Global Environment Facility
GEF/C.9/Inf.8
GEF Council
April 30 - May 1, 1997
(Prepared by the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel)
INTRODUCTION
1. In accordance with its program of work, the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) held its seventh session in Washington 25-27 November 1996. The meeting was preceded on 22 November 1996 by a brainstorming session on biological diversity convened by the STAP Working Group on Biodiversity in collaboration with the Implementing Agencies the GEF Secretariat and the Convention on Biological Diversity.
SECTION I: BRAINSTORMING SESSION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
2. The brainstorming session on biological diversity was opened and chaired by Prof. Pier Vellinga, Chair of STAP, on 21 November 1996. It was convened to review the biodiversity focal area with the view of identifying and prioritizing issues which STAP could address in the short, medium and long-term.
3. The brainstorming session was attended by 18 participants from STAP, UNDP, UNEP, the World Bank, the GEF Secretariat and the Convention on Biological Diversity.
4. Participants were presented with a note (UNEP/GEF/BRAINSTORMING/3/2) prepared by the STAP Secretariat containing the aims and objectives, the organization of work and expected outcomes.
5. The report of the brainstorming session is presented in Annex 1.
SECTION II: SEVENTH MEETING OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANEL
Agenda item 1: Opening of the meeting
6. The seventh meeting of STAP was held in Washington, D.C. from 25-27 November, 1996. It was opened by Professor Pier Vellinga, Chair of STAP. He welcomed all participants and underscored the importance of the meeting in identifying the "demand" issues which STAP could address in the short, medium and long-term.
Agenda item 2: Adoption of the Agenda and Adoption of Organization of Work
Agenda and Organization of Work
7. The Panel adopted the agenda contained in document UNEP/GEF/STAP/7/1 and the draft organization of work as contained in document UNEP/GEF/STAP/7/1/ Add.2.
Participation
8. The STAP members attending the meeting were Dr. Rokhayatou Fall, Dr. Stein Hansen, Prof. Jyoti K. Parikh, Prof. Pier Vellinga, Prof. Chihiro Watanabe, Dr. Robert H. Williams, Dr. Helen T. Yap, Dr. Stephen Karekezi, Dr. Mary Allegretti and Dr. Jorge Soberon.
9. Prof. Peter Schei, Co-chair of the SBSTTA, Convention for Biological Diversity, Dr. Gunilla Bjorklund, Executive Secretary of the Comprehensive Freshwater Assessment at the Stockholm Environment Institute, Mr. Mohamed El Ghaouth, Chairman of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation of Climate Change, Mr. Robert Ryan, Special Advisor, UNCCD also attended the meeting.
10. The representatives from the GEF Secretariat and Implementing Agencies who attended the meeting were Dr. Walter Lusigi, Dr. Alfred Duda, Dr. Mario Ramos, Mr. Hamantha Mishra and Mr. J. Harstad (GEF Secretariat), Mr. Lars Vidaeus, Ms. Kathy MacKinnon (World Bank), Mr. Rafael Asenjo (UNDP), Mr. Ahmed Djoghlaf, Mr. John Tychsen, Dr. Cyrie Sendashonga and Mr. Rohit Khanna (UNEP), and Dr. Mark D. Griffith and Ms. Danae Issaias (UNEP/STAP Secretariat).
Agenda item 3: Address of the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the GEF
11. The CEO in his address reported on his participation in the Third Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 4th - 15th November 1996 and reported that the relationship between the Convention Secretariat and the GEF Secretariat is good, this he anticipated will continue to be strengthened in the future.
12. Reference was made to the complexity of global environmental problems and the role of STAP in providing a long-term perspective on these issues; providing answers based upon knowledge; defining strategies to address these issues and outlining the role of GEF. It was emphasized that STAP should be used as a mechanism for attracting input from the wider scientific community, a function that is very important in the context of the GEF.
13. The CEO touched on a number of issues he indicated were important to the GEF. These included:
(a) Relationship with the Conventions: He stressed the importance of the relationship between the GEF and the Convention Secretariats of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. With respect to the scientific and technical bodies of the Conventions he indicated that STAP should represent the GEF at these meetings commencing with the FCCC SBSTA and extending it to the CBD-SBSTTA. He emphasized the need for the entire GEF family to be aware of what was happening;
(b) Replenishment: Reference was made to the process of replenishment which will commence with a meeting in Paris during the month of March 1997. The CEO indicated that questions are likely to be raised on the global impact of the GEF and on how effective the various GEF processes have been. In the context of preparation for replenishment, he underscored the importance of the follow-up to the STAP Expert Group Workshop on Land Degradation. He indicated that careful consideration should, therefore, be given to the nature of the follow-up and what STAP could do to facilitate project development; and
(c) Involvement of the Wider Scientific and Technical Community: The CEO underscores the importance of the involvement of the scientific community at the national level in countries where GEF projects were being implemented. He indicated that this was very important to the scientific underpinning of the GEF and that STAP had a role to play in this regard. He, however, emphasized that there was a need for a strategy to point the way forward on this issue.
Agenda item 4: Report by STAP Chairman on the Eight Meeting of the GEF Council
14. The Chairman of STAP reported on the Eight Meeting of the GEF Council convened from 8-10 October 1996. To assist the meeting in the consideration of this agenda item, documents UNEP/GEF/STAP/7/2, UNEP/GEF/STAP/7/2/Add1 and UNEP/GEF/STAP/7/2/Add2 prepared by the STAP Secretariat were made available.
15. The Chairman reported that overall the report of the STAP Chair and the STAP outputs presented to Council were well received and STAP was complimented both on the quality and quantity of its work, especially the RET documents, the Ecosystems and Sustainable Use paper and the Report of the STAP Expert Group Workshop on Land Degradation.
16. With respect to the substantive issues he indicated that in the focal area of International Waters, STAP's recommendation for an International Waters Assessment, which was received more positively by the GEF Council than before, has since been taken up by UNEP, for implementation.
17. He indicated that concern still exists with respect to the participation of STAP in the new GEFOP process.
18. Specific reference was made by the STAP Chairman to the follow-up activities to be undertaken by STAP resulting from the GEF Council. These were summarized as follows:
(a) recommendations concerning follow-up to the STAP Expert Group Workshop on Land Degradation;
19. With respect to Targeted Research, the CEO informed the meeting that comments were being awaited from the Council Members before the document could be finalised for re-submission to the GEF Council either for Inter-sessional Work Plan or for the Ninth Meeting of the Council to be held in May 1996. The final decision on this will be determined by the nature of the responses received from Council Members.
20. The STAP Chairman informed the meeting of the substantive issue raised by Council members and NGOs with respect to the Ukraine CFC phase-out project that includes HFC 1314-a as an alternative and the concerns expressed about the choice of this alternative being used in that project in view of its effects on climate. STAP, the Chairman indicated, should provide advice on this issue.
21. The Chairman also reported on STAP's participation and interaction with the NGO community. Specific reference was made to the NGO's recommendation for the need of "local" STAPs to support GEF Operational Focal Points at the national level. The Chairman recommended that National Committees be formed around the GEF focal point and should include scientists, private sector and NGO representatives. Such Committees could serve to further mobilise the wider scientific community at the national level.
Agenda item 5: Strategy Session an Expected Demand for STAP to Address in Accordance with STAP Mandate, GEF Portfolio and Thematic Areas.
22. In introducing this agenda item, the STAP Chairman made reference to the decision taken by STAP at its Sixth Meeting to place more emphasis on the demand driven nature of STAP's work while recognising the need for forward-looking products initiated by STAP. In this regard, the Chairman identified the three main areas of STAP's focus, namely, (i) operation oriented advice to the GEF Council the GEFSEC and the IAs on the portfolio (i.e. projects, papers, etc.); (ii) development oriented advice with an emphasis on advanced thinking on the subject and (iii) outreach, namely mobilisation and linking the wider scientific and technical community with the GEF.
23. The Chairman's remarks were followed by presentations by the GEFSEC and the IAs on the possible issues STAP could address in the short, medium and long-term. This was addressed systematically, firstly with general comments and followed by specific suggestions in the various focal areas.
24. The discussion on possible areas which STAP could address was lead by the CEO of the GEF, who on the basis of his earlier discussions with the STAP Chairman, identified a number of areas he felt were critical at this juncture in the GEF. The issues identified included:
the concept of Sustainable Use and its implications for GEF in terms of what types of projects could result; and
25. In terms of general comments with respect to STAP, its future demand and work a number of issues were raised including:
26. In response to the general issues raised, a number of concerns were stated by STAP members, including the lack of feedback to STAP from the GEFSEC and the IAs on how their comments on projects have been used, the need for a feedback mechanism to address this issue was emphasised. The new GEFOP procedure and its implications for STAP was also raised particularly with reference to the time frame within which projects are made available for review. In this regard, STAP Chairman outlined a number of pre-conditions under which STAP can effectively undertake project reviews namely:
27. In terms of mobilizing the wider scientific and technical community, it was suggested that a STAP Newsletter on the Internet could be used as a means of strengthening the scientific and technical network including the STAP Roster of Experts.
28. The meeting then focused its attention on the specific demands identified by the GEFSEC and IAs. In the focal area of biological diversity, the 'demand' identified at the Brainstorming Session on Biodiversity held prior to the STAP meeting was presented by the STAP Chairman. The demand issues raised by the GEFSEC and the IAs are summarised according to focal area.
Climate Change
Biodiversity
(a) sustainable use of various ecosystems (forest, dryland, mountain
ecosystems, coastal and marine, etc.) including consideration of local
knowledge systems, and local and global benefits;
(b) Agrobiodiversity;
(c) follow-up to the STAP Expert Group Workshop on Land Degradation;
(d) development and use of indicators for biodiversity;
(e) networking of science in developing countries and the better use of
local/national/regional knowledge;
(f) incremental costs;
(g) best practice analysis;
(h) transboundary conservation activities;
(i) follow-up to the Global Biodiversity Assessment;
(j) mountain ecosystems hot spots;
(k) knowledge based assessments in the field of biodiversity;
(l) assessment of the relationship between climate change, biodiversity and
land degradation particularly in land use; and
(m) stand alone targeted research on issues such as the "species approach." It
was felt that if basic research is not done in some areas, it will be difficult
to address a wide cross-section of other issues in the field of biodiversity.
International Waters
(a) the implementation of the International Waters Assessment which will be
executed in a two phase approach, namely (a) a preparation phase and (b)
an implementation phase;
(b) pursuing initiatives to put the case for a longer-term strategic approach
for GEF in this focal area that Council may consider some years in the
future to update the Operational Strategy and Ops; and
(c) actively addressing the food security issue with all its cross-sectoral and
multifocal area implications.
29. This was felt by some as of utmost importance to the world and underscores the importance of the International Waters focal area. This, it was indicated, involves the broad range of water resources issues related to food from oceans, coastal zones, floodplain, irrigation and international rivers or fossil aquifers, and land degradation linkages to water (soil erosion, watershed management, desertification, changes in flood and low flow hydrologic regimes and in water storage in soils). The complexity of issues in this focal area was underscored. It was pointed out that issues ranged from villagers using sustainable harvesting methods (stop dynamiting, poisons, destructive trawls); to engaging flag states/fishing fleets/private sector/artisinal fisher folk in reducing catch; to protecting important nursery areas and stopping destructive trawls in these areas; to addressing land degradation linkages; to promoting best management practices for efficient irrigation to institutional best practices for allocating water among nations for irrigation and other uses while providing needed quality, quantity, and timing of water for downstream ecosystems; to retrofitting dams in international basins for artificial floods and release improvements to restore floodplain recession agriculture, recharge of village water supplies, rewatering wetlands for riverine fish production, etc. There are many science, technology, and social science issues to be addressed.
30. STAP Chairman responded that this may be a desired approach but it is not realistic that GEF and STAP take such a full scope on board;
(a) initiatives on using recent developments in technology so that
International Waters projects can benefit from modern tools for resource
management and prediction, including GEF funded, reviews of best
practices, modern technology such as simulation modeling, etc. to
determine lessons learned and provide opportunities for GEF
International Waters projects to use them;
(b) STAP's active participation to bring the science community in each
country co-operating on an International Waters project into the processes for improving management of the resources or solving problems;
(c) social science and institutional best practices to solve International Waters
problems - especially with Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM).
Pilot projects have shown how to involve coastal villages in protecting
their resources, and how this is done in a widespread fashion and among
multiple countries. How best can multiple countries work together
institutionally to change sectoral practices and policies that degrade their
shared waters. A whole host of participation/stakeholder/private sector
set of social issues demands that STAP mobilize social science and
political science communities to help out; and
(d) multifocal area linkages. The importance of ocean-climate interactions
and ICZM should be done everywhere with biodiversity/climate change/ and international waters considerations so as not to duplicate initiatives,
to solve a greater set of issues in one project, to multiply potential global
environment benefits from GEF projects. GEF could promote a
holistic/comprehensive approach to coastal zone management rather than
a convention-by-convention piecemeal and duplicative approach. STAP
could provide guidance on how GEF should approach this issue.
31. There is need for bringing science into projects to help management make the transition to more sustainable water resources management approaches. STAP may be able to guide GEF Secretariat and Implementing Agencies and in fact build their capacity in this regard.
(a) given the importance of institutional issues in the context of regional
water bodies as a major constraint, the need exists for an analysis of the
pros and cons of various institutional models for the conservation and
sustainable use of such water bodies and the resources they provide;
(b) more emphasis needs to be placed on low cost, effective monitoring
systems and critical issues pertaining to technology options;
(c) specific issues related to land based sources of pollution;
(d) sustainable use of coastal zone biodiversity and marine resources;
(e) more attention needs to be directed to the pros and cons of drawing
systems boundaries in the focal area of international waters;
(f) in addressing the international water focal area, concerns were expressed
about the tendency by the GEF of mixing freshwater and ocean issues
together. It was emphasized that given the nature of these systems,
approaches may differ greatly. The view was, therefore, expressed that
programmatically one should only relate the issues when there is a
scientific underpinning of the relation; and
(g) the positioning of STAP/GEF to influence the "Year of the Oceans"
which will be celebrated in 1998. This it was felt could be beneficial for
the GEF.
Land Degradation
(a) the follow-up to the STAP Expert Workshop on Land Degradation. In
this context reference was made to the projects concepts UNEP is
currently developing in this area;
(b) further consideration needs to be given to the interrelationships between
land degradation and the other focal areas and how they are going to fit
within the context of GEF operations;
(c) further work was required on what options there are at the local levels in
the context of demonstrating local and global benefits;
(d) modernised biomass energy systems and their implications for land
restoration of the system including the economics of this process. It was
felt that GEF resources could be used in a catalytic way to jump start this
process; and
(e) reference was also made to the efforts being undertaken by the World
Bank in this area.
32. After further consideration of the "demand" issues identified by the IAs and the GEFSEC, it was agreed that STAP in the short term should focus on the following issues in the respective focal areas;
Biodiversity
(a) sustainable use including related indicators, local and global benefit
issues and best practice analysis with the remaining issues being
addressed over time.
Climate Change
(a) models for technology cooperation;
(b) transport;
(c) further work on renewable energy and coal; and
(d) on other issues STAP would provide advice in a responsive mode.
International Waters
(a) the international waters assessment; and
(b) the regional approach including the issue of system boundaries and institutional aspects of a scientific and technical nature.
Land Degradation
(a) the follow-up to the Dakar Workshop implementation issues; and
(b) sustainable use of dryland biodiversity including the interplay of local and global benefits in the context of biodiversity priorities.
Agenda item 6: Consideration of STAP Budgetary Situation for FY97, STAP Business plan and draft Budget FY98-2000
33. The STAP Secretary provided an overview of the financial situation for FY97 and the resource requirements for FY98. It was agreed that FY98 budget would take into consideration the additional activities such as selective reviews and priority areas such as the Roster of Experts. The STAP Secretary was requested to follow preparation of the budget in terms of content and process.
Agenda item 7: Discussion on Outstanding issues in the Various Thematic Areas including Budgetary Implications
34. To assist the Meeting in the consideration the agenda item, the Secretariat prepared documents UNEP/GEF/STAP/7/6 and UNEP/GEF/STAP/7/6/Add1.
35. The meeting reviewed the outstanding issues resulting from the work of the STAP ad-hoc Working Group and/or Task Teams that the Meeting with the view of finalizing it. These are in the Work Programme for the remainder of FY97. The issues were addressed according to thematic areas as summarised below.
Land Degradation
(a) Scientific and Technical Analysis of the Outputs of the STAP Expert
Group Workshop on Land Degradation. It was agreed that this
document will be prepared in collaboration with the GEFSEC. It was also agreed that STAP should provide constructive advice to assist the design
of evolving projects;
(b) report on Scientific and Technical Issues arising out of the International
Negotiating Committee for the Convention on Desertification was
submitted for the Consideration of the Panel by the STAP member who
attended the meeting on behalf of STAP;
(c) Incremental cost and global benefits. It was agreed that a brainstorming
session should be convened prior to the Ninth Meeting of STAP in June
1997 to be held in Amsterdam on Incremental Cost and Global Benefits in
the area of Land Degradation; and
(d) Representation at INC on the Convention to Combat Desertification. It
was agreed that STAP continue to be represented at these meetings
subject to the availability of resources. The next meeting of the INC/CCD is scheduled for January, 1997.
International Waters
(a) Progress and further elaboration of the International Waters Strategy. It
was agreed that further advice will be provided by STAP in the regional
approach and its implications for the GEF;
(b) International waters assessment: It was agreed that STAP actively
participate in the preparations of the IWA;
(c) Progress on the study on best practice with regard to the application of
Science and Scientific tools in GEF projects. The report will be submitted
for review at the Eight meeting of STAP to be convened in March 1997;
and
(d) Application of Best Practice Methods: It was agreed that the Ad-Hoc
Working Group in collaboration with the GEFSEC and IA develop plans
for a workshop on the application of best practice methods.
Climate/Energy
(a) STAP/GEF Assessment of urban transport related GHGs Mitigation
Options: The meeting was informed of the plans for this workshop which
will be held on March 14-15, 1997 in Nairobi, Kenya, prior to the Eighth
Meeting of STAP. The plans as outlined were approved by the Panel;
(b) Consideration of a possible new operational program on sequestration:
It was agreed that consideration of this issue will not commence until
FY98;
(c) Report on Adaptation Stage 1 Activities and Priorities. It was agreed that
progress report on this issue will be submitted for the panel's
consideration at the Eighth Meting of STAP;
(d) Clean Coal Workshop: It was agreed that the Clean Coal Workshop will
be convened on 16-17, June 1997 prior to the Ninth meeting of STAP to be
held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The meeting was informed that the
workshop will focus on two major sets of issues, namely, improvements
in performance in structural reforms in the industry with an emphasis on
case studies and technological innovations; and
(e) Follow-up to the RETs papers: It was agreed that a teleconference be
convened early in January 1997 with the IAs and the GEFSEC to discuss
the RETs papers and the nature of the follow-up and the presentation to
the GEF Council.
Biodiversity
(a) The Brainstorming Session on Biological Diversity. The results of the
Brainstorming Session were submitted for consideration of the Panel;
(b) Workshop on Sustainable Use: It was agreed that STAP should convene a
Workshop on Sustainable use in collaboration with the GEFSEC, IAs and
the Convention on Biological Diversity in October/November 1997;
(c) In order to facilitate the preparation for the workshop which could be
held in Brazil, Dr. Maria Allegretti was given the responsibility to
develop a plan for such a Workshop working closely with the STAP
Secretariat; and
(d) It was also agreed that papers will be initiated by STAP, namely, papers
on the economics of sustainable use, the anthropological aspects of
sustainable use as well as the ecological aspects possibly focusing on a
number of case studies. In parallel papers with case studies examples
would be prepared for the various ecosystems operational programmes
(i.e coastal and marine, drylands, mountains and forests). The first draft
of these papers will be available for review by the Panel at the Eighth
Meeting of STAP to be held in Nairobi in March, 1997.
36. In finalising the STAP Work Plan for the remainder of FY97, the meeting assigned responsibilities for the various tasks to be undertaken. These are contained in Annex 2 of this report.
Relationship between STAP and INC/CCD
37. Robert Ryan, Advisor for the Convention to Combat Desertification informed the Panel of the activities of the Secretariat and the preparations for the First Meeting of the Parties to the Convention. He informed the Panel of meetings of the INC planned for January and August 1997 and the First Meeting of the Conference of the Parties scheduled for September 1997, and meeting annual, thereafter.
38. He also informed the Panel of the Committee for Science and Technology which will meet along with the COP. Reference was made to two papers prepared by the INC/CCD Secretariat which of relevance to STAP, namely, "Bodies and Organisations, the Subsidiary Body of the Convention Would Want to Co-operate With (i.e. IPCC, STAP, etc.) " and " The Work Programme for the Committee for Science and Technology for the first few years of the Convention" The latter document, it was explained, contained issues of relevance to STAP's work such as indicators, both impact and implementation type indicators; inventory of traditional technologies; networking and research priorities areas for addressing land degradation:
39. The STAP Secretariat was complimented for its cooperation with the INC/CCD Secretariat in making available information requested.
Monitoring and Evaluation
40. A presentation was made by J. Harstad, the Monitoring and Evaluation Co-ordinator to the Panel to solicit views on the on-going work on M & E and the role of STAP in this process. Three documents were presented during the presentation to the Panel for feedback on selected assignments which will be undertaken in the coming years. These related to: (i) Project Implementation Review (whole portfolio, mid-term review of GEF Results and Impacts; (ii) Characteristic Features of Effective and less Effective Projects; and (iii) Identification of Indicators for the Operational Programmes.
41. After discussion, it was agreed that STAP will operate in a responsive mode responding to the specific request of the M&E Coordinator.
Agenda item 8: Ongoing work and Planning of Selective Review of GEF Projects.
42. To assist the meeting in the consideration of this agenda item, the following documents were prepared by the STAP Secretariat UNEP/GEF/STAP/7/7/1, Add1, 11, and 111.
43. On the Rajasthan Solar Thermal Project the Team Leader presented the results of the external reviews of the project and indicated that a draft report will be circulated to the STAP members and the IAs responsible for the project during the next few months. A final report will be presented to STAP at its Eight meeting for approval. The report will include a strategy for the monitoring of the project through the implementation phase.
44. With respect to both the Lake Victoria Project and the Alternatives to Slash and Burn, the Panel adopted a programme of work which is summarised below.
Lake Victoria Project
(a) STAP to clearly define the Terms of Reference for the Selective Review and its scope. This should be done in collaboration with World Bank Task Manager for the project (November-December, 1996). In this regard, a meeting was convened between the Task Team for the Selective Review and the World Bank Task Manager of the project- Graeme Donovan;
(b) Review of relevant documentation (December - January, 1997);
(c) Based upon the Terms of Reference, the Project Managers of the Project in the three participating countries will, in collaboration with the Project Secretariat, produce a synthesis document of the scientific and technical issues affecting the project site (January-February, 1997);
(d) Selective Reviewers Site Visit, 12-13 March, 1997;
(e) Review Meeting 14 March, 1997, UNEP Headquarters; and
(f) Revision of Terms of Reference and detailed plan for undertaking the Technical Review including cost implications.
Alternative to Slash and Burn
(a) STAP to clearly define the terms of reference for the Selective Review, its scope and the cost implications. This should be done in collaboration with the UNDP's Task Manager(s) for the project (November-December, 1996);
(b) Review and Selection of relevant documentation (November-December, 1996);
(c) Evaluation of the various components, namely the Cameroon, Brazil and Indonesia including site visits by STAP members. A maximum of 5 man days per site. (January-February, 1996); and
(d) Meeting with the International Center for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) and Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Programme (TSBF) (Nairobi, March, 1997).
Agenda item 9: The STAP Roster of Experts, Review of the Ongoing Work
45. A presentation was made of the STAP Roster of Experts now on the World Wide Web. It can be found as part of the GEF Secretariat and UNEP home pages. The possibility was also mentioned of cross fertilization of experts by linking to other rosters such as that of the Desertification Convention. The database is continuously being improved accommodate new requirements.
46. The ongoing work on the roster was discussed also in terms of the nominations of new experts, mainly from developing countries. This will be done through GEF focal points, UN Permanent Representatives and Institutes of Higher Learning and Universities. The initial screening of the nominations will be performed by the STAP Secretariat and a preliminary list will be submitted to the Eighth Meeting of STAP in March 1997
47. Quality control of the Roster through the Evaluation Questionnaire has started and data is being computerized. The questionnaires will be forwarded to the Panel who will be required to add their own comments on the quality of the reviews. A concern was raised, however, that the new GEFOP procedures may not facilitate the tracking of experts used for reviews by the implementing agencies. A draft evaluation report will be presented at the March meeting of STAP to prepare for the Annual Evaluation Report to the May meeting of the GEF Council.
Agenda Item 10: Preparations for the First GEF Assembly
48. The meeting was informed that the revised GEFSEC paper on the structure of the GEF Assembly has not yet been fully formulated. The Panel decided, however, that STAP should be represented on any Task Force which may be set up to plan for the Assembly. STAP will be represented by either the STAP Chair or the STAP Secretary.
Agenda item 11: Any Other Business
49. Under this agenda item a number of issues were considered, namely:
50. Targeted Research: The Comments on the Targeted Research received from Council Members were received and circulated to Panel members. After consideration of the comments it was decided that STAP will review the comments and in collaboration with the GEFSEC finalise a document in time for the Inter-Sessional Work Plan.
51. National Academy of Sciences: National Research Council Project: Building Scientific Capacity into the GEF Enabling Activities and Operational Programmes. The Chairman introduced this item and informed the meeting that a workshop was planned for January or February 1997 to brainstorm on ways and means of involving the wider scientific community in GEF activities.
52. STAP members raised a number of issues with respect to the purpose of the exercise. The actual nature of the project and the budgetary implications. Members expressed concern about the role of STAP in the GEF since it was their understanding as set out in STAP's mandate, that STAP was the GEF conduit for mobilizing the wider scientific and technical community. The Panel was unanimous that the way the proposal was handled constituted a breach of protocol on the part of the GEFSEC and it would have been appropriate to bring the terms of reference in the contract with the National Academy of Sciences to the attention of STAP first. The view was expressed that such a breach in protocol should not occur in the future. Fortunately the issue can still be redressed. STAP will now advice and guide the work of NAS in the preparation of the workshop.
53. STAP Chair in collaboration with the STAP Secretary will develop STAP's strategic thinking on this issue and circulate same ideas and approaches to STAP members for further input.
STAP Newsletter on Topical Scientific Issues
54. A suggestion was made by a number of STAP members that the STAP Secretariat should consider a World Wide Web communication mode to facilitate involvement of STAP Roster of experts as well as the wider scientific community. The suggestion will be considered again at the Eighth Meeting of STAP.
Communication Cost to Support STAP Work by Panel Members
55. A number of STAP members raised the issue with respect to the pre-financing of telecommunication cost to support STAP work. The STAP Secretary informed the meeting that this was not permissible under UNEP financial rules. The Secretary promised to discuss this issue with the Fund Managers of both UNEP and the GEFSEC.
56. The STAP members commented that STAP productivity had increased significantly over the last two meeting. Much of the success was attributed to the work of the STAP Secretariat for the business like manner in which STAP meetings are organised and supported.
Agenda Item 12: Adoption of the Report
57. The meeting took note of the draft report and entrusted the Secretary with the guidance of the Chair, to finalise it before submission to the GEF Council members.
Agenda Item 13: Closure of the meeting
58. The meeting was closed at 13:00 hrs on 27 November, 1996. In accordance with the STAP Programme of work for FY97, the eighth meeting of STAP will take place in Nairobi, Kenya, 17-19, March 1997.
