Country Support Program, Istanbul, April 2010 UNDP-GEF PORTFOLIO IN BIODIVERSITY IN EUROPE AND CIS © 2010 UNDP. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. Proprietary and Confidential. Not For Distribution Without Prior Written Permission. Maxim Vergeichik, Regional Technical Adviser, Biodiversity

Country Support Program, Istanbul, April 2010 UNDP mandate and services Coordination of the UN system at the country level: Technical assistance for human development:  Policy dialogue and advocacy  Project development and implementation support  Fund mobilization and fiduciary management  Knowledge management and sharing As GEF implementing agency:  Mainstreaming UN convention matters into national economies, development strategies, policies and institutions  Combine GEF with other sources of environmental finance to attract investment in low carbon, climate resilient and ecosystem friendly development pathways.

Country Support Program, Istanbul, April 2010 UNDP-GEF portfolio under implementation

Country Support Program, Istanbul, April 2010 ECIS portfolio by GEF focal area

Country Support Program, Istanbul, April 2010 UNDP signature programs in biodiversity OBJECTIVE: To manage biodiversity so as to sustain the delivery of the ecosystem goods and services on which human development depends Unleashing the economic potential of protected areas so that they are providing ecosystem services, are climate resilient and sustainably financed (GEF, ICI) Mainstreaming biodiversity into productive sectors and landscape to ensure that production processes maintain essential ecosystem functions 5 Terrestrial protected areas National level: 6 Steppe: 4 Wetlands: 8 Forests: 6 Mountains: 4 Agrobiodiversity: 1 Protected area finance: 7 projects Sectors: Agriculture: 6 Fisheries: 1 Oil and Gas: 2 Banking: 1 Landscapes: National land- use planning Municipalities 2 projects Marine protected areas 3 projects

Country Support Program, Istanbul, April 2010 Split between the 2 signature programs

Country Support Program, Istanbul, April 2010 Projects by country

Country Support Program, Istanbul, April 2010 Results summary Protected area projects:  19 new PAs established, totaling 2.6 million hectares  85 PAs in the process of being established, totaling 0.81 million hectares  126 existing PAs strengthened, totaling 9.7 million hectares  9.1 million hectares in 10 different Global 200 Ecoregions Mainstreaming projects:  2 areas set outside of economic activities in recognition of biodiversity values covering approximately 1 million ha in land and water surface  million hectares of productive landscape within 9 Global 200 Ecoregions and 2 CI Hotspots have been put under biodiversity- compliant economic use regimes within seven projects

Country Support Program, Istanbul, April 2010 PA program impacts (1): Increased ecosystem resilience New / larger PAs and corridors  Russia, Kazakhstan Altai-Sayan forests: 0.5 million ha of new PAs, cross border surveillance, protection, fire monitoring  Russia Taimyr : 100,000 ha of tundra and boreal forest added under protection

Country Support Program, Istanbul, April 2010 PA program impacts (2): Sustainable PA financing means effective conservation  Romania Carpathian forests: tourism and sawdust briquetting companies revenue-sharing with parks  Macedonia: prerequisites for PES included in the Law on Protected Areas.

Country Support Program, Istanbul, April 2010 PA program impacts (3): Incentives for alternative local development at PAs Alternatives to destructive practices (e.g. fire-wood use)  Uzbekistan Tugai Forest: gasification schemes supported to cater for 60 households = annual cut reduction by 360 cubic meters = saving 144 ha of virgin forests over 10 years  Romania Carpathians: Sawdust briquetting  Uzbekistan: straw-bale houses as an alternative to wood Community forests  Uzbekistan: community forests established

Country Support Program, Istanbul, April 2010 PA program impacts (4): Support to fire-prevention capacities in carbon rich boreal forests (Russia, Kazakhstan)  Are fires always bad for biodiversity?  More studies in Russia Komi: fire management vs. fire prevention

Country Support Program, Istanbul, April 2010 BD mainstreaming impacts (1): Putting agrobiodiversity under protection  Georgia: 189 households cultivating land-races, over 80% of these households are reporting higher pulse diversity on-farm  Kazakhstan: 391,000 ha being set aside to manage wild fruit diversity

Country Support Program, Istanbul, April 2010 BD mainstreaming impacts (2): supporting wise use of grasslands  Bulgaria: 3 mobile teams helping farmers to implement agrienvironmental measures  Slovakia: 95.4 ha of rich fen mires have undergone active restoration, upon which the groundwater table stabilized at 80% of the restored sites.  Czech Republic: 570 ha of formerly degraded land converted into biodiversity-rich grasslands

Country Support Program, Istanbul, April 2010 BD mainstreaming impacts (2): successful peatland restoration pilots  Belarus: 28,000 ha rewetted; reduced annual emission of CO2 by 280,000 tons; presence of wetland plant associations up by 58-96%  Lithuania: wetland management plans were implemented at 785 ha of raised bogs

Country Support Program, Istanbul, April 2010 Looking into GEF-5 Managing ecosystems to enhance their resilience and improve their climate change mitigation and adaptation potential

Country Support Program, Istanbul, April 2010 THANK YOU