Public Disclosure Authorized 1988 - 2...MacKinnon, Gunars Platais, Claudia Sobrevila, Dirk Kloss and Valerie Hickey (Biodiversity Team) with generous input from Tony Whitten, B. Elbegzaya,

1818 H STREET, NW • WASHINGTON, DC 20433 USA • TEL: 202 473 1000 • FAX: 202 477 6391 • http://www.worldbank.org/biodiversityWORLD BANK ASSISTANCE FOR PROTECTED AREAS

1988 - 2

Cornerstonesfor Conservation

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Administrator

28423

1988 - 2003Cornerstones

for ConservationWORLD BANK ASSISTANCE FOR PROTECTED AREAS

August 2003

This paper was prepared for the Fifth World Parks Congress in Durban, 2003, to provide a review of World Bank Group support for protected areas from 1988 – 2003. It was prepared by Kathy MacKinnon, Gunars Platais, Claudia Sobrevila, Dirk Kloss and Valerie Hickey (Biodiversity Team) with generous input from Tony Whitten, B. Elbegzaya, Robin Broadfield, Pawan Patil (EAP), Phil Brylski (ECA) Agi Kiss, Nina Doetinchem, Karen Richardson, Noel Chabauf, Chris Warner, Jaime Webbe (AFR) Yabanex Batista, Elizabeth Monosowski, Ann Jeanette Gruber, Doug Graham, Renee Gonzalez, Juan Quintero, Lina Maria Ibarro Ruiz (LAC), Malcolm Jansen, R.R. Mohan (SAR), Dinesh Aryal (ENV), other regional Bank staff and the International Finance Corporation (IFC). This paper is a contribution to the ongoing review of the biodiversity portfolio of the World Bank Group. It is a work in progress and has not been formally cleared by Bank management. This publi-cation is available online at www.worldbank.org/biodiversity.

The World BankWashington, D.C.

— iii —

© 2002 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK

1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433 USA

August 2003All rights reserved.

Design: Tomoko Hirata, GSDPG, The World BankCover Photograph: “ Orchid”, J & K. MacKinnon

— iii —

The Bank’s Protected Area Biodiversity Portfolio 1

Introduction 1Methods 1Portfolio Overview 2Investment Trends 4

Highlights of the Portfolio — Projects and Partnerships 9

Establishing new parks and protected area systems 9Strengthening management of existing Parks and Protected Areas 11Linkages in the landscape: buffer zones and biological corridors 13Transboundary conservation areas: an ecosystem approach 16A focus on marine areas 17New models for financing 18New management models 19Benefit sharing: protecting biodiversity, alleviating poverty 23Building a constituency for conservation 24

New Challenges and Opportunities 27

Valuing ecosystem services 27Partnerships 28Challenges for the future 30

Bibliography 33

Annex 1 35

Annex 2 (map) 53

Contents

— 1 —

Table 1. Total protected area biodiversity investments by year 1998–2003, including cofinancing (US$3,234 million)

Table 2. Protected area biodiversity and leveraging by funder (US$ million)

Table 3. Total protected area investments by region, 1988-2003, including cofinancing (US$3,234 millions)

Table 4. WBG protected area investments by region, 1988–2003 cofinancing

Table 5. GEF financing for protected areas by grant window

Figure 1. Protected area project investments — all funders by FY 1988–2003 (US$3,234 million)

Figure 2. Total protected area biodiversity investments by region 1988–2003, including cofinancing

Figure 3. WBG investments in protected area projects by region, 1988–2003 (US $1,834 million)

Figure 4. IBRD investments in protected area projects by region, 1988–2003 (US$494.8 million)

Figure 5. IDA investments in protected area projects by region 1988–2003 (US$473.7 million)

Figure 6. GEF protected area projects by grant window and region, 1988–2003

Figure 7. GEF protected area investments by region, 1988–2003 (US$820 million)

Figure 8. Co-financing for protected areas projects by region, 1988–2003 ($1,399 million)

— 1 —

Introduction

T he conservation and sustainable use of natural ecosystems and biodiversity is a critical component of the World Bank’s mission

to help alleviate poverty and support sustainable development. Wise management of terrestrial, marine and freshwater habitats is therefore central to sustainable development with biological resources providing the raw materials for livelihoods, sustenance, trade, medicines and industrial development. Natural habitats and ecosystems provide services such as water flow, flood control and coastal protection that reduce human vulnerability to natural hazards such as drought, floods and hurricanes. Forests, grasslands and aquatic habitats also provide benefits of global value such as carbon sequestration, nutrient and hydrological cycling and biodiversity conservation. Conservation and wise use of natural ecosystems is a central pillar of World Bank assistance, and is embodied in the new Environment Strategy. Protected areas are the cornerstones of biodiversity protection and key tools in Bank support for biodiversity conservation.

This paper summarizes the efforts of the World Bank Group (WBG) over the past fifteen years (1988 – 2003) in providing assistance to protected areas and biodiversity conservation around the world. This period spans two major Earth Summits, Rio and Johannesburg, the Fourth World Parks Congress in Caracas in 1992 and the establishment of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as a new funding source for protected areas and other biodiversity activities. Since 1988 the World Bank has approved 233 projects which wholly or partially support protected areas, including investments in institutional strengthening, innovative governance arrangements and sustainable financing mechanisms. This protected area portfolio represents a US$3,234 million investment, including Bank

contributions and cofunding. The portfolio review concentrates on projects financed through the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), International Development Association (IDA), the Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rainforest (RFTF) and Global Environment Facility (GEF) projects executed through the World Bank. Additionally the Bank has contributed to biodiversity conservation and protected area support through the Development Grant Facility (DGF) and the Bank Netherlands Partnership Programme (BNPP). The Bank’s private sector partner, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), has contributed to biodiversity conservation and protected area establishment and management through private sector investments and GEF grants; only the latter are included in this analysis. The protected areas portfolio includes regular Bank lending projects as well as regular and medium-sized GEF projects (MSPs) . It includes projects where the main objective was support to protected areas as well as projects where protected areas have been established as a mitigation measure for environmental impacts resulting from a Bank-funded infrastructure project, e.g. the establishment of a cloud forest protected area beside the Colombia toll road concession.

MethodsToday the World Bank is the largest single international funding source for biodiversity projects. A previous review of the full biodiversity portfolio, covering the period from 1988 until 1999, showed that the WBG approved US$2.6 billion of funding for more than 200 projects worldwide to promote conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in 85 countries and 10

The Bank’s Protected Area Biodiversity Portfolio

Cornerstones for Conservation: World Bank Assistance for Protected Areas 1988 – 2003

— 2 — — 3 —

regional, multi-country efforts (World Bank, 2000a). A recent update shows that by the end of FY03 the figure for total biodiversity investment has risen to more than US$4.3 billion, signifying that the World Bank is still committed to biodiversity conservation as a significant part of its sustainable development agenda. Approximately three-quarters of that biodiversity investment went to biodiversity projects which wholly, or partially, supported national parks and other protected areas, including reserves established and managed by Indigenous Peoples and the private sector. This review focuses on that protected area portfolio. From 1988-2003 the WBG implemented a portfolio worth an estimated US$3,234 million in biodiversity funding to 233 projects which supported protected areas in 94 countries through national projects, seven regional and two global projects.

This paper is based on the most recent update of the World Bank biodiversity portfolio. The portfolio review involved the following five-step methodology: 1) Compilation of data from relevant databases (WB, GEF, OED); 2) Updating Project List by cross checking with archived project documents; 3) Comprehensive Database Creation; 4) Peer Review and revision of preliminary portfolio listings and data with Bank regional staff and the Biodiversity Community of Practice; and 5) Database Analysis which included the production of summary tables and figures of regional and annual funding sources and biodiversity activity. Projects are included in the portfolio for the financial year in which they were approved by the Bank Board or, in the case of MSPs, by the country management unit.

The source of funding, whether WBG (loans, credits or grants) or cofinancing from non-Bank sources, was noted for each project. Where there was more than one source of WBG financing in a project these were assessed separately to avoid double counting - see Annex 1. Cofinancing amounts include contributions from borrower governments, local beneficiaries, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), bilateral donors, regional development banks and United Nations agencies. As in previous reviews, biodiversity costs were determined by itemizing each activity component (World Bank 2000a). For each project, figures have been estimated for total project cost, total biodiversity costs (WBG funds plus associated cofunding) and

Bank biodiversity funding. The full amount of biodiversity funding for all projects with protected area components has been included in the review, even though not all of that biodiversity funding may have been spent inside protected areas.

This report focuses primarily on support for protected areas, including: the establishment of new protected areas; strengthening of protection and management of existing protected areas; and the support of ancillary activities such as inventory and research; education and public awareness; buffer zone activities and biological corridors; sustainable financing mechanisms; ecotourism; institutional strengthening and new governance arrangements including community management and Indigenous and private reserves; control of invasive alien species; and social inclusion through local participation in management and direct linkages to poverty alleviation of poor communities. Annex 1 provides a listing, by region, of all protected area projects with their funding and key activities.

Portfolio Overview The protected area portfolio of the WBG has shown a steady increase over the past fifteen years and especially over the past decade. Between 1988 and 2003 the Bank approved 233 projects which fully or partially support biodiversity conservation in and around protected areas in all major ecosystems. These projects are located in 94 countries, with 83 national projects and seven regional initiatives. These projects directly support biodiversity conservation in a range of natural habitats, from coral reefs to some of the world’s highest mountains and from tropical evergreen and monsoon forests to savanna grasslands and unique dryland, limestone and freshwater ecosystems. During the period between 1988 and 2003 WBG biodiversity lending for all protected area projects together totaled the equivalent of about US$1,834 million and leveraged another US$1,399 million in co-funding, resulting in a total investment portfolio exceeding US$3,234 million. This figure includes both funding spent directly on protected areas and additional biodiversity funding spent on other activities.

GEF 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Grand Total

GEF MSP 24.91 11.84 30.43 9.84 7.77 84.79

GEF REG 35.48 38.78 52.31 60.92 113.79 102.39 244.91 37.40 64.54 379.58 216.11 174.39 1520.59

GEF IFC 20.00 20.00

GEF Total 35.48 38.78 52.31 60.92 113.79 122.39 244.91 62.31 76.38 410.01 225.94 182.16 1625.38

IBRB 6.40 5.90 182.20 46.20 89.53 10.31 58.53 98.38 47.25 33.60 39.88 1.70 59.97 67.60 19.30 766.75

IDA 9.20 6.40 52.05 3.80 226.12 12.44 44.05 31.10 132.35 158.17 29.17 6.40 2.16 38.17 1.70 753.26

RFTF 54.90 4.28 5.16 64.36

DGF 25.00 25.00

Grand Total 15.60 12.30 234.25 50.00 351.13 61.53 154.89 245.30 161.04 292.62 442.96 93.17 142.75 504.77 288.57 183.86 3234.74


— 2 — — 3 —

The Bank is supporting protected area projects in all eligible hotspots and critical ecosystems identified by Conservation International (CI) and in most of the 200 ecoregions highlighted as conservation priorities (The Global 200) by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). A small but growing source of funding for protected area and other biodiversity activities comes from special World Bank funds such as the Development Grant Facility (DGF) and the Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program (BNPP) which support key partnership activities such as the World Bank/ WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, and the Global Invasive Species Programme.

Table 1 shows the total World Bank disbursements for biodiversity in projects with protected area components by year and funding source from 1988–2003. Cumulative WBG biodiversity funding for projects with protected area activities during that period totaled US$3,234 million. Figure 1 summarizes biodiversity investments in park projects from all funding sources. Client governments have borrowed 30 percent of this total

through IBRD loans or IDA credits, representing a total of US$968.5 million. Grants comprise 27 percent (US$866.4 million) through the Global Environment Facility (US$820.2 million), the Pilot Program to Conserve the Brazilian Rainforest (US$21.2 million) and the Development Grant

Table 1. Total protected area biodiversity investments by year 1998-2003, including cofinancing (US$3,234 million)


Figure 1. Protected area project investments — all funders by FY 1988–2003 (US$3,234 million)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

YEARS

US$(m

illions)

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

IBRB

GEF

RFTF

IDA

DGF

Total WBG Co-Financing

GEF MSP 84.79 34.44 50.35

GEF REG 1520.59 783.76 736.83

GEF IFC 20.00 2.00 18.00

GEF Total 1625.38 820.19 805.18

IBRB 766.75 494.76 272.00

IDA 753.26` 473.75 279.51

RFTF 64.34 21.24 43.10

DGF 25.00 25.00 0.00

Grand Total 3234.73 1834.93 1399.79


— 4 — — 5 —

Table 2. Protected area biodiversity and leveraging by funder (US$ million)

Facility (US$25 million). The remaining 43 percent (US$1,399 million) represents co-financing and parallel financing equivalent to an additional 75 cents leveraged for every biodiversity dollar invested by the Bank in protected area projects. Table 2 shows World Bank investments and leveraging by funder.

Investment TrendsThe WBG is supporting conservation and sustainable use in, and around, protected areas worldwide. Table 3 and figure 2 show the cumulative biodiversity funding by region and by funder. The major share (45 percent)

of all funding for protected area projects went to Latin America and the Caribbean (US$1,408 million), with 12 percent to South Asia, 24 percent to Africa, 7 percent to East Asia, and 5 percent to Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Three percent of total biodiversity funding for protected areas went to the Middle East and North Africa. A further four percent represents biodiversity financing through two global initiatives, the IFC Small and Medium Enterprise Fund and the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund.

The total World Bank Group investment in protected area projects, excluding co-financing, is US$1,834 million dollars. The LAC region leads the investments with US$774.7 million dollars as shown in Table 4 and Figure 3. The total number of projects funded by IBRD and IDA is 48 projects and 42 projects respectively. GEF is funding another 137 projects for some of which IDA and IBRD funding is addressing the root causes of biodiversity loss but not explicitly contributing to protected areas. Figures 4 and 5 show the IBRD and IDA funding for protected area biodiversity by region. From the figures, it can be seen that even the poorest countries are borrowing for conservation and protected areas. Latin America and the Caribbean region has the largest share of IBRD funding (84 percent). Many of the LAC countries are among the mid- to higher-income developing countries and not eligible for IDA credits. The relatively poorer countries of South Asia and Sub-

Figure 2. Total protected area biodiversity investments by region 1988–2003,

including cofinancing

Global

AFR

EAP

ECA

LAC

MNA

SAR

4%

24%

7%

5%

45%

3%12%

Global AFR EAP ECA LAC MNA SAR Total

GEF GEF MSP 11.45 13.96 5.84 51.36 2.17 84.79

GEF REG 100.00 314.13 108.16 119.86 638.20 76.70 163.54 1520.59

GEF IFC 20.00 20.00

GEF Total 120.00 325.59 122.112 125.70 689.56 78.87 163.54 1625.38

IBRD 12.99 73.95 40.98 623.81 15.03 766.75

IDA 443.90 36.55 8.15 30.49 234.17 753.26

RFTF 64.34 64.34

DGF 25.00 25.00

Total 145.00 782.48 232.62 174.83 1408.20 93.89 397.71 3234.73


— 4 — — 5 —


Figure 3. WBG investments in protected area projects by region, 1988–2003

(US $1,834 million)

Global

AFR

EAP

ECA

LAC

MNA

SAR

3%

23%

10%

6%

41%

3%14%

Figure 4. IBRD investments in protected area projects by region,

1988–2003 (US$494.8 million)

Figure 5. IDA investments in protected area projects by region 1988–2003

(US$473.7 million)

AFR

EAP

ECA

LAC

MNA

2%

8%4%

84%

2%

AFR

EAP

ECA

LAC

SAR

1%

6%

49%39%

5%

Table 3. Total protected area investments by region, 1988-2003, including cofinancing (US$3,234 millions)

Table 4. WBG protected area investments by region, 1988–2003 cofinancing

Region Funding (US$ m)

AFR 414.81

EAP 174.57

ECA 117.38

Global 52.00

LAC 774.67

MNA 52.34

SAR 249.17


— 6 — — 7 —

Saharan Africa have received the largest share of IDA funding, corresponding to 88 percent of total IDA funds dedicated to biodiversity projects which include protected areas. South Asia represents 39 percent of all IDA funding, with much of that lending to India for direct conservation activities in protected areas.

As an Implementing Agency for the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the WBG channels GEF grants for enabling activities, medium-sized projects (MSPs) and regular GEF grants, both through the Bank and the IFC. Although National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans emphasize the importance of establishing and strengthening of representative protected area networks, investments in such enabling and planning activities have not been included in this analysis. Approximately 51 percent of the total protected area portfolio investment of US$3,234 million (WBG funds plus co-financing) is associated with projects funded through the Global Environment Facility. GEF contributes 25 percent of this total investment. Table 5 shows the disbursements for GEF projects, implemented by the World Bank and IFC, over the period 1988–2003 by grant window. The cumulative total of GEF financing (GEF grant plus associated co-financing) is US$1,625.4 million spread across 93 regular projects (US$1,540.6 million) and 44 medium-sized projects (US$84.8 million). Twenty-two of the regular GEF grants are fully integrated in Bank lending operations.

Figures 6 and 7 illustrate GEF grants by window and how projects are distributed regionally by number of projects and amount invested. The introduction of the MSPs in 1997 made mid-sized grants more readily

available to NGOs and non-government stakeholders and allowed a rapid expansion of the biodiversity portfolio. Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) is the region with the highest GEF funding overall for biodiversity and protected areas, a reflection of the species richness and high biodiversity value of the region’s ecosystems. LAC is also the region with the most MSPs. MSPs have provided the opportunity for innovation in conservation, including innovative management models for protected area management.

By 2003 there were 44 approved MSPs focusing on protected areas, the majority in LAC which has 21, ongoing MSPs targeting all major ecosystems. Overall, for GEF projects the ratio of leveraged funding against grant resources is almost 1:1. For MSPs the ratio of leveraged co-financing is even higher, with more than one dollar and forty-five cents leveraged for every dollar of GEF grant. Figure 8 shows the regional distribution of the US$1,399 million co-financing for protected area biodiversity by region over the 1988–2003 period. The East Asia and Pacific (EAP) region has been particularly successful at raising co-financing against non-GEF projects. For example, in the Vietnam Forest Protection and Rural Development project, the US$21.5 million IDA funding from the Bank has leveraged an additional US$10.8 million from bilateral and government sources.

The WBG biodiversity portfolio covers a range of activities which promote conservation and sustainable use across all major ecosystems and more equitable sharing of the benefits derived from biodiversity. Over the whole biodiversity portfolio, the largest amount of funding and support has gone to projects which

Global AFR EAP ECA LAC MNA SAR Total

GEF GEF MSP 5.21 8.70 2.71 16.32 1.49 34.43

GEF REG 25.00 165.06 99.35 91.89 293.82 42.76 65.88 783.76

GEF IFC 2.00 2.00

GEF Total 27.00 170.27 108.05 94.60 310.14 44.25 65.88 820.19

GEF Co-Financing 93.00 155.31 14.07 31.10 379.42 34.62 97.66 805.18

Total 1625.37

Table 5. GEF financing for protected areas by grant window


— 6 — — 7 —

include expansion and strengthening of protected areas, including conservation activities in park buffer zones. The Bank is committed to maintaining support for protected areas but increasingly is seeking opportunities to link such support to sectoral development programmes and biodiversity activities in the wider landscape. The South Asia region, and especially India, have already made excellent progress in this regard with biodiversity conservation and sustainable management often fully integrated and mainstreamed into regular Bank lending.

Figure 6. GEF protected area projects by grant window and region, 1988–2003

Figure 7. GEF protected area investments by region, 1988–2003 (US$820 million)

GEF IFC

GEF REG

GEF MSP

0

10

20

30

40

50

Global AFR EAP ECARegions

Num

bers

ofProjects

LAC MNA SAR

Global

AFR

EAP

ECA

LAC

MNA

SAR

3%

21%

13%

12%

38%

5%8%


Figure 8. Co-financing for protected areas projects by region, 1988–2003

(US$1,399 million)

Global

AFR

EAP

ECA

LAC

MNA

SAR

7%

26%

4%4%

45%

3%11%

— 9 —

“Around the world the WBG is supporting the

strengthening of protected area systems and

innovative models of management and financing to

ensure their sustainability. Projects included in this

review directly support biodiversity conservation

in and around protected areas, both for individual

reserves and whole protected area systems.”

— 9 —

Protected areas are the cornerstones of biodiversity conservation. Around the world, the WBG is supporting the strengthening

of protected area systems and innovative models of management and financing to ensure their sustainability. Projects included in this review directly support biodiversity conservation in and around protected areas, both for individual reserves and whole protected area systems. These include activities such as conservation planning and establishment of new protected areas and biological corridors (e.g. Laos, Indonesia, Georgia, Ghana, Central America and Brazil); improved management of ‘paper parks’ and existing protected areas (e.g. India, Pakistan, Madagascar, Uganda, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Poland, Russia); conservation of medicinal plants around national parks and in small community-managed reserves (Ethiopia, Jordan and Sri Lanka); control of invasive exotic plants (Mauritius, Seychelles, South Africa); restoration of wetlands and other native habitats (Bulgaria, Croatia); and promoting community management of terrestrial and marine protected areas, Indigenous reserves, sacred groves and clan conservation areas (Colombia, Ecuador, Ghana, Peru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa). Large wilderness areas are further protected through transboundary projects, for example in Central Asia and MesoAmerica, as well as by planning and establishing new protected areas within a mosaic of other improved management systems, including fire control and prevention programs in the extensive forest wilderness areas of Brazil and Russia.

Several projects provide innovative new financing mechanisms for protected areas and conservation activities for buffer zone communities (Bhutan, Bolivia, Uganda) and financial incentives to encourage sustainable use, agroforestry and forest regeneration in park buffer zones and strengthen forest protection in biological corridors which link major parks

(Central America). A notable feature of many of these programs is the increasing involvement of local community organizations in implementation, providing communities with a key stake in sustainable resource management and biodiversity conservation.

Establishing new parks andprotected area systemsIn several countries the WBG is supporting the design, establishment and operation of new conservation areas (Georgia, Panama, Indonesia) and protected area systems (Laos, Argentina, Brazil). The methodology to identify these areas has evolved significantly over the past few years and is based on the best scientific data available and on participatory processes that involve key stakeholders. One such example is the US$20 million GEF-financed Probio project in Brazil that has carried out priority setting studies and workshops in all the major biomes of Brazil (Amazon, Cerrado, Pantanal, Caatinga, Atlantic, marine and coastal areas) and has resulted in the establishment of new protected areas.

In Argentina the Biodiversity Conservation Project has supported the creation of new national parks in the pampas grasslands and semi-arid Chaco as well as providing resources for improved management in existing national and provincial parks in the Andes and Patagonian steppes. Sites were chosen because of their pristine habitats and high endemism; they support populations of endangered mammals such as pampas deer, camelids, giant anteaters and giant armadillo.

Several conservation interventions target major forest wilderness areas in both tropical and temperate regions. In Brazil, the Bank — with its Alliance partner, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and the GEF

Highlights of the Portfolio – Projects and Partnerships


— 10 — — 11 —

— is assisting the government to protect 41 million hectares of forest across the Brazilian Amazon. The Amazon Region Protected Areas Program (ARPA) is anchored in President Cardoso’s commitment in 1998 to set aside at least 10% of Brazil’s forests as conservation areas; this will more than triple the area currently under protection. A program is underway to strengthen 12.5 million hectares of existing parks and to establish new protected areas in another 28.5 million hectares including representative examples of forest in each of the Amazon’s 23 ecoregions. The ARPA program will establish a long-term financing mechanism to cover the recurrent costs and ensure the sustainability of protected areas. Under the program, a biodiversity monitoring

system will be established to track the threats posed by deforestation, road construction, logging, cattle raising and other development activities in and around parks. The ARPA program is housed within a private foundation in Brazil, FUNBIO, and is coordinated within the Ministry of Environment of Brazil, a true alliance of several sectors of society. The ARPA project has already established a new protected area Tumucumaque encompassing an area of 1.9 million hectares.

The Brazil experiment has proved so successful that the Bank and the Russian government are now engaged in preliminary discussions for a similar program to plan and establish a mosaic of protected and production

Box 1. A last Eden: Congo’s Wildlands

The species-rich tropical lowland forests of the Republic of Congo harbor large populations of western lowland gorillas, chimpanzees, forest elephants and other threatened animals such as bongos. Although Congo is not heavily populated, many people depend on the country’s forests for their livelihoods and hunting is becoming a major threat to the nation’s rich wildlife. A GEF grant for the Congo Wildlands Protection and Management Project from 1993-2000 provided for the establishment and rehabilitation of four critical parks in partnership with the government, international and local NGOs. It also provided critical support to the National Herbarium and cartographic institution, improved park management through institutional support and training and developed alternative income generating activities for affected communities.

Although civil unrest and war disrupted implementation, the project led to the establishment of several major conservation areas, including the famous Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park, which covers 2% of Congo, home to elephants, gorillas, bongos, chimpanzees and leopards, over 300 bird species, and over 1,000 species of plants. The Conkouati-Douli National Park, which stretches from the Atlantic Ocean, through beach and coastal habitat to the mountainous zones of the Mayombian forest and the Niari savanna, is home to an extraordinarily diverse fauna, including manatees, turtles, dolphins, whales, forest elephants, gorillas, chimpanzees, mandrills and forest buffalo. The Lac Télé/Likouala-aux-Herbes Community Reserve lies in a vast swath of flooded swamp forest, home to many large mammals, a rich bird and fish fauna and an important nesting site for several species of migratory water birds. The Lefini/ Lesio-Louna forest reserve protects savanna and gallery forests and is a protected site for re-introduced orphaned gorillas.

Local communities played a key role in the establishment and management of the protected areas, participating in decisions about different zoning regimes in the protected areas consistent with conservation objectives and sustainable harvesting to sustain livelihoods. In core zones no resource extraction is permitted while villagers may carry out subsistence activities such as hunting, fishing and gathering firewood in ecodevelopment zones. Multiple use zones and temporary protection zones are essentially designated for industrial logging.

This project was the first Bank GEF project to extensively involve international conservation NGOs in the identification, preparation, appraisal and execution of the project. Their involvement and commitment to biodiversity conservation in Congo was critical in ensuring support for the protected areas and sustainability beyond the project lifetime. The project also established several long-term partnerships, including buffer zone management arrangements, with neighboring forest concessionaires which have subsequently helped to control hunting in logging concessions. These partnerships helped to diversify the stakeholder base for conservation in Congo and ensure the long term conservation of these amazing areas.


— 10 — — 11 —

areas within Russia’s vast forest expanse. Russia contains about 22% of the world’s forests, including 25% of all old-growth forests. These 770 million hectares of forests make up the largest share of temperate and boreal forests in World Bank client countries and harbor important endemic biodiversity. Because of Russia’s large size and forest cover, there is a compelling need to balance economic development in the forest sector with sustainable management and conservation of biodiversity. A new forest protected area program would build on experiences and lessons learned from a six year US$20m GEF project which supported conservation and protected areas in the Russian Far East and around Lake Baikal. Also in the Far East an MSP is promoting conservation of Siberian tigers and their prey base in the forests of Khabarovsky Krai.

Bank support is being targeted to create new protected areas for some of the most threatened habitats on Earth. South Africa’s Cape Floristic Region (CFR) is the smallest of the world’s six floral regions. It contains over 9,600 plant species of which 70 % are endemic. The marine environment harbors more than 11,000 known species. The Cape Action Plan for the Environment is the first bioregional plan to identify conservation priorities for an entire floral region, including the marine, terrestrial and aquatic environment. This includes the development of a system of large and smaller formally protected areas as well as buffers and corridors in order to ensure that evolutionary processes can continue in the CFR. Key to this program is the mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation into sectoral programs as well as through integrated development planning. Another grant to South African universities and botanical institutes is allowing scientists to identify the minimum set of target areas which will capture the greatest biodiversity value within Namaqualand, another botanical hotspot. The results of this conservation planning will be used to identify areas of land for purchase through private donations to ensure a fully representative system of conservation areas within a unique floral region.

The lowland forests of Sumatra are some of the most endangered habitats on Earth. With current rates of deforestation, it is estimated that they could all be lost by the year 2005. Working against this trend, Wetlands International is collaborating

with the provincial government and the Indonesian Conservation Department (PHKA) to establish a new 205,000 hectare national park in South Sumatra. The Sembilang park adjoins Berbak National Park, Indonesia’s first Ramsar site. Together the two parks will protect some of Sumatra’s most important remaining lowland forests, including large tracts of swamp forest and the most important mangroves in western Indonesia. Improved protection will provide benefits to conservation of large mammals (tiger, Sumatran rhino, tapir), migratory birds and breeding populations of rare storks. It will also benefit local economies as the mangroves are major spawning and nursery grounds for inshore fisheries.

Strengthening management of existing Parks and Protected AreasThroughout the world the WBG is helping to strengthen management of existing protected areas and ‘paper parks’. Such projects cover all types of ecosystems: temperate and boreal forests (Russia, Georgia, Poland); tropical and monsoon forests (Côte d’Ivoire, Congo, Ecuador, Costa Rica, , Venezuela, Indonesia, Cambodia, India); coastal forests and mangroves (Ghana, Indonesia); threatened cloud forests (Colombia, Peru, Bolivia); dryland ecosystems and savannas (Argentina, Kenya, Mozambique, Uganda and Zimbabwe); montane habitats (China, Bhutan, Morocco, Turkey) and threatened coastal wetlands and freshwater habitats (Bangladesh, Ghana, China, Mongolia, Romania, Ukraine). In many countries, including Brazil, Madagascar and India, such protected area programs are explicitly linked to sustainable livelihoods and improved resource management for local communities.

One of the most threatened ecosystems in Latin America is the Atlantic Forests of Brazil where only seven percent of the original habitat remains in a few isolated forest patches. The area has an extraordinarily high level of endemism. The Bank, through the Pilot Program for the Brazilian Rain Forest and G7 donors, is working on increasing the connectivity of these patches through its Ecological Corridors project which brings together States, Municipalities, NGOs and

Highlights of the Portfolio — Projects and Partnterships


— 12 — — 13 —

academic institutions to plan and act in a concerted way. In the highly threatened Chaco Andean system in Ecuador, the Bank has strengthened biological corridors through funding for private reserves and innovative conservation models.

Although Mediterranean ecosystems cover no more than 1-2% of the Earth’s land surface, they are recognized as global ‘hot spots’ for biodiversity, especially for their plant richness. Several projects focus specifically on Mediterranean-type ecosystems in Chile, the Cape Floral Kingdom of South Africa and the countries of the Mediterranean basin (Algeria, Jordan, Syria, Morocco, Turkey). Similarly rare limestone habitats are being conserved through targeted protected areas projects in Croatia and Vietnam — see Box 3.

Outside the formal protected area network, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), is promoting establishment of conservation areas through private sector partnerships. The Small and Medium Enterprise Fund (SME) has assisted private landowners in Belize to dedicate their properties to wildlife conservation and tourism. Natural habitats and native wildlife populations are recovering and local communities benefit from increased employment opportunities at the tourist lodges and through associated community-run tourism enterprises such as model villages and handicraft sales.

Box 2. Nature Reserves Management Project in China

The seven-year Nature Reserves Management Project in China improved biodiversity conservation and management in nine of the most significant nature reserves in the country, including panda reserves, Xishaungbanna tropical forests and a major wetland site, Poyang Lake. This was achieved through enhancing capacity and facilities of staff and offices of the nature reserves concerned, and of the State Forestry Administration and the Department of Wildlife Conservation.

Monitoring over the life of the project determined that forest cover increased in the targeted reserves as did populations of key species, such as giant panda, golden monkey, golden takin, and Siberian cranes. Other successes included the establishment of a new 30,000 ha national-level nature reserve, nomination of Wuyiang Shan as a World Heritage Site, and creation of China’s first forest ‘corridor’. Reserve management and administration plans, and eco-tourism plans were prepared and implemented. For the first time in China, management plans were prepared by protected area staff based on an objectives-oriented approach. Upgrades in everything from uniforms to communications, and computers to boundary markers, led to improved working conditions, staff motivation and technical performance. On-the-job training opportunities were provided and educational outreach to neighboring communities were successfully implemented.

Another first for the project was bringing the participation of communities into the management of six of the reserves. These novel initiatives were endorsed by the Forestry Departments and resulted in marked increases in the degree to which local communities cooperated with forestry officials and consequent drops in community-based threats to the reserves. The new management planning methodology and participatory management approach are now being extended to all 1500 of the top-level reserves. These lessons are also being applied in the follow-on protected area component of the Natural Forest Protection Program which will lead to creation of new reserves in some watershed forests after the logging ban of 1998.


— 12 — — 13 —

Linkages in the landscape: buffer zones and biological corridorsAs human populations expand and development pressures increase, many protected areas are becoming increasingly isolated; their long-term survival will depend on landscape conservation planning efforts that hinge upon a combination of political, social and economic factors. Working with multiple stakeholders and agencies, many with competing and conflicting development agendas, is a difficult challenge for

protected area managers but increasingly necessary if many protected areas are to remain viable — see Box 5.

Many protected area projects are working actively with local communities to reduce community pressure on the parks and to reduce the negative impacts of the parks on community lifestyles and development options. The Bank is engaged in a multitude of Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) which attempt to reconcile local and regional development needs with the conservation objectives of protected areas and biodiversity conservation in

Box 4. An Holistic Approach to and Management in Panama

The Bank is supporting the efforts of the Government of Panama to undertake a long-term national project to regularize land tenure. In addition to ensuring equitable access to land and land tenure for Panamanian citizens, the project will also enhance natural resources conservation through the consolidation of the National System of Protected Areas (SINAP) and Indigenous Peoples territories.

The project takes an holistic approach to land administration involving titling, natural resource conservation and management, land administration services, and Indigenous rights. PRONAT systematically incorporates environmental considerations within a large-scale, area-based land tenure regularization program, involving land titling, cadastre and registry. The project supports the physical demarcation work, management plan development and land tenure resolution (as needed) of about 20 existing and 5 officially proposed protected areas, thereby ensuring that the land titling process enhances (and avoids undermining) the conservation status of these critical natural habitats. In addition to demarcating and strengthening protected areas, the project addresses the land regularization needs of three extensive Indigenous territories. Land tenure regularization activities are carefully planned to minimize any perceived incentives for landholders to deforest their properties in anticipation of titling, and to use the titling process as a vehicle for disseminating information on environmentally-friendly land use practices. The project provides for substantial environmental input into land policy formulation, by specialized government staff as well as NGOs and other stakeholders. To date through the consolidation of the System of Protected Areas and Indigenous Peoples Territories, 7,000 hectares of existing protected areas have been demarcated and demarcation plans for other Indigenous Comarcas are under way.

Box 3. Pu Luong: New Partnership Arrangements for Limestone Protection in Vietnam

Karst landscapes have rarely-appreciated yet exceptional biological and geological diversity with high ecological and cultural value, and they are under-represented in both global protected area networks and conservation investment portfolios. The Pu Luong-Cuc Phuong limestone range is a globally important example of a karst ecosystem and is the only remaining large area of lowland and limestone forest in northern Vietnam. Funded by GEF and the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation, an international NGO is working with park authorities to protect this globally important area and its wildlife through the establishment of one new protected area as well as strengthening the existing protected areas system in the limestone range. It will also build capacity among relevant stakeholders to manage the wider karst ecosystem through a Regional Landscape Plan. This will be achieved through a participatory stakeholder planning process and will include a review and development of mechanisms through which these landscape goals can be implemented in practice. The project will also investigate promising new planning opportunities, such as district forest and land use plans, local decrees at commune level for forest protection and conservation stewardship agreements.



— 14 — — 15 —

Box 5. Challenges of Multistakeholder Collaboration in Wetland Management

Wetlands and other aquatic habitats are impacted by activities far beyond their boundaries. Even where areas are designated for conservation they can be seriously threatened by development in the surrounding regions. Sultan Sazligi is a formerly extensive wetland and steppe ecosystem in central Turkey comprised of a series of salt water, brackish, and freshwater lakes. These wetlands are important because of their high level of endemism - around 25 percent of the 365 plant species are found nowhere else — and because they are a critical breeding habitat for a wide variety of migratory and other water bird species (including around 50,000 flamingos). A nascent ecotourism industry has developed, to cater to people with interests in birdlife, and the wetlands are recognized as both a Ramsar Site and an Important Bird Area. They have the highest level of protection status afforded any protected area in Turkey.

The ecosystem is experiencing serious damage because of subsidies and other policies which have favored the widespread adoption of water-intensive crops, the spread of tubewells which pump shallow groundwater, the lucrative harvesting of reedbeds to meet export markets for roof thatching material (generating around $1 million a year in revenues), the diversion of water for irrigation schemes and the use of the wetlands as grazing grounds for livestock. The impacts of all these pressures have become severe, particularly during the drought conditions of 2001. In spite of recent rainfall, little water remains in the wetland.

The situation is reaching a crisis. The only way to save this ecosystem is drastically to reduce the extraction of water, as well as to increase the flow of water into the wetlands from two reservoirs in the upstream catchment. This would require a significant change in cropping patterns and more efficient use to reduce demand for water as well as restrictions on boreholes and tubewells and the elimination of subsidies on water-intensive crops. Other restrictions on reed harvesting and livestock grazing would also be necessary. Delivering such solutions is way beyond the capacity of the National Parks General Directorate, the agency responsible for the management of Sultan Sazligi. It would require cooperation between the Ministry of Agriculture, the State Hydraulic Works, the National Parks, and local Irrigation Associations, as well as villagers and other stakeholders. Bringing these institutions together to discuss and implement possible solutions is just one of the challenges facing the Turkey Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management Project.

the larger production landscape. The ICDP for the one million hectare national park of Kerinci-Seblat in Indonesia provided maps for development planning to local government agencies; supported biodiversity surveys and audits in adjacent forest concessions; and provided small development grants to communities which entered conservation agreements with the park.

The India Ecodevelopment Project provides development opportunities to neighboring communities to address some of the social and poverty needs that lead to biodiversity loss around evergreen and monsoon forest parks which provide important habitat for tigers in Kerala, West Bengal, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Rajastahan. At Periyar, Kerala, park managers have developed innovative partnerships with different user groups to allow regulated collection of necessities such as thatch, reed and firewood in certain zones in return for forest

protection. Park authorities are also working with ecodevelopment committees (EDCs) to provide food, water and other services to the 5 million pilgrims who worship at the Sabarimala temple within the reserve during special festivals. The communities also take responsibility for clearing up and recycling litter left by this mass pilgrimage.

Several projects have an explicit focus only on the buffer zones of national parks and protected areas. Linking the goals of climate change and biodiversity conservation, a sustainable energy program in Senegal will meet part of the growing urban demand for household fuels from a community-managed forest of 300,000 hectares surrounding the Niakolo-Koba National Park while also promoting improved stoves and fuel substitution to reduce overall fuel needs. In Ghana, a key challenge in the Ghana Natural Resource Management and Northern Savanna Biodiversity


— 14 — — 15 —

projects is to manage conflict between authorities and communities living around forest and wildlife reserves whose livelihoods depend to a large extent on harvesting natural resources within the reserve. Communities and government authorities will work together to establish conflict resolution mechanisms which will allow access to stakeholders recognized to have rights to those resources.

With IFC financing, Conservation International encourages small farmers to grow certified shade coffee in the buffer zone of the El Triunfo Biosphere Reserve, Mexico, one of the last remaining cloud forest areas in MesoAmerica. In Costa Rica the IFC is supporting reforestation and natural regeneration of forests in the buffer zones of national parks within the Conservation Area of the Central Volcanic Cordillera through advance wood purchases from small landowners. Another SME grant through ForesTrade is promoting spice production in park buffer zones in Indonesia and Guatemala. The company has sourced contracts for organically grown spices (cassia cinnamon, cardamom, black pepper, ginger, nutmeg) and essential oils, like patchouli, in over 60 areas involving some 3,000 individual producers and their families. Many of the partnerships are located in the buffer zones of Gunung Leuser National Park, Kerinci-Seblat N.P. and Way Kambas N. P. (Indonesia) and Maya Biosphere Reserve, El Peten and Sierra de Las Minas Biosphere Reserve (Guatemala). Suppliers must commit to forest conservation. ForesTrade provides incentives to farmers through training opportunities and payment of a small premium over market prices for certified products which are organically produced and sustainably harvested.

A landscape approach to conservation can help to link protected areas by wildlife corridors through production landscapes, and encourages management systems that promote conservation and sustainable use. In Georgia the Bank is engaged in dialogue in policy reform and increased community management of forests and natural resources. An IDA forest management project, and associated GEF-funded project, will support biodiversity planning in the production forests of the Eastern Caucasus and adjacent alpine grasslands to maintain wildlife corridors in a recognized global hotspot. Management plans have been prepared for key protected areas in the

Caucasus mountains, Tusheti and Vashlovani national parks and Lagodhecki nature reserve. Corridor plans link management activities within protected areas with management on adjacent state forest lands, including protection of riparian corridors. Elsewhere in the ECA region, the Black Sea-Azov corridor project in Ukraine is addressing the challenges of integrating the conservation of wetland areas within a landscape dominated by intensive agriculture.

The Northern Savanna Biodiversity Project in Ghana will also help to create corridors between two protected areas to enhance their conservation value; this will require dealing with human/wildlife conflict through modification of farming practices, monitoring, early warning and deterrents to stop wildlife raiding crops. Similarly the Mali Rangelands Conservation Project aims to stabilize an elephant migration corridor by reducing conflict between elephants and local communities. In Aceh, Indonesia, studies of elephant migration needs and forest corridors have led to proposals for a new elephant reserve, Pala Gajah, in an abandoned logging concession.

In Colombia, the Andes GEF project has a specific component dedicated to building ecological corridors through the highly devastated cloud forests and paramo habitats of the mountain chain. More than 70% of Colombia’s 41 million inhabitants have occupied the high Andes plateaus and mountains, transforming the original habitats into agriculture and pasturelands. The project has already identified new areas for conservation through private reserves and is currently working with many farmers, raising awareness of the need to establish biological corridors.

The MesoAmerican Biological Corridor (MABC) is a natural corridor of tropical rainforests, pine savannas, montane forests and coastal wetlands that extends from Mexico to Colombia. Within the corridor, the Bank is supporting a number of national interventions in Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua and Honduras to conserve the Atlantic forests of Central America. In Nicaragua, a US$7.1 million GEF grant is meeting the incremental costs of protected areas and conservation-based land use in the corridor as part of an integrated development and conservation project



— 16 — — 17 —

that is valued at US$30.5 million. Management is being strengthened in three key protected areas along the Caribbean coast: Cerro Silva natural reserve (339,400 hectares), Wawashan natural reserve (231,500 hectares) and the Cayos Miskitos biological reserve which protects nesting grounds of five of the world’s seven species of marine turtles. Within the corridor, Indigenous communities are being assisted to gain tenure over Indigenous lands and to develop livelihoods based on sustainable management of natural habitats and resources. By making development work to reduce pressures on native forests, the project will promote conservation of both biodiversity and ethnic cultures in one of the most intact parts of the MesoAmerican corridor.

Transboundary conservation areas: an ecosystem approach The Malawi Principles espouse the principle of an ecosystem approach to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, with different areas managed for

different uses and different objectives consistent with social as well as ecological needs. Implementing such measures across adjacent transboundary protected areas and their surrounding landscapes promotes conservation across larger contiguous areas of habitat. Transboundary protected areas can also serve as core zones in integrated management of entire river basins, lakes and marine ecosystems. Many transboundary areas follow mountain ranges and their protection can help to secure watersheds, migratory pathways and other ecosystem services. The ecological benefits of transfrontier collaboration are often supplemented by political benefits, including strengthened regional collaboration, as in the MesoAmerican Corridor.

The Bank has supported several transboundary initiatives, strengthening transnational cooperation and exchange of expertise between parks and protected areas in two or more countries. Two complementary projects improved collaboration between Romania and Ukraine in the Danube Delta, one of Europe’s largest natural wetlands and a critical habitat for millions of migratory waterbirds. Activities included joint programs and exercises in warden training and exchange of regional expertise on scientific and

Box 6. Transboundary Cooperation in the West Tien Shan, Central Asia

Situated at a biological crossroads, the West Tien Shan, the westernmost range of the great Himalayan chain, is species rich with some 3,000 recorded species of flora and fauna. A tri-national transboundary conservation project in Central Asia (Kyrgyz Republic, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan) will help to maintain important juniper and walnut forests, as well as the gene pool of native apple trees, within conservation areas and the intervening landscape over a large area of the West Tien Shan. Support is being provided to four key protected areas, Besh-Aral, Sary-Chelek, Aksu-Dzhabagly and Chatkal, through a mix of investments in capacity building community awareness, education, research and monitoring. The project has established new technical standards for protected area management and participation of local communities. A small grants program provides financial and technical assistance to buffer zone communities and community-based organizations to finance demand-driven activities in sustainable agriculture, alternative livelihoods (e.g., honey and medicinal plants, tourism), and alternative energy systems.

