Document of - World Bank
Document of
The World Bank
Report No:
PROJECT BRIEF
ON A
PROPOSED GRANT FROM THE
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRUST FUND
IN THE AMOUNT OF usD 30 MILLION
TO THE
Federative Republic of Brazil
and
The Fundo Brasileiro para a Biodiversidade (FUNBIO)
FOR A
National BIODIVERSITY mAINSTREAMING AND iNSTITUTIONAL CONSOLIDATION pROJECT
August 31, 2005
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(as of August 31, 2005)
|Currency Unit |= |Real |
|BRL 2.31 |= |US$1 |
| | | |
FISCAL YEAR
|January 1 |– |December 31 |
|Vice President: | |Pamela Cox |
|Country Director: | |John Briscoe |
|Sector Director: | |John Redwood |
|Sector Manager: | |Abel Mejia |
|Task Team Leader: | |Adriana Moreira |
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
|ABC |Brazilian Cooperation Agency |
|ABS |Access and Benefit Sharing |
|ANA |National Water Agency |
|ANP |National Petroleum Agency |
|ARPA |Amazon Region Protected Areas Program |
|BRA/97/G31 |National Strategy on Biological Diversity Project |
|CBD |Convention on Biological Diversity |
|CGEN |National Genetic Resources Council |
|CHM |Clearing House Mechanism |
|CIRM |Interministerial Commission for Marine Resources |
|CNPq |National Research Council |
|COBRAMAB |Man and the Biosphere Programme |
|CONABIO |National Commission on Biodiversity |
|CONAFLOR |Coordinating Commission of the National Forests Programme |
|CONAMA |National Council on Environment |
|COP |Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity |
|CTNBIO |National Technical Commission for Biosafety |
|EPBRS |European Biodiversity Research Strategy Platform |
|EMBRAPA |Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation |
|ExAs |Executing Agencies |
|FAO |United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization |
|FGV |Getulio Vargas Foundation |
|FNMA |National Fund for the Environment |
|FINEP |Research and Projects Financing Agency |
|Fiocruz |Oswaldo Cruz Fundation |
|FUNBIO |Brazilian Biodiversity Fund |
|FUNATURA |Fundação Pró Natureza |
|GEF |Global Environment Facility |
|GBIF |Global Biodiversity Information Facility |
|GBO |Global Biodiversity Outlook |
|GIS |Group of Scientific Interest |
|GMOs |Genetically Modified Organisms |
|GOB |Government of Brazil |
|IAs |Implementing Agencies |
|IBAMA |Brazilian Institute for Environment and Renewable Natural Resources |
|IBRD |International Bank for Reconstruction and Development |
|IFB |French Biodiversity Institute |
|IMO |International Maritime Organization |
|ISPN |Instituto Sociedade População e Natureza |
|JBRJ |Botanical Garden of Rio de Janeiro |
|MA |Millennium Ecosystem Assessment |
|MAPA |Ministry of Agriculture |
|MCT |Ministry of Science & Technology |
|MDA |Ministry of Agrarian Development |
|MDGs |Millennium Development Goals |
|MMA |Ministry of the Environment |
|NBSAP |National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan |
|MS |Ministry of Health |
|NGOs |Non Governmental Organizations |
|OAS |Organization of the American States |
|PICUS |Integrated Conservation and Sustainable Use Projects |
|PLEC |People, Land Management, and Environmental Change |
|PNF |National Forests Programme |
|PPA |Multi-year Government Plan |
|PPBio |National Program on Biodiversity Research |
|PPP |Small Grant Program for Cerrado |
|PPG7 |Pilot Programme for the Protection of Tropical Forests in Brazil |
|PROBEM |Brazilian Program of Molecular Ecology [Bioprospecting] for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in the Amazon|
|PROBIO |National Biodiversity Project |
|PRONABIO |National Biodiversity Program |
|RBJB |Brazilian Botanical Gardens Network |
|SBF |Secretariat for Biodiversity and Forests, MMA |
|SBSTTA |Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice of the Convention on Biological Diversity |
|SEAIN |Secretary of International Affairs – Ministry of Planning |
|SQA |Secretariat for Environmental Quality in Human Settlements, MMA |
|UNDP |United Nations Development Programme |
|UNEP |United Nations Environment Programme |
|UNESCO |United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization |
|UNOPS |United Nations Office for Project Services |
Contents
Page
A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE 7
1. Country and sector issues 7
2. Rationale for Bank involvement 11
3. Higher level objectives to which the project contributes 12
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 13
1. Lending instrument 13
2. Project development objective and key indicators 13
3. Project components 13
4. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design 17
5. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection 18
C. IMPLEMENTATION 18
1. Partnership arrangements (if applicable) 18
2. Institutional and implementation arrangements 19
3. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results 20
4. Sustainability and Replicability 20
5. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects 22
6. Loan/credit conditions and covenants 22
D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY 22
1. Economic and financial analyses 22
2. Technical 23
3. Fiduciary 23
4. Social 23
5. Environment 25
6. Safeguard policies 25
7. Policy Exceptions and Readiness 25
Annex 1: Country and Sector or Program Background 26
Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies 37
Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring 44
Annex 4: Detailed Project Description 52
Annex 5: Project Costs 59
Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements 61
Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements 65
Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements 69
Annex 9: Economic and Financial Analysis 72
Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues 73
Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision 75
Annex 12: Documents in the Project File 77
Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits 79
Annex 14: Country at a Glance 84
Annex 15: Incremental Cost Analysis 86
Annex 16: STAP Roster Review 94
Annex 17: Consensus Building Strategy 100
Annex 18: Selection Criteria for Subprojects 104
Annex 19: The Opportunities Fund 108
Annex 20: Regional Productive Landscapes for Biodiversity Mainstreaming 117
Annex 21: Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity 117
Annex 22: 2010 Convention on Biological Diversity Targets and their Relevance for Brazil 117
Annex 23: Maps 125
• STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE
Country and sector issues
Brazil, with the largest tropical forest in the world (the Amazon rainforest), a large geographical size, and high climatic diversity, is considered a megadiverse country. Perhaps 15% to 20% of the 1.5 million species recognized in the world – one in five known species – are found within its national borders. Brazil has the most diversity of flora, with 55,000 superior plants species (approximately 20% of the total world), 524 mammals, 1,677 birds, 517 amphibians and 2,657 fish. This megadiverse country faces huge challenges to control deforestation, fires, pollution, invasive alien species, and unsustainable production and consumption. Yet it also possesses a notable portfolio of rich and diverse pilot experiences with which to face the challenges of biodiversity conservation, sustainable use and benefit sharing.
Global Environmental Issues
Protecting Brazil’s biodiversity and avoiding its loss has enormous global benefits. As was noted above, Brazil holds approximately one-fifth of all the known species in the world, and most of the vast number of unknown species (perhaps 10 times the number of known species, most of which live in the tropics, and especially the New World tropics). A significant number of the species occurring in Brazil are endemic.[1] With more than 90% of the Atlantic Forest biome, half of the Cerrado and Caatinga biomes, and more than 15% of the Amazon Forest biome already deforested, large numbers of biodiversity components in Brazil are in danger of becoming extinct in the near future. Currently more than 600 animal species are officially recognized as threatened with extinction by the Brazilian federal government.[2]
The biological richness of Brazil is under different categories of threats and pressures. Habitat alteration and loss, over-harvesting, species and disease introduction and pollution are the proncipal causes of biodiversity loss. Root causes of biodiversity loss usually fall within the following categories: demographic change, inequality and poverty, macroeconomic policies and infrastructure construction, social changes developmental biases. In terms of activities, agricultural expansion, including plantation forestry and grazing, is the most important factor that threatens biodiversity, followed by invasion of exotic species, burning, road construction and mining. A set of secondary, local factors includes hunting, over-exploitation of timber and fuel wood, non-sustainable use, illegal trading of plants and animals, chemical pollution, oil exploration, hydroelectric projects, and tourism. The main impact is clear-cut deforestation, followed by other kinds of impacts such as erosion, flooding, soil and water pollution, landscape fragmentation; toxic runoff and water contamination, changes in ecosystem structure, air pollution and biotic invasions, differing between different economic sectors. Annex 1 presents a detailed analysis of threats to biodiversity by sector, specie type, and ecosystem.
The prevention of a potentially large loss of biodiversity in Brazil represents a significant global benefit. Also relevant is the prevention of the loss of ecosystem services associated with Brazilian ecosystems, such as water balance (air moisture, rainfall, river flow), heat balance (atmospheric and oceanic circulation), carbon balance (global warming), nutrient balance (biogeochemical cycles, gases and aerosols from burnings) and sediment balance (erosion and siltation downriver and in coastal zones).
The conservation of Brazilian biodiversity will require significant efforts from both the public and private sectors. Present day production paradigms are responsible for gas emissions, production effluents, massive use of non-renewable natural resources, etc. that are in the basis of present-day global environment problems. The concern with environmental issues has intensified dramatically over the last few decades. Although Brazil has taken an active role in the world debate and has made positive steps towards the sustainable management of its natural resources, the weakness of governmental and institutional support implies that trends of declining biological diversity will continue over the next decades. Efforts made to alter production paradigms in Brazil, if successful, will have positive impact in global environmental systems: water, climate, and biodiversity in particular. Similarly, the strengthening and consolidation of public-sector institutions capable of contributing to, and implementing, policies related to biodiversity will have ramifications far outside Brazil’s borders. A project of this scale in Brazil is truly a project with global impacts.
Brazilian Biodiversity Sector
The responsibility for managing biodiversity in Brazil is extensive, with numerous ministries, institutes, secretariats, and departments holding responsibility for environment and biodiversity issues within the government. Hundreds of NGOs, foundations, and institutes, both national and international, are implementing thousands of projects. Dozens of universities, as well as consulting firms and other private sector institutions, are also involved in biodiversity conservation. Many of these projects and programs are supported by binational and multinational donors. Often, these initiatives have met with of success. However, most efforts at mainstreaming biodiversity conservation have remained sporadic, uncoordinated, and isolated. Success stories and lessons learned are at best not shared, and at worst lost. New initiatives do not benefit from knowledge generated through past activities, and possible synergies between projects and programs are foregone.
There have also been few efforts to mainstream biodiversity concerns. Typically, efforts to address conservation policies and practices have not been well integrated across economic sectors, among various public agencies, and between public and private sectors. Despite the enormous impact other sectors have on biodiversity, and the important role biodiversity can play in other sectors (see Annex 1 for analysis), conservation initiatives are almost exclusively the domain of biodiversity and environmental actors. Recently, a few projects have experienced initial successes in extending biodiversity conservation into other public and private sectors in Brazil. However, the impact has been limited to date, and government funding for this mainstreaming, especially from ministries other than the Ministry of the Environment, is limited or nonexistent.
The current scale of biodiversity-related activities in Brazil is also sub-optimal. Sustainable use and conservation programs and projects have primarily concentrated on local, community-based economic activities. Though these small-scale activities may be successful in a limited area, they lack sufficient scale to make a significant contribution to haltering biodiversity loss in a country as large, and with as extensive biodiversity, as Brazil. Large scale activities work not only to combat growing threats but serve as well to mobilize public opinion to the possibilities and advantages of adopting sustainable production processes, and raise society’s awareness, interest and commitment to this alternative to the point of altering societal market choices in favor of biodiversity-mainstreamed products and services.
The reasons for the lack of success in mainstreaming biodiversity concerns into policy and development in Brazil are complex and difficult to summarize. A more detailed description is provided in Annex 1. Among the most important factors are:
• Lack of information relevant to policymakers
• Insufficient analysis of threats and problems
• Failure of decisionmakers to ask the right questions
• Geographical and spatial differences of scale.
• Exclusion of lower-level decision makers from policy.
• Differences between different forms of economic development.
• Lack of recognition of the role and impact of the private sector in the process of land use change and occupation
• Lack of coordination of financial mechanisms and economic instruments to finance conservation.
• Lack of public awareness and support for biodiversity conservation.
• No public sector responsibility to value biodiversity.
This project has been designed to test and implement solutions designed to remedy these bottlenecks, including through the promotion of policy change, and to design additional solutions to address further problems identified during in-depth analysis done during the early phase of implementation.
Country Eligibility
Since the ratification of its commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1994 (Legislative Decree 2, of February 3rd, 1994; and Decree 2519, of March 16, 1998), the Brazilian Federal Government has taken, with the support of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and other international support, decisive measures to implement the three objectives of the CBD. These include enhancement of the legal framework, institutional capacity building of the Ministry of the Environment, establishment of national policies, programs and major projects (see the “First National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity – Brazil”, MMA 1998; and the “Second National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity – Brazil”, MMA 2004).
Country Drivenness
Among the many initiatives taken by the Brazilian Government in the last decade to reduce the loss of biodiversity was the 1995 creation of a set of interconnected instruments aimed creating an effective national biodiversity conservation strategy and sustainable use policy and implementation programs. The first and overarching initiative was the National Biodiversity Program (PRONABIO), conceived as an intergovernmental and multi-institutional program with the responsibility of fixing guidelines for the functioning of the two other novel mechanisms. A second was the GEF Conservation and Sustainable Use of Brazilian Biodiversity Project (PROBIO), with the main objective to assist the Government to initiate a program for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity by identifying priority actions, stimulating the development of demonstration subprojects, and disseminating biodiversity information. The third initiative was the establishment of the GEF Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO) to create a long-term sustainable financing mechanism to promote conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Brazil, particularly vis-à-vis the private sector. The goals of these mechanisms were designed to be complementary. These projects paved the way for a next generation of initiatives such as Amazon Region Protected Areas Program (ARPA), Rio de Janeiro Integrated Ecosystem Management in Production Landscapes of the North-Northwestern Fluminense, Integrated Management of Aquatic Resources in the Amazon (AquaBio) and Biodiversity Enterprise Fund for Latin America – Terra Capital Fund. The proposed project will draw on the rich lessons learned through these projects, some of which have nearly a decade worth of experience working with Brazilian biodiversity. Other recent projects, including the as well as the First Programmatic Loan for Environmental Sustainability, related Environmental Sustainability Agenda Technical Assistance Loan and municipal-level projects are also breaking new ground in environmental work and mainstreaming. The proposed project will contribute to the implementation of the National Biodiversity Policy and also meets the eligibility criteria for GEF funding according to criteria and guidelines set by the National Commission on Biodiversity (CONABIO). It should be noted that some important sectoral ministries (e.g. agriculture, agrarian reform, and health) have already participated in project preparation, committed to develop project activities, and devoted substantial budget resources as counterpart funding. Other sectors, such as energy, mining and transport, have also been engaged in the ongoing preparation discussions and are expected to join in the project by the early stages of implementation. In this sense, the commitments made by the energy and transport sector in the Bank’s complimentary Programmatic Loan for Environmental Sustainability have been instrumental in opening an avenue for policy dialogue.
The participatory process followed in designing this project is one sign of the desire of numerous sectors of society to participate in this initiative. The design stage benefited from the participation of dozens of representatives from at least ten governmental and non-governmental institutions with a stake in biodiversity conservation in Brazil, and informal contributions from many others. The participation of experts in sectors ranging from rural development to health to germ banks, and from the government, NGOs, and the private sector, have helped ensure a project design which is the best possible to address project objectives and to overcome the constraints to the mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation.
In March of 2006 the Brazilian Government will host the 8th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the Convention on Biological Diversity. This major event will provide unique opportunities to bring together the best experts and the key policy makers working on biodiversity. Among the major issues in COP8’s agenda are: a) the review of the implementation of the convention and the effectiveness of its mechanisms and processes; b) the challenges of reaching the 2010 targets; c) the elimination of perverse incentives and the creation of positive incentives; and d) the implementation of the Work Program on Agricultural Biodiversity. The Brazilian Ministry of the Environment is taking several initiatives in preparation of the 8th COP of the CBD, including the organization of several major international conferences on themes related to the CBD. With the government’s support, the project plans to organize a high-level international workshop as a side event to the COP 8 meeting, with the participation of the GEF and the Bank. This workshop will summarize the challenges and experiences of different countries in mainstreaming biodiversity into sectoral policies and programs, and will specifically focus on further refining the project’s definition of “mainstreaming” as well as its mainstreaming indicators. To complement and consolidate the inputs of international experiences on biodiversity mainstreaming and monitoring to help guide the most efficient implementation of this project in Brazil. a more extensive international workshop on these topics may be held during the first six months of implementation. All these initiatives should provide useful baselines and insights for the implementation of this project to promote the mainstreaming of biodiversity in Brazil.
Rationale for Bank involvement
The Bank has extensive experience working with the mainstreaming environmental objectives into the sectoral lending programs in the Region and is uniquely qualified to implement a project of this type. Over the last decades, the World Bank has not only introduced environmental policies and procedures to integrate good environmental management into its operations, but has also developed environmental assistance programs to help client countries integrate environmental issues into their development process, to address their pressing environmental challenges, and to help them implement global environmental conventions. As part of its environmental assistance program, the Bank has developed a portfolio of projects with environmental objectives. Much of the Bank's environmental lending is implemented in a sectoral context as part of sector projects for rural and urban development, water and sanitation, transport, energy, and so on. There has been an unequivocal trend toward increased environmental lending as part of sector projects. The Bank’s Environment Strategy (2001) has reinforced the mainstreaming of environment into sector lending by stressing the need for cross-sectoral approaches to environmental issues. In the Region, the Bank has already been involved in several innovative mainstreaming programs starting with the Mexico First Programmatic Environment Structural Adjustment Loan (2004), the Brazilian First Programmatic Loan for Environmental Sustainability (2004) and the related Environmental Sustainability Agenda Technical Assistance Loan (2005). The brazilian loans are discussed in detail later in this document. The Mexican project has now developed into the second phase—Mexico Second Programmatic Environment Development Policy Loan Project (2005) which aims at mainstreaming environmental concerns in the development agendas of key sectors-- tourism, energy, forestry and water and improving the effectiveness and efficiency of local environmental management processes in Mexico. A similar program has recently approved for Colombia, and others are under development for Argentina and Peru. Experiences and lessons learned from those operations in mainstreaming can be disseminated and replicated through the Bank involvement in the proposed Project.
The importance of GEF and Bank participation in this project can be seen in the convening power evidenced during project preparation. Because of the resources offered by these two institutions, as well as the Bank’s technical expertise, Ministries that have never participated in biodiversity mainstreaming initiatives sat down at the table with the Ministry of the Environment and FUNBIO to design this project and to offer resources as counterpart financing. Without Bank’s experience, involvement, and expertise in Brazil, and in the themes of biodiversity and environmental mainstreaming, such collaboration would never have been possible.
Higher level objectives to which the project contributes
This project is directly related to, and will contribute to, GEF Strategic Priority BD 2 (Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes and Sectors) and BD 4 (Generation and Dissemination of Best Practices for Addressing Current and Emerging Biodiversity Issues). The project conforms to GEF Operational Program (OP) 1 (Arid and Semi-arid Zones Ecosystems), OP2 (Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems), OP3 (Forest Ecosystems), OP4 (Mountain Ecosystems), OP12 (Integrated Approach to Ecosystem Management), OP13 (Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity Important to Agriculture), and OP15 (Sustainable Land Management).
This project will also contribute directly to reaching Brazil’s commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The CBD has defined a global target for 2010 as part of its Strategic Plan: “Parties commit themselves to a more effective and coherent implementation of the three objectives of the Convention, to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth.” It can be argued that the challenges to implement the CBD framework of goals and targets towards the reduction of biodiversity loss by 2010, as a contribution towards the Millennium Development Goals, will be greatest in the largest megadiverse developing countries such as Brazil. It can also be argued that if the CBD is to succeed it has to reach its objectives and targets in Brazil, as 10% to 20% of the Planet’s total biodiversity is found in Brazil. The Global Environmental Objective of this project is to reduce biodiversity loss in Brazil, and thus directly contribute to the CBD’s global target for 2010.
This project has been designed to promote the mainstreaming of biodiversity in Brazil by incorporating biodiversity criteria into the policies and procedures of different sectors, establishing landscape-scale subprojects to promote biodiversity mainstreaming in the private sector, creating networks to coordinate activities and share critical biodiversity information, and fill gaps in institutional capacities. These objectives are entirely in keeping with the 2003-2007 Country Assistance Strategy, “A More Equitable, Sustainable, and Competitive Brazil.” Among the long-term country goals outlined under the More Sustainable theme is “more sustainable land management, forests, and biodiversity.” The medium-term strategy contributing to this long-term goal is “adoption of a strategy for biodiversity conservation” – precisely what this project is promoting. This project will also promote more strategic land use and the implementation of integrated initiatives, key activities under the More Sustainable theme. Furthermore, protecting forests and biodiversity has been a key part of the Bank’s strategy in Brazil for more than a decade, as the CAS makes clear.
• PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Lending instrument
The project will be financed by a $30 million grant from the Global Environment Facility. An additional $94 million in cofinancing will be provided by both governmental and private-sector sources. Please see Annex 5 for details on cofinancing sources and amounts.
Project development objective and key indicators
The project’s development objective is to promote mainstreaming of biodiversity at national level in key government and private sector planning strategies and practices; and consolidate and strengthen institutional capacity to produce biodiversity information relevant to mainstreaming.
Three key indicators (which will be refined during a future high-level workshop) will measure progress towards this goal:
• At least three key economic sectors incorporate biodiversity criteria and guidelines in their plans and policies by Y06.
• Progress toward the 2010 CBD targets for Brazil (See Annex 22) supported by specific biodiversity use and conservation policies, and tracked by a strategy for monitoring selected indicators.
• At least one productive landscape unit for integrated conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity components implemented in PROBIO priority areas for each biome by Y06.
Three intermediate results are expected under this project. These intermediate achievements will contribute to the ultimate attainment of the project development objective. These results, which are correlated with the three technical project components, are:
• Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity incorporated into select government sectors;
• Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity incorporated in key private sector planning strategies and practices; and
• Network of key Brazilian institutions working on biodiversity issues consolidated, coordinated and producing relevant information for the development and implementation of biodiversity mainstreaming policies.
If this project is successful, it will contribute to the reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss, as a contribution of Brazil to 2010 goals and targets of the CBD. This is considered the Global Environment Objective of the project. Please see Annex 3 for further information on project objectives, indicators, and monitoring plans.
Project components
This project has been designed as a process project; throughout preparation and implementation, the course of action outlined here will lead to increased involvement in, capacity for, and consensus around mainstreaming biodiversity in Brazil. The preparation phase has focused on the participation of willing institutions in the design of the project, proposal of activities to address identified bottlenecks to mainstreaming, and drafting of initial indicators for monitoring. During the next six to nine months of the preparation phase, the project partners will focus on finalizing the project design, as well as on refining mainstreaming definitions and indicators through a high-level expert workshop. This process of consensus building, capacity building, sector analysis, and solution design will continue during implementation, when early workshops will bring together stakeholders to reach consensus on mainstreaming challenges and solutions. The implementation of these solutions is the core of the project.
The proposed project has four components, which are described below. Additional details on project components, including examples of activities eligible for funding, and financing breakdown by sub-components and funding source can be found in Annexes 4 and 5.
Component 1: Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Selected Government and Economic Sectors (Total: US$ 38.0 m, GEF US$ 12.0 m)
The objective of this component is to successfully implement the National Biodiversity Policy and promote the mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use into government activities in different economic sectors. Each mainstreaming initiative will follow four main steps: 1) consolidation of existing information (assessment of the problems and bottlenecks and of the alternative solutions); 2) consensus building with stakeholders (analysis of problems and the best solutions); 3) development of the chosen solutions (methods and procedures); 4) implementation of the chosen solutions in selected areas. (Please see Annex 17 for an example of this model.) Such an approach is based on the experiences of PROBIO and other federal programs. The idea is to come out with large-scale, bold mainstreaming opportunities that enjoy the support of relevant stakeholders – the only way to make a difference at the scale this project will work on.
The ideas will be tested on the ground initially through pilot projects. At least one pilot project will be established in each Brazilian biome. The project will support the elaboration of sectoral plans (agriculture, energy, health, etc) incorporating biodiversity management, It will seek strategies for incorporating the objective of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use into policies, programs, projects and development plans throughout different government sectors and levels. This component will work with the health, rural development, and agriculture sectors, as well as other sectors with a high impact on, and use of, biodiversity. The additional sectors ultimately selected will be based on an analysis of the scope of current and potential impact on biodiversity, potential to mainstream biodiversity conservation, willingness to contribute resources, and commitment to the project. A special focus will be placed on creating capacity within institutions which did not previously work with biodiversity in order to create the technical knowledge needed to support mainstreaming activities. This component is planned to be implemented by two subcomponents: i) Planning and refinement of public sectoral policies and policy instruments, ii) Sectoral activities incorporating biodiversity mainstreaming applied at a national level.
Component 2: Mainstreaming Biodiversity into the Private Sector (Total US$ 40.0 m, GEF US$ 10.0 m)
The objective of this component is to incorporate the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity into key private sector planning strategies and practices. This objective will be achieved through the creation and management of an Opportunities Fund, housed in and managed by FUNBIO. This fund will support mainstreaming initiatives in the private sector, based on the assessment of proposals received and on inducement of subprojects that address the possibility of mainstreaming biodiversity in regional productive landscapes. The Opportunities Fund will be directed at the financing of integrated large-scale productive landscape subprojects. While initially supported by GEF funding, it is anticipated that with time the Fund will expand on the basis of investment and fee-based income from new/additional sources of non-GEF financing, as well as returns generated by supported subprojects, thereby promoting the replication of new subprojects in new productive landscapes and economic sectors.
A biodiversity mainstreaming strategy has been developed by FUNBIO on the basis of a socioeconomic and environmental analysis of the territory, with emphasis in identifying and qualifying the regional productive activities and their relation with the regional biodiversity and natural resource bases. Additionally, focus is directed at identifying existing leading economic sectors, agents, value added chains, agglomerations, productive arrangements or products that may serve the purpose of “pushing” or “leading” a regional biodiversity mainstreaming process. As part of this strategy subprojects are being developed from proposals received, while other subprojects will be induced under the project. These integrated landscape conservation subprojects will aim to verify the possibilities of the above strategy by calling proposals from consortia of environmental, development and investment agencies with the purpose of supporting selected pilot sub-projects, which goals, conceptual frameworks, methodologies, work plans, institutional and financial arrangements and instruments, as well as the whole territorial planning concept, shall be put to practice, tested and evaluated.
Finally, this component will seek to promote private sector strategies and policies that support biodiversity conservation. This will be achieved through work with producer groups, associations, cooperatives, chambers of commerce, and large firms, and in coordination with existing initiatives with similar objectives. This focus on policies and strategies will allow the component to have a broader impact than individual projects might allow. The initiatives implemented under this component will be supported by a newly-established Knowledge Base for mainstreaming biodiversity in regional landscapes and private productive sectors. This Knowledge Base will assess mainstreaming potential of landscapes through an analysis of biodiversity importance and local productive structures, as well stimulate economic incentives to promote mainstreaming in the private sector and mobilize and disseminate technological innovations and best practices. This component is planned to be implemented by three subcomponents: i) Territorial mainstreaming subprojects, ii) Best practices and productive/management innovations, and iii) Coordination and fund management. These activities will be carried out in coordination with, and with the participation of, relevant public sector agencies.
Component 3: Institutional Strengthening and Generation of Biodiversity Information for Policymaking (Total US$ 41.0 m, GEF US$ 8.0 m)
The objectives of this component are twofold. First, the project will work to promote the technical, institutional, and organizational capacity of the institutions responsible for developing and implementing biodiversity policy in Brazil, and establish mechanisms for coordination among these institutions. This will allow the effective mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation into other areas of the Brazilian economy and society. Second, this component will promote the production and exchange of biodiversity information, which will inform policy decisions and project design in all sectors, support the mainstreaming activities in selected economic sectors, and facilitate the tracking of progress towards international commitments like the CBD 2010 targets. These two objectives are intimately tied together; the generation of relevant information requires stronger, better coordinated institutions, and the information produced will serve to further strengthen the capacity of the biodiversity sector, especially as it relates to policymaking.
One of the primary tasks will be to establish a Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity. Rather than being a new institution, the Institute will serve as a coordinated “information commons”, allowing participating entities to share information, collaborate on work, and create synergies. This Institute will mobilize capacities among the various organizations involved in conservation, sustainable use and benefits sharing of biodiversity and facilitate the implementation of policies and actions. It is expected that the Institute will play a considerable role in supporting the consolidation of the complex and diverse biodiversity sector in Brazil. It is also expected that this Institute will become self-sufficient by pooling the capacities of participating entities to provide biodiversity services for projects and programs being implemented in other sectors in Brazil. The project will also support the creation of the Brazilian Center for Biodiversity Monitoring and Forecasting. The Center, which will form part of the Ministry of the Environment, will provide monitoring and forecasting information related to governmental biodiversity conservation initiatives, and will be used in part to generate national-level biodiversity monitoring data. It will also provide information to the Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity (Please see Annex 21 for detailed information on the structure and responsibilities of the institute).
This component will also strengthen the parts of the Ministry of the Environment, Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden, IBAMA, and other institutions that are responsible for species conservation and management, especially through technical and administrative training. In order to implement existing policies, the project will support the conservation of threatened Brazilian biodiversity, restoration of genetic diversity and landraces, and conservation and restoration of rare and endangered ecosystems.
This component will also promote the production and exchange of biodiversity information, which will inform policy decisions and project design in all sectors, support the mainstreaming activities in selected economic sectors, and facilitate the tracking of progress towards international commitments like the CBD 2010 targets. Its activities will seek to coordinate with, rather than duplicate, existing national and international networks in order to complete information flow and feedback systems. The project will work to standardize indicators, procedures, and reporting for both the public and private sectors.
Finally, the project will promote the monitoring of country-level biodiversity: progress towards CBD targets, trends in biodiversity composition and levels, major causes of biodiversity loss, sustainability of production and consumption, endangered species, and conservation effectiveness. The objective is to contribute objective, real-time critical information to inform policy and practice discussions in all sectors, inform the global scientific community, and contribute towards Brazil’s CBD responsibilities. Much of this monitoring will be carried out by the Center for Monitoring and Forecasting and by members of the Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity, both created under this component. The component is planned to be implemented by two subcomponents: i) Institutional strengthening, and ii) Management of biodiversity information.
Component 4: Project Coordination and Management (Total US$ 5.0 m, GEF US$ 0.0 m)
This component will support the other activities of the project by ensuring efficient implementation, supervision, coordination and administration. Included in this component are all financial management, procurement, and audit activities, as well as the Mid-Term Review, independent assessment(s), and project closing activities. This component will also support workshops, conferences, and special events held under the project, and will coordinate the publication and dissemination of information generated by project activities. Coordination of project activities and scopes with other national and international initiatives will be also being an important responsibility that falls under this component. The whole project will be coordinated by the Ministry of the Environment (MMA), through its Secretariat for Biodiversity and Forests and will be executed through direct contracts with MMA and FUNBIO. The National Biodiversity Commission (CONABIO) will provide consultative oversight for this project on high-level questions of biodiversity priorities, policies, and guidelines. CONABIO will also promote mainstreaming among different sectors and provide general orientation for project implementation. A Project Coordination Committee has been designed to oversee project activities, assuring consistency and synergies within the project. Other Ministries and Government Organizations will also participate in the cofinancing and execution of this project. This component is planned to be implemented by two subcomponents: i) Project administration, and project monitoring and evaluation, and ii) Information dissemination and communication strategies.
Lessons learned and reflected in the project design
This project will build on numerous lessons learned through previous biodiversity initiatives in Brazil, as well as in other countries. Most notably, the PROBIO and FUNBIO projects, with nearly a decade of experience, have produced a wealth of lessons that have been incorporated into the project design. Among the lessons learned from FUNBIO are elements necessary for the design of sustainable use programs and project calls; leverage and matching of financial and material resources; development of private financial stimuli for involving the private sector in sustainable use of biodiversity initiatives; development of managerial, monitoring and information infra-structure and systems; development of networks of partners and beneficiaries, and the need for of very active Board of Directors to legitimate all decisions taken by a Fund. PROBIO provided numerous lessons in strategies and systems for consolidating information and building consensus. PROBIO’s initial mainstreaming efforts have also provided numerous lessons on how to promote the integration of biodiversity into other sectors, and established a solid basis on which to build a network of biodiversity actors. Other lessons on biodiversity monitoring and information have been drawn from numerous projects in Brazil, including ARPA and PROBIO, and the Pilot Project to Conserve Brazilian Rain Forests, and from projects implemented in other countries, such as the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network IABIN. The recent Brazil First Programmatic Reform Loan for Environmental Sustainability and related Environmental Sustainability Agenda Technical Assistance Loan, which focused on broader environmental mainstreaming goals, have provided both important lessons and linkages. The lessons learned from these projects, as well as from other ongoing initiatives, will be instrumental in implementing a successful biodiversity consolidation and mainstreaming project.
Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection
Under an initial conception, the Bank considered preparing two separate projects, one for mainstreaming biodiversity in the public sector and another for the private sector. However, it was determined that in order to be truly successful in mainstreaming biodiversity concerns throughout all relevant economic sectors in Brazil, it was important to have a single, coordinated mainstreaming effort encompassing both the public and private sectors.
A second alternative considered early, and ultimately rejected, was to simply do nothing further in the area of biodiversity mainstreaming and institutional strengthening. Several initiatives which include at least some activities of this type are already operational, as Annexes 2 and 15 show. However, as the baseline scenario in the Incremental Cost Analysis makes clear, this “do nothing” approach was deemed to be insufficient for achieving the level of mainstreaming necessary to truly make progress in biodiversity conservation.
A further option was to undertake a large mainstreaming initiative without World Bank or GEF participation. However, GEF and Bank involvement was deemed key for both the technical expertise and convening authority they bring, and for leveraging the level of funding needed for this type of operation. Without such GEF/Bank financial and technical involvement, the prospect of tapping into meaningful additional sources of financing for mainstreaming biodiversity conservation in Brazil would have been significantly reduced, if not rendered implausible in the near term. Similarly, this first major effort to bring about real integration across economic sectors, and various public and private actors, would likely be considerably delayed, if not ignored altogether. In fact, it is only in the context of the proposed project that various actors from both public and private sectors, and from a broad range of Ministries (Health, Agriculture, Science and Technology, Environment) have for the first time agreed to commit dedicated resources to the project's mainstreaming objectives.
• IMPLEMENTATION
Partnership arrangements
The project will be implemented through a partnership between the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) and FUNBIO (see below for details). As an integral part of this mainstreaming project, cofinancing has been secured, and partnerships established with other major stakeholders including the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (MAPA), the Ministry Agrarian Development (MDA), the Ministry of Health (MS), the Ministry of Science & Technology (MCT), the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, the Brazilian Environment Institute (IBAMA), the Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden (JBRJ), the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa), and the Brazilian Network of Botanic Gardens, and NGOs. These partners represent the institutions have already participated in project preparation, committed to develop project activities, and devoted substantial budget resources as counterpart funding. Other sectors, such as energy, mining and transport, have also been engaged in the ongoing preparation discussions and are expected to join in the project by the early stages of implementation. Additional partnerships will also be established with NGOs, the academic sector, the private sector to carry out subprojects and research projects, and to participate in the nascent biodiversity information network.
Institutional and implementation arrangements
Please see Annex 6 for more detailed information on institutional and implementation arrangements. This project will be coordinated by the Ministry of the Environment (MMA), through its Secretariat for Biodiversity and Forests. A Project Coordination Committee has been designed to oversee project activities, assuring consistency and synergies within different implementing agencies. The Project will be executed by MMA and FUNBIO. FUNBIO will be responsible for the implementation of Component 2, while MMA will oversee the implementation of Components 1, 3 and 4. Other Ministries and government organizations will also cofinance this project and will participate in project activities and initiatives such as the Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity.
The implementation of Components 1 and 3 will start with an initial significant allocation (not less than US$ 500,000 for each partner and not less than US$ 1,000,000 for the project coordinator) of GEF grant funds to each of the initial government partners of the project (MMA, IBAMA, JBRJ, MCT, MAPA, EMBRAPA, MDA, MS, FIOCRUZ) to implement planned activities in each of the project’s subcomponents within each partner’s legal and technical competence, in accordance with agreed Annual Operational Plans approved by the Project Coordination Committee. This initial allocation of GEF funds should not exceed 40% of the total GEF funds approved for Components 1 and 3. Subsequent allocation of the remaining GEF funds under these components will be decided by the Project Coordination Committee based on independent assessment and review of the effectiveness and impacts (actual and potential) of the initial use of GEF funds and co-funding by all project partners and after consultation with the National Biodiversity Commission (CONABIO).
The GEF funds allocated for activities planned for subcomponent 1.1 will be managed by MMA on behalf of all participants. The GEF funds allocated for subcomponent 1.2 will be managed by sectoral partner ministries and agencies (MMA, IBAMA, JBRJ, MCT, MAPA, EMBRAPA, MDA, MS, FIOCRUZ) and specialized institutions to be identified. The GEF funds allocated under subcomponent 3.1 for the Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity and for the Brazilian Center for Biodiversity Monitoring and Forecasting will be managed by MMA on behalf of all participants while those GEF funds allocated for the specialized biodiversity centers will be managed by the respective sectoral agency (IBAMA, JBRJ, FIOCRUZ). The GEF funds allocated for Sub-Component 3.2 will be managed by sectoral partner ministries and agencies (MMA, IBAMA, JBRJ, MCT, MAPA, EMBRAPA, MDA, MS, FIOCRUZ) and by specialized institutions to be identified.
This project will be closely coordinated with other national and international biodiversity initiatives. Its objective is to coordinate activities and information and fill gaps where they exist, rather than to duplicate existing efforts. For example, this project will help produce, collect, organize, analyze, and synthesize national biodiversity information. This information, in turn, will become part of Brazil’s contribution to the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN), where it will be shared with the other IABIN partners. In turn Brazil as a whole, and institutions like the Virtual Institute for Biodiversity, will benefit from other information shared through IABIN.
Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results
One of the primary foci of this project is precisely the strengthening of monitoring capacity within Brazil. The Brazilian Center for Biodiversity Monitoring and Forecasting, part of the Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity, will be established to stimulate a more effective monitoring of results related to biodiversity conservation in projects and programs. As part of this initiative, the results of this project will be closely monitored and evaluated, and the analysis of the results used to adjust program strategies and activities.
As is fitting for a project of this complexity, monitoring will take place on several levels. Subprojects will be responsible for monitoring relevant biodiversity indicators and reporting them to the project coordination unit. The Brazilian Center for Biodiversity Monitoring and Forecasting will be responsible for monitoring national-level data, and will aggregate data from a variety of sources. The project team will collect data on other biodiversity-related indicators, for example those relating to legislation and policy. This strategy is based on lessons learned from a number of initiatives, including PROBIO, ARPA, and IABIN.
The relevant sections of the Tracking Tool for GEF Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Priority Two have been used to inform the preliminary project indicators detailed in Annex 3. However, much of the Tracking Tool is more appropriate for sector-specific activities. As such, it will be used to establish a framework for subproject-level indicators, which will in turn feed the project-level indicators. Please see Annex 3 for more information on the monitoring strategy and responsibilities for monitoring project results.
Sustainability and Replicability
Sustainability
The integrated management and harmonization of cross-sector policies for biodiversity sought within this project will benefit the governance process as a whole and in particular the creation and implementation of public policies for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. In addition, the project will develop technical guidelines and management plans for threatened and invasive species, increasing the framework of management tools available in the country. Therefore, the outputs produced during this project are expected to benefit governmental and non-governmental decision-makers in the long run, improving management effectiveness of biodiversity in overall terms.
Another aspect of sustainability will be addressed by capacity building and consolidation of state and federal organizations dealing with the biodiversity issues in Brazil. By investing in awareness-raising, the project will also build new constituencies for conservation and proper valuation of biodiversity within Brazil. The focus on mainstreaming biodiversity will necessarily involve great variety of new actors from different governmental and private sectors that are willing to commit and integrate their resources and efforts in long-term cross-cutting biodiversity approaches, including cofinancing. The project will also create an enabling policy environment for biodiversity mainstreaming in different landscapes and sectors, which should result in more stable support for biodiversity friendly activities, after the project is finalized.
The significant commitments for cofinancing (see item D.2) from key governments ministries and organizations, including access to additional financial mechanisms such as Rural Credit, Sectoral Funds for Science and Technology and Private Environmental Compensation Funds, will promote the financial sustainability of biodiversity activities even after the end of the proposed project. The creation of the “Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity,” to be formed by a consortium of existing key Brazilian institutions working with biodiversity, will also promote the sustainability of biodiversity activities during and after the proposed project.
The creation and capitalization of an Opportunities Fund, designed to help stimulate the mainstreaming of biodiversity into productive private sector initiatives, is an important tool for ensuring the sustainability of mainstreaming activities in the long-run. The structure of the Fund (please see Annex 19 for more details) is designed to promote mainstreaming activities in the private sector long after the current project has ended.
Replicability
The project first aims to mainstream biodiversity in the sectors of agriculture, health, science and technology. Replicability of project lessons and experiences will be assured on two levels. First, by coordinating, sharing, and mainstreaming information, and promoting appropriate policies, this project will help ensure that lessons learned through different initiatives or subprojects, whether supported by this project or not, can be replicated throughout Brazil. On a larger scale, by participating in international initiatives like IABIN and the CBD, the experience of Brazil in creating a national, multi-sectoral biodiversity network will be shared with other countries in an effort to stimulate similar initiatives where interest exists. The experience of building a Virtual Institute for Biodiversity for coordination of subjects linked to biodiversity is likely to be just one example of an experience that will be of interest as an example for others countries. This proposal could help other entities in establishing methods for achieving the goals and targets for 2010 of the CBD. In the private sector, the landscape-level subprojects and Knowledge Base will demonstrate to the public, through a planned dissemination strategy, the possibilities and advantages of sustainable development, which is capable of harmonizing biodiversity conservation and sustainable economic activities. If successful, the likelihood that this model will be replicated throughout the private sector, in Brazil and elsewhere, is high.
Critical risks and possible controversial aspects
As with many projects, perhaps the greatest critical risk is a lack of support from within the government and society. As a mainstreaming project, the success of this initiative depends on a high degree and acceptance from a number of different government Ministries, as well as from the private sector and civil society. A lack of support would inevitably make attempts to mainstream biodiversity within different economic sectors extremely difficult. However, much care has been taken to secure support from key Ministries, private sector institutions, and civil society organizations from project conception. The cofinancing secured from seven different governmental institutions, the private sector, and NGOs, among others (please see Annex 5), and their degree of participation in the design of this project, suggest that support for this project is high across sectors, and the risk of losing this support is minimal.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of this project is the decision to work with economic sectors that have not always had a sterling reputation in respect to biodiversity conservation. At first glance, the partnership between environment and industry may seem strange, even suspect. However, it is precisely this partnership which will promote the incorporation of biodiversity concerns into private productive activities. This facet of mainstreaming will have a much greater impact on biodiversity than if the project worked with the traditional public sector environmental agencies along. This partnership between the environment and the productive private sector is not only positive for Brazilian biodiversity, it is one of the keystones of the project.
Loan/credit conditions and covenants
There are no conditions or covenants placed on this grant.
• APPRAISAL SUMMARY
Economic and financial analyses
For a complete Incremental Cost Analysis, please see Annex 15. Under the baseline scenario, mainstreaming in the public sector would not produce significant changes in Brazil’s legislative and policy environment. Under the baseline scenario in the private sector, mainstreaming would not achieve pervasive market transformations throughout Brazil that internalize the costs of biodiversity loss or reward sustainable use in productive sectors. Ultimately, losses of biodiversity, attributable to uncoordinated government policy and to private sector practices would occur at a similar rate at which they do today. In total, this baseline scenario is estimated to cost $48.52 million over the next 6 years. The alternative scenario offered by this GEF project is to undertake an integrated, large scale approach that links work in the public and private sectors and that is carried out nationally. Such an approach is essential for mainstreaming to achieve its potential, and to substantially reduce the loss of biodiversity. At an incremental cost of $124 million (only $30 million of which comes from GEF) this project therefore offers the possibility of mainstreaming biodiversity throughout Brazil’s public and private sectors and of achieving significant global benefits through sustainably reducing current losses of biodiversity in Brazil, increasing carbon sequestration, reducing harmful atmospheric emissions, supporting water cycling and providing institutional strengthening that helps the application of future conservation activities.
Technical
For a megadiverse country like Brazil with numerous poorly-connected biodiversity initiatives related principally to the biodiversity sector, a project which both strengthens existing biodiversity sector and extends the incorporation of biodiversity concerns into other economic sectors is critical. Without such a project, success in biodiversity conservation will remain isolated in individual projects in the biodiversity and environment sectors. In order to have the maximum impact throughout Brazil, biodiversity needs to be mainstreamed into both the public and private-sector sides of other economic sectors with a direct impact on biodiversity. At the same time, the sector needs to coordinate the information produced by strong institutions and produce products relevant to policy-making. Only then will maximum impact be achieved.
This project will work directly to strengthen institutions currently working with biodiversity conservation, incorporate biodiversity concerns into other sectors, and provide coordination among all institution working with, and producing information on, biodiversity conservation. The end result should be a mature, multifaceted biodiversity sector capable of contributing to both on the ground conservation and policymaking.
Fiduciary
MMA and FUNBIO have appointed qualified accountant and budget officers to oversee all aspects of financial management for the project. Both institutions maintain and manage an integrated management information system. The projects accounting systems meets the Bank’s fiduciary requirements and produce the financial statements required for achieving satisfactory project management. MMA has agreed to appoint auditors for both the annual and special audits under a multi-year contract. Both MMA and FUNBIO have experience implementing Bank projects and managing Bank and GEF funds. The overall project risk for financial management and disbursements is considered low.
An assessment of the capacity of MMA and FUNBIO to be responsible for the procurement necessary for the project will be carried out during project preparation. The procurement agreement will include a mechanism to assure quality control of all procurement activities. The overall project risk for procurement is considered average.
Social
The threats to biodiversity in the Brazil stem from an increase in human occupation and activity and from changes in the patterns of human behavior related to the use of natural resources. Such changes have also resulted in an increase in the occurrence of conflicts among resources users, and in a demand from government and civil society to establish participatory processes for decision-making related to the resolution of such conflicts, and to the development and implementation of policies aimed at the sustainable use and conservation of natural resources in as a means to avoid or minimize the loss of biodiversity.
Stakeholder Involvement: Key stakeholders associated with the Project may be classified in two groups: governmental and private sectors stakeholders. The main governmental stakeholders include: federal government institutions, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (MAPA), the Ministry Agrarian Development (MDA), the Ministry of Health (MS), the Ministry of Science & Technology (MCT), the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, the Brazilian Environment Institute (IBAMA), the Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden (JBRJ), and the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa). It is In the early stages of implementation, other ministries, including Energy, Transport, and Mining, will are expected to join the project.
The main private sector stakeholders include: (i) national organizations from various private sector stakeholders and (ii) natural resource users.During the development of the Project the NGOs national and international, the universities and other research institutions will become important stakeholders during the discussions and analyses of the policies and the needs for mainstreaming the biodiversity in the different sectors.
The involvement of the stakeholders during project preparation took place at different meetings: (i) in a workshop, in October 27-29, 2004, with the coordinators of subprojects of PROBIO, to assure what was the main aspects that a new project should have; (ii) with the partners, to discuss the idea of the Project; (iii) with the partners of the Project, during the preparation of the Concept Note; and (iv) with the partners of the Project.
During project implementation stakeholders would participate as follows: (i) CONABIO would act as a consultative Commission for this project on high-level questions of biodiversity priorities, policies, and guidelines and will also promote mainstreaming among different sectors and provide general orientation for project implementation. If necessary, the Commission may also serve as a mediator for any potential impasses that may arise during project execution; (ii) The Project Coordination Committee will be formed by the project partner institutions and organizations. MMA will chair this Committee, which will also be composed of representatives from FUNBIO, MDA, MAPA, MCT, MS, JBRJ, IBAMA, Fiocruz, Embrapa, and other institutions invited by the Committee during project execution to become project partners. This Committee will serve as a deliberative and consultative unit with the responsibility of coordinating, overseeing, and evaluating the implementation of all project activities. This Committee will also promote the integration of the different project components, exploring opportunities for complementarities between subprojects and synergies among partners; (iii) partnerships would be established with universities, research institutions, and NGOs for the execution of project activities at the local level and for project monitoring. The participation of local stakeholders and beneficiaries would include: (i) involvement in the planning, implementation, and monitoring of demonstration activities; (ii) inclusion, in the project’s annual planning, of their demands for training in sustainable management of natural resources.
During project implementation there would be ongoing participation by the actors involved and society in general, through seminars and workshops. Project documents are available on MMA’s website: .
This project is expected to work directly with a wide range of actors, from the public sector, private industries, NGOs, research centers, and other groups. All project participants will be willing partners in project activities, and no real economic displacement is expected. In a very real sense, the entire population of Brazil is both a participant in, and beneficiary of, this project, as it seeks to mainstream biodiversity considerations across a wide range of national sectors. Please see Annex 10, Safeguard Policies, for further information on social issues.
Environment
As has been noted, Brazil is extremely important to the global environment, containing perhaps 15% to 20% of the 1.5 million species recognized in the world and contributing to critical water cycling and carbon sequestration cycles. This project seeks to contribute to the conservation of Brazilian biodiversity, at the same time helping preserve important natural habitats and environmental services. It will work in all biomes of Brazil. The Environmental Assessment details the potential impact (almost entirely positive) of project activities on the environment.
Please see Annex 10, Safeguard Policies, for more detailed information.
Safeguard policies
|Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project |Yes |No |
|Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01) |[X] |[ ] |
|Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04) |[X] |[ ] |
|Pest Management (OP 4.09) |[X] |[] |
|Cultural Property (OPN 11.03, being revised as OP 4.11) |[X] |[ ] |
|Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12) |[ ] |[X] |
|Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20, being revised as OP 4.10) |[ ] |[X] |
|Forests (OP/BP 4.36) |[X] |[ ] |
|Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37) |[ ] |[X] |
|Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)* |[ ] |[X] |
|Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50) |[ ] |[X] |
The safeguard screening category of the project is “S2”. The project is classified as Category “B”, requiring an Environmental Analysis but not a full-scale Environmental Assessment study. In accordance with OP 4.01, an Environmental Analysis (EA) is being carried out. While not required, an environmental management plan is being developed for the project. Important findings and useful recommendations from the EA are integrated into project design (see Annex 10).
Policy Exceptions and Readiness
The project meets the regional criteria for readiness for implementation. The fiduciary arrangements are in place. All key project staff and consultants have been mobilized. Adequate monitoring and evaluation capacity is already in place. [This text to be finalized and updated before appraisal]
Annex 1: Country and Sector or Program Background
BRAZIL: National Biodiversity Mainstreaming and Institutional Consolidation Project
Country background
Brazil, with the largest tropical forest in the world (the Amazon rainforest), a large geographical size, and high climatic diversity, is considered a megadiverse country. Perhaps 15% to 20% of the 1.5 million species recognized in the world – one in five known species -- are found within its national borders. Brazil has the most diversity of flora, with 50,000 vascular plant species (approximately 20% of the world total), 524 mammal species, 1,677 bird species, 517 amphibian species and 2,657 fish species.
There are, at present, no sufficiently comprehensive compilations to count the number of species recorded in Brazil. Nonetheless, we produced for the first time an estimate combining information obtained from specialists and the literature with inferences based on the known percentage of Brazilian species versus world totals in some better-known groups or on intragroup proportions. We estimate that till now roughly 200,000 species (within an interval of 168,000 to 212,000) have been recorded in Brazil, most of them in large taxa whose species listings are still quite incomplete nonexistent.
The diversity of better-known taxa in the country indicates that Brazilian species correspond to circa 13% of the world’s biota. Applying this ratio to the estimated global number of species in major taxa, we estimate the total species diversity of Brazil on the order of 2 million species. This figure should be viewed as a first approximation given the significant gaps in our knowledge, but it leads us to expect Brazilian biodiversity to be about ten times larger than what is currently known. Even with conservative estimates the expected total species diversity in Brazil is six times the currently recorded number.
The biological richness of Brazil is under different categories of threats and pressures. Habitat alteration and loss, over-harvesting, species and disease introduction and pollution are the proximate causes of biodiversity loss. Usually socioeconomic factors drive people and societies to degrade ecosystems. Root causes of biodiversity loss usually fall within the following categories: demographic change, inequality and poverty, macroeconomic policies and infrastructure construction, social changes developmental biases.
Surveying recent published work it is possible to have a good picture of the driving forces behind the loss of biological diversity in Brazil. Agricultural expansion, including plantation forestry and grazing, is the most important factor that threatens biodiversity, followed by invasion of exotic species, burning, road construction and mining. A set of secondary, local factors includes hunting, over-exploitation of timber and fuel wood, non-sustainable use, illegal trading of plants and animals, chemical pollution, oil exploration, hydroelectric projects, and tourism. The main impact is clear-cut deforestation, followed by other kinds of impacts such as erosion, flooding, soil and water pollution, landscape fragmentation; toxic runoff and water contamination, changes in ecosystem structure, air pollution and biotic invasions, differing between different economic sectors as shown in the table below.
Primary impacts on biodiversity by different economic sectors in Brazil*
|ECOSYSTEMS & SPECIES |IMPACT |ECONOMIC SECTOR |
|Marine and Coastal |Habitat loss and fragmentation |Real Estate |
| |Deforestation of mangroves |Real Estate (Highway and Marina |
| | |construction) |
| |Overexploitation for consumption and |Fishing and Acquaculture |
| |ornaments | |
| |Introduction of invasive exotic species |Maritime Transportation |
| |(mainly from ship ballast water) | |
| |Pollution from pesticides and industrial |Agriculture & Industry |
| |effluents | |
| |Pollution from untreated sewage |Public Services |
| |Pollution from oil |Ports & Petroleum |
| |Extinction due to unregulated tourism |Tourism |
| |Extraction of sand |Civil Construction |
|Inland Waters |Pollution and Eutrophication |Agriculture |
| |Siltation |Agriculture |
| |Impoundments and flood control |Public Services |
| |Overexploitation for consumption |Fishing |
| |Introduction of invasive exotic species |Acquaculture |
| |Drainage and irrigation |Agriculture |
| |Pollution from untreated sewage |Public Services |
| |Dam construction |Hydropower |
|Amazon Forest |Illegal logging |Forestry |
| |Pasture and crop expansion |Agriculture |
| |Burning |Agriculture & Slash and Burn Agriculture |
| |Expansion of infrastructure – highways |Transport |
| |Habitat loss and fragmentation |Agriculture & Slash and Burn Agriculture |
|Atlantic Forest |Habitat loss and fragmentation |Real Estate |
| |Illegal harvesting of firewood |Extractive |
| |Collection of plants |Extractive |
| |Introduction of invasive exotic species |Agriculture |
|Caatinga Drylands |Habitat loss and fragmentation |Slash and Burn Agriculture |
| |Harvesting firewood |Slash and Burn Agriculture |
| |Illegal hunting |Extractive |
| |Overgrazing by cattle and goats |Agriculture |
| |Desertification (caused by inappropriate |Agriculture |
| |land use) | |
|Cerrado Savannas |Soil erosion |Agriculture |
| |Introduction of invasive exotic species |Agriculture |
| |Habitat loss and fragmentation |Agriculture |
|Pantanal Wetlands |Habitat loss and fragmentation |Agriculture |
| |Expansion of infrastructure – dam |Hydropower |
| |Illegal hunting |Extractive |
| |Introduction of invasive exotic species |Agriculture & Fishing |
| |Toxic stillage (from alcohol production) |Energy |
| |Mercury pollution |Gold Mining |
|Amphibians |Habitat loss and fragmentation |Agriculture |
| |Diseases (fungi) |Agriculture |
| |Agrotoxic chemicals |Agriculture |
| |Illegal trade |Commerce |
|Reptiles |Habitat loss and fragmentation |Agriculture |
| |Over exploitation of meat and eggs |Extractive |
| |Extinction – infrastructure construction |Hydropower |
| |(dam) | |
|Birds |Habitat loss and fragmentation |Agriculture |
| |Illegal trade |Commerce |
|Mammals |Habitat loss and fragmentation |Agriculture |
| |Hunting |Extractive |
| |Diseases |Health |
| |Reduction of population size |Agriculture |
| |Accidental netting (marine) |Fishing |
(*) Compiled from Conservation Biology, volume 19 (3), June 2005, Special Section “Brazilian Conservation – Challenges and Opportunities”.
The concern with environmental degradation as it is related to current developmental models has intensified dramatically over the last few decades. Although Brazil has taken an active role in the world debate (both in the Rio and in Johannesburg Summits) and has made positive steps towards the sustainable management of its natural resources, the weakness of governmental and institutional support implies that trends of declining biological diversity will continue over the next decades.
In Brazil much progress has been made in the environmental sector over the last few years, culminating with a new environmental law that came into force in 1999. Currently several large-scale investment programs are implemented (e.g. PPG7, the Rain Forest Corridors Project, the National Environmental Program, and ARPA). However, policies have been successful only through the implementation of laws aimed at regulating and improving the management of wildlife within conservation areas. Governments (at the Federal, State and Municipal levels) have generally failed to strengthen agencies in charge of biodiversity preservation. For instance, critical to the system of protected areas that are being implemented is the lack of funding and the capacity building to effectively protect and manage conservation units.
A thorough analysis of the factors that have contributed to the lack of mainstreaming biodiversity concerns into policy and development in Brazil is still to come. However it is possible to list here the known main factors and to stress their main implication for mainstreaming:
• Geographical and spatial differences. Given the tremendous diversity of ecosystems, habitats, and species in Brazil, policies usually do not consider the appropriate scale to deal with biodiversity conservation, which in turn impedes correct concept formulation and definition of value. For instance biodiversity conservation policies would gain if focused on the protection of socially important natural processes, such as the role of microorganisms, plants and animals in supplying essential services to humans, such as water and carbon recycling.
• Lower decision making levels are not included into policy. Usually local inhabitants are left out of the decision-making process, as for instance when indigenous people wishes and desires are not taken into account during developmental projects implementation. This is a major challenge that constrains public policies to find the most appropriate way for the population to participate and to interact with the various levels of decision making. As has been PPG7's and ARPA’s experience people's participation in decision making is more effective for biodiversity conservation.
• Inherent differences between different forms of economic development. Agricultural expansion and forestry are more important than mining for instance to conservation of biodiversity in Brazil. Deforestation by illegal logging in frontier areas is seen as a destructive process of natural resources that is not accompanied by social and economical benefits. This view permeates policy establishment and effectiveness, though it is not fully correct since the agents and drivers of deforestation, the evaluation of social and economical benefits, and consequently policy responses have not been correctly diagnosed. For instance, contrary to the 1970s and 1980s, when economic occupation of the Brazilian Amazon has been promoted by strong economic incentives (subsidies) and developmental policies (mining, highways, colonization projects, etc.), recent deforestation is mainly the result of medium and large scale cattle ranching that became autonomous and profitable, despite the fact that the significant reduction of incentives in the 1990s. The main causes for this shift have been technological, management innovations (in combination with the ecological conditions of the East Amazon) that led to an increase of productivity, and reduction of costs (Margulis 2003). On the other hand little deforestation is directly attributed to large-scale mining because it is an intensive type of land use, though mining may cause sediments to be carried out to rivers.
• Lack of recognition of the role of the private sector in the process of land use change and occupation in Brazil. For instance, from a social point of view large scale cattle ranching does not promote income distribution even though the reduction of the price of meat in the Amazon and the expansion of meat export could bring social benefits (Margulis 2003, PPG7 2002). In order to both cope with the environmental costs of cattle ranching (deforestation, loss of ecosystem services and genetic diversity) and to promote more sustainable alternatives (for instance agro-forestry or private management of natural forests), policies, financial mechanisms and law enforcement should recognize private sector interests and economical benefits.
• Lack of coordination of financial mechanisms and economic instruments to finance conservation. Gradually environmental policies are considering the use of market based instruments as incentive mechanisms in Brazil. Some attempts have been made but results are still modest because of inadequate technical, legal, and administrative capability and strong resistance from economic agents. The types of instruments that have been applied include credit subsidies, tax or tariff relief, deposit-refund schemes, waste fees and levies, forestry taxation, pollution charges, earmarked renewable resource taxes, earmarked conventional tax levy and “eco-labeling”. After the 1988 new Constitution, mechanisms to transfer resources and obligations from the federal government to municipalities were created, as for example health and education. Decentralization of policies to manage land and forests has been less successful. However, a few case studies have shown that policies and actions by municipal governments have had a large impact on forest resources. There is a contradiction between the conservationist and the "developmentist" discourses of municipalities, and usually the latter is more preponderant on decisions made at the local level. Besides, municipal governments are more permeable to the interests of powerful groups, which compromises the democratization of local relations.
• Insufficient analysis of threats to biodiversity and problems for conservation. While environmental analytical work on the principal threats to biodiversity has been done, again the work has suffered from a lack of coordination and of application. Much less analysis has been done on the threats to mainstreaming that relate directly to other economic sectors. Because of this lack of information, it is difficult for sectors to assume responsibility for remediating the problems they cause and incorporating conservation into their practices.
• Lack of information relevant to policy makers. While much information on environmental issues in general, and on biodiversity in specific, is generated in Brazil, most often the data is generated and presented in a form that is inaccessible or irrelevant to decision and policymakers. There are also significant gaps in the biodiversity knowledge produced, due in large part to insufficient capacity and a lack of coordination among responsible institutions. These problems leave the people who influence policies that impact biodiversity without the necessary information and resources needed to make appropriate, rational decisions.
• No public sector responsibility to value biodiversity. Biodiversity is traditionally seen by the public sector as an environmental issue, with responsibility for biodiversity given to environmental ministries and organizations. Responsibility for protecting biodiversity has never been transferred to, or incorporated into, other governmental sectors.
• Failure of decisionmakers to ask the right questions. The authorities responsible for policy, guidelines, rules and regulations quite often fail to ask themselves, their organizations, and the public the questions needed to make biodiversity conservation a priority. This is directly related to the two issues identified above; without a direct responsibility for biodiversity and access to relevant information, decisionmakers have little incentive or ability to pose these question.
• Lack of public awareness and support for biodiversity conservation. While the public may know about certain visible issues, such as deforestation in the Amazon or the endangered Golden Lion Tamarin, they often fail to grasp the full scope of biodiversity, its threats, and the impact their own day to day activities have on biodiversity. Because of this, people often fail to take measures which would promote conservation, or to pressure their leaders to do the same.
2. Biodiversity Sector: Brazil’s response to the biodiversity crisis and challenges
This megadiverse country faces huge challenges to control deforestation, fires, pollution, invasive alien species, and unsustainable production and consumption. Yet it also possesses a notable portfolio of rich and diverse pilot experiences with which to face the challenges of biodiversity conservation, sustainable use and benefit sharing. Among the many initiatives taken by the Brazilian Government in the last decade to reduce the loss of biodiversity was the 1995 creation of a set of interconnected instruments aimed creating an effective national biodiversity conservation strategy and sustainable use policy and implementation programs. The first and overarching initiative was the National Biodiversity Program (PRONABIO), conceived as an intergovernmental and multi-institutional program with the responsibility of fixing guidelines for the functioning of the two other novel mechanisms. A second was the GEF Conservation and Sustainable Use of Brazilian Biodiversity Project (PROBIO), with the main objective to assist the Government to initiate a program for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity by identifying priority actions, stimulating the development of demonstration subprojects, and disseminating biodiversity information. The third mechanism was the GEF Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO), which was established and developed to create a long-term sustainable financing mechanism to promote conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in Brazil, particularly vis-à-vis the private sector. The fourth mechanism was the National Biodiversity Strategy Project which among other things constructed Brazil’s National Biodiversity Policy (Decree 4.339 of August, 2002). The goals of these mechanisms were designed to be complementary. These projects paved the way for a next generation of initiatives such as Amazon Region Protected Areas Program (ARPA), Rio de Janeiro Integrated Ecosystem Management in Production Landscapes of the North-Northwestern Fluminense, and Biodiversity Enterprise Fund for Latin America – Terra Capital Fund. The proposed project will draw on the rich lessons learned through these projects, some of which have nearly a decade worth of experience working with Brazilian biodiversity. Other recent projects, including the Environmental Development Policy Loan and municipal-level projects are also breaking new ground in environmental work and mainstreaming. The proposed project will contribute to the implementation of the National Biodiversity Policy (decreed in 2002 as part of CBD requirements; information available at /politica/politica.html) and also meets the eligibility criteria for GEF funding according to criteria and guidelines set by the National Commission on Biodiversity (CONABIO). (Please see Annex 2 for other related projects.)
As one of the main conservation strategies, the protected areas must be representative in the protection of the environments, and function efficiently in their protection. Agreeing to others world-wide conservation efforts, Brazil is establishing a representative system of protected areas, being one of the few countries that possess a National System of Nature Conservation Units established by Law. This System is ample, has different management categories of protected areas distributed along all the territorial extension, including the Brazilian coast and enclosing almost all the oceanic islands of the country, and exists in the three levels of government: federal, state and municipal.
The total extent of protected areas in Brazil before the current government represented approximately 8.13% of the national continental territory and only 0.4% of the Brazilian coastal and marine zone. After COP-7 of the CBD, in February of 2004, where the parties approved the establishment of the CBD Program of Work on Protected Areas, the Brazilian Ministry of the Environment started to elaborate, in a participatory way with diverse government agencies, non-governmental organizations and social movements, the National Plan for Protected Areas, where the indigenous and traditional communities territories will also be integrated. Between 2004 and 2005, more than 8,147 million hectares of new protected areas were created, being 185 thousand hectares of marine areas and 7,962 million hectares of terrestrial areas. Given the low representation of the marine protected areas, a work group was created to propose specific actions for the coastal and marine zone, which will be included on the National Plan for Protected Areas, aiming at reaching the goals established by the CBD COP for 2012.
Significant changes in biodiversity management have occurred since 2003, when the new Brazilian government came into office. Biodiversity management has strengthened the adoption of social and environmental approaches, reinforcing the role of specific stakeholders such as indigenous peoples, extractive communities, social movements, and small farmers. The Brazilian government promotes the inclusion of all stakeholders in decision-making processes and actions, with the belief that only with the support of all of society it will be possible to modify the reality of our environment and to allow all society members to develop in harmony with the protection of their natural resources.
Since the ratification of its commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1994 (Legislative Decree 2, of February 3rd, 1994; and Decree 2519, of March 16, 1998), the Brazilian Federal Government has taken, with the support of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and other international support, decisive measures to implement the three objectives of the CBD. These include enhancement of the legal framework; institutional capacity building of the Ministry of the Environment; and establishment of national policies, programs and major projects (see the “First National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity – Brazil”, MMA 1998; and the “Second National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity – Brazil”, MMA 2004; reports are available at ).
The most significant recent improvements of the Brazilian legal framework on biodiversity at the federal level were:
a) the National System of Protected Areas Act (Law 9985, of July 18, 2000; Decree 4340, of August 22, 2002);
b) the Environmental Crimes Act (Law 9605, of February 13, 1998; Law 9985, of July 18, 2000; Provisional Act 2163-41, of August 23, 2001; Provisional Act 62, of August 22, 2002; Decree 3179, of September 21, 1999);
c) the GMOs Biosafety Act (Law 8974, of January 5, 1995; Provisional Act 2137, of December 28, 2000 and Provisional Act 2197, of August 23, 2001; Decree 3871, of July 18, 2001 on Labeling requirements for GMO products; CONAMA Resolution 305/2002 on Environmental Impact Assessment of GMOs [observation: a revised Biosafety Bill is currently being considered by the National Congress];
d) the Access and Benefit Sharing Provisional Act 2186-16, of August 23, 2001; Decree 3945, of September 28, 2001 and Decree 4946, of December 31, 2003 [observation: a revised ABS Bill is currently being considered to be submitted to the National Congress].
The most significant recent improvements of the Brazilian policy framework at the federal level were:
a) the National Biodiversity Policy (Brazil’s NBSAP, established by Decree 4339, of August 22, 2002; with 20 principles, 9 general guidelines and 7 components with 7 general objectives – the First Component (Research) has 4 directives and 38 specific objectives; the Second Component (Conservation) has 5 directives and 60 specific objectives; the Third Component (Sustainable Use) has 4 directives and 37 specific objectives; the Fourth Component (Threats) has 3 directives and 40 specific objectives; the Fifth Component (Access and Benefit Sharing) has 2 directives and 17 specific objectives; the Sixth Component (Education and Awareness) has 3 directives and 35 specific objectives; and the Seventh Component (Legal and Institutional Strengthening) has 6 directives and 57 specific objectives);
b) the identification and recognition of 900 National Priority Areas for Biodiversity (Decree 5092, of May 21, 2004; Minister of the Environment Act 126, of May 27, 2004) for promoting conservation, sustainable use, benefit sharing, restoration, research and economic valuation;
c) the updating of the National List of Threatened Species of the Brazilian Fauna in the International Day of Biological Diversity in 2003 (Ministry of the Environment Norm 3, of May 27, 2003). This list, which had not been updated since 1989, recognizes 395 animal species as threatened. In the International Day of Biological Diversity of 2004 the National List of Threatened Aquatic Invertebrates and Fish was launched (Ministry of the Environment Norm 5, of May 21, 2004), recognizing 163 fish species and 79 aquatic invertebrate species as threatened and 47 fish species and 10 aquatic invertebrate species as overexploited [observation: the updating of the National List of Threatened Species of the Brazilian Flora is underway and should be concluded in 2005].
Among the participatory national biodiversity fora established recently, the following should be highlighted:
a) the National Biodiversity Commission – CONABIO (established by Decree 4703, of May 21, 2003);
b) the National Genetic Resources Council – CGEN (established by Decree 3945, of September 28, 2001; and Decree 4946, of December 31, 2003);
c) the National Technical Commission for Biosafety – CTNBIO (established by Law 8974, of January 5, 1995; Provisional Act 2137, of December 28, 2000 and Provisional Act 2197, of August 23, 2001);
d) the National Protected Areas Forum (established by Minister of the Environment Act 134, June 7, 2004 and Minister of the Environment Act 323 of December, 21, 2004);
e) the Brazilian Commission for the Man and the Biosphere Programme – COBRAMAB (Presidential Decree of September 21, 1999);
f) the Chamber for Natural Resources Policies, within the Government Council (Decree 1696, of November 13, 1995);
g) the National Commission for Sustainable Development Policies and the Brazilian Agenda 21, within the Government Council (established by Presidential Decree on February 26, 1997; and revised by Presidential Decrees on November 28, 2003 and February 3rd, 2004);
h) the Coordinating Commission of the National Forests Programme – CONAFLOR (established by Decree 3420, of April 20, 2000; and Decree 4864, of October 24, 2003);
i) the Coordinating Commission of the Pilot Programme for the Protection of Tropical Forests in Brazil – PPG7 (Decree 563, of June 5th, 1992; Decree 2119, of January 13, 1997; and Decree 4927, of December 23, 2003);
j) the Interministerial Commission for Marine Resources – CIRM (Decree 3939, of September 26, 2001; and Decree 4815, of August 20, 2003);
k) the National Commission for Ecological and Economic Zoning (Presidential Decree of December 28, 2001; and Presidential Decree of December 12, 2004);
l) the National Environment Fund Commission – FNMA (Decree 3524, of June 26, 2000);
The main biodiversity programmes established by the Federal Government within the Ministry of the Environment are in the Pluri-Annual Plan 2004-2007 (Law 10933, August 11, 2004);
a) the National Biodiversity Programme;
b) the National Protected Areas Programme;
c) the National Genetic Resources Programme;
d) the National Fisheries Resources Programme;
e) the National Forests Programme;
Others biodiversity programmes are:
a) the National Biological Diversity Programme – PRONABIO (Decree 1354, of December 29, 1994; Decree 4703, of May 21, 2003);
b) the National Forests Programme – PNF (Decree 3420, of April 20, 2000; Decree 4864, of October 24, 2003);
c) the National Programme on Biodiversity Research – PPBIO (Minister of Science and Technology Act 268, of June 18, 2004);
d) the Brazilian Program of Molecular Ecology [Bioprospecting] for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in the Amazon – PROBEM (Decree 4284, of June 26, 2002);
e) the Pilot Programme for the Protection of Tropical Forests in Brazil – PPG7 (Decree 563, of June 5th, 1992; Decree 2119, of January 13, 1997; and Decree 4927, of December 23, 2003).
The biodiversity sector in Brazil is extensive, with numerous ministries, institutes, secretariats, and departments holding responsibility for environment and biodiversity issues within the government. Hundreds of NGOs, foundations, and institutes, both national and international, are implementing thousands of projects. Dozens of universities, as well as consulting firms and other private sector institutions, are also involved in biodiversity conservation. Many of these projects and programs are supported by binational and multinational donors. Often, these initiatives have met with a laudable degree of success. However, most efforts at mainstreaming biodiversity conservation have remained sporadic, uncoordinated, and isolated. Success stories and lessons learned are at best not shared, and at worst lost. New initiatives do not benefit from knowledge generated through past activities, and possible synergies between projects and programs are foregone.
There have also been few efforts to mainstream biodiversity concerns. Typically, efforts to address conservation policies and practices have not been particularly well integrated across economic sectors, among various public agencies, and between public and private sectors. Despite the enormous impact other sectors have on biodiversity, and the important role biodiversity can play in other sectors, conservation initiatives are almost exclusively the domain of biodiversity and environmental actors. Recently, a few projects have experienced initial successes in extending biodiversity conservation into other public and private sectors in Brazil. However, the impact has been limited to date, and government funding for this mainstreaming, especially from Ministries other than the Ministry of the Environment, is limited or nonexistent.
The current scale of biodiversity-related activities in Brazil is also sub-optimal. Sustainable use and conservation programs and projects have primarily concentrated at local scale, community-based economic activities. Though these small-scale activities may be successful in a limited area, they lack sufficient scale to make an effective overall contribution to haltering biodiversity loss in a country as large, and with as extensive biodiversity, as Brazil. Large scale activities work not only to combat growing threats but serve as well to mobilize public opinion to the possibilities and advantages of adopting sustainable production processes, and raise society’s awareness, interest and commitment to this alternative to the point of altering societal market choices in favor of biodiversity-mainstreamed products and services.
The conservation of Brazilian biodiversity will require significant efforts from both the public and private sectors. Many governmental policies have a direct impact on biodiversity, which are often not taken into account in non-environmental sectors. The strengthening and consolidation of public-sector institutions capable of contributing to, and implementing, policies related to biodiversity will have ramifications both inside and far outside Brazil’s borders. Present day private-sector production paradigms are responsible for gas emissions, production effluents, massive use of non-renewable natural resources, etc. that are in the basis of present-day global environment problems. Efforts made to alter these paradigms in Brazil, if successful, will have positive impact in global environmental systems: water, climate, and biodiversity in particular. A project of this scale in Brazil is truly a project with global impacts.
Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies
Error! Unknown document property name.: Error! Unknown document property name.
Brazil has numerous projects related to biodiversity, both at the federal and state levels. Most focus directly on the conservation or restoration of biodiversity; the ARPA, Paraná, and Rio de Janeiro projects, detailed below, are critical in this area. While these projects and other have had a notable impact on Brazilian biodiversity, as has been noted previously there has at times been less than optimal coordination between these projects, and little focus on mainstreaming in particular. Other projects, such as the regional IABIN, have begun to make contributions to biodiversity information. IABIN’s scope, though, is hemispheric; this project will provide many of the national contributions to this initiative. A few projects, such as PROBIO and FUNBIO, as well as the First Programmatic Reform Loan for Environmental Sustainability, have started to make substantial progress on mainstreaming biodiversity into other sectors. However, this work remains incomplete and uncoordinated – precisely the objective of this project. This Biodiversity Mainstreaming and Institutional Consolidation Project will draw on the work done by these projects, as well as the lessons learned through their implementation, to promote more extensive and effective biodiversity mainstreaming, as well as institutional strengthening, in Brazil.
Key GEF-Funded, IBRD-Implemented Projects
1. Amazon Region Protected Areas Program (ARPA), GEF Implementing Agency: IBRD, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) 30.35, GEF CEO Endorsed, Contract signed with FUNBIO on 24/10/2002, National Executing Agencies: MMA/SBF, IBAMA & FUNBIO, Implementation period: 2003-2013
2. Building the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN), GEF Implementing Agency: IBDR, Enabling Activity, GEF Grant (US$M) 6.0 [plus regional PDF-B 0.650], GEF Council Approved, Regional Executing Agency: OAS, National Executing Agency: MMA, Implementation period: 2002 – 2009 [regional project involving the following countries: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela]
3. Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO), GEF Implementing Agency: IBRD, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) 20.000, 20.000, GEF Council Approved, Contract (TF28310) signed on June 1996 with the Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV), National Executing Agency: FGV, Implementation period: 1997-2005.
4. National Biodiversity Project (PROBIO), GEF Implementing Agency: IBRD, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) 10.275, GEF Council Approved, Contract (TF28309) signed on June 1996 with the Brazilian Federal Government, National Executing Agencies: MMA/SBF & CNPq, Implementation period: 1997-2005
5. Parana Biodiversity Project, GEF Implementing Agency: IBRD, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) 8.0, GEF CEO Endorsed, Contract signed on February 2002 with the State of Parana Government, Implementation period: 2003-2007
6. Rio de Janeiro Integrated Ecosystem Management in Production Landscapes of the North-Northwestern Fluminense, GEF Implementing Agency: IBRD, Full-Sized Project, GEF Grant (US$M) 6.998, GEF CEO Approved, National Executing Agency: State Secretariat of Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development (SEAAPI), Contract signed on 11/2003 with State Secretariat of Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development (SEAAPI) Implementation period: 2005-2009
7. Integrated Management of Aquatic Resources in the Amazon (AquaBio), GEF Implementing Agency: IBRD, Full-Sized Project, GEF Grant (US$M) 7.395, GEF Council Approved, National Executing Agency: Ministry of the Environment, IBAMA, SDS, FEMA. Implementation period: 2005-2011.
Key Bank-Funded, Non-GEF Projects
1. First Programmatic Reform Loan for Environmental Sustainability, Development Policy Loan, IBRD Loan (US$M) 502.1, Bank Board Approval on 8/24/04. Implementing Agencies: Ministries of Finance and the Environment. Effectiveness Period: 11/3/2005 to 12/31/2004.
2. Environmental Sustainability Agenda Technical Assistance Loan, Technical Assistance Loan, IBRD Loan (US$M) 8.05. Not yet Effective. Implementing Agency: Ministry of the Environment. Effectiveness Period: 2005-2008.
Table with OECD, IP, DO ratings for Bank projects
|Project Name |Project ID # |Status |OED Rating (Outcome) |Latest IP Rating |Latest DO Rating |
|ARPA |P058503 |Active |n/a |Satisfactory |Satisfactory |
|IABIN |P077187 |Active |n/a |Satisfactory |Satisfactory |
|FUNBIO |P044597 |Closed |Satisfactory |n/a |n/a |
|PROBIO |P006210 |Active |n/a |Satisfactory |Satisfactory |
|Parana Biodiversity |P070522 |Active |n/a |Moderately |Moderately |
| | | | |Satisfactory |Unsatisfactory |
|Rio de Janeiro |P075379 |Not yet Effective |n/a |n/a |n/a |
|Fluminense | | | | | |
|AquaBio |P066535 |Not yet Effective |n/a |n/a |n/a |
|Programmatic Reform Loan|P080829 |Closed |Not yet available |n/a |n/a |
|Environmental |P090041 |Not yet Effective |n/a |n/a |n/a |
|Sustainability TAL | | | | | |
Other implementing agencies have also executed GEF biodiversity projects, though again the mainstreaming, synthesis, and coordination results have been incomplete at best. Lessons from these initiatives have also been incorporated into the current project. Among the GEF-funded biodiversity projects implemented by agencies other than the World Bank are:
Examples of related GEF-Funded, Other Implementing Agency Projects
1. An Indicator Model for Dryland Ecosystems in Latin America: UNEP, Medium Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) 0.750 [regional], GEF CEO Approved, Regional Executing Agency: National Heritage Institute (NHI), National Executing Agency: Fundação Grupo Esquel, [regional project involving the following countries: Chile, Brazil, Mexico]
2. Alternatives to Slash and Burn (ASB): UNDP, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) 3.0 [regional], GEF Council Approved, Global Executing Agency: CGIAR, National Executing Agency: EMBRAPA [ASB National consortium], [global project involving the following countries: Brazil, Cameroon, Indonesia] & Alternatives to Slash and Burn Agriculture (ASB). Phase II], GEF Implementing Agency: UNDP, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) 3.0 [regional], GEF Council Approved, Regional Executing Agency: EMBRAPA, National Executing Agency: CGIAR, [global project involving the following countries: Brazil, Cameroon, Indonesia, Peru, Thailand]
3. Conservation and Sustainable Management of Below Ground Biodiversity, Phase I (BGBD): UNEP (GF/2715-02), Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) 5.296 [global], GEF CEO Endorsed, Global Executing Agency: Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute of CIAT (TSBF), National Executing Agency: Universidade Federal de Lavras, [global project involving the following countries: Brazil, Ivory Coast, Indonesia, India, Kenya, Mexico, Uganda]
4. Demonstrations of Integrated Ecosystem and Watershed Management in the Caatinga: UNDP, Full-Sized Project, GEF Grant (US$M) 4.100,0, GEF Council Approval, Contract signed on 10/2002 with the Brazilian Federal Government (BRA/02/G31), National Executing Agency: MMA/SBF,
5. Establishment of Private Natural Heritage Reserves in the Brazilian Cerrado: UNDP, Medium Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) 0.750, GEF CEO Approved, National Executing Agency: FUNATURA, Contract (BRA/00/G35) signed on October 2000 with FUNATURA (Fundação Pró-Natureza),
6. Global Ballast Water Management Programme (GloBallast): UNDP & IMO, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) 7.390, GEF Council Approved, Contract (GLO/99/G31/A/AG/19) signed on May 1999 with the Brazilian Federal Government, National Executing Agency: MMA/SQA, Implementation period: 2000 – 2004 [global project involving six countries: Brazil, China, India, Iran, South Africa and Ukraine]
7. Integrated watershed Management Practices for the Pantanal and Upper Paraguay River Basin Project: UNEP and OAS, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) 6.615, GEF Council Approved, Contract (GF/1100-99-16) signed on 22/10/1999 between UNEP and OAS, National Executing Agencies: ANA, Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul States
8. National Biodiversity Strategy and National Report: UNDP, Enabling Activity, GEF Grant (US$M) 0.943, GEF Council Approved, Contract (BRA/97/G31) signed on March 1997 with the Brazilian Federal Government, National Executing Agency: MMA/SBF
9. People, Land Management, and Environmental Change (PLEC: UNEP, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) 6.276 [global], GEF Council Approved, Global Executing Agency: United Nations University - UNU, National Executing Agency: Universidad Federal do Pará (Núcleo de Altos Estudos Amazônicos - NAEA), [global project involving the following countries: Brazil, China, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Papua New Guinea, Tanzania, Uganda]
10. Promoting Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use in the Frontier Forests of Northwestern Mato Grosso: UNDP, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) 6.984, GEF CEO Endorsed, National Executing Agencies: FEMA-MT and Pró-Natura, Implementation period
11. Small Grant Program – Cerrado: UNDP & UNOPS, Medium Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) estimated 3.75, GEF CEO Approved, National Executing Agency: ISPN (Instituto Sociedade População e Natureza),
Other GEF projects under negotiation may also be relevant to the current project; every effort is being made to coordinate strategies and activities with these projects.
GEF Projects Under Negotiation
1. Biodiversity Conservation to Contribute to the Development of Rio Grande do Sul State: IBRD, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) 7.849 [PDF-B US$ 0.350 approval on July 2004]. Expected implementation period: 2006-2010.
2. Brazil Sustainable Cerrado Umbrella Program: IBRD, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) 27.0 estimated, IBDR/GEF Pipeline Approved, Expected GEF approval on May 2006, National Executing Agencies: MMA/SBF, State Agencies; Expected implementation period: 2006-2011
3. Conservation and Management of Pollinators for Sustainable Agriculture through an Ecosystem Approach: UNEP & FAO, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) estimated 6.0 [PDF-B US$ 0.700], GEF Council Approved the PDF-B, PDF-B Contract with FAO (EP/GLO/301/GEF), Global Executing Agency: FAO, National Executing Agency: MMA, Expected implementation period: [PDF-B: 2004-2005] 2006-2011 [global project involving the following countries: Brazil, Ghana, India, Kenya, Nepal, Pakistan, South Africa]
4. Ecosystem Restoration of Riparian Forests in São Paulo: IBRD, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) 7.047, GEF Approval requested, National Executing Agency: São Paulo State Secretariat of Environment (SMA), Expected implementation period: 2005-2008
5. Formoso River - Integrated Watershed Management and Protection: IBRD, Medium Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) 1.0, [PDF-B approval on 2004], National Executing Agencies: EMBRAPA SOLOS & Conservation International do Brasil, Implementation period: 2005 to 2008.
6. Integrated Management and Conservation of key Grasslands in "Mercosur" countries of the Southern Cone of South America: IBDR, PDF-A Proposal, GEF Grant (US$M) 0.025 requested, Applied for Country Endorsements, Regional Executing Agency: BirdLife International’s Americas Secretariat, National Executing Agency: BirdLife International country program in Brazil, Expected implementation period of PDF-A: 2005 [follow-up GEF grant expected for a longer period] [regional project involving the following countries: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay].
7. Integrated Management of Freshwater Biodiversity and Water Resources in the Amazon (AquaBio): IBRD/UNESCO (700/BRA/2001), Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) estimated 7.213 [US$ 0.213 approved for PDF-B], GEF CEO Endorsed (TF051729), National Executing Agency: MMA/SBF, Implementation period: October 2003 to July 2005 [PDF-B]; 2006-2010 [Full size Project]
8. Preserving Biodiversity and Socio-Economic Value of Mangrove Ecosystems in Tropical America: UNDP, GEF Grant (US$M) 1.181 [regional PDF-B – US$ 0.160 for Brazil], GEF Council Approved the PDF-B, Regional & National Executing Agency: MMA (RLA/92/G41), Implementation period of regional PDF-B: September 1995 [interrupted] to 2005 [participating countries: Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica and Ecuador]
New national Full Size Project: Biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of globally important mangrove ecosystems in protected areas of Brazil: PNUD, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) estimated 3.18, National Executing Agency: MMA, Expected implementation period: 2006 – 2010
9. Provision and Use of Plant Taxonomic Information essential for the Conservation, Sustainable Use and Benefit Sharing of Neotropical Biodiversity: UNDP and UNEP, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$M) estimated 6.0 [PDF-B US$ 0.350 requested], GEF CEO Approved the PDF-A on March 1998 [the approval of the PDF-B has been delayed in UNDP and UNEP], Proposed Regional and National Executing Agency for the PDF-B: MMA [follow-up GEF Full size grant expected for a longer period] [regional project involving the following countries: Brazil, Colombia, Mexico].
10. Whole Forest Observatories: An international network for Monitoring Canopy Biodiversity and Global Climate Change: UNEP, PDF-A Proposal, GEF Grant (US$M) 0.025 requested, Proposed Global Executing Agencies: The Global Canopy Programme (GCP) and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI), Proposed National Executing Agency: INPA, Expected implementation period of PDF-A: 2005 [follow-up GEF grant expected for a longer period] [global project involving the following countries: Brazil, Ghana, India, Madagascar, Malaysia]
In a country as large as Brazil, state-level programs can also be critical. Below is a table summarizing major state-level biodiversity initiatives in Brazil. Again, every attempt has been made to apply lessons learned under these initiatives to the current project, and to create synergies with their activities where possible.
|State |State Programs |Diagnosis and Inventory |Priority |Lists of Threatened |GEF Projects |
| | | |Areas and |Species | |
| | | |Actions | | |
|RS |Atlantic Forest Project (supported by KFW) |FLORA-RS | |Fauna (2002)22 |32, 34 |
| |Ecological Corridors Project |(part)3 | |[book 2003] | |
| |State System of Conservation Units | | |Flora (2002)13 | |
| |Environmental Research Program | | | | |
|SC |State System of Conservation Units |FLORA-SC | | | |
| | |(most part)4 and 9 | | | |
|PR |SISFAUNA18 |FLORA-PR | |Fauna (1995)24 |29 |
| |State System of Conservation Units Environmental |(part)8 | |Fauna (2004)18 and 19 | |
| |Parana Program | | |Flora (1995)14 | |
| |Pro-Atlantica Program (supported by KFW) | | | | |
| |Program for Evaluation of Environmental Impacts of| | | | |
| |Dams (support GTZ) | | | | |
|SP |PROBIO-SP |BIOTA-SP |Cerrado |Fauna (1998)23 |31 |
| |State System of Conservation Units |FLORA-SP |(1995 e |Flora (1997, 2004)15 | |
| | |(part)6 and 12 |2002) |Flora (2004)26 | |
|RJ |State System of Conservation Units Taxonomic |FLORA-RJ | |Fauna (1998) |30 |
| |Diversity Program17 |(part)2 and 7 | |[book 2000]20 | |
| | |Florula of Conservation | | | |
| | |Units | | | |
|ES | | | |Fauna (2004) | |
|MG |State System of Conservation Units |Florula of Conservation |Atlas (1998)|Fauna (1995) | |
| | |Units |Atlas (2005)|[book 1998]21 | |
| | | | |Flora (1997)16 | |
|GO |State System of Conservation Units (2002) |FLORA-GO |Gap Analysis| |33 |
| | |(part)1 |(2004) | | |
|DF | |FLORA-DF | | |33 |
| | |(part)5 | | | |
|MS |State Program of Conservation Units | | | |27, 35 |
|MT |Medicinal Plants Program (FITOPLAMA) |Checklist Flora MT | | |27, 28 |
| |Wildlife Sanctuaries Program in the Cerrado region| | | | |
|TO |State System of Conservation Units Program for |FLORA-TO | | |33 |
| |Fauna and Flora Protection |(part)1 | | | |
|BA |Management of Environmental Protection Areas |FLORA-BA | | | |
| |Program |(part) | | | |
| | |Florula of the Chapada | | | |
| | |Diamantina11 | | | |
|AL |Reef Management25 | | | | |
|PE |State System of Conservation Units |Flora of Montane Forests |Diagnosis | | |
| | | |and Atlas | | |
| | | |(2002) | | |
|RN |Program for Preservation and Recovery of | | | | |
| |Environmental Protection Areas and of Ecological | | | | |
| |Risks | | | | |
|CE |State System of Conservation Units | | | | |
|PI |Project for Diagnosis and Implantation of Wildlife| | | | |
| |Sanctuaries in the Cerrado region | | | | |
|RR |Program for the Environmentally Sustainable | | | | |
| |Development Plan of the BR 174 Influence Area | | | | |
|AM |Green Free Trade Zone Program |Florula of the Ducke |Gap Analysis| | |
| |Pilot Program for the Brazilian Tropical Forests |Reserve |(2004) | | |
| |Protection – PPG7 |Flora of Forestry | | | |
| | |Fragments10 | | | |
|AC |Sustainable Forestry Development of the Acre State| | | | |
Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring
Error! Unknown document property name.: Error! Unknown document property name.
|PDO/ Global Environment Objective |Outcome Indicators |Use of Outcome Information |
| | | |
|Promote mainstreaming of biodiversity at |At least three key economic sectors |Y03 gauge engagement of key sectors and |
|national level in key government and |incorporate biodiversity criteria and |re-evaluate strategy if less than 50% of |
|private sector planning strategies and |guidelines in their plans and policies by |participating sectors include criteria or |
|practices; and consolidate and strengthen |Y06. |guidelines |
|institutional capacity to produce | | |
|biodiversity information relevant to |Progress toward the 2010 CBD targets for |Y03 reevaluate status of progress towards |
|mainstreaming. |Brazil (See Annex 22) supported by specific|CBD targets. If progress is not on track as|
| |biodiversity use and conservation policies,|expected, reevaluate current policies and |
| |and tracked by a strategy for monitoring |programs to adjust project activities. If |
| |selected indicators. |monitoring information is insufficient, |
| | |revise monitoring strategy. |
| | | |
| | |Y03 revise strategy if productive landscape|
| |At least one productive landscape unit for |units are established in less than three |
| |integrated conservation and sustainable use|biomes. |
| |of biodiversity components implemented in | |
| |PROBIO priority areas for each biome by | |
| |Y06. | |
|Intermediate Results |Results Indicators for Each Component |Use of Results Monitoring |
|One per Component | | |
|Component 1: Mainstreaming Biodiversity | | |
|into Selected Government and Economic | | |
|Sectors | | |
| | | |
|Conservation and sustainable use of |At least 6 policy initiatives for |Y03 Reevaluate strategy if less than 4 |
|biodiversity incorporated into select |mainstreaming biodiversity designed and |policy initiatives are under way. |
|government sectors. |adopted in selected areas through | |
| |consultative process. (Subcomp 1.1) | |
| | | |
| |At least 12 policy subprojects designed and|Y03 Revise component strategy if less than |
| |implemented in partnership with key |8 subprojects are under implementation. |
| |government sectors. (Subcomp 1.2) | |
| | | |
| |At least 3000 technical specialists from |Y03 Intensify capacity building efforts if |
| |partner institutions trained in |less than 1500 technical specialists have |
| |biodiversity themes in order to incorporate|been trained. |
| |biodiversity in sectoral work. (Subcomp 3.1| |
| |b) | |
|Component 2: Mainstreaming Biodiversity | | |
|into the Private Sector | | |
| | | |
|Conservation and sustainable use of |Opportunities Fund capitalized with at |Y03 Reevaluate fund raising strategy if |
|biodiversity incorporated in key private |least $ 20 million by Y06. (Subcomp 2.3) |less than 50% of fund capitalization goals |
|sector planning strategies and practices. | |achieved. |
| |At least 10 productive landscape units | |
| |incorporating and adopting criteria |Y03 Reevaluate strategy if less than 5 |
| |associated with biodiversity conservation |productive landscape projects are under |
| |in their areas of operation. (Subcomp 2.1) |way. |
| | | |
| |At least 5 private sector organizations at | |
| |a national or sub national level adopting | |
| |guidelines/policies/framework that mentions|Y03Adjust efforts if less than 3 |
| |the incorporation and/or adoption of |organizations are adopting biodiversity |
| |criteria linked with biodiversity. (Subcomp|criteria. |
| |2.1) | |
| | | |
| |At least 10 business plans prepared and | |
| |disseminated under Knowledge Base | |
| | | |
| | |Y03 Reevaluate strategy if less than 5 |
| | |business plans are under way. |
|Component 3: Institutional strengthening | | |
|and Generation of Biodiversity Information | | |
|for Policy Making | | |
| | | |
|Network of key Brazilian institutions | | |
|working on biodiversity issues |Brazilian Virtual Institute for |Y02 Reevaluate partnership strategy if |
|consolidated, coordinated and producing |Biodiversity established and operational, |Brazilian Virtual Institute for |
|relevant information for the development |coordinating activities of at least 6 |Biodiversity is not operational. |
|and implementation of biodiversity |partner institutions and producing | |
|mainstreaming policies. |information relevant to policymaking | |
| |(Subcomp 3.1) | |
| | | |
| |Center for Biodiversity Monitoring and |Y03 Intensify capacity building efforts if |
| |Forecasting created, fully staffed, and |indicator data is not systematically being |
| |functioning, generating data for at least |produced. |
| |10 key biodiversity indicators based on CBD| |
| |2010 Targets. (Subcomp 3.1) | |
| | | |
| |Number of Specialized Centers on | |
| |Biodiversity Conservation for fauna and |Y03 Evaluate quality of products developed |
| |flora created, capacitated and generating |by the Specialized Centers and revise |
| |products (technology, management practices)|strategy if not satisfactory. |
| |that contribute to biodiversity | |
| |conservation. (Subcomp 3.1 a) | |
| | | |
| |Action plans for at least 80% of the | |
| |national endangered species lists designed | |
| |and 25% under implementation. (Subcomp 3.2)|Y03Adjust efforts if less than 40% of the |
| | |national endangered species lists have |
| | |action plans designed, or less 10% under |
| | |implementation. |
|Component 4: Project Coordination and | | |
|Management | | |
| |Project monitoring strategy under | |
|Improved institutional capacity to |satisfactory implementation at the end of |Y02 review project monitoring strategy if |
|coordinate multi-sectoral and |Y01, and where necessary, implementation |not satisfactorily implemented |
|cross-sectoral interventions, to monitor |strategy improved. | |
|project implementation and impacts, and to |(Subcomp 4.1) | |
|disseminate lessons. | | |
| |Project results and lessons learned |Y02 review dissemination plans if |
| |disseminated through national and |implementation is not satisfactory. |
| |local-level workshops, publications (by | |
| |Y06), media campaigns (by Y03) and homepage| |
| |(by Y01). (Submp 4.2) | |
Arrangements for results monitoring
| | |Target Values |Data Collection and Reporting (per Component) |
|Outcome Indicators |Baseline |YR1 |YR2 |
|A. Mainstreaming biodiversity into selected government and economic sectors |26.0 |12.0 |38.0 |
|1. Planning and Refinement of Public Sectoral Policies and Policy Instruments |5.0 |2.5 |7.5 |
|2. Sectoral activities incorporating biodiversity mainstreaming applied at |21.0 |9.5 |30.5 |
|national level | | | |
| | | | |
|B. Mainstreaming Biodiversity into the Private Sector |30.0 |10.0 |40.0 |
|1. Territorial mainstreaming subprojects |22.5 |7.5 |30.0 |
|2. Best practices and productive/management innovations |4.5 |1.5 |6.0 |
|3. Coordination and fund management |3.0 |1.0 |4.0 |
| | | | |
|C. Institutional Strengthening and Generation of Biodiversity Information for |33.0 |8.0 |41.0 |
|Policymaking | | | |
|1. Institutional strengthening |24.0 |4.5 |28.5 |
|2. Management of biodiversity information |9.0 |3.5 |12.5 |
| | | | |
|D. Project Coordination and Management |5,0 |0,0 |5,0 |
|1. Project administration, monitoring and evaluation |2,5 |0,0 |2,5 |
|2. Information dissemination and communication strategies |2,5 |0,0 |2,5 |
| | | | |
|Total Financing |94.0 |30.0 |124.0 |
Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements
Error! Unknown document property name.: Error! Unknown document property name.
This project has been designed to provide an optimum degree of coordination among project partners and activities, while providing the flexibility necessary to implement policy initiatives and subprojects in very different sectoral contexts. As such, a Project Coordination Committee has been designed to oversee project activities, assuring consistency and synergies within the project. A project coordination unit will be responsible for central administrative and financial duties, as well as project monitoring and coordination among partner institutions. The GEF funds will be executed through two agencies, the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) and the Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO), which will transfer funds to the other executors. The legal agreement will include detailed obligations and responsibilities of each of the two agencies for the administration of GEF funds. The three technical components will be administered by MMA and FUNBIO, with project partners, as well as contracted executing institutions, responsible for subproject implementation. Below follows a detailed description of the responsibilities of each entity involved in the project, as well as a diagram of the project’s institutional structure.
Description of Project Responsibilities:
National Biodiversity Commission (CONABIO): CONABIO has a mandate to coordinate the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity and of the National Biodiversity Policy in Brazil. The commission is formed by government and non-government institutions with equal representation, it has a broad membership of diverse government sectors and civil society (industry, academy, indigenous organizations, NGOs, etc). CONABIO will provide consultative oversight for this project on high-level questions of biodiversity priorities, policies, and guidelines. CONABIO will also promote mainstreaming among different sectors and provide general orientation for project implementation. If necessary, the Commission may also serve as a mediator for any potential impasses that may arise during project execution.
Project Coordination Committee: This coordinating entity will be formed by the project partner institutions and organizations. MMA will chair this Committee, which will also be composed of representatives from FUNBIO, MDA, MAPA, MCT, MS, JBRJ, IBAMA, Fiocruz, Embrapa, and other institutions invited by the Committee during project execution to become project partners. This Committee will serve as a deliberative and consultative unit with the responsibility of coordinating, overseeing, and evaluating the implementation of all project activities. This Committee will also promote the integration of the different project components, exploring opportunities for complementarities between subprojects and synergies among partners.
Project partners have been defined as institutions or organizations with a strong participation in the design and implementation of the current project. These partners have provided cofinancing for the GEF financing of project activities, and are responsible for executing subprojects under the three technical components. Project partners will be represented on the Project Coordination Committee, and as such will have responsibility for the oversight of project activities. At project start partner institutions have been defined as the proponents of the project proposal, including MMA, FUNBIO, MDA, MAPA, MCT, MS, JBRJ, IBAMA, Fiocruz and Embrapa. Other organizations that become involved in project activities during execution may be invited by the Project Coordination Committee to serve as project partners, with the same rights and responsibilities as the original partners.
