GEF 5. Focal Area. strategies

Transcription

1 GEF 5 Foca Area strategies

2

3 GEF-5 Foca Area Strategies CONTENTS Biodiversity Strategy for GEF-5 1 Cimate Change Foca Area Strategy for GEF Cimate Change Mitigation Resuts Framework Internationa Waters Foca Area Strategy for GEF GEF 5 Internationa Waters (IW) Resuts Framework Land Degradation (Desertification and Deforestation) Strategy for GEF LD FA Resuts-Based Management Framework Chemicas Strategy for GEF-5 71 Chemicas Resuts Framework Sustainabe Forest Management (SFM)/REDD-PLUS Strategy for GEF SFM/REDD-pus Resuts Framework 98 GEF-5 Cross-Cutting Capacity Deveopment Strategy 99 Programming Frameworks 105 Poicy and program inkages GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 1

4 GORILLA Scientific Name: Goria goria Status: Criticay Endangered Threat: HABITAT DESTRUCTION AND POACHING

5 Biodiversity Strategy for GEF-5 BACKGROUND The Status of Biodiversity Biodiversity is defined as the variabiity among iving organisms from a sources incuding, inter aia, terrestria, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecoogica compexes of which they are part; this incudes diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems 1. As such, biodiversity is ife itsef, but it aso supports a ife on the panet, and its functions are responsibe for maintaining the ecosystem processes that provide food, water, and materias to human societies. Thus the interventions identified in this document are integra components of any effective strategy for human adaptation to cimate change. Biodiversity is under heavy threat and its oss is considered one of the most critica chaenges to humankind. Current rates of extinction exceed those in the fossi record by a factor of up to 1000 times. The interim report of the goba study, The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity (TEEB) reinforces the concusion of the Miennium Ecosystem Assessment that ecosystem services are being degraded or used unsustainaby with severe socio-economic consequences for human societies and for the future of a ife on the panet 2. 1 Convention on Bioogica Diversity. 2 Miennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Ecosystems and Human We-being: Synthesis, Isand Press, Washington DC. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 1

6 Evoution of the Biodiversity Foca Area at the GEF During GEF-1 and GEF-2, strategic direction for the biodiversity foca area was provided by the GEF operationa strategy, the GEF operationa programs and guidance provided to the GEF from the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the Convention on Bioogica Diversity (CBD). The GEF deveoped its first targeted biodiversity strategy in GEF-3 to compement and further focus its operationa programs and to respond to evauation findings 3. The GEF-3 strategy incorporated principes to achieve asting biodiversity conservation and sustainabe use and thereby: a) paced greater emphasis on sustainabiity of resuts and the potentia for repication; b) moved beyond a projectsbased emphasis to strategic approaches that strengthened country enabing environments (poicy and reguatory frameworks, institutiona capacity buiding, science and information, awareness); c) mainstreamed biodiversity conservation and sustainabe use in the wider economic deveopment context; and (d) increased support for sustainabe use and benefit sharing. The changes impemented in the GEF-3 strategy formed the foundation upon which subsequent GEF strategies have been buit. The strategy for each new phase has maintained continuity with these basic tenets of sustainabiity whie incorporating new findings on good practice in biodiversity conservation and sustainabe use. BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The Miennium Ecosystem Assessment identified the most important direct drivers of biodiversity oss and degradation of ecosystem goods and services as habitat change, cimate change, invasive aien species, overexpoitation, and poution. These drivers are infuenced by a series of indirect drivers of change incuding demographics, goba economic trends, governance, institutions and ega frameworks, science and technoogy, and cutura and reigious vaues. The biodiversity strategy in GEF-4 addressed a subset of the direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity oss and focused on the highest everage opportunities for the GEF to contribute to sustainabe biodiversity conservation 4. The GEF-5 strategy wi maintain coherence with the GEF-4 strategy whie proposing refinements to the strategy s objectives based on COP-9 guidance, advances in conservation practice, and advice from the GEF s Scientific and Technica Advisory Pane. The ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Bioogica Diversity (CBD) acknowedged that the GEF-4 strategy served as a usefu starting point for the GEF-5 strategy and requested GEF to buid on it for the fifth repenishment based on the four year framework of program priorities deveoped by COP-9 5. Annex One shows the reationship between the COP guidance and the GEF strategy. The goa of the biodiversity foca area is the conservation and sustainabe use of biodiversity and the maintenance of ecosystem goods and services. To achieve this goa, the strategy encompasses five objectives: improve the sustainabiity of protected area systems; mainstream biodiversity conservation and sustainabe use into production andscapes/ seascapes and sectors; buid capacity to impement the Cartagena Protoco on Biosafety; buid capacity on access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing; and integrate CBD obigations into nationa panning processes through enabing activities. Peruvian poison frog Scientific Name: Deandrobates reticoatus Status: Endangered Threat: Agrochemica poution and habitat oss 2 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

7 Sea Turte Scientific Name: Lepidocheys kempii Status: Criticay Endangered Threat: CLIMATE CHANGE, BLACK MARKET TRADE, FISHING INDUSTRY Objective One: Improve Sustainabiity of Protected Area Systems 6 Rationae The GEF defines a sustainabe protected area system as one that: a) has sufficient and predictabe financia resources avaiabe, incuding externa funding, to support protected area management costs; b) effectivey protects ecoogicay viabe representative sampes of the country s ecosystems and provides adequate coverage of threatened species at a sufficient scae to ensure their ong term persistence; and c) retains adequate individua and institutiona capacity to manage protected areas such that they achieve their conservation objectives. GEF support wi strengthen these fundamenta aspects of protected area systems to acceerate their current trajectory towards ong-term sustainabiity. Capacity buiding at the nationa and oca eves to support effective management of individua protected areas and protected area systems wi remain an ongoing priority and an integra part of project interventions. GEF wi continue to promote the participation and capacity buiding of indigenous and oca communities in the design, impementation, and management of protected area projects through estabished frameworks such as indigenous and community conserved areas (ICCAs). 7 GEF wi aso promote protected area co-management between government and indigenous and oca communities where such management modes are appropriate. Deveoping cimate-resiient protected area systems remains a chaenge for most protected area managers because the scientific understanding and technica basis for informed decision-making on adaptation or resiiency measures is in its nascent stages. To hep overcome these technica chaenges, GEF wi support the deveopment and integration of adaptation and resiience Rising sea eves in Mukherji management measures as part of protected area management projects. This support is important to ensure that GEF s investments wi continue to contribute to the sustainabiity of nationa protected area systems. Increase Financing of Protected Area Systems Restricted government budgets in many countries have reduced the financia support for protected area management. Thus new financing strategies for protected area systems are critica to reduce existing funding gaps. Furthermore, protected area agencies and administrations are often i-equipped to respond to the commercia opportunities that protected areas provide through the sustainabe use of biodiversity. Hence targeted capacity buiding is aso required. GEF-supported interventions wi use toos and revenue mechanisms that are responsive to specific country situations (e.g., conservation trust funds, systems of payments for environmenta services, debtfor-nature swaps) and draw on accepted good practices deveoped by GEF and others. 8 GEF wi aso encourage nationa poicy reform and incentives to engage the private sector and other stakehoders to improve protected area financia sustainabiity. Expand Ecosystem and Threatened Species Representation within Protected Area Systems GEF has been recognized for its substantive contribution to the goba achievement of the 10-percent target of the word s and area under protection. 9 However, the marine area under protection remains ow. In GEF-4, the GEF sought to redress this disparity through investments to increase the representation of marine ecosystems in protected area systems. The GEF wi continue this focus in GEF-5. Whie not a countries have marine ecosystems under their nationa jurisdiction, many countries have identified gaps at the nationa eve in the coverage of terrestria ecosystems and threatened species, which coincide with existing goba eve representation gaps. Both of these gaps wi be addressed in GEF-5. 3 Biodiversity Program Study, Decision CBD COP IX/31. 6 A protected area system coud incude a nationa system, a sub-system of a nationa system, a municipa-eve system, or a oca eve system or a combination of these. 7 Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas (ICCAs) are natura sites, resources and species habitats conserved in vountary and sef-directed ways by indigenous peopes and oca communities. 8 GEF Experience with Conservation Trust Funds (GEF Evauation Report # 1-99). 9 OPS3: Progressing Toward Environmenta Resuts, Third Overa Performance Study of the GEF. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 3

8 Improve Management Effectiveness of Existing Protected Areas 10 The sustainabiity of a protected area system requires that each protected area site is effectivey managed according to its specific demands. Some areas wi require a ow eve of management activity whie others may require a greater management effort to achieve their conservation objectives. 11 In some instances the most efficient way to improve the system s sustainabiity wi be to focus on improved site eve management for each protected area within the system. Project Support Improve Sustainabe Financing of Protected Area Systems: GEF wi support the deveopment and impementation of comprehensive, system-eve financing soutions and hep buid the capacity required to achieve financia sustainabiity. Expand Marine and Terrestria Ecosystem Representation: GEF wi support efforts to address the marine ecosystem coverage gap within nationa eve systems through the creation and effective management of coasta and near shore protected area networks, incuding no-take zones, to conserve and sustainaby use marine biodiversity. GEF wi aso support the creation and effective management of new protected areas to expand terrestria and inand water ecosystem representation within protected area systems. Conserving habitat for andraces and wid crop reatives of species of economic importance may aso be incuded as part of this effort to reduce representation gaps. Expand Threatened Species Representation: GEF wi support the creation and effective management of new protected areas that extends the coverage of threatened species in protected area systems and improves the coverage of their spatia range. Improve Management Effectiveness of Existing Protected Areas: GEF wi support projects that aim to improve the management effectiveness of existing protected areas. This coud incude support to transboundary protected areas. Rapid deveopment into rich Biodiversity. Nicker s Fritiar y ButterfY Scientific Name: Meitaea Aureia Status: Vunerabe Threat: HABITAT Loss 4 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

9 Objective Two: Mainstream Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainabe Use into Production Landscapes/ Seascapes and Sectors Rationae The persistence of biodiversity, incuding threatened species that are not soey dependent on site-based action, requires the sustainabe management of andscape and seascape mosaics that incude protected areas and a variety of other and and resource uses outside of these protected areas. Thus, in order to compement its investments to strengthen the sustainabiity of protected area systems, GEF wi promote measures to hep reduce the negative impacts that productive sectors exert on biodiversity, particuary outside of protected areas and those affecting andscape species, and highight the contribution of a components of biodiversity to ecosystem functioning, economic deveopment and human we being, a set of actions often referred to as mainstreaming. Biodiversity-dependent production sectors and those with arge ecoogica footprints that impact biodiversity-rich habitat, incuding habitat for threatened species that are dependent on andscapescae measures, wi be targeted: agricuture, fisheries, forestry, tourism, and the major extractive industries of oi and gas, and mining. GEF s strategy to support biodiversity mainstreaming focuses on the roe and potentia contributions of both the pubic and private sector. The strategy aims to strengthen the capacity of the pubic sector to manage and reguate the use of bioogica diversity in the productive andscape and seascape whie aso expoiting opportunities to support the production of biodiversity-friendy goods and services by resource managers and users incuding the private sector. Strengthen the Poicy and Reguatory Framework for Mainstreaming Biodiversity The incorporation of biodiversity conservation, sustainabe use, and benefit-sharing into broader poicy, ega, and reguatory frameworks is not taking pace in many GEF-eigibe countries because of a number of factors. These factors incude poor governance, weak capacity, conficting poicies (e.g., tenure regimes biased against ide ands), and the ack of scientific knowedge and incentives. Mainstreaming may yied substantia socia and economic benefits to pubic or private actors. However, these actors may be unaware of these benefits. In these circumstances, providing information on the economic vauation of biodiversity and its contribution to nationa deveopment and corporate interests is a key task. The Miennium Ecosystem Assessment advanced vauabe information on biodiversity and ecosystem services on a goba scae, but simiar efforts are required at the nationa and oca scaes where most poicy and production decisions regarding and- and oceanuse are made. This coud aso invove more effective use of nationa biodiversity strategies and action pans (NBSAPs) to foster mainstreaming of biodiversity into nationa deveopment strategies and programs. Even when pubic and private actors are aware of the benefits from effecting poicy and resource management changes, they may not have the capacity to act. In these cases, capacity buiding becomes paramount. In some cases, pubic and private actors may not have the incentive to act even if they have the capacity to do so. Incentives can often be created by changing poicies and programs that encourage economicay inefficient uses of ecosystems and species (e.g., strengthening property rights systems; removing perverse subsidies). In other cases, incentives can be created through the evoving mainstreaming too of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES). 12 In recognition of the importance that the COP paces on the threat that invasive aien species pose to biodiversity, particuary in isands and isand states, and most often in productive ands and oceans, GEF wi continue to support the deveopment of reguatory and management frameworks to prevent, contro and manage these species. Strengthen Capacities to Produce Biodiversity-friendy Goods and Services Environmenta certification systems expoit the wiingness of the market to pay a premium for goods and services whose production, distribution and consumption meets an environmenta standard. This wiingness creates market incentives for producers to improve their environmenta and/or socia practices to receive the price premium. GEF wi hep remove the barriers to enhancing, scaing up, repicating, and extending environmenta certification systems in productive andscapes and seascapes. 10 The GEF has been tracking protected area management effectiveness since GEF-3 and has appied the Management Effectiveness Tracking Too (METT) to quaitativey assess how we a protected area is being managed to achieve its conservation objectives. 11 This woud incude actions to manage threats to biodiversity incuding invasive aien species, but given the high cost of eradication and the ow success rates, projects wi prioritize prevention approaches. 12 Aso caed Payments for Environmenta Services. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 5

10 Institutiona frameworks are needed to repond rapidy to invasive species as shown above. Project Support Strengthen Poicy and Reguatory Frameworks: GEF wi support the deveopment and impementation of poicy and reguatory frameworks that provide incentives for private actors to aign their practices and behavior with the principes of sustainabe use and management. To this end, GEF interventions wi remove critica knowedge barriers and deveop requisite institutiona capacities. This wi incude support for sub-nationa and ocaeve appications--where impementation can be more effective- -of spatia and-use panning that incorporates biodiversity and ecosystem service vauation. GEF wi continue to support nationa, sub-nationa and oca PES schemes. Recent STAP guidance wi be appied, as appropriate, in the review of PES projects. 13 Impement Invasive Aien Species Management Frameworks: GEF wi support interventions that address the issue of invasive aien species systemicay through deveoping the sectora poicy, reguations, and institutiona arrangements for the prevention and management of invasions emphasizing a risk management approach by focusing on the highest risk invasion pathways. Priority wi be given to estabishing poicy measures that reduce the impact of invasive species on the environment, incuding through prevention of new incursions, eary detection and institutiona frameworks to respond rapidy to new incursions. Produce Biodiversity-friendy Goods and Services: To increase production of biodiversity-friendy goods, GEF wi focus its support on: a) improving product certification standards to capture goba biodiversity benefits; b) estabishing training systems for farmers and resource managers on how to improve management practices to meet certification standards; and c) faciitating access to financing for producers, cooperatives, and companies working towards producing certified goods and services. 6 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

11 Objective Three: Buid Capacity for the Impementation of the Cartagena Protoco on Biosafety (CPB) 14 Rationae The Cartagena Protoco on Biosafety seeks to protect bioogica diversity from the potentia risks posed by iving modified organisms resuting from modern biotechnoogy. GEF s strategy to buid capacity to impement the CPB prioritizes the impementation of activities that are identified in country stock-taking anayses and in the COP guidance to the GEF, in particuar the key eements in the Updated Action Pan for Buiding Capacities for the Effective Impementation of the CPB, agreed to at the third COP serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the CPB (COP-MOP-3). Project Support Singe-country projects: These projects wi be impemented when the characteristics of the eigibe country, as assessed in the stock-taking anaysis and the design of existing or panned future regiona or sub-regiona efforts in the area recommend a nationa approach for the impementation of the CPB in that country. 15 Regiona or sub-regiona projects: Providing support to eigibe countries through regiona or sub-regiona projects wi be pursued when there are opportunities for cost-effective sharing of imited resources and for coordination between biosafety frameworks. Regiona and sub-regiona approaches wi be pursued where stocktaking assessments support the potentia for: coordinating biosafety frameworks, interchange of regiona expertise, and capacity buiding of common priority areas. Thematic projects: A thematic approach can be an effective way to deveop the capacities of groups of countries acking competences in reevant fieds. This muti-country approach wi be pursued where stock-taking assessments support the needs of eigibe countries and where this approach woud foster the pooing of resources, economies of scae and internationa coordination. Objective Four: Buid Capacity on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Rationae Impementation of the CBD s third objective on access to genetic resources and benefit sharing has been sowed by the ack of capacity of most key stakehoder groups. Of particuar note is the difficuty in most countries to estabish a common understanding between providers and users of genetic resources and the associated traditiona knowedge of indigenous and oca communities. Project Support Prior to competion of negotiations of an internationa regime on ABS before the COP s tenth meeting in Nagoya, Japan, GEF wi support capacity buiding of governments for meeting their obigations under Artice 15 of the CBD, as we as buiding capacity within key stakehoder groups, incuding indigenous and oca communities, and the scientific community. This woud incude support for the estabishment of measures that promote concrete access and benefit-sharing agreements that recognize the core ABS principes of Prior Informed Consent (PIC) and Mutuay Agreed Terms (MAT) incuding the fair and equitabe sharing of benefits. Projects submitted prior to competion of the negotiations of the internationa regime shoud be consistent with the Bonn Guideines on ABS and the reated action pan on capacity buiding for ABS adopted under the Convention (Decision VII/19F). After competion of the negotiations of the internationa regime, the GEF wi fuy eucidate project support provided under this objective in consutation with the CBD Secretariat and COP Bureau for approva by GEF counci. CROCODILE Scientific Name: Crocodyidae Status: Endangered Threat: CLIMATE CHANGE AND LOSS OF HABITAT 13 Payment for Environmenta Services and the Goba Environment Faciity: A STAP Guideine Document, A Strategy for Financing Biosafety (Doc GEF/C.30/8/Rev.1) was approved by the GEF Counci at its December 2006 meeting. The fu ist of activities to be supported under this objective can be found in the fu strategy document at: ancingbiosafety.pdf 15 By the end of GEF-4, as many as 50 countries wi have received support for impementation of their Nationa Biosafety Frameworks. If that target is achieved, 75 eigibe countries are remaining to impement their NBFs eaving significant opportunities to provide ongoing support for singe country projects to acceerate impementation of the protoco. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 7

12 Objective Five: Integrate CBD Obigations into Nationa Panning Processes through Enabing Activities Rationae Enabing activities continue to pay an important roe in assisting nationa government institutions to meet their immediate obigations under the CBD, notaby the deveopment and revision of Nationa Biodiversity Strategy and Action Pans (NBSAPs), nationa reporting, and cearing house information functions. Enabing activities hep nationa executing agencies to integrate CBD obigations, strategies and work programs into the nationa panning process and hence can make critica contributions to the successfu mainstreaming of biodiversity into nationa deveopment panning frameworks and sector panning processes. In addition, increased understanding about the roe intact habitat and biodiversity pay to hep humans adapt to cimate change and advances in ecosystem service vauation provide an opportunity to incorporate this knowedge into the revision of NBSAPs. This shoud increase the potentia of NBSAPs to serve as effective vehices for mainstreaming biodiversity in sustainabe deveopment poicy and panning. Project Support Enabing activity support coud be provided for revising NBSAPs in ine with the CBD s new strategic pan to be adopted at COP-10 and integrating biodiversity into sectora panning, nationa reporting, and impementation of guidance reated to the Cearing House Mechanism (CHM). Foca Area Set-Aside (FAS) Countries wi be abe to access the foca area set-aside funds (FAS) to impement enabing activities for an amount up to $500,000 on an expedited basis. Amounts greater than that wi be provided from a country s nationa aocation. Enabing activity support coud be provided for revising Nationa Biodiversity Strategies and Action Pans (NBSAPs) in ine with the CBD s new strategic pan to be adopted at COP-10, nationa reporting, and impementation of guidance reated to the Cearing House Mechanism (CHM). The remaining funds in FAS wi be used to address supra-nationa strategic priorities or to incentivize countries to make substantive changes in the state of biodiversity at the nationa eve through participation in goba, regiona or muti-country projects. Projects supported with FAS funds wi meet some or a of the foowing criteria: (i) reevant to the objectives of GEF s biodiversity strategy; (ii) support priorities identified by the COP of the CBD; (iii) high ikeihood that the project wi have a broad and positive impact on biodiversity; (iv) potentia for repication; (v) goba demonstration vaue; and (vi) contribute to goba conservation knowedge through forma experimenta or quasi-experimenta designs that test and evauate the hypotheses embedded in project interventions. An incentive system woud operate for a regiona projects whereby participating countries woud receive resources from the FAS proportionate with the amount of resources dedicated to a project from their nationa aocation. Passion Fower Scientific Name: Passiforaceae Status: Endangered Threat: HABITAT DESTRUCTION AND UNSUSTAINABLE LOGGING 8 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

13 POLAR BEAR Scientific Name: Ursus Maritimus Status: Vunerabe Threat: Goba warming and Poution Consistent with the criteria identified beow for specia initiatives to be funded by the Foca Area Set-Aside (FAS), the biodiversity foca area wi partner with the internationa waters foca area and set aside $25 miion from the FAS to initiate a goba piot program focused on the protection of marine biodiversity in Areas Beyond Nationa Jurisdiction (ABNJ). This investment wi compement GEF s continued focus on increasing marine protected area coverage under nationa jurisdiction given that about 50% of the Earth s surface is considered the high seas, or marine areas beyond nationa jurisdiction. These offshore areas harbor about 90% of the Earth s biomass and host a diversity of species and ecosystems, many of which are yet to be discovered. As a resut, protection of the high seas has become an emerging priority in biodiversity conservation. Athough conservation and management of high seas marine protected areas pose a number governance chaenges and ega issues, the GEF beieves that it is important to begin earning how to impement and manage marine protected areas in the waters beyond nationa jurisdiction. The proposed piot is consistent with CBD COP Decision IX/20. The IPCC has been responsibe both for the resoution of important scientific questions reated to the nature and extent of the goba warming probem, as we as for ensuring those contributions effectivey permeate the poicy debate at the highest eves. However, the science-poicy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services is fragmented inside and outside of the CBD, impeding a simiar incrementa process from occurring for the important probem of biodiversity oss and ecosystem degradation. Poicy making in biodiversity conservation and ecosystem management at a eves can be further strengthened if supported by credibe, egitimate and saient scientific findings and recommendations which are provided by an intergovernmenta science-poicy patform, that buids on the GEF-funded Miennium Ecosystem Assessment findings. To address this need, CBD COP IX agreed to expore the estabishment of an Intergovernmenta Patform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The twenty-fifth session of the UNEP Governing Counci/Goba Ministeria Environmenta Forum adopted Decision 25/10 on the intergovernmenta science-poicy patform on biodiversity and ecosystem services, which accords UNEP the mandate to continue to faciitate discussions on strengthening the sciencepoicy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Supporting this emerging initiative coud be undertaken through a contribution from the FAS. SIBERIAN CRANE Scientific Name: Grus eucogeranus Status: CRITICALLY ENDANGERED Threat: HABITAT LOSS, WATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 9

14 TABLE 1: Biodiversity Resuts Framework 1 Goa: Impacts: Indicators: Conservation and sustainabe use of biodiversity and the maintenance of ecosystem goods and services. Biodiversity conserved and habitat maintained in nationa protected area systems. Conservation and sustainabe use of biodiversity integrated into production andscapes and seascapes. Intact vegetative cover and degree of fragmentation in nationa protected area systems measured in hectares as recorded by remote sensing. Intact vegetative cover and degree of fragmentation in production andscapes measured in hectares as recorded by remote sensing. Coasta zone habitat (cora reef, mangroves, etc) intact in marine protected areas and productive seascapes measured in hectares as recorded by remote sensing and, where possibe, supported by visua or other verification methods. Objectives Expected Outcomes and Indicators Outcome targets for $4.2 biion Target Tota Foca Area Aocation $1.20 biion Sustainabe Forest Management/REDD-pus $130 miion Objective 1: Improve Sustainabiity of Protected Area Systems Outcome 1.1: Improved management effectiveness of existing and new protected areas. Indicator 1.1: Protected area management effectiveness score as recorded by Management Effectiveness Tracking Too. Outcome 1.2: Increased revenue for protected area systems to meet tota expenditures required for management. Indicator1.2: Funding gap for management of protected area systems as recorded by protected area financing scorecards. $ 700 miion Eighty-percent (80%) of projects meet or exceed their protected area management effectiveness targets covering 170 miion hectares of existing or new protected areas. Eighty-percent (80%) of projects meet or exceed their target for reducing the protected area management funding gap in protected area systems that deveop and impement sustainabe financing pans. Core Outputs Output 1. New protected areas (number) and coverage (hectares) of unprotected ecosystems. Output 2. New protected areas (number) and coverage (hectares) of unprotected threatened species (number). Output 3. Sustainabe financing pans (number). Objective 2: Mainstream Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainabe Use into Production Landscapes, Seascapes and Sectors Outcome 2.1: Increase in sustainaby managed andscapes and seascapes that integrate biodiversity conservation. Indicator 2.1: Landscapes and seascapes certified by internationay or nationay recognized environmenta standards that incorporate biodiversity considerations (e.g. FSC, MSC) measured in hectares and recorded by GEF tracking too. $250 miion Sustainabe use and management of biodiversity in 60 miion hectares of production andscapes and seascapes. Output 1. Poicies and reguatory frameworks (number) for production sectors. Output 2. Nationa and sub-nationa and-use pans (number) that incorporate biodiversity and ecosystem services vauation. 10 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

15 TABLE 1: Biodiversity Resuts Framework 1 (continued) Objectives Expected Outcomes and Indicators Outcome targets for $4.2 biion Target Objective 2: Mainstream Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainabe Use into Production Landscapes, Seascapes and Sectors Outcome 2.2: Measures to conserve and sustainaby use biodiversity incorporated in poicy and reguatory frameworks. Indicator 2.2: Poices and reguations governing sectora activities that integrate biodiversity conservation as recorded by the GEF tracking too as a score. Outcome 2.3: Improved management frameworks to prevent, contro and manage invasive aien species Indicator 2.3: IAS management framework operationa score as recorded by the GEF tracking too. Fifty-percent (50%) of projects achieve a score of six (6) (i.e., biodiversity conservation and sustainabe use is mentioned in sector poicy through specific egisation, reguations are in pace to impement the egisation, reguations are under impementation, impementation of reguations is enforced, and enforcement of reguations is monitored) Eighty-percent (80%) of projects meet or exceed their target for a fuy operationa and effective IAS management framework Core Outputs Output 3. Certified production andscapes and seascapes (hectares). Objective 3: Buid Capacity for the Impementation of the Cartagena Protoco on Biosafety (CPB) Outcome 3.1 Potentia risks of iving modified organisms to biodiversity are identified and evauated in a scientificay sound and transparent manner Indicator 3.1: Nationa biosafety decision-making systems operationa score as recorded by the GEF tracking too $40 miion Eighty-percent (80%) of projects meet or exceed their target for a fuy operationa and effective biosafety framework. A remaining eigibe countries (about depending on programming for rest of GEF-4) have nationa biosafety decisionmaking systems in pace. Objective 4: Buid Capacity on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing Outcome 4.1: Lega and reguatory frameworks, and administrative procedures estabished that enabe access to genetic resources and benefit sharing in accordance with the CBD provisions Indicator 4.1: Nationa ABS frameworks operationa score as recorded by the GEF tracking too (to be deveoped) $ 40 miion Eighty-percent (80%) of projects meet or exceed their target for a fuy operationa and effective ABS framework. Access and benefitsharing agreements (number) that recognize the core ABS principes of Prior Informed Consent (PIC) and Mutuay Agreed Terms (MAT) incuding the fair and equitabe sharing of benefits. Objective Five: Integrate CBD Obigations into Nationa Panning Processes through Enabing Activities Outcome 5.1 Deveopment and sectora panning frameworks at country eve integrate measurabe biodiversity conservation and sustainabe use targets. Indicator 5.1: Percentage of deveopment and sectora frameworks that integrate measurabe biodiversity conservation and sustainabe use targets. $ 40 miion 50% of parties that revise NBSAPs successfuy integrate measurabe biodiversity conservation and sustainabe use targets into deveopment and sectora panning frameworks. Number and type of deveopment and sectora panning frameworks that incude measurabe biodiversity conservation and sustainabe use targets. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 11

16 12 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY With GEF support, this cement company constructed the first of its kind fue-free power pant in China using waste heat from cement kins.

17 Cimate Change Strategy Background Introduction The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC concudes that cimate change due to human activities is unequivoca and that goba greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions wi continue to grow over the next few decades with current cimate change poicies and deveopment practices. It is widey recognized that the overa costs and risks of cimate change wi far exceed the cost of action to mitigate cimate change. Emissions of greenhouse gases covered by the United Nations Framework Convention on Cimate Change (UNFCCC) have increased in most countries wordwide over recent decades. Measures to address greenhouse gas emission issues transcend the goba issues of energy security, economic prosperity and environmenta protection. Economic deveopment needs, resource endowments, and mitigation capacities differ across regions. Consequenty, mitigation soutions need to be differentiated to refect different socio-economic conditions. As an operating entity of the financia mechanism of the UNFCCC, since its inception in 1991, the Goba Environment Faciity (GEF) has invested $3 biion in financing cimate change mitigation, adaption, and enabing activities, and has everaged amost $20 biion additiona investment. The GEF has become the argest pubic-sector funding source to support the transfer of environmentay sound technoogies to deveoping countries and economies in transition. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 13

18 A key focus of the GEF s wind power investments is to hep countries understand the panning and operationa requirements of wind power, gain experience with instaation and grid integration issues, and empoy poicy options that promote wind energy deveopment. Historica Deveopment and Lessons Learned The cimate change foca area strategy has evoved consideraby since the inception of the GEF in During the Piot Phase ( ), cimate change projects invoved demonstration of many reevant cimate-friendy technoogies and appications. However, considering the recommendation of the First Evauation Study of the Piot Phase, 16 which stated that such an approach was spreading resources too thin, the GEF cimate change foca area has become strategicay more focused in subsequent GEF repenishment periods. GEF-1 ( ) and GEF-2 ( ) programming was based on the GEF Operationa Strategy (1995) and the Operationa Programs deveoped from 1996 to During this period, GEF cimate change projects emphasized removing barriers to the widespread adoption of energy efficiency and renewabe energy technoogies. The 2004 Program Study on Cimate Change (CCPS) highighted positive indirect impacts of the GEF on poverty aeviation, repication of project resuts, project risk management, transfer of technoogica know-how, ong-term programmatic approaches, and the potentia for GEF projects to infuence poicy. The GEF Second Overa Performance Study (OPS2) (2002) stressed, among other things, the importance of repication, private sector invovement, coordination of GEF projects with nationa strategies and needs, and fuy utiizing the potentia for infuencing poicy. Looking across the GEF cimate change portfoio, OPS2 aso concuded that the GEF has been most effective in promoting energy efficiency, and has had more modest success in promoting grid-connected renewabe energy. More specificay, the study concuded that the GEF has had the east success with off-grid, rura, renewabe energy projects. Taking findings of the 2004 CCPS into account, the GEF cimate change strategy argey moved away from rura off-grid eectrification projects during GEF-4 in the renewabe energy area, and concentrated its efforts on market approaches to on-grid renewabe energy and sustainabe energy production from biomass in order to achieve high goba environmenta impact. An important eement of a more focused cimate change program has been the creation of enabing environments for market transformation. In the meantime, since the GEF Counci approved the Operationa Program on sustainabe urban transport in 1999, this portfoio has grown rapidy during GEF-3 and GEF-4. As identified in the Third Overa Performance Study (OPS3) of the GEF (2005), the GEF was abe to further acceerate the shift from technoogy-based toward market-based approaches by focusing on the seven Strategic Priorities guiding GEF programming. With respect to the reations with the Convention, OPS3 found that the GEF cimate change program has been responsive to guidance from the UNFCCC, has effectivey performed its roe as financia mechanism of the UNFCCC, and has been responsive to its mandate as defined by the Convention and guidance and priorities as given by the Conference of the Parties (COP). GEF funding of projects has been in direct response to the priorities outined by the COP. 14 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

19 Guiding Principes Deveopment of GEF-5 strategy in the cimate change foca area wi draw on past experience and wi be guided by three principes: (i) responsiveness to Convention guidance; (ii) consideration of different nationa circumstances of recipient countries; and (iii) cost-effectiveness in achieving goba environmenta benefits. GEF-5 wi endeavor to make a transformative impact in heping GEF-recipient countries move to a ow-carbon deveopment path through market transformation of, and investment in, environmentay sound, cimate-friendy technoogies. Recent decisions reached by the COP to the UNFCCC have given the GEF guidance, particuary in the areas of deveopment and transfer of environmentay sound technoogies and of and use and and-use change. At COP13, the GEF was requested to eaborate a strategic program to scae up the eve of investment in technoogy transfer to hep deveoping countries address their needs for environmentay sound technoogies. COP14 wecomed the technoogy transfer program presented by the GEF as a step toward scaing up the eve of investment in technoogy transfer to deveoping countries and requested the GEF to consider the ong-term impementation of the strategic program on technoogy transfer. On and use and and-use change, COP12 requested the GEF to expore options for undertaking and use and and-use change projects within the cimate change foca area in ight of past experience. Furthermore, the Bai Action Pan highighted new issues, such as measurabe, reportabe, and verifiabe (MRV) nationay appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) by deveoping countries in the context of sustainabe deveopment, supported and enabed by technoogy, financing, and capacity buiding. GEF-recipient countries vary significanty in terms of their stage of deveopment, technica and institutiona capacity, and market potentia to reduce GHG emissions. The GEF-5 cimate change strategy wi endeavor to provide options for countries with different nationa circumstances to tacke cimate change mitigation whie supporting sustainabe deveopment. The GEF-5 cimate change strategy wi promote a broad portfoio of environmentay sound, cimatefriendy technoogies to achieve arge GHG reductions in the GEF-recipient countries in accordance with each country s nationa circumstances. The portfoio wi incude technoogies at various stages of deveopment in the innovation chain, with a focus on the stages of market demonstration, depoyment, and diffusion (see Figure 1). GEF support wi invove a combination of technoogy-push and market-pu interventions. Figure 1: Technoogy Deveopment Cyce and Innovation Chain 17 Basic R & D Funding Funding Appied R & D Pubic Sector Product / Technoogy Push Incentives, Standards, Reguation, Subsidies, Taxes Investments, Knowedge and Market Spiovers Private Sector Market / Demand Pu Demonstration Depoyment Diffusion In GEF-5, a nationa panning process wi be introduced to support countries in identifying priority areas for GEF support in ine with the countries deveopment objectives and cimate change poicy and strategies. Programming of GEF resources at the country eve wi be based on the priority sectors, technoogies, and activities identified by the countries themseves. The GEF wi endeavor to make transformationa impacts in a GEF-recipient countries, taking nationa circumstances into consideration. The use of nongrant instruments wi be promoted in countries where conditions are suitabe and demand exists in order to catayze commercia financing and everage investment from the private sector. 16 Ian Bowes and Genn T. Pricket Reframing the Green Window: An Anaysis of the GEF Piot Phase Approach to Biodiversity and Goba Warming and Recommendations for the Operationa Phase. Washington, DC: Conservation Internationa and Natura Resources Defense Counci. 17 Source: Adapted from IPCC, 2007: Technica Summary, in Cimate Change 2007: Mitigation, Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 15

20 In arge, medium-income deveoping countries and rapidy growing economies, the GEF wi continue to support programs and projects that wi bring significant GHG reductions, such as market transformation in the buiding, industry, and transport sectors. In reativey sma, ow-income countries, the GEF wi boost its support in investment and in technica and institutiona capacity buiding and wi expand its efforts in heping these countries access modern energy from renewabe sources. Technoogy innovation and transfer wi be promoted in a GEF-eigibe countries and at various stages of the technoogy deveopment cyce. In arge countries and emerging economies with strong technica capacity and market potentia, emphasis wi be paced on market demonstration and commerciaization of innovative, emerging technoogies; in sma, ow-income countries, GEF support wi focus on adapting commerciay avaiabe technoogies to oca market conditions for depoyment and diffusion through investment, capacity buiding, and technoogy cooperation. In countries and regions experiencing arge GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, the GEF wi promote LULUCF activities aimed at reducing forest emissions and promoting forest conservation, afforestation and reforestation, and sustainabe forest management. Furthermore, the GEF can pay a usefu and growing roe in the emerging carbon markets, which is expected to increase rapidy in the future. The GEF is uniquey positioned to expand its engagement in the carbon markets given its extensive network of partner institutions, its rich experience in financing cean energy and sustainabe urban transport and in promoting the transfer of a broad range of environmentay sound technoogies, and finay its strong track record in reducing GHG emissions cost-effectivey from its investments. In fact, GEF s eary intervention in many cases be it demonstrating technoogies for andfi gas and coabed methane utiization or putting poicy and reguatory frameworks in pace to stimuate investment in renewabe energy has aid the foundation for the carbon market to function and repicate subsequenty. 16 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

21 Goa, Objectives, and Outcomes As an operating entity of the financia mechanism of the UNFCCC, the GEF finances eigibe enabing, mitigation, and adaptation activities in the cimate change foca area. Since the GEF strategy on adaptation to cimate change is undertaken on a separate track, the present cimate change foca strategy covers ony mitigation and enabing activities. Photovotaic pane instaation in Bozcaada Isand, Turkey as part of the Poznan Strategic Program on Technoogy Transfer piot project, impemented by the United Nations Industria Deveopment Options to be expored by the GEF to support the carbon markets may incude: (i) capacity buiding to hep create enabing ega and reguatory environment; (ii) support of programmatic carbon finance and other activities under the post-2012 cimate regime; (iii) demonstration of technica and financia viabiities of technoogies; (iv) partia risk guarantees and contingent financing for carbon finance projects; and (v) co-financing of innovative projects, with credits to be retained in the recipient country for further project repication. GEF engagement in carbon finance activities wi compement other programs and reforms in GEF-5. The overa goa of the GEF in cimate change mitigation is to support deveoping countries and economies in transition toward a ow-carbon deveopment path. The ong-term impact of the GEF work wi be sower growth in GHG emissions to the atmosphere from the GEF-recipient countries and contribution to the utimate objective of the UNFCCC, which is to achieve stabiization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a eve that woud prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the cimate system. The cimate change mitigation strategy for GEF-5 wi consist of six objectives. The first objective wi focus on technoogies at the stage of market demonstration or commerciaization where technoogy push is sti critica. The second through fifth objectives focus on technoogies that are commerciay avaiabe but face barriers and require market pu to achieve widespread adoption and diffusion. The ast objective is devoted to supporting enabing activities and capacity buiding under the Convention. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 17

22 Cimate Change objective 1: Promote the demonstration, depoyment, and transfer of innovative ow-carbon technoogies In accordance with COP guidance, the GEF has been at the forefront of financing the transfer of environmentay sound technoogies to deveoping countries. The entire GEF cimate change portfoio can be characterized as supporting technoogy transfer as defined by the IPCC and the technoogy transfer framework outined by the COP, 18 in the areas of energy efficiency, renewabe energy, sustainabe urban transport, and short-term response measures. 19 In response to the COP 14 decision on the deveopment and transfer of technoogy, the GEF aunched a strategic program on technoogy transfer for the remainder of the GEF-4 that invoved support of a new round of technoogy needs assessments (TNAs) and financing priority piot projects reated to the transfer of environmentay sound technoogies. GEF intervention under this objective wi incude technica assistance for creating an enabing poicy environment for technoogy transfer, institutiona and technica capacity buiding, estabishment of mechanisms for technoogy transfer, North-South and South-South technoogy cooperation, purchase of technoogy icenses, and investment in piot projects. Project supported under this objective shoud ceary identify the source of the technoogy and the target for the transfer, the scope and the mechanism of technoogy co-operation and transfer, and the market potentia and strategy for repication. Project activities may incude deveoping oca capacity to adapt exogenous technoogies to oca conditions and to integrate them with endogenous technoogies. Successfu outcomes of this During GEF-5, foowing COP decision 2/CP.14 that requested the GEF to consider the ong-term impementation of the strategic program on technoogy transfer, the GEF wi step up its efforts in promoting the demonstration, depoyment, and transfer of innovative ow-carbon technoogies. 20 Drawing on the past achievements, experiences, and essons earned, the GEF wi revitaize and empoy its cataytic roe in supporting the transfer of new, cutting-edge technoogies and know-how to deveoping countries. Athough it requires additiona time and risks to work with new, emerging technoogies, GEF experience with concentrating soar power (CSP) and fue-ce bus (FCB) technoogies, for exampe, has shown that GEF support in the eary stages of these technoogies has payed a pivota roe in spurring interest and subsequent investments in these technoogies, thereby acceerating the pace of their commerciaization, abeit in a imited number of countries. Projects supported under this objective wi target the demonstration and depoyment of innovative technoogies that coud have significant impact in the ong-run in reducing GHG emissions. GEF support may aso invove the demonstration, depoyment, and transfer of priority technoogies identified by the recipient countries that are commerciay avaiabe but have not been adopted in their particuar markets. Technoogies at the diffusion stage or projects that aim to support wide-scae dissemination of proven and avaiabe technoogies are not to be supported under this objective; instead, they shoud be considered under other objectives (see beow). The technoogies aimed for support by the GEF shoud be consistent with the priorities identified in the TNAs, nationa communications to the UNFCCC, or other nationa poicy documents. 18 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

23 objective wi incude: a. Technoogies successfuy demonstrated, depoyed, and transferred b. Enabing poicy environment and mechanisms created for technoogy transfer c. GHG emissions avoided GEF experience with concentrating soar power (CSP) and fue-ce bus (FCB) technoogies, for exampe, has shown that GEF support in the eary stages of these technoogies has payed a pivota roe in spurring interest and subsequent investments in these technoogies, thereby acceerating the pace of their commerciaization, abeit in a imited number of countries. Outcome indicators wi incude: a. Percentage of technoogy demonstrations reaching its panned goas b. Extent to which poicies and mechanisms are adopted for technoogy transfer c. Tonnes of CO 2 equivaent avoided 18 The IPCC defines technoogy transfer as a broad set of processes covering the fows of know-how, experience and equipment for mitigating and adapting to cimate change amongst different stakehoders such as governments, private sector entities, financia institutions, NGOs and research/education institutions (IPCC Working Group II, Methodoogica and Technica Issues on Technoogy Transfer). The UNFCCC technoogy transfer framework (Annex to COP decision 4/CP.7) defines five eements for meaning and effective actions to enhance the impementation of technoogy transfer: (1) technoogy needs and needs assessments, (2) technoogy information, (3) enabing environment, (4) capacity buiding, and (5) mechanisms for technoogy transfer. 19 The so-caed short-term response measures are projects that are extremey cost-effective, with a unit abatement cost of ess than $10/tonne of carbon avoided or roughy $2.7/tonne of CO2 equivaent avoided. Synthesis, Isand Press, Washington DC. 20 Other objectives under GEF-5 aso support technoogy transfer as broady defined by IPCC and UNFCCC. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 19

24 Cimate Change Objective 2: Promote market transformation for energy efficiency in industry and the buiding sector The GEF has a strong track record and considerabe experience in promoting energy efficiency in deveoping countries and economies in transition. Since 1991, the GEF has invested $1 biion in energy efficiency, covering a wide spectrum of sectors and approaches: from standards and abes for appiances and ighting technoogies to buiding codes and integrated buiding designs, from innovative risk-sharing instruments to market-based approaches, from sector-specific industria technoogies to energy audit and energy management standards, from district heating to cogeneration, from energy-efficient equipment to system optimization, from demand-side energy efficiency measures to suppy-side efficiency improvement in power generation, transmission, and distribution. The GEF wi buid on this strong track record to enhance and expand investments in energy efficiency in industry and the buiding sector. 21 GEF support wi be directed toward deveoping and enforcing strong poicies, norms, and reguations in order to achieve arge-scae impact in terms of energy savings and GHG emissions reduction. During GEF-5, projects under this objective wi aim at stepping up poicy interventions as we as scaing up energy efficiency investments across a deveoping countries and economies in transition at different stages of deveopment. In the industria sector, emphasis wi be paced on promoting energy efficient technoogies and practices in industria production and manufacturing processes (incuding agro-processing) especiay in the sma and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) whie supporting industriaization and sustainabe deveopment in deveoping countries. In the buiding sector, GEF support wi cover residentia, commercia, and pubic buidings, and incude both new buidings and retrofitting of existing buidings. It covers the entire spectrum of the buiding sector, incuding the buiding enveope, the energyconsuming systems, appiances, and equipment used for heating, cooing, ighting, and buiding operations. Project activities may incorporate the use of soar energy and therma capacity of shaow ground for heating and cooing in the buiding system. Emphasis wi be paced on integrated and systemic approaches and high performance buidings, appiances, and equipment. Promotion of energy efficient cook stoves wi be covered under this objective. Consistent with chemica proofing and in order to buid synergy across goba environmenta conventions, projects aigned with this objective may extend to supporting the phase-out of hydrochorofuorocarbons (HCFCs) used in industry and buidings such as chiers, air-conditioners, and refrigerators, even before the required phase-out dates under the Montrea Protoco. The repacement of oder equipment shoud be done with new one that both operates more efficienty and uses chemicas with ower goba warming potentia, whie minimizing the use of chemicas damaging to the ozone ayer. Government commitments to adopting and enforcing standards and reguations are essentia for these initiatives in order to have an impact through repication. GEF support under this objective wi invove a synergistic combination of technica assistance on poicy, reguation, and institutiona capacity buiding; incentives and financing mechanisms to support the adoption of energy efficiency technoogies and measures; pioting innovative technoogies, practices, and deivery mechanisms; and support for arge-scae dissemination activities. Where appropriate, GEF projects may be inked to supporting nationay appropriate mitigation activities under the Bai Action Pan and in accordance to emerging COP guidance, with a view to achieving poicy gain. 20 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

25 Successfu outcomes of this objective wi incude: a. Appropriate poicy, ega and reguatory frameworks adopted and enforced b. Sustainabe financing and deivery mechanisms estabished and operationa c. GHG emissions avoided With GEF support, Xinggao Coking Group in Shanxi, China has successfuy demonstrated the state-of-the-art cean coking technoogy, whie recovering waste heat from the coke ovens for power generation. Outcome indicators wi incude: a. Extent to which EE poicies and reguations are adopted and enforced b. Voume of investment mobiized c. Tonnes of CO 2 equivaent avoided 21 As in GEF-4, GEF support under this objective during GEF-5 wi continue to focus on end-use energy efficiency measures and co-generation. Suppy-side measures reated to eectric power generation, transmission, and distribution wi not be supported under this objective. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 21

26 Cimate Change Objective 3: Promote investment in renewabe energy technoogies Financing renewabe energy technoogies and supporting remova of barriers to the adoption of renewabe energy has been a key component of the GEF cimate change strategy since the beginning of the GEF. The GEF renewabe energy portfoio stands at over $1 biion, and GEF support has covered a wide range of renewabe energy technoogies, incuding off-grid and on-grid photovotaics, soar water heating, wind turbines, geotherma, sma hydro, methane from waste, and biomass appications for power and heat production. During GEF-4, GEF support focused on promoting market approaches to renewabe energy technoogies and energy production from biomass, with an emphasis on the deveopment of poicies and reguatory frameworks for renewabe energy aong with imited support for pioting and demonstration investments. In GEF-5, the GEF wi buid upon its robust experience in the past and wi boost investment in renewabe energy technoogies, recognizing that renewabe energy pays an indispensabe roe not ony in combating goba cimate change but aso in addressing energy access, energy security, environmenta poution, and sustainabe deveopment. Today, 1.6 biion peope in the deveoping word, mosty in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, do not have access to eectricity, and more than 2.4 biion rey on traditiona biomass to meet their basic energy needs for cooking and heating. On the other hand, fossi fues dominate the energy structure of most arge deveoping countries and emerging economies such as China, India, and South Africa. Even with favorabe poicies on renewabe energy, many countries sti face higher cost of initia investment and other risks associated with renewabe energy, whie the private sector and financia institutions sometimes are reuctant to invest in sma projects or decentraized technoogies. Given the acute demand for energy access and modern energy services in rura areas in deveoping countries, GEF support wi cover not ony on-grid renewabe energy programs but aso decentraized production of eectric power as we as heat using indigenous renewabe sources such as biomass, soar, wind, hydro, and geotherma. GEF projects can promote oca SMEs to enhance their technica capacities to provide instaation, operation, and maintenance services for renewabe energy technoogies. Furthermore, GEF support wi extend to recovering methane from biomass wastes for power generation or heat production. Finay, GEF support may aso extend to supporting sustainabe production of biomass for soid and iquid biofues as a substitute to fossi fues where appropriate conditions, incuding safeguard poicies, exist. In promoting biomass appications, sustainabiity criteria wi have to be observed to ensure that GEF support to modernization of biomass use does not undermine food security, contribute to deforestation, reduce soi fertiity, increase GHG emissions beyond project boundaries, or vioate sustainabiity principes reating to biodiversity conservation or sustainabe and and water management. GEF intervention under this objective can be a combination of technica assistance for poicy and reguatory support, buiding the technica and institutiona capacity, and estabishing financing mechanisms for investment in the depoyment and diffusion of renewabe energy technoogies. GEF support in the form of direct investment is particuary appicabe in sma, poor deveoping countries and LDCs. Financia sustainabiity shoud be taken into consideration where the GEF is directy invoved in investment activities. In GEF-5, GEF support under this objective wi expand beyond the creation of enabing poicy and reguatory environment to promoting investment in renewabe energy technoogies, incuding in the reativey sma, poor deveoping countries and the east deveoped countries (LDCs), where both private and pubic capita is scarce and access to modern energy services is ow. The GEF wi endeavor to invest in renewabe energy projects that wi ead to a step-change in the depoyment and diffusion of reiabe, east-cost renewabe energy technoogies that address the natura resource endowments of participating countries. 22 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

