Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PROJECT BRIEF
1. Identifiers:PROJECT NUMBER INT/98/G52/A/1G/31PROJECT NAME Global: Small Grants Programme (Second
Operational Phase)DURATION 1-Year Replenishment for the period 19 February 2003-18
February 2004 (year 5 of the second operational phase)IMPLEMENTING AGENCY United Nations Development ProgrammeEXECUTING AGENCY UNOPSCOUNTRIES GlobalELIGIBILITY All participating countries have ratified the CBD and
UNFCCC GEF FOCAL AREAS Biodiversity, Climate Change and International WatersGEF PROGRAMMING FRAMEWORK Operational Programs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
and 13
2. SUMMARY The second operational phase of the GEF Small Grants Programme (SGP) was approved by the GEF Council in October 1998. A two-year replenishment for $31.619 million was granted and it was agreed that a subsequent annual “rolling” financial modality would be adopted to ensure continuity of programme activities. The replenishment for SGP operations in year 3 was approved by the Council in May 2000 for $22.823 million and that of year 4 was approved in October 2001 for $20.712 million. Within the adopted programmatic approach a number of benchmarks and deliverables are to be met each year. The report on progress made in achieving year 3 deliverables as specified in the project document is contained in this document. It constitutes the basis for Council deliberations on the replenishment for year 5. The replenishment for the period 19 February 2003 to 18 February 2004 (year 5 of the second operational phase) is estimated at $27 million. The SGP co-financing target for year 5 is $27 million of which $13.5 in kind and $13.5 in cash. The proposed work plan for year 5 is presented in section III, Table 1. The Indicative Program Budget is presented in section IV, Table 2.
3. COSTS AND FINANCING (MILLION US$) GEF Project : 26.997
Sub-total GEF : 26.997
CO-FINANCING In cash : 13.500In kind : 13.500
TOTAL PROJECT COST : 53.9974. OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT ENDORSEMENT: Endorsements for the SGP Second Operational Phase available
on request.5. IA CONTACT: Sarah Timpson, Global Manager
TELEPHONE: (212) 906 6191FAX: (212) 906 6568
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The GEF Small Grants Programme (SGP) was launched in 1992 as a pilot programme to provide support for community-based initiatives that contribute to conserving globally significant biodiversity, mitigating global climate change or protecting international waters. In almost a decade of operations SGP has reached out to communities in more than 60 countries and, in partnership with them, demonstrated that it is possible to meet livelihoods without endangering the resources on which we all depend. Technologies have been tested, traditional knowledge has been revived and applied, participatory methodologies have been employed, organizational capacities have been built, and lessons have been learnt.
2. SGP’s reputation as a transparent, country-driven, decentralized and participatory mechanism is well established. All major independent evaluations have consistently concluded that SGP is an effective means to link global, national and local-level issues to achieve environmental benefits while enhancing the well-being and livelihoods of local people. The findings of the Second Independent Evaluation provided the basis for the Council’s decision in October 1998 to make SGP a GEF Corporate Programme and include it in the Business Plan.
3. Since then SGP has been operating under a programmatic approach, which consists of yearly work plans with specific benchmarks and annual “rolling” replenishments of funds. The reports presented every year to the GEF Council are the basis for the decision on the SGP replenishment of funds.
4. Within the second operational phase SGP has submitted three reports to the GEF Council and received two replenishments of funds to cover operations in years three and four respectively. The current budget covers SGP costs until 28 February 2003, the end of year 4 of the second operational phase. A table summarizing the previous approved budgets is presented in Section IV, Table 3.
5. The present document includes: a) a report on progress made in programme implementation during year 3 of the second operational phase with specific reference to the deliverables agreed upon by the Council (Annex 1); b) a work plan for year five of the second operational phase – which comprises the period between 19 February 2003 and 18 February 2004 –; and c) the request for replenishment of funds with a detailed budget for the same period.
6. The SGP project document stipulates that the work plan to be submitted to the Council should encompass a period of two years. Given that the third independent evaluation of SGP is taking place in 2002 it was decided that it would be preferable to plan year six after consideration of the evaluation’s findings which will be used to determine the programme’s future directions. The GEF Secretariat and UNDP will review the management and strategy of SGP in the light of the evaluation, and for conformity with the Council-approved GEF strategic priorities in May 2003, and make any adjustments to the management, strategy, and work programme that may then be necessary.
II. IMPLEMENTATION OF YEAR THREE OF THE SECOND OPERATIONAL PHASE OF THE GEF SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMME
7. Information as of end of May 2002 indicates that the SGP project portfolio was comprised of 3,126 projects since the inception of the programme in 1992. Of these 1,714 projects have been approved during the second operational phase for a total value to GEF of $35.4 million. The total resources made available by GEF for grants in years 1,2 and 3 of the second operational phase are $38.3 million. This
2
shows that as of May 2002, 92.5% of available resources for the first three years of the second operational phase had been utilized. Given that most of the countries that joined the SGP in 2000 and 2001 are now fully operational the rate of grants approval has increased significantly and resources for year 4 (started in March 2002) will be committed within the planned period.
8. In addition to the important expansion of the SGP project portfolio, the programme has undertaken an impressive number of non-grant activities in order to meet previous and new Council agreed benchmarks. Quantitative indicators tracked by the SGP M&E system provide the following figures for year 3 of the second operational phase: over 200 National Steering Committee (NSC) meetings have taken place, an average of more than 4 meetings per country; 5,715 proposals were received for consideration, of which 639 projects were approved; 1,096 site M&E visits were undertaken by National Coordinators, many of these accompanied by NSC members; final participatory evaluations for a 185 projects were conducted; 26 MSP proposals were in preparation, 3 have been approved by the Council as well as 7 PDF-A; 277 stakeholder workshops covering a wide range of issues took place during the year, i.e., an average of 5 per country programme per year; the national media featured more than 370 projects in newspapers, radio and TV broadcasting; half-yearly country programme reports indicate that 159 new projects specifically incorporated lessons learnt from previously implemented projects.
9. Regarding major communications and outreach events carried out during the year, we are pleased to report that in observance of the International Year of Volunteers 2001, SGP joined the United Nations Volunteers (UNV) for the celebration of World Environment Day in June 2001. On that occasion SGP recognized the voluntary contributions of National Steering Committee members to the success of the programme by awarding certificates of appreciation on behalf of Mohamed T. El-Ashry, GEF CEO and Chairman, Mark Malloch Brown, UNDP Administrator, and Sharon Capeling-Alakija, UNV Executive Coordinator. The SGP WED event was extensively covered by the media at global and national levels and was honored by the presence of personalities such as Uganda President Yoweri Museveni, the Queen of Bhutan Her Majesty Ashi Dorji Wangmo Wangchuck, Princess Basma Bint Talal of Jordan, and UN Goodwill Ambassador Misako Konno from Japan.
10. Several SGP projects have received international and national awards. The list will be included in the SGP 10-year report currently in preparation.
11. SGP has also provided inputs to the GEF Secretariat and UNDP in preparation for the World Summit on Sustainable Development and developed a number of communications materials that have been used in the various PrepComs and other international events to showcase SGP accomplishments.
12. SGP is also happy to report that its headquarters team has been strengthened in the areas of climate change and communications and capacity building to respond to the growing demand for technical support in the climate change area and to facilitate the implementation of the SGP Communications Strategy. The two new positions brought the team to the strength originally envisaged for the second operational phase – 4 professional staff and a programme associate. The team will be able to more effectively respond to country programme needs at a time when both the number of countries and the thematic coverage of the programme are expanding.
13. Below is a summary of key activities and results as per the agreed deliverables stipulated in SGP’s work plan for year 3 of the second operational phase.
Deliverable 1: Progress in achieving strategic benefits and global environmental benefits, and in monitoring and evaluation.
14. Deliverable 1 includes four interlinked indicators: a review of the strategic role of SGP in achieving global environmental benefits; a report on an SGP National Coordinators global workshop to assess
3
progress in the implementation of the second operational phase, particularly in the application of the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework; feedback to the M&E Unit regarding overall performance and lessons learnt though participation in the UNDP/GEF PIR exercise; and the preparations to conduct the third independent evaluation of the programme in year 4 of the second operational phase.
15. The Third SGP Global Workshop took place in Hammamet, Tunisia, 22-29 June 2001. It brought together SGP National Coordinators from 48 countries, headquarters staff and several resource people. Rafael Asenjo, Executive Coordinator of the UNDP/GEF, and Kenneth King, Assistant CEO of the GEF, were special guests. Relevant sections of the report of the Global Workshop are attached as Annex 2. The full report is accessible through the SGP website at www.undp.org/sgp. I is also available in hard copy upon request.
16. The workshop was designed to accomplish five major objectives: (i) address priority issues of interest to all country programmes and learn from one another; (ii) review the new GEF strategic guidance, particularly on persistent organic pollutants, sustainable transport, integrated ecosystem management and biodiversity important for agriculture with a view to provide the basis for its integration into the SGP Strategic Framework and in the operation of country programmes; (iii) consider the SGP benchmarks for year 3, especially monitoring and evaluation issues and demonstration of global environmental benefits; (iv) develop the work plan for year four of the second operational phase to be submitted to the Council in October 2001 with the request for replenishment; and (v) develop an action plan matrix to facilitate SGP operations during the period 2001-2003.
17. The workshop covered substantive, operational and financial issues and combined presentations and working group discussions with training sessions for new National Coordinators and a field visit to SGP funded projects in Tunisia.
18. The report on the Global Workshop includes a summary of discussions conducted in Session Two, which addressed M&E and SGP’s contribution to achieving global environmental benefits. This is the first comprehensive review of SGP’s progress in applying the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework developed in 1999 with a view to document lessons, and identify strengths and weaknesses. The presentations by National Coordinators on this issue indicate substantive progress in the application and adaptation of the M&E tools at the project and country programme levels. The second generation of Biennial Programme Review (BPR) reports contains some outstanding examples of analysis of project and programme results and impact, as well as summaries of lessons learnt in all SGP areas.
19. Documentation of global environmental benefits at the project level has greatly increased but, despite of progress, the challenge of analyzing and producing comprehensive summaries at the country programme and global levels remains. As data and information collected through the various SGP M&E processes increases, efforts have been on the way to systematize management of information. The refined SGP global project database is proving to be a valuable tool in this respect. A pilot exercise to assess and analyze the SGP climate change project portfolio is ongoing. A number of variables have been identified to produce regional and global summaries showing the trends of portfolio development since the SGP pilot phase. A sample draft summary of the Africa region is presented in Annex 3 to illustrate the exercise underway, which is expected to be completed at the end of August 2002. The analysis of the biodiversity portfolio is proposed as a benchmark in the work plan of year 5. Inputs from the GEF Biodiversity Task Force and from the STAP biodiversity members will be sought to take advantage of the wider discussion on GEF indicators and impact in this focal area.
20. The Global Workshop was held back-to-back with the second workshop of the SGP COMPACT project, which addresses conservation of World Natural Heritage Sites in six countries with $3 million co-financing from the United Nations Foundation. It should be noted that SGP COMPACT is viewed as one of the most successful interventions supported by the United Nations Foundation. Many lessons are being
4
derived regarding the advantages and challenges of clustering SGP activities in specific globally significant biodiversity areas. SGP strategic and global environmental benefits are being documented in a systematic manner.
21. SGP prepared and submitted the Project Implementation Review (PIR) report as at August 2001 (a summary of the PIR is attached as Annex 4). The programme’s ability to track information about over 40 indicators established in the SGP project document logical framework is another result of the implementation of the M&E framework. It should be noted, however, that some of the indicators proposed in 1998 are not any more valid to measure progress in key areas of programme implementation. As a result, SGP is planning a revision of its logical framework and indicators system during year 5 of the second operational phase.
22. The Third Independent Evaluation of the SGP is currently underway. A five members team has visited 11 country programmes and is evaluating overall programme implementation with support from the UNDP-GEF M&E group. The evaluation will review the extent to which the recommendations of the previous evaluation were taken into consideration in the second operational phase, the effects of implementing such recommendations, and the programme overall results. It will also provide recommendations on the way forward. The terms of reference are presented in Annex 5. The results of the evaluation will be made available on time for the GEF Assembly in October 2002.
23. SGP collaborated with the teams responsible for the Overall Performance Study 2 and the Medium-sized Projects Review. Both evaluations received positive feedback from SGP stakeholders during the country visits and came to the conclusion that the programme was a country-driven, transparent and cost effective approach to address global environmental problems. The OPS2 and MSP reports made recommendations regarding expansion of the programme to benefit additional countries, SGP grant ceiling increase to close the gap between small and medium-sized projects, and greater flexibility regarding non-grant costs. The findings of the SGP Third Independent Evaluation will bring additional elements to help assessing whether the above recommendations may be adopted.
24. SGP provided substantive inputs to the GEF Secretariat for the preparation of the GEF report to the Sixth Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity. For the first time SGP activities were reflected in the report to the CBD underlying the importance of community-based activities for the implementation of the Convention.
Deliverable 2: Programme sustainability
25. Deliverable 2 includes two indicators related to delegation of increased responsibility to national NGOs for programme implementation in selected countries. Currently SGP is hosted by national NGOs in Brazil, Dominican Republic, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, and Tunisia. Further more, SGP has arrangements with local NGOs in Mount Kenya (Kenya), Mt. Kilimanjaro (Tanzania), Dominica and Belize for hosting the SGP COMPACT programme in these areas. The possibility of NGO hosting of the programme in Namibia and Lebanon is also being explored.
26. A special arrangement was made with SEAMEO Regional Centre for Graduate Study And Research in Agriculture (SEARCA) in Los Baños, Philippines to host the EC funded SGP for the Promotion of Tropical Forests project implemented in 4 South and Southeast Asian countries. A Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) for project execution was formally signed between UNDP Manila and SEARCA on the 2nd October 2001. SEARCA hosts the SGP PTF Regional Coordination Office and provides execution services for the SGP PTF in the following areas: (1) technical programme support; (2) support for the development of regional networks; (3) periodic hosting of some of the substantive SGP PTF meetings; (4) assistance in personnel recruitment and contract formulation for project staff and consultants; (5) support for initiation of the programme in new countries; (6) general support services.
5
27. The current national NGO arrangements vary in terms of overall responsibility in country programme management. In one side of the spectrum are Brazil and India in which the NGOs are fully responsible for country programme implementation with a substantive role for technical assistance. On the other side is Peru in which NGO responsibilities consist of providing office space and other infrastructure and supporting the National Coordinator with financial management of non-grant costs. Administration of grant resources (i.e. disbursement of grant funds to grantees) is the only aspect of programme implementation that had not been delegated to any host NGO. A new arrangement to support the implementation of SGP COMPACT in Dominica was made in January 2002 with the host NGO, Domnica Save the Children Fund. The organization is now expected to directly administer grant funds and report to UNOPS. Dominica was selected as a test case given that SGP functions under the SGP Regional Eastern Caribbean programme managed from Barbados and delays in disbursements had been experienced. This is a pilot agreement that may help pave the way for similar arrangements in other countries. As part of the workplan of year 4 SGP will conduct and in-depth assessment of current NGO host arrangements with a view to better understand the opportunities and shortcomings of such decentralized management practices.
Deliverable 3: Expansion of programme to new countries
28. SGP was authorized by the GEF Council to expand to five new countries during year 2 and five more in year 3. Twenty-seven requests for participation were considered and 10 were selected for participation, as follows: Kyrgyzstan and Lithuania in Europe and the CIS; Lebanon in the Arab States; El Salvador and Honduras in Latin America and the Caribbean; Iran and Mongolia in Asia; and Mauritania, Namibia and South Africa in Africa. This brings the total number of countries participating in the SGP to 63, managed from 53 country offices. A list of participating countries by region with the dates of joining SGP is presented in Annex 6.
29. Below is a summary of actions taken to start-up the programme in new participating countries and status of early country programme implementation.
30. SGP is fully operational in Iran, Lithuania, Kyrgyzstan, and Honduras. In these countries National Steering Committees (NSC) and National Coordinators (NC) have been appointed, country programme strategies (CPS) have been prepared and endorsed by headquarters, and grants have been approved and are under implementation. El Salvador, Mauritania and South Africa have established their respective NSC and completed country programme strategies. An initial set of grants in these countries is currently being considered for approval by the NSCs. A start-up and a launching mission to Lebanon took place in the first and second quarters of 2001 respectively. These were followed by an NGO workshop in May 2002 that was organized to agree on representation of civil society in the NSC and an NGO to host the programme. The delays in establishing the programme in Lebanon are due to the need to reach agreement between the various stakeholders on the modalities to manage the programme. The workshop was designed to facilitate consensus building, enhance programme ownership by NGOs and to build the capacities of stakeholders regarding SGP objectives and procedures.
31. Mongolia and Namibia joined SGP at the beginning of 2002. A launching mission took place in Mongolia in June 2002 and the selection of the NC is underway. The launching mission to Namibia will take place in September after WSSD, while the recruitment of the NC is ongoing.
32. In Kyrgyzstan and South Africa the appointed National Coordinators manage both SGP and the UNDP LIFE programmes in order to promote synergy and complementarity between these two small grants environmental initiatives.
