1

AGENCY’S PROJECT ID: TBD GEFSEC PROJECT ID: TBD COUNTRY: Global PROJECT TITLE: International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) GEF IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: World Bank and UNEP OTHER EXECUTING AGENCIES: FAO, UNDP, UNESCO DURATION: 3 years GEF FOCAL AREA: Multifocal GEF OPERATIONAL PROGRAM: 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 12-15 GEF STRATEGIC PRIORITY: BD4; CC4; IW2-3; POP1-3; SLM1-2; CB1-2; EM1 PIPELINE ENTRY DATE: 14 May 2004 ESTIMATED STARTING DATE: April 2005 IA FEE: $302,000

PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GEF COUNCIL Intersessional Work Program SUBMISSION

CONTRIBUTION TO KEY INDICATORS OF THE BUSINESS PLAN:The project will deliver a global and five sub-global assessments of the role of agricultural science and technology in reducing hunger and poverty, improving rural livelihoods, and facilitating development that is equitable as well as environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. The project is a major global initiative, developed out of a consultative process involving 900 participants and 110 countries from all regions of the world. IAASTD will provide robust information for decision-makers on how to ensure that policies, practices and institutional arrangements enable knowledge, science and technology to contribute to global environmental and developmental benefits.

RECORD OF ENDORSEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT(S): (Enter Name, Position, Ministry) Date: (Month, day, year) Not Applicable

FINANCING PLAN (US$) GEF PROJECT/COMPONENT

Project 3,000,000PDF A PDF B 350,000PDF C

Sub-Total GEF 3,350,000

CO-FINANCING*World Bank UNEP UNESCO FAO

3,000,000690,000225,000150,000

Government 3,345,000Bilateral NGOs Others Sub-Total Co-financing: 7,410,000Total Project Financing: 10,760,000FINANCING FOR ASSOCIATED

ACTIVITIES IF ANY:

LEVERAGED RESOURCES IF ANY:

*Details provided under the Financial Modality and Cost Effectiveness section

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

2

Approved on behalf of the World Bank. This proposal has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the standards of the GEF Project Review Criteria for work program inclusion.

Steve Gorman Robert T. Watson WB GEF Executive Coordinator January 14, 2005 Tel: 202-47306965

Email: rwatson@worldbank.org

3

1. PROJECT SUMMARY

a) PROJECT RATIONALE, OBJECTIVES, OUTPUTS/OUTCOMES AND ACTIVITIES

Project Rationale: Access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food is the primary challenge for over 700 million chronically undernourished people, the vast majority of whom live in rural areas in developing countries. Global population is projected to increase to approximately 9 billion within the next 50 years1, with almost all of the increase in developing countries. Greater numbers of people and changing food preferences in response to rapid urbanization and increased per capita income in developing countries is projected to result in a doubling of the current demand for food by 2050. The majority of the world’s poor live in rural areas, and is dependent, directly or indirectly, on agriculture for their livelihoods.2 Increases in agricultural productivity can result in increased income for poor producers given equitable ownership of assets. Increased productivity also results in higher rural non-farm income as the rising incomes of producers create demand for non-farm products and services. Development in the agricultural sector for the rural poor has either concentrated on increases in agricultural productivity through the application of modern farming practices, such as chemicals, mechanization and high-yielding varieties (intensification) or from expanding production onto new land (extensification).3 Both extensification and intensification can result in adverse environmental consequences. The role of agricultural intensification can be problematic. On one hand, it may relieve pressure from marginal areas and critical ecological sites where local to global environmental benefits can be retained or even enhanced. On the other hand, it may lead to processes such as uniform adoption of high-yielding varieties, increases in soil erosion, chemical pollution, reduction in soil biodiversity, and releases of greenhouse gases -- all with consequent effects on climate change. Alternatively, expansion onto new lands has been responsible for the loss of natural ecosystems, such as wetlands and rainforests, and marked declines in the diversity and quality of habitats as they transition from natural to managed landscapes. The negative consequences for global environmental assets, such as biodiversity, soil carbon fixation and international waters, are significant. Improved agricultural systems and land management practices may, under the right circumstances, provide both economic (developmental) gains and environmental benefits, such as the: • reduced overall rate of natural resource loss and land degradation; • overall landscape biodiversity enhanced both in areas of land use and in protected

areas; • reduced rate of soil, runoff and nutrient losses; • reduced contamination and eutrophication of fresh waters and contamination of soils,

and

1 2003. World agriculture: towards 2015/2030, an FAO Perspective. FAO. Earthscan Publications. 2 2001. Rural poverty report 2001 – the challenge of ending rural poverty. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press. 3 1992. Loomis, R.S. and Connor, D.J. Crop ecology: productivity and management in agricultural systems. Cambridge Univ. Press.

4

• reduced rate of greenhouse gas emissions, and increased carbon fixed in agricultural systems.

There are a number of critical environmental and social factors facing the developing world that may directly impede efforts to meet the projected demand for agricultural products. These include less water available for crops due to an increase in use by other sectors; less arable land due to urbanization; less labor due to HIV/AIDS and rural to urban migration; increased levels of acid deposition and tropospheric ozone; and a changing climate with warmer temperatures, increasing variability and more extreme events. To ensure the sustainability of the natural resource foundation and biodiversity on which agricultural production (crop, livestock, fishery, forest, fiber and biomass) and hence, rural livelihoods and nutritional security depend, will require that decision makers better understand the economic, environmental, ethical and social considerations surrounding agricultural science and technology and related policy. For example, non-biophysical attributes of production systems – such as markets, social norms and customs (especially around gender, but also age group and ethnicity) – often determine resource ownership and control, and consequently nutritional security. Agricultural knowledge, science and technology (KST) must be harnessed to seek both developmental and environmental benefits simultaneously. Hence, the global community is confronted with the serious task of ensuring nutritional security and enhancing rural livelihoods while at the same time reversing environmental degradation, redressing social and gender inequity, and ensuring human health and well-being. The overall challenge is a better understanding by those who make decisions on agricultural, environmental and macroeconomic policy, at both the national and international levels, in developed as well as developing countries, of the social and political environment in which production take place and the requirements for an agricultural research system to generate technologies that are socially equitable, economically viable and environmentally beneficial. This better understanding can result in policies and institutional arrangements that facilitate a renewed emphasis on sustainable management and consequently, the generation and implementation of technological innovations that contribute to sustainable development. This project’s assessment of agricultural KST will contribute to catalyzing the generation and widespread adoption of agricultural practices that deliver global environmental benefits in biodiversity conservation and its sustainable use in agricultural systems, reduced emissions of greenhouse gases from agricultural systems, reduced vulnerability of ecological systems to climate change, reduced land degradation and improved quality of international waters impacted by agricultural systems. The information generated in this project is expected to lead to better management of natural and agricultural systems across production landscapes and sectors, and political and administrative boundaries, hence promoting sustainable development. The multi-focal development aim, consistent with GEF priorities, is to integrate ecological, economic and social goals to achieve multiple and cross-cutting local, national and global benefits, thus contributing to improving rural livelihoods, food security and human health.

5

Project Objectives: Development and Global Environmental The IAASTD will bring together the range of stakeholders concerned with agriculture, hunger, poverty, human health and environmental issues to share views, gain common understanding and vision for the future (present to 2050), to develop new partnerships and to provide robust information pertinent to the needs of decision makers at international, regional, national, and local scales. The IAASTD will integrate biophysical factors and socioeconomic driving forces and will bring the best available information to bear on analyzing how agricultural KST can be used to reduce hunger and poverty, improve rural livelihoods and health, increase incomes and facilitate equitable, environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development at global, regional, national and local scales. The IAASTD will build global and sub-global (community to regional) assessment capacities to undertake integrated scientific assessments of agricultural KST, and build ownership to implement action based upon the evidence in the assessments. This may result in catalyzing additional sub-global assessments at the local, national and regional levels. The IAASTD will provide information on contentious, complex topics such as biosciences, but it will not set goals or advocate specific policies or practices. It will be policy relevant, but not policy prescriptive. The IAASTD will integrate scientific information on a range of topics that are critically interlinked, but are often addressed independently. Highlighting linkages among questions concerning agriculture, poverty, hunger, natural resources, and development will enable decision makers to bring richer knowledge to bear on policy and management decisions on issues previously viewed in an isolated context. The IAASTD will focus on assessing the demand for agricultural products and the environmental, social and economic consequences of meeting this demand under a range of plausible futures. The analysis of the consequences of meeting demand within this range of scenarios will be grounded in historical lessons. Its primary objectives are to: • assess the effects of agricultural S&T policy and institutional

environments, as well as practices, in the context of sustainable development; • make the resulting state-of-the-art, objective analyses accessible to

decision makers at all levels –from small-scale producers to makers of international policy;

• identify where critically important information gaps exist in order to allow more effective targeting of resources; and

• further the capacity of developing country nationals to generate, access and use agricultural KST that promote sustainable development.

Project Activities: At the First Plenary of the IAASTD (September 2004), the plenary agreed that the IAASTD would be comprised of a global assessment and five sub-global assessments addressing the role of agricultural KST in development. Stakeholders from all relevant groups agreed on the broad scope of the IAASTD, and a series of questions to ensure that the global and sub-global assessments would provide the information needed for sound decisions on issues related to agriculture (see Annex I in the full project document). The overarching question, which provides the framework for the global and sub-global assessments, is: “How can we reduce hunger and poverty, improve rural livelihoods, and facilitate equitable, environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development

6

through the generation, access to, and use of agricultural knowledge, science and technology?” Global AssessmentThe global assessment will have three sections: (i) Historical Perspectives; (ii) Plausible Futures; and (iii) Policy and Institutional Issues. Gender analysis will be utilized in all three sections. Historical Perspectives: • How have local, national, regional and international policies and institutions,

including economic and trade policies, facilitated or inhibited the application of agricultural KST to reduce hunger and poverty, improve rural livelihoods, and facilitate equitable, environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development?

• What advances in agricultural KST have generated significant changes in hunger alleviation (food and nutritional security, food safety, etc.), poverty alleviation and the structure and quality of rural livelihoods, and in the environment?

Plausible Futures: • What are the key drivers, how do they interact, and how might they plausibly

change over the next 50 years that will affect the development and adoption of agricultural KST to meet future food demands, while addressing rural livelihoods, human health, equity and environmental issues?

• For a set of plausible changes in the key drivers, what are the projected national, regional and global changes in: (i) consumer demand; (ii) production; (iii) food prices; (iv) livelihoods; and (v) environmental conditions (climate and natural resources)?

Policy and Institutional Issues • What national, regional and global policies and institutional arrangements will

optimize the uptake and adoption of advances in agricultural KST? • What are the appropriate investments in, and what are the optimum institutional

arrangements for agricultural research and development to reduce hunger and poverty, improve rural livelihoods, and facilitate equitable, environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development?

Sub-global AssessmentsFive sub-global assessments (Central and West Asia and North Africa; East and South Asia and the Pacific; Latin America and the Caribbean; North America and Europe; and Sub-Saharan Africa) will be performed at the regional, national or local scales and will complement the Global Assessment by examining context-specific aspects of the Global Assessment. Each of the sub-global assessments will use the same basic framework as the global assessment, i.e., the impacts of agricultural KST on rural livelihoods, nutritional security, equity, the environment and human health will be evaluated in relation to both the past and the future. The sub-global assessments will vary in scale from continents to communities, will use a consistent methodology, cover a range of agroecological systems, and employ selection criteria that take into account socioeconomic and institutional conditions, and poverty mapping. The assessment should seek to incorporate, and build upon, local and indigenous knowledge related to agricultural technologies and also assess the impact of knowledge and technologies

7

emanating from the informal agricultural research and innovation system driven by farmers and other local land users

Outreach and CommunicationsAn outreach and communications strategy will be developed by the Bureau in conjunction with the Secretariat and the communications experts from the co-sponsoring agencies for both the global and sub-global assessments. The strategy will include a web system accessible and useable by all stakeholders; the published assessment reports, each with a Summary for Decision-Makers; publications in the scientific literature, popular media and conference proceedings; presentations at MEA meetings (UNCBD, UNCCD, Ramsar and UNFCCC), scientific conferences and workshops; and diffusion of information through the already established networks of the different stakeholder groups, i.e., co-sponsoring agencies, MEAs, governments, private sector, NGOs, consumers, producers, scientific community including the CGIAR, extension services, etc. Capacity BuildingCapacity building is an implicit element of the IAASTD (also see paragraphs on replicability). The goal of the IAASTD is to build sub-global and global assessment capabilities to undertake integrated scientific assessments of agricultural KST, and to build ownership to implement action based upon the evidence in the assessments. The IAASTD will result in an enhanced ability to conduct multi-scale integrated scientific assessments to understand the contribution of agricultural KST in poverty and hunger alleviation, improvement of rural livelihoods and human health, and equitable and environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development. It will also improve the capacity to design and implement sustainable agricultural practices and policies by providing information to decision makers in all relevant stakeholder groups through multi-stakeholder involvement and participation. This enhanced capacity will be developed through the involvement of experts from all stakeholder groups in the design, preparation and peer-review of the global and sub-global assessments. The involvement of local institutions to manage the sub-global assessments will also result in capacity to carry out sub-global assessments in the future.

Project Outputs and Outcomes: Outputs will include an ensemble of peer-reviewed published sub-global and global assessment reports (printed and web-based) each with a Summary for Decision Makers on the role of agricultural KST in sustainable development. The reports will take a near- to long-term perspective and look at policy and institutional issues in light of history and plausible future scenarios, including an assessment of the effects of agricultural policies, practices, technologies and institutional arrangements on poverty, livelihoods, human health and the environment, and options for making agriculture more environmentally sustainable. The IAASTD process will make available datasets, indicators, and critically assessed information through publications and via the Internet. The findings will be widely disseminated to key target audiences. The summaries for decision makers will be distributed in all official UN languages. A key set of outcomes related to the strengthened capacity of local, national, regional and global institutions would result from the process though no specific products are directly tied to these outcomes.

8

The impact of the expected outputs of the IAASTD will vary as a function of the end user. However, all stakeholders are expected to benefit from access to better information, agreater awareness and a clearer understanding of what is known with confidence and what remains uncertain. Governmental bodies will have access to better information and models for evaluating policy options; the private sector will have better information for evaluating business strategies; civil society will have better information to use in evaluating the decisions of government policy makers, and Contracting Parties to the three Rio Conventions will be able to use this information to more effectively implement these Conventions.

b) KEY INDICATORS, ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS

Key Indicators: Component 1: A framework for conducting integrated agricultural assessments at local, national, regional and global scales. The expected outcome is a common framework developed for the global and sub-global assessments of agricultural KST that encompasses historical perspectives, future scenarios and institutions and policies. Component 2: Global Assessment. The expected outcome indicator is an expert and government peer-reviewed global assessment of agricultural KST accepted and approved by the Panel of participating governments, including historical lessons, plausible futures and policy and institutional issues, which take into account enabling conditions and contextual issues that affect the generation, use, accessibility and effectiveness of agricultural KST.

Component 3: Sub-global Assessments. The expected outcome indicators are five expert and government peer-reviewed sub-global assessments of agricultural KST accepted and approved by the Panel of participating governments, including historical lessons, plausible futures and policy and institutional issues, which take into account enabling conditions and contextual issues that affect the generation, use, accessibility and effectiveness of agricultural KST.

Component 4: Outreach and Communication. The expected outcome indicators include outreach materials and communications developed and implemented so that the IAASTD findings are disseminated and made accessible to all stakeholder groups. Assumptions and risks for components 1, 2 and 3 relate to the availability and nomination of suitable scientific and multidisciplinary experts, and their ability to participate in the IAASTD, which in the case of the OECD is dependent upon the willingness of OECD countries, organizations and institutions to finance the participation of their experts. Assumptions and risks for component 4 include whether improving the availability of, and access to, agricultural KST does lead to agricultural practices that would reduce hunger and poverty, improve rural livelihoods, and facilitate equitable, environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development

2. COUNTRY OWNERSHIP

a) COUNTRY ELIGIBILITY Not applicable

9

b) COUNTRY DRIVENNESS The need for the IAASTD emerged from a series of intergovernmental processes, notably those leading up to the adoption of the MDGs, the ongoing work programmes of the UNCBD, UNCCD, Ramsar Convention and UNFCCC and the wide-spread recognition of the impact of agricultural practices and technologies on hunger, poverty, human health and the environment. The IAASTD will provide information to support the implementation of MDG priorities (in particular, eradicating extreme poverty and hunger; promoting gender equality and empowering women; and ensuring environmental sustainability), the GEF and global environmental conventions. The project was developed through regional consultations with countries over a period of eight months involving nearly 900 stakeholders from 110 countries. The First Intergovernmental Plenary, which included representatives from 45 governments, approved the scope, questions, timetable, budget, and governance structure. Country drivenness will be ensured by the intergovernmental nature of the IAASTD. The IAASTD will contribute to the goals of Agenda 21, agreed to by countries in 1992, including: (a) agricultural policy review, planning and integrated programs in the light of the multifunctional aspect of agriculture, particularly with regard to food security and sustainable development; (b) ensuring people’s participation and promoting human resources development for sustainable agriculture; (c) improving farm production and farming systems through diversification of farm and non-farm employment and infrastructure development; (d) land-resource planning information and education for agriculture; (e) land conservation and rehabilitation; (f) water for sustainable food production and sustainable rural development; (g) conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources for food and sustainable agriculture; (h) conservation and sustainable utilization of animal genetic resources for sustainable agriculture; (i) integrated pest management and control in agriculture; (j) sustainable plant nutrition to increase food production; (k) rural energy transition to enhance productivity; (l) evaluation of the effects of climate change on plants and animals; and (k) improve information for decision making. The project has also established linkages with other major regional and global initiatives such as the MDG Hunger task force, the Inter-Academy Council (IAC) Study on Science and Technology Strategies for Improved Agricultural Productivity and Food Security in Africa, the FAO State of Food Insecurity Reports, the work on plausible futures by International Food Policy Research Institute, the MA and the IPCC. These linkages will be strengthened during project implementation.

3. PROGRAM AND POLICY CONFORMITY

a) FIT TO GEF OPERATIONAL PROGRAM AND STRATEGIC PRIORITY

The Project will be submitted as crosscutting OP1, Arid and Semi-arid Zone Ecosystems; OP2, Coastal, Marine, and Freshwater Ecosystems; OP3, Forest Ecosystems; OP4, Mountain Ecosystems; OP6 Promoting the Adoption of Renewable Energy by Removing Barriers and Reducing Implementation Costs; OP8, Waterbody-based; OP 9, Integrated Land and Water Multiple Focal Area for International Waters; OP12, Integrated Ecosystem Management; and OP13, Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological

10

Diversity Important to Agriculture; OP14, Persistent Organic Pollutants; OP15, Sustainable Land Management; and Adaptation to Climate Change. All of the above Operational Programs will benefit from IAASTD (see Table 1 in Full Project document). In addition, this Project solidly addresses GEF’s strategic considerations: ensuring the sustainability of global environmental benefits (See Annex G in Full Project document). For example, this Project will facilitate the mainstreaming of biodiversity within agricultural production landscapes and sectors, a stated priority for the Convention on Biological Diversity and the GEF.

b) SUSTAINABILITY (INCLUDING FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY)

The IAASTD will entail a three-year collaborative effort (2005-7), involving a suite of national and international institutions, research networks and funding sources. The findings are expected to have a profound impact on project and policy formulation by governments, the private sector, the GEF, the cosponsoring agencies, and other stakeholders for years after the IAASTD is completed because it will give decision makers within these groups the information they need to make wise decisions on natural resource management within the context of agricultural production. Sustainability has been optimized by ensuring the full range of stakeholders have ownership in the IAASTD process and findings through their involvement in the Advisory Bureau and in the design, preparation and peer-review of the reports. The multi-stakeholder Bureau is also responsible for overseeing the outreach and communications strategy to ensure wide dissemination and use of the findings. 1. The World Bank, UNEP, FAO, UNDP and UNESCO have committed financial

resources, both cash and in-kind secretariat support. In addition, a number of governments have already committed funds to a multi-donor trust fund (including Australia, Canada, France, Ireland, UK and USA), managed by the World Bank. GEF resources will be critical to supporting the environmental aspects of the initiative, and in conjunction with the multi-donor trust fund will be used, inter-alia, to support developing country participation (see table below). GEF support for the participation of specialists from developing countries and countries with transitioning economies will enhance the sub-global, national and local capacity-building components of the Project as specialists come together to share knowledge and learn how to conduct effective scientific assessments. These specialists will also greatly contribute to the effectiveness of the Project by providing a resource base for future regional and national assessments. OECD governments, organizations and institutions will be responsible for supporting participation of developed country nationals.

Proposed Budget for US$3 million in GEF funds Activity 2005 2006 2007

--------------US$------------- Workshops for Global Assessment

July 2005: 75 authors from developing countries 226,000Jan 2006: 75 authors from developing countries 226,000Oct 2006: 83 authors from developing countries 270,000Feb 2007: 83 authors from developing countries 270,000

11

Workshops for Sub-Global Assessments July 2005: 68 authors from developing countries146,000Jan 2006: 140 authors from developing countries 385,000June 2007: 30 authors from developing countries 74,000

Plenary and Bureau meetings May 2005: 33 members from developing countries 87,000

June 2007: 108 representatives from developing countries

493,000

Sub-global management institutes 240,000Communications and outreach 75,000 75,000Publications and translation of Final Report 433,000Total 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

c) REPLICABILITY

The IAASTD has been designed to incorporate the positive characteristics of previous international assessments such as the IPCC, MA and the ozone assessments.

d) STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

The project has already brought together, and will continue to bring together, the range of stakeholders (governments, GEF and their implementing agencies, the co-sponsoring agencies, Multilateral Environmental Agreements (e.g., UNCBD, UNCCD, UNFCCC and Ramsar), NGOs, consumers, producers, private sector, foundations, UN agencies and the scientific community) involved in the agricultural sector. All stakeholders were involved in the regional consultations, and were represented on the international steering committee, which guided the consultative process. All stakeholders are represented on the Advisory Bureau and will participate in the plenary meeting, and all stakeholders are involved in the design, preparation and peer-review of the reports. Governments will accept and approve the Final Report in a Plenary to be held in June 2007.Governments and other stakeholders will participate in the IAASTD process through nominating experts to the design and author teams, and through nominating peer reviewers and editors. The Advisory Bureau will select the experts and ensure balance in gender, expertise and geography. At the request of the First Plenary of governments (September 2004), the Bureau approved the Principles and Procedures in December 2004 and selected two co-chairs in early 2005 for the IAASTD. The stakeholders will share views, gain a common understanding and vision for the future (present to 2050) and develop new partnerships. The IAASTD will provide robust information for decision makers on how to ensure that policies, practices and institutional arrangements further sustainable development, protection of the environment and the conservation of natural resources. It will have a major impact on decision makers at all levels—from the field to the international arena. The strategic approach for stakeholder involvement in the Project is based on lessons learned from the International Ozone Assessments, the Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA), International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Global Environment Outlook

12

(GEO) process and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). These assessments demonstrated that the IAASTD must: � beconducted using an open, transparent, representative and legitimate process,

with an agreed set of Principles and Procedures; � involve a representative set of experts from relevant stakeholder groups in the

preparation of the Assessment using local and institutional knowledge; � beintellectually and scientifically objective (peer and stakeholder reviewed), but

accessible and comprehensible to non-specialists; � incorporate capacity-building activities; and � incorporate a continuous and effective outreach and communications strategy The proposed governance structure resembles that of the IPCC, but contains a multistakeholder Advisory Bureau similar to the MA Board of Directors. The geographically based multistakeholder Bureau will be comprised of 30 governments and 30 representatives from producer and consumer groups, NGOs, the private sector and international institutions, including the GEF and the CGIAR.

e) MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Project execution: The management and supervision of project activities will be monitored by the IAASTD Secretariat, and the Panel of participating governments through the Advisory Bureau (See Annex D). The monitoring and evaluation of progress on timeliness of activities and quality of outputs will be an on-going responsibility of the IAASTD Secretariat, and includes reviewing budgets against agreed work programs and outputs, as reflected in the Project Performance indicators in the Logical framework (Annex B). The Advisory Bureau will convene three more times over the course of the project to assess and review annual work plans, provide specific input on ways to improve project execution, and assess progress made toward the stated goals of IAASTD using performance criteria in the Logical framework. Evaluations of progress will be documented in minutes of meetings and in semi-annual progress reports to the IAASTD Secretariat, Cosponsoring Agencies, Panel of participating governments and donors. The Secretariat will be responsible for making improvements when inadequacies are noted and taking corrective action. The project’s scientific outputs will be subjected to two government and expert peer reviews. The Secretariat will be responsible for ensuring that authors adequately address comments by peer reviewers. Independent mid-term and final evaluations will be conducted by external evaluators to assess the project’s performance in achieving strategic goals and objectives. The evaluators will be contracted by the World Bank in consultation with IAASTD Secretariat. Project performance: Internal evaluation will be conducted by the World Bank and the IAASTD Secretariat. Performance indicators will be as delineated in the Logical framework. Impact evaluation: Since the primary outputs (global and sub-global assessment reports) will not be disseminated until the completion of the project, determination of impact will occur post-project. The cosponsoring agencies, however, will monitor web site usage during the project to assess effectiveness of electronic outreach to stakeholders. 4. FINANCIAL MODALITY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS

13

The World Bank, UNEP, FAO, UNESCO and several governments have already committed funds, including Australia, Canada, France, Ireland, UK and USA. Discussions on funding are currently being held with other governments, including Japan, Germany, Finland and Norway, as well as the European Commission. The proposed approach has been designed to be cost-effective by having a smaller secretariat than the IPCC or MA, by only paying for the travel expenses (coach class) of developing country experts and by not paying for the time of the experts from the full range of stakeholder groups to design, prepare and peer-review the IAASTD (as in the IPCC). International Assessments that endeavor to encourage and support the participation specialists from developing countries and countries with economies in transition inherently cost more than similar activities that rely solely on experts from the north. However, the inclusion of a broad range of stakeholders from the south is the strength of the global and sub-global components of the Project. The engagement of these stakeholders in all aspects of the Assessment – design, drafting and reviewing the Report ensures that the appropriate questions are being addressed, that the knowledge base of these experts is fully utilized, ensures ownership of the process and findings, facilitates communication of the results and hence greatly contributes to the effectiveness of the Project. The cost-effectiveness of the outreach and communications is greatly facilitated by using the already established networks of the different stakeholder groups, i.e., co-sponsoring agencies, MEAs, governments, private sector, NGOs, consumers, producers, the CGIAR and others in the scientific community, extension services, etc.

Co-financing Sources Name of Co-

financier (source)

Classification

Type

Amount (US$) Status* World Bank Multilateral In-kind and cash 3,000,000 Partially rec'd UNEP Multilateral In-kind 690,000 Confirmed UNESCO Multilateral In-kind 225,000 Confirmed FAO Multilateral In-kind 150,000 Confirmed Australia Bilateral In cash 229,000 Confirmed Canada Bilateral In cash 409,000 Confirmed Finland Bilateral In-kind (seconded

to WB secretariat)300,000 Not yet

confirmed France Bilateral In cash 300,000 Partially rec'd Ireland Bilateral In cash 104,000 Partially rec'd UK Bilateral In cash 535,000 Confirmed USA Bilateral In cash 500,000 Committed

but amount not confirmed

European Commission

Multilateral In cash 650,000 Not yet confirmed

Other donors Multi/Bilateral In cash 318,000 To be raised Sub-Total Co-financing 7,410,000

5. INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT

14

a) CORE COMMITMENTS AND LINKAGES

IA committments and linkages: The Heads of FAO, UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO, WB and WHO have agreed to cosponsor the IAASTD. In addition, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr Kofi Annan, has assured full cooperation and support for this project. The IAASTD Secretariat will be co-located in the Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Vice Presidency of the World Bank, the Division of Early Warning and Assessment in UNEP, FAO’s Agriculture and Development Economics Division and UNESCO’s Division of Ecological Sciences and Man and the Biosphere Programme. The IAASTD will provide an integrated analysis of the environmental implications of agricultural practices, technologies, policies and institutional relationships that UNEP, UNDP, the World Bank, and the other cosponsors (GEF, FAO, UNESCO, WHO) can utilize to improve the design and impact of their projects. In addition to cosponsoring the IAASTD, the agencies have agreed to participate as ex-officio members of the Advisory Bureau, host and contribute staff to the distributed secretariat (WB, UNEP, FAO and UNESCO), contibute financial resources to ensure developing country participation (WB), identify agency and external experts to participate in the design, preparation and peer-review processes of the global and sub-global assessments, and contribute to outreach and communications activities. GEF linkages: IAASTD is consistent with the GEF operational strategy and the operational programs and will produce an objective scientific analysis of agricultural practices, technologies, policies and institutional relationships in relation to mainstreaming environmental considerations into the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in production landscapes, land and water resource management, and adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change. The IAASTD design has benefitted from lessons learned from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which is a GEF project funded through UNEP.

b) CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE

IA AND EXAS.

Four GEF Implementing agencies are involved as cosponsoring agencies of the IAASTD, i.e., UNEP, UNDP, WB and FAO. The World Bank is the IA for this Project, but will consult extensively with the other cosponsors. As noted earlier, they are all ex-officio members of the Advisory Bureau and will house the Secretariat along with UNESCO. IAASTD was originally conceived in a series of meetings that the World Bank held with civil society and the private sector on agricultural issues. The concept was further developed during an 8 month consultative process involving nearly 900 stakeholders (governments, civil society, private sector, scientific institutions -- including the CGIAR, consumers, foundations, local producers, etc.) from 110 countries. Because of the breadth of issues that relate to agriculture and development, all of the cosponsoring institutions recognize that the IAASTD is integrally related to their mission.

C) PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT

15

The IAASTD will have a distributed Secretariat based at the World Bank in Washington, D.C, UNEP in Nairobi, FAO in Rome and UNESCO in Paris. The Secretariat will provide management and oversight of the project, including monitoring the implementation and execution of the project; ensure coordination among the global and sub-global assessments; provide technical support, and oversee communications and outreach. The Director of the Secretariat and the IAASTD Chairs are responsible for the intellectual leadership of the project. Members of the distributed Secretariat will coordinate one or more of the assessments: the World Bank will have overall responsibility for the global assessment, working closely with the other cosponsoring agencies in their area of expertise, and sub-global assessments in East and South Asia and the Pacific and North America and Europe; UNEP will oversee the sub-global assessment for Sub-Saharan Africa; FAO will oversee the assessment for Central and West Asia and North Africa; and UNESCO will be responsible for Latin America and the Caribbean. The Panel of participating governments will meet in plenary to accept the global and sub-global assessments and approve the Summaries for Decision Makers. The multi-stakeholder Advisory Bureau will select the design teams, chairs, authors and review editors for the assessment and ensure a balance of disciplines, views, regional representation and gender. Principles and Procedures governing the IAASTD, which are modeled on those used by IPCC, were approved by the Bureau in December 2004. (see Annex K in Full Project document). The Secretariat liaises with governments, civil society organizations and the Advisory Bureau to ensure project implementation. The World Bank will act as the GEF Implementing Agency responsible for coordination with GEF Secretariat in consultation with the other Executing Agencies. Implementing and executing agencies will be involved in all aspects of the assessment and ensure high quality technical implementation of the IAASTD, however, UNEP will pay particular attention to the environmental dimensions, while FAO will pay particular attention to the agricultural dimensions of the IAASTD. Collaboration between the IA and EAs will be improved by weekly teleconferences and regular meetings associated with meetings of the design teams, authors and Bureau. GEF Fund Management will be provided by the World Bank in Washington. Budget analysts within the Secretariat will work together to ensure financial implementation is transparent and responsible.

ANNEXES Annex A: Incremental Cost Analysis Annex B: Project Logical Framework. Annex C: STAP Roster Technical Review.

A - 1

ANNEX A. INCREMENTAL COST

BROAD ENVIRONMENTAL AND DEVELOPMENT GOALS

The IAASTD will generate environmental and development benefits at the global, regional, national and local scale. Global environmentalbenefits will accrue to a wide range of ecosystems and their biodiversity and soils; water quantity and quality in hydrological basins, and theclimate system through improved and more sustainable functioning of agricultural systems as a result of the improved application of knowledge,scienceand technology. Broad development goalswill beachieved by using the knowledge generated by the IAASTD in:• The development of appropriate policies, regulationsand incentive structures to support integrated natural resourceand agricultural

management• Strengthening thecapacity of institutions to design and implement integrated management approaches• Investments that are made simultaneously to address local, national, regional and global environmental issueswithin thecontext of

sustainableagriculture• The improvement of agricultural productivity under sustainablemanagement, enhancing the livelihoods of producers

The developmental goal of IAASTD may therefore be summarised as the improved access to agricultural KST that will promote and facilitatesustainableagricultural practices.

The current funding for international agricultural research and development isestimated to be about US $33 billion per year, including funds forthe CGIAR. Associated relevant research and monitoring on climatechange and natural resources isestimated to be about US $3 billion peryear. It is the knowledge generated from these research and monitoring activities, as well as local and indigenousknowledge, which willprovide the base that will be assessed by the IAASTD.

The IAASTD will complement and establish linkages with other major regional and global initiatives such asNEPAD, the MDG Hunger TaskForce, the Inter-Academy Council (IAC) Study on Scienceand Technology Strategies for Improved Agricultural Productivity and Food Securityin Africa, the FAO Stateof Food Insecurity Reports, the International Food Policy Research Institute’s "plausible futures" work, the MA and theIPCC.

A - 2

The multi-thematic natureof the IAASTD isunique, i.e., the IAASTD will simultaneously addressnutritional security, livelihoods, humanhealth, and environmental sustainability. Without GEF financial support, it is highly unlikely that theenvironmental issueswould be addressedin detail.

BASELINE SCENARIO

Two factors make the baseline scenario of IAASTD somewhat problematic to calculate. First, as with other global assessments such as the MA,the global scope of the project presents methodological difficulties for the baseline costs, which are normally calculated in a national context.Therefore, the baseline (and incremental) cost analysis follows the procedures used in previous global assessments supported by GEF such asMA, LADA and GIWA. While a number of global assessmentsof sub-sectors related to agriculture are availableand form part of the baseline ofthis project, no assessment of agricultural KST at global and sub-global levels has previously been attempted that fully integrates environmentalconcernswith thoseof productivity, livelihoodsand human health.

Secondly, thereare a large number of projects that could have been included in the baseline on the grounds that they have some relevance toIAASTD’s global and sub-global activities. These could have included surveys of global scope for agricultural science and technologyconducted by OECD, UN scientific organizations such as FAO, UNESCO and UNRISD, as well as regional surveys conducted by the regionaldevelopment banks, EU and bilateral aid organizations. Therefore, a fairly conservative estimate of the contribution of other projects has beenretained for the baseline scenario to reflect IAASTD’s global scope and its focus on a common framework for assessing the impact ofagricultural KST on land management practices, rural livelihoods, nutritional status, health, equity and the environment. 4

Without GEF funding, the IAASTD will not be able to move beyond the conventional approach to agricultural assessments, which tend to focuson production. The baseline for the four components of IAASTD has therefore been constructed from an analysis of the more recent (past andcurrent) projects and the proportions of their budgets that could be described as contributing to the IAASTD.

4 The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment GEF Project Brief estimates that if all relevant initiatives were to be included for global assessments, aconservative estimate is thatsome US$3 billion is spent annually on research or assessment work related to ecosystems. An even larger estimate could be put forward for KST for agriculture, climate andnatural resources (about $36 billion per year), but is not included in this incremental costs analysis.

A - 3

INTERNATIONAL AND GLOBAL (COMPONENTS 1, 2 AND 4)

Elements of the following international and global projects contribute to the relevant component baselines and are also included in theInternational Associated Financing total (as noted only elements of each of these assessments addressed the issues to be dealt with in theIAASTD). In most cases theseestimated budgetsdo not include significant amountsof in-kind contributions, e.g., salary costs of authors.

• The MDG Hunger Task Force: US$3 million (estimated);• The FAO State of Food Insecurity Reports: US$1 million (estimated);• The International Food Policy Research Institute research on "plausible futures": US$2 million;• The FAO Agriculture Towards 2015/2030: US$1 million• The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (World Bank & UNEP): US$12 million;• Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (WMO and UNEP) Third Assessment report: US$20 million;• Global International Waters Assessment: US$13 million;• Global Biodiversity Assessment: US$3 million;• Global Forest ResourcesAssessment (FAO, 1992-1999): US$16.5 million;• World Overview of Conservation Approachesand Technologies (WOCAT): US$2.25 million;• SciencePolicy focusassessment for CGIAR (IFPRI-ISNAR AddisAbaba) US$1 million;• Global Land Cover Network: US$1.2 million;• Other projects (e.g. IWMI Comprehensive Assessment of Water, Food and Agriculture; IFPRI Impact of Agricultural Research on Poverty(IARP), UNEP surveys and datasetsetc.): estimated US$15.5 millionTotal Associated International and Global projects: US$ 91.45 million

SUB-GLOBAL (COMPONENTS 1, 3 AND 4)• The Inter-Academy Council (IAC) Study on Science and Technology for Improved Agricultural Productivity and Food Security inAfrica: US$1 million (estimated)• The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (World Bank & UNEP): US$8 million;• Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (WMO and UNEP) Third Assessment report: US$5 million;• Agriculturedatabasesand policies, variousprojects 2002 onwards (OECD): US$2.7 million

A - 4

• Assessment of rural poverty: Asia and the Pacific - plus related projects 2002 onwards(IFAD): $US3 million• Environmental Risk Assessment for European Agriculture – EU Concerted Action: US1.1 million• Africover; Asiacover; and related sub-global databases (FAO); US$2.6 million• Information and Communication Technologies for Development (IDRC – e.g., Assessment of Animal Agriculture in sub-SaharanAgriculture) – various projects: US2.85 million• Agricultural technology, poverty reduction and food security in Asia (ADB) – various projects: US$16.5 million• Other regional and sub-global projects: est. US$20 millionTotal Associated Sub-global projects: US$63 million

BASELINE BY PROJECT COMPONENT

Component 1: Framework for integrated assessments - An improved framework for conducting integrated assessments at local, national,regional and global scales developed, tested and disseminated.

A substantial body of past and current research underpins existing approaches and frameworks for assessments in the agriculture andenvironment sectors. However, these assessments have limitations for the purpose of this project, which is an integrated scientific assessment ofthe role of agricultural KST in development. Either they tend to take sets of technologies for specific purposes in agriculture (e.g. soilconservation – WOCAT framework), thereby being highly selective in promoting innovations in one area only, or they survey specificenvironmental assets with little, if any connection to developmental goals. Frameworks and approaches commonly employed, which have beenreviewed for this baseline calculation, include quantitative frameworks such as in GFRA and qualitative as in the IPCC reports and the MA. Themost relevant framework for the IAASTD is the MA, which linked drivers to ecosystem services to human well being and used panels of expertsto review and assess ecosystem components and impacts, and small writing teams to construct the full assessment according to a commontemplate. The applicable baseline for these and other frameworks and approaches has been conservatively estimated at US$8 million. If the fullhistorical and in-kind cost of the projects that have been reviewed for this Component were to have been used, the baseline could have beenenhanced by a factor of at least ten.

Component 2: Global assessment - A global assessment using the IAASTD framework [Output of Outcome 1] is completed

A - 5

This component focuses on the global assessment. The baseline is primarily comprised of the major assessments conducted world-wide byscientific bodies (e.g., IPCC), other GEF-UN projects (e.g. MA) and multilateral institutions (GFRA – FAO). There are no standardisedframeworks, because each assessment addressed a different range of issues, but most of the findings from these assessments will provide usefulinformation for some elements of the IAASTD. However, the findings from these other assessments cannot be integrated to address the range ofquestions being addressed in the IAASTD. In most cases, the scope of the assessments has been limited, i.e., they have not been multi-thematicor multi-temporal, and have not addressed the policy, institutional and research issues proposed for IAASTD. Furthermore, in most cases theyare not adequately linked with policy and decision-making processes, and none have a governance structure that fully involves the full range ofstakeholders. If the baseline were to include the cost of relevant research and development, and satellite and ground-based monitoring systems,then the baseline would be tens of billions of US dollars per year. However, to include these would not be helpful in the baseline estimate sincethe focus of IAASTD is to assess and synthesize information and not generate or collect data. Only the parts of listed projects at global level aremost relevant to this IAASTD Component 2 have been factored into the baseline cost, which is conservatively estimated at US$ 50 million

Component 3: Sub-global assessments - Five sub-global assessments (community to regional in scale) are completed using the IAASTDframework

Existing surveys at local, national and regional levels of many agriculture-related topics are commonplace and form the basis for assessments ofspecific subject areas of concern, such as land degradation, loss of biodiversity and land cover. They form a baseline for IAASTD in providingagricultural knowledge, science and technology. However, they are not using a standardised framework, the scope of the assessments has beenlimited, i.e., they have not been multi-thematic, multi-spatial or multi-temporal, and have not addressed the policy, institutional and researchissues as proposed for IAASTD, and are not generally integrated with social and economic issues. In particular, it is difficult to use the existingassessments to make significant contributions to sustainable development and to achieving the MDGs. Furthermore, most are not adequatelylinked with policy and decision-making processes. Nevertheless, they will provide useful information and data sources for the IAASTD. It isdifficult to isolate the sub-global elements of all the baseline projects but for the purposes of this calculation all regional delivery of assessmentshave been factored in, as well as some of the national assessments for which there is significant information and some more regional ortransboundary applicability. The baseline is conservatively estimated at US$30 million.

Component 4: Outreach and Communication - Outreach and communication of IAASTD findings in various media and to all stakeholders atvarious levels

A - 6

Existing outreach and dissemination of agricultural KST and the findings of the above-mentioned assessments related to agriculture is sporadic.Nevertheless, there have been notable communications of some assessments such as the IAC, IPCC, MA, WOCAT and GLASOD which haveinformed global policy decisions and alerted decision makers to problems in land use and natural resource management. Regional centres,including those of the CGIAR, with environmental assessment capacity currently play an important role in disseminating information on howagricultural practices impact on hunger, poverty and the environment. International institutions similarly have disseminated the results of theirassessments. However, in most cases the scope of the assessments has been limited, i.e., they have not been multi-thematic, multi-spatial ormulti-temporal, hence so is the information they communicate. A major strength of the IAASTD is the involvement of all relevant stakeholdersin the design, preparation, and peer-review of agricultural KST, thus ensuring ownership of the findings, and the ability of those involved tocommunicate the results to colleagues within their own networks. The baseline isconservatively estimated at US$ 25 million, although it shouldbepointed out that considerableadditional sumshave been expended in using the resultsof such assessments in new programmesand projects.

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVE

The global environmental objectives of IAASTD are twofold. First, the project’s assessment of agricultural KST will contribute to catalyzing thewidespread adoption of agricultural practices that deliver global environmental benefits in biodiversity conservation and its sustainable use inagricultural systems, reduced emissions of greenhouse gases from agricultural systems, reduced vulnerability of ecological systems to climatechange, reduced land degradation and improved quality of international waters impacted by agricultural systems. It will address the UNCBDobjectives of conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of the resources of biodiversity, for example. Secondly, IAASTD is designedto promote the information to catalyze widespread adoption of comprehensive agricultural management practices that benefit the environmentwhile at the same time supporting the livelihoods of the rural land users that are guardians of the environment.

DOMESTIC ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES

Participating countries in IAASTD will receive a number of benefits. The IAASTD will enable developed countries to disseminate theirexpertise and knowledge more widely to national and bilateral aid programmes. Environmental objectives form a large part of bilateral supportfor many aid programmes. Such countries will be enhanced in their capability of supporting developing country partners with appropriate inputsof agricultural KST, targeted to the appropriate agricultural systems and socio-economic circumstances. The IAASTD will enable developingcountries to share and exchange their expertise and knowledge with developed and developing countries, as well as to build capacity toundertake IAASTD-based assessments regionally, nationally and locally, thereby building an enhanced capacity to make informed decisions andproviding better information to their own agricultural sectors. A particular feature for developing countries and their domestic environments will

A - 7

be support to their NAPS under the UNCCD and NARS. Without access to the best agricultural KST, many countries may see their agriculturalproductivity stagnateand thedegradation of their natural resource baseaccelerate.

GEF ALTERNATIVE

Under the GEF alternative IAASTD will assess in-depth the impact of agricultural knowledge, science and technologies, practices and policieson the environment, e.g., land, soils, water, biodiversity and climate. Hence, with GEF funding, the environmental as well as developmentalaspects of agriculture will be addressed in detail, globally and sub-globally. In addition, the assessment will include the range of stakeholdersnecessary to assess and synthesize what is known and not known about agricultural science, technology and development in a way that is readilyaccessible to decision makers, including themselves – ownership of the process and findings by the stakeholders will ensure the information iswidely disseminated and used in policy and project design and implementation.

GEF ALTERNATIVE BY PROJECT COMPONENT

Component 1: Framework for integrated assessments - An framework for conducting integrated assessments at local, national, regional andglobal scales that builds upon frameworks from previous assessments.

The project will develop a framework for conducting integrated agricultural assessments at local, national, regional and global scales. The globaland sub-global assessments will each have three sections: (i) Historical Perspectives; (ii) Plausible Futures; and (iii) Policy and InstitutionalIssues, addressing the overarching question: “How can we reduce hunger and poverty, improve rural livelihoods, and facilitate equitable,environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development through the generation, access to, and use of agricultural knowledge,science and technology?”• Historical lessons

⇒ Analysis of existing knowledge to determine factors responsible for successes and failures in the use of agricultural KST⇒ Integration of analysis by region, farm scale, type of technology, all in the context of sustainable development⇒ A critical retrospective of producer and consumer responses to local and institutional agricultural KST⇒ An analysis of institutions and policies; and effects on the environment, health, poverty, equity and nutritional security⇒ An analysis of the rate of return on investments in agricultural KST

A - 8

• Plausible Futures:⇒ Future scenarios for agricultural production (crop, livestock, fishery, forest, fiber, biomass)⇒ Scenarios for demand and trade for agricultural commodities⇒ Scenarios to 2050 for soils, land use, in thecontext of demographic, climatic, ecological, economic, cultural, socio-political and

technological projections• Policy and Institutional Issues:

⇒ Relevance, quality and effectivenessof agricultural KST⇒ Effectivenessof public and private sector policiesand institutions⇒ In thecontext of hunger and poverty reduction; improvement of rural livelihoodsand incomes;

protection of theenvironment (water, land use, soils, biodiversity, atmosphere; equitable, socially and economically sustainabledevelopment; human health, nutrition and food safety/security

Component 2: Global assessment - A global assessment using the IAASTD framework [Output of Outcome 1] completed building uponprevious assessments.

One of the principal outputs of IAASTD will be an expert and government peer-reviewed global assessment of agricultural KST accepted andapproved by the Panel of participating governments, including historical lessons, plausible futures and policy and institutional issues, which takeinto account enabling conditions and contextual issues that affect the generation, use, accessibility and effectiveness of agricultural KST. Theglobal assessment will becharacterized by following:¾ demand driven, and all stakeholder groups involved in the scoping, preparation, peer-review, outreach and communication;¾ processopen, transparent, representative, and legitimate, with well defined principlesand procedures;¾ when appropriate, local and indigenousknowledge (often informal), aswell as formal scientific knowledge incorporated;¾ findingsand analyses technically accurate and evidence-based, not value- laden;¾ policy relevant but not policy prescriptive, i.e. provide options rather than recommendations;¾ Present different pointsof view, and quantify, if possible, the uncertainties involved.

This project’s assessment of agricultural KST will contribute to catalyzing the widespread adoption of agricultural practices that deliver globalenvironmental benefits in biodiversity conservation and its sustainable use in agricultural systems, reduced emissions of greenhouse gases fromagricultural systems, reduced vulnerability of ecological systems to climate change, reduced land degradation and improved quality ofinternational waters impacted by agricultural systems.

A - 9

Component 3: Sub-global assessments - Five sub-global assessments (community to regional)using the IAASTD framework and buildingupon previous regional assessments.

One of the principal outputs of IAASTD will be five expert and government peer-reviewed sub-global assessments of agricultural KST acceptedand approved by the Panel of participating governments, including historical lessons, plausible futuresand policy and institutional issues.

The five sub-global assessments (Central and West Asiaand North Africa; East and South Asia and the Pacific; Latin Americaand theCaribbean; North America and Europe; and Sub-Saharan Africa) will be performed at the regional, national or local scalesand will complementthe Global Assessment by examining context-specific aspectsof the Global Assessment. Each of the sub-global assessments will use the samebasic framework as theglobal assessment, i.e., the impactsof agricultural KST on rural livelihoods, nutritional security, equity, theenvironmentand human health will beevaluated in relation to both the past and the future. Thesub-global assessmentswill vary in scale from continents tocommunities, will useaconsistent methodology, cover a range of agroecological systems, and employ selection criteria that take into accountsocioeconomic and institutional conditions, and poverty mapping.

Component 4: Outreach and Communication - Outreach and communication of IAASTD findings in various media and to all stakeholders atvarious levels

The GEF Alternativewith IAASTD isa substantially enhanced capacity for informed decision-making related to interventions in theagricultural, environmental and natural resource sectors. Outreach materialsand communicationswill include:• Summaries for Decision Makers;• A web site, accessibleand usable by all stakeholders;• Findings widely published in the popular media;• Findings of IAASTD in the scienceand technology literature, conference proceedings and international conventionsThere will also be enhanced capacity globally and sub-globally to assessagricultural KST.

COSTS AND INCREMENTAL COST MATRIX

A - 10

The baseline and incremental costs of the proposed project are summarized in the following incremental cost matrix. The total incremental costof the project, US$10.76 million, is required to achieve the project’s global environmental objectives. Of this amount US$3.35 million isrequested for GEF support with the remainder coming from other donors.

INCREMENTAL COST MATRIXProject Component Baseline Alternative (Baseline +Increment) IncrementComponent 1: A frameworkfor conducting integratedassessments at local, national,regional and global scalesdeveloped, tested anddisseminated

A substantial body of past and current researchunderpins existing approaches, frameworks andmethods for assessments in theagriculture andenvironment sectors. However, they all havelimitations that make them inapplicable to the purposesof this project to support and undertake integratedscientific assessments of agriculture. Either they tendto take sets of technologies for specific purposes inagriculture, thereby being highly selective inpromoting innovations in one area only, or they surveyspecific environmental assets with little or noconnection to developmental goals. Frameworks andapproaches commonly employed, which have beenreviewed for this baseline calculation, includequantitative frameworks such as in GFRA andqualitativeas in the IPCC reports and the MA.

Cost: minimum US$ 8 million

Theproject will develop a framework forconducting integrated agriculturalassessments at local, national, regionaland global scales building upon previousassessments. It will build upon the Theglobal and sub-global assessmentswilleach have three sections: (i) HistoricalPerspectives; (ii) Plausible Futures; and(iii) Policy and Institutional Issues,addressing the overarching question:“How can we reduce hunger andpoverty, improve rural livelihoods, andfacilitate equitable, environmentally,socially and economically sustainabledevelopment through the generation,access to, and use of agriculturalknowledge, science and technology?”

Cost: US$ 8.937 million

A framework for integratedassessments of agriculturalKST for development atglobal and sub-global scales

Cost:GEF: $0.437 millionOther: S 0.500 millionTotal: US$ 0.937 million

Component 2: A globalassessment using IAASTDframework [Output of Outcome1] completed

The baseline is primarily comprised of the majorsurvey, database and assessment projects conductedworld-wide, by scientific bodies (e.g. IPCC), otherGEF-UN projects (e.g. MA) and multilateralinstitutions (GFRA – FAO). While there are nostandardised frameworks, because each assessmentaddressed a different range of issues, most of thefindings from these assessments will provide usefulinformation for some elements of the IAASTD.However, the findings from these other assessmentscannot be integrated to address the range of questions

One of the principal outputs of IAASTDwill be an expert and government peer-reviewed global assessment ofagricultural KST accepted and approvedby the Panel of participatinggovernments, including historicallessons, plausible futures and policy andinstitutional issues, which take intoaccount enabling conditions andcontextual issues that affect thegeneration, use, accessibility and

Global assessment ofagricultural KST fordevelopment.Cost:GEF: US$1.238 millionOther: US$0.135 millionTotal: US$1.373 million

A - 11

being addressed in the IAASTD. In most cases, thescope of theassessments has been limited, i.e., theyhave not been multi-thematic or multi-temporal, andhave not addressed thepolicy, institutional andresearch issues as proposed for IAASTD.Furthermore, in most cases they are not adequatelylinked with policy and decision-making processes, andnone havea governancestructure that fully involvesthe full range of stakeholders.Cost: minimum US$ 50 million

effectiveness of agricultural KST. Thiswill build upon and complementprevious assessments.

Cost: US$ 51.373 million

Component 3: Five sub-global assessments usingIAASTD framework arecompleted, and national,regional, and local integratedassessments arecatalyzed bythe IAASTD process

Existing surveys at local, national and regional levelsof many agriculture-related topics arecommonplaceand form the basis for assessments of specific subjectareas of concern, such as land degradation and loss ofbiodiversity and land cover. They form a baseline forIAASTD in knowledge, scienceand technology.However, they are not using a standardised framework,thescope of the assessments has been limited, i.e., theyhave not been multi-thematic, multi-spatial or multi-temporal, and have not addressed thepolicy,institutional and research issues as proposed forIAASTD, and are not generally integrated with socialand economic issues. In particular, it isdifficult to useexisting assessments to make significant contributionsto delivering sustainable development and forachieving MDGs. Furthermore, most are notadequately linked with policy and decision-makingprocesses. Nevertheless, they will provide usefulinformation and data sources for the IAASTD.

Cost: US$ 30.0 million

One of the principal outputs of IAASTDwill be fiveexpert and government peer-reviewed sub-global assessments ofagricultural KST accepted and approvedby the Panel of participatinggovernments, including historicallessons, plausible futures and policy andinstitutional issues. Thiswill build uponand complement previousand ongoingassessments. The five sub-globalassessments will be performed at theregional, national or local scales and willcomplement the Global Assessment byexamining context-specific aspects of theGlobal Assessment. Each of the sub-global assessments will use the samebasic framework as the globalassessment, i.e., the impacts ofagricultural KST on rural livelihoods,nutritional security, equity, theenvironment and human health will beevaluated in relation to both the past andthe future. The sub-global assessmentswill vary in scale from continents tocommunities, will usea consistentmethodology, cover a range of agro-ecological systems, and employ selection

Five sub-global assessmentsof agricultural KST fordevelopment taking intoaccount enabling conditionsand contextual issues thatdirectly affect the generation,use, accessibility andeffectiveness of agriculturalKST.

Cost:GEF: US$ 1.092 millionOthers: US$ 1.700 millionTotal: US$2.792 million

A - 12

criteria that take into account socio-economic and institutional conditions,and poverty mapping.Cost: US32.792 million

Component 4: Outreach andCommunication of IAASTDfindings in various mediaand toall stakeholders at various levels

Existing outreach and dissemination of agriculturalKST and the findings of the above-mentionedassessments related to agriculture is sporadic.Nevertheless, therehavebeen notable communicationsof someassessments such as the IAC, IPCC, WOCATand GLASOD which have informed global policydecisions and alerted decision makers to problems inland use and natural resource management. Regionalcentres, including those of the CGIAR, withenvironmental assessment capacity currently play animportant role in disseminating information on howagricultural practices impact on hunger, poverty andtheenvironment. International institutions similarlyhave disseminated the results of their assessments.However, in most cases the scope of theassessmentshas been limited, i.e., they havenot been multi-thematic, multi-spatial or multi-temporal, hence so isthe information they communicate. A major strengthof the IAASTD is the involvement of all relevantstakeholders in the design, preparation, and peer-review of agricultural KST, thus ensuring ownership ofthe findings, and the ability of those involved tocommunicate the results to colleagueswithin their ownnetworks.Cost: US$ 25 million

TheGEF Alternative with IAASTD is asubstantially enhanced capacity forinformed decision-making related tointerventions in the agriculture,environment and natural resource sector.It will build upon and utilizeexistingcommunications networks. There willalso beenhanced capacity globally andsub-globally to assessagricultural KST.

Cost: US$26.713 million

Outreach materials will bedeveloped and disseminatedthat includeSummaries forDecision-Makers, a web-siteand widely publishedoutputs. In addition, capacitywill havebeen built toundertake IAASTDassessments of national andlocal agricultural KST.Cost:GEF: US$ 0.433 millionOthers: US$ 1.280 millionTotal: US$1.713 million

Project Management andAdministration

No suitable management structure for such a projectcurrently exists

Cost:: US$ 0

Project management and co-ordination

Cost: US$3.945 million

Cost:GEF: US$0.150 millionOthers: US$ 3.795 millionTotal: US$3.945 million

TOTAL COST: Baseline: US$ 113 million Alternative: US$ 123.76 million Incremental Cost:GEF: US$3.350 millionOthers: US$7.410 millionTotal: US$10.760 million

A - 13

B - 1

ANNEX B: PROJECT LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

PROJECT TITLE: International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD)

INTERVENTION LOGICINDICATORS OF PERFORMANCE SOURCES OF

VERIFICATION ASSUMPTIONS ANDRISKS

OVERALL GOAL

ENVIRONMENTAL:To deliver global environmental benefits inbiodiversity conservation and itssustainableuse in agricultural systems;reduced emissionsof greenhousegasesfrom agricultural systems; reducedvulnerability of ecological systemstoclimatechange; reduced land degradationand improved quality of internationalwaters impacted by agricultural systems.

To catalyzewidespread adoption ofcomprehensiveagricultural managementpractices that benefit theenvironment

DEVELOPMENTAL:To managenatural and agricultural systemsacrossproduction landscapesand sectorsand political and administrativeboundarieswithin thecontext of sustainabledevelopment

To integrateecological, economic, andsocial goals to achieve multipleandcrosscutting local, national, and globalbenefits.[OP12]

• Appropriatepolicies, regulations, incentivestructures,aredeveloped to support integrated natural resourceandagricultural management

• Thecapacity of institutionsstrengthened to design andimplement integrated management approaches

• Investments aremade to address local, national, andglobal environmental issueswithin thecontext ofsustainabledevelopment

[adapted OP 12 Expected Outcomes]

• Improvement of agricultural productivity undersustainablemanagement, enhancing the livelihoodsofproducers

[adapted OP15 Expected Outcome]

plusspecific to agricultural systems addressed by IAASTD:• Overall rateof natural resource loss and land

degradation reduced• Overall landscapebiodiversity enhanced both in areas of

land useand in protected areas• Rateof soil, runoff and nutrient lossesreduced• Contamination and eutrophication of fresh watersand

contamination of soilsdiminished• Rateof greenhousegasemissionsreduced, and more

carbon fixed from agricultural systems

• Reportsof relevantinternationalconventions(UNCCD, UNFCC &UNCBD);

• Reportsofinternationalorganizations(FAO,UNEP, etc.);

• Sustainabledevelopment surveysand reviews;

• National economicsurveysand plans;

• GEF OperationalProgram reviews;

• National institutionalpolicy and practice.

Improved informationand knowledgedoes inaggregate lead to bettermanagement decisions.

Continuing work by GEFIAsand EAs to assistcountries to deliver globalenvironmental benefitsfor agricultural systemsand to mainstreamIAASTD information intotheir regular programsand activities.

Strong countrycommitment toagricultural managementthat contributes tosustainabledevelopmentand poverty reduction.

[plusother risksidentified in OPs1, 2, 3,4, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 & 15

B - 2

To contribute to improving people’slivelihoods, food security and economicwell-being. [OP15]

carbon fixed from agricultural systems Program Assumptions]

PROJECT OBJECTIVES (PURPOSES)1. [Assess and useinformation andknowledge] Assess, quantifyand analyse how agriculturalknowledge, science andtechnology can improvelivelihoods, improvenutritional security and assistpoverty reduction at global,regional, national and localscales.

By the end of the project:• Global and sub-global assessments (using a common framework) of the

role of agricultural KST peer reviewed by all stakeholder groups andaccepted by the Plenary of participating governments

• Assessments at global and sub-global levels made intellectually coherent• IAASTD outputs used in other assessments (e.g. global land cover change,

GFRA, etc.)• IAASTD outputs will provide robust information for decision makers in all

stakeholder groups to assist in reducing hunger and poverty, improvingrural livelihoods and health, increasing incomes, and facilitating equitable,environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development

• Project reports;• National impact

assessment reports;• Global and sub-

global reports;• Global land cover

change assessments;• Other assessments

(e.g., GEO, IPCC,GFRA).

• Countrycommitment.

• Access to data,surveys andinformation sources.

• Involvement ofinternationalscientificcommunity, allrelevant stakeholdersand localcommunities.

2. [Capacity building]Build sub-global and globalassessment capacities toundertake integratedscientific assessments ofagricultural KST, and tobuild ownership toimplement action based uponthe evidence in theassessments.

By end of the project, capacity to:• Conduct integrated scientific assessments to understand the

contribution of agricultural KST in:i. Poverty and hunger reduction

ii. Improvement of rural livelihoods and healthiii. Increasing incomesiv. Equitable and environmentally, socially and

economically sustainable development• Provide information to decision makers in all relevant

stakeholder groups through:i. Multi-stakeholder involvement and participation,

especially of consumers, governments, NGOs, private sector,producers, scientific community, international agencies

• Nationalenvironmental andagricultural reports;

• National, regionaland globalinstitutional policies;

• Best practiceguidelines andimplementationplans;

• Technical manualsand guidance notes;

• Participatory surveys

• Participating groupsand institutionscontinue to assignstaff.

• Communication andexchange ofinformation.

B - 3

• Communicateand exchangeagricultural KST and link topolicy processesand decision-making, through:

i. Presentationsat international scientific meetings, suchas theCGIAR meetings, and environmental conventions (UNCBD,UNCCD, Ramsar, UNFCCC)

ii. Improved GEF and cosponsoring agency projectdesign

iii. Identification of priority options for action, such aspolicy and institutional reformsand research and developmentinvestments

* aglobal assessment and fivesub-global assessments (Sub-Saharan Africa,East and South Asiaand thePacific, Latin Americaand theCaribbean, Centraland West Asiaand North Africa, and Europeand North America).

• Implementationproject plans.

OUTCOMES AND ACTIVITIESN.B. All 4 Outcomes integrate the two ObjectivesINTERVENTION LOGIC STEPS AND CRITICAL CONDITIONS SOURCES OF

VERIFICATION ASSUMPTIONS ANDRISKS

OUTCOME 1A framework forconducting integratedassessments at local,national, regional andglobal scales

By conclusion of the Integrated Global and Sub-global Design Team Meeting(Month 5), a framework developed for theassessment of agricultural KST thatencompasseshistorical perspectives, futurescenariosand institutionsand policies:• Historical lessons

⇒ Analysisof existing knowledge to determine factors responsible for successesand failures in theuseof agricultural KST

⇒ Integration of analysisby region, farm scale, typeof technology, all in thecontext of sustainabledevelopment

⇒ A critical retrospectiveof producer and consumer responses to local andinstitutional agricultural KST

⇒ An analysisof institutionsand policies; and effectson theenvironment, health,poverty, equity and nutritional security

⇒ An analysisof the rateof return on investments in agricultural KST• Plausible Futures:

• World Bank-UNEP-GEFreportsandmanuals;

• Conferencepapers to majorforumssuch asGEF Assembly,COPs ofUNCCD;

• Scientific papersin relevantjournalsandinternational

• Availability ofrelevant scientificand multi-disciplinaryexpertiseat national,regional and globallevels.

B - 4

⇒ Futurescenarios for agricultural production (crop, livestock, fishery, forest, fiber,biomass)

⇒ Scenarios for demand and trade for agricultural commodities⇒ Scenarios to 2050 for soils, land use, in thecontext of demographic, climatic,

ecological, economic, cultural, socio-political and technological projections• Policy and Institutional Issues:

⇒ Relevance, quality and effectivenessof agricultural KST⇒

ffectivenessof public and privatesector policiesand institutions⇒ In thecontext of hunger and poverty reduction; improvement of rural

livelihoodsand incomes; protection of theenvironment (water, land use, soils,biodiversity, atmosphere; equitable, socially and economically sustainabledevelopment; human health, nutrition and food safety/security

internationalmedia.

B - 5

INTERVENTION LOGIC STEPS AND CRITICAL CONDITIONS SOURCES OFVERIFICATION ASSUMPTIONS AND

RISKS

OUTCOME 2A global assessmentusing the IAASTDframework [Output ofOutcome1]

By Month 30, the global assessment report is completed; accepted andapproved by the Panel of Participating governments. Thereport has thefollowing characteristics:¾ demand driven, with all stakeholder groups involved in the scoping,

preparation, peer-review, outreach and communication;¾ processopen, transparent, representative, and legitimate, with well

defined principlesand procedures;¾ local and indigenous knowledge (often informal), aswell as formal

scientific knowledge incorporated asappropriate;¾ findingsand analyses technically accurateand evidence-based, not

value-based;¾ policy relevant but not policy prescriptive, i.e. provide options rather

than recommendations;¾ presentsdifferent pointsof view, and quantifies, wherepossible, the

uncertainties.

• Minutesof Inter-governmentalPlenary Panel;

• Global assessmentreport;

• Conferencepapers tomajor internationalforums;

• Scientific papers inrelevant journalsandinternational media.

• Availability ofrelevant scientificand multi-disciplinaryexpertiseat national,regional and globallevels;

• No unforeseentechnical orlogistical difficulties.

B - 6

INTERVENTION

LOGIC

STEPS AND CRITICAL CONDITIONS SOURCES OFVERIFICATION ASSUMPTIONS AND

RISKS

OUTCOME 3Five sub-globalassessments using theIAASTD framework arecompleted.

By Month 30, five sub-global assessments are completed; and the reports areaccepted and approved by the Panel of Participating Governments using theframework below:• Historical lessons• Plausible Futures• Policy and Institutional Issues[all with sameprocessof assessment asat global level – Outcome 2]

• Minutes of Inter-governmentalPlenary Panel;

• Sub-globalassessment reports;

• Conference papers tomajor internationalforums.

• Availability of localprofessionals fortraining and capacitybuilding;

• Enablingenvironment createdby nationalinstitutions;

• Policy-makers at alllevels able andwilling to enterdialogue onagricultural KST;

• No unforeseentechnical orlogistical difficulties.

INTERVENTION

LOGIC

STEPS AND CRITICAL CONDITIONS SOURCES OFVERIFICATION

ASSUMPTIONS ANDRISKS

OUTCOME 4Outreach andcommunication ofIAASTD findings invarious media and to allstakeholders

By end of the project, outreach materials and communications to include:• Summaries for decision makers:• A web-site, accessible and usable by all stakeholders• Findings of IAASTD widely published in the popular media• Findings of IAASTD in the science and technology literature, conference

proceedings and international conventionsBy end of project, capacity built to assess agricultural KST at national andregional levels, with decision makers intimately involved with assessmentprocesses

• User surveys• Web-site usage• Citations of

IAASTD inliterature

• Records ofinternationalconventions

• Plans and policiesof participatinggovernments

• Stakeholders havesufficient accessand continuinginterest to useIAASTD outputs

• Staff use andintegrate IAASTDinformation intoplanning anddecision making.

B - 7

ACTIVITIES BY COMPONENTS ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS

Component 1: Development of Framework1. Nomination and selection of Design Team members2. Global and sub-global Design Team meetings2. Preparation of framework for approval by Bureau

Leading expertsarewilling to becomeengaged in the IAASTD process;key institutionsnominateexperts.

Membersof theDesign Teamshave the technical capacity and vision toprepareapractical framework for conducting the IAASTD.

OECD governments, organizationsand institutionsarewilling to financeparticipation of their experts, and thoseexpertsareable to participate.

Component 2: Global Assessment1. Nomination of authors2. Selection of authors3. Preparation of chapters4. Two-step peer review by expertsand governments5. Accepted and approved by governments

Key users arewilling to participate in nominating process for authorsand peer reviewers.

Leading expertsarewilling to becomeengaged in the IAASTD process;key institutionsnominateexperts.

OECD governments, organizationsand institutionsarewilling to financeparticipation of their experts, and thoseexpertsareable to participate.

Component 3: Sub-global Assessments1. Nomination of authors2. Selection of authors3. Preparation of chapters4. Two-step peer review by expertsand governments5. Accepted and approved by governments

Key users arewilling to participate in nominating process for authorsand peer reviewers.

Leading expertsarewilling to becomeengaged in the IAASTD process;key institutionsnominateexperts.

OECD governments, organizationsand institutionsarewilling to financeparticipation of their experts, and thoseexpertsareable to participate.

Component 4: Outreach and Communication1. Publication of reports2. Availability of reportson web site (www.agassessment.org) and in hard copies3. Targeted outreach to key user groups4. Monitoring of uptakeof IAASTD products

The IAASTD Report isaccessibleand relevant to mediaand primaryusers.

An effectivestrategy isdeveloped which makes theoutputswidelyavailable in appropriate formatsand languages to all stakeholder groups,

B - 8

who in turn disseminateeffectively through their own networks.

B - 9

Component 5: Coordination and Oversight1. Selection of Secretariat staff2. Selection of IAASTD Co-chairsand vice-chairs3. Meetingsof Panel of Participating Governmentsand Advisory Bureau

The institutional arrangements (Panel, Advisory Bureau, Secretariat andmanagement entities) function in awell-coordinated, effectiveandharmoniousmanner.

Leading expertsarewilling to chair the IAASTD process.

C-1

ANNEX C: STAP ROSTER TECHNICAL REVIEW

Response to STAP Roster Reviewer – Vernon Heywood The review by Vernon Heywood was extremely positive and recommended GEF funding. Indeed, most of the review simply endorsed the approach taken. However, Vernon raised a number of issues that have been dealt with in the revised proposal. Reviewer comment on the global priority of the project in regard to biodiversity: • The aim of producing such an assessment is both timely and laudable, but is at the

same time an enormously complex and ambitious enterprise. Two factors make such an assessment particularly difficult. The first is the fact that in most parts of the world agriculture is in transition, involving intensification, modernization and expansion, and the consequences for biodiversity at all levels, both above ground and below ground, need to be carefully analyzed and assessed. How far this intensification can be carried out in a sustainable manner that will meet the demands for increased food production for a growing population and at the same time not lead to unacceptable impacts on agricultural and natural landscapes is one of the greatest challenges facing the world today. The project aims not only to achieve nutritional security but at the same time reverse, rather than reduce, limit or halt, environmental degradation which is a somewhat optimistic and probably unrealistic overall goal5. The second is the consequences of global change – demographic, land use and disturbance regime and climatic – on production systems, the biodiversity of both agricultural and natural landscapes and the livelihood of the communities who inhabit them or are dependent on them. In addition, it will have to consider the much debated issue of agricultural biotechnology, its potential to address the needs of the world’s poor and food-insecure, and its health and environmental impacts, not to mention public attitudes (FAO 2004).

Response: • We agree that the project is timely and laudable, but at the same time an

enormously complex and ambitious enterprise. • The IAASTD will carefully assess: (as noted in the indicative questions for the

Assessment): o the consequences for biodiversity as agriculture transitions through

intensification, modernization and expansion. o the extent to which intensification can occur sustainably (i.e., not result in

adverse impacts on agricultural and natural landscapes) and still meet the demands for increased production.

o the implications of global change on production systems, the biodiversity of both agricultural and natural landscapes and the livelihood of the communities.

1 Just as Pearce (2004) has recently commented about economic growth in general, agricultural development need not necessarily lead to a degradation of the natural environment, but nor is it politically realistic to go to the other extreme of postulating a sustainable agriculture in which increased production, environmental improvement and social equity are necessarily compatible. As he says, there are and will be trade offs.

C-2

o the much debated issue of agricultural biotechnologies, their potential to address the needs of the world’s poor and food-insecure populations, and the affects of these technologies on health and environmental.

Reviewer comments on the adequacy of project design: • The project document is well produced (although a bit repetitious

in places) and satisfies the detailed requirements of GEF such as rationale and objectives, baseline scenarios and logframe analysis. The context is clearly presented. It has clearly benefited from the long process of prior consultation in setting up the IAASTD, as noted above, and much of the documentation presented is taken from the IAASTD, especially the Optional Annexes.

Response: • No response needed. Reviewer comment: • A weakness is the failure to clarify the functional relationship

between the GEF project and the IAASTD. For example, if the GEF funding requested were not to be agreed, IAASTD would presumably still go ahead, albeit with some changes and alternative funding sources sought. This is confirmed in Decision 8 Approach for financial contributions of the First IAASTD Plenary meeting to seek contributions ‘from the co-sponsoring agencies (FAO, UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO, World Bank, WHO), the GEF, governments, foundations, regional development banks and civil society, including the private sector’(Annex E p.6).

In fact, the main area of weakness in the project presentation is the justification/rationale for GEF funding. Paragraph 46 on the rationale does not really address the issue of GEF funding per se other than saying it will provide global benefits in biodiversity conservation in agricultural systems. Paragraph 57 notes that ‘GEF resources will be critical to supporting the environmental aspects of the initiative … and will be used, inter-alia, to support developing country participation’ while Paragraph 33 notes that without GEF financial support, it is highly unlikely that the environmental issues would be addressed in detail (repeated also on p. A-2). On page A – 3 it is stated that ‘Without GEF funding, the IAASTD will not be able to move beyond the conventional approach to agricultural assessments, which tend to focus on production’. Apart from this unsupported generalization about agricultural assessments6, there seems to be a lack of logic here as the implication would be that the co-sponsors and partners in the IAASTD, who make it clear that an environmental dimension is essential, would adopt a restricted approach to the assessment and exclude environmental issues unless GEF money was forthcoming. This is surely not so.

The statement on p. A-4, that ‘Under the GEF alternative IAASTD will assess in depth the impact of agricultural knowledge, science and technologies on the environment … Hence, with GEF funding the environmental as well as developmental (sic) aspects of agriculture will be addressed…’ is almost tautological and does not contrast clearly with the baseline scenario described (p. A-3 seq.).

2 It is not clear to which agricultural assessments these strictures refer.

C-3

An analysis of the baseline components (p. A-4 seq.) does however reveal significant differences from the GEF alternative such as the absence of a standardized framework, a narrower thematic focus, poor outreach and communication. The project document draws attention to the difficulties of calculating the baseline scenario and follows the procedures used in previous global assessments supported by the GEF. It states (p. A-2) that no assessment of agricultural knowledge science and technology (KST) at global and sub-global level has been attempted that fully integrates environmental concerns with those of productivity, livelihoods and human health. While this in undoubtedly correct, it is also the case that no previous global assessment of KST of any sort has been made although some assessments of subsectors related to agriculture contain relevant elements (p. A-3). The Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO 1996) is surprisingly omitted from the list of international and global projects that contribute to the relevant baseline.7

Response: • These comments have been responded to by adding additional

paragraphs #33 and 35 to complement paragraph #34 on the consequences of continuing the baseline conditions, and paragraphs #50 and 51 to complement paragraph #49 under rationale for GEF funding.

• Paragraph 33: While a number of global assessments of sub-

sectors related to agriculture are available and form part of the baseline of this project, no assessment of agricultural KST at global and sub-global levels has previously been attempted that fully integrates environmental concerns with those of productivity, livelihoods and human health. All previous assessments have limitations for the purpose of this project, which is an integrated scientific assessment of the role of agricultural KST in development. Either they tend to take sets of technologies for specific purposes in agriculture (e.g. soil conservation – WOCAT framework), thereby being highly selective in promoting innovations in one area only, or they survey specific environmental assets with little, if any connection to developmental goals. Frameworks and approaches commonly employed, which have been reviewed for the IAASTD, include quantitative frameworks such as in GFRA and qualitative as in the IPCC reports and the MA. The most relevant framework for the IAASTD is the MA, which linked drivers to ecosystem services to human well being. It is not surprising that there are no standardised frameworks, because each assessment addressed a different range of issues. However, most of the findings from these assessments will provide useful information for some elements of the IAASTD. However, the findings from these other assessments cannot be integrated to address the range of questions being addressed in the IAASTD. In most cases, the scope of the assessments has been limited, i.e., they have not been multi-thematic or multi-temporal, and have not addressed the policy, institutional and research issues proposed for IAASTD. Furthermore, in most cases they are not adequately linked with policy and decision-making processes, and none have a governance structure or

7Also relevant is The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO 1998)

and the regional and national reports compiled during its preparation.

C-4

outreach and communications strategy that fully involves the full range of stakeholders.

• Paragraph 34: The IAASTD will generate environmental and development benefits at the global, regional, national and local scale. Global environmental benefits will accrue to a wide range of ecosystems and their biodiversity and soils; water quantity and quality in hydrological basins, and the climate system through improved and more sustainable functioning of agricultural systems as a result of the improved application of KST. Broad development goals will be achieved by using the knowledge generated by the IAASTD in: • Developing appropriate policies, regulations and incentive

structures to support integrated natural resource and agricultural management; • Strengthening the capacity of institutions to design and

implement integrated management approaches; • Investing in local, national, regional and global

environmental issues within the context of sustainable agriculture; • Improving agricultural productivity under sustainable

management, enhancing the livelihoods of producers.

• Paragraph 35: The multi-thematic nature of the IAASTD is unique, i.e., the IAASTD will simultaneously address nutritional security, livelihoods, human health, and environmental sustainability. Without GEF financial support, it is highly unlikely that the global environmental issues would be addressed in such a comprehensive and integrated manner as is being proposed for the IAASTD. The IAASTD will assess how agricultural practices affect the environment and how environmental changes affect agriculture. Given that current agricultural practices (both intensification and extensification – see introduction) can adversely affect the environment, the knowledge generated through the IAASTD will allow the full range of stakeholder groups, all of whom are involved in the assessment, to design and implement more environmentally sustainable practices, recognizing there are synergies and trade-offs between and among development and environmental objectives.

• Paragraph 49: This project aims to deliver knowledge that can provide global environmental benefits in biodiversity conservation and its sustainable use in agricultural systems; reduced emissions of greenhouse gases from agricultural systems; reduced vulnerability of ecological systems to climate change; reduced land degradation and improved quality of international waters impacted by agricultural systems. This will be achieved by catalyzing widespread adoption of comprehensive agricultural management practices that benefit the environment. The findings of the IAASTD will be used to manage natural and agricultural systems across production landscapes and sectors and political and administrative boundaries within the context of sustainable development, and will contribute to improving people’s livelihoods, food security and economic well-being. A further multi-focal development aim is to integrate ecological, economic, and social goals to achieve multiple and crosscutting local, national, and global benefits.

• Paragraph 50: As noted in paragraphs 24 and 25, and Table 1, the knowledge generated through the IAASTD will make a significant contribution to the GEF goals and strategies, especially in the focal area of Biodiversity, in particular

C-5

OPs 1. Arid and Semi-Arid Zone Ecosystems; 2. Coastal, Marine, and Freshwater Ecosystems; 3. Forest Ecosystems; 4. Mountain Ecosystems and 13. Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity Important to Agriculture. It will also contribute to the focal area of Climate change, in particular adaptation to and mitigation of the effects of climate change. It will furthermore address some of the issues of the focal area Land degradation: Sustainable Land Management (OP.15), such as unsustainable agricultural practices, and the Multifocal area: Integrated Ecosystem Management (OP.12). Table 1 (p.12) lists in detail the relevance of IAASTD for all GEF operational programmes. The Project clearly addresses many of the articles and provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

• Paragraph 51: As noted earlier, the assessed knowledge developed through the IAASTD will be used by GEF client countries and GEF Implementing agencies in designing and implementing projects with global environmental benefits. The inclusion of GEFSEC, FAO, UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank in the Bureau as ex-officio members should ensure ownership of the process and findings. In addition, the Secretariats of the MEA Conventions that the GEF financially supports, i.e., CBD, CCD and UNFCCC, have been intimately involved in the design of the IAASTD.

Reviewer comment on the feasibility of implementation, management capacity and O&M: • In planning the management and implementation of this project, the IAASTD has

drawn on the experience of previous assessments such as IPCC and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment although the organizational arrangements are different from these. The project management structure is complex (Fig. 2) with a panel of participating governments, an Advisory Bureau of 62 members (consisting of 2 co-chairs, 30 government representatives, 22 non-government representatives and 8 representatives from institutions), and a distributed Secretariat and sub-global institutes. The Secretariat functions will be distributed among the World Bank (Washington DC), FAO (Rome), UNEP (Nairobi) and UNESCO (Paris) and the secretariat will provide management, oversight and coordination of the project under a Director who will provide intellectual leadership along with the IAASTD co-chairs. The Director of the Secretariat will be Dr Robert Watson who has unrivalled experience of global assessments and who will presumably be seconded from his position at the World Bank. The IAASTD is going to require a great amount of commitment and constant dedication from the management team as well as the cooperation of large numbers of experts in the subject areas of the assessment.

Of course there is no guarantee that such a structure will be successful in meeting all the objectives of the project and as the document recognizes, it is dependent on identifying and engaging the services of a large number of leading experts to design, prepare, and review the various reports, assessments and other documents, without remuneration for their time. One can only hope that such cooperation will be forthcoming although increasingly institutions across the world are under severe financial pressure and less inclined than previously to make staff time available for external commitments unless fully remunerated. There must also be concern that unlike other more circumscribed areas of assessment there may not be sufficient experts out there to deal with the issues involved in the IAASTD and this will be

C-6

compounded by the understandable requirement of fluency in English by those participating, thus limiting the number of national experts who might otherwise be involved.

Response: • While the project management structure appears complex it is less complex and

distributed than that used for either the IPCC or the MA. In addition, this distributed secretariat gains the full participation and ownership of the international agencies. As noted by the reviewer, the director of the secretariat has experience in similar initiatives, i.e., the ozone assessments, IPCC, GBA and MA, as do some other members of the secretariat.

The reviewer correctly notes that the success of the IAASTD will depend on the generosity of experts to participate in the IAASTD without financial compensation, as for example, in the ozone assessments, IPCC, GBA and MA. To date the IAASTD has had considerable success in attracting experts to participate in the regional consultations and the global and sub-global design team meetings that have been arranged. We are confident that there are adequate experts to perform and peer-review the IAASTD. We do note the specific issue of language and are assessing the feasibility of holding some of the sub-global assessments in languages other than English, but recognize that the full assessment reports will have to be in English, though the summaries will be translated into the official UN languages.

Reviewer Comments on scientific and technical soundness: • The proposed global assessment will make an in depth assessment of the impact

of agricultural knowledge, science and technologies on the environment. It comprises four main components: a framework for integrated assessments; the global assessment; sub-global assessments; and outreach and communication.

The basis of any assessment is the topics covered, the questions asked and the information gathered. The fundamental question framing the assessment is ‘How far can we reduce hunger and poverty, improve rural livelihoods, and facilitate equitable, environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development through the generation, access to, and use of agricultural knowledge, science and technology’ (p. I-1). To this end Annex I lists the questions it is intended to address, arranged according to the following sections: (a) historical perspectives, (b) a plausible range of future scenarios for agricultural production (crop, livestock, fishery, forest, fiber and biomass), demand and trade, nutritional security, and water, soil and land use between now and 2050 given a range of demographic, climatic, ecological, economic, cultural, socio-political, and technological projections, and (c) policy and institutional issues. A meeting of the global design team is scheduled for Bangkok on January 30 - Feb 3 2005 to finalize the structure of the form of the assessment and regional design teams will follow until April 2005. Further questions will undoubtedly be added once the regional design teams start their work.

This project benefits from the extensive prior preparation and consultation undertaken as part of the IAASTD process so that Annex K lists the principles and

C-7

procedures to be adopted by the assessment and Appendix 1 of this Annex details the tasks and responsibilities for the various classes of authors and reviewers. The point is made that previous agriculture assessments have not been properly structured and the first component of the project is concerned with agreeing a framework and set of standards to be adopted. This in itself is a time-consuming operation but has to be completed within a relatively short period as do the main assessment and regional assessments.

Response: • No comment needed except to note that we agree with the reviewer of the

importance of developing a framework that is useful for the global and sub-global assessments.

Reviewer comment: • Although a great deal of information on food and agriculture is regularly gathered

by organizations such as FAO, as a number of recent major projects have found much of the baseline information is simply not in a readily accessible form if available at all. For example, in the case of traditional agricultural systems, little information is recorded about the contributions made by the thousands of plant species that are cultivated locally, usually on a small scale, to household nutrition and what is known is not normally recorded in national statistics.

Response: • The IAASTD recognizes the challenges associated with documenting and

assessing local knowledge. This will be a major challenge for the sub-global assessments.

Reviewer comment: • While it may well be true that ‘assessments are most useful when they address

complex or contentious issues’ (para. 36), this very complexity raises another concern that the assessment is (deliberately) so wide-ranging and multidisciplinary and has to be achieved in such a short period of time that it will be difficult to answer some of the questions posed, simply because not enough research had yet been carried out. The proposal recognizes that the assessment will indicate gaps in knowledge and areas where further research is needed. There is in fact a serious lack of information about the contribution of the different types of agricultural systems, especially in traditional local agriculture, to food production and security and many of the issues, such as those concerning the ecosystem functioning of agricultural systems both above and below ground, are still poorly understood so that the assessment will have severe limitations in such areas. For example, many of the scientific issues of intensification of agriculture and its consequences for biodiversity have only recently become the subject of study and indeed they are the being addressed by a new proposed DIVERSITAS programme (Greening Agriculture Science Plan). There is, therefore, a risk that in some cases there may not be sufficient sound knowledge, science and technology on which to base the plausible scenarios advice or to provide the robust information that it is intended to make available to governments and other decision-makers and stakeholders.

Response:

C-8

• As the reviewer notes, the limitation of knowledge in some areas is well recognized and addressed in the proposal. The IAASTD will identify areas where information exists, but has not been adequately documented, and will also identify where scientific uncertainties will require further research. However, this situation is no different from that for other scientific issues and associated assessments, e.g., the MA and some issues addressed by the IPCC.

Reviewer comment on the identification of the global environmental benefits and/or drawbacks • There can be no doubt that a much better knowledge and understanding of the

ways in which agriculture is practiced across the world and of effectiveness of the technologies used, the policies applied and their effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and of agricultural biodiversity, will be enormously useful and so the IAASTD will, if successfully achieved, set benchmarks for national governments, the private sector and NGOs and provide governments and other stakeholders with invaluable information and advice on which to base environmentally sustainable agriculture and thereby will provide major global environmental benefits.

There should be no question of global environmental drawbacks.

Response: • Agree.

Reviewer comment on the project fit within the context of GEF goals, operational strategies, programme priorities, Council guidance and relevant conventions: • The project will make a significant contribution to the GEF goals and strategies,

especially in the focal area of Biodiversity, in particular OPs 1. Arid and Semi-Arid Zone Ecosystems; 2. Coastal, Marine, and Freshwater Ecosystems; 3. Forest Ecosystems; 4. Mountain Ecosystems and 13. Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity Important to Agriculture. It will also contribute to the focal area of Climate change, in particular adaptation to and mitigation of the effects of climate change. It will furthermore address some of the issues of the focal area Land degradation: Sustainable Land Management (OP.15), such as unsustainable agricultural practices, and the Multifocal area: Integrated Ecosystem Management (OP.12). Table 1 (p.12) lists in detail the relevance of IAASTD for all GEF operational programmes.

The Project clearly addresses many of the articles and provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Response: Agree. Reviewer comment on the regional context: • The proposed Assessment is global and additionally there will be sub-

global/regional assessments for Sub-Saharan Africa, East and South Asia and the

C-9

Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, Central and West Asia and North Africa, and Europe and North America which will ensure the involvement of regional, national and local institutions and experts.

Response: Agree. Reviewer comment on the replicability of the project: • The structure of the project is such that the methodology of the assessment and

the information and scenarios generated are designed to be applicable at regional and national levels and may well generate further and subsequent national assessment exercises. This will be facilitated by the participation by regional institutions, authors and reviewers in the assessment.

Response: • Agree. Reviewer comment on the sustainability of the project. • During the preparation of the IAASTD a wide range of stakeholders including

governments, UN and other agencies, and many other organizations and institutions, have invested considerable time and effort and this commitment should go a long way to ensuring sustainability of the project.

Although the GEF project is scheduled for a three year period (2005–7), it will adopt a historical-to- long term (2050) perspective and it is quite clear that the assessment will be only the beginning of a long term process which will continue to develop at local, national and regional levels. As with all such global initiatives, a concern must be that the assessment will soon become out of date as new data and knowledge become available, especially in an area such as this a where great deal of investigation and analysis is already underway and where there are such large gaps in our knowledge which as they are filled are likely to change our perceptions.

Response: • The IAASTD was specifically designed to involve all relevant stakeholders in the

design, preparation, peer-review, governance and outreach and communications activities in order to ensure sustainability and adoption of the findings. It is highly unlikely that the assessment findings will become irrelevant in the near future. Scientific knowledge in most areas to be covered by the assessment is changing but at a rate consistent with other areas, such as those covered by the MA and the IPCC.

SECONDARY ISSUES Reviewer comments on linkages to other focal areas: • The project is multifocal. Response: • Agree

C-10

Reviewer comments on linkages to other programmes and action plans: • The project has been designed so as to take into account and complement a large

number of other international or global programmes such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Land Degradation in Drylands, IPPC Third Assessment Report, FAO State of Food Security Reports, Global Biodiversity Assessment (see list in Annex A pp. A-3–4).

Response: • Agree Reviewer comments on stakeholder involvement. • As already noted, the project involves an unusually high degree of stakeholder

involvement. The one area, which is less clear, is the mechanism for involving people who still rely to a large extent on traditional agricultural systems. The project document states that its intention is to ground the IAASTD in regional and local concerns but how far the perspective and interests of local farmers on the ground and their households, the ultimate stakeholders, can be taken into account is a critical issue and it is significant that an urgent request for nominations so that the perspective of NGOs, farmers and rural communities can be represented on the sub-global design teams has been issued by IAASTD. Mechanisms will have to be devised so that the experience of ‘real down to earth and hands on experts’ not just academic or institutional scientists are fully involved. This will also mean that language barriers will have to be overcome because the requirement of fluency in English, otherwise many suitable people will have to be excluded from taking part in the assessment.

Response: • The reviewer has identified one of the key challenges, especially for the sub-

global assessments, i.e., to include the perspective and interests of local farmers. Local farmers were involved, to different degrees in the regional consultations. The Bureau does include civil society participants (NGOs, producers and consumers) from each region and it will be their responsibility, along with the institutes who will manage the sub-global assessments, to ensure that the concerns of local producers are taken into account. Indeed, it will be essential to involve local NGOs, producers and rural communities in the preparation of the sub-global assessments to ensure local knowledge is take into account. The IAASTD will build upon the experience of the MA.

Reviewer comment on capacity building. • The project includes provision for capacity building at regional, national and local

levels. Response: • Agree Reviewer comment on innovativeness of the project. • The project is unusual and innovative through its multidisciplinary nature,

involving not just agriculture, including extensification and intensification, but food security, livelihoods, environmental sustainability and biodiversity effects, and will

C-11

adopt a highly structured approach to assessment. Its multi-stakeholder structure is unique, including governments, international and national agencies, civil society and rural communities and because of its multi- and cross-disciplinary nature, it is co-sponsored by the World Bank, FAO, WHO and UNEP and it is expected that other agencies will also participate.

In terms of the decision making process, the IAASTD is to be an open, transparent, critical, objective, intellectually rigorous process involving experts from the various stakeholder groups while government buy-in is to be achieved through involvement from the beginning and by the panel of participating governments meeting in plenary to accept the global and sub-global assessments and approve (i.e. subjected to line-by-line discussion and agreement) the Summaries for Decision Makers. It combines, therefore intellectual and scientific independence with government involvement and ultimate approval.

Response: Agree – the governance structure and the involvement of such a wide range of stakeholders is unique. As noted by the reviewer, it will combine, therefore intellectual and scientific independence with government involvement and ultimate approval.

CONCLUSIONS OF THE REVIEWER:• The IAASTD is a highly significant, dauntingly complex initiative which without

question should be further supported by the GEF. However, while it is entirely appropriate that GEF should contribute to the funding of this project, in terms of this project brief a much clearer justification of the GEF advantage should be presented.

The IAASTD will surely be a powerful document that will serve as a benchmark for UN agencies, the CGIAR system, governments and grant-giving bodies and it will be difficult to ignore. The main challenges for the project are: • How to achieve the full cooperation and participation of all sectors and suitable

experts and not in practice limit it to those who are accustomed to play a role in such international endeavours. This is of course tied up with the issue of the use of the English language, as mentioned above;

• How to achieve such a large and complex work programme within such a remarkably short timeframe; and

• How to meet the very high expectations that the unprecedented level of sponsorship and government support have placed in the process.

The IAASTD represents a formidable challenge and GEF should play a major role in helping it achieve its goal.

Response: • Each of these comments has been addressed above.

C-12

ANNEX C1: RESPONSE TO GEF Secretariat comments in PDF-B The following paragraphs address comments made by the GEF Secretariat after submission of the PDF-B. 1. Project Design. GEF requested a detailed design of IAASTD, with description of activities, outputs, participants and clearly identified budget. Response: These elements have now been incorporated in the Full Project Proposal. As stated, the government and civil society representatives at the First Intergovernmental Plenary meeting agreed on the broad scope, structure, indicative questions, governance and management structure, timetable and budget. Global and Sub-global design teams will meet between January and April 2004 to finalize detailed chapter outlines for the IAASTD process based on the indicative questions agreed in plenary. An integrated design team comprised of about 45 members (5 from each Sub-global assessment and 20 from the Global assessments) will meet to ensure coherence between the designs of the global and sub-global assessments in May 2005. After authors are selected by the Advisory Bureau, from nominations submitted by all stakeholder groups, authors will meet to initiate first order drafts. It is anticipated the Global author team will hold their first meeting in July 2005 and a second meeting in January 2006. The sub-global teams will meet in August-September 2005 and again in January-February 2006. After the first round of government and expert peer review (April-May 2006), authors will meet to revise the global and sub-global drafts. A second round of peer review will take place during December 2006 and January 2007. Authors will meet one final time to finalise the reports to the Panel of participating governments. Governments are scheduled to meet in June 2007 to accept and approve the reports. These meetings are laid out in the IAASTD calendar attached as an Annex in the full project proposal. 2. Replicability. GEF requested a clearer picture of how the participating institutions would benefit from assessment and continue to promote activities of their own. Response:As stated in the proposal, institutional partners in each region of the world will assist with executing the sub-global assessments and engaging local scientists in project implementation. These institutions include the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) in San Jose, Costa Rica; the African Center for Technology Studies (ACTS) in Nairobi, Kenya; the National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) in Rabat, Morocco; the Centre for Applied Bioscience International (CABI), UK; and the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing, China. The involvement of these institutions will ensure the inclusion and support of regional and local capacity and ground the IAASTD in regional and local concerns. The IAASTD will build sub-global assessment capacities to undertake integrated scientific assessments of agricultural KST, and build ownership to implement action based upon the evidence in the assessments. They will also help build synergy between regions in the development of an internally consistent framework and will promote and extend linkages and partnerships that will enhance sustainable development. The sub-global institutions will benefit from experience gained in conducting scientific assessments and in liaising with the authors in their respective regions. The institutions will benefit from exposure to a larger realm of technical expertise since they will work

C-13

with countries external to their individual host institution and they will benefit from south-to-south exchanges as they work to harmonize the sub-global assessments. This design and implementation structure will allow for the needs of multiple institutions and users to be addressed and will facilitate the continuation of IAASTD endeavors at the local, regional, national and global levels. It is anticipated that the use of IAASTD outputs will spread beyond the immediate stakeholders directly involved in the project. It is likely that the experience gained during the IAASTD will result in additional sub-global assessments being performed, especially at the national and regional level. In fact anumber of governments who were present in Nairobi stated that they would use the IAASTD framework to perform national assessments as an input to the IAASTD.

3. Stakeholder involvement. GEF requested a description of stakeholder participation in the plenary and clarification of roles and responsibilities in the Assessment. Response: The project has already brought together, and will continue to bring together, the range of stakeholders (governments, GEF and their implementing agencies, the cosponsoring agencies, Multilateral Environmental Agreements (e.g., UNCBD, UNCCD, UNFCCC and Ramsar), NGOs, consumers, producers, private sector, foundations, UN agencies and the scientific community) involved in the agricultural sector. All stakeholders were involved in the regional consultations and represented on the international steering committee, which guided the consultative process. All stakeholders are represented on the multi-stakeholder Advisory Bureau and will participate in the plenary meeting, and all stakeholders are involved in the design, preparation and peer-review of the reports. Governments will accept and approve the Final Report in a Plenary to be held in June 2007.Governments and other stakeholders will participate in the IAASTD process through nominating experts to the design and author teams, and through nominating peer reviewers and editors. The Advisory Bureau will select the experts and ensure balance in gender, disciplines and geography. At the request of the First Plenary of governments (September 2004), the Bureau also approved the Principles and Procedures in December 2004.The Bureau selected two co-chairs in January 2005. The stakeholders will share views, gain a common understanding and vision for the future (present to 2050) and develop new partnerships. The IAASTD will provide robust information for decision makers on how to ensure that policies, practices and institutional arrangements further sustainable development, and the conservation of natural resources. It will have a major impact on decision makers at all levels—from the field to the international arena. The strategic approach for stakeholder involvement in the Project is based on lessons learned from the International Ozone Assessments, the Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA), International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Global Environment Outlook (GEO) process and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). These assessments demonstrated that the IAASTD must: � be conducted using an open, transparent, representative and legitimate process,

with an agreed set of Principles and Procedures;

C-14

� involve a representative set of experts from relevant stakeholder groups in the preparation of the Assessment using local and institutional knowledge;

� beintellectually and scientifically objective (peer and stakeholder reviewed), but accessible and comprehensible to non-specialists;

� incorporate capacity-building activities; and � incorporate a continuous and effective outreach and communications strategy The proposed governance structure resembles that of the IPCC, but contains an advisory Bureau similar to the MA Board of Directors. The geographically based multi-stakeholder Bureau will be comprised of 30 governments and 30 representatives from producer and consumer groups, NGOs, the private sector and international institutions, including the GEF.

4. Monitoring and Evaluation. The GEF requested a plan based on a project logframe. Response: The logframe is included as Annex B to the Executive Summary.

5. Financing Plan. The GEF requested details of financing. Response: This is included in the Executive Summary.

6. Implementing Agency fees. The GEF requested these fees be presented. Response: The Implementing Agency fee will be US$ 270,000.

7. Consultation, Coordination, Collaboration between IA, and IA and EAs. The GEF requested a description of the mechanism for consultation through the Assessment. Response: Four GEF Implementing agencies are involved as cosponsoring agencies of the IAASTD, i.e., UNEP, UNDP, WB and FAO. As noted earlier, they are all ex-officio members of the Bureau and the World Bank, FAO, UNEP and UNESCO will house the Secretariat. The World Bank will act as the Implementing Agency for IAASTD in full consultation with the other cosponsoring agencies. Collaboration will be enhanced through weekly teleconferences organized by the Director of the IAASTD Secretariat (these are already routine). These teleconferences are augmented through regular email exchange and may becomplemented by staff exchanges.

C-15