) Lending CPF No. Economy Region Income Group Category Cycle 61 Lebanon Middle East and Lower-middle IBRD FY17–22 North Africa income 62 Lesotho Eastern and Southern Lower-middle IDA FY24–28 Africa income 63 Liberia Western and Central Low income IDA FY19–24 Africa 64 Madagascar Eastern and Southern Low income IDA FY23–27 Africa 65 Malawi Eastern and Southern Low income IDA FY21–25 Africa 66 Maldives South Asia Upper-middle IDA FY23–27 income 67 Mali Western and Central Low income IDA FY16–19 Africa 68 Mauritania Western and Central Lower-middle IDA FY18–23 Africa income 69 Mauritius Eastern and Southern Upper-middle IBRD FY24–28 Africa income 70 Mexico Latin America and the Upper-middle IBRD FY20–25 Caribbean income 71 Moldova Europe and Central Upper-middle IBRD FY23–27 Asia income 72 Mongolia East Asia and Pacific Upper-middle IBRD FY21–25 income 73 Montenegro Europe and Central Upper-middle IBRD FY25–29 Asia income 74 Morocco Middle East and Lower-middle IBRD FY19–24 North Africa income Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix C 75 Mozambique Eastern and Southern Low income IDA FY23–27 Africa 76 Myanmar East Asia and Pacific Lower-middle IDA FY20–23 income 77 Namibia Eastern and Southern Upper-middle IBRD FY25–29 Africa income 78 Nepal South Asia Lower-middle IDA FY19–23 income 79 Nicaragua Latin America and the Lower-middle IDA FY18–22 Caribbean income 80 Niger Western and Central Low income IDA FY18–22 Africa 81 Nigeria Western and Central Lower-middle Blend FY21–25 Africa income 224 (continued) Lending CPF No. Economy Region Income Group Category Cycle 82 North Europe and Central Upper-middle IBRD FY24–28 Macedonia Asia income 83 Pacific island East Asia and Pacific FY17–21 small states 84 Panama Latin America and the High income IBRD FY24–28 Caribbean 85 Papua New East Asia and Pacific Lower-middle Blend FY19–23 Guinea income 86 Paraguay Latin America and the Upper-middle IBRD FY19–23 Caribbean income 87 Peru Latin America and the Upper-middle IBRD FY23–27 Caribbean income 88 Philippines East Asia and Pacific Lower-middle IBRD FY20–23 income 89 Poland Europe and Central High income IBRD FY19–24 Asia 90 Romania Europe and Central High income IBRD FY25–29 Asia 91 Rwanda Eastern and Southern Low income IDA FY21–26 Africa 92 São Tomé Eastern and Southern Lower-middle IDA FY24–29 and Príncipe Africa income 93 Senegal Western and Central Lower-middle IDA FY20–24 Africa income 94 Serbia Europe and Central Upper-middle IBRD FY22–26 Asia income Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    225 95 Seychelles Eastern and Southern High income IBRD FY25–30 Africa 96 Sierra Leone Western and Central Low income IDA FY21–26 Africa 97 Solomon East Asia and Pacific Lower-middle IDA FY18–23 Islands income 98 Somalia Eastern and Southern Low income IDA FY24–28 Africa 99 South Africa Eastern and Southern Upper-middle IBRD FY22–26 Africa income 100 Sri Lanka South Asia Lower-middle IDA FY24–27 income 101 Tajikistan Europe and Central Lower-middle IDA FY19–23 Asia income 102 Tanzania Eastern and Southern Lower-middle IDA FY25–29 Africa income (continued) Lending CPF No. Economy Region Income Group Category Cycle 103 Thailand East Asia and Pacific Upper-middle IBRD FY19–22 income 104 Timor-Leste East Asia and Pacific Lower-middle Blend FY20–24 income 105 Togo Western and Central Low income IDA FY25–29 Africa 106 Tunisia Middle East and Lower-middle IBRD FY23–27 North Africa income 107 Türkiye Europe and Central Upper-middle IBRD FY24–28 Asia income 108 Uganda Eastern and Southern Low income IDA FY16–21 Africa 109 Ukraine Europe and Central Upper-middle IBRD FY17–21 Asia income 110 Uruguay Latin America and the High income IBRD FY23–27 Caribbean 111 Uzbekistan Europe and Central Lower-middle Blend FY22–26 Asia income 112 Viet Nam East Asia and Pacific Lower-middle IBRD FY18–22 income 113 Zambia Eastern and Southern Lower-middle IDA FY25–29 Africa income Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: CPF = Country Partnership Framework; IBRD = International Bank for Reconstruction and Development; IDA = International Development Association. Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix C Table C.2. List of Country Climate and Development Reports Lending CCDR No. Economy Region Income Group Category Year 1 Angola Eastern and Southern Lower-middle IBRD 2022 Africa income 2 Argentina Latin America and the Upper-middle IBRD 2022 Caribbean income 3 Armenia Europe and Central Upper-middle IBRD 2024 Asia income 4 Azerbaijan Europe and Central Upper-middle IBRD 2023 Asia income 5 Bangladesh South Asia Lower-middle IDA 2022 226 income (continued) Lending CCDR No. Economy Region Income Group Category Year 6 Benin Western and Central Lower-middle IDA 2023 Africa income 7 Brazil Latin America and the Upper-middle IBRD 2023 Caribbean income 8 Cabo Verde Western and Central Lower-middle Blend 2025 Africa income 9 Cambodia East Asia and Pacific Lower-middle IDA 2023 income 10 Cameroon Western and Central Lower-middle Blend 2022 Africa income 11 Caribbean Latin America and the 2024 small states Caribbean 12 China East Asia and Pacific Upper-middle IBRD 2022 income 13 Colombia Latin America and the Upper-middle IBRD 2023 Caribbean income 14 Congo, Dem. Eastern and Southern Low income IDA 2023 Rep. Africa 15 Congo, Rep. Western and Central Lower-middle Blend 2023 Africa income 16 Côte d’Ivoire Western and Central Lower-middle IDA 2023 Africa income 17 Djibouti Middle East and Lower-middle IDA 2024 North Africa income 18 Dominican Latin America and the Upper-middle IBRD 2023 Republic Caribbean income Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    227 19 Ecuador Latin America and the Upper-middle IBRD 2024 Caribbean income 20 Egypt, Arab Middle East and Lower-middle IBRD 2022 Rep. North Africa income 21 Ethiopia Eastern and Southern Low income IDA 2024 Africa 22 G5 Sahel Western and Central 2022 Africa 23 Ghana Western and Central Lower-middle IDA 2022 Africa income 24 Honduras Latin America and the Lower-middle IDA 2023 Caribbean income 25 Indonesia East Asia and Pacific Upper-middle IBRD 2023 income 26 Iraq Middle East and Upper-middle IBRD 2022 North Africa income (continued) Lending CCDR No. Economy Region Income Group Category Year 27 Jordan Middle East and Lower-middle IBRD 2022 North Africa income 28 Kazakhstan Europe and Central Upper-middle IBRD 2022 Asia income 29 Kenya Eastern and Southern Lower-middle Blend 2023 Africa income 30 Lebanon Middle East and Lower-middle IBRD 2024 North Africa income 31 Liberia Western and Central Low income IDA 2024 Africa 32 Madagascar Eastern and Southern Low income IDA 2024 Africa 33 Malawi Eastern and Southern Low income IDA 2022 Africa 34 Maldives South Asia Upper-middle IDA 2024 income 35 Moldova Europe and Central Upper-middle IBRD 2024 Asia income 36 Mongolia East Asia and Pacific Upper-middle IBRD 2024 income 37 Morocco Middle East and Lower-middle IBRD 2022 North Africa income 38 Mozambique Eastern and Southern Low income IDA 2023 Africa 39 Nepal South Asia Lower-middle IDA 2022 income 40 Pacific island East Asia and Pacific 2024 small states Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix C 41 Pakistan South Asia Lower-middle Blend 2022 income 42 Peru Latin America and the Upper-middle IBRD 2022 Caribbean income 43 Philippines East Asia and Pacific Lower-middle IBRD 2022 income 44 Poland Europe and Central High income IBRD 2024 Asia 45 Romania Europe and Central High income IBRD 2023 Asia 46 Rwanda Eastern and Southern Low income IDA 2022 Africa 47 Senegal Western and Central Lower-middle IDA 2024 Africa income 228 (continued) Lending CCDR No. Economy Region Income Group Category Year 48 South Africa Eastern and Southern Upper-middle IBRD 2022 Africa income 49 Tajikistan Europe and Central Lower-middle IDA 2024 Asia income 50 Tanzania Eastern and Southern Lower-middle IDA 2024 Africa income 51 Tunisia Middle East and Lower-middle IBRD 2023 North Africa income 52 Türkiye Europe and Central Upper-middle IBRD 2022 Asia income 53 Uzbekistan Europe and Central Lower-middle Blend 2023 Asia income 54 Viet Nam East Asia and Pacific Lower-middle IBRD 2022 income 55 West Bank Middle East and Lower-middle 2023 and Gaza North Africa income 56 Western Europe and Central 2024 Balkans Asia 57 Yemen, Rep. Middle East and Low income IDA 2024 North Africa 58 Zimbabwe Eastern and Southern Lower-middle Blend 2024 Africa income Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: CCDR = Country Climate and Development Report; IBRD = International Bank for Reconstruction Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    229 and Development; IDA = International Development Association. Appendix D. Geospatial Analysis Protected Areas This appendix lists the 448 protected area sites included in the geospatial analyses of tree cover. 230   Table D.1. Protected Area Sites Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 555587159 Loro Hablador P114294 Argentina Latin America and Provincial reserve Dry tropics 2015 2 the Caribbean 555587129 Fuerte Esperanza P114294 Argentina Latin America and Provincial park Dry tropics 2015 2 the Caribbean 555587128 Copo P114294 Argentina Latin America and Multiple use pro- Dry tropics 2015 2 the Caribbean vincial reserve 555577536 El Impenetrable P114294 Argentina Latin America and National park Dry tropics 2015 2 the Caribbean 16848 Pampa del Indio P114294 Argentina Latin America and Nature park Dry tropics 2015 2 the Caribbean 555637344 Traslasierra P175669 Argentina Latin America and National park Dry tropics 2022 3 the Caribbean 10 Calilegua P175669 Argentina Latin America and National park Humid 2022 3 the Caribbean tropics 555643561 Aconquija P175669 Argentina Latin America and National reserve Humid 2022 3 the Caribbean tropics 555543040 Satchari P121210 Bangladesh South Asia National park Humid 2011 1 tropics 12196 Chunati P121210 Bangladesh South Asia Wildlife sanctuary Humid 2011 1 tropics (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    231 232 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 555576099 Altadighi P121210 Bangladesh South Asia National park Humid 2011 1 tropics 3314 Columbia River P130474 Belize Latin America and Forest reserve Humid 2015 2 the Caribbean tropics 3306 Chiquibul P130474 Belize Latin America and Forest reserve Humid 2015 2 the Caribbean tropics 28850 Maya Mountain P130474 Belize Latin America and Forest reserve Humid 2015 2 the Caribbean tropics 313429 Spanish Creek P130474 Belize Latin America and Wildlife sanctuary Humid 2015 2 the Caribbean tropics 116297 Vaca P130474 Belize Latin America and Forest reserve Humid 2015 2 the Caribbean tropics 12201 W (Benin) P122419 Benin Western and National park Dry tropics 2011 1 Central Africa 2253 Pendjari P122419 Benin Western and Hunting zone Dry tropics 2011 1 Central Africa 555592602 San Rafael P094335 Bolivia Latin America and Municipal protect- Dry tropics 2010 1 the Caribbean ed area 601 Nxai Pan P095617 Botswana Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2010 1 Southern Africa 600 Chobe P095617 Botswana Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2010 1 Southern Africa (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 7449 Moremi P095617 Botswana Eastern and Game reserve Dry tropics 2010 1 Southern Africa 352082 Refúgio de Vida P086341 Brazil Latin America and Wildlife refuge Dry tropics 2010 1 Silvestre Banhado the Caribbean Dos Pachecos 16091 Reserva Biológica P086341 Brazil Latin America and Biological reserve Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Mato Grande the Caribbean 555636496 Parque Estadual Do P086341 Brazil Latin America and Park Dry tropics 2010 1 Espinilho the Caribbean 16083 Reserva Biológica P086341 Brazil Latin America and Biological reserve Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Ibirapuitã the Caribbean 33601 Área De Proteção P086341 Brazil Latin America and Environmental Dry tropics 2010 1 Ambiental Do the Caribbean protection area Banhado Grande 555576468 Reserva Biológica P086341 Brazil Latin America and Biological reserve Dry tropics 2010 1 Do São Donato the Caribbean 478500 Arie Do Córrego P086341 Brazil Latin America and Area of relevant Dry tropics 2010 1 Mato Grande the Caribbean ecological interest 555600305 Área De Proteção P086341 Brazil Latin America and Environmental Dry tropics 2010 1 Ambiental Ibirapuitã the Caribbean protection area 555682226 Parque Estadual Do P086341 Brazil Latin America and Park Dry tropics 2010 1 Delta Do Jacuí the Caribbean (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    233 234 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 555682652 Reserva Particular P086341 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve Natural Reserva Itapuã 555682099 Área De Proteção P086341 Brazil Latin America and Environmental Dry tropics 2010 1 Ambiental Estadual the Caribbean protection area Delta Do Jacuí 16092 Parque Estadual Do P086341 Brazil Latin America and Park Dry tropics 2010 1 Podocarpus the Caribbean 67817 Lagoa do Peixe P086341 Brazil Latin America and Ramsar site, Dry tropics 2010 1 the Caribbean wetland of interna- tional importance 19448 Parque Nacional Da P086341, Brazil Latin America and Park Dry tropics 2010, 2015 1, 2 Lagoa Do Peixe P128968 the Caribbean 351741 Parque Nacional P091827 Brazil Latin America and Park Dry tropics 2010 1 Cavernas Do the Caribbean Peruaçu 555600243 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve Natural Catingueiro (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 555600196 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve Natural Veredas Do Pratudinho 555600159 Reserva De P091827 Brazil Latin America and Sustainable devel- Humid 2010 1 Desenvolvimento the Caribbean opment reserve tropics Sustentável Nascentes Geraizeiras 198366 Parque Nacional P091827 Brazil Latin America and Park Dry tropics 2010 1 Serra Das the Caribbean Confusões 555599967 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve Natural Natura Mater 555600088 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve Natural Natura Cerrada 352010 Parque Estadual De P091827 Brazil Latin America and Park Dry tropics 2010 1 Terra Ronca the Caribbean (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    235 236 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 555599977 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve Natural Catedral Do Jalapão 19272 Parque Nacional P091827 Brazil Latin America and Park Dry tropics 2010 1 Grande Sertão the Caribbean Veredas 555600214 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve Natural Santuário Das Pedras 352020 Parque Estadual Do P091827 Brazil Latin America and Park Humid 2010 1 Lajeado the Caribbean tropics 351758 Parque Nacional P091827 Brazil Latin America and Park Dry tropics 2010 1 Das Nascentes Do the Caribbean Rio Parnaiba 351746 Área De Proteção P091827 Brazil Latin America and Environmental Dry tropics 2010 1 Ambiental Dos the Caribbean protection area Meandros Do Rio Araguaia (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 351836 Reserva Extrativista P091827 Brazil Latin America and Extractive reserve Dry tropics 2010 1 De Recanto Das the Caribbean Araras De Terra Ronca 555600019 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve Natural Brumadinho 555758977 Monumento P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural monument Humid 2010 1 Natural Municipal the Caribbean tropics Da Serra Da Prata 478551 Monumento P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural monument Humid 2010 1 Natural Das Árvores the Caribbean tropics Fossilizadas Do Estado Do Tocantins 352420 Parque do Araguaia P091827 Brazil Latin America and Indigenous area Dry tropics 2010 1 the Caribbean 19752 Área De Proteção P091827 Brazil Latin America and Environmental Dry tropics 2010 1 Ambiental Da the Caribbean protection area Bacia Do Rio São Bartolomeu 555715687 Parque Estadual Do P091827 Brazil Latin America and Park Dry tropics 2010 1 João Leite the Caribbean (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    237 238 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 351907 Área De Proteção P091827 Brazil Latin America and Environmental Dry tropics 2010 1 Ambiental Pouso the Caribbean protection area Alto 351751 Estação Ecológica P091827 Brazil Latin America and Ecological station Dry tropics 2010 1 Serra Geral Do the Caribbean Tocantins 351736 Parque Nacional P091827 Brazil Latin America and Park Humid 2010 1 Das Sempre Vivas the Caribbean tropics 352049 Parque Estadual Do P091827 Brazil Latin America and Park Dry tropics 2010 1 Rio Preto the Caribbean 352018 Parque Estadual Do P091827 Brazil Latin America and Park Dry tropics 2010 1 Jalapão the Caribbean 555600106 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Humid 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve tropics Natural Bosque Dos Samambaiaçus— Resgate V 354007 Reserva Extrativista P091827 Brazil Latin America and Extractive reserve Humid 2010 1 Chapada Limpa the Caribbean tropics 555576328 Área De Proteção P091827 Brazil Latin America and Environmental Dry tropics 2010 1 Ambiental the Caribbean protection area Nascentes Do Rio Paraguai (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 555600244 Parque Nacional Da P091827 Brazil Latin America and Park Humid 2010 1 Serra Do Gandarela the Caribbean tropics 352415 Ponte de Pedra P091827 Brazil Latin America and Indigenous area Dry tropics 2010 1 the Caribbean 555600227 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve Natural Nascentes Do Rio Tocantins 555783622 Área De Proteção P091827 Brazil Latin America and Environmental Humid 2010 1 Ambiental São the Caribbean protection area tropics Domingos 351867 Área De Proteção P091827 Brazil Latin America and Environmental Humid 2010 1 Ambiental Bacia the Caribbean protection area tropics Do Cobre/ São Bartolomeu 555600195 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve Natural Parque Botânico Dos Kaiapós 478570 Parque Estadual P091827 Brazil Latin America and Park Humid 2010 1 Serra Do Intendente the Caribbean tropics (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    239 240 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 351994 Parque Estadual P091827 Brazil Latin America and Park Dry tropics 2010 1 Altamiro De Moura the Caribbean Pacheco 555600287 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve Natural São Bartolomeu 555600264 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve Natural Aves Gerais 555600295 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve Natural Vale Das Copaibeiras 555600029 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Humid 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve tropics Natural Vale Das Arapongas— Resgate Ii 351768 Reserva Extrativista P091827 Brazil Latin America and Extractive reserve Dry tropics 2010 1 Mata Grande the Caribbean 352029 Parque Estadual P091827 Brazil Latin America and Park Dry tropics 2010 1 Dos Pirineus the Caribbean (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 555600026 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Humid 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve tropics Natural Mata Dos Jacus—Resgate Vi 555600256 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve Natural Bico Do Javaés 351837 Reserva Extrativista P091827 Brazil Latin America and Extractive reserve Dry tropics 2010 1 Lago Do Cedro the Caribbean 555600276 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve Natural Pau Terra 478503 Área De Proteção P091827 Brazil Latin America and Environmental Dry tropics 2010 1 Ambiental João the Caribbean protection area Leite 555600270 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve Natural Maria Batista (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    241 242 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 555600275 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve Natural Integra o Parque 33898 Recreio/São Félix P091827 Brazil Latin America and Indigenous area Humid 2010 1 the Caribbean tropics 555599990 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve Natural Centro De Pesquisa Espeliológico— Aurora Natura 115891 Reserva Extrativista P091827 Brazil Latin America and Extractive reserve Humid 2010 1 Extremo Norte Do the Caribbean tropics Tocantins 555600218 Reserva Particular P091827 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Dry tropics 2010 1 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve Natural Sonhada 59 Parque Nacional P091827, Brazil Latin America and Park Dry tropics 2010, 2016 1, 2 Da Chapada Dos P143185 the Caribbean Veadeiros 19737 Parque Nacional Da P091827, Brazil Latin America and Park Dry tropics 2010, 2016 1, 2 Serra Do Cipó P143185 the Caribbean (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 351743 Refugio de Vida P091827, Brazil Latin America and Wildlife refuge Dry tropics 2010, 2015 1, 2 Silvestre Das P150892 the Caribbean Veredas Do Oeste Baiano 351806 Parque Nacional P091827, Brazil Latin America and Park Dry tropics 2010, 2015 1, 2 Da Chapada Das P150892 the Caribbean Mesas 65 Parque Nacional Da P091827, Brazil Latin America and Park Dry tropics 2010, 2015, 1, 2 Serra Da Canastra P150892, the Caribbean 2016 P143185 555624851 Taim Ecological P128968 Brazil Latin America and Ramsar site, Dry tropics 2015 2 Station the Caribbean wetland of interna- tional importance 555682320 Reserva Extrativista P128968 Brazil Latin America and Extractive reserve Humid 2015 2 Itapetininga the Caribbean tropics 555636643 Área De Proteção P128968 Brazil Latin America and Environmental Humid 2015 2 Ambiental De the Caribbean protection area tropics Guadalupe 555599950 Reserva Particular P143185 Brazil Latin America and Natural heritage Humid 2016 2 Do Patrimônio the Caribbean private reserve tropics Natural Fazenda Minas Gerais 352315 Baixo Rio Negro P171257 Brazil Latin America and Indigenous area Humid 2022 3 the Caribbean tropics (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    243 244 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 555637330 Rio Negro P171257 Brazil Latin America and Ramsar site, Humid 2022 3 the Caribbean wetland of interna- tropics tional importance 115539 Kanamari do Rio P171257 Brazil Latin America and Indigenous area Humid 2022 3 Juruá the Caribbean tropics 555705201 Complexe d’Ai- P098538 Burkina Faso Western and Ramsar site, Dry tropics 2011 1 res Protégées Central Africa wetland of interna- Pô-Nazinga-Sissili tional importance 9160 Ruvubu P127258, Burundi Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2013, 2018 1, 2 P160613 Southern Africa 9164 Bururi Forest P127258, Burundi Eastern and Nature reserve Humid 2013, 2018 1, 2 P160613 Southern Africa tropics 9161 Kibira P127258, Burundi Eastern and National park Humid 2013, 2018 1, 2 P160613 Southern Africa tropics 555703469 Ta Tai P165344 Cambodia East Asia and Wildlife sanctuary Humid 2019 2 Pacific tropics 10118 Tonle Sap P165344 Cambodia East Asia and Multiple use area Humid 2019 2 Pacific tropics 68865 Phnom Somkos P165344 Cambodia East Asia and Wildlife sanctuary Humid 2019 2 Pacific tropics 313447 Phnom Aoral P165344 Cambodia East Asia and Wildlife sanctuary Humid 2019 2 Pacific tropics (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 555703505 Cardamom Corridor P165344 Cambodia East Asia and Biodiversity cor- Humid 2019 2 Pacific ridor of protected tropics area 555622119 Ngoyla P118018 Cameroon Western and Wildlife reserve Humid 2012 1 Central Africa tropics 1250 Ouadi Rimé-Ouadi P171611 Chad Western and Faunal reserve Dry tropics 2020 3 Achim Central Africa 12223 Galeras P112106 Colombia Latin America and Fauna and flora Humid 2012 1 the Caribbean sanctuary tropics 20002 Cahuinarí P112106 Colombia Latin America and National natural Humid 2012 1 the Caribbean park tropics 555698179 Chiribiquete P112106 Colombia Latin America and World Heritage Humid 2012 1 National Park—“The the Caribbean site (natural or tropics Maloca of the mixed) Jaguar” 19991 Puinawai P112106 Colombia Latin America and Nature reserve Humid 2012 1 the Caribbean tropics 555704128 Las Orquídeas P112106 Colombia Latin America and Civil society nature Humid 2012 1 the Caribbean reserve tropics 19984 La Serranía de P112106, Colombia Latin America and National natural Humid 2012, 2015 1, 2 Chiribiquete P144271 the Caribbean park tropics 129 El Tuparro P167830 Colombia Latin America and National natural Dry tropics 2020 3 the Caribbean park (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    245 246 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 555697703 Cinaruco P167830 Colombia Latin America and Integrated man- Dry tropics 2020 3 the Caribbean agement national districts 100760 Cuenca Alta del Río P167830 Colombia Latin America and National protective Dry tropics 2020 3 Satocá the Caribbean forest reserves 1084 Kundelungu P083813 Congo, Dem. Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2014 1 Rep. Southern Africa 478291 Parc National des P083813 Congo, Dem. Eastern and Ramsar site, Dry tropics 2014 1 Virunga Rep. Southern Africa wetland of interna- tional importance 166889 Virunga P083813 Congo, Dem. Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2014 1 Rep. Southern Africa 1079 Upemba P083813 Congo, Dem. Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2014 1 Rep. Southern Africa 2017 Virunga National P083813 Congo, Dem. Eastern and World Heritage Dry tropics 2014 1 Park Rep. Southern Africa site (natural or mixed) 1083 Garamba P083813 Congo, Dem. Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2014 1 Rep. Southern Africa 4327 Garamba National P083813 Congo, Dem. Eastern and World Heritage Dry tropics 2014 1 Park Rep. Southern Africa site (natural or mixed) (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 72312 Itombwe P083813 Congo, Dem. Eastern and Nature reserve Humid 2014 1 Rep. Southern Africa tropics 20324 Bili-Uere P083813 Congo, Dem. Eastern and Hunting area Dry tropics 2014 1 Rep. Southern Africa 555626064 Réserve du Triangle P083813 Congo, Dem. Eastern and Nature reserve Humid 2014 1 de la Ngiri Rep. Southern Africa tropics 10906 Salonga National P083813 Congo, Dem. Eastern and World Heritage Humid 2014 1 Park Rep. Southern Africa site (natural or tropics mixed) 555697863 Salonga P083813 Congo, Dem. Eastern and National park Humid 2014 1 Rep. Southern Africa tropics 1082 Kahuzi-Biega P083813 Congo, Dem. Eastern and National park Humid 2014 1 Rep. Southern Africa tropics 555512077 Lomako-Yokokala P083813 Congo, Dem. Eastern and Nature reserve Humid 2014 1 Rep. Southern Africa tropics 4328 Kahuzi-Biega P083813 Congo, Dem. Eastern and World Heritage Humid 2014 1 National Park Rep. Southern Africa site (natural or tropics mixed) 124389 Okapi Wildlife P083813 Congo, Dem. Eastern and World Heritage Humid 2014 1 Reserve Rep. Southern Africa site (natural or tropics mixed) 555625665 Lomami National P083813 Congo, Dem. Eastern and National park Humid 2014 1 Park Rep. Southern Africa tropics (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    247 248 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 555512076 Tumba-Lediima P128887 Congo, Dem. Eastern and Nature reserve Humid 2014 1 Rep. Southern Africa tropics 555571317 Ngyanga Nord P177786 Congo, Rep. Western and Wildlife reserve Dry tropics 2023 3 Central Africa 555571319 Mont Fouari P177786 Congo, Rep. Western and Wildlife reserve Humid 2023 3 Central Africa tropics 2270 Tsoulou P177786 Congo, Rep. Western and Wildlife reserve Dry tropics 2023 3 Central Africa 313401 Conkouati-Douli P177786 Congo, Rep. Western and National park Dry tropics 2023 3 Central Africa 2266 Léfini P177786 Congo, Rep. Western and Wildlife reserve Dry tropics 2023 3 Central Africa 643 Odzala Kokoua P177786 Congo, Rep. Western and National park Humid 2023 3 Central Africa tropics 313494 Lac Télé P177786 Congo, Rep. Western and Community re- Humid 2023 3 Central Africa serve tropics 354010 Ntokou-Pikounda P177786 Congo, Rep. Western and National park Humid 2023 3 Central Africa tropics 72332 Nouabalé-Ndoki P177786 Congo, Rep. Western and National park Humid 2023 3 Central Africa tropics 145528 Azagny National P162337 Côte d’Ivoire Western and Ramsar site, Humid 2018 2 Park Central Africa wetland of interna- tropics tional importance (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 555682982 N’Zi River Lodge P162789, Côte d’Ivoire Western and Voluntary nature Dry tropics 2018, 2022 2, 3 Voluntary Nature P175982 Central Africa reserve Reserve 5003 Taï National Park P162789, Côte d’Ivoire Western and World Heritage Humid 2018, 2022 2, 3 P175982 Central Africa site (natural or tropics mixed) 29580 Ahua P175982 Côte d’Ivoire Western and Classified forest Dry tropics 2022 3 Central Africa 29556 Laka P175982 Côte d’Ivoire Western and Classified forest Dry tropics 2022 3 Central Africa 300782 N’zi Superieure P175982 Côte d’Ivoire Western and Classified forest Dry tropics 2022 3 Central Africa 29545 Matiemba P175982 Côte d’Ivoire Western and Classified forest Dry tropics 2022 3 Central Africa 29600 Kobo P175982 Côte d’Ivoire Western and Classified forest Dry tropics 2022 3 Central Africa 29506 Réserve Naturelle P175982 Côte d’Ivoire Western and Classified forest Humid 2022 3 de Mabi-Yaya Central Africa tropics 1293 Réserve de Faune P175982 Côte d’Ivoire Western and Natural reserve Dry tropics 2022 3 et de Flore du Haut Central Africa Bandama 29596 Scio P175982 Côte d’Ivoire Western and Classified forest Humid 2022 3 Central Africa tropics (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    249 250 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 724 Parc National du P175982 Côte d’Ivoire Western and National park Humid 2022 3 Mont Péko Central Africa tropics 29638 Rapide Grah P175982 Côte d’Ivoire Western and Classified forest Humid 2022 3 Central Africa tropics 29586 Leraba P175982 Côte d’Ivoire Western and Classified forest Dry tropics 2022 3 Central Africa 29636 Haute Dodo P175982 Côte d’Ivoire Western and Classified forest Humid 2022 3 Central Africa tropics 300768 Boundiali P175982 Côte d’Ivoire Western and Classified forest Dry tropics 2022 3 Central Africa 300731 Pouniokele P175982 Côte d’Ivoire Western and Classified forest Dry tropics 2022 3 Central Africa 4647 Northern P170846 Dominica Latin America and Forest reserve Humid 2022 3 the Caribbean tropics 31306 Morne Diablotin P170846 Dominica Latin America and National park Humid 2022 3 the Caribbean tropics 555624220 Jaragua P173017, Dominican Latin America and Specially protect- Dry tropics 2021 3 P173464 Republic the Caribbean ed area (Cartagena Convention) 555624221 Sierra de Bahoruco P173017, Dominican Latin America and Specially protect- Dry tropics 2021 3 P173464 Republic the Caribbean ed area (Cartagena Convention) (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 478128 Montaña La P173464 Dominican Latin America and National park Humid 2021 3 Humeadora Republic the Caribbean tropics 478142 Valle Nuevo P173464 Dominican Latin America and National park Dry tropics 2021 3 Republic the Caribbean 555624219 Los Haitises P173464 Dominican Latin America and Specially protect- Humid 2021 3 Republic the Caribbean ed area (Cartagena tropics Convention) 478089 Ébano Verde P173464 Dominican Latin America and Scientific reserve Dry tropics 2021 3 Republic the Caribbean 478129 Monumento P173464 Dominican Latin America and Wildlife refuge Humid 2021 3 Natural Miguel Republic the Caribbean tropics Domingo Fuerte 67932 Petit Loango P143914 Gabon Western and Ramsar site, Humid 2014 1 Central Africa wetland of interna- tropics tional importance 109034 Bas Ogooue P143914 Gabon Western and Ramsar site, Humid 2014 1 Central Africa wetland of interna- tropics tional importance 28845 Domaine de P143914 Gabon Western and Hunting area Humid 2014 1 Chasse de Sette- Central Africa tropics Cama 303872 Parc National des P143914 Gabon Western and National park Humid 2014 1 Monts Birougou Central Africa tropics 303874 Parc National de P157249 Gabon Western and National park Humid 2017 2 Loango Central Africa tropics (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    251 252 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 303877 Parc National P157249 Gabon Western and National park Humid 2017 2 de Moukalaba— Central Africa tropics Doudou 28847 Domaine de P157249 Gabon Western and Hunting area Humid 2017 2 Chasse de Central Africa tropics Moukalaba 26546 Sissili Central P098538 Ghana Western and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2011 1 Central Africa 26528 Pudo Hills P098538 Ghana Western and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2011 1 Central Africa 26547 Sisilli North P098538 Ghana Western and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2011 1 Central Africa 5153 Gbele P098538, Ghana Western and Resource reserve Dry tropics 2011, 2022 1, 3 P171933 Central Africa 669 Mole P098538, Ghana Western and National park Dry tropics 2011, 2022 1, 3 P171933 Central Africa 670 Digya P171933 Ghana Western and National park Dry tropics 2022 3 Central Africa 40762 Jimira P171933 Ghana Western and Forest reserve Humid 2022 3 Central Africa tropics 40870 South Fomangsu P171933 Ghana Western and Forest reserve Humid 2022 3 Central Africa tropics 40786 Northern Scarp P171933 Ghana Western and Forest reserve Humid 2022 3 West Central Africa tropics (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 555703398 Southern Scarp P171933 Ghana Western and Forest reserve Humid 2022 3 (Kwahu) Central Africa tropics 40678 Fum Headwaters P171933 Ghana Western and Forest reserve Humid 2022 3 Central Africa tropics 40785 Northern Scarp P171933 Ghana Western and Forest reserve Humid 2022 3 East Central Africa tropics 1543 Kogyae P171933 Ghana Western and Strict nature re- Dry tropics 2022 3 Central Africa serve 40761 Asenanyo P171933 Ghana Western and Forest reserve Humid 2022 3 Central Africa tropics 40809 Pra Anum P171933 Ghana Western and Forest reserve Humid 2022 3 Central Africa tropics 40764 Tano Ofin P171933 Ghana Western and Forest reserve Humid 2022 3 Central Africa tropics 40869 Prakaw P171933 Ghana Western and Forest reserve Humid 2022 3 Central Africa tropics 40788 Southern Scarp P171933 Ghana Western and Forest reserve Humid 2022 3 (Akim) Central Africa tropics 555703196 Forêt de Déré P168613 Guinea Western and Classified forest Dry tropics 2021 3 Central Africa 29446 Baro P168613 Guinea Western and Classified forest Dry tropics 2021 3 Central Africa 3027 Mount Nimba P168613 Guinea Western and UNESCO-MAB Humid 2021 3 Central Africa biosphere reserve tropics (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    253 254 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 555703195 Kounounkan P168613 Guinea Western and Nature reserve Dry tropics 2021 3 Central Africa 555703197 Bossou P168613 Guinea Western and Classified forest Dry tropics 2021 3 Central Africa 29484 Diécké P168613 Guinea Western and Classified forest Humid 2021 3 Central Africa tropics 555697870 Niger Source P168613 Guinea Western and Classified forest Dry tropics 2021 3 Central Africa 67986 Rio Pongo P168613 Guinea Western and Ramsar site, Dry tropics 2021 3 Central Africa wetland of interna- tional importance 29465 Pic de Fon P168613 Guinea Western and Classified forest Dry tropics 2021 3 Central Africa 67985 Rio Kapatchez P168613 Guinea Western and Ramsar site, Dry tropics 2021 3 Central Africa wetland of interna- tional importance 33047 Orango P122047 Guinea-Bissau Western and National park Dry tropics 2011 1 Central Africa 33048 Lagoas de Cufada P122047 Guinea-Bissau Western and Natural park Dry tropics 2011 1 Central Africa 7879 Parc Macaya P173464 Haiti Latin America and National park Humid 2021 3 the Caribbean tropics (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 555643721 Grand Bois P173464 Haiti Latin America and National park Humid 2021 3 the Caribbean tropics 7880 La Visite P173464 Haiti Latin America and National park Dry tropics 2021 3 the Caribbean 102234 Danlí (Apagüiz) P106680 Honduras Latin America and Water production Dry tropics 2011 1 the Caribbean reserve 555582977 Colibrí Esmeralda P106680 Honduras Latin America and Wildlife refuge Dry tropics 2011 1 Hondureño the Caribbean 555582991 Montaña de Mico P106680 Honduras Latin America and Ecological reserve Humid 2011 1 Quemado y Las the Caribbean tropics Guanchías 201 Río Plátano P106680 Honduras Latin America and UNESCO-MAB Humid 2011 1 the Caribbean biosphere reserve tropics 68005 Chilika Lake P097985 India South Asia Ramsar site, Humid 2010 1 wetland of interna- tropics tional importance 555511961 Teluk Mayalibit P127813 Indonesia East Asia and Locally managed Humid 2014 1 (Raja Ampat) Pacific marine area tropics 124434 Bukit Tiga Puluh P166672 Indonesia East Asia and National park Humid 2021 3 Pacific tropics 4994 Kerinci Seblat P166672 Indonesia East Asia and National park Humid 2021 3 Pacific tropics (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    255 256 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 317205 Bukit Dua Belas P166672 Indonesia East Asia and National park Humid 2021 3 Pacific tropics 1254 Berbak P166672 Indonesia East Asia and National park Humid 2021 3 Pacific tropics 28856 Blue and John Crow P173464 Jamaica Latin America and National park Humid 2021 3 Mountains National the Caribbean tropics Park 555542853 Litchfield- P173464 Jamaica Latin America and Forest reserve Humid 2021 3 Matheson’s Run the Caribbean tropics 28941 Cockpit Country P173464 Jamaica Latin America and Forest reserve Humid 2021 3 the Caribbean tropics 28999 Peckham P173464 Jamaica Latin America and Forest reserve Humid 2021 3 the Caribbean tropics 555542840 Dolphin Head P173464 Jamaica Latin America and Forest reserve Humid 2021 3 the Caribbean tropics 7744 Witu P094692 Kenya Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2011 1 Southern Africa 759 Shimba Hills P094692 Kenya Eastern and National reserve Dry tropics 2011 1 Southern Africa 555622002 Kiunga P094692 Kenya Eastern and Marine national Dry tropics 2011 1 Southern Africa reserve 555703743 Nam Et-Phouloey P113860, Lao PDR East Asia and National park Humid 2013, 2014 1 P128393 Pacific tropics (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 61497 Nam Xam P128393 Lao PDR East Asia and National protected Humid 2014 1 Pacific area tropics 555703747 Phou Sabot P128393 Lao PDR East Asia and National protected Humid 2014 1 Phoungchong Pacific area tropics 555703745 Nakai-Nam Teun P128393, Lao PDR East Asia and National park Humid 2014, 2021 1, 3 P170559 Pacific tropics 10192 Phou Khao Khuay P128393, Lao PDR East Asia and National park Humid 2014, 2021 1, 3 P170559 Pacific tropics 555703744 Hin Nam No P170559 Lao PDR East Asia and National park Humid 2021 3 Pacific tropics 555703750 Kounxe Nongma P170559 Lao PDR East Asia and National protected Humid 2021 3 Pacific area tropics 61501 Phou Hin Poun P170559 Lao PDR East Asia and National protected Humid 2021 3 Pacific area tropics 9176 East Nimba Nature P154114 Liberia Western and Nature reserve Dry tropics 2016 2 Reserve Central Africa 555512168 Gbi P154114 Liberia Western and National park Humid 2016 2 Central Africa tropics 7414 Wonegizi Nature P154114 Liberia Western and Nature reserve Humid 2016 2 Reserve Central Africa tropics 9171 Gola Forest P154114 Liberia Western and National park Humid 2016 2 National Park Central Africa tropics 555512165 Foya P154114 Liberia Western and National park Humid 2016 2 Central Africa tropics (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    257 258 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 555512166 Kpo Mountains P154114 Liberia Western and National park Humid 2016 2 Central Africa tropics 555512169 Grand Kru-River P154114 Liberia Western and National park Humid 2016 2 Gee Central Africa tropics 7409 Sapo National Park P154114 Liberia Western and National park Humid 2016 2 Central Africa tropics 303695 Masoala P107484 Madagascar Eastern and National park Humid 2011 1 Southern Africa tropics 2309 Namoroka P107484 Madagascar Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2011 1 Southern Africa 26070 Mantadia P107484 Madagascar Eastern and National park Humid 2011 1 Southern Africa tropics 5021 Analamazaotra P107484 Madagascar Eastern and National park Humid 2011 1 Southern Africa tropics 5038 Mangerivola P107484 Madagascar Eastern and Special reserve Humid 2011 1 Southern Africa tropics 303702 Bemaraha P107484 Madagascar Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2011 1 Southern Africa 354012 Mikea P107484 Madagascar Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2011 1 Southern Africa 5022 Analamerana P107484 Madagascar Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2011 1 Southern Africa (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 5026 Manongarivo P107484 Madagascar Eastern and Special reserve Humid 2011 1 Southern Africa tropics 5039 Nosy Mangabe P107484 Madagascar Eastern and Special reserve Humid 2011 1 Southern Africa tropics 2314 Montagne d’Ambre P107484 Madagascar Eastern and National park Humid 2011 1 Southern Africa tropics 2312 Isalo P107484 Madagascar Eastern and National park Humid 2011 1 Southern Africa tropics 2306 Tsaratanana P107484 Madagascar Eastern and National park Humid 2011 1 Southern Africa tropics 20287 Ranomafana P107484 Madagascar Eastern and National park Humid 2011 1 Southern Africa tropics 6932 Ambohitantely P107484 Madagascar Eastern and Special reserve Humid 2011 1 Southern Africa tropics 5024 Ankarana P107484 Madagascar Eastern and Special reserve Dry tropics 2011 1 Southern Africa 303698 Baie de Baly P107484 Madagascar Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2011 1 Southern Africa 20273 Zombitse Vohibasia P107484 Madagascar Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2011 1 Southern Africa 2303 Andohahela P107484 Madagascar Eastern and National park Humid 2011 1 Southern Africa tropics 20272 Befotaka Midongy P107484 Madagascar Eastern and National park Humid 2011 1 Southern Africa tropics (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    259 260 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 352249 Makira P107484, Madagascar Eastern and Natural park Humid 2011, 2017 1, 2 P154698 Southern Africa tropics 354013 Zahamena P107484, Madagascar Eastern and National park Humid 2011, 2017 1, 2 P154698 Southern Africa tropics 5037 Ambatovaky P107484, Madagascar Eastern and Special reserve Humid 2011, 2017 1, 2 P154698 Southern Africa tropics 2305 Marojejy P154698 Madagascar Eastern and National park Humid 2017 2 Southern Africa tropics 5023 Anjanaharibe-Sud P154698 Madagascar Eastern and Special reserve Humid 2017 2 Southern Africa tropics 555697907 COMATSA Nord P154698 Madagascar Eastern and Managed resource Humid 2017 2 Southern Africa protected area tropics 555697905 Mahimborondro P154698 Madagascar Eastern and Managed resource Humid 2017 2 Southern Africa protected area tropics 555697904 COMATSA Sud P154698 Madagascar Eastern and Protected land- Humid 2017 2 Southern Africa scape tropics 4648 Vwaza Marsh P108879 Malawi Africa Wildlife reserve Dry tropics 2011 1 Wildlife Reserve 779 Nyika National Park P108879 Malawi Africa National park Dry tropics 2011 1 2318 Nkhotakota Wildlife P110112 Malawi Eastern and Wildlife reserve Dry tropics 2012 1 Reserve Southern Africa 33160 Tsamba P117617 Malawi Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2012 1 Southern Africa (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 33162 Zomba Malosa P117617 Malawi Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2012 1 Forest Reserve Southern Africa 33157 Mangochi P117617 Malawi Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2012 1 Southern Africa 33230 Neno Eastern P117617 Malawi Eastern and Proposed forest Dry tropics 2012 1 Escarpment Southern Africa reserve 33158 Liwonde Forest P117617 Malawi Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2012 1 Reserve Southern Africa 2315 Lengwe National P117617, Malawi Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2012, 2018, 1, 2, 3 Park P158805, Southern Africa 2022 P176575 33181 Matandwe P117617, Malawi Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2012, 2018, 1, 2, 3 P158805, Southern Africa 2022 P176575 2320 Mwabvi Wildlife P117617, Malawi Eastern and Wildlife reserve Dry tropics 2012, 2018, 1, 2, 3 Reserve P158805, Southern Africa 2022 P176575 555624877 Elephant Marsh P117617, Malawi Eastern and Ramsar site, Dry tropics 2012, 2018, 1, 2, 3 P158805, Southern Africa wetland of interna- 2022 P176575 tional importance 2319 Majete Wildlife P158805, Malawi Eastern and Wildlife reserve Dry tropics 2018, 2022 2, 3 Reserve P176575 Southern Africa 33161 Thambani P176575 Malawi Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2022 3 Southern Africa (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    261 262 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 95349 Parc National du P162337 Mauritania Western and Ramsar site, Dry tropics 2018 2 Diawling Central Africa wetland of interna- tional importance 902281 Sian Ka’an P100438 Mexico Latin America and Ramsar site, Humid 2011 1 the Caribbean wetland of interna- tropics tional importance 214 Pico de Orizaba P131709 Mexico Latin America and National park Dry tropics 2014 1 the Caribbean 107569 Cañón del P131709 Mexico Latin America and Flora and fauna Humid 2014 1 Usumacinta the Caribbean protection area tropics 217 Cofre de Perote P131709 Mexico Latin America and National park Humid 2014 1 o Nauhcampatépetl the Caribbean tropics 903016 Pantanos de Centla P131709 Mexico Latin America and UNESCO-MAB Humid 2014 1 the Caribbean biosphere reserve tropics 903013 Los Tuxtlas P131709 Mexico Latin America and UNESCO-MAB Humid 2014 1 the Caribbean biosphere reserve tropics 555783785 Sierra de Vallejo- P131709 Mexico Latin America and Biosphere reserve Dry tropics 2014 1 Río Ameca the Caribbean 555745265 Sierra de San P178224 Mexico Latin America and Flora and fauna Dry tropics 2022 3 Miguelito the Caribbean protection area 20295 Limpopo P131965 Mozambique Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2015 2 Southern Africa (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 799 Banhine P131965 Mozambique Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2015 2 Southern Africa 555698170 Pomene P131965 Mozambique Eastern and National reserve Dry tropics 2015 2 Southern Africa 800 Zinave P131965 Mozambique Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2015 2 Southern Africa 4652 Maputo P131965 Mozambique Eastern and Special reserve Dry tropics 2015 2 Southern Africa 555705345 Chimanimani P131965 Mozambique Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2015 2 Southern Africa 555705202 Gilé P131965, Mozambique Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2015, 2017 2 P160033 Southern Africa 9035 Quirimbas P131965, Mozambique Eastern and Buffer zone Dry tropics 2015, 2017, 2, 3 P160033, Southern Africa 2021 P174635 303677 Nº14 P166802 Mozambique Eastern and Hunting reserve Dry tropics 2019 2 Southern Africa 7947 Régulo Zomba P166802 Mozambique Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2019 2 Southern Africa 303676 Nº10 P166802 Mozambique Eastern and Hunting reserve Dry tropics 2019 2 Southern Africa 303674 Nº11 P166802 Mozambique Eastern and Hunting reserve Dry tropics 2019 2 Southern Africa (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    263 264 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 7948 Maronga P166802 Mozambique Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2019 2 Southern Africa 342677 Moribane P166802 Mozambique Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2019 2 Southern Africa 555698167 Magoe P174002 Mozambique Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2021 3 Southern Africa 555705344 Niassa P174635 Mozambique Eastern and Special reserve Dry tropics 2021 3 Southern Africa 342681 Primeiras and P174635 Mozambique Eastern and Environmental Dry tropics 2021 3 Segundas Southern Africa protection area 7938 Mecuburi P174635 Mozambique Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2021 3 Southern Africa 1309 Suklaphanta P121210 Nepal South Asia Wildlife reserve Dry tropics 2011 1 555569944 Banke P121210 Nepal South Asia National park Dry tropics 2011 1 1308 Bardia P121210 Nepal South Asia National park Dry tropics 2011 1 1310 Koshi Tappu P121210 Nepal South Asia Wildlife reserve Dry tropics 2011 1 10089 Parsa P121210 Nepal South Asia Wildlife reserve Humid 2011 1 tropics 10905 Chitwan National P121210 Nepal South Asia World Heritage Humid 2011 1 Park site (natural or tropics mixed) 61043 Complejo Volcánico P117836 Nicaragua Latin America and Nature reserve Dry tropics 2010 1 Telica—Rota the Caribbean (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 61049 Tepesomoto— P117836 Nicaragua Latin America and Nature reserve Dry tropics 2010 1 Pataste the Caribbean 145584 Reserva de Biosfera P121152 Nicaragua Latin America and UNESCO-MAB Humid 2013 1 Bosawas the Caribbean biosphere reserve tropics 12662 Cerro Musún P163531 Nicaragua Latin America and Nature reserve Humid 2018 2 the Caribbean tropics 12672 Sierra Amerrisque P163531 Nicaragua Latin America and Nature reserve Dry tropics 2018 2 the Caribbean 61060 Cerro P163531 Nicaragua Latin America and Nature reserve Dry tropics 2018 2 Mombachito—La the Caribbean Vieja 34685 Cerro Cumaica— P163531 Nicaragua Latin America and Nature reserve Dry tropics 2018 2 Cerro Alegre the Caribbean 145539 Refugio de Vida P163531 Nicaragua Latin America and Ramsar site, Humid 2018 2 Silvestre Los the Caribbean wetland of interna- tropics Guatuzos tional importance 30631 Archipiélago de P163531 Nicaragua Latin America and National monu- Humid 2018 2 Solentiname the Caribbean ment tropics 61061 Fila Masigüe P163531 Nicaragua Latin America and Nature reserve Humid 2018 2 the Caribbean tropics 30632 Fortaleza La P163531 Nicaragua Latin America and Historical monu- Humid 2018 2 Inmaculada the Caribbean ment tropics Concepción de María (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    265 266 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 1332 Yankari P175237 Nigeria Western and Game reserve Dry tropics 2022 3 Central Africa 819 Kainji Lake P175237 Nigeria Western and National park Dry tropics 2022 3 Central Africa 7874 Kamuku P175237 Nigeria Western and National park Dry tropics 2022 3 Central Africa 7875 Falgore (Kogin P175237 Nigeria Western and National park Dry tropics 2022 3 Kano) Central Africa 7873 Gashaka-Gumti P175237 Nigeria Western and National park Humid 2022 3 Central Africa tropics 36556 Alawa P175237 Nigeria Western and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2022 3 Central Africa 7834 Ebbe/Kampe P175237 Nigeria Western and Game reserve Dry tropics 2022 3 Central Africa 12685 Cerro Hoya P145621 Panama Latin America and National park Humid 2015 2 the Caribbean tropics 107334 Narganá P145621, Panama Latin America and Wild area Humid 2015, 2023 2, 3 P178063 the Caribbean tropics 115110 Santa Fe P145621, Panama Latin America and National park Humid 2015, 2023 2, 3 P178063 the Caribbean tropics 99631 General de División P145621, Panama Latin America and National park Humid 2015, 2023 2, 3 Omar Torrijos P178063 the Caribbean tropics Herrera (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 241 Altos de Campana P145621, Panama Latin America and National park Humid 2015, 2023 2, 3 P178063 the Caribbean tropics 107289 Damani-Guariviara P145621, Panama Latin America and Ramsar site, Humid 2015, 2023 2, 3 P178063 the Caribbean wetland of interna- tropics tional importance 555705286 La Amistad P145621, Panama Latin America and National park Humid 2015, 2023 2, 3 P178063 the Caribbean tropics 240 Volcán Barú P145621, Panama Latin America and National park Humid 2015, 2023 2, 3 P178063 the Caribbean tropics 555705285 Isla Bastimentos P145621, Panama Latin America and National park Humid 2015, 2023 2, 3 P178063 the Caribbean tropics 17185 Palo Seco P145621, Panama Latin America and Protective forest Humid 2015, 2023 2, 3 P178063 the Caribbean tropics 303326 Fortuna P145621, Panama Latin America and Forest reserve Humid 2015, 2023 2, 3 P178063 the Caribbean tropics 12698 La Yeguada P178063 Panama Latin America and Forest reserve Humid 2023 3 the Caribbean tropics 555790186 Carapa P094335 Paraguay Latin America and Natural reserve Humid 2010 1 the Caribbean tropics 555786056 Pozuelo P094335 Paraguay Latin America and Natural reserve Humid 2010 1 the Caribbean tropics 20991 Refugio Biológico P094335 Paraguay Latin America and Natural reserve Humid 2010 1 Mbaracayú the Caribbean tropics (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    267 268 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 555790199 Ypeti P094335 Paraguay Latin America and Private reserve Humid 2010 1 the Caribbean tropics 555629428 Yguazú P094335 Paraguay Latin America and Natural reserve Humid 2010 1 the Caribbean tropics 20987 Ñacunday P094335 Paraguay Latin America and National park Humid 2010 1 the Caribbean tropics 37115 Del Bosque P094335 Paraguay Latin America and Natural reserve Humid 2010 1 Mbaracayú the Caribbean tropics 245 Caazapa P094335 Paraguay Latin America and National park Humid 2010 1 the Caribbean tropics 555790200 Tapyta P094335 Paraguay Latin America and Private reserve Humid 2010 1 the Caribbean tropics 555790192 Morombi P094335 Paraguay Latin America and Private reserve Humid 2010 1 the Caribbean tropics 20187 Laquipampa P095424 Peru Latin America and Wildlife refuge Dry tropics 2010 1 the Caribbean 555555662 Bosque Moyán— P095424 Peru Latin America and Regional conser- Dry tropics 2010 1 Palacio the Caribbean vation area 20183 Alto Mayo P095424 Peru Latin America and Protection forest Humid 2010 1 the Caribbean tropics 127825 Bahuaja—Sonene P116152, Peru Latin America and National park Humid 2010, 2011 1 P118713 the Caribbean tropics 3370 Tambopata P116152, Peru Latin America and National reserve Humid 2010, 2011 1 P118713 the Caribbean tropics (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 5190 Parc National des P178161 Rwanda Eastern and UNESCO-MAB Humid 2024 3 Volcans Southern Africa biosphere reserve tropics 13930 Forêt de Maka- P124018 Senegal Western and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2014 1 Diama Central Africa 5178 Ndiael P124018 Senegal Western and Wildlife reserve Dry tropics 2014 1 Central Africa 352608 Forêt de Tilene et P124018 Senegal Western and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2014 1 Ndiaye Central Africa 352611 Forêt de Mpal P124018 Senegal Western and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2014 1 Central Africa 5180 Kangari Hills P094307 Sierra Leone Western and Forest reserve Humid 2010 1 Central Africa tropics 555555549 Kilimi P094307 Sierra Leone Western and National park Dry tropics 2010 1 Central Africa 7417 Outamba P094307 Sierra Leone Western and National park Dry tropics 2010 1 Central Africa 29968 Loma Mountains P094307 Sierra Leone Western and National park Humid 2010 1 Central Africa tropics 8517 Loma Mountains P094307 Sierra Leone Western and No or non–hunting Humid 2010 1 Alikalia Central Africa forest reserve tropics 198331 Sierra Leone River P115836 Sierra Leone Western and Ramsar site, Humid 2011 1 Estuary Central Africa wetland of interna- tropics tional importance (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    269 270 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 555720436 Mamunta-Mayossor P115836 Sierra Leone Western and Forest reserve Humid 2011 1 Central Africa tropics 198302 iSimangaliso P086528, South Africa Eastern and World Heritage Dry tropics 2010, 2022 1 Wetland Park P170213 Southern Africa site (natural or mixed) 873 Kruger National P170213 South Africa Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2022 3 Park Southern Africa 351273 Great Fish River P170213, South Africa Eastern and Nature reserve Dry tropics 2022 3 Mouth Wetland P174097 Southern Africa Nature Reserve 875 Addo Elephant P170213, South Africa Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2022 3 National Park P174097 Southern Africa 27890 Tawalama P.R. P156021 Sri Lanka South Asia Other state forest Humid 2016 2 tropics 2104 Hurulu Forest P156021 Sri Lanka South Asia UNESCO-MAB Dry tropics 2016 2 Reserve biosphere reserve 27941 Mulatiyana P156021 Sri Lanka South Asia Reserved forest Humid 2016 2 tropics 27480 Wanniyagama P156021 Sri Lanka South Asia Reserved forest Dry tropics 2016 2 143052 Ipologama P156021 Sri Lanka South Asia Reserved forest Dry tropics 2016 2 2474 Padaviya Tank P156021 Sri Lanka South Asia Sanctuary Dry tropics 2016 2 (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 2200 Castries and P173464 St. Lucia Latin America and Protected forest/ Humid 2021 3 Dennery the Caribbean forest reserve tropics Waterworks Reserve and Marquis 555579299 Parrot Reserve P172980 St. Vincent and Latin America and Wildlife reserve Humid 2022 3 (Colonarie Forest the Grenadines the Caribbean tropics Reserve) 14083 Colonarie P172980 St. Vincent and Latin America and Forest reserve Humid 2022 3 the Grenadines the Caribbean tropics 26472 Chateaubelair Islet P172980 St. Vincent and Latin America and Wildlife reserve/ Humid 2022 3 the Grenadines the Caribbean marine park tropics 61700 Cumberland P173464 St. Vincent and Latin America and Forest reserve Humid 2021 3 the Grenadines the Caribbean tropics 19297 Udzungwa P126361, Tanzania Eastern and National park Humid 2014, 2018 1, 2 Mountains National P150523 Southern Africa tropics Park 917 Ruaha National P150523 Tanzania Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2018 2 Park Southern Africa 5005 Selous Game P150523 Tanzania Eastern and World Heritage Dry tropics 2018 2 Reserve Southern Africa site (natural or mixed) 919 Mikumi National P150523 Tanzania Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2018 2 Park Southern Africa (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    271 272 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 555703407 Amou-Mono P123922 Togo Western and Natural resource Dry tropics 2012 1 Central Africa management area 37159 Missahoé P123922 Togo Western and Forest reserve Humid 2012 1 Central Africa tropics 20978 Abdoulaye P123922 Togo Western and Faunal reserve Dry tropics 2012 1 Central Africa 20977 Alédjo P123922 Togo Western and Faunal reserve Humid 2012 1 Central Africa tropics 555703403 Togodo-Sud P162337 Togo Western and National park Dry tropics 2018 2 Central Africa 555703405 Togodo-Nord P162337 Togo Western and Natural resource Dry tropics 2018 2 Central Africa management area 313110 Kabwoya P170466 Uganda Eastern and Wildlife reserve Dry tropics 2020 3 Southern Africa 1445 Ajai P170466 Uganda Eastern and Wildlife reserve Dry tropics 2020 3 Southern Africa 313109 Mgahinga Gorilla P170466 Uganda Eastern and National park Humid 2020 3 Southern Africa tropics 64671 Era P170466 Uganda Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2020 3 Southern Africa 61609 Bwindi P170466 Uganda Eastern and World Heritage Humid 2020 3 Impenetrable Southern Africa site (natural or tropics National Park mixed) (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 40042 Semuliki P170466 Uganda Eastern and National park Humid 2020 3 Southern Africa tropics 1444 Katonga P170466 Uganda Eastern and Wildlife reserve Dry tropics 2020 3 Southern Africa 40371 Echuya P170466 Uganda Eastern and Forest reserve Humid 2020 3 Southern Africa tropics 39985 Kagombe P170466 Uganda Eastern and Forest reserve Humid 2020 3 Southern Africa tropics 315238 Kibale P170466 Uganda Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2020 3 Southern Africa 61608 Rwenzori P170466 Uganda Eastern and World Heritage Humid 2020 3 Mountains National Southern Africa site (natural or tropics Park mixed) 34804 Budongo P170466, Uganda Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2020, 2021 3 P174337 Southern Africa 956 Murchison Falls P170466, Uganda Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2020, 2021 3 P174337 Southern Africa 1440 Toro-Semliki P170466, Uganda Eastern and Wildlife reserve Dry tropics 2020, 2021 3 P174337 Southern Africa 315143 Kasyoha—Kitomi P170466, Uganda Eastern and Forest reserve Humid 2020, 2021 3 P174337 Southern Africa tropics 3051 Queen Elizabeth P170466, Uganda Eastern and UNESCO-MAB Humid 2020, 2021 3 National Park P174337 Southern Africa biosphere reserve tropics (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    273 274 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 34805 Bugoma P170466, Uganda Eastern and Forest reserve Humid 2020, 2021 3 P174337 Southern Africa tropics 40069 Rwensambya P170466, Uganda Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2020, 2021 3 P174337 Southern Africa 40000 Wambabya P174337 Uganda Eastern and Forest reserve Humid 2021 3 Southern Africa tropics 317282 South P174337 Uganda Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2021 3 Maramagambo Southern Africa 40027 Kalinzu P174337 Uganda Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2021 3 Southern Africa 33147 Itwara P174337 Uganda Eastern and Forest reserve Humid 2021 3 Southern Africa tropics 40052 Ibambaro P174337 Uganda Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2021 3 Southern Africa 40467 Matidi P174337 Uganda Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2021 3 Southern Africa 26944 Lundazi P108879, Zambia Africa; Eastern Forest reserve Dry tropics 2011, 2017 1, 2 P161490 and Southern Africa 1102 Nyika P108879, Zambia Africa; Eastern National park Dry tropics 2011, 2017 1, 2 P161490 and Southern Africa (continued) Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 1094 Lavushi Manda P108882, Zambia Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2011, 2019 1, 2 P164764 Southern Africa 1099 Kasanka P108882, Zambia Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2011, 2019 1, 2 P164764 Southern Africa 26731 Mpomwa P144254 Zambia Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2015 2 Southern Africa 1091 Lukusuzi P161490 Zambia Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2017 2 Southern Africa 1100 Luambe P161490 Zambia Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2017 2 Southern Africa 26703 Chimalilo P161490 Zambia Eastern and Forest reserve Dry tropics 2017 2 Southern Africa 4109 Tondwa P164764 Zambia Eastern and Game manage- Dry tropics 2019 2 Southern Africa ment area 4110 Kaputa P164764 Zambia Eastern and Game manage- Dry tropics 2019 2 Southern Africa ment area 1092 Nsumbu P164764 Zambia Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2019 2 Southern Africa 1090 Mweru Wantipa P164764 Zambia Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2019 2 Southern Africa 4106 Bangweulu P164764 Zambia Eastern and Game manage- Dry tropics 2019 2 Southern Africa ment area 1095 Lusenga Plain P164764 Zambia Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2019 2 Southern Africa (continued) Independent Evaluation Group World Bank Group    275 276 Biodiversity for a Livable Planet Appendix D Associated Protected Area World Bank IUCN Approval WDPA ID Name Projects Country Region Classification Biome Years Cohort 1105 Chizarira P124625 Zimbabwe Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2014 1 Southern Africa 1991 Hwange P124625 Zimbabwe Eastern and National park Dry tropics 2014 1 Southern Africa 20354 Ngamo P124625 Zimbabwe Eastern and State forest Dry tropics 2014 1 Southern Africa 20357 Sikumi P124625 Zimbabwe Eastern and State forest Dry tropics 2014 1 Southern Africa Source: Independent Evaluation Group. Note: Cohort 1 = protected area in project approved in FY10–14; cohort 2 = protected area in project approved in FY15–19; cohort 3 = protected area in project approved in FY20–24. IUCN = International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; MAB = Man and the Biosphere; UNESCO = United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; WDPA = World Database on Protected Areas. (continued) The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington, DC 20433