PROJECT PERFORMANCE REPORT - Home | GEF · PDF file · 2016-04-27Driving for Results in the GEF: Streamlining and Balancing Project Cycle Management. viii projects with multiple implementing

PROJECT PERFORMANCE REPORT

2002

ii

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................................................... iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... iv

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1

II. GEF PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 3

A. Overall GEF Portfolio ..................................................................................................... 3

B. Growth of Portfolio and Disbursements ......................................................................... 4

C. Time from Allocation to Implementation ....................................................................... 4

III. 2002 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW ..................................................................................... 8

A. Overview of Projects Covered in the PIR 2002 .............................................................. 8

B. Ratings ............................................................................................................................. 11

IV. SECRETARIAT MANAGED PROJECT REVIEWS AND TERMINAL EVALUATION REVIEWS ......................... 16

A. SMPR .............................................................................................................................. 16

B. TER ................................................................................................................................ 16

V. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 17

A. Implementation Approach ............................................................................................... 17

1. Partnership arrangements ....................................................................................... 17

2. Identification, assumptions and mitigation of risks ............................................... 17

3. Attention during preparation to comments made at proposal stage ....................... 19

4. Logical frameworks ................................................................................................ 19

5. Conclusions on implementation approach ............................................................. 20

B. Sustainability and Country Ownership ........................................................................... 20

1. Accomplishments in financial sustainability of GEF activities ............................. 20

2. Development of ownership ..................................................................................... 22

3. Dissemination of knowledge .................................................................................. 24

4. Some key issues affecting sustainability ................................................................ 24

5. Conclusions on sustainability and country ownership ........................................... 27

C. Stakeholder Participation, including Private Sector Involvement .................................. 27

1. Diverse approaches to stakeholder participation .................................................... 27

2. Private sector involvement in GEF projects ........................................................... 31

3. Conclusions on stakeholder participation and private sector involvement ............ 33

D. Financial Planning ........................................................................................................... 33

E. Cost Effectiveness ........................................................................................................... 34

F. Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................. 35

1. Strengths in M&E systems ..................................................................................... 35

2. Weaknesses in M&E systems ................................................................................. 36

3. Conclusions on monitoring and evaluation ............................................................ 37

iv

APPENDICES

A. List of Projects Included in the PIR 2002 .......................................................................

B. Guidelines for the 2002 PIR............................................................................................

C.

1. United Nations Development Program PIR Overview ..........................................

2. United Nations Environment Program PIR Overview ...........................................

3. World Bank PIR Overview .....................................................................................

D. List of Completed Projects as of June 20, 2002 ..............................................................

E. List of Projects under TER ..............................................................................................

F. List of Project under SMPR ............................................................................................

v

ACRONYMS

Bio Biodiversity

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CC Climate Change

CFC Chlorinated Fluorcarbons

COP Conference of the Parties

CP Conference of the Parties

GEF Global Environment Facility

GEF M&E Global Environment Facility Monitoring & Evaluation Unit

IA Implementing Agencies

IFC International Finance Corporation

IW International Waters

MP Montreal Protocol

ODS Ozone Depleting Substances

PIR Project Implementation Review

PPR Project Performance Review

SBSTTA Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice

SMPR Secretariat Managed Project Review

TE Terminal Evaluation

TER Terminal Evaluation Reviews

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

WB World Bank

vi

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Project Performance Review (PPR) drawson the findings of the 2002 Project Implemen-tation Review (PIR), a monitoring process basedupon reporting by the GEF Implementing Agen-cies (IAs) on all projects under implementationfor at least one year as of June 30, 2002. The2002 PPR also incorporates findings, lessons,and recommendations from two new instru-ments used this year by the GEF Monitoring &Evaluation Unit (GEF M&E): Secretariat Man-aged Project Reviews (SMPRs) and TerminalEvaluation Reviews (TERs).1

Under the PIR Implementing Agencies reporton all projects and rate their project perfor-mance. Each IA prepares an overview of its GEFportfolio, a summary emphasizing key lessonsand trends to date, and individual reports for allongoing full and medium-size projects. Projectsare rated based on two factors: implementationprogress and likelihood of attaining develop-ment/global environment objectives.

The Secretariat Managed Project Review(SMPR) is a new GEF M&E tool intended tocomplement the PIR process, to enhance thePPR review and implement the GEF strategy“Driving for Results”.2 The SMPR is also a fol-low up on the recommendation from the Sec-ond Overall Performance Study that the GEFSecretariat strengthen its participation in regu-lar project monitoring and evaluations. For itspilot year, the SMPR was led by the GEF M&E,in collaboration with and supported by GEFSecretariat (GEF Secretariat) focal area teams,implementing agencies’ (IAs) staff, and exter-nal independent consultants. Fifteen projectswere selected according to specific agreed cri-teria and reviewed.

Terminal Evaluations, which are carried outby IAs, are primarily a tool for generatinglessons from individual projects that mightapply across the portfolio, but they are alsoan accountability tool. Terminal EvaluationReviews are conducted and implemented bythe GEF M&E. The reviews assess projectadherence to the GEF’s eight project reviewcriteria. The 2002 PPR includes 18 TERs,covering all terminal evaluations submittedby IAs for fiscal year 2002.

Chapter I of this report describes the objec-tives and the review process of the 2002 PPR.Chapter II analyzes the active GEF portfo-lio, including financial information, throughJune 30, 2002. Chapter III presents an over-view of the projects included in the 2002 PIR,together with an analysis of PIR ratings andtrends. Chapter IV describes the SMPRs andTERs. Chapter V synthesizes the principalfindings and recommendations of this year’sproject performance review. Supportingdocumentation are attached as appendices.

As of June 30, 2002, a total of 621 full andmedium-size projects had been allocatedfunding in approved GEF work programs.Additionally, 495 enabling activity projectshad been approved in biodiversity and climatechange. Forty-one percent of these projectsare implemented by the World Bank, 40 per-cent by UNDP, and 10 percent by UNEP,while 10 percent have multiple implement-ing agencies. The total funding for theseprojects was US$3,671 million, of which 54percent was implemented by the World Bankprojects, 29 percent by UNDP projects, 4percent by UNEP projects, and 13 percent by

1 In the past, implementing agency overviews have drawn information from terminal reports and evaluations. This year, the GEF M&E unithas begun a systematic review of all Implementing Agency terminal evaluation reports for medium-size and full projects using the TER.2 GEF/C.16/5. Driving for Results in the GEF: Streamlining and Balancing Project Cycle Management.

viii

projects with multiple implementing agen-cies.

In terms of the growth of the overall GEFportfolio (including enabling activities andproject development funds), 46 full-sizeprojects (FSPs), 52 medium-size projects(MSPs) and 95 enabling activities (EAs) wereapproved, for a total of US$394.57 millionin GEF funding, during fiscal year (FY) 2002.The breakdown by project type wasUS$321.90 million for FSPs, US$41.89 forMSPs, and US$30.77 for EAs. This compareswith US$505.28 million approved for 54FSPs, 33 MSPs, and 76 EAs in the previousfiscal year.

Cumulative disbursements for the entire GEFportfolio (including enabling activities andproject development funds) increased duringFY2002 to US$1,540 million, up fromUS$1,224 million in the previous fiscal year.Amounts disbursed for all GEF projects dur-ing FY2002 were US$295.3 million, thuscontinuing the upward trend in disbursementsthat has been evidenced every year.

For the past several years, the PPR has ana-lyzed the time it takes for projects to gothrough the steps involved in project prepa-ration. During FY2002, the elapsed time be-tween GEF Council and World Bank approvalsignificantly reduced in 2002. The twentynew full-size projects received Bank approvalin an average of 409 days, reduced of 36 per-cent compared with the average of 640 daysin 2001. This is the lowest average elapsedtime for several years. And, while the WorldBank has set a service standard of 4 monthson average for all projects to progress fromboard approval to project effectiveness, orcommencement, this period increased from159 days in FY2001 to 269 days in FY2002,the highest time ever recorded for World BankGEF projects.

In the case of UNDP, the average elapsed timefrom GEF Council approval to the beginningof implementation (project agreement signa-

ture) increased from 333 days for the FY2001to 362 days in FY2002, representing an increaseof 8 percent.Because the number of UNEP projects is lim-ited, only aggregated analysis is possible. Therehas been a slight increase in UNEP’s averageprocessing time for full-size projects, from 229days in 2001 to 252 in 2002.

Regarding the difference in processing time byproject type, full-size projects require 298 days,on average, to become effective, whereas a muchshorter time is necessary for medium-sizeprojects (163 days) and enabling activities (148days).

As the GEF portfolio matures, more projectsenter the PIR process. The 2002 PIR includes272 ongoing projects that have been underimplementation for at least one year by June30th, 2002. This number reflects the steadygrowth of the portfolio under implementation,from 135 projects in 1999 to 2001’s 205projects. This year, 67 projects entered the PIR,which represents almost 25 percent of the total2002 PIR portfolio. Twenty-nine percent of thebiodiversity projects, 16 percent of the climatechange projects, and 33 percent of the interna-tional waters projects were included in the PIRfor the first time this year. At the same time, 21projects (9 percent) were completed duringFY2002, and have exited the PIR review pro-cess.

In terms of ratings on the two measures ofproject performance—implementation progressand the likelihood of attaining development/glo-bal environment objectives—the World Bankuses a scale of highly satisfactory (HS), satis-factory (S) or unsatisfactory (U). It also uses apartially satisfactory (PS) rating for IFCprojects. UNDP and UNEP use the additionalcategory of partially successful (PS), which wasintroduced in the 2001 PIR.

Results of RatingsThis year’s PIR portfolio includes 23 projectsthat were rated highly satisfactory on both theirimplementation progress and likelihood of

ix

achieving their development/ environmentalobjectives. By focal area, there are 14biodiversity; four climate change, four interna-tional waters, and one multi-focal project amongthis “highly satisfactory” group.

A further 12 projects were rated highly satis-factory on the likelihood of achieving their de-velopment/environmental objectives, andsatisfactory in their implementation progress.Seven projects were rated highly satisfactory onimplementation progress, but satisfactory onlikelihood of achieving their development/en-vironmental objectives.

This year’s PIR portfolio includes eight projectsthat were rated unsatisfactory on both imple-mentation progress and likelihood of achievingtheir development/environmental objectives. Inaddition, four projects were rated unsatisfactoryon the likelihood of achieving the development/environmental objectives, and partially satisfac-tory or satisfactory on implementation progress.A further six projects were rated unsatisfactoryon implementation progress, but partially sat-isfactory or satisfactory on the likelihood ofachieving their development/environmental ob-jectives.

As noted, the 2002 Project Performance Reportis a distillation of the results of the PIR, focalarea task forces, interagency meetings, and thevarious reviews that comprised this year’s PPRprocess. The main findings and conclusions arefocused on projects’ implementation ap-proaches; sustainability and country ownership;stakeholder participation, including private sec-tor involvement; financial planning; cost effec-tiveness; and monitoring and evaluation.

Implementation ApproachThe assessment of the implementation approachfocused on four primary issues: whetherchanges to the project that have taken place sinceendorsement are consistent with GEF guide-lines; whether the project design and approachto implementation address formal recommen-dations made during the project approval pro-cess; the nature of project partnerships; and

whether risks have been appropriately iden-tified during preparation and mitigated dur-ing implementation.

Projects examined as part of the 2002 SMPRgenerally seem to be performing well in termsof implementing partnership arrangementswith government departments, executingagencies, and private sector entities. How-ever, all focal area task forces could, basedon the PIR, cite examples of projects that,during preparation, insufficiently assessed in-stitutional capacity (local or national). Theclimate change task force specifically con-cluded that projects do not focus enough onbuilding capacities at the local and regionallevel during preparation, even though localauthorities and municipalities are increas-ingly becoming the key to project implemen-tation.

Several SMPRs noted that, during projectpreparation, important comments to projectdesign by GEF Secretariat, GEF Council,STAP and other agencies went unheeded.During both design and implementation, IAsneed to fully consider and integrate into thedesign of the project many useful commentsformally submitted by other GEF entities onproject design documents. Finally, someprojects exhibited poor identification andmanagement of risks. The biodiversity taskforce found that design and unilateral imple-mentation by a particular ministry or institu-tion in isolation from other stakeholders isfrequently a risk factor. Several projects inthis year’s biodiversity portfolio are imple-mented by the ministry of environment with-out the involvement of other key ministries.In the climate change focal area, inadequateanalysis of market risks and financial mod-els has led to implementation problems inseveral projects. Risks that were not antici-pated during project preparation have some-times seriously constrained project activities.Systems and capacities among Implement-ing Agencies to prevent these situations vary,it is important to develop systems to identifyemerging risks were systems are not in place.

x

Sustainability and Country OwnershipSustainability refers to factors that ensurecontinuation of project benefits after projectcompletion. Several GEF M&E studies haveanalyzed sustainability within GEF projects,3

generally with a focus on f inancialsustainability. Despite projects that featureaspects with a high likelihood ofsustainability, the consensus is that GEFprojects are not doing enough to ensure thesustainability of overall project outcomes andimpacts.

Noteworthy efforts to ensure project finan-cial sustainability can be found in all the fo-cal areas. Among climate change projects,success has been achieved in creating demandfor energy service companies’ (ESCOs) ser-vices, applying microcredit business and fi-nance models for off-grid photovoltaics, anddeveloping regulatory frameworks for smallhydropower producers. Other projects haveused a variety of fee-based approaches toachieve f inancial sustainability. In thebiodiversity focal area, projects have soughtfinancial sustainability by experimentingwith variations of user fees and establishingconservation trust funds at either national orindividual protected areas, but there is muchroom for improvement in financial arrange-ments for biodiversity conservation, as a re-cent study commissioned by GEF M&Econcluded.4

Using another approach to sustainability, sev-eral international waters projects are seekingto incorporate project objectives and activi-ties in the regular operations of executingagencies, joint institutional arrangements, orcountry institutions that are involved in theproject. Other IW projects are building strongconstituencies and country commitment witha “bottom-up” approach to project planningand implementation, including successful lo-

cal demonstration activities, participatory stra-tegic action plans (SAPs), and external com-munications programs.

Beyond these examples, many projects are stillstruggling with the issue of sustainability. Of-ten, sustainability is not addressed early enoughin the implementation cycle, and even then at-taining sustainability within the typical GEFproject lifetime of 3 to 4 years is a dauntingchallenge.

Stakeholder ParticipationEffective public involvement, particularly stake-holder participation, is critical to the success ofGEF-financed projects. This year’s PPR ana-lyzes private sector engagement, as one aspectof the overall stakeholder participation. The PPRconcludes that effective participation, particu-larly in the biodiversity and international wa-ters projects, makes vital contributions to projectachievement when it links global environmen-tal protection efforts with local and nationalneeds. However, the conclusions of the PIRs andtask force discussions suggest that the extentand depth of both stakeholder participation andprivate sector partnerships vary considerablyacross focal areas and regions and need consid-erable enhancement.

Biodiversity projects incorporate local stake-holder participation into project planning andimplementation most frequently—an appropri-ate strategy given the projects’ potential effectson people whose livelihoods or basic needs de-pend on local natural ressources. Internationalwaters projects have shown an increasing ten-dency to complement top-down multicountryapproaches with bottom-up approaches that in-clude stakeholder participation and demonstra-tion projects. The climate change focal area, hasless examples of participatory approaches, buthas a higher degree of private sector involve-ment among GEF projects. Just as some projects

3 Focal areas program studies, OPSs, and thematic reviews on financial sustainability of biodiversity projects4 Review of Financial Arrangements in the GEF Biodiversity projects (GEF/c.21/Inf.13).

xi

have excelled in this area, the PPR finds a num-ber of projects where the lack of stakeholderparticipation has caused substantial problemsand is likely to prevent projects from reachingtheir objectives.

Financial PlanningFinancial planning encompasses changes in to-tal estimated project costs, co-financing (includ-ing monetary and in-kind contributions), thechoice of financial instruments, and the poten-tial impact of financial changes on project ac-tivities. The main issues identified in this PPRrelate to co-financing, notably the lack of ap-propriate reporting, which may have contributedto a few cases of extreme shortfalls in co-fi-nancing and subsequent problems to meetproject objectives.

Among SMPR projects, co-financing has ex-ceeded the estimates at project approval. In ad-dition, PIRs and TERs indicated that severalprojects have proactively identified potentialsources of co-financing and secured these con-tributions. Some projects also adapted to chang-ing circumstances, for example, by achievinganticipated co-financing levels despite nationalfinancial crises. One difficulty for reviewers isthe lack of consistent reporting on co-financ-ing. Many of the projects reviewed indicatedthat their financial plans and levels of co-fi-nancing had changed since endorsement, butguidelines for reporting these changes are notclear.

Cost EffectivenessThe PPR evaluates cost effectiveness by com-paring a project’s achievement of environmen-tal and development objectives and its outputsto inputs, costs, and implementation time.Whenever possible, compliance with the con-cept and guidelines on incremental costs is also

examined. While cost effectiveness across theportfolio can be broadly assessed, a lack ofclear GEF Secretariat guidelines on cost ef-fectiveness allows dissimilar criteria and ap-proaches to be applied, preventing reliableconclusions from being drawn. For manyprojects, specially in biodiversity, the assess-ment of cost effectiveness was complicates.

Monitoring and EvaluationAll the information sources used in the PPRindicate that the monitoring and evaluationsystems and components in projects are ingeneral not fully satisfactory. Nevertheless,there are variations between projects whichcould point to further improvements.

At the project planning stage, strong M&Esystems are associated with simple overallproject designs whose objectives can beachieved with the time and resources avail-able to the project. During implementation,strong M&E systems are evidenced by theexistence of monitoring staff and an adequatebudget for monitoring activities. Poorlyplanned M&E systems tend to concentrateon inputs and outputs, rather than progresstowards objectives. For example, PIRs some-times report impacts without establishing theproper links between project outcomes andthe claimed impacts or simply provide toolittle information to enable assessing impacts.Projects also often lack reliable baseline in-dicators for measuring—directly or indi-rectly—project performance in areas such ascapacity building.

On the basis of the evidence presented in thediverse sources that contributed to this review,it is clear that the overall role and impact ofmonitoring and evaluation in the project port-folio needs to be strengthened.

1

1. INTRODUCTION

The GEF Project Performance Report (PPR)has three objectives:

1. To provide a basis for decision-making onpossible improvements to policies, strate-gies, program management, procedures,and projects

2. To promote accountability for resource userelative to objectives by participating coun-tries, GEF Implementing Agencies, and ex-ecuting agencies

3. To document, provide feedback on, anddisseminate results and lessons learned.

This PPR draws on the findings of the 2002Project Implementation Review (PIR), a moni-toring process based upon reporting by the GEFImplementing Agencies (IAs) on all projectsunder implementation for at least one year asof June 30, 2002. The 2002 PPR incorporatesfindings, lessons, and recommendations fromtwo instruments used this year by the GEFMonitoring & Evaluation Unit (GEF M&E):Secretariat Managed Project Reviews (SMPRs)and Terminal Evaluation Reviews (TERs).5

Under the PIR, each implementing agency pre-pared an overview of its GEF portfolio, a sum-mary emphasizing key lessons and trends todate, and individual reports on all ongoing fulland medium-size projects. The IAs also gaveeach of their projects a rating on two grounds:implementation progress and the likelihoodthat the project’s global environmental objec-tives would be reached.

Secretariat Managed Project Reviews (SMPRs)have been adopted as a GEF M&E modality

for three reasons: to complement the ProjectImplementation Review (PIR) process, to en-hance the Portfolio Performance Review (PPR)and the GEF’s “Driving for Results”6 strategy,and to follow up on an OPS2 recommendationthat the GEF Secretariat should strengthen itsparticipation in regular evaluations and moni-toring activities of projects.

Terminal Evaluation Reviews are conductedand implemented by GEF M&E. They exam-ine terminal evaluations, which are completedby IAs generally after project closure. Draw-ing on the PIRs, Implementing Agencies’ sum-mary reports, SMPRs, and TERs, GEF M&Eprepared four papers, one for each focal area.These papers were the basis for reviews by theGEF interagency task forces on biological di-versity, international waters, climate change,and the phase out of ozone-depleting sub-stances (ODS). Task forces seek to identifyemerging issues across each focal area by draw-ing on PIRs, IAs’ overviews, and task forcemembers’ knowledge of their respective focalarea portfolios. Following the focal area taskforce reviews, which were conducted in late2002, an interagency meeting was held inWashington, DC, on January 28–29, 2002 todiscuss the main findings and agree on a num-ber of recommendations.

Chapter II of this report analyzes the activeGEF portfolio, including financial information,through June 30, 2002. Chapter III presents anoverview of the projects included in the 2002PIR, together with an analysis of PIR ratingsand trends. Chapter IV summarizes key find-ings from the discussions of the four focal area

5 In the past, implementing agency overviews have drawn information from terminal reports and evaluations. This year, the GEF M&E unitwill begin a systematic review of all GEF funded medium-size and full projects using the TER.6 GEF/C.16/5. Driving for Results in the GEF: Streamlining and Balancing Project Cycle Management.

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report

2

task forces. Chapter V synthesizes the princi-pal thematic conclusions and recommendationsof this year’s project performance review. Sup-

porting documentation is supplied in the ap-pendices.

3

II. GEF PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS

A. Overall GEF Portfolio

As of June 30, 2002, a total of 621 full andmedium-size projects had been allocated fund-ing in approved GEF work programs. As shownin Table 1, 41 percent of these projects areimplemented by the World Bank, 40 percentby UNDP, and 10 percent by UNEP, while 10percent have more than one implementingagency. The total funding for these projects wasUS$3,671 million, of which 54 percent was

allocated to World Bank projects, 29 percentto UNDP projects, 4 percent to UNEP projects,and 13 percent to projects with multiple Imple-menting Agencies. Additionally, 495 enablingactivity projects with a total worth of 183 mil-lion had been approved 336 of these activitieswere implemented by UNDP, 101 by UNEP,32 by the World Bank and 26 by multiple IAs.

Table 2 shows the distribution by focal area ofthe GEF portfolio as of June 30, 2002. By

TABLE 1GEF PROJECT ALLOCATIONS BY IMPLEMENTING AGENCY (AS OF JUNE 30, 2002)

FSPs MSPs Totals

Implementing # US$ # US$ # US$Agency Projects Million Projects Million Projects (%) Million (%)

UNDP 180 1,003.87 66 52.89 246 40 1,056.76 29

UNEP 22 128.13 38 26.42 60 10 154.54 4

World Bank 190 1,930.18 66 51.64 256 41 1,981.82 54

Multiple IAs 54 474.22 5 4.12 59 10 478.34 13

Total 446 3,536.40 175 135.06 621 100 3,671.46 100

TABLE 2GEF PROJECT ALLOCATIONS BY FOCAL AREA (AS OF JUNE 30, 2002)

FSPs MSPs Total Allocations

No. of US$ No. of US$ US$Focal Area Projects Million Projects Million % Million

Biodiversity 185 1,324.23 106 82.50 38.32 1,406.73

Climate Change 161 1,304.07 39 29.55 36.32 1,333.62

International Waters 62 544.33 8 6.49 15.00 550.82

Ozone Depletion 17 166.15 5 3.77 4.63 169.92

Multiple Focal Areas 21 197.63 16 12.17 5.71 209.80

Persistent Organic Pollutants 1 0.58 0.02 0.58

Total 446 3,536.40 175 135.06 100.00 3,671.46


4

value, 38 percent of the full and medium-sizeproject portfolio was allocated to thebiodiversity focal area, 36 percent to climatechange, 15 percent to international waters, sixpercent to ozone, and four percent to projectswith multiple focal areas. The PIR 2002 showsthe first inclusion in the portfolio of a persis-tent organic pollutants project, which repre-sents just 0.02 percent of the total portfoliovalue. Most of the enabling activities were inthe climate change focal area.

B. Growth of Portfolioand Disbursements

Figure 1 illustrates the growth of the overallGEF portfolio (including enabling activitiesand project development funds) by amountsallocated, committed, and disbursed from thebeginning of operations in June 1991 throughJune 2002, the total work program allocationas of June 30, 2002 was US$3,855.13 million.During FY 02, 46 full-size projects (FSP), 52medium-size projects (MSP) and 95 enablingactivities (EA) were approved, for a total ofUS$394.57 million in GEF funding. The valuebreakdown was US$321.90 million for FSPs,US$41.89 for MSPs, and US$30.77 for EAs.This compares with US$505.28 million ap-

proved for 54 FSPs, 33 MSPs, and 76 EAs inthe previous fiscal year.

Cumulative disbursements for the entire GEFportfolio (including enabling activities andproject development funds) increased duringFY 02 to US$1,540 million, up from US$1,224million in the previous fiscal year. Amountsdisbursed for all GEF projects during FY 02were US$295.3 million, thus continuing theupward trend in disbursements that has beenevidenced every year.

C. Time from Allocationto Implementation

Over the years, GEF Council members andothers have expressed concern about the longpreparation time for GEF projects, as well asthe lack of transparency and feedback duringinitial phases of the project cycle. This has beenaddressed for some years in the PPR, by ana-lyzing the time it takes projects to go throughthe steps involved in project preparation. It isnevertheless important to point out that the dif-ferences in the number of stages and milestonesrequired by IAs account for some of the inter-agency variations in elapsed time.

200220012000199919981997199619951994199319921991

Fiscal Year

$US

Mill

ion

Disbursements (cumulative) Approved commitments (cumulative) Work program allocations (cumulative)

0.0

1000.0

2000.0

3000.0

4000.0

5000.0

FIGURE 1CUMULATIVE GEF PORTFOLIO – ALLOCATION, COMMITMENTS AND DISBURSEMENTS 1991-2002

5

GEF Portfolio Analysis

For World Bank GEF projects, the elapsed timebetween GEF Council and World Bank ap-proval significantly improved in 2002. Thetwenty new full-size projects received Bankapproval in an average of 409 days, an improve-ment of 36 percent compared with the averageof 640 days in 2001. This is the lowest averageelapsed time for several years.

Looking at World Bank projects by region,the Latin America and the Caribbean regionhas the lowest number of elapsed days (266),and the Africa region has the highest (597days). There were two projects, one in EastAsia and the Pacific, the other in the Easternand Central Asia region, for which manage-ment approval took over 1,000 days, which dis-torted the average numbers for these regions.The main reasons for the delays are that theBank was seeking to establish more effectivecoordinating mechanisms and because of achange in government, it also needed to se-cure the new government’s full commitmentto the project.

There was an improvement in the averageelapsed times from project approval to comple-tion:

◆ For climate change, average elapsed timesdeclined from 618 days in 2001 to 212 daysin 2002.

◆ For international waters, there was a sig-nificant reduction from 1,213 days (oneproject only) in 2001 to 258 days in 2002.

◆ For biodiversity projects, there was a re-duction from 590 days to 535 days.

For the 10 MSPs approved in 2002, the aver-age elapsed time from Council to World Bankapproval rose from 106 days in 2001 to 120days in 2002.

The World Bank has set a service standard of4 months for the average elapsed time for allprojects to progress from board approval toproject effectiveness (i.e., commencement).However, this period rose from 159 days inFY2001 to 269 days in FY2002, the highesttime ever recorded for World Bank GEFprojects. Factors contributing to the lengthydelays in effectiveness included: complicatedlegal processes for the approval of donor-financed projects in some recipient countries;problems meeting legal requirements set by the

FIGURE 2AVERAGE TIME BETWEEN GEF ALLOCATION, COMMITMENT AND EFFECTIVE

WORLD BANK PROJECTS, BY FISCAL YEAR OF COMMITMENT

0

1500

1000

500

FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02

Average time between GEF approval and commitment by World BankAverage time between commitment (World Bank approval) and effectiveness Average time between GEF approval and effectiveness

Da

ys


6

World Bank; and delays in finalizing institu-tional arrangements7 . Eight World Bank MSPsbecame effective in the FY2002. Their aver-age elapsed time was 28 days, which was con-siderably lower than the 46 days in FY2001.The main characteristics of projects that be-came effective quickly included firm owner-

ship and commitment by the host country andthe establishment of a core project managementteam by the project appraisal stage.

In the case of UNDP (Figure 3), the averageelapsed time from GEF Council approval tothe beginning of implementation (project

7 Source: World Bank Group – Global Environment Facility, Project Implementation Review, FY02 Overview Report, page 11, paragraph 10.

FIGURE 3AVERAGE TIME BETWEEN GEF APPROVAL AND PROJECT AGREEMENT SIGNATURE

FOR UNDP GEF PROJECTS, BY FISCAL YEAR OF PROJECT AGREEMENT SIGNATURE

0

1000

800

600

400

200

FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02

Days

FIGURE 4AVERAGE PROCESSING TIME FROM GEF APPROVAL TO PROJECT INTERNALIZATION

FOR UNEP GEF PROJECTS, BY FISCAL YEAR

0

400

200

300

500

100

92-94 95-96

Fiscal Year

97-98 99-00 2001-2002

Da

ys

7

GEF Portfolio Analysis

agreement signature) increased from 333 daysfor the FY2001 to 362 days in FY2002. Thisrepresents an increase of 8 percent.

Because the number of UNEP projects is lim-ited, only aggregated analysis is possible. Fig-ure 4 shows an overall trend in processing timefor full projects, using data averaged by 2-yearperiods. There has been a minor increase in

UNEP’s average processing time, from 229days for 2001 to 252 for 2002.

The difference in processing time by projecttype. While, on average, 298 days are neces-sary for full-size projects to become effective,a much shorter time is necessary for medium-size projects (163 days) and enabling activi-ties (148 days).

9

A. Overview of ProjectsCovered in the PIR 2002

The 2002 PIR includes 272 ongoing projectsthat had been under implementation for at leastone year by June 30th, 2002. This number re-flects the steadily growing portfolio underimplementation, from 135 projects in 1999 to205 in 2001. As the GEF portfolio matures,more projects enter the PIR process. Table 3provides a breakdown by focal area and imple-menting agency of the projects included in the2002 PIR.

As in previous years, about half the projectsare in the biodiversity focal area representing53 percent of the portfolio. The World Bankimplements 53 percent of the total ofbiodiversity projects, followed by UNDP with37 percent. UNEP and the Multiple IAs repre-sent 8 and 2 percent respectively. A total of 42biodiversity projects are included in the PIRprocess for the first time, and 11 were com-pleted during 2002.

With 75 active projects, or 28 percent of thetotal, climate change is the second largest fo-cal area in the 2002 PIR. UNDP accounts for55 percent of this portfolio, while the WordBank and International Finance Corporation(IFC) total is 41 percent. UNEP, with threeprojects, has 4 percent. Twelve new climatechange projects entered the CC portfolio in2002, and 7 projects were completed.

The 2002 PIR portfolio includes 36 interna-tional waters projects, 13 percent of all GEFprojects. This represents 12 projects more thanin the previous year’s PIR, which is a reflec-tion of the maturation of the GEF internationalwaters portfolio. Another 12 projects (4 per-cent of the total) are in the ozone focal area.Four projects are in multiple focal areas.

The table 4, shows the total GEF funding byfocal area and IA. Across the IAs, the WorldBank represents 62 percent of the total GEFfunding, followed by UNDP with 28 percentand UNEP and Multiple IAs with 7 and 3 per-

III. 2002 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW

8 Projects that are implemented by multiple agencies are counted under the multi-IA category, and are not counted under a single IA, to avoiddouble counting.

TABLE 32002 PIR PORTFOLIO BY FOCAL AREA (ONGOING PROJECTS)8

UNDP UNEP World Bank Multi IAs Total (%)

Focal Area No. No. No. No. No. No. (%)

Biodiversity 54 11 77 3 145 53

Climate Change 41 3 31 75 28

International Waters 11 10 13 2 36 13

Ozone 8 2 2 12 4

Multiple 1 3 4 1

Total 115 26 126 5 272 100


10

cent respectively. Among the focal areas,Biodiversity has 47 percent of the total GEFfunding, Climate Change represents 31 percentand IW accounts for 16 percent. Ozone andmultiple focal areas projects represents 5 and1 percent.

Overall, 67 projects are included in the PIRfor the first time in 2002 (see Table 5). Thisrepresents almost 25 percent of the total 2002PIR portfolio. Twenty-nine percent of thebiodiversity projects, 16 percent of the climatechange projects, and 33 percent of the interna-tional waters projects were included in the PIR

for the first time this year. At the same time,21 projects (9 percent) were completed duringthis PIR period, and have exited the review pro-cess.

Table 6 shows the distribution of the 2002 PIRportfolio by region. It shows that the largestnumber of projects (25 percent of the total) isin Latin America and the Caribbean, followedby Africa (19 percent), East Asia and the Pa-cific (16 percent), Eastern and Central Asia (15percent), the Middle East and North Africa (10percent), and South Asia (6 percent). Another8 percent were global or regional projects.

TABLE 42002 PIR PORTFOLIO BY FOCAL AREA (ONGOING PROJECTS)

UNDP UNEP World Bank Multi IAs Total (%)

GEF GEF GEF GEF GEF GEFFunding Funding Funding Funding Funding Funding

Focal Area (US$) (US$) (US$) (US$) (US$) (%)

Biodiversity 208.90 45.70 438.10 26.20 718.90 47

Climate Change 122.43 9.29 343.64 475.36 31

International Waters 64.55 43.80 110.95 27.40 246.70 16

Ozone 24.44 1.36 49.24 75.04 5

Multiple 3.51 17.99 21.50 1

Total 423.83 100.15 959.92 53.60 1,537.50 100

(%) 28% 7% 62% 3% 100%

TABLE 5THE 2002 PIR PORTFOLIO

Number Percentage New in NumberFocal Areas of Projects of Portfolio 2002 PIR Completed

Biodiversity 145 53 42 11

Climate Change 75 28 12 7

International Waters 36 13 12 3

Ozone 12 4 1

Multiple 4 1

Total 272 100 67 21

11

2002 Project Implementation Review

The regional distribution varies by focal area.In biodiversity, almost two-thirds of the projectsare split between Latin America and the Car-ibbean and Africa (32 percent and 28 percent,respectively), followed by East Asia and thePacific (17 percent). The Middle East andNorth Africa and Eastern and Central Asia re-gions have only 6 and 7 percent of the projectsrespectively, while South Asia and globalprojects account for about 5 percent each.

In climate change, the distribution of projectsamong the regions is fairly balanced. The EastAsia and the Pacific region has 19 percent;Latin America and the Caribbean, 17 percent;Europe and Central Asia, 16 percent; theMiddle East and North Africa, 13 percent; Af-rica and South Asia have 12 each, while globalprojects account for 10 percent.

For international waters, the regional distribu-tion follows still another pattern. Europe andCentral Asia account for 25 percent of the to-tal number of projects, followed by 22 percentfor the Middle East and North Africa region.The Latin America and the Caribbean region

and global projects each have 17 percent of theinternational waters portfolio, while the EastAsia and Pacific accounts for 11 percent andAfrica for 8 percent.

In accordance with the GEF mandate, all ofthe ozone projects are in Europe and CentralAsia.

Figure 5 shows how the distribution of projectsby region has been changing in the last 3 years.Projects in the East Asia and Pacific, LatinAmerica and Caribbean, and Middle East andNorth Africa regions have all increased, frombetween 1 to 6 percent, since 2000; however,for the same period, projects in the Africa, East-ern and Central Asia, and South Asia regionsas well as global projects have declined frombetween 1 to 4 percent.

B. Ratings

The PIR is a monitoring tool that relies on eachimplementing agency to report and rate projectperformance. The following tables present the

TABLE 6REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF 2002 PIR PROJECTS

Climate International Multi- 2002Region Biodiversity Change Waters Ozone Focal Total (%)

Africa 40 9 3 52 19

East Asia & Pacific 26 14 4 44 16

Europe & Central Asia 9 12 9 12 42 15

Global 6 8 6 2 22 8

Latin America & Caribbean 47 13 6 2 68 25

Middle East & North Africa 10 10 8 28 10

South Asia 7 9 16 6

Total 145 75 36 12 4 272 100


12

ratings for implementation progress and meet-ing development/global environmental objec-tives by focal area and implementing agency.

As shown above, the Implementing Agenciesrated their projects according to two criteria:

implementation progress and likelihood of at-taining development/global environment objec-tives. The World Bank rated its projects ashighly satisfactory (HS), satisfactory (S) orUnsatisfactory (U). The World Bank also usesa partially satisfactory (PS) rating for IFC

FIGURE 5REGIONAL PERCENTAGE OF GEF PROJECTS IN PIR OVER YEARS (2000–2002)

0

5

10

20

15

25

30

AFR EAP ECA LAC

Regions

MENA SA Global

Perc

enta

ge

2000 2001 2002

23

10

1719

910

12

20

11

17

22

10 10 1010

1615

25

10

68

TABLE 7RATINGS ON IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS

Ratings on Implementation Progress

Highly Partially NotSatisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Rated Total

% % % % % %


Climate Change 9 69 8 5 8 100

International Waters 14 78 6 3 100

Multiple 100 100

Total 12 72 6 6 4 100

UNDP 10 69 11 4 6 100

UNEP 20 72 4 0 4 100

World Bank 13 75 2 9 1 100

Multiple IAs 0 100 0 0 0 100

Total 12 72 6 6 4 100

13


projects. The two UN agencies use the addi-tional category of partially successful (PS),which was introduced in the 2001 PIR. Figure7 shows the trends in PIR project ratings from

1999 to 2002. The GEF M&E unit does nothave the opportunity to assess the accuracy ofthe ratings.

TABLE 8RATINGS ON DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES

Ratings on Development Objectives

Highly Partially NotSatisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Rated Total

% % % % % %


Climate Change 8 72 9 3 8 100

International Waters 22 69 3 3 3 100

Multiple 0 100 0 0 0 100

Total 13 73 6 4 5 100

UNDP 11 67 12 3 7 100

UNEP 32 60 0 0 8 100

World Bank 11 80 2 6 1 100

Multiple IAs 0 100 0 0 0 100

Total 13 73 6 4 5 100

0

40

30

20

10

60

50

70

80

1999 2000 2001 2002

% o

f PIR

Por

tfolio

HS S PS U NR

29

24

13 12

6461

7672

7 9

366

00 0

6 62

4

FIGURE 6TRENDS IN PIR PROJECT RATINGS DEVELOPMENT


14

Projects with highly satisfactory ratingsin the PIR. This year’s PIR portfolio includes23 projects that were rated highly satisfactoryin both their implementation progress and like-lihood of achieving their development/environ-mental objectives. A further 12 projects wererated highly satisfactory in their likelihood ofachieving their development/environmental ob-jectives, and satisfactory in their implementa-tion progress. Seven projects were rated highlysatisfactory in their implementation progress,but satisfactory in the likelihood of achievingtheir development/environmental objectives.

The distribution by agency of the 23 projectsthat were rated highly satisfactory on both cri-teria is: UNDP, nine; UNEP, four; and the WorldBank, 10. The distribution by focal area isbiodiversity, 14; climate change, four; interna-tional waters, four; and multi-focal, one.

In biodiversity, some projects that were ratedhighly satisfactory include:

◆ The Development of Best Practices andDissemination of Lessons Learned forDealing with the Global Problems of AlienSpecies That Threaten Biological Diversityproject succeeded in generating best prac-tices to prevent, control, and eradicate alienspecies that threaten biodiversity. Theproject produced various publications, in-cluding a Toolkit of Best Prevention andManagement Practices for Invasive AlienSpecies, and developed a Global InvasiveSpecies Database. The project, through theGISP (Global Invasive Species Program),contributed to discussions on the alien spe-cies issue at the CBD/SBSTTA.

◆ In Wetland Priorities for Conservation Ac-tion in Ecuador, the project collected dataon wetland in three regions: coastal, inte-rior coastal, and Galapagos. The project de-veloped a methodology for identifying andcharacterizing wetlands and developingmanagement plans. This methodology wasaccepted by the Ramsar Convention and is

being adopted by other countries in LatinAmerica. Stakeholders have been involvedby providing local knowledge on tradi-tional uses, which are then incorporatedinto the management plans. Through thisproject, 10 additional wetlands were in-cluded in the Ramsar list. In addition, theproject identified 81 additional wetlandsthat are under special management andconservation. Furthermore, plans to drainsome interior wetlands were canceled dueto the intervention and recommendationsof this project.

In climate change, projects that were ratedhighly satisfactory include:

◆ China Barrier Removal for the WidespreadCommercialization of Energy-Efficient,CFC-free Refrigerators in China, underwhich manufacturers of home applianceshave considerably reduced (by as much as40 percent) the energy use of their prod-ucts compared to the prevailing standard.They also have considerably increasedsales of these energy-efficient products,resulting in the prevention of 100 milliontons of CO

2 equivalents being emitted.

◆ In the Sri Lanka Energy Services DeliveryProject, grid-connected mini-hydro capac-ity has risen by 3,000 percent to 30 MW in4 years. The project has promoted the adop-tion of tariff policies favorable to its ob-jectives by working closely with thegovernment. Private company sales of so-lar home systems have increased from lessthan 30 systems per month to 1,300 sys-tems per month in 3 years and capacitybuilding activities have led to the creationof several energy service companies(ESCOs).

In international waters, a project that wasrated highly satisfactory was:

◆ The Global Removal of Barriers to the Ef-fective Implementation of Ballast Water

15


Control and Management Measures in De-veloping Countries (GloBallast), underwhich pilot countries have established pro-cedures for collecting ballast water report-ing forms from vessels visiting theirdemonstration ports. The data is used forrisk assessments. Participating countriesare implementing national ballast watermanagement plans and extending the pro-cedures to other ports.

Projects with unsatisfactory ratings in thePIR. This year’s PIR portfolio includes eightprojects that were rated unsatisfactory on bothimplementation progress and likelihood ofachieving their development/environmental ob-jectives. In addition, four projects were ratedunsatisfactory on the likelihood of achievingthe development/environmental objectives, andpartially satisfactory or satisfactory in theirimplementation progress. A further six projectswere rated unsatisfactory in their implementa-tion progress, but partially satisfactory or sat-isfactory in the likelihood of achieving theirdevelopment/environmental objectives.

In the case of biodiversity, six projects wererated unsatisfactory on both counts, comparedwith four such projects in the 2001 PIR. TheSri Lanka Conservation of BiodiversityThrough Integrated Collaborative Managementin the Rekawa, Usangoda, and KalametiyaCoastal Ecosystems project was rated unsatis-factory because of limited achievements anddelays in implementation reportedly caused bynational elections and subsequent staff turn-over in relevant state institutions. The Philip-pines Conservation of Priority Protected Areasproject was rated unsatisfactory because ofcontinuing implementation problems; theproject was closed at the end of FY02. Its pro-curement and financial management practicesare currently under investigation by the WorldBank. The Madagascar Environment ProjectII was rated as unsatisfactory because of slow-down of implementation after the December2001 presidential elections. The Georgia Inte-grated Coastal Zone Management project was

rated unsatisfactory due to the reported lackof government commitment to meet its obliga-tions under the Ramsar Convention and toimplement corrective measures in a timelymanner (the development of the Kulevi oil ter-minal within the protected area). There alsoseems to be mounting pressure to begin peatexploitation in a national park. The Syria Con-servation of Biodiversity and Protected AreasManagement project was rated unsatisfactorydue to significant governance, institutional,financial management, and procurement is-sues. The Zimbabwe Park Rehabilitation andConservation project continues to be rated un-satisfactory due to the political situation andthe World Bank’s decision to suspend all dis-bursement to the country.

One project in climate change (compared tonone in the 2001 PIR), the Global RenewableEnergy and Energy Efficiency Fund project,was rated unsatisfactory on both counts be-cause the energy efficiency private equity fund,whose creation was the project’s objective, hada lower than expected return, which causedinvestors to withdraw their funds. This was at-tributed to the deterioration of market condi-tions and a trend towards disinvestments in theprivate power sector.

One project in the international waters focalarea, the Lake Victoria Environment project,was rated unsatisfactory on both counts. Thisrating was specifically attributed to the project’sKenya portion, which faced problems relatedto procurement, financial management, lack ofannual audits, and repeated delay of fund flowsto the field level.

Ozone Depletion. Most countries are in com-pliance with the Montreal Protocol (MP) andthe Conference of the Parties (CP), althoughnot all countries have achieved full phase-out.Poland achieved 100% phase out of Chlori-nated Fluorcarbons (CFCs), which made it fullycompliant with the MP regarding these sub-stances. Belarus , achieved full phase-out ofOzone Depleting Substances (ODS) in the


16

household refrigerator manufacturing sectorand the solvent sector. Estonia, Kazakhstan,Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are on track for fullphase-out of Annex A and B substances be-tween 2002-2004.

Countries experiencing difficulty in comply-ing with original or revised schedules aremostly Newly Independent States. Azerbaijanis not in compliance with CFC phase-out deci-sion X/20, which scheduled full phase out forJanuary 1st, 2003. Turkmenistan has proposeda new phase-out schedule, because it could notachieve the schedule outlined in MOP XI/25.Latvia expected full phase-out in 2001, but thishas not yet been confirmed. Lithuania, was ontrack for compliance by 2001, but numbershave not been reported to the Ozone Secretariatand one subproject was found to be unsuccess-ful due to a company bankruptcy.

UNEP’s regional ODS projects are differentfrom the national activities. They promote re-gional networking and sharing of knowledge.They also address the important transboundaryissue of illegal trade in ODS which continuesto be an important issue for Countries withEconomies in Transition (CEITs). They facenational legal problems (such as import dutyavoidance through smuggling) as well as com-pliance issues with the MP. There is no officialreporting on detected illegal trade or estimatedblack market trade, because the Montreal Pro-tocol (MP) gives no guidance on the issue.Despite widespread adoption of ODS trade andlicensing rules (under the UNEP project), theproject’s impact on illegal trade remains un-known. Other PIR reports confirm that ODSsmuggling continues in large countries such asIndia and China. Establishing an inter-agencytask force on ozone would be helpful to set thedirection for future GEF activities in the ozonefocal area.

17

A. SMPR

The overall purpose of the SMPR is to assesswhether projects are implemented in confor-mity with project objectives and GEF policies,standards, and procedures, especially concern-ing attainment of global environmental benefitsand incorporation of lessons learned to improveportfolio quality. In addition, the SMPR pro-vides added assurance to the GEF Council andother partners that GEF is moving forward inimplementing its “Driving for Results” strat-egy. The SMPR was conducted as a pilot exer-cise during the 2002 calendar year. GEF M&Eled the exercise with support from and in col-laboration with GEF Secretariat focal areateams, Implementing Agencies’ (IAs) staff, andexternal independent consultants. The SMPRwas intended to be complementary to the ex-isting review, monitoring, and evaluationmechanisms of the IAs and GEF M&E. Itsimplementation was coordinated with the IAs’existing monitoring and evaluation efforts, andfield visits were made in conjunction with theIAs’ midterm reviews. The modality used forimplementing the SMPR in the pilot phase wasthe review of 15 projects selected according tospecific agreed criteria. While this sample isnot statistically representative, the SMPRs en-abled a deeper review of key issues in GEFprojects and yielded findings relevant to thePPR.

Of the 15 SMPRs that were carried out during2002, seven were biodiversity projects, fivewere climate change projects, and three wereinternational waters projects. Panels participat-ing in this year’s SMPR provided an overallrating of the projects, based on the projects’

performance against the eight GEF criteriaconsidered in the SMPR questionnaire. TheSMPR criteria are different from those of thePIR, and the ratings are not directly compa-rable. Two of the climate change projects wererated partially satisfactory and three satisfac-tory, while six out of the seven biodiversitySMPRs were rated partially satisfactory orunsatisfactory (see the next chapter on portfo-lio highlights). In international waters, twoprojects were rated satisfactory and one highlysatisfactory according to the SMPR criteria.The panels concluded that projects reviewedin 2002 have performed best overall in ensur-ing stakeholder participation and country own-ership, but are facing significant challenges inthe areas of sustainability, replicability, and thedevelopment of adequate M&E systems tomeasure project outcomes. More detailed in-formation on the SMPR findings and lessonsis provided in a GEF Council document, GEFSecretariat Managed Project Review (GEF/c.21/Inf.7).

B. TER

Terminal evaluation reviews have accountabil-ity functions and are tools for learning lessonsduring individual projects that might applyacross the portfolio. The reviews examine theterminal evaluations completed by Implement-ing Agencies to assess project performance inreference to objectives, using the eight GEFproject review criteria. Given the fact that theGEF M&E unit and IAs are just in the processof developing terminal evaluation guidelines,this year’s TERs were not expected to fullyaddress all GEF review criteria. Terminal evalu-

IV. SECRETARIAT MANAGED PROJECTREVIEWS AND TERMINAL EVALUATIONREVIEWS


18

ations are a major tool for generating lessons,but also contribute to the accountability of re-source use within the IAs and for the GEFCouncil. The 2002 PPR includes 18 TERs, cov-

ering all terminal evaluations submitted by IAsfor the fiscal year ending in June 30, 2002.TERs did not rate projects. The results of theTERs are included in Chapter V.

19

This section brings together, under the GEFreview criteria, the main findings and conclu-sions from the PIR, focal area task forces, in-teragency meetings, and the various reviewsthat comprised the PPR process.

A. ImplementationApproach

The assessment of the implementation ap-proach focuses on whether changes that havetaken place since project endorsement are con-sistent with GEF guidelines; whether the imple-mentation approach adequately addressedformal recommendations made during theproject approval process; the nature of projectpartnerships; and whether risks have been ap-propriately identified during preparation andmitigated during implementation.

1. Partnership arrangementsProjects examined as part of the 2002 SMPRgenerally seem to be performing well with re-gard to implementation of partnership arrange-ments with government departments, executingagencies, and private sector entities. The Imple-mentation of the Integrated Watershed Man-agement Practices of the Pantanal and UpperParaguay River Basin project provides a goodexample of close coordination and partnershipbetween the National Water Agency (ANA),various state and local government bodies, andthe project management unit. Co-financingcontributions have exceeded estimates atproject approval, and several of this project’sactivities have been incorporated into the gov-ernments’ budget.

2. Identification, assumptions andmitigation of risksSome projects exhibited poor management ofrisks. Even where risks were identified during

project appraisal, they have frequently beenunderestimated or the strategies intended tocope with them have proved inadequate. There-fore, many risks identified at the project prepa-ration stage have later materialized, causingsevere problems for project implementation.All focal area task forces could cite examplesof inaccurate projects assumptions during theirpreparation phase. One refers to the assump-tion that there is sufficient institutional capac-ity (local or national) to carry out the project.For example, some biodiversity projects havedecided to concentrate on achieving their ob-jective by providing the most effective short-term implementation arrangements, withoutmaking local capacity building a specific ac-tivity or objective.

Climate Change. The climate change taskforce also concluded that projects do not givesufficient attention to building capacities at thelocal and regional level during preparation,even though local authorities/municipalities areincreasingly becoming the key to projectimplementation. Projects that are implementedthrough municipalities seem to face uniquechallenges. For example, under the Russia’sCapacity Building to Reduce Key Barriers toEnergy Efficiency in Russian ResidentialBuilding and Heat Supply project, operation,investment, and tariff issues are all the respon-sibility of municipalities. This is almost alwaysthe case for district heating/hot water projectsin Central and Eastern European countries.Consequently, most district heating projectswork with municipal bodies and try to estab-lish positive demonstration cases for a re-formed, energy-efficient system with highercost recovery. But a municipality’s financialstrength and autonomy is frequently limited,and municipalities are often subject to finan-cial and institutional constraints, as well as highpolitical pressure to maintain social equity. The

V. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS


20

projects try to overcome these constraints bydeveloping and implementing integrated tech-nical and institutional solutions, which improvethe utility’s heat service, cost recovery, andmanagement capacity. The Bulgaria EnergyEfficiency Strategy to Mitigate GreenhouseGas Emissions project also highlights somespecific challenges of working with munici-palities. This project has formed a MunicipalEnergy Efficiency Network in which 148 mu-nicipalities are presently involved. Such a net-work can function as a prime vehicle for policychange, replication, and capacity building andcontribute towards increased sustainability ofproject impacts. For example, the network de-scribed above contributed directly to the ini-tial floating of an energy-efficiency bond inone of its member cities to pay for municipallighting retrofits to more efficient, newer light-ing sources. Nevertheless, the project as awhole faces problems due to limited munici-pal financial self-governance and fiscal decen-tralization as well as policy and institutionalfactors at the federal level that affect the ca-pacity of municipalities to influence suchchanges.

In the climate change focal area, inadequateanalysis of market risks and financial modelshas led to implementation problems in severalprojects. The Indonesia Solar Home SystemsProject, for example, is not achieving even itsscaled-down objectives, largely because ofmacroeconomic difficulties facing the coun-try. The World Bank, cognizant of the extent towhich macroeconomic factors are affecting theproject, is considering the project’s early clo-sure. Another common problem is that aspectsidentified in the logical framework as risksshould be regarded as issues to be addressedby the project. For example, the appropriate-ness of a particular demonstration site and thelevel of local implementation capacity shouldbe considered as part of the project design.“Risks” should be factors external to the projectintervention framework and beyond theproject’s immediate control.

Biodiversity. The biodiversity task force foundthat design and implementation by a particu-lar ministry or institution in isolation from otherstakeholders is frequently a risk factor. Sev-eral projects in this year’s biodiversity portfo-lio are implemented by the relevant ministryof environment without the involvement ofother key ministries. A specific problem en-countered by several projects is that the broadernational development agenda (for example withregard to infrastructure, structural adjustment,and regulatory frameworks) overrides the con-servation objectives supported by GEFprojects. In Vietnam (Creating Protected Ar-eas for Resource Conservation using Land-scape Ecology, implemented by UNDP), thegovernment has begun construction of a damoutside of the Na Hang Protected Area, butinside the project site, which will affect theprotected area by inundating most of the low-lying areas. While the low-lying areas accountfor a small proportion of the total area, and arelargely agricultural land, the potential influenceof the large number of construction workersand the destination of communities to be relo-cated due to flooding is unknown. The govern-ment has also begun upgrading a majorcommunication link between southern andnorthern Vietnam and is considering one routefor this link that would pass through the YokDon National Park supported by the GEF. Nodecision on the road has been made yet. Amongthe institutions selected to participate in imple-menting the GEF project, there were no repre-sentatives of the ministries responsible for theabovementioned national development efforts.

Similarly, in the case of Cambodia (Biodiversityand Protected Areas Management Pilot Projectfor the Virachey National Park, implementedby the World Bank), the government has re-cently initiated the process of allocating for-est-logging concessions around the country.One of these concessions is located within theboundaries of the Virachey National Parkproject (although outside the park itself). Theseand other cases highlight the dual roles—GEF

21

Findings and Conclusions

project implementers and development agen-cies—that IAs may play in such situations. Thisreview suggests that GEF IAs should pay in-creased attention to their potential role as bro-kers in the environment and developmentagendas. In Peru, several World Bankbiodiversity projects have been affected byweaknesses and constraints in the overarchingenvironmental institution. The biodiversity taskforce questioned the wisdom of allowing min-istries of environment to act as lead institutionsin implementing biodiversity projects wherethe ministries have a weak mandate and poorcapacity. It is imperative that the sectoral min-istries in agriculture, forestry, and natural re-sources, as well as ministries of finance andplanning also support biodiversity projects.

Risks that emerge during implementation.Risks that could have not been anticipated dur-ing project preparation have at times seriouslyconstrained project activities. To prevent thesesituations, it is important to develop systemsto identify emerging risks. Once risks havebeen identified, they must be monitored andcarefully managed, so that the project will beable to quickly adapt to any new circumstances.For example, the World Bank assesses projectrisks using a risk flag and index system thatmeasures whether unsatisfactory projects arealso projects at risk and whether these projectshave improved (see Box 2). In the East Asiaand the Pacific region, for example, manage-ment has responded to the risks identified bythis system by (a) encouraging clients to seeklonger term assistance that can progressivelybuild capacity; (b) setting more modest objec-tives and allowing more time to achieve them;and (c) building more flexibility into projectdesigns to adapt to evolving conditions. In Peru,the system identified overarching institutionalweaknesses in a national agency executing sev-eral GEF projects. In response, the World Bankmoved routine project administration to an in-stitution with stronger administrative capaci-ties and is planning to contract the majority offield activities to be carried out during the restof the project. It is important to point out that

the GEF should not move away from high-riskprojects altogether, since these may offer un-usually large environmental gains.

3. Attention during preparation tocomments made at proposal stageSeveral SMPRs noted that, during projectpreparation, comments about project propos-als by IAs other than the sponsoring IA, GEFSecretariat, GEF Council and STAP were giveninsufficient attention. Such issues sometimesremained unresolved or, in a few cases, actu-ally worsened during implementation. This in-dicates that these projects did not fullyincorporate the recommended changes. ThePPR review process also identified weaknesses

Box 2The World Bank’s projects-at-risk system

The Bank’s projects-at-risk system is a toolused for early identification of those opera-tions where self-assessment (of project per-formance) by task managers may be too op-timistic, and influenced more by hope morethan objective judgment. It is an early warn-ing of possible failure. The concept tries togo below current, and visible, ratings to un-cover the picture underneath. There are twotypes of at-risk projects: projects graded asproblems based on the latest Project Super-vision Reports ratings, that is, projects ratedunsatisfactory on implementation progressor on their progress toward achieving devel-opment objectives, and projects graded aspotential problems based on the presenceof at least three of 12 leading indicators offuture problems in such areas as financialperformance, M&E, project management,and country environment. Each of the 12 in-dicators is a “flag” pointing toward final out-comes. Being “at risk” does not ordain anegative outcome. In fact, the primary pur-pose of this classification is to bring addedmanagerial attention to such projects to helpprevent unsatisfactory outcomes.


22

in GEF guidelines on how to deal with funda-mental changes in projects during implemen-tation. Furthermore, Implementing Agenciesdo not always send the final project documentnegotiated with countries to the GEF Secre-tariat, making it difficult for GEF Secretatiatto have a precise picture of the activities it sup-ports. Replication is another area that requiresmore attention during project preparation andimplementation. Project approaches to repli-cation are often vague, and few PIRs report onsuch activities.

4. Logical frameworksThe logical frameworks (logframes) for all 18projects examined during terminal evaluationreviews were found to be weak. Many failed toestablish a consistent logical strategy with aclear link between inputs/activities, outputs,and objectives. A common weakness was theabsence of measurable or verifiable indicators.

5. Conclusions on implementation approach

◆ IAs need to take into account more fully—during design and implementation—com-ments formally submitted by other GEFentities on project design documents.

◆ Project preparation should distinguish be-tween root causes and identified projectrisks and develop risk mitigation strategies,as well as systems to monitor risks morecarefully during implementation. Financialand country-level risks affecting the projectshould also be monitored.

◆ During preparation there is a need to prop-erly assess institutional and partner capac-ity at local and national levels and, inrelevant sectors, to give more attention tobuilding capacity at the local level. Thereshould be a clear distinction between thecapacity required to successfully imple-

ment a project and that which a project isintended to develop.

◆ IAs will retrofit logframes to projects thathave at least 2 years of implementationtime remaining and whose originallogframes are inadequate. Logframesshould also be retrofitted for projects thatare undergoing significant changes duringimplementation.

◆ The M&E unit, in cooperation with theGEF Secretariat and IAs, will identifyweaknesses in the use of the logframe, willdocument good practices in preparing logi-cal frameworks, and on this basis, anddrawing on the lessons and accomplish-ments of partner agencies, and will orga-nize learning events that address theidentified weaknesses.

◆ GEF Secretariat should re-examine theproject review criteria on replication andmake them more prominent in the reviewprocess.

B. Sustainability andCountry Ownership

Sustainability refers to factors that ensure con-tinuation of project benefits after completionof project implementation, within or outsidethe project domain. The issue of sustainabilitywithin the context of GEF projects has beenanalyzed in several GEF M&E studies.9 Dis-cussion has usually focused on f inancialsustainability. Other factors contributing tosustainability include building country owner-ship and mainstreaming project activities orobjectives in the operations of government andpartner agencies. The general consensus is that,even though some aspects of projects mighthave a high likelihood of sustainability, GEF

9 Focal areas program studies, OPSs, and thematic reviews on financial sustainability of biodiversity projects

23


projects are not doing enough to ensure thesustainability of overall project outcomes andimpacts.

The discussion on sustainability in this year’sPPR provided several examples of projects thatare trying to promote sustainability by estab-lishing appropriate financial mechanisms,mainstreaming project activities within execut-ing and Implementing Agencies, influencingpolicy frameworks, and/or disseminatingknowledge.

1. Accomplishments in financialsustainability of GEF activitiesThere are several good examples of projectsseeking to develop the financial sustainabilityof project benefits. The Côte d’Ivoire EnergyEfficiency Market Development project (WorldBank) focused on sustainability from the start.The project took a holistic approach by seek-ing to create a demand for energy service com-panies’ (ESCOs) services, supply thoseservices, and increase the availability of financ-ing to support the services. Four new ESCOshave been created and relationships have beenestablished between them, their clients, andtheir financiers. A revolving fund establishedunder the project serves as a funder of last re-sort, and many projects have been financedwithout revolving fund assistance. However,when this project was reviewed as part of the2002 SMPR, the panel was concerned that theinterest rate of the revolving fund is not beinggradually increased to market levels and thatprivate financial institutions are rarely involvedin sub-project financing. Both the Sri LankaEnergy Services Delivery and the Bolivia Ru-ral Electrification with Renewable EnergyThrough Popular Participation Law projectsdemonstrate strong attention to f inancialsustainability by project management. The SriLanka project continually promoted the evo-

lution of its business and policy models for bothoff-grid and on-grid renewable energy.

Microcredit business and finance models foroff-grid PV and regulatory frameworks forsmall hydropower producers both appear highlysustainable. The Bolivia project continues todesign and experiment with new business andfinancing models, since funds are no longeravailable from the Popular Participation Law10 .These efforts appear highly motivated and de-signed to promote sustainability. For example,the project tried to increase affordability byattracting end-user credit from micro financeinstitutions (which in turn received credit froma bank) without the use of Popular Participa-tion Law funds. The India Renewable Re-sources Development project provides anexample of financial sustainability achieved bytransforming the PV and wind power marketsin India (see Box 3).

Other projects have helped introduce a varietyof fee-based approaches to f inancialsustainability. Under the Gulf of Aqaba Envi-ronmental Action Plan (Jordan), cost recoverymechanisms have been put in place to assist inpromoting the financial sustainability of pro-tected areas and environmental protection.These include marine park fees (diving fees,visitor fees, and beach facility fees), issuanceof permits (air emission permits, cooling wa-ter discharge permits, resource user fees forimport/export), and fines for environmentaldamages, including industrial pollution and oilspills. All revenue from these fees and fineswill be earmarked for the Department of Envi-ronment, Regulation, and Enforcement.o The Philippines Conservation of PriorityProtected Areas project (CPPAP) has experi-mented with an interesting variation of userfees, including requiring peasant farmers inpark buffer zones to pay fees for keeping pigs

10 The expected subsidies from the Popular Participation Law were not available to private service providers, as had been expected when theproject was designed.


24

or fighting cocks on land adjacent to parkboundaries. The Costa Rica Ecomarkets projectis supporting a direct payment to providebiodiversity conservation benefits to privateland owners. Despite such initiatives, few pro-tected areas are capable of generating sufficientrevenues, either from visitor fees or other userpayments, to be self-sustaining11 .

Other projects in the biodiversity focal areaseek financial sustainability by establishingconservation trust funds—using GEF financ-ing as part of the capitalization to support pro-tected area financing—at either the national orthe individual protected area. Trust funds havebeen especially popular in Latin America andAfrica. One example is the Bolivia Biodiversity

Conservation project, which by strengtheningthe National System of Protected Areas(SNAP), contributed to convincing donors tosupport the FUNDESNAP, which has a targetof $63 million over the next 30 years.

Despite important contributions to the finan-cial sustainability of GEF projects, a study onfinancial arrangements for biodiversity conser-vation commissioned by the GEF M&E unitconcluded that there is room for improvement.The study included four field visits and a de-tailed review of 18 projects. Financial arrange-ments were defined as the means to generaterevenues or secure income to support projectoutcomes.12 Some of the key lessons and find-ings of the study were:

Box 3Using renewable energy market transformations to achieve sustainability

The India Renewable Resources Development (IREDA) project is a good example of market trans-formation to promote the adoption of renewable energy for rural electrification in a sustainable way.This has been achieved through rural PV financing, as well as through private sector developmentof investments in renewable energy. The project helped promote a critical shift in the government’sapproach to renewable energy development, from one that was largely state administered to a moremarket-driven approach with active private sector involvement. IREDA’s role in financing renewableenergy investments has encouraged other lenders to support the sector. For example, renewableenergy project financing is now available from a substantial number of national and local banks,non-bank financial institutions, cooperatives, foundations/trusts, and government-owned financialinstitutions, starting from a zero base in 1993. By FY2002, IREDA’s annual loan disbursement levelhad reached $134 million, compared to less than $4 million in 1993. IREDA has now attractedadditional international support in excess of $350 million. Over 3400 MW of wind, small hydro,biomass, solar photovoltaic, and other renewable energy power systems were in operation by De-cember 2001, compared to about 100 MW in 1992. The vast majority of these investments weredeveloped by the private sector or NGOs, as part of IREDA’s financing for over 1,500 projects. Theproject helped catalyze an unprecedented growth in investment in the renewable energy industry.This promoted an increased share of renewable energy in the overall Indian power generationcapacity, from a mere 0.13 percent in 1992 to nearly 3.4 percent by 2001. The carbon emissionsavoided as a direct result of the project are estimated to be 1.1 million and 94,000 tons, respectively,over the lifetime of the financed wind and PV projects.

11 Review of GEF’s Engagement with the Private Sector – Interim Report (GEF/c.21/Inf.8).12 Review of Financial Arrangements in the GEF Biodiversity projects (GEF/c.21/Inf.13).

25


◆ The selection of financial arrangements inGEF projects has often been based on in-adequate information.

◆ Many of the projects reviewed did not pre-pare plans to develop long-term financialresources to sustain gains made by theproject.

◆ Longer time frames than currently used areneeded to ensure sufficient revenue for thefinancial sustainability of the project.

◆ Adequate linkages have generally beenestablished with national and/or local-levelactors. Many of the financial arrangementsaimed at mitigating threats from local com-munities are well developed.

◆ The linkages between capacity buildingcomponents and revenue-generatingactivities should be strengthened bymore direct interventions from projects inthe form of grants, credits, or equity in-vestments.

◆ The f inancial sustainability solutionsadopted by many of the projects are basedon a single or a few similar revenue-gen-erating activities. This lack of diversifica-tion makes it diff icult for projects tomanage financial instability due to changesin the global economy, shifts in politicalsupport, and other external factors.

B. Development ofownership

Several international waters projects are seek-ing to incorporate project objectives and ac-tivities in the regular operations of executingagencies, joint institutional arrangements, orcountry institutions that are involved in theproject. For example, in the case of UNDP’sImplementation of the (Strategic Action Plan

Box 4Obtaining government financial commitments

The objective of Western Indian Ocean Islands Oil Spill Contingency Planning project, implementedby the World Bank, is to “protect the mainly pristine aquatic ecosystems and rich biodiversity of theWestern Indian Ocean Islands (Comoros, Mauritius, Madagascar, Seychelles, and Reunion) fromthe risks of oil spills in harbors and along the high traffic oil routes of the WIO and in particular of theMozambique Channel.” The development objective was “to enable the four countries to directlyprevent, contain and clean the small-medium oil spills (Tier 1, 2) frequently occurring in harbors oralong marine routes, and to strengthen the ability and coordination of participating countries andthe regional organization to prevent, contain and clean Tier 3 major spills in cooperation with SouthAfrica’s response facilities.” This project has addressed several key factors affecting sustainability.Sustainable financing mechanisms have been established in all countries. Participating govern-ments have allocated the necessary budget within existing agencies to ensure operations of projectinstallations or have established a separate fund to pay for ongoing project activities. Conventionshave been ratified by all four countries, national legislation has been harmonized, and there isevidence of good political support. The project used media and public relations campaigns to gainsupport from the private sector and to disseminate public information to build oil spill detection andresponse capacity. Sustainability was an objective of the project and was pursued vigorously through-out. Project outputs were directly related to institutional changes, capacities, financial mechanisms,and legal reforms that would be in place at the end of the project. Despite these achievements, theproject has not so far been successful at generating the financial commitment from participatinggovernments to support an international cooperation mechanism to continue coordinating regionalactivities once GEF project funding ends.


26

(SAP) of the Pacific Small Island DevelopingStates, the Pacific Forum and the Forum Fish-ery Agency played central roles during the ne-gotiations and signing of the Tuna FisheryTreaty and are now key players in implement-ing it. In the case of the Western Indian OceanOil Spill Contingency Planning project, par-ticipating countries have allocated the neces-sary budget within existing governmentagencies, or have created funds to ensure op-erations of project installations and outputs (seeBox 4). In the GloBallast project, coordina-tion with the International Maritime Organi-zation (IMO) resulted in the establishment ofa permanent office in that organization to ad-dress ballast water issues.

Other projects are building strong constituen-cies and country commitment through the useof a “bottom-up” approach to project planningand implementation, including successful lo-cal demonstration activities, participatorySAPs, and external communications programs.For example, the UNDP project Building Part-nerships in Environmental Protection andManagement for the East Asian Seas(PEMSEA) has followed a two-tiered approachin building support and commitment to the pro-tection of international waters among 12 coun-tries. Through a series of “top-down” activities,the project has assisted participating countriesto develop and ratify dozens of agreements andconventions to protect marine resources. Simul-taneously, it has carried out a series of “bot-tom-up” activities that resulted in quick andtangible benefits to participating countries, andhave promoted sustainable management ofmarine resources. Given the political complex-ity of reaching international agreements in sucha diverse geographical area, part of the projectstrategy consists of getting countries to dem-onstrate and share approaches to address ma-rine environmental and resource use problems,while building multisector coalitions to sup-port policy agendas and sustainable coastalmanagement plans. By demonstrating successat the local level, PEMSEA has been able tofacilitate alliances among local and national

governments, business leaders, and communi-ties in the adoption of laws, action plans, andenvironmentally sound resource managementpractices. PEMSEA has also influenced na-tional policy reforms, catalyzed importantcountry investments in coastal zone manage-ment, and facilitated the development and rati-fication of dozens of international agreementsand conventions among participating countries.But some challenges remain. To date, East Asiais the only region of the world that lacks re-gional marine conventions. The PEMSEAproject has provided the initial steps to the cre-ation of a regional cooperating mechanism, butparticipating governments have yet to define amore permanent and sustainable institutionalarrangement.

There are also examples of ImplementingAgencies that are mainstreaming programs intotheir own operations. The World Bank, for ex-ample, has begun to incorporate internationalwaters (IW) as a topic in its country dialogueleading to the Country Assistance Strategies(CAS). By incorporating it into the CAS, theBank has promoted IW programs in 14 coun-tries. UNDP is also mainstreaming IW programactivities, by using its own resources to financeactivities related to the GEF IW program. Theseinclude activities in the Black Sea area and theCaspian Sea, where a number of the SAPs andNational Caspian Sea Action Programs havecomponents that are appropriate for UNDPinterventions. UNDP has also been workingwith the government in Romania to developits own initiative for reducing risks from minewaste spills.

3. Dissemination of knowledgeProjects also seek to promote sustainability isdisseminating knowledge and creating clearlydemonstrable global impacts. For example, theUNEP global project, “Development of BestPractices and Dissemination of LessonsLearned for Addressing the Problem of Inva-sive Alien Species (IAS)” was successful in in-fluencing the Conference of the Parties bygenerating best practices to prevent, control,

27


and eradicate alien species that threatenbiodiversity (see Box 5).

4. Some key issues affecting sustainabilityThe PPR process also showed that, notwith-standing some significant accomplishments,many projects are still struggling with the is-sue of sustainability. One of the most commonproblems is that projects often do not beginaddressing the issue until very late in the imple-mentation cycle. Furthermore, in many in-stances, project management units do not havethe appropriate technical skills to addresssustainability. For example, the Poland Coal-to-Gas Project has supported more than 30 sub-projects. However, although some specificarrangements for ensuring sustainability havebeen designed or introduced, such as capacitybuilding, knowledge transfer, and processingsubproject requests, other factors, such as fu-ture fuel and energy prices and environmentaltaxes or fees, that might affect the sustainability

of project outcomes were considered beyondthe project’s scope. In another example,UNEP’s Redirecting Commercial Investmentproject, the Investment Advisory Facilityhelped financial institutions assess 11 renew-able energy and energy efficiency investments.Of these, three had gone to closure at the timethe SMPR was conducted. However, the SMPRindicated that during implementation theproject shifted from supporting alternative fea-sibility studies to supporting RE/EE projectfinance type investments that were alreadyunder development. Therefore, there was aninsufficient basis to verify that the GEF-fundedinterventions had any causal link to subprojectsreaching financial closure, which could havebeen an indication of the project’s sustainability.

A complex issue raised by biodiversity and in-ternational waters PIRs, and now by SMPRpanels, is the poor chances of attainingsustainability within the lifetime of a GEF

Box 5Disseminating knowledge and creating demonstrable global impacts

The objective of the UNEP project “Development of Best Practices and Dissemination of LessonsLearned for Addressing the Problem of Invasive Alien Species (IAS)” is to examine current tools andapproaches for recognizing, evaluating, and mitigating against invasive species in order to deter-mine best practices and to disseminate this information. The project has successfully identified bestpractices to prevent, control, and eradicate alien species that threaten biodiversity. It had a consid-erable impact at both the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA)and Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings in raising awareness of the IAS issue and advancingpolicy dialogue and actions through the development of a high quality “Invasive Alien Species Toolkitof Best Prevention and Management Practices” and a Global Invasive Species Database. The AlienSpecies project was instrumental in launching the Global Invasive Species Program (GISP) PhaseI and successfully leveraging various donors’ support. GISP involvement in the CBD process viaSBSTTA helped raise awareness among parties to the CBD about the need to prevent, control, andmanage IAS during implementation of national biodiversity strategy and action plans. Furthermore,this issue has been targeted as one component of the Framework Action Plan for the Environmentunder NEPAD (New Partnership for African Development).

The Alien Species project started considering follow-up activities to the project very early in projectimplementation. As a result more significant follow-up initiatives, including GISP II, are taking place.The executing agency was strongly linked to a world-class group of scientists, which was instru-mental in building and establishing the project’s credibility at the international level.


28

project (3-4 years). This is even more difficultand challenging in the case of projects imple-mented within Least Developed Countries(LDCs), for which the biodiversity task forceconsidered it unrealistic to set a goal of finan-cial sustainability of protected areas at the endof a 4-year project. During its discussions, thetask force questioned the expectation that allprojects in biodiversity will be sustainable af-ter GEF funding ends. In many cases,sustainability may not be possible within sucha short time period. The use of visitor fees, es-pecially for those protected areas that have highvisitor appeal and a large volume of tourist traf-fic, may be one way of assisting with financialsustainability of recurring costs. However, fewprotected areas are capable of generating suf-ficient revenues either from visitor fees or otheruser payments to be self-sustaining. Evenwhere individual sites could be self-financing,it is unusual for fees to be retained on site orfor the whole protected area network to be self-financing. This is a global problem and arisesfrom both a reluctance to charge realistic fees,often because of an “unwillingness to charge”rather than an “unwillingness to pay,” and thecommon practice of returning park fees to ei-

ther the national or local government’s treasury.With regard to broader issues of financialsustainability, it is vital that projects devise fi-nancial sustainability plans that are diverse anddo not rely on a single source of income, suchas visitor fees.

In the case of the international waters focalarea, the complex nature of multicountryprojects and the time frame in which they areimplemented often makes sustainability objec-tives difficult to achieve. This is particularlytrue with regard to participating countries’ fi-nancial and political commitment to mecha-nisms that would continue to support projectoutcomes once GEF funding ends. Many of theIW focal area projects, particularly those deal-ing with multicountry issues, are intrinsicallycomplex. Governments require ample time toassess and negotiate binding agreements, es-tablish and grant authority to international or-ganizations, and address all aspects ofmulticountry cooperation13 .

Notwithstanding the important achievementsin assisting countries to develop and ratify con-ventions and agreements (see Box 1), several

Box 1Accomplishments in the ratification of conventions and international agreements

Several projects have successfully supported countries to develop and ratify international waterconventions, establish new agreements, or build capacity for convention compliance and imple-mentation. The Western Indian Ocean Oil Spill Contingency Planning project (World Bank) hasbeen successful in assisting participating countries to ratify relevant MARPOL treaties. Similarly,the Implementation of the SAP of the Pacific Small Island Developing States, a joint UNDP-World Bank-UNEP project, has helped participating countries’ ratify a fishing treaty to protect theworld’s largest tuna stocks. The Caspian Environment Program (UNDP) has facilitated the nego-tiation of the Caspian Sea Framework Convention, which four out of five participating govern-ments are about to sign. Governments participating in this project have also prepared, or are inthe process of preparing, National Caspian Action Plans (NCAPs) and are linking these plans tofinancial commitments and priority investment portfolios. GloBallast (UNDP) has played a keyrole in building national and regional awareness, support, and capacity to implement the emerg-ing Convention on Ship Ballast Water Management. UNDP’s Building Partnerships in Environ-mental Protection and Management for the East Asian Seas has also assisted participatinggovernments to prepare to ratify international conventions.

29


2002 PIRs have noted difficulties in obtain-ing, within project time frames, the necessarypolitical and financial support from participat-ing governments for the international mecha-nisms advocated. For example, the PIR for thePreparation of the Strategic Action Programfor the Dnipro River Basin project reports thatthe intergovernmental agreement for the cre-ation and funding of a convention or a com-mission for the management of the DniproRiver will require a far greater degree of po-litical consensus than was anticipated in theproject document.14 The PIR for the Implemen-tation of the Strategic Action Program for theRed Sea and the Gulf of Aden also reports over-ambitious objectives and major impedimentsto meeting the time frame necessary to achieveproject goals. This PIR indicates that in the caseof regional projects of this nature, it may benecessary to either be more concrete with re-spect to outputs and deliverables or more gen-erous vis-à-vis the time scale and length ofwork plans. The project Determination of Pri-ority Actions for the Further Elaboration andImplementation of the SAP for the Mediterra-nean Region indicates that it may be unrealis-tic to expect f inancial engagement fromparticipating countries without “interventionfrom abroad.” Even projects that have impres-sive achievements at the country level, such asthe West Indian Ocean Oil Spill ContingencyPlanning project, have problems establishinginstruments or mechanisms for regional coop-eration, or persuading countries to adopt com-mitments to support a mechanism forinternational coordination.

This PPR concludes that facilitating the politi-cal, financial, and institutional commitment toenvironmental reform (such as SAP processes)

and building the necessary capacity, takes sub-stantial time, effort, and resources and thatproject time frames should be calculated ac-cordingly (for example, see the Benguela Cur-rent and Yellow Sea Large Marine Ecosystems).Transboundary diagnostic analyses (TDAs),SAPs, and other projects that depend on con-sensus building among several countries shouldbe designed in phases, with benchmarks ofprogress and smooth continuity betweenphases. Small grants and medium-size projectsshould be strategically allocated to contributeto the performance of larger projects and mayalso be used to address specific needs or con-stituencies. The GEF is currently examiningpossible long-term modalities and program-matic approaches, but the need to assess exist-ing activities and draw lessons remains.

5. Conclusions on sustainability and coun-try ownership

◆ GEF Secretariat review criteria and proce-dures should specify more clearly the vari-ous dimensions of sustainability (financial,institutional, social, and ecological).

◆ GEF should take stock of its experienceand approaches and further develop apolicy on longer term modalities, includ-ing programmatic and phased project ap-proaches.

◆ Projects should include f inancialsustainability plans or strategies that arediverse and do not rely on a single sourceof income.

◆ GEF projects need to engage key sectorministries more fully, including planning

13 Previous PPRs and GEF thematic reviews have also indicated that complex multicountry and multi-implementing agency structuresrequire careful preparation, which often leads to longer preparation periods, greater costs, and more time spent than single-country settings.See Petri Ollila et al. Multicountry Project Arrangements, GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper # 3, September 2000, pp. 2.14 It should be pointed out that the intergovernmental agreement was not an objective of the project, it was an “add on” at the request of thegovernments involved.


30

and finance ministries, as well as the envi-ronment ministry, in order to ensure thatprojects are compatible with national de-velopment priorities.

◆ The roles and contributions of governmentmust be clearly specified during projectpreparation and then jointly followed up.

C. Stakeholder Participa-tion, including PrivateSector Involvement

Effective public involvement is critical to thesuccess of GEF-financed projects. The GEFpolicy document “Public Involvement in GEF-Financed Projects” defines public involvementas consisting of three related and often over-lapping processes: information dissemination,consultation, and stakeholder participation.Stakeholder participation is one of the 10 op-erational principles of the GEF. Stakeholdersare defined as the individuals, groups, or insti-tutions that have an interest or stake in the out-come of a GEF-financed project. The termapplies especially to those directly affected bya project. Given the different instruments usedby GEF projects to involve the private sector,for the purpose of this PPR, we have distin-guished between overall stakeholder participa-tion and private sector involvement in GEFprojects.

1. Diverse approaches to stakeholderparticipationThe PPR analysis concludes that participation,particularly in the biodiversity and internationalwaters focal areas, is making vital contribu-tions towards meeting GEF objectives when itis used as a tool to link global environmentalprotection efforts with local and national needs.The GEF M&E 2002 PIR guidelines did not

specify reporting requirements on stakeholderparticipation, thus PIR reporting of stakeholderparticipation and private sector involvement isoften limited or incomplete. Nevertheless, PIRsand task force discussions provide some evi-dence to suggest that the extent and depth ofstakeholder participation and private sectorpartnerships varies considerably across focalareas and regions and leaves much room forimprovement.

On the positive side, biodiversity is the focalarea that most frequently incorporates localstakeholder participation into project planningand implementation. This is appropriate, sincebiodiversity projects often take place in areasthat are inhabited or surrounded by people whoare highly dependent on local natural resourcesto meet their needs. Many biodiversity projectsare using stakeholder participation to establisha direct link between the economic needs oflocal populations and the long-term securityof natural resources. For example, the IndiaEcodevelopment Project involves local peoplein biodiversity conservation as a major com-ponent of its project strategy. By incorporat-ing local people into project planning andimplementation, this project showed how com-munity participation in development activitiescan support protected area programs throughlinking development activities to conservationobjectives, such as the provision of fuel-effi-cient stoves to reduce firewood needs and em-ployment of local people as conservationguards and tourist guides15 . A different ap-proach has been adopted in the South AfricaConservation Farming Project, which linksagricultural research and extension with con-servation. Results from this project show thatit is crucial to involve farmers in research anddemonstrate that progress towards biodiversityconservation objectives can be linked with lo-cal economic benefits. The People, Land Man-agement, and Environmental Change (PLEC)

15 This participatory strategy was not followed in all project sites

31


project worked at developing sustainable andparticipatory approaches to incorporate or“mainstream” biodiversity conservation intoagricultural activities. In the Forest Manage-ment and Conservation Project in Laos, suc-cessful stakeholder participation at the locallevel has caused the government to considerof wide-ranging policy reforms (see Box 6).

Activities in the international waters focal areahave shown an increasing tendency to comple-ment such top-down multicountry approachesas TDAs and SAPs with bottom-up approachesthat include stakeholder participation and dem-onstration projects. For example, in the caseof the Implementation of the Strategic ActionProgram for the Bermejo River Basin in Ar-gentina and Bolivia, stakeholder participation,bottom-up planning, and demonstrationprojects resulted in an SAP that strongly re-flects the views of local stakeholders and hasstrong national support. Both countries have

also created interministerial committees to gen-erate support for the investments identifiedduring the SAP and to translate project recom-mendations into reforms. The SAP for theBermejo River Basin also established networksto support and continue project activities. Theproject Building Partnerships in Environmen-tal Protection and Management for the EastAsian Seas (PEMSEA) has combined top-downand bottom-up approaches to promote sustain-able management of marine resources among12 East Asian nations. PEMSEA also facili-tated the formation of alliances among localand national governments, business leaders,and communities in the adoption of resourcemanagement practices.

In Eastern Europe, international water projectsseem to incorporate less participatory featuresthan projects in other regions. Stakeholder par-ticipation is often narrowly defined. Projectsmay emphasize public information and the

Box 6Building a policy framework to nourish community participation in conservation

The Forest Management and Conservation Project under implementation by the World Bank devel-oped a successful program for sustainably managing protected areas and production forests in theLao PDR. Robust community involvement played a critical role in the project’s achievements. VillageForestry Association (VFA) members prepared forest management plans and signed 50-year con-tracts with provincial authorities to manage forest areas according to these plans. Villagers andlocal government staff did boundary demarcation and prepared land use maps and 10-year landuse plans in 60 villages. Consultative processes were developed for participatory biodiversity vil-lage assessments and infrastructure development. Innovative rapid biodiversity assessment sys-tems were developed, including biodiversity monitoring systems in some villages. Both the villageorganizations and the local government staff gained the experience necessary to sustain and ex-pand the FOMACOP Village Forestry model and undertake some protected area managementactivities.

Implementation of this model has improved the management of 145,000 hectares of forests. How-ever, these achievements are currently compromised by the absence of an appropriate legal frame-work, which should have been addressed at the beginning of the project. On the basis of the projectresults thus far, the World Bank and the government of the Lao PDR began conversations concern-ing possible changes to forestry sector policy that would decentralize forest resource managementfrom the central government to local authorities and communities and thereby clearing the way toensure the sustainability and replicability of successful community forestry projects.


32

constitution of stakeholder committees, butparticipation is often focused on specific as-pects of the project. The Aral Sea Water andEnvironmental Management project, for ex-ample, has largely focused on public informa-tion, but seems to have had limited impactbecause of the inadequate targeting of its mes-sages. The Lake Ohrid Conservation projectin Albania was more successful in its focus onpublic information. Its activities led to a muchwider and deeper appreciation of the value ofprotecting the area by a large number of stake-holders, including government agencies. Amajor limiting factor, as indicated in the Prepa-ration of the Strategic Action Program for theDnipro River Basin project, shows that gov-ernments and civil society organizations havebeen often slow to adopt instruments for stake-holder participation.

The Persistent Toxic Substance (PST), FoodSecurity, and Indigenous People of RussiaNorth project implemented by UNEP, on theother hand, is an example strong stakeholdersupport and country ownership. This was ac-complished by adopting a bottom-up method-ology in developing the SAP and by properlyincorporating stakeholders into project imple-mentation. This project also has establishedstrong cooperation arrangements with local andother government agencies. Its success in con-stituency building has led to wide national andinternational interest in the project’s results andmethods and non-GEF donor interest in fol-low-up activities.

The climate change focal area also providessome good examples of participatory ap-proaches. The project Optimizing Developmentof Small Hydro Resources in the Hilly Regionsof India offers an example of multi-stakeholderparticipation, featuring collaboration betweenthe government, the private sector and NGOs.This project is aimed at assisting the Indiangovernment to develop a national strategy anda master plan through small hydropower (SHP)demonstration projects in the Himalayan andSub-Himalayan regions. In Sri Lanka, the En-

ergy Services Delivery project is successfullypromoting grid-connected and off-grid energyservices using renewable technologies preparedand implemented by the private sector andlocal communities. The active involvementof community-based organizations andmicrofinance institutions has triggered an ex-ponential market growth for solar home sys-tems and village hydro schemes. In theMalaysia Industrial Energy Efficiency project,the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers,representing eight industrial sectors, has be-come the coordinator for all project-related ac-tivities in these industries. Another successfulexample of effective stakeholder participationinvolves a carbon sequestration project inSudan, where the sustainability of project out-comes has been enhanced through replicationof the approach by other villages in the region(see Box 7). Other notable examples of climatechange projects with stakeholder participationinclude the NGO- executed Bulgaria EnergyEfficiency project, Renewable Energy projectsin Bolivia and Guatemala, as well as Indus-trial Energy Efficiency projects in Kenya.

Task forces pointed out several instances andlessons regarding needs for improvement inincorporating stakeholder participation in GEFprojects. Compared to the biodiversity and in-ternational waters focal areas, the climatechange portfolio is not as rich in examples ofpublic participation, despite efforts to improvethis dimension based on the recognition thatparticipation is a key ingredient for successfulGEF projects. The climate change task forceagreed that many projects within this focal areaare still exclusively carried out by governments,utilities providers, and energy companies, leav-ing a significant space for improving publicparticipation, consistent with the GEF policyof public involvement. It is often difficult toanalyze the position of particular projects be-cause their PIR reports do not contain a de-tailed stakeholder analysis.

Limited stakeholder participation has alsocaused problems in projects. In the climate

33


change focal area, some projects have recog-nized the lack of public participation as an is-sue that may affect project success. Such is thecase with the MSP Improved Household Stovesin Mongolian Urban Centers. This project hasfailed to introduce improved heating stovesthrough a market-based system, partly becauseof the absence of NGO or community-basedorganization (CBO) involvement. The projectRemoval of Barriers to Biomass Power Gen-eration and Co-generation in Thailand facesimplementation challenges resulting from pub-lic protests regarding the choice of sites onwhich to build power plants. In this case, sev-eral sites for the small-scale power projects

have been identified, and some are proceedingthrough to implementation. Others are requir-ing greater participation, consultations, andevaluations before receiving approval from theThai government regulatory authorities. As thisproject supports only partial risk guarantees onprojects initiated by the private sector, UNDPis encouraging full consultation between thecommunities involved, the proponents, andgovernment regulatory authorities as a way oftesting the effectiveness of the Thaigovernment’s regulatory procedures. It is hopedthat such consultations may lead to an open,transparent, and effective approval process forsmall, independent power projects.

Box 7Community participation and sustainability of project outcomes

The Sudan Community-Based Rangeland Rehabilitation for Carbon Sequestration and Biodiversityproject illustrates a successful intervention for carbon sequestration that has also achieved ruraleconomic development through strong stakeholder participation, with additional potential benefitsfor biodiversity conservation. Implemented by UNDP, the project’s institutional networks were wellplaced within the overall village organizational structure. Five village councils representing 17 vil-lages were targeted. The total population consisted of 5,500 Gawamaa (agropastoralists), and 600Kawahla (transhumants). The project integrated local development needs into project activities bydiversifying local production systems through water wells projects, an experimental nursery station,women’s irrigated gardens, sheep rearing, dairy production, food production, and para-veterinariantraining activities. The project staff and the villagers developed five village land use master plans.These management plans were formalized within the local government structure, communicated tothe entire project population, and used for decision making. The project coordinated activities withsimilar efforts in the region.

Community participation was high across the range of activities and exceeded project goals, whichsuggests that the training programs and extension activities were very effective. For example, localvillagers rapidly adopted the project techniques and, outside the project area, several other villagesbegan to implement some of the project strategies that they learned from contact with project villag-ers. The project achieved its objective through improved rangeland management, the use of drought-adapted grasses and native trees to sequester carbon, as well as by planting trees/shrubs andgrasses on sand dunes. Carbon was also sequestered in the trees planted along farm boundariesas wind breaks. As a result of the project activities, the emissions reduction over 20 years is pro-jected at more than 67,000 tons of carbon. In addition, improved ecosystem conditions may restorethe populations of several endangered animal and plant species. It is clear that an expansion of thisparticipatory model beyond Gireigikh, for example, to 1,000 additional contiguous rural councils inKordofan State, would help validate this model of community development for carbon sequestration.The model could then be used to attract international climate change mitigation investments.


34

In biodiversity, the projects Creating ProtectedAreas for Resources Conservation (PARC) inVietnam Using a Landscape Ecology Approachand Georgia Integrated Costal Zone Manage-ment both face economic development activi-ties in their project areas that will underminetheir objective of biodiversity conservation.This issue relates to insufficient consultationwith non-partner ministries. In the Cambodianproject, Biodiversity and Protected Area Man-agement, insufficient participation at the na-tional level is causing problems, even thoughparticipation at the local level is very good.

In the international waters focal area, thelaunching of the Lake Manzala EngineeredWetlands project in Egypt was delayed by tech-nical problems, initial resistance by local resi-dents to the project, and the inability to securethe land necessary for implementation. How-ever, the project has resolved these problemsand gained the support of all concerned par-ties by carrying out a series of local and na-tional consultations involving local residents,government officials, UNDP staff, scientists,and members of parliament.

2. Private sector involvement inGEF projectsMost private sector involvement in the GEF istaking place in the climate change focal area.GEF has supported a range of approaches thatinclude partnerships with utility providers, de-velopment of financial markets, introductionof new products to specific markets, and pro-motion of demand for environmentally friendlytechnologies (see Box 8). It is in this focal areathat the challenges of engaging private sectorinvolvement have been most prominent. Twoissues raised by the climate change task forcerelate to the choice of financial instruments andthe business models promoted by GEF projects.

Within its climate change portfolio, GEF hasdesigned and implemented non-grant financialinstruments such as subsidized loans, contin-gent grants, risk guarantees, and private equityfunds. However grants have been the instru-ments most frequently applied. The ongoingreview with the private sector is assessing theeffectiveness of the various instruments used.These instruments were introduced as a way

Box 8Promoting markets for energy efficiency

The global environmental objective of this World Bank project is reducing emissions from small andmedium-size industrial enterprises and tertiary sector enterprises in general by reducing the energycost per unit of production. The project successfully engaged four companies (two large companieseach with an existing client base to which it provides maintenance support, plus two smaller dedi-cated ESCOs) in developing the ESCO business in Côte d’Ivoire. High-level government supporthas been garnered for the project. The strategy of focusing on no-cost/low-cost measures with shortpayback periods seems appropriate for the emerging energy efficiency market in Côte d’Ivoire. Theproject partnerships, under the stewardship of the Francophone Energy and Environment Institute(IEPF), seem to be well established. IEPF has played an outstanding role in shepherding thisproject through approval and implementation, and continues to play a highly effective role in overallproject execution and management of the relationships between the various project actors. TheNGO, Econoler International, appears to be an engaged and effective project manager. The holisticapproach to energy efficiency is an integrated and pragmatic approach to developing energy effi-ciency markets in countries such as Côte d’Ivoire. In addition, encouraging projects to seek othersources of financing and using a revolving fund as a last resort are sound approaches to developinglocal financial markets.

35


of working with tools that are closer to com-mercial or market conditions. However, theevidence suggests there was a limited explora-tion of the nature and implications of these fi-nancial instruments during the project designand approval phases16 .

Two of the climate change projects in theSMPR cluster employed non-grant instru-ments. One is the Redirecting Commercial In-vestment Decisions Toward CleanerTechnologies project, which included a contin-gent grant facility. However, the contingentconditions proved to be unacceptable to theparticipating financial institutions, and the fa-cility was changed to support provisioning ofexpert services on a grant basis. The other fea-tured project is the Barrier Removal to SecurePV Market Penetration in Semi-Urban Sudan.This project also lacked proper preparation ofthe financing tools, which are intended to helpbuild a semi-urban PV market, through pro-viding credit for businesses and end users.

GEF experience with contingent f inancemechanisms is growing, for example, throughthe use of guarantees (such as in Hungary En-ergy Eff iciency Co-f inancing Program(HEECP) and Removal of Barriers to Biom-ass Power Generation and Co-generation inThailand) and loans (the IFC SME Program).However, some of the emerging experienceshighlight difficulties in executing some typesof non-grant instruments. Although the intro-duction of non-grant financial instruments wasdriven by a legitimate interest in their use on atrial basis, there was sometimes little under-standing of the market context and/or the com-parative advantage of the IAs designing andimplementing these instruments. In the IAs,and GEF Secretariat there is variable experi-ence and know-how in designing and imple-

menting contingent finance mechanisms. Care-ful attention should be paid to the choice offinancial instruments, matching them to themarket conditions, the risks to be mitigated,and the comparative advantages of the IAs andexecuting agencies implementing the project.When lacking in-house expertise, the IAs, ex-ecuting agencies, and the GEF Secretariatshould seek more expertise for the developmentof non-grant financial instruments.

Regarding business models, some projects haveadopted a specific model as the standard, in-stead of allowing the broader market conditionsdetermine which approach would work best andadapting to unforeseen circumstances. Thisdynamic approach is essential, since there area variety of factors, including business cycleswings, and shifting macroeconomic condi-tions, all of which should trigger adjustmentsin the business model.

One clear example of such adaptation was thePeruvian project Photovoltaic-Based RuralElectrification, where one of the objectives wasto demonstrate the viability of establishingmicroenterprises to sell, maintain, and operatePV systems. This project’s business modelevolved in similar ways to that of the Sri LankaEnergy Services Delivery project. As docu-mented in the solar PV review17 , the Sri Lankaproject started with dealer-supplied credit, butshifted to third-party microfinance organiza-tions because suppliers would not handle bothsupply and credit due to the high credit trans-action costs.

Other examples where similar developmentsoccurred were the Bolivia Rural Electrifica-tion with Renewable Energy Through the Popu-lar Participation Law project and thePhilippines Alternative Rural Energy and Live-

16 Review of GEF’s Engagement with the Private Sector- Interm Report (GEF/c.21/Inf.8)17 Martinot, Eric, Ramesh Ramankutty and Frank Rittner, The GEF PV Portfolio: Emerging Experience and Lessons, Monitoring and EvaluationWorking Paper 2 (August 2000).


36

lihood Support project. In the case of the Phil-ippines, a business model shift was largely dueto the realization that it would be difficult tomake PV profitable during a recession. Busi-ness cycle swings, sometimes driven my mac-roeconomic conditions, have had influencedthe success of other business models. For ex-ample, in the Indonesia Solar Home Systemsproject, supplier-provided credit is failing be-cause of the worsened macroeconomic situa-tion in the late1990s , which prevents suppliersfrom obtaining credit from commercial banks.In the Argentina Renewable Energy in RuralMarkets project, service concessions have beendelayed because they are heavily dependent onprovincial government subsidies, which havenot been forthcoming during the last year.

Under the China Energy Conservation project,the EMC (Energy Management Corporation)component has successfully introduced a de-mand-side management (DSM) businessmodel for delivering energy conservation ser-vices to end users by supporting three EMCsin a private sector cooperation arrangement.This is one of a number of projects that sup-port ESCO-type businesses. Other examplesinclude the India energy efficiency componentof a World Bank project, which supportsESCOs through a financial intermediary, andthe IFC-implemented Hungary Energy Effi-ciency Co-financing Program (HEECP), whichindirectly supports ESCOs by improving theiraccess to local banks. With regard to utility-based DSM projects, these continue to gener-ate mixed results. IFC’s Efficient LightingInitiative (ELI) has experienced positive andnegative utility impacts in Latin America. Forexample, whereas utility restructuring contrib-utes to increased cost-consciousness, it alsoincreases the risk exposure and changes pri-orities of the unbundled or reformed utility.

The biodiversity portfolio shows variable ex-perience in engaging the private sector. A keychallenge in engaging the private sector inbiodiversity conservation projects is to estab-lish financial principles that help determine

when it is justifiable to use a grant or subsidyto promote a business opportunity. IFC activi-ties seek to directly address this challenge bypromoting sustainable biodiversity use andconservation through investments in privatesector partnerships (for example, the Small andMedium Enterprise Program and the LatinAmerican Terra Capital Fund. The GEF M&Eunit is currently conducting a review of pri-vate sector partnerships in GEF projects (seethe GEF Council Paper, Review of GEF’s En-gagement with the Private Sector – InterimReport (GEF/c.21/Inf.8). This review will feedinto a revised Council policy, with new guide-lines, approaches, and tools to help engage theprivate sector in biodiversity conservation.

