Position paper for the 4 th meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Review of Implementation of the Convention, 7-11 May, Montreal.

Transcription

1 REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGY FOR RESOURCE MOBILIZATION Position paper for the 4 th meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Review of Implementation of the Convention, 7-11 May, Montreal Agenda Item 6 (UNEP/CBD/WG-RI/4/6; UNEP CBD/WG-RI/4/6, ADD 1) Agenda Item 7 (UNEP/CBD/WG-RI/4/7) Summary The group of NGOs consisting of Conservation International (CI), BirdLife International, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and WWF commend the ongoing process to review and improve the implementation of the Strategy for Resource Mobilization (SRM) in order for Parties to achieve the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity ( ). We recall the importance and urgency of funding targets being set at COP 11 and therefore urge Parties to adopt and rapidly use the proposed reporting framework for data submissions on existing biodiversity finance, and national funding needs and gaps. We propose the following priorities for consideration. 1. Setting funding targets at COP 11: Missing pieces under the SRM Endorse the use of the average annual biodiversity funding for the period as the baseline for resource mobilization. Adopt the preliminary reporting framework as given in the Annex of document UNEP/CBD/WG-RI/4/6/Add.1 with plans for its review based on experiences in its application by Parties. Parties, agencies and other institutions should allocate funds to allow for better engagement in the reporting process. We also call on Parties to urgently provide baseline data, i.e. the amount of funding allocated to biodiversity during to the CBD Secretariat by the end of June Request the Executive Secretary to elaborate additional guidance for Parties to adapt and select from the indicators for national and sub-national application, and to undertake an assessment and revision of the indicator framework based on Party experiences in its application. 2. Financial Needs Assessments Urge Parties to finalize their national funding needs assessments by the end of June 2012 in view of the utmost urgency to inform a decision on funding targets at COP 11.

2 Welcome the establishment of a High-Level Panel on Global Assessment of Resources for implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity , and urge the High-Level Panel to present a report to the COP 11. Welcome the preliminary results of the financial needs assessment for the GEF-6 replenishment ( ), which identifies a total need in the range of US$74 US$120 billion to implement the Strategic Plan and achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and to take these results as a basis for deciding on future funding targets. Urge Parties to integrate existing needs assessments into the decision making process on funding targets, in order to address the funding gap as soon as possible. 3. Sources of funding for implementation Urge Parties to consider all possible sources of new and additional funding, from public and private sources that can help meet the required level of investment. 4. Matching funding sources with needs Request the Executive Secretary or expert teams, such as the High-Level Panel on Global Assessment of Resources, to match the various funding sources with needs and to develop scenarios and proposals outlining how the funding gap can be bridged under each target using the most appropriate funding sources for each. 5. Strengthen national capacity Urge developed Parties to direct more resources to developing countries while enhancing their absorptive capacity, in order to increase effectiveness and sustainability of the international and national financial flows. 1. Background COP 10 agreed a specific process to assess financial needs and establish targets to increase financing in order to achieve the Aichi Targets of the Strategic Plan Clear recommendations from WG-RI help to pave the way for funding targets to be adopted at COP 11 in Hyderabad, India, in October

3 1. Setting funding targets at COP 11: Missing pieces under the Strategy for Resource Mobilization With reference to Aichi Target 20, we urge Parties to agree on the missing pieces needed to adopt funding targets at COP 11. At COP 10 (X/3 paragraph 8) Parties decided to adopt funding targets at COP 11, provided that: a) Robust baselines had been identified and endorsed and b) An effective reporting framework had been adopted. Agree on robust baselines Baselines are necessary to measure funding needs and progress in mobilizing funds to support biodiversity conservation at national and global levels. Various options for baselines are considered in document UNEP/CBD/WG-RI/4/6/Add.1; of these options we recommend that Parties use the average annual funding average for the years 2006 through 2010 as the baseline for resource mobilization. However, WGRI must first decide on the baseline period before the baselines can be agreed. We urge WGRI to endorse the use of the average annual biodiversity funding for the period as the baseline for resource mobilization. Adopt the Preliminary Reporting Framework Although the reporting framework proposed in UNEP/CBD/WG-RI/4/6/Add.1 is still preliminary, Parties should urgently make use of it, in a flexible way, to report on resources available and expended for biodiversity prior to 2011, with reference to the baseline period. After initial use by Parties it will be necessary to review the framework, as there remain some uncertainties: for example, it is unclear how the reporting framework would reflect the actual engagement of the various levels of governments in scaling up resources and mainstreaming biodiversity into accounting or development sector plans. However, Parties should urgently provide baseline data, i.e. the amount of funding allocated to biodiversity during in order to have the CBD Secretariat s report ready for COP 11. We call on WGRI to adopt the preliminary reporting framework as given in the Annex of document UNEP/CBD/WG-RI/4/6/Add.1 with plans for its review based on experiences in its application by Parties. Parties, agencies and other institutions should allocate funds to allow for better engagement in the reporting process. We also call on Parties to urgently provide baseline data, i.e. the amount of funding allocated to biodiversity during to the CBD Secretariat by End of June Enhance guidance on indicators The set of 15 indicators for the Strategy for Resource Mobilization approved at COP 10 is an important step towards monitoring the implementation of the Strategy for Resource Mobilization. Indicators should be clear, easily understood and applicable at various scales 3

