GEF/R.

7/19
April 2, 2018
Fourth Meeting for the Seventh Replenishment of the GEF Trust Fund
April 25, 2018
Stockholm, Sweden

GEF-7 REPLENISHMENT

PROGRAMMING DIRECTIONS

(PREPARED BY THE SECRETARIAT)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................................................... V
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2
RATIONALE FOR GEF-7 PROGRAMMING ARCHITECTURE .......................................................................................................... 5
GEF-7 PROGRAMMING ARCHITECTURE ................................................................................................................................ 7
BIODIVERSITY FOCAL AREA STRATEGY……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..13
GLOBAL CONTEXT OF BIODIVERSITY.................................................................................................................................... 13
CBD/COP 13 GUIDANCE TO THE GEF ............................................................................................................................... 14
GEF-7 BIODIVERSITY FOCAL AREA INVESTMENTS AND ASSOCIATED PROGRAMMING ................................................................... 14
Objective 1. Mainstream biodiversity across sectors as well as landscapes and seascapes…………………………. 16
Objective 2. Address direct drivers to protect habitats and species ……………………………………………………………. 27
Objective 3. Further develop biodiversity policy and institutional frameworks……………………………………………. 31
CLIMATE CHANGE FOCAL AREA STRATEGY……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 34
GLOBAL CONTEXT OF CLIMATE CHANGE .............................................................................................................................. 34
CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES (COP) GUIDANCE TO THE GEF ................................................................................................. 35
GEF-7 CLIMATE CHANGE FOCAL AREA INVESTMENTS AND ASSOCIATED PROGRAMMING ............................................................. 36
Objective 1. Promote innovation and technology transfer for sustainable energy breakthroughs………………. 37
Objective 2. Demonstrate mitigation options with systemic impacts………………………………………………………….. 39
Objective 3. Foster enabling conditions for mainstreaming mitigation concerns into sustainable development
strategies……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 41
LAND DEGRADATION FOCAL AREA STRATEGY…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 44
GLOBAL CONTEXT OF LAND DEGRADATION .......................................................................................................................... 44
GEF-7 LAND DEGRADATION FOCAL AREA INVESTMENTS AND ASSOCIATED PROGRAMMING ......................................................... 47
Objective 1. Support on the ground implementation of SLM to achieve LDN………………………………………………. 48
Objective 2. Creating an enabling environment to support voluntary LDN target implementation……………… 50
INTERNATIONAL WATERS FOCAL AREA STRATEGY………………………………………………………………………………………….. 53
GLOBAL CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL WATERS .................................................................................................................... 53
GEF-7 INTERNATIONAL WATERS FOCAL AREA ..................................................................................................................... 55
Objective 1. Strengthening Blue Economy opportunities…………………………………………………………………………….. 56
Objective 2. Improve management in the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ)…………………………………. 60
Objective 3. Enhance water security in freshwater ecosystems…………………………………………………………………… 61
CHEMICALS AND WASTE FOCAL AREA STRATEGY……………………………………………………………………………………………. 66
GLOBAL CONTEXT OF CHEMICALS AND WASTE ..................................................................................................................... 66
GEF-7 CHEMICALS AND WASTE PROGRAMMING.................................................................................................................. 68
Program 1. Industrial Chemicals Program…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 71
Program 2. Agriculture Chemicals Program………………………………………………………………………………………………… 73
Program 3. Least Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States Program………………………………… 74
Program 4. Enabling Activities……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 75
IMPACT PROGRAMS 76
FOOD SYSTEMS, LAND USE, AND RESTORATION IMPACT PROGRAM.......................................................................................... 76
Global Context……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 76
Program Description…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 80
Private Sector Engagement………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 87
Criteria and Key Interventions for GEF Financing………………………………………………………………………………………… 89

ii
 Existing initiatives and Potential Partners…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 91
Contributions to the Multilateral Environmental Agreements…………………………………………………………………….. 92
Comparative Advantage of the Global Environment Facility……………………………………………………………………….. 92
Global Environmental Benefits……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 93
SUSTAINABLE CITIES IMPACT PROGRAM .............................................................................................................................. 98
Global Context……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 98
Program Description…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 100
Objectives, Key Interventions, and Criteria for GEF Financing…………………………………………………………………….102
Existing initiatives and Potential Partners………………………………………………………………………………………………… .110
Contributions to Multilateral Environmental Agreements…………………………………………………………………………. 111
Comparative Advantage of the Global Environment Facility……………………………………………………………………… 112
Global Environmental Benefits…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..113
SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT IMPACT PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... 115
Global Context………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 115
Program Description…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 116
Amazon Sustainable Landscapes ............................................................................................................... 117
Congo Basin Sustainable Landscapes ........................................................................................................ 121
Dryland Sustainable Landscapes ............................................................................................................... 124
Contributions to Multilateral Environmental Agreements…………………………………………………………………………. 127
Comparative Advantage of the Global Environment Facility……………………………………………………………………… 128
Global Environmental Benefits…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..129
PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….131
OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE FOR GEF-7’S ROLL OUT…………………………………………………………………………………………. 137
CORPORATE PROGRAMS FOR GEF-7……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 140
BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................................. 140
SMALL GRANTS PROGRAM (SGP) .................................................................................................................................... 140
COUNTRY SUPPORT PROGRAM (CSP)............................................................................................................................... 141

FIGURES
Figure 1. Benefits of a Blue Economy approach………………………………………………………………………. 57
Figure 2. Sustainable Integrated Landscape……………………………………………………………………………..77
Figure 3. Land management examples from Sumatra, Indonesia……………………………………………..82
Figure 4. Theory of Change……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 84

TABLES
Table 1. Architecture of the GEF-7 Programming......................................................................... 11
Table 2. CBD Guidance and Delivery Mechanism in GEF-7 .......................................................... 15
Table 3. COP Decisions of Relevance for GEF-7 Land Degradation Focal Area Strategy .............. 46
Table 4. GEF’s role in the different Chemicals and Waste multilateral architecture. .................. 66
Table 5. Global Environmental Benefits……………………………………………………………………………………94
Table 6. Existing global collaborations and initiatives relevant to the IP ..................................... 95
Table 7. Global Environmental Benefits………………………………………………………………………………….114

iii
Table 8. Global Environmental Benefits……………........................................................................ 130

BOXES
Box 1. Rio Conventions Guidance to Promote Integration............................................................. 3
Box 2. GEF-6 NGI Select Projects………………………........................................................................ 133
Box 3. Examples of Private Sector Involvement ......................................................................... 134
Box 4: Strategic Objectives of the Country Support Program by GEF Stakeholder Groups ....... 141

iv
List of acronyms
ABNJ: Areas beyond national jurisdiction CSP: Country support program
ABS: Access and benefit sharing protocol CTCN: Climate technology center and
AfDB: African development bank network
APEC: Asia-Pacific economic cooperation CWR: Crop wild relatives
ARPA: Amazon region protected areas DDT: Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
ASGM: Artisanal and small-scale gold ECOFAC: Regional program for the
mining conservation & rational utilization of
forest ecosystems in central Africa
ASL: Amazon sustainable landscapes
program EEZ: Exclusive economic zone
BIOFIN: Biodiversity finance initiative ESA: European space agency
BUR: Biennial update report ESG: Environmental, social and corporate
governance
C&W: Chemicals and waste
ESOP: Employee stock ownership plan
CACILM: Central Asian countries’ initiative
for land management E-waste: Electrical and electronic waste
CAFI: Central Africa initiative FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization
CARPE: Central African regional program for FINTECC: Finance and technology transfer
the environment center for climate change
CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity FReSH: Food reform for sustainability and
health
CBIT: Capacity-building Initiative for
Transparency FSP: Full sized project
CBNRM: Community based natural GCF: The green climate fund
resources management GCIP: Global cleantech innovation program
CCCD: Cross-cutting capacity development GDP: Gross domestic product
program GEBs: Global Environmental Benefits
CE: Circular economy GEF: Global environment facility
CGF: Consumer goods forum GEF-4: Global Environment Facility fourth
CIF: Climate investment fund replenishment period
CITES: Convention on international trade in GEF-5: Global Environment Facility fifth
endangered species of wild fauna and replenishment period
flora GEF-6: Global Environment Facility sixth
CO2: Carbon dioxide replenishment period
COMIFAC: Central African forests GEF-7: Global Environment Facility seventh
commission replenishment period
COP: Conference of the parties GEFSEC: Global environment facility
COP-MOP: The conference of the parties secretariat
serving as the meeting of the parties GHG: Greenhouse gas
CPB: Cartagena protocol on biosafety GIZ: German development agency
CPIC: Coalition for private investment in GloBallast: Globallast partnership program
conservation GPS: Global positioning system
CRIC: Committee to review the GPSC: Global platform for sustainable cities
implementation of the convention GSIA: Global sustainable investment
CSO: Civil society organisation alliance

v
GW: Giga watt MEA: Multilateral environmental
GWP: Global partnership on wildlife agreement
conservation and crime prevention for MFA: Multi focal area
sustainable development program Mha: Million hectares
Habitat III: The United Nations conference MIA: Minamata convention initial
on housing and sustainable urban assessment
development MNA: Middle East North Africa
HBCD: Hexabromocyclododecane MPA: Marine protected areas
HBDE: Hexabromodiphenyl ether and MSP: Medium sized project
heptabromodiphenyl ether
MT: Megaton
HCB: Hexachlorobenzene
NAP: National action program
HCFC: Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
NBF: National biosafety framework
HCV: High conservation value
NBSAP: National biodiversity strategy and
HFC: Hydrofluorocarbon action plan
HHP: Highly hazardous pesticides NC: National communication
IAP: Integrated approach pilot NDC: Nationally determined contribution
IAS: Invasive alien species NGI: Non-grant-instrument
ICLEI: International council for local NGO: Non-government organization
environmental initiatives
NIP: National implementation plan
IEO: Independent evaluation office
NOx: Nitrogen oxides
IFC: International finance corporation
NPK: Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium
IMO: International maritime organization
NUA: New urban agenda
INDC: Intended nationally determined
ODP: Ozone depletion potential
contribution
ODS: Ozone depleting substances
IP: Impact program
OECD: Organization for economic co-
IPCC: Intergovernmental panel on climate
operation and development
change
OPS: Overall performance study
IUCN: International union for conservation
of nature PA: Programmatic approach
IUU: Illegal, unreported, unregulated PBDE: Polybrominated diphenyl ethers
IW: International waters PCB: Polychlorinated biphenyl
IW-LEARN: International waters learning PCBS: Polychlorinated biphenyls
exchange & resource network PCCD/PCDF: Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-
KBA: Key biodiversity area dioxins and dibenzofurans
LD: Land degradation PCN: Polychlorinated naphthalenes
LDC: Least developed country PCP: Pentachlorophenol and its salts and
esters
LDCF: Least developed countries fund
PeCB: Pentachlorobenzene
LDN: Land degradation neutrality
PES: Payment for ecosystem services
LME: Transboundary large marine
ecosystems PFD: Programmatic framework document
M&E: Monitoring and evaluation PFOS/PFOA: perfluorooctane sulfonate and
perfluorooctanoic acid
MA: The millennium ecosystem assessment
PIC: Prior informed consent
MAT: Mutually agreed terms

vi
PMIS: Project management information UNCBD: United Nations convention on
system biological diversity
POP: Persistent organic pollutant UNCCD: United Nations convention to
PSC: Program steering committee combat desertification
R&D: Research and development UNDP: United Nations development
REDD +: Reducing emissions from program
deforestation and forest degradation in UNEP: United Nations environment
developing countries program
RFMO: Regional fisheries management UNFCCC: United Nations framework
organization convention on climate change
Rio+20: United Nations conference on UNFF: United Nations forum on forests
sustainable development UPOP: Unintentionally produced persistent
S&P: Standard & Poor's organic pollutant
SAICM: Strategic approach to international USAID: United States agency for
chemicals management international development
SAP: Strategic Action Program USD: United States Dollars
SBN: Sustainable banking network WAVES: Wealth accounting and valuation
SCCF: Special climate change fund of ecosystem services
SDG: Sustainable Development Goal WISP: World initiative for sustainable
pastoralism
SEEA: System of Environmental-Economic
Accounting WOCAT: World overview of conservation
agriculture techniques
SEforALL: Sustainable energy for all
WRI: World resource institute
SFI: Sustainable forestry initiative
WWF: World Wildlife Fund
SFM: Sustainable forest management
SGP: Small grants program
SIDS: Small island developing states
SLM: Sustainable land management
SME: Small medium enterprise
SOx: Sulphur oxides
STAR: System for the transparent allocation
of resources
tCO2e: Ton carbon dioxide equivalent
TDA: Transboundary Diagnostic Analyses
TEEB: The economics of ecosystems and
biodiversity
TFA2020: Tropical forest alliance 2020
TFCA: Trans frontier conservation areas
TNA: Technology needs assessments
tRFMO: Tuna regional fisheries
management organization
TWAP: Transboundary Waters Assessment
Program
UCLG: United cities and local governments

vii
GEF-7 PROGRAMMING

1
INTRODUCTION

1. In the face of the scale and the urgency of the threats facing the planet, and the emerging
opportunities to significantly accelerate and scale up its positive impacts, the GEF cannot afford
to stand still. The GEF needs to seize opportunities to make a bigger difference. Going forward,
the GEF must strategically focus its investments in areas where it can help catalyze the necessary
change in key systems, and leverage multi-stakeholder coalitions in alignment with countries’
demand and commitment under the various multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) for
which the GEF serves as financial mechanism.

2. The GEF has a unique mandate across multiple MEAs. The GEF has a formal mandate as a
financing mechanism under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations
Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Minamata Convention and the Stockholm Convention, and it
supports countries with economies in transition in their implementation of the Montreal
Protocol. GEF support has been critical in allowing parties to translate these agreements into
national action, and in ensuring transparency of action through effective reporting from
countries to conferences of the parties (COPs). While the GEF’s broad responsibilities under
various MEAs may add complexity to the GEF’s work, these responsibilities are often mutually
supportive, and makes the GEF uniquely placed to harness synergies across the different MEAs
in line with a more holistic, systems approach. This is also in line with a growing body of recent
GEF guidance and decisions coming from various MEA COPs requesting GEF to foster integration
as well as promote synergies among actions and strategies. Work done through the GEF
contributes to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and also responds
to MEA guidance and decisions related to SDGs (Box 1).

2
 Box 1. Rio Conventions Guidance to Promote Integration

At the UNCBD’s most recent COP13, held in December 2016, Parties agreed a Four-year Framework
of Program Priorities for the Seventh Replenishment Period (2018-2022) of the GEF Trust Fund
(Decision CBD/COP/DEC/XIII/21). Within the framework, the value of synergies among MEAs was
recognized as follows: “The framework recognizes the opportunities for synergy, inherent in the
unique institutional design of the Global Environment Facility, with related multilateral
environmental agreements, as well as synergies with the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular, Sustainable
Development Goals 14 and 15.” The guidance to the GEF also states that the: “framework
encourages integrated approaches to project design as well as global and regional projects, noting
that regional approaches are indispensable for addressing certain elements of the biodiversity
agenda…”. It encourages collaboration at the national level among national focal points of the
Convention and its Protocols, of related environmental agreements, and of GEF, including through
GEF-supported projects.”
In the UNCCD, parties have made key decisions that underscore the cross-cutting nature of the land
and desertification agenda. For instance, in 2015, the UNCCD COP12 adopted a new concept of land
degradation neutrality (LDN) as a tool to foster implementation of the Convention. As the LDN
concept encompasses trends in carbon stocks above and below ground, land productivity, and land
cover, its recognition within the work of the Convention signaled the readiness of the Convention to
address the land issue together with the biodiversity and climate agenda. At the recent UNCCD
COP13, Parties “Welcome[d] the continued support for the implementation of the Convention, in
particular the funding of enabling activities by the Global Environment Facility in the context of
Sustainable Development Goal target 15.3.” and also “Invite[d] the Global Environment Facility to
continue its support for the implementation of the Convention under GEF-7, in the context of
Sustainable Development Goals, in particular target 15.3.” and furthermore “Encourage[d] the
Global Environment Facility to continue and further enhance means to harness opportunities for
leveraging synergies among the Rio Conventions and other relevant multilateral environmental
agreements, as well as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. With COP guidance to
support the voluntary national target setting exercise for LDN for GEF eligible countries that wish to
set targets, the GEF has been entrusted with additional mandates to support activities that facilitate
synergy. Furthermore, the CCD COP decision (decision 14/COP.13) references “several Sustainable
Development Goals, including those relating to climate change”: “Further invites multilateral
development banks, international development finance institutions, bilateral development
organizations, the Global Environment Facility, climate finance institutions including the Green
Climate Fund and the Adaptation Fund, the LDN Fund, as well as non-governmental funding facilities,
including foundations and private sector entities, to: Scale up financing for activities related to
combating desertification/land degradation and drought, achieving land degradation neutrality and
advancing the implementation of the Convention, taking into consideration the multiple benefits of
these investments and their contribution to the achievement of several Sustainable Development
Goals, including those relating to climate change.

Finally, with the UNFCCC’s Paris Agreement going into effect, the UNFCCC COP in 2016 provided
various guidance to the GEF to help countries towards implementation of action. Specifically, the
GEF was encouraged “to continue its efforts to encourage countries to align, as appropriate, their
Global Environment Facility programming with priorities as identified in their nationally determined
contributions, where they exist, during the seventh replenishment, and to continue to promote
synergies across its focal areas.”

3
3. The GEF is not the financial mechanism for the SDGs; however, its activities produce
global environmental benefits that play a role in achieving the aims of the SDGs, in particular the
goals on climate action, life below water, and life on land which reflect to a large extent the GEF’s
core mission. The inclusion of these three goals among the SDGs reflects the view, as expressed
in Agenda 2030 that “planet Earth and its ecosystems are our common home” and that “the
survival of many societies, and of the biological support systems of the planet, is at risk”. The
SDGs are highly inter-related, and through GEF’s investments aimed at transforming key
economic systems, the GEF will also contribute to the achievement of a number of other goals.
For example, GEF investments in sustainable intensification of agriculture can contribute to
achieving Goal 2 on No Hunger, investments supporting the energy transformation can help
achieve Goal 7 on access to energy, and GEF investments in sustainable commodity supply chains
and improved approaches to material production and consumption within the context of the
circular economy could contribute to goal 12 on sustainable production and consumption. GEF-
7 programming also follows the goals and principles as set out in the GEF’s Policy on Gender
Equality, i.e. to promote gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls in support
of the GEF’s mandate to achieve global environmental benefits.

4. GEF2020 and its emerging implementation experiences during GEF-6 provide a strong
basis on which to move forward. GEF2020 places emphasis on the importance of the GEF to focus
on addressing key drivers of environmental degradation. GEF-6 has produced a number of
interventions, including the Integrated Approach Pilots, that proactively address the underlying
drivers of global environmental degradation through committed multi-stakeholder coalitions. To
overcome multiple barriers, in the context of increasingly complex environmental challenges, a
variety of influencing models are being used, which are often working towards delivering results
across multiple geographies, sectors and markets. At their core, these interventions seek to
achieve market or behavioral transformations, and in many cases to integrate focal area and
convention priorities into a broader set of policies, strategies, programs and actions.

5. Experiences from GEF-6—including from the IAPs—suggest strong country demand for
GEF to offer platforms where countries can come together around common challenges, as has
been seen in the Integrated Approach Pilots. These platforms are now providing a variety of
services from knowledge sharing, to lessons learned, to technology transfer to name a few. These
platforms also bring together expertise both from within the network of participating countries
and agencies, as well as from the wider community of practice in a specific technical area relevant
for the program.

6. In GEF-7, programming should further emphasize tackling major drivers of environmental

degradation to achieve systems change. This would require the GEF to adjust to evolving global
context and emerging opportunities in several ways. GEF programming should:

• Become more selective, to focus GEF resources on areas where significant impact can be
achieved.

• Mobilize and strengthen diverse coalitions of actors, especially to leverage the private
sector.
4
 • Respond more effectively to country priorities, as expressed in e.g. INDCs and NBSAPS,
consistent with countries’ commitments to MEAs.

Rationale for GEF-7 Programming Architecture

7. GEF’s mission is to safeguard the global environment by supporting developing countries

in meeting their commitments to multiple environmental conventions and by creating and
enhancing partnerships at national, regional and global scales. The GEF is also an innovator and
catalyst that supports multi-stakeholder alliances to preserve threatened ecosystems on land and
in the oceans, build greener cities, boost food security and promote clean energy for a more
prosperous, climate-resilient world.

8. The GEF-7 programming architecture aims at further advancing the GEF2020 vision that
pursues greater impact per unit of investment by tackling the drivers of environmental
degradation, promoting greater sectoral and thematic integration, and contributing to systems
change in key areas that impact the GEF mission. Many of the most pressing and complex
environmental problems that the GEF deals with today operate at regional and global scales,
requiring multi-stakeholder collaboration (Bodin, 2017). According to Bodin’s (2017) 1 recent
seminal review in Science, “A growing amount of empirical evidence shows the effectiveness of
actors engaged in different collaborative governance arrangements in addressing environmental
problems”, and suggest it is the “...only feasible option to address environmental problems at
these scales.”

9. It is increasingly recognized through scientific evidence, evolving convention guidance,

trends in country-level programming, and GEF’s own operational experience anchored on
evaluative processes, that safeguarding the health of the global environment requires both
responding to pressures and an expanding focus on addressing the drivers of environmental
degradation. The latter calls for more integration across sectors and promotion of
transformational change in key economic systems that continue to erode the health of the global
environment. This is consistent and responds to STAP’s guidance presented to the 50th Meeting
of the GEF Council and to the 5th GEF Assembly recommending that (a) environmental
degradation must be tackled in a more integrated and holistic way, (b) GEF investments be made
coherent with sustainable development objectives, and (c) that the GEF should continue to be
catalytic and innovative while actively seeking to effect permanent and transformational change.

10. This approach tends to result in more sustainability of the investments GEF provides and
leads to broader adoption, as pointed out by evaluations conducted by the GEF IEO, for example
in OPS5 where it notes that broader adoption manifests itself through different mechanisms,
including “scaling-up, where GEF-supported initiatives are implemented at a larger geographical
scale, often expanded to include new aspects or concerns that may be political, administrative,

1 Bodin,O. (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science 357,
659 (2017). Örjan Bodin is a research scientist at the Stockholm Resilience Center where he develops theoretical model and
conducts empirical studies of social-ecological systems as complex and intricate webs of interactions between, and among,
different ecological and/or social components.

5
economic, or ecological in nature”. OPS5 further mentions that market change, “[pertaining] to
GEF-supported initiatives catalyzing market transformation by influencing the supply of and/or
demand for goods and services that contribute to global environmental benefits” also promote
broader adoption. Often, the scale of environmental variation and the scale of social organization
in which the responsibility for management resides are misaligned, making sectoral and
fragmented investments inefficient (Cumming, 2006) 2. Hence, the proposed route for GEF-7
resource programming should prove more cost-effective and longer-lasting.

11. GEF’s early experience has already provided evidence that while there is a need to act
with focused action in specific areas, such as the protection of biodiversity, integrated
investments in land use and food system reforms are increasingly required if global
environmental degradation is to be arrested.

12. The MEAs themselves are recognizing the need to promote more synergies between their
respective objectives, particularly when it comes to action at the national level funded by the
GEF and other financiers. Akhtar-Schuster et al. (2017) 3 point out that UNCCD's land-based
approach offers an appropriate anchor for blending relevant priority actions under the three Rio
Conventions using the linkages that exists between land and biodiversity, and land and climate
change, via an integrated framework of complementary rehabilitation, restoration and
sustainable land management interventions.

13. With the growing realization by countries that integration was and greater impact were
not only achievable but desirable, there has been a significant growth in the share of multi-focal
area programming. During GEF-4, 13% of GEF funding was approved as multi-focal area projects.
This figure increased to 28% in GEF-5. In the current GEF-6 cycle, this reached 54% of the
resources. Some early trends are encouraging. OPS6 finds that multi-focal area projects are
better at achieving global environmental and socio-economic outcomes at completion compared
to single-focal area projects.

14. MFA projects are better in delivering outcomes, but they face higher transaction costs
associated with multiple tracking and reporting on focal area-specific indicators. Furthermore, in
some instances MFA projects emerge less by aiming at multiple benefits and integration and
more to enhance the overall financial package associated with the investment. Given this, IAPs
have been proposed and are being implemented with the common objective to address global
environmental issues more holistically. The IAPs aim to support activities in recipient countries
that can help them generate global environmental benefits that correspond to more than one
global environmental convention or GEF focal area, by tackling the underlying drivers of
environmental degradation. More complex programs and sets of child projects will tend to offer
more entries for development links due to multi-sectoral approach, multi-stakeholder
engagements and platforms, and potential for delivering socio-economic co-benefits, along with

2 Cumming, G. S., Cumming, D. H. M. and Redman, C. L. (2006). Scale Mismatches in Social-Ecological Systems: Causes,
Consequences, and Solutions. Ecology and Society 11(1): 14
3 Akhtar-Schuster, A., Stringer, L. C., Erlewein, A., Metternicht, G., Minelli, S., Safriel, U., and Sommer, S. (2017). Unpacking the

concept of land degradation neutrality and addressing its operation through the Rio Conventions. Journal of Environmental
Management 195, 4-15.

6
enhancing the sustainability of the associated investments. Child projects generally performed
better than stand-alone projects on all rating dimensions, especially on execution quality,
sustainability and M&E design. Child projects have also improved in design and are now better
linked to the overall program in terms of objectives, result based management and M&E.

GEF-7 Programming Architecture

15. The GEF-7 Programming Directions is seeking maximum impact across its focal areas
through integrated programming. The GEF2020 strategy argues that achieving the objectives
of multilateral environmental agreements requires the GEF to support country priorities that
are ultimately aimed at tackling the drivers of environmental degradation in an integrated
fashion. For this reason, the focal areas, which remain the central organizing feature in the
GEF-7 Programming Directions, provide countries with the the opportunity to participate in
selected “Impact Programs” focusing on (i) Food systems, Land Use and Restoration; (ii)
Sustainable Cities; and (iii) Sustainable Forest Management. The Impact Programs are designed
to help countries pursue holistic and integrated approaches for transformational change in
these key systems in line with countries’ national development priorities. The Impact Programs
hold the potential to enhance synergies and integration across GEF focal areas, as illustrated
in table 1 below. Impact programs will also allow the GEF to better crowd-in other
stakeholders, including the private sector, enhance knowledge sharing and learning, and
ensure a more effective use of GEF resources. They will help ensure that each of the GEF’s focal
areas provides maximum contribution to the goals of their respective conventions as described
in the GEF focal areas.

16. Certain GEF focal area objectives are best pursued through discrete, single-focus
interventions. GEF support plays a critical role in supporting countries to translate MEA
commitments into action. Consequently, each focal area also provides countries with the
opportunity to pursue such interventions as best aligned with their priorities. The GEF will
nevertheless examine possibilities for achieving multiple, cross-focal area benefits also from
these investments. For example, many interventions focusing on mainstreaming biodiversity
would have climate-related benefits, as would many interventions in support of land degradation
neutrality.

17. GEF-7 programming in each of the GEF’s Focal Areas follows COP guidance as described
below:

• Biodiversity Focal Area. The programming options included in the proposed Biodiversity
Focal Area strategy respond directly to the GEF-7 Four-year Framework of Program
Priorities agreed by countries at CBD COP13, as well as the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity,
2011-2020. Specifically, the proposed Biodiversity Focal Area is built around achieving the
Four-year Program’s three objectives: 1) Mainstream Biodiversity Across Sectors as well
as Landscapes and Seascapes, 2) Address Direct Drivers to Protect Habitats and Species,
and 3) Further Develop Biodiversity Policy and Institutional Frameworks..

7
• Climate Change Focal Area. Guidance from the UNCCC COP23 encouraged the GEF to
further enhance engagement with the private sector and invited the GEF to support
developing countries in piloting priority technology projects to foster innovation and
investment. The COP further welcomed the operationalization of the CBIT. Prior guidance
also encouraged alignment of GEF-7 programming with priorities identified in nationally
determined contributions (NDC) and to continue to promote synergies across focal areas.
In view of the GEF’s comparative advantage to foster innovative project designs, its
proven track record of support for technology transfer, and its ability to attract private
sector co-financing, and pursuing complementarity with the GCF, the proposed GEF-7
Climate Change Focal Area Strategy is focused on the following objectives: 1) Promote
Innovation and Technology Transfer for Sustainable Energy Breakthroughs, 2)
Demonstrate Mitigation Options with Systemic Impacts , and 3) Foster Enabling
Conditions for Mainstreaming Mitigation Concerns into Sustainable Development
Strategies.

• Land Degradation Focal Area. Participants at UNCCD COP 13 invited the GEF to continue
its support for the implementation of the Convention under GEF-7, in the context of the
Sustainable Development Goals, in particular target 15.3. The GEF was also invited, during
GEF-7, to continue providing technical and financial support for capacity-building,
reporting and voluntary national LDN target-setting and implementation. The COP13
encourages the GEF to continue and further enhance means to harness opportunities for
leveraging synergies among the Rio Conventions and other relevant multilateral
environmental agreements, as well as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The
proposed GEF-7 Land Degradation Focal Area seeks to achieve the following objectives:
1) Enhance on-the-ground Implementation of SLM using the LDN tool, and 2) Create an
Enabling Environment to Support Voluntary LDN Target Implementation.

• Chemicals and Waste Focal Area. The Chemicals and Waste Focal area directly responds
to the needs expressed by Participants at the 2017 BRS COP relating to the Stockholm
Convention and by participants to Minamata Convention negotiations (the latter entered
into force on August 16, 2017; COP 1 was held in September 2017), and responds to
certain requests from the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management
(SAICM). Finally, it supports the compliance needs of countries with economies in
transition to meet their obligations under the Montreal Protocol. The Chemicals and
Waste Focal Area focuses on eliminating chemicals covered by the above conventions
that are used in or emitted from industrial and agricultural sectors.

• International Waters Focal Area. While not responding directly to a convention, the GEF
International Waters Focal Area fills a critical gap in the global management of
transboundary water resources, both marine and freshwater. GEF IW interventions are
built on initial assessment of threats and opportunities, through the so-called
Transboundary Diagnostic Analyses, which are followed up by the development of
regionally agreed Strategic Action Programs (SAPs). Aligned with SAPs, the objectives of
8
 the International Waters Focal Area are 1) Strengthening Blue Economy Opportunities
(which includes sustaining healthy coastal and marine ecosystems; catalyzing sustainable
fisheries management; and addressing pollution reduction of both nutrients and marine
plastics), 2) Improving Management in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ), and 3)
Enhancing Water Security in Freshwater Ecosystems. These objectives will be supported
by investments in large marine ecosystems, transboundary rivers, lakes, aquifers and
areas beyond national jurisdiction.

18. The proposed GEF-7 programming architecture also includes selected “Impact Programs”
to leverage the GEF’s ability to design and implement integrated solutions. Significant results in
each Focal Area in GEF-7 is proposed to come from the implementation of a set of cross-cutting
“Impact Programs”. A central feature of the Impact Programs is that they deliver global
environmental benefits across several GEF focal areas, and that their aggregate results will be
tracked based on a relatively small number of indicators closely aligned with convention and
global environmental benefit priorities. Through the Impact Programs, the GEF will be better
positioned to help countries pursue holistic and integrated approaches to promote
transformational change in key economic systems in line with countries’ national development
priorities. IPs hold the potential to enhance synergies, integration, and impact of GEF
investments, to promote a more effective use of resources, and to crowd-in private sector
funding.

19. The three IPs collectively address key drivers of environmental degradation, and offer the
potential for the GEF to contribute to systemic change:

• Food, Land Use and Restoration. Given the fact that increasing demand for food is one of
the major drivers of biodiversity loss, land degradation and depletion of water resources,
this Impact Program will support countries’ efforts to ensure that productive lands are
embedded within landscapes that are providing ecosystem services as well as protecting
the natural ecosystems and soil on which they depend. Achieving this transition will
require a holistic, system-wide approach integrating both horizontal (land and natural
resources) and vertical (food value and supply chain) dimensions. Based on the country-
specific context, the GEF will help countries pursue comprehensive and system-wide
planning approaches to underpin the transformation of food and land use systems. In
order to accommodate differences between countries with respect to opportunities for
leveraging GEF financing, the proposed IP will focus on three interrelated priorities as
“entry points”: promoting sustainable food systems to tackle negative externalities in
entire value chains, promoting deforestation-free agricultural commodity supply chains,
and promoting large-scale restoration of degraded landscapes for sustainable production
and ecosystem services. These entry points will meet the needs of diverse recipient
countries aspiring to transform their food and land-use systems in a manner that
generates multiple global environmental benefits.

9
 • Sustainable Cities. Building on the GEF’s existing work in this area, this proposed Impact
Program would directly support cities to pursue sustainable urban planning through
spatially integrated solutions in energy, buildings, transport, urban food systems,
management of municipal solid waste, and utilization of green space and infrastructure.
The IP will further strengthen the GEF’s catalytic impact by enhancing the global
knowledge platform created under the GEF-6 Sustainable Cities IAP program. The
platform brings cities and global expertise together and is a forum where cities can tap
into best practices for sustainable urban planning, and also share their experience with
others. This will help cities better capture opportunities to increase the productivity of
existing urban infrastructure, and incorporate innovations with the potential to revamp
how cities are developed and operate across a range of areas, including evidence-based
spatial planning, decarbonizing urban infrastructure, building resilience, cascading
financing solutions for urban sustainability, green infrastructure and nature-based
solutions, and conservation of globally important biodiversity in urban landscapes.

• Sustainable Forest Management (SFM). The SFM Impact Program will focus on a limited
number of key transboundary biomes of global importance: The Amazon, the Congo
Basin, and important Dryland landscapes. These three biomes are major integrated
ecosystems and perhaps the last places where a concerted SFM approach 4 focusing on
their ecological integrity and functioning can truly transform the course of development
and produce multiple benefits for biodiversity, climate change, and land degradation.
Interventions would focus on designing and implementing collaborative approaches to
productive and conservation land uses that will provide for livelihoods while preserving
the ecological integrity and global environmental value of ecosystems.

20. Focal areas remain the central organizing framework in the GEF-7 delivery model. Each
focal area strategy is designed to ensure that the GEF provides maximum impacts on the goals of
their respective conventions. Countries choose among the Focal Area programming options in
accordance with their needs and priorities. For each Rio Focal Area, the programming options
include a menu of investments and relevant impact programs. The GEF-7 Programming
architecture is illustrated in Table 1 below.

4 SFM is defined in line with UNGA (2008) as a “dynamic and evolving concept, which aims to maintain and enhance the
economic, social and environmental values of all types of forests, for the benefit of present and future generations”. GEF’s
approach will thus encompass broad landscapes, where forests and trees outside forests are important elements, to be
managed for conservation, production or multiple purposes, to provide a range of forest ecosystem goods and services at the
local, national, regional and global levels.

10
 Table 1. Architecture of the GEF-7 Programming

Focal Areas Biodiversity Climate Change Land Degradation International Waters Chemicals and
Waste
Programming Areas to be addressed through Focal Areas Investments
• Biodiversity • Innovation and • Creating Enabling • Strengthening Blue Economy • Industrial
mainstreaming technology transfer for Environments for LDN Opportunities Chemicals
• Global Wildlife sustainable energy • LDN Target setting • Improving Management in • Agricultural
Program breakthroughs • Enabling Activities ABNJs Chemicals
• Natural capital • NDC preparation and • Enhancing Water Security in • LDC/SIDS
• Agrobiodiversity implementation Freshwater Ecosystems support
• Inclusive • Capacity Building • Enabling
conservation Initiative for Activities
• Invasive species Transparency
• Protected areas • Enabling Activities
• Biosafety
• ABS
• Enabling Activities
Objectives to be addressed through Impact Programs that promote convention priorities
Food Systems, Land • Manage biodiversity • Land-based and value • Sustainable land • Integrated Land and water • Replacement of
Use, and in production chain GHG mitigation management management POPS and
Restoration landscapes (sequestration and • Diversification of crop • Prevention of nutrient relevant HHP’s
Impact Program • Harnessing avoidance) and livestock systems pollution 5 used in the
biodiversity for • Restoration of global food
sustainable degraded production supply chain
agriculture landscapes • Disposal of
• Secure high obsolete
conservation value agricultural
forest (HCVF) areas in chemicals that
production landscape are POPs.
Sustainable Cities • Integrating • Urban-related GHG • Sustainable • Shared water ecosystems • Reduction of
Impact Program biodiversity and emissions avoidance management of (fresh or marine) under new or POPS, ODS, and
ecosystem values in production systems in improved cooperative Mercury in built
urban planning urban and per-urban management infrastructure,
areas industry and

5Please note that even though there is a clear overlay of priorities and opportunities within the cross section between Food systems, land use and restoration Impact Program
and the International Waters Focal Area, it is not possible at this stage to identify and develop specific targets for these investments due to the many unknown parameters.

11
 products and
materials used in
cities.
Sustainable Forest • Protection of HCV • Protection of carbon- • Sustainable • Shared water ecosystems • Eliminate
Management forests rich stocks management of (fresh or marine) under new or mercury in
Impact Program • Manage biodiversity • Forest related GHG dryland landscapes improved cooperative forests where
in forest landscapes emissions avoidance management ASGM that uses
mercury occurs

12
BIODIVERSITY FOCAL AREA STRATEGY
Global Context of Biodiversity

21. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines biodiversity as “the variability among
living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic
ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within
species, between species, and of ecosystems.”

22. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) and analyses produced by TEEB (The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) were among the first studies that demonstrated that
biodiversity underpins the ecosystem goods and services that are required for the survival of
human societies and for the future of all life on the planet. 6 As such, biodiversity generates
considerable socio-economic value through the provision of goods such as food, water, and
materials, and services such as climate regulation, pollination, disaster protection, and nutrient
cycling.

23. This changed way of looking at biodiversity as an “asset” that makes critical contributions
to sustainable development has since influenced approaches to biodiversity conservation and
sustainable use which are now reflected in the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, 2011-2020, and the
Aichi Biodiversity Targets as well as the GEF-6 biodiversity focal area strategy. This evolution in
thinking was reaffirmed at the thirteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the CBD
(CBD/COP 13) with the adoption of the “Cancun Declaration on Mainstreaming the Conservation
and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity for Well-being”, that recognizes that the management of this
asset requires full engagement of all government ministries, and most critically, from the
agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and tourism sectors.

24. Governments, civil society organizations, the private sector, indigenous peoples and local
communities, and others have made some progress in conserving and sustainably using
biodiversity and ecosystems at local and national levels, but not at the scale necessary to stem
the ongoing tide of biodiversity loss. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, 2011-2020, and its
associated Aichi Biodiversity Targets direct the global community’s response to reverse these
trends. However, a recent analysis of national reports on progress against all 20 Aichi Targets
demonstrates limited achievements to date.

25. The five main direct drivers of biodiversity loss are: habitat change (loss, degradation, and
fragmentation), overexploitation or unsustainable use, invasive alien species (particularly in
island ecosystems), climate change, and pollution 7. These critical drivers of biodiversity loss are
intensifying, particularly habitat loss driven by the expansion of agriculture.

6 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Island Press, Washington DC; TEEB

(2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach,
conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.
7 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Island Press, Washington DC.

13
26. Based on current assessments of biodiversity status and the magnitude of the pressures
being exerted on biodiversity and with few countries on track to achieve the Aichi Targets, all
stakeholders have to redouble their efforts, including finding new ways to increase financing for
biodiversity conservation and sustainable use and applying new approaches at a commensurate
scale to eliminate threats to biodiversity.

CBD/COP 13 Guidance to the GEF

27. At the CBD/COP 13, Parties agreed a Four-year Framework of Program Priorities for the
Seventh Replenishment Period (2018-2022) of the GEF Trust Fund (Decision
CBD/COP/DEC/XIII/21). The Four-year Framework includes specific program priorities to be
addressed by the GEF-7 biodiversity focal area investments and other associated GEF
programming. The Decision also “Encourages the Global Environment Facility to continue and
further strengthen integrated programming as a means to harness opportunities for synergy in
implementing related multilateral environmental agreements as well as the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals, in particular Sustainable
Development Goals 14 and 15.” The Four-year Framework thus points directly to the
opportunities for synergy, inherent in the unique institutional design of the GEF, which serves as
a financial mechanism for multiple multilateral environmental agreements.

28. The GEF-7 biodiversity focal area investments and associated programming strategies
fully embody integrated approaches to achieve the biodiversity conservation and sustainable use
outcomes of the Four-year framework while supporting the implementation of all of the
biodiversity-related conventions in a synergistic way. Implementation of the GEF-7 Four-year
Framework is supported through the biodiversity focal area investments and other integrated
programming, particularly through the Impact Program on Food Systems, Land Use and
Restoration, Sustainable Cities, Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) and through the
International Waters Focal Area Strategy (see Table 2).

29. Collectively, these investments seek to deliver impact at scale by addressing key
underlying drivers of biodiversity loss as well as direct drivers/pressures while responding to the
biodiversity mainstreaming agenda of COP 13 and the most challenging elements of the Strategic
Plan for Biodiversity, 2011-2020. As a whole, they provide the most comprehensive strategic
response in GEF’s history to the five greatest direct drivers/pressures of biodiversity loss.

GEF-7 Biodiversity Focal Area Investments and Associated Programming

30. The goal of the GEF-7 biodiversity focal area strategy is to maintain globally significant
biodiversity in landscapes and seascapes. To achieve this goal, GEF investments will contribute
to the following three objectives identified in the CBD COP 13 Guidance to the GEF:

• Mainstream biodiversity across sectors as well as landscapes and seascapes;

• Address direct drivers to protect habitats and species; and

14
 • Further develop biodiversity policy and institutional frameworks.

31. The Biodiversity Focal Area Investments, the Food Systems, Land Use, and Restoration
Impact Program, the Sustainable Cities Impact Program, the Sustainable Forest Management
Impact Program, and the International Waters Focal Area Investments will collectively contribute
to achieving this goal and the three objectives as presented below in Table 2, which summarizes
how the GEF-7 Biodiversity Focal Area Investments and Associated Programming respond to the
Four-Year Framework of Program Priorities for GEF-7. (The results framework for the Focal Area
Investments and Associated Programming is presented in Annex 1. Please also note that Annex
2 provides detailed programming optionsfor the expected outcomes of the Four-year Framework
of Program Priorities).

Table 2. CBD Guidance and Delivery Mechanism in GEF-7

CBD Guidance for GEF-7: Four Year Framework of

Delivery Mechanism
Program Priorities
I. Mainstream biodiversity Focal Area Investments
across sectors as well as landscapes and seascapes
Biodiversity Mainstreaming in Priority Sectors
A) Improve policies and decision-making, informed
by biodiversity and ecosystem values Global Wildlife Program (preventing the extinction of
B) Manage biodiversity in landscapes and seascapes known threatened species, and wildlife for sustainable
C) Harness biodiversity for sustainable agriculture development)

Natural Capital Assessment and Accounting

Sustainable Use of Plant and Animal Genetic Resources

Inclusive Conservation

Impact Programs

Food systems, Land Use, and Restoration Impact Program

Sustainable Cities Impact Program

Sustainable Forest Management Impact Program (Amazon,

Congo Basin, Dryland Sustainable Landscapes)

Other Focal Areas

International Waters/Sustainable Fisheries

II. Address direct drivers to protect habitats and species Focal Area Investments
D) Prevent and control invasive alien species
E) Reduce pressures on coral reefs and other vulnerable Prevention, Control and Management of Invasive Alien
coastal and marine ecosystems Species (focus on islands)
F) Enhance the effectiveness of protected area systems
G) Combat illegal and unsustainable use of species, with Improving Financial Sustainability, Effective Management,
priority action on threatened species and Ecosystem Coverage of the Global Protected Area
Estate

15
 Other Focal Areas

International Waters/Coastal and Marine Protected Areas

III. Further develop biodiversity policy and institutional Focal Area Investments
framework
H) Implement the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety Implementing the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
Implement the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic
Resources and Benefit-sharing Implementing the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit
J) Improve biodiversity policy, planning, and review Sharing

Support for national reporting and NBSAP development

32. The GEF-7 Biodiversity Focal Area Strategy is presented below. In its entirety, the set of
programming options included in the strategy respond directly to the GEF-7 Four-year
Framework of Program Priorities as well as the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, 2011-2020,
particularly with regards to the increasingly important biodiversity mainstreaming agenda. Also,
programming options include investments through Impact Programs capable of delivering more
returns per unit of investment by seeking systemic responses to problems that emerge from
more than one sector. They will make significant and synergistic contributions to the GEF-7 Four-
year framework of program priorities and the associated expected outcomes as agreed at COP
13.

Objective 1. Mainstream biodiversity across sectors as well as landscapes and seascapes 8

33. The GEF defines biodiversity mainstreaming as: “the process of embedding biodiversity
considerations into policies, strategies and practices of key public and private actors that impact
or rely on biodiversity, so that it is conserved and sustainably used both locally and globally.”

34. GEF-7 provides nine entry points for countries to mainstream biodiversity across sectors
and within production landscapes and seascapes:

• Biodiversity Mainstreaming in Priority Sectors;

• Global Wildlife Program;

• Natural Capital Assessment and Accounting;

• Sustainable Use of Plant and Animal Genetic Resources;

• Inclusive Conservation;

• Food Systems, Land Use & Restoration Impact Program;

8Please see Annex 3 which maps the various programming options available to countries against the priorities and outcomes of
each objective as identified by CBD COP 13.

16
 • Sustainable Cities Impact Program;

• Sustainable Forest Management Impact Program; and

• International Waters Focal Area/Sustainable Fisheries.

Biodiversity Mainstreaming in Priority Sectors

35. GEF will continue to focus primarily on supporting the following suite of activities to
advance biodiversity mainstreaming:

• Spatial and land-use planning to ensure that land and resource use is appropriately
situated to maximize production without undermining or degrading biodiversity. A review
of GEF experience in supporting biodiversity mainstreaming identified investments in
spatial and land use planning to be a critical first step that sets the stage for future more
comprehensive mainstreaming investments in production landscapes and seascapes.
Linking the objective of sustaining protected areas and their conservation objectives with
targeted investments in spatial and land use planning in the surrounding geographies will
continue to be a key element of GEF’s biodiversity mainstreaming strategy given the
successes with this approach at various scales in a variety of implementation
environments in the GEF portfolio;

• Improving and changing production practices to be more biodiversity-positive with a

focus on sectors that have significant biodiversity impacts (agriculture, forestry, fisheries,
tourism, extractive industries (gas, oil, and mining) and infrastructure development)
through technical capacity building and implementation of financial mechanisms
(certification, payment for environmental services, biodiversity offsets etc.) that
incentivize actors to change current practices that may be degrading biodiversity; and

• Developing policy and regulatory frameworks that remove perverse subsidies and provide
incentives for biodiversity-positive land and resource use that remains productive but
that does not degrade biodiversity.

36. Successful biodiversity mainstreaming initiatives in the GEF portfolio have often been a
long-term process requiring multiple and complementary projects that span numerous GEF
funding phases. In order for biodiversity mainstreaming to generate impacts at the scale
necessary to advance progress in achieving the related Aichi Biodiversity Targets, a series of
investments by GEF that are strategically nested within a larger-scale national planning and
management framework is often required. Project proponents will be encouraged to take
advantage of opportunities provided through the impact programs to mainstream biodiversity in
the agriculture and forestry sectors. Countries may also submit proposals in the target sectors of
forestry, fisheries, tourism, infrastructure, as well as extractives (gas, oil, and mining), that are
aligned with the suite of activities identified above (spatial and land-use planning, improving and
changing production practices, policy and regulatory frameworks, and financial mechanisms).

17
Global Wildlife Program

37. As the illegal killing of wildlife is experiencing a slight decline in some regions of the world,
the global community must continue to fight this important threat with sustained and
comprehensive efforts addressing both the supply and the demand side of the problem. The
increasing scale of wildlife trafficking is intrinsically linked to the growing involvement of
transnational organized crime networks. Indeed, organized crime groups, specifically those with
smuggling capabilities, find wildlife trafficking attractive because of its low risks, high profits, and
weak penalties due to the low priority it is afforded by enforcement authorities. In GEF-6, the
GEF launched the “Global Wildlife Program” which is establishing the groundwork for reducing
poaching and curtailing the illegal wildlife trade. While these investments are important and
significant, the GEF-7 Global Wildlife program must continue building on those initial
investments, notably through two components. Component 1 (Preventing the Extinction of
Known Threatened Species) will continue to sustain and complement those efforts by increasing
the focus on the demand side in Asian Countries as well as greatly enhancing the regional
coordination efforts required to bring all the relevant stakeholders to the table for the best
overall impact, which was a limitation in the original GEF-6 program. In component 2 (Wildlife for
Sustainable Development), the GEF will build on some of the initial successes and promote long-
term sustainability in areas where poaching has subsided. This will be pursued by ensuring that
local communities that are living inside and outside of conservation areas benefit from economic
development that strengthened wildlife tourism can deliver.

Preventing the Extinction of Known Threatened Species

38. Component 1 of the Global Wildlife program will address both the supply and demand
aspect of poaching to build monitoring and enforcement capacity to staunch the demand for
these products and promote the improvement of enforcement of existing laws.

39. GEF will support strengthening decision-making processes including legislation and its
implementation, strategic planning, and capacity of national agencies in Africa engaged in
reducing poaching and illegal trade of tusks, horns, and associated by-products. Support will also
include the development of strategic plans to combat illegal wildlife trade that is occurring online.
Support will include building the capacity of environmental law enforcement agencies and the
judiciary to reduce poaching inside and outside of the protected area system and improving
border enforcement (including airports and seaports) through cross-sectoral collaboration. GEF
will also support the preparation of action plans where governments commit to an adequate
budget for their implementation, effectively contributing to the sustainability of these activities.
GEF will also support efforts to increase cooperation within and between law enforcement
agencies and relevant international organizations and to mobilize political support for
environmental law enforcement.

40. Most importantly, efforts must be made to reduce consumer demand for illegally traded
wildlife by raising awareness of the scale and impacts of illegal wildlife trade on biodiversity and
the environment, livelihoods, and human health, its links to organized crime, and the availability
of sustainable alternatives. The erosion of the rule of law and the use of illegal trade to finance
18
conflict impacts disproportionately on women and children who are most affected by conflict
and violence, loss of livelihoods and crime. GEF will increase its support activities, particularly in
Asia, to catalyze high-level political will to fight wildlife trafficking, and secure the shared
commitment of government (at national and local levels), private land owners, local
communities, and international stakeholders.

41. The program will make a concerted effort to respond to the threat of extinction of species
that are critical for the ecological and economic sustainability of many protected areas in sub-
Saharan Africa. This will not preclude the submission of proposals from other countries or regions
where poaching and illegal trade poses an imminent danger to a threatened species. For
example, wildlife poaching and illegal trade in Eurasia, including Asia, Russia, and Central Asia, is
also increasing dramatically. The demand for high-value wildlife products in Asian markets has
helped fuel a dramatic upsurge of poaching of Asian elephants and rhinos, as well as tigers and
other wildlife. GEF will complement anti-poaching work in Africa through a similar array of
interventions at source sites for rhino and elephants and other wildlife in Asia. Efforts will include:

• Strengthening national legislation, institutions, and law enforcement to reduce poaching;

• Strengthening science-based wildlife monitoring, education and awareness; and

• Reducing demand for illegal wildlife products.

Wildlife for Sustainable Development

42. Component 2 of the Global Wildlife program will examine ways of turning the current and
future increases in wildlife numbers and wildlife-based land uses into a contributor to sustainable
development. Indeed, a growing body of evidence shows that wildlife-based land uses (including
eco-tourism), can contribute favorable socio-economic benefits compared to livestock farming
in isolated semi-arid environments, including sustainable livelihoods, improved infrastructure to
access and enjoy protected areas and wildlife, and enhanced representation of women and other
marginalized groups in the decision-making and management systems of communities. In some
areas where grazing used to occur, wildlife tourism is now generating four times as much income
as livestock, and sixteen times the revenue in wages.

43. This component is restricted to Africa in GEF-7 where the opportunity to realize the
benefits that wildlife tourism can deliver to local communities is most promising. Between 2000
and 2014, the number of jobs in Africa attributable to the tourism sector nearly doubled from
11.6 million to 20.5 million, which represents 8.1% of total employment in the region thus
demonstrating that tourism is becoming an increasingly important part of the economy,
particularly in rural areas. 9 In addition, by concentrating in Africa, GEF-7 support will build on the
investments and results of the GEF-6 “Global Wildlife Program” which will help sustain progress
in reducing poaching and curtailing the illegal wildlife trade by ensuring that local communities

9Tourism for Development. 20 reasons sustainable tourism counts for development. Knowledge Series, The World Bank Group,
2017.

19
that are living inside and outside of conservation areas benefit from the economic development
that wildlife tourism has the potential to deliver.

44. Furthermore, realizing the objectives of the Global Wildlife Program requires the
convergence of a number of factors that are present in Africa more than in any other region
where the GEF invests: a) a growing demand for a wildlife-based tourism product, b) significant
wildlife populations, c) large wilderness areas needed to sustain viable populations in perpetuity,
and; d) private sector partners (primarily tourism operators) with the expertise and willingness
to engage in wildlife-based tourism.

45. While there is great potential in Africa, a number of barriers exist that prevent wildlife
from contributing more robustly to economic development in areas where the economy is
dominated by food aid, grants and urban remittances. First, policy makers do not yet view wildlife
economically as they don’t fully understand the drivers of tourism demand, visitor needs, or how
to manage wildlife tourism successfully. Second, sectoral transformation depends on reversing
colonial wildlife policies so that a higher proportion of tourism revenues return to the parks and
the communities that co-exist with wildlife. Third, many of the world’s protected areas lack the
basic conservation infrastructure, air or road access, the right to retain revenues, and investor-
friendly conditions. Fourth, many protected area management policies were established with the
idea of keeping people away from wildlife. And lastly, the demand for wildlife products must be
severely curtailed or eliminated so that the reduced pressure on wildlife can give way to practices
that sustainably use wildlife for economic and social development.

46. The GEF will support the development or improvement of a wildlife-based economy
where several key factors converge to enable wildlife to make significant contributions to
sustainable development. These factors include: 1) wildlife populations growing or stable; 2)
governments demonstrating political will to build a wildlife-based economy; 3) large
conservation areas covering sufficient area to support ecologically viable populations and genetic
diversity - including Trans Frontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs); 4) wildlife tourism operators
willing to engage with government and private sector authorities managing protected areas to
generate economic benefits for conservation and local communities; and 5) mechanisms for local
communities living inside and/or outside of the protected areas to benefit directly and indirectly
from wildlife and protected area management. African countries have significant social and
economic reasons to embark on an initiative to use wildlife as the basis for sustainable
development, since the model could easily render stable jobs for over 1 million people and
generate over USD 10 billion of tourism revenues.

47. GEF support will be focused at the national and regional scales. At the national level, the
GEF will support:

• The development of policy frameworks that help unlock the potential for self-financing
conservation areas (i.e. National Parks, Nature and Game Reserves, etc.) and viable
wildlife tourism within a framework of Community Based Natural Resources Management
(CBNRM), and that better regulate the sustainable non-extractive use of wildlife;

20
 • Improving protected area management and infrastructure to ensure the conservation of
biodiversity and other natural assets in support of the wildlife-based economy;

• Building capacity to implement CBNRM, so that local communities benefit fully from
wildlife conservation in and around protected areas (i.e. buffer zones, private lands, game
management areas, etc.); and

• Engagement with the private sector to assist governments and local communities with
the development, management and marketing operations through the appropriate
modalities (i.e. Public-Private partnerships, Private-Community partnerships, or Public-
Private-Community partnerships).

48. At the regional level, the GEF will support wildlife for sustainable development activities
in large scale conservation areas in sub-Saharan Africa in general and in the South African
Development Community countries in particular.

Natural Capital Assessment and Accounting (NCAA)

49. Biodiversity generates considerable value through the provision of goods such as food,
water, and materials, and services such as climate regulation, pollination, disaster protection,
and nutrient cycling. 10 The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and The Economics of Ecosystems
and Biodiversity (TEEB) were significant steps to make the “value” of nature (however that value
may be defined) more visible, countable, and measurable. Other related efforts to provide
frameworks and approaches for internalising environmental externalities into economic and
development decision-making include the United Nations System of Environmental-Economic
Accounting (SEEA), World Bank’s Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services
(WAVES) initiative, the Inclusive Wealth Index: http://inclusivewealthindex.org, and the Natural
Capital Coalition’s Natural Capital Protocol. As part of this evolution of thinking about nature’s
contributions to societies, economies and sustainable development, the term “natural capital”
was coined to define the stock of renewable and non-renewable resources, including biodiversity
(e.g. plants, animals, air, water, soils, and minerals), that combine to yield a flow of benefits
(ecosystem goods and services) to people. Although a number of approaches are currently being
used to identify, measure, and value natural capital, these exercises have too rarely influenced
decision making and policy instruments to: 1) mitigate the drivers of natural capital degradation
and biodiversity loss; and/or 2) increase financing for management of natural capital and
biodiversity.

50. GEF’s support to natural capital assessment and accounting will be implemented amidst
the backdrop of recent progress made with the SEEA and global standardized frameworks and

10
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Island Press, Washington DC; TEEB
(2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature.

21
tools for natural capital assessment for both private and public sectors. 11 Natural capital
“assessments” are spatial assessments of stocks of natural capital and/or delivery of ecosystem
services, which are often accompanied by assessing change under different scenarios with
decision-makers and stakeholders. Depending on methodologies applied, the data from such
assessments can serve as an input to the construction of national accounts that reflect these
values. Both natural capital assessments and accounts are required to advance policy dialogue
and to aid in decision-making, including the allocation of financing for management of natural
capital and biodiversity. They are interlinked, and each have their own advantages and
disadvantages.

51. When designed and implemented appropriately, natural capital assessments are focused
on and have proven effective in informing regional, national, or sectoral plans as well as finance
and policy mechanisms. However, they are too often one-time exercises that are not
mainstreamed and institutionalised, so are not yet significantly affecting important budgetary
and policy decisions at the national level, especially government and private sector investment
strategies. National natural capital accounts can in principle help fill this gap from a public sector
perspective, but it takes considerable time and data to populate national accounts. There is a risk
that natural capital accounting efforts can lead to significant data collection without a specific
target decision or policy question in mind, so to be most impactful, they should be co-developed
with specifically targeted decision-makers and stakeholders.

52. Therefore, GEF projects will design and link the natural capital assessment and accounting
exercises to respond to specific target decisions or policy questions to help ensure their practical
relevance as well as the institutionalization and use of natural capital accounting for the medium-
and long-term. GEF projects will aim to build the capacity of countries to identify, measure, and
value natural capital, including biodiversity, and to integrate the understanding of this value into
decision making and policy instruments to: 1) mitigate or eliminate harmful incentives leading to
the degradation of natural capital assets or to identify positive financial and other policy
incentives for the maintenance or enhancement of these assets ; and 2) enhance financing for
sustainable management and restoration of natural capital, including through affecting public
and private financial flows. This may include expanding the use of green finance mechanisms and
solutions, as appropriate (e.g., green bonds, blue bonds, etc.). 12 Within the context of this GEF

11
UN-SEEA contains the internationally agreed standard concepts, definitions, classifications, accounting rules and tables for
producing internationally comparable statistics on the environment and its relationship with the economy. The SEEA framework
follows an accounting structure equivalent to the traditional System of National Accounts (SNA) and uses concepts, definitions
and classifications consistent with the SNA in order to facilitate the integration of environmental and economic statistics. The
Natural Capital Protocol and beta version of the Protocol toolkit provides guidelines to the private sector for NCAA for businesses.

12 Green finance comprises the: a) financing of public and private green investments (including preparatory and capital costs) in

environmental goods and services (such as water management or protection of biodiversity and landscapes), prevention,
minimization and compensation of damages to the environment and to the climate (such as energy efficiency or dams), b) the
financing of public policies (including operational costs) that encourage the implementation of environmental and environmental-
damage mitigation or adaptation projects and initiatives (for example feed-in-tariffs for renewable energies); and c) components
of the financial system that deal specifically with green investments, such as financial instruments for green investments (e.g.
green bonds and structured green funds), including their specific legal, economic and institutional framework conditions. Source:
Lindenberg, N. 2014. Definitions of Green Finance. German Development Institute.

22
programming area, the aim is to support natural capital assessments and accounting that can
inform decisions about the use of green finance mechanisms to sustain and restore natural
capital which would include financial products and services provided by the banking sector.

53. Project interventions will undertake a four-phase process: 1) baseline diagnosis of

institutional capacity to undertake natural capital assessment and accounting (legal, policy,
planning and institutional framework to identify gaps, data, governance and capacity needs); 2)
review of expenditures on natural capital management, assessment of finance needs for natural
capital management and of appropriate finance solutions; 3) implementation of natural capital
assessments and accounting; and 4) incorporation of natural capital into policy, planning, and
decision-making. When appropriate, GEF will work with countries already engaged in relevant
initiatives such as World Bank/WAVES, UNDP/BIOFIN, the Natural Capital Project, UNEP Financial
Inquiry, etc. and will complement these efforts.

54. In addition, it is expected that GEF support will help address some of the key challenges
to green finance mechanisms becoming more firmly established, such as informing the design of
government policies that provide incentives to generate positive externalities through green
investments (beneficial to natural capital) while establishing appropriate disincentives for the
production of negative externalities from environmentally damaging investments.

55. The program will be implemented within a global context where businesses are
increasingly recognizing that by including natural capital considerations in their decisions, they
can create greater value for themselves and protect the natural capital that is material to their
economic interests. For example, many corporations and other organizations around the world
are now using the Natural Capital Protocol as a standardized framework to help incorporate the
assessment and valuation of natural capital in decision-making. The protocol was developed by
the Natural Capital Coalition and now includes a supplement geared towards the finance sector
to guide development of policies that encourage green investment.

56. Therefore, the implementation of natural capital assessment and accounting processes
will aim to facilitate a dialogue between the public and private sectors at the national level to
create greater certainty for businesses with regards to their operations and investment plans vis-
à-vis natural capital. In this way, private sector interests and investor requirements can provide
added impetus to governments to use the information generated on natural capital in
development planning and policy making while bringing needed durability to government-led
approaches due to the long-term perspectives of business interests that seek consistency and
certainty. In addition, natural capital assessment and accounting undertaken at the national level
will provide the opportunity to share best practice and information between the public and
private sectors and their approaches to natural capital accounting and valuation, and could,
among other things, help streamline the process of using business data in the production of
national statistics, reduce the reporting burden for businesses by aligning national business
surveys with corporate reporting, and facilitate business reporting on contributions to the
Sustainable Development Goals.

23
57. The recognition that environmental risks need to be more firmly integrated in the
financial system has been growing rapidly. For example, the Financial Stability Board’s Taskforce
on Climate-related Financial Disclosure has been developing recommendations for managing the
physical, liability, and transition risks of climate change. Rating agencies S&P and Moody’s have
announced plans to assess the climate risks facing both companies and countries. Investor groups
have called for greater disclosure of companies’ exposure to climate risks. However, those
initiatives and measures are mostly focused on climate risks while risks to broader natural capital,
including biodiversity, forest and land, are not generally firmly taken into accout. Against this
background, the GEF will extend support to countries that have already identified the need to
transition towards green finance, and will inform them of possible options to tailor global
financial innovation to local needs, and will foster the broader adoption of national green finance
instruments and support enhanced alignment of national financial regulation with environmental
sustainability considerations. This way, MEA guidance can be mainstreamed in financial sectors
at the national and sub-national levels from the outset and ensure that MEA objectives are
implemented in a catalytic fashion at the systemic level instead of leaving it to the vagaries of the
market to consider MEA priorities on an ad hoc basis.

58. Through the Sustainable Cities Impact Program, the GEF will also promote the use of
natural capital assessments and accounting as an input to integrated urban planning and the
sustainability of cities with regards to their impact and reliance on biodiversity and associated
ecosystem services.

Sustainable Use of Plant and Animal Genetic Resources

59. The conservation and sustainable use of the genetic diversity of cultivated plants,
domesticated animals, of their wild relatives and of other socio-economically and culturally
valuable species, including aquatic, forest, microbial and invertebrate genetic resources, is
central to achieving food security and nutrition for a growing world population, improving rural
livelihoods, developing more sustainable agriculture practices, and improving ecosystem
function and the provision of ecosystem services in production landscapes. As climates and
production environments change, in often unpredictable ways, genetic diversity is also essential
to providing the necessary adaptability and resilience.

60. Under this targeted investment, the GEF focus is three-fold. First, GEF will provide support
to establish protection for Crop Wild Relatives (CWR) in-situ through CWR Reserves. Second, the
GEF will support in-situ conservation and sustainable use, through farmer management, of plant
genetic resources in Vavilov Centers of Diversity. Third, the GEF will also support conservation
and sustainable use of animal genetic resources and actions to conserve the wild relatives of
domesticated livestock, not solely focusing on breeds. This focus will complement the thematic
and geographic focus of the “Sustainable Food Systems, Land Use, and Restoration Impact
Program”.

61. Locations for wild relatives of 14 major global food crops (finger millet, barley, sweet
potato, cassava, banana/plantain, rice, pearl millet, garden pea, potato, sorghum, wheat, fava

24
bean, cowpea and maize) have been mapped. 13 These centers of crop genetic diversity are likely
to contain priority sites for other crop gene pools. GEF investment in CWR reserves would focus
on these areas; however, support to managing priority CWR reserves mapped and identified at
national level that complement global level assessments undertaken by FAO and others would
also be eligible if the CWR in question were of global significance.14

62. The GEF will also support in-situ conservation and sustainable use, through farmer
management (focusing on Vavilov Centers of Diversity for plant genetic resources). This approach
allows continuing evolution and adaptation of cultivated plants and domesticated animals and
also meets the needs of rural communities, including indigenous peoples and local communities,
especially women, who often depend on agricultural biodiversity for their livelihoods through its
contribution to food security and nutrition, medicines, fodder, building materials and other
provisioning services as well through support for ecosystem function. Women’s participation will
be particularly critical, given the primary role that women play in agrobiodiversity management.
In-situ conservation in production landscapes helps improve sustainability and resilience.

63. Results from these investments may also generate important co-benefits for the
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.

Inclusive Conservation

64. It is estimated that nearly a quarter of the Earth’s surface and vast ocean areas are
managed by indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) and these areas hold 80% of the
Earth's biodiversity. 15 In addition, an estimated 37.7 billion metric tons of carbon is contained in
lands where IPLCs have full legal tenure. 16

65. To date, IPLCs’ efforts to maintain their territories have been critically important in
providing global environmental benefits. Recent studies have shown that when the rights of IPLCs
to their land and natural resources are respected, deforestation rates are lower than in
government-managed areas and that local participation in conservation management can
improve biodiversity outcomes. 17,18

66. Because of their role as stewards of the global environment, the GEF has sought to
support IPLCs since its pilot phase. In recent Annual Monitoring Reports, about 17% of GEF full-
and medium-size projects have substantive IPLCs engagement. The GEF’s Small Grants Program

13 Second State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. 2009 FAO, Rome.
14 A global approach to crop wild relative conservation: securing the gene pool for food and agriculture, 2010, Kew
Bulletin, Vol. 65: 561-576. Maxted, Nigel et. al.
15 Sobrevila, C. 2008. The Role of Indigenous Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation: The Natural but Often Forgotten Partners.

World Bank.
16 Stevens, C. et al. Securing Rights, Combating Climate Change: How Strengthening Community Forest Rights Mitigates Climate

Change. WRI.
17 Forest carbon in Amazonia: the unrecognized contribution of indigenous territories and protected natural areas. Wayne Walker

et al. Carbon Management Vol. 5 , Iss. 5-6, 2014.

18 Social and Ecological Synergy: Local Rulemaking, Forest Livelihoods, and Biodiversity Conservation Lauren Persha et al. Science

331, 1606 (2011).

25
(SGP) has historically provided about 15% of its grants to IPLC organizations , and the successes
in these small projects show the potential impact of larger investments.

67. Building on this foundation, the GEF will work with indigenous peoples and local
communities, national governments, NGOs, and others to strengthen the capacity of IPLCs to
conserve biodiversity.

68. GEF projects funded with the regional/global set aside will focus in geographies where
IPLC territories that are home to globally significant biodiversity, and that may also include
important carbon stocks, are under threat.

69. Project investments will focus on:

• Site-based conservation and sustainable use;

• Sustainable financing of IPLCs-driven conservation; and

• Capacity development for IPLC organizations and integration of diverse knowledge

systems to achieve conservation and sustainable natural resource management
outcomes.

Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration Impact Program

70. The Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration Impact Program aims to transform food
value chains by supporting countries to meet their growing food demands through higher
productivity gains from crops and livestock, while at the same time avoiding the potential
resulting loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, erosion of crop and livestock genetic
diversity, overexploitation of water resources, overuse of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and
inefficient practices that lead to GHG emissions, food loss and waste.

71. Building on the GEF-6 programs on commodities, food security, and restoration, this
impact program will allow several entry points for countries to implement sustainable land use
plans that can meet their multiple objectives of food production and sustainable natural resource
management. Depending on the context and decisions guided by integrated land use planning,
the Program may support countries committed to better managing biodiversity in production
landscapes and harnessing biodiversity for sustainable agriculture. Therefore, the IP will make
acontribution to Outcome 5 of the Four-year Framework: “Biodiversity supporting key
agricultural ecosystems, such as through pollination, biological pest control, or genetic diversity,
is conserved and managed, contributing to sustainable agricultural production.”

Sustainable Cities Impact Program

72. Through the Sustainable Cities Impact Program, the GEF will also promote integration of
biodiversity conservation priorities into urban planning, specifically to safeguard globally
significant biodiversity and associated ecosystem services affected by urbanization. Therefore,
the IP will make a countribution to Outcome One of the Four-year Framework “Financial, fiscal,
26
and development policies, as well as planning and decision-making take into account biodiversity
and ecosystem values, in the context of the different tools and approaches used by Parties to
achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets”.

Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) Impact Program

73. The global community recognizes the importance of forests for their role in sustaining
biodiversity, their ability to provide a range of important environmental services and their
potential to contribute to many countries’ sustainable development plans. The SFM Program will
focus on biomes of global importance for biodiversity and humanity: the Amazon, the Congo
Basin, and Drylands, which will include forests and trees outside forests in dryland landscapes,
where transformative impacts and multiple environmental benefits can be achieved. These three
geographies host globally important biodiversity, store large amounts of carbon, and provide
livelihoods to forest dependent communities. Investments in the SFM IP in GEF-7 will advance
the work under the Biodiversity Focal Area in supporting the protection of High Conservation
Value (HCV) forests and managing biodiversity in forested landscapes at the ecosystem scale.

Sustainable Fisheries/International Waters Focal Area Strategy

74. GEF support through the Internatonal Waters Focal Area will promote sustainable fishing
practices and strengthen ecosystem governance both at national and regional level to maintain
productivity while sustaining biodiversity within fisheries. GEF-7 will build on, strengthen, and
expand existing partnerships and address national and shared fisheries by supporting existing
governance goals and targets established through Regional Fisheries Management Organizations
(RFMOs), the 2009 Port State Measures Agreement and the FAO Voluntary Small-Scale Fisheries
Guidelines. The IW strategy will therefore make a significant contribution to Outcome 7 of the
Four-year Framework: Anthropogenic pressures on vulnerable coastal and marine ecosystems,
including coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass beds, and associated ecosystems, including
pollution, overfishing and destructive fishing, and unregulated coastal development, are reduced,
thus contributing to ecosystem integrity and resilience.

Objective 2. Address direct drivers to protect habitats and species 19

75. GEF-7 provides three main entry points for countries to address direct drivers of
biodiversity loss:

• Prevention, Control and Management of Invasive Alien Species.

• Improving Financial Sustainability, Effective Management, and Ecosystem Coverage of the

Global Protected Area Estate.

• International Waters Focal Area/Coastal and Marine Protected Areas

19 Please see Annex 2 which maps the various programming options available to countries against the priorities and outcomes of

each objective as identified by CBD COP 13.

27
Prevention, Control and Management of Invasive Alien Species

76. Invasive alien species (IAS) are non-native organisms that cause or have the potential to
cause harm to the environment, economy and human health. The globalization of trade, travel,
and transport is greatly increasing the rate at which IAS move around the world, as well as the
diversity and number of species being moved. The intensities and global patterns of disturbance
are changing more rapidly today than ever before; however national level responses and
legislation to prevent the introduction of IAS remains woefully inadequate. IAS can exert a heavy
economic toll on national governments, industries, and the private sector. For example, global
estimates of the annual economic damage from invasive species worldwide totals more than USD
1.4 trillion or 5% of the global economy. 20 IAS can impact human health through disease
epidemics, and pathogens and parasites may themselves be IAS or may be introduced by invasive
vectors.

77. Islands are particularly susceptible to the impacts of IAS. Islands have exceptionally high
numbers of endemic species, with 15% of bird, reptile and plant species on only 3% of the world’s
land area. The conservation significance of islands is highlighted by global analyses showing that
67% of the centers of marine endemism and 70% of coral reef hotspots are centered on islands.

78. The isolated nature of islands can also provide some advantages in efforts to minimize
the spread and impact of IAS in a cost-efficient manner. Terrestrial and freshwater IAS have
difficulty colonizing islands. Furthermore, the contained nature and relatively small size of islands
enables the implementation of cost-effective response measures to prevent introductions, and
to control and manage IAS that become established. Therefore, during GEF-7 support will focus
on island ecosystems. This focus is driven not only by programming demand, but by an ecological
imperative: IAS are the primary cause of species extinctions on island ecosystems and if not
controlled can degrade critical ecosystem services on islands such as the provision of water. The
focus also responds to the opportunity offered by the stronger interest to advance IAS
management on the part of island states and countries with island archipelagos and the
opportunity that island ecosystems provide to demonstrate success in addressing the problem
of IAS. Such success may in turn generate greater attention and interest in the comprehensive
pathways management approach being promoted through these investments.

79. GEF will support the implementation of comprehensive prevention, early detection,
control and management frameworks that emphasize a risk management approach by focusing
on the highest risk invasion pathways. Targeted eradication will be supported in specific
circumstances where proven, low-cost, and effective eradication would result in the
extermination of the IAS and the survival of globally significant species and/or ecosystems. While
GEF will maintain a focus on island ecosystems and strongly engage with island states to advance

20Pimentel, D., McNair, S., Janecka, J., Wightman, J., Simmonds, C., O'Connell, C., Wong, E., Russel, L., Zern, J., Aquino, T. and
Tsomondo, T. 2001. Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment 84: 1-20.

28
this agenda, projects submitted by continental countries that address IAS management through
the comprehensive pathways approach outlined above will also be supported.

Improving Financial Sustainability, Effective Management, and Ecosystem Coverage of the

Global Protected Area Estate

80. GEF support to the establishment and management of protected area systems and
associated buffer zones and biological corridors has arguably been one of GEF’s greatest
achievement during the last 25 years. Supporting the management of protected areas is not only
a sound investment in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, but also provides significant
additional socio-economic and environmental benefits beyond the existence value of
biodiversity.

81. GEF support aims to strengthen three elements of a sustainable protected area system:
1) effective protection of ecologically viable and climate-resilient representative samples of the
country’s ecosystems and adequate coverage of threatened species at a sufficient scale to ensure
their long term persistence; 2) sufficient and predictable financial resources available, including
external funding, to support protected area management costs; and 3) sustained individual and
institutional capacity to manage protected areas such that they achieve their conservation
objectives.21

82. GEF will continue to promote the participation and capacity building of indigenous
peoples and local communities, especially women, in the design, implementation, and
management of protected area projects through established frameworks such as Indigenous and
Community Conserved Areas. 22 GEF will also promote protected area co-management between
government and indigenous peoples and local communities where such management models are
appropriate.

83. Developing climate-resilient protected area systems remains a challenge because the
scientific understanding and technical basis for informed decision-making on adaptation or
resiliency measures are in their nascent stages. However, despite this significant challenge, GEF
will continue to support the development and integration of adaptation and resilience
management measures as part of protected area management projects.

84. GEF has been investing in improving financial sustainability of protected area systems for
the past decade, but system-wide funding gaps remain at the national level in many GEF-eligible
countries that have received GEF support. Restricted government budgets in many countries
have reduced the financial support for protected area management and many are chronically
underfunded and understaffed. Thus, new financing strategies for protected area systems are
critical to reduce existing funding gaps and improve management.

21A protected area system could include a national system, a sub-system of a national system, a municipal-level system, or a local

level system or a combination of these.

22 Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas are natural sites, resources and species’ habitats conserved in voluntary and self-

directed ways by indigenous peoples and local communities.

29
85. The GEF-7 strategy prioritizes the development and implementation of comprehensive,
system-level financing solutions. Previous GEF projects have too often been focused on business
plans and strategy development, with minimal project resources or time dedicated to actual
implementation of the financing strategies. In addition, GEF’s experience has demonstrated the
need for a long-term plan for reducing the funding gap for protected area management, thus,
individual GEF projects must be part of a larger sustainable finance plan and context, and
countries may require a sequence of GEF project support over a number of GEF phases to achieve
financial sustainability.

86. GEF-supported interventions will use tools and revenue mechanisms that are responsive
to specific country situations (e.g., conservation trust funds, systems of payments for
environmental services, debt-for-nature swaps, economic valuation of protected area goods and
services, access and benefit sharing agreements, etc.) and draw on accepted practices developed
by GEF and others. GEF will also encourage national policy reform and incentives to engage the
private sector (concessions, private reserves, etc.) and other stakeholders to improve protected
area financial sustainability and management.

87. GEF support will contribute to the achievement of Aichi Target 11 to conserve 17% of
terrestrial and inland water and 10% of coastal and marine areas. However, new protected areas
established with GEF support must be globally significant, as defined by the Key Biodiversity Area
(KBA) standard. The GEF will continue to support investments to increase the representation of
globally significant terrestrial and inland water, and coastal and marine ecosystems in protected
area systems per the KBA standard, including all under-protected biomes such as the tropical and
subtropical moist broadleaf forests found in the Himalayan region, temperate grasslands,
savannas and shrublands found in South America, along with other priority biomes.

88. GEF will support efforts to address the marine ecosystem coverage gap within national
level systems through the creation and effective management of coastal and near shore
protected area networks, including no-take zones, to conserve and sustainably use marine
biodiversity.

Coastal and Marine Protected Areas/International Waters Focal Area Strategy

89. Key coastal and marine habitats, such as deltas, mangroves, salt marshes, sea grasses and
coral reefs, are essential to many nations’ economic development and are important repositories
of biodiversity. They sustain fisheries, provide coastal protection, sequester carbon, filter run-off
water, and are tourist attractions. Through the International Waters Focal Area Strategy, GEF will
support the establishment of new coastal and marine protected areas and improve the
management effectiveness of existing marine protected areas and restore degraded key marine
habitats, with the context of existing TDA-SAPs and in Large Marine Ecosystems.

30
Objective 3. Further develop biodiversity policy and institutional frameworks 23

90. GEF-7 provides three main entry points for countries to strengthen biodiversity policy and
institutional frameworks:

• Implement the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

• Implement the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing.

• Improve Biodiversity Policy, Planning, and Review.

Implement the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

91. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) seeks to ensure an adequate level of
protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling, and use of living modified organisms
resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on biological diversity. While
rooted in the precautionary approach, the CPB recognizes modern biotechnology as having great
potential for the promotion of human well-being, particularly in meeting critical needs for food,
agriculture, and health care. The Protocol sets the parameters to maximize the benefit that
biotechnology has to offer, while minimizing the possible risks to the environment and to human
health.

92. GEF’s strategy to build capacity to implement the CPB prioritizes the implementation of
activities that are identified in country stock-taking analyses and in the COP guidance to the GEF,
in particular the key elements in the recently adopted framework and action plan for capacity
building for effective implementation of the CPB at the sixth COP serving as the Meeting of the
Parties to the CPB (COP-MOP 6) and the Strategic Plan for Biosafety, 2011-2020 agreed at COP-
MOP 6. By the end of GEF-6, as many as 64 countries will have received support for
implementation of their National Biosafety Frameworks (NBFs); however, another 71 eligible
countries have yet to request support to implement their NBFs. GEF-7 will provide the
opportunity for these countries to seek support for these initial phases of basic capacity building.

