GPR 57643 THE GLOBAL INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAM GLOBAL PROGRAM REVIEW Volume 3 Issue 4 THE WORLD BANK GROUP WORKING FOR A WORLD FREE OF POVERTY The World Bank Group consists of five institutions--the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the International Development Association (IDA), the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Its mission is to fight poverty for lasting results and to help people help themselves and their envi- ronment by providing resources, sharing knowledge, building capacity, and forging partnerships in the public and private sectors. THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION GROUP IMPROVING DEVELOPMENT RESULTS THROUGH EXCELLENCE IN EVALUATION The Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) is an independent, three-part unit within the World Bank Group. IEG-World Bank is charged with evaluating the activities of the IBRD (The World Bank) and IDA, IEG-IFC focuses on assessment of IFC's work toward private sector development, and IEG-MIGA evaluates the contributions of MIGA guarantee projects and services. IEG reports directly to the Bank's Board of Directors through the Director-General, Evaluation. The goals of evaluation are to learn from experience, to provide an objective basis for assessing the results of the Bank Group's work, and to provide accountability in the achievement of its objectives. It also improves Bank Group work by identifying and disseminating the lessons learned from experience and by framing recommendations drawn from evaluation findings. The Global Invasive Species Program September 3, 2009 Corporate and Global Evaluations and Methods http://www.globalevaluations.org ii ©2009 Independent Evaluation Group, The World Bank Group 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-458-4497 Internet: http://www.globalevaluations.org E-mail: grpp@worldbank.org All rights reserved This volume is a product of the staff of the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) of the World Bank Group. It is part of an ongoing series that reviews global and regional partnership programs in which the World Bank is engaged as one of the partners. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this volume do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent. IEG does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of IEG concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this publication is copyrighted. IEG encourages the dissemination of its work and permits these reviews to be copied or otherwise transmitted, with appropriate credit given to IEG as the authoring body. Cover image: People board a small ferry boat in front of a derelict freighter amid invasive water plants in the Meghna River in Bangladesh. Photo by Scott Wallace, courtesy of the World Bank Photo Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-60244-122-4 ISBN-10: 1-60244-122-7 Printed on Recycled Paper Independent Evaluation Group Communication, Learning, and Strategy (IEGCS) E-mail: grpp@worldbank.org Telephone: 202-458-4497 IEG Mission: Improving Development Results Through Excellence in Evaluation The Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) of the World Bank reviews global and regional partnership programs (GRPPs) in which the Bank is engaged as one partner among many for two main purposes: (a) to provide accountability in the achievement of the program's objectives by providing an independent opinion of the program's effectiveness, and (b) to identify and disseminate lessons learned from the experience of individual GRPPs. The preparation of a global or regional program review (GPR) is contingent on a recently completed evaluation of the program, typically commissioned by the governing body of the program. The first purpose above includes validating the findings of the GRPP evaluation with respect to the effectiveness of the program, and assessing the Bank's performance as a partner in the program. The second purpose includes assessing the independence and quality of the GRPP evaluation itself and drawing implications for the Bank's continued involvement in the program. Assessing the quality of GRPP evaluations is an important aspect of GPRs, since encouraging high quality evaluation methodology and practice more uniformly across Bank-supported GRPPs is one of the reasons why IEG embarked on this new product in 2005. IEG annually reviews a number of GRPPs in which the Bank is a partner. In selecting programs for review, preference is given to those that are innovative, large, or complex; those that are relevant to upcoming sector studies; those for which the Executive Directors or Bank management have requested reviews; and those that are likely to generate important lessons. IEG also aims for a representative distribution of GPRs across sectors in each fiscal year. A GPR is a "review" and not a full-fledged "evaluation." It assesses the independence and quality of the relevant evaluation; provides a second opinion on the effectiveness of the program; assesses the performance of the Bank as a partner in the program; and draws lessons for the Bank's engagement in global and regional programs. The GPR does not formally rate the various attributes of the program. A GPR involves a desk review of key documents, consultations with key stakeholders, and a mission to the program management unit (secretariat) of the program if this is located outside the World Bank or Washington, DC. Key stakeholders include the Bank's representative on the governing body of the program, the Bank's task team leader (if separate from the Bank's representative), the program chair, the head of the secretariat, other program partners (at the governance and implementing levels), and other Bank operational staff involved with the program. The writer of a GPR may also consult with the person(s) who conducted the evaluation of the GRPP. Each GPR is subject to internal IEG peer review, Panel review, and management approval. Once cleared internally, the GPR is reviewed by the responsible Bank department and the secretariat of the program. Comments received are taken into account in finalizing the document, and the formal management response from the program is attached as an annex to the final report. After the document has been distributed to the Bank's Board of Executive Directors, it is disclosed to the public on IEG's external Web site. This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. iv Abbreviations and Acronyms BNPP Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program CABI Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International CAS Country Assistance Strategy Paper (of the World Bank) CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CEPF Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research COP Conference of the Parties (Convention on Biological Diversity) DGF Development Grant Facility FAO Food and Agriculture Organization GEF Global Environment Facility GISIN Global Invasive Species Information Network GISP Global Invasive Species Program GPP Global Partnership Program GPR Global Program Review IAS Invasive Alien Species IEG Independent Evaluation Group (of the World Bank) IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IPPC International Plant Protection Convention IMO International Maritime Organization IUCN The World Conservation Union M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MSP Medium-Sized Project NGO Non-governmental Organization SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute SBSTTA Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice SCOPE Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment TNC The Nature Conservancy UNDP United Nations Development Program UNEP United Nations Environment Program USDA United States Department of Agriculture WB World Bank WHO World Health Organization WTO World Trade Organization Fiscal Year of Program January 1 ­ December 31 Director-General, Independent Evaluation Mr. Vinod Thomas Director, Independent Evaluation Group ­ World Bank Ms. Cheryl Gray Manager, Corporate and Global Evaluations and Methods Mr. Mark Sundberg Global Programs Coordinator Mr. Chris Gerrard Task Manager Ms. Lauren Kelly Consultant/Co-Author Mr. Ethan Arnheim v Contents PROGRAM AT A GLANCE: THE GLOBAL INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAM (GISP) ....................VII KEY BANK STAFF RESPONSIBLE DURING PERIOD UNDER REVIEW .........................................IX GLOSSARY...........................................................................................................................................XI PREFACE............................................................................................................................................ XV SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ XVII 1. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES, ACTIVITIES, GOVERNANCE, AND FINANCING ....................... 1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 1 Objectives and Activities of GISP during DGF Funding Period (2003­2006) .................... 2 Vision, Mission, and Objectives of the GISP Program (2006­2010) ................................... 3 The GISP Partnership (2003­2006) ........................................................................................ 3 GISP Members .................................................................................................................................. 3 GISP Associates................................................................................................................................ 4 Governance, Management, and Financing ........................................................................... 5 Governance ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Management...................................................................................................................................... 5 Financing ........................................................................................................................................... 6 2. THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF THE GISP....................................................................... 7 Independence and Quality of the Evaluation Process ........................................................ 7 Quality of the External Evaluation ......................................................................................... 9 Impact of the Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 11 3. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GISP ................................................................................... 14 Relevance ............................................................................................................................... 14 Efficay ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Efficiency ................................................................................................................................ 25 Efficiency in the Use of Funds ......................................................................................................... 26 Resource Mobilization ..................................................................................................................... 28 Governance and Management ............................................................................................. 29 Management.................................................................................................................................... 31 4. THE WORLD BANK'S ROLE AND PERFORMANCE ........................................................... 32 The World Bank's Rationale for Supporting the GISP ....................................................... 32 World Bank Oversight ........................................................................................................... 33 Reputational Risks ................................................................................................................ 34 vi Disengagement Strategy ...................................................................................................... 35 5. LESSONS ............................................................................................................................... 36 For the World Bank on the Issue of IAS ............................................................................. 36 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 39 ANNEX A. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK FOR GLOBAL PROGRAM REVIEWS............................ 41 ANNEX B. IEG REVIEW OF IAS ISSUES IN COUNTRY ASSISTANCE STRATEGIES OF SMALL ISLAND STATES ................................................................................................................................ 49 ANNEX C. GISP'S STRATEGIC LOGFRAME 2006­2010 ................................................................ 55 ANNEX D: LIST OF PERSONS CONSULTED ................................................................................... 56 ANNEX E. THE CONVENTION ON BIODIVERSITY, ARTICLE 8. IN-SITU CONSERVATION ........ 58 ANNEX F. IFC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE NOTES ON IAS ........................ 59 ANNEX G: FINANCING OF GISP PHASE I: (THE UNEP EXECUTED PROJECT ON IAS IMPLEMENTED BY SCOPE) .............................................................................................................. 61 ANNEX H. RESPONSE OF THE PROGRAM TO IEG'S GLOBAL PROGRAM REVIEW ................ 62 Boxes Box 1. The Bank's Sector Strategies are Silent on IAS Issues ..................................................... 18 Figures Figure 1. Value Proposition Model of the GISP Partnership ......................................................... 20 Tables Table 1. External Evaluation Recommendations ............................................................................ 12 Table 2. Examples of Invasive Alien Species .................................................................................. 16 Table 3. Invasive Alien Species in Small Island Developing States' Assistance Strategies and Project Portfolios .................................................................................................................. 19 Table 4. Sources of GISP Financing, FY03­08 (US Dollars) .......................................................... 26 Table 5. Categories of DGF Allocations (FY03­06) as reported by the External Evaluation ..... 27 Annex Table 1. Assessing the Independence and Quality of the Evaluation .............................. 41 Annex Table 2. Providing an Independent Opinion on the Effectiveness of the Program ......... 42 Annex Table 3. Assessing the Bank's Performance as a Partner in the Program ...................... 47 Annex Table 4. Common GRPP Activities ....................................................................................... 48 vii Program at a Glance: The Global Invasive Species Program (GISP)/1 Start Date GISP was effectively launched at the 2nd Trondheim Conference on Biodiversity, held in July 1996 between COP 2 and COP 3 (the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity). Time Period The GPR mainly focuses on the period under which the program was supported by the Reviewed World Bank (2003-2007) although it considers the historical evolution of the program in light of the Bank's influence and provides some updated information since 2007 reflecting program changes and additional activities. Host Agency June 2003­July 2007: SANBI, Cape Town, South Africa July 2007­Present: CABI, Nairobi, Kenya Mission To conserve biodiversity and sustain human livelihoods by minimizing the spread and impact of invasive alien species (IAS). Objectives/2 The key outcomes expected from the Bank's support for the GISP were: (1) A well-coordinated and effective global network for control and management of invasive alien species (IAS), through development and dissemination of information and best practice (2) Strengthened capacity to address IAS at local, national and regional level through development of new assessment tools and delivery of training modules to assess and manage IAS. Components (a) Development and dissemination of best practices for prevention and management of IAS and IAS pathways, IAS policy and legislation, and information management, through capacity building workshop and training for developing countries. (b) Case studies and development of economic toolkits to determine the economic benefits of invasive weeds management including water security, land productivity, biodiversity conservation, employment opportunities, and secondary industries. (c) Improved regional and international cooperation on IAS policy through support to CBD, IPPC, RAMSAR, and other international conventions and partnerships e.g. NEPAD, and to regional groups established through the GISP regional conferences. Activities/3 Facilitate establishment of effective national and regional capacities on IAS Promotes sharing of knowledge, best practice, and skills in IAS management Disseminate scientific and technical information on IAS for decision makers and natural resource managers to inform and equip developing countries with knowledge and tool kits to address introduction, spread, and management of IAS Develop and coordinate a distributed network of IAS, incorporating predictive and early warning functions Conduct scientific assessments to evaluate key pathways associated with global trade, development aid and travel, to identify opportunities to minimize invasions. Promote best practices to for assessing the impact of IAS on biodiversity, ecosystem services and social and economic development to increase awareness and encourage incorporation of mitigation measures into policy, legislation, and mainstream development programs, including programs to address poverty alleviation. /1 The Table reflects information provided by the World Bank task team leader to the Development Grant Facility (DGF) at the time of grant approval and during successive progress reporting. See the Partnership Approval and Tracking System (PATS) forms for the Global Invasive Species Program (GISP), 2004. The GISP has been reviewed on the basis of the mission, objectives, and activities described in the Bank documentation, since the Bank's support was contingent on fulfilling these objectives. /2 Referred to as Key Outcomes in the PATS. /3 Referred to as Key Objectives in the PATS. viii Measurable (i) A well established and effective GISP Secretariat, based in South Africa, able to Performance service a global partnership network and provide information on best practice Indicators containment and management of IAS to developing countries. (ii) Training modules developed and capacity building workshops and training sessions for at least six developing countries. (iii) Sets of recommended guidelines and toolkits for international and national policies, sectors, and pathways of IAS introduction and legislative and management standards for preventing and managing IAS. (iv) Case studies on economic benefits of management of IAS and best practice in managing IAS. These studies will demonstrate the costs and benefits of management programs for invasive species and feed into development of economic toolkits. (v) At least ten national workshops leading to plans for national, inter-agency coordinating mechanisms, best practice protocols and prevention and management initiatives. (vi) Pilot studies and research that aim to (a) improve knowledge with regard to IAS pathways and that (b) raise awareness of environmental and social costs and (c) identify and promote interventions to reduce unintentional and illegal introductions of IAS, particularly through trade, travel, tourism and transport. These studies will focus on developing countries and their aid/trade partners and will be highly relevant to maximizing World Bank investments particularly in rural development and poverty alleviation. (vii) A long term financing strategy to sustain the coordinating role of GISP and operation of the CBD Clearing House mechanism for knowledge sharing on control and management of IAS. World Bank The World Bank provided US$1.7 million from its Development Grant Facility from Contributions FY04­06 and US$1.38 million from the Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program trust fund from FY04­08. Together, these represented 69 percent of the total funding of US$4.49 million which the program received during this period of time. Governance and An Executive Board is comprised of representatives from the founding organizations Management (CABI, IUCN, SANBI, and TNC). Individual representatives from CSIRO and WWF Structures have also attended. A small Secretariat reports to the Board and served as a focal point for the program. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was assembled but never fully constituted. Latest Program- Alan Fox and Cliff Moran, Evaluation of the Global Invasive Species Programme: Final Level Evaluation Report, June 2006. ix Key Bank Staff Responsible during Period under Review Position Person Period Global Program Task Team Kathy Mackinnon 2003­2007 Leader Director, Environment Kristalina I. Georgieva Jan 2000­March 2004 Department Warren Evans October 2004­Present Vice President, Sustainable Ian Johnson 1997­2006 Development Network Katherine Sierra 2006­Present Director, Trust Fund Arif Zulfiqar June 1999­September 2008 Operations Director, Global Programs & Margaret Thalwitz May 2004­November 2008 Partnerships Group GISP Location Location Dates Stanford University 1997­2000 Offices at both Stanford University and the Smithsonian Institution, 2001­2003 Washington DC SANBI, Cape Town, South Africa June 2003­July 2007 CABI, Nairobi, Kenya July 2007­Present Program Manager Position Person Period Professor, Stanford University Professor Harold A. Mooney GISP Phase I: 1997­2002 Director, GISP Secretariat Dr. Greg Sherley GISP Phase II: June 2003­Jan 2004 Acting Director, GISP Dr. Lynn Jackson GISP Phase II: Jan 2004­Sept 2004 Director, GISP Secretariat Dr. Lynn Jackson GISP Phase II: Sept 2004­June 2007 Executive Director, GISP Dr. Sarah Simons GISP Phase II: March 2008­ Present xi Glossary Devolution or exit A proactive strategy to change the design of a program, to devolve some of strategy its implementation responsibilities, to reduce dependency on external funding, or to phase out the program on the grounds that it has achieved its objectives or that its current design is no longer the best way to sustain the results which the program has achieved. Efficacy The extent to which the program has achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives, taking into account their relative importance. The term is also used as a broader, aggregate measure -- encompassing relevance and efficiency as well -- of the overall outcome of a development intervention such as a GRPP. Efficiency The extent to which the program has converted or is expected to convert its resources/inputs (such as funds, expertise, time, etc.) economically into results in order to achieve the maximum possible outputs, outcomes, and impacts with the minimum possible inputs. Evaluation The systematic and objective assessment of an ongoing to completed policy, program, or project, its design, implementation, and results. The aim is to determine the relevance and achievement of its objectives, and its developmental effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability. Governance The structures, functions, processes, and organizational traditions that have been put in place within the context of a program's authorizing environment to ensure that the program is run in such a way that it achieves its objectives in an effective and transparent manner. It is the framework of accountability and responsibility to users, stakeholders and the wider community, within which organizations take decisions, and lead and control their functions, to achieve their objectives. Impacts Positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. Independent An evaluation that is carried out by entities and persons free from the control evaluation of those involved in policy making, management, or implementation of program activities. This entails organizational and behavioral independence, protection from interference, and avoidance of conflicts of interest. Indicator A quantitative or qualitative factor or variable that provides a simple and reliable means to measure achievement, to reflect the changes connected to an intervention, or to help assess the performance of a development actor. Invasive alien The Convention on Biodiversity defines invasive alien species as species species whose introduction and/or spread outside their natural past or present distribution threatens biological diversity. Common characteristics of IAS include rapid reproduction and growth, high dispersal ability, phenotypic plasticity (ability to adapt physiologically to new conditions), and ability to survive on various food types and in a wide range of environmental conditions. A good predictor of invasiveness is whether a species has successfully or unsuccessfully invaded elsewhere. Legitimacy As a criterion for assessing governance and management, the way in which governmental and managerial authority is exercised in relation to those with a legitimate interest in the program -- including shareholders, other stakeholders, implementers, beneficiaries, and the community at large. xii Logical framework or A management technique that is used to develop the overall design of a logframe program or project, to improve implementation monitoring, and to strengthen evaluation, by presenting the essential elements of the program or project clearly and succinctly throughout its cycle. It is a "cause and effect" model which aims to establish clear objectives and strategies based on a results chain, to build commitment and ownership among the stakeholders during the preparation of the program or project, and to relate the program's or project's interventions to their intended outcomes and impacts for beneficiaries. Management The day-to-day operation of a program within the context of the strategies, policies, processes, and procedures that have been established by the governing body. Monitoring The continuous assessment of progress achieved during program implementation in order to track compliance with a plan, to identify reasons for noncompliance, and to take necessary actions to improve performance. Monitoring is usually the responsibility of program management and operational staff. Outcomes The achieved or likely short-term and medium-term effects of the outputs of a development intervention. Oversight One of the core functions of the governing body of a program: Monitoring the performance of the program management unit, appointing key personnel, approving annual budgets and business plans, and overseeing major capital expenditures. Partners In most IEG Global Program Reviews, partners are understood as stakeholders who are involved in the governance or financing of the program (including the members of the governing, executive, or advisory bodies). Phytoremediation The treatment of environmental problems through the use of plants which mitigate the environmental problem without the need to excavate the contaminant material and dispose of it elsewhere. Public goods Goods which produce benefits that are non-rival (many people can consume, use, or enjoy the good at the same time) and non-excludable (it is difficult to prevent people who do not pay for the good from consuming it). If the benefits of a particular public good accrue across all or many countries, then the good is deemed a global or international public good. Relevance The extent to which the objectives and design of the program are consistent with (a) the current global/regional challenges and concerns in a particular development sector and (b) the needs and priorities of beneficiary countries and groups. Shareholders The subset of donors that are involved in the governance of the program. Therefore, this does not include individual (particularly anonymous) donors who choose not to be so involved, or who are not entitled to be involved if their contribution does not meet the minimum requirement, say, for membership on the governing body. Stakeholders The parties who are interested in or affected, either positively or negatively, by the program. Stakeholders are often referred to as "principal" and "other", or "direct" and "indirect". While other or indirect stakeholders -- such as taxpayers in both donor and beneficiary countries, visitors to a beneficiary country, and other indirect beneficiaries -- may have interests as well, these are not ordinarily considered in evaluations unless a principal stakeholder acts as their proxy. xiii Sustainability When the term is applied to the activities of a program, the extent to which the benefits arising from these activities are likely to continue after the activities have been completed. When the term is applied to organizations or programs themselves, the extent to which the organization or program is likely to continue its operational activities over time. Transparency As a criterion for assessing governance and management, the extent to which a program's decision-making, reporting, and evaluation processes are open and freely available to the general public. This is a metaphorical extension of the meaning used in physical sciences -- a "transparent" objective being one that can be seen through. Sources: Sourcebook for Evaluating Global and Regional Partnership Programs: Indicative Principles and Standards. Independent Evaluation Group ­ World Bank, 2007, for evaluation terms. xv Preface This is a Global Program Review (GPR) of the Global Invasive Species Program (GISP) -- an independent not-for-profit association whose mission is to conserve biodiversity and sustain human livelihoods by minimizing the spread and impact of invasive alien species (IAS) and which is presently located in the Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International (CABI) in Nairobi, Kenya. GISP was supported for three years (FY03­06) by the World Bank through funds made available through the Development Grant Facility (DGF) and continues to receive Bank support through the Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program (BNPP). At the request of the World Bank, an external evaluation was commissioned by the GISP Secretariat in the spring of 2006 in order to fulfill the DGF evaluation requirement. The external evaluation covered the period from June 2003 to April 2006 -- the period under which GISP received DGF funding. This GPR assesses the independence and quality of the external evaluation of GISP; provides a second opinion on the effectiveness of the program; assesses the performance of the Bank as a partner in the program; and draws lessons for the Bank's engagement in global and regional programs. The GPR is a "review" and not a full-fledged "evaluation". It focuses for the most part on the period between June 2003 and December 2007. To a lesser extent, it discusses the historical evolution of the program prior to June 2003 and also provides some updated information on more recent program activities conducted since the external evaluation. The Review follows IEG's Guidelines for Global Program Reviews (Annex A). Both a literature review and a desk review of program documents (including publications, toolkits, training manuals, and the minutes of the program's Executive Board) were performed to underpin the GPR analysis. Interviews were conducted with stakeholders involved with the GISP program, either directly or indirectly, as well as with relevant stakeholders who have had no direct engagement with the program (apart from exposure to the program's outputs). The team interviewed members of the GISP Governance, Management, and Secretariat structures (including present and former staff), as well as members of the former Scientific Advisory Committee. A field mission allowed the team to visit former Secretariat staff and associated stakeholders in the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) in Cape Town, South Africa, as well as the current partners and Chair of GISP's Executive Board at CABI, the present host of the GISP Secretariat in Nairobi, Kenya. The team met with and interviewed the external evaluators of the GISP in Washington, DC, and Cape Town, South Africa. While in Nairobi, Kenya, IEG observed a session of the GISP-sponsored, BNPP- supported Training on Developing Legal and Regulatory Mechanisms for Managing Invasive Alien Species. To perform a thorough review of the relevance of the GISP, pertaining to its special status as a clearing-house mechanism for invasive alien species for the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD), the team interviewed the IAS focal point person in the CBD Secretariat. The team reviewed and assessed all decisions issued by the Conference of Parties (COP) relating to invasive alien species to understand the intended and projected future role of the GISP, particularly in relation to the role of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which is the officially designated financial mechanism for the CBD. IEG also performed a review of xvi all GEF-financed enabling activities designed to support the national clearing-house mechanisms for the CBD and utilized past evaluations of the GEF to understand GEF's overall investment in IAS-related activities. To assess the relevance of the program's design, the team developed a value proposition model to determine whether the partnership -- or the activities supported through collective action -- adds value over the programs already being implemented by the individual members. And to assess demand, the team reviewed the CASs and project portfolios of the small island developing states, since IAS pose a particularly significant risk to these Bank clients. To assess Bank performance, particularly the program's linkages to Bank operations, the team conducted a keyword search of all World Bank project appraisal documents approved between 1997­2006 to determine the universe of projects that have dealt with invasive alien species, either directly by design or indirectly through environmental assessment. This GPR also reviewed the Bank's Environment and Rural Sector Strategies, relevant Operational Policies, and searched for other sources providing the services being provided by GISP (including other global programs and partnerships). IEG gratefully acknowledges all those who made time for interviews or provided responses to the consultation. A list of people consulted can be found in Annex D. Copies of the draft GPR were sent to the GISP Executive Director, the Bank's Task Team Leader for GISP, the Bank's Environment Department, and to other Bank units that have responsibility for the Bank's involvement with global and regional programs more generally. Their observations have been taken into account in finalizing this GPR. The formal response received from GISP Management is attached as Annex H. xvii Summary Mission, Financial Resources, and Governance 1. The Global Invasive Species Program (GISP) is an independent, not-for-profit association whose mission is to conserve biodiversity and sustain human livelihoods by minimizing the spread and impact of invasive alien species (IAS) and which is presently located in the Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International (CABI) in Nairobi, Kenya. Its current membership is limited to the four founding members of GISP at the time the program was legally constituted in April 2005: CABI, the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the South African Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). 2. GISP was supported for three years (FY04­FY06) by the World Bank through funds made available through the Development Grant Facility (DGF) and continues to receive Bank support through the Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program (BNPP). Although GISP is a relatively small program, the World Bank's DGF contribution of US$1.7 million accounted for 72 percent of the program's financing during this three-year period (and 80 percent of total financing including the BNPP contribution). The Bank directed a significant portion of its financial support towards the establishment of a Secretariat in Kirstenbosch, South Africa; prior to Bank support, GISP had operated out of Stanford University and the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. 3. GISP is governed by an Executive Board which at the time of the GPR was composed of seven persons, including in some cases the most senior ranked members of the represented member organizations. GISP also began to put in place a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) during its second phase; however, according to the external evaluation, this was never wholly constituted and is no longer functional. The program is currently managed by a small secretariat located in Nairobi in CABI Africa. The External Evaluation of GISP 4. At the request of the World Bank, an external evaluation was commissioned by the GISP Secretariat in the spring of 2006 in order to fulfill the DGF evaluation requirement. The external evaluation covered the period from June 2003 to April 2006 -- the period under which GISP received DGF funding. This GPR found that while the selection process for the evaluation was non-competitive, the evaluators chosen were highly qualified, with expertise in both evaluation and invasive science. The evaluation was behaviorally, but not organizationally independent. 5. The external evaluation found, through a series of interviews with stakeholders, that the most notable intended contribution of the GISP has been the support it has provided to the Secretariat of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). According to the evaluation, GISP should play a pivotal support role for the CBD. Since the evaluation was conducted, GISP has provided a steady flow of technical support to the CBD Secretariat, including hosting side events at the 9th Conference of the Parties to the CBD (COP9) as well as during the latest two meetings of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological xviii Advice (SBSTTA 12 and 13) -- a body that reports to the Conference of the Parties. At the time of the external evaluation, GISP had also begun to forge important links with other international organizations and conventions, including the UNEP Regional Seas Program, International Maritime Organization (IMO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. However, these links require strengthening to influence policy making related to IAS in other development related sectors, such as agriculture, fisheries, forestry, trade, and health. 6. The external evaluation found that World Bank support furthered discussion on the economic impacts of IAS. Funds from the BNPP earmarked for training have enabled hundreds of decision makers, predominantly from Africa, to attend sessions explaining the risks of IAS and the tools available for their reduction and mitigation. However, the evaluation could not assess the synergistic or catalytic effects of the training, and concluded that a country-by-country review would be required to gauge the extent to which participants have acted upon the information received. 7. The external evaluation found that the Bank's contribution had also helped to create a global secretariat. However, as the evaluation pointed out, the move from a network to a more formal structure was not achieved without some growing pains. The evaluation found that the program had to contend early on with tensions concerning the roles and responsibilities of its Board, Founding members, Associate members, Secretariat, and Staff, alongside larger questions related to the program's overall scope and objectives. The evaluation also found that there was a lack of clear direction from GISP's Board to its Secretariat -- with respect to performance, quality, timing of deliverables, its interactions with funding organizations, and the extent of flexibility and discretion to adapt to changing circumstances. 8. Despite these management challenges, the external evaluation found that GISP outputs, such as its publications and newsletters, were useful and well received. The evaluation specifically referred to the popularity of GISP's Invaded Series -- a series of three regional awareness publications featuring IAS issues in Africa, Tropical Asia, and South America. Yet although well received, the external evaluation found there to be a lack of planning on the most efficient ways to disseminate these publications. 9. This GPR has found that the external evaluation has had little impact on GISP: few of the recommendations have been implemented and in some cases, the program has taken conflicting decisions. For example, the evaluation recommended that GISP refrain from moving the Secretariat from South Africa. The concern was mainly related to efficiency since the program had by then been moved three times and the Bank's contribution had been almost entirely dedicated to supporting the establishment of a secretariat and staff in South Africa. Although the problem of remuneration, associated with locating the program in South Africa, is recognized, this constraint existed when it was decided to locate in South Africa at the onset of Bank support. Contrary to evaluation recommendations, the program has not developed a "membership program" to expand its contributions and enhance its sustainability. Expanded membership was one of the original criteria for Bank support. In regards to training, the program does not currently have a systematic mechanism for xix reflecting participant feedback into training materials, although this was also a recommendation of the evaluation. The Effectiveness of GISP RELEVANCE 10. There is a clear international consensus on the relevance of the mission of the GISP, in so far as it forwards the aims of Article 8(h) of the Convention on Biodiversity, but the same degree of consensus does not extend to GISP's design. The program's relevance relies more on its capacity to generate global public goods -- such as raising awareness and collating and disseminating information related to IAS -- than on its tendency to conduct country-level activities. The latter tendency runs the risk of duplicating the work of the program partners as opposed to providing services that only a global platform such as GISP can provide. 11. An equally acute concern for the Bank, given its dominant role in supporting GISP between 2003­2007, is the lack of an internal or international consensus on the definition and methods to assess the benefits and costs of IAS. In addition, although the detrimental impacts of IAS on ecosystems are well documented, neither GISP nor the Bank have paid much attention to opportunities for exploiting the economic benefits of IAS, attention to which could help to incentivize Bank support particularly in its rural development and water portfolios. When designing mitigation or eradication schemes as part of an ecosystem restoration effort, opportunities could be sought to use the eradicated materials for economic gain. Such opportunities range from fuelwood and alternative charcoal, to the design and marketing of "eco-coffins," handicrafts, biofuel, medicinal use, or potential for phytoremediation (the use of plants to mitigate environmental problems without excavating contaminant material). EFFICACY 12. The Bank's support for the GISP was aligned with two main objectives during its second phase: (1) the establishment of a well-coordinated and effective global network for control and management of invasive alien species, through development and dissemination of information and best practice and (2) strengthened capacity to address IAS at the local, national and regional levels through development of new assessment tools and delivery of training modules to assess and manage IAS. 13. This GPR found that GISP has made more progress regarding achievement of the latter objective than the former. GISP has made a major contribution to the development and dissemination of IAS-related information and best practice, through production of toolkits and manuals, the promotion of best practices, and the development of training courses to help strengthen IAS capacity at the country level. Examples of some of GISP's recent outputs include the publication Needs Assessment on Taxonomy in IAS Management and Guidelines on Marine Biofouling and Invasive Species. However, the program does not systematically monitor or measure the uptake or use of its tools and publications at the local, country, or regional level. GISP also does not have an overall outreach and publication strategy that could promote greater product differentiation and then direct these differentiated, targeted products to the appropriate audiences, with an aim towards optimizing IAS related behavioral xx or policy change. With regard to the establishment of a well-coordinated and effective global network, there has been little progress made on expanding the core partnership of GISP beyond the original four founding members. 14. GISP develops and conducts training courses on the management of invasive species. To date, it has designed, developed and delivered three different training courses in five countries. Based on attendance at one such course and an external evaluation commissioned by GISP prepared solely for the purpose of recommending ways to improve the program's training modules, this review found that GISP needs to focus on targeting and recruiting participants that have a more direct link to influencing national IAS policy. This review found that the course material was well structured and flowed in a coordinated and comprehensive way. However, interviews with participants indicated that more practical skills-training would have been useful, including gaining more exposure to IAS legislation in Africa that has been adopted and is being implemented, such as in South Africa (even though South Africa is far ahead of most African countries in this regard). GISP has produced case studies on the economic costs of IAS and linkages of IAS to poverty. However, it is not clear how these studies are being applied in IAS control programs to calculate the optimal level of control. Overall, however, work on the valuation of costs and benefits of IAS control options is still quite rudimentary and therefore insufficient for providing policy makers with the analysis and tools needed to underpin public policy decisions. EFFICIENCY 15. The use of the Bank's catalytic support was inefficient insofar as the program was unable to use the Bank's contribution to leverage other significant sources of finance to help cover core costs or to assure financial and programmatic sustainability in the long run. World Bank Development Grant Facility support accounted for 72 percent of GISP's operating costs during the DGF grant period (FY04­06), although DGF support is not supposed to exceed 15 percent of total program financing. Prior to the Bank's involvement, GISP had received a significant level of financing -- from over twenty donors -- by leveraging the support provided by the Global Environment Facility made available through a UNEP-executed Medium-Sized Project. 16. The Bank directed most of its support towards the creation of a global secretariat in Cape Town, covering staff salaries and other core costs during the development of the Secretariat in Cape Town. But the program lacked a clear fund-raising strategy for its activities during the DGF grant period, although this was a condition of DGF support. The external evaluation found that, without a clear picture of how activities would be financed, program staff sought opportunities to raise project-level finance through individual IAS- related grants, mainly in the form of providing technical assistance. This GPR finds that this resulted in an inefficient use of the resources of a globally oriented, but small secretariat, working to fulfill the program's mission of conserving biodiversity and sustaining human livelihoods by minimizing the spread and impact of invasive alien species. Fund-raising by the Secretariat for project-level activities detracted from the program's global awareness raising and knowledge sharing aims. One year after the DGF support ended, the Secretariat was moved to Nairobi, and due in part to the low level of program financing, the program today is supported only by a handful of dedicated staff most of whom wear both GISP and partner agency hats. xxi Governance and Management 17. Governance and management is assessed against its adherence to generally accepted standards of public sector governance such as legitimacy, efficiency, accountability, fairness, transparency, and financial management. Whereas the initial legitimacy of GISP during the period under review rested on the reputations of the four founding partners, its continuing legitimacy would depend upon attracting additional partners and demonstrating results. GISP's governing body (Executive Board) is based on a shareholder model of governance, in which membership on the governing body has been limited mainly to its four founding partners. Although a significant donor, the World Bank has not been a member or associate of the governing body (which is unusual for DGF-supported programs). The lines between GISP's governance and management have been somewhat blurred -- four of the seven persons that comprise GISP's management team also serve as Board or alternate Board members. This is symptomatic of smaller, less mature programs that require time to establish formal governance mechanisms. GISP has had a low level of transparency. While the program lists the members of its governing body and management on its Web site, none of the program's governing documents have been publicly available, including its newly adopted constitution. Neither has the external evaluation been posted on the Web site. The World Bank and GISP 18. The World Bank leveraged both its reputation and financial resources to support the creation of the GISP Secretariat in South Africa. The Director of the Bank's Environment Department announced the Bank's commitment at the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in August 2002, and the Bank's DGF contribution has represented a significant portion of the program's financing. However, the Bank has only modestly addressed IAS issues in its operations. Despite the distribution of IAS toolkits and analytical work produced by the Environment Department, links to country operations have been weak. IEG performed a keyword search (using Atlas TI) of all World Bank financed projects approved since 1997, including World Bank-implemented GEF projects. Of the 1,817 projects searched, only 76 projects (4 percent of the total) included some reference to IAS, and only 11 of these 76 projects directly addressed IAS eradication from an ecosystem management perspective. The bulk of Bank projects that have touched on IAS issues have done so only in the context of their environmental assessment; in most cases, the risk associated with IAS has been viewed as too minor to merit an adequately financed mitigation plan. 19. The World Bank does not have an operational policy on invasive alien species, nor are invasive alien species specifically referred to in any of the existing operational policies, such as Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01), Natural Habitats (OP 4.04) and Forestry (OP 4.36). xxii Lessons 20. The main lessons arising from this Global Program Review for consideration by the current GISP program members and the World Bank are the following: FOR GISP GISP needs to define and demonstrate how the global partnership adds value over the core competencies of its contributing partners. Following the 2nd Trondheim Conference on Biodiversity in July 1996, first phase of GISP developed a Global Strategy on IAS. GISP now needs to define areas where global cooperation is needed, for example in relation to information gathering, collating, and sharing, and differentiate these activities from the tasks that are already underway to implement the strategy in CABI, TNC and IUCN. GISP needs to revisit its governance and management structures. Symptomatic of less mature programs that take time to establish formal governance mechanisms or smaller programs with limited staffing and financial resources, GISP tends to blend responsibilities between those who govern and those who manage the program. GISP's governance structure could also include more meaningful representation of a broader set of interests, including country governments, other international agencies and non-governmental organizations. GISP needs a long-term financing strategy. Achieving GISP's mission to conserve biodiversity and sustain human livelihoods by minimizing the spread and impact of invasive alien species will require a wider network of partners and new and expanded sources of finance. Sources of financing were previously procured during GISP's first phase, for example, by tapping developed country interests related to the spread of invasive alien species in regional and international trade. GISP could more effectively target information to appropriate audiences. The program has a less-than-effective information dissemination strategy. While simplifying complicated technical data on IAS makes the information more "reader- friendly" for the general public, the general public is not the program's target audience. Policy-makers or persons with influence over international, regional and national IAS strategies need convincing evidence on the economics of IAS initiatives and a presentation of an array of methodologies that have been tested and agreed upon that can rapidly determine whether an introduction could be harmful to an ecosystem or productive economic activity. FOR THE WORLD BANK ON THE ISSUE OF IAS Enhanced attention to IAS in the project portfolio: "Do No Harm". The external evaluation recommended that the Bank capitalize on its investment in GISP, particularly with respect to the development of procedures, norms and standards relating to Bank activities and the risk and management of invasive alien species, including safeguards for agriculture, forest restoration, ecosystem services and carbon fund projects. To bring about greater consistency across the World Bank Group, the IBRD should develop some guidance and training for task managers related to the xxiii identification and recommended level of mitigation of potential IAS threats that may emerge as a result of project interventions. This guidance could increase Bank-wide awareness of countries' obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity, both to minimize potential project harm and to take advantage of opportunities to assist with these obligations. The Bank Group could adapt guidance from the set of guidelines which has been developed by the CBD to assist countries with the implementation of Article 8(h) on IAS. Need for research and analysis on how to identify and prioritize IAS threats and related cost-effective mitigation and/or eradication strategies. The Bank could consider supporting primary research on what the literature has identified as a clear need to improve the basis on which IAS control strategies are evaluated and on which the potential impacts of species introductions are valued (since the valuation of costs and benefits of control options is still quite rudimentary). Promote rural livelihood opportunities associated with IAS mitigation. Very few projects supported by the Bank involving the mitigation or eradication of IAS have also attempted to exploit rural livelihood opportunities associated with specific species labeled as alien and invasive. 