Document of · Web viewThe Biodiversity Mainstreaming Project is directly related to, and will contribute to, GEF Strategic Priority BD 2 (Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production

Document ofThe World Bank

Report No: 39011 - BR

PROJECT DOCUMENT

ON A

PROPOSED GRANT FROM THEGLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRUST FUND

IN THE AMOUNT OF USD $22 MILLION

TO THE

CAIXA ECONÔMICA FEDERAL

AND

THE FUNDO BRASILEIRO PARA A BIODIVERSIDADE (FUNBIO)

FOR A

NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY MAINSTREAMING AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSOLIDATION PROJECT

September 24, 2007

Sustainable Development Sector UnitBrazil Country Management UnitLatin America and Caribbean Region

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS(as of April 13, 2007)

Currency Unit = Brazilian Real (BRL)BRL 2.10 = US$1

FISCAL YEARJanuary 1 – December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACCRONYMS

ABC Agência Brasileira de Cooperação (Brazilian Cooperation Agency)ABS Access and Benefit SharingANA Agência Nacional de Águas (National Water Agency)ANP Agência Nacional de Petróleo (National Petroleum Agency)APA Environmental Protection AreaAPL Local Productive ArrangementAquaBio Integrated Management of Aquatic Resources in the Amazon ProjectARPA Amazon Region Protected Areas ProgramBGBD Below-ground BiodiversityBNDES Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (National

Economic and Social Development Bank)BP Bank ProcedureBRA/97/G31 Projeto Estratégia Nacional de Biodiversidade (National Strategy on

Biological Diversity Project)CAF Corporação Andina de Fomento (Andean Development Corporation)CAIXA Caixa Econômica Federal (Federal government bank)CAPES Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior

(Coordination for Academic Improvement)CAS Country Assistance StrategyCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCEBDS Conselho Empresarial Brasileiro para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável

(Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development)CEO Chief Executive OfficerCGEE Center for the Management of Strategic StudiesCGEN Conselho de Gestão do Patrimônio Genético (National Genetic Resources

Council)CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural ResearchCGU Controladoria Geral da União (General accountant office)CHM Clearing House MechanismCIRM Comissão Interministerial para os Recursos do Mar (Interministerial

Commission for Marine Resources)CNBS Conselho Nacional de Biossegurança (National Council on Biosafety)CNDRS Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentável (National Rural

Sustainable Development Council)

CNPq Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (National Scientific and Technological Research Council)

COBRAMAB Man and the Biosphere ProgrammeCONABIO Comissão Nacional de Biodiversidade (National Commission on

Biodiversity)CONAFLOR Comissão Nacional de Florestas (Coordinating Commission of the National

Forests Program)CONAMA Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente (National Council on the

Environment)COP Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological DiversityCTNBIO Comissão Técnica Nacional de Biossegurança (National Technical

Commission for Biosafety)CU Conservation UnitsEA Environmental AssessmentEMBRAPA Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Brazilian Agricultural

Research Corporation)EPBRS European Biodiversity Research Strategy PlatformExAs Executing AgenciesFAO United Nations Food and Agricultural OrganizationFAP Fundo de Áreas Protegidas (Protected Areas Fund)FEMA Fundação Estadual do Meio Ambiente (State Environment Fund)FGV Fundação Getúlio Vargas (Getulio Vargas Foundation)FINEP Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (Research and Project Financing

Agency)FIOCRUZ Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Oswaldo Cruz Foundation)IFR Interim Unaudited Financial ReportFNMA Fundo Nacional do Meio Ambiente (National Fund for the Environment)FUNBIO Fundo Brasileiro para a Biodiversidade (Brazilian Biodiversity Fund)FUNATURA Fundação Pró Natureza (Pro-Nature Foundation)GBIF Global Biodiversity Information FacilityGBO Global Biodiversity OutlookGCP Global Canopy ProgrammeGDP Gross domestic productGEF Global Environment FacilityGMOs Genetically Modified OrganismsGOB Government of BrazilGP Good PracticeIAs Implementing AgenciesIABIN Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network IBAMA Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis

(Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) IBGE Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (Brazilian Institute for

Geography and Statistics)IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and DevelopmentICR Implementation Completion ReportIFB Instituto Francês de Biodiversidade (French Biodiversity Institute)IFC International Finance CorporationIMO International Maritime Organization

ISDS Integrated Safeguards Data SheetISPN Instituto Sociedade População e Natureza (Society Population and Nature

Institute)IUCN International Union for the Conservation of NatureJBRJ Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro (Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden)MA Millennium Ecosystem AssessmentMAPA Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (Ministry of

Agriculture, Livestock and Supply)MCT Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia (Ministry of Science and Technology)MDA Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário (Ministry of Agrarian Development)MDGs Millennium Development GoalsMMA Ministério do Meio Ambiente (Ministry of the Environment)MONITORE National Program for Integrated Environmental MonitoringMS Ministério da Saúde (Ministry of Health)MTR Midterm reviewNBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action PlanNGOs Nongovernmental OrganizationsOAS Organization of the American StatesOP Operational ProgramOS Social OganizationOSCIP Civil Society Organization of Public InterestPAN-Bio Diretrizes e Prioridades do Plano de Ação para Implementação da Política

Nacional da Biodiversidade (Guidelines and Priorities for the Action Plan for the Implementation of the National Biodiversity Policy)

PCN Project Concept NotePCU Project Coordination UnitPDO Project Development ObjectivePIC Public Information CenterPICUS Projetos Integrados de Conservação e Uso Sustentável (Integrated

Conservation and Sustainable Use Projects)PID Project Information DocumentPMP Pest Management PlanPLEC People, Land Management, and Environmental ChangePMR Project Management ReportsPNB Política Nacional de Biodiversidade (National Biodiversity Policy)PNF Programa Nacional de Florestas (National Forests Program)PNGC Plano Nacional de Gerenciamento CosteiroPNSA National Environmental Sanitation PolicyPOA Annual Operating PlanPortalBio Brazilian Biodiversity Portal of the Clearing House Mechanism PPA Plano Plurianual (Multiyear Government Plan)PPBio Programa de Pesquisa em Biodiversidade (National Program of Biodiversity

Research)PPP Programa de Pequenos Projetos GEF Small Grants Program for the CerradoPPG7 Programa Piloto para a Proteção das Florestas Tropicais do Brasil (Pilot

Programme for the Protection of Tropical Forests in Brazil)PROBEM Programa Brasileiro de Ecologia Molecular para Uso Sustentado da

Biodiversidade (Brazilian Program of Molecular Ecology [Bioprospecting]

for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in the Amazon)PROBIO Projeto de Conservação e Utilização Sustentável da Diversidade Biológica

Brasileira (National Biodiversity Project)PRONABIO Programa Nacional de Biodiversidade (National Biodiversity Program)PRONAF Programa Nacional de Fortalecimento da Agricultura FamiliarPROSEGE Social Action Program in SanitationRBJB Rede Brasileira de Jardins Botânicos (Brazilian Botanical Gardens Network) REMA Reference stations and transects for environmental monitoringREVIZEE Programa de Avaliação do Potencial de Recursos Vivos na Zona Econômica

ExclusivaRPPN Private Reserves of Natural PatrimonyRVP Regional Vice President – World BankSBF Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas do Ministério do Meio Ambiente

(Secretariat of Biodiversity and Forests)SBSTTA Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice of the

Convention on Biological DiversitySDS Secretaria do Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Sustentável do Amazonas

(Amazonas Secretariat for Environment and Sustainable Development)SEAIN Secretaria de Assuntos Internacionais do Ministério do Planejamento

(Secretariat of International Affairs – Ministry of Planning)SEBRAE Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas (Brazilian

Support Service for Micro and Small Enterprises)SIAFI Sistema Integrado de Administração Financeira (Integrated

System for Financial Management)SINAP II Consolidation of the Protected Areas System Project - MexicoSISNAMA Sistema Nacional do Meio Ambiente (National Environmental System)SNPC National Service for the Protection of CropsSOE Statement of ExpenditureSQA Secretaria de Qualidade Ambiental do Ministério do Meio Ambiente

(Secretariat for Environmental Quality in Human Settlements, MMA)STAP Scientific and Technical Advisory PanelTCU Tribunal de Contas da União (Federal Court of Accounts)UNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Education, Science and Culture OrganizationUNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services

Vice President: Pamela CoxCountry Manager/Director: John Briscoe

Sector Director: Laura TuckSector Manager: Abel Mejia

Task Team Leader: Adriana Moreira

CONTENTS

Page

STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE............................................................................89

1. Country and sector issues..................................................................................................89

2. Rationale for Bank involvement........................................................................................13

3. Higher-level objectives to which the project contributes..................................................14

PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................15

1. Lending instrument............................................................................................................15

2. Project development objective and key indicators............................................................15

3. Project components............................................................................................................17

4. Lessons learned reflected in the project design.................................................................21

5. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection.............................................................22

IMPLEMENTATION.................................................................................................................23

1. Partnership arrangements...................................................................................................23

2. Institutional and implementation arrangements.............................................................24

3. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results............................................................25

4. Sustainability and replicability......................................................................................25

5. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects...........................................................27

6. Loan/credit conditions and covenants...........................................................................27

APPRAISAL SUMMARY..........................................................................................................28

1. Economic and financial analyses...................................................................................28

2. Technical........................................................................................................................28

3. Fiduciary........................................................................................................................29

4. Social.............................................................................................................................29

5. Environment..................................................................................................................31

6. Safeguard policies..........................................................................................................31

7. Policy exceptions and readiness....................................................................................32

Annex 1: Country and Sector or Program Background..........................................................33

Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies..............4343

Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring.....................................................................5050

Annex 4: Detailed Project Description..................................................................................6060

Annex 5: Project Costs............................................................................................................7170

Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements..............................................................................7473

Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements......................................79

Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements.......................................................................................93

Annex 9: Economic and Financial Analysis..........................................................................9997

Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues.....................................................................................102100

Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision..............................................................105103

Annex 12: Documents in the Project File..........................................................................107105

Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits.......................................................................110108

Annex 14: Country at a Glance..........................................................................................114112

Annex 15: Incremental Cost Analysis................................................................................116114

Annex 16: STAP Roster Review.........................................................................................124122

Annex 17: Consensus-building Strategy............................................................................131129

Annex 18: Selection Criteria for Subprojects...................................................................134132

Annex 19: The Opportunities Fund...................................................................................138136

Annex 20: Regional Affected Landscapes and Subprojects............................................147145

Annex 21: Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity....................................................154152

Annex 22: Analysis of Principal Public Policy Instruments with Relevance for Biodiveristy...............................................................................................................................................157156

Annex 23: 2010 Convention on Biological Diversity Targets and Relevance for Brazil...............................................................................................................................................186184

Annex 24: Outcomes, Lessons and Recommendations from Other Projects and Studies...............................................................................................................................................192190

Annex 25: Maps...................................................................................................................195193

STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE

1. Country and sector issues

With an estimated one-fifth of all known plant species within its national borders, Brazil is acknowledged as the most biodiversity-rich country in the world. Occupying nearly one-half of the South American continent, Brazil has a wide range of climate zones ranging from humid tropics to semiarid to temperate areas. These comprise several ecologically differentiated biogeographical zones (biomes). Brazil contains the world’s largest standing contiguous tropical rain forest (Amazonian forests), the world’s largest inland wetland (Pantanal), expanses of semiarid thorn forests (Caatinga), vast tree and scrub woodlands (Cerrado), and more than 7,000 linear kilometers of coastal and marine ecosystems. The country’s size and number of biomes contribute to its wide diversity of fauna and flora. With more than 55,000 species of vascular plants, Brazil is the most plant-rich country in the world. Areas such as the Atlantic forests, the Cerrado and Western Amazon have been designated as biodiversity “hot spots” due to their high instance of biodiversity and endemism. One in ten of all mammals (524 species) are found in Brazil, together with one in five of all birds (1,677), and one in eight amphibian species (517). A significant number of these species are endemic.1 With more than 90 percent of the Atlantic Forest biome, half of the Cerrado and Caatinga biomes, and more than 15 percent of the Amazon Forest biome already deforested, large numbers of biodiversity components in Brazil are in danger of becoming extinct in the very near future. Currently, more than 600 animal species are officially recognized by the Brazilian government as threatened with extinction.2

Habitat conversion and loss, invasive species and disease are the main drivers of biodiversity loss. Root causes of biodiversity loss typically fall within the following categories: demographic change, inequality and poverty, macroeconomic policies and infrastructure construction, social change, and development bias. In terms of economic activities, agricultural expansion, including plantation forestry and grazing, is the most significant threat to biodiversity, followed by invasive exotic species, forest burning, road construction, and mining. A secondary set of local factors includes hunting, overexploitation of timber and fuel wood, illegal trading of plants and animals, chemical pollution, oil exploration, hydroelectric projects, and tourism. The main impact is clear-cut deforestation, followed by erosion, flooding, soil and water pollution, landscape fragmentation, toxic runoff and water contamination, changes in ecosystem structure, air pollution, and biotic invasions (Annex 1 presents a detailed analysis of the threats and impacts to biodiversity by economic sector for the main Brazilian ecosystems).

Prevention of a potentially large loss of biodiversity in Brazil represents a significant global benefit. Efforts to alter production paradigms in Brazil through mainstreaming biodiversity principles into economic sectors will have a positive impact on global environmental systems. Such as, prevention of the loss of ecosystem services, including: water balance (air moisture, rainfall, river flow), heat balance (atmospheric and oceanic circulation), carbon balance (global

1 For example, approximately 1,500 vertebrate species are endemic, including: 11 percent of birds found in Brazil, 10 to 20 percent of bony fishes, 23 percent of sharks and rays, 25 percent of mammals, 37 percent of reptiles, and 57 percent of amphibians.2 This 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.

9

warming), nutrient balance (biogeochemical cycles, gases, and aerosols from forest burnings), and sediment balance (erosion and siltation downriver and in coastal zones). Similarly, strengthening and consolidating public sector institutions capable of implementing policies related to biodiversity will yield positive ramifications far beyond Brazil’s borders.

Mainstreaming Biodiversity in economic sectors and affected landscapes is one of the three strategic objectives of the GEF’s Biodiversity Strategy. The aim of mainstreaming is to integrate conservation goals and sustainable use of biodiversity into sectors that impact biodiversity. Mainstreaming requires participation of both the public and private sectors in order to influence the entire commodity supply chain (e.g. soybean, meat, biofuels, timber, charcoal, and mining). Successful mainstreaming can result in lasting impacts within more far-reaching socio-economic processes than strict conservation alone, but these outcomes are often realized over the long-term.

Brazilian Context for Mainstreaming Biodiversity Many institutions share responsibility for managing biodiversity in Brazil, but there have been limited efforts to mainstream biodiversity principles across sectors. Numerous ministries, secretariats, and government departments, along with hundreds of national and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), foundations, and institutes are currently implementing thousands of projects. Dozens of universities, consulting firms, and other private sector institutions are also involved in biodiversity conservation initiatives in Brazil (refer to Annex 6). Many such programs are supported by donors. Often, these initiatives have met with success. However, most remain 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 from past activities, and synergies between projects are missed.

Efforts to address conservation policies and practices have not been well integrated across sectors, among various public agencies, and between the public and private sectors.3 Despite the enormous impact other sectors have on biodiversity, and the important role biodiversity can play in these sectors (see Annex 1 for analysis), conservation initiatives are almost exclusively the domain of biodiversity and environmental stakeholders. Recently, a few projects have experienced success in extending biodiversity conservation into other sectors in Brazil. However, their impact has been limited, and government funding for this type of mainstreaming, particularly from ministries other than the Ministry of the Environment, is limited.

The current scale of biodiversity-related activities in Brazil is suboptimal. Sustainable use and conservation programs have primarily concentrated on small local, community-based economic activities. Though these types of activities may be successful in limited areas, they lack sufficient scale to make a significant contribution to halting the rate of biodiversity loss in Brazil. Large-scale coordinated mainstreaming activities4 not only combat growing threats, they also mobilize public opinion to the advantages of adopting sustainable production processes, and engage the private sector in adopting environmentally responsible business practices. In tandem, such

3 The “biodiversity sector” is not an economic sector; rather, it is the spectrum of public and private responses to concern for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. 4 Defined as activities implemented over hundreds or thousands of square kilometers.

10

activities raise society’s awareness of, and commitment to market choices in favor of biodiversity-mainstreamed products and services.

There are many complex reasons for the lack of success in mainstreaming biodiversity concerns into policy and development in Brazil. Annex 1 provides a context of these reasons, which include the following, among others:

Lack of relevant information that can be directly used into policy-making Imbalances on the political economy favoring biodiversity mainstreaming Low perceived value of biodiversity among people and markets Inequitable distribution of benefits arising from biodiversity conservation Insufficient analysis of threats and problems Geographic and spatial differences of scale Exclusion of lower-level decision makers from policymaking Differences between various 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 Lack of public sector responsibility to value biodiversity

This project is designed to test and implement solutions designed to address these factors through the promotion of policy change and the design of solutions to remedy problems identified during analyses carried out during implementation.

Country EligibilitySince ratification of its commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 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). This project will follow guidance from the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the Convention on Biological Diversity throughout project implementation.5

Country DrivenessAmong the many initiatives of the Brazilian Government taken over the last decade to reduce the loss of biodiversity was the creation of a set of interconnected instruments aimed at creating an effective national biodiversity conservation strategy and sustainable use policy and implementation programs in 1995. The first overarching initiative was the National Biodiversity Program (PRONABIO), conceived as an intergovernmental and multi-institutional program with primary responsibility to establish guidelines for the functioning of the two other following novel

5 Among the most relevant are Decisions IV/13, paragraph 4, 5, and 7; V/13, paragraph 2 (b)(iii); V/14, paragraph 10 (C); and VII/20, paragraph 4 and 13.

11

mechanisms. A second was the GEF Conservation and Sustainable Use of Brazilian National Biodiversity Project (PROBIO), with the main objective of assisting the Government in initiating 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 the next generation of initiatives such as the Amazon Region Protected Areas Program (ARPA), the Rio de Janeiro Integrated Ecosystem Management in Production Landscapes of the North-Northwestern Fluminense, the Integrated Management of Aquatic Resources in the Amazon (AquaBio), and the 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 of experience working on Brazilian biodiversity issues. Recent projects, including the First Programmatic Loan for Environmental Sustainability, the Environmental Sustainability Agenda Technical Assistance Loan, and municipal-level projects, are also breaking new ground in environmental mainstreaming. The proposed project will contribute to the implementation of the National Biodiversity Policy and meets the eligibility criteria for GEF funding according to guidelines set by the National Commission on Biodiversity (CONABIO). Some important sectoral ministries (such as agriculture, agrarian reform, and health) have already participated in project preparation, are committed to develop project activities, and have devoted substantial budget resources as counterpart funding for the project. Other sectors, such as energy, mining, and transport have also been engaged in ongoing project preparation and are expected to join in the project by the early stages of implementation. In this sense, commitments made by the energy and transport sector in the Bank’s complementary Programmatic Loan for Environmental Sustainability are instrumental in fostering constructive policy dialogue.

The participatory process followed in designing this project is one sign of the desire of numerous sectors to participate in this initiative. The design stage benefited from participation of dozens of representatives from at least 10 governmental and nongovernmental institutions with a stake in biodiversity conservation in Brazil. Many stakeholders had not previously been involved in biodiversity mainstreaming efforts. The participation of experts in sectors ranging from rural development to health to germ banks, from government, NGOs, to the private sector, has helped ensure a project design that is the best possible to overcome the constraints to mainstreaming biodiversity conservation principles across sectors in Brazil.

In March 2006, the Brazilian Government hosted the 8th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP-8). This event provided a unique opportunity to bring together the best experts and key policymakers working on biodiversity in the world. Among the main issues on the COP-8 agenda were: (a) review of the implementation of the convention and the effectiveness of its mechanisms and processes, (b) challenges to reaching the 2010 targets, (c) elimination of perverse incentives and the creation of positive incentives, and (d) implementation of the Work Program on Agricultural Biodiversity. The Brazilian Ministry of the Environment promoted several initiatives during COP-8 of the CBD, including organization of

12

several major international conferences on themes related to the CBD. With the government’s support, this project organized a high-level international workshop as a side event to the COP-8. The workshop summarized the challenges and experiences of different countries in mainstreaming biodiversity into sector policies and programs, especially in the private sector. The private sector by itself is motivated to participate in mainstreaming biodiversity in Brazil. The Business Council for Sustainable Development of Brazil (CEBDS) published a study in 2006 illustrating the relationship between business and biodiversity conservation in Brazil. This publication provides recommendations for actions to stimulate engagement of several economic sectors with the Convention on Biological Diversity to achieve a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss in Brazil.

To complement and consolidate international experiences in biodiversity mainstreaming to ensure efficient implementation of this project in Brazil, an international workshop addressing these topics in greater depth will be held during the first six months of the project. In addition, a high-level workshop aimed at fostering discussion and refinement of biodiversity mainstreaming indicators will also be held during project implementation. Such initiatives will provide a useful baseline and valuable insights for improved implementation of the project.

2. Rationale for Bank involvement

The Project is 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 capacity. These objectives are aligned with the Bank’s 2003–07 Country Assistance Strategy (CAS), “A More Equitable, Sustainable, and Competitive Brazil.” Among the long-term country goals outlined under the More Sustainable pillar 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 promotes. This project will also promote more strategic land use and implementation of integrated initiatives, key activities under the More Sustainable pillar. Furthermore, protecting forests and biodiversity has been a key element of the Bank’s strategy in Brazil for over a decade.

The World Bank has extensive experience mainstreaming environmental objectives into sectoral lending programs in the Region and is uniquely qualified to implement a project of this nature. In recent decades, the Bank has not only introduced environmental policies and procedures to integrate good environmental management into its operations, but it has also developed environmental assistance programs to help client countries integrate environmental issues into their development processes, to address their environmental challenges, and to help implement global environmental conventions. As part of its environmental assistance program, the Bank has developed a portfolio of projects with specific 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 other areas. There has been an unequivocal trend toward increased environmental lending as part of sector projects.

13

The Bank’s Environment Strategy (2001) reinforced 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 Environmental Sustainability Agenda Technical Assistance Loan (2005). The Mexican project has now entered the second phase—the 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 was recently approved for Colombia, and others are under development for Argentina and Peru.

3. Higher-level objectives to which the project contributes

The Biodiversity Mainstreaming 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 contribute directly to fulfilling 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 implementing the CBD framework as a contribution toward the Millennium Development Goals will be greatest in the largest mega-diverse developing countries such as Brazil. Thus, if the CBD is to succeed, it has to reach its objectives and targets in Brazil, since fifteen to 20 percent of the 1.5 million recognized species in the world are found within its national borders. Brazil has the world’s greatest diversity of flora, with 55,000 superior plant species (approximately 20 percent of the world total) and a globally-significant diversity of fauna, including 524 spp of mammal, 1,677 avian spp, 517 spp of amphibians, and 2,657 fish spp. PROBIO is consolidating a new list of threatened species in Brazil. To date, 395 animal species are under threat of extinction according to the Ministry of Environment, NGOs and research institutions. Most threatened species inhabit the Atlantic Forest biome. For instance, of the 265 species of vertebrates included on the list, 70% come from this biome, and 100 of these species are endemic.

The Global Environmental Objective of this project is to reduce biodiversity loss in Brazil, thus directly contributing to the CBD’s global target for 2010. However, there exists an intrinsic

14

difficulty in generating a robust estimate of the real rate of biodiversity loss in a country, which is a critical piece of information necessary to meet this objective. In a preliminary attempt to address this gap, a recent set of diagnostic studies carried out by the Brazilian Government analyzed select indicators to estimate the current rate of ecosystem, species and genetic biodiversity loss in Brazil and in each of Brazil’s seven biomes (Amazonia, Cerrado, Pantanal, Caatinga, Atlantic Forest, Pampas, Coastal Zone and Marine).

Based on these data, three scenarios for the biodiversity loss in Brazil through to the year 2010 were generated yielding insight into the rate of biodiversity loss in Brazil. For example, the number of fires/1000km2/year in Brazil by 2010 are expected to be between 85 and 332. The average number of new invasive species in Brazil is currently estimated at 1 new species/year among terrestrial ecosystems and 1.8 species/years for aquatic ecosystems. By 2010 it is estimated that the number of new invasive species in Brazil will increase at a rate of up to 3.3 species per year. The results also show that the percent of remaining native vegetation in each biome through the year 2010 is: Amazonia (87%), Pantanal (81%), Cerrado (50%), Caatinga (26%), Atlantic Forest (21%), and Pampas (52%). The number of species (fauna) threatened with extinction in Brazil is estimated at 551 through to the year 2010. And, based on the worst case scenario examined, the additional number of species (fauna) that will be threatened with extinction by 2010 is estimated roughly at: Amazonia (43), Cerrado (65), Pantanal (20), Caatinga (19), Pampas (27), Atlantic Forest (329), Coastal Zone and Marine environment (49). The scenarios generated indicate that the rate of decline of Brazil’s fisheries stock between 1995 and 2001 is estimated roughly at 40%.

Although these data provide some insight into the rate of biodiversity loss in Brazil, it is clear that significant additional work is needed to obtain a valid estimate of the rate of biodiversity loss in each of Brazil’s biomes as well as for the country as a whole in order to monitor and reduce biodiversity loss.

The proposed project follows the principles, guidelines, objectives, and priorities of the National Biodiversity Policy (PNB) and the Guidelines and Priorities of the Action Plan for the Implementation of the National Biodiversity Policy (PAN-Bio). The GEF-supported National Biodiversity Strategy established both the PNB and the PAN-Bio.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. Lending instrument

The project will be financed by a $22 million grant from the Global Environment Facility. An additional $75 million in co-financing will be provided by both governmental and private sector sources. See Annex 5 for details on co-financing sources and amounts.

2. Project development objective and key indicators

The development objective of the National Biodiversity Mainstreaming and Institutional Consolidation Project is to promote mainstreaming of biodiversity principles at the national level

15

in key public and private sector planning strategies and practices, as well as to consolidate and strengthen institutional capacity to produce and disseminate relevant biodiversity information and concepts.

Three key indicators will measure progress toward this goal: At least three key government sectors6 apply biodiversity criteria and guidelines in their

plans and policies by end of year six of the Project; Tangible progress is made toward achieving at least 16 of the 50 quantitative national

targets established for Brazil as part of the CBD targets for 2010; tracked by a strategic set of monitoring indicators;

At least 1 million hectares of affected landscapes under integrated conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are established in Biodiversity Priority Areas with significant involvement by the private sector by the end of tear six of the Project.

Three intermediate results that will contribute to attaining this objective are expected under this project. These results are:

Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity incorporated into select government sectors;

Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity incorporated into key private sector planning strategies and practices; and

A consolidated and coordinated network of key Brazilian institutions working on biodiversity issues and producing relevant information for the development and implementation of biodiversity mainstreaming policies.

Initially, the project will work with ministries, NGOs, and other institutions whose mandates focus on the agriculture, health, science and technology, environment, forestry, fisheries, and water resource sectors. These sectors were chosen for both their impact on biodiversity and for the willingness of the relevant institutions to participate in the project. (See Annexes 1 and 4 for details on the selection of sectors for inclusion in the project.) It was decided to initially focus the project on the agricultural sector because the rate of loss of biodiversity has been closely linked with deforestation and land degradation caused by agricultural expansion and intensification. Institutions representing transport and energy and mining are expected to become project partners during project implementation. As Annex 18 notes, for all sectors, the impact of the proposed activity on globally important biodiversity will be the principal criterion for the selection of subprojects, and subproject indicators will reflect this focus.

If this project is successful, it will contribute to the reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss, Brazil’s contribution to the 2010 goals and targets of the CBD. This is considered the Global Environment Objective of the project. See Annex 3 for further information on project objectives, indicators, and monitoring plans.

6 “Sector” is defined in the context of the project as an area of economic activity such as agriculture, forestry, health, water resources, fisheries, mining, and energy production and transmission. This is not necessarily aligned with ministerial responsibilities since, for example, both the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Agrarian Development are responsible for overlapping aspects of agriculture and rural development policy. It is essential that both inter- and intrasectoral strategies be integrated in mainstreaming approaches.

16

3. Project components

The Project is designed to increase involvement in, capacity for, and consensus around mainstreaming biodiversity principles in Brazil. The project will initially work with the agriculture, health, science and technology, environment, forestry, fisheries, and water resources sectors. Energy, transport, and mining, among other sectors, are expected to become engaged in the project during implementation.

Project Components

The Biodiversity Mainstreaming Project is comprised of three technical components and one component on project administration, described below. Additional details on project components, including examples of activities eligible for funding, and financing breakdown by subcomponents and funding source can be found in Annexes 4 and 5.

Component 1: Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Select Public Sectors (Total: US$33.4 million, GEF US$8.4 million)

This component will incorporate conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity principles into select government sectors. Each Sectoral mainstreaming initiative will follow three steps: (a) consolidation of existing information (assessment of obstacles and alternative solutions); (b) consensus building with stakeholders (analysis of constraints and solutions); and (c) development of solutions (methods and procedures). (See Annex 17 for an example of this model). This approach is based on the experiences of PROBIO and other government initiatives in terms of consolidating information and building consensus. As a result, government agencies will dedicate attention and resources to the identification and implementation of large-scale mainstreaming opportunities at a national level that enjoy the support of relevant stakeholders. These opportunities will be tested on the ground through applied sector activities under this component, as well as through the landscape-scale subprojects developed under Component 2.

Under this component, the project will also support preparation of sectoral plans that incorporate biodiversity management practices. It will seek strategies for incorporating the objective of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use into policies, programs, projects, and development plans throughout different levels of government activity. This component involves cooperation with a number of government agencies whose sectors have a significant impact on, and use of, biodiversity, including agriculture, fisheries, forestry, water resources, health, and technology.

This component will be implemented through two subcomponents: (1.1) planning and refinement of public sectoral policies and policy instruments, and (1.2) sectoral activities incorporating biodiversity mainstreaming applied at a national level.

Activities financed under subcomponent 1.1 will include an assessment of bottlenecks and alternative solutions for biodiversity mainstreaming in the public sector; studies for biodiversity valuation; studies to develop and evaluate incentive measures for the adoption of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use as fundamental issues across the private sector, including, for example, carbon values; consensus building with stakeholders; and, development of sector plans

17

with policy recommendations. These sector plans will outline the recommended portfolio of activities, instruments, and policies to be implemented by the project and other initiatives, along with details pertaining to the expected costs, responsibilities, and timeline of each activity.

Activities financed under subcomponent 1.2 will be on-the-ground applications of recommendations adopted during the sector workshops detailed under subcomponent 1.1. Others are initiatives identified by the government as key to testing the practical application of biodiversity policy guidelines in specific sectors. Examples include incorporation of biodiversity-friendly techniques into livestock management practices, sustainable use of native species, sustainable agro-forestry development, and models to manage health risks for native wildlife. The expected result of this work will be a series of lessons learned from the practical application of a portfolio of mainstreaming tools that can then inform the future discussion of biodiversity mainstreaming in Brazil and elsewhere. Activities under subcomponent 1.2 will also contribute to the capacity-building indicator of subcomponent 3.1.

Further details on the activities to be financed under both subcomponents are provided in Annex 4 on pages 58 - 60.

Component 2: Mainstreaming Biodiversity into the Private Sector (Total US$30.0 million, GEF US$7.5 million)

This component will incorporate the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity principles into key private sector planning strategies and practices. The operation mechanism for this component will be the creation and management of an Opportunities Fund, housed in and managed by FUNBIO. Support from the Fund will be based on the assessment of proposals received and subprojects developed to address the possibility of mainstreaming biodiversity in integrated large-scale productive landscapes. This component will promote private sector strategies and policies that support biodiversity conservation by working with producer groups, associations, cooperatives, chambers of commerce, and large firms, and in coordination with existing initiatives with similar objectives. The focus on policies and strategies allows the component to have broad impact beyond that which individual projects might experience. Activities will be carried out in coordination with relevant public sector agencies. Government sectors will interact with private sector partners primarily through regional landscape projects; where conformity of environmental norms adopted by the private sector with state-wide, river basin, and municipal-level land use planning and protected area policies as well as with the enforcement of federal policies will be emphasized. The selection criteria for all subprojects will be consistent with and support the strategic priorities for biodiversity mainstreaming under GEF III.

Component 2 will be implemented in four subcomponents: (2.1) Territorial mainstreaming subprojects, (2.2) Best practices and productive/management innovations, (2.3) Fund management, and (2.4) Component 2 coordination, monitoring and evaluation. These activities will be carried out in coordination with, and with the participation of, relevant public sector agencies. Government sectors will interact with private sector partners primarily through regional landscape projects, where there will be an emphasis on conformity of environmental

18

norms adopted by private sector enterprise with statewide, river basin, and municipal-level land use planning and protected area policies, and with the enforcement of federal policies.

Subcomponent 2.1 will finance landscape-level subprojects designed to test the mainstreaming of biodiversity into private productive practices while applying public policies at the regional level. Focus is directed at identifying existing leading economic sectors, agents, value-added chains, agglomerations, and productive arrangements or products that might serve the purpose of “leading” a regional biodiversity mainstreaming process. It will also channel proposals for policy improvement grounded in needs identified by stakeholders during preparation and implementation of regional pilot subprojects. Examples could include improvement of livestock practices, environmentally responsible expansion of monocultures, improvement of productivity of small-scale farmers, mitigation of negative impacts on water resources from tourism or pollution. To ensure maximum impact on biodiversity conservation and successful mainstreaming into the affected landscape, an evaluation system has been developed to assess and rank proposals (a list of criteria is included in Annex 4).

Subcomponent 2.2 will build a Knowledge Base Facility to facilitate the assessment and selection of subprojects, and to support future mainstreaming efforts. This is an operational instrument combining a database and a website to support subcomponent 2.1 through generation or collection of information for private sector access to overcome barriers to mainstreaming by detecting deficiencies and triggering processes of business plan development. The database will help identify regions with high potential for mainstreaming biodiversity through the cross-referencing of biodiversity-rich areas with landscapes having appropriate local productive arrangements, creation and adoption of financial mechanisms that promote the incorporation of biodiversity guidelines in private sector policies and practices, and dissemination of technological innovations. The outcome of this subcomponent will be a set of tested tools and best practices for integrating biodiversity considerations into productive landscapes.

Subcomponent 2.3 will permit FUNBIO to create, manage, and secure financing for an Opportunities Fund to support mainstreaming initiatives in the private sector. The Opportunities Fund will seek co-financing of integrated large-scale productive landscape subprojects, and best practices and innovations generated and disseminated through the Knowledge Base Facility. Subprojects will be carried out in coordination with, and with the participation of, relevant public sector agencies. 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, and on returns generated by supported subprojects (Annex 19 provides more details on the Opportunities Fund).

Subcomponent 2.4 will support all Component 2 activities by ensuring efficient implementation, supervision, coordination, and administration of the Component, through financial management, procurement and audit activities, annual and mid-term reviews, independent assessments, and project closing activities. Project information dissemination and communication strategies executed by FUNBIO will also be carried out under this subcomponent. A Cooperation Agreement will be signed between FUNBIO and MMA to ensure implementation coordination between Component 2 and other project components.