93. The GEF will support the ratification of the Protocol by the countries that have not done
so and also support the implementation of National Biosafety Frameworks in these remaining
countries. Parties will be supported to implement the provisions of the Protocol, including
capacity-building related to risk assessment and risk management in the context of country-
driven projects, and enhancing public awareness, education and participation concerning the
safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms. GEF experience has shown that
these kinds of approaches are effective where stock-taking assessments support the potential
for coordinating biosafety frameworks, interchange of regional expertise, and capacity building
in common priority or focal areas to develop the capacities of groups of countries lacking
competences in relevant fields.

23Please see Annex 2 which maps the various programming options available to countries against the priorities and outcomes of
each objective as identified by CBD COP 13.

31
94. The GEF will support thematic projects addressing some of the specific provisions of the
Cartagena Protocol. These projects should be developed at the regional or sub-regional level and
built on a common set of targets and opportunities to implement the Protocol beyond the
development and implementation of NBFs.

95. The GEF will also provide support for the ratification and implementation of the Nagoya-
Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the CPB.

Implement the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing

96. The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing
of Benefits Arising from their Utilization provides a legal framework for the effective
implementation of the third objective of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). The Protocol was
adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its tenth
meeting on 29 October 2010 in Nagoya, Japan, entered into force on 12 October 2014, and 102
parties have ratified the Protocol to date.

97. The successful implementation of ABS at the national level has the potential to make
considerable contributions to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, and thus is relevant
to successful implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity. As such, projects developed
for funding under other GEF modalities will be encouraged to explore the potential and relevance
of ABS to contribute to specific project and program objectives.

98. GEF will support national and regional implementation of the Nagoya Protocol and, if still
required in specific countries, targeted capacity building to facilitate ratification of the Protocol.
As such, the GEF will support the following core activities to comply with the provisions of the
Nagoya Protocol:

• Stocktaking and assessment. GEF will support gap analysis of ABS provisions in existing
policies, laws and regulations, stakeholder identification, user rights and intellectual
property rights, and assess institutional capacity including research organizations;

• Development and implementation of a strategy and action plan for the implementation
of ABS measures. (e.g. policy, legal, and regulatory frameworks governing ABS, National
Focal Point, Competent National Authority, Institutional agreements, administrative
procedures for Prior Informed Consent (PIC) and Mutually Agreed Terms (MAT),
monitoring of use of genetic resources, compliance with legislation and cooperation on
transboundary issues);

• Development (or revision) of national measures to implement and enforce the Protocol
(e.g. the legislative, administrative or policy measures on access and benefit-sharing); and

• Building capacity among stakeholders (including indigenous peoples and local

communities, especially women) to negotiate between providers and users of genetic
resources. Countries may consider institutional capacity-building to carry out research

32
 and development to add value to their own genetic resources and traditional knowledge
associated with genetic resources. The GEF will also support the participation in the ABS
Clearing-House Mechanism.

99. The GEF will also enhance national implementation of the Nagoya Protocol through
regional collaboration. Regional collaboration would help build capacity of countries to add value
to their own genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources and
avoid duplication of regulatory mechanisms while encouraging intra-regional collaboration.
Regional collaboration can also address the financial and human resource constraints faced by
small or least developed countries through sharing regulatory and scientific resources.

100. In recognition of the importance of genetic resources for food and agriculture and in
achieving food security worldwide, the GEF will consider projects for the mutually supportive
implementation of the Nagoya Protocol and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture.

Improve Biodiversity Policy, Planning, and Review (Enabling Activities)

101. Enabling activity support will be provided to all GEF-eligible countries to revise their
NBSAP, and/or to produce the National Report to the CBD as well as their national reporting
obligations under the Cartagena Protocol and Nagoya Protocol that will be identified during
upcoming COPs and COP-MOPs with submission dates to the CBD during the GEF-7 period.

33
CLIMATE CHANGE FOCAL AREA STRATEGY
Global Context of Climate Change

102. Climate change continues to present a growing and significant global challenge to
humanity and the biosphere in the 21st century.

103. The Paris Agreement, which was adopted at COP 21 in December 2015 and entered into
force in November 2016, 24 aims “to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate
change in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty” including by
holding the increase in the global average temperature well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels
and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels,
increasing the ability to adapt to impacts of climate change, and making finance flows consistent
with a low GHG emissions and climate-resilient development.25

104. With entry into force of the Paris Agreement, the global community has entered a new
era of climate action with an emphasis on implementation in all countries with transparency.
Action from both developed and developing countries is needed.

105. Each Party is to put forward every five years a nationally determined contribution (NDC)
that it intends to achieve. Every five years, a global stocktake will assess the collective progress
towards achieving the purpose of the Agreement and its long-term goals. The outcome of the
global stocktake is to inform the preparation of future NDCs. Further, the Agreement includes
provisions on finance, technology, and capacity-building to support action by developing
countries and the most vulnerable countries. The Agreement also provides for enhanced
transparency of action and support through a more robust transparency framework.

106. Implementation of the Paris Agreement can contribute to the achievement of the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Adverse
impacts from climate change can undo the progress made in development and exacerbate
threats such as food and water scarcity, ocean acidifcation, disproportionately burdening the
poorest and most vulnerable. Beyond SDG 13: Climate Action, a transformation to low-emission,
climate-resilient pathways can contribute to achieving and preserving the other SDGs such as
SDG 2: Zero Hunger, SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy, SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and
Infrastructure, SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities, SDG 12: Responsible Consumption
and Production, SDG 14: Life Below Water and SDG 15: Life on Land.

107. The 2017 Climate Change Focal Area Study carried out by the Independent Evaluation
Office (IEO) concludes that “activities funded by other focal areas and initiatives, along with
[multi-focal area] MFA projects, are poised to deliver significant global environmental benefits
(GHG emission reductions) that may be greater than those achieved by activities financed by the
climate change focal area alone. Hence, beyond the Climate Change Focal Area Strategy, the GEF

24 As of February 2017, 132 of the 197 Parties to the Convention Parties have ratified the Paris Agreement.
25 "Paris Agreement". United Nations Treaty Collection. 8 July 2016.

34
will deliver considerable climate change benefits from projects and programs financed under
other focal areas. These cross-focal area contributions represent an important share of the GEF’s
overall contribution towards climate finance. Looking forward, based on the proposed
Programming Directions, the Secretariat will monitor the share of “climate-related finance” 26 in
GEF-7 and provide that it does not fall below 60% of all funding commitments over the four-year
period.

Conference of the Parties (COP) Guidance to the GEF

108. The GEF-7 period (2018 to 2022) coincides with a key phase in the implementation of the
Paris Agreement. Article 9 of the Paris Agreement confirmed that as an operating entity of the
Financial Mechanism of the Convention, the GEF would serve as financial mechanism of the
Agreement. Further, Article 13 establishes an enhanced transparency framework for action and
support. The COP decision adopting the Paris Agreement urged and requested the GEF to make
arrangements to support the establishment and operation of a Capacity-building Initiative for
Transparency (CBIT), including through voluntary contributions to support developing countries
during GEF-6 and future replenishment cycles.

109. The GEF-7 framework is structured to address these seminal COP decisions for the Paris
Agreement, and to further support climate action in developing countries in line with the GEF’s
role as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC. The framework is aligned
with GEF’s comparative advantage to foster innovative project designs; proven track record of
support for technology transfer; and ability to attract private sector co-financing.

110. The most recent UNFCCC COP guidance to the GEF was provided at COP 23 in Bonn,
Germany in 2017. The COP reiterated its call upon Parties to ensure a robust seventh
replenishment taking into consideration the Paris Agreement. The COP also encouraged the GEF
to further enhance engagement with the private sector, including in technology projects, and
invited the GEF to support developing countries in undertaking technology needs assessments
(TNA) and piloting priority technology projects to foster innovation and investment. The COP
further welcomed the operationalization of the CBIT and requested the GEF to provide adequate
support in line with the COP 21 decision requesting its establishment and operation. Parties at
COP 23 also adopted a new gender action plan that aims to advance the mainstreaming of a
gender perspective into all elements of climate action.

111. Prior guidance encouraged alignment of GEF-7 programming with priorities identified in
countries' NDCs, where they exist, and to continue to promote synergies across focal areas. It
requested the GEF to provide enhanced support, including enabling activities in the context of
national climate strategies and plans, and to continue to assist, in particular, the least developed
countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS) in efficiently accessing resources. In

26
For the purposes of reporting to the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD DAC), the GEF has defined “climate-related finance” as GEF financing that
contributes towards climate change mitigation or adaptation as a principal or a significant objective, consistent
with the Rio Marker methodology (http://www.oecd.org/dac/environment-development/rioconventions.htm).

35
addition, the COP has encouraged the GEF to further expand the use of non-grant instruments
and requested the GEF to take into consideration climate risks in all its programs and operations.
On capacity building, the GEF has been requested to continue to support activities related to the
implementation of Article 6 of the Convention. On technology transfer, the GEF has been
encouraged to continue enhancing collaboration with the Climate Technology Centre and
Network (CTCN), and to strengthen linkages between the Technology Mechanism and the
Financial Mechanism.

112. In light of the Paris Agreement, the SDGs, and consistent with COP guidance, GEF-7 will
build on its unique capacity to integrate multi-focal area priorities across the MEAs to deliver
greater global environmental benefits and on the GEF’s proven track record to support
technology transfer, pilot and demonstrate innovative business models and technologies, and
catalyze climate finance.

GEF-7 Climate Change Focal Area Investments and Associated Programming

113. The establishment and operationalization of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) has added to
the evolving context in which the GEF operates. The GEF-7 Climate Change Focal Area Strategy is
specifically designed to be complementary to programming by the GCF and other climate funds,
based on the GEF's unique role in the global environmental finance architecture to lay the
foundation for enhanced climate action, namely by 1) harnessing synergies across the different
focal areas in line with an integrated approach to generate multiple global environmental
benefits; and 2) building on the GEF's long-standing track record of driving innovation and
funding demonstration and pilot activities that are too early in the market adoption chain to be
within the reach of other providers of environmental finance. Building on the GEF-6 Focal Area
Strategy and in alignment with UNFCCC COP guidance, the GEF-7 Climate Change Focal Area
Strategy aims to support developing countries to make transformational shifts towards low
emission and climate-resilient development pathways. To achieve this goal, the strategy
continues to emphasize three fundamental objectives:

• Promote innovation and technology transfer for sustainable energy breakthroughs;

• Demonstrate mitigation options with systemic impacts; and

• Foster enabling conditions for mainstreaming mitigation concerns into sustainable

development strategies.

114. In GEF-7 these objectives will be addressed through country driven investments in the
focal area and specific impact programs. Detailed descriptions for the focal area objectives are
provided below, including eligible activities and entry points within the focal area or in relevant
impact programs.

36
Objective 1. Promote innovation and technology transfer for sustainable energy breakthroughs

115. In GEF-7, partnership with the private to promote technology transfer and deployment
will be a key priority. Technology is key area for the UNFCCC and in Article 10 of the Paris
Agreement, and is one of the key means to reduce, or slow the growth in GHG emissions, and to
stabilize their concentrations. To that end, technology innovation with the private sector can help
create or expand markets for products and services, generating jobs and supporting economic
growth. Supportive policies and strategies are fundamental to catalyze innovation and
technology transfer for mitigation and enhance private sector investment. Resources from the
GEF play a key role in piloting emerging innovative solutions, including technologies,
management practices, supportive policies and strategies, and financial tools which foster private
sector engagement for technology and innovation.

116. The objective to promote innovation and technology transfer for sustainable energy
breakthroughs has four entry points:

• De-centralized renewable power with energy storage;

• Electric drive technologies and electric mobility;

• Accelerating energy efficiency adoption; and

• Cleantech innovation.

117. These four entry points have been prioritized to be innovative, align with NDCs, and be
complementary to other financial mechanisms.

118. Sustainable energy is vital, as energy related carbon emissions are the major driver of
climate change; therefore, transformation of energy systems is key to achieving the Paris
Agreement and the SDGs. Emissions from the transport sector in particular are growing rapidly
and countries need solutions. The rapid decline in costs of low-carbon energy technologies has
provided an opportunity for rapid growth in sustainable energy supply. However, the speed and
scale of sustainable energy investment in developing countries is far from what it is needed to
address climate change and attain the SDGs. Energy demand in many developing countries is
expected to continue to rise rapidly driven by economic and population growth.

119. In order to transform energy systems at the pace and scale needed to meet country
development priorities and NDC targets, developing countries must ensure that the rapidly
growing supply of low-carbon energy is connected to consumers in the most efficient and cost-
effective manner. Thus, broad sectoral interventions and innovative business models that go
beyond business as usual must be fostered. The four entry points in this objective address areas
of disruption in the energy sector where new technologies and policies are creating tremendous
opportunity to transform the sector.

37
120. Innovation is vital and builds on the GEF’s proven track record of establishing enabling
conditions through policy and regulatory reform, and fostering innovative and risk-taking
opportunities to promote climate change mitigation. Many of the GEF’s prior investments
provided support for a new technology or business model that was on the cusp of maturity, which
enabled it to become competitive in the marketplace and foster widespread adoption.

121. To take advantage of the GEF’s comparative advantage, programming under this
objective does not prioritize direct support for large-scale deployment and diffusion of mitigation
options with GEF financing only. Rather, GEF-7 resources should be utilized to reduce risks and
enhance enabling environments, so that the results can facilitate additional investments and
support by other international financing institutions, the private sector, and/or domestic sources
to replicate and scale up in a timely manner.

122. This focal area objective supports innovation and technology transfer at key early and
middle stages of development, focusing on the demonstration and early deployment of
innovative technologies to deliver sustainable energy solutions that control, reduce or prevent
GHG emissions.

123. In addition to country projects, focused interventions may be delivered through

programmatic approaches or regional projects.

De-centralized renewable power with energy storage

124. Grid modernization and integration of energy storage are critically needed to facilitate
the rapid growth of renewable energy in a cost-effective manner. In numerous developing
countries, the rapid growth of renewable energy, and rapid changes due to climate change, are
severely impacting the ability of the utility grid to provide reliable low-carbon electricity. Just as
importantly, de-centralized generation is challenging traditional utility models, creating
opportunities and challenges for rapid growth of low-carbon energy. Energy storage technology
has emerged as a new disruptor, changing market dynamics with rapidly improving technology
capacity and declining costs, but the technology is not yet reaching many countries. The GEF will
support countries that have identified power sector transformation through mini-grids, energy
storage, and new business models.

Electric drive technologies and electric mobility

125. The GEF support for low-carbon transport options has covered the full spectrum of
investments from alternative fuel vehicles and fuel efficient vehicles to bus-rapid-transit and
bicycle sharing programs. Based on technology advances and market trends, the electric vehicle
market is already growing rapidly and is poised to radically change the need for fossil fuels in the
transport sector. Coupled with new, low-carbon sources of renewable energy, electric vehicles
are both efficient, low-carbon, and can improve grid reliability. Many countries also see the
burgeoning market for electric drive technologies as a jobs creator through new opportunities in
manufacturing, infrastructure, and services. Electric drive technologies significantly reduce local
air pollution. Still, barriers to adoption of electric mobility are significant and true commercial

38
scaling has not yet been achieved. The GEF will support countries seeking to foster appropriate
regulatory frameworks, plan for disruptive market changes, and foster integration of electric
vehicles into the grid.

Accelerating energy efficiency adoption

126. Despite the availability of energy efficiency technology and proven approaches, the
adoption and uptake of energy efficiency policies, measures, and technologies has not reached
its full potential. Building on a successful GEF-6 partnership with SEforAll, in GEF-7 additional
countries will be supported through the energy efficiency accelerators. The accelerators share
common approaches across diverse sub-sectors, including Buildings, District Heating and Cooling,
Energy Management for Industry, Equipment and Appliances. The accelerators promote global
best practices, foster harmonization of testing and performance standards, and provide technical
assistance to countries needing targeted engagement. These accelerators identify critical barriers
to adoption of energy efficiency and pilot approaches that can be further scaled by other
institutions, including the private sector. A new accelerator for addressing the need of energy
efficiency retrofits in multi-family dwellings will be considered. Accelerator models based on the
Finance and Technology Transfer Centre for Climate Change (FINTECC) model may be considered.

Cleantech innovation

127. The GEF will support countries that wish to foster technology deployment, dissemination,
and transfer through entrepreneurship and with a special emphasis on SMEs and private sector
partnerships. In GEF-6, eight countries participated in the GEF Global Cleantech Innovation
Programme (GCIP) promoting innovation in energy, water, and buildings. Over 900 private sector
companies have been trained, mentored, and introduced to funding opportunities. Hundreds of
the innovators and companies are women-owned and operated. In many cases these companies
are already up and running, attracting investment, making innovative products, and delivering
environmental benefits. Working in partnership with these early stage private sector innovators
can open the door to needed investment. A small sample of just ten private sector companies
supported through GCIP has raised USD 22 million in investment and created over 300 jobs while
reducing 600,000 tCO2e. Through fostering of innovation and training a new generation of
entrepreneurs, countries will be able to partner with the private sector to accelerate technology
transfer, support small and medium enterprises, and create jobs.

Objective 2. Demonstrate mitigation options with systemic impacts

128. Climate change affects virtually all natural and economic systems. This interaction
between climate change and biodiversity, land degradation, forests, chemicals and waste, and
international waters points to the importance of recognizing climate change implications in all
GEF-7 focal areas and impact programs by harnessing mitigation options to address them and
integrating climate resilience measures to address climate change risks. The GEF has the unique
ability to support natural solutions developed with systems thinking that take advantage of
synergies to seek multiple global environmental benefits across Conventions while reducing
trade-offs and duplication.

39
129. Accordingly, demonstrating mitigation options with systemic impacts can achieve
additional benefits when conducted in holistic and integrated fashion through the GEF-7 impact
programs; specifically, the Sustainable Cities, Food Systems, Land and Restoration, and
Sustainable Forest Management Impact Programs.

Sustainable Cities Impact Program

130. The Sustainable Cities Impact Program will be critical to address both short-term and long-
term climate change challenges in the rapidly growing urban sector. The Sustainable Cities Impact
Program targets urban interventions with significant climate change mitigation potential to help
cities shift towards low-emission and resilient urban development in an integrated manner. Cities
must be empowered to effectively support the implementation of NDCs and low-carbon
development pathways. Examples of low-carbon technologies and practices needed in the urban
sector include energy efficiency (buildings, lighting, air conditioning, transport, district heating
systems), renewable energy development (solar, wind, co-generation, waste-to-energy), and
solid waste and wastewater management. Stronger land use and transport planning will lead to
long-term emissions reduction in the urban sector and support resilient development.

Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration Impact Program

131. The Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration Impact Program provides the opportunity
for an integrated approach to foster climate smart agriculture and sustainable land management
while also increasing the prospects for food security for smallholders and communities that are
dependent on farming for their livelihoods. Restoring agricultural productivity while also
reducing GHG emissions is key for countries to jointly meet their NDCs and SDG goals. This Impact
Program will also foster a sustainable supply chain with regard to production, processing, and
demand for key agricultural commodities that is vital to long-term emissions reductions from
agriculture through avoided deforestation of tropical forests. In addition, the Impact Program
will also support measures that increase carbon storage in farmlands, and may include reduced
tillage, integrated crop-livestock, agroforestry and other innovative soil quality improving
techniques that clearly target sustainable and scalable GHG emissions reductions.

Sustainable Forest Management Impact Program

132. The GEF’s historic SFM investments have already demonstrated the significant climate
change benefits available through integrated approaches on forests. In GEF-7, the Sustainable
Forest Management Impact Program will foster low-carbon strategies in the Amazon, the Congo
Basin, and dryland forests. Taken together, these three biomes are critical to halting the release
of GHG emissions through avoided deforestation and by enhancing carbon stocks above and
below ground. The GEF’s commitment to addressing climate change through this Impact Program
is aligned with NDCs of countries that have identified forest and land-based emissions as a large
proportion of their national GHG emissions.

40
Objective 3. Foster enabling conditions for mainstreaming mitigation concerns into sustainable
development strategies

133. The GEF continues to address the need for enabling conditions to mainstream climate
change concerns into the national planning and development agenda through its support for
enabling activities, including Convention obligations and the Capacity-building Initiative for
Transparency through sound data, analysis, and policy frameworks.

134. As in prior GEF cycles, under the GEF-7 Climate Change Mitigation Strategy countries will
have access for Convention obligations and CBIT support from set-asides that do not draw on
country allocations. Country allocations will be available to deliver on other enabling activities.
All projects will be required to demonstrate alignment to national priorities including in national
climate strategies and plans, NDCs, Technology Needs Assessments, National Communications,
and Biennial Update Reports.

135. This objective will be delivered directly through focal area projects and enabling activities,
with the following entry points:

• Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency;

• NDC preparation; and

• Enabling activities.

Capacity-building Initiative for Transparency

136. The CBIT launched in GEF-6 will be mainstreamed in the GEF-7 Climate Change Mitigation
Focal Area Strategy to support projects that build instiutional and technical capacity to meet the
enhanced transparency requirements in the Paris Agreement. The CBIT, as per paragraph 85 of
the COP decision adopting the Paris Agreement, will aim:

• To strengthen national institutions for transparency-related activities in line with national

priorities;

• To provide relevant tools, training and assistance for meeting the provisions stipulated in
Article 13 of the Agreement; and

• To assist in the improvement of transparency over time.

137. The Paris Agreement in Article 13 establishes an enhanced transparency framework for
action and support, with built-in flexibility which takes into account Parties’ different capacities
and builds upon collective experience.

138. The purpose of the framework for transparency of action is to provide a clear
understanding of climate change action in light of the objective of the Convention as set out in
its Article 2, including clarity and tracking of progress towards achieving Parties’ nationally

41
determined contributions, and Parties’ adaptation actions, including good practices, priorities,
needs and gaps, to inform the global stocktake under Article 14 of the Paris Agreement.
Specifically, each Party is required to provide the following information:

• A national inventory report of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks

of greenhouse gases, prepared using good practice methodologies accepted by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and agreed upon by the Conference of the
Parties servicing as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement;

• Information necessary to track progress made in implementing and achieving its

nationally determined contribution under Article 4; and

• The Paris Agreement also states that countries should provide information on climate
change impacts and adaptation under Article 7 of the Agreement.

139. The purpose of the framework for transparency is to provide clarity on support provided
and received by relevant individual Parties, and, to the extent possible, to provide a full overview
of aggregate financial support provided, to inform the global stocktake.

140. Developed country Parties shall, and other Parties that provide support should, provide
information on financial, technology transfer, and capacity-building support provided to
developing country Parties under Articles 9, 10, and 11 of the Agreement, and developing country
Parties should provide information on financial, technology transfer, and capacity building
support needed and received under these Articles.

141. The CBIT will support activities aligned with its aim at the national and regional/global
levels. 27

NDC preparation

142. Given the timing of GEF-7, countries will have the opportunity to update their NDCs with
enhanced ambition after the facilitative dialogue of 2018 provides an assessment of collective
progress towards the goals of the Paris Agreement. The GEF will continue to support Parties in
the preparation and communication of their NDCs, following COP guidance. Countries may use
country allocations for these activities. In addition, collaboration with ongoing global programs
that support NDC implementation will continue to be supported through the CBIT.

Enabling activities

143. The GEF will continue to provide resources to non-Annex I countries to prepare National
Communications (NCs) and Biennial Update Reports (BURs) to comply with Convention
obligations in line with COP guidance. The GEF stands ready to respond to additional COP
guidance on Convention obligations and the transparency framework subject to resource
availability. The GEF may also support actions and activities to sustainably develop and enhance

27 For a non-exhaustive list of eligible activities please refer to the CBIT Programming Directions Document

42
the capacity of countries to prepare their NCs and BURs through for example a Global Support
Program that provides logistical and technical support, capacity-building, and knowledge
management activities, with a view to facilitating the timely preparation and submission of NCs
and BURs. Countries will have access to set-aside resources for these activities. Support for
technology needs assessments (TNA) will also be made eligible for small island developing states
and least developed countries for this objective.

43
LAND DEGRADATION FOCAL AREA STRATEGY
Global Context of Land Degradation

144. The world population is projected to increase by about 2.5 billion people to 9.7 billion in
2050 (+35%) with rising demands for agricultural produce including food, feed, fiber, and fuel.

145. About 2 billion ha, or 25% of the total global land area has been affected by land
degradation. Each year, an estimated 24 billion tons of fertile soil are lost globally. Agricultural
GHG emissions – excluding the effects of agriculture on land-use change – make up an estimated
13% of total global emissions. In the drylands, 12 million ha of land are being degraded by
desertification annually.

146. Globally, 1.5 billion people are affected by land degradation, especially rural
communities, smallholder farmers, and the very poor. 70% of the world’s poorest people live in
rural areas and depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. Land and forest degradation processes
threaten the livelihoods, well-being, food, water and energy security and increase vulnerability
of millions of people, and in many cases cause migration and serious social unrest.

147. Dryland landscapes cover approximately 40% of the world’s land area and support two
billion people, 90% of whom live in developing countries where women and children are most
vulnerable to the impacts of land degradation and drought. Dryland landscapes often face
governance challenges such as low human resource capacity (e.g. low education attainment), low
investment of public resources, weak penetration of government services, and insecure land
tenure and resource rights.

148. Pressure on the global land resource is increasing due to the following factors: 1) growing
demand for food and agricultural commodities in terms of both quantity and quality for an
expanding and more affluent world population; 2) competition for productive land for biofuel,
urban expansion and other non-productive uses; 3) decrease or lack of growth in productivity
due to decline in soil health indicated by lower nutrient status and organic matter, and other
degradation processes; 4) weakened resilience of agricultural production systems on account of
depleted biodiversity and the associated ecosystem services; and 5) natural factors such as
climate variability and extreme weather events. Climate change exacerbates variations in yields
and income from agriculture, threatening the resilience of agro-ecosystems and stability of food
production systems.

149. Gender roles have impacts on both farming and livelihood systems, but the contribution
of women smallholder farmers often goes unrecognized. Women farmers often have less access
to land, decision making processes, labor, credit, information, technology, and extension.
Therefore, the GEF-7 LD Focal Area strategy will mainstream gender by including 1) practical
gender needs – improving the conditions of women through access to resources, services and
opportunities, and 2) strategic gender interests – empowering women to take decisions and be
better represented in various decision making bodies.

44
150. At the twelfth Conference of the Parties (COP12) in Ankara,, UNCCD Parties “Decide[d]
that striving to achieve target 15.3 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is a strong
vehicle for driving implementation of the UNCCD, within the scope of the Convention”
(3/COP.12). Target 15.3 reads as "By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and
soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land
degradation neutral world." In this context, the UNCCD has recognized Land Degradation
Neutrality (LDN) as a tool that can help interested parties more sustainably manage their land
and mobilize resources for doing so.

151. GEF’s mandate to invest in global environmental benefits from production landscapes
relates directly to its role as a financial mechanism of the UNCCD. The Land Degradation focal
area provides the opportunity for eligible countries to utilize GEF resources for implementing the
Convention and its Strategic Framework 2018-2030.

152. Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) is an important UNCCD concept, defined as “a state
whereby the amount and quality of land resources necessary to support ecosystem function and
services and enhance food security remain stable or increase within specified temporal and
spatial scales and ecosystems”. The LDN concept is considered to have the potential to act as an
accelerator for achieving a number of Sustainable Development Goals. Voluntary LDN targets
create a measurable goal for sustainable land management, promoting a dual approach of
measures to avoid or reduce degradation of land combined with measures to reverse past
degradation. The minimum objective is that losses are balanced by gains so that a position of no
net loss of healthy and productive land is achieved (see UNCCD Science-Policy Brief 02, Sept.
2016, “Land in Balance”).

153. At the most recent Conference of the Parties, UNCCD parties invited the GEF, during GEF-
7, to continue providing technical and financial support for capacity building, reporting, and
voluntary national land degradation neutrality target setting and implementation.

154. The GEF is well-placed to help countries to implement convention decisions and facilitate
coordinated investments in sustainable land management (SLM) practices, including LDN. Since
land degradation has both poverty and global environment dimensions, integrated solutions are
required to support interventions that address both dimensions. Building synergies across the
GEF delivery model and linking up with ongoing landscape restoration initiatives such as the Bonn
Challenge, AFR100, and the 20 x 20 Initiative, will improve the cost effectiveness of interventions
and deliver multiple outcomes toward environmental, social and economic sustainability.

45
 Table 3. COP Decisions of Relevance for GEF-7 Land Degradation Focal Area Strategy

UNCCD COP Decision Delivery mechanism

The Land Degradation Focal Area provides the framework for Focal Area Investments
eligible countries to utilize GEF resources for implementing
the Convention and its new long-term (2018-2030) strategy, Integrated land
which contributes to: management and
restoration of
(i) achieving the objectives of the Convention and the 2030 degraded production
Agenda for Sustainable Development, in particular regarding landscapes
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 15 and target 15.3 and
other interrelated SDGs, within the scope of the Convention; Sustainable management
of dryland landscapes
(ii) improving the living conditions of affected populations; and
Diversification of crop and
(iii) enhancing ecosystems services. livestock systems

Creating an enabling
COP13 invites the Global Environment Facility to continue its environment to
support for the implementation of the Convention under support voluntary LDN
GEF-7, in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals, target
in particular target 15.3. implementation

Voluntary LDN target

COP13 also invites the Global Environment Facility, during GEF-7,
setting
to continue providing technical and financial support for
capacity-building, reporting and voluntary national land UNCCD Enabling Activities
degradation neutrality target-setting and implementation.

COP13 encourages the Global Environment Facility to continue Impact Programs

and further enhance means to harness opportunities for
leveraging synergies among the Rio Conventions and other Food Systems, Land Use,
relevant multilateral environmental agreements, as well as and Restoration
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Sustainable Forest
COP13 invites the Global Environment Facility donors to use the Management
findings and lessons learnt, contained in the report on
programming and priorities in the affected regions, to inform Sustainable Cities
the programming directions for the focal area in the Seventh
Replenishment phase of the Global Environment Facility
(GEF-7)

46
GEF-7 Land Degradation Focal Area Investments and Associated Programming

155. The LD Focal Area strategy in GEF-7 has three main goals: 1) aligning GEF support to
promote UNCCD’s Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) concept through an appropriate mix of
investments; 2) seeking effective integration within the Impact Programs for generation of
multiple benefits; and 3) harnessing private capital and expertise to finance investments in
sustainable land management, in particular in coo-operation with the LDN fund and other
innovative financing mechanisms.

156. GEF investment will seek to address the drivers of land degradation, robust assessment
of experience and existing knowledge, and knowledge and experience gained through ongoing
implementation of LD Focal Area related projects and programs. The GEF will focus on innovative
approaches that can be scaled up to maximize global benefits for the environment and also
address the issues of biodiversity, climate change, and local livelihoods.

157. GEF will continue to apply a comprehensive landscape approach as the best way forward
to address the broad multi-faceted nature of land degradation across the range of agro-ecological
and climatic zones globally. The LDN tool will inform the conceptual framework to establish
baselines, targets, indicators and the metrics for monitoring and evaluation of GEF interventions.

158. The LD Focal Area investments will focus on production landscapes where agricultural and
rangeland management practices underpin the livelihoods of poor rural farmers and pastoralists.
A specific emphasis in GEF-7 is placed on sustainable management of drylands in arid and semi-
arid zones addressing, among other issues, drought-prone ecosystems and populations.

159. Access to finance and technical assistance for smallholders and small businesses in most
land sectors is a big challenge. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are critical
contributors in the agricultural sector at the leading edge of both environmental impact and
solutions to mitigate these. Strategies pursued with the private sector will target SMEs that are
promoting innovations agriculture and livestock production systems.

160. Several new private sector funds have emerged recently, e.g. the Moringa, & Green, and
the LDN fund. These funds invest in profit-generating sustainable land management and
restoration projects worldwide. The LD Focal Area will explore potential cooperation with such
funds through providing the techncial assistance necessary and facilitate de-risking to make
projects bankable.

161. Another potential for cooperation will be explored in countries 28 that are already in an
advanced stage or have expressed interest in bringing projects to private sector funds and may
wish to utilize additional GEF STAR resources to support the establishment of the necessary
institutional framework and monitoring mechanisms and/or invest in measures that create
Global Environmental Benefits (GEBs).

28E.g. Brazil, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Peru, Tanzania, Zambia, Kazakhstan, Mali, and Colombia are in the pipeline for LDN funding
Support.

47
Objective 1. Support on the ground implementation of SLM to achieve LDN

162. Objective 1 of the LD Focal Area strategy will be delivered through the following three
entry points:

• Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration Impact Program;

• Sustainable Forest Management Impact Program; and

• Sustainable Cities Impact Program.

163. The three Impact Programs form a major component of the GEF delivery towards
combating land degradation and deforestation in the following ways:

• Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration: This IP provides the opportunity for an
integrated approach to implementing SLM to increase the prospects for food security for
smallholders and communities that are dependent on farming for their livelihoods. It will
target countries seeking to meet growing demand for increased crop and livestock
production, without the risk of further expansion of farmland, erosion of genetic diversity,
overexploitation of land and water resources, overuse of chemical fertilizers and
pesticides, and inefficient practices that lead to greenhouse gas emissions and food loss
and waste. Restoration of productive landscapes will feature as an important element of
this IP, especially in drylands and production areas where agro-forestry land-use systems
dominate. A huge opportunity exists to restore agricultural productivity in (degraded)
agro-forestry systems by improving soil management and increasing soil organic matter
content, increasing the vegetation and tree coverage, and thereby generating multiple
environmental and socio-economic benefits. More than 200 million hectares has been
pledged by countries through various landscape restoration initiatives such as the Bonn
Challenge, Africa 100, and the Initiative 20 x 20 in Latin America. The GEF will enable
countries to deliver on these commitments through investments that will shift degraded
lands into production systems for food and commodities. A sustainable supply chain with
regard to production, processing, and demand for key agricultural commodities is vital for
achieving LDN. The synergy with arresting and reversing land degradation is on the
sustainable production side, especially by involving smallholder farmers and local
communities and facilitating a mutually beneficial engagement with the private sector. In
this way changes to commodity production pathways can be made before irreversible
damage is done to the respective agro-ecosystems;

• Sustainable Forest Management: Besides the focus on tropical forest landscapes in the
Amazon and the Congo Basin, the SFM program seeks to avoid further degradation,
desertification, and deforestation of land and ecosystems in drylands through the
sustainable management of production landscapes, addressing the complex nexus of
local livelihoods, land degradation, climate change, and environmental security. Main
elements of the program are: 1) sustainable management of dryland forests and trees
outside forests; 2) the promotion of diversified agro-ecological food production systems

48
 in drylands; 3) integrated landscape management with particular attention to rangelands
and livestock production in view of their effect on forest resources; and 4) the creation of
an enabling environment to support the three objectives above. Dryland landscapes will
be considered for participation in the program based on a regional balance with other
Programs within the SFM IP. The focus on specific dryland geographies such as Central
Asia, South Asia, the Sahel, North Africa and the Mediterranean, South Africa, and South
America will allow to address a unique set of issues that are closely related to the
vulnerability of social and environmental systems and their resilience; and

• Sustainable Cities: This IP will create opportunity for countries to integrate voluntary LDN
targets into urban planning. As cities continue to expand into peri-urban areas,
urbanization will increasingly encroach on productive agricultural land, which will in turn
trigger the need for opening new areas for agricultural production. Thus, countries and
cities need to promote improved and efficient production practices in the “urban-scape,”
as part of a broader strategy to arrest and reverse land degradation, and increase
diversification of the urban food system.

164. Targeted Impact Program investments will directly support voluntary LDN target
implementation at national levels and are structured along the following three outcomes:

• Dryland Sustainable Landscapes: The main outcome is to avoid further degradation and
desertification of land and ecosystems through the sustainable management of
production landscapes in drylands, addressing the complex nexus of local livelihoods, land
degradation, climate change, and environmental security including the mitigation of the
effects of drought. Investments in drylands will generate multiple environmental benefits
and secure local livelihoods by focusing on a unique set of issues that are closely related
to the vulnerability of social and environmental systems and their resilience. A landscape
approach will help to tailor implementation packages to a wide range of dryland
landscapes in arid and semi-arid zones. The main purpose is to help participating
countries to achieve LDN in poverty stricken and fragile areas. Countries pursuing this
objective will have a high percentage share of arid, semi-arid, and sub-humid drylands
and have set voluntary LDN targets to help accomplish this objective;

• Diversified agro-ecological food production systems: Diversified agro-ecological food

production systems aim to improve productivity and maintain or improve flow of services
that underpin food production and livelihoods. Innovative approaches will support an
efficient use of land, soil, water, and vegetation in crop and livestock production systems,
including temporal diversification and spatial diversification at various levels, including
plot, farm and landscape (e.g. crop rotation, intercropping; mixed farming as crop-
livestock and crop aquaculture systems). Private sector involvement will be important to
link smallholder producers and pastoralists to markets, introduce sustainable supply
chains, and create stable revenues with agricultural commodities, especially dryland
commodities such as cotton, wool, leather, shea, gum Arabica, etc.; and

49
 • Integrated landscape management and restoration: Integrated landscape management
addresses the physical, biological and socio-economic aspects of the processes of land
degradation, with specific attention to desertification and deforestation to maximize the
delivery of multiple benefits in the context of food security and livelihoods of affected
communities. Integrated landscape management is a comprehensive framework to invest
in the management of landscape across sectors and across political or administrative
boundaries in the context of sustainable development. GEF will support wide applications
of innovative tools to prioritize policy reforms, investments, and other interventions to
optimize the collective impact of all interventions across the landscape. Scaling up of SLM
practices and the restoration of landscapes will be particularly supported, including the
use of locally adapted species, agro-forestry, farmer-managed natural regeneration, and
practices for sustainable supply of wood and biomass energy.

Objective 2. Creating an enabling environment to support voluntary LDN target implementation

165. An essential foundation for LDN investments is a conducive enabling framework and
overarching political support through the UNCCD. Objective two of the LD Focal Area strategy
will support the revision of existing and development of new national frameworks to implement,
monitor, and evaluate LDN targets for countries wishing to set and achieve them.

166. GEF will provide support to:

• Creating an enabling environment to support LDN target implementation: GEF support

will be primarily provided to countries in the following areas:

- Embedding the LDN tool into the existing planning frameworks and participatory land-
use planning to meaningfully involve local governments, cities and urban
municipalities, local communities, indigenous peoples, and women;

- Policy work at national levels leading to the resolution of land tenure issues that are
obstacles to LDN objectives;

- Promoting good governance especially in view of land tenure and efforts in securing
livelihoods of smallholders;

- Providing the technical assistance required to bring bankable projects to the

investment;

- Supporting smallholders through special lending and through extension systems;

- Building capacity at all levels required to restore and maintain functional landscapes;

- Lessons learning and knowledge exchange and south-south cooperation within

regions; and

50
 - Developing monitoring and information systems and targeted research on impacts,
trade-offs, costs-benefit analysis of restoration, and identifying incremental
synergies.

• UNCCD Enabling Activities: GEF support under the GEF-7 LD Focal Area strategy will
include financing for UNCCD enabling activities to support the implementation of the
UNCCD strategy and in accordance with countries’ obligations to the convention, and
based on decisions from the COP. Support will focus on UNCCD reporting obligations and
formulations of National Action Plans in line with the new long-term (2018-2030)
strategy. The GEF-7 LD Focal Area strategy is seeking a more strategic approach towards
enabling activity support with a view to mainstreaming SDGs and enabling cross-sectoral
coordination in countries. This will include a land degradation focal area set aside
focusing, among other issues, on building the necessary institutional capacity and
processes for cross-sectoral integration.

167. Furthermore, GEF will make targeted investments to sustain and rebuild productive areas,
mitigate the effects of drought, increase resilience and prevent conflict and migration. Support
will be provided in specific contexts such as in drought prone and/or fragile areas to address
drivers of fragility and land and water insecurity, to reverse resource pressures, enhance or
restore governance and rebuild natural resource based livelihoods and jobs. There is increasing
evidence of the complex interactions between climate change, food and water insecurity,
extreme events – such as e.g. prolonged and repeated droughts –, and their link to fragility,
armed conflict and migration.