27 Successfu outcomes of this objective wi incude: Jasmine crop grown through irrigation faciity provided through the Biomass Energy for Rura India Project a. Appropriate poicy, ega and reguatory frameworks adopted and enforced b. Sustainabe financing and deivery mechanisms estabished and operationa c. GHG emissions avoided Outcome indicators wi incude: a. Extent to which EE poicies and reguations are adopted and enforced b. Voume of investment mobiized c. Tonnes of CO 2 equivaent avoided GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 23

28 Cimate Change Objective 4: Promote energy efficient, ow-carbon transport and urban systems GEF support for sustainabe urban transport started in In the ensuing year, the GEF Counci approved an operationa program on sustainabe urban transport. By eary 2009, the GEF had funded more than 40 projects in sustainabe urban transport covering more than 70 cities throughout Asia, Latin Africa, Africa, Midde East, and Eastern Europe. The tota GEF aocation to this sector has exceeded $200 miion, which has everaged additiona $2.5 biion investment. GEF-funded activities have incuded new vehice technoogies, such as fue-ce buses and eectric three-wheeers; investment in pubic and non-motorized transport infrastructure; deveopment and impementation of comprehensive transport strategies, such as urban and transport panning, traffic demand management, and moda shift to ess-ghg intensive transport modes. Rapid urbanization and expansion of transport systems wi ikey comprise the argest source of future growth of GHG emissions in deveoping countries. In GEF-5, promoting energy efficient, owcarbon transport and urban systems wi be a key objective in the cimate change foca area. This objective wi buid upon the existing GEF sustainabe urban transport program and wi expand its scope to incude integrated approaches to promoting energy efficient, ow-carbon cities. Athough the focus of this objective in GEF-5 wi remain on transport, given the critica importance of integrated approaches to attain maximum goba environmenta benefits, the expanded scope wi attempt to address urban systems as a whoe where appropriate. Strong commitments from the oca as we as the nationa governments are particuary important. At the city-eve, emphasis wi be paced on integrated ow-carbon urban panning for transport, energy efficiency, and renewabe energy, covering housing, transport, pubic utiities and commercia deveopment. Comprehensive interventions through integration of transport, energy, water, and housing sector activities wi be encouraged. GEF support under this objective wi invove technica assistance in transport and urban panning, deveopment of innovative financing mechanisms, awareness campaigns, and investments in high-performance technoogies. During GEF-5, greater attention wi be given to measuring and quantifying goba environmenta benefits, which wi provide a basis for choosing the best sets of interventions to deiver maximum goba and oca benefits. Successfu outcomes of this Options for intervention during GEF-5 wi incude and use and transport panning, pubic transit systems, energy efficiency improvement of the feet, efficient traffic contro and management, transport demand management, and non-motorized transport. Technoogica options in the transport sector, such as promoting cean, ow-carbon vehices, may be considered in countries where significant GHG emissions reduction as we as oca deveopment and environmenta benefits can be achieved. Pubic awareness and participation wi be an integra part of a successfu program. Through comprehensive, integrated intervention, GEF projects wi address not ony cimate change mitigation but aso oca air poution, traffic congestion, and access to affordabe and efficient transport and pubic utiities. 24 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

29 objective wi incude: Successfu outcomes of this GEF-funded activities have incuded new vehice technoogies, such as fue-ce buses a. Sustainabe transport and urban poicy and reguatory frameworks adopted and impemented b. Increased investment in ess-ghg intensive transport and urban systems c. GHG emissions avoided Outcome indicators wi incude: a. Number of cities adopting sustainabe transport and urban poicies and reguations b. Voume of investment mobiized c. Tonnes of CO 2 equivaent avoided GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 25

30 Cimate Change Objective 5: Promote conservation and enhancement of carbon stocks through sustainabe management of and use, and-use change, and forestry In response to COP decision 2/CP.12, the GEF aunched a strategic program during GEF-4 to promote the reduction of GHG emissions from LULUCF within the cimate change foca area. This program has aso been inked to the GEF cross-cutting program of Strategic Forest Management (SFM). Activities supported during GEF-4 incuded a goba initiative to define and refine a methodoogy for estimating avoided carbon emissions from LULUCF. At the nationa eve, GEF projects supported afforestation and reforestation, deveoping and impementing poicies and reguations to avoid deforestation, defining conservation areas to secure carbon sinks, securing and estabishing positive incentives for sustainabe management of forests, strengthening networks of stakehoders, and capacity buiding of nationa and oca institutions. In GEF-5, the GEF wi expand the LULUCF program within the cimate change foca area and through cross-cutting projects inking to SFM as we as biodiversity and and degradation foca areas. The objective on LULUCF during GEF-5 wi be two-fod: one is to conserve, restore, enhance, and manage the carbon stocks in forest and non-forest ands, and the other is to prevent emissions of the carbon stocks to the atmosphere through the reduction of the pressure on these ands in the wider andscape. 22 GEF support wi invove a combination of technica assistance for poicy formuation, buiding institutiona and technica capacity to impement strategies and poicies, monitoring and measurement of the carbon stocks and emissions, deveoping and testing poicy frameworks to sow the drivers of undesirabe and-use changes, and working with oca communities to deveop aternative iveihood methods to reduce emissions and sequester carbon. Where appropriate, piot investment projects designed to reduce net emissions from LULUCF and to enhance carbon stocks wi be supported. Synergy with SFM, biodiversity, and degradation, and reduction of the vunerabiity of the forest and non-forest ands due to cimate change shoud be expored so as to generate mutipe goba environmenta benefits as we as socia and economic benefits. GEF intervention wi cover the spectrum of and-use categories as defined by IPCC, incuding reducing deforestation and forest degradation and enhancing carbon stocks in non-forest ands, as we as management of peatand. During GEF-5, the GEF wi support activities that wi deveop nationa systems to measure and monitor carbon stocks and fuxes from forest and non-forest ands, strengthen reated poicies and institutions, undertake good management practices with oca communities, and estabish financing mechanisms and investment programs. 26 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

31 Successfu outcomes of this objective wi incude: a. Good management practices in LULUCF adopted both within the forest and and in the wider andscape b. Restoration and enhancement of carbon stocks in forests and non-forest ands, incuding peatand c. GHG emissions avoided and carbon sequestered Land use changes and and use can emit greenhouse gases or sequester carbon, and management can reduce expected emissions or increase sequestration which contributed to cimate change mitigation. Outcome indicators wi incude: a. Number of countries adopting good management practices in LULUCF b. Hectares of forests and non-forest ands restored and enhanced c. Tonnes of CO 2 equivaent avoided 22 The IPCC good practice guidance for LULUCF describes six broad and-use categories for reporting nationa inventories under the Convention: forest and, cropand, grassand, wetands, settements, and other and. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 27

32 Cimate Change Objective 6: Support enabing activities and capacity buiding As an operating entity of the financia mechanism of the UNFCCC, the GEF has provided financia and technica support to more than 150 non-annex I Parties to prepare their initia, second, and, in some cases, third nationa communications to the Convention. During GEF-3, the GEF funded a goba program to support the second nationa communications of most eigibe countries. A few countries aso received GEF funding outside of the goba program during GEF-4 to prepare their second and third nationa communications. In addition, in GEF-3, the GEF funded an initia round of technoogy needs assessments (TNAs) as top-ups to nationa communications in more than 90 countries. In GEF-4, the GEF aocated resources for a goba project that aimed to support 35 to 45 eigibe countries to prepare or update their TNAs as part of the Poznan Strategic Program on Technoogy Transfer. 23 Finay, another goba nationa communications program was approved by the GEF Counci in November 2009 that woud support 50 non-annex I Parties ready to aunch their third or subsequent nationa communications to the UNFCCC before the end of GEF-4. During GEF-5, the GEF wi continue to support as a first priority non-annex I Parties to prepare their nationa communications to the UNFCCC. Most non-annex I Parties that did not receive support during GEF-4 wi ikey require financia support to prepare their third or fourth nationa communications to the UNFCCC. The GEF wi ensure adequate resources to support non-annex I Parties to meet their obigation under the Convention. In addition, the GEF wi continue to fund the preparation and updating of TNAs, especiay for countries that did not receive support for TNAs during GEF-4, in accordance with Convention guidance. Furthermore, the GEF can pay a usefu and growing roe in the emerging carbon markets. The GEF is uniquey positioned to expand its engagement in the carbon markets given its extensive network of partner institutions, its rich experience in financing cean energy and sustainabe urban transport and in promoting the transfer of a broad range of environmentay sound technoogies, and its strong track record in reducing GHG emissions cost-effectivey from its investments. In fact, GEF s eary intervention in many cases be it demonstrating technoogies for andfi gas and coabed methane utiization or putting poicy and reguatory frameworks in pace to stimuate investment in renewabe energy has aid the foundation for carbon markets to function and repicate subsequenty. Options to be expored to support the carbon markets in GEF-5 may incude: (i) capacity buiding to hep create enabing ega and reguatory environments; (ii) support of programmatic carbon finance and other activities under the post-2012 cimate regime; (iii) demonstration of technica and financia viabiities of technoogies; (iv) partia risk guarantees and contingent financing for carbon finance projects; and (v) co-financing of innovative projects, with credits to be retained in the recipient country for further project repication. GEF engagement in carbon finance activities wi compement other programs and reforms in GEF-5. Subject to emerging COP guidance, the GEF may finance activities to support capacity buiding activities, impementation of Artices 6 of the Convention on education, training, and pubic awareness (in addition to those funded under reguar cimate change projects), as we as other reevant enabing and capacity buiding activities as requested by the COP. 28 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

33 Successfu outcomes of this objective wi incude: a. Adequate resources aocated to support enabing activities and capacity buiding reated to the Convention b. Human and institutiona capacity of recipient countries strengthened With GEF support, Xinggao Coking Group in Shanxi, China has successfuy demonstrated the state-of-the-art cean coking technoogy, whie recovering waste heat from the coke ovens for power generation. Outcome indicators wi incude: a. Percentage of eigibe countries receiving GEF funding for nationa communications, and TNAs in accordance with COP guidance b. Nationa communications and TNAs competed and submitted to the UNFCCC as appropriate 23 Aside from nationa communications and TNAs, the GEF has provided support to severa corporate programs on capacity buiding, such as Nationa Capacity Sef-Assessment and the Country Support Program. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 29

34 Learning Objectives Knowedge management and portfoio monitoring of GEF-funded projects, incuding those in the cimate change foca area, have been sporadic. Some activities have taken pace in the past within the GEF Secretariat and the Impementing Agencies, but more systematic efforts are needed to earn from the past experience of impementing GEF projects. The 2002 Second Overa Performance Study (OPS2) found that the existing GEF system is sow to recognize success, and thus sow to repicate and integrate positive essons in panning for future projects. The 2004 Cimate Change Program Study (CCPS) aso concuded that earning within the GEF famiy has been neither systematic nor system-wide, nor has it had strong outreach to outside expertise. Athough the 2004 CCPS found exampes of good knowedge-sharing initiatives within the GEF Impementing Agencies and at the headquarters eve within the Cimate Change Task Force, it suggested that better earning was needed among projects within the same custers and within and between countries. During GEF-5, the GEF Secretariat wi step up its efforts to work together with the GEF Agencies and other stakehoders on portfoio monitoring, knowedge management, and dissemination of good practices. Four earning objectives are proposed for GEF-5 in the cimate change foca area: Over the course of GEF-5, at east five custers of projects in energy efficiency, renewabe energy, and sustainabe urban transport wi be monitored cosey at the portfoio eve by the GEF Secretariat. Desk studies and fied visits of sampe projects in these portfoios wi be undertaken in coordination with GEF Agencies. Good practices and essons wi be identified, synthesized, and disseminated through pubications and outreach programs to the GEF Agencies, stakehoders in the recipient countries, and the internationa community. The GEF Cimate Change Task Force wi be one avenue through which to continuousy and systematicay share information between the GEF Secretariat and the GEF Agencies. The GEF Country Support Program is another pathway to gather information and to disseminate knowedge. Furthermore, the GEF website, incuding the GEF newsetter, Taking Points, wi continue to be used to distribute quick, topica, time-sensitive information. Finay, it is proposed that the GEF Secretariat pubish a knowedge management series on good practices in project design, management, and impementation; review of custers of projects, impementation experiences, and essons earned; and news and views reated to cimate change from the Convention, the GEF Secretariat, the GEF Agencies, the Scientific and Technica Advisory Pane, the recipient countries, and other stakehoders. To better understand the conditions for success of projects and draw essons from impementation experience in order to increase GEF s cataytic effect; To enhance impact through improved assessment of GEF s abiity to deiver incrementa resuts on the outcome eve; To enhance adaptive management in response to changing circumstances and project risks; and To improve the monitoring system and the tracking toos and refine the GHG estimation methodoogy through cose coaboration with the GEF agencies. 30 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

35 TABLE 2: Cimate Change Mitigation Resuts Framework (continued) Goa: Impacts: Key Indicators: Key Target: To support deveoping countries and economies in transition toward a ow-carbon deveopment path Sower growth in GHG emissions and contribution to the stabiization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere Tonnes of CO2 equivaent avoided (both direct and indirect) over the investment or impact period of the projects 500 miion tonnes under the $4.2 biion scenario Objectives Key Expected Outcomes Key Targets for $4.2 biion Target Objective 1: Promote the demonstration, depoyment, and transfer of innovative ow-carbon technoogies Tota Foca Area Aocation Technoogies successfuy demonstrated, depoyed, and transferred Indicator: Percentage of technoogy demonstrations reaching its panned goas Enabing poicy environment and mechanisms created for technoogy transfer Indicator: Extent to which poicies and mechanisms are adopted for technoogy transfer (score of 0 to 4) $1.35 biion $300 miion Demonstration and depoyment of 3-4 innovative technoogies in countries 80% of the projects reaching the panned goas on the ground Core Outputs Innovative owcarbon technoogies demonstrated and depoyed on the ground Nationa strategies for the depoyment and commerciaization of innovative ow-carbon technoogies adopted GHG emissions avoided Indicator: Tonnes of CO 2 equivaent Objective 2: Promote market transformation for energy efficiency in industry and the buiding sector Appropriate poicy, ega and reguatory frameworks adopted and enforced Indicator: Extent to which EE poicies and reguations are adopted and enforced (score of 0 to 4) Sustainabe financing and deivery mechanisms estabished and operationa Indicator: Voume of investment mobiized $250 miion countries adopting EE poicies and initiatives $1.2 biion investment mobiized for EE Energy efficiency poicy and reguation in pace Investment mobiized Energy savings achieved GHG emissions avoided Indicator: Tonnes of CO 2 equivaent Objective 3: Promote investment in renewabe energy technoogies Favorabe poicy and reguatory environment created for renewabe energy investments Indicator: Extent to which RE poicies and reguations are adopted and enforced (score of 0 to 4) Investment in renewabe energy technoogies increased Indicator: Voume of investment mobiized GHG emissions avoided Indicator: Tonnes of CO 2 equivaent $320 miion countries adopting or strengthening RE poicies and initiatives $1.2 biion investment mobiized 0.5 gigawatt new RE capacity instaed Renewabe energy poicy and reguation in pace Renewabe energy capacity instaed Eectricity and heat produced from renewabe source GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 31

36 TABLE 2: Cimate Change Mitigation Resuts Framework (continued) Objectives Key Expected Outcomes Key Targets for $4.2 biion Target Objective 4: Promote energy efficient, ow-carbon transport and urban systems Sustainabe transport and urban poicy and reguatory frameworks adopted and impemented Indicator: Number of cities adopting sustainabe transport and urban poicies and reguations Increased investment in ess-ghg intensive transport and urban systems Indicator: Voume of investment mobiized $250 miion cities adopting owcarbon programs $1.2 biion investment mobiized Core Outputs Cities adopting in ow-carbon programs Investment mobiized Energy savings achieved GHG emissions avoided Indicator: Tonnes of CO 2 equivaent Objective 5: Promote conservation and enhancement of carbon stocks through sustainabe management of and use, and-use change, and forestry Good management practices in LULUCF adopted both within the forest and and in the wider andscape Indicator: Number of countries adopting good management practices in LULUCF Restoration and enhancement of carbon stocks in forests and non-forest ands, incuding peatand Indicator: Hectares restored $50 miion (pus $100 miion contributed to SFM) countries adopting good management practices and impementing projects Carbon stock monitoring systems estabished Forests and nonforest ands under good management practices GHG emissions avoided and carbon sequestered Indicator: Tonnes of CO 2 equivaent Objective 6: Support enabing activities and capacity buiding under the Convention Adequate resources aocated to support enabing activities under the Convention Indicator: Percentage of eigibe countries receiving GEF funding Human and institutiona capacity of recipient countries strengthened Indicator: Countries and institutions supported by the GEF $80 miion 100% of eigibe countries receiving GEF funding in accordance with COP guidance Countries receiving GEF support for nationa communication, etc. Nationa communications, etc. competed and submitted to the UNFCCC as appropriate 32 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

37 Light of hope - powered by sma wind and photovotaic GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 33

38 34 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

39 Internationa Waters Strategy Background Water is the ifebood of our panet. Human ife depends on freshwater, and the Earth s cimate and its habitabiity depend not ony on freshwater but aso cimate services from the ocean. Sowy, the word community is recognizing the severity of the goba water crisis. Not ony are Miennium Deveopment Goas (MDGs) and Johannesburg Word Summit (WSSD) targets being missed, but economic opportunities and community security are now diminished because of itte priority on water. Once thought to be simpy reated to mismanagement and poicy faiure, degradation and depetion of our panet s surface, ground water, and oceans are aso caused by compex goba pressures of popuation growth and forced migration, changing cimate, goba financia and trade distortions, food shortages, and changing diets. Freshwater, satwater, and their iving resources know no borders. With 70 percent of the Earth being ocean and 60 percent of the and ying in cross-border surface and groundwater basins, most water systems on Earth are transboundary and thus are at the heart of the GEF Internationa Waters (IW) mandate. These water systems, that know no boundaries, produce food for goba trade and domestic use, power industry and economies, quench thirst, and nourish the ecosystems that support ife. Gobay, these systems are overused, over-pouted, and suffer from serious transboundary and nationa governance faiures. Demands for freshwater continue to rise, resuting in competition among key sectors and utimatey between countries that share transboundary freshwater systems. In parae, the human demand for protein from marine waters and poution reeases pace stress on both coasta and ocean systems. The resuts are a too apparent depeted and degraded surface waters, aquifers, and marine ecosystems we see today with adverse impacts on human and ecosystem heath, food GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 35

40 security, and socia stabiity. In addition, changes in goba hydroogic cyces driven by changes in cimate and cimatic variabiity deepen poverty, reduce food suppies, damage heath and further threaten poitica and socia stabiity. Coective action among states and negotiation of ega/institutiona framework are now critica to address these mutipe stresses, incuding cimatic variabiity and change, before tension between States gets even worse. Evoution of the IW Strategy at the GEF The GEF Internationa Waters (IW) foca area addresses these very compex sustainabe deveopment chaenges faced by States sharing transboundary surface, groundwater, and marine systems. Chaenges range from poution, oss of habitat, and ship waste, to intensive and conficting uses of surface and groundwater, over-harvesting of fisheries, and adaptation to cimatic fuctuations. The GEF serves a unique roe in buiding trust and confidence among States for catayzing coective management of these arge water systems whie providing benefits for environment, food production, economic deveopment, community heath, and regiona stabiity. Human webeing, iveihoods, and socio-economic considerations are at the center of on-the-ground piot measures. The GEF IW foca area has shown that cooperation among States on water, fisheries, catchments, and environment serves as a new path to secure these benefits for mutipe water users and that the demonstration of appropriate technoogies can catayze investments for on-the-ground resuts. The chaenges of cimate variabiity and change add an additiona impetus to GEF work, particuary since transboundary cooperation can suffer when economic recession pus resources out of internationa deveopment assistance. States must act together to restore and protect the functioning of these systems before depetion and degradation ead to destabiization of communities, sub-nationa regions, and States. Both the third and fourth Overa Performance Studies (OPS3 and OPS4) document GEF success in catayzing impacts reated to muti-country cooperation for shared waters. Outcomes have been robust, targets exceeded, and IW has proven to be an effective agent for poicy, ega and institutiona reforms and for enabing onthe-ground demonstrations. OPS 3 in 2005 concuded that the IW Foca Area was ready to move from a demonstration mode to scaing-up of fu operations in support of reforms, investments, and coective management. This scaing up of on-the-ground actions was not possibe during GEF 4 because funding was reduced. Whie coping with sma funding, GEF IW programming has focused on: (a) creating an enabing foundation in trust, confidence and capacity among States desiring to coaborate on sustainabe use of their transboundary waters, (b) demonstrating simpe GEF strategic approaches for scaing up impacts when arger funding eves become avaiabe, and (c) deveoping measures for groundwater protection and management to cope with increased use and more frequent droughts. To avoid irreversibe economic and socia impacts and whie cost-effective measures are sti feasibe, the time for scaing up is now. A backog of requests for action exists with GEF having buit the capacity of 149 recipient countries to work together with 23 non-recipient countries on regiona coective management for the particuar transboundary water systems they share 22 river basins, 8 ake basins, 5 groundwater systems, and 19 Large Marine Ecosystems. As recommended by OPS3 in 2005 and now OPS4, the time is at hand to scae-up funding in the GEF IW foca area to achieve resuts before conditions become irreversibe. GEF5 presents a crucia opportunity to scae up coective action for freshwater basins, aquifers, and marine systems in support of mutipe MDGs as we as protecting the capacity of bue forests to absorb carbon to reduce goba warming. Through stakehoder participation and increased attention to gender issues and insight from indigenous communities, this scaing up can provide meaningfu benefits in natura resource management. Beyond GEF4 priorities, new imperatives in Internationa Waters reating to cimatic variabiity and change and incorporation of groundwater concerns to produce community benefits. The capacity that has been buit through previous GEF interventions means that many States are ready to move forward in scaing up impacts contributing to MDGs and WSSD targets whie aso incorporating cimatic variabiity and change as a new transboundary concern for action. 36 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

41 Intensifying human expoitation is pushing the wor d oceans to the imits of their ecoogica carrying capacity. According to the most recent food and agricutura organization (FAO) report more than 75 percent of word fish stocks are aready fuy expoited, overexpoited, depeted, or recovering from depetion. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 37

42 Cimatic variabiity and change directy impacts transboundary rivers and river basin management, threatening its effectiveness. The Niger River, the principa river of West Africa and third ongest river in Africa, begins in the Guinea Highands, extends neary 4180 km (2600 mies) in a uniqueboomerang shape through Mai, Niger, Benin and Nigeria and discharges into the marsh-fi ed Niger Deta into the Guf of Guinea and Atantic Ocean.20 Since the 1970 s, average annua West African river water f ow and discharge hasaready reduced by 40 percent due to recent drought, popuation increase and perhaps cimate change. INTERNATIONAL WATERS STRATEGY, GOAL AND OBJECTIVES The ong-term goa for the GEF Internationa Waters foca area was incuded by the GEF Counci in its 1995 Operationa Strategy and remains reevant today for GEF5. With ony sight updating for GEF-5, the goa serves as poiticay pragmatic and cost-effective guidance for GEF to tacke the highy compex concerns of transboundary freshwater and marine ecosystems. The goa of the Internationa Waters foca area is the promotion of coective management for transboundary water systems and subsequent impementation of the fu range of poicy, ega, and institutiona reforms and investments contributing to sustainabe use and maintenance of ecosystem services. 38 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

43 Since 1995, GEF has paced human needs at the center of transboundary water systems and based interventions on modifying human activities and institutions toward sustaining mutipe uses of and human we-being for these sensitive waters. The GEF approach has provided opportunities for States wishing to address transboundary water-reated disputes and resove nationa deveopment priorities across transboundary systems in a coective manner. The GEF Counci-approved Operationa Strategy in 1995 recognized the sensitive internationa poitica dimensions of assisting states in coective management of transboundary water systems. The Counci noted that goba environmenta benefits woud accrue if countries worked together on priority concerns of these transboundary systems, which are the dominant waters on Earth, and that goba environmenta benefits reate to the interconnectedness of the goba hydroogic cyce that dynamicay inks watersheds, aquifers, and coasta and marine ecosystems and their transboundary movement of water, poutants, ships, and iving resources. Consistent with this approach, the goa for the IW area and GEF-5 objectives contribute to the GEF institutiona goa of deivering agreed goba environmenta benefits. In particuar, IW programming for supports GEF-5 corporate goa #1 on goba natura resources and #4 on buiding nationa and regiona capacities and enabing conditions for addressing transboundary systems. Through its previousy stated support of Agenda 21 Chapters 17 and 18 as we as the MDGs and WSDD targets, the IW foca area aso contributes to human we being and poverty eradication by sustaining water-reated and dependent iveihoods, securing food sources, promoting equitabe access to water, and reducing water-reated heath risks in addition to resoving and preventing water-reated use conficts in these arge bodies of water. SUMMARY OF GEF5 IW STRATEGY The GEF5 strategy for IW foows the successfu approach described in the OPS4 review with progressive programming of GEF resources accompanying progressive muti-state commitments to coective action. This strategy buids on the foundationa capacity buit and piot scae work accompished in GEF 3 and 4 and proposes to scae-up nationa and oca action given sufficient resources. GEF operations woud hep catayze initia impementation of muti-state agreed Strategic Action Programmes with shared visions for specific transboundary surface and groundwater systems or Large Marine Ecosystems. GEF projects wi incorporate capacity buiding and knowedge generation to address cimatic variabiity and change. Adding cimatic variabiity and change as a key transboundary concern in GEF-5 is needed so that mutipe priority stresses for individua waterbodies can be addressed together and coectivey by States rather than by singe themes or singe States. Achieving cost effectiveness and producing benefits that contribute to MDGs and WSSD targets dictate that mutipe stresses must be addressed and mutipe uses must be baanced or at east reconcied. Poution reduction or improved fisheries management wi sti fai to provide impact if the needed fow regime to protect the river ecosystem is diminished by intensive water use and drought. Concerns of droughts and foods as extreme events wi now be incorporated into transboundary surface and groundwater basin IW projects through Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) approaches that ink aquifers and surface water basins. Likewise, for Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) and their coasts, concerns reated to coasta cimatic variabiity, sea-eve rise, ocean warming, protection of coasta carbon sinks ( bue forests ) as we as ecosystem resiience woud be addressed through governance reforms at the LME eve and through Integrated Coasta Management (ICM) at oca eves. Previous GEF IW projects show that cimatic variabiity and change must now be incuded as a priority transboundary concern aong with the other mutipe drivers that cause depetion and degradation. Additionay, for transboundary surface water basins, groundwater (accounting for perhaps 90% of our panet s unfrozen fresh water) wi pay an even arger roe and must be propery managed. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 39