6
Deliverable 4: Capacity-building efforts at country and community levels.
33. The agreed indicators for deliverable 4 relate to stakeholder workshops conducted in each country (at least 2 per country), the involvement of national NGOs in training and other capacity building activities for SGP grantees, and inter-country exchanges involving either stakeholders or NCs. SGP is pleased to report that year three of the second operational phase was very active in addressing capacity building issues at all levels. Progress reports indicate that more that 277 stakeholder workshops took place during the period. The workshops covered a wide range of issues meeting the multiple needs and interest of SGP stakeholders. Many were related to understanding GEF objectives and criteria, and enhancing skills for project design; several were “writeshops” to develop project concepts into full project proposals; some provided training on participatory monitoring and evaluation, including the development of project M&E plans; a large number were exchanges of experiences among SGP grantees; others were focused on relevant areas such as participatory ecological assessments, ecotourism issues and options, community organization and advocacy, NGO institutional strengthening, financial management and reporting, just to name a few.
34. A significant number of national NGOs are engaged in many different ways in supporting SGP capacity building activities given that partnerships and strengthening of civil society organizations are central to SGP. Most projects funded include capacity development components, which often are supported by national NGOs. In addition, about 13% of the SGP project portfolio specifically addresses capacity building and awareness raising activities. These projects are all carried out by national NGOs.
35. At the country programme level, NGO participation in monitoring and evaluation activities has significantly increased. An outstanding example is the Ecuador programme co-financed by the Dutch Government. The co-financing agreement allowed for the designation of a national NGO to conduct M&E, capacity building and lessons learning for all grants supported under the Dutch agreement. A publication summarizing the findings of this process was prepared at the end of 2001. In Belize, three national NGOs supported the preparation of a baseline assessment and the participatory planning process for the implementation of the SGP COMPACT in the Belize Barrier Reef. In Guatemala, under a partnership with UNIFEM, two NGOs are supporting grantees and the overall country programme to adequately address gender issues. In that same country, another NGO is providing capacity building to other groups on conflict resolution.
36. Through participation in the NSC, national NGOs are contributing to raise the capacities of community-based organizations and local NGOs by helping them enhance the quality of their project proposals and providing technical assistance during project implementation. More over, NSCs have invited national NGO networks and individual NGOs to participate in the Biennial Programme Reviews and also in the revision of the SGP Country Programme Strategies. For example, in Mali, the two major NGO networks – CCA ONG and SECO ONG – were fully involved by the NSC in the strategic meeting to develop the work plan to implement the country programme strategy. Both networks are instrumental in supporting capacity building activities of the programme and help monitoring and evaluation of country programme implementation.
37. Planning grants of a maximum of $2,000 to NGOs and CBOs that present interesting concept papers are a very useful capacity-building mechanism. Support at the very early stages of project design is a key to ensure success in meeting the desired project objectives. Communities and NGOs directly manage the planning grants funds allowing them to control the technical services to be provided by individuals or organizations.
38. Twinning arrangements between experienced NCs and newly appointed Coordinators were made in order to facilitate transfer of SGP accumulated experience to new country programmes. The Polish NC supported the establishment of the country programmes in Lithuania, Kyrgyzstan and Mongolia. The
7
Senegalese NC that of Mauritania. The Guatemalan NC briefed the El Salvador Coordinator and the Jordanian and Egyptian NCs participated in the launching missions in Lebanon and the latter was the facilitator of the NGO consultation in Lebanon. The Ugandan NC is scheduled to carry out the launching mission in Namibia.
39. The Tunisia Global Workshop was a very important occasion for experience exchange and capacity building. Training to recently appointed coordinators was provided on financial and administrative aspects, and training on database management was provided to all Coordinators. Resource people with expertise on eco-tourism, climate change and biodiversity lead a number of plenary discussions and working groups. The budget of year 4 of the second operational phase includes a provision to conduct a number of sub-regional exchange workshops. These will stimulate dialogue and sharing of lessons among countries.
Deliverable 5: Mobilization of non-GEF resources for “baseline” activities.
40. The combined resources mobilization target for years 1,2 and 3 of the second operational phase was $27 million in cash and $27 million equivalent in kind. The cumulative amounts raised as of end of June 2002 are $44.1 million in cash and $15.7 million in kind.
41. It should be noted that resources mobilized so far exceed the overall target of $38 million in cash for the four years of the second operational phase. On the other hand SGP believes that the figure of resources mobilized in kind is underestimated. SGP needs to substantially improve its system for tracking in kind contributions, particularly those made available by the grantees and other partners. To this end, the Dominican Republic National Coordinator has shared a draft methodology with his colleagues with a view to assess its potential application in all countries.
42. The third independent evaluation will address SGP resources mobilization issues in depth. It will examine the different modalities of these contributions, the current sources of co-financing and the impact these may have had in SGP globally and in specific countries.
43. In addition to the multilateral and bilateral contributions highlighted in previous Council reports, in December 2001, the Danish Government made a contribution of $933,902 towards the SGP activities agreed in the work plan of year 4 of the second operational phase. The Danish contribution to SGP was made as a cost-sharing agreement to the global programme, optimizing management, administration and reporting.
44. SGP also acknowledges a $1.16 million contribution from the Dutch Government to cover grants and some administrative support costs of the SGP Philippines country programme. Given the size of the country and the needs of local communities, this contribution will make a difference in the scope and reach of SGP activities in the Philippines.
45. While the SGP headquarters team has mobilized about 42% of cash contributions for the second operational phase, country programmes have achieved an impressive 58%, confirming the importance of national level resources mobilization for meeting the agreed benchmark. It is interesting to note that while bilateral funds make up over 22% of resources mobilized at the country level, a large percentage is contributed by national and local governments and national NGOs. UNDP core resources through TRAC and some other multilateral contributions account for approximately 10% of co-financing mobilized by the SGP country programmes.
46. Not surprisingly national NGOs and local communities have supplied the majority of in kind contributions. A new trend is the increased involvement of the national private sector. Technical assistance and equipment are the most common modalities of private sector in kind contributions.
8
47. The SGP Resources Mobilization Strategy developed in 2000 is yielding good results. In addition to meeting the baseline costs of SGP interventions it has also enhanced many aspects of the programme’s capacity to deliver its goals. For example, efforts to obtain in-kind contributions have resulted in attracting much-needed human resources to strengthen monitoring and evaluation as well as technical assistance to grantees. Several country programmes have been reinforced by international and national volunteers, Junior Professional Officers and by students. The EC, UNF and Dutch contributions have funded the establishment of 1 international and 12 national professional positions in the last two years to help manage the contributions and strengthening SGP operations on the ground. Some cash contributions, such as the SGP COMPACT have allowed the programme to test new approaches and methodologies. Co-financing partnerships are also contributing to SGP’s visibility, share lessons and promote the replication of the SGP approach.
Deliverable 6: Linkages with non-GEF environment and development programmes/agencies.
48. Indicators for this benchmark include the establishment in each country of at least one linkage demonstration project and promoting the adoption of SGP approaches by at least 5 agencies or programmes. Country programme reports indicate that hundreds of partnerships have been developed between SGP and national and international institutions and programmes. In fact, partnerships are an essential component of SGP’s approach and success. Many partnerships involve several organizations. In Kenya, the Nairobi Dam initiative has 15 collaborators, the highest number of partnerships of any SGP project. Organizations participating in the project include UNEP, UNCHS, the Belgian and French Governments, the Rotary Club of Nairobi, IUCN, the City Council of Nairobi, Friends of Nairobi National Park, the Ministry for the Environment, the Sailing Club of Nairobi, the Kibera slums community and several local NGOs.
49. In Chile, two major arrangements with the Initiative for the Americas Fund and the Bosque Modelo programme are maximizing synergy and complementarity between SGP and these funding organizations in addition to mobilizing resources for baseline activities. Joint calls for proposals are made to address arid and semi-arid ecosystems in one case, and for supporting community-based forest conservation in the second, in which SGP provides funding for GEF eligible components and the partners fund the non-eligible components. Under these partnerships selection of grants are made by committees comprising the SGP NSC and members of the governing bodies of the other organizations. Project M&E is also jointly performed, minimizing costs and bringing additional expertise to the process.
50. In Jordan, SGP is implementing the METAP grants programme on behalf of the World Bank. In Latin America, SGP is a full member of RedLAC the Network of Environmental Funds of Latin America and the Caribbean. Such partnership allows for the exchange of experiences and learning between SGP and over 27 funds in the region. In Thailand, the National Environmental Fund has provided financial resources for scaling up 6 SGP projects for over $100,000 each. SGP also fully collaborates with the UNDP Africa 2000 Network and the LIFE programmes.
51. SGP semi-annual reports provide a comprehensive account of the many linkages with environment and development programmes and agencies. The nature of these linkages ranges from cofinancing arrangements to participation of SGP National Coordinators in other relevant agencies’ committees, sharing of M&E and other project management tools, exchange of technical information and support, joint publications, just to name a few. Some international organizations with whom SGP has maintained relationships at the country and regional level during year 3 are: Birdlife International, CARE, Conservation International, IUCN, The Nature Conservancy, and WWF; CIDA, Danced, GTZ, Peace Corps, USAID; the ASEAN Secretariat, Habitat, IICA, PRAIA, UNESCO, UNEP, UNIFEM, UNV, and the World Bank.
9
52. SGP has also established working partnerships with national and local government agencies, including the ministries of energy, health, environment, fisheries, water and sanitation, social development, and foreign affairs. Many National Coordinators are participating in the national preparatory process for WSSD and others have been involved in the preparation of national biodiversity strategies and UNFCCC national communications. Environmental Funds are very important partners in a significant number of countries as mentioned before.
53. Although not a benchmark of year 3, SGP has continued dedicating attention to maintaining or establishing linkages with GEF initiatives and projects. For example, SGP has participated in the Country Dialogue Workshops, has meaningfully contributed to the preparation of the UNDP guidelines on POPs, has participated in the development of the small grants component of the GEF Nile Initiative, is implementing the small grants component of the RECOSMO project in Guatemala, and contributes to meeting the objectives of other GEF projects such as the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand, Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Belize Barrier Reef Complex, and Conservation of Wetland and Coastal Ecosystems in the Mediterranean Region.
III. WORK PLAN FOR YEAR FIVE OF THE SECOND OPERATIONAL PHASE
54. The work plan for the period February 2003 - February 2004 (year 5) has been informed by the discussions held during the SGP Global Workshop in Tunisia and by the findings of seventeen Biennial Programme Reviews (BPR) carried out at the end of 2001. The BPR is a participatory self-assessment of country programme implementation conducted every two years – a key component of the SGP M&E framework. The BPR process is lead by the NSC with the support of the NC and with participation of SGP stakeholders – grantees, partner NGOs and national and local government organizations, and sometimes donors. This assessment exercise helps country programmes to understand their own strengths and weaknesses and the Central Programme Management Team at headquarters to more effectively identify problem areas and target guidance and resources. Therefore, the proposed actions and benchmarks in the workplan constitute a visualization of what can be realistically accomplished during the period and a response to emerging issues and challenges jointly identified by SGP staff and stakeholders.
55. The workplan proposes concentration in two main areas: the need to further enhance lessons learning and dissemination, and conducting a review of management practices to optimize allocation of human and financial resources.
56. Table 1 in page 15 presents a summary of the issues to be tackled next year and the proposed specific programme deliverables. In addition to recurrent benchmarks agreed in the SGP project document and subsequent Council documents, the programme will:
a) Expand activities to 5 new countries to gradually meet programme participation demand;b) Organize the Third Global Workshop of the second operational phase;
c) Prioritize lessons learning and dissemination through the implementation of a number of thematic reviews and enhanced exchange of experiences across country programmes and with relevant international organizations. The themes of the reviews will be identified upon completion of the Third Independent Evaluation but examples of current areas of interest include: lessons learnt in implementing SGP projects with livelihood components, particularly the role of market-based strategies; SGP support to indigenous peoples and its effectiveness in addressing gender issues across the programme; cost effectiveness and
10
sustainability of renewable energy projects; and SGP results in removing local and national barriers at the policy, regulatory and economic levels in all areas of intervention.
d) Strengthen SGP’s ability to measure sustainability and impact of project interventions by conducting 4 ex-post project evaluations per country as part of M&E activities of year 5. Projects that have completed activities at least 3 years earlier will be selected for this analysis (see item number 4 in Table 1).
e) Assess adequacy of current staffing arrangements at country level and of non-grant country budgets. To date, SGP staff (paid by the GEF SGP budget) consists of a National Coordinator and a Programme Assistant in each country. Although this has worked effectively in the initial years of the second operational phase the differentiated growth of the SGP project portfolio in each country makes it necessary to review the current staffing structure and other parameters influencing distribution of non-grant financial resources across the various country programmes. An analysis will be carried out during year 5 with a view to inform decision-making (see item 5 in Table 1).
11
TABLE 1: PROPOSED DELIVERABLES BY END OF YEAR 5
Deliverable Indicator
1 Fit with GEF Strategy and Operational Programmes
SGP Strategic Framework revised to reflect decisions of the GEF Beijing Assembly as relevant;
Revised SGP Logical Framework to enhance the indicators system considering recommendations of the Third Independent Evaluation
Country Programme Strategies revised to reflect GEF Assembly and Council guidance and to incorporate the recommendations of the Biennial Programme Reviews, as appropriate
Country Programme Strategies of new countries fit SGP Strategic Framework
2 Mobilization of non-GEF resources for baseline activities
$13.5 millions in cash
$13.5 millions in kind
3 Functional links with GEF wide initiatives
5 project proposals to scale-up SGP projects to medium-sized projects
On average each country programme should have at least 1 project with links to a medium-sized or full GEF project
Continued participation in the Country Dialogue Workshops to enhance synergies with other GEF initiatives
4 Implementation of SGP monitoring and evaluation strategy
SGP database enhanced and fully up to date Every country programme submits timely semi-annual reports
Participatory evaluations of completed projects Four ex-post evaluations per country of selected projects to
assess project sustainability 25 Biennial Programme Reviews
Analysis of the SGP grant portfolio in the Biodiversity Focal Area
5 Programme sustainability Implementation of recommendations of “overall assessment of experience in NGO hosting of the programme”, conducted in Year 4 of the second operational phase.
Analysis of SGP staffing situation and non-grant costs expenditures and recommendations
6 Capacity building at country and community levels
At least three stakeholder workshops in each country
Ongoing partnerships in at least 15 countries with capable NGOs, EFs, universities or research institutions to support capacity building of grantees
Involvement of NSC members with expertise on climate change
12
in identifying best practices and lessons, and in experience exchange between country programmes.
7 Communications and outreach
On average 4 projects per year receive media coverage in each country
Meaningful participation of SGP in at least 2 international conferences
Inputs to GEF-wide publications Publication of the Climate Change portfolio analysis
IV. INDICATIVE PROGRAMME BUDGET
57. Table 2 presents the total budget for year 5 (19 February 2003 to 18 February 2004) of the second operational phase of the programme. The budgets approved in previous years of the second operational phase are shown in Table 3 to facilitate comparison. The proposed budget has been carefully planned to meet both recurrent and new benchmarks of the programme as indicated in the work-plan above. The increased level of resources is necessary to implement SGP in 15 new participating countries that started operations between 2001 and February 2003 of which 8 are ready to absorb a significant amount of grant resources and 7 will be ready in a few months time. In addition, the budget will cover the cost of establishing the programme in 5 new countries in 2003.
58. A new item in the budget for year 5 is the cost of conducting analysis of lessons learnt in selected thematic areas estimated at $90,000. External expertise is necessary to assist National Coordinators in collecting, analyzing and summarizing findings and lessons learnt. Further more, the budget includes the cost of conducting 4 ex post project evaluations per country in order to help evaluate sustainability of SGP interventions and programme impact. The Third Global Workshop estimated at $305,000 is an essential activity of year 5. It will provide the opportunity for all SGP professional staff to discuss the findings and recommendations of the independent evaluation and to interact with UNDP and GEF Secretariat management to decide on the future direction of the programme. The global workshop will also serve as a forum to discuss how the GEF Assembly decisions relate to SGP and to identify the means of implementation of all relevant decisions. The global workshop is also a unique occasion to brief and train all new staff appointed in participating countries that joined recently.
59. In summary, the overall budget increase will cover SGP grant and non-grant expenditures in 73 countries managed out of 63 country offices as well as global activities which address the proposed benchmarks. The budget maintains the agreed ratio of grant vs. non-grant costs and ensures meeting programme objectives and deliverables. Matching co-financing will be sought to complement GEF resources and meet baseline costs of community-based projects.
13
Table 2: Indicative Programme Budget for year 5 of the second operational phase
Year 5
A. Grants
GEF 19,000,000
Co-financing from non-GEF sources in cash 13,500,000
32,500,000
B. Programme mobilization, strategic guidance and M&E
Inter-country exchanges between stakeholders, NSCs 60,000Implementation of communications strategy (electronic networking, publications, audiovisuals) 70,000
Lessons learning, information analysis and dissemination 80,000
Visits to country programmes and projects, guidance and M&E 100,000
Global Workshop with NCs 305,000
Technical assistance in GEF focal areas 80,000
Audit of 5 country programmes per year 30,000
Subtotal 725,000
C. Programme management
Country-level
Personnel 2,300,000
NGO contracts (NHI) 580,000
Premises 280,000
Equipment, operations & maintenance 515,000
Stakeholder workshops/training 250,000
Field monitoring 500,000
Technical assistance 160,000
Reporting/outreach 185,000
Sundry 185,000
Subtotal 4,955,000
Global programme-level
Global Manager 190,000
Deputy Manager 188,000
14
Communications & Lessons Learnt Officer 160,000
Climate Change Officer 140,000
Programme Associate 62,000
Temporary assistance 6,000
Premises 30,000
Equipment 5,000
Sundry 8,000
Subtotal 789,000
D. Administrative costs
UNOPS support 1,528,140
E. TOTAL (in cash) 40,497,140
In kind resources from non-GEF sources for grant element 13,500,000
F. GRAND TOTAL (in cash and in kind) 53,997,140
G. GEF TOTAL: 1 26,997,140
Table 3: Approved budget for years 1, 2 and 3 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4A. Grants
GEF 10,609,000 11,689,000 16,000,000 14,000,000Co-financing from non-GEF sources in cash 5,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000 11,000,000
15,609,000 21,689,000 28,000,000 25,000,000B. Programme mobilization and strategic guidance
Activities for GEF/SGP's strategies on resource mobilization, fit with GEF Ops, communications and outreach, and M&E
140,000 140,000 0 0
Independent Evaluation 0 0 0 250,000Inter-country exchanges between stakeholders, NCs 40,000 40,000 140,000 115,000Global workshop with NCs 0 0 280,000 0Regional training workshops on:GEF/SGP strategic framework 88,000 0 0 0M&E and communications strategies 88,000 0 0 0Resource mobilization strategy 89,000 0 0 0Communications and networking 25,000 25,000 120,000 100,000Publications (including case studies and stakeholder workshop materials)
40,000 40,000 0 0
Visits to country programmes and projects 50,000 50,000 120,000 90,000Technical Assistance in GEF focal areas 0 0 60,000 60,000Audit of 10 country programmes per year 60,000 60,000 60,000 30,000Contingency 75,000 75,000 0 0Subtotal 695,000 430,000 780,000 645,000
C. Programme management
1 The GEF Total corresponds to “E. TOTAL IN CASH” ($40,497,140) – “budget line Grants co-financing from non-GEF resources in cash” ($13,500,000) = $26,997,140
15
Country-levelPersonnel 1,752,598 1,937,598 2,170,000 1,900,000NGO contracts (NHI) 384,721 384,721 510,000 510,000Premises 178,000 203,000 280,000 230,000Equipment, operations & maintenance 221,500 249,000 395,000 395,000Stakeholder workshops/training 0 0 150,000 150,000Field monitoring 0 0 454,000 454,000Technical assistance 0 0 100,000 100,000Reporting/outreach 0 0 100,000 210,000Sundry 129,000 144,000 170,000 170,000Subtotal 2,665,819 2,918,319 4,329,000 4,119,000
Global programme-levelGlobal Manager 150,000 150,000 186,000 198,000Deputy Global Manager 0 0 110,000 181,000Senior Adviser (30% of adviser's time) 60,000 60,000 0 0Management/CC Officer 90,000 90,000 60,000 135,000Communications Officer 90,000 90,000 60,000 159,000Secretarial support 65,000 65,000 35,000 67,200Premises 8,000 8,000 20,000 20,000Equipment 3,000 3,000 10,000 5,000Sundry 0 0 10,000 10,000Subtotal 466,000 466,000 491,000 775,200
D. Administrative costsSub-total for UNOPS support 800,089 880,039 1,223,340 1,172,352
E. TOTAL IN CASH (GEF + non-GEF in cash) 20,235,908 26,383,358 34,823,340 31,711,552In kind resources from non-GEF sources for grant element
5,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000 11,000,000
F. GRAND TOTAL (in cash and in kind) 25,235,908 36,383,358 46,823,340 42,711,552G. TOTAL GEF 15,235,908 16,383,358 22,823,340 20,711,552
16
LIST OF ANNEXES
Annex 1: Deliverables and benchmarks for SGP operations during the first three years of the second operational phase.
Annex 2: Report on Session Two of the SGP Global Workshop, Hammamet, Tunisia, June 2001.
Annex 3: A Preliminary Survey of SGP Grants Related to Climate Change in Africa.
Annex 4: Summary of SGP Project Implementation Review (PIR) Report, August 2001.
Annex 5: Terms of Reference of the SGP Third Independent Evaluation.
Annex 6: SGP participating countries.
17
ANNEX 1
WORK PLAN AND DELIVERABLES FOR THE GEF/SGP FOR YEARS 2 AND 3 (FEBRUARY 2000 – FEBRUARY 2002)
YearReport to GEF Council on achievement of specific deliverables Indicators
End of year 2 (Feb. 2001)
Interim report with the following deliverables:
GEF/SGP “fit” with GEF Operational Strategy and Programs. Implementation of Country Programme Strategies.
Mobilization of non-GEF resources for “baseline” activities.
Functional links with GEF-wide initiatives.
Outreach and awareness
Progress on monitoring and evaluation strategy at project, country programme and global programme levels.
Knowledge base management.
Mainstreaming within UNDP.
Yearly country evaluation reports show that all new projects respond to revised country strategies and operational guidelines.
Co-financing and leveraging achieved in the range of 10 million in cash and 10 million in kind.
On an average each established country programme will include at least 2 linkage demonstration projects with large GEF projects.
At least 20 medium-size project proposals result from a scaling-up of GEF/SGP projects.
UNDP/GEF focal points included in NSC in at least 30 SGP countries.
SGP’s decentralized institutional structure increasingly providing a mechanism for broad-based awareness raising about global environmental concerns.
Communications and outreach strategy and associated materials completed at global and country levels.
At least 2 projects per country per year receive favorable media coverage.
By the end of the year, 2 new projects will have incorporated lessons learned from other projects.
End-of-year evaluation with NSCs and stakeholders on implementation of Country Programme Strategy in each country.
3 Case studies prepared on best practices and lessons learned.
Database of GEF/SGP projects can be accessed directly by all country programmes where technically possible and information on projects is up-to-date.
1
YearReport to GEF Council on achievement of specific deliverables Indicators
Expansion of programme.
Capacity building at country and community levels to ensure congruence with GEF criteria and OPs and to improve project implementation skills.
Work plan for the next two years.
NCs participate in relevant UNDP Project Appraisal Committees.
Five new countries added in accordance with established selection criteria.
At least 1 stakeholder workshop held in all countries.
At least one visit by NCs to each approved project.
End of year 3 (Feb. 2002)
Interim report with the following deliverables:
Progress on achievement of strategic benefits and global environmental benefits and M&E
Programme sustainability.
Expansion of programme to new countries.
Results of technical review to assess strategic role of the GEF/SGP and achievement of global environmental benefits.
Report of global NCs workshop to assess progress in the implementation of the second operational phase, particularly on the application of the M&E Framework.
Feedback to GEF M&E Unit regarding programme overall performance and lessons learned, through participation in the UNDP/GEF-PIR exercise.
Preparation for conducting the Third Independent Evaluation of the programme in year 4, including development of evaluation TORs in consultation with UNDP-GEF M&E unit.
At least 8 country programmes will be hosted by national NGOs.
At least 3 National Host Institutions will administer grant allocations as an initial step towards decentralizing the full operation of the programme through direct national execution.
Five additional countries included in GEF/SGP in accordance with established selection criteria. SGP will endeavor to identify National Host Institutions that would eventually be able to fully administer the programme (including the grant allocation share) and to provide a significant counterpart financial contribution to SGP activities.
In order to expand the coverage of the programme while at the same time improving the ratio between administrative and programmatic costs at least 1 of the new SGP
2
YearReport to GEF Council on achievement of specific deliverables Indicators
Capacity building efforts at country and community levels.
Mobilization of non-GEF resources for “baseline” activities.
Linkages with other non-GEF environment and development programmes/agencies.
Work plan for two years.
national operations will have a multi-country coverage. This will depend on the possibility of securing sufficient co-financing for grant allocations.
At least 2 stakeholder workshops held in all countries.
At least 10 national NGOs fully enabled to provide training on GEF/SGP matters to grantees.
At least 5 inter-country exchanges involving stakeholders and/or NCs take place.
Co-financing and leveraging achieved in the range of 12 million in cash and 12 million in kind.
On an average each GEF/SGP country programme will include at least 1 linkage demonstration project.
At least 5 other development environmental programmes/agencies are using GEF/SGP approaches.
Document.
3
Annex 2
The GEF Small Grants Programme
Global Workshop Report
Hammamet, Tunisia
22-29 June 2001
United Nations Development Programme
1
UNDP/GEF Small Grants Programme
Global Workshop Report
Hammamet, Tunisia
22-29 June 2001
The third global workshop of the UNDP GEF Small Grants Programme was convened in Hammamet, Tunisia for the period 22-29 June 2001. SGP National Coordinators from 48 country programmes2 assembled for two days of project site visits followed by five days of meetings on key aspects of programme implementation in the second operational phase. They were joined by the SGP CPMT and UNOPS headquarters staff, UNF SGP COMPACT Local Coordinators, and resource persons from the UNDP/GEF unit, TIES, UNV, and IUCN. The workshop was opened by the Minister for Environment of Tunisia and Rafael Asenjo, Executive Coordinator of the UNDP/GEF, and Kenneth King, Assistant CEO of the GEF, were special guests. A list of workshop participants may be found in Annex 1.
WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES
The workshop was designed to accomplish five major objectives: Address priority issues of interest to all country programmes and learn from one another. Incorporate new GEF strategic guidance. Consider Year 3 benchmarks, especially:
Demonstration of global environmental benefits. Programme sustainability / NGO hosting.
Plan Year 4 Programme of Work to submit to GEF Council. Develop Action Plan Matrix for 2001-2003.
The workshop agenda covered substantive, operational, and financial issues through presentations by resource persons and National Coordinators (NCs), and discussion and exchange in working groups and plenary sessions. In addition, there were training sessions for new NCs on financial and administrative issues, and for all NCs on the SGP database. NCs also had the opportunity to consult with UNOPS on personnel issues.
2 The SGP has 60 participating countries covered by 50 country programmes, and divided among five regions. Africa: Botswana, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe. Arab States: Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Palestinian Authority, Tunisia. Asia/Pacific: Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam. Europe: Albania, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey. Latin America and Caribbean: Barbados (covers 10 island countries), Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago (covers Surinam). Kyrgyzstan is a new country and did not have a National Coordinator at the time of the meeting. Bhutan was in the process of recruiting a new NC and therefore was not represented.
2
PROJECT SITE VISITS (23-24 JUNE 2001)
Workshop participants were able to observe first-hand the achievements of two SGP projects: “Protection of bird colonies located around the salt industry of Thyna,” implemented by AAO Sfax, and “Protection of genetic resources and integrated management of the Chénini Oasis,” coordinated by ASOC. They benefited as well from presentations from SGP NGO grantees APNES in Sfax and APNEK in Kairouan. During the previous week, some participants also had the opportunity to visit the “Handicapped women’s contribution to solid waste revalorization in Greater Tunis” project.
3
OPENING SESSION
In his opening remarks to the assembled participants, Ken King, Assistant CEO of the GEF, emphasized the multi-faceted significance of the SGP for the GEF as a whole: SGP provides direct protection at the source. SGP has been one of the most successful programmes of the GEF. SGP catalyzes communications among groups not normally or frequently in contact. SGP raises awareness by being the “public face” and ambassador of the GEF. SGP pioneers new approaches in a low-cost, low-risk manner. SGP fills a unique niche in the GEF portfolio.Mr. King noted that there are three challenges facing the SGP in the coming years:
To maintain the link with poverty alleviation, bearing in mind that “poor” people are poor only in financial resources, and are rich in community resources and knowledge.
To be effective ambassadors for the GEF as it moves into the negotiations for the Third Replenishment.
The replenishment is targeted at between $2.5 billion and $3.5 billion for a four-year period, representing an increase to cover additional activities in capacity development, persistent organic pollutants, and the cross-cutting area of land degradation.
The negotiations are scheduled for completion prior to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in September 2002 and the Second GEF Assembly in Beijing in October 2002.
To maintain continued relevance to the mission and objectives of the GEF.
Mr. King concluded by inviting everyone present “as part of the wider GEF family, to maintain the goodwill we have through your work in communities, governments, NGOs, and other forums so that together we can support like-minded others at the World Summit and the GEF Assembly to make a better world.”
Rafael Asenjo, Executive Coordinator of the UNDP/GEF, conveyed his great satisfaction and pleasure that his last official act as Executive Coordinator of UNDP/GEF would be with the global SGP team as a participant in the opening ceremony of the UNDP/GEF Small Grants Programme’s Global Workshop.
Mr. Asenjo emphasized that the SGP is known today as the most successful GEF project in the over 50 countries around the world where it is present, but that this achievement has required immense effort and sacrifice on the part of the global SGP team, specifically:
Substantial refocusing of the overall programme. Much clearer definition of its objectives, strategies and procedures.
Enormous effort of resource mobilization. Stronger effort in monitoring and evaluation.
Further integration with larger GEF interventions. Preparation and initial implementation of a programme-wide outreach, awareness and
communication strategy.
Mr. Asenjo expressed the UNDP/GEF management’s pride in the fact that the SGP has delivered extraordinarily well in all of the above areas. However, he stressed that since the programme has
4
been consistently successful in demonstrating the connection between global environmental problems and the lives of local people everywhere, it must continue to go forward.
Mr. Asenjo stated ways in which the GEF could facilitate the SGP’s progress by: Ensuring an appropriate replenishment in December 2001 that is commensurate with the
programme’s achievements over the past several years. Expanding the reach of the programme by adding new countries.
Allowing the programme greater flexibility, within its defined objectives, to achieve its goals. Rationalizing the programme budget in terms of grant vs non-grant costs, and
accommodating very real and necessary non-grant costs such as those for monitoring and evaluation and capacity building.
He underscored that since the SGP is the most evaluated GEF project, the only one with specific and measurable benchmarks with annual reports to the GEF Council, it should not be constrained by overly stringent regulations. He also noted that donors should not expect the SGP to meet cost benchmarks that many national programmes cannot meet.
Mr. Asenjo concluded by reiterating his immense pride in the SGP, and wishing the programme well in the workshop and in the years to come.
Sally Timpson, Global Manager of the UNDP/GEF SGP, reviewed the SGP’s achievements in the second operational phase as well as the principal elements of the programme’s report to the May 2001 GEF Council and GEF NGO Committee. She began by citing GEF CEO and Chairman Mohamed El-Ashry’s words on World Environment Day, 5 June 2001: “With its broad outreach and thousands of participants, the SGP is perhaps the most recognizable GEF initiative among the general public worldwide.”
Ms. Timpson noted that the SGP is now a US$94 million programme, has met all GEF benchmarks, and has incorporated eight new countries. In the first year of the second operational phase (February 1999-February 2000), at the global level, the following documents were prepared and disseminated to the country programmes and stakeholders:
Strategic Framework Monitoring and Evaluation Framework
Operational Guidelines Resources Mobilization Strategy
Communications Strategy
The July 1999 Global Workshop was also held in Costa Rica.3 At the country level, a series of activities was undertaken: Revision of country programme strategies (CPS).
3See “Summary Report of the Global Workshop of SGP Coordinators, 19 – 23 July 1999, Hotel Bougainvillea, San Jose, Costa Rica.”
5
Call for project proposals. Outreach and stakeholder workshops.
Proposal screening, site visits and technical assistance. Implementation of planning grants.
Project approvals by the National Steering Committees (NSC).
Ms. Timpson indicated that following this programme regearing, in the second year (February 2000-February 2001) of the second operational phase, the SGP proceeded to full implementation: Projects selected and under implementation.
Monitoring and evaluation producing lessons. Significant advances in resources mobilization and communications.
Ms. Timpson then turned to the principal elements of the SGP’s report to the May 2001 GEF Council and GEF NGO Committee, and outlined how the programme has met GEF benchmarks by: Achieving better “fit” with GEF criteria:
Revised SGP Country programme strategies (CPS) under implementation. Dissemination of CPS to wide range of NGO and CBO partners through stakeholder
workshops. SGP grant-making ensuring more rigorous application of GEF criteria.
Mobilizing non-GEF resources:
Global resource mobilization strategy disseminated and under implementation. $24.3 million in cash and $15.4 million in kind funds mobilized at global and local
levels. Wide range of donors and partners at country and local levels.
UNF GEF/SGP COMPACT project. EC Programme for Promotion of Tropical Forests in the Asian Region (PTF).
Parallel funding: SGP building onto other community-based projects and programmes.
Linking with GEF-wide and UNDP initiatives: GEF focal points in SGP National Steering Committees.
SGP implementation of community-based component of GEF projects. Coordination with other UNDP and UN initiatives (Africa 2000, LIFE, UNV, UNEP,
UNESCO). Access to UNDP TRAC resources.
