Biodiversity Indicators for Monitoring
GEF Programme
Implementation and Impacts

Draft Final Report

M. Jenkins and V. Kapos

WORLD CONSERVATION
MONITORING CENTRE

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Introduction

Contents

Introduction
Major constraints
Structure of the indicator set
Implementation
Expansion
Indicators of coverage by GEF biodiversity-related activities
Table Ia — Direct interventions
Table Ib — Enabling environment interventions
Indicators of GEF impacts on pressures and behaviours affecting biodiveristy
Table Ila — Impacts on pressures and behaviours directly affecting biodiversity
Table IIb — Impacts on the enabling enviroment
Indicators of GEF impacts on status of and trends in biodiversity
Table III
Indicators for providing context for evaluating GEF work on biodiversity
Table IV
Next steps

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Introduction

Introduction

The GEF needs to report in a variety of contexts on the extent and impact of those of its
activities that address biological diversity. To do this in a succinct, meaningful and
purpose-specific manner, it requires a portfolio of indicators that can be used to
summarise its activities at programme level and demonstrate their impacts over time. It
is important that such an indicator portfolio be structured in such a way that it is possible
to select individual indicators, or sets of them, to address individual issues raised in the
articles of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and in the decisions of the
Conferences of its Parties (CoP).

In this report a broad portfolio of candidate indicators is presented. This is intended
neither to be comprehensive, nor to be used in its entirety. On the contrary, we foresee
that different subsets of indicators will be used for different reporting purposes, and that
the form of their presentation will also vary according to purpose. By identifying a range
of indicators that together can satisfy many purposes, it is possible to anticipate data
needs, assess the feasibility of meeting them within different time frames, and develop
efficient mechanisms for doing so.

Major constraints

The principal long-term aim of this exercise is ultimately to demonstrate impacts by the
GEF on biodiversity itself. However, a series of constraints must be taken into account in
trying to achieve this. Among the most important are:

e “Biodiversity” is a complex and somewhat ill defined concept, for which no
single measure exists. Different attributes of biodiversity may not be well
correlated with each other;

e The time-scales on which meaningful change in different attributes of
biodiversity can be measured are variable. In many cases they may be
significantly longer than that of a normal project cycle.

e Virtually all measures of biodiversity show natural variation at a wide range
of temporal and spatial scales. Disentangling human-induced change from
such natural variation 1s often problematic.

e Indicators cannot demonstrate causality. The attribution of particular changes
to particular actions will always be at best hypothetical.

It is also important to stress that indicators are a product of monitoring not a substitute for
it. Because most meaningful changes in biodiversity take place over periods of decades or
longer, any sustained indicator effort requires a commitment to monitoring over these
timescales.

Structure of the indicator set

To facilitate the choice of indicators and their linkage, when necessary, with key CBD
issues and CoP decisions, the indicator set is structured along three main axes: indicator

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Introduction

type: theme addressed (chiefly in the form of a given Operational Programme or OP); and
whether the indicator reflects direct measures taken or results achieved to meet GEF
objectives (principally in the form of on-the-ground activities), or reflects measure taken
to influence the wider enabling environment.

1. Indicator type

The indicators are divided into four principal categories:

e Coverage indicators (Table Ia and Ib) address the question of whether the
GEF is addressing biodiversity issues in the right places. Coverage indicators
are essentially a measure of effort exerted.

e Indicators of impacts on pressures and behaviours affecting biodiversity
(Table Ila and IIb) address the question of what impact the GEF is having in
alleviating pressures on biodiversity.

e Indicators of impacts on biodiversity status and trends address the
question of whether GEF activities are achieving their ultimate end (Table
IID);

e Context indicators (Table IV) are those used by the world at large to track
general trends in biodiversity and related issues and provide a backdrop or
baseline against which GEF efforts can be measured.

2. Thematic focus of indicator

The second structuring axis is based on the thematic foci of GEF activities, which might
form a basis for separate reporting or for structuring global reports of GEF
accomplishments. Thus within each indicator category, the individual indicators are
divided among the six themes explained below, which chiefly reflect the separate
Operational Programmes of the GEF relevant to biodiversity. These themes are by no
means mutually exclusive and many GEF actions fall under several of them at once. For
example, activities addressing biodiversity in arid and semi-arid ecosystems often focus
on remnant forest or freshwater ecosystems, and many mountain projects address forests.

A. Arid and Semi-arid Zone Ecosystems

Although not characterised by high species richness, these ecosystems hold
significant numbers of species of conservation concern and present unique
management problems. They are locally important in supporting human
populations, especially through animal husbandry, and produce medicinal and
other products of considerable commercial value. They are threatened by land
conversion, particularly for irrigated agriculture, and by desertification, excessive
ground water extraction, inappropriate fire regimes and overgrazing. Evaluation
of pressures and, especially, monitoring of biodiversity status are complicated by
low species population densities and the nomadic nature of both wildlife and
human populations within these ecosystems. These ecosystems are covered by

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Introduction

the Convention to Combat Desertification. It is expected that a work programme
covering arid and semi-arid areas will be agreed at CoP5 of the CBD.

Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems

Marine, coastal and freshwater ecosystems comprise a huge range of ecosystems of
very variable extent and importance for biodiversity. Freshwater ecosystems
comprise a minute fraction of the world's area but contain a dispropotionately high
proportion of biodiversity. Marine ecosystems cover over 70% of the world's land
area but are overall somewhat less diverse at species level than terrestrial systems.

Marine fisheries provide the major source of wild protein for humans. Freshwater
fisheries are of considerably smaller overall volume but may locally be of great
importance as a source of nutrition, particularly for the poor.

Because humans do not live in the sea, pelagic (open ocean) ecosystems are
somewhat buffered from human impacts. Biodiversity in open ocean areas is
principally affected by overfishing. Coastal ecosystems and semi-enclosed seas are
also affected by pollution and other forms of habitat degradation - a high and
growing proportion of the world's human population now lives in coastal zones.
Freshwater as a resource is heavily exploited for a wide range of uses, many of
which have severe adverse impacts on freshwater biodiversity. The latter is also
affected by overexploitation and the effects of introduced species. There are
indications that freshwater ecosystems may as a whole be the most highly threatened
at present.

The nature of aquatic ecosystems makes it often difficult to manage particular areas
in isolation. This is particularly true of marine ecosystems, which often require
regional-level management. Many important freshwater ecosystems are also
transboundary. The latter are often affected by impacts originating some distance
away and are heavily impacted activities in other sectors. Two separate work
programmes under the CBD — inland waters and marine and coastal — cover these
ecosystems.

Forest Ecosystems

Forests are very important repositories of biodiversity at all three levels
(ecosystems, species, genes), and contain more than half of all species globally.
They support large numbers of indigenous groups and supply timber, fuel,
medicinal plants and other products that are used throughout modern societies and
economies. They are also important reservoirs of carbon that play an important
role in the global carbon cycle and its interaction with climate change. Natural
forests are under severe pressure from land conversion to support expanding
human populations, commercial timber production, fire and other threats. More
than half of the world’s original complement of forest cover has been lost or
degraded. Their complex structure and high biodiversity impose significant
constraints on monitoring. Many taxa are as yet unknown in scientific terms, few
forest species are adequately monitored for logistic reasons, and assessing the

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Introduction

D.

representativeness of any single taxon is highly problematic. Forests are the
subject of a separate work programme under the CBD. A number of other
international policy processes are also addressing forest issues.

Mountain Ecosystems

Montane ecosystems are difficult to define (based on combination of elevation,
topography and climate). They typically have lower diversity than adjacent low
lying areas but higher rates of endemism and are often refuge aeas for species highly
reduced or extirpated from adjacent lowland areas.

Human population density varies. In some areas it is high, with local peoples
dependent in part on wild resources; in others it is very low, with only transient
human presence. They are important for ecosystem services, playing for example
important roles in hydrological cycles and soil conservation that can affect people
in large areas far away from the mountains themselves. They are also increasingly
important for recreation as well as support of local populations.

Steep topography, often thin soils and low productivity at high altitudes make
montane ecosystems and montane biodiversity typically highly vulnerable to
disturbance. Mountain ecosystems are threatened by the land conversion activities
of expanding human populations, by unsustainable timber harvest and by
overgrazing. Localised species have limited migration possibilities. Montane
ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to climate change. They may also be affected
by airborne pollutants, but are largely insulated from other allochthonous inputs.

Mountain areas are often inaccessible, making monitoring (and management)
difficult. Montane areas often mark national boundaries, so that montane ecosystems
are often trans-boundary. They are not currently the subject of a CBD work
programme but are due to be considered at COP 6 and are the focus of a chapter of
Agenda 21.

Agrobiodiversity

Agrobiodiversity differs substantively from other thematic areas in being effectively
defined by the presence of human impacts. A distinction should be made between:

e biodiversity used in agriculture

e diversity of other species in agricultural systems or in landscapes dominated
by agriculture.

At species level, the former is far lower than that of equivalent natural ecosystems:
however intraspecific variation (breeds, varietals, landraces) is generally much
higher. Diversity of other species in agricultural systems is often lower than would
be expected in replacement natural ecosystems. However, many agricultural systems
(particularly low-input traditional forms) now play an important role in maintaining
biodiversity in addition to that directly used in agriculture.

n

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Introduction

G

Agriculture supplies the vast majority of human nutritional needs and also a wide
range of other products. Agricultural biodiversity is therefore of fundamental
importance to human survival.

Agricultural biodiversity has a complex relationship with technology, trade (and
trade regulations), human population pressure and economic development. Pressure
for increased yields leads to development of new varieties (ie. increase in diversity)
through conventional breeding and new technologies, but also tends to high-input
low diversity systems with loss of traditional breeds and forms. Developing
international regimes concerning trade (WTO) and patents appear to be important
pressures militating against the maintenance of many forms of agricultural
biodiversity. Much maintenance of agricultural biodiversity is vested in the
knowledge and practices of local and indigenous communities. Agricultural
biodiversity is the subject of a separate work programme under the CBD and is the
subject of many other international processes, principally under the aegis of FAO.

Cross-cutting

Many GEF activities attempt to address issues that affect more than one OP. These
are chiefly interventions aimed at improving the enabling environment for
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, particularly those operating at
national level. Examples include general environmental education, implementation
of CITES and threatened species legislation. Where relevant, a separate section on
these indicators has been included.

Global

Some contexts will require the GEF to report on all of its biodiversity related
activities as a single body. Because many of the previous themes are overlapping,
their respective indicators can not be summed without a danger of double
counting. For example, projects addressing cloud forests could contribute to
indicators for both the forests and mountains operational programmes. For this
reason, global level indicators are included as a separate theme, and care is
needed to ensure that in presentation the relation of global indicators to those of
the other themes is absolutely clear.

3. Direct measures vs. activities designed to influence the enabling environment.

The third axis distinguishes between activities that affect the status of biodiversity (often
by affecting behaviour that impinges directly on biodiversity) from those directed at
changing the enabling environments for biodiversity conservation. The term ‘enabling
environment’ encompasses those aspects of the political, economic and social conditions
that facilitate the conservation of biological diversity. Relevant aspects of the enabling
environment include:

e Development and reform of biodiversity policies;

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Introduction

e Development and reform of biodiversity regulations;

e Inclusion of biodiversity issues in the policies of other sectors;

e International co-operation in the protection and management of key
biodiversity resources affected by more than one nation:

e Development and implementation of fiscal (and other) incentives to promote
conservation of biodiversity and elimination of perverse incentives;

e Leveraging of additional resources from national and other international
sources;

e Promotion of research relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity;

e Raising public awareness of the importance of biological diversity and the
need for conserving it, through education and dissemination in the media;

e Stakeholder involvement in development and implementation of mechanisms
for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

The enabling environment can be perceived at all scales from the international through
the regional and national to the local. The enabling environment for biodiversity
conservation differs among ecosystems and sectors, and activities addressing it can be
analysed in terms of both coverage and impact. It is difficult to demonstrate direct links
between activities affecting the enabling environment and biodiversity status, but more
feasible to consider the coverage of these activities and their potential impact in
alleviating pressures on biodiversity (although measuring the impact of enabling
environment interventions on behaviour is itself also problematic). Therefore, Tables |
and II are divided into (a) direct indicators and (b) enabling environment indicators.
Some indicators of change in the global enabling environment are useful as the context
for GEF activities and impacts, so a second part is also included for Table IV.

Some kinds of GEF activities essentially deal only with the enabling environment (eg.
support for development of NBSAPs). Field projects should generally, however, both
have impact on behaviour that directly affects biodiversity and, at least locally, on
enabling environments.

Thus, each category of indicators is presented in a separate summary table, organised by
theme and divided into ground level and enabling environment indicators, which is
followed by a separate account of the individual indicators, organised by theme. In many
cases the themes are introduced with comments about characteristics that affect the
development of their individual indicators. For each indicator or group of indicators we
discuss some of the more important issues concerned with feasibility, implementation and
interpretation.

Implementation

Implementing this portfolio of indicators in whole or in part will require the GEF to
develop rapidly a means for acquiring and managing the necessary data. As noted in the

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Introduction

discussions of individual indicators, data availability or accessibility is a serious
limitation to the immediate implementation of many of the indicators proposed here.
Some data are available from published sources, centrally held databases or existing
reporting exercises such as the national reports to the CBD. Other data may already be
present in the documentation and reports from GEF-supported projects, but extracting
them will require significant effort. Still other data are not yet collected consistently for
any purpose and will require either specialised research or additional requirements for
reporting from project staff.

Thus, implementation of a full portfolio of indicators will require a two-phased approach:

1) in the first instance, it will be necessary to report on GEF progress without
relying on additional data from project staff or special teams, as such
requirements are significant burdens and require time to implement;

il) subsequently, it will be possible to ask for, and depend on additional
information from project staff and Monitoring and Evaluation Dept.
sources. These will produce more detailed data that can be aggregated
from project to programme level.

The first phase will represent a somewhat top-down approach relying principally on
existing information on projects such as their locations, budgets, target ecosystems and
species, and already-reported achievements. Using this approach, it will be possible for
the GEF to report on its biodiversity-related activities and achievements in an innovative
and incisive manner within the year.

The second phase will be based on additional reporting from projects and M & E, but it is
critical to minimise additional reporting burdens and to recognise that comparability
between projects is potentially very problematic.

Even in the first phase of implementation, a number of methodological and comparability
issues will arise. Chief among these is the necessity of allocating projects to themes or
Operational Programmes, especially in the case of the coverage indicators. This should
be done by attributing each project to all of the themes or operational programmes to
which it is relevant. There should be no attempt at allocating proportional parts of
projects, or resources committed to them, among the themes or OPs. This would require
a subjective approach that is invariably time-consuming and lacking in consistency.
Instead, all presentations of the indicators must be fully documented so that it is clear that
indicators for different themes or OPs are not additive (see global theme above), but
represent the degree to which different themes are addressed in the GEF programme
overall.

Expansion

As the GEF programme continues to develop, new indicators will need to be developed
to deal with new issues and priorities. For example, it is likely that new Operational
Programmes will be initiated. The indicator portfolio presented can easily be expanded
to accommodate these needs. New themes can be added while retaining the four broad

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Introduction

categories of indicators. It is not essential that all categories of indicator be developed for
each theme (e.g. see enabling environment). Individual themes can be presented
separately, or synthesised. Clear documentation of each indicator and its data sources is
essential for any presentation, but otherwise the system is almost infinitely flexible.

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Coverage Indicators

I. Indicators of coverage by GEF biodiversity-related activities (Table 1).

Coverage indicators address the question of whether the GEF is engaging in biodiversity-
related activities in the right places. There are a number of different visions of global
priorities in biodiversity conservation, and the GEF should be able to report on its
activities against any and all of these visions. This requires that it maintain good data on
locations of its past, present and developing projects at all times.

The question of coverage is relatively straightforward to address when field-based
projects are considered, as in Table Ia above. It is less easy to deal with in the case of
national level or wider projects aimed at improving the enabling environment. The latter
are however still in most cases geographically limited in scope, in that they are often
confined to or focused on individual countries, regions or occasionally sub-national
political units.

The following are some existing data-sets and initiatives that may prove useful for the
development of a set of indicators for demonstrating the extent to which GEF programmes
and priorities address global biodiversity priorities. The most important aspect of any such
set is that it is global in extent and at least tolerably consistent across the globe. This
seriously limits options — a highly sophisticated analysis of biodiversity importance of, say,
sub-Saharan Africa is of no use in generating a set of globally applicable programme level
indicators. All the following address some global aspect of biodiversity, even if in most
cases only a subset, in that they deal with one taxonomic group or with one ecosystem type.

Species-occurrence based approaches
Endemic Bird Areas

BirdLife International have analysed the distribution of all the world's bird species with a
breeding range of 50,000 sq.km or less (some 2500 species, or 25% of the world's total).
They have identified and mapped all areas (218) with two or more such species. EBAs
vary in size from a few square kilometres to more than 100,000 km?. Most are in the
tropics and sub-tropics, and most have forest as their main habitat type.

Centres of Plant Diversity

In the early 1990s, IUCN and WWF carried out a study similar in some ways to the EBA
approach of BirdLife International with the aim of identifying globally important areas for
the conservation of plant diversity. A series of criteria was established, principally
concerning degrees of species or higher taxonomic level richness or endemism, but also
involving other factors such as presence of important gene pools of plants of value to
people, a diverse concentration of habitat types a high proportion of species adapted to local
soil conditions and some degree of threat to the ecological integrity of the area.

WCMC’s Global River Basin Analysis

Using fish family diversity as a surrogate for biodiversity in river basins, WCMC has carried
out an analysis of 157 major river basins worldwide, producing a measure of biodiversity

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Coverage Indicators

richness for each basin. This has been combined with a set of measures of river basin
vulnerability, to produce a set of global level priorities for river basin conservation.

National Bodiversity Index

WCMC has used available data on species richness and number of endemic species of
mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and vascular plants in each of the world's countries
to develop a national biodiversity index that provides a measure of the relative
importance of each country in terms of species richness and endemism. The index can be
generated either as an area independent measure or can take country area into account
(i.e. provide a measure of biodiversity richness per unit area).

Hotspots

A recent analysis (Myers ef al., 2000. Nature 403: 853-858) has refined the original
hotspots analysis and has used a semi-quantitative approach with expert input to identify
major areas for biodiversity conservation, where exceptional numbers of endemic species
are undegoing exceptional loss of habitat. The analysis identifies 25 such hotspots, the
majority of which are in countries eligible for GEF support, which are claimed to contain
as many as 44% of all species of vascular plants and 35% of four vertebrate groups in
1.4% of the land surface of the earth.

Vavilov Centres

Vavilov centres are areas of genetic diversity of wild relatives of domestic crop plants.
Although open to differing interpretations, some 14 are generally recognized, all except
one at least partially within countries eligible for GEF funding. These are of particular
relevance in the consideration of agricultural biodiversity.

Ecosystem/biome/ecoregion-based approaches
Ecofloristic zone analysis

A number of studies, starting with IUCN’s system reviews carried out in the late 1980s,
have used map-based approaches to assess how representative the cover of protected area
networks is in various parts of the world when compared with various ecoregional
classification schemes. These schemes may be extremely generalised (e.g. the Udvardy
system) or highly detailed. Most involve a combination of biogeographic considerations
with an assessment of the predominant potential natural vegetation of a given area. The
most recent assessment that covers more than one continent is that of WCMC in 1996
which anatysed protected area coverage in the tropics using and ecofloristic zone
classification system developed at the University of Toulouse. This system has been
digitised for the entire tropics as part of the FAO Forest Resources Assessment. WWE-
US has developed a detailed ecoregional classification of South and Central America and
is extending this to a full global coverage.

WWE-US Global 200 ecoregions

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Coverage Indicators

WWFE-US have carried out a global analysis to produce a set of over 200 global priority
ecoregions which they consider the most important areas in the world for biodiversity
conservation. They have incorporated some measures of uniqueness and richness as well
as representativeness.

Large Marine Ecoystems (LMEs)

Some 50 large ecosystem units have been identified and mapped, based on the world’s
coastal and continental shelf waters. They are defined as: regions of ocean space
encompassing near-coastal areas from river basins and estuaries out to the seaward
boundary of continental shelves and the seaward margins of coastal current systems.
They are relatively large regions of the order of 200 000 km? or larger, characterised by
distinct bathymetry, hydrography, productivity and trophically dependent populations.
Over 95% of the usable annual global biomass yield of fishes and other living marine
resources is obtained from these LMEs.