Project Coordination Unit: This unit will be established jointly by MMA and FUNBIO, with responsibilities including: i) serve as executive secretariat of the Project Coordination Committee (MMA); ii) coordinate and promote synergies among project partners (MMA and FUNBIO); iii) monitor the implementation of all project actions and activities (MMA and FUNBIO); iv) coordinate the provision of grant funds to the executors of project activities (MMA and FUNBIO); v) carry out appropriate technical, administrative, and financial monitoring and report periodically to the Bank and other institutions, as outlined in the Grant Agreement (MMA and FUNBIO).
Ministry of the Environment/ Secretariat of Biodiversity and Forests (MMA/SBF): MMA/SBF is the entity responsible for the coordination of the technical and financial execution of the project, as well as for the political relationships necessary to mobilize government entities interested in biodiversity mainstreaming in the public sector. It is the unit responsible for project coordination for the public sector components and will orient the development of the subcomponents associated with the public sector. MMA/SBF will serve as the interface with MDA, MAPA, MCT, MS, IBAMA, JBRJ, Embrapa, and Fiocruz. In parallel, MMA/SBF will coordinate the Center for Biodiversity Monitoring and Forecasting.
Brazilian Fund for Biodiversity (FUNBIO): FUNBIO is the entity responsible for the coordination of the technical and financial execution of the project’s private sector component. FUNBIO is responsible for interfacing with the private sector in order to develop and implement Component 2 and its related subcomponents. FUNBIO will be responsible for the establishment, management, and fundraising for the Opportunities Fund. It will implement project activities through both induced and proposed subprojects at a regional scale according to guidelines established by the Project Coordination Committee and approved by FUNBIO’s Board of Directors. In addition to the private-sector subprojects, some public sector activities with a direct private sector link may also be implemented through the Opportunities Fund under FUNBIO.
Government Executing Agencies: These partner agencies (MDA, MAPA, MCT, MS, JBRJ, IBAMA, Fiocruz and Embrapa) are responsible for the execution of specific public sector-related subprojects in Components 1 and 3. They also form part of the Project Coordination Committee, as explained above. During project execution, other governmental agencies may be added to this category should they be selected to execute subprojects financed by the project.
Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity: This virtual institute will mobilize capacities among the various organizations involved in conservation, sustainable use and benefits sharing of biodiversity and facilitate the implementation of biodiversity policies and actions. The member institutions, drawn from both public and private institutions from different sectors, will coordinate resources, capacities, and expertise to promote and facilitate the mainstreaming of biodiversity into all public and private sectors. It is expected that this Institute will become self-sufficient by providing biodiversity consulting services for projects and programs being implemented in other sectors in Brazil. The small administrative unit of the Institute will organize members to respond to demands for information and services, as well as generate information and recommendations for public policy in relevant sectors. (Please see Annex 21 for more details on this Institute.)
Brazilian Center for Biodiversity Monitoring and Forecasting: This operational unit of MMA/SBF will be responsible for monitoring, forecasting, and evaluating the status and trends of biodiversity in Brazil, and specifically for measuring the current situation and future changes regarding biomes and species. It will coordinate monitoring activities carried out by a network of existing governmental and private entities using standard protocols.
Opportunities Fund: This financial management mechanism will be created and managed by the Executive Secretariat of FUNBIO in order to house, invest, capitalize, and utilize the resources received from the GEF and other donors or investors. These funds will be applied to subproject implementation, especially those involving the private sector component.
Subproject Executors: Public and private entities (either consortia or individual) with an interest in mainstreaming biodiversity into their political, programmatic, and/or productive practices that have presented proposals, or bid on execution contracts, for subprojects incorporating biodiversity into the public, private, or public-private ambits. By executing these subprojects, the executors become eligible to benefit from grant resources, as well as funds raised under the project, and will be responsible for providing subproject cofinancing to compliment grant resources from the GEF and other donors. They are also responsible for all monitoring and reporting activities required by the Bank, and specified in subproject execution contracts.
Figure 1: Project Institutional Arrangements
Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements
Error! Unknown document property name.: Error! Unknown document property name.
(This Annex is to be revised and updated before Appraisal)
As per the institutional arrangement described in Annex 6, the Project will be executed by the Ministry of the Environment (Components 1, 3, and 4), and FUNBIO (Component 2). MMA and FUNBIO will be the grant recipients and executors. Through the PCU, MMA and FUNBIO will be responsible for overall coordination of the project, and will prepare periodic “consolidated” financial, procurement, and disbursement reports to the Bank and the Brazilian government.
Risk
|Risk |Risk Rating |Risk Issues/Measures |
|Inherent Risk | | |
|Entity/project specific |Moderate |Detailed reporting and monitoring strategies |
| | |established to mitigate risk for bi-national |
| | |project structure; MMA and FUNBIO considerable |
| | |experience |
|Control Risk | | |
|Funds flow |Moderate |MMA and FUNBIO will be principally responsible |
| | |for project funds. They will be responsible for |
| | |account reconciliation and disbursement requests |
| | |to the Bank |
|Funds flow: counterpart funds |Moderate |High dependence on counterpart funds; approval of|
| | |line items in sectoral budgets will be sought |
| | |prior to beginning of fiscal year, and agreements|
| | |have been signed with each counterpart |
| | |organization |
|Staffing |Moderate |Staff have substantial experience in management |
| | |of international donor funds; staffing is however|
| | |inherently subject to frequent changes |
|Accounting policies and procedures |Low |Accounting procedures have been judged adequate |
|External audits |Low |Independent auditors will be hired |
Budgeting. The Grant Agreement and project cost tables will be the main inputs for the project budgets and counterpart funding estimates. The PCU will prepare project budgets along disbursement categories and project components, and will also prepare: annual work plans classified by work lines, with goals/objectives, physical and financial programs; annual budget proposals specifying the sources of funds, expenditures by components/disbursement categories. Monthly reports on budgetary execution to be issued within 15 days after the end of each month and quarterly budget reports will be issued within 45 days after the end of the quarter.
Accounting. MMA and FUNBIO maintain and manages an integrated management information systems that have been utilized to manage other donor financed projects and as such, these systems are considered acceptable for this project as well. The PCU will report on detailed information at the project level, specifically the disbursements, and the expenditures classified by activity/subcomponent and disbursement category. There are elaborate levels of controls to approve budget transfers/allocations for execution under the procurement plan. The accounting records are maintained electronically, and are reconciled with budget and procurement reports on a monthly basis. Expenditure reports are further analyzed by project component and cash flow analyses are conducted both on an ex-post basis (analyzing weekly spending for the prior month) as well as on a forecast basis for the upcoming month.
Funds Flow. MMA and FUNBIO will be the recipients of grant funds, and will allocate funds to subproject executors based on subproject budget estimates and POAs. The PCU will reconcile the accounts monthly, and will submit the documentation regarding all transactions and transfers, to the World Bank under each withdrawal application (Statement of Expenditure, SOE). The reconciliation will also be included in the quarterly Financial Monitoring Report (FMR).
Payments and operation of bank accounts. The bank account reconciliation will be prepared on a monthly basis and will be available within 15 days after the end of the month. Disbursements will be made on the basis of SOEs, and the preparation of SOEs will be the responsibility of the PCU.
As agreed during negotiations, MMA and FUNBIO will establish a 30-day cycle for disbursements and cash flow programming. For expenditures for which withdrawals are made on the basis of SOEs, they will retain all expenditure supporting document for at least one year after the receipt of the audit report for the period. All records of the expenditure will be available for examination by the Bank if considered necessary.
Accounting Policies and Procedures. Administrative procedures have been established to ensure that financial transactions are made with consideration to safeguarding project assets and ensuring proper entry in the accounting/ monitoring systems. A working draft of the operations manual was created during project preparation, and is in the process of being finalized. MMA and FUNBIO’s accounting systems have the capacity to record assets, liabilities and financial transactions of the project, and produce financial reports useful to project management and meeting the Bank’s fiduciary requirements. The accounting system is designed to be able to capture all financial information and allocate among both project activities and categories. The project will also submit detailed monthly statements of expenditures to the Ministry of Finance.
Reporting and Monitoring. On a monthly basis, the PCU will prepare the project’s Expenditure Report including a matrix classifying sources of financing and expenditures by project components and disbursement category. The actual expenditures will be compared against the planned estimates per the quarterly budgets. These project financial reports, along with the progress and procurement reports, will form the basis of the FMRs.
Audit arrangements. An audit of annual project financial statements will be conducted by an independent accounting firm and in accordance with terms of reference acceptable to the Bank and the Bank’s audit policy. The audit will cover MMA and FUNBIO operations.
In addition to the management letter (report on internal controls) and the audit opinion (the Bank’s audit policy allows for a single audit opinion covering the project financial statements and the Statement of the Special Account), special purpose reports will deal specifically with the observance of the procurement and consultants services provisions of the Grant Agreement. MMA and FUNBIO have agreed to appoint the auditors (for both the annual and special audits) under a multi-year contract. The audit would then follow the provisions of Section 4.01 (b) (ii) of the Grant Agreement (January 1st through December 31st of each year), with the audit report due no later than 6 months after the end of the fiscal year. These reports will include certified copies of the financial statements referred to in the Grant Agreement, an opinion on said statements by the auditors, and any other information that the Bank requests. MMA and FUNBIO will also prepare, and submit to the Bank for review, if needed, an action plan to address any issues and recommendations contained in the audit reports.
Financial Management Action Plan
|Action |Responsible Entity |Completion Date |
|1. Finalize financial management section of|MMA and FUNBIO |By appraisal |
|Operations Manual | | |
|2. Appoint external auditors |PCU/ MMA and FUNBIO |Within 60 days of effectiveness |
|3. Submit draft Project Monitoring Reports |PCU/ MMA and FUNBIO |By appraisal |
|(FMRs) | | |
|4. Submit first FMRs |PCU/ MMA and FUNBIO |Within 45 days of the end of the first |
| | |quarter after effectiveness |
Allocation of Grant Proceeds
Expenditures for the following items and activities may be financed out of the proceeds of the Grant and shall be used exclusively for carrying out the Activities:
|Expenditure Category |Amount of the Grant Allocated in US Dollars|% of Expenditures to be Financed |
| |In US$ million | |
|Works | | |
|Goods | | |
|Non-Consultant Services | | |
|Consultant Services | | |
|Small Grants | | |
|Contributions to Trust Funds | | |
|Operating Costs | | |
|Total Project Costs | | |
|Interest Curing Construction | | |
|Front-End Fee | | |
|Total | | |
Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements
Error! Unknown document property name.: Error! Unknown document property name.
(This Annex is to be revised and updated before Appraisal)
A. General
Procurement for the proposed project would be carried out in accordance with the World Bank’s "Guidelines: Procurement Under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits" dated May 2004; and "Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers" dated May 2004, and the provisions stipulated in the Legal Agreement. The various items under different expenditure categories are described in general below. For each contract to be financed by the Loan/Credit, the different procurement methods or consultant selection methods, the need for pre-qualification, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and time frame are agreed between the Borrower and the Bank in the Procurement Plan. The Procurement Plan will be updated at least annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity.
Procurement of Works: Works procured under this project would include: [Describe the types of works]. The procurement will be done using the Bank’s Standard Bidding Documents (SBD) for all ICB and National SBD agreed with or satisfactory to the Bank. [Indicate any special requirements specific to the project.] [If the project involves procurement carried out by communities, indicate where details can be found in the Project Implementation Manual or similar documents.]
Procurement of Goods: Goods procured under this project would include :[ Describe the types of goods]. The procurement will be done using the Bank’s SBD for all ICB and National SBD agreed with or satisfactory to the Bank. [Indicate any special requirements specific to the project.]
Procurement of non-consulting services: [ Provide a general description of non-consulting services to be procured under the project and information on the bidding documents to be used for the procurement.]
Selection of Consultants : [Provide a general description of the consulting services from firms and individuals required for the project.] Short lists of consultants for services estimated to cost less than $_______equivalent per contract may be composed entirely of national consultants in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines. [If applicable, provide any information regarding engaging universities, government research institutions, public training institutions, NGOs, or any special organizations.]
Operating Costs: [Describe the operating costs which would be financed by the project and procured using the implementing agency’s administrative procedures which were reviewed and found acceptable to the Bank.]
Others: [Describe if any special arrangements for scholarships, grants etc. ]
The procurement procedures and SBDs to be used for each procurement method, as well as model contracts for works and goods procured, are presented in the [name the Project Implementation Manual or the equivalent document.].
B. Assessment of the agency’s capacity to implement procurement
Procurement activities will be carried out by [name of the Implementing Agency]. The agency is staffed by [describe the key staff positions], and the procurement function is staffed by [describe the staff who will handle procurement].
An assessment of the capacity of the Implementing Agency to implement procurement actions for the project has been carried out by [name of the procurement staff] on [date]. The assessment reviewed the organizational structure for implementing the project and the interaction between the project’s staff responsible for procurement Officer and the Ministry’s relevant central unit for administration and finance.
The key issues and risks concerning procurement for implementation of the project have been identified and include [describe the risks/issues]. The corrective measures which have been agreed are [Describe the corrective measures].
The overall project risk for procurement is [give the risk rating].
C. Procurement Plan
The Borrower, at appraisal, developed a procurement plan for project implementation which provides the basis for the procurement methods. This plan has been agreed between the Borrower and the Project Team on [date] and is available at [provide the office name and location]. It will also be available in the project’s database and in the Bank’s external website. The Procurement Plan will be updated in agreement with the Project Team annually or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity.
D. Frequency of Procurement Supervision
In addition to the prior review supervision to be carried out from Bank offices, the capacity assessment of the Implementing Agency has recommended [frequency] supervision missions to visit the field to carry out post review of procurement actions.
E. Details of the Procurement Arrangements Involving International Competition
1. Goods, Works, and Non Consulting Services
(a) List of contract packages to be procured following ICB and direct contracting:
|1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |
| | | | | | | |
|Ref. No. |Description of |Estimated |Selection |Review |Expected |Comments |
| |Assignment |Cost |Method |by Bank |Proposals | |
| | | | |(Prior / Post) |Submission | |
| | | | | |Date | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
(b) Consultancy services estimated to cost above [fill in threshold amount] per contract and single source selection of consultants (firms) for assignments estimated to cost above [fill in threshold amount] will be subject to prior review by the Bank.
(c) Short lists composed entirely of national consultants: Short lists of consultants for services estimated to cost less than [fill in threshold amount] equivalent per contract, may be composed entirely of national consultants in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines.
Annex 9: Economic and Financial Analysis
Error! Unknown document property name.: Error! Unknown document property name.
For a detailed Incremental Cost Analysis, please see Annex 15.
(This Annex is to be completed before Appraisal)
Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues
Error! Unknown document property name.: Error! Unknown document property name.
(This Annex is to be revised and updated before Appraisal)
The safeguard screening category of the project is S2. The project is classified as Category B, requiring an Environmental Analysis but not a full-scale Environmental Assessment (EA) study. Despite this, an EA, covering all the safeguard policies triggered by the project, including social issues, is being carried out by MMA and FUNBIO. In addition, a wide variety of actors involved in project preparation participated to greater or lesser degrees in evaluating safeguard policy issues. The preparation team has relied heavily on the extensive work carried out in the last few years for a range of similar World Bank projects in Brazil. The detailed EA study is available in project files. In accordance with the Bank’s Information Disclosure Policy (BP 17.50), copies of the Environmental Analysis report in Portuguese are available for public view at [to be determined], and a copy was also forwarded to the World Bank's InfoShop on [pending]. Confirm
The sections below briefly consider each of the safeguard policies that are triggered by the Project.
Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01)
The EA will include the review of potential environmental issues in the project, development of proposals to screen the types and potential impacts of the proposed project investments, as well as a review of prior assessments carried out under related World Bank projects, other national and donor-funded projects, and local initiatives (see Annex 12). The EA will identify potential direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with the project, developed mechanisms and measures to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate negative impacts, and present an Environmental Management Plan with specific activities, responsibilities and budgets to ensure the implementation of these mitigating measures.
The assessment is expected to find that the effects of the project on the environment are likely to be overwhelmingly positive, stemming from better conceptualization and implementation of conservation strategies, increased capacity for protection, a shift to more sustainable land use, improved biodiversity conservation, an increase in information on biodiversity and on conservation best practices, and a more sustainable use of natural resources.
Because the primary goal of this project is the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and because many of its activities will occur either at the policy or information level, negative impacts on the environment are expected to be minimal. Possible negative effects stemming from the construction of minor infrastructure under subprojects in Components 1, 2, and 3, as well as potential income-generating activities promoted especially by Component 2, will be addressed in the Environmental Management Plan. As these activities are designed to be sustainable, take the conservation of biodiversity and natural resources into account, and have the smallest possible footprint, impact on the environment is expected to be minimal.
Natural Habitats (OP 4.04)
This project will work in areas where a significant number of original plant and animal species remain. As the aim of the project is to conserve these areas, the potential for triggering OP 4.04 is minimal. However, there is a slight possibility that research, as well as activities supported under Component 2 of the project, might cause unintentional degradation of natural habitats. In order to mitigate this risk, the environmental monitoring plans prepared for these activities will closely monitor habitat conversion or degradation.
Physical Cultural Resources (OP 4.11)
The project is not expected to have any negative impact cultural property, including movable or immovable objects, sites, structures, groups of structures, natural features or landscapes with archeological, paleontological, historical, architectural, religious, aesthetic, or other cultural significance. However, as it has been rated a Category B project, OP 4.11 is automatically triggered. The Environmental Management Plan of the project will include a framework for determining whether any cultural property will be impacted, and for mitigating any potential negative effects. The initial studies done for all activities and research sponsored under this project will examine whether any physical cultural property is present; if so the Environmental Management Plan measures will be applied and the activity will not go forward until it has been redesigned to eliminate any negative impact.
Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12)
It is considered extremely unlikely that any resettlement will occur under this project, and only slightly probable that there might be economic displacement under subprojects. This matter will be carefully studied during project preparation and included in the Environmental Assessment. Should there be determined to be any potential for involuntary resettlement or economic displacement, a resettlement framework will be drawn up.
Forests (OP/BP 4.36)
This project is expected to have an overall positive effect on forests though policy and information-based work. There is a possibility that subprojects will be carried out in forest areas; should this be the case care will be taken during preparation, implementation, and monitoring to ensure there are no measures established under the Environmental Management Plan are applied and that there are no negative effects on the forest areas.
Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision
Error! Unknown document property name.: Error! Unknown document property name.
| |Planned |Actual |
|PCN review |3/14/2005 |3/21/2005 |
|Initial PID to PIC |3/18/2005 | |
|Initial ISDS to PIC |3/18/2005 |6/8/2005 |
|Appraisal |2/21/2006 | |
|Negotiations |3/27/2006 | |
|Board/RVP approval |08/14/2006 | |
|Planned date of effectiveness |01/04/2007 | |
|Planned date of mid-term review |07/15/2009 | |
|Planned closing date |12/30/2012 | |
Key institutions responsible for preparation of the project:
Ministry of the Environment: MMA has been one of the primary agencies responsible for the project preparation, as well as for coordinating project partners. MMA will be one of the two project executing agencies, and is responsible for Components 1, 3, and 4.
Brazilian Biodiversity Fund: FUNBIO was also the other primary agency responsible for project preparation, as well as for coordinating activities related to the private sector. FUNBIO will also serve as a project executing agency, and will be responsible for Component 2.
Ministry of Rural Development: MDA is one of the key project partners, participated in the project preparation phase, and will be responsible for implementing subprojects during the execution phase.
Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock: MAPA is one of the key project partners, participated in the project preparation phase, and will be responsible for implementing subprojects during the execution phase.
Ministry of Science and Technology: MCT is one of the key project partners, participated in the project preparation phase, and will be responsible for implementing subprojects during the execution phase.
Ministry of Health: MS is one of the key project partners, participated in the project preparation phase, and will be responsible for implementing subprojects during the execution phase.
Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden: JBRJ is one of the key project partners, participated in the project preparation phase, and will be responsible for implementing subprojects during the execution phase.
Brazilian Environment Institute: IBAMA is one of the key project partners, participated in the project preparation phase, and will be responsible for implementing subprojects during the execution phase.
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz: Fiocruz is one of the key project partners, participated in the project preparation phase, and will be responsible for implementing subprojects during the execution phase.
Brazilian Agricultural Research Company: Embrapa is one of the key project partners, participated in the project preparation phase, and will be responsible for implementing subprojects during the execution phase.
Bank staff and consultants who worked on the project included:
|Name |Title |Unit |
|Adriana Moreira |Task Team Leader |LCSEN |
|Musa Asad |Trust Fund Specialist |LCSEN |
|Isabel Braga |Safeguards Specialist |LCSEN |
|Keiko Ashida Tao |Operations Analyst |LCSEN |
|Christine Dragisic |Junior Professional Associate |LCSEN |
|Simon Milward |Junior Professional Associate |LCSEN |
|Guadalupe Romero Silva |Consultant |LCSEN |
|Karen Ravenelle Smith |Language Program Assistant |LCSES |
| | | |
| | | |
Bank funds expended to date on project preparation:
1. Bank resources:
2. Trust funds:
3. Total:
Estimated Approval and Supervision costs:
1. Remaining costs to approval:
2. Estimated annual supervision cost:
Annex 12: Documents in the Project File
Error! Unknown document property name.: Error! Unknown document property name.
Brandão, C. R.F., E. M. Cancello & C. I. Yamamoto, 2005. Avaliação do Estado do Conhecimento da Diversidade Biológica do Brasil. Invertebrados Terrestres. Relatório Final. Revisado. Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente & Campinas, NEPAM/UNICAMP, 38p. [in print] ;
Brandão, C. R. F., A. B. Kury, C. Magalhães e O. Mielke. 1998. Coleções Zoológicas do Brasil. Sistema de Informação sobre Biodiversidade/Biotecnologia para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável - OEA e Fundação Tropical André Tosello - BDT.
Campanhola, C., G.S.Rodrigues & B.F.S.Dias,1998. Agricultural Biological Diversity. Ciência e Cultura 50(1):10-13.
Canhos, V. P. 1997. Coleções de culturas de microorganismos. PADCT/Finep: Biodiversidade: perspectivas e oportunidades tecnológicas. .
Capobianco, J.P.R. (coord.), 2001. Biodiversidade na Amazônia Brasileira: Avaliação e Ações Prioritárias para a Conservação, Uso Sustentável e Repartição de Benefícios. São Paulo, Editora Estação Liberdade e Instituto Socioambiental, 540p. (also in english) ();
Cavalcante, R.B. (coord.), 1999. Ações Prioritárias para a Conservação da Biodiversidade do Cerrado e Pantanal. Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente/Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas, 32p. + mapa mural (versão integral );
Dias, B.F.S., 2002. A Biodiversidade na Amazônia: uma Introdução ao Desconhecido, pp.13-87 e anexo com 21 figuras em 12 estampas In: Reis Velloso, J.P. & R.C. Albuquerque (coord.), Amazônia, vazio de soluções? Desenvolvimento moderno baseado na Biodiversidade. Rio de Janeiro, José Olympio Editora & Instituto Nacional de Altos Estudos – INAE, 134p.
Garay, I & B.F.S.Dias (editors), 2001. Conservação da Biodiversidade em Ecossistemas Tropicais: Avanços conceituais e revisão de novas metodologias de avaliação e monitoramento. Petrópolis, Editora Vozes, 430p.
Jablonski, S. (coord.), 2002. Avaliação e Ações Prioritárias para a Conservação da Biodiversidade das Zonas Costeira e Marinha. Brasília, Projeto de Conservação e Utilização Sustentável da Diversidade Biológica Brasileira (PROBIO)/Ministério do Meio Ambiente, [8]+72p. + mapa mural e CD-ROM (versão integral );
Klaczko, L. B. & R. D. Vieira, 2005. Avaliação do Estado Atual do Conhecimento sobre a Diversidade Biológica do Brasil. Genética. Relatório Final – Revisado. Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente & NEPAM/UNICAMP, 68p. [in print] ;
Lewinsohn, T. M. & P. I. Prado, 2002. Biodiversidade Brasileira: Síntese do Estado Atual do Conhecimento. São Paulo, Editora Contexto, 176p.
Lewinsohn, T. M. & P. I. Prado, 2005.Síntese do Conhecimento Atual da Biodiversidade Brasileira. Revisado. Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente & Campinas, NEPAM/UNICAMP, 142p.[in print] ;
Machado, A. B. M. et al., 2005. Lista da Fauna Brasileira ameaçada de Extinção. Belo Horizonte, Fundação Biodiversitas, 160p.