168. In the last 60 years, for example, between 40 and 60% of ongoing internal and interstate
conflicts have been linked to land and natural resources. While natural resource pressures per se
are rarely the determinant factor in causing fragility and social conflicts, climate change and
increased climate variability, land degradation and water stress are considered risk multipliers
for loss of livelihoods, conflicts and large-scale displacement especially in dryland and drought
affected areas. LD Focal Area investment in this regard directly respond to UNCCD priorities,
namely strategic objectives 1 and 2 on combatting desertification and land degradation and on
improving livelihoods to prevent radicalization and migration, and as reconfirmed in the recent
Ordos declaration confirming the clear link between land degradation and desertification as
environmental, societal and economic challenges linked to poverty, water scarcity, decreased
resilience, and forced migration, among other 29.

169. The importance of land based jobs to sustainability and stability especially in LDCs is also
outlined in regional frameworks and declarations, such as e.g. the recent Ouagadougou Call for
Action 30. By positively reinforcing the linkages between human well-being and the health of
ecosystems, GEF-7 investments will aim to maintain, enhance, and restore GEBs with respect to
sustainable land management and co-benefits related to water security, decreasing pollution

29http://www2.unccd.int/sites/default/files/sessions/documents/2017-09/ICCD_COP%2813%29_L.14-1716056E.pdf
30http://www2.unccd.int/sites/default/files/inlinefiles/Call%20for%20Action_Ouagadougou_
FINAL%2015062017%20ENG_1.pdf

51
pressures, and decreasing local deforestation. These measures can contribute to decreasing
fragility, increasing human resilience and delivering substantial development co-benefits.
Targeting poor and vulnerable groups (such as, e.g. women, indigenous groups, and unemployed
youth) in such fragile context has been linked to not only restoring productivity but preventing a
slip into radicalization and/or outmigration.

170. GEF-7 support in this context will focus on (i) decreasing fragility and risks through
enhancing governance of natural resources, including e.g. tenure and access rights (including
potential uneven rights across gender and ethnic groups) and/or decreasing resource pressures
and enhancing natural resource based employment and livelihoods; (ii) restoring governance and
degraded lands and water sources in post-natural disaster and/or conflict prone or conflict
affected areas (with special attention to unemployed youth, women and other vulnerable or
marginalized groups); and (iii) global early warning to identifying early signs where a combination
of environmental risks are contributing to fragility and conflict vulnerability and sharing this
knowledge to promote preventive or remedial actions as appropriate. Global activities will also
engage with private sector groups in supply chain transparency efforts to support the global
monitoring and sustainable sourcing of natural resources in fragile states. Development and
implementation of flexible approaches for country and regional risk and needs assessments will
also form part of this and support the prioritization of investments.

52
INTERNATIONAL WATERS FOCAL AREA STRATEGY
Global Context of International Waters

171. Intrinsically linked to prosperity and economic growth, healthy marine and freshwater
ecosystems have gained high-level global and national attention as critical to sustaining life on
earth. It is globally recognized that transboundary marine and freshwater systems underpin and
connect ecosystems, human health, and key economic sectors. It is therefore imperative that
countries work in a coordinated fashion towards actions that will secure a healthy environment
for present and future generations. At the same time, national and localized planning strategies
are increasingly mainstreaming sustainable use of these ecosystems into development strategies
to ensure they continue to provide valuable services, including food security, potable water,
recreation opportunities and carbon sequestration, all of which contribute to GDP, livelihoods,
improved quality of life and business development.

172. Essential to addressing the multifacetted threats to transboundary freshwater and marine
ecosystems is the need for multinational cooperation supported by regional organisations, such
as transboundary organisations, commissions and, where appropriate, regional economic
commissions. These regional institutions need to function as hubs for harnessing, coordinating
and channeling political and economic interests from both public and private sectors. Further,
while they will be instrumental in catalyzing national policy processes, regional harmonisation,
stimulating essential infrastructure investments and safeguarding long term engagement
strategies continue to be relevant at local, national and regional level.

173. Ocean ecosystems are under unprecedented anthropogenic pressures from climate
change, acidification, habitat loss, pollution, fishing, shipping, and seabed mining. It is estimated
that the world’s Large Marine Ecosystems represent USD 12 trillion annually in market and non-
market ecosystem goods and services. These services include providing livelihoods, food security,
climate regulation, shoreline storm protection, carbon sequestration, and recreational
opportunities for billions of people. However, some of these valuable coastal ecosystems and
open oceans lack sustainable governance structures resulting in continued degradation.
Therefore, efforts must be made to ensure the conservation and sustainable management of
these valuable coastal ecosystems, including through securing adequate governance structures.
Many intergovernmental and international organizations effectively manage and govern relevant
activities in the ABNJ oceans, including the International Maritime Organization, the International
Seabed Authority, and several regional fisheries management organizations established in line
with the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. Additional coordination and cooperation between these
existing organizations would contribute could be beneficial to combat degradation of coastal
ecosystems and the open oceans.

174. Similar to oceans, freshwater ecosystems face daunting threats, including climate change,
urbanization and increasing food demand; yet they are also highly valued ecosystems. Water is a
prerequisite for human and ecosystems survival, underpins many economic activities and is
fundamental to achieving most of the SDGs. Increasing scarcity in many regions of the world
along with pollution of these waters threatens human health and economic development. Water

53
is directly interwoven into national economies through the provision of water for human
settlements, agriculture, energy via cooling water needs and hydropower. Water scarcity events,
such as floods and droughts, can become risk multipliers leading to destabilization, violence and
migration as well as possible ground for radicalization spurring further conflict on national and
regional levels.

175. Fish and related economic activities are increasingly under threat. Currently it is
estimated that 31 % of marine fish stocks are considered overfished and 58 % are considered
fully-fished, meaning that 90 % of stocks have limited or no potential for increasing production
(FAO, 2016). Unsustainable fishing is further compounded by high levels of illegal, underreported
and unregulated fishing with economic losses ranging from USD 10 to 25 billion annually (Agnew,
2009). Additionally, various ABNJ are seriously threatened by activities such as intensified fishing
for highly migratory species, bottom trawling on seamounts, maritime transport and other
stressors calling for the further consideration of the effectiveness of existing legal instruments
and management systems. The UN decision to proceed with the negotiation of a global
Agreement addressing such matters should fulfil that function.

176. The sustainability of all these fisheries – marine, freshwater and aquaculture – urgently
requires improved coordination between management mechanisms to be put in place, to ensure
that they can continue to supply the 3.1 billion people, for which they provide up to 20% of the
animal protein in their daily diet. Further, improved management will be pivotal to efforts to
restore and conserve fisheries habitats, such as wetlands, seagrass, mangroves and reefs, which
are critical nursery and breeding habitats for many fish and crustacean species. Countries,
therefore, need to step up national and regional actions safeguarding their marine and
freshwater ecosystems to ensure continued growth, prosperity and unlock new economic
opportunities.

177. Given the threats facing marine and freshwater ecosystem, strong, informed
management approaches are critical to the sustainability of these valuable ecosystems. The
Transboundary Waters Assessment Program (TWAP), illustrates the importance for action on
transboundary water systems, including Rivers, ABNJ, Lakes Aquifers and LMEs. GEF experience
demonstrate that sustainable environmental management of transboundary resources require a
common understanding of what pressures the shared ecosystems are facing, coupled with
national and regional investment plans. This transboundary approach has been the basis of GEF
investments in International Waters to date and therefore has invested in the process of
assessing threats and opportunities (Transboundary Diagnostic Analyses - TDAs) and developing
regionally agreed action plans (Strategic Action Programs - SAPs), of which, some are already
under implementation. Now that many transboundary ecosystems have established SAPs, the
scene is set for implementation of the regionally agreed national and regional-level actions to
ensure the health of the shared water bodies and their valuable services. The GEF plays a critical
role in these initiatives as a major global grant funding mechanism to invest in transboundary
water ecosystems and their management at regional and national levels.

54
178. Healthy transboundary marine and freshwater ecosystems are prioritized in most INDCs
and NBSAPs. While the GEF is not the financial mechanism nor does it have any obligations to
international conventions, the IW Focal Area Investments will support work of the UN Water
Courses Convention and the UNECE Water Convention, the UN Convertion on the Law of the Sea,
and the RAMSAR Convention. Finally, IWLEARN, the GEF funded cross-agency and multi-actor
platform of knowledge exchange and capacity building, supports facilitating partnerships
between a range of actors to stimulate conversation and capacity between, and beyond, GEF
funded activities.

GEF-7 International Waters Focal Area

179. The unique mandate of GEFs International Water Focal area to support transboundary
cooperation in shared marine and freshwater ecosystems has proven successful in achieving long
term benefits. Complex transboundary water ecosystems, cut across a myriad of sectoral needs
and themes while not being bound by political boundaries. Consequently, setting effective policy
goals, coupled with investments, requires working at all scales, with a range of stakeholders, in
the public and private sectors and across the watershed from source-to-sea and beyond. These
principles are fundamental to the GEF-7 investments in International Waters. Three key
objectives will be the target of GEF-7 IW investments: 1) strengthening national Blue Economy
opportunities to reduce threats to marine and coastal waters; 2) improving management in the
Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ), and 3) enhancing water security 31 in freshwater
ecosystems.

180. These objectives will be realized through regional and national investments in the
regionally endorsed cooperative frameworks (e.g. SAPs). Regional projects will need to leverage
substantial co-financing, such as through blended finance via MDBs, foundations, GEF STAR
financing or other resources to demonstrate national prioritization of the investment. In
particular for national investments implementing regionally endorsed SAP priorities, following
criteria needs to be in adhered to: 1) national investments will need to align with SAP priorities,
2) be coordinated with the relevant regional institution responsible for regionally agreed
frameworks and 3) project needs to include GEF STAR financing, loan and/or national budget
financing.Recognizing the importance of gender issues, gender considerations will be
mainstreamed into all processes and investments. GEF-7 IW investments will continue to require
a gender assessment within each social analysis during project preparation, differentiated
reporting of output indicators and additional measures based on the GEF’s Gender Action Plan.
As a result, the national and regional institutional capacity built, the legislative frameworks

31 Water security has been defined as “the availability of an acceptable quantity and quality of water for health, livelihoods,

ecosystems and production, coupled with an acceptable level of water-related risks to people, environments and economies”.
Water insecurity is perceived when it impairs human and environmental well-being, economic development and resulting in
often difficult cross-sector trade-offs and/or straining cross-border relations. Grey, David & Sadoff, Claudia. (2007). Sink or
Swim? Water Security for Growth and Development. Water Policy. 9. . 10.2166/wp.2007.021.

55
formulated and the policies adopted, implemented and coupled with investments will be more
robust and sustainable.

181. The GEF international Waters investments will stimulate private sector investment
through its three GEF-7 objectives. Even though the entry points vary, there are two main
avenues for private sector engagement namely: 1) Stimulating engagement along the different
supply chains towards reducing impacts on the freshwater and marine ecosystem environments.
These could entail working with large scale commercial fishing fleets, development of marine
spatial plans to identify investment opportunities for both private and public sector, advance
private engagement to increase water, food, energy and environmental security, such as through
industry roundtables and interest group and increase water efficiency, reuse, and reduce point
and non-point sources of pollution addressing both primary and emerging pollutants, along the
source to sea continuum. And 2) de-risking innovative investments within the freshwater and
marine sectors, through support to testing of innovative approaches and technologies. Further,
de-risking will be explored through using the identified areas of investments within the portfolio
of ministerial endorsed SAPs towards attracting private sector investments and finance.

Objective 1. Strengthening Blue Economy opportunities

182. The Blue Economy concept identifies the oceans as areas for potential sustainable
development of existing and new sectors, including tourism, extractive industries, renewable
energy production, fisheries and aquaculture, coastal development and marine transport. To
foster innovation towards more sustainable use of marine and coastal resources there is a need
for coastal and island nations to deploy a suite of tools, among them marine spatial planning.
These tools will foster a holistic understanding of the opportunities and constraints that lies
within Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) to inform policy formulation, adoption and investment
processes towards long-term environmental sustainability. Strengthening blue economy
opportunities, require regional cooperation and national action.

56
 Figure 1. Benefits of a Blue Economy approach

183. The GEF will assist countries in identifying sustainable public and private national
investments within the Blue Economy space, through funding of collective management of
coastal and marine systems and implementation of the full range of integrated ocean policies,
legal and institutional reforms. This will be done in tandem with catalyzing regional processes,
such as the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis/Strategic Action Program (TDA/SAP) 32 in order to
advance cooperation in Large Marine Ecosystems. Roughly 100 GEF-eligible nations have been
reaching agreements, via TDA/SAPs to improve ocean management, via national and regional
activities and agreements. GEF-7 presents a unique opportunity to assist countries in addressing
a suite of stressors such as overfishing, land based sources of pollution, loss and damage of key
coastal and marine ecosystems through a combination of national and regional investments
towards strengthening national Blue Economy opportunities. In GEF-7, investments will be
strengthening nations Blue Economy opportunities, through three areas of strategic action: 1)
sustaining healthy coastal and marine ecosystems; 2) catalyzing sustainable fisheries
management; and, 3) addressing pollution reduction in marine environments.

Sustaining healthy coastal and marine ecosystems

184. Key coastal and marine habitats, such as deltas, mangroves, salt marshes, sea grasses and
coral reefs, are essential to many nations’ economic development and to local and global ocean’s
health. They sustain fisheries, tourism, and coastal protection, sequester carbon, filter run-off
waters, increase local, national and regional climate resilience and provide biodiversity hotspots
while also offering other ecosystem services estimated to be worth USD 100s of billions annually.

185. These essential coastal and marine habitats can be restored through targeted efforts to
rebuild ecosystems and protected through the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs),
through ensuring engagement of local users of the fishery and coastal resources. In addition,

32 The TDA/SAP process consists of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis in which common fact finding, and scientific analysis
identifies the shared threats in a given transboundary ecosystem. This process leads naturally into the formulation of the Strategic
Action Program, which is a politically endorsed document, that identifies the interventions needed to address the agreed threats
in the region.

57
these ecosystems are also part of the world’s 66 Large Marine Ecosystems, which harbor a suite
of essential natural ecosystems that are vital to support national Blue Economy opportunities
that in turn will deliver towards regional targets.

186. Under sustaining healthy coastal and marine ecosystems, the following types of
investments will be supported:

• Develop and implement environmentally sustainable Blue Economy strategies;

• Establish and support existing marine protected areas in key biodiversity hotspots and
coastal habitats;

• Restore degraded key habitats;

• Mainstream marine area based management and spatial tools in regional entities;
including helping to clarify which policy instruments may be useful in reaching the global
target of conserving 10 % of the world’s coastal and marine areas by 2020;

• Create multi-state cooperation frameworks in transboundary deltas including an

integrated source-to-sea approach;

• Formulate and formalize cooperative legal and institutional frameworks built on

TDAs/SAPs approach, towards addressing the multiple anthropogenic pressures,
including climate related effects in the Large Marine Ecosystems;

• Stimulate private sector engagement, through relevant industry sectoral roundtables and
industry groups;

• Engage with national, regional and global stakeholders to increase collaboration and cross
support to investments and processes, including through IW-LEARN; and,

• Foster collaboration among LMEs, Regional Seas conventions and Regional Fisheries
Management Organizations (RFMOs) to protect and restore these key habitats.

Catalyze sustainable fisheries management

187. The oceans are an essential source of protein for 3.1 billion people that depend on the
oceans as their primary source of protein. The GEF, in recognition of the vital role fisheries and
fisheries practices play in impacting ecosystems integrity, eliminating hunger, promoting health,
and reducing poverty, will support investments targeting sustainable fishing practices, policy
processes both on national and regional level. These investments will include marine aquaculture
and highly innovative production of marine algae as a substitute for fishmeal and oils, and its
potential use as a cost effective nutrient pollution remediation, carbon sequestration and
renewable energy tool.

58
188. GEF-7 will also build on, strengthen and expand partnerships to further investments in
sustainable fisheries at local, national and regional scales while expanding opportunities to
engage with the private sector. Initiatives will address national and shared fisheries by supporting
existing policy goals and targets established through RFMOs, the 2009 Port State Measures
Agreement and the FAO Voluntary Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines. Improving shared
management of marine fisheries will also include promoting technology to support monitoring,
compliance and surveillance with particular focus on combatting Illegal Unreported, Unregulated
(IUU) fisheries.

189. In order to catalyze sustainable fisheries management, the following types of investments
will be supported:

• Policy reforms to end IUU, overfishing and sustainably manage marine capture fisheries.

• Implementation of market mechanisms to support sustainable fisheries value chains.

• Standard setting for sustainable aquaculture to enhance marine ecosystem health and
improving food and nutrition security.

• Strengthening and creating policy frameworks, including working with countries to

eliminate harmful incentive structures;

Addressing pollution reduction in marine environments

190. There is an urgent need to address eutrophication of the marine environment. This will
require a suite of investments targeting prevention, reduction, and control of coastal point and
non-point pollution caused by such practices as run-off from agricultural lands and release of
ineffectively treated wastewater treatment. Addressing these needs will help ensure ecological,
social, and economic well-being of coastal nations. The GEF will continue to pilot and promote
the scaling up of innovative measures to prevent point and non-point pollution, as a direct
response to roughly 80% of global collected waste water being discharged untreated and with
severe impacts on the health of freshwater biodiversity, human health, and leading to hypoxia in
coastal zones. The number of hypoxic zones are expected to rise as the oceans warm and urban,
agricultural and industrial waste flows continue to increase. In addition, toxic algal blooms are an
increasing threat to marine life and human health and ‘feed off’ enhanced nutrient contents.
Further, persistent and toxic pollutants are increasingly found in rivers and oceans, ranging from
endocrine disruptors to the recent discovery of significant concentration of persistent organic
pollutants in the deepest parts of our oceans.

191. As highlighted in the recent UNEP resolution 33, 80% marine litter is plastic and has been
found throughout the world’s oceans, from the surface to the sea floor, and from urbanized
coastlines to remote unpopulated islands. 8 million tons of plastics are entering the oceans
annually and ¼ of seafood is contaminated with plastics. In the report Marine Debris as a Global

33 UNEP/EA.3/L.20

59
Environmental Problem, the GEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel highlighted the
significance of this issue and accordingly recommended GEF take action. In GEF-6 the GEF sort to
build a global corporate alliance across the entire plastics value chain, to identify and socialize
among APEC countries waste management solutions and to advise on opportunities for future
GEF investements. Recognizing the need to transform the entire life cycle of plastics to reduce
marine plastic pollution, the GEF will invest in a few strategic Circular Economy initiatives to
promote the adoption of closed loop production and consumption patterns instead of traditional
linear take-make-waste approaches. Investments will be focusing on public-private investments
to transform the plastic life cycle, combined with coordination and knowledge sharing with other
GEF-7 Circular Economy initiatives, such as those supported under the Chemicals and Waste Focal
Area focusing on addressing POPs and Mercury.

192. Looking to GEF-7 a suite of investments are needed to prevent, reduce, and control
coastal point and non-point pollution to ensure ecological, social, and economic well-being of
coastal and island nations. The GEF will continue to pilot and promote the scaling of innovative
point and non-point nutrient pollution, through the following types of investments:

• Catalyze national policy development coupled with investments in innovative

approaches, through regional processes, to address nutrient and emerging pollution
issues along the Source-to-Sea/Ridge-to-Reef Continuum;

• Support common fact finding between public and private sectors to ensure that priority
actions will lead to transformed practices in both sectors;

• Stimulate private sector engagement, through relevant industry sectoral roundtables and
industry groups;

• Increase understanding of marine noise in a transboundary context potentially through

target research, towards stimulating the adoption by private sector of good practices
aiming at avoiding and mitigating the impacts of marine noise on marine fauna;

• Support and engage with national, regional and global stakeholders to increase
collaboration and cross support to investments and processes, through IWLEARN; and

• Support a few strategic global and regional investments to transform plastic life cycles
that emphasize public-private partnerships and significantly address global marine plastic
pollution.

Objective 2. Improve management in the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ)

193. The complex ecosystems in the ABNJ include both the water column and seabed making
the sustainable management of fisheries resources and biodiversity conservation especially
challenging. Urgent action is needed to improve conservation and sustainable use of the open
oceans that covers 40% of the planet, and are increasingly threatened by over-fishing of iconic

60
pelagic migratory species, maritime navigation, ocean energy facilities, bottom trawling on
seamounts, pollution and extraction of minerals and hydrocarbons.

194. Building on GEFs past experience in successfully supporting an applied ecosystem-based

approach to fisheries management of deep sea fisheries, including seamounts, as well as regional
tuna fisheries management organizations (tRFMOs) in ABNJ. The GEF intends through this
strategic objective to renew its efforts within the ABNJ space. In GEF-7 support will be given to
foster information sharing to promote sustainable practices and inform decision-making by
private businesses and regional organisations such as, LME commissions, RFMOs or the Regional
Seas program. Addressing fisheries and in particular IUU fishing in the high seas will also continue
to be a high priority. GEF investments will assist capacity building among concerned states and
organisations and foster public private partnerships between the RFMOs and the large
commercial fishing fleets harvesting in the high seas and its associated supply chain. Finally, GEF
investments will facilitate cooperative frameworks between the ABNJs and the Large Marine
Ecosystems that they border, to improve management opportunitties and cohesion between
these two interdependent management frameworks.

195. The following types of investments will be supported to ensure sound maritime legal
frameworks for the protection and sustainable use of biodiversity:

• Strengthen support to RFMO activities including national and regional policy setting to
end IUU and overfishing and inform sustainably management of marine capture fisheries;

• Policy work towards reaching agreements to reduce harmful fishing subsidies;

• Collaboration among relevant international, regional and domestic bodies on area-based

management in national waters and ABNJs;

• Reduce overexploitation of fish stocks and IUU, through implementation of international

agreements; and

• Reduce overexploitation of fish stocks, with a particular focus on IUU.

Objective 3. Enhance water security in freshwater ecosystems

196. Shared freshwater resources comprise a special case for cooperation with large potential
spillover and global impacts. Transboundary river basins cover about 50% of the earth’s land
surface and are home to about 40% of the world’s population. 1.2 billion people live in river
basins where human water use has surpassed sustainable limits. Cooperation on water,
therefore, is ‘a must’ in most international basins to support the need for water, food, energy,
and ecosystems security and increase resilience for each nation. The need for transboundary
cooperation, therefore, has been anchored in the SDGs as an essential element for effective
integrated water resources management (SDG 6.5). Shared groundwater resources are especially
hard to manage due to the limited knowledge of the resource and its ‘invisibility’. With mounting
pressures on water resources and increasing pressures from climate variability and change

61
managing surface and groundwater is the only sustainable path. Both cooperation on water
quantity and quality are of key concern – impacting people and environmental assets of global
significance, including wetland biodiversity, freshwater fish stocks, and unique aquatic and
terrestrial habitats. IW support in freshwater basins will therefore focus on three areas of
strategic action: 1) advance information exchange and early warning; 2) enhance regional and
national cooperation on shared freshwater surface and groundwater basins; and, 3) invest in
water, food, energy and environmental security.

Advance information exchange and early warning

197. Disaster risk management is often an early entry point for cooperation among countries
by creating trust and establishing a track record of cooperation on a wide set of issues. Flood and
drought early warning systems can be instrumental for countries and the international
community alike to intervene early and increase resilience before the onset of destabilizing social
conditions and out-migrations with obvious humanitarian benefits.

198. GEF support will be designed to enhance the availability of sound data and information
for science-based policies and decisions. On regional level this will build the science base and
dialogue for informed prioritization of investments; on a global level this effort will enable
predicting future ‘hotspots’ and ‘basins at risk’.

199. Under advancing information exchange and early warnings the following types of
investments will be supported:

• Flood and drought early warning systems and disaster risk management plans;

• Nature based efforts for disaster risk management, including floods, droughts, and
coastline protection;

• Enhanced quality, coverage and free availability of sound information on surface and
groundwater availability and use, natural resources, and related grey and green
infrastructure assets and adaptation deficits;

• Increased capacity to gather, distill and process global and regionally increasingly
available traditional and innovative data sources into policy relevant analysis, including
the economic evaluations of ecosystem services; and

• Enhanced capacity on country level and dialogue among countries to draw conclusions
from increasingly complex and innovative information sources to support decision making
and to identify joint opportunities for action.

Enhance regional and national cooperation on shared freshwater surface and groundwater
basins.

200. GEF support will focus on interventions in shared basins where water stress creates both
a challenge but can be a driver and opportunity for cooperation. Interventions will prioritize
62
preventative actions in transboundary basins facing multiple stressors and hence potential for
conflict on national and regional levels. Investment in cooperation among countries in shared
basins can be one avenue to increase interaction among countries and enhance trade and
transport of goods and services. These investments can, consequently, create common interests
and provide an entry point for regional integration and peaceful country relations.

201. As identified by WRI, WWF, TWAP 34 and others, including ongoing GEF supported work
on nexus dimensions, emerging hotspots appear to be in Africa, MNA and sub-regions of Asia.
These areas are aggravated by increasing severity of floods and droughts intensified by increasing
climate variability and change (e.g. rising sea levels), population growth, urbanization and
associated increasing needs for food and energy. Cooperation on water is an imperative in these
regions to support the need for water, food, energy, and ecosystems security and related
dimensions for each nation.

202. In order to support enhanced regional and national cooperation on shared freshwater
surface and groundwater basins the following types of investments the GEF will focus on the
following priorities:

• Common, participatory fact-finding and agreement on cooperative opportunities and

shared constraints and a vision for a shared future (such as via the formulation of a
common Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and Strategic Action Programs);

• Capacity building efforts to level the playing field across countries, including for example
negotiation skills and international water law;

• Processes to formulate and formalize cooperative legal and institutional frameworks;

• Identify and leverage resources for investments addressing SAP identified priorities;

• National reform of policies, strategies and regulations in accordance with regional

agreements and MEA commitments;

• Improved policy formulation processes and conjunctive management of surface and

groundwater resources on national and regional levels;

• Periodical update of existing Transboundary Diagnostic and Strategic Action Programs -

or their equivalents; and

• Engagement with national, regional and global stakeholders to increase collaboration and
cross support to investments and processes, through IW-LEARN.

34The TWAP River Basins (TWAP RB) component is a global assessment of 286 transboundary river basins, and is an indicator–
based assessment, allowing for an analysis of basins, based on risks to both societies and ecosystems.

63
Investments in water, food, energy and environmental security

203. In shared water basins, cooperation can assure greater water-, energy-, food – and
ecosystems security through cooperation and trade of energy, food and sharing of ecosystems
services. Realizing benefits from cooperation through national and regional investments with
visible impacts enhances stability of country relations and ensures sustainable financing of
regional cooperative institutions. Enhanced economic ties and multi-level interactions among
countries sharing a basin/sub-region deflate the likelihood of escalating conflict potential.
Increasing pressures from climate change, urbanization and other pressures require innovative
investments to address increasing water stresses, including pollution pressures. Much of such
innovation can only be realized by a combination of private and public finance and by enhancing
the enabling environment for private sector engagement.

204. Priority investments anchored in agreed basin-wide strategic action plans span both
national and multi-country support to soft and hard investments in improved information,
policies and innovative technologies. Further, investments will be ensuring the inclusion of the
ecosystem dimension into the Water, Energy, Food nexus, which will increase environmental
security. GEF will finance the incremental costs of creating regional benefits and de-risk
innovation in measures to address water security both in terms of quality and
quantity/availability. Country eligibility for national investments will be guided by signature of
existing SAPs and currently includes over 90 countries with valid SAPs.35 Criteria to assure solid
co-finance and country ownership and commitments on national level have been outlined earlier.

205. GEF Investments in water, food, energy and environmental security will support:

• Supply chain approaches for increased water efficiency and reduction of ecosystems
pressures, such as through industry roundtables and interest groups;

• Efforts to increase water efficiency, reuse, and reduce point and non-point sources of
pollution addressing both primary and emerging pollutants, along the source to sea
continuum 36;

• De-risk innovation in development through incremental finance and piloting of innovative

technologies, e.g. for scalable water-reuse, water efficiency, and water pollution
abatements technologies and regulations;

• Nature based approaches to improve infiltration, avoid sedimentation and erosion

through integrated watershed management and sustainable land management;

35 90 countries currently have agreed SAPs or are currently engaged in their formulation.
36 This will need to address both pollution from water and land sources as well as identify sources of airborne pollutants traversing

borders and affecting fresh- and marine water bodies.

64
 • Protect and rehabilitate aquatic ecosystems, especially wetland areas, river banks,
mangroves, and other key habitats with multiple ecosystems services;

• Establish minimum environmental flows to maintain healthy ecosystems and aquatic

biodiversity;

• Sustain freshwater fisheries and aquaculture via improved management strategies and
policy formulation processes, including measures for prevention of IUU; and

• Support fragile and/or conflict affected countries, via a country based pilot to fully engage
in the transboundary process (see below).

206. The strategy will support environmental security by allowing investments in a small
number of fragile and/or conflict affected countries in transboundary basins both in foundational
processes and SAP implementation. This aims to support actions by which decreasing natural
resource pressures and water stress can contribute to decreasing fragility and allowing fragile
areas and/or countries to stabilize and fully engage in regional processes, hence contributing to
preventing larger regional conflict. GEF-IW focal area investments will seek enhancement and
complimentarity with resources and investments in other focal areas and IPs (such as e.g. the LD
and BD focal areas and investments in drylands within the Sustainable Forest Management IP).

65
CHEMICALS AND WASTE FOCAL AREA STRATEGY
Global Context of Chemicals and Waste

207. The number of chemicals in commerce globally is widely considered to be in the tens of
thousands. Unfortunately, many countries do not have a rigourous process to review chemicals
risks. When used improperly and when disposed of unsafely, chemicals can pose significant
harmful impacts on human health and the environment.

208. The most harmful of these chemicals include persistent organic pollutants, ozone
depleting substances, mercury and highly hazardous pesticides. Due to the global impact on
human health and the environment some of these highly dangerous chemicals are controlled by
international law.

209. The GEF is charged with eliminating the most harmful chemicals which are covered by the
Stockholm Convention, the Minamata Convention and the Montreal Protocol. The GEF also
supports the achievement of broader sound management of chemicals and waste through its
support to the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM).

210. The implementation support for the chemicals and waste conventions by the GEF
provides both the opportunity for Parties to these conventions to meet their obligations under
the Conventions and to use the entry point of the Conventions to transform their management
of chemicals and ultimately use and produce chemicals without suffering their harmful impacts.

GEF support for chemicals and waste has significantly evolved over time

211. The GEF has responded to new chemicals conventions and the movement towards
integration and synergies among the conventions by evolving its strategy to accommodate these
transitions. GEF support has moved from separate Chemicals Focal Areas (ODS and POPs) to now
having one fully integrated Chemicals and Waste Focal Area, including POPs, Mercury, ODS, and
SAICM.

212. The newest convention supported by the GEF is the Minamata Convention on Mercury.
As the convention, has now entered force, the GEF-7 strategy will support eligible countries
implement the convention obligations. The GEF interventions will expand on previous support
towards ratification and entry into force taking convention guidance on implementation into
account.

Table 4. GEF’s role in the different Chemicals and Waste multilateral architecture.

Convention/Process Role of the GEF

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Operates the Financial Mechanism on an interim
Organic Pollutants basis
Is included in the Financial Mechanism of the
Minamata Convention on Mercury
Convention

66
 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Provides support to Countries with Economies in
Deplete the Ozone Layer Transition to implement the Protocol
Basel Convention on the Control of
Indirect support through projects to implement the
Transboundary Movements of
Stockholm and Minamata Convention
Hazardous Waste and their Disposal
Rotterdam Convention on the Prior
Informed Consent Procedure for Indirect support through projects to implement the
Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Stockholm and Minamata Convention
Pesticides in International Trade
Strategic Approach to International
Supports specific SAICM priorities
Chemicals Management (SAICM)

Programming for enhanced Impact

213. In GEF-6, the Chemicals and Waste strategy sought to support the development of
enabling environments, economic models and financial mechanisms to strengthen the global
response to improving the sound management of chemicals and waste. The GEF Global
Opportunities for Long-term Development in the ASGM sector (GOLD) program for example
represents the first significant step in the direction of mobilizing private and other public
resources to tackle mercury for the ASGM sector by working at the sector level rather than
treating it as a chemicals issue. The success of eliminating the chemicals listed under the
Stockholm Convention and the Minamata Convention will require a such a sectoral approaches.

214. There are ongoing global efforts to shift to sustainable patterns of production and
consumption in industrial processes, including the application of circular economy, sound
material-cycle society, and sustainable materials management approaches. This presents an
opportunity for the GEF to leverage resources from these efforts which will in turn improve the
impact of the focal area. The GEF will need to explore the possibility of aligning its investments
to ensure that the work of the GEF on chemicals and waste supports these actions, and develops
and provides the evidence based results for continued action in this area.

215. In GEF-7, more emphasis will be placed in facilitating the reduction of chemicals though
stronger alignment with the shift to sustainable production and consumption and through
stronger private sector engagement including supporting the enabling environments for industry
to adopt better technologies and practices aimed at becoming more environmentally
sustainable, including eliminating POPs and mercury, careful consideration of the incentives for
private sector involvement, and streamlined processes for easier private sector navigation. More
emphasis will also be placed on developing sustainable financing at the national/regional level to
sustainably eliminate chemicals covered under the Conventions and at the same time facilitate
the sound management of chemicals and waste.

216. To be able to make the transition of a chemical based approach to a sector/economic

approach the GEF-7 programs seeks to integrate the individual chemical convention issues into a
sector based approached which better aligns to national level efforts to improve the industrial

67
and support the objectives of the Impact Programs and of other Focal Area strategies including
efforts to deal with marine littering / micro-plastics agricultural sectors in countries. In this way,
the work of the conventions can be better integrated into national level agricultural policy,
industrial manufacturing and pollution management. An example would be where countries are
seeking to control air pollution from industrial sources, GEF work on mercury and POPS would be
complimentary to national efforts to reduce PM 2.5, NOx and SOx etc. By aligning GEF work on
chemicals to broader issues of agriculture and industry investments at the national level can be
leveraged to achieve the objectives of the chemical and waste MEAS and contribute to boarder
environmental performance improvements in these sectors.

217. A fully integrated focal area that is better aligned with sectoral investments in countries
to address pollution, agriculture and industrial efficiency can better attract the private sector and
link to efforts on increasing environmental sustainability in these sectors since the actions will be
based on sectors rather than targeting a single chemical.

218. To achieve maximum impact of the proposed focal area strategy programming should be
done via sectoral lines rather than MEA specific programming in the majority of instances since
the chemicals controlled by the Stockholm and Minamata Conventions overlap in many of the
industrail sectors where the majority of GEF funding in the focal area is programmed.

GEF-7 Chemicals and Waste Programming

219. The GEF-7 investment framework serves to:

• Eliminate/restrict/control emissions of the chemicals listed in Annex A, B and C of the

Stockholm Convention and;

• Eliminate emissions and releases of mercury in activities and processes listed in Annexes
A, B, C and D of the Minamata Convention on Mercury, particularly those activities that
emit or uses the highest level of mercury as well as support the control of supply and
trade, waste and sound management and storage of mercury and mercury containing
waste;

• Support the developpment of public-private partnerships that engage industry to

improve interim storage and long-term disposal of mercury and explore the possibility of
utilizing existing storage as central repositories for excess mecury from orher sources;

• Support government efforts to develop and promote best practices for the
environmentally sound interim storage of mercury from ASGM sector and products, etc.;

• Phase out the production and consumption of Hydrochlorofluorcarbons and phase down
the production and consumption of Hydrofluorocarbons from Countries with Economies
in Transition; and

68
 • Support the objectives of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals
Management, specifically in supporting the global phase out of the manufacture of lead
based paint, building capacity for management and disposal of e-waste, elimination of
chemicals of global concern from the supply chain of commercial and domestic products
and support to countries to control and prevent the unsafe use and disposal of highly
hazardous pesticides.

220. In GEF-7 there will be increased attention placed on maximizing private sector
engagement and public-private sector investments in the CW cluster as well as gender
mainstreaming in the CW cluster.

221. The SDG’s provide a framework for development, and several SDG’s target sustainable
production and consumption. Of relevance to de-toxifying development would be SDG’s 3, 6, 9,
11 and 12. The GEF can invest in programs that support removal of the barriers in cities/countries
that are interested in detoxifying their products and materials supply chains to prevent toxic
loading of the environment.

222. The chemicals and waste focal area will support the reduction of persistent organic
pollutants (POPs) that are controlled by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
pollutants, mercury and mercury compounds that are controlled by the Minamata Convention
on Mercury, Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) and other chemicals controlled by the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that deplete the Ozone Layer, lead in paints, chemicals of global concern
in the supply chain of commercial and domestic products and highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs)
that enter the global food supply.

223. The chemicals and Waste miltilateral environmental agreements and SAICM facilite
better management of chemicals that are are primarily in the industrial and agricultural sector.
To better leverage all the stakeholders in these sectors it is proposed that the GEF-7 chemicals
and waste focal area will be programmed through four main programs which are:

• Industrial Chemicals Program;

• Agricultural Chemicals Program;

• Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States Program; and

• Enabling Activities.

224. The achievement of reduction of POPs, Mercury and ODS and their waste along with
broader improvement in the sound management of chemicals and waste will primarily be
achieved through the above programs in the Chemicals and Waste Focal Area.

225. In addition to the Chemicals and Waste focal area, additional global environmental
benefits can be achieved through investments that will be undertaken in the GEF-7 Impact
Programs and other focal areas in so far as these programs ensure that chemicals and waste

69
management is incorporated into the design of the projects and programs in the IP. It is expected
that additional benefits can accrue in the following IPs and Focal Areas: they can contribute to or
above the reduction targets for the focal area:

• Sustainable Cities Impact Program;

• Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration Impact Program;

• Sustainable Forest Management Impact Program;

• International Waters - Marine Litter; and

• Climate Change Mitigation.

226. The three impact programs can also support more broadly the achievement of the goals
of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management by integrating the sound
management of chemicals in the design of the interventions under the impact programs. For
example, in the Sustainable Cities Impact Program, by influencing the design of urban spaces
including materials, products and chemicals the IP will prevent the intentional use of Stockholm
Convention relevant chemicals and mercury and will more broadly contribute to the sound
management of chemicals and waste by ensuring that the built environment minimizes materials
and chemicals that are harmful to human health and the environment.

227. Several POPs and highly hazardous pesticides are quite pervasive in food production
systems around the world. For this reason, the Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration Impact
Program can enable the GEF to tackle the use of pesticides, including Endosulphan which is the
most commonly used in soy bean cultivation in some countries. The IP will also create
opportunities to work on Highly Hazardous Pesticides, including on regulations that
control/eliminate these chemicals from entering food production systems

228. In the Sustainable Forest Management Impact Program, in consultation with countries,
additional priorities may be included, such as the formalization or regulation of the artisanal and
small-scale gold mining (ASGM) sector, which can help secure private sector engagement. In
addition, investments in the sound management of chemicals and waste should seek to promote,
as far as is practical, improved approaches to resource use that promote sustainable production
and consumption.

229. GEF-7 will explore the important synergies between the International Waters and the
Chemicals and Waste Focal Areas to address specifically the challenge of marine litter and micro-
plastics. Waste consisting of plastics can contribute to the POPs challenge as POPs contained in
plastics can be released inding the environment including oceans, if not propperly managed.
There are therefore clear linkages to the Stockholm Convention. Marine litter in the form of
micro-plastics to a significant extent derives from land-based activities and should also be seen
in the context of waste management issues dealt with under this Focal Area.