44 Beyond this focus on impementation of agreed action programmes, the strategy continues to provide for support to States for foundationa capacity buiding activities for new transboundary water systems proposed for GEF support. Limited funding woud be provided for processes pioneered by GEF to buid trust and confidence among States through third party faciitation of GEF agencies so that States may work together coectivey on their transboundary water systems toward increased stabiity and water security. This incudes diaogue, capacity buiding for ega reforms, and potentia agreement for improved ega and governance matters at mutipe eves from the transboundary to sub-basin, nationa, and oca. For LMEs, simiar efforts are needed at both the regiona LME and oca ICM scaes. Additionay, a number of priority needs for targeted research as appied to management of cross-border waters must be addressed, and experience sharing and earning within the GEF IW portfoio wi be enhanced based on successfu piots in this foca area (GEF IW:LEARN) as noted by OPS4. The cross-project earning and knowedge management aready pioted in the IW foca area wi be even more critica in GEF 5 as new knowedge and techniques reated to cimate variabiity and forecasting wi need to be absorbed by States coaborating on transboundary water systems. The draft GEF 5 IW strategy in 2009 presented options depending on eve of Repenishment. With greater funding eves, more on-the-ground resuts woud have been achieved with a greater ikeihood of nationa and oca governance reforms being enacted. With ess funding, fewer resuts woud be catayzed and scaing-up for measureabe impacts woud be imited. The fina aocation for internationa waters for GEF 5 was approved at a eve ess than a options incuded in the November 2009 Draft IW Strategy contained in GEF/R.5/Inf.21. Consequenty, aspirations in this foca area strategy were reduced to be consistent with Repenishment eves incuded in the Summary of Negotiations adopted in May, THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

45 Coasta zones are a major source of food and raw materias, and more than one-third of the word s popuation ives within 100km of the coast or estuaries. Each year, roughy 50 miion peope move into these coasta zones, which are critia areas for trade and transport. The foowing sections introduce GEF 5 objectives and expected outcomes aong with narratives on each of the four strategic objectives. A detaied resuts framework describing specific outcomes is presented in Tabe 1. The proposed GEF 5 IW Objectives are: A) Catayze muti-state cooperation to baance conficting water uses in transboundary surface and groundwater basins whie considering cimatic variabiity and change; B) Catayze muti-state cooperation to rebuid marine fisheries and reduce poution of coasts and Large Marine Ecosystems whie considering cimatic variabiity and change; C) Support foundationa capacity buiding, portfoio earning, and targeted research needs for ecosystem-based, joint management of transboundary water systems; D) Promote effective management of Marine Areas Beyond Nationa Jurisdiction (ABNJ). GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 41

46 INTERNATIONAL WATERS Objective 1 Catayze muti-state cooperation to baance conficting water uses in trans-boundary surface/groundwater basins whie considering cimatic variabiity and change Rationae This objective reates to GEF assistance to States for impementing agreed Strategic Action Programmes (SAP) for interventions in cross-border surface and groundwater basins. GEF has previousy supported such foundationa capacity buiding in amost 30 transboundary freshwater systems. Patterns of intensive and conficting uses of water resources in transboundary surface and groundwater basins are resuting in significant ecoogica and economic damage, reduced iveihoods for the poor, and increased poitica tensions among downstream States. These impacts become exacerbated with increasing cimatic variabiity. Shaow groundwater over-extraction, saine intrusion, and poution of groundwater suppies must now be factored into GEF projects, especiay for many SIDS where water suppy threats are major threats to their viabiity. Use of IWRM pans/poicies at the basin eve consistent with WSSD targets has been identified as an answer to baancing conficting uses of water resources and to inform tradeoffs. Project Support GEF wi support further deveopment and impementation of regiona poicies and measures identified in agreed SAPs, which through coaborative action woud promote sustainabe functioning of aready existing joint ega and institutiona frameworks or hep estabish new ones. GEF assistance to states incudes deveopment and enforcement of nationa poicy, egisative and institutiona reforms as we as demonstrating innovative measures/ approaches to water quantity and quaity concerns. The projected impact wi enabe States to negotiate treaties and better baance conficting uses of surface and ground water for hydropower, irrigation-food security, drinking water, and support of fisheries for protein in the face of mutipe stresses, incuding cimatic variabiity and change. With the ow Repenishment scenario that was approved, the focus woud be on initiating basic impementation of agreed action programmes with work on ega and institutiona issues for the transboundary cooperative frameworks, retrofitting understanding of cimatic variabiity and change and groundwater considerations into water management frameworks, nationa reforms, and modest oca demonstrations. If the high funding scenario had been chosen, the foca area woud have been abe to hep States avoid more disputes over water use, prevent more water poution, protect additiona aquifers for use in droughts, and introduce more widespread nationa water sub-sector reforms through enhanced assistance in programmatic approaches for SAP impementation and cross-foca area GEF projects. Considerations of foods and droughts wi henceforth be incorporated through IWRM as wi improved management of surface and groundwater, fiing a gap with States that have not addressed the WSSD target for IWRM. Benefits of coaboration on transboundary basins and adoption by cooperating states of reforms in IWRM poicies contribute to improved community iveihoods, increased crop yieds, sustainabe irrigation, improved environmenta fows, and reduced heath risks where poutants create risks. These interventions contribute to regiona integration, reduction of tensions among states, and increased stabiity whie foodpain management and wetands conservation hep trap carbon. 42 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

47 Outcomes SAP impementation wi ead to appication of IWRM poicies and principes that incude environmenta considerations in better management of surface and groundwater. Outcomes incude: movement toward baancing of conficting water uses; enhanced functioning of joint management institutions; ground-water considerations systematicay incorporated into surface water management; protected water suppies; enhanced recharge; improved freshwater fisheries management; and increased understanding eading to better resiience to fuctuating cimate. Indicators woud vary, incuding: adoption/impementation of poicy and ega reforms at nationa and oca eves that show progress toward WSSD IWRM targets; evidence that nationa inter-ministry committees function propery; measureabe poution reduction, water use efficiency improvements, restored/protected wetands, sustainabe freshwater fisheries, protection of quaity and eve of aquifers, capacity enhancement for incorporating aquifers and cimatic variabiity and change refected in updated SAPs and ega frameworks. The Guarani aquifer provides a mode of how countries can coaborate in the management of shared groundwater systems. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 43

48 INTERNATIONAL WATERS Objective 2 Catayze muti-state cooperation to rebuid marine fisheries and reduce poution of coasts and Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) whie considering cimatic variabiity and change Rationae This objective reates to GEF assistance to States for impementing agreed Strategic Action Programs for LMEs and coasts. Coasts and oceans are experiencing increasing threats to their functioning. Especiay serious are reductions in abiity to provide protein for food security, iveihoods, and foreign exchange as we as diminished capacity to absorb carbon as part of the ocean s roe in sequestering carbon dioxide. Depetion of marine waters through over-fishing and use of destructive gear and degradation by coasta poution is acceerating with amost two-thirds of goba fish stocks in troube and in need of management measures. Surveys show at east $50 biion doars ost annuay (much of it to deveoping country economies) when iega, unreported and unreguated fishing depetes stocks or when factory feets endorsed by governments, are aowed to depete fisheries in competition with poor fishing communities. There is a strong economic, poverty reduction, and food security argument for needed reforms. Oceans are degrading rapidy and scant itte attention is being paid to them. Loss of coasta habitat has mutipe impacts on marine ecosystems, community iveihoods, food security and reduced capacity to sequester carbon. Recent studies suggest that these marinereated carbon sinks are at east as important as terrestria forests in the goba carbon cyce, but they are reportedy being ost 4 times more rapidy than rainforests whie the majority of funding goes to rainforest protection. Further, these highy threatened bue forests of our coasts (kep, sea-grass beds, mangroves, sat marshes, etc) are hotspots for carbon assimiation, representing ony 1% of coasta/marine areas. When couped with the expansion of Dead Zones from increasing nutrient poution from agricuture and sewage, habitat oss poses a grave threat to iving resources that cross borders. And now, new mutipe risks reated to cimatic variabiity and change are becoming cear such as coasta fooding with sea-eve rise, storm vunerabiity, warming oceans, ocean acidification, food chain disruption, and sat water intrusion into groundwater suppies. Before our panet s ocean ecosystems ose more of their capacity to provide protein, iveihoods, and services, such as sinks for excessive emissions of carbon, further degradation must be prevented now before irreversibe conditions deveop. GEF has made gobay significant progress the ast decade in foundationa capacity buiding for States choosing to address the mutipe stresses on their shared Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) and coasts. GEF has responded to requests from some 130 States that have chosen to work with neighbors on buiding trust and confidence in working together through GEF foundationa capacity buiding projects for 18 LMEs, more than one-haf of the panet s tota that deveoping countries share. Additionay, the GEF IW area has been at the forefront gobay in demonstrating the practica appication of spatia panning and management of coasta areas and sometimes adjacent freshwater basins through Integrated Coasta Management (ICM) principes and in mangrove restoration and coasta habitat conservation. The GEF foundationa capacity buiding projects are being rapidy competed as noted by OPS4, and a demand has been created for GEF to assist in impementation of agreed, muti-state action programs. The popuarity iustrates recognition by many States of the economic, socia, and poitica importance of keeping LMEs and coasts functioning to provide the many triions of doars in estimated free goods and services to human communities that are now being reduced and degraded. GEF s focus on resuts-based management means that the mutipe stresses on coasta and marine systems must be addressed coectivey with States acting together if communities are to benefit with on-the ground resuts in terms of iveihoods, access to safe water sources, and improved socio-economic status. Thematic initiatives addressing one issue, such as sustainabe fisheries, wi fai to produce community resuts if excessive poution from agricuture or human sewage resuts in a Dead Zone that impairs sustainabe fisheries or if the increase in sea surface temperatures causes the fish stocks to move esewhere. In order to minimize the vunerabiity from sea-eve rise, dispaced fisheries, and other concerns from cimatic variabiity and change, GEF support for ICM and LMEs wi begin to consider risks reated to these issues as future Action Programmes are impemented and new ones formuated. With the ow Repenishment scenario for the IW area, impementation of agreed Action Programmes wi not be abe to incude very many investment-scae demonstrations funded by GEF. Instead, GEF must rey on mutiatera ending operations and OECD members, through their participation in partnerships with GEF eigibe States, to reduce infuence of their distant feets on depetion of iving resources and provide co-financing to prevent conversion of bue forests, reduce poution, and support essentia ICM programs. Loca ICM reforms supported by nationa governments 44 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

49 have been shown in GEF IW projects to achieve cost-effective outcomes as have imited use designations for important habitat such as sea-grass beds and cora reefs that GEF terms fish refugia. Stakehoder engagement is mandatory and gender issues must be addressed. Reduction of and-based sources of marine poution wi continue to demand GEF attention, particuary nutrients from sewage and agricuture that contribute to the aarming spread of coasta Dead Zones and adverse effects on cora reefs. Support to the GPA (Goba Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities) can ony be at a imited eve given imited Repenishment funding to hep address the disruption to the goba nitrogen cyce. GEF wi stress avoiding further depetion of fish stocks and oss of bue forests through habitat restoration/conservation associated with ICM and ecosystem-based approaches to LME management. ICM woud be incorporated into LME SAP impementation to hep secure the panet s bue forests for mutipe benefits (protecting an important carbon sink, securing habitat for biodiversity, protecting community iveihoods and food security, and reducing storm/coasta fooding). Project Support Where capacity is buit and coective action programmes agreed by States significanty contributing to a transboundary concern, GEF wi support impementation of SAPs with reforms and investments that produce resuts. Poicy, ega, institutiona reforms and muti-agency strategic partnerships that contribute to WSSD targets for recovering and sustaining fish stocks woud be a priority, incuding regiona and nationa-eve reforms in ega frameworks and governance, access rights, and enforcement in LMEs. GEF woud aso support in a imited way: investments in sustainabe aternative iveihoods (such as sustainabe maricuture), habitat restoration and imited use designations such as fish refugia, technica assistance, promotion of ess destructive gear to reduce stress on wid fish stocks, and support to impementation of the 1995 Internationa Code of Conduct for Responsibe Fisheries in ICM and in LMEs. GEF piot successes in support for the GPA and nitrogen poution reduction wi be continued to reduce and-based nutrient poution of shared LMEs and their coasts. This is aimed at catayzing goba attention to disruption of the nitrogen cyce and to imit expansion of Dead Zones that interfere with food security and iveihoods. Nationa and oca poicy, ega, institutiona reforms to reduce and-based inputs of nitrogen and other poutants wi be pursued. Incorporation of nutrient reduction into ICM poicies and pans woud have been systematic in the higher scenarios as woud have been innovative partnerships to compement the IW patforms in the Earth Fund such as Rebuiding Ocean Fish Stocks to achieve broader scae and goba impact of the patforms with the business community. These wi now be imited. Depetion of marine waters through over-fishing and use of destructive gear and degradation by coasta poution is acceerating with amost two-thirds of goba fish stocks in troube and in need of management measures. Outcomes In the two arger Repenishment scenarios, GEF intended to work toward a goba impact on the rebuiding of fish stocks as we as catayzing goba action on reduction of nutrient poution creating Dead Zones and new interest in restoring and protecting the itte known but significant carbon sinks of coasta and marine bue forests. With imitations, more modest SAP impementation wi focus on catayzing the appication of poicies and principes reated to sustainabe fisheries and ICM as we as a imited start on few investments. Sustainabe joint management institutions and mechanisms for ecosystem-based approaches to managing LMEs as we as functioning nationa inter-ministry committees woud represent poitica commitments to ecosystem-based joint action and nationa mainstreaming. Nationa and oca poicy, ega and institutiona reforms and increased enforcement woud reduce and-based poution, over-fishing, and secure coasta/marine habitat, especiay the bue forests that need protection as carbon sinks. Stakehoder and Pariamentarian Diaogues and gender mainstreaming wi hep promote more widespread adoption of reforms and a focus on enforcement of ega regimes. Another expected outcome woud be muti-agency partnerships in strategic approaches that foster repication after GEF assistance is ended by incorporating them into UN frameworks and country assistance strategies of agencies and partners. Increased coverage of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) woud aso be expected from cross-foca area projects with the Biodiversity area, and piot support for improved management of muti-country LMEs with their fragie changing environment wi hopefuy catayze management institutions to prevent decine. Indicators woud vary in different projects, incuding: and-based nutrient poution reduction; rightsbased and sustainabe fisheries poicies reducing over-fishing and fostering gear changes; community income benefits; improved enforcement; conserved/restored coasta Bue forests ; reduction in overcapacity of boats,; and poicy/ega/institutiona reforms at nationa and oca eves heping States move toward the WSSD 2010/2015 marine targets. Cimatic variabiity and change and ICM woud be refected in updated SAPs for LMEs. Partnership indicators woud be captured by incorporation into country assistance frameworks and agency priorities. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 45

50 INTERNATIONAL WATERS Objective 3 Support foundationa capacity buiding, portfoio earning, and targeted research needs for ecosystembased, joint management of transboundary water systems Rationae A decade of GEF experience shows that interventions in mutipe countries with regiona projects are more cost-effective than individua country IW projects in catayzing commitments to coective action. OPS4 ceary highights the impact on coaboration among States by using these GEF processes that buid trust and confidence for their working together on shared visions for waterreated concerns. An additiona benefit invoves avoiding poitica conficts among neighboring States and pursuing joint deveopment benefits and regiona integration. This strategy of using foundationa processes to everage poitica commitment to coective action and then scaing up with innovative poicy, ega and institutiona reforms and piot demonstrations may take 10 years and successive projects to achieve. During GEF-5, cimatic variabiity and change, consideration of aquifers, and gender mainstreaming wi be integrated into these foundationa, capacity buiding processes. Where capacity and agreement among States is not yet buit for coectivey addressing transboundary concerns or where cimatic variabiity and change are not yet incorporated into adaptive management frameworks, an enabing environment for action wi be created through GEF supported foundationa processes. These processes incude: estabishment of nationa inter-ministry committees for project participation, deveopment of Transboundary Diagnostic Anayses, third-party faciitation, stakehoder participation, and formuation of Strategic Action Programs (SAPs) with shared visions and agreed reforms and investments. These enabing activities aso focus on capacity buiding and technica assistance for ega and institutiona aspects of muti-eve governance reforms for transboundary water systems so desperatey needed not ony at the transboundary eve but aso at the sub-basin, nationa, and oca eves. Under the ow Repenishment scenario, which woud ony incude margina funding over the GEF 3 aocation to the IW foca area, this objective woud necessariy be imited to initiating support for ony a imited number of new starts requested by States desiring to work together on their transboundary water systems. There woud aso be imited targeted research to fi gaps in understanding and a few projects to deveop techniques and measures to hep meet the new GEF 5 IW requirements. Despite imitations, the intention is to keep an emphasis on active earning and South-to-South experience sharing for the GEF IW portfoio through new Communities of Practice and foster engagement with the private sector. With imitations, a smaer number of requests for foundationa capacity buiding and capacity enhancement for cimatic variabiity and change and incorporating groundwater considerations wi be supported. Each project wi be more expensive to meet the new GEF 5 IW requirements. For shared LMEs and coasts, adaptive management institutions woud become better enabed to buid resiience to fuctuating fisheries, cora reef beaching, sea-eve rise, coasta storm vunerabiity, and coasta hypoxia ( Dead Zones ) through their incorporation into strategies for LME governance improvements and ICM. More States woud be in position to meet the 2010/2015 WSSD marine-reated targets as a priority for GEF 5. Project Support For transboundary surface and groundwater systems, groundwater concerns and opportunities woud be integrated into management of surface water systems (and surface water concerns into transboundary groundwater) so that basins or aquifers serve as management units. Nationa inter-ministry committees woud contribute to deveopment of Strategic Action Programmes, which woud incude commitments to estabish or strengthen institutions for muti-state, coective management and subsequent action. An enabing environment for adopting Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) pans and poicies per WSSD targets wi be pursued in States sharing transboundary surface and groundwater systems; and cimatic variabiity and change wi be integrated into the GEF supported processes. For coasta and marine ecosystems, GEF wi utiize simiar foundationa capacity buiding as States adopt ecosystem-based approaches at the LME and oca ICM scaes. Shifting currents and changes in distribution, abundance, and ife cyces of marine resources as we as coasta storm vunerabiity and sea-eve rise may be incuded in the GEF-supported new efforts. Limited piot projects wi be utiized, incuding some with the private sector to suppement Earth Fund patforms such as Save the Source. These piots wi hep foster approaches to IWRM and ICM. 46 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

51 Outcomes Outcomes woud reate to agreement on key transboundary concerns for waterbodies and poitica agreements on commitments for joint, ecosystem-based actions and cooperation mechanisms (incuding ega/institutiona frameworks at different eves from the transboundary to the oca). Commitments to incorporate transboundary water management priorities into nationa and oca institutions woud be accompanied by oca piot demonstrations associated with priority transboundary concerns and groundwater management with community benefits aso resuting. GEF IW experiences show these oca demonstrations hep provide piot scae community benefits toward MDGs and WSSD targets whie aso engaging stakehoders in needed actions and heping States better understand potentia benefits of coective action. Better understanding of cimatic variabiity and change and groundwater considerations wi resut in enabing States and waterbody/ocean institutions to buid resiience into their base programs. The expected outcomes for earning/experience sharing woud not ony be capacity enhancement or best practices identification and sharing among agencies and States, but projected adoption in and improvement in IW portfoio performance. Communities of Practice wi harness South-to-South earning among States and agencies. The GEF IW Tracking Too wi be used to compare GEF 4 project performance with that from GEF 5 projects. Indicators incude: evidence of functioning nationa inter-ministry committees; agreed SAPs adopted with shared visions of future action and commitments to reforms/investments and refecting cimatic variabiity and change; and benefits demonstrated from water quaity, quantity, habitat, and fisheries piot projects. For transboundary surface and groundwater systems, groundwater concerns and opportunities woud be integrated into management of surface water systems (and surface water concerns into transboundary groundwater) so that basins or aquifers serve as management units. Nationa inter-ministry committees woud contribute to deveopment of Strategic Action Programmes, which woud incude commitments to estabish or strengthen institutions for muti-state, coective management and subsequent action. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 47

52 INTERNATIONAL WATERS Objective 4 Promote effective management of Marine Areas Beyond Nationa Jurisdiction (ABNJ) Rationae Since 1982 when the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea defined (among other things) areas under nationa maritime jurisdictions, Areas Beyond Nationa Jurisdiction (ABNJ) have remained an important management chaenge. Despite covering 40% of the panet, they ack comprehensive ega instruments and norma management options and are threatened by: increasing peagic fishing for highy migratory species and bottom trawing for deepsea species on seamounts, ridges, and other features, maritime navigation, extraction of hydrocarbons and minera exporation, and other emerging activities such as ocean fertiization, which affects the marine environment. Soutions to the ega and management chaenges are emerging under a number of conventions and internationa ega instruments. Recent deveopments at the internationa eve (UN, CBD, FAO) demonstrate growing interest in high seas issues, which have been eigibe for GEF IW funding since the 1995 GEF Strategy. For the purposes of this objective, ABNJ, deep seas, and open oceans woud a be eigibe for GEF assistance. Project Support This objective was originay incuded ony in the higher IW Repenishment scenarios. However, new information shows acceerated depetion of these systems as we as changing conditions from cimate and reduced productivity that actuay threatens protein and internationa trade from the oceans, so reaocations were made. Fisheries, especiay those reated to highy migratory species such as tuna and bottom trawing for deepsea species are ikey to remain the primary and most widespread threat to ecosystems in ABNJ/open oceans. Tuna fishing by purse seiners and ong-iners can impact non-target species such as sea birds, marine mammas and sea turtes. Soutions have been found to prevent and reduce by-catch and projects deaing with these are sought. For exampe: in the eastern Pacific marine mamma by-catch has been reduced by changes in fishing practices; in the Southern Ocean bird mortaity from ong iners has been reduced by gear aterations; and turte by-catch can be reduced by use of circe hooks on ong ines. Regiona fisheries organizations (RFMOs) responsibe for managing migratory species are increasingy coaborating in these initiatives, and the fisheries industry and conservation groups are coaborating more cosey with RFMOs, offering patforms to everage private-pubic partnerships and internationa ega innovations. GEF woud work with these organizations. Protection of deep-sea species, marine biodiversity, and seamount habitat can be greaty improved through enhanced capacity of RFMOs to manage according to ecosystem-based approaches and appication of conservation toos such as MPAs and spatia management toos. Piot initiatives with resources and expertise from both the Biodiversity and IW areas have the potentia to hoisticay address sustainabe fisheries and conservation with Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), Benthic Protected Areas (BPAs), spatia management, cooperative frameworks, and improved fagstate fisheries compiance. Projects that deveop and test technoogy and management arrangements for both peagic and deep-sea environments and seamounts or hep reduce tuna/other by-catch woud be supported in imited piots that refect imited resources of Repenishment. These projects may appy the criteria issued in CBD/COP9 Decision IX/20 or under the FAO Internationa Guideines on the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas. Use of existing ega instruments such as Regiona Seas Agreements, RFMOs, and other arrangements such as IMO Specia Areas or PSSAs and Internationa Seabed Authority protected area measures may be tested aong with market and industry approaches. NGOs and other stakehoders with capacity to contribute to the testing of measures and management options woud be supported to contribute to urgent need to reverse depetion and habitat degradation occurring in these sensitive environments that represent the goba commons of our panet. 48 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

