91236 The GEF-6 biodiversity strategy Foreword It is my great pleasure to present in this publication the GEF-6 biodiversity strategy for 2014-2018. As the financial mechanism of the CBD the GEF provides funding to help countries implement the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, 2011-2020, and achieve the Aichi Targets. I am pleased that donors during the recently completed replenishment pledged $1.296 billion towards the biodiversity focal area for GEF-6, making it the largest Dr. Naoko Ishii CEO and Chairperson individual focal area within the GEF. Global Environment Facility Consistent with the CBD Strategic Plan, the goal of the GEF’s biodiversity strategy is to maintain globally significant biodiversity and the ecosystem goods and services that it provides to society. To achieve this goal, the strategy encompasses four objectives: 1) improve sustainability of protected area systems; 2) reduce threats to biodiversity; 3) sustainably use biodiversity; and 4) mainstream conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity into production landscapes/seascapes and sectors. The GEF-6 biodiversity strategy is composed of ten programs that, through a continuum of measures, address the most critical drivers of biodiversity loss across entire landscapes and seascapes. The programs include direct conservation/protection, threat-reduction, sustainable use, and biodiversity mainstreaming approaches. Each program provides a focused and calibrated response in a specific ecosystem or location in a landscape or seascape. In addition, for the first time, the strategy addresses the most critical underlying driver of biodiversity loss; the failure to account for and price the full economic value of ecosystems and biodiversity. Achieving the Aichi Targets will require more than money. To have transformational results will require landscape-level and sector-wide approaches that integrate the sustainable management of biodiversity into multiple sectors and that require engagement and ownership with stakeholders beyond the environment sector. GEF’s new biodiversity strategy acknowledges this reality and provides ample opportunities for countries to pursue new biodiversity management solutions that are systems-oriented, that address underlying drivers and direct pressures of biodiversity loss, and that engage all sectors of Government and society. We look forward to supporting a new generation of biodiversity investments that match the scope of the challenge and the aspirations inherent in the Strategic Plan and we commit to work together with the CBD, donors and recipient countries, GEF agencies, and civil society towards the joint achievement of the Aichi Targets. The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy 1 Background 2 The Global Environment Facility Biodiversity Status The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines The global target set by the CBD “to achieve by 2010 a biodiversity as “the variability among living organisms significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine loss at the global, regional and national level as a and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity all life on Earth” was not met. The Global Biodiversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems.” 1 Outlook 3 reported the following sobering analysis: The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and TEEB (The ■■Species that have been assessed for extinction Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) demonstrated risk are on average moving closer to extinction. that biodiversity underpins ecosystem goods and services Amphibians face the greatest risk, and coral species that are required for the survival of human societies are deteriorating most rapidly in status. Nearly a and for the future of all life on the planet. In addition, quarter of plant species are estimated to be biodiversity generates considerable economic value threatened with extinction. through the provision of goods such as food, water, ■■The abundance of vertebrate species, based on and materials, and services such as climate regulation, assessed populations, fell on average by nearly pollination, disaster protection, and nutrient cycling.2 a third between 1970 and 2006, and continues to fall globally, with especially severe declines Governments, civil society organizations, the private in the tropics and among freshwater species. sector, indigenous people and local communities, ■■Natural habitats continue to decline in extent and others have made some progress in sustainably and integrity, although the rate of loss for tropical managing biodiversity and ecosystems at local and forests and mangroves has slowed significantly national levels, but not at the scale necessary to stem in some regions. Freshwater wetlands, sea ice the ongoing tide of biodiversity loss globally. Current habitats, salt marshes, coral reefs, seagrass beds, estimates indicate that species loss is occurring at 1,000 and shellfish reefs are all showing serious declines. to 10,000 times the natural background rate. Of all the ■■Extensive fragmentation and degradation of global environmental problems the world is facing today, forests, rivers, and other ecosystems have also led biodiversity loss is the only one that is likely irreversible. to loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. ■■Crop and livestock genetic diversity continues 1 Convention on Biological Diversity, UNEP/CBD/94/1. to decline in agricultural systems.3 2 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Island Press, Washington DC; TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the 3 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Global Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and Biodiversity Outlook 3. Montréal, 94 pages. recommendations of TEEB. The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy 3 Drivers of Biodiversity Loss implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, including the new Strategic Plan for biosafety The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment highlighted and the first set of guidance provided to the GEF the five main direct drivers of biodiversity loss: habitat from the Open- ended Ad Hoc Intergovernmental change, overexploitation or unsustainable use, invasive Committee for the Nagoya Protocol on Access and alien species (particularly in island ecosystems), climate Benefit-sharing (ICNP).6 However, the COP did not change, and pollution.4 More recent analyses, including prioritize the elements of the Strategic Plan or the the Global Biodiversity Outlook 3, reported that these Aichi Targets that GEF should support during GEF-6. five drivers remain the principal causes of biodiversity loss and are either constant or increasing in intensity. An The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and analysis of the proportion of threatened species on the the guidance provided to the GEF is ambitious, IUCN Red List (mammals, birds, amphibians) affected comprehensive, and potentially expensive to implement. by each driver showed that more than 80% are under At COP-11, an estimate of the resources required to threat from habitat loss, 70% from overexploitation implement the strategic plan and achieve the Aichi and unsustainable use, and almost 30% from invasive Targets within GEF-eligible countries was presented by alien species. Although climate change is an emerging an external expert group. The estimate of the amount of driver, less that 20% of threatened species are affected resources required for the GEF-6 period ranged from $ by climate change and only 10% by pollution.5 35-87 billion in total for GEF-eligible countries, and, after applying various co-financing ratios, the GEF incremental Conference of the Parties amount ranged from $5 billion to $29 billion7. (COP) Guidance to the GEF Rationale and Approach The guidance to the GEF from COP-11 covering GEF-6 (2014-2018) directed the GEF to support the The GEF-6 strategy does not explicitly address all direct or indirect drivers of biodiversity loss. The strategy prioritizes the three principal direct drivers — habitat loss, 4 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Island Press, Washington DC. 5 H. M. Pereira, L. M. Navarro, and I. S. Martins, “Global Biodiversity 6 UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/XI/4. Change: The Bad, the Good, and the Unknown,” Annual Review of Environment and Resources, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 25–50, Jan. 2012. 7 UNEP/CBD/COP/11/INF/35. 4 The Global Environment Facility overexploitation, and invasive alien species — which help strengthen ecosystem resilience and maintain remain the most critical for the achievement of the Aichi biodiversity in the face of climate change. This would Targets and are largely responsible for current trends include, for example, support to improving protected of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation. This area management, and protected area system and approach will provide the best opportunity for GEF to site design (Programs 1 and 2) and biodiversity exploit the intersection of its mandate and the Strategic mainstreaming in production landscapes and Plan and the associated Aichi Targets, and will ensure that seascapes (Program 9), among other potential entry GEF investments achieve impact at scale while delivering points. Furthermore, the biodiversity strategy seeks global environmental benefits. The current drivers of to maintain biodiverse landscapes and seascapes at biodiversity loss require a multi-pronged strategy to sufficient scale and extent to strengthen terrestrial sustain biodiversity through a combination of protection, and oceanic ecosystem integrity and the significant sustainable use, and biodiversity mainstreaming. role these ecosystems play in the global carbon cycle, allowing these ecosystems to serve as major GEF’s response recognizes that effectively managed carbon stores and sinks. Securing ecosystem integrity protected area systems — a cornerstone of conservation through these programs will help maintain essential for more than 100 years — make significant contributions ecosystem services that help people cope with changes to achieving many of the Aichi Targets. Protected area in water supplies, fisheries, incidence of disease, and systems provide economically valuable ecosystem goods agricultural productivity caused by climate change. and services and hence are core elements of a country’s ecological infrastructure. Development and resource The CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 use external to the protected area estate, however, and its Aichi targets form the global policy framework often degrades biodiversity and ecosystem goods and and entry point for harnessing synergy amongst the services. Targeted threat reduction and the promotion biodiversity-related conventions.9 The Strategic Plan of the sustainable use of biodiversity can help secure has been recognized as such in various COP decisions the protected areas themselves while contributing to or resolutions of the governing bodies for the other the sustainable management and climate-resiliency biodiversity-related conventions and ongoing work is of the surrounding landscapes and seascapes. under way in several conventions with a view to aligning their respective strategic frameworks even more strongly Biodiversity mainstreaming is the process of embedding with the Strategic Plan. Hence, due to the inclusive biodiversity considerations into policies, strategies, and comprehensive nature of the GEF biodiversity and practices of key public and private actors that strategy, ample opportunity exists for the inclusion of impact or rely on biodiversity. Mainstreaming enables pertinent GEF-eligible activities, as prioritized in the biodiversity to persist across entire landscapes and country’s revised National Biodiversity Strategy and