Project Brief

1. Identifiers
Project Number:
Project Title:			Biodiversity Planning Support Programme
Duration:			24 months
Implementing Agencies:			UNDP, UNEP
Executing Agencies:			UNOPS, UNITAR
Requesting Country or Countries:	N/A
Eligibility:	Under the financial mechanism for the Convention on Biological Diversity
GEF Focal Areas:			Biodiversity
GEF Programme Framework:		Enabling Activities

2. Summary:  
This project will strengthen the capacity of parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to prepare and implement National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP’s) in response to Article 6 of the Convention.  While developing and implementing GEF supported Biodiversity Enabling Activities, parties have identified a number of difficulties whose resolution goes beyond the technical and managerial support provided by the GEF Implementing Agencies.  These include: inadequacy of existing information, materials and guidelines; a scarcity of appropriate expertise and experience; and difficulties in dealing with the complex and multi-sectoral nature of biodiversity planning.

This project will draw on the full range of national and global experience to develop and provide the information, tools, training, and communication needed to develop and implement comprehensive, multisectoral, and timely NBSAP’s, and to ensure a smooth transition between the development and implementation stages.  Activities include the development of information services, preparation of technical and advisory materials, training, and enhancing horizontal exchange and co-operation among Parties.  Information exchange mechanisms established will foreshadow, and be maintained in the long term by, the activities of the Clearing House Mechanism (CHM).

3. Costs and Financing: 
	GEF Financing:	Project				US$	3,099,600 
			PDF B					US$	   334,800

	Co-financing 	UNDP, UNEP			US$	   400,000
			Switzerland + others	US$	   400,000

	Total Project Cost:				US$	4,234,400

	Project Support Services (included in the above)
			GEF					US$	   229,600
			Cofinancing			US$	     60,000

4. Associated Financing (millions of US$):
	IUCN Phase II Project:					US$	1,700,000

5. Operational Focal Point Endorsement
Verbal and minuted support and recommendations from the Regional CoP IV Preparatory Meetings.  Support from consultation at CoP IV itself.

6. IA Contacts:
John Hough, UNDP.
Cyrie Sendashonga, UNEP.

Acronyms:

ACTS: 		African Center for Technology 
BCIS:		Biodiversity Conservation Information Service
CHM:		Clearing-house Mechanism
CBD:		Convention on Biological Diversity
CoP		Conference of the Parties (to the Convention on Biological Diversity)
EA:		Enabling Activity
GEF:		Global Environment Facility
IAs:		Implementing Agencies
IABIN:		the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network
IIED:		International Institute for Environment and Development
INBIO:		Instituto Nacional Biodiversidad
NBSAP:	National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
PDF:		Project Development Facility
POC:		Project Oversight Committee
SBSTTA:	Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice
SIOCAM:	Strategic Initiative for Oceans and Coastal Managemet
TNC:		The Nature Conservancy
UNDP:		United Nations Development Programme
UNEP:		United Nations Environment Programme 
UNITAR:	United Nations Institute for Training and Research
USAID:	United States Agency for International Development
WCI:		Wildlife Conservation International
WWF:		World Wildlife Fund
WCMC:	World Conservation Monitoring Centre
WB:		World Bank
WRI:		World Resources Institute

Background and Context
1. Countries that have ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have an obligation to prepare or adapt existing national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) which address biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, and to integrate as far as possible and as appropriate the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programmes and policies (Article 6).  Article 6 is particularly important as it provides the substantive foundation for most of the other Articles of the Convention, and in particular Article 10 (a) which requires parties to integrate biodiversity considerations into national decision making.

2. Decisions II/6 and II/7 of the CoP requested GEF to facilitate the urgent implementation of Article 6 and emphasized the importance of capacity building and exchange of experiences between countries to assist Parties in implementing Articles 6 and 8 in a timely and effective manner.  In its most recent guidance, the CoP in decision IV/13 requests the GEF to provide adequate and timely support to Parties for capacity building in a number of areas related to biodiversity planning such as: (i) develop and implement national, sectoral and cross-sectoral plans for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in inland water ecosystems (IV/13.3); (ii) establish and strengthen biodiversity information systems (IV/13.5/b); (iii) preparation of national reports (IV/13.6);  (iv) design and and approaches relevant to the implementation of incentive measures (IV/13.7); assessments of current legislative, administrative and policy measures on access to genetic resources and benefit sharing (IV/13.8/b).

3.  GEF has supported the implementation of Article 6 through a specifically designed funding window entitled “Enabling Activities in Biodiversity.”  This window specifies criteria to support the preparation of NBSAPs, National Reports, and the Clearinghouse Mechanism. By April 1998 over 100 Biodiversity Enabling Activities project proposals had been approved and $17m allocated by GEF.  UNDP has signed projects with 62 governments; UNEP with 27 governments and the World Bank with 10 governments.  Projects are at different stages of implementation.  A recent survey reveals the following picture: forty-three (43) are finalising the project brief or are in the very early stages of implementation; thirty-nine (39) are under implementation.  Only sixteen (16) have completed their NBSAPs.  Thirteen (13) countries have yet to prepare and submit a proposal to one of the IAs for funding of EA projects.  Thus the process of preparing NBSAPs and reporting on countries achievements under Article 6 is expected to continue for at least another two years (See Annex 5).