The involvement of the private sector in IWprojects is small or marginal. A few projectsare looking at ways to involve the private sec-tor as active stakeholders in consultations andother forms of cooperation. This has led toimportant private sector contributions to projectobjectives, in the form of political support, in-kind contributions, and financial sponsorship.In the case of PEMSEA, during the formula-tion of a sustainable development plan for theManila Bay, private sector leaders providedcritical political support for the adoption of theplan and made corporate laboratories availableto carry out sophisticated analyses of watersamples. The GloBallast and the Western In-dian Ocean Oil Spill Contingency Planningprojects have also been able to obtain impor-tant cash and in-kind contributions from theprivate sector. For example, construction andtourist businesses have identified equipmentand vessels that can be made available in thecase of an oil spill. The Caspian EnvironmentProgram has also reported substantial contri-butions by the petroleum industry to its activi-ties in several participating countries.

3. Conclusions on stakeholder participationand private sector involvement

◆ PIRs need to better report stakeholder par-ticipation and make a greater effort to de-

37


rive lessons on how to incorporate the pri-vate sector into GEF projects.

◆ If private investment is expected in GEFprojects, project documents should presentevidence on such factors as market poten-tial and realistic IRR, the track record ofsimilar activities, consultations held withpotential investors and their requirements,realistic business opportunities, and con-straints to the development of relevantmarkets

D. Financial Planning

Financial planning encompasses changes intotal estimated project costs, co-financing (in-cluding monetary and in-kind contributions),proposed types of financial instruments, andthe potential impact of financial changes onproject activities. The main issues identifiedin this PPR relate to co-financing, notably thelack of appropriate reporting. This lack of ap-propriate reporting might have contributed toa few cases of extreme shortfalls of co-financ-ing, compared with stated expectations.

For the cohort of SMPR projects, co-financ-ing contributions have exceeded estimates atproject approval, and several of this project’sactivities have been incorporated into thegovernment’s budget. In addition, PIRs andTERs indicated that several projects had pro-active financial management that identifiedpotential sources of co-financing, including in-kind support, and secured these contributions.Some projects also adapted to changing cir-cumstances, for example, by achieving initialco-financing levels despite a national finan-cial crises. A good example of this is theBiodiversity Collections Project in Indonesia.The government was able to maintain its coun-terpart funding level even during its economiccrises, although the value of the negotiatedgovernment contribution was reduced by thedevaluation of the local currency.

UNDP indicated that some of its projects havenot attempted to leverage additional resourcesbecause all necessary funds were negotiatedprior to the project launching. According toUNDP, identifying exactly what resources havebeen leveraged by projects is difficult. Somecontributions are clearly “in kind,” while oth-ers are closely related to a project, but lie out-side of its “system boundary” in space or time.It is also often unclear what resources were le-veraged during or after project preparation. Thevalue of in-kind contributions may go up ordown. Some funders, including donor and re-cipient governments, have reneged on finan-cial commitments made during projectdevelopment, or changed them from cash to“in kind” or vice versa. Others have producedadditional financing.

According to the PIRs, UNEP has collecteddata on actual levels of co-financing for thoseprojects close to completion. In most UNEPprojects, co-financing has been realized asoriginally planned, although changes inamounts and contributors have occurred. A fewprojects have surpassed the co-financing lev-els originally envisaged. For example, the Roleof the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed andUndisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cyclesproject obtained almost three times as muchco-financing as planned. Other projects thatraised additional funds include the People,Land Management, and Environmental Change(PLEC) and Implementation of the IntegratedWatershed Management Practices for thePantanal and Upper Paraguay River Basinprojects. UNEP has found that the actual levelof co-financing, particularly for in-kind con-tributions, is sometimes difficult to estimate,and it has requested more guidance on how toobtain consistent co-financing figures.

In general, PIRs do not report co-financinginformation consistently. The majority of theprojects reviewed as part of the SMPR and sev-eral reported under PIRs indicated that they hadchanged their financial plans and level of co-


38

financing since endorsement, but that guide-lines for reporting these changes are not clear.The PIRs and TERs found some cases whereco-financing had fallen far short of what wasexpected, thus increasing the risks of not at-taining project objectives. For six out of eightcompleted UNDP projects included in the TERreview, reporting costs per activity (includingco-financing) could not be obtained at projectcompletion. The reason for this was that someUNDP terminal evaluations were completedbefore financial closure of the project to allowevaluators to meet with the project team whileit was still in the field. Furthermore, actualproject costs and co-financing information arenormally part of UNDP audits, rather than ter-minal evaluations. The final cost informationfrom audited UNDP projects had not been re-ceived by GEF M&E at the time this reportwas prepared.

1. Conclusions on financial planning

◆ Midterm and terminal evaluations (or fi-nal project reports) will report co-financ-ing, in-kind contributions, and projectcosts, including breakdowns by activitiesor components, and explain any variationfrom what was approved. If this informa-tion is not available at the time of the ter-minal evaluation, then it should be sent tothe GEF M&E unit as soon as it becomesavailable. This information will be pro-vided as part of the annual PPR report fromFY 03 onwards.

◆ The GEF Secretariat should develop guide-lines for reporting on changes in projectactivities, costs, and co-financing to theGEF Secretariat and Council.

E. Cost Effectiveness

Cost effectiveness is here interpreted as an as-sessment of a project’s achievement of envi-ronmental and development objectives andoutputs in relation to inputs, costs, and imple-

mentation time. It also examines, wheneverpossible, a project’s compliance with the con-cept and guidelines on incremental costs. In-formation on cost effectiveness derived fromSMPRs, TERs, and PIRs allows a broad as-sessment of cost effectiveness across the port-folio. However, a lack of clear GEF Secretariatguidelines on cost effectiveness has allowed theapplication of different criteria and approachesthat are not always comparable and make itdifficult to draw reliable conclusions.

In the 15 SMPR reviews, it was either too earlyin the project to assess or difficult to definecost effectiveness, especially in biodiversityprojects. Nevertheless, where an assessmentcould be made, most projects were found to becost effective. Several projects in the interna-tional waters portfolio proved more cost effec-tive than originally planned, while climatechange and ozone projects were usually as costeffective as planned or better.

According to the 18 TER reviews forbiodiversity and international waters projects,cost effectiveness was normally defined by aqualitative comparison with the accomplish-ments and costs of non-GEF projects of simi-lar scope and context. For climate change andozone projects, cost effectiveness was mea-sured using internationally accepted thresholdsfor climate change projects, such as 10$/tonof carbon equivalent reduced, while thresholdsfor the phase out of specific ozone-depletingsubstances were measured in terms of dollarsspent per kg ($/kg) of each type of ODS re-duced.

Some projects became even more cost effec-tive than planned because: 1) Project outcomesexceded expectations; 2) Projects successfullyleveraged significant international funding toensure financial sustainability after project clo-sure and replication or scale-up of the activity;and 3) Projects used equipment and technolo-gies that were more cost effective than initiallythought.

39


Factors found to contribute to the reduced costeffectiveness of some projects include: over-ambitious objectives in relation to the project’stime frame, slower than expected progress thatincreased the administrative and managementcosts and reduction in the scope of activities,without a proportional adjustment of the ini-tial project grant.

1. Conclusion on cost effectiveness

◆ The GEF Secretariat should better definecost effectiveness in project review crite-ria and develop appropriate policies andguidelines to operationalize the concept inthe portfolio.

F. Monitoring andEvaluation

All information sources used by the PPR toassess the performance of monitoring andevaluation systems in the GEF portfolio, showan overall performance in this area that is onlymarginally satisfactory. The available docu-ments highlight the features of strong and weakproject monitoring and evaluation (M&E) sys-tems, thus pointing the way to system improve-ments.

1. Strengths in M&E systems

At the project planning stage, strong M&E sys-tems are associated with simple overall projectdesigns whose objectives can be achieved withthe time and resources available to the project.Key baseline conditions are determined at thisstage, and indicators (quantifiable if possible)are developed for inputs, outputs, and out-comes. For example, the Industrial EE Projectin Malaysia appears to use a functional M&Esystem, which is reflected in the monitoring ofquantitative project indicators and the identi-f ication and monitoring of six additionalproject risks during implementation. The sys-tem is generating information that is being fed

back into project management to enable deci-sion making. The Barrier Removal for theWidespread Commercialization of Energy-Ef-ficient CFC-Free Refrigerators in China andthe Efficient Lightning Initiative projects claimto have strong measures of impact. A goodM&E system used for the China project dem-onstrated that, from 1999 through 2001, par-ticipating refrigerator manufacturers haveachieved average weighted energy efficiencygains of 9.6 percent.

Some projects also have good indicators ofcapacity building. For example, in the MaliHousehold Energy Project (World Bank), pri-vate sector operators trained by the project havecontinued to sell improved stoves after projectcompletion. More than 15,000 stoves have beensold since completion—an indicator of a sus-tainable capacity building effort. The Guate-mala Renewable Energy Based SmallEnterprise Development in the Quiché Regionand the Sudan Barrier Removal to Secure PVMarket Penetration in Semi-Urban Areasprojects are also notable. In Guatemala, theproject’s 48 training events and technical as-sistance activities reached 1,400 people. Inaddition, six high-level decision-makers’ work-shops on rural credit and rural energy planningand policy reached 90 people. These trainingactivities, together with demonstration projects,have led to three new renewable energy ser-vice enterprises; a new renewable energy in-centive law, which is expected to be approvedby the Guatemalan Congress in 2002; and eightmicroenterprise activities based on renewable-energy.

Some projects have been able to establishstrong linkages between project outcomes andpolicy changes. For example, the Chineseproject has influenced the successful introduc-tion of renewable energy policy targets in thenational Tenth Five-Year Plan, which calls for5 percent of new power generation to comefrom renewable sources by 2010. The projecthas also encouraged and supported a major newrural electrification program in Western China,


40

through its interaction with the Poverty Alle-viation Office in Beijing and local offices. TheChinese Renewable Energy Industries Associa-tion prepared a renewable energy policy WhitePaper in 2001. This fed into a major renewableenergy policy review and development initia-tive by the State Economic and Trade Com-mission (SETC). Other projects that makestrong linkages between project outcomes andpolicy changes are Peru Photovoltaic-BasedRural Electrification, Sri Lanka Energy Ser-vices, and India Development of High Rate Bio-Methanation Process of Reducing GreenhouseGas Emissions.

During implementation, strong M&E systemsare apparent because of the existence of moni-toring staff and an adequate budget for moni-toring activities. Strong M&E systemsgenerally are also used as an adaptive manage-ment tool and have a schedule of evaluationactivities, regular supervision missions, andstrong local involvement.

2. Weaknesses in M&E systems

Weak M&E systems exhibited some or all ofthe following characteristics: missing or inad-equate baseline data; M&E plans developedlate in the project cycle; no integration of localcommunities into M&E activities; delay ofbaseline studies; instruments of data collectionnot identified and use of indicators not imple-mented; monitoring activities not related toprogress indicators; poor assessment of projectimpacts; and poor reporting and backstopping.One issue raised by the task forces was a ten-dency for M&E systems to concentrate on in-puts and outputs, rather than on progresstowards objectives. For example, the climatechange task force reported that PIRs continueto report on capacity building in terms of suchelements as the number of training workshops

held, the number of trainees, and the types oftraining programs offered. There is very littlepresentation or discussion of the impacts ofcapacity building (See the three cases men-tioned above). Furthermore, projects often lacka reliable baseline and indicators for measur-ing—directly or indirectly—the results of ca-pacity building. Often, project documents offerno more than such general descriptions as “lackof capacity” or “absence of know-how” as abaseline.

PIRs sometimes report impacts without estab-lishing the proper links between project out-comes and the claimed impacts. Examples arethe Thailand Removal of Barriers to BiomassCo-Generation from Wood Residues project,Bolivia Rural Electrification with RenewableEnergy project, Guatemala Renewable EnergyBased Small Enterprise Development in theQuiché Region project and Fiji RenewableEnergy Hybrid Village Power Systems project.Further analysis would be necessary to estab-lish precise linkages between these projects andthe reported changes. GEF projects need todocument more explicitly the facilitation role,if any, that GEF projects have played with re-gard to policy formulation or reform. Relevantpolicy changes could be categorized as director indirect outcomes of the project. This analy-sis could be carried out during midterm andfinal evaluations. The climate change task forceconcluded that more work should be done todevelop a set of indicators that cover processes,retention rates, and behavioral change in orga-nizations, building upon the approach devel-oped in an M&E working paper.18 This wouldhelp measure the linkages between capacitybuilding activities and environmental benefits.

Other times impacts are difficult to assess withthe information provided by PIRs. For example,the regional UNEP project Initiating Early

18 Integrating Capacity Development into Project Design and Evaluation: Approach and Frameworks, Charles Lusthaus, Marie-Hélène Adrien,and Peter Morgan, Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper 5, December 2000.

41


Phase Out of Methyl Bromide (MB) ThroughAwareness Raising, Policy Development, andDemonstration/Training conducted multipleworkshops to develop policies and find viablealternatives to MB. In addition, it conductedtrials to test the alternatives in specific crops.However, the impacts in terms of MB use re-duction cannot be fully assessed on the basisof the PIR and other reports. Its stated inten-tion to contribute to “early phase out” is notsupported by adequate data. The trends from1996 suggest that there was a decrease in MBuse before the project began, making it moredifficult to determine any contribution from theproject. It is not clear that training workshopshave been adequately followed up by countryaction or whether demonstration activities withMB alternatives have been scaled-up within aparticipating country (such as Poland) or rep-licated across the region. Furthermore, therewas no indication that participating countriesdeveloped national action plans, an expectedoutcome of the project, including timetablesand targets for the phase out of methyl bro-mide.

Weak systems are also often associated withover-elaborate project designs, objectives thatare too ambitious for the project time frame, aweak or non-existent logframe, and a logframethat is not used as a management tool. For ex-ample, in the Côte d’Ivoire Energy EfficiencyMarket Development project, there was lack ofclarity about indicators at the output and out-come levels. As a result, though there was regu-lar monitoring and reporting, the quality of thereports is in question. Under the Czech Repub-lic Low Cost/Low Energy Buildings project,due to yearlong delays in construction of thebuildings, the project will not have time to ad-equately monitor the buildings’ performance.However, because they know that the lack ofmonitoring data will hinder the project’s abil-ity to “prove” the performance of low-cost,low-energy buildings, and perhaps discourage

wide replication, the project partners are mo-bilizing funding to pay for monitoring once theproject is over.

On the basis of the evidence presented in thediverse sources that contributed to this review,it is clear that much can be done to improvethe overall role and impact of M&E systems inthe project portfolio.

3. Conclusions on monitoring andevaluation

◆ At project design or during the first yearof implementation, all projects should havedeveloped a baseline and an M&E systemto measure outputs, outcomes, and impacts.Projects should ensure adequate fundingand staff for M&E.

◆ IAs should ensure that project M&E sys-tems are appropriate to country capacitiesand conditions and that they draw on andcontribute to national M&E resources andcapacities.

◆ Replication plans or strategies should bemonitored during project implementation.

◆ The supervision roles of IAs should includeregular missions to project sites and meet-ings with local stakeholders.

◆ Projects are encouraged to explore mecha-nisms to involve local stakeholders inM&E, like advisory councils, workshops,and collaborative arrangements with re-search institutions.

◆ PIRs should focus more on reporting out-comes and results and less on reportinginputs and outputs.

◆ The M&E unit should develop a “commonsense” booklet on M&E.


42

43

APPENDICES


44

45

Multi-Focal AreaWork IA Effective GEF

Program Approval Date Funding

No. Country IA Project (A) (B) (C) (US$ Million)

1 Global World Bank Small and Medium Scale Enterprise Oct-96 May-97 Aug-97 16.50

Program (replenishment – IFC)

2 Global UNDP Country Dialogue Workshops Jul-98 Mar-00 3.51

UNEP

WB

3 Nicaragua UNDP Barrier Removal and Forest Habitat Nov-98 Feb-99 .750

Conservation (Coffee/Allspice)

4 Mexico World Bank Oaxaca Sustainable Hillside Apr-99 May-99 Jul-99 .74

Management Project

Total 21.50

BiodiversityWork IA Effective GEF



1 Burkina Faso UNDP Optimization of biodiversity in game ranching Nov-88 Jun-90 Jun-90 2.50

systems; a pilot experiment in a semi arid area

2 Cameroon UNDP Sustainable Forest Management by May-96 Oct-96 1.00

Communities in the Bamenda Highlands,

Cameroon.

3 Central African UNDP A Highly Decentralized Approach to BD Apr-91 Feb-94 Feb-94 2.50

Republic Protection and Use: The Bangassou Dense Forest

4 Comoros UNDP Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Oct-91 Oct-93 Oct-93 2.42

Development in the Federal Islamic Republic

of the Comoros

5 Cote d’Ivoire UNDP Control of Aquatic Weeds to enhance Nov-88 Nov-91 3.00

and restore biodiversity

6 Eritrea UNDP Conservation management of Eritrea’s Apr-93 Jan-94 Jul-94 5.30

coastal, marine and island biodiversity

7 Ethiopia UNDP A Dynamic farmer-based approach to the Nov-88 Mar-90 Aug-90 2.46

conservation of African Plant Genetic Resources

8 Lesotho UNDP Conserving Mountain Biodiversity Oct-93 Apr-95 2.51

in southern Lesotho

APPENDIX ALIST OF PROJECTS INCLUDED IN 2002 PIR


46

9 Madagascar UNDP Environment Program Support Jul-92 Nov-92 Dec-92 20.80

10 Regional UNDP Conservation priority setting for the Upper May-94 Aug-94 0.74

Guinea Forest ecosystem, West Africa

11 Regional UNDP New approaches to reducing biodiversity Apr-93 Feb-94 Feb-94 12.90

loss at cross-border sites in East Africa

12 Regional UNDP Southern African Biodiversity Support Programme Oct-93 4.50

13 Regional UNDP Inventory, Evaluation and Monitoring of Apr-92 4.73

Botanical Diversity in Southern Africa: A regional

Capacity and Institution Building Network

14 Regional UNDP African NGO-Government Partnerships for Apr-93 Apr-94 Apr-94 4.54

Sustainable Biodiversity Action

15 Sudan UNDP Conservation and Management of Habitats Jun-94 May-95 Sep-94 0.75

and Species, and Sustainable Community

Use of Biodiversity in Dinder National Park

16 Tanzania UNDP Development of Jozani-Chwaka Bay Mar-96 Jun-96 0.75

National Park, Zanzibar Island.

17 Bhutan UNDP Integrated Management of Sep-92 Jul-93 Jul-93 1.50

Jigme Dorji National Park

18 China UNDP Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation Dec-94 Sep-95 12.03

and Sustainable Use

19 China UNDP Multi-Agency And Local Participatory Cooperation Sep-96 0.75

in Biodiversity Conservation in Yunnan’s

Upland Mountain Ecosystems

20 Korea UNDP Conservation of Biodiversity Mt. Myonghan Jan-96 Mar-96 May-96 0.75

in the DPRK.

21 Malaysia UNDP Conservation and Sustainable Use of May-95 Oct-96 6.31

Peat Swamp Forests

22 Micronesia UNDP Community Conservation and Compatible Jul-95 Feb-96 Apr-96 0.75

Enterprise development in Pohnpei,

Federated States of Micronesia

23 Mongolia UNDP Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Dec-93 Oct-94 Oct-94 5.16

Livelihood Options in the Grasslands of

Eastern Mongolia

24 Nepal UNDP Upper Mustang Biodiversity Nov-95 May-96 May-96 0.73

Conservation Project

25 Nepal UNDP Landscape-scale Conservation of Endangered Nov-96 0.75

Tiger and Rhinoceros Populations in and

around the Chitwan National Park.

26 Pakistan UNDP Mountain Areas Conservancy Project Oct-94 Feb-95 May-95 10.60

27 Philippines UNDP Samar Island Biodiversity Project (SIBP) Nov-95 6.11

Conservation and Sustainable Use of the

Biodiversity of a Forested Protected Area

Work IA Effective GEF



47

Appendix A: List of Projects Included in 2002 PIR

28 Philippines UNDP Sustainable management of Mount Isarogs Jan-96 May-96 0.75

Territories

29 Philippines UNDP Conservation of the Tubbataha Reef Mar-96 Jun-96 0.78

National Marine Park

30 Philippines UNDP Biodiversity Conservation and Management Dec-96 Jan-96 0.74

of the Bohol Islands

31 Sri Lanka UNDP Conservation of Biodiversity through Integrated Mar-96 May-96 0.75

Collaboration Management in the Rekawa,

Usangoda and Kalametiya Coastal Ecosytem

32 Sri Lanka UNDP Contribution to the Conservation of Globally Apr-96 May-96 0.75

Threatened Species in the Rainforests of

Southwest Sri Lanka

33 Viet Nam UNDP Vietnam PARC - Creating Protected Areas for Sep-91 Oct-94 6.01

Resources Conservation (PARC) in Vietnam Using

a Landscape Ecology Approach

34 Lebanon UNDP Strengthening of National Capacity & Grassroots Apr-91 Jan-92 Jan-92 2.53

In-Situ Conservation for Sustainable

Biodiversity Protection

35 Morocco UNDP Transhumans for Biodiversity Conservation Nov-95 4.37

in the Southern High Atlas

36 Regional UNDP Participatory Management of Plant Genetic Mar-94 Jan-96 2.78

Resources in Oases of the Maghreb

37 Regional UNDP Conservation of Wetland and Coastal Ecosystems Apr-93 May-95 Sep-95 13.44

in the Mediterranean Region

38 Regionial UNDP Conservation and Sustainable Use of Dryland Oct-93 Feb-95 8.23

Agro-Biodiversity of the Fertile Crescent

39 Yemen UNDP Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Sep-92 Apr-93 Apr-93 4.97

Biodiversity of Socotra Archipelago

40 Georgia UNDP Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystem Conservation Sep-95 Oct-95 Mar-96 0.75

in the Caucasus

41 Uzbekistan UNDP Establishment of Naratau-Kyzylkum Biosphere . Jul-96 0.75

Reserve as a Model for Biodiversity Conservation

in Uzbekistan

42 Argentina UNDP Consolidation and Implementation of the Patagonia Apr-93 Nov-95 5.20

Coastal Zone Management Programme for

Biodiversity Conservation

43 Belize UNDP Creating a Co-Managged Protected Areas System Feb-95 Mar-95 Mar-95 0.75

in Belize: A plan for joint Stewardship between

Government and Community.

44 Belize UNDP Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Sep-94 Feb-95 Mar-95 5.36

Barrier Reef Complex

45 Brazil UNDP Promoting Biodiversity Conservation and Apr-96 6.98

Sustainable Use in the Frontier Forest Mato-Grosso





48

46 Costa Rica UNDP Conservation of Biodiversity in the Sep-95 Feb-96 0.75

Talamanca-Caribbean Biological Corridor

47 Cuba UNDP Priority Actions to Consolidate Biodiversity Oct-94 Oct-95 3.89

Protection in the Sabana-Camaguey Ecosystem

48 Ecuador UNDP Galapagos Oil Spill - Environmental Apr-97 0.53

Rehabilitation and Conservation

49 Guatemala UNDP Integrated Biodiversity Protection in the Jan-91 Mar-93 Mar-93 4.00

Sarstun-Motagua Region.

50 Paraguay UNDP Paraguayan Wildlands Protection Initiative Oct-94 May-96 May-96 9.21

51 Peru UNDP In situ conservation of Native Cultivars Oct-94 Oct-96 5.22

and Wild relatives

52 Regional UNDP Conservation of Biodiversity in the Jan-91 Nov-94 3.11

Lake Titicaca Basin

53 Uruguay UNDP Consolidation of the Banados del Este Apr-93 Aug-93 Aug-93 2.50

Biosphere Reserve

54 Venezuela UNDP Protection and Sustainable Use of Biological Nov-95 9.79

Diversity in the Orinoco Delta Wetlands.

55 Regional UNDP Biological Diversity Conservation through Mar-94 8.00

UNEP Participatory Rehabilitation of the Degraded Lands

of the Arid and Semi-Arid Transboundary Areas

of Mauritania and Senegal

56 Regional UNDP Establishment of a programme for the Oct-93 10.94

(Belize, UNEP Consolidation of the Mesoamerican

Costa Rica, Biological Corridor

El Salvador,

Guatemala,

Honduras,

Mexico,

Nicaragua,

Panama)

57 Kenya UNEP Lake Baringo Community-based Integrated Land Feb-96 Apr-96 Apr-96 0.75

and Water Management Project

58 Regional UNEP Land Use Change Analysis as an Approach for Dec-95 Oct-96 Oct-96 0.80

Investigating Biodiversity Loss and

Land Degradation

59 China UNEP Lop Nur Nature Sanctuary Biodiversity Conservation Dec-94 Feb-95 Feb-95 0.75

60 Nepal UNEP Arun Valley Sustainable Resource Use and Nov-96 Dec-96 Dec-96 0.63

Management Pilot Demonstration Project

61 Global UNEP Promoting Best Practices for Conservation and Aug-95 Sep-95 Sep-95 0.75

Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Global

Significance in Arid and Semi Arid Zones

62 Global UNEP People, Land Management, and Apr-93 Feb-94 Feb-94 6.27

Environmental Change (PLEC)




49


63 Global UNEP Development of Best Practices and Dissemination Mar-94 Apr-94 Apr-94 0.75

of Lessons Learned for Dealing with the Global

Problems of Alien Species that Threaten

Biological Diversity

64 Global UNEP Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Apr-96 May-97 May-97 7.31

65 Global UNEP Development of National Biosafety Frameworks Oct-96 Apr-97 Apr-97 26.19

66 Regional UNEP An Indicator Model for Dyrland Ecosystem Dec-95 Apr-96 Apr-96 0.75

in Latin America

67 Regional UNEP Catalyzing Conservation Action in Latin America: Mar-96 Aug-96 Aug-96 0.75

Identifying Priority Sites and Best Management

Alternatives in Five Globally Significant Ecoregions

68 Benin World Bank National Parks Conservation and Management Feb-94 Mar-96 Jul-96 7.00

69 Cameroon World Bank Biodiversity Conservation and Management Apr-89 Mar-91 Dec-91 6.10

70 Ghana World Bank Natural Resource Management Oct-93 Jun-94 Nov-94 8.73

71 Kenya World Bank Lewa Wildlife Conservancy and Jul-95 Mar-96 Mar-96 0.75

Community Conservation (MSP)

72 Kenya World Bank Tana River National Primate Reserve Apr-87 Nov-92 Jun-93 6.75

73 Madagascar World Bank Environment Program Support Sep-92 Dec-92 Jun-93 12.80

74 Mauritius World Bank Biodiversity Restoration May-91 Nov-91 Feb-92 1.20

75 Mauritius World Bank Restoration of Round Island (MSP) Mar-96 Jul-96 Jul-96 0.75

76 Morocco World Bank Protected Areas Management Dec-93 Jan-96 Apr-96 10.75

77 Mozambique World Bank Transfrontier Conservation Areas Pilot and Nov-88 Dec-92 May-93 5.43

Institutional Strengthening

78 Mozambique World Bank Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Management May-95 May-96 Jan-97 4.08

79 Regional World Bank Regional Environment Information Apr-93 Dec-93 Apr-94 4.38

Management Project (REIMP)

80 Regional World Bank West Africa Pilot Community-Based Natural Nov-88 Sep-91 May-92 7.90

Resource and Wildlife Management (GEPRENAF)

81 Regional World Bank Coral Reef Monitoring Network in member states Apr-96 Jul-96 Jan-97 0.74

of the Indian Ocean Commission (COI), within the

Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network

(GCRMN) (MSP)

82 Seychelles World Bank Marine Ecosystems Management (MSP) Mar-96 Jul-96 Aug-96 0.75

83 South Africa World Bank Conservation of Globally Significant Biodiversity Jul-95 Dec-95 Jan-96 0.75

in Agricultural Landscapes through

Conservation Farming

84 South Africa World Bank Conservation Planning for Biodiversity Jul-95 May-96 Jun-96 0.74

in the Thicket Biome (MSP)

85 South Africa World Bank Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Oct-93 Feb-94 May-94 12.38





50




86 South Africa World Bank Sustainable Protected Area Development Mar-95 May-96 Aug-96 0.75

in Namaqualand (MSP)

87 Uganda World Bank Institutional Capacity Building for Protected Areas Apr-93 Jul-94 Mar-95 2.29

Management and Sustainable Use (ICB-PAMSU)

88 Uganda World Bank Kibale Forest Wild Coffee Project (MSP) Dec-94 Feb-95 Feb-95 0.75

89 Zimbabwe World Bank Biodiversity Conservation in Southeast Zimbabwe Mar-88 May-94 Mar-95 5.87

90 Bangladesh World Bank Biodiversity Conservation in the Mar-94 Nov-94 Sep-95 12.20

Sundarbans Reserved Forest

91 Bangladesh World Bank Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation Dec-94 Jul-95 Nov-95 5.00

92 Cambodia World Bank Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management Apr-95 Feb-96 May-96 2.75

93 China World Bank Nature Reserves Management Jan-91 May-91 Jul-91 17.90

94 India World Bank Ecodevelopment May-91 Aug-92 Nov-92 20.21

95 Indonesia World Bank Conservation of Elephant Landscape in Oct-95 Dec-95 Dec-95 0.74

Aceh Province, Sumatra (MSP)

96 Indonesia World Bank Kerinci Seblat Integrated May-91 Mar-92 Jul-92 15.92

Conservation and Development

97 Indonesia World Bank Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Apr-93 Feb-94 May-94 4.38

Management Project (COREMAP I)

98 Indonesia World Bank Berbak-Sembilang Ecosystem Conservation (MSP) Jul-96 Aug-96 Aug-96 0.73

99 Philippines World Bank Conservation of Priority Protected Areas Apr-87 Apr-90 Sep-90 18.00

100 Philippines World Bank Mindanao Rural Development/Coastal May-95 Dec-95 Oct-96 1.25

Resource Conservation

101 Samoa World Bank Marine Biodiversity Protection Feb-95 Jun-95 Jun-95 0.93

and Management (MSP)

102 Sri Lanka World Bank Conservation and Sustainable Apr-93 Nov-93 Apr-94 4.92

Use of Medicinal Plants

103 Viet Nam World Bank Hon Mun Marine Protected Area Pilot (MSP) Nov-95 Jul-96 Apr-97 1.00

104 Syria World Bank Conservation of Biodiversity and Protected Oct-94 Apr-95 Sep-95 0.75

Areas Management (MSP)

105 Yemen World Bank Protected Areas Management (MSP) Apr-95 Aug-95 Feb-96 0.77

106 Yemen World Bank Coastal Zone Management along the Jun-95 Aug-95 Feb-96 0.75

Gulf of Aden (MSP)

107 Global World Bank Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund (CEPF) Jun-96 Nov-96 Dec-96 25.00

108 Croatia World Bank Kopacki Rit Wetlands Management (MSP) Nov-94 Jun-95 Jul-95 0.75

109 Georgia World Bank Integrated Coastal Zone Management Jun-94 Nov-94 Apr-95 1.30

110 Regional World Bank Central Asia Transboundary Biodiversity Oct-93 Jun-95 Apr-96 10.49

111 Romania World Bank Biodiversity Conservation Management Apr-93 May-95 Oct-95 5.50

112 Russian World Bank Biodiversity Conservation Management Oct-90 Apr-92 Oct-92 20.90

Federation

51





113 Slovak World Bank Conservation and Sustainable Use of Central Feb-96 Jun-96 Jul-96 0.75

Republic European Grasslands (MSP)

114 Turkey World Bank Biodiversity and Natural Resource Mar-94 Jun-96 Jul-96 8.54

Management Project

115 Argentina World Bank Biodiversity Conservation Apr-93 Sep-93 April-94 10.39

116 Belize World Bank Northern Belize Biological Corridors Nov-94 Apr-95 Mar-95 0.75

Consolidation and Maintenance

117 Bolivia World Bank Achieving the Sustainability of the May-95 Jan-97 Feb-97 15.30

Bolivian Protected Area System

118 Brazil World Bank National Biodiversity Project (PROBIO) Apr-87 Mar-92 Nov-92 10.28

119 Brazil World Bank Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO) Apr-87 Mar-92 Aug-92 20.00

120 Chile World Bank Valdivian Forest Zone: Private Public Jul-96 Jul-96 Jul-96 0.75

Mechanisms for Biodiversity Conservation (MSP)

121 Colombia World Bank Conservation and Sustainable use of the Apr-95 Jun-95 Jul-95 0.75

Serrania del Baudo (MSP)

122 Colombia World Bank Archipelago of San Andres: Conservation and Apr-96 Jun-96 Jul-96 1.00

Sustainable Use of the Marine Reserves (MSP)

123 Colombia World Bank Andes Region - Conservation and Sustainable Apr-96 Mar-97 Jun-97 15.35

Use of Biodiversity

124 Colombia World Bank Mataven Forest - Conservation and Jan-97 May-97 May-97 0.75

Sustainable Development (MSP)

125 Costa Rica World Bank Biodiversity Resources Development Feb-93 Feb-94 Jun-94 7.00

126 Costa Rica World Bank Eco-Markets Nov-95 Jun-96 Apr-97 8.33

127 Costa Rica World Bank Sustainable Cacao Production in Jan-97 Feb-97 Feb-97 0.75

Southeastern Costa Rica (MSP)

128 Ecuador World Bank Monitoring System for the Oct-94 Dec-94 Jan-95 0.94

Galapagos Islands (MSP)

129 Ecuador World Bank Wetland Priorities for Conservation Action (MSP) Feb-95 Mar-95 Mar-95 0.74

130 Ecuador World Bank Choco-Andean Corridor (MSP) Apr-96 Jun-96 Jul-96 1.00

131 Ecuador World Bank Coastal Albarradas: Rescuing Ancient Knowledge Jul-96 Aug-96 Aug-96 0.75

and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (MSP)

132 El Salvador World Bank Promotion of Biodiversity Conservation May-94 May-94 Jun-95 0.75

within Coffee Landscapes (MSP)

133 Guatemala World Bank Management and Protection of Laguna del Jul-95 Sep-95 Sep-95 0.75

Tigre National Park (MSP)

134 Mexico World Bank Protected Areas Program (FANP) Apr-87 May-93 Jun-93 25.00

135 Mexico World Bank Biodiversity Conservation through Habitat Jun-95 Jun-95 Jul-95 0.75

Enhancement in Productive Landscapes (El Triunfo)

136 Mexico World Bank COINBIO - Indigenous and Community Apr-96 Nov-96 Jun-97 7.88

Conservation of Biodiversity


52




137 Nicaragua World Bank Atlantic Biological Corridor Sep-92 May-93 Sep-94 7.43

138 Panama World Bank Atlantic Mesoamerican Biological Corridor Apr-93 May-94 Oct-94 8.69

139 Panama World Bank Effective Protection with Community Participation Jun-95 Jun-95 Jul-95 0.75

of the New Protected Area of San Lorenzo

140 Peru World Bank Collaborative Management for the Conserv. and Jun-95 Aug-95 Sep-95 0.75

Sust. Devt. of the (Tumbes)

Noroeste Biosphere Reserve (MSP)

141 Peru World Bank Vilcabamba - Participatory Conservation and Jun-95 Sep-95 Sep-95 0.75

Sustainable Development with Indigenous

Communities (MSP)

142 Peru World Bank Biodiversity Conservation in the Apr-97 May-97 Jun-97 0.77

Nanay River Basin (MSP)

143 Venezuela World Bank Conservation & Sustainable Use May-95 Jun-95 Jun-95 0.96

of the Llanos Ecoregion (MSP)

144 Regional World Bank/ Terra Capital Biodiversity Fund (IFC) Sep-91 Oct-93 Sep-94 5.00

IFC

145 Honduras World Bank Biodiversity Conservation in Dec-92 Sep-93 Jul-94 7.30

UNDP Priority Protected Areas

Total 718.90

Climate Changes




1 Bolivia UNDP Rural Electrification with Renewable Energy May-99 Jul-99 4.218

through the Popular Participation Law

2 Brazil UNDP Biomass Power Generation: Sugar Cane Apr-96 Mar-97 Jun-97 3.750

Bagasse and Trash

3 Bulgaria UNDP Energy Efficiency Strategy to Mitigate Greenhouse Oct-96 Oct-96 May-98 2.575

Gas Emissions. Energy Efficiency Demonstration

Zone in the City of Gabrovo

4 China UNDP CPR: Barrier Removal for the Widespread Jul-99 Dec-99 9.617

Commercialization of Energy-Efficient CFC-Free

Refrigerators in China

5 China UNDP Promoting Methane Recovery and Utilisation Apr-96 May-97 5.285

from Mixed Municipal Refuse

6 China UNDP CPR: Capacity Building for the Rapid Apr-97 Feb-99 8.800

Commercialization of Renewable Energy

7 Cuba UNDP Producing Energy Efficient Refrigerators without Mar-00 May-00 0.750

making use of Ozone Depleting Substances

53





8 Czech Republic UNDP Low Cost/Low Energy buildings Aug-98 Nov-98 0.448

in the Czech Republic

9 Egypt UNDP Regional - Energy Efficiency Improvements Oct-96 Aug-98 4.110

and GHG Reduction in Egypt and

the Palestinian Authority

10 Egypt UNDP Egypt – Introduction of Viable Electric and Nov-99 Mar-00 0.749

Hybrid Electric Bus Technology in Egypt

11 Fiji UNDP FIJ: Fiji Renewable Energy Hybrid Feb-99 Jun-00 0.740

Village Power Systems

12 Ghana UNDP Renewable Energy-based Electricity for Rural, Aug-96 Jan-98 2.472

Social and Economic Development

13 Guatemala UNDP Renewable Energy Based Small Enterprise 0.383

Development in the Quiche Region of Guatemala

14 Hungary UNDP Public Sector Energy Efficiency Programme 4.200

15 India UNDP Optimizing Development of Small Hydel Dec-91 Jan-94 Mar-94 7.500

Resources in Hilly Areas

16 India UNDP Development of High Rate BioMethanation May-92 Jan-94 Mar-94 5.500

Processes as Means of Reducing

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

17 India UNDP India: Coal Bed Methane Capture and 9.198

Commercial Utilisation -FULL

18 India UNDP Cost Effective Options for Limiting GHG Emissions 1.500

19 Jordan UNDP Jordan - Reduction of Methane Emissions and Apr-96 Apr-96 Aug-97 2.500

Utilization of Municipal Waste for Energy in Amman

20 Kenya UNDP Removal of barriers to energy conservation and Oct-98 Apr-00 3.193

energy efficiency in small and

medium scale enterprises

21 Latvia UNDP Economic and Cost-Effective Use of Wood Waste Feb-98 Jul-98 0.750

for Municipal Heating Systems in Latvia

22 Malawi UNDP National Sustainable and 3.353

Renewable Energy Programme

23 Malaysa UNDP Industrial Energy Efficiency and Apr-98 Jul-99 7.301

Improvement Project

24 Morocco UNDP Market Development for Solar Water Heaters 2.965

25 Morocco UNDP Building Capacity in the Maghreb to Respond 2.500

to the Challenges and Opportunities created by

National Response to the UNFCCC

26 Pakistan UNDP Fuel Efficiency in the Road Transport Sector May-92 Jul-95 May-96 7.000

27 Palestine UNDP Energy Efficient Buildings 2.475

28 Palestine & UNDP Energy Efficiency Improvemens and May-97 Jul-98 0.500

Egypt Greenhouse Gas Reduction


54




29 Peru UNDP Renewable Energy Systems in the 0.748

Peruvian Amazon Region (RESPAR)

30 Peru UNDP Photovoltaic-based Rural Electrification in Peru Apr-98 Apr-99 3.955

31 Philippines UNDP Palawan Alternative Rural Energy and Oct-99 Feb-00 0.750

Livelihood Support Project

32 Regional - UNDP The creation and strenghtening of Capacity for Oct-99 Apr-00 0.750

Costa Rica Sustainable Renewable Energy Development

in Central America

33 Romania UNDP Capacity Building for GHG Emission Reduction Sep-00 2.036

through Energy Efficiency improvement in Romania

34 Russian UNDP Capacity Building to Reduce Key Barriers to Oct-96 Oct-96 Feb-98 2.980

Federation Energy Efficiency in Russian Residential

Buildings and Heat Supply

35 Sri Lanka UNDP Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Apr-96 Jan-98 1.510

Capacity Building

36 Sudan UNDP Sudan - Barrier Removal to Secure PV Market May-99 Jan-00 0.750

Penetration in Semi-Urban Sudan -MEDIUM < 750

37 Syria UNDP Syria - Supply-Side Efficiency and Energy Oct-96 Nov-98 4.070

Conservation and Planning

38 Thailand UNDP Removal of Barriers to Biomass Co-Generation 6.805

from Wood Residues in Thailand

39 Tunisia UNDP Experimental Validation of Building Codes and 4.360

Removal of Barriers to their Adoption

40 Tunisia UNDP Tunisia -Barrier Removal to Encourage and Feb-99 Apr-99 0.710

Secure Market Transformation and

Labelling of Refrigerators.

41 Uganda UNDP Uganda photovoltaic pilot project (PV) Oct-95 Nov-97 1.756

for rural electrification

42 Global UNEP Redirecting Commercial Investment Decisions Mar-99 Jul-99 0.750

to Cleaner Technologies -

A Technology Transfer Clearinghouse

43 Global UNEP Fuel Cell Bus and Distributed Power Generation Apr-00 May-00 0.691

market Prospects and Intervention Strategy Options

44 Global UNEP Assessment of Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Nov-00 May-01 7.850

Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors

45 Argentina World Bank Renewable Energy in Rural Markets Nov-97 Mar-99 Dec-99 10.000

46 Brazil World Bank Energy Efficiency May-97 Oct-99 Feb-01 20.000

47 Cape Verde World Bank Energy & Water Sector Reform and Development Mar-98 May-99 Dec-99 4.700

48 China World Bank Beijing Second Environment Dec-99 Jun-00 May-02 25.000

49 China World Bank Energy Conservation May-97 Mar-98 Dec-98 22.000

50 China World Bank Fuel Efficient Industrial Boilers Apr-96 Dec-96 Feb-97 32.810

55





51 China World Bank Sichuan Gas Transmission and Distribution Apr-92 Mar-94 Sep-94 10.000

Rehabilitation/Sichuan Gas

Development & Conservation

52 Costa Rica World Bank Tejona Wind Power Dec-92 Sep-94 Nov-95 3.300

53 Cote d’Ivoire World Bank Energy efficiency service market (MSP) Jul-98 Apr-99 Jun-99 0.695

54 Global World Bank Efficient Lighting Initiative (IFC) Tranche I Aug-98 Jun-99 Sep-99 9.350

55 Global World Bank Efficient Lighting Initiative (IFC) -Tranche II Aug-98 Mar-00 May-00 5.650

56 Global World Bank Renewable Energy and Energy Apr-96 Dec-97 Feb-00 30.000

Efficiency Fund (IFC)

57 Global World Bank Solar Development Group (IFC) Oct-98 Jan-01 Mar-01 10.000

58 Global World Bank Photovoltaic Market Transformation Initiative (IFC) May-97 Jun-98 Jul-98 30.000

(Kenya,

India,

Morocco)

59 Hungary World Bank Energy-Efficiency Co-Financing Program (IFC) Apr-96 Mar-97 May-97 0.700

60 India World Bank Energy Efficiency Dec-97 Jun-00 Jan-01 5.000

61 India World Bank Alternate Energy Dec-91 Nov-92 Apr-93 26.000

62 Indonesia World Bank Solar Home Systems (SHS) Oct-95 Jan-97 Oct-97 24.300

63 Lao PDR World Bank Southern Provinces Renewable Energy (MSP) Nov-97 Feb-98 Feb-98 0.740

64 Latvia World Bank Solid Waste Management and Jan-97 Feb-98 Jul-98 5.120

Landfill Gas Recovery

65 Lithuania World Bank Klaipeda Geothermal Demonstration May-95 May-96 Oct-96 6.900

66 Macedonia World Bank Mini-HydroPower Project (MSP) Dec-99 Jan-00 May-00 0.750

67 Mexico World Bank Renewable Energy for Agricultural May-99 Dec-99 Aug-00 8.900

Productivity (RETS)

68 Mongolia World Bank Improved Household Stoves in Sep-00 Feb-02 Mar-02 0.750

Mongolian Urban Centers (MSP)

69 Poland World Bank Coal-to-Gas Conversion Project Dec-91 Nov-94 Jun-95 25.000

70 Poland World Bank Zakopane/Podhale Geothermal District May-99 May-00 Jul-00 5.400

Heating and Environment

71 Regional World Bank Planning for Adaptation to May-95 Mar-97 Apr-97 5.000

(Caribbean) Climate Change (CARICOM)

72 Senegal World Bank Sustainable and Participatory Energy Management Apr-96 Jun-97 Dec-97 4.700

73 Sri Lanka World Bank Energy Services Delivery Apr-96 Mar-97 Jul-97 5.900

74 Tunisia World Bank Solar Water Heating May-93 Nov-94 May-95 4.000

75 Uruguay World Bank Landfill Methane Recovery Mar-00 May-00 Nov-00 0.975

Demonstration Project (MSP)

Total 475.362


56

International Waters

1 Regional - UNDP/UNEP/ Addressing Transboundary Environmental Issues Nov-98 Apr-00 Apr-99 8.745

Azerbajan WB in the Caspian Environment Programme

2 Regional - UNDP Building Environmental Citizenship to support Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-00 0.75

Hungary transboundary pollution reduction in the Danube:

A pilot Project in Hungary and Slovenia

3 Regional - UNDP Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology Oct-00 0.99

Slovak Rep. (TEST) In the Danube River Basin

4 Regional - UNDP Preparation of the Strategic Action Pan for the Mar-98 Mar-00 7.261

Ukraine Dnieper Preparation River Basin and Development

of SAP Implementation Mechanism

5 Egypt UNDP Lake Manzala Engineered Wetlands Dec-92 Jun-97 Jun-97 5.26

6 Regional - UNDP Preparation of Strategic Action Programme (SAP) Mar-98 Jun-99 5.199

China and Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) for

the Tumen River Area, its coastal regions and

related Northeast Asian Environs

7 Regional - UNDP Building Partnerships in Environmental Protection Nov-98 16.224

Philippines and Management for the East Asian Seas

(PEMSEA)

8 Regional - UNDP Implementation of the Strategic Action Jul-98 Feb-00 12.29

Samoa Programme (SAP) of the Pacific Small Island

Developing States-14 countries

9 Regional - UNDP Implementation of the Strategic Action Nov-97 Feb-99 Sep-99 19.34

Saudi Arabia UNEP Programme (SAP) for the Red Sea

WB and Gulf of Aden

10 Uruguay UNDP Environmental Protection of the Rio de La Plata Jan-99 Nov-99 6.007

and its Maritime Front: Pollution Prevention and

Control and Habitat Restoration

11 Global UNDP IW:LEARN Jul-98 Mar-00 1.93

12 Global UNDP Knowledge Sharing in International Waters - Jul-98 Mar-00 5.41

Train-Sea-Coast

13 Global UNDP Removal of Barriers to the Effective May-99 Feb-00 7.612

Implementation of Ballast Water Control and

Management Measures in Developing Countries

14 Regional UNEP Determination of Priority Actions for the Further Mar-98 May-00 Jan-00 6.4

Elaboration and Implementation of the Strategic

Action Programme for the Mediterranean Region

15 Regional UNEP Formulation of a Strategic Action Programme May-00 Jun-00 Jan-01 3.93

for the Integrated Management of the San Juan

River Basin And its Coastal Zone

16 Brazil UNEP Implementation of Integrated Watershed Jul-98 Sep-99 Sep-99 6.678

Management Practices for the Pantanal and

Upper Paraguay River Basin




57


17 Regional UNEP Implementation of the Strategic Action Program Nov-00 May-01 May-01 11.04

for the Bermejo River Basin

18 Regional UNEP Development and Protection of the Coastal and Jul-00 Aug-00 Aug-00 0.75

Marine Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa

19 Brazil UNEP Integrated Management of Land Based Activities Jul-98 Oct-99 Oct-99 4.771

in the Sao Francisco Basin

20 Global UNEP Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA) Sep-97 Mar-99 Mar-99 6.785

21 Global UNEP Role of Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and Oct-98 Jul-99 Jul-99 0.72

Undisturbed Nutrients and Carbon Cycles

22 Global UNEP Regionally Based Assessment of Dec-99 Aug-00 Aug-00 2.662

Persistent Toxic Substances

23 Russian UNEP Persistent Toxic Substances (PTS), Food Security Feb-00 Feb-01 Feb-01 0.75

Federation and Indigenous Peoples of the Russian North

24 Georgia World Bank Agricultural Research, Extension and Training May-98 May-00 Feb-02 2.5

(Formerly Agric. II)

25 Regional World Bank Lake Ohrid Management May-97 Jun-98 Dec-98 4.28

(Albania,

Macedonia)

26 Regional World Bank Mekong River Water Utilization Mar-99 Feb-00 Mar-00 11.1

(Cambodia,

Thailand

Vietnam)

27 Regional World Bank Lake Victoria Environmental Management (46871) Apr-96 Jul-96 Mar-97 12.266

(Kenya)


(Tanzania)


(Uganda)

30 Egypt World Bank Red Sea Coastal and Marine Resource Management Apr-92 Nov-92 Dec-94 19

31 Jordan World Bank Gulf of Aqaba Environmental Action Plan Oct-95 Jun-96 Jun-96 2.995

32 Poland World Bank Rural Environmental Protection Jul-98 Nov-99 Mar-00 3

33 Regional World Bank Water and Environmental Management May-97 Jun-98 Sep-98 12.525

(Kazak., of the Aral Sea Basin

Kyrgyz,

Tajik.,

Turkmen.,

Uzbek.)

34 Regional World Bank Strategic Action Plan (SAP) for the Red Sea Nov-97 Feb-99 Sep-99 5.61

(Red Sea

countries)





58







35 Regional World Bank Western Indian Ocean Oil Spill Jul-98 Dec-98 Mar-99 3.502

(Comoros, Contingency Planning

Mauritius,

Madagascar,

Seychelles)

36 Regional World Bank Ship-Generated Waste Management Dec-92 May-95 Nov-96 13.018

(Org. of

Eastern

Caribbean

States)

Total 246.701

Ozone

1 Azerbaijan UNDP Country Programme Review of Ozone Depletion Mar-98 Feb-99 7.04

Projects for Azerbaijan (4 PROJECTS)

2 Estonia UNDP Country Programme Review of Ozone Depletion Jul-00 Aug-00 .919

Projects for Estonia (2 PROJECTS)

3 Kazakhstan UNDP Country Programme Review of Ozone Depletion 5.60

Projects for Kazakhstan (5 PROJECTS)

4 Latvia UNDP Country Programme Review of Ozone Depletion Jun-00 Jun-00 1.439

Projects for Latvia (3 PROJECTS)

5 Lithuania UNDP Country Programme Review of Ozone Depletion May-98 May-98 4.533

Projects for Lithuania (4 PROJECTS)

6 Regional UNEP Promoting Compliance with the Trade & Licensing Jan-98 Mar-00 Mar-98 .694

Provisions of the Montreal Protocol in Countries

with Economies in Transition

7 Regional UNEP Initiating Early Phaseout of Methyl Bromide Sep-99 Feb-98 Mar-00 .663

through Awareness Raising, Policy Development

and Demonstration/Training Activities

8 Russian World Bank Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances May-95 May-96 Sep-96 25.700

Federation

9 Tajikistan UNDP Country Programme Review of Ozone Depletion Jul-00 Sep-00 1.071

Projects for Tajikistan (2 PROJECTS)

10 Turkmenistan UNDP Country Programme Review of Ozone Depletion Oct-98 Feb-99 .515

Projects for Turkmenistan (1 PROJECT)

11 Ukraine World Bank Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substance Phaseout Jul-96 Jun-96 Mar-99 23.540

12 Uzbekistan UNDP Country Programme Review of Ozone Depletion Oct-98 Mar-99 3.319

Projects for Uzbekistan (2 PROJECTS)

Total 75.041

59

1. The 2002 PIR Process and ScheduleThe 2002 GEF PIR process will, as in previ-ous years, involve: (1) PIR reviews by theImplementing Agencies (IAs) that will be sub-mitted to the GEF M&E Team; (2) reviews ofthe PIR reports by GEF focal area task forcesin their respective portfolios, and (3) a one-day interagency review meeting. Beginning inPIR 2002, we will include an annual stocktak-ing of enabling activities as part of the PIRprocess.

(1) The IA PIR for 2002 will be conductedbetween May and September, 2002. Al-though the GEF M&E team will acceptstaggered submissions of the reports dur-ing this period, they must be submitted nolater than September 25, 2001. The agen-cies will submit (or make available on elec-tronic databases):

◆ portfolio themes (an overview ofagency experience)

◆ individual project reports◆ portfolio indicators (including sum-

mary tables with project data)

(2) Once the IA reports are received by GEFM&E team, they will be distributed to pro-gram managers within GEFSEC and IAmembers of the four GEF focal area taskforces. Each focal area task force willschedule a review meeting of their respec-tive portfolios during early- to mid-Novem-ber 2002. These reviews will focus ontrends identified in the project reports, pro-gram and project cycle issues. The task

force reviews will also draw on other ma-terial, including the agency overviews andconclusions of earlier studies.

(3) Based on the reviews of the focal area taskforces an interagency meeting will be heldin early December 2002.

2. Portfolio Themes and Lessons LearnedOverviewEach IA shall provide an overview report iden-tifying portfolio themes and lessons learnedbased on its internal PIR process. The IAsshould devise an internal review process thatwill allow them to effectively identify cross-cutting themes emerging from the portfolio.The portfolio themes to be identified wouldinclude the following categories:

(a) Basic GEF issues and project review cri-teria (such as sustainability, replication andleverage). These will be identified andagreed upon at the GEF level, and shall becontinuously monitored and reported uponannually.

(b) Specific issues that emerge from the Imple-menting Agency’s review as well as the twothemes focused in the Secretariat ManagedProject Review: GEF’s Private Sector En-gagement and Participation of IntendedBeneficiaries and Effected Groups ofPeople. These should be reported by focalarea so that they can be referred to the fo-cal area task forces for further discussionand analysis.

(c) Issues or topics for which: (i) OPs requireclarification or elaboration; (ii) additionaloperational guidance is needed on project

APPENDIX BGUIDELINES FOR THE 2002 PIR

Guidelines forFY 2002 GEF Project Implementation Review (PIR)


60

development, implementation or evalua-tion; (iii) referral to STAP for scientific ortechnical advice is indicated; (iv) reviewin greater depth in M&E studies would bebeneficial; and/or (v) dissemination ofgood practices and lessons learned is rec-ommended.

3. Individual Project ReportsReports shall be submitted on all full and me-dium-sized (but not pre-investment or indi-vidual country enabling activities) GEFprojects which began implementation on orbefore June 30, 2001, and were in implemen-tation during FY 2002, including those projectswhich completed implementation during FY02.Implementation Completion Reports, Perfor-mance Audit Reports or Evaluation Reportsprepared during FY02 need to be submitted aspart of the PIR.

The individual project implementation reportsshould include the following information:

4.1 Project Name, Country and GEF FocalArea and Operational Program/EA/STRM,Approval Date and Effective Date

4.2 Financial DataThis section should include: total projectcost, GEF grant amount, cof inancing(planned for all projects and actuals real-ized for projects that have undergone amid-term review or completed implemen-tation) by source, and disbursements.

4.3 Brief Project DescriptionA brief description (50-100 words) —insimple and direct language—of the project,

what it is trying to achieve, its principalactivities, and major accomplishments and/or problems during the past year. (Pleasedo not repeat the project goal or objectivein this section.)

4.4 Project “Goal”19

A statement of the goal to which the projectcontributes.

4.5 Indicators of Goal Achievement and Re-lated TargetsList the indicators being used to monitorprogress toward achievement of theproject’s goal, together with any relevanttarget values for these indicators. If spe-cific indicators are not identified, includea discussion of how the project manager isdetermining progress toward achievementof the goal, and state when project indica-tors will be put in place. For each indica-tor, include the actual level achieved.20

4.6 Project Purpose21

State the project’s purpose or purposes.4.7 Indicators of Purpose Achievement and

Related TargetsList the indicators being used to monitorprogress toward achievement of the projectpurpose(s), together with any relevant tar-get values for each indicator. If specificindicators are not identified, include a dis-cussion of how the project manager is de-termining progress toward achievement ofthe project purpose(s)22 , and state whenproject indicators will be put in place. Foreach indicator, include the actual levelachieved.

4.8 Assumptions and RisksList major risks identified in the project

19 This should be the highest level in the project’s Logical Framework, which is often labeled the “goal” to which the project contributes.Different implementing agencies are using different terms for this level. The World Bank often refers to this level as the “CAS Objective”and/or the “GEF Operational Program” or “Program Purpose”. UNEP uses “overall objective” to describe this level, while UNDP recentlyhas used “goal”.20 It is understood that at this level, information may not be available on every indicator each year. Reports should include the most recent dataon the goal-level indicators.21 This should be the second highest level in the project’s Logical Framework, which is typically labeled as the “project purpose”. Differentimplementing agencies are using different terms for this level. The World Bank often refers to this level as the “development objective” and/or “global objective”. UNEP uses “outcomes” to describe this level, while recent UNDP projects use “purpose”.22 For example, UNDP projects are supposed to have “indicators of performance” that are rated and reported on in APRs.

61

Appendix B: Guidelines for the 2002 PIR

design and others that have been madesince. Rate the risk that affect implemen-tation or prospects for achieving projectobjectives and comment on what theproject is doing to avoid them. For thispurpose, use the 4 point scale in Annex 1:high (H), substantial (S), modest (M) andlow (L).

4.9 Implementation Issues and Actions TakenGive an account of which signif icantpolicy, institutional, scientific and techni-cal issues or changes that have arisen dur-ing project implementation, includingchanges in project assumptions/risks. As-sess how well the project has responded tosuch issues/changes and describe theproject’s use of adaptive management orflexible approaches to reach project objec-tives.

4. Portfolio IndicatorsOn the basis of the individual project reportseach IA should provide a report that summa-rizes the overall performance indicators andportfolio trends. This should include analysisof:

(a) the performance of its GEF projects (pos-sibly relative to comparable non-GEF port-folios) on (i) length of time from formalIA approval to first disbursement; and (ii)disbursement history;

(b) implementation progress (IP) and accom-plishment of project purposes (DO), trendsin each focal area, and common factors thatappear to account for either deteriorationor improvements in ratings and or perfor-mance in relation to those included in the2001 PIR.

Additionally, the IAs should provide lists/tableson the status of the portfolio as follows:

1. A list of all full and medium-sized (but notpre-investment or individual country en-abling activities) GEF projects which be-gan implementation on or before June 30,2001, and were in implementation at leastsome part of FY2002 ( for which individualreports will be prepared)

2. A brief status report on all projects forwhich:

a) funding was allocated in GEF WorkPrograms before June 30, 2001, butwhich have not been approved for-mally by the IA.

b) formal approval was made by the IAon or before September 30, 2001, butwhich have not begun disbursementsby June 30, 2002.

3. A list of all GEF projects that were opera-tionally completed during FY02. Reportson these projects should also be includedin the PIR.

4. A list of (a) all mid-term reviews, evalua-tion reports (self evaluations or indepen-dent evaluations) and/or project completionreports that have been completed from July1, 2001, through June 30, 2002, and (b)mid-term reviews, evaluation reports and/or implementation completion reports un-derway as of June 30, 2001, or plannedthrough June 2002.

5. A brief status report on implementation ofenabling activities supported under thevarious conventions, including a list of theenabling activity projects.


62

ANNEX 1 - DEFINITION OF RATINGS

Implementation Progress Ratings

Highly Satisfactory/ Good Practice (HS) Implementation of all components is in substantialcompliance with the original (or formally revised)implementation plan for the project. The project canbe presented as “good practice”.

Satisfactory (S) Implementation of most components is in substan-tial compliance with the original/formally revisedplan except for a few that are subject to remedialaction.

Partially Satisfactory (PS) Implementation of several components is not in sub-stantial compliance with the original/formally re-vised plan.

Unsatisfactory (U) Implementation of most components is not in sub-stantial compliance with the original/formally re-vised plan.

Project Purpose (Global Environment Objective/Development Objective) Ratings

Highly Satisfactory Good Practice (HS) Project is expected to achieve or exceed all its ma-jor purposes and global environmental objectivesand yield substantial global environment benefits.The project can be presented as “good practice”.

Satisfactory (S) Project is expected to achieve most of its major glo-bal environmental objectives and purposes and toyield satisfactory global environmental benefitswithout major shortcomings.

Partially Satisfactory (PS) Project is expected not to achieve several of its majorglobal environmental objectives or purposes noryield substantial global environmental results.

Unsatisfactory (U) Project is expected not to achieve most of its majorglobal environment objectives or purposes nor toyield worthwhile global environmental results.

63

Appendix B: Guidelines for the 2002 PIR

Risk Rating

Assumption and risk rating is often done on the basis a Logical Framework approach. The risk thatindividual assumptions relevant to the project may not prove to be accurate, and, may seriously affectimplementation or prospects for achieving project objectives, should be rated on the following scale:

High Risk (H) There is a probability of greater than 75% that theassumption may fail to hold or materialize.

Substantial Risk (S) There is a probability of between 51% and 75% thatthe assumption may fail to hold or materialize.

Modest Risk (M) There is a probability of between 26% and 50% thatthe assumption may fail to hold or materialize.

Low Risk (L) There is a probability of less than 25% that the as-sumption may fail to hold or materialize.

65

FY 2002 Summary Report

Portfolio Overview

Through June 30, 2002, the World BankGroup’s GEF approved portfolio comprised273 projects with total GEF grant commitmentsof $2.14 billion that are associated with an ad-ditional $10.44 billion in co-financing. Therewere 205 full-sized projects ($2.08 billion) and68 medium-sized projects ($52 million). Totalcommitments increased by 10% over 2001while the number of projects was 19% higher.

There was no change from FY01 in the distri-bution of the portfolio by focal area for eitherfull size or medium size projects, based on GEFcommitments. The climate change focal area(41%) had a slightly higher share of commit-ments than biodiversity (40%), followed by In-ternational Waters (10%) and ODS Phase-Out(7%). However, biodiversity continued to havea far higher number of projects (97 FSP, 50MSP) than climate change (69 FSP, 11 MSP).

The distribution of the portfolio by region forboth full and medium sized projects, based oncommitments, is identical to FY01. LatinAmerica and the Caribbean region (LCR),therefore, still has the highest share of com-mitments.

The Bank’s active portfolio included 177projects with a total GEF commitment of $1.31billion - 121 FSPs and 56 MSPs. During theyear twenty FSPs and eight MSPs were ap-proved by the Bank’s management while thir-teen FSPs and eight MSPs became effective.

Eight projects closed and exited the portfolio,5 FSPs and 3 MSPs.

Twenty four projects had been approved by theGEF Council prior to June 30, 2000 for inclu-sion in the work program but had not yet re-ceived Bank management approval by June 30,2002. This is a much higher number than inFY01 when nine projects were slow in matur-ing. Progress toward appraisal is advanced fora number of these projects with Bank Man-agement approval expected shortly thereafter.

The FY02 PIR portfolio comprises 127projects, 85 FSPs and 42 MSPs. Total GEFgrant commitments for these projects are$969.75 million. Thirty nine projects are inLCR with commitments of $203.8 million, fol-lowed by ECA with commitments of $194.8million from 18 projects and EAP also with 18projects but a slightly lower commitment of$190.7 million.

Performance

The proportion of projects rated satisfactoryor better on Implementation Progress has re-mained stable for the past four years at aroundthe 90% level. This year’s performance of 89%of projects rated satisfactory or better is twopercentage points lower than the correspond-ing result of 91% for FY01. There was a paral-lel increase of one percentage point in projectsrated partially satisfactory and unsatisfactoryrespectively. For satisfactory and above, ECA,LCR (on a much larger number) and SARachieved 94% or higher. AFR had the highestnumber (4) of projects with unsatisfactory rat-

APPENDIX C1WORLD BANK – GEF PROJECTIMPLEMENTATION REVIEW


66

ings, EAP had three projects in this category,while IFC had the highest proportion of par-tially satisfactory or unsatisfactory projects(38%). The ECA portfolio has noticeably im-proved performance compared with 2001,when 20% of its projects were rated unsatis-factory, whereas only 6% now fall in that cat-egory.

The ratings for Global/Development objectiveswere also slightly lower than in FY01. Ninetytwo percent of projects were rated at least sat-isfactory, compared with 95% in FY01, al-though the highly satisfactory rate remainedconstant at12%. The number of less than satis-factory projects in this PIR (8) increased from5 in FY01 mainly due to changes in the perfor-mance of IFC projects where two were down-graded to partially satisfactory and one tounsatisfactory from FY01. Seven projects were

rated unsatisfactory on both ImplementationProgress and Global/Development Objective.By region, LCR and SAR had satisfactory orhigher ratings of 100% followed by EAP andECA each with 94%. IFC had the highest pro-portion of partially satisfactory or unsatisfac-tory projects (38%), followed by AFR, 15%..

PROJECTS AT RISK23

The proportion of projects at risk increasedslightly while the actual number nearlydoubled. There were eleven projects at risk, rep-resenting 10% of the portfolio, an increase fromsix projects at risk, representing 7% of the port-folio in FY01, marginally lower than the 11%in 2000 and much better than the 15% in 1999.Among the projects at risk in FY02, three eachwere in AFR and EAP and two in LCR. It isalso significant that 6% of the stand alone GEF

BOX 1RATINGS FOR IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS AND DEVELOPMENT/GLOBAL OBJECTIVE

Rating FY97 (49)* FY98 (62) FY99 (56) FY00 (84) FY01 (96) FY02 (127)

Implementation Progress

Highly Satisfactory 20 18 12 12 14 14

Satisfactory 67 66 79 77 77 75

Partially Satisfactory 1 2

Unsatisfactory 12 16 9 11 8 9

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Development/Global Objective

Highly Satisfactory 28 18 16 17 12 12

Satisfactory 65 74 80 76 83 80

Partially Satisfactory 1 1

Unsatisfactory 6 8 4 7 4 7

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

*Figures in () are the number of projects

23 Projects at risk of not meeting their development objectives. Includes both actual problem projects (those rated less than satisfactory ondevelopment objectives and/or implementation progress) and potential problem projects (those that are satisfactory on IP or DO but areassociated with three or more other risk factors). The system only tracks full size projects.

