Experiences from Biodiversity Integration at Sida

Natural Resources Management  (NRM) programmes by definition concern management of biological resources - whether the setting is agricultural or forest landscapes or marine seascapes. However, in spite of both relevance and need for coherently and pro-actively addressing biodiversity issues within NRM-programmes it is seldom done. This was noted in a report recently completed by SwedBio on experiences of biodiversity integration at Sida.


Contents
For those who have an interest in experiences of integrating biodiversity within the work of a development cooperation agency "Integration of biological diversity in Sweden 's international development cooperation -the beginning of a learning process" provides some food for thought.

The report analyses the main experiences and lessons learned from the first phase of biodiversity integration at Sida 1998-2000. During this period work concentrated on capacity building for biodiversity integration within Sida's Department of Natural Resources and the Environment (DNRE). The main activities were:

- Collaboration with other donor organisations in Europe.

- Study on Sida-DNRE programme officers understanding, involvement and need as regards biodiversity issues.

- Case studies from three large Sida-supported natural resources management programmes, from India , Vietnam and Zambia.

- Identification of available facilities and competence on" biodiversity for development".

- Capacity building and training at Sida.

- Development of Sida-statistics on support to biodiversity initiatives.

The first drafts of the reports were completed in 2001. The report was edited, partly up-dated, and finalised by SwedBio during 2003.


Main findings
The main lessons learned from the mainstreaming work at Sida were:

1. Biodiversity issues are easily overlooked within NRM-programmes, and have seldom been specifically addressed in spite of their strong relevance. The report notes that integration of biodiversity into natural resources programmes includes two main  aspects:

a) The need for minimising negative impacts, such as from chemical fertilisers and pesticides in intensified agriculture, and

b) A large scope for optimising positive biodiversity impacts through promoting poor peoples access to and benefit sharing of biological resources - e.g. community-based forest management, continued access to traditional seeds, securing access and benefits from traditional medicines, promoting low external input agriculture etc.

2. The most efficient way to integrate biodiversity concerns adequately into NRM-projects/programmes is to incorporate them as early as possible during project preparation, and ensure that they are adequately covered in project/programme design.

3. The Sida policy framework on biodiversity was found to be basically adequate, but may need continuous up dating. Other policy & strategy documents (e.g. country strategies and sector strategies) need to be examined, and when up-dated or when new are developed biodiversity issues should be addressed.

4. A combination of 'mainstreaming fatigue' (a large number of issues being mainstreamed simultaneously), time constraints and a perceived lack of relevance of biodiversity (see below) all contributed to the lack of attention to biodiversity issues. Addressing biodiversity issues better with existing tools (e.g. using the framework checklists in Sida's Environment Impact Assessment guidelines) to avoid extra burdens was therefore strongly recommended by Sida-staff.

5. Tools (e.g. Sida´s EIA-guidelines) were further basically found to be accurate, albeit with some need for elaboration on biodiversity. The EIA-checklists can usefully be applied not only in specific EIAs, but throughout during project/programme planning. However a main problem is the limited overall actual use of the EIA-tool and the EIA guidelines at Sida - not only in relation to biodiversity. Mechanisms to ensure implementation of the existing EIAguidelines need therefore to be developed.

6. It was finally noted that adequate professional knowledge & competence of Sida staff (both headquarter and Embassies) are fundamental to biodiversity integration.  But knowledge and understanding on biodiversity issues were generally found to be limited, and Sida-staff seem often to equate biodiversity with "wildlife conservation", or "protected areas". The report therefore notes that increased awareness and information on the role and relevance of biodiversity for poverty alleviation is clearly needed. This should  as a minimum include:

a) Basic understanding of the importance and role of biodiversity for poverty alleviation, health and food security;

b) Knowledge about and ability to use the framework Terms of Reference in Sida's EIA guidelines as basis for project preparation and evaluation; and

c) Knowledge on where additional competence and facilities can be accessed.


Recommendations
Based on the findings and experiences from the mainstreaming work the report recommends that the continued work with biodiversity integration should focus on:

- Education and awareness raising among Sida-staff which is closely tailored to the needs of the respective target group, and starts from a very basic level.

- Development of mechanisms to ensure implementation of existing environmental guidelines (e.g. EIA guidelines) at Sida.

- Initiation of biodiversity mainstreaming activities at other Sida departments.

- Development of specific "best practice" examples of biodiversity integration from different sectors (illustrating how biodiversity may be relevant for each sector, and how to address these), which can be shared among stakeholders including Sida-staff.

The full reports:
. The  report on biodiversity integration
. Case study from Orissa , India
. Case study from Vietnam
. Case study from Zambia