70
230. In programming resources to address chemicals and waste priorities the following
principles will be used in determining the choice of projects in the focal area:

• Cost Effectiveness - the potential chemicals reductions of a proposed activity relative to

its costs will be a major factor in consideration of funding;

• Sustainability – all projects should at a minimum incorporate a pathway to ensure

sustainability of the activities as well as contribute to sustained sound management of
chemicals and waste. In this regard the proposals will need to demonstrate how the
interventions will change the behavior of the private and public sector to ensure
sustainability of the intervention;

• Innovation – Projects should seek to develop and scale locally developed technologies
and practices particularly in the context of the LDCs/SIDs program including in the design
of financial mechanisms at the sub-national, national and regional levels;

• Private Sector Engagement – Projects should seek to create or improve the enabling
environments in which the private sector can engage to reduce the use of harmful
chemicals and to prevent the emission of harmful waste;

• Programs/Programs that promote/lead to Resource Efficiency and sustainable

consumption and production approaches, like circular economy or sustainable material
mangement;

• Prioritized under National Implementation Plans/Minamata Initial Assessments/ASGM

National Action Plans;

• Builds on or uses existing networks, regional, national and sub-national institutions

including regional centers set up under the chemicals and waste conventions; and

• Supports the objectives of the Impact Programs and of other Focal Area strategies
including efforts to deal with marine litter/miro-plastics.

Program 1. Industrial Chemicals Program

231. This program seeks to eliminate or significantly reduce chemicals subject to better
management by:

• The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Pollutants;

• The Minamata Convention on Mercury;

• The Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management; and

• The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

71
232. Through supporting projects and programs that address:

• Chemicals and Waste at the end of life;

• Chemicals that are used or emitted from or in processes and products; and

• Management of the waste, or waste containing these chemicals.

233. This program will fund facilitation of enabling environments and strengthening of national
legislation and regulatory capacity for meeting obligations, with regard to persistent organic
pollutants, mercury and other chemicals listed in the chemicals and waste conventions. This will
include the removal of barriers to market access of manufacturing of products containing GEF
relevant chemicals, and reduction of production of harmful chemicals.

234. This program will also invest in improved sustainable material mangement initiatives,
including circular economy, sound material-cycle society, and sustainable materials management
approaches, which promote the adoption of improved production, consumption and
environmentally sound disposal patterns. These approaches have the potential to drive the
redesign of materials and products that contains POPs and mercury and the sound management
of these materials and products including plastics and electronic waste (e-waste).

235. Implementation of improved material management approaches depends on close

private-public partnership and involves multiple mechanisms, including: policies and regulations,
technical assistance and capacity building, awareness raising, green/sustainable chemistry and
technology, public procurement and financing models.

236. Within the industrial program, improved approaches to chemical production and
consumption, including circular economy, sound material-cycle society, and sustainable
materials management approaches will be used in conjunction with environmentally sound
disposal to address POPs and mercury in plastics and electronics life cycles. Emphasis will be on
addressing the entire life cycle of these products through a Circular Economy approach with
strong private sector engagement at national to global scales. Coordination and knowledge
sharing among these initiatives will be promoted by engaging relevant projects from other Focal
Areas and Impact Programs, including the International Waters Focal Are and Sustainable Cities
IP.

237. The following Chemicals and Waste MEA specific areas will be addressed by the industrial
chemicals program:

Chemicals and Waste at end of life:

• Elimination of the use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in equipment by 2025;

• Environmentally sound waste management/disposal of mercury/mercury containing

waste or persistent organic pollutants including liquids containing PCBs and equipment
contaminated with PCBs having a PCB content above 0.005%, in accordance with
72
 paragraph 1 of Article 6 and part II of Annex A of the Convention, as soon as possible and
no later than 2028; and

• Prevention of waste/products containing persistent organic pollutants from entering

material recovery supply chains (including e-waste management with the aim of
preventing e-waste from entering solid waste).

Chemicals used/emitted from/in processes and products

• Introduction and use of best available techniques and best environmental practices to
minimize and ultimately eliminate releases of unintentionally produced POPs and
mercury from major source categories included in both the Stockholm and Minamata
Conventions including, but not limited to, cement manufacturing, coal fired power plants,
various metallurgical processes, waste incineration;

• Reduction and elimination of mercury from the Artisanal and Small Scale Gold Mining
Sector;

• Elimination of primary mercury mining, along with controls on use of mercury from
primary mining;

• Phase out and eventual elimination of mercury or mercury compounds used in

manufacturing process contained in Annex B of the Minamata Convention;

• Elimination of the use of mercury and persistent organic pollutants in products (Including
brominated flame retardants, PFOS and short chained paraffins) as well as the use of
mercury in products (as specified in Annex A of the Minamata Convention) by phasing our
manufacturing of the pure chemicals and introduction of alternatives in the products with
a preference to non-toxic chemicals;

• Phase out of substances controlled by the Montreal Protocol for countries with
economies in transition; and

• Phase out of the manufacture of lead based paints.

Program 2. Agriculture Chemicals Program

238. This program will address the agricultural chemicals that are listed as persistent organic
pollutants under the Stockholm Convention and agricultural chemicals that contain mercury or
its compounds.

239. Where the chemicals are in use, investments will be made to introduce alternatives.

240. The program will target the reduction of Endosulphan, Lindane and highly/severely
hazardous pesticides that enter the global food supply chain as well as address end of life, waste

73
and obsolete POPs and mercury based agricultural chemicals and management and safe disposal
of agricultural plastics contaminated by POPs and mercury based agricultural chemicals.

241. This program will also address restriction of DDT production and use in disease vector
control in accordance with World Health Organization recommendations and guidelines on the
use of DDT in cases where locally safe, effective and affordable alternatives are not available to
the Party in question.

Program 3. Least Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States Program

242. This program will seek to address the sound management of chemicals and waste through
strengthening the capacity of sub-national, national and regional institutions and strengthening
the enabling policy and regulatory framework in these countries.

243. The program will provide support to the development of public-private partnerships
specifically adapted to the circumstances of LDCs and SIDs to enable the sound management of
chemicals and waste.

244. Under the SIDS/LDC program the following may be pursued under this program:

• Implementing Sustainable Low and Non-Chemical Development Strategies in SIDS and

LDCs;

• Promoting Best Available Technologies (BAT) and Best Environmental Practices (BEP) to
reduce UPOPs releases from sectors relevant to the Minamata and Stockholm
Conventions in SIDS and LDCs;

• Promoting cleaner health-care waste management based on the lessons learnt from GEF
funded healthcare waste projects to reduce UPOPs and mercury releases;

• Strengthening the management system for e-waste, addressing all stages of the life cycle
(i.e. acquisition of raw materials, design, production, collection, transportation and
recycling) in SIDS and LDCs;

• Phasing out of mercury-containing products;

• Undertaking gender mainstreaming and project monitoring and evaluation; and

• Develop a strategy to ensure that technical assistance and investments are solidly linked
to enhance countries’ ability to deal with the management of POPs and mercury in a
sustainable manner.

245. Under this program, locally appropriate solutions will be encouraged as well as the use of
existing regional institutions. This program does not prevent LDCs and SIDS from accessing
resources from the other 3 programs.

74
Program 4. Enabling Activities

246. This program will:

• S9upport enabling activities under the Stockholm Convention, including National

Implementation Plans (NIPs) and NIP Updates;

• Support enabling activities under the Minamata Convention, including Minamata Initial
Assessments (MIAs) and artisanal and small-scale gold mining National Action Plans
(ASGM NAPs);

• Global Monitoring of chemicals, related to effectiveness evaluation under the Chemical

Conventions; and

• In addition, interested countries may also take part in the Integrated National Planning
for MEAs and SDGs.

75
IMPACT PROGRAMS

247. The Focal Areas remain the central organizing framework in the GEF-7 delivery model. For
each Rio Focal Area, countries’ programming options include the menu of investments described
above, and a selected number of “move-the-needle” Impact Programs. Through these, the GEF
will be better positioned to help countries pursue holistic and integrated approaches for greater
transformational change in key economic systems, and in line with their national development
priorities. The focused set of country-driven priorities hold the potential to enhance synergies,
integration, and impact of GEF investments, and to promote a more effective use of resources
and crowd-in private sector funding.

248. The impact programs collectively address major drivers of environmental degradation
and/or deliver multiple benefits across the many thematic dimensions the GEF is mandated to
deliver. Many of the priorities are also making use of increasingly more relevant global or regional
platforms that are attracting a multitude of stakeholders and resources in response to political
commitments.

249. These Impact Programs also contribute in significant ways to each of the Focal Area
Strategies while at the same time delivering multiple benefits across several MEAs.

Food Systems, Land Use, and Restoration Impact Program

Global Context

250. How the world’s food system and land use evolves over the coming few decades will have
major implications for the health of the planet. Humanity’s demand for food is one of the major
underlying drivers of change affecting the global environment, causing significant biodiversity
loss and GHG emissions, irreversible land degradation, and depletion of water resources. This is
why the GEF must focus on reducing the threats from where and how food is produced. In this
regard, key land management obstacles have to be tackled in an holistic way and at ecologically
relevant scales. Landscape-scale interventions based on comprehensive land use planning are
necessary to foster a transformational change in food systems and land use that is more
environmentally sustainable. Figure 2 below shows at a small scale an example of a sustainable
integrated landscape.

76
 Figure 2. Sustainable Integrated Landscape 37

251. Figure 2 (not to scale) illustrates how a sustainably integrated landscape simultaneously
meets a full range of local needs, including water availability, nutritious and profitable crops for
families and local markets, and enhancing human health; while also contributing to national
economic development and policy commitments (e.g. NDCs, LDN, Aichi targets for biodiversity
conservation, Bonn Challenge); and delivering globally to the maintenance of biodiversity,
climate change mitigation and adaptation, and provision of food, fiber, and commercial
commodities to international supply chains.

252. Four key global challenges ought to be considered in any intervention designed to achieve
the ambition of transformational change in food systems and land use. First, the world needs to
feed a growing and increasingly affluent global population. The United Nations projects that the
world’s population will grow from 6.9 billion in 2010 to 9.8 billion by 2050, with most of the
growth occurring in the developing world 38. And as the number of people grows, the share that
is affluent is projected to grow as well 39. History shows that more affluent consumers demand
more resource-intensive food 40. As a result of growing population and higher per-capita demand,

37 Figure from Landscape Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Achieving the SDGs through Integrated Landscape
Management. Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative. 2015.
38 UNDESA (2017). 9.8 billion people in 2050 reflects the “medium fertility variant” or medium population growth scenario (as

opposed to the low growth and high growth scenarios published by UNDESA).
39 “Middle class” is defined by OECD as having per capita income of USD 3,650 to USD 36,500 per year or USD 10 to USD 100 per

day in purchasing power parity terms. “Middle class” data from Kharas (2010).
40
Foresight (2011a).

77
food availability will need to increase 60-70% above 2010 levels by 2050 if present trends
continue. Yet at the same time, approximately 795 million of the world's poorest people remain
undernourished even today 41.

253. Second, the world needs to dramatically reduce the food system’s impact on biodiversity,
ecosystems, and ecosystem services. By one estimate, “worldwide agriculture has already
cleared or converted 70% of grassland, 50% of the savanna, 45% of the temperate deciduous
forest, and 27% of tropical forests42.” With 40% of the planet’s landmass (excluding deserts,
permanent ice, and lakes) being used to grow food 43, the potential for exacerbating
environmental degradation will only increase as agriculture continues to expand. Tropical
deforestation and associated impacts on biodiversity (tropical forests support approximately
70% of the terrestrial world’s plant and animal species) will continue 44. At the same time, nearly
2 billion hectares of cropland, grazing land, forests, and woodlands are degraded 45. This has
negative impacts on ecosystem services, including the provision of freshwater, food, fuel and
fiber, clean air and water, climate regulation, and habitat. Importantly, some of the ecosystem
services already provide critical input to agricultural production, while others, such as biological
control, hold significant potential in providing nature based solutions to agricultural
intensification. The biodiversity underpinning these key agricultural ecosystem services need to
be conserved and managed to harness more fully its contribution to sustainable agricultural
production.

254. Third, the world needs to reduce the food and related land-use system’s overall impact
on climate change. The Paris Agreement commits countries to balance sinks and sources of
greenhouse gases sometime in the second half of this century. Agriculture accounted for nearly
a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 46. This figure includes 13% from agricultural
production, namely methane from livestock, nitrous oxide from fertilizer use, and carbon dioxide
from tractors and fertilizer production. Land use change contributed another 11% (some
estimates go to 15% or higher 47), caused primarily by converting forests, woody savannas, and
grasslands into crops and pastures, and by draining peatlands for agriculture. The greenhouse
gas emissions associated with the entire global food system—from food transport, infrastructure,
refrigeration or preparation of food throughout the value chain, to emissions from waste—are
thought to be greater still.

255. Fourth, today’s food system consumes far too much water and generates unsustainable
levels of pollution. Agriculture accounts for 70% of all freshwater withdrawn from rivers, lakes,

41 FAO, IFAD and WFP (2015).

42 Foley et al. (2011).
43 Figures exclude Antarctica. FAO (2011b).
44 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005).
45 Gibbs and Salmon, 2015
46 WRI analysis based on UNEP (2012), FAO (2012e), EIA (2012), IEA (2012), and Houghton (2008) with adjustments. This figure

excludes downstream emissions from the entire food system in processing, retailing and cooking, which are overwhelmingly
from energy use, and which must be addressed primarily by a broader transformation of the energy sector.
47 Boucher et al. (2011).

78
and aquifers. When considering freshwater actually consumed, the figure rises to 80-90% 48. In
addition, the food system uses 4.6 million tons of pesticides each year 49, and more than half of
the nitrogen fertilizer applied to crops is lost to the environment—placing pressure on freshwater
and coastal ecosystems50. For instance, agriculture is the primary source of nutrient runoff from
farm fields and poor manure management, which creates “dead zones” and toxic algal blooms in
coastal waters and aquatic ecosystems. Techniques are known for proper use of chemical inputs
and management of nutrients,, but these are not yet being applied at scale.

256. Each of these challenges is accentuated by the already unavoidable impact of climate
change. Rising greenhouse gas concentrations will lead to reduced agricultural productivity
globally. This, in turn, will threaten some livelihoods, increase pressure on vulnerable ecosystems
and biodiversity, potentially reduce the land systems’ capacity to act as a carbon sink (if large
tracts of temperate and tropical forests and grasslands turn into carbon sources), and add
pressure to the water cycle with increasing water stress 51. The world needs a more sustainable
food system, one that embeds sustainability from farm to fork, generates agricultural
commodities without deforestation and habitat conversion, and restores soils and degraded
areas back into natural ecosystems or into productivity (relieving pressure for further
conversion). The challenges are integrated; the solution needs to be as well. Paradoxically, while
unsustainable agricultural systems are a threat to biodiversity, genetic diversity is also essential
to provide the necessary adaptability and resilience to agriculture and food production systems
in times of climate change.

257. Fortunately, windows of opportunity have opened to foster a transformational shift to a

more sustainable food and land-use system. For example, natural climate solutions, such as
forest conservation and restoration, and improved land management practices, including
safeguards for food, fiber, and habitat, can provide over one-third of the cost-effective climate
mitigation needed between now and 2030 to stabilize warming to below 2°C 52. Alongside
aggressive fossil fuel emissions reductions, natural climate solutions offer a powerful set of
options for nations to deliver on the Paris Climate Agreement while improving soil productivity,
cleaning our air and water, and maintaining biodiversity 53. Government willingness to tackle this
grand challenge is on the rise. For instance, under the Paris this Agreement, more than 60
countries included avoided deforestation in their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and
more than 100 included actions within agriculture. Likewise, many of SDGs address food systems

48 Foley et al. (2005).

49 Zhang, W., F. Jiang, and J. Ou. 2011. “Global pesticide consumption and pollution: with China as a focus.” Proceedings of the
International Academy of Ecology and Environmental Sciences 1(2): 125-144
50 Zhang, X., E. Davidson, D. Mauzerall, T. Searchinger, P. Dumas, and Y. Shen. 2015. “Managing Nitrogen for Sustainable

Development.” Nature 528: 51-59; Lassaletta, L., G. Billen, B. Grizzetti, J. Anglade, and J. Garnier. 2014. “50 Year Trends in
Nitrogen Use Efficiency of World Cropping Systems: The Relationship Between Yield and Nitrogen Input to Cropland.”
Environmental Research Letters 9: 105011.
51 IPCC AR5 (2014)
52 Griscom B. W. et al (2017). “Natural climate solutions”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States

of America
53 Griscom B. W. et al (2017).

79
and land use directly or indirectly. And at the end of 2017, 40 nations have committed to restore
150 million hectares (Mha) of degraded land under The Bonn Challenge—a historic commitment.

258. Momentum has been building in the private sector and civil society too. In 2010, the
Consumer Goods Forum (CGF) committed to eradicating deforestation from their soft commodity
supply chains (e.g., beef, palm oil, soy). Building off this, in 2012 the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020
formed to facilitate business and public sector collaboration to achieve these zero deforestation
commitments. At the UN Climate Summit in 2014, companies as well as governments and civil
society signed the historic New York Declaration on Forests, committing themselves to
eliminating agriculture-driven deforestation by 2020. To date, more than 400 companies have
pledged to reduce their impacts on forests and respect the rights of forest communities. And
2017 witnessed the creation of the Food and Land Use Coalition, a public-private partnership
dedicated to the transition toward a sustainable food and land-use system. Since the
development of the Climate Smart Agriculture in 2010, the crucial role of agriculture and the
power of the soils within an integrated landscape approach has been increasingly recognized
through the establishement of partnerships or initiatives, bringing together varied stakeholders
from the public and private sectors, research institutes and NGOs, such as the recently launched
“4 per 1000 initiative: soils for food security and climate”.

Program Description

259. The challenges and opportunities highlighted above suggest that a significant
transformation of global food and land use systems is needed to ensure that productive lands,
which are important contributers to national economies and to the safeguarding of food security,
are embedded within landscapes that continue to provide ecosystem services and where
valuable natural capital is maintained as global environmental benefits. Conventional policy
approaches to attaining this that assume land can have one priority objective while ‘trading-off’
other objectives are no longer viable in much of the world. Instead, achieving this transition will
require a holistic, system-wide approach integrating both horizontal (land and natural resources)
and vertical (food value and supply chain) dimensions.

260. The Impact Program on Food Systems, Land Use, and Restoration offers a timely
opportunity for addressing the underlying drivers of unsustainable food systems and land use
change through supporting countries to take a more holistic and system-wide approach that is in
line with their specific needs for generating Global Environmental Benefits. A coordinated
rational and more environmentally sustainable land-use framework at a national or jurisdictional
level is key to ensure efficient food production and commodity supply chains, protect the
environment, and support human prosperity. The Impact program will focus on achieving three
objectives: (1) Promoting sustainable food systems to meet growing global demand, (2)
Promoting deforestation-free agricultural commodity supply chains to slow loss of tropical
forests, and (3) Promoting restoration of degraded landscapes for sustainable production and to
maintain ecosystem services, which will be described in detail further below.

80
261. The Impact Program will aim to reconcile competing social, economic, and environmental
objectives of land management and move away from unsustainable sectoral approach 54.
Comprehensive planning will underpin transformational shift in large landscapes by taking into
account competing demands for production of staple foods and major agricultural commodities,
and at the same time harnessing opportunities to protect natural environments and restore
degraded landscapes. Supporting governments at the national and/or sub-national level in
executing and implementing this planning will be a key undertaking of the Impact Program

262. The map 55 in figure 3 below from the Green Growth Progam for South Sumatra Province
in Indonesia—supported by IDH and ICRAF— demonstrates an example of such a coordinated
land management approach across a range of different land use types and usage zones, as is
necessary to achieve sustainability and land integrity at scale. The province is made up of more
than 15 districts and municipalities and spans 92,000 km2 (35 thousand miles2). As different land
uses in such a landscape rely on the same resource base, interventions concentrating on
improving output in a single sector must be undertaken in coordination with other sectors to
avoid the negative affects of land use competition. For example the intervention labeled “A” in
the diagram must recognize that increasing the productivity of rice will occur in a land context
where commercial commodities (oil palm and rubber) are also important, requiring management
strategies that takes into account their interconnectedness. Improving yields of the commodities
in this area would also be key to avoiding their expansion into and destruction of the forested
area labelled “B.” Conservation and forest restoration in the area labelled “C”, particulary
through agroforestry systems, helps generate global environmental benefits through the
preservation of biodiversity, carbon emissions avoided and carbon sequestration. This also
maintains important local ecosystem services including the provision of clean water for crops and
communities, that helps secure the food security, resilience, and livelihoods of local farmers.

54 Denier, L., Scherr, S., Shames, S., Chatterton, P., Hovani, L., Stam, N. 2015. The Little Sustainable Landscapes Book. Global

Canopy Programme: Oxford.

55 IDH, 2017

81
 Figure 3. Land management examples from Sumatra, Indonesia.

263. Scale is an important consideration and deciding factor of how to bring about
transformational change and impact. The Impact Program will operate at large spatial scales with
ecological relevance in entire countries or jurisdictions. An approach at that scale requires a suite
of related strategies and interventions that need to be pursued simultaneously and depending
on countries’ contexts. Only in this way holistic and integrated approaches can be designed that
fully harness synergy, address trade-offs, and avoid emphasis on demonstration or pilot sites but
instead focus on impact at scale.

264. For example, in the jurisdictional approaches towards sutainable landscapes in San
Martin, Peru and Acre and Mato Grosso, Brazil 56, the business case for sustainable transitions in
these jurisdictions has been proven by designing interrelated strategies for natural resource
management and outlining the financial benefits of improved land use planning and options for
increasing productivity. The major lesson learned in these cases is that the frameworks produced

56 https://globalcanopy.org/implementing-sustainable-landscapes

82
need to provide clear plans and actions for governments, risk mitigation and income potential
for investors, and improvements in productivity and social conditions for local communities.

265. The GEF has long-standing experience promoting project designs to meet multiple land
management objectives. It is, therefore, well placed to foster such integrated approaches, which
will enable countries to base interventions on comprehensive land use planning as a prerequisite
for impactful interventions. Ideally, such comprehensive planning should already be in place in
order to underpin transformational shift in landscapes. However, some required steps to support
enabling conditions to carry out this planning can be established and/or refined within the scope
of this Impact Program.

266. Globally, countries vary considerably in their approach to food systems and land use
challenges. For example, production of agricultural commodities for the global food supply chains
is a major driver of land use change and environmental degradation in the tropical forests and
peatlands of Southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America. The growing demand for these agricultural
commodities (especially palm oil, beef, soy, coffee, and cocoa) as sources of raw material for
global commodity trade will increase deforestation risks in many countries in these regions.
Similarly, irrigated rice production in South and Southeast Asia is a major source of negative
externalities such as methane emissions, eutrophication from excessive use of nutrients, and
overexploitation of both ground and surface freshwater. In sub-Saharan Africa, livestock in the
savannah regions are a major source of methane emissions, while low productivity of smallholder
agriculture is an important driver of land degradation and loss of vegetative cover. Because Africa
and South Asia are projected to have the most significant population growth and the largest
increases in per capita income and consumption, what happens with food production and
commodity production more specifically in those two regions will be critical globally.

267. As shown in the Theory of Change below (Figure 4), in order to accommodate differences
between countries with respect to opportunities for leveraging GEF financing, the proposed
Impact Program will offer a suite of objectives to build implementation packages covering
multiple objectives and catering to a wide range of contexts and baseline situations. In this way,
integrated solutions can be provided that meet the needs of diverse recipient countries aspiring
to transform their food and land-use systems in a manner that generates multiple global
environmental benefits. Taking the Sumatra example above, projects can be developed that
focus on either food systems, commodities, or restoration actions, and where possible in
combination of 2 or 3 of these objectives as part of their specific landscape needs.

83
 Figure 4. Theory of Change

Impact Program Major outputs to achieve food and land-use

key interventions system shift

Formulating and implementing

comprehensive land planning
Yields sustainably boosted Global environmental benefits
Sustainable integrated landscapes

Impact Program (crops, livestock)

Objectives GHG emissions mitigated
Promoting Good Governance
Promote: On and off-farm biodiversity
Inefficiencies reduced conserved
Sustainable food
(e.g., food loss and waste)
Vision:

systems
Land and water sustainably
Scaling Innovation managed
Deforestation-
free commodities
Conversion of forests* into Sustainability and resilience of
agriculture avoided agricultural value chains
Landscape increased
restoration Leveraging Investment
Waste and chemical pollution
Degraded managed
land restored
Coalescing action

* And other high conservation value ecosystems

268. The vision in the theory of change of fostering sustainable integrated landscapes to
generate Global Environmental Benefits would ideally be attained by supporting countries to
combine two or more of the Impact Program objectives (i.e., Sustainable food systems,
Deforestation-free commodities, Landscape restoration)—although in some land contexts a
single objective focus would be sufficient. The key interventions cut across all the Impact Program
objectives, are inter-related and will produce outcomes that are mutually supportive and
necessary to achieve food and landuse systems impact. Work to formulate and implement
comprehensive land planning is integral to rationalizing land use in a way that addresses
interconnectedness and trade-offs across multiple scales and ecosystems (natural and
agricultural). Promoting Good Governance is important for achieving a policy environment where
institutional and policy directives are aligned at the national and sub-national levels, as is
necessary to eliminate unintended negative interactions that arise when multiple sectoral plans
are implemented independently of each other. Innovations are the needed spark change, with
financing helping capitalize required interventions that move away from business as usual
scenarios. Complementing all this are multi-sector coalitions of action that allow for initiatives to
take change to scale. Objectives of the Impact Program are described in further detail in the
following paragraphs.

Promoting sustainable food systems to meet growing global demand

269. This objective will enable countries seeking to meet growing demand for increased crop
and livestock production, without the risk of further loss of natural habitats, erosion of genetic
diversity, overexploitation of land and water resources, overuse of chemical fertilizers and
pesticides, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and inefficient practices that lead to food loss
84
and waste. This is particiularly crucial for GEF eligible regions where such risks are associated with
value chains of major staple food crops (mainly maize, rice, wheat, pulses, and root crops) and
livestock. A recent assessment in the Sub-Saharan Africa region suggests that there are multiple
approaches and technical practices throughout the region to better harness value chains and
reduce environmental impacts and externalities. 57 The assessment suggests that utilizing an
inclusive action-based, multi-stakeholder platform can facilitate the collective action required to
tackle negative externalities and foster a shift towards environmentally sustainable and resilient
food VCs.

270. Through the IP, the GEF will help countries to catalyze more resource-efficient and
effective food value chains that shift the world to more sustainable, resilient, healthier, and
nutritious food systems. The approach will be holistic, encompassing all stages of the food value
chain from production, processing, and distribution to marketing, consumption, and disposal. It
will support long-term pathways toward sustainable food systems, including by efforts to ensure
that climate robust plant and animal varieties will be available for agriculture (cf. also para 60 in
the Biodiversity Focal Area section). It will engage agribusiness and the food industry, harnessing
their ability to scale best practices and standards across global food value chains and their ability
to support small- and medium-sized enterprises.

Promoting deforestation-free agricultural commodity supply chains to slow loss of tropical

forests

271. The focus on deforestation-free commodities accelerates and scales up efforts to

eliminate deforestation and other habitat conversion from agricultural supply chains—which
accounts for a significant proportion of greenhouse gas emissions. Building on a successful pilot
program from GEF-6, GEF-7 will deepen engagement on beef, palm oil, and soy supply chains,
and broaden focus to include cocoa and coffee. Maintaining natural habitat is a critical aspect of
the long-term pathway toward more sustainable food systems and land use, especially in the
tropical forest regions. By emphasizing the need take deforestation out of the commodity supply
chains, this IP is complementary to the IP on Sustainable Forest Management, while also avoiding
direct overlap. For example, in Brazil the SFM IP focuses on protected forests in the Amazon
Biome, where a 2006 moratorium on new land clearing for soy contributed to a significant drop
in deforestation in the area over the past decade. However, much of the forest clearing for soy
in Brazil has since ‘leaked’ to the adjacent Cerrado Biome, which is a global biodiversity hotspot.
In GEF-7, the Food Systems Impact Program will build upon and benefit from the GEF-6
Commodities IAP work being undertaken in the Cerrado to reduce clearing of natural forest in
production areas for soy, while retaining a primary focus on protected forests in the Brazilian
Amazon through the SFM IP. In tropical forest regions in the Congo where commodities are
responsible for significant deforestation, the IP priorities will be similarly aligned with those
under the SFM IP to maximize potential for securing forests by addressing a broad range of
threats that they face. Under this objective, the GEF will support efforts to engage global and
national supply chain actors—including smallholders and other producers, buyers, traders,

57UNDP and GEF (2017). Options and Opportunities to Make Food Value Chains More Environmentally Sustainable and Resilient

in Sub-Saharan Africa. http://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/publications/UNDP-GEF_VC_Study_Engl.pdf

85
retailers, and financing institutions—to further stimulate both supply and demand for
deforestation-free agricultural commodities. The ultimate goal is to make deforestation-free a
viable and mainstream business model.

272. The GEF will support efforts to strengthen existing weaknesses in the supply-chain
approach, specifically the on-the-ground operationalization of deforestation-free commitments
made by corporations over the past five years. This will be done while simultaneously assisting
governments that have included addressing deforestation as a key national policy priority in
progressing toward this goal. Despite sharing similar objectives, corporations and governments
have, to a large degree, acted in isolation regarding approaches to addressing tropical
deforestation 58. One critical step in converting these aspirations into action is, therefore, to work
with government and major actors from across the supply chain on multi-stakeholder platforms
that achieve deeper collaboration, coordination and understanding on advancing deforestation-
free commodity implementation. Promising jurisdictional approaches, where comprehensive
planning on a sub-national level aligns incentives between actors and generates multiple benefits
for companies, governments, and local communities, 59 may be targetted for platform
development so that key actors from jurisdictions can exchange experiences, share successes,
and inspire replication across countries and commodities.

Promoting restoration of degraded landscapes for sustainable production and to maintain

ecosystem services

273. This objective will target countries seeking to restore degraded ecosystems for reversing
negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services, including the provision of freshwater,
food, fuel and fiber, air and water quality, and climate regulation, while supporting the
production aspects of those same landscapes. The GEF will enable countries to deliver on these
commitments through investments that will specifically seek to shift degraded habitats into more
productive systems for food and commodities, while generating multiple Global Environmental
Benefits. In this way, the Impact Program will compliment the efforts made in the SFM Impact
Program, which is focused on maintainance of ecosystem services in selected biomes.

274. Restoring degraded agricultural lands (e.g., cropland, grazing land) back to increased
productivity will involve a holistic suite of sustainable land management practices such as
agroforestry, silvo-pastoral systems, agro-ecological intensification, and other practices.60 This is
particularly important for increasing sequestration of carbon in soil, which is estimated to be
between 0.90 and 1.85 Pg C/yr globally.61 The GEF will support restoration across a network of
landscapes that span regions, both trans-boundary and intra-boundary. Forest and agricultural
landscape restoration will directly support Bonn Challenge pledges, and increase the likelihood

58 Miller, C., Lujan, B., & Schaap, B. (2017). Collaboration Toward Zero Deforestation: Aligning Corporate and National
Commitments in Brazil and Indonesia. Forest Trends and Environmental Defense Fund.
59Miller, Dana and Meyer, Christopher. (2015). Zero Deforestation Zones: The Case for Linking Deforestation-Free Supply Chain

Initiatives and Jurisdictional REDD+. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 34:6-7, pages 559-580.
60 See https://qcat.wocat. t/en/wocat/ for an overview of practices
61 Zomer RJ, Bossio DA, Sommer R, Verchot L. (2017). Global Sequestration Potential of Increased Organic Carbon in Cropland

Soils. Scientific Reports. 7:15554

86
of having strong buy-in from countries that have already completed planning for targeted
landscapes.

275. The agriculture context for landscape restoration will be clearly defined to become
mutually supportive and a critical objective for an integrated approach to transform food
systems. For instance, the value-chain approach for more sustainable food systems is an
underlying feature of deforestation-free commodities whereby buyer-supplier contracts (and
financing) are predicated on avoided deforestation or conversion more generally. Building global
demand for deforestation-free commodities helps trigger pressure to restore degraded
agricultural lands back in to productivity (to meet demand) and to restore degraded ecosystems
(to rectify past commodity-driven deforestation). Restored landscapes help achieve a more
sustainable food system by maximizing land-use efficiency and global environmental benefits.

Private Sector Engagement

276. Private sector engagement will be critical to attuning policies and practice necessary to
achieve the innovation and transformational change in land use sought by the Impact Program.
GEF financing will incentivize actions by national governments to promote private sector
investment, such as through policy options for scaling-up existing technologies and good
practices that reduce negative externalities along food value chains, and for promoting access by
land users to input and markets for products that drive sustainable production at scale. Broadly
categories of engagement could include support of private sector efforts to 62:

• Strengthen corporate governance and sourcing policies, including through the

provision of incentives and support to suppliers, particularly small-holders. This is
illustrated through an agreement developed by Carrefour and Agrotools with the
government of Mato Grosso, Brazil for development of an electronic system to
monitor purchases of domestically consumed beef to ensure meat does not come
from producers who engage in deforestation, or ranch in embargoed and protected
areas or on land held by indigenous communities 63;

• Identify and source from jurisdictions that are putting in place ambitious programs to
rationalize and improve land management. For example, Sabah Malaysia’s
jurisdictional wide certification of palm oil. By committing to sustainable approaches
for palm oil and forestry, the government of Sabah intends to maintain clean
waterways; limit deforestation; reduce land degradation; and support alternative
livelihoods for forests communities, while helping to meet global demand for
sustainable palm oil 64;

62List adapted from Miller and Meyer (2015)

63http://www.carrefour.com/current-news/carrefour-launches-its-sustainable-farming-platform
64 Alphabeta. (2017). Supporting jurisdictional leadership in net zero deforestation through sustainable value chains:

Opportunities for TFA 2020. Report prepared for Tropical Forest Alliance 2020.

87
 • Require zero deforestation in supply chains for both direct and indirect suppliers. To
date, only about 20% of influential Forest 500 companies (as compiled by the Global
Canopy Programme) have made zero or zero net deforestation commitments, 65 and
these and other companies making such pledges are facing challenges in meeting
them; and

• Support government policy and regulatory reform, with the understanding that these
elements are needed for companies to meet their own corporate commitments.
Demonstrated by the active involvement of private sector in Africa Palm Oil Initiative
(APOI), in which 10 West and Central Africa countries are developing national action
plans to transition the palm oil sector into a sustainable driver of development that is
socially beneficial and protects the tropical forests of the region.

277. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are critical contributors to the supply chain
and are often at the leading edge of both environmental threats and solutions to mitigate them.
This includes technologies and practices for sustainable intensification on-farm (e.g., improving
land and water management, harnessing biodiversity and ecosystem services, such as pollination
and biological pest control); improved use of agricultural inputs (e.g., feedstocks and manure
management systems that reduce livestock greenhouse gas emissions and recapture and recycle
valuable inputs such as energy, organic matter, better fertilizer technologies/practices, efficient
irrigation practices); and for reducing food loss and waste (e.g. energy efficient storage).

278. Private sector involvement in the sustainable production of commercial commodities will
be important to improve smallholder yields in order to reduce their need to expand into natural
forest areas, and to link their products to markets; ensure that actors across the supply chain are
compelled to not only make but meet but meet their zero-deforestation commitments;
encourage sustainable sourcing by traders and retailers; and ensure that financing into the sector
by domestic and international banks and other financiers not only recognizes the importance of
forest safeguards but that these become a financing precondition 66.

279. The Impact Program will also facilitate crowding-in of private sector investments in land
use systems using financial incentives including non-grant financial instruments that can reduce
the risk of investors and helping to create the economic underpinning of required system changes
to sustain impact in the long-run.

280. Access to finance for smallholders and small businesses in most land sectors is a big
challenge. In this context, the LDN fund is an innovative private sector fund, which will invest in
profit-generating sustainable land management and restoration projects worldwide. The Impact
Program will use this opportunity to cooperate with countries that implement projects funded
by the LDN fund. Specifically, countries67 that are already in an advanced stage or have expressed
interest in bringing transformative projects to the LDN fund may wish to participate in the Impact

65 Haupt et al. (2017) Zero-deforestation Commodity Supply Chains by 2020: Are We on Track? Background Paper prepared for
the Prince of Wales' International Sustainability Unit.
66 Ibid.
67 E.g. Brazil, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Peru, Tanzania, Zambia, Kazakhstan, Mali, and Colombia.

88
Program to complement these efforts to enhance their environmental impact and sustainability
in the long term and to contribute to achieving voluntary Land Degradation Neutrality targets in
those countries.

Criteria and Key Interventions for GEF Financing

281. The Impact Program on Food Systems, Land Use, and Restoration will help to promote
transformational shift to more sustainable food and land-use systems, and thereby help meet
the objectives of numerous multilateral environmental agreements. It will harness the expertise
and reach of multiple sectors: governments, companies, financial institutions, land managers,
research institutions, and civil society. The Impact Program will achieve measurable,
transformational change in terms of global environmental benefits (e.g., climate, biodiversity,
water, chemicals), while at the same time supporting improvements in human well-being,
country resilience, and economic growth and prosperity. By promoting an integrated approach
across sectors, actors, and geographies, this Impact Program will help ultimately trigger a shift to
a more sustainable food and land use system.

282. The Impact Program seeks to catalyze systemic change by delivering integrated solutions
to environmental challenges that leads to multiple benefits at national or jurisdictional scale.
Therefore, GEF financing will be based on the following criteria:

• Contribution to wider national/sub-national strategy. The programming should be aligned

with and contribute to implementing a salient portion of a clear, compelling, and
comprehensive national or sub-national—particularly jurisdictional—land use strategy
for transitioning to a more sustainable food and land-use system. That strategy should be
based on science-based, long-term pathway(s) for how the country’s or jurisdiction’s food
and land-use systems will meet national development needs as well as commitments
under the multilateral environmental agreements;

• Public sector support. The programming must demonstrate strong buy-in from public
sector entities (e.g., government ministries and agencies), including a program previously
endorsed by the government (e.g., TFA2020 deforestation-free commodities program,
restoration commitment). The enabling policy and regulatory environment, including
efforts to clarify or reform land tenure and monitor and enforce laws, should be
conducive to generating positive results through implementation of the Impact Program;

• Private sector involvement. The programming should consider private sector entities with
the ability to have on-the-ground impact. These could include companies involved in any
stage of the food and commercial commodity supply chain, restoration implementers,
and solution providers, among others;

• Potential for achieving large-scale change. As discussed above, this will be necessary to
so that results generate significant global environmental benefits requiring a clearly
identified approach for converting results into larger scale impact in terms of geographies
covered, financing mobilized, and number of actors influenced; and

89
 • Ability to catalyze innovations generated in technology, policy, governance, financing, and
business models. Transitioning to sustainable food and land-use systems will ultimately
require new ways of doing business if successful.

283. Key interventions for GEF financing within this Impact Program include the following: a)
formulating and implementing comprehensive land planning, b) promoting good governance, c)
scaling innovations, d) leveraging investment, and e) supporting coalitions of action.

Formulating and implementing comprehensive land planning

284. This Impact Program will support interventions designed to get the right context in place
for the transition to a more sustainable food and land-use system. Examples of such
enhancements include (but are not limited to):

• Land reclassification, licensing, zoning, and trade off analyses;

• Convening multi-stakeholder dialogues and ensuring involvement of local governments,

local communities, indigenous peoples, and women; and

• Support techniques that increase on-the-ground ability of governments, the private

sector, land owners (especially smallholders), and civil society to sustainably produce
food and commodities, and restore lands.

Promoting good governance

285. Support will be provided to governments to take steps in aligning objectives, budgets,
incentives and capacities across government ministries and agencies responsible for different
sectors (e.g. agriculture, forestry, environment, planning and investment, etc) and facilitating and
rewarding inter-agency coordination and collaboration. Additional policy instruments and
governance reforms reform could include, but are not be limited to, the following:

• Protected area enforcement, tenure clarification and security, and recognized indigenous
rights;

• Efforts to secure livelihoods and tenure rights of smallholders;

• Encouraging public hearings and participation in decisions on land-use; and

• Applying monitoring and assessment tools that enable a timely and refined understanding
of on-the-ground conditions, interventions, and resulting impacts.