19

The hydrographic basin or a group of hydrographic basins will define the limits of selected territories, since they represent natural borders encompassing productive landscapes and ecological units important for biodiversity. Integrated actions to ensure environmental inflow or assets vital for both biodiversity conservation and large-scale human economic activities (industry, agriculture and urban areas) will be supported in each selected territory by the Opportunities Fund. One of the strategies to ensure involvement of the larger-scale private sector and the achievement of the proposed territorial scale will be the inclusion of traditional agriculture commodities (soybean, sugar, coffee, cotton, etc.), combined with support for the strengthening and inclusion of other biodiversity products in environmental commodities. This latter will include support for transforming traditional commodities in environmental commodities, with the use of environmentally sustainable production practices. Since each territory will be addressed as an integral unit, respecting and strengthening existing social, economic, demographic, and biological inter-relationships, there is no possibility of selecting isolated or uncoordinated sub-projects. The task of identifying and integrating different existing or potential actors in each territory is the main purpose of the Knowledge Base Facility. Also, as the administrator of the Opportunities Fund, Funbio will influence sub-projects, causing and inducing actions, as a result of a broad consultation process in selected territories, supported under Component 2.

Component 3: Institutional Strengthening and Generation of Biodiversity Information for Policymaking (Total US$31.1 million, GEF US$6.1 million)

This component will strengthen, consolidate, and coordinate a network of key Brazilian institutions working on biodiversity issues to produce information relevant to the development and implementation of biodiversity mainstreaming policies. This network will support progress toward Brazil’s CBD targets for 2010 by promoting appropriate policies and practices and the dissemination of biodiversity information relevant to policymaking. The component will also monitor the progress made on key biodiversity indicators, including those linked to the CBD targets for 2010. These two goals are linked; the generation of relevant information requires stronger, better coordinated institutions, and the information produced will further strengthen the capacity of the biodiversity sector, especially as it relates to public policy development.

This component will be implemented through two subcomponents: Institutional strengthening (3.1) and management of biodiversity information (3.2).The Institutional Strengthening Subcomponent (3.1) will both support institutions in Brazil that are key to mainstream biodiversity into other sectors, and promote the creation of networks to fill gaps in knowledge and practice. The primary task will be an analysis of all existing projects, programs and institutions working on biodiversity in the country to verify complementarity and identify possible gaps in a desirable consistent national program. Also fundamental for this component will be the establishment and consolidation of a Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity. This will link existing scientific and academic institutions to assure access to biodiversity knowledge and the identification of knowledge gaps that are relevant for policymaking and conflict resolution. The project will support the establishment of the Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity and the Knowledge Base Facility (see component 2) – both are virtual tools that will not demand physical space and designed to become self-sustaining by

20

project conclusion. They are intended to make quality biodiversity information available and to promote synergies among public sector, private sector, NGOs and the general public, providing the means to coordinate biodiversity policies, practices and actions among all these segments. This will be achieved through mobilization of existing capacities among various organizations (Annex 21 details the structure and responsibilities of the Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity.) This “information commons” will complement PortalBio in these functions and fill a gap not currently addressed by any existing biodiversity-related agency, by serving as important mechanisms to mainstream biodiversity issues into all sectors.

The project will also support: the creation of the Brazilian Center for Biodiversity Monitoring and Forecasting within the Ministry of Environment, responsible for the government’s monitoring of national biodiversity data; strengthening and expansion of Specialized Centers for Flora and Fauna, and a Center for Health and Biodiversity (under the responsibility of IBAMA and the Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden); and applied training on biodiversity capacity to institutions from different economic sectors where biodiversity was not previously a priority, or where identified capacity gaps hinder effective work (e.g. biodiversity-friendly techniques for agricultural extension agents, techniques on restoration of degraded areas, applied training on diseases and medicinal plants for local health agents). A training structure will be designed during the early stages of implementation.

The subcomponent on management of biodiversity information (3.2) will promote production and exchange of new biodiversity information relevant to policy makers, that inform the global scientific community, and that contribute towards Brazil’s CBD responsibilities. Major themes of this subcomponent will be monitoring of country-level biodiversity, progress towards CBD targets, trends in biodiversity composition and levels, causes of biodiversity loss, sustainability of production and consumption, endangered species, and conservation effectiveness. Much of these will be carried out by the Center for Monitoring and Forecasting and by members of the Brazilian Virtual Institute. Concerted coordination will avoid duplication of efforts and will facilitate standardization of indicators, procedures, and reporting for both the public and private sectors.

Details on the activities to be financed under these subcomponents are provided in Annex 4.

Component 4: Project Coordination and Management (Total US$2.5 million, GEF US$0.0 million)

This component will support all other project activities by ensuring efficient implementation, supervision, coordination, and administration of the project. The entire project will be coordinated by the Ministry of the Environment (MMA), through its Secretariat for Biodiversity and Forests (SBF) and will be executed through a contract between MMA and FUNBIO. The National Biodiversity Commission (CONABIO) will provide consultative oversight for the project on biodiversity priorities, policies, and guidelines. CONABIO will also promote mainstreaming across sectors and provide general orientation for project implementation. Other ministries and government organizations will participate in the co-financing and execution of the project

21

This component will be implemented by two subcomponents: (4.1) Project administration, and project monitoring and evaluation, and (4.2) Information dissemination and communication strategies. Additional details on the activities to be financed under these subcomponents are provided in Annex 4.

As an integral part of this mainstreaming project, co-financing has been secured, and partnerships established with other major stakeholders including the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (MAPA), Ministry Agrarian Development (MDA), Ministry of Health (MS), Ministry of Science & Technology (MCT), Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (FIOCRUZ), Brazilian Environment Institute (IBAMA), Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden (JBRJ), Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA), Brazilian Network of Botanical Gardens (RBJB), and NGOs. Other sectors, such as energy, mining and transport were engaged during project preparation discussions and are expected to join the project during implementation. Additional partnerships will also be established with NGOs, the academic sector, and the private sector (Annex 6 provides details).

4. Lessons learned reflected in the project design

This project will incorporate lessons learned through numerous biodiversity initiatives implemented in Brazil and in other countries. Most notably, the PROBIO and FUNBIO projects, with nearly a decade of experience, have both 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; leveraging matching financial and material resources; development of private financial stimuli to engage the private sector in such initiatives; development of managerial, monitoring, and information infrastructure and systems; development of partner and beneficiary networks; and a pro-active Board of Directors to affirm decisions taken by a Fund. The selection of subprojects in Component 2 will be based on work carried out by FUNBIO and other projects. PROBIO provided numerous lessons on strategies and systems for consolidating information and building consensus. PROBIO’s initial mainstreaming efforts also provided lessons on how to promote integration of biodiversity into other sectors, and established a solid basis upon which to build a network of biodiversity stakeholders. Other lessons on biodiversity monitoring and information have been drawn from projects in Brazil, including ARPA and PROBIO, and the Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rain Forests, and from projects implemented in other countries, such as the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN). The Brazil First Programmatic Reform Loan for Environmental Sustainability and Environmental Sustainability Agenda Technical Assistance Loan both provide important lessons. Other key lessons incorporated into the project strategy and design includes:

Working on a large geographic scale to develop strategies relevant in a mega-diverse country;

Incorporating participation and consensus building throughout project implementation to increase the ownership and contributions of a wide range of stakeholders;

Designing projects from the early stages with the participation of all sectors; Involving the private sector in biodiversity conservation, and creating synergies with

public sector actions;

22

Diversifying strategies to address different challenges and threats of each sector; Organizing and generating information in a manner relevant to decision makers; Affording acquisition of knowledge by many institutions.

See Annex 24 for additional information on lessons learned.

5. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection

Initially, 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, and ultimately rejected, was to simply do nothing further in the area of biodiversity mainstreaming and institutional strengthening. Several initiatives that include at least some activities of this type are already operational, (ref. Annexes 2 and 15). However, as the baseline scenario in the Incremental Cost Analysis illustrates, this “do nothing” approach is insufficient to achieve the level of mainstreaming necessary to truly make progress in biodiversity conservation in Brazil.

A further option considered 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 delayed, if not ignored altogether. In fact, it is only in the context of the proposed project that various stakeholders from both the 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 resources to the project’s mainstreaming objectives.

IMPLEMENTATION

1. Project implementation strategy and partnership arrangements

The Project will be implemented through a partnership between the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) and FUNBIO. As an integral part of this mainstreaming project, co-financing has been secured, and partnerships established with other major stakeholders including the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (MAPA), Ministry of Agrarian Development (MDA), Ministry of Health (MS), Ministry of Science & Technology (MCT), Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (FIOCRUZ), Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden (JBRJ), Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA), Brazilian Network of Botanic Gardens (RBJB), and NGOs. These partners

23

represent institutions that participated in project preparation, are committed to develop project activities, and devoted significant budget resources as counterpart funding. States will participate in implementation through project’s federal partners, some of which (e.g. EMBRAPA, IBAMA) operate through a network of operating units. Other sectors, such as energy, mining, and transport were also engaged during project preparation discussions and are expected to join in the project during implementation. Additional partnerships will be established with other ministries, museums, NGOs, the academic sector, and the private sector to implement subprojects and research projects, and to participate in the biodiversity information network.

There are other GEF biodiversity projects implemented by different implementing agencies, though again the mainstreaming, synthesis, and coordination results have been incomplete to date. Lessons from these initiatives have been incorporated into the project. The GEF-funded biodiversity projects implemented by agencies other than the World Bank are listed in Annex 2. Other GEF projects under negotiation relevant to this project have also been considered in the project’s design. Every effort is being made to coordinate strategies and activities with all of these projects.

While the proposed project will be implemented at the federal level, state governments have been involved in project preparation through the preparation of PAN-Bio. Policy changes initiated at the federal level will affect all states, and it is expected that state institutions will play an active role in the discussion of policies at the project level. Implementation of subprojects under Components 1 and 2 will allow for synergies with, and the transfer of technology to, state agencies. State monitoring and research activities may also choose to form part of the Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity or the Brazilian Center for Biodiversity Monitoring.

The Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity, created under Component 3, will establish a number of important relationships with partner organizations and networks, and with complimentary knowledge-sharing initiatives such as the Knowledge Base Facility to be developed under Component 2 and the Clearing House Mechanism Brazilian Biodiversity Portal (PortalBio). It is likely that the information collected and organized through these complementary efforts will be available for applied use through the Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity.

2. 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 comprised of all project partners and chaired by MMA has been established to oversee project activities, to ensure consistency and synergies among different implementing agencies. The Project will be executed by MMA and FUNBIO, with CAIXA acting as a fiduciary agent for the government part.

A tripartite grant agreement between the World Bank (as the GEF Implementing Agency) CAIXA and FUNBIO will be signed to implement the project. FUNBIO will be responsible for implementation of Component 2, while MMA will implement Components 1, 3, and 4. CAIXA will have the primary role of making all project disbursements and the financial execution and accounting of the government’s part of the Project.

24

Implementation agreements between CAIXA and all government executing agencies (MMA, IBAMA, JBRJ, MAPA, EMBRAPA, MDA, MCT, MS, FIOCRUZ) will be signed as a condition of project effectiveness. Implementation agreements will define each organization’s responsibilities and obligations under the Project.

Implementation of Components 1 and 3 will start with an initial allocation of GEF grant funds (not less than US$500,000 for each partner institution, and not less than US$1,000,000 for MMA) to each of the project partners (EMBRAPA, FIOCRUZ, IBAMA, JBRJ, MAPA, MCT, MDA, MMA, MS) to implement specific activities, in accordance with agreed Annual Operational Plans approved by the Project Coordination Committee. This initial allocation of GEF funds will not exceed 40 percent of the total GEF funds approved for Components 1 and 3. Subsequent allocations of GEF funds will be decided by the Project Coordination Committee based on independent assessments and reviews 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). This review will take place within 18 months of project effectiveness. This system will allow for adjustments in project execution and help guarantee maximum effectiveness by ensuring that project partners with the greatest impact execute more grant funds, while those partners that might be less successful will implement fewer activities.

GEF funds allocated for activities planned for subcomponent 1.1 will be managed by MMA on behalf of all project partners. GEF funds allocated for subcomponent 1.2 will be managed by sectoral partner ministries and agencies (EMBRAPA, FIOCRUZ, IBAMA, JBRJ, MAPA, MCT, MDA, MMA, MS) and specialized institutions to be identified. 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 project partners, while GEF funds allocated for the specialized biodiversity centers will be managed by the respective sectoral agency (FIOCRUZ, IBAMA, JBRJ,). The GEF funds allocated for subcomponent 3.2 will be managed by sectoral partner ministries and agencies (EMBRAPA, FIOCRUZ, IBAMA, JBRJ, MAPA, MCT, MDA, MMA, MS) 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 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.

3. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results

One of the primary goals of this project is to strengthen the biodiversity monitoring capacity within Brazil. The Brazilian Center for Biodiversity Monitoring and Forecasting, part of the

25

Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity, will be established to stimulate 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 throughout project implementation, and the results will be used to refine 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 on 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, such as those relating to legislation and policy. This strategy is based on lessons learned from a number of initiatives, including ARPA, IABIN, and PROBIO. Data collection and monitoring for project evaluation has been estimated at approximately $500,000, primarily financed through co-financing resources.

As detailed in Annex 3, project progress reports will be produced regularly for monitoring and evaluation of planned activities and results, allowing timely adjustments where needed, and external evaluations will be conducted at mid-term and at the end of project implementation.

Relevant sections of the Tracking Tool for the 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 address the project-level indicators. See Annex 3 for more information on the monitoring strategy and responsibilities for monitoring project results.

4. Sustainability and replicability

SustainabilityThe integrated management and harmonization of cross-sector policies for biodiversity sought by 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. Outputs produced are expected to benefit government and non-governmental decision makers in the long run, improving management effectiveness of national biodiversity.

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 a wide variety of new actors from different sectors willing to commit and integrate resources in long-term cross-cutting biodiversity approaches. The project will create a policy environment conducive to biodiversity mainstreaming in different landscapes and sectors, which will result in more stable support for biodiversity-friendly activities, once the project is finalized.

26

The significant commitments for co-financing (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 after the end of the project. The creation of the “Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity,” to be established by a consortium of existing key Brazilian institutions will promote the sustainability of biodiversity activities during and after project completion.

The creation and capitalization of an Opportunities Fund, designed to help stimulate 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 (see Annex 19 for more details) is designed to promote mainstreaming activities in the private sector long after the project has ended.

ReplicabilityThe project first aims to mainstream biodiversity in the sectors of agriculture, health, science, and technology. Replicability of project lessons and experiences will be guaranteed on two levels. First, by coordinating, sharing, and mainstreaming information, and promoting appropriate policies, this project will ensure that lessons learned through different initiatives 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, multisectoral biodiversity network will be shared with other countries in an effort to stimulate similar initiatives. The experience of building a Virtual Institute for Biodiversity for coordination of subjects linked to biodiversity is likely to be just one example that will be of interest to other countries. This proposal could help other entities in establishing methods for achieving the CBD targets for 2010. In the private sector, the landscape-level subprojects and Knowledge Base Facility will demonstrate to the public, through a planned dissemination strategy, the 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.

5. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects

Risks Risk Mitigation Measures Risk w/ mitigation

Weak coordination among several project partners in multi-structured operation.

A Coordination Committee composed by all project partners established by project negotiation, and continuous mobilization and capacity development of project partners throughout implementation.

H

Weak local capacity to execute biodiversity mainstreaming subprojects.

Proposed biodiversity mainstreaming activities to be executed directly by project partners, training and awareness raising activities.

M

Weak institutional capacity for project implementation at the federal level.

Project implementation will be supported by existing structures with proven administrative capacity for large GEF projects.

M

Federal budget constraints. Yearly assurance of specific budget line for the project in the federal budget; the use of CAIXA as financial agent for the governmental portion of the project should avoid federal year-end retention and facilitate use and

M

27

monitoring of counterpart funds.Weak project buy-in from private sector. Highly participatory project development since early

stages; co-financing secured from the private sector, among others.

M

CAIXA’s lack of experience with World Bank legal, financial management and procurement procedures.

CAIXA is a stable entity committed to the project. Bank will provide additional assistance during startup of system and supervise at 6-month intervals for at least one year.

M

Low financial management capability at FUNBIO.

FUNBIO’s staff is experienced and trained in Bank project management requirements; legal, administrative, financial management, budgeting and accounting procedures are adequate.

L

Lack of monitoring system for procurement function at MMA/SBF and possibility of too many different types of subprojects.

Adequate staffing at MMA/SBF for project procurement, preparation of Operations Manual and detailed Procurement Plan, standard procedures and documentation for subprojects.

H

Risk Assessment: H (high), S (substantial), M (medium), L (low).

Overall project risk is Medium. No issues have been identified that might pose reputation risks for the Bank.

A possible controversial aspect of this project is the decision to work with economic sectors that have not always had a sterling reputation with respect to biodiversity conservation. At first glance, the partnership between environment and industry may seem strange. However, it is precisely this type of partnership that will promote incorporation of biodiversity concerns into private sector activities. This facet of mainstreaming will have a far greater impact on biodiversity than if the project worked exclusively with the traditional public sector environmental agencies alone. 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.

6. Loan/credit conditions and covenants

The conditions and/or covenants for this grant are defined as follows:Conditions for Negotiations: (i) Operations Manual, (ii) all 10 draft cooperation agreements, and (iii) draft ministerial regulation setting procurement commission.

Conditions of Effectiveness: (i) execution of Grant Agreement, (ii) legal opinions, (iii) adoption of Operation Manual by co-recipients, (iv) signed cooperation agreements, (v) procurement commission established, and (vi) project coordination committee established.

Disbursement Conditions: (i) under category 3 – review and approval by the Bank of the first Public Sector Subproject; and (ii) under category 4 – review and approval by the Bank of the first two Private Sector Subprojects.

Dated Covenant: The financial and procurement auditors should be hired no later than 6 months after effectiveness.

28

APPRAISAL SUMMARY

1. Economic and financial analyses

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 six years according to the incremental cost analysis. The alternative scenario offered by this GEF project is to undertake an integrated, large-scale national approach that links efforts by the public and private sectors. Such an approach is essential for mainstreaming to achieve its potential, and to substantially reduce the loss of biodiversity in Brazil. At an incremental cost of $97 million (only $22 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 supports application of future conservation activities. The global benefits underpinning this incremental cost analysis correspond to the overwhelming importance of the global objectives in the integration of biodiversity conservation in the productive sectors in Brazil, and the potential for replication of mainstreaming lessons from this context. See Annex 15 for a complete Incremental Cost Analysis.

2. Technical

For a mega-diverse country like Brazil, with numerous poorly connected biodiversity initiatives, a project that both strengthens the 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 environment sector. In order to have the maximum impact throughout Brazil, biodiversity needs to be mainstreamed into both the public and private sector with a direct impact on biodiversity. At the same time, the sector needs to coordinate the information produced by strong institutions and to produce products relevant to policymaking. Only then will maximum impact be achieved.

This project will strengthen institutions currently working on biodiversity conservation, incorporate biodiversity concerns into other sectors, and provide coordination among all institutions working with, and producing information on, biodiversity conservation. The end result will be a mature, multifaceted biodiversity sector capable of contributing to both on-the- ground conservation and policymaking.

29

3. Fiduciary

Procurement: MMA and FUNBIO have significant experience with the Bank’s procurement processes and guidelines. CAIXA will not handle procurement processes. The procurement agreement will include a mechanism to ensure quality control of all procurement activities. The overall project risk for procurement was evaluated as High during the Appraisal Mission.

Procurement Plan: MMA and FUNBIO developed a Procurement Plan for the activities to be carried out during the initial 18 months of project implementation, which provides the basis for the procurement methods. The Procurement Plan was evaluated during the Appraisal Mission. This plan was agreed between the Borrower and the project and is available at SBF/MMA. 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.

Financial: MMA and FUNBIO and CAIXA have appointed qualified accountant and budget officers to oversee all aspects of financial management of the project. The institutions maintain and manage integrated management information systems (SISFIN, SIGMA II, etc). The project’s accounting systems meet the Bank’s fiduciary requirements and will produce the data needed for Interim Unaudited Financial Reports (IFRs), required for achieving satisfactory project management. MMA and CAIXA are subjected to annual and special audits by Tribunal de Contas da União (TCU) and Controladoria Geral da União (CGU). FUNBIO also has regular independent annual audits. MMA, FUNBIO and CAIXA have experience implementing Bank projects and managing Bank funds. The overall project risk for financial management and disbursements will be evaluated during the Appraisal Mission.

Operational Manual: A draft Operational Manual has been prepared and a final version will be completed before negotiations.

4. Social

The threats to biodiversity in 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. One of the greatest challenges that Brazil, like much of the developing world, faces today, is stimulating development in a manner that reduces entrenched poverty while safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystems. Such changes have also resulted in an increase in the occurrence of conflicts among resources users. This has stimulated the 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 as a means to avoid or minimize the loss of biodiversity. The proposed project, through its focus on sustainable productive activities and on incorporating biodiversity conservation into key development activities, will contribute to the development of strategies that permit economic development, poverty alleviation, and biodiversity conservation.

Stakeholder Involvement: Key stakeholders associated with the Project may be classified into two groups: governmental and private sector stakeholders. The main governmental stakeholders

30

include: federal government institutions, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (MAPA), Ministry of Agrarian Development (MDA), Ministry of Health (MS), Ministry of Science & Technology (MCT), Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (FIOCRUZ), Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden (JBRJ), Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA), and the National Commission on Biodiversity (CONABIO). In the early stages of implementation, other ministries are expected to join the project.

The main private sector stakeholders include: (a) national organizations from various private sector stakeholders, and (b) natural resource users. During the development of the Project, private companies such as Natura, Boticário, Grupo Martins, NGOs, and community associations will become active participants in different facets of project implementation.

Participatory Project PreparationInvolvement of primary stakeholders during project preparation took many different forms, including a workshop, on October 27–29, 2004, with the coordinators of subprojects of PROBIO, to determine the main aspects that a new project should have, a multi-stakeholder exercise to review pertinent programs and to develop proposals for mainstreaming biodiversity across these sectors, meetings with the partners of the project to prepare the Concept Note, and discussions with project partners to further refine the project design and proposal and formulate the incremental cost analysis. Private sector actors were involved indirectly through engagement in the Business and Biodiversity Challenge workshop, led by the Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development (CEBDS) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and more directly with reference to this project through referral by FUNBIO to business interests represented on its Board of Directors. The project also organized a high-level international workshop as a side event to the March 2006 8 th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity with the participation of the GEF and the Bank. This workshop brought together a number of different stakeholders to summarize the challenges and experiences of different countries in mainstreaming biodiversity into sectoral policies and programs, and with a specific focus on the private sector.

During project implementation, stakeholders will participate in different ways. CONABIO will act as a consultative commission for this project on questions of biodiversity priorities, policies, and guidelines, and will also promote mainstreaming among different sectors and provide general orientation for project implementation. The Project Coordination Committee will be chaired by MMA, formed of representatives from EMBRAPA, FIOCRUZ, FUNBIO, IBAMA, JBRJ, MAPA, MCT, MDA, MS, 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 responsibility for coordinating, overseeing, and evaluating implementation of all project activities, and promoting integration of the different project components. Partnerships will be established with universities, research institutions, and NGOs for the execution of project activities at the local level and for project monitoring.

Participation of local stakeholders and beneficiaries will include involvement in the planning, implementation, and monitoring of demonstration activities, and inclusion of their demands for training in sustainable management of natural resources in the project’s annual planning. During

31

project implementation there will be ongoing participation by actors involved and society in general through seminars and workshops. States will participate through project’s federal partners, some of which (e.g. EMBRAPA, IBAMA) operate through a network of state operating units. These are perhaps most important in Component 1, where a broad array of stakeholders will be brought together to discuss sectoral challenges to biodiversity conservation and to develop appropriate solutions to address these problems. To complement and consolidate the contributions of international experiences on biodiversity mainstreaming and monitoring in the preparation of this project, a more extensive international workshop on these topics may be held during the first six months of implementation.

This project is expected to work directly with a wide range of actors from the public sector, private industry, NGOs, research centers, and other groups. All project partners 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 a beneficiary of, this project, because it seeks to mainstream biodiversity considerations across a wide range of national sectors. See Annex 10, Safeguard Policies, for further information on social issues, and Annex 17 for further information on participation.

5. Environment

As noted, Brazil is extremely important to the global environment, containing perhaps 15 to 20 percent 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, while at the same time helping to preserve important natural habitats and environmental services. It will operate in all biomes of Brazil. The Environmental Assessment details the potential impact (almost entirely positive) of project activities on the environment. (See Annex 10 for more detailed information).

6. Safeguard policies

Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes NoEnvironmental 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]

*By supporting the proposed project, the Bank does not intend to prejudice the final determination of the parties’ claims on the disputed areas.

32

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/GPraw/CC209CF484469D2C8525672C007D07EE?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/BProw/47D35C1186367F338525672C007D07AE?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/5F511C57E7F3A3DD8525672C007D07A2?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/GPraw/C6B0F62BE7A10B338525672C007D078B?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/BProw/5DB8B30312AD33108525672C007D0788?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/72CC6840FC533D508525672C007D076B?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/BProw/D3448207C94C92628525672C007D0733?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/C12766B6C9D109548525672C007D07B9?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/GPraw/97FA41A3D754DE318525672C007D07EB?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/C972D5438F4D1FB78525672C007D077A?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/bytype/0F7D6F3F04DD70398525672C007D08ED?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/bytype/383197ED73D421A385256B180072D46D?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/bytype/AA37778A8BCF64A585256B1800645AC5?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/tocall/55FA484A98BC2E68852567CC005BCBDB?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/665DA6CA847982168525672C007D07A3?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/BProw/62B0042EF3FBA64D8525672C007D0773?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/71432937FA0B753F8525672C007D07AA?OpenDocument

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/47ByDocName/EnvironmentalAssessment

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/BProw/C4241D657823FD818525672C007D096E?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/9367A2A9D9DAEED38525672C007D0972?OpenDocument

http://www.worldbank.org/environmentalassessment

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. In accordance with OP 4.01, an Environmental Analysis (EA) is being carried out. While not required, an environmental management plan was developed for the project. Important findings and useful recommendations from the EA are integrated into project design (see Annex 10).

7. Policy exceptions and readiness

This project does not qualify for any exceptions from standard Bank policies.

33

Annex 1: Country and Sector or Program Background

BRAZIL: National Biodiversity Mainstreaming and Institutional Consolidation Project

Country backgroundBrazil, with the largest tropical forest in the world (the Amazon rainforest), a large geographic territory, and high climatic diversity, is considered a mega-diverse country. Fifteen to 20 percent 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 percent 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. However, we have for the first time produced an estimate combining information obtained from specialists and the literature, with inferences based on the known percentage of Brazilian species compared to world totals in some better-known groups or on intragroup proportions. We estimate that until now roughly 200,000 species (within a range of 168,000 to 212,000) have been recorded in Brazil, most of them in large taxa whose species listings are still quite incomplete or nonexistent.

The diversity of better-known taxa in the country indicates that Brazilian species correspond to about 13 percent 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 at about 2 million species. This figure should be viewed as a first approximation, given the significant gaps in our knowledge, but it leads us to conclude that Brazilian biodiversity is about 10 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.

Biodiversity in BrazilThe biological richness of Brazil faces different categories of threats and pressures. Habitat alteration and loss, overharvesting, 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, and social changes.

It is possible to obtain a good picture of the driving forces behind the loss of biological diversity in Brazil by surveying recent published work. Agricultural expansion, including plantation forestry and grazing, is the most important threat to biodiversity, followed by invasion of exotic species, burning, road construction, and mining. A set of secondary, local factors includes hunting, overexploitation of timber and fuelwood, non-sustainable use, illegal trading of plants and animals, chemical pollution, oil exploration, hydroelectric projects, and tourism. The main impact of these activities 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, and air pollution and biotic invasions, all of which differ among different economic sectors, as shown in Table A1.1.

34

Table A1.1: Primary Impacts on Biodiversity by Different Economic Sectors in Brazil*ECOSYSTEMS AND SPECIES

IMPACT ECONOMIC SECTOR

Marine and Coastal Habitat loss and fragmentation Real EstateDeforestation of mangroves Real Estate (Highway & Marina

construction)Overexploitation for consumption and ornaments

Fishing and Aquaculture

Introduction of invasive exotic species (mainly from ship ballast water)

Maritime Transportation

Pollution from pesticides and industrial effluents

Agriculture & Industry

Pollution from untreated sewage Public ServicesPollution from oil Ports & PetroleumExtinction due to unregulated tourism

Tourism

Extraction of sand Civil ConstructionInland Waters Pollution and Eutrophication Agriculture

Siltation AgricultureImpoundments and flood control Public ServicesOverexploitation for consumption FishingIntroduction of invasive exotic species

Aquaculture

Drainage and irrigation AgriculturePollution from untreated sewage Public ServicesDam construction Hydropower

Amazon Forest Illegal logging ForestryPasture and crop expansion AgricultureBurning Agriculture & Slash and Burn

AgricultureExpansion of infrastructure— highways

Transport

Habitat loss and fragmentation Agriculture & Slash and Burn Agriculture

Atlantic Forest Habitat loss and fragmentation Real EstateIllegal harvesting of firewood ExtractiveCollection of plants ExtractiveIntroduction of invasive exotic species

Agriculture

Caatinga Drylands Habitat loss and fragmentation Slash and Burn AgricultureHarvesting firewood Slash and Burn AgricultureIllegal hunting ExtractiveOvergrazing by cattle and goats AgricultureDesertification (caused by inappropriate land use)

Agriculture

Cerrado Savannas Soil erosion AgricultureIntroduction of invasive exotic species

Agriculture

35

Habitat loss and fragmentation AgriculturePantanal Wetlands Habitat loss and fragmentation Agriculture

Expansion of infrastructure—dam HydropowerIllegal hunting ExtractiveIntroduction of invasive exotic species

Agriculture & Fishing

Toxic spillage (from alcohol production)

Energy

Mercury pollution Gold MiningAmphibians Habitat loss and fragmentation Agriculture

Diseases (fungi) AgricultureAgrotoxic chemicals AgricultureIllegal trade Commerce

Reptiles Habitat loss and fragmentation AgricultureOverexploitation of meat and eggs ExtractiveExtinction—infrastructure construction (dam)

Hydropower

Birds Habitat loss and fragmentation AgricultureIllegal trade Commerce

Mammals Habitat loss and fragmentation AgricultureHunting ExtractiveDiseases HealthReduction of population size AgricultureAccidental netting (marine) Fishing

*Compiled from Conservation Biology, 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 in recent 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 toward 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 being implemented (for example, 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. Projects such as PROBIO have had some notable successes, such as with the adoption of Priority Areas for Biodiversity Conservation by the National Petroleum Agency and the National Forestry Agency. However, these successes were not mainstreamed into other sectors, nor did they extend into all policies and practices. 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.

An analysis of the forces that have contributed to the lack of mainstreaming biodiversity into policy and development in Brazil identified the following factors and the associated implications for mainstreaming:

36

Geographic 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 in policymaking. Usually, local inhabitants are left out of the decision-making process as, for instance, when the wishes of indigenous peoples are not taken into account during implementation of developmental projects. This is a major challenge that limits the effectiveness of public policies finding the most appropriate way for the population to participate and to interact with the various levels of decision-making. As the experience of PPG7 and ARPA has shown, the participation of people in decision-making is more effective for biodiversity conservation.

Inherent differences among 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 or economic 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 economic 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 was promoted by strong economic incentives (subsidies) and developmental policies (mining, highways, colonization projects, and so forth), recent deforestation is mainly the result of medium- and large-scale cattle ranching that became autonomous and profitable, despite 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), which led to an increase of productivity and a 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. 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, agroforestry or private management of natural forests), policies, financial mechanisms, and law enforcement should recognize private sector interests and economic 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,

37

forestry taxation, pollution charges, earmarked renewable resource taxes, earmarked conventional tax levies and “ecolabeling.” After ratification of the 1988 Constitution, mechanisms to transfer resources and obligations from the federal government to municipalities were created, such as for 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, what 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 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 policymakers. While much information on environmental issues in general, and on biodiversity in particular, is generated in Brazil, most often the data are 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 decision makers to ask the right questions. The authorities responsible for policy, guidelines, and rules and regulations 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 direct responsibility for biodiversity and access to relevant information, decision makers 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 that would promote conservation, or to pressure their leaders to do the same.

The National Biodiversity Mainstreaming and Institutional Consolidation project has been designed to address as many of these issues as possible. The project focuses on large landscape-level activities, which will allow it to test policies and strategies at a scale that is appropriate for conservation in such a large country. The project is highly participatory, and local experiences will

38

be transmitted to decision makers to inform policy. The project design includes different strategies and activities for each sector in order to address specific challenges to biodiversity conservation. The project brings together work with the public and private sectors, allowing for the development of important synergies, and seeks to test economic incentives to stimulate conservation in different sectors. Under the project, great emphasis has been placed on collecting and generating information in a format that is relevant to both policymakers and the general public. This will allow decision makers from the public sector to understand the importance of biodiversity conservation and assume responsibility for it. The inclusion of these elements in the project should be effective in advancing the mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation in Brazil.

Biodiversity Sector: Brazil’s response to the biodiversity crisis and challengesThis mega diverse 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 at 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 establishing 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 of assisting 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, formulated 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 the Amazon Region Protected Areas Program (ARPA), the Rio de Janeiro Integrated Ecosystem Management in Production Landscapes of the North-Northwestern Fluminense, and the FUNBIO private sector initiative (PICOS Project). The proposed project has drawn on the lessons learned through the implementation of the programs mentioned before, some of which have nearly a decade worth of experience. 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 http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sbf/chm/estrateg /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). (See Annex 2 for other related projects.)

39

http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sbf/chm/estrateg%20/politica/politica.html

As one of the main conservation strategies, the protected areas must be representative of the ecosystems targeted for conservation, and function efficiently in their protection. In agreement with other worldwide conservation efforts, Brazil is establishing a representative system of protected areas, and is one of the few countries that have 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 at all levels of government: federal, state, and municipal.

The total extent of protected areas in Brazil before the current government represented approximately 8.13 percent of the national continental territory and only 0.4 percent of the Brazilian coastal and marine zone. After COP-7 of the CBD, in February 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, nongovernmental organizations, and social movements, the National Plan for Protected Areas, where the indigenous and traditional communities’ territories will also be integrated. During 2004–05, more than 8,147 million hectares of new protected areas were created—185,000 hectares of marine areas and 7,962 million hectares of terrestrial areas. Given the low representation of marine protected areas, a working group was created to propose specific actions for the coastal and marine zone, which will be included in 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, in the belief that only with the support of all of society will it be possible to modify the reality of our environment and to allow all of society’s 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 3, 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.7 A detailed description of improvements to the legal framework is included in Annex 22.

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 national and international NGOs, foundations, and institutes are 7 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; available at http://www.mma.gov.br/?id_estrutura=14&id_conteudo=818.

40

http://www.mma.gov.br/?id_estrutura=14&id_conteudo=818

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 the 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 suboptimal. Sustainable use and conservation programs and projects have primarily concentrated on 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 halting biodiversity loss in a country as large, and with as extensive a biodiversity, as Brazil. Large-scale activities not only help combat growing threats, but also mobilize public opinion to the possibilities and advantages of adopting sustainable production processes, and raise society’s awareness, interest in, and commitment to this alternative to the point of altering societal market choices in favor of biodiversity-mainstreamed products and services.

Sectoral AnalysisThe sectors initially included in the project are among those with the greatest direct impact on biodiversity in Brazil. For example, 65 percent of the national territory is covered by native forests, with two-thirds of this territory located in the Amazon. The forestry sector accounts for 4 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) and 7 percent of exports. Brazil is both the largest producer and consumer of native wood in the world. Forests serve multiple roles as producers of environmental goods and services, including biodiversity conservation, sources of income and employment, and places of cultural and spiritual value. There is an enormous opportunity to maximize the value of the sustainable use of the forests while preventing the destruction of natural habitats, one of the primary threats to biodiversity in Brazil.

Brazil has a dense hydrographic network, with numerous rivers of great length and depth. Brazil accounts for an estimated 12.7 percent of the planet’s renewable water resources each year. Many of the rivers are especially valued for their capacity to generate hydroelectric power. The demand for hydropower has been increasing, as has water pollution, erosion, deforestation, and inefficient use of water for agriculture and mining. These factors have led to increasing environmental degradation of the country’s water resources, including sedimentation and

41

contamination. This degradation, in turn, threatens the biodiversity that depends on rivers and lakes for all or part of its lifecycle.

One of the most important sectors in Brazil, both in terms of economic production and land extension, is agriculture. Of the 4.8 million rural establishments, 85 percent are family farms (defined as less than 100 hectares). These farms represent 38 percent of the gross value of production of the sector and 76 percent of employment. The destruction of the native environment, fragmentation, introduction of exotic species, changes in water flows and nutrients, and use of chemicals all endanger Brazilian biodiversity. However, there exist many possibilities for reducing the destruction of habitats on the agricultural frontier and conserving biodiversity in even established agricultural habitats.

A related aspect is land tenure. According to a 1996 IBGE survey, 1 percent of landowners controlled almost half the agricultural lands in the country. This phenomenon is closely linked with the strong migration from rural areas to urban centers. Proposed agricultural reform efforts have the objective of making new settlements self-sufficient, with all the necessary infrastructure and support needed to earn a living from the soil. Depending on the design of these settlements, the impact on biodiversity and local natural resources might range from neutral to highly negative.

The health sector is increasingly recognizing the relationship between human health, animal health, and the environment. Numerous diseases are transmitted between humans and animals or insects. Some of these, such as West Nile virus or avian flu, have the potential to modify entire ecosystems because they severely reduce one or a few key species in the food chain. The ability to understand the role biodiversity plays in facilitating or hindering the spread of diseases, and the impact these diseases have on biodiversity, is important to advanced conservation efforts.

The improvement of the scientific and technological knowledge base in Brazil has been signaled as one of the most important conditions necessary to successfully apply sustainable development strategies. While substantial effort has been put into this field in the past, important knowledge gaps still remain. Science and technology are seen as a system for linking environmental protection and productive activities within a rational development process.

Other sectors such as mining, transportation, energy, and tourism also have strong impacts on biodiversity. Although the institutions responsible for these sectors did not accept the invitation to participate in project preparation, it is expected that they will be incorporated into the project during the implementation phase.

A primary focus of this proposed project is to work with national-level policies of the sectors that most impact biodiversity conservation in order to propose modifications that would make national laws and regulations more biodiversity friendly. During preparation, a preliminary analysis of the most relevant public policy instruments in each sector included initially in the project was carried out. During implementation, consultants will be contracted to further analyze sectoral policies, and this analysis will provide crucial background information for the workshops that will bring stakeholders together to identify which instruments most need to be

42

modified and propose strategies for moving forward (Component 1). Annex 22 presents a table summarizing the initial analysis of public policy instruments impacting biodiversity.

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, and these policies often are 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 nonrenewable natural resources, and so forth, that are the basis of present-day global environment problems. Efforts made to alter these paradigms in Brazil, if successful, will have a positive impact on global environmental systems—water, climate, and biodiversity in particular. A project of this scale in Brazil is truly a project with global impacts.

43

Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies


Brazil has an enormous portfolio of projects related to biodiversity, both at the federal and state level. Most projects focus directly on the conservation or restoration of biodiversity; the ARPA, Paraná, and Rio de Janeiro projects, detailed below, play a critical role in this area. While these projects and others have had an impact on Brazilian biodiversity, there has been less than optimal coordination among said projects, and limited focus on mainstreaming biodiversity principles, in particular. Projects such as the regional Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN) have begun to make contributions to the collation and processing of biodiversity information on a regional scale. And, despite its hemispheric scope, IABIN will provide many of the national contributions to the proposed project. Select projects, such as PROBIO and FUNBIO, and the First Programmatic Reform Loan for Environmental Sustainability, have started to make substantial progress in mainstreaming biodiversity principles into many sectors. However, this work remains incomplete and uncoordinated. The proposed Project will draw on the success and lessons learned of these projects to promote more extensive and effective biodiversity mainstreaming and institutional strengthening across sectors in Brazil.

I Key GEF-funded, IBRD-implemented Projects

1. Amazon Region Protected Areas Program (ARPA): IBRD, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$30.35 M), GEF CEO Endorsed, contract signed with FUNBIO on 24/10/2002, National Executing Agencies: MMA/SBF, IBAMA & FUNBIO, Implementation period: 2003 – 2013. http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sca/arpa/, http://www.gefonline.org/projectDetails.cfm?projID=771

2. Building the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN): IBRD, Enabling Activity, GEF Grant (US$6.0 M) [PDF-B US$0.65], GEF Council Approved, Regional Executing Agency: OAS, National Executing Agency: MMA. Regional project involving: 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. Effectiveness dates: 2004 – 2010. http://www.iabin.net/english/index.shtml

3. Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO): IBRD, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$20.00 M), GEF Council Approved, Contract signed June 1996 with Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV), National Executing Agency: FGV, Implementation period: 1996 – 2004. http://www.FUNBIO.org.br/

4. National Biodiversity Project (PROBIO): IBRD, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$10 M), GEF Council Approved, contract signed June 1996 with the Brazilian Federal Government, National Executing Agencies: MMA/SBF & CNPq, Implementation period: 1996 - 2006. http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sbf/chm/probio.html

44

http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sbf/chm/probio.html

http://www.funbio.org.br/

http://www.iabin.net/english/index.shtml

http://www.gefonline.org/projectDetails.cfm?projID=771

http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sca/arpa/

5. Parana Biodiversity Project: IBRD, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$8.0 M), GEF CEO Endorsed, Contract signed February 2002 with the Government of the State of Parana. Implementation period: 2003 – 2009. http://www.pr.gov.br/meioambiente/programa_biodivers.shtml

6. Rio de Janeiro Integrated Ecosystem Management in Production Landscapes of the North-Northwestern Fluminense: IBRD, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$6.87 M), National Executing Agency: State Secretariat of Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development (SEAAPI). Contract signed November 2003. Implementation period: 2005 – 2010. http://www.gefonline.org/projectDetails.cfm?projID=1544

7. Integrated Management of Aquatic Resources in the Amazon (AquaBio): IBRD, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$7.39 M). Contract signed September 2006. National Executing Agency: MMA, IBAMA, SDS, FEMA. Implementation period: 2007 – 2011. http://www.gefonline.org/projectDetails.cfm?projID=1299

8. Ecosystem Restoration of Riparian Forests in São Paulo: IBRD, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$7.75 M), National Executing Agency: São Paulo State Secretariat of Environment. Implementation period: 2005 – 2010.

9. Formoso River - Integrated Watershed Management and Protection: IBRD, Medium Size Project, GEF Grant (US$974,910), [PDF-A US$25,000 approved 2004]. National Executing Agencies: EMBRAPA Soils and Conservation International of Brazil. Implementation period: 2005 – 2009.

II Key Bank-Funded, Non-GEF Projects

1. First Programmatic Reform Loan for Environmental Sustainability: Development Policy Loan (US$502.1 M), Bank Board approved August 2004. Implementing Agencies: Ministries of Finance and Environment. Effectiveness Period: 2004 - 2005.

2. Environmental Sustainability Agenda Technical Assistance Loan: Technical Assistance Loan (US$7.94 M). Bank Board approved September 2005. Implementing Agency: MMA. Effectiveness Period: 2006 – 2009.

Table A2.1: OED, 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 SatisfactoryIABIN P077187 Active n/a Satisfactory SatisfactoryFUNBIO P044597 Closed Satisfactory n/a n/aPROBIO P006210 Closed Not yet

availableSatisfactory Satisfactory

45



http://www.pr.gov.br/meioambiente/programa_biodivers.shtml

Parana Biodiversity

P070552 Active n/a Moderately Satisfactory

Moderately Unsatisfactory

Rio de Janeiro Fluminense

P075379 Active n/a n/a n/a

AquaBio P066535 Active n/a Satisfactory SatisfactoryProgrammatic Reform Loan

P080829 Closed Not yet available

n/a n/a

Environmental Sustainability TAL

P090041 Active n/a Satisfactory Satisfactory

III Key GEF-funded, UNEP or UNDP Implemented Projects

Other GEF implementing agencies (UNEP, UNDP) have also executed GEF biodiversity projects in Brazil, though again the mainstreaming, synthesis, and coordination results have been incomplete. Lessons from these initiatives have been incorporated into the current project. Examples of such projects include:

1. An Indicator Model for Dryland Ecosystems in Latin America: UNEP, Medium Size Project, GEF Grant (US$0.75 M). Regional Executing Agency: National Heritage Institute, National Executing Agency: Fundação Grupo Esquel. Regional project involving Chile, Brazil, and Mexico.

2. Alternatives to Slash and Burn: UNDP, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$3.0 M), Global Executing Agency: CGIAR, National Executing Agency: EMBRAPA. Global project involving: Brazil, Cameroon, Indonesia. And, Alternatives to Slash and Burn Agriculture Phase II, GEF Implementing Agency: UNDP, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$3.0 M), Regional Executing Agency: EMBRAPA, National Executing Agency: CGIAR. Global project involving Brazil, Cameroon, Indonesia, Peru, and Thailand.

3. Conservation and Sustainable Management of Below Ground Biodiversity, Phase I: UNEP (GF/2715-02), Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$5.30 M), GEF CEO Endorsed, Global Executing Agency: Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute of CIAT, National Executing Agency: Universidade Federal de Lavras. Global project involving Brazil, Ivory Coast, Indonesia, India, Kenya, Mexico, and Uganda.

4. Demonstrations of Integrated Ecosystem and Watershed Management in the Caatinga: UNDP, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$4.10 M), GEF Council Approval, Contract signed October 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$0.75 M), GEF CEO approved, National Executing Agency: FUNATURA, Contract (BRA/00/G35) signed October 2000 with Fundação Pró-Natureza.

46

6. Global Ballast Water Management Programme (GloBallast): UNDP and IMO, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$7.39 M), GEF Council approved, Contract (GLO/99/G31/A/AG/19) signed May 1999 with the Brazilian Federal Government, National Executing Agency: MMA/SQA. Implementation period: 2000–2004. Global project involving 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$6.62 M), GEF Council approved, Contract (GF/1100-99-16) signed October1999 between UNEP and OAS, National Executing Agencies: ANA, Mato Grosso, and Mato Grosso do Sul.

8. National Biodiversity Strategy and National Report: UNDP, Enabling Activity, GEF Grant (US$0.94 M), GEF Council approved, Contract (BRA/97/G31) signed March 1997 with the Brazilian Federal Government, National Executing Agency: MMA/SBF.

9. People, Land Management, and Environmental Change: UNEP, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$6.28 M), GEF Council approved, Global Executing Agency: United Nations University, National Executing Agency: Universidad Federal do Pará (Núcleo de Altos Estudos Amazônicos, NAEA). Global project: Brazil, China, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Papua New Guinea, Tanzania, and Uganda.

10. Promoting Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use in the Frontier Forests of Northwestern Mato Grosso: UNDP, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$6.98 M), GEF CEO endorsed, National Executing Agencies: FEMA-MT and Pró-Natura.

11. Small Grant Program – Cerrado: UNDP and UNOPS, Medium Size Project, GEF Grant (estimated US$3.75 M), GEF CEO Approved, National Executing Agency: Instituto Sociedade População e Natureza.

IV Key GEF-funded Projects under Negotiation - IBRD, UNDP and UNEP

GEF projects under negotiation relevant to the current project are listed below. Every effort is being made to coordinate strategies and activities with these projects.

1. Caatinga Conservation and Management: IBRD, Full Size Project, GEF Grant US$10 M [PDF-B US$349,488]. Board date June 28, 2007. Expected project implementation dates: 2007 - 2012.

2. Biodiversity Conservation to Contribute to the Development of Rio Grande do Sul State: IBRD, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$7.50 M), [PDF-B US$0.35]. Project in GEF/Bank pipeline for September 2007. Expected implementation period: 2007 – 2011.

3. Brazil Sustainable Cerrado Umbrella Program: IBRD, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (US$13.0 M), IBRD/GEF Pipeline approved, expected GEF approval August 2007. National Executing Agencies: MMA/SBF, State Agencies; Expected implementation period: 2007 –

47

2011.

4. Conservation and Management of Pollinators for Sustainable Agriculture through an Ecosystem Approach: UNEP and FAO, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (est.US$6.0 M), [PDF-B US$0.70], GEF Council approved 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: Brazil, Ghana, India, Kenya, Nepal, Pakistan, and South Africa.

5. Integrated Management and Conservation of Key Grasslands in Mercosur countries of the Southern Cone of South America: IBRD, PDF-A US$25,000, GEF Grant (US$965,000), three year project. 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. Regional project: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay] Project in GEF/Bank pipeline for delivery June 2007.

6. Preserving Biodiversity and Socio-Economic Value of Mangrove Ecosystems in Tropical America: UNDP, GEF Grant (US$1.18 M), [PDF-B US$0.16 for Brazil], GEF Council approved PDF-B, Regional and National Executing Agency: MMA, Implementation period PDF-B: September 1995 [interrupted] to 2005 [Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Ecuador].

7. Biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of globally important mangrove ecosystems in protected areas of Brazil: UNDP, Full Size Project, GEF Grant (est. US$3.18 M), National Executing Agency: MMA. Expected implementation period: 2006 – 2010.

8. 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 (est. US$6.0 M), [PDF-B US$0.35 requested], GEF CEO approved PDF-A March 1998 [approval of PDF-B delayed in UNDP and UNEP]. Proposed Regional and National Executing Agency for PDF-B: MMA [follow-up GEF full size grant expected]. Regional project: Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico.

9. Whole Forest Observatories: An international network for Monitoring Canopy Biodiversity and Global Climate Change: UNEP, PDF-A Proposal, GEF Grant (US$0.03 M) requested. Proposed Global Executing Agencies: The Global Canopy Programme and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. Proposed National Executing Agency: INPA. Expected implementation period of PDF-A: 2005 [follow-up GEF grant expected]. Global project: Brazil, Ghana, India, Madagascar, and Malaysia.

10. Espirito Santo Biodiversity and Watershed Conservation and restoration Project: IBRD, PDF-B US$0.20 M approved May 2005, GEF Grant (US$4,200,000). Proposed National Executing Agency: State Secretariat for Planning, Budget and Management of the

48

State of Espírito Santo. Project in GEF/Bank pipeline for delivery July 2007.

11. Protection, Conservation, Recuperation, and Sustainable Use in Indigenous Lands in Brazil: UNDP, Concept Note approved, GEF Grant (US$30.00 M). Proposed National Executing Agencies: MMA and FUNAI.

V Relevant State-level Biodiversity Initiatives in Brazil

In a country as large as Brazil state-level programs play a critical role. Table A2.2 summarizes major state-level biodiversity initiatives in Brazil. Every attempt has been made to create synergies with, and apply lessons learned from, these initiatives to the current project.

Table A2.2: Summary of Major State-level Biodiversity Initiatives in Brazil

State ProgramAC Sustainable Forestry Development of the State of AcreAL Reef ManagementAM Green Free Trade Zone Program

Pilot Program for the Brazilian Tropical Forests Protection – PPG7

BA Management of Environmental Protection Areas ProgramCE State System of Conservation UnitsGO State System of Conservation Units MG State System of Conservation UnitsMS State Program of Conservation UnitsMT Medicinal Plants Program (FITOPLAMA)

Wildlife Sanctuaries Program in the Cerrado regionPE State System of Conservation UnitsPI Project for Diagnosis and Implantation of Wildlife

Sanctuaries in the Cerrado regionPR SISFAUNA

State System of Conservation Units Environmental Parana Program

Pro-Atlantica Program (supported by KfW)

Program for Evaluation of Environmental Impacts of Dams (support GTZ)

RJ State System of Conservation Units Taxonomic Diversity Program

RN Program for Preservation and Recovery of Environmental Protection Areas and of Ecological Risks

RR Program for the Environmentally Sustainable Development Plan of the BR 174 Influence Area

49

RS Atlantic Forest Project (supported by KfW)

Ecological Corridors Project

State System of Conservation Units

Environmental Research Program SC State System of Conservation UnitsSP PROBIO-SP

State System of Conservation UnitsTO State System of Conservation Units Program for Fauna

and Flora Protection

50

Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring


Table A3.1: Project Development Objectives, Outcome Indicators,and Use of Outcome Information

PDO/ Global Environment Objective Outcome Indicators Use of Outcome Information

Promote mainstreaming of biodiversity at national level in key public and private sector planning strategies and practices; as well as consolidate and strengthen institutional capacity to produce and disseminate biodiversity information and concepts.

At least three key government sectors* apply biodiversity criteria and guidelines in their plans and policies by year 6 of the project.

Tangible progress is made toward achieving at least 16 of the 50 quantitative national targets already established for Brazil as part of the CBD targets for 2010; tracked by a strategic set of monitoring indicators.

At least 1 million hectares of selected landscapes under integrated conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are established in Biodiversity Priority Areas with significant involvement by the private sector by year 6 of the project.

Y03: Gauge engagement of key sectors and reevaluate strategy if less than 50% of participating sectors include criteria or guidelines.

Y03: Define baseline for selected targets. If progress is not on track as expected, reevaluate current policies and programs to adjust project activities.

Y03: Revise strategy if less than 500,000 hectares of selected landscapes are implemented.

Intermediate ResultsOne per Component

Results Indicators for Each Component

Use of Results Monitoring

Component 1: Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Selected Government and Economic Sectors

Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity incorporated into select government sectors.

At least 6 policy initiatives for mainstreaming biodiversity designed and adopted in selected areas through consultative process with government and private sector institutions.

At least 12 subprojects designed and implemented in selected landscape units in partnership with private sector, to apply policy instruments and technologies promoting biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

Y03: Reevaluate strategy if less than 4 policy initiatives are under way.

Y03: Revise component strategy if less than 8 subprojects are under implementation.

Component 2: Mainstreaming Biodiversity into the Private Sector

Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity incorporated in key private sector planning strategies and practices.

Opportunities Fund capitalized with at least $17 million by Y06.

At least 5 productive landscape units totaling at least 1 million hectares adopting criteria associated with biodiversity conservation in their areas of operation.

At least 5 private sector organizations at a national or sub-national level adopting criteria linked with biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

At least 10 biodiversity friendly business plans prepared and disseminated through the Knowledge Base Facility.

Y03: Reevaluate fundraising strategy if less than 50% of fund capitalization goals achieved.

Y03: Reevaluate strategy if less than 3 productive landscape projects are under way.

Y03: Adjust efforts if less than 3 organizations are adopting biodiversity criteria.

Y03: Reevaluate strategy if less than 5 business plans are under way.

51

Component 2 monitoring strategy under satisfactory implementation at the end of Y01, and where necessary, implementation strategy improved.

Component 2 results and lessons learned disseminated through national and local-level workshops, publications (by Y06), and internet portal (by Y01).

Y02: Review Component 2 monitoring strategy if not satisfactorily implemented.

Y02: Review dissemination plans if implementation is not satisfactory.

Component 3: Institutional strengthening and Generation of Biodiversity Information for Policy Making

Network of key Brazilian institutions working on biodiversity issues consolidated, coordinated, and producing relevant information for the development and implementation of biodiversity mainstreaming policies.

Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity established and operational, coordinating activities of at least 10 partner institutions and producing information relevant to policymaking.

Center for Biodiversity Monitoring and Forecasting created, fully staffed, and functioning, generating data for at least 10 key biodiversity indicators based on CBD 2010 Targets.

At least 10 Thematic Specialized Centers for Conservation of Fauna and Flora created and consolidated at national level, with capacity for generating products (technology, management practices, methodologies) for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

Action plans for at least 50% of the national endangered species lists (Fauna 2003/2004, Flora 1992) designed and 25% under implementation.

At least 3,000 technical specialists from partner institutions trained in biodiversity themes in order to incorporate biodiversity in sectoral work.

Y02: Reevaluate partnership strategy if Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity is not operational.

Y03: Intensify capacity building efforts if indicator data are not being systematically produced.

Y03: Evaluate quality of products developed by the Specialized Centers and revise strategy if not satisfactory.

Y03: Adjust efforts if less than 30% of the national endangered species lists have action plans designed, or less 10% under implementation.

Y03: Intensify capacity building efforts if less than 1,500 technical specialists have been trained.

Component 4: Project Coordination and Management

Improved institutional capacity to coordinate multisectoral and cross-sectoral interventions, to monitor project implementation and impacts, and to disseminate lessons.

Project monitoring strategy under satisfactory implementation at the end of Y01, and where necessary, implementation strategy improved.

Project results and lessons learned disseminated through national and local-level workshops, publications (by Y06), media campaigns (by Y03), and internet portal (by Y01).

Y02: Review project monitoring strategy if not satisfactorily implemented.

Y02: Review dissemination plans if implementation is not satisfactory.

*“Sector” is defined here as an area of economic activity such as agriculture, forestry, health, water resources, fisheries, mining, energy production and transmission, and so forth. This is not necessarily aligned with ministerial responsibilities since, for example, both the Ministry of Agriculture and of Agrarian Development are responsible for overlapping aspects of agriculture and rural development policy. It is essential that both inter- and intrasectoral strategies be integrated in mainstreaming approaches.

52

Table A3.2: Arrangements for Results Monitoring

Target Values Data Collection and Reporting (per Component)Outcome Indicators Baseline YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR6 Frequency and

ReportsData

Collection Instruments

Responsibility for Data

CollectionAt least three government sectors apply biodiversity criteria and guidelines in their plans and policies by end of project.

Tangible progress is made toward achieving at least 16 of the 50 quantitative national targets already established for Brazil as part of the CBD targets for 2010; tracked by a strategic set of monitoring indicators.

At least 1 million hectares of selected landscapes under integrated conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are established in Biodiversity Priority Areas with significant involvement by the private sector by end of project.

1 (ANP National Petroleum Agency)

None

None

1

20%

100,000 ha

1

40%

2

60%

500,000 ha

2

80%

3

100%

700,000 ha

3

100%

1,000,000 ha

Yearly cumulative Project Management Reports (PMRs)

Quarterly reports

Report from mid-term review

World Bank Implementation Completion Report

M&E reports and recording of all planned and executed activities

Annual reports from IBBio

Mid-Term Review and Project M&E strategy

Data reviewed by World Bank supervision and implementation completion missions

Ministry of Environment (MMA), FUNBIO and partner institutions

Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity (IBBio)

Ministry of Environment (MMA) and FUNBIO and World Bank

World Bank

Results Indicators for Each Component


At least 6 policy initiatives for mainstreaming biodiversity designed and

1 (“green”

1 4 6 6

Twice-a-year cumulative Project Management Reports (PMRs) (including recording of all planned and executed


Mid-Term Review and

Ministry of Environment (MMA), FUNBIO, and partner institutions

53

adopted in selected areas through consultative process with government and private sector institutions.

At least 12 policy subprojects designed and implemented in selected landscape units in partnership with private sector, to apply policy instruments and technologies promoting biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

financing in design phase)

None 2 8 12 12

activities and disbursement records)


World Bank Implementation Supervision Reports

Project M&E strategy

Data reviewed by periodic World Bank supervision missions


World Bank


Opportunities Fund capitalized with at least $17 million by Y06.

At least 5 productive landscape units totaling at least 1 million ha adopting criteria associated with biodiversity conservation in their areas of operation.

At least 5 private sector organizations at a national or sub-national level adopting criteria linked with biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

At least 10 biodiversity friendly business plans prepared and disseminated through the Knowledge Base Facility.

None

None

None

None

10%

1

1

50%

2

3

7 8

85%

4

4

9

100%

5

5

10

Quarterly reports from Asset Manager




Asset Manager Reports

Mid-Term Review and Project M&E Strategy

Data reviewed by World Bank periodic supervision missions

Mid-Term Review and Project M&E Strategy

FUNBIO

Ministry of Environment (MMA), FUNBIO and private sector partners

Ministry of Environment (MMA) and FUNBIO and World Bank.

World Bank

54

Component 2 monitoring strategy under satisfactory implementation at the end of Y01, and where necessary, implementation strategy improved.

Component 2 results and lessons learned disseminated through national and local-level workshops, publications (by Y06), and internet portal (by Y01).

None

None

100% 100% 100%

50%

100%

80%

100%

90%

100%

100%

Component 3: Institutional Strengthening and Generation of Biodiversity Information for Policymaking

Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity established and operational, coordinating activities of at least 10 partner institutions and producing information relevant to policymaking.

Center for Biodiversity Monitoring and Forecasting created, fully staffed, and functioning, generating data for at least 10 key biodiversity indicators based on CBD 2010 Targets.

At least 10 Thematic Specialized Centers for Conservation of Fauna and Flora created and consolidated at national level, with capacity for generating products (technology, management practices, methodologies)

None

None

3

20%

20%

4

50%

50%

5

60%

70%

6

75%

80%

8

90%

90%

10

100%

100%

10

Twice-a-year cumulative Project Management Reports (PMRs) (including recording of all planned and executed activities and disbursement records)





Mid-Term Review


Mid-Term Review


Ministry of Environment (MMA), FUNBIO, and partners


World Bank


World Bank

55

for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

Action plans for at least 50% of the national endangered species lists (Fauna 2003/2004, Flora 1992) designed and 25% under implementation.

At least 3,000 technical specialists from partner institutions trained in biodiversity themes in order to incorporate biodiversity in sectoral work.

4 Action Plans

None impl.

None

10%

500

20% 40%

10%

1,500

60%

15%

80%

20%

80%

25%

3,000


Component 4: Project Coordination and Management

Project monitoring strategy under satisfactory implementation at the end of Y01, and where necessary, implementation strategy improved.

Project results and lessons learned disseminated through national and local-level workshops, publications (by Y06), media campaigns (by Y03), and an internet portal (by Y01).

None

None

100% 100% 100%

60%

100%

80%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Twice-a-year cumulative Project Management Reports (PMRs) (including recording of all planned and executed activities and disbursement records)



M&E reports and recording of all planned and executed activities.

Mid-Term Review


Ministry of Environment (MMA), FUNBIO, and partner institutions

Ministry of Environment (MMA) and FUNBIO and World Bank.

World Bank

56

Project Monitoring and Evaluation

The project Monitoring and Evaluation plan will support medium-term assessment of the project impact using the adaptive objective output and input indicators. Given the innovative and pioneering nature of the project thematic area “mainstreaming biodiversity,” the indicators developed during the planning phase will be tested and refined through a consultation mechanism with key stakeholders, national and international experts. Monitoring of the project activities and evaluation of the indicators will be carried out throughout implementation with the participation of the project staff, key partners, consultants, and other relevant stakeholders. Longer-term project impacts will be tracked and evaluated within the context of the National Biodiversity Strategy and National Biodiversity Policy.

A brief guideline for project progress monitoring and impacts is described below. It is based on the suggestions from the different partners and the lessons from other projects in Brazil in similar thematic areas.

Monitoring of Project ProgressThe project progress monitoring (managerial monitoring) aims to manage the implementation schedule of planned activities systematically, and to evaluate the adequacy of schedule and execution. A detailed project management and evaluation plan will be developed and included in the Operational Manual. As the project progresses, the implementation schedule will be reviewed and adjusted as necessary.

Project Management Reports (PMRs) will be produced twice a year and will report on, among other things, the status of all planned and executed activities, difficulties, changes suggested, the status of stakeholder involvement and partnerships, and project financial information. Annual reports which consolidate this information for a calendar year will be distributed to CONABIO, FUNBIO, MMA, the World Bank, and other relevant management units.

As to the Opportunity Fund, an Asset Manager will be appointed within FUNBIO to manage the Fund. The Asset Manager will be responsible for reporting quarterly on the progress and execution of the funding and on the asset management of the fund. The reports will be distributed to CONABIO, FUNBIO, MMA, the World Bank, and other relevant management units.

Monitoring of Results and ImpactsThe Project Management and Evaluation Plan to be included in the Operational Manual will also aim to provide guidelines to measure the results and effectiveness of the activities implemented under the different project components, and progress toward 2010 CBD targets. These targets are discussed in detail in Annex 23. The set of preliminary indicators for those targets have been discussed and validated through international consultations. With CONABIO’s Resolution 3, of 21 December 2006, Brazil officially identified a set of 50 national quantitative targets (listed in Annex 23) to measure progress toward 2010 CBD targets. The project will track 16 of these national targets as an outcome indicator. The Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity will be

57

responsible for collecting data on progress toward these targets and compiling the results for reporting purpose. The Project Coordination Unit (PCU) will be responsible for the rest of the monitoring indicators.

One of the primary focuses of this project is 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 from diverse economic sectors. The results produced by the Center will be part of the MTR and/or ICR.

As is fitting for a project of this complexity, monitoring of results and impacts will take place at several levels. Subprojects will be responsible for monitoring relevant biodiversity indicators and reporting them to the Project Management 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 PCU will collect data on other biodiversity-related indicators, such as those relating to legislation and policy. This strategy is based on lessons learned from a number of initiatives, including ARPA, IABIN, and PROBIO.

The GEF Biodiversity Tracking Tools for Strategic Priority 2 have been used as a reference to form the preliminary project indicators. However, much of the Tracking Tool is more appropriate for sector-specific activities. As such, it will also be used to establish a framework for subproject-level indicators, which will in turn feed the project-level indicators.

FUNBIO, the MMA, the PMU, and the World Bank will carry out a midterm review (MTR) at the midpoint of the project. The MTR will specifically examine the necessity of any adjustment in the project execution schedule, the indicators, and the status of project management.

Finally, FUNBIO, the MMA, the PCU, and the World Bank will produce an Implementation Completion Report (ICR) at the end of the project execution to report the results and impacts of the project implementation, the financial management status, and lessons learned to be replicated in other initiatives, whether in Brazil or in other countries.

External EvaluationAn external and independent mid-term evaluation will be carried out in the beginning of PY 4. This evaluation will provide an in-depth analysis of progress towards achieving project outcomes and the identification of possible adjustments where needed. The evaluation will focus on the effectiveness in achieving project results and in meeting the implementation schedule, identifying areas and components which need adjustments, emphasizing lessons learned up to that point, which could guide actions in the project’s final phase. The Terms of Reference for this evaluation will be presented by the project management team and negotiated with the GEF/World Bank.

Another external and independent evaluation will be carried out at the end of the project, focusing on the same questions and indicators as the mid-term evaluation. The final evaluation will aim at identifying project impacts and evaluating the sustainability of project results, and the degree of achievement of long-term results. This evaluation would also have the purpose of

58

compiling lessons learned and indicating future action needed to assure continuity of the mainstreaming process, expanding into sectors not reached by this project during its implementation.

Lessons LearnedDuring project preparation, a study of past monitoring efforts in Brazil was undertaken, and the lessons learned from these past events were applied in the design of the monitoring strategy for the proposed project. Brazil has an extensive history of environmental and biodiversity monitoring dating back several decades; however, efforts in general have been moderately successful at best. While individual projects each had monitoring strategies, one of the first national efforts to research the institutions involved in monitoring and the indicators used was the National Program for Integrated Environmental Monitoring (MONITORE), established in 1998. This effort created a database of installed capacity, but did not have any long-term impact on monitoring strategies. Also in 1998, IBAMA created a network for reference stations and transects for environmental monitoring (REMA), which examined proposals for monitoring in different ecosystems, conceptual bases for monitoring, and methodologies, among other subjects. These efforts complemented GEO-Brazil, an initiative established in 1997 to monitor the state of the environment in Brazil and in the world. Among the most relevant points that emerged from this international effort were:

There is no agreement on acceptable indicators; each institution adopts different indicators.

There are three types of indicators: pressure (which describe pressures on the environment, such as pollutant emissions); environmental state (which describes the current situation of a species or element, such as pollution levels in a specific body of water); and response (which describes mitigation measures such as the percentage of cars with catalytic converters).

The number of indicators is important; a greater number means a better spatial environmental analysis, but also higher monitoring costs.

To have adequate indicators it is necessary to have reliable numeric data coming from monitoring efforts. These numbers must be able to be processed into easily understandable and relevant forms,

Finally, the CBD, in Decision VIII/15, defined indicators and objectives for the strategic plans. Monitoring conducted under this proposed project will benefit from this guidance and help contribute to the monitoring required by the CBD.

Among the most important lessons drawn from the national efforts mentioned above, and from the numerous biodiversity and environment projects implemented in Brazil, is the need for:

Decentralization of monitoring to allow greater coverage and flexibility Basis of monitoring efforts in scientific research Use of small, well-trained teams with deep knowledge of the system or area to be

monitored Establishment of a central system to accompany monitoring, collect and store

information, and analyze data

59

Inclusion of genetic, species, and ecosystem-level data Speed in the acquisition and use of data Attention to cost/effectiveness ratios Maximum geographic coverage Minimal errors in sampling and measuring Identification of information users Capacity for emergency monitoring of emerging issues.

60

Annex 4: Detailed Project Description


Global Environmental ObjectiveThe Global Environmental Objective of the National Biodiversity Mainstreaming and Institutional Consolidation (Biodiversity Mainstreaming) Project is to contribute to the reduction of the rate of biodiversity loss in Brazil thereby contributing to the CBD’s global target for 2010. Project activities will focus on: (i) strengthening national institutions whose mandates are related to biodiversity conservation; (ii) mainstreaming biodiversity concerns into public and private sector planning and investment activities; and (iii) producing and coordinating biodiversity information relevant to policymaking. The project is expected to make significant progress toward achieving its Global Environmental Objective; however, since there is an intrinsic difficulty in generating a robust estimate of the real rate of biodiversity loss in a country, a critical piece of information necessary to meet this objective, attainment of the higher-level objective is beyond the scope of this GEF investment.

Project Development ObjectiveThe Project Development Objective is to promote mainstreaming of biodiversity principles at the national level in key public and private sector planning strategies and practices; as well as to consolidate and strengthen institutional capacity to produce and disseminate relevant biodiversity information and concepts that support mainstreaming of biodiversity principles across sectors. Achievement of this goal will mark the success of the project. All project activities are designed to contribute to this objective, and the following three indicators will measure progress made throughout project implementation:

At least three key government sectors apply biodiversity criteria and guidelines in their plans and policies by year six of the project;

Tangible progress made toward achieving at least 16 of the 50 quantitative national targets already established for Brazil as part of the CBD targets for 2010; tracked by a strategic set of monitoring indicators;

At least 1 million hectares of selected landscapes under integrated conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are established in Biodiversity Priority Areas with significant involvement by the private sector by year six of the project.

Three intermediate results are expected for this project, all of which contribute to attainment of the project development objective, as follows:

Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity principles incorporated into select government sectors;

Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity principles incorporated into 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.

Project Strategy

61

The project will work with government ministries, NGOs, and other institutions in the agriculture, health, science and technology, environment, forestry, fisheries, and water resource sectors. These sectors were chosen for both their impact on biodiversity and for the willingness of the relevant institutions to participate fully in the project. However, the number of sectors will likely increase during implementation. Institutions representing the transport, energy and mining sectors are expected to join as project partners during project implementation.

It was decided to initially focus on engaging the agricultural sector because the rate of loss of biodiversity has been closely linked with deforestation and land degradation caused by agricultural expansion and intensification. As Annex 18 notes, for all sectors, the impact of the proposed activity on globally important biodiversity will be the principal criterion for subproject selection. The subproject monitoring and evaluation indicators will reflect this focus. (See Annex 1 for further details on the selection of sectors for inclusion in the project.)

Because the project is designed as a process project; throughout preparation and implementation the process outlined here will lead to increased involvement in, capacity for, and consensus around mainstreaming biodiversity in Brazil. The preparation phase focused on the participation of willing institutions in the design of the project, proposal of activities to address bottlenecks to mainstreaming, and selection of the project’s initial set of monitoring indicators. The process of consensus building, capacity building, sector analysis, and solution design will continue during implementation, when workshops will bring together stakeholders to reach consensus on mainstreaming challenges and solutions. Implementation of viable solutions is at the core of the project’s aim.

The project is designed to take advantage of emerging opportunities for biodiversity mainstreaming in Brazil. During preparation, this has meant working with the most willing institutions, listed here as project partners. Several of these organizations have in the past been unwilling or unable to participate in mainstreaming initiatives; it is only with this project, and with the participation of the GEF and the Bank, that they have become successfully engaged. This strategy of beginning project implementation with the most willing partners has allowed for rapid project development with high levels of participation and substantial dedicated co-financing resources. At the same time, the project has allowed for the inclusion of new partners as they express interest and willingness to participate in the project. It is hoped that ongoing discussions with institutions in the mining, transport, and energy sectors will lead to increased participation in the project during implementation. The design has also earmarked funds for activities that respond to opportunities emerging from the consensus-building workshops.

While this opportunity is an important part of the project, it is guided by a sound conceptual framework. Institutions have been accepted as partners only once their technical, political, and financial commitment to biodiversity mainstreaming is confirmed. Subproject-level activities have been identified based on the technical, geographic, and legal criteria outlined in Annex 18. This framework ensures that emerging opportunities fall within the established objectives, priorities, and guidelines of the project, and that cohesion with ongoing activities is maintained.

Given the cutting-edge nature of this approach, and the complexities of both the biodiversity community and the related economic framework Brazil, this project has been designed in an

62

adaptive management format. Experiences will be continuously monitored for lessons relating to project activities and strategies, and the project will be refined accordingly. Feedback will be critical as this project incorporates best practice through its own activities and adapts to take advantage of the evolving context of biodiversity mainstreaming created through this initiative.

Project ComponentsThe project is comprised of three technical components and one component on project administration, as follows:

Component 1: Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Select Public Sectors (GEF: $8.4 million; Co-financing: $25.0 million)

This component will incorporate conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity principles into select government sectors. Each sectoral mainstreaming initiative will follow three steps: (a) consolidation of existing information (assessment of obstacles and alternative solutions); (b) consensus building with stakeholders (analysis of constraints and solutions); and (c) development of solutions (methods and procedures). (See Annex 17 for an example of this model.) This approach is based on the experience of PROBIO and other government initiatives in terms of consolidating information and building consensus. As a result, government agencies will dedicate attention and resources to the identification and implementation of large-scale mainstreaming opportunities at a national level that enjoy the support of relevant stakeholders. These opportunities will be tested on the ground through applied sector activities under this component, as well as through the landscape-level subprojects developed under Component 2.

Under this component, the project will also support preparation of sector plans incorporating biodiversity management practices. It will seek strategies for incorporating the objective of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use into policies, programs, projects, and development plans throughout different levels of government activity. This component involves cooperation with a number of government agencies whose sectors have a significant impact on, and use of, biodiversity, including agriculture, fisheries, forestry, water resources, health, technology, mining, transport, and energy.

Subcomponent 1.1 Planning and Refinement of Public Sector Policies and Policy Instruments

Each mainstreaming effort will be conducted in consultation with relevant stakeholders and will build on the existing portfolio of tested local pilot experiences, many of which were funded by previous GEF projects in Brazil. Each mainstreaming initiative will follow three steps in the policy planning stage, described below. (See Annex 17 for more details on this strategy.)

a) Assessment of constraints and alternative solutions for biodiversity mainstreaming in the public sector

Activities will provide a review with each sector (cutting across responsible agencies where appropriate) of the relevant aspects of current policies, instruments, and practices that impact biodiversity and involve sustainable use principles. The focus of these reviews will be on the cross-cutting formulation of policy, addressing priority themes for action. During project

63

preparation, a preliminary assessment of national policy instruments with positive or negative impacts on biodiversity was conducted. While some of the relevant instruments at least partially consider biodiversity conservation, others make no reference to biodiversity despite their direct impact. The results of the initial public policy instrument analyses are detailed in Annex 22. After the project is initiated, consultants will be hired to analyze the real impact of these instruments on biodiversity. To assist in this process, advisory groups will be formed around critical themes and species. The analyses of the consultants and recommendations of the advisory groups will provide important inputs to the workshops described below. At the end of this period, a report on the status and recommendations for mainstreaming possibilities will be produced. This report will serve as the basis for discussions during sector workshops (see below).

b) Consensus building with stakeholders

After an initial assessment period, a national workshop will be developed to bring together key stakeholders (government, NGOs, private sector, and academia) from each sector to build consensus on recommended policies and practices to promote mainstreaming of biodiversity principles within each sector. Workshop participants will analyze the current relationship between biodiversity and each sector, including obstacles and incentives for mainstreaming biodiversity, instruments available to promote mainstreaming, and tested solutions to known constraints, based on initial project research and stakeholder experience. Outputs of these workshops will include policy suggestions to guide the project’s formulation of policy recommendations for each sector and recommendations to address constraints to mainstreaming biodiversity to be implemented under subcomponent 1.2.

c) Development of solutions

Based on workshop outcomes, sector plans will be developed with recommended policy and practice guidelines. These plans will outline a recommended portfolio of activities, instruments, and policies to be implemented by this project and related initiatives. This portfolio will include policy recommendations, new financial instruments, pilot projects, and other tools. Where possible, the testing of activities recommended under these plans will be carried out by the project.

Subcomponent 1.2 Sector Activities Incorporating Biodiversity Mainstreaming at the National Level

This subcomponent focuses on practical applications of recommendations and solutions identified at the sector workshops and from earlier policy analyses. The subcomponent will create the necessary capacity to mainstream biodiversity considerations into different sectors and facilitate implementation of subprojects that test solutions on the ground. Activities under this subcomponent will also contribute to the capacity-building indicator of subcomponent 3.1.

Applied Subprojects

64

This subcomponent will test the application of solutions to mainstreaming biodiversity constraints at the national level—to test concepts identified by stakeholders as critical to mainstreaming biodiversity into different sectors. Many of the activities will be on-the-ground applications of recommendations adopted during the sector workshops detailed under subcomponent 1.1. Others will be initiatives identified by sectors as key to testing the practical application of biodiversity policy guidelines within their specific sector. Examples of subprojects include: incorporation of biodiversity-friendly techniques into livestock management practices, sustainable use of native species, sustainable agroforestry development, and models to manage health risks for native wildlife. The result of this subcomponent will be a set of lessons learned from the practical application of a portfolio of mainstreaming tools that will inform future discussions on biodiversity mainstreaming in Brazil and abroad.

Project partners that have already presented activities which have been preliminarily accepted under subcomponent 1.2 include: Ministry of the Environment, IBAMA, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Rural Development, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Science and Technology, EMBRAPA, and FIOCRUZ.

Component 2: Mainstreaming Biodiversity into the Private Sector (GEF: $7.5 million; Co-financing: $22.5 million)

This component will incorporate the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity principles into key private sector planning strategies and practices. The operating mechanism for this component will be the creation and management of an Opportunities Fund; housed in and managed by FUNBIO. Support from the Fund will be based on the assessment of proposals received and subprojects developed to address the possibility of mainstreaming biodiversity in integrated large-scale productive landscapes. This component will promote private sector strategies and policies that support biodiversity conservation by working with producer groups, associations, cooperatives, chambers of commerce and large firms, and in coordination with existing initiatives with similar objectives. The focus on policies and strategies allows the component to have broad impact beyond that which individual projects might experience. Activities will be carried out in coordination with relevant public sector agencies. Government sectors will interact with private sector partners primarily through regional landscape projects; where conformity of environmental norms adopted by the private sector with state-wide, river basin, and municipal-level land use planning and protected area policies as well as with the enforcement of federal policies will be emphasized.

Subcomponent 2.1 Territorial Mainstreaming Subprojects (Opportunities Fund)

This subcomponent will implement landscape-level subprojects designed to test the mainstreaming of biodiversity considerations into private productive practices while simultaneously applying public policies at the regional level. Initiatives already underway in a range of productive landscapes throughout Brazil (see Annex 20) have enabled FUNBIO to develop a biodiversity mainstreaming strategy beginning with socioeconomic and environmental analysis of select territories, emphasizing identification and characterization of regional productive activities and their effects on regional biodiversity and associated natural resources. An additional focus of this subcomponent is the identification of existing or potential leading

65

economic sectors, agents, value-added chains, agglomerations, productive arrangements or products that may serve to lead a regional biodiversity mainstreaming process. Examples include: mainstreaming of biodiversity in organic production practices and certification guidelines, and capacity building of settlers in the sustainable use of biodiversity in agro-extractive production systems in agrarian reform settlements. Such a territorial strategy will either be induced or involve calls for proposals with the purpose of supporting selected pilot subprojects. The territorial approach will allow assessment of effectiveness for private sector biodiversity mainstreaming of policy innovations adopted by the government under Component 1. It will also channel proposals for policy improvement grounded in needs identified by stakeholders during preparation and implementation of regional pilot subprojects. Subprojects will be carried out in coordination with, and with the participation of, relevant public sector agencies. Examples include: unsustainable livestock practices, the decline in the productivity of small-scale farmers and agroforesters, the negative impact of tourism on biodiversity and local cultures, pollution caused by aquafarms, and pressure caused by the expansion of monocultures.

A point-based evaluation system was developed to assess and rank subproject proposals to ensure that subprojects financed under this component will have maximum impact on biodiversity conservation and that activities are mainstreamed into the productive landscape. Criteria included in this system are:

Percent of area included in a Priority Area for Biodiversity Conservation Presence of governmental partners through Component 1.2. Adoption of the mainstreaming concept by the sector Potential for maximizing environmental goods and services Existence of installed or potential Local Productive Arrangements (APL)8 Resource contribution of secondary economic sectors Diversity of activities of secondary economic sectors participating in the project Existence of effective financial incentives for mainstreaming Presence of mobilized civil society Presence of other projects with potential synergies in the area Adequate political environment Degree of anthropic pressure on biodiversity Capacity for local income generation with minimal environmental impact Capacity to mitigate negative impacts within subproject area Availability of technical knowledge on sustainable productive practices Financial incentives for principal economic agent to be involved in mainstreaming Potential for developing activities that might cause a transfer of negative impacts outside

the territory (negative points) Capacity to mitigate potential extra-area impacts caused by the subproject Capacity to mitigate extra-area problems before subproject implementation.

Subcomponent 2.2 Best Practices and Productive/Management Innovations (Knowledge Base Facility)

8 APLs are sets of articulated economic, political, and social agents in an area, with strong ties and often a positive microeconomic impact.

66

To facilitate assessment and selection of subprojects, and to support future mainstreaming efforts, this subcomponent will establish a Knowledge Base Facility. The Knowledge Base Facility is a specific operational instrument necessary to the development of subcomponent 2.1. It seeks to generate and collect information for private sector access that will help address constraints to mainstreaming, by detecting deficiencies and triggering processes of business plan development. Specifically, the Knowledge Base Facility will:

Collate and analyze information on all of the Priority Areas for Biodiversity Conservation, once these are considered as potential biodiversity mainstreaming landscapes. Thus, the Facility will have information on all possible mainstreaming regional-scale landscapes in the country.

Gather and analyze information on productive activities or clusters in a selection of the aforementioned areas. Thus, the Facility will have information on both biodiversity priority landscapes and on potential biodiversity mainstreaming productive activities.

Allow for cross-referencing of these two sets of data in order to support the selection of potential subproject territories. These territories will be kept in the Facility to be periodically monitored and updated.

Foster subproject development. Register financial mechanisms developed and used to stimulate private sector

entrepreneurs to engage in leveraging resources to mainstream biodiversity in their landscapes or productive activities.

Register technological innovations (R&D) developed to support mainstreaming of biodiversity principles in productive landscapes or sectors that result from the project.

Implementation of the Facility will help the project: (i) identify regions with high potential for mainstreaming biodiversity principles through the cross-referencing of biodiversity-rich areas with landscapes having appropriate local productive arrangements, (ii) stimulate the creation and adoption of financial mechanisms that promote incorporation of biodiversity guidelines into private sector policies and practices, and (iii) facilitate and disseminate technological innovations to promote such incorporation. The outcome of this subcomponent will be a set of tested tools and best practices for integrating biodiversity considerations into productive landscapes.

Subcomponent 2.3 Fund Management

To engage the private sector in mainstreaming biodiversity principles into their activities, FUNBIO will create, manage, and secure financing for an Opportunities Fund. This fund will support mainstreaming initiatives in the private sector, based on either the analysis of potential opportunities or the assessment of received proposals. The Opportunities Fund will be directed at stimulating the co-financing of integrated large-scale productive landscape subprojects, as well as best practices and innovations generated and disseminated through the Knowledge Base Facility. While initially supported by GEF funding, it is anticipated that with time, the Fund will grow on the basis of investment and fee-based income from new/additional sources, along with returns generated by the subprojects, thereby promoting their replication in other productive landscapes and sectors. This subcomponent will also involve coordination and management of initiatives financed by the Opportunities Fund, including territorial mainstreaming subprojects and the Knowledge Base Facility. (See Annex 19 for more details on the Opportunities Fund.)

67

Subcomponent 2.4 Component 2 Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation

This subcomponent will support all Component 2 activities by ensuring efficient implementation, supervision, coordination, and administration of the Component, through financial management, procurement and audit activities, annual and mid-term reviews, independent assessments, and project closing activities. Project information dissemination and communication strategies executed by FUNBIO will also be carried out under this subcomponent. A Cooperation Agreement will be signed between FUNBIO and MMA to ensure implementation coordination between Component 2 and other project components.

Component 3: Institutional Strengthening and Generation of Biodiversity Information for Policymaking (GEF: $6.1 million; Co-financing: $25.0 million)

This component will strengthen, consolidate, and coordinate a network of key Brazilian institutions working on biodiversity issues to produce information relevant to the development and implementation of biodiversity mainstreaming policies. This network will support progress toward Brazil’s CBD targets for 2010 by promoting appropriate policies and practices and the dissemination of biodiversity information relevant to policymaking. The component will also monitor the progress made on key biodiversity indicators, including those linked to the CBD targets for 2010. These two goals are linked; the generation of relevant information requires stronger, better coordinated institutions, and the information produced will further strengthen the capacity of the biodiversity sector, especially as it relates to pubic policy development.

Subcomponent 3.1 Institutional Strengthening

This component will strengthen key biodiversity institutions in Brazil, building capacity for institutions working to mainstream biodiversity into other sectors, and create networks to fill knowledge gaps. Among the primary tasks is the establishment and consolidation of a Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity. Established as an autonomous legal entity, this Institute will link existing scientific and academic institutions to facilitate access to biodiversity knowledge and the identification of knowledge gaps. This will help ensure that the technical and scientific data necessary for policymaking and the resolution of conflicts related to biodiversity policy or projects are available in a relevant and easily accessible format.

Rather than creating a new institution, the Institute will serve as a type of “information commons”, allowing participating entities to share information, collaborate and create synergies. The 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 this Institute will become self-sufficient by providing biodiversity services for projects and programs being implemented in other sectors in Brazil. Since no institution with this capability or responsibility currently exists, the Institute should play an important role in mainstreaming biodiversity into all public and private sectors. (See Annex 21 for detailed information on the structure and responsibilities of the Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity.)

68

This subcomponent will also support creation of the Brazilian Center for Biodiversity Monitoring and Forecasting within MMA. The Center will provide monitoring and forecasting information related to governmental biodiversity conservation initiatives, and will contribute data to the Virtual Institute.

The subcomponent will strengthen and expand the Specialized Centers for Flora and Fauna, and the Center for Health and Biodiversity. There are currently seven specialized centers focusing on endangered fauna, though their strength varies widely. The centers carry out activities including environmental education focused on specific species, monitoring of populations and risks, demarcation of colonies, and management activities such as the transfer of marine turtle eggs to safer locations. Five centers are specifically oriented toward the management of fishing activities, and research related to endangered fish species. There is one center focused on endangered flora, the center for medicinal plants. All centers are under the management responsibility of IBAMA and the Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden.

This subcomponent will also support training to create biodiversity capacity in institutions from different sectors where biodiversity has not historically been deemed a priority, or where identified capacity gaps hinder effective work. This capacity building action will be crucial to mainstreaming biodiversity in different sectors, and will be adapted to meet the needs of partner institutions in relevant sectors. The subcomponent will also support training to fill knowledge gaps within biodiversity institutions. Examples include: training in biodiversity-friendly techniques for agricultural extension agents and in techniques for replanting areas prone to desertification. For the health sector, activities will include applied training on cyanotoxins, emergent diseases, medicinal plants, conservation and management of fauna, and biodiversity and health, and special training for local health agents. In all cases, the focus will be on applied training, to increase knowledge of and value for biodiversity, create incentives for creative problem solving, and incorporate local knowledge. CONABIO, representatives of project partners and outside experts will meet during the early phase of project implementation to design the training approach for the project.

Subcomponent 3.2 Management of Biodiversity Information

This subcomponent will promote the production and exchange of biodiversity information to inform policy decisions and project design in all sectors, support mainstreaming activities in selected sectors, and facilitate the tracking of progress toward international commitments such as the CBD targets for 2010. Activities supported will include: information generation and management related to exotic and invasive species; genetic, forest, and water resources; landscape management; biodiversity mapping and modeling; health and biodiversity; and agriculture and biodiversity. These activities will coordinate with, rather than duplicate, existing national and international networks to complete information flow and feedback systems.

A major focus of this subcomponent will be the monitoring of country-level biodiversity: progress made toward achieving the CBD targets for 2010, trends in biodiversity composition and levels, major causes of biodiversity loss, sustainability of production and consumption, endangered species, and conservation effectiveness. The goal is to contribute objective, real-time critical information to inform policy and practice discussions in all sectors, inform the global

69

scientific community, and contribute toward Brazil’s CBD responsibilities. Much of the 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 project will standardize indicators, procedures, and reporting for both the public and private sectors.

Component 4: Project Coordination and Management (GEF: $0 million; Co-financing: $2.5 million)

This component will support all other project activities by ensuring efficient implementation, supervision, coordination, and administration of the project. The entire project will be coordinated by the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) through its Secretariat for Biodiversity and Forests (SBF) and will be executed through a contract between MMA and FUNBIO. The National Biodiversity Commission (CONABIO) will provide consultative oversight for the project on biodiversity priorities, policies, and guidelines. CONABIO will also promote mainstreaming across sectors and provide general orientation for project implementation. Other ministries and government organizations will participate in the co-financing and execution of the project.

Subcomponent 4.1 Project Administration, Monitoring and Evaluation

Included in this subcomponent are all project-related financial management, procurement, and audit activities, and the Mid-Term Review, independent assessment(s), and project-closing activities. Coordination of project activities with other national and international initiatives will be an important responsibility of this component.

Subcomponent 4.2 Information Dissemination and Communication Strategies

This subcomponent will disseminate information generated by the project, including policy recommendations, tools, best practices, and lessons learned. Strategies for sharing this information will include workshops, conferences, special events, and publications. This subcomponent will be critical to ensure that information generated by the project, and lessons learned, are shared widely, permitting replication of best practices in biodiversity mainstreaming in Brazil and abroad.

Implementing Agencies and Partner InstitutionsThe project will be implemented through a partnership between the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) and FUNBIO (see Annex 6 for details). As an integral part of this mainstreaming project, co-financing has been secured, and partnerships established with other major stakeholders including the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (MAPA), Ministry Agrarian Development (MDA), Ministry of Health (MS), Ministry of Science & Technology (MCT), Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (FIOCRUZ), Brazilian Environment Institute (IBAMA), Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden (JBRJ), Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA), and the Brazilian Network of Botanical Gardens. These partners represent the institutions that have already participated in project preparation, are committed to develop project activities, and have devoted significant budget resources for project co-financing. Other sectors, such as energy, mining and transport have also been engaged in ongoing project preparation discussions and are

70

expected to join the project during the early stages of implementation. Additional partnerships will be established with NGOs, academia and the private sector to implement subprojects and research projects, as well as participate in the biodiversity information network.

71

Annex 5: Project Costs


Table A5.1: Project Cost by Component and SubcomponentComponents and Subcomponents Local GEF Total

US$ Million

US$ Million

US$ Million

1. Mainstreaming biodiversity into selected government and economic sectors 25.0 8.4 33.4

1.1. Planning and Refinement of Public Sectoral Policies and Policy Instruments 1.5 0.4 1.9

1.2. Sectoral activities incorporating biodiversity mainstreaming applied at national level 23.5 8.0 29.5

2. Mainstreaming Biodiversity into the Private Sector 22.5 7.5 30.0

2.1. Territorial mainstreaming subprojects 18.0 6.0 24.02.2. Best practices and productive/management innovations 1.25 0.25 1.5

2.3. Fund management 1.25 0.25 1.52.4. Component 2 coordination, monitoring and evaluation 2.0 1.0 3.0

3. Institutional Strengthening and Generation of Biodiversity Information for Policymaking 25.0 6.1 31.1

3.1. Institutional strengthening 16.0 3.8 19.03.2. Management of biodiversity information 9.0 2.3 11.5 4. Project Coordination and Management 2.5 0.0 2.54.1. Project administration, monitoring and evaluation 1.25 0.0 1.25

4.2. Information dissemination and communication strategies 1.25 0.0 1.25

Total Financing 75.0 22.0 97.0

72

Table A5.2: Categories of eligible expenses that can be funded with GEF funds (“Category”) by component and sub-component.

Category Amount of allocated GEF funds (USD)

1. Goods, works, non-consulting services, and consulting services under Components 1 (Sub-components 1.1 and 1.2) and 3 (Sub-components 3.1 and 3.2) of the project.

5,500,000

2. Goods, works, non-consulting services, and consulting services under Component 2 (Sub-components 2.2 and 2.3) of the project. 500,000

3. Goods, works, non-consulting services, and consulting services required for Public Sector Subprojects under Components 1 (Sub-component 1.2) and 3 (Sub-component 3.2) of the project.

8,000,000

4. Goods, works, and consulting services required for Private Sector Subprojects under Component 2 (Sub-component 2.1) of the project. 6,000,000

5. Operating costs9 under Component 2 (Sub-component 2.4) of the project. 1,000,000

(6) Unallocated 1,000,000TOTAL 22,000,000

Table A5.3: Estimated Counterpart Financing

Partner Total Counterpart

(US$)

In Cash (US$)

In Kind(US$)

MDA 4,000,000.00 3,640,000.00 1,360,000,00FUNBIO+NGOs 22,500,000.00 14,008,000.00 8,492,000,00Fiocruz 4,000,000.00 2,464,000.00 1,536,000.00MAPA 4,000,000.00 2,880,000.00 1,120,000.00IBAMA 14,400,000.00 9,331,000.00 5,069,000.00JBRJ 8,000,000.00 4,648,000.00 5,051,000.00MCT 7,100,000.00 4,970,000.00 3,352,000.00MMA 8,000,000.00 5,600,000.00 2,400,000.00

TOTAL 75,000,000.00 49,541,000.00 25,459,000.00

Cost-effectivenessIn the early stages of conceptualization for a project with the objective of mainstreaming biodiversity considerations into other government and private sectors, several different potential project designs were analyzed before being rejected. These included sector-based work to mainstream biodiversity into individual sectors, capacity-building programs for individual

9 For the purposes of this table, the term "Operating Costs" means recurrent costs of the Project, associated with the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of Component 2 of the Project by FUNBIO, including: (i) operation and maintenance of vehicle, repairs, fuel and spare parts; (ii) equipment and computer maintenance; (iii) shipment costs (whenever these costs are not included in the cost of goods); (iv) office supplies and equipment; (v) rent for office facilities; (vi) utilities; (vii) travel and per diem costs for technical staff carrying out training, supervisory and quality control activities; (viii) audits; and (ix) salaries of FUNBIO staff employed for purposes of working in Project coordination and management activities.

73

sectors, and incorporation of mainstreaming objectives into separate, planned projects. Each of these possibilities was rejected for being more expensive, not providing the same level of expected mainstreaming benefits, and lacking the cross-sectoral interactions that are so key to successful mainstreaming efforts.

Instead, this project has been designed to maximize the benefits received per dollar spent. This has been done in several ways. First, the project is working through established partners, and with existing supply chains. This helps minimize the expenditures necessary to achieve identified objectives, as compared to establishing new programs and initiatives. For example, rather than creating and training a new cadre of environmental extension agents to promote biodiversity-friendly techniques on small farms, the project will provide additional training to current agricultural extension agents, in order to allow them to incorporate biodiversity conservation-related practices into their services. Instead of setting up a new program to promote the integration of biodiversity criteria into the private productive practices, the project will work through FUNBIO, which has an extensive and tested program for promoting biodiversity conservation in the private sector. This same strategy applies to biodiversity information as well. Rather than creating a series of new institutions, the project will link existing centers and institutions, allowing them to share information and build synergies much more effectively, and at a much lower cost. Only where critical gaps have been identified will new organizations be created.

The type of interventions the project will support have also been carefully selected to maximize impact while minimizing cost. A strong focus has been placed on influencing policy and practice guidelines, which affect a broad number of sectoral actors while costing relatively little. The project has also chosen to work through subprojects that test proposed solutions to identified problems. These subprojects, most of which will be large (landscape) in scale, will serve as pilots. The lessons learned through their application (funded through the project), and the successful approach they validate, will then be able to be applied throughout Brazil at a much lower risk, making their extensive application more attractive. This approach both minimizes project costs and, in the long term, risks, while increasing impact.

The project has also sought to reduce administrative costs by executing the project through two institutions with extensive experience executing GEF projects: the Ministry of the Environment and FUNBIO. Both MMA and FUNBIO have staff specifically trained to administer and monitor GEF projects; specialists experienced in procuring goods, services, and works through open and competitive practices; and systems in place to accurately track and manage grant funds. This means that the project can be managed far more efficiently and effectively than it could have had a new project implementation unit been created.

74

Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements


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. The project will be implemented by the two grant recipients, the Ministry of the Environment (MMA), and the Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO). Each will have project coordination units (teams within existing departments, rather than stand-alone units), and will be responsible for central administrative and financial duties, and project monitoring and coordination among partner institutions. MMA will be responsible for coordinating the overall project.

The Project will be executed by MMA and FUNBIO, with CAIXA acting as a fiduciary agent for the government part. A tripartite grant agreement between the World Bank (as the GEF Implementing Agency) CAIXA and FUNBIO will be signed to carry out the implementation of the project. FUNBIO will be responsible for the implementation of Component 2, while MMA will implement Components 1, 3, and 4. CAIXA will carry out disbursements and the financial execution and accounting of the government part of the Project. Implementation agreements between CAIXA and all government executing agencies (MMA, IBAMA, JBRJ, MAPA, EMBRAPA, MDA, MCT, MS, FIOCRUZ) will be signed as a condition of effectiveness. The implementation agreements shall define each organization’s responsibilities and obligations under the Project.

For specific activities under Components 1 and 3, co-execution agreements will be signed between MMA and public-sector partner institutions and funds will be passed directly to these institutions for the execution of activities. These partner institutions include 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. These partners represent the institutions that have already participated in project preparation, are committed to developing project activities, and have devoted substantial budget resources as counterpart funding. Additional partners may be brought in during execution. For Component 2 subprojects, grants will be awarded on a competitive basis based both on induced and demand-driven proposals. MMA and FUNBIO will have responsibility for the oversight and coordination of Components 1, 3 and 4, and 2, respectively.

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 (EMBRAPA, FIOCRUZ, IBAMA, JBRJ, MAPA, MCT, MDA, MMA, and MS) 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 (FIOCRUZ, IBAMA, and JBRJ). The GEF funds

75

allocated for subcomponent 3.2 will be managed by sectoral partner ministries and agencies (EMBRAPA, FIOCRUZ, IBAMA, JBRJ, MAPA, MCT, MDA, MMA, and MS) and by specialized institutions to be identified.

The implementation of Components 1 and 3 will start with an initial significant allocation (not less than US$500,000 for each partner institution, and not less than US$1,000,000 for MMA) 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 the specific activities that the partner has been assigned, in accordance with agreed Annual Operational Plans approved by the Project Coordination Committee. This initial allocation of GEF funds should not exceed 40 percent 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 Commission on National Biodiversity (CONABIO).

As such, a Project Coordination Committee chaired by MMA and composed of representatives from EMBRAPA, FIOCRUZ, FUNBIO, IBAMA, JBRJ, MAPA, MCT, MDA, and MS, and other institutions invited by the Committee during project execution will oversee project activities, assuring consistency and synergies within the project. CONABIO will 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.

Following is a detailed description of the responsibilities of each entity involved in the project, and a graphic outline of the project’s structure.

Description of Project Responsibilities:

National Commission on Biodiversity (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 nongovernmental institutions with equal representation, and has a broad membership of diverse government sectors and civil society (industry, academy, indigenous organizations, NGOs, and so forth). CONABIO will provide consultative oversight for this project on high-level questions of biodiversity priorities, policies, and guidelines, and will 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 EMBRAPA, FIOCRUZ, FUNBIO, IBAMA, JBRJ, MAPA, MCT, MDA, MS, 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. It will also promote the integration of the different project components, exploring

76

opportunities for complementarities between subprojects and synergies among partners. During the first 18 months of the project, the Project Coordination Committee will review the execution and impacts of the original sum awarded to each partner agency (no more than $500,000, or $1 million in the case of MMA) for Components 1 and 3 and readjust the strategic plan for the project, allowing the most effective partners to implement additional activities and increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the project.

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 co-financing 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 EMBRAPA, FIOCRUZ, FUNBIO, IBAMA, JBRJ, MAPA, MCT, MDA, MMA, and MS. 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 to: (a) serve as executive secretariat of the Project Coordination Committee (MMA); (b) coordinate and promote synergies among project partners (MMA and FUNBIO); (c) monitor the implementation of all project actions and activities (MMA and FUNBIO); (d) coordinate the provision of grant funds to the executors of project activities (MMA and FUNBIO); (e) 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, and 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 EMBRAPA, FIOCRUZ, IBAMA, JBRJ, MAPA, MCT, MDA, and MS. In parallel, MMA/SBF will coordinate the Center for Biodiversity Monitoring and Forecasting.

Caixa Econômica Federal (CAIXA): CAIXA will have the overall financial responsibility for the government part of the Project. It will receive and disburse the grant and counterpart funds for the government part of the Project (Components 1, 3 and 4). It will act as a fiduciary agent, opening and managing separate accounts for government and grant funds.

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. It is responsible for interfacing with the private sector to develop and implement Component 2 and its related subcomponents. FUNBIO will be responsible for the establishment and management of, and fundraising for, the Opportunities Fund. It will implement project activities through both

77

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 (EMBRAPA, FIOCRUZ, IBAMA, JBRJ, MAPA, MCT, MDA, and MS,) 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.

CONABIO: CONABIO will 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, CONABIO may also serve as a mediator for any potential impasses that may arise during project execution.

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, and generate information and recommendations for public policy in relevant sectors. (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 use 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.

States: While the proposed project will be implemented at the federal level, the state governments have been informed about project preparation through the preparation of PAN-Bio. However, policy changes initiated at the federal level will affect all states. The implementation of subprojects under Components 1 and 2 will allow for synergies with, and the transfer of technology to, state agencies. State monitoring and research activities may also choose to form

78

part of the Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity (below) or the Brazilian Center for Biodiversity Monitoring.

Subproject Executors: These are public and private entities (either consortiums 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 and funds raised under the project, and will be responsible for providing subproject co-financing 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.

79

Figure A6.1: Project Institutional Arrangements

Project Coordination CommitteeCONABIO

Brazilian Center for Biodiversity

Monitoring and Forecasting

FUNBIOGovernment Executing Agencies

EMBRAPA, FIOCRUZ, IBAMA, JBRJ, MAPA, MCT, MDA, MMA, and MS

MMA/SBF

Subproject Executors Component 2

Subproject Executors Components 1 and 3

Project Coordination Unit

Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity

80

Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements


Summary of Financial Management ArrangementsThe objective of the assessment was: (i) to review the proposed financial management arrangements10 for project implementation by the project implementation units (CAIXA11 and FUNBIO12); and (ii) to agree on some steps to be completed by grant signing. Component 1, 3 and 4 will be implemented by CAIXA and component 2 by FUNBIO. As described in Annex 6, the Ministry of Environment (MMA) will be more involved with technical related issues and preparing and consolidating the POA. The general financial flow of the project is represented below.

Specific financial management arrangements were designed for each institution: CAIXA and FUNBIO, taking into account that (a) they have different and not interdependent component activities, (b) supervision of implementation can be carried out individually without prejudice to the overall project monitoring, (c) flow of funds and disbursements, reporting and audit arrangements are different for each agency, as summarized in the table below and detailed in item 4 and 5, respectively. 10 The financial management arrangements will be consistent with the Financial Management Practices in World Bank Investments Operations (FM Manual, November 2005).11 Caixa Economica Federal12 Fundo de Biodiversidade

World BankFUNBIO

Governmental Executing Agencies - MMA, MDA, MAPA,

MCT, MS, JBRJ, IBAMA, Fiocruz and Embrapa

Subproject executing agencies

Componente 2

CAIXA ECONÔMICA FEDERAL

Sub-project executing agencies

Componentes 1, 3 e 4

Financial disbursement (R$)Expense reportingRequest of payment for expenses contracted according to World Bank rules

Seller / consultant

81

Table 7.1: Summary of Financial Management Arrangements

Entity FUNBIO CAIXAFlow of funds (i) one USD designated

account for operational costs(ii) and one for the matching

One designated BRL account

Disbursements (i) through SOEs(ii) through deposits in the “Opportunities Fund” account

through un-audited Financial Management Reports

Reporting IFRs 1-A and 1-B IFR used for disbursement purposes

Auditing independent audit firm to be contracted to audit both accounts

SFC13 will be responsible for auditing the project

a) FUNBIO will implement component 2 of the project (USD7.5million). The project will consist of two phases, the first one (where expenditures will be financed 100% by GEF funds) sums up to USD 1.5 million and the objective is (a) to contract consultants to develop a knowledge data base.14 (b) to finance minor PIU operational costs. The second phase (USD 6 million) will be disbursed to a matching fund “Opportunities Fund”, which will be composed by deposits from the project and from the private sector. The design of this component is similar to the implementation of TF051240 – Brazil Amazon Region Protected Areas Project.

b) As such, the assessment focused more on existing CAIXA capacity to effectively manage (financial management responsibilities) and monitor the project. CAIXA will implement components 1, 3 and 4, with technical assistance from MMA. The expenditures will be 100% financed by GEF.

c) The main responsibility of the Ministry of Environment (MMA) will be to consolidate monitoring information for the project, acting as the overall Project implementing agency (PIU). Its duties include: (i) coordinate and supervise project implementation; (ii) plan and monitor project activities to be financed by the project, including among specific subprojects and different partners; (iii) support and provide technical assistance to the other executing agencies; (iv) supervise the overall project resources; (v) evaluate project components. A more detailed description on MMA participation will be included in the Operational Manual.

d) Other Ministries, NGOs, environmental agencies and private sector groups are expected to join the project. They will participate with in-kind or cash contributions which will be accounted as counterpart funds. The participation of these groups (as CAIXA will manage their funds) will be formalized

13 Secretaria Federal de Controle14 A database with the consultant’s findings on how and where are the geographic areas that need investment on biodiversity programs.

82

through a legal document (which will be detailed in the Operational Manual). Irrespective of the nature of the contribution, counterpart assistance will be accounted for and monitored.

The assessment and review of FUNBIO and CAIXA included: (i) institutional arrangements; (ii) financial management system; (iii) financial management reports; (iv) flow of funds; (v) external auditing arrangements; (vi) disbursement arrangements; and (vii) arrangements to monitor the partner counterpart contributions.

Conclusion: Taking into account project design and seeking effective and efficient project management and monitoring over the use of funds, each implementing agency will have its own financial management arrangements. Despite the parallel arrangements, this design assures that all financial management aspects of the project will be well monitored, including the counterpart contributions (cash and in-kind)

The financial management arrangements as described below for both CAIXA and FUNBIO PIU’s are satisfactory and meet the Bank’s minimum requirements to provide with reasonable assurance, accurate and timely information on the status of the project. There is no FM-related condition of effectiveness.

FM Risk Rating: The overall risk rating associated to the project at this stage is moderate for CAIXA and low for FUNBIO. The major risks identified are related to: (i) CAIXA’s lack of prior experience with World Bank procedures; and (ii) the involvement of many partners contributing different forms of counterpart support (in-kind and cash contributions).

Table 7.2: Pending issues (not considered conditions for effectiveness and or disbursements)

Action Responsible Entity Completion DateFinalize financial management section of Operations Manual

MMA draft by negotiations, final version by signing

Have SIGMA II available for all partners; CAIXA and staff at its 12 regional center trained

MMA by negotiations

FUNBIO Financial Management Arrangements:

The Bank has experience with FUNBIO managing the Brazil Amazon Region Protected Areas Project, or ARPA. In addition to discussions held with FUNBIO during project preparation, this assessment also relied on the results of the 2002 assessment as well results of project supervision (FUNBIO’s performance) of the ARPA. The design of the component FNBIO will manage is similar to the design of ARPA.

FUNBIO is a Civil Society Organization (OSCIP – NGO), located in Rio de Janeiro. Previous experience with FUNBIO demonstrates that the arrangements proposed for this project are appropriate to implement and monitor grant funds. During the last three years, FUNBIO has

83

solidified its participation in the environmental sector as being one of the main references in biodiversity programs. FUNBIO also publishes its annual financial statements by posting them on the internet and through publication in a national newspaper.

FUNBIO will implement component 2 through two different phases. The first phase is expected to last 18 months and will cost about USD 1.5 million. The main objective is to develop a Knowledge Base Facility to provide guidance on which projects and geographical areas should be given priority for financing. The second phase is estimated to cost USD 6 million and will be implemented through a matching fund – Opportunities Fund - where the private sector is expected to participate (the design of this second phase is very similar to ARPA).

The PIU is well staffed and has experience in working with the World Bank projects, KFW and other donors. The staff directly involved with the project includes: one coordinator, one financial/administrative coordinator, one procurement specialist, one professional accountant and two assistants. It is expected that in the first six months of implementation, three more staff will be hired: one environmental specialist in project management, one financial analyst and one information analyst. Little or no turnover is expected during project implementation.

Detailed staff duties and tasks will be included in the operational manual. The main project fiduciary responsibilities of FUNBIO’s financial management staff include: (i) update the financial management system – ERP15 as needed and on a timely basis; (ii) review project expenditure documentation, observe eligibility criteria and category percentages; (iii) maintain documentation properly archived in Rio de Janeiro; (iv) prepare and submit to the World Bank, quarterly un-audited financial management reports; (v) reconcile and monitor data - identifying discrepancies and taking timely corrective action; (vi) prepare and provide all financial documentation and reports requested by external auditors and Bank staff .

Financial Management System. FUNBIO’s integrated management system (RM) is able to adequately control, account for, report on, and manage the proposed grants financing for the component (USD 7,500,000). The system currently generates a series of management reports for FUNBIO, and is able to generate the required financial information for the quarterly un-audited reports (Interim Unaudited Financial Reports or IFRs) and periodic Statement of Expenditures (SOEs). A specific ledger will be created in the system to record all grant transactions, and will be aligned with the structure of the grant cost table in order to record transactions by category and component/activity.

Accounting. FUNBIO maintains and manages the RM system that has been used to manage other donor-financed projects, and as such, the system is considered acceptable for this project as well. The PIU 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) and on a forecast basis for the

15 Sistema de Gestão Integrada

84

upcoming month. 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.

As an NGO, FUNBIO follows the Brazilian Accounting Rules (NBC), which are aligned with international accounting standards. FUNBIO’s accounting systems have the capacity to record assets, liabilities, and the financial transactions of the project. The accounting system is designed to be able to capture all financial information and allocate among project activities and categories, and the system is able to generate financial reports for project management (including Interim Unaudited Financial Reports, IFRs).

Reporting and Monitoring. On a monthly basis, the PIU 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 IFRs.

The RM system can produce financial management reports (in both USD and local currency), which are prepared the cash-basis of accounting. The IFRs (1-A and 1-B) will state the expenditures figures by quarter, accumulated for the year and accumulated for the project, as agreed with the PIU. Any counterpart contribution (in-kind or cash contributions) supporting the grant’s activities will be reflected in the IFRs.

Funds Flow. FUNBIO will be the recipient of grant funds, and will allocate funds to subproject executors based on subproject budget estimates and POAs. The PIU 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).

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 FUNBIO PIU.

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, supporting documentation will be retained 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.

For categories 2 and 5 related activities (USD 1,500,000), the disbursement arrangements are as follows:

(i) FUNBIO will open a designated account (in USD) in Banco do Brasil (New York) to receive grant funds, process payments in USD and transfer funds into local currency (Brazilian Reais, or BRLs) to a BRL operational account in Banco do Brasil in Rio de Janeiro in order to process local currency payments. (ii) Before any transfer is made, FUNBIO ensures budget allocation and financial availability.

85

(iii) All payments will be made through electronic deposits at each beneficiary/consultant bank account.

For category 4 (Opportunities Fund) related activities (USD 6,000,000) the disbursements arrangements are as follows:

(i) FUNBIO will open a designated account (in USD) in Banco do Brasil (New York) to receive grant funds, process payments in USD and transfer funds into local currency (Brazilian Reais, or BRLs) to a BRL operational account in Banco do Brasil in Rio de Janeiro in order to transfer funds to grantees.(ii) Before any transfer is made, FUNBIO ensures that the sub-grant agreement is approved by the Bank (TTL)(iii) GEF will finance 33% (1:3 ratio) of total sub-grant amount under category 4. (iv) Disbursements from FUNBIO’s operational account to grantee accounts will be made through electronic transfers.(v) The transfers to sub-grant accounts will be considered eligible for further advances to the designated account.(vi) FUNBIO would need to attach to the withdrawal application: the SOEs (including the respective transfers), the reconciliation of the designated account, the designated bank statement and any other form requested by the Loan Department, specified in the Disbursement Letter.

External Audits. 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 for this component will cover MMA and FUNBIO operations.

Funbio - Operational

Banco do Brasil NYDesignated account

Funbio

Banco do Brasil RJOperations account

World Bank

Opportunities Fund

Sub-Comp. 2.1(Operational)

- disbursements matching 1:3 a) through cash deposits into OF; b) through proof of expenses made by partner (actual expenditure documented by SOE) in cash or in kind- Assets manager to be contracted- Opportunities Fund account will be opened at the assets manager to receive funds from the World Bank and Partners.

Sub-Comp. 2.2 Sub-Comp. 2.3

Sistema Gestão Integrado Procurement, Financial Contracts,

Accounting

SOE

FMRA1 and B1

World Bank

1º depósito

In kind

cash

ConsultingSeminariesServicesGoodsRecurrent costsetc

CashIn kind

Private SectorFunbioNGOsAssociationsFoundationGovernmentetc

FUNBIO FINANCIAL FLOW – BIODIVERSITY MAINSTREAMING PROJECT

Funbio System

SOE

IFRA1 and B1

World Bank

Opportunities Fund(OF)

SubProjects

World Bank Partners

Assets and policies manager

CD and Sub-comission of assets

management

86

The audit would be due no later than six months after the end of the fiscal year. In addition to the management letter (report on internal controls) the audit report will contain a single opinion on project financial statements, and the designated account.

Additional special procurement audits will be contracted and the opinion of these reports will attest to the observance of the procurement and consultants services provisions of the Grant Agreement. FUNBIO has agreed to appoint the auditors (for both the annual and special audits) under a multiyear contract.

FUNBIO Financial Management Risk Assessment. The table below summarizes the financial management risk assessment for FUNBIO. The overall financial management risk associated with FUNBIO has been rated as low. The control risks indicators, which are directly associated with the project FM arrangements, represent the level of adequacy of FUNBIO’s existing control framework which will be applied to the project. The ratings below for each indicator were also based on information from the implementation and financial management performance in the ARPA project.

Table 7.3: Risk Rating - FUNBIORisk16 Funbio Risk

RatingRisk Issues/Measures

Inherent RiskCountry Level LowEntity/project specific

Low The legal and institutional arrangements are adequate, FM administrative and financial system are adequate.

Control RiskBudget Preparation

Low Budget will be clearly defined and reflected in POA.

Funds Flow Low All funds will flow through Banco do Brasil and its branches. Current arrangements are appropriate.

Counterpart Funds – matching funds

Moderate No assurance on having the private sector participating in the “Opportunities Fund” (matching funds). Mitigation measures include close task team supervision.

Staffing Low Staff experienced and trained in Bank project requirementsAccounting policies and procedures

Low Accounting procedures are adequate

External audits Low Independent auditors to be hired.

Supervision Plan - FUNBIO: In view of the low rating associated with this part of the project, the supervision plan requires an annual field-based mission to review FUNBIO’s performance.

CAIXA Financial Management Arrangements:

CAIXA is a public enterprise, which has more than 19.000 agencies in Brazil. CAIXA’s permanent capital17 is about BRL167.46 billion. As the biggest public bank in Latin America, it 16 Risk ratings followed the indicative criteria included in the FM manual, indicated in the first paragraph of this document.17 Patrimonio Líquido

87

receives financing from many different sources and its institutional arrangements are complex and designed to give assurance on the use of funds to beneficiaries. All financial and accounting information is made available to the public.18

Although CAIXA has been used as a financial institution by a previous Bank project19, this is the first time CAIXA is a beneficiary of a Bank-financed project. Under the previous loan CAIXA only provided banking services, receiving funds from the federal governmental and processing payments though transfers, electronically, to the beneficiaries. For this project, CAIXA will be responsible for all fiduciary aspects of the loan. Its headquarters in Brasilia will house the respective PIU. Despite its role as beneficiary, CAIXA’s main responsibility will be to act as a financial institution (receiving grant funds and disbursing to the beneficiaries) and responsible to consolidate though IFR the financial data for its portion of the grant (components 1, 3 and 4).

The PIU will be located in Brasilia (CAIXA headquarters) and will be under the Unit for Social Funds and Insurance (GEFUS), which reports to the Vice Presidency for benefits and transfers (SUFUS and VIBEN). GEFUS is managed by one national manager, one planning manager and two operational managers, and 14 staff including specialists, analyst and junior staff, as showed in the chart below. GEFUS also has staff distributed in 12 regional centers across Brazil.

Other CAIXA departments directly involved in the project implementation are: Internal Auditing, Legal Department, International Business Department, VP of Urban Development (through partnership and support to Urban Development Unit), VP of Risk Management (through the Corporate Financial Risk Management Unit), VP of Finance and Capital Market (though the Finance Administration Unit) and VP of Controllership (though the Ombudsman and Internal Control Unit. A simplified organizational chart is:

18 www.caixa.gov.br > A CAIXA > Balanços e Demonstrativos http://www.caixa.gov.br/acaixa/relatorios/index.asp)19 Ln 45320 – Low Income Sanitation

88

There are a number reasons that support the selection of CAIXA to receive the respective portion of grant funds instead of MMA: (i) its deep understanding of international fiduciary arrangements (including accounting rules and procedures); (ii) less administrative procedures than the government in executing and managing decentralized public funds/budgets20; (iii) a sophisticated administrative and financial management system – SISFIN21; (iv) qualified and professional staff; (v) high institutional capacity; (vi) the ability to disburse directly to the beneficiaries through its councils network with less administrative procedures; and (vii) ability to implement and properly account for (as needed) partners’ counterpart funds.

The proposed project design and alternatives were discussed with the National Treasury Secretariat (STN). STN agreed that having CAIXA as the grant implementing entity would be more efficient and effective to achieve the grant objectives, and that this would not have any implication with regard to national fiscal policy. STN stated that although the grant funds will not go through the federal budget system (SIAFI), CAIXA as a public entity (and for the reasons stated in the above paragraph) is used by the government itself to implement22 part of the federal budget (particularly social safety net programs) and is subject to federal oversight and control agencies (TCU and SFC/CGU).

Due to decentralization of activities and beneficiaries CAIXA, through its12 regional centers (Brasilia branch is responsible to assure appropriate training of such staff), will be responsible to receive, screen and approve support documentation for the respective beneficiaries, confirming adequacy and eligibility of invoices, proper use of funds, and maintaining the original documentation, which will be scanned and sent to its headquarters for monitoring.

20 Budget can be decentralized through a “contract of transfer” (contrato de repasse), authorized by STN. Upon this legal document, CAIXA receives the budget and the funds and can balance over to the next CY, properly accounting on SIAFI and SISFIN. 21 Able to extract and reflect SIAFI budgetary implementation and to extract data to SIGMA, which is the FM system to be used by all partners.22 Using the same mechanism as the grant partners (contrato de repasse).

GPPMônica

MonteiroGO 1

Mauro XavierGO 2

João Cláudio Oliveira

TECHNICAL TEAM1 Specialist2 Senior Analysts1 Full Analyst

MACRO ACTIVITIESProspect management of social funds and insuranceElaborate Operational Rules and ProceduresSpecify business rules and approve technological solutionsMap, revision and alter product processesStandardize new productsSet prices for productsCoordinate the unit’s strategic planning Prepare Monitoring and Administration Reports

GEFUSAlexandre Minatel

MACRO ACTIVITIESRepresent CAIXA at forums and collegiates;Manage this unit together with other managers.

TECHNICAL TEAM1 Internal Consultant

MACRO ACTIVITIES

Raise funds for input into social funds and insurance Prepare budget proposalsControl resource investmentsContract Financing AgentsImprove and promote CAIXA remuneration

Evaluate operational performance Assist managers, Financial Agents, lawsuits and general publicReporting to social fund and insurance managersRespond to due diligence from TCU, SFC and other controlling bodiesProvide information to managers, controlling bodies and general public

MACRO ACTIVITIES

TECHNICAL TEAM1 Specialist2 Full Analysts1 Junior Analyst 1 Banking Technician

TECHNICAL TEAM1 Internal Consultant 1 Senior Analyst 1 Full Analyst2 Banking Technicians

89

Financial Management Systems: SISFIN (Sistema de Administração Financeira): All financial resources administered by CAIXA are executed through its integrated management system, SISFIN. SISFIN is a large, complex and sophisticated management information system that enables strong management control over financial transactions and is integrated with CAIXA’s accounting system. This system is also integrated with the Federal Government’s Administrative and Financial System (SIAFI). Through SISFIN, CAIXA can systematically control and account for all transfers, providing timely account balances for all international programs, social programs and funds balances.

The project transactions will be accounted for in a specific accounting cost center within SISFIN budgetary lines. This will be achieved through a specific ledger that will be opened in the accounting system to record all grant transactions, following the cost table by cost categories.

SIGMA II: All other partners will use SIGMA II as the financial management system to record transactions (both cash and in-kind related expenditures) and to monitor project implementation. CIAXA will also have access to SIGMA II in order to consolidate all project financial information and prepare the financial reports (IFRs).

SIGMA II is maintained by MMA, who is responsible to enter the project’s financial structure into the system’s chart of accounts (following grants description by components, activities, categories, etc). MMA will also ensure that the system is available to all involved partners, CAIXA and its 12 regional centers, and will provide respective staff training in the use of the system.

In order to monitor the project as a whole, the financial management system to be used to account all partners’ cash and in-kind counterpart funds will be the same: SIGMA II. SIGMA II has been used by many Bank-financed federal projects and grants and has been found to be a well functioning financial management system23. It can not only monitor the financial and physical project implementation but is also ready to generate Interim Unaudited Financial Reports (IFRs) for monitoring and disbursements. SIGMA II will be used mainly to prepare the financial reports (IFRs), which will be consolidated by CAIXA. In order to consolidate project financial information, CAIXA and its regional centers will extract data from SISFIN and SIGMA II.

Such arrangement will prevent that counterpart funds are entered and monitored by different systems, mitigating risks and allowing overall project monitoring. CAIXA will only process payments upon approval of POA and MMA.

Reporting and Monitoring. Through SIGMA II, CAIXA will receive the information provided by the partners regarding in-kind and cash contributions. Each partner and the MMA will be responsible to maintain SIGMA II with their transactions. Each partner will have access to and utilize use the same modules, and follow the same procedures for recording transactions - which are detailed in SIGMA II manual and will be incorporated in the Operational Manual. This will facilitate CAIXA’s monthly reporting which is normally done within 15 days after each quarter.

23 LN73310- Environmental Sustainability Agenda Technical Assistance Project

90

In order to consolidate its reporting (monthly, quarterly and annual reporting) CAIXA will extract data from SISFIN to SIGMA II (as data cannot be imported to SISFIN, only to SIGMA II) in order to produce financial management reports, which are to be prepared on a cash accounting basis.24

1-A: Sources and Use of Funds by disbursement category as per Grant Agreement1-B: Statement of Investments by Project Components and Activities1-C: Statement of Investments by Partners’ Components and Activities1-D: Actual Disbursement (attached with latest Bank Statement)1-E: Disbursement Forecast 1-F: Contract above Thresholds (attached with copy of the invoices)

Caixa quarterly financial reports will not include FUNBIO expenditures.

These reports are to be prepared and sent to the Bank on a quarterly basis, and will be produced in BRL. The IFRs (Reports 1-A and 1-B) will state the expenditure figures by quarter, accumulated for the year and accumulated for the project, as agreed with the PIU. All counterpart contributions (in-kind or cash contributions) will be reflected by category in Report 1-A IFRs, to better monitor all amounts invested under the grant objectives.

The fourth IFR generated during the year, set showing the cumulative figures for the period, should be submitted to the auditors for review under the annual external audit which will be made by SFC.

Flow of funds. CAIXA will disburse through IFRs. The first disbursement will forecast 6 months of implementation. Replenishment of the dedicated account will be made on a quarterly basis, when the forecast will be updated.

(i) CAIXA will open a designated account in Brasilia (in BRL), to receive grant funds and process payments directly to the beneficiaries account (to be opened at CAIXA branches)(ii) Before any transfer is made, CAIXA ensures budget allocation and financial availability and MMA approval. (iii) All payments will be made through deposits at each beneficiary/consultant bank account. (iv) Supporting documentation will be maintained by the 12 regional centers, and scanned copies sent to CAIXA Headquarters in Brasilia.

24 The FMRs were discussed with TTL, CEF, MMA and partners.

91

Internal Control and Internal Audit. Since 2001 CAIXA included under its organizational structure an office of the Ombudsman (74 staff). This office’s main objective is to receive internal and external inquiries25, such as complaints (denúncias), regarding people directly or indirectly involved with any service provided by CAIXA. As the main channel between the institution and individuals, the Ombudsman’s mission is to improve the quality of CAIXA products and services by reporting such demands to the appropriate CAIXA unit, and following-up to assure that these inquiries are appropriately and timely replied.

The Controllership Unit (SUCON) under the Vice President-Controllers is responsible to monitor/control and follow up on all CAIXA accounting transactions and the transactions of its associated agencies. SUCON is composed of the following units:

Gerência Nacional de Contabilidade (GEINC): standardizes and regularizes accounting procedures, maintains and updates accounting, determines financial information requirements (to be reflected the accounting rules).Gerência Nacional de Contabilidade de Entidades Sociais Administrativas (GECOF): analyzes procedures, data and information related to all social agencies administrated by CAIXA.Gerência Nacional de Contabilidade e de Resultados (GENOR): provides information on budget execution for all programs and funds administered by CAIXA, compares with planned budget figures, follow up and controls budget execution.Gerência Nacional de Tributos (GETRI): provides (tributary) consulting services to all other units.

25 About 50,000 calls and 17,000 (written) official related requests on a monthly basis.

92

Superitendência Nacional de Controle Institucional (SUCOI): assures that the rules and procedures are followed by the institution. It is also responsible to implement (control, monitor, supervise) corporate policies and procedures of internal control.

The internal control also follows a predefined standard routine, a tool used to manage and control any new product or service, such as the grant implementation.

The internal audit unit reports directly to CAIXA Administration Council. Its main mission is to confirm the legitimacy and legality of the administrative decisions, assessing the risk management efficiency, control and corporate governance ongoing practices.

The internal audit department, along with the external auditors and internal control unit are expected to maintain close contact when indication is found of fraud, mistakes or errors which might have a direct impact on CAIXA’s financial statements accountability.

External Audits. CAIXA’s financial statements are annually audited by an independent auditing firm26, and the audit report is usually issued by March 1st. CAIXA is also subject to audits carried out by the Tribunal de Contas da União (TCU) and the Secretaria Federal de Controle (SFC).

For the purposes of the grant’s external audit requirement, SFC will be responsible to audit the project and deliver the report within six months after closing of calendar year, and will include: a single opinion on project financial statements, and the designated account, in addition to the Management Letter (report on internal controls).

Additionally, the scope of the SFC audit report will include a full review of the fourth IFR (for each calendar year), review of CAIXA-executed transactions in SISFIN and SIGMA II, site visits (based on a sample) to CAIXA branch offices and regional centers, as well as a review of transactions executed by partners through the use of SIGMA II.

CAIXA Financial Management Risk Assessment. The table below includes the items of potential financial management risk view for the CAIXA share of the project. The overall financial management risk associated with CAIXA has been rated as moderate, primarily due to (i) the lack of PIU experience and knowledge of Bank project procedures; and (ii) the involvement of different forms of partner counterpart contributions (though this creates a direct fiduciary risk to GEF funds) can impact the project’s development objectives.

Table 7.4: Risk Rating – CAIXARisk27 CAIXA

Risk RatingRisk Issues/Measures

Inherent RiskCountry Level LowEntity/project specific

Low The legal and institutional arrangements are adequate, FM administrative and financial system appropriate.

26 In 2006 PriceWaerhouseCoopers auditor27 Risk ratings followed the indicative criteria included in the FM manual, indicated in the first paragraph of this document.

93

Control RiskBudget Preparation

Moderate Budget will be prepared by MMA not by CAIXA, and should be reflected in the POA. Mitigation measures include close follow up with MMA.

Funds Flow Moderate All funds will flow through CAIXA and its branches. Although all transactions are electronic, involvement with many branches may include the risk of staff that may not be adequately trained in the use of SIGMA II. Risk mitigation measures include training to be provided by MMA, supervision by CAIXA-PIU and task team supervision.

Counterpart Funds

Moderate High dependence on counterpart funds; approval of line items in sector budgets will be sought prior to beginning of fiscal year, and agreements have been signed with each counterpart organization. Mitigation measures include close follow up from MMA and CAIXA.

Staffing Moderate Highly professional and qualified staff does not have prior experience implementing Bank projects. Mitigation measures will include semi-annual supervision.

Accounting policies and procedures

Low Accounting procedures are adequate

Internal Audit and Internal Control

Low Internal audit and internal control arrangements are adequate.

External audits Low Government has an established auditing system (TCU and SFC). CAIXA already subjected to annual independent external audit (international firm). Independent auditors might be used if SFC is unable to commit to audit.

Supervision Plan - CAIXA: In view of the lack experience in implementing Bank-financed projects, CAIXA will require greater supervision than FUNBIO during at least the first year of implementation. The financial management supervision plan for CAIXA for the first year will need semi-annual missions. If the performance is deemed satisfactory and the risk rating is lowered, the financial management supervision plan will require an annual mission.

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:

Table 7.5: Allocation of Grant Funds (by Disbursement Category)

Project Components Expenditure Category

Amount of the Grant Allocated in

US Dollars% of Expenditures to be

Financed(US$)

Component 1(a) and (b), Works 700.000 100%

94

and Component 3 (a) and (b)

Goods 1.500.000 100%Non-consultant Services 800.000 100%

Consultant Services 2.000.000 100%

Component 2 (a) and (b)

Goods 45.000 100%Non-consultant Services 55.000 100%

Consultant Services 400.000 100%

Component 1 (b) Public Sector Subprojects 8.000.000 100%

Component 2 (c) Private Sector Subprojects 6.000.000 100%

Component 2 (a), (b), (c) and (d) Operating Costs 1.000.000 100%

Unallocated 1.500.000 100%

Total Project Costs 22.000.000

95

Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements


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 prequalification, 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 under the Project would be implemented directly by each partner institution or by subproject executors.

Procurement of Works: Works procured under this project would include restoration of IBAMA’s specialized centers and building of genetics laboratory. No ICBs or NCBs are expected under the project. For the subprojects, some small works would be required for the implementation of a few of them. The procurement will be done using standard three-quotation request documents, to be reviewed and agreed by the Bank and included in the Operational Manual.

Procurement of Goods: Goods procured under this project would include: IT equipment, office furniture, laboratory equipment, satellite images, and vehicles. The procurement will be done using the Bank’s SBD for all ICB and National SBD (SEAIN’s document) agreed with the Bank for all NCBs. A large amount of shopping processes is expected. For the subprojects, it is unlikely that individual contract values would exceed $100,000.

Procurement of non-consulting services: There are only a couple services identified to be required under the project: IT network, and logistics for events.

Selection of Consultants: Consultants (firms) would be required for a large amount of different services, such as, for policy evaluation, researches, management information system, capacity building, and baseline studies. Individual consultants would be needed for TOR preparation, subproject selection criteria preparation, researches, project evaluation, and project supervision. Short lists of consultants for services estimated to cost less than $500,000 equivalent per contract may be composed entirely of national consultants in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines. For several consultancies (large and small), the short lists would be comprised exclusively of universities (private or public), NGOs, foundations (private or public) because the assignment would entail an important consensus-building activity

96

involving public and private sector entities that are not the expertise of private for-profit enterprises. The procurement plan should clearly indicate which these cases would be.

Operating Costs: Travel costs, per diem, and office supplies. Irrespective of value, the procurement of a travel agent would be centralized by the MMA on behalf of all partners, and would be carried out using pregão eletrônico, as defined in Law 10,520.

Procurement Implementation Responsibilities: In due consideration of the complex project implementation arrangements, procurement responsibility would be defined as follows:

Implementing Agency

Goods and WorksConsultants

Firms

Individuals< 100,000 > 100,000 CQ SSSOther

methodsFUNBIO x x x x x xMMA x x x x x xPartners x -- x x -- xSubprojects x -- x x -- x

The MMA would centralize and carry out the larger procurement and selection processes on behalf of each implementing agency, except FUNBIO. Contracts, however, would be signed by each agency.

B. Assessment of the Agency’s Capacity to Implement Procurement

Procurement activities will be carried out by MMA, FUNBIO, the project partners as identified in the project description, and subproject executors. FUNBIO is staffed by 6 staff dedicated to the procurement function. MMA would create the procurement function within SBF to serve this and other two GEF projects.

An assessment of MMA and FUNBIO capacity to implement procurement actions for the project has been carried out by Luciano Wuerzius.

The key issues and risks concerning procurement for implementation of the project have been identified and include: (i) too many project implementation partners; (ii) lack of adequate structure for the procurement function within SBF/MMA; (iii) lack of a predefined workflow arrangement for procurement, involving procurement under MMA, partners, and subproject executors; (iv) lack of a procurement monitoring system; and (v) possibility of too many different types of subprojects. The corrective measures that have been agreed are:

Action Before When Bank to reviewStaff SBF/COF and CEL adequately Negotiations TOR and CVs

Prepare Procurement Plan Appraisal Draft Plan

Prepare Operational Manual Negotiations Manual

97

Create system to monitor procurement (including under the subprojects)

Effectiveness System report on information needed for post/independent review

Standardize definition and documents for the selection of the subprojects

Negotiations Standard selection documents

The overall project risk for procurement is High.

C. Procurement Plan

The Borrower, at appraisal, developed a procurement plan for project implementation that provides the basis for the procurement methods. This plan would be agreed between the Borrower and the Project and would be available at SBF/MMA. 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 two annual field supervision missions to carry out post review of procurement actions.

Annual procurement audits by independent auditors would also be required for procurement under subprojects.

E. Details of Procurement Arrangements Involving International Competition

1. Consulting Services

(a) List of consulting assignments with expected international advertisement:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ref. No. Description of Assignment

EstimatedCost

SelectionMethod

Reviewby Bank(prior / post)

ExpectedProposals

SubmissionDate

Comments

Biodiversity policy evaluationStudy on native species silviculture

390,000 QCBS Prior

Permanent partition network for

456,000 QCBS Prior

98

forest management

(b) Consultancy services estimated to cost above US$100,000 per contract and single-source selection of consultants (firms) for assignments 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 US$500,000 equivalent per contract may be composed entirely of national consultants in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines.

99

Annex 9: Economic and Financial Analysis


A modified cost-effectiveness evaluation of the proposed project was completed during preparation. Since the Biodiversity Mainstreaming Project was designed as a process project, much of the policy work and many of the subprojects that will eventually be financed will be determined once the project is under implementation. For those activities that have been determined, the difficulty of estimating the real value of biodiversity conservation, especially when done at a national scale and across sectors, is extremely high. It is therefore impossible to determine in advance an estimated economic rate of return or internal rate of return for the project as a whole, and doing so for those activities that have been determined would prove prohibitively expensive. Therefore an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of the proposed project design and strategy was determined to be the most appropriate for the Biodiversity Mainstreaming Project. This economic analysis has therefore been prepared to evaluate the economic benefit of the project, in addition to the local and global environmental impacts achieved. See Annex 15 for a detailed Incremental Cost Analysis.

Economic Analysis

The economic valuation of biodiversity conservation is difficult to measure in monetary terms. It is even more difficult to measure the monetary value of conservation policies, which have an indirect and dispersed impact over a long period of time. Thus the evaluation must rely on proxies for biodiversity conservation, including deforestation rate; soil, water, and air conservation; and changes in indicator species. The project approach focuses on changes in policies that will have a direct impact on biodiversity, and on increasing human capacities in sectors that have a direct impact on biodiversity, as a means to creating the greatest positive trends in conservation with minimal costs.

Economic Benefits

Component 1 seeks to identify opportunities for mainstreaming biodiversity conservation into governmental policies in different sectors, and to develop methods for accomplishing this mainstreaming, including policy work and field testing of proposed solutions.

The direct economic benefits from the proposed activities will include the adoption of policies promoting biodiversity conservation in different sectors. This in turn is expected to lead to greater resources being dedicated to biodiversity conservation, including both research and fieldwork, across governmental sectors. The indirect economic benefits will accrue to a wide range of stakeholders, including family farmers, ranchers, organic producers, and disadvantaged groups who adopt biodiversity-friendly activities, because they will receive increased economic benefit from governmental policies favorable to biodiversity conservation, and additional technical assistance for the adoption of positive measures. Other indirect beneficiaries will include people living in pilot areas but not directly involved in field activities, who will enjoy greater ecosystem benefits stemming from improved local practices.

100

Component 2 focuses on stimulating the adoption of biodiversity-friendly practices by the private sector, and works on a large-landscape scale. The direct economic benefits from these activities will accrue to the beneficiaries of the subprojects financed, who will receive partial financing for the adoption of biodiversity conservation practices within productive landscapes with high biodiversity value. While the recipients will vary from subproject to subproject, they will include both representatives of the dominant economic sector in the selected area and those working with secondary sectors, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and local civil society organizations. Indirect economic beneficiaries include the government, additional NGOs, and other producers in the sectors involved in the subproject, which will benefit from lessons learned and techniques adopted in these pilot projects, resulting in cost savings in later replication efforts, and from information made available in the Knowledge Base Facility. Other indirect beneficiaries will be local residents, who will benefit from improved ecosystem services such as water quality and quantity, reduced presence of agrochemicals, soil conservation, and availability of additional natural resources.

Component 3 seeks to strengthen the capacity of governmental institutions to promote biodiversity conservation in Brazil through the generation, organization, and dissemination of information; effective monitoring; and an increase in training focused on conservation. Direct economic beneficiaries of this component will include the government staff, especially those in institutions not traditionally involved with biodiversity conservation, who will receive technical training to allow them to promote the objectives of this project. The institutions themselves will benefit from increased resources and structure dedicated to conservation. Users of the Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity Conservation and the Center for Monitoring and Forecasting will directly benefit from increased access to information, and from the better-channeled demand for goods and services. Indirect economic benefits will be received by organizations such as NGOs, donors, and private sector firms that request services or products related to conservation, and residents of biodiversity-rich areas of Brazil, who will benefit from the increased capacity of extension agents and other government staff, increased resources and technical knowledge for conservation, and eventually greater environmental benefits from improved local ecosystems.