1 1. Program Objectives, Activities, Governance, and Financing Background 1.1 The Global Invasive Species Program (GISP) was originally constituted as a small, mainly voluntary network of scientists, environmentalists, lawyers, natural resource managers, policy makers, and other experts concerned about the threat that Invasive Alien Species (IAS) pose to the environment and sustainable development. Spurred by a consensus reached at the 2nd Trondheim Conference on Biodiversity (Trondheim, Norway), held in July 1996 between COP 2 and COP 3 (the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity), that invasive alien species had become one of the most significant threats to biodiversity worldwide, and that the threat to ecosystems would be exacerbated by population growth and increased international trade, the voluntary network gained its raison d'être when participants agreed that a global strategy and a mechanism to combat these threats was needed. This collaboration would mark the beginning of what would become known as the Global Invasive Species Program (GISP). 1.2 GISP as it is recognized today was launched at the above-mentioned 2nd Trondheim Conference in 1996 and was subsequently assembled as a partnership between three international organizations: The World Conservation Union (IUCN), the Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International (CAB International), and the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE)1 and is a component of DIVERSITAS -- a collaborative research program set up to promote and catalyze knowledge about biodiversity. Originally run out of Stanford University, GISP's identity and structure has morphed through a series of phases between its establishment in 1997 and the present day. Over the course of a decade, the initiative has changed its geographic location three times. The forms it has assumed, and the locations it has chosen, have mainly been defined by its sources of finance. 1.3 Phase I of GISP (1997­2001) can be characterized as a knowledge collection and dissemination effort between SCOPE, IUCN, and CAB International, with initial support from UNEP. With finance acquired during its first phase through a medium-sized GEF project implemented by UNEP and executed by SCOPE, entitled Development of Best Practices and Dissemination of Lessons Learned for Dealing with the Global Problem of Alien Species that Threaten Biological Diversity, GISP produced, inter alia, a series of global assessments of the problem, a global strategy, a toolkit of best prevention and management practices, and an initial pilot database. 1.4 Phase II of GISP was launched in 2001, with activities shared between its original hub at Stanford University and a newly established office at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC. Phase II built on the body of scientific work developed during Phase I. 1. Between 1992 and 1998, the Scientific Committee for Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) engaged scientists in an effort to document the problem of invasive alien species. This resulted in a number of publications, including a synthesis volume, Biological Invasions ­ a Global Perspective, published by SCOPE in 1989." (David R. Given, UNEP Evaluation GF/1200-08-11, August 2003.) 2 1.5 The UNEP/GEF Medium-Sized Project made a major contribution to GISP Phase I, in many ways enabling the GISP to move into this second phase (2001­2006). Successful project implementation of the "project" attracted World Bank support, for example, which would subsequently prove to change the nature and the structure of the original network. Bank support provided through the Development Grant Facility (DGF) was directed mainly towards supporting the creation of a Secretariat. With the aim of relocating operations to a developing country, Bank support influenced the decision to establish a GISP Secretariat in Kirstenbosch Gardens, Cape Town, South Africa, facilitating the employment of a small team of professionals and the delivery of several priority projects. With the move to South Africa, GISP gained a fourth partner, the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). 1.6 With the adoption of a constitution in April 2005 drafted by the partners (CABI, IUCN, TNC and SANBI), GISP was registered as a voluntary association of not-for-profit organizations under South African Law. However, in the spring of 2008, due in part to the exit of World Bank financing, GISP moved for a third time to CABI Africa in Nairobi, Kenya, where it is presently located. The decision to relocate GISP for a third time was also influenced by challenges the program faced relating to remuneration of its staff. When it was located in South Africa, the program faced the problem of not being able to remunerate its staff in an international currency, which limited the ability to recruit staff from outside of South Africa. Objectives and Activities of GISP during DGF Funding Period (2003­2006) 1.7 The World Bank DGF Application set forth a series of objectives and activities for the DGF funds allocated to the program. The objectives during the DGF funding period were: (1) The establishment of a well-coordinated and effective global network for control and management of invasive alien species, through development and dissemination of information and best practice. (2) Strengthened capacity to address IAS at the local, national and regional levels through development of new assessment tools and delivery of training modules to assess and manage IAS. 1.8 The activities included: (a) The financing of a well-established secretariat; (b) The development of training modules and capacity building workshops/training sessions for at least 6 developing countries; (c) Sets of recommended guidelines and best practice toolkits for international and national policies, sectors and pathways of IAS introduction; (d) Case studies on economic benefits and economic toolkits; (e) Pilot studies and research to improve knowledge and raise awareness; and (f) At least 10 national workshops leading to plans for national, inter-agency coordinating mechanisms, best practice protocols and prevention and management initiatives. 3 Vision, Mission, and Objectives of the GISP Program (2006­2010) 1.9 GISP did not design a monitoring and evaluation framework for the program as a whole until 2006 (Annex C). This M&E framework is encapsulated in GISP's new Strategic Framework. The program now has a multi-tiered results framework which includes a vision, mission, ethos, goals, actions, and outcomes. GISP's Constitution, adopted in 2005 during the final year of the Bank contribution, also sets forth an updated list of activities. However, while GISP's Strategic Logframe (2006­2010) articulates a set of goals, actions and outcomes, this does not include any baseline information or measurable indicators. The framework lacks a system of intermediate outcome indicators to assess progress towards outcomes; many of the outcome indicators are non-specific and lack a degree of realism given the scale of GISP's operations. The GISP Partnership (2003­2006) GISP MEMBERS 1.10 GISP is primarily a partnership between its four founding members: CAB International (CABI) is a not-for-profit science-based development and information organization established in 1910 that provides scientific expertise and information on agriculture and the environment. CABI is governed by an independent board, an Executive Council and a quinquennial Review Conference of Member Countries. GISP is currently based in CABI Africa, one of 10 CABI centers around the world The World Conservation Union (IUCN) is the world's oldest and largest global environmental network. IUCN is a democratic membership union with more than 1,000 government and NGO member organizations, and some 10,000 volunteer scientists in more than 160 countries. IUCN's work is supported by 1,100 professional staff in 62 offices and hundreds of partners in public, NGO and private sectors around the world. IUCN's headquarters are located in Gland, near Geneva, in Switzerland. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a not-for-profit conservation organization whose mission is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. Through its Global Invasive Species Initiative, TNC is working to prevent and control the spread of invasive species in all 50 states and across more than 30 countries around the world. The South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) is the largest biodiversity centre in Africa and ex-host of the GISP Secretariat at Kirstenbosch National Botanical Garden, Cape Town. Kirstenbosch was proclaimed in June 2004 by UNESCO as part of the Cape Floristic Region World Heritage Site, which includes the Table Mountain National Park. SANBI hosted the GISP Secretariat during the DGF financial cycle. 4 GISP ASSOCIATES 1.11 In addition to its founding partners, GISP is "associated" with several other entities that support IAS-related work programs. While the nature of GISP's association with each of these affiliates varies, the GISP Web site neither describes what is meant by "associate" generally, nor does it detail the nature of its cooperation with these agents. GISP "associates" include: Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE): SCOPE is a body of natural and social science experts dedicated to looking at global environmental issues and operates as the medium between scientific and decision making processes. Coupled with this, SCOPE is also dedicated towards developing syntheses and reviews of scientific knowledge on current or potential environmental issues. URL: www.icsu-scope.org Working for Water: The Working for Water program, launched in 1995, is an effort to tackle the problem of invading alien plants and unemployment in South Africa. It is a multi-departmental initiative led by the Departments of Water Affairs and Forestry, Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Agriculture. It seeks to sustainably control invading alien species and optimize the potential use of natural resources, through the process of economic empowerment and transformation. It also aims to enhance water security, improve ecological integrity, restore the productive potential of multi-departmental initiatives led by the Departments of Water Affairs and Forestry, Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Agriculture. URL: www.dwaf.gov.za/wfw/ The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP): UNEP coordinates United Nations environmental programs and assists less developed countries in implementing environmental policies as well as sustainable development through sound environmental practices. In addition, it also provides leadership and encourages partnerships in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing, and enabling nations and peoples to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations. URL: www.UNEP.org Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG): The Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) is part of the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of IUCN. The ISSG is a global group of 146 scientific and policy experts on invasive species from 41 countries. Membership is by invitation from the group chair, but everyone's participation in the discussion on IAS is encouraged. ISSG provides advice on threats from IAS and control or eradication methods to IUCN members, conservation practitioners, and policy-makers. URL: www.issg.org/index.html DIVERSITAS: The DIVERSITAS Program is a partnership of inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations formed to promote, facilitate and catalyze scientific research on biodiversity -- its origin, composition, ecosystem function, maintenance and conservation. The DIVERSITAS Secretariat is hosted by the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, France. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) is Australia's national science agency. CSIRO is currently involved in research on 5 "classical biocontrol", which uses exotic invertebrates to control exotic invertebrate pests and weeds, and "conservation biocontrol", which encourages and augments beneficial invertebrates already present. Two of CSIRO's notable successes in the area of biocontrol include control of the aquatic weed salvinia and the use of dung breeding flies to control dung beetles. Governance, Management, and Financing GOVERNANCE 1.12 GISP is governed by an Executive Board composed of seven persons, and three alternates. With the exception of one member, Board members include representatives from the founding partner organizations. As noted in the external evaluation, the GISP Board is composed of, in some cases, the most senior ranked members of the represented organizations. Board members are "unpaid" volunteers. Board members include: Executive Director of International Development at CABI (chair) Chief Executive Officer of SANBI Deputy Director General of IUCN Chief of Entomology at CSIRO in Canberra, Australia Coordinator of TNC`s South America Regional Program for Invasive Species, based in Curitiba, Brazil Regional Director of CABI Europe-UK Executive Director of GISP. Alternates include: Global Invasive Species Co-coordinator for IUCN, Eastern & Southern Africa Regional Office, Nairobi, Kenya Executive Director of TNC's Invasive Species Initiative, Davis, California CABI's Global Director, Invasive Species, Delemont, Switzerland. 1.13 According to the external evaluation, GISP also began to put in place a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) during its second phase; however, this was never wholly constituted. The idea behind forming a TAC was to provide expert knowledge and advice at all stages of GISP activities and projects, and particularly during the conceptual, feasibility and scoping stages. Involvement in the TAC was expected to be voluntary and there were no provisions for financial compensation According to the external evaluation, the TAC was first seriously "mooted" at a GISP Board Meeting in January 2004. It was nevertheless written into the Association Constitution in 2005 and subsequent appointments were made, of a TAC chair and other members, by late 2005. However, at the time of the external evaluation (spring and summer, 2006) the TAC had not yet met, and some appointed TAC members interviewed for the evaluation indicated that they had not received any follow-up after agreeing to join. MANAGEMENT 1.14 Since 2003, GISP has run its operations out of a secretariat, which is currently hosted by CABI Africa, and based in Nairobi, Kenya. The Secretariat is headed by an Executive Director 6 assisted by a team of directors and managers located in GISP's partner organizations around the world. At the time of the external evaluation, the GISP Secretariat employed a Director, a Program Coordinator, a Communications and Training Coordinator, and a Senior Administrator. GISP's management structure has changed since then, in large part due to the end of World Bank support which was financing the costs of the Secretariat and its staff. FINANCING 1.15 GISP Phase I received most of its funding through the MSP GEF project vehicle discussed above. The UNEP executed MSP was funded by GEF and a host of co-financiers at a level of US$3.13 million. The GEF contribution equaled US$750,000. (See Annex G). 1.16 The World Bank supported GISP during its second phase. The World Bank contributed US$1.7 million of DGF finance to support the GISP Secretariat between June 2003 and December 2006. Capacity building workshops and training have been separately financed at a level of approximately US$1.4 million through the Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program. 7 2. The External Evaluation of the GISP 2.1 At the request of the World Bank, an external evaluation was commissioned by the GISP Secretariat in the spring of 2006 in order to fulfill the DGF evaluation requirement. The external evaluation covered the period from June 2003 to April 2006 -- the period under which GISP received DGF funding 2.2 The evaluation of the Global Invasive Species Program was conducted by a two- person evaluation team over a three-month period between April and June 2006.2 Information was mostly derived from in-person and telephone interviews and from a review of published and unpublished documents. Interviews with Board Members, the Secretariat staff and other key stakeholders were carried out during a three-week period in April and May 2006, including one week spent at the offices of the GISP Secretariat in Kirstenbosch Gardens, Cape Town, South Africa. Independence and Quality of the Evaluation Process 2.3 The consultant selection process was managed by the GISP Secretariat with assistance from the World Bank. Chosen separately, the two team members were selected, respectively, for previous evaluation experience in like sectors and relevant scientific and academic credentials. Although the evaluators were highly qualified, the selection process was non-competitive. 2.4 The evaluation terms of reference (TOR) was originally drafted by the GISP Secretariat, with guidance from the World Bank.3 As detailed in a letter from the Director of the GISP Secretariat (dated April 7, 2006), the purpose of the review was to: (a) Assess progress under the [World Bank] DGF grant (for the period June 2003 to December 2005); (b) Assess the sustainability of the GISP Secretariat and the GISP Program as a whole; (c) Make recommendations in relation to institutional structures and relationships, and program development. 2.5 The TOR, issued by the World Bank, also defined the scope of the review. The evaluation team was originally asked to assess: (a) the governance and management of GISP; (b) the role and responsibilities of the founding members; (c) the implementation of the work program; (d) the role and function of the secretariat; (e) external stakeholder relations; (f) the impact of GISP in relation to the objectives as stated in the GISP Constitution; and (g) sustainability. 2.6 The TOR was effectively amended by the World Bank, per an e-mail sent to the team while the evaluation was already in progress (April 26, 2006), that required the evaluation to extend the period under review to include GISP activities during 2006 and to comment on the 2. The evaluation, paid for by the program with DGF funds, was contracted for approximately US$30,000. 3. The purpose, scope, and methodology of the GISP evaluation, and the process by which it was undertaken, is reported on page 2 of the evaluation report. The TOR is provided in Annex VII. 8 future of the program. The e-mail, which de facto amended the TOR, asked the evaluation to probe further into several aspects of the program's effectiveness, partnership arrangements, sustainability and impact. Specifically, the amended TOR requested that the evaluation assess the: (a) Effectiveness of GISP as a partnership and of the secretariat in serving the coordination needs of the partnership (b) Cost-effectiveness and impact of activities (c) Sustainability and long-term funding strategy -- the Bank had a specific exit strategy so is interested in how GISP activities would be sustained beyond Bank support (scheduled to end by December 2006) (d) How Bank support had catalyzed other activities and was linked to national and international development and environment agendas (e) Raising the profile of IAS issues -- what more could be done under the GISP banner (f) How the GISP Secretariat and program interacted with, and were able to, draw on expertise of partnerships including with ISSG and other key players through technical working groups, etc. (g) Strategic products and their dissemination, including public access to publications, reports, training modules via website (h) Secretariat staffing needs and responsiveness to GISP commitments 2.7 Comments received by the evaluation team indicate that the extensive and somewhat ad-hoc changes to the original TOR for the external evaluation were a "major perturbation" in the planning and execution of the evaluation. While additional time and some extra resources were provided to the team, they were not sufficient to fulfill the remit of the amended TOR. 2.8 While the difficulty of having to adjust the parameters of an evaluation while it was underway is understood, the scope of the evaluation should not have been limited, as originally prescribed, to the assessment of only those activities financed by the World Bank's Development Grant Facility. The front cover of the evaluation, for example, maintained that the "evaluation was commissioned by GISP in fulfillment of the requirements of the World Bank." While the DGF does indeed require programs that have received funding of $300,000 or more to incorporate a plan in its grant application for an independent evaluation (undertaken by evaluators who are not associated with the program) to be conducted every 3­ 5 years, global and regional program evaluation should be viewed as an integral part of every program, functioning as a learning and accountability tool to enhance development effectiveness, regardless of the World Bank requirement. As such, the scope of this evaluation could have been wider. For instance, it could have assessed the decisions and actions that led to the institutionalization of the network prior to 2003 to ascertain whether the configuration of the program during the review period was relevant and efficient. This expanded scope however would have required an appropriate amount of time and resources. Rather the review team was given only a limited amount of time (3 months) and a limited budget. 9 2.9 The evaluation team reported to the program's management. The governing body did not oversee the evaluation nor establish an oversight subcommittee to oversee the evaluation process. Draft versions of the report were shared with program management and the World Bank for factual accuracy. A final draft version was also delivered to the GISP Board Chair who supplied substantive comments to the evaluation team. Substantial revisions were made between the final draft stage and the final publication (dated June 2006). However, neither the formal Board nor management response was included in the evaluation annexes or posted on the Web site. The final evaluation itself has not been posted on the GISP Web site, nor has it been posted on any of the founding members' public Web sites (including the World Bank). This Global Program Review (GPR) rates organizational independence of the evaluation as low while behavioral independence was adequate. Quality of the External Evaluation 2.10 The evaluation was objectives-based and maintained a strong focus on assessing the achievements of the various GISP activities. Per the terms of reference, the evaluation assessed the achievement of GISP activities since 2003, including progress made against its objectives in such areas as dissemination of information, training and capacity building, assessment of economic impacts, and outreach and development of the GISP Partnership. The evaluation also reported the various perceptions of the governance and management of the program through a series of stakeholder interviews. 2.11 The evaluation did not explicitly cover standard areas of evaluation such as relevance and efficiency. Although the issue of relevance was addressed somewhat by the evaluation's assessment of whether GISP should continue to exist, the evaluation simply reported the perception of stakeholders, all of whom have been or are currently directly associated with the program, rather than offer an independent assessment. These are two common pitfalls in evaluating the efficacy of a network: (a) only interviewing or surveying persons directly associated with the program under evaluation, and (b) simply reporting their responses without forming an independent assessment. 2.12 The evaluation did not assess the overall efficiency of the program, but did address cost issues somewhat by reviewing the constraints placed on the system by placing the Secretariat in South Africa and the transaction costs that were incurred and would be incurred by future moves. Through a review of prior training evaluations, the evaluation also reported the costs of developing and preparing the African IAS training programs, noting that future sessions could be substantially less expensive due to this investment. 2.13 The evaluation was very comprehensive in its coverage of the program's challenges, these being the most pronounced among the evaluation's twenty recommendations. However, the evidence on which the recommendations were based is somewhat absent from the text of the evaluation.4 4. For example, the evaluation's review of the GISP partnership arrangement (Section 2.6) read as if the program had forged strong linkages with UN agencies and other related conventions, and yet the evaluation specifically recommended that these linkages be formalized, that the Executive Board should keep an open mind to expansion of the association, and that the program should establish policy working groups with an 10 2.14 The assessment of the governance and management of the program was balanced. Based on stakeholder perceptions, this presented both positive aspects as well as areas for improvement. Yet the positive perceptions of program governance and management were not supported by convincing evidence that the present arrangements were optimal or efficient. For example, the evaluation reported that the GISP Secretariat was successfully ensconced within SANBI; on the other hand, the evaluation's interviews revealed that the relationship with SANBI was somewhat complicated. Based on interviews with SANBI staff, the present review suggests that a more optimal secretariat arrangement might have been one in which the host organization absorbed the program and its staff into its own organization, similar to global program secretariats located in the World Bank. There is precedence in the case of SANBI, which has absorbed into its organization staff associated with the World Bank- implemented GEF-financed project under the Cape Action for People and the Environment (CAPE) program. CAPE supports works associated with IAS issues in South Africa. 2.15 The evaluation also reported, as a positive stakeholder perception, that the "process of institutional development was enabled by World Bank funds." However, it did not weigh alternative uses of the funds or alternative programmatic arrangements that might have been more legitimate and sustainable, particularly in light of the program's present financing crisis. As discussed in the upcoming section on World Bank performance, one alternative arrangement that could have been conceived would have been to negotiate a space within one of the CGIAR centers. This arrangement could have then allowed the Bank investment to be directed towards the critical areas of IAS awareness-raising, such as deepening the body of economic research surrounding IAS control. Associate members could also have been approached to host the network. The UNEP campus in Nairobi, for example, could also have been considered. 2.16 On the other hand, the evaluation did point to several challenges that would require redress to enhance the governance and management of the program. The evaluation found that during its review period, 2003-2006, there was dissension among Executive Board Members with respect to the objectives and scope of activities for the GISP members and associates, and its Secretariat. Related, there was a lack of clear direction from the Board to its Secretariat -- with respect to performance, quality, timing of deliverables, its interactions with funding organizations, and the extent of flexibility and discretion to adapt to changing circumstances. The evaluation pointed out that this lack of direction at the time was in part due to a chronic but largely subliminal set of competitive interactions between the institutional Members of the Executive Board. 