Scaling innovations

286. The Program will support combinations of innovations that have the potential to shift the
economic and political calculus of decisions by policymakers, private sector actors, and producers
toward more sustainable food and land-use systems. Candidate innovations include:

90
 • Breakthroughs technologies (e.g., those enabling sustainable agricultural intensification,
those reducing greenhouse gas emissions from livestock or fertilizer);

• Step-change improvements in land management practices (e.g., those that lower the
costs of land rehabilitation and restoration);

• New business models that align business practices with sustainability, such as
deforestation-free commodity procurement agreements, long-term contracts, and ESOPs
or joint ventures that encourage a more efficient scale of production for smallholders;
and

• Technology-enhanced monitoring of land use and land-use change to increase

transparency, enable adaptive management, and improve accountability.

Leveraging finance

287. The Impact Program will support efforts to increase the availability and absorption of
financing for the transition to more sustainable food and land-use systems. Delivery of technical
assistance will include how to bring “bankable projects” (e.g., restoration projects, new business
models, improved technologies, etc.) successfully into the investment phase. Financing leveraged
will include:

• Blended finance that de-risks (e.g., first-loss guarantees) private sector investment, and
development of financial products, such as green bonds and other structured
instruments, to attract much larger financing;

• Results-based financing for carbon emissions reductions; and

• Local bank loans to smallholders and low-tech plantations to achieve desired productivity
gains.

Coalescing action

288. Multi-stakeholder initiatives and platforms that bring governments, companies, NGOs
and other target stakeholders together will help to scale and replicate approaches and results.
See Table 6 “Existing global collaborations and initiatives relevant to the IP” for details on a
number of these initiatives across the three program objectives.

Existing initiatives and Potential Partners

289. There are several existing global and regional multi-stakeholder platforms that the Impact
Program could engage to rapidly gain on-the-ground traction and to scale the Program’s impact
(See Table 6). These platforms offer opportunities for GEF-funded projects to collaboratively
engage financial institutions, food companies (producers, processors, and retailers), policy-
makers, technical experts, and civil society. Thus, the Impact Program will not be starting from

91
scratch but will be able to leverage or “turbo-charge” existing momentum to accelerate progress
toward more sustainable food systems and land use.

Contributions to the Multilateral Environmental Agreements

290. UN Convention on Combating Desertification – The UNCCD text explicitly mentions links
between desertification, drought, and lack of food security. The Convention currently has a Ten-
Year Strategy and Action Plan (2008 – 2018) that aims to forge a global partnership to reverse
and prevent desertification/land degradation and to mitigate the effects of drought. Four
strategic objectives guide the actions of all UNCCD stakeholders and partners, all of which will be
directly supported by the Impact Program, and as a result, enable countries to advance toward
their Land Degradation Neutrality targets. And finally, restoration of degraded lands is key to
achieving Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) through UNCCD.

291. Convention on Biological Diversity – The CBD recognizes the critical importance of
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity for agriculture, food and nutritional
security. The IP specifically integrates priorities under the BD focal area, and will directly support
the convention agenda by promoting innovative practices that harness ecosystem services
derived from biodiversity (e.g. pollination, soil health), increase on-farm diversification and
sustainable use of agrobiodiversity, and reduce direct pressure on natural habitats. The CBD
currently has a Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, including the Aichi Biodiversity Targets covering
the period 2011–2020, that embody the proposed IP outcomes as priorities for countries to
invest.

292. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – The IP will directly contribute to climate
change mitigation and adaptation, and responds in an integrated way to the Paris Agreement.
For example, land as such including forests and other terrestrial ecosystems can act as major
carbon sinks and thus form an essential component of mitigation strategies laid out by the IPCC.
Soils too can be sinks for carbon, even on farms if they are managed for that purpose. Restoration
through reforestation and sustainable management of forest plays an important role in the
UNFCCC’s REDD+ mechanism. The Impact Program will also position countries to leverage
LDCF/SCCF resources based on priorities identified in National Adaptation Programs.

293. Beyond the Rio Conventions, the IP will also contribute to the Stockholm Convention
objectives. The negative environmental effects on ecosystem services and the food chain due to
industrial waste are significant. By enhancing capacity for sustainable management of pesticides
and promoting safer alternatives to pesticides, the IP will contribute to reducing and ultimately
eliminating the continued reliance on POPs pesticides in food systems.

Comparative Advantage of the Global Environment Facility

294. The GEF is well placed to advance transformational change in agriculture and land use
systems in ways that maintain or restore ecosystem function and generate biodiversity,
sustainable land management, and climate change mitigation benefits. This IP draws from GEF’s
vast experience in developing sustainable agriculture, SFM, commodities, and restoration

92
programs, and ensures that the approach is integrated to enable the tackling of drivers of
environmental degradation in a synergistic way. In particular, this will build on the experience of
GEF-6 with the IAP on Food Security in Africa, and the IAP on Commodities which have already
put in place collaborations and networks that can continue to expand in this new IP. The GEF will
play a catalytic role in leveraging private sector engagement and co-financing while generating
GEBs across different focal areas. The GEF has already engaged with key players and participated
in platforms such as TFA2020, the Global Restoration Council and the Bonn Challenge.

295. The IP provides a new approach through which GEF financing will directly focus on good
practices and innovations in food systems and value chains that meet demands for increased
efficiency and effectiveness. While the GEF financing alone cannot address the full range of
challenges for ensuring more sustainable food systems, it can play a significant role in catalyzing
innovations to foster efficiency and effectiveness across the entire food value chains. The GEF’s
convening role within the framework of MEAs is particularly crucial for engaging key stakeholders
to advance the environmental sustainability and resilience agenda for food systems in the
developing world. By mobilizing diverse stakeholders and linking across scales, the synergistic
and catalytic effects of GEF financing for the IP will also be greater than what can be achieved
through disparate project investments.

Global Environmental Benefits

296. In accordance with its mandate, GEF financing will contribute measurable global
environmental benefits by: a) sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity; b) increasing land
area under sustainable practices without increasing the total land area used; c) increasing carbon
sequestration; and d) reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Because the IP will target
specific geographies during implementation, there is greater potential for economies of scale in
achieving objectives of the Land Degradation, Biodiversity, and Climate Change focal areas. In
addition, it will also support specific objectives and priorities under the International Waters and
Chemicals and Waste Focal Areas.

93
 Table 5. Global Environmental Benefits

Focal Area Objectives and Priorities to be addressed through the IP

Biodiversity • Manage biodiversity in production landscapes, such as through on-farm
diversification, management of riparian areas, and maintenance of forest
connectivity in areas that buffer forested landscapes
• Harnessing biodiversity for sustainable agriculture – safeguarding biodiversity
supporting key agricultural ecosystems, such as through pollination, biological
pest control, or genetic diversity
• Identification and set aside of high conservation value forest (HCVF) areas
inside of commercial managed areas (e.g. concessions, plantations, farms, etc.)
and within the broader production landscape
Climate change • Land-based and value chain GHG mitigation (sequestration and avoidance) -
Mitigation climate smart agriculture, GHG emissions reductions from food systems and
supply chains, innovations soil quality improvement techniques that increase
carbon storage in farmlands
Land • Sustainable land management
Degradation • Diversification of crop and livestock systems
• Restoration of degraded production landscapes
International • Integrated land and water management, such as through advancing the nexus
Waters approach in watersheds and basins, improved and efficient irrigation systems
• Prevention of nutrient pollution
Chemicals and • Replacement of POPS and relevant HHP’s used in the global food supply chain,
Waste including agricultural plastics contaminated by these chemicals with
alternatives, preferably non-chemical alternatives.
• Disposal of obsolete agricultural chemicals that are POPs.

297. Outcomes and GEBs for the impact program will be in line with the MEAs and the SDGs,
as follows:

• Sustainable land and water management in existing production systems, including

improved management of chemical inputs;

• Mitigation of GHG emissions through improved crop and livestock management, and
efficient use of energy-based technologies;

• Conservation of agrobiodiversity by increasing on-farm diversification and managing

genetic diversity of crops and livestock;

• Contributing to Land Degradation Neutrality;

• Removal or disposal of hazardous chemicals (especially pesticides) and waste associated

with food value chains; and

• Increasing sustainability and resilience of food value chains.

94
 Table 6. Existing global collaborations and initiatives relevant to the IP

Thematic priority
Sustainable Deforestation-free Landscape
Collaboration Description
Food Commodities Restoration
Systems
Public-private partnership
advancing the shift to a
sustainable food and land-use
Food and Land Use
system, one that can
Coalition
nutritionally feed the world
yet stay within planetary
boundaries
Coalition of 40+ leading
Global Agribusiness
agriculture producers
Alliance
dedicated to sustainability
Includes a call to eliminate
New York deforestation caused by
Declaration on agricultural commodities by
Forests 2020 and to restore 350 Mha
of degraded land by 2030
Private sector collaboration to
Food Reform for
accelerate change in food
Sustainability
systems to achieve healthy
and Health
diets within planetary
(FReSH)
boundaries
Scientific research network
Consultative Group
assessing, among other
on Int’l
things, ecosystem services
Agricultural
and GHG mitigation in
Research
crop/livestock systems
Alliance seeking to catalyze
Global Alliance for
transformational partnerships
Climate Smart
to advance climate-smart
Agriculture
agriculture practices
Network to increase private
sector investment in
GROW Africa & Asia
agriculture, especially with
smallholder farmers.
UNEP-led initiative to raise
10-Year Framework
awareness and build capacity
Program on
to shift to more sustainable
Sustain-able
food systems from farm to
Food Systems
fork
USD 130 million Rockefeller
Foundation grant program to
YieldWise tackle food loss and waste in
Africa, North America, and
Europe
Tropical Forest Partnership dedicated to
Alliance 2020 achieving zero deforestation

95
 supply chains for palm oil,
beef, soy, and more.
Commitment by world’s largest
Consumer Goods
retailers and manufacturers
Forum’s Zero
to source 100%
Defor- estation
deforestation-free soft
Resolution
commodities by 2020
Commitment by world’s top cocoa
Cocoa & Forests and chocolate producers to
Initiative achieve zero deforestation in
cocoa supply
Public-private financing vehicle
Tropical Forest and that invests in agricultural
Agriculture Fund productivity improvements
linked to zero deforestation
Coalition of 30+ governors
Governors’ Climate
dedicated to reducing
and Forests Task
emissions from deforestation
Force
and forest degradation
Online tools that monitor forest
Global Forest Watch
change (loss, gain) and trade
and TRASE
flows of soft commodities
Moore Foundation initiative to
improve production practices
Conservation and
and financing in order to stop
Financial
deforestation in Argentina,
Markets
Brazil and Paraguay, and halt
Initiative
mangrove loss from shrimp
production in Southeast Asia.
Online platform that tracks
corporate commitments to
Supply Change remove deforestation from
their production and supply
chains
Calls on nations to restore 150
Mha of degraded forest
The Bonn Challenge
landscapes by 2020, and a
further 200 Mha by 2030
Global Partnership Network of practitioners,
on Forest scientists, and policy-makers
Landscape dedicated to supporting The
Restoration Bonn Challenge
Coalition of public/private sector
leaders (including the GEF
Global Restoration CEO) dedicated to inspiring
Council ambition and catalyzing
action to achieve The Bonn
Challenge
Country-led effort to bring 20
Initiative 20x20 Mha of land in Latin America
and the Caribbean into

96
 process of restoration by
2020
Country-led effort to bring 100
Mha of land in Africa into
AFR100
process of restoration by
2030
Initiative seeking to advance
carbon sequestration in soils
4 per 1000 Initiative via farming methods (e.g.,
agroforestry, conservation
agriculture)

97
Sustainable Cities Impact Program

Global Context

298. Global urbanization has caused unprecedented challenge to the global environmental
sustainability but also offers opportunities to scale-up solutions. In a world with 7.5 billion
people, over 4 billion reside in urban agglomerations (United Nations, 2014; United Nations
2016), occupying only 3% of the Earth’s land, but with a global ecological footprint. This is a five-
fold increase in the urban population since 1950. Urban demographic projections estimate that
between 2014 and 2050, another 2.5 billion people, mostly poor, will be added to the world’s
cities, predominantly in Asia and Africa. Africa has the highest urban growth rates in the world
(3.3% per year between 2000 and 2015), and the continental urban population is projected to
reach one billion by 2040. In much of the developing world, urban growth is characterized by
urban sprawl—cities are expanding their territories faster than their populations. Further, the
scale of conflict- and climate-induced displacement are pushing even more people towards
cities 68. Globally, 65 million people were displaced and 60% of all refugees—19 million people—
settled in cities. The scale and pace of the challenge is so large that mayors and local governments
are struggling to respond; land use is poorly planned and unstructured; motorization rates are
increasing rapidly as is pollution. The mega-trends are converging in cities with local and global
negative environmental impacts.

299. Higher urban population density and concentrated emissions in cities pose risks to public
health and safety within and beyond the urban jurisdictions. Air pollution contributes to half a
million deaths a year in Asia, with 67% of cities failing to meet a key air quality standard for
particulate matter.69 Transboundary air and water pollution is increasingly observed around the
globe with health, agriculture, and food security impacts. Additional concerns include chemical
safety, handling and disposal of electronic and industrial waste with heavy metals and solvents,
pesticide application for public health and vector control, and urban run-off. Cities are hotspots,
which may contain more hazardous materials than in hazardous management facilities. For
example, many POPs (some covered by the Stockholm Convention such as PCBs and SCCPs) are
semi-volatile compounds, which may enter the gas phase at environmental temperatures, tend
to be higher in modern cities than in agricultural areas.

300. Cities, the sites of most global wealth and economic activity, are acutely vulnerable to
climate change. Fourteen of the world’s 19 largest cities are in port areas. Around 360 million
people reside in urban coastal areas that are less than ten meters above the sea level. With sea-
level rise and increased frequency and intensity of storms, these areas are likely to face
immediate coastal flooding with storm surge, physical damage to infrastructure, and other
impacts such as compromised water and food security. Urban climate risks are unevenly

68 Half of the Latin America’s indigenous population resides in cities (World Bank, 2015) and likely in Asia and Africa.
69 The World Health Organization recommends that PM2.5 levels not exceed 10 micrograms per cubic meter as a guideline for
average annual PM2.5. Long-term exposure to pollution above this level has been shown to increase the risk of fatal illness. It
is estimated that nearly 92% of the world’s people live in places where this safe level is exceeded. Of 194 countries with data in
2015, only 26 reported safe levels of PM2.5, and in 145 countries more than 99% of the population was exposed to un safe levels
(World Bank, 2017).

98
distributed. Most at risk, as the vulnerable urban poor, with about a billion urban residents living
in slums, often settling in high-risk areas including in coastal or low-lying areas of urban
ecosystems (United Nations, 2017). Climate change threatens to force up to 77 million urban
residents back into poverty. Likewise, urban assets and systems that that are mal-adapted to
climate hazards are at high risk. By 2030, disasters will cost cities USD 332 billion, with the
concentration of people and assets in cities making them vulnerable to cascading failures in the
wake of a disaster.

301. Cities consume over two-thirds of global energy supply, and over 70% of global carbon
emissions are associated with cities (IPCC, 2015). A significant share of growth in the per capita
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in developing countries is attributed to urban areas, through
expanding and intensifying energy use, with emissions from sprawl, transport, commercial and
residential buildings, and industries. Meeting the production and consumption needs of urban
populations for food, energy, water, and transport significantly strains rural and urban
ecosystems, locally and globally. Physical expansion of urban areas can directly compromise the
provision of ecosystem services vital to cities, for example those provided by forests—clean air,
providing water catchment integrity, helping to control storm water and conserving energy.
Policies need to consider the linkages between cities and the surrounding rural areas as well as
the broader trans-boundary ecological burden. Urban planning, governance systems, and
services—including water, sanitation, transport and land markets—need to address gender and
promote equal opportunities to achieve greater social, economic, and environment benefits.

302. Global response to these challenges has been a three-fold prioritization of urban
solutions. Urbanization is prioritized by the 2030 sustainable development agenda by dedicating
Goal 11 to Sustainable Cities and Communities along with direct reference to cities within several
of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This is complemented by the Paris Climate
Agreement’s emphasis on subnational actors, and the United Nation’s one-in-twenty-year
Habitat III conference that resulted in the adoption of the New Urban Agenda (NUA) in Quito,
Ecuador. The NUA is an important milestone in the push for sustainability and resilience by world
leaders, which included the Sendai Framework, Paris Agreement, and the Sustainable
Development Goals.

303. Cities offer an effective entry point to operationalize this urban commitment and
addressing these challenges for major investments in global environmental benefits in the
context of local, national, and global level actions. This presents a timely opportunity for the GEF
to support countries in harnessing the growing momentum by cities to advance the urban
sustainability agenda.

304. Cities control policies and vital systems related to global and local environmental
conditions, such as system-level management of local infrastructure and land use, regional
natural resource management, and setting some environmental standards. Many cities have
direct control over vast pools of public land and private and public land use, zoning, and building
codes, transit systems, local roads, water supply, wastewater treatment, solid waste
management, labor markets, and others. Mayors and city administrators play an essential role in

99
multiple levels of urban and regional governance, necessitating their direct engagement. They
can be quicker in decision-making and responsive to pressure and requests from local
constituencies. In the context of climate change city leaders are demonstrating global leadership
as well.

305. Projected urban development demands present an opportunity and an imperative for
cities to manage their development sustainably, starting with the planning and design phase. For
example, there are many-fold efficiency and environmental gains to be had with ex-ante urban
investments in reserving land for public right of way for infrastructure investments that follow
with demand (Angel, 2014). There is an opportunity to facilitate upstream planning to
demonstrate models that avoid locking in conventional urban forms, and to help demonstrate
innovative options for retrofitting to make existing cities greener and more resilient. Enhancing
inclusive urban-rural linkages offers opportunities to advance integrated regional development
in ways that ease economic pressures leading to congestion.

306. Concentration of people, wealth, and institutions enable agglomeration economies of

scale, scope, and complexity in with gains for firms, households, and cost of providing basic
infrastructure and services. Urban productivity tends to be higher, enabling more efficient output
with fewer resources when guided along a sustainable urbanization pathway. Cities are
incubators of innovation and present unique opportunities to generate and disseminate
technological, social, and cultural ideas. These offer the dual-opportunity of decarbonizing
urbanization and building deep resilience, contributing to achieve Paris Climate Agreement under
the 2030 Agenda set by the Sustainable Development Goals.

307. Cities are natural places for integrated solutions. Cities offer fertile ground to integrate
operations of interdependent systems of water, energy, transport, health, education, and
security services. Traditionally, these urban systems have been integrated with varying degrees
of effectiveness through urban governance and land use planning. To advance integration of
these human systems with natural systems there are strong environmental, social, and economic
cases to be made. For instance, the development and management of watershed, ecosystems,
forests as well as urban and peri-urban agriculture as elements of green infrastructure in and
around cities, offer compounding benefits for global climate change mitigation and local urban
adaptation, resilience, diminishing air and water pollution.

308. However, global financing gap for urban infrastructure is between USD 4.5 and 5.4 trillion
per year with a 40% premium for efficiency gains and up to 27% premium for resilience. These
financing gap figures dwarf official development assistance. Cities need a combination of
traditional solutions and radical new approaches to scale action.

Program Description

309. Recognizing the critical role of cities for sustainable development and risks of not acting
now, the GEF joined forces with key entities to support cities’ endeavors towards sustainable
integrated urban planning. The GEF has introduced Sustainable Cities Integrated Approach Pilot
(SC IAP) program for GEF-6. The SC-IAP has supported 28 urban jurisdictions across 11 recepient

100
countries through a USD 140 million combined grant, leveraging USD 2.4 billion in co-financing.
Those cities are paricipating in and supported by a Global Platform for Sustainable Cities (GPSC),
which serves as a knowledge platform where participating cities can tap the cutting edge
knoweldge and expertise in sustainable urban planning, and exchange ideas and share
experiences. The larger Global Platform is led by the World Bank and joined by major global city-
based networks advocating urban sustainability including, ICLEI and C40 and leading
environmental think-tanks such as World Resources Institute (WRI). Through engagement with
the GPSC, these technical partners and city-based networks provide knowledge sharing and
technical expertise in support of participating cities, in partnership with Implementing Agencies,
and National Governments.

310. The Sustainable Cities IAP program has played a major role in positioning GEF in the urban
space, and further reinforced the need for GEF engagement with cities and urbanization both as
drivers of global environment degradation and as key players in addressing Convention
objectives. The program is directly supporting cities to pursue sustainable urban planning thru
integrated solutions in buildings, mobility and waste management. In addition to contributing
more than 100 million tons of CO2eq in GHG mitigation benefits, the integrated approach to
urban sustainability planning will enable the cities to introduce innovations for improved
management of municipal solid waste, and promote effective use green spaces for conservation
of biodiversity and ecosystem services. The GEF-7 Sustainable Cities Impact Program will
strenghthen the framework necessary to support the overall planning and implementation of
these global priorities by cities in recipient countries, establishing effective linkages between the
global knowledge platform and city-level investments.

311. The Sustainable Cities Impact Program is built on the experience of GEF-6 SC-IAP. The
main thrust of the program remains the same, namely, to support sustainable and integrated
urban planning by enhancing policy and financing environments to promote innovations for
improved urban infrastructure, and to revamp how cities operate at all levels and for all
stakeholders. The IP will further support GPSC to catalog cutting-edge knowledge and promote
cross-learning. The vision will benefit more cities in building urban sustainability through compact
land-use planning, and resource-efficient management. Participating cities can not only benefit
from the GPSC but also inform and enrich the platform with on-the-ground results. Further, cities
not part of the investment program will be incentivized to join the global knowledge platform to
learn and share.

312. Ensuring a strong and clear link between sustainable development plans and individual
city projects is critical in this regard. Ideally city-level projects should stem from a well-developed
sustainable urban development plan. If those do not exist, then countries to harness GEF
financing through the program to fund the development or upgrading of a sustainable urban
development plan, and child projects should come along with this process. This way it is clear
how the child projects support the broader sustainable development agenda of the city. And
hence this will be a key criterion for considering aspiring cities for the IP.

101
Objectives, Key Interventions, and Criteria for GEF Financing

313. The IP will further enhance the GEF support for cities to pursue sustainable urban
planning thru spatially integrated solutions in energy, buildings, transport, urban food systems,
management of municipal solid waste and wastewater, and utilization of green space and
infrastructure. As a result, the IP will contribute multiple global environmental benefits through
decarbonization, improving biodiversity conservation, reducing land degradation, and
elimination of hazardous chemicals. Increased results are expected through two interlinked
components: a) promoting innovative business models for integrated solutions and investments
at city-level, and b) strengthening the global platform for knowledge exchange and learning by
cities on urban sustainability planning and investments. As the city-level investments lead to
multiple global environmental benefits, the platform will enhance the potential for amplifying
the benefits across many more cities in recipient countries.

a) Advancing Innovative Models for Integrated Solutions and Investments at City-level

314. Building on programming achievements through the Sustainable Cities IAP program, the
GEF–7 impact program will continue to support countries with clear aspirations for
mainstreaming sustainable and integrated urban planning for their major cities. The GEF aims to
step up its support for cities to link urban planning process with concrete actions and investments
that generate environmental and development benefits. The objective in GEF-7 is to bring
stronger coherence of interventions across an expanding network of participating cities through
enhancement of the global knowledge platform and engagement by key networks and providers
of technical assistance and knowledge. Cities can implement high-impact solutions by rapidly
decarbonizing urbanization on one hand and deepening resilience on the other hand. Key to this
IP will be to ensure that cities move away from single-sector uncoordinated investments into
more integrated multi-sector coordinated urban planning and investments. For example, GEF’s
grants should encourage and enable cities to expand the traditional use of land use, zoning, and
building codes and construction standards for property value enhancement and tax collection,
land pooling for town planning schemes and vacant land utilization while leveraging innovative
non-traditional and lesser tapped resources such as land value capture, development exaction
fees, own source revenue mobilization for local governments, strengthening sub-national
government creditworthiness, and private sector technical and management collaboration. The
GEF financing to countries will therefore be primarily driven by the following criteria:

• Willingness of national governments to support strong, direct engagement by local

governments in developing, shaping and participating in the program. Successful
outcomes for the IP will depend on strong ownership by local municipal leaders and
governments, which also requires buy-in from the national government;

• Willingness to embrace integrated urban planning and go beyond sectoral focuses.

Integrated urban planning aims to integrate urban form with urban flows by coordinating
spatial development and the planning of infrastructure systems;

102
• Commitment to prepare an Urban Sustainability Vision and commitment to act on
sustainable and integrated urban planning, including the commitment to: (i) develop an
integrated plan; (ii) establish, monitor, and report on a harmonized set of performance
indicators (urban sustainability metrics); and (iii) define local and national policies on
urbanization linked to relevant national, metropolitan and local planning processes and
strategies (such as national development plans, NDCs, urbanization reviews, etc.) Many
cities may already have achieved these items, and others would need to commit –
together with the national government – to their achievement during GEF grant
implementation period;

• Commitment to mobilize finance by utilizing the GEF grant to achieve a large leverage
ratio. Countries are expected to program the IP incentives with their STAR allocation at a
ratio of 1:2, and generate significant co-financing from various sources. The co-financing
may come from international financial institutions and donors, as well private sector,
philanthropies or social enterprises;

• Commitment to improve sustainability of municipal financing over time and demonstrate

credible financing plans for proposed activities and concrete catalytic investment
opportunities. During GEF project implementation, a specific set of activities to improve
finances of participating cities (which will require support from national governments)
over time;

• Willingness to actively engage with the global knowledge sharing platform through a
network-based approach during grant preparation and implementation. During grant
document preparation, the GPSC with technical partners will help to identify good
practices related to the city’s sustainable development challenge, identify key cities to
learn from, and engage in knowledge exchanges to bring these lessons to the project
design. During project implementation, cities should commit to participate in knowledge
management, cross-learning, and sharing of lessons learned with the participating cities
across the world. It is expected that cities will actively participate in knowledge exchange
through sub-groups of cities with similar development challenges (e.g., cities in FCV
environments, cities working on biodiversity and urban development, etc.);

• Demonstrated political commitment to maximize impact and replication potential within

country. This would require a specific endorsement by national and participating local
governments. Under ideal circumstances, the national and local governments would
describe how the lessons from implementation of the GEF-funded activities would be
disseminated at the national level through associations of municipalities or other
networks (such as the examples from Brazil, China, India and South Africa during GEF-6);

• Geographical distribution and urbanization status. Rationale for city selection in terms of
size/tier (mega versus secondary, now or 2050) and geographical distribution. For mega
cities, articulation of intervention focus (such as themes/sectors, geographical areas); and

103
 • Local and national governments clearly identify urbanization as a policy priority.
Articulation of urbanization challenges in relevant national sustainable development
strategies and policies, including through national urbanization reviews, sustainability
action plans and follow-up priority investments. For example, city to metropolitan region
scale-up by supporting within-city projects to integrate metropolitan or city-region
approaches.

315. These criteria will serve as basis for the GEF to identify and assess opportunities for
impactful and transformative investments by recipient countries under the IP. In order to ensure
an objective approach to identifying and assessing interests by aspiring cities, GEF will engage
directly with countries through a consultative process. This engagement will also enable
countries to determine potential entry points and priorities for maximizing global environmental
benefits through the integrated approach to development of their cities. Recipient countries will
be given ample opportunity and time to express their interests. An expression of commitment
that contains the key elements outlined above by the mayor or the top leadership of the
interested cities supported by the national government is a pre-condition for the selection of
countries into the IP.

316. To maximize potential for global environmental benefits, countries through their
integrated and holistic urban development plans for specific cities, can design individual projects
to program GEF resources for interventions in the following categories: a) Evidence-based Spatial
Planning—National, Regional, Local, b) Decarbonizing Urbanization with Infrastructure
Integration at National, Regional, and Local Scales, c) Building Deep Resilience with smart systems
and slum solutions, and d) Cascade Financing Solutions for Urban Sustainability.

Evidence-based Spatial Planning—National, Regional, Local

317. This category will include:

• Enhancing spatial planning - Geospatial tools such as satellite maps and data layers of
geographic information systems can be used in the urban context for a wide range of
purposes, including mapping underground utilities, tunnels and other urban
infrastructure to identify issues, improve efficiency and design retrofit, identifying infill
areas such as abandoned land or buildings that are suitable for redevelopment and
planning for their reallocation, mapping natural resources such as prime agricultural land
and unique or endangered habitats, and mapping areas at risk of earthquakes, floods,
landslides and other disaster risks and adjusting development plans accordingly; and

• Investing in digital and data leadership - Efficient urban services delivery requires a
capable municipal government that can implement policies and spend public resources
effectively. It also requires an empowered citizenry able to hold city leaders to account.
This can be strengthened through streamlining processes to reduce discretion and
opportunities for rent-seeking, ensuring that public resources are collected and spent
efficiently and in an environmentally-friendly manner, without leakage; improving
municipal service provider management through better monitoring; and receiving

104
 feedback from service users to track satisfaction, identify problems, and improve service
quality real time.

Decarbonizing Urbanization with Infrastructure Integration at National, Regional, and Local

Scales

318. This category will include:

• Coordinating inter-city infrastructure - Inter-city infrastructure ranges from intercity rail

systems to open space planning, integrated food processing, marketing and distribution
systems, sharing of waste disposal facility and water supply. Promoting seamless intercity
connection can not only greatly reduce the carbon footprint of intercity transport, but
also promote jurisdictional complementarities and generate spillover effects. Green and
productive space planning (greenbelts and greenways) can be used as growth boundaries
to help contain urban sprawl and to separate different land use functions such as
industrial activity and residential uses;

• Innovation in freight and transport – Promoting innovative technologies in the transport

sector, including infrastructure and vehicles. Energy savings and reduced climate
emissions result from increased efficiency in both freight and passenger transport as well
as a potential decrease in overall transport needs. This in turn leads to a saving in lives,
time, money, and the environment; and

• Building seamless urban connectivity – Promoting the use of innovative (e.g. digital)
technologies to improve urban mobility in various ways, including traffic management,
multimodal trip planning and congestion pricing; ensuring safe movement for pedestrians
and bicycles; and incentive programs that encourage non-motorized transport modes.

Building Deep Resilience with smart systems and slum solutions

319. This category will include:

• Optimizing urban resources management – Promoting the use of innovative (e.g. digital)
technologies for various urban development needs, such as smart grids and demand
management, monitoring resources consumption, integrating urban food systems and
value chains, and reducing waste through a life cycle approach - waste audits, segregation
of waste at source, better management, composting, recycling and reuse (e.g. through
sharing economy). The use of hazardous materials should be avoided, as appropriate, and
there should be a reduction and elimination, in the long-run, of POPs such as PCBs, BFRs
and UPOPs;

• Accelerating building and district energy efficiency – Promoting solutions for urban
planners seeking to advance sustainability through application of technology and
financing to foster energy efficient and resilient buildings and district heating/cooling
systems which offer lower operating costs and long-term environmental benefits;

105
 • Streamlining municipal services for sustainability - Streamlining services and process.
One-stop computerized service centers can provide citizens with access to a wide range
of public services from different departments at one location. This kind of service centers
not only save time, speed delivery and expand options, but also reduce corruption
opportunities;

• Tracking of resource use and consumption – The generation of hazardous waste and the
increasing amounts of domestic waste contaminated with hazardous waste due to lack of
proper regulatory and legal frameworks in place remain a major challenge for cities. Cities
should work towards actions to reduce waste and to minimize natural resource extraction
by employing circular economy approaches, which promote reducing, redesigning,
reusing, repairing, and recycling. At the same time, they should work on reducing and
eventually eliminating POPs, such as PCBs and brominated flame retardants, for example;
and

• Non-stop slum solution—Developing ex-ante and ex-post solutions to scale up slum

improvement and prevent expansion through a solutions portfolio—combining supply
and demand side solutions such as site and services, slum upgrading, housing finance,
subsidized mortgages, construction standardization, redesigned building codes, land
tenure requirements, land markets; last mile extension of basic and resilient
infrastructure service delivery all while avoiding mal-adaptations to climate change—such
as slum upgrading in the flood plains and the like.

Cascade Financing Solutions for Urban Sustainability

320. This category will include:

• Cities need to enhance fiscal capacities in three domains for accessing capital under fiscal
austerity. First, to negotiate and utilize intergovernmental fiscal transfers. Second,
improve municipal financial management including managing and expanding own
revenue collection and expenditure. Third, establish and enhance creditworthiness for
accessing private capital markets. Cities also need to build capacity to develop bankable
projects and investment opportunities while ensuring effective and efficient project
design and delivery; and

• Experimenting with land value derivatives. Cities may explore utilizing a range of
conventional and contemporary instruments to derive and utilize value from urban land.
These instruments may range from routine managing of land value creation through land
use planning, zoning, and associated use and density distributions and its collection
through property taxes to instruments such as land value capture, development exaction
fees, or incentivizing vacant land utilization to incentivize urban sustainability.

b) Strengthening the Global Knowledge Platform to advance Urban Sustainability Planning

and Investments

106
321. The Sustainable Cities IP will seek to push further the GEF engagement in urban
transformation through the Global Platform for Sustainable Cities (GPSC). The GPSC provides a
single-entry point for all cities seeking to advance urban sustainability, and serves as a global
convening space for dialogue and a ‘clearing house mechanism’ on issues, resources and expert
needs that will help position cities as major hubs for global environmental and development
benefits, including opportunities for financial leverage to advance the sustainability and
resilience agendas for cities.

322. By engaging the networks and technology providers, the GPSC will serve the needs of
countries and cities, including the following:

• Ensure Cities own and drive the GPSC agenda. Cities are at the center of sustainable
development, as has been recognized by, among others the New Urban Agenda and Goal
11 of the SDGs and the New Climate Economy initiative. Cities are also engines of national
and global growth, accounting for around 80% of global economic output 70. City
administrations are often acutely influential, with sharp local powers to affect the form
of the city and investments happening locally71. If Cities are central actors for local
economic and sustainability efforts, they should also actively drive this global platform;

• Make GPSC the platform of choice for all funders of sustainable cities. As GPSC strategic
planning exercises identify sustainable bankable projects, funding for the projects should
not be restricted to GEF. The GPSC will help to pull resources from IFIs and the private
sector to accelerate the implementation of sustainable projects;

• Make GPSC focus on identifying, documenting and replicating solutions for sustainability.
The GPSC will focus on how to make cities more sustainable. As Cities are laboratories for
innovation, the comparative advantage of GPSC should be in identifying, curating and
documenting state of the art city-led initiatives, so that cities can learn from one another.
The GPSC will aspire to be the umbrella organization centralizing the information about
integrated strategic approaches for sustainability, providing technical advice to cities to
have an impact on changes on the ground;

• Make GPSC the global platform for peer to peer learning by cities. The GPSC helps identify
the different types of technical resources and solutions that “lead sustainable cities” can
provide to other cities trying to follow a similar path;

• Ensure GPSC becomes the center for innovation for monitoring progress by cities through
geospatial data. The last few years have seen striking advances in the geospatial
information sphere related to some trends: 1) sharp rise in the amount of data available
through smart phones, credit cards, social media, GPS devices, Google and other
resources; 2) an increase in the accuracy of data; 3) increase sophistication in the methods

70 Better Growth, Better Climate: The New Climate Economy Report. 2014.
71 C40 Cities and Arup, 2014. Climate Action in Megacities: C40 Cities Baseline and Opportunities.

107
 used to analyze geospatial information, party enabled by standardization of data and
databases; 4) advances in hardware; 5) maturation of open-source software, to make
data more accessible to a broader group of people 72. All these advances create a huge
opportunity to start thinking about data for urban sustainability in a new way. Hence, the
GPSC will shift its focus to practical use of geospatial data; and

• Make GPSC agile for implementation, focused and helping to identify city priorities. The
GPSC will be strengthened to become more flexible and dynamic in implementation, to
have a more fluid and direct communication with the local governments, and to ensure
there is a designated entity leading the integrated planning effort at the local level and
centralizing the capacity building and training efforts.

323. The Sustainable Cities Impact Program will further strengthen the role of technical
partners and city-based networks as an integral part of the GPSC, for knowledge sharing and high-
level technical assistance to all cities participating in the program, and to facilitate their
interaction with other cities that are emerging as models for advancing the urban sustainability
agenda. These entities are well placed to harness their capacity to work on the ground, existing
networks and local presence, and their strong technical capacity on the sustainable cities agenda.
Working in conjunction with the World Bank as lead agency for the GPSC, the rest of the
Implementing Agencies and the National Governments involved in city-level project
implementation, technical partners will provide cities with the knowledge, tools and as feasible
in response to demand, technical assistance in their effort to undertake a strategic approach to
sustainability and integrated planning, and/or specific sectoral technical issues related to city-
level project implementation. Utilizing a bottom-up approach and responding to demand and
needs from the cities, the partners working through the global platform will provide participating
cities with support by helping to:

• Populate the GPSC web platform with state of the art information on urban sustainability
topics;

• Document technical knowledge produced by exchanges; and

• Produce new tools and knowledge to be part of the GPSC technical knowledge library.
The topics for the new knowledge products can be selected based on demand from cities
and implementing agencies, knowledge gaps, and GEF interest.

324. Through the global platform, the technical partners will also tap into their existing
network and other technical resources to support countries in their needs that could include:

• Prioritizing cities for integrated urban planning and investments. The IP could support
National Governments to prioritize their cities, and evaluate potential candidates for
future investments based on sustainability efforts and commitments;

72 McKinsey & Company. 2014. Innovations in local government open data and information technology.

108
 • Sustainability Plan Assessment. Understanding previous planning and sustainability
efforts that cities have in place through a Needs Assessment, to capture existing analysis
and gaps to avoid duplication of efforts. The needs assessment would also provide
information required to tailor capacity development efforts to the needs of the cities;

• Informing investment opportunities. Supporting city-level projects to identify suitable

investments by organizing peer-to peer exchanges to study specific technical solutions
and inform the investments; supporting cities and partners in the identification of
investment projects that fit the broader sustainability context; and

• Implementation. Supporting implementation by providing technical support through

capacity building in areas of interest for cities, through the City Academy, and other
learning formats.

325. Through the GPSC, the IP will draw on strengths and comparative advantage of the
technical partners to expand the network of cities and municipalities committed to applying the
sustainable and integrated city planning approach. This will further enhance opportunities for
cities to access the best available tools, knowledge and expertise for integrating sectoral priorities
toward smart- and sustainable urban development. Under this vision, aspiring cities can access
the following services and support:

• Access to sustainable urban development knowledge continuously accumulated by the

GPSC on sustainable urban development – this would include tools, training materials,
knowledge products, and lessons of implementation from cities that have implemented
investment and policy programs under the auspices of the GPSC;

• Advice on the preparation of GEF city proposals, beginning with a strong focus on
integrated sustainable city planning and management;

• Access to practical lessons of experience from cities already supported by the GPSC in the
implementation of sustainable sectoral programs embedded in an integrated sustainable
plan for the city;

• Identification of cities with relevant experience in the specific areas of interest of the
proponent city, and initial exchanges for city-to-city advice in the preparation of the
proponent city proposal to GEF funds (or other sources of financing linked to the GPSC);

• Access to global knowledge by various networks and institutions in areas related to urban
sustainability and sectors of interest to the proponent city; and

• Invitation to periodic workshops and training sessions organized by the GPSC in the areas
of interest of the proponent city.

109
Existing initiatives and Potential Partners

326. The GPSC has already engaged all the major International networks and technology
providers, including C40, ICLEI, UCLG, Compact of Mayors, 100 Resilient Cities, UN-HABITAT, WRI,
ESA, and others. In addition, the self-organized Resource Team is playing an important role under
the GPSC to bring cutting-edge support, learning and knowledge sharing experiences to cities.
This broad-based coalition now in place will attract additional partners, including private sector
entities to help increase investment opportunities for cities and local governments aspiring for
sustainability. The network partners will increasingly connect people who are tackling challenges
and enable them to learn from others’ experiences and adapt solutions to their own unique
situations.