The three countries are collaborating in joint planning efforts to designate wildlife corridors and appropriate land-use to maintain the reserves as a linked protected area network. Joint training and joint research and monitoring of key wildlife species is underway, focussing especially on those predators and ungulates known to require large home ranges in these mountain habitats. The project is promoting regional cooperation in the management of the West Tien Shan to strengthen protected area and corridor management, natural resources management, and incentives to local communities. The entire project is being implemented under the guidance of the Transnational Steering Committee at ministerial level. While regional projects are generally more complex to implement than national initiatives, transboundary cooperation in Central Asia is facilitated by the fact that all three countries share a common language, Russian, and have inherited a common protected area network framework as a legacy from the Former Soviet Union.


— 16 — — 17 —

wetlands management issues. The transboundary Romania-Ukraine Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (DBR) was established in 1998. The projects also promoted collaboration with other European organizations engaged in coastal management and nature conservation. In Ukraine the project supported the development of administrative facilities for the reserve, with a small hotel, simple guest houses on the Delta islands, development of a bird watching trail and training in sustainable sources of financing. Since the project was completed in 1999, the DBR has been developing revenue sources and creating jobs through ecotourism and reed harvesting. With the money earned thus far, park staff have built an observation tower and equipped their information center.

In southern Africa, the Bank is supporting the long-term collaborative initiative between South Africa and the Kingdom of Lesotho to protect the exceptional biodiversity of the Drakensberg and Maloti mountains through conservation, sustainable resource use and land-use and development planning. The total area covered in the project is approximately 5,000 km2, including existing and proposed protected areas and adjacent communal lands. In addition to biodiversity, these mountain habitats maintain important ecosystem and watershed services in a World Heritage Site. The project provides the opportunity for transboundary collaboration to strengthen ecosystem management and to promote cooperation between two neighbors whose economic and development backgrounds are very different. This is a beautiful wilderness area with high potential for recreation. South Africa already has a high level of expertise in park management and a well-developed and mature tourism industry based on its parks network. Lesotho is expected to benefit from the partnership through better access to expertise and experience from its neighbor and through the development of a tourism destination that encompasses the whole Maloti-Drakensberg region.

A focus on marine areasIt is eight years since the Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity met in Jakarta and adopted the Jakarta Mandate for conservation

of marine biodiversity. Establishment and improved management of new marine protected areas is also one of the WSSD targets agreed in Johannesburg in 2002. In support of these goals, the World Bank is financing both full and medium-sized projects which are enhancing management of marine areas in Samoa, Vietnam, Philippines, Mozambique and Indonesia.

The MesoAmerican Barrier Reef System (MBRS) Project, a transnational project involving Mexico, Belize, Guatemala and Honduras, has been under implementation for less than two years but has already achieved success in putting in place a highly participatory process to address issues related to use of shared resources and conservation of valuable transboundary ecosystem services. Multisectoral National Barrier Reef Committees reflect diverse stakeholder interests in the sustainable use of the MBRS in each of the four participating countries, while technical working groups at the regional level oversee project implementation, review annual workplans, promote exchange of regional expertise and sustain regional coordination. Transboundary commissions have been established on the border areas of the MBRS (between Mexico and Belize, and Belize, Guatemala and Honduras) to address marine resource management concerns. A training program has been established for marine protected area managers, enabling them to design and implement participatory management plans and monitor results using a common monitoring protocol.

Fisherfolk are being trained for alternative livelihoods in the tourism and fisheries subsectors, e.g., sea kayaking, recreational diving , catch and release sports fishing, and sustainable mariculture, to relieve pressure on marine protected areas (MPAs). The project will support monitoring of Spawning Aggregations (SPAGs) of economically important and threatened reef fish, like Nassau grouper and snapper, and recommend policies for restricted use of these resources. Major SPAGs have already been closed to fishing during these spawning events as a result of project cooperation with the Ministry of Fisheries. The project will also promote sustainable tourism centered on the MPAs, through formation of a regional tourism forum which meets regularly to address key issues in the tourism industry, compilation



— 18 — — 19 —

of a manual on best practice, and development and adoption of a regional certification system for marine-based tourism enterprises.

The Egypt Red Sea Coastal and Natural Resources Management Project has promoted the development of public-private partnerships through the involvement of NGOs (Hurghada Environmental Protection for Corals Agency, HEPCA, Safaga EPCA), private hotel operators and dive boat operators and promotion of environmental awareness amongst stakeholders. The Tourism Investors Environmental Group, which includes all the major hotel operators, participates in the management of the international visitor center financed under the project to promote best practices in environmental design and resource management and to help ensure sustainability of tourism based on the Red Sea coral reefs and marine protected areas.

New models for financingOne of the greatest challenges for conservation is how to cover the recurrent costs of parks and protected areas. To address this problem, the Bank has helped to establish several national trust funds, using GEF financing as part of the cofunding. Trust funds in Bolivia, Peru and Mexico are helping to support protected area networks; another will shortly be established for the eastern arc forests of Tanzania. Trust funds have also been established for national training needs for protected area staff (Bhutan), to support a biodiversity grants program (Brazil) and to strengthen management and community activities at individual sites such as Mount Mulanje, Malawi and Bwindi and Mgahinga gorilla reserves in Uganda. A regional fund is benefiting protected areas in the Transcarpathian mountains of eastern Europe.

Box 7. COREMAP: Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management in Indonesia

The Indonesian archipelago is a center of coral and marine diversity with some of the most species-rich reef ecosystems in the world. The fisheries they support are an important source of food and economic opportunities for about 67,500 coastal villages throughout the country, a source which has been increasingly threatened and overexploited in the last decade. For this reason, the Government of Indonesia initiated a multi-donor Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Program (COREMAP) in 1998, as a 15-year national program over three phases. As one of the main donors, the World Bank helped to finance efforts to improve the management of coral reef ecosystems in several pilot sites, including the national marine park at Taka Bone Rate, the world’s third largest atoll. Other pilot efforts in the Padeido islands, Papua, and Nusa Tenggara focused on supporting community management of coral reefs.

The first phase project highlighted some of the challenges facing coral reefs and the communities that depend upon them. Many of the coral reef ecosystems in Indonesia and the small-scale fisheries they support have reached a level and mode of exploitation where the only way to increase future production and local incomes is to protect critical habitats and reduce fishing effort. There is now a growing body of empirical evidence suggesting that marine reserves can rejuvenate depleted fish stocks in a matter of years when they are managed collaboratively with the resource users, and form the core of a wider multi-use marine protected area. For the second phase of COREMAP, the Government of Indonesia has made an important policy shift toward marine conservation and protected areas as an important tool in sustainable management of coral reef ecosystems and the small-scale fisheries they support. COREMAP II will help to establish marine reserves within larger marine protected areas (MPAs), through a participatory planning process with communities, to ensure rejuvenation of coral reefs and the small-scale reef fisheries on which those communities depend.

A six year, US$ 80 million program will be implemented in 12 coastal districts, including 1,500 coastal villages and more than 500,000 residents. The centerpiece of these efforts will be collaboratively-managed marine reserves, many within existing national parks and MPAs of recognized global value. The Government of Indonesia has committed to a target of 30% of the total area of coral reefs in each participating district being set aside as collaboratively-managed and fully-protected marine reserves by the year 2030. A key component of the program will be a learning network, linking key marine sites and conservation efforts throughout the archipelago to exchange lessons learned and expertise. This is an ambitious program, and places Indonesia as one of the global leaders in the marine and coral reef conservation effort.


— 18 — — 19 —

The Bolivia Sustainability of the National System of Protected Areas Project (SNAP) is the first phase of a 15-year program to ensure that representative ecosystems and biodiversity of Bolivia are conserved and sustainably managed. The program adopts an integrated ecosystem management approach for conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits arising from biodiversity use, with a special focus on mountain ecosystems of the Andean region and forest ecosystems. By the end of the program, this system is expected to be self-sustaining, transparent, decentralized, and managed through partnerships with local and Indigenous communities, government at various levels, NGOs and the private sector. GEF funding supports the strengthening of planning and management in 10 priority protected areas, while other donors support the other 12 parks in the system. The National Service for Protected Areas (SERNAP) is being consolidated to strengthen its capacity to operate as an autonomous institution. The project is also preparing a Protected Area Law and supporting the approval of a Biodiversity Law. A new National Fee System will share up to 25% of the fees collected from parks with local communities for their development projects, and generate part of its revenues from environmental services. A trust fund has also been established to finance the recurrent costs of managing the protected areas. Managed by a private foundation (FUNDESNAP), this fund has already raised US$17 million, surpassing the original fundraising target by US$2 million.

Conservation trust funds are especially valuable because they provide a regular and predictable source of funding. The Mexican fund will provide a long-term reliable source of funds for core protection and conservation activities and contribute to strengthened protected areas management and protection of unique biodiversity in eligible and special biosphere reserves — see Box 8. Financing through the Peruvian fund for protected areas (PROFONAPE) has strengthened and extended the protected area network and improved the policy framework and financial sustainability. A new project will provide additional resources to PROFONAPE to encourage greater stakeholder and community participation in park management to promote social sustainability of the protected area system. It is expected that

PROFONAPE will benefit from US funds under a debt-for-nature swap.

Under the Gulf of Aqaba Environmental Action Plan (Jordan) detailed cost recovery mechanisms have been put in place to ensure financial sustainability of protected areas and environmental protection. They include marine park fees (diving fees visitor fees, and beach facility fees); issuance of permits (air emission permits, cooling water discharge permits, resource user fees for import/export of all goods, 25% surcharge on use of port reception facilities once they exist); and fines for environmental damages, including industrial pollution and oil spills. All revenue from these fees and fines will be earmarked for the Department of Environment, Regulation and Enforcement. The Philippines Conservation of Priority Protected Areas project (CPPAP) has experimented with an interesting variation of ‘user pays’, even requiring peasant farmers in park buffer zones to pay fees for keeping pigs or fighting cocks on land adjacent to park boundaries.

New management models Through a combination of lending and grant assistance, the Bank is assisting client governments to seek creative ways to support appropriate models of protected area management by working with local, national and international NGOs, academic institutions, other donors and local community organizations. New projects are giving increasing emphasis to local community participation and their roles within protected area management.

Many large expanses of remote and relatively intact ecosystems with high biodiversity correspond to areas where Indigenous Peoples are living according to their own centuries-old culture and traditions. In some countries, these areas have been titled to Indigenous Peoples and the Bank has been assisting them to manage biodiversity. In other countries, protected areas have been established in these territories and they overlap Indigenous lands. For Bank-funded projects, the policy on Indigenous Peoples



— 20 — — 21 —

requires that an Indigenous Peoples Development Plan be prepared to support the full participation of Indigenous Peoples in such protected areas. The LAC region has been especially active in promoting projects which work with Indigenous communities to conserve biodiversity. New management models for biodiversity conservation are being supported with Indigenous groups, through Indigenous reserves or co-management agreements with Indigenous communities in Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Mexico. Many of these projects address issues such as: land tenure and resource rights; traditional knowledge; participation; protected areas management and monitoring; gender; tourism; capacity building; alternative sources of income; and infrastructure needs of remote populations.

In the Kaa Iya national park in the Bolivian Gran Chaco ecosystem, the Bank/GEF project is assisting the Guarani Indigenous Peoples to manage their own protected areas. Kaa Iya covers a land surface of 3.4 million hectares and was established in 1995. It is co-managed by the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Planning and CABI (Guarani Indigenous local organization). The Bolivia GEF 2 project has been supporting the recurrent costs for the management of the park which is jointly financed by a US$1 million dollar grant from the Brazil-Bolivia Gas Pipeline development project. Other Bank projects support ecotourism activities with the Mayan in the BioItza Reserve in Guatemala, organic cocoa farming in the Bribri and Cabecar Reserve in Costa Rica, and participatory planning in Vilcabamba, Peru, with the Machiguenga and the Achaningas. In Colombia, a MSP

Box 8. Financing the Mexico National System of Protected Areas

In Mexico, since 1997, the SINAP 1 and SINAP 2 (National Protected Areas System) projects have been supporting an endowment fund to cover recurrent funding costs in high priority protected areas, including the Monarch Butterfly, Sian Ka’an , Calakmul, El Triunfo and Manatlan, Isla Contoy and Islas del Golfo, Ria Lagarta, Vizcaino, an important whale nursery in the Gulf of California and Montes Azules, the richest tropical forest in MesoAmerica. In 2002, SINAP 2 received the second largest GEF grant (US$31 million). The growth of the FANP endowment fund and the number of protected areas that it supports is shown below:

1998: USD 16.5 mi — 10 Protected Areas

2000: USD 22.9 mi —10 Protected Areas


2002: USD 36.2 mi —14 Protected Areas


Interest from the fund now supports 16 protected areas through the contributions of a dozen donors. The Mexico Protected Areas Fund has become a model and the operational manual and other features are being replicated in many countries. There are several features that make FANP successful. It is the longest-established private fund and is housed within a private organization, Mexican Fund for Nature Conservation (FMCN) with a long track record of efficient operations and impacts in biodiversity conservation. The fund FANP works closely with the government parks agency (CONANP), and both are overseen by a National Council of Protected Areas (CNANP) with members drawn from government, NGOs, academic, private and community institutions. FANP and CONANP have followed a strict cycle to finance priority interventions in the protected areas on a yearly basis. NGOs have been involved since the beginning in supporting park management. Individual parks have established protected area councils to aid the decision making process at the field level. The security of the FANP financial source have been an incentive for continued government support at the protected areas level to provide the necessary cofinancing to match FANP funds. FANP and CONANP have established a monitoring system that is functioning for key protected areas.

Highlights of the Portfolio — Projects and PartntershipsCornerstones for Conservation: World Bank Assistance for Protected Areas 1988 – 2003

— 20 — — 21 —

has assisted six different groups, Piapoco, Piaroa, Cubeo, Sikuani, Curripaco y Puinave in the Mataven Forest to undertake natural resources mapping and demarcation of their lands, as well as organizational strengthening, and production and marketing of crafts.

In Peru, the Bank is helping to establish communal reserves that will be managed by Indigenous Peoples within biodiversity-rich wilderness areas. In Samoa and Indonesia communities are establishing community-managed reserves on coral reefs to protect reef systems and fish nurseries. In Papua New Guinea a new conservation fund, the Mama Graun fund, will provide resources to assist local communities to establish clan conservation areas as an alternative to industrial logging.

The remote mountain landscape of Virachey National Park in the province of Ratanakiri, Cambodia covers 350,000 hectares of forest and mountain habitats and is one of the most important expanses of intact forest left in the country. In addition to its national importance, the park borders designated protected areas within Laos and Vietnam, together forming an important triangle for biodiversity conservation in Indochina. The region is home to numerous ethnic minorities who have lived in the project area for many generations, but moved settlements many times, during the political strife and warfare which ravaged the region during the Vietnam War and subsequent Khmer Rouge regime. These communities are now settled along the rivers at the edge of the park. Park staff and the Indigenous Brou, Kravet and Krueng communities are working together to articulate and implement long-term community resource management plans in lands which overlap park boundaries. These plans will assist the communities to assert their rights against large scale timber interests who are moving into the region.