4 (national, sub-national and local) and by different actors, so that Parties are equally capable of applying them and reporting back. Complex monitoring frameworks are time consuming and demand a high level of investment of capacity and human resources, which is not desirable. The preliminary reporting framework (UNEP/CBD/WG-RI/4/6/Add.1) reflects the 15 approved indicators, which look for both monetary units and numbers of countries or initiatives in place. Unfortunately, overlaps among the indicators elements offer a risk of double counting and misinterpretation of progress towards the yet-to-be-defined funding targets. We call on WGRI to request the Executive Secretary to elaborate additional guidance for Parties to adapt and select from the indicators for national and sub-national application, and to undertake an assessment and revision of the indicator framework based on Party experiences in its application. 2. Financial Needs Assessments Financial needs assessments must be developed in order to update the Strategic Plan Target 20 1 and finalize a consolidated decision on funding targets within the Strategy for Resource Mobilization. This should be informed by Parties resource needs assessments, the global High-level Panel on resource assessments, results of the financial needs assessment of GEF-6 replenishment, as well as available assessments from relevant organizations and institutions. Parties resource needs assessments We welcome the efforts of Parties 2 who have finalized their evaluation of the financial requirements to achieve the Aichi Targets within their country. These assessments should reflect needs, gaps and priorities on the basis of a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan process (NBSAP). However, the current timeline of 2015 for Parties to report on funding needs (Dec X/3 A, paragraph 9) is too distant to have any impact on the setting of funding targets at COP 11. Hence, Parties should substantially speed up the development of their funding needs assessments and report to the CBD Secretariat by mid Parties, the CBD Secretariat, civil society, local and indigenous communities, private sector entities and all other stakeholders must fulfill their shared responsibility to collecting and providing information to inform the assessments and reports using the preliminary reporting framework, described in UNEP/CBD/WG-RI/4/6/Add.1. 1 Target 20 states that By 2020, at the latest, the mobilization of financial resources for effectively implementing the Strategic Plan from all sources and in accordance with the consolidated and agreed process in the Strategy for Resource Mobilization should increase substantially from the current levels. This target will be subject to changes contingent to resources needs assessments to be developed and reported by Parties. 2 Ecuador, the European Union, India, Japan, and Kuwait as of 26 th of April A methodological guide on carrying out a national needs assessment is available for use and pilot testing. Please visit: or contact Lina Barrera at lbarrera@consevration.org to receive a copy. 4

5 We call on WGRI to urge Parties to finalize their national funding needs assessments by the end of June 2012 in view of the utmost urgency to inform a decision on funding targets at COP 11. Global resource needs assessment Supporting these efforts from a global perspective, we welcome the High-level Panel of experts co-sponsored by the governments of the United Kingdom and India to carry out a global assessment of the resources required to implement the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (SCBD/ITS/RS/78931 ( ) Notification to: CBD National Focal Points: Call for nominations for the High-level Panel on Global Assessment of Resources for implementing the Strategic Plan.) In order to inform the process of setting targets, the High-level Panel should release a report before COP 11. We call on WGRI to welcome the establishment of a High-Level Panel on Global Assessment of Resources for implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity , and urge the High-level Panel to present a report to the COP 11. Financial needs assessment for GEF-6 replenishment At COP 10 Parties decided (X/26) to conduct a full assessment of the amount of funds needed to assist developing countries and countries with economies in transition to implement the Convention during the sixth replenishment period of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Trust Fund ( ). The preliminary conclusions of the expert team are that activities qualifying for GEF support during the sixth replenishment period require estimated funding levels between US$ 74 billion and US$ 120 billion. The expert team considers that the estimate of US$ 96 billion is the most likely. This assessment does not cover all costs needed to implement the Strategic Plan and achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, but it gives an order of magnitude for the level of funding needed up to We call on WGRI to welcome the preliminary results of the financial needs assessment for the GEF-6 replenishment ( ), which identifies a total need in the range of US$74 US$120 billion to implement the Strategic Plan and achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and to take these results as a basis when deciding on future funding targets. 5

