The Guiana Shield Initiative (GSI) was initiated to counter the threat of biodiversity destruction in the Guiana Shield by Asian logging companies, Canadian mining companies, and other large natural resources developers. The original idea was to organize regional co-operation to deal with this issue via, either a treaty or a convention, and/or through the establishment of a Guiana Shield Development Co-operation with a Guiana Shield Development Fund to pay for opportunity costs/ecosystem services necessary to maintain the GS ecosystem intact. To test these ideas and to see if there was a base for regional cooperation in the field of biodiversity conservation, four fact finding missions were made to the GS countries. The trips were co-financed by the Dutch Government, IUCN-NL, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). The main conclusion from these missions was that most GSI countries indeed were willing to co-operate in finding ways and means to conserve their ecosystems. However, it was advised to initiate this process externally because too many political difficulties prevented the GS countries themselves from starting the process. Hence the European Commission (EC), which had already shown great interest in the GSI, was approached to finance an attempt to organize this regional co-operation of the GS Icountries. Although in the beginning it seemed that the Commission was willing to provide financial support, it changed its financing conditions in the middle of the project application. It was decided that the Commission would only finance concrete projects and these projects should have, as a major component, poverty alleviation in accordance with the Millennium Development Goals. So the GSI was obliged to rethink and rewrite its project application. It meant that the original objective of biodiversity conservation had to be combined with the paradigms of poverty alleviation and sustainable development. At the same time the GSI approached the World Bank (WB) to start a procedure to get GEF long-term funding for the regional co-operation of the GS countries to preserve their ecosystems. Although this in the beginning looked promising it failed because the WB experienced great difficulties in organizing biodiversity conservation in one of the
GS countries. After this, the UNDP was asked to support the GSI with its GEF and EC applications. The objective was to secure GEF funding for the institutional approach while the EC would finance pilot projects to see if the concept of the GSI could be successful. With very effective support of the UNDP the GSI secured a second phase of its project co-financed by the EC, the Netherlands and the IUCN-NL. The goal of the second phase project is to promote the sustainable development of the Guiana Shield by means of an integrated eco-regional (policy, institutional and financial) management framework
1. The framework will be designed to enable the six countries of the Guiana Shield eco-region and their local communities to finance, develop, manage and benefit from their natural resources by maintaining the integrity of the ecosystems and the services they provide. During this current phase, a series of pilot projects is being implemented under the day-to-day management of the GSI Project Management Implementation Unit at the UNDP Guyana Country Office (CO) in Georgetown. The IUCN-NL is the technical implementation partner to the UNDP Guyana CO. In the short-term, the pilot projects will financially and otherwise benefit the local communities and national governments for conservation of intact forest ecosystems. It is anticipated that the global markets for ecosystem goods and services will increase over time, as these resources become more valuable to the local, regional and global communities. It is the aim of the GSI to capitalize on these emerging markets by setting up long-term agreements with various public authorities and private investors to further augment the investment made by the global community into a regional financial mechanism. It is expected that the second phase of the GSI (GSI II) will devolve into a third and final phase which will institutionalize the GSI and establish a long-term regional co-operation to develop the GS eco-region sustainably in order to guarantee the economic and social development of its population and at the same time preserve its natural richness and beauties for posterity. An important element of this institutionalization will be the establishment of a legal and/or political entity and a financial instrument which will enable the GS countries to reach these goals and objectives set by this entity. By the end of the GSI II, the GSI Project Steering Committee, which was established during GSI I and renewed during GSI II, has to decide how to institutionalize the GSI for the longer term. Some relevant questions are as follows: should the GSI opt for a governmental institutionalization or should it find a suitable alternative to that? Depending on this choice, should the GSI become a protocol under ACTO or should it establish a new legal regional instrument in the form of a convention or treaty or otherwise, or should it opt for imbedding the GSI in the programs for Latin America of one of the big international NGOs like WWF, CI, TNC or WCS? Who should be invited to take part in the discussion about these subjects? How should the newly formed institution/organization be financed: via PES, GEF, Private Funds or other ways? Refer to ‘Description of the Action EuropeAid/ENV/2006-116455/CSU’ Should a GS Sustainable Development Fund be established and if yes which kind of fund or combination of funds should be chosen: endowment, sinking fund, revolving fund? What must be the relation of the GSI with the CBD, UNFCCC or other related conventions? In order to facilitate this discussion it is necessary to compile a document which contains the basic knowledge necessary to make a well considered and justified choice and decision. A thorough desk study is needed to compile this document. | 