Brazilian biodiversity fund funbio annual report
Biodiversity in the Year 2000
Download 296.84 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Background
- Mission
- Organization
Biodiversity in the Year 2000According to data from Conservation International, among the 17 richest countries in biological diversity in the world, Brazil is far and away in first place, with 23% of all the species on the planet. With regard to implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the year 2000 was marked by major progress in the agreements. January witnessed the signing of the International Biosafety Protocol during a meeting convened by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in Montreal. In addition, the 5th Conference of the Parties, held in Nairobi, Kenya, determined that this organization’s work thenceforth be oriented according to the principles of the Ecosystem Approach, aimed at integrated management of land, water, and biological resources. The year 2000 was one of unmistakable growth in the awareness of, and commitment towards, the protection of wild areas and biological diversity. Still, this increased awareness proved insufficient to stop the massive loss of forests or the greatest crisis in species extinction that the world has ever witnessed. Progress was limited to the sphere of treaties, while the planet’s biological diversity has continued to suffer aggression from both large-scale environmental accidents and the prioritization of economic policies over environmental and social ones. The debate on the merits of economic globalization and the best way to ensure human and ecological progress in the coming decades permeated the year 2000. A study sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) on the basic causes of the loss of biological diversity concluded that poverty plays a central role in this process: ecological and social problems are interconnected and fuel each other. In addition, the excessive concentration of wealth characterizing modern economic systems generates further poverty and environmental decline Responsibility for the planet’s current health– including its biological diversity – and that of its human inhabitants continued to be divided unequally among rich and poor nations. For example, the United Nations Conference on Climate Change held in 2000 in the Hague, Netherlands, was intended to establish rules for carbon gas emissions in the atmosphere, the main factor in the greenhouse effect. However, the United States, Japan, and Canada, the largest polluters, refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which thus continues to lack legal force. The conclusion of the Biosafety Protocol – a multilateral agreement ruling on biosafety conditions for trade in genetically modified organisms – was an important step in 2000. The United Nations Environment Fund (UNEP) convened a meeting in Montreal, Canada, in January, and after five days of negotiations, representatives from 138 attending countries finally passed the Protocol. The subsequent phase will be the implementation of the agreement. The issue is controversial, since there is both heavy pressure for free trade in transgenic products and a lack of information on the impact of these products on both the environment and human health. At the 5th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP5), held in Nairobi, one of the key decisions was to orient work thenceforth based on the Principle of the Ecosystem Approach. This principle provides for a broad association between local and public interests, as well as a due appreciation of natural systems and their services. Based on the hierarchical nature of biological diversity, i.e., interaction among genes, species, and the ecosystem, the Principle should be implemented by adaptive practices, taking into account gaps in knowledge and the complex nature and dynamics of ecosystems and social factors. Another international development spawned by the COP5 was the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), the first global assessment of ecosystems, intended to focus on goods and services, anthropic pressure, and other forms of pressure that are jeopardizing ecosystems throughout the planet. The idea is to gather scientific information on ecosystems over the course of four years as material for the meetings of the Conference of the Parties and thus help back its decisions. During the year 2000, implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Brazil reflected the international scenario. There was real progress in establishing environmental policies, like the Provisional Measure regulating access to genetic heritage, the creation of a large number of Private Natural Heritage Reserves, mobilization of organizations from civil society for major ecological causes, and the success of environmental programs like the one to protect the golden lion tamarin, salvaging this species from the near-extinct category. But while there was progress, the year 2000 was also marked by major environmental accidents, like the oil spill in Guanabara Bay and the increased deforestation of the Amazon. One of the main breakthroughs in 2000 was the Provisional Measure on access to genetic heritage, intended to regulate the issue until an Act of Law has been passed by the Brazilian Congress. The measure was a significant step in efforts to control access to Brazil’s genetic heritage. Another important Provisional Measure signed in late 2000 corrected distortions in the role and responsibilities of the CTNBio (National Technical Commission on Biosafety) providing a better definition of the role of the environment in this area. Plans for the year 2001 include a review of this Provisional Measure and the creation of a governing board for genetic heritage in Brazil. In 2000, a Congressional Committee also attempted to amend the Brazilian Forestry Code (Federal Act # 4.771/65) in such a way as to expand deforestation in all of Brazil’s ecosystems. The reaction was a huge outcry by Brazilian society, effectively blocking the amendment, forcing the Federal government to turn the resolution negotiated by CONAMA (the National Environment Council) with several organized sectors of society into a Provisional Measure. The text is still in force through Provisional Measure 2.080-62, which is up for review in 2001. In drafting its bills of law, the Brazilian Administration has consulted the public in order to involve society n the definition of a national biodiversity policy. This consultation process has involved nongovernmental organizations, researchers, companies, and other sectors of society. The results are now being consolidated and should be made public during the year 2001. Another government measure was a series of regional seminars organized by PROBIO in an effort to identify and establish priority measures for the conservation of biological diversity in Brazilian biomes. These workshops had a participatory format and the results were consolidated in publications representing an important set of back-up material for public policy-making in the environmental area. The legislative domain also included the creation of the National Forest Program (Decree # 3.420). Its objectives include encouraging the sustainable use of native and planted forests, promoting reforestation activities, recovering permanently protected forests or ones belonging to legal reserves or altered areas, supporting the economic and social initiatives of forest peoples, combating illegal deforestation and predatory extraction of forest products and by-products, and encouraging the protection of biological diversity and forest ecosystems. In addition, the Jaú National Park in the State of Amazonas and the Pantanal (Wetlands) Complex in the States of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do Sul, encompassing the Pantanal Matogrossense National Park and the Dorochê, Acurizal, and Penha Private Natural Heritage Reserves were recognized by UNESCO as Natural Heritage of Humanity. The Brazilian proposal was passed by the World Heritage Committee during a meeting held in Cairns, Australia. Brazil now has five areas classified as Natural Heritage of Humanity and another nine as Cultural Heritage of Humanity, a major triumph for the preservation of biological diversity. 3. FUNBIO BackgroundFUNBIO seeks a different scope of activity, distinguishing it from other national environmental funds and allowing it to achieve its objectives with standards of excellence.Founded in 1995, the Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO) is a nonprofit private organization whose objective is to complement government actions for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in Brazil, in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity and the National Biodiversity Program (PRONABIO). Based on the premises of conservation of the planet’s biological heritage and the search for solutions to other global problems, the Global Environmental Facility – GEF – was created with the objective of funding environmental projects around the world. In 1995 the Brazilian Ministry of the Environment received a donation from the GEF for the conservation of biological diversity in the country. FUNBIO was created to manage a portion of this funding and received US$ 20 million. A condition for the donation made through the World Bank was that an efficient and transparent promotional mechanism be established, capable of attracting the private sector as a partner in achieving the Fund’s objectives. The funding received from the GEF was thus to be supplemented by fundraising from different sources in order to ensure the Fund´s continuity in the long term. Previously linked to the Getúlio Vargas Foundation, FUNBIO changed addresses in 2000, conquering its own space and dealing with the complex task of institutional reorganization. FUNBIO´s incubation process inside the Getúlio Vargas Foundation was crucial to its consolidation. The Fund succeeded in establishing its autonomy by demonstrating its management capability in both the projects themselves and with the financial resources provided by the GEF and its partners. MissionAs its vision for the future, FUNBIO intends to establish itself as a private fund with resources from different sources and in sufficient volume to support actions that serve as a reference for biological diversity.FUNBIO’s work involves identifying, raising, potentiating, and distributing financial and material resources as well as creating the conditions for participation by civil society in the process of conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. This mission is part of a vision of the future, aimed at guaranteeing that the funds raised from various sources always be sufficient to contribute significantly in supporting projects which, if fully implemented, will serve as a reference for actions in conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. FUNBIO encourages the development of environmentally and financially sustainable projects. This goal has been achieved by establishing expert professional relations with the Fund’s partners. The credibility achieved through the competent management of resulting funds allows FUNBIO to establish partnerships and receive donations from companies and other institutions interested in joining efforts for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in Brazil. The Fund’s target public consists of the business community, nongovernmental organizations with relevant projects for the conservation and sustained use of biological diversity, and local communities benefiting from these actions. OrganizationFUNBIO operates in an agile, streamlined, flexible, transparent, and effective way, stimulating the development of ecologically and socially sustainable projects and involving civil society in the process. FUNBIO is led by a Governing Council consisting of 28 individuals who occupy outstanding positions in various sectors of society and involved in the biodiversity issue in Brazil. Council members are representatives of nongovernmental environmental organizations, private companies, and renowned Brazilian academic institutions, in addition to four members of government from the Ministry of the Environment. The Fund is operated by an Executive Committee, six Technical Commissions, and an Executive Secretariat, which currently includes a team of 15 professionals from various fields. Governing Council It is up to the Governing Council to define FUNBIO’s overall action policy and priorities, in addition to directly promoting projects. The Council is divided into two chambers (voting members and alternate members). Members of the Governing Council also belong to the Executive Committee and the Technical Commissions. Executive Committee Consisting of the president and vice-president of the Governing Council and the coordinators of the Technical Commissions, with a total of seven members, the Executive Committee is the coordinating body for the work of the Commissions, besides supervising and orienting the work of the Executive Secretariat. Technical Commissions The Commissions serve to analyze, orient, monitor, and evaluate, together with the Council and Executive Secretariat of FUNBIO, and are organized according to specific areas of expertise: Planning and Strategy, Promotion, Fundraising, Finances and Auditing, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Biological Prospecting. Executive Secretariat The Executive Secretariat implements FUNBIO’s strategy and work program, involving both its technical and administrative/financial aspects, meanwhile providing back-up and resource materials for the Governing Council’s decisions in the form of proposals, analyses, and information. The Secretariat is currently divided into an executive directorate, two coordinating divisions for promotion, an administrative department, a financial department, an information department, and a secretariat of collegiate bodies. Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2012 2012 -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? 2012 -> Aa and na members Dying from Tobacco 2012 -> [Baby Crying] 01: 04 [Ching 2012 -> Unit Name / Nom de l’unité uic / ciu dates 2012 -> What We Owe Jehovah’s Witnesses 2012 -> Oceans Challenge Badge 2012 -> Canadian cycling olympians 2012 -> Greg landry, june olkowski and tom lysiak 2012 -> William goldman 2012 -> Does translocation and restocking confer any benefit to the European eel population? A review Download 296.84 Kb. Share with your friends:
|