Manfio, G. P., 2005. Avaliação do Estado Atual do Conhecimento da Diversidade Biológica do Brasil. Microbiota. Relatório Final – Revisado. Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente & NEPAM/UNICAMP, 80p. [in print] ;
Migotto, A.E. & A. C. Marques, 2005. Avaliação do Estado do Conhecimento da Diversidade Biológica do Brasil. Invertebrados Marinhos. Relatório Final – Revisado. Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente & NEPAM/UNICAMP, 87p. [in print] ;
MMA, 1999. First National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Brazil. Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, 283p. (.br/biodiversidade)
MMA, 2002. Biodiversidade Brasileira: Avaliação e Identificação de Áreas e Ações Prioritárias para Conservação, Utilização Sustentável e Repartição de Benefícios da Biodiversidade Brasileira. Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente – MMA (série Biodiversidade, 5), 404p. ();
MMA, 2004. Second National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Brazil. Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, (.br/biodiversidade)
Pinto, L.P. (coord.), 2000. Avaliação e Ações Prioritárias para a Conservação da Biodiversidade da Mata Atlântica e Campos Sulinos. Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente/Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas, 44p. + mapa mural (versão integral );
Rocha, O., 2005. Avaliação do Estado do Conhecimento da Diversidade Biológica do Brasil. Águas Doces. Relatório Final – Revisado. Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente & Campinas, NEPAM/UNICAMP, 70p. [in print] ;
Sabino, J. & P.I.Prado, 2005. Avaliação do Estado do Conhecimento da Diversidade Biológica do Brasil. Vertebrados. Relatório Final - Revisado. Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente & Campinas, NEPAM/UNICAMP, 131p. [in print] ;
Shepherd, G.J., 2005. Avaliação do Estado do Conhecimento da Diversidade Biológica do Brasil. Plantas Terrestres. Relatório Final - Revisado. Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente & Campinas, NEPAM/UNICAMP, 60p. [in print] ;
Silva, J.M.C. (coord.), 2004. Biodiversidade da Caatinga: Áreas e ações prioritárias para a conservação. Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, 382p. ();
Peixoto, A.L.(org.), 2003. Coleções Biológicas de Apoio ao Inventário, Uso Sustentável e Conservação da Biodiversidade. Rio de Janeiro, IPJBRJ, 238p.
Siqueira, M. F. d. e C. A. Joly. 1997. Coleções Botânicas. PADCT/Finep: Biodiversidade: perspectivas e oportunidades tecnológicas. /marinez.html
Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits
Error! Unknown document property name.: Error! Unknown document property name.
| | | |Original Amount in US$ Millions | | |Difference between |
| | | | | | |expected and actual |
| | | | | | |disbursements |
|Project ID |FY |Purpose |IBRD |
| | |IFC | |IFC | |
|FY Approval |Company |Loan |
|FY Approval |Company |Loan |Equity |Quasi |Partic. |
|2005 |ABN AMRO REAL |0.03 |0.00 |0.00 |0.00 |
|2000 |BBA |0.01 |0.00 |0.00 |0.00 |
|2002 |Banco Itau-BBA |0.00 |0.00 |0.00 |0.10 |
|1999 |Cibrasec |0.00 |0.01 |0.00 |0.00 |
|2005 |Embraer |0.04 |0.00 |0.00 |0.10 |
|2005 |LOJAS II |0.04 |0.00 |0.00 |0.00 |
|2002 |Suape ICT |0.01 |0.00 |0.00 |0.00 |
|2004 |TermoFortaleza |0.06 |0.00 |0.01 |0.11 |
| |Total pending committment: | 0.19 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.31 |
Annex 14: Country at a Glance
Error! Unknown document property name.: Error! Unknown document property name.
Annex 15: Incremental Cost Analysis
Error! Unknown document property name.: Error! Unknown document property name.
Introduction
Brazil contains 15-20% of all known species in the world, a significant number of which are found only in Brazil. However, more than 90% of the Atlantic Forest biome, more than 50% of the Cerrado and Caatinga Biomes and more than 15% of the Amazon forest biome have already been deforested and currently more than 600 animal species are officially recognized by the Federal Government of Brazil as threatened with extinction. Helping to prevent such extinctions would bring significant global environmental benefits. Other transboundary and global benefits that would arise through conservation of Brazil’s biodiversity are carbon storage, reduction of atmospheric emissions and support to water cycling. Brazil’s public and private sectors have significant impacts on this biodiversity. In particular, managing the policy and regulatory environment that the public sector provides for private enterprises and managing the private sector’s response to this has great potential to reduce pressures on Brazil’s biodiversity.
The National Biodiversity Mainstreaming and Institutional Consolidation Project seeks to promote the mainstreaming of biodiversity at national level in key government and private sector planning strategies and practices; and to consolidate and strengthen institutional capacity to produce biodiversity information relevant to mainstreaming.. This objective will be accomplished by the following project components through three technical components: i) mainstreaming biodiversity into selected government and economic sectors; ii) mainstreaming biodiversity into the private sector; and iii) institutional consolidation and generation of biodiversity information for policy making.
Baseline Scenario
Scope: While the importance of Brazil’s biodiversity is widely recognized both within and outside the country and numerous efforts to conserve this biodiversity exist. However, many of these initiatives are carried out in isolation, with little coordination among projects and activities. There still remain many large and important gaps in biodiversity knowledge and information, and the weakness of key parts of environmental institutions responsible for biodiversity contributed to initiatives which achieve less than their potential impact. There is no consistent, coordinated, and consolidated portfolio of biodiversity activities established by actors from different sectors. Success stories and lessons learned are at best not shared, and at worst lost. New initiatives do not benefit from knowledge generated through past activities, and possible synergies between projects and programs are foregone.
If most biodiversity activities are carried out without the full benefit of coordination with related activities, most efforts at mainstreaming biodiversity conservation are even more sporadic and isolated. While some efforts have been made to mainstream biodiversity in the public sector in areas with specific, high-profile problems (for example deforestation and highway paving in the Amazon, agricultural credit policy and river basin management), there is very little interaction between these initiatives. In the private sector, a select few companies such as Natura and Klabin (respectively the leading companies in the cosmetics and paper industries in Latin America) have developing product lines that utilize community-managed biotic resources, and other smaller enterprises have begun to incorporate some biodiversity criteria, these examples largely remain limited to niche markets. There no concerted effort to create a national-level program of biodiversity mainstreaming with consistent policy and practice objectives that reaches across economic sectors and broaches the public-private divide, nor to apply such a program on the ground.
Under the baseline scenario, very little would change in the context of biodiversity mainstreaming, information, and institutional fortitude. Some public-sector mainstreaming efforts would be carried out, largely in high-profile contexts, and limited positive impacts would be gained. Some forward-thinking private-sector entities would begin to incorporate biodiversity-friendly criteria, but largely on their own initiative and at a small scale. Governmental institutions and NGOs would continue to work to promote biodiversity conservation, yet without the strong institutions needed to achieve the full scope of positive results, nor the information network needed to share knowledge and innovations among different actors.
Costs: ($48.52): The table included at the end of this annex provides the expected baseline investment in biodiversity mainstreaming and information management over the next six years under the Baseline Scenario. This analysis has not included every small project carried out by public, private, or non-governmental actors, as there are a large number of these initiatives. However, it does include estimations of all major sources of relevant sustained funding. Investment calculated under Components 1 and 3 comes primarily from governmental sources, while the private sector are estimated to fund the majority of the costs calculated under Component 2.
The Baseline Scenario more specifically in regard to each of the project’s components is summarized below and in the table at the end of section:
Component 1: Mainstreaming biodiversity into selected government and economic sectors ($20.2 million)
Under the baseline scenario, certain mainstreaming activities continue, yet these are extremely limited in scope and impact. Some pilot projects, problem diagnosis and initial recommendations for improving policy and legislation have been produced, yet there is no coordination designed to disseminate results, or to link with work in the private sector. It is estimated that $20.2 million might be spent over the six project years in mainstreaming activities. This is all federal government funding directed towards regional consultations, the National Plan for Prevention of Deforestation in the Amazon, rural credit provision and systems, and biodiversity-friendly agriculture, and includes spending by MMA, MDA, MAPA, and IBAMA.
Component 2: Mainstreaming biodiversity in the private sector ($8.5 million)
Under the baseline scenario, improvements have been made in a number of individual areas of the private sector. However, these are limited in scope and far from achieving the benefits that would be possible through a coordinated pervasive approach that linked all activities of the private sector within a large geographic area and modified them in harmony with the policy and regulatory environment. It is estimated that $8 million would be spent over six years to promote the mainstreaming of biodiversity into the public sector. This includes funding spent by a variety of sources to encourage large corporations to report on sustainability indicators, as work by NGOs with private banks and FUNBIO financing from private partnerships.
Component 3: Institutional Strengthening and Generation of Biodiversity Information for Policymaking ($19.82 million)
Brazil has a large number of public institutions whose responsibilities include the development and provision of information on biodiversity and its components. However, in most cases, these institutions are neither coordinated among each another, nor dedicated to providing such information in a format that would be useful for policymaking. Under the baseline scenario, a large amount of biodiversity information is generated. However, this is largely uncoordinated, incomplete, and not widely disseminated. It is estimated that $19.82 would be spent on biodiversity information and institutional strengthening over the next six years. This includes financing for laboratories, the National Genetic Resources Program, the Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden, and biogeographic data on the Amazon, as well as other information generation initiatives. Funding would come from Fiocruz, the National Genetic Resources Program, JBRJ, MCT, and IBAMA.
Benefits: The baseline scenario would generate benefits, especially in the realm of biodiversity information, and would likely have local benefits in terms of limited biodiversity conservation in small areas. However, due to the fragmented nature of mainstreaming initiatives; the lack of coordination and synergies among different activities, and between the public and private sectors; the weakness of certain institutions and the incomplete nature of information generated and shared, global benefits would be limited. Under the baseline scenario, biodiversity concerns are unlikely to be substantially mainstreamed into different public and private sectors, and information generated will be insufficient or inappropriate for informing biodiversity-related policies. Total expenditures under this baseline scenario are $48.52 million.
GEF Alternative
The objective of the GEF alternative is to promote the mainstreaming of biodiversity and institutional consolidation at the national level in key government and private sector planning strategies and practices so as to contribute to the reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss. This would be a contribution of Brazil to 2010 goals and targets of the CBD.
Scope: The GEF Alternative will provide a means, above the baseline scenario, for creating the technical, institutional, and incentive-based context which will promote the mainstreaming of biodiversity concerns in Brazil, and thereby contribute to the conservation of globally significant biodiversity. It is likely that the GEF alternative, by creating consensus around policy and practice recommendations, testing these proposed solutions, creating incentives for mainstreaming biodiversity into the private sector, creating capacity for biodiversity work in other sectors, and promoting the generation of relevant biodiversity information, will substantially improve on the baseline scenario and increase the conservation of critical biodiversity in Brazil.
The alternative scenario offered by this GEF project promotes the mainstreaming of biodiversity throughout the public and private sectors, producing both changes in the regulatory environment improved practices in the private sector and resulting in significant improvements in conservation and other associated global benefits throughout Brazil.
In the public sector, this project alternative would go far beyond the baseline scenario that concentrates on specific geographic and thematic problem areas. It would develop and implement public policy approaches that would mainstream biodiversity, conservation and sustainable use throughout key government sectors to create an environment where both the public and private sectors are encouraged to adopt biodiversity-friendly products and activities. The result of this alternative scenario will be a pervasive consideration of conservation throughout the work of the public sector, leading to tangible changes to economic incentives and regulatory frameworks and public opinion in favor of biodiversity conservation.
In order to optimize the effect of these policy changes in the private sector, the proposed project would integrate its work in the public sector with pilot projects conducted through private sector partnerships involving consortia of public agencies and research centers, NGOs and private enterprises. These pilot projects would test mainstreaming activities and produce biodiversity-friendly technical innovations, best practice advice and incentives across leading productive sectors. Following this testing, the project would ensure that the knowledge gained would be disseminated throughout Brazil.
This alternative scenario would also strengthen the government’s institutional capacity to generate information relevant to the mainstreaming of biodiversity concerns within the public and private sectors by strengthening a network of thematic centers for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use associated with economic sectors, and improving the ability to monitor the effects of development activities on the remaining biodiversity.
Costs: The GEF alternative scenario includes a proposed $30 million grant from the GEF as well as $94 million in cofinancing from the Brazilian government and associated entities for Components 1, 3, and 4 and from FUNBIO, NGOs, and additional funds raised by FUNBIO for component 2. It is possible that the activities proposed under this initiative will leverage additional funding from other donors, NGOs, or private-sector institutions for related activities. However, this potential funding has not been included as cofinancing in the GEF alternative calculations.
The GEF alternative scenario contemplated here includes activities included under the baseline scenario plus those financed with the GEF grant and co-funding. The activities are organized into three technical components and one administrative component. Please see Annex 4 for a more detailed description of proposed project activities.
Component 1: Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Selected Government and Economic Sectors (Total $58.2 million, Co-financing $26 million, GEF $12.0 million)
This component of the GEF alternative will promote the mainstreaming of biodiversity considerations into different public sectors through consensus-building activities related to appropriate policies and practices, as well as the implementation of subprojects to test these recommendations and capacity-building exercises to make mainstreaming feasible. The majority of the funding will be provided by government ministries and associated organizations, which is a reflection of the commitment of these entities to the objective of mainstreaming biodiversity into their respective sectors.
Component 2: Mainstreaming Biodiversity into the Private Sector (Total $48.5 million, Co-financing $30 million, GEF $10 million)
This GEF alternative component will seek to encourage the incorporation of biodiversity concerns into private sector productive practices at a landscape scale, while also facilitating the development of instruments that promote mainstreaming and the dissemination of best practices. The majority of the funding for this component will come from FUNBIO capital and additional funds raised by FUNBIO, with the remaining amount coming from the public sector and the proposed GEF grant.
Component 3: Institutional Strengthening and Generation of Biodiversity Information for Policymaking (Total $ 60.82 million, Co-financing $33 million, GEF $8.0 million)
This component of the GEF alternative will support the strengthening of institutions responsible for developing and implementing policy responsible for biodiversity conservation, and to promote an increase in the generation, coordination, and dissemination of biodiversity information related to policymaking. The majority of the funding for this component will be provided by the institutions responsible for generating biodiversity information and for implementing biodiversity conservation activities, with the remainder provided by the proposed GEF grant.
Component 4: Project Coordination and Management (Total $5.0 million, Co-financing $5 million, GEF $0.0)
This component will implement, coordinate, supervise, and administer the activities proposed under the GEF alternative. It will also support events to generate and synthesize knowledge and disseminate information produced under the project, helping to ensure the replicability of project lessons in other contexts. This component will be financed entirely by government cofinancing; no GEF funds will be applied.
Benefits: Benefits of the GEF alternative scenario include not only those presented under the baseline scenario, but also further local, national, and global benefits secured because of the activities included in the alternative scenario. In addition to the benefits of the baseline scenario, incremental benefits to the global community expected under the GEF alternative scenario include a decrease in the loss of globally-significant Brazilian biodiversity, which will directly contribute to the global CBD 2010 targets. Other global benefits related to project initiatives to conserve biodiversity, as well as the associated ecosystems, include carbon sequestration, reductions of atmospheric emissions and support to water cycling. Further global benefits include enhanced monitoring and information exchange, the generation of new capacity for biodiversity conservation, and an increased awareness of the importance of environmental services. Finally, as one of (if not the) first projects of this type, the lessons learned under this project are expected to be extremely useful to future biodiversity mainstreaming initiatives around the world. The total value of these benefits is unquantifiable, but is of unquestionable importance to the global community.
Incremental Costs
The incremental cost of this proposed project is the difference between the baseline scenario and the GEF alternative. For this project, it has been calculated to be $124 million. $30 million of this additional cost will be provided by the proposed GEF grant. The remaining $94 million has been leveraged from a variety of sources, including $ 64 million from the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (MAPA), the Ministry for Agrarian Development (MDA), the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz), the Ministry of Health (MS), the Ministry of Science and Technology (MCT), the Brazilian Environment Institute (IBAMA), the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) and the Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden (JBRJ) for Components 1,3, and 4. $30 million in cofinancing for Component 2 will come from Brazilian Fund for Biodiversity (FUNBIO) resources, as well as NGO donations and additional funds raised by FUNBIO. In addition to this agreed cofinancing, further partnerships established with state governments, the academic sector and the private sector, may leverage further funds to carry out subprojects and research projects and to participate in the nascent biodiversity information network.
The matrix below summarizes the baseline and incremental expenditures during the 6-year project period.
| |Cost Category |US$ Million |Domestic Benefit |Global Benefit |
|Component I Mainstreaming biodiversity into selected government and economic sectors |
| |Baseline |US$20.2 |Some limited help to biodiversity-related industries |Some reduction of deforestation and destruction of ecosystems|
| | | |including agriculture, tourism, local communities and |provides limited contribution to globally significant species|
| | | |exports of biodiversity-related products through isolated|and ecosystems and global cycles. |
| | | |activities such as safeguards on provision of rural | |
| | | |credit, determination of impact of natural resource-based| |
| | | |industries, and specific mitigation of environmental | |
| | | |damage caused by certain development programs has limited| |
| | | |benefits in terms of biodiversity conservation. | |
| |With GEF |US$ 58.2 |Significant increases in biodiversity-related benefits to|Much higher positive effects stemming from increased |
| |Alternative | |agriculture, the tourism industry, local communities, |promotion and coordination of mainstreaming policies and |
| | | |carbon sequestration projects, exports of |practices contributes to increased biodiversity conservation,|
| | | |biodiversity-related products, and others through the |raises awareness of importance of environmental services |
| | | |provision of natural resources and further reductions in |among government institutions, increases capacity for |
| | | |deforestation and destruction of ecosystems. Further |biodiversity-related work, better implementation of the CBD |
| | | |domestic benefits through improvements in local water |and carbon sequestration projects and contributes to |
| | | |cycling, heat balance, nutrient balance and sediment |long-term reductions to deforestation and destruction of |
| | | |balance. |ecosystems which provide critical global benefits including |
| | | | |carbon storage, reduction of harmful atmospheric emissions |
| | | | |and support to international water cycling. This would |
| | | | |directly support progress towards the global 2010 CBD |
| | | | |targets. |
| |Incremental |US$ 38.2 | |
|Component 2 Mainstreaming biodiversity in the private sector |
| |Baseline |US$ 8.5 |Industries’ implementing ISO 14 000, reporting |Some reduction of deforestation and destruction of ecosystems|
| | | |sustainability indicators, adopting certification and |would provide limited help to maintain globally significant |
| | | |carrying out best practices would lead to some limited |species and ecosystems and global cycles. |
| | | |improvements to conservation that would in turn help to | |
| | | |maintain other domestic biodiversity-related activities | |
| | | |including agriculture, the tourism industry, and exports | |
| | | |of biodiversity-related products. | |
| |With GEF |US$ 53.5 |Significant increases in biodiversity-related benefits to|Sustained changes in private sector productive behavior |
| |Alternative | |agriculture, tourism, industry,, small businesses, local |supporting significant increases in biodiversity-friendly |
| | | |communities, carbon sequestration projects, exports of |economic processes leading to significant global |
| | | |biodiversity-related products, etc. through a |environmental benefits including decreased loss of globally |
| | | |coordinated, pervasive approach to mainstreaming |significant biodiversity, increased carbon sequestration, |
| | | |biodiversity considerations into all areas of the |stabilized water flows, and reduced emissions. Also increased|
| | | |private sector, linking these with policy and regulatory |private sector interest in, and capacity for, biodiversity |
| | | |environment and disseminating lessons learned throughout |conservation. |
| | | |Brazil. | |
| |Incremental |US$ 40.0 | |
|Component 3 Institutional consolidation and generation of biodiversity information for policy making |
| |Baseline |US$ 19.82 |Limited benefits to domestic productivity and |Limited benefits to the conservation of globally-important |
| | | |livelihoods, and to scientific knowledge, through |species through applications of biodiversity information in |
| | | |information generated by current research activities. |specific public and private sector activities. |
| | | |Existing institutional biodiversity conservation capacity| |
| | | |promotes mainstreaming, though not in all sectors and not| |
| | | |to the maximum degree possible. | |
| |With GEF |US$ 60.82 |Stronger institutions, as well as increased knowledge |The production, coordination and full dissemination of |
| |Alternative | |generation, coordination and dissemination bring |efficient and targeted information about biodiversity, and |
| | | |significant benefits to biodiversity and habitat |the strengthening of relevant institutions, will the allow |
| | | |conservation through the generation of more |the public and private sectors to contribute important |
| | | |policy-relevant biodiversity information, more effective |biodiversity information to global monitoring and information|
| | | |monitoring, better national decision-making in the public|networks, help conserve key species of global importance, and|
| | | |and private sector, and more effective implementation of |promote the conservation of habitats which provide |
| | | |conservation activities. |environmental services on a global scale. |
| |Incremental |US$ 41.0 | |
|Component 4: Project Coordination | |
| |Baseline |US$ 0 |No baseline; without the GEF alternative project |No baseline. |
| | | |coordination activities would not happen. | |
| |With GEF |US$ 5.0 |The coordination of project partners and dissemination of|The coordination of different public and private sector |
| | | |information, best practices, and lessons learned |actors, and dissemination of information, best practices, and|
| | | |contribute to conservation activities that help to |lessons learned, will increase the impact of efforts designed|
| | | |support many domestic, biodiversity related productive |to conserve globally-critical biodiversity. It would also |
| | | |processes, and increase the likelihood of replication at |facilitate future mainstreaming and conservation projects |
| | | |the local and national levels. |around the world, whether to reduce deforestation and |
| | | | |destruction of ecosystems, promote carbon sequestration, |
| | | | |target protection of specific species, aim to reduce |
| | | | |atmospheric emissions or aim to promote other ecosystem |
| | | | |services. |
| |Incremental |US$ 5.0 | |
| |Total Baseline: US$ 48.52 million |
| |Total GEF Alternative: US$ 172.52 |
| |Total Incremental Costs: US$ 124 M |
Annex 16: STAP Roster Review
Error! Unknown document property name.: Error! Unknown document property name.
The Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) External Reviewer was Dr. Enrique H. Bucher. He provided these comments on the Project Appraisal Document on August 27, 2005. Observations/responses of the Project proponent appear in bulleted form below Dr. Bucher’s comments.
Scientific and technical soundness of the project
The project is scientifically and technically sound.
Identification of global environmental benefits.
The project has the potential for significant environmental benefits. Of particular importance is the idea of promoting integration and coordination of biodiversity conservation in the government sector as well as mainstreaming biodiversity conservation criteria and goals in the private sectors. If successful, the proposed actions may become a model for other countries and regions.
GEF goals
The project clearly fits within the context of GEF goals.
Regional Context
The area of intervention is of exceptional importance from the biodiversity conservation and sustainable use standpoint. Brazil is one of the mega diverse countries of the world. Its territory includes high priority ecosystems, including the Amazonian Forest, the Atlantic forests, Pantanal, Cerrado, and Caatinga.
Replicability of the project
If successful, this project would be replicable in others countries, particularly within South America.
Sustainability of the project
The project has potential for sustainability as long as it achieves concrete results that clearly show the advantages of the selected approach for mainstreaming biodiversity conservation issues in both the government and private sectors in Brazil,
Linkages to other focal areas
The project has clear connection with other priority areas, particularly those related with desertification and land use
Key issues
Strong points
This proposal is well in accordance with GEF objectives. The initiative of promoting mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation in Brazil, one of the most biodiverse countries in the world is important, necessary, and timely. The approach selected, based on mainstreaming and integration at government and private sectors is adequate and, at least in the second case, original and promising.
It is also positive that this project takes into consideration lessons learned through previous projects and initiatives funded by GEF and other multilateral and national sources.
The goal of promoting integrated management at the landscape level is very interesting and with great potential,. The challenge is daunting, but no doubt worth to pursue. If successful, it may result in a turning point regarding the way sustainable regional development is promoted, planned, and managed. In fact, this objective could easily justify a full-blown project for itself.
Points that need clarification or improvement
Background information:
Although in the introductory sections it is commented that lack of coordination at the government sector and limited involvement by the private sector are the key problems to be addressed, there is limited specific information on the root causes and barriers to biodiversity conservation in Brazil that justify the strategy and objectives adopted in this project.
Of particular importance is to analyze why (as stated in the document) “most efforts at mainstreaming biodiversity conservation have remained sporadic, uncoordinated, and isolated, despite the significant number of actions and projects developed by national and international organizations in the country.” Or, “efforts to address conservation policies and practices have not been particularly well integrated across economic sectors, among various public agencies, and between public and private sectors.” This last question is of special relevance because a) Brazil is a country in which environmental issues are important within the government structure (Ministry level), and b) this negative situation has prevailed despite an impressive list of projects funded by GEF and other granting agencies in the country. In other words, it is important to stress that the proposed actions are designed to correct (and not repeat or aggravate) the observed problems.
Another background information that would add consistency to the project is a summary of specific recommendations and outcomes of previous GEF and other projects in Brazil pertinent to this project (perhaps as an Annex). For example, selection of locations for specific field actions such as landscape-scale integrated management, or priorities for the private sector should connect with existing experiences and recommendations. On the same vein, other key aspect is the connection of this proposal with Brazil’s National Strategy for Biodiversity.
Another point that requires clarification is the following: it is stated in the document that “Present day production paradigms are responsible for gas emissions, production effluents, massive use of non-renewable natural resources, etc., which are in the basis of present-day global environment problems. Therefore, efforts made to alter these paradigms in Brazil, if successful, will have positive impact in global environmental systems: water, climate, and biodiversity in particular. “. The concept of production paradigms is not clearly defined in the document. It is clear that present environmental problems are the result of extremely resilient and complex interactions at the natural, social and economic systems, but is not clear if they could be considered simply as “paradigms.” As presented, this concept appears too over simplistic and would require clarification.
