The various mechanisms for financing protected areas and biodiversity conservation fall generally into four categories, which overlap to some extent.
The most important category is national (or state) funds appropriated for the use of the relevant management agency. The second encompasses revenues and special funds generated at the national or site level, which usually may be used at the discretion of the management agency, or the governing body established to manage the fund. These include debt-for-nature swaps, environmental funds, and various fees and taxes that may be established by state agencies. Their common characteristic is policy approval and participation by national governments. These are discussed more fully in Chapters 2 and 3 of this section (Part II).
The third group of funding mechanisms involves raising money from donors. This may be an important element of national-level strategies, especially when financing is available from bilateral and multilateral assistance agencies, or when the purpose is to finance a trust fund or endowment, which is then used to finance specific management activities. Common characteristics of these mechanisms are that the activities to be financed generally need to be defined as projects, with some fixed duration, and the funding, when it arrives, will be restricted for use in the activities defined by the project proposal.
Fourth, funding can be available from development banks. These infusions generally come in the form of loans rather than grants, and so are appropriate only in cases where economic as well as conservation benefits are expected. With both bilateral assistance agencies and development banks, it is important for the country government as a whole, and not just a particular agency or group of NGO's to be in agreement on what the country's priorities are for development assistance. Thus an important element of a funding strategy for protected areas is finding a place in the country's national development strategy, and establishing a national priority for investments in conservation. If governmental policy shifts are needed in order to use or qualify for various funding mechanisms, the protected-area agency must be in a position to promote and achieve those policy objectives.
Both government agencies and private organizations can raise money from donors, although certain types of donors (private foundations, corporations, and individual philanthropists) tend to support the private sector, while others (official assistance agencies) tend more toward support to governments. Occasionally this type of support may be "unrestricted" and used at the recipient's discretion -- as in the case of individual contributions, from private citizens -- but in general, donor funding requires a significant investment in monitoring project achievements and finance, and reporting back to the donor.
This section, and the one that follows, attempt to present a guide to the conservation finance options currently available. As discussed in Part I, not every mechanism now available is suitable for any particular protected area or system; some that are quite advantageous in one situation will fail to meet the needs of another.
The section begins, therefore, with a chapter on developing a funding strategy -- identifying funding needs and matching those needs with appropriate sources. Subsequent chapters deal with specific funding mechanisms.
Most protected areas and biodiversity conservation projects have to count on a variety of sources in order to obtain the funding needed to operate. Typically, funds appropriated by national or state government are insufficient to cover the full costs of effective management, and these must be supplemented by funding inputs from international development banks and agencies, local and international NGO's, contributions from private foundations and individuals, and funds generated on site.
Which types of funding are appropriate and available often depends on the particular situation of any given site or protected-area system. A very attractive and accessible site might be able to generate a good deal of income from tourism, for example, while a remote site might be more dependent on appropriated or donated funds. Existence of national funding mechanisms, such as trust funds, can serve to attract additional international funding. Established relationships among protected-area agencies and private-sector organizations often are helpful if a manager seeks to attract funding from international NGO's and other private contributors. Integration of protected area planning with national development strategies should be an important goal, both to give a higher national priority to conservation objectives in general, and as an impetus for funding from development agencies.
In order to maximize funding possibilities, and to develop a long-term stable funding base, both individual protected areas and national systems need to develop a funding strategy.
A strategy for funding protected areas sets out the amounts of money required for each of the distinct activities necessary to manage protected areas, and a schedule of when those requirements will arise. It matches this needs assessment with a program of activities to meet those requirements. It sets out goals and objectives for securing national appropriations, international assistance, self-generated revenue, and the like.
A funding strategy may relate to a specific protected area or an entire system of protected areas. It should look at goals and objectives over the short, medium, and long term. The overall goal should be to create a diverse, and therefore stable, portfolio of funding sources that can be counted on to provide a continuous stream of funding over time. The strategy should include contingency planning, with identification of alternative sources that may be called upon if local economic conditions, or other factors, change over time.
Strategies for funding protected areas have several audiences. One is the group of people responsible for protecting and managing the areas -- usually the authors of the strategy -- the director and staff of a national park, or the head of the agency responsible for conservation, or a non-governmental organization that manages land for conservation. For this group of people, the strategy serves to direct and guide fund-raising and income-generating activities as part of the normal work of the site or protected-area system. It can also serve as an "early warning system" to show when cutbacks may be needed in case income does not keep pace with expectations.
Prospective financial contributors, national governments, and collaborating entities constitute other potential audiences. The fact that a strategy exists, and that each prospective contribution forms a vital part, can be persuasive arguments in favor of their continued and increased investment.
Three basic elements are essential to any strategy for funding protected areas:
The determination of financial requirements explains and justifies the amounts needed to develop and operate the area or areas covered by the plan. It helps persuade people who control prospective sources of funds of the reasonableness of the amounts required and the importance of providing them. The funding plan needs to be intimately linked with master plans for the protected-area system as a whole, and for the individual areas. The activities that are priorities for funding should be the same as those identified by site and system managers as priorities for action.
The funding plan will ordinarily look to an array of sources of funding. Some plans may reference alternative sources or may show shifts among sources over time. The funding plan should establish criteria for choosing among alternative sources of funding.
This overview is not intended to be a primer in park planning and budgeting. Most NGO's, site managers, and protected-area system managers will not have the luxury of completing all the steps to a fundraising strategy outlined here before beginning the work of seeking out sources. In most cases, especially at the protected-area system level, it will be a good idea to involve potential donors before the process is completed. The donors themselves are the best sources of information about how to present projects for consideration and how much funding might be available. Although it is not always possible to get donor input early in the process, it is usually a good idea to make contacts early and often.
Managing a protected-area system, and each of its component parts, consists of three basic phases: planning, investment in infrastructure, and long-term operations. Although the phases may have overlapping activities, they occur in sequence, and each requires several years to complete. Each phase also has different priority activities and different costs. Table 1. illustrates model costs for the phases of protected areas management.
Good planning is central to good protected-area management. It is now generally accepted among protected-area professionals that every area should have a management plan. Such a plan begins with the formulation of clear objectives within the framework of an over-arching protected-area system plan. A good plan then outlines the actions needed to achieve the stated objectives, in sufficient detail to identify the cost of their implementation, and to justify inclusion of these costs in the protected-area system budget.
Planning is not an end in itself. It is, rather, a management tool to be used continuously as objectives are attained, refined, or expanded, and as activities to achieve them are tried and lessons are learned from successes and failures.
Planning for a protected-area system begins by determining the sites most important for protection. It is important to justify conservation of each site on technical grounds and to build a political constituency for protecting it.
Planning continues by mapping the sites, formally declaring their protected status, and demarcation on the ground. Then a plan for managing each site must provide for infrastructure for the area, personnel to manage it, and equipment and funds to operate it. The plan covers such details as structures, trails, personnel, training, vehicles, fuel requirements, etc. The planning process determines needs and provides information necessary to estimate cost and timing for the investment and operations phases. Costs of performing the planning phase typically range from $30,000 to $50,000 per site, per year, for salaries, travel expenses for meetings and consultations, and research necessary to support the decision-making process.
It is essential that a management plan for a protected area determine needs and costs of each of the phases -- planning, site development, and ongoing management -- as accurately as possible. The better the plan, the easier it will be to obtain financing to implement the plan.
During the investment phase of managing a protected area, the services and infrastructure necessary to protect and use the area are installed. This effort usually extends over a period of several years. Typically, this phase involves:
In addition, technical assistance and special studies may be required to train personnel, design sites and facilities, provide biological inventories, or determine land tenure.
The investment phase is often the most cost-intensive phase of managing a protected area. For a mid-sized protected area of 600,000 hectares, costs for constructing buildings and control posts, and equipping personnel, can easily range from $300,000 to $500,000 per year. Land acquisition or road construction can increase this by an order of magnitude. A number of studies, including several cited in Part I, have analyzed these potential costs in detail. However, for an individual protected area or system, the important thing is to analyze carefully the total package of needs, and attempt to put a price on each one, determining annual investments needed by weighing the urgency of the need against the reasonable expectation of funding.
Long-term operations use the facilities and personnel provided in the investment phase to actually manage the protected area. This involves natural resource protection, education, research and monitoring, compatible human uses, community outreach, and maintenance. These efforts extend into the future indefinitely.
The costs of long-term operations include recurrent costs for personnel, and for maintaining and operating infrastructure, vehicles, and equipment. They also include the costs of any new construction, land acquisition, or program development that may be required.
In all likelihood, financial strategists for protected areas in most developing countries will look to a mix of national and international sources and to a mix of bilateral, multilateral, and private- sector sources. Over time, it is wise to shift reliance away from one-time donations, and toward more permanent sources. Reliance should also shift over time away from international sources and toward national sources. Even if the enthusiasm of international funders for conservation continues, it is unlikely that funders will wish to support a particular protected area or a particular management program indefinitely.
International funding should be seen as a "cushion" that covers some of the extraordinary costs of the most expensive phases -- acquisition and infrastructure development -- and supports the area while other sources that take longer to develop are being brought to a level where they can provide long-term support.
Typically, international funders, both private and public, have invested in planning and in infrastructure. These investors have been less willing to finance the recurrent costs of long-term operations. It is imperative that local sources of financing, from governmental or non-governmental sources, become available for protected areas to continue operations. This requires that work begin early on developing these sources of funding, which generally take several years to come on line from the time when initial meetings or feasibility studies and experimental projects are begun.
In a similar vein, financial strategists must seek a good balance between public and private sector sources. To the extent that the benefits of protected areas can be construed as private benefits, their cost should be paid by private individuals. Thus such financing mechanisms as entry fees for visitors, fees for extraction permits, or user fees for water or electricity can become important sources of revenues. But many of the benefits that protected areas produce, like protecting biological diversity or reducing the risk of flooding, are public benefits. Governments should commit funds from the public treasury to maintain these public benefits. Financial planners must understand what kinds and amounts of funds governments can make available to protected areas. A major challenge is to structure mechanisms which guarantee the long-term availability of those funds.
National public sources of financing for protected areas include appropriations in the national budget, fees, special use taxes, and conversion of national debt instruments into local currency. National private sources include individual and corporate donations and funding through special techniques like sales of merchandise or proceeds from entertainment events. All these national private sources have parallel international sources. Non-profit foundations constitute an important additional source of international private finance.
Although promising, the concept of financially self-sufficient protected areas is far from becoming a reality. Protected areas that are also world-class tourist destinations have the best opportunities to derive alternate income for their management. Tikal National Park in Guatemala, Chitwan National Park in Nepal, Nairobi National park in Kenya, and Iguaz£ National Park in Argentina and Brazil are examples of areas with such potential. Unfortunately, other areas that have incredible scenic and biological resources are so remote and inaccessible that tourism will never provide substantial funding for them, certainly not enough to meet management needs.
Many sources of funding are difficult to predict (both the level of funding and the likelihood of receiving it) and difficult to stabilize. Revenues from tourist fees fluctuate with international trends in tourism attractions and even with the weather. Government appropriations reflect general economic conditions within a country and fluctuate as priorities change.
Financing strategists, therefore, must put a special effort into identifying stable financing mechanisms. One form, discussed in greater detail in the following chapter, is the dedicated fund, structured by law to permit expenditure only for certain specified purposes. Such a fund might receive all revenues from hotel taxes, for example, and make disbursements limited to administration of national parks.
Another stable form is the trust fund, whose principal is held in trust and invested to produce income. Use of the income is restricted to expenditure for a specified purpose, like protected areas.
Regardless of structure, all financing mechanisms for protected areas require administration and, hence, an institution to perform that administration. It is important to choose the right institution to administer funds. Such institutions may be public or private, or a hybrid of the two. They may function exclusively as financial administrators, or they may also have responsibility for managing protected areas in the field. In all cases, these institutions must hold to high standards of integrity and professionalism.
In some instances, the best institution for administering conservation funds may be a local NGO or an association of NGO's and government agencies. Such institutions can assure that funds dedicated to conservation are truly used to manage protected areas and not simply added to general revenues in the central government treasury.
Protected areas compete against other interests for financing. Other worthy candidates for public and private funds abound. A financing strategy for protected areas, therefore, must seek a niche among other national and international funding priorities. Some of these priorities complement protected areas and others compete with them.
The exact priority accorded to each of these, and to many other interests, varies from country to country and situation to situation. Priorities vary over time, also, with some interests gaining increased priority while others decrease in importance. Those seeking to provide funding for protected areas will have a good sense of actual priorities and will keep a keen eye out for shifts in priorities in future years.
Table I. Sources of Funding in Different Phases of Managing Protected Areas
|Planning||Investment in Infrastructure||Long-Term Operations|
bilateral and multilateral aid
bilateral and multilateral aid
diversified local sources
diversified local sources
Table II. Sample Funding Source Matrix
Federal or regional funds
Other government office funds
Enterprise for the Americas Initiative
Locally generated income
Natural resources sustainable use concessions
Technology research concessions
Infrastructure to Let
Equipment to Let
Guided specialized services
Multilateral and bilateral economic cooperation
Integrated conservation and development projects
Direct funds to protected-area system
Global Environment Facility
Table III. Sample Funding Framework for Country A
|National budget appropriations||Currently $250,000/year; increase to $500,000 per year||Medium||$250,000 increase per year||2000 budget||Work with ministry and legislators|
World Bank working on $3 million grant, including 5-year funding for Protected Areas X, Y, and Z.
Concept paper review by Technical Committee April 2001
|Low in short term, chances may improve longer term||$200,000 per year for 5 years||First disbursement not likely before 2002||Need to secure approval of govt. agencies, have Site X approved for project|
|Commercial debt-for-nature swaps||
Government-approved project currently operational; $5 million quota approved for site A.
Bank X expressed interest in $1 million donation; donors Y and Z are strong prospects to fund additional $2 million transaction
|Medium. If Bank X delivers on donation, donors Y and Z likely to follow suit||$3 million swap would generate $180,000 annually over 30 years for site X.||If donations made before September 2001, first disbursement could be available July 2002 at the earliest.|
|User fees||Study currently under way||Definite||$5,000 per site per year first 2-3 years; up to $20,000 per year thereafter.||Program to begin 1993 dry season|
Although until recently most of the funding campaigns for protected areas have focused on a single site, or even a single species to be protected by a particular site, there is a growing trend toward national-level system planning and funding mechanisms that support a national environmental agenda. Besides taking a broader view of the conservation needs within a given country or region, these mechanisms keep decision-making about natural resource management in the hands of local and national professionals, instead of in the capital cities of donor countries. In this way, they are an important advance, not only for conservation of species and habitats per se, but for the development of systems to support conservation over the long term, worldwide.
Environmental funds, conservation trust funds, and endowments provide long-term, reliable support, thus improving program stability, long-range planning capability, training and recruitment of personnel, and overall impact of conservation programs. Definitions of what constitutes a national trust fund vary depending on the legal, political, and social status of the particular country.
Generally, a trust fund entails money, stocks, bonds, or other property held in a dedicated account for specified beneficiaries or purposes, as defined in the trust document or legal agreement establishing the fund. The fund is managed by a trustee (person or institution - frequently a Board of Trustees - holding title to the assets). The trustee has fiduciary responsibility to follow the terms of the trust. Frequently the trustees delegate a fiscal agent to oversee financial management of the assets.
|Trust Funds at a Glance|
Financial Potential: Capital up to $50-100 million and more; recurrent income in existing funds varies but some funds may be able to provide up to $5-10 million per year.
Advantages: Long-term and even perpetual returns suitable for financing recurrent costs.
Conditions Required: Legal and financial setup sufficient to maintain value of capital and disbursement of income according to terms of trust
Constraints/Limitations: Some donors have internal regulations prohibiting use of their funds for grants to endowments.
Comments: Potential to link to "green" mutual funds, structural adjustments, tax holidays, sectoral lending, export credits, and other mechanisms integrating conservation in broader economic context.
Trusts are a common-law concept and may not exist in many legal systems. However, legally acceptable alternatives are likely to be available. An endowment is another type of fund, in which only interest or investment income is spent while principal is conserved. It is also possible to set up a special dedicated fund so that the principal may be spent and periodically replenished from additional grants or fees. Many trust funds are structured to accept, manage, and disburse funds from a variety of sources -- thus achieving maximum leverage of funds from each individual source.
The benefits of placing assets in a trust or other type of dedicated fund include, besides those mentioned above, the potential to receive large donations and make small grants. Thus institutions whose absorptive capacities or project time frames limit their access to large banks or donor agencies can still receive funds from these institutions, albeit indirectly. Trusts may be particularly useful for protected areas with very limited capacity to generate their own resources -- for example, those set aside to protect particularly sensitive ecosystems, where visitation is not encouraged. Special funds in these cases make it possible for the global beneficiaries to pay the greater share of costs.