2.17 Given the significance of these challenges, the evaluation's optimistic view of the program's future is surprising: "while GISP as an organization has gone through some difficulties during its formative period, a number of respondents suggested that the building blocks should now be in place to benefit from these hard-fought gains; [that the] Board reportedly had a decisive meeting in January 2006 which bodes well for the future [and that] at that meeting, the Board reached and formally expressed agreement on the objectives, scope and activities for the Association... It appears that an important turning point has been reached. Board members have indicated that they are pulling together as a team and are emphasis on bringing IAS issues to the fore of agricultural, resource, health and trade organizations so that their policy choices would take IAS risks and consequences into account. 11 optimistic and committed to the future of GISP." As such, the evaluation frequently reported on the future actions that the program's Board and management intended to take without providing an analysis or commentary on the feasibility of these plans. Impact of the Evaluation 2.18 The external evaluation has had little impact on the GISP. The external evaluation has not been posted on the GISP Web site or otherwise publicly disclosed. This review learned through interviews that the Board delivered comments to the evaluation team, yet the formal Board response has not been made available as input into this review.5 Nor is the evaluation is not publicly available on the Bank's external Web site and it was not reviewed or commented on by the Bank's Environment Sector Board. A discussion point in the March 2007 Executive Board Minutes reveals that GISP Management drafted a response to the evaluation (delivered in June 2006), but that the Director "had not had time to revisit the draft management response to the independent evaluation which [was] presented to the August 2006 Board meeting...but that [the Director] would get back to it as soon as time permitted." 2.19 A review of the recommendations (Table 1) reveals that few have been implemented. And in specific cases, the program has acted in direct opposition to the evaluation's recommendations. For example, the evaluation recommended that GISP keep the Secretariat in Cape Town. (It was subsequently moved to Nairobi, Kenya.) In terms of the recommendations made concerning the program's financing and sustainability, the program has not developed a "membership program" as recommended, although the Bank in its original DGF proposal pointed to the need to seek Foundation support. (See Bank Performance below.) Although the external evaluation recommended forging a greater link with the Global Invasive Species Information Network (GISIN), an interview with the GISIN manager indicated that there is currently little interaction between the two entities. GISP does ask participants to evaluate the content and delivery of its training courses. However, it is not clear how this participant feedback is influencing the design of future training modules. 5. While there is no formal requirement that evaluation reports be publicly disclosed, disclosure of both the final report and the program's response is a widely accepted good practice in evaluation. See, for example, the OECD/DAC evaluation standard #9.4: "Evaluation requires an explicit acknowledgement and response from management regarding intended follow-up to the evaluation results. Management will ensure the systematic dissemination, storage and management of the output from the evaluation to ensure easy accessibility and to maximize the benefits of the evaluation's findings." The Board response would also have indicated which of the recommendations the Board accepted and planned to implement. 12 Table 1. External Evaluation Recommendations Recommendations Made to the Executive Board 1. Stay focused on the responsibility to manage GISP. Board Chairs need to have the time and enthusiasm to direct the effort and push colleagues to make decisions. 2. The Board needs to manage itself professionally, as befitting a multimillion dollar organization. This involves early and careful preparation of meeting agendas, attending Board Members authorized to make decisions, and high expectations for follow through on Board agreements. 3. The Board and the Secretariat must improve reciprocal communications at all levels, between themselves and with funding organizations. 4. Actively engage in the negotiations for funding to ensure that the goals and expectations of funders, and those of GISP, are in harmony. 5. Build a network of contacts, work groups, and coordinated actions among the Association Members, and other IAS experts globally, through a reconstituted TAC, thematic work groups and GISP coordinators in each Association Member Organization. Coordinators need job descriptions and work schedules that accommodate their GISP involvement 6. Keep an open mind to expansion of the Association, especially with a view to bringing in organizations that broaden the knowledge and influence base beyond that delimited by the terms "environment and biodiversity". Recommendations Made for the Secretariat 1. With a Constitution in hand, a legal Association formalized, and efforts progressing on other legal and organizational matters, the GISP Board should turn its attention next to addressing its human resource issues. 2. Narrow the portfolio of responsibilities and activities. The Secretariat's roles have been articulated in the Association Constitution. Its job is to facilitate effective communication between Association Members, facilitate the development and implementation of Association policies, strategies and work programs, liaise with the CBD, maintain a web page, serve as an information clearing-house and raise money. This list does not include acting as a training institute, a policy think tank, or a project management unit. 3. Tighten the job descriptions and output expectations of the Secretariat, and then give staff the freedom and responsibility to do their work. Ill-defined jobs and micromanagement are a recipe for high staff dissatisfaction and attrition. 4. Keep the Secretariat in Cape Town. Allow the Secretariat a more autonomous position within SANBI, similar to that of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. 5. It is critical that GISP be, and be perceived as, an international body. This may mean employing some non-South Africans at the Secretariat, but it especially means that the Association should utilize the branch office structure of its members to raise the profile of GISP globally. Recommendations Made Concerning GISP Training 1. The GISP training courses (general and marine) are valuable assets to be exploited by all the Association Members. The GISP Secretariat needs to complete at least one training course outside of Africa, and another in Africa, under the current WB funding, and then utilize these training programs in its planned GEF/UNEP IAS project: (2008). CABI, IUCN, TNC and SANBI should have access to these materials and use them in their future training efforts. The development of web-based, distance learning training programs should be explored. 2. Develop better follow up procedures for future training programs in order to recruit participants as GISP supporters, more accurately assess the impact of these programs, and hone the training presentations. Over 70 government officials and experts from more than twenty African countries have benefited from the GISP training courses. These represent an important group of potential champions for national IAS prevention and management programs. 13 Recommendations Made Concerning Communications and Knowledge Management 1. Develop better follow up procedures for future training programs in order to recruit participants as GISP supporters, more accurately assess the impact of these programs, and hone the training presentations. Over 70 government officials and experts from more than twenty African countries have benefited from the GISP training courses. These represent an important group of potential champions for national IAS prevention and management programs. 2. Utilize digital and web communication and management tools to improve coordination among Members of the Association and the Secretariat. Video conferencing, web-based project and enterprise management software, and dedicated web portals should all be explored to provide low cost mechanisms for closer collaboration, better communication and responsiveness. 3. Create links between the GISP website, GISIN and other relevant initiatives. The strength of GISP should be its capacity to draw upon a multitude of sources, providing a starting portal for interested readers allowing them to link to other more specific databases and information sources where detailed, up-to-date and accurate information can be found (especially in the case of species- specific information). Recommendations Made Concerning Policy Setting 1. Influencing policy is the reason for GISP to exist. All activities -- meetings, workshops, training programs, report writing, should aim to educate and persuade persons who make decisions that affect the spread of IAS. 2. GISP, through its Secretariat, should formalize relationships with key resource and economic organizations and conventions. These include, inter alia: the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the World Health Organization (WHO). The emphasis should be to bring IAS issues to the table of agricultural, resource, health and trade organizations so that their policy choices will take IAS risks and consequences into account. 3. Establish policy working groups to drive Association policy-influencing efforts. In particular: (a.) Establish a CBD working group to plan and implement the GISP work program following CBD COP 8, and in preparation for COP 9. (b.) Develop a WTO working group to prepare strategies for greater involvement with the WTO, in particular through its Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE). (c.) Create an Economics group, to push ahead with the identification and elaboration of economic models to use for gauging IAS impacts, and the results of management strategies. Recommendations Made Concerning Finance and Sustainability 1. Develop a membership program (including foundations), to raise at least 50% of GISP annual operating costs, with the remainder achieved via Association in-kind contributions and projects. 2. Identify bridge financing through 2007, and perhaps 2008, allowing the Association to operate over the next few years as it endeavors to secure longer term financing. Bridge financing could include a once off agreement by the Association Members to provide direct financial contributions, or to stand surety for loans (which is allowed by the Constitution), thereby demonstrating to potential funders that, in addition to their in-kind contributions, the Association Members themselves are prepared to make a financial commitment to the long term sustainability of GISP. 14 3. The Effectiveness of the GISP6 3.1 This review follows the current Global and Regional Program evaluation framework outlined in Annex A. The product is called a review rather than an evaluation since it is an assessment that is based on the previous external evaluation. It uses the standard evaluation criteria of relevance, efficacy and efficiency, along with governance and management, to assess the effectiveness of the program. Relevance 3.2 Relevance is assessed against four main headings: (a) Supply-side relevance -- the existence of an international consensus on the need for global collective action, including on the definition of the problem, on priorities, and on strategies for action; (b) Demand-side relevance -- alignment with beneficiary needs, priorities, and strategies; (c) Vertical relevance -- consistency with the subsidiarity principle; and (d) Horizontal relevance -- the absence of alternative sources of supply. 3.3 Supply-side relevance -- the existence of an international consensus that global/regional collective action is required: Article 8(h) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) calls on its contracting Parties to "prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats and species." At its second meeting (November 1995), the Conference of the Parties (COP) identified implementation of Article 8 of the CBD as a high priority and stressed the importance of regional and international cooperation for the implementation of this Article as well as the importance of exchange of information and experience among all interested stakeholders on measures taken for its implementation (Decision II/7 of COP 2). At COP 3 (November 1996), it was recommended that there be further compilation and dissemination of information on the implementation of Article 8, including work on invasive species. COP 3 specifically encouraged SCOPE and IUCN to develop a global strategy and action plan to deal with harmful IAS. 3.4 Whereas there is a clear international consensus on the relevance of the mission of the GISP, "to address the potential threats of plant and animal invasions to biodiversity and other productive sectors, such as agriculture and aquaculture," there is no record of such a consensus in relation to the relevance of the program's design. Whereas there was a call from the international community for organizations already engaged in invasion science to work together to increase awareness and develop a global strategy, the mechanism(s) by which the strategy would be implemented have not been clearly defined. However, as mentioned in Chapter 1, GISP was specifically established in response to a recommendation lodged at the 2nd Trondheim Conference (Trondheim, Norway) held in July 1996 between COP 2 and COP 3 that a global strategy and mechanism to address the problem be created immediately. The latter part of the recommendation, that a "mechanism" be created to address the IAS threat, is a recommendation that seems to have gone beyond the COP calls for regional and international cooperation and information exchange. 6. This section of the GPR takes the evaluation as its point of departure, but goes beyond it with information from outside sources, including interviews carried out for the GPR. 15 3.5 In contrast, the Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity achieved a consensus both on the spirit of the Convention as well as its implementing arm when Parties designated the GEF as its official financial mechanism in the early 1990s. While Parties to the COP issued the aforementioned request for further cooperation among relevant actors in the area of IAS awareness, simultaneous COP decisions have strongly underscored the need for the GEF to provide direct assistance to countries to meet their convention obligations. 3.6 COP 4 issued the decision that the GEF should..."provide adequate and timely support for country-driven projects at national, regional and sub-regional levels addressing the issue of alien species." At COP 6, parties called on the GEF, as the "institutional structure operating the financial mechanism [to] provide financial resources... as a priority, for projects that assist with the development and implementation, at national and regional levels, of the invasive alien species strategies and action plans (in particular those strategies and actions related to geographically and evolutionarily isolated ecosystems, paying particular attention to the needs of least developed countries and small island developing States, including needs related to capacity-building.") And COP 7 invited the GEF, in accordance with its mandate, [as well as] other funding institutions and development agencies, to "provide financial support to developing countries, in particular the least developed countries and small island developing states (SIDS) among them, and countries with economies in transition, to assist in the improved prevention, rapid response and management measures to address threats of alien invasive species." 3.7 Yet despite the legitimate authority that COP decisions should convey over the strategic use of GEF finance, a thematic review of the GEF Biodiversity Program (2004) conducted by the GEF Evaluation Office revealed that very few GEF financed projects had specific objectives directly related to the control of IAS. Of the 141 GEF projects assessed in the study, only nine, or 6 percent, had specific objectives directly related to the control of IAS. 3.8 There is less of a consensus on the definition and methods to assess the benefits and costs of invasive alien species: Within the academic community, there is a central disagreement about the role that scientists should play in publicizing the threat of invasive species. One view posits that scientists should be dispassionate and objective, communicating facts and withholding judgment until certain. Brown and Sax (2004: 531) call "for more scientific objectivity and less emotional xenophobia" and encourage their peers to refrain from language that characterizes non-native species as fundamentally "bad." This view recognizes that invasive species can cause major environmental harm. Yet this group maintains that scientists must exert caution about overemphasizing the risks caused by invasive species because the ability to predict the level of harm is still developing (Simberloff 2005). On the other hand, other scholars argue for a more activist approach to the issue (Larson 2007). This camp maintains that scientists should reflect the conservationist values that they hold and encourages a language for invasive species that is appropriate to the perceived threat. This approach is grounded on the belief that since science can never provide a full picture of reality, it must emphasize the most relevant aspects (Adams and Adams, 2004). Ecologists ought to view their role as a "bridge between science and society" rather than as the data collectors and objective observers that operate in other sciences (Larson 2007: 954). 16 Table 2. Examples of Invasive Alien Species IAS Threats Opportunities Source Lantana Lantana invades agricultural land and forestry plantations; Lantana stems are very tough and durable and thus http://www.gisp.org/casest camara the thickets disrupt access of livestock to grazing and water, useful for handicrafts (wickerwork). The Soliga of udies/showcasestudy.asp? interfere with farming and forestry activities, and increase Karnataka (India) utilize Lantana in their wickercraft. id=238&MyMenuItem=cas fire intensity. By encroaching onto pastures, it reduces the Although invasive (it has displaced bamboo), local estudies&worldmap=&cou carrying capacity and productivity of agricultural land. It is communities are selectively harvesting lantanas for ntry= also a weed in a variety of crop fields and plantations (e.g. craft making. coffee, coconuts, oil palms, rubber, bananas and sugarcane). Also can be a breeding ground for malarial mosquitoes and other vectors of disease. Prosopis "Global concern about deforestation caused by fuelwood "In some circumstances, P. juliflora can supply Agriculture, Ecosystems juliflora shortages prompted the introduction of Prosopis juliflora to fuelwood, charcoal, animal feed, construction and Environment. Volume many tropical areas in the 1970s and 1980s. P. juliflora is a materials, soil conservation and rehabilitation of 121, Issue 3, July 2007, (Known as hardy nitrogen-fixing tree that is now recognized as one of degraded and saline soils (Pasiecznik 1999; Pasiecznik Pages 287-295. Mesquite in the world's most invasive alien species." et al. 2001)." In the drylands of India, P. juliflora is Conservation and Society the U.S.) considered one of the most valuable tree species 6(2): 130­140, 2008. (Pasiecznik et al. 2001)." Yet the costs of P. juliflora Copyright: © Mwangi and invasion seem to be outweighing the benefits in the Swallow 2008. Baringo district in Kenya. Introduced by the Fuelwood/ Afforestation Extension Project, a joint initiative of FAO and the Government of Kenya (1982-1990), it is interfering with farming and livestock grazing today in the Ng'ambo and Loboi areas. Kudzu A climbing, semi-woody perennial vine, kudzu was widely "Researchers from the University of Toronto and U.S. http://www.nature.org/initiat Pueraria planted to combat soil erosion. Kudzu spreads rapidly and Department of Agriculture are investigating whether ives/invasivespecies/featur montana widely, smothering native plants and uprooting entire trees kudzu can be economically harvested. Kudzu is up to es/art8864.html through the force of its weight. Kudzu kills or damages 68 percent carbohydrate by weight and could http://www.ars.usda.gov/re plants by smothering them under a solid blanket of leaves, potentially produce as much ethanol as corn with about search/publications/publica encircling woody stems and tree trunks, and breaking 270 gallons per acre. The problem is that much of the tions.htm?SEQ_NO_115= branches or uprooting trees and shrubs. Once established, existing kudzu now is growing on inaccessible hillsides. 202385 kudzu grows at a rate of one foot per day; mature vines can Still, kudzu requires much less maintenance than corn http://www.cbc.ca/news/vie be 100 feet long. so this definitely has a lot of potential" wpoint/vp_strauss/200709 04.html 17 IAS Threats Opportunities Source Water When not controlled, water hyacinth can cover lakes and Phytoremediation is an emerging technology that uses http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/i hyacinth ponds impacting water flow, blocking sunlight from reaching plants to extract, degrade, contain or immobilize nvasives/classification/pdfs Eichhornia native aquatic plants, and starving the water of oxygen; contaminants in soil, groundwater, or surface water. /LR_Eichhornia_crassipes. crassipes Water Hyacinth can create a prime habitat for mosquitoes Many IAS tend to be pollution tolerant plants. Water pdf; M. Ebel, M.W.H. and a species of snail known to host a parasitic flatworm Hyacinth for example is a prime candidate for the Evangelou, A. Schaeffer. which causes schistosomiasis (snail fever). phytoremediation of cyanide as well as urban sewage 2007; Chemosphere 66: treatment. 816-823; Y. Zimmels, F. Kirzhner and A. Malkovskaja. 2006. Metallife- Parthenium hysterophorus L., an exotic species from Metalliferous invasive species may be used to cleanup Indian Institute of Science rous Tropical America that has naturalized most of India because metal-contaminated ecosystems. The knowledge of Invasive alien species and invasive of its strong invasive potential ­considered a noxious weed how metaliferous invasive plants can specifically biodiversity in India. plants because of its prolific seed production and fast-spreading accumulate or exclude essential elements, Workshop in the ability, allelopathic effect on other plants, strong bioavailability of metals, rhizospheric processes as well Department of Botany, competitiveness with crops and health hazard to humans as as translocation and processing and storage in the Banaras Hindu University well as animals. The weed is highly allergenic and causes plant parts is essential for proper utilization of these in Aug 2004. respiratory problems, dermatitis and asthma. However, plants. http://www.iisc.ernet.in/curr except for allelopathic aspect and crop­weed interaction, sci/feb252005/539.pdf almost no study is available on the impact of this weed on the ecosystem processes. Spartina Large, dense populations of S. anglica at or in river mouths Under natural conditions on tidal marshes vigorous http://www.aquatic- anglica decrease flow, lead to increase flooding, especially during stands of this alien species will absorb wave energy aliens.de/downloads/170_ periods of heavy precipitation and/or above normal tides (Gray et al. 1991). S. anglica has been used world- Nehring+Adsersen- (Common (NWCB 2005). S. anglica also threatens the economic wide as an agent for coastal protection and 2006_NOBANIS-fact- Cordgrass) interests of commercial oyster fisheries (WSDE stabilization. Because of its ability to trap sediment S. sheet_spartina-anglica.pdf 2003).Changes associated with Spartina also negatively anglica has been used to stabilize mudflats and reduce impact revenues derived from recreation (Ranwell 1967, the source area for channel silting. Gray et al. 1991, NWCB 2005). Japanese Japanese honeysuckle is a woody vine that can overwhelm Offer some medicinal benefits. They have anti- http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/f Honey- native flora in forests and other habitats. microbial properties proving to be effective against anti- act/japanese_honeysuckle. suckle biotic resistant bacteria. htm (Lonicera japonica) 18 3.9 Perrings (2005) comments in a research paper supported by GISP funding that "because of the way in which they were acquired, the numbers cannot be taken as a good approximation of net costs of species introductions in any of the countries concerned. There are no estimates of any benefits that may have accrued from the activities that led to the introduction of invasive species. The estimates of damage costs in the background literature are not made in any coherent way and are extremely patchy." The findings are also inconsistent with the ecological literature in important respects -- such as in the estimate of the proportion of introduced species that are "harmful". Other scientists are more dismissive of the Pimentel numbers. Theodoropoulos (2003) labels Pimentel's numbers as "fictitious" for due component cost estimates, such as attributing 12 percent of the total costs of invasives in the U.S. to cats. Sagoff (2005) notes that Pimentel includes all control costs as evidence of the damage caused by invasives, but these numbers may not be a fair representation as "Government agencies may seek huge budgets for invasive species programs; they may then cite these `control costs' to justify the expense." Box 1. The Bank's Sector Strategies are Silent on IAS Issues The World Bank's sector strategies provide very little evidence that the management of harmful IAS is a development priority for the Bank's client. Most notably, the World Bank's 2002 Environment Strategy is virtually silent on the issue of invasive alien species: there is one reference, couched in an annex on Natural Resource Management, that mentions the "threat [faced by the water sector] of the introduction of alien and exotic species." There is no reference to the Global Invasive Species Program. It is not clear why the Bank's PATS application (p. 9) indicated that the program is consistent with the Bank's regional strategies for Africa and ECA, since there is no reference to IAS in any of the Regional Strategies (Annex A of the Environment Strategy). Likewise, the only reference to IAS in the Bank's 2003 Rural Development Strategy is a reference to the fact that forests have "recently become sources of and exposure of flora and fauna to pest outbreaks, new goods and service--including pharmaceuticals and invasive species." 3.10 Demand-side relevance -- alignment with beneficiary needs, priorities and strategies. To investigate demand side relevance, this review scanned the Country Assistance Strategies of small island developing states, given their relative importance from an IAS perspective. As noted in the CBD, "invasive alien species pose a particular risk to Small Island Developing States (SIDS) by threatening the ecosystems, livelihoods, economies and public health of inhabitants. Increased trade, tourism and transportation are significant vectors, and the most common pathways are ship ballast water, hull fouling, cargo containers and packaging materials, unprocessed commodities such as timber/agricultural goods, imported food species such as fish, horticultural/plant imports, waste material, military activities, and biological agents to combat pests." This excerpt from the CBD seems to suggest a consensus on where and how to derive the most value for money in terms of developing risk identification and mitigation strategies for IAS. Yet, while developing countries have agreed to this at the global level, this agreement is not reflected at the level of national policy. None of CASs for the small island developing states refer to invasive alien species (Table 3 and Annex B). IEG then performed an IAS project search across the SIDS and found that only 2 SIDS, Mauritius and Seychelles, have implemented IAS related projects (5 projects total) and that all of these projects have been financed by GEF. 19 Table 3. Invasive Alien Species in Small Island Developing States' Assistance Strategies and Project Portfolios Total number of SIDS reviewed 32 Total number of SIDS with individual CASs 12 Mention of IAS in SIDS' CAS 0 SIDS with IAS projects 2 (Mauritius and Seychelles) 3.11 Vertical relevance -- consistency with the subsidiarity principle. Each of the four partner organizations continue to undertake their own individual activities to help prevent, control and manage invasive alien species throughout the world. Apart from its role as an international clearing-house mechanism for IAS CBD issues, to what extent is GISP providing services that are different from, as opposed to competing with or duplicating the services of its programmatic partners? 