seascapes. The societal failure to adequately price the Action Plans (NBSAPs), to exploit this synergy amongst economic value of biodiversity has undermined the the conventions and advance shared objectives. long-term sustainability of mainstreaming efforts, which have often focused too narrowly on threat mitigation A contributing element for promoting sustainability and palliative attempts to offset biodiversity loss. of biodiversity is opportunistic engagement with GEF support to biodiversity mainstreaming actions the private sector. In the past, the GEF biodiversity that address this systemic failure is paramount. focal area has supported numerous projects that demonstrate successful private sector engagement and Ecosystem-based adaptation includes “the sustainable have attracted significant private sector co-financing. management, conservation and restoration of Consistent with the GEF-6 private sector strategy, ecosystems to provide services that help people adapt this focal area will encourage the use of a range of to the adverse effects of climate change”.8 GEF will intervention models, including support for enabling continue to support activities — primarily through policy environments, corporate alliances, and capacity Programs 1, 2, and 9 — that, while generating global building/incubation for innovation as appropriate to biodiversity benefits as their primary purpose, also may provide nature-based adaptation solutions. These activities must be operationally feasible and 9 The biodiversity-related conventions are: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), International Treaty on Plant Genetic 8 Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change Mitigation and Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), The Ramsar Adaptation: Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group Convention on Wetlands, and the World Heritage Convention on Biodiversity and Climate Change. Montreal, Technical Series No. (WHC). 41. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2009). The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy 5 advance the goals of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity over resources and biodiversity as well as education, 2011-2020. Each model may be used in different ways training, information and control of the benefits of across several categories of private sector players, production also influences the type of knowledge including capital providers, financial intermediaries, that rural men and women have and how they use that and other key partners (large corporations, small and knowledge. Women often take the lead in the selection medium enterprises, resource user groups, cooperatives, and improvement of local plant varieties, as well as seed and individuals). Within that context, the biodiversity exchange and management, and thus play a critical role focal area will support projects that propose innovative in the sustainable use of plant and genetic resources. engagement with the private sector and that aim to In many areas they are also the primary collectors complement rather than replace public sector support. of wild foods in forests and they possess extensive knowledge of their location and characteristics. In Gender spite of the important contributions that women make to the conservation and sustainable use of forest Rural women and men each play important but biodiversity and agrobiodiversity, women’s roles and differentiated roles in biodiversity management, use, knowledge are often overlooked or underestimated and conservation through their tasks and responsibilities in biodiversity programs, projects and policies related in food production and provision, spanning the realm to management of these and other ecosystems. of agriculture, fisheries and forestry management. The type of knowledge resource managers possess The CBD recognized the important role of women varies by age, gender, and an individual’s associated in achieving the objectives of the Convention from roles and responsibilities. As daily natural resource its initiation, and in the thirteenth paragraph of managers, they influence the total amount of genetic its preamble, Parties recognize “the vital role that diversity conserved or used. Consequently, they have women play in the conservation and sustainable use different needs, priorities, and perspectives about the of biological diversity and affirm the need for the full use of crops, plants, and animals. Access to or control participation of women at all levels of policy making and implementation for biological diversity conservation”. Subsequent decisions by the COP and recommendations from the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) have sought to ensure women’s participation in conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, particularly agricultural biodiversity, and identify gender-specific ways in which to document and preserve women’s knowledge of biological diversity. Implementation of Article 8(j) calls for “Full and effective participation of women of indigenous and local communities in all activities of the programme of work”. The Nagoya Protocol recognizes “the vital role that women play in access and benefit- sharing” and calls particular attention to this role in its Articles 12 (traditional knowledge), 22 (capacity) and 25 (financial mechanism and resources). The preamble calls for the participation of women in decision- and policy-making surrounding access and benefit-sharing. By and large, these decisions and recommendations mainly focus on participation as opposed to gender equality. In 2008, a Gender Plan of Action was approved at COP-9 to move the agenda forward towards gender equality. In 2010, in adopting the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, the COP requested Parties “to mainstream gender considerations in the implementation of the Strategic Plan and its associated goals, the Aichi Targets, and indicators”; and recognized the need for capacity building, 6 The Global Environment Facility including on gender mainstreaming, for effective men’s role in the sustainable use of wildlife. These national action. At COP-11, Parties further emphasized opportunities will require particular focus. All project “the importance of gender mainstreaming in all designs will seek to avoid adverse consequences for programmes of work under the Convention as important the most vulnerable groups, including indigenous to achieving the objectives of the Convention and peoples and local communities, especially women. the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020”. Project proponents will be required to conduct gender Therefore, consistent with the GEF policy on gender analysis as part of the socio-economic assessment during mainstreaming, GEF projects funded under this project preparation to ensure that the intervention strategy will not only acknowledge gender differences design incorporates and recognizes the differences within their design but determine what actions are between rural women and men’s labor, knowledge, required to promote both women and men’s roles needs, and priorities. Projects will use gender- in biodiversity management as this is fundamental sensitive indicators and collect sex-disaggregated for sustaining biodiversity, particularly in specific data that will be systemically recorded, reported and ecosystems and project intervention types where integrated into adaptive management responses at specialized knowledge and management responsibilities the project level. In addition, projects will use the GEF have historically accrued to either women and men, gender mainstreaming core indicators which will be respectively. Although comprehensive and systematic aggregated for portfolio level monitoring and reporting empirical knowledge on how women and men manage purposes. Finally, given that the knowledge base on biodiversity in all ecosystems is inadequate at present, gender and biodiversity management is still evolving the critical role that each play in the management and being codified, the GEF will undertake periodic of particular ecosystems and project intervention reviews of the portfolio and highlight best practices types has been well documented, such as women’s in mainstreaming gender in biodiversity projects. role in the management of agrobiodiversity and The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy 7 Goal and Objectives 8 The Global Environment Facility The goal of the biodiversity focal area strategy Protocol that will be identified during upcoming COP- is to maintain globally significant biodiversity MOPs and that will come due during the GEF-6 period. and the ecosystem goods and services that it The overwhelming majority of GEF-eligible countries provides to society. To achieve this goal, the (95%) have received support during GEF-5 to revise strategy encompasses four objectives: their NBSAP to be aligned with the Strategic Plan and the Aichi Targets. However, the few remaining countries ■■improve sustainability of protected area systems; that have not been able to submit a project proposal ■■reduce threats to biodiversity; will remain eligible for support to revise their NBSAP ■■sustainably use biodiversity; and during GEF-6. Consistent with past practice and the ■■mainstream conservation and sustainable GEF project review criteria, projects submitted for use of biodiversity into production funding in GEF-6 will have to demonstrate that the landscapes/seascapes and sectors. thematic areas addressed within the project have been prioritized within the NBSAP and are appropriately The GEF-6 biodiversity strategy is composed of ten aligned with the Strategic Plan and the Aichi Targets. programs that directly contribute to implementing the Strategic Plan and achieving the Aichi Targets through In order to provide greater return on investment, a continuum of measures that address the most critical the strategy prioritizes a series of Programs that drivers of biodiversity loss across entire landscapes and meaningfully contribute to all four goals of the Strategic seascapes. The programs include direct conservation/ Plan and 14 of the 20 Aichi Targets. These programs protection, threat-reduction, sustainable use, and also have the greatest potential for a “knock-on” effect biodiversity mainstreaming approaches. Each program to help achieve other Aichi Targets. Although not provides a response to threats and opportunities that explicitly highlighted in the Aichi Targets, the strategy are spatially and thematically targeted, i.e., providing also incorporates elements of the new Strategic a focused and calibrated response in a specific Plan on Biosafety, with a focus on implementation of ecosystem or location in a landscape or seascape. National Biosafety Frameworks (NBF) as this remains In addition, for the first time, the strategy addresses unfinished business from previous GEF phases. the most critical underlying driver of biodiversity loss: the failure to account for and price the full economic It is important to note that while Aichi Targets 1, 8, 17, value of ecosystems and biodiversity. 