You are here
It is well documented that the expansion of commercial and subsistence agriculture is the main driver of deforestation worldwide, responsible for about 80 percent of forest loss. The extractive industries, however, also contribute to deforestation, at about 5 percent globally. Given the difference between these sectors, is it still worth spending valuable time and funding for reducing the impacts of mining on forests? Early results from a Program on Forests’ (PROFOR) activity on “forest-smart” mining emphatically point to ‘yes.’ Here’s why:
First, while mines themselves may have a relatively small impact on forests, mining is linked to a long list of other activities that can cause rapid and widespread deforestation. For instance, moving extracted minerals from mine to market may require building transportation infrastructure like rails, roads, and ports, which incentivizes new settlements along the way, as well as demand for firewood and land to grow crops – all of which usually take place at the expense of forests.
Second, both mineral resources and forests have important implications for addressing poverty. Nonrenewable mineral resources play a leading economic role in 81 countries worldwide, which collectively account for a quarter of gross domestic product, and nearly 70 percent of people living in extreme poverty. Poor communities stand to benefit from natural resources revenue – if managed and invested in a transparent, effective, and inclusive manner – but they often rely on forest resources as well, including for income, energy, and food. The secondary impacts of mining, including the influx of job-seekers, can be especially harmful to the socio-economic and cultural fabric of indigenous and other local communities. A forest-smart approach, which recognizes forests’ significance for sustaining growth across many sectors, seeks to reconcile these differences.
Third, preliminary results from a mapping exercise show that a substantial number of the world’s mines are located in forests.[i] This was done by overlaying a map of operational, large-scale mines for 14 top commodities[ii] with a map of forested areas. The data highlights that many World Bank client countries face a situation of competing mining and forest interests, including Russia (over 200 mines in forests), Brazil (about 160 mines), Mexico (125), Indonesia (80), and Zimbabwe (80). Moreover, certain minerals are overwhelmingly sourced from mines located in forests, including bauxite (80 percent) and manganese (63 percent). This category also applies to a quarter of mined diamonds and gold. Importantly, many of these mines are located in forests (and other ecosystems) of high conservation value.
*Map based on preliminary research by Flora and Fauna International
“Mining companies are increasingly aware of the need to avoid or minimize impacts on forests, but there is very little guidance available on how to do that in practice,” said World Bank Senior Mining Specialist Kirsten Hund, who is co-leading the forest-smart mining activity. “While every situation is context-specific, we want to develop practical guidelines that decision-makers across the public and private sectors can turn to so that forest-smart mining becomes the rule, not the exception.”
Less easily mapped than large-scale mines – but equally important - are artisanal and small-scale mining activities, which tend to be unregulated and undertaken with low-tech tools, often with devastating impacts on forests and ecosystems. Early research shows that in the top 13 countries with high levels of artisanal mining activity, forest cover is on the decline. At the same time, artisanal mining is an enormous source of employment, with over 100 million people worldwide depending on the sector.
“Because of its often informal nature, artisanal mining has direct and indirect impacts that are difficult to regulate,” said Erik Reed, World Bank natural environmental specialist and co-task team leader for the project. “That’s why we are engaging in two distinct but related areas of research under this activity, to draw out best practices for both types of mining.”
Ultimately, there may be many ways for a mining project to be considered ‘forest-smart.’ What is clear is that mining often presents a threat to many of the world’s forests – and the wellbeing of the communities who depend on them. Thus it is critical to learn from past failures and successes on how to become “forest-smart” in order to better balance the challenges and opportunities of these two often-competing resources.
“The forest-smart development approach seeks out opportunities for mutual benefit,” said PROFOR Manager Werner Kornexl. “PROFOR is helping develop practical tools and policy recommendations that promote the sustainable growth of mining and other sectors, without destroying the public good provided by forests. The lessons and experiences derived from this mining work will also be relevant for geothermal development and transportation investments.”
This research on forest-smart mining is being supported by PROFOR, a multi-donor World Bank global program, and carried out by a consortium of organizations, including Fauna and Flora International, Estelle Levin Ltd., and Swedish Geological AB.
[ii] While coal has by far the highest percentage of total production value by commodity (approximately 42%), this analysis will focus on the next 14 commodities, which capture close to half of the remaining total production value and 40% of the world’s operational large-scale mines (considering metals and precious minerals, not development minerals).
