0~~ c%4J©L~ __ Sd _ been a reason for this shortcoming, in addition to the general reluctance of government forest institutions __s - . -¢- ___ and many NGOs to constructively engage the private _~ V 4 t>;\g >> xsector in biodiversity conservation.7 , t i-< > Both task managers and independent observers give _ 'r '- f ) X high marks to the Bank for its handling of participatory policy issues in the GEF forest portfolio. The support i . Xv-provided for community co-management approaches, v p R' \ I public participation mechanisms, and measures to ad- j. dress indigenous rights are policy innovations for which I E / > Q the Bank's GEF portfolio takes justifiable credit, although this support can also be found in the Bank's regular Picking Guarana berries. Amazon, Brazil. Photo courtesy of portfolio. It is noteworthy that independent NGOs, www.fotofinder.net although ready to concede that the Bank has supported more participatory innovations in the GEF portfolio than approved by an outgoing government, but imple- it has in other sectors, severely criticize the Bank for not mented by a new government whose structure and going far enough on this issue. The advocates for goals were not consistent with the project. The report indigenous rights would like to see the Bank insist on far points out that "the collapse and ongoing instability of greater land and resource security, an opinion that is FONAMA (the National Environmental Fund) during shared by a number of Bank staff. They note that the GEF the life of the project serves to emphasize that unless an also requires that its projects be "country-driven" and cite institution has clear and unwavering support from the limitations in their clients' willingness to devolve govern- Government, it is unlikely to improve its performance ment tenure rights over forest and biodiversity resources no matter what level of 'institutional strengthening' (see later section on participation for examples.) initiative[s] are introduced under a project" (World The GEF sustainable use policy initiatives are also Bank 1998d). However, some experts point out that the ranked highly by most Bank staff and outside observ- larger gains to sustainable development and democ- ers. These initiatives include project activities that link racy obtained by bringing in a new and larger strategy livelihoods to conservation and the introduction of outweighed the demise of FONAMA. conservation incentives and sustainable use in Almost all task managers and observers assess biodiversity projects.8 In both China and India, the private sector development as relatively ineffective. Bank's GEF project is credited with scaling up pilot This assessment is endemic throughout the Bank's GEF efforts to link local livelihoods with conservation portfolio for forest biodiversity projects. Whereas cli- actions (called "ecodevelopment" in India) to main- mate control energy projects financed by GEF are stream national and provincial approaches to protected working successfully with private sector commercial area management. In Brazil, the GEF project has entities, the only substantive private sector components supported development of products such as nuts from in the forest portfolio are at the level of the household extractive reserves. These kinds of enterprise and farm enterprise. The private sector's major impact on co-management approaches-while falling short of the forest biodiversity is evident in its roles in forest demands of progressive NGOs-have substantially resource use and the associated threats-whether re- increased the role of local communities in setting forth lated to medicinal plants, other non-timber forest conservation planning and accepted use of forest products, nature tourism, wildlife marketing, large- resources. This use is usually associated with non- scale agricultural plantations, housing development, timber forest products, limited grazing, ecotourism, or hydroelectric power generation, irrigation, or other alternative sources of income, but in a number of infrastructure investments. The recognized failure to countries (such as Ghana, India, Indonesia, and the Lao work with the private sector despite its major stake in PDR) it also involves sustainable harvesting of trees in forestry operations and outcomes is a major lacuna in designated buffer zone forests according to approved the Bank's performance. The virtual absence of this management plans. sector from the 1991 Forest Strategy appears to have The most ineffective components identified by the 1 9 Financing the Global Benefits of Forests: The Bank's GEF Portfolio and the 1991 Forest Strategy largest number of Bank staff are those associated with any of the projects examined. It is noteworthy, how- financial sustainability. Attempts to increase user fees, ever, that a majority of projects do not give any rating taxes and royalties, and private sector financing have for these social dimensions. Some Regions of the Bank been disappointing. As the following discussion of (for example, South Asia) are setting up and maintain- financial sustainability issues concludes, however, the ing their own databases to monitor social development successful trust funds are among the most sustainable and Safeguards. For most of the Bank, however, the and innovative results of the Bank's GEF portfolio.9 existing monitoring of these important social dimen- Aside from these, the only reliable source of funding sions appears to be very inadequate-especially since has been the allocation of limited government budget- so much attention has gone into increasing participa- ary resources. tion at the project design stage. Given that indigenous and other ethnically vulner- Performance and Safeguard Ratings and Covenants able peoples are disproportionately affected by GEF Bank task managers are required to rate projects' projects in remote PAs, where many of these peoples implementation performance on the basis of supervi- live, the application of due diligence in examining sion missions. These ratings examine overall progress social and environmental issues becomes especially as well as a small number of process indicators, such as critical. In two cases (India and Mexico), the Bank's provision of counterpart funds, project management, Inspection Panel was called upon to make a prelimi- and procurement. Only two projects received an nary investigation into local allegations of failure to unsatisfactory rating for project management and follow the Bank's Operational Directives on resettle- counterpart funds: Carmeroon and India. Four ment and indigenous peoples. While these allegations projects-China, Costa Rica, Turkey, and Uganda- were found unworthy of a full inspection, they indicate received highly satisfactory ratings. The remainder the sensitivity of these projects to social issues regard- were judged satisfactory. This distribution compares ing indigenous peoples and their rights, compared with favorably with the rest of the Bank's forest portfolio the rights of the state to protect areas for conservation. and suggests that the performance of GEF projects, as In at least eight of the projects examined, outstanding measured by these gross indicators, is at least as good questions on these issues led to specific covenants." as that of other Bank projects in the forest sector. Five of the projects analyzed included covenants However, the overall view of the GEF Secretariat and requiring some form of environmental action. The Monitoring and Evaluation team is that the project Indonesia Biodiversity Collections project successfully ratings may be inflated. They question why some complied with the requirement to prepare an environ- projects do not get unsatisfactory ratings in the areas of mental health and safety action plan. The Cameroon project management and counterpart funds when these Project complied with the requirement to create a legal funds have been used for non-project purposes and the instrument prohibiting forest exploitation in the five government has given concessions for mining and project sites and to prepare implementation contracts forestry in key protected areas under GEF support.10 with NGOs. In the Philippines Conservation of Priority Problems encountered in implementation were Protected Areas Project, as of December 23, 1998, the those common to all Bank projects-delays in start-up, borrower had partially complied with the requirement counterpart funding, staff assignment and recruit- to issue presidential proclamations declaring eight of ment," procurement, and the like. As with other Bank ten project sites protected areas. In the Indonesia projects, specific management covenants were signed Kerinci Seblat project, the government complied with at project approval to serve as conditions for project covenants ensuring that any logging permits would effectiveness. In the view of some task managers, these include creation of biodiversity management zones covenants have been useful in increasing the serious- next to the PA and that mining concessions lacking ness with which recipient countries approach their significant economic potential would be terminated. responsibilities under the GEF grant program.12 But the government has yet to comply with covenants Task managers also rate performance on a few key on road construction; and the zoning plan is complete. social Safeguards, including resettlement, environmen- The India project's covenant requiring each state to tal assessments, and women in development. There are "ensure that activities outside the scope of the project no unsatisfactory ratings on any of these dimensions in shall not undermine effective biodiversity conservation 20 Effectiveness of GEF lProjects within the PAs or implementation of the involves some reduction in unrestrained use of forest ecodevelopment strategy under the project" has also resources. For example, it has been proposed that any been followed by the government. resettlement prior to or after the completion of a project Covenants on indigenous peoples and resettlement would also be subject to Bank Safeguards. Such a are found in six of the studied projects. The Honduras, stringent revision of Safeguard policies and their Nicaragua, and Indonesia Kerinci Seblat projects have application would have a major impact on the Bank's all made commitments to complete and carry out ability to continue implementing forest biodiversity indigenous peoples development plans."4 The Philip- projects with GEF or other Bank funds. pines project includes three covenants that deal with Aside from the inadequacies of the Safeguards delineating ancestral domain claims and issuing certifi- monitoring system, GEF project information has been cates for ancestral lands to indigenous peoples. This treated separately and unequally. GEF performance has achieved partial compliance, although the and Safeguard data, as well as basic project data, for country's new Indigenous People's Law and the com- projects that are not fully blended with Bank projects plexity of demarcation and of applicable laws has have not been maintained in regular Bank databases.17 delayed full implementation, so that only one claim Similarly, there have been only three Quality Assur- had been approved as of December 23, 1998.15 In the ance Group (QAG, within the Bank) reviews of GEF- event that resettlement is required, the Honduras funded projects. Because the GEF portfolio is still project agreed to "prepare and furnish to the Bank and young, only eight Implementation Completion Reports UNDP a resettlement plan for affected persons." In the (ICRs) have been done."8 While the new databases and case of India, one of the contested covenants required initiatives of QAG and Bank operations are apparently the government to "take all necessary actions to ensure being designed to address this problem, the lack of that the project activities shall not erode the customary integration of information reduces both internal over- tenure rights over land and other assets of the tribal sight and access to lea'rning. As one task manager population in the PAs" and another required that "each explained, there are fewer managerial flags to signal project State shall, in pursuing the objectives of the performance problems with GEF projects than with the project, not carry out any involuntary resettlement for regular Bank portfolio, resulting in fewer incentives to any people resident within the PAs."'6 devote resources to project supervision and quality The Bank's Safeguard policies on resettlement and control. Given the Bank's increasing attention to social indigenous peoples are being rewritten. A number of development issues, any reduction in attention to GEF task managers are concerned that their scope will be so projects is cause for concern. It will be critical to broadened that the Bank will not be able to engage in evaluate the new information system databases to any projects in protected areas where local peoples' ensure that they are fully integrated and to continue rights have been, or will be, curtailed at any time in the developing better means for monitoring social develop- past or future, since conservation almost always ment objectives and Safeguards. 21 Sustainability of GEF Projects Fi inancial Sustainability By their nature, GEF forest biodiversity conservation projects are likely to be at a disadvantage with regard to financial sustainability. Conservation of forests, especially in the short to medium term, can only compete with forest harvesting and alternative land uses such as agriculture if there is significant asset appreciation of forest "capital." Compelling arguments have been made for the value of undiscovered genetic material, as well as unmeasurable ecosystem benefits that may provide financial or to assume responsibility for the financial sustainability economic gains commensurate with the use values of the project after five years of GEF/Bank support, a forgone. Nevertheless, they remain highly speculative. more realistic understanding of the issues underlying Likewise, low-impact use-such as ecotourism or long-term financial sustainability of the conservation brazil nut collection-has not yet proved to provide effort is now emerging. Increased donor coordination, nearly as high an economic return as logging and land diversification in funding, income-generating activities conversion to agriculture, except in a few specialized at the local level, and support for the creation of cases and instances of high tourist revenue. The Brazil structures to channel funds from nongovernmental country study documents the comparative advantage of sources are among the options explored by some agriculture and plantation crops over natural forest agencies. In addition to highlighting the need for product extraction and the high cost estimates of longer and more flexible project terms (Porter and benefits foregone by the conservation option. others 1998; GEF data), the GEF has embarked on a In addition, GEF projects, by definition, fund the study to review the issues surrounding the sustainabil- incremental costs of forest conservation that provides ity of biodiversity conservation (Smith and Martin global, rather than national, benefit. That is, the GEF 2000). funds project components that, at least theoretically, An assessment of the treatment of financial sustain- would not otherwise receive funding from government ability issues in the reviewed portfolio reinforces the or commercial sources-although they could receive need for urgent attention to this issue. In the 44 project funding from other international donors. While there documents, financial sustainability is most often once was a rather naive assumption that a project's pegged to the establishment of trust funds. These funds "country-driven" requirement would lead the country usually combine grants for operating expenses with 23 Financing the Global Benefits of Forests: The Bank's GEF Portfolio and the 1991 Forest Strategy endowment funding, which provides long-term interest TABLE 4.1. FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY income. Beyond such trusts, financial sustainability is MECHANISMS IDENTIFIED IN PROJECT treated more as a long-term goal than a concrete DOCUMENTS project objective with mandated activities. Most projects either neglect issues of financial sustainability _ _ _ _smc or deal with them in vague terms. The most common method of dealing with the issue is to prescribe a study @ isthdnis on trust fund feasibility or alternate sources of financ- ing. Table 4.1 identifies the financial sustainability mechanisms found in project documents. Trust Funds The use of trust funds to establish perpetual endow- ments to finance the incremental costs associated with forest biodiversity conservation has been a significant concrete policy initiatives to overcome traditional innovation in the conservation donor community. The government management of visitors. A number of GEF and the Bank have played an important role in projects, such as those in China, Costa Rica, India, and legitimizing-as well as providing the capital for-a Uganda, have prescribed that studies be undertaken in number of these trust funds. In the process, lessons were an effort to develop proactive policies for tourism and learned that have been incorporated in recent trust fund visitor management. However, most projects have not design. These lessons encouraged the GEF to continue directly engaged the private sector tourism industry in financing these initiatives after several years of not developing policies and facilities that could increase supporting trust funds (see box 4.1). benefits to conservation and local communities through Given the recognized contributions of trust funds and fees and linked income-generating opportunities' their potential as a sustainable source of financing, are Investments in local community and household other mechanisms and approaches needed to finance enterprises designed to increase their conservation role conservation? As a rough rule of thumb, endowment trust have tended to be more concerned with sustainability funds are unlikely to be able to use more than 5 percent of issues. Most of these programs have tried to develop their capital annually (assuming an average rate of return participatory methods for local communities to identify of 8-10 percent, with 3-5 percent reinvested to keep up investments and income opportunities linked with with inflation). This means that even with a $20 million conservation-such as ecotourism, non-timber forest trust fund-an average goal in the projects reviewed-it is product development, or alternative non-forest unlikely that more than $1 million will be available on an resource-based employment-that have the potential to annual basis. While conservation trust funds can provide be self-sustaining. In theory, these improvements in the a substantial permanent source of financing for a notori- livelihoods of local people will continue to reduce their ously underfunded sector, this funding remains woefully pressure on forest biodiversity and strengthen their inadequate for dealing with all of the global biodiversity resolve to work for conservation. In practice, this conservation needs pointed out in the 1991 Forest assumption has been challenged, and the empirical Strategy. data are not yet available to draw any firm conclusions over the long term (Wells and others 1999b). In the Other Mechanisms for Financial Sustainability short term, most task managers and NGO observers Visitor fees, lodge and guiding concessions, and direct conclude that some of these community and household taxes have been identified in project documents as investments do appear to provide a more sustainable possible sources of additional financing. Their identifi- basis for increased community cooperation in conser- cation as mechanisms for sustainability has been vation, as well as poverty reduction. The key to their surprisingly low, however, with only five projects overall effectiveness seems to lie in the degree to which referring to the use of fees. With nature tourism one of they are directly linked to conservation and local the fastest-growing global industries, nine projects refer populations are able to deal effectively with internal to potential financing from tourism, but few have and external threats (see also Sanjayan, Shen, and 24 Sustainability of GEF P rojec s BOX 4.1. CONCLUSIONS FROM EXPERIENCE WITH CONSERVATION TRUST FUNDS T | s rust funds have long-term biodiversity becoming involved in least 10-15 years; made impres- conservation impact. In biodiversity conservation * There is active sive accom- part this is due to the diffi- for the first time. To suc- government sup- plishments in the areas culty of measuring ceed, trust funds need the port for a public- of (a) supporting pro- biodiversity impact, and governance structures, private sector tected areas, including of attributing impact to a staff, and technical sup- mechanism outside enabling the creation of particular intervention, port to allow them direct government new national parks, especially over the short proactively to influence control; expansion of existing term. It is also true that their environment, moni- * A critical mass of areas, and providing a trust funds generate rela- tor their results and learn people from basic "resource secu- tively-small amounts of from experience, main- diverse sectors of rity" for their opera- resources in relation to tain credible and trans- society can work tions; (b) generating and national conservation parent procedures, and together to achieve managing financial needs (p. vi). support participatory biodiversity conser- resources; (c) enabling The overall success approaches to conserva- vation and sustain- the participation of civil of conservation trust tion and sustainable able development; society institutions in funds depends on their development (p. vi). and resource conservation; ability to participate in GEF should continue * There is a basic (d) increasing the level developing-national con- to finance conservation fabric of legal and of scientific research servation strategies, to trust funds when the nec- financial practices applied to conservation work with other public essary circumstances are and supporting issues; and (e) increasing and private agencies to met. Four conditions are institutions public awareness of con- develop agile and effec- essential: (including bank- servation issues. Uncer- tive management ing, auditing and tainty remains, how- approaches, and to nur- * The issue to be contracting) in ever, about trust funds' ture community groups addressed requires a which people have ability to demonstrate and other organizations commitment of at confidence (p. ix). Source: GEF 1999b. Jansen 1997; India Ecodevelopment Project Document biodiversity despite being non-extractive, these compo- data). Many projects have failed to make these link- nents include non-timber forest product harvesting, ages adequately. plantations, and management of community forests in buffer zones. This management may include small- Sustainable Use and Forest Strategy scale thinning or logging based on approved manage- Issues of ecological sustainability are also associated ment plans (as in Honduras, India, and Indonesia). with community investment programs in the GEF While ecologists associated with the projects in-country projects.' In 15 cases, PA projects have included some are usually assigned to determine the ecological sus- form of sustainable use of forest areas and products as tainability of such extractive activities, few projects components to deal with local communities residing in have an adequate scientific basis or the requisite data and around PAs. For example, Ghana has a pilot to ensure that there will be no major ecological collaborative forest management component in sa- impacts. However, as most analyses point out, the vanna woodlands, and Lao receives support from the alternative would likely be much larger adverse GEF for its organizational framework of a sustainable impacts from unmanaged extraction. forest management initiative. In addition to nature This dilemma underlies the 1991 Forest Strategy's tourism, which can have some negative impacts on ban on logging in tropical moist forests. There is a vast 25 Financing the Global Benefits of Forests: The Bank's GEF Portfolio and the 1991 Forest Strategy amount of biodiversity in the more than 90 percent of Evidence from the Bank's GEF forest portfolio forestland outside the protected areas. These forests indicates that the GEF has avoided logging in also serve critical ecosystem functions in maintaining tropical moist forests. In its interim guidelines, the corridors, genetic variability, and buffers for the conser- GEF reaffirmed the 1991 strategy by carrying it one vation of biodiversity within PAs. Providing managed step further, to cover all primary forests. It is access to these non-PA forests, including access to generally agreed that these policies have allowed the trunks, as well as branches, nuts, and flowers, is a Bank and GEF to maintain widespread support major strategy to reduce pressure on PAs and to extend among conservation NGOs and to avoid the intense biodiversity conservation to the currently neglected controversy generated by Bank forestry projects in forest resources of the world. The 1991 ban, however, past decades. But the question remains whether these has heavily constrained projects from directly address- policies have also constrained the Bank and GEF ing these issues in tropical moist forests. from addressing effectively the substantial issues Until recently, the GEF had not defined a policy on surrounding biodiversity conservation in forest areas logging and sustainable use independent of the Bank's outside PAs. The sustainability of conservation of 1991 Forest Strategy. But it has not financed any global forest biodiversity may require incorporating logging in tropical moist forests and has avoided these vast managed forest areas within conservation projects in which this is a component, except where efforts for the biodiversity they contain, the connec- there are small-scale community forest activities in tivity they provide, and the potential source of buffer zones. Nevertheless, the GEF has supported renewable financing that they offer. sustainable use of non-timber forest products and is A new approach for the GEF and the World Bank in looking for means to expand these activities in ways addressing biodiversity conservation in private lands is compatible with biodiversity conservation. the Ecomarkets project in Costa Rica. This project was In an effort to define a clearer policy on logging and approved by the GEF Council in December 1999. The sustainable use, the GEF is working with international $60.23 million project is designed to increase production forestry and conservation institutions such as the Center of environmental services in Costa Rica by supporting the for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and the development of markets and private sector providers for Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) to develop a basis services supplied by privately owned forests, including for a policy in early 2000. An interim set of "Guiding protection of biological diversity, greenhouse gas mitiga- Principles for Projects Associated with Logging" has been tion, and provision of hydrological services. The global issued (attached as Annex B). These guidelines state that environmental objective, to which GEF allocated $8.33 "Logging in primary forests, however, will not be million, is to foster biodiversity conservation and preserve supported by GEF." This is an even more conservative important forest ecosystems through conservation ease- ban than that outlined in the 1991 Forest Strategy; it ments on privately owned lands outside of PAs in the extends to temperate as well as tropical moist forests. Mesoamerican Biological Corridor in Costa Rica (GEF These interim guidelines also ban financing for activities 1999e). This project clearly marks a new approach to associated with sustainable forest management, such as providing incentives to conserve and sustainably manage the cost of certification schemes, restoration of habitats resources, making it a prime demonstration project, after logging, and the costs of commercial, industrial offering the GEF and the World Bank the opportunity to timber plantations and tree farming systems. However, extrapolate valuable lessons. Once implementation be- the GEF has supported "small, pilot, local community- gins, it will be interesting to see how the conceptual based demonstration projects" and the mainstreaming of framework evolves on the ground. Creating markets for biodiversity considerations into the forest sector. The sequestered carbon and monitoring compliance of envi- guidelines-in conformity with the 1991 strategy-also ronmental service contracts are among the activities that encourage policy reform for sustainable forest manage- will require new skills in addition to those required for ment, mainstreaming biodiversity considerations into traditional PA projects. broad land-use planning, participatory forest manage- ment, strengthened monitoring, sustainable harvest of Cofinancing Conservation non-timber forest products, and nonconsumptive uses such Based both on the mandates of the 1991 Forest Strategy as tourism (GEF 1999c). and GEF goals, GEF grant funding is intended to 26 S ustai nability of GEF Pr ojects BOX 4.2. LAO PDR FOREST MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PROJECT T n he overall resource capacity for in effect for five years. biodiversity monitoring objective of the staff at all levels, and (3) According to the project system and conserva- project is to local management, plan- status report dated tion awareness pro- assist the government ning, and administrative 619/99, "the most note- gram in Xe Piane. In of Lao PDR in imple- infrastructure develop- worthy achievement to this context, the GEF- menting new forest ment. The component date is the strong partner- funded subprogram has resource management funded by GEF (this is ship fostered with other been able to leverage systems to better part of a larger World agencies, including mobi- considerable additional achieve the sustainable Bank project) focuses on lization of well-qualified donor support. Both management and con- establishing and manag- and experienced conser- subprograms have servation of the ing protected areas and vation advisors (VSA, developed close work- country's resources on planning and imple- U.N., and German vol- ing partnerships with through (1) supportive menting community par- unteers). Supplementary experienced in-country legal, policy, and ticipatory programs in Danish-funded grant NGOs to build capac- organizational compo- and around them. financing is being pro- ity and strengthen field nents, (2) human The project has been vided to develop a field implementation." leverage increased cofinancing from implementing from less than one-third in the early 1990s to two-thirds agencies and other sources (see box 4.2). by the late 1990s. Most of the increase in this Increased implementing agency and host country cofinancing has come from bilateral donors and host cofinancing serve as indicators for mainstreaming country sources. World Bank cofinancing also biodiversity conservation, as well as a means to gauge increased in the later years, but less dramatically. the potential for financial support following the The GEF coordinating unit in the World Bank has completion of GEF projects. argued that this relatively small-and highly vari- Figures 4.1 and 4.2 depict the sources of able-increase in direct Bank cofinancing applies only cofinancing of portfolio projects in absolute amounts to "blended projects," projects in which both the GEF and as a percentage of total project costs. These figures and the Bank provide direct financing. Taking into show that the Bank and the GEF have been successful in account the biodiversity components of other Bank progressively increasing the percentage of cofinancing projects, the coordinating unit calculates that as of June FIGURE 4.1. COFINANCING FIGURE 4.2. PROPORTIONAL COFINANCING $ millions NGO/foundation 3% 400 - NGO/foundation 350 Biaea-iatrl2% . GEF allocation 300 -Bilateral 1,iI\ 35% 250 Host country I 200 Wol Bankil f 10 GEF oo allocation ' 50 Host country 0 22% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 World Bank 18% 27 Financing the Global Benefits of Forests: The Bank's GEF Portfolio and the 1991 Forest Strategy 1998, the Bank had leveraged close to $2 billion for reached in a recent study of financial mechanisms for biodiversity components (World Bank 1998b). Since sustainable forestry commissioned by the United this amount includes cofinancing from host country and Nations Development Program (UNDP) (Moura and other donor sources, a more useful figure would be the others 1999). The authors of this study point to the new $650 million in Bank funds allocated to biodiversity. mechanisms that have been, and are being, developed Since the amount includes non-forest biodiversity as for financial sustainability (such as trust funds, visitor well, it would need to be further reduced to render it fees, conservation easements, tradable carbon seques- comparable with the analysis here (World Bank tration, biodiversity royalties, and watershed services) 1998b). Even if Bank cofinancing is somewhat less than as sources of long-term financing. With regard to the implied in this analysis, it is evident that the Bank is GEF, they conclude: providing approximately $1.50 to $2 for each grant dollar provided by the GEF. The Bank is also helping to Nevertheless, GEF is and will continue to be leverage substantial additional host country and donor an important financing mechanism for forest funds to fulfill this policy goal.2 conservation. What appears to be beyond Given the future unpredictability of donor financ- GEF's current possibilities, is to play [sic] a ing for conservation, the most critical element in the major financing instrument for solving the cofinancing picture is the role of host country financ- complex problems of deforestation and forest ing. The figures show an encouraging increase. Host degradation, not to mention the sustainable country contributions by India and Madagascar were development of forest-dependent human com- $19 and $31 million respectively in 1996, and South munities, in required scale (para. 213). Africa's contribution totaled $69.90 million in 1998. In the case of South Africa, valuations of government land Although they represent a very small fraction of the and facilities, as well as a substantial private trust financial resources involved in GEF and forest fund, greatly boosted the registered cofinancing. Sub- biodiversity conservation projects, conservation- tracting these cases from the analysis leaves a more minded NGOs and private foundations have played a modest level of host country cofinancing, on the order disproportionate role in leveraging GEF, Bank, host of $2 million per country. Since this figure includes the country, and other donor funding. Local and interna- baseline financing for the project sites and activities tional NGOs were involved in the design of 80 percent prior to Bank GEF financing, it is not evident whether it of the projects in the Bank GEF portfolio, and in many can be read as a country commitment to taking over the cases initiated the projects as well as playing a major additional global costs being borne by the GEF. role in execution (see the later discussion of participa- Instead, comments by task managers and some country tion). NGOs and private foundations have also played officials in the case studies suggest that it is unlikely a critical role in developing many of the innovative that host countries will be able to assume the global models for ICDPs, rapid biodiversity assessment meth- conservation costs of the project at its completion. odologies, database structures, and participatory The same conclusion is reached by the Bank approaches that have been embedded in many of the analysis of Integrated Conservation and Development Bank GEF projects. It is their voice that continues to Projects (ICDPs) in Indonesia, where the Asian finan- dominate global discussions of policy and to goad their cial crisis further undermined potential increases in governments in both the North and the South to government support for forest biodiversity. The authors continue providing financing for conservation. It may state that "biodiversity conservation in Indonesia and be reasonable to speculate that NGOs' strong continu- most other developing countries is clearly going to ing advocacy of conservation will do more to ensure require substantial external subsidies for as long as sustainable financing for forest biodiversity-including there is still some biodiversity left to protect" (Wells the continuation of the GEF-than any other mecha- and others 1999b). A less pessimistic conclusion is nism currently available. 28 Social and Institutional Issues olicy Synergy P The Bank's increasing emphasis on stakeholder participation in projects, signaled by the establishment of the Participation Learning Group in the early 1990s and the publica- tion of a Participation Sourcebook in 1996, was reinforced by strong policy guidelines issued by the GEF Council in 1996. Titled Public Involvement in GEF-Financed Projects, these guidelines were applicable to all implementing agencies (GEF 1996b). While stressing local community participation, the. guidelines were explicit in calling for The cluster of projects implemented in the Europe the participation of all major stakeholders in project and Central Asia (ECA) Region' during the first years design and implementation. These policy initiatives- of the GEF exemplify the way participatory activities which reflected innovations introduced by NGOs at the were often structured. These projects generally pro- end of the 1980s-led to a noticeable change in the rates vided institutional support to national organizations, of participation throughout the review period. This and a number of protected areas were identified as the change is correlated with alterations in project design, focus of the field components. The activities designed with increasing numbers of ICDPs addressing both for the communities generally focused on public aware- biodiversity management and local population concerns. ness campaigns that highlighted the importance of protected areas and biodiversity values, and participa- Changing Approaches to Participation tion was limited to regional consultations to provide Early projects in the 1991-95 period tended to focus on information on proposed park changes. In general, working with nascent environmental agencies that emphasis was given to building awareness and garner- needed to build capacity and develop national environ- ing support from the NGOs, and not necessarily from mental plans and management systems for protected the communities in the protected areas. The Ukraine areas (for example, ECA projects). Other projects in ICR states that "local communities approved reserve this period focused on working with research institu- expansion. Approval occurred at the local political tions to train scientists in sampling and survey tech- level and not necessarily based on good understanding niques (Indonesia Biodiversity Inventory, Belarus). of the issues by the local community." Similarly, the While it was recognized with hindsight that even large- Belarus ICR suggests that "participation would have scale planning activities would greatly benefit from been more effective if the social assessment had been stakeholder participation, few of these earlier projects done earlier in the project and not the last year of incorporated participatory elements in either their implementation" (World Bank documentation). design or implementation. The learning process illustrated by these early 29 Financing the GlobaI Benefits of Forests: The Bank's GE F Portfolio and the 1991 Forest Strategy TABLE 5.1. PARTICIPATION IN PROJECT STAGES tory elements in their objectives. This changed after (PERCENT) 1996, and some later projects (Honduras, India, Indone- ot~l N sia Kerinci, Senegal) have extensive participatory com- (alle - - !ponents. In some highly participatory projects, the Stage == ts= incorporation of stakeholders in design and implementa- Objectives - 0 tion is mainstreamed with sufficient thoroughness that Imple m e n t a4ign 5 6 participation is no longer mentioned as a separate Evaluation - i - _ER8; - objective.3 An examination of participation rankings for level projects has been incorporated into new project design, and breadth by Region showed that the Asian and the according to task managers working on the next Latin American Regions scored marginally higher (5.3) generation of GEF projects in the ECA Region. The new than Africa (4.7). ECA has the lowest ranking (4.0), but Central Asian and Russian projects have incorporated most of the projects in that Region were designed and much broader stakeholder participation and focus a implemented in earlier years, as discussed above. In larger portion of their project activity on the concerns discussions with task managers from all Regions, there of the local population in key PAs. Given that the early was unanimous support for the value of increasing projects were among the first for the Bank and for these constructive participation in design and implementa- newly emerged countries, the openness to learning that tion, although some task managers expressed frustra- is reported is in itself a valuable contribution of the tion with the limited time and resources available to portfolio. carry out this task, as well as at the negative attitudes During the period of the 1996 approval of the new of some NGOs toward any Bank project. GEF participation guidelines, there was a noticeable There was very little reference found to participa- increase in participation in project design and imple- tory monitoring, and even less to participation in mentation. As shown in table 5.1, participation elements supervision mission reports. While discussions with increased markedly in design and implementation.2 task managers indicate that there is more participation However, insofar as these elements are captured in in supervision and evaluation than is reported, the project design documents, they still remain below 50 existing formats (PSRs or the old 590s) do not include percent, and in the case of participatory evaluation, are detailed data on these activities. Participatory monitor- still less than 20 percent of all GEF projects. Very few ing was mentioned in less than one-third of the projects, projects (9 percent) in the early years include participa- and only one-twelfth of the recent supervision reports BOX 5.1. SOCIAL ASSESSMENTS T | 5 he case of preimplementation par- gist, and a psychologist public participation Argentina ticipatory planning with with a specialization in and training plan-as (Biodiversity methods such as social organizational develop- well as a new partici- Conservation Project assessment. The team ment and conflict resolu- patory approach to 1997, in association designed and carried out tion. They consulted with implementing both with the IBRD-financed a targeted census, sur- all families and commu- plans (World Bank Native Forests and Pro- veys, interviews, and nities in the core zones 1998e). A local social tected Areas project) workshops to assess local and a cross-section of the assessment and public illustrates how more interests in and condi- communities in the buffer participation specialist recent projects deal tions for establishing new zones. Findings and rec- was hired to conduct with park creation in protected areas. ommendations from the social assessments areas with human The social assess- social assessment pro- throughout the project settlements. There is a ment team consisted of duced two plans-the (GEF 1997c, p. 60). greater emphasis on an agronomist, a sociolo' mitigation plan and the 30 Social and Instit titional IssLICs TABLE 5.2. PARTICIPATORY METHODS the key roles women play in natural resource use and o'e t tbat EMloy management in most developing nations, Bank GEF hod ( 3p .eri projects have not been able to include women in the process of project design and implementation in almost as ssments - 47 three-quarters of the projects reviewed. While the 42 : - - r X timpacts of this neglect of women's participation on the pati rural appraisals - . achievement of desired results cannot be easily assessed (and the difficulty of increasing women's participation assessments~ 2 1 1 1in the face of forestry establishment resistance in many countries must be acknowledged), there is no excuse for not increasing the visibility of gender concerns in future Bank GEF forest projects. mention participation issues. Even more alarming from the point of view of Over the review period, projects have increased the effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability is the incon- number of methods employed to facilitate participa- sistent and marginal inclusion of the private sector. tion. Many have hired social scientists to design and While Latin America and Africa have made some monitor participatory project elements. The number of progress in bringing in the private sector as a key participatory exploratory workshops before project stakeholder, in the remaining Regions only Indonesia implementation has also increased (see box 5.1). appears to have substantive private sector involve- While the study did not aim to assess the level of ment. In Latin America, for example, environmentally quality of each method, table 5.2 identifies the percent- progressive business associations and entrepreneurs age of total projects that employed various participa- served as board members in the creation of the tory methods. Mexican trust fund (1996). In Panama (1997), the project team plans to work with mining concessions to Identifying the Stakeholders incorporate social and environmental considerations While participation of some key players, notably local into their extractive operations. In El Salvador (1998), communities, has increased throughout the review the main beneficiaries are private commercial coffee period, systematic identification and participation of associations who will switch their agricultural prac- all key stakeholder groups has been spotty and incon- tices to promote biodiversity-friendly coffee, while sistent. Table 5.3 identifies the stakeholder groups that expanding their market to environmentally conscious were identified in the project design documents. The consumers abroad. table demonstrates that local government representa- As noted in the section on sustainability, the private tives and both national and international NGOs were sector is, some would argue, the critical stakeholder in identified more often than local communities or their fulfilling the GEF and 1991 strategy mandate for representatives in the form of community-based organi- zations (CBOs) as being involved in project design. TABLE 5.3. STAKEHOLDERS IDENTIFIED IN Indigenous peoples were identified in half of the TABLECT D ESIGN IDENTS projects-a total not much less than the number of PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENTS projects in which indigenous peoples are reported. __fied Given the widespread recognition of the crucial role of p- cen indigenous peoples and local communities in safe- . guarding their natural resources, it is encouraging that en ep tives -- 8 projects have increasingly shown considerable progress ne a iresearch in involving these groups in project design and imple- mentation. It is disappointing that women's groups were the users least often identified. This poor showing is confirmed i peoples by interviews and questionnaire responses of task at o ctor managers. Although