International processes
World Heritage Sites

The World Heritage Convention was adopted in 1972 and came into effect in 1975. As
of February 1999 it had 156 contracting Parties. The convention provides for the
designation of areas of “outstanding universal value” as World Heritage Sites, with the
principal aim of fostering international co-operation in safeguarding them. Sites are
nominated by the signatory nation responsible and are independently evaluated for their
world heritage quality before being inscribed by the international World Heritage
Committee. Sites may be of cultural value, natural value or mixed. As of early 1999
there were 137 sites recognised for their natural value. "Natural heritage" designates
outstanding physical, biological, and geological features; habitats of threatened plants or
animal species and areas of value on scientific or aesthetic grounds or from the point of
view of conservation.

The convention has established operational guidelines, which include a set of criteria for
the inclusion of natural properties on the World Heritage list.

Ramsar Sites

The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl
Habitat (the Ramsar Convention) came into force in December 1975. Each State Party is
obliged to list at least one Wetland of International Importance. The Convention states
that "Wetlands should be selected for the List [of Wetlands of International Importance]
on account of their international significance in terms of ecology, botany, zoology,
limnology or hydrology" and indicates that "in the first instance, wetlands of international
importance to waterfowl at any season should be included". To facilitate the
implementation of this provision, the Convention’s COP has adopted a set of criteria
supplemented by more detailed guidelines (the criteria are to be reviewed at the 1999

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Coverage Indicators

COP). To date the Convention has 114 Parties that have between them identified 970
sites of international importance.

Biosphere Reserves

Biosphere reserves form part of the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere international
scientific programme. Such reserves — of which well over 200 currently exist — are not
exclusively designated to protect unique or important habitats, but are for a range of
objectives which include research, monitoring, training and demonstration as well as
conservation. In most cases the human component is vital to the functioning of the
biosphere reserve.

Threatened Species

The single most widely accepted global system for assessing the status of species is that
developed by IUCN - the World Conservation Union in its Red Lists. Currently three
main global Red Lists exist: the 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals, the 1997
IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants, and the World List of Threatened Trees (published
by WCMC in collaboration with the IUCN/SSC).

Species are categorised by degree of threat using a set of explicit criteria. However,
reliability and extent of coverage vary considerably between taxonomic groups, with
birds being in general the most completely and systematically assessed and many
invertebrate groups completely un-assessed.

CITES Species
Species included in the CITES appendices are those that are or may be threatened by

international trade. Consideration of these is particularly relevant in the case of
sustainable use.

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Coverage Indicators

Table Ia. Indicators of coverage of GEF projects — direct interventions

Operational Coverage Indicators

programme/ Focus (Are GEF projects addressing the right places and species?)

A. Arid and semi-arid 1.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects
zone ecosystems in arid and semi-arid systems.
existing 2.) numbers and total area of protected areas in arid and
protected semiarid ecosystems receiving GEF funding.
areas
new 3.) numbers and total area of new protected areas
protection gazetted in arid and semi-arid ecosystems with

active GEF projects.

4.) numbers and total area of protected areas "newly
proposed” or "in preparation" in arid and semi-arid
ecosystems with active GEF projects.

5.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects
addressing global red list species characteristic of
arid and semi-arid systems.

6.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects
addressing globally endangered and critically
endangered species characteristic of arid and semi-
arid systems, with body weights >45 kg.

7.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects
in arid and semiarid systems in global priority areas:
WWF ecoregions; countries with high NBI; EBAs;
World Heritage sites; Biosphere Reserves; Centres
of Plant Diversity; Hotspots.

B. Coastal, Marine and 1.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects
Freshwaters in or including coastal, marine and freshwater
systems.
existing 2.) Number of protected areas in or including coastal,
protected marine and freshwater ecosystems receiving GEF
areas funding.
new 3.) Numbers and total area of new protected areas
protection gazetted in or including coastal, marine and

freshwater ecosystems with active GEF projects.

4.) Numbers and total area of protected areas "newly
proposed" or "in preparation" in coastal, marine and
freshwater ecosystems with active GEF projects.

5.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects
addressing red list species characteristic of coastal,
marine and freshwater systems.

6.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects
addressing globally endangered and critically
endangered species characteristic of coastal, marine
and freshwater systems, with body weights >45 kg.

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Coverage Indicators

7.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects
in coastal, marine and freshwater systems in global
priority areas (core list of 6).

8.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects
in RAMSAR sites.

9.) Numbers, investment and areas covered by GEF
projects addressing issues of freshwater biodiversity
in high priority river basins (defined e.g. as those in
the upper quartile both of fish family richness and
estimated vulnerability ).

10.) Number of LMEs partially or completely covered
by GEF projects.

C. Forest 1.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects
in or including forest systems.

new 2.) Numbers and total area of new protected areas
protection gazetted in or including forest ecosystems with
active GEF projects.

3.) Numbers and total area of protected areas "newly
proposed" or "in preparation" in or including forest
ecosystems with active GEF projects.

existing 4.) Number of protected areas in or including forest
protected ecosystems receiving GEF funding.
areas

5.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects
addressing red list species characteristic of forests.

6.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects
addressing globally endangered and critically
endangered forest species with body weights >45
kg.

7.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects
in or including forest systems in global priority
areas (core list as in A. 7).

D. Mountain 1.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects
in or including mountain systems.
new 2.) Numbers and total area of new protected areas
protection gazetted in or including mountain ecosystems with

active GEF projects.

3.) Numbers and total area of protected areas "newly
proposed" or "in preparation" in or including
mountain ecosystems with active GEF projects.

existing 4.) Number of protected areas in or including mountain
protected ecosystems receiving GEF funding.
areas

5.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects

addressing red list species in mountain systems.

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Coverage Indicators

6.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects
addressing globally endangered and critically
endangered mountain species with body weights
>45 kg.

7.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects
in or including mountain systems in global priority
areas (core list as in A. 7).

E. Agro-biodiversity 1) Numbers, investment and area covered by GEF
projects that address agricultural production
systems.

2) Numbers, investment and area covered by GEF
projects in centres of distribution of wild crop
relatives (Vavilov centres).

3) Numbers, investment and area covered by GEF
projects in secondary centres of crop diversity

4) Numbers, investment and area covered by GEF
projects in high diversity agricultural or mixed
production ecosystems.

5) Numbers of and investment in GEF projects that
directly address maintenance of wild relatives of
domestic crops and livestock.

6) Numbers of and investment in GEF projects that
directly address maintenance of threatened
landraces and domestic livestock breeds.

G. Global 1) Numbers, investment and area covered globally by
GEF projects.
existing 2) Number and total area of protected areas in
protected receiving GEF funding.
areas
new 3) Numbers and total area of new protected areas
protection gazetted in GEF project areas.

4) Numbers and total area of protected areas "newly
proposed" or "in preparation" in GEF project areas.

PA 5) Numbers and total area of protected areas with
management operational management plans receiving GEF
funding.

6) Total budgets and investment per area or per km
perimeter of protected areas with operational
management plants receiving GEF funding.

7) Numbers of staff per area or per km perimeter in
protected areas receiving GEF funding.

8) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects
addressing globally endangered and critically
endangered species with body weights >45 kg.

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Coverage Indicators

9) Number of threatened species or some subset of
threatened species (by category, taxonomic group or
both, e.g. critically threatened mammals) directly
addressed by GEF projects.

Numbers, investment and area covered by projects
addressing global red list species.

10

11) Number of threatened species or some subset of
threatened species known or suspected to have
populations in areas addressed by GEF projects and
that might be expected to benefit from these

projects.

—_

12) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects
in global priority areas (core list as in A.7).

13) Numbers of an investment in GEF projects directly
addressing maintenance of bird diversity in EBAs.

14) Number of and investment in GEF projects directly
addressing maintenance of plant diversity in
recognised Centres of Plant Diversity.

15) Numbers of and investment in GEF projects in
countries with a high NBI.

Arid and Semi-arid zone ecosystems

There have been no conservation prioritisation exercises that apply specifically to arid
and semi-arid zone ecosystems, but areas at high risk of desertification due to impending
climate change and other factors have been identified. One way of arriving at a
prioritisation for GEF activities would be to examine the overlap between areas of high
desertification risk and global priorities for biodiversity action. However, the areas of
this intersection are problematic, in that although their biodiversity is vulnerable, it may
be difficult to implement effective conservation measures in areas subject to
desertification.

1.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects in or including arid and semi-arid
systems; As with all geographical coverage indicators, this depends on good
information on project locations and on some kind of global mapping of these
habitats. Arid and semi-arid areas have been globally mapped at fairly coarse
resolution on the basis of climatic variables in UNEP's Atlas of Desertification.

2.) Numbers and total area of protected areas in arid and semiarid ecosystems receiving
GEF funding. VYhe in-situ protection of biodiversity is a high priority under the terms
of the CBD. In general, protected areas may be regarded as alleviating pressures on
the biodiversity within them, though the degree to which this is true depends on the
effectiveness of their management and the nature of the pressures acting on them.
The data for this indicator should come in straightforward fashion from the project
documents of those projects associated with arid and semiarid ecosystems. It may be
necessary in the first instance to develop a clear (mapped) understanding of where
such ecosystems are in order to confirm the relevance of individual protected areas

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Coverage Indicators

Lo
—

4.)

iy
—

6.)

receiving GEF funding. Precise location and boundary data for the protected areas
would also help in this respect. The indicator would be expected to change from year
to year but not necessarily in a unidirectional fashion (ie. as some GEF projects are
completed and others are begun).

Numbers and total area of new protected areas gazetted in or including arid and
semi-arid ecosystems with active GEF projects. Data required for this indicator are
the details of newly protected areas. Timely acquisition of data will require periodic
review and inquiry using input from GEF project managers in addition to consultation
of data bases maintained by WCMC, which are fully updated only every three years.
The indicator will rise slowly because the gazetting process is a slow one. It may be
possible to show more progress using intermediate milestones in the protected area
creation process like those developed for the same purpose by the WB/WWF
Alliance (see below).

Numbers and total area of protected areas "newly proposed" or "in preparation" in
or including arid and semi-arid ecosystems with active GEF projects. The
WB/WWFE Alliance has defined a series of intermediate milestones in the creation of
new protected areas to facilitate the monitoring of progress before full gazettement is
achieved. “Newly proposed” and “in preparation” are two of these milestones, which
might be useful to the GEF. Protected areas are “newly proposed” when a
recommendation for a site to receive formal protection has become officially
sanctioned or adopted by a relevant government body (e.g. national parks
administration), which may adopt a pre-existing recommendation or prepare a new
proposal of its own. Those “in preparation” have been subjected to further analysis
of the officially sanctioned proposal, including participation by a legislative body
and/or other identified stakeholders. Although the Alliance and WCMC are
developing a monitoring system employing these milestones, it will address only
forest ecosystems. Thus, for arid and semi-arid zone ecosystems the GEF will need
to develop its own pathways for data acquisition and management. It is likely that
indicator will increase, but only on, say, a biennial basis.