67

Appendix C1: World Bank – GEF Project Implementation Review

portfolio was at risk compared with 20% forblended projects, which perhaps is an indica-tion that the broader range of issues addressedby blended projects increases the chances ofthem being risky.

Averages for the realism and proactivity indi-ces24 of the Bank-GEF portfolio were 100%and 88% respectively, compared with 86% and100% in FY01. This realism index means thatall the projects at risk are actual problemprojects, while the proactivity index signifiesa decline in the proportion of problem projectsbeing addressed through upgrading, restruc-turing, etc, though this is no worse than theoverall Bank average. Of five actual problemprojects in FY01 three remained in unsatis-factory status while eight new ones wereadded.

Quality Assessments

Quality of EntryThe Quality at Entry Assessment for 2001 car-ried out by the Bank’s Quality Assurance Group(QAG) found a 100% overall satisfactory out-come for GEF projects which was in line withthe results for IBRD projects as a whole. Thereport noted, however, that there tended to bean implicit assumption in environment andGEF projects that because these projects areexpected to have an overall beneficial effecton the environment, they can do “no harm” tothe environment or vulnerable groups. This is-sue is being assessed in depth by the Bank’sGEF team with assistance from the Quality As-surance and Compliance Unit.

Quality of SupervisionWith respect to supervision, all f ive GEFprojects included in QAG’s 2002 Supervision

Quality of Risky Projects were found to be sat-isfactory, compared with 78% for the overallsample. This would suggest that risky GEFprojects are being given the supervision atten-tion that is commensurate with the problem.

Net Disconnect25

Of five projects for which completion reportswere written during FY02 only one (IndonesiaSolar Homes Systems) was rated unsatisfac-tory, and this project was also rated unsatis-factory by OED. A second project, IndonesiaBiodiversity Conservation, was rated satisfac-tory by the region but marginally unsatisfac-tory by OED giving a net disconnect of 20%,but on a small number of projects. No otherproject had a disconnect.

Elapsed Time Between ProjectProcessing Steps

From GEF Council Approval to BankManagement ApprovalThere was significant improvement duringFY02 in average elapsed time between GEFCouncil approval and Bank Management ap-proval – projects are being prepared and readyfor appraisal in a shorter time - which reversesthe upward trend since 1999. The FY02 resultof 409 days for FSPs is 20% lower than theaverage for the previous three years and is thelowest since 1993. Even so there were a fewoutliers, such as the Ukraine Biodiversity inthe Azov-Black Sea Ecological CorridorProject which took 1423 days to move fromGEF Council to Bank Management approvaland the Papua New Guinea Forest and Conser-vation Project which took 1174 days. The rea-sons for delays were internal political andadministrative changes in both cases and in the

24 Realism Index: The ratio of actual problem projects to total projects at risk. Proactivity Index: The proportion of projects rated as actualproblem projects twelve months earlier that have been upgraded, restructured, suspended, closed, partially or fully canceled, or located in apost-conflict country with a Board-approved transition strategy.25 Net disconnect: The difference between the percentage of projects rated as unsatisfactory by OED and the percentage rated by the regionsin the final PSR as unsatisfactory for achieving their development objectives.


68

case of the latter, issues related to the Bank’spolicy dialogue.

Taking account of the number of projects perregion on which the analysis is based, LCR hadthe most favorable outcome, 266 days. TheAfrica region had the least favorable averageelapsed time, 597 days, followed by EAP with529, which was distorted by the PNG project.Similarly, the ECA average of 445 days wouldbe only 200 days if not for the Ukraine project.The results also show that biodiversity projectshave longer processing time than projects inother focal areas. While the averages for inter-national waters and climate change projectswere 212 and 258 days respectively,biodiversity projects took twice as long to pre-pare, 535 days. This is largely due to complex-ity of project design and the need to undertakesocial assessments that require lengthy fieldinvestigations. But there are complicated cli-mate change projects also, such as the ChinaEnergy Scale-Up and the Morocco Solar BasedPower Thermal Plant, which are slow in ma-turing.

From Bank Management Approvalto EffectivenessOn the other hand the average time betweenBank Management approval and effectivenessfor FSPs increased from 159 days in FY01 to269 days in FY02, a 70% increase to more thantwice the Bank standard of 120 days and thehighest ever recorded for GEF projects (previ-ously 215 days in FY00). Altogether, 70% ofthe projects in the Bank-GEF portfolio tooklonger than the Bank standard, compared withQAG’s finding that for the past few years 40%of the projects in the overall Bank portfoliohave exceeded the standard. To some extentthe results are biased by an outlier in EAP, theChina Renewable Energy Developmentproject, which took 918 days to become effec-tive.

The factors contributing to delay includedcomplicated legislative processes in the recipi-ent countries for approval of donor financedprojects, fulfilling the legal requirements setby the Bank and putting in place requiredinstitutional arrangements. Looking at the trend

0

300

250

200

150

100

50

19991998199719961995199419931992 2000

Bank FY

Average Lag time (in days) — combined Average Lag time (in days) — Full Sized Projects

Average Lag time (in days) — Medium Sized Projects

2001 2002

No.

of D

ays

FIGURE 4AVERAGE ELAPSE TIME (IN DAYS) BETWEEN BANK MANAGEMENT APPROVAL TO ???????

69


over the past few years the main lesson isthat many effectiveness conditions can some-times be addressed by the time of Bank Man-agement approval—they could be madeconditions of appraisal or Board submission—which would give sufficient time to deal withthese more complicated issues during prepa-ration rather than making them conditions ofeffectiveness.

The Bank-GEF team is examining whetherthere are additional GEF specific factors con-tributing to this problem and has included spe-cial attention to reducing effectiveness delaysin its portfolio improvement management planfor the current FY.

Cross-cutting Portfolio Issuesand Results

Risk Analysis and ManagementThe risks identified during project design of-ten arise and can have significant implicationsfor implementation as well as for thesustainability of outcomes. The most commonrisks are economic crises, limited institutionalcapacity, availability of counterpart fundingand political conflict. Some examples are pre-sented below of how these risks have affectedthe portfolio and how project task teams havesought to address them.

Although the effects of the Asian economiccrisis have abated during the past two years,the Indonesia Solar Home Systems Project isstill affected by the country’s economic diffi-culties and is not achieving even its scaled-backobjectives. In consequence, early closure of theproject is being considered. In Latin America,the economic crisis in Brazil, Argentina andspillover to Uruguay has contributed to delaysin project implementation (Argentina and Uru-guay), and to a reduction in counterpart fund-ing in Brazil as a result of devaluation of theReal. Several IFC projects have also been af-fected. Task teams are monitoring the situationclosely but have not yet designed appropriateresponse strategies.

The conflict in Colombia has affected theBank’s portfolio more seriously during FY 02than previously. In response, some activitieshave been adjusted. For example, in the Con-servation and Sustainable Use of the Serraniadel Baudo Project a series of public awarenessworkshops had to be canceled and radio broad-casts used instead.

In Ecuador, an oil pipeline is being constructedin a region of the country where the ChocoAndean Corridor project is also located. TheBank is in no way associated with the pipelinewhich does not pose a direct threat to theproject’s activities. Nevertheless the Bank hastried to address any foreseeable threat to theCorridor from this pipeline by recommendinggood practices from other countries and help-ing the project adapt by devising a mitigationstrategy as part of the conservation manage-ment plan for the area.

A serious risk to the Georgia Integrated CoastalZone Management (ICZM) is construction ofthe Kulevi oil transit terminal abutting the pro-tected wetland supported by the project, andthe slow response from government. The pro-posed risk minimization measures includedstrengthening environmental enforcement andintroduction of market based instruments, to-gether with continued dialogue between theBank and government on project benefits.

Resources LeveragedThe Bank Group-GEF program continues tohave a favorable overall ratio of GEF$1 to non-GEF$5 for cumulative commitments, with sev-eral examples in the portfolio of leveragingbeyond the original agreed financing plan. Alsoon a favorable note, the ratio in the Africa re-gion, which was traditionally below the Bankaverage, has increased from 1:2.5 to 1:4.

Catalytic Effects and ReplicationThere are a number of good examples in theportfolio of replication. The Brazil NationalBiodiversity Project (PROBIO) has influencedthe formulation of new projects at the federal


70

level such as, Amazon Region Protected AreasARPA (which is already Bank Approved) andEcological Corridors, as well as at the statelevel. The Biome Level Assessment method-ology used in PROBIO is being applied forpolicy making purposes in various states suchas Minas Gerais and Pernambuco. The Mexico– Oaxaca Hillside Management (MSP) specifi-cally addresses agricultural practices along hill-sides and also includes targeted research oncarbon sequestration. Based on the results ofthis project, a Prototype Carbon Fund (PCF)project on marketing carbon credits is currentlyunder preparation.

In the East Asia region, the China Nature Re-serves Management Project’s advanced naturereserve planning methodology has been widelydisseminated by the State Forestry Adminis-tration to other SFA-managed nature reserves,and the SFA plans to replicate its use in 150national-level nature reserves. In Cambodia theCambodia Biodiversity and Protected AreaManagement Project’s conservation awarenessactivities have encouraged provincial develop-ment staff to include national park staff in lo-cal economic planning and management tobetter harmonize development and conserva-tion initiatives.

In South Asia, the Sri Lanka Energy ServicesDelivery Project has been catalytic in the de-velopment of renewable energy, particularly inthe small and village hydro sector. The techni-cal assistance component of the project hashelped catalyze private sector delivery of en-ergy efficiency services and the developmentof the first ESCO in Sri Lanka.

Sustainability of Project Outcomes

Although a number of factors contribute to thelikelihood of sustainable project outcomes,several of the projects that closed in FY02 em-phasized the importance of institutional as-pects. In East Asia, for both the IndonesiaBiodiversity Collections Project and the ChinaNature Reserves Management Project, staff

trained and retained by the project have beenimportant factors for sustainability. In the caseof the Mali Household Energy Project,sustainability is rated as likely because a trans-parent and pro-active regulatory framework forthe sector is in place. The evolution of the gov-ernment agency responsible for renewable en-ergy to a mature financial institution in India,including the ability to mobilize additional re-sources, is an important reason for the highlylikely sustainability of the India RenewableResources Development Project.

Emerging Focal AreaLessons and GoodPractices

Biodiversity

Sustainable Financing of BiodiversityConservationOne of the greatest challenges for conserva-tion is how to cover the recurrent costs of parksand protected areas. Worldwide, protected ar-eas (PAs) are generally constrained by lack ofadequate budgets, and timing of budget flows,which make few of them capable of generat-ing sufficient revenues (either from visitor feesor other user payments) to be self-sustaining.Visitor fees and Conservation Trust Funds arethe most widely used mechanisms by GEFprojects, payment for environmental services(PES) is a relatively new approach being pio-neered by the Bank, while the IFC has focusedon aligning private sector investment withbiodiversity conservation.

One of the more interesting examples of visi-tor and other user payments from the portfoliois the Gulf of Aqaba Environmental Action Plan(Jordan) where cost recovery mechanisms in-clude marine park fees (diving fees, visitor fees,and beach facility fees); issuance of permits(air emission permits, cooling water dischargepermits, resource user fees for import/exportof all goods); and fines for environmental dam-

71


ages, including industrial pollution and oilspills. All revenue from these fees and fineswill be earmarked for the Department of Envi-ronment, Regulation and Enforcement.

Lessons emerging from Bank-GEF projectsare:

◆ that most PAs and all PA networks willneed continued input of government fund-ing;

◆ many parks will continue to need addi-tional outside support, including longtermsupport for PA management, includingpotential second phase support from GEFor other donors;

◆ additional sources of reliable regular fund-ing are needed, in addition to governmentbudgets and should not be used to supple-ment/not replace government budgets;

◆ PA funding should be diversified and notdependent on any one source, such as tour-ism revenues which may be impacted bypolitical, climatic and economic distur-bances; and

◆ to ensure adequate government support,both political and financial, there must begreater understanding among policy mak-ers, local agencies and communities of thekey role that PAs provide in ensuring envi-ronmental benefit

To address the delays and unpredictability ofgovernment budgets and variable visitor in-come, the Bank has helped to establish severalconservation trust funds, using GEF financingas part of the capitalization to support protectedarea financing at either the national networklevel or individual protected areas. In spite ofthe apparent success of trust funds, few donorsare willing or able to capitalize such mecha-nisms. In this regard the GEF has played, andwill continue to play, a critical role in catalyzingfunds and endowing and leveraging resourcesfor their capitalization.

The Bank has only recently begun working withpayments for environmental services. To

achieve significant conservation gains throughPES, service payments must be guaranteed overa long time, such as 20 years, to provide suffi-cient incentive for conservation. Equally im-portant, adequate and reliable sources offinance must be secured to implement the pay-ments system, and the areas that will benefitfrom the payment system must be accuratelydefined and their ownership or use rights mustbe clear. The Costa Rica Ecomarkets Projectprovides participating small landowners withpayments for the environmental services theirland provides when forest cover is maintained.

34. The IFC is promoting sustainable land useand improved natural resource managementthrough small loans under its Small and Me-dium Enterprise (SME) Program and invest-ments in private sector partnerships in SouthAmerica through the Terra Capital Fund. Theprivate sector still has much to learn in identi-fying and evaluating business opportunitieswhich are profitable but lead to conservationbenefits. According to IFC experience, a keychallenge is financial discipline to determinewhen it is justifiable to use a grant or subsidyto promote a business opportunity. Further-more, successful biodiversity investment re-quires a number of supporting conditions,including legal and institutional frameworks,technical assistance and market access forbiodiversity products—all of which have to beaddressed in the process of catalyzing andbuilding this new business sector.

Conservation in production landscapesA key lesson from the Bank’s experience overthe past decade is the need to expand the con-servation imperative beyond protected areas toseek opportunities for mainstreamingbiodiversity concerns into land and water man-agement in the broader production landscape.This means explicitly linking conservation withpeople’s local development needs. Key ele-ments in this strategy are the need to workacross sectors and institutions, promoting col-laborative partnerships both within the publicsector among government agencies and be-


72

tween governments, NGOs and other sectorsof civil society.

A successful example of this approach is theIndia Ecodevelopment project which hasshown that development activities support PAsbest when they are explicitly linked to threatalleviation and conservation objectives, forexample, provision of fuel efficient stoves toreduce firewood needs, employment as con-servation guards and tourist guides.

Where project success depends on socio-eco-nomic benefits from biodiversity, conservationactivities need to provide a competitive alter-native for project target groups if they are tobe sustainable once project support ends. Thisunderlines the importance for projects to de-velop incentive frameworks, i.e. tax incentives,targeted subsidies, or creation of viable nichemarkets.

For instance, the Uganda Kibale Forest WildCoffee MSP was designed to provide revenuefor Kibale National Park and local farmersthrough marketing of wild coffee from localforests in blends with organically-farmed cof-fee. The main lesson learned from this projectis that feasibility studies to assess the marketpotential of a prospective commodity are nec-essary prior to initiation of projects aiming toestablish financial returns from selling a prod-uct on the global market

Climate ChangeAlthough the implementation experience is stilllimited, several business models have beentested by the World Bank and the IFC for ruralapplications of PV and already have shownsome promising results, although the projectshave not been as effective as originally expectedin leveraging and expansion of the PV market.Emerging lessons include the following:

◆ Awareness through dialogue, training anddemonstration investments is key to in-creased confidence in technologies andbenefits, which in turn influence invest-

ment/purchase decisions and policy formu-lation to support the renewable energy (RE)sector.

◆ Evaluating projects in terms of number ofPV system installations may overlook im-portant consequences. Benefits from thesolar home systems (SHS), and after-salesservice and maintenance experience,should be the focus of monitoring andevaluation.

◆ The pace of RE market development isslower than envisaged. This may be be-cause the intervention is designed for ru-ral and poorer population segment, or lackof RE awareness. Enough time should beallowed to develop markets and projectsand to identify suitable RE business mod-els in the country.

◆ Affordable financing accessible to ruralconsumers is essential for selling PV prod-ucts in rural areas. In India, Solar PV in-vestments began only after on-lending ratesto intermediaries and end users were re-duced from 10.3% to 2.5% for rural appli-cations and 5% for other sectors.

◆ The target rates for return on investmentare sometimes higher than realistically pos-sible in the renewable energy market, asoccurred with the SDG and REEF projects.

◆ Availability of concessional GEF financ-ing has helped to mobilize significantamounts of non-GEF private sponsor andother co-financing., but the IFC-managedfunds have placed far less deals than ex-pected;

◆ Significant work still needs to be done toexpand and extend the consumer financeinfrastructure supporting local PV compa-nies sales efforts. Many domestic FIs withrural infrastructure are not credit-worthy.Use of GEF funds as a partial risk guaran-tee has helped to stimulate new marketentrants from among local commercialbanks and other financial intermediaries.and

◆ Local PV enterprises tend to require inaddition to financing a significant amountof technical support in basic business pro-

73


cesses (preparing business plans, imple-menting management systems, expandingtheir sales and distribution networks, etc.)as they expand their businesses.

Lessons from IFC’s involvement with theprivate sectorThe use of GEF funding to support private eq-uity-type funds targeting global environmen-tal objectives (e.g. biodiversity conservation,or clean energy technologies) either in a re-gion or globally has successfully mobilized IFCand private capital to support equity-type in-vestments. However, the performances of thesefunds in actually placing funds in investmentsthat meet the investors return criteria has beenless than satisfactory. This illustrates both thedifficulty of investments in the target sectorsand the demanding nature of private equityfunds. Private equity funds also take consider-able time to develop, document for prospec-tive investors, and complete capitalmobilization (2-4 years on average). There isthus a considerable risk that by the time suchfunds become operational significant marketchanges may occur which renders them lesseffective.

IFC has been more successful in using GEF-supplied funds to provide partial risk guaran-tees to commercial banks and other financialintermediaries (leasing companies and non-bank FIs) to help mobilize commercial financ-ing for a class of energy efficiency investmentswhich raise unique structuring andcollateralization issues for FIs. This has been

done in HEECP/HEECP2. However, it is alsoquite clear that IFC management would notcommit to engage further in the developmentor use of this product without the shared riskcoverage provided by the GEF funds.

Looking Ahead

The continuing impact of efforts during the pastfew years to improve performance of the Bank-GEF portfolio is evident in the positive trendof a number of indicators. These achievementswill be consolidated through continued atten-tion to several key project and portfolio man-agement factors included as part of a portfolioimprovement plan presently being imple-mented. The plan includes the following ac-tions:

◆ Improve the overall quality of PSRs;◆ Improve focal area specific M&E;◆ Address GEF criteria in MTRs;◆ Address GEF criteria in ICRs;◆ Reduce project processing time from GEF

Council to Bank Management approval andfrom Bank Management approval to effec-tiveness;

◆ Improve monitoring of project risks dur-ing implementation

◆ Take actions to address problem projects;and

◆ Include sustainability and replication in-dicators respectively, in the project log-frame

75

Introduction

The annual GEF Project Implementation Re-view (PIR) complements the regular UNDPMonitoring and Evaluation procedures em-ployed during project implementation.

The PIR covers only a subset of the UNDP/GEF’s portfolio. According to the PIR selec-tion criteria individual project information wascollected for all full and medium-sized projectsunder implementation for a minimum of oneyear, as of June 30, 2002. This also includesthe Country Dialogue Workshop (CDW)Programme, a joint initiative of the GEF Sec-

retariat, UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank,that UNDP implements on behalf of MemberStates. Projects that were operationally com-pleted before June 30, 2001 were not includedin this year’s review. A total of 119 projectsqualified for the 2002 PIR – a 24 % increasecompared to 96 projects in PIR 2001 and a 65% increase compared to 72 projects in PIR2000.

In addition to reporting on the general perfor-mance of GEF projects, implementationprogress and impact achievements, the PIRoverview report – now in its eighth year – hasbeen restructured to better inform the discus-

APPENDIX C2PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW 2002

UNDP/GEF SummaryPerformance Report

September 2002

TABLE 1UNDP/GEF PROJECT PORTFOLIO (AS OF FY 02) BY REGION

April 91-Jun 02 April 91-Jun 02

Total Authorized Allocation26 Total Approved UNDP Budget27

Region ($million) ($million)

Global 66.9 66.3

Africa 240.2 172.6

Asia & Pacific 354 300.5

Arab States 117.1 109.5

Europe & CIS 141.3 120.9

Latin America & Caribbean 317.7 255.8

Small Grants Programme 96.8 70.5

Total UNDP/GEF Projects 1,335.5 1,101.3

26 Authorized allocation refers to GEF allocation approved by GEF Council or GEFSEC CEO.27 Total approved UNDP budget refers to GEF allocation approved by UNDP as commitment.


76

sions between the GEF Secretariat and theAgencies within the Focal Area Taskforces aspart of the overall PIR review. Particular em-phasis has been dedicated to the focal area over-views, but the report also includes a summaryof trends and crosscutting issues concerningUNDP/GEF projects.

Portfolio Overview

Since the initiation of the annual Project Imple-mentation Review in 1995 the UNDP/GEFannual approved Work Programme has grownconsiderably reaching an accumulated total of$ 1,300 million as of June 2002. Consequently

FIGURE 1PIR 00/01/02 COMPARISON: DISTRIBUTION OF GEF FUNDING BY FOCAL AREA28

0

50

40

30

20

10

BiodiversityOzone DepletionMultiple FocalArea

Climate Change InternationalWaters

2000 2001 2002

28 Regional Projects are counted as one project regardless of number of participating countries.

TABLE 2DISTRIBUTION OF UNDP/GEF PIR PROJECTS BY EXECUTING AGENCIES

Number of Percentage of GEF Funding

Projects all projects (US$ Millions)

National Execution 72 61 % 257.71

UN Agency 19 16 % 48.80

UNOPS 10 8 % 91.00

Non-Governmental Organization 15 13 % 28.56

Other 3 2 % 33.68

TOTAL 119 100 % 459.75

77

Appendix C2: Project Implementation Review 2002

the number of projects for which monitoringinformation needs to be collected, analyzed andconsolidated during the PIR process keeps in-

creasing steadily. The total number of 119projects being reviewed in the PIR 02 exerciserepresents a major increase of 24% (or 23

FIGURE 3PIR 00/01/02 COMPARISON: DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE DISTRIBUTION29

% FUNDING BY FOCAL AREA

0%

50%

60%

70%

80%

40%

30%

20%

10%

PSSHS U NA

2000 2001 2002

FIGURE 4PIR 00/01/02 COMPARISON: IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVE DISTRIBUTION

0%

50%

60%

70%

80%

40%

30%

20%

10%

PSSHS U NA

2000 2001 2002


78

projects) in the PIR portfolio compared to thePIR 01 which collected information for 96projects.

Biodiversity (BD) remains the largest FocalArea with 56 projects or 47% of the PIR port-folio (both in terms of numbers of projects andGEF funding) followed by Climate Change(CC) (41 projects or 35 % of the portfolio) andInternational Waters (13 projects or 13 % ofthe portfolio). In terms of funding the gap be-tween Biodiversity and Climate Change hasincreased significantly from last year, from11% to 17 % difference. This year did also in-cluded 8 ozone depletion projects and one inthe multiple focal area category (Country Dia-logue Workshops Programme).

Using the rating categories provided in the PIRguidelines a total of 13 projects were ratedhighly satisfactory (HS) and 81 projects satis-factory (S) on impact achievement, represent-ing about 84% of the PIR 02 portfolio. Onlythree projects rated their potential impactachievement with unsatisfactory and projectsin the Ozone Programme provide a single DO/IO rate. The eight projects included in thisyear’s PIR are rated satisfactory (S). The pic-ture for the rating of implementation progresslooks fairly similar. A total of 11 projects re-port highly satisfactory progress and 82projects satisfactory progress in implementa-tion. Four projects rated the achievement of itsimmediate objectives as unsatisfactory. Thesefigures translate into an implementation suc-cess rate of 83 % for the UNDP/GEF projectsthat participated in PIR 2002.

Focal Area Overviews

Biodiversity

The UNDP/GEF Biodiversity portfolio re-ported on in the PIR sample reflects approxi-mately 77% of the overall UNDP GEF BDportfolio of projects under implementation

Compared to previous years this reflects anoverall maturing of the ongoing portfolio. OP3(Forest ecosystem) projects are significantlyunderrepresented in the PIR sample (54% ofthe total) indicating that a significant changeis taking place in the distribution.

As in previous years, and as with mostbiodiversity activities, while positive projectimpacts on the state of biodiversity are re-ported, it is difficult to verify these objectively.Despite this there is good reason to suspect sig-nificant direct impacts on biodiversity giventhat many projects report success in establish-ing new protected areas, and particularly com-munity based or co-managed marine protectedareas. Predictably impact on the ability to “re-spond” to the biodiversity problem is consid-ered much more extensive and significant.Reports of significant increases in capacity atnational, provincial and local levels are exten-sive. Projects with a particular emphasis oncapacity development all report meeting or evenexceeding their targets. Particularly notable inthis regard are the OP13 projects onagrobiodiversity in Ethiopia, date palms inNorth Africa, and the Cross-borders and NGO-government partnerships projects in Africa.Many projects report success in developingparticular elements of capacity such as strength-ened enabling environments in general (Coted’Ivoire, the Philippines), integrated coastalzone management frameworks (Belize andMadagascar), participatory planning processes,management plans, and awareness raising.

Despite these reported achievements, projectsdo not report on linkages between developedcapacity and threat reduction or biodiversityimpact. This is of particular concern whereprojects are raising awareness, involving com-munities in planning and management of pro-tected areas, or working with communities onalternative livelihood activities. Reports of lim-ited public sector involvement – suggesting thatthe project is seen as “outside” the mainstreamof government action, and serious delays thelaunch of activities related to the development

79


of alternative sustainable livelihoods and pri-vate sector involvement (particularly in marineand coastal projects) are suggesting flaws inthe participatory development process. Thesereports also raise significant concerns aboutsustainability of project impacts after projectclosure. A notable exception to this concern isthe Brazil project, and those projects report-ing significant increases in ecotourism.

While most reports note the importance ofcontinuity and a long term perspective with aview to achieving some specific long termgoal, this seems very difficult to actually imple-ment. Institutions implementing projects tendto focus on carrying out the activities that arewithin their own competence, rather than onfocusing on what needs to be done and whocan best do it.

Projects report a range of challenges experi-enced during implementation: Many projectsreport difficulties associated with managementof the project as an entity. These difficultieshave generally been addressed by arrangingappropriate training and by UNDP country of-fices stepping in to provide temporary assis-tance with issues such as procurement andfinancial management. However, this is rarelyplanned for and project designs are often over-ambitious, particularly with respect to possiblefirst year achievements. A number of projectsreport on governments not following throughon f inancial or staff ing commitments(Cameroon, Guatemala, Paraguay, Philippines,Tanzania, and Vietnam). In other cases smoothproject implementation has been disrupted bysocial unrest (Central African Republic, Coted’Ivoire, Nepal, Paraguay) and war (Eritrea) –though note that biodiversity projects in Leba-non and Sudan (in both cases dealing with pro-tected areas) report as being influential innational reconciliation and peace building. Anumber of projects seem to have neglected thekey issue of how to sustain project achieve-ments after the end of the project until verylate in project implementation, underminingprospects for sustainability.

The importance of transferring lessons andexperiences between projects is reported fromseveral projects. For example, marine protectedarea projects in the Philippines report the im-portance of learning lessons from each othersexperiences. The Lesotho project notes thattransfer of experience between sites within thesame project was important. The establishmentof an IPGRI based project “mentoring” teamfor agrobiodiversity projects was similarlynoted as having provided significant benefitto the Arab States Dryland Agrobiodiversityproject.

Notions such as “adaptive management”,“sustainability” and “participation” are fre-quently professed but are often not fully putinto practice. While flexibility and “adaptivemanagement” is regularly referred to as beingimportant, so far the Madagascar coastal andmarine resources project seems to be the onlyone effectively applying it, suggesting that thetheory is much easier than the practice.

The importance of establishing a broad networkof partnerships is recognized by almost allprojects and is very widely applied withprojects often having extensive networks ofpartners within local, provincial, national andinternational government institutions, NGO’s,and academic and research institutions. Part-nerships with the private sector are much morelimited, except in the case of coastal and ma-rine projects where the engagement of the tour-ism industry through “Codes of Conduct” andenlisting their support in monitoring infringe-ments seems to be particularly successful.

Projects vary considerably in their approach tothe leverage of additional resources. Someprojects pay no attention to this on the basisthat the project was correctly and fully designedand all the required resources were negotiatedprior to project launching. Others continue toseek to expand the resources available to themthroughout their life and beyond into the fu-ture. Resources leveraged may be from otherdonors, NGO’s, foundations, or through the


80

establishment of revolving or capitalized trustfunds and debt swaps. Some resources areclearly “in-kind”, others are closely related tothe project but lie outside the project “systemboundary” – in space or time.

Climate Change

There were 41 climate change projects in the2002 PIR process. Nineteen of these projects(46% of total) reviewed fall into OP6, Promot-ing Renewable Energy and 17 (41%) are con-sidered Energy Efficiency (OP5) projects. Oneproject falls into the Sustainable Transport OP(OP11) and yet another one falls into the Re-ducing Costs OP (OP7). Of the remainingprojects, two were EA projects and the other isconsidered to be a STRM project (Short termmeasures). For the first time, these projects willbe reviewed not just by operational program,but rather by clusters within those programs.(Only sub-clusters that had at least threeprojects that underwent a PIR this year are re-viewed here.)

Renewable Energy Projects (OP6)

One of the most important outputs of the So-lar PV projects has been their influence onnational policy or legislation. In Uganda, thePV project has led to the removal of all taxesand tariff on PV equipment and influenced theadoption of a rural electrification strategy planwhich emphasizes the use of PVs in rural ar-eas. In Bolivia and Peru, the projects have con-tributed to the enactment of laws whichestablished the basis for the development ofisolated and border localities in which the ap-plication of renewable energy technologies wasdeclared a matter of national interest, as wellas identifying an agency as the executor of ru-ral electrification activities and administratorof an annual fund of the national budget. How-ever, it is also recognized (Ghana) that gov-ernments can change their commitments topartnerships rapidly. Utilities must be encour-

aged to incorporate PV into their planning forrural electrification.

Development of an innovative and effectivefinancing mechanism still constitutes a greatchallenge for all PV projects. In the Ugandaproject, public awareness activities, trainingand general capacity building activities by theproject have resulted in an increase in the num-ber of financial institutions involved in givingvendor credit for solar technology.

Projects focusing on using waste biomass forheat and power are looking at a small numberof demonstration sites, and an analysis revealsthat their replication potential is significantlylarge although identifying the financing to pur-sue this replication is a challenge.

Three projects (Jordan, China and India) fo-cus on converting biomass from the municipalwaste stream to methane and utilizing the meth-ane for generating electricity. International pri-vate sector partners and joint-venturecompanies are already examining the possibili-ties of expanding the power generation facilityand the potential for replication activities giventhe success to date. Their high cost-effective-ness makes them good potential candidates asCDM projects, which can play a part of fillingthe financing gaps. The other two projects aredealing with agricultural residues and the pro-cess of biomass either in boilers or gasifiers.As a direct result of one project (Brazil), twosugar mills are already using trash in their con-ventional boilers, and it is expected that a largenumber of other mills will begin using sugarcane to generate energy. The Thailand projectis still finalizing the rules governing the re-volving fund for investment in biomass powergeneration.

There are 8 projects in this year’s PIR thatattempt to remove barriers to a number ofmixed renewable energy technologies. Allof them were rated as being successful thisyear and despite the disparate nature of thesetechnologies, there are some common lessons

81


and experiences that can be drawn from thiscluster.

To encourage the adoption of renewable en-ergy technologies several projects (Fiji, SriLanka, regional Central American) are influ-encing governments to put a renewable energybased rural electricity legal framework in place,as well as increasing capacity of government,non-governmental, and industrial proponents.The India project has been successful in help-ing the Indian Government re-evaluate its ap-proach to small hydro development: increasingboth the reliance upon the private sector andthe consultation with and participation of lo-cal stakeholders. The replication plan devel-oped under this project has already begun toattract international investors. However, a con-tinuing uncertainty is whether energy produc-tion from renewable energy sources will becost-effective for rural consumers with lowincomes. This has immediate implications forthe profitability of these technologies, sincethese projects are premised on large and en-thusiastic private sector participation. Twoprojects in the Latin American region (Guate-mala and Bolivia) target largely indigenouspopulations and have adopted a participatoryapproach to stimulate businesses in local com-munities, with outcomes such as establishmentof a local bank to cover part of the cost of re-newable energy installations and links withnational finance agencies to manage the re-sources in a project revolving fund.