SGP built into UNDP planning exercises.
Building capacities at the local, national, and global levels:
6
Strengthening organizational, management, advocacy, communications, fundraising, and technical skills of partner CBOs & NGOs.
Capacity-building mechanisms include: over 200 stakeholder workshops,
project and country experience exchanges, participatory project design, implementation, and M&E, and
involvement of academics and scientists.
Assessing progress through effective M&E: M&E system in place and functioning at global, country, and project levels.
Lessons learned and disseminated through site visits, project evaluations, and biennial programme reviews.
Reaching out to partners and raising public awareness:
Global and country communications strategies in place and under implementation. Wide range of coverage by newspapers, magazines, radios, television, video.
Participation in national and global events. Outreach to “BINGOs” -- WWF, CI, IUCN.
Numerous award-winning projects. Other programmes adopting SGP approach.
World Environment Day 2001 awards of recognition to National Steering Committee members.
Ms. Timpson concluded by highlighting the major tasks and events ahead for the SGP:
Year 4 Programme of Work to submit to GEF Council Action Plan Matrix for 2001-2003
World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in September 2002 Second GEF Assembly in Beijing in October 2002
7
SECOND SESSION
DEMONSTRATING SGP’S CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
Carmen Tavera, SGP Deputy Global Manager, started off the second session by recalling that the principal programme deliverable for Year 3 (ending February 2002) was progress in the achievement of global environmental benefits, to be demonstrated through effective monitoring and evaluation. Hence the task at hand was to determine how to demonstrate global benefits at the project, programme, and global levels.
Applying and adapting the SGP Monitoring and Evaluation Framework
Ms. Tavera then turned to the global programme’s experience with the SGP Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. Ms. Tavera noted that there has been considerable progress on the M&E front:
Country programme strategies (CPS) are under implementation. Selection of projects reflects GEF criteria and operational programmes.
Experience gained in supporting grantees to develop project M&E plans, including in the design and application of indicators.
Several countries have developed sets of indicators to track project and programme progress and results.
Project participatory M&E in progress. Some final project participatory evaluations are identifying lessons learned of which several
applied in the design and selection of new projects. Publications and communications materials are beginning to disseminate these lessons.
Additionally, there have been advances in specific aspects of the M&E system: Database maintanance and update has significantly improved:
Ability to produce information on the SGP project portfolio at short notice. Semi-annual progress reports have resulted in:
Key information for the PIR and the GEF Council Reports. Feedback on progress achieved provided to country programme partners.
Better understanding at CPMT level of strengths and weaknesses of county programmes. Biennial Programme Review process – the participatory assessment of the implementation of
the CPS – has ensured: Participation of NSC, NC, grantees and other programme partners.
Overall assessment of consistency and results of project portfolio vis-à-vis priorities established in the CPS.
Identification of projects with significant results or conveying important lessons.
8
Identification of strengths and challenges in implementing the programme, including all Council benchmarks and specific goals and objectives set forth in the CPS.
Ms. Tavera rounded out this assessment by highlighting M&E challenges: Grantee capacity building to enhance project M&E plans.
Identification of national partners to support M&E activities in a more systematic manner, including drawing lessons.
Further identification and use of indicators to monitor and evaluate projects and implementation of CPS.
Design and application of a methodology to identify and demonstrate global environmental benefits.
Application of lessons learned in the first tranche of BPRs. Preparations for the SGP Third Independent Evaluation.
Enhancing dissemination of lessons through the implementation of the SGP communications strategy.
Country-level monitoring and evaluation experiences
Ms. Tavera’s broad overview was complemented by presentations by Poonsin Sreesangkom, NC Thailand; Ana María Varea, NC Ecuador; and Oscar Murga, NC Guatemala. While all three countries base their M&E systems on the SGP M&E Framework, each has tailored it to particular country circumstances and needs. The NCs agreed that M&E begins with project design and that the country programme strategy is the fundamental starting point for planning and establishing an M&E system.
Ecuador has for some time now assigned significant responsibility for project M&E to specialized NGOs that either receive SGP grants to do this work, or are supported by co-financing. The NGOs accompany the M&E process at the project level from the project design stage through final evaluations. Ms. Varea indicated that the NGOs must apply participatory methodologies throughout the process, but that they also collect and analyze a great deal of information using a range of methodologies. This allows for evaluation of whether projects have met their objectives and for systematization of results by thematic and geographic focus. Ms. Varea pointed out that the reliance on M&E NGOs does not mean that the NC loses contact with the projects. Rather, the NC continues to make site visits and oversee project implementation, but the NC’s M&E efforts are multiplied and enhanced by the rich and systematized information yielded by the NGOs’ work. While the M&E system has produced quite satisfactory results thus far, Ms. Varea saw the need for accompaniment and follow-up after projects are completed in order to be able to assess the lasting consequences of SGP interventions.
Thailand has tended to concentrate SGP interventions in the climate change focal area. Its M&E system is designed to be able to assess the potential global benefits of projects in terms, for example, of reduction of GHG emissions or the cost-effectiveness of the adoption of energy-efficient technologies. In this sense, each project M&E plan requires the technical capacity to monitor and assess the factors that will allow for the demonstration of global benefits. In order to build the necessary capacity and to ensure that the project design is sound, Mr. Sreesangkom explained that each project has to go through several steps, some as an individual project, others together with the group of SGP-funded projects. These steps involve technical reviews and
9
modification, project preparation workshops, mid-term evaluations and workshops, and final evaluations and workshops. The mid-term evaluation site visit by the NC permits course adjustment if necessary. Mr. Sreesangkom expressed that the lessons learned in the final evaluation are used to develop and improve the design of other projects.
Guatemala has developed and begun to apply a comprehensive system of social and environmental indicators, both qualitative and quantitative, to facilitate monitoring and evaluation of individual projects as well as the country programme portfolio as a whole. Mr. Murga clarified that the system is intended not to replace but to complement the SGP M&E Framework. The system has been applied to 65 projects, the indicators used are determined by the nature of each project. Mr. Murga estimated that the reliability of data collected is around 80% as project participants have been trained about information gathering requirements and using the system. A database to manage M&E information should be completed in time for the biannual programme review at the beginning of 2002.
Mr. Murga cautioned that the indicator system does pose a number of pitfalls and challenges, including: Implementation costs, especially since information and indicators need to be constantly
updated, and all users need to be trained. Language and schooling level of participants.
Basic reliability of information collected and objectivity of indicators. Difficulties found while trying to compare descriptive indicators.
Links between projects results and their global environmental benefits need refinement. Time requirements to accompany system implementation during field visits.
Mr. Murga concluded that the indicator system will allow programme decision makers (NSC, NC, UNDP CO) to evaluate project and programme impacts in the GEF focal areas and OPs, as well as other aspects (capacity building, cofinancing, sustainable livelihoods issues, etc.). Moreover, the possibility of conducting comparative analyses through time on one specific project, or between similar projects that exhibit thematic or geographic cohesiveness, will be particularly valuable. Finally, the indicator system lends itself to adoption by other programmes, and could conceivably be used as a fundraising tool.
In the discussion after the presentations, the following points were raised:
Tools are needed for financial monitoring of projects.
Documenting lessons learned from financial monitoring will help with sustainability and fundraising.
Monitoring results has been emphasized but more needs to be understood about the process. Development of qualitative and process indicators would be important in this regard.
Short duration of projects might compromise M&E – what results, after all, can be assessed after just one year of project implementation?
Project design becomes important as a means of dealing with restricted project duration, as does follow-up after project completion.
10
The InterAmerican Foundation’s Grassroots Development Framework (http://www.iaf.gov/results/menu01.htm) was recommended as a source book on M&E
Overview of process and findings of the Biennial Programme Reviews
The first Biennial Programme Reviews (BPR) were conducted in about half of SGP participating countries during the first quarter of 2000. Rosalie Congo, NC Burkina Faso; Emilia Bustamante, NC Peru, and Rose Ssebatindira, NC Uganda, provided comprehensive descriptions and analyses of the BPR process in their respective country programmes.
Ms. Congo noted that in Burkina Faso, the BPR had several objectives:
Evaluate the level of execution of the second operational phase. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of programme implementation and make
recommendations. Elaborate an action plan for 2001-2002.
The BPR surveyed projects from both the first and second operational phases, and involved the NSC, GEF focal points, government ministries, and other development programmes. The BPR was conducted through NSC meetings and workshops with representatives of the aforementioned organizations.
Ms. Congo reported that the BPR identified programme weaknesses relating to M&E performance and resource mobilization. Strengths included the programme’s geographical and thematic focus; excellent relations with the UNDP CO, government, and other partners, which allow for disseminating the SGP approach; NSC performance and availability; and high level of responsibility exhibited by project participants.
The Burkina Faso BPR also identified lessons learned over the preceding two years:
Increasing number of projects, ever-larger geographical areas covered by SGP interventions, and growing NC workload constitute constraints for effective M&E, but making use of intermediary organizations could ameliorate this situation.
Project ownership by participants is a necessary condition for sustainability, but it is a slow and difficult process.
In Peru, commented Ms. Bustamante, the BPR methodology linked an experience exchange workshop with a biennial evaluation meeting. The workshop gave SGP participants the opportunity of presenting their projects, discussing lessons learned, and identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the SGP. The biennial evaluation meeting, bringing together the NSC and a range of stakeholders, analyzed the expected versus the actual results of programme implementation, brainstormed, and made recommendations.
Ms. Bustamante outlined the comparative analysis conducted of phase one and phase two interventions, and highlighted some of the global environmental benefits achieved at the country programme portfolio level:
Sustainable management of natural resources. Changes in attitude about environmental conservation.
Synergistic processes.
11
Recovery of endemic species. Recovery of traditional knowledge.
Other advances at the programme level included strategic alliances with public and private partners and expanding co-financing. Major recommendations of the BPR, added Ms. Bustamante, were to include capacity building of project participants as part of M&E and to organize experience exchange workshops on an annual basis.
In Uganda, the BPR exercise constituted a concentrated, detailed, and comprehensive assessment of project and country programme implementation as well as achievement of global benchmarks. It was conducted by a team – composed of the NC, NSC, and a consultant hired to assist in the process – over a period of nearly three months, and produced a document of more than fifty pages. Ms. Ssebatindira indicated that the BPR emphasized issues concerning an enabling environment for the SGP, and foregrounded challenges and weaknesses in order to promote learning and strengthen the programme. For example, the selected “best” case study showcased the “failures” of the West Bugwe Forest Conservation Project as a means of correcting mistakes and deriving lessons for project design and adjustments in other projects.
Ms. Ssebatindira summarized one of the issues tackled by the Uganda BPR – training and capacity building (TCB).
Findings SGP stakeholders/project participants have limited capacity (institutional, technical, human,
political).
No focused mandates and mandates shift with availability of funds. Present TCB approach is narrow, sectoral, and under-estimated (scope, resources, timeframe).
TCB needs are at two levels (programme and project). TCB needs are cross-cutting in relation to all SGP deliverables.
TCB affects overall programme performance – and is a necessary pre-requisite for impact and sustainability of initiatives.
Other benchmarks (M&E, resource mobilisation, communications) have global strategies – why not TCB?
Should GEF/SGP nurture community level partners until they develop capacity to stand alone, or should it only use experienced intermediary agencies and other actors?
“Good” intermediary agencies come at a cost, sometimes beyond what the GEF/SGP can afford.
Lessons learned SGP programme and projects have a narrow view of TCB.
TCB needs broadening to include political capacities (policies, laws, and financial allocation), institutional (infrastructure, defined responsibilities, transparency, and access to information) and human capacity (expertise, training, work environment).
Capacity assessment in the above three categories must precede any intervention.
TCB cannot be achieved as a one-off activity – it is gradual and changes in terms of demand, and should therefore be continuous.
12
Capacity building centers or institutions must be allowed to "graduate" in order to efficiently and effectively deliver services, and to respond to ever-changing demands.
Proximity to areas of demand is crucial for cheap and continuous backstopping. Capacity building efforts should retain the flexibility to recruit expertise to address unique
needs. Communities do not necessarily link capacity building (training) to their immediate
livelihood needs. It is difficult to make case for TCB especially the budgets involved.
Recommendations Need for a comprehensive, integrated approach to TCB.
TCB strategy at global and national levels to guide programme and project capacity needs, inform CPMT.
An initiative similar to UNDP/GEF Capacity Development Initiative (CDI) could be considered for the SGP.
Extend training to all able project participants (increase active participation, transparency, and accountability).
Participatory needs assessment to inform future planning. Planning grant facility should be reviewed to cover shortcomings.
Identify and use intermediaries but maintain contact with SGP.
Ms. Ssebatindira ended by noting that the Uganda UNDP CO had very much appreciated the BPR process and document, and would like to use the methodology to evaluate other programmes.
Demonstrating that SGP’s GEF-funded efforts are producing global benefits
Jeff Griffin returned to the proscenium to address the issue of the SGP and the GEF mandate to achieve global environmental benefits. Mr. Griffin’s presentation revolved around two central questions:
How can the SGP articulate (describe and quantify) global benefits generated by its existing projects?
How do we design projects that focus on global benefits?
Mr. Griffin recalled why the GEF is so concerned with the imperative of global benefits.
In the first place, the GEF is not allowed to duplicate existing funding for development. When donor countries agreed to support the GEF’s establishment, they did so on the condition that it not support the same kind of national development projects being funded by the other “traditional” development aid programs – GTZ, JICA, USAID, DFID, UNDP, FAO, etc. GEF’s co-funding approach is a new one on the international stage. Unlike most other international entities, GEF is required to work with other donors and governments. It is required to leverage other funds to support components of projects with which it is involved.
13
“Global benefit” is the main distinguishing characteristic of GEF’s program. Global benefits, as defined by GEF, are those benefits that come from protecting and conserving the global environment. The global environment is defined as being the normal functioning of our atmosphere and globally significant biodiversity. National benefits, in contrast, are those that are “traditionally” related to economic development – improving a country’s well-being and that of its people. National benefits include: raising incomes, improving agricultural production, health care, education, infrastructure, etc.
Relevance of global benefits to the SGPMr. Griffin reminded the assembly of the revealing slogans:
“All politics are local.”
“A tidal wave begins with a tiny ripple.”
Hence, “all global benefits are generated ‘locally.’ ” In the GEF’s perspective, if a rare white rhinoceros is conserved somewhere in Botswana, it is a global benefit, even though someone in Lithuania may never see this rhinoceros, nor ever even know that it exists. Similarly, if a project conserves threatened local varieties of crops in a Tunisian desert oasis – as observed during the project site visits – this is a global benefit because it has present or future value for the world’s agricultural patrimony. In Mr. Griffin’s view, the SGP could clearly generate global benefits at the project level.
Mr. Griffin reflected that the SGP will have to conduct a thorough assessment of any global benefits generated by each SGP-funded project. He provided a series of questions to assist NCs in demonstrating the global benefits that derive from their existing project portfolios:
Basic question for determining global benefit:
Does the project involve globally significant biodiversity, an international waterbody, or reduction of greenhouse gas emissions?
Questions for climate change projects: What technologies have been applied in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Can the reduction of GHG emissions be simply calculated? This will permit an estimation of
the impact of the project. There are several examples of SGP projects, for example, ones from Nepal, Thailand, and the Dominican Republic that have effectively undertaken this task.
Have these activities been replicated by others as a result of the SGP project’s efforts? If so, these reductions in greenhouse gas emissions can be counted as well since they demonstrate the power of replication.
Questions for biodiversity or international waters projects:
Mr. Griffin urged the NCs to explore how these projects might have had a beneficial impact on biological diversity or international waters.
Are any of the projects located in areas that are particularly significant for their biological diversity or international water bodies?
Did they prevent deforestation? Poaching of endangered species?
14
Did they reduce the pressure on globally significant forests by helping local people find alternative sources of fuel or providing more effective farming methods?
Mr. Griffin stressed that the answers to these questions should be specific, precise, and, if possible, quantifiable, for example:
These activities resulted in the conservation of forest habitat in the subtropical rainforest listed as a WWF Global 200 site.
These activities resulted in reduced hunting pressure on migratory species in this Ramsar wetland site, including IUCN Red Book-listed rare species.
Or, specific carbon sequestration estimates or estimated weight of carbon.
For the future, Mr. Griffin encouraged NCs to consider the issue of global benefits as a matter of project design.
A checklist for global benefits: Global benefits need to be built in from the design stage.
Make sure that the project proposal describes: a) what the current situation is vis-à-vis the project’s proposed activities and b) how what the project proposes to do is new and different from this. This is called the “Baseline” and the “Alternative” in GEF language. “Baseline” is the existing situation with respect to what a project is proposing. “Alternative” is the project’s proposed alternative – what is new and different. This exercise will assist in beginning to tell the story of global benefits.
Biodiversity projects must address globally significant biodiversity resources that are unusually rich, unique in composition, or in rarity at a species, site, or ecosystem level, and be sited accordingly.
Replicability increases global benefits generated by the SGP.
Tracking global benefits requires good documentation and monitoring and evaluation.
Plenary presentation of results of working groups on demonstrating global benefits
Workshop participants were divided into smaller groups, and asked to address the following questions:
What approaches or criteria can be used to demonstrate global benefits of SGP projects?
How can these global benefits be expressed?
The working groups constructed the following set of criteria to determine global benefits:
Does project fit into GEF focal areas and OPs? Does project fit into CPS?
15
Does project address international convention issues? Does project address national, regional, international biodiversity priorities?
Are there any global/regional species or ecosystems of significance? Rarity and endemism are important criteria.
Do technologies employed address climate change issues? When implemented will they reduce GHG emissions? Can this reduction be quantified?
Does project address POP issues? How does project improve upon “status quo” situation?
Is project replicable? Potential multiplier effect of a tiny intervention that by itself would not make a difference at all.
Is project sustainable? Does project allow sufficient time to achieve global benefits or can these benefits be achieved
over time? Extrapolate beyond project duration. Are activities linked to existing or past medium-size, large-size or small-size GEF projects?
Are awareness/advocacy activities related to hands-on activities? Do indicators in project lead to measuring global benefits?
The working groups also took into account other considerations in determining global benefit: CPS is the starting point, and each project must be justified within it, but project fit with
GEF criteria does not necessarily demonstrate global benefit. Making sure global benefits are built into project design.
Difficult to identify global benefits at the project level, more likely to find them at programmatic level?
Each individual project may not on its own provide global benefit, but the whole country programme portfolio may.
Clustering projects to enhance global benefit must be conceived from the outset. Affordability? If activity can only be done with GEF/SGP money, it cannot be sustained or
replicated. Communities should understand the global benefit objective and not just be presented with
livelihood issues. Communities like to see global benefits expressed, they like the slogans that link the local
with the global. Consider net global benefits, that is, solving one problem may create another (i.e., ecotourism
does not insure that communities will stop encroaching on critical habitats).
16
Annex 3
GEF Small Grants Programme
A Preliminary Survey of Grants Related to Climate Change in Africa
Prepared by Esther Ebrahimian
July 23, 2002
This survey is based on information in the on-line database of SGP grants as of June 19, 2002. Each record has been reviewed and categorized according a number of criteria, which are explained in detail below. Some of these categories exist in the database, but most do not and were developed in order to facilitate analysis of trends and indicators relevant to meeting overall SGP goals and objectives. It should be borne in mind throughout that the figures and analysis are based only upon the information about projects provided in the database. Therefore, it does not reflect the full achievements and results, since most project records are entered before project work is complete. Additionally, this review does not include information from country strategies, although this survey may hint at trends in particular countries that may reflect the emphasis of country strategies. Finally, figures in this report refer to the number of grants given, not the number of sites; in a few cases, a single site may receive more than one grant.
SUMMARY
Since 1992, 204 projects addressing climate change have been funded in the 11 African countries participating in the SGP. Of these, 31 are Pilot Phase grants, 55 are Phase 1, 117 are Phase 2, and 1 is unknown. There are 14 planning grants. Half of the projects employ renewable energy as an approach to mitigating climate change. About one-third involve energy efficiency, and one-third address land degradation. Many projects employ more than one approach to climate change mitigation. The percentage of projects involving renewable energy has increased from 29% in the Pilot Phase to 58% in Phase 2.
Almost three-quarters of the projects target rural communities, and 40% highlight particular or exclusive involvement of women. The projects often involve more than one sector in the community, but overall, the projects are rather evenly balanced across sectors, with one-third falling into each of the domestic, public and income generation sectors. Cooking is the most commonly targeted activity (over one-third of the projects) while agriculture and goods production are each the focus of approximately 20% of the projects.
For renewable energy projects, solar energy is the most commonly used, followed by biogas and then wind. Cooking, lighting and irrigation are the three most common end uses for renewable energy. Almost half of all renewable energy projects produce electricity for off-grid communities, mostly using photovoltaics. Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya and Tanzania are the leading countries in electricity production from renewable energy.
Three-quarters of energy efficiency projects relate to cooking, and most seek to reduce to fuel-wood use, although a small number reduce use of charcoal. Fuel-efficient stoves of various designs and capacities are the most common energy efficiency technology.
SGP Climate Change Grants: Africa Revised July 23, 20021
Projects seeking to address land degradation most commonly aim at increasing vegetation cover, improving land management, and preventing fires. The objectives and activities of many of these projects overlap with activities often carried out in biodiversity projects.
There is one sustainable transport project in Africa; this project organized school buses to replace private vehicles in an urban area in Ghana.
There is one climate change adaptation project, located in Senegal. Only limited information is available about it.
Market-based mechanisms and policy development were tracked as indicators of project sustainability. Out of the 204 African projects, 35 (17%) include some form of market-based mechanism, and 24 (12%) address policy issues. These figures may be low since this information is not specifically requested in the project description. Interestingly, the five countries with the most projects involving market-based mechanisms are also the five with the most projects addressing policy development; these countries are Kenya, Ghana, Senegal, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Additionally, a larger percentage of renewable and land degradation projects have market-based mechanisms than do efficiency projects, and a larger percentage of urban projects have them than do rural projects. With regard to policy development, renewable energy projects have the lowest percentage, and a larger percentage of urban projects incorporate policy development than do rural projects.
MAJOR TRENDS
APPROACHES TO CLIMATE CHANGE
The projects have been categorized according to their approach to climate change mitigation or adaptation: energy efficiency, renewable energy, land degradation, sustainable transport, adaptation, and preventing ozone depletion.i Forty-five projects, or 22% of the total, incorporate more than one approach. The following is a breakdown of projects that include each approach (percentages sum to more than 100% since some projects employ more than one approach):
Approach to Climate Change
Number of Projects
Percent of Total Projects
Renewable Energy 97 48%
Energy Efficiency 72 35%
Land Degradation 67 33%
Sustainable Transport 1 0.5%
Adaptation 1 0.5%
Ozone 1 0.5%
Unknown/General 16 8%
This categorization is based upon a review of all information in a project record, including name and description. By comparison, just looking at the operational programs indicated for the projects, one finds that 55, or 27%, are listed as OP5 (efficiency) and 85, or 41%, as OP6 (renewable energy). The operational programs for climate change do not capture the land degradation approach, which, after reviewing project
SGP Climate Change Grants: Africa Revised July 23, 20022
descriptions, are the sole approach taken by 28, or 14%, of projects funded in Africa (43, or 19%, of the projects combine land degradation with efficiency, renewable and adaptation approaches).
Upon examination of approaches taken during each of the three phases, one trend in particular stands out: renewable energy projects have become an increasingly large percentage of the portfolio. In the Pilot Phase, 29% of funded projects used a renewable energy approach, in Phase 1, the percentage rose to 35%, and in Phase 2, 58% of all climate change-related projects involve renewable energy. It should also be noted that the percentage of land degradation approaches decreases consistently from 42% in the Pilot Phase to 30% in Phase 2. The chart below summarizes percentages for the three main approaches (again, percentages sum to greater than 100% since some projects employ more than one approach):
Pilot Phase Phase 1 Phase 2
Renewable Energy 29% 35% 58%
Efficiency 45% 49% 26%
Land Degradation 42% 35% 30%
Communities, Sectors, and Activities Targeted
Rural/Urban: the majority of projects target rural areas in Africa. Of the 204 projects, 146, or 72% are rural, 27 or 13% are urban, 14 or 7% target both, and 17 or 8% could not be determined from information in the database.ii
Women: 83 projects (40% of the total) mention exceptional or exclusive involvement of women. More projects may reach out particularly to women, but this was not highlighted in the description or comments in the database.
Sector: the projects are rather evenly divided between the domestic, public, and income generation sectors; a small number fall into a business category and some cannot be determined from database information. iii
Again, many projects target more than one sector.
Sector Number of Projects
Percentage
Business 15 7%
Domestic 75 37%
Income Generation 70 34%
Public 81 40%
Unknown 26 13%
Activities/Sub-Sectors: projects relate to a very wide range of domestic, public, business and income-generating activities. Many projects target more than one activity. The following tables provide breakdowns of the major activities within each sector.
SGP Climate Change Grants: Africa Revised July 23, 20023
Business Activity Number of Projects
Percent of Business Projects
Sale of manuf./non-food goods 6 40%Transfer of renewable/energy eff. technology
6 40%
Domestic Activity Number of Projects
Percent of Domestic Projects
Cooking/food preparation 46 61%Lighting 11 15%General energy use 5 7%Water access 2 3%Various/unknown 4 5%
Income Generation Activity Number of Projects
Percent of Income Generation Projects
Agriculture 26 37%Sale of agric./food products 17 24%Sale of forest products 8 11%Livestock 8 11%Cooking food for sale 4 6%Eco-tourism 2 3%Sale of manuf./non-food goods 2 3%Refrigeration of food for sale 1 1%
Public Activity Number of Projects
Percent of Public Projects
School-based 23 28%Land use 20 25%Cooking 19 23%Lighting 8 10%Water access/sanitation 6 7%Wildlife control 6 7%Health 5 6%Pest management (termites) 1 1%
Renewable Energy ProjectsAlmost half (48%) of the projects funded in Africa include a renewable energy component. Of these, solar, biogas and wind are the most prevalent, with solar energy alone making up almost half of the renewable energy projects. The breakdown is as follows (a few projects include more than one renewable energy source):
SGP Climate Change Grants: Africa Revised July 23, 20024
Energy Source Number of Projects
Percentage of Renewable Projects
Sun 48 49% Photovoltaic 37 38% Direct Sunlight 11 11%Biomass 35 36% Biogas 24 25% Briquettes 5 5% Gasification 3 3% Biofuel 2 2% Unknown 1 1%Wind 10 10%Water 4 4%Gas (non-renewable) 2 2%
End Uses: A wide variety of end uses are powered by the renewable energy sources described above.
End Use Number of Projects
Percentage of Projects
Cooker/stove/oven 34 33%Lighting kit/lantern 16 16%Irrigation system 12 12%Water pump 7 7%Electricity for general use 6 6%Water heater 3 3%Battery charging 3 3%Grinding mill 3 3%Dryer 2 2%Electric fence 2 2%Water desalinator 1 1%
Electricity: a total of 44 renewable projects (45% of renewable projects, 22% of all projects) produce electricity, and these appear to be off-grid projects. Four cannot be determined from database information. The three leading countries in electricity production from renewable energy are Côte d’Ivoire (10 projects, all photovoltaic), and Kenya (10 projects, including photovoltaic, hydropower, and gasification of biomass), and Tanzania (10 projects, all photovoltaic).
Efficiency Projects
A total of 72, or 35% of all projects include an energy efficiency component. The majority of these (56 projects or 75%), improve the efficiency of cooking. The breakdown is as follows:
SGP Climate Change Grants: Africa Revised July 23, 20025
Activity Number of Projects
Percentage of Efficiency Projects
Cooking 56 78%Production process 8 11%Recycling 4 5%Audits 3 4%Efficiency awareness 2 3%General energy efficiency 1 1%
Most efficiency projects (55, or 76%) make more efficient use of wood. A small percentage (7 projects, or 10%) make more efficient use of charcoal. Most projects (45, or 63%) use some type of fuel-efficient stove; 10 projects (14%) use more efficient ovens, 2 projects use coal briquettes, 2 relate to more efficient coalpots, and 1 project replaced the use of wood with a kerosene hotplate for cooking.
Land DegradationA total of 67, or 33%, of the projects seek to reverse land degradation as an approach to climate change mitigation. The following is a breakdown of the major activities conducted under the land degradation approach. Fire prevention includes community fire-fighting efforts and changes in apiculture practices; improved management includes agroforestry, agriculture and livestock projects; increased vegetation cover includes the planting of trees, shrubs, and so forth; forest protection means acting to protect forests, for example by establishing new laws for forest use. Most projects employ more than one approach to land degradation.
Approach to Land Degradation
Number of Projects
Percentage of Land Degradation Projects
Increased vegetation cover 19 57%Improved management 34 51%Fire prevention 38 28%Forest protection 4 6%
28 projects (14%) use only this approach, 24 of which list climate change as a focal area, often combined with biodiversity. Most of these use either OP1 (Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystems) or OP3 (Forest Ecosystems). Four projects have only biodiversity as a focal area, and one has no focal area. These five projects were included because they mention either in their title, description or comments the words “global warming,” “greenhouse gases,” or “fuelwood.” It is likely that many other biodiversity projects help restore forests and in doing so may help mitigate climate change. However, it is unclear what in practice distinguishes projects that, for example, plant trees to help restore habitat for biodiversity and from those that plant trees to store carbon or for sustainable fuelwood harvest. The question is which of those that plant or protect plant life for biodiversity purposes should also be classified under climate change?
As noted earlier, the percentage of land degradation projects has decreased by phase. In the Pilot Phase, 43% of climate change projects were land degradation projects; in Phase 1, 34%, and in Phase 2, 30%.
SGP Climate Change Grants: Africa Revised July 23, 20026
Market-Based Mechanisms and Policy Development
The GEF emphasizes throughout its programs the use of market-based mechanisms, since such approaches help to ensure maximum impact, sustainability, and efficiency. Such mechanisms might include the use of micro-credit, revolving funds, share purchase, development of micro-enterprises, and so forth. Unfortunately, most project descriptions do not include such information; this may be because no mechanism is used, or because this information is not specifically requested. Although co-financing information is requested, this most often reflects dollar amounts contributed and does not include information about the mechanism through which such contributions will be sustained or used to expand the project.
Of the 204 projects in African countries, 35 (17%) included some sort of market-based mechanism in the description. Some descriptions were rather vague, so it was difficult to classify the mechanism accurately as micro-enterprise, micro-credit, and so forth. However, some countries make use of the mechanisms much more often than others, if the project descriptions are any indicator. 12 of these 35 projects with market-based mechanisms are in Kenya. Two countries – Mali and Tanzania – included no mechanisms in their descriptions.
Another indicator of the sustainability and replicability of projects is the extent to which they address energy/climate change policy development. Again, this is not often mentioned in project descriptions, once again either because it was not part of the project or because the information was not requested. Of the 204 African countries, 24 or 12% address policy issues; of these, 15 address local policy, 8 address national policy, and 1 addresses national/international policy on climate change (this international policy project addresses the Clean Development Mechanism). Of these, Ghana has the most projects that address policy (7 out of the 24). Three countries - Botswana, Côte d’Ivoire and Mali - do not mention any policy issues in their descriptions.
Below is a list by country of the number of projects including market mechanisms, and the number that include policy development. It is interesting to note that the same five countries – Ghana, Kenya, Senegal, Uganda, and Zimbabwe – have both the most projects including market mechanisms and the most projects addressing policy development.
Country Projects with Market-Based Mechanisms
Projects Addressing Policy Development
Kenya 12 4Ghana 3 7Uganda 5 3Zimbabwe 5 3Senegal 4 4Côte d’Ivoire 3 0Botswana 1 0Burkina Faso 1 1Mauritius 1 1Tanzania 0 1Mali 0 0
If we examine the number of projects involving market mechanisms and those involving policy development by phase, we find that there is a noticeable percentage increase between the Pilot Phase and Phase 1, but not
SGP Climate Change Grants: Africa Revised July 23, 20027
much of an increase in the percentage between Phases 1 and 2, although twice the previous number of projects are addressing market mechanisms and policy.
Pilot Phase Phase 1 PHASE 2Market Mechanisms 3 (10%) 10 (18%) 22 (19%)Policy Development 2(6%) 7 (13%) 15 (13%)
The following chart examines the types of projects that involve market-based mechanisms and policy development. For example, the chart shows that a lower percentage of efficiency projects incorporate market-based mechanisms than do either renewable or land degradation projects. More in-depth examination of such trends could be useful in determining why market-based mechanisms and/or policy development components are included in some projects and not in others.
Type of Project Percentage of such projects incorporating market-based mechanisms
Percentage of such projects incorporating policy development
All projects 17% 12%Rural 16% 9%Urban 26% 15%Renewable 21% 6%Efficiency 11% 15%Land degradation 22% 18%
Average Grant Sizes for Certain Grant Types
The following chart provides average grant sizes for certain kinds of projects. These types of projects were selected because they were common enough in this region to calculate an average, or because these categories will later be compared with similar categories in other regions. In calculating average grant sizes, projects that included multiple components were excluded; for example, a project that both installed a biogas-powered stove and a solar water heater was not included in the calculation, because the cost of this project would not reflect a single category. Also, the 14 planning grants were eliminated; they would have artificially lowered the average.
Type of Project Number of Projects included in Average
Average Grant Size
All climate change projects 190 $26,801.61Rural 137 $27,973.77Urban 24 $23,735.53Renewable 66 $31,686.93Efficiency 37 $17,817.48Land degradation 27 $26,676.19Transportation 1 $7,700.00Ozone 1 $9,012.00Electricity from renewable energy 38 $38,199.60Micro hydro electricity generation 3 $32,211.67Biogas 10 $23,960.60Photovoltaic 29 $37,471.97Wind 6 $48,594.50Cooker/stove (renewable) 17 $24,442.91Cooker/stove (efficiency) 27 $15,796.29
SGP Climate Change Grants: Africa Revised July 23, 20028
Cooking efficiency projects with land degradation components
42 $20,536.16
Some more detailed analysis was possible for fuel-efficient stoves, and for projects seeking to reduce fuelwood use at schools. Projects in Cote d’Ivoire, Kenya, Senegal, Tanzania and Zimbabwe were included in these calculations, but only projects whose descriptions included the number of stoves to be installed.