53 Outcomes GEF intended to have a goba institutiona impact under the $660 miion IW scenario by testing management approaches in a joint programmatic approach with the Biodiversity foca area. With ess funding, ony a imited set of piots can be supported with ess goba cataytic impact than in higher scenarios. Outcomes incude: sustainabe fisheries mechanisms and institutions, promotion and capacity buiding on the use of improved gears, improved fag-state and port-state monitoring and contro of fishing practices; and protection of vunerabe marine ecosystems--incuding seamounts. Partnerships with NGOs/foundations/ States/ agencies/ industries are expected. Indicators incude: estabishment of BPAs, improved fag and port state enforcement; demonstration pans under impementation for incorporation of these concerns into work of RFMOs and other institutions, and estabishment of new, piot institutions and management systems for certain ABNJ, deep-sea fisheries, and open oceans. Outcomes incude sustainabe fisheries mechanisms and institutions. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 49

54 TABLE 3: INTERNATIONAL WATERS RESULTS FRAMEWORK Long-Term IW Goa: Impacts: Promotion of coective management of transboundary water systems and impementation of the fu range of poicy, ega, and institutiona reforms and investments contributing to sustainabe use and maintenance of ecosystem services. Muti-state cooperation catayzed to address concerns of transboundary water systems for most every continent and ocean with specia impact on rebuiding marine fish stocks and protecting bue forests coasta habitat gobay Objectives Key Expected Outcomes Key Targets for $4.23 biion Target Tota Foca Area Aocation $440 miion Objective 1: Catayze muti-state cooperation to baance conficting water uses in transboundary surface and groundwater basins whie considering cimatic variabiity and change Outcome 1.1: Impementation of agreed Strategic Action Programmes (SAPs) incorporates transboundary IWRM principes (incuding environment and groundwater) and poicy/ ega/institutiona reforms into nationa/oca pans Indicator 1.1: Impementation of nationa/oca reforms; functioning of nationa inter-ministry committees Outcome 1.2: Transboundary institutions for joint ecosystem-based and adaptive management demonstrate sustainabiity Indicator 1.2: Cooperation frameworks adopted and states contribute to financia sustainabiity Outcome 1.3: Innovative soutions impemented for reduced poution, improved water use efficiency, sustainabe fisheries with rights-based management, IWRM, water suppy protection in SIDS, and aquifer and catchment protection Indicator 1.3: Measurabe waterreated resuts from oca demonstrations $130 miion Co-financing ratio of 1:2 Muti-state- cooperation resuts in: adoption/ impementation of nationa/ oca reforms in 50% of States and successfu demonstration resuts in at east 50 % of States in 6-7 transboundary water systems Earth Fund Patform on Save the Source Core Outputs Nationa and oca poicy and ega reforms adopted/ Cooperation frameworks agreed with sustainabe financing identified Types of technoogies and measures impemented in oca demonstrations and investments Enhanced capacity for issues of cimatic variabiity and change and groundwater management Outcome 1.4: Cimatic variabiity and change as we as groundwater capacity incorporated into updated SAP to refect adaptive management Indicator 1.4: Updated SAP and capacity deveopment surveys 50 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

55 TABLE 3: INTERNATIONAL WATERS RESULTS FRAMEWORK (continued) Objectives Key Expected Outcomes Key Targets for $4.23 biion Target Objective 2: Catayze mutistate cooperation to rebuid marine fisheries and reduce poution of coasts and Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) whie considering cimatic variabiity and change Outcome 2.1: Impementation of agreed Strategic Action Programmes (SAPs) incorporates ecosystem-based approaches to management of LMEs, ICM principes, and poicy/ega/ institutiona reforms into nationa/oca pans Indicator 2.1: Impementation of nationa/oca reforms; functioning of nationa inter-ministry committees; Outcome 2.2: Institutions for joint ecosystem-based and adaptive management for LMEs and oca ICM frameworks demonstrate sustainabiity Indicator 2.2: Cooperation frameworks adopted & incude sustainabe financing Outcome 2.3: Innovative soutions impemented for reduced poution, rebuiding or protecting fish stocks with rights-based management, ICM, habitat (bue forest) restoration/conservation, and port management and produce measureabe resuts ( Indicator 2.3: Measurabe resuts for reducing and-based poution, habitat, and sustainabe fisheries from oca demonstrations $180 miion 1:2 co-financing ratio Muti-state cooperation resuts in: adoption/ impementation of nationa/oca reforms in 50% of States and successfu demonstrations resuts for at east 50 % of States in 5-6 LMEs Earth Fund patform Rebuiding Ocean Fish Stocks Core Outputs Nationa and oca poicy/ega/institutiona reforms adopted/ Agreed commitments to sustainabe ICM and LME cooperation frameworks Types of technoogies and measures impemented in oca demonstrations and investments Enhanced capacity for issues of cimatic variabiity and change Industry partnerships with Earth Fund Outcome 2.4: Cimatic variabiity and change at coasts and in LMEs incorporated into updated SAP to refect adaptive management and ICM principes (incuding protection of bue forests ) Indicator 2.4: Updated SAPs and capacity deveopment surveys GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 51

56 TABLE 3: INTERNATIONAL WATERS RESULTS FRAMEWORK (continued) Objectives Key Expected Outcomes Key Targets for $4.23 biion Target Objective 3: Support foundationa capacity buiding, portfoio earning, and targeted research needs for joint, ecosystembased management of trans-boundary water systems Outcome 3.1: Poitica commitment, shared vision, and institutiona capacity demonstrated for joint, ecosystem-based management of waterbodies and oca ICM principes Indicators 3.1: Agreed SAPs at ministeria eve with considerations for cimatic variabiity and change; functioning nationa inter-ministry committees; agreed ICM pans Outcome 3.2: On-the-ground modest actions impemented in water quaity, quantity (incuding basins draining areas of meting ice), fisheries, and coasta habitat demonstrations for bue forests to protect carbon Indicator 3.2: Measurabe resuts contributed at demo scae Outcome 3.3: IW portfoio capacity and performance enhanced from active earning/km/experience sharing Indicator 3.3: GEF 5 performance improved over GEF 4 per data from IW Tracking Too; capacity surveys. $100 miion Muti-state agreement on commitments to joint, ecosystem-based action in Strategic Action Programmes for 7-8 new transboundary water bodies with modest demonstrations 85% IW projects demonstrate active GEF portfoio experience sharing/earning Core Outputs Nationa interministry committees estabished; Transboundary Diagnostic Anayses & Strategic Action Programmes; oca IWRM or ICM pans Demo-scae oca action impemented, incuding in basins with meting ice and to restore/protect coasta bue forests Active experience /sharing/ earning practiced in the IW portfoio Arctic LMEs addressed with partners Outcome 3.4: Targeted research networks fi gaps Indicator 3.4: Cora reef and nutrient reduction research resuts incorporated into new agency and GEF IW projects Outcome 3.5: Poitica agreements on Arctic LMEs hep contribute to prevention of further depetion/degradation. Indicator 3.5: agreements signed; AMAP monitoring shows no further depetion/ degradation of the Arctic LMEs supported by GEF 52 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

57 TABLE 3: INTERNATIONAL WATERS RESULTS FRAMEWORK (continued) Objectives Key Expected Outcomes Key Targets for $4.23 biion Target Objective 4: Promote effective management of Marine Areas Beyond Nationa Jurisdiction (ABNJ) Outcome 4.1: ABNJ (incuding deep-sea fisheries, oceans areas, and seamounts) under sustainabe management and protection (incuding MPAs) Indicator 4.1: ABNJ demo pans impemented; improved fag and port state enforcement of practices $ 30 miion 50 % of demonstrations sustainabe within institutions Core Outputs Demonstrations for management measures in ABNJ, (incuding deep-sea fisheries, ocean areas) with institutions; Outcome 4.2: Pans and institutiona frameworks for piot cases of ABNJ have cataytic effect on goba discussions Indicator 4.2: Increased emphasis on ABNJ in agencies/ organizations compared to GEF 4 GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 53

58 54 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY Rura peope wak amost 30 kiometre a day to bring firewood to cities or towns to se for ess than a doar, whie sowy depriving them of their forests.

59 Land Degradation (Desertification and Deforestation) Strategy Background The Land Degradation Foca Area (LD FA) directy supports the impementation of the UNCCD, as an operating entity of the Financia Mechanism of the Convention, as we as indirecty the Non-Legay Binding Instrument (NLBI) on a types of forests of UNFF. At the same time, the LD FA fosters synergetic benefits with the UNFCCC, UNCBD and reevant internationa agreements on the sustainabe use of waters. The GEF-4 LD FA strategy was founded on the basis of the Miennium Ecosystem Assessment s recommendation for investments in the prevention and contro of and degradation in areas with medium to high production potentia that are essentia for peopes iveihoods 24, and in affected areas where the socia a consequences of continuing and degradation can trigger serious environmenta and deveopmenta probems. Desertification and deforestation remain the priority for the GEF LD FA with a focus on agroecosystems 25 and forest andscapes, where deterioration of ecosystem services 26 (see Tabe 1) wi increasingy undermine the iveihoods of more than 2 biion peope gobay, a great majority of who are very poor. The chaenge of poverty and and degradation is particuary severe in the word s dryands 27, where effects of cimate change on production systems are further exacerbated. 24 See Ecosystems and Human We-being: Synthesis, Miennium Ecosystem Assessment, mienniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf 25 Agro-ecosystems encompass intensive and extensive crop-based, ivestock-based, and mixed systems. 26 Ecosystem services are the benefits peope derive from ecosystems, which are categorized by the Miennium Ecosystem Assessment as provisioning, reguating, supporting, and cutura. 27 Based on the UNCCD definition, dryands is used here to incude a arid, semi-arid, and sub-humid regions. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 55

60 TABLE 4: Ecosystem services in agro-ecosystems and forest andscapes [modified from Miennium Ecosystem services (2005) and Goba Environment Outook (2007)] Provisioning Reguating Supporting Cuturua Food and nutrients Fue Anima feed Genetic resources Erosion contro Cimate reguation Natura hazard reguation (droughts, foods, fire) Water fows and quaity Soi formation Soi protection Nutrient cycing Water cycing Habitat for biodiversity Traditiona and management practices Sacred groves as sources of water For GEF-5, more focus and incentives are needed to enhance the LD FA portfoio with soutions to the emerging chaenges, and with the opportunities to act in rura production andscapes. This incudes efforts directed at addressing management of competing and uses and resuting changes in and cover and ecosystem dynamics, the potentia of sustainabe and management supporting both cimate change adaptation and mitigation, and at options to mitigate the expoitation of natura resources for short-term economic gain at the cost of ecoogica and socia sustainabiity. These emerging issues coincide aso with the three major direct drivers for terrestria ecosystem degradation identified by the Miennium Ecosystem Assessment: and use change, natura resources consumption and cimate change. These direct drivers are aso emphasized in the 10-year ( ) strategy of the UNCCD 28, which aims to forge a goba partnership to reverse and prevent desertification/and degradation and to mitigate the effects of drought in affected areas in order to support poverty reduction and environmenta sustainabiity. The LD FA embraces the andscape approach by adopting agreed ecosystem functioning principes, such as maintaining and enhancing connectivity, resiience and stabiity of ecosystems. By adopting an integrated approach to natura resources management 29 (NRM), the LD FA drives an agenda for mutipe goba environmenta benefits, incuding those reated to the protection and sustainabe use of biodiversity, cimate change mitigation and adaptation, and the protection and sustainabe use of internationa waters. In this regard, joint programming with other GEF foca areas wi be activey pursued, especiay in the context of integrated watershed in priority transboundary catchments and groundwater recharge areas (inks with IW Foca Area), increasing forest and tree cover in production andscapes (inks with CCM Foca Area), and impementation of andscape approaches for protected area management (inks with Biodiversity Foca Area). This effort wi aso take into account opportunities to deveop country-eve or regiona programmatic approaches for NRM where they are ikey to trigger transformationa changes in the agricuture and forest sectors. 56 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

61 Land Degradation (Desertification and Deforestation) Strategy Goas and Objectives The goa of the and degradation foca area is to contribute to arresting and reversing current goba trends in and degradation, specificay desertification and deforestation. This wi be accompished by promoting and supporting effective poicies, ega and reguatory frameworks, capabe institutions, knowedge sharing and monitoring mechanisms, together with good practices conducive to sustainabe and management (SLM) 30 and that are abe to generate goba environmenta benefits whie supporting oca and nationa, socia and economic deveopment. Therefore, the LD strategy wi promote system-wide change necessary to contro the increasing severity and extent of and degradation. Investing in sustainabe and management (SLM) to contro and prevent and degradation in the wider andscape is an essentia and cost-effective way to deiver mutipe goba environmenta benefits reated to ecosystem functions. The portfoio of projects and programs impemented under the LD FA strategy is expected to contribute to the foowing agreed goba environmenta benefits and expected nationa socio-economic benefits: (with indicators and measures in presented in Annex 1): Agreed goba environmenta benefits: Improved provision of agro-ecosystem and forest ecosystem goods and services. Reduced GHG emissions from agricuture, deforestation and forest degradation and increased carbon sequestration. Reduced vunerabiity of agro-ecosystem and forest ecosystems to cimate change and other human-induced impacts. Expected nationa socio-economic benefits: Sustained iveihoods for peope dependent on the use and management of natura resources (and, water, and biodiversity). Reduced vunerabiity to impacts of CC of peope dependent on the use and management of natura resources in agricutura and forest ecosystems. These benefits are consistent with the GEF Instrument and contribute to the achievement of Miennium Deveopment Goas 1 Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, and 7 Ensure environmenta sustainabiity, specificay target 7a: Integrate the principes of sustainabe deveopment into country poicies and programs; reverse oss of environmenta resources and target 7b: Reduce biodiversity oss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of oss. Four objectives wi contribute to the foca area goa and drive the deveopment of the GEF-5 portfoio: a) Maintain or improve fows of agro-ecosystem services to sustain the iveihoods of oca communities; b) Generate sustainabe fows of forest ecosystem services in arid, semi-arid and sub-humid zones, incuding sustaining iveihoods of forest-dependent peope; c) Reduce pressures on natura resources from competing and uses in the wider andscape; and d) Increase capacity to appy adaptive management toos in SLM. 28 Document avaiabe at 29 As defined in: Sayer J.A and Campbe, B The Science of Sustainabe Deveopment: Loca Liveihoods and the Goba Environment. Cambridge University Press. Integrated Natura Resource Management is a conscious process of incorporating the mutipe aspects of resource use into a system of sustainabe management to meet the goas of resource users, managers and other stakehoders (e.g. production, food security, profitabiity, risk aversion and sustainabiity goas). 30 As defined in: Word Bank Sustainabe Land Management: Chaenges, Opportunities and Tradeoffs. Internationa Bank for Reconstruction and Deveopment/The Word Bank, Washington, DC. Sustainabe and management (SLM) is a knowedge-based procedure that heps integrate and, water, biodiversity, and environmenta management (incuding input and output externaities) to meet rising food and fiber demands whie sustaining ecosystem services and iveihoods. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 57

62 and degradation Objective 1 Maintain or improve fows of agro-ecosystem services to sustain iveihoods of oca communities. Rationae Credibe estimates of and affected by human-induced soi degradation, such as by unsustainabe agricuture practices range from 196 miion km2 to 200 miion km2. Unsustainabe agricutura activities cause many types of and degradation with a wide variety of underying causes. This objective addresses the main barriers to sustainabe agricuture which can be inked to the poicy, ega and reguatory environment, human and institutiona capacities and access and transfer of knowedge and technoogy reevant to the management of agricutura ands. Outputs of projects supported under this objective wi incude reduced rates of soi erosion, reduced GHG emissions from agricutura (crop and ivestock) activities and maintained habitats in the agricutura andscape. Consistent with the deveopment priority, GEF wi focus on areas where agricutura and rangeand management practices underpin the iveihoods of poor rura farmers and pastoraists. The foowing key outcomes wi be achieved under this objective: Project Support Projects addressing this strategic objective may for exampe focus on the foowing actions. Capacity deveopment to improve decisionmaking in management of production andscapes to ensure maintenance of ecosystem services important for the goba environment and for peopes iveihoods, and estabish mechanism to scae up good agricutura practices. Improving community-based agricutura management incuding participatory decisionmaking and gender-reated issues. Buiding of technica and institutiona capacities to monitor and reduce GHG emissions from agricutura activities (incuding estimating and monitoring associated emissions and changes in carbon stocks. a) The enabing environment within the agricutura sector wi be enhanced through targeting three core areas: poicy, ega and reguatory framework, capabe institutions, and knowedge transfer, b) Improved management of agricutura systems wi be achieved through the avaiabiity of technoogies and good practices for crop and ivestock production. There is need for the sustainabe provision of diverse sources for investments to farmers for maintaining or up-scaing the appication of these technoogies and practices on their ands; and c) The functionaity and cover of agro-ecosystems are maintained. Impementing integrated approaches to soi fertiity and water management; agro-forestry as an option for integrated natura resource management in crop-ivestock systems, especiay for smahoder farmers with imited options for improving farm inputs (e.g. fertiizers, seeds, toos); conservation agricuture. Improving management of impacts of cimate change on agricutura ands (incuding water avaiabiity), diversification of crops and anima species in order to enhance agro-ecosystem resiience and manage risks; drought mitigation strategies, and other ecosystem-based cimate adaptation strategies. Securing innovative financing mechanism based on vauation of environmenta services (e.g. PES and other market-based mechanisms) to create sustainabe finance fow for reinvestment in sustainabe agricuture; this does not incude direct support for PES or other mechanisms. Improving rangeand management and sustainabe pastoraism, incuding reguating ivestock grazing pressure to carrying capacity (adaptation to cimate change), sustainabe intensification, rotationa grazing systems, diversity in anima and grass species; managing fire disturbance. 58 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

63 Objective One strives to maintain or improve fows of agro-ecosystem servies to sustain iveihoods of oca communities. Impementing integrated approaches to soi fertiity and water management; especiay for smahoder farmers with imited options for improving farm inputs (e.g. fertiizers, seeds, toos); conservation agricuture. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 59

64 and degradation Objective 2 Generate sustainabe fows of forest ecosystem services in arid, semi-arid and sub-humid zones, incuding sustaining iveihoods of forest-dependent peope Rationae Forest ecosystems in arid, semi-arid and sub-humid zones are sti degrading or disappearing at an aarming rate, with consequences for the quantity and quaity of inked ecosystem services that underpin and productivity and human we-being. In addition, forest-dependent peope strugge sustaining their iveihoods with an increased trend to migrate towards arger cities once the forestbased iveihood opportunities have been exhausted. This objective focuses on remova of barriers to sustainabe forest management (SFM) by promoting the enabing environment, access to technoogy, and best practices combined with arge-scae appications on the ground. Resuts wi utimatey ead to a net gain in forest area and the improvement of seected forest ecosystem services such as provisioning (e.g. food and fue for iveihoods), reguating (e.g. reducing greenhouse gas emissions, erosion contro) and supporting (e.g. soi protection and habitat for biodiversity). The foowing key outcomes wi be achieved under this objective: a) An enhanced enabing environment within countries by targeting three core components: poicy, ega and reguatory framework in the forest sector, capabe forestreevant institutions, and knowedge transfer; b) Improved management of forests through avaiabiity of technoogies and good practices and the sustainabe provision of diverse investment resources to forestdependant peope for maintaining or up-scaing the appication of these technoogies and practices on their ands. Project Support Projects addressing this strategic objective may for exampe focus on the foowing actions. Capacity deveopment: Forest poicy and reated ega and reguatory frameworks reformuation and improved decision-making. Sustainabe management of forests and trees outside forests for timber and non-timber products. Reforestation and use of oca species, incuding agro-forestry, successions to move from deforested areas to cosed forest (if feasibe). Vauation of environmenta services from forest ecosystems and introduction of PES and other marketbased/innovative financing mechanisms in demonstration projects for creating a sustainabe finance fow to be reinvested in SFM; this does not incude direct support for PES or other mechanisms. Management of impacts of cimate change on forest ands, practices and choice of species used for reforestation. Mechanisms to scae up and out good practices through e.g. private sector, community-based organizations, extension services, and media. c) Functionaity and cover of forest ecosystems in arid, semi-arid and sub-humid zones maintained and improved. 60 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

65 Trees for reforestation are distributed in Ethiopia. At a tree nursery in Ethiopia, seeding pots are fied. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 61

66 and degradation Objective 3 Reduce pressures on natura resources from competing and uses in the wider andscape Rationae Over the past decades, the pace, magnitude and spatia reach of human-induced changes in the wider andscape are unprecedented. Land degradation severey affects the stabiity of the habitats of pant and anima species and contributes to oca and regiona as we as goba cimate change. This objective wi address the pressures on natura resources from competing and uses in the wider andscape (e.g. extending the agricutura frontier into forest ands, extractive industry destroying forests, urbanization of rura areas). It reinforces objective 1 and 2 by emphasizing cross-sector harmonization and muti-integration of SLM. Outcomes focus on harmonized sector poicies and coordinated institutions constituting an enabing environment between reevant sectors and the argescae appication of good management practices based on integrated and use panning. At the same time, financing instruments and mechanisms that provide incentives for reducing the pressures and competition between and use systems wi be expored and experimented with improving the iveihood basis of peope dependant on the use of natura resources. Project Support Projects addressing this strategic objective may for exampe focus on the foowing actions. Capacity deveopment to improve decision-making in management of production andscapes to ensure maintenance of ecosystem services important for the goba environment and for peopes iveihoods. Avoiding deforestation and forest degradation, incuding and use changes affecting forest ands driven by expanding sectors (e.g. arge-scae agricuture and mining). Buiding of technica and institutiona capacities to monitor and reduce GHG emissions from agricutura activities and deforestation (inc. estimating and monitoring associated emissions and changes in carbon stocks). The foowing key outcomes wi be achieved under this objective: a.) b.) Enhanced enabing environments toward harmonization and coordination between sectors in support of SLM wi be achieved by coordinating poicy, ega and reguatory frameworks between sectors competing for and area and natura resources; capabe institutions that wi coaborate and coordinate actions reated to and use to avoid negative trade-offs; and knowedge transfer for decision-support. Good SLM practices in the wider andscape demonstrated and adopted by reevant economic sectors. The provision of financia resources to rura and users wi enabe them to sustain and upscae good practices. Deveoping innovative financing mechanisms such as PES for sustainabe investment in SLM through sector-wide approaches and harmonized strategies; this does not incude direct support for PES or other mechanisms Improving management of agricutura activities within the vicinity of protected areas Integrated watershed management, incuding transboundary areas where SLM interventions can improve hydroogica functions and services for agro-ecosystem productivity (crop and ivestock). 62 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

67 Urbanization of rura areas is one of the competitors for and use. Extending the agricutura frontier into forest ands adds to the pressures on natura resources. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 63

68 and degradation Objective 4 INCREASE CAPACITY TO APPLY ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT TOOLS IN SLM Rationae The GEF as an operating entity of the financia mechanism of the UNCCD supports enabing activities reated to the obigations of the Parties to the Convention in the context of wider capacity deveopment for SLM. This objective wi support adaptive management by aiding countries in nationa monitoring and reporting to UNCCD in the context of supporting the nationa and regiona SLM agenda and the deveopment of new toos and methods for better addressing the root causes and impacts of and degradation. In addition, GEF wi aso strengthen the scientific basis for effective monitoring and assessment in the LD FA, incuding toos and indicators for muti-scae appication. Project Support Projects addressing this strategic objective may for exampe focus on the foowing actions. Resuts-monitoring of UNCCD action programs; Aignment of nationa reporting with revised UNCCD action programs in the context of the UNCCD 10-year strategy; Mainstreaming synergies and best practices for NRM through regiona networks of exceence; The foowing key outcomes wi be achieved under this objective: a) Increased capacities of Countries to fufi their obigations in accordance with the provisions under the UNCCD. As countries deveop and update their nationa action pans (NAPs) to combat desertification and report back to the COP in form of Nationa Reports (NR), one of the major barriers to the successfu impementation of the NAPs remains institutiona and human capacity at the country and regiona eves. b) Improved project performance using new and adapting existing toos and methodoogies. The deveopment of new and adaptation of existing toos for and methodoogies important to combating and degradation is of high importance for knowedge transfer and arge-scae uptake in countries and across regions. This outcome wi be mainy informed through Targeted Research projects or appied research components in reguar projects addressing SO 1- SO-3. Deveopment of improved methods for muti-scae assessment and monitoring of and degradation trends, and for impact monitoring of GEF investment in SLM; Management of organic residues to optimize GEB in SLM (crop, ivestock, wood residues); Lifecyce anaysis for organic agricuture, incuding potentia GEB Deveopment of guideines and toos for assessing ecosystem stabiity, resiience and maintenance of reguating services 64 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

69 The dua objectives of the UNCCD are to combat desertification and and degradation, and mitigate effects of drought (DLDD) in affected countries, particuary in Africa GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 65

70 Learning Objectives The LD FA wi draw on project investments under the different strategic objectives to generate knowedge on good practices and synthesizes essons in the form of goba pubic goods. In addition, the foowing earning objectives wi be pursued to further strengthen and inform future strategies: 1 To deveop a framework and toos for inking the measurement of GEBs at project eve to impacts across mutipe scaes. This wi buid on existing GEF-financed initiatives incuding LADA, KM:Land, and Carbon Benefits to fuy integrate methods for estabishment of project baseines, identifying measureabe indicators, and subsequent monitoring. 2 To increase understanding of mutipe benefits from integrated management of andscape mosaics, and mixed agricutura and forest ecosystems. This wi enabe and benefit from a stronger aignment of LD FA with the GEF areas, and in the context of generating GEBs and ecosystem services to society. 66 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