Numbers, investment and area covered by projects addressing global red list species
characteristic of arid and semi-arid systems. This indicator is an aggregate from
project portfolio information. | Many projects specifically target species of
conservation concern. Habitat assignment of global Red List species is not complete
for either animals or plants, so that in some cases identification of relevant species
may be problematic. However, projects concerned with maintenance of biodiversity
should routinely report on those globally threatened species that they address.

Numbers, investment and area covered by projects addressing globally endangered
and critically endangered species characteristic of arid and semi-arid systems, with
body weights >45 kg;. This indicator serves as a somewhat more rigorously and
scientifically credible surrogate for threatened "charismatic megafauna". As noted
above, habitat assignments of global Red List species are not complete; however this
should be straightforward for this small subset of threatened animal species.
Eamxples include: addax, various oryx species, wild bactrian camel, some African
elephant and black rhinoceros populations.

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Coverage Indicators

7.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects in arid and semiarid systems in

A.

global priority areas: WWF ecoregions; CI megadiversity countries; counrties with
high NBI; EBAs; World Heritage sites; Biosphere Reserves, Centres of Plant
Diversity. (modified ITAD indicator 4). As with indicators 1-4 above, this equires
project location data to permit mapped overlay with maps of priority areas. Most of
the latter have now been mapped in some detail. Generally arid and semi-arid areas
do not feature highly in priority assessments based on biodiversity, particularly when
the latter is viewed in terms of species richness. Exceptions are Mediterranean-type
ecosystems, but the high diversity components of these tend to be in sub-humid areas
rather than arid or semi-arid areas and are mostly in countries not eligible for GEF
funding.

Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems

These systems are less easily represented in area terms, especially true of marine systems
due to wide range of some important species. Also rather different in terms of relatioship
with terrestrial processes and priorities.

1)

3)

4)

6)

Numbers, investment and area covered by projects in or including coastal, marine
and freshwater systems; See comments under A. 1) above. Coastal, marine and
freshwater areas are generally geographical rather than ecological features and are
straightforward to map.

Number of protected areas in or including coastal, marine and freshwater ecosystems
receiving GEF funding. See comments under A. 2) above.

Numbers and total area of new protected areas gazetted in or including coastal,
marine and freshwater ecosystems with active GEF projects. See comments under A.
3) above.

Numbers and total area of protected areas "newly proposed" or "in preparation" in
coastal, marine and freshwater ecosystems with active GEF projects. See comments
under A. 4) above. As noted, although the World Bank/WWF Alliance and WCMC
are developing a monitoring system employing milestones in the development of
proteected areas, it will address only forest ecosystems. Thus, for coastal, marine and
freshwater ecosystems the GEF will need to develop its own pathways for data
acquisition and management. It is likely that indicator will increase, but only slowly.

Numbers, investment and area covered by projects addressing red list species
characteristic of coastal, marine and freshwater systems; See comments under A 5)
above. In general, the global threat status of freshwater vertebrates has been much
less comprehensively assessed than is the case for terrestrial vertebrates (although
even in the latter case, assessments of lower vertebrates is very incomplete). This
indicator is therefore less likely to be good reflection of global priority of a particular
project (ie. a project in a tropical river system is likely to address a large number of
species that are in fact threatened but whose status has not been assessed, so that they
do not yet feature in Global Red Lists). ‘

Numbers, invesiment and area covered by projects addressing globally endangered
and critically endangered species characteristic of coastal, marine and freshwater

19

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Coverage Indicators

systems, with body weights >45 kg; See comments under A 6). Examples include
most sea-turtle species, three river dolphins and a small number of marine mammals,
including the Mediterranean monk seal and vaquita.

) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects in coastal, marine and freshwater
systems in global priority areas. Most of these global prioritisation exercises involve
essentially terrestrial ecosystems, though priority areas self-evidently usually include
freshwater systems and, often, coastal areas. Caution must therefore be exercised
when applying this indicator to this OP.

S) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects in or including RAMSAR sites:
These sites explicitly address wetland ecosystems and have been mapped by WCMC.

9) Number of GEF projects (or some other measure of investment) addressing issues of
freshwater biodiversity in high priority river basins (defined e.g. as those in the upper
quartile both of fish family richness and estimated vulnerability) See comments on
WCMC's Global River Basin Analysis in introduction to Table 1.

10) Number of LMEs partically or completely covered by GEF projects See introduction
to Table 1 for discussion of LMEs. Because LMEs cover the great majority of the
world’s coastal areas, an indicator of number of relevant GEF projects in LMEs
would not be meaningful. However, number of LMEs covered by relevant GEF
projects would give a good indication of how much of the world’s productive marine
diversity (from a fisheries perspective) was addressed by the GEF. It should be noted
that the one important area, both for marine biodiversity and developing country
fisheries, that is not currently included in an LME is the South Pacific region.

B. Forest Ecosystems

!) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects in or including forest systems,
See comments under Al) above. A reasonably up-to-date global forest map exists,
with reasonable ecosystem classification system.

2) Numbers and total area of new protected areas gazetted in or including forest
ecosystems with active GEF projects; See comments under A2) above.

3.) Numbers and total area of protected areas "newly proposed" or "in preparation" in
forest ecosystems with active GEF projects.. The WB/WWF Alliance has defined a
series of intermediate milestones in the creation of new forest protected areas to
facilitate the monitoring of progress before full gazettement is achieved. “Newly
proposed” and “in preparation” are two of these milestones, which might be useful to
the GEF. Protected areas are “newly proposed” when a recommendation for a site to
receive formal protection has become officially sanctioned or adopted by a relevant
government body (e.g. national parks administration), which may adopt a pre-existing
recommendation or prepare a new proposal of its own. Those “in preparation” have
been subjected to further analysis of the officially sanctioned proposal, including
participation by a legislative body and/or other identified stakeholders. The Alliance
and WCMC are developing a monitoring system employing these milestones, which
will address forest ecosystems, and may therefore be a suitable source of data for this

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Coverage Indicators

GEF indicator. It is likely that indicator will increase, but only on, say, a biennial
basis. It will be important that this indicator is presented with clear definitions of the
terms. Its implementation is feasible in the medium term.

4.) Number of protected areas in or including forest ecosystems receiving GEF funding;
See comments under A 4) above.

5.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects addressing red list species
characteristic of forests; See comments under A 5) above. Identification of forest-
occurring globally threatened vertebrates is well advanced.

6.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects addressing globally endangered
and critically endangered forest species with body weights >45 kg; See comments
under A 6) above. Examples include: most great apes; Asian rhinoceros species;
Asian elephant; tigers.

7.) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects in or including forest systems in
global priority areas (core list of 6); Forest ecosystems feature prominently in most
of these global priority areas.

C. Mountain Ecosystems

1) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects in or including mountain systems;
See comments under A 1) above. WCMC have just completed a map showing
preliminary identification of montane areas of the world. This map may be refined in
future, but provides a good starting point for such an analysis.

2) Numbers and total area of new protected areas gazetted in or including montane
ecosystems with active GEF projects; See comments under A2) above.

3) Numbers and total area of new protected areas gazetted in or including montane
ecosystems with active GEF projects. See comments under A. 3) above.

4) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects addressing red list species in
mountain systems; See comments under A. 4) above. Assignment of this attribute is
not well advanced.

5) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects addressing globally endangered
and critically endangered mountain species with body weights >45 kg; See comments
under A. 5) above. Examples include snow leopard, mountain gorilla, mountain
nyala, mountain tapir.

6) Numbers, investment and area covered by projects in mountain systems in global
priority areas (core list of 6). Montane areas feature prominently in many of the
global priority areas. Overlays of the new WCMC map with maps of these areas and
geo-referenced GEF project data will permit this indicator to be developed.

D. Agrobiodiversity

1) Numbers, investment and area covered by GEF projects that address agricultural
production systems

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Coverage Indicators

2)

4)

6)

4)

6)

Numbers, investment and area covered by GEF projects in centres of distribution of
wild crop relatives (Vavilov centres) Vavilov centres have been mapped although
their boundaries are somewhat ill-defined.

Numbers, investment and area covered by GEF projects in secondary centres of crop
diversity Identification of secondary centres of crop diversity is likely to be dependent
on reporting by project staff.

Numbers, investment and area covered by GEF projects in high diversity agricultural
or mixed production ecosystems Examples of such systems include forest garden
cultivation systems in South-east Asia.

Numbers of and investment in GEF projects that directly address maintenance of wild
relatives of domestic crops and livestock This information should be directly
obtainable from project reporting.

Numbers of and investment in GEF projects that directly address maintenance of
threatened landraces and domestic livestock breeds Threatened landraces have not
been adequately catalogued at global level (and such an exercise may present
intractable problems); FAO have made good progress cataloguing threatened
livestock breeds. Initial implementation of this indicator only requires that projects
report on whether they are addressing threatened landrances or domestic livestock
breeds, and not exactly which or how many of these.

. Global

Numbers, investment and area covered globally by GEF projects. This is a baseline
indicator to show overall trends in biodiversity-related GEF projects.

Numbers, investment and area covered by projects addressing globally endangered
and critically endangered species with body weights >45 kg. This will give a global
indication of the extent to which threatened "charismatic megafauna" are addressed
by GEF projects.

Number of threatened species or some subset of threatened species (by category,
taxonomic group or both, e.g. critically threatened mammals) directly addressed by
GEF projects. This will almost certainly be reported as a matter of routine by relevant
projects.

Numbers, investment and area covered by projects addressing global red list species
Most projects can be expected already to report whether they address globally
threatened species or not (note that unlike indicator 5) below, this indicator does not
require projects to itemise all threatened species that they deal with).

Number of threatened species or some subset of threatened species known or
suspected to have populations in areas addressed by GEF projects and that might be
expected to benefit from these projects. This requires complete reporting on
threatened species coverage by GEF projects.

Numbers, investment and area covered by projects in global priority areas: WWF
ecoregions; CI megadiversity countries; EBAs; World Heritage sites; Biosphere
Reserves; Centres of Plant Diversity. See discussion in introduction to table 1.

22

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Coverage Indicators

7) Number of GEF projects (or some other measure of investment) directly addressing
maintenance of bird diversity in EBAs; This should be routinely reported.