Conservation trust funds can be used to finance many things: short-term or long-term training for park guards and other conservation professionals; surveys and development of a biological information base; salaries and administrative support for government agencies and NGO's; environmental education and public awareness campaigns; integrated conservation and development projects in buffer zones; and whatever other activities fall within the terms of the fund's legal establishment documents and approved by its governing body.
The diverse interests of a variety of affected groups need to be represented and acted upon if a trust fund is to be successful. A broad spectrum of interests can be represented on the governing body. To the extent feasible, these interests should be represented when the fund is designed and its goals and purposes established. Potential stakeholders include, at a minimum, donors, government agencies responsible for protected area management, and NGO's. Other potential collaborators include forestry, agriculture, finance, and planning ministries, and organizations involved in rural development.
The costs of trust funds and endowments generally arise from the administration and financial management of the fund capital, and its eventual disbursement, together with related planning, management, auditing, and evaluation procedures.
There are also certain risks. Considerable care is required in assuring the physical security of the funds. A fund established to generate benefits in perpetuity would have to limit disbursements to income generated over and above the amount needed to maintain the capital value of the fund, i.e. after allowing for inflation. In countries with exceptionally high inflation this may make the trust fund instrument limited in its application.
One particularly difficult problem involves the composition and responsibilities of governing bodies. On the one hand, it is usually desirable to have a nation's environmental leaders represented and their expertise available. On the other hand, these individuals represent groups likely to seek financing from the fund, and there is a potential for problems with conflict of interest. This is particularly true in smaller countries. Usually the problem is addressed by appointment of an outside review and selection committee comprising technical experts who analyze requests for funding and make recommendations for project approval.
More than 20 countries have established some form of national fund for environmental activities, with a diverse array of funding mechanisms.
An interesting example from the Ivory Coast involves an Environment Fund using taxes imposed on ships, especially oil tankers, docking in the country. Half of the tax (about $100,000 per year) goes to the Fund, which is used to purchase equipment for monitoring ecosystems, preventing pollution, or improving the environment. 
Costa Rica has a Conservation Fund to support protected-area management, financed by a portion of the revenue from certain excise taxes and official registration and stamps on legal documents, passports, exit visas, permissions to sell liquor, etc. Costa Rica also has a national parks endowment capitalized by commercial debt-for-nature swaps (discussed below).
The Wildlife Fund in Zambia acts as a legal mechanism for charging concession fees, selling wildlife products, and engaging in commercial ventures related to wildlife development. The Fund then directs the income to management of biological resources and serving the interests of local communities coexisting with wildlife.
The Indonesian Wildlife Fund is supported by voluntary contributions from the timber industry; it was established by the Ministry of Forestry but operates independently under a board of directors who allocate the funds in support of conservation projects.
The Honduran government made a commitment to capitalize a national environmental protection fund with $5 million over six years, and designated an NGO, Fundaci¢n Vida, to manage grant making and coordinate NGO development activities. In Vida's second year, the organization signed an agreement with USAID, which will channel some $10 million in environmental project funding through VIDA and affiliated organizations over the remainder of the decade.
European bilateral assistance agencies have also been instrumental in capitalizing national funds. In 1993, The Netherlands announced its commitment to provide capital in excess of $50 million to the national conservation funds of Costa Rica, Benin, and Bhutan.
Several countries have used innovative mechanisms to generate national revenues for their conservation funds. Papua New Guinea has proposed an environmental levy on mining and other extractive industries. Belize has proposed a $20 tourist tax to be paid by all visitors who arrive by plane or cruise ship. The Natal Parks Board in South Africa generates 30 percent of its revenues from a parks trust fund that is expected to grow; user fees and other revenues generated on site help to provide the capitalization.
Trust funds may be maintained in local currency or in overseas accounts. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is working with the government of Peru to establish an offshore trust fund for conservation activities in Peru. It is set up to function as a model for long-term financing of protected areas in countries where lack of economic resources and political instability traditionally undermines conservation efforts. The intention is to raise principal of $20 million, managed by a U.S.-based asset management firm. Income will cover recurrent management costs of protected areas. The GEF plans to contribute $4 million from its core fund and raise $5 million from co-financing. The fund would be open to debt-for-nature injections.
The GEF is also helping to capitalize trust funds in Bwindi, Papua New Guinea, Bhutan, and other countries. The Bhutan fund is managed in collaboration with WWF and UNDP, and supports training of environmental professionals, biological surveys, strengthening the protected area system, institutional support for agencies charged with managing natural resources, environmental education, and integrated conservation and development projects. The Agreement establishing the fund commits the Government of Bhutan to maintain forest cover in perpetuity at its present level (approximately 60 percent of the country is forested), and to preserve approximately 20 percent of its territory as protected areas.
Other countries with trust funds, in addition to those mentioned above, include Bolivia, El Salvador, Jamaica, Panama, Guatemala, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Colombia, Poland, Uganda, Nepal, Mexico, the Republic of the Congo, and Namibia. A few central European countries and former Soviet republics have set up multinational funds.
|Debt-for-Nature Swaps at a Glance|
Financial Potential: Average income per country, $7-10 million (to date).
Available to: NGO's, government agencies, national trust funds. Have supported land acquisition, boundary marking, park guard training, infrastructure, development and implementation of management plans, equipment purchase, national legislation, environmental education, research, species management, buffer-zone development.
Conditions Required: Concurrence/collaboration of national government, central bank, debt and repayment status conducive to multiplier effect on conversion.
Constraints/Limitations: High transaction costs. Requires collaboration of a large number of entities and institutions at the national and international level. High value of external debt and political or economic conditions within the country such as high inflation make this mechanism less attractive in certain countries.
Comments: These organizations can provide information and assistance for institutions in countries seriously pursuing debt conversions for nonprofits. Be aware, however, that these groups receive many more requests than they can handle. Be prepared to show evidence when you contact them that discussions among local NGO's and with national government agencies is well advanced.
Director of Conservation Finance
Director of Conservation Finance
Director of Business and Legal Affairs
Center for Debt Information and Training (CICDE)
Debt for Development Coalition Inc.
In addition to capitalization of national trust funds, debt-for-nature swaps had been used in 12 countries by 1992 to finance conservation directly. The process begins in a country that has acquired debt with commercial banks, international financial organizations, and/or foreign governments. The basic premise is that an amount of debt (determined by the country's own government) will be retired in return for investments in local currency for financing conservation. Debt retirement may occur by outright forgiveness or donations, or in the case of commercial banks, by third-party purchase of debt instruments for a discounted price. Debt instruments are then honored by the debtor country at the agreed-upon level in local currency.
Because the transactions are complicated and involve fiscal policy, debt-for-nature swaps have brought conservation and management institutions closer to decision-makers in their own countries, notably the central banks and ministries of finance. Protected-area managers and conservation organizations have been forced to learn more about finance, which may have influenced them to become more innovative with ways to get access to the funds.
Debt-for-nature swaps are controversial, for various reasons. Some critics object to any service of national debt, claiming that it is illegitimate. Others are concerned about possible inflationary effects, although experience shows that this risk is generally grossly overestimated. Sovereignty remains an issue, although no debt-for-nature swap has ever resulted in foreign control or ownership over land areas in the debtor country, even if land purchase is part of the transaction. One concern that needs to be addressed in the contemplation of any debt swap is whether the swap will actually produce additional revenue for conservation, or merely redirect existing funds.
In order to more fully utilize the debt-for-nature potential it will be necessary to build up a critical mass of competence and awareness around debt-for-nature financing and to try to reduce risk, uncertainty, and transaction costs. One of the suggestions made to address this problem has been establishment of a debt-for-nature clearinghouse.
When first exploring the feasibility of a swap in a country, one of the first steps is to contact the Director of External Debt at the Central Bank. This person is generally the most informed about the country's debt position and policies regarding conversion of debt. Often nonprofit swaps occur most easily in countries that have already implemented debt-for-equity swaps for the commercial sector. Other contacts to make include officials in the Ministry of Finance and the Executive Branch, as well as local bankers.
Once the financial feasibility of a debt swap has been determined, the actual structure of the swap needs to be decided. A growing consensus favors working through a coalition of local NGO's cooperating with each other and with the Ministry of Natural Resources (or its equivalent) to set up a mechanism for managing and disbursing the resources generated by the swap.
A debt-for-nature mechanism should seek to be open to all donors. If properly structured and representative, these mechanisms should encourage not just commercial debt-for-nature swaps, but serve bilateral creditors seeking new ways to forgive and restructure their debt, and direct donations from the Global Environment Facility, and all foreign aid agencies.
|EAI at a Glance|
Financial Potential: Depends on country's debt owed to the United States under the PL-480 "Food for Peace" program; see example in text.
Available to: Eligible nations in Latin America and the Caribbean (government bodies).
Conditions Required: Eligibility criteria including an IMF/World Bank economic reform program, trade and investment reforms, agreements as appropriate with lenders for commercial debt reduction.
Constraints/Limitations: Difficulty (and desire) to meet criteria varies from country to country; see text for additional requirements regarding national trust funds.
In October 1990, the U.S. Congress authorized reduction and restructuring of PL-480 "Food for Peace" loans, permitting interest payments on the new obligations to be made in local currency to national environmental trust funds. To give a hypothetical example, let us assume that Country X owes the U.S. Government $300 million. It meets the eligibility criteria and negotiates a reduction of its debt to $150 million, to be paid at the concessionary interest rate of 3 percent. But the interest will be paid into a national trust fund rather than to the U.S. Government, generating a fund of $4.5 million in local currency in the first year, and proportionately decreasing amounts in later years as the principal is paid down.
The actual terms of the debt restructuring are determined in bilateral negotiations, which also establish an Environmental Framework Agreement (EFA). The EFA prescribes the mechanism for managing and disbursing local currency interest payments. EAI specifies that the national trust fund be administered by a local panel, including one or more individuals nominated by the U.S. Government, one or more individuals nominated by the government of the beneficiary country, and a group of individuals sufficient to constitute a majority of the panel, who are nationals of the beneficiary country, representing a broad range of nongovernmental organizations working in environment and community development, and scientific and academic organizations. Grants are to be made available to local NGO's, indigenous peoples' organizations, eligible local or regional entities, and in exceptional cases, the national government.
Activities eligible for grants may include restoration, protection, or sustainable use of oceans and atmosphere, animal or plant species, and protected areas. Development and implementation of natural resource management systems, training, research, agricultural activities, and community initiatives may also be funded. Within this framework, the local administering body may establish specific guidelines to fund some or all of these types of projects.
The EAI is controversial. A number of Latin American NGO's have denounced it, largely because of its limited scope in relation to the overall need for debt relief and its economic conditionality requirements. U.S. NGO's are working to convince the Congress to improve the program. (Both The Nature Conservancy and World Wildlife Fund are represented on the U.S. board that oversees EAI.) One specific recommendation is that EAI be expanded to include tax incentives for commercial debt donations to national trust funds, in addition to restructured bilateral debt. Companies and individuals holding debt or blocked assets could also be encouraged to make donations to the funds.
The presidents of Central America have established the Central American Commission on Environment and Development, which has proposed the creation of a regional trust fund financed by EAI exchange of debt owed to USAID by the Central American Bank for Economic Integration ($147.78 million as of October 1990). The expected yield is $1.85 million per year for the first 10 years, and increasing amounts after that.
|FONAMA in Bolivia|
FONAMA -- Bolivia's National Fund for the Environment -- was created as a mechanism for the management of debt-for-nature swaps. With time, it became the institution charged with organizing all investments in the environment, integrating government activities with those of indigenous communities and NGO's.
The U.S. Agency for International Development and Bolivia's Ministry of Planning and Coordination provided funds to design and implement FONAMA. The process had distinct phases. FONAMA's first effort was promotion of commercial and bilateral debt swaps to support conservation and sustainable development projects. Then its role expanded to raise and manage funds from various sources for investment in conservation, sustainable development, and environmental quality. FONAMA thus became a coordinating body for the various funding agencies, and for the agencies actually implementing projects. The Bolivian Environmental Action Plan is the priority-setting framework; FONAMA worked with the national environmental secretariat to develop a list of priority actions.
FONAMA is an umbrella fund composed of accounts, each with different characteristics and objectives, as determined by the source and purposes of the funds obtained. These accounts, individually and collectively, are governed by a single administrative council, which involves the four principal actors (FONAMA itself as the fiduciary agent, the environmental secretariat, the funding agency, and the implementing organizations) in decisions about use of funds. FONAMA's functions are technical and administrative support and fundraising. Its board of directors includes representation of government, the private sector, and indigenous people. It includes an Enterprise of the Americas Initiative account and a World Bank environmental technical assistance project account among the items in its portfolio.
C. Campos # 265 (San Jorge)
La Paz, Bolivia
tel: (591-2) 392370 fax (591-2) 391774
|The Enterprise for the Americas Initiative in Jamaica|
In Jamaica, the organization formed to receive and manage EAI funds is the Environmental Foundation of Jamaica. Over the ten-year period (1992-2002), the Foundation will receive a total of $9.2 million. Additional funds from sources other than EAI are being sought.
The development of the Jamaican Environmental Framework Agreement (EFA) was essentially an NGO initiative, led by the Jamaica Conservation and Development Trust and the National Environmental Society Trust (JCDT and NEST, respectively). These organizations participated, at the invitation of the Government of Jamaica, in the negotiations leading up to the agreement.
The Jamaican Board of Directors was selected either on personal merit and their contribution to the environmental field, or appointment by representative institutions.
Although the Foundation will be responsible for the disbursement of funds, several oversight mechanisms exist. The US and Jamaican governments may veto any grant exceeding $100,000, but otherwise will not exercise a management role over the fund.
The Foundation is the product of a bilateral agreement in which Jamaican and American NGO's have acted as catalysts. The success of the Foundation could lead to securing other sources of funding from bilateral and multilateral debt reduction agreements. This would help to guarantee the long-term financial sustainability for the implementation of environmental projects by NGO's.
 Among the many reference books which treat this subject in greater depth are MacKinnon, MacKinnon, Child, and Thorsell, Managing Protected Areas in the Tropics (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 1986); W. Lusigi, Managing Protected Areas in Africa (Nairobi: UNESCO, 1992), and other volumes cited in Part I.
 For an excellent overview of conservation trust funds and details on the functions of several representative funds, see Barry Spergel, "Trust Funds for Conservation" (World Wildlife Fund, 1250 24th Street NW, Washington DC 20037-1175 USA).
 Examples of trust funds cited here draw on information from B. Spergel, "Trust Funds for Conservation" (World Wildlife Fund, 1250 24th Street NW, Washington DC 20037-1175 USA); J. McNeely, "How to Pay for Conserving Biological Diversity," Ambio 18:6, 1989; various V. Barzetti, Parks and Progress (Gland, Switzerland:IUCN, 1993); papers presented at the World Parks Congress, and the author's own experience. Special thanks to Randall K. Curtis, Director of Conservation Finance, The Nature Conservancy.
It is possible to generate substantial income for managing protected areas and protecting biodiversity by tapping "mass" sources -- small fees or contributions collected from a great number of people. Although this type of income sometimes requires elaborate collection and promotion mechanisms, the investment in systems is often worth while because the funds generated are unrestricted. That is, they can be used for general operating expenses such as staff salaries and vehicle maintenance -- expenses often difficult to finance from other sources.
Revenue programs, fees, charges, and means of recovering operating costs vary significantly from country to country, and thus it is difficult to say which are the "best" or "optimum" sources. On the other hand, this variety of options lends itself to creativity in park management that can be adapted to a variety of situations.
Chile's protected-area system, as an example, receives about 20 percent of its annual budget from locally generated user fees, tourism licenses, grazing rights, etc. Colombia's protected area system receives 35 percent of its national budget from a tourism tax. Most of the funding provided to Ecuadoran national parks comes from entry fees and tour operator licenses charged by the Galápagos National Park.
In the United States, among park systems managed by the states, facility-generated income is the fastest-growing segment of revenues.
The term "user fees" covers a broad spectrum of possibilities. Site-level options include entry fees collected at the gate, admissions fees for special attractions such as museums or botanical displays, fees for camping and picnicking facilities, fees charged to concessionaires who profit from operating lodging, food and beverage, guiding, boats for diving or fishing (these include fees that may be charged for licensing the operation, and/or per-person fees they collect), fees for yachting or cruise-ship visit permits, taxes on hotels and gift shops. Parks that provide a valuable service such as water supplies for downstream cities can collect user fees by such means as a tax or levy on water or electricity users, or at the very least, use these services as a justification for national budget appropriation requests.
At the national level, tourist taxes, hotel taxes, and other fees can be used to support protected-area systems. Some countries offer an annual pass that allows a visitor unlimited access to parks for a single fee.
In the United States, a study of state-run parks showed that approximately 25 percent of revenues were obtained from camping fees, 22 percent from miscellaneous revenues, 16 percent from entrance fees, 16 percent from lodge rooms, cabins, and cottages; 8 percent from concessions, and 7 percent from recreational use fees for golf courses, beaches, and pools. Two state park systems, West Virginia and Kentucky, have developed modern resorts as a major theme within their state park operations, and report significant revenues being generated by these facilities.
However, the trend for state-operated parks in the United States as a whole seems to be directed more toward privatization of resort and lodge facilities within the parks. Concessions granted for these private operations are another significant source of revenue. Concession operations typically include gift shops, souvenirs, beverage and food sales, equipment rentals, and sales or rental of other similar items.
Other revenues are generated by leases of land for mineral exploration, oil development, forestry activities, grazing, and other agricultural uses. Revenues are also obtained from reservations, boat launching and picnic shelter use fees, floating trips, and trails use fees. Not all of these uses are appropriate for any given protected area. However, after the site or system plan has determined what uses are compatible with the aims of conserving the site, careful consideration should be given to whether any of the compatible uses can generate income, either by fees for use or by taxation on profits from the use. As mentioned in the previous chapter, these fees and taxes can be used to capitalize trust funds as well as to support annual operations. Sometimes the creation of a permanent funding mechanism makes it easier to justify establishment of a tax or fee.
Environment Canada's Cost Recovery program began with a thorough analysis of policy issues arising from user fees. In the end, the agency developed a structured approach for implementing a user fee policy, inspired by the classical approach to marketing and beginning with a series of steps similar to those taken by private companies before launching a new product. Over a five-year period ending in 1991, revenues for recreational services in the Canadian Parks Service increased from $12 million to $15.7 million per year, and are expected to reach $21.8 million in 1995-96.
The guiding principle of the user-fee policy is equity. Activities assuring the continuation of the benefits of parks to the public at large - that is, carrying out the primary mandate of the park service - are not generally subject to user fees. But services that are geared to distinct user groups ("private" rather than "public" interests, such as camping areas and backcountry maps) are financed by user fees based on cost recovery. The percentage of costs borne by users as opposed to the general treasury depends on the degree of "public" versus "private" benefit generated by each activity.
The largest risk inherent in a user-fee system is the risk of commercialization. A protected-areas agency that places its emphasis on user-fee revenues can lose sight of some of its objectives, and tend toward facilities designed to produce income rather than protect natural resources. Other risks include redeployment of scarce personnel resources toward collection of fees rather than protection of resources; controversy and public opposition; and an increased likelihood, in some cases, that the park service may be held legally responsible for accidents suffered by users.
These risks are outweighed by several advantages of a user-fee system. Protected-area systems that charge fees often find an increased level of respect and professionalism on the parts of both staff and visitors. Fees can be used as a tool for managing use and directing activities to appropriate areas. And resources from both national treasuries and international and private donors can be easier to come by when the protected areas themselves are generating a good portion of their operating income.
In many cases, a protected area constitutes the centerpiece of a local tourism industry. The repercussions of a user fee policy on this industry can be significant. An entry fee is generally a small part of the overall cost of a trip, but care should be taken to structure the entire spectrum of charges and fees so as not to adversely affect the tourist's experience. For example, a higher entry fee is usually preferable to an "endless" series of charges for trails, restrooms, parking, museum entrance, lectures, etc. Above all, the fee structure should not be seen as excluding local residents in favor of high-paying foreign visitors. And private-sector enterprises should not receive "free" use of public facilities; government agencies should make sure that they assess appropriate licensing or concession fees from businesses operated by the private sector on its territory.
Protected areas are tourist attractions, economic development tools, and educational and recreational instruments as well as mechanisms for conservation. Each of these functions has distinct clienteles. It is possible to see protected areas as a consumer product, and to envision user fees as a marketing tool. To take into account the interests of various user groups and promote optimum use, some protected areas have instituted special prices for residents/nonresidents; free days, low-priced annual passes, off-season discounts, package tours, etc.
User fees have a strong impact on park administration. The user-fee system may consist simply of charging an entry fee, or may include a complex range of service fees charged directly or by third parties, individually or in packages. The direct costs of collecting fees include salaries, contracts, installation and maintenance of toll stations, equipment, supplies, and more. There will be additional administrative costs, for example, accounting and control, data processing, and reports, and indirect costs such as personnel training, security, and public relations.
This creates a dilemma for already-strapped management agencies: How to start the program when its financial benefits will not be realized until later? The answer usually is to rely on short-term loaned or donated funds, from bilateral and multilateral agencies or donors, for the initial planning and startup phases, and move to reliance on self-generated funds as the program matures.
The planning process should begin by defining the purposes of the user-fee program. The basic orientation may be to adequately finance environmental protection; to provide installations that promote user enjoyment or economic development; to limit use while increasing revenues; or some combination of these and other factors.
Planners should then analyze political, governmental, tourism, and marketing factors that may affect the success of the program, and the strengths and weaknesses of the management agency relative to implementing a user-fee program. Finally, the success of the program will depend on knowing the potential clientele.
Having analyzed these factors, it should be possible to determine objectives and define the broad outline of the user-fee program. After taking their views into account, it is especially important to consult with client groups and program administrators to receive their input. At this point a detailed program and action plan can be elaborated. The plan should identify what services will be provided; fee structures; modalities of collection, what equipment, supplies, personnel, and installations are necessary; administrative policies, including management and use of revenues generated; control systems; and a plan for program evaluation.
To the extent permitted by national law, as many as possible of the sources of income to protected areas should be made proprietary -- that is, legally restricted in their use to the national park system or the specific protected area where they are collected. Where national law does not permit this, efforts should be made to change the law. In recent years, Kenya, Belize, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and the Netherlands Antilles, among others, have permitted the earmarking of funds for national parks. This step can be time-consuming, and may take years to be implemented. However, it is so important that many experts believe that systems that do not invest the necessary level of effort to establish dedicated protected-areas funds are unlikely to achieve long-term operational self sufficiency.
Efficient application of user fees requires investment in marketing. The agency must define the objectives of the user-fee program and select fees appropriate to those objectives (which may include revenue generation for specific or general purposes, management of visitor numbers, encouraging or discouraging commercial uses, etc.). Studies should determine current and potential visitation. Monitoring can determine whether visitation is affected by fees. The cost of collecting the fee needs to be determined so that the fee can be high enough to cover costs and provide a profit. Voluntary and third-party fee collections may not produce 100 percent compliance, but the offsetting reduction in cost of implementation may make these options more attractive.
Setting up to collect visitor fees can be as simple as training staff at existing visitor centers, or it can involve significant investment in park infrastructure for long-term returns. In most cases it is probably preferable to begin with programs that are simple to operate, and move to more capital-intensive systems as revenues are generated to support their start-up.
The rewards can be substantial. The Natal Parks Board in South Africa, which has invested in the construction of visitor accommodation facilities through its capital budget, now generates some 36 percent of its revenues from state appropriations, 35.9 percent from fees for visitor accommodations. Morocoy National Park in Venezuela generated $50,000 in entry fees from its 700,000 visitors in 1986.
In contrast to the "pay-per-visit" concept of user fees, membership programs provide a vehicle for voluntary support by a constituency that may or may not actually visit the sites.
A "Friends of the Park" program or collaboration with existing NGO's provides an excellent opportunity to channel individual contributions directly to protected-area management. Staff can establish mechanisms to collect donations on site, or to capture visitor information (names and addresses) for later fund-raising contacts. Some protected areas make this information available to NGO's for cooperative fund-raising efforts.
The very fact that people are willing to become members of a conservation NGO or a park-supporting group is a source of prestige and influence, both in the political process and in convincing potential donors to invest. Membership dues can be a significant source of income. Members can make other contributions as well: volunteer work, word-of-mouth publicity, providing information, buying products and tickets to benefit events, and identifying potential donors.
Memberships and how to build them are the subject of many books and reference materials. Members are individuals or entities (businesses, for example) who join an organization (usually by paying a membership fee) and in return receive benefits of membership. The primary benefit is to be part of an organization supporting a cause they believe in. Additional benefits may include free admissions, discounts on merchandise, a subscription to a bulletin or newsletter, invitations to special events, etc. A common mistake that organizations make in beginning membership programs is to offer so many benefits to potential members that the program eventually costs more to run than it brings in. It is always important to remember that the main benefit of membership is support of the cause.
Membership development is the process of building, renewing, upgrading, and maintaining a membership to provide ongoing income, as well as a source of volunteers and community support. It is covered in detail in The Nature Conservancy's manual, "Resources for Success," and in other publications.
In general, the proceeds will range from US $20-50 from approximately one to 10 percent of the people identified as prospective members (that is, friends, visitors, people who are already members of similar groups, etc.). The more direct contact an organization has with the people it invites to become members, the more likely the results are to be in the upper range of the estimate.
Corporate memberships have ranged from $50 to $5,000 and are most successful when solicited in person by corporate peers who are connected with the organization soliciting the donation (usually members of the board of directors of an NGO, or members of the park's private advisory committee, for example). Renewal of existing members is absolutely essential to the long-term success of a membership program and, unfortunately, is often overlooked.
Most of the ideas discussed in the "Innovative Fundraising" section below are potential sources not only of income but also of information about prospective members. The most important element is to maintain contact with individuals who have made donations, ask them to donate again and donate more, and use this process of "upgrading" to identify potential major donors.
There is no shortage of ideas -- many of which have been tested in practice in one or more countries -- for local generation of funds for protected areas. The key to successful use of these mechanisms is selecting the combination of funding sources that will provide return on investment and continuing diversity of funding sources.
All of these ideas for income generation will work. Some will take more effort to set up and maintain than others, and this will depend to some extent on the particular characteristics of the protected area or project that they are designed to support. The most common mistake is trying too many at once, and not putting enough investment into each one to evaluate its true potential.
The selection should be limited to a manageable number of mechanisms, with monitoring so that those that produce well can be expanded and those that do not can be replaced. Successful use of these techniques often depends on finding ways to combine them so that they reinforce each other - as in using special events to recruit members and to upgrade regular members to higher giving categories, or using sales to generate mailing lists for marketing special events and tours.
This guide attempts to provide information to help protected-area managers analyze the potential productivity of various sources, the difficulty of tapping them, the cost/benefit ratio of effort to potential gain, and other values. Some funding mechanisms promote public awareness and political support along with finances. Others may generate in-kind as well as cash support.
Special Events: Many organizations use special events to great advantage. One Venezuelan organization netted $13,000 from a premiere of the movie "Batman." A Jamaican organization made $10,000 from a music and dance party. The Nature Conservancy's Long Island Chapter generally makes $80,000 or so from its annual dinner dance, which includes an auction of donated items. In general, an organization can make a great deal of money from special events if it can meet three conditions. First, the organization must be able to recruit volunteers to do most of the work rather than relying on paid staff. Second, it must be able to get goods and services donated rather than paying for them (the film, the hall, the food, the drinks, the performers, the waiters, etc.). Finally, the event needs to have social appeal, to be "the thing to do." If the organization doesn't have the power to create this aura on its own, consider joining forces with an existing event.
Tax checkoffs: Some 38 of the 50 states of the United States use "checkoffs" on state tax forms to collect funds for wildlife management. The state of Minnesota, with 2 million taxpayers, has raised $9 million in 10 years. A special line on the tax form allows taxpayers to increase their tax payment, or reduce their refund, to make a donation to wildlife. On the average, between 7 and 8 percent of taxpayers do so, with an average contribution of five to six dollars. The program required legislation to create. Keys to success include uniqueness (this is the only program requesting donations on tax forms), a successful program to market, and skillful publicity at tax time to make taxpayers aware of the program and willing to contribute.
Sales: Fundación Neotrópica's Heliconia project operates gift shops in the visitor centers of two national parks in Costa Rica, selling shirts, jewelry, postcards, membership in Neotrópica, and a variety of handicrafts. The shops make about $40,000 per year, some of which goes back to the parks.
SOS Mata Atlantica in Brazil makes $100,000 per year from a line of clothing featuring its logo and other environmental themes, produced by Brazil's leading clothing manufacturer under a licensing agreement with SOS, and marketed in the firm's catalogues and retail outlets as well as in street-corner stalls. Pronatura Yucatán in Mexico makes a few thousand dollars a year from the efforts of tireless volunteers who sell T shirts to people who visit its projects or attend talks by its staff. Generally, merchandising works best for those who can market unique products, and those who can collaborate rather than compete with the existing sales industry. Marketing generally combines well with tourism programs. Visitor centers have proved to be a good location for shops and sales. Volunteers and entry-level staff trained to operate these centers have a high turnover rate as they are recruited to other jobs in the sales industry. The best way to get started is with a brainstorming session including representatives of park management, any NGO's that will be involved, and interested members of the business community. A sound business plan is essential. Most of the organizations that have been successful in sales have experimented with various products, expanding production of those that sell well and discontinuing those that do poorly. Clothing such as T shirts and caps, souvenir items such as post cards, photo books, and key chains, and maps, guidebooks, and other items specifically related to the site have been most successful.
Adopt-an-Acre: The Nature Conservancy, Fundación Natura in Colombia, Fundación Neotrópica in Costa Rica and others have raised money for park protection and for park endowment funds by selling "deeds" to small parcels (an acre or hectare) of a protected area. For about $35 to $120, the donor receives a certificate acknowledging his "adoption" of the acre and its wildlife. The certificates have been popular as gifts for Christmas and special events, and classes of schoolchildren have gotten together to raise enough nickels and dimes to buy an acre or two.
This program can work well for organizations and protected areas which already have established an audience to market to (members, gift-shop customers, retail or catalog merchants who will display and sell certificates, etc.). It is also helpful to have a group of volunteers since the work involved is time-consuming (producing certificates, mailing them, thank-you letters and answering correspondence). Best results occur when you have the capacity to identify purchasers who are also potential major givers to the park or organization, and to follow up with personal thanks and cultivation for additional giving.
Colombia's coffee fund, other special dedicated funds: When the European Economic Community granted tax exemption for certain agricultural products, including coffee, from Andean countries, the Colombian coffee growers' federation decided to establish an environmental protection fund by continuing to collect an amount based on the former export tax. The fund and its proceeds are used to protect the watersheds upon which the coffee growers depend for their water supply.
Similarly, in the United States, a special tax on sporting equipment is used to finance land acquisition and management to protect wildlife. Hunters and birdwatchers buy "duck stamps" whose revenues support wildlife refuges. In some countries, a $1-a-night tax or fee on hotel rooms has been proposed to support conservation of natural areas. The fee could be voluntary or compulsory, collected by the hotel association or the national revenue department that collects other taxes.
In Belize, there has been discussion of a tourist tax to be levied on airline and cruise ship passengers to support a national conservation trust fund (see the section on national trust funds for more information about the various mechanisms used to generate revenue for them). Generally, this kind of fundraising effort can be successful when it is possible to identify a key business or industry that is already economically successful (not struggling for survival) and that clearly depends on natural resource protection for its survival (watersheds, water supply, wildlife for hunters or tourists -- or on the other hand, polluting industries that can be required to make environmental investments in return for operating permits).
Collecting spare change: The possible variations on this theme are endless. If you have a shop with cash registers, or can persuade a retail store to promote your cause, a basket or collection box next to the cash register with a display can encourage people to deposit their change. Some organizations give foreign visitors a self-addressed envelope to use to mail back any leftover currency that they may find still in their pockets at the end of their trip.
Variations on this theme have included displays or tables staffed by volunteers at airports or other international exits, and in one case, an airline collecting unused foreign currency from passengers on its departing flights. Tour guides who accompany groups back to their home countries can also perform this service. Displays that ask for a voluntary contribution and provide an envelope and a place to deposit it are featured at many private reserves. In the United States, The Nature Conservancy collected $40,000 from parking meters set up in zoos -- not in the parking lots, but near the animals, as a means for asking each visitor to contribute an extra quarter or two. Fundación Natura's displays in Colombian recreation areas look like gum-ball machines. Those who deposit the equivalent of a dollar get an encapsulated conservation message. Fairs and other public events provide an opportunity to set up a display table and collect contributions. Some organizations send volunteers door to door.
The term "multilaterals" refers to the development banks (World Bank, International Finance Corporation, Asian Development Bank, etc.) and international agencies (for example, of the United Nations, European Community, etc.) that support economic development by channeling resources from the developed world. These resources come in the form of loans to central governments, special projects, grants, and support for private-sector activities.
In recent years, support for conservation programs from the multilateral development banks has increased significantly. When the development banks invest in rural development projects, they often find it beneficial to build in components to ensure the conservation of the biological resources upon which the projects depend in the long term. Major hydroelectric projects, for example, can often build in a significant component to establish a protected area in an upland watershed.