71 TABLE 5: LAND DEGRADATION RESULTS FRAMEWORK Goa: Impacts: Indicators: To contribute to arresting and reversing current goba trends in and degradation, specificay desertification and deforestation. Sustained productivity of agro-ecosystems and forest andscapes in support of human iveihoods Change in and productivity (greenness measure as proxy - NPP, NDVI corrected by RUE) Improved iveihoods in rura areas (Farmer income) Vaue of investment in SLM ($ generated from diverse sources, co-financing in projects) Objectives LD-1: Agricuture and Rangeand Systems: Maintain or improve fow of agro-ecosystem services sustaining the iveihoods of oca communities (US$200 miion aocation) Outcome Targets: Sustainabe Management of 120 miion ha production andscapes Key Expected Outcomes and indicators (Based on $4.2 Biion Repenishment) Outcome 1.1: An enhanced enabing environment within the agricutura sector Indicator 1.1 Agricutura poicies support smahoder and community tenure security Outcome 1.2: Improved agricutura management Indicator 1.2 Increased and area with sustained productivity and reduced vunerabiity of communities to cimate variabiity Outcome 1.3: Sustained fow of services in agroecosystems Indicator 1.3 Maintained/increased fow of services in agro-ecosystems Outcome 1.4: Increased investments in SLM Indicator 1.4 Increased resources fowing to SLM from diverse sources Core Outputs Output 1.1 Nationa poicies that guarantee smahoder and community tenure security Output 1.2 Types of Innovative SL/WM practices introduced at fied eve Output 1.3 Suitabe SL/WM interventions to increase vegetative cover in agroecosystems Output 1.4 Appropriate actions to diversify the financia resource base Output 1.5 Information on SLM technoogies and good practice guideines disseminated GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 67

72 TABLE 5: LAND DEGRADATION RESULTS FRAMEWORK (continued) Objectives LD-2: Forest Landscapes: Generate sustainabe fows of forest ecosystem services in dryands, incuding sustaining iveihoods of forest dependant peope (US$30 miion aocation pus US$20 miion for the SFM/ REDD+ Incentive Program) Outcome Targets: Sustainabe Management of 300,000 ha of forest production andscapes, incuding in dryand and transboundary areas Key Expected Outcomes and indicators (Based on $4.2 Biion Repenishment) Outcome 2.1: An enhanced enabing environment within the forest sector in dryand dominated countries Indicator 2.1 Forestry poicies support smahoder and community tenure security Outcome 2.2: Improved forest management in dryands Indicator 2.2 Increased and area under sustainabe forest management practices Outcome 2.3: Sustained fow of services in forest ecosystems in dryands Indicator 2.3 Increased quantity and quaity of forests in dryand ecosystems Outcome 2.4: Increased investments in SFM in dryand forests ecosystems Indicator 2.4 Increased resources fowing to SFM from diverse sources (e.g. PES, sma credit schemes, vountary carbon market) Core Outputs Output 2.1 Nationa poicies that guarantee smahoder and community tenure security Output 2.2 Types of innovative SFM practices introduced at fied eve Output 2.3 Suitabe SFM interventions to increase/ maintain natura forest cover in dryand production andscapes Output 2.4 Appropriate actions to diversify the financia resource base Output 2.5 Information on SFM technoogies and good practice guideines disseminated LD-3: Integrated Landscapes: Reduce pressures on natura resources from competing and uses in the wider andscape (US$135 miion aocation) Outcome Target: Integrated management of 150 miion hectares of production systems and natura habitats, incuding in dryands and transboundary areas Outcome 3.1: Enhanced cross-sector enabing environment for integrated andscape management Indicator 3.1 Poicies support integration of agricuture, rangeand, forest, and other and uses Outcome 3.2: Integrated andscape management practices adopted by oca communities Indicator 3.2 Appication of integrated natura resource management (INRM) practices in wider andscapes Outcome 3.3: Increased investments in integrated andscape management Indicator 3.3 Increased resources fowing to INRM and other and uses from divers sources Output 3.1 Integrated and management pans deveoped and impemented Output 3.2 INRM toos and methodoogies deveoped and tested Output 3.3 Appropriate actions to diversify the financia resource base Output 3.4 Information on INRM technoogies and good practice guideines disseminated 68 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

73 TABLE 5: LAND DEGRADATION RESULTS FRAMEWORK (continued) Objectives LD-4: Adaptive Management and Learning: Increase capacity to appy adaptive management toos in SLM/ SFM/INRM by GEF and UNCCD Parties (US$15 miion aocation) Outcome Target: At east 75% of GEF projects financed in GEF-5 address priorities identified in UNCCD 10-year Strategy and nationa reporting process; At east 50% of GEF projects financed through the LD FA take up emerging knowedge from targeted research projects or projects with targeted research component Key Expected Outcomes and indicators (Based on $4.2 Biion Repenishment) Outcome 4.1: Increased capacities of countries to fufi obigations in accordance with the provisions provided in the UNCCD. Indicator 4.1: Improved quaity and timeiness of reporting compiance by countries Outcome 4.2: Improved GEF portfoio monitoring using new and adapted toos and methodoogies Indicator 4.2 GEF-6 LD foca area strategy refects essons earned, and resuts of targeted research portfoio and impementation resuts from earier repenishment periods Core Outputs Output 4.1 At east 50 countries impementing UNCCD priorities with improved monitoring of impacts at nationa eve Output 4.1 A country investments in LD Objectives 1-3 are inked to UNCCD action programs and nationa reporting process Output 4.2 GEF-financed projects contribute to SLM/SFM/INRM knowedge base GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 69

74 70 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY Many chemicas are dangerous to human and ecosystem heath. Among the worst is a range of synthetic organic compounds that persist in the environment for ong periods of time.

75 Chemicas Strategy The GEF-5 strategy for chemicas sets to consoidate the persistent organic poutants and ozone ayer depetion foca areas, as we as to broaden the scope of GEF s engagement with the sound management of chemicas and to initiate work on mercury. Background The chemicas industry is experiencing a shift in production of chemicas from OECD to non-oecd countries. This increases the stakes and the chaenges of managing chemicas safey in the deveoping word. For exampe, WHO estimates that about 3% of exposed agricutura workers suffer from an episode of acute pesticide poisoning every year. The overwheming majority of fataities take pace in deveoping countries. Chronic effects of exposure to toxic chemicas most often go unreported, particuary in the deveoping word. Industria compounds such as methymercury, ead, PCBs, and other neurotoxicants cause neurodeveopment disorders with very serious societa impications: studies in the past decade have shown that ow-eve prenata exposure to methy-mercury is correated with decreased IQ, eading to downward shift in IQ at the popuation eve. The costs associated with ost productivity due to the oss of IQ of chidren exposed to mercury through seafood consumption of their pregnant mothers were estimated at $8.7 biion annuay in the US. Heathcare costs due to ead poisoning are estimated at $43 biion per year in the same country. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 71

76 The effects of toxic exposure on widife and ecosystems are aso we documented, athough cause and effect reationships can be difficut to ascertain. For instance, pesticides have been impicated in the decine of amphibians wordwide; DDT metaboites have been known for decades to induce egg-she thinning and were responsibe for the decine of popuations of fish-eating birds; cora reefs were recenty shown to be under threat from pesticides run-off, compounding the effects of cimate change. Amongst the number of persistent toxic substances (PTS) and chemicas of concern, one category of chemicas, persistent organic poutants (POPs), poses great risks to the goba environment because of their persistence and potentia for bio-accumuation and ong range transport. As a consequence, they are at the core of the GEF strategy for chemicas. The reaization of the risks to human heath and the environment posed by the unsafe production and use of chemicas has ed nations to indicate their support for sound chemicas management gobay, as expressed via various regiona and internationa agreements on chemicas. These incude the Stockhom Convention and the Montrea Protoco (for both of which the GEF is a financia mechanism), as we as the Base Convention, the Rotterdam Convention, the Strategic Approach to Internationa Chemicas Management (SAICM), the Kyoto Protoco, a variety of marine conventions focused on protection of the environment from toxic and hazardous wastes, and the Internationa Labour Organization (ILO) chemicas conventions pertaining to worker safety. Sound chemicas management at the nationa eve, as underpinned by these regiona and internationa agreements, brings many goba economic, socia and environmenta benefits. Emerging issues and changing conditions for the foca area Leading to and under GEF-4, the buk of chemicasreated activities in the GEF were comprised of: Activities under the POPs foca area in support of the impementation of the Stockhom Convention; Activities in the ozone ayer depetion foca area to support impementation of the Montrea Protoco in eigibe Countries with Economies In Transition; and Limited interventions targeting persistent toxic substances under the Internationa Waters foca area. GEF-4 aso saw for the first time the impementation of a cross-cutting strategy on sound chemicas management with mixed success due to, inter aia, imited incentives. Since the time of the GEF-4 repenishment, the internationa chemicas agenda has expanded 72 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

77 consideraby in quantity and scope, requiring an enhanced response from the GEF: the Strategic Approach to Internationa Chemicas Management (SAICM) was adopted in 2006 with the Internationa Conference on Chemicas Management at its second session in May 2009 urg[ing] the GEF [ ] to consider expanding its activities reated to the sound management of chemicas to faciitate SAICM impementation [ ] ; negotiations for a egay-binding agreement on mercury were aunched in 2009; and the inkages between the ozone depeting substances (ODS) and cimate forcing greenhouse gases (GHGs) have been emphasised. The synergy process currenty taking pace within the chemicas and waste custer of mutiatera environmenta agreements creates demand and opportunity for a more comprehensive approach that extends support beyond POPs and ozone depeting substances. The recommendations by the Ad-Hoc Joint Working Group on enhancing cooperation and coordination among the Base, Rotterdam and Stockhom conventions that have been adopted by the Base, Rotterdam, and Stockhom Conference of the Parties 31 (COP), recognise that actions taken to enhance coordination and cooperation shoud be aimed at strengthening impementation of the three conventions at the nationa, regiona and goba eves, promoting coherent poicy guidance, enhancing efficiency in the provision of support to Parties [ ] and invite the GEF, within its mandate, [ ] to carry out projects aimed at cooperation and coordination in support of impementation of the three conventions[...]. The GEF s mandate as financia mechanism of the Stockhom Convention wi require addressing the newy isted chemicas under the Convention. There are compex and chaenging issues reated to these chemicas throughout their ife-cyce and eigibe countries wi require assistance to address these. This extends to environmentay sound disposa of POPscontaining waste. The GEF wi aso continue to support cost effective efforts to phase out ozone-depeting substances in countries with economies in transition to meet their Montrea Protoco compiance obigations. With regards to ozone-depeting substances containing waste, efforts to manage these in an environmentay sound way can be supported, in parae with managing wastes from other hazardous chemicas and efforts to mitigate cimate change. This wi ensure considerabe synergies. 31 Decision SC-4/34 GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 73

78 Methy Bromide recognized as an ozone depeting chemica used as a pesticide, unti phased out by most countries in the eary 2000 s. The goa of the GEF s chemicas program is to promote the sound management of chemicas throughout their ife-cyce in ways that ead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human heath and the goba environment. This goa is aigned with other internationay agreed goas and objectives, incuding those of the SAICM, the goba chemicas strategy that provides a vountary poicy framework for achieving such a goa. Some funding for the objectives and activities of the SAICM that contribute to goba environmenta benefits, beyond POPs, woud therefore ensure that the GEF can fuy maximise the deivery of goba environmenta benefits from sound chemicas management activities. The GEF Instrument provides that the agreed incrementa costs of activities to achieve goba environmenta benefits concerning chemicas management, as they reate to the GEF foca areas, are eigibe for funding. Many substances apart from POPs are of goba concern, even if they are not yet covered by goba treaties. Mercury reeases are reevant to the biodiversity and internationa waters foca areas, and there are potentias for synergies in reation to greenhouse gas emissions. The positive experiences from GEF s eary work before the POPs convention was finaized indicate that eary action to buid capacity for reducing reeases of mercury wi aso achieve good resuts. Many of the chaenges concerning the management and phase-out of POPs are simiar to the steps that countries need to take to compy with the Base, Bamako and Rotterdam conventions. Sound management of waste wi aso be needed to address severa of the newy isted Stockhom Convention chemicas and wi be important in the context of a future mercury convention. Therefore, the existing GEF poicy that support to Stockhom Convention and Montrea Protoco impementation shoud buid upon and contribute to strengthening a country s foundationa capacities for sound chemica management more generay wi be activey pursued so that these activities in support of POPs and ODS are designed to aso benefit impementation of the SAICM at the country eve, and attainment of the chemicas target of the Johannesburg Word Summit. 74 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

79 Taking the above into consideration, the GEF wi assist countries to address chemicas in an integrated manner in their nationa panning, and hep mobiize other sources of finance for projects and programs for sound chemicas management to achieve goba benefits. Convention Guidance The GEF strategy for chemicas is informed and grounded in the priorities deveoped by the internationa community through the agreements mentioned above, in particuar in guidance from the Stockhom Convention on Persistent Organic Poutants for which the GEF serves as the financia mechanism. The Stockhom Convention on Persistent Organic Poutants that was adopted in May 2001 and entered into force in May 2004 designates 32 the GEF as the principa entity entrusted with the operations of the financia mechanism of the Convention, ad interim. The first meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) adopted guidance 33 for the financia mechanism that emphasises capacity buiding and estabishes the NIP as the main driver for impementation activities. Specificay, the COP recommended that resources shoud be aocated to activities that are in conformity with, and supportive of, the priorities identified in [parties ] respective nationa impementation pans. The COP at its second meeting in May 2006 adopted additiona guidance 34 for the GEF, inviting in particuar the GEF and its agencies to faciitate the everaging of other sources of financing for the impementation of the Convention. The COP at its third meeting in May 2007 reaffirmed its previous guidance 35 and adopted further guidance for the GEF, in particuar reated to aternative products, methods and strategies to DDT for disease vector contro, best avaiabe techniques and best environmenta practices, and capacity buiding for the impementation of the goba monitoring pan for effectiveness evauation. The COP aso requested the GEF to give specia consideration to those activities reevant to the sound management of chemicas identified as priorities in the NIPs. The atest guidance 36 adopted by the COP at its fourth meeting in May 2009 reaffirms the centra guiding principe that the GEF shoud take into account the priorities identified by Parties in their impementation pans transmitted to the Conference of the Parties, and further highights the preparation and update of NIPs, aternatives to DDT for disease vector contro, and information exchange. The strategy responds to this guidance adopted by the COP to the Stockhom Convention at its first four meetings. GEF-5 Repenishment The GEF-5 repenishment aocates an enveope for chemicas at the eve of $420 miion, with the foowing distribution of resources: (a) Persistent organic poutants: $375 miion; (b) Ozone ayer depetion: $25 miion; and (c) Sound chemicas management and mercury reduction: $20 miion. This represents an increase of 25 % for the POPs foca area compared to the GEF-4 aocation of $300 miion. The expectation is that demand for POPs resources wi continue to be high, as evidenced by the Needs Assessment recenty conducted under the Stockhom Convention and through the unmet demand for GEF support under GEF-4 apparent in POPs task force discussions. The addition of nine new POPs by the Conference of the Parties (COP) in May 2009 ony compes the argument. Therefore, with a resource enveop of $420 miion, resources wi be dedicated primariy to support the Stockhom Convention and core support to Montrea Protoco. Limited but strategic support wi be offered for mercury and sound chemicas management. Regarding POPs, the GEF wi continue its work in support of Convention objectives, in particuar PCB phase out and disposa, and remova and disposa of obsoete pesticides. Assuming a comparabe eve of effort, and based on a crude extrapoation from preiminary figures of anticipated GEF-4 achievements, these efforts woud target around 10,000 tons of obsoete pesticides, incuding POPs pesticides, and 23,000 tons of PCB-reated waste and contaminated equipment. As was panned in the GEF-4 strategy, it is 32 Artice 14 of the Stockhom Convention 33 Decision SC-1/9 34 Decision SC-2/11 35 Decision SC-3/16 36 Decision SC-3/16 GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 75

80 expected that the increase of resources wi aow for making headway on the reduction of reeases of unintentionay produced dioxins and furans from industria and non-industria sources. Piot interventions wi be supported for new POPs reduction activities as we. Capacity wi be buit at various eves in the context of these efforts, in specific sectors, as we as more generay. The support required for eigibe countries to meet their obigations under the Montrea Protoco, in particuar as reates to HCFCs, is expected to remain reativey modest. The aocation of $25 miion mosty aows continuing the work reated to HCFCs started under GEF-4. Activities of a piot nature to address disposa coud be supported shoud a resources not be required for HCFC phase out (For exampe depending on the eigibiity of recipient countries). Support wi continue for sound chemicas management through the GEF poicy, made expicit in the GEF-4 strategic framework, to provide support to Stockhom Convention and Montrea Protoco impementation whie buiding upon and contributing to strengthening a country s foundationa capacities for sound chemica management more generay. In addition, a $20 miion aocation wi directy support sound chemicas management activities that generate goba environmenta benefits, and wi support the deveopment of the mercury treaty with piot activities in a manner simiar to the successfu activities that the GEF supported during the negotiations for the Stockhom Convention. THE GOAL OF THE CHEMICALS PROGRAM IS TO promote the sound management of chemicas throughout their ife-cyce in ways that ead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human heath and the goba environment. 76 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

81 Conference of the Parties to evauate the effectiveness of the Stockhom Convention, as required by Artice 16 of the Convention. The three foowing objectives are identified for Chemicas under GEF-5, and are further defined beow: (1) Phase out POPs and reduce POPs reeases; (2) Phase out ODS and reduce ODS reeases; and (3) Piot sound chemicas management and mercury reduction. To faciitate reporting to the Stockhom Convention, the Chemicas resuts framework (Tabe 6) incudes a fourth objective reated to POPs enabing activities and comprising the deveopment and update of Nationa Impementation Pans for the Stockhom Convention. Goas, Objectives and Outcomes The goa of the GEF through its chemicas program is to promote the sound management of chemicas throughout their ife-cyce in ways that ead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human heath and the goba environment. The ong term impact of GEF interventions is a reduction in the exposure to POPs and other PTS of humans and widife. The main indicator for this reduction of exposure is a decrease in the observed concentrations of specific POPs chemicas in the environment. This goba eve indicator is to be assessed within the framework of the efforts of the This framework wi faciitate joint impementation of internationa instruments and poicies and aow the GEF to respond to the request 37 of the Stockhom Convention to give specia consideration to support for those activities identified as priorities in nationa impementation pans which promote capacity buiding in sound chemicas management, so as to enhance synergies in the impementation of different mutiatera environment agreements and further strengthen the inks between environment and deveopment objectives, as we as to the obigations that arise to eigibe countries from the Montrea Protoco, as appropriate. This set of objectives aso aows the GEF to be we positioned to respond to other internationa agreements, such as the SAICM or the mercury agreement that is being deveoped. Capacity strengthening imperatives cut across and underpin a three objectives. Therefore, activities 38 aimed at buiding institutiona and egisative frameworks for chemicas management, incuding POPs, wi be supported within each of the three objectives, most often in the context of a broader project or program of activities. Foowing earier strategies, GEF interventions wi be nested within the framework of a country s capacity for sound chemicas management and wi incude and buid upon foundationa capacities aimed at competing the basic governance framework (poicy, aw, and institutiona capabiities) for chemicas within the country. This wi be especiay important for countries that ag the farthest behind at putting in pace the constituent eements of a governance framework for chemicas, notaby east deveoped countries (LDCs) and sma isand deveoping states (SIDS). 37 Decision SC-3/16 38 Incuding incrementa capacity buiding for POPs monitoring and support to country-driven and sustainabe activities consistent with the GEF s mandate in support of the Goba Monitoring Pan that underpins the effectiveness evauation of the Convention. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 77

82 CHEMICALS STRATEGY Objective 1 Phase out POPs and reduce POPs reeases Rationae This objective responds to the GEF s mandate as the financia mechanism of the Stockhom Convention. Buiding on GEF-4 programs, the GEF wi further its efforts to assist eigibe countries in impementing POPs reduction projects in accordance with their NIP priorities, and wi buid upon and strengthen sustainabe capacities for chemicas management to do so. GEF interventions addressing POPs are articuated foowing chemicas ife cyce management, in order to faciitate aignment of GEF supported programs with a country s own priorities and framework for sound chemicas management. The eve of effort for this objective reated to the Stockhom Convention is estimated for GEF-5 at $375 miion, incuding the POPs enabing activities. Five outcomes are expected for this objective, and are further detaied beow. Outcome and output indicators are detaied in Tabe 6 Chemicas resuts framework. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Production and use of controed POPs chemicas phased out; Exempted POPs chemicas used in an environmentay sound manner; POPs reeases to the environment reduced; POPs waste prevented, managed, and disposed of, and POPs contaminated sites managed in an environmentay sound manner; and Country capacity buit to effectivey phase out and reduce reeases of POPs. OUTCOMES Production and use of controed POPs chemicas phased out Foowing Stockhom Convention guidance, investment and capacity buiding activities wi be in conformity with, and supportive of, the priorities identified in countries respective Nationa Impementation Pans (NIP). Depending on NIP priorities, interventions can incude the phase out of production and/or use of certain POPs. Pesticides phase out wi incude promoting aternatives such as integrated pest management, and promoting aternatives to DDT for vector contro. Exempted POPs chemicas used in an environmentay sound manner Foowing NIP priorities, projects can address management of DDT and vector contro chemicas; management of PCBs; management of new POPs 39 (i.e., those entering the Stockhom Convention); awareness raising, education, and access to information for government and oca authorities, civi society, and the private sector. POPs reeases to the environment reduced Foowing NIP priorities, investments supported by the GEF wi address impementation of best avaiabe techniques and best environmenta practices (BAT/BEP) for reease reduction of unintentionay produced POPs, incuding from industria sources and open-burning. Projects that seek to maximize inkages with Cimate Change Objective # 1 (transfer of innovative ow-carbon technoogies) or #2 (energy efficiency in industry and the buiding sector) wi be promoted. POPs waste prevented, managed, and disposed of, and POPs contaminated sites managed in an environmentay sound manner Investments supported by the GEF wi be in conformity with, and supportive of, the priorities identified in countries respective NIPs, and, for exampe, can address: the deveopment of waste treatment faciities such as for PCB transformer dismanting and dechorination; ow-tech, ocay appropriate technoogies for treatment of medica waste; the deveopment of temporary storage faciities; the remova and disposa of POPs and POPs-containing waste and reated materias such as obsoete pesticides; inventories and deveopment of management pans for contaminated sites, incuding risk assessment and prioritization; and, where warranted by pressing heath or environmenta concerns, supporting partnerships for remediation and pioting remediation technoogies. 78 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

83 Country capacity buit to effectivey phase out and reduce reeases of POPs The GEF wi continue to support eigibe countries in meeting their obigations to deveop, submit, and update a Nationa Impementation Pan under the Stockhom Convention. Inventories and assessments of impications for deveoping countries of new 40 POPs contro measures woud aso be supported. Beyond support to the NIPs, it is anticipated that most capacity deveopment wi take pace within the context of broader projects in support of POPsreduction reated outcomes as described above. DDT metaboites have been known for decades to induce egg-she thinning and were responsibe for the decine of popuations of fish-eating birds. 39 POPs is used throughout the text as defined in the Stockhom Convention. 40 The Stockhom Convention COP has added nine new chemicas to its ists of controed substances at its fourth meeting in May GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 79

84 CHEMICALS STRATEGY Objective 2 Phase out ODS and reduce ODS reeases Rationae The GEF Evauation Office has recenty competed an impact study of the GEF s Ozone program which demonstrates that, athough the program has been very successfu, there remains unfinished business in the countries with economies in transition to achieve the fu positive impact of ODS phase out. Moreover, the Parties to the Montrea Protoco have recenty agreed to an acceerated phase-out of HCFCs. The GEF wi continue efforts initiated during GEF-4 to assist eigibe CEITs to phase out of production and use of HCFCs, with a particuar emphasis on operationa inkages, and muti-foca area financing as appropriate, with objective #2 of the cimate mitigation strategy on energy efficiency in industry and the buiding sector. Activities that are not stricty an obigation under the Montrea Protoco coud aso be supported where they can cost-effectivey generate goba environmenta benefits, if a resources are not utiised towards HCFC phase out: projects to faciitate ODS destruction woud be supported on a piot basis, particuary where inkages can be estabished with investments to dispose of POPs and other hazardous wastes. The eve of effort for this objective reated to the Montrea Protoco is estimated for GEF-5 at $25 miion. 80 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

85 OUTCOMES Expected outcomes for this objective incude: HCFCs, used in refrigeration, air conditioning, are the most commony known ozone depetion chemicas. The aocation of $25 miion mosty aows continuing the work reated to HCFCs started under GEF-4. (1) Country capacity buit to meet Montrea protoco obigations and effectivey phase out and reduce reeases of ODS; and (2) ODS phased out and their reeases reduced in a sustainabe manner. Outcome and output indicators are detaied in Tabe 6 Chemicas resuts framework. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 81