327. Building on models emerging from the GEF-6 IAP prrogram, the IP will further strengthen
opportunities for cities to harness the private sector in the following areas:

• Knowledge partner for innovative tools and practices to support the sustainability
planning process. Leading entities such as Microsoft, ESRI, and CISCO have been mobilized
as key partners of the GPSC, who are well placed to deliver the tools and capacity needed
for cities to pursue integrated urban development. These tools are vital for supporting
the integrated urban planning process, including indicators for monitoring;

• Leveraging GEF investments for scaling-up innovations. For example, seven Chinese cities
participating in the GEF-6 IAP program are partnering with Mobike, the world’s first
dockless bike sharing company, to use their data for evidence-based urban planning, fill
in public transit gaps, and facilitate intelligent transport dispatch. At the same time, data
acquired from these seven cities also helps Mobike to improve its technology and service
precision;

• Technology providers – There are a wide range of technologies available to support the
development of smart and sustainable cities. For example, through the GEF-6 IAP
program, participating cities in India will invest in waste-to-energy technologies that are
now widely available for scaling-up; and

• Incubator – Cities offer various opportunities for business, finance, CSOs to come together
to test new ideas and business models. Exmaples include Energy Efficiency Buildng and
Lighting Initiatives and District Energy Systems Accelerator Initiative. These involve
private sector, financial institutions and cities as regulator and planner.

328. The GEF also recognizes that development finance will ultimately not be sufficient to
cover all the urban infrastructure needs in the cities over the coming decades. While helping
cities to improve their management and to prepare bankable projects on urban sustainability,
the GEF is well placed to assists cities to build an evidence-based plan for the future, improve
their financial management capacity, and also identify concrete financing needs. The aim is for
cities to achieve fiscal sustainability and full access to capital markets. Through harnessing the

110
investment by private sector, cities will be able to better implement the urban sustainability
agenda.

329. The GPSC is also serving to convene GEF Agencies and a wide range of relevant technical
partners that are well placed to support the delivery of quality projects with countries and
potential co-financiers. This framework for coordination and collaboration at country-level will
help to define the best niche for GEF funds to enable and scale up the work of others including
stimulation of increased private sector engagement.

Contributions to Multilateral Environmental Agreements

330. Various Conventions are increasingly recognizing the role of cities both as drivers of
environment degradation and as key players in addressing Convention objectives. Sustainable
cities engagement is a promising first step that is directly contributing to the Multilateral
Environmental Agreements for which GEF serves as financial mechanism—UNFCCC, CBD, UNCCD
and Chemicals Conventions.

331. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Decision 1/CP.
16 recognized the need to engage subnational and local governments and numerous decisions
identified a role for these subnational stakeholders and governments such as Decision 1/CP.11,
Decision 1/CP. 16, and Decision 2/CP.17 73. In Decision 1/CP.19 from 2013, Parties agreed to
facilitate the exchange of experiences and best practices between cities and subnational
authorities in identifying and implementing opportunities to mitigate GHG emission and adapt to
the adverse impacts of climate change. Furthermore, the role of subnational governments to
engage in the UNFCCC process is being discussed within the framework of the “Friends of the
Cities,” among interested parties and institutions.

332. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Decision IX/28 articulated the need to
involve cities in biodiversity strategies and action plans. A number of cities have initiated Local
Biodiversity Strategic Action Plans in partnership with national governments, based on Decision
X/22. In 2012, the CBD launched the “Cities and Biodiversity Outlook.” The CBD also set up a
Cities for Life Summit, in parallel to the official CBD-COP, and created the Global Partnership on
Cities and Biodiversity.

333. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) recognizes the rural-
urban interface as a major priority for tackling land degradation. Through its multi-year work
program, the convention identifies migration as one of the important variables and hence
considers cities strongly interlinked with what the Convention aims to achieve, through their
potential role and impact on migration.

334. Article 6 of the Stockholm Convention and article 11 of the Minamata Convention
respectively address the management of waste that contains persistent organic pollutants (POPs)
and mercurty. Cities are central stakeholders in the management of these pollutants. Moreover,

73 The decisions refer to dialogue on long-term cooperative action to address climate change (1/CP.11), in adaptation plans and

strategies (1/CP. 16), and in Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) (2/CP.17).

111
cities are major users and producers of chemicals and waste, and have a key role in the
management of a number of the new POPs relevant to cities. Additionally, SAICM risk reduction
objectives also include reducing, “the generation of hazardous waste, both in quantity and
toxicity, and to ensure the environmentallly sound management of hazardous waste, including
its storage, treatment and disposal. 74” In addtion to reducing mercury, POPs, and ODS in
infrastructure, products and materials, the program will also contribute to reducing air emissions
of relevant chemicals.

335. The GEF can help develop and implement efforts in a more coordinated manner to
enhance effectiveness and address common drivers that the individual Conventions seek to
address. The GEF interventions will incorporate issues on gender equity and women’s
empowerment as promoted by all of the above Conventions. The results and lessons learned on
generating global environmental benefits for individual Conventions will also be shared, to help
inform Parties as they consider the role of cities and urbanization in the Convention context.

Comparative Advantage of the Global Environment Facility

336. This IP builds on the robust demand from countries to join in the Sustainable Cities IAP
program initiated in GEF-6. The GEF has harnessed its convening power to help successfully
launch GPSC, which now serves as a one stop shop for cities to access knowledge and technical
expertise for advancing the sustainability agenda. The GEF’s role in this crowded urban space is
to strengthen its mandate as financial mechanism for the MEAs by helping cities to generate
global environmental benefits. With mayors and municipal leaders demonstrating increased
commitment and aspirations for urban sustainability, the GEF is now well positioned to engage
directly with them in exploring the relevant innovations needed to promote integrated planning
and implementation. Rather than addressing the challenges of urbanization through disparate
and isolated investments, GEF financing will enable cities to align and integrate priorities in a
manner that will minimize tradeoffs in generating global environmental benefits while achieving
the sustainability goals.

337. The ability of the GEF to mobilize financing to address concerns that cut across multiple
sectors and focal areas is a unique advantage. Stakeholders, including national and urban leaders
and institutions, are calling for stronger efforts by the GEF to address key drivers of
environmental degradation in an integrated manner through city-focused action. In addition, the
GEF, as a pioneer of innovation through grant financing, is well suited to support the testing and
demonstration of models of integrated urban management, with a strong potential for impact
per dollar invested. By ensuring that gender equality and women’s empowerment are considered
in demonstrated models, the GEF can leverage its advantage to greater benefit. The GEF grant
funding in and of itself serves as an incentive mechanism to support promising innovative
activities, helping to lower the risk to clients and other investors.

74UNEP - WHO (2006) Overarching Policy Strategy para 14, Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management
http://www.saicm.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73&Itemid=475

112
338. The GEF can play a key role partnering with relevant countries and cities as well as
relevant GEF Agencies and bilateral institutions, building on the extensive experience in
supporting urban area projects in various focal areas. The growing number of urban initiatives
currently planned or implemented by GEF Agencies and bilateral institutions offers timely
opportunities to catalyze action. The GEF will harness its partnerships to help establish an
enabling environment for generating and channeling investments that contribute to global
environmental benefits and associated resilience. The GEF will not directly invest in large scale
infrastructure projects as this may be done through a multilateral development bank or bilateral
loan packages as co-financing, or leveraged financing from countries or cities.

Global Environmental Benefits

339. In accordance with its mandate, GEF financing will contribute measurable global
environmental benefits by: a) reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG); b) mainstreaming
biodiversity conservation to harness ecosystem services and safeguard threatened wildlife
species; c) integrating voluntary LDN targets; and d) improved chemicals and waste management.
Because the IP will target specific geographies during implementation, there is greater potential
for economies of scale in primarily achieving objectives of the Climate Change Mitigation and
Chemicals and Waste focal areas, and secondarily the Biodiversity and Land Degradation focal
areas

113
 Table 7. Global Environmental Benefits

Focal Area Objectives and Priorities to be addressed through the IP

Biodiversity • Integrating biodiversity and ecosystem values in urban planning – focus on
integrating options and opportunities for safeguarding threatened wildlife
species and habitats affected by urbanization
Climate Change • Urban-related GHG emissions avoidance – integrating low-carbon
Mitigation technologies and practices needed in the urban sector, including energy
efficiency (buildings, lighting, air conditioning, transport, district heating
systems), renewable energy development (solar, wind, co-generation,
waste-to-energy), and solid waste and wastewater management
Land Degradation • Sustainable land management in the rural-urban interface
• Restoration of degraded production landscapes in the rural-urban interface
International • Decreased pollution of rivers, deltas and coastal areas associated with
Waters urbanization
• Advance efficient water use and re-use in cities and metropolitan areas
Chemicals and • Reduction of POPS, ODS, and Mercury in built infrastructure, industry and
Waste products and materials used in cities – integrating the management and
disposal of electronic and industrial waste with heavy metals and solvents,
pesticide application for public health and vector control, and urban run-
off

340. Outcomes and GEBs for the impact program will be in line with the MEAs, as follows:

• Mitigation of GHG emissions through energy efficiency;

• Removal or disposal of hazardous chemicals, especially Mercury;

• Conservation of threatened wildlife species and habitats; and

• Contributing to Land Degradation Neutrality

114
Sustainable Forest Management Impact Program

Global Context

341. Forests cover around 30% of the earth's land surface, just below 4 billion hectares75.
Rapid development and competing land uses, particularly for farming and grazing lands,
commercial plantations, and infrastructure expansion, have cut wide swaths through the world’s
forests. These threats place remaining natural forest areas and their globally important
biodiversity under heavy pressure. As human populations continue to increase, competition for
land only will further intensify. Over the past 25 years, the extent of the world’s forests has
declined by about 3%, but encouragingly, the rate of net forest loss has been cut by over 50%
over this same timeframe 76. Advances made in slowing forest decline have been achieved
through a range of measures, and important among these are the forest protection, management
and restoration approaches that are at the core of sustainable forest management (SFM).

342. The GEF has a significant track record in investing in sustainable forest management. Over
the past 3 years covering GEF-6 alone, GEF has funded 51 projects totaling over USD 766 million.
The Global Environmental benefits have been significant in terms of GHG emissions avoided (434
tCO2e) and over 160 million ha of land under sustained management. Despite these impressive
outcomes, SFM investments have been isolated to certain small forest lands across all of GEF’s
eligible countries with no sustained vision nor potential for ecosystem or biome level outcomes.
Fragmented and isolated investments while good for small area of forest, fall short of maintaining
the integrity of entire biomes where there is that potential.

343. Furthermore, many governments, also face an array of economic, ecological, and political
challenges in achieving SFM, and deforestation and degradation of many global forests continues
at an alarming rate. This forest loss threatens vital environment services, such as the
maintenance of biodiversity, climate stability, integrity of land, and delivery of fresh water. The
degradation of forests and their associated environmental services also undermines the
livelihood of an estimated 1.6 billion forest-dependent people, with consequences for migration
and security.

344. There are few places in the world where intact forest biomes still exist and allow for a
more converted and comprehensive approach to sustainable forest management. The Amazon,
the Congo Basin, and some important Dryland landscapes around the world represent the last
geographies where a different approach to long-term development can be tested. These biomes
are globally important for biodiversity and carbon storage, provide livelihoods and subsistence
to communities that rely on forests and agriculture for their survival and as such qualify as “key
ecosystems” where a concerted SFM approach can have value. In these globally important
ecosystems, there is an opportunity to change the future development trajectory from natural
resource depletion and biodiversity erosion, to one based on natural capital management and
productive landscapes. The latest science also indicates that these globally important ecosystems

75 Global Forest resources Assessment 2015, FAO: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4793e.pdf

76 Ibid

115
require integrated ecosystem-scale management for maintaining their “ecological integrity and
functioning” and delivering Global Environmental Benefits. Because of the scale of these biomes,
a comprehensive and large-scale set of investment is needed as fragmented and isolated projects
will not be sufficient in these large ecosystems to maintain the integrity of these unique and
globally important area.

345. In GEF-6, an Amazon Landscapes Program (ASL) that for the first time brought 3 of the
most important Amazonian Basin countries together was launched, to coordinate on important
aspects of Ecosystem-wide management and development trajectories. The ASL program has
focused on designing and implementing collaborative approaches to productive and
conservation land uses that will provide for livelihoods while preserving the ecological integrity
and global environmental value of this ecosystem. These approaches have the potential to be
truly transformative by linking social and economic development directly to the integrity and
functioning of the Amazon biomes. Success in this program will be measured by ensuring that
the integrity of these key ecosystems, and the services they provide, is at the center of a
sustainable development model that provides for people and production.

346. The time is now ripe for the SFM program to evolve into an Impact Program with a clear
geographical focus to better harness time-bound opportunities for impact on critical forest
biomes and systems. The 3 selected regions are the major ecosystems and perhaps the last places
where an integrated and concerted SFM approach can truly transform the course of development
and produce multiple benefits for biodiversity, climate change, and land degradation.

Program Description

347. SFM is defined in line with UNGA (2008) as a “dynamic and evolving concept, which aims
to maintain and enhance the economic, social and environmental values of all types of forests,
for the benefit of present and future generations”. GEF’s approach will thus encompass broad
landscapes where forests and trees outside forests are important elements to be managed for
conservation, production or multiple purposes, to provide a range of forest ecosystem goods and
services at the local, national, regional and global levels.

348. The SFM IP will focus on these 3 key biomes and address challenges associated with
sustainably managing and protecting forests and drylands. The novelty of this Impact Program
resides in the fact that GEF will be aiming at maintaining the ecological integrity of entire biomes
by concentrating efforts, focus, and investments, as well as ensuring strong regional cross-border
coordination. Past SFM investments were often isolated and mainly focused on integrating SFM
principles in land management projects at the project scale only. The SFM IP will address the
drivers of forest loss and degradation through strategies aimed at creating a better enabling
environment for forest governance; supporting rational land use planning across mixed-use
landscapes; strengthening the management and financing of protected areas; clarifying land
tenure and other relevant policies; supporting the management of commercial and subsistence
agriculture lands to reduce pressure on adjoining forests; and utilizing financial mechanisms and
incentives for sustainable forest management.

116
349. The SFM IP will complement existing conservation and REDD+ initiatives for synergy. In
both the Amazon and the Congo basins, REDD+ initiatives are on-going or under preparation to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. In the Congo for
example, this baseline initiative focuses on the reinforcement of institutional and decentralized
capacities to integrate REDD+ in land-use planning processes, zoning, and promote SFM and
agroforestry systems to reduce land-use emissions. The GEF SFM IP will build on these
opportunities, looking for synergy, and avoid duplication, with a special focus on landscape scale
sustainable forest management and biodiversity conservation, and focus extra attention on
working with forest dependent communities in the management of their own forest resources.
The same principles will be applicable for drylands forests with a focus on livelihoods. If
sustainably managed, success in these areas can serve as models for addressing the nexus
between generating global environment benefits, poverty alleviation, and improved economic
development. As evidenced by the country leadership in the Amazon Sustainable Landscapes
Program in GEF-6, through initial discussions with the President of Gabon, and a declaration of
support from 6 Congo basin countries, this IP benefits from strong country support from key
recipient countries.

350. The SFM IP will support multi-country collaboration on management challenges that cross
borders and that countries identify as priorities during the design process.

351. The SFM IP will promote the inclusion of women and their role in the sustainable
management of forests and trees and build capacity of communities to capitalize on the
complementary role of women and men in the diverse activities needed for advancing the
objectives of forest management, biodiversity conservation, and watershed protection in a local
setting.

352. All the three targeted systems have benefited from significant investments in previous
GEF cycles creating a baseline to scale up impact: Amazon Sustainable Landscape Program and a
long history of GEF investments in the Amazon basin since the start of the GEF, Strategic Congo
Basin Program, and the Sahel and West Africa Program to Support the Great Green Wall Initiative.
The SFM IP can therefore further advance previous gains by responding to country priorities to
protect, restore, and sustainably manage their forests and drylands so that they provide a wide
range of ecosystem services, support local livelihoods, strengthen climate change resilience.
GEF’s implementing experience in the Amazon, Congo Basin, and elsewhere shows that
coordinated programs foster collaboration, strengthen knowledge exchange, and extend the
impact of the scope of the work.

Amazon Sustainable Landscapes

353. South America is home to several sensitive biomes, most notably the Amazon, where
balancing economic development with conservation remains an on-going challenge. The Amazon
Biome is defined as the area covered predominantly by dense moist tropical forest, with less
extensive areas of savannas, floodplain forests, grasslands, swamps, bamboos and palm forests.
The Biome encompasses 6.70 million km2 and is shared by eight countries (Brazil, Bolivia,
Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, and Venezuela), as well as the overseas territory of
117
French Guiana (WWF, 2009). The majority of the Amazon forest is contained within Brazil (60%),
Peru (13%) and Colombia (10%).The Amazon includes 610 protected areas, as well as 2,344
indigenous territories that cover 45% of the basin. More than 40% of the rainforest remaining on
Earth is found in the Amazon and it is home to at least 10% of the world’s known species,
including endemic and endangered flora and fauna. The Amazon River is the largest river basin
in the world and accounts for 15-16% of the world’s total river discharge into the oceans. The
Amazon River flows for more than 6,600 km and with its hundreds of tributaries and streams
contains the largest number of freshwater fish species in the world. The Amazon forest and river
ecosystem is one of the largest natural areas that still has the potential to remain sustainably
conserved and managed.

354. The Amazon plays a critical role in climate regulation regionally and globally. The Amazon
forests helps regulate temperature and humidity, and is linked to regional climate patterns
through hydrological cycles that depend on the forests. Given the large amount of carbon stored
in the forests of the Amazon, there is considerable potential to influence global climate if not
properly protected or managed. The Amazon contains 90-140 billion metric tons of carbon, the
release of even a portion of which could accelerate global warming significantly. Land conversion
and deforestation in the Amazon release up to 0.5 billion metric tons of carbon per year, not
including emissions from forest fires, thus rendering the Amazon an important factor in
regulating global climate 77.

Drivers of environmental degradation

355. There are several interrelated factors constituting the drivers and root causes of the
deforestation and degradation of the Amazon Biome. These are related to export markets (e.g.
international demand for agricultural and forest goods, minerals and energy), transport
infrastructure development, social inequality and poverty. All these are linked to the context of
each country in the Amazon and in some cases to shortcomings of the policy frameworks to
support sustainable development in various sectors and value ecosystem services, weak
governance of some institutions and governmental entities to establish and enforce legislation
for nature conservation and other sustainable development policies, and lack of appropriate land
use planning. These threats can be found in varying degrees in individual countries conforming
the Amazon, and could be exacerbated by the lack of regional coherence in laws and policies
among the Amazonian countries.

356. Given current environmental and development trends, the opportunity to make a lasting
impact at the basin scale is likely to disappear in 10 to 20 years. Continued deforestation and
interactions with climate change (including reduction of precipitation due to reduced
evapotranspiration) is likely to speed up the rate of forest loss, and if current destructive trends
continue, more than 50% of forests within the basin could be destroyed in the next two decades.

77 Nepstad, D, C.M. Stickler, B. Soares-Filho, and F. Merry. 2008. Interactions among Amazon land use, forests and climate:
prospects for a near-term forest tipping point. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.0036

118
In addition, deforestation will destroy habitat for migratory fish and likely accentuate the
damaging impacts of mercury used in gold mining on the environment and human health.

Objectives and Key Interventions

357. The objective of the Amazon Sustainable Landscapes (ASL) Program is to protect globally
significant biodiversity and implement policies to foster sustainable land use and restoration of
native vegetation cover. It will build on the components of the GEF-6 ASL Program and its
associated objectives with the aim to expand its reach byincluding the other GEF-eligible
countries that are part of the Amazon biome. The ASL program aims at generating scalable results
in reducing deforestation and the loss and fragmentation of natural habitats as well as preventing
the extinction of threatened species and improving their conservation status through five inter-
related interventions:

• Integrated Amazon Protected Areas: This component will increase conservation and
protection of biodiversity through the implementation of large scale initiatives influenced
by the strategies and approaches of the successful Amazon Region Protected Areas
Program in Brazil (ARPA). The ASL Program will catalyze protected areas creation, and
improve management and sustainable financing at the protected area system-wide level;

• Integrated Landscape Management: This component aims to contribute to climate

change resilience and enhance sustainable land use by improving forest and land
management and reducing carbon emissions from deforestation in the respective project
areas;

• Freshwater Ecosystems Management: This new component will focus on improving the
management of freshwater ecosystems and aquatic resources which provide food
security, transport, and water for local communities;

• Policies for Protected and Productive Landscapes: This component will incorporate
biodiversity management principles (both conservation and sustainable use) into selected
government sectors that are drivers of deforestation (i.e., agriculture, extractive
industries and infrastructure) through sectoral agreements and/or instruments that
engage private sector actors; and

• Capacity Building and Regional Cooperation: This component will be designed to

complement the national projects and maximize the efficiency of the broader approach
through shared capacity building and training initiatives. The component will support
south-south learning through expert technical exchanges, foster intergovernmental
cooperation around identified policy or technical thematic issues, and develop and
implement program-wide training and communication strategies.

358. The key outcomes will be the following: a) increased area of globally significant forest
ecosystems in new protected areas; improved protected area financial sustainability and
management effectiveness; b) increased area of native forests managed sustainably; c) reduction

119
in the loss of native forests; d) increase in area of restored forest ecosystems; e) improved and
coordinated management of freshwater ecosystems; and f) sector policies and regulations under
implementation that are increasingly favorable for the reduction of deforestation through an
integrated landscape- and sector-based approach that takes into account development needs of
all groups of stakeholders and includes considerations of indigenous peoples, and gender.

359. In consultation with the countries, additional priorities may be included, such as the
formalization or regulation of the artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) sector.

Existing initiatives and Potential Partners

360. The GEF-6 Amazon Sustainable Landscapes program was the first significant regional
investment by GEF to manage terrestrial ecosystems in the Amazon biome that included the
participation of multiple countries. The GEF-6 Program design will serve as a strong basis for the
expansion of the program to other countries during GEF-7 drawing on the lessons learned thus
far particularly with regards to the the implementation of a Coordination Grant to facilitate
South-to-South learning and knowledge management at the regional level and the role and
function of the Program Steering Committee.

361. In the GEF-6 ASL Program, the Coordination Grant helps the individual country projects
achieve their objectives through enhanced regional coordination and capacity building by
providing access to information and best practices and strengthening coordination, monitoring
and communication amongst national project stakeholders. In this way the coordination grant
contributes to the achievement of the Program goal of further consolidating the network of
protected areas in the Amazon and increasing the land area destined to restoration and
sustainable management. Similarly, the Program Steering Committee (PSC), chaired by the World
Bank as lead agency and comprising one-program focal point from each country, the Global
Environment Facility Secretariat, and relevant Implementing Agencies (UNDP & WWF-US), acts
as an advisory mechanism to maximize synergies amonst the national level projects and
contribute to successful implementation of the ASL Program. Both of these project mechanisms
will be maintained going forward, although the elements and composition of each may change
to reflect the design features of the GEF-7 ASL Program. For example, depending on enrollment
by new participating countries and the GEF Agencies that may join, the PSC will be expanded
accordingly and the Terms of Reference for the PSC adjusted as necessary.

362. The GEF-7 initiative will continue to communicate with donors (i.e., Norway, UK and
others), bilateral-aid agencies (i.e., USAID, GIZ, and others), and private foundations (i.e., Gordon
and Betty Moore Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and Blue Moon Fund) investing in the
Amazon biome to maximize collaboration and coordination during project design and
implementation.

Private Sector engagement

363. Sectoral agreements and/or instruments that engage private sector actors will be
voluntary and will cover specific actions and commitments of the different parties. Each activity

120
to be identified in the agreements will follow three steps: (a) consolidation of existing information
(assessment of obstacles and alternative solutions); (b) consensus building with stakeholders
(analysis of constraints and solutions); and (c) development of solutions (methods and
procedures). Thus, government agencies will dedicate attention and resources to the
identification and implementation of mainstreaming opportunities that enjoy the support of
relevant stakeholders. It will also pursue strategies for incorporating the objective of biodiversity
conservation and sustainable land use into policies, programs, projects, and development plans
at different levels of government activity. These mainstreaming practices will be tested on the
ground through applied land management activities adopted in concrete cases that have
environmental implications for connectivity and conservation in the Program area (eg.: oil/gas
exploration and exploitation activities, construction of roads, etc.). If successful, these practices
will contribute to scale up the mainstreaming of environmental policies from the bottom, which
could be translated at the top into the promotion of incentives, access to credit and similar
measures for the segment of producers involved.

364. The Private Sector has a significant role to play to improve the sustainability of many
sectors operating in the Amazon and with the potential to reduce deforestation. Promising
progress is being made with large companies that produce or trade global commodities like soy
and beef. But SMEs generally face more costly barriers to improve production practices and
achieving scale in the commercialization of their products. This Impact Program could partner
with emerging platforms that are aiming to set reimbursable investment funds for small and
medium rural producers businesses operating in the Amazon. National state and commercial
banks are willing to partner in joint pilot initiatives that pursue differentiated financial
arrangements for public credit lines directed at small farmers and suppliers. If successful, through
aggregation these investments can lead to more sustainable and productive business and supply
chains, thereby contributing to reducing deforestation and GHG emissions, as well as to the
longer term viability of local businesses.

Congo Basin Sustainable Landscapes

365. Central Africa contains more than 2.87 million km2 of forest ecosystems, comprised of
both humid and dry forests. The region’s 2.27 million km2 of remaining closed canopy tropical
forest represents one fifth of the what remains in the world for this highly valuable forest type,
and, after the Amazon, is the earth’s second largest area of contiguous moist tropical forest.
Central Africa’s Congo basin is defined by the watershed of the Congo river and primarily covers
Cameroon, Central Africa Republic, the Democratic republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon,
and the Republic of Congo.

366. The forest habitats provided by the Congo Basin are the largest on the entire African
continent and are home to an extraordinary diversity of life. Endemic and emblematic species
include, Great Apes (chimps, bonobos, gorillas) and the forest elephants, among others. Congo
Basin forests provide vital regional and global ecological services as carbon sinks, basin
catchments, and regulators of climate. There are on-going researches to better understand the
importance of Central Africa forests both in regional rainfall patterns and their influence on large-

121
scale atmoshperic circulation 78. It is however established that the Congo Basin represents a
carbon reserve of global significance for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The recent
identification of one of the most carbon-rich ecosystems on Earth – a peatland area, greater in
size than England, sequestring alone some 30 billion metric tons of carbon, or nearly 30% of the
world’s tropical peatland carbon reinforces the values of these tropical forests as a global
common asset 79,80,81.

367. These forests ecosystems provide also livelihoods and services to 60 million people who
live in or near the forests, and fulfill social and cultural functions essential to local indigenous
populations. Agriculture is mainly small-scaled and combines various annual and perennial crops
(cassava, maize, groundnut, banana, vegetables, and tuber), alternating with short or long-term
fallows depending on local land availability.

Drivers of environmental degradation

368. The causes and drivers of deforestation and environmental degradation, including
defaunation, are complex, interlinked, and aggravated by demographic trends, accelerated
urbanization, insecurity of land tenure, and resource user rights. The general context of the
Congo Basin is also particularly difficult with violence, fragility, insecurity, and various related
traffics severely weakening the rule of law, and having devastating effects on capacities to
manage forests, protected areas, and protect wildlife. However, small-scale agriculture
(subsistence) and harvesting of fuelwood are considered among the main drivers of deforestation
and forest degradation in the Congo Basin 82. The direct causes of declines to emblematic species
(primates, elephants) are strongly linked to poaching and other changes in land use, most notably
clearing of forests for farming and infrastructure development 83. Challenges associated with
extreme poverty and tensions between local people and protected area management strategies
add to the complexity.

369. Other drivers exist and may become more important in the future. Countries affected by
the development of commodities, agribusiness, and/or the need for forest restoration will be
invited to join the Food Systems-Land Use and Restoration Initiative. Issues related to artisanal
gold mining will be considered under CW (three countries so far are Parties to the Minamata
Convention). A support from IW will be discussed at the transboundary Congo river basin scale.

78 Todd M.C. & Washington R., 2004. Climate variability in Central Equatorial Africa: influence from the Atlantic sector.
Geophysical Research Letters 31: L23202.
79 Gibson L., et al. 2011 (corrigendum 2014). Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity,

Nature,Volume: 478Pages:: 378–381

80 The Forests of the Congo Basin – Forests and Climate Change, 2015. Eds. De Wasseige C, Tadoum M., Eba’s Atyi R. &

Doumenge C., 2015. Weyrich. Belgium. 128p

81 Dargie, G. C., Lewis, S. L., Lawson, I. T., Mitchard, E. T., Page, S. E., Bocko, Y. E., & Ifo, S. A. (2017). Age, extent and carbon

storage of the central Congo Basin peatland complex. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature21048

82 The Forests of the Congo Basin – Forests and Climate Change, 2015. Op. cit.
83 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/WAP_EN_WEB.PDF

122
Objectives and Key Interventions

370. The Congo Basin Sustainable Landscapes program (CBSL) builds on GEF’s 25 year-
experience in biodiversity conservation and sustainable forest management. Under GEF-6, most
of the investments in the region have been made along two strategic programmatic approaches:
the Global Wildlife Partnership to tackle wildlife conservation, poaching, and trafficking and The
Restoration Initiative to support the Bonn Challenge.

371. The CBSL’s Theory of Change is based on the pathway to produce preserved and
sustainable managed landscapes for global environment benefits and people. The CBSL will
integrate upfront several GEF policies, principles, and decisions to emphasize the importance of
livelihoods and well-being of forest dependent communities (stakeholder engagement, gender
equality, Indigenous Peoples, and Civil Society engagement).

372. The main objective of the CBSL will be to incorporate environmental management
principles in forest management through landscape approaches at different levels (local,
national, and transboundary). The notions of connectivity, corridors, and their governance will
be considered in a inclusive way with local communities. Innovative mechanisms and
partnerships will be developed to improve law enforcement against illegal logging and poaching
of global important biodiversity.

373. Contrarily to other forested basins, a political and technical process already exists in the
Congo Basin between Heads of States, Ministries, partners, and various stakeholders84. There will
be no much need to finance coordination of agencies per se under the CBSL program, but it will
be essential to support and dynamize some of the existing networks to foster cooperation,
maximize synergies in the different countries, and avoid overlaps. The regional level will also be
operational to deliver actions in additional landscapes, corridors, and countries to address key
threats to endangered species, globally important forest habitats, and forest dependent peoples.

374. A programmatic approach is justified by the importance of supra-national issues as the

transboundary and regional levels and that cannot be tackled at the project level (e.g. carbon
leakage effect, illegal timber exploitation, wildlife poaching and trafficking). For instance, specific
landscape level mechanisms will be proposed for conflict resolution between different land users
and across national boundaries. Other mechanisms will address important cross-cutting issues,
such as gender inequalities in the implementation of SFM. The CBSL program will focus on a few
number of transboundary landscapes in the heart of the Congo Basin. Selection of landscapes
will be prioritized based on their potential for transformation and multiple benefits, and where
the GEF can make a difference. The following criteria will be considered: 1) high carbon storage
values, 2) presence of globally endangered species, 3) presence of forest dependent people in
the surrounding forest patches, and 4) significant baseline investments on conservation, SFM
and/or REDD+ as a starting point.

, COMIFAC: Central Africa Forests Commission, https://www.comifac.org/, CBFP: Congo Basin Forests Partnership, http://pfbc-
cbfp.org/home.html

123
Existing initiatives and Potential Partners

375. Many initiatives are on-going in the region that provide a strong baseline of partnerships
and lessons on which to build: REDD+ program with FCPF and the carbon funds; the Forest
Investment Program (FIP) and the associated IDA investments in DRC and republic of Congo; the
Central African Regional Program for the Environment, CARPE, supported by USAID; the Program
for Conservation and Rational Utilization of Forest Ecosystems in Central Africa, ECOFAC, funded
by the European Commission since 1992; several long-term bilateral and NGO programs; recently
Central Africa Initiative (CAFI) launched a USD 200 million initiative for REDD+ in the Congo Basin.
Moreover, most of the countries, as well as the COMIFAC 85, are on the way to developing
submissions to the Green Climate Fund. The GEF can play a strategic and catalytic role to
compliment these investments, based on its comparative advantage. To develop
complementarity and avoid duplication, a dialogue with countries, agencies and partners will
take place. Collaboration mechanisms will be proposed within the program and project cycle,
notably related to knowledge management and monitoring.

Private Sector Engagement

376. The role of the private sector will be addressed under different entry points in the
program to promote innovative and sustainable financing mechanisms for conservation,
development, peace-building, and benefits for local communities. Existing Public-Private
Partnerships for biodiversity conservation will be one option. Another option will be the support
of responsible and sustainable value chains from the local communities to the markets in the
considered landscapes (Non-Timber Forest Products, improvement of agroforestry practices,
climate smart agriculture promotion of best practices, access to markets, certification, etc.).

Dryland Sustainable Landscapes

377. Drylands are a vital part of the earth’s human and physical environments, encompassing
grasslands, agricultural lands, and forests. They cover approximately 40% of the world’s land area
and support two billion people, 90% of whom live in developing countries where women and
children are highly vulnerable to the impacts of land degradation and drought. They harbour
important global biodiversity, many of which is endemic, and store significant amounts of carbon.
Drylands also provide much of the world’s grain and livestock, many tree products and vegetable
species as well as globally important agro-biodiversity. A recent paper in Science 86 comments on
the important link between forests and drylands, arguing that the extent of forest has been
grossly underestimated: “Forests in drylands are much more extensive than previously reported
and cover a total area similar to that of tropical rainforests or boreal forests. This increases
estimates of global forest cover by at least 9%, a finding that will be important in estimating the
terrestrial carbon sink.” While dryland landscapes are not as geographically distinct as the

85COMIFAC: Central Africa Forests Commission, https://www.comifac.org/

86Jean-François Bastin et al. (2017). The extent of forest in dryland biomes. Science. Vol. 356, Issue 6338, pp. 635-638.
doi: 10.1126/science.aam6527

124
Amazon or the Congo Basin, they do represent a globally important biome and an important
element of the global ecosystem.

378. Selection criteria as outlined below will allow that important forest and shrubland biomes
could be covered (e.g. Miombo, Mopane and Fynbos woodlands, Savanna tropical grasslands and
open woodlands, Dry Central Andes grassland and shrublands, Cerrado, Caatinga, and Mato
Grosso seasonal forests; Central Asian rangelands and steppe forests) although the program will
address such biomes through a landscape approach aiming for potential multiple GEBs.

Drivers of degradation

379. Land degradation in drylands threatens livelihoods, food, water and energy security, and
increases the vulnerability of millions of people, and in many cases serving as a cause of migration
or social unrest. Population growth in areas where these systems are found is resulting in an
increased need for agricultural production that often leads to a depletion of biodiversity
(including the genetic bases for crops, livestock, and trees), reduction in vegetation cover, and
loss of associated ecosystem services (erosion control, climate balance, pollination, etc.). In
addition, pressures from natural factors related to climate variability and extreme weather
events, such as forest fires and frequent and prolonged droughts, lead to stark variations in year-
to-year yields and income from agriculture. This threatens the resilience of agroecosystems, the
stability of food production, and the conservation of forests environmental and socio-economic
services.

Objectives and Key Interventions

380. The main goal of the Dryland Sustainable Landscapes program is to avoid, reduce, and
reverse further degradation, desertification, and deforestation of land and ecosystems in
drylands through the sustainable management of production landscapes, addressing the
complex nexus of local livelihoods, land degradation, climate change, and environmental
security.

381. The Dryland Sustainable Landscapes program will apply UNCCD’s LDN tool to advance
sustainable land and forest management aiming at avoiding further land degradation and
desertification and improving the quality and maintenance of ecosystem services. This will be
done by tackling the root causes of land degradation, promoting the sustainable management of
production landscapes in drylands, and addressing the complex nexus of local livelihoods, land
degradation, climate change, biodiversity and environmental security.

382. The program will generate multiple environmental benefits and enhance local livelihoods.
A landscape approach will help to tailor implementation packages to a wide range of dryland
landscapes contexts. Drylands encompass critical landscapes for potential GEBs, especially
through (i) building resilience to climate change in environments particularly vulnerable to
anticipated impacts of climate change, (ii) sequestering carbon, managing watersheds (leading,
inter alia to reduced sediment yields and conserving scarce water resources), and protecting rare
and endangered biodiversity.

125
383. The three main objectives of the program are: 1) integrated landscape management with
particular focus on sustainable forest management and restoration, rangelands, and livestock
production; 2) the promotion of diversified agro-ecological food production systems in drylands;
and 3) the creation of an enabling environment to support the two objectives above. Under the
second objective, the initiative will expand the scope to agricultural production areas within
forest and shrub lands. Priority will be given to measures of sustainable land and soil
management to benefit smallholders and pastroalists. The GEF will also support the development
of adequate policies and financial mechanisms that aim to address the drivers of dryland
degradation and promote the diffusion of land use practices, land and forest conservation,
restoration and sustainable management at a scale consistent with the magnitude of these
drivers.

384. Outcomes of the Dryland Sustainable Landscapes will support participating countries to
achieve Land Degradation Neutrality in regions which have a high percentage share of semi-arid
and sub-humid drylands and ultimately achieve Sustainable Development Goals in those
geographies, focusing in particular on countries that and have set voluntary LDN targets that the
Impact Program will help to implement. Target geographies will be selected based on several
criteria, including:

• Defined LDN targets that can be met through SFM and SLM interventions;

• Area share of semi-arid and sub-humid drylands on total land area;

• Degree of dependence on dryland resources for local livelihoods and the potential of GEF
investments to benefit smallholders and pastoralists;

• Importance of climate risks, resilience, and environmental security issues including

drought, food insecurity, and migration; and

• Being part of geographies / landscapes that are important for delivering multiple
ecosystem services, including threatened dryland ecosystems.

Existing initiatives and Potential Partners

385. The Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR) has initiated a
global research program 87, which provides a basis for collaboration with partners of this program,
depending in how far the research program constitutes entry points for implementation at a
programmatic level. In addition to the CGIAR initiative, there are regional or thematic initiatives
that will be instrumental in supporting implementation, including : 1) The World Initiative for
Sustainable Pastoralism (WISP) which is a global initiative that supports the empowerment of
pastoralists to sustainably manage drylands resources, 2) TerrAfrica for the Sahel, the Horn of
Africa, and Southern Africa; 3) The FAO Drylands & Forest and Landscape Restoration Monitoring
Week; 4) The World Overview of Conservation Agriculture Techniques (WOCAT); and 5) Central

87 http://drylandsystems.cgiar.org/

126
Asian Countries’ Initiative for Land Management (CACILM). Furthermore, global and regional
NGOs and CSO are very active in working on the ground in drylands and should be involved in
sharing their experience and lessons, including through a coordination with the GEF SGP.

Private Sector Engagement

386. Private sector involvement in the Dryland Sustainable landscapes will be sought and
encouraged to improve smallholder yields, add value to their agricultural and forestry products
and link the producers to markets. To achieve sustainable land management, it will also be
important to create stable revenues with dryland products and to introduce sustainable supply
chains for specific dryland commodities including cotton, wool, leather, fuelwood, charcoal, shea,
gum Arabica, etc.

387. The program will also seek cooperation with projects of the Land Degradation Neutrality
Fund (LDN Fund), which facilitates private investments in sustainable land management.
Specifically, countries 88 that are already in an advanced stage or have expressed interest in
bringing transformative projects to the LDN Fund may wish to join the Dryland Sustainable
Landscapes to support the establishment of the necessary institutional framework and
monitoring mechanisms and/or invest in specific implementation measures to create GEBs. In
this way, GEF funding would complement the investments of the LDN fund to achieve voluntary
LDN targets in those specific countries.

Contributions to Multilateral Environmental Agreements

388. The Impact Program will help implement SDGs 13 and 15 on climate action and life on
land. In addition, the Program will make significant contributions to achieving Aichi Target 2:
Integrate biodiversity and development; Aichi Target 4: Sustainable production and
consumption; Aichi Target 5: Habitat loss halved; Target 7: Sustainable agriculture, aquaculture
and forestry; Aichi Target 11: Expansion of protected area networks; Aichi Target 14: Restore and
safeguard essential ecosystem services; Aichi Target 15: Enhance ecosystem resilience and
carbon stocks; and Aichi Target 19: Knowledge-base and science applied.

389. The Program will also make significant contributions to the Climate Change Convention
through its activities aiming at enhancing ecosystem resilience and carbon stocks, avoiding
deforestation and increasing agriculture and forest areas under sustainable management. It will
also address important safeguards, including in particular the respect for the knowledge and
rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities, the full and effective
participation of relevant stakeholders, and the consistency with the conservation of natural
forests and biological diversity.