4. Many countries are having difficulties effectively implementing the multi-sectoral planning approach called for by the CBD and required under the EA criteria.  The need for capacity building for developing NBSAPs was emphasized at meetings between the Secretariats of the CBD and the GEF in 1996 and 1997.  In April 1996 the GEF Council recommended the development of inter-country training and best practice workshops at regional or global levels and methodological support for enabling activities.  In response the GEF released PDF Block B funds to assess the needs and prepare this BSAP Support Programme.  The PDF-B solicited the feedback of 75 countries that either participated in one of three regional workshops (two funded through the Block B and one organized by the United Kingdom Government) and/or responded to a questionnaire sent to over 100 countries preparing NBSAP’s in order to precisely define the problem and determine and agree appropriate solutions.  In addition extensive consultations were held with representatives at the SBSTTA (September 1997); the CBD Secretariat; IUCN HQ and regions ROSA, EARO, SUR, US (Washington); WCMC; WRI; ACTS (Nairobi); Bionet (Washington); staff of all three GEF Implementing Agencies (UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank); and staff of the GEF Secretariat.  The lessons learned from a synthesis of the first National Reports undertaken by the CBD Secretariat (UNEP/CBD/COP/4/11 of 2 April 1998) were also taken into account.  Decision IV/14 of the CoP notes the difficulty experienced by Parties in preparing national reports and requests the SBSTTA to provide the fifth CoP with advice on the intervals and form of future national reports.  In its decision, the CoP further requests the GEF “to continue providing financial assistance for the preparation of national reports, having regard to the constraints and needs identified by the Parties in their first national reports”.  This project will closely follow SBSSTA deliberations regarding national reports and will contribute towards GEF’s follow-up to decision IV/14. 

5.  Prior to determining the activities of this project, the PDF-B undertook a review of ongoing activities relevant to NBSAPs issue through consultations with national, regional and international institutions.  The activities of this project have been formulated to complement ongoing initiatives.  A variety of biodiversity support projects have been implemented at the national and international level.  GEF Implementing Agencies (UNDP, UNEP, WB) provide direct technical support to Biodiversity Enabling Activity projects under their supervision.  Begun in 1997, IUCN’s project entitled “Supporting Global Action to Conserve Biodiversity and Sustainably Use Biodiversity Resources: Phase II” is designed to assist countries with overall implementation of the CBD.  The Biodiversity Support Program supported by USAID and implemented by WWF/TNC/WCI assists countries in Latin America and other priority regions in setting biodiversity conservation priorities.  UNEP and IUCN are coordinating Action Theme 0.2 of the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy across Europe. 

6. Broader biodiversity conservation capacity building initiatives such as the publishing of reference materials have been implemented at both the global and regional levels by IUCN, UNEP, World Resources Institute, WWF, World Conservation Monitoring Center, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), Biodiversity Conservation Information System (BCIS), UNEP Biodiversity Data Management (BDM) Project, Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN), African Centre for Technological Studies (ACT), Instituto Nacional Biodiversidad (INBIO), Strategic Initiative for Oceans and Coastal Management (SIOCAM) and other NGO’s.  Models of computer based information systems have been developed by BCIS, the Sustainable Development Networks Programme  and BIONET.

7. The technical support provided by the GEF Implementing Agencies (UNDP, UNEP, WB) includes: the dissemination of materials, information and samples; identification and provision of technical expertise; responding to queries and providing referrals to additional sources; providing direct consultation, coaching, and technical support visits; organizing orientation workshops; and providing general administrative support.  In addition they have recently established a global list server and developed supplementary guidelines to address commonly asked questions.

8. However, despite this wide range of support activities a clearly define-able problem remains.  The stakeholder consultations, workshops, and questionnaire, a recent analysis undertaken by the CBD Secretariat (UNEP/CBD/COP/4/11), and the COP regional preparatory meetings, identify the following key problems related to the biodiversity planning process: existing information, materials and guidelines on biodiversity and biodiversity planning are inadequate; there is a scarcity of appropriate expertise and experience; and methodologies for dealing with the new, complex and multi-sectoral nature of biodiversity planning are lacking.  In addition, country stakeholders in particular point to a general lack of awareness, knowledge and understanding of what biodiversity is and its importance.  This in turn undermines the political support required for an effective BSAP process and makes it difficult to integrate biodiversity issues into other sectoral planning and management activities.  Further details of these problems will emerge from a planned evaluation of enabling activities in biodiversity by the GEF Secretariat.  The activities of this project will provide input into the planned evaluation and will also benefit directly from its results.  The two activities will be closely coordinated.

Rationale and Objectives
9. Biodiversity conservation and sustainable-use planning is a relatively new concept which requires an integrated approach and the development of new institutional arrangements for the preparation of strategies and the implementation of plans.  During the Block B consultation process, countries expressed concerns and defined the problems they are having with the BSAP process in many different ways.  In summary, the national biodiversity planning process to date is viewed as being weaker than it should be in terms of developing and implementing strong, multi-sectoral NBSAPs in accordance with obligations under Article 6.  Countries have also indicated the need for more assistance from the GEF in certain areas.  The planned evaluation of biodiversity enabling activities will assess these needs and identify possibilities for additional financial support to Parties.

10. A number of countries feel that the information, materials and guidelines available are not specific enough in terms of describing how to develop good, solid strategies and action plans, nor in explaining how to synthesize biodiversity information into a usable form for biodiversity planners.  They suggest, for example, that the 1995 WRI/UNEP/IUCN Guidelines explain what to do but not how to do it.  They set forward the broad sequence of steps in the process (i.e. getting organized, assessment, developing the strategy), but they give insufficient guidance on how to carry out these steps.   While most countries are able to effectively gather information on biological resources (where experience tends to be higher), methodological guidance is critical for weaker areas like assessment of socio-economic issues, measurement of value, how to analyze and manage biodiversity information etc. and emerging issues like biosafety. 

11. While most enabling activity projects include funds for provision of an international consultancy to give a familiarization workshop, there is both a shortage of experienced consultants and no agreed way of approaching the activities.   Further, the use of international and regional consultancies tends to result in comparative experience, which is the basis for the development of expertise, being locked up in a small number of individuals and not being widely available or disseminated.   Most countries express a strong desire both to see and learn from what other countries have done, and to share with other countries their own experiences and lessons learned.  The latter is particularly true for countries that have already completed their BSAP’s who want a mechanism which will enable them to share their own experiences and expertise with countries that are only just beginning the process.  Further, they feel that by contributing to a lessons learned effort they will get valuable feedback on their own efforts to translate their action plans into activities as well as preparing themselves for their next round of planning.  The project is designed to utilize this national experience to the full by placing a strong emphasis on development and delivery of information, materials and workshops by national and regional experts and institutions.

12. This project has also been designed to complement existing national, regional and international baseline efforts through global and regional activities that will enable countries to apply a more multi-sectoral approach to biodiversity conservation planning. The integration of conservation and sustainable-use into other relevant sectoral plans and programmes, as called for under Article 6, is simply is not happening in most places. This is evident in many of the NBSAPs completed already and national reports submitted to the CBD.  

13. Because additional tools, training, and information channeling devices are needed, an extra-national, incremental activity is needed that goes beyond national Enabling Activity projects and the direct technical support of both the Implementing Agencies and the other institutions and NGO’s working in the field.  Decision IV/14 of the CoP confirms the significance of this project

Objective, Purpose, Outputs and Activities: 
Development Objective:
	To improve the conservation, sustainable use, and equitable sharing of biological diversity through enhancing the ability of parties to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Purpose: 	
	To strengthen the ability of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to develop and implement multi-sectoral NBSAPs in accordance with their obligations under Article 6

 Outputs/Activities: 

Output 1:	Specialized information on biodiversity planning and issues related to the CBD available, easily accessible to and exchanged among country planning teams and decision makers. 

Activity 1.1: Gather, translate, and disseminate information and materials at global, regional, and sub-regional levels on biodiversity issues and planning with a view to facilitating access by national planning teams and decision makers.  Information will be made available in electronic form on the internet while fax and mail will be used for non-web enabled parties.  These mechanisms will also be used to foster constant informal exchange of information and experiences, and networking between countries.  Information exchanged would include updated rosters of regional experts in BD planning.  Global sources include UNEP, IUCN and the CBD Secretariat.  Sub-regional institutions will be contracted to provide mirror sites, local language sites, to maintain contact with non-web enabled countries, and to actively seek out materials.  Existing relevant global, regional and sub-regional initiatives related to information gathering, collation and dissemination will be complemented and strengthened as appropriate.  The entire mechanism will foreshadow and facilitate the establishment of the Clearing House Mechanisms (CHM).

Output  2:	Guidelines based upon lessons learned, training modules and materials on biodiversity planning developed and delivered.

Activity 2.1: Develop and revise lessons learned, best practices, guidelines, and other tools to enhance the biodiversity planning process. 

This will be done through a systematic collection, analysis and adaptation of NBSAP outputs, reports and case studies in partnership with national, regional and global institutions. The 1995 WRI/IUCN/UNEP Biodiversity Planning Guidelines will be complemented by preparing more detailed guidelines on issues that have been identified by countries as unfamiliar: e.g. agricultural biodiversity, access to genetic resources and benefit sharing, financial incentives, tourism and biodiversity.

Case studies will incorporate experience of recent good practice and lessons learned from the BSAP process and will be undertaken by national teams with assistance from the regional institutions.  They will be made available to all other Parties. These would provide the foundation for the development of a number of training materials at the regional and global levels.

Dissemination will be through the mechanisms established in 1.1.

Activity 2.2: Organize thematic and issue oriented workshops to distill thinking on selected priority emerging issues critical to effective biodiversity planning.   

The purpose of these workshops is to distill the thinking on poorly defined emerging issues to provide input into the development of guidelines and training modules under Activity 2. 3.  The workshops will bring together experts to develop understanding and elaborate materials on complex biodiversity planning topics in need of clarification and discussion, with some of them of concern to particular groupings of countries, e.g. small island states.  Workshops will be held on complex planning issues such as methodologies for mainstreaming biodiversity, socio-economic impacts of plans and measures, baseline data, indicators and monitoring.  Issues for additional workshops may be selected by the Project Oversight Committee taking into account GEF Council guidance in response to CoP 4 decisions on these issues.  For further details see Annex 6. 

Activity 2.3: Develop and deliver to country planning teams training packages, modules and materials in appropriate languages on the priority themes and aspects of biodiversity and biodiversity planning.  

Training materials will be developed on how to carry out the key steps of the planning process.  See Annex 6 for a list of topics.  Initial development will be conducted by UNITAR followed by testing and specification by regional collaborators in accordance with standard methodologies already developed by UNITAR and building on UNITAR’s successful experience in implementing the GEF funded CC-Train programme. 

Output 3:	A dynamic, ongoing exchange of NBSAP experiences and ideas via regional, horizontal networks

Activity 3.1: Organize regional exchange workshops for BSAP Coordinators, members of planning teams and key policy makers.  The goal will be for planners to share their collective experiences with BSAP processes, problems encountered, solutions developed, commonalities and differences in implementation, to compare and adapt approaches, and to exchange regional expertise and materials.

Two workshops will be organized in each of the identified eight sub-regions (see Implementation Arrangements).  Workshops will be organized by regional institutions. Information and materials developed under Outputs 1 and 2 will be disseminated. During the regional workshops, training modules on the themes identified in Annex 6 will be delivered to country team members as appropriate. 

Risks and Sustainability:  
Risks
17. The primary risks associated with this project involve internal communication problems within country, sensitivity about information sharing, and changes in personnel responsible for biodiversity and biodiversity planning.  During project development a lack of communication between the various national players in biodiversity planning frequently became obvious.  Information often was not shared between biodiversity focal points, enabling activity coordinators, Clearing House Mechanism focal points, Country Study coordinators, senior Environment Agency officials, Universities, and other key participants in the BSAP process.  Enhancement of information flows and encouragement of a more open and integrated multi-sectoral approach to biodiversity planning will help to reduce this risk.  Similarly, increasing the flow of information, materials and lessons learned (both positive and negative), should reduce sensitivity about information sharing.  While staff turnover is a risk in all projects, increasing information flows will again serve to reduce the impact of loss of any one key individual.

Sustainability
18. The implementation of the project has been designed in such a way as to maximize the long-term sustainability of project-inspired activities.  No new structures will be set up.  At all levels, work will be done by existing structures. At the regional level, existing institutions will be utilized to implement project activities.  These institutions have been chosen in large part because of their proven interest and ongoing involvement with biodiversity planning issues.  The project will help to strengthen the capacity of these institutions by enhancing their expertise in providing support to the Convention.  These institutions will be able to continue project-inspired activities well beyond the life of this project.  The global information channeling mechanism and exchange process will be designed to require minimal financial input in the long run.  The process will contribute to the development of the CBD Clearing-house Mechanism’s ability to provide countries with the tools to effectively utilize information.  The process will  be coordinated with the activities of the CBD Secretariat.  All documents, materials, and outputs resulting from this project will be fed into the Clearing-house Mechanism.

Stakeholder Participation
19. The stakeholders for this project are the central participants in good biodiversity planning.  Stakeholders have participated in project design and will be involved in project implementation, monitoring and evaluation (see “Implementation Arrangements” below).  The design of this project was driven by input from stakeholders.  Seventy-five countries either participated in one of three regional workshops (one organized and hosted by the United Kingdom Government) and/or responded to a questionnaire sent to over 100 countries preparing NBSAPs.  In total 22 countries attended the African workshop, 27 countries attended the Latin American and Caribbean workshop, 25 countries attended a Central and Eastern European workshop and 41 replies to the questionnaire were received.  The draft project was discussed at all four Regional Preparatory Meetings for CoP-4.  Countries provided further input (CBD focal points and other delegates) as well as strong support at the CoP itself.

20. Designed around a “service and empowerment” approach, the project will improve the knowledge and skills of stakeholders through the exchange of information, technical skills and experiences.  Stakeholders/project beneficiaries thus fall into three clear groups:

•	NBSAP Coordinators and full-time members of biodiversity planning units; 
•	Members of national task forces and working groups, i.e. scientists in academic and government service, sectoral policy-making officials in ministries and local government, managers of biological resources in departments and agencies of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, protected areas, environment; representatives of business and industrial users of biological resources and national NGOs and CBOs (Community Based Organizations) with a stake in biodiversity issues; 
•	High-level members of government such as those on a National Council for Biodiversity, in Cabinet and Parliament, who are responsible to adopt and implement the strategy and action plan.

Implementation Arrangements 
Regional Level: 
21. Project activities will be delivered through sub-regional institutions in at least eight (8) distinct global groupings based on cultural, linguistic, ecological and logistical commonalties: 1) Francophone Africa; 2) Anglophone Africa; 3) Latin America; 4) the wider Caribbean; 5) the Arab States (North Africa and the Middle East); 6) South, South/East and East Asia; 7) the Pacific; and 8) Eastern Europe with Central Asia.  In additional cross-regional information flow will be provided in the case of dispersed common language groupings, such as the Lusophone countries, as well as additional language translation and dissemination in linguistically complex regions such as eastern Europe and central and south-eastern Asia.

22. Regional instititions, either regional NGO’s or inter-governmental organizations, will be selected in consultation with appropriate stakeholders on the basis of the initial criteria elaborated in Annex 7.  These include:  1) their proven expertise, know-how, and involvement in biodiversity planning issues and the CBD; 2) their ability to work successfully with governments and NGOs at regional and national levels; 3) their ability to gather and disseminate information and co-ordinate activities within their region; and 4) their level of internet connectivity and general ease of communication.

23. Regional institutions will liaise with country planning teams.  They will respond to needs, disseminate information and assist with informal communication between the countries.  They will also provide input to the development of training materials, thereby ensuring that training materials are customized to directly address concerns germane to the different regions.  For a description of institutional responsibilities by activity, see Table 1.

24. Information and inputs into the lessons learned and best practice guidelines will be similarly gathered by the regional institutions, in collaboration with members of national planning teams, regional scientists/experts, academic organizations, and shared with other regions and the global focal points.  Regional exchange workshops will be conducted by the regional institutions in association with other NGO’s, and intergovernmental bodies as appropriate, and in close consultation with countries.  Training sessions will be conducted in association with the workshops based on needs.

Global level: 
25. Overall guidance to the project will be provided by a Project Oversight Committee (POC).  The POC will be comprised of representatives from UNDP, UNEP, the World Bank, the CBD Secretariat, IUCN, WRI, and two representatives of government stakeholders.  Other input will be invited as required. The POC will meet quarterly via teleconference to discuss progress reports and make project decisions.