86 CHEMICALS STRATEGY Objective 3 Piot sound chemicas management and mercury reduction Rationae This objective wi aow support to assessment-type activities and demonstrations of good practices for aternatives or mercury reease reduction whist the mercury treaty is negotiated. Such activities wi buid experience in recipient countries, and prepare the GEF partnership and the internationa community for impementing the treaty when it is adopted. This is simiar to the range of activities that the GEF supported in the years eading to, and during, the negotiations of the Stockhom Convention. A number of piots addressing various topica issues are envisaged, such as mercury use in products, mercury use in industria processes, artisana and sma scae mining (with support from the Internationa Waters foca area), capacity for storage, and atmospheric emissions from various sectors. This objective is aso in response to the need to extend GEF support to other chemicas of goba concern beyond POPs in order to capture additiona goba environmenta benefits, and to the chaenges posed by the SAICM. SAICM priority activities and work areas that generate goba environmenta benefits and that coud be supported incude those reated to the management of pest contro and agricutura production chemicas; the management of other persistent toxic substances of concern; capacity strengthening for joint impementation of internationa instruments; the management of toxics in artices 41 ; capacity buiding for management of trade, iega traffic of waste; support to the impementation of the Gobay Harmonized System of Cassification and Labeing of Chemicas (GHS) in partnerships with the private sector; and deveopment and impementation of poutant reease and transfer registers (PRTR). The GEF coud aso support the demonstration of paradigm shifts such as the chemicas easing and zero waste concepts. Specific PTS of priority concern are targeted and piot interventions coud address the phase-out of certain uses of PTS such as mercury in artices, ead in paint and gasoine, and the demonstration of BAT/BEP for PTS and mercury reease reduction, incuding from artisana god mining. Piot interventions to demonstrate mercury waste management or the deveopment of waste prevention and management strategies more broady coud be supported. Activities compementary to for POPs and ODS reduction wi be promoted. Buiding on the impementation of the GEF-4 cross-cutting strategy for chemicas management, this objective wi aso be used to incentivize sound chemicas management practices in GEF projects and programs in order to maximize impact; for exampe addressing pesticides runoff to a marine protected area. The eve of effort for this objective reated to piot mercury and sound chemicas management activities is estimated for GEF-5 at $20 miion. 82 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

87 Outcomes Expected outcomes for this objective incude: (1) Country capacity buit to effectivey manage mercury in priority sectors; and (2) Contribute to the overa objective of the SAICM of achieving the sound management of chemicas throughout their ife-cyce in ways that ead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human heath and the environment. About haf a miion residents of the Bangadesh capita, Dhaka, are at risk of serious iness due to chemica poution from tanneries near their homes, Chromium, the SEHD report says, is one of the most harmfu chemicas found in the tannery waste because of its carcinogenic potentia. Acidic effuents, it adds, can cause severe respiratory probems. Gaseous emissions from the tanneries contain sufur dioxide that is converted into sufuric acid on contact with moisture and can damage ungs. Outcome and output indicators for this objective are detaied in Tabe 6 Chemicas resuts framework. 41 Trade in chemicas grows quicker than manufacture and contributes to their goba distribution, often as constituents in artices. Severa of the new POPs adopted by the Stockhom Convention COP-4 in May 2009 appear mainy as constituents or components in artices e.g. furniture, uphostery, texties, eectronics, medica apparatus etc. Information about the content of such substances in artices is frequenty ost aong the product chain from manufacture of the ingredient to the end user and to its sound environmenta disposa. There is a growing need to address chemicas in artices and to improve the passage of information aong the product chain, so that informed choices may be made by a invoved. The dumping of eectronic waste in deveoping countries is one extreme exampe where such knowedge woud be crucia. GEF-5 INTERNATIONAL FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES WATER STRATEGY 83

88 Restored wes brings new ife to the Syrian desert, improving rangeand. Learning Objectives In pursuing these foca area objectives, the GEF wi support the generation and dissemination of good practices and the deveopment of practica guideines, so that good practices and essons earned from GEF and other projects are incorporated into the design of new activities. Under GEF-5, buiding on work of the STAP under GEF-4, operationa inkages between unintentiona production of POPs and greenhouse gas emission contro measures wi be emphasised. Additionay, the appication of Best Avaiabe Techniques / Best Environmenta Practices that are appropriate to oca conditions and capacity wi be expored. LINKAGES WITH OTHER FOCAL AREAS The Chemicas program has inkages with a other foca areas of the GEF, either because chemicas are a driver for ecosystem degradation and remova of chemicas reduces the stress on those ecosystems (e.g., with bioogica diversity, and degradation, or internationa waters), because interventions in one foca area can have co-benefits in the other (e.g., with cimate change mitigation), or because interventions can be compementary (e.g., with internationa waters). GEF-5 programs and objectives with the greatest potentia for such inkages are identified beow. Cimate Change Mitigation. The reationship of the cimate change foca area to the chemicas program is muti-faceted, and incudes co-benefits. Opportunities exist to maximize these co-benefits, for exampe between reeases of POPs and PTS and energy efficiency programs. Linkages can aso take the form of opportunities, for exampe to reduce ead in gasoine in the framework of transport programs. In particuar, as emphasized in Objective # 2 under Cimate Change, projects that promote energy efficiency in buidings and industries wi support the phase out of HCFCs where this is justified by consideration of greenhouse gas benefits. Trade-offs can aso exist: the remaining use of mercury in efficient ighting, for exampe, requires support for management interventions to minimize risks of environmenta reeases at end-of-ife. 84 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

89 Adaptation to Cimate Change. With respect to adaptation to cimate change, chemicas management considerations come into pay at various eves. For instance, the extension of the habitats of pests under goba cimate change has to be taken into account when devising an integrated vector contro strategy. Another exampe is food contro management to protect a particuar coasta zone and affected community, where the risk of chemica spis woud have to be addressed in deveoping contingency pans for natura disasters. Land Degradation. With sustainabe and management, the inkages are varied and concern a objectives. Linkages coud incude interventions that reduce the reiance of oca communities on POPs and other pesticides, or address the egacy of and degraded through historica pesticides abuse or obsoete pesticides spread over arge areas, for exampe. Programs that minimize sash and burn practices wi have a beneficia impact on emissions of unintentionay produced POPs. It is anticipated that some of the resources under Objective 3 of this strategy wi be targeted to incentivize chemicas management inked to GEF supported and degradation interventions. Bioogica Diversity. PTS incuding POPs are a threat to widife and biodiversity, and utimatey a projects under the chemicas program benefit the biodiversity foca area. The aquatic environment is both a sink for many chemicas and a major pathway for exposure. This transates to resources being aocated to reducing reeases to particuar water bodies or terrestria ecosystems as a matter of priority 42, thereby potentiay contributing to biodiversity objectives. Opportunities for promoting sound chemicas management aso abound with programs to mainstream biodiversity in production andscapes and seascapes, for exampe with agro-forestry, shade-grown coffee or cocoa, and forest certification schemes. Linkages can aso be supported with marine protected areas, in cases for exampe where pesticides runoff is a significant stress for the resources under protection. It is anticipated that some of the resources under Objective 3 of this strategy wi be targeted to incentivize chemicas management inked to GEF supported biodiversity interventions. Internationa Waters. Whist the repenishment figure does not aow deveoping a fu joint program with the IW foca area to address the demonstration of reduced poution from persistent toxic substances, particuary endocrine disruptors, a ess ambitious set of joint projects and activities is possibe. These woud focus on particuar hot spots of chemica poution when they are a dominant source of degradation of inand or coasta waters. In any event, priority setting exercises under the Goba Pan of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment, for exampe, can inform and guide GEF interventions at the nationa and regiona eves. Exporing and expoiting these inkages wi ead to designing potentiay synergistic interventions that generate muti-foca area benefits. 42 Typicay, even when this is not expicity acknowedged at the program eve, wherever a priority setting exercise takes pace for exampe, to decide which stockpie of obsoete POPs to remove as a priority considerations take into account proximity of human settement as we as proximity to aquatic systems and areas of biodiversity of significance. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 85

90 TABLE 6: CHEMICALS RESULTS FRAMEWORK (continued) Goa: Impacts: Indicators: To promote the sound management of chemicas throughout their ife-cyce in ways that ead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human heath and the goba environment. Expected Impact: Reduction in the exposure to Persistent Organic Poutants and other Persistent Toxic Substances of humans and widife Leves of POPs in the environment as determined by the Goba Monitoring Program under the Stockhom Convention FA Objectives Expected Outcomes and Indicators Core Outputs CHEM-1: Phase out POPs and reduce POPs reeases ($ m) Outcome 1.1: Production and use of controed POPs chemicas phased out. Indicator Amount of POPs not produced or used foowing demonstration of aternative; measured in tons per year against baseine as recorded through the POPs tracking too. Outcome 1.2 Exempted POPs chemicas used in an environmentay sound manner. Indicator Number of countries managing the use of exempted POPs in an environmentay sound manner. Outcome 1.3 POPs reeases to the environment reduced. Indicator Amount of un-intentionay produced POPs reeases avoided or reduced from industria and nonindustria sectors; measured in grams TEQ against baseine as recorded through the POPs tracking too. Outcome 1.4 POPs waste prevented, managed, and disposed of, and POPs contaminated sites managed in an environmentay sound manner. Indicator Amount of PCBs and PCB-reated wastes disposed of, or decontaminated; measured in tons as recorded in the POPs tracking too. Indicator Amount of obsoete pesticides, incuding POPs, disposed of in an environmentay sound manner; measured in tons. Outcome 1.5 Country capacity buit to effectivey phase out and reduce reeases of POPs. Indicator Progress in deveoping and impementing a egisative and reguatory framework for environmentay sound management of POPs, and for the sound management of chemicas in genera, as recorded in the POPs tracking too. Output 1.1 Nationa poicies that guarantoutput Countries receiving GEF support to phase out the production or use of controed POPs (other than new POPs). Indicator Number of countries receiving GEF support to phase out the use of controed POPs (other than new POPs). Indicator Number of countries receiving GEF support to phase out the production of controed POPs (other than new POPs). Output Countries receiving GEF support to piot new POPs reduction activities. Indicator Number of countries receiving GEF support to piot new POPs reduction activities. Output Countries receiving GEF support for environmentay sound management of DDT. Indicator Number of countries receiving GEF support for environmentay sound management of DDT. Output Countries receiving GEF support for environmentay sound management of exempted POPs (other than DDT). Indicator Number of countries receiving GEF support for environmentay sound management of exempted POPs (other than DDT). Output Action pans addressing un-intentionay produced POPs under deveopment and impementation. Indicator Number of countries with Action pans addressing un-intentionay produced POPs under deveopment and impementation. Output PCB management pans under deveopment and impementation. Indicator Number of countries with PCB management pans under deveopment and impementation. Output Countries receiving GEF support for environmentay sound management of obsoete pesticides, incuding POPs. Indicator Number of countries receiving GEF support for environmentay sound management of obsoete pesticides, incuding POPs. Output Countries receiving GEF support to buid capacity for the impementation of the Stockhom Convention. Indicator Number of countries receiving GEF support to buid capacity for the impementation of the Stockhom Convention. 86 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

91 TABLE 6: CHEMICALS RESULTS FRAMEWORK (continued) FA Objectives Expected Outcomes and indicators Core Outputs CHEM-2: Phase out ODS and reduce ODS reeases ($25m) Outcome 2.1 Country capacity buit to meet Montrea protoco obigations and effectivey phase out and reduce reeases of ODS. Indicator GEF-supported countries meet their reporting obigations under the Montrea Protoco, as recorded by the Ozone Secretariat. Output Country annua reports to the Ozone secretariat. Indicator Number of GEF recipient countries submitting their annua reports to the Ozone secretariat. Outcome 2.2 ODS phased out and their reeases reduced in a sustainabe manner. Indicator Amount of HCFCs phased out from consumption or production, measured as ODP tons against baseine. Output HCFCs phase out pans under deveopment and impementation. Indicator Number of countries with HCFCs phase out pans under deveopment and impementation. CHEM-3: Piot sound chemicas management and mercury reduction ($20m) CHEM-4: POPs enabing activities ($10-35m) Outcome 3.1 Country capacity buit to effectivey manage mercury in priority sectors. Indicator Countries impement piot mercury management and reduction activities. Outcome 3.2 Contribute to the overa objective of the SAICM of achieving the sound management of chemicas throughout their ife-cyce in ways that ead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human heath and the environment. Indicator Countries impement SAICM reevant activities that generate goba environmenta benefits and report to the Internationa Conference on Chemicas Management Outcome 4.1: NIPs prepared or updated or nationa impications of new POPs assessed. Indicator Progress in deveopment or update of NIPs as recorded through the POPs tracking too. Output Countries receiving GEF support for mercury management and reduction, on a piot basis. Indicator Number of countries receiving GEF support for mercury management and reduction, on a piot basis. Output Countries receiving GEF support to impement SAICM reevant activities, incuding addressing persistent toxic substances and other chemicas of goba concern (other than mercury), on a piot basis. Indicator Number of countries receiving GEF support to impement SAICM reevant activities, incuding addressing persistent toxic substances and other chemicas of goba concern (other than mercury), on a piot basis. Output Countries receiving GEF support for NIP deveopment. Indicator Number of countries receiving GEF support for NIP deveopment. Output Countries receiving GEF support for NIP update. Indicator Number of countries receiving GEF support for NIP update. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 87

92 Annex 1 Linkages with the impementation of the Strategic Approach to Internationa Chemicas Management (SAICM) The goa of the GEF s chemicas program is to promote the sound management of chemicas throughout their ife-cyce in ways that ead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human heath and the goba environment. This goa is aigned with other internationay agreed goas and objectives, incuding those of the SAICM, the goba chemicas strategy that provides a vountary poicy framework for achieving such a goa. Some funding for the objectives and activities of the SAICM that contribute to goba environmenta benefits, beyond POPs, woud therefore ensure that the GEF can fuy maximise the deivery of goba environmenta benefits from sound chemicas management activities. The GEF, in keeping with its mandate, woud support the SAICM priority objectives, as outined in the SAICM Goba Pan of Action, that generate goba environmenta benefits. Such support woud aso benefit reated conventions and agreements such as the Base and Rotterdam conventions to the extent that some of their goas and objectives are refected in the SAICM and bring goba environmenta benefits. The SAICM requires that risks to human heath and the environment from unintended reeases of chemicas be reduced. It highights persistent, bioaccumuative, and toxic substances, as we as POPs and mercury as chemicas of particuar concern. The SAICM overarching poicy strategy incudes five main objectives, risk reduction; knowedge and information; governance; capacity buiding; and iega traffic. A these objectives incude eements that aow for the generation of goba environmenta benefits, and have strong inkages and synergies with aready existing GEF programs reated to POPs and ODS, but aso internationa waters and biodiversity. GEF-5 achievements in this regard wi be measured in ight of the SAICM goba priorities as isted in paragraph 8 of the executive summary of the goba pan of action. The SAICM incudes 36 work areas and 273 associated activities. Activities and work areas that coud receive GEF incrementa support because of their transboundary aspects incude those reated to technoogy transfer and poution prevention; pesticides management; capacity buiding with regards egisative and reguatory framework and enforcement; adaptation with regards chemicas; protected areas; contaminated sites; heavy metas; waste minimisation and disposa; information exchange and iega traffic. More specificay, and without seeking to be exhaustive, the foowing activities and work areas coud receive GEF incrementa support, based on country priorities, and in coaboration with the work of GEF and other internationa Agencies, the private sector, and nongovernmenta organisations, as appropriate. In highighting those, we aso highight the inkages with existing GEF programs with a view to maximising the impact of GEF interventions. Deveop and impement action pans for sound management of chemicas (1), and other reated activities incuding use of muti-sectora and muti-stakehoder committees (165) this is an extension of the NIP work, and particuary for those countries too arge to have benefitted from support from the SAICM quick start program. Strengthen poicy, aw and reguatory frameworks and compiance promotion and enforcement (194), and other reated activities this is an extension of NIP impementation and Montrea Protoco work, and woud ensure that GEF supported activities in this domain are comprehensive. Undertake awareness raising and preventive measures campaigns in order to promote safe use of chemicas (163), and other activities reated to awareness raising and stakehoder participation in extension of NIP impementation work. 88 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

93 Review nationa egisation and aign it with GHS requirements (168), and reated activities to promote the impementation of the GHS in coaboration with the private sector. Improve understanding of the impact of natura disasters on reeases of harmfu chemicas and resuting human and widife exposures, as we as possibe measures to mitigate them (137) with inkages to adaptation. Promote deveopment and use of reduced-risk pesticides and substitution for highy toxic pesticides as we as effective and non-chemica aternative means of pest contro (27), Promote integrated pest and integrated vector management (29), and reated activities to reduce reeases of pesticides, particuary high risk ones in reation with measures to prevent (re)occurrence of obsoete stockpies of POPs and other pesticides. Encourage sustainabe production and use and promote the transfer, impementation and adoption of poution prevention poicies and ceaner production technoogies, in particuar best avaiabe techniques and best environmenta practices (43) in reation with reease reduction of unintentionay produced POPs and cimate mitigation. Promote reduction of the risks posed to human heath and the environment, especiay by ead, mercury and cadmium, by sound environmenta management (57), and other activities reated to heavy metas, incuding ead in gasoine. Identify contaminated sites and hotspots and deveop and impement contaminated site remediation pans to reduce risks to the pubic and to the environment (47), and reated activities with inkages to Stockhom convention work, incuding obsoete pesticides. Deveop nationa strategies for prevention, detection and contro of iega traffic, incuding the strengthening of aws, judicia mechanisms and the capacity of customs administrations and other nationa authorities to contro and prevent iega shipments of toxic and hazardous chemicas (204), and reated activities - in extension and support of POPs and Montrea Protoco work. Deveop a nationa PRTR/emission inventory (124), and reated activities in extension and support of Stockhom Convention impementation. Estabish and impement nationa action pans with respect to waste minimization and waste disposa, taking into consideration reevant internationa agreements and by using the crade-to-crade and crade-to-grave approaches (69), Prevent and minimize hazardous waste generation through the appication of best practices, incuding the use of aternatives that pose ess risk (70), and reated activities in extension and support of the waste-reated provisions of the Stockhom Convention. Eiminate barriers to information exchange for the sound management of chemicas in order to enhance communication among nationa, subregiona, regiona and internationa stakehoders (105), and reated activities in support of information exchange and in extension and support of Stockhom Convention work. Deveop frameworks for promoting private-pubic partnerships in the sound management of chemicas and wastes (186), and reated activities with inkages with the GEF private sector strategy and the Earth Fund. Ensure that pesticides and chemicas issues are considered within environmenta impact assessments covering protected areas (202) and reated activities with inkages to GEF biodiversity and internationa waters foca areas. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 89

94 90 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

95 Sustainabe Forest Management (SFM)/REDD-PLUS 43 Strategy Background Forest ecosystems provide a variety of benefits which are reaized at the goba, sub-regiona, nationa and oca scaes. Threats to forest ecosystems are aso mutipe ranging from the impacts of cimate change to a aspects of competing and uses that ead to forest degradation and deforestation. These threats pose compex chaenges to not ony manage existing forest ecosystems in a sustainabe way but aso protect them from being substituted by other and uses or and cover. On a goba scae, deforestation contributes to 15-20% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which is more than the entire transport sector. Today, forest management has again become the center of the internationa debate reated to its potentia contribution to reducing GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. At UNFCCC COP-15 in Copenhagen, and drawing on the Bai Roadmap, parties recognized the crucia roe of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation [REDD] and the need to enhance removas of greenhouse gas emission by forests and agreed on the need to provide positive incentives to such actions through the immediate estabishment of a mechanism incuding REDD-pus, to enabe the mobiization of financia resources from deveoped countries. According to the FAO, the main threat to tropica forests is rapid popuation growth and the associated need for farming and grazing and. Other potentia reasons for the destruction and degradation of forests incude the overexpoitation of timber, forest fires, mining, catte ranching, road construction and the production of biomass for biofues. Degraded forest ecosystems have aso been identified as being at risk to effectivey cope with the impacts of cimate change. Heathy and un-fragmented forest ecosystems in turn are much more resiient to the impacts of cimate change and are abe to absorb better shocks induced by human activities or natura disasters. With its Sustainabe Forest Management/REDD-pus strategy, the GEF advocates the andscape approach, which embraces ecosystem principes as we as the connectivity between ecosystems. Hence, GEF investments woud buid on the widey accepted forest andscape restoration approach, which is fuy compatibe with the advocated wider andscape approach. This incudes the integration of peope s iveihood objectives in the management of forest ecosystems. Supporting an integrated approach to managing forest ecosystems, the GEF strives for achieving mutipe goba environmenta benefits, incuding those reated to the protection and sustainabe use of biodiversity, cimate change mitigation and adaptation and combating and degradation. 43 REDD-pus: Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in deveoping countries; and the roe of conservation, sustainabe management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in deveoping countries. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 91

96 Convention Guidance The proposed strategy for Sustainabe Forest Management/REDD-pus is fuy responsive to the guidance provided by the UNFCCC and CBD to the GEF. It is aso in ine with the UNCCD 10-year strategy, which focuses on efforts to prevent, contro and reverse desertification/and degradation whie contributing to the reduction of poverty in the context of sustainabe deveopment. Furthermore, the strategy addresses the focus of the non-egay binding instrument (NLBI) on a types of forests of the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) which supports internationa cooperation and nationa action to reduce deforestation, prevent forest degradation, promote sustainabe iveihoods and reduce poverty for a forest-dependent peopes. Lessons Learned from GEF-4 Whie in the earier years, the GEF s efforts in the fied of sustainabe forest management (SFM) 44 were rather fragmented, GEF-4 introduced a more strategic and focused approach to SFM. The GEF-4 SFM strategy has encompassed a mix of traditiona forest management approaches such as protected areas and integrated watershed management but aso pioted new and emerging aspects to forests such as biomass production for biofues and the roe of forests in cimate change mitigation (LULUCF). One of the objectives of GEF-5 is to reduce pressures on forest resources and generate sustainabe fows of forest ecosystem services. The GEF-4 strategy was operationaized through a SFM program, which now refects a diverse portfoio of projects that either address individua GEF foca area aspects of forests or emphasize the mutipe benefit character of forest ecosystems. A types of forests have been addressed ranging from tropica and subtropica forests to woodands and trees in the wider andscape. The portfoio aso presents a wide spectrum of SFM toos that are promoted through GEF projects such as protected area management, certification of timber and non-timber forest products or payments for ecosystem services (PES). Apart from the LULUCF program, the cimate change foca area aso promoted toos and technoogies indirecty addressing some main drivers of deforestation and forest degradation through interventions such as energy efficient stoves, energy efficiency in sma and medium industries, off-grid sma hydro energy instaations and instaations of soar panes for sma scae energy production. 92 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

97 In 2007, the GEF aunched the Tropica Forest Account, a piot incentive scheme promoting country investments in mutipe foca area projects that yied benefits in reducing tropica deforestation. This innovative experiment focused on the three regions of arge and mainy intact tropica forests (Amazonia, the Congo Basin, and Papua New Guinea/Borneo) and gave rise to comprehensive projects and programs, such as the GEF Strategic Program for Sustainabe Forest Management in the Congo Basin. The GEF-5 SFM/REDD-pus incentive mechanism The GEF-5 strategy wi expand the financia incentive mechanism pioneered under the TFA to incude a countries with forests of goba importance. For this purpose, the GEF has created a separate $250 miion funding enveope that wi be operated as an incentive mechanism for beneficiary countries wiing to combine significant fractions of their STAR 45 aocations from biodiversity, cimate change and and degradation for more comprehensive SFM/REDD-pus projects and programs. The aocation of resources to projects and programs on SFM/REDD-pus wi draw on a transparent and equitabe investment agorithm that finances countries with a ratio of 3:1. In other words, for every three doars of investment from STAR resources from two or more foca areas aocated to a particuar country, one doar wi be reeased from the SFM/REDD-pus incentive mechanism (the chaenge account) to the project being proposed. For exampe, a country that decides to program $15 miion from combinations of STAR resources from at east two of the three eigibe foca areas (biodiversity, cimate change, and degradation) woud be endowed with an additiona $5 miion originating from the SFM/REDD-pus chaenge account. Individua countries wi be aowed to invest a maximum of $30 miion from their combined aocations. Large aocation countries may aso choose to aocate additiona resources for forest projects and programs beyond the ceiing used to trigger SFM/REDD-pus chaenge account investments, but these woud not be eigibe to be everaged by the program beyond the $30 miion ceiing. To ensure that countries have access to sufficient funding to invest in SFM/REDD-pus at an ecoogicay and operationay significant scae, each country wi be required to invest a minimum of $2 miion from their combined aocations in order to quaify for incentive investments from the chaenge account. GEF-5 SFM/REDD-Pus Strategy In the fifth repenishment cyce, the GEF wi particuary strengthen its SFM efforts in the fied of cimate change mitigation in order to take advantage of the priority and opportunities being opened for forests in the internationa agenda during the next four years. Seeking to address potentia trade-offs, the strategy does not support the substitution of native forests with pantations, regardess of whether benefits in carbon sequestration coud be anticipated. The goa for GEF-5 investment in SFM is to achieve mutipe environmenta benefits from improved management of a types of forests. The portfoio of projects and programs impemented under the SFM strategy is expected to have the foowing impacts: Effective provisioning of forest ecosystem services. Strengthened iveihoods of peope dependent on the use of forest resources. Two objectives wi drive the SFM portfoio and contribute to the goa: 44 The Non-Legay Binding Instrument (NLBI) of the UNFF defines sustainabe forest management as a dynamic and evoving concept that aims to maintain and enhance the economic, socia and environmenta vaue of a types of forests, for the benefit of present and future generations. 45 The System for Transparent Aocation of Resources (STAR) determines the amount of biodiversity, cimate 1. Reduce pressures on forest resources and generate sustainabe fows of forest ecosystem services. 2. Strengthen the enabing environment to reduce GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and enhance carbon sinks from LULUCF activities. change mitigation and and degradation resources that a given country can access from the GEF during the fifth repenishment period. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 93