The major new thrust in multilateral collaboration to support protected areas and biodiversity conservation is the World Bank's joint venture with UNEP and UNDP, the Global Environment Facility. However, additional forms of conservation finance are being developed by regional development banks such as the Inter-American Development Bank. In general, multilateral bank funding is available only to governments or to private-sector projects expressly approved by governments. Typically a development bank grant or loan for establishment and maintenance of protected areas would come in the context of a major development project or support for implementation of a national conservation plan. Conservation funding might also be attached as mitigation to the environmental effects of developing roads, railways, etc.
Most development agencies are not authorized to use their resources to finance land acquisition or payment of indemnification in case of expropriations. If a proposal for the establishment of a protected area or system includes these items, it is generally necessary to inquire first about the donor/lender's regulations. Some that do not finance acquisitions directly may be able to participate in indirect financing, such as through debt swaps, or in related activities such as feasibility studies, land titling, boundary demarcation, and the like.
Development agencies simply cannot cope with numerous small requests for isolated needs such as participation in conferences, translations, publications, and so forth. These should be planned for and made part of larger, more comprehensive projects.
Development Business, a twice-monthly newspaper published by the UN, is a valuable source of information about the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Caribbean Development Bank, InterAmerican Development Bank, African Development Bank, and UN Development Programme. It is geared toward entities seeking to win contracts funded by these agencies, but can also serve to keep organizations up to date on projects being planned in their area. One year costs $395. For a sample copy, contact:
GCPO Box 5850
New York NY 10163-5850 USA
TEL (212) 963-1515
FAX (212) 963-1381
Projects submitted to development agencies, especially multilateral banks, usually must have the backing of the appropriate government agencies, and generally be submitted by or with those agencies. There are exceptions, as in the case of the Inter-American Development Bank's small projects that finance NGO's directly. But generally, obtaining an official priority for the project is considered necessary for success.
Many people believe that the key to achieving funding is using political influence, or seeking sponsors within the agency to promote the advancement of a proposed project. But this is a double-edged sword. A good project will almost always be well received, with or without patrons. Attempts to use political influence have as much chance of causing resentment among those who will actually administer the project as of advancing it.
When seeking funding from a multinational agency, one must always bear in mind that the banks are in the business of making loans. Therefore, conservation projects that do not in themselves generate revenue sufficient to pay back the principal should either be discussed with other agencies (UN agencies, development assistance agencies, other donors), or attached to a larger program with components whose income will be sufficient to make the project financially self-sufficient.
The agency profiles in this chapter are brief snapshots of the major multilateral banks and agencies. Each profile indicates, to the extent that information was available, the total financing provided by the agency to environmental activities; the eligible recipients; the type of support (grants, loans, technical assistance); the size of a typical project; the activities that can be supported; any constraints or limitations -- that is, recipients or activities NOT eligible for financing; addresses for further information, and the titles of useful publications. The addresses given here are generally the headquarters office. It is usually wise, however, to initiate contact through a local office if one exists. References for further research are listed at the end of this chapter.
The World Bank at a Glance
The World Bank is a large and complex institution. Check a World Bank annual report or other publication to find out the address of the local or regional representative. When contacting the World Bank headquarters office, direct inquiries to the Environment Department or the representative for the country in question.
1818 H St. NW
Washington DC 20433 USA
Environment Bulletin. Free quarterly newsletter of the World Bank environmental community. Write to Editor, Environment Department, World Bank Room S-5055, at the address above.
Philadelphia PA 19170-8619, USA
(for catalogue of publications and list of publications distributors worldwide)
All but three of the world's countries with populations in excess of 3 million are members of The World Bank. Its primary mission is raising living standards in developing countries by channeling financial resources to them from developed countries.
Much of the funding available for parks and protected areas from The World Bank is channeled through the Global Environment Facility (see following section). However, almost 40 percent of World Bank-financed projects count at least 10 percent of their costs or benefits as falling within the environmental sector. An Environment Department with a staff of 140 in the headquarters and four regional offices is responsible for setting overall strategic objectives, carrying out research, and conducting staff training. Responsibility for environmental work is also diffused throughout the Bank, in country operations and technical department divisions.
In early 1993, a new Vice Presidency for Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) was established. It includes the departments of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and Transportation, Water, and Urban Development, as well as the Environment Department with its five divisions: Pollution and Environmental Economics; Land, Water, and Natural Habitats; Social Policy and Resettlement; and GEF Administration.
In fiscal 1991, the Bank financed 14 "primarily environmental" projects totalling $1.5 billion. These included Brazil's National Environmental Project. The borrower is the Federative Republic of Brazil and the executing agency, IBAMA (Brazilian Environmental Institute). The loan amount is $117 million, repayable in 15 years, with a five-year grace period, at the Bank's standard variable interest rate. It finances strengthening of the central environment authority, including Brazil's national system of Conservation Units, and four state-level environmental protection agencies, also responsible for managing Conservation Units.
Details about World Bank projects and environmental issues in particular can be obtained from several publications, all available from World Bank offices and its Publications Office. Useful publications include annual reports (which include a listing of all World Bank offices worldwide); The World Bank and Nongovernmental Organizations; World Development 1992, focusing on the relationship of environment and development and covering many concerns relevant to the UNCED congress in 1992; The World Bank and the Environment,an annual report to the public on environmental activities; and the Environmental Assessment Sourcebook, an 800-page reference manual published in three volumes. The sourcebook codifies all World Bank environmental policies and guidelines and is primarily useful to environmental-assessment teams evaluating and implementing Bank-financed projects.
For complete information about publications, consult the Publications Update, a free publication available by calling the Order Fulfillment department in the U.S. headquarters, (908) 225-2165 or FAX (908) 417-0482.
For the past five years, the World Bank has undergone a systematic effort to increase NGO involvement in the operations it supports. Most of the projects with formal NGO involvement have been in the agriculture and rural development sector; most NGO's involved in these projects have been indigenous intermediary NGO's or grassroots groups. A list of projects "in the pipeline" in which Bank staff see potential for NGO involvement is now regularly updated to facilitate collaboration between NGO's and implementing agencies. NGO's, with the authorization of their governments, can be granted visitors' status to attend the World Bank and International Monetary Fund annual meetings, which regularly feature parallel seminars for NGO's on Bank policies.
|The GEF at a Glance|
|Financial Potential: Grants and loans up to $30 million. |
Available to: Government agencies, ministerial level; NGO's with government endorsement.
Conditions Required: Projects must benefit the global environment, as distinct from local.
Constraints/Limitations: Four main project areas (below).
GEF Technical Advisory Division
One United Nations Plaza
New York NY 10017 USA
GEF/UNEP Clearing House
PO Box 30552
The World Bank
Washington DC 20433 USA
PublicationsThe Global Environment Facility (December 1991), available from above addresses.
The Global Environment Facility: Sharing Responsibility for the Biosphere, by David Reed, available from WWF-US, 1250 24th St. NW, Washington DC 20036.
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) was created in late 1990 to assist the developing countries with projects that protect the global environment. GEF comprises a Trust Fund, a Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP), and technical assistance programs. It is managed by the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). GEF provides funding for projects in four areas: reducing greenhouse gases, conserving biological diversity, control of pollution in international waters, and measures to combat ozone depletion.
During the GEF's three-year pilot phase (1992-94), participating countries pledged some $1.2 billion to the GEF core fund and the various parallel and co-financing mechanisms. They have also agreed to move from the pilot phase to a more permanent funding mechanism.
UNDP is responsible for technical assistance and the small-grants program (see following section). UNEP provides scientific support to the STAP. The World Bank handles investment projects, administration of the GEF and the Trust Fund.
The GEF is an umbrella made up of funds from three distinct sources. There is an $800 million "core fund" (also known as the Trust Fund or GET, for Global Environment Trust Fund) which provides grant funding to support projects. Another $300 million or so is available through several associated co-financing arrangements, as grants or highly concessionary loans. Finally, there is some $200 million provided under the Montreal Protocol to help developing countries comply with its provisions to phase out ozone-destroying substances. UNEP administers the Montreal Protocol funds, under the auspices of a 14-country Executive Committee, separately from the GEF core fund and co-financing arrangements. Individual projects may request up to $10 million for new, "free-standing" projects; those associated with other, ongoing Bank projects can get up to $30 million.
All countries with a per-capita annual income of less than $4,000 and a UNDP program in place are eligible for GEF funds.
To qualify for funding, a proposed project must benefit the global (as distinct from local) environment, and must fit in one of the four priority areas. The project must also be innovative and demonstrate the effectiveness of a particular technology or approach. Other criteria include the contribution a project makes to human development (through education, training, etc.) and the provision for evaluation and dissemination of results. Projects that are economically viable on the basis of local costs and benefits are not normally eligible for GEF funding; rather, GEF seeks to support projects that offer substantial global benefits but are unlikely to be viable without some concessionary funding.
The STAP helps to formulate criteria for project selection and reviews proposals to advise on whether they meet scientific criteria.
Proposals for GEF funding can be generated in several different ways. Governments, the World Bank, UNDP, and UNEP, as well as NGO's and the private sector, can all put forward suggestions on innovative projects that meet GEF criteria. All projects must be endorsed by the government of the country in which the project is situated. In most cases governments submit project ideas directly to the implementing agencies, either through the UNDP Resident Representative, a World Bank field office, or UNEP. Governments may apply for GEF funds directly to UNDP or the World Bank. NGO's can do the same once the government has accepted the project in principle. In Costa Rica, the national government actually invited NGO's to prepare projects, which the government edited and submitted as its own portfolio to the GEF.
All projects undergo screening and technical review. Those that clear this process go to the UNEP/UNDP/Bank Implementation Committee. The Committee then selects, from those passed on to it, a group of projects (a "tranche"), balancing investments in geographical regions and the four thematic areas. This group of projects is forwarded to the participating governments for review at their biannual meetings, and from there the projects return to their sponsoring agency for further preparation, appraisal, and final approval according to each agency's regular procedures.
One of GEF's major objectives is to "leverage" global benefits from regular World Bank projects that might not otherwise take global environmental concerns into account. Thus many of the GEF-funded projects have a direct relationship to existing World Bank-funded development projects.
The pilot phase of the GEF comes to an end in mid-1994, although disbursement of pilot funds is likely to continue until 1998.
The GEF evolved with astonishing speed, from a proposal by the German and French governments to create a multilateral environmental fund, to a fully operational mechanism commanding more than a billion dollars, in just three years. This was due in large part to the pressure felt by industrialized countries to "do something" to promote collaboration on environmental issues in time for the 1992 UNCED conference in Rio de Janeiro.
But haste, together with some of the weaknesses inherent in the implementing organizations, has generated problems and criticism from many quarters. As David Reed reports: "Governments from developing countries were disturbed that the GEF did not address the environmental priorities of developing societies. Community-based organizations from those countries questioned the ability of the World Bank and UNDP, in light of their checkered histories in promoting equitable and sustainable development, to address the causes of environmental degradation on a local level. NGO's and developing societies alike challenged the environmental performance and institutional capacities of the three implementing agencies. Such controversy was fueled early on by a lack of information about both the mandate and work programs of the GEF and the functions and accountability of the implementing agencies."
The future of the GEF appears to depend in large part on whether parties to the international Conventions emerging from UNCED (biological diversity, global climate change, etc.) decide to use GEF or some other facility as their funding mechanism. Participants in the GEF have been increasingly aware of the need for institutional and managerial reforms, including review of definitions of the conditions that qualify projects for funding, governance, information policy, and voting mechanisms. The success or failure of this drive to reform probably also will determine the success or failure of the GEF itself as a mechanism for North-South transfers of funding to address global environmental problems.
|The Small Grants Programme at a Glance|
Financial Potential: $250,000 per country; $1,000 to $50,000 maximum to individual NGO or community group. |
Available to: NGO's and community groups in designated countries.
Conditions Required: must meet criteria of GEF projects.
Constraints/Limitations: Programme still in pilot phase, maintain contact with local UNDP office to keep information current.
Getting started: Contact local UNDP office or UNDP NGO Programme.
One United Nations Plaza
New York NY 10017
TEL (212) 906-6076/906-5084
FAX (212) 906-5313
The GEF Small Grants Programme supports innovative small-scale activities by community groups, NGO's, and NGO networks in countries eligible for GEF support. The program has operated in a pilot phase from early 1992 through 1994. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) manages the small-grants program, which is seen as a supplementary opportunity for NGO involvement in GEF projects. Its primary objectives are to:
Criteria for selecting GEF projects also apply to the small-grants program. Thus projects are eligible for funding if their results will potentially serve to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; protect biodiversity; reduce pollution of international waters; and/or reduce depletion of the ozone layer. The types of activities most likely to be funded include:
Program administration is very decentralized, following models already developed by UNDP to carry out other small-grants programs. Key contacts in any country are the national coordinator for the program and the UNDP country office.
The UNDP Resident Representative in each country is asked to ensure the concurrence of the host-country government with proposed strategies, mechanisms and procedures for carrying out the small-grants program, and to include government representation in the selection committee, but not to refer individual grant decisions, once taken, to the government for further approval.
The small-grants program gives priority to local and national activities within the pilot countries. However, awards of up to $250,000 will be given for multi-country projects when the inter-country component of the program is initiated in 1994.
|A Sampling of GEF-Financed Projects|
Bhutan: A GEF grant of $10M will activate a Bhutan Trust Fund for environmental conservation. The Fund is discussed in Chapter 2.
Mexico's Protected Areas Program got a $30M GEF grant to complement a $50M World Bank loan.
Poland will receive a GEF grant of $4M to carry out a program to protect the biodiversity of two forests, one in Karkonosze National park and the other in Bialowieza.
Six Central African countries* received $1.75M for purchase of comprehensive LANDSAT thematic mapping images, screening of data, establishment of a permanent computerized archive, and training of local institutions in analysis and use of data for environmental monitoring. (*Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Zaire)
Zimbabwe is implementing a $7M photovoltaic project to harness solar power and thus reduce the greenhouse-gas emission potential of bringing electricity to the estimated 70 percent of its population that now has no access to electric power.
|A Guide to UN Acronyms|
|ECOSOC||Economic and Social Council|
|FAO||Food and Agriculture Organization|
|GEF||Global Environment Facility|
|NGLS||Non-governmental Liaison Service|
|UNDP||United Nations Development Programme|
|UNEP||United Nations Environment Programme|
|Unesco||United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization|
|WHO||World Health Organization|
|WTO||World Tourism Organization|
The UN system comprises both the UN itself and the autonomous inter-governmental agencies with which it works in close collaboration. Among the autonomous agencies, those supporting protected areas and related conservation and community development activities are the United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Development Programme, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, the United Nations' Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (The International Finance Corporation and other agencies of the World Bank are also among these autonomous agencies.)
These agencies link through the UN's Economic and Social Council, which is elected by the General Assembly. The Economic and Social Council is the major channel for UN development assistance through UNDP. Any of the above bodies can be involved, alone or collectively, in assistance to conservation and sustainable development activities.
|UNDP at a glance|
One United Nations Plaza
New York NY 10017
(Field offices in 120 countries worldwide. Write for list of addresses, or check library collections and information centers at offices of UN agencies. They are likely to have a significant volume of information related to UNDP, including addresses of field offices.)
UNDP is the world's largest grant development assistance organization. It works with 150 governments and 35 international agencies to promote higher standards of living and faster economic growth throughout the developing world. It provides financial and technical support to more than 5,000 projects in agriculture, industry, education, power production, health, housing, trade, and related fields. The bulk of UNDP assistance (three-quarters) goes to countries whose GNP is less than US $500 per capita.
UNDP offers three kinds of support for conservation: (1) program support for large-scale pollution-control projects in middle-income countries; (2) UNDP-supported projects to prevent or limit environmental damage caused by development projects such as dams, roads, or agricultural development; and (3) assistance to projects to help low-income countries improve their uses of natural resources.
UNDP is involved in natural resource assessments focusing on development potential; transfer of appropriate technologies; training in professional skills; and economic and social planning. It is supported by voluntary contributions of UN member states.
The UNDP Administrator reports to a 48-nation Governing Council, which reports to UN General Assembly through ECOSOC, the Economic and Social Council. Much of the responsibility for program operations is delegated to Resident Representatives in 115 local offices in countries worldwide. About 3,200 of UNDP's 4,000 employees are stationed in field offices.
Key operating objectives include principles of self determination, self reliance, neutrality and respect for sovereignty, and long-term commitment.
Associated programs include the UN Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration, UN Volunteers, Special Fund for Land Locked Developing Countries, UN Plan of Action to Combat Desertification, and others.
The annual budget total for all activities is in excess of $500 million. Natural resources is the largest single category of investments.
Individual projects average $1.5 million over the life-of-project, with 60 percent of resources (cash and in-kind) supplied by the recipient, 40 percent by UNDP. Assistance is determined according to five-year country programs. The Governing Council approves the volume of assistance allocated to each country as well as all five-year programs.
UNDP supports the public and private sectors, in collaboration with each other and according to five-year programs. UNDP service is provided only in response to receipt of a request from a national government. Requests that are of a more regional than national importance are referred to the relevant UN Economic Commission.
In effect, UNDP will participate in any aspect of any form of activity within a very broad definition of development assistance. In Africa, the primary focus is disaster and famine relief and rehabilitation, and improvement of agricultural productivity. Asia and Pacific programs focus on creation and improvement of infrastructure and data. National debt management and economic adjustment are key in Latin America and the Caribbean, as is Caribbean regional collaboration through CARICOM. Globally, clean water and energy assessments are important aspects of UNDP's environmental efforts. UNDP is a partner in the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
UNDP assistance may come in the form of grants, loans, loans at soft rates, and co-financing, as well as technical assistance and information. Resources are allocated to countries on the basis of need.
|UNEP at a glance|
P.O. Box 30552
UNEP Liaison and Regional Office
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Other liaison offices:
UN Headquarters - Room DC2-0803
UNEP was established in 1972, after the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. Its mission is monitoring the world's environment and plotting courses of development to maximize growth and sustain world resources. Its annual funding from the UN budget is about $5 million. Its responsibility is to the UN General Assembly, via a regionally balanced Governing Council of 58 members. UNEP implements projects of its own and in coordination with FAO, Unesco, and WHO. It hires consultants (individuals and institutions) for research and feasibility studies.
UNEP's activities fall into 10 program areas, three of which are relevant to protected areas. With Unesco, it conducts the International Environmental Education Program for the promotion of environmental education at the local, national, regional, and global levels. UNEP sponsors both general and specialized environmental training through workshops and postgraduate courses, and organizes regional training networks. It produces numerous publications and audiovisual materials.
UNEP supports marine conservation through 10 Regional Seas programs: the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf, West and Central Africa Region, Southeast pacific, Red Sea, Caribbean, Eastern Africa Region, South Pacific, East Asia, and South Asia.
UNEP has programs focused on soils, tropical forests, genetic resources, and wildlife and protected areas. It provides the secretariats for the CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) and CMS (Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals) conventions.
UNEP supports programs worldwide, both public and private sector. It is a partner in the GEF (see World Bank). UNEP plays a role in many multi-agency programs, including the World Heritage and Man and Biosphere programs described under Unesco. UNEP sponsors studies on the integration of environmental considerations in development planning, and works with Unesco on the international program for environmental education. It sponsors Earthwatch for early warnings of hazards, and GEMS (Global Environmental Monitoring System), which collects data on renewable resources, climate, health hazards, long-range transport of pollutants, and oceans. UNEP is also the sponsor of the Global Resource Information Database (GRID).
|FAO at a glance|
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
Africa - Accra, Ghana
Asia/Pacific - Bangkok, Thailand
Latin America/Caribbean - Santiago, Chile
North America - Washington, D.C.
UN Headquarters, Suite DC 1125
The FAO exists to raise the level of nutrition and living standards by improving food production and distribution. It is neither an aid agency nor an agricultural development bank. It carries out technical studies, disseminates information, and advises governments on policies and planning. It advises other multilateral agencies, including World Bank and UNDP, on development aid in the agricultural sector, and implements projects funded by them. Its governing body is the conference of member nations.
FAO projects strengthen local institutions, assist research and training, and demonstrate new techniques. FAO provides technical assistance to projects which can pave the way for large-scale capital investment in development, and helps borrowers and lending institutions prepare projects. FAO advises countries on drafting legislation for managing natural resources and protecting the environment, and helps national governments collaborate on environmental initiatives through various regional bodies. In South America, FAO has supported regional protected area planning. In other regions, it has supported publications and information sharing.
Field operations must be initiated by a request for assistance from the host country. A project plan is drawn up with FAO assistance and presented to a funding agency. The World Bank is the single most important financing institution for investment projects prepared by FAO.
FAO holds biennial conferences in each of its five regions. The FAO Secretariat has staff in field, regional, and country offices. Forestry, Fisheries, and Development departments are most closely related to natural resource issues.
FAO maintains a register of consultant firms, institutes, and organizations. Contracts for technical assistance are generally awarded on the basis of international competition.
Major FAO units concerned with environment and natural resources are:
The FAO, through its Forestry Department, oversees the Tropical Forestry Action Plan (TFAP).
TFAP seeks to slow tropical deforestation by establishing a planning framework, a vehicle to launch a broad program to address the root causes of deforestation, and a mechanism for harmonizing development assistance in forestry. Agreed to at a conference in Bellagio, Italy, in 1987, TFAP was launched under FAO's overall supervision. UNDP, UNEP, Unesco, and bilateral and multilateral aid agencies including the World Bank, and a few NGO's, notably the World Resources Institute, also play major roles.
Nations that enter the TFAP process prepare a national plan, organize roundtable discussions with national leaders, NGO's, and donors, and ultimately agree on a portfolio of projects for submission to donors. These may include community forestry, integrated watershed management, desertification control, land assessments and forest resource inventories, planting multi-use trees on farms, forest-based industrial development, fuelwood projects, conservation of forest resources, and institution building.
During TFAP's first five years, some 70 countries (representing 60 percent of the world's remaining tropical forests) started TFAP's. From 1985 to 1990, annual forestry assistance doubled, from $500 million to $1 billion, although the increased funding has been concentrated in traditional forest-based industry development, with less than nine percent invested in forest ecosystem conservation.
|Unesco at a glance|
7 Place de Fontenoy
75700 Paris, France
tel (1.45) 77.16.10
Publications: Unesco Courier. Monthly magazine available in 35 languages and Braille. One year costs 139 French Francs (108FF to developing countries). Subscriptions telephone 22.214.171.124. 31 rue Francois Bonvin, 75015 Paris.
Unesco Environment Briefs. This occasional series focuses on specific issues and topics of interest. The series began in November 1991 with an issue on debt-for-nature swaps.
Unesco fosters international cooperation in education, science, and culture. All of its programs place heavy emphasis on education, training, exchange of information, and promotion of research and advancement of knowledge.
Unesco is the home of the Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB), a nationally based, international program of research, training, demonstration projects and information dissemination. It features research by multidisciplinary teams on interactions between natural and social systems.
Biosphere Reserves are protected areas of representative terrestrial and coastal environments, recognized for their values and provision of knowledge in support of sustainable development. There are strict selection criteria; almost 300 Biosphere Reserves have qualified in more than 70 countries. Each participating country establishes a national committee to coordinate achievement of the major objectives:
Unesco's Division of Ecological Sciences is home to the secretariat of the World Heritage Convention. The Convention, adopted in 1972 and ratified by 112 state parties, is designed to conserve cultural as well as natural sites of international significance. It establishes a World Heritage Fund, to which state parties are required to contribute; the fund provides some $1 million per year for technical cooperation, emergency assistance, and, in certain countries, training associated with protection and management of World Heritage Sites.
The list of sites (more than 280 sites in 65 countries) is maintained by the World Heritage Committee (21 representatives of the state parties). Qualifying sites must be outstanding examples representing major stages of the Earth's evolutionary history or significant ongoing geological, biological, or community formation processes; or they must contain superlative natural phenomena and features, or the most important habitats where threatened species of animals or plants of outstanding universal value.
Once a site is inscribed, the state party may request technical assistance for preparation or revision of a management plan, strengthening protection, community participation, or infrastructure, or emergency assistance for dealing with sudden natural events or human-caused threats. Requests up to $30,000 can be approved by the Committee chair or the seven-person World Heritage Bureau; larger requests require the approval of the full Committee.
There is a Unesco national commission in every member state, which maintains contacts with NGO's in that country and provides liaison with Unesco headquarters.
The developing countries are extremely important to the European Communities, which receive 85 percent of their imported commodities and make 41 percent of their sales outside the EC, in trade with the Third World. Development is second only to agriculture in the expenditures of the European Communities. Although the complexity of the budgets of the various Directorates General makes it difficult to determine exactly how much of the Communities' expenditures overseas actually supports the conservation of nature and natural resources, the amount is substantial. Aid and the procedures for granting it vary from region to region.
The European Communities comprise 12 Member States. The four main institutions of the EC are the Parliament, the Court of Justice, the European Council, and the Commission of the European Communities. The Commission is the executive body.
The Commission, with headquarters in Brussels, is made up of some 20 Directorates General. Five of these administer programs relevant to environmental conservation.
DGI, the Directorate General for External Relations, handles development assistance to Asia, Latin America, the Mediterranean Basin, North Africa, the Middle East, the Far East, and Eastern Europe.
DGVI, the Directorate General for Agriculture, concerns itself primarily with European agriculture.
DGVIII, the Directorate General for Development, manages the European Development Fund (EDF), which is the principal instrument for technical and financial cooperation between the EC and developing countries. This entails the implementation of the Lomé Convention, an agreement between the EC and 69 African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) states.
DGXI, the Directorate General for Environment, Nuclear Safety, and Civil Protection, is the body in which Europe-wide policies are developed for such common themes as fisheries and environmental protection.
DGXII is the Directorate General for Research.
Each Directorate General administers its own funds as appropriated in the Budget of the Commission, or in the case of DGVIII, the EDF. Development assistance from the EC functions along traditional lines. It is often tied to the use of European experts and purchase of European goods. It is programmed according to government-to-government agreements and agreed-upon processes, and generally overseen by a delegation resident in the recipient country. There are special programs for support to the private sector, discussed below.
DGI administers the global budget to ALA (Asian, Latin American, North African and Near Eastern) countries. Generally this assistance is provided according to the terms of a special agreement negotiated with each of the recipient countries.
Delegations of the EC are posted in the following ALA countries: Algeria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, Indonesia, India, Lebanon, Pakistan, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
In addition to aid distributed on a geographical basis, there are specific budget lines or allocations within the directorate for special themes - such as tropical forests - which the Commission has flexibility to allocate, and the Director General administers. He also administers various agreements at the regional level (for example, with the Andean Pact, ASEAN, or the Amazon Pact) which, like the Lomé agreements, relate to trade, the environment, tourism, cultural and social cooperation, etc.
DGVIII administers the European Development Fund. Under the Lomé Convention, which links the Community with 69 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, the EC will provide some $12.7 billion in development assistance to these countries from 1990 to 1995. (The Lomé agreements are named for the capital of Togo, where the five-year Conventions were signed in 1974/Lomé I, 1979/Lomé II, 1984 Lomé III, and 1989/Lomé IV.)
Of the $12.7 billion, some 11.4 billion will be in the form of grants via the EDF and 1.3 billion loans (with interest subsidies) via the European Investment Bank.
Lomé is, above all, a trade and aid agreement. It is a contractual agreement, freely negotiated, spelling out legally binding privileges and obligations. Its main purpose is development in the ACP countries; its instruments include funding assistance as well as trade regulations and agreements. There are special funds for commodity stabilization and restoration of the viability of mining industries. The main emphasis is on rural development, infrastructure, and self-sufficiency in food production. The environment has become the subject of a specific title in the Lomé IV agreement. The negotiators reached agreement on a preventive approach embracing all sectors of EC aid. Thus the Community supports projects designed to protect the natural heritage and makes efforts to ensure that development is based on a sustainable balance of economic objectives and enhancement of natural and human resources.
Most of the ACP countries have resident permanent delegations of the EC who are involved in the procedures for awarding and implementing contracts. Each ACP country appoints a national authorizing officer who represents the national government in all operations connected with EDF-financed projects. The Commission of the European Communities, upon enacting its budget, notifies each ACP country of the amount of assistance it may expect to receive, and any terms and conditions. After consultation, the recipient country draws up its program of objectives and priorities for use of the aid, and its proposed guidelines for and scope of financial and technical cooperation. This programming document is negotiated and adopted as an agreement between the EC and the ACP country.
The country then identifies projects fitting within the scope of its program and submits them for funding. The process for receiving Lomé assistance begins with a request of the recipient government to the EC through the delegation in country. The request is forwarded to the EDF Committee and goes through a formal process. Management of EDF funds is somewhat decentralized to the recipient states, which are responsible for project identification and execution.
In addition to the assistance programmed country by country, there are specific budget lines for special themes (for example, a $10.6 million allocation for ecology in developing countries) managed by the Director General and accessible not only to governments but also to NGO's. There is also a micro-project allocation, and a $106 million allocation for co-financing NGO-initiated activities. Each of these special budget lines has its own specific mechanisms for access and disbursement.
A DGVIII publication, Summary of Resources Available for Financing Actions by NGO's in the Area of Development, lists the budgetary article, nature of assistance, name and telephone number of the official responsible for funds either exclusively or partially reserved for NGO's. Among these are education and training in the environmental field, tropical forest protection, institutional strengthening, and environmental protection in specified countries. Request publication VIII/364/92 in French, English, or Spanish. (Available via resident delegations or the Brussels headquarters.)
Also see General Conditions for the Co-financing Of Projects Undertaken in Developing Countries By Non-Governmental Organizations, publication VIII/764/87/(EN for English, FR for French, SP for Spanish).
DGVIII finances capital projects and programmes; rehabilitation projects and programmes; sectoral and general import support programmes; budgetary support; financing of recurrent costs; support for debt reduction; technical cooperation; and credit lines. It participates in co-financing with development agencies and institutions, member states, ACP states, third countries, or private institutions.
DGVIII's major activities include agricultural and rural development, preservation and protection of the environment; promotion, development and reinforcement of small and medium-sized national and regional enterprises; micro-projects for grassroots development; development of human resources, with special account of WID; support for development operations put forward by economic, social, cultural, and educational organizations in the framework of decentralized cooperation.
In addition to environmental legislation for Europe, this Directorate General works with global issues such as climate change, biological diversity, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES), and tropical forests. It shares with Directorates General I and VIII a program of $55 million for the conservation of tropical forests.
The EC has established a framework program for research and development policy, and coordinates, promotes, and supports research of general interest to the developing world. Funding for research is available through the Science and Technology for Development (STD) program. STD proceeds in multi-year programs, the current one being STD 3 (1991-94), which is allocated $118 million for the period. Of this, $76 million will support research in the area of tropical and subtropical agriculture, which includes forestry, soil protection, and the environment.
STD's purpose is to strengthen the scientific potential of developing countries. It funds collaborative research by developing country and EC scientists, seeking "to stimulate scientific study in various parts of the world of specific scientific issues which can contribute to progress in all developing countries." Scientists from all developing countries may have direct access to STD funds and can define their priorities and select research partners themselves. Projects must pool at least two teams from the European Community with one or more developing country teams. Calls for research proposals are published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
STD 3's two main themes are tropical and subtropical agriculture, and medicine, health care and nutrition. Within these areas, several research networks have been set up, including one on tropical forests.
Projects submitted for STD 3 funding may include training of developing country participants, including postdoctoral studies, theses, courses, and seminars. Since a main objective is to build research capacity in the developing world, developing-country purchase of durable equipment may be financed entirely by STD 3. In general, the EC provides up to 50 percent of the cost of the project, with the remainder being provided by the institutions carrying out the research.
A full information packet with all details necessary for submitting an application for the STD 3 is available in the nine community languages from the Commission of the European Communities, Directorate-General for Science, Research, and Technology [DG XII - G-4], Division for Scientific and Technical Cooperation with Developing Countries, rue de la Loi, 200 B-1049 Brussels.
|OAS at a glance|
17th St. and Constitution Avenue NW
Washington DC 20006 USA
tel (202) 789-3000
The OAS provides a forum for political, economic, social, and cultural cooperation among the 31 member states of the western hemisphere. OAS is unique in that it offers, within one institution, diplomatic, juridical, institutional, scientific, educational, and development solutions to environmental problems, whether they are within or between nations. It does this through a process of technical cooperation and training rather than through grants or loans to projects.
The permanent and central organ of the OAS in Washington, working through various Executive Secretariats, carries out regional development projects that frequently include environmental and natural resource management components. The Department of Regional Development is the "environmental focal point" for the General Secretariat. It is a significant source of technical assistance to member governments in pre-investment studies that result in fundable projects.
OAS's Inter-American Program of Action for Environmental Protection establishes objectives for dealing with the connection between poverty and environmental degradation; for developing regional positions on issues; for policy development; for sponsorship and support of projects; and for cooperation among member states. A Committee on the Environment collects data and monitors diverse activities from scientific research and training to socioeconomic studies, advisory services, and technical support. OAS is preparing an index of international treaties and laws or national environmental codes of the American countries. It conducted a major conference and published proceedings on international trade, the environment, and development.
The Department of Regional Development provides technical cooperation and training in development planning, environmental management, and in the design of specific investment projects to improve the quality of life in the populations of member countries. Technical assistance and training projects focus on integrated regional development, watershed management, environmental rehabilitation, infrastructure, environmental action programs, planning and management of national parks and ecologic reserves, tourism based on natural attractions, and energy use and conservation.
The conservation of wild and recreational lands through planning and management is an integral part of OAS's development activities. OAS chose the term "wild and recreational lands" rather than "national parks" to specifically include a broader range of protected areas, including marine and lacustrine areas, where conservation will meet a number of different areas. The Department of Regional Development has provided technical assistance in the development of tourism policies and programs that will support conservation, as well as in the planning and management of sites and protected-area systems.
The Department of Scientific and Technological Affairs administers research projects and monitors the implementation of treaties including CITES and the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere. This department has convened meetings of experts on human resources development for protected-area management, conservation of marine and migratory species, and conservation of terrestrial ecosystems. Its marine science and marine resources program supports study and conservation of the coastal and oceanic environment. The department publishes numerous scientific monographs.
Examples of OAS conservation activities include support for analysis of forestry management policy in Dominica; a soil conservation strategy for the Pastaza River Basin in Ecuador; and a plan to manage the Eastern Caribbean's natural resource base.
|OECD at a glance|
2, rue André-Pascal
75775 Paris CEDEX 16
tel (33 1) 45 24 82 00
fax (33 1) 45 24 16 50
The OECD is the only international organization which can be said to comprise almost all the developed, pluralist democracy, market economy countries, and only such countries. The OECD has neither supranational nor legal powers, nor financial resources that it can use for loans or subsidies. It exists to facilitate cooperation -- joint research by member governments into best policies in social and economic fields where cooperation is seen to be useful. Member governments commit delegations of senior civil servants; coordination is carried out by a Secretariat.
OECD is an important source of information about flows of development assistance. It publishes directories of the major international NGO's active in support of environment and development, and maintains libraries that are useful starting points for information about official development assistance. OECD's policy committees, such as the Environmental Policy Committee and Development Assistance Committee (DAC), influence actions by the development assistance agencies of member governments.
One of OECD's objectives is "to make a major contribution to the study of environmental problems, including by integrating the environment into the national accounts, and to the framing of national and international measures to deal with them."
The DAC meets regularly and has recommended environmental policies and practices which many donor countries have adopted. These include environmental assessment policies and procedures; programs to preserve the environment in developing countries and to strengthen their capability to deal with environmental issues; and development assistance relative to global environmental problems.
|Regional Banks at a glance|
Abidjan 01 BP 1387
P.O. Box 789
2330 Roxas Boulevard
tel (63 2) 711-3851
P.O. Box 408
Wildey, St. Michael
tel (809) 426-1152
1300 New York Avenue NW
Washington DC 20577 USA
tel (202) 623-1000
(Request annual reports for lists of country and regional offices)
The regional development banks provide loans to member developing nations for such activities as development of agriculture, fisheries, energy, industry, transportation, communications, health, education, economic stabilization, and development of markets. Most funding for conservation activities is in the form of loans tied to specific ongoing development projects.
The African Development Bank provides loans to African member states and also invests in six regional and national African development banks, using co-financing to gain extra resources. AfDB administers the African Development Fund and the Nigeria Trust Fund. The major objective of ADF is to provide soft loans for the development requirements of AfDB member countries. In particular, its resources are meant to give special assistance to the poorer members of AfDB by granting interest-free long-term loans to useful projects with low financial return.
The Asian Development Bank was set up in 1966 to foster social and economic progress in the Asian and Pacific region, primarily by providing long-term funding and technical assistance for the implementation of projects in the developing countries of the region. AsDB emphasizes investment in agriculture and successful economic development within Asian countries as a whole.
Of AsDB's 21 departments, the most relevant in this context is the Projects Department, responsible for agriculture, irrigation and rural development, infrastructure and industry. It is also responsible for fact finding, pre-appraisal, and appraisal of loan and technical assistance projects. It actually administers the loans.
AsDB has financed various types of activities, including agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and water supply projects. It has responded favorably to recommendations that more attention be given to the environment and sustainable development. All of its projects are screened to assess their anticipated ecological effects. Some projects and programs specifically target tropical forest management, biodiversity conservation, and integrated economic and environmental planning. Activities designed to have an impact on the environment have increased substantially over the past three years, and the Bank has engaged extra staff for this purpose. It has also drafted an environmental protection programme for the 1990's. Details are available in an AsDB publication, The Environmental Program of the Asian Development Bank, available from the Bank's Office of the Environment. This office also publishes environmental guidelines for projects, issues papers, a training manual on environmental impact assessment, and policy statements.
Examples of Inter-American Development Bank environmental projects include a $62 million loan to Venezuela for sustainable forestry development, a $14.4 million loan to Guatemala for sustainable management of the Chixoy watershed, and $4 million to Trinidad and Tobago to protect two national parks and restore three ecologically damaged zones.
The IDB has provided a special financing modality for environmental projects that involves rapid disbursement resources that can be used by the borrower to retire outstanding external debt paper at a discount. The local currency proceeds from the debt retirement operation are used to finance projects that benefit the environment.
The IDB has an extensive program of technical cooperation, including non-repayable loans and pre-investment grants and loans, or investments made as part of existing loans to assure best implementation. This program focuses on institutional strengthening, with particular emphasis on public institutions and regional entities, providing technical assistance so that these entities can prepare and implement projects. Since 1988, IDB has organized annual environmental meetings to provide a forum for government officials, representatives of IDB, and NGO representatives to review the role of NGO's, community organizations, and indigenous groups in IDB projects.
IDB's Small Projects Financing Program supports the activities of NGO's acting as executing agencies and channels for financial resources intended for low-income rural and urban groups. NGO's are funded to provide advisory, training, and institutional strengthening services in the execution stages of community development projects. NGO's can act as paid consultants or contractors to IDB-financed projects.
IDB has established an Indigenous Peoples Fund to make financial resources available to support the development of the economic potential of indigenous peoples.
In-country representatives are generally the best source of information about upcoming projects with an environmental component; the availability of environmental loans; and how to qualify for technical loans and grants.
A Guide to National and International Agencies
Researched and compiled by Eurofi (UK) Limited. (also in Brussels, Madrid and New York)
Published by Butterworths (London/Boston/Singapore/Sydney/Toronto/Wellington), printed and bound by Anchor Brendon Ltd.
L 55.00 ISBN 0-408-00991-8 c 1988
Library of Congress - See Banks and banking,
(1) international - Directories
(2) Development Banks - Directories
(3) Economic Assistance - Directories
Brief profiles (2-5 pages per profile) of bilateral and multilateral development assistance institutions worldwide, including UN agencies. With addresses and telephone numbers. This publication is useful as an overview of the development agencies but does not give information about specific sectoral programs (environment, forestry, etc.) or activities.
Environmental Guidelines Survey
General Directorate for Development
Commission of European Communities
Prepared by Environmental Resources Limited
106 Gloucester Place, London W1H 3DB
tel 01-486 1211
fax 01-935 8355
An analysis of procedures and guidelines applied in development aid for the environment. With printout of document database.
Directory of Non-Governmental Environment and Development Organisations in OECD Member Countries
by ENDA and OECD Development Centre
FF300 from OECD sales outlets in 38 countries. Request list of outlets or order directly from
A bilingual directory, in English and French, of 649 international NGO's whose development activities are linked to the environment. Profiles describe the NGO's aims, education work, and actions in developing countries. Cross-referenced indexes identify which organizations specialize in particular themes related to environmental education (e.g. legislation, marine environment, health); themes related to development education (e.g. rural development, water, women); environment actions by subject (endangered species, tropical forests). The indexes make it possible to look up NGO's participating in these areas either according to where the NGO itself is located or according to where it carries out its projects. Text on each NGO identifies the type of assistance it offers (financial, material or personnel) and the nature of activities (eg., research, education, urban projects, etc.).
This directory is intended to complement OECD's Directory of Non-Governmental Development Organizations in OECD Member Countries, published in 1990 (the first edition was 1981).
The Courier: Africa-Caribbean-Pacific/European Community (free bimonthly magazine)
The bilateral aid agencies of North America, Europe, Australia, Japan, and other industrialized areas are an important source of financing for protected areas. Just how much these agencies provide on an annual basis is difficult to determine -- in part, because much of the assistance is given in multi-year, multiple-activity packages and in part because many do not consider protected areas a distinct sector. Thus their investments may be simply one portion of a forestry, watershed protection, or rural development program.
Researched and compiled by Eurofi (UK) Limited. Published by Butterworths (London, Boston, Singapore, Sydney, Toronto, Wellington). Approximately $100 ISBN 0-408-00991-8, copyright 1988
Brief profiles (2-5 pages per profile) of bilateral and multilateral development assistance institutions worldwide, including UN agencies. With addresses and telephone numbers. This publication is useful as an overview of the development agencies but does not give information about specific sectoral programs (environment, forestry, etc.) or activities.
Most of these countries participate in the various multilateral and United Nations agencies, in addition to providing bilateral aid. Bilateral assistance is most often provided on a government-to-government basis, although many donor agencies also have programs of support for NGO's and private-sector activities. Some link their assistance to specific programs such as Agenda 21, the Tropical Forestry Action Plan, or national environmental agendas.
In general, when seeking to make contact with bilateral agencies, the best first contact is the embassy of the donor country, for information about whether the agency has donor programs or a local office. The publications mentioned in each of the profiles presented here are generally available from the headquarters (home country) office, but may also be available locally. It is always a good idea, before visiting a local office, to request current publications and arrive already familiar with the agency's priorities and major projects.
Some developing-country agencies and organizations have made "grand tours" of North America or Europe, visiting the major donor agency headquarters. While they generally report an enthusiastic reception and discovery of myriad funding opportunities, the time and especially the expense involved in this type of donor prospecting make it impractical except for those institutions well advanced in protected-area system planning and project identification.
The donor agencies profiled here include most of the major supporters of protected areas and biodiversity conservation in the developing countries. Research sought to identify, for each agency:
Because not all of the responses were complete, not every profile addresses all of these questions. Some key agencies are missing from the list, and others will have made program changes by the time the directory is in press. However, the collection of profiles provides an overview of current bilateral-agency priorities and policies in funding conservation, if not protected areas in particular.
Australian International Development
Publications: Ecologically Sustainable Development in International Development Cooperation: An Interim Policy Statement. Australian Government Publishing Service AGPS Press, 90/22590 Cat. No. 2419 9 (1990). Address above
The Australian development cooperation program includes a range of bilateral assistance, delivered within the framework of country programs, including training, support for NGO's, and contributions to the work of multilateral organizations.
NGO activities are supported through the Committee for Development Cooperation and the NGO Environment Initiative.
In 1984, the Jackson Report established sustainable development as a key objective of Australia's development cooperation program.
Australia recognizes that countries have development agendas which have taken into account national development plans and regional and sectoral strategies. For the past several years Australia has focused its government-to-government development activities through a process of "country programming." Through this process all sectors are programmed as a coordinated whole by matching a recipient country's stated needs and requests for assistance with the availability and capacity of expertise and funds in Australia to meet those needs. This process involves annual bilateral program consultations and agreement on a policy paper.
Ecologically sustainable development may include the following principles: Intergenerational equity; Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity; Constant natural capital; Anticipatory and precautionary policy approach; Social equity; limits on natural resource use; Qualitative development; Pricing environmental values and natural resources; Global and regional perspectives; Efficiency; Resilience; Community participation; Information.
AIDAB is increasing emphasis on the reduction of population growth, alleviation of poverty, application of sustainable development principles for the use of renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainable management of natural resources, energy efficiency and pollution control.
AIDAB places particular importance on assisting developing countries to identify environmental priorities and strengthen environmental legislation and institutions. Attention is given to the preparation and implementation of environment action plans, conservation strategies and environmental impact assessments. Improved methods of environmental appraisal, development of appropriate tools for the costing of environmental strategies and a better understanding of the state of the environment in developing countries will be priorities.
Examples of Funding for Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation
AIDAB has provided funding for Vanuatu to develop a National Conservation Strategy. The development of this strategy will incorporate a public education component aimed at raising awareness of environmental issues as they relate to Vanuatu.
A number of projects directly assist developing countries to conserve and manage their natural forest resources. Support is now being given to the Papua New Guinea Tropical Forest Action Plan and for training in forest management throughout the ASEAN countries.
AIDAB also supports international organizations such as UNEP, IUCN, SPREP and nongovernmental organizations that are actively promoting the conservation of species and ecosystems.
Australia encourages recipient countries to protect within conservation reserves, significant areas of representative ecosystems, particularly the establishment of biosphere reserves. Australia also seeks to develop income-earning opportunities for local peoples from the sustainable use of renewable wood and non-wood forest resources.
•In considering support for new international funds for environmental issues, Australia will give preference to those which effectively use existing institutions.
•Particular emphasis will be given to assisting partner countries in developing their own policies, legislation, institutions, and action plans for ecologically sustainable development.
The Belgian Administration for Development Cooperation is part of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Assistance is given within the framework of Global Cooperation Agreements (negotiated by BADC and the Secretary of State for Development Cooperation), Economic Cooperation Agreements (negotiated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs), and special arrangements.
BADC is organized into three Directorates General, one for financial matters and central services, one for policy formulation and evaluation (includes strategic planning and bilateral relations), and one for formulation and implementation of programs (including economic development, agriculture, and infrastructure).
As a former colonial power Belgium seeks to promote the development of and investment in Africa and the developing world in general.
The three largest recipients, accounting for more than 40 percent of Belgian assistance, are Zaire, Rwanda, and Burundi. Three-quarters of Belgian aid in total goes to Africa, nine percent to Asia (India, Indonesia, Malaysia, China, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Vietnam), seven percent to Latin America (Brazil, Surinam, Andean countries, Haiti). Recipient countries have global, economic, or bilateral cooperations agreements with Belgium appropriately signed and ratified.
Applications generally must be introduced through the Belgian Embassy of the developing country, either through the section for Development Assistance or through the Ambassador if no such section exists. Some applications are introduced through the BADC in Brussels.
Annual total for all activities: US $430 million; no separate accounting for environmental sector. Largest sectoral recipient is agricultural development, 24 percent. Education 18 percent, public health 15 percent.
Almost all assistance is tied to purchase of Belgian goods and services, but is available on highly concessionary rates.
In addition to cash gifts, loans and credits at low interest rates, and assistance with loans contracted by a third party, Belgian development projects also provide technical assistance from Belgian experts (Development Agents), supply of equipment, and scholarships or training grants.
CIDA administers about three-quarters of Canada's foreign aid, and the remainder is administered by various departments. Canada's primary aim is to promote sustainable development in the developing world. Toward this end, it has a long history of supporting church and voluntary groups working to improve quality of life.
In addition to bilateral aid, Canada provides support to numerous multilateral institutions, including 45 UN programs, the World Bank, and regional development banks. There are special programs supporting the initiatives of Canadian private organizations and Canadian companies working in the field of international development.
The environment is a major, cross-sectoral issue in Canadian bilateral assistance. In general, CIDA's strategy parallels the WCED's "Alternative Agenda." CIDA issued a detailed environmental policy statement in January 1992, which says, in part: "CIDA's policy is to integrate environmental considerations into its decision-making and activities, and to work with its partners and developing countries at improving their capacity to promote environmentally sustainable development."
In addition to guidance for environmental screening and assessment of all projects, the policy emphasizes Canada's continuing commitment to environmental leadership in the multilateral institutions and to strengthening environmental institutions in developing countries, including NGO's, universities, and private-sector organizations.
CIDA has two objectives for its environmental sustainability policy: (1) to increase the institutional, human resource, and technological capacities of developing country governments, organizations, and communities to plan and implement development policies, programs, and activities that are environmentally sustainable; and (2) to strengthen the capability of developing countries to contribute to the resolution of global and regional environmental problems, while meeting their development objectives. These objectives apply to all CIDA branches and all aid delivery channels.
Category I states receive five-year commitments of funds to country programs. The program, essentially a development plan, is prepared in a consultative process by consultants and skilled specialists, and administered by a CIDA country desk after approval by the Canadian Parliament. Within the framework of the program, which will include environmental strategies, the country prepares individual projects and negotiates them with CIDA. (Colombia, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Peru, Leeward and Windward Islands, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Zaire, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand)
Category II states are not eligible for full-fledged country programs but still have a significant Canadian presence. (Barbados, Brazil, CARICOM, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Algeria, Gabon, Morocco, Togo, Tunisia, Botswana, Ethiopia, Jordan, Lesotho, Malawi, Nigeria, Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda, ASEAN, Malaysia)
Much Canadian aid is tied to the procurement of Canadian goods and services. Bilateral aid is channeled through four branches: Anglophone Africa, Francophone Africa, the Americas, and Asia. Asia is the largest.
About a quarter ($750 million per year) of all Canadian aid is for projects and activities classified as "environmental." CIDA also funds projects which directly benefit aboriginal people in many countries, including Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, and South Africa.
Public and private-sector organizations and agencies are supported. Support is given to national and international organizations that:
Some sample activities include:
The Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) has been instructed by Parliament to consider environmental aspects in all projects, together with poverty relief, women in development, and human rights. Desk officers are responsible for making these considerations. Because of the way the budget is calculated, it is impossible to tell precisely how much DANIDA spends on environmental assistance. DANIDA maintains missions in its main recipient countries --- Bangladesh, India, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Environmental protection projects have been initiated in Benin, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan, and Zambia.
DANIDA can initiate projects up to $1.2 million without the prior consent of Parliament. Developing countries with the lowest per capita GNP's are eligible for no-interest loans with 35 years' maturity, including 10 years' grace, for an 86 percent grant element. Those with per capita GNP's above $400 receive loans with a 76 percent grant element. Denmark has also canceled many outstanding debts.
For goods and services, recipient countries are encouraged to use competitive bidding among Danish and other suppliers. In countries where there are resident missions, aid projects are often developed jointly by recipient and representatives. Aid is provided within the context of the agency's five-year programs.
The German federal government sets the goals and determines the instruments of official cooperation with developing countries, and enters into overall commitments with recipient governments, binding under international law, fixing the total amount of assistance to be provided. The developing countries then propose projects within this framework.
BMZ and GTZ together have started (June 1992) preparations for a sector strategy - "Nature Conservation and Buffer Zone Development in German Development Cooperation."
About 60 percent of German development assistance goes to Africa. 17 Latin American countries and the Andean Pact countries also receive assistance, as do 25 Near Eastern, Asian, and Pacific countries.
FINNIDA administers both bilateral aid (programs and projects) and multilateral aid (through the UN system and international financing institutions). The bilateral aid department has divisions of agriculture and forestry, social development, and economic infrastructure. Its objective is to support the economic and social development of Third World countries. It strives for economic self reliance and social development in the recipient country. Resources are concentrated on agriculture and rural development, with special emphasis on regionally integrated projects.
FINNFUND, the Finnish Fund for Industrial Development Cooperation Ltd., is an independent company in the business of joint-venture financing (loans and equity participation) for economically promising developments, which have included some ventures in forestry and natural resources, not limited to the countries listed below.
Finnish bilateral aid is concentrated in African and Asian countries. Some 55 percent goes to sub-Saharan Africa. Major recipient countries in Asia (16 percent of total aid) include Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Vietnam. Latin America (Nicaragua and Peru) receive 5 percent.
Annual total for all development aid (environment is not separated by sector) is $200 million.
The major part of bilateral aid is channeled to the recipient countries in the form of goods and services. The government purchasing center manages all such procurement, the procedures of which will be part of an individual agreement with the recipient country. Although there is no requirement that the goods and services be Finnish, in practice this is often the case. International bidding is used when the needed items are not available in Finland. Most of this aid is in the form of grants; a small portion is development credits.
The basic principle of French aid is to promote a positive development partnership with the countries of the South, particularly those of Africa. France leads the seven most developed countries in the provision of official development assistance and provides one-quarter of the funds of the European Community's Lomé conventions. French development aid emanates from the FAC (Fonds d'aide a la Cooperation, which finance supply contracts), the CCCE (Caisse Centrale de Cooperation Economique, the principal source of concessionary loans), and treasury aid, which provides the aid portion in cases where grants and loans are mixed.
The Development Directorate of the Ministry of Cooperation and Foreign Affairs is responsible for drawing up plans for projects in collaboration with the recipient governments. Many projects are undertaken by, or in collaboration with, NGO's. Generally, technical advisers and supplies are recruited and procured from French suppliers or at least within the franc zone.
The FAC provides funding for projects in 37 countries with which France maintains Cooperation Agreements. These resources may be in the form of grants, loans, budgetary aid and investments in companies.
CCCE provides "hard" and "soft" loans and organizes technical assistance. Most environmental projects would fall within the rural development sector (possibly a few in the tourism sector). There is a special small fund for soft loans to village cooperatives and peasant farmers.
The Office National des Forets, a Trade and Commercial Public Company, manages state forests, works with international forestry organizations, and works directly in forestry in the overseas territories. The ONF is not a donor. It operates as a consulting firm and provides technical support missions to Latin American, Caribbean, African, Asian, and Mediterranean countries.
In principle, all countries in need of development aid are eligible. However, France's presence is strongest in Africa, in particular the French-speaking countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. CCCE operates in 45 countries, 36 of which are in Africa and the Indian Ocean.
France maintains a close dialogue with Latin America via the European Community and provides bilateral assistance in the form of scientific and technical cooperation, financial assistance, and support for NGO's. France places a high priority on the agricultural sector in Latin America and the Caribbean. A Regional Delegate is headquartered in Costa Rica.
The emphasis in north Asia is technology, and in south Asia (India and the countries of Indochina) cultural development and training, agriculture, and health infrastructure.
Annual total for all development aid: $4 billion, of which bilateral aid is $2.77 billion.
French aid is channeled through NGO's, local companies and authorities, research organizations, technical centers and financial establishments. NGO's are involved in a wide range of areas, including rural development. The close association between NGO's and the day-to-day efforts of French cooperation covers a range of different types of action: general studies on development; consultancies to identify and organize development projects, as well as the implementation and evaluation of these projects. "The [French] State is in favor of the improved organization of this sector and encourages the mobilization of private funds. This is a new dimension of France's cooperation policy, the importance of which is bound to grow. It will also generate innovative forms of development partnerships, geared to the needs of developing countries."
Types of support: Technical and cultural cooperation, investment aid through FAC, CCCE and Treasury protocols, mixed credits (grants and loans). Debt restructuring for poorest countries according to the Paris Club mechanism, with a choice of three options (cancellation of one-third of repayments; consolidation at market rate with a longer repayment period; or consolidation at a concessionary rate).
PROCITROPICOS (Cooperative Program on Research and Technology Transfer for the South American Tropics) is an initiative promoting sustainable agricultural development. Participating countries are Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela. It is sponsored by CIRAD (Center for International Cooperation in Agricultural Research for Development). It has four priority sub-programs: integrated soil management, sustainable production systems, management and conservation of genetic resources, and data for agriculture and tropical forestry.
Italian bilateral aid is generally given within the context of development plans drawn up by the recipient country, with particular emphasis on agriculture, energy, industry and handicraft, infrastructure, health, social and cultural services, tourism, and scientific and technological research. The Department of Development Cooperation coordinates Italian private-sector initiatives as well as managing official development assistance. Policy guidelines emphasize aid to countries with historical and cultural ties to Italy, and those with potential for achieving long-term economic ties.
In the mid-1980's, more than 750 development projects were financed by Italy, of which 369 were in Africa, 173 in the Mediterranean, 116 in Latin America and 65 in Asia. Countries receiving aid were Angola, Chad, China, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Jordan, Mali, Malta, Mozambique, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkey, Yemen, Zaire, and Zimbabwe.
Total annual development assistance is in the $1 billion range. Environment is not listed as a separate category; agriculture gets roughly 15 percent of grants and 13 percent of loans; 9.5 percent of grants go for training.
JICA is the major executive agency of Japan's ODA to developing countries, and provides grants and other forms of aid. OECF, a development financial institution of the Japanese Government, exists to assist developing countries' self-help efforts, principally by supplying low-interest, long-term loans.
Japan states in its report to UNEP that it is "making the utmost efforts to expand ODA to support developing countries in their efforts to conserve the environment." Bilateral support is specifically intended to be a complement to funding for existing global environmental institutions. A significant portion of Japan's environmental financing goes to support the Global Environment Facility, UNEP, IMO, UNDP, CGIAR, the Asian Development Bank (in which it has established a special fund for the environment), Tropical Forestry Action Plans, and the International Tropical Timber Organization, to which it is the largest donor.
An Environmental Affairs Division was established in JICA in August 1989, and reorganized in 1991 to become the Environment, WID and Global Issues Division. An Environmental Office was also established in every division. OECF also has an environment unit. Its environmental guidelines are available in English.
JICA invests in several broad environmental themes: pollution control, protection of urban living environments, prevention of natural disasters, forest conservation and reforestation, and conservation of natural environments. Within this last area, its policy is that "long-term, yet meticulous, financial assistance and cooperation for nurturing human resources should be given high priority.
OECF loans focus particularly on economic infrastructure, transportation, electric power, telecommunication, agriculture, mining and industry, etc. It has prepared Environmental Guidelines designed to ascertain at the appraisal stage whether environmental assessment and measures are satisfactory. The OECF is, at the same time, actively supporting environmental conservation and increasing its level of environmental project financing, including afforestation projects in the Philippines, Indonesia and India.
JICA, which once concentrated its projects in Southeast Asia, is now expanding into Oceania, Africa, Central and South America.
Japan has set, and exceeded, a goal of 100 billion yen per year in environmental aid, an amount that represents some 20 percent of its total grant aid and 8 percent of total loans.
Scope: Public and private sector. Financial assistance is provided to governments and government agencies, to NGO's in Japan and abroad, and to promote corporate involvement in technology transfer.
Type of assistance: JICA's environmental cooperation includes programs such as project-type technical cooperation, development studies, dispatch of experts and of young members under the Japan Overseas Cooperation Volunteers (JOCV) scheme, and acceptance of foreign participants for technical training in Japan.
Small Scale Grant Assistance
In 1989, the Government of Japan introduced a new grant aid scheme which aims to meet a variety of "grassroots" development needs of developing countries. Called SSGA for Small Scale Grant Assistance, the program funds governments, research institutes, hospitals, and NGO's for community work. The program intends to make Japanese assistance more flexible, rapid and well targeted to the needs of developing countries by supplementing Japan's existing economic cooperation with small-scale development projects. A country is eligible for this type of assistance based on its GNP per capita and the results that may be expected from SSGA. (Japan has identified 50 target countries.)
Entities wishing to obtain SSGA make application to the Japanese Embassy in their country. If the Embassy finds the project suitable, it will negotiate with the applicant and sign a contract setting out the purpose and content of the project and terms of disbursement and reporting.
Although many of the projects approved to date have focused on health and hospitals, park and buffer-zone projects involving rural development, water supplies, environmental education, and addressing social issues may be eligible. The average grant is about $30,000.
The two-page application form, addressed to "Embassy of Japan," begins, "We hereby request the extension of assistance of the Embassy of Japan under the small scale grant assistance to the project mentioned below." The applicant is asked to give the name, address, and telephone number of the organization requesting assistance; the name and title of the individual responsible; the name, location, and description of the proposed project; a budget; the name and title of the individual responsible for the execution of the project; start and completion dates; and a statement of how the project will contribute to economic and social development and improvement of public welfare. The request should be dated and signed by the responsible individual.
The main aim of Dutch development cooperation is the sustainable alleviation of poverty. In addition to bilateral aid, there are large contributions to UN agencies and multilateral financing institutions. Priorities, were described this way in a 1991 report: "The concept of social renewal should be applied to development cooperation...The necessary economic conditions for social renewal have to be created. It is also considered crucial that a new balance be found between economic development, poverty alleviation, and preservation of the environment in the Third World."
A new "spearhead" program on the environment "will be aimed at breaking the vicious circle of poverty and environmental degradation. Capital and expertise will be placed at the disposal of developing countries so that they can take measures to protect the environment. The Netherlands will also assist with activities aimed at strengthening ministries responsible for the environment and other relevant sectors in these countries.
Priority will be given to the transfer of knowledge and increasing awareness in the areas of legislation, planning, environmental impact assessment, environmental monitoring and information. Help will also be available to NGO's implementing programs which increase the environmental awareness of the population or make an active contribution to the protection and management of the natural environment.
Dutch bilateral assistance is changing to a regional approach. A cash ceiling is set for each region, and then distributed among the countries in that region according to their needs.
Bilateral aid activities are subdivided into stages: identification, formulation, appraisal, commitment, implementation, evaluation, and termination. There are formal instructions for each stage.
Recipients, by region, include:
Total Dutch aid is set at 1.5 percent of the net national income. Budget for the environmental spearhead program started at $68.7 million in 1991 and will increase to $151 million by 1994.
About eight percent of Dutch aid comprises "co-financing of projects run by NGO's and volunteer programs." The Netherlands employs both technical and financial aid procedures. Financial aid includes grants, loans, debt cancellation (including donations for payment and restructuring of debt to multilaterals and other third parties). Technical assistance comprises inter-institutional cooperation, direct support for training institutions in developing countries, international education in the Netherlands, and research and technology. Contracted technical experts and volunteer experts are provided.
An appreciable number of countries in Africa, Asia and Central and South America are recipients of Norwegian development assistance (about 90 in all). One of the principles governing Norway's bilateral development cooperation, however, is geographic concentration. The main part of bilateral development assistance is therefore devoted to nine main partners in development (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Botswana, Kenya, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia) and three countries formally designated "partners in cooperation" (Malagasy, Nicaragua and Zimbabwe).
NORAD has provided assistance for environmental projects worldwide, in Africa, Asia, and Central America. About NOK 50 million was provided through a grant administered by IUCN in 1990-91.
NORAD has an Environment Fund.
A great deal of authority has been transferred to the NORAD offices in recipient countries; thus Resident Representatives should be the primary point of contact.
The environmental aspect of Norwegian aid budget was NOK 80 million in 1992. The first comprehensive evaluation of environmental assistance was undertaken early in 1992.
As of March 1989, NORAD reverted to an independent Directorate. In January 1990 the Ministry of Development Cooperation merged with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The Norwegian Parliament establishes the level of Norwegian development cooperation, allocates funds, and determines which countries are to receive assistance. Cooperation within the United Nations system is one cornerstone of Norwegian development assistance. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs oversees multilateral cooperation as well as NORAD bilateral assistance.
NORAD is involved in implementing regional or national sectoral plans, for example in health, education, communication. It funds the services of Norwegian or other technical experts requested by the host country; and grants fellowships for training and study in Norway.
Nongovernmental organizations represent an important conduit for both official and privately funded Norwegian development cooperation. During the 1980's, transfers of funds through NGOs increased considerably. Apart from receiving increased support from government sources, many of these organizations themselves collect large sums of money through donations and their own fundraising efforts.
Environmental protection is listed as a "main sector" in virtually every country program. Integrated rural development and community participation. Since reorganization in 1989-90, the agency's structure is geographically rather than sectorally focused, with two major regional departments, one for Africa and one for Asia and Latin America.
In the Oslo office, besides the regional departments, are technical sector divisions (including a division of natural resource management), an NGO division within the department of nongovernmental organizations, volunteers, and cultural affairs; an information unit and an information and documentation center that publishes a bimonthly magazine, Development.
Major principles include (1) allocation of at least one percent of Gross National product for development assistance; (2) generally giving assistance in the form of grants (3) to benefit the average inhabitant of the developing world (4) concentrating on a limited number of developing countries and recipient-oriented (5) aid will be given to countries following development-oriented and socially equitable policies.
Agriculture and fisheries get 21 percent of Norwegian aid, tourism and financing 3 percent, women in development 1 percent.
Spain provides bilateral grants and loans and contributes multilateral assistance through the European Community, UN agencies, and the World Bank group. Spanish cultural, economic, technical, and scientific cooperation is controlled by the Foreign Ministry and an Inter-Ministerial Commission for International Cooperation. The Commission plans aid policy, makes budgetary proposals, and reports annually to the Government.
The largest recipients are Morocco ($35 million in 1985) and Colombia ($29 million).
The objective of Swedish development assistance is to improve the living conditions of poor people. For the attainment of this objective there are five specific goals: (1) growth of resources; (2) economic and social equality; (3) economic and political independence; (4) democratic development, and (5) consideration of the environment. A priority for bilateral assistance in the 1990's is that recipient countries assume active responsibility for development projects.
SIDA's Agriculture Division handles all SIDA projects in agriculture, forestry, fisheries and rural development and also projects related to environment and natural resources. There is an emphasis on long-term support to basic institutions, as opposed to short-term donor-run project support.
Sweden's major objective is to concentrate on a relatively small number of countries whose development projects and goals reflect those of Sweden. SIDA maintains program offices in 16 of the 17 countries that are the main recipients (the so-called program countries, Nicaragua, Angola, Zambia, Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Laos, and Vietnam). Uganda and Costa Rica also have special status. Some 60 other countries throughout Latin America, Asia, and Africa also receive Swedish assistance.