6 Existing studies on resource assessments In addition, existing studies from other institutions and NGOs indicate that biodiversity conservation is already underfunded, and this risks worsening 4. For example, a review of these studies shows that to expand marine and terrestrial protected area systems and manage them well will cost an additional $US14.9 billion over the next ten years, which implies a level of funding well beyond current levels. These studies should serve as a foundation for discussions on funding targets. We call on WGRI to urge Parties to integrate existing needs assessments into the decision making process on funding targets, in order to address the funding gap as soon as possible. 3. Sources of funding for implementation In order to move forward successfully with implementation of the Strategic Plan, reliable, predictable and adequate financial flows are needed both at national and international levels. The dialogue seminar Scaling up Biodiversity Finance (Quito, Ecuador, March 2012, discussed a diverse set of Biodiversity Financing Mechanisms that can contribute to the scaling up of biodiversity finance that is urgently needed. In addition to public flows, these discussions also included instruments such as redirected revenues from subsidy reform, aviation and financial transaction taxes, payments for ecosystem services and debt swaps that can contribute to scaling up biodiversity finance and leverage private sector capital towards conservation. Parties also need to make efforts to integrate the value and contribution of biodiversity into economic and social systems in order to incentivize conservation of biodiversity. With reference to Aichi Target 2, the many values of biodiversity must be integrated into the national accounting systems, development of strategies for poverty reduction, economic and human development and climate change mitigation and adaptation 5. At the same time, climate change financial mechanisms such as REDD+ or debt for adaptation swaps should create considerable co-benefits for biodiversity protection in order to increase the effective and efficient use of public and private sources. Referring to Aichi Target 3, we encourage parties to prioritize the process of reforming, phasing out or eliminating subsidies that provide incentives harmful to biodiversity 6,7. Such 4 For example: Financial Sustainability of Protected Areas in Latin America and the Caribbean: Investment Policy Guidance by UNDP and TNC ( Global Canopy Project s Little Biodiversity Finance Book provides a summary of existing studies ; Cambridge Conservation Initiative s study of costs to achieve Targets 11 and 12 Assessing conservation costs in support of the CBD Strategic Plan - see ); Business planning for Protected Areas approach provides guidance on filling the funding gap: 5 As per Strategy for Resource Mobilization Target 5. 6 Fishing, intensive agriculture and fossil energy production receive an estimated US$500 billion/year in public subsidies in OECD countries. 7 Public Incentives that Harm Biodiveristy. Centre d analyse stratégique. February

7 measures will simultaneously reduce the drivers of loss and potentially increase funds available for conservation, by redirecting savings to conservation efforts. Creating positive incentives for biodiversity conservation is also crucial to achieving the Aichi Targets and can potentially be funded from subsidy savings. Positive incentives constitute mechanisms that reward the protection of biodiversity and provide commensurate compensation for any opportunity cost of choosing conservation over exploitation, such as payment for ecosystem services (PES) with appropriate safeguards, tourism and natural resource fees and licenses, and trust funds (national or multi-country such as the Micronesia Conservation Trust Fund). We call on WGRI to urge Parties to consider all possible sources of new and additional funding, from public and private sources that can help meet the required level of investment. 4. Matching funding sources with needs Increased flows of new and additional public funding and Official Development Assistance (ODA) will especially be needed for certain activities that will set the foundation for achieving the Aichi Targets taking into account national interests and policy sovereignty. Other activities will need the strong support of the private sector. We propose a process matching various public and private sources with funding needs of the various Aichi Targets and suggest developing scenarios and proposals outlining how the funding gap can be bridged under each target using the appropriate funding sources for each. We call on WGRI to request the Executive Secretary or expert teams, such as the High- Level Panel on Global Assessment of Resources, to match the various funding sources with needs and to develop scenarios and proposals outlining how the funding gap can be bridged under each target using the most appropriate funding sources for each. 5. Strengthen national capacity At international and national level, it is crucial that Parties enhance effectiveness and efficiency of financial mechanisms and budgetary allocations. Strengthening in-country institutional frameworks including cross-sectoral planning and coordination mechanisms will not only improve recipient country absorptive capacity but also ensure an effective and sustainable allocation of national and international funding. In addition, with stronger institutional frameworks in place, it will be easier to mainstream biodiversity, develop synergies with sustainable development, and link biodiversity and climate finance. We urge Parties not to wait to have baselines set, all targets defined, and a reporting framework completed to start developing national strategies and providing for enabling conditions for mainstreaming biodiversity and biodiversity funding at the national level. We call on WGRI to urge developed Parties to direct more resources to developing countries while enhancing their absorptive capacity, in order to increase effectiveness and sustainability of the international and national financial flows. 7

8 For further information contact: Carolina Hazin BirdLife International Global Biodiversity Policy Coordinator mobile: Lina Barrera Conservation International Director, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Policy mobile: Leon Bennun BirdLife International Director of Science, Policy and Information mobile: Ariane Steinsmeier The Nature Conservancy Senior Policy Advisor for International Climate and Biodiversity Policy mobile: Guenter Mitlacher WWF Germany Director Biodiversity International Biodiversity Policy mobile: