76394 Two decades of experience: Investing in Ecosystem Services and Adaptation for Food Security Authors: Mohamed I Bakarr (Lead), Land Degradation Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca, Natural Resources Aziza Akhatova, Land Degradation and Biodiversity Andrew Hume, International Waters Christian H Severin, International Waters Junu Shrestha, Climate Change Adaptation Research Consultant: Viju Ipe Acknowledgment: The GEF Secretariat is grateful to the following GEF Agency colleagues for factual edits, comments, and suggestions: Barbara Cooney, FAO Babara Herren, FAO Geneviève Braun, FAO Amy Kennedy, FAO Nadine Azzu, FAO Inés Angulo, IDB Carolina Jaramillo, IDB Sheila Mwanundu, IFAD Igor Volodin, UNIDO John Fraser Stewart, World Bank Tim Bostock, World Bank Valerie Hickey, World Bank Editing: Mark Foss, Yacout Yasmine Djellal Design: Green Communication Inc. www.greencom.ca Printing: Professional Graphics Printing Company Production Coordination: Christian Hofer Photo Credits: page 18: Creative Commons: Pablo Tosco / Oxfam page 53: Creative Commons: eutrophication&hypoxia, Lake Manzala, Egypt page 57: Creative Commons: Andes Mountains (Peru). Andes Mountains (Peru) page 68: Creative Commons: Photo: M. Tall (CCAFS West Africa) page 70: Creative Commons: Guava. Photo: beautifulcataya page 78: © Ron Kimball/www.kimballstock.com page 81: Image courtesy of xedos4 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) Investing in Ecosystem Services and Adaptation for Food Security January 2013 ACRONYMS P.ii INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND RESILIENCY FOR FOOD SECURITY P.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY P.2 1. INTRODUCTION P.8 2. CONTEXT AND RATIONALE FOR GEF FINANCING P.12 3. ANALYTICAL APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT OF GEF FINANCING P.20 4. TRENDS IN GEF FINANCING FOR PROJECTS P.26 5. GEF FINANCING FOR PROJECT COMPONENTS AND INTERVENTIONS P.42 6. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT AND ADAPTATION BENEFITS P.56 7. STRENGTHENING THE GEF’S ROLE IN SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SECURITY P.72 ACRONYMS ADB Asian Development Bank MENA Middle East and North Africa AFDB African Development Bank MFA Multi-Focal Area BD Biodiversity MTF Multi-Trust Fund CBD Convention on Biological Diversity NAMA Nationally Appropriate CC-A Climate Change Adaptation Mitigation Action CC-M Climate Change Mitigation NAP National Action Plan COP Conference of the Parties NAPA National Action Plan for Adaptation CSA Climate-Smart Agriculture NBSAP National Biodiversity Action Plan ECA Eastern and Central Asia OPS Overall Performance Studies FA Framework for Action POPS Persistent Organic Pollutants FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations RBM Results-Based Management GEF Global Environment Facility REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest GEF–1 Global Environment Facility Degradation, plus the role First Replenishment of conservation, sustainable GEF–2 Global Environment Facility management of forests Second Replenishment and enhancement of forest GEF–3 Global Environment Facility carbon stocks Third Replenishment SCCF Special Climate Change Fund GEF–4 Global Environment Facility SFM Sustainable Forest Management Fourth Replenishment SLM Sustainable Land Management GEF–5 Global Environment Facility SPA Strategic Priority for Fifth Replenishment Adaptation program IEM Integrated Ecosystem Management TF Trust Fund IFAD International Fund UNCCD United Nations Convention to for Agricultural Development Combat Deserti�cation IW International Waters UNDP United Nations IWRM Integrated Water Development Programme Resource Management UNEP United Nations LAC Latin America and the Caribbean Environment Programme LD Land Degradation UNFCCC United Nations Framework LDCF Least Developed Countries Fund Convention on Climate Change ii INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND RESILIENCY FOR FOOD SECURITY With the world population projected The GEF has been at the forefront of this battle for over to reach 9.5 billion by 2050, an esti- two decades. We have long understood that through efforts mated 70-to-100 percent increase in sustainable agriculture and enhancement of food security in food supply will be required to we can positively impact the global commons. In the con- meet basic demands. This is likely text of ful�lling its mandate as the �nancial mechanism of to become the most daunting chal- the Rio Conventions, the GEF has been playing an invaluable lenge for society in the decades to role in supporting developing countries to pioneer prac- come, as the pressure to expand culti- tices that introduce sustainability and resilience features into vated areas for food, feed, and biofuel production increases. agriculture and food security investments. Much can be achieved by reworking global food systems, but this solution will be highly dependent on our capacity to As the champion of the global commons, the GEF continues safeguard the global commons that ultimately support agri- to be committed to promoting innovation and exploring cultural productivity and sustainability. This is one example of practices that can ensure the long-term sustainability and how, in several key areas, environmental and economic pres- resilience of agriculture. To illustrate the types of solu- sures are pushing the earth beyond the boundaries of what it tions and interventions the GEF has been championing, can sustain. this publication offers a succinct overview of the invest- ments already made in maintaining ecosystem service flows In the developing world, where 2.5 billion people depend and securing the resiliency for food systems throughout the on small-scale practices for their livelihoods and food secu- developing world. rity, efforts to increase crop and livestock production have largely focused on increasing access to inputs, such as fertil- While we are proud of this set of accomplishments, I am izers for higher productivity, and biotechnology for improved also cognizant that we are not doing enough to adequately varieties. At the same time, the foundation of agriculture has face the emerging trends. With a new wave of the green been progressively undermined by widespread soil degrada- revolution sweeping across the developing world, particu- tion. In a classic example of “the tragedy of the commons,� larly in sub-Saharan Africa, the GEF must redouble its focus long-term investments to combat land degradation and on the protection of vital agro-ecosystem components – depletion of water resources in agro-ecosystems have been water, healthy soils and biodiversity – at the same time that largely outweighed by investments directed toward chemical it strengthens its capacity to become an even more positive inputs and crop improvements geared toward short-term force and partner of choice to leading agriculture develop- gain. Yet the sustainability and resilience of existing food ment institutions. This will be essential to ensuring that the production systems depend on safeguarding the natural cap- planet’s global environmental commons will continue to ital (land, soil, water) and the services provided by nature. sustain agriculture potential worldwide. This is particularly vital for rural and poor communities. As we prepare to enter a new cycle of investments by the We need to come to grips with the fact that just like GEF, it is my intention to sharpen the focus of our efforts to freshwater, land and soil are �nite resources whose deple- better address the quest for sustainable land management tion is rapidly becoming a signi�cant global problem. Global and food and water security. I truly believe that the GEF is aspirations for food security warrant major transformation in very well positioned to stimulate the needed reform in envi- the economics of land and water management to accommo- ronment and natural resources management practices that date the need for safeguarding ecosystem services globally. can secure the long-term sustainability of agro-ecosystems in Tackling global environmental threats is essential for long-term developing countries. I am very hopeful that the experience sustainability of mainstream development investments in food illustrated in this publication will serve as the springboard to security. This effort, which the Global Environment Facility the next leap of the GEF in promoting transformative change strongly supports, involves helping countries handle bio- in this vital dimension of sustainability for society. physical threats to ecosystem services in agro-ecosystems, as Naoko Ishii, well as providing the policy, socioeconomic, and institutional CEO and Chairperson of the GEF support needed to prevent unsustainable land use. TWODECADES TWO OFEXPERIENCE DECADESOF EXPERIENCEIN INTHE THEGLOBAL GLOBALENVIRONMENT FACILITY(GEF) ENVIRONMENTFACILITY (GEF) 1 2 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY BACKGROUND Agriculture and livestock production preoccupy more than half of the world’s population, including nearly 2.5 billion in the developing world that depend almost entirely on small-scale practices for their livelihood. Sustaining productivity of agricultural and grazing land is, therefore, essential for achiev- ing global food security. Sustainable intensi�cation, through fostering best practices for crops, livestock, forestry and aquaculture, has been considered a key and desirable way to increase the productivity of existing land and water resources in food production. The challenge, however, is ensuring that all such intensi�cation efforts are focused on existing production systems, while minimizing risk of stressors in the natural environment. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 3 “ THE GEF IS THE WORLD’S LEADING PUBLIC FINANCIAL FUND DEDICATED Investing in global environment TO SMART, ENVIRONMENTALLY and adaptation bene�ts through SOUND CHOICES THAT BOOST agriculture and food security initiatives can play an important role LOCAL ECONOMIES AND PROTECT in addressing the potential effects of intensi�cation on ecosystem services. THE PLANET. � This is a priority for the Global Environment Facility (GEF), created in 1992 with a mandate to serve as the �nancial mechanism of several major Purpose of the approaches and priorities of GEF �nancing through the focal environmental Conventions – CBD, the Assessment UNFCCC, UNCCD and the Minamata area and trust fund windows. Since This assessment is an attempt to �nancing for global environment Mercury Convention. The GEF is the address this need by taking a close bene�ts occurs through the GEF world’s leading public �nancial fund look at GEF �nancing in the context Trust Fund, two parallel assess- dedicated to smart, environmentally of agriculture and food security ment were conducted for a) projects sound choices that boost local econo- projects over the last two decades �nanced under the BD, CC-M and mies and protect the planet. Because (1991–2011). The objective is three- LD focal areas focusing on agro- of the importance of agriculture and fold: a) to provide a synthesis of the ecosystem; and b) projects �nanced food security as a development pri- GEF’s experience in supporting the under the IW focal area focusing ority in many of these countries, the agriculture and food security agenda on aquatic systems (freshwater and GEF has been an important source of eligible countries; b) demonstrate marine). The third assessment was of �nancing to address environment the GEF’s value-added for investing based on projects �nanced through and natural resource management in agriculture and food security the LDCF and SCCF for climate challenges. Yet there has been projects to generate global environ- change adaptation bene�ts across all no systematic assessment of how mental bene�ts; and c) establish a production systems. GEF �nancing to generate global basis to strengthen the GEF’s role as environment and adaptation bene�ts partner for addressing environmental From a total of 308 discrete GEF Trust has supported the agriculture and sustainability in the agriculture and Fund projects and programs identi- food security sector. food security sector. The assessment �ed as appropriate for the period was based on �nancing provided covered by the assessment, 93 were through the GEF Trust Fund for the designed speci�cally to address eco- Biodiversity, Land Degradation, system services in the context of International Waters and Climate agriculture and food security needs Change Mitigation focal areas; and in agro-ecosystems. For the IW focal two other trust funds that speci�cally area assessment, 51 projects and support climate change adapta- four programs were determined to tion in eligible countries: the Least have direct links to food security Developed Countries Fund and through investments in freshwater Special Climate Change Fund. systems, coastal marine ecosystems and long-term management of open ocean �sheries. A total of 78 projects Analytical Approach related to agriculture and food secu- Three parallel assessments were rity approved under the LDCF and done to ensure consistency with SCCF were considered, of which 4 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY only 28 and 17 respectively were Highlights of Findings for the largest single focal area designed to include interventions funding, with US$289.09 million supporting food security. Overall, 192 projects and programs were 1 Trends in Financing from the GEF Trust Funds and Focal Areas: The 192 projects and (27%) of total GEF grants. This was followed by �nancing for used for the assessment, comprising BD (US$143.9 million) and LD programs together accounted 158 stand-alone focal area projects (US$104.7 million) stand-alone for total GEF �nancing of and programs, 30 multi-focal area focal area projects. The CC-A US$1,086.8 million and an projects, three multi-focal programs �nancing overall amounted to additional US$6,343.5 million in and one multi-trust fund program. In US$257.4 million (24%), but in co-�nancing during the period addition to the 51 under IW, there addition to LDCF and SCCF covered by the assessment. were 39 BD, 25 LD, and one CC-M includes eight multi-focal area The fourth GEF replenishment stand-alone projects. projects funded under the phase (2006–2010) accounted Special Program on Adaptation. All 192 projects were analyzed for 69 of the projects, with Other multi-focal area projects qualitatively for GEF amounts allo- US$285.1 million (26.2 %) accounted for US$288.5 million cated to the relevant components of total GEF funding and (26 %) of the total GEF grant, and interventions. For GEF Trust US$2,165.1 million (34.1%) with contributions from the BD, Fund projects, the analysis was based of total co-�nancing. GEF LD, IW and CC-M focal areas. on global environment bene�ts asso- �nancing under IW accounted ciated with focal area windows. The bene�ts are essentially ecosystem services in production landscapes generated through management of a) land resources (e.g. soil and water conservation, soil carbon sequestra- tion, improvements in vegetative cover); b) agricultural biodiversity (e.g. preserving genetic diversity, on- farm diversi�cation); and c) aquatic ecosystems (e.g. protection of species and habitats for �sheries, sus- tainable flow and improved quality of water for consumptive use). For LDCF and SCCF projects, investments are associated with adaptation bene�ts in the agriculture and food security sector – i.e. reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience to climate variability and projected effects of climate change. The focus on land, biodiversity, water, and adapta- tion was used to further assess GEF �nancing for speci�c project com- ponents supporting agriculture and food security. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 5 “ THE GEF IS WELL-PLACED TO HELP FEED THE WORLD WHILE INVESTING IN OUR PLANET. � 2 Trends in Financing across Regions: GEF �nancing in Africa accounted for US$277.1 million (25%) of the total grant, followed by Asia with US$195.9 million (18%), LAC with US$110.2 million (10%) and ECA US$92.5 million (9%) regions. These trends are consistent with global needs for addressing food insecurity since the world’s largest population of hungry and malnourished people reside mainly in Africa and Asia. The LDCF investment in Africa is more than twice the amount for Asia region, but the two regions together account for more than 90% of the total LDCF and SCCF �nancing. A total of US$312.5 million (28.7%) was invested through 25 regional or multi-country projects targeting speci�c ecoregions, with 12 in Africa region, six in Asia, �ve in LAC and two in the ECA region. 3 GEF Investments Supporting Agriculture and Food Security: A detailed analysis of all 192 projects included in the assessment showed that GEF �nancing for speci�c 6 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY CONCLUSION components supporting B. GEF investments for The assessment has agriculture and food security sustainable land management demonstrated that GEF amounted to an aggregate mainly target on-farm �nancing to generate multiple total of US$810.6 million (75%) productivity of crops and global environment and adap- of total GEF grants. Speci�c livestock through improved tation bene�ts plays a vital components across all projects management of land, soil, role in supporting the agricul- supporting sustainable �sheries water and vegetative cover. and water resources manage- As a means to ensure long- ture and food security sector ment used the largest amount: term sustainability of outcomes, globally. The approach to GEF US$379.8 million (47%). This is GEF �nancing also supports an �nancing emphasizes targeted followed by project components enabling environment for SLM, investments in projects that targeting sustainable land such as improvements in policy address objectives of the focal management interventions options, marketing, extension areas, including support to with US$179.3 million (22%); and training programs. Because countries for implementation climate change adaptation of the emphasis on integrated of the Conventions for which actions with US$138.1 million natural resource management, the GEF serves as �nancial (17%); and management of GEF �nancing for SLM often agricultural biodiversity with includes resources from the mechanism. The value-added US$113.4 (14%). LD, BD, CC and IW focal areas of GEF �nancing is evident through multi-focal area projects. from the diversity of inter- A. Sustainable management ventions in projects, and the of �sheries is crucial for poverty C. GEF �nancing for climate potential for sustainability of reduction in freshwater and change adaptation in the outcomes for people and the coastal communities throughout agriculture and food sector the developing world, and GEF is linked directly to country global environment. By aligning investments target interventions priorities identi�ed in the focal area priorities with global that help safeguard aquatic National Action Plans for aspirations for sustainable habitats and �sh diversity for Adaptation (NAPAs), and other intensi�cation of production sustainability of the sector. At national plans and strategies. systems, the GEF is well-placed the same time, GEF investments The funds speci�cally target to help feed the world while support sustainable agricultural adaptation bene�ts by support investing in our planet. systems by targeting ef�cient for best practices and inte- water management practices grated approaches for resilience that help to sustain flows (both in production systems; creation surface and groundwater) and of options and alternatives reduce downstream pollution. for land users to cope with The level of GEF �nancing is expected changes in the consistent with the scale of production landscapes; interventions necessary to tackle enabling environments for these challenges, involving CC-A at all levels; �nancial transboundary ecosystems and schemes for climate-resilient multiple countries. practices and technologies; and knowledge management and dissemination platforms. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 7 INTRODUCTION 8 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY With world population projected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050, it has been suggested that 70-100% more food will be needed in order to meet demands.1 While much can be achieved by reworking global food systems, the pressure to expand cultivated areas for food and feed production will likely increase, with implications for the planet’s land, freshwater, biodiversity and climate.2 TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 9 that all such intensi�cation efforts are Because of the importance of focused on existing production lands, agriculture and food security as a including those under pasture. When development priority in many of climate change is considered, prac- these countries, the GEF has been Agriculture and livestock production tices may be shifted to lands more an important source of �nancing to preoccupy more than half of the suited for livestock or crops, and address environment and natural world’s population, including nearly through rehabilitation or conservation resource management challenges. 2.5 billion in the developing world of existing production lands based Yet there has been no systematic that depend almost entirely on small- on their likelihood of productivity in assessment of how GEF �nancing to scale practices for their livelihood. the short- and long-term. generate global environment and Sustaining productivity of agricultural adaptation bene�ts supports the and grazing land is, therefore, essen- The potential for generating global agriculture and food security sector. tial for achieving global food security. environment bene�ts through It implies, however, that food pro- investments in agriculture and food This assessment is an attempt to duction must be intensi�ed to meet security can be greatly enhanced by address this need by taking a close the demands of a growing world addressing the potential effects of look at GEF investments in the population. But agricultural intensi- intensi�cation on ecosystem services. context of agriculture and food �cation through increased irrigation This is an important priority for the security projects �nanced over the and chemical fertilizers also tends to Global Environment Facility (GEF), years, primarily through the funding compromise the natural processes created in 1992 to serve as �nancial windows linked to sustainable and services that underpin sustain- mechanism of the Rio Conventions land and water resources manage- ability and resilience of production — the Convention on Biological ment; biodiversity conservation; systems. This reinforces the need Diversity (CBD), the United Nations and climate change adaptation and for innovations that increase agricul- Framework Convention on Climate mitigation as a basis for achieving tural productivity, while sustaining Change (UNFCCC), the United sustainability and resilience in or improving environmental goods Nations Convention to Combat production systems. The objective is and services. Deserti�cation (UNCCD), and the threefold: a) provide a synthesis of Minamata Mercury Convention. The the GEF’s experience in supporting Sustainable intensi�cation, through GEF is the world’s leading public the agriculture and food secu- fostering best practices for crops, live- �nancial fund dedicated to smart, rity agenda of eligible countries; stock, forestry and aquaculture, has environmentally sound choices that b) demonstrate the GEF’s value- been considered a key and desirable boost local economies and pro- added for investing in agriculture way to increase the productivity of tect the planet. In 21 years since and food security projects to gen- existing land and water resources in its inception, the GEF has pro- erate global environment bene�ts; food production.3 It involves the pru- vided US$11.5 billion in grants, and c) establish a basis for strength- dent and ef�cient use of production leveraging US$57 billion in co�- ening GEF’s role as a partner farm inputs, improved varieties and nancing, and 3,215 projects in for addressing environmental breeds, more ef�cient use of labor more than 165 developing coun- sustainability in the agriculture and and better farm management. The tries and countries with economies food security sector. The assess- challenge, however, is ensuring in transition. ment covered the entire GEF project portfolio from inception through the 1 World Bank. 2008. World Development Report 2006: Agriculture for Development. World Bank, Washington, DC 2 Godfray, H.C.J, et al. 2010. Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science 327:812-818 3 Godfray, H.C.J, et al. 2010. Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science 327:812-81 10 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY start of the �fth replenishment phase (1991 – 2011). It used focal area investment in project components to determine how GEF resources help generate global environment and adaptation bene�ts. The assessment was based on �nancing provided through the GEF Trust Fund and two other trust funds that speci�cally support climate change adaptation in eligible countries: the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) and the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF). For the GEF Trust Fund, �nancing is through six focal area windows: Biodiversity (BD), Land Degradation (LD), International Waters (IW), Climate Change Mitigation (CC-M), Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and Ozone. Assessment through the GEF Trust Fund window was limited, however, to projects funded under the BD, LD, IW and CC-M windows. While GEF �nancing under the POPs and Ozone “ THE GEF IS THE WORLD’S LEADING focal areas includes a signi�cant number of projects with links to PUBLIC FINANCIAL FUND DEDICATED agriculture (e.g. phase out of POP pesticides), the focal areas have no TO SMART, ENVIRONMENTALLY explicit focus on sustaining ecosystem SOUND CHOICES THAT BOOST services in production systems. LOCAL ECONOMIES AND PROTECT Financing through LDCF is driven largely by least developed countries’ THE PLANET. � urgent and immediate adaptation needs, identi�ed and prioritized in country-driven plans known as National Action Plans for Adaptation For most of the 49 least developed as its top priority in all developing (NAPAs). The LDCF is primarily lever- countries eligible under LDCF, the food countries that are non-Annex I parties aged by eligible countries to �nance security sector is a major priority given to the UNFCCC. Through its two active the full cost of urgent and immediate the projected vulnerability of poor �nancing windows, the SCCF supports adaptation actions that reduce vulner- farmers, herders and �shers that often adaptation measures in various devel- ability and increase adaptive capacity make up a signi�cant proportion of the opment sectors including food security to the impacts of climate change. population. The SCCF has adaptation and agriculture. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 11 CONTEXT AND RATIONALE for GEF Financing 12 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), an estimated 4.9 billion hectares of the planet’s land area is under cultivation, including 3.4 billion hectares of pasture land and 1.5 billion hectares of cropland (arable land and land under permanent crops). An estimated 5 to10 million hectares of these production areas are lost annually due largely to the impact of land degradation on productivity. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 13 As a result, new land areas are of global environment threats from services play an important role in continuously opened up for agricul- production systems — biodiversity crop, livestock, �sheries and forest ture land use to sustain productivity; loss, land degradation, deforesta- production. Harnessing these services this, in turn, exacerbates the deg- tion, deserti�cation, and depletion of in production systems requires a radation and destruction of natural freshwater resources — all of which careful and deliberate management habitats and increases vulnerability are being exacerbated by climate of ecosystem components (soil, of people and the environment change. And since the potential yield water and biota) to ensure long-term to impacts of climate change. For gains from expansion are not likely to sustainability and resilience. While example, it has been estimated that be signi�cant, sustainable intensi�ca- knowledge of the economic value between 1985 and 2005, crop and tion of land already under cultivation of ecosystem services has increased pasture land expanded by 154 million is important for meeting food security over the last decade,6 investing in hectares globally, with a 20% increase needs in a changing climate5 (Box 1). their maintenance remains a major in crop yields.4 challenge for many countries where a large proportion of the population The FAO projects that an additional Ecosystem Services and depend on agriculture and �sheries 120 million hectares will be needed Food Security for their livelihood. by 2030 to support traditional growth Ecosystem services — provisioning, in food production. This implies a net Although there have been rapid regulating, supporting and cultural increase of 12.6% — from 956 million improvements in agricultural pro- — are essential for sustaining produc- hectares in the base year to 1,076 ductivity and economic growth over tivity of agro-ecosystems (Table 1). hectares in 2030. Not surprisingly, the second half of the 20th century, The services depend on ef�cient the bulk of this projected expansion there are close to one billion food- functioning of ecosystems, including is expected to take place in sub- insecure people in the world today. the natural cycles and flows that Saharan Africa (60 million hectares), Land degradation, deforestation, underpin life on the planet. From Latin America (41 million hectares) deserti�cation and depletion of fresh- low-input and smallholder systems and East Asia, excluding China water resources are among the major in most developing countries to the (14 million hectares). Such an expan- threats in production landscapes high-input and intensive systems of sion will undoubtedly increase the risk that lead to declining agricultural the developed world, ecosystem TABLE 1 Ecosystem services in production systems [modi�ed from Millennium Ecosystem Services (2005) and Global Environment Outlook (2007)] PROVISIONING REGULATING SUPPORTING CULTURAL t'PPEBOEOVUSJFOUT t&SPTJPODPOUSPM t4PJMGPSNBUJPO t5SBEJUJPOBMQSBDUJDFT t'VFM t$MJNBUFSFHVMBUJPO t4PJMQSPUFDUJPO 4BDSFEHSPWFT t t"OJNBMGFFE t /BUVSBMIB[BSESFHVMBUJPO t/VUSJFOUDZDMJOH as reservoirs t(FOFUJDSFTPVSDFT (droughts, floods, �re) t8BUFSDZDMJOH t8BUFSnPXTBOERVBMJUZ t)BCJUBUGPSCJPEJWFSTJUZ t1PMMJOBUJPO t1FTUSFTJTUBODF 4 Foley, J.A., et al. 2011. Solutions for a Cultivated Planet. Nature, 478: 337–342 5 Tilman, D. et al. 2011. Global food demand and the sustainable intensi�cation of agriculture. PNAS December 13; 108(50):20260–20264. 6 TEEB 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature – A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations. 14 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY BOX 1 Food security in a changing climate As de�ned by the FAO (2002), food security “is a situation that exists when all people at all times have physical, social and economic access to suf�cient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.� By this de�ni- tion, an estimated 925 million people around the world were insecure in 2010, including at least 239 million in sub-Saharan Africa. Food security depends on three main factors: food availability, food access, and food utilization, all of which are influenced by climate change. The availability factor encompasses issues of global and regional food supply. Climate change will have potentially large impacts on availability through agricultural yields and potential cropped areas, with global trade as a potential buffer when countries trade and when climate shocks are not uniform across countries/geographic regions. Developing countries with pro- jected yield declines are likely to face increased food insecurity due to lack of alternatives and limited options for adaptation. The access factor concerns the extent to which a given household is dependent on agriculture for its income, the nature of a household’s exposure to food prices, the extent to which house- hold incomes are spent on food and the extent to which local food markets are integrated with global markets. The greater a household’s livelihood depends on agriculture the more the household is sensitive to the impacts of climate change. Similarly, if climate change induces changes in food supply which in turn affect prices, the net impact of these price changes on food access will depend on the net consumption in the household and how much of its income is spent on food. The utilization factor relates to the nutritional and safety aspects of food consumption. Climate change could directly affect nutrient consumption in three main ways: by changing yields of important crop sources of micronutrients, by altering nutrient content of speci�c crops or by influencing decisions to grow crops of different nutritional value. Sources: Food and Agricultural Organization, 2002. The State of Food Insecurity in the World (2001). FAO, Rome; Worldwatch Institute, 2011. State of the World: Innovations that Nourish the Planet. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC productivity and food insecurity in the challenge of poverty is also pervasive. have high levels of food insecurity. developing world. The progressive Climate change is likely to further After the global food price crisis of deterioration of ecosystem services aggravate food insecurity by reducing 2008, climate change emerged as caused by these threats is further agricultural productivity, production a major factor for agriculture and exacerbated by climate change, stability and incomes in developing food security in the 21st century, especially in drylands where the countries and regions that already particularly in many of the poor, TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 15 agriculture-based economies with The quality and quantity of income and livelihoods of rural low capacity to cope effectively.7,8 ecosystem services such as flow of populations, especially in developing water resources, climate and natural countries, and are being exacerbated Tackling global environmental threats hazard regulation, all of which by the effects of climate change. is essential for leveraging main- underpin the productivity of agro- stream development investments in ecosystems, are also major factors The loss of goods and services agriculture and food security. This influencing agriculture and food derived from ecosystems is a sig- involves helping countries tackle security. Overexploitation of water ni�cant barrier to achieving the biophysical threats to ecosystem ser- for irrigation is already a major threat Millennium Development Goals for vices in agro-ecosystems, as well to groundwater in many parts of reducing poverty, hunger and dis- as providing the policy, socioeco- the developing world.10 Ecosystem eases. The Millennium Ecosystem nomic and institutional support that services related to air and water Assessment noted that, if action would prevent poor land use. For quality, disease and pest control, is not taken, degradation of eco- example, extensive soil degradation and risk reduction from natural system services will threaten future due to erosion, salinization, compac- hazards are being severely com- improvements in human well- tion and nutrient depletion is one of promised in most agro-ecosystems. being and possibly reverse gains in the major drivers of declining crop Loss of native habitats affects agri- some regions.12 Overcoming these and livestock productivity in agro- cultural production by degrading challenges requires integrated ecosystems. It reduces soil capacity the services of pollinators (espe- approaches that generate both envi- to produce goods and services, such cially bees), while loss of vegetative ronment and development bene�ts, as sustaining biomass production cover has contributed signi�cantly and for which the GEF is well-placed and biodiversity, and regu- to increased greenhouse gas to provide incremental �nancing to lating water and nutrient emissions from agriculture.11 developing countries and countries cycling.9 Ultimately, severely The consequences of land- with economies in transition. GEF degraded land becomes based threats also extend �nancing enables eligible countries unable to sustain agriculture, into freshwater and coastal to implement innovative approaches which creates socio- marine ecosystems where that meet the demands for improving economic problems agricultural pollution crop and livestock productivity in agro-ecosystems undermines the quality without compromising the ecosystem dominated by poor and quantity of water services. This includes �nancing smallholder farmers and �sheries resources. to improve land and soil health, and pastoralists. These environmental enhance sustainability of surface and challenges are a serious groundwater resources and increase threat to food security, resilience to effects of climate change. 7 Shah et al., 2008. Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture. The Challenges of Climate Change in Sub-Saharan Africa. Laxenburg: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis 8 Nellemann et al., 2009. The environmental food crisis: the environment’s role in averting future food crises. A UNEP Rapid Response Assessment. UNEP, GRID-Arendal 9 Lal, R. 1997. Soil quality and sustainability. In: Lal, R., Blum, W.H., Valentin, C., and Stewart, B.A. (eds), Methods for Assessment of Soil Degradation, p 17-30. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 10 Nellemann et al., 2009. The environmental food crisis: the environments role in averting future food crises. A UNEP Rapid Response Assessment. UNEP, GRID-Arendal 11 IAASTD 2009. Synthesis Report. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology. Island Press, Washington DC. 12 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being Scenarios; Findings of the Scenarios Working Group, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series, Island Press, Washington, DC. 16 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY Financing Innovations food security through higher levels of reducing the conversion of natural production in agro-ecosystems. This ecosystems and safeguarding for Increased Productivity requires innovations in land use and agro-biodiversity; b) reduction and Resilience agricultural management that deliver of pollution risks and degrada- Sustainable intensi�cation of improved crop and livestock produc- tion of water resources to ensure agricultural production, especially tivity (see Box 2), while contributing sustainable flow for consumptive in developing countries, can improve to a) biodiversity conservation by uses; c) climate change mitigation BOX 2 Examples of options and practices for enhancing environment bene�ts in production systems Soil and nutrient management: Soil and nutrient management options under climate-smart agriculture include composting manure and crop residues; more precise matching of nutrients with plant needs; controlled release and deep placement technologies for fertilizer application or using legumes for natural nitrogen �xation; and methods and practices that increase organic nutrient inputs, retention and use. Water harvesting and use: Improved water harvesting and retention (such as pools, dams, pits, retaining ridges, etc.) and water-use ef�ciency (irrigation systems) are fundamental for increasing production and addressing increasing irregularity of rainfall patterns. Conservation Agriculture: Agricultural practices that encompass minimal mechanical soil disturbance (i.e. no tillage and direct seeding); maintenance of a mulch of carbon-rich organic matter covering and feeding the soil (e.g. straw and/or other crop residues, including cover crops); and rotations or sequences and associations of crops, including trees that are nitrogen-�xing legumes. Agroforestry: The practice of integrating trees on farms and into production landscapes enables farmers to generate multiple environment bene�ts, such as sequestration of carbon, increasing vegetative cover and increasing the adaptability and resilience to climate change. Requires capacity building, extension and research programs to screen germplasm and match species with the right ecological zones and agricultural practices. Agrobiodiversity: Preservation of genetic resources of crops and livestock breeds, and their wild relatives; generating varieties and breeds, which are tailored to ecosystems and the needs of farmers. Conservation and management of crop-associated diversity on-farm can con- tribute to yields (through optimal pollination and soil health) and reduce losses (through natural pest control). Fisheries Management and aquaculture: Targeting �sheries reserve systems to safeguard breeding grounds and fragile ecologies such as coral reefs and coastal mangroves. Sustainable intensi�cation through improved management approaches, selection of suitable stocks and integration of aquaculture with the farming landscapes. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 17 by reducing deforestation and “ ...WITH THE LIVESTOCK SECTOR emission of greenhouse gases in production systems; and d) climate AS THE LARGEST USER OF change adaptation by increasing sustainability and resilience of agro- LAND RESOURCES THROUGH ecosystem services. These multiple bene�ts from integrated manage- GRAZING LANDS AND CROPLANDS ment of production systems are at the heart of the GEF’s mandate, and USED FOR FEED PRODUCTION, an opportunity to leverage invest- EXPANSION OF AGRO-PASTORAL ments in agriculture and food security in a changing climate. SYSTEMS IS A MAJOR CAUSE OF GEF �nancing emphasizes the OVERGRAZING, LAND DEGRADATION need for implementing innovative approaches to ecosystem manage- AND DEFORESTATION IN THE ment and land use that can sustain the flow of ecosystem services. In the DEVELOPING WORLD. � context of mainstream agricultural, livestock and �sheries develop- ment programs, GEF �nancing will include measures that focus insecurity. Urban and peri-urban can lead to more resilient, produc- on animal productivity, manure agriculture is providing signi�cant tive and sustainable systems that management and a range of quantities of food (especially of also contribute to reducing the grassland management practices to perishable items) and improving food emissions or increasing the seques- reduce emissions, overgrazing, land security of the urban poor in addition tration of greenhouse gases. For degradation and deforestation. to other co-bene�ts like “greening� example, with the livestock sector of cities, improving air quality and as the largest user of land resources Although GEF �nancing is primarily lowering temperatures. Emerging through grazing lands and croplands targeted toward rural landscapes issues to foster urban agriculture used for feed production, expan- where a great majority of poor land include lack of access to water and sion of agro-pastoral systems is a users are engaged in agriculture, other productive resources, compe- major cause of overgrazing, land opportunities abound for improving tition for land and issues related to degradation and deforestation in land and water management in tenure rights, environmental impact the developing world. Sustainable urban areas. Cities are often unable of urban agriculture, the food safety intensi�cation in the livestock sector to provide suf�cient employment concerns of using waste water and opportunities to their growing popu- organic material and the risk of lations, which lead to a rapid increase spreading disease and contaminating in urban poverty rates and food toxic pollutants. 18 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 19 ANALYTICAL APPROACH to Assessment of GEF Financing 20 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY The underlying rationale for this portfolio assessment is that GEF �nancing for projects addressing agriculture and food security enables eligible countries to contribute global environment and adaptation bene�ts in production systems. The global environment bene�ts are based on priorities of the GEF focal areas — Land Degradation, Biodiversity, Climate Change and International Waters — through which �nancing is leveraged by the countries for investment in ecosystem services. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 21 The adaptation bene�ts are based “ FINANCING FOR GLOBAL on priorities of the two separate funds managed by the GEF: the Least ENVIRONMENT BENEFITS IS THROUGH Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) and the Special Climate Change Fund THE GEF TRUST FUND, WHILE FI- (SCCF). Projects included in the assessment were identi�ed on the NANCING FOR ADAPTATION BENEFITS basis of their linkage to agriculture and food security; this, in turn, was IS THROUGH THE LDCF AND SCCF. � determined from actual invest- ment of GEF resources in project components that explicitly target with explicit focus on addressing and programs13 were identi�ed as the maintenance or improvement ecosystem services in agro-ecosys- appropriate for the period cov- of ecosystem services in produc- tems (agricultural, silvopastoral and ered by the assessment, of which tion systems and in climate change pastoral) as a means of enhancing only 92 were determined to be resilience. All selected projects were sustainability and resilience. designed speci�cally in the context of subsequently analyzed to determine addressing agriculture and food secu- the nature of GEF investments for The �rst assessment focused on rity needs. In addition, one multi-trust generating global environmental and projects �nanced under the GEF fund14 program designed to include a adaptation bene�ts. Trust Fund and allocated through focus on agriculture and food security the Biodiversity, Land Degradation was also identi�ed. and Climate Change focal areas. Identi�cation of Projects These are the three focal areas The second assessment focused To ensure a comprehensive analysis through which the GEF targets speci�cally on projects and programs of GEF investments in the context of global environment bene�ts as a �nanced through the International agriculture and food security, three basis for �nancing projects to sup- Waters focal area, which invests parallel portfolio assessments were port implementation of the three Rio exclusively in management of water used to identify projects. These Conventions (CBD, UNFCCC and resources that are transboundary in parallel assessments were neces- UNCCD). The GEF project database nature and involve multiple countries. sary to ensure consistency with the was initially screened using key- Under this focal area, projects with approaches and priorities of GEF words that reflect direct links with links to agriculture and food security �nancing through the focal area priorities and activities in production are speci�cally designed to address and trust fund windows. Financing systems, such as agricultural pro- these as the basis for transboundary for global environment bene�ts is duction, food production, land use, management of water resources. For through the GEF Trust Fund, while agro-ecosystems, agrobiodiversity, the period covered by this assess- �nancing for adaptation bene�ts crop production, genetic resources, ment, 51 projects and four programs is through the LDCF and SCCF. livestock production, farm manage- �nanced with the focal area resources Although a great majority of GEF ment, farmers, silvopastoral systems, were determined to have direct links �nancing can be linked in some way agropastoral, integrated manage- to food security.15 The projects cov- to agricultural production, all three ment and irrigation management. ered freshwater systems (integrated assessments considered only projects A total of 308 discrete projects watershed resource management 13 Programs are designed to include multiple projects as part of the GEF Programmatic Approach. 14 Multi-Trust Fund implies the project or program combined resources from the GEF Trust Fund with the LDCF and/or SCCF. 15 The cohort of projects was identi�ed from a similar assessment for a recent GEF Publication entitled “Contributing to Global Security: GEF Action on Water, Environment and Sustainable Livelihoods,� published in March 2012. 22 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY in lake and river basins, water use capacities, best practices for both Financing under the LDCF and SCCF for agriculture and irrigation, fresh- crop and livestock production and is on a rolling basis and therefore not water �sheries management); coastal approaches to increase resilience of presented by replenishment phase. marine ecosystems (protection of production systems. Trends by focal areas was based living resources, pollution con- on GEF �nancing through BD, LD, trol); and long-term management CC-M, CC-A, and IW. Regional trends of open ocean �sheries that feed Analysis of Trends were based on the four GEF regions: 85% of �shing countries, including in GEF Financing Africa (including North African coun- developing and island nations. The overall portfolio assessment tries), Europe and Central Asia resulted in 192 projects and programs (ECA), Asia, and Latin America and The third assessment focused Caribbean. Regional trends also with GEF investments supporting exclusively on projects �nanced by included regional projects targeting agriculture and food security. The the LDCF and SCCF, for which cli- speci�c geographies and global portfolio includes 157 stand-alone mate change adaptation bene�t is projects covering multiple countries. focal area or trust fund projects, 30 the priority. LDCF and SCCF projects multi-focal area (MFA) projects, three are designed to integrate climate MFA programs, one multi-trust fund change resilience through policy, (MTF) program and one stand-alone projects and actions in vulnerable IW program. The stand-alone proj- development sectors identi�ed in ects include 51 under IW focal area, NAPAs or other country plans. In 39 under BD focal area, 25 under LD the case of the LDCF, country pro- focal area and only one under CC-M. �les identi�ed in the NAPAs drive Eight of the 30 MFAs were designed �nancing; in the case of the SCCF, as part of the Strategic Priority for alignment of adaptation plans, policy, Adaptation (SPA) program, which was program and actions with national established to �nance pilot and dem- plans and agenda drive �nancing. onstration measures that generate Projects supporting agriculture and climate change adaptation bene�ts food security were based on a pre- in projects supported through other vious assessment of the full list GEF focal areas.17 of approved projects under both funds,16 which included 78 projects Trends in GEF �nancing were approved during the period cov- analyzed by replenishment phase, ered by the assessment (49 under trust fund, focal area and regions. the LDCF and 29 under the SCCF). The full amount of GEF resources Based on the assessment, 28 LDCF and co-�nancing invested in all and 17 SCCF projects were deter- 192 projects and programs was mined to include interventions used to analyze trends. Financing supporting food security. The proj- by the GEF Trust Fund replenish- ects primarily address climate ment was considered from Pilot change adaptation in the agricul- phase (1991-1992) through �rst full ture sector, focusing on systems and year of the Fifth phase (2010-2011). 16 The assessment was conducted by the Climate Change Adaptation team, which also identi�ed the speci�c intervention areas �nanced by the two funds. 17 The SPA portfolio included 26 projects. The portfolio was recently evaluated by the GEF Evaluation Of�ce, which noted an emphasis on global environment bene�ts under the BD and LD focal areas (Evaluation Report is available from http://www.thegef.org/gef/SPA%20Evaluation) TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 23 Assessment of GEF Investments in Project Components A detailed assessment was conducted to determine GEF �nancing for speci�c components and interventions supporting agri- culture and food security within the projects and programs identi�ed from the portfolio analysis. All 192 projects were analyzed qualitatively for GEF amounts allocated to the relevant components and interventions. For GEF Trust Fund projects, investments were based on global environment bene�ts associated with focal area windows from which resources are allocated. The global environmental bene�ts are essentially ecosystem services in production landscapes generated through man- agement of a) land resources (e.g. soil and water conservation, soil carbon sequestration, improvements in vegetative cover); b) agricultural biodiversity (e.g. preserving genetic diversity, on-farm diversi�cation); and c) aquatic ecosystems (e.g. protection of species and habitats for �sheries, sustainable flow and improved quality of water for consumptive use). For LDCF and SCCF projects, invest- ments are associated with adaptation bene�ts in the agriculture and food security sector i.e. reducing vulner- ability and increasing resilience to climate variability and projected effects of climate change. 24 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY The focus on land, biodiversity, water D. Climate change adaptation intervention areas with targeted and adaptation was used to further for food security — �nancing outcomes and outputs, it is possible assess GEF �nancing as follows: to mainstream adaptation and to determine grant amounts sup- investment planning; policy porting agriculture and food security A. Sustainable land improvements; early warning irrespective of the GEF focal area. management — �nancing to systems; capacity development; For this reason, the analysis did not enhance capacities, policies, knowledge management; distinguish between stand-alone and practices and incentives to and implement best practices multi-focal area projects. For the IW improve crop and livestock and coping strategies against stand-alone projects, however, the production; promote innova- climate change risks at analysis was based on cross-cutting tions to improve land and soil multiple scales. themes and ecosystems targeted for quality, water availability and GEF �nancing under the focal area. vegetative cover in produc- For the �rst three categories, GEF Similarly for LDCF and SCCF projects, tion landscapes; and foster �nancing is through the Biodiversity, the analysis was based on types of improvements in management Land Degradation, Climate Change adaptation investment as reflected in of rangelands, pasture, and Mitigation and International Waters the project RBM framework. pastoral systems. focal areas. It focused on addressing global environment bene�ts in the Project components in the RBM B. Management of agricultural context of crop and livestock pro- framework were considered rel- biodiversity (or agrobiodiver- duction, as well as management of evant if the target outcomes and sity) — �nancing to promote freshwater and �sheries. The fourth outputs focused directly on safe- conservation and sustain- category of climate change adap- guarding ecosystem services able use of crop and livestock tation includes GEF �nancing only (provision, regulating, supporting genetic resources; in-situ main- through the LDCF and SCCF. This and cultural) and enhancing resil- tenance of genetic diversity; typology therefore reflects consis- ience of production systems. The improve soil or below-ground tency with priorities of the different full amount of GEF grant allocated to biodiversity; preserve and but complementary funding windows the component was counted toward enhance pollination and pest in the GEF. GEF investments supporting agri- control services; and safeguard culture and food security. For most indigenous knowledge and Following the approach used to projects included in the assessment, practices that maintain diversity identify and select projects, analysis the components were designed to in production landscapes. of GEF �nancing for project compo- accommodate a diversity of inter- nents linked to agriculture and food ventions in an integrated and C. Sustainable �sheries and security was done separately for the water resources manage- cross-cutting manner at appropriate GEF Trust Fund and the LDCF/SCCF. scales. Therefore, the breakdown ment — �nancing to improve For projects under the GEF Trust policies and practices for of GEF grants allocated for speci�c Fund, grant amounts were derived components was aggregated across governance of shared water from the Results-based Management resources; promote ef�cient all projects irrespective of focal area, (RBM) framework. The RBM frame- and whether the project is designed water management prac- work of GEF projects includes speci�c tices in production systems; as stand-alone or multi-focal area. components for which GEF resources improve �sheries produc- are leveraged to generate global tion; and reduce agricultural environment bene�ts. Because pollution in watersheds and each component includes speci�c coastal ecosystems. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 25 TRENDS IN GEF FINANCING for Projects 26 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY Together, the 192 projects and programs accounted for GEF �nancing of US$1,086.8 million and an additional US$6,343.5 million in co-�nancing (Fig. 1) during the period covered by the assessment. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 27 FIGURE 1 Total GEF Grant and Co-�nance (USD millions) Trends by GEF for all projects and programs with links Replenishment Phase to Agriculture and Food Security and Trust Fund (Note: Total GEF amount includes grants from Financing trends over the years the LDCF and SCCF) since the GEF’s inception showed a steady increase during the �rst three 14,6% (US$1,086) replenishment phases, but a signi�- cant jump during the fourth phase GEF GRANT (Table 2). The fourth GEF replenish- ment phase (GEF–4) accounted for 69 projects, with US$285.1 million (26.2 %) of the total GEF funding, and 85,4% US$2,165.1 million (34.1%) of total (US$6,343) co-�nancing. CO-FINANCE The signi�cant jump in investment between GEF–3 and GEF–4 coincides with the start of the �rst full replen- ishment phase during which GEF resources were allocated to a dedicated Land Degradation (LD) focal area. The focal area speci�cally targets maintenance of ecosystem TABLE 2 Breakdown of GEF �nancing and Co-�nance by Replenishment Phase and Trust Fund (Note: LDCF and SCCF funding only started during the GEF–3, and GEF–5 amount includes only projects and programs approved during the �rst full year of the Replenishment Phase) REPLENISHMENT PHASE / NUMBER GEF AMOUNT CO-FINANCE TRUST FUND OF PROJECTS (US$) (US$) Pilot 4 15,056,300 10,230,000 GEF-1 5 28,592,764 105,305,500 GEF-2 25 124,704,706 346,177,783 GEF-3 36 208,186,812 980,919,418 GEF-4 69 285,166,757 2,165,149,224 GEF-5 8 217,831,857 1,905,366,429 LDCF 28 126,062,669 310,069,981 SCCF 17 81,241,762 520,284,507 TOTAL 192 1,086,843,627 6,343,502,842 28 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY services in production landscapes FIGURE 2 Proportional breakdown of GEF Financing through sustainable land man- agement. While only 19 of the by Focal Area stand-alone BD and LD focal area (See Note in Table 3) projects were �nanced during GEF–3, the number increased to 30 during 13% GEF–4. At the same time, the number 26% MFA BD of MFAs jumped from six during GEF–3 to 15 in GEF–4. The propor- tionally high amount for GEF–5 is due mainly to three programmatic approaches, which will eventually 24% CC-A be delivered through separate sub- projects. These observations are further supported by the focal area 10% LD trends in GEF �nancing as shown in the following section. 0% CC-M 27% Trends by IW GEF Focal Area GEF �nancing under the International Waters (IW) accounted for the TABLE 3 Breakdown of GEF �nancing and Co-�nance largest single focal area funding, by Focal Area with US$289.09 million (Table 3) (Note: CC-A includes all �nancing under the LDCF and representing about 27% of total SCCF, as well as SPA; MFAs include �nancing from multiple GEF grants (Figure 2). Since incep- focal areas) tion of the GEF, the IW focal area FOCAL AREA GEF AMOUNT CO-FINANCE has been the primary entry point for (US$) (US$) GEF investments in freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems; these BD 143,995,206 511,423,621 focus mainly on mobilizing intergov- CC-A 257,423,796 1,156,253,044 ernmental or regional agreements on policies and actions for sustainable CC-M 3,000,000 3,000,000 management of shared aquatic sys- IW 289,090,195 1,841,733,563 tems. Hence the focal area plays a LD 104,784,799 648,915,678 major role in management of �sheries and in safeguarding transboundary MFA 288,549,631 2,182,176,936 water resources that underpin pro- TOTAL 1,086,843,627 6,343,502,842 duction systems in developing country regions. grant. The BD focal area has been (or agrobiodiversity); this was a GEF Financing for stand-alone projects a sign�cant entry point for projects operational program established under the BD focal area accounted addressing agricultural biodiversity during GEF–1 in response to CBD for US$143.9 million (13%) of the total TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 29 COP guidance on “Conservation and Climate Change Adaptation (CC-A) US$3 million of the total GEF grant. Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity �nancing overall (including for SPA This was through a single stand-alone Important to Agriculture.� GEF invest- projects) amounted to US$257.4 mil- project on “Alternatives to Slash-and- ments under the program speci�cally lion (24%) of the total GEF grant. As Burn�, which examined alternative targeted needs and priorities for pro- noted previously, CC-A focal area land use practices such as agrofor- tection of genetic resources (crops investments are directed towards estry that generate carbon bene�ts and livestock breeds), management building climate resilience in the agri- while increasing on-farm productivity of below-ground biodiversity and har- culture and food security sector. CC-A in the tropical forest margins. nessing pest control and pollination projects address both the vulner- services in production systems. Hence, ability of production systems and the Stand-alone projects under the some components of agrobiodiversity practices associated with those sys- LD focal area accounted for projects related to soil health also have tems. The Climate Change Mitigation US$104.7 million (10%) of total GEF direct relevance for the LD focal area. (CC-M) focal area accounted for only �nancing, even though the focal BOX 3 Senegal: Improving soil quality for crop production in the Groundnut Basin Senegal’s Groundnut Basin covers nearly 46,367 square kilometers, with a largely rural population of about 4 million. Since the Quaternary era, salt water has intruded into the basin and recurrent droughts have decreased ground water. Areas affected (or Tanns) became gradually bare and uncultivated, leading to impoverishment, food insecurity and the subsequent migration of land users. In response, the UNDP/GEF Groundnut Basin Soil Management and Regeneration Project (PROGERT), was launched in 2006 by the Government of Senegal to develop and implement agronomical and silvopastoral methods of restoration. Two particular innovations promoted by the project involved the use of peanut shell (which is rich in calcium ions and enhances in�ltration capacity) to improve soil health and the integra- tion of adaptive species into salt-affected areas. Through a participatory process, the project tested peanut shells with two staple food crops — millet and maize production — and showed signi�cantly high yields. Meanwhile, the introduction of salt-tolerant tree species (Acacia Senegal, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Tamarix aphylla and Melaleuca) has greatly improved vegetative cover in the area. Recent evaluation suggests that recovered land is more pro�table than producing salt. As a result, the project is scaling-up its approach beyond the initial 500 ha. In addition to signi�cantly raising local incomes and producing more food, the practice is safeguarding productive lands and increasing their resilience in the face of climate change. The Senegal Soil Management and Regeneration Project is one of 37 �nanced by the GEF through the “Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in sub-Saharan Africa� under the TerrAfrica partnership, and whose activities are integrated into the action program of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). At least 25 countries are involved in the program overall, with projects covering a wide range of ecologies and agro-ecosystems across sub-Saharan Africa. 30 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY BOX 4 Regional (West Africa): Implementing a vision for climate-resilient development in the Sahel In 2011, the GEF and World Bank joined forces with 12 countries in the West Africa region (Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sudan and Togo) to tackle deserti�cation and climate vulnerability areas in the Sahelian region. The Sahel and West Africa Program in Support of the Great Green Wall Initiative will support the implementation of a country-driven vision for integrated natural resource management to enhance sustainable and climate-resilient development in the Sahel and broader West Africa region. The investments cover agriculture, biodiversity conservation, climate change mitigation, adaptation to climate change, sustainable forest management, food security enhancement, disaster risk management, rural development, erosion control and/or watershed management. The program uses US$80.4 million from the GEF Trust Fund, US$14.81 million from the LDCF and US$4.6 million from the SCCF. It will build on a series of planned baseline investments of up to US$1.8 billion in co-�nancing, with projects in each of the 12 countries. GEF �nancing will contribute to increasing the land area with sustainable land and water management prac- tices on up to 2 million ha. It will also promote large-scale watershed planning or smaller-scale community land use planning, improve vegetation cover, promote renewable energy alterna- tives and increase the adaptive capacity to reduce risks and response to climate variability. The whole approach will help communities adapt production systems to climate variability and change and generate income and livelihoods. An improved information base will also enhance climate and water monitoring networks to fuel further policy development. area only became fully operational area objectives through conservation used. However, most multi-focal area during GEF–3. The focal area tar- of agrobiodiversity. projects are often designed with gets investments in combating land integrated approaches that lead to degradation (speci�cally deserti�ca- In addition to the stand-alone focal multiple environment bene�ts. This tion and deforestation) to arrest or area investments, 30 multi-focal area helps to streamline investments for reverse the progressive deterioration (MFA) projects, three MFA programs, maximizing synergies during project of ecosystem services in produc- and one multi-trust fund program implementation and fostering inno- tion systems (agriculture, rangelands, were designed to leverage GEF vations in management of natural forest landscapes). The projects are resources from multiple GEF windows resources (land, water and bio- designed to ensure a direct focus based on their objectives. These proj- diversity) to maintain ecosystem on sustainable land management ects account for US$288.5 million service flows in production systems. interventions that generate global (26 %) of the total GEF grant, with An important example is the MTF environment bene�ts while sup- contributions from the BD, LD, IW, Sahel and West Africa Program in porting livelihood needs of poor and CC-M focal areas. In principle, Support of the Great Green Wall land users (e.g. Box 3). As a result, MFA and MTF project frameworks Initiative, which combines resources components in some of the projects reflect priorities of the different focal from the GEF Trust Fund, LDCF and also contribute to Biodiversity focal areas from which GEF resources were SCCF (Box 4). TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 31 GEF grants used by projects related FIGURE 3 Proportional Distribution to agriculture and food secu- rity under the different trust funds of GEF Financing by Regions and focal areas account for a sig- ni�cant proportion of overall GEF 25% �nancing during the period covered by the assessment (Table 4). Ratio 29% REGIONAL AFRICA of the focal area amounts invested to the total �nancing is highest for the CC-A (57%) and lowest for BD stand-alone projects (5%). The LD and IW focal areas showed similar ratios even though �nancing for LD represents about one-third of the IW total. The ratios further suggest 10% 18%ASIA LAC that while BD focal area investments were signi�cantly higher than for 9% 9% GLOBAL ECA LD, the latter directed proportion- ally larger amounts toward projects related to agriculture and food secu- rity. Considering that both LD and using US$277.1 million (25%) of the regions are well placed to leverage CC-A �nancing only started in ear- total grant, followed by those in Asia GEF resources for investment in the nest during GEF-3, these two GEF with US$195.9 million (18%), LAC agriculture and food security sector. windows are clearly the most impor- with US$110.2 million (10%) and ECA tant for leveraging food security US$92.5 million (9%) (Fig. 3). These The overall trend in �nancing by investments in developing countries. trends are consistent with global replenishment phase and trust fund needs for addressing food insecurity also shows consistency between the since the world’s largest population different regions (Fig 4). GEF Trust Trends by Regions Fund grant amounts increased gradu- of hungry and malnourished people The breakdown of GEF �nancing reside mainly in Africa and Asia. The ally between GEF–2 and GEF–4 for by region shows countries in Africa majority of countries in these two the Africa and Asia regions, while TABLE 4 Ratio of Grants to Total GEF Financing18 by Focal Area (Note: Total GEF �nancing covers 1991–2011; CC-A includes only grants from the LDCF and SCCF) FOCAL AREA TOTAL GRANTS TOTAL GEF FINANCING RATIO BD 143,995,206 3,100,000,000 0.05 CC-A 171,679,431 300,000,000 0.57 IW 289,090,195 1,200,000,000 0.24 LD 104,784,799 438,000,000 0.24 18 Source: “Behind the Numbers: A Closer Look at GEF Achievements� (Version 2010). Global Environment Facility 32 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY FIGURE 4 Trends in GEF Financing by Replenishment Phase, Trust Fund and Regions (LDCF and SCCF only started during GEF–3 and are not subject to GEF Replenishment Phases; Data for GEF–5 includes only projects approved during the �rst full year of the Replenishment Phase) ECA GLOBAL LAC ASIA AFRICA REGIONAL millions 180 GEF GRANT AMOUNT (US$) 140 100 60 20 PILOT GEF-1 GEF-2 GEF-3 GEF-4 GEF-5 LCDF SCCF PILOT GEF-1 GEF-2 GEF-3 GEF-4 GEF-5 LCDF SCCF PILOT GEF-1 GEF-2 GEF-3 GEF-4 GEF-5 LCDF SCCF PILOT GEF-1 GEF-2 GEF-3 GEF-4 GEF-5 LCDF SCCF PILOT GEF-1 GEF-2 GEF-3 GEF-4 GEF-5 LCDF SCCF PILOT GEF-1 GEF-2 GEF-3 GEF-4 GEF-5 LCDF SCCF ECA GLOBAL LAC ASIA AFRICA REGIONAL PILOT 5,100,000 3,000,000 0 0 6,956,300 0 GEF-1 12,000,000 0 0 2,700,000 0 13,892,800 GEF-2 33,600,000 13,479,800 33,657,800 904,000 16,549,000 26,514,100 GEF-3 19,196,800 15,406,100 34,957,200 42,796,200 58,280,700 37,549,800 GEF-4 12,049,400 21,221,400 25,755,000 97,924,500 101,804,000 27,133,000 GEF-5 5,750,000 45,372,800 3,720,000 0 0 162,989,000 LCDF 0 0 2,999,700 28,730,300 75,999,300 18,333,300 SCCF 4,807,000 0 9,185,080 22,866,800 18,243,500 26,139,400 those for the ECA region decreased. account for more than 90% of the GEF �nancing for regional and global GEF amounts in the LAC region held total LDCF and SCCF �nancing. This projects supporting agriculture and steady between GEF–2 and GEF–3 further reaf�rms the potential for food security was relatively low from and then decreased during GEF–4. developing countries to use GEF the pilot phase through GEF–4. The LDCF investment in Africa is resources in the context of agriculture However, early trends in GEF–5 show more than twice the amount for Asia and food security investments. a considerable increase in regional region, but the two regions together and global level investments. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 33 BOX 5 Transboundary (Lake Victoria): Supporting community-based co-management of �sheries Fish from Lake Victoria make a signi�cant contribution to regional food security, feeding 22 million people. They also provide critical support for livelihoods through an export �shery worth at least $400 million each year. As well as fostering collaboration at a regional and national level, the GEF has provided direct support for local communities around Lake Victoria to play an active role in securing their �sh stocks, which is the main source of protein for the region. The establishment of over 1,000 Beach Management Units (BMUs) has played a critical role in this process. BMUs are community-based organizations that bring together everyone involved in �sheries at a beach level — including boat owners, boat crew, traders, processors, boat builders and repairers, net repairers and others. Together, they plan and manage �shing in their local area and work with government and other stakeholders in managing �sheries resources to improve the livelihoods of community members. This co-management approach has accrued a number of bene�ts for food security. The BMUs monitor �sh stocks, protect breeding grounds, combat illegal �shing gears that catch juvenile �sh, improve beach hygiene and ensure �sh are of suf�cient quality for the important export market. BMUs are a great example of the catalytic impact of the GEF’s involvement and sup- port. Because they have been effective at delivering community-based, collaborative �sheries management in Lake Victoria, BMUs were given legal status in all the partner states of the East African Community and mainstreamed by ministers into national �shery policies. This trend is due mainly to use of There were 25 regional projects management for agrobiodiversity programmatic approaches, which overall, with 12 focused on the Africa (genetic resources) in Africa, the allows the GEF to invest signi�cant region, six in Asia, �ve in LAC and Middle East and North Africa, Central amounts of resources for tackling two in the ECA region. The total Asia and the Andes Region. With environment and development grant of US$312.5 million (28.7%) further advances in programmatic challenges on a regional scale.19 invested through regional projects approaches, GEF �nancing is also Three such programs focusing on mainly targeted speci�c ecoregions helping countries to tackle regional- the West Africa and the Sahel region or multiple countries within the four level challenges related to land (World Bank/GEF), East Asia Large geographical regions. The �nancing degradation and climate change Marine Ecosystem (World Bank/GEF) is also leveraged for thematic and (see Box 4 on the Sahel). and the Lake Chad Basin (AfDB/GEF) cross-cutting initiatives that contrib- account for nearly US$170 million of uted knowledge for planning and The emphasis on ecoregional or GEF–5 �nancing to-date. decision-support. For example, sev- multi-country projects is a primary eral major regional projects were feature of IW focal area �nancing, designed to strengthen knowledge which enables governments to 19 GEF policies and procedures for programmatic approaches are based on approved Council documents GEF/C.33/6 (April 2008) and GEF/C.38/5/Rev.1 (2010). The latter introduced the single-Agency modality for GEF–5, which presents new opportunities for multilateral development banks to design robust investments. 34 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY cooperatively address systemic to management of �sheries and threats to water and �sheries nutrient pollution. An important resources that extend beyond global flagship in the marine realm national boundaries. IW projects ben- is the FAO/GEF multi-focal area e�ted all four geographical regions, program on “Sustainable Fisheries including coverage of major lake Management and Biodiversity and river basins. IW �nancing has Conservation in the Areas Beyond contributed to coastal �sheries man- National Jurisdiction� (Box 6). In agement in large marine ecosystems the terrestrial realm, global proj- off the coasts of Western, Eastern ects also targeted knowledge and Southern sub-regions, and to needs for managing pollinators challenges with land degradation management of water and �sheries and below-ground biodiversity in and effects of drought. Some of resources in lake and river basins in production landscapes. these countries have over the these sub-regions (e.g. Box 5). years designed multiple projects to leverage GEF resources in the Global projects, which accounted for Trends agriculture and food security sector. only US$98.4 million (9%) of the total within Regions Malawi, for example, has four GEF GEF grant, mainly addressed the- Within the Africa region, GEF projects focused on production sys- matic issues that generate knowledge �nancing was mainly focused on tems, of which three are speci�cally resources to support country-level projects in the drylands where coun- designed to address agriculture and efforts. There were 13 such projects, tries such as Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, food security priorities, including of which six were under the IW focal Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Malawi, Niger, the need for adaptation and area and covering issues related Senegal and Tanzania face major resiliency (Box 7). BOX 6 Global: Securing �sheries in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) A major initiative to promote ef�cient and sustainable management of �sheries resources and biodiversity conservation in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) was launched by the GEF, in partnership with more than a dozen public and private organizations. The GEF grant of US$50 million will leverage more than US$269.7 million in co-�nancing from the partners, with FAO, World Bank and UNEP as lead GEF Agencies to design four separate projects under the program. Two of the four projects will speci�cally address the need for improved and sustainable �sheries practices in the ABNJ. The project on Sustainable Management of Tuna Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation in the ABNJ will pilot Rights-Based Management systems and other sustainable �shing practices; reduce illegal, unreported and unregulated �shing; and reduce by-catch and other adverse ecosystem impacts on biodiversity. A separate project will focus on Sustainable Fisheries Management and Biodiversity Conservation of Deep-Sea Ecosystems in the ABNJ. This project will use an ecosystem approach to improve sustainable management practices for deep-sea �sheries and area-based planning for deep-sea ecosystems. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 35 BOX 7 MALAWI: Achieving global environment and climate adaptation bene�ts through multi-scale investments in agricultural development Malawi is a landlocked country, with an estimated 75% of its 12 million people engaged in agriculture as their main source of livelihood and income. The agriculture sector is therefore considered as the potential main driver of poverty-reducing growth. Smallholders account for about 75% of agricultural production, and are mostly engaged in rain-fed maize production. Nearly 60% of the smallholders in Malawi cultivate less than 1 ha. On average, farm house- holds cultivate about 1.2 ha of land and the distribution of land holdings ranges from 0.2 – 2 ha. Sustainable intensi�cation therefore represents the best option for increasing agricultural pro- duction, especially in the southern region where there is extreme pressure on arable land. Over the years, the Government of Malawi has embarked on a series of efforts to improve access to sustainable land management practices that protect against soil and land degra- dation, strengthen access to �nancial services and markets and provide opportunities for diversi�cation of agricultural practices. The GEF has been a strategic partner in this effort through a number of projects in the agriculture sector. Four such projects amounting to US$17.1 million in GEF �nancing, along with an additional US$122 million in co-�nancing (see table below), are briefly described in this text box. Although not sequential or strategically aligned, these projects reflect a comprehensive and multi-scale approach that demonstrates the GEF’s catalytic role for such an important sector. The approach represents a model for other countries that are keen to harness the GEF as a strategic partner for leveraging global envi- ronmental bene�ts in the context of addressing sustainable development priorities at multiple scales, from local to national. PROJECT TITLE GEF AGENCY GEF GRANT CO-FINANCING Climate Adaptation for Rural Livelihoods AfDB 3,000,000 24,505,000 and Agriculture (CARLA) Agriculture Sector Development Program – IBRD 5,600,000 36,400,000 Support to SLM (ADP-SLM) Private Public Sector Partnership on UNDP 2,072,940 4,700,000 Capacity Building for SLM in the Shire River Basin Shire Natural Ecosystems IBRD 6,578,000 68,314,000 Management Project The World Bank/GEF Agriculture Sector Development Program Support Project (2008 – 2013) is designed to improve the effectiveness of investments aimed at food security and sustain- able agricultural growth; this, in turn, will strengthen the natural resource base by doubling the area under sustainable land management and securing ecosystem services that underpin pro- duction practices. The project will (i) strengthen institutional capabilities necessary to improve the design of, and to implement, the Agricultural Development Program; (ii) increase the land, water and nutrient-use ef�ciency of smallholder maize-based farming systems; and (iii) increase the resilience of the maize supply system to cope with climate risks and shocks. GEF incremental support will contribute to increasing farmers’ uptake of conservation farming tech- nologies that can build up the natural soil capital for long-term productivity, with potential for up-scaling nationally. As a result, the project will reduce soil erosion and soil nutrient mining; > 36 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY < CONT’D increase soil fertility and maintenance of ecological flows and services (hydrological flows, biodiversity, buffers to extreme events); and reduce threats from siltation, nutrient and pollutant contamination to important regional and national water-bodies such as Lake Malawi, rivers and reservoirs. The AfDB/GEF Climate Adaptation for Rural Livelihoods and Agriculture project (2010 – 2015) is based on the Malawi National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPA), and represents a direct response to urgent and immediate adaptation needs identi�ed as top priorities. They include a) improving community resilience to climate change through the development of sustainable rural livelihoods, and b) improving agricultural production under erratic rains and changing climatic conditions. The project will directly address these priorities through: 1) improving practical, community-level irrigation ef�ciency and promoting water recycling and harvesting in vulnerable districts; and 2) strengthening the capacity of National/District agencies to support community-based climate change adaptation actions. The project, which is funded entirely from the LDCF, will take an integrated approach to community-based cli- mate change adaptation. As such, it will develop and pilot new and innovative approaches and practices in the Malawian context. The UNDP/GEF Private Public Sector Partnership on Capacity Building for Sustainable Land Management in the Shire River Basin project (2010 – 2014) seeks to reduce land degradation through improved institutional, policy and payments for ecosystem services (PES) arrange- ments. The project is focusing on the middle and lower Shire river basin, with potential for up-scaling to the entire basin through the River Shire Development Authority that will be estab- lished during implementation. GEF �nancing will facilitate policy and institutional arrangements for basin-wide SLM; promote public-private partnerships to create �nancial incentives for SLM (e.g. through green water credits and sustainable charcoal) and increase knowledge and skills at all levels to support SLM. Emphasis will be placed on SLM practices such as conservation agriculture, water harvesting, application of compost manure, mulching with crop residues to reduce the effect of erosive raindrop splash and the use of Vetiver grass along the contour bands to control soil run off. The World Bank/GEF Shire Natural Ecosystems Management project (2012 – 2017) targets the entire river basin to maximize the potential for sustainability and resilience of the ecosystems. The project combines resources from land degradation and biodiversity focal areas as well as the SFM/REDD initiative with an LDCF grant. It will a) strengthen the institutional capaci- ties and mechanisms for Shire Basin monitoring, planning, management and decision-support systems; b) invest in water-related infrastructure that sustainably improves water resources man- agement and development; c) reduce erosion in priority catchments and sedimentation and flooding downstream, while enhancing agricultural productivity and improving livelihoods; and d) reduce flood risks in the Lower Shire through improved management of critical wetlands and provide community-level adaptation and mitigation support. At the basin level, the project would identify areas of natural habitats scattered within broader productive landscapes where smallholder agriculture predominates. These remnant areas still deliver “free� environmental services for local communities, including watershed protection, provision of forest products and clean water. They are also a key source of biomass energy for local populations — over 90% of household energy comes from biomass fuels. GEF �nancing will foster an integrated landscapes management approach to ensure conservation of globally important biodiversity and protection of forests and wetlands essential for livelihoods, climate resilience and economic development. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 37 BOX 8 China: Mainstreaming adaptation to climate change into water resources management and rural development The Huang–Huai–Hai (3H) basin is home to more than 400 million people and is China’s prime agricultural area. Water demand in the basin is already expected to rise due to increasing industrial and domestic demand. However, increasing temperatures and decreasing summer precipitation caused by climate change is expected to affect the water supply and may cause a serious water de�cit in the 3H region. Diminishing water supply has substantial repercus- sions on agricultural production and lives of farmers in the area. The World Bank/GEF �nanced Irrigated Agriculture Intensi�cation Loan III Project (IAIL3) is supporting comprehensive agricul- tural development initiated by the central government of China. The project aims to support agricultural and ecological development, strengthen agricultural infrastructure, ensure national food security, advance agro-processing production and increase the income of farmers in the �ve provinces of the 3H Plain. In 2006, in response to changes in the climate observed by farmers in the project area, the project accessed a GEF grant through the SCCF to mainstream climate change adaptation into the IAIL3 project. Plans for the remaining IAIL3 funding were reexamined and project activi- ties were adjusted to improve and enhance existing adaptation measures and add measures not included in the original design. Drought and pest-resilient wheat variety was introduced in Jiangsu province. Initially farmers were reluctant to use the new seeds, but increased produc- tion in pilot areas has helped convince them; adoption of this resilient wheat variety is growing among farmers. In the project provinces, water-retention walls have been built to maintain the water table; new sluices have also been constructed to increase irrigation water storage capacity. In Xinyi municipality alone, 17 new sluices have been increasing irrigation water storage by 850,000 m3 each year. The project also assisted the locals in establishing water users associations, offered training to raise awareness about climate change and helped women in the project sites master some technical skills of water-saving irrigation. Through the implementation of adaptation activities and the large-scale training programs at various levels of government, project management of�cials and the leaders in the State Of�ce for Comprehensive Agricultural Development have genuinely realized these measures are imperative, as well as taken into account the needs of farmers in adapting to climate change. For the Asia region, China, India, assessment, covering agricultural bio- threats to agriculture (Box 8). The Lao PDR, Vietnam and Jordan are diversity, integrated water resource other mainland Asia countries have among the countries with multiple management, �sheries and climate focused mainly on management of projects focusing on the agriculture change adaptation. One of these is agricultural biodiversity and climate and food security sector. China has focused on the Hunag-Huai-Hai Basin resilience in the agriculture sector. �ve such projects included in this where climate change is exacerbating Iran and Jordan in the Middle East 38 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY have also targeted the agriculture genetic resources heritage. Larger and livestock sector with multiple countries such as Brazil and Mexico projects, mainly addressing land and also invested GEF resources for water water management, and taking into resource management in river basins, account the need for adaptation while Small Island Development and resiliency. States (SIDS) in the Caribbean mainly bene�ted from regional projects Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and (e.g. Box 9). Colombia are among countries in the LAC region with multiple projects tar- geting the agriculture and livestock sector. The projects in Bolivia were focused mainly on management of agricultural biodiversity, including in the Andean region where the food security needs of indigenous com- munities is supported by the rich BOX 9 Jamaica: Farming the Drivers River watershed The Drivers River demonstration project recognized the highly integrated and closely interlinked nature of watersheds and coastal areas in small islands. It aims to develop a man- agement approach, both at the national and regional level. Small grants helped with the cultivation of cash crops, raising of broiler chicks, organic farming, planting of timber and orna- mental seedlings. They also supported some cottage industries, using products of sustainable agriculture (honey and jam) and recycled paper products. One of the major challenges faced by the Drivers River watershed is that the area is steep and soils are easily eroded. To combat this, a demonstration project under the GEF/UNEP Integrated Watershed and Coastal Area Management (IWCAM) in Small Island Developing States of the Caribbean project, engaged an Agriculture Society Farmers Group in Jamaica to provide training to farmers in the Drivers River watershed. Training focused on the stabilization of soils using vegetation barriers with pineapple and vetiver species. In one pilot, approximately 250 pineapple sets and approximately two lengths of vetiver grass were planted in a 1 ha microcatchment. To ensure maximum understanding, each farmer was then given the chance to repeat the process, corrected and commended by other participants as the training continued. Although the demonstration project has ended, community members are still monitoring the water quality and quantity using bioindicator species of plants and ani- mals. Based on the success of the Drivers River project, the model is now being implemented in other watersheds across islands in the Caribbean. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 39 In the ECA region, countries have and river basins have been targeted generally focused on projects for GEF investments, including the addressing agricultural pollution Danube River and Black Sea (Box problems through integrated water 10). GEF �nancing through the resource management. Romania, IW focal area has contributed sig- Croatia, Moldova and Turkey are ni�cantly to management of water among the countries that leveraged resources for both agriculture and IW �nancing as part of regional-level �sheries management in Eastern collaboration. Several major lake European countries. BOX 10 Turkey: Watershed rehabilitation in Black Sea catchments Centuries of agricultural practices had degraded upland catchments in many of the watersheds surrounding the Black Sea. To continue maximizing yield, farmers were adding excessive amounts of fertilizer and other agricultural pollutants to their lands. One demonstration project under the GEF/World Bank Danube River and Black Sea Investment targeted 28 microcatch- ments in Anatolia and Turkey’s Black Sea Region. The demonstration project’s overall objective was to support sustainable natural resource management and new farming practices. In this way, it would raise incomes of communities affected by resource degradation and reduce the discharge of nutrients and other agricultural pollutants into surface and ground water draining into the Black Sea. The project organized training for 38 farmers and 32 provincial staff from the four project provinces to promote organic fruit production. An accredited control and cer- ti�cation services company had been contracted to help in initial organizing of the organic fruit growing in the project area and later in certi�cation. Three organic walnut �elds were established in three different microcatchments. In one speci�c microcatchment, 40 ha of walnut farms belonging to 77 farmers were converted into organic farming. Interest in organic farming and related requests has now spread from the pilot sites to neighboring provinces not originally participating in the project. Ultimately, the organic farming methods will help reduce nutrient discharge from agricultural sources into the Black Sea. Other project bene�ts included sustainable increases in crop yields; higher fodder produc- tion on rangelands and improved livestock yields; higher and more stable household incomes leading to reduced poverty; improved water quality; and safer food products that meet national environmental regulations with regard to good agricultural practices for access to EU markets. 