biodiversity mainstreaming: experiences from brazil

Mainstreaming biodiversity:

some relevant experiences

Camila Oliveira

Ministry of Environment – Brazil

Bioversity International

Rome, November 2013

Some history:

• UN Conference on the Human Environment – Stockholm, 1972;

• UN Conference on Environment and Development – Rio de Janeiro, 1992;

Foundation for mainstreaming!

c. Integrate strategies for the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of biological resources into national development strategies and/or plans;

Paragraph 44: … A more efficient and coherent implementation of the three objectives of the Convention and the achievement by 2010 of a significant reduction in the current rate of loss of biological diversity will require the provision of new and additional financial and technical resources to developing countries, and includes actions at all levels to:

Decision X/2 - The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets – NBSAP as “effective instruments for the integration of biodiversity targets into national development and poverty reduction policies and strategies, national accounting, as appropriate, economic sectors and spatial planning processes, by Government and the private sector at all levels; “

4 main factors for successful integration of biodiversity: • Good scientific information and understanding; • Institutional capacity and commitment; • Strategic cross-sectoral and public-private partnerships; • Willingness to seize opportunities.

(Foreword – Kristalina Georgieva – The World Bank)

Situations characterized by: • Incorporation of BD considerations into sectoral policies; • Sectoral activities recognized to be dependent / based on; • “Win-win” scenario (BD and economic sector); • Situations where sectoral activities result in overall gains

for BD exceeding losses. (Introduction – T. Sandwith)

2002

The process of mainstreaming biodiversity (generalizations from specific cases):

Given that certain prerequisites are in place, a set of specific stimuli can catalyze activities which then lead

to the identification of appropriate mechanisms, with the net result that effective mainstreaming, as

measured by outcomes, will happen!

http://bioterra.blogspot.it/2006/05/countdown-2010-save-biodiversity-salve.html

Conclusions: The Fundamentals of Mainstreaming Biodiversity (R. M. Cowling, S. M. Pierce and T. Sandwith)


Pre-requisites (elements without which MS cannot happen): • Scientific knowledge and understanding; • Adequate institutional capacity; • Effective NGO involvement; • Commitment of stakeholders; • Supportive legislation and policy; • Existing protected area system; • Need for socio-economic delivery; • Implementation/management knowledge; and • Awareness of global significance of biodiversity.




Stimuli (factors external and internal to the sector that offer unexpected opportunities or catalyze awareness of the need for mainstreaming actions): • Change in governments; • Threat to biodiversity/ecosystem service; • Linkages to social-economic delivery; • Demand for ecosystem service; • Private sector involvement; • Conflict resolution; • Natural disasters; etc.



Mechanisms (actual activities to accomplish MS): • Effective communication to stakeholders; • Synergistic partnerships between government, private

sector and NGOs; • Enabling legislation and policy; • Creation of new institutions or institutional arrangements; • Seed funding; • Effective research; • Key appointments (capable and committed individuals); • Capacity building; • Role models (positive example).


• Incorporation of biodiversity issues into sector policies;

• Simultaneous biodiversity and sector gains ("win-win");

• Net biodiversity gains-exceed-net-biodiversity loss by sector activities;

• Sector activity based on or dependent on sustainable use/management of biodiversity; etc.

Outcomes (measurable indicators of mainstreaming effectiveness):

Effective mainstreaming requires: 1. Awareness and political will from the highest levels, providing support; 2. Strong leadership, dialogue and co-operation at all levels; 3. Mutual supportiveness between biodiversity and development priorities; 4. Focus on economic sectors, supported by cross-sectoral approaches; 5. Analysis of the changing motivations and opportunities of each sector; 6. Identification and prioritization of entry points and the development of sector-specific tools and interventions; 7. Awareness within sectors of the relevance of biodiversity conservation; 8. A coherent set of economic and regulatory tools and incentives that promote and reward integration and added value, while discouraging inappropriate behaviours; 9. Sustained behavioural change (individuals, institutions and society - public and private); 10. Measurable behavioural outcomes and biodiversity impacts.

Guidelines for mainstreaming success (guiding principles and key determinants for effective biodiversity mainstreaming): 1. Develop an operational strategy embedded within a theory of change for BD MS; 2. Recognize that democratic, transparent and stable governance systems are fundamental to success; 3. Develop science-based biophysical and socio-economic spatial information systems and assessments at relevant scale; 4. Plan for extended project duration and financial sustainability and implement adaptive management approaches; 5. Align mainstreaming projects with the CBD and other intergovernmental processes; 6. Align mainstreaming initiatives with government priorities; 7. Develop strong and responsive teams led by champions; 8. Achieve positive behavioural change as a driver of mainstreaming; 9. Communicate effectively with stakeholders; 10. Strengthen capacity at individual and institutional levels; 11. Improve project design, monitoring and evaluation.

http://www.stapgef.org/workshop-mainstreaming-biodiversity-conservation-in-production-sectors/

Biodiversity mainstreaming is the process of embedding biodiversity considerations into policies, strategies and practices of key public and private actors that impact or rely on biodiversity, so that it is conserved and sustainably used both locally and globally. (2013)

Other definitions:

Biodiversity mainstreaming is to internalize the goals of biodiversity conservation and the sustainable use of biological resources into economic sectors and development models, policies and programmes, and therefore into all human behaviour. (GEF/STAP 2004)

Though “mainstreaming” has been called “integrating” biodiversity into development, it has the added meaning of modifying that into which it is integrated – changing the valence of development policies and interventions towards consideration of the values of biodiversity. (from Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation: A framing paper for the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the Global Environment Facility, by Kent H. Redford)

Other names:

Natural Capital, Green Economy, Green Accounting, Agri-environment schemes, Building with Nature, Certification schemes, etc…

“the mainstreaming approach is still in its infancy in financial and production sectors, although enjoying wide support by conventions, agencies and institutions, such as the CBD, GEF, UNDP, UNEP, World Bank, IUCN, WWF, CI.”

Biodiversity mainstreaming is happening…

Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation: A framing paper for the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the Global Environment Facility, by Kent H. Redford.

An analysis was done of mainstreaming projects that had been funded by GEF (3,4, and 5): • 327 biodiversity mainstreaming projects; • totaling US$1,631,684,477 in GEF funding and US$5,249,734,936 in co-financing (median GEF funding per project was US$3,586,364 with a median of US$12,100,000 in co-financing).

GEF Biodiversity Mainstreaming

http://pubs.iied.org/G03673.html?k=Biodiversity and Development Mainstreaming

- Understand the political economy; - Identify all opportunities for mainstreaming into development frameworks; - Identify entry points, ‘low hanging fruits’ and win-win situations; - Communication; - Network.

Mainstreaming tactics:

Upstream and downstream outcomes of biodiversity mainstreaming:

Learning from the experience other issues with mainstreaming:

• Environment; • Gender; • Other specific environmental challenges: Drylands and Climate

Change.

Be aware for negative effects:

A recent review of gender practitioners from 26 NGOs in South Africa showed that gender mainstreaming had actually had a negative effect.

The review also highlighted the problems associated with inadequate financing, failure to acknowledge power relations and the overly technocratic nature of mainstreaming activities - all of which could be of equal concern in biodiversity mainstreaming.

• Prevailing development paradigm – where biodiversity is an externality;

• Lack of clear understanding of what biodiversity means in each country’s context – wildlife, agricultural biodiversity, fisheries - and what aspects of biodiversity contribute to what objectives of development;

• Insufficient evidence on contribution of biodiversity to development;

• Lack of successful models and blueprints; • Need for - but difficulty of – working across different Ministries that

don’t usually deal with biodiversity; • Limited capacity to move from policies and plans to implementation; • Competition with other policy priorities for limited resources.

Key Challenges to mainstreaming:

• Tailor the argument to the audience – economists like numbers…;

• Leadership is critical: Mainstreaming “champions” are needed to push the process, and keep momentum going;

• Build on existing processes /planning /budgeting cycles rather than creating something new or additional;

• Mainstreaming is iterative and requires adaptive management

• Mainstreaming takes time – and money; • Trade offs are inevitable.

Key Lessons:

A proposal by Kent Redford at the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (GEF/STAP) Cape Town, 1-3/10/2013

• 16 global leaders (MMA, CBD, IUCN, Bioversity, CGIAR, Sustainable Food Trust, FBDS, Embrapa, Center for Science, Economics and Environment, FANRPAN, UNEP, IPBES).

http://www.fao.org/infoods/infoods/food-biodiversity/en/

• Food biodiversity (varieties and cultivars + neglected/underutilized or wild species) - significant intraspecific differences – 1000-fold differences (statistically and nutritionally significant);

• Can address multiple burdens of malnutrition - dietary energy, macro- and micronutrients and other beneficial bioactive constituents;

• Provides genetic resources for all crops, livestock and marine species harvested for food.

•

Rationale - Biodiversity, Food and Nutrition:

Mainstreaming biodiversity into food and nutrition strategies and policies – What needs to be done?

Increased evidence base: • Nutritional composition data for biodiverse foods need to be

generated and widely disseminated to spread the knowledge on the potential of these foods, especially to consumers and professionals in nutrition, health, environment and agriculture (raise awareness);

• More attention to the identification of foods below the species level (variety/cultivar/breed) - consumption surveys need to be designed to capture biodiverse foods;

More advocacy at the international and national levels: • More funds need to be available for investigating food

biodiversity, since this information has great impacts on nutrition and health programmes and policies.

Mainstreaming biodiversity into food and nutrition strategies and policies – Why?

• Generic food composition data – wrong nutrient intake estimations of the target population – wrong decisions and policies in nutrition and health programmes;

• Foods with interesting nutrient profile could be included in agricultural research and production programmes and policies – better nutrition and health;

• Increasing problem of obesity due to simplification of diets (in developing countries, beside micronutrient deficiencies and undernourishment). Biodiverse foods – rich in micronutrients + low in energy-density – reverse this;

• Shift towards food-based approach – inappropriate use of medicalized approach (food fortification and supplementation) – public health problem (malnutrition).

International declarations and endorsements:

• CBD/COP7 – Decision VII/32 – recognized linkages between BFN and the need to enhance the sustainable use of biodiversity to combat hunger and malnutrition;

• CBD/COP8 – Decision VIII/23 – Cross-cutting initiative on biodiversity for food and nutrition;

• FAO/Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) – 14 Regular Session (CGRFA-14/13/8 – Review of Key Issues on Biodiversity and Nutrition);

• FAO/ CGRFA /Intergovernmental Technical Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (WG-PGR).

• Leading role of FAO, Bioversity and Brazil; • Programme of work on agricultural biodiversity; • Biodiversity is essential for food security and nutrition –

offers key options for sustainable livelihoods and human well-being – contribution to the achievement of the MDGs;

• Interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral approaches to integrate health, education, agriculture and environmental objectives – urges Governments to integrate biodiversity, food and nutrition considerations into NBSAPs and other national plans and activities.

Cross-cutting initiative on BFN (Decision VIII/23)

“Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation and sustainable use for improved nutrition

and wellbeing”

• 3.5.1 Review status of mainstreaming biodiversity tools and approaches by sector and cross-sectorally with particular emphasis on mainstreaming into food and nutrition activities

• 3.5.2 Inventory relevant tools and methods for mainstreaming biodiversity into food and nutrition activities (National Sustainable Development Strategies; National Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers; National Nutrition Policies, Strategies and Action plans etc.)

• 3.5.3 Draft guidelines for using tools for mainstreaming and methodologies to support inclusion of biodiversity into food and nutrition activities

Output 3.5 - Tools and methods for mainstreaming biodiversity into food and nutrition upscaled and disseminated

What is going on in Brazil …

http://www.mainstreambiodiversity.ca/MainstreamingBioDiversity.aspx

Brazilian Public Policies

• 2003- Zero Hunger Program (MDG1: End hunger and poverty) - among other guidelines, promote greater integration of all actors involved and further development of partnerships:

– Bolsa Familia - income transfer to improve life conditions - introduced a concept of intersectoriality;

– Food Acquisition Program (PAA) - boost household agriculture;

– Prioritize the School Feeding Program (PNAE) – education linked to food security and nutrition;

National Council on Food and Nutritional Security: 57 members - two-thirds from civil society and a third from the government.

Interministerial Chamber on Food and Nutritional Security: 19 ministries from CONSEA, under the coordination of the Ministry of Social Development and Fight against Hunger.

Food and nutritional security covers biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of resources (art. 4th of Law 11.346, from September 15, 2006).