3.12 To address this issue, the present review developed a value proposition model to determine the core IAS competencies of the partners and the value that could be derived from their collective action within the framework of GISP (Figure 1). Whereas the GISP provides for a platform that allows for the development of a global information system on invasive species and the program maintains a Web site to facilitate information exchange, it is not clear that this platform is needed to perform several of the program's other key activities. For example, GISP seeks to improve the technical basis for assessing the impacts of invasive species and for their prevention, control and management. It also seeks to build capacity to deal with invasive species by providing information, advice and training to entities and officials who have been tasked with the management of invasive species, inform policy development, both on a multilateral and on a national level As demonstrated below, each of the partners has a core competency related to invasive species that the individual agencies continue to exploit outside the framework of the GISP. It is not clear that the extra resources required to run and manage the global program enable more effective implementation of the global strategy on IAS that was developed during GISP's first phase. Each of the partner's IAS programs on IAS individually contribute to strategy implementation through the technical assistance traditionally offered by CABI or by awareness raising and training activities offered by IUCN. The vertical relevance of this program seems to be suffering from the partners' use of the platform, now recognized by the CBD, to enhance the reach and resources of the partner agencies. 3.13 Horizontal relevance -- the absence of alternative sources of supply. To what extent are duplicate or similar services being provided by other entities outside of the GISP partnership? 3.14 To begin with, there was a consensus among interviewees that GISP's global activities -- in terms of awareness raising, information dissemination, database management and legal and regulatory training -- is both complementary and additional to the work being undertaken by the program partners. Interviewees concurred that the partnership model coalesced greater attention towards and support for the implementation of the CBD Secretariat located in Montreal. Indeed, the collective voice of the partnership, coupled with the strong support of the World Bank, enabled GISP to enter into a formal a Memorandum of 20 Figure 1. Value Proposition Model of the GISP Partnership Aggregated Value Proposition: What impacts do the Partners Expect to Achieve through a GISP Partnership that cannot be achieved by working through the respective institutional IS work programmes? 1. Partnership is devoted to implementing a global strategy on IAS 2. Partnership establishes platform for global issue; by elevating the issue, each partner can leverage greater donor attention and funds (partners individual programs gain greater relevance). 3 Individual Value Propositions: Purpose, Functions and Activities of the Partnership Bodies IUCN TNC SANBI CABI Working on IS SANBI was IUCN hosts the TNC has a Global management since 1909; established in Invasive Species Invasive Team mainly in agriculture. September 2004 Specialist Group which runs a Expertise in assisting when the National (ISSG) -- part of website countries comply with Biodiversity Act the Species (http://tncweeds.ucd Sanitary and was signed into Survival avis.edu/index.html Phytosanitary (SPS) force. Its mandate Commission ­ a ) hosted by UC measures. CABI's IS includes global group of Davis. TNC has Programme aims to: (1) responsibilities 146 scientific and been working on Develop a `One Stop relating to the full policy experts on IAS for the last two Shop' in IS management; diversity of South invasive species decades, in more (2) Support international Africa's fauna from 41 countries. than 30 countries, in regulatory bodies and and flora, and it Headquartered in order to prevent strengthen national built on the Auckland, New new invasions and strategies and plans; (3) internationally Zealand, ISSG contain established Promote safe trade respected also has three invasive species. Its through improved risk programs in regional sections strategy to tackle IS analysis and quarantine conservation, in N.A. Europe, consists of science services; (4) Build research, and South Asia. leadership, effective capacity in national education and ISSG provides land and water institutions and networks visitor services advice on threats management, and for IS management; (5) developed by the from invasive and encouraging better Implement donor funded its forerunner, the control or business practices projects to provide new National eradication and stronger public information, products and Botanical methods to IUCN policies. services. Institute members, 21 Cooperation (MOC) with the CBD Secretariat, appointing GISP as the International Thematic Focal Point on IAS under the Clearing House Mechanism under the Convention. Specific activities highlighted in the working arrangement between the GISP and the CBD include (a) dissemination of information on invasive alien species to Parties, governments and the general public; (b) collaboration in the elaboration and development of programs pertaining to the prevention, elimination and management of invasive alien species; and (c) for the CBD Secretariat, participation in GISP activities, particularly those of the GISP Information Management Group. The appointment of the GISP to the role of an international clearing-house mechanism illustrates the low priority and resources that have been accorded to the CBD Secretariat for the specific implementation of Article 8(h). This cooperation between GISP and the CBD Secretariat might have been organized and funded more efficiently by seconding staff or bolstering support for additional staff and/or flexible working arrangements through the CBD itself. 3.15 National-level activities, on the other hand, are in some respects being carried out by international organizations through the implementation of GEF-enabled activities and a GEF- financed project might be a better modality by which to deliver technical assistance. The present review performed a database search of the GEF-financed projects that have supported the national clearing-house mechanisms. It found that ninety countries have hosted 108 enabling activities that were responsible for either creating or strengthening their national clearing houses. Enabling activities in support of the CHM capacity are mostly implemented by the UNDP (61 EAs in support of CHMs) or UNEP (40 EAs in support of CHMs). 3.16 The Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (established further to Article 18.3 of the Convention) was designed to contribute to the implementation of the Convention through the promotion and facilitation of technical and scientific cooperation, among Parties, other Governments and stakeholders. The CHM is a multi-tiered arrangement. At its core is a network of 175 national clearing-house mechanisms -- usually an interlocutor within an Environment Ministry that has been provided some support to collect and collate national biodiversity data and information. Article 18 of the CBD notes special attention should be given to the development and strengthening of national capabilities, by means of human resources development and institution building. As the international clearing-house mechanism for IAS issues in the CBD, the GISP is better equipped to deliver global public goods pertaining to information-sharing rather than competing with projects which in many cases are better equipped to build capacity at the country level. Efficacy 3.17 This section of the GPR is mainly based on the findings of the external evaluation. Verification of the findings and conclusions was achieved through interviews, a review of several of the outputs (publications) and attendance at a training workshop in Africa. As stated in the introduction, GISP adopted two main objectives during its second phase: (1) the establishment of a well-coordinated and effective global network for control and management of invasive alien species, through development and dissemination of information and best practice and (2) strengthened capacity to address IAS at the local, national and regional levels through development of new assessment tools and delivery of training modules to assess and manage IAS. To achieve these objectives, GISP's 22 implemented a set of activities that can be broadly grouped across four categories (as originally assigned by the external evaluation) which are (1) building the GISP Partnership; (2) collection and dissemination of information; (3) capacity building initiatives; and (4) assessment of economic impacts. This review provides a verification of GISP's achievements along these four activity lines. It should be noted that GISP did not have a logframe in place prior to the external evaluation. GISP has recently developed a Strategic LogFrame (2006­2010) for its current phase (see Annex B). 3.18 Building the GISP Partnership: There has been no apparent progress made on expanding the core partnership of GISP beyond the original four founding members, to include other international NGOs or national CBOs, farmers associations, research institutes, foundations, or the commercial private sector. Although the DGF application process and subsequent Bank interactions with the Executive Board and Secretariat raised the issue of enlarging the partnership, to Conservation International,7 World Wildlife Fund, and Bionet, among others, the partnership was never reconfigured. Moreover, the GISP associates discussed in the first chapter of this review were highly underutilized in terms of developing mutual areas of cooperation including data sharing and dissemination, awareness-raising, and advocacy. 3.19 Dissemination of Information: The first phase of GISP aimed to synthesize current knowledge of invasive species, including providing an update and analysis of the current knowledge of the ecology of invasive species, the current status of invasive species and new methods for assessing changing distributions, how society views and values invasive species, and how global change will affect invaders. Each of these areas of research were addressed at one or more workshops and resulted in specific products. The entire body of work was brought together at a Phase I Synthesis Conference in Cape Town, South Africa in September 2000. This research has now been synthesized as part of an edited volume entitled Invasive Alien Species: A New Synthesis, published by SCOPE on behalf of the GISP in 2005.8 The volume editors are affiliated with the GISP. And while the volume could have benefited from a more rigorous format -- perhaps with each chapter followed by an independent peer review or response to the chapter's conclusions -- it synthesizes a breadth of issues ranging from the ecology of IAS to the economics of IAS control to relevant international and regional law. Most relevant for the role of the World Bank, the short but concise chapter on the economics of IAS in this volume does offer a very candid acknowledgement that the valuation of the costs and benefits of invasion control options is "still quite primitive" (SCOPE­63, p. 23). (The synthesized findings of the research commissioned by GISP on the economics of biological invasions is analyzed in the section on Assessment of Economic Impacts below). 3.20 Phase II of the GISP in part collated the information gathered during the first phase and developed and disseminated toolkits, manuals, and training programs, and promoted best 7. It should be noted that Conservation International were invited to participate in GISP but declined. 8. It is noteworthy to draw attention here to the fact the partners do not appear to be supporting the GISP "brand." While this volume is a project of SCOPE, published on behalf of the GISP, the cover page acknowledgment reads: "A project of SCOPE, the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment, on behalf of the Global Invasive Species Program, with partners CAB International and the World Conservation Union (IUCN)." 23 practices to inform policy development on a multinational and national level. As noted by the external evaluation, the orientation of Phase II (since 2003) supplanted the first phase's scholarly publications with manuals, toolkits, reports, reviews, pamphlets and posters, fact sheets, activity updates and newsletters. Recent examples of GISP's outputs during phase II include the publication of "Needs Assessment on Taxonomy in IAS Management and Guidelines on Marine Biofouling and Invasive Species," among others. 3.21 The external evaluation performed a systematic review of the informational items produced by GISP during its second phase (2003­2006). It reviewed the status of each item (published versus unpublished) and provided independent and stakeholder commentary on various aspects of the items, including the design concept, how many items were printed, and how the items have been disseminated. One of the most visible series of GISP publications reviewed by the external evaluation is the Invaded Series -- a series of three regional awareness publications (Africa, Tropical Asia, and South America). The Invaded Series offers a bold compendium of pictures and descriptions of a diverse range of invasive species. As stated in the series, these publications are not technical documents, but "rather aim to demonstrate the diversity of the IAS issue to a broad audience, including decision and policy makers, government departments and the general public." 3.22 This GPR found, that while non-technical, these publications are potentially being utilized more by academia then the aforementioned audiences. Each of the audiences referred to, for example, would require very different approaches to influence policy change. It is not clear why or how GISP targets the general public. GISP is better equipped as a global network to raise awareness and attempt to influence policy change rather than try to influence behavioral change downstream of policy reform. Accordingly, its publications should provide more evidence-based data to influence policy makers and government departments. 3.23 This GPR found that there is no system in place to monitor or report on the uptake of GISP's informational materials. At the very least, GISP's website manager could be charged with the task of reporting on the volume and frequency of both visits to GISP's Web site and downloads of its publications. A more useful system would track and report the affiliation of its clients, so that GISP management could continue to build a network of users and practitioners, and follow-up with surveys to report to the Board on the quality of the informational material as reported by the user. A more comprehensive system, which would allow GISP to report on its impacts, would involve consistent tracking and reporting of how these informational items are being translated by decision-makers into policy-making and actual IAS awareness, prevention, and/or control measures at the country level. 3.24 There are various methods that have been tested for measuring the uptake of public awareness campaigns. These methods could include conducting surveys based on focus groups to distributing and collecting evaluation forms through its partners and associates at international forums such as the COP or through its training sessions at the country-level. 3.25 As noted by the external evaluation, the development of the Global Invasive Species Information Network (GISIN) was proposed at COP 6 in The Hague in April 2002 in order to provide a universal platform through which IAS information and data from participating databases could be accessed. GISP helped to finance the development of GISIN. An interview with the GISIN manager located with the USGS however revealed that the 24 program is currently suffering from a lack of funding, not unrelated to GISP's own current financial concerns. Yet there seems to be little exchange between the two organs, despite the fact that GISP is on GISIN's Steering Committee. 3.26 Capacity Building Initiatives: Funded mainly with BNPP contributions, GISP prepares and conducts training courses on the management of invasive species. IEG attended one such course on drafting institutional and legal frameworks for IAS held at the World Agroforestry Center in Nairobi, Kenya in November 2007. The analysis in this section is based on IEG's direct observation and conversations with training participants. It also relies heavily on an external evaluation commissioned by GISP with the objective of evaluating the content and delivery of the course, with instructions to submit a report and recommendations for future improvement to the program manager. The methods employed by the evaluation included a background review; the design and daily use of questionnaires to gauge participant feedback; unstructured interviews with participants; report cards to measure the performance of both the instruction and participation; and a post-training discussion session. 3.27 IEG found the selection of participants to be highly relevant: seventeen participants from ten African countries were nominated by their respective countries based on their roles in drafting and implementing national legislation. However, participants indicated through the training evaluation that while qualified, they did not have the authority to implement and enforce policy: higher ranking government officials would need to participate to make the training more effective at the national level. 3.28 On course content, the training evaluation found that the course material was well structured and flowed in a coordinated and comprehensive way. Participants reported that they would have appreciated greater emphasis on learning more about what actual legislation exists on invasives and how corollary policies are being enacted; the evaluation drew attention to this and also recommended in the future that actual legislative texts be distributed. One caveat: the only comprehensive legislative framework referred to in the training was that of South Africa's which would be problematic at this stage to transfer to African countries represented at the training. On course delivery, while the evaluation noted that the trainers were very professional and well versed in the subject matter, it also pointed to the fact that the training allowed for only one presentation from a course participant over the course of the three days and that there was little opportunity for interactive participation. 3.29 Assessment of Economic Impacts: The external evaluation provides an overview of several of the outputs associated with the economic component of the GISP. The present GPR goes further than the external evaluation in presenting and considering the actual conclusions of the scholarly research on the topic, mostly generated during GISP's first phase, given the relevance of this work for the World Bank. 3.30 About 19 percent of the Bank's DGF contributions (US$325,000) were directed towards the production of case studies on the economic costs of IAS and linkages of IAS to poverty. As noted in the external evaluation, GISP established a Task Group in early 2005 chaired by Professor Charles Perrings to provide advice on the economics work. Professor Perrings was subsequently commissioned to review the literature on the links between IAS and poverty and report back to GISP in 2005. A critical stream of work, it is unclear why this report remains unpublished. 25 3.31 However the synthesis of research conducted on the economics of biological invasions published by SCOPE in 2005 presents a relevant body of work that should be targeted and disseminated to members of the development community and policy-makers, including World Bank staff. To begin, according to Perrings et al., the economic analysis of IAS has focused on two problems: on pests and pathogens in agriculture, forestry and fisheries and on the economics of human disease. While very little systematic economic analysis of other IAS issues has been conducted, the analysis of the threat of IAS to agro- ecosystems has provided a model for researchers to conduct economic analysis of IAS elsewhere. Ecological models are used to predict the number of weeds and the yield losses that result from their presence; they are also used to test the sensitivity of population models in order to target key areas of the life cycle at which control will be most effective (Watkinson, Freckleton, and Dowling 2000). This information is then combined with information on the costs of control options and the value of the yield losses in order to identify the cost of invasions and to calculate the optimal level of control. A critical feature of these impacts is that they are, ex ante, highly uncertain: predicting the population dynamics of a particular species in a particular habitat entails detailed study of that species in that habitat (Lawton 1999). And it has been argued that models and short term experiments are inadequate predictors of invasions, so new situations require extensive monitoring. 3.32 The most common method of evaluating control options is classic cost-benefit analysis: yet as reported by Perrings et al. (2005), much of what is available consists of either highly aggregated estimates of the costs of invasions in particular sectors or cost-benefit analyses of successful control strategies. Since this is equivalent to "evaluating the net present value of the purchase of a winning lottery ticket," Perrings et al. find that there is a clear need to improve the basis on which control strategies are evaluated and on which the potential impacts of species introductions are valued since the valuation of costs and benefits of control options is still quite primitive. The current research available is mostly limited to partial damage estimates or direct control costs; it does not always distinguish capital from income and it pays little attention to the interactive effects between invasive and native species. Efficiency 3.33 The original financial support for the GISP came mostly from the GEF and a host of co-financiers through a UNEP-executed Medium-Sized Project. The GEF MSP, which commenced in April 1998 and was extended until December 2002 was funded at a level of US$3.13 million. This amount included a GEF contribution of US$750,000.9 Other financiers included UNESCO, the Norwegian Government, NASA, USAID, the U.S. Departments of State and the Interior, ICSU, La Fondation Total, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation among others (Annex G). 3.34 Due to the nature of this financing source -- a US$4 million project combining cash and in-kind resources from over twenty co-financiers -- GISP's strategy during Phase I was beholden to the specific activities to which individual donor funds were tied. As such, its main outputs were publications and regional workshops. Only a small amount of finance was 9. The project was evaluated in the summer of 2003 by UNEP's Evaluation and Oversight Unit. 26 provided by the Packard Foundation and NASA to support core costs, including support for GISP's first administrative unit in Stanford University. 3.35 The World Bank supported GISP during its second phase, contributing US$1.7 million of DGF finance to support the core costs and other activities of the GISP Secretariat between June 2003 and December 2006 (Table 4). Capacity-building workshops and training have been separately financed at a level of approximately US$1.4 million through the Bank- Netherlands Partnership Program (BNPP). Table 4. Sources of GISP Financing, FY03­08 (US Dollars) Source FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 Total WB DGF 300,000 600,000 800,000 1,700,000 WB BNPP 202,139 199,350 864,900 115,000 1,381,389 WB BB 8,216 19,242 4,679 4,277 36,415 UNEP­GEF 380,000 200,000 580,000 UNEP­Regional 33,000 10,000 43,000 SWEDBIO 300,615 300,615 CABI 100,000 100,000 Nature Conservancy 50,000 50,000 100,000 SANBI 89,643 89,643 Miscellaneous Income 50,000 50,000 Dutch Embassy 27,500 27,500 Government of South 25,000 25,000 Africa International Marine 21,700 21,700 Organization (IMO) Miscellaneous Transfers 21,430 21,430 USDA 10,000 10,000 Defenders Wild ­ bounced 500 500 check Total 273,569 499,350 608,216 1,253,942 1,272,694 579,420 4,487,192 Source: Table constructed by IEG from data provided by GISP's governing body. EFFICIENCY IN THE USE OF FUNDS 3.36 As reported in the External Evaluation, the GISP Secretariat received just under US$3 million from funders between June 2003 and December 2006. The DGF grant provided 72 percent of the total funding during the DGF grant period (FY04­06), despite the assertion in the DGF application that the Bank's contributions would constitute less than the requisite 15 percent of total program finance. Total World Bank support (DGF and the BNPP) accounted for 80 percent of GISP's operating costs during this time period.10 10. The World Bank's task team leader (TTL) for GISP has asserted that the program's partners and associates contributed considerable in-kind and cash co-funding for capacity building, outreach, and on-the-ground GISP activities, but under their own brand programs, which is not reflected in Table 4. According to the TTL, both the UNEP-executed GEF-financed Medium-Size Project (Phase I) and DGF-supported GISP (Phase II) leveraged considerable amounts of co-funding from program partners and associates. The co-funding for the DGF-supported phase is reflected in the annual DGF submission requests. 27 Table 5. Categories of DGF Allocations (FY03­06) as reported by the External Evaluation Budget item Year 1: 2003­04 Year 2: 2004­05 Year 3: 2005­06 Core staff costs 102,000 220,000 220,000 Travel 25,000 50,000 40,000 Office operations 22,000 50,000 40,000 Web site 10,000 45,000 30,000 Publications 31,000 85,000 30,000 Capacity building 90,000 50,000 60,000 Outreach, special 20,000 25,000 50,000 events Economic impacts 75,000 250,000 NEPAD support 50,000 Independent evaluation 30,000 Total 300,000 600,000 800,000 3.37 The Bank's DGF contribution ended up fully financing the core costs of establishing and running the Secretariat, including staff salaries, travel, and office operations -- accounting for US$769,000 (45 percent) of the DGF grant. At the behest of the World Bank, another 19 percent of the grant was directed towards economic impact studies. A limited amount of funds were spent on such core activities as disseminating information through the Web site and publications (14 percent), capacity building (12 percent), or outreach (6 percent). 