40 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY GEF FINANCING for Project Components and Interventions 42 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY The analysis of all 192 projects included in the assessment showed that GEF �nancing for speci�c components supporting agriculture and food security amounted to an aggregate total of US$810.6 million, about 75 % of the total GEF grant used (Table 5). TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 43 Sustainable �sheries and water for SLM, such as improvements in GEF investment of US$41.2 million resource management used the policy options, marketing, extension was used for community-based land largest amount of GEF Trust Fund and training programs. Because of management, which helps farmers to resources: US$379.8 million, or the emphasis on integrated natural collectively implement SLM at land- 47% of the total GEF grant.20 This is resource management, GEF �nancing scape scale. This is particularly useful followed by sustainable land man- for SLM often includes resources from in contexts where such collective agement (22% of the total grant the LD, BD CC and IW focal areas action is necessary to target drivers supporting agriculture and food secu- through multi-focal area projects. and effects of land degradation that rity), climate change adaptation (17%) extend beyond individual farms or and management of agricultural The projects using GEF resources farm households. This approach was biodiversity (14%). for SLM covered a range of inter- also evident in projects concerned ventions, from soil and water with overgrazing in rangelands, conservation to incentives and for which an aggregate amount of Sustainable policies for improving on-farm pro- US$5.3 million was used directly. Land Management ductivity (Table 6). Investments in soil Collective action in rangeland man- and water conservation accounted agement helps to address potential GEF investments for sustainable land for US$51.7 million (29%) of the GEF conflicts between herders, as well management offer direct opportunity resources, which enables farmers and as conflicts at the livestock-wildlife to generate multiple environmental land users to apply �eld-tested tech- interface (Box 11). bene�ts in the context of agriculture nologies for improved soil quality and food security. The investments on farmlands. This includes ef�cient Investment in incentives and policies mainly target on-farm productivity of irrigation and water-saving tech- (US$39.3 million), institutional capacity crops and livestock through improved niques that are speci�cally invaluable development (US$26.9 million) and management of land, soil, water to dryland farmers, as well as SLM development of the knowledge base and vegetative cover. As a means interventions to reduce erosion and (US$13.9 million) supports creation of to ensure long-term sustainability increase soil fertility in sub-humid and enabling environments or removal of of outcomes, GEF �nancing also humid regions. barriers for land users to implement supports an enabling environment SLM. These investments also facilitate TABLE 5 GEF Financing Components supporting Agriculture and Food Security (Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of the total) TYPE OF INVESTMENTS GEF FUNDING (‘000 $) Sustainable Land Management 179,317.9 (22) Management of Agricultural biodiversity 113,432.8 (14) Sustainable Fisheries and Water Resource Management 379,819.2 (47) Climate Change Adaptation for Food Security 138,119.4 (17) Total Investments 810,688.9 (100) 20 This amount is higher than the IW focal area total in Table 3 because it includes the focal area resources invested in stand-alone, as well as regional, multi-focal area projects. 44 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY BOX 11 Regional (Africa): Enhancing sustainability at livestock–wildlife Interface The co-existence of livestock and wildlife in the savanna landscape is threatened by over-exploitation of natural resources due to increasing human populations and weakening of traditional institutions that control and regulate access to grazing resources and protection of wildlife. The UNEP/GEF Dryland Livestock Wildlife Environment Interface (DLWEIP) project was designed to address the complex problem of sustaining mixed production systems in sub- Saharan savanna agro-ecosystems that are undergoing rapid changes due to modernization of agriculture, and other emerging land use practices. The project mobilized key stakeholders in Kenya and Burkina Faso to implement new approaches to natural resources conservation and management. The stakeholders involved included communities, NGOs, private sector players and the various government departments/institutions. GEF �nancing helped promote community conservation and land rehabilitation initiatives, community capacity building, income-generating activities (alternative livelihoods), and some aspects of community conflict management and resolution initiatives. The project also con- tributed to improving lives of sedentary pastoralists in targeted conservancy areas in Kenya by investing in SLM as an income-generating activity. Furthermore, de�nition of resource tenure under group ranch bylaws ensures that household investors enjoy sustained bene�t. Through exchange visits and workshops, land users were offered an effective strategy for sharing and disseminating good practices at community/local, national and international levels. access to methods for improved productivity, marketing services, TABLE 6 Financing Sustainable Land extension, training and policy anal- Management Interventions ysis for the agriculture sector. Lack (Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total) of access to methods for soil fertility PROJECT COMPONENTS GEF FUNDING (‘000 US$) improvement and prevention of land degradation is among the major con- Soil and water conservation 51,734.2 (29) straints to improving productivity of Institutional capacity development for SLM 26,962.6 (15) agricultural lands, especially for small- Incentives and policies for improved farm 39,308.1 (22) holder farmers. GEF support makes it productivity flexible for countries to strengthen or create systems that help address this Development of knowledge base on SLM 13,959.4 (8) problem as part of agriculture and best practices food security investments. Community-based land management 41,989.3 (23) Ecosystem and pasture management 5,363.8 (3) Total GEF Investment 179,317.4 (100) TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 45 Management of Agricultural Biodiversity Agrobiodiversity is a key attribute of production systems, and includes soil fauna (below-ground biodiversity) that keep the soil healthy; genetic resources of crop and livestock used by farmers and herders; and the indigenous knowledge and tradi- tional practices that help maintain ecosystem services. Although most GEF �nancing for agrobiodiversity is through the BD focal area, investment in soil health also used LD resources through multi-focal area projects. The interventions were focused on three main aspects: knowledge management for conservation of germplasm and genetic diversity; best practices and technologies for optimal use of agrobiodiversity; and policy and institutional development for agrobiodiversity. The largest GEF investment of US$45 million (40%) was directed toward best practices and tech- nologies (Table 7). The investments contribute toward in-situ conservation of genetic resources and soil fauna, reduction of pest and disease inci- dence through biological control (e.g. application-integrated pest management), harnessing pollination services (see Box 12) and develop- ment of markets as incentives for maintaining crop diversity on farms. 46 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY TABLE 7 Financing Agricultural Biodiversity Interventions (Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total) PROJECT COMPONENTS GEF FUNDING (‘000 US$) Knowledge management for conservation of germplasm 33,077.5 (29) and genetic diversity Practices and technologies for conservation 45,079.2 (40) of agrobiodiversity Policies and institutional development for agrobiodiversity 35,276.1 (31) Total GEF Investment 113,432.8 (100) An aggregate GEF amount of awareness-raising on the importance including engagement of farmers US$33 million was invested in of agrobiodiversity. This invest- whose invaluable knowledge of the knowledge management, which ment is particularly invaluable for resources is often at risk of being lost targeted data collection on crop countries to establish frameworks (e.g. Box 13). biodiversity and indigenous varieties, for long-term management of crop conservation of germplasm and and livestock genetic resources, BOX 12 Global: Safeguarding pollinators in sustainable agriculture Two-thirds of all food crops depend on insect pollinators, especially bees, for maximum production. With bee populations rapidly declining and more crops being grown under inten- sive systems, multiple agro-ecosystems and ecologies need to adopt practices to prevent the loss of pollination services. Unfortunately, the level of capacity to manage these services, and public awareness of their importance, is very low, both in traditional and modern soci- eties. Several highly localized crop pollination failures, however, have brought the issues to the forefront of global debate on ecosystem services and agricultural land use and conservation. The GEF/UNEP/FAO Conservation and Management of Pollinators for Sustainable Agriculture through an Ecosystem Approach project engaged with partners in seven countries to develop best practices for management of pollination services for the bene�t of human livelihoods and sustainable agriculture. In Ghana, for example, partners found that spraying insecticides decreases populations of midges by one-third to one-half: without these pollinators, yields of cocoa – a key cash crop in Ghana - may drop by 90%. In farms that grow bananas or plan- tains near cocoa trees, however, leaf litter from the trees provides a microhabitat for midges, enabling populations to recover faster. The project works with farmers to establish best man- agement practices to conserve pollinators over the long term, enabling farmers, extension agents, land managers, policymakers and the general public to support pollinator conservation efforts worldwide. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 47 BOX 13 Regional (Asia): Safeguarding local fruit-tree diversity in home gardens for nutritional security India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand are home to four genera of tropical fruit trees: Citrus (citrus), Mangifera (mango), Nephelium (rambutan) and Garcinia (mangosteen). These tropical fruits, valued for their wide range of nutritional, health and other bene�ts, are an important part of Asian culture. The fruit trees are at risk, however, due to an alarming loss of biodiver- sity caused by three factors: lack of systematic assessment and documentation of local and traditional knowledge; inadequate use of unique and high-value trait differentiation of existing diversity; and the lack of capacity of farmers, user groups and rural institutions to implement good practices and link to value-chain actors to provide incentives for custodians. The countries are working together through a UNEP/GEF project, Conservation and Sustainable Use of Cultivated and Wild Tropical Fruit Diversity: Promoting Sustainable Livelihood, Food Security and Ecosystem Services, to strengthen the capacity of farmers and institutions to implement community-based management of local fruit-tree diversity in home gardens, as well as to enhance the in-situ conservation of their wild relatives in forests. This is helping document available diversity and related knowledge; identify and promote good practices; enhance the livelihoods of farmers who conserve genetic resources of tropical fruit trees; and build local, national and regional capacity for monitoring and policy support. To date, all countries have identi�ed a set of unique and high-value genotypes from farmers’ gardens that provide bene�ts to the custodian farmers. In addition, the project identi�ed 23 good practices from 36 commu- nities to sustain conservation of target biodiversity, and trained 150 participants to strengthen capacity of national frontline staff to implement good practices that promote conservation and enhance livelihood. GEF �nancing also included farmers can maintain land use practices helps safeguard the aquatic habitats US$35.2 million for institutional that preserve and promote agrobiodi- and �sh diversity for sustainability of strengthening to support management versity, which also contributes to SLM. the sector. At the same time, sustain- of genetic resources, and for develop- able agricultural systems and ef�cient ment of national- and regional-level water management practices help policies to promote agrobiodiversity. Sustainable Fisheries sustain irrigation needs and reduce Investment in institutional devel- and Water pollution from agricultural areas. The opment, policies and regulatory Resources Management level of �nancing is consistent with frameworks helps protect indigenous Fisheries management is crucial for the scale of interventions necessary varieties and knowledge for sustainable poverty reduction in freshwater and to tackle these challenges, which use of agrobiodiversity. At the same coastal communities throughout the involve transboundary ecosystems time, it also ensures that smallholder developing world, and GEF �nancing and multiple countries. 48 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY “ FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IS CRUCIAL FOR POVERTY REDUCTION GEF investments in sustainable IN FRESHWATER AND COASTAL COM- �sheries and water resources man- MUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE DEVEL- agement for food security are a major contribution of the IW focal area. A OPING WORLD, AND GEF FINANCING key feature of the investment is pro- moting multi-country or regional HELPS SAFEGUARD THE AQUATIC cooperation in management of shared water resources. By working HABITATS AND FISH DIVERSITY FOR at the transboundary scale, regional knowledge-sharing and cooperative SUSTAINABILITY OF THE SECTOR. � frameworks can better prepare neigh- boring countries in the event of crisis, such as floods and droughts. It can t '*4)&3*&4."/"(&.&/5 transboundary committees and also allow neighboring countries to Managing commercial �sh establishing restricted harvesting better manage migratory �sh popula- stocks through ecosystem- and no-take zones. tions as climate change makes their based sustainable approaches, distribution less predictable. The t */5&(3"5&%$0"45"- including conservation of habi- typology of interventions ranges from AND MARINE ECOSYSTEM tats at various life stages of targeted systems to cross-cutting MANAGEMENT targeted species, working with priorities as described next: Investing in integrated national governments and ecosystem management of coastal and marine environ- ments with legal agreements for pollution control, sustainable coastal development zones and establishment of protected areas for ecosystems inhabited by commercially important �n and shell�sh such as coral and oyster reefs, seagrass meadows, salt marshes and mangrove forests. t -",&#"4*/."/"(&.&/5 Improving governance and cooperation of transboundary freshwater lake basins to reduce pollution, unsustainable with- drawals and other conflicts in order to provide sustainable sources of clean water for agri- culture, freshwater �sheries and other ecosystem services. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 49 t 3*7&3#"4*/."/"(&.&/5 fertilizers that result in the poor collaboratively. The investment Improving governance and water quality and eutrophica- targets speci�c geographies for cooperation of transboundary tion of lakes, rivers, coasts and which countries are prepared to river basins to reduce pollu- marine environments, depleting engage in transboundary diagnostic tion, unsustainable withdrawals oxygen for commercially assessments that lead to develop- and other conflicts in order to important �n and shell�sh. ment of strategic action plans for provide sustainable sources long-term management of ecosystem of clean water for agriculture, t *33*("5*0/."/"(&.&/5 and water resources. freshwater �sheries and other Managing irrigation systems ecosystem services. to provide sustainable water The signi�cant proportion of GEF withdrawals from transboundary resources directed toward cross- t ."/"(&.&/50'"26*'&34 freshwater lakes, rivers and cutting issues further highlights the Improving governance and aquifers to ensure long-term and importance of cooperation across cooperation of transboundary sustainable agricultural yields. boundaries in addressing systemic aquifers to reduce pollution, threats to freshwater (surface and unsustainable withdrawals The breakdown of GEF investments groundwater) and coastal marine and other conflicts in order to showed an aggregate total of ecosystems. GEF �nancing helps provide sustainable sources US$179.4 million for targeted sys- countries jointly identify and commit of clean water for drinking tems (lakes, river basins, aquifers and to solutions, including policy options, and agriculture. coastal marine) and US$200.3 million targeted investments and institutional for the cross-cutting (�sheries, pol- frameworks for long-term monitoring t 10--65*0/ lution/nutrient reduction, irrigation) of the threats. Fisheries manage- NUTRIENT REDUCTION priorities (Table 8). GEF �nancing ment accounted for US$119.4 million, Managing municipal and for lakes, river basins, aquifers representing more than one-third agricultural practices and gover- and coastal marine systems helps (31.4 %) of the total GEF invest- nance to reduce chemical toxins countries manage these resources ment. These investments play an and nutrient pollution from across boundaries collectively and important role in addressing risks TABLE 8 Financing Sustainable Fisheries and Water Resources Management (Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages to total) AREAS OF INVESTMENTS GEF FUNDING (‘000 US$) Fisheries management 119,414.4 (31.4) Integrated coastal and marine ecosystem management 72,538.4 (19.1) Lake basin management 29,788.4 (7.8) River basin management 63,703.4 (16.7) Management of aquifers 13,400.0 (3.5) Pollution/nutrient reduction 69,799.8 (18.4) Irrigation management 11,175.0 (2.9) Total GEF Investments 379,819.5 (100) 50 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY BOX 14 Egypt: Improving livelihoods through nutrient reduction Lake Manzala in Egypt is a long, shallow lake on the northeastern edge of the Nile delta between the two port cities of Dormietta and Port Said. Much of the heavily polluted drain water crossing the delta enters large coastal lakes, such as Lake Manzala, before flowing into the Mediterranean Sea. Contaminated water and tainted �sh stocks in the lake represent huge risks for the region’s food security. Through the UNDP/GEF Lake Manzala Engineered Wetlands project, 24 ha of constructed wetlands were used to imitate the role of natural wetlands as “bio�lter� to remove nutrients, heavy metals and toxins from wastewater. As a result, up to 50,000 m3 of water is treated per day, removing 90% of traditional pollutants and 75% of toxins. The cleaned water is then used for a number of agriculture activities, including by crop irriga- tion by local farmers. Local �shermen collect the clean water in ponds to farm �sh that are �t for human consumption and that can also be used to restock the lake. The bene�ts are summed up by Project Director Dr. Diaa el-Quosy, “This technology costs only 10% of other technologies, it is environmentally friendly as no chemicals are used and mainte- nance is very simple. The community knows about this new technology. By breeding �sh we are creating a stock that can be used to produce more �sh,� he says. Lake Manzala is also an inter- nationally registered Important Bird Area and pollution threatens not just regional food security, but the lake’s entire ecosystem. In the past 70 years, the area of natural wetlands has shrunk from 280,000 to 80,000 ha. The demonstration at Lake Manzala has created international vis- ibility for constructed wetlands and now provides Egypt with the opportunity to become a recognized leader in the development of this innovative technology. of overexploiting �sh stocks in both facilities and protecting wetlands interventions to protect coastal zone freshwater and marine ecosystems, that serve as important nutrient �lters and marine biodiversity, including particularly threats that undermine (Box 14). In parts of the developing legal frameworks and regulations food security, such as from live �sh world where irrigated agriculture for pollution control, sustainable food trade and �shing of pelagic faces major threats from loss of water development of the coastal zones species like tuna. supply due to overexploitation and and designation of protected areas poor management of flows, GEF for coral reefs and other unique GEF investments in pollution/nutrient �nancing helps develop options habitats. GEF �nancing for lakes management (US$69.7 million) and for improving conservation and (US$29.7 million), river basins irrigation (US$11.1 million) are linked sustainable use of freshwater (sur- (US$ 63.7 million) and aquifers more directly to management of face and groundwater) for irrigation (US$13.4 million) supports interven- agricultural systems that depend on (e.g. Box 15) tions on governance mechanisms freshwater resources. The �nancing to reduce risks of conflicts; pro- supports interventions to tackle Integrated coastal and marine mote cooperation in management nutrient pollution, such as promotion ecosystem management used and use of the shared freshwater of low-cost water treatment options, US$72.5 million of the IW resources. resources; and increase resilience of constructing manure management Investments were targeted mainly for the systems. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 51 BOX 15 China: New irrigation technology in the Hai River basin strengthens food security The Hai River basin is home to 134 million people, with agriculture as a major economic activity. Wasteful irrigation in the basin had resulted in serious environmental degradation, putting the region’s food security at risk. The groundwater extraction rate far exceeded rechargeable quantities, with water tables falling by three meters every year. Rapid industrial growth had also created a serious pollution problem with contaminated water flowing from the Hai River to the Bohai and Yellow Seas. To address this concern, the Government of China developed the Hai River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management project, with World Bank/GEF support. The project brought together the Ministry of Water Resources and Ministry of Environment Protection to work on integrated water management at the local level for the very �rst time. The project was the �rst large-scale initiative in the world to combine remote sensing satel- lite technology and a new water allocation system with economic incentives together with the involvement of hundreds of local farmer-led associations to ensure participation and compli- ance. The method, known as ET (evapotranspiration) Management, produced real water savings without crop loss and generated substantial gains in farm income. New criteria for water alloca- tion were developed, including the amount of water consumed and the amount to be returned to the local water system (with the water quality stipulated). The changes supported by the GEF project led to 40% reductions in water use, up to �ve-fold increases in farm incomes and, most importantly, a signi�cant contribution to food security and farmers’ livelihoods. The 16 pilot counties have saved over 266 million m3 of water. Pollution loading into the Bohai Sea has also been reduced by 38,615 tons/year for Chemical Oxygen Demand and 4,665 tons/year for ammonia-nitrogen. These GEF-supported measures and tech- nologies can be applied around the globe to produce real water savings and ensure a reliable source of food for future generations to come. Climate Change in this category are targeted to The total US$138.12 million of generate adaptation bene�ts in the LDCF and SCCF funds directed Adaptation for food and agriculture sector. To that towards food security and agricul- Agriculture and end, they ensure that production ture was directed to investments in Food Security systems are resilient to climate risks six main categories of interventions As pointed out in the previous by creating options and alternatives described below: section, all of the GEF �nancing in for land users to cope with expected changes in production landscapes; t &/"#-*/(&/7*30/.&/5 this category is through the LDCF developing effective warning FOR CC-A AT ALL LEVELS, and SCCF. This �nancing is linked systems; and by providing decision- including development directly to country priorities identi- support mechanisms at local and of policies and regulatory �ed in the NAPAs and other national national levels. frameworks based on sound plans and strategies. The projects climate risk information, 52 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY ensuring budget allocations t '*/"/$*"-4$)&.&450 establishment of platforms in appropriate sectors to sup- SUPPORT RESILIENT AGRI- for dissemination of port adaptation measures and CULTURAL PRACTICES,21 such information. training and capacity building including �nancial services for along with provision of exten- transferring risks and scaling- The breakdown of LDCF and SCCF sion services to implement up proven, climate-resilient funding for these intervention areas concrete adaptation activities. practices and technologies; across all projects is presented in weather-index based insurance; Table 9, with proportions shown in t #&4513"$5*$&4'03 and micro-�nance services to Figure 5. It shows highest invest- RESILIENCE IN CROP PRO- support implementation of new ments through both the funds toward DUCTION SYSTEMS, including climate-resilient practices. integrated approaches followed by demonstration and diffu- an enabling environment to sup- sion of resilient crop varieties, t ,/08-&%(&."/"(&.&/5 port food security and resilience in improvement in land and water AND DISSEMINATION, agriculture sector. LDCF provides sig- management and improvements including synthesis of lessons ni�cantly higher investments targeted in post-harvest processes as learned through direct solely at crop management than the a response to speci�c climate investments to build cli- SCCF. This highlights the urgent and change vulnerabilities. mate-change resilience in immediate priorities of the LDCs to the agriculture sector and manage their production landscape t #&4513"$5*$&4'03 RESILIENCE IN LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SYSTEMS, FIGURE 5 Proportional Use of Climate Change including demonstration and Adaptation Financing in Interventions diffusion of feed and forage management, as well as grazing to Support Food Security improvement in response to speci�c vulnerabilities to climate change. 7% t */5&(3"5&%"1130"$)&4 KM AND DISSEMINATION 25% ENABLING FOR RESILIENCE OF ENVIRONMENT AGRO-ECOSYSTEMS AND LIVELIHOODS, including man- agement of natural ecosystems and agro-ecosystems for gen- eration of adaptation bene�ts, as well as livelihood diversi- 10% CROP �cation to enhance climate MANAGEMENT change resilience. 54% INTEGRATED 4% APPROACHES LIVESTOCK MANGAGEMENT 21 This intervention area was not a major target for investment before Dec. 2011, and therefore not included in the assessment. It is, however, included in the typology because of growing evidence in recent projects. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 53 recognize the risks posed by climate change in agriculture-related sectors and to identify policy, strategy and investment solutions to reduce such risks. Such capacity building ensures that necessary budgetary allocations are made at national and sub-national and associated water resources livelihoods. This approach enables levels to recognize and address cli- to ensure food production; most the promotion of production land- mate risks in production landscapes. populations in these countries rely scapes management conducive to The investments in this category also directly on subsistence agriculture. the health of the entire ecosystem. cover development of early warning Developing countries lack capacity It also includes establishment of on- systems and hydro-meteorological at institutional, policy and technical and off-farm activities that generate databases to inform communities of levels to appreciate the climate risks income beyond the main house- the risks and influence their behavior and suitable mechanisms to integrate hold agricultural activities at risk (e.g. Box 16). These enabling activi- them into planning and operations at due to climate change. It is there- ties are essential for mainstreaming national and local levels. Signi�cant fore not surprising that more than climate risks and relevant adapta- funding through LDCF and SCCF half (54%) of total LDCF- and SCCF- tion measures in national, local and is targeted towards creating an �nancing in agriculture and food regional processes to maximize enabling environment to build and security (US$75.2 million) is invested bene�ts for adaptation related to maintain such capacity. in integrated approaches. The food security in both the short- and interventions speci�cally target com- long-term. Agricultural production depends on munity-driven initiatives to enhance the health of surrounding natural Implementation of adaptation livelihood and coping strategies, ecosystems, while climate resil- measures in developing countries development/piloting of resilient ience of smallholder and subsistence is a fairly new initiative. Lessons adaptation systems and natural farmers is closely tied to their ability learned from LDCF and SCCF invest- resources management. to diversify livelihoods beyond farm ments in the agriculture and food or forest production. Hence, the Interventions to create enabling security sector will be of great value highest proportion of LDCF and environments for adaptation in replicating adaptation measures SCCF investment has been directed accounted for US$34.3 million. in different regions of the same toward integrated approaches for The investments cover developing country and in other countries facing resilience of agro-ecosystems and institutional capacity building to similar challenges. TABLE 9 LDCF and SCCF Financing (in US$) by Type of Project Interventions (Note: LDCF = 28 Projects; SCCF = 17 Projects) ENABLING CROP LIVESTOCK INTEGRATED KM AND TOTAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT APPROACHES DISSEMINATION LDCF 20,512,824 12,728,463 3,731,600 43,592,621 6,934,206 87,499,714 SCCF 13,808,244 1,684,700 1,180,000 31,676,765 2,270,000 50,619,709 TOTAL 34,321,068 14,413,163 4,911,600 75,269,386 9,204,206 138,119,423 54 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY BOX 16 Regional (Andes): Piloting climate change adaptation measures in the Andean region Millions of people throughout the Andes region depend on the glacial runoff for their daily fresh water needs. Andean glaciers are already receding rapidly and projections show this will continue. This disruption in the hydrological cycle is bound to strain access to fresh water in the region, threatening agriculture, hydropower generation and public health. The GEF has �nanced, through the Special Climate Change Fund, a project that will meet the anticipated consequences of the catastrophic glacier retreat induced by climate change. The project’s activities include the updating of local and national water management policies; plans to address the long-term impacts of climate change and receding glaciers on water avail- ability; and concrete adaptation pilots to demonstrate how climate change impacts can be integrated into practical development activities across the Andes. The project will fund instal- lation of eight monitoring stations at the glacier basins of Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia to monitor the state of glaciers and their impacts on the hydrological cycle in the region. The meteorological and hydrological information generated will be used to plan and design adaptation measures, especially with respect to the use and management of water resources. Pilot adaptation measures for this sub-basin include soil restoration in the Andean highlands, climate-resilient irrigation techniques, alternative crops and best practices in agriculture, improved water-use ef�ciency in urban areas and the prevention of landslides and flash floods due to accelerated glacier melting induced by climate change. A pilot in Peru speci�cally tar- gets agricultural production planning. It includes measures such as testing and promoting crops that are less water-demanding; demonstrating more water-ef�cient land and water management practices; and promoting export of new and more drought-resistant crops. An amount of US$9.2 million was multiple global environment and invested in providing technical guid- adaptation bene�ts. The approach to ance on understanding climate risks GEF �nancing emphasizes targeted and possible adaptation measures in investments in projects that address agriculture, documenting effective objectives of the GEF focal areas, policy lessons and on-ground invest- including support to countries for ments and dissemination of such best implementation of the Conventions. practices for further replication and The value-added of GEF �nancing is scaling up. evident from the diversity of interven- tions in projects, and the potential for In summary, this section has sustainability of outcomes for people elucidated the important role of and the global environment. GEF �nancing in agriculture and food security projects for generating TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 55 GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT and Adaptation BENEFITS 56 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY In the context of ful�lling its mandate as �nancial mechanism of the Rio Conventions, the GEF is playing an invaluable role in supporting eligible countries to build sustainability and resilience into agriculture and food security investments. A major result from this assessment is that GEF �nancing reflects consistency between priorities of the different funding windows and the global aspirations for environmental sustainability and resilience in production systems. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 57 “ SAFEGUARDING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND BUILDING RESILIENCE Managing land, water and IN PRODUCTION SYSTEMS IS biodiversity in an integrated manner THEREFORE A PRIORITY FOR is key to ensuring sustainable flow of ecosystem services that underpin DEVELOPING COUNTRIES...� agriculture and food security needs in a changing climate. This section high- lights the multiple bene�ts that can be derived from the GEF approach to natural environment. The progressive Sustaining Ecosystem Services �nancing global environmental and deterioration of existing crop and Flows in Production Landscapes adaptation bene�ts, and the need to rangelands, and of freshwater and The GEF plays an important role in further enhance the GEF’s role in pro- marine systems, undermines food sustaining flows of ecosystem ser- moting sustainability and resilience in security for millions of poor people vices that underpin productivity of the sectors. around the world. Safeguarding agricultural and rangeland systems. ecosystem services and building As shown in this assessment, GEF resilience in production systems is support toward production systems Global Environment therefore a priority for developing is largely through sustainable land Bene�ts countries where a signi�cant propor- management (SLM) investments tion of the population depends on that seek to combat land degrada- The agriculture, livestock and agricultural, livestock and �sheries tion. Through the end of GEF–4, �sheries sectors are major sources of management. GEF investments under it is estimated that GEF �nancing anthropogenic stressors on the the different focal areas create oppor- has contributed to promoting SLM tunities for developing countries to practice in at least 20 million hect- leverage global environment bene�ts ares of production landscapes.22 An in the context of agriculture and food even greater coverage has been security investments. A wide range achieved through integrated eco- of global environment bene�ts is system management, which facilitates possible based on the nature SLM across wider landscapes for bio- of GEF investment, with links diversity conservation and climate to priorities of focal areas change mitigation. through which the �nancing is allocated (see Table 10). GEF investment in SLM fosters a diversi�ed portfolio of interventions from farm-level to wider landscapes, with a focus on maintaining or improving the productivity 22 Estimate is based on LD portfolio synthesis in the 2010 GEF Annual Monitoring Report available at http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/�les/documents/C.40.04-AMR2010_updatedAug11.pdf. 58 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY BOX 17 Eritrea: Boosting agricultural production through integrated approaches in the Central Highland Zone Natural resources are central to the livelihoods of the Eritrean population in general and critical in the Central Highland Ecological Zone, where 65% of the total population lives. The main causes of land degradation in the Central Highland Zone (CHZ) of Eritrea are inappro- priate agricultural practices, unsustainable use of woodlots and natural forests, inherently poorly developed soils, insecure land-tenure systems that discourage investment in sustainable practices, poorly coordinated land use planning and limited application of knowledge and tech- nologies by farmers to enhance productivity. To tackle these challenges, the UNDP/GEF Pilot Sustainable Land Management (SLM) project is creating an SLM enabling environment, hinging its strategies both at upstream (policy) and at community levels. In line with the 1994 Land Proclamation, barely put into practice, the project is testing implementation of the decrees on the shift from the seven-year rotational temporary land-ownership system to a usufruct-based system with permanent possession by farmers. This new scheme of land ownership incentiv- izes farmers to make long-term investment on agricultural and individual forest plots to combat land degradation. In refurbishing the unsustainable agricultural practices, the project launched the concept of a village-based land use system to ensure land is used for its best economic and ecosystem ser- vices. Over the hilly and complex landscape of the CHZ, the project is promoting the principles of conservation agriculture, whereby intensive soil and water conservation and re/afforesta- tion programs minimize land degradation and soil erosion. In sequel, through active community participation, 470 km of hill side and 300 m3 of check dam have been constructed; aided by machinery works, 22.5 ha of land have been leveled for irrigation. In addition, 255,938 indige- nous trees have been planted. The mosaic of different but integrated interventions is expected to boost agricultural production, strengthening communities and livelihoods. The Eritrea Pilot SLM project is one of 37 �nanced by the GEF through the “Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in sub-Saharan Africa� under the TerrAfrica partnership, and whose activities are integrated into the action program of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). At least 25 countries are involved in the pro- gram overall, with projects covering a wide range of ecologies and agro-ecosystems across sub-Saharan Africa. of drylands, rain-fed and irrigated water-saving techniques, are helping sustained productivity of farm lands, systems. Interventions such as crop farmers in many developing countries while maximizing ecosystem service diversi�cation, crop rotation, con- to secure fragile production lands flows. Furthermore, arresting soil ero- servation agriculture, agroforestry from further deterioration (e.g. Box sion and siltation in the production and small-scale irrigation schemes, 17). As a result, potential gains in landscapes will also reduce the risk of as well as water harvesting and soil health and quality will enable sedimentation in aquatic systems. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 59 TABLE 10 Potential Global Environmental and Adaptation Bene�ts from Leveraging Investments in Agriculture and Food Security INVESTMENT TYPOLOGY OF INTERVENTIONS EXAMPLES OF GEBS / GEF FOCAL CATEGORY FOR PROJECT SUPPORT ADAPTATION BENEFITS AREA(S) Management t $PMMFDUJPOBOEDPOTFSWBUJPOPG t $POTFSWBUJPOPGJOEJHFOPVTBOEBEBQUJWF BD of germplasm, knowledge management crop genetic resources LD Agricultural and awareness-raising t .BJOUFOBODFPGQPMMJOBUPSTBOEiCJPDPOUSPMw CC-A Biodiversity t 1SBDUJDFTBOEUFDIOPMPHJFTGPS species on farms optimal use of crop genetic diversity 1SFTFSWBUJPOPGJOEJHFOPVTLOPXMFEHF QSBD- t t %FWFMPQNFOUPGQPMJDJFTBUOBUJPOBM tices and production systems and regional levels %JWFSTJmDBUJPOPGDSPQTPOGBSNTBOEJO t t *OTUJUVUJPOBMEFWFMPQNFOUBUOBUJPOBM  existing production systems regional levels and community levels .BJOUFOBODFBOEJNQSPWFNFOUPGTPJMIFBMUI t t.FUIPETUPJNQSPWFQSPEVDUJWJUZ and quality (i.e. below-ground biodiversity) *NQSPWFBHSJDVMUVSBMNBSLFUJOH t *ODSFBTFEWFHFUBUJWFDPWFSBOETPJMDBSCPOJO t services as incentives for conservation production landscapes &YUFOTJPO EFNPOTUSBUJPOBOE t 3FEVDFEEFNBOEGPSDMFBSBODFPG t training activities for scaling-up natural habitats (deforestation) Sustainable t ,OPXMFEHFCBTFPO4-.CFTU t %JWFSTJmDBUJPOPGGBSNTBOEFYJTUJOH LD Land practices in agricultural lands production systems IW Management t .JDSPJSSJHBUJPO BOETPJMBOE t .BJOUFOBODFBOEJNQSPWFNFOUPGTPJMIFBMUI CCA in Crop and water conservation t 4VTUBJOFEnPXPGXBUFSSFTPVSDFT CC-M Rangelands t *OTUJUVUJPOBMDBQBDJUZEFWFMPQNFOUGPS for irrigation sustainable land management *ODSFBTFEUSFFBOEWFHFUBUJWFDPWFSJO t t *OOPWBUJPOTUPSFWFSTFMBOE crop lands degradation and restore *ODSFBTFETPJMDBSCPOTFRVFTUSBUJPO t degraded lands 3FEVDFEFSPTJPOBOETJMUBUJPOSJTLT t t *OTUJUVUJPOBMmOBODFGPS in water bodies land management 1SFTFSWBUJPOPGJOEJHFOPVTLOPXMFEHF t t $PNNVOJUZCBTFEMBOENBOBHFNFOU and practices t&DPTZTUFNBOEQBTUVSFNBOBHFNFOU 4VTUBJOBCJMJUZPGHSB[JOHMBOETBOE t pasture systems Sustainable t'JTIFSJFTNBOBHFNFOU t $POTFSWBUJPOBOENBJOUFOBODFPG IW Fisheries t *OUFHSBUFEXBUFSSFTPVSDF �sh diversity BD and Water management in lake basins t 4VTUBJOBCJMJUZPGmTITUPDLTBOESFEVDFESJTL CC-A Resources t *OUFHSBUFEDPBTUBMNBOBHFNFOU of depletion Management t-BSHFNBSJOFFDPTZTUFN *NQSPWFERVBMJUZBOEnPXPGGSFTIXBUFS t t1FSTJTUFOUUPYJDTVCTUBODFT 3FEVDFESJTLPGTJMUBUJPOBOEQPMMVUJPOJO t t *OUFHSBUFEXBUFSSFTPVSDF freshwater bodies and coastal marine areas management in river basins *ODSFBTFEQSPUFDUJPOPGBRVJGFST t t *OUFHSBUFEXBUFSSFTPVSDF and wetlands management in aquifers -FBSOJOHBOEDBQBDJUZCVJMEJOH t > 60 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY < CONT’D TABLE 10 Potential Global Environmental and Adaptation Bene�ts from Leveraging Investments in Agriculture and Food Security INVESTMENT TYPOLOGY OF INTERVENTIONS EXAMPLES OF GEBS / GEF FOCAL CATEGORY FOR PROJECT SUPPORT ADAPTATION BENEFITS AREA(S) Climate t *OTUJUVUJPOBMDBQBDJUZEFWFMPQNFOU t 3FEVDFEWVMOFSBCJMJUZPGDSPQBOEMJWFTUPDL CC-A Change at national, local and district level for production practices Adaptation planning and management of climate *ODSFBTFESFTJMJFODFPGDSPQBOEMJWFTUPDL t for change adaptation production systems and agro-ecologies Food Security .BJOTUSFBNJOHDMJNBUFDIBOHF t .BJOUFOBODFPGBEBQUJWFDSPQBOE t adaptation in the agricultural sector livestock resources ,OPXMFEHFNBOBHFNFOU  t codi�cation of best practices for adaptation to climate change %FWFMPQNFOUPGFBSMZ t warning systems, hydro- meteorological databases 3FTFBSDIEFWFMPQNFOUQJMPUJOHPG t resilient adaptation systems 8BUFSSFTPVSDFTNBOBHFNFOUJO t agricultural sector $PNNVOJUZESJWFOJOJUJB- t tives to enhance livelihood and coping strategies %FNPOTUSBUJPOBOEUFDIOJDBM t guidance, dissemination of knowledge on adaptation and food security In most developing countries, SLM production systems and reduces where the affected water bodies represents a major opportunity for pressure on natural areas, especially are transboundary in nature, and sustainable intensi�cation of existing those under threat from agricul- for which collaborative engage- farmlands through ef�cient manage- tural expansion. At the same time, it ment by countries involved is crucial ment of nutrients (combining organic reduces the various externalities that (e.g. Box 18). and inorganic sources of fertilizers), arise from conventional approaches integrated management of land and to intensifying production, such as water resources (“blue water� and the overuse of inorganic fertilizers “green water�23) and diversi�cation and pesticides that lead to eutrophi- of farming systems (combining crops, cation and sedimentation of surface trees and livestock). This approach water bodies. This particular ben- ensures improved management e�t of SLM is also relevant to the IW of agro-ecosystem services across focal area, especially in geographies 23 Green water and blue water are used to describe water use in non-irrigated (rain-fed) and irrigated agriculture, respectively. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 61 BOX 18 Transboundary (Kagera River basin): Integrated management for food security and ecosystem services The Kagera River basin is located in Eastern Africa and is shared by four countries: Burundi, Rwanda, United Republic of Tanzania and Uganda. The basin covers a surface area of 59,700 km2 and occupies a strategic position, contributing to almost a fourth of the inflow into Lake Victoria. The tributaries of the Kagera River in Rwanda and Burundi are fed by the remotest upstream sources of the River Nile: maintenance of the Kagera flow regime is vital for water levels in Lake Victoria and outflow to the Nile. More than 16.5 million people live in the Kagera basin, the majority rural, depending directly on farming, herding and �shing activi- ties. Land use includes a range of diverse production systems: extensive and intensive livestock systems; cropping systems — cereals associated with legumes and tubers; and mixed farming systems (agroforestry, crop-livestock, crop-�sh and systems dominated by perennial crops — bananas, coffee and tea). The FAO/GEF “Transboundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project for the Kagera River Basin,� approved by the GEF in June 2009, is a strategic response by the four countries to collaboratively tackle large-scale degradation of ecosystem services and associated effects on food security and livelihoods in fragile watersheds of the basin. Frequent and uncontrolled burning of vegetation on rangelands and cultivated land, and cultivation on marginal areas (steep slopes, fragile soils) contribute to the loss of protective vegetation cover and biodi- versity. These processes lead to substantial runoff, which causes accelerated soil erosion and downstream sedimentation of water courses and lakes. The impacts of these processes include a loss of productive land and a signi�cant reduction in productivity, as well as negative effects on the quality of water, the hydrological regime and recharge of the water table and, hence, on the amount of available water. As a result, food insecurity increases, as well as vulnerability to periods of drought and floods — aspects that are already heightened by climate change. With a GEF grant of US$6.36 million and co-�nancing of more than US$21 million contributed by governments of all four countries, partner organizations in the basin and by FAO, the project will promote an integrated ecosystems approach for management of land resources in the Kagera basin that will generate local, national and global bene�ts. The project approach will facilitate planning and policy processes at basin level, while promoting adoption of improved land use systems and management practices that generate improved livelihoods and eco- system services. Sustainable management of shared land and ecosystems of the Kagera basin and revitalized farm-livelihood systems will generate signi�cant environmental bene�ts through restoration of well-functioning ecosystems and maintenance of their goods and services. In the context of addressing increased food security and improved rural livelihoods, the project will deliver important environmental bene�ts such as carbon sequestration, protection of international waters, agrobiodiversity conservation and sustainable use. The Kagera Basin project is one of 37 �nanced by the GEF through the “Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management in sub-Saharan Africa� under the TerrAfrica part- nership, and whose activities are integrated into the action program of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). At least 25 countries are involved in the program overall, with projects covering a wide range of ecologies and agro-ecosystems across sub-Saharan Africa. 62 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY “ SLM INTERVENTIONS THAT IMPROVE SOIL AND LAND QUALITY ALSO CON- GEF �nancing also helps to improve TRIBUTE TO INCREASING SOIL OR- and sustain the economic pro- GANIC CARBON, AS WELL AS ABOVE- ductivity, as well as environmental sustainability, of rangeland and agro- GROUND BIOMASS ACCUMULATION. � pastoral systems. Speci�cally, GEF �nancing targets SLM priorities such as improved grazing management and livestock fodder alternatives, climate change mitigation is likely to vegetables that are important sources as part of investments to enable vary considerably depending on type of nutrition in developing countries. livestock producers to maintain sus- of agro-ecosystem and production This is achieved through projects that tainable livelihoods through effective practices. Therefore, climate change foster in-situ conservation of impor- planning; animal selection, nutrition mitigation through SLM will likely tant crop genetic resources, livestock and reproduction; and herd health. impose trade-offs for food security breeds, landraces and crop wild rela- The GEF also supports interven- and livelihoods. This implies that tives; and through conservation and tions that safeguard rangelands from emphasis on GHG emissions and management of globally important risk of degradation, through actions carbon sequestration as global envi- agricultural heritage systems (e.g. Box such as reducing water and wind ero- ronment bene�t from SLM may not 19). GEF investment in these projects sion, resolving wildlife–livestock–crop always be appropriate for projects ensures that the genetic resources conflicts and creating fodder-banks. targeting food security. and associated management prac- While the types of interventions tices are sustained for posterity, while Agrobiodiversity — Preserving future options for agriculture and are influenced by the context, the the Global Heritage food security are maintained. ecosystem service bene�ts are con- sistent with respect to keeping the The assessment has shown that rangelands productive and healthy. GEF �nancing plays an important role in safeguarding the genetic diversity A major global environment bene�t of major food crops around the of SLM is the potential for reducing world, including fruits and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and increasing carbon sequestration in agricultural and rangeland systems, as a contribution to climate change mitigation. SLM interventions that improve soil and land quality also contribute to increasing soil organic carbon, as well as above-ground biomass accumulation. For most developing countries, the synergy between climate change mitigation and food security is best mani- fested in projects that demonstrate these multiple environmental ben- e�ts. However, while increase in soil carbon is a useful indicator of SLM achievements, the value-added for TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 63 Important food crops bene�ting from Maintaining local crop genetic contributing to the conservation and GEF �nancing include rice in Asia diversity on-farm not only con- sustainable use of pollinators globally. (China, Philippines and Vietnam), tributes to sustainable production date palms in the Maghreb, coffee and farmers’ livelihoods, but also A third aspect of agrobiodiversity in Ethiopia, and potatoes in the reduces the uses of pesticides. The is the important attribute of soils in Andes region. use of genetic diversity can also be production landscapes, where the applied as part of Integrated Pest living components (e.g. microbes, Agrobiodiversity also embodies Management (IPM) — an ecosystem- mycorrhizal fungi, earthworms) play the range of supporting functions based approach to preventing and important supporting functions, such associated with management of controlling pest damage that com- as decomposition of organic matter, pests, diseases, and pollination in bines techniques such as biological nutrient cycling and disease control. production systems. GEF �nancing control and habitat manipulation. By investing in knowledge and tools helps in development of “diver- GEF �nancing has also helped to for conservation and management sity rich� solutions to manage pest value pollination as an important of below-ground biodiversity, the and disease pressures for small and service in agro-ecosystems, thereby GEF is helping improve and maintain marginal farmers around the world. healthy soils for crop and livestock BOX 19 Regional (Maghreb): Conservation and adaptive management of agricultural heritage systems The oases of the Maghreb region are green islands flourishing in a constraining and harsh environment. They are home to a diversi�ed and highly intensive and productive oases system, which has been developed over millennia. Old but sophisticated irrigation architectures, supported through customary local resource-management institutions, ensure a fair water dis- tribution and constitute a crucial element of the oases systems. Agricultural products from the oases systems provide an important source of nutrition and income for its inhabitants; they are the primary or secondary source of livelihood for many. However, oases systems are threatened by the depletion of aquifers through modern irrigation structures, the disruption of customary institutions for managing water systems and associated ruptures in transfer of specialized traditional knowledge. Through the FAO/GEF project on Conservation and Adaptive Management of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS), a multi-stakeholder participatory process was used to identify and assess needs, aspirations and priorities of the oases communities in Algeria and Tunisia. The project also helped the oases communities to identify, safeguard and add economic value to the oases’ agricultural biodiversity. Training of farmers, youth and women from Gafsa (Tunisia) and El Oued (Algeria) is being conducted regularly. At the same time, local actors (farmers, women, civil societies, youth) are more engaged in agricultural activities. Various media are increasing awareness of the importance of agricultural patrimony. The project has helped local communities identify and adopt policies and strategies to safeguard the cul- tural patrimony of oases in Gafsa and El Oued. Agricultural practices and local institutions that maintain diversity in the oases are also revitalized. 64 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY BOX 20 Senegal: Community-driven �sheries conservation The coastline of Senegal is home to some of the richest �shing grounds in the world. Fishing and associated activities such as processing, marketing, services and other part-time activities together are estimated to provide more than 600,000 jobs in Senegal, which equals approxi- mately 17% of the labor force and 10% of the total rural population. In addition to livelihoods, the �sheries in Senegal make an extremely signi�cant contribution to food security, constituting some 70% of animal protein consumption in the country: estimated annual per capita �sh con- sumption is 26 kg (well above the world average of 16 kg). The World Bank/GEF Sustainable Management of Fish Resources project empowered communities to reduce �shing pressure on the �sh stocks supporting the central coastal �sheries of Senegal, from the Cap Vert Peninsula south to the Saloum River Delta. With GEF �nancing, a sustainable supply of �sh in Senegal’s waters was achieved through a number of measures implemented by well-organized community �shing groups. The project helped the communities establish no-�shing zones, erect arti�cial reefs and support monitoring with boats and equipment. As a result, �sh catches are now more sustainable. The commu- nity of Ngaparou, which lies just south of Dakar (Senegal’s capital), is now so well organized that it exports part of its catch to markets in Europe. Not only has the project been successful at increasing the availability of �sh to feed Senegal’s population, it has also been an economic boon to many coastal �shing communities. productivity. This enables land users to has led to development of regional resources management are mainly harness the services provided by the treaties, protocols and agree- demonstrated through projects soil organisms as natural assets, while ments for sustainable management focusing on �sheries management, contributing to their preservation. of the resources.24 Strategic action irrigation flow and control of nutrient plans emerging from intergovern- pollution. GEF �nancing for collab- Safeguarding mental cooperation include targeted orative �sheries management by the Aquatic Commons interventions to ensure long-term governments helps improve the health Sustaining hydrological services is a availability and flow of freshwater, and of �sh stocks, protect breeding zones growing challenge in the agriculture �sheries resources for consumptive for �sh species and support devel- and food security sector, and for which use by the countries. GEF �nancing opment of policies and institutional GEF �nancing has been leveraged is contributing to implementation of frameworks to tackle the economic to target speci�c agro-ecosystems action plans for major lake and river drivers of over�shing (e.g. Box 20). In around the world. To date, 22 trans- basins such as Lake Victoria, which is coastal areas, the GEF targets proj- boundary river basins, eight lake a lifeline for over 30 million people. ects that advance ecosystem-based basins, �ve groundwater systems and approaches to balance the demand 16 large marine ecosystems, have The agriculture and food security for �sh resources with the need for bene�ted from GEF �nancing; this linkages of integrated water species and habitat conservation. 24 Source: From Ridge to Reef: Water, Environment, and Community Security. GEF Action on Transboundary Water Resources. Global Environment Facility, Washington, DC. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 65 of the most urgent climate change effects. Climate vulnerabilities related to food security will also influence national economies and the stability of critical agro-ecosystems. GEF investments in adaptation help devel- oping countries deal with a myriad of challenges related to climate change and variability. The emphasis is on increasing adaptive capacity of farmers and enhancing resilience of production systems. The �rst step towards making agriculture and food production resil- ient to climate change is creation of awareness among farmers and poli- cymakers of climate variability and projected changes. The second step is to understand the inadequacy of business-as-usual agriculture prac- tices and policies in maintaining food security. Third is to use the available climate information to design agri- cultural systems that are resilient to Safeguarding water in irrigated irrigated lands and floodplains. GEF climate variability and change. In systems is key to ensuring long-term investment in the Danube River basin almost all projects, LDCF �nancing sustainability of food produc- is a model of regional cooperation for supports integration of assessed cli- tion. GEF �nancing speci�cally water quality improvement based on mate risks into agriculture-related advances Integrated Water Resource achievements in controlling nutrient policies at all levels and practices. Management (IWRM), which com- pollution through IWRM. This helps improve the existing deci- bines innovative technologies for sion-making schemes at national to irrigation with options and incen- tives to reduce demand for water in Adaptation and local levels, and to alter farm and agricultural systems. This approach Resilience Bene�ts crop management according to the expected changes. ensures the needs of farmers are Guided by the UNFCCC mandate met, while reducing waste of scarce and aligned with country priorities, Projects have introduced use of water resources. GEF �nancing for LDCF and SCCF �nancing targets drought-resilient crop varieties and IWRM also plays a major role in tack- climate change effects that threaten supported farmers with appropriate ling nutrient pollution from excessive livelihoods and development in extension services that provide use of chemical fertilizers in irrigated developing countries. As demon- help with the new techniques. In systems. Nitrogen pollution is an strated by a number of studies, water-scarce areas, climate change emerging global problem because as well as priorities stated in the adaptation funds have provided of its link to coastal “dead zones� National Adaptation Plans of Action infrastructure and training for in�eld resulting from poor management of (NAPA), risks to food security is one rainwater harvesting; medium-range 66 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY BOX 21 Niger: Building resilience and adaptive capacity in the agriculture sector In Niger, population is heavily dependent on rain-fed agriculture and pastoralism for survival. The projected increase in temperature and decrease in rainfall will add strain on the com- munities whose livelihoods are so closely tied to climatic factors. The UNDP/GEF project on Implementing NAPA Priority Interventions to Build Resilience and Adaptive Capacity of the Agriculture Sector to Climate Change used LDFC resources to address this challenge. The project adheres to NAPA priorities of Niger, focusing speci�cally on building climate-change resilience in the agricultural sector of the country. Prior to the project, farmers in target areas had limited knowledge of climate change. They did not have access to information that could help them make appropriate decisions to reduce their losses due to climate change. The project supports training to �ll this capacity gap. It also pro- vides extension services for distribution of seasonal weather forecasts and local advice on the design of water and crop management strategies. In addition, the project supports the incor- poration of adaptation to climate change issues into provincial and local development and risk management plans. In a drought-prone country like Niger, soil–water retention is of great importance for agricultural productivity. With the project’s �nancial and technical support, farmers are prac- ticing improved soil management methods such as construction of zaï pits. Zaï pits, which are essentially holes of approximately 0.5 m �lled with manure and topsoil, provide greater water retention capacity and also have higher soil nutrient content. The farmers participating in the project planted millet, sorghum and maize in the zaï holes; they observed increased productivity relative to plants sown outside of the zaïs. weather forecast systems have been to prevent further erosion in Sudan and fruit farms among the mangroves developed to deal with uncertain and promoting indigenous micro- protected and rehabilitated for rainfall. In Sudan, through the LDCF catchment techniques like zaï pits storm protection (Box 22). Beyond grant, wells were dug to sustainably and semi-circular bunds to retain soil the smallholder farmers, sustainable provide groundwater for irrigation moisture in Burkina Faso and Niger management of natural resources and household activities. (Box 21). could create new sources of employ- ment and stable incomes for local Safeguarding soil quality is key to LDCF employs an integrated communities. In the long term, maintaining agricultural productivity; approach to natural resource man- such an investment in highly vulner- a number of projects employ soil agement in addressing food security able regions like the Sahel will help management practices known to limit risks posed by climate change. In reduce the risk of environmental additional risks that climate change Bangladesh, for example, LDCF conflict and contribute to improving may pose. Certain practices have �nancing is helping diversify liveli- overall security. been known to maintain soil quality. hoods and create project ownership These include planting seedlings by promoting small-scale aquaculture TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 67 BOX 22 Bangladesh: Community-based adaptation to climate change through coastal afforestation Bangladesh is one of the countries most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The country NAPA, and numerous other scienti�c-based assessments, clearly state sea-level rise and extreme events to be the most urgent threat due to climate change. Through the UNDP/ GEF project on Integrating Community-based Adaptation into Afforestation and Reforestation Programs in Bangladesh, LDCF resources are helping the country tackle this challenging problem through improved management of natural resources. The project will implement effective community-based adaptation measures in 19 coastal districts. Communities will be involved in planting a more genetically diverse mix of mangrove species that has higher regenerating abilities. To gain local support and ensure sustainability for the ongoing afforestation practices in the region, the communities have been involved in nursery management, as well as in planting seedlings. In addition, the LDCF project will train the communities in sustainable use of mangroves and integrate livelihood diversi�cation methods such as �sheries, fruit farming and livestock rearing into the afforested areas. This will include a mound–ditch–type plantation of mangrove and palm species (serving predominantly protective functions) with interspersed fruit trees (Bau Kul, Apple and Guava) and aquaculture. The top surface of the mounds will provide an opportunity to grow vegetables and gourds, whereas aquaculture in the ditch will sustain �sh production for local communities. The integrated approach will ensure the coastal greenbelts, which protect the livelihood assets of communities, will be valued, maintained and managed in a participatory manner. By facili- tating community ownership and by providing economic incentives for communities to nurture, protect and conserve newly planted greenbelt structures, the LDCF project is contributing towards sustainability of these natural buffers. Climate change adaptation projects the agriculture sector and payment and food production. Harnessing are engaging local communities in for ecosystem services, can protect these options will also require certain on-the-ground activities. In addi- investments in uncertain climate con- conditions to ensure empowerment, tion to creating project ownership, ditions. In some regions, they also equity (including gender) and rights they are demonstrating that cli- offer new and sustainable sources of of the communities. For this to be mate-informed management of income for local communities. achieved, the programs will consider natural resources represents a long- tools and mechanisms to empower term strategy for safeguarding and The success of these opportunities communities hobbled by high illit- improving livelihood options. Other depends on the design of incentive eracy rates (which are often higher for development opportunities, such as mechanisms that facilitate implemen- women). The projects funded through community-based ecotourism, alter- tation of integrated land, water and LDCF and SCCF pay special attention native livelihood options, expansion forest management practices with full to gender; progress is tracked through of suitable insurance schemes for understanding of ecosystem flows gender-disaggregated indicators. 68 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY “ ...CLIMATE-INFORMED MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES The different needs, responsibilities REPRESENTS A LONG-TERM STRATEGY and interests of women and men FOR SAFEGUARDING AND IMPROVING should continue to be considered in efforts of building climate resilience LIVELIHOOD OPTIONS. � in production landscapes. The Challenge of harnessing and sustaining ecosystem of land use practices to enhance Managing Trade-offs services in production systems. But sustainable flow of ecosystem ser- and Synergies the diversity of approaches inherent vices. Integrated approaches must in GEF projects do sometimes create opportunities to improve This assessment demonstrates present challenges for sustainability crop and livestock productivity for a strong link between the GEF of the ecosystem services due to food security and livelihoods of mandate for investing in global trade-offs. The GEF therefore seeks the target bene�ciaries. Synergies environment bene�ts and global to maximize synergies in its proj- are possible where the proposed aspirations for achieving agricultural ects, while emphasizing the need to interventions are appropriate and sustainability and food security. It manage trade-offs between environ- adequate to meet the needs of land shows the GEF is directing signi�cant ment and development goals. users.25 For example, the use of tree- amounts of resources to this devel- based practices such as agroforestry opment priority through its focal For projects in the terrestrial realm, a for improving soil fertility can lead areas, addressing the potential for major challenge lies with integration to higher crop yields, while contrib- uting to carbon sequestration and increasing resilience in the produc- tion system. But synergy can only be achieved if the practice is appropri- ately targeted and, at the same time, embraced by land users. Trade-offs are sometimes inevitable when sustainable land management (SLM) practices are implemented to generate ecosystem service bene- �ts at scale. Because of the diversity of practices available to land users and the dynamic nature of produc- tion landscapes, informed choices must be made on options that will minimize trade-offs in land, water and biomass production. In some cases, SLM outcomes that gen- erate ecosystem service bene�ts can also create new stressors in the production systems (Table 11). 25 See: Palm, C.A. et al. (2010). Identifying potential synergies and trade-offs for meeting food security and climate change objectives in sub-Saharan Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,107(46):19661-19666 TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 69 TABLE 11 Examples of Potential Trade-offs from Implementation of SLM in Production Systems PRODUCTION SLM OUTCOME POTENTIAL TRADE-OFF IMPLICATION FOR SYSTEM PROJECT APPROACH Rangelands Increased vegetative cover and Increased livestock population Establish livestock biodiversity in pastures and creates new pressures on thresholds and carrying grazing areas natural habitats capacity or create fodder alternatives Agriculture Improved small-scale irrigation for Expansion of crop produc- Integrate management crop production tion increases risk of water options for improving resources depletion hydrological flows in the landscape Forest Increased tree and forest cover Shifting of crop production creates Enhance shift Landscapes new pressures on natural habitats toward high- value tree crops in the production landscape GEF �nancing ensures that projects emphasizes the integrated projects is payments for ecosystem are designed to accommodate these management of water resources, services (PES), a mechanism that challenges, including the applica- including policy and institutional “compensates land users for off-site tion of decision-support tools that frameworks to facilitate effective ecological bene�ts associated with balance the interests of multiple governance at scale. This approach biodiversity conservation land-use stakeholders. The UNEP/GEF global ensures that informed choices are practices.�29 The World Bank/GEF project on Alternatives to Slash-and- made to enhance sustainability of multi-focal Integrated Silvopastoral Burn (ASB) developed such a tool to the ecosystem services and simul- Approaches to Ecosystem help address greenhouse gas emis- taneously reduce the stressors. Management regional project imple- sions due to deforestation in the Groundwater depletion through mented in Colombia, Costa Rica and tropical forest margins.26 The ASB excessive withdrawal for agriculture Nicaragua, used the PES approach to Matrix, which was developed from increasingly demands speci�c focus demonstrate potential for achieving project activities, has now emerged for integrated management. The focal sustainability and productivity of cattle as an important flagship tool for area also invests in a “learning plat- ranching by smallholder farmers. trade-off analysis in SLM at the form� to facilitate knowledge sharing Though implemented on a modest agriculture–forestry interface.27 and exchange among stakeholders.28 scale, the project resulted in some 12,000 hectares with improved biodi- Synergies and trade-offs are also An important approach to managing versity and carbon sequestration, with typical of GEF projects in aquatic trade-offs in GEF projects is the use of measurable impacts on livelihood of systems, especially in relation to irri- �nancial and incentive mechanisms farmers. This has led to the design of gation and �sheries management. for land users. A common example additional projects for strengthening Fortunately, the IW approach linked to agriculture and food security sustainable ranching in the region. 26 See: Palm, C.A. et al. (eds.) 2005. Slash-and-Burn Agriculture: The Search for Alternatives. Columbia University Press, New York. 27 See: World Bank, 2006. Sustainable Land Management: Challenges, Opportunities and Trade-offs. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank, Washington, DC. 28 See www.iwlearn.net 29 GEF 2010. Payments for Ecosystem Services. Global Environment Facility, Washington, DC. See also: Wunder, S. et al. 2010. Payments for Environmental Services and the Global Environment Facility: A STAP Advisory Document. 70 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 71 Strengthening the GEF’s Role in SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE and FOOD SECURITY 72 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY The GEF role as �nancial mechanism of the Conventions will continue to gain importance as all developing countries seek to address environment and development goals in an integrated manner. Consequently, potential increases in development �nancing for agriculture and food security will create new opportunities for the GEF to target global environment and adaptation bene�ts in production systems. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 73 This assessment has shed some light on how the GEF mandate directly supports global aspirations for environmental sustainability and resilience in the agriculture and food security sectors. This section pro- vides additional justi�cation for GEF positioning, including �ndings from Overall Performance Studies (OPS), current priorities of the Conventions and emerging opportunities in the environment–development nexus. Learning from the GEF Overall Performance Studies Most of the lessons and experiences with regard to GEF �nancing in pro- duction systems have also been consistently highlighted in the Overall Performance Studies (OPS) of the GEF. These are indepen- dently conducted, state-of-the-art and authoritative reviews of the GEF Replenishment Phases. Four OPS reviews have been conducted to date, providing very insightful knowl- edge on GEF operations, including lessons from focal area activities. The Pilot Phase (1991–1994), which was conducted as an independent evaluation, highlighted some early achievements of projects related to agriculture and food security. Two projects, the World Bank/GEF project on In-Situ Conservation of Genetic Biodiversity in Turkey and the UNDP/GEF Project on A Dynamic Farmer-based Approach to the 74 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY “ ...THE GEF ALSO TAKES NOTE OF EMERGING DEVELOPMENT Conservation of African Plant PRIORITIES AS DRIVEN BY DEMANDS Resources in Ethiopia were cited OF THE CHANGING GLOBAL as good examples of projects with global bene�ts.30 ENVIRONMENT, INCLUDING THE The Second OPS (OPS2) provided CHALLENGE OF FEEDING AN many more examples of projects that were important entry points EVER-GROWING POPULATION. � for GEF support to the agriculture and food security sector. These included highlights of relevant focal area achievements based on the and sustainable use of biodiversity the critical role of the IW focal area in GEF Operational Programs.31 The important to agriculture (OP13).32 It addressing cross-border challenges, Operational Program on Integrated was reported that 13% of assessed such as land-based sources of water Ecosystem Management (OP12) and projects directly addressed issues pollution, loss of critical habitats and on Conservation and Sustainable Use related to agrobiodiversity, and biodiversity, overuse and conflicting of Biological Diversity Important to involved agricultural landscapes, uses of surface and groundwater, Agriculture (OP13) paved the way farmers and traditional agricultural integrated water resource manage- for countries to design innovative practices. The UNEP/GEF regional ment, overharvesting of �sheries and projects for safeguarding ecosystem project on Community-Based adaptation to climatic fluctuations. services in production systems. OP12 Management of On-Farm Plant In addition to their cross-cutting was the GEF window for SLM projects Genetic Resources in Arid and Semi- nature and overlap with other focal prior to designation of the dedicated Arid Areas of Sub-Saharan Africa areas, these challenges are at the Land Degradation focal area, while was cited as having achieved inno- heart of the GEF’s role in tackling OP13 enabled GEF �nancing for vative results in indigenous crop food insecurity. crop and livestock genetic resources. conservation by increasing knowl- OPS2 noted that GEF projects con- edge and understanding of the value of indigenous crops among farmers, Alignment with tributed to prevention and reduction of land degradation by arresting the identifying the types of policies Convention Strategies loss of woody vegetation, defores- required at all levels for conservation As �nancial mechanism of major tation and unsustainable fuel wood and establishing the basis for replica- environmental Conventions, the use; managing overharvesting of flora tion beyond the scope of the project. GEF develops its focal area strate- and fauna; and reversing habitat con- gies largely in response to guidance Although the Fourth OPS (OPS4) did version from cropping and pasture from the relevant Conference of the not offer detailed highlights of spe- expansion and urban development. Parties (COP). In addition, the GEF ci�c project achievements, agriculture also takes note of emerging develop- The Third OPS (OPS3) highlighted and food security were considered as ment priorities as driven by demands achievements with agrobiodiver- important aspects of the global con- of the changing global environment, sity through projects speci�cally text for GEF investments under the including the challenge of feeding an designed to support the conservation different focal area mandates and ever-growing population. strategies.33 In particular, OPS4 noted 30 World Bank 1994. Global Environment Facility: Independent Evaluation of the Pilot Phase. UNDP, UNEP, World Bank. 31 GEF 2002. The First Decade of the GEF: Second Overall Performance Study (OPS2). Global Environment Facility, Washington DC. 32 GEF 2005. Progressing Toward Environmental Results: Third Overall Performance Study (OPS3) of the Global Environment Facility. Of�ce of Monitoring and Evaluation of the GEF, Washington DC 33 GEF EO 2010. Fourth Overall Performance Study of the GEF (OPS4): Progress Toward Impact. GEF Evaluation Of�ce Document No. 54, Washington, DC. TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 75 UN Convention on Combating between 2008 and 2018.34 The Convention on Deserti�cation (UNCCD) Strategy aims to forge a global Biological Diversity The UNCCD text includes an partnership to reverse and prevent The CBD also recognizes the critical explicit mention of links between deserti�cation/land degradation and importance of conservation and sus- deserti�cation, drought and lack to mitigate the effects of drought tainable use of biological diversity for of food security as they relate to in order to help reduce poverty meeting the food, health and other affected countries and regions. The and support environmental sustain- needs of the growing world popu- Convention focuses primarily on the ability. Four strategic objectives with lation. At its �rst meeting in 1994, drylands, but its focus on combating their own long-term impacts guide the CBD COP decided to consider land degradation through sustainable the actions of all UNCCD stake- conservation and sustainable use land management practices makes holders and partners in seeking to of agricultural biodiversity, and it relevant for all countries. During achieve the global vision. Three the Eight Conference of the Parties of the strategic objectives have (COP8) in Madrid, Spain, the Parties expected impacts that can be directly adopted the “Strategy�— a stra- supported through GEF �nancing for tegic plan and framework of action projects in the agriculture and food for implementing the Convention security sector (Box 23). BOX 23 The UNCCD 10-Year Strategic Objectives (SOs) and Expected Impacts (EIs) with direct links to agriculture and food security SO1 - To improve the living conditions of affected communities t&*1FPQMFMJWJOHJOBSFBTBGGFDUFECZEFTFSUJmDBUJPOMBOEEFHSBEBUJPOBOEESPVHIU to have an improved and more diversi�ed livelihood base and to bene�t from income generated from sustainable land management t&*"GGFDUFEQPQVMBUJPOTTPDJPFDPOPNJDBOEFOWJSPONFOUBMWVMOFSBCJMJUZUPDMJNBUF change, climate variability and drought is reduced SO2 - To improve the conditions of affected ecosystems t&*-BOEQSPEVDUJWJUZBOEPUIFSFDPTZTUFNHPPETBOETFSWJDFTJOBGGFDUFEBSFBT enhanced in a sustainable manner contributing to improved livelihoods t&*5IFWVMOFSBCJMJUZPGBGGFDUFEFDPTZTUFNTUPDMJNBUFDIBOHF DMJNBUFWBSJBCJMJUZ and drought is reduced SO3 - To generate global bene�ts through effective implementation of the UNCCD t&*4VTUBJOBCMFMBOENBOBHFNFOUBOEDPNCBUJOHEFTFSUJmDBUJPOMBOEEFHSBEB- tion contribute to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and mitigation of climate change 34 http://www.unccd.int/Lists/Of�cialDocuments/cop8/16add1eng.pdf 76 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY BOX 24 Aichi Biodiversity Targets with direct links to agriculture and food security Target 6 - By 2020, all �sh and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants are managed and harvested sustainably, legally and applying ecosystem-based approaches, so that over�shing is avoided, recovery plans and measures are in place for all depleted species, �sheries have no signi�cant adverse impacts on threatened species and vulnerable ecosystems and the impacts of �sheries on stocks, species and ecosystems are within safe ecological limits. Target 7 - By 2020, areas under agriculture, aquaculture and forestry are managed sustainably, ensuring conservation of biodiversity. Target 8 - By 2020, pollution, including from excess nutrients, has been brought to levels that are not detrimental to ecosystem function and biodiversity. Target 13 - By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives, including other socioeconomically as well as culturally valuable species, is maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity. Target 18 - By 2020, the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and their customary use of biological resources, are respected, subject to national legislation and rel- evant international obligations, and fully integrated and reflected in the implementation of the Convention with the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities, at all relevant levels. subsequently established a multi-year 2011–2020.36 The Aichi Targets program of work on agricultural bio- include several that are of direct rele- diversity.35 The program of work vance to agriculture and food security includes a focus on four cross-cut- (Box 24), with potential for ting initiatives that are important for harnessing GEF �nancing to food security: pollinators; soil bio- address them. diversity; biodiversity for food and nutrition; and genetic use restric- tion technologies. At COP10 in Nagoya, the Parties adopted a revised and updated Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, including the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, for the period 35 http://www.cbd.int/agro/pow.shtml 36 http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 77 A focus on agricultural growth and with many countries is already quite food security has implications for advanced in this regard, and offers management and sustainability strategic entry points for transforma- of ecosystem services in produc- tional impact in the agriculture and tion systems, including in the face food security sector. However, much of global climate change. In par- more remains to be done elsewhere ticular, the environmental costs of across the developing world, espe- the Asian Green Revolution on eco- cially in sub-Saharan Africa where the system services such as depletion of task remains daunting. groundwater for irrigation are likely to be repeated elsewhere unless pru- Although global commitments to dent efforts are made to develop a agricultural development have poten- The Sustainable holistic approach that harnesses and tial to vastly improve land area under production through sustainable inten- Development Agenda: safeguards nature’s assets. World leaders at Rio+20 also recognized si�cation, the risk of deforestation Rio+20 and Beyond and habitat loss in fragile ecosystems “the need to maintain natural eco- The outcomes of the recent is likely to increase in parts of the logical processes that support food United Nations Conference on developing world. For example, the production systems,� and stressed Sustainable Development (Rio+20) Savanna zone in Africa was described “the crucial role of healthy marine include a focus on sustainable agri- in a recent FAO/World Bank pub- ecosystems, sustainable �sheries culture and food security as one of lication as the “sleeping giant� for and sustainable aquaculture for food the thematic areas for action and commercial agriculture, with poten- security and nutrition and in pro- follow-up.37 The world leaders spe- tial to transform the economy of viding for the livelihoods of millions ci�cally reaf�rmed the need “to many countries.38 Yet, in addition to of people.� promote, enhance and support more its spectacular ecology and rich bio- sustainable agriculture, including The GEF mandate as �nancial diversity, the Savanna zone contains crops, livestock, forestry, �sheries mechanism for global environment some of the world’s largest stocks of and aquaculture, that improves food and adaptation bene�ts offers a below-ground carbon, estimated at security, eradicates hunger and is unique opportunity to implement over 200 gigatons. The global com- economically viable, while conserving holistic approaches toward achieving munity cannot afford to predispose land, water, plant and animal genetic sustainability and resilience in pro- such a major source of potential resources, biodiversity and ecosys- duction systems. This is particularly carbon emissions to poor land use tems and enhancing resilience to critical for the natural resource and natural resource management. climate change and natural disas- focal areas — Land Degradation, In this context, the GEF mandate ters.� The potential for signi�cant Biodiversity and International Waters presents an opportunity for coun- investment in the relevant sectors — but also for climate change mitiga- tries to pursue land uses that will therefore remains strong, with a likely tion and adaptation. The GEF has two deliver transformational impact at focus on a new Green Revolution decades of experience responding scale without degrading the multiple agenda similar to that of the 1960s, to a diversity of country demands ecosystem services of such a globally which transformed Asian agriculture. on global environmental bene�ts in valuable asset. production systems. GEF partnership 37 http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/733FutureWeWant.pdf 38 FAO and World Bank 2009. Awakening Africa’s Sleeping Giant: Prospects for Commercial Agriculture in the Guinea Savannah Zone and Beyond. Directions in Development – Agriculture and Rural Development. The World Bank, Washington, DC 78 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY Agriculture and Food Security in the Green Economy For much of the developing world where rural poverty is pervasive, promoting a Green Economy in the agriculture sector means increasing farming yields and sustaining harvests without degrading the ecosystem ser- vices that underpin the production systems and practices. By investing in global environmental and adapta- tion bene�ts in production systems, the GEF is well placed as strategic partner to help advance the Green Economy agenda for agriculture and food security in developing coun- tries. However, there is need for greater coherence, coordination and integration between agricultural development, food security and cli- mate change policy processes at the national level. cross-sector dialogues between While plans for agricultural relevant agencies and institutions development and food security are involved in these planning processes expressed in national development is fundamental for advancing the strategies and poverty reduction Green Economy. This will ensure strategy papers (PRSPs), priori- a stronger alignment of develop- ties of the Conventions are limited ment investments with environmental to national action plans: National sustainability and climate change Action Plans (NAPs) for Combating adaptation needs. Deserti�cation, National Biodiversity Action Plans (NBSAPs), National Action Plans for Adaptation (NAPAs), and the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). Creation of mechanisms that foster TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 79 CONCLUSION and development goals.�39 This The assessment has assessment has demonstrated the demonstrated that GEF potential for delivering the triple �nancing to generate multiple bottom-line of CSA in production global environment and adap- landscapes — increased produc- tation bene�ts plays a vital tivity, enhanced climate resilience role in supporting the agricul- and greenhouse mitigation. All that At the international level, better ture and food security sector. is required are country-driven poli- integration of �nancing for food secu- cies that recognize the need for The approach to GEF �nancing rity, agricultural development and streamlining multiple environmental emphasizes targeted invest- climate change actions are needed. Sustainable transformation of the priorities at scale for long-term sus- ments in projects that address tainability and resilience. In the objectives of the focal areas, agriculture sector, necessitating drylands for example, water-ef�cient including support to coun- combined action on food security, approaches and productive safety development and climate change tries for implementation of nets must be implemented alongside will require large-scale investments the Conventions for which the concrete actions that diversify income to meet the projected costs. The GEF serves as �nancial mecha- and improve livelihoods of farmers extent to which agriculture could nism. The value-added of GEF and pastoralists. attract climate �nance in future will �nancing is evident from the depend on better recognition of its For communities dependent on diversity of interventions in signi�cant mitigation potential, its �sheries for food security, the need role as a driver of deforestation, the projects, and the potential for to balance current demands with importance of its adaptation to cli- sustainability of outcomes for future needs is key to helping them mate change for food security and people and the global envi- bene�t from a Green Economy in development and the feasibility and the sector. Securing healthy �sh ronment. By aligning focal costs of implementing action and stocks through improved policies area priorities with global measuring results. This effort can be and practices will remain a global aspirations for sustainable further enhanced by a robust replen- priority, for which the GEF is a stra- intensi�cation of production ishment of the GEF Trust Fund for tegic partner by providing �nancing systems, the GEF is well-placed �nancing global environment ben- under the International Waters focal to help feed the world while e�ts, and the two adaptation funds area. In addition, GEF �nancing (LDCF and SCCF) for investment in investing in our planet. under the Biodiversity focal area climate-resilient actions. can also support improved and effective management of marine An emerging opportunity for protected areas (MPAs) in threat- integrating global environ- ened ecosystems, such as coral ment and adaptation �nancing is reefs. In coastal areas, GEF support through Climate-Smart Agriculture through the LDCF and SCCF also (CSA), de�ned as “….agriculture helps advance ecosystem-based that sustainably increases pro- approaches for adaptation, including ductivity, resilience (adaptation), options to diversify livelihoods of reduces/removes greenhouse �sher communities. gases (mitigation), and enhances achievement of national food security 39 http://www.fao.org/climatechange/climatesmart/en/ 80 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY TWO DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) 81 www.thegef.org 82 INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ADAPTATION FOR FOOD SECURITY