By Haider Rizvi
CURITIBA, Brazil, Mar 24 2006 (IPS)

The United States’ intention to partially withdraw its financial support for global efforts to protect the environment is worrying experts and policymakers attending a major international conference here on biodiversity.

As negotiations over funding for the implementation of the U.N. Convention on Biodiversity continue this week, many fear that if the U.S. scales back its contribution to the Global Environment Facility (GEF), other donor countries might follow suit.

“The worst case scenario is that if the U.S. lowers its funding, everyone else will do the same,” Mario Ramos, a senior biodiversity specialist at GEF, told IPS.

If that happens, “the situation will be really difficult because a lot of environmental problems will increase,” he said, “If we can’t keep the current level of funding, it will be really difficult to implement the Convention.”

Established 15 years ago, the GEF provides grants to developing countries for projects that benefit the environment and promote sustainable livelihoods. Since then, it has distributed over four billion dollars in grants and generated more than five billion dollars in funding.

For many years, Washington supported the GEF, but last November, U.S. representatives told the 32-member body that it might not be able to sustain the current level of funding. If approved, a budget proposal for 2006-2010 by the George W. Bush administration now before the U.S. Congress would cut funding from 428 million dollars to 224 million dollars.

Endorsed by more than 180 countries, the Convention has set a series of targets to protect biological diversity, promote sustainable use of its components, and ensure the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits from the use of genetic resources.

In the past four years, the GEF has raised three billion dollars, and if the U.S. does not turn its back on the Biodiversity Convention, officials say they hope that donors will contribute 25 million to 75 million dollars more for the next four years.

“The implementation (of the Biodiversity Convention) requires money,” said Ramos. “Three billion dollars is not that much, you know.”

Major environmental groups, which closely work with relevant U.N. agencies, are also very concerned about the funding issue.

“If the GEF is reduced, we will certainly not be happy,” said Hans Friederich, who leads the Strategy Group of the World Conservation Union (IUCN), an influential environmental organisation based in Geneva.

However, he said his group was still optimistic about the outcome of the current negotiations over GEF replenishment. “The European Union is not of one voice at the moment, but we are hoping for successful negotiations,” he said.

Many official delegates from the developing world said they were disappointed with the GEF and the way developed countries are setting its direction.

Last September, the GEF, which is composed of the World Bank, the U.N. Development Programme and the U.N. Environment Programme, among others, created a new system for funding distribution called the Resource Allocation Framework (RAF).

The 32-member body plans to use the new resource allocation system for biodiversity and climate change projects beginning in July this year.

GEF officials believe the RAF will prove effective in allocating resources because it is based on “global environmental priorities and country-level performance”. Each eligible country can expect to receive a minimum allocation of one million dollars for biodiversity and climate change projects.

But delegates from many developing countries are critical of this approach because they suspect that it would give rich countries a free hand in deciding the share of recipients in resource allocation.

“There is a lot of debate on this issue. This is against the interests of developing nations,” one South American diplomat told IPS. He estimated that as a result of changes in the financing mechanism, there could be 20 percent less funding for developing countries.

Meanwhile, environmental activists who are watching the negotiation process from the sidelines say they are extremely disappointed with the performance of official delegates.

“There are droughts and floods and earthquakes all over the planet, and you are still wondering that you have to keep discussing and trying to reach consensus,” said Marcelo Furtado, campaign director for Greenpeace International.

Furtado, who described the threat to biodiversity as the “biggest in our era”, added, “So much fuss for three billion dollars? This is the time for implementation. We need at least 20 to 25 billion dollars.”

The negotiations over financing are expected to continue until next week when ministers from all over the world arrive here to participate in the conference.

Excerpt: