RESTRUCTURING PAPER ON A

Transcription

1 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Document of The World Bank RESTRUCTURING PAPER ON A Report No: GLB PROPOSED PROJECT RESTRUCTURING OF SECOND CRITICAL ECOSYSTEM PARTNERSHIP FUND PROJECT GRANT (TF091421) (Board Date: December 18, 2007) TO THE CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION May 18, 2012

2 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CEPF ESMF GEF GEO METT OP PMP RIT Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund Environmental and Social Management Framework Global Environment Facility Global Environmental Objective Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool Operational Policy Pest Management Plan Regional Implementation Team Regional Vice President: Country Director: Sector Manager / Director: Task Team Leader: Rachel Kyte Mary A. Barton-Dock Sari Söderström Feyzioglu Valerie Hickey 2

3 Restructuring Restructuring Type: Level one Last modified on date : 05/17/2012 Status: Submitted to SECPO 1. Basic Information Project ID & Name P100198: 1W-Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund 2 Country World Task Team Leader Valerie Hickey Sector Manager/Director Sari K. Soderstrom Country Director Mary A. Barton-Dock Original Board Approval Date 12/18/2007 Original Closing Date: 12/31/2012 Current Closing Date 12/31/2012 Proposed Closing Date [if applicable] 12/31/2014 EA Category C-Not Required Revised EA Category B-Partial Assessment-Partial Assessment EA Completion Date Revised EA Completion Date 10/17/ Revised Financing Plan (US$m) Source Original Revised BORR FRDE GEFU ZFOU Total Borrower Organization Department Location Conservation International Foundation 4. Implementing Agency Organization Department Location i

4 5. Disbursement Estimates (US$m) Actual amount disbursed as of 06/18/ Fiscal Year Annual Cumulative Total Policy Exceptions and Safeguard Policies Does the restructured project require any exceptions to Bank policies? N Does the restructured projects trigger any new safeguard policies? If yes, please select from the checklist below and update ISDS accordingly before submitting the package. Y Safeguard Policy Last Rating Proposed Environmental Assessment (OD 4.01) X Natural Habitats (OP 4.04) Forestry (OP 4.36) X Pest Management (OP 4.09) X X Physical Cultural Resources (OP 4.11) Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20) X Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12) X Safety of Dams (OP 4.37) Projects in International Waterways (OP 7.50) Projects in Disputed Areas (OP 7.60) 7a. Project Development Objectives/Outcomes Original/Current Project Development Objectives/Outcomes The Project Development Objective is to strengthen the involvement and effectiveness of civil society in contributing to the conservation and management of globally important biodiversity. The Global Environmental Objective is to achieve sustainable conservation and integrated ecosystem management in areas of globally important biodiversity, through consolidating conservation outcomes in existing CEPF regions and expanding funding to new critical ecosystems. 7b. Revised Project Development Objectives/Outcomes [if applicable] 11

5 SECOND CRITICAL ECOSYSTEM PARTNERSHIP FUND CONTENTS Page A. SUMMARY B. PROJECT STATUS C. PROPOSED CHANGES... 4 D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY ANNEX 1: RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND MONITORING

6

7 A. SUMMARY SECOND CRITICAL ECOSYSTEM PARTNERSHIP FUND RESTRUCTURING PAPER The proposed changes will help the Borrower meet the Project's Global Environmental Objective (GEO) by extending the closing date for 24 months to December 31, 2014, accelerating disbursement by changing the disbursement ratio from 26.3 percent to 50 percent for sub-grants, triggering OP 4.09 (Pest Management) to meet the operational realities of needing to address invasive species on islands, and reducing the target of one outcome indicator while increasing two others to maintain a commitment to conservation gains in a total of 29m hectares. B. PROJECT STATUS The second phase of the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) that started in 2008 has been effective at supporting conservation efforts in multiple regions with pronounced concentrations of threatened species and harboring globally significant biodiversity and ecosystems. CEPF is unique among conservation funding mechanisms in that it focuses on building civil society capacity to protect global, high-priority biological areas and examines conservation threats on a landscape scale. CEPF has been successful at identifying and supporting a regional, rather than a national, approach to achieving conservation outcomes and engages a wide range of private, non-governmental and community institutions to support nations in addressing conservation needs through coordinated regional efforts. CEPF is a global program, with projects spanning 53 countries that together strengthen the capacity of local civil society organizations worldwide. Its Project Development Objective is to strengthen the involvement and effectiveness of civil society in contributing to the conservation and management ofglobally important biodiversity. Against a target of engaging at least 600 civil society actors in conservation actions, CEPF has provided grants to 300. Of the total disbursements to date, almost half have been received by local civil society organizations; the other half has been allocated to international non-government organizations. Since its inception in 2000, CEPF has invested in 20 biodiversity hotspots. Nonetheless, progress towards its GEO (conservation outcomes consolidated in existing CEPF regions and funding expanded to new ecosystems in order to achieve strategic and sustainable conservation and integrated ecosystem management in areas ofglobally important biodiversity) has not met expectations. While the Project has met the target of investing in 14 hotspots, only five - and not nine - of these are new hotspots (Indo-Burma, Western Ghats of India, Polynesia-Micronesia, the Caribbean Islands and Maputaland- Pondoland-Albany). The Project is therefore currently in a "moderately satisfactory" status. Two additional new hotspots (the Mediterranean Basin and the Eastern AfroMontane landscape) have been profiled, with investments scheduled to begin by the second half of Profiling of an eighth new hotspot (the East Melanesian Islands) is underway. By focusing on consolidating investments in "old" hotspots, as opposed to 4

8 new hotspots, the Project has only succeeded in conserving globally important biodiversity in a total of 8,203,014 hectares out of the targeted 29 million hectares. Most of this conservation has happened by already surpassing the target (one million hectares) for conservation in production landscapes and being on target to meet the target (twenty million hectares) for conservation in key biodiversity areas outside of official protected areas. Conversely, the Project is behind meeting its target (eight million hectares) to gazette new protected areas. During the mid-term review mission in June 2011, the mission found that disbursements remain behind schedule by 17 months. This delay is caused by three factors: it was necessary to first profile hotspots prior to investing there, but GEF financing only covers actual investments; the current disbursement ratio for sub-grants under the Project - the sole disbursement category under this Project - of 26.3 percent coupled with a delay in beginning investments in new hotspots resulted in small disbursement totals overall; and the need to receive endorsement of the hotspot profile from each country's Global Environment Facility (GEF) Operational Focal Point (which has taken an average of 19 months) further slowed and reduced the overall disbursement totals. C. PROPOSED CHANGES Results/indicators The target for one outcome indicator - At least eight million hectares of new protected areas - is being revised downward to reflect operational realities. The target is unrealistic given the opportunities for new protected area gazettement in the eight new hotspots. It turns out that the areas available for new protected areas are either very small or national governments have already completed the bulk of their gazetting. Because the decision on where to invest was only made by the Donor Council during project implementation, at the time of project design it was originally assumed that this second phase of CEPF could achieve similar gazetting of new protected areas as during the first phase, thus the target was set at eight million hectares. Of the potential hotspots among which the Donor Council will identify the ninth and final hotspot for investment under CEPF - the Valdivian Forest, the Cerrado, Madrean Pine- Oak Woodlands, the Mountains of Central Asia or Wallacea - none have large portions of land currently unprotected that could be gazetted as new protected areas. These new hotspots consist of landscapes with already existing, if under-resourced, protected areas or areas mostly comprising production landscapes that require conservation concerns to be mainstreamed, with little opportunity or need to gazette new protected areas. On the other hand, this new conservation trend, allowing for more landscape-based conservation systems to ensure the protection of biodiversity through areas that are conserved outside the boundaries of formal protected areas, has allowed CEPF to exceed its original commitment of at least 1 million hectares in production landscapes managed for biodiversity conservation or sustainable use by already securing conservation gains in over 2.2 million hectares of production landscapes. 5