REPORT OF THE BRAINSTORMING ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
WASHINGTON D.C., NOVEMBER 22 1996
INTRODUCTION
1. STAP at its Fifth Meeting held in June 1996, agreed that in order to provide the GEF Council with strategic advice in the biodiversity focal areas, it was necessary to convene a brainstorming session in collaboration with the GEF Secretariat, the Implementing Agencies and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:
2. The main objectives of the brainstorming session were to:
(a) review the GEF biodiversity focal area with the view of identifying the scientific and technical issues arising there from;
(b) identification of the scope of work to be addressed by STAP in the context of a short, medium and long-term approach;
(c) examination of the complementary roles of SBSTTA and STAP in the context of implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity and the GEF; and
(d) review of emerging concepts in the biodiversity focal area and the identification of a strategy for further elaborating them within the context of the GEF.
3. The brainstorming session was held on November 22, 1996, prior to the seventh meeting of STAP
PARTICIPATION
4. The session was opened and chaired by Professor Pier Vellinga, STAP chair. Eighteen participants from STAP, the GEF Secretariat, the Implementing Agencies and the Subsidiary Body of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SBSTTA) participated in the session. The list of participants appears in this document.
5. The Chairman in his introductory remarks reviewed STAP's activities with respect to biodiversity. Specific reference was made to STAP's theme paper on Biodiversity; the Ecosystem and Sustainable Use papers which was submitted to the GEF Council at its eight meeting in October 1996 and the draft paper on Targeted Research, elements of which were incorporated into the STAP paper on Target Research, which formed the basis of the GEF Council discussion on this issue at its eight meeting.
6. STAP's contribution to the biodiversity focal area within the GEF was outlined in three broad areas (i) implementation oriented advice to the GEF Council, the GEFSEC and the Implementing Agencies on the portfolio (i.e. projects, discussion papers, etc.); (ii) development oriented advice with emphasis on advance thinking with regard to the GEF in its role in the light of the evolving conventions and (iii) outreach oriented namely, linking the broad scientific and technical community with the GEF.
SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION
7. The substantive discussion at the brainstorming session focused on three main themes, namely:
(a) the scientific and technical issues which were addressed at the Third Meeting of the Parties the Convention on Biological Diversity held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 4 to 15 November 1996 and the implications for the work of STAP and SBSTTA respectively;
(b) a review of the GEF biodiversity focal area and the identification of issues and/or areas where STAP could focus its work in the short medium and long-term; and
(c) the prioritization of the issues arising from (b) and the further elaboration of a number of specific concepts activities (i.e. targeted research, incremental cost, etc.).
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ISSUES WHICH EMERGED DURING COP3
8. A number of general observations were made on the Third Meeting of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity which was considered to be a success. These may be summarized as follows:
9. The main scientific and technical issues which were identified during COP3 as possible areas where both STAP and SBSTTA could collaborate include:
(a) the equitable sharing of benefit and the need to identify options for
implementation of this goal of the convention;
(b) STAP clearly believe that this is an area where political issues are
dominant and that the main challenges to STAP and SBSTTA would be to
help formulate approaches to trace and measure the incidence of benefits
between competing stakeholders;
(c) the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biological diversity.
It was strongly felt that the GEF needs to give more attention on this area;
(d) terrestrial biological diversity particularly in the forests, drylands and
mountain areas;
(e) the human and socio-economic aspects of biodiversity including
traditional cultural practices and knowledge, indigenous people, etc.;
(f) the clearing-house mechanism to promote and facilitate technical and
scientific cooperation and the need for more effective co-ordination;
(g) biosafety;
(h) conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity particularly the role of
stakeholders;
(i) bio-prospecting; and
(j) transfer of technology. It was generally felt that the issue of transfer of
technology was not clearly reflected in the GEF Operational Programmes
on biodiversity.
10. A number of specific suggestions resulted from the discussion which took place on the technical and scientific issues arising from COP3. It was pointed out however that a clear distinction should be made between the issues emerging from COP3 that are scientific and technical in nature as against issues that are political and legal.
(a) given the importance of agrodiversity it was recommended that
consideration be given by the GEF to developing an Operational
Programme on agrobiodiversity;
(b) greater emphasis need to be directed to the human and socio-economic
aspects and the local benefits of biodiversity projects, to this end it was
suggested that STAP in collaboration with SBSTTA and the Convention
Secretariat should convene a technical workshop on this issue;
(c) the need was recognized for strengthening the scientific capability of
countries at the national level to better implement the various articles of
the Convention. In this regard, the need was recognized for further
consideration by both STAP and SBSTTA on how to draw upon the
scientific and technical communities particularly at the national level
where projects are coordinated. The meeting was informed by a
representative of the GEFSEC of the initiative taken by the GEFSEC to
engage the services of the US Academy of Science in assisting in
mobilizing technical and scientific communities in developing countries;
(d) in terms of response to the guidance provided by COP3 it was generally
agreed that the need exists for a meeting between the GEF family
(GEFSEC, Implementing Agencies and STAP) to discuss these issues and
to agree on the implications for the GEF. As a consequence of this process
a number of specific tasks could be identified for STAP to address.
IDENTIFICATION BY GEFSEC AND IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES OF ISSUES AND /OR AREAS WHICH STAP COULD ADDRESS.