Project Type Average Project Cost Number of stoves or schools in included projects
Average Cost per stove or school
Fuel-efficient stoves $19,644.94 14,526 (19 projects) $25.70/stoveSchools $32,439.38 183 (22 projects) $3,899.82/school
Many of the descriptions of these projects also include capacity building activities. However, from the descriptions it is difficult to judge exactly what capacities the communties have after the grant is completed; can they build more of their own fuel-efficient stoves without a new grant? Can they install a biogas or other stove to use less fuelwood in other schools? A few project descriptions quite clearly state that communities are trained to build the stoves themselves. However, it is far less clear how materials would be obtained and who would pay for the construction. This is the role of the market-based mechanism, which most project descriptions do not incorporate. More information about training, capacity-building, market-based mechanisms and the incorporation of policy development would greatly help in evaluating the impact of these small grants.
Projects categorized as efficiency seek to reduce waste of energy in accomplishing a task. Renewable energy projects make use of energy sources that are being re-generated about as quickly as they are used. In general, renewable energy projects involve switching from fossil-fuel based sources, or introducing a new, regenerable energy source to accomplish a task, while efficiency projects use the same fuel source, just less of it. Technically, efficient stoves using wood combined with sufficient tree-planting could be considered renewable, but they are not categorized as such here. However, a gasification of biomass project is classified here as renewable, because this is a new form of energy and the power plant will only burn what is grown specifically for this use. Land degradation projects seek to reduce the loss of biomass through human activity, thereby regenerating carbon storage. Ozone projects reduce the release of CFCs that destroy the ozone layer; these gases also contribute to global warming. Adaptation projects seek to reduce the possible negative impacts that now unavoidable climate change may produce. Transportation projects seek to find alternative modes of transport that reduce greenhouse emissions. Not all projects are indicated as rural or urban in the database. When a project description used the word "village," this was assumed to be rural; if the word "city" or "town" was used, it was considered urban. When a location was given but was not specified as rural or urban, an atlas was consulted. If the location was on the map and was large enough to have an airport, it was considered urban. If it was in small, light type, or if the location was not in the atlas at all, it was considered rural. If no location was given, the project was listed as unknown. Domestic means related to individual households. Public means available for community use. Income generation means individual households, or small groups, selling a product. Business means a more organized and sustained effort to gain most of one’s income for living from selling a particular good or service; it may or may not be formally incorporated as a business. Obviously, making distinctions between such categories based on the limited information in the database is subjective, and not always possible. For example, schools are assumed to be public, cooking is assumed to occur at the household level unless specified as community cooking. Income generation is used for most agriculture-related projects on the assumption that most agriculture is not an organized business in Africa. Some project descriptions, on the other hand, specifically describe various efforts as “businesses.”
SGP Climate Change Grants: Africa Revised July 23, 20029
ANNEX 4
SUMMARY OF THE SGP PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW (PIR) REPORT
AUGUST 2001
The GEF Small Grants Programme conducted in August 2001 a Programme Implementation Review (PIR) to assess and rate progress made in achieving the programme overall and specific objectives during the period July 2000-July 2001. In compliance with the PIR guidelines SGP also identified lessons and proposed remedial actions where indicators’ analysis showed weaknesses or areas that require particular attention.
Below is a summary of key aspects covered by the PIR report. The full report is available upon request.
Brief Project Description
The development goal of the GEF/SGP is to assure global environmental benefits in the areas of biodiversity conservation, climate change mitigation and protection of international waters from community-based approaches. The rationale for the Programme is rooted in the belief that local solutions to global environmental problems exist and have been successfully implemented through the programme thus far while at the same time recognizing that there still is an unrealized potential to enhance the impact of the programme within the GEF system as a whole. Given the strategic role of the GEF/SGP in furthering the overall GEF Strategy and mandate, the long-term financial modality is one that ensures continuity, flexibility and accountability at the same time. Responding to recommendations in the report of the second independent evaluation of the GEF/SGP, the programme has focused on achieving the following principal objectives (outputs): (1) revision and implementation of the strategic framework and operational guidelines at global and country levels to ensure congruence with GEF Operational Strategy and Programs; (2) selection and implementation of community projects; (3) establishment of functional links with medium- and full-size GEF projects, other UNDP programmes, government agencies, and national environmental funds (mainstreaming); (4) establishment of a sound programme for capacity building for key stakeholders; (5) elaboration and implementation of global and country strategies for sharing of GEF/SGP experiences and demonstrating global benefits; (6) establishment of resource mobilization strategies at global, country and project levels to assure project and programme sustainability; and (7) operation of a monitoring and evaluation system to track and assess global benefits.
Overall RatingThe rating of the programme is Satisfactory (S) for the first indicator and Highly Satisfactory (HS) for the other 3 indicators identified to measure performance of SGP’s development objective. The rating has not changed from previous PIR reports. The lowest rate is related to “demonstrating” global environmental benefits. Although progress has been achieved in securing global environmental benefits, demonstration of those benefits in a systematic manner remains a
1
challenge given the complexity of the issue, the large number of countries and the size of the project portfolio.
Descriptive Assessment of Project Impact (achievement of development objective)
The SGP Second Operational Phase (started in February 1999) marked a significant change in the modus operandi of the programme. A number of preparatory activities were necessary to initiate grant allocations at country level, which took all of 1999. These included the preparation of the SGP Strategic Framework and Country Programme Strategies, the SGP Operational Guidelines, the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, a Resources Mobilization strategy and a Global Communications Strategy. A global meeting was convened in July 1999 to familiarize National Coordinators with the new requirements, approaches and strategies of the programme. A significant effort was made to ensure that both the Strategic Framework and the Country Programme Strategies would provide the guidance to secure global environmental benefits through local action. Capacity building with key national stakeholders also took place, to ensure UNDP Country Offices, National Steering Committees and other SGP partners would be fully acquainted with the new approaches, methodologies and operational guidelines. SGP is therefore responding to the principal recommendations of the Second Independent Evaluation and has made significant progress towards the achievement of the development objective. A second global meeting took place in July 2001 to assess progress achieved in the implementation of the second operational phase and to revise SGP’s workplan for the next year.
During the second operational phase SGP has added more than 1000 projects to its portfolio with a value of $21.3 million and has continued monitoring and supporting the implementation of a large number of ongoing projects from the First Operational Phase. During the reporting period (July 2000 - August 2001) SGP approved 405 projects for a total of $10.4 million of GEF funding. There has been a very positive response from all stakeholders to the new SGP approach and strategic alliances have been forged with many initiatives and programmes to enhance impact in targeted ecosystems and specific environmental issues such as adoption of renewable energy. Examples are SGP alliance with National Environmental Funds and National Focal Points of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor in Central America to facilitate participation of NGOs and CBOs in the conservation of this globally significant ecosystem; the on going implementation of the SGP-UNF Community Management of Protected Areas Conservation (COMPACT) project which has an integrated approach to community participation in the conservation of 6 World Natural Heritage Sites and is providing cofinancing of $3 million; the EC SGP to Promote Tropical Forests in the Asian Region with 15 million Euros of cofinancing; and bilateral agreements, particularly almost $2 million contributed by the Government of the Netherlands to the Ecuador and Guatemala country programmes.
Reasonable progress has been achieved in mainstreaming SGP approaches and mechanisms within UNDP. TRAC resources have been made available to SGP in a number of countries and the programme is fully collaborating with the Africa 2000 Network and LIFE projects and has established linkages with Capacity 21, particularly on the preparations for WSSD. Other UN agencies have contributed to specific SGP activities, including UNIFEM, UNEP, UNF, UNFIP and UNV. Communications, both at headquarters and country level have been given priority, which is reflected in the increased number of projects featured by the local, national and UN media.
Demonstration of global benefits is not an easy task as baseline information is not available at the initial stages of project development. However, the SGP M&E framework was designed as a tool
2
to guide grantees, National Coordinators, National Steering Committees and the global programme to document and assess impact resulting from project and programme implementation. Under the COMPACT project SGP developed a methodology to facilitate preparation of participatory baseline assessments of protected areas. These assessments will be instrumental for decisions on grant allocation and will provide the baseline information against which impact can be measured. It has been agreed that in order to facilitate measurement of project results and impacts threat reduction will be monitored rather than bio-indicators. The baseline assessments will generate comprehensive information on each site, including variables chosen as indicators to measure SGP progress in meeting its Development Objective. The biennial Country Programme reviews started in February 2001 consist of an overall participatory review of implementation of Country Programme Strategies and analysis of lessons learned. These will be the main tools to evaluate the achievement of SGP Development Objective at the end of year 3 and demonstrating actual global environmental benefits.
Descriptive Assessment of Implementation Progress
The programme has already met most benchmarks set in the SGP project document and has made significant progress in all areas as follows:
Framework to achieve congruence with GEF Operational Strategy: All strategic documents to enhance SGP congruence with the GEF Operational Strategy were prepared and disseminated in the first year of the Second Operational Phase. These were presented to the GEF Council along with a progress report that was the basis for Council approval of SGP replenishment for year 3. A subsequent progress report was presented to the GEF Council in May 2001 as a basis for SGP replenishment in year 4, however, the replenishment was postponed for the December 2001 GEF Council meeting. New projects approved by NSC s meet GEF/SGP eligibility criteria and country priorities as identified in the SGP Country Programme Strategy. New country programmes are being established in Iran, Mauritania, South Africa, Lithuania, Kyrgyzstan, El Salvador, Honduras and Lebanon, and 2 more countries will be selected before the end of 2001. A number of steps such as inception missions from SGP headquarters and other experienced country programmes are being taken to ensure congruence with GEF Operational Programmes and promote early integration of lessons learned in new country programmes. A Global Workshop involving all SGP National Coordinators took place in Hammamet, Tunisia in July 2001. The workshop allowed to assess progress and to revise SGP action plan matrix for the next year. The teams of the OPS2 and MSP Evaluation visited a number of SGP Country Programmes and projects. The overall assessment on SGP performance is highly positive and a number of recommendations to strengthen the programme were made.
Community project selection and implementation: As mentioned above SGP devoted most of year one to establish the framework for enhancing congruence with GEF OP and to build the capacity of potential grantees to develop eligible projects. Capacity building and communications efforts have resulted in the submission of more than 4000 project proposals and the approval of 1,061 projects since March 1999. Raising Community-based Organizations (CBOs) awareness of global environmental issues as well as their skills to identify, develop and implement SGP eligible projects has been a priority during the second operational phase. As a result, more project concepts from community groups (including indigenous peoples organizations) have been received than in previous phases and it is expected that the number of CBO-driven projects will increase. Regarding successful completion of project activities within the agreed workplan, it should be noted that SGP is using “planning grants” of a maximum of $2,000 to improve project design, particularly those originating from CBOs. Environmental issues require long periods of
3
time to be addressed and many project concepts propose unrealistic timeframes for project implementation. NSCs and NCs are assisting project proponents to design projects in which the budget and time span are commensurate with the immediate objectives of the project.
Functional links with key stakeholders: SGP stakeholders are fully aware of the need of establishing functional links with other GEF activities and projects as well as with institutions involved in environment and development endeavors. Those linkages are necessary to both enhancing project impact and meeting the baseline development costs associated with SGP activities at community level. In terms of GEF functional links, an SGP module has been introduced in the Country Dialogue Workshops and most CDW workshops conducted so far included the SGP module. There is a growing number of GEF Operational FP and GEF project managers serving in the NSC and full-size GEF projects are beginning to appreciate the value of using the SGP mechanism to implement community based components, such as in the cases of the RECOSMO, METAP and the Red Sea projects. There are also cases in which SGP NCs are members of GEF national committees such as in Poland. Regarding linkages with GEF regular projects, current SGP semi-annual reports indicate that there are more than 70 SGP projects that are collaborating and contributing to their implementation. A few examples are: SGP project Biri-Island Coastal Marine Reserve Development project in the Philippines where the grantee is a member of the NGO/PO consortium that will implement the recently approved GEF Samar Island Biodiversity Project. The SGP Associate Ranger Programme-Aqaba in Jordan that will promote youth and community involvement within the activities of the larger GEF project Gulf of Aqaba Environmental Action Plan/Aqaba Marine Park. Also, the large project will provide training, staff time and diving equipment for SGP activities. The Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Barrier Complex GEF project in Belize is contributing co-funding for various components of the SGP Laughing Bird Caye Management Project. In Nepal SGP grantees are partners in the Nepal Biodiversity Landscape PDF B project. A number of SGP projects are in the process of scaling-up their activities through GEF medium-sized grants or other sources of funding. However, as noted in the draft report of the MSP review, SGP grantees face a number of difficulties in developing and obtaining approval for MSP projects.
SGP has also strengthened linkages with UNDP programmes and activities, in particular with the Africa 2000 Network and LIFE projects. It is also participating in UNDP programme reviews, donor round tables, development of projects related to Agenda 21, and is receiving TRAC contributions for SGP projects (e.g. India, Uganda and Tanzania). Collaboration has been established with the Capacity 21 programme in order to contribute to the country preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) with a view to ensure that SGP experiences and lessons are considered in the assessment of progress made since UNCED.
SGP Country Programmes have also forged partnerships with the World Bank, FAO, UNESCO, UNIFEM, UNEP and many other programmes and activities of the UN system. UNV should be highlighted as it is contributing 6 national volunteers to SGP regional programmes in the Caribbean (Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago). Linkages and partnerships with technical cooperation agencies and bi-lateral donors have been strengthened and some of these agencies have adopted SGP methodologies and approaches.
At national level, SGP is contributing to the CBD and UNFCCC agendas and several National Biodiversity Focal Points serve in the NSC. Some countries have reported participation in Enabling Activities both for biodiversity and climate change. Significant linkages with governmental programmes at the national and local levels exist and also with the academic community and the private sector.
4
Capacity-building: SGP has implemented a significant number of capacity-building activities during the reporting period. These include awareness-raising workshops; need-based capacity-building workshops, experience exchange workshops, preparation of training materials, field visits, and technical assistance to individual NGOs/CBOs. Some of the thematic areas are: project identification, design and implementation; participatory monitoring and evaluation; organizational capacity; and accounting and administration. Other technical areas covered by SGP capacity-building activities are: development of business plans and marketing; promotion of renewable energy; protected area and buffer zone conservation; reintroduction of endangered species; and gender and indigenous peoples issues. In brief, NGOs and CBOs have learned about global environmental issues, how to integrate these within development programmes and have acquired technical skills. They have also raised their capacity to identify problems and needs and to achieve progress towards tangible solutions.
Communications and outreach: SGP strengthened its communications and outreach activities by developing a global communications strategy and national communications plans. A significant number of projects received media attention and many events were organized. The celebration of World Environment Day in partnership with UNV should be highlighted. In ceremonies attended by personalities and high level officials such as the Queen of Bhutan and the President of Uganda, certificates were awarded to NSC members in recognition of their voluntary services to the programme. Several Country programmes have encouraged project level outreach by ensuring that each grant includes specific communications objectives and a budget. Innovative ideas were implemented to raise the visibility of the programme such as NGO partnerships to organize public events on global environmental issues, preparation of SGP information kits, exhibits, project visits by high level personalities (government and donors), publication of SGP articles in newsletters of NGO networks, and radio broadcast. Communication within programme participants has also been enhanced by the SGP x-change and the establishment of some country programme web sites. National Coordinators have continued promoting national NGO and CBO networks in order to strengthen civil society participation in addressing environmental challenges.
Resources Mobilization: This is an essential goal of the second operational phase. NCs and headquarters alike have devoted increased efforts to mobilize resources both in cash and in kind for the programme as well as to improve the system to keep track of co-financing received. A global resource mobilization strategy was put in place and all country programme strategies include activities to meet the co-financing target for this phase. As mentioned above, SGP has so far mobilized US$ 31.9 million in cash and about US$ 9 million in kind. This exceeds by almost $5 million the cash co-financing target for operational phase 2, but it is still low for the in kind co-financing target of $27 million in three years. In kind contributions are not easy to estimate and to track, but the programme is working towards and agreed method to quantify and record these contributions. It should also be mentioned that some countries are not a priority for official development assistance or for private foundations and international NGOs, therefore mobilizing resources is a challenge. In addition, it should be noted that mobilizing co-financing for SGP multi-country programmes implies a substantial burden in terms of administration and reporting.
Monitoring and evaluation: SGP has developed a Monitoring & Evaluation Framework to guide all relevant activities at country programme level. The M&E Framework proposes participatory methodologies to monitor and evaluate grant implementation progress and results as well as for the country programme as a whole. Several formats were designed to facilitate: (i) preparation of field visits and progress reports; and (ii) final project evaluations including lessons learned. Country programmes are required to prepare semi-annual reports on activities carried out to meet SGP benchmarks. A biennial assessment of the country programme evaluates in a participatory manner (NSC members, selected partners and grantees) whether the objectives of the Country Programme Strategy have been met, what are the lessons learned, and sets the basis for a revision
5
of the country strategy. Experience exchange workshops among grantees are also a participatory mechanism to identify and disseminate lessons. Regular maintenance of the SGP database is important for the overall monitoring and reporting process. SGP reports to the GEF Council on a yearly basis and it is also accountable to the various donors contributing co-financing at the project, country programme or multi-country levels. In working towards demonstration of global environmental benefits resulting from SGP interventions the programme will strive to improve individual final project evaluations and systematizing the findings.