9 More importantly, the Project remains committed to achieving conservation gains in an area of 29 million hectares in total. It will offset the reduced target for new protected areas by increasing the targets under the other two land-based outcome indicators. Out of these total 29 million hectares of improved protection included in the 3 indicators (20 million hectares of strengthened protection, 8 million hectares of new protected areas, and 1 million hectares of production landscapes), the targets will shift to 24 million hectares, 1.5 million hectares, and 3.5 million hectares respectively. While maintaining the total improved protection target, this change will more accurately reflect the changing nature of conservation practice to give increased emphasis on improving conservation in non-protected areas. Safeguards The Project originally triggered four safeguards: OP 4.01 (Environmental Assessment), OP 4.36 (Forests), OP 4.10 (Indigenous Peoples) and OP 4.12 (Involuntary Resettlement). However, following the identification of the Pacific Islands, the Caribbean and the East-Melanesian Islands as priority new hotspots for investment, it is now necessary to trigger OP 4.09 (Pest Management). Pest management approaches that include the use of chemical pesticides and rodenticides are necessary as an integral piece of an integrated pest management approach to eradicating invasive species on islands. Invasive alien species are driving extinctions on small islands. Islands make up only 3 percent of the earth's land area, but harbor 20 percent of all bird, reptile and plant species. Extinction rates are also exponentially greater on islands: 95 percent of bird extinctions, 90 percent of reptiles, 69 percent of mammals and 68 percent of plants have occurred on islands, with most of these extinctions caused by invasive species, such as rats. Once invasive species are removed from islands, native species and island ecosystems recover with little or no additional intervention. The Recipient has prepared a Pest Management Plan (PMP) to guide CEPF grantees in the purchase, storage, application and disposal of pesticides. The PMP, as part of the Project's Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), outlines how the CEPF Secretariat, in coordination with its Regional Implementation Team, will identify when the use of pesticides is appropriate, assess the grantee's capacity to implement appropriate safeguard actions, clear the grantee's PMP, supervise their actions and monitor results. Disbursement In order to accelerate the disbursements, the Project will increase the disbursement ratio for sub-grants under the project from 26.3 percent to 50 percent. This will not affect the number of investment hotspots the Project is targeted to support, particularly given the co-financing contribution of new donors to the Project. There will be no reallocation between categories. Closing date 6

10 The Project will be extended by 24 months from an original closing date of December 31, 2012 to December 31, 2014 to enable it to meet its Global Environmental Objective and secure conservation gains in at least 29m hectares. This is the Project's first extension. D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY The appraisal summary remains the same, except for the Environment category. Earlier categorized as a C, the Project now carries a B Environmental Category given the potential impacts from the use of pesticides to eradicate invasive species. The Project has updated its existing ESMF with a Pest Management Plan as explained above. 7

11 ANNEX 1: Results Framework and Monitoring WORLD: SECOND CRITICAL ECOSYSTEM PARTNERSHIP FUND Project Development Objective (PDO): To strengthen the involvement and effectiveness of civil society in contributing to the conservation and management of globally important biodiversity. Revised Project Development Objective: D=Dropped Cumulative Target Values** E C=Continue Unit of Cumuativ Target Data Source/ Responsibility for PDO Level Results Indicators C N= New Measure Baseline YR YR YR YR YR YR Frequency Methodology Data Collection R=Revised 1 YR Indicator One: C Number 0 3 Depe Dep Dep Dep Dep 14 Annual Grant tracking Secretariat At least 14 critical of ndent end end end end system ecosystems/hotspots with hotspots on ent ent ent ent active investment programs E DC on on on on involving civil society in decis DC DC DC DC conservation, including at least ion deci deci deci deci 9 new regions. sion sion sion sion Indicator Two: C Number Midterm and end of Grant tracking Secretariat, RITs At least 600 civil society of civil both Profile and system/rit actors, including NGOs and the society Project reports GEF private sector, actively E entities METTs participate in conservation programs guided by the CEPF ecosystem profiles. Indicator Three: R Hectares Midterm and end of SPI METT, Secretariat, RITs At least 24 million hectares of (ha) both Profile and RIT/grantee key biodiversity areas with E Project reports strengthened protection and management. Indicator Four: E R Hectares Midterm and end of SPI METT, Secretariat, RITs At least 1.5 million hectares of (ha) both Profile and RIT/grantee new protected areas Project reports established. Indicator Five: E R Hectares Midterm and end of RIT/grantee Secretariat, RITs At least 3.5 million hectares in (ha) both Profile and reports production landscapes managed Project for biodiversity conservation or sustainable use.