18, 19 and 20 are not supported through a targeted and specific biodiversity program, they will still receive In addition to the ten programs presented in the direct and indirect support during GEF-6. First, strategy, GEF will also provide support through the awareness-raising as identified in Target 1 will be focal area set aside to countries to produce their 6th supported as an element of GEF projects and programs National Report to the CBD as well as national reporting as appropriate, but not as a stand-alone activity. obligations under the Cartagena Protocol and Nagoya Experience from the GEF’s biodiversity portfolio The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy 9 has demonstrated that investments in awareness- leverage, including through multi-focal area projects raising are not effective unless linked with an actual and other GEF projects that contribute directly and project intervention on biodiversity management indirectly to the Aichi Targets. In sum, the breadth of the or policy development. Second, contributions to GEF-6 strategy provides ample opportunity for countries Target 8 will be made both directly and indirectly to prioritize GEF-supported investments, as defined through the implementation of the International in the revised NBSAP, to achieve the Aichi Targets. Waters, Chemicals, and Land Degradation Focal Area strategies, respectively. Third, the GEF will have funded The four objectives of the GEF strategy respond the development of revised NBSAPs during GEF-5 in directly to the four goals of the Strategic Plan, but almost all countries. Therefore, the implementation of do so in a targeted way to help ensure that the GEF priority actions within each country’s revised NBSAP contribution to each goal and the associated targets will be supported through the entirety of the GEF-6 will have the greatest impact per dollar invested. Annex biodiversity strategy and specific GEF-6 integrated 1 demonstrates the contribution of the objectives and approaches, thus contributing to Target 17.10 Fourth, programs of the GEF biodiversity strategy to the goals both Targets 18 and 19 are deemed as operational of the Strategic Plan and the associated Aichi Targets. means to an end and their integration into the project design and implementation process will be encouraged In addition, two of the GEF-6 integrated approaches, as relevant to specific project designs. With regards Taking Deforestation out of Commodity Supply Chains and to Target 20, GEF will track the total amount of Fostering Sustainability and Resilience for Food Security co-financing leveraged through GEF biodiversity in Africa, will also make contributions to achieving the projects and actively encourage and promote such Aichi Targets, as will other GEF focal areas. Contributions of each pilot on integrated approaches and other GEF focal area strategies are also presented in Annex 2. 10 The GEF-6 integrated approaches are distinct from the biodiversity strategy and are described in the document, “Report on the Sixth Replenishment of the GEF Trust Fund” and can be found at http:// www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/GEF.A.5.07. Rev_.01_Report_on_the_Sixth_Replenishment_of_the_GEF_Trust_ Fund_May_22_2014.pdf 10 The Global Environment Facility BD 1: Improve Sustainability of Protected Area Systems GEF support to the establishment and management sustainability: finance, representation, and capacity of protected area systems and associated buffer building leading to effective management. The zones and biological corridors has arguably been GEF will continue to promote the participation and the GEF’s greatest achievement during the last 20 capacity building of indigenous peoples and local years. Supporting the management of protected communities, especially women, in the design, areas is not only a sound investment in biodiversity implementation, and management of protected conservation and sustainable use, but also provides area projects through established frameworks significant additional economic and environmental such as indigenous and community conserved benefits beyond the existence value of biodiversity. areas.12 The GEF will also promote protected area co-management between government and The GEF defines a sustainable protected area system indigenous peoples and local communities where as one that: a) effectively protects ecologically such management models are appropriate. viable and climate-resilient representative samples of the country’s ecosystems and provides adequate Developing climate-resilient protected area coverage of threatened species at a sufficient scale to systems remains a challenge because the ensure their long term persistence; b) has sufficient scientific understanding and technical basis and predictable financial resources available, for informed decision-making on adaptation including external funding, to support protected area or resiliency measures are in their nascent management costs; and c) retains adequate individual stages; despite this significant challenge, the and institutional capacity to manage protected areas GEF will initiate support for the development such that they achieve their conservation objectives.11 and integration of adaptation and resilience management measures as part of protected GEF support under this objective will strengthen area management projects; the first generation these fundamental aspects of protected area system of projects of this type were seen in GEF-5. 11 A protected area system could include a national system, 12 Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas are natural sites, a sub-system of a national system, a municipal-level system, resources and species’ habitats conserved in voluntary and or a local level system or a combination of these. self-directed ways by indigenous peoples and local communities. The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy 11 will identify the protected areas to which increased Program 1: Improving Financial Sustainability funding will be directed to improve management as a and Effective Management of the result of the GEF investment while recognizing that a National Ecological Infrastructure proportion of any revenue increase will be absorbed by system-level administration and management costs. The GEF began to invest in improving financial sustainability of protected area systems in GEF-4, but The GEF-6 strategy prioritizes the development and system-wide funding gaps remain at the national level implementation of comprehensive, system-level in many GEF-eligible countries. Restricted government financing solutions. Previous GEF projects have too budgets in many countries have reduced the financial often been focused on business plans and strategy support for protected area management and many are development, with minimal project resources or time chronically underfunded and understaffed. Thus, new dedicated to actual implementation of the financing financing strategies for protected area systems are strategies. In addition, experience in the portfolio critical to reduce existing funding gaps and improve since GEF-4 has demonstrated the need for a long- management. Furthermore, protected area agencies term plan for reducing the funding gap for protected and administrations are often ill-equipped to respond area management, thus, individual GEF projects to the commercial opportunities that protected areas must be part of a larger sustainable finance plan and provide through the sustainable use of biodiversity. context, and countries may require a sequence of Hence targeted capacity building is also required. GEF project support over a number of GEF phases. Although considerable progress has been made GEF-supported interventions will use tools and revenue in implementing GEF’s protected area finance and mechanisms that are responsive to specific country management strategy in some countries, the application situations (e.g., conservation trust funds, systems of of the strategy has been uneven regarding the payments for environmental services, debt-for-nature systematic closing of the financing gap at the national swaps, economic valuation of protected area goods level and ensuring that increased revenues are being and services, access and benefit sharing agreements, directed towards more effective management of etc.) and draw on accepted practices developed by globally significant habitat. Therefore, in GEF-6, support the GEF and others. The GEF will also encourage to improving protected area financial sustainability national policy reform and incentives to engage and effective management will be explicitly directed the private sector (concessions, private reserves, towards globally significant protected areas within the etc.) and other stakeholders to improve protected national system, per the criteria in Annex 3. Projects area financial sustainability and management. 12 The Global Environment Facility Program 2: Nature’s Last Stand: Expanding Economic Zones are currently protected.14 The GEF will the Reach of the Global Protected Area Estate continue to address this disparity through investments to increase the representation of globally significant TEEB noted that protected areas provide ecosystem marine ecosystems in protected area systems. The GEF services worth more than the costs, including the will support efforts to address the marine ecosystem opportunity costs, of setting up and managing those coverage gap within national level systems through the areas. Nevertheless, the time window for expansion of creation and effective management of coastal and near the protected area estate to bring under-represented shore protected area networks, including no-take zones, ecosystems and threatened species under protection to conserve and sustainably use marine biodiversity. As is limited and a sense of urgency remains as land- per Program 6, a particular focus of expanding marine use pressure increases and populations expand.13 In area coverage will be to increase the area of coral reefs many countries, opportunities for expansion of the within Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), thus making a protected area estate may lie in IUCN categories IV-VI, direct contribution to the achievement of Aichi Target thus placing increasing importance of using protected 10. The program will target the identification and areas to promote sustainable use of biodiversity. establishment of MPA networks or of large MPAs whose management will help reduce pressures on coral reefs. This program will contribute to the achievement of Aichi Target 11 to conserve 17% of terrestrial and Many countries have also identified national gaps inland water, and 10% of coastal and marine areas. in the coverage of terrestrial ecosystems and However, the program will require that protected threatened species, which coincide with existing areas established with GEF support are globally global representation gaps. The GEF will support significant, as defined by the criteria in Annex 3. the creation of new protected areas to expand This program will allow for expansion of the estate terrestrial and inland water ecosystem representation and management of these new sites. Projects will within protected area systems. Conserving habitat be expected to link plans for expansion with the for landraces and wild crop relatives of species of associated financing strategies supported through economic importance may also be included as part of Program One, as has been the practice in GEF-5. this effort to reduce representation gaps as referenced in Program Seven. The GEF will also support the Only about 2.35 million km2, 0.65% of the world’s oceans creation of new protected areas that improve the and 1.6% of the total marine area within Exclusive coverage of the spatial range of threatened species. 