National School Feeding Program (PNAE)

Contribute to student’s biopsychosocial growth and development, improve learning, school performance, promotion of healthy eating habits and the provision of healthy meals that cover at least 20% of the nutritional needs during the school year.

FOOD AND NUTRITIONAL SECURITY and HUMAN

RIGHT to FOOD and NUTRITION

Family Household Agriculture Law 11.947 June 16, 2009

Art. 14º. Of the total financial resources transferred by the FNDE, within the NSFP, at least thirty percent (30%) will be used in the purchase of foodstuffs directly from family farms and rural household entrepreneurs or their organizations , giving priority to agrarian reform settlements, indigenous and traditional communities as maroon communities.

native species from agrobiodiversity and sociobiodiversity

Minimum Price Guarantee Policy (PGPM)

Objective

Biodiversity conservation with income generation

and the promotion of food security to many indigenous and local

communities

*Price research for 10 other species are being conducted.

Food and Nutrition National Policy

(PNAN)

-The promotion of adequate and healthy food as one of the

guidelines (food habit appropriate to the biological and

sociocultural aspects of individuals, as well as the

sustainable use of the environment);

Recently launched National Plan of Organic Production and Agroecology (October 17, 2013).

Interministerial Chamber of Agroecology and Organic Production – Ciapo:

• 14 representatives of the federal government;

• 14 representatives of civil society organizations.

Addresses the need of the production of

healthy food aligned with the conservation of

natural resources.

• Goal 10 - to invest 20.2 million Reais in access, use, conservation and management of natural resource, with emphasis on environmental regulation and the strengthening of socio-biodiversity products.

– Initiative 3 – to demonstrate the nutritional value of 40 native species of the Brazilian flora of current or potential economic value and the role that these species may play in promoting food and nutritional security, as well as in the composition of healthy diets.

http://www.cbd.int/nbsap/

Revision of the NBSAP - Dialogues on Biodiversity: Building the Brazilian Strategy for 2020 – National Targets

Strategy objective: Elaboration and proposition of national targets and effective legal instruments for the achievement of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets and the update of the National Biodiversity Policy (participatory process). Engagement of the whole society: Participation of different sectors of the brazilian society in the whole process, as a way of obtaining the engagement and commitment for achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.

• Sectorial Consultation: - Private Sector (CNI, CEBDS, MEB); - Academic Sector (SBPC); - Environmental Sector – NGOs (IUCN-Brasil, WWF-Brasil, IPÊ); - Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Sector (Inbrapi, GTA, Comitê Intertribal, Articulação Pacari de Plantas Medicinais); - Governmental Sector (Abema – State Environmental Entities);

• 1st Consolidation for the creation of the Base Document; • Public Consultation - Internet (19/12/2011 to 31/01/2012); • Consolidation of the proposal by the Government (National Biodiversity

Commission - CONABIO) – approval of Resolution n. 06, September 3, 2013.

Process:

Action Plan for Biodiversity Conservation: • Partnership with the Ministry of Planning • Logic Model adapted to Plan • Result Chain using Problem Tree Analysis

• Collection and analysis of information – consultant – 40 interviews with technicians from the Ministries to assess the causes that are responsible for biodiversity loss;

• Begin the construction of the Problem Tree with technicians from the environment sector of the federal government.

Biodiversity Loss

After 4 meetings with the environmental sector…

2nd Phase - 24 ministries and agencies of the Federal Gov. • 1st meeting - validation of the Problem Tree • new actors – new insights

Axis: Low Value of Biodiversity and Associated Traditional Knowledge (55 causes)

Low importance to the use of biodiversity into

food and nutrition.

Axis: Production and Consumption Models Incompatible with Conservation (60 causes)

Axis: Loss, degradation and fragmentation of habitats (47 causes)

2nd Phase - 27 ministries and agencies of the Federal Gov. • 2nd meeting – assessment of existing actions and initiatives

that combat the causes • 3rd meeting – gap analysis, establishment of new

partnerships and initiatives (opportunity)

• Cause (of the problem), • Activities or initiatives (to attack the causes), • Impact on the cause (1:no impact, 3:low impact, 5:medium impact, 7:high impact), • Actual state of implementation (0-30%:initial, 31-60%:intermediate, 61-99%:advanced;

100%:concluded), • National or regional reach (national, North, Northeast, Central-west, Southeast, South), • Biome (Amazon, Caatinga, Cerrado, Atlantic Forest, Pampa, Pantanal, Coastal and Marine), • Target group or beneficiaries, • Organ responsible, • Partners, • Expected products, • Targets (2013, 2014, 2015, 2020 – monetary or non-monetary), • Total investment (multi-year plan budget or other sources or non-monetary actions), • Observations.