Last Updated : 10-02-2017
In Mozambique, Government, Conservationists and Private Sector Come Together to Protect Biodiversity
When it comes to protecting our planet’s biodiversity, we can’t afford to not have a plan – especially where environmental impacts are inevitable.
In conservation, the “last resort” option is an approach known as biodiversity offsets. It involves preserving habitat in one area to compensate for unavoidable environmental damage elsewhere, usually as a result of large projects, such as those involving mining or oil and gas development.
“Offsets are based on the ‘mitigation hierarchy’ approach to environmental damage,” explained World Bank Senior Environmental Specialist Douglas J. Graham. “First try to avoid it, minimize it, or restore any affected areas; if nothing else is feasible, look to biodiversity offsets. Where losses simply cannot be avoided but are deemed acceptable, compensate for the losses by protecting similar habitat somewhere else.”
Graham, along with his colleague George Ledec, World Bank Lead Ecologist, has recently been supporting the Government of Mozambique in thinking through what a “last resort” program would look like given the country’s complex conservation challenges. Mozambique is rich in biodiversity but faces tough development issues, including a poverty rate above 50 percent. Biodiversity offsets present a solution for protecting habitats – including providing badly needed funds for Mozambique’s protected areas, which cover 21 million hectares, or 26 percent of the country’s land area – while tapping into valuable natural resources from the mining and petroleum sectors.
National-level biodiversity offset systems are both complicated and without much precedent: Liberia is another African country where this approach is being tested with support from the World Bank. With funding from PROFOR, Graham and Ledec guided a team in Mozambique to put together a Road Map for Mozambique to show how this could be achieved.
“Mozambique is an incredibly interesting place to be implementing biodiversity offsets,” Graham noted. “First, it has very large mining and oil and gas infrastructure projects. Second, private sector companies are required to protect biodiversity in order to comply with international finance regulations [specifically the International’s Finance Corporation’s 2012 Environmental and Social Performance Standards and the Equator Principles]. And third, the Government is very interested in making this a success. The Ministry of the Environment (MITADER) has even shown their commitment by modifying the decrees regulating environmental impact assessments, requiring that large projects result in no net loss of biodiversity.”
The Road Map notes that, far from being a burden to private companies, this new regulation may actually speed up the approval process for new projects by clarifying procedures, giving companies a way forward to comply with national rules and international standards, for which they are increasingly accountable.
Moreover, Mozambique already has an organization capable of operating the offsets program. The Foundation for the Conservation of Biodiversity (BIOFUND), supported under a separate World Bank project, is primed to make the difficult calculations of how much of one habitat is equal to another; to collect and manage funds from private sector companies; and to protect those “equivalent” habitats in perpetuity. BIOFUND also has the responsibility of classifying habitats based on their level of biodiversity, and mapping critical areas where offsets are not appropriate.
“Some habitats are so rare and so important that they shouldn’t be sacrificed” Graham said. “For example, this appears to be the case with the Swahili coastal forests in northern Mozambique; that ecoregion could be considered a no-go because of its high global biodiversity value and lack of protection.” Biodiversity offsets are never meant to justify development projects that would seriously damage habitats with unique and irreplaceable biodiversity.
Importantly, the initial steps laid out in the Mozambique Road Map are actively taking place, thanks to a proactive MITADER, significant follow-up funding from the Agence Française de Développement (AFD), and World Bank support to BIOFUND.
“This is a great example of a partnership between the government and a willing private sector,” Ledec said. “Very big international companies are involved with investments worth many millions of dollars. They really want to do this, to show to their boards and to the world that they are meeting their commitments. But they can only do this if the money is well used and handled transparently.”
The Mozambique Road Map was produced as a part of the broader PROFOR-supported work on biodiversity offsets, which includes a Global Biodiversity Offsets User Guide to advise the World Bank and other groups on whether, when, and how to prepare and implement offsets. The Mozambique Road Map is available in English and Portuguese.
(Photo: Victor Brott via Sida Swedish Int. Development Cooperation Agency, Flickr CC)
Last Updated : 07-17-2017
It isn’t just our technology that cries out for “smart” solutions. The development challenges of an increasingly connected world demand ever more comprehensive answers – and forests are no exception. The risks to forested lands stem from multiple sources, from the development of mining and road infrastructure, to expanding agricultural production, to the growing demand for woodfuels. To address these challenges in a sustainable manner, we need to partner with leaders and stakeholders in other sectors to develop solutions that minimize or avoid damaging effects and enhance forests’ contribution to environmental, economic and social benefits. In short, we need solutions that are “forest-smart.”
To make these objectives a reality, PROFOR continues to develop a forest-smart approach that emphasizes the role of forests within a broader landscape, where changes in forest cover can have very real and wide-reaching impacts on people and their wellbeing. We are partnering with experts outside of the forestry realm, including mining, disaster risk management, energy and agriculture, to help turn these sectors into forest champions. PROFOR’s ultimate goal is to transform how other sectors operate by identifying opportunities for mutual benefit, and devising innovative solutions that benefit people and the environment, and can be carried out at a large scale.
For instance, green infrastructure like mangrove forests can act as a buffer against storms, flooding, and coastal erosion – and unlike traditional “gray infrastructure” like sea walls and levies, mangroves provide valuable fish habitats, which translates into benefits for fisheries, tourism and local jobs. In Jamaica, PROFOR-supported work on nature-based infrastructure is guiding national planning for managing risks from natural disasters.
The extractive industries are another area where we can get smarter. The footprint from mining operations and their related infrastructure (such as constructing roads and settlements) can be devastating to forests, biodiversity, and forest-dependent communities. However, an array of new tools has emerged on ways to minimize or offset these negative impacts. PROFOR’s forest-smart mining program is building understanding for how to apply these new practices across a range of different contexts.
Agriculture, too, presents forest-smart opportunities. PROFOR research highlighted the many benefits of growing trees on farms, including boosting productivity, supplementing household incomes, and sequestering greenhouse gases. Especially promising is the tremendous potential for applying these tree-based practices at the national level.
While all of PROFOR’s forest-smart programs have implications for reducing poverty, PROFOR has also identified ‘poverty’ as a core thematic concern when it comes to sustainable forests. While there is growing evidence on forests’ contribution to the livelihoods and subsistence of poor communities, much less is known about the extent to which forests can provide a pathway out of poverty. To help fill this knowledge gap and make the case for forests as tool against poverty, PROFOR is collaborating with an ongoing household survey initiative to collect nationally representative data. PROFOR is also strengthening its focus on gender, contributing to more inclusive projects that take into account the different ways in which men and women access, use, and manage forests.
In essence, forest-smart strategies deliver benefits for the climate as well as for development. These strategies are increasingly in demand as countries face multiple competing pressures on their resources and lands, and the magnitude of climate change risks become more and more apparent. To build the necessary resilience to face these challenges, we can’t afford to be anything less than forest-smart.
Last Updated : 07-19-2017
World Bank Africa Region and World Bank Oil, Gas and Mining Policy Division (SEGOM).
Deforestation in the Congo Basin is expected to increase significantly in the future as investment in productive sectors grows. Thus, it will be essential to assist Congo Basin countries in ensuring that forestland development is planned and implemented in such a way as to avoid, minimize and/or offset unnecessary economic losses and social hardship and to draw optimal benefits from sustainable forest resource use. In 2013, the World Bank published a study on “Deforestation Trends in the Congo Basin – Reconciling Economic Growth and Forest Protection,” with support from PROFOR. One of the sectors covered by the study was the mining sector.
Early planning for the development of mineral resources, including the associated infrastructure (roads, railroads and energy, in particular) may help to reduce future impact, create development benefits at the local level, and enhance the sustainability of mining-driven development. However, land-use planning and zoning exercises in the Congo Basin so far have been centered on the forestry sector and have had limited impact on development policies in other sectors.
The development objective of this activity is to come up with innovative cross-sectoral methodologies and stakeholder processes that inform the decision-making process on large mining and associated infrastructure developments, enabling decision makers to reduce forest loss and the resulting negative environmental and social impacts. Activities included:
- Lessons learned from relevant initiatives; and
- Participatory land-use planning. The team conducted a land-use planning and road map exercise, and developed sector-specific recommendations for the Republic of Congo (ROC).
This activity led to the development of an informed process – applicable at both the national and sub-national level - for how the Government of ROC can move forward on land use planning. The activity stressed the significance of inclusive and participatory methods, as well a mechanism for settling disputes, and a process that works across sectors. The introduction of spatial analysis tools enabled government authorities to (i) develop a clearer understanding of how they can pull together information related to competing interests, such as economic development and social and environmental impacts; and (2) advance practices that can help harmonize development initiatives, even if it is not possible to resolve every conflict.
The ROC Ministry of Land Use Planning and Public Works led much of the exercise, which was also supported by the World Resources Institute. While there is still implementation work to be done, investments in the forest, agriculture and mining sectors have sought out how to incorporate the practices, tools and processes that were highlighted in this activity. There has also been greater coordination the different sectoral ministries. Results from this activity will also inform ongoing investments, including REDD+ activities under the Forest Investment Program (FIP), and were used in the preparation of the Congo Commercial Agriculture Development Project.
In addition, this activity helped to consolidate knowledge, best practices and tools on land use planning, and share them with multiple stakeholders in the Republic of Congo, including government ministries, NGOs, civil society organizations and indigenous peoples’ groups. Since participants from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) are undergoing a similar process, they benefited from learning about the experience in ROC.
Author : World Bank Africa Region and World Bank Oil, Gas and Mining Policy Division
Last Updated : 02-28-2017
World Bank Africa Region
In many African countries, native forests are under pressure from rapidly-spreading roads, dams and other infrastructure, as well as the allocation of large forest areas to mining, commercial agriculture, and other non-forest uses. Biodiversity offsets are one of the tools available to address such pressures. Offsets can be used to strengthen protected areas of similar or greater conservation value than the area lost to specific projects. The driving impetus for such offset schemes is usually biodiversity protection, although the associated conservation areas provide additional ecosystem services such as soil and water conservation, flood mitigation, and habitat for sustainably exploitable fisheries. In an era of often flat -- and sometimes declining -- governmental support for forest conservation in general and protected areas in particular, biodiversity offsets provide an underutilized opportunity to mobilize substantial new funding from public infrastructure accounts as well as the private sector.
Biodiversity offsets are not a panacea, nor are they always the best tool available for achieving forest conservation. As part of the “mitigation hierarchy” underpinning the World Bank’s Safeguard Policies and the IFC’s Performance Standards, offsets are considered a last resort, after efforts to avoid, minimize, and restore any significant damage to forests or other natural habitats. Nonetheless, given that many infrastructure, extractive, and other large-scale projects have an inherently large footprint, a biodiversity offset scheme may be warranted (and required by some funding entities).
A key challenge is systematizing and scaling-up biodiversity offsets through a national or other aggregated offset approach in order to overcome limitation like: (i) the high transaction costs often borne by each separate project; (ii) sub-optimal selection of conservation offset areas due to uncoordinated, ad-hoc approaches; and (iii) insufficient participation and ownership by governmental authorities in arrangements negotiated primarily between large private firms and conservation NGOs. The cumulative impacts of multiple (including smaller-scale) projects could also be more effectively addressed through an aggregate offset approach.
Under this activity, the team produced a Biodiversity Offsets User Guide containing key information about biodiversity offsets that practitioners should know about, with references provided where readers could obtain further information. Three case studies of reasonably successful biodiversity offsets were added to the User Guide as annexes. The case studies involved two private sector mining projects (in Liberia and Madagascar) and one World Bank-supported hydropower project (in Cameroon). These case studies are intended to show readers how the concepts explained in the User Guide can realistically be applied to achieve positive results on the ground.
In addition, in response to a strong expression of interest from the Government of Mozambique, this activity also provided legal technical assistance for incorporating biodiversity offsets into the Government’s official Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. Two reports were produced: (i) An analysis of Mozambican environmental legislation with respect to the use of biodiversity offsets; and (ii) a draft revision of the actual EIA regulations.
Finally, two pilot Country Roadmaps were completed to assess the potential for large-scale biodiversity offset systems in Liberia and Mozambique. The Roadmaps are intended as preliminary country examinations of legal and regulatory frameworks, national policies, land use plans, financial structures, and other relevant information.
The research team found that multiple detailed publications already exist about the details and controversies of biodiversity offsets, but that a concise reference with practical advice on how actually to do them was still lacking. This is the void that the Biodiversity Offsets User Guide seeks to fill.
The Liberia Biodiversity Offsets Roadmap emphasizes industrial-scale mining. Since adequate funding for Liberia’s protected areas remains a challenge, biodiversity offsets offer the potential for improved financial sustainability. The Liberia Roadmap outlines a series of steps for scaling-up biodiversity offsets in Liberia; among the most important is the establishment of a national Conservation Trust Fund to enable the reliable and transparent transfer of funds from extractive firms to priority Protected Areas. The new Liberia Forest Sector (REDD+) Project, approved in April 2016 with support from the World Bank and Government of Norway, provides a vehicle for moving forward the Roadmap’s key recommendations.
In Mozambique, existing Conservation Areas (CAs) cover about 26% of the country’s land area, and encompass most types of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. However, most are seriously underfunded. The Mozambique Biodiversity Offsets Roadmap (also available in Portuguese) proposes using Mozambique’s BioFund to transfer biodiversity offsets funding from infrastructure and extractive industry projects to selected CAs that are ecologically similar to the project-affected areas. Implementation has begun of the Roadmap’s recommendations, through the Government’s recently revised Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.
Author : World Bank Africa Region
Last Updated : 02-28-2017
World Bank Africa Region, COMIFAC, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, PROFOR, Norwegian Trust Fund for Private Sector and Infrastructure, UK Government, Trust Fund for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development, Forest Carbon Partnership Facility.
Author: Carole Megevand, with Aline Mosnier, Joël Hourticq, Klas Sanders, Nina Doetinchem, and Charlotte Streck.
Though the deforestation rates in the Congo Basin countries have historically been low, the trend is likely to change dramatically due to the combination of many different factors: population increases (and associated expansion of subsistence agriculture and fuelwood collection); local and regional development; and the rise in global demand for commodities.
The countries of the Congo Basin face the dual challenge of developing local economies and reducing poverty, while limiting the negative impact of growth on the region's natural capital.
PROFOR supported an in-depth, multi-sectoral analysis of the major drivers of deforestation and forest degradation for the next decades in all six of the Congo Basin countries (Cameroon, Central African Republic, Gabon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Republic of Congo). The overall study was led by the World Bank Africa Region. A team from the International Institute for Applies Systems Analysis (IASA) led a modeling exercise, based on the GLOBIOM model but tailored to the Congo region, to investigate drivers of deforestation by 2030 and assess the impacts of various "policy shocks" (such as: increased international demand for biofuel; improved transportation infrastructure; improved agricultural technologies; etc). The approach also relied heavily on the inputs from multi-stakeholder regional workshops and in-depth sectoral reports (available on this page).
- Deforestation rates are likely to increase in the future to sustain development and poverty reduction.
- Increasing agricultural productivity is not sufficient to limit pressure on forests.
- Wood extraction for domestic fuelwood or charcoal production will continue to grow for the next few decades and could create a massive threat to forests in densely populated areas.
- The development of much-needed transportation infrastructure could lead to major deforestation, mainly by changing economic dynamics in newly accessible rural areas.
- The pressure from formal logging is limited, but informal chainsaw logging is expected to progressively degrade forests.
- Mining—a largely untapped source of income and growth—could also lead to significant impacts when the sector develops.
The study highlights options to limit deforestation while pursuing inclusive, green growth. Emerging environmental finance mechanisms, such as reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), may provide additional resources to help countries protect their forests. But there are already a number of “no-regrets” actions that countries can take to grow along a sustainable development path:
- Participatory land use planning could help clarify tradeoffs among different sectors, encourage the development of growth poles and corridors, and direct destructive activities away from forests of great ecological value.
- Unlocking the potential of the Congo Basin for agriculture will not necessarily take a toll on forests: the Congo Basin could almost double its cultivated area without converting any forested areas. Policy makers should seek to target agricultural activities primarily towards degraded and nonforested land.
- In the energy sector, putting the woodfuel supply chain on a more sustainable and formal basis should stand as a priority. More attention should be paid to responding to growing urban needs for both food and energy through intensified multi-use systems (agroforestry).
- Better planning at the regional and national levels could help contain the adverse effects of transportation development, through a multi-modal and more spatially efficient network.
- Expanding sustainable forest management principles to the booming and unregulated informal logging sector would help preserve forest biomass and carbon stocks.
- Setting “high standard” goals for environmental management of the mining sector could help mitigate adverse effects as the sector develops in the Congo Basin.
The results from the modeling exercise were shared over the years: at the UNFCCC Conference of Parties 15 in Copehagen, at the World Bank in January 2010 and February 2013( "SDN week" ) and at multiple regional conferences and workshops (Kinshasa, Douala, Brazzaville 2009-2012; final regional conference in Kinshasa, May 2013 - see conference presentations here).
The findings have helped Congo Basin countries better understand the diversity of factors of deforestation --beyond logging -- and the impact of indirect external factors such as global commodity demand.
The knowledge generated from this activity is critically important as Congo Basin countries prepare their REDD+ and broader development strategies. If countries are able to minimize forest loss as their economies develop, they could "leapfrog" the steep drop in forest cover that has historically accompanied development in many countries, and make an important global contribution to climate change mitigation.
Author : World Bank Africa Region, COMIFAC, International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis, PROFOR, Norwegian Trust Fund for Private Sector and
Infrastructure, UK Government, Trust Fund for Environmentally and Socially
Sustainable Development, Forest Carbon Partnership Facility.
Author: Carole Megevand, with Aline Mosnier, Joël Hourticq, Klas Sanders,
Nina Doetinchem, and Charlotte Streck.
Last Updated : 02-24-2017
WWF, Fauna and Flora International, and Estelle Levin Ltd, for the World Bank Africa Region.
Artisanal and small scale mining (ASM) is an important source of income for millions of poor people around the world. The past decade has seen increasing numbers of individuals and households turn to ASM, and this trend is likely to grow in the face of high mineral prices, population growth, poverty and climate change. Because ASM activities contribute to poverty reduction in remote rural areas, efforts to simply eradicate the activity tend to fail.
However ASM tends to destroy and degrade forest ecosystems (through habitat destruction, the use of toxic chemicals, pollution of waterways, etc) and threatens the practices on which mining populations depend (for example, gathering firewood, bushmeat hunting, timbering for construction, etc). It is also a growing driver for internal migration and colonization of frontier forest lands that may lead to permanent land clearance.
With PROFOR support, the World Bank's Africa regional staff contracted WWF and Estelle Levin Ltd to conduct studies in Liberia and Gabon to analyze the impacts of artisanal mining activities on high-value natural landscapes and the people who live nearby. Drawing lessons from the assessment of two national parks (Ndangui in Gabon and Sapo National Park in Liberia) and existing literature on succesful park management, the case studies, the global solutions study and the methodolgical toolkit offer recommendations on how to reconcile socio-economic development based on artisanal mining and preservation of important ecological sites.
The study looked at 36 countries and found that artisanal and small scale mining was taking place either inside or along the borders of 96 out of 147 protected areas in those countries. In the end, the project looked in more depth at experiences in three countries: Liberia, Gabon and Madagascar (case study is forthcoming) -- see videoclip for findings.
It concluded that military efforts to permanently remove illegal miners from protected areas were not sustainable in the long run (particularly if a source of minerals is well known), and that other solutions could help breach a compromise between conservation goals and mining activities:
- For example, there are potential opportunities to develop sustainable mining through a sustainable supply chain approach, notably in Gabon where miners do not use mercury to extract gold.
- Short of eviction, co-existence and degazetting parts of protected areas are also options that allow negotiated access to mineral resources.
- Although replacing artisanal and small scale mining with large-scale operations may be attractive from a government regulation point of view, they do not offer the same number of jobs that smaller operations do.
The Methodological Toolkit has been designed to help users:
1.Rapidly assess and map environmental, social and economic impacts of Artisanal and Small-scale Mining,with a particular focus on protected areas, critical ecosystems and vulnerable groups.
2.Identify potential solutions and alternative approaches through assessment of past efforts (both successes and failures) to address the identified short- and long-term environmental impacts.
3.Identify and develop measures that can produce concrete improvements in critical ecosystems through sustainable solutions that reduce the environmental and social damage caused by ASM, while building on its economic, social, and empowerment potential.
Author : WWF, Fauna and Flora International, and Estelle Levin Ltd, for the World Bank
Last Updated : 02-07-2017