13 TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: 14 Assessing progress towards global marine protection targets: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the shortfalls in information and action. Louisa J. Wood, Fish Lucy, approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Laughren Josh, Pauly Daniel, 2008, Volume: 42, Oryx. The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy 13 BD 2: Reduce Threats to Globally Significant Biodiversity Program 3: Preventing the Extinction Illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife parts is an emerging of Known Threatened Species15 driver of biodiversity loss. The problem is particularly acute in Africa, where iconic mammals are under Target 12 of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets states that “by siege. Over the past several years, elephant and rhino 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been populations have fallen as poachers slaughter them for prevented and their conservation status, particularly of their tusks and horns to be sold on the black market, those most in decline, has been improved and sustained.” mainly in Asia (see Annex 4). The impact of the loss of According to IUCN, as of 2013 there were over 20,000 the largest terrestrial mega-vertebrates still roaming threatened species globally. The main threats to these the planet goes beyond their enormous intrinsic value. species involve a) habitat destruction and fragmentation; First, protected areas devoid of elephants and rhinos b) climate change; c) introduction of exotic species; d) will face increased opportunity costs brought about by pollution; e) over-exploitation of resources; and f) hunting, reduced tourism revenue and result in greater pressure poaching, and illegal trade of endangered species. to convert protected areas to alternative land-uses that Among many illustrative examples are the Chinese do not support biodiversity. Second, poaching is an giant salamander (Andrias davidianas ) previously widely insidious activity that weakens institutions and governance distributed in China but now almost completely wiped systems that are essential for effectively managed out due to over-exploitation as food, and the leatherback protected area systems. In addition, poaching at the sea turtle (Demochelys coriacea ) considered Critically current scale undermines the rule of law and economic Endangered due to the theft of eggs, illegal hunting, loss development generally. Third, elephants and rhinos of nesting habitat and the ingestion of plastic debris. While are keystone species that maintain the balance of other other GEF programs actively address many of these threats, species in the ecological community. The richest wildlife additional effort is required to address hunting, poaching communities in Africa are found where woodland and and illegal trade of endangered species in particular. savanna ecosystems meet and become interspersed with each other. Elephants in particular are one of the most important agents influencing the dynamics of 15 Critically endangered (CR), Endangered (CN), and Vulnerable (VU) per the IUCN Red List. that mixture, and their activities generally increase the 14 The Global Environment Facility overall biological diversity of their habitat. While rhinos Perhaps most importantly, efforts must be made to are not as robust environmental engineers as elephants, reduce consumer demand for illegally traded wildlife they also play an important role in opening up pathways by raising awareness of the scale and impacts of illegal and seed dispersal avenues in dense thickets that are wildlife trade on biodiversity and the environment, otherwise impenetrable to antelope and other species. In livelihoods, and human health, its links to organized addition, rhino can add significantly to the heterogeneity crime, and the availability of sustainable alternatives. of the system and increase biodiversity by making The erosion of the rule of law and the use of illegal available new ecological niches, such as grazing areas.16 trade to finance conflict impacts disproportionately on women and children who are most affected by Armed militias are using increasingly sophisticated conflict and violence, loss of livelihoods and crime. communication technologies, weapons, and transport The GEF will support activities to catalyze high- that are overwhelming the capacity of Governments level political will to fight wildlife trafficking, and to stop them. Sharp increases in the incidences of secure the shared commitment of government (at poaching have resulted in a call by national and national and local levels), private land owners, local international organizations to increase efforts to communities, and international stakeholders. stop poachers that threaten not only wildlife but also humans while undermining the economic The program will make a concerted effort to respond development that wildlife-based tourism brings to to the threat of extinction of species that are critical rural communities and national governments. Of equal for the ecological and economic sustainability of importance is the need to tackle the illegal trafficking many protected areas in sub-Saharan Africa. This will of and demand for these products in the markets not preclude the submission of proposals from other of Asia and elsewhere, including local markets. countries or regions where poaching and illegal trade poses an imminent danger to a threatened species. This program will address both supply and demand For example, wildlife poaching and illegal trade in aspects of poaching to build monitoring and Eurasia, including Asia, Russia, and Central Asia, is also enforcement capacity and using social media, increasing dramatically. The demand for high-value education, and awareness-raising to staunch the wildlife products in Asian markets has helped fuel a demand for these products and pressure Governments dramatic upsurge of poaching of Asian elephants and to improve enforcement of existing laws. rhinos, as well as tigers and other wildlife. The GEF will complement anti-poaching work in Africa through a Within the context of the CBD and Aichi Target 12, the GEF will support strengthening decision making processes including legislation and its implementation, strategic planning, and capacity of national agencies in Africa engaged in reducing poaching and illegal trade of tusks, horns, and associated by-products. Support will include: ■■building the capacity of environmental law enforcement agencies and the judiciary to reduce poaching inside and outside of the protected area system and improving border enforcement through cross-sectoral collaboration; ■■developing action plans where governments commit to an adequate budget for their implementation, effectively contributing to the sustainability of these activities; and ■■increasing cooperation within and between law enforcement agencies and relevant international organizations to mobilize political support for environmental law enforcement. 16 Waldram, M. 2005. “The Ecological Effects of Grazing by the White Rhino at a landscape scale.”, University of Capetown, 224 p. The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy 15 similar array of interventions at source sites for rhino and IAS can exert a heavy economic toll on national elephants and other wildlife in Asia. Efforts will include: governments, industries, and the private sector. For example, the estimated damage from invasive ■■strengthening national legislation, institutions, species worldwide totals more than $1.4 trillion and law enforcement to reduce poaching; or 5% of the global economy.17 IAS can impact ■■strengthening science-based wildlife human health through disease epidemics, and monitoring, education and awareness; and; pathogens and parasites may themselves be IAS ■■reducing demand for illegal wildlife products. or may be introduced by invasive vectors. This program will be developed and implemented as Despite the various COP decisions identifying the a pilot to best evaluate how GEF can engage with the need for Parties to address IAS as a priority biodiversity relevant stakeholders, forge new partnerships, and management problem, only 11 projects focused on IAS deliver financial resources and the technical assistance have been submitted for funding to the GEF in the past required when addressing illegal trade of wildlife 20 years and only one project in the first three years and other species. Lessons learned from Program of GEF-5. These national and regional projects have Three will provide insights for possible future GEF benefited 30 countries, including 20 island states and two investments addressing threats to threatened species. continental countries that invested in IAS management in island archipelagos under their jurisdiction. Program 4: Prevention, Control, and Management of Invasive Alien Species Islands are particularly susceptible to the impacts of IAS. Islands are recognized as having exceptionally Invasive alien species (IAS) are non-native organisms high numbers of endemic species, with 15% of bird, that cause, or have the potential to cause harm to reptile and plant species on only 3% of the world’s the environment, economy and human health. The land area. The conservation significance of islands globalization of trade, travel, and transport is greatly is highlighted by global analyses showing that increasing the rate at which IAS move around the world, as 67% of the centers of marine endemism and 70% well as the diversity and number of species being moved. of coral reef hotspots are centered on islands. The isolated nature of islands can also provide some advantages in efforts to minimize the spread and impact of IAS in a cost-efficient manner. Terrestrial and freshwater IAS have difficulty colonizing islands on their own accord. Furthermore, the contained nature and relatively small size of islands enables the implementation of cost-effective response measures to prevent introductions, and to control and manage IAS that become established. Therefore, during GEF-6 this program will focus on island ecosystems. This focus is driven not only by programming demand, but by an ecological imperative: IAS are the primary cause of species extinctions on island ecosystems and if not controlled can degrade critical ecosystem services on islands such as the provision of water. The focus also responds to the opportunity offered by the stronger interest to advance IAS management on the part of island states and countries with island archipelagos, and the opportunity that island ecosystems provide to demonstrate success in addressing the problem of IAS. Such success may in turn generate greater attention and 17 Pimentel, D., McNair, S., Janecka, J., Wightman, J., Simmonds, C., O’Connell, C., Wong, E., Russel, L., Zern, J., Aquino, T. and Tsomondo, T. 2001. Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 84: 1-20. 16 The Global Environment Facility interest in the comprehensive pathways management for capacity building for effective implementation of approach being promoted under this program. the CPB at the sixth COP serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the CPB (COP-MOP-6) and the recently The GEF will support the implementation of adopted Strategic Plan for Biosafety, 2011-2020 agreed comprehensive prevention, early detection, control at COP-MOP 6. By the end of GEF-5, as many as 64 and management frameworks that emphasize a risk countries will have received support for implementation management approach by focusing on the highest of their National Biosafety Frameworks (NBFs); however, risk invasion pathways. Targeted eradication will be another 71 eligible countries have yet to request supported in specific circumstances where proven, support to implement their NBFs. GEF-6 will provide low-cost, and effective eradication would result in the the opportunity for these countries to seek support extermination of the IAS and the survival of globally for these initial phases of basic capacity building. significant species and/or ecosystems. While the program will focus on island ecosystems and will strongly The implementation of National Biosafety Frameworks engage with island states to advance this agenda, in these remaining countries will be undertaken when projects submitted by continental countries that address the characteristics of the eligible country, as assessed IAS management through the comprehensive pathways in the stock-taking analysis, recommend a national approach outlined above will also be supported. approach for the implementation of the CPB in that country. The GEF will provide support to eligible countries through regional or sub-regional projects Program 5: Implementing the when there are opportunities for cost-effective Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety sharing of limited resources and for coordination between biosafety frameworks to support CPB The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) seeks to implementation. GEF experience has shown that these ensure an adequate level of protection in the field of kinds of approaches are effective where stock-taking the safe transfer, handling, and use of living modified assessments support the potential for coordinating organisms resulting from modern biotechnology biosafety frameworks, interchange of regional that may have adverse effects on biological diversity. expertise, and capacity building in common priority While rooted in the precautionary approach, the or thematic areas to develop the capacities of groups CPB recognizes modern biotechnology as having of countries lacking competences in relevant fields. great potential for the promotion of human well- being, particularly in meeting critical needs for The GEF will support thematic projects addressing some food, agriculture, and health care. The Protocol of the specific provisions of the Cartagena Protocol. sets the parameters to maximize the benefit that These projects should be developed at the regional biotechnology has to offer, while minimizing the or sub-regional level and build on a common set of possible risks to the environment and to human health. targets and opportunities to implement the protocol beyond the development and implementation of NBFs. GEF’s strategy to build capacity to implement the CPB prioritizes the implementation of activities that are The GEF will support the ratification and implementation identified in country stock-taking analyses and in the of the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary COP guidance to the GEF, in particular the key elements Protocol on Liability and Redress to the CPB. in the recently adopted framework and action plan The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy 17 BD 3: Sustainably Use Biodiversity Program 6: Ridge to Reef+: Maintaining Overfishing is the most important local threat, affecting Integrity and Function of Globally more than 55% of the world’s coral reef ecosystem; Significant Coral Reef Ecosystems coastal development and watershed-based pollution each threaten about 25%; and marine-based pollution and Coral reefs cover only 0.2% of the ocean’s floor, but they damage from ships threaten about 10%. Annex 5 provides contain 25% of all marine species. For many countries, an overview of the status of coral reef ecosystems coral reef ecosystems are critical to fisheries, tourism, and threats in each of five major coral reef regions. and coastal protection, and offer opportunities for other kinds of exploitation such as bio-prospecting, Because coral reef resilience to bleaching and other fish aquaria, and jewellery. TEEB estimated that coral stressors can be improved by a balanced biological reef ecosystems provide society with living resources and functional diversity with sufficient species and services worth about $375 billion each year. interactions, the program will prioritize working in coral reef ecosystems that fulfill the following criteria: Despite their economic value, coral reef ecosystems are threatened by large disturbances. The most recent ■■Globally significant source population (site is survey (2008) conducted by the Global Coral Reef responsible for the persistence of a significant Monitoring Network concluded that 19% of global coral proportion of global population of coral reef); and reefs are unlikely to recover, 15% are in a critical stage ■■Bioregionally restricted coral reef (site is (e.g., suffered a bleaching event, some mortality), and responsible for persistence of a significant 20% are threatened by local activity. The combination proportion of rare coral reef species or important of local (e.g., over-exploitation, physical damage), for the life history of a coral reef ecosystem). regional (e.g. pollution and sedimentation runoff from the adjacent watersheds), and global threats (e.g., ocean This program will support the development of the warming and acidification), make coral reef ecosystems three inter-dependent components outlined below increasingly susceptible to disturbance or damage. that are focused on threat reduction and sustainable 18 The Global Environment Facility use and that complement the investments in Marine infrastructure development), and shipping (discharge Protected Areas under Program One and Two. from ships, shipping lanes, infrastructure development). The GEF will support increasing the area of coral reefs This targeted support to Integrated Coastal situated within MPAs. An important spatial factor for Management will address direct pressures on coral reefs coral reef resilience is the connectivity among and (the “+” of the Program), and therefore complement within coral reefs. Therefore, the development of MPA current GEF-funded Ridge to Reef projects which networks or of large MPAs will be targeted. Programs primarily aim to reduce land-based pollution and 1 and 2 will prioritize this expansion and secure promote Integrated Water Resources Management. resources for the management of these new areas. Program 7: Securing Agriculture’s The GEF will support the development, adoption and Future: Sustainable Use of Plant enforcement of policy and regulatory frameworks and and Animal Genetic Resources legislation to mitigate marine-based pollution and damage to coral reef ecosystems. The GEF will also The conservation and sustainable use of the genetic support national and international trade regulations diversity of cultivated plants, domesticated animals, for reef products, e.g., aquarium fish, corals, and shells. of their wild relatives and of other socio-economically This could include support to capacity building and and culturally valuable species, including aquatic, encouraging certification and monitoring systems. forest, microbial and invertebrate genetic resources, is central to achieving food security and nutrition of a The GEF will support the implementation of integrated growing world population, improving rural livelihoods, coastal management that better addresses local developing more sustainable agriculture practices, marine pressures on coral reef ecosystems. This will and improving ecosystem function and the provision include support for the development of community- of ecosystem services in production landscapes. As level rights-based management areas at the boundaries climates and production environments change, in often of MPAs. There are many different types of systems unpredictable ways, genetic diversity is also essential of property rights and different ways in which these to providing the necessary adaptability and resilience. are used to manage small scale near-shore fisheries. Property rights in these fisheries vary greatly in Crop and animal genetic diversity in many terms of their security (or quality of title), durability production systems have eroded significantly. (permanence), transferability, and exclusivity. These four Threats to genetic diversity are associated with the characteristics are the basis for the legal empowerment continuing use of unsustainable approaches that that comes with rights-based approaches to fisheries drive excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides, management. In addition, holders of property rights pollution of aquifers and waterways, declining levels can also vary. Women have limited property rights and of groundwater, and mismanagement of soils. that significantly impacts their ability to participate in developing sustainable small scale fisheries, therefore, using a gender perspective will be critical to improve marine conservation and fisheries management. Under the GEF strategy, Fisheries Right-Based Management refers to any system of allocating fishing rights to fishers, fishing vessels, enterprises, cooperatives or fishing communities that ensures the sustainable management of the targeted marine resource and its ecosystem. The income generated by the payment for access to the rights-based management areas will be used to promote coral reef ecosystem conservation and sustainable use. Both within and outside marine management areas, The GEF will focus on those actions that enhance coral reef health and resilience at the boundaries of the MPAs, including the application of fisheries management tools (restriction of fishing gear, regulations of fishing grounds and fishing seasons), the implementation of regulations for tourism (zoning, The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy 19 Land use changes and fragmentation threaten wild This program will focus its support on in-situ relatives of domestic plants and animals. There has conservation through farmer management which allows also been significant loss of crop wild relatives (genetic continuing evolution and adaptation of cultivated plants and species diversity) from production and natural and domesticated animals. This approach also meets ecosystems. Program Two of the biodiversity strategy the needs of rural communities, including indigenous will provide support to establish protection for Crop peoples and local communities, especially women, Wild Relatives (CWR) in-situ through CWR Reserves. who often depend on agricultural biodiversity for their Program One of the biodiversity strategy may generate livelihoods through its contribution to food security revenues to support active management of CWR in and nutrition, medicines, fodder, building materials existing protected areas and in future CWR Reserves. and other provisioning services as well as through support for ecosystem function. Women’s participation Figure One below identifies priority genetic reserve will be particularly critical in this program, given the locations for wild relatives for 14 major global food crops primary role that women play in agrobiodiversity (finger millet, barley, sweet potato, cassava, banana/ management. In-situ conservation in production plantain, rice, pearl millet, garden pea, potato, sorghum, landscapes helps improve sustainability and resilience. wheat, faba bean, cowpea and maize).18 The centers of A recent analysis confirmed that agricultural biodiversity crop genetic diversity indicated by the enclosed lines played a central role in the strategies adopted by are likely to contain other priority sites for other crop rural communities adapting to climate change20. gene pools. GEF investment in CWR reserves would focus on these areas; however, support to managing The GEF will concentrate it support on the sustainable priority CWR reserves mapped and identified at the use of plant genetic resources in Vavilov centers national level that complement global level assessments of diversity. Results from this program may also undertaken by FAO and others would also be eligible generate important co-benefits for the International if the CWR in question were of global significance.19 Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and 18 Second State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and 20 Dunja Mijatovic, Frederik Van Oudenhoven, Pablo Eyzaguirre, and Agriculture. 2009 FAO, Rome. Toby Hodgkin. 2012, The role of agricultural biodiversity in strengthening resilience to climate change: towards an analytical 19 A global approach to crop wild relative conservation: securing the framework. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. gene pool for food and agriculture, 2010, Kew Bulletin, Vol. 65: 561-576. Maxted, Nigel et. al. figure 1. Global Priorities for Genetic Reserve Locations* The Middle East – priority CWR genetic reserve locations for garden peas (Pisum), wheat (Triticum and Aegilops) and Faba bean (Vicia) wild relatives Central America – priority CWR genetic reserve locations for sweet potato (Ipomoea), potato (Solanum) and maize (Zea) wild relatives Montane Ethiopia – priority CWR genetic reserve locations for pearl millet (Pennisetum) and garden pea (Pisum) wild relatives Asia and the Far East – priority CWR genetic reserve locations for rice (Oryza) wild relatives South America – priority CWR genetic reserve locations for barley (Hordeum), potato (Solanum) Sub-Saharan Africa and and cassava (Manihot) wild Madagascar – priority CWR relatives genetic reserve locations for finger millet (Eleusine) and cowpea (Vigna) wild relatives * Second State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. 