MMA - implementation of the BFN Project; - Plants for the Future initiative; - geographical distribution of wild relatives of main crops; Embrapa/MAPA - agricultural technologies for rural population; - ecological based production system; ICMBio/MMA - technical assistance to people dependent on extractivism; MCTI - Research Network Bionorte, Pro-Midwest, Center of the Pantanal, Northeast Biotechnology, Institute for Sustainable Development Mamirauá, Food and Nutrition Network (Food Composition Table Project); FUNAI/MJ - capacity in best management practices of agricultural biodiversity; MPA - integrated centers of fisheries and aquaculture, fishery stations and aquaculture research center; - increase the share of fish in the institutional market, with a focus on encouraging the consumption of fish in the school feeding; - promote national agriculture and fishery products in the national domestic and international market. …

Actions related to Low importance to the use of biodiversity into

food and nutrition.

Relationship with the Aichi Targets - prioritization

Next steps

• Current – consultant writing down the Action Plan; • Incorporation of the contribution of other Plans (ex.

Action Plan for Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon, Action Plan for Sustainable Production and Consumption, the Biodiversity Thematic Program on the Multi-Year Plan – PPA, and others);

• Identify the institutional capacity of government to achieve the Aichi Targets;

• Develop a strategy for monitoring and evaluation of the Action Plan.

Presidential

Message

Strategic vision

Macro challenges

Thematic Programs

(Context)

Annex I

Objectives

Initiatives

Management, Maintenance and

Services to the State Programs

Thematic Programs

Brazil’s Multi-Year Plan (PPA 2012-2015):

One of the objectives was to create space to deal with transversal and multi sectoral policies and regionalization.

4 big axes: Economic Development, Social Development, Citizen and Human Rights, and Management and Infrastructure.

• S, T & I and systematization and dissemination of information related to the subject;

• Expansion and consolidation of the National System of Conservation Units;

• Valuation of agricultural biodiversity and socio-biodiversity and the promotion of its sustainable use – Green Cash Transfer;

• Promotion of access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge with the fair benefit sharing;

• Species conservation; • Biosafety and balance of ecosystems; • Proposition of the necessary regulatory and policy frameworks

related to international commitments.

Main points of the Biodiversity Thematic Program:

Manager Marcos Antônio Pereira de Oliveira Silva

Coordination – Environmental Sustainability Elisa Monteiro Malafaia

Coordination - Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries Fabiano Chaves da Silva

Ismael Alves de Brito Neto

Liane Rucinski Ronan Silva Carlos Pinho Raquel Alves

Sustentabilidade Ambiental

Biodiversidade

Licenciamento e Qualidade

Ambiental

Mudanças Climáticas

Florestas e Controle do

Desmatamento

Gestão de Recursos Hídricos

Agropecuária e Pesca

Agricultura Irrigada

Pesca e Aquicultura

Agropecuária Sustentável

Defesa Agropecuária

Inovações para a

Agropecuária

Ilka Kawashita

Department of Economic and Special Issues Director - Bráulio Santiago Cerqueira

Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management Secretary of Planning and Strategic Investiments

Lessons learned …

http://pubs.iied.org/G03673.html?k=Biodiversity and Development Mainstreaming

“Mainstreaming needs to recognise who holds power and therefore who needs to be engaged - Ministries of Finance, or Finance and Planning are particularly important in this regard.”

MUNIC – IBGE Survey • % of municipalities that have some body to deal with

environmental: 2002 – 67,8% 2012 – 88,5%

• % of municipalities that have City Council for Environment: 2002 – 34,1 % 2012 – 63,7% (77% are active)

MMA Survey – What the brazilian citizen thinks about environment? • % of Brazilians who could not mention an environmental

problem in Brazil: 2002 – 46% 2012 – 10%

Things are improving in Brazil …

Thank you!

[email protected]