26. While the project will be implemented primarily through existing regional and national organizations, it will be coordinated at a global level by UNDP’s GEF unit in New York and UNEP’s Biodiversity Unit in Nairobi.  Each will provide facilities, services and two half time staff positions for the duration of the project.  The project will also support two half time global positions to make 2 full time positions in all, 1 in UNDP and 1 in UNEP.  The UNDP focal point will provide overall project coordination and management, in particular of information and materials dissemination, the training modules to be developed and delivered by UNITAR, and the various workshops.  The UNEP focal point will serve as the global focus for information gathering, and coordinate the development of lessons learned, best practice guidelines and the delivery of workshops in Africa.  UNITAR will collaborate with both the global focal points and national institutions in the development of the information packets, training modules and best practice guidelines.  Close liaison and communication will be maintained with both IUCN and WRI throughout.  See Table 1 for a description of institutional responsibilities by activity. 

Stakeholder input 
27. To provide direct stakeholder input to the implementation process a panel of up to 24 country representatives (2-3 from each of the 8 sub-regions described above) will be formed.  The panel will serve as the mechanism for providing country feedback on project implementation. Countries will guide the delivery of project activities through their regional representatives on the panel.  Panel members will be chosen within the region from among national CBD focal points, project co-ordinators and CHM focal points.

28. The full Panel will meet at the time of COP and SBSTTA meetings to advise on the direction and broad thrust of project execution. Country representatives in a region will meet at regional events to comment on implementation of the programme in the region.

Incremental Costs and Project Financing

Incremental Costs: 
29. This project is additional and incremental to both the existing Enabling Activity national funding window and to the technical support provided by the Implementing Agencies (IA’s).  While the Enabling Activities and IA support are incremental in themselves (obligations incurred by ratification of the Convention), they represent the “baseline” to this project, along with IUCN and other NGO support activities.  The global benefit from this additional increment is a significantly strengthened biodiversity planning process, more effective multi-sectoral integration, and ultimately better conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.  Thus the incremental costs of the project equal the full costs of the project.  However, additional donor co-financing to the Increment has been leveraged from a number of other donors.  In addition, both UNDP and UNEP will each provide $200,000 of in kind financing in the way of staff time, office space and support services.  National benefits include the removal of barriers to effective biodiversity planning caused by insufficient information access, capacity and co-ordination.

30. The global and regional approach of the project provides the most cost-effective and efficient way of assisting countries share information and experiences in the preparation of their NBSAPs.

Table 1:  Project Lead Implementation Responsibilities

Institutions
Activities	UNDP	UNEP	UNITAR	Regional Institutions	National Institutions	
Activity 1.1. Gather, translate and disseminate information and materials at global and regional levels.	Coordination and Global Dissemination.	Global gathering		Regional gathering and dissemination		
Activity 2.1 Develop and disseminate lessons learned, best practices, guidelines, and other tools to enhance the biodiversity planning process.	Dissemination	Coordination and Development		Gathering inputs.
Dissemination		
Activity 2.2 Organize thematic workshops to distill thinking on priority emerging issues critical to effective biodiversity planning.		Coordination and Development			Workshop organization	
Activity 2.3 Develop and deliver to country planning teams training packages, modules and materials.	Coordination and Global Dissemination		Development and Delivery		Local interaction and delivery	
Activity 3.1 A dynamic, ongoing exchange of NBSAP experiences and ideas via regional, horizontal workshops and networks.	Coordination and
Delivery except Africa	Delivery in Africa		Communication mechanisms	Workshop organization	

31. Project Financing (not including PDF allocation):

	Activity	Year 1	Year 2	Total	Cofinance	GEF	
Output 1: Specialized Information gathering & dissemination							
1.1 Information gathering & delivery							
	- sub-regional gathering, translation & dissemination (sub-contracts with institutions)	400,000	200,000	600,000		600,000	
	- global gathering & dissemination	87,500	87,500	175,000	90,000	85,000	
							
Output 2: Guidelines, lessons learned, materials, training modules							
2.1 Lessons learned, best practice							
	- development of case studies & guidelines	250,000	250,000	500,000	90,000	410,000	
2.2 Thematic workshops							
	- 8 global workshops @ $60,000 each (add-ons)	300,000	180,000	480,000		480,000	
	- coordination and development	87,500	87,500	175,000	90,000	85,000	
2.3 Development & delivery of training packages		300,000	200,000	500,000	380,000	120,000	
							
Output 3: Dynamic exchange through regional horizontal workshops							
3.1 Regional exchange workshops							
	- 8 regions, 2 workshops/region @ $60,000 each	480,000	480,000	960,000		960,000	
	- coordination and development	87,500	87,500	175,000	90,000	85,000	
							
Sub-total		1,992,500	1,572,500	3,565,000	740,000	2,825,000	
	Monitoring & Evaluation	10,000	35,000	45,000		45,000	
	Project Support Services	160,200	128,600	289,600	60,000	229,600	
Total		2,162,700	1,736,100	3,899,600	800,000	3,099,600	

Monitoring, Evaluation and Dissemination 
32. During project implementation, the review meetings of the Project Oversight Committee (POC) every three months will serve as the monitoring apparatus for the project. For the two-year duration of the project, the POC will meet eight times. The POC will have responsibility for monitoring and evaluating the scope and content of all project activities, taking into account lessons learned in the implementation of GEF climate change enabling activities. A GEF Project Implementation Review will be conducted each year.  In addition, the project will conform with all standard UNDP and UNEP procedures for monitoring and evaluation.

33. Dissemination of lessons learned is one of the most important activities to be undertaken by this project.  This will be done on a extensive scale.  Project activities will foreshadow, and be maintained in the long term, through full implementation of the CHM.

STAP Technical Review
34. The comments of the STAP Technical Reviewer support the basic thrust and design of the project and include a number of detailed suggestions that are consistent with the project approach, particularly with respect to the nature of specialist and cross-cutting guidelines and materials that are regularly updated and offer a range of options and approaches based on lessons learned from real experience rather than the production of “cook books”.  Many of the reviewers suggestions will be carried through in project implementation.

35. The primary concern of the reviewer is the time scale for the project.  While biodiversity planning is an ongoing cyclical process, the primary GEF support to this through Enabling Activities will be winding down during the second year of the project (see Annex 5).  Consequently while further project work would certainly be useful its centrality to the GEF focus would no longer be clear in the absence of additional guidance from the GEF Council.  Thus a project lifetime of greater than 2 years cannot be justified at this point.

36. A secondary concern of the reviewer is technical support to the project.  In light of the reviewers comments and discussions at CoP IV the Project Oversight Committee has been extended slightly.  However, this committee is intended to guide rather than be an exclusive source of technical expertise.  The latter will come from three sources: the beneficiary stakeholders themselves (biodiversity planners in GEF eligible countries); biodiversity planners globally (many of whom have already expressed an interest in the project); and specific technical consultations with experts around the development of lessons learned, guidelines, etc.  The mechanism for drawing together this expertise is the project itself.

Biodiversity Planning Support Programme

LIST OF ANNEXES

(included in printed version)

Annex 1.	Logical Framework

Annex 2.	Incremental Cost Assessment

Annex 3.	STAP Roster Technical Review

(included in electronic version or to be provided by the IA upon request)

Annex 4.	Current Status (May 1998) of Biodiversity Enabling Activities

Annex 5.	Anticipated Progress of Biodiversity Enabling Activities Over Project 			Lifetime

Annex 6.	List of Issues to be addressed

Annex 7.	Criteria for selection of Regional Institutions

Annex 1:  Logical Framework  

Project Strategy	Objectively Verifiable Indicators	Means of Verification	Assumptions	
Development Objective: To improve the effectiveness of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to conserve and sustainably utilize their biological diversity. 
				
Purpose: To strengthen the ability of countries to develop and implement strong, multi-sectoral NBSAPs in accordance with their obligations under Article 6
	Emerging issues included in newly developed NBSAPs: biosafety, intellectual property rights, private sector initiatives,) Clearly evident multi-sectoral approaches used in over 20 BSAPs.	Review of finished documents/Surveys of planners	Countries are willing to take the multi-sectoral approach; Delays will not be a big problem in finalizing remaining NBSAPs	
Outputs:	
1.	Specialized information on biodiversity planning and issues related to the CBD available, easily accessible to and exchanged among country planning teams and decision makers.
	Electronic lists established at global and regional levels	Independent evaluations	Countries will use internet connections	
2. Guidelines based upon lessons learned, training modules and materials on biodiversity planning developed and delivered.	Training modules for specific emerging issues	Independent evaluations	Staff turnover will not be too heavy	
	More detailed continuation of the WRI-IUCN Biodiversity Planning Guide	Independent evaluations	There are more lessons to be learned
	
3.	A dynamic, ongoing exchange of NBSAP experiences and ideas via regional, horizontal networks.	2 effective, network-building workshops held in each sub-region within the first year.  
	Independent evaluations/ surveys of participants	People will continue to use informal networks once set-up	

Activities:	Objectively Verifiable Indicators	Means of Verification	Assumptions	
1.1. Gather, translate and disseminate information and materials at global, regional, and sub-regional levels.	Staff contracted, workplan finalized, information disseminated.	Project Oversight Cmte (POC) meetings	- Technical assistance will be delivered on time	
2.1. Develop and revise lessons learned, best practices, guidelines, and other tools to enhance the biodiversity planning process.
	Lessons-learned report finished
workshops held 	Progress reports, POC meetings	- regional entities will be able to conduct lessons learned work	
2.2 Organize thematic and issue oriented workshops to distill thinking on priority emerging issues of the day.	Materials produced for training modules, guidelines 	Independent evaluations; POC meetings	Thematic workshops will be able to clarify issues	
2.3 Develop and deliver to country planning teams training packages, modules and materials on the following different themes and aspects of biodiversity and biodiversity planning:  
	Guidelines, packages, and materials produced	Independent evaluations; POC meetings	Technical assistance will be delivered on time	
3. Organize sub-regional exchange workshops	Regional networks established	POC meetings; Survey of participants
	formal communication channels will be utilised	

Annex 2:  Incremental Cost Assessment:

Broad Development Goals
To improve the effectiveness of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to conserve and sustainably utilize their biological diversity.

Baseline
Without the project, countries would go on preparing their NBSAPs with the support of the GEF Implementing Agencies and the disparate activities of international NGOs and inter-governmental bodies.  As such, Parties to the CBD would be without the necessary tools to make use of the wide range of information available and BSAP processes would struggle to interpret new information and take a multi-sectoral approach to the planning and implementation process. 

Current baseline activities are the following:  
•	GEF Implementing Agencies (UNDP, UNEP, World Bank) provide direct technical support to Biodiversity Enabling Activity projects under their supervision; 
•	Technical support is provided by international organizations such as IUCN and WWF in the form of staff expertise and complementary biodiversity priority setting in specific countries/regions; 
•	Broader capacity building initiatives are implemented by IUCN through its Biodiversity Policy Coordination Division (both HQ and its regional offices), by WWF/TNC/USAID through the Biodiversity Support Programme, as well as in various ways by WCMC, IIED, BCIS, ACT, INBIO.  

Global Environmental Objective
To strengthen the ability of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to develop and implement strong, multi-sectoral NBSAPs in accordance with their obligations under Article 6
 
GEF Project Alternative
Under this GEF Alternative, three major outputs will be produced.  Under Output 1, national teams are provided with specialized information on biodiversity planning and issues related to the CBD.  This clearly would not take place without this project.  

Under Output 2, country teams requiring additional assistance will be provided with guidelines based upon lessons learned, training modules and materials on biodiversity planning.  This support is beyond that which is being paid for under their individual enabling activity projects and would not be available without this project.  

Under Output 3, a dynamic, ongoing exchange of experiences and ideas via regional, horizontal networks will be created.  A series of regional exchange and training workshops will be organized to ensure that country teams can talk to each other and share what works and what does not.  Again, this support would not be available without this project.  The overall impact of these activities is that more countries are expected to prepare and implement their NBSAPs in a more effective, multi-sectoral way.

Incremental Cost Matrix
The incremental cost matrix is summarized below.  It shows that the project’s incremental costs are equal to its full costs. This project is additional to the existing Enabling Activity national funding window.  In addition, existing baseline activities related to this project’s “system boundary”, are in themselves considered to be fully incremental.  The incremental costs of the project are equal the full costs of the project.  Of the total project costs of US$ 3,089,000 (not including PDF costs), co-financing has been sought for US$400,000.  

Incidental Domestic Benefits
Although the full costs of the proposed alternative are incremental, project activities will produce substantial domestic benefits by removing national barriers (insufficient information access, lack of capacity, poor coordination among stakeholders) to effective biodiversity planning.  Removal of these barriers will increase national stakeholder participation, multi-sectoral integration and enable effective priority setting and resource allocation creating an impetus for implementation of the completed NBSAPs.  

Incremental Cost Matrix

Cost category	Costs $US	Domestic Benefits	Global Environmental Benefits	
Output 1 Specialized information on biodiversity planning and issues related to the CBD available, easily accessible to and exchanged among country planning teams and decision makers.	
Baseline	1,700,000

(IUCN’s Phase II)	Planning teams have limited  information on the CBD and biodiversity planning.	Some specific information on CBD planning issues available for teams preparing NBSAPs, e.g. WRI Guidelines, CBD background information	
Alternative	2,475,000	Planning team members better informed on CBD and specialized issues related to biodiversity planning.	Targeted, accessible information  available for planning teams preparing NBSAPs	
Increment (Alternative – Baseline)	775,000	By end of project national barriers to effective information access removed, biodiversity planners better informed to plan and implement measures.	More effective channeling of information to countries where it is needed. CBD implementation strengthened and enabled	
Output 2 Guidelines based upon lessons learned, training modules and materials on biodiversity planning developed and delivered.	
Baseline	3,400,000
20% of GEF’s EA expenditure	Biodiversity planners have general information on biodiversity planning approaches.	IUCN/UNEP-WRI Guidelines.  No specifically designed emerging issue tools to enable application of information.  No recent lessons-learned materials. 	
Alternative	5,055,000	Capacity of planning teams enhanced through access to methodological guidance, training and case studies. 	Specific tools to enable the application of existing information available.  Case studies and guidance on how to address emerging issues in the NBSAP.	
Increment 	1,655,000	Capacity related barriers to effective multi-sectoral planning removed, leading to more effective CBD implementation.	CBD implementation strengthened and enabled 	
Output 3.  A dynamic, ongoing exchange of NBSAP experiences and ideas via regional, horizontal networks.	
Baseline	IUCN:
1,200,000 
Others:
Diffuse 	Informal exchange of experience facilitated by IA’s and encounters during international biodiversity events.	Workshops are held on biodiversity issues, but not on CBD planning issues and not for the purpose of establishing information exchange mechanisms.  No systematic organization of workshops for training & info exchange	
Alternative	2,335,000	Biodiversity planners in countries exchange experience and collaborate horizontally.  	Systematic, timely and comprehensive workshops provided/ regular horizontal communication flow through email and list servers. 	
Increment (Alternative – Baseline)	1,135,000	National barriers such as low capacity and limited information exchange removed, collaboration between countries enhanced.	More regular, formalized, focussed  regional communication and utilization of information.  CBC implementation strengthened and enabled	
Project Total 	
Baseline	6,300,000	Countries develop BSAPs but many with limited sectoral integration and adopting a weak consultative process.	NBSAPs prepared without support network—limited multi-sectoral integration.  Some not implementable.	
Alternative	10,198,000	Strong ownership of BSAP among national stakeholders across sectors.  	Effectively integrate multi-sectoral elements into country’s NBSAP	
Increment (A-B)	3,898,000	Information, coordination and capacity related barriers to effective biodiversity planning removed.  Better informed and effective planners improve NBSAP preparation and implementation.	NBSAP planning and implementation process strengthened	

Annex 3:  STAP Technical Review

Project Title: 		Biodiversity Planning Support Programme
STAP Reviewer:	Kenton R. Miller, Ph.D., Vice-President, World Resources Institute
Date:	8 May 1998

1.	Overall Impression.  This project is necessary.  Countries seek guidance on preparing the National Biodiversity Strategies.  Experience has now moved well beyond that available when the earlier published WRI/IUCN/UNEP guidelines were prepared.  The issues have now shifted quite appropriately to the more detailed and specific components of biodiversity planning and management, e.g., inter-sectors coordination, finance and funding mechanism, etc.  The proposed project applies tested methods to address this need.

2.	Relevance and Priority.  This project should receive high priority.  While some countries are still “getting started”, and can work from the first guidelines provided, others are now facing challenges to deal with more complex issues in the planning process.  While these complex issues were anticipated during the WRI/IUCN/’UNEP stage of work, that team decided then to limit the proposed guidelines to those points that emerged from analysis of actual experience by Parties up to that time.  Now, new experience can support analysis and the drawing of new and additional guidelines from these new institutional, economic, and technological frontiers in biodiversity planning and management.