Other park management models, involving NGOs and the private sector, are also being tested with Bank support. In Jordan’s Dana National Park a national NGO, the Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature (RSCN), has assumed the responsibility for park management but is also working with local communities around the park to reduce livestock

grazing within ecologically sensitive areas and to improve local livelihoods linked to conservation and ecotourism. Villagers have rehabilitated ancient terraced fields and benefit from sales of dried fruits, handicrafts and other park-endorsed products, while maintaining some of the region’s Indigenous agrobiodiversity and native fruit trees. Building on this success, a new project, again managed by RSCN, will focus on the sustainable use of medicinal plants, bringing benefits both to rural livelihoods and rural health care.

The Komodo National Park Collaborative Management Initiative (KCMI) represents a ground-breaking policy experiment for the Government of Indonesia, as it involves the granting of a


— 22 — — 23 —

tourism concession by the Ministry of Forestry to a Joint Venture (JV) company, formed between an international NGO, The Nature Conservancy, and a local tourism company (JPU). This private sector-NGO partnership will be authorised to set and collect gate fees, establish and implement carrying capacity limits, and develop a tourism licensing system. The aim of this privatisation of park management is to bolster the limited capacity of the Indonesian Conservation Department (PHKA) to protect the threatened resources of Komodo National Park , and to make the park self-financing with its management costs covered by tourism revenue. A separate tri-partite collaborative management agreement between the JV, PHKA and the local government will set out further

divisions of responsibility between these three bodies in conservation management, monitoring and enforcement, and sustainable livelihood activities. A key component of the KCMI is to ensuring long-term financial sustainability for the park, through increases in gate fees from the current US$2 to US$20 per person and supplementing these with other user fees for selected activities, such as diving and dragon watching. A large share of this revenue will be retained for direct support to park initiatives such as enforcement, zoning, monitoring, and staff training. The project will also negotiate revenue-sharing arrangements with the district and provincial governments to channel a proportion of park revenue to local sustainable development initiatives.

Box 9. Protection of Indigenous Lands in the Brazilian Amazon

As a result of colonization, warfare, and disease, the number of Indigenous Peoples in Brazil has fallen from an estimated 8 million in the 1500s to about 300,000 today. In addition, there are believed to be 2,000 or more Indigenous Peoples living in isolated tribes who have not yet had any significant contact with Brazilian society.

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, Brazilian law has accorded legal recognition to the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their lands, which constitute about 103 million hectares, or 20.6 percent of the Legal Amazon. Legalization of Indigenous lands requires that they be formally identified, delimited, demarcated, decreed, and registered. When the Brazil Indigenous Lands Project was prepared in 1994-95, only 50 percent of 556 Indigenous lands recognized by Brazil’s National Indian Foundation (FUNAI) had been legalized.

The Indigenous Lands Project began in 1996 to enhance the well-being of Indigenous Peoples and promote the conservation of their natural resources by completing the legalization and assisting in the protection of approximately 121 Indigenous areas in the Brazilian Amazon. It has also sponsored targeted studies, capacity building and community-driven protection activities.

The US$22 million project is financed by the Rain Forest Trust Fund, the German government, and Brazilian counterpart funds. In 2002, 59 Indigenous territories had been demarcated covering 45 million hectares (equivalent to more than 10% of the Amazon forest or an area larger than that of Germany, Netherlands and Switzerland combined). This project has been an innovative and pioneering effort not only to regularize Indigenous lands in the Brazilian Amazon, but also to improve technical quality and increase Indigenous participation and control in the processes of regularizing, protecting and managing their lands.

Satellite maps clearly show that the area of the Amazon covered by Indigenous lands represents one of the largest remaining reserves of essentially intact tropical forest. After many years of conflict and unresolved land tenure, the Indigenous Peoples of the upper and middle Rio Negro in Brazil are finally having their lands legally recognized. The 106,000 sq. km area is home to 19 ethnic groups. What is especially satisfying to everyone concerned is that the project is supporting an alternative way of demarcating the land. The regional Indigenous organization (FOIRN) and a national NGO (ISA) are actively involved in the process, as are all the Indigenous communities who live there.


— 22 — — 23 —

Benefit sharing: protecting biodiversity, alleviating povertyThe overarching mission of the World Bank is poverty alleviation. Consistent with that mission, the Bank recognizes that biodiversity underpins human welfare and economic development and that many sectors of national and local economies depend on biological diversity, natural ecosystems, productive landscapes and the environmental services they provide. A key challenge for the Bank is to find ways to promote development that encourages both biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation, linking environmental protection to sustainable livelihoods.

Ecodevelopment opportunities associated with key conservation areas are enabling local communities in India to break out of the poverty trap and develop alternative livelihoods consistent with conservation objectives. In Sri Lanka and Ethiopia medicinal plant

projects in buffer zones of protected areas aim to reduce wild harvesting and support community efforts to cultivate medicinal plants to meet rural health needs. Finding and exploiting such linkages across the whole WBG investment portfolio will provide opportunities for mainstreaming biodiversity into national and regional sustainable development agendas.

Box 10 Linking Protected Areas to Poverty Reduction in Madagascar

Once a part of the African continent, the island of Madagascar drifted into the Indian ocean millions of years ago, creating an evolutionary laboratory in the process. Today over 80% of the animals and plants found in this megadiversity hotspot are unique to the island nation. The World Bank and other donors have been supporting a three phase, 15-year Environmental Protection Program to mainstream environmental management into Madagascar’s development agenda. Under the second phase of this program, the Bank provided IDA and GEF funds to strengthen the country’s new protected area system, including institutional support to the national park service (ANGAP). The project helped to create 10 new protected areas and strengthen many “paper parks”. Thirty-eight of these areas have been recognized as major tourist venues and 10 new ecotourism circuits have been laid out. Arrangements have been put in place for active participation of communities in park management and revenues. A third phase of the program will further strengthen management in another 21 protected areas and strengthen linkages between conservation and development for local communities.

A recent Africa Region sector report showed that the economic benefits of biodiversity conservation far outweigh costs in Madagascar. Sustainable management of a network of 2.2 million hectares of forests and protected areas over a 15-year period would cost US$97 million (including opportunity costs forgone in future agricultural production) but would result in total benefits of US$150–180 million. About 10-15 percent of these benefits are from direct payments for biodiversity conservation, 35–40 percent from ecotourism revenues, and 50 percent from watershed protection (primarily from averting the impacts of soil erosion on smallholder irrigated rice production). The study considers the political economy of potential winners and losers from forest conservation and points to the needs for equitable transfer mechanisms to close this gap, but emphasizes that conservation will help to maintain or improve the welfare of at least half a million poor peasants.


— 24 — — 25 —

Building a constituency for conservationSupporting protected areas through conservation awareness, education and social marketing is a key component of many Bank biodiversity projects. The COREMAP project is building local support for coral reef conservation through a conservation awareness program based on attractive cartoon coral reef characters. An NGO-implemented project in the Sangihe-Talaud islands, off North Sulawesi, has created strong support for a rare endemic bird and its habitats through colorful campaigns and local radio shows.

In many developing countries theatre and mime is an effective way to spread the conservation message. The Africa Resources Trust has established a remarkable multinational theatre troop with players and trainers drawn from local communities within southern Africa.

The group has developed plays and mimes that build on local culture and experience of human-wildlife conflicts and portray powerful messages about conservation and sustainable use. Community theatre is helping to engender support for conservation efforts on Lake Malawi and in dryland savannas throughout southern Africa. Performances at a variety of venues, from local villages to high profile regional and international events, have been powerful tools for strengthening conservation awareness and building a conservation constituency at the grassroots level.

It has been said that “people will only protect what they love and can love only what they know”. To address this, the Bank has had two programs to support local-language field guides. In the first, the Bank worked with the Indonesian Institute of Sciences through the Indonesia Biodiversity Collections project to commission or translate 15 such field guides covering

Box 11. Kalakad-Mundanthurai: Conserving Biodiversity with Local Participation

The twin wildlife sanctuaries of Kalakad and Mundanthurai in South India provide a valuable experience in participatory conservation. Located in the southern-most tip of the Western Ghats, a biodiversity hotspot, Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve (KMTR) was under tremendous human pressure. Over 3,000 head loaders felled fuelwood in the sanctuaries on a daily basis to earn a livelihood, while hundreds of others collected fuelwood regularly for their own consumption. Likewise over 22,000 livestock grazed the foothills of the sanctuaries thereby degrading the habitat for wildlife. A World Bank loan for a Forestry Research Education and Extension Project, launched in 1994, included an ecodevelopment component aimed at reducing the conflict between people and wildlife conservation.

The most significant achievement of the project has been the dramatic change in the attitudes of government park officials to local people and the changed relations between the two groups. Ecodevelopment activities initiated with the support of grass-roots organizations have reached out to the most resource-dependent communities and made dramatic changes in the livelihood patterns of the people living in the sanctuary fringes. Through this partnership, alternative income generating opportunities were created for the most forest-dependent communities. Alternative energy devices (kerosene stoves and liquid petroleum gas) replaced wood fuel taken from the forest, and livestock now graze in the fallow fields outside the sanctuary boundaries.

Local communities have shown unyielding commitment and ownership to the ecodevelopment approach and continue to sustain it even though project funding ended two years ago. A total of 132 fringe villages and more than 14,000 families are now actively participating in conserving the twin sanctuaries and the results demonstrate the success of their efforts. Head loaders have reduced fuelwood collection by 87.5% and grazing within the sanctuaries has been reduced by 77.2%. Simultaneously, the initial investment in community credit (US$750,000) made to the fringe communities has more than doubled. Revolving funds are being managed by the communities themselves for small loans in productive investments aimed at further reducing dependencies on the sanctuaries. Borrowers repay with interest which has helped the funds to grow and provide an effective source of credit and relief from money lenders. Women have benefited considerably under the scheme and are taking active roles in fund management.


— 24 — — 25 —

birds, amphibians, dragonflies, snails, bamboos, orchids, wild bananas and many other groups. These guides make biodiversity information easily accessible to students, environmental assessment professionals and to the broader public and help to build a constituency for conservation. Additional grants through the Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program have resulted in 28 titles and 42 local language editions in partnership with NGOs and academics in Asia and Africa, covering a range of flora and fauna from Cambodia to Sri Lanka and Mongolia to Zimbabwe.

The Bank is supporting several research and monitoring projects in protected areas, with local universities and other scientific institutions — see Box 12. Such projects focus on inventory (Costa Rica), reserve design (South Africa) and management issues (Ecuador, Mongolia). A series of small research grants to local universities has helped Kerinci-Seblat National Park build a local constituency for conservation. A MSP to a local NGO is helping to measure the true biodiversity impact of conservation and tourism activities on the unique island ecosystems of the Galapagos islands. An innovative research MSP in Mongolia has linked conservation messages to religious beliefs — see Box 13.

Box 12. Monitoring Biodiversity in Protected Areas of Costa Rica

For more than ten years, the National Institute for Biodiversity (INBio) of Costa Rica and the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) have been collaborating to inventory and monitor the biological diversity of Costa Rica inside conservation areas. INBio is a non-profit scientific organization that is developing Costa Rica’s national biodiversity inventory and researching the potential uses of this biodiversity. SINAC is responsible for the effective management of Costa Rica’s Conservation units, national parks and other protected areas. The synergy between the two organizations has brought significant benefits to biodiversity conservation in Costa Rica. This program has been financed by many international donors including the GEF/World Bank, the governments of the Netherlands, Norway, Canada, Spain and Sweden.

Inventories and monitoring in Costa Rica’s protected areas have revealed much interesting information on groups as diverse as plants, mollusks, fungi, nematodes, dipterids, hymenopterids and butterflies as well as more visible groups such as birds and mammals. Over thirteen years of intensive surveys INBio has discovered an average of two species per day which were to science. Specific ecological studies provide the scientific underpinning for management decisions in conservation areas and the sustainable harvesting of certain species in the conservation units and buffer areas. A sub-program on ecological mapping (ECOMAPS) has shown great value for the preparation of zoning and management plans; prioritizing conservation needs based on good information about species distribution, ecology and abundance; protection of endemic and endangered species; restoration of habitats and ecosystems; land use regulation; and support to communities and municipalities.


— 26 — — 27 —

Box 13. Lake Khuvsgul Conservation through Attention to Water Deities

Lake Khuvsgul is a large tectonic lake at 1645 m a.s.l., a sister to Lake Baikal, which lies in northern Mongolia. It is between 2 – 4 million years old and one of the least-polluted lakes in the world. The lake and a large area around it was designated a national park in 1992, and comprises the southern limit of the Siberian taiga forest (mainly larch), as well as steppe grassland, mountain tundra, and the lake itself. It contains around 60% of Mongolia’s surface freshwater. The park has been formally nominated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Performing specially-designed religious rituals for honoring the spirits of water and land is part of traditional conservation in Mongolia. The nomadic Mongolians have a long tradition of conserving nature through the honoring of water and land, chanting from religious texts, making offerings and praying in order to seek blessings on the place by the deities. The traditional religious ceremonies have been inherited from the ancient traditions of Mongolian Shamanism on deifying and respecting the Sky by identifying it with a father, and the Earth with a mother. With the coming of Buddhism into Mongolia in the 16th century, the sutras (religious scriptures) for the rituals were created. These sutras were based on the profound belief in interdependence of living and non-living worlds. The religious rituals follow established procedures, wherein the sutras are used for chanting to ask for blessings by the spirits, followed by offerings of food, and even of gold and silver.

A five-year GEF medium-sized targeted research project, executed by the Geo-Ecology Institute of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences, is studying the interactions between permafrost melt, biodiversity loss, and nomadic land use patterns. As part of the socialization of the project among the nomadic herders, the project has cooperated with the Buddhist University and with Gandan Monastery in the capital Ulaanbaatar, to produce a flyer which describes the water deities, the procedures for worship, the necessary preparations, and the purpose and significance of the rituals. The Tibetan-script sutra to be used for chanting of religious ritual for the Water Deity is included to aid the monks in the local community to conduct the ceremonies. In addition to this, the flyer provides information on traditions related to Mongolian conservation.

There are about 600 sacred places in Mongolia. Rituals have flourished with the revival of religious freedoms in the 1990s, after seven decades of communist domination in Mongolia. Willingness to conserve and sustainably use natural resources, leaving them as an inheritance for the next generation, should be in our own self-interest.

The Buddha teaches that “... All destruction and deterioration on the earth is caused by disrespect for others by those who are self-centered and selfish. Thus, humanity needs to develop a caring spirit that gives priority to the well-being of others. All living creatures desire happiness and strive to overcome sufferings. Put yourself into the shoes of others and do not harm them”.


— 26 — — 27 —

Valuing ecosystem services Protecting forests and other natural ecosystem can provide social, economic and aesthetic benefits, both directly through sustainable utilization of biological resources and indirectly through protection of the environment and ecosystem services. Protected areas, and the natural habitats within them, can protect watersheds and regulate water flow, prevent soil erosion, influence rainfall regimes and local climate, conserve renewable harvestable resources and genetic reservoirs and protect breeding stocks, natural pollinators and seed dispersers which maintain ecosystem health. Flood plain forests and coastal mangroves act as safety

barriers against natural hazards such as floods and hurricanes while natural wetlands filter pollutants and serve as nurseries for local fisheries. Although ecosystem services are rarely credited in national accounts, many protected areas can be justified on the basis of traditional economic cost-benefit criteria. Many protected areas also provide important benefits to society as places of recreation, tourism, research, education and spiritual uplift.

Over the last decade, a number of World Bank forest-related projects have been making explicit linkages between forest biodiversity, carbon sequestration and watershed values associated with erosion control, clean water supplies, flood control and coastal protection.

New Challenges and Opportunities

Box 14. Sustainable Tourism for Sustainable Development in Southern Africa

Southern Africa offers an almost unique opportunity to link biodiversity conservation and protected areas with sustainable economic development through tourism. Tourism investment is growing rapidly, particularly involving “bush and beach” packages that depend on healthy natural ecosystems and abundant wildlife. Moreover, much of the best remaining wildlife areas are poorly suited for alternative uses such as agriculture. The Bank and other development partners are assisting southern African countries to realize this potential by establishing transfrontier linkages aimed at creating a diverse and integrated regional tourism circuit to rival any tourism attraction in the world. To ensure environmental sustainability and poverty alleviation impacts, the emphasis is on spatial planning and management at an ecosystem level and on community participation and benefits.

The multi-phase, multi-donor Mozambique Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCA) program builds on the fact that Mozambique has large areas of rich biodiversity (but high poverty) adjacent to well-established conservation and tourism areas in neighboring Zimbabwe and South Africa. A first phase project, financed by the GEF, laid the political and institutional groundwork for the multi-sectoral and inter-State cooperation needed for the TFCA approach. A second phase, to be supported by IDA, GEF and bilateral partners, will focus on implementing improved management of the TFCAs, including embedded protected areas, and tourism development on the ground. The Mozambique Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Management project is helping to provide the crucial “beach” element by promoting environmentally and socially sound tourism in the context of integrated coastal zone management including marine protected areas. The Swaziland Biodiversity Conservation and Participatory Development project will provide support for participatory spatial planning within two broad “tourism and biodiversity” corridors whose endpoints fall within transfrontier conservation areas. The success of these initiatives should be considerably enhanced by an IFC-supported “South East African Integrated Tourism Investment Program” (SEATIP), currently under development, which will help create incentives for appropriate tourism investment based on environmental sustainability and partnership with local communities.


— 28 — — 29 —

In China, the Bank will provide support to the Natural Forest Protection Program designed to ensure the long-term protection of national forests in watershed catchments and reduce vulnerability of downstream villages and towns to flooding. After the severe floods of 1998 the Chinese government introduced a moratorium on logging and is now re-assessing its forestry programs. Approximately 50 million hectares, more than half the country’s natural forests, will now be re-assessed for designation as nature reserves, forest parks, watershed forests or areas for selective logging according to their biological and protection values. The program will promote biodiversity conservation, more sustainable use and a better understanding of the critical ecosystem service role of watershed forests.

Coastal forest projects in Croatia, Bangladesh, Honduras, Lithuania and Vietnam are improving management of coastal forests, swamps, floodplains and mangroves, including restoration of degraded habitats. Forest services such as coastal protection and nursery grounds for quality fisheries are increasingly being recognized as essential to these countries’ coastal economies. In Ecuador and Argentina, flood control projects utilize the natural storage and recharge properties of critical forests and wetlands by integrating them into “living with floods” strategies that incorporate forest protected areas and riparian corridors.

In Latin America, a project is under preparation to protect Mediterranean ecosystems with high plant endemism in Chile. Some 12,000 ha of chaparral and matorral habitats in the foothill forests around the capital Santiago will be conserved through public-private partnerships. These high altitude areas are coming under increasing pressure from urban spread, fire and overgrazing by livestock. In addition to their biodiversity values, they are important water towers for the city, providing some 20% of Santiago’s potable water. Similarly, the Haiti Forest And Parks Protection Technical Assistance Project provided support to the La Visite and Pic Macaya national parks which respectively contribute to the city water supplies of Port au Prince and Les Cayes. Building on these values, the Costa Rica Ecomarkets project is supporting development of markets for ecosystem services, thereby fostering conservation of forest ecosystems through

conservation easements on privately-owned lands outside protected areas.

PartnershipsThe World Bank is committed to working cooperatively with diverse partners to realize the objectives of better conservation and biodiversity management. Three strategic long-term partnerships are relevant to protected area management — the World Bank/WWF Alliance, the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund and the Global Invasive Species Programme.

The World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use was formed in April 1998 as a response to both the continued depletion of the world’s forest biodiversity, and to the loss of goods and services essential for sustainable development. The Alliance is working with governments, the private sector and civil society to achieve three targets by 2005:

• 50 million hectares of new forested protected areas;

• Another 50 million hectares of existing forested protected areas under effective management

• 200 million hectares of production forests under independently-certified sustainable management.

The work of the Alliance was energized by the results of a survey in 1999 which examined the extent of threats to protected areas in ten key forested countries. This revealed that:

• just one percent of these forest protected areas could be regarded as secure;

• less than one quarter of declared national parks, wildlife refuges and other protected areas were being well managed; in spite of their protected area status, many protected area forests are suffering from serious degradation.

The Alliance is now working in 30 countries — from Brazil, where the government has committed to protect

New Challenges and OpportunitiesCornerstones for Conservation: World Bank Assistance for Protected Areas 1988 – 2003

— 28 — — 29 —

an additional 28.5 million hectares of Amazon rain forest through the ARPA Program, to Papua New Guinea where the Alliance is fundraising for the Mama Graun Conservation Trust Fund. The Alliance has also supported the development of two protected area tools, one for use at national/regional level, and one at site level. The Rapid Assessment and Prioritization Methodology seeks to analyze status across a protected area system — national or regional — and to correlate areas in need of improvement with threats. The second tool helps to measure the effectiveness of protected areas management by examining a range of indicators — see Box 15.

The Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund (CEPF) is an international funding partnership between Conservation International (CI), the GEF, the World Bank, the Government of Japan, and John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation which will provide US$125 million in grant funding and technical assistance to conservation efforts in high biodiversity areas, especially tropical forests. The relatively small grants (typically US$100,000–300,000) from the CEPF have also enabled a range of important activities related to protected areas. From its start in January 2001 until July 2003, the CEPF provided grants and technical assistance to civil society

Box 15. Measuring the Effectiveness of Protected Area Management

There is a growing concern amongst protected area professionals that many protected areas around the world are not achieving the objectives for which they were established. One response to this concern has been an emphasis on the need to increase the effectiveness of protected area management, and to help this process a number of assessment tools have been developed to assess management practices. It is clear that the existence of a wide range of situations and needs require different methods of assessment. The World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) therefore developed a ‘framework’ for assessment. The WCPA framework aimed both to provide some overall guidance in the development of assessment systems and to encourage standards for assessment and reporting.

The WCPA Framework is based on the idea that good protected area management follows a process that has six distinct stages, or elements:

• it begins with understanding the context of existing values and threats,

• progresses through planning, and

• allocation of resources (inputs), and

• as a result of management actions (processes),

• eventually produces products and services (outputs),

• that result in impacts or outcomes.

In order to monitor the progress towards meeting its effectiveness target, the Alliance has recently published a simple site-level tracking tool to facilitate reporting on management effectiveness of protected areas within WWF and World Bank projects - Reporting Progress in Protected Areas - A Site Level Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool. The tracking tool has been built around the WCPA framework. This tool has been adopted by the GEF and other agencies. WWF International is setting up a database to compile the results of interventions at WWF and Bank-assisted sites, although the primary beneficiaries and users of the results are the protected area staff. The tool has been translated into French and Spanish as well as Chinese, Lao, Khmer, Vietnamese, Mongolian and Indonesian.

The original tracking tool was developed for forested protected areas but has also been adapted for use in marine protected areas where it is currently being field-tested.


— 30 — — 31 —

groups, committing more than US$28 million to support 114 conservation projects in eleven hotspots in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

In the Brazilian Atlantic Forest hotspot, the Alliance for the Conservation of the Atlantic Forest established a small grants program, with CEPF funds, to assist landowners to create new reserves and better manage existing private reserves in Brazil. While more than 500 private reserves exist in Brazil today, many landowners need technical or financial support to effectively manage these areas and maximize the benefits for conservation. The new grants program, which has already received more than 40 applications, is focusing its efforts on Private Natural Heritage Reserves in the Central and Serra do Mar conservation corridors in Brazil.

The third major partnership is with the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) for which the Bank, through the Bank Netherlands Partnership Program and the Development Grant Facility, has provided four years of seed funding to establish a coordinating secretariat at the National Botanical Institute at Kirstenbosch, South Africa. The GISP secretariat will work with the Working for Water Programme and other partners worldwide, to build capacity and apply tools and methodologies for containing and combating invasive alien species, especially in developing countries where biodiversity loss and environmental degradation undermine efforts to attain sustainable development.

The World Bank has funded several protected area projects with specific components to control invasive plants and animals in important habitats. In South Africa, World Bank and GEF funding is enabling control and eradication programs for invasive plants in key protected areas such as Table Mountain, the Cape Peninsula National Park and the Maloti-Drakensberg mountains. In the Cape Peninsula unskilled laborers are being trained to remove invasive alien species which threaten the region’s endemic species. Additionally they are learning new entrepreneurial skills to enable them to set up small businesses to service alien species eradication programs in natural parks and watersheds throughout the region. The Table Mountain Fund provides resources for training and eradication efforts within the park and on adjacent private and community lands. On Aldabra Island, a World Heritage site,

Bank funding supported removal of feral goats which were competing for fodder with the island’s rare giant tortoises. In Mauritius and Seychelles, NGO-led projects are removing invasives and restoring native ecosystems and wildlife.

Challenges for the future It is good news that the Bank has a large and expanding protected area portfolio and that a wide range of models and conservation initiatives have been supported. Lessons are being learned and applied. Nevertheless protected areas, especially (but not only) in the developing world still face many threats. Efforts by the conservation community and major donors will not be sufficient, on their own, to address all the needs. A major challenge for the future is thus to mainstream biodiversity into government programs, normal development assistance and poverty alleviation programs (by promoting positive synergies), while minimizing the negative impacts to biodiversity of potentially damaging infrastructure and other investments.

Bank safeguard policies focus on “do-no-harm” strategies which govern implementation of development projects. These policies are important because it is recognized that the impacts of rural development and infrastructure programs and projects, and of economic adjustment measures, must be carefully formulated to avoid serious negative impacts on biodiversity within and outside protected areas — see Box 16. In addition to the Bank’s current Operational Policy to protect Natural Habitats (OP 4.04), a new Forests Operational Policy (OP 4.36) now ensures appropriate attention to forest ecosystems and forest-dependent peoples, placing increased emphasis on issues of governance and participation.

In addition to such formal project requirements, however, there is a need to engender a sense of active responsibility among the broad sweep of development and government officials to ensure that protected areas are indeed protected. Conservation, as with poverty alleviation, is not the preserve of the technical specialists alone. Bringing biodiversity conservation and

New Challenges and OpportunitiesCornerstones for Conservation: World Bank Assistance for Protected Areas 1988 – 2003

— 30 — — 31 —

protected areas into the development mainstream will require additional commitment from Bank staff and management, but also from client governments, NGOs and other stakeholders in the development community. It will also require greater recognition of the links between biodiversity and human welfare and a need to move much more from a ‘do-no-harm’ to a ‘do-some-good’ mentality to actively seek opportunities to promote conservation and habitat protection in development projects and programs (see Box 17). Environment has

been recognized as one of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Achieving a healthy environment, however, will require greater understanding of the inter-linkages between environment and greater advocacy to create awareness of the suite of benefits that protected areas bestow to society.

Box 16. Protected Areas and Other Important Sites: World Bank Policies and Safeguards

All World Bank projects must comply with a range of safeguard policies which cover important topics such as resettlement, pesticides, Indigenous Peoples, dam safety, disputed areas and resettlement. The World Bank Policy on Natural Habitats (OP 4.04) defines ‘natural habitats’ as: “land and water areas where (i) the ecosystems biological communities are formed by native plant and animal species, and (ii) human activity has not essentially modified the area’s primary ecological functions”; and determines that: “the Bank does not support projects involving the significant conversion of natural habitats unless there are no feasible alternatives for the project and its siting, and comprehensive analysis demonstrates that overall benefits from the project outweigh the environmental costs”.

Certain natural habitats are defined as being ‘critical’ if they are: (i) existing protected areas and areas officially proposed by government as protected areas, areas initially recognised as protected by traditional local communities and sites that maintain conditions vital for the viability of these protected areas or (ii) sites identified on supplemental lists prepared by the Bank or an authoritative source determined by the regional environment divisions. In this regard: the Bank does not support projects that, in the Bank’s opinion, involve the significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats. A draft of one such ‘Supplemental List’ of protected areas, available on the World Bank website, has been created for the East Asia and Pacific Region to serve as a screening aid that would reveal conservation/management issues that needed to be evaluated in more detail during a project environmental assessment or other such analytical work.

Under OP4.01 on Environmental Assessment, the Bank requires the borrower to make all reasonable investigation into the proximity of a project site and its area of influence to all possible ‘critical natural habitats’. OP4.04 also states that “The Bank supports, and expects borrowers to apply, a precautionary approach to natural resource management to ensure opportunities for environmentally sustainable development.”


— 32 — — 33 —

Box 17. Natural habitat protection in infrastructure projects in the Latin American and Caribbean Region

Large infrastructure projects financed by the Bank in the Latin American and Caribbean Region during the last decade have implemented a wide variety of innovative approaches to natural habitat protection and compensation. The application of the Bank’s Natural Habitat policy has been a key element for mainstreaming natural habitat protection in infrastructure sectors in the region (roads, water and sanitation, energy, municipal drainage). These approaches range from supporting the establishment of new protected areas and strengthening existing ones to restoring deteriorated ecosystems and supporting ecological research and in-situ protection of endangered species.

In the Bolivia-Brazil Gas Pipeline Project a US$1 million dollar trust fund was created to support the long-term management of the Kaa Iya National Park in the Gran Chaco of Bolivia. This is one of the largest protected areas in Latin America with almost US$3.4 million hectares. It was proposed and is co-managed by an Indigenous group. The same project implemented a US$7 million dollar protected area program in Brazil which supported 12 federal and state parks in 5 states, including land acquisition, demarcation, management plans and park infrastructure. The project was a key promoter of the creation of a new park in Brazil, the Serra do Bodoquena National Park. The project was awarded the Bank’s Green Award in 2000 and received the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) Corporate Award in 2001.

The Belize Roads and Municipal Drainage Project created a new protected area around the Gra Gra coastal lagoon. A small part of this mangrove ecosystem was affected by the construction of the storm water drainage of the Dangriga Township supported by the project. The creation of the Gra Gra Lagoon National Park went well beyond the requirements of the Bank’s Natural Habitat policy. The project is also supporting the management plan for the park and the strengthening of a local NGO (Friends of the Gra Gra Lagoon) that will co-manage the park.

The Argentina Flood Protection Project has supported the creation of many natural reserves in the flood plain of the Parana River including reserves that have been accepted by UNESCO as biosphere reserves in the Formosa Province.

The Bogota, Colombia Water and Sewerage Rehabilitation Project has restored over 500 hectares of the Bogota River Valley wetlands which house many endemic species and are considered critical natural habitats. In this city of 8 million inhabitants, linear parks along the restored storm water drainage have made significant changes in the urban landscape and have provided a sense of ownership and awareness of communities towards the wetlands. The project was awarded a Bank’s Green Award in 2003.


— 32 — — 33 —

Pierce, S., Cowling R., Sandwith, T. and MacKinnon, K. 2002. Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development. Case Studies from South Africa. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Stolton, S., Hockings, M., Dudley, N., MacKinnon, K. and Whitten, T. 2003. Reporting Progress in Protected Areas: A Site Level Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool. World Bank/WWF Alliance, Washington D.C.

World Bank 2000a. Supporting the Web of Life: The World Bank and Biodiversity. A Portfolio Update. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

World Bank 2000b. The World Bank and the Global Environment. A Progress Report. World Bank, Washington, D.C

World Bank 2000c. Transboundary Reserves: World Bank Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

World Bank 2002a. Biodiversity Conservation in Forest Ecosystems. World Bank Assistance 1992 – 2002. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

World Bank 2002b. Conservation of Biodiversity in Mountain Ecosystems — At A Glance. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Bibliography

— 35 —

— 35 —

The World Bank Group Protected Area Portfolio: Comprehensive List of Projects and Components Supporting Biodiversity-related Activities in Protected Areas and Bufferzones, by Funder and Region, 1988 – 2003

Legend 1. Institution-Building, Policies and Strategic Planning 2. Public Awareness Raising 3. Establishment of New Protected Areas 4. Strengthening Existing Protected Areas 5. Development and Biodiversity Management in Park Buffer Zones

6. Sustainable Financing and Market Mechanisms 7. Ecotourism 8. Indigenous Peoples 9. Invasive Species

Annex 1 —World Bank Protected Area Portfolio, 1988 – 2003

Biodiversity investments in projects with protected area components Biodiversity activities

Country Project Name FY Funder Project Total Bank Total Biodiv Biodiv 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (US$m) (US$m) (US$m)

GLOBAL: 3 Projects

Global Small & Medium 1997 GEF IFC 40.00 20.00 2.00 * * * * Scale Enterprise Program

Global Critical Ecosystems 2001 DGF 25.00 25.00 25.00 * * * * * * Partnership Fund

Global Critical Ecosystems 2001 GEF REG 100.00 100.00 25.00 * * * * * * Partnership Fund

AFRICA REGION: 55 Projects

Benin Natural Resource 1992 IDA 24.40 1.70 0.99 * * * * Management

Benin National Parks 2000 GEF REG 23.89 23.90 6.80 * * * Conservation and Management

Burkina Faso Environmental 1991 IDA 25.20 3.80 2.48 * * * * * * * Management

Burkina Faso Natural Ecosystem 2002 GEF REG 13.46 17.83 7.50 * * * Management– PRONAGEN

Cameroon Biodiversity 1995 GEF REG 12.39 12.39 5.96 * * * * * Conservation and Management


— 36 — — 37 —— 36 —

Annex 1



Central African Natural Resources 1990 IDA 26.20 3.00 2.18 * * * * * * * Republic Management

Congo Wildlands Protection 1993 GEF REG 13.90 13.90 10.10 * * * * * and Management

Côte d’Ivoire Forestry Sector 1990 IBRD 147.80 8.40 8.40 * * * * * * *

Ethiopia Conservation and 2001 GEF REG 1.81 1.81 1.81 * * * * Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants

Gabon Forestry and 1993 IDA 38.20 12.44 6.44 * * Environment

Ghana Forest Resource 1989 IDA 64.60 5.10 3.11 * * * * * * * Management

Ghana Coastal Wetlands 1993 GEF REG 8.30 8.30 7.20 * * * Management

Ghana Natural Resource 1998 GEF REG 9.40 8.70 8.70 * * * * * * Management

Ghana Natural Resource 1998 IDA 23.80 14.30 5.59 * * * * Management I

Ghana Northern Savanna 2002 GEF REG 16.80 16.80 7.90 * * * * * * Biodiversity Conservation Project

Guinea Forestry and 1990 IDA 21.00 4.00 2.46 * * * * * * * Fisheries Management

Kenya Protected Areas and 1992 IDA 143.00 143.00 60.00 * * * * * Wildlife Services

Kenya Tana River 1997 GEF REG 7.14 7.14 6.20 * * * * * * * National Primate Reserve

Kenya Lewa Wildlife 1999 GEF MSP 3.94 3.94 0.75 * * * * Conservation

Lesotho Maloti-Drakensberg 2002 GEF REG 8.40 8.40 7.32 * * * * * * * Transfrontier Conservation and Development Area


— 36 — — 37 —— 36 —

Annex 1



Madagascar Forest Management 1988 IDA 22.60 9.20 2.86 * * * * * * * and Protection

Madagascar Environment 1990 IDA 85.53 45.05 9.55 * * * * * * * Project I

Madagascar Second Environment 1997 GEF REG 20.80 20.80 12.80 * * * * * * * Program

Madagascar Second Environment 1997 IDA 134.20 56.00 12.52 * * * * Program

Malawi Lake Malawi/ 1995 GEF REG 5.44 5.44 5.00 * * * * * * Nyasa Biodiversity Conservation

Malawi Environmental 1997 IDA 13.70 6.85 6.20 * * * * Support

Malawi Mulanje Biodiversity 2001 GEF REG 8.02 8.02 6.75 * * * * * * Conservation

Mali Natural Resource 1992 IDA 32.10 6.78 4.31 * * * * * Management

Mauritius Environmental 1991 IBRD 20.53 4.40 2.00 * * * * * * * * Monitoring and Development

Mauritius Biodiversity 1996 GEF REG 1.60 1.60 1.20 * * * * Restoration

Mauritius Restoration of 2001 GEF MSP 1.40 1.40 0.75 * * Round Island

Mozambique Transfrontier 1997 GEF REG 8.10 8.10 5.00 * * * * Conservation Areas Pilot and Institutional Strengthening

Mozambique Coastal & Marine 2000 GEF REG 4.10 4.10 4.10 * * * * * * Biovidersity Management Project

Mozambique Coastal & Marine 2000 IDA 6.40 6.40 5.60 * * * * * * Biovidersity Management Project


— 38 — — 39 —— 38 —

Annex 1



Nigeria Environmental 1992 IDA 37.90 3.30 2.18 * * * Management

Nigeria Micro-watershed 2002 GEF REG 8.00 8.00 8.00 * * and Environmental Management Program

Regional: Coral Reef 2001 GEF MSP 2.41 2.41 0.74 * * * Indian Ocean Monitoring Network and (Comoros, Mauritius, Seychelles, Madagascar)

Regional: Southern Africa 2000 GEF MSP 0.89 0.89 0.73 * * Southern Community Africa Outreach Programme

Regional Pilot Community- 1996 GEF REG 13.19 13.19 7.00 * * * * * West Africa: Based NaturalBurkina Faso Resource andand Wildlife Côte D’Ivoire Management

Senegal Sustainable and 1997 GEF REG 4.70 4.70 4.70 * * * Participatory Energy Management

Seychelles Biodiversity 1993 GEF REG 2.00 2.00 1.80 * * * * * * * * Conservation and Marine Pollution Abatement

Seychelles Environment and 1993 IBRD 5.00 0.19 0.17 * * * * * * * Transport

Seychelles Management of 1999 GEF MSP 1.06 1.06 0.74 * * * * * Avian Ecosystems in Seychelles

South Africa Cape Peninsula 1998 GEF REG 91.20 91.20 12.30 * * * * * * * * Biodiversity

South Africa Protected Area 2000 GEF MSP 1.00 1.00 0.75 * * Development in Namaqualand


— 38 — — 39 —— 38 —

Annex 1



South Africa Maloti-Drakensberg 2002 GEF REG 7.93 7.93 7.93 * * * * * * * Transfrontier Conservation and Development Area

Tanzania Forest Conservation 2002 IDA 33.00 33.00 31.10 * * * * * * and Management

Uganda Conservation of 1995 GEF REG 4.89 4.89 4.00 * * * * * * the Bwindi Impenetrable and Mgahinga Gorilla National Parks

Uganda Institutional 1999 GEF REG 2.00 2.00 2.00 * * * * Capacity Building for Protected Areas Management and Sustainable Uses (ICB-PAMSU)

Uganda ICB-PAMSU 1999 IDA 18.29 18.29 12.37 * * * *

Uganda Kibale Forest 1999 GEF MSP 0.75 0.75 0.75 * * * * * Wild Coffee

Uganda PAMSU 2003 GEF REG 8.00 8.00 8.00 * * * * * Supplemental

Uganda PAMSU 2003 IDA 30.00 1.70 1.53 * * * * *

Zimbabwe Park Rehabilitation 1998 GEF REG 5.00 5.00 5.00 * * * * * and Conservation

Zimbabwe Park Rehabilitation 1998 IDA 70.00 70.00 62.50 * * * * *and Conservation

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC REGION: 28 Projects

Cambodia Biodiversity and 2001 GEF REG 3.00 3.00 2.75 * * * * * * Protected Areas Management Project

Cambodia Biodiversity and 2001 IDA LIL 1.91 1.91 1.91 * * * * * * Protected Areas Management Project


— 40 — — 41 —— 40 —

Annex 1



China Nature Reserves 1995 GEF REG 23.60 23.60 17.90 * * * * * * Management

China Sustainable Forestry 2002 GEF REG 16.00 16.00 16.00 * * * * Development

Indonesia First Forestry 1988 IBRD 63.00 6.40 3.79 * * * * * * * Institutions and Conservation

Indonesia Second Forestry 1990 IBRD 33.10 3.10 1.87 * * * * * * * Institutions and Conservation

Indonesia Integrated Swamps 1994 IBRD 106.00 3.10 1.89 * * Development

Indonesia Kerinci Seblat 1996 GEF REG 15.00 15.00 15.00 * * * * ICDP

Indonesia Kerinci Seblat 1996 IBRD 32.20 32.20 19.20 * * * * ICDP

Indonesia Coral Reef 1998 GEF REG 4.10 4.10 4.10 * * * * * * * Rehabilitation and Management (COREMAP)

Indonesia COREMAP 1998 IBRD 8.70 8.70 6.90 * * * * * * *

Indonesia Conservation of 2000 GEF MSP 0.74 0.74 0.74 * * * Elephant Landscape in Aceh Province

Indonesia The Greater 2001 GEF MSP 1.60 1.60 0.73 * * * * Berbak-Sembilang Integrated Coastal Wetlands

Indonesia Sangihe-Talaud 2002 GEF MSP 1.14 1.14 0.82 * * * * * * Forest Conservation

Indonesia Indonesia Forests 2002 GEF MSP 1.23 1.23 0.94 * * * and Media Project (INFORM)

Lao PDR Wildlife and 1994 GEF REG 5.00 5.00 5.00 * * * * * * Protected Areas Conservation


— 40 — — 41 —— 40 —

Annex 1



Lao PDR District Upland 1999 IDA LIL 2.25 2.25 2.00 * * * * * Development and Conservation

Malaysia Sabah Land 1989 IBRD 216.00 1.20 1.20 * * * * * * * Settlement and Environmental Management

Mongolia Biodiversity Loss and 2001 GEF MSP 0.98 0.98 0.83 * * Permafrost Melt in Lake Hovsgol N.P.

Papua Forestry and 2002 GEF REG 17.30 17.30 17.30 * * * * *New Guinea Conservation

Papua Forestry and 2002 IBRD 38.50 19.25 6.25 * * New Guinea Conservation

Philippines Conservation of 1994 GEF REG 22.86 22.86 20.00 * * * * Priority Protected Areas

Philippines Coastal Resource 2000 GEF REG 1.30 1.30 1.30 * * * * * * Conservation

Samoa Marine Biodiversity 1999 GEF MSP 1.10 1.10 0.90 * * * * * * * Protection and Management

Vietnam Forest Protection and 1998 IDA 32.39 32.39 21.51 * * * * * Rural Development

Vietnam Hon Mun Marine 2001 GEF MSP 2.17 2.17 1.00 * * * * * * * Protected Area

Vietnam Pu Luong-Cuc 2001 GEF MSP 1.31 1.31 0.75 * * * * * * * Phuong Limestone Landscape

Vietnam Chu Yang Sin 2003 GEF MSP 1.70 1.70 0.99 * * * *

Vietnam Hai Van Range 2003 GEF MSP 2.00 2.00 1.00 * * * * * Green Corridor

EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA REGION: 28 Projects

Albania Forestry 1996 IBRD 21.60 4.15 1.54 * *


— 42 — — 43 —— 42 —

Annex 1



Armenia Natural Resources 2002 GEF REG 5.12 5.12 5.12 * * * * * * * Management and Poverty Reduction

Belarus Forest Biodiversity 1993 GEF REG 1.25 1.25 1.00 * * * Protection

Bosnia- Forestry 1998 IDA 20.20 1.85 0.64 * * * Herzegovina

Bulgaria Wetlands 2002 GEF REG 13.28 10.60 5.99 * * * * * Restoration and Pollution Reduction

Croatia Kopacki Rit 1999 GEF MSP 2.20 2.20 0.80 * * * * * * * Wetlands Management

Croatia Karst Ecosystem 2002 GEF REG 8.37 8.37 5.07 * * * * * * Conservation

Czech Biodiversity 1994 GEF REG 2.75 2.75 2.00 * * * * Republic Protection

Estonia Haapsalu and 1995 IBRD 8.37 0.48 0.11 * * * * * * * Matsalu Bays

Georgia Integrated Coastal 1999 IDA 6.30 6.30 2.10 * * * * * * * Management

Georgia Protected Areas 2001 GEF REG 10.30 8.70 8.70 * * * * Development

Latvia Liepaja 1995 IBRD 21.17 0.50 0.00 * * * * * * * Environment

Lithuania Klaipeda 1995 IBRD 23.10 1.50 0.00 * * * Environment

Moldova Lower Dniester 2002 GEF MSP 1.71 1.71 0.98 * * * * * * Delta Ecosystem

Poland Forest Biodiversity 1992 GEF REG 6.20 6.20 4.50 * * * * * * * * Protection

Poland Forestry 1994 IBRD 335.40 14.00 2.00 * * Development


— 42 — — 43 —— 42 —

Annex 1



Regional Central Asia 1999 GEF REG 13.65 13.65 10.15 * * * * *Central Asia: TransboundaryKyrgyzstan, BiodiversityKazakhstan,Uzbekistan

