biodiversity in european development cooperation · importance of biodiversity for human...
TRANSCRIPT
Biodiversity in European Development Cooperation
Conference - Paris, 19-21 September 2006
Supporting the sustainable development of partner countries
Biodiversity in European Development CooperationSupporting the sustainable development of partner countries
Founded in 1948, The World
Conservation Union brings together
States, government agencies and a
diverse range of non-governmental
organizations in a unique world
partnership: over 1000 members in all,
spread across some 140 countries.
As a Union, IUCN seeks to influence,
encourage and assist societies
throughout the world to conserve the
integrity and diversity of nature and to
ensure that any use of natural
resources is equitable and ecologically
sustainable.
The World Conservation Union builds
on the strengths of its members,
networks and partners to enhance their
capacity and to support global alliances
to safeguard natural resources at local,
regional and global levels.
IUCN – The World Conservation Union
7
IUCN – The World Conservation Union
2006
8
Published by: IUCN — The World
Conservation Union
Copyright: © 2006, International Union
for Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources
Reproduction of this publication for
educational and other non-commercial
purposes is authorised without prior
permission from the copyright holder,
providing the source is fully
acknowledged.
Reproduction of the publication for
resale or for other commercial
purposes is prohibited without prior
written permission from the copyright
holder.
Citation: R. Billé (ed), 2006, Biodiversity
in European Development Cooperation:
Supporting the Sustainable
Development of Partner Countries.
IUCN — The World Conservation Union
ISBN-10: 2-8317-0947-4
ISBN-13: 978-2-8317-0947-5
Produced by: IUCN — The World
Conservation Union
Cover photo: Claude Hamel/IEPF/OIF
Layout by: Green Pepper
Communication Solutions -
www.greenpepper.be
Printed by: Identic
Available from:
IUCN Regional Office for Europe
Boulevard Louis Schmidt, 64
1040 Brussels, Belgium
E-mail: [email protected]
A catalogue of IUCN publications is
also available at www.iucn.org
The text of this book is printed on
recycled paper 90 gsm.
This document was produced with the
financial support of France (Ministry of
Foreign Affairs – DGCID) and the
European Commission for the conference
“Biodiversity in European Development
Cooperation”, organised in Paris, 19-21
September 2006.
The designation of geographical entities
in this publication, and the presentation
of materials therein, do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever
on the part of IUCN, France and the
European Commission concerning the
legal status of any country, territory or
area, or of its authorities, or concerning
the delimitation of its frontiers or
boundaries.
The views expressed in this publication
also do not necessarily reflect those of
IUCN, France and the European
Commission.
This document has been drafted and
published under supervision of the
Conference Secretariat:
Jean-Claude Jacques,
Head, Conference Secretariat and IUCN
EU Liaison Office - Brussels
Catherine Ghyoot, Conference Officer
9
Contents
Acknowledgements and note to readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Foreword by Valli Moosa, President, The World Conservation Union (IUCN). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
The Biodiversity in European Development Cooperation Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Key Messages from the Biodiversity Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Chapter 1. Biodiversity and ecosystem services:
Foundations for sustainable development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Chapter 2. From global concerns to European action:
Commitments from the European Union to take on its responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Chapter 3. Tackling the challenge:
Endeavours for dealing with biodiversity in European development cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Chapter 4. Nearing the target:
How to put the European Union back on track to reach its commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Annexes
1. Supporters of the BEDC Conference process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
2. List of contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3. Countdown 2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4. The Poverty–Environment Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5. The Millennium Development Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6. The Message from Malahide: Selected objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
7. Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
8. The European Consensus on Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
9. The EU Action Plan to 2010 and beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
10. Country Environmental Profiles and Regional Environmental Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
11. Impact indicators to assess the effectiveness of mainstreaming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
12. Framework for Common Action around Shared Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
11
List of Boxes, Figures and Tables
List of boxesBox 1. Europe’s ecological footprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Box 2. Bushmeat, wildlife and food security for poor people. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Box 3. The importance of ecosystems, species and genetic diversity for
the livelihoods of poor rural people in Mongolia, India and Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Box 4. What do we know about conservation–poverty linkages?
Accepted and contested relationships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Box 5. Pro-poor protected areas in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Box 6. Importance of fisheries for the poorest countries in Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Box 7. Biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Box 8. MA scenarios for the 21st century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Box 9. The Convention on Biological Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Box 10. Actions to help the European Community address biodiversity issues as
part of economic and development cooperation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Box 11. Objective 11 of the Message from Malahide (2010 and earlier targets) . . . . . . . . . . 44
Box 12. The Lomé Convention and Cotonou Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Box 13. Main steps of the 10th EDF programming exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Box 14. Peru’s Fondo Nacional para Areas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado . . . . . . . . . . 54
Box 15. Conservation and sustainable management of natural resources in Mongolia. . . . . 55
Box 16. Indigenous honeybees in the Himalayas – Promoting partnerships with rural
development organizations in the Hindu Kush–Himalayan region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Box 17. Sustainable use of forest resources in Guyana Shield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Box 18. Principles for effective mainstreaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
List of figuresFigure 1. DAC Members’ Net Official Development Assistance in 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 2. ORs, OCTs, ACP countries and biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 3. Evolution of regional breakdown in EC commitments managed by AIDCO . . . . . . 49
Figure 4. Integrating environment in the EC project cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 5. Biodiversity-related aid commitments 1998–2000 by
19 members of the OECD/DAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
List of tablesTable 1. Classification of forest ecosystem goods and services and the direction of
possible impacts by different landuse types in relation to undisturbed forests. . . . . 32
Table 2. Targets and indicators for MDG 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 3. Some key links between MDGs and the environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 4. Austrian CBD marked projects 1998–2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
13
List of Acronyms
ABS Access and Benefit Sharing
ACP Africa, Caribbean, Pacific
AIDCO EuropeAid Cooperation Office
ALA Asia and Latin America
BAP-EDC Biodiversity Action Plan for Economic and
Development Cooperation
BDP Biodiversity in Development Project
BEDC Biodiversity in European Development Cooperation
BOND British Overseas NGOs for Development
CARDS Community Assistance for Reconstruction,
Development and Stabilization
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CBO Community-based Organization
CEP Country Environmental Profile
CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy
CI Conservation International
CIDA Canadian International Development Agency
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora
CMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (also
known as the Bonn Convention)
COP Conference of the Parties
CSP Country Strategy Paper
DAC Development Assistance Committee
DCECI Development Cooperation and Economic Cooperation Instrument
DCNA Dutch Caribbean Nature Alliance
DFID Department for International Development (UK)
DG Directorate General
DG DEV Directorate General for Development
DG REGIO Directorate General for Regional Policy
DG RELEX Directorate General for External Relations
EC European Commission
EDC Eco-development Committees
EDF European Development Fund
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ENPI European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FERN Forests and the European Union Resource Network
FFEM Fonds français pour l’environnement mondial
FLEGT Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade
GAERC General Affairs and External Relations Council
GEF Global Environment Facility
GNI Gross National Income
GTZ Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit
(German Technical Cooperation Agency)
IFAW International Fund for Animal Welfare
IIED International Institute for Environment and Development
ILO International Labour Organization
15
ISPA Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession
IPA Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance
IPU Inter-Parliamentary Union
iQSP interservice Quality Support Group
ITU International Telecommunications Union
LPO Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux
MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MEA Multilateral Environmental Agreement
MEDA Principal financial instrument of the European Union for the implementation of
the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NIP National Indicative Programme
NIS Newly Independent States
NSSD National Strategy for Sustainable Development
OCTs Overseas Countries and Territories
ODA Official Development Assistance
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
OECD/DAC Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development/Development
Assistance Committee
OR Outermost Region
PEP Poverty–Environment Partnership
Phare Coopération de l’UE vers les pays d’Europe centrale et orientale
PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
REP Regional Environmental Profile
RIL Reduced Impact Logging
RSP Regional Strategy Paper
SAPARD Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development
SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment
SIA Sustainability Impact Assessment
SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
SPA Silent Partnership Agreement
SPD Single Programming Document
SWAp Sector Wide Approach
TBAG Tropical Biodiversity Advisory Group
OTCF Overseas Territories Conservation Forum
UPR Ultra-Peripheral Regions
UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Organization
WEU Western European Union
WHO World Health Organization
WTO World Trade Organization
WWF Worldwide Fund for Nature
WRI World Resources Institute
16
17
This Background Paper was written byRaphaël Billé, independent consultant,with extensive support from theBiodiversity in European DevelopmentCooperation (BEDC) Conference Secretariat within the IUCN RegionalOffice for Europe.
Valuable comments and input were provided by IUCN Headquarters as wellas by the Conference SteeringCommittee and participants in themeetings of the Tropical BiodiversityAdvisory Group (TBAG) (see Annex 1). A number of other individuals madeinvaluable contributions through moreinformal channels (see Annex 2).It was not, however, possible to takeinto account all the information,comments and suggestions putforward. This document therefore doesnot reflect the views of all thecontributing agencies and individuals.Mistakes and shortcomings are the soleresponsibility of the author.
The conference and this publicationhave been financed by contributionsfrom the European Commission (EC)and the governments of Belgium,Finland, France and Sweden.
Note to readers• The ‘European Union’ (EU) includes both the European Commission and Member States.
• ‘Conserving biodiversity’ and ‘biodiversity conservation’ should be understood in their simplest form as meaning: keeping
it/avoiding further biodiversity loss. The terms in no way refer to the manner in which this is done, nor do they refer to any
one specific approach; in no way should they be taken to imply emphasis of strictly protected areas over biodiversity
community-based management, sustainable use, etc. Neither do they have any implication for the objective of conserving
(e.g. intrinsic value against provision of ecosystem services).
Acknowledgements
Foreword
One fifth of humanity lives on less thanone dollar a day. How can the worldreduce poverty, while safeguarding thebiodiversity that sustains livelihoodsand economic systems?
More than 30 years after the Stockholmconference on the human environment(1972), almost 15 years after the RioEarth Summit (1992) and four yearsafter the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment (2002), a considerableamount of knowledge about therelationship between mankind and itsnatural environment has beenaccumulated.
Thousands of successes and failures inreducing poverty and conservingbiodiversity have been documented.Governments, civil society and theprivate sector have recognised theimportance of biodiversity for humanwell-being, and have formallycommitted to conserve it as a pillar ofsustainable development and thefoundation of economic systems.
What is the status ofbiodiversity today?
There are some positive trends:protected areas now cover 11% of theworld’s land area, which is more thanever before. While we must recognisethat some of these are under threat orexist on paper only, they express thecommitment of governments tobiodiversity conservation.
Another positive sign is the risingpopulations of a few emblematicspecies such as whales, elephants andpandas. Finally, there is also evidencethat, while natural forests continue todecline, the replanting of trees isincreasing.
The challenge is that the MillenniumEcosystem Assessment (MA) and theIUCN Red List of Threatened Speciesleave little room for ambiguity:biodiversity is under severe andintensifying stress. An appropriate andunprecedented effort is needed toreverse that trend.
Biodiversity anddevelopment:
an ever-challengedpartnership
19
Is development withoutbiodiversity conservationan option?
It is therefore worrying that we havestarted to witness increasingscepticism towards biodiversityconservation. But is developmentwithout biodiversity conservation anoption?
Evidence gathered from around theworld clearly shows it is not. A reviewby the Poverty Environment Partnershipshows that in 21 of 27 evaluated cases,conservation – the sustainable use of awide variety of ecosystem goods andservices – yields more net benefits thanthe “development” alternative – theconversion of natural ecosystems for asingle, particular use.
Development, and in particular ruraldevelopment, needs biodiversity andthe services it delivers to besustainable. Postponing biodiversityconservation to a hypothetical brighter future makes that future less likely.Biodiversity and development are sointrinsically interrelated that it makes nosense to suppose that progress can beachieved separately. We can onlyachieve the Millennium DevelopmentGoals when we also take care of ourenvironment.
As a leading economic and politicalpower, a key development assistancedonor and the custodian of 21Overseas Countries and Territories withoutstanding biodiversity, the EuropeanUnion has a responsibility — not to sayan obligation — to lead by example.The targets are clear: the developmentand environment communities have towalk hand in hand on the narrow pathof sustainable development.
This background document, issuedwith the generous support of theFrench Ministry of Foreign Affairs,provides a comprehensive analysis ofthe situation. It aims to provideconference participants with the basicinformation to come up with concreterecommendations on better ways tosupport partner countries in sustainablymanaging their own natural resources.
I am confident that the 2006Biodiversity in European DevelopmentCooperation Conference willsignificantly contribute to speeding upprogress in this direction.
Valli MoosaPresident
The World Conservation Union (IUCN)
Specific objectives
The conference will aim specially to:
• Help developing countries, and theEU Overseas Countries and Territories(OCTs), integrate protection ofbiodiversity into their developmentstrategies.
• Help EU Member States and theEuropean Commission to integratebiodiversity into their developmentcooperation strategies andprogrammes, and put in place amonitoring and reporting mechanismto monitor progress in the pursuit ofthe 2010 and 2015 targets.
While the geographical scope of theconference is worldwide, it has beenagreed that special emphasis will beplaced on the countries of Africa, theCaribbean and the Pacific (ACP), withparticular emphasis on Africa, in orderto implement the commitments toenvironmental issues stipulated inArticle 32 of the Cotonou Agreement.
Expected results
The expected outcome of the BEDCConference is a message fromparticipants which might include somerecommendations for the EuropeanCommission and the EU MemberStates, aimed at:
• Reinforcing political will andcommitment to better recognise theimportance of biodiversity in thesustainable development of partnercountries, including building capacityto this effect;
• Promoting good governance ofbiodiversity, including securing therights and roles of local communitiesand indigenous peoples in managingecosystems and genetic resources;
• Addressing underlying causes ofbiodiversity loss, such as currentincentive frameworks both within EU(including e.g. trade, fisheries, forestryand agriculture policies andstrategies) and partner countries;
• Ensuring that the 10th EuropeanDevelopment Fund (EDF) negotiationsbetween ACP countries and theEuropean Union include incentives forbiodiversity and the sustainable useof natural resources;
• Encouraging active participation ofcivil society in decision makingprocesses both in partner countriesand in the European Union;
• Maximizing synergies and avoidingoverlaps through improved exchangeand networking between MemberStates, the European Commissionand other relevant donors;
• Sharing and, when relevant,harmonizing tools and indicators forthe monitoring and assessment oftrends in biodiversity and relatedprogrammes and policies.
21
The Biodiversity in European Development Cooperation Conference
This document is intended to serve as a background paper for the Biodiversity inEuropean Development Cooperation (BEDC) Conference that will take place in
September 2006. It is one of the outputs of the preparatory phase of the Conferenceled by the IUCN Regional Office for Europe. As such, it aims principally
to support fruitful discussions during the conference.
Paris, 19–21 September 2006
Objectives of the BEDC Conference and expected results
Global objectives
The aim of the BEDC Conference is tocontribute to transforming politicalcommitments into concrete actions bydeveloping recommendations for theEuropean Commission (EC) andEuropean Union (EU) Member States onhow to pro-actively address theintegration of biodiversity concerns intodevelopment cooperation programmesand policies.
The BEDC Conference is not thereforean event by environmentalists forenvironmentalists, but rather aspires tobring together development cooperationrepresentatives and environmentalists tojointly pave the way forward.
Why hold the Biodiversity inEuropean Development CooperationConference in September 2006?
The year 2006 offers excellentopportunities to translate politicalcommitments into action:
• The publication of the MillenniumEcosystem Assessment (MA) findingsin 2005 provided a credible scientificbasis and conceptual framework fordrawing the links between healthyecosystems and the attainment ofsocial and economic goals. This report highlights the need for anunprecedented effort to achieve, by2010, a significant reduction of thecurrent rate of biodiversity loss at theglobal, regional and national levels, asa contribution to poverty alleviation.
• Several other influential reports werereleased recently that stress the linksbetween ecosystems anddevelopment. For example, TheWealth of the Poor (World ResourcesInstitute, 2005) makes a compellingcase that environmental income canact as fundamental stepping stone inthe economic empowerment of therural poor.
• 2006 is the first year ofimplementation of the EuropeanConsensus on Development.TheConsensus aims at better addressingenvironmental sustainability in EUdevelopment cooperation and atstrengthening coherence between theEuropean Commission and EUMember States.
• A communication from the EuropeanCommission on Halting the loss ofBiodiversity by 2010—and beyondwas issued on 22 May 2006.
• The Countdown 2010 (see Annex 3),which combines efforts to achieve the 2010 biodiversity commitments,has decided that developmentcooperation is a priority areafor 2006.
• The 10th EDF, the main financialinstrument of European developmentcooperation for the next five years, isbeing negotiated in 2006. Under theframework of the Cotonou Agreement,about 21 billion euros are at stake forthe 77 ACP countries.
Methodology
Preparation of the BEDC Conferencewas led by an ad hoc ConferenceSecretariat based in the IUCN RegionalOffice for Europe. In addition, a Steering Committee, composed ofrepresentatives from EC DirectoratesGeneral for Development, ExternalRelations and Environment, EUMinistries of Foreign Affairs and/ordevelopment cooperation agencies, andenvironmental/development non-governmental organizations(NGOs), was set up to oversee andprovide input to the process.Conference preparation also benefitedfrom presentations and discussionsheld during two meetings of theTropical Biodiversity Advisory Group(TBAG) (Brussels, January 2006 andStockholm, June 2006; see Annex 1). Finally, the consultation processinvolved numerous interactions withadditional representatives of theEuropean Commission, bilateralcooperation agencies and NGOs (seeAnnex 2); and the circulation of aquestionnaire1 as part of an attempt to gather information in a moresystematic manner.
221. Completed questionnaires were received from the governments of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, The Netherlands and Sweden.
Key messages from the biodiversity synthesis
• Biodiversity benefits people throughmore than just its contribution tomaterial welfare and livelihoods.Biodiversity contributes to security,resiliency, social relations, health, and freedom of choices and actions.
• Changes in biodiversity due to humanactivities have been more rapid in thepast 50 years than at any time inhuman history, and the drivers ofchange that cause biodiversity lossand lead to changes in ecosystemservices are either steady, show noevidence of declining over time, orare increasing in intensity. Under thefour plausible future scenariosdeveloped by the MillenniumEcosystem Assessment (MA), theserates of change in biodiversity areprojected to continue, or toaccelerate.
• Many people have benefited over thelast century from the conversion ofnatural ecosystems to human-dominated ecosystems and from theexploitation of biodiversity. At thesame time, however, these gains havebeen achieved at growing costs in theform of losses in biodiversity,degradation of many ecosystemservices, and the exacerbation ofpoverty for other groups of people.
• The most important direct drivers ofbiodiversity loss and ecosystem
service changes are habitat change(such as land use changes, physicalmodification of rivers or withdrawal ofwater from rivers, loss of coral reefs,and damage to sea floors due totrawling), climate change, invasivealien species, overexploitation, andpollution.
• Improved valuation techniques andinformation on ecosystem servicesdemonstrate that although manyindividuals benefit from biodiversityloss and ecosystem change, thecosts to society of such changes areoften higher. Even in instances whereknowledge of benefits and costs isincomplete, the use of theprecautionary approach may bewarranted when the costs associatedwith ecosystem changes may be highor the changes irreversible.
• To achieve greater progress towardbiodiversity conservation to improvehuman well-being and reducepoverty, it will be necessary tostrengthen options for response thathave as a primary goal thesustainable use of biodiversity andecosystem services. These responseswill not be sufficient, however, unlessthe indirect and direct drivers ofchange are addressed and conditionsfor implementation of the full suite ofresponses are established.
• Trade-offs between achieving the2015 targets of the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs) and the2010 target of reducing the rate ofbiodiversity loss are likely, althoughthere are also many potentialsynergies between the variousinternationally agreed targets relatingto biodiversity, environmentalsustainability, and development.
Coordinated implementation of thesegoals and targets would facilitate theconsideration of trade-offs andsynergies.
• An unprecedented effort will beneeded to achieve a significantreduction in the rate of biodiversityloss at all levels by 2010.
• Short-term goals and targets are notsufficient for the conservation andsustainable use of biodiversity andecosystems. Given the characteristicresponse times for political,socioeconomic, and ecologicalsystems, longer-term goals andtargets (such as for 2050) are neededto guide policy and actions.
• Improved capability to predict theconsequences of changes in driversfor biodiversity, ecosystemfunctioning, and ecosystem services,together with improved measures ofbiodiversity, would aid decisionmaking at all levels.
• Science can help ensure thatdecisions are made with the bestavailable information, but ultimatelythe future of biodiversity will bedetermined by society.
23
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
The primary and overarching objectiveof European Union (EU) developmentcooperation is the eradication ofpoverty in the context of sustainabledevelopment.
This background paper discusses howbiodiversity, for which the EuropeanUnion holds special responsibilities andinterests, fits into this objective. It isguided by, though not limited to, threemain questions:
• How efficiently do EU-fundedbiodiversity projects, programmesand policies—whose primaryobjective is biodiversityconservation—contribute to theirformal goal?
• How well do EU-funded non-biodiversity development projects,programmes and policies—which donot have primarily biodiversity-relatedobjectives but may have an impact onit—deal with biodiversity issues?
• How do European non-developmentpolicies—which do not havedevelopment as a primary objectivebut may have an impact ondevelopment and biodiversity inpartner countries—deal withbiodiversity?
Chapter 1
Starts by making the case for the widerange of ecosystem services in whichbiodiversity plays a key role. These localand global benefits which people obtainfrom healthy and fully-functioningecosystems include goods essential tohuman well-being (foods, fuels, buildingmaterials, medicines, etc.), regulatingservices such as fixing carbon, purifyingair and water, or providing geneticmaterial for crops and livestock.Ecosystems support primary production(agriculture, fisheries, forestry),secondary production (textiles,pharmaceuticals), and service industries(tourism, well-being, recreation).
Because three-quarters of the over onebillion people living on less than onedollar a day live in rural areas, the poordepend directly, and more than others,on natural resources and ecosystemservices for their well-being. Hence, theyare most affected by their degradation.
Richer groups of people are usuallyless affected because of their ability topurchase substitutes or to offset locallosses of ecosystem services byshifting production and harvest to otherregions. With over one billion peopleworldwide depending on forest-basedassets for their living, it becomesapparent that biodiversity mattersdirectly to poor people in four principalways (Timmer & Juma, 2005):
• Food security and health;• Income generation and livelihoods;• Reduced vulnerability to shocks;• Cultural and spiritual values.
That being said, the linkages betweenbiodiversity and poverty are much morecomplex and dynamic than a simplerelation of reliance. In order to furtherexplore the biodiversity–poverty nexus,two issues which are critical tobiodiversity in developmentcooperation are discussed:
• Is biodiversity conservation a route topoverty alleviation? And/or
• Is poverty alleviation a route to betterbiodiversity management?
The first question is crucial becauseconserving biodiversity has not alwaysproved favourable to the poor. Itappears that there are a number ofconditions required if biodiversity is towork for poverty alleviation, amongwhich governance issues arefundamental.
Nevertheless, there are many exampleswhere biodiversity conservation hasbenefited the poor in developingcountries, and this has happened intwo main ways:
• At the micro-level, biodiversityconservation can be a route out ofpoverty for poor people, particularlyin areas with few other economicopportunities. It provides a way forpoor households to generate asurplus and eventually invest in othereconomic activities and escapepoverty.
• At the macro-level, biodiversityconservation can be a route out ofpoverty for poor countries, wherebiodiversity and related ecosystemservices can, under certainconditions, generate growth andprovide government revenues.
The second question (‘is povertyalleviation a route to better biodiversitymanagement?’) is important as wellbecause some have argued thatalleviating poverty is the most efficient way to sustain biodiversity.
But experience shows that povertyalleviation may yield better biodiversityconservation only if tied to explicitconservation objectives, strategies,policies and actions, in an appropriategovernance context.
Synergies and positive externalitiesbetween sustainably managingbiodiversity and alleviating poverty doexist. They are sometimes obvious, butmore often win-win solutions to povertyand conservation dilemmas are elusive,
24
Executive Summary
25
and trade-offs prove to be more realisticoutcomes. Giving shape to such trade-offs requires respecting the strengthsand weaknesses of both conservationand poverty alleviation efforts.
Having demonstrated the importance ofthe linkages between biodiversity, poorpeople and poverty reduction, thedocument provides an overview ofimportant recent biodiversityassessments, particularly theMillennium Ecosystem Assessment(MA). All these assessments agree thatbiodiversity is under severe stressglobally: not only have degradationtrends not been reversed as yet, butthe pace of degradation is stillincreasing.
The MA insists that the benefits arisingfrom ecosystem degradation, althoughreal, have usually been transitory, notequitably distributed among people,and have carried hidden costs that nowneed to be paid. If the picture of pastand current trends is gloomy,projections for the short and longerterm are even more worrying.
As a first but fundamental conclusion, itcan be asserted that failure to protectbiodiversity and ecosystems willprevent the achievement of MillenniumDevelopment Goal 7 (MDG 7) of‘ensuring environmental sustainability’—a goal that is already severely off-trackaccording to the Millennium Task Force.In turn, not achieving MDG 7 willseriously undermine global efforts tomeet all other MDGs by 2015. Makingbiodiversity work for poverty alleviationand vice versa is complex and mayonly be achieved on a case-by-casebasis. Still, a number of clear messagesemerge from this first chapter:
• The poor, but also the rest ofhumanity, are heavily dependent onbiodiversity for their well-being, eitherdirectly or indirectly.
• Biodiversity provides a route out ofpoverty for poor people and poorcountries with few other economic
opportunities. However, biodiversityconservation in itself will notcontribute to alleviating povertyunless it is accompanied byappropriate and specific pro-poorstrategies.
• Poverty alleviation may, in certaincases, help relieve pressure onbiodiversity. However, povertyalleviation in itself will not contributeto biodiversity conservation unless itis accompanied by appropriate andspecific strategies.
• Improving governance is key toenhancing the twin outcomes ofconservation and poverty reduction.This requires political and institutionalchanges at all levels.
• Biodiversity is under severe andgrowing stress as indicated by theMA, which has provided a commonreference and several key messagesthat should be regarded as historicalmilestones.
• Achieving, by 2010, a significantreduction in the rate of biodiversityloss at all levels will requireunprecedented additional efforts.
Chapter 2
Explores in detail the commitmentstaken by the European Union withregard to biodiversity in developmentcooperation. At the global level, themain umbrella is the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs). WhileMDG 7 is the only goal which explicitlytargets the environment, nonetheless,ecosystem services and biodiversityunderlie the achievement of all theGoals, including the eradication ofpoverty, hunger, child mortality, anddisease. Equally crucial are theJohannesburg Plan of Implementation,adopted at the World Summit onSustainable Development in 2002, anda number of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA) which include theConvention on Biological Diversity(CBD). The CBD has three main goals:
conservation of biodiversity;sustainable use of the components of biodiversity; and sharing the benefitsarising from the commercial and otherutilization of genetic resources in a fairand equitable way.
Given its special responsibilities, theEuropean Union has made a number ofextra commitments, often moreambitious. They are summarized andbriefly described, starting with the 2001Biodiversity Action Plan for Economicand Development Cooperation (BAP-EDC), and the 2001 GothenburgCouncil commitment under which theEuropean Union pledges to halt theloss of biological diversity by 2010. The Message from Malahide on ‘Haltingthe decline of biodiversity—Priorityobjectives and targets for 2010’, wasanother crucial step, with Objective 11specifically addressing economic anddevelopment cooperation. This wasfollowed in 2005 by the ParisDeclaration on Aid Effectiveness signedby over 100 partner and Organizationfor Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD) countries(including European OfficialDevelopment Assistance (ODA) donors)as well as by about 40 international andnon-governmental organizations(NGOs). The European Consensus onDevelopment was then adopted in2006: it commits the EU to deliveringmore and better aid. Finally, the 2006European Commission (EC)communication on ‘Halting the loss ofbiodiversity by 2010—and beyond’represents a new landmark in Europeanpolicy. It reaffirms the need to enhancefunding earmarked for biodiversity andto strengthen measures to mainstreambiodiversity in development assistance.It comes with a list of specific actionsset out, with related targets, in an EUAction Plan to 2010 and beyond.
Taken together, these commitmentsrepresent a serious and comprehensivepublic pledge to put the EuropeanUnion at the forefront of tackling theserious environmental challenges notedabove. In particular, the commitment to
stop biodiversity decline by 2010confronts a real and crucial need, and itmatches the idea that most Europeancitizens have of where Europe shouldbe. It is nonetheless an immensechallenge, against which theenvironmental performance ofEuropean development cooperationshall be assessed.
Chapter 3
Examines the efforts undertaken by theEuropean Union to tackle the challengeand deal with biodiversity indevelopment cooperation. Starting withthe European Commission, it provides a brief overview of organizationalarrangements for EC development cooperation, describes existingfinancial instruments (until 2006–2007),the EC development aid reform and theresulting new financial architecture. Itexplains the programming cycle of ECdevelopment cooperation, with specialemphasis on the way environmentalissues are dealt with. This synthesisshows that, at least, numerous policies,regulations, tools and instruments existthat may allow biodiversity to be bothdirectly supported and mainstreamed in the EC development cooperation.Significant resources are allocated tothis objective.
Current efforts, tools, and instrumentsimplemented by EU Member States arethen outlined.
Indications are given of geographicaldistribution and thematic allocation;financial patterns; procedures,instruments, implementation modalitiesand approaches for addressingbiodiversity issues. Emphasis is placedon observable trends such as:
• The increasing weight of sustainableuse approaches within a ruraldevelopment context to achievebiodiversity conservation objectives.
• The implementation of projectsthrough international NGOs.
• The support to strengthen OverseasCountries and Territories’ (OCT)regional integration.
• The increasing number ofprojects/programmes on which two ormore Member States join forces.
Chapter 4
Provides a diagnosis and suggestions totry and put the European Union back ontrack to reach its commitments. Thediagnosis is quite severe: Europeandevelopment cooperation is unlikely toachieve its biodiversity-relatedcommitments. Past actions have yieldedsignificant benefits but are far fromenough, so European developmentcooperation is often assessed ascontributing to biodiversity loss more thanto its sustainable management. It seemsthat the gap between rhetoric, policy andpractice widens as environmental trendscontinue to worsen. To come back to ourthree initial questions:
• The impact of initiatives that havebiodiversity conservation as a primaryor secondary objective, while usuallypositive, remains too localized andtoo limited. Although such projectshave now been in existenceworldwide for decades, most of thetime they seem to be implementedand to deliver outcomes at a pilotscale. Be they from the EuropeanCommission or Member States’bilateral cooperation, efforts andresults are not commensurate withtrends in degradation and the drivingforces behind them.
• The environmental impact ofdevelopment projects and policieswhich do not include biodiversitymanagement among their objectivesis still often negative. Environmentalassessments do not match needs,mitigation measures are insufficient, ifthey exist at all, and the mainstreamingof biodiversity issues in the projectand policy cycle remains too much ofa paper concept, although thingshave started moving.
• Several non-development policiesfrom the European Commission aswell as from Member States harmbiodiversity in developing countries,and therefore hinder their capacity toachieve the Millennium DevelopmentGoals. The lack of coherence andmutually mutilating effects ofenvironmental initiatives, developmentcooperation and non-developmentpolicies is probably nowhere as
obvious as in the case of trade,especially in the fields of agriculture,fisheries and forestry.
Radical improvements are needed.Eight broad suggestions, articulated inresponse to the eight items detailed inthe diagnosis, are made to pave theway forward:
1. Intensify and upscale initiatives withbiodiversity as a primary orsecondary objective.
2. Overcome the EU policy/country-driven dilemma to find more‘breathing space’ for biodiversityactivities through dialogue withpartner countries.
3. Improve mainstreaming ofbiodiversity by partner countries.
4. Improve mainstreaming ofbiodiversity by the European Union.
5. Improve coherence with non-development policies, especially trade.
6. Increase complementarity betweendevelopment cooperation fromMember States and the EuropeanCommission.
7. Pay more attention to EU OverseasCountries and Territories.
8. Develop tools for reporting on andmonitoring biodiversity in Europeandevelopment cooperation.
Many of the ideas detailed under eachof these eight broad suggestions maybe gathered under the umbrella of thenecessity to improve governance, bothwithin EU institutions and in partnercountries, from the local to the globallevel, through institutional reforms,enhanced public participation, moreequity in the access to and benefitsharing (ABS) from natural resources,better corporate responsibility, moretransparent monitoring and evaluationsystems, etc. These are vastprogrammes of action that go wellbeyond the environmental communityand sector. They will require strongpartnerships between all stakeholdersinvolved in European developmentcooperation. Potential recommendationsthat the conference may draw fromdiscussions will be much broader inscope than anything one stakeholdercould assume on its own. Theirimplementation will remain the keychallenge and will need to build onwide support among participants.
26
1. The European Unionhas special responsibilitiestowards biodiversity indevelopment cooperation
1.1. The EU has the ambition to be aglobal leader on environmentalissues
Because the European Unionacknowledges the importance ofsustainable development for humanwell-being, it has the ambition tobehave and be recognised as a globalleader on environmental issues ingeneral and biodiversity in particular.Internally, it has set up one of thestrictest and most comprehensiveregulatory frameworks in the world. Itoften advocates very progressivepositions in related international foraand negotiations. Actions undertaken inthe development context need to beconsistent with such an ambition orthey risk severely undermining itsachievement.
1.2. The EU is one of the maineconomic partners of ODAbeneficiary countries
The second level of Europeanresponsibility vis-à-vis biodiversity indeveloping countries derives from theEU’s economic characteristics.
Although the second smallest continenton earth, its population density andhigh per capita consumption make it asignificant contributor to the globalecological footprint (see Box 1). In thiscontext, it comes as no surprise thatthe European Union is one of the maineconomic partners of developingcountries. Indeed, from an ecologicalperspective, ‘trade is the mechanismthat makes it possible for Europe to maintain its current way of life. It is onlyby importing resources and using theecological services of other countriesand the global commons that Europecan continue to increase its consumption while avoiding furtherliquidation of its own natural capital’(WWF, 2005a).
Being such a prominent partner confersupon the European Union aresponsibility over the way naturalresources are managed worldwide.
1.3. The EU is one of the maindonors of ODA but cannotsustainably alleviate poverty withoutsupporting the sustainablemanagement of biodiversity
With this in mind, European citizensclearly expect the European Union totake bold steps to preserve the globalenvironment while contributing toreduce poverty around the world, aswas highlighted during the consultationon development policy organized bythe European Commission (EC) in 20051.
The fact that the European Union haschosen poverty eradication as theprimary objective of its developmentcooperation, and that it has establisheditself as the leading donor fordevelopment aid with about 55% of allpublic aid worldwide (see Figure 1), areevidence of this concern.It also generates more responsibilitiessince being a leading donor may beworthwhile only if the assistance ischannelled in ways that do notcompromise the capacity ofecosystems in developing countries tocontinue providing the servicesnecessary for human well-being.
As repeatedly demonstrated anddocumented by experience and reportsover the years (cf. MillenniumEcosystem Assessment (MA), 2005),the poor and marginalized as well asindigenous people rely heavily onbiodiversity and the ecosystem servicesit provides for their livelihood.Therefore, poverty will not besustainably alleviated if current rates ofbiodiversity loss and ecosystemdegradation are not significantlyreduced.
271. http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/theme/consultation/doc/Issues_Paper_EN.pdf
Introduction
The European Union (EU) is not the only development assistance provider, nor is it the only group of countries formally committed to biodiversity protection.
However, for a number of reasons, it bears very special responsibilities and hasclear interests in how biodiversity is mainstreamed in its development cooperation,
and managed in partner countries.
Box 1. Europe’s ecological footprint
‘Home to 7% of the world’s population,Europe generates 17% of humanity’sfootprint. Today, the footprint of the EU-25 is 2.2 times as large as its ownbiological capacity. This means that at itscurrent rate of consumption just overtwice its own land and sea space wouldbe required to support Europe’sresource demands. This compares withthe situation in 1961 when the EU-25nations’ total resource demand wasnearly commensurate with theircapacity’.
Source: WWF, 2005a.
The EU is one of the main globalmarkets for wildlife and its products.Trade in wildlife can be beneficial tolocal/national economies and tobiodiversity, but it can also depleteresources to a point where they can nolonger contribute to livelihoods,development and ecosystem services.
1.4. The EU Overseas Countries andTerritories are home to globallysignificant biodiversity
In addition to maintaining intensiverelations with developing countries, theEuropean Union counts 21 OverseasCountries and Territories (OCTs)1
belonging to Denmark, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom,as well as seven Outermost Regions2
(ORs) belonging to France, Portugaland Spain. The overall importance ofthese 28 OCTs and ORs in terms oftheir biodiversity is huge and is out ofproportion to their size: in biodiversityterms, it is vastly superior to that ofcontinental Europe as a whole3. Theyare situated in four of the world’s 34biodiversity hotspots (see Figure 2).
The European Commission andconcerned Member States thereforehave a very direct responsibility for howbiodiversity and development arecombined in those territories. This isespecially true of OCTs which areeligible for development cooperation4
and often display several environmentand development patternscharacteristic of developing countries.
2. The EU and developingcountries are ‘ecologicalpartners’
Being a prominent economic partner ofdeveloping countries does not onlyimply responsibilities. Biodiversity andecosystems from developing countriesprovide such a wide range of essentialgoods and services to the EuropeanUnion, that it is actually in the EU’s self-interest to support the sustainablemanagement of biodiversity andecosystems in partner countries.
This de facto ‘ecological partnership’includes cycling nutrients, creatingfertile soils, fixing carbon, purifying airand water, providing genetic materialfor crops and livestock, pollination, controlling floods and erosion, andchecking pests, diseases and alienspecies. Ecosystems in partnercountries support exports and servicesto the European Union as primaryproduction (agriculture, fisheries,forestry), secondary production(textiles, pharmaceuticals) and serviceindustries (tourism, well- being,recreation).
In addition, genetic diversity is vital tomaintain the world’s agriculture. As theEC’s Biodiversity Action Plan forEconomic and DevelopmentCooperation (BAP-EDC) (2001)concludes: ‘Although four cropsaccount for 63% of plant-derivedcalorie intake worldwide, some 7,000plants are recorded as foods; while only14 mammal and bird species accountfor the bulk of the world’s livestock,
28
Figure 1. DAC Members’
Net Official Development
Assistance in 2004
Source: OECD, 2005a.
Figure 2. ORs, OCTs, ACP countries and biodiversity, Source: French IUCN Committee.
1. Greenland, New Caledonia and Dependencies, French Polynesia, French Southern and Antarctic Territories, Wallis and Futuna Islands, Mayotte, St Pierre and Miquelon, Aruba, Netherlands Antilles, Anguilla, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, FalklandIslands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Ascension Island and Tristan de Cunha, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands.
2. Also called ‘Ultra-Peripheral Regions’ (UPR): Madeira and Azores (Portugal), Canaries (Spain), French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Reunion (France).3. They include 15% of the world’s coral reefs along with rainforests the size of Portugal. According to the IUCN Red List Categories, together OCTs and ORs are home to significant populations of 90 globally threatened species of birds.
More than half of these threatened birds occur nowhere else in the world. The importance of the OCTs and ORs for other groups (plants, invertebrates, reptiles and amphibians) is comparably high.4. On the contrary, ORs are dealt with by the Directorate General for Regional Policy (DG REGIO).
over 200 species supply protein for ruraland urban consumers; six species of fishaccount for 25% of global fish catch, buthundreds of fish species are consumed.Tens of thousands of different treespecies exist, and just a handful areplanted on a large scale. Reliance on avery narrow range of species for somany livelihoods means that strongerinvestments need to be made inmaintaining genetic and speciesdiversity’. Otherwise, such a focus willlimit breeding options to meet futureneeds to improve yields, to resist pestsand diseases, or to grow in new areas.
3. Scope of the Background Paper
This background paper covers a priori allissues that may make a fruitfulcontribution to the Biodiversity inEuropean Development Cooperation(BEDC) Conference discussions aboutthe way the European Union addressesits responsibilities with regard tobiodiversity in development cooperation.
We have identified three key questionsacross this necessarily broad topic,from which we shall eventually make anoverall diagnosis. These questions will guide but not limitour analysis. The first one relates tosectoral approaches whereas the twoothers relate to the mainstreaming issue:
• How efficiently do EU-fundedbiodiversity projects, programmes andpolicies—whose primary objective isbiodiversity conservation—contributeto their formal goal?
• How well do EU-funded non-biodiversity development projects,programmes and policies—which donot have primarily biodiversity-relatedobjectives but may have an impact onthem—deal with biodiversity issues?
• How do European non-developmentpolicies—which do not havedevelopment as a primary objectivebut may have an impact ondevelopment and biodiversity inpartner countries—deal withbiodiversity? Of particular relevance
are trade policies, especially whenrelated to agriculture, fisheries, forestproducts and wildlife.
Geographically, all countries eligible forEuropean development cooperation arecovered by this paper. Despitebenefiting from a system of closecooperation with the European Union (through the 2001 Overseas AssociationDecision1), OCTs are included in thescope of the conference and of thisdocument because they are eligible forEU development assistance andbecause EU environmental legislationand standards do not extend to theseterritories2.
4. Methodology and difficulties in gathering data
The elaboration of this background paperwas closely interrelated with the BEDCconference preparation process andrelied mainly upon the same sources ofinformation. It paid special attention (1) to international andEuropean commitments regardingbiodiversity and developmentcooperation, and (2) to a series of recentand valuable reporting endeavours andtechnical evaluations on this topic.
However, it quickly proved impossibleto get state-by-state comparable andsystematic data, since there is nocommon reporting framework (projectcategories, sectors, time frame, etc). The EU donor Atlas (Montes &Migliorisi, 2004) was a valuableresource, though its direct relevance toour subject was limited. Moreappropriate would have been thegeneralized use of the Organization forEconomic Cooperation andDevelopment / DevelopmentAssistance Committee (OECD/DAC) RioMarkers, which track all expendituresmade by DAC members for each of thethree Rio Conventions, including theConvention on Biological Diversity(CBD)3. However, there was littleavailable data about the situation inrecent years.
This is why collecting and dealing withquantitative information on eachMember State’s developmentcooperation would have gone waybeyond the timeframe and meansavailable for preparing this paper. However, providing somewhatscattered but significant information,and making maximum use of existingassessments, has made it possible toprovide stimulating food for thoughtfrom the perspective of the BEDCConference.
5. Structure of the BEDCbackground paper
This report contains four chapters.Chapter 1 highlights the fundamentalrole biodiversity and ecosystemservices play in the developmentprocess to effectively and sustainablyreduce poverty, and examines trends.Chapter 2 recaps the maincommitments made by the EuropeanUnion to protect biodiversity, especiallyin the development context.Chapter 3 then focuses on theinstruments and tools available at theEuropean Commission and MemberStates’ levels to tackle the challenge ofaddressing biodiversity issues in development cooperation policies andprogrammes.Chapter 4 assesses these currentefforts against commitments andpartner countries’ needs and priorities.It provides a diagnosis of the extent towhich European policies, programmesand projects allow the EuropeanCommission and Members States tofulfil their international obligations andresponsibilities. Each item of thediagnosis paves the way forsuggestions that may serve as a basisfor discussing potentialrecommendations during the BEDCConference.
29
1. Council Decision of 27 November 2001 on the association of the Overseas Countries and Territories with the European Community.2. The seven European ORs, on the contrary, are integral parts of the EU and implement EU policies and rules—with some noticeable exceptions as we shall see. Therefore, they are not directly dealt with by the conference and its background
paper. Nevertheless, since they share many developmental and environmental characteristics with OCTs despite contrasted administrative status, they shall be included on an ad hoc basis.3. But for example the OECD's 2005 report on development cooperation (OECD, 2005) does not use the Rio Markers. The only sectors identified in it are: social and administrative infrastructure (education, health, population, water supply and
sanitation; government and civil society, other social infrastructure/services, economic infrastructure (transport and communications, energy, other); production (agriculture, industry, mining, construction, trade and tourism); multi-sectorprogramme assistance, action related to debt; and emergency aid.
The objective of mainstreamingbiodiversity is ‘to internalize the goals ofbiodiversity conservation and thesustainable use of biological resourcesinto economic sectors and developmentmodels, policies and programmes, andtherefore into all human behaviour’
Petersen & Huntley, 2005
31
Chapter 1
Biodiversity and ecosystem services :Foundations for sustainable development
1. Biodiversity and ecosystem services
1.1. What is biodiversity?
As defined by the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD) andreasserted by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2005), theconcept of biological diversity(biodiversity in short) reflects thenumber, variety and variability of livingorganisms. It includes diversity withinspecies (genetic diversity), betweenspecies (species richness), and amongecosystems.
The concept also covers how thisdiversity changes from one location toanother and over time.
1.2. What are ecosystem services?
Ecosystem services are defined by theMillennium Ecosystem Assessment asthe local and global benefits peopleobtain from ecosystems. Biodiversityplays an important role in the way ecosystems function and in themany services they provide. Forecosystem services it matters whichspecies are abundant as well as howmany species are present.
Healthy and fully-functioningecosystems provide a wide range ofgoods essential to human well-being,such as foods, fuels, building materialsand medicines. They also provide avariety of regulating services, such ascycling nutrients, creating fertile soils,fixing carbon, purifying air and water,providing genetic material for crops andlivestock, pollination, controlling floodsand erosion, and checking pests,diseases and alien species. Ecosystems support primary production (agriculture,
fisheries, forestry), secondaryproduction (textiles, pharmaceuticals), and service industries (tourism, well-being, recreation). The costs of failing toprotect biodiversity are immense—interms of lost goods and services tothese sectors of the economy. Further,restoring degraded ecosystems, orsubstituting artificially for these biodiversity goods and services wherenatural systems fail is invariably muchmore costly than looking after them inthe first place.
For example, natural forests (see Table1) are centres of biodiversity andimportant stores of carbon. Therefore,disturbing these ecosystems contributesto biodiversity loss and climate change.An estimated 1.6 billion poor people relyheavily on forests for their livelihoods(EC, 2006a), including food security(bushmeat, fruits and vegetables), health(medicinal plants), shelter (buildingmaterials), and energy (fuel wood andcharcoal). Forest-based industries arean important source of employment andexport revenues in a number ofcountries, and drive economic growth.Similarly, ineffective governance andoverexploitation of marine resources threatens the nutritionalstatus of major population groups,particularly people from the poorestAfrican and south Asian countries forwhom fish and marine productsconstitute an essential part of theirprotein intake. Coastal areas, althoughoften densely inhabited, can provide thebasis for considerable economicdevelopment through eco-tourism.
2. Why does biodiversity
matter for poor people?
The European Union (EU) has adoptedpoverty alleviation as an overarchingobjective of its developmentcooperation. Because three quarters ofthe more than one billion people living on less than one dollar a day live in ruralareas, the poor depend directly on awide range of natural resources andecosystem services for their well-being,and are therefore most affected by theirdegradation. For example, over onebillion people worldwide draw their living from forest-based assets. For poorpeople, biodiversity loss is oftenequivalent to the loss of biologicalinsurance (MA, 2005). Richer groups ofpeople are usually less affected becauseof their ability to purchase substitutes orto offset local losses of ecosystemservices by shifting production andharvest to other regions1. According tothe Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD)2,in low-income countries, environment-
based wealth accounts for around 25%of the total wealth (compared to lessthan 4% in OECD countries).
More precisely, biodiversity matters topoor people directly in four principal ways(Timmer & Juma, 2005), including for:
• Food security and health;• Income generation and livelihoods;• Reduced vulnerability to shocks;• Cultural and spiritual values.
2.1. Biodiversity, food security and
1. For example, as fish stocks have been depleted in the North Atlantic, European and other commercial capture fisheries have shifted their fishing to West African seas, but this has adversely affected coastal West Africans who rely on fish as acheap source of protein.
2. http://www.oecd.org/document/0/0,2340,en_21571361_36099755_36099814_1_1_1_1,00.html
32
health of poor people
Food security is a major issue for poorpeople who have limited access to landand water.
Many poor people are actually landlessand so are especially dependent onwild plants and animals for their food security (see Box 2).
Declining ecosystems can havenegative impacts on health, particularlyon that of poor women, as theyincrease the burden of searching forand carrying heavy loads of water,wood or fodder. Such incidences havebeen reported for instance in Pakistanand China (Yunnan), where womenhave gynaecological problems becauseof a life spent carrying heavy loads(Steele, Oviedo & McCauley, 2006).
2.2 Biodiversity, income generationand livelihoods of poor people
For the majority of poor people living inrural areas, dependence on agricultureis high. The agricultural labour force,most of it in the developing world,currently includes approximately 22% of the world’s population andaccounts for 46% of its total labourforce (MA, 2005). This means that theirlivelihoods rely on several ecosystemservices that are crucial to agriculture,and on the diversity of food cropsavailable (see Box 3).
2.3 Biodiversity and reducedvulnerability to shocks and stresses
Poor people are often the mostvulnerable to shocks and stressesassociated with climatic events. Thesehocks can be stimulated by ecosystemdegradation, while better ecosystem management can reduce the impact ofsuch events. There is growing evidenceof the role of coastal vegetation (likemangroves) and natural protection (likecoral reefs) in mitigating coastal stormsand cyclones. Where these ecosystemsare declining, poor coastal populationsoften become more vulnerable. InBangladesh, the disappearing swampforests of the haor, which have servedas a natural barrier in the past againstthe monsoon waves, has led to muchmore severe erosion. As a result, poorhouseholds have been compelled toincrease spending to protect their tinyhomesteads every year (Steele, Oviedo& McCauley, 2006).
2.4 Cultural values of poor people and biodiversity
For many poor people, biodiversity isinextricably linked with identity, cultureand spirituality. It is therefore an integralpart of their very existence.
33
Box 3. The importance of ecosystems, species andgenetic diversity for the livelihoods of poor rural people inMongolia, India and Vietnam
Only 1% of Mongolia is considered arable land, while about34% of Mongolia’s people are directly dependent on livestockproduction (most as traditional nomadic pastoralists), withanother 26% indirectly so. Some 40% of the 2.7 millioncitizens live at or below the poverty line. These pastoralistsare directly dependent upon the fragile natural resource base.
In some climatically vulnerable parts of India, poorhouseholds prefer traditional varieties or so called land racesof rice and other crops due to their greater resilience toclimate fluctuations and other actors. For example, inJeypore, Cyclonic conditions, long spells of drought andvery high temperatures within a crop season resulted invarying magnitudes of yield stress. Land races of rice were
genetically resilient and withstood the harsh weather while high yielding varieties in nearby areas suffered irretrievably.In Vietnam, medicinal plants are particularly important toethnic minorities, particularly women in the highlands fromwhich 70% of medicinal plants in the Vietnamese marketoriginate. Traders along the entire market chain are oftenwomen. Collectors do the initial processing and then sell tomiddle-women, who in turn sell to female merchants inHanoi or China. Herbal medicine is important in Vietnamwhere the largely rural population has limited access tomodern medicine—demand for herbal medicines has furtherincreased with the reduction of government subsidies formodern health care. However, there is a risk this may lead toan overexploitation of medicinal plants.Source: Steele, Oviedo & McCauley, 2006.
1. Quoted in DFID, 2002b.
Box 2. Bushmeat, wildlife and foodsecurity for poor people
In many forest countries, bushmeat isan important source of protein. InGhana, 75% of the population eatbushmeat regularly and wild animalsconstitute the main source of animalprotein for rural households. In manycountries, the availability of bushmeatand wildlife is declining and, accordingto the NGO Save the Children, this ishaving negative impacts on nutrition. Inthe Ethiopian highlands and Malawi,dietary intake has declined as largerodents and small mammals havebecome less available.Source: DFID, 2002a.
‘What is equivalent to the biodiversityhere, to the things that surround us, ismy life. If you took those things away, itwould be like taking part of my life, andthen my survival would bequestionable’.