Energy Efficiency (OP5)

Most of the Buildings Energy Efficiencyprojects aim to introduce incentives for resi-dents and distribution companies to adopt en-ergy efficiency measures by two methods; tomake end-users pay for actual consumption(Egypt, Russia), and to introduce constructionand material codes which make buildings moreenergy efficient (Czech Republic and Tunisia).Influencing government regulation and creat-ing and enforcing sector wide building codesplay an important role; the project in Egypt has

led to the development of a commercial build-ing code while in the Czech Republic theproject has succeeded in revising laws to pro-mote energy efficient buildings. Since a largenumber of projects represent win-win options,these efforts will bring about market-basedstimuli for the construction of more energyefficient buildings (Russia). While recogniz-ing the need for governmental regulation, theexperiences from this sub-cluster also under-line the importance of learning-by-doing. In asector where it is hard to see immediate out-puts in the form of widespread adoption ofenergy efficiency standards in building con-struction (because of slow inventory turnover)technical assistance to stakeholders will ensurethat they are in fact adopting best practices.

The three projects focusing on Appliance En-ergy Efficiency that underwent a PIR in thisyear all differ in their scale, funding commit-ments, focus and impact while emphasize do-mestic manufacturing of more energy efficientrefrigerators. The China project combines tech-nology push – supply side interventions – withdemand pulls, which raise consumer aware-ness. The hallmark of the project is the wide-spread private sector interest in manufacturingenergy efficient refrigerators. The projects inTunisia and Cuba are directed at transformingmarkets mainly via supply-side interventions.These include establishing legislation for en-ergy labeling cold appliances. An importantconsideration is the threat posed by the avail-ability of cheaper imports. Cuba and Chinahave been able to deal with this via legislation.Thus, the policy component of project designplays a critical role in implementation, alongwith dialogue and coordination with relevantgovernment agencies.

Municipal Energy Efficiency projects seekto achieve greenhouse gas reductions throughdifferent approaches within heating, lightingand other municipally-based energy efficiencyefforts, such as improving energy use and ther-mal performance in hospitals and schools. InBulgaria, project results and demonstration


82

activities of policy and advocacy issues havebeen disseminated through MEEN (MunicipalEnergy Efficiency Network) and by so trigger-ing similar, yet non-GEF funded, energy effi-ciency projects in several other municipalities.The Latvian project, focusing on energy effi-ciency of municipal heating systems, has ex-perienced several delays associated withchanging political, sectoral and institutionalfactors. All projects have shown that targetedtraining for professionals, non-professionals,and high-level decisions makers to enhance in-stitutional and human capacity development isachievable and also key to project success.However, identifying and obtaining sustainablefinancing for the identified efforts is a chal-lenge.

Main Experiences and Lessons

An analysis of projects reveals that financingissues – whether it is leveraging additionalfunds or setting up innovative loan/subsidyschemes – is critical and affects project per-formance and some areas deserve additionalconsideration:

i. Sufficient financing for operations: Projectcosts should be fully accounted for atproject outset (a project design issue),while innovative approaches to private sec-tor partnerships can sometimes be used tofill apparent gaps.

ii. Private sector participation: The two chal-lenges are to identify technologies whichare cost-effective and ready for private fi-nancing, and to attract private investmentresources. Since private sector participa-tion is often a critical challenge, involvingpotential investors at the beginning willmake the project more private-sectorfriendly and aid subsequent replication.

iii. Innovative financing mechanisms: It isimportant to construct innovative and “in-centive-based” means to finance projectsand to use project resources to leveragefurther investments when facing the chal-lenge of leveraging investment capital into

replication activities. Local financial insti-tutions may be keen to provide assistance,but may not have the adequate legal andinstitutional framework to operate in.

Institutional development and capacitybuilding are critical elements of most UNDP-GEF projects, and going beyond these activi-ties to stimulate sustainable investment remainsa challenge:

i. Emphasize learning by doing: Task spe-cific training and specific technical/mana-gerial training/assistance means thatsystem failures are reduced and more eas-ily “absorbed”. This also means that thereis actual technology “transfer” rather thanmerely technology “sale”. Local capacitybuilding also ensures the sustainability andownership of the project; intermediaryagencies will carry on the project withoutday to day oversight by project staff.

ii. Establish good working relationships withGovernment partner agencies: While thismay seem trivial, it is the only way to in-fluence government policy and regulations,especially in the areas requiring legislationand regulation, such as energy efficiency,appliance labeling, and establishing stan-dards.

A number of projects identified public aware-ness as a critical requirement for project suc-cess. Awareness amongst all groups ofstakeholders and beneficiaries will serve as animportant vector for market development.

International Waters

The 13 UNDP-GEF International Watersprojects reporting to 2002 PIR span the fullrange of priority international waters issues asidentified in the GEF Operational Strategy, e.g.water quality/quantity issues, overfishing, habi-tat/species loss and introduction of exotic spe-cies, while two of them are knowledge sharingprojects so in effect cover all the issues. Clearlypollution is the most prevalent issue being ad-

83


dressed by this cohort of projects reporting tothe 2002 PIR. 7 projects are involved in eitherthe development or implementation of TDA/SAPs and therefore, focus on assisting groupsof countries to better understand theirtransboundary water-related environmental is-sues and to enact and implement the necessarylegal, policy and institutional reforms, and in-vestments

The projects reporting are principally havingproject impacts related to process, with onlymodest stress reduction impacts; it is still tooearly in the implementation of SAPs and otherregional and global programmes to gauge anydirect environmental status impacts attributableto the GEF interventions.

The Red Sea project supported a high-levelmeeting of policy and decision-makers fromfisheries sector for need of a regional fisheriesorganisation/regional fisheries commission(RECOFI). Development of a new Conventionfor the management and conservation of west-ern and central Pacific migratory fish stockshas received significant support from the Pa-cific Islands SAP project.

Several Dnipro River demonstration projects(Belarus, Ukraine, Russia) focusing on munici-pal and industrial pollution and biodiversityprotection, including environmental audit andmanagement systems to reduce pollution, andthe development of a planning and manage-ment framework for ecological corridors. TheDnipro project has also executed a highly suc-cessful small grants program.

Local authorities in the provinces, coastal cit-ies, municipalities and districts surrounding thePEMSEA Bohai Sea pilot site have adopted theecosystem management approach, developedand implemented functional zoning schemes,planned treatment facilities to reduce dischargeof sewage and industrial wastes into rivers andbays, and promoted environmental awarenessthrough local media and educational channels.Similar mass media campaigns and commu-

nity awareness activities funded underTumenNet have increased the number of pub-lications on transboundary environmental is-sues in the Tumen region.

GloBallast reports that in several of its six pi-lot sites, submission rates of ballast water re-porting forms by ships approach 60-70%, farin excess of the 25% target. This is particu-larly encouraging since this is a voluntaryscheme, and that in developed countries suchas the US, the Coast Guard is only achievingan average compliance rate of 30% across allports.

Through IW:LEARN, demonstration activities,their replication and sustainability (amongother issues) have been discussed explored andshared across IW projects, while projects haveseveral ongoing electronic forums throughwhich to provide direct feedback to each other,the GEF Secretariat, implementing and execut-ing agencies, regarding on-the-ground imple-mentation of their programs and policies.

Due to implementation issues, the TESTproject has been re-organized to a more flex-ible implementation mechanism, which allowsimproved tailoring of project activities to un-expected country/company needs. Moreoverthis arrangement has favored better control andmanagement of the project, thereby reducingthe risks of failure related to lack of perfor-mance of national counterparts.

Significant Dnipro project milestones such asan Intergovernmental Agreement on the cre-ation and funding of a Dnipro Regional Coun-cil and a Convention on the Dnipro Riverrequired political consensus far greater than an-ticipated in the Project Document. Similar in-stitutional issues have been experienced byPEMSEA (Malaysia and Thailand) and the In-tegrated Coastal and Watershed Managementcomponent of the Pacific Island SAP project.The Rio de la Plata project undertook a num-ber of steps to overcome the constraints posedby the time required in the institutional deci-


84

sion-taking processes. The global, multi-cul-tural nature of the Globallast project, involv-ing a large variety of institutional systems andcountries at different stages of development,has sought to harmonise different approachesthrough standardized templates and models, fa-cilitating maximum communications with andbetween countries, and including capacitybuilding and institutional strengthening ele-ments in all activities.

26. Some lessons and experiences reflectingthe challenges faced in securing the substan-tial co-financing, the Red Sea evaluation rec-ommended that the GEF and other donorssecure written commitments from countries tofinancially and institutionally support a projectduring implementation and beyond. Such ef-fort put into the Caspian projects have alsobeen well spent in terms of the plans contain-ing some real financial commitments from thecountries. Globallast observes that there is anatural tendency for recipient countries to slipinto accepting programme support as a substi-tute rather than a supplement to their own ef-forts.

The Dnipro project found that good prepara-tory assessment of local talent and effective useof national specialists in all aspects of programactivities enhances country buy-in and helpscounter negative stereotypes associated withdonor projects where international consultantsdominate. The TumenNet project implementa-tion through a network of local expert institu-tions has signif icantly enhanced nationalownership of the project and helped to estab-lish a genuine regional network of scientists,politicians, government agencies and NGOs.The Pacific Islands SAP project noted that mostPacific Island States have an increasing num-ber of commitments to regional and global ini-tiatives, results in limited local capacity.

The GEF support to IW projects has helped tocreate/maintain/strengthen partnerships withnumerous national, regional and internationalinstitutions and organizations. Regional and

International organizations such as IMO, FAO,ALECSO, CAMRE, ROMPE, to mention afew, have become more and more involved inproject implementation. These partnershipshave leveraged technical, financial and knowl-edge support to the project and to the region atlarge.

Almost all of the projects have acquired addi-tional resources and support from governmentsand donors, institutions and organizations on anational, regional and international level. Theadditional resources have been used for sup-port contingency planning; support of partici-pating countries in the implementation ofdemonstration sites and workshops for a re-gional network for local governments; and col-laborative ecosystem research.

Cross-Cutting Issues

This year’s PIR reaffirms the need to strengthencross project learning by active networking;the projects are not benefiting from the knowl-edge and experience available from other in-terventions in the GEF portfolio. UNDP/GEFis developing a support strategy focused on twoobjectives: i) to capture knowledge generatedat project level; and ii) to facilitate cross-projectlearning.

Within the Biodiversity Focal Area, so far thenetworks have been driven by the projects withthe objective of improving their performanceby looking beyond their own boundaries. TheMountain Biodiversity project in Lesotho usedstaff and community groups from one projectsite to participate in consultations and trainingin other project sites. The exchange of viewsand experience across geographical areasproved extremely useful and encouraged rep-lication of best practices across protected sites.The Bohol Reef project in the Philippines waspart of a thematic Tripartite Review (TPR) withother projects sharing similar experiences andproblems.

85


Demonstration of technologies and approachesis frequently an objective of climate changeprojects. In order to be able to achieve replica-tion in other projects and geographical areas,dissemination of the lessons learned is essen-tial. In other cases has for example the IndiaCoal-Bed Methane project not yet been repli-cated in other countries. Networks for projectsof various sub-clusters within the ClimateChange Focal Area is planned (one for biom-ass already exists). The purpose of these ef-forts is to create ongoing mutual learningnetworks of similar projects that would allowfor the exchange of experiences and lessons.

The International Waters Focal Area is payingparticular attention to cross-project learning.Two of the projects in the PIR portfolio,IW:LEARN and Train-Sea-Coast, are specifi-cally targeted at knowledge sharing involvingboth more traditional training as well as net-working and distance learning through elec-tronic media. IW: LEARN manages a networkthat involves all GEF International Watersprojects. The experiences with both projectshave been overwhelmingly positive and thesecould provide replicable models for horizontalexchanges and structured learning in other fo-cal areas as well.

Mobilization of the private sector to conser-vation and sustainable development efforts isan essential goal for UNDP/GEF projects. Howfar this process has gone varies considerablybetween the focal areas. There are also signifi-cant barriers that remain to be overcome. It isequally important that the incentives for pri-vate sector participation are in place.

The Climate Change Focal Area has over theyears demonstrated successful involvement ofthe private sector through various channels, in-cluding technology development and transfer,market transformations, and financing. TheGuatemala Quiché project is utilizing a par-ticipatory approach to promoting businesses inlocal communities through renewable energy.In Jordan, a local company partners with an

international partner in the operation and ex-pansion of a landfill gas operation and a liquidwaste biogas generator. The success of the Pa-kistan Road Transport Sector project haslargely depended on the extensive public-pri-vate sector partnerships involving automotivemanufacturers and workshops.

In the Biodiversity Focal Area, several projectsreport on partnerships and collaboration agree-ments with the private sector. Successful linkshave been established with the tourism sectorand particularly in coastal and marine projects(Tubbataha Reef in the Philippines, and Mada-gascar Coastal Development and MedWet, theIn-situ Conservation in Lebanon). In the Up-per Guinea Forest Ecosystem project Rio Tintohas provided funding for biological and socio-logical assessments. In the Community Con-servation project in Micronesia, a privateresearch company is providing subsidized sat-ellite imagery and vegetation mapping. InLesotho, the Mountain Biodiversity project isexploring private sector involvement in sustain-able use projects based on extraction and useof natural resources such as oils, fruit extracts,and aloes. Regardless of the above-mentionedexamples, partnerships with the private sectorremain very limited in general. Further guid-ance and support – particularly during explor-atory phases at early stages of projectimplementation – on aspects such as small en-terprise development and links with regionalor international partners might be very useful.Cross project learning and transfer of lessonsshould be encouraged.

Several projects in the International WatersFocal Area involve private sector participation.This involvement takes different forms. TheGloBallast project approach relies on the ship-ping industry collaboration. The project hasexceeded its target rates of ballast water report-ing by ships in its six pilot sites. The CaspianSea and the Red Sea projects have involved theoil and gas industry and have been able to se-cure a limited amount of co-financing fromcompanies and organizations.


86

A crosscutting issue for all focal areas relateto challenges experienced by using perfor-mance indicators when reporting on impactsof the projects at the level of development ob-jective and at outcome level. These might beexplained by lengthy periods needed for theseto appear- in particular in relation to impactson environmental status- and by the limitedavailability of appropriate parameters to assessand measure impact. Most of the indicators pro-vided in logframes are process – not impact –indicators, therefore compromising projects’capacity to identify and report on impact.

In the Biodiversity Focal Area most impactsreported – or progress towards its achievement– are related to changes in response. Capaci-ties for conservation and sustainable use arebuilt and developed by strengthening enablingenvironments, establishing and extending pro-tected areas, developing and improving man-agement plans and frameworks, fostering widerstakeholder involvement and participation, anddeveloping alternative sustainable livelihoods,among others. However it is often difficult toassess the extent to which this have actuallybeen achieved in those cases where indicatorsrefer to number of people trained, research orstudies completed. An effort has to be made togo beyond processes and measure actualchanges in the ability to respond to thebiodiversity problem. Better indicators need toaccompany objectives that define preciselywhat has changed, to what extent, and whetherit is sustainable. Qualifiers such as “improve-ment” or “strengthening” need to be definedprecisely and include appropriate targets. In-termediate milestones will allow assessment ofprogress.

In the CC focal area, the projects are oftenaimed at market transformations to facilitatethe adoption of specific technologies throughcapacity development, demonstrations andtransfer of technologies and best practices, andpolicy influence. The indicators are mostlygeared towards measuring these, while theachievement of the project’s intended impacts

is harder to demonstrate. For instance, it hasbeen noted in the case of the renewable energycluster that most of the projects will achievethe indicators related to project outputs whilethere is no measuring that the overall goal willbe achieved. Similarly, the projects dealing withmarked transformation of the building sectorto promote energy efficiency demonstratestrong implementation progress when it comesto transfer of best practices and capacity de-velopment, while evidence of market transfor-mation and subsequent investments can onlybe expected after completion of the projects.

The International Waters Focal Area promotesan indicator framework that tracks three levelsof indicators: process indicators, stress reduc-tion indicators, and environmental status indi-cators. The projects included in the PIR reportbasically on process indicators. There are, how-ever, modest impacts reported concerningstress reduction in the international waters en-vironments that are subject to the projects. Thisis inevitable due to the long-term nature of theenvironmental status impacts resulting frominterventions in international waters.

All GEF projects are dealing with externalrisks as they operate in an external environ-ment that affects their efficiency and effective-ness. These external factors that are beyond thecontrol of the project can pose serious risksboth to project implementation progress, aswell as to how well the project achieves its in-tended development objective.

Biodiversity changes might depend on factorsbeyond the influence of the project. Identifiedrisks and assumptions will need to be moni-tored and reported on as a complement to im-pact indicators. These “reality checks” need tobe kept in mind at all times to avoid frustrationand sense of under-achievement as far as im-pact.

The Climate Change Focal Area reports sev-eral cases where project performance has beennegatively influenced by external factors such

87


as political, economic and social aspects (Peru,Malawi and Latvia). Thus, it is essential thatthe projects identify the external risks at theoutset and continue to vigilantly monitor therisk factors throughout to project cycle in or-der to be able to adapt to the changing condi-tions. In general, it is important to identify whatare the conditions that will be necessary andsufficient to allow climate change projects toachieve their development objectives, beyondproducing the mere outputs.

International Waters projects are equally sus-ceptible to disturbances by external factors. Itmight be argued that the multi-country naturemultiplies the risks, as unexpected occurrencesin one country may affect the entire project.Therefore, vigilance in relation to the externalrisks is essential in the focal area. The Interna-tional Waters PIR portfolio demonstrates posi-tive cases, such as those of the Red Sea and

Danube TEST, of how projects have adoptedflexible implementation approaches in order tobetter respond to changes in external condi-tions or the recommendations of evaluations.

The project modality often limits the dura-tion of the GEF intervention and poses timeconstraints that hamper the achievement of thelong-term benefits and sustainable outcomesand impacts. Whether a full project or an MSP,it is essential to set the project period realisti-cally in order to allow for all activities to beundertaken with sufficient time as many of theprocesses involved are complex and time con-suming. Furthermore, the innovative nature ofGEF interventions requires institutional capac-ity to absorb these new approaches which is along-term process. Another dimension need-ing attention is that project activities are ofteninterlinked so that coordination or sequencingof the activities is essential.

89

PORTFOLIO OVERVIEWAND STATUS

UNEP’s GEF Project Implementation Review(PIR) for FY 2002 covered a total of 27 fulland medium size projects. This excludes jointlyimplemented projects, in which UNEP is notthe lead agency. The portfolio under reviewincluded 12 biodiversity projects, 3 climatechange projects, 10 international watersprojects and 2 projects dealing with protectionof the ozone layer.

UNEP’s overall GEF portfolio in FY2002 con-sists of fifty-one full size and medium sizedprojects, thirty-one PDF activities. UNEP is as-sisting sixty countries with enabling activitiesfor biodiversity (27 countries), climate change

(24 countries) and POPs (17 countries). Thus,UNEP’s PIR for FY 2002 is reviewing approxi-mately 52.4% of the overall portfolio ofUNEP’s GEF full and medium size projects.The UNEP portfolio of Activities on-going inFY2002, is valued at $369 million including $194 million GEF financing. In addition, UNEPis currently co-implementing, with partneragencies, fifteen projects whose UNEP com-ponent is valued at $ 30 million. The overallwork programme has involved participation of144 countries directly. Through the wider en-vironmental benefits arising from these activi-ties and through the major global assessments,UNEP’s work within the GEF impacts globally.

All UNEP GEF financed projects endorsed intothe GEF Work Programme before June 30,2001 have been committed (i.e. internally ap-

APPENDIX C3

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMMEGLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY PROJECTIMPLEMENTATION REVIEW 2002 OVERVIEW

0

400

450

200

250

300

350

100

50

150

92-94 95-96

Fiscal Year

97-98 99-00 2001-2002

Day

s

FIGURE 1AVERAGE PROCESSING TIME FROM GEF APPROVAL TO PROJECT ?????????????

UNEP GEF PROJECTS, BY YEAR


90

proved by UNEP). Among them, those projects,which have not yet been under implementationfor more than one year, are not subject to theFY 2002 PIR, but will be under review in theFY 2003 PIR.

SUMMARY PERFORMANCEAND LESSONS LEARNED

Overview

(i) Time from Allocation to ImplementationSince the number of UNEP projects israther limited, only aggregated analysis ispossible to see the general trend of timefrom allocation to implementation. Figure1 shows the general trend in processingtime for full projects. Data are basicallyaveraged for every two years. Although aslight increase is recorded in FY 01-02,there has been a decrease in average pro-cessing time, from 420 days in FY 95-96down to 237 days and 252 days in FY99-00 and FY 01-02 respectively. Figure 2shows the difference in the processing timeby project type. While on average 298 days

are necessary for a full project to be ef-fected, much shorter time is necessary fora medium-size project (163 days) and anenabling activity (148 days).

(ii) Co-financingActual levels of co-financing were col-lected for those projects whose implemen-tation has come close to completion. Inmost projects, co-finance has been realisedas originally planned, although changes inthe amount and contributors are not un-common. A few projects have surpassedthe co-financing levels originally envis-aged. For example, the Carbon Cyclesproject obtained co-finance almost threetimes more than planned. Other projects,which raised funds additional to the origi-nally planned, include the Alien Speciesproject, PLEC, the Clean TechnologiesClearinghouse project, and Sub-SaharanAfrica project. The Alien Species projectinformally reported that the actual level ofin-kind contribution from scientists couldhave been twice as much as planned. Theactual level of co-financing is sometimesdifficult to estimate. This is so in particu-lar with in-kind contribution. Sound guid-

0

200

250

300

350

100

50

150

Full Projects(1)

Medium Sized Projects(2)

Project Type

Enabling Activities(3)

Average(1+2+3)

Ave

rage

Day

s

FIGURE 2AVERAGE TIME BETWEEN GEF APPROVAL AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION BY ?????????????

(1992–2001)

91

Appendix C3: United Nations Environment Program

ance is necessary to obtain consistent co-finance figures.

(iii)Ratings of Implementation ProgressOn average, UNEP projects reviewed dur-ing PIR 2002 had a rating of (S) for Imple-mentation Progress. This was similar to theaverage ratings of the FY 2001 PIR. Theimplementation progress is significantlyinfluenced by the level and effectivenessof coordination and mobilization of insti-tutions and individuals participating inproject design and implementation. Mostof UNEP’s projects reviewed this year aremulti-country projects, which involve alarge number of countries than in most con-ventional GEF projects. Projects, which ex-ceed the original project implementationplans by approximately one year, have toundergo an Internal UNEP Project Revi-sions to enable an extension of project du-ration.

(iv) Accomplishment of project purposeAmong 27 projects covered by this year’sPIR, 8 were assessed “Highly Satisfac-tory”, and 19 “Satisfactory. In terms ofpercentage, those evaluated “Highly Sat-isfactory” have increased, while no projectwas rated either “Partially Satisfactory” or“Unsatisfactory” this year. In addition, twobrief status reports were added to the PIR2002 on the implementation of UNEP en-abling activities: one report for climatechange and the other for biodiversity.

Lessons Learned

IntroductionThe PIR 2002 contains individual reports fortwenty-seven UNEP GEF financed projectsand two brief status reports on UNEP’s enablingactivities. Of the 27 projects reviewed, 22 aremulti-country projects and the rest single-coun-try projects. Major components of theseprojects are assessment, development of tools,methodologies and guidelines for sound envi-ronmental management, preparation of envi-ronmental plans and strategies, enablingactivities, and demonstration projects. Experi-

ence in implementing such type of projectscould enrich the GEF’s body of knowledge,which in turn contributes to more effectiveimplementation of similar projects in the fu-ture.

The following chapters summarize various les-sons learned through the implementation ofthese projects under three broad categories, (i)Project Impacts, (ii) Issues during Implemen-tation, and (iii) Participation/Communications/Demonstrations.

Project ImpactsAll projects are implemented to create intendedimpacts. As a matter of fact a project can beseen as a process to generate intended impactsover a certain period of time. Project impactsare initiated at the project preparation stage,are magnified during project implementation,and fade, stay, or proliferate at the stage fol-lowing project completion.

Project impacts could take various forms. Im-pacts created by UNEP/GEF projects for thisyear are discussed from the following perspec-tives, (i) international impacts, (ii) innovation,(iii) legislative impacts, (iv) UNEP’s compara-tive advantage, (v) multi-country approach, (vi)sound project design, and (vii) long-term con-sideration.

International ImpactsProject impacts could be created at the inter-national or regional levels by both multi-countyprojects and single country projects. Interna-tional impacts once created may generate ex-tensive influence upon related policies andprograms of both developed and developingcountries in the world. If an international im-pact is taken up by a relevant international en-vironmental convention forum, chances aremuch higher that such an impact may prolifer-ate to other countries.

Being global assessments, the results of the MA(Millennium Ecosystems Assessment), GIWA(Global International Waters Assessment) and


92

RBA/PTS (Regionally Based Assessment ofPersistent Toxic Substances) will have funda-mental international impacts. In fact, they laya basis upon which future global policy direc-tions and priorities will be deliberated. Anytechnical guidelines and methodologiesadopted by these global assessments could havesignificant global implications.

The Alien Species project was instrumental inlaunching GISP (The Global Invasive SpeciesProgramme) Phase I. GISP successfully el-evated the profile of the invasive species is-sue. GISP II is underway by successfullyleveraging various donors’ support. GISPinvolvement in the CBD process viaSBSTTA resulted in incorporation of the inva-sive species as an important consideration indevelopment of National Biodiversity andManagement Plans. Furthermore, this issue hasbeen targeted as one component of the Frame-work Action Plan for the Environment underNEPAD (The New Partnership for African De-velopment).

The ODS Compliance project raised the issueof illegal trade in ODS and ODS containingproducts to the Meeting of Parties (MOP) ofthe Montreal Protocol. This issue had beenextensively discussed among participatingcountries during the two regional workshopsunder the project. A decision was taken byMOP on this issue at its 12th meting.

InnovationUNEP has been actively promoting innovativeapproaches through a number of GEF projects.Once such approaches are proven effective, thereplication potential could become far-reach-ing. Although risk associated with innovativeapproaches is usually higher than that of con-ventional approaches, it is worthwhile for GEFto give more support to such projects.

The Mediterranean project saw a need to cre-ate a sustainable financial platform for contin-ued implementation of SAP/MED. The projecthas a component to address this concern. The

component consists of, among other things, theuse of appropriate economic instruments, andtheir implementation at the national level. Thedraft analysis on application of economic in-struments was finalized, and five MOUs forthe pilot projects were signed.

The Investment Advisory Facility (IAF) activ-ity introduced by the Technology TransferClearinghouse project demonstrated significanteffectiveness of this approach. By addressinginformation barriers for financiers, IAF func-tioned as an effective way to provide signifi-cant leverage to GEF resources. The successof this approach has led to two follow-up ac-tions.

AIACC (Assessment of Impacts of and Adap-tation to Climate Change in Multiple Regionsand Sectors) adopted the regional mentorsystem to ensure quality and timely technicalassistance to researchers in developing coun-tries for the full duration of their projects. IPCClead authors contribute their time for this ac-tivity.

Legislative ImpactsProjects that have successfully prompted rel-evant national legislation or framework of ac-tion are considered quite effective in creatingsustainable impacts. This is because legislativeaction usually makes a country truly commit-ted to project objectives. Further such actioncreates long lasting enabling environment, inwhich capacities of relevant institutions are tobe strengthened.

The Biosafety project aims at assisting up to100 countries to prepare their national biosafetyframeworks, major elements of which are le-gal instruments, administrative systems, riskassessment procedures and systems of publicparticipation. Assistance is provided so that par-ticipating countries could take into accounttheir national needs and priorities within thecommon framework. This process will ensurethe sustainability of the national biosaftyframeworks.

93


The ODS Compliance project was fundamen-tal in catalysing the political will in participat-ing countries, and in assisting them inestablishing an ODS licensing system. Theproject enabled 20 out of 21 participating coun-tries to introduce ODS licensing regulations.To help these countries implement the regula-tions, staff training and other assistance havebeen provided under the project.

UNEP’s Comparative AdvantageOne of the prominent features of UNEP’s GEFprojects is its strong scientific orientation. Thisis a reflection of one of UNEP’s comparativeadvantages within GEF, its extensive linkageto scientific organizations. This approach iseffective because scientific findings are inmany cases the basis for subsequent correc-tive actions.

UNEP has been instrumental in facilitating astrong linkage with the scientific communityin conducting global assessments such as theMA, GIWA and RBA/PTS. In fact, all of theseassessments are being conducted on a soundscientific basis, involving numerous top classscientists in the world.

AIACC also represents an important part ofthe international effort of UNEP to supportbetter management and development decisionsby scientific capacity building and understand-ing. World leading scientists and relevant sci-entif ic networks such as IPCC are fullyinvolved in the project.

Multi-Country ApproachGlobal environmental problems cannot be dealtwith solely by any single county. Coordinatedactions are always necessary by countries con-cerned. In many cases the regional approach isconsidered useful, because countries in a re-gion tend to have political, social, economicand cultural factors in common, although indifferent degrees. The regional approach is alsoessential to protect trans-boundary ecosystems.Without coordinated actions agreed upon andtaken by the countries concerned, trans-bound-

ary ecosystems will never be managed in a sus-tainable manner.

UNEP has been catalysing regional agreementsto sustainably manage trans-boundary ecosys-tems. The Forest Fire project resulted in theASEAN Haze Agreement, which was signedin June 2002, which lays the basis for coordi-nated action to combat a common environmen-tal issue in the region. The Methyl Bromide project created signifi-cant impacts at national level through the re-gional approach. The Policy DevelopmentWorkshop developed national action plans,enabled mutual leaning about different policyapproaches to phase out methyl bromide, andhelped to establish a network of policy expertsamong participating countries. Given the en-couraging impacts created by the project, twocountries joined this project in middle 2001.The cost for these two additional countries wasprovided by non-GEF sources.

Sound Project DesignWithout sound project design, projects cannotdeliver intended results, hence no significantimpacts are created. Indeed, clear understand-ing of project objectives and correspondingsound design of the project are a key to smoothand successful project implementation.

The Baringo project was designed based upona sound concept of strategic partnerships. Theproject has drawn upon existing activities al-ready established in the area, promoted farmer-to-farmer extension, capitalising on indigenousknowledge, and maximized use of data and in-formation already existing.

The MA intended to strengthen the capacityof institutions involved in the projects for pro-moting replication and self-reliance. A lot ofresearch institutes and government agencies aredirectly involved in sub-regional ecosystemassessments. Capacities built during this pro-cess at the local, national, regional, and globallevels will not be lost at the completion of theassessment.


94

Long-term ConsiderationAny project has to end. Thus, it is imperativeto consider, even at the design stage, a strategyon how to retain impacts created by a projectafter its completion. There are a number ofways to sustain project impacts.

The Cleaner Technologies Clearinghouseproject succeeded in catalysing climate friendlyinvestments. The success of this project resultedin continued support of the same approach bythe Sustainable Alternatives Network projectand similar service by UNEP for a differenttarget group (i.e. policy decision makers).

The Carbon Cycles project ended in May 2002.But the scientists’ network developed under theproject is still active. They are developing ad-ditional nutrient budgets, and providing a testdatabase for developed models. This is con-sidered as a result of successful network build-ing exercises adopted by the project.

Issues During ImplementationThere are many factors, which influencesmooth and effective implementation of aproject. Flexible project management ensuresthe successful delivery of the project. Projectsare, in general, managed in terms of (i) time,(ii) resources, (iii) institution, and (iv) staffing.

Time ManagementDelay in project implementation is not uncom-mon. Time is a scarce resource, thus strict timemanagement is essential. Strong commitmentto a project tends to dissipate if a project issignificantly delayed. However, the conse-quence of delays is not always negative. Insome cases the original timeframe could beviewed as an optimistic estimation. Often de-lays result in improved coordination and par-ticipation, which will in the end contribute tothe successful implementation of a project.

The Biosafety project quickly set up a data-base, for sound management and timely execu-tion of the project activities. This databaseallowed the project team to keep tabs on all

contacts and countries. The database facilitatedmonitoring of the progress in each country,which enabled the project team to focus theirattention on potential bottlenecks.

The Mediterranean project experienced an ini-tial delay due to the late recruitment of theProject Manager. The timetable for the projectwas modified accordingly. Also the project suf-fered from rather slow responses from partici-pating countries. To address this issue, a numberof measures were taken, which included (i)preparation of clear ToRs for national coordi-nators, (ii) financial supports to assist opera-tions of national coordinators etc, and (iii) fivesub-regional courses to train technical experts.

The biodiversity enabling activities portfoliois suffering from a large variation in speed ofimplementation by different countries. A con-certed effort has been made to bring the coun-tries into better synchronicity (for reporting,etc.) and speed implementation of slow coun-tries. This is now beginning to show results.

The Pantanal project continued to suffer fromthe frequent changes of key project staff anddifficult coordination between the project tech-nical unit and the backstopping governmentagency. The situation has been rectified as moreattention is being paid by the government andinternational agencies concerned to address thisissue.

Resources ManagementAny project has certain risks or uncertainties,which may prevent smooth project implemen-tation. Flexible management of project re-sources such as funds and back up plans couldbe a key to handling manifested risks and un-cer tainties.

AIACC added two major activities to thoseincluded in the project document. One was theaddition of the outreach programme and theother was the addition of the climate changescenarios advisory group. Furthermore, aproject kick-off workshop was added to con-

95


duct training on key methodologies. The costof this workshop was covered by the balanceof PDF-B funds.

RBA/PTS had re-configuration of the budgetin response to requests from the supportingcountries regarding for which regions fundsshould be spent. Sub-projects were developedfor each region, and participation in regionalworkshops was expanded to include all coun-tries of each region.

Institutional ArrangementsCompetence and efficiency of executing agen-cies is an essential element for successfulproject implementation. Careful considerationis necessary to provide conditions, which makeproject offices competent and efficient. Alsoimportant is the inter-agency cooperation.Without agreement on roles and responsibili-ties of each of the executing and participatingagencies, efficient project implementation can-not be ensured.

The MA has a rather complicated institutionaland operational framework, which consists ofthe MA Board, Executive Committee, Assess-ment Panel, Working Groups, Secretariat, etc.There are certain drawbacks from this arrange-ment in terms of administrative burdens, butthe benefits derived from this outweigh thedrawbacks.

The strength of project institutional set-upchanges during implementation.

In climate change enabling activities, widelydifferent technical and institutional capabili-ties of countries have affected the costs andtime required to prepare their national com-munications. Organising regional technicalassistance has been helpful in addressing thisissue, though the different time-scales of coun-tries have made this a challenging task.

StaffingWithout appropriate staff with required exper-tise, projects cannot be successfully executed.

Since many projects last over several years,however, change in key project staff in themiddle of the project should be consideredas a risk. A sound back up plan is necessaryto avoid disruption in the project implementa-tion, should unexpected staff change becomea reality. Also important is to flexibly hire anecessary expert(s) even in the middle ofthe project, responding to the changing needsthat were not envisaged at the project designstage.

GIWA found that coordination with sub-re-gional teams is more difficult than originallyanticipated. Extensive efforts were necessaryfor improved supervision, coordination andtraining. It was decided to strengthen the coreteam so that proper supervision andbackstopping could be provided to sub-regionalteams.

The ODS Compliance project found the im-portance of using local consultants. In fact lo-cal consultants hired under this project werequite instrumental in narrowing the languageand cultural gap that otherwise might have af-fected the implementation of the project.

Communications /Participation/DemonstrationsThree different groups of people are usuallyidentified in relation to a project. The firstgroup is those who promote a project. Theyare project proponents, which include staff ofthe executing agencies and participating orga-nizations. Communications are mostly relatedto exchange of ideas and information amongthis first group. The second group is localpeople residing in project areas. They couldbenefit or suffer from the project. The word“participation” is mainly meant for this groupof people, who are expected to be involved inproject activities. The third group is people notliving in project areas. Those people cannot par-ticipate in the project, but they could becomeinterested to replicate similar projects in theirareas. Thus the third group of people are thetarget of “demonstration” activities.


96

Communications/networkingAlthough use of the internet has significantlyfacilitated communications mainly among ex-ecuting and participating agencies, questionsstill remain on how the internet should be ef-fectively used. A number of different ap-proaches have been tried for bettercommunications.

For better communications among those con-cerned, the San Juan project, developed “insti-tutional mapping”, which has beenincorporated in the stakeholder database de-veloped under the project. The institutionalmapping monitors developments of institu-tional arrangements under the project, as newpartners, collaboration agreements, and jointendeavours are being added to the project.

Under the Carbon Cycles project, the networkamong regional scientists was strengthenedthrough re-engagement of regional participantsin subsequent workshops. This network build-ing approach was better than conventional a“single regional visit of experts” in obtaininga committed cadre of regional scientists.

ParticipationParticipation is an essential element to deter-mine the impact of a project. As a matter offact, participation could be viewed as the mostimportant factor underlying sustainability of aproject. More specifically participation is im-portant because (i) various concerns of stake-holders can be accommodated to avoid futurepotential conflicts, (ii) diversified informationand ideas can be obtained and generated in theprocess, and (iii) overall increase in the levelof commitments through strengthened owner-ship of those involved.

First, a number of projects not only accommo-dated participation of stakeholders, but re-sponded to the needs of stakeholders in aconstructive manner.

The MA created many opportunities for dia-logue at the regional, national and local levels

with various users of the assessment. Discus-sions at these “User Forums” and others re-sulted in “User Needs Document”. Thisdocument greatly influenced the design of theproject. This will ensure maximum utilizationand dissemination of the MA results in the fu-ture.

The Russian North project took one step fur-ther. Indigenous peoples are main stakehold-ers of the project. The project selected anindigenous peoples’ organization as the projectcoordinator. This ensures not only indigenouspeoples are actively involved in the project, butalso their concerns are fully addressed. This isreflected in the statements made by leaders ofindigenous peoples that they are for the firsttime involved in the project as equal partners.The project empowered arctic indigenous or-ganizations in their participation in theStockholm POPs Convention processes.

Second, the participation of the private sector,whenever applicable, will significantly contrib-ute sustainability of the project impacts.

The Arun Valley project involved the privatesector for installation and commissioning ofthe mini-hydro scheme. A private company willbe involved in maintenance of the scheme evenafter the project closure. Local communitiesare already committed to generating revenueto support the system.

Third, for most projects, the participation ofstakeholders constitutes an essential part of theproject.

The international waters’ projects in LatinAmerica (i.e. the San Juan, the Bermejo, theSao Franscisco and the Pantanal projects) pututmost emphasis on public involvement. Thepopular participation component of theseprojects has been promoted from the planningto the implementation through seminars,courses, workshops and publications acrossmost of its sub-project activities. In San Juanproject,for example, about 230 institutions are

97


collaborating under some kind of legal agree-ment. They include universities, municipalitiesand NGOs, and mostly involved in binationaldemonstration projects and basic studies. Oneof such examples is the collaboration betweenthe National University of Nicaragua and theUniversity of Costa Rica. They started a num-ber of joint studies on the San Juan River ba-sin and its coastal zones.

The Methyl Bromide project was carried outin such a way that countries were fully involvedand had ownership over all of the activities.The regional workshops adopted a format thatrelied upon full participation of all countries.A similar approach was taken for carrying outthe national surveys. The countries themselvesorganized their own national surveys, whileUNEP provided technical advice and peer re-view.

Demonstration/DisseminationDemonstration and dissemination of projectoutcomes is an important activity to promotereplication of successful projects in other ar-eas. As touched upon below, there are manyways to demonstrate and disseminate encour-aging project results. However, even withoutany particular demonstration/disseminationefforts, international impacts created by someprojects, and innovative approaches success-fully introduced by some projects as outlinedabove could generate far-reaching replicationeffects.

The PTS monitoring system developed underthe Russian North project is considered as anadvanced model for the future national POPsmonitoring system in Russia. Thus, the projectSecretariat has been requested to make a pre-sentation at the All-Russian POPs Conference.

The Baringo project prompted the designationof the Lake Baringo as a Ramsar site. In addi-tion, the project was privileged to host the 02commemoration of World Day to Combat De-sertification in Kenya. These events have raisedawareness among local communities on the im-portance of the project, which in turn demon-strated the success of this project to othercommunities in the region.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall the performance of UNEP’s GEFprojects for FY 2002 has been “Satisfactory”,although the level of progress is different fromproject to project. Most projects reviewed thisyear’s PIR are still under implementation. Nev-ertheless, significant impacts have already beengenerated as outlined in this summary. It shouldbe stressed that most of UNEP’s projects re-viewed this year are clearly capitalizing oncomparative advantages of UNEP within GEF.This fact ensures maximum impacts to be cre-ated by the GEF funds allocated to UNEPprojects this year.

GEF operations continue to shift focus to theresults and quality of supported projects. Whatis most important is to create impacts that meetproject objectives. Given considerable risks anduncertainties associated with most UNEP’sGEF projects, flexible management of projectsbecomes essential. Flexible project manage-ment should ensure appropriate project moni-toring and subsequent corrective actions. In thisrespect, many lessons learned through theimplementation of UNEP’s GEF projects thisyear should be shared with all those concerned.It is hoped that lessons leaned through thisyear’s PIR will be useful in further improvingoverall performance of GEF projects.

99

GEF Total Work Approval Date of

Focal OP Funding Cost Program Date by Project Closing

No Country Region IA Project Area (US$ mil) (US$ mil) Entry Date IA start date

1 Algeria AFR World El Kala National Park and Biodiversity 2 $9.32 $11.68 May-91 Apr-94 Sep-94 Jun-99

Bank Wetlands Management

2 Argentina LAC UNDP Patagonian Coastal Zone Biodiversity 2 $2.80 $2.80 Dec-91 Feb-93 Dec-93

Management Plan

3 Belarus ECA World Forest Biodiversity Protection Biodiversity 3 $1.00 $1.25 May-91 Sep-92 Jan-93 Jun-97

Bank

4 Belarus ECA World Phase-out of Ozone-Depleting Ozone $7.20 $8.80 Apr-96 May-97 Aug-97 Dec-00

Bank Substances

5 Belize LAC UNDP Sustainable Development and Biodiversity 2 $3.00 $3.00 Dec-91 Feb-93 Mar-93 Feb-98

Management of Biologically Diverse

Coastal Resources

6 Benin AFR UNDP Carbon Sequestration and Rangeland Climate STRM Dec-92 Jul-93 Jan-94

Change

7 Bhutan SAS World Trust Fund for Environmental Biodiversity $10.00 $20.59 May-91 May-92 Nov-92 Dec-97

Bank Conservation

8 Bolivia LAC World Biodiversity Conservation Biodiversity 3 $4.50 $8.35 Apr-92 Nov-92 Jul-93 Dec-98

Bank

9 Brazil LAC UNDP Biomass Integrated Gasification/Gas Climate 7 Sep-92 Sep-92 Sep-92 Feb-96

Turbine Change

10 Bulgaria ECA World Ozone Depleting Substances Ozone STRM $10.50 $13.50 May-95 Nov-95 May-96 Apr-00

Bank Phase-out

11 Chile LAC UNDP Reduction of Greenhouse Gases Climate 5 $1.70 $1.70 Dec-92 Jun-95 Jun-95 FY2001

Change

12 China EAP World China Ship Waste Disposal International 9 $30.00 $67.20 May-91 May-92 Dec-92 Jun-97

Bank Waters

13 China EAP UNDP Development of Coal Bed Methane Climate STRM May-91 Apr-92 Jun-92 Dec-98

Resources Change

14 Colombia LAC UNDP Conservation of Biodiversity in the Biodiversity 3 $6.00 $9.00 May-91 Feb-92 Sep-92 Dec-99

Choco Region

15 Congo AFR World Wildlands Protection and Biodiversity 3 $10.00 $13.90 May-91 Dec-92 Oct-93 Jul-00

Bank Management

16 Costa Rica LAC UNDP Conservation of Biodiversity and Biodiversity 3 $8.00 $8.00 Dec-91 Apr-93 May-93

Sustainable Development in La

Amistad and La Osa Conservation

Areas

17 Cuba LAC UNDP Protecting Biodiversity and Biodiversity 2 $2.00 $2.00 Dec-91 Jul-93 Dec-93 Aug-97

Establishing Sustainable Development

in the Sabana-Camaguey Region

18 Czech ECA World Biodiversity Protection Biodiversity 3 $2.00 $2.75 Dec-91 Oct-93 Jan-94 Dec-97

Republic Bank

19 Czech ECA World Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Ozone 7 $2.30 $4.15 Dec-92 Aug-94 Dec-94 Mar-98

Republic Bank Substances

20 Dominican LAC UNDP Biodiversity Conservation and Biodiversity 3 $3.00 $3.00 May-92 Dec-93 May-94 Oct-97

Republic management in the Coastal Zone

21 Ecuador LAC World Biodiversity Protection Biodiversity 3 $7.20 $8.80 Apr-92 May-94 Jul-94 Jun-00

Bank

(continued on next page)

APPENDIX DList of Completed Projects as of June 30, 2001


100




22 Gabon AFR UNDP Conservation of Biodiversity Biodiversity 3 $1.00 $1.00 May-91 Jan-94 Jul-94 Jun-97

Through Effective Management of

Wildlife Trade

23 Ghana AFR World Coastal Wetlands Management Biodiversity 2 $7.20 $8.30 Dec-91 Aug-92 Mar-93 Dec-99

Bank

24 Global AFR World Global: World Water Vision - Water International 10 $0.70 $13.80 Apr-99 Jun-99 Jun-99 Dec-00

Bank and Nature - Environment and Waters

Ecosystems

25 Global Global UNDP Alternatives to Slash and Burn Climate STRM $3.00 $4.50 Feb-92 Nov-93 Apr-94 Dec-95

Change

26 Global Global UNEP Biodiversity Country Studies- Biodiversity EA $5.00 $5.22 Mar-92 Dec-97

Phase I

27 Global Global UNEP Biodiversity Country Studies- Biodiversity EA $2.00 $2.10 Jun-94 Dec-97

Phase II

28 Global Global UNEP Biodiversity Data Management Biodiversity EA $4.00 $5.39 Jun-94 Dec-97

29 Global Global UNDP Biodiversity Planning Support Biodiversity EA $3.10 $4.20 Jul-98 Apr-99 5-Jun

Program

30 Global Global UNDP Climate Change Capacity Building Climate EA May-93 Jan-94 Sep-95 May-97

Change

31 Global Global UNDP Climate Change Training Phase II Climate EA $2.58 $3.70 May-95 Mar-96 Mar-96

(CC TRAIN) Change

32 Global Global UNEP Country Studies on Sources and Climate EA Dec-91 Jul-92 Sep-92 Mar-97

Sinks of Greenhouse gases Change

33 Global Global UNEP Economics of GHG Limitations Climate EA $3.00 $3.00 Feb-95 Mar-96

Change

34 Global Global UNEP Economics of GHG Limitations - Climate EA $3.00 $3.30 Feb-95 Mar-96 May-96 FY2001

Phase I Change

35 Global Global UNDP Global Alternatives to Slash and Burn Climate STRM $2.94 $6.31 May-95 May-95 Jun-96 Jun-98

Agriculture - Phase II Change

36 Global Global UNEP Global Biodiveristy Forum - Phase II Biodiversity STRM $0.75 $1.64 Feb-98

37 Global Global UNEP Global Biodiversity Assessment Biodiversity STRM $3.30 $3.48 May-93 Apr-98

38 Global Global UNEP Global Biodiversity Forum (GBF) - Biodiversity STRM $0.70 $1.60 Feb-98 Apr-98 Apr-98 FY2001

Phase II

39 Global Global UNDP Global Change System for Analysis, Climate STRM $4.10 $5.58 May-92 May-93 May-93 Jun-98

Research and Training (START) Change

40 Global Global UNDP Monitoring of Greenhouse Gases Climate STRM $4.80 $11.50 May-91 Oct-92 Jan-93 Dec-98

Change

41 Global Global UNDP National Communications Support to Climate EA $1.80 $3.30 8/19998 FY2001

Climate Change Change

42 Global Global UNEP Pilot Biosafety Enabling Activity Biodiversity EA $2.74 $2.74 Nov-97 Sep-98

43 Global Global UNDP Research Program on Methane Climate STRM $5.00 $5.00 May-91 Jan-92 Jul-92 Jun-98

Emissions from Rice Fields Change

44 Global Global World Small and Medium Enterprise Multiple STRM $4.30 $15.70 Jul-94 Dec-95 Mar-96 Dec-98

Bank/IFC Program (pilot phase)

45 Global Global World Water for Nature (MSP) International $0.70

Bank Waters

46 Guyana LAC UNDP Program for Sustainable Forestry Biodiversity 3 $3.00 $3.40 May-91 Apr-92 Feb-93 May-97

(Iwokrama Rain Forest Program)

47 Hungary ECA World Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Ozone STRM $6.90 $8.39 Nov-94 Nov-95 Feb-96 Dec-98

Bank Substances

48 Iran ECA World Teheran Transport Emissions Climate 5 $2.00 $4.00 Apr-92 Oct-93 Jan-94 Dec-97

Bank Reduction Change

101

Appendix D: List of Completed Projects





49 Jamaica LAC World Demand Side Management Climate 5 $3.80 $12.50 May-93 Mar-94 Aug-94 Dec-99

Bank Demonstration Change

50 Jordan MNA UNDP Conservation of Dana and Azraq Biodiversity 2 $6.30 $6.30 May-92 May-93 Oct-93 May-96

Protected Areas

51 Jordan MNA World Gulf of Aqaba Environmental Action International 8 $2.70 $12.67 Oct-95 Jun-96 Dec-99

Bank Waters

52 Mali AFR WB Household Energy Climate 6 $2.50 $8.60 Dec-92 Jun-95 Oct-95 Dec-00

Change

53 Mauritania AFR UNDP Decentralized Wind Electric Power Climate 6 Dec-92 Jun-94 Sep-94 Jul-96

for Social and Economic Development Change

54 Mauritania AFR UNEP Rescue Plan for Cap Blanc Colony of Biodiversity STRM $0.20 $0.20 Aug-97 Nov-97 Nov-97 FY2001

the Mediterranean Monk Seal

55 Mauritania AFR UNEP Rescue Plan for the Cap Blanc Colony Biodiversity STRM $0.15 $0.23 Oct-97 Aug-98

of Mediterranean Monk Seal - MSP

56 Mauritius AFR UNDP Restoration of Highly Degraded and Biodiversity 3 $0.20 $0.20 May-93 Jun-95 May-98

Threatened Native Forests

57 Mauritius AFR World Sugar Bio-energy Project Climate 6 $3.30 $55.10 May-91 Feb-92 Dec-93 Dec-97

Bank Change

58 Mexico LAC World High Efficiency Lighting Project Climate 5 $10.70 $25.00 Dec-91 Mar-94 Feb-95 Dec-97

Bank Change

59 Mexico LAC World Protected Areas Program Biodiversity 3 $8.70 $16.30 May-91 Mar-92 Apr-93 Dec-97

Bank

60 Moldova ECA WB (Phase I) Biodiversity Strategy, Action Biodiversity EA $0.10 $0.10 Mar-98 Mar-98 1-Apr

Plan, and National Report to the

Conference of the Parties

61 Mongolia EAP UNDP Biodiversity Project Biodiversity 1 $1.50 $1.50 May-93 Mar-94 Apr-98

62 Nepal SAS UNDP Biodiversity Conservation Biodiversity 4 $3.80 $8.40 Dec-91 Jun-93 Sep-93 Nov-98

63 Pakistan SAS UNDP Maintaining Biodiversity with Rural Biodiversity 3 $2.50 Feb-94

Community Development

64 Panama LAC UNDP Biodiversity Conservation in the Biodiversity 3 $3.00 $3.50 Jan-92 Feb-94 May-94 FY2001

Darien Region

65 Papua EAP UNDP Biodiversity Conservation and Biodiversity 3 $5.00 $5.00 Dec-91 Jul-93 Jul-98

New Guinea Resource Management

66 Peru LAC World National Trust Fund for Protected Biodiversity 3 $5.00 $7.86 Dec-91 Mar-95 Sep-95 Jun-96

Bank Areas

67 Peru LAC UNDP Technical Assistance to the Centre for Climate 5 $0.90 $0.90 Dec-91 Nov-92 Feb-93 Jun-95

Energy Conservation Change

68 Philippines EAP World Leyte/Luzon Geothermal Climate 6 $30.00 ##### May-91 May-94 Mar-95 Mar-00

Bank Change

69 Poland ECA World Efficient Lighting Project Climate 5 $5.00 $5.00 Dec-94 Jun-95 Jul-98

Bank/ Change

IFC

70 Poland ECA World Forest Biodiversity Protection Biodiversity 3 $4.50 $6.20 May-91 Dec-91 Feb-92 Dec-95

Bank

71 Poland ECA WB Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Ozone $6.20 $20.20 Apr-96 Mar-97 Jul-97 1-Apr

Substances

72 Regional LAC UNEP A Participatory Approach to Multiple $0.72 $1.56 Aug-97 Oct-98

Managing the Environment: An Input

to the Inter-American Strategy for

Participation (ISP) - MSP


102




73 Regional LAC UNEP Argentina-Bolivia: Strategic Action International 9 $3.22 $5.96 Nov-96 Nov-98

Program for the Binational Basin of Waters

the Bermejo River

74 Regional EAP UNDP Asia Least Cost GHG Abatement Climate EA $9.50 $13.00 Dec-91 Aug-93 Aug-94 Aug-97

Strategy (ALGAS) Change

75 Regional ECA UNDP Black Sea Environmental Management International 8 $9.30 $32.60 May-92 Sep-92 Jun-96

Waters

76 Regional AFR UNDP Building Capacity in Sub-Saharan Climate EA $2.00 $2.00 Dec-92 Nov-94 Aug-95 Feb-97

Africa to Respond to the UNFCCC Change

77 Regional AFR UNDP Building Capacity in the Maghreb to Climate EA $2.50 $2.50 May-93 Mar-98

Respond to Challenges and Change

Opportunities Created by National

Response to the Framework

Convention on Climate Change

78 Regional EAP UNDP Conservation Strategies for Rhinos in Biodiversity 3 $2.00 $2.00 May-93 Dec-94

South East Asia

79 Regional AFR UNDP Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Climate 5 $3.50 $5.80 Dec-92 Dec-94 Dec-94 FY2001

Through Energy-efficient Building Change

Technology in West Africa

80 Regional ECA UNDP Danube River Basin Environmental International 8 $8.50 $43.50 May-91 Feb-92 Sep-92 Mar-96

Management Waters

81 Regional ECA UNDP Developing the Danube River Basin International 8 $3.90 $3.90 Oct-96 Oct-96 Sep-97 Sep-98

Pollution Reduction Program Waters

82 Regional ECA UNDP Developing the Implementation of the International 8 $1.79 $8.14 Oct-96 Oct-96 Nov-96 Sep-97

Black Sea Strategic Action Plan Waters

83 Regional AFR UNDP Industrial Water Pollution in the Gulf International 9 $6.00 $6.00 Dec-91 Oct-93 Oct-94 Mar-98

of Guinea Large Marine Ecosystem Waters

84 Regional AFR UNDP Institutional Support for the Biodiversity STRM $10.00 $10.00 May-91 Mar-92 Sep-92 Sep-96

Protection of East African Biodiversity

85 Regional AFR World Lake Malawi/Nyasa Biodiversity Biodiversity 2 $5.00 $5.44 Dec-91 Dec-94 Jul-95 Jun-00

Bank Conservation

86 Regional AFR UNDP Lake Victoria Environmental International 9 $0.40 Jul-95

Management Program Waters

87 Regional ECA World Oil Pollution Management for the International $18.26 $20.00 Apr-92 Apr-94 Dec-99

Bank Southwest Mediterranean Sea Waters

88 Regional LAC UNDP Planning and Management of Heavily International 10 $2.50 $2.50 Aug-93

Contaminated Bays and Coastal Areas Waters

89 Regional AFR UNDP Pollution Control and Other Measures International 9 $10.00 $10.00 Dec-91 Oct-93 Feb-95 Oct-98

to Protect Biodiversity in Lake Waters

Tanganyika

90 RegionalRegional UNDP Regional Oceans Training Program International $2.58 $5.18 Dec-91 Feb-98

Waters

91 Regional EAP UNDP South Pacific Biodiversity Biodiversity STRM $10.00 $14.30 Jan-92 Jan-93 Apr-93 FY2001

Conservation Program

92 Regional LAC UNDP START Global Change Initiative Climate STRM $2.90 $2.90 Jan-94

(subproject) Change

93 Regional LAC World Wider Caribbean Initiative for Ship- International 9 $5.50 $5.50 May-93 Jun-94 Sep-94 Jan-98

Bank generated Waste Waters

94 Russian ECA World Greenhouse Gas Reduction Climate 5 $3.20 $73.20 Dec-92 Dec-95 Dec-96 Jun-99

Federation Bank Change

95 Seychelles SAS World Biodiversity Conservation and Marine Biodiversity 2 $1.80 $2.00 Dec-91 Nov-92 Mar-93 Dec-97

Bank Pollution Abatement

103

Appendix D: List of Completed Projects





96 Slovak ECA World Biodiversity Protection Biodiversity 3 $2.30 $3.17 Dec-91 Sep-93 Oct-93 Jun-98

Republic Bank

97 Slovak ECA World Ozone Depleting Substances Ozone STRM $3.50 $5.95 May-95 Jun-96 Nov-96 Jun-98

Republic Bank Reduction (IFC)

98 Slovenia ECA World Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Ozone STRM $6.20 $9.72 Nov-94 Nov-95 Dec-95 Jun-98

Bank Substances

99 Sri Lanka SAS UNDP Wildlife Conservation and Protected Biodiversity 3 $4.10 $4.10 Dec-91 Jan-92 May-92 Jan-97

Areas Management

100 Sudan AFR UNDP Community-based Rangeland Rehabi- Climate STRM $1.50 $1.50 Dec-92 Aug-94 Oct-94 Feb-00

litation for Carbon Sequestration Change

101 Sudan Arab UNDP Community-based Rangeland Rehabi- CC STRM $1.50 $1.60 Dec-92 Aug-94 Oct-94 FY2001

States litation for Carbon Sequestration

102 Tanzania AFR UNDP Electricity, Fuel and Fertilizer from Climate 6 $2.50 $3.99 May-93 Dec-93 Mar-94 Jun-97

Municipal and Industrial Waste in Change

Tanzania

103 Thailand EAP World Promotion of Electricity Energy Climate 5 $9.50 $189.00 Dec-91 Apr-93 Nov-93 Dec-99

Bank Efficiency Change

104 Ghana AFR UNDP Conservation priority setting for the Biodiversity 3 $.742 $.949 May-98

Upper Guinea Forest Ecosystem,

West Africa

105 Yemen ARB UNDP Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity 2 $4.970 $12.983 Oct-96

the Biodiversity of Socotra

Archipielago

106 China ASP UNDP Preparation of Strategic Actino International 9 $5.199 $10.666 Mar-98

Programme (SAP) and Transboundary Waters

Diagnostic Análisis (TDA) for the

Tumen River Area, Its coastal regions

and related Northeast Asian Environs.

107 Hungary EIS UNDP Building Environmental Citizenship to International 8 $.750 $1.583 Feb-00

Support transboundary pollution Waters

reduction in the Danube: A pilot

project in Hungary and Slovenia.

108 Belize LAC UNDP MSP Creating a Co-Managed Biodiversity 3 $.750 $1.130 Nov-98

Protected Areas System in Belize: A

plan for joint Stewardship between

Government and Community.

109 Costa LAC UNDP The creation and strenhtening of Climate 6 $.750 $1.546 Oct-99

Rica Capacity for Sustainable Renewable Change

Energy Development in Central

America.

110 Guatemala LAC UNDP Renewable Energy Based Small . Climate 6 $.468 $.781 Oct-99

Enterprise Development in the Quiche Change

Region of Guatemala

111 Kenya AFR WB Tana River Nationale Primate Reserve Biodiversity 1 $6.20 $7.14 May-91 Nov-96

112 Mauritius AFR WB Biodiversity Restoration Biodiversity 3 $1.20 $1.60 May-95 Nov-95

113 Seychelles AFR WB Management of Avian Ecosystems Biodiversity 2 $0.74 $1.061 Jun-98 Jul-98

114 Uganda AFR WB Kibale Forest Wild Coffee Project Biodiversity 3 $0.75 $0.75 Dec-98 Feb-99

115 China EAP WB Nature Reserves Management Biodiversity 3 $17.90 $23.60 Feb-95 Jun-95

116 Guatemala LCR WB Management and Protection of Biodiversity 3 $0.72 $1.66 Jul-99 Sep-99

Laguna del Tigre National Park.

117 Regional LCR WB Planning for Adaptation to Climate Climate EA $6.30 $6.30 May-95 Mar-97

Change. Change


104




118 India SAR WB Alternate Energy Climate 6 $26.00 $450.00 Dec-91 Nov-92

Change

119 Global UNEP People, Land Management, and Biodiversity STRM $6.176 $11.993 Mar-97

Environmental Change (PLEC)

120 Global UNEP Development of Best Practices and Biodiversity 2 $.750 $3.983 Mar-98

Dissemination of Lessons Learned for

Dealing with the Global Problems of

Alien Species that Threaten Biological

Diversity.

121 Global UNEP Redirecting Commercial Investment Climate 5 $.750 $.930 Mar-99

Decisions to Cleaner Technologies a Change

Technology Transfer Clearinghouse

122 Global UNEP Fuel Cell Bus and Distributed Power Climate 9 $.691 $.691 Apr-00

Generation market Prospect and Change

Intervention Strategy Options.

123 Global UNEP Role of Coastal Ocean in the International 10 $.720 $1.178 Nov-98

Disturbed and Undisturbed Nutrients Waters

and Carbon Cycles.

124 Global UNEP Initiating Early Phase-out of Methyl Climate

Bromide through Awareness Raising, Change

Policy development and Demostra-

tions/Training Activities.

105

APPENDIX EList of Projects under TER’s

Implementing agency, country/region, Project name Referred to in Report as:

Biodiversity

UNDP Panama – Project BioDarien: Conservation of Biodiversity in Darien through Community Panama Sustainable Development

UNDP Regional, West Africa – Conservation Priority-Setting for the Upper Guinea Forest Ecosystems West Africa

UNDP Regional, South Pacific – Biodiversity Conservation Programme South Pacific

WB Bolivia – Biodiversity Conservation Project Bolivia

WB Indonesia – Biodiversity Collections Project Indonesia

WB Lao – Forest Management and Conservation Project Lao

WB Uganda – Bwindi Impenetrable National Park and Mgahinga Gorilla National Park Uganda – Bwindi Conservation Project

WB Uganda – Kibale Forest Wild Coffee Project Uganda – Kibale

Climate ChangeUNDP Cote d’Ivoire and Senegal – Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Energy Efficient Cote d’Ivoire and Senegal Building Technology

UNDP Sudan – Community Rangeland Rehabilitation for Carbon Sequestration and Biodiversity Sudan

WB Czech Rep – Kyjov Waste Heat Utilization Project Czech

WB India – Renewable Resources Development Project (Alternate Energy) India

WB Mali – Household Energy Project Mali

International WatersUNDP Hungary and Slovenia – Building Environmental Citizenship to Support Transboundary Hungary and Slovenia Pollution Reduction in the Danube

UNDP Regional – Developing the Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan Black Sea

UNDP Yemen – Protection of Marine Ecosystems of the Red Sea Coast Yemen

OzoneWB Belarus – Ozone Depleting Substance Phaseout Belarus

WB Poland – Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances Poland

107

APPENDIX FList of Projects under SMPRs 2002Desk Reviews

Implementation ProjectCostFocal Area Project Name Country/Region IA Period ($ millions USD)

Biodiversity Community Conservation and Compatible Enterprise Micronesia – Asia/ UNDP 2000–2003 GEF: 0.748 Development in Pohnpei Pacific Total: 1.929

Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Belize – Latin America/ UNDP 1999–2004 GEF: 5.355 Barrier Reef Complex Caribbean Total: 7.440

Biodiversity Conservation of Biodiversity and Protected Areas Syria – Middle East World 2000–2003 GEF: 0.75Management Project and North Africa Bank Total: 1.43

Climate Redirecting Commercial Investment to Cleaner Global UNEP 1999–2002 GEF: 0.75Change Technologies Total: 0.75

Climate Energy Efficiency Market Development Cote D’Ivoire - Africa World 1999–2002 GEF: 0.73Change Bank Total: 0.995Climate Coal-to-Gas Conversion Project Poland – Eastern World 1995–2000 GEF: 25Change Europe/Central Asia Bank (original) Total: 48.32

1995–2002(revised)

International Building Partnerships for the Environmental Regional – Asia/ Pacific UNDP 1999–2004 GEF: 16.224Waters Protection and Management of the East Asian Seas Total: 28.545

International Western Indian Ocean Islands Oil Spill Contingency Regional – Africa World 1999–2003 GEF: 3.152Waters Planning Bank Total: 4.637

Field Visits

Biodiversity Creating Protected Areas for Resource Conservation Vietnam – Asia/Pacific UNDP 1998–2003 GEF: 6.009 using Landscape Ecology Total: 8.279

Biodiversity Terra Capital Fund Regional – Latin World 1998–2007 GEF: 5.0America/Caribbean Bank Total: N/A

Biodiversity Biodiversity and Protected Area Management Pilot Cambodia – Asia/Pacific World 2000–2003 GEF: 2.75 Project for Virachey National Park Bank Total: 5.0

Biodiversity Integrated Coastal Zone Management Georgia – Eastern World 1999–2004 GEF: 1.3Europe /Central Asia Bank Total: 7.6

Climate Barrier Removal to Secure PV Market Penetration in Sudan – Middle East UNDP 1999–2002 GEF: 0.765Change Semi-Urban Sudan and North Africa Total: 1.325

Climate Low Cost and Low Energy Buildings in the Czech Republic – UNDP 1999–2002 GEF: 0.448Change Czech Republic Eastern Europe/ Total: 1.428

Central Asia

International Implementation of Integrated Watershed Brazil – Latin America/ UNEP 1999–2003 GEF: 6.615Waters Management Practices for the Pantanal and Caribbean Total: 16.403

Upper Paraguay River Basin

Documents

PROJECT PERFORMANCE REPORT - Home | GEF · PDF file · 2016-04-27Driving for Results in the GEF: Streamlining and Balancing Project Cycle Management. viii projects with multiple implementing