Challenges/issues emerged during the reporting period
No new challenges have emerged in project implementation during the past year. However, SGP faces many on-going challenges considering the need to reconcile the GEF criteria with community needs and priorities, the large number of participating countries, the need to maintain a lean and effective coordination office at headquarters and the increasing demands on country programme staff. Resources mobilization on a one-to-one ratio is also a permanent challenge and it should be mentioned that competition arising from other similar large small grants projects (such as the GEF WB-CI Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund) may exacerbate difficulties to access substantive co-financing. Demonstration of global environmental benefits in the next GEF Council report will require a systematic effort to further develop and apply the SGP M&E Framework.
Lessons Learned/Good Practice
An important lesson during the second operational phase is that country programme strategies that have focused SGP interventions thematically or geographically are more likely to achieve significant impact and to demonstrate global environmental benefits.
As an example of good practice, the SGP COMPACT project has developed a methodology for baseline assessment and priority setting for SGP's interventions in globally significant protected areas. It is hoped that after the COMPACT experience the methodology may be adopted in other countries implementing activities in protected areas.
Planning grants have been instrumental in facilitating direct CBO access to SGP financial resources and community ownership of projects.
Many communities participating in projects implemented by NGOs have developed their own capacity and have subsequently applied it directly to SGP activities.
Technical assistance agreements with national universities have been an effective mechanism to strengthen SGP’s ability to support capacity building and monitoring and evaluation.
6
Resources Leveraged & Demonstration and Catalytic Effects
Resources Leveraged
Resources mobilization is an integral part of the SGP Strategic Framework and a yearly benchmark in the work-programme, therefore, all resources mobilized have been mentioned in the relevant sections above. Sources are: SGP grantees and local communities; local governments; national government institutions; bi-lateral agencies; UN agencies (including UNDP programmes); foundations and international NGOs (including the United Nations Foundation); national NGOs; National Environmental Funds; and research and academic institutions (mostly in-kind). It should be noted that more than 600 partners worldwide have contributed funding to SGP.
Demonstration and Catalytic Effects
SGP has been very successful in bringing policy changes vis-à-vis NGO/CBO participation in environment and development activities. It has shown that it is possible to achieve global environmental benefits through local action. It has also supported decentralization and local decision-making by promoting linkages between civil society organizations and local government. Also, a number of donors have adopted SGP approaches and mechanisms to facilitate access by local communities and NGOs to international funding. Some projects have also been able to bring change in national policy and legislation in specific cases. Brazil has documented how the SGP country programme has contributed to policy change, particularly vis-à-vis the Cerrado ecosystem. An example of an SGP project contribution to more supportive national policies is the micro-hydro project in the Chuka village in Kenya. This community owned power generation venture –the first in the country- promoted a debate in the Kenyan Parliament regarding decentralized off-grid power policy, resulting in supportive legislation being developed. National Steering Committee members have often been instrumental in facilitating dialogue between SGP grantees and national governmental institutions and legislative bodies.
Sustainability of project activities beyond SGP funding remains a challenge, however, there is indication that in many cases it is being achieved. More and more sustainability aspects are incorporated in SGP project documents and concomitantly in monitoring and evaluation activities. Poland has recently undertaken an ex-post evaluation (four or five years after project completion) to assess project sustainability. There are however, financial and operational constraints for SGP to follow-up in a more systematic manner any impacts after a project has been completed.
There has been substantial interaction with similar programmes and projects such as UNDP Capacity 21 initiatives, the Africa 2000 Network, LIFE, UNIFEM small grants activities and national environmental funds. It should be mentioned that SGP is a member of the Network of National Environmental Funds in Latin America and the Caribbean (RedLAC) and continues participating in the Inter-Agency Planning Group on National Environmental Funds (IPG).
7
ANNEX 5
THE GEF SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMME
THIRD INDEPENDENT EVALUATION
TERMS OF REFERENCE
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of the evaluation of the Global Environment Facility Small Grants Programme (SGP) is to review the performance of the programme –especially during the Second Operational Phase from 1999 to 2002– and based on this make recommendations on the way forward.
The review will include an evaluation of progress and results in programme implementation, measured against the specific objectives set forth in the Project Document and the benchmarks established by the GEF Council in 1998. The evaluation will also assess the extent to which the recommendations of the Second Independent Evaluation carried out in 1998 were addressed and whether as a consequence project performance and results were strengthened. Lessons learnt and best practices will be identified, and recommendations will be offered to enhance SGP's performance and impact.
Given that SGP has been operational for almost 10 years it is expected that it will be possible to identify some programmatic and project impacts, defined as SGP contribution to the GEF overall goals (achieving global environmental benefits in the focal areas).
2. BACKGROUND
The GEF Small Grants Programme was launched in 1992 to provide support for community-based initiatives that contribute to conserving global biological diversity, mitigating climate change or protecting international waters. Activities addressing land degradation --primarily desertification and deforestation-- may also be supported when they relate to the three focal areas.
During the Pilot Phase (1992 - 1995) the programme received $14.9 million for the GEF trust fund, $3.0 million from USAID and $300,000 from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. An independent evaluation was carried out in 1995 which concluded, among others, that SGP was a reasonably efficient and cost effective method to provide funding for community-focused environmental and capacity-building projects and that, in general, an effective "prototype foundation" was being laid for expanded support of community-based activities related to the GEF focal areas.
In October 1995, the GEF Council approved $24 million for the first two years of the SGP Operational Phase. Following the Council's decision, a new project document was prepared to
1
guide the implementation of the programme from June 1996 to July 1998. During that period the programme expanded from 33 to 45 participating countries. A second independent evaluation was carried out in 1998 to review the operation of the programme. The overall findings were positive, confirming that SGP is a unique mechanism to enable civil society to contribute towards addressing global environmental concerns. However, there were also several recommendations to address weakness both at the SGP programmatic and management levels.
The 1998 evaluation was instrumental in the GEF Council decision to approve the SGP second operational phase. The transition from the first to the second operational phase brought a number of positive changes for SGP implementation. A two-year replenishment for $31,619 million was granted and the Council agreed that a subsequent annual “rolling” financial modality would be adopted to ensure continuity of programme activities. The SGP is now part of the GEF business plan and reports annually to the Council as a basis for consideration of its replenishment for the following year. Specific benchmarks and a two-year work plan are the baseline for assessing programme performance.
The project document for the second operational phase was signed by UNDP and the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), the principal executing agency for the SGP, on 18 February 1999 and this date became, in effect, the date of replenishment.A report was submitted to the GEF Council in March 20004 covering the first year of operation under the second operational phase. A replenishment of $22.4 million for the period February 2001 to February 2002 was approved.
The second report was presented in May 2001, however, in view of GEF funding level constraints, the consideration of SGP's replenishment was postponed until December 2001. In December, the GEF granted a new replenishment of $20.712 million to cover programme implementation in year 4 of the second operational phase, i.e., from February 2002 to February 2003.
Currently SGP includes 63 participating countries5 managed from 53 country offices6. The project portfolio since the inception of the programme is approximately 3,000 projects of which over 1,600 have been approved during the second operational phase.
In accordance with the Project Document the SGP’ current immediate objective is:Conservation and sustainable development strategies and projects to protect the global environment are understood and practiced by communities and other key stakeholders.
4 An interim report was presented to the GEF Council in October 1999 following the October 1998 Council request that SGP was to report at its next meeting on progress in consolidating a strategic framework for the programme. The SGP Strategic Framework was attached to the report for Council review.
5 A list including SGP country programmes is presented in Annex 1.
6 The OECS 10 islands are managed from Barbados and the Trinidad and Barabados programme also covers Surinam.
i
ii
iii
2
The programme purpose was to be achieved by the following outputs and activities derived through logical framework planning. The outputs and activities seek to address constraints and weaknesses highlighted by the 1998 independent evaluation, while maintaining the strengths of the programme.
Output 1: Strategic framework and operational guidelines at global and country levels are revised and implemented to ensure congruence with GEF Operational Strategy and Programs.
Activities:1.1 Finalize and edit GEF/SGP Strategic Framework and Operational Guidelines.1.2 Revise country strategies according to Global Strategic Framework (including Operational
Guidelines), incorporating a final section on how global benefits will be realized.1.3 Approve country strategies to ensure fit with GEF Strategy and Operational Programs.1.4 Apply strategies for project selection and implementation.1.5 Include new countries in accordance with established selection criteria.1.6 Assess strategy documents periodically and modify as needed.
Output 2: Community projects selected and implemented.
Activities:2.1 Authorization of individual country administrative and grant budgets.2.2 Call for proposals that correspond to the new guidelines.2.3 Review concept papers in view of the new guidelines.2.4 Guarantee technical guidance and assistance for proposal development in order to ensure
“fit” with the country strategies.2.5 Assess project budget and seek co-financing if necessary.2.6 Select projects that best fit the selection criteria using the existing transparent selection
procedure by NSCs.2.7 Support implementation of approved projects.2.8 Obtain final project narrative and financial reports.2.9 Support follow-up of projects as appropriate.
Output 3: Functional links with full- and medium-size GEF projects, other UNDP programmes, government agencies, and national environmental funds established (mainstreaming).
Activities:3.1 Encourage senior management at the GEF Implementing Agencies to promote linkages
across programmes and projects in country.3.2 Expand GEF/SGP participation in other institutions and programmes in an advisory or
operational capacity in order to promote community-based approaches by national governments and other agencies.
3.3 Elaborate and disseminate lessons learned, including through case studies of project and programme experiences that demonstrate mainstreaming.
Output 4: Sound programme for capacity building of key stakeholders in place and operating.
Activities:
3
4.1 Prepare and disseminate improved stakeholder workshop materials that illustrate the revised global and country strategic frameworks and include simple examples of the incremental cost approach applied to on-going GEF/SGP projects.
4.2 Conduct periodic stakeholder workshops in each country for mutual learning.4.3 Train NCs and NSC members in needed technical areas, resource mobilization,
communications and outreach, and monitoring and evaluation.4.4 Provide needed training at community-level for project implementation.4.5 Tap local bodies of knowledge for designing projects and promoting the GEF/SGP
approach.
Output 5: Global and country communications and outreach strategies for GEF/SGP experiences and demonstration of global benefits elaborated and implemented
Activities:5.1 Develop a communications and outreach strategy for GEF/SGP.5.2 Develop country guidelines to implement the communications and outreach strategy.5.3 Ensure that all GEF/SGP NCs have web access.5.4 Disseminate case studies, periodic reports and monitoring and evaluation reports.5.5 Share experiences through site visits, workshops, photo and video documentation and other
means.5.6 Bring programme and projects to attention of the media.
Output 6: Resource mobilization strategies at global, country and project levels to attain sustainability are in place
Activities:6.1 Prepare and implement a fundraising strategy for the programme as a whole.6.2 Prepare and implement country resource mobilization strategies including cash and in-kind
resources from donors, governments, communities and the private sector.6.3 Design accountability and incentive mechanisms for successfully implemented plans.6.4 Participate in donor roundtables at country level.6.5 Share best practices on mobilizing resources.
Output 7: Monitoring and evaluation system to track and assess global benefits in effect.
Activities:7.1 Complete M&E Framework (including guidance about developing indicators) covering
project, country and global levels, using both self-assessments and external evaluations.7.2 Incorporate M&E component in country programme strategies.7.3 Carry out interim review of the global programme.7.4 Carry out annual country programme reviews including review of funded projects.7.5 Carry out an independent evaluation in year 4.7.6 Monitor project performance through site visits and other means.7.7 Establish and maintain databases at global, country and project levels.7.8 Identify and document lessons learned at project and programme levels.7.9 Feed lessons learned into project design, implementation and M&E.
3. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
4
The evaluation of SGP performance involves analysis at three levels: (a) at the level of the overall programme, (b) at the country level and (c) at the level of individual projects. Each level of analysis has four components:
Assessment of Progress in Programme Implementation
The evaluation of the programme will be conducted after three years of implementation of the second operational phase. The Project Document logical framework clearly states the objectives and activities of the programme. It also contains the benchmarks and means of verification to assess progress in programme implementation. The Project Document and the subsequent GEF Council reports include annual work-plans with specific tasks to be performed at the global and country programme levels. The SGP Global Workshop reports further discuss the tasks and assign responsibilities for implementation. These would constitute the basic parameters for measuring programme progress. Individual SGP funded projects should be assessed against their specific project documents.
Assessment of Programme Impact
For the purposes of this evaluation programme impact is defined as the SGP contribution to achieve global environmental benefits through community action. The GEF Operational Programmes should be the guiding documents for this purpose. Given the small scale and short duration of SGP interventions it cannot be expected that a single intervention may bring significant positive changes for the global environment. However, there are indications that SGP projects (individual projects or aggregated interventions) are contributing successfully to achieving global environmental benefits, by reducing threats to particular ecosystems or species, creating enabling conditions for the adoption of renewable energy sources and technologies, piloting innovative approaches for reducing non-point sources of pollution of international waters, etc. It is hoped that the evaluation will contribute towards further identifying and documenting these projects and their impact.
Other aspects that are relevant for assessing impact are:
(i) Capacity Development: the effects of SGP activities on strengthening NGOs, CBOs and community capacities will be assessed.
(ii) Sustainability: an assessment will be made of efforts undertaken to ensure that results of successful projects are sustained beyond the period of GEF financing.
(iii) Leverage: an assessment of the SGP's effectiveness in attracting partners, technical and financial resources, and in leveraging its Small Grants to influence larger projects and broader policies.
(iv) Awareness raising: SGP's contribution to raise greater awareness of the environment and in particular of global environmental issues will be examined.
(v) Up-scaling and replication: these are areas that have been given priority in the project document for the second operational phase and should be examined. It should be noted that there is evidence that "down-scaling" is also occurring. GEF and other donor-funded projects realize that their project objectives cannot be achieved without
5
providing the means to local communities to take action. SGP is now being approached by large projects (mainly government driven but also some NGO executed projects) to implement the community-based components in specific geographical areas.
Identification of Lessons Learnt and Best Practices
The evaluation will contribute to ascertain the role and impact of small-scale community action to addressing global environmental benefits, and more broadly, to sustainable development goals. It will therefore identify lessons learnt and best practices and document the integration and application of experience from previous phases of the programme into the second operational phase. Given the timing of the evaluation, it is expected that it will be possible to feed some of the lessons into the WSSD debate and consider any outcomes of the Johannesburg Summit into the strategic direction of SGP in the next three-four years.
Development of Operational Recommendations
Recommendations will be developed to help SGP further improve its support for small-scale, community-based initiatives in line with the GEF priorities. They are aiming to: Help communities do a better job
Strengthen the work of the National Coordinators and National Steering Committees Enable headquarters to provide effective support
Improve ways to draw, share and document lessons and best practices, within the context of a decentralized programme
Provide recommendations on the future role of SGP vis-à-vis the GEF and to prepare the programme for continued expansion both thematic (new OPs, focal areas) and geographical (new countries).
4. METHODOLOGY
Information will be gathered through document and database review, group and individual interviews, and country and project site visits. More specifically, the evaluation will be based on the following sources of information:
Overall programme:
A review of key documents related to SGP such as the project document, the yearly reports to the GEF Council, the report of the 1995 and 1998 evaluations, the Project Implementation Review (PIR) reports, and the SGP Handbook composed of the SGP Strategic Framework (and addendum), Operational Guidelines, Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, Resources Mobilization Strategy, and Global Communications Strategy. Project documents of SGP major co-financing arrangements should also be reviewed for the EC SGP for the Promotion of Tropical Forests and the Community Management of Protected Areas Conservation (COMPACT) project. The reports of the SGP global workshops (1999 and 2001) are also important reference material.
6
Country level:
Country Programme Strategies, semi-annual reports, biennial programme reviews, NSC meeting minutes, other strategic programme documents as appropriate, and relevant project documents and reports.
Structured interviews with players both at headquarters and country level including the Director a.i., of the Bureau for Development Policy, the Head of the Environment and Sustainable Development Group, the UNDP GEF Executive Coordinator, the SGP Global Manager and other SGP HQ staff, UNOPS staff, National Coordinators, UNDP Country Offices, members of the National Steering Committees, NGOs, CBOs, other community members involved in project execution, etc.
The evaluation team is expected to visit about 10 countries (one team member per country). The criteria to be used to guide country selection are included as Annex 2. Suggested elements for country visits are presented in Annex 3.
The UNDP GEF M&E group will support the evaluation team.
5. TIMING
The evaluation will be conducted during the period May - September 2002. It will follow the following steps: Selection of countries to be visited and identification of national consultants to facilitate
country visits. Briefing and planning meetings for the evaluation team to be conducted during 20-23 May
2002 in New York City. The Team will also use the opportunity to interview relevant staff at UNDP and UNOPS headquarters.