• Team Response: Thank you for this feedback. We have attempted to address each of your points below:
o It is important to clarify that the activities proposed under this project are designed to address current weaknesses preventing biodiversity mainstreaming, and not to aggravate observed problems. The subprojects currently proposed under Components 1 and 3 specifically address roadblocks to mainstreaming already identified by partner institutions. Other subprojects that will be funded by the Opportunities Fund in Component 2, as well as those that stem from the workshops in Component 1, will address further barriers identified by stakeholders during the early stages of project implementation.
o We will consider an annex summarizing lessons learned and recommendations from previous GEF projects. The selection of subprojects in Component 2 will be based directly on work done under the GEF FUNBIO project, as well as others, and outcomes of previous projects, both GEF and those funded by other donors, are incorporated into the project design. The National Biodiversity Policy, as well as the 900 Priority Areas established under the PROBIO project, are also guiding frameworks for the project.
o We will attempt to clarify the language relating to productive practices. In this case “paradigm,” defined by Webster’s Dictionary as “example, pattern; especially : an outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype,” is exactly that – the current pattern of productive practices found in relevant sectors and areas.
Objectives
This project has 4 main components: 1) Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Selected Government and Economic Sectors, 2) Mainstreaming Biodiversity into the Private Sector 3) Institutional Strengthening and Generation of Biodiversity Information for Policymaking, and 4) Project Coordination and Management. While three of them are clearly stated and justified, connection of component 3 (biodiversity information) with this project general goals and objectives is, in my view, less obvious because of the following:
a) The background information presented do not provide a clear indication that availability of biodiversity information is a relevant problem in terms of management. Of course, it would desirable to identify more species, but the point is if to what extent there is a bottleneck problem for decision making.
• Team Response: We will attempt to make this clear. The lack of relevant biodiversity information, presented in a format accessible to policy and decision makers, has been identified as a constraint to biodiversity mainstreaming.
b) Even if it is demonstrated that there is an effective need for increasing available information on biodiversity, it is not clear why another institution-program would be required, taking into consideration that Brazil has a formidable scientific and technical infrastructure in universities and research centers that could easily provide the required information, providing that an adequate system for information transfer is developed. Moreover, these academic sectors could be more efficient in providing updated information thanks to active specialists working in each taxonomic group. Whether the proposed French model is justified for Brazil requires then more explanation and justification, considering the risks of duplication of institutions and unnecessary bureaucracy. Perhaps the scientific and academic sector (CNPq, universities), one of the main stakeholders in this area, should be consulted in more depth.
• Team Response: Thank you for your comment. The Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity is intended to do exactly this – link the existing scientific and academic infrastructure to facilitate information generation and transfer. It is designed not to duplicate existing institutions, but rather to link these institutions in a way which will fill in the identified gaps in biodiversity information. CNPq has been involved in the preparation of this project; they and the leading universities would certainly be sought as primary participants in the Virtual Institute.
c) Criteria for selecting the Botanical Garden and Fiocruz for institutional support should be presented. Both cover a just a portion of the biodiversity spectrum (plants, microorganisms?), leaving others taxa uncovered (such as animals, for example).
• Team Response: This is an important point. At this moment, most of the proposed work with animals, fish, birds, and insects will be done under MMA and IBAMA. However, the project has been designed to incorporate other partners at a future date, and it is possible that some of these institutions will have a focus on other taxa.
d) Suggestion: could a “think tank” institution, where the biological, economic, and social issues are analyzed and integrated with a clear “problem-oriented” perspective, a more effective and consistent alternative regarding the project’s objectives?.
• Team Response: Thank you for the suggestion. In fact, among the responsibilities envisioned for the Virtual Institute beyond information coordination are the analysis of specific issues related to biodiversity conservation, and the creation of proposals for implementing solutions. We expect these roles to be further clarified as preparation progresses.
The concept of landscape unit of management
As a key point in the proposal, the concept of landscape unit management needs to be expanded, explained, and supported by references to technical literature. Otherwise, the reader is left with insufficient elements to understand and therefore evaluate the concept.
From the wording used in the proposal, landscape management appears to be equivalent of land-use planning and management. In principle, land use management requires the interaction and compatibility of physical, economic, ecological, and social constraints and opportunities. From the present document, it is not clear the level of “on the ground” implementation, which may range from “wishful thinking” in workshops to specific, operational management plans that involve a very complex network of stakeholders and interactions. Unless these points are clarified in the proposal, it is difficult to assess the importance and potential impact of the proposed actions. Again, it seems to me that this goal may deserve a full blown project by itself!
• Team Response: Thank you for the comment. Annexes 18 and 19 attempt to explain, in some detail, this concept. However, we realize from comments received that more clarification of landscape unit management is needed. The project envisions multisectoral, on-the-ground work with the variety of actors involved in productive processes; the forms this work will take will depend on the design of the proposals accepted for funding.
Involvement of the productive sector
Being such an interesting and innovative concept, this part of the proposal would need to be expanded to allow full understanding of the idea. From the biodiversity conservation and sustainable use perspective, the following aspects are key:
a) what is understood by incorporation of biodiversity by the private sector (please add examples, even it may appear too obvious)
• Team Response: We will work on adding examples. Again, the form the incorporation of biodiversity criteria into private sector practices will take will depend on the proposals ultimately accepted for funding.
b) What would be the criteria for considering a proposed action pertinent and relevant to biodiversity conservation?. Moreover, how “cosmetic” involvement (more related with a public relations exercise than with effective biodiversity conservation) will be avoided?.
• Team Response: Annex 18 outlines the criteria that will be used to select subprojects under Component 2. Among the criteria that will be analyzed are i) a biodiversity and natural resource assessment; ii) socioeconomic analysis of the territory; iii) evaluation of the viability of strengthening linkages between biodiversity, the natural resource base, and productive activities. This information will be combined with an analysis of the geographic area. Because of the rigorous evaluation process that will be applied, as well as the requirement of a 3:1 funding match, it is expected that only substantive proposals will be accepted.
c) How private sector involvement will be connected and reinforced with biodiversity conservation priorities within the national, regional and local government strategic planning?
• Team Response: The design of the public and private sector components of this project has been done in complete coordination, and it is expected this coordination will continue throughout the project. Component 2 will work with the public sector where public sector policies and incentives have a direct impact on biodiversity criteria in productive processes, and activities with both public and private sector scopes will be implemented with the participation of the appropriate public sector institution.
d) Suggestion: At least some goals, guidelines, and priorities for biodiversity conservation should be made explicit by the project before implementing actions with the private sector For example, priorities for agriculture, forestry, polluting industries, land development, etc.,.
• Team Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We will take it into account during the final phase of preparation.
Indicators of success
Section on indicators of success would benefit if expanded a little bit to address the following:
Mainstreaming in the private sector: The proposed criteria for assessing success is: “At least three key economic sectors incorporate biodiversity criteria and guidelines.”
More information is needed about a) how sectors are defined, b) which objective indicators will be used to assess incorporation of biodiversity criteria in the private sector that ensure concrete benefits for biodiversity, preventing “cosmetic” or irrelevant actions be labeled as biodiversity conservation. The importance of effective monitoring should not be underestimated in this case, as it may be crucial for the success or failure of this valuable initiative. As stated in the proposal, involvement of the private sector is somewhat discredited, and therefore care is required to ensure that the trend is reverted.
Coordination of government agencies at the landscape level. The criteria proposed is
that “at least one productive landscape unit for integrated conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity components will be implemented”
Again, criteria used to assess effective implementation are needed, which reflect effective, positive benefits to biodiversity. Eventually, a paragraph or two explaining Probio procedures may help.
Moreover, success in only one landscape or ecoregion suggest a rather limited achievement, taking into consideration that the project aims at implementing at least one landscape unit in each of the main Brazilian ecoregions, More justification for such a rather modest standard would be needed.
• Team Response: Thank you for these comments. This is an important issue for the project. The team recognizes the need for an effective monitoring strategy, and has tried to develop one. However, it has been extremely difficult to develop good indicators to measure the impact of biodiversity mainstreaming. We hope to improve the preliminary indicators proposed here with the help for comments from reviewers. We plan to further improve the indicators during a high-level workshop sponsored by the project during the early phase of implementation to discuss appropriate biodiversity mainstreaming indicators, and to further refine project indicators.
Annex 17: Consensus Building Strategy
Error! Unknown document property name.: Error! Unknown document property name.
Background
The Conservation and Sustainable Use of Brazilian Biodiversity Project (PROBIO), financed by the GEF and implemented by the World Bank, developed a process for the evaluation of priority areas and actions for the conservation and sustainable use of Brazilian biodiversity. Using this process, PROBIO supported five large-scale evaluations (Cerrado and Pantanal; Mata Atlantica and Campos Sulinos; Brazilian Amazon; Coastal and Marine Zone; and Caatinga) of Brazilian biomes.
Under this innovative methodology, which included the prior elaboration of documents by specialists, evaluations of the five Brazilian biomes were carried out in order to create consensus on the priority areas and actions for biodiversity conservation for the country as a whole. PROBIO first solicited bids and selected one institution per biome to manage the evaluation of existing knowledge of different biological groups, relevant human activities, and existing pressures on each biome. Each selected institution was responsible for the elaboration of preliminary reports on, and maps of, the biome, as well as for the organization of a national-level workshop to discuss the preliminary reports and carry out a spatial analysis of the biome.
The workshops, which were held in each subject biome, involved close to 1000 specialists and decision-makers from universities, public institutions and non-governmental institutions. Based on the preliminary information that had been distributed, as well as the discussions and analyses contributed by expert participants during the workshop, consensus was reached on priority areas and actions for conservation in each biome.
After the workshops, the institutions synthesized the information and published an executive summary, synthesized map, and technical report. Documents and thematic maps were made available online. Finally, PROBIO supported the publication of a book which consolidated the information stemming from the five biome-level evaluations, synthesized the recommendations, and indicated the priority areas and actions for the conservation and use of Brazilian biodiversity. One of the most impressive results of this enormous effort by government, universities, and NGOs was the creation of this tool meant for quick consultations by public and private-sector decision-makers, as well as the public in general.
The knowledge these workshops generated on priority areas and actions for the conservation and sustainable use of Brazilian biodiversity were fundamental contributions to environmental management. Because of its success, this process has been used as a model in other evaluation and prioritization exercises, demonstrating its acceptance, as well as its effectiveness in constructing consensus on specific themes.
Application of the Consultative Process
Based on the experience of PROBIO’s experience in evaluations and prioritizing conservation areas and action in the Brazilian biomes, the current project plans on carrying out a similar process to evaluate existing sector policies and the impact these policies have on the conservation and sustainable use of Brazilian biodiversity. The following steps will be applied to sector to be evaluated (agriculture, agrarian development, health, forest resources, water resources, and fishing – all of which participated in the design of this project as partners – and transport, energy, and mining, which will be included in the execution of the project.
1) Critical Analysis of Available Information (Sector analysis, identification of bottlenecks and opportunities)
The project will solicit bids and select institutions to carry out preliminary evaluations of current sectoral policies, as well as implement sectoral workshops designed to create consensus on policy and activity recommendations. The selected institutions will elaborate diagnostic studies of relevant policies. Project partners, as well as the Species Advisory Groups (existing or established under Component 1) will also contribute relevant information on their areas of specialty, and will assist in the consolidation of existing information and identification of bottlenecks and opportunities. The sectoral diagnoses, and other relevant information, will be distributed as background documents before the sectoral workshops, and will inform analyses and discussions during the workshop.
2) Preparation for Consultations with Relevant Actors (Awareness-building for government and private-sector actors)
The institutions selected to evaluate each sector will prepare a national-level workshop, identifying key actors (both individual and institutional) that should be invited to participate in the event and distributing background documents for review by the invitees before the workshop. The distribution of background documents should provide participants with a critical analysis of current sector policies and of the adjustments necessary to incorporate conservation and sustainable use into sectoral policies, plans, and activities, allowing participants to contribute effectively to the workshop.
3) Workshops (Synthesis of agreed information, formulation of proposals of solutions, and recommendations for specific changes in existing policies and mechanisms in each sector)
The sector workshops will be carried out with the participation of key invitees from each sector, including governmental and non-governmental decision makers, academics, and businesspeople, who will be invited to contribute their expert analyses and suggestions. The initial discussions should lead to agreement on a critical evaluation of sectoral activities and their impact on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and of how the sector can contribute to these goals by modifying practices and incorporating biodiversity concerns into policies. There will be a need to build consensus among the different actors, resulting in a single, joint proposal on policy and practice recommendations. Project partners will then be responsible for promoting the incorporation of these policies and practices in each sector.
4) Dissemination of Workshop Results
The sector workshops will result in a set of public policy recommendations, as well as recommendations on practices and activities. These products will be synthesized in publications and distributed by the project. These recommendations will be implemented, to the degree possible, under Components 1 and 2 of this project, as well as by other governmental and private initiatives.
Annex 18: Selection Criteria for Subprojects
Error! Unknown document property name.: Error! Unknown document property name.
While all three project components contribute directly to the achievement of the Project Development Objective (PDO), they are designed to reflect three different facets of this objective, and as such have slightly different implementation strategies. Because of this, criteria for the selection of subprojects have been adjusted to reflect the needs of each component. In each case, the Project Coordination Committee will be responsible for verifying that proposed subprojects meet identified criteria for inclusion into the project, and that they comply with all relevant Safeguard Policies.
Below are the criteria that have been adopted for the selection of subprojects under each technical component:
Component 1: Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Selected Government and Economic Sectors
The Biodiversity Mainstreaming and Institutional Consolidation Project seeks to promote the mainstreaming of biodiversity by analyzing existing public policies in areas including agriculture, rural development, and health (all current project partners), as well as other sectors like transport, mining, and energy that are considered to be important for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, either as users of biodiversity or as sectors responsible for activities that impact biodiversity.
There are two types of subprojects planned under Component 1. The first set of subprojects under this component will be selected according to thematic criteria identified during the sectoral workshops as priorities for their positive impact on the conservation and sustainable use of Brazilian biodiversity, the innovation of the solutions they propose to test in the field, and their compatibility with the National Biodiversity Policy. The selection of these subprojects will be done after a careful analysis of current policies, when the Project Coordination Committee will select the most relevant technical themes to be tested and supported through subprojects.
The execution of these subprojects will be prioritized to be implemented in the Priority Areas for Biodiversity[3] legalized in the MMA Act 126, on May 27, 2004, and which are considered priority areas for the conservation and sustainable use of Brazilian biodiversity. These 900 areas are considered priority for the formulation and implementation of the federal government’s public policies, programs, projects, and activities regarding the in situ conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of biodiversity components, repartition of benefits derived from access to genetic resources and the associated traditional knowledge, biodiversity research and inventories, restoration of degraded areas and overexploited or endangered species, and economic valuation of biodiversity. These areas are shown on the May 2004 “Map of the Priority Areas for the Conservation, Sustainable Use, and Repartition of Benefits of Brazilian Biodiversity,” financed by PROBIO and published by MMA. A copy of this map is included in Annex 23.
It may be necessary to carry out some project activities outside the identified Priority Areas. This is permitted under Act 126, which clarifies that the fact that territorial spaces are not included in the list of Priority Areas does not signify an absence, or lack of importance, of biodiversity. In these cases the Project Coordination Committee will be responsible for analyzing and approving these activities based on the importance of the activities for Brazilian biodiversity.
A second set of subcomponents under Component 1 are those which have already been defined by project partners as critical for the mainstreaming of biodiversity and increase of biodiversity knowledge, and accepted for inclusion in the project. (Please see Annex 4 for more details.) These subprojects were proposed during the project preparation phase to fill gaps in existing biodiversity knowledge, or to promote the mainstreaming of biodiversity in their relevant sector. Again, these subprojects have been accepted based on their potential to have a positive impact on the conservation and sustainable use of Brazilian biodiversity, the innovation of the activities they propose, the application of sectoral policies that transform traditional activities into biodiversity-friendly practices in the field, and their compatibility with the National Biodiversity Policy, as well as the appropriateness of their geographic location.
Component 2: Mainstreaming Biodiversity into the Private Sector
The identification and selection of regional scale landscapes with the potential for integrated biodiversity conservation and sustainable use will be based on the evaluation of a composite of different associated and complementary actions: (i) a conservation agenda that may involve creation, consolidation, management, and long term sustainability of both individual as well as mosaics of public or private protected areas; (ii) the management of natural resources, especially watershed protection and climate change associated initiatives; (iii) an agenda for sustainable use of biodiversity, involving activities such as the management of timber and non-timber forest resources, fishery resources, agroforestry; eco-tourism etc; (iv) a sustainable business agenda, involving a critical mass of local actors that show a willingness to mainstream biodiversity into leading regional production clusters or value-added chains; and, finally (v) a community development/institutional strengthening program.
Induced projects will be stimulated among regional implementing agencies key to the testing and mainstreaming of biodiversity policies and practices in the private sector, and will be grounded in a review of existing territorial governance structures utilized to channel government policies and actions by partner entities. These include, for example, clusters of agrarian reform settlements, river basin committees and protected area mosaic management structures. Criteria for selection also would give priority to existing instances of private sector cooperation or dialogue with local/state government in territorial management arrangements, the presence of a leading sector identified with biodiversity use or impact, and the potential for sectoral financial leverage for project implementation.
Information necessary for regional sub-project selection and territorial delimitation, and which will be analyzed by Opportunities Fund management, includes:
(i) A biodiversity and natural resource assessment, focusing on the potential for developing a protected area mosaic management plan as well as an associated natural resource management plan;
(ii) A socioeconomic analysis of the territory, with emphasis on identifying and qualifying the regional productive activities and their relation with regional biodiversity and natural resource bases. Additionally, focus should be directed at identifying an existing leading economic sector, agent, value added chain, agglomeration, productive arrangement or product that may serve the purpose of “pushing” a regional biodiversity mainstreaming process;
(iii) An evaluation of the viability of strengthening the linkages between the regional biodiversity and natural resource bases and regional productive activities, placing the mainstreaming of biodiversity in the context of the chosen productive regional scale landscapes and sectors.
Supporting the subproject selection process, the Knowledge Base will provide additional analyses on: (i) priority biodiversity and natural resources landscapes, (ii) regional socioeconomic analyses, (iii) conservation finance mechanisms, and (iv) best practices/alternative technologies for mainstreaming biodiversity in regional productive arrangements, processes and products.
Component 3: Institutional Strengthening and Generation of Biodiversity Information for Policymaking
This component will support the implementation of subprojects proposed by project partners to fill gaps in biodiversity information, information sharing, or coordination in Brazil, as well as strengthen institutions working with Brazilian biodiversity. In this case the subprojects may be implemented directly by project partner institutions, or by institutions selected through a bidding process. (Please see Annex 4 for more details.)
The types of subprojects to be implemented under this component include those which will rectify a lack of information on Brazilian biodiversity which is considered critical to promote biodiversity mainstreaming and to measure progress towards the achievement of the country’s CBD 2010 targets. Other subprojects are designed to strengthen specific parts of Brazilian institutions that traditionally work directly with Brazilian biodiversity, or which are initiating biodiversity mainstreaming processes, and which are considered fundamental actors in the conservation of national biodiversity. Because the nature of these subprojects means they have no specific territorial base, the only geographic criterion is that subprojects have a coverage that is as extensive as possible. The subprojects will be approved by the Project Coordination Committee based on the importance of the information generated, or capacity created, to the conservation of Brazilian biodiversity as well as their compatibility with the National Biodiversity Policy.
Annex 19: The Opportunities Fund
Error! Unknown document property name.: Error! Unknown document property name.
The project development objective of the National Biodiversity Mainstreaming and Institutional Consolidation Project is to promote mainstreaming of biodiversity and institutional strengthening at the national level in key government and private sector planning strategies and practices. A key part of this objective is to promote the mainstreaming of biodiversity into productive private sector activities and establish mechanisms which will favor continued mainstreaming in the long term. Based on the previous experiences of the Brazil Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO), as well as on lessons learned in the establishment of protected areas funds by projects such as the National Protected Areas Program (ARPA) in Brazil and the Consolidation of the Protected Areas System (SINAP II) project in Mexico, this project proposes the creation and funding of the Opportunities Fund to be housed under and managed by FUNBIO. This fund will finance activities that promote the mainstreaming of private sector activities in the long term.
The Opportunities Fund is the financial instrument for stimulating and supporting the mainstreaming of biodiversity in regional scale landscapes and private productive sectors. It will primarily provide the structuring, raising, leveraging, and managing of financial resources needed for implementing each of the private sector subcomponents. The Opportunities Fund management will include sourcing, evaluating, and supervising selected subproject investments that are fully aligned with the overall objectives of the National Biodiversity Mainstreaming project, and that have the greatest likelihood of long term sustainability and financial viability. Investment income will be used to enhance the BREOF capital base and/or to finance selected subprojects.
1. Implementation Arrangements
FUNBIO will be the Opportunities Fund manager. FUNBIO is an independent, private, nonprofit corporation that was established and funded in 1996 under the GEF Pilot Phase (US$20 million grant from GEF, US$10 million from other domestic and international partners). As designed, and now with nearly ten years of implementation experience, FUNBIO is operating under the best practices stated in the GEF's Evaluation of Experiences with Conservation Trust Funds (1998). FUNBIO’s design and objective was focused initially on stimulating private sector participation in environmental management and conservation; though the corporation has since played an important role in helping to shape the government’s environmental agenda through initiatives like ARPA, the private sector remains its primary focus.
As the Opportunities Fund manager responsible for activities planned under Component 2, FUNBIO will maintain its existing institutional design, which is based on the terms established under the original World Bank project. The basic structure includes a corporate multi-sector Board, several technical and/or advisory committees with oversight of core operational and administrative functions, and a custodial contract with an internationally selected asset manager for purposes of executing the investment policy guidelines of FUNBIO’s Finance and Investment Committee. that is responsible for investment management of FUNBIO's financial capital. The selection of the asset manager and the definition of investment policy guidelines have been carried out in accordance with Bank guidelines and supervision requirements, and are further detailed below. At the operational level, FUNBIO maintains an Executive Director and a cadre of well-qualified staff to manage operational, administrative, and financial assignments, including financial reporting and auditing tasks. Routine accounting has been outsourced to a reputable accounting firm, which provides FUNBIO's financial manager with the information required for satisfactory completion of financial management reports. In addition, in accordance with the original GEF agreement, FUNBIO is audited annually by a reputable firm approved by the World Bank. Audit reports reviewed by Bank staff have been favorable. FUNBIO has managed the Protected Areas Fund established under ARPA since 2002, and their fund management and administration has been found to be satisfactory by Bank staff.
2. Responsibilities of FUNBIO
As the Opportunities Fund manager, FUNBIO will provide the technical and administrative infrastructure, contracting specialized services and developing appropriate strategies to:
• Manage the Opportunities Fund financial resources, including the opening of specific accounts to deposit, apply, and utilize these resources.
• Oversee compliance with pertinent legal and contractual obligations as well as regulations and procedures required by the Bank[4] with regard to the Opportunities Fund financial and accounting aspects.
• Specify regulations and operational procedures for the use of the Opportunities Fund resources, to be observed and followed by executing units; and indicate the management and financial monitoring documents to be prepared by executors.
• Supervise, monitor, and control compliance with these regulations and procedures.
• Manage the charges, fees, and conditional ties related to the Opportunities Fund capital, revenue, and expenses.
• Prepare and present to relevant authorities, within and outside FUNBIO, reports and balance sheets on the use and application of the Opportunities Fund resources.
• Periodically contract independent auditors.
• Establish policies, procedures and general principles for the allocation of the Opportunities Fund capital, revenue, and expenses, including entering into and supervising contracts with specialized firm(s) for the same, as needed.
• Supervise, monitor, and evaluate the contracted asset manager(s).
3. Characterization of the Opportunities Fund
It is anticipated that the Opportunities Fund would be structured as a hybrid endowment/sinking fund. While GEF resources and initial cofinancing will be designated for the financing of territorial mainstreaming subprojects, and will be managed as sinking funds, future capital contributions may be managed as endowment funds to finance activities over a longer period. As both GEF funds and initial cofinancing will be managed as sinking funds, it is this arrangement that is detailed in this annex.
To achieve the objectives of the Opportunities Fund, and as agreed with the Bank, FUNBIO will:
• Enter into contracts with investment management specialists who can advise FUNBIO regarding prudent asset allocation strategies consistent with investment guidelines agreed with the Bank.
• Enter into contracts with internationally qualified asset managers that can provide efficient and effective custodial services at a relatively minimal cost.
• Develop and implement a fundraising strategy, in collaboration with the GEF and World Bank, with the objective of identifying new donors, private sector partnerships, and/or other mechanisms to attract additional financing for the Fund.
4. Decision-Making Structure
Under FUNBIO's existing Board structure, an Asset Management Technical Commission will be responsible for oversight of the Opportunities Fund asset allocation policies. A separate Programme Technical Commission will be responsible for selecting and recommending to FUNBIO’s Board the territorial mainstreaming subprojects. Both Commissions and the Knowledge Base operations fall under the general responsibility of FUNBIO's Executive Director. The latter Technical Commission will include members from the Biodiversity Mainstreaming and Institutional Consolidation Project Coordination Committee (including representatives of the Brazilian government) and FUNBIO Board representatives. That same Commission, when considering subproject selection, will follow the general project guidelines established by the Project Coordination Committee. The Executive Director may recruit a technical consultant and/or additional staff for the fund as needed in order to effectively and efficiently manage the BREOF operations.
5. Fund Capitalization and Management of Endowment Capital
The Opportunities Fund has been conceived with a 1:3 match; that is to say, for every dollar of GEF financing received, three dollars of cofinancing will be provided. The initial cofinancing will be provided by FUNBIO, and will not include GEF financing received under prior projects. Further funding will be sought from a variety of sources.
Fund Capitalization and Fundraising
Once operational, the Opportunities Fund will play a major role in the execution of fundraising strategies based on matching and/or leveraging complementary financial resources from partner and/or grant-making organizations. Having received the GEF grant, the fund will be able to present itself to subproject proponents and to funding agencies with sufficient leverage to attain co-funding matching targets or grant requirements. Thus, the fund will be able to secure sufficient resources to stimulate subproject proposal presentation and to provide the necessary conditions for reaching subproject objectives and targets.
In order to facilitate this fundraising, the Opportunities Fund will conceive of and implement a diversified fundraising strategy aimed at identifying, approaching and presenting matching and leveraging proposals for different donors or sources of funding. The challenges posed by biodiversity conservation and sustainable use imply the need for investment in research and development for alternative technologies and sources of energy, as well as on the development of financial and management instruments to stimulate private sector engagement in biodiversity mainstreaming, including bio-trade and other business certification and validation tools. Thus, a cofunding proposal for the conservation subcomponent of a given subproject may be proposed to conservation grant-making foundation, while a sustainable business proposition may be presented for direct co-financing or to leverage complementary private investment with the support of the IFC, CAF, BNDES, FINEP etc.
Besides undertaking its own independent initiative, the Fund will also use the same matching/leveraging strategy with different private and public participants of each subproject proponent consortium, aiming at developing specific fundraising strategies for each different component of their work plans. Once matching resources have been secured at a subproject level, both FUNBIO and consortia could return to external funding sources for additional matching and leveraging.
In short, FUNBIO intends to use the Opportunities Fund financial resources for matching and leveraging other funds both on independent or collective fund raising strategies, in order to guarantee the 1:3 co-funding ratio proposed to GEF. In that sense, the Fund will adopt a portfolio management approach for the use of FUNBIO’s resources in this project and for each of the subprojects that it may come to support.
Management and Due Diligence
FUNBIO will identify and promote opportunities for mainstreaming biodiversity that have not been previously identified. Whether identifying and prioritizing an opportunity in order to induce a subproject, or receiving a biodiversity mainstreaming proposal, the Fund will act as a portfolio manager or investment analyst, performing financial evaluation of the subproject’s workplans so as to verify either the availability of adequate start-up funding or the possibility of obtaining investment returns that will allow for a co-funding strategy capable of providing the 1:3 ratio determined by the GEF. In an effort to support financially viable subprojects, the Opportunities Fund may consider making use of different investment instruments and practices, such as revolving funds, equity investment, fees for fund management services, micro-credit and others.
6. Origin of Resources
The assets of the Opportunities Fund may be comprised of:
• Donations of goods and rights, including GEF grant funds
• Goods and rights stemming from asset revenue
• Goods and rights stemming from activities carried out with Fund support
• Other sources
Possible financial resources of the Opportunities Fund consist of:
• Financial returns derived from its domestic and foreign investments and financial applications
• Capital contributions made by individuals or public or private corporations, whether domestic or foreign, and by international agencies, expressly allocated to the Opportunities Fund.
7. Eligible Territorial Mainstreaming Subprojects
The process through which subprojects will be analyzed for eligibility is detailed in Annex 18. In summary, regional scale landscapes with the potential for integrated biodiversity conservation and sustainable use will be selected based on (i) a conservation agenda that may involve creation, consolidation, management, and long term sustainability of both individual as well as mosaics of public or private protected areas; (ii) the management of natural resources, especially watershed protection and climate change associated initiatives; (iii) an agenda for sustainable use of biodiversity, involving activities such as the management of timber and non-timber forest resources, fishery resources, agroforestry; eco-tourism etc; (iv) a sustainable business agenda, involving a critical mass of local actors that show a willingness to mainstream biodiversity into leading regional production clusters or value-added chains; and, finally (v) a community development/institutional strengthening program. Environmental and socioeconomic analyses will be assed, as will the viability of strengthening the linkages between the regional biodiversity and natural resource bases and regional productive activities. Finally, the Knowledge Base will provide additional analyses on: (i) priority biodiversity and natural resources landscapes, (ii) regional socioeconomic analyses, (iii) conservation finance mechanisms, and (iv) best practices/alternative technologies for mainstreaming biodiversity in regional productive arrangements, processes and products. The criteria for subproject selection will be overseen by the Project Coordination Committee.
8. Eligible Expenditures
The Opportunities Fund financial resources will be used to cover the costs associated with territorial mainstreaming subprojects initiated under this project, as well as future activities promoting the mainstreaming of biodiversity in the private sector. The types of expenditures eligible for coverage by the Opportunities Fund resources, as defined in a contract signed with the recipient and in accordance with World Bank regulations, will be approved by the Technical Committee based on POAs submitted by the subprojects. These expenditures will be detailed in POAs submitted by the subproject executing agencies and approved by the BREOF Technical Committees.
All procurement executed with GEF resources under the Project, whether as part of or separate from FAP, will be carried out in accordance with the latest version of Guidelines for Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits, published by the World Bank. These regulations shall prevail for all agents who are beneficiaries of Project resources.
9. Asset Management
To ensure prudent financial and investment management of the Opportunities Fund financial resources, as noted above, FUNBIO will: (a) enter into a contract with an investment expert qualified to assist with the definition of an asset allocation and overall investment strategy consistent with the investment objectives described above; and (b) as necessary, enter into a contract with an internationally qualified asset manager, which will be responsible for providing custodial services for any future capital. Both contracts, as well as the roles and outputs of the investment expert and asset manager, will be consistent with Bank investment and procurement guidelines described above. Both contracts will be duly reflected in the Opportunities Fund Operational Manual. The investment expert's responsibilities may include creation of specific investment portfolios; provision of information to facilitate the monitoring of investment results and the planning of future POA requirements; systematic performance of market research and analysis in order to identify and monitor investment alternatives; identification of long-term strategies and short-term tactics for resource applications; and provision of analysis and interpretation of investment reports submitted by the asset manager(s).
The responsibilities of the asset manager(s) may include:
• Provision of custodial services, including liquidations of purchases and sale of papers,
preparation of notes for all transactions, collection of dividends, monthly income and capital statements, as well as maintaining appropriate insurance against negligence, fraud, accidental damage, and other types of damage.
• Maintaining correspondence with FUNBIO by means of communications, written reports, and periodic meetings (as needed). Reports should include evaluations, income and capital statements, and, less frequently, analyses of applications, performance assessed according to established reference values, market perspectives, evaluations, and summaries of transactions made.
9.1 Criteria for Selection of Asset Managers
The criteria established for the selection of asset managers may be grouped into three general categories:
Investment capacity
• Demonstrated skills and consistent work to reach or exceed established reference values; flexibility; experience with balanced investment portfolios; independent research ability; organization and control.
• Representation and investment activities in Brazil; research ability; acuity in dealing with the proposal; and quality of presentation.
• Response capacity regarding the proposed investment, in terms of creativity, flexibility, and exactness; and ability to deal with the Opportunities Fund specifications.
• Costs in relation to capacity and efficiency.
Experience and reputation
• Years of experience, clientele, types of funds administered.
• Reputation in the market, clientele, references.
• Quality of management and of technical staff, in terms of: experience; ability to maintain competent professionals; individual workload, within reasonable limits; good client relations; good research capacity.
• Environmental and social responsibility, demonstrated ability to meet the client's demands in this regard.
• Experience in stock investments of the amount estimated to cover the Project's needs throughout its life span.
Security and stability
• Prudent; professional investment philosophy; history with no records of any type of condemnation by the regulatory authority regarding activities; ensure protection of assets; quality of associates.
• Responsibility and reliability in protecting assets and respecting regulations.
• Capacity and flexibility in risk administration, limits utilized, ability to diversify.
9.2 Selection Process for the Asset Managers
The selection of the asset manager(s) will be consistent with Bank procurement guidelines. FUNBIO should be assisted by the investment expert described above in preparing a preliminary list of potential Asset Manager Candidates. FUNBIO will implement the remaining steps in the selection process, including request for proposals, evaluation of proposals, and preparation of a final bid evaluation report. The results of the evaluation report will be submitted to the Bank for their information and "no objection." Subsequently, FUNBIO will negotiate the custodial services contract with the selected Asset Manager(s), and will submit the final negotiated contract to the Bank for their information and "no objection." The final, signed contract will be a condition of disbursement of funds to the Opportunities Fund account.
10. Financial Management System
FUNBIO will establish a specific financial information system for the Opportunities Fund so that accurate reports on the complexity, diversity, and volume of Fund operations may be provided readily and in a timely manner to the donors and other interested parties. FUNBIO will draw on its current financial management experience and system(s) to develop a system for the Opportunities Fund operations. If additional donors should enter in the future, subaccounts could be established for each donor, to ensure accurate accounting regarding the utilization of a given donor's resource allocation. Independent auditors will be hired to perform external audits of accounting statements and the balance sheet of the fund, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Audit reports will note compliance with Bank' regulations and practices, as well as separate opinions on the SOEs of audited projects.
The audit reports of the Fund will consider separately the accounts, statements of expenses, and statements of resources for subprojects, carried out through executing organizations. An analysis of overall financial management, control mechanisms, and demonstrated efficiency also will be performed. The annual report will consider the operations of the asset manager. Six months after the end of each fiscal year, the results of financial audits, together with copies of balance sheets, should be available to FUNBIO's Board and/or Technical and Advisory Committees, as well as donors and other relevant interested parties.
In order for its performance to be monitored by the Bank/GEF and other donors, the use of the Opportunities Fund resources will require the preparation of the following documents, to be submitted within the respective deadlines:
Annual Operating Plan (POA). The POA presents the specific objectives to be achieved the
following year, with a detailed description of the activities to be carried out during that year.
Procurement planning. This should be included in the POA and should contain all procurements
anticipated for the following year.
Semiannual progress reports. These should report on the level of achievement of the Opportunity the Opportunities Fund operational physical and financial targets during the previous semiannual period.
Financial reports and submission of accounts in accordance with Bank’s guidelines.
11. Operational Manual
A draft table of contents for the Opportunities Fund Operational Manual is presented below. The final manual will be a condition of grant effectiveness.
Background
Structure the Opportunities Fund
I. Mission and Objectives
2. Program components
3. Selection criteria for eligibility of subprojects
4. Description of FUNBIO
5. Organizational chart of FUNBIO and where the Opportunities Fund is located
6. Rules for the Technical Commission of the Opportunities Fund
7. Responsibilities of the Opportunities Fund Director
8. Responsibilities of the managers of the subprojects
9. Conflicts of interest and how to resolve them
Management and use of the financial resources
1. Financial management of the capital (including spending rules)
2. Distribution of resources for the project
3. Eligible activities
4. Emergency funds
5. Fundraising strategy
Procedures to operate the program
1. Project cycle and timetable
2. Requirements to approve the Annual Operational Plans
3. Reports
4. Timetable for reports and disbursements to the subprojects
Monitoring and Evaluation
1. Importance of the M&E program
2. Technical reports
3. Role of management plans in M&E program
Administrative procedures
1. Purchases
2. Contractual services
3. Complementary staffing
4. General accounting systems
5. Registry of accounts
6. Bank accounts
7. Disbursements
8. Budget planning
9. Transfer
10. Inventories
11. Bookkeeping
12. Auditing procedures
Government cofinancing for blended public-private activities
Annexes (including investment expert and asset manager contracts)
Form - POA
Form- Bi-annual reports
Annex 20: Regional Productive Landscapes for Biodiversity Mainstreaming
Error! Unknown document property name.: Error! Unknown document property name.
The work done under Component 2 of this project will be based on the regional productive landscape approach for mainstreaming biodiversity considerations into the private productive sector. As this approach is innovative and not defined in other sources, a brief explanation is included here.
Justification
Despite growing investment in the subject, dispersal of resources aimed at mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use in productive landscapes has limited the concrete results that may be obtained for globally important biodiversity resources. This is true because many such efforts focus on a limited component of the landscape and because broader anthropogenic factors threaten biodiversity conservation.
Strategy
The regional productive landscape strategy adopted in this project prioritizes the concentration of efforts and resources of a range of public and private agents whose actions converge on a limited number of key productive landscapes. This approach promotes synergies from physical proximity and cooperative linkages among actors in a geographically concerted series of connected actions. Efforts and resources are directed at promoting a regional scale conservation and sustainable development plan that integrates and articulates regional biodiversity and natural resources with regional economic activities so as to sustain political and financial commitments, offering opportunities for sustainable investments, employment and income generation.
Selection procedures:
The prioritization of landscapes with greater potential for hosting integrated regional projects will be based on a ranking using variables associated with (a) relevance of the biodiversity contained in those territories, (b) the importance and nature of the economic activities therein and (c) the presence of an enabling environment of institutions and governance capacity.
More specifically, the identification and selection of regional scale landscapes with potential for integrated biodiversity conservation and sustainable use pilot projects will be based on overlaying the following variables:
i) An index of biodiversity protection, focusing on the density, coverage and typology of protected areas and their management status, establishing the potential for developing protected area mosaics or biological corridors;
ii) The diversity and condition of the natural resource base, including the presence of a range of economically important geophysical resources and their level of management, use or degradation status, including watersheds, arable soils, minerals, forests, fisheries and scenic values, among others;
iii) Dynamics and level of integration among regional productive activities related with regional biodiversity and the natural resource bases, establishing the presence and growth trend of one or more leading economic sector, agent, value added chain, agglomeration, productive arrangements or products that may serve the purpose of “pushing” a regional biodiversity mainstreaming process;
iv) Potential for strengthening the linkages between the regional biodiversity and natural resource bases and the regional productive activities, through networking among a dense array of public and private institutions and governance structures capable to address these interactions (e.g., watershed management committees, regional development authorities, etc.).
Regional productive landscapes and innovation
The rise of flexible production and inventory management has allowed a return to regional importance of small and medium enterprises in a cooperative environment. Such cooperation thrives in a context of geographic proximity. This allows reduction in transactions costs and an increase in relations among different companies. Proximity and confidence offer means to reduce cost and risk, generating positive externalities. Cooperation permits that innovation networks arise as a primary instrument of regional development. Face-to-face relations lead to a flow of knowledge, facilitating learning and innovation, moving from a “learning economy” to “learning regions”. The process of learning is interactive and socially immersed in regional culture and institutions, in which research is stimulated to solve problems which arise in the productive landscape.[5]
For this reason, the project adopts the concept of integrated commodity chains and productive arrangements as a framework to incorporate biodiversity value in territorially defined production processes. Furthermore, local productive arrangements (APLs) are currently stimulated by Brazilian public policy and industry support frameworks (SEBRAE, FINEP) to promote synergies among differently sized firms in geographically delimited economic segments through specialization and subcontracting. Proximity among the various parts of such chains – firms and institutions – is expected to improve coordination and confidence among the parties, offering advantages in terms of efficiency and flexibility, as well as stimulating opportunities for innovation.
Markets, regulation and business associations may stimulate such innovation by enacting applicable codes of conduct and identifying best practices for enterprises engaged in biodiversity related activities.[6] These instruments will be deployed through partnerships in regional biodiversity mainstreaming among public institutions and the private sector.
Annex 21: Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity
Error! Unknown document property name.: Error! Unknown document property name.
The Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity is designed as a group of public and private organizations, representing the public authorities, research organisms, NGOs, as well as professional associations, seeking to unite efforts to promote initiatives on biodiversity mainstreaming. The Institute will support training and capacity building in the various sectors in Brazil to ensure that biodiversity conservation is included in the work of other Ministries, NGOs, and private sector institutions. It will seek strategies for incorporating the objective of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use into policies, programs, projects and development plans throughout the federal, state, and municipal governments as well as the private sector.
The Institute will play a considerable role in supporting the consolidation of the complex and diverse sectors in Brazil, and it will become self-sufficient by providing biodiversity services such as assessments of impacts on ecosystem health, reviews of technologies and procedures for biodiversity management, and other services for projects and programs being implemented in many sectors in Brazil. As no institution with this capability or responsibility currently exists, the Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity will play an important role in mainstreaming biodiversity into all relevant sectors.
The Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity will be based on innovative structure of the “Institut Français de la Biodiversité” (). However, it will not restrict itself to research, but rather provide support to all kinds of activities proposed under the different components of the project. This Institute will be formed as a consortium of existing and newly created institutions from different sectors, in a network platform. The institutions will be organized in thematic nuclei, such as environmental health, agrobiodiversity, biodiversity conservation and others.
Objectives:
1. To coordinate organizations and to create multidisciplinary approaches on conservation, use and mainstreaming of biodiversity.
The Institute will mobilize capacities of many national organizations on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity to facilitate the implementation of actions and promote the mainstreaming of biodiversity themes in various sectors of the government and private sectors. Coordinating various institutions in a network will enable a more effective structure, approach, and method to contribute to coherent efforts and outcomes, rather than individual efforts by each organization. The Institute will also stimulate working groups on biodiversity issues, and will look for associations with different organizations. It will also provide services in the area of economic sector planning to incorporate biodiversity aspects in to other sectors.
To strengthen capacity in order to respond to the demands for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
The Institute will mobilize national entities on conservation and sustainable use of Brazilian biodiversity to facilitate the preparation and implementation of the policies, plans, projects and actions. It will strengthen capacity of relevant institutions in a way to answer social demands and create a necessary approach towards biodiversity conservation and use, to be able to address the problems of biome management and restoration, clean agriculture, and sustainable management of terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals. It will provide a space for institutional and technical cooperation among the partners of the project in order to facilitate active execution of common actions, allowing exchange and interactions on technologies, staff, and experiences.
3. To diffuse and communicate biodiversity knowledge and best practices
The Institute will develop an internet-based information platform which will provide users with state of art information on biodiversity use, conservation and management, and on the main on-going initiatives of the Institute. This virtual space will offer a forum to foster ideas and dialogues among all participants from different sectors.
4. Contribute to foster new proposals and implementation of policies
Through self-initiated studies and programs, as well as activities contracted by other organizations, the Institute will stimulate and harmonize activities related to national biodiversity policies and the implementation of the CBD in Brazil. By synthesizing the information and lessons resulting from its other activities, the Institute will be able to promote work on biodiversity-related policies across sectors long after this project ends.
Composition and Organization:
The Institute will be preliminarily composed of the partners of the project (MMA, MS, MCT, MDA, MAPA, IBAMA, FIOCRUZ, JBRJ, EMBRAPA and FUNBIO). Other institutions with extensive experience in biodiversity information have also been identified, and invitations to join the Institute will be sent to these organizations. The Institute will be organized into thematic nuclei such as environmental health, agrobiodiversity, biodiversity conservation, sustainable use, biodiversity management, and others (see Figure 2 below). A small administrative Coordination Group will be responsible in defining areas of work on biodiversity policies and priorities, coordinating member activities, administrating consulting activities, and overseeing the implementation of the actions. The legal identity of the Institute will be defined early in project implementation in consultation with appropriate legal advisors and relevant partners before the effectiveness of the project. Possibilities include the following: civil society organization of public interest (OSCIP); social organization (OS) or foundation. These organizational forms would allow the Institute to receive the necessary resources and income to guarantee long-term viability of the network, allowing it to produce services and products relevant to the biodiversity conservation objectives.
Figure 2: Schematic drawing representing the Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity
[pic]
Annex 22: 2010 Convention on Biological Diversity Targets and their Relevance for Brazil
Error! Unknown document property name.: Error! Unknown document property name.
Through commitments made at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), governments have agreed to "achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth". Early in 2004, governments meeting at the CBD Conference of Parties agreed to development of a set of potential indicators (found at ) for assessing and reporting on whether or not this target is being achieved.
In decision VII/30, the Conference of the Parties identified eight indicators for immediate testing and several requiring further development and leading to a balanced set suitable for assessing progress at the global level towards the 2010 target, and for communicating effectively trends in biodiversity related to the three objectives of the Convention. In the recommendation five adopted by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice at its tenth meeting considers others five indicators ready for immediate testing. The indicators selected up to the date of publication are as follows:
|Indicators for immediate testing |Indicators requiring further development |
|Trends in extent of selected biomes, ecosystems and habitats |Proportion of products derived from sustainable sources |
|Trends in abundance and distribution of selected species |Application of trophic index to freshwater and possibly other |
| |ecosystems |
|Change in status of threatened species |Incidence of human-induced ecosystem failure |
|Trends in genetic diversity of domesticated animals, cultivated |Health and well-being of people living in biodiversity-based-resource|
|plants, and fish species of major socioeconomic importance |dependent communities |
|Coverage of protected areas |Biodiversity used in food and medicine |
|Area of forest, agricultural and aquaculture ecosystems under |Further indicators to be identified by WG-8j |
|sustainable management | |
|Nitrogen deposition |Indicator to be identified by WG-ABS |
|Trends in invasive alien species |Indicator for technology transfer |
|Marine trophic index | |
|Connectivity/fragmentation of ecosystems | |
|Water quality in aquatic ecosystems | |
|Status and trends of linguistic diversity and numbers of speakers of | |
|indigenous languages | |
|Official development assistance provided in support of the Convention| |
|(OECD-DAC-Statistics Committee) | |
To establish an effective process that allows evaluation of progress towards the 2010 target a number of task forces have been established to assemble data, which is already available for the various focal areas, and to use the indicators to assess progress towards the 2010 target, and communicate this target at the global level, as identified in Decision VII/30.
Each task force prepares a draft report which uses one of the indicators to contribute to the evaluation of progress towards the 2010 biodiversity by describing the status and trends of a one of the focal areas listed in Decision VII/30, paragraph 1, including, as feasible, the following information:
• Technical description of the indicator, application to various spatial scales, and assessment of its policy relevance and communication value; and
• Data sources, geographical/temporal coverage and resolution, reliability, accuracy, robustness, and uncertainty; and
• Application of the indicator to describe current status and trends, and to provide an historical baseline.
These reports are being prepared for each of the eight indicators to be tested immediately and for some (3-4) additional indicators identified as a priority to achieve a balanced set of indicators that is limited in number. It is envisaged that the outputs will be used in the preparation of the second Global Biodiversity Outlook and reviewed by a technical expert group, SBSTTA, governments and other experts.
By adopting the 2010 target the Government of Brazil is explicitly recognizing the value of biodiversity, setting goals for its conservation and holding its accountability for selected indicators. This project will enable regular data collection and evaluation of selected indicators that will be part of Brazil’s report to the CBD and collective institutional effort to measure its important biodiversity.
The project will define a set of indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services for Brazil that are rigorous, repeatable, widely acceptable and easily understood. The result will be an integration of the current knowledge available on selected indicators in ways useful to decision makers and in time to contribute to the 2010 target.
During project preparation the indicators list provided below was initially selected. Part of the project’s implementation activities will be to convey a series of consultations (workshops) with national and international experts to refine/propose and evaluate these and other indicators discuss models, data, and monitoring techniques and provide guidance to implementation and data collection.
Interdisciplinary collaboration will be essential to strengthen the scientific rigor of the indicators, to enhance their relevance to policy, and to raise public awareness of their usefulness.
Annex 23: Maps
Error! Unknown document property name.: Error! Unknown document property name.
(INSERT OFFICIAL MAP OF BRAZILIAN BIOMES AND PRIORITY AREAS FOR BIODIVERSITY)
wb157542
C:\DOCUME~1\wb157542\LOCALS~1\Temp\notes47FA61\GEF BR Biod Mainstreaming PAD September 1.doc
09/01/2005 12:45:00 PM
-----------------------
[1] For example, approximately 1500 vertebrate species are endemic, including: 11% of birds found in Brazil, 10-20% of bony fishes, 23% of sharks and rays, 25% of mammals, 37% of reptiles and 57% of amphibians.
[2] Includes 79 threatened aquatic invertebrate species, 10 overexploited aquatic invertebrates, 130 threatened terrestrial invertebrates, 159 threatened fish, 47 overexploited fish, 20 threatened reptiles, 16 threatened amphibians, 160 threatened birds and 69 threatened mammals.
i. * By supporting the proposed project, the Bank does not intend to prejudice the final determination of the parties' claims on the disputed areas
ii. [3] These areas are also known as Priority Areas for the Conservation, Sustainable Use, and Repartition of Benefits of Brazilian Biodiversity.
[4] Note that these should be in accordance with the internal regulations that guide FUNBIO's activities.
iii.
[5] Diniz, C.C. 2000. Global-Local: Interdependências e Desigualdade ou Notas para uma Política Tecnológica e Industrial Regionalizada no Brasil. Belo Horizonte: CEDEPLAR.
[6] See for example, World Bank, ISME, cenTER Aarhus (2005). Principles for a Code of Conduct for the Management and Sustainable use of Mangrove Ecosystems. Available for download at:
-----------------------
FUNBIO
Government Executing Agencies
MMA, MDA, MAPA, MCT, MS, JBRJ, IBAMA, Fiocruz and Embrapa
MMA/SBF
Opportunities Fund
Subproject Executors Component 2
Subproject Executors Components 1 and 3
Project Coordination Unit
Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity
Brazilian Center for Biodiversity Monitoring and Forecasting
CONABIO
Project Coordination Committee
[pic]
[pic]
MAPA
MS
JBRJ
MCT
MDA
FUNBIO
MMA
IBAMA
FIOCRUZ
Monit.
Center
Coordination
Group
Thematic Nucleus
Thematic Nucleus
Thematic Nucleus
Thematic Nucleus
Thematic Nucleus
41967
V.2
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- world bank unesco education
- world bank financial inclusion
- world bank poverty line 2019
- world bank financial inclusion 2020
- world bank business environment index
- world bank doing business 2020
- world bank ease of doing business 2019
- world bank doing business rankings
- world bank retiree portal
- world bank pension log in
- world bank retiree website
- world bank staff retirement plan