2009 FAO, Rome. The eight Vavilov centres of origin/diversity of cultivated plants, indicated by the enclosed blue lines, are likely to contain further priority sites for other crop genepools. 20 The Global Environment Facility Source: Maxted, N. & Kell, S.P. 2009. The eight Vavilov centres of origin/diversity of cultivated plants, indicated by the enclosed lines, are likely to contain further priority sites for other crop genepools. Agriculture. The GEF will focus on innovations to current production systems and practices that: ■■Maintain and strengthen different production systems and their elements, including agriculture practices based on local and traditional knowledge, that allow continued evolution and adaptation (adequate population sizes, seed systems, movement of useful materials, and access to ex-situ materials); ■■Link genetic diversity maintenance to improved food security and economic returns for rural communities and farmers (including local market access and market regulations); ■■Develop policies, strategies, legislation, and regulations that shift the balance in agricultural production in favor of diversity rich approaches. These include support for the adoption of appropriate fiscal and market incentives to promote or conserve diversity on-farm and across the production landscape; ■■Strengthen capacity of the agricultural development, extension and research communities and institutions that are needed for in-situ conservation, so that Fund (NPIF) 21. The successful implementation of agricultural biodiversity is embedded ABS at the national level has the potential to make in sustainable intensification and considerable contributions to biodiversity conservation adaptation to climate change; and and sustainable use, and thus is relevant to all Aichi ■■Strengthen the capacities of community and Targets and many of the programs presented in the GEF smallholder organizations and farmers (both men biodiversity strategy. As such, projects developed for and women) to participate in the identification, funding under other GEF programs will be encouraged development, and implementation of solutions. to explore the potential and relevance of ABS to contribute to specific project and program objectives. However, given the incipient nature of the thematic area, Program 8: Implementing the Nagoya and the importance that the COP has placed on ABS Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing both in the way guidance is presented to the GEF and the strong emphasis that has been given on capacity The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit building at this stage, this program is presented as a Sharing (ABS) provides a legal framework for the discrete and important element of the GEF biodiversity effective implementation of the third objective strategy and thus merits its own program of support. of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). Ninety- two CBD parties have signed and 25 have ratified GEF Trust Fund Support. Projects funded under the the Nagoya Protocol. The Nagoya Protocol was GEF Trust Fund will support national and regional adopted by the Parties of the Convention on implementation of the Nagoya Protocol and, if still Biodiversity at the 11th meeting of the Parties required, targeted capacity building to facilitate on 29 th October, 2010 in Nagoya, Japan. The ratification and entry into force of the Protocol. As such, Protocol will enter into force on the 90 th day after the GEF will support the following core activities to the date of deposit of the 50 th instrument of comply with the provisions of the Nagoya Protocol: ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession. 21 Please note that at its May 2014 Council Meeting, the GEF Council The GEF will support implementation of the Nagoya decided to extend the operation of the NPIF to December 31, 2020 Protocol using resources from the GEF Trust Fund and, for operational reasons to allow continuation of project preparation for and implementation of already approved projects. Consistent in parallel, from the Nagoya Protocol Implementation with the May 2011 GEF Council decision on the NPIF, the Council will not approve new PIFs under the NPIF after 30 June 2014. The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy 21 ■■Stocktaking and assessment. The GEF will support Regional collaboration would help build capacity gap analysis of ABS provisions in existing policies, of countries to add value to their own genetic laws and regulations, stakeholder identification, user resources and traditional knowledge associated rights and intellectual property rights, and with genetic resources and avoid duplication of assess institutional capacity including regulatory mechanisms while encouraging intra- research organizations. regional collaboration. Regional collaboration can also ■■Development and implementation of a strategy address the financial and human resource constraints and action plan for the implementation of ABS faced by small or least developed countries through measures. (e.g. policy, legal, and regulatory sharing regulatory and scientific resources. frameworks governing ABS, National Focal Point, Competent National Authority, Institutional Nagoya Protocol Implementation Fund (NPIF) agreements, administrative procedures for Prior Support.22 The primary objective of the NPIF is to Informed Consent (PIC) and Mutually Agreed facilitate early entry into force and create enabling Terms (MAT), monitoring of use of genetic conditions at national and regional levels for resources, compliance with legislation and implementation of the Protocol. The NPIF will support cooperation on trans-boundary issues); and opportunities leading to the development and ■■Building capacity among stakeholders (including implementation of ABS agreements between providers indigenous and local communities, especially and users of genetic resources that actively inform women) to negotiate between providers and users national implementation of the Nagoya Protocol. of genetic resources. Countries may consider Providers would include Parties to the CBD as well as institutional capacity-building to carry out those stakeholders providing access to resources on research and development to add value to their the ground, including indigenous peoples and local own genetic resources and traditional knowledge communities. Users can include Parties of the CBD associated with genetic resources. The GEF will as well as those interested in the resources including, also support the participation in the ABS Clearing- for example, sectors like the pharmaceutical industry, House mechanism as soon as the Clearing- biotechnology, ornamental horticulture, natural house is operational, including in its piloting. personal care and cosmetics, and museums. The GEF will also enhance national implementation of the Nagoya Protocol through regional collaboration. 22 Ibid. 22 The Global Environment Facility BD 4: Mainstream Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use into Production Landscapes/Seascapes and Sectors Program 9: Managing the and seascapes through support to an array of policies, Human-Biodiversity Interface strategies, and practices that engage key public and private sector actors in order to conserve and sustainably Protected areas are the conservation community’s use biodiversity. This process, referred to as “biodiversity most successful management response to conserve mainstreaming”, has focused primarily on the following and sustainably use biodiversity. However, protected suite of activities: a) developing policy and regulatory areas do not exist as isolated islands of tranquility where frameworks that remove perverse subsidies and provide evolutionary processes continue uninterrupted by humans. incentives for biodiversity-friendly land and resource Rather, protected areas are often located in mixed-use use that remains productive but that does not degrade landscapes and seascapes where natural resources are biodiversity; b) spatial and land-use planning to ensure that managed or exploited — at times unsustainably — to land and resource use is appropriately situated to maximize satisfy human needs for food, water, wood, energy, and production without undermining or degrading biodiversity; minerals. These resource uses often unintentionally c) improving and changing production practices to be degrade biodiversity within and outside protected more biodiversity friendly with a focus on sectors that areas. In addition, production landscapes and seascapes have significant biodiversity impacts (agriculture, forestry, also provide habitat to globally significant biodiversity. fisheries, tourism, extractives); and d) piloting an array Managing the human-biodiversity interface requires of financial mechanisms (certification, payment for additional and innovative approaches that help maintain environmental services, access and benefit sharing the integrity of the protected area estate while ensuring agreements, etc.) to help incentivize actors to change persistence of biodiversity in more expansive geographies. current practices that may be degrading biodiversity. The GEF has for the past decade worked to embed The GEF will continue to support these activities biodiversity conservation and sustainability objectives during GEF-6 but with a renewed emphasis on in the management of wider production landscapes ensuring that interventions are spatially targeted and The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy 23 thematically relevant to conserving or sustainably partnership, The Natural Capital Project, TEEB, the using globally significant biodiversity. Through more LAC Biodiversity Superpower initiative and numerous careful targeting, support under this program can GEF-funded projects. In addition, the CBD Strategic better deliver multiple conservation outcomes: Plan identifies Aichi Target 2, to which this program sustaining biodiversity in the production landscape will make a considerable contribution, as critical to and seascape which will simultaneously secure the addressing a key underlying driver of biodiversity loss. ecological integrity and sustainability of protected area systems. In addition, successful biodiversity Although a number of approaches are currently mainstreaming in the GEF portfolio has been a being used to recognize, demonstrate, and capture long-term process, often requiring multiple and the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services, a complementary projects that span numerous GEF mismatch remains between valuation and development phases. In order for biodiversity mainstreaming to policy and financing. Valuation is not leading to the achieve impacts at the scale necessary to advance development of policy reforms needed to mitigate the the related Aichi Targets, a series of investments by drivers of biodiversity loss and encourage sustainable GEF and other donors within a larger-scale planning development through the better management of and management context may be required. Projects biodiversity and natural capital, nor is it triggering in GEF-6 and onward will be required to frame GEF changes in the use and scale of public and private support to biodiversity mainstreaming accordingly finance flows on the scale necessary to address threats. to increase the likelihood of success and impact. Policy and finance reforms must accompany valuation so that the finance and development decisions that This program will also support ecosystem restoration in impact natural ecosystems and biodiversity include specific locations where restoration is deemed essential incentives and price signals that result in more cost to help ensure the persistence of globally important effective and sustainable biodiversity management. biodiversity in the production landscape and seascape; particularly in areas adjacent to protected areas. This program will complement the work undertaken in Program Nine and will pilot national level interventions Program 10: Integration of Biodiversity that link biodiversity valuation and economic analysis and Ecosystem Services into with development policy and finance planning. The Development and Finance Planning outcome from these projects will be biodiversity valuation that informs policy instruments and fiscal The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment provided a reforms designed to mitigate perverse incentives conceptual framework that facilitated a comprehensive leading to biodiversity loss. These may be linked to understanding of the values of biodiversity to society larger policy reforms being undertaken as part of the beyond its mere existence value as depicted in Figure 2. development policy dialogue, development policy Numerous organizations and projects have used operations, or other efforts. It will also include specific this conceptual framework to estimate the value support to reform finance flows, for instance through of biodiversity to society through the goods and public expenditure reviews, and to operationalize services it provides, including the Wealth Accounting innovative finance mechanisms such as payments and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) for ecosystem services, habitat banking, aggregate offsets, and tradable development rights and quotas. 24 The Global Environment Facility Figure 2. Linkages between Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being CONSTITUENTS OF WELL-BEING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Security PERSONAL SAFETY Provisioning SECURE RESOURCE ACCESS FOOD SECURITY FROM DISASTERS FRESH WATER WOOD AND FIBER FUEL ... Basic material for good life Freedom ADEQUATE LIVELIHOODS of choice Supporting Regulating SUFFICIENT NUTRITIOUS FOOD and action CLIMATE REGULATION SHELTER NUTRIENT CYCLING ACCESS TO GOODS OPPORTUNITY TO BE SOIL FORMATION FLOOD REGULATION ABLE TO ACHIEVE PRIMARY PRODUCTION DISEASE REGULATION WHAT AN INDIVIDUAL ... WATER PURIFICATION VALUES DOING ... Health AND BEING STRENGTH FEELING WELL Cultural ACCESS TO CLEAN AIR AESTHETIC AND WATER SPIRITUAL EDUCATIONAL RECREATIONAL Good social relations ... SOCIAL COHESION MUTUAL RESPECT ABILITY TO HELP OTHERS LIFE ON EARTH - BIODIVERSITY Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment ARROW’S COLOR ARROW’S WIDTH Potential for mediation by Intensity of linkages between ecosystem socioeconomic factors services and human well-being Low Weak Medium Medium High Strong The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy 25 Biodiversity Focal Area Set-Aside Countries will be able to access the focal area set- in global, regional or multi-country projects that aside funds (FAS) to implement enabling activities. meet some or all of the following criteria: Enabling activity support could be provided for all GEF- eligible countries to produce their 6th National Report ■■support priorities identified by the COP of the to the CBD as well as national reporting obligations CBD and in particular the Strategic Plan for under the Cartagena Protocol and Nagoya Protocol Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Targets; that will be identified during upcoming COP-MOPs ■■relevant to the objectives and programs and that will come due during the GEF-6 period. of the GEF-6 biodiversity strategy; ■■high likelihood that the project will have a The remaining funds in FAS will be used for a variety of broad and positive impact on biodiversity; priorities. The first is to contribute to the Sustainable ■■potential for replication; Forest Management program and to the following ■■global demonstration value; integrated approaches to be piloted in GEF-6: Taking ■■potential to catalyze private sector investment in Deforestation out of Commodity Supply Chains, and biodiversity conservation and sustainable use; and Fostering Sustainability and Resilience for Food Security ■■contribute to global conservation knowledge in Africa. The FAS will also complement biodiversity through formal experimental or quasi- investments at the national level through participation experimental designs that test and evaluate the hypotheses embedded in project interventions. 26 The Global Environment Facility Results Framework Goal: Corporate Level Outcome Targets: 24 ■■Maintain globally significant biodiversity and the ■■300 million hectares of landscapes and seascapes ecosystem goods and services it provides to society. under improved biodiversity management. Impacts: 23 Gender Indicators: ■■Biodiversity conserved and habitat maintained ■■Focal Area projects will use and incorporate in national protected area systems. GEF Gender Indicators, which will be ■■Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity monitored and aggregated at the Focal in production landscapes and seascapes. Area portfolio and Corporate levels. 25 Indicators: ■■Intact vegetative cover and degree of fragmentation in national protected area systems measured in hectares as recorded by remote sensing. 24 The achieved short-term effects of the portfolio’s outputs. ■■Intact vegetative cover and degree of 25 Refer to the core GEF Gender Indicators identified under the fragmentation in production landscapes measured gender section of the Strategic Positioning Paper for GEF-6 replenishment. The five Gender Indicators are: in hectares as recorded by remote sensing. 1. Percentage of projects that have conducted gender analysis ■■Coastal zone habitat (coral reef, mangroves, etc.) during project preparation. intact in marine protected areas and productive 2. Percentage of projects that have incorporated gender sensitive project results framework, including gender sensitive actions, seascapes measured in hectares as recorded by indicators, targets, and/or budget. remote sensing and, where possible, supported 3. Share of women and men as direct beneficiaries of project. 4. Number of national/regional/global policies, legislations, plan, by visual or other verification methods. and strategies that incorporates gender dimensions (e.g. NBSAP, NAPA, NAP, TDA/SAP, etc). 5. Percentage of Project Implementation Reports (PIR), Mid-term Evaluation (MTE) and Terminal Evaluation Reports (TER) that incorporate gender equality and women’s empowerment and assess results/progress. Projects will use gender-sensitive indicators and sex-disaggregated data, and it will be systematically recorded, reported and integrated into adaptive management responses at the project level. GEF will undertake periodic reviews of the portfolio and highlight best 23 Long term effects of the portfolio investment, target area for practices in mainstreaming gender in projects, including through impacts would be 300 million hectares. Annual Monitoring Review and Learning Missions. The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy 27 Focal Area Objectives Programs Expected Outcomes and Indicators Objective 1: Program 1: Improving Outcome 1.1. Increased revenue for protected area Improve sustainability Financial Sustainability and systems and globally significant protected areas to meet of protected area Effective Management of total expenditures required for management. systems the National Ecological Infrastructure Indicator 1.1: Funding gap for management of protected area systems and globally significant protected areas. Outcome 1.2: Improved management effectiveness of protected areas. Indicator 1.2: Protected area management effectiveness score. Program 2: Nature’s Last Outcome 2.1 Increase in area of terrestrial and marine Stand: Expanding the ecosystems of global significance in new protected areas Reach of the Global and increase in threatened species of global significance Protected Area Estate protected in new protected areas. Indicator 2.1 Area of terrestrial and marine ecosystems and number of threatened species. Outcome 2.2: Improved management effectiveness of new protected areas. Indicator 2.2: Protected area management effectiveness score. Objective 2: Program 3: Preventing the Outcome 3.1: Reduction in rates of poaching of rhinos Reduce threats to Extinction of Known and elephants and other threatened species and increase globally significant Threatened Species in arrests and convictions (baseline established per biodiversity participating country) Indicator 3.1: Rates of poaching incidents and arrests and convictions. Program 4: Prevention, Outcome 4.1 Improved management frameworks to Control and Management prevent, control, and manage invasive alien species (IAS). of Invasive Alien Species Indicator 4.1: IAS management framework operational score. Outcome 4.2 Species extinction avoided as a result of IAS management (if applicable) Indicator 4.2 Sustainable populations of critically threat- ened species. Program 5: Implementing Outcome 5.1 Adequate level of protection in the field of the Cartagena Protocol on the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified Biosafety (CPB) organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health (both women and men), and specifically focusing on transboundary movements Indicator 5.1: National biosafety decision-making systems operational score. 28 The Global Environment Facility Focal Area Objectives Programs Expected Outcomes and Indicators Objective 3: Program 6: Ridge to Reef+: Outcome 6.1. Integrity and functioning of coral reef Sustainably use Maintaining Integrity and ecosystems maintained and area increased. biodiversity Function of Coral Reef Ecosystems Indicator 6.1 Area of coral reef ecosystems that maintain or increase integrity and function as measured by number of coral species and abundance both outside and inside MPAs. Program 7: Securing Outcome 7.1 Increased genetic diversity of globally Agriculture’s Future: significant cultivated plants and domesticated animals Sustainable Use of Plant that are sustainably used within production systems. and Animal Genetic Resources Indicator 7. 1. Diversity status of target species. Program 8: Implement the Outcome 8.1: Legal and regulatory frameworks, and Nagoya Protocol on ABS administrative procedures established that enable access to genetic resources and benefit sharing in accordance with the provisions of the Nagoya Protocol Indicator 8.1: National ABS frameworks operational score. Objective 4: Program 9: Managing the Outcome 9.1 Increased area of production landscapes Mainstream biodiver- Human-Biodiversity and seascapes that integrate conservation and sustain- sity conservation and Interface able use of biodiversity into management. sustainable use into production land- Indicator 9.1 Production landscapes and seascapes that scapes and seascapes integrate biodiversity conservation and sustainable use and production into their management preferably demonstrated by sectors meeting national or international third-party certification that incorporates biodiversity considerations (e.g. FSC, MSC) or supported by other objective data. Outcome 9.2 Sector policies and regulatory frameworks incorporate biodiversity considerations. Indicator 9.2 The degree to which sector policies and regulatory frameworks incorporate biodiversity consider- ations and implement the regulations. Program 10: Integration of Outcome 10.1 Biodiversity values and ecosystem service Biodiversity and Ecosystem values integrated into accounting systems and internal- Services into Development ized in development and finance policy and land-use & Finance Planning planning and decision-making. Indicator 10. 