3.	Background and Justification.   Sufficient background information and justification for this project has been provided for readers already informed about the process to date.  The project and its goals are fully justified given the centrality of the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans in implementing the CBD.

4.	Scientific and Technical Soundness.  The methods to be applied by the project are sound.  These methods are tested, and endorsed by the Parties.  That is, the work will be based upon an analysis of country experience, regional workshops, integration and synthesis of on-going work into guidelines.  

5.	Objectives.  The objectives are clear, well focused and practical.  Achieving them will be challenging.  Most particularly, the aim to guide preparation of plans among sectors of the economy and government is an issue not yet achieved by many other efforts.  It demands a high level of political support, and a cultural change within most governmental departments, and the industries associated with the key sectors, e.g., timber and forest products, agriculture, fishing, transportation, etc.  Thus,  while the objective is critically important to address, the expectations on this particular component should  be kept at a reasonable level.  

6.	Activities.  The proposed activities appear to have been carefully designed to address the objectives.  They are practical and feasible.  However, the assumptions that underpin the development and implementation of multi-sector NBSAPs in accordance with their obligations under Article 6, are open to debate.  Are countries…”willing to take the multi-sector approach?”  Will there be no … “ delays in finalizing remaining NBSAPs?”  These two assumptions need further justification.  In our experience, getting jurisdictions together to share data, jointly plan their programs and budgets, etc., is among the most complex components of these efforts.

7.	Participatory Aspects.  Stakeholders were very much involved in project identification and definition.  The demand is very high.  They form the center of project implementation and will be both the key recipients and actors in the process, according to the plan.

8.	Global Benefits.  The benefits are clear in the proposal.  Essentially, this project will help move the strategy planning process along.  The data shows that currently, a large number of countries are delayed for the lack of orientation and guidance.  If the goal is to help all countries finalize their NBSAP’s, then this project is necessary.  

9.	GEF Strategies and Plans.  The project fits within the goals of the GEF, the GEF operational strategies, and the provisions of the CBD.   

10.	Replicability.  The lessons learned from individual countries can be of value to other countries with similar social, economic, cultural and natural conditions.  This can be further enhanced by presenting guidelines according to clusters of countries, e.g., developed, in transition, small islands, lowland tropical, mountain tropical, etc.

11.	Capacity Building.  This is clearly a capacity building project.  Its whole purpose is to help countries gain the tools, knowledge and methods to prepare their own NBSAP’s.  This capacity is vital if countries are to move forward with CBD implementation.

12.	Project Funding.  Appears adequate.

13.	Time Frame.  I am concerned about the short duration of the project.  It takes considerable time to consult, hold workshops, await case study preparation in the countries, review drafts, get clearances, and finally translate and publish.  Perhaps 36 months would be more realistic.

14.	Secondary Issues.   I would like to see this project break some new ground.  Namely, as per the UNDP Synergies project, why not include at least some analysis and reflection on how biodiversity and climate work can be combined since efforts to maintain forest cover, grasslands, wetlands and biomass contribute to carbon sequestration and biodiversity management.  Further, these efforts also help avoid land degradation, maintain forest, protect water catchments, and foster sustainable use regimes. 

15.	Additional Comments. The project understates the value and the challenge of providing guidelines on multi-sector planning and implementation.  Few problems are more complex, even in the “advanced democracies.”  Thus, work in this area is slow and ponderous, and requires time and patience.  That said, however, there are examples, e.g., Uruguay and Argentina, where the sectors did come to the table, once the “right” political space was established.  Perhaps Norway is the most advanced in involving each sector in biodiversity management.  Costa Rica’s outgoing government made very noble attempts in this direction and can perhaps share the pitfalls that were encountered.

There is little question that existing guidelines are not sufficiently specific to guide countries in such areas as multi-sector planning, financial mechanisms, taxonomy, and many other fields.  Hence, the WRI/IUCN team suggested that perhaps it would be helpful to develop a series of guidelines on distinct topics, as experience was gained.  In this way, there would be a continuing flow of guidance as country progress, and find new questions and issues.  Also, in this way, it wold be easier and less costly to replace individual topical guidelines as they are replaced with up-to-date experience and analysis.

The question remains as to whether it is best to develop a pro-forma approach to biodiversity planning, or to promote the evolution of a wide variety of methods.  Personally, I doubt that there is, can, or should be an “agreed way” (p. 2, third line from the bottom of the page).  

Top of p. 3.  The desire to share “lessons learned” is very powerful and should be nurtured, as does this project.  Some seek to establish “principles” and other more structured, and perhaps centralized, approaches.  Evidence would suggest that it is more appropriate to foster “diverse approaches to manage diversity.”

Second paragraph on p. 4, is right on.  Working upward to synthesis from cases is the most useful methodology for producing credible and useful guidelines.  From our experience with the first guidelines drawn from “initial experience”, clearly countries appreciated this method, rather than a fully normative, or prescriptive approach, although some wished for more of a “cook book.”  Furthermore,  the project should consider featuring some cases from efforts that are in progress, as distinct from cases completed.

p. 5.  First line under “stakeholder participation”.  This point is a central conclusion from the first guidelines volume, e.g., that “biodiversity planners must also be the biodiversity implementers.”  

p. 5.   The implementation arrangements appear to be very practical and should provide the modus operandi required for the project.  The coordination of activities appears to be well considered.  But unclear is the provision of an ad hoc advisory mechanism to deal with substantive matters.  Where is the technical expertise?   

Another type of feed back received by WRI as a result of developing and distributing the first guidelines, is that a real limiting factor faced by countries has been the lack of capacity to analyze and formulate policy based upon national data and information, and that reflects the national interest.  This project would do well to emphasize this dimension of capacity building.