Romania Danube Delta 1995 GEF REG 4.80 4.80 4.50 * * * * Biodiversity

Romania Biodiversity 1999 GEF REG 8.80 8.80 5.50 * * * * Conservation

Russia Biodiversity 1996 GEF REG 26.00 26.00 20.10 * * Conservation

Russia Sustainable 2000 IBRD 74.50 20.35 16.39 * * * * Forestry Pilot

Russia Khabarovsk 2002 GEF MSP 1.75 1.75 0.75 * * * * * Habitat Conservation

Slovak Biodiversity 1994 GEF REG 2.86 2.86 2.17 * * * * Republic Protection

Slovak Central European 2000 GEF MSP 1.30 0.18 0.18 * *Republic Grasslands

Turkey Biodiversity and 2000 GEF REG 11.54 11.54 8.19 * * * * * Natural Resource Management

Ukraine Transcarpathian 1994 GEF REG 0.58 0.58 0.50 * * * * Biodiversity Protection

Ukraine Danube Delta 1995 GEF REG 1.74 1.74 1.50 * * * * Biodiversity

Ukraine Azov Black Sea 2002 GEF REG 6.90 6.90 6.90 * * * * * Corridor

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN REGION: 84 Projects

Argentina Yacyreta 1993 IBRD 2591.10 4.50 4.50 * * * * * * * Hydroelectric Project II

Argentina Flood Protection 1997 IBRD 488.00 3.60 1.48 * * *


— 44 — — 45 —— 44 —

Annex 1



Argentina Native Forests and 1997 IBRD 30.00 30.00 19.50 * * * Protected Areas

Argentina Biodiversity 1998 GEF REG 21.90 21.90 10.10 * * * Conservation

Argentina Indigenous 2001 IBRD LIL 5.88 2.94 2.50 * * Community Development

Belize Northern Belize 1999 GEF MSP 3.88 3.88 0.72 * * * * * Biological Corridors

Belize Community 2003 GEF MSP 1.07 1.07 0.81 * * * * * Management Sarstoon Temash Project

Bolivia Biodiversity 1993 GEF REG 7.60 7.60 4.50 * * * * * * Conservation

Bolivia PROMETA — 2001 GEF MSP 1.13 1.13 0.72 * * * * * Strengthening of Private Protection

Bolivia Sustainability of 2001 GEF REG 43.69 43.69 15.00 * * * * * the National System of Protected Areas

Bolivia National Land 2002 IBRD 6.00 0.05 0.05 * Administration — Supplemental

Brazil Land Management I 1989 IBRD 149.10 4.70 1.98 * * * * * * * — Parana

Brazil Land Management II 1990 IBRD 76.30 4.30 1.98 * * * * * * * — Santa Catarina

Brazil National 1990 IBRD 166.40 166.40 117.00 * * * * * * * Environmental

Brazil Mato Grosso 1992 IBRD 285.70 48.50 44.70 * * * Natural Resource Management

Brazil Rondonia Natural 1992 IBRD 228.90 38.70 35.90 * * * * Resource Management


— 44 — — 45 —— 44 —

Annex 1



Brazil Extractive Reserves 1995 RFTF 18.60 18.60 10.12 * * * *

Brazil Indigenous Lands 1995 RFTF 26.16 26.16 2.10 * * * *

Brazil Natural Resources 1995 RFTF 81.14 10.14 4.62 * * Policy

Brazil National Biodiversity 1996 GEF REG 20.00 20.00 10.00 * * * * Project PROBIO

Brazil National Biodiversity 1996 GEF REG 34.50 34.50 20.00 * * * * Fund (FUNBIO)

Brazil Environmental 1996 IBRD 109.00 10.90 5.00 * * Conservation and Rehabilitation

Brazil Forest Resources 1997 RFTF 17.14 4.28 0.50 * * * * * * Management

Brazil Bahia Water 1998 IBRD 85.00 6.87 4.10 * * * Resources Management

Brazil Gas Sector 1998 IBRD 2086.00 8.40 0.52 * * Development

Brazil Ceara Integrated 2000 IBRD 247.20 5.90 5.90 * * Water Resource Management

Brazil Ecological Corridors 2002 RFTF 5.16 5.16 3.90 * * * * * * *

Brazil Parana Biodiversity 2002 GEF REG 22.86 22.86 8.00 * * * * * * * *

Brazil Amazon Region 2003 GEF REG 81.50 81.50 30.00 * * * * * * * * Protected Areas

Chile Valdivian Forest 2001 GEF MSP 0.73 0.73 0.73 * * * * *

Colombia Natural Resource 1994 IBRD 65.30 11.60 6.93 * * * * Management Program

Colombia Western Slope of 1999 GEF MSP 2.96 2.96 0.73 * * * * * * Serrania del Baudo

Colombia Toll Road 1999 IBRD 572.30 1.70 0.00 * * Concession


— 46 — — 47 —— 46 —

Annex 1



Colombia Archipelago of 2000 GEF MSP 4.16 4.16 0.98 * * * San Andres

Colombia Sierra Nevada 2000 IBRD LIL 6.25 6.25 5.00 * * * * * * * Sustainable Development

Colombia Andean Region 2001 GEF REG 30.00 30.00 15.00 * * * * * * * Conservation and Sustainable Use

Colombia Mataven Forest 2001 GEF MSP 1.37 1.37 0.73 * * *

Costa Rica Biodiversity 1998 GEF REG 11.00 11.00 7.00 * * * * * Resources Development

Costa Rica EcoMarkets 2000 GEF REG 8.00 8.00 8.00 * * * *

Costa Rica EcoMarkets 2000 IBRD 41.20 27.47 21.53 * * * *

Ecuador Lower Guayas 1991 IBRD 97.50 1.80 1.09 * * * * * * * Flood Control

Ecuador Rural Development 1992 IBRD 112.70 1.93 1.44 * * *

Ecuador Biodiversity 1994 GEF REG 8.70 8.70 7.20 * * * * * Protection

Ecuador Indigenous and 1998 IBRD 50.00 6.91 3.47 * * * * Afro-Ecuadorian Peoples Development

Ecuador Monitoring System 1999 GEF MSP 1.59 1.59 0.94 * * * * * * * for the Galapagos

Ecuador Wetland Priorities 1999 GEF MSP 0.91 0.91 0.72 * * * * for Conservation

Ecuador Choco-Andean 2001 GEF MSP 3.19 3.19 0.98 * * * Corridor

Ecuador National System of 2003 GEF REG 32.70 32.70 8.00 * * * * * * * Protected Areas

Grenada Dry Forest 2001 GEF MSP 1.13 1.13 0.72 * * * * * Biodiversity Conservation


— 46 — — 47 —— 46 —

Annex 1



Guatemala Laguna del Tigre 2000 GEF MSP 1.66 1.66 0.72 * * *

Guatemala Western Altiplano 2001 GEF REG 8.00 8.00 8.00 * * Integrated Natural Resource Management

Guatemala Western Altiplano 2001 IBRD 47.60 47.60 32.80 * * * Integrated Natural Resource Management

Guatemala Community 2002 GEF MSP 1.48 1.48 0.75 * * * * * * Management of the Bio-Itza Reserve

Haiti Forest and Parks 1997 IDA 22.50 22.50 21.50 * * * Technical Assistance

Honduras Biodiversity in 1998 GEF REG 9.50 9.50 7.00 * * * Priority Areas

Honduras Interactive 1999 IDA 9.30 2.33 2.08 * * * Environmental Learning and Science

Mexico Decentralization 1991 IBRD 1362.70 40.00 15.08 * * * * * * * and Regional Development

Mexico Protected Areas 1992 GEF REG 10.70 10.70 8.70 * * * * Program

Mexico Northern Border 1994 IBRD 762.00 15.00 7.24 * * *

Mexico Protected Areas 1997 GEF REG 34.55 34.55 17.48 * * * * Program: Proposed Restructuring

Mexico El Triunfo 1999 GEF MSP 2.12 2.12 0.73 * * * * Biosphere Reserve

Mexico Indigenous and 2001 GEF REG 7.50 7.50 7.50 * * * * * * Community Biodiversity

Mexico Mesoamerican 2001 GEF REG 85.80 85.80 14.84 * * * * Biological Corridor


— 48 — — 49 —— 48 —

Annex 1



Mexico Private Land 2002 GEF MSP 2.53 2.53 0.73 * * * Conservation Mechanisms Project

Mexico Consolidation of 2002 GEF REG 60.12 60.12 31.00 * * * * * * * Protected Areas — SINAP II

Nicaragua Agricultural 1994 IDA 57.80 0.50 0.38 * * Technology and Land Management

Nicaragua Atlantic Biological 1997 GEF REG 7.10 7.10 7.10 * * * * Corridor

Nicaragua Barrier Removal 2001 GEF MSP 12.08 12.08 0.73 * * and Forest Habitat Conservation (Coffee/Allspice)

Nicaragua Land Administration 2002 IDA 38.50 5.17 4.37 * * * * *

Panama Atlantic 1998 GEF REG 12.80 12.80 8.40 * * * * * Meso-american Biodiversity Corridor

Panama San Lorenzo 1999 GEF MSP 2.23 2.23 0.73 * * * * * * *

Panama Land Administration 2001 IBRD 72.36 8.92 5.90 * * * *

Paraguay Natural Resources 1994 IBRD 79.10 14.83 9.38 * * * * * Management

Paraguay Mbaracayú 2003 GEF MSP 3.00 3.00 0.97 * * * Biodiversity

Peru Trust Fund for 1995 GEF REG 7.86 7.86 5.00 * * * * * Parks and PAs

Peru Vilcabamba — 2000 GEF MSP 1.14 1.14 0.73 * * * * * Indigenous Communities

Peru Northwest 2000 GEF MSP 2.07 2.07 0.73 * * * * * Biosphere Reserve

Peru The Nanay River 2001 GEF MSP 0.95 0.95 0.75 * * * * * Basin


— 48 — — 49 —— 48 —

Annex 1



Peru Indigenous 2001 GEF REG 14.61 14.61 10.00 * * * * * * * Management in the Peruvian Amazon

Peru Indigenous 2001 IBRD 8.14 8.14 5.00 * * * * * * Management of in the Peruvian Amazon

Peru Participatory 2003 GEF REG 32.81 32.81 14.80 * * * * * * * Management of Protected Areas — PROFONANPE II

Regional: The Mesoamerican 2001 GEF REG 24.20 24.20 11.00 * * * * * * * Central Barrier Reef SystemAmerica

Regional Ship-Generated 1995 GEF REG 5.50 0.20 0.20 * * * * * * *Eastern Waste ManagementCaribbean

Venezuela Inparques 1995 IBRD 95.90 95.90 55.00 * * * *

MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA REGION: 14 Projects

Algeria Pilot Forestry and 1992 IBRD 37.40 0.40 0.27 * Watershed Management

Algeria El Kala National 1994 GEF REG 9.56 9.56 7.20 * * * Park and Wetlands

Egypt Red Sea Coastal 1993 GEF REG 5.73 5.73 4.75 * * * * * * * and Marine

Egypt Second Matruh 2003 GEF REG 5.17 5.17 5.17 * * * Resource Management

Iran Irrigation 1993 IBRD 311.70 4.00 0.40 * * * * * * * Improvement

Jordan Gulf of Aqaba 1996 GEF REG 3.50 3.50 2.70 * * * * * * * Environmental Action Plan


— 50 — — 51 —— 50 —

Annex 1



Jordan Second Tourism 1998 IBRD 44.00 9.00 6.55 * * * * * * * Development

Jordan Medicinal and 2003 GEF REG 14.21 14.21 5.00 * * * Herbal Plants

Morocco Protected Areas 2000 GEF REG 15.70 15.70 10.50 * * * * * Management

Regional: Strategic Action 1999 GEF REG 36.60 12.95 2.11 * * * * * * *Red Sea & Plan for the Gulf of Aden Red Sea

Syria Protected Areas 1999 GEF MSP 1.43 1.43 0.75 * * * Management

Tunisia Second Forestry 1993 IBRD 148.10 1.63 0.87 * * Development

Tunisia Protected Areas 2002 GEF REG 9.88 9.88 5.33 * * * * Management

Yemen Protected Areas 1999 GEF MSP 1.42 0.74 0.74 * * * * Management

SOUTH ASIA REGION: 20 Projects

Bangladesh Forest Resources 1992 IDA 58.70 27.20 22.10 * * * Management

Bangladesh Conservation in 1998 GEF REG 75.50 75.50 12.20 * * * the Sundarbans Reserved Forest

Bhutan Trust Fund for 1992 GEF REG 18.58 18.58 10.00 * * * * Environmental Conservation

Bhutan Third Forestry 1994 IDA 8.90 1.80 1.09 * * * Development

India West Bengal 1992 IDA 39.00 6.50 5.67 * * * * Forestry

India Maharashtra 1992 IDA 142.00 31.24 27.28 * * * * * Forestry

India Andhra Pradesh 1994 IDA 89.10 28.80 25.02 * * * * * Forestry


— 50 — — 51 —— 50 —

Annex 1



India Forestry Research 1994 IDA 56.40 8.30 6.92 * * * Education and Extension

India Madhya Pradesh 1995 IDA 67.30 31.10 26.80 * * * * * * Forestry

India Ecodevelopment 1997 IDA 47.00 47.00 28.00 * * * *

India Ecodevelopment 1997 GEF REG 20.00 20.00 20.00 * * * *

India Uttar Pradesh 1998 IDA 65.01 19.93 16.23 * * * * * Forestry

India Kerala Forestry 1998 IDA 47.00 19.70 16.35 * * * * *

Pakistan Environmental 1992 IDA 57.20 6.40 3.00 * * * Protection and Resource Conservation

Pakistan Balochistan Natural 1994 IDA 17.80 4.65 3.84 * * * Resources Management

Pakistan Protected Areas 2001 GEF REG 10.75 10.75 10.08 * * *

Sri Lanka Forest Sector 1989 IDA 31.40 1.30 0.82 * * * * * * * Development

Sri Lanka Conservation and 1998 GEF REG 5.21 5.21 4.60 * * * * Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants

Sri Lanka Land Administration 2001 IDA 6.93 0.25 0.18 * * * and Management

Sri Lanka Protected Area 2001 GEF REG 33.50 33.50 9.00 * * * * Management and Wildlife Conservation

“…Natural habitats and ecosystems provide services

such as water flow, flood control and coastal protection

that reduce human vulnerability to natural hazards such

as drought, floods and hurricanes. Forests, grasslands

and aquatic habitats also provide benefits of global value

such as carbon sequestration, nutrient and hydrological

cycling and biodiversity conservation. …”

1818 H STREET, NW • WASHINGTON, DC 20433 USA • TEL: 202 473 1000 • FAX: 202 477 6391 • http://www.worldbank.org/biodiversityWORLD BANK ASSISTANCE FOR PROTECTED AREAS

1988 - 2

Cornerstonesfor Conservation

Documents

Public Disclosure Authorized 1988 - 2...MacKinnon, Gunars Platais, Claudia Sobrevila, Dirk Kloss and Valerie Hickey (Biodiversity Team) with generous input from Tony Whitten, B. Elbegzaya,