1 The degree to which biodiversity values and ecosystem service values are internalized in development, finance policy and land-use planning and decision making. The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy 29 30 The Global Environment Facility Annexes The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy 31 Annex I. Relationship between Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and GEF Biodiversity Objectives and Programs Relationship between Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and GEF Biodiversity Objectives and Programs Strategic Plan Goals and GEF Biodiversity Objectives and Program Other Aichi Targets Associated Aichi Targets Alignment Impacted* Goal A. Address underlying causes GEF Objective 4: Mainstream biodiversity 1) Raise awareness of biodiversity BD Programs 1-10 (integration into project design All targets values and implementation as appropriate and useful) 2) Integrate biodiversity and BD Programs 9 and 10 All targets development 3) Address incentives harmful to BD Program 10 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 biodiversity 4) Sustainable production and BD Program 9 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, consumption 1314,15 Goal B. Reduce direct pressures GEF Objective 1: Improve Sustainability of Protected Area Systems GEF Objective 2: Reduce threats to biodiversity GEF Objective 3: Sustainably Use Biodiversity GEF Objective 4: Mainstream biodiversity 5) Halve rate of habitat loss BD Programs 1, 2, 9 6,7,8,11,12,13,14,15,16 6) Achieving sustainable fisheries BD Program 2 and 6 4,5,7,8,10,11,12,14 7) Sustainable agriculture, BD Program 7 and 9 4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14, aquaculture, forestry 15,16,18 8) Reduce pollution to safe levels 4,5,6,7,10,11,12,14,15 9) Achieve effective IAS manage- BD Program 4 5,6,7,9,10,11,12,13, ment 14,15 10) Minimize pressures on reefs and BD Program 2 and 6 6,12,13 other vulnerable ecosystems 32 The Global Environment Facility Relationship between Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and GEF Biodiversity Objectives and Programs Strategic Plan Goals and GEF Biodiversity Objectives and Program Other Aichi Targets Associated Aichi Targets Alignment Impacted* Goal C. Enhance state of biodiversity GEF Objective 1: Improve Sustainability of Protected Area Systems GEF Objective 2: Reduce threats to biodiversity GEF Objective 3: Sustainably Use Biodiversity GEF Objective 4: Mainstream biodiversity 11) Expansion of Protected Area BD Programs 1,2,7, and 9 1,2,5,6,7,8,10,12,14,15 Networks and Effective Manage- ment 12) Prevent extinctions and improve BD Programs 1, 2, 3,4, 5, and 9 5,11, 13 status of threatened species 13) Maintain gene pool of plant and BD Programs 1 and 7 2,7,12 animal genetic resources Goal D. Enhance benefits of ecosystem GEF Objectives 1,2,3, and 4 services 14) Restore and safeguard essential BD Programs 2 and 9 5,10,11,12,13 ecosystem services 15) Enhance ecosystem resilience and BD Programs 1, 2, 9 and 10 5,11,12,13 carbon stocks 16) Achieve entry into force of ABS BD Program 8 1,2,4,5, 10, 11, 12, 13, Protocol 18, 19 Goal E: Enhance implementation Integrated throughout GEF Programming 17) Implementation of revised NBSAP development funded during GEF-5. Imple- All targets NBSAPs mentation supported by all GEF-6 BD programs. 18) Traditional knowledge Integrated into project design and implementation 7,13,14,15,16,19 as appropriate in all GEF-6 BD programs. 19) Knowledge-base and science Integrated into project design and implementation All targets applied as appropriate in all GEF-6 BD programs. 20) Resource mobilization GEF will identify, make use of, and report on all All targets financing leveraged through GEF BD programs and integrated approaches piloted in GEF-6. The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy 33 Annex II. Contributions to Achieving the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 by the GEF Integrated Approaches and other GEF Focal Areas Contributions to Achieving the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 by the GEF Integrated Approaches and other GEF Focal Areas Strategic Plan Goals GEF Integrated Approaches and Other Aichi Targets and Aichi Targets Focal Area Alignment Impacted Goal A. Address underlying causes 1) Integrate biodiversity Amazon SFM Program 5, 10, 12, 14, 15 and development 2) Address incentives harmful to Commodities Integrated Approach 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 biodiversity 3) Sustainable production Commodities Integrated Approach 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, and consumption 13,14,15 Goal B. Reduce direct pressures 5) Halve rate of habitat loss Commodities Integrated Approach 6,7,8,11,12,13,14,15,16 Sustainable Forest Management Program 6) Achieving sustainable fisheries International Waters Focal Area 4,5,7,8,10,11,12,14 7) Sustainable agriculture, Food Security Integrated Approach 4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14, aquaculture, forestry 15,16,18 Sustainable Forest Management Program Amazon SFM Program 8) Reduce pollution to safe levels Chemicals, International Waters, and Land Degrada- 4,5,6,7,10,11,12,14,15 tion Focal Area 10) Minimize pressures on reefs and International Waters Focal Area 6,12 and 13 other vulnerable ecosystems Goal C. Enhance state of biodiversity 11) Expansion of Protected Area Amazon SFM Program 1,2,5,6,7,8,10,12,14,15 Networks and Effective Management 12) Prevent extinctions and improve Amazon SFM Program 5,11, 13 status of threatened species 34 The Global Environment Facility Contributions to Achieving the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 by the GEF Integrated Approaches and other GEF Focal Areas Strategic Plan Goals GEF Integrated Approaches and Other Aichi Targets and Aichi Targets Focal Area Alignment Impacted Goal D. Enhance benefits of ecosystem services 14) Restore and safeguard essential Sustainable Forest Management Program 5,10,11,12,13 ecosystem services Amazon SFM Program Commodities Integrated Approach 15) Enhance ecosystem resilience and Sustainable Forest Management Program 5,11,12,13 carbon stocks Amazon SFM Program Commodities Integrated Approach Goal E: Enhance implementation 17) Implementation of revised Forest-related implementation support by the SFM All targets NBSAPs program. 18) Traditional knowledge Integrated into project design and implementation Targets 7,13,14,15,16,19 as appropriate in the SFM program. Knowledge-base and science 19) Sustainable Forest Management Program All targets applied 20) Resource mobilization GEF will identify, make use of, and report on all All targets financing leveraged through GEF SFM program and integrated approaches Annex III. Summary of GEF Criteria for Defining Globally Significant Sites for Biodiversity Conservation* Criterion Sub-criteria Provisional Thresholds for GEF Support Vulnerability Not applicable Critically Endangered (CR) and Endangered (EN) Species Regular occurrence of a globally threatened species (according to Vulnerable Species (VU) the IUCN Red List) at the site Irreplaceability Restricted-range species Species with a global range less than 50,000 square kilometers Site holds X% of a species’ global population at any stage 5% of global population at site of the species’ lifecycle Species with large but 5% of global population at site clumped distributions Globally significant congregations 1% of global population seasonally at site Globally significant Site is responsible for maintaining source populations 1% of global population Bio-regionally restricted assemblages To be defined * The global standards for identification of key biodiversity areas are currently under revision through a broad scientific consultation process convened by IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas/Species Survival Commission Joint Taskforce on Biodiversity & Protected Areas. These will be launched at the 2014 World Parks Congress. In the interim, the criteria and thresholds for key biodiversity area identification as presented above will be applied. It is likely that the great majority of sites meeting these criteria will also be considered key biodiversity areas under the new standard. The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy 35 Annex IV. Large Scale Ivory Seizures, 2009-2011 MAURITANIA MALI NIGER CHAD ERITREA SENEGAL SUDAN BURKINA FASO NIGERIA GUINEA GUINEA- 2.2 CENTRAL ETHIOPIA BISSAU Large-scale ivory seizures, 2009-11 CAMEROON AFRICAN SIERRA BENIN REPUBLIC 1.1 UGANDA SOMALIA SHARE OF SEIZED SHIPMENTS BY WEIGHT LEONE LIBERIA IVORY TOGO COAST KENYA GHANA 2.0 BY COUNTRY unknown 15.9 EQUATORIAL OF ORIGIN DEMOCRATIC GUINEA CONGO OR EXPORT Range of the REP. OF CONGO 17 2 Cameroon GABON TANZANIA WEIGHT African Elephant 3 Uganda 21.8 tons OF IVORY SEIZED Tanzania 37% 4 Nigeria Known range 4 Zimbabwe Possible range ANGOLA ZAMBIA 6 S. Africa Kenya 27 ZIMBABWE 2.4 MALAWI BY COUNTRY unknown NAMIBIA OF PRESUMED BOTSWANA DESTINATION MOZAMBIQUE 13 12 Thailand S. AFRICA China 54% 3.3 22 Either China or Thailand The map appeared in the New York Times, September 13, 2012. Sources of information: Elephant Status Report, Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) and Elephant Trade Information Systems (ETIS). Annex V. Regional Coverage and Threat Status of Coral Reef Ecosystems % of world % of Coral Reef Region coral reef threatened Major threats Caribbean Region 10% 75% Disease, Overfishing, High level of endemism Tourism, Land-based pollution, Shipping Indian Ocean 13% 65% Overfishing, Tourism, Land based pollution Pacific 25% 50% Overfishing, Tourism, (including Eastern part of the Land-based pollution Coral Triangle) Middle East 6% 70% Shipping, Marine based High level of endemism pollution, Tourism industry South East Asia 28% 95% Overfishing, Unregu- (including Western half of the Most extensive and diverse lated aquaculture, Land Coral Triangle) coral reef of the world based pollution 36 The Global Environment Facility PHOTOGRAPHY Cover Photography Tiger: Shutterstock Fruit and hands: Charlotte Kesl, World Bank African Woman: Arne Hoel, World Bank Lizard: GEF Clown Fish: GEF Reef shark & corals: Stuart Chape Octopus: GEF Woman in corn field: Chhor Sokunthea, World Bank School of fish: GEF Penguin: Robert Davis, World Bank Macaque: Stuart Chape All other images are from Shutterstock ABOUT THE GEF The Global Environment Facility is a partnership for international cooperation where 183 countries work together with international institutions, civil society organizations and the private sector, to address global environmental issues. Since 1991, the GEF has provided $12.5 billion in grants and leveraged $58 billion in co-financing for 3,690 projects in 165 developing countries. For 23 years, developed and developing countries alike have provided these funds to support activities related to biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, and chemicals and waste in the context of development projects and programs. Through its Small Grants Programme (SGP) the GEF has made more than 20,000 grants to civil society and community based organizations for a total of $1 billion. Among the major results of these investments, the GEF has set up protected areas around the world equal roughly to the area of Brazil; reduced carbon emissions by 2.3 billion tonnes; eliminated the use of ozone depleting substances in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia; transformed the management of 33 major river basins and one-third of the world’s large marine ecosystems; slowed the advance of desertification in Africa by improving agricultural practices—and all this while contributing to better the livelihood and food security of millions of people. Production Date: September 2014 Design: Patricia Hord.Graphik Design Printer: Professional Graphics Printing www.theGEF.org Printed on Environmentally Friendly Paper