98 SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT/REDD-Pus Objective 1 Reduce pressures on forest resources and generate sustainabe fows of forest ecosystem services. Rationae Forest ecosystems are sti degrading or disappearing at an aarming rate. The oss of quantity and quaity of inked ecosystem services reaches from disappearing pant and anima species to the diminished abiity to sequester carbon above and beow ground, and reduced production capacity because of ost top soi and water retention capacity. In addition, forest-dependent peope strugge sustaining their iveihoods with an increased trend to migrate towards arger cities once the forest-based iveihood opportunities have been exhausted. Barriers to the sustainabe management of forest ecosystems have been inked to the enabing environment (poicy, forest aw enforcement and government (FLEG), human and institutiona capacity and the access to technoogy and good practices for SFM). Often, decision-makers at the nationa and oca eve chose short-term economic gains (e.g. from arge scae ogging for timber extraction or the conversion of forests, incuding peat swamp forests into oi pam pantations or farm and or other more profitabe and uses ike mining) over ong-term sustainabiity of mutipe benefits which forests provide. This happens due to the ack of a ong-term and more integrated vision for a country s natura assets incuding knowedge of the impacts of these decisions on socio-economic and ecoogica stabiity. This objective wi remove barriers to SFM by promoting the enabing environment for SFM, access to technoogy and good SFM practices combined with arge-scae appications on the ground to reduce and avoid forest degradation. Resuts wi incude a net gain in forest area managed in a sustainabe way and the improvement of seected forest ecosystem services such as habitat services (biodiversity), reguating services (carbon) and productive services (soi and iveihoods). Project Support Projects addressing this objective may for exampe focus on: Forest poicy and reated ega and reguatory frameworks reformuation; Improved forest aw enforcement and government (FLEG); Decision-making (e.g. reforestation potentia/suitabiity anaysis and reated panning and impementation activities; tradeoff anaysis inc. mid- and ong-term anaysis); Sustainabe harvesting technoogies for timber and non-timber products, forest function and management panning; Forest certification and verification of timber suppy chains; Integrated forest fire management; Confict resoution approaches (in case of disputed forest tenure and use); Buiding of capacity in sustainabe finance mechanisms for SFM such as through demonstration/mode projects that test Upfront Payment for Ecosystem Services and other market-based mechanisms using economic vauation toos and methodoogies; Industria, agricutura and domestic technoogies reducing the pressure on forest (energy efficiency, fue substitution); Increasing ecoogica connectivity and improving forest biodiversity vaues at andscape eve, incuding for agricutura activities (e.g. through buffer zone management, corridors between protected areas, and incusion of forest biodiversity aspects into production forest); Promotion of good management practices in community and sma-hoder forestry. 94 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

99 Outcomes The foowing key outcomes wi be achieved under this objective: a) Enhanced enabing environment within the forest sector and across sectors b) Good management practices appied in existing forests c) Good management practices adopted by reevant economic actors Often, decision-makers chose short-term economic gains from the conversion of forests into farm and over ong-term sustainabiity of mutipe benefits which forests provide. Burning forest and to create new farms. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 95

100 SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT/REDD-Pus Objective 2 Reduce pressures on forest resources and generate sustainabe fows of forest ecosystem services. Rationae Forests, through growth of trees and an increase in soi carbon, contain a arge part of the carbon stored on and. Forests present a significant goba carbon stock. Goba forest vegetation stores approximatey 283 Gt of carbon in its biomass, 38 Gt in dead wood and 317 Gt in sois (top 30 cm) and itter. The tota carbon content of forest ecosystems has been estimated at 638 Gt for 2005, which is more than the amount of carbon in the entire atmosphere. This standing carbon is combined with a gross terrestria uptake of carbon, which was estimated at 2.4 Gt a year, a good dea of which is sequestration by forests. Approximatey haf of the tota carbon in forest ecosystems is found in forest biomass and dead wood (UNFCCC). Goba deforestation has acceerated dramaticay in recent decades with competing and uses identified as one of the biggest threats to forest ecosystems. There is data which indicates that haf of the forests existing in the 1950 s have since been destroyed. The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmenta Pane on Cimate Change (IPCC) states that deforestation contributes to about 20% of GHG emissions. Of particuar concern is the conversion and degradation of tropica forests, which accounts for approximatey 90% of the tota GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. The new focus on the roe of forests in cimate change mitigation has raised forest management on the poitica agenda, especiay in the context of the ongoing negotiations for a post 2012 arrangement under the UNFCCC. Project Support Projects addressing this strategic objective may for exampe focus on: Competition for and use and and-use changes driven by e.g. food and bio-energy crop production (e.g. and use potentia/ suitabiity anaysis and reated panning activities; trade-off anaysis inc. mid-and ong term anaysis); Buiding of technica and institutiona capacities to monitor and reduce GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (incuding estimating and monitoring associated emissions and changes in forest carbon stocks, nationa forest inventories; improved access to country-based data for monitoring and modeing of forest production potentia and carbon stock trends); Testing and adopting approaches that aow for the generation of revenues from the carbon market. This objective wi enabe countries to take stock of their forest resources and understand as we as address the current dynamics and drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. Countries wi be enabed to integrate LULUCF activities in the wider agenda of sustainabe forest management which strives for conserving mutipe environmenta and iveihood benefits forest ecosystems provide. 96 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

101 Outcomes The foowing key outcomes wi be achieved under this objective: Of particuar concern is the conversion and degradation of tropica forests, which accounts for approximatey 90% of the tota GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. The foowing key outcomes wi be achieved under this objective: a) Enhanced institutiona capacity to account for GHG emission reduction and increase in carbon stocks. b) New revenue for SFM created through engaging in the carbon market. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 97

102 TABLE 7: Sustainabe Forest Management /REDD PLUS RESULTS FRAMEWORK Goa: Impacts: Indicators: To achieve mutipe environmenta benefits from improved management of a types of forests. Effective provisioning of forest ecosystem services and strengthened iveihoods of peope dependent on the use of forest resources. Carbon stored in forest ecosystems and emissions avoided from deforestation and forest degradation. (Target: Prevent the emission of 400 miion tons of Co2 equivaent.) Land (hectares) covered by intact forest. Income generated from forest services for forest dependent peope and communities, disaggregated by gender and socia groups. Resources everaged from other GEF foca areas in support of SFM/REDD-pus. (Target: everage $750 miion from biodiversity, cimate change mitigation and and degradation foca areas.) Objectives Expected Outcomes Outcome Indicators Core Outputs 1: Reduce pressures on forest resources and generate sustainabe fows of forest ecosystem services 1.1: Enhanced enabing environment within the forest sector and across sectors. 1.2: Good management practices appied in existing forests. 1.3: Good management practices adopted by reevant economic actors. 1.1: Effectiveness of poicies that integrate SFM principes (score as recorded by tracking too). 1.2 (a): Forest area under FSC certification measured in hectares. 1.2 (b): Enhanced carbon sinks from reduced forest degradation. 1.3 (a): Services generated in forests. 1.3 (b): Services generated in the wider andscape. Payment for ecosystem services (PES) systems estabished (number). Forest area (hectares) under sustainabe management, separated by forest type. Types and quantity of services generated through SFM. 2: Strengthen the enabing environment to reduce GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and enhance carbon sinks from LULUCF activities. 2.1: Enhanced institutiona capacity to account for GHG emission reduction and increase in carbon stocks. 2.2: New revenue for SFM created through engaging in the carbon market. 2.1: Capacity to certify forestderived carbon credits (score as recorded by tracking too). 2.2: Tota revenue from carbon market ($ at country eve). Nationa institutions certifying carbon credits (number). Nationa forest carbon monitoring systems in pace (number). Innovative financing mechanisms estabished (number). Carbon credits generated (number). 98 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

103 Cross-Cutting Capacity Deveopment Strategy The chaenge of the cross-cutting capacity deveopment projects ie in their inherent compexity, as sectora institutions attempt to structure and reguate interacting and evoving financia, economic and environmenta systems. The objective of these projects is to address those important capacity needs that wi enhance a country s abiity to meet its obigations under the Conventions by creating synergies, whie at the same time catayzing the mainstreaming of mutiatera environmenta agreements (MEAs) into nationa poicy, management or financia and egisative frameworks. Targeting specific components of the environmenta governance system shoud aow for a more practicabe approach towards meeting Rio Convention objectives and achieving environmenta sustainabiity. Cross-cutting capacity deveopment projects wi provide resources for reducing, if not eiminating, the institutiona bottenecks (e.g., barriers to data gathering) to the synergistic impementation of the Rio conventions. The expected outcomes of these projects are therefore to strengthen muti-sectora processes that promote poicy harmonization, reaize cost-efficiency, and enhance operationa effectiveness in Convention obigations. To this end, cross-cutting capacity deveopment projects woud focus on the environmenta governance system and mainstreaming goba environmenta issues into nationa deveopment programs, impemented through four programmatic frameworks. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 99

104 Programming Frameworks Each country woud seect a capacity deveopment priority on the basis of the NCSA prioritization process (identified in the NCSA s Capacity Deveopment Action Pan), using the cross-cutting capacity deveopment programming frameworks as a guide to deveop these into a medium-size project. Whie such a project may seek, for exampe, to strengthen the poicy coordination framework to maximize a country s abiity to meet their obigations under the Rio Conventions and deivering goba benefits among other MEAs, another country may wish to use a different approach to hep meet the goa of environmenta protection, such as incorporating natura resource vauation into the environmenta impact assessment process. Whie most MSPs wi be nationa projects, a few regiona/goba cross-cutting capacity deveopment MSPs or FSPs are envisaged; faciitating enhanced regiona partnerships to buid on recognized regiona frameworks such as the New Partnership for Africa s Deveopment (NEPAD), the Barbados Programme of Action (BPOA), South Asia Poverty Aeviation Programme (SAPAP), the United Nations Poverty- Environment Initiative (UN-PEI), and the United Nations Coaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Deveoping Countries (UN-REDD), among others. The eaboration of programming frameworks to structure the formuation of cross-cutting capacity deveopment projects is on-going. As part of GEF s programming document for GEF-5, the frameworks for capacity deveopment fas under five main objectives: A. To enhance the capacities of stakehoders to engage throughout the consutative process B. To generate, access and use information and knowedge C. To strengthen capacities to deveop poicy and egisative frameworks D. To strengthen capacities to impement and manage goba convention guideines E. To enhance capacities to monitor and evauate environmenta impacts and trends 100 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

105 CROSS-CUTTING CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Objective 1 A: Enhancing the capacities of stakehoders to engage throughout the consutative process Capacity deveopment under this framework wi be impemented through the GEF Country Support Programme (CSP) and Nationa Diaogue Initiative (NDI). Through these two programmes, seminars, nationa consutations and diaogues wi take pace to enabe a key stakehoders to participate in consutative processes to deiver goba environmenta benefits. The aim is to estabish or strengthen consutative mechanisms for proactive and constructive engagement of a stakehoders. This consutative mechanism wi be used for countries to coordinate in-country GEF investments and incude the foowing activities: GEF constituency-eve workshops/meetings Country diaogue workshops and seminars Constituency meetings organized through the Sma Grants Programme s Nationa Steering Committee Nationa Foca Groups activey participating in GEF nationa coordination mechanisms Whie this framework is not eigibe as a separate medium-size project, countries wishing to strengthen their consutative process to meet goba environmenta commitments may deveop a targeted cross-cutting capacity deveopment project under Framework D, Strengthening capacities to impement and manage goba convention guideines. CROSS-CUTTING CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Objective 2 B: Generating, accessing and using information and knowedge These types of cross-cutting capacity deveopment projects target the important need for improvement management information and decision support systems for the goba environment. This was identified as a serious capacity constraint and need from 90% of the countries who undertook an NCSA. The outcome of a cross-cutting capacity deveopment under this Framework woud seek to improve decision-making for the goba environment through improved use of information and knowedge. B.1 A cross-cutting capacity deveopment project under this Framework woud harmonize existing information systems, integrating internationay accepted measurement standards and methodoogies, as we as consistent reporting on the goba environment. These projects woud hep countries to create vaid baseine studies against which to measure achievements towards goba environmenta objectives. This Framework is targeted to the deveopment of capacities at the individua and organizationa eve, strengthening technica skis to coect data and transform information into knowedge. This Framework shoud be impemented as one of two components that incude Framework E. B.2 Aternativey, a country coud target the deveopment and/or pioting of innovative toos for decision-making, such as an economic vauation of the goba environment increment of natura resource goods or services in order to make more informed decisions to generate increased goba environmenta benefits. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 101

106 CROSS-CUTTING CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Objective 3 C: Strengthening capacities to deveop poicy and egisative frameworks These types of projects woud target the poicy, egisative and/or reguative framework for improved management of the goba environment. Whereas Framework A targets the capacities at the individua eve, this Framework focuses on strengthening organizationa and systemic eve capacities. These cross-cutting capacity deveopment projects woud seek to eiminate the unintended consequences of poicy impementation, as appied within the broader framework of environmenta governance. They woud seek to maximize synergies among the poicies, rues and decision-making procedures governing the management of biodiversity, cimate change and and degradation, among other environmenta issues. This Framework is thus about environmenta mainstreaming, with the cross-cutting capacity deveopment project seeking to integrate goba environmenta priorities into nationa poicies, pans and programs, particuary macro-economic and poverty reduction strategies/ programs. C.2 At the organizationa eve, a cross-cutting capacity deveopment project coud focus on improved management and compiance to mutiatera environmenta agreements. Such a project woud strengthen reevant organizationa capacities to create economies of scae and eiminate inefficiencies in enforcement structures and mechanisms. For exampe, the current impementation of separate protected area management systems for forest ecosystems, archaeoogica sites, and marine ecosystems may in fact resut in conficting or mutuay excusive management poicies and procedures. This Framework focuses on harmonizing and reconciing overapping management approaches, which woud be compemented by a sufficient baseine of capacities to monitor and evauate impementation and compiance (Frameworks B.1 and E). C.1 At the systemic eve, a cross-cutting capacity deveopment project woud focus on formaizing the institutiona inkages between heretofore separate and distinct program activities and on-going core activities of existing organizations. The rationae of such a project is that goba environmenta benefits can be more efficienty deivered by integrating reevant activities into those that set out to meet other nationa environmenta and deveopment goas. For exampe, projects coud harmonize natura resource management poicies to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of mutiatera environmenta agreement (MEA) impementation at the nationa eve. 102 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

107 CROSS-CUTTING CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Objective 4 D: Strengthening capacities to impement and manage goba convention guideines This type of cross-cutting capacity deveopment project woud focus on improving the synergistic impementation of the three Rio Conventions. Project activities woud focus on one of the foowing: a) improving cross-institutiona coordination and strengthening capacities to empoy an integrated approach to impementing shared provisions of the three Rio Conventions; b) deveoping standards of good environmenta management; or c) strengthening sustainabe financing mechanisms in support of the goba environment. D.1 Activities of a cross-cutting capacity deveopment woud be directed to improving organizationa structures and mechanisms that catayze coordination of muti-sectora environmenta poicies and programs, and improve their associated governance structures. For exampe, the staffing compement of government departments responsibe for reporting to the Rio Conventions are often imited and undertaking their responsibiities in an uncoordinated manner. By restructuring organizationa reationships, forging stronger reationships, partnerships and commitments, improved coordination and coaboration shoud reduce overap and dupication of activities, catayze the effective and efficient exchange of information, and improve the country s impementation of the three Rio Conventions. D.2 A cross-cutting capacity deveopment project may wish to target the improvement of sound standards for good environmenta management. Whereas Framework B.1 ooks are measurement standards, these types of projects woud focus on strengthening the adaptive coaborative management of the environment. These standards woud be buit upon process criteria for the design and impementation of management responses to goba environmenta objectives, with a view to supporting the ong-term deveopment of program indicators of deivered goba environmenta benefits. These types of projects must therefore be constructed and impemented in a manner consistent with an acceptabe baseine of capacities that satisfy Frameworks B.1 and E. D.3 This type of project woud focus on critica financia, fisca and/or economic aspects of countries capacities to meet their obigations under the three Rio Conventions. Projects woud target particuar institutiona structures and mechanisms that wi produce cost-effective and ong-term sustainabiity of environmenta programs and pans that serve to meet nationa and goba environmenta priorities. For exampe, projects coud identify and deveop innovative financia strategies for the joint impementation of key provisions of the three Rio Conventions. Projects coud seek to expore undertaking environmenta fisca reform measures to further the goba environmenta goas. Projects coud undertake the commodification of natura resources to create greater incentives for environmentay sound and sustainabe deveopment, resuting in goba environmenta benefits under the three Rio Conventions. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 103

108 CROSS-CUTTING CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Objective 5 E: Enhancing capacities to monitor and evauate environmenta impacts and trends Whereas Framework B.1 targets the strengthening of individua and organizationa capacities for improved management information and decision support systems for the goba environment, Framework E targets a more hoistic construct of monitoring and evauation systems. Buiding upon a sufficient eve of capacities under B.1, activities under this Framework woud strengthen the institutionaization of these systems as a means to feed essons earned and best practices from projects and interventions under the Frameworks A through D. 104 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

109 Poicy and program inkages Eary in the formuation of the cross-cutting capacity deveopment project, a review of the NCSA Fina Report and Action Pan is to be undertaken aongside a review of internationa, regiona and nationa poicy frameworks. In order to meet GEF eigibiity requirements, the project objectives must be strongy correated with the foowing internationa environmenta agreements, at a minimum: Convention on Bioogica Diversity (CBD) Convention to Combat Desertification and Drought (CCD) Framework Convention on Cimate Change (FCCC) The project shoud specificay identify the artices of the three conventions to which the project objectives hep impement, as we as the reevant guidance from the respective Conferences of the Parties. The reevant MDGs shoud be identified in the same manner. The project identification form (PIF) shoud aso reference the extent to which the project wi hep impement the recommendations of the nationa reports to the three Rio Conventions and their respective action pans. Regiona environmenta agreements, such as the Barbados Programme of Action, and the 2003 Protoco on Strategic Environmenta Assessment shoud aso be identified and tied to the project. Particuar attention shoud be given to how the proposed project buids upon the essons earned and best practices by simiar types of activities by countries in the same region. The project shoud aso identify and pursue opportunities for regiona cooperation in the same vein. Programme inkages are aso to be expored and deveoped, within UN and internationa organizations. Two key programs incude the Poverty-Environment Initiative (PEI) and the UN Coaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Deveoping Countries (UN-REDD). These are but two programs of potentiay strong reevance to the achievement of the proposed CD MSP objectives. GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 105

110 TABLE 8: Cross-cutting capacity deveopment RESULTS FRAMEWORK Objectives Expected Outcomes Core Outputs and Indicators Objective 1 (A): Enhance capacities of stakehoders for engagement through consutative process Consutative mechanism estabished for proactive and constructive engagement of a interested stakehoders (Number of mechanisms and stakehoders) Estabished patform (seminars, nationa consutations and diaogs) for enabing a key stakehoders to participate Consutative frameworks estabished in a countries to coordinate GEF investments GEF constituency eve workshops/meetings organized (Number) Country diaogue workshops and seminars organized (Number) Constituency meetings organized (Number) SGP Nationa Steering Committees estabished and Nationa Foca Groups in participating countries activey participating in GEF Nationa coordination mechanisms (Number) Objective 2 (B): Generate, access and use of information and knowedge Objective 3 (C): Strengthened capacities for poicy and egisation deveopment for achieving goba benefits 2.1 Institutions and stakehoders have skis and knowedge to research, acquire and appy information coective actions 2.2 Increased capacity of stakehoders to diagnose, understand and transform compex dynamic nature of goba environmenta probems and deveop oca soutions 2.3 Pubic awareness raised and information management improved 3.1 Enhanced institutiona capacities to pan, deveop poicies and egisative frameworks for effective impementation of goba conventions Institutions and stakehoders trained how to use different toos avaiabe to manage information Stakehoders are better informed via workshops and trainings about goba chaenges and oca actions required Abiity of stakehoders to diagnose, understand and transform information and knowedge into oca actions increased and retained in 16 countries Knowedge patform estabished to share essons earned among CBOs and CSOs across SGP participating countries (Number) Pubic awareness raised through workshops and other activities (Number) Nationa pans, poicies and ega frameworks deveoped (Number) Institutiona capacities enhanced in recipient countries to impement goba conventions (Number of institutions strengthened) 106 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

111 TABLE 8: Cross-cutting capacity deveopment RESULTS FRAMEWORK (continued) Objectives Expected Outcomes Core Outputs and Indicators Objective 4 (D): Strengthened capacities for management and impementation on convention guideines 4.1 Enhanced institutiona capacities to manage environmenta issues and impement goba conventions 4.2 Good environment management standards defined and adopted 4.3 Sustainabe financing mechanisms in pace at nationa eve Institutiona capacities for management of environment strengthened (Number) Standards deveoped and adopted Management capacities for impementation of convention guideines and Reporting enhanced countries (Number) Capacities of CSOs and CBOs as SGP partners, strengthened (Number) Sustainabe financing mechanisms deveoped (Number) Financing mechanisms for environment created (Number) Objective 5 (E): Capacities enhanced to monitor and evauate environmenta impacts and trends 5.1 Enhanced skis of nationa institutions to monitor environmenta changes 5.2 Evauation of programs and projects strengthened and improved against expected resuts 5.3 Increased capacity for evauation Monitoring systems estabished (Number) Evauation system for programs and projects estabished (Number) Learning system estabished to provide feedback to poicy, strategies and management decisions from evauation reports (Number) Capacities for monitoring of projects and programs deveoped (Number) Learning and knowedge management patform estabished to share essons earned among CBOs and CSOs across SGP participating countries (Number) GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 107

112 PHOTOGRAPHY CREDITS Cover Inside Cover Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page Page 14 Page Page 16 Page 19 Page 21 Page 23 Page 25 Page 27 Page 29 Page 30 Page 33 Page Page 37 Page 38 Page Page 43 Page 45 Page 47 Page 49 Page Page 59 Page 61 Goba Environment Faciity GEF photo contest 2009 Istockphoto Istockphoto Istockphoto Goba Environment Faciity GEF photo contest 2009 INSET: Istockphoto Goba Environment Faciity GEF photo contest 2009 INSET: Istockphoto Goba Environment Faciity GEF photo contest 2009 Istockphoto Istockphoto Istockphoto Goba Environment Faciity Istockphoto UNIDO Inset: Istockphoto Istockphoto Chinese Ministry of Agricuture BERI GEF Project Management Unit, UNDP India Chinese Ministry of Science and Technoogy Goba Environment Faciity GEF photo contest 2009 Chinese Ministry of Agricuture Istockphoto Danio Victoriano, GEF photo contest Corbis Afred Duda Stuart Chape Victor Meor Cora Reef Aiance Photo Library: Goba Environment Faciity GEF photo contest 2009 Word Bank Photo Library Goba Environment Faciity GEF photo contest 2009 Goba Environment Faciity GEF photo contest 2009 Top and Bottom: Goba Environment Faciity GEF photo contest 2009 Left and Right: Trees For The Future PHOTOGRAPHY CREDITS Page 63 Top and Bottom: Goba Environment Faciity GEF photo contest 2009 Page 65 Goba Environment Faciity Page 66 Goba Environment Faciity GEF photo contest 2009 Page Goba Environment Faciity Page Goba Environment Faciity Page 74 Water Rodriguez, Creative Commons Page 75 Goba Environment Faciity GEF photo contest 2009 Page Goba Environment Faciity Page 79 Goba Environment Faciity GEF photo contest 2009 Page 81 Rupert Tayor-Price, Creative Commons Page 83 Goba Environment Faciity Page Goba Environment Faciity Page The Word Bank Page 92 Goba Environment Faciity GEF photo contest 2009 Page 95 Goba Environment Faciity GEF photo contest 2009 Page 97 Patrick Rudoph, Creative Commons Page 99 Goba Environment Faciity GEF photo contest 2009 Page 100 Goba Environment Faciity GEF photo contest 2009 Page 102 Goba Environment Faciity Page 103 Juie Fienstien Creative Commons Page Goba Environment Faciity GEF photo contest 2009 Page 110 Goba Environment Faciity GEF photo contest THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY

113 PRODUCTION CREDITS Text: GEF Review and Edits: GEF Design: Marti Betz Design Printer: Professiona Graphics Printing Company Pubication Date: January 2011 GEF-5 FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES 109

114 110 THE GLOBAL ENVIROMENT FACILITY