Review of documentation and preparation for country visits. Country visits will take place in the first three weeks of June. The duration of the visit for
each country will be approximately one week. Key parties involved in the implementation of the country programme will be interviewed and additional documents not available at headquarters will be reviewed as appropriate. A report on each country visit will be produced by the international evaluation specialist concerned by the first week of July. This country visit report will be an internal document for the evaluation team, to provide input to the overall evaluation report.
The evaluation team shall submit a first draft of the final report by the second week of August 2002. The final evaluation report will be submitted within three weeks of receiving review comments on the report. The submission of the final evaluation report is expected to be approximately the last week of September 2002.
6. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
7
The evaluation will be carried out by an independent team of highly qualified experts from both developing and industrialized countries. UNDP/GEF headquarters will be responsible for coordinating the evaluation and providing the required support.
6.1. Evaluation Team
The study team will consist of four internationals and about 10 national experts, one in each of the countries visited. The international team members will have high international standing, acknowledged integrity, good knowledge of global environmental issues and extensive familiarity with the regions assigned for the country visits. They should have had working experience with NGOs and CBOs. It is desirable to include at least one member of the 1998 evaluation in order to allow for continuity and to minimize the need for briefing considering the complexity of SGP operations and long history. The team leader will be responsible for operationalizing the study and for assembling and finalizing the evaluation report based on substantive written inputs from the international and national experts. The international team will be responsible for selecting, briefing and guiding the national team members who will take part in the country visits.
6.2. Terms of Reference for National Experts
Qualifications: The national team members are expected to be competent in environmental and community development issues and to have a good grasp of national issues and institutions, including the NGO national community. Although familiarity with SGP would be an asset, it is important to assess any potential conflict of interests in selecting the National Expert.
Tasks to be performed: Review relevant documents related to the planned evaluation and of the SGP and conduct
focused discussions with the National Coordinator on topics and issues that related to the implementation and impact of the country SGP programme and its projects. The National Expert is expected to be well versed as to the objectives, historical development, institutional and management mechanisms, portfolio and already documented "lessons learnt" of the programme before the scheduled site visit of the international expert.
The National Coordinator and the National Expert together should prepare a draft plan for the country visit, to be further discussed with the international experts. He/she should be able to help access other independent sources of information, either from documents (e.g., reports, newspaper articles, etc.) or through other relevant respondents such as members of the NGO community. The National Expert should jointly work with the SGP National Coordinator on the finalization of the schedule of project site visits, interviews and meetings.
Help the National Coordinator in the pre-selection of at least 10 potential projects for the site visits using the criteria in the "Guidelines for the Country Visits". Provide additional inputs to the International Expert for the final selection of the sites to be visited, which will depend, among others, of logistical aspects (distance to project sites) and community availability to receive the evaluation team.
8
Join the International Expert in the project site visits and other meetings and provide support during interviews with key respondents, focused group discussions, site assessment, on site analysis and observations and in the documentation of the site visits.
Submit reports that highlight important observations, analysis of information, and key conclusions.
Comment on the consolidated Country Visit Report prepared by the International Expert and gather any complementary data or information important for the preparation of the final evaluation report.
Selection of the National Experts:
The National Experts will be selected by the international members of the evaluation team. They will be identified through the GEF Secretariat M&E Unit roster of experts, recommendations from the UNDP Country Office or direct work experience of the international experts with specific individuals that meet the above qualifications.
9
ANNEX 2
CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF COUNTRY VISITS
The selection of countries will ensure a broad-based representation of the varied situations in which the SGP operates at national level. The basic criteria to identify the countries to be visited should include the following: Regional/geographic representation;
Large countries versus small countries, including at least one Small Island Developing State;
Old versus more recent country programmes; Country programmes operating in UNDP Country Offices and country programmes
hosted by an NGO; Linkages with other UNDP small grant programmes;
Implementation of other major donor supported activities as co-financing for GEF SGP; Experience in supporting projects in different GEF Operational Programmes;
Large versus smaller project portfolios.
10
ANNEX 3
SUGGESTED ELEMENTS FOR COUNTRY VISITS
(not part of the TOR)
The following information will be used to provide general guidance for the evaluation country visits and to brief the national consultants, although actual issues to be covered in each country visit will depend on country programme specificities and major issues for assessment to be identified during the briefing session with the Evaluation Team:
LIST OF POSSIBLE RESPONDENTS National Coordinator Members of the National Steering Committees
UNDP Resident Representative and UNDP Environment Focal Point Officials of government agencies involved, directly (as partners) or indirectly (with
jurisdiction over the site or activity of the project(s)) Local government authorities from project sites
NGO networks or major national NGOs Participating NGOs, CBOs and communities
Bilateral donors or multilateral agencies contributing to SGP projects National Environmental Funds or other small grants programme operating in the country
Academic institutions involved in providing support at the country programme or project implementation levels (project technical assistance, support to SGP M&E activities, case studies, interns, etc.)
Private sector (participants and/or knowledgeable non-participants)
Others (consultants that may have worked with SGP or its projects, journalists or media practitioners who may have been involved in public awareness aspects of the programme or may have covered some projects, etc.)
GEF National Focal Point.
PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT
Institutional setup and modalities of cooperation Is the SGP located in the UNDP Country Office or hosted by an NGO? If hosted by an NGO what is the level and extend of NGO participation/responsibility
regarding programme management and implementation? What are perceived advantages or disadvantages of the established setup?
Would it be possible/advantageous to delegate further responsibility to the host NGO? What is the National Steering Committee (NSC) composition and how has it been
operating? Are NSC members engaged in other SGP activities beyond preparation of the country programme strategy and project approval? What incentives may be provided to enhance NSC member engagement and support?
11
What are the working relationships between SGP participants at various levels: grantees/NGO partners, National Coordinator, NSC, UNDP Country Office, SGP and UNOPS headquarters?
Are there any problems in these working relationships? Have these been addressed/resolved and how?
Are the roles and responsibilities of each of the participants clear? Have the SGP Operational Guidelines been helpful and implemented? Are there suggestions for improvement of the Guidelines?
Any institutional/management improvements or innovations?
Supporting Mechanisms How timely and expeditious is grant consideration and approval?
Do project proponents receive adequate feedback once they submit the projects/concepts? Are site visits conducted as part of the process for project selection and approval?
Has the planning grant mechanism been used and with what results? How timely and adequate is the provision of resources to the grantees?
How is monitoring and evaluation to project implementation taking place? Has the SGP Monitoring and Evaluation Framework been applied? What are key constraints/strengths and/or suggestions for revision?
What is the perceived utility of other SGP guiding documents such as the Strategic Framework, the Global Communications Strategy and the Resources Mobilization Strategy? Are there any gaps in SGP global strategic guidance?
What is the level of appreciation of the grantees as regards the management support provided for by SGP?
Coordination What linkages (types and levels) exist between the SGP country programme (at the
programme and project levels) with the following:
Global and regional programmes (i.e., global/regional conventions); National environmental strategies and programmes
Local governments and authorities National or regional GEF-funded projects (have any large GEF projects approached SGP
for cooperation?) Bilateral donors and other multilateral agencies (including the WB and other UN
agencies) Private business sector
National Environmental Funds Other small grants programmes
Relationship with the GEF National Focal Point
12
Are there linkages and collaboration among communities and NGOs that are participants of SGP? Main purpose of those linkages and results?
Has SGP influenced/promoted dialogue, consultation and collaboration among civil society groups and with other players (government, donors, etc.) and has it been able to open new channels of consultation?
Is there communication with other SGP participating countries and for what purposes?
Country Programme Strategy Does the Country Programme Strategy (CPS): Reflect the strategic direction of the second operational phase?
Help programming and implementation? Link the SGP to the GEF Focal Areas and Operational Programmes?
Help focusing on priorities to enhance programme impact? Respond to the needs and aspirations of the participating communities and groups?
Has clear components related to capacity-building and guidance to meet GEF Council benchmarks?
Has there been a revision of the CPS to address emerging issues or to respond to recommendations of the Biennial Programme Review?
Operational, Administrative and financial aspects What are the staffing arrangements to manage SGP, particularly if linked to the operation
of other UNDP small grants programme management? Are these adequate when compared with the size of the project portfolio and other non-project activities (i.e., capacity building, resources mobilization, mainstreaming and cooperation, communications, etc.)?
Has there been efforts to expand support to grantees through partnerships or other innovative mechanisms such as United Nations Volunteers, university graduates and interns, other volunteer schemes, JPOs, etc.?
What is the ratio of grant versus non-grant (operational) costs? It the SGP operational budget considered sufficient to achieve the expected outputs and
results (i.e., those established by the SGP prodoc and CPS)? Can the SGP expand its number of projects without increasing operational costs?
Does the current CPS provide for geographical concentration to reduce project management costs?
Is programme administration and financial management conducted effectively? Are there aspects that could be improved to reduce transaction costs?
Are other donors contributing to SGP activities willing to cover non-grant costs associated with implementation of co-financing resources? Are there possibilities of maintaining the current level of resources mobilization in the medium-term?
13
PROGRAMME IMPACT
Project portfolio:
The project portfolio should be described in terms of coverage of the various GEF Focal areas and Operational Programmes and the types of interventions implemented. This should be done against the CPS, which identifies the focus and types of interventions that are relevant to the specific country situation. Field visits should combine both projects funded under prior SGP phases and projects approved during the second operational phase to enable the evaluation team assess results and potential impact of activities. The following issues may be considered:
Whether projects fit the GEF criteria.
Whether livelihood activities have been addressed to meet community needs Whether during the second operational phase there are new trends in project types of
interventions or approaches and what are the reasons for these changes Are there innovations?
What seems to work best and what are the reasons for it? Are there signs of project sustainability?
Are there any identifiable project impacts? Are there any lessons regarding technologies or approaches?
Capacity development What are the capacity development approaches and activities of the country programme?
Are these integrated in the CPS and in project design and implementation? Gender and indigenous peoples have been identified in the project document as target groups, therefore it is important to consider this aspect across the various activities of the evaluation.
What are the types and levels of skills developed among grantees? Given to total portfolio, what is the percentage of projects where (a) substantial; (b)
moderate; (c) limited capacity development has occurred? What are the causes for successful or limited capacity development?
Do the communities/NGOs have the skills and are empowered enough to establish key linkages with other environment and development actors on their own?
Have the communities been able to take the lead in solving the problems that come along their way? Have they been able to develop and implement creative solutions?
Are there signs that communities that have benefited from SGP support have help other communities in addressing similar problems?
Sustainability Has the income of project participants increased when the project had a sustainable
livelihood component? Are these increases in income sustainable from the environmental, social and financial point of view?
Have sustainable livelihoods decreased pressure on the environment? Do the participants clearly relate project activities with the local/global environment?
14
How much of the country portfolio can be said to be (a) already sustainable; (b) has potential for sustainability in the short term; (c) would require long term subsidies in view of the social/economic context in which the community lives?
What reasons/factors have helped develop sustainability or hinder it?
Have projects been able to attract other partners to help achieve sustainability (e.g., local government support)?
Have projects been able to influence policies that would provide an enabling environment for sustainability?
Leverage What percentage of projects have community/NGO co-financing and what is its
estimated value? How many other partners are providing cash and in kind support to SGP projects both at
the country programme and project levels? What is the amount of co-financing? Has SGP been able to attract new donors to its area of influence?
Are SGP projects being up-scaled or replicated? What seem to be favorable conditions for this to happen? Are there any projects up-scaled to GEF medium-sized projects? Has this happen with other sources of funds?
Are SGP and its partners contributing to policy and institutional changes in favor of efforts similar to the SGP's?
What are the reasons/factors that fostered or hindered SGP in influencing broader policy development?
Awareness Raising What are the awareness raising activities of the GSP for programme and project
participants ant for the public at large?
In conducting the project site visits the current level of awareness of SGP grantees on global environmental issues should be assessed.
What are the reasons/factors in the programme and projects that helped develop or hindered a strong awareness of global environmental issues?
Is the awareness developed translated into action? What are these?
LESSONS LEARNT
Many of the questions above will provide the inputs for this section. It would still be helpful, however, if key respondents (the National Coordinator, the NSC members, key community and NGO representatives, other partners) are also asked for the lessons learnt and best practices from their perspective.
It will be important to verify whether there is documentation of lessons learnt and the extent to which these are being applied and by whom.
15
Annex 6
SGP Participating Countries
Country Date of Joining GEF/SGP CBD ratified on UNFCCC ratified on
AFRICA 1. Botswana 1992 12-Oct-95 27-Jan-942. Burkina Faso 1992 2-Sep-93 2-Sep-933. Cote d'Ivoire 1993 29-Nov-94 29-Nov-944. Ghana 1993 29-Aug-94 6-Sep-955. Kenya 1993 26-Jul-94 30-Aug-946. Mali 1993 29-Mar-95 28-Dec-947. Mauritania 2001 16-Aug-96 20-Jan-948. Mauritius 1995 4-Sep-92 4-Sep-929. Namibia 2002 16-May-97 16-May-9510. Senegal 1993 17-Oct-94 17-Oct-9411. South Africa 2001 2-Nov-95 29-Aug-9712. Tanzania 1996 8-Mar-96 17-Apr-9613. Uganda 1996 8-Sep-93 8-Sep-9314. Zimbabwe 1993 11-Nov-94 3-Nov-92 ARAB STATES
15. Egypt 1993 2-Jun-94 5-Dec-9416. Jordan 1992 12-Nov-93 12-Nov-9317. Lebanon 2001 15-Dec-94 15-Dec-9418. Morocco 1996 21-Aug-95 28-Dec-9519. Palestinian Authority
1996 See note 4 below See note 4 below
20. Tunisia 1993 15-Jul-93 15-Jul-93
Country Date of Joining GEF/SGP
CBD ratified on UNFCCC ratified on
ASIA PACIFIC 21. Bhutan 1996 25-Aug-95 25-Aug-9522. India 1995 18-Feb-94 1-Nov-9323. Indonesia 1992 23-Aug-94 23-Aug-9424. Iran (Islamic Republic of) 2001 6-Aug-96 18-Jul-9625. Malaysia 1996 24-Jun-94 13-Jul-9426. Mongolia 2002 30-Sep-93 30-Sep-9327. Nepal 1993 23-Nov-93 2-May-9428. Pakistan 1993 26-Jul-94 1-Jun-9429. Papua New Guinea 1994 16-Mar-93 16-Mar-9330. Philippines 1992 8-Oct-93 2-Aug-9431. Sri Lanka 1994 23-Mar-94 23-Nov-9332. Thailand 1993 See note 2 below 28-Dec-94
33. Vietnam 1996 16-Nov-94 16-Nov-94EUROPE 34. Albania 1996 5-Jan-94 3-Oct-9435. Kazakstan 1996 6-Sep-94 17-May-9536. Krygyzstan 2001 06-Aug-96 (acs) 25-May-00 (ac)
37. Lithuania 2001 1-Feb-96 24-Mar-9538. Poland 1994 18-Jan-96 28-Jul-9439. Turkey 1993 14-Feb-97 See note 3 belowLATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
40. Barbados (see note 5) 1994 10-Dec-93 23-Mar-9441. Belize 1993 30-Dec-93 31-Oct-9442. Bolivia 1992 3-Oct-94 3-Oct-9443. Brazil 1994 28-Feb-94 28-Feb-9444. Chile 1992 9-Sep-94 22-Dec-9445. Costa Rica 1993 26-Aug-94 26-Aug-9446. Dominican Republic 1993 25-Nov-96 7-Oct-9847. Ecuador 1994 23-Feb-93 23-Feb-9348. El Salvador 2001 8-Sep-94 4-Dec-9549. Guatemala* 1996 10-Jul-95 15-Dec-9550. Honduras 2001 31-Jul-95 19-Oct-9551. Mexico 1994 11-Mar-93 11-Mar-93
2
52. Peru 1996 7-Jun-93 7-Jun-9353. Trinidad and Tobago (6) 1995 1-Aug-96 24-Jun-94
Notes:
1. All countries above are eligible under paragraph 9(b) of the GEF Instrument.
2. The Thailand country programme is not eligible for making grants in the biodiversity focal area.
3. The Turkey country programme is not eligible for making grants in the climate change focal area.
4. Eligibility in accordance with Mr. El-Ashry's (GEF, CEO) letter to Council members of August 2, 1996.
5. The Barbados programme is regional and also covers the following countries: Antigua and Barbuda (CBD March 9, 1993; UNFCCC February 2, 1993); Dominica (CBD April 6, 1994; UNFCCC June 21, 1993); Grenada (CBD August 11, 1994; UNFCCC August 11, 1994); St Kitts and Nevis (CBD January 7, 1993; UNFCCC January 7, 1993); Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (CBD June 3, 1996; UNFCCC December 2, 1996); and Saint Lucia (CBD July 28, 1993; UNFCCC June 14, 1993).
6. The Trinidad and Tobago programme also covers Suriname (CBD January 12, 1996; UNFCCC October 14, 1997).
3
![STAS 4273 (1983) [G52]](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/577c81eb1a28abe054aeae52/stas-4273-1983-g52.jpg)