3.38 The GISP Secretariat was formally established with the appointment of an Executive Officer and a Program Coordinator on June 1, 2003. Efficiency gains were sought by housing the Secretariat in the South Africa National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI). According to the terms of an agreement signed between SANBI and the World Bank, the arrangement offered GISP office space, use of vehicles, IT and human resource support. The agreement also included an expectation that GISP would be folded into the associated Kirstenbosch Research Center. However, this plan never materialized since GISP opted to become an independent legal entity per South African law. 3.39 The decision to locate the GISP Secretariat in South Africa was also made in part due to an expectation that additional financial support could be leveraged from the Working for Water (WfW) Program in South Africa -- a multi-departmental initiative led by the South African Departments of Water Affairs and Forestry, Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Agriculture. While the WfW program did contribute funds to GISP, these funds were tied to research and publications applicable to IAS issues in South Africa only. According to the external evaluation, seed funding provided by GISP in 2003 for a book on natural resource accounting methods of IAS across various ecosystems in South Africa leveraged significant additional funds from the WfW ($50,000 over three years). WfW subsequently allocated an additional approximately $75,000 during 2006/2007 for economics research applicable to South African IAS. Another estimated $60,000 allocation from WfW for 2006/2007 was also reported to have been budgeted for capacity building in South Africa. A case could be made that GISP was not necessarily needed to leverage funds from the WfW program for South African IAS information needs, since a significant amount of resources had been allocated 28 and continued to be allocated to IAS mitigation and eradication in South Africa (from the South African government and from GEF-financed projects). Rather, GISP's location in Kirstenbosch could have been well positioned to leverage technical knowledge and capacity from WfW to direct it towards capacity-building efforts in other African countries. 3.40 Given the limited time-frame of the DGF funding cycle, there was a high risk associated with the decision to create and sustain the core costs of a secretariat in the absence of other committed sources of core financing. In the event, the use of the Bank's catalytic support turned out to be inefficient insofar as the program was not successful in using the Bank's contribution to leverage other significant sources of finance to help cover core costs or to assure financial and programmatic sustainability in the long run. 3.41 Operating in the absence of a long-term financing strategy, the Secretariat began to seek project finance to support the program. But these efforts set the GISP Secretariat in competition with its four partners' programs and their own fund-raising activities, since the partners often assumed the role of executing agencies for GEF projects, for example. The Secretariat's fund- raising efforts also diverted attention away from its coordination and communications roles; little attention was paid during this period towards raising the relevance of the GISP, or IAS prevention or mitigation among relevant UN agencies or organizations managing related conventions and protocols. One year after DGF support ended in June 2006, the Secretariat was moved to Nairobi, and due in part to the low level of program financing, the program today is supported only by a handful of dedicated staff most of whom wear both GISP and partner agency hats.11 3.42 Through interviews, the external evaluation concluded that the former GISP Secretariat staff generally exhibited a high level of professionalism and commitment. However, morale and job satisfaction were low due to contract terms and financial constraints that resulted in staff turnover. Nevertheless, the Secretariat delivered on a heavy work program, including developing and managing country-based projects, developing training programs, expanding public awareness, and providing support to the CBD and the IAS activities of NEPAD through the South African Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. 3.43 One of the Secretariat's main challenges, however, was the "multiple masters" problem: the external evaluation reported management's perception of multiple and sometimes competing demands between expectations of the Executive Board, the contractual obligations of the World Bank, the strategic priorities of its host organization, SANBI, as well as requests arising from its working relationship with the CBD Secretariat. RESOURCE MOBILIZATION 3.44 Aside from the DGF and the BNPP funds made available to the program from FY04 to FY07, resources were mainly mobilized by the Secretariat through a project-by-project approach. As pointed out above, there was and remains a high opportunity cost of utilizing 11. The World Bank's TTL for GISP disagrees that financial support to establish and run the GISP Secretariat for three years was an inefficient use of DGF funds. Providing core support to sustain the network was the explicit purpose of the DGF funding from the beginning. This core support enabled and supported dissemination of good practice on IAS management as well as much of the key policy work and networking which culminated in the adoption of the revised program of work on IAS at COP9 in Bonn, Germany, in May 2008. Several African delegations at COP9 specifically took the floor and thanked GISP for capacity building. 29 the GISP Secretariat as a fund-raising/project implementation unit: such efforts detract from the global coordination, awareness-raising, and communication tasks that should be prioritized. In addition, attempts to leverage the technical skills of the GISP Secretariat complicated the program's relations with its founding partners. 3.45 The Bank took a "hands-off" approach to long-term resource mobilization, relying on the program's Executive Board to develop a sustainable financing plan: "the GISP Secretariat is working with the GISP Executive Board to develop a long-term strategy and financing plan for GISP activities beyond FY06" (PATS, p. 18). 3.46 GISP's Executive Board launched the "Ten Nations Initiative" in 2005 in response to the need to mobilize more secure sources of funding for the program beyond 2006. This initiative sought a steady stream of funding from 10 nations over a 10-year time-frame. However, the initiative only attracted one nation, Brazil. 3.47 Two of the four founding partners of the GISP -- CABI and TNC -- are now contributing US$50,000 annually to the program. IUCN has agreed to contribute the staff time of its Global IAS specialist. And the World Bank continues to provide some financial support to the program through trust funds provided by the Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program (BNPP). However, this support is limited to financing training programs and capacity building activities. Governance and Management 3.48 Governance and management is assessed here against its adherence to generally accepted standards of public sector governance such as legitimacy, efficiency, accountability, fairness, transparency, and financial management. Governance 3.49 Legitimacy. The initial legitimacy of GISP Phase II rested on the considerable reputations of the four founding partners, for the founding partners through their respective IAS activities already contribute to the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and specifically to Article 8(h). The continuing legitimacy of GISP would depend upon attracting additional partners and demonstrating results. 3.50 For an international organization that arose from an international conference (the 2nd Trondheim Conference in July 1996) associated with the Convention of Biological Diversity, there appears to be little legitimacy in GISP's governance arrangements, especially in comparison with the governance arrangements of its four partners. GISP's Executive Board is comprised mainly of representatives of its four founding partner organizations. While the Board offers an opportunity for the four partners to heighten mutual awareness about their respective organization's work plans, to potentially reduce duplication, and together form a strong platform to advocate for attention to IAS issues, the partnership tends be more emblematic of an institutional collaboration than a genuine partnership, and as a club rather than a public sector organization with a global mandate relating to invasive species. 3.51 GISP's Executive Board is based on a shareholder model of governance (in which board membership is limited to financial contributors) as opposed to a broader stakeholder 30 model. Yet even as a shareholder model of governance, the membership has been very limited. The World Bank, for example, has not been a member even though it provided the bulk of the program's finance during its second phase and often sits on the board of DGF- supported programs. The Bank's membership on the Executive Board might have helped to draw more attention to the dearth of IAS-related projects in the Bank's own portfolio. It might also have helped the Bank to elevate issues related to the financial viability of GISP during early stages of program development. As the principal financial contributor, the Bank could have placed greater conditionality on the program between the first, second and third years of its involvement, and greater emphasis on the need to design and implement a sustainable financing strategy through an expanded partnership or membership program.12 3.52 However, the World Bank is not the only actor that is visibly missing from the program's governance structure. As mentioned above, in addition to its core founding partners, the GISP lists several "partners and associates" on its Web site: only one of the seven associates, CSIRO, is represented on the Executive Board. 3.53 Accountability: The external evaluation reviewed copies of all the minutes of GISP Board meetings held between March 2003 and January 2006. The GPR team also reviewed Board minutes for meetings held between May 2006 and November 2007. GISP's Executive Board has met at least once a year for a minimum of one day as well as to hold an additional two to three teleconferences per year. Yet, given the nature of its governance structure, GISP is mainly accountable to its funders. It is a recipient of several different sources of finance from several different donors that have separate reporting requirements, including the Development Grant Facility (DGF), the Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program (BNPP), the United Nations Environment Program, and the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA). GISP is also equally accountable to its founding members -- especially those members that are currently financing the program, namely CABI and TNC. 3.54 Transparency: GISP has a very low level of transparency. While the program lists the members of its governing body and management on its Web site, none of the program's governing documents are publicly available, especially its newly adopted constitution. Since the constitution outlines the roles and responsibilities of the Board as well as of management, making it publicly available is critical for the sake of both transparency and accountability. 3.55 Ironically, some of its founding partners disclose more information related to their governance, management and financial structures than does GISP. For example, TNC posts its Bylaws, the Summary Articles of its Incorporation, the Charter of Governance Responsibilities, its Conflict of Interest Policy, its Standard Operating Procedure, and even a Whistleblower Policy on its Web site. Further, while a member of the GISP governing body, TNC has worked simultaneously to strengthen its own governance by enlisting a Governance Advisory Panel -- a panel of independent, outside experts to make recommendations to TNC's Board of Directors regarding standards of best practices for governance in a global 12. The World Bank's TTL for GISP has responded that it seemed inappropriate for the Bank to take a seat on the Board when its financial support was only for three years. The Bank's Chief Counsel had also advised that formal Bank membership on partnership boards created potential conflicts of interest. The Bank's TTL did participate as an observer in at least two Board Meetings, participated in several Board teleconferences, met with Board and Secretariat staff on a formal and informal basis at international meetings, and was in regular contact with Board chairs and Secretariat staff. 31 nonprofit organization. TNC also publishes detailed financial summary information as a part of its annual reports, financial reports, and IRS 990 forms. CABI's Article of Inception is posted online (CABI's "Agreement" entered into force on 4th September 1987 and was registered with the UN as an international treaty on 11th January 1988). IUCN posts its annual audited financial statements online. 3.56 As mentioned earlier, the External Evaluation of the GISP was not posted on the program's Web site. The evaluation should have been posted, alongside a program response or a report of progress made to date. Although the GISP publishes an annual newsletter, there is no mention in the newsletters of the evaluation, its findings, conclusions or recommendations. MANAGEMENT 3.57 Since 2003, GISP has run its operations out of a secretariat, which is currently hosted by CABI Africa, and based in Nairobi, Kenya. The Secretariat is headed by an Executive Director assisted by a team of director and managers located in GISP's partner organizations around the world. Symptomatic of small, less mature programs that require time to establish formal governance mechanisms, the lines between GISP's governance and management are somewhat blurred: four of the seven persons that comprise GISP's management team also serve as Board or alternate Board members.13 13. As noted in the IEG/DAC Sourcebook for Evaluating Global and Regional Partnership Programs, the boundary between governance and management is not always hard and fast. Both the maturity and size of a program will influence the dividing line and the degree of separation between the program's governance and management structures. Less mature programs may take time to establish formal governance mechanisms and smaller programs with limited staffing and financial resources may tend to blend responsibilities between those who govern and those who manage and to call on governing body members to be more involved in day-to-day management decisions (IEG/DAC 2007, p. 71). 32 4. The World Bank's Role and Performance 4.1 The World Bank's initial support for GISP was announced by the Bank's Director of Environment at an IUCN convened workshop on invasive alien species at the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg in August 2002. The Bank announced that it would support the creation of an international Secretariat. Although not a founding member, by opting to direct its support towards the institutional development of what was formerly a voluntary association of not-for-profit organizations, the Bank dramatically changed the nature of the GISP network. With the aim of relocating the hub of the network activities to a developing country, away from Stanford University and the Smithsonian, the Bank altered the nature of the services that could be provided from the program's newly established base in South Africa.14 4.2 Funding for the GISP was provided through Window 2 of the Bank's Development Grant Facility. The World Bank contributed US$1.7 million of DGF finance to support the GISP Secretariat between June 2003 and December 2006. The Bank also contributed approximately US$1.4 million for capacity building activities through the Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program. A SAP data exercise also revealed that approximately US$36,000 of the Bank's Budget was assigned for GISP supervision purposes. The World Bank's Rationale for Supporting the GISP 4.3 The World Bank through its DGF Application process, made the case for GISP support on both a global and national level. On the global level, it sought to help its clients fulfill their obligations under three international environmental conventions, preeminently the Convention on Biological Diversity, but also under the Ramsar Convention, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD), and the recently adopted International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM).15 4.4 The Bank's involvement in GISP has similarities to its involvement in the Global Integrated Pest Management Facility (GIF) in the late 1990s, housed in FAO. The Bank's support for the latter facility was designed, in part, to help its clients meet their obligations under the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS). Both agreements can be viewed as having requirements related 14. South Africa was chosen in part because of the Bank's relationship with the host agency, the South African National Biodiversity Institute, which was already involved in executing World Bank-implemented GEF projects with some IAS features. South Africa was also chosen due to the extensive experience and national investment that was being directed towards IAS management, through a successful national pubic works program referred to as the Working for Water Programme. 15. Several other multilateral environmental agreements include both direct and indirect requirements related to IAS. Although not a complete list, the most notable agreements apart from the aforementioned conventions referred to in the text include: the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS); the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); the World Heritage Convention (WHC); the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS); and the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus). 33 to the control of invasive species. Like GISP, the Bank supported the work of an external secretariat. However unlike GISP, the Bank was a member of the Board of the Global Integrated Pest Management Facility. And whereas both initiatives revealed a lack of complementary technical skills and awareness among Bank staff, the Bank in the case of its support for integrated pest management seconded a FAO staffer to assist with quality assurance and compliance in the Bank's portfolio. The Bank even went so far as to introduce an Operational Policy for integrated pest management (OP 4.09). Yet in both cases, the Bank's support has been mainly limited to supporting advocacy efforts outside of Bank operations. 4.5 This is despite the fact that the Bank argued that its support for GISP should also have a national focus. The Environment Department of the World Bank, in its DGF application, contended that its previous commitments to addressing IAS had been limited to a few pilot Bank/GEF projects. "As a key provider of development aid, it is important that the Bank is seen to take a lead in addressing the issue of invasive alien species which are sometimes spread through development aid and seriously reduce the positive impacts of other development investments" (PATS p. 20). Support for GISP, according to the Bank, would assist it in "mainstreaming guidelines and demonstrations of best practice into regular Bank development projects, enhancing the sustainability of Bank investments to the benefit of client countries and setting a precedent to be adopted by other donor agencies" (PATS p. 20). 4.6 However, support for the GISP Secretariat has done little to promote the integration of IAS risk analysis or mitigation and control measures into the Bank's project portfolio. IEG performed an Atlas TI search of all World Bank financed projects approved since 1997, including World Bank implemented GEF projects.16 Of the 1,817 projects searched, 76 projects, or only 4 percent of total projects included some reference to IAS. Yet only 11 of these 76 projects approved over the past decade directly addressed IAS eradication from an ecosystem management perspective -- the bulk of Bank projects that touch on IAS issues do so only in the context of their environmental assessment, and in most cases, the risk associated with IAS is viewed as too minor to merit a financed mitigation plan. With the exception of support for the InterAmerican Biodiversity Network (IABN), which approaches IAS through awareness raising and information dissemination, all of the projects with major components related to IAS target the issue on a country-by-country basis -- despite the fact that that IAS poses a transboundary threat. With the notable exception of two programs in South America, all of the projects that had a major focus on invasive species are located in Africa.17 World Bank Oversight 4.7 The World Bank did not assume a governing body role for the GISP. Neither the World Bank task manager nor a member of the Bank's Environment Sector Board (the Director or Sector Manager, for example) attended Executive Board meetings, not even as an observer. The World Bank's task team leader (TTL) routinely corresponded with the former 16. The Atlas TI search cast a wide net by using as many terms as possible to ensure that all Bank projects with an IAS component were captured. The terms applied included invasive, native, exotic, and alien species. 17. The World Bank's TTL for GISP has responded that there may actually be more Bank projects that have put resources towards addressing IAS issues as minor activities that were not picked up in this keyword search. The TTL has also asserted that there are now a suite of GEF projects which are building on lessons and good practice derived from and disseminated by the GISP network. 34 and current chair(s) of the Executive Board to discuss institutional arrangements, roles and responsibilities of the Secretariat, Board and Partners, etc. The Bank's TTL expressed early concerns about the lack of GISP's progress on institutional arrangements and the long-term sustainability of the program. 4.8 However, the World Bank did utilize a small amount (US$36,000) of its administrative budget for oversight of the DGF and BNPP-funded activities and liaison with GISP more generally. In addition, the Bank TTL used other supervision, conference, and workshop opportunities to liaise with GISP partners when possible. Reputational Risks 4.9 The World Bank does not have an operational policy on invasive alien species, nor are invasive alien species specifically referred to in any of the existing operational policies, such as Environmental Assessment (4.01), Natural Habitats (4.04) or Forestry (OP 4.36). This is not to suggest that the Bank should elevate IAS management to an operational policy level. On the contrary, the Bank's experience with launching its Operational Policy on Integrated Pest Management (Op 4.09) revealed that without proper guidance, training, resources for staff, and country buy-in, introducing an operational policy on IAS could run the similar risk of stifling investment in such critical sectors as agriculture and aquaculture. 4.10 The International Financial Corporation (IFC) however has introduced both standards and guidance on invasive alien species as part of its newly adopted Performance Standard (no. 6) on Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management. IFC's Performance Standard number 6 reads as follows: (a) Intentional or accidental introduction of alien, or non-native, species of flora and fauna into areas where they are not normally found can be a significant threat to biodiversity, since some alien species can become invasive, spreading rapidly and out-competing native species. (b) The client will not intentionally introduce any new alien species (not currently established in the country or region of the project) unless this is carried out in accordance with the existing regulatory framework for such introduction, if such framework is present, or is subject to a risk assessment (as part of the client's Social and Environmental Assessment) to determine the potential for invasive behavior. The client will not deliberately introduce any alien species with a high risk of invasive behavior or any known invasive species, and will exercise diligence to prevent accidental or unintended introductions. 4.11 The IFC has also issued a compendium Guidance Note (No. 6, dated July 31, 2007); the guidance related to IAS reads as follows: G23. An alien plant or animal species is one that is introduced beyond its original range of distribution. Invasive alien species are alien species that may become invasive or spread rapidly by out-competing other native plants and animals when they are introduced into a new habitat that lacks their traditional controlling factors. Invasive alien species are now recognized to be a major threat to biodiversity globally. 35 G24. The introduction of any new alien species as part of the client's operations should be assessed for compliance with the existing host country regulatory framework for such introductions. If such a regulatory framework does not exist in the host country, the client should assess the potential impacts of the introduction as part of the client's Assessment, as explained, paying specific attention to the potential for invasive behavior, and identify any appropriate mitigation measures to be included as part of the Biodiversity Action Plan. G25. If not regulated under applicable laws or international agreements, clients engaged in shipping and other transportation sectors should identify and implement specific procedures in the Action Plan and exercise diligence to prevent the accidental transportation and introduction of invasive alien plants and animals. G26. Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs (also known as Living Modified Organisms or LMOs), can also be considered to be alien species, with similar potential for invasive behavior as well as potential for gene flow to related species. Any new introduction of such organisms should be assessed in a manner consistent with the approach described in paragraph G24 above, with due regard to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (see the Reference section of this Guidance Note). 4.12 While it is necessary for the World Bank Group as a whole to consider the implications of the inclusion of IAS language and guidance in the IFC Performance Standards, the IFC standards have generated a great deal of controversy within the NGO community. Performance Standard No. 6, for example, has been criticized for relying far too heavily on client generated information, supervision and monitoring. Some NGOs consider the language to be too vague and unenforceable in relation to what is required of the IFC and its client.18 4.13 In the case of OP 4.09, the Bank's policy on Integrated Pest Management, the World Bank placed greater stock in advocating for integrated pest management through its support of the FAO-led global partnership (the Global IPM Facility) than it did in developing its own program of projects dedicated to experimenting with different approaches and extension systems. Disengagement Strategy 4.14 The World Bank devised a clear, upfront disengagement strategy in relation to its support for the GISP. Through the DGF application process, the Bank clearly indicated that its support would be limited to a three-year time-slice (FY04­FY06) and that this support would be provided primarily for the establishment of a functioning and dedicated international secretariat. But the Bank must take some of the blame for the failure of the program to put in place a sustainable financing strategy by the time that the DGF funding ended. 