8) Number of GEF projects (or some other measure of investment) directly addressing
maintenance of plant diversity in recognised Centres of Plant Diversity This should
be routinely reported.

9) Number of GEF projects (or some other measure of investment) in countries with a
high NBI This allows for a more systematic analysis of whether high diversity
countries are receiving a disproportionately high allocation of investment. From the
viewpoint of global priorities this should be the case but it may also give rise to
political sensitivities and so should be used with caution.

to
[e>)

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Coverage Indicators

Table Ib. Indicators of coverage of GEF projects — enabling environment
interventions

Operational Programme/ Coverage Indicators

Focus (Are GEF projects addressing the right places and species?)

A. Arid and semi-arid zone 1) Number of, and investment in, GEF projects in or
ecosystems including arid and semi-arid ecosystems that explicitly

address each relevant category of enabling activity as
set out in section 3 of the introduction (ie. biodiversity
policies; biodiversity regulations; cross-sectoral
policies; international co-operation; incentives;
leveraging; research; public awareness and education;
stakeholder participation.

2) Number of, and investment in, national level GEF
projects that explicitly aim to improve range
management policies.

B. Coastal, Marine and 1) Number of, and investment in, GEF projects in or

Freshwaters including arid and semi-arid ecosystems that explicitly
address each relevant category of enabling activity as
set out in section 3 of the introduction (see A | above).

2) Number of, and investment in, national level GEF
projects aimed at improving fisheries policies.

3) Number of, and investment in, national level GEF
projects directed at policy improvement with respect
to water resources.

4) Number of, and investment in, national level GEF
projects involving integrated coastal zone management

C. Forest 1) Number of, and investment in, GEF projects in or
including forest ecosystems that explicitly address
each relevant category of enabling activity as set out in
section 3 of the introduction (see A 1 above).

2) Number of, and investment in, national level GEF
projects involving biodiversity-related forest policy
reform.

D. Mountain 1) Number of, and investment in, GEF projects in or
including montane ecosystems that explicitly address
each relevant category of enabling activity as set out in
section 3 of the introduction (see A | above).

2) Number of, and investment in, national level GEF
projects involving biodiversity-related policy reform
concerning use of mountain regions.

E. Agro-biodiversity 1) Number of, and investment in, GEF projects in or
including agricultural systems that explicitly address
each relevant category of enabling activity as set out in
section 3 of the introduction (see A | above).

2) Number of, and investment in, national level GEF
projects involving biodiversity-related agricultural
policy reform.

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Coverage Indicators

G. Cross-cutting 1) Number of, and investment in GEF projects aiming to
secure reform in endangered species legislation.

i)

Number of, and investment in GEF projects aiming to
improve compliance with multilateral environmental
agreements.

Number of, and investment in GEF projects aiming to
reform game mangement policy/hunting regulations.

1vs)
S

4) Number of, and investment in GEF projects aiming to
improve environmental impact assessment
requirements and implementation.

5) Number of, and investment in GEF projects aiming to
incorporate biodiversity issues in the policies of other
sectors, e.g. mining and energy.

6) Number of, and investment in GEF projects aiming to

incorporate biodiversity issues in industrial and
commercial policies.

7) Number of, and investment in GEF projects aiming to
include biodiversity issues in education.

F. Global 1) Numbers of, and investment in projects directed at
drafting NBSAPs in countries containing any of the
global priority areas.

2) Numbers of, and investment in projects directed at
policy reform in countries containing any of the global
priority areas.

3) Number of countries with a high NBI (defined as e.g.
upper quartile) eligible for GEF funding that have
benefited from country level funding.

Because the above indicators are reflections of the intended functions of GEF projects,
the data necessary to produce them should be included as a matter of course in project
reports (although it is possible that some interpretation and categorization of goals as set
out in such reports may be necessary). It should be possible to make these indicators
operational in the short term.

i)
n

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Indicators of Impacts on Pressures

II. Indicators of GEF impacts on pressures and behaviours affecting biodiversity
(Table Ia and ITb).

Indicators of impacts on pressures and behaviours address the question of how successful
the GEF is being in affecting the causes of biodiversity loss. As with coverage indicators,
they can be divided into those that convey information about interventions that directly
affect pressures on biodiversity (Table Ila) and those that are intended to affect the
broader enabling environment (Table IIb).

Impacts on behaviour can be exerted at all societal levels, from the individual through the
community and institutional to the systemic. Generally, ground interventions (ie. those
involving field-based projects) will be expected primarily to affect behaviour of
individuals and local communities and institutions. Such interventions may affect
behaviour that has a direct impact on biodiversity (eg. support for fisheries enforcement
officers should reduce illegal destructive fishing methods) but may also affect the local
enabling environment (eg. educating and encouraging fishers to develop their own
sustainable fisheries management regimes). National level interventions in general
address the wider enabling environment and attempt to affect systemic behaviour (eg.
national level policies) and the behaviour of national institutions. However, if successful
such interventions should ultimately manifest themselves in changes in individual
behaviour (eg. reform of national education policies so that biodiversity is included in
school curricula should ultimately affect the behaviour of those individuals taught under a
changed curriculum).

In this framework, interventions that affect pressures directly are presented in four broad
categories (Table IIa): protected areas; protected areas management effectiveness;
sustainable management and use; and specific pressures.

Protected Areas: The existence of protected areas in GEF areas of interest and GEF
investment in their management and in the establishment of new protected areas are
included in the coverage indicators in Table I. The GEF may also wish to use these
measures as a way of expressing its role in reducing pressures on biodiversity in these
areas.

PA Management Effectiveness: Another important way that the GEF acts to reduce
pressures on components of biodiversity is by improving the management of protected
areas. It is difficult to define and document improvements in management effectiveness.
Some simple measures relating to management plans, budgets and staffing of protected
areas are proposed here. Additional useful measures are likely to emerge from the
various efforts currently underway to develop frameworks for assessing management
effectiveness. These include work by the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas
(WCPA) and a parallel effort by the WB/WWF Alliance. Future approaches are likely to
include both quantitative measures and expert qualitative assessments. The latter are a
promising approach for the GEF, but potentially pose problems of consistency of
evaluation in space and time.

Sustainable Use: Sustainable use of biodiversity is one of the principal goals of the CBD.
However, pragmatic definitions of sustainable use and ways of assessing it are still in

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Indicators of Impacts on Pressures

development. The various certification initiatives depend on the evaluation of
management against a portfolio of criteria, so the incidence of certification of
management among GEF project areas may be one indicator of sustainable use. Where
formal certification has not been sought, it maybe possible to base evaluation on the
evidence for the existence and enforcement of regulations such as catch limits. True
documentation of sustainable management and use, particularly at species level, depends
on long term monitoring of populations of target species status, and on adaptation of
management in response to the results of the monitoring. The existence of such
monitoring programmes is one indicator of sustainable management. Another approach
that may be useful for assessment of sustainability (and perhaps specific pressures) is
qualitative evaluation by project managers according to sets of guideline criteria.
Performing these evaluations would help project managers to identify their own
quantitative monitoring needs. This concept is discussed further in the concluding
section of this document.

Specific pressures: These indicators depend on the clear recognition of specific pressures
that act on particular subsets of biodiversity, such as those represented by the Operational
Programmes. In general, the identification of these pressures is relatively
straightforward, though the priority assigned to individual pressures may vary from place
to place and may change with time. It may be appropriate to evaluate indicators relating
to a particular pressure only for those projects where that pressure has been identified as
an important factor.

Table Ifa. Indicators of GEF Impact on Pressures and Behaviours Directly
Affecting Biodiversity

Operational Programme/ Impacts on pressures and behaviour

Focus (Are GEF projects alleviating pressures on biodiversity?)

A. Arid and semi-arid PA management 1) Numbers and total area of PAs in arid and semiarid
zone ecosystems ecosystems receiving GEF funding that have

operational management plan.

2) Total budgets and investment per area or per km
perimeter of protected areas in arid and semiarid
ecosystems receiving GEF funding that have
operational management plans.

3) Numbers of staff per area or per km perimeter in
protected areas in arid and semiarid ecosystems
receiving GEF funding that have operational
management plants.

Pressures 4) Deviation of fire regime form understood natural
regime in GEF project areas in arid and semi-arid
ecosystems.

nN

Changes in desertification intensity in GEF project
areas in arid and semi-arid ecosystems.

5) Changes in hunting pressures on GEF project
target species in arid and semi-arid ecosystems.

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Indicators of Impacts on Pressures

7) Rate of land conversion to other uses in GEF
project areas in arid and semi-arid ecosystems.

Sustainable use 8) % of or area of GEF projects in arid and semi-arid
ecosystems where local use of fuelwood is known
or believed to be sustainable.

9) % of or area of GEF projects in arid and semi-arid
ecosystems where local harvest of medicinal plants
is known or believed to be sustainable.

10

=

% of or area of GEF projects in arid and semi-arid
ecosystems where local hunting activities are
known or believed to be sustainable.

I]

wm

% of or area of GEF projects in arid and semi-arid
ecosystems where grazing pressure is known or
believed to be sustainable.

iS)
Y

% of or area of GEF projects in arid and semi-arid
ecosystems where water extraction does not exceed
rate of replenishment.

B. Coastal, Marine and PA management 1) Numbers and total area of PAs in coastal, marine
Freshwaters and freshwater ecosystems receiving GEF funding
with operational management plans.

2) Total budgets and investment per area or per km
perimeter of protected areas with operational
management plans in coastal, marine and
freshwater ecosystems receiving GEF funding.

3) Numbers of staff per area or per km perimeter in
protected areas in coastal, marine and freshwater
ecosystems receiving GEF funding.

Pressures 4) Rate of abstraction of freshwater vs. rate of
replenishment in GEF project areas.

5) Level of input of sediment in GEF project areas.

6) Level of input of chemical pollutants in GEF
project areas.

7) Deforestation rate within catchments in GEF
project areas.

8) % of watercourse under natural flow regime in
GEF project areas.

9) Capacity to enforce fisheries regulations in GEF
project areas.

Sustainable use 10) Fisheries catch per unit effort in GEF project areas.

11) Proportion of catch obtained using non-destructive
techniques in GEF project areas.

12) Proportion of fisheries catch discarded in GEF
project areas.

13) Species composition of catch in GEF project areas.

GEF Biodiversity Indicators

Indicators of Impacts on Pressures

14) Proportion of catch from native species in GEF

project areas.

15) Age/size structure of catch of target species in GEF

project areas.

16) Proportion of harvest obtained by local people in

GEF project areas.

C. Forest PA management

Pressures

Sustainable use

nN

3:

4.)

5)
6)

7)

8)

9)

Numbers and total area of PAs with operational
management plans in forest ecosystems receiving
GEF funding.

Total budgets and investment per area or per km
perimeter of protected areas with operational
management plans in forest ecosystems receiving
GEF funding.

Numbers of staff per area or per km perimeter in
protected areas in forest ecosystems receiving GEF
funding.

Km road access of different grades per km? in GEF
project areas.

Annual forest clearance in GEF project areas.

Proportion of total timber extraction from certified
forests in GEF project areas.

Area of forest under certified management in GEF
project areas.

% of or area of GEF projects in forests where local
hunting activities are known or believed to be
sustainable.

% of or area of GEF projects in forests where
collection of non-timber forest products is known
or believed to be sustainable.

D. Mountain PA management

Pressures

Sustainable use

335)

4)

5)

Numbers and total area of PAs in mountain
ecosystems with operational management plans
receiving GEF funding.

Total budgets and investment per area or per km
perimeter of PAs with operational management
plans in mountain ecosystems receiving GEF
funding.

Numbers of staff per area or per km perimeter in
PAs in mountain ecosystems receiving GEF
funding.

Rate of deforesation on slopes >20% in GEF

project areas in montane ecosytesms.

% of or area of GEF projects in montane areas
where local hunting activities are known or
believed to be sustainable.

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Indicators of Impacts on Pressures

E. Agrobiodiversity 1) Proportion of agricultural land under certified

production systems in GEF project areas.

2) Proportion of agricultural land under other forms
of traditional low-impact high diversity production
systems in GEF project areas.

3) Proportion of irrigated water from non-renewable
resources used in agriculture in GEF project areas.

4) Application rates of persistent pesticides,
herbicides and fertlizers in GEF project areas.

5) Proportion of agricultural land on slopes > 20%
stabilised in GEF project areas.

6) Rate of loss of productive agricultural land in GEF
project areas.

7) Rate of conversion from other systems to
agricultural land in GEF project areas.

8) Periodicity of swidden cultivation in GEF project
areas in tropical moist forest ecosystems.

9) Proportion of nutritional needs applied locally by
agriculture in GEF project areas.

F. Global 1) Numbers and total area of PAs with operational

A.

!.)

management plans receiving GEF funding

2) Total budgets and investment per area or per km
perimeter of protected areas with operational
management plans receiving GEF funding.

Numbers of staff per area or per km perimeter in
protected areas receiving GEF funding.

eS)
SS

4) % or total area in GEF project areas where major
natural resource use is known or believed to be
sustainable.

Arid and Semi-arid zone ecosystems

Numbers and total area of PAs in arid and semiarid ecosystems receiving GEF

funding that have operational management plans. This indicator is an attempt to

quantify the degree to which the GEF is supporting effective protected area
management rather than “paper parks”. It will need substantial research to acquire
the data. The data could be requested from project reporting, but clear guidance
and criteria for the functionality of management plans would be required. Some
useful work is now being conducted by Tropenbos on criteria for management plan
evaluation. Also, WB/WWEF Alliance and IUCN work on protected area
management effectiveness may provide useful guidance.

Total budgets and GEF investment per area or per km perimeter of protected
areas in arid and semiarid ecosystems receiving GEF funding. This indicator is
another attempt to quantify the degree to which the GEF is supporting effective

30

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Indicators of Impacts on Pressures

bo
~~

4.)

6.)

. )

9.)

10.)

protected area management rather than “paper parks”. It is more objective than the
assessment of whether a management plan is operational, but it will require
substantial research to acquire the data. The data could be requested from project
reporting, but the burden imposed could be significant in some cases. Examining
both total PA budgets and the GEF contribution could also provide useful
perspective on the GEF’s effectiveness in leveraging additional funds.

Numbers of staff per area or per km perimeter in protected areas in arid and
semiarid ecosystems receiving GEF funding. This indicator is another attempt to
quantify the degree to which the GEF is supporting improved protected area
management. The data could be requested from project reporting, but their
acquisition will require substantial research.

Deviation of fire regime in GEF project areas from accepted ‘natural’ regime.
Determination of natural fire regimes is problematic, particularly in areas that have
long been subject to human influence. This indicator is likely only to be feasible in
the longer term.

Changes in desertification intensity in GEF project areas. Using GEF project
locations and the UNEP Atlas of Desertification, it should be possible to estimate
desertification intentsities for the areas in which the GEF is working. The Atlas is
revised periodically which will introduce a component of change. However, it
must be recognised that the desertification assessments are based on expert opinion
and on unevenly sized focal areas of assessment, which weakens the comparabiltiy
of different areas. The important parameter is the direction of change within a
given location, so it is this that should be evaluated and then combined across
project areas. Comparison with areas not taregetted by the GEF should then be
possible.

Changes in hunting pressures on GEF project target species. Because of the
characteristic low densities and nomadic habits of both wildlife and human
populations in arid and semi-arid ecosystems, consistent assessment of hunting
pressure is problematic. It may be possible to generate and overview from project-
level evaluation of qualitative changes in hunting pressure, but care will be needed.

Rate of land conversion to other uses in GEF project areas in arid and semi-arid
ecosystems. Determination of rates of conversion over large areas will be
dependent on some form or remote sensing.

% of GEF projects in arid and semi-arid ecosystems where local use of fuelwood
is known or believed to be sustainable. Measurement of fuelwood use over
extensive areas is problematic. In the early stages, development of this indicator
should be based on expert (almost certainly qualitative) assessment on the part of

project staff.

% of GEF projects in arid and semi-arid ecosystems where local harvest of
medicinal plants is known or believed to be sustainable. As 8.) above.

% of GEF projects in arid and semi-arid ecosystems where local hunting activities
are known or believed to be sustainable. As 8.) above.

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Indicators of Impacts on Pressures

11.) % of GEF projects in arid and semi-arid ecosystems where grazing pressure is
known or believed to be sustainable. As 8.) above.

12.) % of GEF projects in arid and semi-arid ecosystems where water extraction does
not exceed rate of replenishment. Estimation (though not detailed quantitative
measurement) of this should be feasible in most project areas. This indicator is also
relevant to the following OP.

B. Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems

1) Numbers and total area of PAs in aquatic ecosystems receiving GEF funding that
have operational management plans. See A. 1) above.

2) Total budgets and GEF investment per area or per km perimeter of protected areas in
aquatic ecosystems receiving GEF funding. See A. 2) above.

3) Rate of abstraction of freshwater vs. rate of replenishment in GEF project areas. See
A. 3) above.

4) Level of sediment input in GEF project areas. Estimation of this over wide areas is
problematic; however, sampling protocols are well-established and could be
incorporated into project design.

5) Level of sediment input in GEF project areas. Estimation of this over wide areas is
problematic; however, sampling protocols are well-established and could be
incorporated into project design.

6) Level of input of chemical pollutants in GEF project areas. Estimation of this is
problematic.

7) Deforestation rate within catchments in GEF project areas. General considerations of
estimation of deforestation rates apply. Estimation of rates within particular
catchments is likely to require some form of GIS analysis.

8S) % of watercourse under natural flow regime in GEF project areas. Detailed
estimation of this over wide areas is problematic. However, annual rate of loss of
such areas should be possible to estimate.

9) Capacity to enforce fisheries regulations in GEF project areas. This should be
relatively easy to measure.

10) Fisheries catch per unit effort in GEF project areas. Although frequently used as an
estimator of sustainability, CPUE is difficult to measure with accuracy. Where unit
effort varies considerably from year to year it is also difficult to interpret.

11) Proportion of catch obtained using non-destructive techniques in GEF project areas.
Estimation of this is likely to be on a qualitative basis, carried out by project field
staff.

12) Proportion of fisheries catch discarded in GEF project areas. Estimation of this will
depend on sampling. Although not a direct indicator of sustainability it provides
useful information on the state of fisheries management.

13) Species composition of catch in GEF project areas. Changes in catch composition

32

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Indicators of Impacts on Pressures

over time can provide valuable indications of long-term sustainability. Typically,
overfished areas show a gradual shift in major fisheries species from higher to lower
trophic level guilds. Such shifts can be detected by sampling of landings. However
meaningful change may take several years to manifest itself, so that this indicator is
only likely to become operational in the medium or longer term.

14) Proportion of catch from native species in GEF project areas. This indicator applies
particularly to inland waters, where native species are frequently displaced by
introduced fisheries species, to the long-term detriment of biodiversity and, often, the
productivity of the fishery involved. As with indicator 13 above, this can be estimated
using sampling of landings.

15) Age/size structure of catch of target species in GEF project areas. As with indicator
13, changes in the age and size structure of catches of target species provide a
powerful indicator of fisheries sustainability. Unsustainable fisheries typically show a
shift to smaller, younger individuals in catches. This can be measured
straightforwardly by sampling of landings. Changes often manifest themselves more
rapidly those in indicator 13, so that this indicator could be made operational in the
short-term if appropriate monitoring is in place.

16) Proportion of harvest obtained by local people in GEF project areas. Although not a
direct measure of sustainability of harvest, this is an important indicator of likely
long-term sustainability of the fishery.

C. Forest

1) As A 1) above.
2) As A 2) above.
6) As A 3) above.

7) Km road access of different grades per km? in GEF project areas. Road access
provides an important indicator of forest vulnerability and should be relatively
straightforward to measure within project areas.

8) Annual forest clearance in GEF project areas. Measurement of deforestation over
wide areas generally depends on some form of remote sensing.

9) Proportion of total timber extraction from certified forests in GEF project areas.
Although data on volume of timber extracted from certified forests should be
relatively straightforward to obtain, overall timber extraction data are often more
problematic, particularly where there is a large informal or illegal sector.

10) Area of forest under certified management in GEF project areas. This should be
straightforward to establish and should serve as a powerful indicator of sustainability.

11) % of or area of GEF projects in forests where local hunting activities are known or
believed to be sustainable. Measurement of hunting intensity in forest areas is
problematic, particularly in areas where such activity is notionally illegal. In the first
instance, assessment of this variable is likely to be on the basis of qualitative expert
assessment by ground-based project personnel.

12) % of or area of GEF projects in forests where collection of non-timber forest products

Lo
(oS)

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Indicators of Impacts on Pressures

3)

4)

6)

5)

9)

is known or believed to be sustainable. See indicator 9) above.
. Mountain
As A 1) above.
As A 2) above.
As A 3) above.
Rate of deforesation on slopes >20% in GEF project areas in montane ecosytesms.
See general comments on deforestation above.
% of or area of GEF projects in montane areas where local hunting activities are
known or believed to be sustainable. See general comments on hunting in 8) above.

. Agriculture

Proportion of agricultural land under certified production systems in GEF project
areas. Measurement of this should be a stated target of GEF projects working in
agricultural systems. Because many agricultural certification systems operate at
relatively fine scale (that is individual farms are assessed as separate units),
compilation of this data is likely to be more cumbersome than the equivalent for
forest systems (see indicator C 7. above).

Proportion of agricultural land under other forms of traditional low-impact high
diversity production systems in GEF project areas. Measurement of this is likely to
be based on semi-qualitative assessment by project staff, at least in the initial stages.

Proportion of irrigated water from non-renewable resources used in agriculture in
GEF project areas Measurement of this over extensive areas is problematic.

Application rates of persistent pesticides, herbicides and fertlizers in GEF project
areas. Measurement of this over extensive areas is problematic.

Proportion of agricultural land on slopes > 20% stabilised in GEF project areas.
Measurement of this is likely to be based on semi-qualitative assessment by project
staff, at least in the initial stages.

Rate of loss of productive agricultural land in GEF project areas. Measurement of
this is likely to be based on semi-qualitative assessment by project staff, at least in the
initial stages.

Rate of conversion from other systems to agricultural land in GEF project areas.
Measurement of this is likely to be based on semi-qualitative assessment by project
staff, at least in the initial stages.

Periodicity of swidden cultivation in GEF project areas in tropical moist forest
ecosystems. This gives a good indication of likely sustainability of shifting
agricultural use in tropical forest ecosystems and is therefore relevant to forests
(theme C above). The interval between successive cultivation cycles 1s usually over 5
years even in highly stressed areas. Development of this indicator will therefore be
likely to be dependent on availability of historical data, at least in the short term.

Proportion of nutritional needs applied locally by agriculture in GEF project areas.
As with fisheries, although not a direct measure of sustainability of agricultural

34

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Indicators of Impacts on Pressures

production over the short term, this is an important measure of likely long-term
sustainability.

F. Global

1) AsA 1) above.
2) As A 2) above.
3) As A 3) above.

4) % or total area in GEF project areas where major natural resource use is known or
believed to be sustainable. Assessment of this is undoubtedly a long-term goal.

Lo
n

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Indicators of Impacts on Pressures

Table IIb. Indicators of GEF Impact on Pressures and Behaviours Affecting
Biodiversity — Enabling Environment Interventions

Operational Impact Indicators

Programme/ Focus (Are GEF projects improving the enabling environment for conserving

and using biodiversity sustainably?)

A. Arid and semi- Policy 1.) Number or proportion of countries receiving GEF
arid zone funding that have subsequently developed range
ecosystems management policies that include recognition of

importance of biodiversity.

No
VY

Regulation/ Number or proportion of GEF projects in arid and
Participation semi-arid ecosystems where local people have become
involved in formulation of hunting regulations.

Lo
a

Number or proportion of GEF projects in arid and
semi-arid ecosystems where a mechanism has been
developed for self-regulation of hunting by local
people.

Cross-sectoral 4.) Number or proportion of countries receiving GEF
support that have subsequently included recognition of
importance of biodiversity in arid and semi-arid
ecosystems included in agriculture, industry and
commerce sector policies.

Transboundary 5.) Number of exchanges of views (or personnel) between
countries sharing individual tracts of rangeland
promoted by GEF projects.

6.) Number of transboundary agreements on pastoral use
of rangelands that have been facilitated by GEF
projects.

Incentives 7.) Number or proportion of countries receiving GEF
support where incentives for overstocking of rangeland
have been eliminated.

Leveraging 8.) Increase in overall budget in GEF project areas in arid
and semi-arid ecosystems additional to that provided by
the GEF.

Research 9.) Numbers of (or investment in) research projects to

investigate status of arid and semi-arid ecosystem
species in GEF project areas initiated subsequent to
GEF intervention.

Public 10.) Numbers of field guides to arid and semi-arid
awareness ecosystem species in local languages produced with
GEF support.

11.) Numbers of GEF-sponsored media events and press
coverage of desertification issues in and around areas
of GEF influence.

12.) Numbers of school children reached by GEF-funded
educational materials on values and fragility of arid and
semi-arid ecosystems and their species.

36

GEF Biodiversity Indicators

Indicators of Impacts on Pressures

B. Coastal, Marine Policy
and Freshwaters

Regulation/

participation

Cross-sectoral

Transboundary

Incentives

Leveraging

Research

Public
awareness

4)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10

=

11)

Number or proportion of countries receiving GEF
funding that have subsequently developed fisheries
policies that explicitly address biodiversity issues (cf.
non-GEF countries).

Number or proportion of GEF projects where local
fishers are involved in formulation of national or sub-
national fisheries regulations.

Number or proportion of GEF projects where a
mechanism exists for self-regulation of fishing by local
people.

Number or proportion of countries receiving GEF
support that have subsequently included recognition of
importance of aquatic biodiversity included in
agriculture, industry and commerce sector policies.

Number of regional (ie. bilateral or multilateral)
fisheries management plans promoted by GEF projects.

Number or percentage of GEF projects where local
fishers have access to certification standards (eg. MSC
certification) for fisheries products.

Increase in overall budget in GEF project areas in
aquatic ecosystems additional to that provided by the
GEF.

Numbers of (or investment in) research projects to
investigate status of aquatic species in GEF project
areas initiated subsequent to GEF intervention.

Numbers of field guides to aquatic species in local
languages produced with GEF support.

Numbers of GEF-sponsored media events and press
coverage of issues concerning aquatic ecosystems and
fisheries in and around areas of GEF influence.

Numbers of school children reached by GEF-funded
educational materials on aquatic ecosystems and
fisheries.

C. Forest Policy

Regulation/
Participation

4)

Number or proportion of countries that have developed
national forest programmes that include recognition of
biodiversity preservation as an important function of
forests following GEF intervention.

Number or proportion of GEF countries that involve
concessionaires in the formulation of timber extraction
regulations.

Number or proportion of GEF projects where local
people are involved in formulation of national or sub-
national hunting regulations.

Number or proportion of GEF projects where a
mechanism exists for self-regulation of hunting by
local people.

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Indicators of Impacts on Pressures

Cross-sectoral 5) Number or proportion of countries receiving GEF
support that have subsequently included recognition of
importance of forest biodiversity in agriculture,
industry and commerce sector policies.

Transboundary 6) Number of GEF projects that have facilitated regional
(international) discussions of forest issues.

7) Number of exchanges of views (or personnel) between
countries sharing individual tracts of forest promoted
by GEF projects.

8) Number of transnational forest areas for which mutual
agreement of management goals between countries has
been facilitated by GEF projects.

Incentives 9) Number or proportion of countries receiving GEF
support where “homesteading” regulations or other
incentives for forest clearance have subsequently been
eliminated.

10

=

Number or proportion of GEF project areas where
small forest owners have been given access to forest
product certification.

11) Number or proportion of GEF project areas where
improved markets and distribution networks have been
provided for certified forest products.

Leveraging 12) Increase in overall budget in GEF project areas in
forest ecosystems additional to that provided by the
GEF.

Research 13) Numbers of (or investment in) research projects to

investigate status of forest species in GEF project areas
instigated following GEF intervention.

Public 14) Numbers of field guides to forest species in local
awareness languages produced with GEF support.

~

15) Numbers of GEF-sponsored media events and press
coverage of forest issues in and around areas of GEF
influence.

16) Numbers of school children reached by GEF-funded
educational materials on multiple values of forests and
their species.

D. Mountain Policy 1) Proportion of countries receiving GEF funding that
have subsequently developed clear policies on
watershed protection that recognise the role of
biodiversity.

2) Proportion of countries receiving GEF funding that
have soil conservation policies.

Cross-sectoral 3) Number or proportion of countries receiving GEF
support that have subsequently included recognition of
importance of montane biodiversity included in
agriculture, industry and commerce sector policies.

38

GEF Biodiversity Indicators

Transboundary

Leveraging

Research

4)

Indicators of Impacts on Pressures

Number of regional (ie. bilateral or multilateral)
montane area management plans promoted by GEF
projects.

Increase in overall budget in GEF project areas in
montane ecosystems additional to that provided by the
GEF.

Numbers of (or investment in) research projects to
investigate status of montane species in GEF project
areas initiated subsequent to GEF intervention.

E. Agro-
biodiversity

Policy

Incentives

Research

Leveraging

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

Number or proportion of countries receiving GEF
funding that have subsequently developed agricultural
policies that explicitly address biodiversity issues.

Number or proportion of countries receiving GEF
funding that have subsequently developed national
policies or regulations explicitly recognizing and
protecting the agricultural innovations, knowledge and
practices of local and indigenous communities
embodying traditional lifestyles.

Number or proportion of countries receiving GEF
funding that have subsequently incorporated use of
local land races and indigenous livestock breeds in
national breeding programmes.

Number or proportion of countries receiving GEF
funding that have subsequently eliminated or reduced
incentives for inappropriate agricultural development.

Number or proportion of countries receiving GEF
funding that have subsequently developed national
certification standards for agricultural products.

Number or proportion of countries receiving GEF
funding that have subsequently developed distribution
systems for certified agricultural products produced by
small-scale farmers.

Number or percentage of GEF projects where local
producers have access io distribution systems for
certified products.

Numbers of (or investment in) research projects to
investigate status of local landraces and livestock
breeds in GEF project areas instigated following GEF
intervention.

Increase in overall budget in GEF project areas in
agricultural areas additional to that provided by the
GEF.

F. Cross-cutting

Policy

regulation

i)
—

Proportion or number of countries receiving GEF
funding that are currently implementing their National
Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans.

Proportion or number of countries receiving GEF
funding that have subsequently developed national
protected areas systems plans.

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Indicators of Impacts on Pressures

3) Proportion or number of countries receiving GEF
funding that have subsequently developed guidelines
for protected area selection, establishment and
management.

4) Proportion or number of countries receiving GEF

funding that have subsequently enacted or revised

legislation to protect threatened species.

Transboundary 5) Proportion or number of countries receiving GEF
funding that have subsequently ratified one or more
multilateral environmental agreements.

6) Proportion or number of countries receiving GEF
funding that are CITES Parties have subsequently
improved implementation of CITES.

Incentives 7) Proportion or number of countries receiving GEF
funding that have subsequently implemented at least
one fiscal incentive programme to promote
conservation of biodiversity.

Leveraging 8) Overall budget allocated to conservation and sustainable
use of biodiversity in countries receiving GEF funding
before and after GEF interventions.

Research 9) Proportion or number of countries receiving GEF funding
that have subsequently instigated one or more research
programmes concerning indigenous biodiversity or have
increased resources allocated to such research.

Public 10) Proportion or number of countries receiving GEF funding
awareness that have subsequently developed policies to include
biodiversity in national education curricula.

—

The following comments apply in large measure to enabling activities in all the different
thematic areas and will not therefore be repeated for each of them. Notably distinctive
features of each thematic area will, however, be dealt with separately.

As noted in the introduction, changes in the enabling environment present particular
problems of attributability, especially when these changes are at national level or higher.
One approach may be to compare the enabling environment in countries that have received
GEF support for enabling activities with those that have not. However, the great majority of
eligible countries have now received such support and there are now few countries against
which to compare them (ie. that might serve as a control). A more satisfactory approach may
be to use historical analysis - that is to compare conditions before GEF support with those
subsequently. Most simply, this would involve determining the number or percentage of
countries where a given beneficial change to the enabling environment (eg. elimination of
perverse incentives in agricultural production) had occurred subsequent to GEF
involvement. A more sophisticated approach may take into account the time elapsed since
GEF support was instigated (eg. number or percentage cf countries where the GEF initiated
funding of enabling activities four or more years ago that have undergone a given beneficial
change to the enabling environment).

40

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Indicators of Impacts on Biodiversity Status

I. Indicators of GEF impacts on status of and trends in biodiversity (Table II)

Impact indicators address the question of the direct effects on biodiversity of GEF

activities, which as noted in the introduction often have serious associated problems of

causality and attribution. While in some cases attribution might be relatively
unambiguous and uncontroversial (eg. direct protection of sea-turtle nesting beaches
leading to an increase in annual sea-turtle hatchling survival) in most indication of any
impact will depend on use of context indicators (Table IV) or on hypothetical
extrapolation from historic data indicating what the status is projected to have been
without GEF intervention.

Table III. Indicators of GEF impacts on status of and trends in biodiversity

Operational Programme/ Impacts on biodiversity status and trends (how are GEF
Focus activities affecting key components of biodiversity?)

A. Arid and semi-arid zone 1) Local population estimates of target arid and
ecosystems semiarid zone species in GEF project areas,

presented individually or combined to provide trend
data using methods developed for LPI.

2) Changes in extent of undegraded arid and semi-arid
habitat in GEF project areas.

B. Coastal, Marine and 1) Local population estimates of target aquatic species

Freshwaters in GEF project areas, presented separately or
combined to provide trend data using methods
developed for Living Planet Index.

2) Changes in extent of healthy coral reef in GEF
project areas.

3) Changes in extent and quality (patch size, maximum
tree size) of mangroves in GEF project areas.

C. Forest 1) Local population estimates of target forest species in
GEF project areas, presented separately or combined
to provide trend data using methods developed for
Living Planet Index.

2) Changes in natural forest extent in GEF project areas.

D. Mountain 1) Local population estimates of target mountain
species in GEF project areas, presented separately or
combined to provide trend data using methods
developed for Living Planet Index.

2) Changes of extent of undegraded montane habitat in
GEF project areas.

E. Agrobiodiversity 1) Changes in number of local land races and domestic
livestock breeds in GEF project areas.

4]

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Indicators of Impacts on Biodiversity Status

2) Changes in extent of agricultural area using low-
input high diversity production methods in GEF
project areas.

F. Global 1) Local population estimates of target species in all
ecosystems presented separately or combined to
provide trend data using methods developed for the
Living Planet Index.

2) Changes of total extent of undegraded ecosystems in
GEF project areas.

A. Arid and Semi-arid zone ecosystems

!. Local population estimates of target arid and semiarid zone species in GEF project
areas, presented individually or combined to provide trend data using methods developed
for LPI. The open nature of arid and semi-arid ecosystems means that populations of
some species, particularly large ungulates, can be monitored quite effectively over large
areas. However, in more arid areas, opulation densities of most species tend to be low, so
that it is difficult to detect meaningful changes over the short to medium-term.

B. Coastal Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems

1. Local population estimates of target aquatic species in GEF project areas, presented
separately or combined to provide trend data using methods developed for Living Planet
Index. In coastal regions, sea-turtle nesting, seabird breeding colonies and pinniped (seal
and seal-lion) populations are all relatively easy to monitor and can show significant
changes over relatively short timescales. Sirenian and cetacean populations are generally
more difficult to assess. The latter in particular are also difficult to interpret as most
cetaceans have populations that range over wide areas. Where individual habitats
(particularly coral reefs) are well monitored, frequency of sighting of large fishes (>1 m)
serves as a useful surrogate indicator of the state of biodiversity. However sub-marine
monitoring of this kind is expensive and time-consuming and not practical over large
areas.

B. Forest Ecosystems

1. Local population estimates of target forest species in GEF project areas, presented
separately or combined to provide trend data using methods developed for Living
Planet Index. Monitoring of most species in forests is problematic for practical
reasons. In tropical forests virtually all species occur at low population densities (ie.
are naturally rare) and even where monitoring is possible, it is difficult to detect
meaningful changes over the short or medium term. Diurnal primates and a few bird
species (eg. Argus pheasants in South-east Asia) can be monitored reasonably
successfully, although such monitoring is time-consuming and labour-intensive.

Cc. Mountain Ecosystems

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Indicators of Impacts on Biodiversity Status

Ife

Local population estimates of target mountain species in GEF project areas,
presented separately or combined to provide trend data using methods developed for
Living Planet Index. Monitoring of most species in mountains is problematic for
practical reasons.

Agrobiodiversity

Changes in number of local land races and domestic livestock breeds in GEF project
areas. Assessment of this over large areas is problematic, and in the first instance is
likely to be based on qualitative or semi-qualitative assessment by project staff.

Changes in extent of agricultural area using low-input high diversity production
methods in GEF project areas. Assessment of this over large areas is problematic,
and in the first instance is likely to be based on qualitative or semi-qualitative
assessment by project staff.

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Context Indicators

IV. Indicators for providing context for evaluating GEF work on Biodiversity
(Table IV)

Context indicators are those used by the world at large to track general trends in
biodiversity and related issues. The GEF will neither play a key role in the development
of these indicators nor expect them to reflect GEF activities. However, they will provide
important background against which to portray GEF efforts. For example, general
declines in populations of marine mammals, or steep decline in status of freshwater
biodiversity.

Table IV. Indicators for providing context for evaluating GEF work on biodiversity

Operational Programme/
P 8 F. Context Indicators

Focus
A. Arid and semi-arid 1) Global trends in populations of species characteristic
zone ecosystems of arid and semi-arid zone ecosystems combined and
expressed as an index cf LPI.

2) Global qualitative evaluation of species population
trends in arid and semi-arid zone ecosystems.

3) Global estimates of degradation of arid and semi-arid
ecosystems.

B. Coastal, Marine and 1) Global trends in populations of coastal, marine and

Freshwaters freshwater species combined and expressed as an
index cf. LPI.

2) Global qualitative evaluation of coastal marine and
freshwater species population trends.

3) Global estimates of rate of degradation or loss of key
coastal, marine and freshwater habitats (eg.
mangroves, coral reefs).

C. Forest 1) Global trends in populations of species characteristic
of forest ecosystems combined and expressed as an
index cf. LPI.

2) Global qualitative evaluation of species population
trends in forest ecosystems.

3) Global estimates of loss of forest ecosystems.

D. Mountain 1) Global trends in populations of species characteristic
of forest ecosystems combined and expressed as an
index cf. LPI.

2) Global qualitative evaluation of species population
trends in forest ecosystems.

3) Global estimates of loss of forest ecosystems.

E. Agrobiodiversity 1) Global trends in diversity of land races and breeds
used in agricultural systems

2) Global trends in extent of agricultural area using low-
input high diversity production methods in GEF
project areas.

Ree ee SSS ee ee es yy a

F. Global 1) Global trends in populations of species combined

with ecosystem trends where available and expressed

44

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Context Indicators

as an index cf. LPI.

2) Global qualitative evaluation of species population
and ecosystem condition trends.

NEXT STEPS

This report should not be regarded as an end-product, but rather part of a continually
evolving process. Experience has shown us that there is a limit to the value of theoretical
processes in indicator development, which may have now been reached in this case.

The next step is to make some indicators operational. We recommend that this be done in
a semi-structured and adaptive rather than prescriptive way. In the first instance, an
audience and focus for an initial indicator output should be identified. This will allow
preliminary choice of a fairly broad subset of potentially relevant indicators from the
overall indicator portfolio presented here.

Data-gathering and analysis for these indicators can then be initiated, in the first instance
by tapping GEF documentation at project and programme level and readily available
external sources. This exercise will rapidly clarify feasibility issues. It should refine the
initial subset into a smaller core set of indicators that can be implemented immediately
and updated regularly on the basis of existing data sources. For these, the best approaches
to presentation (graphs, charts, text, tables, maps) should be determined experimentally.

The exercise should also provide an estimate of the resources needed to obtain, manage
and keep current data required for a wider set of indicators. It will also indicate how
current internal GEF and implementing agency reporting mechanisms may need to be
modified in order to generate missing data and what external data sources will be useful
in the longer term.

Implementing a wider indicator set will undoubtedly impose some increased reporting
burdens on project and programme staff at all levels, although every effort should be
made to keep these to a minimum. Experience has shown that those affected by
monitoring and reporting requirements are much more willing to expend time and effort
in these activities if they believe that the results will be used in concrete fashion.
Presentation to them of outputs using the initial core indicator subset described above
should serve this end.

Furthermore, for motivational and practical reasons it is very important the views of those
responsible for monitoring are taken into account and are seen to be taken into account
from early on — those on the ground very often have the best understanding of what is
both feasible and relevant in monitoring. Therefore, we consider it essential that further
development of this indicator set be carried out in as participatory and transparent a
fashion as possible. At the very least, proposed new reporting requirements will need to
be reviewed and tested by a subset of project and programme staff.

45

GEF Biodiversity Indicators Context Indicators

As we have stated, we believe that the basis for this future work is contained in the body
of this report. However, we also believe strongly that further progress will only now be
made by experimentally implementing a small number of indicators in the manner
outlined above.

46

Le

aan