there is widespread recognition of p_ 31 Financing the Global Benefits of Forests: The Bank's GEF Portfolio and the 1991 Forest Strategy biodiversity conservation. Whether involved in roads, rights supercede national and global rights and respon- hydroelectricity, industrial expansion, mining, com- sibilities, and the degree to which local communities mercial plantations, or in logging and the industries can be trusted to conserve and sustainably manage directly dependent on forest resources, such as pulp, forest resources in a rapidly commercializing world. plywood, chipboard, wood energy, and nature tourism, The second group to begin receiving international the private sector wields substantial resources and recognition for their critical role in forest biodiversity carries disproportionate influence in many policy deci- conservation is the commercial private sector, along sions. Issues of corruption and governance are never far with the other sectors of the government with which from the surface, and have had direct impact on some they work (for example, mining and industries, roads Bank GEF projects.4 Neglecting direct private sector and power, tourism and planning). While the mitiga- participation in project design and implementation, as tion aspects of these groups have long been considered many of the Bank's GEF projects have done, invites important in achieving the objectives of biodiversity back door participation and risks undermining project conservation, the constructive engagement potential of effectiveness and sustainability. Despite the reported incorporating private sector entities and their govern- hesitation of some government forest departments and ment counterparts is not yet reflected in any but a NGOs to invite commercial private sector stakeholders handful of innovative projects, especially those in to the table, their continuing exclusion carries even Central America. Both the 1991 Forest Strategy and higher risk. GEF guidance encourage addressing intersectoral The decade-long history of participation in Bank policy issues. But both discourage direct involvement GEF projects demonstrates that the nature of with forest-based industries in tropical moist forest biodiversity conservation responsibilities and gover- countries, and neither provides explicit guidance on nance is changing-if not changing in fact, changing in engaging the private sector effectively. These lacunae perception. It used to be common for countries and the could severely curtail the scope of impact and sustain- Bank to assume that government forest departments ability of Bank and GEF efforts unless they are were solely responsible for forest biodiversity conserva- addressed more directly in the future. tion; it is now evident that many other players have The balance of rights and responsibilities of local central roles. and indigenous communities, national and global The first group to gain international recognition- entities, the private sector, and traditional government including recognition in the policies of the Bank and line agencies is changing-and will continue to change. GEF-was the local community. These communities, Decisionmaking powers over forest resources are being often consisting of heterogeneous, indigenous groups, transferred more consciously and explicitly and were seen as the traditional and natural stewards of the assumed by local entities and the private profit and resources of the forest in which (or near which) they nonprofit sectors. The Bank increasingly has access to live. As understanding of their role deepened, there was the tools and partners it needs to engage these stake- increasing recognition that they needed secure rights to holders in more effective policy dialogue, program and resources, as well as incentives to use these resources in project design, and implementation. However, it may ecologically helpful ways. The Bank and the GEF have require more openness to innovation, more resources tended to modify their projects to reflect this under- for constructive participation, and a longer-term time standing, although many in traditional forest services horizon to facilitate the most equitable and effective have yet to be convinced of the wisdom of this balances for the future. Current policies need to reflect approach and, as the exclusion of women demon- these realities and provide safe passage for directors strates, there is much room for continuing refinement and task managers who want to lead the way to the and improvement. Considerable conflict and contro- next decade. versy continues over the degree to which these local 32 Mainstreaning Within the World Bank and Client Countries B o th the GEF and the World Bank agree that the Bank should be integrating global envi- ronmental objectives into its regular lending and non-lending operations (GEF 1998b; World Bank 1998f). This mainstreaming goal is seen by the GEF as consistent with the Conventions on Biological Diversity and Climate Change and as a means for leveraging greater impact. While country mainstreaming of global environmental concerns is not a binding agree- ment on client countries under the Conventions, it is encouraged by these Conventions, and it is the result that forms the basis for ultimate judgement of Finally, the team found that the Bank has not yet the Bank's own mainstreaming. The Bank states that undertaken programming based on global envi- "the Bank Group is committed to work with its clients ronmental objectives on any significant scale in integrating global environmental objectives into (World Bank 1998f, p. xiv). their national sustainable development programs, and in meeting their obligations under the global environ- In its response to this evaluation, the Bank claimed mental conventions" (World Bank 1998f, p. 1). "important progress" in mainstreaming both the lend- According to the 1997-98 Study of GEF's Overall ing and nonlending services provided to its clients, as Performance, well as "in the establishment of 'in-house' mechanisms that are required to make such services global-environ- The World Bank has mainstreamed with regard ment-friendly" (World Bank 1998f, p. 1). The Bank is to cofinancing of GEF projects. However, [the in the process of developing a strategy for addressing team] found that the Bank has not done as much global environmental concerns in Bank policies and in its regular portfolio of projects in the programs.' This review finds that while there has been biodiversity and climate focal areas as it might some significant progress in mainstreaming GEF objec- have; that it has not taken steps to create the staff tives and funding within the Bank, there are still incentives necessary to put global environmental critical gaps in practice and perception that undermine concerns on a par with traditional bank business; the abilities of both agencies to mainstream global that it has not systematically integrated global forest biodiversity concerns within the country pro- environmental objects into economic and sector grams where they really matter. work or into the Country Assistance Strategies (CAS) process; and that it has not adequately Financing Mechanisms for Mainstreaming addressed the impact on the global environment The Bank cites the increase in Bank and associated of its financing of fossil fuel power development. co-funding lending to $1.8 billion for biodiversity as 33 Finanicinig the Global Beniefits of Forests: The Bank's GEF Portfolio and the 1991 Forest Strategy the principal indicator of increased mainstreaming, appear to be ducking some of the most difficult issues and uses it to show that GEF funding has not displaced related to long-term mainstreaming of global environ- regular Bank funds in this sector (World Bank 1998b). ment objectives-and thereby its ability to achieve the As discussed in the earlier section on cofinancing, it is 1991 Forest Strategy objectives. true that direct Bank co-funding of GEF projects increased slightly toward the latter half of the 1990s. In Nonlending Mechanisms for Mainstreaming addition, OED's main report found that there have been In addition to financial indicators, the Bank identified substantial Bank investments in forestry components in five additional mechanisms for mainstreaming global non-forestry projects (World Bank 1998c, p. 5). How- forest biodiversity: operational policies, sector policies ever, the substantial increase in cofinancing from host and strategies, analytic tools, new products and part- country and bilateral sources documented in this nerships, and streamlining the GEF in Bank operations. review (see figures 3.2 and 3.3 in Chapter 3), although Operational policies for environmental assessment, undoubtedly arranged by the Bank, is not in itself natural habitats, indigenous peoples, and economic evidence of the significant increases in Bank funding evaluation of investment projects have all been consis- claimed. The increased Bank financing of global tent with both the 1991 Forest Strategy and the GEF's biodiversity is still modest. objectives.4 While some task managers expressed More important, does this amount of total funding concern that the ongoing revision of some of the from the GEF and cofinancing sources begin to deal policies, including the policy on resettlement, may with the scale of the problem of global biodiversity constrain future Bank projects or programs from conservation posed by the 1991 Forest Strategy and the investing in protected areas or indigenous peoples (see GEF? There is also a related question: to what extent Chapter 3), other questions about these policies spring does financing for national biodiversity-the kind from underlying concerns about the 1991 Forest Strat- countries are willing to borrow for-equate with egy itself. These deal with the restrictions on the mainstreaming global biodiversity concerns? Will financing of logging in moist tropical forests and the countries ever be willing to borrow for global lack of encouragement for engaging the private sector biodiversity conservation, especially if they are no in the global conservation agenda. longer eligible for concessional International Develop- Country Assistance Strategies (CASs) are devel- ment Association (IDA) funding?2 oped by the Bank with the client countries to serve as Neither the Bank nor the GEF appears to have the agreed basis for prioritizing Bank assistance. The confronted this issue of the scale and sustainability of degree to which global environmental issues are incor- funding for global biodiversity with the honest vigor it porated in the CAS, and the degree to which projects requires. While there have been some rough estimates refer to the CAS to place their investment within the of the magnitude of funding that would be needed to overall country strategy, serves as a strong indicator of conserve significant amounts of the world's forest the amount of policy mainstreaming achieved by both biodiversity, such estimates have not figured in the the Bank and the client countries. The review of project operational strategies of either the GEF or the Bank.3 documents undertaken in this study to determine the Because these estimates of the amount of additional number of projects that identify linkages to their funding needed for global conservation are usually respective CASs shows noticeable improvement in the several orders of magnitude above present funding latter half of the decade (see table 6.1). Since recent levels, it is perhaps not surprising that attention has Bank guidance requires CASs to include global envi- focused on managing the funding now being made ronmental concerns wherever appropriate, and requires available. Furthermore, there is widespread recogni- project documents to refer to the CASs, this improve- tion that problems of absorptive capacity in govern- ment in nominal mention is not surprising. ment institutions, as well as the lack of mechanisms for However, the Bank admits that few CASs explicitly channeling funding to private, nongovernmental insti- address global environmental concerns. Passing refer- tutions, limits the effective amount of funds that can be ences to the environment are rarely integrated into the used at this time. By avoiding more direct engagement overall economic strategy developed with the country. with the problems of scale and unwillingness to borrow The Bank attributes this shortcoming to "overriding for investments in forest conservation, the Bank would concerns for short- to medium-term economic problems 34 Mainstreaming Within the World Bank anid Clierit Coaintries TABLE 6.1. PROJECTS WITH REFERENCE TO CASs to its clients, the Bank is forced to be more "country mainstreamng operational atoolsforglbJet); China; Mali ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IIIIIIAM` E Rd-u"asR S=- w BiLanka W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a ailll g' -_ I,Zimbabwe trying to integrate long-term global environmental biodiversiry objectives throuhb ntral Asia Project) and low client interest," "lack of familiarity with acknowledges that despite advances, "few countries have analytical tools to analyze the issues, and insufficient continued to develop and maintain complete Green knowledge of Bank staff of client country obligations Accounts," and it has been necessary to simplify tools to under the global conventions" (World Bank 1998f, focus on more useful "resource accounts" in key sectors p. 16). As an implementing agency directly responsible (World Bank 1998f, pp. 17-18). No clear pathway to to its clients, the Bank is forced to be more "country mainstreaming operational tools for global environmen- driven" than the GEF, which is one step removed. As tal issues, or more realistic reinterpretation of this goal, such, it appears to have acknowledged more directly has yet been developed. the challenges and underlying questions involved in The Bank has also sought to mainstream global trying to inmentabecties -er floly manstreameal biodiversity objectives through new partnership initia- concerns into short-term economic development agen- tives with NGOs. These include the Forest Market das. The Bank is willing to ask whether perceived Transformation Initiative in994(now ForestTrends), tradeoffs between short-term economic and social needs the World Bank-WWF Alliance for effective protected and long-term environmental concerns are real, and area expansion and certified sustainable forest man- can be realistically bridged through win-win solutions agement in 1998 (renamed the Alliance for Forest (Wored Bank 1998if, p. 11). The Bank, however, along Conservation and Sustainable Use), and the Critical with the GEF, appears to back away from looking at the Ecosystems Partnership Fund to evaluate ecosystem likely answers and their implications for global forest pressures and develop new projects. These initiatives biodiversity mainstreaming within ei todlghe Bank or (with the exception of the first), were established so the client countries. It may well be unlikely themselveat intiati at o iis premature to evaluate their success. environmental objectives will be fully mainstreamed in Nevertheless, the substantive progress achieved at the either the Bank or many of the client country policies political level in these initiatives could be better and priorities for the foreseeable future. If so, more matched if more funds were committed for their realistic goals and strategies may be required. implementation. Increasing the range of nongovern- The operational tools developed by the Bank to ment stakeholders directly involved in promoting the support the current commitment to increased global biodiversity agenda is clearly an innovative mainstreaminginclude monitoring and evaluation guide- approach that is closely aligned with both the 1991 lines, a "Global Overlays?' Program to integrate global Forest Strategy and GEF objectives. Successfully environmental concerns in sector and planni ng work, and attaining results, as well as mainstreaming these tools to adopt greener accounting methodologies. These efforts, however, may require more work to make these are all thorny conceptual issues that lend themselves to initiatives more inclusive of other NGOs-particularly developing increasingly complex, and subsequently often those from the South-as well as key government unused, tools. As noted earlier, despite improvements in stakelholders. the specification of objectives and indicators over the Streamlining the GEF in Bank operations has amixed decade, there is still no consensus on monitoring indica- record to date. Despite stated intentions to do away with tors, and even less consensus on their actual use in disincentives for Bank staff to deai with the relatively projects. The Bank admits that the impact of the Global smaller, more processing-intensive requirements of GEF Overlays Program has been limited. The Bank similarly projects compared with regular Bank lending, the maj'or- 35 Financing the Globai Benefits of Forests: The Bank's GE F Portfolio anid the 1991 Forest Strategy BOX 6.1. REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT r 1 he Congo Basin Rainforest is the second-largest * Implementing or improving telecommunication contiguous primary forest in the world and one infrastructure, including internet facilities of the last three remaining blocks of intact * Developing information services tropical rainforest. With the financial support of the * Developing catalogues and rosters. GEF, international donors, NGOs, and national au- thorities, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Encouraging decisionmakers to use environmen- Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equato- tal information and facilitating sound planning rial Guinea, and Gabon are working together to im- for land use in the Congo Basin by: prove planning and management of natural re- * Organizing sensitization and communication sources in the Congo Basin at the regional and workshops for decisionmakers country levels. * Developing user-friendly information tools and elaborating a regional report on the environ- National authorities identified the following con- ment straints: * Developing communications tools for the rural * Existing environmental knowledge regarding population and the public. the region is poorly shared. * Not enough well-informed decisions are made Providing users with environmental information in the forestry and environmental sectors. to meet their demand by producing and updating: * Major gaps exist in basic and thematic informa- * Basic environmental information tion on natural resources. * Information on forestry and biodiversity * National capacity to generate and manage * Agriculture and rural development information is limited. * Geological resources and mining extraction. As a response, the project seeks to address these issues by: Strengthening national capacities The project has been effective for a year and a half, Ensuring information circulation and optimizing and two more countries are interested in joining. benefits from existing initiatives through: Funding covers regional coordination activities and * Setting up a primary network individual country work. * Promoting and harmonizing standards for data collection and integration Source: GEF 1997d. ity of staff who were interviewed and who responded to support from country directors and Regional manage- the review questionnaires cited continuing problems and ment" and "the environment is still not a priority for lack of support. These problems stemmed partly from the management in our Region." Some staff also cited the extra requirements of the GEF ("double reporting is a "lack of disincentives for neglected GEF projects." disincentive"), and partly from the perception that the With such statements, task managers indicated that "GEF added hurdles to project development and the there was less internal accountability and review than increased public profile of controversies-if cost is not too for other Bank projects (that is, the lack of red flags for much, better to look at another source of funding."' poor performance throughout the system). This obser- Other sources of disincentives for Bank staff work- vation is buttressed by the lack of integration of ing on GEF projects were described by task managers separate GEF projects in the regular Quality Assurance as a lack of management support, comparable levels of Group (QAG) reviews or in Operations Evaluation accountability, and integration in internal databases. Department (OED) audits-as well as the lack of Typical comments were, "GEF projects need more integration into the database system.' 36 Mainstreaming Within the World Bank anid Clienit Couitries There were also complaints regarding the inad- "stand-alone" GEF projects that are "associated" with equacy of financial reimbursement for staff time allo- separate Bank projects; it is likely that the projects cated to GEF projects and access to these funds by task were designed together, then separated for processing managers.7 This complaint was most strongly voiced and management purposes. The table in Annex G in relation to the new GEF Medium-Size Grants (grants presents the current list of projects categorized accord- under $750,000, often to NGOs). Most task managers ing to these criteria. felt medium-size grants were far too time-intensive and The new GEF project in El Salvador illustrates the small to realistically allow Bank management to kind of conceptual integration that was developed for process and manage them. In countries where the associated projects. The Bank's agricultural marketing national focal points (the designated offices for process- project supports increases in productivity and market- ing and endorsing GEF proposals within countries) ing returns for shade coffee production. The GEF grant passed on large numbers of proposals, the Bank has provides funding for the incremental cost of increasing found it impossible to deal with the volume. As one biodiversity in coffee grower's farmsteads by support- task manager said, "we are not a foundation staffed to ing tree plantations and corridors for bird migration. process a large number of proposals from NGOs and Both poverty reduction and sustainable economic other agencies." growth and biodiversity objectives have been devel- Balancing this pessimistic view of somewhat frus- oped' into separate but highly complementary and trated (and overworked) staff, a longer-term view of the interdependent projects, which strategically seek to changes since the 1991 strategy and the initiation of GEF place the country's primary cash crop on a more projects suggests that there has been considerable progress environmentally sustainable trajectory. in raising the profile of environmental concerns and The Regional Environment and Information Man- integrating project portfolios into more strategic pro- agement project in Central Africa illustrates the inter- grams of Bank assistance. Most Bank staff interviewed for national cooperation dimensions of mainstreaming this review indicated that their goal was to develop GEF success, as mandated by the 1991 Forest Strategy. This projects as part of a larger, strategic approach to project illustrates the growing number of Regional addressing conservation and productivity issues in the projects supported by GEF (see box 6.1). forestry/natural resource sector. Given the mandates of Similar examples of international cooperation the 1991 Forest Strategy for developing improved policy through regionally developed projects are found in frameworks and the increasing recognition of the impor- Central and West Africa, Eastern Europe, and Central tance of non-forest sector impacts on conservation, this Asia (see table 6.2). Since GEF projects consist of integration of GEF projects in other ongoing Bank lending grants, the Bank has found it much easier to establish is an important indicator of effective mainstreaming. regional multi-country programs than it would have if Integration of GEF projects has taken place along a separate loan repayments were required by each continuum. At one financial end are the "fully blended" borrowing country.8 This promotion of international projects in which GEF and Bank financing is fully cooperation on forest conservation made possible by intermingled. In the middle are "partially blended" the GEF is a significant contribution of the GEF to the projects in which GEF and the Bank finance different Bank's ability to fulfill another of the mandates of the components of a single project. At the other end are 1991 Forest Strategy. TABLE 6.2. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN BANK GEF PROJECTS s lrZ;iE 2 i3 F_ E s ! E Mi Wu~~~~~~~~rce w E = 1 2 E W 3 .j .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ConI:^g- Demlocratic } { ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3,i" .' F;_ari. ld Gabo.n 37 Conclusions The Bank, the GEF, and the 1991 Forest Strategy P _ olicy Co-evolution The World Bank's 1991 Forest Strategy emerged in the year that the GEF began its pilot phase. Both the Bank's strategy and the GEF were born out of the same worldwide concern for the alarming loss of primary forests and the biological diversity they harbor. Both agencies evolved along with worldwide development consensus to place increasing emphasis on stakeholder participation and indigenous peoples. Both sought to direct finances, policy improvements, and moral imperatives toward global (client) driven. Both have sought to assert the comple- priorities of arresting deforestation and conserving mentarily of forest conservation and economic devel- natural forest resources. While the Bank's strategy opment over the long term, although the Bank has sought to direct this effort largely toward the 20 voiced more reservations over the extent to which these tropical moist forest countries where it feared the differing objectives can be reconciled by countries in greatest deforestation and biodiversity loss, the GEF the short to medium term. developed a wider spectrum of concern for representa- Both the objectives of the GEF and the Bank's 1991 tive ecosystems throughout the developing world. Both Forest Strategy have been guided and reinforced by, agencies banned logging of primary tropical moist depending on the chronology involved, the Convention forests, and the GEF has-at least for the present- on Biological Diversity and the U.N. Framework extended that ban to any primary forest. Convention on Climate Change, as well as by the Rio Both the Bank, in its 1991 strategy, and the GEF UNCED in 1992. The GEF is the formally designated have sought a multisector approach to integrating financial mechanism for these two conventions. The forest conservation and sustainable management Bank serves as one (and the largest) of three imple- within country policies. While the Bank emphasized the menting agencies for the GEF. The Bank's client benefits of sustainable forest management to poverty countries are almost all signatories of these conven- reduction, the GEF focused on the global benefits that tions. Thus, the financing and nonfinancing activities are incremental to national returns. Both accept that of the Bank on behalf of the GEF and its regular global externalities are to be financed by GEF. Yet both program are constrained to follow the guidance of the entities have stated that their programs must be country Conference of Parties carrying out these conventions. 39 Financing the Global Benefits of Forests: The Bank's GEF Portfolio and the 1991 Forest Strategy Fortunately, as with the GEF and the 1991 Forest emerging states that were not accustomed to dealing with Strategy, this guidance is congruent and reinforcing- Bank loans and conditionality. although considered to be overly general (Porter and The GEF also provided a means for the Bank to put others 1998, pp. 55-56). together and finance multicountry projects, enabling it to achieve some progress on the 1991 Forest Strategy Mutually Enabling Roles mandate for international cooperation, at least at the There has been close co-evolution and congruence regional level. Given loan funding constraints, it is between the Bank's 1991 Forest Strategy and GEF doubtful whether these cooperative endeavors would policies. This overlap has allowed each agency to play have been possible without the GEF, or similar grant a major role in enabling the other to implement the funding with the same overlapping objectives. common conservation policies and achieve significant Together, the GEF and the Bank contributed to the (if unmeasurable) results. conservation of specific forest sites and species and to Without the GEF's ability to provide grant funding the development of forest resources to offset climate for the additional costs of forest biodiversity conservation change in 44 countries. Unfortunately, a lack of associated with global benefits, it is highly unlikely that monitoring data precludes measurement of the extent the Bank could have persuaded its client countries to or impact of this achievement. borrow funds-even on a concessional basis-for these The Bank's GEF portfolio, and the nonfinancing externalities. While other bilateral and private donors are policy and sector activities that often went along with now helping to address this gap, the evidence presented in it, was also instrumental in increasing the legitimacy of this review suggests that GEF funding was instrumental in conservation investments in many countries. In addi- leveraging these funds and has been able to steadily tion to the interview comments, evidence of this decrease its financing percentage. increased legitimacy is seen in the increased host Furthermore, the GEF funding allowed the Bank to country and other donor financing leveraged by the remain active in forestry policy and fulfill, partially, Bank's GEF portfolio. Given strong country and Bank the 1991 Forest Strategy mandate to conserve tropical priorities for other economic and social sectors, it moist forests in 16 of the 20 countries identified as would be going too far to say that global biodiversity policy priorities. Given the ban on logging, the strength concerns have been mainstreamed within most coun- of commercial investments, and the tropical moist tries-or even within the Bank itself.2 It is argued that forest countries' disinterest in Bank forest loans, the such a goal is unrealistic: that it is unlikely that long- Bank would have been more restricted in its ability to term global biodiversity issues will ever be on a par engage in any kind of policy dialogue in these countries with the myriad other pressing economic and social without the entr6e of GEF grants. The Bank would have concerns. The implications of accepting more realistic had a very difficult time in showing any progress objectives for biodiversity mainstreaming are that toward the goal of tropical moist forest conservation concessional and/or new forms of financing will be without the GEF. While the degree of success in slowing needed to make conservation sustainable. the pace of deforestation and biodiversity loss in these The GEF and the Bank were also mutually en- countries cannot be measured at this time, it is abling agencies in promoting a genuine increase in arguable that these projects have increased the support local community and NGO participation in the forestry for conservation, if not affected the rates of biodiversity and conservation sector, as mandated by the 1991 loss and deforestation.1 strategy. Strong policy reinforcement from GEF and Similarly, the GEF funding provided the Bank with NGOs active in conservation continued to push the an entr6e into the Eastern European countries and allowed Bank and its client countries into greater local govern- it to maintain policy dialogues and projects on forestry in ment, community, and NGO participation in design Africa. In countries unwilling, or because of the logging and implementation by the second half of the 1990s. It ban unable, to take forestry loans, there was a reduction also fostered increased attention to indigenous peoples in forestry projects in Africa that was compensated, in and resource rights, although this is an area in which part, by GEF projects. The GEF also provided a mutually the Bank is still criticized by some NGOs for not going acceptable vehicle for the Bank to commence its lending far enough. Nevertheless, it is widely recognized that program in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the newly increased acceptance of co-management regimes in 40 Conclusions: The Bank, the GEF, and the 1991 Forest Strategy forest conservation and management has been fostered into sustainable timber use would have better bridged by the Bank and GEF's progressive approach to these the development-environment gap and provided the issues in the latter part of the decade. The Bank potential for vastly extending the impact of Bank GEF acknowledges, however, that it has yet to encourage investments. adequately women's participation in forest projects, The GEF was established to fund the costs of despite their critical role in natural resource manage- conserving the global values of forest conservation, ment and use. And, unfortunately, the inclusion of some with the realization that developing country govern- members of civil society concerned with forestry did ments are unlikely to provide funding-or borrow from not extend to the private sector-an issue that will be the Bank-for benefits that do not accrue directly to revisited in the next set of conclusions. them. But neither the 1991 Forest Strategy nor the GEF One final area in which the GEF and the Bank has adequately confronted the underlying gap in long- forest strategy played a mutually enabling role is in term financial sustainability, the current result of this starting to address the wider policy issues and intersec- approach. Although innovative trust funds have been toral linkages that directly and indirectly impinge on established by some Bank GEF projects for long-term the success of forest biodiversity conservation, energy funding, there has been little evidence of systematic policy, and sustainable forest management. By increas- policy or project strategies for dealing with financial ingly integrating (mainstreaming) GEF projects within sustainability until very recently. a larger, strategic set of investments and policy interac- The gulf between the global biodiversity conserva- tions, the Bank has made real progress in starting to tion priority of the 1991 strategy and the GEF and the deal more effectively with the wider policy and countries that must carry it out is unlikely to be bridged intersectoral issues. Few, if any, implementing agencies any time soon. As the QAG review of first-generation have the leverage to increase the GEF's impact in this African GEF projects noted: arena. Together, the GEF and the Bank have shown policy impact in a number of countries along the lines Biodiversity is still primarily an agenda of the mandated by the 1991 Forest Strategy-even if this international community. National govern- impact is minimal in some of the critical tropical moist ments usually have more immediate priorities, forest countries and is considerably less than the scale and can even be hostile to programs promoted, of the problem requires.3 and sometimes managed, by external agents which are felt to favor 'animals and trees over Conceptual Lacunae and Policy Implementation people' (World Bank 1998a). Weaknesses The 1991 Forest Strategy, like the GEF's Guiding While the OED Country Case Studies, which span Principles for Projects Associated with Logging, has a number of Regions, have found 'more progress in traditionally favored forest conservation projects over developing country ownership and integration of envi- sustainable use.4 While seeking integration into the ronmental concerns than was found by the QAG review agendas for economic and social development that of early African projects, the fundamental gap in dominate client countries and the World Bank, the priorities remains an underlying reality. A more realis- policy eschews involvement with the most valuable tic assessment of the degree of mainstreaming that is commodity involved-the tree trunks (logs)-contained possible in developing countries or their global bank- in the vast primary forests of the tropical developing ing partner would allow more realistic strategies for world. This keeps both agencies' hands "clean," but financial and policy sustainability. severely reduces the potential for engaging the govern- This conceptual and strategic priority gap is ment and private forest industry sector in extending further exacerbated by the scale of the problem of forest biodiversity conservation into the vast, nonprotected biodiversity conservation and the multiplicity of actors area forest estate. GEF policies, as well as those of the involved. There have been significant achievements in Bank, do encourage other forms of sustainable use, establishing, improving, and encouraging the creation including non-timber forest product use, community of more effective PAs with local community involve- forest management, and ecotourism, for example.5 ment in most of the 44 countries involved in this However, more emphasis on integrating conservation review. However, with a total of only $1 billion 41 Financing the Global Bleiefits of Forests: The Bank's GEF Portfolio and the 1991 Forest Strategy invested over nine years, the scale of the investment in terms of the number of forest hectares better protected is small compared with the global scale of the problem. Unless there is either considerable leverage of other .-l funding or significant change in policies affecting the - . ..-i t / remaining forest areas, rates of primary forest and : biodiversity loss will likely continue at a level unac- ceptable to most of the world. The new Bank Global Initiative to establish 5 million hectares of protected area and improve management on an additional 5 million hectares is an important attempt to address this gap, although it is too early to evaluate its ability to develop the country ownership and financial support that would make it truly effective. Juju dance for the environment. Juju dancers, dressed as forest animals, depict the destruction of the forest. Mount Oku, The World Bank-WWF global initiative, along Bamenda Highlands. Cameroon. Photo courtesy of Still Pic- with some of the other partnerships with NGOs tures. London. developed by the Bank, also represents an acknowl- edgment of the need to address issues of sustainable forest management and the other actors left out of the sustainability of financing necessary to achieve the 1991 Forest Strategy: the private sector. As pointed 1991 strategy and GEF's conservation objective. out in the review, the absence of effective private Implementation effectiveness is directly related, to sector involvement undermines a project's ability to the extent to which it is averting, or redirecting, threats deal with threats originating from these sources, as to the conservation of forest biodiversity. This review, well as its ability to harness large sources of in agreement with other recent evaluations, finds that potential financial sustainability. The World Bank while there has been significant progress in developing President's CEO Forum, the inclusion of a target of 5 innovative models for dealing with the negative million hectares of certified forest management in impacts of local residents, there has been much less the WWF initiative, and the statements of the GEF success in dealing with the threats emanating from Council welcoming increased private sector involve- other sectors of the economy.7 The analysis of threats ment are indicators of the need to increase participa- has been inconsistent in project design-sometimres tion of private sector stakeholders in projects and systematic, and other times haphazard. The design of policy development. While the direct participation of project components also has a mixed record in the the logging and primary forest-using industries is degree to which it directly addresses the threats. constrained by the current policies of both agencies, Threats to biodiversity related to local people have involvement of other private and public entities in been increasingly addressed through project compo- sectors such as agriculture, tourism, transportation, nents and co-management policy innovations in ways power, and water management is far less than the that show promise of finding far better win-win scope of their impact on forest biodiversity demands. solutions than past practices in PA management. The Bank has made substantial progress in linking However, there is still considerable scope for strength- GEF forest projects to agricultural and watershed ening the linkages between community-level invest- programs, and the International Finance Corporation ments and conservation actions in the ICDPs along the (IFC) has demonstrated how the private sector can be lines outlined in the India Ecodevelopment Project.8 creatively involved in GEF energy and biodiversity Perhaps even more important, projects and policy projects (for example, Terra Capital Biodiversity initiatives will have to enlarge their scope to develop Enterprise Fund for Latin America, 1997).6 But the more systematic strategies for identifying and working overall lack of private sector participation in policy to overcome threats emerging from other sectors, and strategy remains significant, despite its status as whether private or public. This reinforces the need to a major source of biodiversity impacts, as well as its bring the private sector stakeholders more centrally potential as a key to arriving at the scale and into the policy and project dialogues and to look for 42 Conclusions: The Bank, the GEF, a nd the 199'1 Forest Strategy ways to seek win-win-or at least less lose-lose- private sector would also open up opportunities to fund solutions with their constructive collaboration. more project or program initiatives directed toward There are several concomitant implications of biodiversity outside of PAs. While there are research enlarging the scope of the GEF co-financed forest inventory and database projects that deal with forest programs developed by the Bank to better include other biodiversity outside PAs, and a number of PA projects private and public sectors to meet the goals of the 1991 that fund sustainable use in adjacent buffer zones, there Forest Strategy. These needs, or opportunities, include: are very few that address this issue at any scale or as a central objective.9 Improving the sustainability and * The oppprtunity to continue developing a more biodiversity conservation consequences of better log- strategic programmatic approach ging operations obviously has the largest potential for * The opportunity to expand the grant and invest- widespread impact and financial sustainability. The ment portfolio to projects identified by this World Bank-WWF initiative for certification is a approach to areas outside the protected areas pioneering attempt in this direction, but there are many involving more sustainable use approaches to improved logging and sustainable forest * The opportunity to develop new mechanisms for use that involve mechanisms other than certification, working with the private sector that help provide which has yet to gain widespread acceptance. How- new avenues for sustainable financing ever, changing Bank or GEF policy to more directly * The opportunity for the GEF to transfer imple- engage in working with logging operations clearly mentation of small, stand-alone projects (such as carries the risk of lessening support from the vocal the medium-size grants) to a different imple- conservation community, a consequence that could also menting mechanism that could continue to har- undermine the long-term success of conservation ness the creative and critical energy of the NGO efforts. Nonetheless, it should be possible to more sector effectively engage the forest industry and logging * The opportunity to develop modest and clear sector in dialogue and policy development that would monitoring indicators with country ownership enhance opportunities to increase the biological sus- and some chance of implementation. tainability of their operations. There are also many opportunities in non-timber A number of Bank task managers stressed that their forest product development for increasing incentives to current approach to developing GEF grants is increas- conserve biological diversity. While some of the early ingly interwoven with more strategic approaches to hopes for finding sustainably harvestable non-timber natural resource management and agriculture as a forest products (such as Brazil nuts) are proving to be whole. This wider approach is the Bank's comparative relatively uneconomical, or only economical on a very advantage, but has too often been only weakly sup- limited scale, encouraging opportunities are being ported by analytic sector work and CASs. Furthermore, explored. Within the Bank's GEF portfolio, these countries that measure the Bank's credibility by the include cultivation of medicinal plants; development of amount of GEF grant funds it has helped channel to new agroforestry models for coffee; buffer zone forest their coffers are less interested in a strategic program- management for fodder, fuelwood, fiber, and small matic approach than in funding for their stand-alone timber; and ecotourism. The Biodiversity Conservation proposals. These are two reasons why a programmatic Network'0 recently concluded a three-year action approach must be both strategic and involve funding to research project that tested a number of promising links ensure operationalization of strategies. By seeking out between enterprise and biodiversity conservation with a wider array of potential partner stakeholders in both locally collaborating NGOs in the Asia Region (BCN the private sector and the linked public sectors, and 1997). While no one approach or sector emerges from using their interests and perspectives to construct a this work, it is evident that there is potential in a wide wider program of support-including support that is array of industries and sectors to increase biodiversity not based on a specific project-it may be possible to conservation incentives and impacts. develop a level of country acceptance and forest The GEF has recently been criticized by NGOs for biodiversity impacts beyond what is currently feasible. having "lost its experimental edge-its ability to test A wider spectrum of partners that includes the new ideas and take risks in new ventures" related to 43 Financing the Global Benefits of Forests: The Bank's GEF Portfolio and the 1991 Forest Strategy financial innovation (Bionet 1999, p. 1). Both the need does it take for biodiversity conservation to be sustain- and the opportunity to develop new financial mecha- able, and how can we design a project (together with nisms-particularly mechanisms that could bring the other activities) to make a contribution to that?" (Smith commercial private sector on board and better respond and Martin 2000). to innovative opportunities created by the non-profit An expansion of the scope and strategic NGO sector-is large. The GEF has prepared three interlinkages - of the Bank's GEF-related forest papers on engaging the private sector for the GEF biodiversity program will require additional staff time. Council (GEF 1995, 1996c, 1999a). It has made a Two ways to free-up time, as well as to develop a more number of recommendations in its internal evaluations, responsive mechanism to support innovative, stand- but acknowledges the "need to operationalize the alone projects, are to either develop a new window for suggestions from these studies both at a project level innovative small and medium-size grants or to transfer and programmatically" (GEF 1999a). A number of responsibility for these grants to other implementing alternative financing mechanisms have been identified agencies that find them more compatible with their by the GEF, including contingent grants, contingent or workloads and institutional incentives. In the conserva- concessional loans, partial credit guarantees, invest- tion field, much of the innovation in approach, and ment funds, and reserve funds (GEF 1999a, Annex 1). In many of the most effective field and research projects, addition, NGOs have suggested developing a special are those carried out by NGOs-especially partner- window for high-risk, experimental projects; expand- ships of international and local NGOs. These innova- ing the scope of trust funds and financial intermediar- tive projects and the support of civil society (including ies; developing ecoenterprise funds; expanding the the private sector) for biodiversity conservation which scope of private sector partnerships to help develop they often engender, are often not part of the Bank's bankable projects; and exploring the possibility of strategic investment program. These projects will often benefit-sharing from genetic resources. In addition, not be part of the government establishment's current NGOs point to the potential for developing carbon strategy or priorities. Yet it is evident from the reliance offset projects, new debt swaps, and more effective of current establishment projects funded by the Bank on employment of user fees and tax mechanisms. A recent the innovations and executing skills of NGOs that electronic conference on paying for mountain resources funding for these relatively small efforts can provide documented the high value of watershed protection disproportionate benefits to conservation. Bank task services provided by protected forests to downstream managers acknowledge that they are unable to process hydroelectric and irrigation users, as well as new all of the proposals for medium-size grants and stand- mechanisms used to share the financial savings result- alone projects, which are being proposed in increasing ing from conservation between urban users and up- numbers.1" Furthermore, they state that supporting stream farm households (The Mountain Institute 1997). funding for a separate stand-alone project that does not As the GEF has noted, implementing many of these fit their strategic portfolio would be counter to their innovations requires resolving issues related to country- efforts to fulfill the Bank and GEF policy mandates to drivenness and incremental costs. From the Bank's mainstream biodiversity conservation and leverage point of view, it also requires addressing issues not additional funding and impacts. The obvious conclu- spelled out in the 1991 Forest Strategy. Given the need sion is that a separate implementing mechanism, more to expand the scope and scale of impact of forest akin to a grant program of a private foundation, should conservation to meet the objectives of the 1991 Forest be established to fulfill this vital role, or that it should Strategy, these should be surmountable hurdles. be transferred to an agency, such as the UNDP, that is Approaching biodiversity conservation and sus- not loan-oriented and would not have the same bias tainable use of resources also requires looking beyond toward large projects. a project-by-project approach. A recent thematic Finally, the review has underscored the lack of any review on achieving sustainability of biodiversity comparable monitoring information that could be used conservation suggests shifting the discussion of sustain- to measure progress and results. The conceptual diffi- ability from "How can we design a project that will culties in developing meaningful biological indicators make a contribution to biodiversity conservation and that can be used within the timeframe of Bank GEF what does it take to make it sustainable?" to "What projects should not be underestimated. A number of 44 Conclusioiis: The Barnk, the GEF, and the 1991 Forest Strategy highly professional efforts have gone into developing local community are major issues confronting the forestry and biodiversity indicators.'2 Despite this high future of the program. These will require some strate- level of effort, there is no widely shared consensus on gic new initiatives in developing more effective pro- what indicators should be used. More important, there grammatic approaches, new instruments for private is no consensus among task managers and project sector involvement and financial sustainability, and implementers in various countries about whether these new mechanisms for sustaining NGO innovations. indicators can and will be measured. It is problematic They will also require rethinking some aspects of the whether any such consensus can be developed. But 1991 Forest Strategy that inhibit sustainable use of given the importance of assessing the value of the forest some forestry products and the development of long- biodiversity conservation efforts being undertaken term, financially self-sustaining solutions. worldwide-specifically by the Bank and the GEF-it The main recommendations of the GEF review for would appear worthwhile to try to develop a modest set the future are similar to many of those in the OED of comparable indicators that might actually get review of the Bank's regular program: measured. If the GEF and Bank were to harness the ownership-building potential of its participatory meth- * Enlarge the scope of the GEF co-financed forest odologies, it might be possible to develop such a result programs developed by the Bank to better through a patient, multiyear process. This would likely include the private sector and other public sectors. require special project funding and organization. * Develop a more strategic approach to addressing the most important threats to biodiversity and Concluding Words the most effective investments of limited funds to Overall, this review of the Bank's GEF forest portfolio leverage large-scale impacts. concludes that the GEF has been instrumental in * Expend the grant and investment portfolio to allowing the Bank to pursue many aspects of the 1991 projects outside PAs involving more sustainable Forest Strategy. The conservation orientation of the use and forest management for both timber and policy and the co-evolution of both the Bank's partici- non-timber forest products. patory approach and the GEF's guidelines allowed both * Transfer implementation of small, stand-alone to serve mutually enabling and essential roles in projects to a different implementing mechanism fulfilling their overlapping mandates to improve the (either new or existing) that could continue to conservation of forest biodiversity. harness the creative and critical energy of the As a result, significant conservation results have NGO sector. been achieved. These 'include improved conservation of * Develop modest and clear monitoring indicators specific PAs, increased participation of civil society in with country ownership and work on client conservation, and improved policy frameworks and capacity for implementation. conservation understanding in the 44 countries where * Develop policies and projects that more effec- the Bank was active with GEF financing. New mecha- tively work with sustainable forest use and nisms for sustainable financing-notably the trust management to incorporate conservation objec- fund-have been successfully implemented. Lessons in tives and extend forest strategy goals into the integrated conservation and development projects, in private sector forest industry. the time frame needed for conservation, and the * Pursue opportunities to develop incentives for difficulty of developing and using indicators are among conservation that are linked with private enter- those that have been identified and are being ad- prise, including agriculture, non-timber forest dressed. products, tourism, hydroelectric generation, live- More fundamental problems-of integrating conser- stock rearing, and the like. vation within economic and social priorities and the * Continue identifying and operationalizing new consequences of this problem for financial sustainabil- financial mechanisms for sustaining conserva- ity are only beginning to receive the attention they tion funding, including trust funds, royalties and deserve. Participation of the private sector and the fees, conservation easements and tax mecha- adequacy of the current project approach to dealing nisms, contingent grants, partial credit guaran- with the real threats to biodiversity from outside the tees, reserve funds, and so forth. 45 Financing the Global Benefits of Forests: The Bank's GEF Portfolio and the 1991 Forest Strategy Overall, it is recommended that the Bank's partner- the private sector-including the logging industry. The ship with the GEF to sustainably conserve the world's critical role of NGOs in mobilizing civil society forest biodiversity be expanded, with more strategi- support and developing innovative models should be cally developed, realistic goals and more innovative further supported through more appropriate funding approaches. The limitations of mainstreaming and mechanisms. The Bank's comparative advantage in national financing of global biodiversity benefits re- analytic work and investment leverage should be quire a more realistic, comprehensive, and sustainable captured through expanding the trend toward incorpo- approach. Given the limited financing available to rating GEF projects within larger strategic programs to address the huge global need, impact needs to be address the powerful threats and opportunities for expanded through increased policy and legislative biodiversity conservation emerging from other, linked reform, new forms of financing, and engagement with sectors. 46 ANNEXES ANNEX A: TERMS OF REFERENCE Forests and the Global Environment Facility (GEF): A Four focal areas qualify for GEF funds: Review of GEF Projects to Contribute to the OED biodiversity, international waters, climate change, and Review of the 1991 Forest Strategy and Its Implemen- the ozone layer. The biodiversity component, because tation (Draft Terms of Reference)' of its direct and indirect impact on forests, is particu- larly important for the OED review. Nearly 50 percent The Context of all GEF-financed projects have been in the area of The Operations Evaluation Department (OED) of the biodiversity conservation. GEF funding to countries is World Bank is currently undertaking a Review of the in the form of grants. The World Bank-implemented 1991 Forest Strategy and Its Implementation as an input GEF projects usually complement its regular loan into the Bank's forest strategy. This review will be in two program in client countries. parts. One part will consist of six country case studies (China, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Cameroon, and Costa Proposal Rica), and the other will consist of an assessment of the The portfolio review of Bank projects and country global lending and nonlending services of the World Bank studies, which will include both ongoing and completed Group (including IFC and the GEF) in the post-1991 projects, will be managed in-house by the core OED period, to assess the impact on the world's forests. team led by Uma Lele. The Operations Evaluation Together, the country studies and the portfolio review Group of IFC is evaluating the IFC portfolio. It is inputs will form the basis of the overall OED report. To proposed that a review of the GEF's completed and coordinate with the Bank's Forest Strategy Implementa- ongoing projects be carried out, in addition to a limited tion Review, a draft of the overall OED report is planned number of audits of completed projects currently to be ready by April 1999. The OED review will be proposed by OED. The purpose is to: presented to the Board in or about August 1999, at about the same time as the presentation of the new Bank forest * Tell a more complete story of the World Bank strategy. (See Approach Paper and Design Paper of OED Group's activities in and impact on the forest Study for details.) sector. Capture developments in the rapidly growing Background GEF portfolio. The GEF was created in 1991 (it was restructured after its * Explore the relationship between Bank and GEF pilot phase in 1994) to provide cofinancing to developing lending in its impact on forests. countries and those with economies in transition for projects and activities that protect the global environment The review of GEF projects will contribute to both (that is, where benefits are global but costs are local). The parts of the OED study, the country case studies and the GEF is the interim funding mechanism for two interna- portfolio review. To increase synergy between the two, tional treaties: the Convention on Biological Diversity the GEF review will be carried out concurrently with and the Convention on Climate Change. The World Bank the OED review (i.e., with a first draft by February is one of the three financial implementing agencies for 1999). The GEF review, although done in-house by GEF projects; the others are the UNDP and UNEP. As of OED, will be a self-standing product. As agreed, GEF June 1998, a total of $751 million has been committed in will finance the core team and the country study part of World Bank/GEF projects. This has been complemented the GEF review. by $722 million in cofinancing from the World Bank (GEF It is proposed that the advisory committee for the 1998c, p. 65). Whereas the Bank's forest sector lending OED review concurrently give its comments, sugges- has stagnated,2 GEF activities have been growing sub- tions, and the like on the GEF review (see Design Paper stantially in recent years. Annual commitments to for details). biodiversity have doubled (see table A.1). Funding from For a proper understanding of issues, GEF projects GEF is limited to countries that fall within the eligibility should be evaluated in the context of a conceptual criteria provided by the Convention Secretariats or framework being developed to evaluate Bank projects qualify for technical assistance grants from UNDP or (for details, see figure A.1 and the OED Design Paper). loans from the World Bank. During 1992-98 there were 89 GEF projects.3 47 Financing the Global Benefits of Forests: The Bank's GEF Portfolio and the 1991 Forest Strategy Table A.1 gives total yearly biodiversity investments QAG evaluation in an Environment Department by the Bank, IDA, and GEF. Dissemination Note, July 1998. Quality Assur- Depending on the direction of GEF granting, the GEF ance Group, The World Bank. review will look at countries with and without Bank * "Evaluation of Experience with Conservation projects. In addition to studying project documents, the Trust Funds." October 1998. GEF. GEF team will hold extensive interviews with task * The Global Environment Facility from Rio to managers of GEF and Bank projects. In consultation with New Delhi: A Guide for NGOs, by Stanley W. the OED team, the GEF team will also undertake field Burgrel and Sheldon Cohen. IUCN, 1997. visits to a selected number of projects. * The Global Environment Facility: Independent The review will also take into account the findings Evaluation of the Pilot Phase. and recommendations of reports recently produced by * The Global Environment Facility: Sharing GEF, the Bank's Environment Department, and other Responsibility for the Biosphere, by David Reed. organizations, including the following: 1991 (vol. 1), 1992 (vol. 2). Worldwide Fund for Nature. * Annual Reports for the Global Environment Facility * "Incorporating Social Assessment and Participa- * Biodiversity Conservation Projects in Africa: tion into Biodiversity Conservation Projects," Lessons Learned from the First Generation. * "Issues and Options in the Design of GEF- FIGURE A.1. LOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR COUNTRY STUDY Resource endowments reuaoy Cultural factorn institutio, b lFactor proporti Behavior of socioecoomicagsMacroeconomic policies Institutional arrangements /(monetary, fiscal, and exchange (donors, governments, NGOs, state and local Invesrate policies) Technological possibilitiesadministration,prIncentives iuSeoral policies outside forests Economic (factor and pnoduct prices) a services Information * Noneco>nomic and land policies) l -\ \ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Forest sector policies Poverty, emlomt a incomesulatory Carbonusequestrn institutional, (climate change) \ 5 \ factor- and product 48Behavior of socioeconomic agents and stakeholders . ~~~~~(donors, governments, NGOs, state and local Investment poticies Technological possibilities . administration, private individuals, industries, l \ ~~~~~~~indigenous people, poor people) | | D~~emand and supply of forest and non-forest products and services| | /Im~~~~~~pact and externalities oforest:\s I / _ ~~~~~~Forest cover\/ | / - ~~~~~~Quality of naulfoet\/ | I /((\s4~~~~BiodiversityX * I t \\ ~~~Watershed \ tIndigenous people J \\Poverty, employment' and incomes \ Carbon sequestration - 48 A tin ex es TABLE A.1. TOTAL YEARLY BIODIVERSITY INVESTMENTS Fiscal yea r M I_",m11DA E F __R)A E 1992 49'jT - 4 .6X l5l * 1993 I. f. B .44. 5 1994 63',1'n 1i x) i . 1996 13lS]W6.S i ! 1997 _ 0_l9.4 '_ Note: Data for 1998 are not available in the Update. Source: World Bank 1998b. Supported Trust Funds for Biodiversity Conser- velopment impact.8 To the extent possible, the vation." Paper No.11. GEF. GEF Review will try to evaluate GEF projects * "Mainstreaming the Global Environment in in a similar framework. World Bank Group Operations." October 1998. 3. For the six country case studies, and in the review The World Bank of global lending, it will be important to know * "Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines for the relationship of the GEF portfolio to the Bank's Biodiversity Conservation Projects," (GEF) forest portfolio. Country authors will also exam- * Partners or Hired Hands? Procurement Reform for ine GEF components of Bank projects and GEF Effective Collaboration between NGOs and Multi- projects while looking at the implementation lateral Institution: The Case of the GEF. IUCN. experience of Bank projects. Did the forest * Pilot Phase Portfolio Project and Implementa- portfolio enable GEF activities, or vice versa? tion Review. 1996. GEF. Did it add new dimensions to the Bank's activi- * Project Implementation Review. 1997. GEE ties (on community participation, biodiversity * Study of GEF's Overall Performance, by Gareth protection, and interactions between agriculture Porter, Raymond Clemencon, Waafas Ofosu- and forestry) or additional consideration to Amaah, and Michael Philips. GEE biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of * "Summary Report on Study of GEF Project biological resources that would not have taken Lessons." January 1998. place without the GEF? To what extent have global environmental concerns related to bio- Major Issues for GEF Review logical diversity and climate change been inte- From the perspective of OED's Forest Strategy Review, grated into World Bank forest sector loan strate- certain issues (outlined below) stand out as important. gies, policy discussions, and relevant sections of The biodiversity focal area is of particular interest. In the Country Assistance Strategies? To what addition, lessons of experience that arise out of conflict extent has the World Bank forest portfolio between the interests of protected areas and people will identified causes of loss of biological diversity? Is be relevant. there a big difference between the biodiversity 1. What is the scope of GEF projects? Are their impact of straight Bank forest projects and GEF objectives clear? Can the benefits be measured projects within forested areas? This will include and monitored? Have outputs, outcomes, and land degradation issues, especially in case stud- impacts, along with associated indicators, been ies-transformation of land habitats (both the adequately identified in project formulation? acceleration and reversal of land degradation). 2. The OED standard evaluative framework is 4. For GEF funding, the relevant benefits are structured by the concepts of relevance4 (and "incremental;" that is, projects must have posi- in the context of the Rio, Biodiversity, and tive incremental costs if they are to receive GEF Climate Change Conventions) efficacy,5 effi- support. Simply put, incremental costs are the ciency,6 sustainability,7 and institutional de- difference in costs between a project with global 49 Financing the Global Benefits of Forests: The Bank's GEF Portfolio and the 1991 Forest Strategy environmental benefits and one without.9 To tenet of GEF policy and operations. What is what extent do GEF projects deal with incremen- the nature of participation with primary local tal cost terms and as "truly global externality" stakeholders, especially the local community? projects? How has this policy affected project To what extent have other stakeholders (state design and performance? Will countries borrow and local governments; local, national, and Bank funds on Bank/IDA terms to do what GEF is international NGOs; private industries; and doing, particularly if GEF benefits are really individuals) participated in GEF project and global? policy activities? Do GEF projects have 5. What means does the World Bank use to try to greater NGO involvement than Bank projects? mainstream global environmental issues? Is participation with stakeholders significantly How is GEF helping scale up efforts in the able to influence quality and kind of GEF grant client countries (for example, national envi- giving? What are the implications for project ronmental strategies)? Does the Bank main- implementation and success? What is the GEF stream environmental issues, and, if so, how? outreach and communication strategy to work 6. Participation with stakeholders is a central with NGOs and civil society? TABLE A.2. EVALUATION OF THE 1991 FOREST STRATEGY: A RESULTS-BASED FRAMEWORK Resource inputsi entation outputs l ;Oe-utc6mes - Impacts World Bank !ydevelopment - nts in country . dforest cover- r-Assistance Strategies an staeies %heduced rates of IDA t or trfomsn and increased -wotk -&'e incentives 'stainable use of kt-~sect6r work od patterns of public a resources ,orest sector work with res on of biodiversity , rs on forests E tive models, e.g., n sequestration I ator approches, edsupply of i xecnoic adju stmient nal oetodand other gement approachntiies iber forest products o adjustment lending; vd legal framework ed incomes and stIsector project loans oements in tax and n, particularly erhon forest project loans sNy policies on forests; e.g., cd role of the public ment in the quality ~structure, agriculture, purs soils, water edpublic and private t standards: Bank an agement capacity * ational, manuals on :v¢d rights for analpolicy and good i us peoples eg.:,ed huaman capital estry tQved ~~~~environmental Wnvironnen'tal assessment 'sents d.gnus, peoples ovdmonitoring and voluntary resettlement o of impacts ovignongovernmental gansaons in Bank- 50rd activities -ordination. groups lityassurance ~tyAssurance Group * rviews: sesment: Project enetation Reviews setr reviews roect. auidits - 50 A n n ex es 7. How financially sustainable are GEF projects? The following conditions will ensure that the GEF What are the incentives for sustainability? review contributes effectively to the OED review: How can sustainability be improved? 8. What is the overall policy environment within * The GEF portfolio will be reviewed in close which a GEF project operates? Is the project coordination with OED's Enabling Activities consistent with that policy? Has the project Evaluation of the GEF projects. tackled key policy constraints, particularly * Terms of reference for the GEF portfolio will be those relevant to sustainability? Are GEF developed in close consultation with the GEF projects more successful when integrated with Secretariat and Bank GEF colleagues to ensure that Bank projects? What are the leverage issues? they highlight particular aspects of the GEF portfo- Would larger Bank interventions have helped? lio and differences from the Bank's portfolio. 9. How do World Bank forest projects compare * The review process will be independent and with GEF forest-related projects with regard to objective, both in reality and perception, at all public participation, national ownership, and times, as expected of all OED reviews. provisions for longer-term institutional and financial sustainability? See table A.2 for the results-based framework 10. What promising sustainable use models can be underlying the evaluation of the 1991 Forest Strategy. identified in the World Bank forest portfolio? BOX A.I. THE WORLD BANK'S FOREST STRATEGY AT A GLANCE T n he goal of the Bank's Forest Strategy was to * Resource expansion address the twin challenges of rapid defores- * Land use controls including zoning, demarca- tation, especially of tropical moist forests, tion, and tenure issues to preserve intact forests. and inadequate planting of new trees to meet the rapidly growing demand for wood products. These Bank-financed activities were expected to comply challenges were perceived to be connected to five with seven conditions: key factors: * No Bank Group financing for commercial log- * Externalities that prevented market forces from ging in primary tropical moist forests achieving socially desired outcomes * Adoption of policies and an institutional frame- * Strong incentives, particularly for the poor, to work consistent with sustainability cut trees * A participatory approach to the management of * Weak property rights in many forests and natural forests wooded areas * Adoption of comprehensive and environmentally * High private discount rates among those sound conservation and development plans with encroaching on the forests clear definitions of the roles and the rights of * Inappropriate government policies, particularly key stakeholders, including local people concession arrangements. * Basing 'commercial use of forests on adequate social, environmental, and economic assessments Five principles were proposed for Bank involvement * Making adequate provisions to maintain in the forest sector: biodiversity and safeguard the interests of local * Multisectoral approach people, including forest dwellers and indigenous * International cooperation peoples * Policy reform and institutional strengthening * Establishing adequate enforcement mechanisms. 51 A n nexes ANNEX B: GEF'S INTERIM GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR PROJECTS ASSOCIATED WITH LOGGING The GEF will continue to secure the conservation and 7. To finance the costs of reduced-impact logging to sustainable use of the biological resources in forest secure SFM ecosystems in accordance with good practice. It will 8. To finance the costs of commercial, industrial also pursue the objective of benefit sharing, as appro- timber plantations and tree-farming systems. priate. B. GEF financing for projects associated with log- 1. In the Corporate Business Plan 1998, the GEF ging will be used: Secretariat noted that among the strategic issues 1. In conforrmity with its objectives of conservation, needing attention, the role of the GEF in sustain- sustainable use and benefit sharing for the able forest management (SFM) is key. A central conservation of biodiversity (in forests) part of integrated SFM is the need to pursue 2. In conformity with the incremental cost policy multiple objectives. In accordance with the forest (GEF support to forest management activities ecosystem operational program, GEF currently could be additional, substitutional, or both, and supports sustainable forest uses. The one excep- each of these activities must concur with all the tion is sustainable logging, because its linkage to guiding principles) the conservation objective remains very much 3. In conformity with the public involvement poli- open to question. cies (where relocation or resettlement is antici- 2. Consequently, the Secretariat has commissioned pated, this should be done in a transparent, an issues paper to provide strategic advice on participatory, and voluntary basis) this topic. The paper will review the state of 4. For small, pilot, local-community-based demon- knowledge on biodiversity conservation good stration projects, but not for large commercial- practice in logged forests and will provide the scale interventions basis for the formulation of further guidance for 5. To mainstream biodiversity considerations into GEF operations. However, as the paper and the the forestry sector (biodiversity overlays) follow-up work will not be completed until 6. For alternative livelihoods in production forests March 2000, there is need to formulate guidance to take the pressure off biodiversity in protected for the Implementing Agencies' processing of areas, but only where (i) production forests are their forest projects associated with logging part of the national baseline and are being operations. Logging in primary forests, however, practiced in accordance with other criteria (for will not be supported by GEF. example, ITITA, FSC, and the like); and (ii) 3. The following are some guiding principles for where production forestry and the alternative the interim period. These principles do not livelihood under this scheme do not undermine replace existing review criteria, or need for the biodiversity targeted for conservation in the conformity with GEF policies and principles, protected areas. including the incremental cost and public involvement policies. C. In furthering the objective of sustainable use in forests, GEF will encourage: A. GEF financing will not be used: 1. Policy reform and institutional strengthening, 1. To finance logging operations in primary forests including the removal of barriers critical to 2. For the conversion of forests to alternative securing sustainable forest management land use 2. Broad land-use planning and management exer- 3. To meet sustainable baselines of pursuing SFM cises to mainstream biodiversity considerations 4. To meet the cost of forest certification schemes into planning 5. To improve timber harvesting methods to meet 3. Alternative resource control systems (decentrali- FSC/TTA criteria zation, forest co- and joint management 6. For reforestation or restoration of habitat follow- schemes, and the like); ing logging operations 4. Participatory and adaptive forest management 53 Financing the Global Benefits of Forests: The Bank's GE F Portfolio and the 1991 Forest Strategy involving local communities and the governments 5. Strengthened systems for monitoring of resource use and audits of institutional performance 6. Sustainable harvest of non-timber forest prod- ucts, such as medicinal plants 7. Management of forests for nonconsumptive uses, such as recreation and tourism. 54 A ri tic x es ANNEX C: METHODOLOGY OF PARTICIPATION REVIEW The study covered 44 project documents to review the - Advisory groups inclusion of participatory elements in project design. - Informal interviews Supplementary sources included Social Data, Commu- - Focus groups nity-Based Rural Development and Resettlement - Workshops. Project Perspective sheets, when available.' The * Types of stakeholders involved at any stage of Project Status Reports (590s) reviewed contained lim- project: ited or no information on participatory activities. Nine - Community/local resource users projects have been completed and only six have - Community-based organizations, local Implementation Completion Reports, which contain associations limited assessment of project participation. - Local NGOs The study looked at the following variables to - International NGOs/research institutions assess inclusion of participatory elements: - Indigenous peoples - Women's groups * Inclusion of participatory elements in stated - Local district/state government representatives project objectives - Commercial private sector. • Inclusion of participatory activities in planned project components In addition, the study looked at information on * Participatory activities identified in project area conserved/managed, and the number of projects implementation that dealt with land tenure access issues, including * Inclusion of participatory evaluation resettlement. * Changes in design as a result of participatory Rankings were given according to the following concerns level and breadth: * Percentage of budget going to NGOs/local com- munities * level of participation: * Inclusion of participatory indicators in monitor- 0 = no participation ing system 1 = information sharing * Inclusion of participatory indicators in supervi- 2 = consultation sion missions 3 = collaboration * Methods intended: 4 = empowerment. - Social assessments * Participation breadth: - Beneficiary assessments 1 = no participation - Needs assessments 2 = limited - Surveys 3 = moderate - Participatory rural appraisals 4 = high. 55 A n tic x es ANNEX D: PROJECT SUMMARIES AFRICA activities at the national level. In addition to receiving Central Africa Regional Environment Information grant funds from the GEF the project is cofinanced with Management Project (REIMP) contributions from bilateral donors including France, The project establishes a demand-driven, action- Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. oriented environmental information database for the tropical forest region of Central Africa to support Congo Wildlands Protection and Management decisionmaking and to build national capacity for The project objective is to strengthen the protection of a environmental monitoring, land-use planning, and significant amount of Congo's globally valued conservation priority setting. Strong emphasis will be biodiversity by (i) expanding the areas earmarked for put on capacity building in the public and private conservation from 4.4 percent to over 10 percent of the sectors to use such data; on creating an integrated, national territory, (ii) preparing and implementing standardized regional information network for data participatory management plans for several key conser- sharing; on connecting data suppliers and users to the vation areas representative of the country's biological electronic highway; and on defining and developing wealth, and (iii) strengthening the institutional and specific products desired by end-users. regulatory framework and national capacity and sup- port for biological conservation, and the financial West African Pilot Community-Based Natural sustainability of biodiversity conservation programs. Resources and Wildlife The project will facilitate conservation of biodiversity Kenya Tana River National Primate Reserve in one of West Africa's most diverse and threatened The project concerns the development and implementa- ecosystems, the Comoe. It will introduce a new tion of a management plan for the Tana River National approach to biodiversity conservation in West Africa Primate Reserve, which contains the last remaining that aims to find a common solution to both develop- contiguous area of indigenous riverine forest along the ment and conservation concerns by involving local Tana River. The Tana Reserve protects two endangered communities in ecologically sustainable and profitable primate species, the Red Colobus and Crested management of natural resources. The project's specific Mangabey monkeys. objectives are (i) to strengthen the capacity of local communities, NGOs, and government to manage wild Mozambique Trans-frontier Conservation Area and plant and animal resources in a sustainable manner; Institutional Strengthening (ii) to improve the management and use of habitat and The primary objective of the project is to assist the wildlife populations at each site; (iii) to improve local government of Mozambique in creating an enabling land management practices and infrastructure; and (iv) policy and institutional environment for rehabilitating, to establish a durable system for monitoring and conserving, and managing its unique natural environ- evaluating project implementation and impact. ments and biodiversity, which are of global signifi- cance. The project will also provide an opportunity to Cameroon Biodiversity Conservation and test and implement community-based conservation and Management management methods aimed at empowerment of local The project has two major development objectives. communities, economic development, and poverty First, it will help the government to protect a signifi- reduction. cant amount of Cameroon's biological diversity through careful management of ten national parks, Mauritius Biodiversity Restoration faunal reserves, and ungazetted sites located in six The project will (i) protect critically endangered sensitive ecological regions, including the development biodiversity of international importance by restoring of alternative activities for the local population in the degraded small island habitats, propagating and rein- buffer zones. The project will also strengthen key troducing endemic species to these habitats; and (ii) national institutions concerned with research, plan- strengthen capacity for the management and monitor- ning, and coordination of biodiversity conservation ing of biodiversity restoration. 57 Financing the Global Benefits of Forests: The Bank's CEF Portfolio and the 1991 Forest Strategy Madagascar Second Environmental Program Support and (iii) building capacity for developing locally based The global environment objective of the GEF support to tourism and other activities compatible with conserva- the program is to curb the loss of globally significant tion, such as sustainable collection of forest products in biodiversity by slowing current environmental degrada- buffer zones, that provide economic returns. The tion trends, promoting the sustainable use of natural project will emphasize planning, promotion, and regu- resources, and creating the conditions for environmental lation of environmentally sustainable tourism by considerations to become an integral part of macroeco- strengthening government capacity at all levels to nomic and sectoral management of the country. facilitate tourism, and by providing a supportive environment for private sector tourism development. Mali Household Energy Project The Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife, and Antiquities will The long-term development objectives of the project receive assistance 'to develop appropriate policies and are reduction of CO2emissions, the abatement of forest laws promoting tourism and conservation and to resource depletion, and increased participation of the manage its many current projects and programs. private sector in the management of the household energy sector. The main implementation objectives are Uganda Bwindi Impenetrable National Park and to promote popular participation in household energy Mgahinga Gorilla National Park activities, rational use of household energy resources, The objective of the project is to support biodiversity and improved end-use of household fuels. conservation in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park and Mgahinga Gorilla National Park through South Africa Cape Peninsula Biodiversity improved park management, research, and financing The project will establish and manage the new Cape grants to build community support for conservation Peninsula National Park for an initial period of five and assist local community groups to develop alterna- years and will strengthen biodiversity conservation in tives to harvesting forest resources. the entire Cape Floral Kingdom. Components include (i) implementing an initial five-year Cape Peninsula Zimbabwe Park Rehabilitation and Conservation National Park management plan to address the park's With the involvement of local communities, the project urgent conservation needs, including controlling of will design and implement a natural resource manage- invasive exotics, improving local emergency response ment program for Gonarhezou National Park on the to oil spills and wildfires, launching a marine conser- Mozambique/South Africa border, to complement the vation program for the Peninsula and an environmental Mozambique Transfrontier Conservation Areas education program, and developing an environmental project. The project will rehabilitate the infrastructure information system and a targeted research program; of Gonarhezou to stimulate ecotourism, develop com- (ii) designing a visitor promotion and management munity wildlife management and sustainable use pro- program, including upgrading of visitor facilities and grams, and strengthen park management capacity. analyzing visitor pricing options to ensure biological and financial sustainability of the park; (iii) supporting EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA the Table Mountain Fund, which mainly funds NGO- Belarus Biodiversity Protection led conservation initiatives around the park and in The project aims to address conservation planning and other critical areas of the Cape Floral Kingdom; and research outreach programs for the Belovezhskaya (iv) preparing a strategic conservation strategy and Forest and Berezinsky and Pripiatsky Reserves. action plan for the entire Cape Floral Kingdom. Czech Republic Biodiversity Uganda Protected Areas Management and Sustainable The project objective is to protect and strengthen forest Use (PAMSU) and related ecosystem biodiversity in the Czech Repub- The project will support management and conservation lic. The project is highly innovative and unusual in its of priority protected areas by (i) strengthening the scope and aims to achieve its objectives through (i) Uganda Wildlife Authority, (ii) making direct invest- establishing transboundary, integrated conservation ments in rehabilitation of infrastructure and improved over formerly strictly protected (under military admin- management of biologically critical protected areas, istration) cross-border areas (each of the three proposed 58 A n ex ecs ecosystem reserve zones in are in transboundary areas: activities of three transnational biodiversity protection the Sumava National Park [Austria, Czech Republic, networks: The Eastern Carpathians Biosphere Reserve and Germany], the Krkonose Reserves [Czech Republic (Poland, the Slovak Republic, and Ukraine); the Tatra and Poland], and the Morava Floodplain Forests and Biosphere Reserve (Poland, the Slovak Republic), and Wetlands [Austria and the Czech and Slovak Repub- the Morava Floodplain Forests and Wetlands (Austria lics]; and (ii) initiating a major effort to ensure the and the Czech and Slovak Republics). longer-term financial sustainability of these protected ecosystems through the planning and development of Turkey In-Situ Conservation of Genetic Biodiversity recurrent funding mechanisms. The project will identify, survey, inventory, and man- age selected areas for the in-situ protection of the wild Poland Forest Biodiversity Protection relatives of herbaceous and woody species, with a focus The project has initiated programs to conserve the on globally significant species. Based on the results of biodiversity of key endangered forests and is providing project field work, a national strategy will be prepared institutional support to the Ministry of Environment, for in-situ gene conservation of wild relatives and Natural Resources, and Forests to undertake biodiversity habitats of these species. conservation management activities. Innovative features include the establishment of a gene bank and arboreta to LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN protect genetic diversity and to provide plants for refores- Argentina Biodiversity Conservation tation in areas degraded by pollution. In conjunction with the IBRD-supported Native Forests and Protected Areas Project, the GEF Biodiversity Conser- Russian Federation Biodiversity Conservation vation Project will expand the protected area system The project aims to (i) provide a safety net to ensure the through the creation and management of protected areas immediate protection of biodiversity in conformance in currently unprotected ecosystems of global biological with the government's obligations under the Conven- significance (Pampas grasslands, Andean Puna, the tion on Biological Diversity; (ii) assist the government Chaco, Patagonian Steppe, and so forth). The project also to develop its national biodiversity strategy and iden- includes a public participation plan to ensure widespread tify sustainable funding mechanisms for the national stakeholder involvement in project activities, strengthen- biodiversity conservation system; (iii) support the pro- ing of institutions and policy, legal and regulatory cess of institutional development; (iv) sustain the most frameworks at the national and provincial levels to critically affected federal protected areas and enhance support biodiversity conservation, an Internet-connected the self-sufficiency and effectiveness of the protected national biodiversity information management system, areas system through an integrated set of actions; (v) and establishment of a grants program targeted to provide a regional demonstration of the synergy among sustainable development, conservation, and public the processes of organization, structuring, and inte- awareness activities in the surrounding buffer zones. grated sectoral management. Bolivia Biodiversity Conservation Slovak Republic Biodiversity Protection The project will help ensure the protection of representa- Consistent with its pilot phase criteria, the main tive samples of some of Bolivia's most diverse and objective of this project is to assist the government of threatened ecosystems. This will be accomplished in part Slovakia in protecting and conserving its biodiversity. by strengthening the government's institutional capability The project will undertake analytical work and pilot/ to protect the country's biodiversity and by promoting the demonstration programs to (i) test systems of finan- participation of local indigenous communities and institu- cially sustainable biodiversity protection through the tions in the management of the PA system. introduction of user fees, related charges for visitors, and concessions to manage the areas within their Brazil National Biodiversity Project determined carrying capacities; (ii) protect three zones The main objective is to assist the Brazilian government of representative threatened ecosystems: meadows to initiate a program for the conservation and sustainable (Tatras), wetlands (Morava Floodplain), and mountain use of biodiversity by identifying priority actions, stimu- forests (Eastern Carpathians); and (iii) support the lating the development of subprojects through the facilita- 59 Financing the Global Bentefits of Forests: The Bank's GE F Portfolio and the 1991 Forest Strategy tion of partnerships between the public and private the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC). The sectors, and disseminating biodiversity information. project will strengthen the protection and management of five biologically rich protected areas in the MBC, Brazil National Biodiversity Fund representing a range of ecosystem types, as well as The main objective of the project is to provide long-term support ecologically compatible development demonstra- and sustainable support for conservation and sustainable tion projects in the surrounding buffer zones. Special use of biological diversity in Brazil. This goal will be attention will be given to indigenous peoples' develop- pursued by supporting the establishment and development ment and gender issues. The project funds biological of a Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO) within the monitoring of the protected areas and adjacent zones; Getulio Vargas Foundation to administer a long-term institutional strengthening of the Forestry Administration grants program to promote conservation and sustainable Corporation, DAPVS, and local committees; and environ- use of biodiversity in Brazil. mental awareness activities. The associated IDA credit finances complementary activities in land administration/ Costa Rica Biodiversity Resources Development tenure, natural resources management, institutional The project seeks to demonstrate that increased and strengthening, protected area establishment, and biologi- systematically catalogued information about species cal monitoring. would increase the value of biological diversity and the marketability of biodiversity services. The project Mexico Protected Areas Program supports (i) development of a framework for a compre- The project will support the Mexican government in its hensive inventory and protocols for collection and efforts to (i) implement protection/conservation pro- cataloguing for four taxa (Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, grams in ten biosphere reserves in high-priority ecosys- Diptera, and fungi); (ii) completion of the collection tems containing endemic and/or endangered species of and cataloguing of these four taxa; (iii) development of global importance; (ii) strengthen protected area (PA) human capacity in systematic biology, especially at the management at the reserve level; (iii) promote local parataxonomist level; (iv) development of revenue- and participation, including that of indigenous communi- non-revenue-generating activities and increased aware- ties, in the implementation of reserve management and ness of the values of biodiversity; and (v) strengthened operating plans; and (iv) ensure the availability of institutional capacity at INBio. Collection activities long-term recurrent cost financing for core protection will start in the Guanacaste Conservation Area, and and conservation activities. will expand to other conservation areas during project implementation, according to agreed criteria. Nicaragua Atlantic Biodiversity Corridor The project promotes the long-term integrity of a Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Biological Corridor along Nicaragua's Atlantic slope. The project will support the restructuring of the country's It will support preparation and implementation of institutional capacity and overall policy and legal frame- protected area management plans for the Corridor, and work for adequate management of the National System of will fund subprojects in direct support of biodiversity Protected Areas (NSPA). Special emphasis will be placed conservation in the Corridor. It will assist local indig- on ensuring financial sustainability of the NSPA through enous communities in demarcating territories that abut the establishment of an efficient fee and tariff system. biologically important zones. The project includes While most of the project's activities will benefit the entire capacity building and public awareness in the protec- system, proposed investments will be made in eight of the tion and sustainable use of biodiversity for indigenous most biologically rich conservation units, selected for and non-indigenous communities, as well as for mu- their contribution to protection of globally important nicipal and regional authorities. It will support land- biodiversity. Proposed actions are designed to comple- use planning in the Corridor, a biodiversity monitoring ment ongoing government and NGO activities on the system, and an impact assessment system for develop- NSPA. ment activities, as well as means to enforce mitigating measures. These activities will be closely coordinated Honduras Biodiversity in Priority Areas with traditional community development activities in, This UNDP/World Bank project is the Honduran link in the Corridor supported by the associated IDA Credit. 60 A n n ex es Panama Atlantic Mesoamerican Biological Corridor existing PAs, Jigme Dorji Wildlife Sanctuary and Royal As part of the MBC initiative, this project will conserve Manas National Park; and (iv) developing a model the Panamanian section of the Corridor. It will include management plan for new PAs. (i) biodiversity assessments, monitoring, land-use plan- ning and information dissemination for the Corridor; China Nature Reserves Management (ii) capacity building for governmental, NGO, and In accordance with China's NEAP and BAP priorities, indigenous groups in protected area and biological the project will prepare and implement management corridor management; (iii) support to field activities in plans in five priority PAs, train staff, fund physical protected areas (infrastructure and equipment for pro- investments, and work with communities adjacent to tected area management, protected area demarcation and within PA boundaries to create incentives for and management plans, community/NGO involve- sustainable resource use. A second component will ment, and research and visitor facilities); and (iv) restructure a major timber industry in Changqing to support to field activities in indigenous lands (commu- promote sustainable forestry and create a core PA of nity participation in corridor management, possibly giant panda habitat, surrounded by a limited-use assistance in land tenure) and corridor areas (sustain- production/buffer zone. The project will build the able economic activities, partnerships with local com- technical and managerial capacity of the DNR through munities and private economic agents). developing a national training team for biodiversity. It will fund a national nature reserve plan, equipment, Peru National Trust Fund for Protected Areas policy studies, and operational research, and set up an The project has four major objectives: (i) to provide a information management system. long-term and predictable source of funding for the protection of Peru's biodiversity through the establish- Indonesia Kerinci Seblat Integrated Conservation and ment of a trust fund; fund income will be used for Development financing the management of priority PAs; (ii) to The project will secure the future of the biologically improve the capacity of the National Institute for rich, 1-million-hectare Kerinci-Seblat National Park by Natural Resources (INRENA) to protect and manage integrating park management and conservation with Peru's protected areas; (iii) to provide the country with locai and regional development. Park management and a reliable institutional mechanism to channel debt protection will be strengthened, based on collaborative donations for sustainable development and conserva- linkages with buffer-zone communities and local NGOs tion through bilateral and commercial debt-for-nature and governments. The project will stabilize land use swap agreements; and (iv) to test the viability of trust outside the park by promoting local-community and funds as mechanisms for providing long-term and alternate livelihood activities consistent with park sustainable funding for biodiversity conservation. conservation objectives and by improving overall local land use to relieve pressure on the park. Biodiversiry ASIA assessments in lowland forest concessions surrounding Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation the park will contribute to better management of a The objectives of the project are (i) to assist the Royal permanent buffer zone in these areas. The project will Government of Bhutan to conserve its relatively pris- (i) strengthen regulatory guidelines for interprovincial, tine forests and preserve its rich biodiversity in the face regional planning; (ii) improve conservation awareness of growing pressures from population increase and locally and in the government; (iii) provide training agricultural expansion and (ii) to test the feasibility of a and extension services to villagers, park staff, and local trust fund as a mechanism for providing long-term and government staff; and (iv) monitor and evaluate sustainable support for conservation of biodiversity in biodiversity conservation, human impacts, and sustain- a country with severe financial constraints. The Bhutan able development in and around the park. Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation (BTF) is financing (i) training to develop human resource Indonesia Biodiversity Collections capacity for PA system management and biological The project strengthens the capacity of the Research diversity monitoring; (ii) establishing a national system and Development Center for Biology (PPPB) to manage of PAs; (iii) strengthening the management of two systematic collections, including the establishment of a 61 Finincing the Global Benefits of Forests: The Bank's GEF Portfolio and the 1991 Forest Strategy computerized database to serve as a basic reference four protected areas (NBCAs), technical assistance and tool for biodiversity inventory and monitoring. Poten- conservation training with particular emphasis on the tial information users in other sectors will provide recruitment of NGOs for community mobilization, advice on database development. Specific components environmental monitoring and evaluation, and the include human resource development, collections design of a conservation trust fund for long-term maintenance and development, improvement of financing. research facilities, and publications and user products. Sri Lanka Conservation and Sustainable Use of India Ecodevelopment Medicinal Plants The project will improve the capacity of PA manage- The project will design and implement a medicinal ment to conserve biodiversity and increase opportuni- plants conservation program. For five botanical ties for local participation in PA management activities reserves where medicinal plants are collected from the and decisionmaking. It will reduce the negative wild, it will support baseline research, monitoring, impacts of the local people on biodiversity, and of PAs conservation planning, community organizing, enrich- on the local people, and increase their collaboration in ment plantings, research on traditional medicinal plant conservation efforts. knowledge, sustainable economic activities relating to medicinal plants or taking pressures off wild resources, Lao P.D.R. Wildlife and Protected Areas Conserva- improved marketing of such plants, and education. Ex tion/Forest Management situ cultivation and conservation of medicinal plants The project will protect biological diversity through (i) will be supported through research on and promotion of the designation, establishment, and management of ex situ cultivation, and through enhancing ex situ priority PAs, (ii) protection of associated wildlife, and collections. The project will also finance legal and (iii) planning and implementation of community par- policy reforms in support of medicinal plant conserva- ticipatory programs in and around PAs. Components tion, a national information network, and training and include the establishment and management of at least awareness campaigns. 62 Annexes ANNEX E: ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY AREA CONSERVED AND PEOPLE AFFECTED In an attempt to measure some gross results across the with local participation. These measures are also found portfolio, this review noted indicators of the forest or in most lists of potential indicators. They are poten- ecosystem area being conserved and the numbers of tially illustrative of the extent of project effectiveness local people potentially benefiting directly (or being and the conceptual problems entailed in developing affected directly) by project investments. These are systematic monitoring systems within the Bank's GEF gross indicators that are not necessarily correlated with projects. biodiversity conserved or poverty reduced. Area con- The study found that 19 projects concerned with served says nothing about the nature of the area- PAs and local community benefits provided some kind whether sparsely vegetated or populated-nor does it of baseline estimate of the area being conserved, out of capture the number of threatened or endemic species, a total of 34 projects that address PA management. The degree of species richness, ecosystem functions, or total area reportedly conserved by the reporting degree of threat averted. The number of beneficiaries projects is estimated at 292,469 km2. likewise says nothing about the degree of income Only 13 projects provided an estimate of the improvements or social objectives achieved per benefi- number of local people affected or identified as possible ciary. Also, these indicators are not appropriate for all beneficiaries. The total population affected is estimated projects in the portfolio; some projects are concerned at 2 million for the ten reporting projects. Three with policy, information systems, and financial mecha- additional projects reported villages as beneficiaries, nisms. However, the indicators at least form a common but did not provide an indication of the size of villages framework and attempt to address two of the most involved. (See table E.1). pervasive project objectives regarding PA management 63 Fin anci ng the G lobalI B enefi ts of Forests: The Bank's GE F Po rtfolIio and the 1 99 1 Forest Strate gy TABLE E.I. PROJECT DOCUMENT ESTIMATES OF AREA CONSERVED/PEOPLE AFFECTED conierved/ INumiber of, Country/ m angi ed b-eneficiaries area Poetnm ,(ki' intended Cm et Africa Central Afric'a Region Reg'ional 11 1 1)1) I Equal to5 Sper'cent of Congo Basin Envi-roniment arid Information __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Managemnent Project, (REIMP) -- Africa ~West Africa Pilot Community-Based f'~048,,' Natural Resource and- Wildlife 1____________ M.a'n a g ,em en t .. : 7I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Bhiutan Trust FundjorEnsJironrencal ' 9 i05 C oinse rvatic n - - . . . -_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ C am eroon Bi d v r i ~ o n r ji n and __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ ____ ____ __ M nag m ent - Central Asi'a Central A;ia Transbouind ary Bioidiversity Projec't' I China - Nature Reserves'-Managemrent 951 415,487 A547people in reserves, buffer ___________ ____________ I ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~and, boirder-a i&as Ecuador'. Biodiversity_Potection 1 5I1 15,000 __________________ El Salvador. Promotion of Biodiversity, I i0 f12,000 he~rs of coffee farxns to Coinservation~ wtiCoffee~ .onnect 75' 000 etrsbooia il _ _capcorridoeraTe Honduras, BiodP.,.rsir} in.Priorir) Arcas, I 1 5i1,)000 `150,000 total inside: buffer zone; 75~000 -of those are indigenobus' pe.oples. 350mdmratedia total _____ _____________ ~ ~ ~ project -- IIndia, - India Ecdecopen ,711 0,68 Indonesia I Kerinci Seblat hintegrated 13,0 - 1,1 ~Estimated to benefit 1.5 milin - Conservati'on and: Development Ipeople. Involuntary. riesettlement: *1GEF social development sheet: 266 - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~hectares and 1,200 individuials,: I ~~~~IBRD social dievelopmnent sheet- 1.37 -615 indiyiduas I 1~~~~~hectares, anid u :~~ x:§1. ,~~j displaced, fxenv~1jjj Tana ivi~er Nainal Priiat'e Rserve, 199vlae Lao PDR i\\'ildlike and I rotectcd Areas ~ 5000' Conservation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --- _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Mali IHouseho ld.Energy '7U2u 245,000 ~260 villagers,: new stove users __ l ~~~~~~~~(245,000 stoves) Mexico' Protected Are'a's'Prcga ___4 1 10 reserves .. Mozambiqup Trans~frontier Coniservation Areas j23,114 0 Pilot ind ftitiwuicional Srrten-g'the ni'ng''l-' Seneal Ssiaiableand Participaror\ 3,1Thu 125 villages incrementall. nO fricrg~ N1anagement - mention of av'erage villaRe sIze Uganda B%% ndii Imp-eneErable Na` i_:n n_3lF ir_k,_ 3179 1,000 rAiftcted peoplv>l,000 torest and Mgahinga-Gorilla Nation,al Park . dwellers, 100 households cultivating Conservation ________ l.~inside reserve - people 0 Panama Atlanuic Biological Corridor Prole t - _________ oo': ______________________ riLanka . Conservation 'and sustainable. us f ,000 2,000 hectares _________ m edicinal,Plaifts .__ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ TOTAL 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 292469 12,064.910 A4i crage _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 15.393 21)6.491 Source: Project appraisal documents. 64 Anncxes ANNEX F: RESULTS OF STAFF SURVEY On a scale of 1- 4 (poor-fair-good-excellent), Bank task those below the mean in the "fair" column. As noted, managers rated the project effectiveness of components the sample (20 task managers and 12 others) was too common to GEF projects. As there were very few small to be considered more than indicative-although "poor" or "excellent" responses, a simplified table the low variance does provide some modest reassur- (table El) was constructed by placing components with ance on the results. scores above the mean (2.6) in the "good" column and TABLE F.I. STAFF ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS . Good - -. Staff training, research and invent6ry", - technical'assistance, NGO collaboraion--1 Iiialiii __ - community oganization- __ l =--- - ~~~~~Biodiversity actio plns leiltv ri fc E`: E - . l i - ~~~conservation incentives, indigernous rights,, a D f.ig * - - lll i | p~ublic participation, linked income -_ll IIB - - a Y a ~~generLa,tion, coq-managetnent -- l_i E ! | ~~~~~-'Governiment budget allocation : E i - ~~~~~~Itistitution sirengthening, project ___ f m nanagernent unit, participator'y l - .gement _ _ - P A~~~~~P man-agement, PA/forest planning, _ ~~~~~~~conimunity/buffer zone n.anagement 65 An n ex es ANNEX G: GEF PROJECTS ASSOCIATED WITH BANK PROJECTS ; 11 l ; ~~~~~~~~Argentina i5 3 11 | F~It Bolivia Fl _ !1 trA ~~~~~~~~~~~Brazil E S ~~~~~~~ ~~Brazil 1;== 1 U 1 rj¢'r' ~~China = i 3 =* | ~~~~~Ecuador wrenal = ~~~~~Ghana g=E= = en.-. | ~~~~~Honduras 0 _ ~~~~~India 3O -rE _ . ~~~~Indonesia ff TVIW z ~~~~~Lao, P.D.R. Hon F-F ~~~Madagascar ; . ~~~~Mali -Mexico ll E l ElZiE ~~Mozambique 1 .; 31-- ! . ] i ~~~~~~~~Nicaragua B- = ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Panama res = t-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Philippines n3 = e .lNlan.igevrnnt _ t ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~Russia 3 | : ===~~~~_ao, I-v Senegal H I nwarncrn t Turkey ni_ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~Uganda Inabl e LI.se nqi ZimbabweiE%mhaxe 67 A tin ex es ANNEX H: GEF FOREST-RELATED PROJECTS IN THE PIPELINE MILLION) Country = Kol ? Bolivia . =l1111n X.t i i il i ii Saa~~chey i Colombia a o h B sity in Costa Rica 8 i5 l 9 : AU". Cote d'Ivoire n I a . - .5 Croatia as agePject 5 - 1 5 Ethiopia se of 191 . Georgia -- at o o1e t e l0 Guyana 60 1.l_'0 Malawi B e 5 6' i:i Mexico i h Mexico n t . .) dlS Pakistan na e cten Proj0L Papua New Guinea n0 o 7 t S2. ) Peru SI a a e of P c:0)r Peru an a a f t . Romania ' lo *s aa Syria ati o Bi i a Uganda . - W f B4ojee 7 3 Total 12E. 0 1 L1384800 Note: These projects have been approved by the GEF Council, but most have not been approved by the World Bank Board of Directors, and thus have not been considered for review. This review only includes projects approved by the Board before June 1999. Source: GEF data. 69 ENDNOTES Executive Summary additional projects approved by the GEF Council. OED's scope is 1. Uma Lele is the team leader of the OED Forest Strategy limited to projects under implementation, and not in the pipeline. and Implementation Review; this paper is one component. Jarle 11. As the OED evaluation of the Bank's regular portfolio Harstad, Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator in the appears to indicate, the decline in direct forest project lending in GEF, provided additional support to this component of the OED Africa and EAP after 1991 may have been offset by significant study. forest components in natural resource projects, as well as by GEF grants. Chapter 1 12. OED's Design Paper on Forests and the World Bank 1. Of the 44 projects reviewed, World Bank categorization shows that direct lending for forest projects before and after the places 7Ofn the forestryojector,s14 review, nurald r e mnagmeg atin forest strategy dramatically decreased in all regions except LAC places7invtheforestry sector, 14 in natural resourcemanagement, and MNA (4 and 3 projects in 1980-91, 4 and 3 projects post- 5 i environmental adjustment, 3 in other envtronment, 4 in 1991, respectively) and to a lesser extent in South Asia (1980-91, agricultural adjustment, 7 in other agriculture, 1 in technical 15; post-1991; 11). Africa experienced the largest decrease, from assistance-education, and 2 in oil and gas adjustment. While 27 projects to only 3. EAP followed with 11 projects in 1980-91 some projects are not classified as being in the forestry sector per and 5 in the post-1991 period. (World Bank 1998c). se, all have a significant forest conservation and management 13. the tropiamois fores cont wihBn)E focus. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~13. The tropical moist forest countries with Bank GEF focus. projects are: Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo Repub- lic, C6te d'lvoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Mada- 3. Led by Uma Lele, the core team consisted of Nalini gascar, India, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea (FY2000), Philip- Kumar, S. Arif Husain, B. Essama Nssah, Aaron Zazueta, Lauren pines, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru. Of the Kelly, and Maisha Hyman. remaining, Malaysia, Colombia, and Venezuela have UNDP- 4. Case studies include Brazil, Cameroon, China, Costa Rica, implemented GEF projects, leaving only Myanmar unserved. India, and Indonesia (see Annex A). 14. These projects were implemented with grant funds from S. The most recent of these are Porter and others 1998; GEF GEF, governments, and other donors, but not with IBRD loans. 1999b, d. 15. There are at least 15 World Bank-funded projects in the 6. in 1998, 36 nations pledged.a total of $2.75 billion over forestry category, either active or in the pipeline, for the ECA four years for the GEF trust fund. They are Argentina, Australia, Region. Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, C6te d'Ivoire, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Chapter 2 Ireland, India, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Luxembourg, 1. These projects include the Central Asia Transboundary Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Paki- Biodiversity Project (Uzbekistan, Kyrgyz Republic, and Kazakh- stan, Portugal, Russian Federation, Republic of Slovenia, Spain, stan 1999); Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (Honduras 1997, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the Nicaragua 1997, and Panama 1997); West Africa Pilot Commu- United States (GEF 1998a). nity-Based Natural Resource and Wildlife Management (C6te 7. The Biodiversity Conservation in the Sunderbans man- d'lvoire and Burkina Faso 1995); Transcarpathian Biodiversity grove project in Bangladesh was included for financial analysis, Protection (Poland, Slovak Republic, and Ukraine 1993); and but dropped from other analyses because no performance or Central Africa Region: Regional Environment and Information disbursement information was available. Even though the World Management Project (Central African Republic, Congo, Demo- Bank implements the project, the Asian Development Bank cratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Cameroon, and Equatorial executes it. Guinea 1997). 8. Short-term response measures (STRM) refer to "proposed 2. The percentage is higher than the category in table 2.1 activities that are not an integral part of an operational program because some projects have protected area improvement and but are still cost-effective, or that enable the GEF to respond to an expansion as a secondary objective. urgent need, or seize a promising country-driven opportunity in a 3. The draft GEF study by ITAD (ITAD 1999) found that in timely manner" (GEF 1996a). 29 of 61 GEF biocliversity projects, PA management was the 9. Includes the Household Energy project in Mali Climate single main change objective. This was followed by environment Change Operational Program 6 and the Sustainable Participa- planning (seven projects), regional coordination (eight projects), tory Energy Management project in Senegal STRM. As these two and policy reform (three projects), although many more projects projects have fundamentally different objectives and activities had these latter goals as secondary objectives. (rural tree-growing for fuel wood) from the projects with a 4. Sustainable tree production for energy supply is the biodiversity orientation, most of this study's analysis is focused on primary forest component of the two energy conservation the latter. projects in Mali and Senegal. 10. The low number in 1999 is the result of the cut-off date 5. Response by GEF Secretariat to December draft report, (June 1999) for project selection. At the time of the desk review, January 21, 2000. only one GEF project with forest components had been approved 6. Three-quarters of task managers considered their projects by the World Bank's Board of Directors, although there were highly relevant. One quarter did not respond. Some stated that they 7 1 Financing the Global Benefits of Forests: The Bank's GEF Portfolio and the 1991 Forest Strategy had not considered the GEF project in light of the forest strategy. 13. As not all of the project supervision reports (590s, now 7. GEF has no clear mandate for poverty reduction since its PSRs) available in the Portfolio Manager Database included justification is tied to global environmental objectives. Some GEF covenants, the actual number is likely to be higher. projects address poverty alleviation as a byproduct, but not as a 14. Section 6.01, Class covenant 8, Project ID: NI-GE- core activity. 41790. 8. See Annex B, "GEF's Interim Guiding Principles for 15. Legal Covenant 3.10, Class covenant 8, Project ID: PH- Projects Associated with Logging." GE-4403. 9. The GEF provided $2,320,000 through the World Bank to 16. Sch. to PA-para.5(a), Class covenant 10,07, Project ID: 17 projects to help countries elaborate and complete their IN_GE-9584. NBSAPs. This represents 11 percent of the funds allocated to the 17. These databases include Portfolio Reports, PC Portfolio three implementing agencies of GEF. Performance Monitor. 10. GEF grants termed "Enabling Activities" are provided 18. As of March 2000. by the GEF through the UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank for preparation of these plans. Thirty-five of the countries in the Chapter 4 Bank GEF portfolio received such grants., hpe Idns ia. 1. During the last project implementation review discussions 1 1. See OED country studies of Brazil and Indonesia. in 1999, 3 categories were highlighted to classify sustainable use: (a) those that address uses in buffer zones near PAs, (b) those that Chapter 3 overlay biodiversity concerns on wider productive landscapes and 1. The study did not go into all the project files and annexes identify uses that optimize biodiversity conservation while explic- where monitoring indicators are frequently discussed in more itly recognizing the tradeoffs that will occur in that productive detail than in the main appraisal documents: The authors inde- landscape, and (c) those that focus on economic components of pendently ranked the indicators identified in the design document biodiversity per se. The GEF recognizes that the third category is and averaged the results. The results must be considered as where the main future challenges lie. indicative, not exhaustive. 2. Beyond the GEF-Bank portfolio, and including all other 2. The GEF has supported the World Monitoring Center's types of projects funded by the GEF and implemented by the activities in developing global biodiversity databases. Interna- Bank, Mr. Koch-Weser states that "for every dollar of Bank-GEF tional conservation organizations and NGOs such as WWF, assistance, there is an associated dollar of IBRD and IDA IUCN, Conservation International, and The Nature Conservancy resources, and two additional dollars of funding from elsewhere" have all developed databases and geographical information (Koch-Weser 1998). systems identifying biodiversity priority areas. Species are tracked through CITES (Convention on International Trade in Chapter 5 Endangered Species), the IUCN Redbook, and national lists of 1. Belarus 1992, Czech Republic 1993, Russian Federation endangered and threatened species. 1996, Slovak Republic 1993, and Ukraine 1993. 3. Project Concept Document for Central. Asia 196SovkRpbi193anUrie19. *3 . Project Concept Document for Central. Asia2. See Annex C for the methodology used by this review. Transboundary Biodiversity Project, August 6, 1997. Participation elements were identified only in principal design 4. For a recent Bank review of ICDPs in Asia, see, Sanjayan, documents (such as SARs, GEF Project Documents), and the Shen, and Jansen 1997; Wells and Brandon 1997. extent of participation was ranked by the presence of each 5. Asmeen Khan, questionnaire response. stakeholder and the type of activities performed; projects were 6. Thirty-two responses were received, 20 from task manag- independently ranked by each author and then averaged. ers (12 written, 8 verbal), and 12 from independent experts (8 3. Examples of highly ranked projects with no mention of written, 4 verbal). participation in their objectives: Nicaragua 1997, Panama 1997, 7. Interviews with task managers. and Sri Lanka 1997. 8. Task managers interviewed observed that many of the 4. While this issue is likely to be important to some degree in projects had some aspects of sustainable use components. many of the portfolio's projects, it came to a head in the Ghana 9. For an in-depth evaluation of GEF trust fund projects, project when a change of government resulted in changes in refer to GEF 1999b. agreements over forest management and protection. 10. Comments by GEF Secretariat in response to December draft report, January 21, 2000. The response team specifically Chapter 6 refers to the project in Congo. 1. This strategy will be presented to the Bank's Board of 11. See ICRs and QAG reports for specific enumeration of Executive Directors by October 2000, and the GEF Council has problems encountered. requested the Bank to submit a copy to the Council meeting in 12. Since GEF funds are grants, ministries of finance are November 2000, as well as a summary setting out specific sometimes seen as less serious about their commitments to these elements that will have a direct bearing on integrating global projects than to similar Bank loan-fund projects. environmental concerns into Bank policies and programs. 72 E n d n o te s 2. This question is critically important in the case of China, the fund, combined with the value of GEF funds. GEF's contribu- whose IDA eligibility ceased on June 31, 1999. According to the tion is $5.0 million. OED review team leader's findings, China is generally not interested 7. See evaluations cited in this review, including those in borrowing at IBRD market rates for forestry operations, let alone conducted by GEF, QAG, and Bank task managers. conservation. (Uma Lele: personal communication). 8. See Annex F. This approach has been included in more 3. The 1991 Forest Strategy cited figures of $750 million to recent project designs, including Pakistan and Central Asia. $3.2 billion for 21 million hectares of Amazon forest, while the 9. The Sri Lanka medicinal plants project and the El cost of that land would be $420 million to $600 million. Salvador shade coffee project are two relatively small exceptions. 4. Operational Procedures of the World Bank: OPs 4.01, 10. The BCN is a consortium of The Nature Conservancy, 4.03,4.04, 10.04; GEF's Operational Program 4 (Forestry). WWF-US, and the World Resources Institute, with funding from 5. Anonymous responses in review questionnaire from Bank the United States Agency for International Development. task managers, supported by interview results (Spring 1999). 11. In Mexico, approximately four proposals were prepared 6. All of these issues were scheduled to be addressed in 1999 for consideration for medium-size grant funding in the last year. with the introduction of SAP software and actions by both QAG These figures are increasingly being repeated elsewhere. and OED to take up GEF projects for review. 12. These include the Biodiversity Conservation Network's 7. In the latest GEF Council meeting, on May 5-7, 1999, the M&E Guidelines, 1998; World Bank Guidelines for Biodiversity Council approved a new fixed fee structure for each of the (mentioned in Koch-Weser 1998); and the current GEF study of Implementing Agencies. The impacts of this change will only be biodiversity monitoring indicators. known with time. 8. This is particularly the case where some of the countries Annex A are IDA-eligible and others not-for example, the Central Afri- 1. This draft has benefited from discussions with Lars can project. Vidaeus, Gonzalo Castro, Christine Kimes, Jarle Harstad (GEF), Ken Newcombe (ESSD), and Ridley Nelson (OED). Chapter 7 2. Since the adoption of the 1991 Forest Strategy, the World 1. The OED Country Case Studies of Brazil and Indonesia, Bank has committed $1.6 billion in forestry and $1.8 billion in however, argue that there has been negligible impact on slowing forestry component projects. the rate of deforestation 3. Of these, 61 are agricultural or biodiversity projects that 2. The QAG review of African biodiversiry projects reached are directly or indirectly relevant for the forest sector. Note: this is the same conclusion: "But 'mainstreaming' biodiversity has not a tentative number derived from a preliminary review and could yet taken place in most countries, nor even within the Bank" change. (World Bank 1998a). 4. Operations' goals are relevant if they are consistent with 3. Policy impacts have been carefully documented in the six the country's overall development strategy, the Bank's assistance country case studies carried out by other members of the OED strategy for that country, and at least one of the Bank's broader team (see case studies). These are reinforced by interviews and goals of reducing poverty, protecting the environment, develop- questionnaire data. ing human resources, and fostering private sector growth. 4. The GEF is currently using these interim guiding principles 5. The operation is efficacious if it achieves its stated as it awaits guidance from the Scientific and Technical Advisory physical, financial, institutional, or policy-related goals. Panel. The initial guidance of the Convention on Biological 6. To judge efficiency an evaluator assesses results in relation Diversity in the first part of the 1990s had a strong emphasis on to inputs, looking at the cost, implementation time, and economic protected areas. More recent guidance has focused on sustainable and financial results. For details on OED's methodology, please use. For forest biodiversity, however, this has not changed dra- refer to World Bank 1998g. matically. The most recent Conference of the Parties (Bratislava, 7. Sustainability is defined as the likelihood that the project 1998) just began to develop a work program on forest will maintain its results in the future. biodiversity, which is largely focused on research at this stage. w il l development resultsii the future. 5. The ocus o sustanable se, andaway fom traitiona 8. Institutional devoelopment impact is the process of improv- 5. The focus on sustainable use, and away from traditonal in a conr' .blt omk s fishmn raiainl protected area projects, is more apparent in the projects that were ig a country's ablity to make use of its human, organzational, in the pipeline at the time of the review. OED does not review/ and financial resources. assess projects in the pipeline. For a list of projects in the pipeline 9. From the GEF's perspective, an activity that makes (after June 1999), see Annex H. economic sense in its own right but produces a national benefit is 6Thi twill support the establishment of a fund of a nonincremental activity or output, in contrast with an incre- 6. This project menta activirt whic producesen af glba benefit.. $20-50 million to make equity and quasi-equity investments in mental activity, which produces a global benefit. Latin American companies that sustainably use or protect biodiversity (such as sustainable agriculture, use of underutilized Annex C species, SFM, non-timber products, and ecotourism). The reported 1. Information taken from the Social Development Data- total cost of $55 million assumes full authorized capitalization of base found in ESSD's website. 73 BIBLIOGRAPHY Barnes, C. 1999. "Review of the 1991 Forest Strategy: . 1997a. GEF Operational Programs. Washing- Background Paper on Monitoring and Evaluation." ton, D.C. Operations Evaluation Department, World Bank, . 1997b. "Project Concept Document for Central Washington, D.C. Photocopy. Asia Transboundary Biodiversity Project." Washing- Bionet. 1999. Innovative Financing and the GEF: ton, D.C. Directions for a New Millennium. A Joint NGO . 1997c. "Argentine Republic: Biodiversity Con- Paper. Washington, D.C.: Bionet. servation Project." GEF Project Document, Report BCN (Biodiversity Conservation Network). 1998. An- No. 17023-AR, September 1997. Washington, D.C. nual Report. Washington D.C. . 1997d. Central African Region: Regional .1997. Annual Report. Washington D.C. Environmental Information Management Project Brandon, Katrina. 1997. "Policy and Practical Consid- Document . Washington, D.C. eration in Land-Use Strategies for Biodiversity Con- . 1996a. Operational Strategy. Washington, servation." In Kramer, van Schaik, and Johnson, D.C. eds., Last Stand: Protected Areas and the Defense of . 1996b. Public Involvement in GEF-Financed Tropical Biodiversity. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univer- Projects. Washington, D.C. sity Press. . 1996c. Strategy for Engaging the Private GEF (Global Environment Facility). Forthcoming. Sector. Washington, D.C. Project Performance Report 1999. Washington, D.C. . 1995. Strategy for Engaging the Private . 1999a. Engaging the Private Sector in GEF Sector. October 1995. Washington, D.C. Activities. Washington, D.C. ITAD (International Training and Development). 1999. . 1999b. Experience with Conservation Trust "Development of Program Indicators for the Funds. Evaluation Report No. 1-99. Washington, D.C. Biodiversity Program." Report to the GEF Secre- . 1999c. "GEF Guiding Principles for Projects tariat, Hassocks, U.K. Photocopy. Associated with Logging." Washington, D.C. IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of . 1999d. "Joint Summary of the Chairs." GEF Nature). 1997. The Global Environment Facility Council Meeting December 8-10,1999. Washington, from Rio to New Delhi: A Guide for NGOs. D.C. Washington, D.C.: Bionet, Climate Network Europe. . 1999d. Project Performance Report 1998 (In- Koch-Weser, Caio. 1998. "Mainstreaming the Global corporating Project Implementation Review). Wash- Environment in World Bank Operations." Presenta- ington, D.C. tion by the Managing Director at the World Bank at . 1999e. "Costa Rica Ecomarkets." Project the GEF Council Meeting, October 14, 1998, Wash- Brief, CR-GE-61314. November 1999. Washington, ington D.C. Photocopy. D.C. The Mountain Institute. 1997. Investing in Mountains. . 1999f. Second Progress Report on Actions to Franklin, WV. Implement the Recommendations of the Study of Moura Costa, Pedro, Jyrki Salmi, Markku Simula, and GEF's Overall Performance and the Policy Recom- Charlie Wilson. 1999. Financial Mechanisms for mendations for the Second Replenishment Period. Sustainable Forestry. UNDP/SEED Program on For- GEF/C.14/10. Washington, D.C. ests, February 1999. New York: UNDP. .1998a. Early Impacts, Promising Futures. GEF Porter, Gareth, Raymond C1lmencon, Waafas Ofosu- Special Edition 1998 Annual Report. Washington, Amaah, and Michael Philips. 1998. Study of GEF's D.C. Overall Performance. Washington, D.C.: GEF, .1998b. Proceedings of the First Assembly of the World Bank. Global Environment Facility. Report 19576. New Reed, David. 1991-92. The Global Environment Facil- Delhi, April 1-3, 1998. Washington, D.C. ity: Sharing Responsibility for the Biosphere. 2 vols. 1998c. Draft Annual Report of the Global Washington, D.C.: WWF International. Environment Facility. GEF/C.12/13/Rev.1, Septem- Sanjayan, M.A., Susan Shen, and Malcom Jansen. ber 21, 1998. Washington, D.C. 1997. Experiences with Integrated Conservation De- .1998d. Operational Report on GEF Programs. velopment Projects in Asia. World Bank Technical Washington, D.C. Paper No. 388. Washington, D.C. 75 Financing the Global Benefits of Forests: The Bank's GEF Portfolio and the 1991 Forest Strategy Sjoberg, Helen. 1999. Restructuring the Global Envi- . 1999c. "Treatment of Forest Sector Issues in ronment Facility. GEF Working Paper 13, Washing- Country Assistance Strategies." Operations Evalua- ton, D.C. tion Department. Washington, D.C. Facsimile. Smith, Scott E., and Alejandra Martin. 2000. "The- . 1998a. "Biodiversity Conservation Projects in matic Review of Achieving Sustainability of Africa: Lessons Learned from the First Generation." Biodiversity Conservation." GEF, Washington, D.C. Environment Department Dissemination Notes, No. Photocopy. 62. Washington, D.C. Wells, Michael, and K.E. Brandon. 1997. People and . 1998b. Biodiversity in World Bank Projects: A Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Portfolio Update. Washington, D.C. Local Communities. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. . 1998c. "Forests and the World Bank: An OED Wells, Michael, D. Ganapin, J. Harstad, R. Review of the 1991 Forest Strategy and Its Implemen- Ramankutty, M. Ramos, A. Vaish, G. Castro, J. tation: A Design Paper." Operations Evaluation Suter, J. Hough, A. Gupta, and C. Tavera. 1999a. An Department. Washington, D.C. Photocopy. Interim Assessment of Biodiversity Enabling Activi- . 1998d. "Social Assessment Builds a Project for ties: National Biodiversity Strategies and Action People and Parks in Argentina." Social Assessment: Plans. Washington, D.C.: GEF. Good Practice, Dissemination Notes, ESSD Net- Wells, Michael, Scott Guggenheim, Asmeen Khan, work. Washington, D.C. Wahjudi Wardojo, and Paul Jepson. 1999b. Investing . 1998e. "Mainstreaming the Global Environ- in Biodiversity: A Review of Indonesia's Integrated ment in World Bank Group Operations." GEF/c.12/ Conservation and Development Projects. East Asia 6. GEF Council, October 14-16, 1998. Washington, Region. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. D.C. Photocopy. World Bank. 1999a. "Costa Rica Ecomarkets." Project . 1998f. Assessing Development Effectiveness: Brief CR-GE-61314, November, 1999. Washington, Evaluation in the World Bank and the International D.C. Photocopy. Finance Corporation. Operations Evaluation Depart- . 1999b. "Promoting Environmental Sustain- ment. Washington, D.C. ability in Development: An Evaluation of the World . 1996. World Bank Participation Sourcebook. Bank's Performance." Operations Evaluation Depart- Washington, D.C. ment. Washington, D.C. Photocopy. 76 OPERATIONS EVALUATION DEPARTMENT PUBLICATIONS The Operations Evaluation Department (OED), an Documents listed with a stock number and price independent evaluation unit reporting to the World code may be obtained through the World Bank's mail Bank's Executive Directors, rates the development order service or from its InfoShop in downtown impact and performance of all the Bank's completed Washington, D.C. For information on all other docu- lending operations. Results and recommendations are ments, contact the World Bank InfoShop. reported to the Executive Directors and fed back into For more information about this study or OED's the design and implementation of new policies and other evaluation work, please contact Elizabeth Camp- projects. In addition to the individual operations and bell-Pag6 or the OED Help Desk. country assistance programs, OED evaluates the Bank's policies and processes. Operations Evaluation Department Summaries of studies and the full text of the Precis Partnerships & Knowledge Programs (OEDPK) and Lessons & Practices can be read on the Internet at E-mail: ecampbellpage@worldbank.org http://www.worldbank.org/html/oed/index.htm E-mail: OED Help Desk@worldbank.org Telephone: (202) 473-4497 How To Order OED Publications Facsimile: (202) 522-3200 Operations evaluation studies, World Bank discussion papers, and all other documents are available from the World Bank InfoShop. Ordering World Bank Publications The World Bank InfoShop serves walk-in customers Customers in the United States and in territories not only. The InfoShop is located at: served by any of the Bank's publication distributors may send publication orders to: 701 18th Street, NW Washington, DC 20433, USA The World Bank P.O. Box 960 All other customers must place their orders through Herndon, VA 20172-0960 their local distributors. Fax: (703) 661-1501 Telephone: (703) 661-1580 Ordering by e-mail The address for the World Bank publication database If you have an established account with the World on the Internet is: http://www.worldbank.org (select Bank, you may transmit your order by electronic mail publications/project info). on the Internet to: books@worldbank.org. Please in- E-mail: pic@worldbank.org clude your account number, billing and shipping Fax number: (202) 522-1500 addresses, the title and order number, quantity, and Telephone number: (202) 458-5454 unit price for each item. 77 OED PUBLICATIONS Study Series 1999 Annual Review of Development Effectiveness Agricultural Extension: The Kenya Experience Agricultural Extension and Research: Achievements and Problems in National Systems Bangladesh: Progress Through Partnership Developing Towns and Cities: Lessons from Brazil and the Philippines Financial Sector Reform: A Review of World Bank Assistance Fiscal Management in Adjustment Lending India: The Dairy Revolution Investing in Health: Development Effectiveness in the Health, Nutrition, and Population Sector Mainstreaming Gender in World Bank Lending: An Update Nongovernmental Organizations in World Bank-Supported Projects: A Review Paddy Irrigation and Water Management in Southeast Asia Poland Country Assistance Review: Partnership in a Transition Economy Poverty Reduction in the 1990s: An Evaluation of Strategy and Performance Reforming Agriculture: The World Bank Goes to Market The World Bank's Experience with Post-Conflict Reconstruction The World Bank Forest Strategy: Striking the Right Balance Zambia Country Assistance Review: Turning an Economy Around Evaluation Country Case Studies Bosnia and Herzegovina: Post-Conflict Reconstruction Brazil: Forests in the Balance: Challenges of Conservation with Development Cameroon: Forest Sector Development in a Difficult Political Economy China: From Afforestation to Poverty Alleviation and Natural Forest Management Costa Rica: Forest Strategy and the Evolution of Land Use El Salvador: Post-Conflict Reconstruction India: Alleviating Poverty through Forest Development Indonesia: The Challenges of World Bank Involvement in Forests Uganda: Post-Conflict Reconstruction Proceedings Lessons of Fiscal Adjustment Lesson from Urban Transport Evaluating the Gender Impact of Bank Assistance Evaluation and Development: The Institutional Dimension (Transaction Publishers) Evaluation and Poverty Reduction Monitoring & Evaluation Capacity Development in Africa Public Sector Performance-The Critical Role of Evaluation Multilingual Editions Assessing Development Effectiveness: Evaluation in the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation Appreciation de l'efficacite du developpement: L'evaluation a la Banque mondiale et a la Soci&e financiere internationale Determinar la eficacia de las actividades de desarrollo: La evaluaci6n en el Banco Mundial y la Corporaci6n Financiera Internacional C6te d'lvoire : Revue de l'aide de la Banque mondiale au pays Philippines: From Crisis to Opportunity Filipinas: Crisis y oportunidades Rebuilding the Mozambique Economy: Assessment of a Development Partnership Reconstruir a Economia de Mocambique www.worldbank.org/htmV1oed 6 01~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 78081 3842 Go° 9oX ~~