18. See "ECO: The Voice of the NGO Community in the International Environmental Conventions," Volume 15, Issue 6. March 27, 2007. www.ELCI.org. 36 5. Lessons 5.1 The main lessons of this Global Program Review for consideration by the current GISP program members and the World Bank are the following: For GISP GISP needs to define and demonstrate how the global partnership adds value over the core competencies of its contributing partners. Following the 2nd Trondheim Conference on Biodiversity in July 1996, the first phase of GISP developed a Global Strategy on IAS. GISP now needs to define areas where global cooperation is needed, for example in relation to information gathering, collating, and sharing, and differentiate these activities from the tasks that are already underway to implement the strategy in CABI, TNC and IUCN. GISP needs to revisit its governance and management structures. Symptomatic of less mature programs that take time to establish formal governance mechanisms or smaller programs with limited staffing and financial resources, GISP tends to blend responsibilities between those who govern and those who manage the program. GISP's governance structure could also include more meaningful representation of a broader set of interests, including country governments, other international agencies and non-governmental organizations. GISP needs a long-term financing strategy. Achieving GISP's mission to conserve biodiversity and sustain human livelihoods by minimizing the spread and impact of invasive alien species will require a wider network of partners and new and expanded sources of finance. Sources of financing were previously procured during GISP's first phase, for example, by tapping developed country interests related to the spread of invasive alien species in regional and international trade. The experience with Phase I of the GISP project suggests that developed country institutions are eager to fund research and workshops related to IAS as long as the topics are relevant for them. GISP could more effectively target information to appropriate audiences. The program has a less-than-effective information dissemination strategy. While on the one hand, simplifying complicated technical data on IAS makes the information more "reader-friendly" for the general public, the general public is not the program's target audience. Policy-makers or persons with influence over international, regional and national IAS strategies would need convincing evidence on the economics of IAS initiatives and a presentation of an array of methodologies that have been tested and agreed upon that can rapidly determine whether an introduction could be harmful to an ecosystem or productive economic activity. For the World Bank on the Issue of IAS Enhanced attention to IAS in the project portfolio: "Do No Harm". The external evaluation recommended that the Bank secure its investment in GISP, particularly 37 with respect to the development of procedures, norms and standards relating to Bank activities and the risk and management of invasive alien species, including safeguards for agriculture, forest restoration, ecosystem services and carbon fund projects. To bring about greater consistency across the World Bank Group, the IBRD should develop some guidance and training for task managers related to the identification and recommended level of mitigation of potential IAS threats that may emerge as a result of project interventions. This guidance could increase Bank-wide awareness of countries' obligations under the Convention of Biological Diversity, in an effort both to minimize potential project harm and to take advantage of opportunities to assist with these obligations. The Bank Group could adapt guidance from the set of guidelines (Annexed to Decision VI/23 of COP 6) entitled "Guiding principles for the prevention, introduction and mitigation of impacts of alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitat or species," which has been developed by the CBD to assist countries with the implementation of Article 8(h) on IAS. Materials produced by GISP are readily available: the Bank's Environment Department should actively distribute the IAS toolkits and literature (the Invaded Series) produced by the program. Need for research and analysis on how to identify and prioritize IAS threats and related cost-effective mitigation and/or eradication strategies. The Bank could consider supporting primary research on what the literature has identified as a clear need to improve the basis on which IAS control strategies are evaluated and on which the potential impacts of species introductions are valued (since the valuation of costs and benefits of control options is still quite rudimentary). Promoting rural livelihood opportunities associated with IAS mitigation. Very few projects supported by the Bank involving the mitigation or eradication of IAS have also attempted to exploit rural livelihood opportunities associated with specific species labeled as alien and invasive. 39 References Brown, James and Dov Sax. 2004. "An Essay on Some Topics Concerning Invasive Species" Austral Ecology 29: 530­536 COPENHAGEN DECLARATION, 2001. Managing Invasive Alien Species: Forging Cooperation in the Baltic-Nordic Region. Draft Minutes of the GISP Board Meeting Park Inn Hotel: London, UK, 2007. Minutes of the GISP Board Meeting: TNC World Office: Arlington, VA, 2007. Draft Minutes of the GISP Board Meeting: Kirstenbosch Gardens: Cape Town, South Africa. Fox, Alan, and Cliff Moran. Evaluation of the Global Invasive Species Programme: Final Report. June 2006. Evaluation of the UNEP/GEF MSP, 2003. "Development of best practices and dissemination of lessons learned for dealing with the global problem of alien species that threaten biological diversity". GISP. Detailed Breakdown of Expenditure against Core funds. GISP. Invasive Species and Poverty: Exploring the Links. GISP Board Paper 1, 2007. Current Status of GISP Funding & Project Activities. ------. 2007. GISP Board Paper 2: GISP Finances (GISP­CABI Account) ­ Funds Receipt and Allocation. ------. 2007. GISP Board Paper 2: GISP Finances (GISP­CABI Account) ­ Funds Receipt and Allocation. GISP Board Paper 3, 2007: GISP Finances (GISP­Hout Bay Account) ­ Funds Receipt and Allocation. GISPnews. 2004. Capacity Building at the Top of the IAS Agenda. ------. 2005. Filling the Gaps in the IAS Legal Framework. ------. 2006. Gearing up for COP 9. ------. 2007. World Bank Funds Study on Economic Impacts. ------. 2007. GISP Adds Voice to Biofuel Concerns. Independent Evaluation Group ­ World Bank and OECD/DAC Network on Development Evaluation. Sourcebook for Evaluating Global and Regional Partnership Standards: Indicative Principles and Standards, January 2007. Larson, Brendon. 2005. "The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 3(9): 495­500. ------. 2007. "An alien approach to invasive species: objectivity and society in invasion biology" Biological Invasions 9: 947­956. MacKinnon, Kathy. 2007. "Relevance of GISP partnership to Bank operations.. World Bank. ------. 2006. "Global Invasive Species Program: Support for International Coordination." ------. 2006. "Invasive Alien Species Threatening Biodiversity and Development." ------. 2001: "Report of Session III ­ Invasive Alien Species, Agricultural Development, and the Aid Trade, CGIAR Stakeholder Meeting, October 31, 2001." OECD/DAC Evaluation Network. "DAC Evaluation Quality Standards." March 2006. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/62/36596604.pdf. Perrings, Charles. 2005. "The Socioeconomic Links between Invasive Alien Species and Poverty." Report to the Global Invasive Species Program. 40 Pimentel, David, S. McNair, J. Janecka, J. Wightman, C. Simmonds, C. O'Connell, E. Wong, L. Russel, J. Zern, T. Aquino and T. Tsomono. (2001) "Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions" Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment (84)1:1­20. Pimentel David, Rodolfo Zuniga, and Doug Morrison. 2001. "Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States" Ecological Economics 52 (3) 273­288. Rangi, D.K. CAB International, Africa Regional Centre, Nairobi, Kenya. Proceedings of a Global Synthesis Workshop on: "Biodiversity Loss and Species Extinctions: Managing Risk in a Changing World". Sub- Theme: "Invasive Alien Species ­ Coping with Aliens." Richardson D.M., P. Pysek, M. Rejmanek, M.G. Barbour, F.D. Panetta, and C.J. West. 2000. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Diversity & Distrib. 6:93­107. Simberloff, Daniel. 2005. "Non Native Species Do Threaten the Natural Environment" Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18: 595­607. Theodoropoulos, D. (2003) Invasion Biology: Critique of a Pseudoscience (Blythe, CA: Avvar Books). 41 Annex A Annex A. Evaluation Framework for Global Program Reviews Note: This evaluation framework is a general framework that has been designed to cover the wide range of such programs in which the World Bank is involved, encompassing policy and knowledge networks, technical assistance programs, and investment programs. It is not expected that every global program review will cover every question in this table in detail. Annex Table 1. Assessing the Independence and Quality of the Evaluation Evaluation Questions 1. Evaluation process To what extent was the GRPP evaluation independent of the management of the program, according to the following criteria: Organizational independence? Behavioral independence and protection from interference? Avoidance of conflicts of interest? Factors to take into account in answering these questions include: Who commissioned and managed the evaluation? Who approved the terms of reference and selected the evaluation team? To whom the evaluation team reported, and how the evaluation was reviewed? Any other factors that hindered the independence of the evaluation such as an inadequate budget, or restrictions on access to information, travel, sampling, etc.? 2. Monitoring and evaluation framework of the program To what extent was the evaluation based on an effective M&E framework of the program with: Clear and coherent objectives and strategies that give focus and direction to the program? An expected results chain or logical framework? Measurable indicators that meet the monitoring and reporting needs of the governing body and management of the program? Systematic and regular processes for collecting and managing data? 3. Evaluation approach and scope To what extent was the evaluation objectives-based and evidence-based? To what extent did the evaluation use a results-based framework -- constructed either by the program or by the evaluators? To what extent did the evaluation address: Relevance Governance and management Efficacy Resource mobilization and financial management Efficiency or cost-effectiveness Sustainability, risk, and strategy for devolution or exit 4. Evaluation instruments To what extent did the evaluation utilize the following instruments: Desk and document review Consultations/interviews and with whom Literature review Structured surveys and of whom Site visits and for what purpose: for interviewing implementers/beneficiaries, or for observing activities being implemented or completed Case studies Other Annex A 42 Evaluation Questions 5. Evaluation feedback To what extent have the findings of the evaluation been reflected in: The objectives, strategies, design, or scale of the program? The governance, management, and financing of the program? The monitoring and evaluation framework of the program? Annex Table 2. Providing an Independent Opinion on the Effectiveness of the Program Every review is expected to cover the first four criteria in the following table: (a) relevance, (b) efficacy, (c) efficiency, and (d) governance and management. A review may also cover (e) resource mobilization and financial management and (f) sustainability, risk, and strategies for devolution or exit if the latter are important issues for the program at the time of GPR, and if there is sufficient information available on which to base an independent opinion. Evaluation Criteria and Questions Relevance: The extent to which the objectives and design of the program are consistent with (a) current global/regional challenges and concerns in a particular development sector and (b) the needs and priorities of beneficiary countries and groups. 1. Supply-side relevance -- the existence of an international consensus that global/regional collective action is required. To what extent does the program reflect an international consensus on the need for action, on the definition of the problem being addressed, on priorities, and on strategies for action? Is the original consensus that led to the creation of the program still present? Is the program still needed to address specific global/regional public concerns? Take into account the origin of the program in answering these questions:+ Is the program formally responsible for implementing an international convention? Did the program arise out of an international conference? Is the program facilitating the implementation of formal standards and approaches? Is the program primarily donor-driven? Did donors establish the program with little consultation with developing countries? Is the program primarily Bank-driven? Did the World Bank found the program and then seek other partners? 2. Demand-side relevance -- alignment with beneficiary needs, priorities, and strategies. To what extent are the objectives consistent with the needs, priorities, and strategies of beneficiary countries as articulated in the countries' own PRSPs, and in donors' strategies such as the World Bank CASs, and the UN Development Assistance Frameworks? To what extent has the voice of developing and transition countries been expressed in the international consensus underlying the program? 3. Vertical relevance -- consistency with the subsidiarity principle. To what extent are the activities of the program being carried out at the most appropriate level -- global, regional, national, or local -- in terms of efficiency and responsiveness to the needs of beneficiaries? To what extent are the activities of the program competing with or substituting for activities that individual donors or countries could do more efficiently by themselves? Pay particular attention to those programs that, on the face of it, are primarily supporting the provision of national or local public goods. 43 Annex A Evaluation Criteria and Questions 4. Horizontal relevance -- the absence of alternative sources of supply. What is the comparative advantage, value added, or core competency of the program relative to other GRPPs with similar or complementary objectives? To what extent is the program providing additional funding, advocacy, or technical capacity that is otherwise unavailable to meet the program's objectives? To what extent are the good and services being provided by the program in the nature of public goods? Are there alternative ways of providing these goods and services, such as by the private sector under regular market conditions? 5. Relevance of the design of the program To what extent are the strategies and priority activities of the program appropriate for achieving its objectives? What are the major activities of the program: Policy and knowledge networking? Financing country and local-level technical assistance? Financing investments to deliver national, regional, or global public goods? (See Annex Table 4.) Has the program articulated an expected results chain or logical framework, along with assumptions that relate the progress of activities with the achievement of the objectives? Does the results chain identify the extent to which the achievement of the objectives depends on the effective functioning of bureaucracies, markets, or collectivities? If so, to what extent are these assumptions valid? For programs providing global or regional public goods, is the design of the program consistent with the way in which the individual efforts of the partners contribute to the collective outcome for the program as a whole -- whether "best shot," "summation," or "weakest link"? Efficacy: The extent to which the program has achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives, taking into account their relative importance. 6. Achievement of objectives To what extent have the stated objectives of the program been achieved, or has satisfactory progress been made towards achieving these objectives? To what extent are there implicit objectives that are well understood and agreed upon by the partners and to which the program should also be held accountable? To what extent are there any positive, unintended outcomes of the program that have been convincingly document? To what extent have these assessments by the program or the evaluation been evidence-based? 7. Progress of activities, outputs, and outcomes. To what extent has the program or the evaluation measured the progress of activities, outputs, and outcomes? How did the program or the evaluation aggregate its outputs and outcomes at all levels -- global, regional, national, and local -- to provide an overall summary of its results? To what extent have factors such as changes in the location of the program, its legal structure, or governance processes affected the outputs and outcomes of the program? To what extent have there been outcomes that can be uniquely attributed to the partnership itself -- such as the scale of or joint activities made possible by its organizational setup as a GRPP, or its institutional linkages to a host organization? 8. Linkages to country or local-level activities. To what extent has the program established effective operational linkages with country-level activities, taking into account that: The desired nature of these linkages will vary according to the objectives, design, and implementation of each program? Positive outcomes at the country or local level are generally a joint product of both global/regional and county- level activities? Annex A 44 Evaluation Criteria and Questions Efficiency or cost-effectiveness: Efficiency -- the extent to which the program has converted or is expected to convert its resources/inputs (such as funds, expertise, time, etc.) economically into results. Cost-effectiveness -- the extent to which the program has achieved or is expected to achieve its results at a lower cost compared with alternatives. 9. Efficiency To what extent is it possible to place a monetary value on the benefits arising from the activities of the program? To what extent has the program or the evaluation conducted impact evaluations of representative program activities? To what extent has the program or the evaluation analyzed the program's costs in broad categories (such as overhead vs. activity costs), and categorized the program's activities and associated benefits, even if these cannot be valued in monetary terms? 10. Cost-effectiveness To what extent is the program measuring up against its own business plans: Has the program cost more or less than planned? How did it measure up against its own costing schedule? Have there been any obvious cases of inefficiency or wasted resources? To what extent is the program delivering its activities cost-effectively in comparison with alternatives: How do actual costs compare with benchmarks from similar programs or activities? Are the overhead costs of governing and managing the program reasonable and appropriate in relation to the objectives and activities of the program? How does the program compare with traditional development assistance programs: For beneficiary countries, has receiving the development assistance through the GRPP increased the transactions costs compared with traditional development assistance programs? For donors, has delivering the development assistance through the GRPP reduced donor costs by harmonizing efforts among donors or by reducing overlapping work (such as through joint supervision, monitoring and evaluation)? Governance and management: Governance -- the structures, functions, processes, and organizational traditions that have been put in place within the context of a program's authorizing environment to ensure that the program is run in such a way that it achieves its objectives in an effective and transparent manner. Management -- the day-to-day operation of the program within the context of the strategies, policies, processes, and procedures that have been established by the governing body. Whereas governance is concerned with "doing the right thing," management is concerned with "doing things right." 11. Compliance with generally accepted principles of good governance. To what extent are the governance and management structures and processes well articulated and working well to bring about legitimate and effective governance and management? To what extent do governance and management practices comply with the following seven principles: Legitimacy -- the way in which governmental and managerial authority is exercised in relation to those with a legitimate interest in the program -- including shareholders, other stakeholders, implementers, beneficiaries, and the community at large? Accountability -- the extent to which accountability is defined, accepted, and exercised along the chain of command and control within a program, starting with the annual general meeting of the members or parties at the top and going down to the executive board, the chief executive officer, task team leaders, implementers, and in some cases, to the beneficiaries of the program? Responsibility -- the extent to which the program accepts and exercises responsibility to stakeholders who are not directly involved in the governance of the program and who are not part of the direct chain of accountability in the implementation of the program? Fairness -- the extent to which partners and participants, similarly situated, have equal opportunity to influence 45 Annex A Evaluation Criteria and Questions the program and to receive benefits from the program? Transparency -- the extent to which a program's decision making, reporting, and evaluation processes are open and freely available to the general public? Efficiency -- the extent to which the governance and management structures enhance efficiency or cost- effectiveness in the allocation and use of the program's resources? Probity -- the adherence by all persons in leadership positions to high standards of ethics and professional conduct over and above compliance with the rules and regulations governing the operation of the program? 12. Partnerships and participation To what extent has the program identified a complete list of stakeholders, or "stakeholder map", including the agreed- upon or perceived roles and responsibilities of the categories of stakeholders identified? To what extent is this a routine programmatic function, updated regularly, and transparently available? Has the program adopted primarily a shareholder model of governance (in which membership on the governing body is limited to financial and other contributors), or a stakeholder model (in which membership also includes non- contributors)? To what extent, if any, is the program's legitimacy being sacrificed in order to achieve greater efficiency, or vice-versa? 13. Programs located in host organizations To what extent is the location of the program in the Bank or other partner organization adversely affecting the governance, management, or other aspects of the program, such as compliance with the principles of transparency and fairness? For which functions is the program manager accountable to the host organization and the governing body of the program, respectively? Are conflicts of interest being managed appropriately? To what extent does the host organization play such a dominant role in the program, thereby reducing the incentives of other partners to participate effectively, or reducing the ability of the host organization to look at the weaknesses of the program objectively? Resource mobilization and financial management: Resource mobilization -- the processes by which resources are solicited by a program and provided by donors and partners. Financial management -- the processes that govern the recording and use of funds, including allocation processes, crediting and debiting of accounts, controls that restrict use, accounting, and periodic financial reporting systems. In cases where funds accumulate over time, this would also include the management of the cash and investment portfolio. 14. Resource mobilization To what extent has the program succeeded in raising financial resources commensurate with its objectives? And from what sources -- the Bank, bilateral donors, foundations, etc.? To what extent has the program succeeded in diversifying its funding beyond a small number of donors? To what extent are the sources of funding for the program (including donor restrictions on the use of resources) affecting, positively or negatively: The strategic focus of the program? The outputs and outcomes of the program? The governance and management of the program? The sustainability of the program? 15. Financial management Are there any issues that have emerged during the course of the review in relation to: The quality of financial management and accounting? The methods, criteria, and processes for allocating funds among different activities of the program? Financial management during the early stages of the program? Annex A 46 Evaluation Criteria and Questions Sustainability, risk, and strategy for devolution or exit: Sustainability -- When applied to the activities of a program, the extent to which the benefits arising from these activities are likely to continue after the activities have been completed. When applied to a program itself, the extent to which the organization or program is likely to continue its operational activities over time. Devolution or exit strategy -- a proactive strategy to change the design of a program, to devolve some of its implementation responsibilities, to reduce dependency on external funding, or to phase out the program on the grounds that it has achieved its objectives or that its current design is no longer the best way to sustain the results which the program has achieved. 16. Sustainability of the benefits of the program's activities What is the risk, at the time of evaluation, that the development outcomes (or expected outcomes) of the program will not be maintained (or realized)? This depends on (a) the likelihood that some changes may occur that are detrimental to maintaining or realizing the expected outcomes, and (b) the affect on the expected outcomes if some or all of these changes actually materialize? 17. Sustainability of the program This will depend on a number of factors, such as the continued legitimacy of the program, its financial stability, its continuity of effective management, and its ability to withstand changing market or other conditions. To what extent is there still a sufficient convergence or accommodation of interests among the major partners to sustain the program financially? To what extent has the program developed institutional capacity such as performance- based management, personnel policies, learning programs, and knowledge management that help to sustain a program? In what areas could the program improve in order to enhance its sustainability, such as better marketing of the program's achievements in order to sustain its reputation? 18. Prospects for continuation and strategies for devolution or exit To what extent should the program be sustained? Is the continuation of the program the best way of sustaining the results achieved? Should the design of the program be modified as a result of changed circumstances, either positive or negative? What other alternatives should be considered to sustain the program's results more cost-effectively, in the light of the previous evaluation findings with respect to relevance, efficacy, efficiency, and sustainability: Reinventing the program with the same governance? Phasing out the program? Continuing country or local-level activities with or without devolution of implementation? Seeking alternative financing arrangements, such as revenue-generation, or self-financing to reduce dependency on external sources? "Spinning off" from the host organization? 47 Annex A Annex Table 3. Assessing the Bank's Performance as a Partner in the Program Evaluation Questions 1. Comparative advantage at the global/regional level. To what extent is the Bank playing up to its comparative advantages at the global/regional level -- its global mandate and reach and convening power? To what extent is the Bank's presence as a partner in the program catalyzing other resources and partners for the program? 