390. With regards to desertification, land-degradation, and drought, the Impact Program will
help reinforce SFM as a means of preventing soil erosion and flooding, thus increasing the size of
atmospheric carbon sinks and conserving ecosystems and biodiversity. Inclusion of drylands in

88 E.g. Brazil, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Peru, Tanzania, Zambia, Kazakhstan, Mali, and Colombia.

127
the IP responds to multiple criteria from the CBD and the UNFCCC, but it is essentially aligned
with UNCCD goals and objectives and notably its focus on drylands and its use of the LDN tool.
The comparative advantage of GEF lies in its mandate given by the UNCCD as a financial
mechanism and as the major investor in combating land degradation and desertification globally.
Based on GEF experiences with championing SLM through impactful programs 89, the Sustainable
Drylands Program will be able to liaise with the other Rio Conventions to bring transformative
change in drylands globally.

391. The Impact Program will also contribute to the UNFF Global Objectives on Forests by
reversing the loss of forest cover worldwide through sustainable forest management (SFM),
including protection, restoration, afforestation and reforestation, and increase efforts to prevent
forest degradation.

Comparative Advantage of the Global Environment Facility

392. The GEF has a mandate from the three Rio Conventions covering SFM and REDD+
activities, in all types of forests within 144 developing counties. The GEF has demonstrated
through its portfolio the crucial importance of forests of all types providing a range of important
environmental services, in particular to protect a globally important biodiversity, carbon stocks,
offering livelihood options for many forest dependent people, and responding to a demand of
timber and non-timber products to population living in the vicinity of forest areas. The SFM IP
builds on GEF’s track record as a champion of the protection and sustainable use of forests for
multiple benefits, with to date over USD 2.7 billion in SFM grant support leveraging USD 14 billion
of co-financing from other sources. In 2007, GEF initiated an SFM incentive program with the
GEF-4 Tropical Forest Account that was announced at the Bali Climate Change COP. It was tested
and extended to scale during GEF-5 and GEF-6, with a focus on protection, sustainable
management, and restoration of forests. The option to develop regional and global interventions
has shown to be essential.

393. All the three targeted systems have benefited from pilot investments in previous GEF
cycles creating a baseline to scale up impact: Amazon Sustainable Landscape Program, Strategic
Congo Basin Program, and the Sahel and West Africa Program to Support the Great Green Wall
Initiative. The GEF is well positioned to further advance previous gains by responding to country
priorities to protect, restore, and sustainably manage their forests so that they provide a wide
range of ecosystem services, support local livelihoods, strengthen climate change resilience.
GEF’s implementing experience in the Amazon, Congo Basin, and elsewhere shows that
coordinated programs foster collaboration, strengthen knowledge exchange, and extend the
impact of the scope of the work.

394. The Program will take on the drivers of forest loss and degradation through strategies
aimed at creating a better enabling environment for forest governance, land use policies and for
clarifying land tenure; supporting rational land use planning across mixed-use landscapes;

89Such as the Great Green Wall Initiative (GGWI), the Sustainable Land and Ecosystems Management (SLEM) program in India,
and the Central Asian Countries’ Initiative on Land Management (CACILM)

128
strengthening of protected areas;; supporting the management of commercial and subsistence
agriculture lands to reduce pressure on adjoining forests; and utilizing financial mechanisms and
incentives for sustainable forest utilization such as marketsand PES schemes. The GEF also serves
as the financial mechanism of several MEAs whose interests are particularly relevant in all type
of forests.

Global Environmental Benefits

395. The program will improve management effectiveness of protected areas developed in
KBAs and conservation corridors. Buffer zones of protected areas will benefit from sustainable
forest management practices, and forest conservation and management measures will result in
tons of carbon stored and avoided emissions. The interventions in dryland landscapes will result
in an improved provision of agro-ecosystem and forest ecosystem goods and services. Socio-
economic benefits will be important and include reduced vulnerability of communities living in
drylands. In cooperation with the Chemicals focal area, where feasible, investments to address
mercury pollution through unlocking private sector engagement in artisanal and small scale gold
mining will be explored. The measure of GEBs will be the area of globally significant habitat, as
measured in hectares, sustainably managed or conserved, hectares under sustainable land
management, tons of CO2e mitigated, and reduction in tons of Mercury.

129
 Table 8 Global Environmental Benefits

Focal Area Objectives and Priorities to be addressed through the IP

Biodiversity • Conserving globally important biodiversity in key landscapes and forested
areas.
Climate Change • Land-based and value chain GHG mitigation (sequestration and avoidance)
Mitigation - GHG emissions reductions from landscape forest conservation
Land Degradation • Sustainable management of forest landscape and dryland production
systems – integrating the LDN targets into planning processes, focusing
mainly on improved land use and management for crop and livestock
production
International • Integrated land and water management, such as through advancing the
Waters nexus approach in watersheds and basins
• Prevention of nutrient pollution
Chemicals and • Reduction of Mercury from reforming Artisanal and Small-scale Gold
Waste Mining (ASGM) practices

130
PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT

Global Context

396. In order to transform economic systems and reverse unsustainable global trends, the
private sector will need to play an essential role. The call for greater private sector engagement
for sustainability and protecting the environment were strengthened by the 2030 framework for
the Sustainable Development Goals which countries increasingly acknowledge requires strong
private sector contribution.

397. A number of private sector leaders have been responding to the call and started to take
actions. They have taken the call for action not only from a risk perspective but also to pursue
business opportunities. According to a landmark report from the Business & Sustainable
Development Commission 90, pursuing sustainable and inclusive business models could unlock
economic opportunities worth at least USD 12 trillion a year by 2030 and generate up to 380
million jobs, primarily in developing countries. Private sector leadership and commitments were
also essential to fostering confidence in low emission technologies and business models
considered essential for achieving the Paris Agreement. However, real leadership will continue
to be needed to create partnerships between private sector, government and civil society to
transform the key economic systems.

398. GEF will need to not only capitalize on the growing interest by private actors in the
sustainability agenda and create the conditions for transforamtion of markets, but also “crowd-
in”the private sector investments to deliver environmental benefits beyond business as usual.

GEF-7 Strategy

399. As noted by the IEO, “The GEF engages with a wide variety of private sector entities that
vary in their industry focus, size, and approach to environmental issues using a mix of
intervention models. The range extends from multinational corporations; through large domestic
firms and financial institutions; to micro, small, and medium enterprises and
smallholders/individuals91. GEF investments involving the private sector have delivered higher
co-financing, have balanced regional distribution, and address drivers of environmental
degradation 92”. OPS6 noted that one successful GEF intervention is the use of non-grant
instruments to foster greater private sector engagement and attract private sector co-financing,
and noted GEF’s success in broadening those investments to include natural resources
management 93. OPS6 also documented many of GEF’s experiences in creating or strengthening

90 Better Business-Better World. January 2017.

91 GEF IEO (GEF Independent Evaluation Office) 2017, Sixth Comprehensive Evaluation of the GEF (OPS6): The GEF in the
Changing Environmental Finance Landscape; and GEF/ME/C.52/Inf.04, Evaluation of GEF's Engagement with the Private Sector
92 Ibid
93 Ibid

131
multistakeholder platforms and public parivate partnership, including the Integrated Approach
Pilots, Payments for Eco-system Services, and GloBallast.

400. Despite these achievements, only 43% of respondents to IEO’s survey agree that the GEF’s
ability to engage the private sector is a comparative advantage, and also indicated a lack of
awareness of GEF’s extensive engagement in private sector partnerships and platforms, focusing
instead only on accessing the private sector for financing94.

401. OPS6 provides some documentation of structural challenges for private sector
engagement. Evidence suggests that STAR country allocation system has not proven amenable
to fostering private sector involvement. Private sector investments only account for 16% of co-
financing across the portfolio, making the STAR as one constraint to greater private sector
engagement 95. Countries rarely choose to program their STAR allocations towards private sector
projects and programs, and private sector engagement is sporadic in the processes whereby
countries establish priorities for GEF financing. Lack of knowledge and awareness on both sides
is another reason for unsatisfactory participation by the private sector in GEF operations.

402. Based on these findings, the Secretariat is proposing a two-pillar strategy for GEF-7, with
a view that this strategy will address several of these barriers by offering greater access to non-
grant instruments and explicitly creating opportunties to involve the private sector in new
programs under the GEF-7, notably the impact programs:

• The first pillar is to expand the use of non-grant instruments; and

• The second pillar is working with the private sector as an agent for market transformation.

Pillar 1: Expand the use of non-grant instruments

403. GEF key stakeholders are increasingly attracted to the use of non-grant instruments for
blended finance, illustrated through the GEF-6 Non-Grant Instrument Pilot, as a mechanism to
enhance private sector engagement. The Non-Grant Pilot was successful, attracting more
proposals than could be funded, and resulting in 11 innovative projects that included USD 99.5
million in GEF funding while attracting USD 1,792 million in co-financing. The pilot demonstrated
that non-grant projects can provide very high leverage of GEF investment, and that project
developers and GEF agencies are increasingly able to offer innovative financing solutions for
natural resources management.

404. Blended finance aims to use scarce public resources to unlock large multiples of private
sector finance, and therefore has attracted significant interest in recent years, including a private
sector window for IDA and added emphasis on catalyzing private investment by many bilateral
and multilateral funds. The GEF experience using non-grant instruments shows that blended
finance can be a potent instrument.

94 Ibid
95 Ibid.

132
405. The GEF-6 Non- Grant Instrument Pilot, through debt, equity, or risk guarantees, was
designed to pursue innovative blended finance to catalyze private sector investment and seek
projects in all focal areas. Based on lessons learned from investments in clean energy and low-
carbon technologies, GEF has successfully expanded innovative blended finance to natural
resources management. Of the 11 projects awarded, 7 are focused on natural resources.

Box 2. Examples of GEF-6 NGI Projects

The Moringa Agro-forestry Fund for Africa, managed by the AfDB, will promote sustainable land management in
production landscapes in Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Kenya, Mali, Tanzania, Zambia, and Congo DR. The Fund will
invest in 5-6 scalable, replicable agroforestry projects that combine plantation forestry with agricultural elements
to capture most of the value chain.

The Meloy Fund, implemented by Conservation International and RARE will establish the first fund for sustainable
small-scale fisheries in Southeast Asia to improve the conservation of coral reef ecosystems by providing financial
incentives to fishing communities in the Philippines and Indonesia to adopt sustainable fishing behaviors and
rights-based management regimes.

The Third South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Governance and Shared Growth project managed by the World Bank
will now include an innovative partnership with the Government of Seychelles to support the issuance of Blue
Bonds to attract private sector investment, supported by a GEF non-grant investment. The Blue Bonds proceeds
will strengthen efforts to improve management of fisheries and coastal conservation at regional and national
levels and improve fish handling processes at targeted handling sites in the Seychelles.

The Risk Mitigation Instrument for Land Restoration project, managed by the Inter-American Development Bank
combines a GEF investment of USD 15 million with USD 120 million in co-financing to deploy innovative risk
mitigation instruments to restore degraded lands in Latin America through investments such as sustainable
management for increased eco-system services, landscape regeneration, intercropping, shade-grown systems,
high-value forest products, and silvo-pastoral systems.

The CPIC Conservation Finance Initiative - Scaling up and Demonstrating the Value of Blended Finance in
Conservation, managed by IUCN combines a GEF investment of $8 million non-grant with $2 million of grant
funding from Rockefeller Foundation and an expected $100 million of private sector investment. The aim is to
overcome hurdles to private sector investment in natural resources management and improve the conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity by demonstrating innovative finance blending models. This project will take
advantage of the growing engagement of the Coalition for Private Investment in Conservation (CPIC), launched at
the IUCN World Conservation Congress in September 2016, with the intent of increasing deal flow into global
priority conservation projects. The core of the CPIC model is the development of investment blueprints that create
models for investable conservation projects in five sectors: sustainable agriculture; coastal fisheries; coastal
resilience; green infrastructure for water; and forest landscape restoration and conservation.

406. Under GEF-7, the GEF will accelerate the use of non-grant instruments for blended finance
in support of delivering GEBs and continue to catalyze investments from capital markets at global
and national levels aligned with focal area objectives. The GEF partnership will continuously
innovate, keeping track of global trends in blended finance and seeking increased number of
projects in the area of natural resources management.

407. Specific emphasis will be placed on investment platforms, such as the Coalition for Private
Investment in Conservation (CPIC) platform that provides integrated grant and non-grant

133
investment services that facilitate rapid scaling of investment beyond one-by-one projects. The
goal of the GEF-7 in this area is to create and participate in platforms where several constraints
in conservation finance, such as small size, lack of capacity, and perceived risks are collectively
addressed and attract private investments to natural resource management at scale.

Pillar 2: Mobilizing the private sector as an agent for market transformation

408. As noted, there are numerous barriers to expanded private sector engagement in GEF
projects, including countires’ lack of interest or capacity in involving the private sector in STAR
supported projects, and a lack of entry points for private sector stakeholders at the global or
national level to address environmental challenges and opportunities across the entrie value
chain. From the viewpoint of the private sector which is eager to pursue sustainability and reduce
reputational risk, the fact that not many GEF projects have offered opportunties to engage across
the entire value chain in a coordinated manner has diminished their interest in the GEF projects.
However, there are a several examples of success cases for the private sector involvement.

Box 3. Examples of Private Sector Involvement

The Commodities IAP has enlisted the support of major palm oil producers who have committed to “zero-
deforestation” palm oil production, facilitating training and capacity building for small-holders that form the
foundation of the supply chain. In case of beef in Paraguay McDonalds has joined this initiative. Domestic financial
sector also has participated in promoting green financing;

Philips, Osram, ABB, MABE and other appliances and equipment manufacturers are supporting the Sustainable
Energy for All effort to accelerate energy efficiency and leapfrog developing markets to more efficient equipment;

The Maritime Trading Organization and major shippers committed voluntarily to an international regulatory
framework which reduces the spread of invasive species through the Globallast Program, leading to formal
adoption of the approach in the Ballast Water Management Convention (BWM) in 2017;

The GEF Gold partnership which aims at taking mercury out of the supply chain, builds a bridge between suppliers
and corporate consumers of gold, such as computer, high end jewelry, as well as financial sector, enabling new
approaches to reduce harmful mercury emissions across the full supply chain;

• GEF’s early support for water funds in Latin America fostered partnerships between public and private, urban
and rural, to provide protection for vital catchment zones.

409. It should be noted that the successful multi-stakeholder partnerships listed above are
almost exclusively funded outside of STAR country allocation, speficially, either Chemicals and
Waste focal area, International Waters focal area, or set-asides under the Rio Focal Areas. This is
consistent with the findings of IEO and suggests that under the STAR country allocations it is hard
to form multi-stakeholer partnerships and platforms that involve business at the outset, leaving
much less opporunity for business to be a full fledged partner 96.

96 Ibid, page 92.

134
410. The GEF-7 strategy offers ehanced opportunities to work with the private sector as an
agent for market transformation. In particular the proposed Impact Programs seek to bring in the
private sector at an early stage of the program design with well specified roles. In programming
discussions, Countries and Agencies would conduct careful analysis and stakeholder consultation
to identify the particular role of the private sector inherent to the program they are designing.

411. Possible role of the private sector in Impact Programs may include:

• Within the Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration Impact Program, existing platforms
and new partnerships will be critical to continue progress on linking major suppliers and
consumers of agricultural commodities. Current market barriers include policy and
regulatory frameworks, for example, those related to food storage and distribution which
do not provide incentives to shift to sustainable farming practices; inadequate
implementation of existing regulations; risks of investing in sustainable land management
and lack of capacity with small-holders who are critical to the supply chain; among others.
Platforms are vitally needed to bring key actors, including businesses, together to
encourage them to transition to sustainable business practices. These will be created
either in jurisdictions under committed leaders and / or along supply chains of
commodities around which many actors are already lined up. They can also foster
innovative non-grant financing. For example, sustainable land management techniques,
such as inter-cropping, can benefit from project preparation support and concessional
financing; and

• The Sustainable Cities Impact Program, as an extention of the GEF-6 Sustainable Cities
IAP, will continue to create opportunties for multistakeholder platform involving the
business. Prime examples from GEF-6 include coaltion for Energy Efficiency Building
Coalition which brings cities as regulator of building codes and planner, businesses as
provider of expertise and technology, and banking sector as financiers, and the GEF as a
catalyst. Cities also offer valuable space to test new ideas of improved approaches to
material and chemical production and consumption, such as circular economy, which
involves various business sectors including transport and food systems. The platform,
managed by the Agencies and city association such as ICLEI and C40 is becoming a hub for
north-south and south-south cooperation in sustainable urbanization, including training
on access to finance.

412. In order to realize the opportunties to enhance the role of the private sector in those
programs, it is critical for countries and agencies to bring the private sector upfront in the design
stage of programming. The private sector role should be clearly identified as core elements in
each of Impact programs before finalization of the program design.

Enhancing GEF Capacity for Private Sector Engagement

413. OPS6 suggests that the GEF Secretariat needs additional expertise on capital markets,
loan origination, and trust fund management. The Secretariat believes delivering GEF-6 non-
grant pilot demonstrated the strong capacity of GEF agencies to perform the full range of

135
financial responsibilities to implement non-grant projects, including project development, due
diligence, application of safeguards, financial structuring, investment, repayment, and reflows to
the GEF Trust Fund. However, in order to ensure continued success of the non-grant pilot and
enhance future investments, the Secretariat is considering several measures to be implemented.
An advisory group of financial experts will be formalized and engaged fully in project reviews.
Additional financial experts will be called on to help identify strategic investment trends and
opportunities for platforms for aggregation and scaling, best use for specific types of non-grant
instruments, and potential investment categories/platforms (e.g., sustainable fisheries,
agro/forestry, chemicals and waste) where innovation is needed. To enhance effectiveness,
policy updates will be proposed in partnership with agencies to address larger scale investment
packages by raising the project size cap and allowing a small amount of advisory services (i.e.,
technical assistance) in projects that need it. To enhance transparency, additional documentation
on selection criteria and project review guidelines will be developed.

414. To support implementation of Pillar 2, the GEF Secretariat is already in regular contact
with private sector stakeholders regarding program and platform design features. Additional
stakeholder conversations with the private sector, Conventions, and CSO community will be
pursued around project design features and investment strategies. The Secretariat also believes
that enhanced capacity across the GEF Secretariat and its partnership will help mainstream
private sector engagement. To that end, checklists and project review guidelines focused on
private sector engagement will be documented and disseminated.

136
 OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE FOR GEF-7’S ROLL OUT

415. This section provides a preliminary description of how the GEF-7 programming directions
will be rolled out to countries, agencies and stakeholders. This section places particular emphasis
to how countries will be able to seek access to Impact Programs and associated resources by
making use of their STAR allocations.

416. The starting point for countries is the determination of the desired deployment of their
GEF-7 STAR allocations across Focal Area Investments and Impact Programs. The GEF-7
programming directions strategy contains all eligible activities for GEF focal areas and provides
initial indication of eligibility to participate in Impact Programs. Enabling activities in support of
convention obligations will be funded outside of the STAR country allocations. The Secretariat
will accept proposals intended to be funded through STAR allocations and destined to focal area
specific investments as well as those for eligible activities in the International Waters and
Chemicals and Waste focal areas, in accordance with GEF policy on the project and program
cycles (OP/PL/01).

417. The Secretariat will ensure that all countries have an opportunity to consider and to apply
for the Impact Programs, including by issuing announcements or requests for proposals with clear
timelines. Depending on the nature of the IP, Initial consultations through conference calls with
interested countries, agencies and other relevant stakeholders will be organized to allow them
to better understand the overall objectives of the program and assess opportunities for
engagement.

418. These Secretariat announcements will be issued to all Operational Focal Points (OFPs)
prior to or at the start of the GEF-7 replenishment cycle using custom-designed processes as well
as making use of the Secretariat’s Country Support Program tools. Secretariat dedicated staff will
be made available to address frequently asked questions to better guide countries in their initial
expressions of interest.

419. Initial expressions of interest are expected to contain desired agencies for the
implementation of Child Projects and the associated justification for the proposed choice, along
with program objectives and the fit with the preliminary selection criteria which are consistent
with GEF-7 programming directions. As it was the case with IAPs in GEF-6, user-friendly templates
containing the requested information will be distributed along with the call for proposals.
Country ownership will be assured by requiring that all communications are routed directly
through the GEF Operational Focal Points and other interested government agencies, and that
all completed templates submitted to the GEF Secretariat are signed by the OFPs.

420. At a minimum, countries seeking access to Impact Programs would need to: 1) be eligible
for the respective impact program, given its geographical scope and intended outcomes; 2)
provide a commitment to a network-based approach beyond national and sub-national level
activities, along with a recognition of the importance of and a willingness to engage in a global
platform and knowledge sharing platform; 3) demonstrate an understanding of the global-child

137
project linkage as a means to monitor, track, and report on a harmonized set of performance
indicators; and 4) meet any additional, agreed program-specific criteria to be developed through
consultation workshops facilitated by the Secretariat. Given that the IPs aim at promoting
systems change, indication of commitment to a national institutional framework that has the
potential to promote transformational change, opportunity and approach for scaling up
interventions, and approach to monitoring and assessment of environment benefits, will also be
requested from proponent countries.

421. The preliminary proposals submitted by countries should also contain the amount and
nature of the STAR resources they would be committing to their respective Child Project. If full
flexibility between allocations for Biodiversity, Climate Change and Land Degradation is
introduced in the GEF-7 cycle, countries will be granted the option to program their STAR country
allocations across all three Rio Focal Areas. Countries that end up participating in an Impact
Program will receive additional, non-STAR incentive funds, at a ratio of 2 to 1.

422. On the basis of expressions of interest received by the Secretariat, follow-up workshop(s)
will be called to review of proposals submitted by countries, including the proposed financial
commitments originating from the respective STAR allocations. At the conclusion of this process,
eligible countries will be expected to have nominated Agencies of their choice for
implementation of the proposed country-specific Child Projects.

423. Facilitated by the GEF Secretariat, the consultations would also focus on the identification
of a Lead Agency for each Impact Program. Agencies interested in taking a role as Lead Agency
must express interest and demonstrate capability to carry out the responsibilities associated with
its role, including their comparative advantage to coordinate the program, and willingness to
work with participating countries and other GEF Agencies.

424. Following the consultative workshop(s), the Lead Agency, selected through a consensus-
building process, will make the final recommendations based on the above criteria for the
inclusion of participating countries in an Impact Program, in consultation with the Secretariat.

425. In case country demand exceeds the availability of incentive funds for a particular Impact
Program, the GEF Secretariat will facilitate the process of country selection with the Lead Agency,
based on Impact Program-specific criteria. The mechanism will operate similarly to the incentive
mechanisms applied in GEF-5 and GEF-6 with the SFM Program, and the Sustainable Cities and
Food Security in Africa IAPs in GEF-6, by which more impactful child projects were given
preference.

426. Global or regional coordination and knowledge exchange components designed to

provide technical assistance, quality assurance and consistency across Child Projects are
considered a centerpiece of the delivery of Impact Programs, and a significant factor in their value
addition vis a vis isolated projects. The Lead Agency will be responsible for developing these
components in close dialogue with all agencies that will be implementing Child Projects.

138
427. A Lead Agency will lead the development of an IP Program Framework Document (PFD)
and coordinate with implementing agencies responsible for Child Projects. Both the Lead
Agencies and Agencies selected by countries for country-specific projects are expected to ensure
the quality of programs and projects in a way to maximize impacts along the agreed objectives
under each of IPs.

428. All consultation processes leading to the selection of countries and agencies, including
their respective roles, will be documented in minutes from the meetings and workshops, annexed
as part of the respective IP PFDs.

429. Upon approval of the PFD by the Council, Agencies selected by participating countries, in
coordination with the Lead Agency and other participating stakeholders, will prepare their
respective Child Projects for CEO Endorsement/ Approval. Consistent to existing policies, Child
Projects under Impact Programs would be circulated to Council for review and comment four
weeks in advance of CEO endorsement.

430. Countries that have not been deemed sufficiently competitive in securing access to
Impact Programs and their incentive funds can still align their eligible project proposals with an
IP, make use of their respective STAR allocations, thereby benefitting from knowledge and
exchange platforms, or preparing for a future IP call.

139
CORPORATE PROGRAMS FOR GEF-7
Background

431. The GEF has been implementing Corporate Programs, which are aimed at developing the
capacity of its recipient countries and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) to effectively protect the
global environment. Under GEF-6, the following two corporate programs are being implemented
– Small Grants Program (SGP) and Country Relations Program.

Small Grants Program (SGP)

432. The SGP is aimed at financing community-led initiatives to address global environmental
issues. It is currently being implemented by UNDP on behalf of the GEF partnership. It is
specifically designed to mobilize bottom-up actions by empowering local civil society
organizations, and poor and vulnerable communities, including women and Indigenous Peoples.

433. Since its launch in 1992, the SGP, through a decentralized national level delivery
mechanism, has implemented more than 20,000 projects in 125 countries, at a total cost of USD
542 million (the average grant size per project under the SGP is USD 25,000).

434. SGP remains one of the GEF’s most successful flagship initiatives and it enjoys strong and
broad support from its stakeholders. A joint evaluation of the SGP by the GEF’s Independent
Evaluation Office and UNDP’s Independent Evaluation Office from 2013-2015 concluded that the
Program continues to play a key role in promoting the GEF’s objectives. It specifically noted that
SGP continues to support projects that are relevant, effective and efficient in achieving global
environmental benefits, while addressing issues of livelihoods, poverty, gender equality and
women’s empowerment. The evaluation also reported evidence of strong replication, scaling-up,
sustainability, and mainstreaming of SGP activities.

435. SGP Under GEF-7: Based on lessons learned during the last 25 years, and inputs from
recent stakeholder consultations, including with governments, Convention focal points, and the
private sector, the SGP will place greater focus in GEF-7 on promoting strategic and results-based
investments at the local level in alignment with the GEF’s proposed Impact Programs and Focal
Area investments. SGP-financed projects could require greater focus on promoting and
supporting innovative and scalable initiatives at the local level to protect the global environment
in priority landscapes and seascapes. It could also support projects that would serve as
“incubators” of innovation, with the potential for broader replication of successful approaches
through larger projects supported by the GEF and/or other partners.

436. The SGP will give priority in GEF-7 to the following strategic initiatives, which complement
the proposed Impact Programs at the community level: (a) Sustainable Agriculture and Fisheries;
(b) Low-Carbon Energy Access Benefits; (c) Community-based Threatened Ecosystems and
Species Conservation: Land and Water; (d) Local to Global Coalitions in Chemicals and Waste
Management; and (e) Catalyzing Sustainable Urban Development.

140
437. The SGP’s Country Programming Strategy will prioritize critical landscapes/seascapes to
focus its programming on globally recognized important ecosystems (including Key Biodiversity
Areas). It will continue to seek synergies, implement multi-sectoral approaches by involving
communities at the landscapes/seascapes level, and facilitating communities’ innovative actions
to effectively manage the complex mosaic landscapes/seascapes.

438. The SGP will also finance strategic services to the civil society and community
organizations to enhance their institutional, technical and financial capacities; and to develop
partnership platforms and networks for scaling up and knowledge management.

439. SGP’s active engagement on knowledge sharing at all levels has enabled mutual learning
among its grantees and beyond, as well as replication and upscaling of initiatives. SGP will act as
a convener for civil society to enhance linkage with governments and private sector on key global
environmental issues, particularly in transforming policies and practices for sustainability under
the Impact Programs and other GEF programs. SGP’s “Grantmaker Plus initiatives” would
continue to cover: (a) CSO-Government-Private Sector Dialogues: for policy and practice
transformations; (b) Social Inclusion: including gender, indigenous peoples, youth, and persons
with disabilities; and (c) Citizen Based Global Knowledge Platforms: including digital library and
south-south cooperation.

440. Special attention will be placed in GEF-7 in strengthening SGP’s operations in the Least
Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States. The SGP will enhance its decentralized
approaches through its multi-stakeholder National Steering Committees and development of
Country Programming Strategies, which are based on assessments and consultations with
stakeholders in each country.

Country Support Program (CSP)

441. The goal of the Country Support Program is to strengthen the capacity of the GEF recipient
countries to fully participate in the GEF partnership to generate global environment benefits. As
the major outreach vehicle for the GEF, the Country Support Program is being used by various
GEF stakeholder groups in the partnership to advance the protection of the global environment
(see Box 4).

Box 4: Strategic Objectives of the Country Support Program by GEF Stakeholder Groups

The Secretariat:

Meet with and explain the GEF evolution to recipient countries, including strategies, policies and procedures and
how to develop a PIF;

Provide new training and tools to the GEF and Convention Focal Points and civil society representatives to be more
effective in their work with the GEF and the achievement of Global Environment Benefits (GEBs) more generally;

Facilitate knowledge exchange and learning around GEF project design and implementation at both country and
regional levels;

141
Follow up and monitor programmatic approaches, for example the Great Green Wall program;

Explain the relation between GEF and the SDGs; and

Discuss programming issues with the Operational Focal Points (OFPs)

The GEF Focal Points to understand and better carry out their responsibilities in the partnership, including to
learn from other organizations best practices in areas such as project management, Knowledge exchange,
national experiences and possible South-South cooperation.

The Convention Focal Points to better understand and appreciate the contributions of the GEF as a financial
mechanism to the achievement of the Convention objectives and therefore provide more informed guidance
through the Convention Conference of the Parties (CoPs).

Civil society representatives to meet and develop relationships with their Government counterparts, the Agencies
and the GEF Secretariat to contribute better to the attainment of Global Environment Benefits.

The Council members and Alternates to meet with the focal points of the countries they represent to prepare for
Council meetings, discuss regional projects, exchange information and views.

The recipient Council members and Alternates to meet prior to the Council meetings to discuss issues of interest
on the agenda.

The national governments to meet national stakeholders to discuss and validate national objectives, strategies,
policies, coordination, mainstreaming considerations relevant to the global environment in their decision making
and specific GEF programming.

The Convention Secretariats to take advantage of the presence of Focal Points and civil society to pursue
consultations and other GEF-related goals.

442. The Country Support Program, under GEF-6, comprises a variety of opportunities for
meetings and workshops to promote dialogue among different GEF stakeholder groups, including
the following: GEF National Dialogues; GEF National Portfolio Formulation Exercise; GEF
Introduction Seminars; GEF Council Constituency Meetings; the GEF Workshops, especially
Expanded Constituency Workshops (ECWs); Pre-Council Meetings of recipient Constituency
Council members and Alternates and GEF Knowledge Days. Under GEF-6, a total of 39 ECW
workshops were conducted in 2015, 2016 and 2017.

443. The Country Relations Program activities are strengthening countries capacity by
informing, assisting and empowering relevant officials, including GEF Focal Points, Convention
Focal Points, and Civil Society Organizations to enable them to engage on and contribute to the
protection of the global environment.

444. The Country Support Program in GEF-7. The strategic objectives of the Country Support
Program, as summarized in Box 4, will remain fully relevant under GEF-7. Countries have reported
that the need addressed by the program remains high and the intensity of program engagement
is not expected to decrease. The type of activities currently financed by the on-going program
should continue to shape future offerings. However, greater emphasis could be placed in the

142
design of workshops and meetings on raising awareness about the unique features of the GEF-7
package offerings, with the view of helping countries to engage and participate in new
opportunities. It is, therefore, expected that once the programming directions of GEF-7 are
firmed up, the Secretariat will work with Agencies, countries and other stakeholders to design
activities responsive to the need to facilitate effective participation of the GEF country
stakeholders in the implementation of the program.

143
 Annex 1. Biodiversity Focal Area and Associated Programming Investments Results Framework

Goal Impacts 97 Indicators Means of verification

Maintain globally Biodiversity conserved and habitat Intact vegetative cover and degree of fragmentation in national Remote sensing and,
significant maintained in national protected protected area systems and other effective area-based conservation where possible,
biodiversity in area systems and other effective (hectares) supported by visual or
landscapes and area-based conservation measures other verification
marine habitat Intact vegetative cover and degree of fragmentation in production methods.
Conservation and sustainable use landscapes (hectares)
of biodiversity in production
landscapes and marine habitat Coastal zone habitat and marine habitat intact in marine protected
areas and productive marine habitat (hectares and km).

Objectives Outcomes Indicators Means of verification

1) Mainstream Landscapes and marine habitat Area of landscapes under improved management to benefit GEF portal reporting
biodiversity across under improved management biodiversity (hectares, non-certified)
sectors as well as (excluding protected areas) Area of landscapes that meet national or international third-party
within production certification that incorporates biodiversity considerations (hectares)
landscapes and Area of High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF) avoided (hectares)
marine habitat Area of land restored (forest, natural grasslands and shrublands,
wetlands) (hectares)
and
Area of marine habitat under improved practices to benefit biodiversity
2) Reduce direct (hectares,)
drivers of Number of fisheries that meet national or international third-party
biodiversity loss certification that incorporates biodiversity considerations
Number of Large Marine Ecosystems with reduced nutrient pollution
and hypoxia
Globally over-exploited fisheries moved to more sustainable levels
(metric tons)

97 Long term effects of the portfolio investment, target area for impacts and outcomes would be 1.2 billion hectares.

144
 Terrestrial habitat under improved Terrestrial protected areas created 98 (hectares) GEF portal reporting
conservation and sustainable use Terrestrial protected areas under improved management effectiveness
(million hectares) (hectares)
Marine protected areas created (hectares)
Marine habitat under improved Marine protected areas under improved management effectiveness
conservation and sustainable use (hectares)
(million hectares)

3) Strengthen NBSAPs revised as appropriate NBSAPs revised following COP guidance (proportion of GEF eligible GEF database, Reports
biodiversity policy parties successfully revising) posted on CBD
and institutional website , in-depth
frameworks Ratifications of protocols, supplementary protocols (number) reviews of portfolio
Protocols to CBD (Cartagena and
Nagoya) under implementation Degree of implementation of Cartagena and Nagoya Protocol

98
Per the GEF biodiversity focal area strategy, new protected areas created with GEF support must meet the Key Biodiversity Area criteria.

145
Annex 2. Programming options available to countries against the priorities and outcomes of
each objective as identified by COP-13
Objective 1. Mainstream biodiversity across sectors as well as within production landscapes and
seascapes
A) Improve policies and decision-making, informed by Programming options
biodiversity and ecosystem values
Expected Outcome 1: Financial, fiscal, and development Biodiversity Focal Area Strategy:
policies, as well as planning and decision-making 99 take Natural Capital Assessment and Accounting
into account biodiversity and ecosystem values, 100 in the
context of the different tools and approaches used by
Parties to achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
Expected Outcome 2: Identified significant incentives, Biodiversity Focal Area Strategy:
including subsidies, harmful for biodiversity are Natural Capital Assessment and Accounting
eliminated, phased out, or reformed, consistent and in Biodiversity Mainstreaming
harmony with the Convention and other international
obligations and taking into account national Impact Programs: Food systems, land use, &
socioeconomic conditions. restoration

International Waters Focal Area Strategy:

sustainable fisheries
Expected Outcome 3: Economic sectors affecting Impact Programs: Food systems, land use, &
significant biodiversity adopt sustainable supply chains restoration
and/or clean production processes, thus minimizing their
impacts on biodiversity.
B) Manage biodiversity in landscapes and seascapes Programming options
Expected Outcome 4: Loss, fragmentation, and Biodiversity Focal Area Strategy: Inclusive
degradation of significant natural habitats, and associated Conservation, Preventing the Extinction of
extinction debt, is reduced, halted or reversed, and Known Threatened Species and Wildlife for
conservation status of known threatened species is Sustainable Development
improved and sustained, including through monitoring,
spatial planning, incentives 101, restoration, and strategic Impact Programs: Food systems, land use, &
establishment of protected areas and other measures. restoration

Sustainable Forest Management Impact

Program: Amazon Sustainable Landscapes,
Dryland Forests, Congo Basin Landscape
C) Harness biodiversity for sustainable agriculture Programming options
Expected Outcome 5: Biodiversity supporting key
agricultural ecosystems, such as through pollination, Biodiversity Focal Area Strategy:
biological pest control, or genetic diversity, is conserved Securing Agriculture’s Future: Sustainable Use of
and managed, contributing to sustainable agricultural Plant and Animal Genetic Resources
production.
Impact Programs: Food systems, land use, &
restoration

99 At spatial, non-spatial, sectoral, national and subnational levels.

100 See decision X/3, paragraph 9(b)(ii).
101 As referred to in Aichi Biodiversity Target 3.

146
Objective 2. Reduce direct drivers of biodiversity loss
Programming options
D) Prevent and control invasive alien species
Expected Outcome 6: Management frameworks for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategy:
invasive alien species are improved Prevention, Control and Management of Invasive Alien
Species

E) Reduce pressures on coral reefs and other Programming options

vulnerable coastal and marine ecosystems
Expected Outcome 7: Anthropogenic pressures on Biodiversity Focal Area Strategy:
vulnerable coastal and marine ecosystems, including Improving Financial Sustainability, Effective
coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass beds, and Management, and Ecosystem Coverage of the Global
associated ecosystems, including pollution, overfishing Protected Area Estate (Marine Protected Areas)
and destructive fishing, and unregulated coastal
development, are reduced, thus contributing to
ecosystem integrity and resilience International Waters Focal Area Strategy: Coastal and
marine protected areas and sustainable fisheries
F) Enhance the Effectiveness of Protected Area Programming options
Systems
Expected Outcome 8: The area of protected areas Biodiversity Focal Area Strategy:
under effective and equitable management is Improving Financial Sustainability, Effective
significantly increased, including development of Management, and Ecosystem Coverage of the Global
sustainable financing. Protected Area Estate

Expected Outcome 9: The ecological Inclusive Conservation

representativeness of protected area systems, and
their coverage of protected areas, and other effective Sustainable Forest Management Impact Program:
area-based conservation measures, of particular Amazon Sustainable Landscapes
importance for biodiversity is increased, especially Congo Basin Landscapes
habitats for threatened species.

International Waters Focal Area Strategy: Coastal and

marine protected areas
Programming options
G) Combat illegal and unsustainable use of species,
with priority action on threatened species
Expected Outcome 10: Illegal, unregulated and Biodiversity Focal Area Strategy: Global Wildlife
unsustainable taking, and/or trafficking of species of Program (Component 1: Preventing the Extinction of
flora and fauna, including marine species, is Known Threatened Species)
significantly reduced and both demand and supply of
related products is addressed, with priority action on
threatened species.

147
Objective 3: Strengthen biodiversity policy and institutional frameworks
H) Implement the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety Programming Options

Expected Outcome 11: The number of ratifications of the Cartagena Biodiversity Focal Area Strategy:
Protocol on Biosafety and the Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Implement the Cartagena Protocol on
Protocol on Liability and Redress is increased. Biosafety
Expected Outcome 12: National implementation of the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety and the Nagoya–Kuala Lumpur Supplementary
Protocol on Liability and Redress is enhanced.
Programming options
I) Implement the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources
and Benefit-sharing

Expected Outcome 13: The number of ratifications of the Nagoya Biodiversity Focal Area Strategy:
Protocol is increased. Implement the Nagoya Protocol on
Access and Benefit Sharing,
Expected Outcome 14: Number of countries that have adopted
legislative, administrative or policy measures on access and benefit-
sharing to implement the Protocol is increased, including, inter alia
and as appropriate, measures for mutual implementation with other
relevant international agreements, coordination in transboundary
genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, and/or
procedures to issue internationally recognized certificates of
compliance.

J) Improve biodiversity policy, planning, and review Programming options

Expected Outcome 15: Parties meet their reporting obligations Biodiversity Focal Area Strategy:
under the Convention and the Protocols, through submission of Countries will be able to access the focal
relevant national reports and of relevant information through the area set-aside funds to implement
clearing-houses. enabling activities.
Expected Outcome 16: National policy and institutional frameworks
are reviewed, their implementation and effectiveness assessed, and
gaps identified and addressed by the frameworks.
Expected Outcome 17: The review and, as appropriate, revision and
update, of national biodiversity strategies and action plans in the
light of a successor framework to the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity
2011-2020, is implemented, incorporating an enhanced focus on
achieving policy coherence.

148