Pera, Bakalaharil tribe, Botswana1
34
3. A complex relationshipbetween two complexphenomena: the biodiversity–poverty nexus
3.1. An unresolved debate at the general level
We have highlighted that biodiversitymatters to the poor. But the linkagesbetween biodiversity and poverty aremuch more complex and dynamic. The current intense debate on this nexus demonstrates that thereare no simple causal relationshipsbetween biodiversity and poverty.Instead, conservationists anddevelopment practitioners and policymakers often have different opinions onhow—and whether—to link biodiversityconservation with poverty reduction. The growing volume of literature on thesubject highlights how complex andcontext-specific poverty-conservationlinkages are, and how subjective their interpretation is (Roe & Elliott, 2005).
Despite question marks, uncertaintiesand debates, Fisher et al. (2005)highlight three reasons for which it isessential to make the effort to linkpoverty reduction with conservation:
• A focus on the needs of the poor isethically unavoidable, especially whenconservation activities risk negativelyaffecting poor people by transferringthe real costs of conserving globaland national public goods to the locallevel.
• Conservation, as in the case ofecosystem restoration, ought tocontribute actively to povertyreduction more broadly where it can,simply because it can.
• While it is unrealistic to assume thatlinking conservation and developmentwill always (or even usually) maximizeboth social and conservationoutcomes, it will often lead to betterconservation outcomes than couldhave been achieved otherwise.
Box 4. What do we know aboutconservation–poverty linkages?Accepted and contestedrelationships
Hypothesis 1: There is ageographical overlap betweenbiodiversity and poverty
Conclusion: At the global level there isa geographical overlap betweenbiodiversity and poor people but itbecomes less pronounced the more‘the South’ is disaggregated. At thenational and sub-national levels thetwo occasionally coincide, butgovernance factors are generally moresignificant than geography indetermining where biodiversity prevails,where poor people live and how thetwo interact.
Hypothesis 2: Poor people dependon biodiversity
Conclusion: All of humanity isdependent on biodiversity for thegoods and services it provides, but thepoor appear to be particularlydependent (although this is hard toquantify). In a large part thisdependency is related to the role thatbiodiversity plays in poor people’sfarming systems and the degree ofresilience and adaptability toenvironmental change that poor peoplehave developed.
Hypothesis 3: Poor people areresponsible for biodiversity loss
Conclusion: Poverty may contribute tobiodiversity loss, but it is only one of anumber of factors. Whether poorpeople conserve or overexploitbiodiversity is dependent on specificcircumstances and contexts—andparticularly on the influence of externalgovernance factors—and not aquestion to which a generalizedanswer can be given.
Hypothesis 4: Conservation activitieshurt poor people
Conclusion: The impacts ofconservation activities are not evenlyspread. Some forms of conservationactivity may have negativeconsequences for poor people. Othersmay benefit poor people or even beinitiated by poor people. Governancefactors appear to be critical once again.
Hypothesis 5: Poor people canundermine conservation
Conclusion: Unless different prioritiesfor biodiversity and incentives forconservation are recognised, localpeople are often bound to beperceived as ‘undermining’conservation, and indeed may proceedto do so. Local people need to beengaged to conserve aspects ofbiodiversity that are critically importantto their livelihoods, if broader-based,long-term public support for protectionof globally threatened biodiversity isalso to be achieved.
Hypothesis 6: Biodiversity isirrelevant to poverty reduction
Conclusion: A lack of quantitativedata—particularly at national levels—makes it difficult to challenge theassumption that biodiversity isirrelevant for poverty reduction. Ingeneral, poverty reduction policiestend to rely on agriculture—both at thehousehold level through supportingsmallholder farmers for theirsubsistence and income-earningpotentials, and at the national levelthrough agriculture’s potential to driveeconomic growth. Making a bettercase for biodiversity in povertyreduction therefore means clearerarticulation of the links betweenbiodiversity and agriculture andbetween biodiversity and ecosystemservices (those that support agricultureand those that generate otherbenefits).
Hypothesis 7: Poverty reductionactivities can cause biodiversity loss
Conclusion: Historical patterns of ruraldevelopment—based on primarycommodity production—have notperformed well for biodiversity—nor inmany cases have they performed wellfor poor people either. Innovativeapproaches to poverty reduction thatare founded on local knowledge,institutions and processes are critical—both to achieving the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs) andtackling biodiversity loss.
Source: Roe & Elliott, 2005
35
In this context, attempts to findcommon ground often result inplatitudes that fail to confront realproblems faced by OverseasDevelopment Assistance (ODA)projects, programmes and policies(Brockington, Igoe & Schmidt-Soltau,2006). This is why efforts to addressreal issues—rather than pretending theydo not exist—are so badly needed. ThePoverty–Environment Partnership (PEP)(see Annex 4) and the InternationalInstitute for Environment andDevelopment’s (IIED) Poverty andConservation Learning Group are goodexamples of this. The latter for instanceprovides useful insights on a number ofkey hypotheses (see Box 4). All of theseven hypotheses discussed woulddeserve a whole section of this paper. However, here we shall only brieflydiscuss two questions that we think areparticularly critical in the Europeandevelopment cooperation context:
• Is biodiversity conservation a route topoverty alleviation? And/or
• Is poverty alleviation a route to betterbiodiversity management?
Some have argued that biodiversityconservation is incompatible with liftingpoor people out of poverty; others thatthe most effective intervention forbiodiversity conservation is poverty reduction. Such questions are quitesensitive and may have very concreteconsequences for the waydevelopment cooperation policies andprogrammes are designed. We shallmainly introduce the debate here andunderline simplifications that should beavoided—not necessarily answer thesequestions, which remain partly open.
3.2. Is biodiversity conservation aroute to poverty alleviation?
Conserving biodiversity is not alwaysfavourable to the poor. Many exampleshave been documented worldwidewhere conservation activities havenegatively affected poor people livingnearby (Brockington, 2003; McLean &Straede, 2003). This seems to beespecially true of the establishment andmanagement of protected areas, and ofrelated donor-funded projects.However, that biodiversity conservationcan at least contribute to povertyalleviation is supported by a broadconsensus—many even argue that thepotential of biodiversity conservation tocontribute to poverty reduction is stilllargely unrecognised by developing country governments and internationaldevelopment agencies (DFID, 2002a;Koziell & McNeill, 2002). Much dependson the how: how conservation projectsare designed and carried out, how poorand marginalized people are consulted,involved in and associated with theconservation objectives and activities, how poverty alleviation ismainstreamed in biodiversity projectsand policies, etc.
The risk of further marginalizing andimpoverishing marginalized and poorpeople is clearly not specific toconservation. It is part of the viciouscircles deeply embedded in most societies that tend to make poorpeople poorer and rich people richer.The development of any economicactivity—including conservation butalso forest exploitation, handicraft,trade, tourism, infrastructure, etc.—hasa tendency to reinforce these circles
unless appropriate attention is paid tothe issue. To take this one step further,in a given country, with funding from agiven donor, conservation activities areusually just as democratic, participatoryand pro-poor as the rest of agovernment and donor’s policy (Billé,2006). When the political context doesnot take into account the needs anddesires of marginalized groups ofstakeholders, especially the poorest,when their access to natural resourcesand their right to participate in thedecisions that directly affect their livesare denied, projects and policies whoseprimary objective is biodiversityconservation cannot be expected to betransparent and equitable. Goodgovernance at the national and locallevels is obviously necessary forbiodiversity conservation to bringexpected benefits.
That said, there are many exampleswhere biodiversity conservation hasbenefited poor people in developingcountries.
More precisely, this happens in twomain ways, at the local and nationallevels:
• A route out of poverty for poor people
(Box 5): biodiversity can, particularly
in areas with few other economic
opportunities, provide a way for poor
households to generate a surplus and
eventually invest in other economic
activities and escape poverty.
Box 5. Pro-poor protected areas inIndia
India has like many countries, facedchallenges of how to reconcile locallivelihoods with protection forprotected areas. The approachadopted is known in India as eco-development and since the late 1990smany protected areas have had eco-development committees (EDC), oftensupported by Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF) financing. A confederation of these committeeswas created in 2002. While theseEDCs have a mixed track record,there are some definite successes.
One such success was the PeriyarTiger Reserve in Kerala, where theinflux of 400,000 tourists a year hasbeen able to generate significantincomes to provide for livelihoods and other related benefits for theneighbouring villagers. A shop hasbeen set up, villagers work as guidesand forest watchers. Interestingly the overall incomes of residents from eco-development is still below whatthey used to earn from smuggling and the other illegal activities they used toengage in prior to this. Yet the
standard of living is higher amongthem because they are no longerunder the threat of being pursued bythe police, or under pressure frommiddlemen and money lenders. Theavailability of more dignified livelihoodopportunities has reduced criminalactivities and prostitution.
Source: Kothari & Pathak, 2004
In many ways linking conservation withpoverty reduction is more of an art thana science.
Fisher et al., 2005
36
• Route out of poverty for poor
countries (Box 6): at a macro-level,
biodiversity and ecosystem services
can, under certain conditions,
generate growth at an economy-wide
level that in turn benefits poor people.
Natural resources often provide a key
export, foreign exchange earner and
source of government revenues. This
can be illustrated by the importance
of fisheries to least developed
countries in Africa: fish are their most
important agricultural export, more
important than any crops.
Both ways demand that biodiversity not
be exploited beyond sustainable levels,
and that the growth generated be
reinvested to shift away from
biodiversity-dependence.
3.3. Is poverty alleviation a route tobetter biodiversity management?
The current international focus onpoverty alleviation makes this questioncrucial. If the answer is yes,development agencies and recipientcountries could make the choice to abandon conservation activities so asto concentrate their entire efforts onpoverty alleviation, whatever its short-term ecological consequences.
This hypothesis is supported by thewell-known Environmental KuznetsCurve, which suggests thatenvironmental quality declines asincome rises until income reaches acertain level, at which pointenvironmental quality improves.However, this curve is stronglydisputed, and even for its advocatesthe extent to which it applies tobiodiversity is questionable; once aspecies is lost, it is gone forever.
A majority of analysts actually seem tobelieve that poverty alleviation will notin itself achieve conservation goals. Forexample, experience from Africa andAsia shows that as wealth increases, sotoo does the demand for wildlife(Robinson & Bennett, 2002). Morepertinent questions may therefore be:can reducing poverty actuallycontribute to halting biodiversity loss? If yes, how?
Swanson, among others, highlights theapparent incompatibility betweenbiodiversity and development: ‘stateswith high material wealth have lowbiodiversity wealth and vice versa’ (inKoziell & Saunders, 2001). In the sameperspective, the MA scenarios suggestthat ‘future development paths thatshow relatively good progress towardmeeting the poverty, hunger reduction,and health targets also show relativelyhigh rates of habitat loss andassociated loss of species over 50years1. This does not imply thatbiodiversity loss is, in and of itself,good for poverty reduction. Instead, it indicates that many economicdevelopment activities aimed at incomegeneration are likely to have negativeimpacts on biodiversity unless the values of biodiversity and relatedecosystem services are factored in’.
Although this does not mean thatpoverty reduction itself is not alaudable objective, it implies that thedevelopment cooperation approachesand the development paths that havebeen followed to date, both inindustrialized and developing countries,are at best not the most effective, andat worst clearly inappropriate. If povertycan be a root cause of biodiversity loss,this is just as true of wealth andeconomic development: ‘deforestation,for example, is partly caused by localdemand for agricultural land orconstruction materials, but is evenmore fundamentally driven by theindustrialized world’s demand fortimber and the growing internationaltrade in forest products’ (UN MillenniumProject, 2005). Do poor people degradetheir environment because they arepoor? Do increasing incomes affect theway in which poor people exploitnatural resources? IIED’s Poverty andConservation Learning Group came tothe conclusion that ‘issues ofgovernance, security of land tenure andaccess to resources are likely to have asignificantly greater impact on the way inwhich people over-exploit now orconserve for the future. (…) Poverty isonly one factor driving biodiversity loss. Reducing poverty will not necessarily,therefore, lead to biodiversityconservation unless the other drivers arealso addressed’ (Roe and Elliott, 2005).
Actually, poverty alleviation may yieldbetter biodiversity conservation only iftied to explicit conservation objectives,strategies, policies and actions, in anappropriate governance context (WorldResources Institute, 2005). To someextent this development path, whichincludes mainstreaming biodiversity indevelopment projects (BDP) and policiesbut is not limited to it, is still to be tested.
Box 6. Importance of fisheries for thepoorest countries in Africa
In 2001, seafood exports from Africa tothe European Union were worthUS$1.75 billion and were the mostimportant product among agriculturalexports. For African least developedcountries, the seafood trade was worthUS$570 million, and again this was thelargest agricultural export product.Fisheries provide revenues at thenational level, particularly in manyAfrican countries, often through fishery-access agreements with foreign fleets.Between 1993 and 1999, fisheryaccess agreements provided 30% ofthe government revenue in GuineaBissau, 15% in Mauritania, and 13% inSao Tome. At the local level, in someareas, fishery taxes provide asignificant source of local revenue.
Source: Steele, 2004.
1. From a more general perspective, it is striking that the ecological footprint of countries is almost directly proportional to their development level-with very limited variations and exceptions (see WWF, 2005a).
Achieving the goal of liberating half ofthe world’s poor from their poverty by
2015 will either mark the true beginningof sustainability or the end of
biodiversity at the hands of the best-intentioned policies
Sanderson & Redford, 2003
Many commentators are concerned withthe impact that current models of economic development—in the name ofpoverty reduction—have on biodiversity.Roe and Elliott, 2005
37
3.4. An intricate problem with no‘silver bullet’
The aim of this short discussion is mainlyto acknowledge that the linkagesbetween poverty and conservation aredynamic and context specific, reflectinggeographical, social and political issuesamong the groups involved (Kepe,Saruchera & Whande, 2004). They areso complex that they rarely authorizesimple cause-and-effect analyses.
Synergies and positive externalitiesbetween sustainably managingbiodiversity and alleviating poverty doexist. They are sometimes obvious, butmore often win-win solutions to povertyand conservation dilemmas are elusive,and trade-offs tend to be the morerealistic outcome. Creative approachesare needed to remove barriers to suchsynergies, and connections must bemade rather than simply identified.Fortunately, past failures do notnecessarily mean future efforts will fail too.
Giving shape to such trade-offsrequires respecting the strengths andweaknesses of both conservation andpoverty alleviation efforts. This meansplanning long-term, integratedinitiatives involving a wide range ofstakeholders: Unfortunately, there is no‘silver bullet’ (Robinson & Bennett,2002) for the twin goals of conservingbiodiversity and preventing the peoplewhose lives now depend onbiodiversity from being driven furtheragainst the wall.
4. An accelerated trend tobiodiversity loss andecosystem degradation
Previous sections have demonstratedthe importance of biodiversity for poorpeople and poverty reduction. Howeverall recent assessments (see e.g. Baillie,Hilton-Taylor & Stuart, 2004; andIUCN’s 2006 Red List) agree thatglobally biodiversity is under severestress. Not only are trends todegradation not reversed yet, but thepace of degradation is still increasing.
4.1. A gloomy picture of past and present trends
In an unparalleled effort to compilecomprehensive and objectiveinformation on biodiversity andecosystems, the Millennium EcosystemAssessment issued a series of reportsin 2005, including a ‘BiodiversitySynthesis’ (MA, 2005) which gives arather gloomy though unquestionablepicture of the world’s situation (see Box7). This is valid both for developed anddeveloping countries: although themost rapid changes in ecosystems arenow taking place in developingcountries, industrial countrieshistorically experienced comparablechanges.
All parameters considered—includingrates of wild and domesticated species’extinction, habitat conversion,ecosystem degradation, etc.—show anaccelerated reduction in diversity:‘Across a range of taxonomic groups,the population size or range (or both) ofthe majority of species is declining.Studies of amphibians globally, Africanmammals, birds in agricultural lands,British butterflies, Caribbean and Indo-Pacific corals, and commonlyharvested fish species show declines inpopulations of the majority of species.Exceptions include species that havebeen protected in reserves, that havehad their particular threats (such as overexploitation) eliminated, and thattend to thrive in landscapes that havebeen modified by human activity.Marine and freshwater ecosystems arerelatively less studied than terrestrial systems, so overall biodiversity ispoorly understood; for those species
that are well studied, biodiversity losshas occurred through populationextirpation and constricted distributions’.
Ironically, many cases wheredegradation trends are slowing down orbeing reversed seem to concernecosystems that have been sodegraded already that furtherconversion or destruction is notpossible. If the net rate of conversion ofsome ecosystems has begun to slow, itis often because little habitat remainsfor further conversion. Opportunities forfurther expansion of cultivation arediminishing in many regions of theworld as the finite proportion of landsuitable for intensive agriculturecontinues to decline. Therefore, theneeds of an expanding globalpopulation will have to be met throughreduced per capita consumption and/oran increase in output per unit of land—both of which carry major problemsfrom the perspective of human well-being and ecosystem health. In otherwords, business as usual for currentagriculture production methodologiesand the global inequity in the use ofnatural resources are not sustainableoptions.
Agro-biodiversity, or diversity amongdomesticated species, has declinedtremendously as well. Starting in the1960s, the Green Revolution broughtabout a fundamental shift in the patternof intra-species diversity in farmers’fields and farming systems. Agriculturalsystems have been intensified, whichhas been coupled with specialization byplant breeders and the harmonizingeffects of globalization. The resultingreduction in the genetic diversity ofdomesticated plants and animalsindubitably reduces the resilience andadaptability of agricultural systems.
4.2. Worrying projections for theshort and longer term
As reported by the MillenniumEcosystem Assessment (2005), andbased on IUCN’s criteria for threats ofextinction, between 10% and 50% ofwell-studied higher taxo-nomic groups(mammals, birds, amphibians, conifers,and cycads) are currently threatenedwith extinction.
Mainstreaming may involve difficult choices and will require
well-informed decisions on:
• Trade-offs between the interests of biodiversity conservation
and conventional forms ofeconomic production, in both
the short and long term
• Trade-offs between those who gain thebenefit and those who bear the cost
Petersen & Huntley, 2005
38
For example, 32% of amphibians arethreatened with extinction, but relevantinformation is still limited so that thismay be an underestimate. Higher levelsof threat (52%) have been found in thecycads, a group of evergreen palm-likeplants. Aquatic organisms (includingboth marine and freshwater) have notbeen tracked to the same degree asterrestrial ones, masking what may besimilarly alarming threats of extinction.With extinction comes morehomogeneity in the distribution ofspecies on Earth: the differencesbetween the set of species at onelocation and the set of species atanother location are, on average,diminishing. Two factors areresponsible for this trend. First, speciesunique to particular regions areexperiencing higher rates of extinction.Second, high rates of introductions ofspecies into new ranges areaccelerating in pace with growing tradeand faster transportation. MA scenarios indicate that currenttrends for biodiversity loss andecosystem degradation are likely to remain or even worsen over the next50 years, unless appropriate action is taken with unprecedented intensity(see Box 8).
4.3. Benefits from ecosystemdegradation come with hidden costs
The MA recognises that ‘substantialbenefits have been gained from manyof the actions that have caused thehomogenization or loss of biodiversity.For example, agriculture, fisheries, and forestry—three activities that haveplaced significant pressures onbiodiversity—have often been themainstay of national development
strategies, providing revenues that have enabled investments in industrializationand economic growth. The agriculturallabour force currently containsapproximately 22% of the world’spopulation and accounts for 46% of its total labour force. In industrialcountries, exploitation of naturalresources continues to be important forlivelihoods and economies in ruralregions. Similarly, many speciesintroductions, which contribute to thehomogenization of global biodiversity,have been intentional because of thebenefits the species provide. In othercases, humans have eradicated someharmful components of biodiversity,such as particular disease organisms orpests’ (MA, 2005).
However, many of these benefits havebeen transitory or have carried hiddencosts that now need to be paid. TheMA underlines that modifications ofecosystems to enhance one service generally have come at a cost to otherservices due to trade-offs (see Table 1for the case of forests). Only four of the24 ecosystem services examined in theMA have been enhanced: crops,livestock, aquaculture, and carbonsequestration. In contrast, 15 otherservices have been degraded, includingcapture fisheries, timber production,water supply, waste treatment anddetoxification, water purification,natural hazard protection, regulation ofair quality, regulation of regional andlocal climate, regulation of erosion, andmany cultural benefits (spiritual,aesthetic, recreational, and others).Furthermore, ‘the impacts of thesetrade-offs among ecosystem servicesaffect different people in different ways.
For example, an aquaculture farmermay gain material welfare frommanagement practices that increasesoil salinization and thereby reduce riceyields and threaten food security fornearby subsistence farmers’.
Addressing these trade-offs andachieving poverty alleviation withoutfurther depleting biodiversity resourceslooks like a challenge. But it is not animpossible one.
Box 7. Biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation
• More land was converted to cropland in the 30 years after1950 than in the 150 years between 1700 and 1850.
• Some 35% of mangroves have been lost in the last twodecades in countries where adequate data are available(encompassing about half of the total mangrove area).
• 20% of known coral reefs have been destroyed and another20% degraded in the last several decades.
• Over half of the 14 biomes that the MA assessed haveexperienced a 20%–50% conversion to human use, withtemperate and Mediterranean forests and temperategrasslands being the most affected (approximately three-quarters of these biomes’ native habitat has been replacedby cultivated lands).
• In the last 50 years, rates of conversion have been highestin tropical and sub-tropical dry forests.
• Over the past few hundred years, humans have increasedspecies’ extinction rates by as much as 1,000 times thebackground rates that were typical over Earth’s history.
• There are approximately 100 well-documented extinctionsof birds, mammals, and amphibians over the last 100years—a rate 100 times higher than background rates.
• If less well documented but highly probable extinctions areincluded, the rate is more than 1,000 times higher thanbackground rates.
Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005.
Beneficial changes in ecosystemservices have not been equitablydistributed among people, and many ofthe costs of changes in biodiversityhave historically not been factored intodecision-making. Even where the neteconomic benefits of changes leadingto the loss of biodiversity (such asecosystem simplification) have beenpositive, many people have often beenharmed by such changes.
MA, 2005
39
5. Conclusion: achieving the twingoals of alleviating poverty andconserving biodiversity
Failure to protect biodiversity andecosystems will prevent theachievement of MDG 7, that of‘ensuring environmental sustainability’—a goal already severely off-trackaccording to the Millennium Task Force.In turn, not achieving MDG 7 willseriously undermine global efforts tomeet all the other MDGs by 2015.Many costs associated with biodiversityloss may appear slowly or only at somedistance from where biodiversity waslost. Without environmentalsustainability, gains will be transitoryand inequitable (UN Millennium Project,2005). Economic growth anddevelopment are intricately linked, inthe medium and long term, to thesound management of environmentalresources.
Making biodiversity work for povertyalleviation and vice versa is complexand may only be achieved on a case-by-case basis.
However, a number of clear messagesemerge from this first chapter:
• The poor, but also the rest ofhumanity, are heavily dependent onbiodiversity for their well-being, eitherdirectly or indirectly.
• Biodiversity provides a route out ofpoverty for poor people and poorcountries with few other economicopportunities. However, biodiversityconservation in itself will not contributeto alleviating poverty unless it isaccompanied by appropriate andspecific pro-poor strategies.• Poverty alleviation may, in certain
cases, help relieve pressure onbiodiversity. However, povertyalleviation in itself will not contributeto biodiversity conservation unless itis accompanied by appropriate andspecific strategies.
• Improving governance is key toenhancing the twin outcomes ofconservation and poverty reduction.This requires political and institutionalchanges at all levels.
• Biodiversity is under severe andgrowing stress as indicated by theMillennium Ecosystem Assessment,which provided a common referenceand several key messages that shouldbe regarded as historical milestones.
• Achieving, by 2010, a significantreduction in the rate of biodiversityloss at all levels will requireunprecedented additional efforts.
Given Europe’s specific responsibilitiestowards countries and territories ofwhich it is the main economic partnerand ODA provider, in which a majorityof the world’s poor live, and wheremuch of the planet’s remainingbiodiversity is found, the way theEuropean Union deals with biodiversityin its development cooperation is ofextreme importance. This is all themore true as it is in Europe’s self-interest to support the sustainablemanagement of biodiversity incountries that are both importanteconomic and ecological partners.
The European Commission (EC) as wellas Member States have made anumber of commitments in that regard,which we shall now explore in detail.
Box 8. MA scenarios for the 21stcentury
All scenarios explored in theMillennium Ecosystem Assessmentproject showed continuing rapidconversion of ecosystems in the firsthalf of the 21st century. Roughly10%–20% (low to medium certainty)of current grassland and forestland isprojected to be converted to otheruses between now and 2050, first dueto the expansion of agriculture and,
second, due to the expansion of citiesand infrastructure. The habitat lossesprojected in the MA scenarios will leadto global extinctions as species’numbers approach equilibrium withthe remnant habitat. The equilibriumnumber of plant species is projectedto be reduced by roughly 10%–15%as a result of habitat loss over theperiod 1970–2050 in the MA scenarios
(low certainty), but this projection islikely to be an underestimate as itdoes not consider reductions due tostresses other than habitat loss, suchas climate change and pollution. Similarly, modification of river waterflows will drive losses of fish species.
Source:
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005.
1. Global commitments
The European Union (EU) as well asMember States, are parties tonumerous Multilateral EnvironmentalAgreements (MEAs), among whichseveral address biodiversity indevelopment cooperation issues. Threeof them can be considered as theuniversal overarching framework forthis topic.
1.1. Millennium Development Goals(MDGs)
The Millennium Development Goals(MDGs) are eight goals to be achievedby 2015 that respond to the world’smain development challenges. TheMDGs are drawn from the actions andtargets contained in the MillenniumDeclaration that was adopted by 189nations and signed by 147 heads ofstate and governments during the UNMillennium Summit in September 2000.The eight MDGs break down into 18
quantifiable targets that are measuredby 48 indicators (see Annex 5). Many ofthe targets of the MDGs were first setout by international conferences andsummits held in the 1990s. They werelater compiled and became known asthe International Development Goals.The MDGs commit the internationalcommunity to an expanded vision ofdevelopment, one that vigorouslypromotes human development as thekey to sustaining social and economicprogress in all countries, andrecognises the importance of creating aglobal partnership for development.The goals have been commonlyaccepted as a framework for measuring development progress.
The seventh MDG focuses specificallyupon ‘ensuring environmentalsustainability’. It establishes three targetsregarding environmental sustainabilityand seven indicators (Table 2). WhileMDG 7 is the only goal explicitly
targeting the environment, ecosystemservices and biodiversity nonethelessunderlie the achievement of all theGoals, including the reduction of poverty, hunger, child mortality, anddisease (see Table 3).
1.2. World Summit on SustainableDevelopment Plan of Implementation
Equally crucial is the JohannesburgPlan of Implementation, adopted at the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment in 2002. All signatoriescommit to:
• Encourage and promote thedevelopment of a 10-year frameworkof programmes to accelerate the shifttowards sustainable consumption andproduction.
41
Chapter 2
From global concerns to European action:Commitments from the European Union to
take on its responsibilities
We will have time to reach theMillennium Development Goals—worldwide and in most, or even all,individual countries—but only if webreak with business as usual. We cannotwin overnight. Success will requiresustained action across the entiredecade between now and the deadline.It takes time to train the teachers,nurses and engineers; to build theroads, schools and hospitals; to growthe small and large businesses able tocreate the jobs and income needed. Sowe must start now. And we must morethan double global developmentassistance over the next few years.Nothing less will help to achieve theGoals.
Kofi A. Annan, United Nations Secretary General
421. This objective was re-emphasised at the 2005 World Summit (UN, 2005).2. http://www.biodiv.org/doc/publications/guide.asp?id=action
Box 9. The Convention on BiologicalDiversity2
In 1992, the largest-ever meeting ofworld leaders took place at the UnitedNations Conference on Environment andDevelopment in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.An historic set of agreements wassigned during this ‘Earth Summit’,including two binding agreements, the Convention on Climate Change, whichtargets industrial and other emissions ofgreenhouse gases such as carbondioxide, and the Convention onBiological Diversity the first globalagreement on the conservation andsustainable use of biological diversity.The biodiversity treaty gained rapid andwidespread acceptance. Over 150governments signed the document atthe Rio conference, and more than 187countries have ratified it since.
The Convention has three main goals:
• Conservation of biodiversity;• Sustainable use of the components of
biodiversity;• Sharing the benefits arising from the
commercial and other utilization ofgenetic resources in a fair andequitable way.
The Convention stands as a landmark ininternational law. It recognises for thefirst time that the conservation of
biological diversity is ‘a commonconcern of humankind’ and is anintegral part of the developmentprocess. The agreement covers allecosystems, species, and geneticresources. It links traditionalconservation efforts with the economicgoal of using biological resourcessustainably. It sets principles for the fairand equitable sharing of the benefitsarising from the use of geneticresources, notably those destined forcommercial use. It also covers therapidly expanding field of biotechnology,addressing technology developmentand transfer, benefit-sharing andbiosafety. Importantly, the Convention islegally binding; countries that join it areobliged to implement its provisions.The Convention reminds decisionmakers that natural resources are notinfinite and sets out a new philosophyfor the 21st century, that of sustainableuse. While past conservation efforts were aimed at protecting particularspecies and habitats, the Conventionrecognises that ecosystems, speciesand genes must be used for the benefitof humans. However, this should bedone in a way and at a rate that doesnot lead to the long-term decline ofbiological diversity.The Convention also offers decision
makers guidance based on theprecautionary principle that where thereis a threat of significant reduction orloss of biological diversity, lack of fullscientific certainty should not be usedas a reason for postponing measures toavoid or minimize such a threat. TheConvention acknowledges thatsubstantial investments are required toconserve biological diversity. It argues,however, that conservation will bring ussignificant environmental, economic andsocial benefits in return.
Some of the many issues dealt withunder the Convention include:
• Measures and incentives for theconservation and sustainable use ofbiological diversity.
• Access and benefit sharing of geneticresources and associated issues onintellectual property rights.
• Access to and transfer of technology,including biotechnology.
• Technical and scientific cooperation.• Impact assessment.• Education and public awareness.• Provision of financial resources.• National reporting on efforts to
implement treaty commitments.• Rights of indigenous peoples and
local communities.
• Adopt new measures to consolidateinstitutional arrangements forsustainable development atinternational, regional and nationallevels.
• Explore the possibility of a morecoherent institutional framework toallow more efficient environmentalgovernance within the UN system.
• Achieve, by 2010, a significantreduction in the current rate of loss ofbiological diversity1.
• Encourage the application by 2010 ofthe ecosystem approach for thesustainable development of theoceans. Maintain or restore depletedfish stocks to levels that can producethe maximum sustainable yield by2015. Eliminate subsidies thatcontribute to illegal, unreported andunregulated fishing and to over-capacity.
43
1.3. Multilateral EnvironmentalAgreements
Thirdly, and still at the global level, anumber of MEAs have been signedand/or ratified by the European Union,including:
• The three Rio conventions signed atthe Earth Summit in 1992, namely theUnited Nations Convention toCombat Desertification (UNCCD)(1992), the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol(1997), and more importantly for oursubject, the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD) (see Box 9) and itsCartagena Biosafety Protocol (2000).
• The Ramsar Convention on Wetlandsof International Importance especiallyas Waterfowl Habitat, signed in 1971,is an ntergovernmental treaty whichprovides the framework for nationalaction and international cooperationfor the conservation and wise use ofwetlands and their resources. Thereare presently 152 Contracting Partiesto the Convention, with 1,609 wetlandsites, totalling 145.8 million hectares,designated for inclusion in theRamsar List of Wetlands ofInternational Importance.
• The Convention Concerning theProtection of the World Cultural andNatural Heritage (1972) links togetherin a single document the concepts of
nature conservation and thepreservation of cultural properties.The Convention recognises the way inwhich people interact with nature,and the fundamental need to preservethe balance between the two. The Convention sets out the duties ofStates Parties in identifying potentialsites and their role in protecting andpreserving them. The States Partiesare encouraged to integrate theprotection of the cultural and naturalheritage into regional planningprogrammes, set up staff andservices at their sites, undertakescientific and technical conservationresearch and adopt measures whichgive this heritage a function in theday-to-day life of the community.
• The Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species of WildFauna and Flora (CITES, 1973/1975)is an international agreement betweengovernments. Its aim is to ensure thatinternational trade in specimens ofwild animals and plants does notthreaten their survival. It accordsvarying degrees of protection to morethan 30,000 species of animals andplants. It provides a framework to berespected by each of its 169 Parties,which have to adopt their owndomestic legislation to ensure thatCITES is implemented at the nationallevel.
• The Convention on the Conservationof Migratory Species of Wild Animals(also known as CMS or BonnConvention, 1979) aims to conserveterrestrial, marine and avian migratoryspecies throughout their range. It isan intergovernmental treaty,concluded under the aegis of theUnited Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP), concerned withthe conservation of wildlife andhabitats on a global scale. Since theConvention’s entry into force, itsmembership has grown steadily toinclude 97 today. CMS acts as aframework convention.
The agreements may range from legallybinding treaties (called Agreements) toless formal instruments, such asMemoranda of Understanding, and canbe adapted to the requirements ofparticular regions.
Box 10. Actions to help the European Community addressbiodiversity issues as part of economic and developmentcooperation
1. To mainstream biodiversity objectives into Communitydevelopment and economic cooperation strategies andpolicy dialogue with developing countries and economies intransition. Biodiversity objectives should be integrated intodevelopment projects across different sectors of theeconomy of recipient countries, ensuring greater coherencebetween Community development cooperation policy andother Community policies, such as trade, agriculture andfisheries
2. To support sustainable use of natural resources,particularly in relation to forests, grasslands andmarine/coastal ecosystems
3. To strengthen the capacity of relevant agencies involved inconservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
4. To further integrate Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA) practices in development cooperation
5. To coordinate the implementation of this strategy and theaction plans emerging from it, with third country strategies, ensuring coherence between Community supportto third countries and the objective of these countries’ ownbiodiversity strategies
6. To ensure omplementarity and coordination of policies andapproaches in Community and Member States’ aidprogrammes, as well as other donors and internationalinstitutions, particularly the Global Environment Facility (GEF)for coherent implementation of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity
7. To provide sufficient funds for biodiversity in bilateral aidas well as in international mechanisms
Source: EC, 2001.
2. European commitmentscomplementing MEAs
Given its special responsibilities andinterests, the European Union hasmade a number of extra commitments,often more ambitious than these MEAs.
2.1. A brief retrospective of Europeancommitments to biodiversity indevelopment cooperation
In 1998, the European BiodiversityStrategy established a set of objectivesfor biodiversity as well as four actionplans, including the Biodiversity ActionPlan for Economic and DevelopmentCooperation (BAP-EDC) (EC, 2001).This highlights seven actions to betaken by the European Commission(EC) to address biodiversity as part ofits economic and developmentcooperation (see Box 10).
In 2001, on the occasion of theGothenburg Council, the EuropeanUnion and Member States committedto halt the loss of biological diversity by2010. Although a worldwide objective,it necessarily has more strength on theEU territory, and therefore in Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) andOutermost Regions (ORs).
During the World Summit onSustainable Development held inJohannesburg in 2002, by way of a
complement to the Plan ofImplementation, the European Unionmade a strong political commitment toimprove forest governance andeliminate illegal logging through theForest Law Enforcement, Governanceand Trade (FLEGT) action plan.
The Message from Malahide1 (2004,see Annex 6) on ‘Halting the decline ofbiodiversity—Priority objectives andtargets for 2010’, was another cruciallandmark. Objectives 6 on forestry, 11 on economic and developmentcooperation (Box 11), 12 oninternational trade, 13 on access andbenefit sharing, 14 on property rightsfor indigenous and traditionalknowledge and practices and 15 onindicators and monitoring are all ofprimary importance to biodiversity indevelopment cooperation.
In 2005, the Paris Declaration on AidEffectiveness (see Annex 7) was signedby over 100 partner and Organizationfor Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD) countries(including European ODA—OverseasDevelopment Assistance—donors) aswell as by about 40 international andnon-governmental organizations. Bydoing so, they all committed toincrease not only the volume of aid andother development resources, but aideffectiveness, coherence andcoordination. More specifically,
under the section on ‘harmonization’, adhering countries committed to‘promote a harmonized approach toenvironmental assessments’, i.e. to‘strengthen the application of EIAs anddeepen common procedures forprojects, including consultations withstakeholders; and develop and applycommon approaches for ‘strategicenvironmental assessment’ at thesector and national levels3‘.
More recently, the European Consensuson Development4 (see Annex 8)adopted by the Council in February2006 once again commits the EuropeanUnion to delivering more and better aid.Its first part provides the EuropeanUnion Vision of Development, sets outcommon objectives and principles fordevelopment cooperation. The primaryand overarching objective of EUdevelopment cooperation is theeradication of poverty in the context ofsustainable development, building on aset of common principles such asownership, partnership and in-depthpolitical dialogue, promoting policycoherence for development5,participation of civil society, gender equality and the need toaddress state fragility. The second partof the statement, the EuropeanCommunity Development Policy,defines how to implement the vision. Itintroduces the principle ofconcentration, by which nine areas
44
Box 11. Objective 11 of the Messagefrom Malahide (2010 and earliertargets)
To ensure an improved andmeasurable contribution of EUeconomic and developmentcooperation to achieving the globaltarget ‘to significantly reduce thecurrent [2002] rate of biodiversityloss by 2010’ in support of theMillennium Development Goals.
EU Regional and Country StrategyPapers (RSPs/CSPs) and SectoralStrategy Papers have integratedimplementation of the CBD by 2007.
Partner countries2 have integratedimplementation of the CBD in nationaldevelopment strategies, includingPoverty Reduction Strategy Papers(PRSP) by 2007.
European Commission and MemberStates’ to support implementation inpartner countries of the CBD, its workprogrammes and its Biosafety Protocol,significantly increased by 2007.
Adequate dedicated EU funding securedto support international implementationof the CBD where these actions falloutside development cooperation.
All programmes and projects fundedby the European Union in partnercountries have ex ante strategicenvironmental assessments (SEA) andenvironmental impact assessment,and actions are taken to prevent andmitigate negative impacts onbiodiversity in a timely manner.
Adequate long term capacity has beenestablished in EU delegations anddevelopment cooperation agencies tosustainably achieve the above targetsby 2006.
EC and Member States cooperate andcoordinate their efforts to support theabove targets, with correspondingreporting mechanisms by 2006.
Effective mechanisms are in place toenable non-governmental organizations(NGOs) and local communities toaccess EU funding and to increasesynergies between governments,NGOs and the private sector.
1. Issued at the Stakeholders' conference 'Biodiversity and the EU-Sustaining life, sustaining livelihoods' in Malahide, Ireland.2. The term 'partner countries' iincludes Overseas Territories.3. Even though this commitment is not reflected in the 'Indicators of progress' and 'Targets for 2010' attached to the Declaration.4. European Parliament, Council, Commission, 2006/C 46/01, also referred to as 'Development Policy Statement'.5. See Com(2005) 134 Final in Annex 7.
shall be covered by European UnionODA, including ‘environment andsustainable management of naturalresources’. Environmental sustainabilityis also one of the seven cross-cuttingissues to be mainstreamed. TheConsensus underlines in particular that:
• Two of the main comparativeadvantages and added values of theEC development cooperation are‘ensuring policy coherence’ and‘promoting development bestpractices’;
• Stronger support for theimplementation of the CBD isneeded, by helping developingcountries integrate environment intotheir development strategies;
• Efforts to combat illegal logging willbe strengthened through the FLEGTinitiative;
• The European Union will promote asustainable transport sectoralapproach for minimizing negativeeffects on the environment;
• The European Union will implement a strengthened approach tomainstreaming environmentalsustainability across EC developmentefforts.
2.2. A new landmark in Europeanpolicy: Halting the loss ofBiodiversity by 2010—and beyond
The 2001 commitment to halt the lossof biodiversity by 2010 was followed inMay 2006 by a communication from theEuropean Commission on ‘Halting theloss of Biodiversity by 2010—andbeyond’ (EC, 2006b), which comes asthe European Commission answer tothe Message from Malahide. Itrecognises that ‘there is a real risk offailure to meet the global 2010 target’of significantly reducing the current rateof loss of biological diversity. It pointsout that ‘the EU shares responsibilityfor this’. Addressed to both Communityinstitutions and Member States, therecommendation provides an overviewof progress in implementation of the ECBiodiversity Strategy and Action Plans.It reaffirms the need to enhance
funding earmarked for biodiversity inthe EC Thematic Programme forEnvironment and Natural Resourcesand ensures the usage of these istargeted at biodiversity priorities. Itidentifies four key policy areas foraction and, related to these, ten priorityobjectives and four key supportingmeasures. Their delivery clearlyrequires specific actions, set out, withrelated targets, in an EU Action Plan to2010 and beyond, annexed to theCommunication (and to this paper, seeAnnex 9). Policy area 2 is about ‘the EUand global biodiversity’, involvingobjectives such as ‘to substantiallystrengthen support for biodiversity andecosystem services in EU externalassistance’, and ‘to substantiallyreduce the impact of internationaltrade1 on global biodiversity andecosystem services’.
2.3. Financial ODA targets
In addition to these biodiversity-oriented commitments, four additionaland more financial commitments to theParis Declaration on Aid Effectivenesswere made by the European Union atthe Paris High Level Forum in March2005, among which included ‘tochannel 50% of government-to-government assistance through countrysystems, including by increasing thepercentage of our assistance providedthrough budget support or swapagreements’. As we shall see, this hassome importance as to how—throughwhich tools and procedures—biodiversity may be mainstreamed indevelopment cooperation.
In May 20052, the European Union andMember States also agreed on financialtargets for their developmentcooperation: they will have collectivelyincreased their ODA level up to 0.51%of gross national income (GNI)individually and 0.56% of their GNIcollectively by 2010—which means anadditional sum of 20 billion euros. Theyalso reaffirmed their commitment toachieving an ODA of 0.7% of their GNIby 2015. Collectively, at least 50% of increases in aid volumes should bededicated to Africa.
Taken together, ‘these commitmentsrepresent a serious and comprehensivepublic pledge to put the EU at theforefront of tackling the seriousenvironmental challenges noted above’(Birdlife et al., 2005). In particular, thecommitment to stop the decline inbiodiversity by 2010 meets a real andcrucial need, and it matches the ideamost European citizens have of whereEurope should be. It is nonetheless animmense challenge, against which theenvironmental performance ofEuropean development cooperation willbe examined and assessed.
451. Including wildlife trade.2. Document 9266/05 of May 2005 including annexes I and II. These quantitative targets were reaffirmed at the 2005 World Summit (UN, 2005).
The EU as well as most Member Statesare parties to the Aarhus Convention on ‘Access to information, publicparticipation in decision-making andaccess to justice in environmentalmatters’, which has direct implicationsfor EIAs and SEAs procedures andpractices.
46
1. Current efforts, tools,instruments implementedby the EuropeanCommission
In order to better understand endeavoursundertaken at the European Commission(EC) level to integrate biodiversity indevelopment cooperation, it is essentialto first recall what the big picture is andwhere the levers are.
1.1. A brief overview oforganizational arrangements for ECdevelopment cooperation
Three entities play a key role in theEuropean Commission’s developmentassistance: the Directorate General forExternal Relations (DG RELEX), theDirectorate General for Development(DG DEV) and the EuropeAidCooperation Office (AIDCO).
The Directorate General for ExternalRelations contributes to the formulationof the external relations policy for theEuropean Union (EU), so as to enablethe EU to assert its identity on theinternational scene. To this end DGRELEX works closely with otherDirectorates General, notably AIDCO,the Humanitarian Aid Office, DGsDevelopment and Trade. The ExternalRelations Commissioner coordinatesthe external relations activities of theCommission. She is its interface withthe EU’s General Affairs and ExternalRelations Council (GAERC) and itsinterlocutor with the HighRepresentative for the CommonForeign and Security Policy (CFSP). DG RELEX is specifically responsible for:
• Relations with South Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central AsianRepublics, European countries which
are not members of the EuropeanUnion or part of the wider enlargementprocess (i.e. Iceland, Liechtenstein,Norway, Switzerland), North America,Australia, Japan, Korea, the MiddleEast and the South Mediterranean,Latin America and Asia;
• Relations with internationalorganizations, i.e. United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO), the Western European Union(WEU), the Organization for Securityand Cooperation in Europe (OSCE),Council of Europe;
• Commission’s participation in theCommon Foreign and Security Policy;
• Administration of more than 120 ECdelegations in third countries(External Service).
DG DEV’s mandate is to enhancedevelopment policies in all developingcountries worldwide. DG DEV providespolicy guidance on development policyand oversees the programming of aid inthe ACP countries (sub-Saharan Africa,Caribbean and Pacific) and regions,including the African Union, as well asthe Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs)1. To this end, DG DEV followspolitical relations with these countries,prepares strategies for cooperation withthem, monitors implementation,programmes resources of the European Development Fund (EDF) and offinancial resources dedicated to certainsectors and themes in support of thedevelopment policy under the Communitybudget. The most significant budget linesare human rights, food aid/food security,environment/tropical forests, health andnon-governmental organization (NGO)co-financing. The implementation ofprogrammes funded under the budgetrests, however, with AIDCO.
As part of its efforts to reform themanagement of external aid, theCommission formally set up AIDCO on 1 January 2001. Its mission is toimplement the external aid instrumentsof the European Commission which arefunded by the European Communitybudget and the EDF. The Office isresponsible for all phases of the projectcycle (identification and appraisal ofprojects and programmes, preparationof financing decisions, implementationand monitoring, evaluation of projectsand programmes) that are necessary toensure the achievement of theobjectives of the programmesestablished by the Directorates Generalfor External Relations and Developmentand approved by the Commission. It isalso involved in initiatives to improveprogramming systems and theircontent, to establish policy evaluation programmes and to developmechanisms for feeding backevaluation results. Among others, thismeans that AIDCO handles thedevolution to EC delegations of alloperations which can be bettermanaged locally, and decentralizationto beneficiary countries. It sets up themanagement, supervision, support andcontrol systems needed to achievethese objectives.
47
Chapter 3
Tackling the challenge:Endeavours for dealing with biodiversity in
European development cooperation
1. Development cooperation with OCTs is dealt with by DG DEV and governed by the same Cotonou Agreement as ACP countries. They have a unique status with the European Community through the 2001 Overseas Association Decision. EU environmental legislation and standards do not extend to them.
1.2 Existing financial instruments(until 2006—2007) for ECdevelopment cooperation
Until now, EC development cooperationhas been structured financially aroundgeographical programmes, providingfunding for implementation of countryand regional programmes (defined inCountry and Regional Strategy Papers(CSPs/RSPs), as we shall see below),and thematic instruments (based on ad hoc regulations and specific budget lines).
1.2.1. Geographic programmesFirst and foremost, the EDF targetsmainly African, Caribbean and Pacific(ACP) countries in the framework of theLomé Convention, which has beenreplaced by the Cotonou Agreement1
which was signed in June 2000 andcame into force on 1 April 2003 (seeBox 12). The 21 OCTs2 benefit from theEDF under a specific associationagreement, but their relations with theEuropean Union are also covered byDG DEV. Substantial financial resourceshave been committed: 13.5 billioneuros were allocated to the 9th EDF(2000–2004) which, complemented bythe transferred balances from previousEDFs, will cover the period until the endof 2007 (16.4 billion euros for 2002–2007). The 10th EDF was adopted inJune 2006 and commits over 24 billioneuros from 2008 to 2012 (see belowsection on EC programming process).
The BAP-EDC states that EDF shouldallocate 5% of its resources toenvironmental activities.
The Asia and Latin America (ALA)regulation is the main legal andfinancial instrument governing the EU’scooperation with Asian and LatinAmerican countries. Policy issues andprogramming of aid are the responsibilityof DG RELEX, while on the basis of theprogramme documents AIDCO managesthe projects from identification toevaluation. The ALA regulationcommitted respectively 1.61 and 2.98billion euros to Latin America and Asiabetween 2001 and 2005 (EC, 2006c).The regulation stipulates in Article 5 that10% of financial resources should be‘set aside for projects specificallyaimed at protecting the environment, inparticular tropical forests’, in addition tomainstreaming requirements—whichwas reaffirmed by BAP-EDC.
The MEDA programme is the principalfinancial instrument of the EuropeanUnion for the implementation of theEuro-Mediterranean Partnership. TheProgramme offers technical andfinancial support measures toaccompany the reform of economicand social structures in theMediterranean partner countries. MEDAhas a double vocation (bilateral andregional) and applies to states, theirlocal and regional authorities as well asactors of their civil society.
Regulation 2698/2000 establishedMEDA II for the period 2000–2006, withfunding amounting to about 5.35 billioneuros. The main areas of interventionand objectives are directly derived fromthose of the 1995 BarcelonaDeclaration. Implementation arrange-ments between DG RELEX and AIDCOare the same as for ALA5.
The EU’s relations with the countries ofEastern Europe, the South Caucasusand Central Asia were underpinned in1991 through a programme of technicalassistance called TACIS. TheProgramme supports the process oftransition to market economies anddemocratic societies in the above-mentioned countries. In the first eightyears of operation, it committed a total of approximately 4.2 billioneuros of funding to projects. A CouncilRegulation (No. 99/2000) adopted inJanuary 2000 provided assistancetotalling approximately 3.1 billion euros until the end of 2006 andfocused on seven key areas of activityin the region. Similarly to ALA andMEDA, TACIS is defined and managedby two Directorates General within theEuropean Commission. DG RELEX isresponsible for political direction (suchas for negotiating the Partnership andCooperation Agreements) and for multi-annual programming (IndicativeProgrammes), while AIDCO isresponsible for managing the projectcycle and Annual Programmes.
48
1. Relations with Cuba and South Africa are different in the sense that they do not benefit from the European EDF, although South Africa is a signatory to the Cotonou Agreement.2. The seven Outermost Regions do not receive development aid but apply the same legislations as the countries they belong to-and are eligible for the same funding sources. However, the four French Outermost Regions (Ors) do not
enjoy the benefits of the EU's nature conservation directives (Birds and Habitats), despite their outstanding importance for biodiversity conservation on a global scale.3. COM(96)570 Final of 20 November 1996 'Green Paper on relations between the European union and the ACP countries on the eve of the 21st century-challenges and options for a new partnership'.4. COM(97)537 Final of 29 October 1997 'Guidelines for the negotiation of new cooperation agreements with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries'.5. Except for Turkey, Cyprus and Malta: cooperation with these countries is managed by DG Enlargement.
Box 12. The Lomé Convention andCotonou Agreement
From 1975 until 2000 relationsbetween the EU and ACP countrieswere governed by the regularlyadapted and updated LoméConvention. However, majorupheavals on the international stage,socioeconomic and political changesin the ACP countries, the spreading of poverty, resulting in instability andpotential conflict, all highlighted theneed for a re-thinking of cooperation.
The February 2000 expiration of theLomé Convention provided anopportunity for a thorough review ofthe future of ACP–EU relations.Against a background of an intensivepublic debate, based on a
Commission Green paper (1996)3 anda discussion paper4, negotiationsstarted in September 1998 and weresuccessfully concluded in earlyFebruary 2000. The new ACP–-ECagreement was signed on 23 June2000 in Cotonou, Benin and wasconcluded for a 20-year period fromMarch 2000 to February 2020.
The Cotonou Agreement is a globalagreement introducing radical changesand ambitious objectives whilepreserving the acquis of 25 years ofACP–EU cooperation. It is based on five interdependent pillars with theunderlying objective of the fightagainst poverty: an enhanced political
dimension, increased participation, amore strategic approach to cooperation focusing on povertyreduction, new economic and tradepartnerships and improved financialcooperation.
The Cotonou Agreement provides fora revision clause which foresees thatthe Agreement is adapted every fiveyears. In accordance with this clause,negotiations to revise the Agreementwere launched in May 2004 andconcluded on 23 February 2005. Theoverriding objective of the revisionprocess was to enhance theeffectiveness and quality of theACP–EU partnership.
Finally, a number of pre-accession aidprogrammes exist, such as:
• CARDS (Community Assistance forReconstruction, Development andStabilization), adopted throughCouncil Regulation No. 2666/2000 and targeting the Western Balkans. It supports the participation of thesecountries1 in the stabilization andassociation process.
• Phare (Coopération de l’UE vers lespays d’Europe centrale et orientale).
• ISPA (Instrument for StructuralPolicies for Pre-Accession).
• SAPARD (Special AccessionProgramme for Agriculture and RuralDevelopment).
1.2.2. Thematic instruments forenvironment and natural resourcesThematic instruments allow otheractions in partner countries, which areadditional to and should be coherentwith actions funded under thegeographical instruments. CouncilRegulations EC No. 2493/2000 on‘measures to promote the fullintegration of the environmentaldimension in the development processof developing countries’, and No. 2494/2000 on ‘measures to promotethe conservation and sustainablemanagement of tropical forests andother forests in Developing Countries’,are budget lines that were first createdin 1992 to implement pilot actions andstrategic studies. The former was
allocated a budget of 93 million eurosfor 2000–2006 while the latter received249 million euros for the same period.They were merged in 2001 into budgetline 21 02 05. The emphasis of this newbudget line is on work in developingcountries that fosters sustainable forestmanagement and environmentalprotection. Allocations are made boththrough calls for proposals aimed atNGOs, among others, and by way oftargeted projects undertaken byintergovernmental organizations insupport of EC policy objectives. Of the218 million euros spent between 2000and 2004, 10% were allocated tobiodiversity, 39% to forests and 2% tooceans and fisheries.
An additional support of 53 millioneuros between 2000 and 2006 is beingprovided through the LIFE–ThirdCountries Programme, a part of ECRegulation No. 1682/2004 whichexpires at the end of 2006. It is activein non-EU countries around theMediterranean and Baltic seas andhelps to establish the capacities andadministrative structures needed in theenvironmental sector and in thedevelopment of environmental policyand action programmes. Priority isgiven to projects that promotecooperation at trans-frontier, transnational or regional levels.
The European Commission’sInternational Environment budget line07 02 01 commits between 6 and 8million euros a year, of which anincreasing share (currently about 2
million euros) is needed for regularcontributions for the core costs ofMultilateral Environmental Agreements(MEAs). The legal basis for regularcontributions is provided by thedecisions on EC ratification while therest of the line is based on the AnnualWork Programme of DG Environment.The budget line supports global andEuropean regional MEAs and otherinternational environmental processes.For example, using the budget line andother resources, the EuropeanCommission pays for preparatoryanalytical work required fornegotiations, helps developingcountries to participate inenvironmental meetings, and holdsdialogues with key partners on majorissues.
1.3. EC development aid reform andnew financial architecture
The recent aid reform (EC, 2004)resulted in a new financial architectureaimed at rationalizing and simplifyingthe current legislative frameworkgoverning external actions of theCommunity.
Not changing are the geographicalprogrammes, which continue to be theprivileged framework for Communitycooperation with third countriesalthough their funding structure is modified. For example, the 24 billionEuros allocated to the 10th EDFrepresent an increase of about 35 % onthe 9th EDF.
491. Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, including Kosovo, under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
Figure 3. Evolution of regional breakdown in EC commitments managed by AIDCO - Source: EC, 2006c.
However, the European Commissionhas proposed a set of six newinstruments under the FinancialPerspectives 2007 to 2013. Three ofthese instruments are of a horizontalnature (i.e. they are potentially relevantto all countries) and will respond toparticular needs and circumstances:
• The Instrument for Stability, a newinstrument designed to provide anadequate response to instability andcrises and to longer term challengeswith a stability or security aspect. Itwill provide assistance to establishthe necessary conditions for theimplementation of the policiessupported by the IPA, EPNI and theDCECI (see below).
• The Instrument for Humanitarian Aid,which remains unchanged except thatall food aid of a humanitarian naturewill be included under humanitarianaid instead of being dealt with undera separate regulation.
• The Instrument for Macro FinancialAssistance, which remains unchanged.
The other three instruments aredesigned to implement specific policiesand have a defined geographicalcoverage:
• Instrument for Pre-AccessionAssistance (IPA): covers the candidateand potential candidate countries andis driven by the accession and pre-accession framework. This instrumentfor pre-accession will replace a rangeof existing instruments (PHARE, ISPA,SAPARD, CARDS, etc).
• The European Neighbourhood andPartnership Instrument (ENPI): coverscountries targeted by the EuropeanNeighbourhood Policy, i.e. thecountries of the south and easternMediterranean (the MEDA countries),the Western NIS and the countries ofthe southern Caucasus, and Russia.
• Development Cooperation andEconomic Cooperation Instrument(DCECI): this policy covers, inparticular, all countries territories andregions that are not eligible for
assistance under either the IPA or theEPNI. The purpose of the Community’sDevelopment Cooperation andEconomic Cooperation policy is tosupport development, economic,financial, scientific and technicalcooperation with the partner countriesand regions. The DCECI will be themain vehicle for supporting developingcountries in their efforts to achieve theMDGs.
These three main instruments are policydriven and have, as a consequence,particular geographical implications andcoverage. In future, they will providethe basic legislative acts forCommunity expenditure in support ofexternal cooperation programmes,including appropriate thematicprogrammes, and will replace, inter alia,the existing thematic regulations.
In order to complement geographicalprogrammes, the Commission hasdefined a number of thematicprogrammes. A thematic programmefor the environment and sustainable management of natural resources,including energy, was proposed andhas recently been agreed to addressthe environmental dimension ofexternal policy, especially developmentpolicy, and promote the EuropeanUnion’s environmental and sustainableenergy policy abroad (EC, 2006a).Funded by the DCECI and the ENPI,the programme will cover allgeographical regions except the pre-accession and potential candidatecountries.
1.4. Programming EC developmentcooperation
1.4.1. EC programming policyAt a general level, programming is basedon a number of existing policy documentssuch as the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs) communications package1,Paris Declaration2, European Consensuson Development3, Strategies for Africa4
and the Pacific, etc. New communicationsare in the final stages of preparation onMigration5 and the Caribbean.
The fundament of the cooperationassistance programming cycle is theCSP, or the RSP at the regional level.Their preparation is a sharedresponsibility between the EC (DGRELEX or DEV depending on countries)and its delegations on the one hand,and partner countries on the otherhand. In the specific case of OCTs,development assistance is based onSingle Programming Documents (SPD)adopted jointly between the OCTs andthe European Commission.
The ‘policy mix’ adopted in the GAERCconclusions of May 2005 has identifiedtwelve EU policy areas that are ofparticular importance for attaining theMDGs. On each of these 12 subjects(of which one is environment) theCouncil has agreed on a ‘policycoherence for development’6
commitment that needs to be ensured.Partner countries/regions anddelegations make use of the thematicand coherence programming fiches andthe more detailed sector and thematicguidelines and policy documents.
50
Box 13. Main steps of the 10th EDF programming exercise
February 2006 Start of the programming exerciseFebruary–March 2006 Commissioner for Development meets
National/Regional Authorizing Officers to discussprogramming approach and priorities duringprogramming seminars in the region
July 2006 Submission of draft CSPs to EC headquartersSeptember–November 2006 Country Team MeetingsOctober–December 2006 Screening by the interservice Quality Support
Group (iQSG)Validation by Commissioner for Development
January–March 2007 Inter-service consultationFebruary–April 2007 EDF CommitteeMarch–May 2007 Commission decisionsApril–June 2007 Signature of CSPsJanuary 2008 Beginning of implementation
1. COM/2005/132 , 133, and 134.2. High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, Paris, 28/2-2/3/2005.3. COM/2005/311.4. COM/2005/489.5. COM/2005/390.6. COM/2005/134.
1.4.2. EC programming principlesThe European Consensus onDevelopment (European Parliament,Council, Commission, 2006) provides inits first part a set of common principlessuch as ownership, partnership and in-depth political dialogue, promotingpolicy coherence for development,participation of civil society, genderequality and the need to address statefragility. The second part of thestatement, the European CommunityDevelopment Policy, defines how toimplement the common vision and inparticular introduces the principle ofconcentration, by which nine areas shall be covered by EU OverseasDevelopment Assistance (ODA),including ‘environment and sustainablemanagement of natural resources’.
The Commission has required that onlytwo1 focal sectors be selected percountry, among the nine concentrationareas2 mentioned in the EuropeanConsensus on Development. Thechoice of the concentration areas ‘shallflow from the partner country/regionpolicy priorities, the dialogue with thepartner country/region and with thedonor community, the analysis of needs and priorities, the Community’spolicy priorities, the assessment ofcomparative advantages of theCommission (based on past andpresent cooperation) and other donorsand the Commission’s implementationcapacity’.
At the beginning of the programmingexercise, each partner country isinformed of an initial and indicativefinancial allocation. During theprogramming dialogue, the partnercountry and the Commission shallagree on the policy objectives, policycommitments, and governance reformcommitments of the governmentconcerned. Depending on the outcomeof the dialogue and the level ofcommitment that the governmententers into, the Commission proposesto either confirm the indicativeallocation through formal notification or,in countries/regions with goodgovernance performance, a provenabsorption capacity and where duringthe programming dialogue the partnercountry/region has demonstrated a
commitment to economic, political andsectoral reforms and results, to notify afinancial allocation exceeding the initialindicative amount.
1.4.3. EC programming processDepending on countries and incollaboration with them, DG RELEX orDEV are responsible for designingnational and regional indicativeprogrammes, and defining the maingoals, guidelines and priority sectors ofCommunity support in the fieldsconcerned. Based on this input, AIDCOestablishes the annual financing planswhich contain a list of the projects forfinancing and are generally adoptedannually. AIDCO then manages theprojects and programmes from theidentification to the evaluation phase.
ALA countries, countries covered bythe European Neighbourhood Policy,and Russia, are already at the finalstage of their second generation(2007–2013) programming exercise.Meanwhile, ACP countries are currentlyin the middle of this exercise. By way ofan (important) example we will describein detail the process involved—which issimilar for other regions.
The 9th EDF expires on 31 December2007. Therefore, implementation of thenew Country and Regional StrategyPapers should commence on 1 January2008. This means that CSPs and RSPsshould be signed in the first semesterof 2007 for implementation to start on 1January 2008. This explains why theprogramming exercise started in early2006 (see Box 13). Partner countries,regions and delegations simultaneouslycarry out the national and regional 9thEDF end-of term review and the 10thEDF programming exercise, so thatthey have a chance to maximizesynergies between those processes.
The Common Framework for CountryStrategy Papers was being revised atthe time the current report was beingprepared. Its implementation will beprogressive: since Asia and LatinAmerica as well as countries coveredby the European Neighbourhood Policyand Russia are well advanced in theirmulti-annual programming exercise,they do not have the possibility to
incorporate new guidance from thisframework before their mid-term review process in 2010. The timing should onthe contrary be perfect for ACPcountries to implement this newCommon Framework in the processdescribed above.
511. Countries with an envelope of less than 40 million euros should programme aid in one concentration area only.2. Trade and regional integration; the environment and the sustainable management of natural resources; infrastructure, communications and transport; water and energy; rural development, territorial planning, agriculture and food
security; governance, democracy, human rights and support for economic and institutional reforms; conflict prevention and fragile states; human development; social cohesion and employment.
The EC recently funded a StrategicEnvironmental Assessment of theRegional Development Plan in Maldives.A seminar for DG RELEX family staff isforeseen to disseminate the results ofthe study and to illustrate howenvironmental soundness of nationalplans can be tested in the context ofnational planning relating to ECcooperation in a non-environmentalfield.
1.4.4 Dealing with environmentalissues while programming EC ODAThe 2006 European Consensus onDevelopment (European Parliament,Council, Commission, 2006) states that‘the environment and the sustainablemanagement of natural resources’should be considered both as aseparate concentration area as well asa cross-cutting issue to bemainstreamed in EC funded CSPs.While the extent to which the former istaken into account depends on theoutcomes of the EC/partner countries’dialogue, the latter is compulsory.
Environmental Integration1 is importantin the whole of the Operations Cycle forany aid delivery modality, including forthe Sector Wide Approach (SWAp) andbudgetary support. Different tools,mechanisms and approaches forenvironmental integration are availableat the different stages, the main onesbeing (see also Figure 4)2:
Identification Green logical framework Environmental appraisal of projectproposalsEnvironmental impact assessmentscreening
Formulation Environmental impact assessmentEnvironmental integration in thefeasibility study Environmental integration in thefinancing proposal
Implementation Implementation of environmentalmanagement planGood environmental practices inproject implementation
EvaluationEnvironmental integration in theevaluation criteria
The new CSP/RSP format mentionedabove, in its provisional version ofFebruary 2006, includes a section onthe ‘Environmental situation’, based ona ‘Country/Regional EnvironmentalProfile’ (CEP/REP, see Annex 10) asummary of which is to be annexed tothe core document3. Such CEPs havealready been prepared for all ‘RELEXcountries’ by the EC delegations, deskofficers or consultants, and areannexed to new CSPs. CEPs are currently being elaborated for all ACPcountries as part of the CSP designingprocess. In addition, StrategicEnvironmental Assessments (SEAs)and, where necessary, Environmentalimpact Assessments (EIAs), areencouraged (see for example BAP-EDC).
The new format also has a section on‘Other EC policies’ which can play acrucial role for biodiversity conservation.Since non-development policies haveat least as much impact as developmentcooperation itself, the principle ofconsistency requires special attentionin so far as these other policies cancontribute to the country’s developmentprocess, or can adversely affect thepartner country. It must then bespecified what measures should betaken to limit such effects. This sectionaddresses the following EU policyareas: trade, the environment, climatechange, security, agriculture, fish, thesocial dimension of globalization,employment and decent work, migration,research and innovation, the informationsociety, transport and energy.
1.4.5. Implementation modalitiesThe funding of projects remains themain aid delivery mechanism, andbeyond, the prevailing paradigm ofODA. However, EC developmentassistance can be provided throughvarious other implementation modalitiesor instruments such as budget support,sector programme support andcontribution agreements (for cooperationwith regional or internationalorganizations). The country-specificsituation and the cooperation possibilitiesin the selected focal intervention areasshall influence the choice of thedelivery instrument. At the same time,the possibility to use more efficientdelivery mechanisms may influence theselection of the focal intervention area.
It should be underlined that like mostdonors in recent years, the EuropeanCommission has engaged more andmore extensively in budget support andsector programme support. These arerelatively new aid modalities which areincreasingly supported in internationalcommitments as they are able, undercertain circumstances and in specificcontexts, to offer alternatives to theproject/programme approach, the limitsof which have been documentedthroughout development cooperationhistory.
1.5. Conclusion
This synthesis shows that, at least,numerous policies, regulations, toolsand instruments exist that may allowbiodiversity to be both directlysupported and mainstreamed in EC development cooperation. Significantresources are allocated to thisobjective.
521. http://www.environment-integration.org/EN/D112_ProjectCycleManagement.htm2. This figure describes the project cycle, not the programming phase (CEP, CSP, NIP) nor sector/budget support approaches. It is so far only a proposal from the Environment Helpdesk for development cooperation.3. The Strategy Paper must also reflect the degree to which all other issues recognised as cross-cutting (children, gender equality, HIVS/AIDS, culture, capacity building and institutional development) have been mainstreamed.
53
Figure 4. Integrating environment in the EC project cycle
2. Current efforts, tools,instruments implementedby EU Member States1
2.1. Geographical distribution andthematic allocation
In general, development cooperationprovided by Member States covers allcontinents and the vast majority ofeligible developing countries—althoughnone of the Member States provides assistance to all countries. Where eachEU Member decides to concentrate itsefforts obviously depends on a widerange of parameters, including history(especially colonial history), cultural andlanguage-related connections, strategicpriorities. Some prefer focusing on leastdeveloped countries, others on countrieswhich are most likely to make the bestuse of funding, etc. However, accordingto information we were able to gather,no Member State providing ODA istotally absent from Africa. As anexample, regional allocation of Member States’ ODA in 2001–2002 was asfollows (Montes & Migliorisi, 2004):Africa—South of the Sahara 46%, LatinAmerica and Caribbean 13%, Southand Central Asia 11%, other Asia and Oceania 10%, Middle East and NorthAfrica 10%, Europe 10%. As far asbiodiversity is concerned, Brazil, and to
a lesser extent the Congo Basin, seemto be attracting the greatest share ofavailable resources.
Projects with biodiversity as a primaryobjective have historically concentratedto a large extent on terrestrial protectedareas and tropical rainforests. Over thelast decade, the focus has extended tomarine protected areas and, moresignificantly, has shifted to approaches placing the sustainable use ofbiodiversity at their centre: access andbenefits sharing, biodiversity–povertylinkages, indigenous peoples’empowerment, forest concessions certification, payment of ecosystemservices, agro-biodiversity of cultivatedplants and domesticated animal species.
2.2. Financial patternsAs we warned in the introduction,gathering comparable and systematicfinancial data for all Member States’cooperation turned out to be difficultwithin the framework of this report and the Biodiversity in EuropeanDevelopment Cooperation (BEDC)conference preparation, especially datacovering recent years (2004–2005).Comparisons between donor countries are made even more challenging bytheir unequal contributions to a numberof multilateral mechanisms andorganizations such as UN agencies,European geographic programmes (EDF, etc), IUCN (with which e.g. theFrench and Swedish governments havesigned multi-year frameworkagreements) and the GEF. For instance,Germany contributes about 12% of the overall GEF, of which 40% is spenton biodiversity. Therefore, it can beestimated that during the period1991–2006, Germany providedapproximately 295 million euros to GEF biodiversity projects.
54
Table 4. Austrian CBD marked projects 1998—2004 (disbursements, in million euros)
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Total 1998-2004
Specific (Code 2) 0.40 1.40 1.21 3.03 3.28 2.48 2.96
Integrated (Code 1) 1.08 1.92 1.59 2.38 1.44 0.92 2.12
UNCBD total 1.48 3.32 2.80 5.41 4.72 3.40 5.07 25.8
1. As explained in the Introduction, because both data and time were lacking, it was clearly not possible to go into as much detail for each Member State's bilateral cooperation as we did for the European Commission. Therefore, wemade the choice to give a general overview of the situation, and to focus on highlighting what we thought was worth discussing from the perspective of the BEDC conference.
There are several countries wherepayments for ecosystem services arenow being implemented. In Costa Rica,for example, a nationwide system hasbeen experimented with since 1996,based on recognition by the Forest Lawof four services provided by differentforest ecosystems in private lands(Campos, Alpízar, Louman & Parrotta,2005). The German government and theGEF provided support to this initiative.
Box 14. Peru’s Fondo Nacional paraAreas Naturales Protegidas por elEstado (PROFONANPE)
In 1996, Peru consolidated its nationaldebt which amounted to 7,585 millioneuros, of which 80% was eligible forswaps. The Fondo Nacional para AreasNaturales Protegidas por el Estado(PROFONANPE) is Peru’s first privateenvironmental fund. The main conditionsfor candidate projects are followed by a‘Debt Swap Protocol’, and include: thesigning of a project implementationagreement by the financial ministry, thedonor country and the fund manager ofPROFONANPE; the signing of a fundtransfer agreement between the financeministry and PROFONANPE; and a bankdeposit for the negotiated counter valuefunds. To date PROFONANPE hasnegotiated swaps with Germany,Canada, Finland and the USA, totalling27.8 million euros. This has allowedPROFONANPE to fund biodiversityconservation and sustainabledevelopment programmes in 28protected areas.
Even if they do not give any idea ofaggregated resources at stake at theEuropean level, two countries whichprovided us with financial informationbased on Rio Markers are interesting in that they show how these OECDtools can be used:
• The case of Austria is reported inTable 4.
• Belgium roughly disbursed, over fiveyears (2001–2004), 4.62 million euroson Code 2 projects, and 81 millioneuros on Code 1 projects—whichaccounts for respectively 0.18% and3.11% of Belgium’s total evelopmentcooperation budget.
2.3. Financial trends and targets
In general, ODA from EuropeanMember States is increasing, whileallocation by sector is more and moredelegated to embassies and to partnercountries. Actually, with most MemberStates not having set financial targets,funding for biodiversity seems to beunder pressure (Figure 5), with Code 2projects stagnating and Code 1 projectsincreasing slowly.
Two specific cases are worthhighlighting:
• The Netherlands have committed tospend 0.1% of their GDP for natureand environment in developingcountries.
• France has set up a dedicated financialinstrument—a ‘French GEF’ (FFEM)—which by March 2006 had 69 projectsrunning for about 80 million euros(yearly average expenditure: 10 millioneuros), covering the same focal areasas the GEF. Although such an initiativeclearly has heavy administrative andmanagement costs, it allows fundingfor biodiversity to be less dependenton case-by-case agreements betweenembassies and recipient countries.
55
Since the early 1990s, environmentaland resource conservation projectshave accounted for 15 to 27 percent ofthe total resources deployed each yearon German development cooperationactivities. Funding for biodiversity in development cooperation reached 70million euros in 2004.
Figure 5. Biodiversity-related aid commitments 1998–2000 by 19 members of the OECD/DAC
Source: OECD/DAC.
Box 15. Conservation andsustainable management of naturalresources in Mongolia
This 5-million euro project over theperiod covering 2002–2006 supportsthe government of Mongolia inharnessing natural resources’ potentialto develop the economy and improvethe social situation of the population,while preventing destruction of naturalresources. Germany supports theMongolian Ministry of Environment andthe State Specialized InspectionAgency, who are responsible forimplementation of the project. TheEmbassy of The Netherlands in Beijingprovides financial support to theproject as a form of silent partnershipagreement (SPA).
The aims are: (1) to foster organizationaldevelopment of local and regionaladministrations at the target group level;(2) to develop models for monitoringwildlife and other natural resources; (3) toidentify and promote income-generatingactivities for local people, such as milkprocessing, felt manufacture, leather-goods production, tea and medicinalplant processing; (4) to develop astrategy for public awareness; and (5) toelaborate a legal framework.
This successful co-financing experiencebetween Germany and The Netherlandshas lead to another joint project in theKhangai region.
2.4. Procedures, instruments,implementation modalities andapproaches for addressingbiodiversity issues
2.4.1. Procedures and instrumentsfor mainstreamingOur information confirms that conductingEIAs for non-environmental projects isnow a widespread practice. It isgeneralized and standardized in mostMember States’ cooperationprocedures—which does not necessarilymean that it is always undertaken in anappropriate manner. On the contrary,SEAs still appear to be more at apiloting phase: with some noticeableexceptions (The Netherlands, Sweden,UK), most Member States do not seemto carry out SEAs in a standardized andsystematic way. However, comparisonshere are difficult since some MemberStates have a very broad understandingof what an SEA is—almost anyenvironmental integration into a strategicdocument sometimes seems to fall underthis category.
It is also interesting to remark thatseveral Member States draw up theirown CEPs for the countries where theyprovide ODA. Among respondents toour questionnaire, only Belgium explicitly uses the EuropeanCommission’s CEP. Experiences andneeds vary considerably betweenMember States. For example, theSwedish International CooperationDevelopment Agency (SIDA) finds itmore useful and relevant to produceshort fact sheets on environment–poverty linkages (rather thanenvironmental profiles per se). Thesefact sheets directly relate to coreSwedish development cooperationconcerns, and when useful draw on other documentation available(including CEPs).
56
Box 16. Indigenous honeybees in theHimalayas—promoting partnershipswith rural development organizationsin the Hindu Kush–Himalayan region(Austrian Development Agency)
This 3-million euro project (1993–2007)targets the following countries in theHimalaya–Hindu Kush Region, i.e.Nepal, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh andAfghanistan. Funded by the AustrianDevelopment Agency, the project aimsto contribute to increasing the incomeof marginalized rural populations(mountain women and men) bypromoting conservation and sustainablemanagement of indigenous honeybeesthrough strengthening partnershipswith rural development organizations,technical institutions and internationalagencies. In addition, the projectcontributes to the income andconservation of biodiversity andsustainable management of mountainagriculture through pollination services,as natural pollination has become amajor problem in many areas.
This project has taken a long-term andregional approach to promoting thesustainable exploitation of Himalayanindigenous honeybees, and tounderstanding and developing this little-known sector. Apiculture offers realpossibilities for the creation of sustainablelivelihoods (through honey and waxproduction, crop pollination), whilemaintaining biodiversity and providingincentives for the conservation ofhabitats. In the current phase the projectis about to be scaled up to include ruraldevelopment networks/ organizationsand community-based organizations(CBOs). This innovative module ofdevelopment plans to organize andstimulate a partnership of CBOs, focaltechnical institutions on a country level,rural development organizations and theInternational Centre for IntegratedMountain Development.
The EC wishes to share experience andbest practice among Member States’
foreign affairs staff on howenvironment/sustainable developmentmatters can be successfully integrated
in their everyday work. DG RELEXconsiders e.g. sharing some of the best
examples of CEPs as showcases. Inorder to address environmental matters
in a systematic way, bilateralcooperation could benefit from the use
of already assembled data andproposed range of action.
57
2.4.2. Other funding modalitiesAs with the European Commission, theproject is still the prevailing organizationalparadigm for delivering support tobiodiversity conservation. However,Member States appear to be increasingly involved in the followingmodalities.
Trust funds are often perceivedenthusiastically as able to circumvent thewell-known shortcomings of projects,especially to sustain the financing ofprotected areas systems in developingcountries. In Madagascar, ConservationInternational (CI), the Worldwide Fund forNature (WWF), the World Bank, the GEF,France (AFD, FFEM) and Germany (KfW)have joined forces to support theProtected Areas Foundation. Some 24million euros (50% of the target) havealready been collected to establish atrust fund which will bear recurrent costsof managing protected areas. Other trustfunds have been created for forests inthe Democratic Republic of Congo(funding from the European Commission,Belgium, France and the World Bank),and for protected areas in Peru, whereFinland supports the Peruvian Trust Fundfor National Parks and Protected Areas.However, some Member States, as wellas the European Commission, are stillfacing administrative and juridicalrestrictions to joining trust funds.
Debt-for-nature swaps are alsodeveloping—although less quickly—asillustrated by the Peruvian case(Box 14).
Direct budget support and sectorsupport are a strong recent trend inmany countries where the governancecontext allows it. Nevertheless, to thebest of our knowledge, it has not as yet reached the environmental sector.
2.4.3. Sustainable use approachesFinally, and coming back to thethematic allocation of biodiversityefforts that were described previously, we shall give a fewexamples of sustainable useapproaches that we came across.
For instance, the projects ‘Conservationand sustainable management of naturalresources in Mongolia’ (see Box 15)and ‘Indigenous honeybees in theHimalayas—promoting partnershipswith rural development organizations inthe Hindu Kush–Himalayan Region’(Box 16), illustrate clearly the tendencyto deal with biodiversity issues throughits sustainable use within a ruraldevelopment framework. Anotherinteresting example is the project on‘Sustainable use of forest resources inthe Guyana Shield’ (Box 17). In additionto the sustainable use approach, itillustrates other tendencies like
implementing projects throughinternational NGOs (in this case, WWF),supporting forest certification, andmost importantly strengthening OCTs’regional integration.
The first and latter projects also tend toshow that Member States increasinglyjoin forces (Germany and TheNetherlands, France and TheNetherlands).
Box 17. Sustainable use of forestresources in Guyana Shield
This 5-million euro project, funded bythe French GEF, WWF, The Netherlandsand Surinam, aims to contribute to theprotection of forests on the GuyanaShield by promoting sustainable usesof natural resources for the benefit oflocal communities.
The project’s results will be: socio-economical, by optimizing anddiversifying incomes from forestproducts and tourism; ecological, withthe conservation of vast areas that arehome to numerous endemic andmigratory species of globalsignificance; institutional, bydeveloping the capacity ofadministrations in charge of forestsand protected areas.
Beyond the intrinsic ecological value ofthe area at stake, an important addedvalue of the project is to improve andstrengthen relations between the threeGuyanas (including French OCTs), aswell as between them and their LatinAmerican neighbours.
This project has already succeededbeyond expectations in obtaining FSCcertification for 570,000 of the 1.6million-hectare Barama concession—the largest ever certified area in the world. Other concessions are currentlyinvolved in certification processes.
58
Despite the many success storiesdocumented around the world, mostobservers agree that Europeandevelopment cooperation is unlikely toachieve its biodiversity-related commitments. As we shall see, pastactions have yielded significant benefitsbut are far from enough. What is more,European development cooperation isoften assessed as contributing tobiodiversity loss more than to itssustainable management.
Non-governmental organizations(NGOs) have on several occasionsexpressed their concern, as stated for example by a coalition of them in 2005(Birdlife et al, 2005): ‘sadly the gapbetween commitment and actionwidens as environmental trendscontinue to worsen’. In the same perspective, WWF (2005b) noted ‘anenormous gap between EU rhetoric, ECpolicy and on-the-ground practice. ECaid programming must be radicallyimproved in order to honour the full range of political commitments thatthe EU has made to addressenvironmental concerns.
In many cases, EC aid, through itssupport to macro-economic changes,has actually worsened the situation ofthe poor, not to mention exacerbatedenvironmental problems’.
However, NGOs are not the onlyorganizations to deliver such worryingassessments. In 2005, the EuropeanCourt of Auditors pointed out that ‘themost recent [OECD peer] review in 2002 noted a distinct gap betweenpolicy and practice in environmentalmainstreaming in the Commission’. Andthe Court’s audit itself stronglyreinforces the disappointing analysis, as we shall see on various occasions inthe following sections.
Drawing on numerous external orinternal reports that have been releasedin the last few years, we will now offer amore detailed analysis of this failure, ofits driving forces and explanatoryfactors. We will also providesuggestions as to how each item of thediagnosis may be transformed intopositive action.
59
Chapter 4
Nearing the target:How to put the European Union
back on track to reach its commitments
1. Missing the target: a worrying overall
diagnosis
2. A converging body ofdeficiencies which outline
the way forward
2.1. Insufficient projects/programmeswith biodiversity as primary orsecondary objective
The European Union (EU) has fundedmany projects that have as theirprimary objective biodiversityconservation. Achieving the 2010target—to which Europe voluntarily committed—clearly requires hugefunding and, as stated by theMillennium Ecosystem Assessment(MA), an unprecedented effort.
Nevertheless, despite commitmentsand alarming global biodiversityassessments, the impression is ratherone of ‘business as usual’: as noted byBirdlife et al. (2005) about the EuropeanCommission (EC), it ‘has not mobilizedresources on a scale anywhere nearsufficient to allow the EC to play theleadership role that is expected. In fact,less than 0.15% of the EC’s totalexternal actions budget is allocatedtowards environmental priorities’. Forinstance, the obligation (as mentionedin Chapter 3) for the Asia and LatinAmerica (ALA) regulation to set aside10% of its financial resources toprojects ‘specifically aimed atprotecting the environment, in particulartropical forests’, has not been fulfilled.On the whole, funding for biodiversity isincreasing steadily but so are destructive driving forces. Efforts arebeing undertaken but the direction inwhich we are heading remainsunchanged.
Part of the explanation lies in a lack ofawareness and interest at various levelsof decision making. But this isarticulated with organizational issuesthat should also be tackled. Regulations 2493/2000 and 2494/2000have indeed ensured some funding forbiodiversity, but the European Court ofAuditors (2005) found that ‘theirexistence has sometimes been given as a reason by Commissionservices for not funding theenvironment sector through CSPs[Country Strategy Papers]’—a riskrecognised by the EuropeanCommission in a recent Communication1.
Another pattern of biodiversity efforts inthe EU development cooperationcontext is that they are usually of apilot nature. For various reasons, small-scale experiments are often preferredto large-scale replication of successstories. If the former are of undeniableimportance to foster our commonunderstanding of biodiversity–povertylinkages, ‘going to scale’ is nonethelesscrucial—and will rarely happen withoutappropriate support. Key to this is learning from previous efforts both interms of successes and failures.
Moreover, the rapid decline of theenvironment on the developmentagenda ‘in part has to do with changesin the mechanisms for giving aid’. Asnoted above, ‘more and more donorsare moving away from supporting“projects” and are providing BudgetSupport to developing countries’governments—to be spent according tothe government’s priorities. These priorities are generally articulated inPoverty Reduction Strategy papers(PRSPs), few of which featurebiodiversity or the environment in asignificant way’ (Roe & Elliott, 2005).This leads directly to the twin issue ofthe EU policy/country-driven dilemma.
601. EC, 2006a: 'It is of fundamental importance that the existence of a thematic programme is not taken as justification to leave aside the environment, natural resources and energy when programming country and regional strategies'.
Suggestions for discussion:
Intensify and upscale initiatives withbiodiversity as a primary orsecondary objectiveThe European Union may find ways tomake sure that funding for biodiversityis commensurate with the need for anunprecedented effort diagnosed by theMillennium Ecosystem Assessment.Biodiversity protection could be fundedby geographical programmes withinCountry Strategy Papers/RegionalStrategy Papers (CSPs/RSPs) (or the equivalent for Member States), and notonly through thematic instruments. Inorder to overcome the country-driven/European policy dilemma, to findthe ‘breathing space’ for biodiversityactivities through dialogue with partnercountries, the following might be considered:
• Convince and raise awareness amongEuropean development policy makersand cooperation planners so that theythemselves become biodiversityadvocates.
• Allow appropriate participation ofEuropean and partner countries’ civilsociety in major stages ofdevelopment cooperation planning.
• Stimulate the demand for cooperationagencies to address biodiversity andnatural resources issues in partnercountries. This may entail awarenessraising and capacity building invarious administrations, appropriaterepresentation and participation ofcivil society in developmentcooperation planning at all stages ofthe project and policy cycle.
• Use Country EnvironmentalProfiles/Regional EnvironmentalProfiles (CEPs/REPs) or nationalequivalents as tools to highlight theimportance of undertaking specificactions for biodiversity, with regardsto their indirect benefits to the poor.
• Develop sustainable, beyond-projectssources of funding for biodiversity(such as trust funds or payment forecosystem services).
• Support initiatives that favour thereplication and up-scaling of success
stories, for example by investing inlearning networks such as thePoverty–Environment Partnership(PEP) or the Poverty andConservation Learning Group.
• Support the establishment of long-term partnerships between MemberStates and international, national andlocal NGOs aiming at protectingbiodiversity.
2.2. The EU policy/ country-drivendilemma
We have mentioned demand-drivencriteria as one of the most importantprogramming principles for the EC andMember States. Therefore, to a certaindegree, the extent to which the prioritygiven to environmental expenditureunder the European Consensus on Development is actually implementeddepends on whether beneficiarycountries select environment as apriority focal sector. Since biodiversityis usually not high on their agenda, it is often difficult to obtain their supportfor biodiversity projects1. This is a realdilemma that is faced by allOrganization for Economic Cooperationand Development (OECD) countries—increasingly as they try to move both tobottom-up approaches to projects andto more direct budget support.
Nevertheless, the European Court ofAuditors points out that ‘whatever theposition of beneficiary countries onenvironmental issues, the Commissionis responsible and accountable forseeking to ensure its policies areimplemented’—which is equallyapplicable to Member States.Biodiversity sustainable managementbeing one of its strong political commitments, the European Uniondoes not have any alternative but tofind ‘breathing space’ for biodiversityactivities through its dialogue withpartner countries.
Suggestions for discussion:
Overcome the EU policy/country-driven dilemmaAlthough there is no silver bullet totackle this dilemma, some room formanoeuvre does exist.
It is recognised (EC, 2000) that ‘insome cases a country’s institutions areeither not functioning well or havebecome dysfunctional. This means thatthe structured approach to “country-owned” policy formulation outlinedabove will simply not provide a realisticstarting point. In such cases the CSPwill be based on the Community’s ownanalysis of the development needs ofthe country’. The criteria of ‘institutionsfunctioning well or being dysfunctional’probably can provide leeway tointroduce environmental activities inCSPs and other programmingdocuments since in practice, mostdeveloping countries are inintermediary situations with ‘relativelyfunctional/ dysfunctional institutions’. Ifdemand-driven criteria are acommendable principle, the EC andMember States can still inspire andstimulate the demand for certain kindsof interventions.
The demand expressed by a countrymay vary significantly depending onwho expresses it and who is listenedto. Ensuring adequate lobbyingcapacity is therefore crucial:
• Environment ministries have a keyrole to play but still often do not haveappropriate capacity.
• Civil society’s participation in ECdevelopment assistance, including inCSP elaboration, is still very limited inmany instances (BOND, 2004). Moreparticipatory programming processeswithin a good governance contextcould open the door to localstakeholders who may be moreconcerned with environmental issuesthan central governments. Whereasthis would not automatically be thecase, raising biodiversity awarenessof Community-based organizations(CBOs) and NGOs in recipientcountries would also be a path worthexploring.
611. Before the European Consensus on Development included Environment and Natural Resources as a concentration area, the problem was obviously even fiercer. Carl Bro's 2004 assessment identified a 'lethal combination of a
demand-driven EC development policy, and financial support restricted to six specified focal areas' (excluding natural resources).
2.3. Weak mainstreaming ofbiodiversity on the side of partnercountries
According to the OECD (2006), ‘theintegration of environmental factors intonational development and povertyreduction strategies remains weak’.Many beneficiary countries still attach relatively low priority toenvironmental issues, for at least threegeneral reasons:
• ‘Insufficient understanding of the environment–development linkage.
• Insufficient capacity, political will, andfinancial resources to develop andenforce domestic environmentallegislation, combined with weakcapacity to mobilize and manage thefinancial resources needed to supportinvestments that simultaneouslyaddress both environmental anddevelopment objectives.
• Weak institutional structures, whichoften mean that the authoritiesresponsible for environmentalmanagement are not fully integratedinto development decision makingand planning mechanisms’.
Indeed, and as analysed by theEuropean Court of Auditors (2005),ministries of environment, ‘even in moredeveloped countries with majorenvironmental concerns such as Brazil and China, do not have the sameresources and influence of other, longerestablished ministries’. In that sense,development and poverty reductionstrategies, and to a certain extentdonor programming documents suchas CSPs, reflect an imbalance of powerin states—and civil societies—which isstill not favourable to environmentalprotection.
Suggestions for discussion:
Improve mainstreaming ofbiodiversity in partner countriesThe degree of priority that beneficiarycountries attach to environmentalissues could be increased. NationalBiodiversity Strategy and Action Plans(NBSAPs) could be more fully integrated into PRSPs and into bilateralcooperation or trade agreements. Thiscould be made possible by:
• Raising awareness among partneradministrations.
• Building capacity at the individual andinstitutional levels, especially withinenvironment administrations. Direct
budget support could be used tostrengthen their weight in the balanceof power between sectors.
• Involving ministries responsible forenvironment and biodiversity as wellas environmental NGOs in thedrafting and reviewing of thedevelopment and poverty reductionstrategies—in particular PRSPs andnational strategies for sustainabledevelopment (NSSDs).
• Developing a coherent set ofeconomic and regulatory tools andincentives that promote and rewardintegration and added value, whilediscouraging inappropriatebehaviours (see also the 10‘Principles for effectivemainstreaming’ in Box 18).
2.4. The mainstreaming/cross-cuttingchallenge for the European Union
2.4.1. An acknowledged failure tomainstream biodiversity issueswithin EC cooperation1
From the Commission’s point of view,mainstreaming has three interlinkeddimensions: within CSPs, withinCommission projects outside theenvironment sector, and within the Commission’s direct budgetary support(or similar approaches such as sector-wide support).
Once again, within these three spheres,the diagnosis is quite harsh. For example, Dávalos (2002) reviewed60 CSPs (2001 to 2006 or 2007) andassessed the extent to which the environment was effectivelymainstreamed in the EC’s CSPs. The result is straightforward: ‘there is still considerable scope forimprovement in matters of environmentin the formulation of the CSPs. Theaverage total score is 2.96 out of apossible 10’. Only six countries out of 60 included a CEP. CSPs/RSPs in mostcases either do not address biodiversityissues adequately and sometimes evengenerate serious negative impacts.Dávalos also remarked, however, thatsome good practices can be foundwhere CSPs have demonstratedconcerted efforts to mainstreamenvironmental issues. For example,CSPs from China and Indonesia
62
Box 18. Principles for effective mainstreaming
Effective mainstreaming requires:1. Awareness and political will from the highest levels, providing support for
implementation.2. Strong leadership, dialogue, and cooperation at all levels.3. Mutual supportiveness and respect between biodiversity and development
priorities.4. A strong focus on economic sectors, supported by cross-sectoral approaches,
securing sector-based biodiversity conservation.5. Analysis and understanding of the changing motivations and opportunities of
each sector, including the effects of globalization.6. Identification and prioritization of entry points and the development of sector-
specific tools and interventions (such as international codes of conduct orstandards).
7. Awareness within sectors of the relevance of biodiversity conservation and thecapacity needed for implementation.
8. A coherent set of economic and regulatory tools and incentives that promoteand reward integration and added value, while discouraging inappropriatebehaviours.
9. Sustained behavioural change within individuals, institutions, and society, and inboth public and private domains.
10. Measurable behavioural outcomes and biodiversity impacts.Source: Petersen & Huntley, 2005.
1. This section focuses on the EC for practical reasons. However, each Member State and associated stakeholders may be able to draw EU-wide generalisations from the analysis.
appear to integrate environmentalissues in a comprehensive manner andidentify them as a priority sector forcooperation.
More recently, Carl Bro’s assessment(2004) notes that ‘one of the mainobjectives of the Biodiversity Strategyis the mainstreaming of biodiversityobjectives into other (non-environment) sectors, and in thisrespect implementation has beensingularly disappointing’. Further, ‘the [Biodiversity Action Planfor Economic and DevelopmentCooperation] BAP-EDC has not beeneffective in influencing policy,programmes and projects. The ActionPlan should have influencedprogramming by incorporatingbiodiversity issues in PRSPs, CSPs and RSPs and through the universaluse of CEPs, [Strategic EnvironmentalAssessments] SEAs, and[Environmental Impact Assessments]EIAs. This has not happened. There isno detectable mainstreaming effect atthe project level’. And earlier this year,the European Commission (2006b)recognised that progress inmainstreaming biodiversity indevelopment aid budgets ‘had beendisappointing, largely due to the lowpriority often given to biodiversity in the face of other compelling needs’.
A number of factors within theCommission explain why it has notadequately complied with its policy of mainstreaming theenvironment in general and biodiversityin particular into CSPs. All of them canprobably be interpreted as derivingfrom a lack of political will at the European and Member State level—which in turn may be seen as a failureof governance. Having said that, it is useful to separateeach of these shortcomings intodifferent—possibly more technical, but also moreworkable, categories—in order that theproposed analysis may lead to action.
2.4.2. A conceptual weaknessFirst of all, the very concept ofmainstreaming, and the way it istranslated in European cooperation, isunclear. As noted by Mackie (2005), toomany cross-cutting issues to mainstream make the conceptsomewhat unmanageable. Forexample, the European Consensus onDevelopment stipulates eight cross-cutting issues to be mainstreamed: human rights, gender equality,democracy, good governance,children’s rights, indigenous peoples, environmental sustainabilityand combating HIV/AIDS, whereas theEC 2000 overall development policyidentified only six cross-cutting issuesfor mainstreaming: good governance,human rights, poverty reduction,capacity building, gender equality, environment. Such a lack ofconvergence unavoidably generatesconfusion and, what is worse, maymake these issues and the wholemainstreaming rhetoric look likefashionable concepts that varyaccording to latest international trends.
In addition, although mainstreaming theenvironment is obviously a priority,‘Commission staff have a whole seriesof other policy priorities to also takeinto account and the hierarchy of priorities is not defined. In particular,it is not clear whether environment is tobe treated as a major priority, becauseit is one of the three pillars ofsustainable development, or if it was only one of a larger number of cross-cutting issues’ (European Court ofAuditors, 2005). Such a lack of effectiveprioritization of the half a dozen ormore cross-cutting issues can only leadto them being dealt with by staff on anad hoc basis, according to their ownbackgrounds, interests, etc. It will in noway lead to the coherent mainstreamingof all six or eight issues.
63
2.4.3. Lack of internal capacityAlthough acknowledged as aprerequisite for mainstreaming,awareness of biodiversity issues is verylow within the Commission (Carl Bro,2004). This has been confirmed by the European Court of Auditors whichnoted that Commission staff generallydo not have the necessary training onmainstreaming the environment ingeneral and biodiversity in particular.Auditors underline that a CommissionStaff Working Paper foresaw that there would be some mandatory training forevery official working in key policyareas or with responsibility for aparticular geographic area.Nevertheless, Commissionmanagement did not make the coursecompulsory with the result that it waspoorly attended.
Moreover, building internal capacity forbiodiversity mainstreaming is a muchbroader task than just forcing managersto attend a training session.Environmentalists have a key role to play internally, however, for example,many delegations still do not have anenvironmental expert on their staff. Thisis a matter for concern especiallyfollowing devolution. It is most likely nocoincidence that the two CSPs cited asgood examples by Dávalos (2002)come from delegations (in China andIndonesia) which do have severalenvironmental experts at handinternally. This demonstrates that goodhuman resources can achieve morewith fewer procedural requirements(CEPs were not a mandatory part of theCSP framework at that time).
2.4.4. Organizational issuesMainstreaming also has anorganizational dimension that has so farnot been fully addressed within theCommission (European Court ofAuditors, 2004). Organizationalchanges, made necessary by thecommitment to implement astrengthened policy on environmental mainstreaming, are certainly mademore difficult because they have to beimplemented across three DirectorateGenerals and all the delegations, withnone of the Directorate Generals havingoverall responsibility.
2.4.5. Lack of adequate tools andproceduresThe last explanatory factor that wewant to highlight is the lack ofadequate tools and procedures. Severalrequired procedural changes have notbeen implemented yet. There is still widespread ambiguity regarding themandatory nature of environmentalintegration tools (i.e. what are thepractical consequences if they are notmobilized?) and uncertainties remain about the division of related roles andresponsibilities.
Coming back to the three areas ofmainstreaming mentioned above, we canbriefly review the status of the main toolsat hand for mainstreaming environmentwithin CSPs, within Commission projectsoutside the environment sector, and withinthe Commission’s direct budgetarysupport and similar approaches.
First, environmental appraisal tools forintegrating environment into CSPs havebeen little used so far. CEPs are justbeginning to become mandatory withthe new batch of CSPs being preparedfor African, Caribbean and Pacific(ACP) countries. However, their actual integration in CSPs is still very much inquestion: although we can assumesignificant progress will be made, anycompulsory section in or annex to theCSP offers no guarantee whatsoever.
Second, for projects that fall outsidethe environmental sector, there is asurprising variability in the existence,quality, utilization and follow-up of EIAs.The 2004 Audit paints quite a dismaying picture of the situation—dismaying because EIAs have beenundertaken worldwide for decades andwere supposedly a well defined andsystematically used instrument indevelopment cooperation as early asthe 1990s. In fact, Auditors have highlighted the existence of poorproject screening practices for potentialEIAs, the absence of a system wherebyenvironmental experts screen non-environmental projects, etc. They have identified a long list of recentinfrastructure or agricultural projectswere no EIA was drawn up (despite thefact that 35% of 9th EuropeanDevelopment Fund (EDF) funding was
allocated to roads), or where the EIAconsists of just one page in a feasibilitystudy. This is definitely one of the mosteasy mainstreaming issues to resolveand requires urgent action.
Third, as far as direct budget supportand similar approaches are concerned,to date, strategic environmentalassessments have rarely beenimplemented, although a few examples do exist. This is definitely nosmall matter since non project-basedapproaches such as direct budgetsupport are expanding quickly and areencouraged internationally1, withapproximately 25% of EDF fundingallocated to ACP countries under thecurrent CSPs having been committedto such programmes.
This reluctance to use SEAs may haveits roots in a variety of explanationsincluding: lack of knowledge amongdecision makers regarding the potentialvalue of SEAs for development effectiveness (rather than perceiving itonly as a constraint); lack ofinstitutional experience in the use ofsystematic decision-making tools suchas SEAs; etc. Tackling those challenges will surely require capacity development(OECD/DAC, 2006).
One thing that is not lacking, however,is guidance. Contrary to what theEuropean Court of Auditors affirms(2005), SEA is not ‘a relatively new toolin the development context’. As early as the mid-1990s a wide range ofguidelines already existed and hadbeen tested successfully by majorbilateral and multi-lateral developmentagencies2. Production of guidelines onSEA has continued ever since with forexample, the Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of theCouncil on the assessment of theeffects of certain plans andprogrammes on the environment, theConvention on Biological Diversity’s(CBD) ‘Guidelines on biodiversity-inclusive strategic environmentalassessment’ (CBD, 2006), and the OECD Development AssistanceCommittee’s (DAC) ‘Good practiceguidance on applying StrategicEnvironmental Assessment (SEA) indevelopment cooperation’.
64
1. Cf. European Consensus on Development: 'Where circumstances permit, the use of general or sectoral budget support should increase as a means to strengthen ownership'. Cf also the additional commitments made by the EU atthe Paris High Level Forum in March 2005: 'channel 50% of government-to-government assistance through country systems, including by increasing the percentage of our assistance provided through budget support or swapagreements'.
2. Cf. Billé (1997): This study was building on a wide range of existing international knowledge and guidelines, already available in 1997, in the field of SEAs for development cooperation.
Suggestions for discussion:
Improve mainstreaming ofbiodiversity within the EU
The EC and Member States must acton their commitments to mainstreambiodiversity. In addition to suggestionsmade in above, this may involve:
• Building capacity within headquartersand delegations/embassies to tacklethe specific requirements ofbiodiversity mainstreaming.
• Generalizing the use of tools such asEIAs and SEAs. For example, noimportant infrastructure projectshould ever be funded without anappropriate EIA being undertaken andits results factored into the project.Similarly, infrastructure sectors suchas transport should benefit fromcareful SEAs that would review andcompare options.
• Making sure the way CEPs/REPs areintegrated into programmingdocuments like CSPs/RSPs isreviewed by environmental experts atnecessary points of the programmingcycle. A global review of theimplementation of CEPs/REPs couldbe undertaken as early as 2007 toassess the impact of this relativelynew tool on CSPs/RSPs.
• On a more general note, theconference could discuss whether theenvironment should be considered asone issue among several others to bemainstreamed, or one of the threepillars of sustainable development.
2.5. Lack of coherence withEuropean non-development policies,especially trade
Despite repeated commitments toensure policy coherence (cf. theEuropean Consensus on Development),many of the important sustainabledevelopment and natural resource management objectives that theEuropean Union has adopted aredamaged or negated by otherEuropean policies. This is probablynowhere as true as in the trade policyand its fisheries, agricultural or forestrycomponents. For example, EU fisheriespolicies so far have hindered theobjective of supporting conservation of
marine resources, have often hurt developing countries and increased—not reduced—poverty.
Some progress has undoubtedly beenmade recently. For instance, thefisheries ‘Partnerships Agreements’, theimpact of which we are likely to witnessprogressively over the next few years,are an important step forward. Anotherexample is the Forest Law Enforcement,Governance and Trade (FLEGT)initiative, which addresses the impactof timber trade on tropical forests—butresults remain limited and many othertrade-related causes of deforestationare still to be tackled. More generally,as stated by the Commission (EC,2006b), ‘the EU has promoted theintegration of the environmentaldimension into international trade (forinstance through its work on trade-related sustainability impactassessments (SIA)) and in global effortsto curb unsustainable production andconsumption patterns—but with fewconcrete results for biodiversity to date’.
Actually, it seems that Europe is ‘bitinga too large piece of the globalecological cake’: its consumptionpatterns are almost intrinsically notsustainable. Its ecological footprint onthe planet is simply not compatible withachieving its biodiversity commitmentsat the global level. If globalization andtrade can help, to a certain extent,developing countries to prosper, excessive demand on natural resourcesinevitably causes degradation ofecosystems in the countries providingthem. As suggested by WWF (2005a),‘to achieve global sustainable development, the world communitywould need to decide how big theplanet’s ecological budget is, and howit will be shared. Or more simply put:how big is the ecological cake, and who gets which piece?’ Although ageneral remark not directly relevant tothe main topic of this report1, such adetermining issue cannot be entirely leftaside in the discussion.
Non-aid policies can assist developingcountries in attaining MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs) but keychallenges must be addressed. Suchefforts are always at risk, especially
because the existence of a thematicprogramme for the environment maymake other EC (or even EU) actors feelthey are allowed to evade theirresponsibilities to understand andadapt their policies in order to improveenvironmental outcomes. But ‘thesevere problems caused by a lack ofcoherence of other EU policies with EUenvironmental policies andcommitments cannot be solved by theThematic Programme. Ensuring thatother policies and programmes do not limit or prevent the achievementof the EU’s global environmentalcommitments must remain theresponsibility of those policiesthemselves’ (Birdlife et al, 2005).
It would be inaccurate to see the lackof coherence as a simple administrativeor operational shortcoming that may beovercome by technical instruments,procedures or discussions. Differentpolicies respond to different andsometimes contradictory needs, theyresult from the demand of variouslobbies or groups of stakeholdersthroughout the society, with contrastedmindsets and often conflicting interests.Inconsistencies are usual componentsof democratic systems—which doesnot mean they cannot and should notbe reduced. Formal commitmentsmade by the European Union make it anecessity to reorient agricultural, fisheries and trade policies. It is the roleof the environmental community to holdthe European Union responsible foraltering these policies as necessary.
651. Much of Europe’s ecological footprint comes from CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions.
Suggestions for discussion:
Improve coherence with non-development policiesIn order to improve coherence betweendevelopment cooperation and non-development policies, especiallyrelated to trade, the MDGs shouldalways be kept in perspective as theoverarching priority. This would preventaccepting significant negative side-effects from policies capable ofbringing only limited benefits. In particular, the following could befurther explored:
• Systematically undertake SEAs/SIAsas appropriate for all EU externaltrade agreements. For example, theycould be used to ensure that theapproaching negotiations betweenCentral America and the EuropeanUnion on a free trade agreement fullyintegrate environmental issues andbiodiversity in particular.
• Promote sustainable patterns ofproduction and consumption at theglobal and national levels. This mayinclude the development ofcertification schemes and eco-labelling, support to theestablishment of a worldwide access and benefit sharingframework, raising awareness ofconsumers, developing partnershipswith the private sector to bettercapture the potential of ‘greenbusinesses’, etc.
• Monitor closely the ecologicalfootprint of Europe, develop an actionplan to reduce it and commit to itsimplementation.
2.6. Lack of complementarity andadded value between EC andMember States’ cooperation
The European Commission is not fullydelivering its comparative advantagesand added values to Member States’cooperation. According to theEuropean Consensus on Development,these include:
• A global presence. The EuropeanCommission is indeed represented ina vast majority of partner countriesbut this adds value only in countrieswhere Member States do not haveembassies and cooperation offices.
• The best position to ensure policycoherence. This is theoretically true.In practice, as discussed above, theEuropean Commission has beenunable to do so—often because ofMember States’ reluctance.
• A key role in promoting developmentbest practices. This role is real andseveral European communications orcommitments effectively inviteMember States to change theirdevelopment cooperation practices.On the other hand, the EuropeanCommission lies behind severalMember States on a number ofcritical issues such as the use of EIAsand SEAs, as discussed above.
• A facilitator of coordination andharmonization. Again true in theory,with CSPs supposed to beappropriate mechanisms forenhancing the complementarity of theexternal assistance of theCommission and the Member States.However, coordination andharmonization are difficult for theEuropean Commission to put intopractice for many reasons, includingthe administrative burden theyrepresent for aid managers and thereluctance of some Member States tobe ‘harmonized’ on specific subjects,approaches, partner countries, etc.
On the whole, it is sometimes difficultat the partner country level todistinguish what the added value of theEuropean Commission is, i.e. whatexactly the EC is doing that another donor could not do or would do lessefficiently. This is all the more true whendelegations support ‘standard’projects—in the case of biodiversity, forexample, capacity building for the management of a protected area.
Suggestions for discussion:
Increase complementarity betweenMember States and the ECThe complementarity between theEuropean Commission and MemberStates should be made clearer,especially with regards to the valueadded by EC development cooperation.A platform for exchange of information,knowledge and experiences on how tobetter support the sustainable use ofrenewable natural resources in partnercountries, should exist. A new one maybe created or an existing one could bemodified and revitalized.
66
2.7. Inadequate attention to EU OCTsand ORs
The OECD’s assessment regardingFrench overseas territories (OECD,2005b) can be extended to EuropeanOverseas Countries and Territories(OCTs): The scientific, budgetary and institutional resources devoted toconserving biodiversity in the OCTs arenot proportionate to the exceptionalwealth of that biodiversity. Europeancommitments to halting the loss ofbiodiversity by 2010 did not lead tomuch concrete implementation. Single Programming Documents (SPDs) makevery limited mention of the environmentand biodiversity conservation, and sofar allocation of financial resources forbiodiversity projects has beeninsignificant (Birdlife et al., 2006). Just like CSPs, SPDs do not usuallyundergo relevant strategicenvironmental assessments of theirimpact on biodiversity. nor do they frequently involve environmental NGOsin their elaboration process.
What is more, the four OutermostRegions (ORs) of France (Guadeloupe,French Guiana, Martinique andReunion) are an integral part of this EUMember State. They are therefore eligible for assistance under various EUfunds (structural funds, ruraldevelopment funds, fisheries funds),which often finance environmentallydamaging activities. Meanwhile, projects that actively benefitbiodiversity and sustainabledevelopment are lacking, and the impact assessment directives (EIA andSEA), which theoretically apply to theseregions, are inadequately transposedand complied with. Most importantly,the two nature directives (the Birds79/409/EEC and Habitats 92/34/EECdirectives) do not apply to theseregions, thereby stripping them of aneffective protective measure for theirunique biodiversity (Birdlife et al, 2006).
Although understandable from anecological perspective (given thedistances at stake, one can hardlyspeak of an ecological networkbetween French ORs and the Europeanmainland), this issue needs to beaddressed by appropriate alternativelegislation and instruments. The currentsituation ‘goes against the spirit ofcohesion of the European Union’(IUCN, 2004).
Suggestions for discussion:
Pay more attention to EU OverseasCountries and Territories (andOutermost Regions) Biodiversity inOCTs, and to a lesser extent in ORs,would clearly benefit from most of theprevious suggestions. However, theyalso require special attention, as theycould become examples forneighbouring countries. From thisperspective, their regional integrationwould be supported.
67
2.8. Inadequate tools for monitoringand reporting
Compliance with the highest standardsof transparency and accountability is anessential condition for the legitimacy ofthe European Union. Nevertheless, theEC and Member States lack thenecessary monitoring mechanisms totrack, measure and evaluate progressin the implementation of theircommitments and their contribution to meeting key challenges.
The difficulties we faced in collectingdata when preparing this paper (seeIntroduction) are evidence of this. Thefact that the Commission will reportannually to the Council and the Parliament on progress in theimplementation of the action plan on‘Halting the loss of biodiversity by2010—and beyond’ from 2007, andespecially that the fourth annual report(to end 2010) will evaluate the extent towhich the European Union has met its2010 commitments (EC, 2006b),represent steps in the right direction.However, they are not sufficient:specific monitoring and reportingmechanisms remain unclear and theEvaluation Unit seems to be expectedto evaluate the whole of EU external aidwith very limited staff and littleexpertise on environmental issues.
The biodiversity markers, developedjointly by the OECD/DAC and CBDSecretariats, represent a promisinginitiative. They are based on codes tomark the importance of biodiversity indevelopment projects:
0: Biodiversity not targeted1: Biodiversity is a significant objective2: Biodiversity is the principal objective
First tried in 1998–20001, the RioMarkers were integrated in 2004 for 3years (on a trial basis) into the regularOECD/DAC Creditor Reporting System.However, as noticed by the EuropeanCourt of Auditors (2005), ‘the DACsystem, while satisfactory foridentifying expenditures on projectswhose primary objective is support tothe environment, has only a basicmarker system for identifyingexpenditure on the environment withinprojects which do not have support to
the environment as their primaryobjective. The marker system only allows projects to be identified whereenvironment-related expenditure hasbeen made but not the amount of thatexpenditure’.
In addition, expenditures do notnecessarily translate into outcomesbecause (CBD Secretariat, 2004):
• Overseas Development Assistance(ODA) utilized in other activities canoffset positive impacts of biodiversity-related ODA;
• Analyses that only draw on financialdata may inadequately reflect the reallevel of donors’ efforts, since capital-intensive investment projects ininfrastructure sectors will dominatethe data, hiding smaller-scale labour-intensive seminars, training courses,research projects and consultancies;
• The indicator does not measure theeffectiveness of utilization of ODA.
A recent publication (Petersen &Huntley, 2005), based on a workshopheld in Cape Town, provides a set ofinnovative indicators to assess theeffectiveness of mainstreaming (see Annex 11). Although initially developedfor the Global Environment Facility(GEF) they could be used to overcomethe expenditure bias described above.They include potential indicators for the following targets: spatial,government, private sector, individual,multilateral donor organization, povertyalleviation agenda, markets forecosystem services.
Suggestions for discussion
Develop tools for reporting on andmonitoring biodiversity in Europeandevelopment cooperationSome new paths for reporting on andmonitoring biodiversity in Europeandevelopment cooperation may be worthexploring or deepening:
• In 2004, Carl Bro’s assessmentsuggested indicators to evaluate theprogress of the BAP-EDC. They couldbe refined and tested, which does notseem to have been the case so far.
• In order to ‘strengthen mechanismsfor tracking aid flows towards theenvironment’, as demanded byOECD’s Framework for commonaction around shared goals (seeAnnex 12) which was adopted by allOECD Development and EnvironmentMinisters in 2006, DAC biodiversitymarkers could turn out to be a usefultool. They might be integrated in theEU donor atlas.
• Indicators developed at the CapeTown workshop to assess theeffectiveness of mainstreaming couldbe refined, adapted and implementedin the EU development cooperationcontext.
68
1. A review of these markers' utilization will be undertaken in 2007.
69
3.Conclusion: A conference to pave
the way forward
Despite incontestable effortsundertaken by the EuropeanCommission, Member States and partner countries, despite resourcesallocated to biodiversity in developmentcooperation, and despite the numerousimprovements, innovations,experiments and success stories documented, the trend which hassometimes made European aid self-defeating by contributing to biodiversityloss has not yet been reversed. Asstated in the Introduction, the diagnosis may be articulated aroundanswers to our three initial drivingquestions:
• The impact of initiatives withbiodiversity as a primary orsecondary objective (DAC Code 1and 2), while usually positive, remaintoo localized and too limited.Although such projects have nowbeen in existence for decadesworldwide, most of the time theyseem to be implemented and todeliver outcomes at a pilot scale. Bethey from the European Commissionor Member States, bilateralcooperation, effort and results are notcommensurate with degradationtrends and driving forces.
• The environmental impact ofdevelopment projects and policieswhich do not have biodiversitymanagement among their objectives(DAC Code 0) is still often negative.Environmental assessments do notmatch needs, mitigation measures areinsufficient when they exist at all, andthe mainstreaming of biodiversityissues in the project and policy cycleremains very much of a paperconcept.
• Several non-development policiesfrom the European Commission aswell as from Member States harmbiodiversity in developing countries,and therefore hinder their capacity toachieve the Millennium DevelopmentGoals. The lack of coherence andmutually mutilating effects ofenvironmental initiatives, developmentcooperation and non-developmentpolicies are probably nowhere asobvious as in the case of trade,especially in the fields of agriculture,fisheries and forestry.
The vast majority of issues, drivingforces, rooms for manoeuvre identifiedhere are not new. Many of them couldbe gathered under the umbrella of thenecessity to improve governance, bothwithin EU institutions and in partnercountries. In the absence of a silverbullet to achieve sustainabledevelopment and stimulate synergiesbetween poverty alleviation andbiodiversity conservation, we shouldunderline the importance of majorinstitutional reforms, enhanced publicparticipation, more equity in the accessto and benefit sharing from naturalresources, better corporateresponsibility, more transparentmonitoring and evaluation systems, etc.These are vast programmes of actionthat go well beyond the environmentalcommunity and sector. They will requirestrong partnerships between allstakeholders involved in Europeandevelopment cooperation.
Potential recommendations that theconference may draw from discussionsbased in part on this background paperwill not be entirely new either and willbe much broader in scope than anything one single stakeholder couldtake on. Their implementation willremain the key challenge and should beused to build on wide support amongparticipants. In that respect, negotiations of the 10th EDFimplementation will provide a goodreality check.
We hope the analysis, suggestions andhints provided in this document willfruitfully support discussions to helpthe European Union come closer to thetarget it has largely been missing so far.
It is in the implementation ofrecommendations and agreed-uponactions that there is the greatest needfor innovation.
UN Millennium Project, 2005
Bibliography
Baillie, J.E.M., Hilton-Taylor, C. and Stuart, S.N. (eds.) (2004). 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. A Global Species Assessment. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Billé, R. (1997). Etude de l’opportunité de doter les projets du ministère de la Coopération d’une procédure d’évaluation environnementale. Rapport pour le ministère de la Coopération, Direction du Développement, Paris.
Billé, R. (2006). “Management of biodiversity and participation: Some thoughts towards a stock taking”. In M. Bouamrane (ed.) Biodiversity and stakeholders: Concertation itineraries. Biosphere Reserves, Technical Notes 1 – 2006, UNESCO, Paris.
Biodiversity in Development Project (2001a). Guiding principles for biodiversity in development: Lessons from field projects. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. http://app.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2001-036-2.pdf
Biodiversity in Development Project (2001b). Strategic approach for integrating biodiversity in development cooperation. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. http://app.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2001-036-1.pdf
Birdlife, CAN, CI, FERN, IFAW, IIED, IUCN, WWF (2005). Joint submission from environmental organisations. European Commission consultation on the Thematic Programme on Environment and Natural Resources in EC External Relations. http://www.iucn.org/places/europe/rofe/documents/joint_submission_%20EC_%20thematic.pdf
Birdlife, DCNA, IUCN, LPO, UK OTCF, WWF (2006). Position paper on the importance of the EU’s Outermost Regions and Overseas Countries and Territories for biodiversity.
BOND (2004). Implementors or actors? Reviewing civil society’s role in European Community development assistance in Kenya, Senegal, Bolivia and India. European Community’s Poverty Reduction Effectiveness Programme (EC-PREP) Research Project. http://www.bond.org.uk/pubs/eu/impactor.pdf
71
Brockington, D. (2003). Injustice and conservation: Is ‘local support’ necessary for sustainable protected areas?. Policy Matters 12: p. 22-30.
Brockington, D., Igoe, J. & Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2006). Conservation, human rights, and poverty reduction. Conservation Biology 20(1) : p. 250-252.
Campos, J.J., Alpízar, F., Louman, B. & Parrotta, J. (2005). An integrated approach to forest ecosystem services. In G. Mery, R. Alfaro, M. Kanninen and M. Lobovikov, Forests in theglobal balance – Changing paradigms. IUFRO World Series volume 17, p. 97-116.
Carl Bro (2004). Assessment of implementation of Biodiversity Action Plan for Economic and Development Cooperation. Glostrup, Denmark. http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPol.nsf/0/2b2a97f19066725080256f0f003bc850/$FILE/MALAHIDE-WGP-Audit-4.pdf
CBD Secretariat (2004). Indicators for assessing progress towards the 2010 target: Official development assistance provided in support of the convention. Note by the Executive Secretary, UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/10/INF/22. http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-10/information/sbstta-10-inf-22-en.doc
CBD Secretariat (2006). Voluntary guidelines on biodiversity-inclusive impact assessment.Note by the Executive Secretary, UNEP/CBD/COP/8/27/Add.2.
CBD Secretariat (2006). Global Biodiversity Outlook 2. Montréal.
Dávalos, M.E. (2002). Mainstreaming environment in the country strategy papers. A review of 60 countries. Brussels.
DFID (2002a). Wildlife and poverty study. DFID Livestock and wildlife advisory group, London, UK.
DFID (2002b). Biodiversity – A crucial issue for the world’s poorest.
EC (undated). Programming orientations. National and regional programming. Provisional version.
EC (2000). Community Cooperation: Framework for Country Strategic Papers, Commission staff working paper. SEC (2000) 1049, Brussels: CEC.
EC (2001). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Biodiversity Action Plan for Economic and Development Cooperation. Brussels, COM(2001) 162 final, Volume V. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2001/act0162en02/5.pdf
EC (2004). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the Instruments for External Assistance under the Future Financial Perspective 2007-2013. Brussels, COM (2004) 626 final. http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/reform/document/com04_626_en.pdf
EC (2006a.) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. External Action: Thematic Programme For Environment and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources including Energy. Brussels, COM (2006) 20 final. http://ec.europa.eu/comm/development/body/communications/docs/communication_thematic_programme_environment_and_sustainable_management_of_natural_resources_including_energy_25_01_2006_en.pdf
EC (2006b). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on “Halting the loss of Biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond”. Brussels, COM(2006) 216 final.http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2006/com2006_0216en01.pdf
72
73
EC (2006c). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Annual report 2006 on the European Community’s development policy and the implementation of external assistance in 2005. Brussels, COM (2006) 326. http://ec.europa.eu/comm/europeaid/reports/europeaid_annual_report_2006_en.pdf
Elliott, J. (ed.) (2002). Wildlife and poverty study. Livestock and wildlife advisory group, DFID Rural Development Department.
European Court of Auditors (2005). Statement of preliminary findings. Environment Audit. Commission headquarters strategy, staffing, systems, donor coordination. Horizontal audit task 04CDC212-04FED218.
European Parliament, Council, Commission (2006). Joint statement by the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on European Union Development Policy: “The European Consensus”, 2006/C 46/01. Official Journal of the European Union. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/c_046/c_04620060224en00010019.pdf
Fisher, R.J., Maginnis, S., Jackson, W.J., Barrow, E., and Jeanrenaud, S. (2005). Poverty and Conservation: Landscapes, People and Power. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge.
IUCN (2004). European policy and biodiversity in overseas territories. Resolution RESWCC3.005 adopted at the 3rd IUCN World Conservation Congress, Bangkok, 17-25 November. http://app.iucn.org/congress/members/submitted_motions.htm
Kepe, T., Saruchera, M. & Whande, W. (2004). Poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation: a South African perspective. Oryx 38(2): p. 143-145.
Kothari, A., Pathak, N. (2004). Periyar Tiger Reserve, of people and participation. The Hindu survey of the Environment, p.115-119, India.
Koziell, I., McNeill, C. (2002). Building on hidden opportunities to achieve the Millennium Development Goals: Poverty reduction through conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. WSSD Opinion Paper, International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.
Koziell, I., Saunders, J. (2001). Living off biodiversity: Exploring livelihoods and biodiversity issues in natural resources management. IIED, London.
MacKie, J. (ed.) (2005). Assessment of the EC Development Policy. DPS Study report, ECDPM, ICEI, ODI, February. http://ec.europa.eu/comm/development/body/development_policy_statement/docs/ecdpm_report_18_02_2005.pdf
McLean, J. and Straede, S. (2003). Conservation, relocation and the paradigms of park and people management: A case study of Padampur villages and the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Society and Natural Resources 16: 509-526.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. http://www.maweb.org/en/Products.Synthesis.aspx
Montes, C., and Migliorisi, S. (2004) EU donor atlas: Mapping Official Development Assistance. Development Strategies, European Union.
OECD (2005a). Development cooperation report 2005. Efforts and Policies of the Members of the Development Assistance Committee. OECD Journal on Development 7(1). http://caliban.sourceoecd.org/vl=22828110/cl=21/nw=1/rpsv/dac/
74
OECD (2005b). Environmental performance review: France. OECD.
OECD (2006). Framework for common action around shared goals, adopted by OECD Development and Environment Ministers. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/27/36427017.pdf
OECD/DAC (2006). Good practice guidance on applying Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in development co-operation. Final draft. http://www.seataskteam.net/uploads/forums/90/SEA%20public.pdf
Petersen, C., Huntley, B. (ed.) (2005). Mainstreaming biodiversity in production landscapes.GEF Working Paper 20. http://www.gefweb.org/Outreach/outreach-Publications/documents/MainstreamingBiodiversity.pdf
Poverty–Environment Partnership (2005). Sustaining the environment to fight poverty and achieve the MDGs: The economic case and priorities for action. A message to the 2005 World Summit, UNDP, UNEP, IIED, IUCN, WRI.
Robinson, J.G., Bennett, E.L. (2002). Will alleviating poverty solve the bushmeat crisis?Oryx 36 (4).
Roe, D., Elliott, J. (2004). Poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation: rebuilding the bridges.Oryx 38 (2): 137-139.
Roe, D. & Elliott, J. (2005). Poverty-conservation linkages: A conceptual framework.Poverty and conservation learning group, IIED.
Rowell, A. (1996). Green backlash – Global subversion of the environmental movement. Routledge, London.
Sanderson, S.E., Redford, K.H. (2003). Contested relationships between biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation. Oryx 37 (4): 389-390.
Sanderson, S.E., Redford, K.H. (2004). The defence of conservation is not an attack on the poor. Oryx 38 (2): 146-147.
Sepp, C. (ed.) (2004). Evaluation of the Environment and Forests Regulations 2493/2000 and 2494/2000. Synthesis report, European Commission. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/45/35666236.pdf
Steele, P. (2004). Pro-Poor Growth or Boom and Bust? Coalitions for Change to Sustain and Increase the Contribution of Natural Resources to Pro-Poor Growth. Draft Framework. OECD DAC Environet, Paris.
Steele, P., Oviedo, G., McCauley, D. (2006). Poverty, health, governance and ecosystems: Experiences from Asia. Asian Development Bank, Manila, IUCN, Gland.
Timmer, V., Calestous, J. Taking root: Biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction come together in the tropics. Lessons learned from the Equator Initiative. Environment 47(4): 24-41.
UN (2005). 2005 World Summit Outcome. A/RES/60/1, New York.
UN Millennium Project (2005). Environment and human well-being: A practical strategy. Report of the task force on environmental sustainability. London, Earthscan.
Waldman (ed.) (2005). Environment, politics, and poverty: lessons from a review of PRSP stakeholder perspectives. Synthesis review. Poverty Environment Partnership, CIDA/DFID/GTZ. http://www.acdicida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/Environment,%20Politics,%20and%20Poverty/$file/Synthesis%20Review%20EN%20-%20low%20res.pdf
75
Wilkie, D.S., Morelli, G.A., Demmer, J., Starkey, M., Telfer, P. & Steil, M. (2006) Parks and people: assessing the human welfare effects of establishing protected areas for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 20 (1): 247-249.
World Resources Institute (2005). The wealth of the poor: Managing ecosystems to fight poverty.WRI, UNDP, UNEP, World Bank.
WWF (2005a). Europe 2005: The ecological footprint. WWF, Global Footprint Network, IUCN, Brussels.
WWF (2005b). Streamlining poverty-environment linkages in the European Community’s development assistance. European Community’s Poverty Reduction Effectiveness Programme (EC-PREP) Research Project.
76
Annex 1
Supporters of the BEDC Conference Process
1. BEDC Conference Secretariat – IUCN Regional Office for EuropeCatherine Ghyoot, Jean-Claude Jacques, Jean-Philippe Palasi, Catherine Quick, Erik Van Zadelhoff
2. Steering Committee members
From the European Commission
Jan-Willem Cools DG DevelopmentEtienne Coyette DG EnvironmentSimon Le Grand DG DevelopmentStefan Leiner DG EnvironmentMarta Szilagyi DG External Relations
From EU Member States
Maria Berlekom SwedBioArnold Jacques de Dixmude Belgium Ministry of Foreign AffairsClaude-Anne Gauthier French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Matti Nummelin Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
From NGOs/IGOs
Hans Friederich IUCN HeadquartersIola Leal Riesco FERNTamas Marghescu IUCN Regional Office for EuropeSebastian Risso GreenpeaceSebastian Winkler Countdown 2010
3. TBAG Meetings participants
From the European Commission
Jan-Willem Cools DG DevelopmentSimon Le Grand DG DevelopmentMarta Szilagyi DG External Relations
From EU Member States
Maria Berlekom SwedBioSimon Carroll SwedBioGemma Cook DFID, United KingdomArnold Jacques de Dixmude Belgian Ministry of Foreign AffairsClaude-Anne Gauthier French Ministry of Foreign AffairsOve Hokstad Swedish Ministry of Sustainable DevelopmentMiroslaw Lewinski Polish Embassy in StockholmAlexandra Mueller GTZ, GermanyCarlos Martin Novella SpainMatti Nummelin Finnish Ministry of Foreign AffairsJohanna Palmberg Swedish International Development Cooperation AgencyPatrick Rabe Swedish Ministry of Foreign AffairsDilys Roe IIED/DFID, United KingdomSusanne von Walter SwedBioSandra Wibmer Austrian Development AgencyJiri Zicha Czech Ministry of Environment
77
From NGOs/IGOsDirk Hendricks IFAWRichard Kock Zoological Society LondonIola Leal Riesco FERNHervé Lefeuvre WWFSebastien Risso GreenpeaceTatiana Sutiakova Birdlife International
Annex 2
List of contributorsIn addition to members of the Steering Committee and participants in TBAG meetings mentioned above, the following personskindly provided information and support for the conference preparation and the elaboration of this Background Paper:
Armando Astudillo Gonzalez EC/DG for Fisheries and Maritime AffairsElroy Bos IUCN HeadquartersMarco Antonio Calvo IUCN Regional Office for MesoamericaFran Irwin World Resources InstituteLisbeth Jespersen Danish Ministry of Foreign AffairsJutta Kill FERNIzabella Koziell DFIDJean-Paul Ledant AIDCO Helpdesk for Environment IntegrationJeffrey McNeely IUCN HeadquartersJürgen Nauber IUCN Regional Office for MesoamericaSally Nicholson WWFGonzalo Oviedo IUCN HeadquartersSebastian Winkler Countdown 2010Saskia Ozinga FERNRémi Paris OECDAnne-Kathrin Pfeiffer BMZ, GermanyJoanna Phillips Royal Society for the Protection of Birds/Birdlife UKJean-Yves Pirot IUCN HeadquartersNorbert Probst EC/DG DevelopmentJanet Ranganathan World Resources InstituteNadine Speich IUCN/Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)Gareth Steel EC/DG TradePaul Steele IUCN/DFIDHans Wessels Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs
78
DeclarationBiodiversity—the web of life on earth—is essential to the quality of human well-being, and it is a crucial element in sustainingthe social, economic and spiritual dimension of all Europeans. Yet, biodiversity continues to decline. Political commitments havebeen made to stop this trend by 2010. Further steps need to be taken to honour this commitment and to translate it into action.We the undersigned will take every practical opportunity to:
Support the commitments to halt or significantly reduce the current rate of biodiversity loss by 2010.Encourage European decision makers at all levels, in both the public and the private sector, to contribute to thesecommitments.Commit ourselves to encourage and assist decision makers and European societies in achieving the 2010 biodiversity target.
Overarching goalThat all European governments and members of civil society, at every level, have taken the necessary actions to halt the loss ofbiodiversity by 2010.
Objectives1. Encourage and support the full implementation of all the existing binding international commitments and necessary actions
to save biodiversity;2. Demonstrate clearly what progress Europe makes in meeting the 2010 Biodiversity Commitment;3. Gain maximum public attention across Europe for the challenge of saving biodiversity by 2010.Principles
Science based: all Countdown 2010 work will be underpinned by sound science and/or relevant practical conservationexperience and will be carried out to the highest possible standard.
Transparency: Countdown 2010 is committed to the principle of transparency in process and decision making. It will ensurepublic access to information, while respecting individual privacy and institutional confidentiality, as appropriate.
Subsidiarity: the Countdown 2010 Secretariat will work at the most appropriate level (local, national, regional, multi-regional)and it will only undertake those Countdown 2010 activities that partners are unable to undertake.
Autonomy: Countdown 2010 is an independent alliance. It is governed by the will of its partners through the institutionalmechanisms in place (Executive Group and Steering Group).
Countdown 2010 is a network of active partners ranging from governments, local authorities via civil society organizations toprivate businesses. By signing the Countdown 2010 declaration, each organization commits itself to promoting the 2010 biodiversity target and toworking towards its achievement.
For more information: [email protected] | www.countdown2010.net
79
Annex 3
Countdown 2010
The Poverty–Environment Partnership(PEP) is an informal network ofdevelopment agencies that aims toaddress key poverty–environmentissues within the framework of international efforts to achieve theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs),by: (1) sharing knowledge andoperational experience; (2) identifyingways and means to improve coordination and collaboration atcountry and policy levels; and (3)developing and implementing jointactivities.
At the 2002 World Summit onSustainable Development inJohannesburg, world leaders agreed that sound and equitablemanagement of natural resources andecosystem services is critical tosustained poverty reduction andachievement of the MillenniumDevelopment Goals. The 2005 WorldSummit in New York assessed progressand achievements since internationalendorsement of the MillenniumDeclaration in 2000 and establishmentof the MDGs. In this period since 2000,there has been widespread confusionand neglect concerning MDG 7:Ensuring Environmental Sustainability.Consequently, there has been a considerable risk that the Summitwould not agree on needed measures
to improve and scale-up efforts totackle the critical linkages betweenenvironmental sustainability, poverty reduction and achievement of the otherMDGs.
In response, the Poverty–EnvironmentPartnership has launched a three-pronged approach to reinvigoratingpolitical attention and commitment tothe environmental challenges central to achieving the MDGs:
(1) Making the Case for Environmentand the MDGs by presenting bestevidence on the economic importanceof environment to poverty reductionand pro-poor growth, and identifying priority areas for improvedinvestment to achieve MDG 7 andcontribute to the broader MDG agenda.
(2) Holding High-Visibility SummitEvents on Environment and the MDGsto focus Summit attention on thecritical role of sound environmentalmanagement for the MDGs and the broader Summit agenda, and toshowcase and generate wider politicalcommitment to scaling-up actionbeyond the Summit.
(3) Supporting Summit Follow-UpAction on Environment and the MDGsby positioning PEP members
collectively and individually to takeforward the decisions of the Summitand mobilizing a more broad-basedcoalition on environment for achievingthe MDGs.
PEP Member OrganizationsBilateral Agencies: Belgium, Canada,Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, Norway,Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom,United States.
Multilateral/UN Agencies: AfricanDevelopment Bank, Asian DevelopmentBank, European Commission, UN Foodand Agriculture Organization, GlobalEnvironment Facility, Inter-American Development Bank,International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment, International Monetary Fund, Organization forEconomic Cooperation andDevelopment, UN Department for Economic and Social Affairs, UNDevelopment Programme, UNEnvironment Programme, The WorldBank, World Health Organization.
International NGOs:International Institute for Environmentand Development, The World Conservation Union (IUCN), WorldResources Institute, WWF International.
80
Annex 4
The poverty-environment partnership1
1. http://www.undp.org/pei/aboutpep.html
Goal 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Target 1: Reduce by half the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day
1. Proportion of population below $1 (PPP) per day (World Bank) 2. Poverty gap ratio, $1 per day (World Bank) 3. Share of poorest quintile in national income or consumption (World Bank)
Target 2: Reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger
4. Prevalence of underweight children under five years of age (UNICEF) 5. Proportion of the population below minimum level of dietary energy consumption (FAO)
Goal 2. Achieve universal primary education Target 3: Ensure that all boys and girls complete a full course of primary schooling
6. Net enrolment ratio in primary education (UNESCO) 7. Proportion of pupils starting grade 1 who reach grade 5 (UNESCO) 8. Literacy rate of 15–24 year-olds (UNESCO)
Goal 3. Promote gender equality and empower women Target 4: Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education
preferably by 2005, and at all levels by 2015
9. Ratio of girls to boys in primary, secondary, and tertiary education (UNESCO) 10. Ratio of literate women to men 15-24 years old (UNESCO) 11. Share of women in wage employment in the non-agricultural sector (ILO) 12. Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments (IPU)
Goal 4. Reduce child mortalityTarget 5: Reduce by two-thirds the mortality rate among children under five
13. Under-five mortality rate (UNICEF) 14. Infant mortality rate (UNICEF) 15. Proportion of 1 year-old children immunized against measles (UNICEF)
Goal 5. Improve maternal healthTarget 6: Reduce by three-quarters the maternal mortality ratio
16. Maternal mortality ratio (WHO) 17. Proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel (UNICEF)
Goal 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseasesTarget 7: Halt and begin to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS
18. HIV prevalence among 15–24 year-old pregnant women (UNAIDS) 19. Condom use, rate of the contraceptive prevalence, rate and population aged 15–24 years with comprehensive correct
knowledge of HIV/AIDS(UNAIDS, UNICEF, UN Population Division, WHO) 20. Ratio of school attendance of orphans to school attendance of non-orphans aged 10-14 years
81
Annex 5
The Millennium Development Goals
Target 8: Halt and begin to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases
21. Prevalence and death rates associated with malaria (WHO)22. Proportion of population in malaria risk areas using effective malaria prevention
and treatment measures (UNICEF)23. Prevalence and death rates associated with tuberculosis (WHO)24. Proportion of tuberculosis cases detected and cured under directly-observed treatment
short courses (WHO)
Goal 7. Ensure environmental sustainabilityTarget 9: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country
policies and programmes; reverse loss of environmental resources
25. Forested land as percentage of land area (FAO)
26. Ratio of area protected to maintain biological diversity to surface area (UNEP) 27. Energy supply (apparent consumption; kg oil equivalent) per $1,000 (PPP) GDP (World Bank) 28. Carbon dioxide emissions (per capita) and consumption of ozone-depleting CFCs (ODP tons)
Target 10: Reduce by half the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water
30. Proportion of the population with sustainable access to and improved water source (WHO/UNICEF) 31. Proportion of the population with access to improved sanitation (WHO/UNICEF)
Target 11: Achieve significant improvement in lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers, by 2020
32. Slum population as percentage of urban population (Secure Tenure Index) (UN-Habitat)
Goal 8. Develop a global partnership for development Target 12: Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, non-discriminatory trading and financial system, includes a commitment to good governance, development, and poverty reduction—both nationally and internationally
Target 13: Address the special needs of the least developed countries, includes a tariff and quota free access for least developed countries’ exports; enhanced programme of debt relief for HIPCs and cancellation of official bilateral debt; and more generous ODA for countries committed to poverty reduction
Target 14: Address the special needs of landlocked countries and small island developing states
Target 15: Deal comprehensively with the debt problems of developing countries through national and international measures in order to make debt sustainable in the long term
Target 16: In cooperation with developing countries, develop and implement strategies for decent and productive work for youth
Target 17: In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable essential drugs in developing countries
Target 18: In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communications
82
Official Development Assistance32. Net ODA as percentage of OECD/DAC donors’ gross national product (targets of 0.7% in total and 0.15% for LDCs) 33. Proportion of ODA to basic social services (basic education, primary health care, nutrition, safe water and sanitation) 34. Proportion of ODA that is untied 35. Proportion of ODA for environment in small island developing states36. Proportion of ODA for transport sector in landlocked countries
Market Access37. Proportion of exports (by value and excluding arms) admitted free of duties and quotas 38. Average tariffs and quotas on agricultural products and textiles and clothing 39. Domestic and export agricultural subsidies in OECD countries 40. Proportion of ODA provided to help build trade capacity
Debt Sustainability41. Proportion of official bilateral HIPC debt cancelled 42. Total number of countries that have reached their HIPC decision points and number that have reached their completion
points (cumulative) (HIPC) (World Bank-IMF) 43. Debt service as a percentage of exports of goods and services (World Bank) 44. Debt relief committed under HIPC initiative (HIPC) (World Bank-IMF) 45. Unemployment of 15–24 year-olds, each sex and total (ILO) 46. Proportion of population with access to affordable, essential drugs on a
sustainable basis (WHO) 47. Telephone lines and cellular subscribers per 100 population (ITU) 48. Personal computers in use and internet users per 100 population (ITU)
83
Objective 6:
To conserve and enhancebiodiversity through sustainableforest management at national,regional and global levels.
Wood imported by the EU derived onlythrough sustainable forestmanagement.
EU imports driving deforestationidentified and reduced.
Bilateral agreements made between theEU and the major timber exportingcountries with the aim of supportingforest law enforcement, governanceand trade (FLEGT).
Objective 11:
To ensure an improved andmeasurable contribution of EUeconomic and developmentcooperation to achieving the globaltarget ‘to significantly reduce thecurrent [2002] rate of biodiversityloss by 2010’ in support of theMillennium Development Goals(MDGs).
EU Regional and Country StrategyPapers and Sectoral Strategy Papers(RSPs/CSPs) have integratedimplementation of the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD) by 2007.
Partner countries1 have integratedimplementation of the CBD in nationaldevelopment strategies, includingPoverty Reduction Strategies by 2007.EC and Member States’ funding forsupporting implementation in partnercountries of the CBD, its workprogrammes and its Biosafety Protocol,significantly increased by 2007.
Adequate dedicated EU fundingsecured to support internationalimplementation of the CBD where these actions fall outsidedevelopment cooperation.
All programmes and projects funded bythe EU in partner countries have exante strategic environmentalassessments (SEAs) and environmentalimpact assessments (EIA), and actions are taken to prevent andmitigate negative impacts onbiodiversity in a timely manner.
Adequate long term capacity has been established in EU delegations anddevelopment cooperation agencies tosustainably achieve the above targetsby 2006.
EC and Member States cooperate andcoordinate their efforts to support theabove targets, with correspondingreporting mechanisms by 2006.
Effective mechanisms are in place toenable NGOs and local communities toaccess EU funding and to increasesynergies between governments, NGOsand the private sector.
84
Annex 6
The message from Malahide selected objectives
1 The term 'Partner countries' includes Overseas Territories.
Objective 12:
To contribute to the global 2010target by promoting ecologicallysustainable international trade.
Major negative impacts of trade onthird countries’ and EU’s biodiversityidentified, and mechanisms proposedand adopted and action taken tosignificantly reduce them.
All trade agreements between the EUand third countries avoid or at leastmitigate negative effects onbiodiversity.
All trade in CITES species effectivelycontrolled to ensure that it is notdetrimental to their conservation andsustainable use.
Biodiversity conservation andsustainable use fully integrated into ECtrade-related technical assistance andcapacity-building activities.
Mutual supportiveness betweenbiodiversity-related agreements and theWTO and other trade-relatedagreements ensured, consistent withthe precautionary principle.
Objective 13:
To ensure the fair and equitablesharing of benefits arising out of theuse of genetic resources whilepromoting their conservation andsustainable use.
Capacity built in developing countriesfor the implementation of the (accessand benefit sharing) ABS provisions ofthe CBD.
International regime on ABS concludedaccording to the mandate adopted at the 7th Conference of the Parties(COP 7).
International Treaty on Plant GeneticResources for Food and Agricultureeffectively implemented by 2007.
Objective 14:
To ensure the implementation of CBDdecisions on knowledge, innovationsand practices of indigenous andlocal communities embodying theirtraditional lifestyles.
Ensure application of the principle ofprior informed consent whencommercially using traditionalknowledge.
Apply the CBD Akwe-Kon Guidelinesfor projects affecting terrestrial lands ofindigenous and local communities bothwithin the EU Member States and inthird countries.
Objective 15:
To implement an agreed set ofbiodiversity indicators to monitor andevaluate progress towards the 2010targets, with the potential tocommunicate biodiversity problemseffectively to the general public andto decision-makers and provokeappropriate policy responses.
Indicators: biodiversity headlineindicators adopted in 2004, tested,optimized, finalized by 2006;biodiversity indicator adopted in list ofSustainable Development Indicators forreporting on Sustainable DevelopmentStrategy by 2004; interim biodiversitystructural indicator developed by 2005and finalized by 2006.
Monitoring: use, and if necessarydevelop, monitoring frameworks(building on existing monitoringapproaches and methods includingthose of civil society) in order toestablish adequate harmonized dataflows for the biodiversity headline andstructural indicators to reveal andcommunicate key trends from 2006.
Reporting: adopt best approaches tostreamline national reporting toEuropean Community, pan-Europeanand international agreements from 2006onwards; headline indicators applied for reporting on progress inimplementation of the EuropeanCommunity Biodiversity Strategy (ECBS) and Biodiversity Action Plans(BAPs) 2007 and 2010.
Funding: adequate financial resourcesallocated to biodiversity indicators,monitoring, reporting and theircoordination.
85
86
Annex 7
The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
Annex 8The European Consensus on
development
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
Annex 9The EU action plan to 2010
and beyond
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
The Programming phase is crucial for environmental integration because key decisions concerning the overall cooperationprocess are made that can be difficult to adjust in later phases. The main environmental integration tool during Programming isthe Country Environmental Profile (CEP).
Country Environmental Profile (CEP) – key points
What is it?
A report that includes the analysis of the country’s environmental situation, current policies, institutional capacities and environmental cooperation experiencewith clear recommendations for the integration of the environment during Country Strategy Paper (CSP) preparation.
What needs to be done by EC staff?
Undertake or contract consultants to undertake the study involving either the preparation of a new CEP or the revision/update of an existing CEP. If consultants are commissioned, the DEL/DEV/ RELEX prepare ToR.
Under what conditions?
A CEP is required for all beneficiary countries.
When is it needed?
Before the end of the preparation of a CSP.
How long does it take?
The duration and cost of preparing a CEP varies considerably as a function of data availability, the size of the country and the complexity of the environmental issues. Using consultants from inception to final report takes typically +/- 4 months.
Where is it used?
The CEP is used in the preparation of the CSP/NIP (National Indicative Programme), for policy dialogue and reference. A summary of the CEP must be annexed to the CSP.
The main contents of a CEP are the following:
Summary
Brief presentation of the main environmental problems, the main conclusions and recommendations.
State of the environment
An assessment of the state and trends of the environment in relation to development, including an identification of the main environmental problems to resolve or avoid. This section addresses the relationship between the environment and the social and economic situation, and more particularly between poverty and environment.
Environmental policies and institutions
A presentation of the main features of the institutional, policy and regulatory framework leading to the identification of weaknesses and constraints on the capacity to address main
128
Annex 10
Country Environmental Profiles andRegional Environmental Profiles1
1. http://www.environment-integration.org/EN/D122_CEP.htm.
environmental concerns, including a review of the legislation and procedures regarding Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). A review of the international obligations undertaken by the country in the area of environmental protection.
Environment in the main policies and sectors
An identification of links between the main government policies (overall development policy, Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), sector policies) and environmental sustainability issues, providing indications on the extent of existing environmental mainstreaming and SEA, with a special attention paid to the ‘focal sectors’ of EC intervention.
Analysis of aid
A description of past and ongoing aid from the EC and other donors in the field of the environment, incorporating lessons learnt from major evaluations.Assessment of opportunities to collaborate with other donors in pursuing common goals and seeking complementarities.
Conclusions and recommendations
Recommendations on how environmental issues can be most effectively addressed by EC cooperation, their relative priority and the implementation challenges. These must particularly address environmental aspects to take into account under potential focal sectors, including additional studies (such as SEA), capacity building/institutional strengthening, and potential indicators to be used in the NIP. These environmental integration measures may go along with recommendations concerning specific actions targeting the environment as a ‘focal sector’, i.e. having environmental improvements as the main objective.
The CEP is based on a compilation of available environmental information, the validity and consistency of which should bedetermined. However the analysis of the information, the conclusions drawn and the recommendations made must have an EC-specific focus.Regional Environmental Profiles (REP) are used to inform regional cooperation strategies (Regional Strategy Paper—RSP).The REP focuses on environmental issues common to a group of neighbouring countries (including transboundary issues) such as sharing the management of ecosystems, which can be more effectively addressed at the regional level.
129
The Cape Town workshop consideredsome of the kinds of indicators thatcould be developed in futuremainstreaming initiatives andcategorized these according to thevarious targets of mainstreamingbiodiversity, as outlined in this section.The nature of the target will influencethe way in which indicators for theimpact of mainstreaming are defined.
The top three indicators suggested aspossible priorities for the GlobalEnvironment Facility (GEF) were:
(1) Spatial—the percentage of a priorityarea/key biodiversity area (defined atany level from ecosystem tospecies) under biodiversity-compatible management issignificantly increased. (This requiresunderstanding and agreement onpriority areas, as well as standardsto define what is consideredbiodiversity-compatiblemanagement.)
(2) Institutional—the level of resourceallocation to biodiversityconservation by key governmentdepartments other than theenvironmental departments isincreased and departments areleading biodiversity programmes.
(3) Market—the volume of biodiversityfriendly products is increased.
These, plus additional potentialindicators in relation to specific targets,are detailed in the following section.These need to be carefully consideredin the context of specificmainstreaming interventions, andrefined in order to be effective inguiding the relevant actors.Consideration should also be given tothe possibility of linking theseindicators to existing monitoring andevaluation programmes of public andprivate sector actors and donor agencies (for example, to processessuch as the World Bank’s PovertyReduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) orthe United Nations’ MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs)).This would enable those programmes to improvethe extent to which they explicitlyevaluate the mainstreaming ofbiodiversity considerations. Additionalcomments from workshop participants included the need tomaintain a focus on biophysicalindicators as well as stress reduction indicators. These would,however, need to be identified inrelation to specific contexts.
1. Potential indicators forspatial targets include:
• The percentage of a priority area/keybiodiversity area (defined at any levelfrom ecosystem to species) underbiodiversity-compatible managementis significantly increased. (Thisrequires understanding andagreement on priority areas, as wellas standards for defining biodiversity-compatible management in aparticular context.)
This may include:
• The area of land under protected areamanagement within productionlandscapes (emphasis onencouraging industry to cede parts oftheir landholding to protected areamanagement, which does notnecessarily require a change ofownership).
• The area of land under biodiversity-compatible management (biodiversityfriendly/compatible land uses) whichis also meeting technically informedbiodiversity standards.
• There is a decrease in habitatfragmentation.
• Siting of major infrastructure isguided by biodiversity priorities.
• Species diversity is maintained orenhanced (for example, for speciesrequiring large ranges, increase innumbers can measure impact ofimproved connectivity in thelandscape).
130
Annex 11
Impact indicators to assess the effectivenessof mainstreaming (Petersen & Huntley, 2005)
2. Potential indicators forgovernment targets include:
• Planning authorities have integratedbiodiversity priorities into a greaternumber of their plans.
• Communication and partnershipmechanisms focused on biodiversityconcerns are institutionalized(including intergovernmental andpublic–private expertise).
• A greater number of policystatements reflecting biodiversitypriorities are in place.
• Number (or percentage) ofgovernment staff with anenvironmental qualification issignificantly increased.
• Biodiversity issues have a significantpresence in election campaigns.
• A wide range of non-environmentalgovernment departments/sectoragencies is participating in and/orcoordinating biodiversity programmesor projects, to which sufficientresources have been committed(indicated by percentage of budgets,number of staff, policies, publications,and so forth).
• There is a national consensus onvaluing ecosystem services(indicated, for example, by asurcharge on water services).
• No perverse incentives are in place(can apply at national andinternational levels).
• A government is a signatory to or hasratified relevant internationalconventions, and demonstratedprogress on implementing them, forexample, through producing anational biodiversity strategy andaction plan (NBSAP).
• NBSAPs incorporate strategies tomainstream biodiversity in productionlandscapes and sectors.
• Legislation that contributes positivelyto biodiversity conservation is inplace and is enforced.
• There is a significant increase in thepercentage of bilateral/multilateralfunding allocated to biodiversityconservation.
• Speeches by ministers (non-environment, and especially financeministers) make reference tobiodiversity issues.
• Biodiversity issues are integrated intothe national education curriculum.
3. Potential indicators forprivate sector targetsinclude:
• An increased number of sectorplayers have adopted best practicesand standards relating to biodiversity.
• Key sectoral players are acting aschampions on biodiversity issues.
• There is an increase in the number ofpartnerships for collaboration onconserving biodiversity.
• Corporate planning departments haveinternalized biodiversity priorities intotheir plans.
• Biodiversity departments have beenestablished in key large companies.
• There is a presence of prioritybiodiversity issues in policystatements.
• Budgets include biodiversityconservation allocations.
• There is an increase in the percentageof budgets allocated to biodiversityconservation through non-traditionalinternal alliances and realignment.
• Government policy frameworks isinfluenced by the actions ofcompanies in conserving biodiversity.
• Processes are in place to developand internalize biodiversity standardsin key sectors and industries.
• Incentives are provided formaintaining biodiversity friendly landuses and production systems, andmore people are employed in suchuses and systems (for example,farmers planting indigenous cropvarieties).
4. Potential indicators forindividual targets include:
• There is a marked change in relevantconsumer behaviour, with asignificant increase in willingness topay for biodiversity-sensitive orlowest-impact products.
• Greater shelf space in shops isallocated to merchandise producedthrough biodiversity friendly activities.
• There is an increase in visitornumbers to sites of biodiversity value,with appropriate safeguards in place.
• There is increased awareness byconsumers of the links betweenbiodiversity and their purchasing(mind shift as an intermediaryactivity).
• Greater numbers of volunteers andother actors are participating inbiodiversity conservation activities.
• There is an increase in viewership ofnature programmes, and the numberof advertisements with a biodiversityconservation message on televisionchannels.
• Sustainable use is made ofindigenous species.
• There is an increase in membershipnumbers and active participation inbiodiversity/’green’ organizations.
131
5. Potential indicators formultilateral donororganization targetsinclude:
• Representatives of biodiversity issuesare participating in internationalforums (such as the World TradeOrganization—WTO).
• There is a significant increase in thepercentage of budgets of donororganizations allocated towardbiodiversity conservation.
• More training programmes for staff onbiodiversity issues are in place.
• More widespread use ofconditionalities relating to impacts onbiodiversity are placed on projects.
• More biodiversity safeguards are inplace.
• There is an increased number ofpages in annual reports focused onbiodiversity activities.
• Speeches by leadership figuresmention biodiversity issues morefrequently.
• A greater number of staff areparticipating in carbon-offsetprogrammes for their travel.
• Best practices are institutionalized fororganizational activities (for example,recycling, decision making onenvironmentally responsible products,carbon-offset, and videoconferencingwhen appropriate).
• Initiatives are in place and fundingsourced to replicate routine private-sector best practices relating tobiodiversity.
• There is an increased number ofprojects in portfolios that aresupporting new biodiversity-basedproducts or services.
6. Potential indicators forpoverty alleviation agendatargets include:
• Programmes are using biodiversitysustainably to eradicate poverty (forexample, ensuring food security,employment generation, invasive alienspecies removal).
• Crisis funds are available to mitigatethe effects of natural disasters/stresses (such as droughts, floods,tsunamis) on ecosystems.
• Biodiversity conservationists areengaging with poverty alleviationagendas, to minimize negativeimpacts on biodiversity and increasethe contribution of biodiversityresources to alleviating poverty.
7. Potential indicators formarkets-for-ecosystems-services targets include:
• New biodiversity-based commoditiesare emerging.
• Biodiversity considerations are takeninto account in setting up supplychains.
• There is an increase in the numberand diversity of products certified asbiodiversity friendly.
These are broad suggestions for thekind of indicators that could be builtinto project design in mainstreaminginitiatives in order to ensure that theprocess, products, and outcomes of such initiatives are being thoroughlyrecorded, monitored, assessed, andanalysed. The exact nature of specificindicators, as well as mechanisms formonitoring and follow-up actions, willneed to be developed in the context ofparticular projects.
132
133
Annex 12Framework for Common Action
Around Shared Goals
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
IUCN Regional Office for Europe Boulevard Louis Schmidt 64
1040 BrusselsBelgium
E-mail: [email protected]