Cost-effectivenessIn the early stages of conceptualization for a project with the objective of mainstreaming biodiversity considerations into other government and private sectors, several different potential project designs were analyzed before being rejected. These included sector-based work to mainstream biodiversity into individual sectors, capacity-building programs for individual sectors, and incorporation of mainstreaming objectives into separate, planned projects. Each of these possibilities was rejected for being more expensive, not providing the same level of expected mainstreaming benefits, and lacking the cross-sectoral interactions that are so key to successful mainstreaming efforts.

Instead, this project has been designed to maximize the benefits received per dollar spent. This has been done in several ways. First, the project is working through established partners, and with existing supply chains. This helps minimize the expenditures necessary to achieve identified objectives, as compared to establishing new programs and initiatives. For example, rather than creating and training a new cadre of environmental extension agents to promote biodiversity-friendly techniques on small farms, the project will provide additional training to current

101

agricultural extension agents, in order to allow them to incorporate biodiversity conservation-related practices into their services. Instead of setting up a new program to promote the integration of biodiversity criteria into the private productive practices, the project will work through FUNBIO, which has an extensive and tested program for promoting biodiversity conservation in the private sector. This same strategy applies to biodiversity information as well. Rather than creating a series of new institutions, the project will link existing centers and institutions, allowing them to share information and build synergies much more effectively, and at a much lower cost. Only where critical gaps have been identified will new organizations be created.

The type of interventions the project will support have also been carefully selected to maximize impact while minimizing cost. A strong focus has been placed on influencing policy and practice guidelines, which affect a broad number of sectoral actors while costing relatively little. The project has also chosen to work through subprojects that test proposed solutions to identified problems. These subprojects, most of which will be large (landscape) in scale, will serve as pilots. The lessons learned through their application (funded through the project), and the successful approach they validate, will then be able to be applied throughout Brazil at a much lower risk, making their extensive application more attractive. This approach both minimizes project costs and, in the long term, risks, while increasing impact.

The project has also sought to reduce administrative costs by executing the project through two institutions with extensive experience executing GEF projects: the Ministry of the Environment and FUNBIO. Both MMA and FUNBIO have staff specifically trained to administer and monitor GEF projects; specialists experienced in procuring goods, services, and works through open and competitive practices; and systems in place to accurately track and manage grant funds. This means that the project can be managed far more efficiently and effectively than it could have, had a new project implementation unit been created.

102

Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues


This project would promote mainstreaming of biodiversity principles at the 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. Project activities would take place within the context of four components: (1) Mainstreaming biodiversity into select public sectors; (2) Mainstreaming biodiversity into the private sector; (3) Institutional strengthening and generation of biodiversity information for policymaking; and (4) Project coordination and management.

Initially, the project is working with government ministries, NGOs, and other institutions covering the agriculture, health, science and technology, environment, forestry, fisheries, and water resource sectors. These sectors were chosen for both their impact on biodiversity and for the willingness of relevant institutions to participate fully in the project. The rate of loss of biodiversity has been closely linked with deforestation and land degradation caused by agricultural expansion and intensification, and thus it was decided that engaging with the agricultural sector would be an initial focus of the project. However, the number of participating sectors should increase during implementation, and institutions representing transport and energy and mining are expected to become full project partners during project implementation. For all participating sectors, the impact of the proposed activity on globally important biodiversity would be the principal criterion for the selection of subprojects, and subproject indicators will reflect this focus. If this project is successful, it will contribute to the reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss, and to Brazil’s contribution to the 2010 goals and targets of the CBD.

Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes NoEnvironmental 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]

Environmental Rating: B – Partial Assessment

Project compliance with applicable safeguard policies

Environmental Assessment - The draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental Management Plan (EMP), including the Pest Management Plan (PMP), were submitted to the Bank on October 20, 2006. The final EA/EMP/PMP report was disseminated in Brazil through

A.

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/GPraw/CC209CF484469D2C8525672C007D07EE?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/BProw/47D35C1186367F338525672C007D07AE?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/5F511C57E7F3A3DD8525672C007D07A2?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/GPraw/C6B0F62BE7A10B338525672C007D078B?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/BProw/5DB8B30312AD33108525672C007D0788?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/72CC6840FC533D508525672C007D076B?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/BProw/D3448207C94C92628525672C007D0733?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/C12766B6C9D109548525672C007D07B9?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/GPraw/97FA41A3D754DE318525672C007D07EB?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/C972D5438F4D1FB78525672C007D077A?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/bytype/0F7D6F3F04DD70398525672C007D08ED?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/bytype/383197ED73D421A385256B180072D46D?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/bytype/AA37778A8BCF64A585256B1800645AC5?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/tocall/55FA484A98BC2E68852567CC005BCBDB?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/665DA6CA847982168525672C007D07A3?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/BProw/62B0042EF3FBA64D8525672C007D0773?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/71432937FA0B753F8525672C007D07AA?OpenDocument

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/47ByDocName/EnvironmentalAssessment

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/BProw/C4241D657823FD818525672C007D096E?OpenDocument

http://wbln0011.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/OPolw/9367A2A9D9DAEED38525672C007D0972?OpenDocument

http://www.worldbank.org/environmentalassessment

the project’s website www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/sbf/_arquivos/salvaguardas_probio2.pdf. The document was also sent to representatives of government and non-government organizations, civil society, and other partner institutions who participated in meetings and consultations during project preparation. A good number of the stakeholders involved in project preparation also participated in activities to evaluate project-related potential environmental and social safeguard policy issues.

Overall Environmental Assessment - The primary goal of the proposed project is the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The results of the EA indicate that the effects of the project on the environment would be overwhelmingly positive as a result of (i) better conceptualization and implementation of policies and programs that support conservation strategies; (ii) increased capacity for biodiversity monitoring and conservation; (iii) a shift towards the adoption of more sustainable land use and sustainable use of natural resources; and (iv) an increase in availability of information on biodiversity and on conservation best practices. Most project activities would support biodiversity-friendly results at the policy or information level, while others would support on-the-ground investments to test, demonstrate, and facilitate the adoption of more biodiversity-friendly approaches to productive activities in various sectors. Potential negative environmental impacts are expected to be minimal, and mainly of a localized and temporary nature, originating mostly from (a) rehabilitation or construction of small buildings and other minor infrastructure, or (b) specific activities related to productive subprojects financed under subcomponents 1.2 and 2.1.

Environmental Management Plan - The project Environmental Management Plan (EMP) addresses the potential negative impacts identified in the EA, and proposes a plan for avoiding, minimizing and mitigating such eventual impacts associated with project activities However, because project activities are designed to be environmentally sustainable, with especial attention to the conservation of biodiversity and natural resources, they are expected to have the smallest possible negative impact on the environment, if any. Participation in project activities by different stakeholders will take place on a voluntary basis, especially in subprojects that involve the adoption of more sustainable use of natural resources. The EMP lists all activities with potential negative impacts, specifying time and extension of such potential impacts, their intensity, scope, risk of occurrence, potential persistence, proposed prevention/mitigation/rehabilitation measures, as well as costs and responsible parties for implementation of specific actions under the EMP. In addition, the EMP includes a plan for adoption of integrated pest management in project supported activities, as well as procedures and responsibilities for evaluating and monitoring the potential negative environmental impacts of project activities.

The capacity of both MMA and FUNBIO to monitor safeguard-related issues, and to implement the environmental management plan, has been evaluated as average. Capacity building in this area is necessary and will be included in the yearly project implementation plans. Natural Habitats - Although project activities are expected to take place in all major Brazilian biomes, the project focus is on activities carried out on private lands, and none of the foreseen activities would be carried out in protected areas or indigenous lands. Nevertheless, one of the criteria for screening subprojects will be that they do not cause any negative impacts on

A.

protected areas, critical natural habitats, or indigenous lands. If any such potential negative impacts are identified in the screening phase, the respective subproject would not be considered for approval. This project will work in areas where a significant number of original plant and animal species remain. The aim of the project is to conserve and/or rehabilitate these areas, but there is a slight possibility that research, and activities supported under Component 2 of the project might cause unintentional localized degradation of natural habitats. To mitigate this risk, the environmental monitoring plans prepared for these activities will closely monitor habitat conversion or degradation. Guidance for the preparation of such monitoring plans will be included in the Project Operations Manual.

Forests - This project is expected to have an overall positive effect on forests through improved policies that incorporate biodiversity conservation into sectoral plans and programs. Although it is possible that subprojects would be carried out in forested areas, no productive forestry activities in natural habitat areas would be supported under this project. The EMP contains procedures to ensure that all project activities comply with the World Bank forestry policy, and also with the Brazilian Forestry Code (Law 4771/65) which establishes a series of measures to protect existing forests and recognizes national forests as being of public interest, therefore deserving special protection.

Pest Management - Because this project will work with the agriculture sector, there is the possibility that small amounts of herbicides or pesticides might be procured and used in project activities. Therefore, as part of the Environmental Management Plan, a short Pest Management Plan (PMP) was prepared providing guidance on cultural practices and biological techniques to control insects and diseases, including information on integrated pest management approaches. The PMP provides guidance on how to minimize potential negative environmental impacts, and on training in safe pesticide use, handling, and disposal. Since the primary objectives of the project are the protection of biodiversity, the adoption of ecologically-friendly production practices, and the sustainable use of natural resources, the project will encourage the adoption of ecological or organic pest management practices and the reduction in use of POPs. The need to use pesticides will be assessed on an individual subproject basis, and any approved use should also comply with Law 7802/89.

Physical Cultural Resources - The project is not expected to have negative impacts on cultural property, including movable or immovable objects; sites; structures; groups of structures; and natural features or landscapes with archeological, palaeontological, historical, architectural, religious, aesthetic, or other cultural significance. However, because a few small works are planned to rehabilitate or upgrade existing physical facilities, the project Environmental Management Plan includes a framework for screening project activities in relation to potential negative impacts to cultural property. In addition to compliance with World Bank OP 4.11, all project activities involving cultural property will also have to comply with relevant national legislation on cultural property.

A.

http://wbln0023.worldbank.org/ESSD/Safeguards.nsf/All/CA36A88364FE38CF85256DEF007B6E53?OpenDocument

Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision


Planned ActualPCN review 03/14/2005 03/21/2005Initial PID to PIC 03/18/2005 03/15/2005Initial ISDS to PIC 03/18/2005 06/08/2005Appraisal 02/21/2006 03/19/2007Negotiations 03/27/2006 04/20/2007Board/RVP approval 08/14/2006Planned date of effectiveness 09/03/2007Planned date of midterm review 07/15/2010Planned closing date 12/30/2013ISDS = Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet.PCN = Project Concept Note.PIC = Public Information Center.PID = Project Information Document.RVP = Regional Vice President.

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, and 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 the other primary agency responsible for project preparation, and 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.

A.

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 Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources: 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 UnitAdriana Moreira Senior Biodiversity Specialist (TTL) LCSENMusa Asad Senior Financial Analyst LCSENKeiko Ashida Tao Operations Analyst LCSENChristine Dragisic Junior Professional Associate LCSENCary Anne Cadman Operations Officer WBISDSimon Milward Junior Professional Associate LCSENJose Janeiro Senior Financial Management Specialist LCSEOLuciano Wuerzius Procurement Analyst LCOPRSuzana Amaral Financial Management Specialist LCSEOGuadalupe Romero Silva Consultant LCSENDaniela Arruda Team Assistant LCSESAgnes Velloso Consultant LCSEN

Bank funds expended to date on project preparation:1. GEF resources: $140,0002. Trust funds: n/a3. Total: $140,000

Estimated Approval and Supervision costs:1. Remaining costs to approval: $50,0002. Estimated annual supervision cost: $80,000

A.

Annex 12: Documents in the Project File


Brandão, C. R. F., E. M. Cancello, an 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] http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sbf/chm/doc/invter1.pdf.

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. http://www.bdt.org.br/oea/sib/zoocol.

Campanhola, C., G. S.Rodrigues, and 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. http://www.bdt.org.br/publicacoes/padct/bio/cap2/vanderle.html.

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) (http://www.socioambiental.org/website/bio/docs/biota.zip);

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 http://www.bdt.fat.org.br/pdf/workcerrado/);

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: J. P. Reis Velloso and R. C. Albuquerque (coord.), Amazônia, vazio de soluções? Desenvolvimento moderno baseado na Biodiversidade. Rio de Janeiro, José Olympio Editora and Instituto Nacional de Altos Estudos – INAE, 134p.

Garay, I, and 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 http://www.bdt.fat.org.br/workshop/costa/).

Klaczko, L. B., and R. D. Vieira. 2005. “Avaliação do Estado Atual do Conhecimento sobre a Diversidade Biológica do Brasil. Genética.” Relatório Final – Revisado. Brasília, Ministério do

A.

http://www.bdt.fat.org.br/workshop/costa/

http://www.bdt.fat.org.br/pdf/workcerrado/

http://www.socioambiental.org/website/bio/docs/biota.zip

Meio Ambiente & NEPAM/UNICAMP, 68p. [in print] http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sbf/chm/doc/genetic1.pdf;

Lewinsohn, T. M., and P. I. Prado. 2002. “Biodiversidade Brasileira: Síntese do Estado Atual do Conhecimento.” São Paulo, Editora Contexto, 176p.

Lewinsohn, T. M., and P. I. Prado. 2005. Síntese do Conhecimento Atual da Biodiversidade Brasileira. Revisado. Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente & Campinas, NEPAM/UNICAMP, 142p.[in print] http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sbf/chm/doc/estarte.doc.

Machado, A. B. M., and others. 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 and NEPAM/UNICAMP, 80p. [in print] http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sbf/chm/doc/microb1.pdf.

Migotto, A. E., and 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] http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sbf/chm/doc/invmar1.pdf.

MMA. 1999. “First National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Brazil.” Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, 283p. (www.mma.gov.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. (http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sbf/chm/doc/biodivbr.pdf).

MMA. 2004. “Second National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Brazil.” Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, (www.mma.gov.br/biodiversidade).

MMA. 2006. “Third National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Brazil.” Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, (www.mma.gov.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 http://www.bdt.fat.org.br/workshop/mata.atlantica/BR/).

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] http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sbf/chm/doc/aguadoc1.pdf.

A.

http://www.bdt.fat.org.br/workshop/mata.atlantica/BR/

http://www.mma.gov.br/biodiversidade


http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sbf/chm/doc/biodivbr.pdf


http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sbf/chm/doc/genetic1.pdf

Sabino, J., and 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] http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sbf/chm/doc/verteb.pdf.

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] http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sbf/chm/doc/plantas1.pdf.

Silva, J. M. C. (coord.). 2004. “Biodiversidade da Caatinga: Áreas e ações prioritárias para a conservação.” Brasília, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, 382p. (http://www.biodiversitas.org/caatinga/relatorios/).

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., and C. A. Joly. 1997. Coleções Botânicas. PADCT/Finep: Biodiversidade: perspectivas e oportunidades tecnológicas. http://www.bdt.org.br/publicacoes/padct/bio/cap2 /marinez.html.

A.

http://www.biodiversitas.org/caatinga/relatorios/

Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits


Original Amount in US$ Millions

Difference between Expected and actual

Disbursements

Project ID

FY Purpose IBRD IDA SF GEF Cancel. Undisb. Orig. Frm. Rev’d

P076924 2005 BR-(Amapa) Sustainable Communities 4.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.80 0.00 0.00

P087711 2005 BR Espirito Santo Wtr & Coastal Pollu 36.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.82 1.42 0.00

P083533 2005 BR TA-Sustain. & Equit Growth 12.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.12 0.50 0.00

P069934 2005 BR-PERNAMBUCO INTEG DEVT: EDUC QUAL IMPR

31.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.50 2.34 0.00

P082328 2005 BR-Integ.Munic.Proj.-Betim Municipality 24.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.08 2.32 0.00

P060573 2004 BR Tocantins Sustainable Regional Dev 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.40 11.40 0.00

P080830 2004 BR Maranhao Integrated: Rural Dev 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 3.45 0.00

P083013 2004 BR Disease Surveillance & Control APL 2

100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.00 -0.50 0.00

P087713 2004 BR (CRL1) Bolsa Familia 1st APL 572.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 572.20 40.20 0.00

P054119 2003 BR BAHIA DEVT (HEALTH ) 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.25 9.25 0.00

P049265 2003 BR-RECIFE URBAN UPGRADING PROJECT

46.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.99 8.86 0.00

P070827 2003 BR-2nd APL BAHIA DEV. EDUCATION PROJECT

60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.70 20.95 0.00

P058503 2003 GEF BR Amazon Region Prot Areas (ARPA)

0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 26.17 0.00 0.00

P074777 2003 BR-Municipal Pension Reform TAL 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.90 4.70 0.00

P076977 2003 BR-Energy Sector TA Project 12.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 5.10 0.00

P080400 2003 BR-AIDS & STD Control 3 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 91.88 29.18 0.00

P057653 2002 BR- FUNDESCOLA IIIA 160.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 179.86 -50.79 0.00

P055954 2002 BR GOIÁS STATE HIGHWAY MANAGEMENT

65.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.14 30.14 0.00

P057665 2002 BR-FAMILY HEALTH EXTENSION PROJECT

68.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.14 42.74 0.00

P051696 2002 BR SÃO PAULO METRO LINE 4 PROJECT

209.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 163.48 142.58 0.00

P060221 2002 BR FORTALEZA METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT PROJ

85.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 111.47 64.02 0.00

P066170 2002 BR-RGN 2ND Rural Poverty Reduction 22.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.15 7.25 0.00

P070552 2002 GEF BR PARANA BIODIVERSITY PROJECT

0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 6.39 6.52 0.00

P073192 2002 BR TA Financial Sector 14.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.30 8.48 0.00

P043869 2002 BR SANTA CATARINA NATURAL RESOURC & POV.

62.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.06 21.74 0.00

P074085 2002 BR Sergipe Rural Poverty Reduction 20.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 -1.88 0.00

P059566 2001 BR- CEARA BASIC EDUCATION 90.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.34 -22.66 0.00

P073294 2001 BR Fiscal & Fin. Mgmt. TAL 8.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.74 5.78 0.00

P057649 2001 BR Bahia Rural Poverty Reduction Project

54.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 -1.47 0.00

P050881 2001 BR PIAUI RURAL POVERTY REDUCTION PROJECT

22.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.56 6.06 0.00

P050880 2001 BR Pernambuco Rural Poverty Reduction 30.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.77 8.17 0.00

A.

P050875 2001 BR Ceara Rural Poverty Reduction Project

37.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.72 3.47 0.00

P050772 2001 BR LAND-BASED POVRTY ALLEVIATION I (SIM)

202.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.13 165.13 152.74 0.00

P035741 2000 BR NATL ENV 2 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.32 5.61 7.93 3.69

P006449 2000 BR CEARA WTR MGT PROGERIRH SIM

136.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.57 51.95 9.01

P039199 2000 BR PROSANEAR 2 30.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.40 22.29 28.69 22.29

P050776 2000 BR NE Microfinance Development 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.08 -19.92 0.00

P047309 2000 BR ENERGY EFFICIENCY (GEF) 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 3.29 8.01 9.82 6.79

P048869 1999 BR SALVADOR URBAN TRANS 150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 53.95 85.95 0.00

P050763 1999 BR- Fundescola 2 202.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.86 6.53 17.39 0.00

P038895 1998 BR FED.WTR MGT 198.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 55.03 95.03 35.94

P006474 1998 BR LAND MGT 3 (SAO PAULO) 55.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 34.73 44.73 25.84

P043421 1998 BR RJ M.TRANSIT PRJ. 186.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.78 82.50 110.28 0.00

P043420 1998 BR WATER S.MOD.2 150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 125.00 19.33 144.30 5.78

P042565 1998 BR PARAIBA R.POVERTY 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.10 7.10 0.00

P057910 1998 BR PENSION REFORM LIL 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.48 1.98 1.48

P006532 1997 BR FED HWY DECENTR 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 51.38 101.38 101.38

P034578 1997 BR RGS Highway MGT 70.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.75 23.75 23.75

P043868 1997 BR RGS LAND MGT/POVERTY 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.55 3.55 3.55

P043873 1997 BR AG TECH DEV. 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.62 15.62 15.62

P037828 1996 BR (PR)R.POVERTY 175.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 31.53 41.53 41.53

P006210 1996 GEF BR-NAT'L BIODIVERSITY 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 2.64 2.59 1.70

Total: 4,219.14

0.00 0.00 63.00 376.28 2,514.64

1,335.71

298.35

BRAZIL: National Biodiversity Mainstreaming and Institutional Consolidation ProjectSTATEMENT OF IFC’s

Held and Disbursed PortfolioIn Millions of US Dollars

Committed Disbursed

IFC IFC

FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. Loan Equity Quasi Partic.

2001 AG Concession 0.00 15.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.07 0.00 0.00

2002/05 Amaggi 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2002 Andrade G. SA 27.50 0.00 10.00 16.67 27.50 0.00 10.00 16.67

2001 Apolo 7.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.71 0.00 0.00 0.00

2005 Aracruz 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1998 Arteb 20.00 7.00 0.00 18.33 20.00 7.00 0.00 18.33

1999 AutoBAn 22.73 0.00 0.00 17.25 22.73 0.00 0.00 17.25

1998 BSC 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.55 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.55

1996 Banco Bradesco 1.19 0.00 0.00 1.75 1.19 0.00 0.00 1.75

2001 Brazil CGFund 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.60 0.00 0.00

1994/96 CHAPECO 1.78 0.00 0.00 5.26 1.78 0.00 0.00 5.26

2002/04 CN Odebrecht 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2003 CPFL Energia 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00

A.

1992 CRP-Caderi 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00

1996/97 CTBC Telecom 0.00 8.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.17 0.00 0.00

2004 Comgas 45.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 12.50 0.00 0.00 12.50

1997/00 Coteminas 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00

1980/92 DENPASA 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00

1998 Dixie Toga 0.00 14.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.83 0.00 0.00

1997 Duratex 6.76 0.00 0.00 3.95 6.76 0.00 0.00 3.95

1999 Eliane 19.20 0.00 13.00 0.00 19.20 0.00 13.00 0.00

1998 Empesca 5.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 10.00 0.00

2000/04 Fleury 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1998 Fosfertil 5.30 0.00 0.00 21.36 5.30 0.00 0.00 21.36

1998 Fras-le 6.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 6.70 0.00

1994 GAVEA 0.94 0.00 5.50 0.00 0.94 0.00 5.50 0.00

GP Cptl Rstrctd 0.00 8.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.62 0.00 0.00

2001 GPC 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1997 Guilman-Amorim 20.99 0.00 0.00 28.74 20.99 0.00 0.00 28.74

1998 Icatu Equity 0.00 14.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.62 0.00 0.00

1999 Innova SA 12.50 5.00 0.00 30.00 12.50 5.00 0.00 30.00

1980/87/97 Ipiranga 23.62 0.00 0.00 39.75 23.62 0.00 0.00 39.75

1999 Itaberaba 0.00 5.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.34 0.00 0.00

2000/02 Itau-BBA 93.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.48 0.00 0.00 0.00

1999 JOSAPAR 7.57 0.00 7.00 0.00 2.57 0.00 7.00 0.00

1995 Lojas Americana 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1992/99 MBR 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

2002 Macae 38.27 0.00 10.00 31.25 38.27 0.00 10.00 31.25

2002 Microinvest 0.00 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00

2002 Net Servicos 0.00 31.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.74 0.00 0.00

1994 Para Pigmentos 8.60 0.00 9.00 0.00 8.60 0.00 9.00 0.00

1996 Perdigao 2.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.19 0.00 0.00 0.00

1994/00/02 Portobello 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 0.00 0.00

2000 Puras 2.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.67 0.00 0.00 0.00

2003/04 Queiroz Galvao 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00

Randon Impl Part 3.73 0.00 3.00 0.00 3.73 0.00 3.00 0.00

1997/03 SP Alpargatas 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1997 Sadia 6.11 0.00 3.83 38.74 6.11 0.00 3.83 38.74

2002/04 Salutia 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00

1997 Samarco 6.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.30 0.00 0.00 0.00

1998 Saraiva 3.46 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.46 3.00 0.00 0.00

2003 Satipel 12.86 0.00 10.00 0.00 12.86 0.00 10.00 0.00

2000 Sepetiba 26.85 0.00 5.00 0.00 11.85 0.00 5.00 0.00

1999 Sudamerica 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.00

2001 Synteko 15.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.43 0.00 0.00 0.00

1996 TIGRE 1.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.92 0.00 0.00 0.00

1998/04 Tecon Rio Grande 8.10 0.00 0.00 8.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2001/03 Tecon Salvador 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00

2004 TriBanco 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2002 UP Offshore 11.60 10.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00

2002/04 Unibanco 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.80 0.00 0.00 0.00

A.

Total portfolio: 685.44 161.44 151.33 336.70 512.80 133.81 133.03 266.10

Approvals Pending Commitment

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 commitment: 0.19 0.01 0.01 0.31

A.

Annex 14: Country at a Glance


A.

A.

Annex 15: Incremental Cost Analysis


Brazil contains 15 to 20 percent of all known species in the world, a significant number of which are found only in Brazil. However, more than 90 percent of the Atlantic Forest biome, more than 50 percent of the Cerrado and Caatinga Biomes, and more than 15 percent 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 the 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: (a) mainstreaming biodiversity into selected government and economic sectors, (b) mainstreaming biodiversity into the private sector, and (c) institutional consolidation and generation of biodiversity information for policymaking.

Baseline Scenario

Scope: 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 that 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 among these initiatives. In the private sector, while a few companies such as Natura and Klabin (respectively, the leading companies in the cosmetics and paper industries in Latin America)

A.

have been developing product lines that use community-managed biotic resources, and other smaller enterprises have begun to incorporate some biodiversity criteria, these examples largely remain limited to niche markets. There is no concerted effort to create a national-level program of biodiversity mainstreaming with consistent policy and practice objectives that reach across economic sectors and breach 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 on a small scale. Governmental institutions and NGOs would continue to promote biodiversity conservation, but without the strong institutions needed to achieve the full scope of positive results, or the information network needed to share knowledge and innovations among different actors.

Costs ($48.52 million): Table A15.1 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 nongovernmental actors, because there are a large number of these initiatives. However, it does include estimates of all major sources of relevant sustained funding. Investment calculated under Components 1 and 3 comes primarily from government sources, while the private sector is 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 Table A15.1.

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 diagnoses, 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 toward 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 IBAMA, MAPA, MDA, and MMA.

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

A.

of sources to encourage large corporations to report on sustainability indicators, like 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 the responsibilities of which 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, and other information generation initiatives. Funding would come from FIOCRUZ, IBAMA, JBRJ, MCT, and the National Genetic Resources Program.

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, and 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.

Global Environmental Facility (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 to contribute to the reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss. This would be a contribution of Brazil to the 2010 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) goals and targets.

Scope: The GEF Alternative will provide a means, above the baseline scenario, for creating the technical, institutional, and incentive-based context that 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.

A.

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 and improved practices in the private sector, 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.

To optimize the effect of these policy changes in the private sector, the proposed project would integrate its work into 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 $22 million grant from the GEF and $75 million in co-financing 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 co-financing 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. See Annex 4 for a more detailed description of proposed project activities.

Component 1: Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Selected Government and Economic Sectors (Total $53.6 million, Co-financing $25 million, GEF $8.4 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, and the implementation of subprojects to test these

A.

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 $38.5 million, Co-financing $22.5 million, GEF $7.5 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 $ 50.92 million, Co-financing $25 million, GEF $6.1 million)This component of the GEF alternative will support the strengthening of institutions responsible for developing and implementing biodiversity conservation policy, 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 $2.5 million, Co-financing $2.5 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 co-financing; 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, and 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. As a mega diverse country whose environmental stewardship is responsible for supplying a significant portion of the world’s fresh water and oxygen, capturing untold tons of greenhouse gases, and sheltering much of the world’s biological richness, the global benefits of the activities

A.

undertaken under this project, and the future impact of the policies and procedures developed are difficult to overestimate. 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 $97 million. Twenty-two million dollars of this additional cost will be provided by the proposed GEF grant. The remaining $75 million has been leveraged from a variety of sources, including $49.5 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. Co-financing for Component 2 in the amount of $25.5 million will come from the Brazilian Fund for Biodiversity (FUNBIO) resources, and NGO donations and additional funds raised by FUNBIO. In addition to this agreed co-financing, 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.

Table A15.1 summarizes the baseline and incremental expenditures during the six-year project period.

Table A15.1. Baseline and Incremental Expenditures during the Six-year Project PeriodCost

CategoryUS$

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 including agriculture, tourism, local communities, and exports of biodiversity-related products through isolated 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.

Some reduction of deforestation and destruction of ecosystems provides limited contribution to globally significant species and ecosystems and global cycles.

With GEF Alternative

US$53.6 Significant increases in biodiversity-related benefits to agriculture, the tourism industry, local communities, carbon sequestration projects, exports of biodiversity-related products, and others through the provision of natural resources and further reductions in deforestation and destruction of ecosystems. Further domestic benefits through improvements in local water cycling, heat balance, nutrient balance, and sediment balance.

Much higher positive effects stemming from increased promotion and coordination of mainstreaming policies and practices contributes to increased biodiversity conservation, raises awareness of the importance of environmental services among government institutions, increases capacity for biodiversity-related work, better implementation of the CBD and carbon sequestration projects, and contributes to long-term reductions to deforestation and destruction of ecosystems, which provide critical global

A.

benefits including carbon storage, reduction of harmful atmospheric emissions, and support to international water cycling. This would directly support progress toward the global 2010 CBD targets.

Incremental US$33.4Component 2 Mainstreaming biodiversity in the private sector

Baseline US$8.5

Industries’ implementing ISO 14 000, reporting sustainability indicators, adopting certification and carrying out best practices would lead to some limited 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.

Some reduction of deforestation and destruction of ecosystems would provide limited help to maintain globally significant species and ecosystems and global cycles.

With GEF Alternative US$38.5

Significant increases in biodiversity-related benefits to agriculture, tourism, industry, small businesses, local communities, carbon sequestration projects, exports of biodiversity-related products, etc., through a coordinated, pervasive approach to mainstreaming biodiversity considerations into all areas of the private sector, linking these with policy and regulatory environment and disseminating lessons learned throughout Brazil.

Sustained changes in private sector productive behavior supporting significant increases in biodiversity-friendly economic processes leading to significant global environmental benefits, including decreased loss of globally significant biodiversity, increased carbon sequestration, stabilized water flows, and reduced emissions. Also, increased private sector interest in, and capacity for, biodiversity conservation.

Incremental US$30.0

Component 3 Institutional consolidation and generation of biodiversity information for policymaking

Baseline US$19.82

Limited benefits to domestic productivity and livelihoods, and to scientific knowledge, through information generated by current research activities. Existing institutional biodiversity conservation capacity promotes mainstreaming, though not in all sectors and not to the maximum degree possible.

Limited benefits to the conservation of globally important species through applications of biodiversity information in specific public and private sector activities.

With GEF Alternative US$50.92

Stronger institutions, and increased knowledge generation, coordination, and dissemination bring significant benefits to biodiversity and habitat conservation through the generation of more policy-relevant biodiversity information, more effective monitoring, better national decision-making in the public and private sector, and more effective implementation of conservation activities.

The production, coordination, and full dissemination of efficient and targeted information about biodiversity, and the strengthening of relevant institutions, will allow the public and private sectors to contribute important biodiversity information to global monitoring and information networks, help conserve key species of global importance, and promote the conservation of habitats that provide environmental services on a global scale.

Incremental US$31.1

Component 4: Project Coordination

Baseline US$0No baseline; without the GEF alternative, project coordination activities would not happen.

No baseline.

A.

With GEF US$2.5

The coordination of project partners and dissemination of information, best practices, and lessons learned contribute to conservation activities that help to support many domestic, biodiversity-related productive processes, and increase the likelihood of replication at the local and national levels.

The coordination of different public and private sector actors, and dissemination of information, best practices, and lessons learned, will increase the impact of efforts designed to conserve globally critical biodiversity. It would also facilitate future mainstreaming and conservation projects 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$2.5Total Baseline: US$48.52 millionTotal GEF Alternative: US$145.52 millionTotal Incremental Costs: US$97 million

A.

Annex 16: STAP Roster Review


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 the bulleted text 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, and 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.

A.

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 has great potential. The challenge is daunting, but no doubt worth pursuing. 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 in itself.

Points that need clarification or improvement

Background information:Although in the introductory sections it is noted that lack of coordination in 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 of 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 comment 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.

Additional 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. In the same vein, another 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,

A.

massive use of nonrenewable natural resources, and so forth, 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 current environmental problems are the result of extremely resilient and complex interactions among natural, social, and economic systems, but is not clear if they could be considered simply as “paradigms.” As presented, this concept appears overly 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, and 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, among others. Outcomes of previous projects, both GEF and those funded by other donors, are incorporated into the project design. The National Biodiversity Policy, and 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.

ObjectivesThis project has four 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 these components are clearly stated and justified, connection of Component 3 (Biodiversity Information) with this project’s general objectives is, in my view, less obvious because of the following:

a) The background information presented does not provide a clear indication that availability of biodiversity information is a relevant problem in terms of management. Of course, it would be desirable to identify more species, but the question is to what extent there is a bottleneck problem for decision-making.

A.

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, provided 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 more explanation and justification, considering the risks of duplication of institutions and unnecessary administrative procedures. Perhaps the scientific and academic sector (the National Scientific and Technical Research Council [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 that will fill in the identified gaps in biodiversity information. National Scientific and Technical Research Council (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 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. IBAMA coordinates a number of existing centers working with exotic species, but no such centers exist for plants or biological vectors affecting human health. For this reason the project is focused on those undersupported aspects and on continuing to support an increase in the number of endangered species centers in 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, be 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

A.

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 managementAs 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, the level of “on-the-ground” implementation is not clear, 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 this concept in some detail. 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 sectorBeing 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 will “cosmetic” involvement (more related to a public relations exercise than to effective biodiversity conservation) 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: (a) a biodiversity and natural resource assessment; (b) socioeconomic analysis of the territory; (c) evaluation of the

A.

viability of strengthening linkages among 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, and the requirement of a 3:1 funding match, it is expected that only substantive proposals will be accepted.

c) How will private sector involvement 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, and so forth.

Team Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We will take it into account during the final phase of preparation.

Indicators of successSection on indicators of success would benefit if expanded a little bit to address the following:

Mainstreaming in the private sector: The proposed criterion 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, and (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 being 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 criterion proposed is that “at least one productive landscape unit for integrated conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity components will be implemented.”

A.

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 suggests a rather limited achievement, considering 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 of 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.

A.

Annex 17: Consensus-building Strategy


Background

The Conservation and Sustainable Use of Brazilian Biodiversity Project (PROBIO), financed by the Global Environment Facility (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, Atlantic Forest and Pampas, 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, and 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 1,000 specialists and decision makers from universities, public institutions, and nongovernmental institutions. Based on the preliminary information that had been distributed, and 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, a synthesized map, and a technical report. Documents and thematic maps were made available online. Finally, PROBIO supported the publication of a book that 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 consultation by public and private sector decision makers and 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 and its effectiveness in constructing consensus on specific themes.

A.

Application of the Consultative Process

Based on 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 the sectors 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, and to implement sectoral workshops designed to create consensus on policy and activity recommendations. The selected institutions will elaborate diagnostic studies of relevant policies. Project partners and 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 distribute background documents for review by the invitees before the workshop. The 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 nongovernmental 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.

A.

4) Dissemination of Workshop ResultsThe sector workshops will result in a set of public policy recommendations, and 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, and by other governmental and private initiatives.

A.

Annex 18: Selection Criteria for Subprojects


While all three project components contribute directly to the achievement of the Project Development Objective, 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 in the project, and that they comply with all relevant Safeguard Policies. For all, a strong positive impact on biodiversity of global importance is the most important criterion for subproject selection.

Below are the criteria that have been adopted for the selection of subprojects under each technical component:


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), and 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. Each proposed subproject will also be analyzed according to the Environmental Screening Framework (included in the Environmental Assessment) to determine eligibility for project financing, potential environmental impacts, and the appropriate mitigation strategy. The selection criteria for these subprojects will be consistent with and support the strategic priorities for biodiversity mainstreaming under GEF III.

The execution of these subprojects will be prioritized to be implemented in the Priority Areas for Biodiversity,28 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, restoration of degraded areas to

28 These areas are also known as Priority Areas for the Conservation, Sustainable Use, and Repartition of Benefits of Brazilian Biodiversity.

A.

maintain ecosystem capacity to provide goods and services, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from access to genetic resources and the associated traditional knowledge, among others. 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 25.

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 that have already been defined by project partners as critical for the mainstreaming of biodiversity and for increasing knowledge about biodiversity, and accepted for inclusion in the project. (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, their compatibility with the National Biodiversity Policy, and the appropriateness of their geographic location.


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: (a) a conservation agenda that may involve creation, consolidation, management, and long-term sustainability of both individual and mosaics of public or private protected areas; (b) the management of natural resources, especially watershed protection and climate change associated initiatives; (c) strategies for sustainable use of biodiversity, involving activities such as the management of timber and non-timber forest resources, fishery resources, agroforestry, ecotourism, and so forth; (d) a sustainable business agenda, involving a critical mass of local actors that shows a willingness to mainstream biodiversity into leading regional production clusters or value-added chains; and, finally (e) 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 used 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.

A.

Information necessary for regional subproject selection and territorial delimitation, and which will be analyzed by Opportunities Fund management, includes:

(a) A biodiversity and natural resource assessment, focusing on the potential for developing a protected area mosaic management plan and an associated natural resource management plan.

(b) 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. In addition, 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.

(c) 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.

To ensure that subprojects financed under this component have the maximum impact on biodiversity conservation, and that the proposed activities are successfully mainstreamed into the productive landscape, a point-based evaluation system has been developed to further assess and rank subproject proposals under Component 2. The criteria included in this system are:

Percent of area included in a Priority Area for Biodiversity Conservation Presence of governmental partners through Component 1.2 Adoption of the mainstreaming concept by the sector Potential for maximizing environmental goods and services Existence of installed or potential Local Productive Arrangements (APLs)29 Resource contribution of secondary economic sectors Diversity of activities of secondary economic sectors participating in the project Existence of effective financial incentives for mainstreaming Presence of mobilized civil society Presence of other projects with potential synergies in the area Adequate political environment Degree of anthropic pressure on biodiversity Capacity for local income generation with minimal environmental impact Capacity to mitigate negative impacts within subproject area Availability of technical knowledge on sustainable productive practices Financial incentives for principal economic agent to be involved in mainstreaming Potential for developing activities that might cause a transfer of negative impacts outside

the territory (negative points)


A.

Capacity to mitigate potential extra-area impacts caused by the subproject Capacity to mitigate extra-area problems before subproject implementation.

Supporting the subproject selection process, the Knowledge Base Facility will provide additional analyses on: (a) priority biodiversity and natural resources landscapes, (b) regional socioeconomic analyses, (c) conservation finance mechanisms, and (d) best practices/alternative technologies for mainstreaming biodiversity in regional productive arrangements, processes, and products.The selection criteria for these subprojects will be consistent with and support the strategic priorities for biodiversity mainstreaming under GEF III.

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, and 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. (See Annex 4 for more details.) Again, each proposed subproject will be analyzed according to the Environmental Screening Framework before it is accepted for financing.

The types of subprojects to be implemented under this component include those that will rectify a lack of information on Brazilian biodiversity, which is considered critical to promoting biodiversity mainstreaming and to measuring progress toward the achievement of the country’s 2010 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 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, and their compatibility with the National Biodiversity Policy.

A.

Annex 19: The Opportunities Fund


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 public 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 that will favor continued mainstreaming in the long term. Based on the previous experiences of the Brazil Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO), and 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 Opportunities Fund 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 10 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, and although 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 multisector 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

A.

Committee, which 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 use these resources.

Oversee compliance with pertinent legal and contractual obligations and regulations and procedures required by the Bank30 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 co-financing 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. Since both GEF funds and initial co-financing will be managed as sinking funds, it is this arrangement that is detailed in this annex. 30 Note that these should be in accordance with the internal regulations that guide FUNBIO’s activities.

A.

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 Facility 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 Opportunities Fund 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 co-financing will be provided. The initial co-financing 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 FundraisingOnce 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.

To facilitate this fundraising, the Opportunities Fund will conceive of and implement a diversified fundraising strategy aimed at identifying, approaching, and presenting matching and

A.

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, and on the development of financial and management instruments to stimulate private sector engagement in biodiversity mainstreaming, including biotrade and other business certification and validation tools. Thus, a co-funding 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 National Economic and Social Development Bank (BNDES), the Andean Development Corporation (CAF), the Research and Project Financing Agency (FINEP), the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and so forth.

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 consortiums 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 fundraising 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 DiligenceFUNBIO 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 work plans 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 using different investment instruments and practices, such as revolving funds, equity investment, fees for fund management services, and micro-credit.

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:

A.

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: (a) a conservation agenda that may involve creation, consolidation, management, and long-term sustainability of both individual and mosaics of public or private protected areas; (b) the management of natural resources, especially watershed protection and climate change associated initiatives; (c) an agenda for sustainable use of biodiversity, involving activities such as the management of timber and non-timber forest resources, fishery resources, agroforestry, ecotourism, and so forth; (d) 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 (e) a community development/institutional strengthening program. Environmental and socioeconomic analyses will be added, as will the viability of strengthening the linkages between the regional biodiversity and natural resource bases and regional productive activities. Finally, the Knowledge Base Facility will provide additional analyses on: (a) priority biodiversity and natural resources landscapes, (b) regional socioeconomic analyses, (c) conservation finance mechanisms, and (d) 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. Examples of activities that might be eligible for financing include mainstreaming of biodiversity in organic production practices and certification guidelines, and capacity building with settlers in the sustainable use of biodiversity in agro-extractive production systems in agrarian reform settlements. See Annex 20 for details on productive landscape subprojects.

8. Eligible Expenditures

The Opportunities Fund financial resources will be used to cover the costs associated with territorial mainstreaming subprojects initiated under this project, and 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 Annual Operating Plan (POAs) submitted by the subprojects. These expenditures will be detailed in POAs submitted by the subproject executing agencies and approved by the Opportunities Fund Technical Committees.

All procurements 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

A.

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) consult FUNBIO’s investment specialists (FUNBIO’s Board members) qualified to assist with the definition of an asset allocation and overall investment strategy consistent with the investment objectives described above, where the Opportunities Fund’s policy will be proposed by the Asset Management Sub-commission and approved by FUNBIO, and these two bodies will supervise the performance of the assets manager; 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, and 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; and maintaining appropriate insurance against negligence, fraud, accidental damage, and other types of risk.

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.

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.

A.

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, and 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 record of any type of

condemnation by the regulatory authority regarding activities; ensure protection of assets; quality of associates.

Responsibility for and reliability in protecting assets and respecting regulations. Capacity and flexibility in risk administration, limits used, 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 use 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

A.

accounting principles. Audit reports will note compliance with Bank regulations and practices, and separate opinions on the Statement of Expenditure 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, and to 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 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 Fund1. Mission and objectives2. Program components3. Selection criteria for eligibility of subprojects 4. Description of FUNBIO5. Organizational chart of FUNBIO and where the Opportunities Fund is located6. Rules for the Technical Commission of the Opportunities Fund7. Responsibilities of the Opportunities Fund Director8. Responsibilities of the managers of the subprojects9. Conflicts of interest and how to resolve them

Management and use of the financial resources

A.

1. Financial management of the capital (including spending rules)2. Distribution of resources for the project3. Eligible activities4. Emergency funds5. Fundraising strategy

Procedures to operate the program1. Project cycle and timetable2. Requirements to approve the Annual Operational Plans3. Reports4. Timetable for reports and disbursements to the subprojects

Monitoring and Evaluation1. Importance of the M&E program2. Technical reports3. Role of management plans in M&E program

Administrative procedures1. Purchases2. Contractual services3. Complementary staffing4. General accounting systems5. Registry of accounts6. Bank accounts7. Disbursements8. Budget planning9. Transfer10. Inventories11. Bookkeeping12. Auditing procedures

Government co-financing for blended public-private activities

Annexes (including investment expert and asset manager contracts)

Form – POA

Form – Biannual reports

A.

Annex 20: Regional Productive Landscapes and Subprojects


The work done under Component 2, Mainstreaming Biodiversity into the Private Sector, will be based on the regional productive landscape approach for mainstreaming biodiversity considerations into the private productive sector. Since 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 area of the landscape, which is not consistent with the scale of broader anthropogenic factors that threaten biodiversity conservation.

DefinitionProductive landscapes in this context are defined as geographically coherent areas of at least 100,000 hectares, which include potential protected areas, contain endangered biodiversity requiring priority conservation actions, and are used for or threatened by productive economic activities.

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 coordinated 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 to sustain political and financial commitments, offering opportunities for sustainable investments, employment, and income generation.

Selection procedures for target landscapes: 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:

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;

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,

A.

use, or degradation status, including watersheds, arable soils, minerals, forests, fisheries, and scenic values, among others;

Dynamics and level of integration among regional productive activities related to regional biodiversity and the natural resources 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;

Potential for strengthening the linkages between the regional biodiversity and natural resource bases and the regional productive activities, through networking among a wide array of public and private institutions and governance structures capable of addressing these interactions (for example, watershed management committees, regional development authorities, and so forth).

The regional landscape subprojects supported under Component 2 will be carried out in coordination with, and with the participation of, relevant public sector agencies. This approach 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, and the project’s efforts to induce innovative responses in key productive landscapes. The approach differs from previous experience with land use planning in its focus on specific productive arrangements, practices, and strategies related to biodiversity, rather than comprehensive zoning of potential land uses. The landscape scale adopted is flexible, in response to the combination of institutional, biophysical, and socioeconomic features.

The role of state and local governments and the relevant private sector enterprises will be consolidated during the process of regional landscape and stakeholder diagnosis and pilot project design, as described in detail in Annex 18.

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 innovation networks to 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 based on regional culture and institutions, in which research is stimulated to solve problems that arise in the productive landscape.31

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

31 Diniz, C. C. 2000. Global-Local: Interdependências e Desigualdade ou Notas para uma Política Tecnológica e Industrial Regionalizada no Brasil. Belo Horizonte: CEDEPLAR.

A.

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, and 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.32 These instruments will be deployed through partnerships in regional biodiversity mainstreaming among public institutions and the private sector. Because of the rigorous evaluation process that will be applied, and the requirement of a 3:1 funding match, it is expected that only substantive proposals for business sector involvement will be accepted. The role of business partners in the development and implementation of specific regional projects will be established through agreements and/or certifications that will be closely monitored and evaluated, to avoid their engagement being purely cosmetic.

Examples of regional landscape subprojects

FUNBIO’s experience eliciting initial proposals through the Integrated Conservation and Sustainable Use Projects (PICUS) process provides an example of the links between local productive arrangements and biodiversity conservation objectives. This section describes the context and approach adopted to select PICUS projects.

The first selection of PICUS projects was carried out in 2004 using the eligibility criteria described below. The second selection was made at the end of 2005 using the qualitative selection criteria (see below). FUNBIO received 25 proposals for the initial round of subprojects to be financed under this proposed project, three of which were preselected. All were located in the Atlantic Forest region because this biome was overwhelmingly represented by the proposals submitted, which indicates the need to prioritize the integrated actions to protect and conserve this biome. This process is being adapted to better fit the Component 2 criteria, so as to improve the approach of biodiversity mainstreaming with the private productive sector.

The three proposals pre-selected for funding under the National Biodiversity Mainstreaming and Institutional Consolidation Project are:

Project: “Strategic Plan for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Mixed Broadleaf Forest (Forest with Araucária) – Florar Program” (States of Paraná and Santa Catarina)

The activities planned include strengthening public conservation units through capacity building for the formation of management committees, carrying out socioeconomic and environmental diagnostics, and the elaboration and launch of management programs and action plans. Also included are the activities for private lands, embarking a process of payment for environmental services related to water and carbon projects. The project aims at creating about 200 new Private Reserves of Natural Patrimony (RPPNs).

32 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 at: http://mit.biology.au.dk/cenTER/MCB_Files/2005_MCB_Code_March.pdf.

A.

http://mit.biology.au.dk/cenTER/MCB_Files/2005_MCB_Code_March.pdf

Other activities include the promotion and support of the productive chains linked to the sustainable use of biodiversity such as the implementation of “priorities reference” based on agroforestry and agroecology production systems. The project anticipates more activities focused on changing public policies and the institutional development of the territory actors.

Proponent: The Nature Conservancy – Brazil

Partners: The Nature Conservancy – Brazil, Paranaense Association of Owners of Special Reserves of Natural Patrimony, Association for Preservation of Vale do Itajaí, Bernardo Hakvoort Agroforestry Institute, Institute Guardians of Nature, Mater Natura – Institute of Environmental Studies.

Project area (Area 507 defined by PROBIO): It is located in the central-South region of Paraná State and central-North of Santa Catarina State, covering 36 cities where the Mixed Broadleaf Forest exists. Turvo, Boaventura, Prudentópolis, and Irati are among those. It also covers cities that belong to the Environmental Protection Area (APA) of Serra da Esperança and exist along and within the micro-corridor of the Conservation Units (CUs) created for the fragments of the Ombrófila Mista Forest that remain in Santa Catarina.

Conservation Units in the Project area: Forest Reserve of Pinhão, State Park of Palmas, APA of Serra da Esperança, Municipal Park Toca da Onça, Municipal Park of Araucárias, Exposition Park of Bituruna, Recanto da Ferradura, Ecological Park Bituruna, Municipal Park Bituruna, Marechal Deodoro Park (Palmas), State RPPN Sítio São Francisco Irati, Federal RPPN of Araucárias União da Vitória, Federal RPPN Gralha Azul.

Project: “Strategic Plan for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity of Atlantic Forest in the Northeast – Pacto Murici” (States of Alagoas and Pernambuco)

This project aims at planning and implementing a combination of measures in an area situated in the Ecoregion called Center of Endemism of Pernambuco, extending over the states of Pernambuco and Alagoas. The objective of the project is to drastically reduce the probability of extinction of species that occur in the Atlantic Forest in the Northeast and to provide models of sustainable development. Many priorities of conservation have been identified for the Atlantic Forest in the Northeast. The important task now is to translate those priorities into a common language and into a concerted effort for its effective conservation.

The objective of the alliance of large environmental organizations is to unite efforts under a common vision, attracting other partners of the public and private sectors in order to accelerate the changes in favor of the protection and conservation of biodiversity of the Atlantic Forest in the Northeast.

Among different activities anticipated for the first few years, some are aimed at the conservation of biodiversity such as agrarian regularization, elaboration of management plans for the CUs, implementation of an audit system, creation of new RPPNs, and the mapping of endemic and endangered species. To promote involvement of the inhabitants of the settlements, the activities associated with the implementation of agroforest systems are planned. Also planned are activities

A.

related to the employment of the social actors for the development of an environmental management plan for the project area.

The project also plans activities related to public policies seeking the amplification of the incentives and subsidies for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the project area.

Proponent: Association for Protection of the Atlantic Forest of the Northeast – AMANE.

Partners: SAVE Brasil, Environmental Research Center of the Northeast – CEPAN, Conservation International – CI, SOS Mata Atlântica Foundation – SOS, Institute Friends of the Atlantic Forest Biosphere Reserve – IA-RBMA, Northeast Ecology Society – SNE, The Nature Conservancy –TNC, and the WWF-Brasil.

Project area: Central Nucleus of the Atlantic Forest of the Northeast that extends to an area of 17,500 km2 between Recife and the Coruripe RPPN in the South of Maceió.

CUs in the Project area: 10 state areas of environmental protection, 1 Extractive Marine Reserve; 7 Special Reserve of Natural Patrimony, 1 Permanent Preservation Area; 2 Municipal Parks; and 2 Ecological Reserves.

Project: Conservation and Sustainability of Ecological Continuum of Paranapiacaba (State of São Paulo)

This project was conceived with a perspective of breaking down the false dilemma between biodiversity conservation and the use of natural resources by creating strategies of income generation from conservation. The project will promote the concept of sustainable development for the region through the creation of negotiation channels, participation, and dialogue.

The planned activities include strengthening of consortiums with the establishment of the offices with the representative of the institutions of the Management Committee and fundraising through the production of dissemination materials and organization of events with potential donors. The project also plans activities for minimizing conflicts around the Conservation Units through conducting a socio-environmental diagnostic among the managers of the CUs and the local population. An effort will be made for the existing CUs to elaborate and implement management plans in addition to the studies for the creation of new CUs of integral protection and of sustainable use, seeking the mosaic structure.

There are activities aimed at the sustainable use of resources, including productive processes for native ornamental and medicinal species, putting together ecotourism projects, and improving artisan production. The work plan also looks at activities for strengthening local organizations through identification of the need for training courses, activities on communication, administrative and financial management, and monitoring.

Proponents: State Forest Foundation of São Paulo and Socio-environmental Institute.

A.

Partners: Foundation for the Conservation and Forest Production of State of São Paulo – Forest Foundation, Forest Institution of São Paulo, “José Gomes da Silva” Institute of Lands of São Paulo State Foundation, Friends of Atlantic Forest Biosphere Reserve, Institute for the Sustainable Development and Citizens of Vale do Ribeira, Institute Ing-Ong of Socio-environmental Planning, and 9 associations of remnants of quilombo situated in Vale do Rio Ribeira.

Project area: The project area proposed is called an ecological continuum of Paranapiacaba located between Serra de Paranapiacaba—the local name given to the Serra do Mar—and Vale do Ribeira, among Rios Paranapanema e Rio Sorocaba/Médio Tietê to the North and Ribeira do Iguape to the South, totaling approximately 150,000 hectares. It extends over cities of Iporanga, Apiaí, Itaoca, Guapiara, Ribeirão Grande, Capão Bonito, Pilar do Sul, São Miguel Arcanjo, Tapiraí, Juquiá, Eldorado, and Sete Barras, all within the State of São Paulo.

CUs in the Project area: APA of Serra do Mar, Atlantic Forest Biosphere Reserve, Intervales State Park, Alto Ribeira Turistic State Park, Carlos Botelho State Park, and Xitue Ecological Station.

Lessons Learned:The main lesson learned through this selection process was that the entities responsible for the projects’ design assumed that the economic and governmental sectors present at the productive landscapes would be involved during the execution of activities only, and not as active participants since the project’s design stage and the beginning of project implementation.

Thus, Funbio intends to actively engage the economic private sector and the public sector as actors, donors, investors, and final beneficiaries of the subprojects under Component 2 of this Biodiversity Mainstreaming Project.

Component 2 Criteria:After the above subprojects had been selected, and as part of the process of project preparation, a set of more robust criteria was developed to assess and rank proposed subprojects, to ensure that subprojects financed under this component have the maximum impact on biodiversity conservation, and that the proposed activities are successfully mainstreamed into the productive landscape. This system assigns points for each criterion, based on the degree of compliance with the established objective. The criteria included in this system are:

Percent of area included in a Priority Area for Biodiversity Conservation Presence of governmental partners through Component 1.2 Adoption of the mainstreaming concept by the sector Potential for maximizing environmental goods and services Existence of installed or potential Local Productive Arrangements (APL)33 Resource contribution of secondary economic sectors Diversity of activities of secondary economic sectors participating in the project


A.

Existence of effective financial incentives for mainstreaming Presence of mobilized civil society Presence of other projects with potential synergies in the area Adequate political environment Degree of anthropic pressure on biodiversity Capacity for local income generation with minimal environmental impact Capacity to mitigate negative impacts within subproject area Availability of technical knowledge on sustainable productive practices Financial incentives for principal economic agent to be involved in mainstreaming Potential for developing activities that might cause a transfer of negative impacts outside

the territory (negative points) Capacity to mitigate potential extra-area impacts caused by the subproject Capacity to mitigate extra-area problems before subproject implementation.

A.

Annex 21: Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity


During the first year of the proposed project one of the key initiatives will be the establishment of a Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity. There are several justifications for the inclusion of this institute within the project concept:

The possibility of quickly mobilizing established expertise and the necessity for greater agility in sharing information and resources among institutions involved in Brazilian biodiversity, especially given the rate of biodiversity loss. The execution of technical studies by partner institutions may speed up the establishment of partnerships for the production of products required by decision makers.

The need to include a subject as important as biodiversity in the agenda of other sectors of government and the private sector in order to further its conservation and sustainable use.

The need to create a think tank specifically for biodiversity in order to meet the great demand for diagnostics and studies to supplement decision-making in the public and private sector. National Biodiversity Project (PROBIO) covered only a small part of this demand through the studies it supported.

The ability to take advantage of existing organized networks or consortiums of national and international organizations that are mobilized to respond to specific questions (for example, the Center for the Management of Strategic Studies [CGEE] in matters related to technology, or the international Center for Applied Biodiversity Science), which will expand the ability to respond to various types of questions, and which may serve as a model.

The presence of a high degree of installed national capacity for biodiversity, though uncoordinated, in governmental, nongovernmental, and research organizations that represent potential partners.

The Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity is designed as a group of public and private organizations representing the public authorities, research organisms, NGOs, and professional associations seeking to unite efforts to promote initiatives on biodiversity mainstreaming. The Institute has been designed not to duplicate the structures or systems of existing academic or scientific entities, but rather to bridge these institutions in a manner that will facilitate access to biodiversity information, knowledge sharing, and the identification of critical gaps in information. This in turn will allow information to be consolidated or, where necessary, generated, and presented in a form that is relevant to key stakeholders, including policymakers, private sector decision makers, and other biodiversity users. 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 and the private sector.

The Institute will play an important role in supporting the consolidation of the complex and diverse sectors in Brazil, and it will become self-sufficient by providing biodiversity services

A.

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. Since no institution with this capability or responsibility 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 the innovative structure of the Institut Français de la Biodiversité (http://ezpub.cirad.fr/index.php/ifben/accueil), and will draw lessons from several other virtual institutes of diverse natures that are operational in Brazil. However, the Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity will not restrict itself to existing models, but rather provide support for all kinds of activities proposed under the different components of the project. The 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. The Institute will work closely with the FUNBIO Knowledge Center established under Component 2, further guaranteeing the integration of public and private sector knowledge.

Objectives:

Among the objectives of the proposed Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity are to:

Mobilize the capacities and resources of organizations involved in the conservation and sustainable use of Brazilian biodiversity to improve the exchange of technical information; the joint execution of studies, research projects, and training; the proposal of public policies; and the implementation of policy-related activities;

Stimulate and carry out high-level studies and research to provide a basis for the development of public policies in the area of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use;

Promote the execution of evaluations of the potential impact of strategies, programs, projects, and social and economic policies on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity;

Provide quality services such as diagnostics, evaluations, mitigation plans for environmental impacts, and sustainable management plans among others for public and private sector clients;

Promote the mainstreaming of biodiversity into private and governmental institutions in diverse areas through better dialog, connection, and interaction with these institutions;

Disseminate to a wide public information, experiences, and results from biodiversity conservation and sustainable use projects.

Composition and Organization:

The Institute will be preliminarily composed of the partners of the project (EMBRAPA, FIOCRUZ, FUNBIO, IBAMA, JBRJ, MAPA, MCT, MDA, MMA, and MS). Other institutions with extensive experience in biodiversity information have also been identified, and invitations to join the Institute will be sent to these organizations once the Institute is formed. The Institute will be organized into thematic nuclei such as environmental health, agrobiodiversity,

A.

http://ezpub.cirad.fr/index.php/ifben/accueil

biodiversity conservation, sustainable use, biodiversity management, and others (see Figure A21.1). It will have explicit links to the Knowledge Base Facility to be developed as part of Outcome 2 by FUNBIO, and to the Virtual Biological Information Network being created under the proposed Brazil Virtual Biological Information Network Project and the Clearing House Mechanism Brazilian Biodiversity Portal (PortalBio). The information collected and organized through these complimentary efforts will be available for applied use through the Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity. A small administrative Coordination Group will be responsible for 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 project effectiveness. Possibilities include civil society organization of public interest (OSCIP) and social organizations (OS) or foundations. 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. Brazil has several other virtual institutes focused on themes ranging from petroleum to neurodegenerative diseases. The experiences of these institutes and of virtual biodiversity institutes in other countries will be especially important in determining the final structure of the Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity.

A.

Figure A21.1: Organigram ofthe Brazilian Virtual Institute for Biodiversity

A.

MAPA

MS

JBRJ

MCT

MDA

FUNBIO

MMA IBAMA

FIOCRUZ

Monit.Center

Coordination Group

Thematic Nucleus

Thematic Nucleus

Thematic Nucleus

Thematic Nucleus

Thematic Nucleus

EMBRAPA

Annex 22: Analysis of Principal Public Policy Instruments with Relevance for Biodiversity


Since the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1994, the Brazilian Government, supported by donors, has undertaken a series of reforms of the legal framework designed to support the attainment of the three CBD objectives. Many of these laws and regulations have already had a significant impact on the ground.

The most significant recent improvements of the Brazilian legal framework on biodiversity at the federal level were:

The National System of Protected Areas Act (Law 9985, of July 18, 2000; Decree 4340, of August 22, 2002).

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).

The Genetically Modified Organisms (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].

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:

The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (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).

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.

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

A.

animal species as threatened. During 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. [Note: 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 forums established recently, the following should be highlighted:

The National Biodiversity Commission – CONABIO (established by Decree 4703, of May 21, 2003)

The National Genetic Resources Council – CGEN (established by Decree 3945, of September 28, 2001; and Decree 4946, of December 31, 2003)

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)

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)

The Brazilian Commission for the Man and the Biosphere Programme – COBRAMAB (Presidential Decree of September 21, 1999)

The Chamber for Natural Resources Policies, within the Government Council (Decree 1696, of November 13, 1995)

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 3, 2004)

The Coordinating Commission of the National Forests Programme – CONAFLOR (established by Decree 3420, of April 20, 2000; and Decree 4864, of October 24, 2003)

The Coordinating Commission of the Pilot Programme for the Protection of Tropical Forests in Brazil – PPG7 (Decree 563, of June 5, 1992; Decree 2119, of January 13, 1997; and Decree 4927, of December 23, 2003)

The Interministerial Commission for Marine Resources – CIRM (Decree 3939, of September 26, 2001; and Decree 4815, of August 20, 2003)

The National Commission for Ecological and Economic Zoning (Presidential Decree of December 28, 2001; and Presidential Decree of December 12, 2004)

The National Environment Fund Commission – FNMA (Decree 3524, of June 26, 2000).

The main biodiversity programs established by the Federal Government within the Ministry of the Environment are in the Multiannual Plan 2004–2007 (Law 10933, August 11, 2004):

The National Biodiversity Program The National Protected Areas Program The National Genetic Resources Program The National Fisheries Resources Program The National Forests Program.

A.

Others biodiversity program are:

The National Biological Diversity Programme – PRONABIO (Decree 1354, of December 29, 1994; Decree 4703, of May 21, 2003)

The National Forests Programme – PNF (Decree 3420, of April 20, 2000; Decree 4864, of October 24, 2003)

The National Programme on Biodiversity Research – PPBIO (Minister of Science and Technology Act 268, of June 18, 2004)

The Brazilian Program of Molecular Ecology [Bioprospecting] for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in the Amazon – PROBEM (Decree 4284, of June 26, 2002)

The Pilot Programme for the Protection of Tropical Forests in Brazil – PPG7 (Decree 563, of June 5, 1992; Decree 2119, of January 13, 1997; and Decree 4927, of December 23, 2003).

While these modifications were designed to further the objectives of biodiversity conservation, a much larger set of laws and regulations directly impact biodiversity in Brazil. Often, biodiversity or even environmental concerns were at best incidental matters during the policymaking process. A primary objective of this proposed project is to work with national-level policies of the sectors that most impact biodiversity conservation in order to propose modifications that would make national laws and regulations more biodiversity friendly. During preparation, a preliminary analysis of the most relevant public policy instruments in each sector included initially in the project was carried out. During implementation, consultants will be contracted to further analyze sectoral policies, and this analysis will provide crucial background information for the workshops that will bring stakeholders together to identify which instruments most need to be modified, and to propose strategies for moving forward (Component 1). Table A22.1 summarizes the initial analysis of public policy instruments impacting biodiversity.

A.

Table A22.1. Summary of Initial Analysis of Public Policy Instruments Impacting Biodiversity

Sector

Possible Interface with Biodiversity (positive or negative)

Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

Forestry SectorPrincipal Stakeholders: Extractive communities, traditional populations, riverside dwellers, small rural producer associations and cooperatives, private sector, scientific community, relevant government institutions.

Principle Policy Instrument(Official Name)

1. Programa Piloto para a Proteção das Florestas Tropicais do Brasil – PPG-7.

X X X X

2. Programa Expansão da Base Florestal Plantada e Manejada – Florestar (PPA 2000–2003).

X X X

3. Programa Florestas Sustentáveis – Sustentar (PPA 2000–2003).

X X X X

4. Amazônia Sustentável (PPA 2004–2007 – 0502).

X X X X

5. Programa Nacional de Florestas (PPA 2004–2007 – 0506).

X X X X X X

6. Prevenção e Combate ao Desmatamento, Queimadas e Incêndios Florestais - Florescer (PPA 2004–2007 – 503).

X

7. Lei nº 4.771, 15/09/65 Creates new forestry X X X

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

code 8. Dec nº 1.709, 20/11/95 Declares the permanent preservation of forests and other endemic vegetation forms situated on IBAMA/AL property.

X X

9. Dec nº 2.707, 04/08/98 Promulgates the International Tropical Wood Agreement.

X X X X

10. Dec nº 4.722, 05/06/03 Establishes criteria for the use of Swietenia macrophylla King (mogno).

X X X

11. Lei nº 11.284, 02/03/06 Law on the management of public forests for sustainable production.

X X X X X X

12. Dec nº 5.794, 05/06/06 Alters and clarifies Decree no 3.420, dated April 20, 2000, on the creation of the National Forests Program (PNF).

X X X

13. Dec nº 5.795, 05/06/06 On the composition and functioning of the Commission for the Management of Public Forests.

X X

Water Resources Sector Principal Stakeholders: Federal and state water resource management institutions, national and state water resource councils, river basin committees, delegated water agency institutions, water resource users, NGOs, populations in semi-arid regions, environmental educators, teachers, students, media specialists, environmental volunteers, family farmers, artisinal fishermen, extractavists, riverside dwellers, traditional

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

populations.Principle Policy Instrument

(Official Name)

1. Lei nº 9.433, 08/01/97 Created the National Water Resources Policy and National Water Resources Management System.

X X X X X X Articulated Management of soil and water resources, linking of SINGREG and SISNAMA.

2. Programa Irrigação e Drenagem (PPA 2000–2003).

X

3. Transposição das Águas do Rio São Francisco (PPA 2000–2003).

Does not take into account biodiversity.

4. Abastecimento de Energia Elétrica (PPA 2004–2007 - 0274).

See Energy.

5. Ciência, Natureza e Sociedade (PPA 2004–2007 – 1122).

See Science and Technology.

6. Combate à Desertificação (PPA 2004–2007 – 1080).

X X X

7. Desenvolvimento Integrado e Sustentável do Semi-Árido – CONVIVER (PPA 2004–2007 – 1047).

See Land Structure and Human Settlements.

8. Educação Ambiental para Sociedades Sustentáveis (PPA 2004–2007 – 0052).

X

9. Gestão da Política Nacional de Recursos Hídricos (PPA 2004–2007 – 0497).

X X X

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

10. Proambiente (PPA 2004–2007 – 1270). X X11. Probacias (PPA 2004–2007 – 1107). X X X X12. Revitalização de Bacias Hidrográficas em Situação de Vulnerabilidade e Degradação Ambiental (PPA 2004–2007 – 1305).

X X X

13. Dec nº 2.4643, 10/07/34 Decreed Water Code.

X X

14. Lei nº 9.966, 28/04/00 On the prevention or control and penalization of pollution caused by the introduction of oil or other noxious or dangerous substances in national waters.

X X X CONAMA Resolution 357/2005.

15. Lei nº 9.984, 17/07/00 On the creation of the National Water Agency (ANA), the federal entity that implements the National Water Resources Policy and coordinates the National Water Resources System.

X X X X X X Articulated soil and water management.

16. Lei nº 10.670, 14/05/03 Creates National Water Day.

X X

17. Dec nº 4.871, 06/11/03 On the creation of Area Plans to combat oil pollution in national waters.

X X

18. Dec s/n, 22/03/05 Establishes the Brazilian Decade of Water.

X X X X

19. Dec nº 5.440, 04/05/05 Establishes X X X X X

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

definitions and procedures for the control of water quality in water supply systems and creates mechanism and instruments to disseminate information on water quality in water for human consumption to the consumer. 20. Dec nº 2.741, 20/08/98 Promulgates the International Convention Against Desertification in Countries Affected by Severe Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa.

X X X X X

21. Lei nº 10.638, 06/01/03 Creates the Permanent Program Against Drought – PROSECA.

X X X X X X

22. Resolução CONAMA 357/2005 – On the classification of bodies of water and environmental guidelines for their classification.

X X X X Establishment and monitoring of water -quality classes.

Agricultural Sector Principal Stakeholders: Family farmers, people settled through agrarian reform, families without food security, traditional communities, public and private irrigators.


1. Política Agrícola. X X X X X X

2. Programa de Recuperação de Solo. Does not take into account biodiversity.

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

3. Programa Conservação de Solos na Agricultura (PPA 2000–2003).

X X X

4. Programa de Recuperação de Pastagens Degradadas.


5. Programa Nacional de Fortalecimento da Agricultura Familiar (PRONAF) (PPA 2000–2003).

X X

6. Programa Apoio ao Desenvolvimento do Setor Agropecuário (PPA 2000-2003).


7. Programa Irrigação e Drenagem (PPA 2000–2003).

X

8. Política Nacional de Biossegurança. See Science and Technology.

9. Programa de Abastecimento Agroalimentar (PPA 2004–2007 – 0352).

X

10. Agricultura Familiar - PRONAF (PPA 2004–2007 – 0351).

X X X

11. Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Agropecuário e Agroindustrial para a Inserção Social (PPA 2004–2007 – 1161).

X X X

12. Desenvolvimento Sustentável das Regiões Produtoras de Cacau (PPA 2004–2007 – 0362).

X X X

13. Desenvolvimento Sustentável de Territórios Rurais (PPA 2004–2007 –

See Land Structure and Human

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

1334). Settlements.14. Eficiência na Agricultura Irrigada (PPA 2004–2007 – 1037).

X X

15. Manejo e Conservação de Solos na Agricultura (PPA 2004–2007 – 0368).

X X X X

15. Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Agropecuário e Agroindustrial para a Inserção Social (PPA 2004–2007 – 1161).

X X X

16. Lei nº 4.504, 30/11/64 On the Land Statute.

X X X X X

17. Lei nº 7.802, 11/07/1989 On research, testing, production, packaging, labeling, transport, storage, commercialization, advertising, usage, importation, exportation, final destination of packaging or residuals, register, classification, control, inspection, and inspection of agrotoxins and their components.

X X X X X

18. Dec nº 98.816, 11/01/90 Regulates Law n° 7.802, from 1989, on research, testing, production, packaging, labeling, transport, storage, commercialization, advertising, usage, importation, exportation, final destination of packaging or residuals, register, classification, control, inspection, and

X X X X X

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

inspection of agrotoxins and their components.19. Lei nº 8.171, 17/01/91 On the Agricultural Policy.

X X X X X X

20. Dec nº 2.366, 05/11/97 Regulates Law nº 9.456, which implements the Protection of Crops and deals with the National Service for the Protection of Crops (SNPC).

X X X X X C

21. Dec nº 3.508, 14/06/00 On the National Rural Sustainable Development Council (CNDRS), and others.

X X X X X

22. Dec nº 3.550, 27/07/00 New version of Decree no 98.816, from January 11, 1990 on research, testing, production, packaging, labeling, transport, storage, commercialization, advertising, usage, importation, exportation, final destination of packaging or residuals, register, classification, control, inspection, and inspection of agrotoxins and their components.

X X X X X

23. Dec nº 4.074, 04/01/02 Regulates Law no 7.802, from June 11, 1989, on research, testing, production, packaging, labeling, transport, storage, commercialization, advertising, usage, importation, exportation,

X X X X X

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

final destination of packaging or residuals, register, classification, control, inspection, and inspection of agrotoxins and their components.24. Dec nº 4.680, 24/04/03 Regulates the right to information regarding food products and ingredients for human or animal consumption that contain or are produced from genetically modified organisms, without prejudicing the other applicable norms.

X X X

25. Dec nº 5.549, 22/09/05 New version of Law no 7.802, from June 11, 1989, on research, testing, production, packaging, labeling, transport, storage, commercialization, advertising, usage, importation, exportation, final destination of packaging or residuals, register, classification, control, inspection, and inspection of agrotoxins and their components.

X X X X X

Land Structure and Human Settlements Sector

Principal Stakeholders: Population residing in and around conservation areas, traditional populations, researchers, visitors and users of conservation units, landless rural workers, populations in arid zones.


1. Fundo de Terras e da Reforma Agrária – Banco da Terra.


B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

2. Programa Brasil Joga Limpo (PPA 2000–2003).

X X X

3. Programa Emancipação de Assentamentos Rurais.


4. Programa Gerenciamento da Estrutura Fundiária.


5. Programa Novo Mundo Rural. Does not take into account biodiversity.

6. Áreas Protegidas do Brasil (PPA 2004–2007 – 0499).

X X

7. Amazônia Sustentável (PPA 2004–2007 – 0502).

See Forests.

8. Assentamentos Sustentáveis para Trabalhadores rurais (PPA 2004–2007 – 0135).

X X

9. Comunidades Tradicionais (PPA 2004–2007 – 1145).

X X X X

10. Desenvolvimento Integrado e Sustentável do Semi-Árido – CONVIVER (PPA 2004–2007 – 1047).

X X X X X

11. Desenvolvimento Sustentável de Territórios Rurais (PPA 2004–2007 – 1334).

X X

12. Gestão da Política de Desenvolvimento Regional e Ordenamento Territorial (PPA

X X

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

2004–2007 – 0757).13. Identidade Étnica e Patrimônio Cultural dos Povos Indígenas (PPA 2004–2007 – 0150).

X X X

14. Dec nº 77.775, 08/06/76 Regulates Law n.º 6.225, from July 14, 1975, on discrimination by the Ministry of Agriculture against regions in the obligatory execution of plans for soil protection and erosion prevention.

X X X

15. Lei nº 6.766, 19/12/79 On the parceling of urban land.

X X

16. Lei nº 6.803, 02/07/80 On the basic guidelines for industrial zoning in critical pollution areas.

X X

17. Dec nº 99.540, 21/09/90 Created the Coordinating Commission for Ecological-Economic Zoning of National Territory.

X X X X

18. Dec nº 1.675, 13/10/95 On the Social Action Program in Sanitation (PROSEGE).

X X

19. Dec s/n, 28/12/01 On the Coordinating Commission for Ecological-Economic Zoning of National Territory and the Permanent Working Group for the Execution of Ecological-Economic Zoning of National

X X X X

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

Territory; also creates the Permanent Working Group for the Execution of Ecological-Economic Zoning of National Territory - Consórcio ZEE - Brasil.20. Lei nº 10.257, 10/07/01 Regulates articles 182 and 183 of the Federal Constitution, establishing general guidelines for urban policy.

X X X X

21. Lei nº 10.308, 20/11/01 On the selection of locations, construction, licensing, operation, control, costs, indemnification, civil responsibility, and guarantees related to deposits of radioactive waste.

X X

22. Dec nº 4.297, 10/07/02 Establishes criteria for Ecological-Economic Zoning of Bazil (ZEE).

X X X X

23. Dec s/n, 04/09/03 Creates Interministerial Working Group to carry out studies and elaborate proposals to promote the integration of environmental sanitation in the ambit of the federal government.

X X X X

24. Dec s/n, 10/10/03 Creates the Interministerial Working Group charged with analyzing the demands presented by civil society, representing those affected by dams,

X X

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

and propose the solution of complaints filed. 25. Dec s/n, 22/09/04 Creates the Interministerial Working Group to analyze and consolidate the contributions of society to the projected law establishing guidelines for basic public sanitation services and the National Environmental Sanitation Policy (PNSA).

X X X

Science and TechnologyPrincipal Stakeholders: Scientific community, decisionmakers, and society in general, especially in the areas of international relations, science and technology, agriculture, transport, energy, fishing, health, industry, legal services, regional and water planning, waste treatment, and forestry.


1. Programa de C&T para a Gestão de Ecossistemas – PCTGE (PPA 2000–2003).

X X X X

2. Programa Biotecnologia e Recursos Genéticos – GENOMA (PPA 2000–2003).

X X

3. Programa Ciência e Tecnologia para o Agronegócio (PPA 2000–2003).

X X X

4. Política Nacional de Biossegurança. X5. Programa Piloto para Proteção das Florestas Tropicais do Brasil -PPG-7- Subprograma de Ciência e Tecnologia.

X X X X X

6. Programa de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – PADCT.

X X X X X

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

7. Programa Recursos Humanos em Áreas Estratégicas – RHAE.

X X X

9. Programa Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos – BIOVIDA (PPA 2000–2003).

X X X X X X

10. Política Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia do Mar.

X X X X X

11. Programa Cooperação Científico-Tecnológica Internacional (PPA 2000–2003).

X X

12. Ciência, Natureza e Sociedade (PPA 2004–2007 – 1122).

X X X X X X X X

13. Formação e Capacitação de Recursos Humanos para pesquisa (PPA 2004–2007 – 0460).

X X

14. Gestão da Política de Ciência e Tecnologia (PPA 2004–2007 –0473).

X

15. Mudanças Climáticas Globais (PPA 2004–2007 – 0475).

X X

16. Dec nº 1.478, 02/05/95 On the execution of the Protocol for the Adherence of Uruguay to the Agreement on the Partial Achievement of Cooperation and Exchange of Goods Used in Defense and Protection of the Environment among Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay.

X X

17. Dec nº 2.586, 12/05/98 Promulgates the X X X X X

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

Agreement on Cooperation in Environmental Matters between Brazil and Argentina. 18. Dec nº 2.652, 01/07/98 Promulgates the United Nations Convention on Climate Change.

X X X X X

19. Dec nº 2.679, 17/07/98 Promulgates the Amendments to the Montreal Protocol on substances that destroy the ozone layer.

X X

20. Dec nº 2.699, 30/07/98 Promulgates the Amendments to the Montreal Protocol on substances that destroy the ozone layer, signed in London on June 29, 1990.

X X

21. Dec nº 2.742, 20/08/98 Promulgates the Antarctic Treaty Protocol for the Protection of the Environment.

X X X X X

22. Dec nº 2.783, 18/09/98 On the prohibition of the acquisition of products or equipment that contain or uses Substances that Destroy the Ozone Layer by organisms or entities of the Federal Public Administration.

X X

23. Dec 3.026, 13/04/99 Promulgates the Convention on the Preservation, Conservation, and Control of Natural Resources in Border Areas, signed between the governments of Brazil and Bolivia.

X X X X X

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

24. Dec nº 3.369, 23/02/00 On the conversation for the modified version of nomenclature for ALADI, based on the Harmonized System for the Designation and Codification of Merchandise (NALADI/SH 96) of the Montevideo Treaty of 1980, of Cooperation and Exchange of Goods Used in the Defense and Protection of the Environment, signed by the governments of Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay.

X X

25. Dec nº 3.515, 20/06/00 Created the Brazilian Forum on Climate Change.

X X X X X

26. Dec s/n, 28/08/00 On the Brazilian Forum on Climate Change.

X X X X X

27. Dec nº 3.945, 28/09/01 Defines the composition of the Council on the Management of Genetic Patrimony and establishes norms for its functioning.

X X X X X X X X

28. Dec s/n, 06/03/03 Creates the Executive Interministerial Committee for the Protection of the Ozone Layer.

X X

30. Lei nº 11.105, 24/03/05 Regulates numbers II, IV, and V of the first part of article 225 of the Federal Constitution, establishes norms for security and

X X X X X X X X

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

mechanisms of control for activities that involve genetically modified organisms and their derivatives, creates the National Council on Biosaftey (CNBS), restructures the National Technical Committee on Biosafety (CTNBio), discusses the National Biosafety Policy (PNB), revokes Law 8.974, of January 5, 1995, and Provisionary measure no 2.191-9, of August 23, 2001, and articles 5o, 6o, 7o, 8o, 9o, 10 and 16 of Law no 10.814, of December 15 2003.31. Dec nº 5.445, 12/05/05 Promulgates the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change.

X X X

32. Dec nº 5.459, 07/06/05 On sanctions applicable to conduct and legislative activities on genetic patrimony or the associated traditional knowledge.

X X X X X X X

33. Dec nº 5.472, 20/06/05 Promulgates the text of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pesticides.

X X X X

34. Dec nº 5.855, 19/07/06 Promulgates the Complementary Agreement in the Area of Natural Resources and the Environment to the Basic Agreement on Technical and Scientific

X X X X X X X

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

Cooperation between Brazil and Peru.

Health Sector Principal Stakeholders: Management and executing units of the Single Health System, institutions and professionals in science and technology and health, society in general.


1. Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação em Saúde (PPA 2004–2007 – 1201).

X X

2. Vigilância Epidemiológica e Ambiental em Saúde (PPA 2004–2007 – 1203).

X

3. Vigilância Sanitária de Produtos, Serviços e Ambientes (PPA 2004–2007 – 1289).

X X

Fishing Sector Principal Stakeholders: Fishermen, fishing suppliers, fishing businessmen, society in general, governmental institutions related to fishing.


1. Dec nº 221/67 – Brazilian Fishing Code. X X2. Lei nº 7.356, 30/08/85 – Alters Organic Preventative Law (Law 3.807/60).

X X

3. Dec nº 68.459, 01/04/71 –Regulates fishing.

X X

4. Lei nº 7.643, 18/12/87 – Prohibits harvest of cetaceans proíbe a pesca de cetáceos.

X X X

5. Corredor Nordeste (PPA 2004–2007 – 0235).

X X

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

6. Lei nº 8.287, 20/12/91 – On concessions with guaranteed benefits for artisanal fishermen during periods of bans.

X X

7. Lei nº 9.445, 14/03/97 – Gives economic subsidies for the price of diesel for national fishing boats.

Does not take biodiversity into account.

8. Lei nº 9.605, 12/02/98 – Environmental Crimes Law.

X X

9. Portarias e Instruções Normativas.-End of fishing seasons. X X-Closure of fishing areas. X-Protection of reproducers. X X-Limits on weight (minimum capture size). X X-Restriction on fishing equipment. X-Limit on the efficiency of fishing equipment. X-Control of access to fishing (limit on fishing efforts).

X

10. Programa de Avaliação do Potencial de Recursos Vivos na Zona Econômica Exclusiva (REVIZEE).

X X X

11. Plano Nacional de Gerenciamento Costeiro (PNGC).

X X X

12. Programa Recursos Pesqueiros Sustentáveis (PPA 2000–2003).

X

13. Programa Nacional de Desenvolvimento X X X X

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

da Pesca Amadora (PPA 2000–2003).

14. Programa Desenvolvimento da Pesca (PPA 2000–2003).

Does not take biodiversity into account.

15. Aqüicultura e Pesca do Brasil (PPA 2004–2007 – 1224).

See Aquiculture.

16. Recursos Pesqueiros Sustentáveis (PPA 2004–2007 – 0104).

X X X X

Aquiculture Sector Principal Stakeholders: Aquiculture producers and fishermen, fishing businessmen, society, governmental institutions related to fishing.


1. Dec nº 24.643, 10/07/34 – Established Water Code

X X

2. Dec nº 55.871, 26/03/65 – Sets maximum tolerance limits for inorganic pollutants in food, including fish

X X

3. Lei nº 4.771, 15/09/65 – Institutes new Forest Code

X X

4. Dec nº 221, 28/02/67 – On the Fishing Code.

X X

5. Dec nº 2.869, 09/12/98 –Establishes conditions for authorizing aquiculture in state assets.

X X

6. Government Directives Port IBAMA nº X X

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

145, 29/10/98 – Establishes norms for the introduction, reintroduction, and transfer of fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and aquatic macrophytes, excluding ornamental animals, for aquiculture. 7. Diretrizes Ambientais para o Desenvolvimento da Aqüicultura.

X X X X

8. Programa Desenvolvimento da Aqüicultura (PPA 2000–2003).

X

9. Aqüicultura e Pesca do Brasil (PPA 2004–2007 – 1224).


Energy SectorPrincipal Stakeholders: Waterbasin users, public institutions at all three levels of government, environmental organizations at the three levels of government, concessionaries, institutions with permits, productive agents.


1. Política Energética Nacional. X X2. Programa de Desenvolvimento Energético de Estados e Municípios – PRODEEM.

X X

3. Programa Nacional de Conservação de Energia Elétrica –PROCEL.

X X X

4. Programa Luz no Campo (PPA 2000–2003).


5. Política Nacional de Conservação e Uso X

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

Racional de Energia.6. Programa Nacional da Racionalização do uso dos Derivados do Petróleo e do Gás Natural – CONPET.

X X

7. Programa de Excelência em Gestão Ambiental e Segurança Operacional.

X

8. Programa Energia nas Regiões Norte e Nordeste (PPA 2000–2003).


9. Programa Energia nas Regiões Sul, Sudeste e Centro-Oeste (PPA 2000–2003).


10. Abastecimento de Energia Elétrica (PPA 2004–2007 - 0274).


11. Energia Alternativa Renovável (PPA 2004–2007 – 1044).


12. Gestão da Política de Energia (PPA 2004–2007 – 0276).


13. Prevenção de Riscos e Combate às Emergências Ambientais (PPA 2004–2007 - 1210).

See Ecosystems.

14. Dec s/n, 09/12/02 Institutes the Commission on Multidisciplinary Work and Technical Groups in order to establish mechanisms to definitively regulate environmental licensing for perferation and production activities related to petroleum and

X X

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

natural gas for Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. (PETROBRÁS), in the Campos basin.

Mineral and Mining Sector Principal Stakeholders: Entrepreneurs, researchers, miners, and governmental and nongovernmental organizations.


1. Recuperação de áreas degradadas por atividades de mineração – Decreto nº 97.632.

X

2. Dec nº 99.274 – licenciamento ambiental de atividades de mineração.

X

3. Res CONAMA nº 1 - estudo de Impacto Ambiental de Atividades de Mineração.

X

4. Programa Conservação Ambiental de Regiões Mineradas.

X

5. Programa Desenvolvimento da Produção Mineral.


6. Programa Abastecimento de Petróleo, seus Derivados, Gás Natural e Álcool Combustível (PPA 2004–2007 – 0271).


7. Geologia do Brasil (PPA 2004–2007 – 1115).


8. Mineração e Desenvolvimento Sustentável (PPA 2004–2007 – 0391).

X X

9. Dec s/n, 14/12/00 Creates the Managing X X X

B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

Committee for the Environmental Recuperation of the Carbon Basin of Santa Catarina, and other subjects.

Transport Sector Principal Stakeholders: Society in general, and managers and permit holders for ports, railroads, and highways.


1. Corredor Araguaia-Tocantins (PPA 2004–2007 – 0237).


2. Corredor Fronteira norte (PPA 2004–2007 – 0238).


3. Corredor Leste (PPA 2004–2007 – 0230). Does not take into account biodiversity.

4. Corredor Mercosul (PPA 2004–2007 – 0233).


5. Corredor Nordeste (PPA 2004–2007 – 0235).


6. Corredor Oeste-Norte (PPA 2004–2007 – 0236).


7. Corredor São Francisco (PPA 2004–2007 – 0229).


8. Corredor Sudoeste (PPA 2004–2007 – 0232).


9. Corredor Transmetropolitano (PPA 2004–2007 – 0231).


B.

Sector


Con

serv

atio

n

Sust

aina

ble

Use

Lega

l Asp

ects

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

itiga

tion

of

Impa

cts

Educ

atio

n, tr

aini

ng, a

nd p

ublic

ou

treac

h

Scie

nce

and

Tech

nolo

gy

Dis

tribu

tion

of B

enef

its

Publ

ic P

olic

y Fo

rmul

atio

n &

Im

plem

enta

tion

Bio

tech

nolo

gy M

anag

emen

t

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

10. Gestão da Política dos Transportes (PPA 2004–2007 – 0225).

X X

11. Prevenção de Riscos e Combate às Emergências Ambientais (PPA 2004–2007 - 1210).

See Ecosystems

12. Dec nº 96.044, 18/05/88 Approves the Regulation of the Rail Transport of Hazardous Materials.

X X

13. Lei nº 8.723, 28/10/93 On the reduction of emissions of pollutants from vehicles.

X X

B.

Annex 23: 2010 Convention on Biological Diversity Targets and Relevance for Brazil


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 the development of a set of potential indicators (found at https://www.biodiv.org/2010-target/indicatorstf.shtml) 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 toward the 2010 target, and for communicating effectively trends in biodiversity related to the three objectives of the Convention. Recommendation five adopted by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice at its 10 th meeting considers five other indicators ready for immediate testing. Table A23.1 lists the indicators selected as of publication of this report:

Table A23.1: Indicators Selected for Testing and Further Development

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 plants, and fish species of major socioeconomic importance

Health and well-being of people living in biodiversity-based, resource-dependent communities

Coverage of protected areas Biodiversity used in food and medicine

Area of forest, agricultural, and aquaculture ecosystems under sustainable management

Further indicators to be identified by WG-8j

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

C.

https://www.biodiv.org/2010-target/indicatorstf.shtml

http://www.biodiv.org/

http://www.johannesburgsummit.com/

Indicators for Immediate Testing Indicators Requiring Further Development

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 toward the 2010 target, a number of task forces have been established to assemble data, which are already available for the various focal areas, and to use the indicators to assess progress toward the 2010 target, and communicate this target at the global level, as identified in Decision VII/30.

Each task force prepares a draft report that uses one of the indicators to contribute to the evaluation of progress toward the 2010 biodiversity by describing the status and trends of 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;

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 (three to four) additional indicators identified as a priority to achieve a balanced set of indicators that is limited in number. It is envisioned that the outputs will be used in the preparation of the second Global Biodiversity Outlook and reviewed by a technical expert group, the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SBSTTA), governments, and other experts.

By adopting the 2010 CBD target, the Government of Brazil is explicitly recognizing the value of biodiversity, setting goals for its conservation, and holding it accountable for selected indicators. Taking a step further, with CONABIO’s Resolution 3 of 21 December, 2006 Brazil defined 50 national quantitative targets related to the CDB 2010 biodiversity target, listed in Table A23-2 below. This project will enable regular data collection and evaluation of selected indicators from this list of recently identified national targets that will be part of Brazil’s report to the CBD and of the collective institutional effort to measure its important biodiversity.

The project will contribute to and monitor 16 of these 50 national targets for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services that are related to the Project’s objectives, rigorous, replicable, widely acceptable, and easily understood. The result of the Project’s monitoring and evaluation of these targets 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 CBD target.

C.

Table A23-2 – Brazil National Biodiversity Targets for 2010

National Target no

National Biodiversity Target for 2010 Corresponding CBD34 Target

Corresponding GSPC35 Target

NBP36 – Component 1: Biodiversity knowledge1.1 A broadly accessible list of Brazilian formally described

species of plants, vertebrates, invertebrates and microorganisms, even if selectively prepared, in the form of permanent databases.

I

1.2 National Taxonomy Program formalized with the objective of increasing the scientific collection by 50%, giving priority to the description of new species.

XV

1.3* Brazilian Virtual Biodiversity Institute created and PPBio (Biodiversity Research Program) expanded to all other biomes in addition to the Amazon and Caatinga to increase availability of biodiversity information.

NBP – Component 2: Biodiversity conservationObjective 1: Promote the conservation of biological diversity in ecosystems, habitats, and biomes2.1 At least 30% of the Amazon Biome and 10% of all other

biomes and Coastal and Marine Zone effectively conserved by Protected Areas of the National Protected Areas System (SNUC).

1.1 IV

2.2 Biodiversity protection secured in at least 2/3 of the National Biodiversity Priority Areas by SNUC Protected Areas, Indigenous Lands, and Quilombola Territories.

1.2 V

2.3 10% of the Marine Zone containing temporary or permanent no-fishing zones integrated with Protected Areas, created for protection of fish stocks.

Objective 2: Promote the conservation of species diversity2.4* All species in the country officially recognized as

endangered with extinction granted with Action Plans and active Subsidiary Groups.

2.1 III

2.5 100% of threatened species effectively conserved in Protected Areas.

2.2 VII

2.6* Reduction by 25% of the annual increase rate of threatened plant and animal species in the National List, and removal of 25% of the species currently present in the National List.

2.7 Conclude a preliminary assessment of the conservation status of all known plant and vertebrate species, and of selected invertebrate species, at the national level.

II

2.8* 60% of plant threatened species conserved in ex situ collections and 10% of the plant threatened species included in recovery and restoration programs.

VIII

2.9* 60% of the migratory species granted with action plans and 30% of the species conservation programs implemented.

Objective 3: Promote the conservation of genetic diversity2.10 70% of the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and plants

with socio-economic value used in extractive activities conserved, and the associated indigenous and local knowledge maintained.

3.1 IX

34 CBD: United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity35 GSPC: Global Strategy for Plant Conservation36 NBP: National Biodiversity Strategy

C.

2.11 50% of species listed as priorities in the Plants for the Future Project conserved ex situ and on farm.

2.12 60% of the genetic diversity of Brazilian wild relatives of cultivated plants of 10 priority genera effectively conserved in situ and/or ex situ.

Objective 8: Maintain ecosystem capacity to provide goods and services and to support livelihoods2.13* Ecosystem capacity to provide goods and services

maintained or improved in Biodiversity Priority Areas.8.1

2.14* Significant increment in actions to support on farm conservation of agro-biodiversity components which ensure the support of sustainable livelihoods, local food security and health, particularly regarding local communities and indigenous peoples.

8.2 XIII

NBP – Component 3: Sustainable use of biodiversity componentsObjective 4: Promote sustainable use and consumption3.1* 30% of non-timber plant products originated from

sustainably managed sources.4.1a XII

3.2 Recuperation of at least 30% of the main fish stocks with participatory management and capture control.

3.3 40% of the Amazon area featuring Forest Management Plans certified.

4.1b VI

3.4 80% of Extractive Reserves and Sustainable Development Reserves with sustainable management of fauna and flora species of food or economic interest secured and with respective management plans developed and implemented.

3.5 80% reduction of unsustainable consumption of fauna and flora resources in sustainable use protected areas.

4.2

3.6 No species from wild fauna or flora threatened by international trade, in compliance with CITES provisions.

4.3 XI

3.7 Significant reduction of illegal trade of fauna and flora species in the country.

3.8* 80% increase in the value added and innovation regarding new processed biodiversity products.

3.9 80% increase in new sustainable uses of biodiversity for medicinal and food purposes, resulting in products available at markets.

3.10 Significant increase of detection, control and repression actions regarding bio-piracy cases.

3.11 Significant increase of investments in studies, projects, and research for the sustainable use of biodiversity.

3.12 80% increase in the number of patents generated from biodiversity components.

3.13 Support to CCZEE for the development and conclusion of ZEEs in at least 50% of States.

NBP – Component 4: Monitoring, evaluation, prevention and mitigation of impacts on biodiversityObjective 5: Reduce pressure from habitat loss, land use change and degradation, and unsustainable water use4.1 Reduction in the deforestation rate by 100% for the Atlantic

Forest Biome, by 75% for the Amazon Biome and by 50% for the remaining biomes.

5.1

4.2 Average reduction by 25% in the number of heat source events in each biome.

4.3* Creation and consolidation of a systematic and standardized biodiversity monitoring network at national scale.

Objective 6: Control threats from invasive alien species

C.

4.4 All species included in the National Assessment of Invasive Alien Species granted with developed Action Plans for Prevention and Control.

6.1

4.5 Management plans implemented to control at least 25 of the primary invasive alien species most threatening to ecosystems, habitats or species in the country.

6.2 X

Objective 7: Address threats to biodiversity from climate change and pollution4.6 50% of the sources polluting water and soil and their

impacts on biodiversity controlled.7.2

4.7 Provide incentives to bio-geographic studies that include forecasts for species occurrences associated with potential climate change based on Geographic Information Systems.

NBP – Component 5: Access to genetic resources, associated traditional knowledge, and benefit-sharingObjective 9: Maintain indigenous and local communities socio-cultural diversity5.1* All public policies relevant to traditional knowledge

implemented in compliance with the provisions in Article 8j of the CBD.

9.1

5.2 Knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous peoples and traditional communities protected.

5.3 100% of scientific or dissemination publications resulting from access to traditional knowledge including origin identification.

5.4 100% of activities related to access to traditional knowledge according to prior informed consent, and with the obligation to returning the generated knowledge and sharing benefits.

Objective 10: Ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits resulting from the use of genetic resources5.5 Law on access and benefit-sharing, according to CBD

provisions, approved by National Congress and implemented, and 100% of activities related to access and shipment according to national legislation.

10.1

5.6* Benefits resulting from commercial uses of genetic resources effectively shared in a fair and equitable manner in behalf of biodiversity conservation.

10.2

5.7 100% of patent requests for inventions related to products and processes resulting from access to genetic heritage and associated traditional knowledge associated with origin identification and access authorization.

5.8 Benefit-sharing under the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture implemented in the country.

NBP – Component 6: Biodiversity education, public awareness, information, and dissemination6.1* Incorporation of the importance of biological diversity and

the need for its conservation, sustainable use, and benefit-sharing into communication, education and public awareness programs.

XIV

6.2* Broader access to quality information on biodiversity, sustainable use, and sharing of benefits from biological diversity.

6.3* Establishment and strengthening of action networks for the conservation and sustainable use of, and sharing of benefits from, biological diversity.

XVI

NBP – Component 7: Legal and institutional strengthening for biodiversity managementObjective 11: Parties secure improved financial, human, scientific, technical, and technological capacity to implement the Convention

C.

7.1* New and additional financial resources, from national and/or international public and private sources, raised and made available for use in the country, allowing the effective implementation of its commitments under the CBD programs of work, according to its Article 20.

11.1

7.2 Initiatives promoting the transfer to Brazil of environmentally sustainable technologies developed by other countries implemented to allow the effectiveness of CBD programs of work, according to its Article 20, paragraph 4, and Article 16.

11.2

7.3 Exchange and transfer of environmentally sustainable technologies among developing countries promoted to allow the effective implementation of the Convention programs of work, according to its Article 20, paragraph 4, and Article 16.

* The Project will contribute to and monitor the 16 national targets indicated by an asterisk.

During project preparation, prior to the identification of Brazilian national targets, the CBD indicators list provided above was discussed at a workshop sponsored as part of project preparation in October 2006. Part of the project’s implementation activities will be to conduct a series of additional consultations (workshops) with national and international experts to refine/propose and evaluate these and the Brazilian national indicators; discuss models, data, and monitoring techniques; and provide guidance on 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.

C.

Annex 24: Outcomes, Lessons, and Recommendations from Other Projects and Studies


Implementation. The Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO) project confirmed a number of lessons previously derived from biodiversity conservation projects, including the National Environmental Project, which highlighted several constraints in implementation. Lack of success in conservation projects had been linked to complexity, lack of clear delineation of niches and goals, and poor disbursement performance. Learning from FUNBIO’s agile grants program, the subproject program under Component 3 would be carefully overseen and adjusted, if necessary, to the real capacity of the executing entities to use the funds effectively.

Trust Fund Management. FUNBIO has built its reputation of managing conservation funds effectively by implementing successful funding programs such as the Integrated Conservation and Sustainable Use Projects (PICUS) and by attracting diverse sources of funds. The Mainstreaming Project will capitalize on their expertise and experiences in implementing Component 3 for the productive landscape subprojects.

Finances and fundraising. A lesson identified in the Global Environment Facility’s (GEF’s) global portfolio of trust funds was that trust funds can promote decreases in government funding of protected areas by substituting trust fund financing for regular appropriations. This was not found to be the case in the FUNBIO project, which focused its investments on conservation projects outside the realm of traditional government responsibilities. The GEF trust fund evaluation also recommended that GEF support should be structured to provide incentives to encourage raising additional capital and developing innovative capitalization approaches. These lessons were taken into account in the design of this project, with only requirements for raising matching funds.

Monitoring. 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, such as those relating to legislation and policy. This strategy is based on lessons learned from a number of initiatives, including the National Biodiversity Project (PROBIO), the Amazon Region Protected Areas Program (ARPA), and the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN) Project.

Framework. Based on the Biodiversity Assessments through five workshops (Cerrado/Pantanal, Atlantic Forest/Southern Grasslands, Coastal/Marine, Caatinga Dryland, and Amazon Forest), PROBIO established the 900 Priority Areas for Biodiversity Conservation of the key Brazilian biomes. PROBIO also contributed to the legal framework for the creation of the National Biodiversity Policy and National Biodiversity Strategy, the two main instruments for promoting biodiversity conservation in Brazil. Selection of subprojects under Components 1 and 2 of the Mainstreaming Project will be directly guided by these outcomes.

C.

Partnerships with other Sectors. PROBIO’s finding is that the incorporation of biodiversity into other productive sectors needs to be promoted to achieve the greatest impact on biodiversity conservation. Also, partnerships for biodiversity conservation established between diverse actors can multiply potential impact, and increase sustainability. The academic community can also make key contributions if mobilized to think outside the conventional, discipline-specific boxes, address challenges, and help resolve them in practical, multisectoral ways. These have been taken into consideration in Components 1–3 of the project. Workshops are planned with the different sectors to identify the bottlenecks and solutions for mainstreaming biodiversity in productive sectors. Subprojects are selected based on those solutions identified in each sector. The Brazilian Virtual Institute of Biodiversity will consolidate and promote a wide range of organizations to build a network for mainstreaming.

Information Sharing. Information dissemination can have a high impact, especially if carefully targeted toward key stakeholders. Information should be packaged for all target audiences—scientists, policymakers, local communities, and so forth—in a way that is relevant, accessible, and appealing to each. Each is an important audience. Targeted, applied research can stimulate policy debate and generation if it is disseminated in a manner that is easily translated into public policy. This is exactly the objective of Component 3, which is to strengthen, consolidate, and coordinate a network of key Brazilian institutions working on biodiversity issues that will produce information relevant to the development and implementation of biodiversity mainstreaming policies. The project will also consider ways to bring together the people involved in subprojects for information exchange, which would generate a high degree of knowledge sharing, network creation, and activity stimulation.

Biodiversity information tends to be stored in different institutions scattered across the country or even the world. To maximize the incorporation of biodiversity information into biodiversity conservation and mainstreaming, data need to be stored in a common standard and protocols. The data can be easily unusable if the dataset uses stand-alone protocol. The Brazilian Virtual Institute of Biodiversity will support and promote the globally common standard and protocols by coordinating ongoing initiatives such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN).

Participatory Design.PROBIO’s experience reveals that project and activity design should be participatory, involving all relevant stakeholders from an early stage. Also, it suggests that project executors can and should be creative in developing ways to leverage funds (through joint calls for proposals, and so forth) in order to sidestep fiscal constraints. The project has involved the line agencies of other sectors to develop Component 1 by holding meetings and soliciting subproject proposals from the early stage of preparation. By doing so, it was also able to leverage co-financing from those agencies amounting to US$75 million.

Subprojects. The selection of subprojects in Component 2 will be based directly on work done under the FUNBIO Project. (See Annex 18 for selection criteria for subprojects.) Some lessons from PROBIO projects suggest the following: (1) subproject coordinators benefit greatly from systematic management training; (2) implementation teams should be provided with a kit including manuals, procedures they will be expected to follow, and key project documents; (3) bringing together subproject coordinators and teams to share experiences and exchange knowledge is key; (4) reducing administrative procedures, making resources use more flexible,

C.

and speeding up transactions greatly improves the efficiency of subproject execution; and (5) the monitoring of subprojects should include not only financial and operational matters but also technical issues, and should result in more focused support and guidance for the subproject implementers. Those will be reflected in the Operational Manual to be developed and include:

Working at a large geographic scale in order to develop strategies that are relevant in a large, mega diverse country;

Incorporating participation and consensus-building throughout the project in order to increase the ownership and contributions of a wide range of stakeholders;

Designing projects from the early stages with the participation of all relevant sectors; Involving the private sector in biodiversity conservation, and creating synergies with

public sector actions; Diversifying strategies to address the different challenges and threats of each sector; Organizing and generating information in a manner relevant to decision makers; Not allowing knowledge to be monopolized by one institution.

C.

Annex 25: Maps


Map of the Priority Areas for the Conservation, Sustainable Use,and Repartition of Benefits of Brazilian Biodiversity

C.