11. A number of issues were identified by the GEFSEC and IAs which STAP could focus his attention on the short, medium and long-term. These has summarized as follows:
(a) as a follow-up to the STAP Expert Workshop on Land Degradation,
STAP in collaboration with the GEFSEC and the IAs prepare a scientific
and technical analysis of the outputs of the meeting as the basis for
providing further advice to the GEF Council;
(b) STAP was requested to undertake an analysis of the Report entitled "The
Role of the GEF in Helping Protect Agro-biodiversity of Global
Significance" commissioned by the GEFSEC and to provide advice on
how the issue of Agrobiodiversity could be addressed by the GEF;
(c) further work was required on the sustainable use of coastal and marine
resources including social, economic, policy and technological options;
(d) the need was identified for the development of indicators for addressing
the programmatic side of GEF work;
(e) prioritising the hotspots in mountain ecosystems and operationalising the
ideas contained in Agenda 21 on this ecosystem were mentioned as
important areas requiring further work;
(f) with regard to Enabling Activities, it was suggested that STAP advises
the GEF on what kind of issues should the IAs be looking for in order to
derive lessons for underpinning the GEF operations given that this is
probably the only category of GEF-financed activities in which all
recipient countries will participate in a relatively short time period. This
was felt offered a tremendous and unique opportunity to draw some
lessons for the GEF. Two areas which were suggested as an example: i)
lessons and best practices from a technical scientific standpoint that could
be used to update the GEF Operational Criteria for Biodiversity Enabling
Activities, and ii) an evaluation of the extent to which science and local
scientists were taken into account in the development of biodiversity
strategies and action plans;
(g) in the context of the Operational Programme, the issue of targeted
research remains unclear and restrictive. It was felt that restricting GEF
funding for targeted research activities only to the extent of operational
programmes may be rather narrow/partial approach which will not
optimize global environment benefits. Given the definition of targeted
research in the Operational Strategy which includes information
collection, dissemination and analysis, there is a case for the GEF to
support activities of a global nature that are aimed at strengthening and
complementing activities at country level as well as integrating and
relating them to an overall global framework. In this regard, examples
included a global species index, development of bioindicators;
documenting knowledge, practices and innovations of local and
indigenous communities relevant for conservation and sustainable use of
Biodiversity; a global strategy for dealing with alien invasive species;
(h) some of these activities cannot be presented on behalf of a specific country
or group of countries because they represent issues of a global nature.
Even if they were to be presented on behalf of a few countries, that would
simply lead to a piece-meal approach to a global problem. Country
approaches need to be complemented by global strategies which of course
need in turn to be translated into national actions. Since there are
obviously several potential areas where a global approach may be called
for (e.g. some of the major causes of biodiversity loss identified in the
Global Biodiversity Assessment), STAP could identify some of the
priority ones where critical gaps exist. Against the background of priority
programmes identified by the COP this far for funding by the interim
financial mechanism of the CBD, STAP could in close collaboration with
SBSTTA, advise the GEF which areas to focus on for a global approach;
(i) the Global Biodiversity Assessment was undertaken at the
recommendation of STAP during the Pilot Phase of the GEF. A number
of ideas where more in-depth assessment should be carried out were
identified by the GBA;
(j) STAP could provide advice on which priority themes should a follow-up
to the GBA be undertaken; and
(k) transboundary actions and regional conservation activities focusing
particularly on endangered and migratory species represent another area
where GEF support would undoubtedly bring a value added. Among
other activities, establishment of "Biological corridors" is under
consideration (e.g. Mesoamerica, Central Asia, Eastern Europe in the
context of the Pan European Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation
Strategy). STAP could provide advice on the scientific and technical issues
to be borne in mind in designing the implementing projects of this nature
in order to lead to the establishment of effective "biological corridors".
Prioritization of Issues
12. The meeting then sought to prioritise the issues which STAP should address in the short and medium/longer term demand as follows. These included:
(a) Short-term demand
(a) sustainable use of various ecosystems (forest, dryland, mountain
ecosystems, etc.) including consideration of local knowledge systems,
sharing of benefits and incremental costs;
(b) agrobiodiversity;
(c) follow-up to the STAP Expert Group Workshop on Land Degradation.
(d) use of indicators biological diversity; and
(e) outreach of science in developing countries and the better use of local
knowledge.
(b) Medium and long term demand
(a) best practice;
(b) transboundary conservation activities;
(c) global biodiversity assessment; and
(d) mountain ecosystems hot spots.
List of Participants
Brainstorming Session on Biodiversity
22 November, 1996 - Washington
Dr. Pier Vellinga
Chairman of STAP
Director, Institute of Environmental Studies, Netherlands
Dr. Maria Helena Allegretti
Secretary, Planning and Environment Dept.
State of Amapa, Brazil
Dr. Stein Hansen
President, Stein Hansen Consulting Ltd
Norway
Dr. Jorge Soberon
Executive Secretary
National Commission on Biodiversity,
Mexico
Dr. Rokhayatou D. Fall
Ministere de L'Agriculture
Chief of Bureau Pédologie du Sénégal
Senegal
Dr. Walter Lusigi
Senior Environmental Specialist
Land Resources Management
GEF Secretariat
Washington, DC, U.S.A.
Dr. Mario Ramos
Environmental Specialist (Biodiversity)
GEF Secretariat
Washington, D.C., USA
Dr. Avani Vaish
GEF Secretariat
Washington, D.C., USA
Dr. Eduardo Fuentes
Principal Technical Advisor on Biodiversity
United Nations Development Programme
New York City, U.S.A.
Ms. Kathy MacKinnon
Biodiversity Specialist
The World Bank
Mr. Ahmed Djoghlaf
GEF Exec. Co-ordinator
UNEP, Nairobi
Dr. Cyriaque Sendashonga
Programme Officer, Biodiversity
UNEP, Nairobi
Dr. Rohit Khanna
UNEP/GEF
Washington
Prof. Peter Schei
Chairman of SBSTTA
Convention for Biological Diversity
Oslo, Norway
Dr. Robert Ryan
UNCCD, Switzerland
Dr. Mark Griffith
STAP Secretary
STAP Secretariat
Ms. Danae Issaias
STAP Secretariat
UNEP, Nairobi
Annex II
STAP Work Programme FY97
(December, 1996 - June, 1997)
Activity Co-ordinator *and STAP team Deadline
Members
1. Selective Review
((a) Lake Victoria
- Definition of TOR for the Selective Review and its scope; Nov-Dec, 1997
- Review and Selection of relevant documentation (Dec. 1996 - Jan. Dr. Helen Yap*
1996); Dr. Pier Vellinga Dec-Jan, 1997
- Production of synthesis document of the scientific and technical
issues affecting the project site; Prof. John Woods Jan-Feb, 1997
- Selective Reviewers' Site Visit; Dr. Daba Fall March 13-14, 1997
- Review Meeting, UNEP Hqs; Dr. Stein Hansen March 15, 1997
- Revision of TOR and detailed plan for undertaking the Technical March 15, 1997
Review including cost implications
(b) Alternative to Slash and Burn
- Definition of TOR for the Selective Review, its scope and the Dr. Stein Hansen* Nov-Dec, 1996
cost implications;
- Review and Selection of relevant documentation; Dr. R.D. Fall Nov-Dec., 1996
- Evaluation of various components;
- Meeting with ICRAF and TSBF (Nairobi, Three case studies) Dr. M. Allegretti Jan-Feb, 1997
- Preparation of Report Dr. Mohd Salleh March 15, 1997
March, 1996
(c)Rajasthan Solar Thermal
- Analysis of external reviewer's comments; Dr. R. Williams* November, 1996
- Draft report on Selective Review; Dr. Jyoti Parikh Jan-Feb, 1997
- Presentation of Report to Council. May, 1997
2. Strategic Advice
(a) Transport Workshop Dr. S. Karekezi* Dec-Feb, 1997
- Preparation for TW Dr. R. Williams
- TW, Nairobi, Kenya Dr. J. Parikh March 14-15, 1997
Dr. C. Watanabe
Dr. S. Hansen May, 1997
(b) Report to be submitted to GEF Council on scientific and
technological issues and options
3.(a) Coal Workshop Dr. R. Williams* Jan-May, 1997
- Preparation for CW Dr. C. Watanabe June 16-17, 1997
- CW, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Dr. S. Karekezi October, 1997
(b) Report to be submitted to GEF Council Dr. J. Parikh
4.(a) Technical Paper-Scientific and Technical Aspects of Dr. Pier Vellinga* March 1997
Stage 1 Adaptation with respect to the Identification of
Vulnerable Area.
(b) Progress Report to be submitted to GEF Council May, 1997
and final report in October 1997
5. Analysis of RET papers as input into the GEF Secretariat paper Dr. R. Williams* January, 1997
Dr. S. Karekezi
Dr. C. Watanabe
Dr. J. Parikh
6. Review of a cluster of Projects on Energy Dr. J. Parikh*
7.(a) Scientific and Technical Analysis of the Outputs of the STAP Dr. R.D. Fall* January, 1997
Expert Group Workshop on Land Degradation as input to GEFSEC paper Dr. Mohd Salleh
for GEF Council
(b) GEFSEC Paper to be submitted to GEF Council in May, 1997
March, 1997
8. Brainstorming On Incremental Cost And Local And Global Benefits Dr. R.D. Fall* June 1997
- Land Degradation Dr. S. Hansen
ˇ.
9. Constructive Advice to Assist the Design of Evolving Projects - Dr. R.D. Fall Ongoing
Land Degradation
ˇ.
10. Participate in meeting of the INC/CCD Meetings Dr. R.D. Fall January 1997
ˇ.
11. Relations with UNESCO - Land Degradation Ongoing
ˇ.
12. Elaboration of International Waters Strategy Including Further Dr. Helen Yap* March 1997
Advice on the Regional Approach and Institutions, and the Prof. J. Woods
implications for GEF. Prof. P. Vellinga
13. Report on the Study on Best Practice with Regard to the Prof. John Woods* March, 1997
Application of Science and Scientific Tools in GEF International Prof. P. Vellinga
Waters projects
14. International Waters Assessment Prof. Pier Vellinga* Prof. Ongoing
John Woods Dr. Helen Yap
15. Preparation for STAP Expert Group Workshop on Sustainable Use. Dr. M. Allegretti December 1996
Identification of scope, TOR, and aims and objectives to be done
in collaboration with GEFSEC, IA and Convention on Biodiversity
ˇ.
ˇ. Preparation of background papers
Economic Aspects of S.U.
Anthropological Aspects of S.U. December
Ecological Aspects of S.U. Dr. S. Hansen 1996-February 1997
Coastal and Marine aspects of SV Dr. M. Allegretti
Forest Ecosystems Dr. J. Soberon
Drylands Dr. H. Yap
Maintain Ecosystems Dr. M. Salleh
Dr. D. Falls March 1997
ˇ. Submission of First Draft of Papers Dr. J. Soberon
16. Formulation of STAP Strategic Thinking on Prof. P. Vellinga*
Mobilisation of wider scientific community as an input STAP Secretariat
to the NAS workshop
17. Tenth Meeting of STAP June 18-20 1997
* Team Leader
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CBD - Convention on Biological Diversity
COP - Conference of the Parties
GEF - Global Environment Facility
GEFOP - GEF Operations Committee
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
RET - Renewable Energy Technologies
STAP - Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel
SBSTTA - Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice
UNCCD - United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
UNDP - United Nations Development Programme
UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme
ICRAF - International Centre for Research in Agro-Forestry
TSBF - Tropical Soils Biology and Fertility Programme