Out of a development assistance budget of 11.6 billion kronor, about 3.3 billion is channeled through international development programs (UN agencies, World Bank, other development banks, food aid, etc.); 6.2 billion through SIDA (3.3 billion to the main recipient countries, 575 million to NGO's, 225 million to special environmental programs, the remainder to humanitarian assistance, regional cooperation, and other programs). Of bilateral assistance, some 19 percent is provided through NGO's in more than a dozen sectoral interests. The largest of these sectoral contributions are to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief; environment is not identified as a separate sector, but many of the 300 NGO's receiving and disbursing assistance operate their own development programs.
In addition to financial assistance, Sweden provides technical and research cooperation, debt relief, and industrial development assistance.
Forestry support focuses on education and training, building up of research capacity, and development of institutions working with land use, land tenure, and forestry statistics and related social sciences. There is also support for furthering of the Tropical Forestry Action Plan and village forestry projects for production of fuel and fodder.
Marine environment projects include programs for the economically sound and sustainable utilization of natural resources in the seas and coastal areas. Projects in the field have an emphasis on education and training, information, research, and methods development.
Switzerland provides bilateral assistance to 27 African, 16 Asian, 17 Latin American, and 2 European countries. Environmental support is provided both directly and via UNDP Energy program, regional development banks, IUCN, International Council for Research in Agro-Forestry, and others.
Some 17 percent of Swiss Official Development Assistance (ODA) is in the form of grants; technical assistance accounts for 46 percent.
Swiss support of national and international institutions that provide assistance to parks and environmental projects in developing countries includes projects with IUCN, the PanAfrican Development Institute, UNDP, and UNEP.
The Swiss have supported 25 years of forestry training in Rwanda (reforestation, nurseries, management of reforested areas, integration of individual projects into the national economy). Scholarships have been provided for study in Switzerland, including environmental studies at the Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, and water quality monitoring at the laboratory involved in the Lake Lugano monitoring program. Swiss agencies provide significant funding for Swisscontact, a public-private technical development aid foundation, providing occupational training, including short-term courses in agricultural techniques, particularly in Latin America.
The British Overseas Development Administration, together with Crown Agents, administers an aid budget of nearly $3 billion per year. In addition to raising living standards, its objectives are to help direct world economic recovery and growth and halt or reverse protectionist trade policies. Thus it collaborates with both private and public sectors. Bilateral aid accounts for about a third of the budget; the balance is channeled through multilateral institutions.
ODA has 1,500 staff, nearly one-third of whom are scientists or qualified natural resources advisers. It employs two Social Development Advisers (anthropologists) and a full time Environment/Research Adviser. Natural Resources and Environment Department (NRED), reporting to Chief Natural Resources Adviser, is charged with developing ODA's policy on the environment. NRED maintains links with many public and private sector experts, in part through regular meetings with British environmental organizations, and also through the UK Committee of IUCN, which meets regularly at the Nature Conservancy Council.
ODA has two Scientific Units, the Land Resources Development Centre (LRDC) and the Tropical Development and Research Institute (TDRI). Among its stated priorities are achieving greater popular participation in development projects, integration of concerns of ecology and economics, refining appraisal techniques, and developing appropriate training for officials from recipient countries.
Forestry programs are coordinated via the FAO's Tropical Forestry Action Plan.
In addition to ODA, Britain also provides investment cooperation via the Commonwealth Development Corporation for projects in primary production and processing; basic development; industry; and finance companies.
More than 120 countries receive British bilateral aid, which focuses generally on infrastructure, health, housing, poverty, and agricultural development. About two-thirds of the total goes to the 50 least developed countries; some 80 percent goes to Asia and Africa. India receives more aid than any other single country.
In addition to public sector support, ODA's Joint Funding Scheme supports British NGO's, who sometimes work with and supply funding to their counterparts overseas. The British NGO submits a project proposal. If ODA accepts the project, it provides partial funding and the NGO supplies matching funds. The scheme's total budget is in the neighborhood of $7 million (not limited to environmental projects).
Most bilateral aid is spent on British goods and services. More than 20 countries have benefited from RTA (Retrospective Terms of Adjustment) commutation of outstanding loans to the poorest countries to grants. Grant aid is available to all countries with per-capita income below the World Bank's eligibility ceiling for concessionary assistance. In addition, there is a large program of technical assistance; the UK is one of the major sources of expertise for the developing world.
Some sample conservation and conservation-related projects:
U.S. Agency for International Development
USAID provided record levels of support during 1990 and 1991 for conservation assistance in more than 60 countries. During these two years, the agency provided nearly $300 million for conservation of tropical forests and biological diversity, funding more than 125 projects.
USAID works with developing country governments, with U.S. and international NGO's and private voluntary organizations (PVO's), with other bilateral and multilateral assistance agencies, and with international organizations such as UNDP, UNEP, and the Food and Agriculture Organization.
The Parks in Peril project, designed and implemented by The Nature Conservancy and funded by USAID and other donors, was launched in 1990 to ensure adequate on-site protection for threatened national parks and reserves of global significance in Latin America and the Caribbean. USAID is providing $5.9 million over three years to establish a permanent management presence in up to 30 priority areas -- funding activities such as surveying protected area boundaries, training staff, developing infrastructure, and promoting community participation in park management. Local NGO's as well as government parks agencies are supported by the parks in Peril project.
USAID provides funding for conservation activities from various sources. There are centrally funded projects administered from Washington, D.C.; areawide programs administered out of the Bureaus for Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe and the Near East; programs administered from regional offices in, for example, Central America or the Eastern Caribbean; and country-level programs administered by the AID Mission in each country. The Mission in your country is likely to have one or more staff members specializing in conservation programs and at least one designated PVO liaison officer assigned to work with nongovernmental organizations. At the Bureau level, there is an Environment, Energy, and Science staff, and at the regional level, Regional Environmental Managers or REMs. The agency structure is in transition; keep up to date by maintaining contact with your local mission.
The following is a sampling of USAID programs of interest to agencies and NGO's working on park protection.
• The Biodiversity Support Program, an AID-funded consortium of World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, and World Resources Institute, implements a portfolio of more than 100 projects in 66 countries, including technical assistance, research, training, information networking, and pilot demonstration projects. Annual funding has risen from less than $1 million in 1988 to more than $5 million in 1991. BSP has funded such activities as an inventory of ecosystems in the tropical Pacific; an ecological assessment of cloud forest habitat in Ecuador's Podocarpus National Park; establishment of a conservation division by the government of Belize; the International Conference on the Conservation and Biodiversity of Lake Tanganyika; and a planning workshop for the creation of the mafia Island Marine Reserve in Tanzania. In 1990, the program awarded 45 research grants of $15,000 each. Address: Biodiversity Support Program, 1250 24th Street Northwest, Washington DC 20036, USA.
• The Forestry Support Program provides technical consultation to USAID's bureaus and missions, as well as research support, forestry training, and technical reference services. The program also manages a roster of 2,600 expert consultants in forestry and natural resources. The program funds technical assistance and has produced publications such as A Guide to Grants and Fellowships in International Forestry and Natural Resources, and Spanish and French-language versions of the handbook Planning for Agroforestry and Training and Educational Opportunities in Agroforestry: A Directory of Institutions in the United States and Overseas. FSP is jointly managed by two branches of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) -- the Forest Service and the Office of International Cooperation and Development. Best way to make contact is through your AID Mission, which can request assistance through regional bureaus. For additional information about the technical consultant roster, contact USDA Forest Service/IF, Forestry Support Program, P.O. Box 96090, Washington DC 20090-6090 USA.
• USAID collaborates with the Peace Corps on various projects related to natural resource management. These include developing and promoting the use of techniques for tropical reforestation and natural resource conservation, and providing material support for forestry, environmental education, and biological diversity projects. Peace Corps Volunteers have been assigned to assist government agencies, university forestry departments, parks, wildlife services, and NGO's.
• The Natural Resources Management Support Project helps AID Missions in Africa develop long-term natural resource management strategies and implement the Africa Bureau's Plan for Supporting Natural Resource Management in Sub-Saharan Africa. Country assessments, NGO strengthening, training workshops, and national projects of reforestation, protecting biological diversity, and managing wildlife are all part of the $28 million project.
One particularly useful publication available from USAID is Short-Term Training Opportunities in Environment and Natural Resource Management. (from the Office of Environment and Natural Resources, Bureau for Research and Development, USAID, 320 21st Street Northwest, Washington DC 20523) This book lists nondegree courses in 15 areas, including environmental education, forest management, impact assessment, geographical information systems, wildlife management, etc., with information on 300 institutions and sources of information. Courses are indexed by provider and languages.
Other U.S. government agencies also have international programs and provide significant support to protected areas and biodiversity conservation overseas.
U.S. National Park Service
Department of the Interior
Interior Building, 18th and C Streets NW
Washington DC 20240
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior
Interior Building, 18th and C Streets NW
Washington DC 20240
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
U.S. Department of State
Main State Department Building
2201 C Street NW
Washington DC 20520
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street SW
Washington DC 20460
|NGO Directories and Information Sources|
World Directory of Environmental Organizations|
California Institute of Public Affairs, Sierra Club, IUCN. Order from CIPA, P.O. Box 10, Claremont CA 91711 USA; (714) 624-5212
Brief descriptions (1-4 paragraphs) of governmental and nongovernmental organizations. Good as an overview of the range of organizations involved in various issues and geographical areas. Addresses and telephone numbers of more than 1,000 organizations worldwide. Generally difficult to distinguish those that might have funding available from those that perform other functions.
Directory of Non-Governmental Environment and Development Organisations in OECD Member Countries
A bilingual directory, in English and French, of 649 international NGO's whose development activities are linked to the environment. Profiles describe the NGO's aims, education work, and actions in developing countries. Cross-referenced indexes identify which organizations specialize in particular themes.
|Corporate Fundraising at a Glance|
U.S. Corporate Grantmaking in a Global Age, by David Logan
Directory of American Firms Operating in Foreign Countries
The Taft Group
(Publishes Foundation Giving Watch, Corporate Giving Watch, Taft Corporate Giving Directory, Taft Foundation Reporter, Fundraiser's Guide to Private Fortunes, and other reference books)
Directory of Japanese Giving
(Also publishes Japanese Corporate Giving: A Guide for Fundraisers, Consultants in Japanese Corporate Philanthropy, and a monthly newsletter. Call or FAX for prices and ordering information.)
Corporate donations can provide a significant source of support for protected areas. Several conservation NGO's in developing countries raise $20,000 to $100,000 per year from corporate memberships and donations. In protected areas, corporations have frequently sponsored activities such as interpretive signs and displays, or donated equipment including field equipment for guards, construction materials, and vehicles. Corporations also frequently provide in-kind services such as office space, telephones, photocopying, printing of promotional materials and newsletters, and clerical support. They can be approached for donations of items that can be sold to generate revenues -- food and entertainment for a benefit, trips or goods that can be offered in a raffle, etc.
In general, the businesses most likely to contribute to conservation organizations and protected areas are those that:
Some corporations have formal giving programs or even associated philanthropic foundations, and accept formal proposals for projects and activities. Others are best approached through personal meetings with top managers.
In general, a successful corporate giving campaign will establish a goal for the number of corporate supporters it will recruit, and the average contribution from each. The campaign staff will research prospective corporate donors and make requests based on what the corporation is known to be able to give. They will be open to creative ideas for ways corporations can contribute instead of or in addition to cash. They will recruit social and professional peers of the individuals being asked for help to make the requests. They will understand what benefits would appeal to their prospective corporate supporters (publicity, recognition, employee participation in activities, etc.) and offer those benefits where appropriate. They will encourage corporate supporters to become more involved in the projects they support, by visiting sites, having presentations at their place of business, or receiving periodic bulletins and information. Above all, they will acknowledge and thank all supporters sincerely and repeatedly.
Case studies of three successful corporate campaigns, together with a list of ideas for creative corporate support, are presented in Resources for Success, a fundraising manual published by The Nature Conservancy's Latin America Division (address in previous section). The manual is available in English and Spanish.
In the United States, foundations give some $6 billion per year to worthy causes such as education, hospitals, community development, and the arts. Conservation, sustainable development, and environmental causes receive a very small share of this very large bounty -- only a few cents out of every $100 given, not even enough to show up on the charts as a separate category. But the total is growing, and international conservation has been gaining a rapidly larger share. The situation may be similar in other countries of the developed world.
In 1989, the latest year for which we have data available, contributions by U.S. donor foundations to all biological diversity research and conservation projects in developing countries (that is, not limited to parks and protected areas), totaled some $21 million. One-third of this went for research, somewhat less for institutional strengthening. Site and species management got roughly $3.5 million worldwide, policy planning or analysis $2.7 million, education $1.7 million. All but $2.5 million of the United States donors' contributions supported projects in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Although we don't have data to say how much of U.S. private philanthropy goes to parks and protected areas and which to other activities, our experience suggests that the bulk of the donations go to nongovernmental organizations, many of which in turn make the funding available for park protection.
Much has been written about private foundation giving; there are countless guidebooks on how to write proposals and solicit contributions. The basic checklist will be familiar to anyone who has developed and secured funds for a business plan. The only difference is that what is being marketed is "good works" rather than commercial products or profits. In general, to succeed with foundation funding, where competition for each dollar is intense, the organization soliciting funding needs to:
1. Have a well defined mission.
2. Have a measurable set of objectives to move the mission forward.
3. Have an achievable strategy for meeting the objectives.
4. Have a budget that relates directly to carrying out the strategy, and that is neither too big nor too small for the strategy.
5. Develop presentation materials, both written and verbal, in order to communicate your effort to the potential funding source.
The Foundation Center
79 Fifth Avenue
New York NY 10003 USA
(Maintains reference libraries and sells reference books. Write for catalog and information.)
c/o Institute for Global Communications
3228 Sacramento Street
San Francisco CA 94115 USA
(Computerized information, electronic mail, on-line access to the Environmental Grantmakers Association Directory)
The International Foundation Directory
Published by Gale Research Co.
Detroit MI 48226
(Lists donor foundations worldwide, including more than 70 that support conservation and environment)
Centro de Fundaciones
Don Ramón de la Cruz 36,2.
28001 Madrid, Spain
(Publishes Directory of Spanish Foundations, in Spanish)
Fondation de France's Programme Department encourages various initiatives, including the environment, and makes grants and awards. Address:
Fondation de France
40 Avenue Hoche
tel (1) 126.96.36.199.
Canadian Center for Philanthropy
3080 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario M4N 3N1 Canada
Australian Association of Philanthropy Incorporated
8th Floor, 20 Queen Street
Association of West German Foundations
Adenauer Allee 15
Bonn 1, Germany
Charities Aid Foundation
48 Pembury Road
(Publishes Directory of Grant-Making Trusts)
Centre for the Advancement of Philanthropy
107 Mahatma Gandhi Road
European Foundation Centre
51 Rue de la Concorde
Foundation Library Center of Japan
Elements Shinjuku Building 3F
2-1-14 Shinjuku, Japan
The Hague Club
P.O. Box 82334
2508 EH The Hague
(Publishes Foundation Profiles)
International Encyclopedia of Foundations
Joseph C. Kiger, Editor in Chief
Greenwood Press Inc.
88 Post Road
Westport CT 06881
(Sponsors international conference on philanthropy, publishes various books)
Fundazione Giovanni Agnelli
Via Ormea 37, 10125 Turin
(Publishes Guide to European Foundations)
Chapter 3, "Generating Revenue on Site," gives details on generating large amounts of small contributions from visitors and other interested individuals. But how does one find the "angel," that is, the individual donor who will give a gift or bequest of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars?
Most U.S. NGO's receive the vast majority of their contributions from individual donors. There is a rule of thumb that says 80 percent of the contributions will be given by 20 percent of the donors. That is to say, about 20 percent of the organizations' income from individual donors comes in the form of memberships and other small gifts. The remaining 80 percent comes from a select class of "major donors."
These special donors often are members of the organization's board, or associates of board members. In the case of a protected area, they may be individual philanthropists, or families who give a bequest to memorialize a family member's interest in, or field work at, a given site. Organizations find these special donors in the same way they find other prospective donors -- by brainstorming, asking members of their governing bodies for help, researching individuals who have been connected with a project site as tourism operators, field researchers, or simply frequent visitors. Guest registries and registries from nearby lodgings are often a first step in the research process.
Many major donors start out with a small gift and increase it regularly year to year. Others make a special large gift in honor of an occasion or of a friend or family member. There are as many ways to find and cultivate individual donors as there are potential givers. The key is to know the clientele of a given protected area -- both those who actually visit it and those who are interested even though they may not visit. Programs to keep this clientele informed of activities and of needs often pay off handsomely in private contributions.
End of Part II. For Part I, please use this link.
IUCN - The World Conservation Union
The Nature Conservancy