2. Comparative advantage at the country level. To what extent is the Bank contributing multi-sector capacity, analytical expertise, and country-level knowledge to the program? To what extent has the Bank's country operations established linkages to the GRPP, where appropriate, to enhance the effectiveness of both? 3. Oversight. To what extent is the Bank exercising effective and independent oversight of its involvement in the program, as appropriate, whether the program is housed in the Bank or externally managed? To what extent is the Bank's oversight independent of the management of the program? To what extent does the Bank's representative on the governing body have a clear terms of reference? 4. Risks and risk management. To what extent have the risks associated with the program been identified and are being effectively managed? For example, IEG identified the following risks in its global review: Bank bears a disproportionate share of responsibility for governing and managing in-house programs? Confusion at the country level between global program activities, Bank activities, and Borrower activities? Representation of NGOs and the commercial private sector on program governing bodies? Unclear role and application of Bank's safeguards? Trust-funded consultants and seconded staff representing the Bank on some program governing bodies? 5. Disengagement strategy. To what extent is the Bank engaged at the appropriate level in relation to the Bank's new strategic framework: Watching brief? Research and knowledge exchange? Policy or advocacy network? Operational platform? To what extent is the Bank facilitating an effective, flexible, and transparent disengagement strategy for the program, in relation to the Bank's objectives for its involvement in the program: The program declares "mission accomplished" and closes? The program continues and the Bank withdraws from all aspects of its participation? The program continues and the Bank remains engaged, but the degree of the Bank's engagement in some or all aspects (such as financing) declines over time? Annex A 48 Annex Table 4. Common GRPP Activities Policy and knowledge networking 1. Facilitating communica- This includes providing a central point of contact and communication among practitioners tion among practitioners who are working the sector or area of development to facilitate the sharing of analytical in the sector results. It might also include the financing of case studies and comparative studies. 2. Generating and This comprises two related activities. The first is gathering, analyzing and disseminating disseminating information, for example, on the evolving HIV/AIDS epidemic and responses to it, information and including epidemiological data collection and analysis, needs assessment, resource knowledge flows, and country readiness. The second is the systematic assembling and dissemination of knowledge (not merely information) with respect to best practices in a sector on a global/regional basis. 3. Improving donor This should be an active process, not just the side effect of other program activities. This coordination may involve resolving difficult interagency issues in order to improve alignment and efficiency in delivering development assistance. 4. Advocacy This comprises proactive interaction with policymakers and decision makers concerning approaches to development in a sector, commonly in the context of global, regional, or country-level forums. This is intended to create reform conditions in developing countries, as distinct from physical and institutional investments in public goods, and is more proactive than generating and disseminating information and knowledge. 5. Implementing Rules are generally formal. Standards can be formal or informal, and binding or conventions, rules, or nonbinding, but implementing standards involves more than simply advocating an formal and informal approach to development in a sector. In general, there should be some costs associated standards and norms with noncompliance. Costs can come in many forms, including exposure to financial contagion, bad financial ratings by the IMF and other rating agencies, with consequent impacts on access to private finance; lack of access to OECD markets for failing to meet food safety standards, or even the consequences of failing to be seen as progressive in international circles. Financing technical assistance 6. Supporting national- This is more directed to specific tasks than advocacy. This represents concrete level policy, institutional, involvement in specific and ongoing policy, institutional, and technical reform processes and technical reforms in a sector, from deciding on a reform strategy to implementation of new policies and regulations in a sector. It is more than just conducting studies unless the studies are strategic in nature and specific to the reform issue in question. 7. Capacity strengthening This refers to strengthening the capacity of human resources through proactive training and training (in courses or on-the-job), as well as collaborative work with the active involvement of developing country partners. 8. Catalyzing public or This includes improving regulatory frameworks for private investment and implementing private investments in pilot investments projects. the sector Financing investments 9. Financing country-level This refers primarily to physical and institutional investments of the type found in Bank investments to deliver loans and credits (more than the financing of studies), the benefits of which accrue national public goods primarily at the national level. 10. Financing country-level This refers primarily to physical and institutional investments of the type found in Bank investments to deliver loans and credits (more than the financing of studies) to deliver public goods such as global/regional public conserving biodiversity of global significance and reducing emissions of ozone-depleting goods substances and carbon dioxide, the benefits of which accrue globally. 11. Financing global/ This refers to financing research and development for new products and technologies. regional investments to These are generally physical products or processes -- the hardware as opposed to the deliver global/regional software of development. public goods 49 Annex B Annex B. IEG Review of IAS Issues in Country Assistance Strategies of Small Island States19 Mention of IAS in the Environmental priorities Other projects related Region Country CAS year CAS placed on to IAS Mention of IAS Africa Cape Verde 2005 No Marine and terrestrial -- biodiversity Comoros 2006 No A proposal for financing -- Interim of community-based Strategy management of Note for environmental assets that FY07­08 will be submitted to the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) Comoros 2001 No A series of environmental -- Interim and biodiversity Support conservation programs Strategy 19. See section on "Demand Side Relevance" (p. 20) for an explanation of why a CAS and project analysis of this category of Bank clients was selected. Annex B 50 Mention of IAS in the Environmental priorities Other projects related Region Country CAS year CAS placed on to IAS Mention of IAS Mauritius 2006 No Mauritius The project reports that the loss of species and Biodiversity Restoration populations has been caused by out-competition Project -- closed at the and predation by invasive exotic species (plants end of 2001 as well as animals), uncontrolled exploitation and GEF-funded Restoration the inherent genetic/demographic vulnerability of of Round Island project small populations. Global GEF Project The project while protecting Round Island's fragile (Includes one SIDS: ecosystem from the risks of path erosion and Mauritius further introductions of invasives that would be associated with large numbers of visitors to Development of Best Round Island. Practices and Dissemination of Lessons Examine current tools and approaches that are Learned for Dealing with used to recognize, evaluate, and militate against the Global Problem of invasive species in order to determine best Alien Species That practices and to disseminate this information. Threaten Biological However, the specific aspects of the project for Diversity which GEF funding is requested relate only to a portion of the global strategy for dealing with invasives, that is, that of defining and disseminating the best practices. http://www.gefweb.org/Outreach/outreach- PUblications/GEF_SIDS_ENG.pdf Mauritius 2002 No Areas of biodiversity and coastal zone management Land conservation and management São Tomé 2005 No Commitment to the -- and Príncipe implementation of environmental and biodiversity projects São Tomé 2000 No Commitment to -- and Príncipe environmental protection 51 Annex B Mention of IAS in the Environmental priorities Other projects related Region Country CAS year CAS placed on to IAS Mention of IAS Seychelles no CAS Improving Management Under its 1st component, the project seeks to found of Whole Island identify potentially invasive aliens (and develop Ecosystems by Civil joint abatement and contingency plans. Society ­ GEF Medium- Sized Project 2000 GEF-funded Management of Avian Ecosystems Latin Organization 2005 No To remain competitive in America of Eastern the tourism industry and & Carib- Caribbean to reduce the impact of bean States climate change and (OECS) natural disasters, the Antigua and document argues that the Barbuda OECS countries will have Dominica to enhance their efforts to preserve and protect the Grenada natural environment. St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines Antigua and -- -- Barbuda Bahamas -- -- Barbados -- -- Dominica -- -- Grenada -- -- Jamaica 2005 No -- -- Annex B 52 Mention of IAS in the Environmental priorities Other projects related Region Country CAS year CAS placed on to IAS Mention of IAS Jamaica 2000 No The Bank is exploring a -- more integrated regional approach to natural resource management in connection with the tourism industry. This approach would involve identifying priority areas for environmental protection (with community involvement) including rich biodiversity areas with potential for eco-tourism. In Jamaica, the Bank has initiated discussions with the Government on the preparation of such a project (Cockpit Country Conservation Project) with funding from the Global Environmental Facility. St. Kitts and -- -- Nevis St. Lucia -- -- St. Vincent -- -- and the Grenadines Trinidad and 1999 No Sustainable use of natural -- Tobago resources to support social and economic development South/ Pacific 2000 No No mention to biodiversity -- East Asia Regional and Strategy Pacific Fiji -- -- 53 Annex B Mention of IAS in the Environmental priorities Other projects related Region Country CAS year CAS placed on to IAS Mention of IAS Kiribati -- GEF Adaptation Project No mention to IAS (2003) Maldives 2000 No No mention of biodiversity Environmental No mention to IAS Management Project (2008) Marshall -- -- Islands Micronesia -- -- Palau -- -- Papua New 2007 No GoPNG has launched a -- Guinea number of initiatives aimed at mitigating environmental degradation and natural disasters including the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 7 Initiative on forestry and energy, and work on the Clean Development Mechanism for emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol but they are only at an embryonic stage. Papua New 1999 No Among the key -- Guinea objectives: Promote protection of the environment, sustainable management of forest resources and conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity for the purpose of sustainable rural development and environmental and cultural conservation Samoa -- -- Annex B 54 Mention of IAS in the Environmental priorities Other projects related Region Country CAS year CAS placed on to IAS Mention of IAS Singapore -- -- Solomon -- -- Islands Timor-Leste 2005 No The Government has not -- yet ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity so is not eligible for GEF biodiversity conservation assistance. UNDP is providing technical assistance on ratification of this and other global environment conventions Tuvalu -- -- Nauru -- -- Vanuatu -- -- 55 Annex C Annex C. GISP's Strategic LogFrame 2006­2010 Vision: Global Cooperation to make the world safe from the consequences of invasive alien species Mission: To conserve biodiversity and sustain human livelihoods by minimizing the spread and deleterious impacts of invasive alien species Ethos: practical, solutions-based approach , responsive to needs, and based on objective and science-based knowledge from around the world Goals Actions Outcomes Prevent the Promote international cooperation to manage international pathways that facilitate Internationally accepted systems for reducing International Spread species introductions, including the development of international legal instruments the transfer of IAS across borders via priority of IAS Secure commitments from governments to implement prevention measures pathways Develop and Disseminate pre and post border risk assessments Increased capacity for prevention at national, Develop and Disseminate tools that assess the increased hazards of IAS introductions regional, and international levels under climate change Increased international and interagency Promote training of border and other relevant authorities in IAS detection, assessment cooperation in IAS pathway management and prevention systems A decrease in the frequency if new IAS Provide technical support to the drafting of international, regional and national IAS infestations strategies Minimize the Impact Disseminate knowledge of BP for IAS management Improved capacity for the management of IAS of Established IAS Provide technical support for the identification of priority IAS and the development and at national and regional levels and across all on Natural implementation of management plans relevant sectors, and especially in developing Ecosystems and Develop economic tools, policies, and legal frameworks to help assess and control IAS countries Human Livelihoods Reduced impact of IAS on biodiversity and Support initiative under the CBD and other bodies human livelihoods Mainstream IAS issues into all relevant sectors Management plans in place for IAS of global Promote biological control of high priority invaders and regional concern Create a Supportive Increase awareness of IAS and their impacts at all levels Public and political support for IAS management Environment for Build capacity in IAS management and research and promote the establishments of Increased global resources available for IAS Improved IAS centers of excellence management Management Promote the exchange of information on IAS through both IT platforms and other An international network of skilled IAS channels managers Build networks of OAS specialists and managers Increased preparedness to manage IAS Annex D 56 Annex D: List of Persons Consulted Name Position Organization Barnard, Phoebe Former Secretariat Staff of the Global Invasive Birds & Environmental Change Species Program Partnership Program, Global Change Research Group , Kirstenbosch Research Center Brandt, Kobie Manager, Integrated Environmental Education, City of Cape Town Training and Communications Environmental Resource Management Department Burgiel, Stas Senior Policy Advisor The Nature Conservancy The Global Invasive Species Initiative Carlton, James T. Member of GISP Phase I Scientific Steering Maritime Studies Program Williams Committee College Director CABI Africa Day, Roger Senior Adviser LEGVP, World Bank Freestone, David Fox, Alan M. Managing Director Transboundary Consulting US Technical Director GISP IUCN Howard, Jeffery Coordinator of Invasive Species of the IUCN Eastern Africa Regional Office Former Director of the GISP Secretariat Coastal and Environmental Jackson, Lynn Consulting Mackinnon, Kathy Lead Biodiversity Specialist World Bank Manek, Mita Evaluator of GISP's Training Course on Independent Consultant Drafting Institutional and Legal Frameworks for Invasive Alien Species Moran, V.C. (Cliff) Professor Emeritus University of Cape Town HZ&A (Coastal) CC Educationists, Environmental and Ecological Consultants (Chair, GISP Executive Committee); Member Department of Biological Sciences, Mooney, Harold A. of GISP Phase I Scientific Steering Committee Stanford University, Mulongoy, Kalemani Principal Officer Convention on Biodiversity Secretariat Muthoni, Njugunga Administration Secretary/Lawyer Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Margaret Service (KEPHIS) Perrings, Charles A. Member of GISP Phase I Scientific Steering Environmental Economics and Committee Environmental Management; University of York Preston, Guy Former Chairperson of the GISP Board Department of Water Affairs and Chairperson/National Program Leader: Forestry, Republic of South Africa Working for Water Program Working for Wetlands Program Working on Fire Program Co-Chair KwaZulu-Natal Invasive Alien Species Program Rangi, Dennis Chair GISP Executive Board Richardson, Dave Member of GISP Phase I Scientific Steering Institute for Plant Conservation, Committee Botany Department, University of Cape Town Shimura, Junko Program Officer, Taxonomy and Invasive Alien Convention on Biodiversity Species Secretariat 57 Annex D Name Position Organization Simons, Sarah Executive Director Global Invasive Species Program Stanton, Charlotte GEF Coordinator UNEP Simpson, Annie Manager National Biological Information Infrastructure Invasive Species Information Node Reston, VA) Witt, Arne Coordinator, Invasive Species CABI Africa Zieren, Max Regional Program Coordinator UNEP, Asia Pacific, Division of Global Environment Facility Coordination Zimsky, Mark Senior Biodiversity Specialist Global Environment Facility Annex E 58 Annex E. The Convention on Biodiversity, Article 8. In Situ Conservation Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate: (a) Establish a system of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity; (b) Develop, where necessary, guidelines for the selection, establishment and management of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity; (c) Regulate or manage biological resources important for the conservation of biological diversity whether within or outside protected areas, with a view to ensuring their conservation and sustainable use; (d) Promote the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and the maintenance of viable populations of species in natural surroundings; (e) Promote environmentally sound and sustainable development in areas adjacent to protected areas with a view to furthering protection of these areas; (f) Rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystems and promote the recovery of threatened species, inter alia, through the development and implementation of plans or other management strategies; (g) Establish or maintain means to regulate, manage or control the risks associated with the use and release of living modified organisms resulting from biotechnology which are likely to have adverse environmental impacts that could affect the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account the risks to human health; (h) Prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species; (i) Endeavour to provide the conditions needed for compatibility between present uses and the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components; (j) Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices; (k) Develop or maintain necessary legislation and/or other regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened species and populations; (l) Where a significant adverse effect on biological diversity has been determined pursuant to Article 7, regulate or manage the relevant processes and categories of activities; and (m) Cooperate in providing financial and other support for in-situ conservation outlined in subparagraphs (a) to (l) above, particularly to developing countries. 59 Annex F Annex F. IFC Performance Standards and Guidance Notes on IAS IFC Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES I2. Intentional or accidental introduction of alien, or non-native, species of flora and fauna into areas where they are not normally found can be a significant threat to biodiversity, since some alien species can become invasive, spreading rapidly and out-competing native species. I3. The client will not intentionally introduce any new alien species (not currently established in the country or region of the project) unless this is carried out in accordance with the existing regulatory framework for such introduction, if such framework is present, or is subject to a risk assessment (as part of the client's Social and Environmental Assessment) to determine the potential for invasive behavior. The client will not deliberately introduce any alien species with a high risk of invasive behavior or any known invasive species, and will exercise diligence to prevent accidental or unintended introductions. IFC Guidance Note No. 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management (July 31, 2007) INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES G23. An alien plant or animal species is one that is introduced beyond its original range of distribution. Invasive alien species are alien species that may become invasive or spread rapidly by out-competing other native plants and animals when they are introduced into a new habitat that lacks their traditional controlling factors. Invasive alien species are now recognized to be a major threat to biodiversity globally. G24. The introduction of any new alien species as part of the client's operations should be assessed for compliance with the existing host country regulatory framework for such introductions. If such a regulatory framework does not exist in the host country, the client should assess the potential impacts of the introduction as part of the client's Assessment, as explained, paying specific attention to the potential for invasive behavior, and identify any appropriate mitigation measures to be included as part of the Biodiversity Action Plan. G25. If not regulated under applicable laws or international agreements, clients engaged in shipping and other transportation sectors should identify and implement specific procedures in the Action Plan and exercise diligence to prevent the accidental transportation and introduction of invasive alien plants and animals. G26. Genetically-modified organisms, or GMOs (also known as Living Modified Organisms or LMOs), can also be considered to be alien species, with similar Annex F 60 potential for invasive behavior as well as potential for gene flow to related species. Any new introduction of such organisms should be assessed in a manner consistent with the approach described in paragraph G24 above, with due regard to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (see the Reference section of this Guidance Note). 61 Annex G Annex G: Financing of GISP Phase I: (The UNEP Executed Project on IAS Implemented by SCOPE) Source Purpose US$ `000 Personnel Scientists, Experts 760 GEF To SCOPE and UNEP 750 U.S. Dept. of State Regional Workshops 475 To Stanford GISP Unit; Cape Town Packard Foundation 329 Conference; Publications Project Coordination, Global Change UNESCO 95 Workshop UNEP Regional Workshops, Evaluation Mission 95 University of Auckland Database Development 80 SCOPE Project Support 70 IUCN Human Dimensions Workshop 63 European Commission 60 U.S. Dept. of the Interior Hawaii Regional Workshop 45 La Fondation Total Database Development 45 Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Hawaii Workshop 40 Force Government of Brazil Brasilia Regional Workshop 40 German Research Council Economics Component; Post-Doc Fellow 40 NASA Stanford Unit & Global Change Workshop 34 USAID Hawaii Regional Workshop 30 Start-Up Grant, Economics Component, Post- MacArthur Foundation 47 doc Fellow U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Database Development 12 U.S. Bureau of Land Management Bangkok Regional Workshop 10 Danish Government Copenhagen Regional Workshop 8 New Zealand Database Development 5 Total 3,133 Annex H 62 Annex H. Response of the Program to IEG's Global Program Review This document constitutes a formal response by the Executive Board (EB) and Management Team (MT) of the Global Invasive Species Program (GISP) to the revised version of the draft Global Programme Review (GPR) of GISP, undertaken by the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) of the World Bank, dated July 17, 2009. While the EB and MT of GISP welcome the opportunity of responding to the revised version of the draft GPR, and acknowledge that some changes have been made to the original version of the draft GPR, notably clarification of the different time periods under review, we continue to express our disappointment with the overall quality and tone of the GPR. When the original version of the draft GPR was circulated on 18th February 2009 (18 months after the review was conducted), GISP invested a considerable amount of time highlighting and correcting the factual inaccuracies, misconceptions, and misunderstandings, in the belief that all of the corrections would be incorporated in the final version of the GPR. This has not happened! Instead, we consider the changes in the revised draft to be minimal, the overall negative tone of the GPR remains unchanged, and many of the specific problems noted in the initial draft, including inaccuracies in the summary, are still evident in the revised draft. In conclusion, the EB and MT of GISP do not accept the revised version of the draft GPR (dated July 17, 2009) but recognize that at this stage, any additional investment of staff time in the GPR process would be difficult to justify and unlikely to result in substantive changes to the GPR. The Global Program Review Series The following reviews are available from IEG. Volume #1, Issue #1: ProVention Consortium Issue #2: Medicines for Malaria Venture Issue #3: Development Gateway Foundation Issue #4: Cities Alliance Volume #2, Issue #1: Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund Issue #2: Association for the Development of Education in Africa Issue #3: Population and Reproductive Health Capacity Building Program Issue #4: International Land Coalition Volume #3, Issue #1: Consultative Group to Assist the Poor Issue #2: Global Development Network Issue #3: Global Forum for Health Research Issue #4: Global Invasive Species Program GPR The Global Invasive Species Program (GISP) is a global partnership--located in the Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International (CABI) in Nairobi, Kenya--whose mis- sion is to conserve biodiversity and sustain human livelihoods by minimizing the spread and impact of invasive alien species (IAS). GISP was launched at the 2nd Trondheim Conference on Biodiversity in July 1996. Based on a clear international consensus on the relevance of the program's mission, the World Bank provided grants from its Development Grant Facility to support the core costs of the GISP Secretariat from 2004 to 2006. GISP has made a major contribution to the development and dissemination of IAS-related information, through production of toolkits and manuals, promotion of good practices, and development of training courses to help strengthen IAS capacity at the country level, especially in Africa. But GISP was unable to leverage the Bank's contribution to raise other significant funding to help cover core costs, expand its partnership beyond its four founders (CABI, the World Conservation Union, the Nature Conservancy, and the South African Biodiversity Institute), or assure financial and programmatic sustainability for the long term. Achieving the program's mission will require a broader partnership base, a clearer focus on providing global goods and serv- ices different from those of its four partners, and new and expanded sources of finance. Although the World Bank is no longer a financial partner of GISP, apart from some finance channeled through the Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program, it needs to continue to address the weak linkages that have existed between attention to IAS in its project portfolio and the threats posed by IAS to desired development gains.