Partnerships for Sustainable Development GEF SEPTEMBER 1001 Contents What is GEF? .....................................................................4 GEF and the ECE Region: Collaborating for a Sustainable Future .......................... 5 GEF in the Region: Response to Past and Present Challenges .............................. 7 Energy ........................................................................... 8 Biodiversity ...................................................................... 15 International Waters .............................................................. 18 Ozone Depletion: Closing a Chapter .................................................. 22 Learning from Experience, Working in Partnership ..................................... 24 Annex A: GEF in Action: Projects in the ECE Region .................................... 27 Annex B: National Focal Points ...................................................... 37 Annex C: Council Members and ECE Constituencies ....................................42 3 What Is GEF? Following a three-year pilot phase (1991-1994), • GEF assistance is enabling the Russian the Global Environment Facility was formally Federation and nations in Eastern Europe to launched in 1994 to forge cooperation and phase out the use of ozone-destroying chemi- finance actions addressing four critical threats cals in partnership with the Montreal Protocol to the global environment: biodiversity loss, of the Vienna Convention on Ozone Layer climate change, degradation of international Depleting Substances. waters, and ozone depletion. Activities con- • GEF initiatives to reverse the degradation of cerning land degradation, primarily desertifi- international waters are informed by and help cation and deforestation as they relate to these to realize the objectives of a mosaic of region- critical threats, are also addressed. al and global waters agreements. • Initiatives that cut across GEF's four focal GEF, the only new funding source to emerge areas to address land degradation are pursued from the 1992 Earth Summit, counts 168 in cooperation with the Convention to countries as members today. During its first Combat Desertification. decade, GEF allocated $3.2 billion in grant financing, supplemented by more than $8 bil- GEF capitalizes on the operational capacities lion in additional financing, for 800 projects of three implementing agencies-the U.N. in 156 developing nations and countries with Development Programme (UNDP), U.N. economies in transition. Environment Programme (UNEP), and World Bank-that play key roles in managing GEF- GEF is designated as the "financial mecha- financed activities. These organizations con- nism" for three international treaties and col- tribute expertise to GEF within their respec- laborates closely with other treaties and agree- tive spheres of competence and facilitate coop- ments to reach common goals: eration in implementing GEF-financed activi- ties through a broad range of executing agen- • The Convention on Biological Diversity and cies. Additional international bodies have the United Nations Framework Convention on been accorded expanded opportunities to Climate Change designated GEF to assist work directly with GEF in project identifica- developing countries in meeting convention tion and preparation. These currently include objectives. GEF receives guidance from the the African Development Bank, the Asian conferences of parties to these international Development Bank, the European Bank for conventions on the policies, program priori- Reconstruction and Development, the Inter- ties, and eligibility criteria to be applied for American Development Bank, the Food and this purpose. Agriculture Organization of the United • In May 2001 1 the Conference of Nations, the International Fund for Plenipotentiaries on the Stockholm Agricultural Development, and the U.N. Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Industrial Development Organization. designated GEF as the financial mechanism 9n an interim basis. The POPs Convention was opened for signature at the conference in Stockholm. 4 GEF and the ECE Region: Collaborating for a Sustainable Future A message from Mohamed T. El-Ashry, CEO and Chairman, Global Environment Facility Eastern and Central Europe and the Newly Independent States encompass a region of 2 both transition and opportunity. In 10 short years, these countries have made great strides socially, economically, and politically. Nonetheless, the challenges that remain are signifi- cant. The impacts of past policies and practices on the region's environment have been particu- larly severe: inefficient delivery and use of natural resources, such as energy, freshwater, and timber, as well as inattention to the impacts of industrial and other human activities have degraded natural ecosystems, threatened biodiversity, and damaged land, water, and air nationally and across borders. In the past decade, the region's governments have worked hard to overcome these prob- lems and move toward sustainable development. Some notable characteristics of many countries that make up the region may assist the transition to sustainable approaches. For example, a strong history of cooperation among states bodes well for addressing major problems in shared terrestrial, freshwater, and marine systems. In addition, many coun- tries still possess extensive forests, grasslands, and wetlands, which shelter sometimes globally significant biodiversity and may yet be conserved for the balanced use of future generations. The Global Environment Facility, since its inception, has supported countries in the region. GEF projects have worked to smooth the transition to clean and efficient energy markets; preserve remaining forests and biodiversity, while finding ways to use them sus- tainably; promote cooperation among neighboring countries to ensure the health of shared land and waterways; and enable 19 countries to prepare and implement phase-out programs for ozone depleting substances. The fact that national and regional environmental agendas in the area closely align with GEF's global program has facilitated our efforts. The local and global linkages are strong. Improving the region's poor energy efficiency, for example, will increase the competitive- ness of economies, attract more investment, lower energy costs for consumers, and reduce pollution, while lowering the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. Addressing the degradation of regional waterways through multicountry international col- laboration has obvious local benefits in water quality and quantity and for people's health. In all its efforts, GEF and its implementing agencies-UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank-work closely with governments and a range of national stakeholders to ensure their ownership and direction of projects. Both small and large entrepreneurs in the 2 This region, referred to throughout the report, encompasses Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, 5 Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Tajikistan, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Yugoslavia. region, for example, have participated in GEF projects implemented in their countries. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have designed and implemented GEF projects. 1 Strong national coordination among all stakeholders has been a key to GEF s success. For countries in economic transition, GEF has been the primary source of financing to assist enterprises in shifting to ozone-friendly technologies. In addition to funding tech- nology improvements, its support included technical expertise, dissemination of project lessons within and among countries, and assistance in establishing suitable legal frame- works. The dwindling number of ozone projects in implementation is evidence of the 1 1 region s success in overcoming this threat. Still better evidence is the last decade s 90 per- cent drop in consumption of ozone depleting substances in I 5 countries receiving GEF support. Nature does not neatly segment environmental problems by natural resource or geogra- phy. Environmental problems, such as land and forest degradation, water pollution, and 1 climate change are interrelated. They also cross borders; one country s problems may easi- 1 ly affect another s. For these reasons, GEF has established programs that strengthen link- ages among its operational areas. We recently launched a major operational program for integrated ecosystem management that links climate change, biodiversity, land degrada- tion, and watershed management. GEF also strongly supports transboundary waters pro- jects in the region. For many states, GEF funding is, in fact, crucial for regional coopera- tion, as many of these countries lack the funding needed to participate, much less build, the capacity of government agencies to do so effectively. All GEF projects with countries with economies in transition, in fact, benefit from lessons learned around the world. GEF understands the challenges that countries with economies in transition face. We want to work as your ally in finding ways to meet them. Our role, simply put, is to serve as a catalyst: we are forging true partnerships with ECE govern- ments, bilateral and multilateral organizations, NGOs, private enterprises, the grassroots, and other stakeholders. Such collaboration is crucial for creating a policy setting that cuts across sectors and assures that future generations, as much as present, will benefit sus- tainably from the bounty of remaining natural systems. In the coming decade, GEF hopes to deepen and broaden its partnerships with ECE states. Based on what we learn from your deliberations at the ECE Regional Meeting in Geneva and that of the other regional meetings, we will propose how GEF can best contribute to your sustainable development efforts by financing activities to better manage the global environment. We welcome and encourage your input to our efforts during these impor- tant gatherings to recognize and build on ten years of progress since the i 992 Earth Summit. 6 Central Europe, in contrast to Western GEF in the Region: Europe, still have many natural, indigenous habitats. Historically, small-scale forestry, con- Response to Past and centration of industry, and less extensive road and railroad networks have served to diminish Present Challenges pressures on plant and animal species diversi- ty throughout the region, some of internation- For a decade, GEF's mandate has been to assist al importance, such as migratory birds. countries in addressing global environmental problems. GEF defrays the added costs of In addition, the region is crisscrossed with making existing or planned development pro- transboundary lakes and river basins, such as jects friendly to the global environment, the Danube. These provide abundant freshwa- including through regional approaches to ter supplies for drinking, irrigation, and other global environmental problems. By linking uses, if their quality is maintained. The entire closely to national priorities, GEF projects region is surrounded by enclosed or semi- promise local communities substantial sus- enclosed large marine ecosystems, such as the tainable benefits, benefits that in some cases Azov, Aral, Baltic, Black, Caspian, Medi- have already been delivered. Since i991, GEF terranean, and White seas, which are impor- has worked closely with many countries in the tant for commerce and fisheries. region to fulfill their aspirations to attain sus- tainable societies. With the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation and the nations of Eastern Ongoing structural changes in the region's Europe and Central Asia faced enormous chal- governments and institutions offer much lenges in shifting to market economies. To promise in this quest. Until very recently, the meet their obligations under the Montreal region's energy use has been characterized by Protocol, countries faced carrying out a com- persistent inefficiency, and fossil fuel pollu- plicated shift to ozone-friendly technologies, tion has been both a social and environmental along with the potential loss of hundreds of concern. However, with an expanding private thousands of jobs. Ineligible for assistance sector, improvements in government and through the Multilateral Ozone Fund, and institutional policies, and the presence of a lacking the resources to undertake compliance robust scientific community, there are consid- efforts, the region's countries needed assis- erable opportunities to make key energy effi- tance for these targeted, one-time transitions. ciency improvements among all sectors of society and expand energy conservation The Past Decade's Challenges efforts. In the past decade, the countries of the region, however, have been forced to grapple with The natural resources and ecological systems numerous environmental challenges in their of the region form a valuable foundation. transition to market economies: 4 Seventy percent of Eastern Europe still com- • Energy. Inefficient energy use drives many prises natural forests and grasslands. 3 Re- of the region's environmental problems, forestation has helped Central Europe regain including acidification of soils and pollution forest cover; Hungary, for example, has of land, air, and water by heavy metals and increased its forest area by o.6 million particulates. Transport of oil and gas results in hectares in the past 50 years. Both Eastern and spills and leakages. 3 Information for this section is taken primarily from UNEP. "Chapter Two: The State of the Environment: Europe and Central Asia." GE0-2000, Global Environment Outlook. . 7 4 Much of the following information is taken from UNEP (2000). • I.and. Large-scale farming operations, heavy machinery use, and widespread use of pesti- GEF's Response in the Past Decade cides and fertilizers have degraded and acidi- Since its inception, GEF has allocated more fied farmlands. Contaminants include heavy than $509 million to i48 projects in 29 states metals, persistent organic pollutants, and arti- in the region. 5 These projects attracted more ficial radionuclides, which end up in ground than twice as much in co-financing ($1,020 and surface waters. Salinization of soils and million) from other organizations and govern- water logging are additional problems. ments. An additional 79 projects are now "in • Biodiversity. Plant and animal species have the pipeline." been affected by alien species, overexploita- tion of resources, mass tourism, and changes In its first decade, GEF efforts addressed four in agricultural, forest, and water management, "focal areas" of concern, that is, biodiversity notably along the Central European flyway, conservation, climate change, international which provides globally important nesting waters, and ozone depletion. These correlate and feeding grounds for migratory birds. Air with environmental issues of concern to resi- pollution, pest outbreaks, drought, and fires dents of Eastern and Central Europe and the are damaging forests, especially in Central Newly Independent States: biodiversity loss, Europe, where air pollution is the highest. energy conservation and efficiency, degrada- Vast areas of forest around industrial centers tion of shared water resources, and protecting in Eastern Europe suffer the effects of acidifi- the ozone layer. The following sections cation and soils contaminated with heavy met- explore GEF responses to these issues, high- als. Systems of nature protection must com- lighted by more detailed descriptions of spe- pete for limited government funds and are cific projects in boxes. often a low priority. • Waters. Dam and canal construction, large irrigation and drainage systems, changes of Energy land cover, high inputs of chemicals from Countries in economic transition are notable industry and agriculture into surface and for highly inefficient energy use and severe ground water, and depletion of aquifers are pollution from fossil fuels. Progress in profoundly impacting freshwater systems. improving energy efficiency has been limited Overuse, depletion, eutrophication, and pollu- in the past by, among other reasons, an indus- tion are the results, as well as human health trial infrastructure employing outdated tech- impacts and conflicts among various uses and nologies; a large share of energy intensive users. Enclosed and semi-enclosed seas are industries; subsidized energy prices; and highly sensitive to pollution. decelerated technological progress. 6 Regional • Ozone. As parties to the Montreal Protocol, choices in fuels for energy (e.g., brown coal the region's countries were required to trans- and oil shales) have contributed significant form key areas of their industrial sectors to quantities of air pollutants and greenhouse make technically complex and sometimes gases to the atmosphere, although some coun- expensive transitions away from the use of tries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia have ozone-depleting chemicals, all in the midst of been switching during recent years to cleaner- devastating upheavals in local and national burning fuels (oil, gas, and hydro) for generat- economies. ing electricity, helping to reduce air pollution. 7 5 GEF has financed projects in the following ECE states: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Yugoslavia. 6 8 Unless otherwise noted, information in this section is taken from World Energy Assessment Energy and the OWleoge of Sustainability, United Nations Development Programme, 2000 (New York., NY), pp. 1~191 7 UNEP. 2000. GE0-2000. "Chapter Two: The State of the Environment - Europe and Central • • According to the World Energy Assessment produced by UNDP and the World Energy GEF Objectives for Energy-Related Council as a background document for the Projects Ninth Session of the Commission on As the financial mechanism for the U.N. Sustainable Development (CSD 9), economic Framework Convention on Climate Change restructuring in the region is now playing a (UNFCCC), GEF finances energy-related pro- decisive role in improving energy efficiency 1 jects that help fulfill the Convention s central because market pricing has largely replaced objective. This is to stabilize greenhouse gas central planning as the primary factor in allo- concentrations in the atmosphere at a level cation and consumption of energy supplies. that will prevent dangerous anthropogenic Within economies in transition, industrial 1 interference with the climate system. GEF s energy use has contracted overall because of objectives for energy and climate change pro- structural changes, although this has been out- jects are to: weighed by rapid growth in road transporta- • Remove barriers to energy conservation and tion and, in some countries, electricity energy efficiency demand for appliances and services. In gener- • Promote the adoption of renewable energy al, however, structural changes in industry, by removing barriers and reducing implemen- integration with global markets, and invest- tation costs ments in new processes, buildings, and infra- • Reduce the long-term costs of low green- structure are likely to improve the region's house gas-emitting energy technologies. energy efficiency over the next 20 years. This • Foster more environmentally sustainable will help stabilize energy demand, despite ris- transportation systems ing incomes. This pattern varies considerably by country; in some cases, efficiency gains GEF Energy Projects in the Region have been stagnant or even declining. Key aspects of energy-related GEF projects Significant gains could be achieved in the include equipment installations and demon- region, the World Energy Assessment states, strations, capacity building, new institutions through improved energy efficiency in indus- and financing services, market transforma- try, residential buildings, and commercial and tion, and engagement of the private sector and public sectors. For instance, potential energy NGOs in projects. In many cases, GEF projects efficiency gains of 40 percent through focus on creating an enabling environment improved building materials, i5-20 percent in for technology transfer-by reducing market residential heat metering, 40 percent in domestic warm water consumption, and 20-30 percent in heat demand in buildings with improved thermal insulation are possible and economic. Improved boilers and heating sys- tems, insulation, high-efficiency window sys- tems, and new lighting systems could also make significant efficiency gains in commer- cial and public sectors. 9 barriers to technology diffusion and assuring agencies like the German development bank, codes, standards, and certification programs KfW, and prominent high technology firms are in place to minimize transaction costs. from Europe, North America and Japan, GEF Energy-related GEF projects continue to is promoting the prospect of "technology evolve as GEF demonstrates new approaches, leapfrogging" (moving directly to next genera- learns from experience, and leverages limited tion technology rather than simply the best resources to address the enormous challenges technology in current use in the industrialized presented by climate change. countries). GEF projects in the region involve many part- Energy Efficiency ners by: GEF activities in this area are designed to: • Engaging the private sector in energy mar- • Remove barriers to large-scale application, kets by strengthening entrepreneurial activi- implementation, and dissemination of least- ties and promoting banks and businesses cost commercially established or newly devel- involvement in energy markets. oped energy-efficient technologies and pro- • Working with municipalities to introduce mote more efficient energy use, reducing energy efficiency in long-neglected district greenhouse gases. (Examples include enhanc- heating systems, for instance, by financing ing demand-side management, particularly in equipment upgrades and helping to reform basic materials industries, transport, and hous- tariff structures ing; establishing and strengthening adminis- • Strengthening government institutions trative capabilities; and encouraging support- involved in the energy system such as utility ive legal, regulatory, and policy changes.) regulators and building code authorities • Ensure the sustainability of "win-win" cir- • Educating consumers on energy efficiency cumstances by demonstrating cost recovery and renewable energy and facilitating mainstream financial support, • Supporting NGOs and local community including from multilateral development groups interested in clean energy services. banks • Facilitate a learning process for widespread Involving private enterprises, both large and replication of energy conservation and energy small and domestic and international, has efficiency projects. many benefits, including achieving leverage in financing efforts, gaining a source of technolo- GEF-financed energy efficiency projects have gy and ideas, and increasing the sustainability demonstrated important and effective of efforts and their replication elsewhere. approaches for facilitating and accelerating greater demand and supply of energy-efficient The GEF also uniquely works with donor gov- manufactured products, particularly for light- ernments and the private sector to develop ing, but also for refrigerators, motors, and and commercialize new energy technologies, building materials. The benefits from almost S such as fuel cells, solar thermal power plants, million efficient lights installed through GEF and biomass gasification for power genera- projects are being sustained and replicated on tion. While such technologies potentially larger scales. Sustained market price reduc- offer major economic and environmental ben- tions are occurring as a result of projects. In efits, their high initial costs and risks are a dis- addition, the carbon abatement impacts from incentive for their development outside the such approaches appear to be highly cost- industrialized nations. In partnership with effective. 10 Most of GEF's projects in the ECE region to • Bulgaria. This country's energy use is more date involve energy efficiency. Since 1991, than twice the average of the European GEF has funded 16 energy efficiency projects Union; more than half its energy has been in the ECE region, allocating more than $7 4 imported petroleum, natural gas, and coal. The million in GEF funding and nearly $249 mil- country's transition to a market economy has lion in cofinancing from other sources. provided opportunities to increase energy effi- ciency and reduce the energy intensity of its • Hungary. Energy intensity in Hungary is 70 economy as well as greenhouse gas emissions. to 80 percent higher than the average for This GEF project, implemented by UNDP, is OECD countries. Huge opportunities have designed to address (a) Bulgaria's limited existed in industry, commerce, and the public experience in incorporating energy efficiency and domestic sectors in heating systems, light- into private and public decision making and ing, and process modernization. With the in developing and implementing energy effi- transition to a market economy and removal ciency programs, (b) uncertainty on energy of energy subsidies, energy prices have soared. and economic savings expected from different Financing investments for energy efficiency energy products and programs, and (c) inade- projects, particularly through energy service quate infrastructure for delivering technical, companies (ESCOs), which could address managerial, and financial services required by these problems, has not been easy. GEF's an energy-efficient society. Hungary Energy Efficiency Cofinancing Program (HEECP), implemented by the World Renewable Energy Bank Group's International Finance Corp- GEF projects on renewable energy work to oration (IFC), is promoting a new financing remove barriers to the use of commercial or mechanism for energy efficiency. The project near-commercial renewable energy technolo- is financing commercialization of energy effi- gies due to low-volume or dispersed applica- ciency by offering up to 50 percent guarantees tion. Examples include photovoltaics, combus- to financial intermediaries, which enable tion of agricultural residues to generate heat · ESCOs to borrow at levels normally not feasi- and power, and other technologies for using ble due to their relatively weak balance sheets. biofuels, methane control technologies for • Poland. Beginning in 1994, GEF funded the waste disposal, and wind power. Supporting Poland Energy Efficient Lighting project, measures include organizational reform and implemented by IFC through a private sector · innovative financing. GEF funds a variety of utility company, to stimulate the national mar- renewable energy projects supporting a range ket for compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) (see of technologies- from solar, wind, and geot- box p.14). The project supported local manu- hermal to less well-known sources, such as facturers and retailers by providing funding fuel cells and bagasse-based energy genera- for subsidies to lower the retail price for these tion. Since 1991, GEF has funded five renew- lights. A strong public education component able energy projects in the region, represent- helped increase demand for the lights. As a ing nearly $16 million in GEF funding and result, the price of CFLs has decreased signifi- nearly $26 million in co-financing. cantly and the percentage of Polish house- holds using CFLs jumped from 10 percent to • Slovak Republic. The combustion of fossil 33 percent. fuels (coal and coke) for heating purposes in the schools and other installations of north- west Slovakia causes severe environmental 11 12 The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the Global Environment Facility (GEF). 13 and socioeconomic impacts, including green- house gas emissions, local air pollution, high Sustainable transport operation costs, and dependence on fuel This is a relatively new type of GEF activity imports. This situation could be changed by following approval of a new operational pro- introducing environmentally and economical- gram in 1999· These projects work to promote ly sound technology based on wood pellet · shifts to less energy intensive transportation combustion in new boilers. A new GEF pro- systems and commercialization of new more ject, implemented by UNDP, is supporting cre- sustainable transportation technologies. Since ation of a sustainable market for biomass 1991 GEF has funded one such project in the energy for heat generation in northwest region at a cost of s 1 million, supplemented Slovakia by addressing institutional, financial, by s 1 . 5 million in co-financing from other and informational market barriers. Its specific sources. objectives are to create a commercial wood pellet market in the region by constructing a The Gdansk Cycling Infrastructure project is a central processing unit for pellet production UNDP-implemented transport project that was from wood waste. It will also provide a replic- proposed and is being executed by a local able, environmentally friendly source of heat NGO, the Polish Ecological Club. The project's in forty-four schools and public buildings by goal is to reduce transport-derived greenhouse replacing existing coal/coke boilers with pel- gas emissions by developing a model infra- let-fired boilers. The project will be replicated in neighboring municipalities and in at least one other region of the country. • Lithuania. This country currently imports oil for fuel, which, when burned, emits pollutants and greenhouse gases. Studies have shown the country to have significant geothermal re- sources that could replace up to 50 percent of current fuel consumption in district heating systems. This GEF project, implemented by the World Bank, worked to demonstrate the feasibility and value of using low temperature geothermal water as a renewable energy resource for use in district heating systems. Combining grants from GEF and the Euro- pean Union and a loan from the World Bank, the project financed investments in produc- tion and injection wells, above ground facili- ties, and piping for the entire extraction oper- ation and connections to the district heating system in Klaipeda. A Danish grant funded a technical assistance component. Continued development of Lithuania's geothermal re- sources could cover up to 20 percent of dis- trict heating demand and reduce annual car- bon dioxide emissions by 750,000 tons and sulfur dioxide emissions by 22,000 tons. 14 structure facility program in Gdansk to help individual citizens change their primary mode of transport from cars to bicycles. The model-and the experience gained-will be disseminated at the national level to help other local author- ities develop similar, cost-efficient infrastruc- ture measures and policies. Biodiversity The outstanding biodiversity of the region is under threat from unsustainable land uses and transboundary air pollution, coupled with weak policies to ensure its protection. Several areas, previously under military control or in border areas, had escaped pressures faced by ecosystems in neighboring regions during the past 50 years, but these have been opened for exploitation, increasing visitor and agricultur- al pressure. A window of opportunity exists to introduce long-term protective management systems. Many of the areas under protection in this region suffer from acid precipitation, agricultural mechanization, tourism, and recreation. Many of the region's semi-natural grasslands, heathlands, garrigues, and impor- tant bird areas are currently not protected; with only 20 percent, for example, of European farmlands managed under some form of sustainable agri-environmental pro- gram. Additional problems in the region include the following: • Challenge of integrating biodiversity con- cerns into various human activities, taking into account historical and sectoral approach- es to resource management • Methodological constraints to estimating the potential value of biodiversity, especially with- in ecosystems of global importance in nation- al accounts • Lack of assessment of the status of genetic resources in the region 15 • Difficulty of enforcing in situ conservation measures, in contrast to the past when the GEF Objectives for Biodiversity Projects land in the majority of the region was public, Consistent with the guidance from the and land use and management of biological Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD), GEF- resources was coordinated by government- financed biodiversity conservation and sus- controlled entities. Privatization, reprivatiza- tainable use projects generally seek to protect tion, and restitution of land within the region intact ecosystems by establishing and has resulted in a mosaic of property rights, strengthening ways of conserving areas con- including farm fragmentation. taining globally significant species. Sustain- • Rapid changes in land ownership have bro- able use objectives simultaneously address ken the link of the farmer (and generally land- conservation and production needs. In the owner) to the land, threatening biodiversity. case of forests, for example, this will be • Absence of proper impact assessment of sought through a range of uses from strict development projects in the past, generating protection on reserves through various forms severe local environmental degradation, espe- of multiple use. Within the region, specific 1 cially in the region s major wetlands, and objectives of projects that have been funded sometimes accompanied by heavy social and by the GEF include: economic consequences. • Protecting and strengthening representative ecosystem biodiversity of global significance, The region greatly needs: mainly in transboundary areas • Clearly defined methodologies that will rec- • Developing biodiversity protection pro- oncile the current dynamic in economic and grams with a range of activities, including political development with the restraint management techniques for a variety of repre- required to prevent significant biotic depreda- sentative ecosystems, environmental educa- tion. tion and awareness, and community support • Mechanisms to encourage participation of for managing protected areas local communities in managing protected e Developing conservation and sustainable areas. This should concentrate on education, use programs based on revenue generation training, and arbitration measures as well as mechanisms for protected areas, interactions looking specifically at development of con- with local communities and land managers, structive relationships with vulnerable groups. sustainable development strategies, and vari- ous forms of demonstration activities GEF began its activities in the region within and in support of the rapid transition from centrally planned to market economies. Forest and wetland resources, for example, were at great risk of unsustainable resource exploita- tion, because the transition to a market econo- my created strong pressures for rapid short- term production. In addition, the new admin- istrative and political decentralization process had assigned the responsibility of policy implementation to the local level, which has resulted in a loss of coordination and a mini- mal implementation of laws and activity regu- lation. 16 • Wetlands and floodplains. The GEF supports GEF Biodiversity Projects in the Region many of the region's extensive wetlands and GEF-financed biodiversity conservation and floodplains of global significance. The flood- sustainable use projects are multifaceted and plains of the Danube and Vistula rivers, the integrate a range of actions protecting the ecological corridor along the northwest Black integrity of ecosystems, while generating ben- Sea shelf in Ukraine, and the area surround- efits for local communities by involving them ing Lake Baikal in the Russian Federation, in resource management. These projects have contain the region's highest diversity of also experimented with financial mechanisms species. The Kopacki Rit wetlands project in for long-term funding for conservation Croatia establishes in situ conservation for through innovative funding mechanisms, over 200 endemic floral species. The wetlands including trust funds and revolving funds. and surrounding watersheds in the Borsodi Megoseg landscape protected area in Hungary Small countries, which are often linked by covers over 100 streams and rivers, which are transboundary terrestial and water systems, breeding grounds for many endangered bird comprise much of the region. Thus mountain species. Romania's wetlands floral diversity ranges and extensive river systems are often consists of more than 3, 700 species and its shared by several nations, requiring efforts faunal diversity has over 33,800 species, all protecting biological diversity to cross bor- endemic to the region. The Palava floodplain ders. In the Carpathian and other mountain remnants in the Czech Republic, which ranges, GEF financing assisted countries in includes the internationally significant RAM- setting up regional coordination and cross-bor- SAR wetland of the Morava and Dyje rivers der alliances to address the threats to these abutting Austria and the Slovak Republic, con- resources (see box p.18). tain endemic, rare, and endangered plants, which are shared by five countries (Germany, Major ecosystems in which GEF has funded Poland, Austria, Slovak Republic, and projects include: Hungary). • Transboundary mountains. The Carpathian mountains contain a fourth of the flora of • Forests. In the Caucasus forests of Georgia, Europe, many endemic and medicinal plants, biodiversity conservation approaches are and the largest remaining European stands ·o f being integrated with forestry and range man- virgin beech forest (20,000 hectares). The agement through partnerships between Bialowieza Primeval Forest is the last remnant Georgian NGOs and the government. In the of European lowland forest, and the adjacent Carpathian forests in Romania, the Piatra Sudety Mountain forest ecosystem contain the Craiului Biosphere Reserve (pristine mountain heavily polluted "Black Triangle" of southwest forests), Retezat National Park (coniferous for- Poland. The Sumava mountains, abutting the est/alpine meadow), and Neamt and Suceava German Bavarian forests, contains one of the National Parks (mixed hill forest and mead- region's endemic species, but after being ows/reintroduction of European bison) newly opened to recreation after years of tight received funding for protection and demon- military restrictions, currently suffers from stration activities with local communities. overuse and degradation. These globally sig- Forest cover will be conserved in sites sur- nificant mountain ranges are under threat by rounding four priority protected areas in the unsustainable land uses and transboundary Russian Federation's Kamchatka Oblast and in air pollution. four protected areas in a regional project 17 (Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan) through in situ forest conservation, capacity building, awareness raising, and promoting alternative livelihoods for local communities. International Waters In the region, major rivers drain vast areas with humid to semi-arid climatic conditions and water from several mountain ranges (the Alps, Carpathians, Urals, Caucasus, and Hindu Kush) flow into enclosed and semi-enclosed seas (Black Sea, Caspian, Aral, and Baltic), which represent the final recipients of both water and contaminants. The major water systems of the region are suf- fering severe environmental degradation, par- ticularly the Aral Sea basin. High industrial- ization and population density, intensive use of fertilizers and pesticides in agriculture, unsustainable water abstractions from rivers, coupled with unregulated discharges of untreated wastes have contaminated the waters of the region. Excessive nutrient dis- charges from agriculture as well as point sources, together with problems related to navigation (ballast and bilge water discharges, spills, and alien species introduction) and pol- lution from highly toxic chemicals have been identified as the major transboundary envi- ronmental threats to the waters of the region. 18 The fact that the region consists of many GEF projects in international waters specifical- small countries results in many instances of ly work to ensure that countries: nations sharing river or lake basins and • Better understand the functioning of their marine ecosystems and, by extension, many international water systems environmental problems found in them. Poor • Gain an appreciation of how their sectoral land and water management in these basins, activities influence the water environment for instance, can result in downstream floods • Find means for collaborating with neighbor- and disruptions in flow, pollution, and deposi- ing countries to pursue effective solutions col- tion of eroded soil that damages infrastructure lectively. investments. Human activities can also adversely affect downstream marine ecosys- tems, such as the Baltic, Mediterranean, and Black seas, which are so economically impor- ; FUNDING FACTS ON GEF WATERS ~~¥i-p~OJECTS );, tant to various countries in the region. ;,". . Since its inception, GEE has allocated Transboundary water systems require inten- $loo m~llion in g;ants for 16, interna- sive management to address their special cir- w aters projects in, 21 ot the tional _ cumstances. Overcoming barriers to regional region's countries. These projects have cooperation among nations often represents the first, catalytic step to better management '''·~·:;att~Pcfed $204 rp,illion ir cofirJ:ancitJg. s ~ . of shared river and lake basins, or marine ecosystems. Each nation must often adopt equivalent policy, legal, and institutional reforms and make priority investments to Projects fall into three categories: restore transboundary waters to acceptable • Water body based These projects help conditions and uses sustained in the long groups of countries to work collaboratively in term without damaging downstream interests learning about and resolving priority trans- of other countries and other peoples. boundary water-related environmental con- cerns that exist in a specific water body. This GEF's Objective for Transboundary could be a transboundary freshwater drainage Water Resources basin that is regionally significant or a large marine ecosystem. GEF support helps over- GEF's primary objective for projects in inter- come barriers to organizational learning and national waters is to serve as a catalyst for transaction costs of working together by countries to implement a more comprehen- strengthening or developing a regional frame- sive ecosystem-based approach in managing work and in addressing sectoral causes of international waters and their drainage basins. major water resource problems. The aim is to overcome barriers to action so • Integrated land and water. These projects that the capacity of any particular water body integrate land and water resource manage- to support human activities sustainably is not ment as a primary component of addressing exceeded. GEF considers international waters the degradation of international waters. This to include oceans, large marine ecosystems, may involve other GEF concerns, for example, enclosed or semi-enclosed seas and estuaries biodiversity and climate change, and cross-cut- as well as rivers, lakes, groundwater systems, ting concerns, such as land degradation. and wetlands with transboundary drainage • Contaminant based. These projects demon- basins or common borders. They also include strate ways of overcoming barriers to adopt- any associated water-related ecosystems. 19 ing best practices to limit contamination of terranean Sea Against Pollution (Barcelona international waters, although not necessarily convention) to include human impacts (pollu- involving a transboundary situation. tion, loss of habitat, and overexploitation) on the sea's living resources. The project is also GEF International Waters Projects supporting production of national action pro- In the past decade, a number of the region's grams to identify country-driven priorities for countries have requested GEF international investments as well as policy, institutional, waters projects to help address issues that and legal reforms addressing land-based have arisen concerning transboundary water sources and human-induced degradation of systems. Nine industrialized countries are these resources. now collaborating with 21 GEF recipient coun- • Baltic Sea. Environmental protection of the tries on 16 GEF international waters projects Baltic Sea has a long tradition, most recently in the region. GEF funding is critical for allow- represented by the 1992 Convention on the ing countries in economic transition to partici- Protection of the Marine Environment of the pate with richer nations in making the sec- Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention). Joint toral reforms in policy and investments need- efforts by the nine countries concerned have ed to better manage these ecosystems. Al- benefited from sustained political commit- though GEF assistance is only provided to the ment and broad-based public support, in part recipient nations, additional action to address due to strong partnerships among the Baltic the transboundary priority issues is leveraged Sea Environment Protection Commission (or as nonrecipient nations take these extra steps HELCOM), the European Union, regional orga- as well. nizations, cooperating countries, and a range of local stakeholders. The World Bank and In places, such as the Danube River (see box, UNDP are developing a GEF-financed project p.21) and Mediterranean and Baltic seas, GEF supporting high-priority complementary activ- is playing a catalytic role, as countries enact ities to emphasize the sustainability of living reforms and make needed investments to pro- marine resources and accelerate reductions of tect shared water resources and systems agricultural nonpoint source pollution cost through international waters projects. In oth- effectively. With GEF assistance, three region- ers such as the Aral Sea Basin, commitments al commissions with jurisdiction over the to reform still have to be demonstrated and Baltic will also work together to integrate only limited GEF activities have been support- management of this large marine ecosystem. ed. A political commitment to regional cooper- ation is clearly essential. GEF international waters projects assist coun- • Mediterranean Sea. The semi-enclosed tries in a step-by-step process on a regional Mediterranean Sea occupies a major portion basis under regional conventions these coun- of the total basin area and is surrounded by tries have themselves enacted, such as the 20 countries. Despite tensions in the region, Helsinki Convention and Barcelona tourism is a driving force in encouraging col- Convention. The steps include: laboration on the water body these countries • A transboundary analysis of shared ecosys- share. The GEF international waters project tems to identify priority issues to be for the Mediterranean Sea is developing a addressed strategic action program; this will operational- • Agreement on priority actions needed in ize the biodiversity-related protocol to the each country and regionally to address the pri- Convention for the Protection of the Medi- ority issues and policy, legal, and institutional reforms and needed investments in a "strate- gic action program" 20 • Assistance to countries in conducting demonstration activities on how to use the alternative measures that will be the subject of the reforms. In cases in which no regional framework for cooperation exists, GEF may assist countries in establishing such a framework, as in the case of the Caspian Sea. 21 GEF's project for the Caspian environment is helping countries to set priorities on trans- boundary concerns, develop an action pro- gram to address the concerns, and facilitate establishment of a legal multicountry agree- ment on the protection of this highly vulnera- ble water body. The text of a Convention for the Protection of the Caspian Sea is presently under negotiation. GEF also assists countries in fine-tuning exist- ing frameworks to reflect implementation of the action programs, as in the case of the Danube River and Mediterranean and Black Ozone Depletion: Closing a seas. Chapter The engagement of civil society and NGOs has Since i992, GEF has offered assistance to been a significant feature of transboundary countries with economies in transition for waters projects, the first of which were phasing out ozone-depleting substances, as approved for the Danube Basin in i992 and mandated by the Montreal Protocol of the Black Sea in i993. Another has been GEF's Vienna Convention on Ozone Layer Depleting collaboration with the European Union. The Substances. steering committees for GEF international waters projects include major donors and All ozone projects funded by GEF have fol- NGOs as part of the projects. The Danube lowed similar strategies: primarily a series of NGO Forum and the more recent Black Sea investment subprojects to assist enterprises in Forum have provided an instrument for civil switching to ozone-friendly technologies. GEF society to discuss issues with project parties, has also contributed a variety of other non- countries, and donors in these international investment support, such as, technical exper- water systems. tise, support for learning, dissemination of project lessons within and among countries, With the European Union programs working and assistance in establishing suitable legal closely with GEF, donors have collaborated frameworks. GEF has sometimes supported under the joint framework of the strategic the full costs of subprojects and, in other action programs to join forces in more effec- cases, supported a few percent of the total tively addressing the transboundary priorities. costs of a project. With participation of civil society in the pro- jects, capacity has been built for the nations to The countries in Eastern and Central Europe cooperative more effectively on a regional have now largely made the transition to basis and to move more rapidly on country ozone-friendly technologies; Bulgaria, Czech reforms previously identified to implement Republic, Hungary, and Poland have complet- restoration and sustainable use of the region's ed their GEF projects, and all achieved full or transboundary water ecosystems. nearly full compliance with the Montreal Protocol. 22 23 Learning from Experience, Working in Partnership The preceding pages provide numerous illus- trations of GEF's broad influence and targeted Figure A: Consumption of Annex A and B efforts in global environmental protection. Substances in CEIT from i986/1989 to i997 During its first decade, GEF has grown in sig- nificant ways into its current unique role as ODPTons 200,000 the primary source of financing for develop- ing nations and nations in economic transi- 160,000 tion seeking to incorporate global environ- 120,000 mental benefits in their development choices. By uncovering valuable lessons and listening 80,000 to its country partners, GEF has taken numer- ous steps to become more effective, improve 40,000 its service, and strengthen its capabilities in critical areas. This process requires creation of 1992 1994 1995 1997 still more effective partnerships, recognizing Note: The time series was included only when data for that solutions hinge on the involvement of at least half of the years was availa~le. The figure is thus diverse partners-national and local govern- based on incomplete data. ments, private companies, NGOs, and individ- uals. Evaluation of GEF's impact has shown that its support has been crucial to producing a sus- Expanded Mandates tainable, environmentally benign, and eco- As governments and other concerned parties nomically acceptable solution to phasing out identify new needs and priorities-in Eastern both use and demand for ozone-depleting sub- and Central Europe, the Newly Independent stances. GEF investment projects directly States, and beyond-GEF's support and assis- helped reduce i8,6oo ODP tons. 8 Although the tance for addressing global environmental impact of noninvestment projects is more dif- concerns continues to evolve. New roles for ficult to quantify, this GEF support has also GEF and new responsibilities in funding have produced desirable effects. For instance, insti- expanded the region's options for overcoming tution strengthening and training activities environmental challenges. have helped countries develop legislative frameworks for implementing phase-outs For example, as the interim financial mecha- adapted to their circumstances. Such measures nism for the Stockholm Convention on also have addressed information gaps that Persistent Organic Pollutants, GEF has broad- hindered the phase-out process. GEF activities ened its scope with a new emphasis on persis- have also spurred domestic action, helping tent organic pollutants (POPs). GEF also is the countries to design and implement follow-up financial mechanism for a new international activities, such as public awareness campaigns agreement on biosafety (the Cartagena and recovery and recycling schemes in Protocol on Biosafety). Both agreements Hungary, Czech Republic, and Bulgaria. address problems that are high priorities in the ECE region. An expanded GEF role with s Metric tons weighted according to the ozone depleting potential (ODP) of the respective ozone-depleting substance. 24 respect to adaptation to climate change is on the agenda for discussion by the parties to the Continual Learning U.N. Framework on Climate Change. This GEF is a learning, adaptive organization that expansion of funding responsibilities demon- continues to evolve in significant ways. strates the hopes invested in GEF by the inter- Although still young, GEF at its foundation national community. has unmatched experience in financing for environment protection and an institutional New Types of Support capacity for learning and improvement. In In response to convention guidance, country recent years, GEF has streamlined its opera- dialogs, evaluation reports, and other sources, tions and procedures and added new agency GEF and its partners have recognized the need partners, both of which support its efforts to to develop new types of support. Through sev- be increasingly responsive and flexible. eral new initiatives and approaches, GEF is seeking to improve its service to countries, its GEF is working to strengthen its relationships results, and its impacts. For. . example, in a with countries to be more responsive to local strategic partnership with UNDP, GEF is sup- ': priorities and widen its sources of information porting the Capacity Development Initiative to and ideas. For example, an ongoing series of develop a comprehensive approach to build- country-level dialogs with national stakehold- ing country capacities. Through this effort, ers and participants marked a new era in GEF is integrating its experience with that of GEF's communication with country members. its implementing agencies and other partners To strengthen country-based coordination of to identify gaps in national capacity that frus- GEF matters, GEF held the first of several trate countries' efforts to meet commitments workshops, including focal points from Latvia under various environmental conventions. and Poland, to identify and disseminate good GEF is also selectively initiating country-based practices in country coordination. These programs that provide long-term financial opportunities to share experiences and learn support beyond the scope of single projects from its partners underscore GEF's desire to and enable funding and implementation of an renew its understanding of country needs and integrated set of projects through a phased, improve its service as it matures. multiyear commitment. This new approach .... will help GEF and its partners to integrate GEF's drive for improved relationships with ,. global environmental issues into a country's countries and partner institutions, together environment and sustainable development with its new capacities and initiatives, add up agenda, thus, maximizing fundamental results to an array of opportunities for countries seek- and resource use more effectively than possi- ing to address global environmental concerns ble through individual projects. in the context of sustainable development. In the past decade, GEF has worked to answer New types of financial instruments, such as countries' needs-by fine-tuning and some- risk guarantees and the use of leveraged funds times overhauling procedures, developing pro- (see information on the project in Hungary on grams in response to evident needs, and grow- page 11 ), are also playing important roles in ing in new directions. Looking to the future, GEF projects in the region. GEF is poised to expand its support to the global community in addressing current and emerging global environmental challenges. 25 26 ANNEX A GEF in Action: Projects in the ECE Region Country Name (Implementing Agency) Project Title Focal Area / Project Status GEF Allocation (USs million) / Cofinancing Amount {USs million) Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Regional Projects Turkey, Ukraine (UNDP) Developing the Implementation of the Black Sea Albania, Macedonia (World Bank) Strategic Action Plan Lake Ohrid Management International Waters/ Approved International Waters /Approved i.79 I 6.96 4.28 Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Albania, Macedonia (World Bank/IFC) Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Balkans Energy Efficiency Program (BEEP) Slovak Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Climate Change / Approved Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Russian Federation (UNEP) 6.o Promoting Compliance with the Trade and Licensing Provision of the Montreal Protocol in Regional (Belarus, Russian Federation, Ukraine Countries with Economies in Transition (CEITs) (UNDP) Ozone Depletion / Approved Preparation of A Strategic Action Programme 0.69 I 0.04 (SAP) for the Dnieper River Basin and Development of SAP Implementation Mechanisms Bulgaria, Romania, Georgia, Turkey, Russian International Waters / Approved Federation, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Slovak 7.26 Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Moldova, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Yugoslavia Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, (UNDP/World Bank/UNEP) Moldova, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Danube/Black Sea Basin Strategic Partnership Ukraine (UNDP) on Nutrient Reduction, Phase I Developing the Danube River Basin Pollution International Waters / Approved Reduction Programme 29.7 I i i.6 International Waters / Approved 3.9 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russian Federation (World Bank/UNDP) Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Slovak Baltic Sea Regional Project, Phase I Republic (UNDP) International Waters / Approved Transfer of Environmentally-sound Technology 5.85 I 6.6 (TEST) to Reduce Transboundary Pollution in the Danube River Basin Hungary, Slovenia (UNDP) International Waters / Approved Building Environmental Citizenship to Support 0.99 I i.41 Transboundary Pollution Reduction in the Danube: A Pilot Project Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, International Waters / Approved Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Republic (UNEP) 0.75 Initiating Early Phaseout of Methyl Bromide through Awareness Raising, Policy Development Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Demonstrationffraining Activities Uzbekistan (World Bank) Ozone Depletion /Approved Water and Environmental Management in the o.66 / 0.04 Aral Sea Basin International Waters / Approved Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, 12.0 I 59.5 Turkey, Ukraine (UNDP) Black Sea Environmental Management International Waters / Approved 9.3 I 23.3 27 ANNEX A GEF in Action: Projects in the ECE Region Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan (World Bank) Azerbaijan (UNDP) Central Asia Transboundary Biodiversity Project Climate Change Enabling Activity (Additional Biodiversity / Approved Financing for Capacity-Building in Priority Areas) 10.49 I 3.5 Climate Change / Approved 0.1 Country Projects Belarus (World Bank) Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances Albania (UNDP) Ozone Depletion / Approved Climate Change Enabling Activity 6.9 I 8.8 Climate Change / Approved 0.28 Belarus (UNEP) Biodiversity Enabling Activity Albania (World Bank) Biodiversity/ Approved Clearing House Mechanism Enabling Activity 0.08 Biodiversity/ Approved 0.01 Belarus (UNEP) Assessment of Capacity-Building Needs for Albania (World Bank) Biodiversity, Participation in CHM and Preparation Biodiversity Enabling Activity of a Second National Report (add on) Biodiversity/ Completed Biodiversity/ Approved 0.1 0.18 Armenia (UNDP) Belarus (World Bank) Assessment of Priority Capacity Building Needs for Enabling the Republic of Belarus to Prepare its Biodiversity and Establishment of CHM Structures First National Communications in Response to its (Additional Financing) Commitments under the UNFCCC Biodiversity / Approved Climate Change / Approved 0.14 0.3 I 0.09 Armenia (UNDP) Belarus (World.Bank) Biodiversity Enabling Activity Biodiversity Protection Biodiversity/ Approved Biodiversity / Completed 0.17 i.o / 0.25 Armenia (UNDP) Bulgaria (UNDP) Climate Change Enabling Activity Needs Assessemnt and CHM Establishment Climate Change / Approved Biodiversity/ Approved 0.35 0.25 Armenia (UNDP) Bulgaria (UNDP) Climate Change Enabling Activity (Additional Energy Efficiency Strategy Financing for Capacity Building in Priority Areas) Climate Change / Approved Climate Change / Approved 2.57 I 3.92 0.1 Bulgaria (World Bank) Azerbaijan (UNDP) Ozone Depleting Substances Phase-out Climate Change Enabling Activity Ozone Depletion / Completed Climate Change / Approved 10.5 I 3.o 0.32 Bulgaria (UNDP) Azerbaijan (UNDP/UNEP) Biodiversity Enabling Activity Programme for Phasing Out Ozone Depleting Biodiversity / Approved Substances 0.16 Ozone Depletion / Approved 6.867 / 2.23 CE Europe/ Former Soviet Union (UNDP) Danube River Basin Environmental Management Azerbaijan (UNDP) International Waters / Approved Biodiversity, Action Plan and National Report 8.5 I 35.0 Biodiversity/ Approved 0.35 28 CE Europe/ Former Soviet Union (UNDP) Estonia (UNEP) Energy Efficiency Strategies Biodiversity Enabling Activity Climate Change / Approved Biodiversity / Approved 0.4 0.17 Croatia (World Bank) Estonia (UNEP) Biodiversity Enabling Activity Assessment of Capacity-Building Needs for Biodiversity / Approved Biodiversity and Participation in 0.1 Clearing House Mechanism Biodiversity / Approved Croatia (UNDP) 0.28 Climate Change Enabling Activity Climate Change / Approved Georgia (World Bank) 0.35 Integrated Coastal Management Project Biodiversity / Approved Croatia (UNDP) i.3 I 6.8 Removing Barriers to Improving Energy Efficiency of the Residential and Service Sectors Georgia (World Bank) Climate Change / Approved Agricultural Development Project II 4.59 I 8.66 International Waters / Approved 2·5 I 5.75 Croatia (World Bank) Energy Efficiency Project Georgia (World Bank) Climate Change / Approved Conservation of Forest Ecosystems 7.08 I 23.4 Biodiversity / Approved 9.05 I 24.1 Croatia (World Bank) Kopacki Rit Wetlands Management Project Georgia (UNDP) Biodiversity/ Approved Climate Change Enabling Activity 0.75 I i.1 Climate Change / Approved 0.33 Czech Republic (World Bank) Biodiversity Protection Georgia (World Bank) Biodiversity / Completed Biodiversity Enabling Activity 2.0 I 0.75 Biodiversity/ Approved 0.12 Czech Republic (World Bank) Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances Georgia (UNDP} Ozone Depletion / Completed Climate Change Enabling Activity (Additional 2.3 I i.8 Financing for Capacity Building in Priority Areas) Climate Change / Approved Czech Republic (UNDP) 0.1 Low-Cost/Low-Energy Buildings Climate Change / Approved Georgia (UNDP) 0.45 I 0.98 Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystem Conservation in the Caucasus Czech Republic (World Bank) Biodiversity/ Approved Biodiversity Enabling Activity o.75 Biodiversity/ Approved 0.1 Hungary (World Bank) Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances Czech Republic (World Bank) Ozone Depletion / Completed Kyjov Waste Heat Utilization 6.9 I i.49 Climate Change / Approved 5.09 I 13.98 Hungary (World Bank) Estonia (UNDP/UNEP} Renewable Energy and Regional Development Program for Phasing Out Ozone Depleting Project - Szekesfehervar Biomass-Gas CHP Project Substances Climate Change / Cancelled Ozone Depletion / Approved 5.8 I 5+2 0.92 / 0.05 29 ANNEX A GEF in Action: Projects in the ECE Region Hungary (World Bank) Latvia (World Bank) Energy Efficiency Co-Financing Program Solid Waste Management and Landfill Gas Climate Change / Approved Recovery 5.o / 20.0 Climate Change / Approved 5.12 / 19.88 Hungary (UNDP) Public Sector Energy Efficiency Program Latvia (UNDP) Climate Change / Approved Priority Capacity Building for Biodiversity and 4.2 I 4.8 Establishment of CHM Structures Biodiversity / Approved Hungary (UNEP) 0.21 Clearing House Mechanism Enabling Activity Biodiversity / Approved Latvia (UNDP) 0.01 Economic and Cost-Effective Use of Wood Waste for Municipal Heating Stystems Hungary (World Bank) Climate Change / Approved Szombathely CHP/Biomass Project 0.75 Climate Change / Approved 2.5 Latvia (UNDP/UNEP) Latvia Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances Hungary (UNEP) Ozone Depletion / Approved Biodiversity Enabling Activity i.35 Biodiversity/ Approved 0.17 Lithuania (World Bank) Vilnius District Heating Kazakhstan (UNDP) Climate Change / Approved Wind Power Market Development Initiative 10-0 I 55.3 Climate Change / Approved 2.9 I 4.84 Lithuania (UNDP) Climate Change Enabling Activity Kazakhstan (UNDP) Climate Change / Approved Integrated Conservation of Priority Globally 0.15 Significant Migratory Bird Wetland Habitat Biodiversity/ Approved Lithuania (World Bank) 8.85 I 29.56 Klaipeda Geothermal Demonstration Climate Change / Approved Kazakhstan (UNDP) 6.9 / l i.12 Biodiversity Enabling Activity Biodiversity/ Approved Lithuania (World Bank) 0.13 Biodiversity Enabling Activity Biodiversity/ Completed Kazakhstan (UNDP/UNEP) 0.07 Program for Phasing Out Ozone Depleting Substances Lithuania (UNDP/UNEP) Ozone Depletion / CEO Endorsed Lithuania Phase out of Ozone Depleting 5.6 I 0.76 Substances Ozone Depletion/ Approved Kyrgyzstan (UNDP) 4.42 Enabling Activity Climate Change / Approved 0.33 Macedonia (UNDP) Climate Change Enabling Activity Kyrgyzstan (World Bank) Climate Change / Approved Biodiversity Enabling Activity 0.345 Biodiversity/ Completed 0.11 Macedonia (World Bank) Mini-Hydropower Project Latvia (UNDP) Climate Change /Approved Biodiversity Enabling Activity 0.75 Biodiversity/ Approved 0.17 30 Macedonia (World Bank) Poland (World Bank/IFC) Development of Mini-Hydropower Plants Efficient Lighting Project (PELP) Climate Change / Approved Climate Change / Approved i.5 I 4.9 5.0 /amount Macedonia (World Bank) Poland (World Bank) National Strategy and Action Plan of Biological Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances and Landscape Diversity, National Report, Ozone Depletion / Approved Clearing House Mechanism, and Assessment 6.21 / 13.95 of Capacity Building Needs Biodiversity/ Approved Poland (UNDP} 0.34 Integrated Approach to Wood Waste Combustion for Heat Production Malta (UNDP) Climate Change / Approved Climate Change Enabling Activity 0.98 / 2.03 Climate Change / Approved 0.27 Poland (World Bank) Geothermal and Environment Project Moldova (World Bank) Climate Change / Approved Biodiversity Strategy, Action Plan, and National 5.4 I 79.3 Report Biodiversity/ Completed Poland (World Bank) 0.13 Rural Environmental Project International Waters / Approved Moldova (UNDP) 3.0 I 1 i.4 Climate Change Enabling Activity Climate Change / Approved Poland (World Bank} 0.33 Coal-to-Gas Project Climate Change / Approved Moldova (World Bank) 25.0 / 23.32 Assessment of Capacity Building Needs and Country-Specific Priorities in Biodiversity Poland (World Bank) Biodiversity/ Approved Krakow Energy Efficiency Project 0.3 Climate Change/ Approved 11.0 I 88.09 Moldova (UNDP) Climate Change Enabling Activity {Additional Romania {World Bank) Financing for Capacity Building in Priority Areas) Danube Delta Biodiversity Climate Change / Approved Biodiversity / Completed 0.1 4.5 I 0.3 Poland (UNDP) Romania (World Bank) Gdansk Cycling Infrastructure Project Integrated Protected Areas and Conservation Climate Change / Approved Management i.o I i.5 Biodiversity/ Approved 5.3 I i.6 Poland (Wo'rld Bank) Forest Biodiversity Protection Romania (UNDP) Biodiversity / Completed Capacity Building for GHG Emission Reduction 4.5 I i.7 through Energy Efficiency Climate Change / Approved 2.27 Poland (UNEP) Romania (World Bank) Biodiversity Enabling Activity Energy Efficiency Project Biodiversity/ Approved Climate Change / Approved 0.2 10.0 / 40.0 Poland (UNEP} Russian Federation (World Bank) Clearing House Mechanism Enabling Activity Greenhouse Gas Reduction Biodiversity / Approved Climate Change / Completed 0.01 3.2 I 70.0 31 ANNEX A GEF in Action: Projects in the ECE Region Russian Federation (UNDP} Slovak Republic (World Bank) Demonstrating Sustainable Conservation of Biodiversity Protection Biological Diversity in Four Protected Areas in Biodiversity / Completed Russia's Kamchatka's Oblast, Phase I 2.3 I 0.87 Biodiversity/ Approved 2.36 / 2.78 Slovak Republic (World Bank) Central European Grasslands- Conservation Russian Federation (World Bank) and Sustainable Use Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances Biodiversity/ Approved (Second Tranche) 0.75 Ozone Depletion / Approved 26.0 / 2i.5 Slovak Republic (World Bank) Chemosvit Cogeneration Project Russian Federation (World Bank) Climate Change / Approved Ozone Depleting Substance Consumption 2.2 / 16.2 Phase-out Project Ozone Depletion / Approved Slovenia (World Bank) 3i.3 I 76.9 Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances Ozone Depletion / Completed Russian Federation (World Bank) 6.2 I 3.52 Ozone Depleting Substance Consumption Phase-out (first tranche) Slovenia (UNDP} Ozone Depletion / Approved Climate Change Enabling Activity (Additional 8.6 / 12.7 Financing for Capacity Building in Priority Areas) Climate Change / Approved Russian Federation (UNEP} 0.1 Biodiversity Enabling Activity Biodiversity/ Approved Slovenia (World Bank) 0.05 Biodiversity Enabling Activity Biodiversity/ Approved Russian Federation (World Bank) 0.09 Biodiversity Conservation Biodiversity/ Approved Slovenia (UNDP) 20.1 I 5.9 Removing Barriers to the Increased Use of Biomass as an Energy Source Russian Federation (UNDP} Climate Change / Approved Capacity Building to Reduce Key Barriers to 4.4 f7.94 Energy Efficiency in Russian Residential Buildings and Heat Supply · Slovenia (UNDP} Climate Change / Approved Climate Change Enabling Activity 2.98 / 2.61 Climate Change / Approved 0.35 Russian Federation (UNEP} Persistent Toxic Substances, Food Security, and Tajikistan (UNDP} Indigenous Peoples of the Russian North Enabling the Republic of Tajikistan to Prepare its International Waters / Approved First National Communication in Response to its 0.75 Commitments to the UNFCCC Climate Change / Approved Slovak Republic (World BankfIFC) 0.33 / 0.01 Ozone Depleting Substances Reduction Ozone Depletion / Cancelled Tajikistan (UNDP} 3.5 I 2.45 Biodiversity Strategy with Clearing House Mechanism Slovak Republic (World Bank) Biodiversity/ Approved Biodiversity Enabling Activity 0.19 Biodiversity/ Approved 0.08 Tajikistan (UNDP/UNEP} Program for Phasing Out Ozone Depleting Substances Ozone Depletion / Approved 0.99 32 Turkey (World Bank) Ukraine (UNDP) In-Situ Conservation of Genetic Biodiversity Removing Barriers to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Biodiversity / Completed Mitigation through Energy Efficiency in the s.i / o.6 District Heating System, Phase I Climate Change /Approved Turkey (World Bank) 2.03 / 0.1 Integrated Protected Areas and Conservation Management Ukraine (UNDP) Biodiversity / Approved Climate Change Enabling Activity 8.55 I 2.0 Climate Change / Cancelled 0.21 Turkmenistan (UNDP) Improving the Energy Efficiency of the Heat Ukraine (World Bank) and Hot Water Supply Danube Delta Biodiversity Climate Change / Approved Biodiversity / Completed 0.75 I 0.96 i.5 I 0.24 Turkmenistan (UNEP) Ukraine (World Bank) Climate Change Enabling Activity Biodiversity Conservation in the Azov-Black Sea Climate Change / Approved Ecological Corridor 0.35 Biodiversity/ Approved 7.15/26.15 Turkmenistan (UNDP/UNEP) Program for Phasing Out Ozone Ukraine (World Bank) Depleting Substances Coalbed Methane Recovery Ozone Depletion / Approved Climate Change / Cancelled 0.52 / 0.02 6.2 / 11.2 Turkmenistan (UNDP) Ukraine (World Bank) Biodiversity Strategy, Action Plan and National Clearing House Mechanism Enabling Activity Report with Clearing House Mechanism Biodiversity / Cancelled Biodiversity/ Approved 0.01 0.3 I 0.03 Uzbekistan (UNDP) Turkmenistan (UNEP) · Biodiversity Enabling Activity Climate Change Enabling Activity (Additional Biodiversity / Approved Financing for Capacity Building in Priority Areas) 0.18 Climate Change / Approved 0.1 Uzbekistan (UNDP) Establishment of the Nuratau-Kyzylkum Biosphere Ukraine (World Bank) Reserve as a Model for Biodiveristy Conservation Biodiversity Enabling Activity Biodiversity/ Approved Biodiversity / Completed o.75 0.11 Uzbekistan (Funder) Ukraine (World Bank) ODS Phase-out Program Transcarpathian Biodiversity Protection Ozone Depletion / Approved Biodiversity / Completed 3.32 I 0.15 0.5 I 0.08 Uzbekistan (UNDP) Ukraine (World Bank) Climate Change Enabling Activity (Additional Assessment of Capacity-Building Needs and Financing for Capacity Building in Priority Areas) Country-Specific Priorities in Biodiversity, Phase II Climate Change/ Approved Biodiversity / Approved 0.1 0.32 / 0.05 Uzbekistan (UNDP) Ukraine (World Bank) Climate Change Enabling Activity Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances Climate Change / Approved Ozone Depletion / Approved 0.33 22.86 / 32.17 33 ANNEX A GEF in Action: Projects in the ECE Region Global (World Bank/IFC) Global Projects Solar Development Corporation Climate Change / Approved Global (UNDP) 10.0 / 40.0 Research Program on Methane Emissions from Rice Fields Global (UNDP/UNEP) Climate Change / Approved Biodiversity Planning Support Program 5.0 Biodiversity / Approved 3.43 I o.8 Global (UNDP) Monitoring of Greenhouse Gases Including Ozone Global (UNDP) Climate Change / Approved Global Change System for Analysis, Research and 4.8 I i.2 Training (START) Climate Change / Approved Global (UNEP) 7.0 Global Biodiversity Assessment Biodiversity / Completed Global (UNEP) 3.3 I 0.18 Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA) International Waters / Approved Global (UNDP/UNEP/World Bank) 6.79 GEF Country Workshops Multiple Focal Areas / Approved Global (UNDP) 3.51/i.1 Small Grants Program Multiple Focal Areas / Approved Global (UNEP) 13.0 I 3.5 Regionally-Based Assessment of Persistent Toxic Substances Global (World Bank) International Waters / Approved World Water Vision-Water and Nature 3.0 International Waters / Completed 0.7 I 13.15 Global (UNDP) Small Grants Program {Second Phase) Global (UNDP) Multiple Focal Areas / Approved Small Grants Program 3i.62 / 30.0 Multiple Focal Areas / Approved i.94 Global (UNDP) Removal of Barriers to the Effective Global (UNDP) Implementation of Ballast Water Control and Climate Change Capacity Building Management Measures in Developing Countries Climate Change / Completed International Waters / Approved 0.9 7.61 I 3.83 Global (UNEP) Global (UNEP) Fuel Bus and Distributed Power Generation Market Global Biodiversity Forum Phase II Prospects and Intervention Strategy Options Biodiversity/ Approved Climate Change / Approved 0.75 I 0.9 0.69 Global (UNEP) Global (UNDP) Directing Investment Decisions to Promote the Climate Change Training Phase II - Training Transfer of Cleaner and More Climate Friendly Program to Support the Implementation of the Technologies - A Private Sector Clearinghouse UNFCCC Climate Change / Approved Climate Change / Approved 0.75 I 0.18 2 ·7 I 0.5 Global (UNDP) Global (World Bank/IFC) Alternatives to Slash and Burn Efficient Lighting Initiative Climate Change / Approved Climate Change / Approved 3.0 I 4.5 1 5· 2 3 /35 34 Global (UNDP/UNEP/World Bank) Global (World Bank/IFC) Strengthening Capacity for Global Knowledge- Small and Medium Scale Enterprise Program (IFC, Sharing in International Waters replenishment) International Waters/ Approved Multiple Focal Areas / Approved 5.25 I 4.8 16.5 / 36.0 Global (UNDP) Global (World BankjIFC) Small Grants Program Small and Medium Scale Enterprise Program (IFC) Multiple Focal Areas / Approved Multiple Focal Areas / Completed 24.0 4.3 I 15.2 Global (UNEP) Global (UNDP) Capacity Building and Infrastructure: Participation Small Grants Program (Second Operational Phase) in the Assessment, Methodology Development, and Multiple Focal Areas / Approved other Activities of the Intergovernmental Panel on 22.82 / 24 Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Change / Completed Global (UNEP) 2.8 I 2.9 Development of National Biosafety Frameworks Biodiversity/ Approved Global (UNDP) 26.09 I 12.34 Regional Oceans Training Program International Waters / Completed Global (UNDP) 2.58 / 2.6 Global Alternatives to Slash and Burn Agriculture Phase II Global (UNEP) Climate Change / Completed Millennium Ecosystem Assesment 3.0 I 3.37 Biodiversity / Approved 7.31/17.61 Global (UNDP/UNEP) National Communications Support Program Global (World Bank) Climate Change / Approved Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund 2.16/i.1 Biodiversity/ Approved 25.0 I 75.0 Global (Antigua and Barbuda, Cameroon, Estonia, Pakistan) (UNEP) Global (UNEP) Country Case Studies on Climate Change Impacts The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and Adaptations Assessment - Phase I and Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycles Climate Change / Approved International Waters / Approved 2.0 0.72 I 0.46 Global (Argentina~ Ecuador, Estonia, Hungary, Global (World Bank/IFC) Indonesia, Senegal, Mauritius, Vietnam, SADC and Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Fund Andean Pact Countries) (UNEP) (IFC) Economics of GHG Limitation - Phase I Climate Change / Approved Climate Change / Approved 30.0 / 210.0 3.0 I o.27 Global (UNEP) Global (Bahamas, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, Assessments of Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Ghana, Kenya, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors (AIACC) Thailand) (UNEP) Climate Change / Approved Biodiversity Data Management Capacitation in 7.85 I 4.61 Developing Countries and Networking Biodiversity Information Global (UNEP) Biodiversity/ Completed Technology Transfer Networks, Phase l 4.0 I i.39 Multiple Focal Areas/ Approved 1.28 I 1.28 35 ANNEX A GEF in Action: Projects in the ECE Region Global (Bolivia, Bulgaria, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Regional (Barbados, Bulgaria, Chile, Ecuador, Egypt, Kenya, Hungary, Malawi, Mauritania, Guinea, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mali, Micronesia, Mauritius, Namibia, Pakistan, Poland, Russian Papua New Guinea, Slovenia, Zambia) (UNEP) Federation, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia) (UNEP) Development of National Implementation Plans Pilot Biosafety Enabling Activity for the Management of Persistent Organic Biodiversity / Completed Pollutants (POPs) 2.74 International Waters / Approved 6.19 I 3.13 Global (Burkina Faso, Colombia, Estonia, Georgia, Madagascar, Namibia, Tanzania, Congo DR) Regional (Korea DPR, Mongolia, China, Republic (UNEP) of Korea, Russian Federation) (UNDP) Biodiversity Country Studies - Phase II Preparation of A Strategic Action Program (SAP) Biodiversity/ Approved and Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) for 2.0 / 0.1 the Tumen River Area, Its Coastal Regions and Related Northeast Asian Environs Global (Costa Rica, Gambia, Mexico, Morocco, International Waters / Approved Poland, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Venezuela) 5.2 I 5.47 (UNEP) Country Case Studies on Sources and Sinks of Greenhouse Gases Climate Change / Approved 4.5/ 0.09 Global (Cote d'Ivoire, Czech Republic, Kenya, Malawi, Mauritius, New Zealand, Poland, South Africa) (UNEP) Development of Best Practices and Dissemination of Lessons Learned for Dealing with the Global Problem of Alien Species that Threaten Biological Diversity Biodiversity/ Approved 0.75 I 3.23 Regional (Albania, Algeria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Slovenia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey) (UNEP) Determination of Priority Actions for the Further Elaboration and Implementation of the Strategic Action Program for the Mediterranean Sea International Waters / Approved 6.29 I 4.19 Regional (Albania, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestinian Authority, Tunisia) (UNDP) Conservation of Wetland and Coastal Ecosystems in the Mediterranean Region Biodiversity/ Approved 13.44 I 26.32 Regional (Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, Turkmenistan) (UNDP/UNEP/World Bank) Addressing Transboundary Environmental Issues in the Caspian Environment Program International Waters / Approved 8.34 I 9.97 36 ANNEX B National Focal Points Albania Lirim Selfo, Directorate General for Majlinda Vasjari, Director of Air, European and International Affairs Water Quality and Waste Management Committee of Environmental Protection Austria Leander Treppel, Counsellor Division for International Finance Institutions Federal Ministry of Finance '(;.:, Ali Shamil Ogli Hassanoy, Deputy Prime-Minister ,~ (:~~ip"I~?-n of ~he ~>· . ,·, '.i~. State Environmental Committee Belarus Igor Voitov, First Deputy Minister Igor Voitov, First Deputy Minister Ministry of Natural Resources Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection and Environmental Protection Bulgaria Neno Dimov, Deputy Minister of the Environment and Water Resources Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources Croatia Bozo Kovacevic, Minister Bozo Kovacevic, Minister Ministry of Environmental Protection Ministry of Environmental Protection and Physical Planning and Physical Planning Czech RepubJi~ 37 Denmark Morten Elkjaer, Deputy Head Secretariat for Environment & Sustainable Development Ministry of Foreign Affairs Finland Pauli Mustonen, Director, Sector Policy Department for International Development Cooperation Ministry of Foreign Affairs Georgia Malkhaz Adeishvili, Deputy Head Malkhaz Adeishvili, Deputy Head Department of Environmental Department of Environmental Economics, Ministry of Environment Economics & Natural Resources Protection Greece Anna Constantinidou, First Secretary (Economic Office) Embassy of Greece Laszlo Becker, Head of Department Ministry for Environment Ireland Anne O'Reilly, Department of the Environment and Local Government Custom House 38 Italy Alessandro Legrottaglie, Division Chief Multilateral Development Banks and Funds Ministry of the Treasury Kyrgyzstan Radbek Eshmambetov, Minister Kulubek Bokonbaev, Minister Ministry of Ecology of Environment Protection and Emergency Situations Ministry for Environmental Protection Lithuania Indre Venckunaite, Chief Consultant Indre Venckunaite, Chief Consultant Projects and Programmes Projects and Programmes Management Unit Management Unit Ministry of Environment Ministry of Environment Malta Gauci Vincent, Director Dept for Protection of the Environment Ministry of the Environment Norway Erik Bjornebye, Special Advisor Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs Dept. of Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs 39 Portugal Rosa Caetano, Ministry of Finance Directorate General for European and International Affairs Russian Federation Sergey Tveritinov, Deputy Director Armirkhan Armirkhana, Director International Cooperation Department Department for Environmental Ministry of Natural Resources Protection Slovenia Emil Ferjancic, Head of Department Emil Ferjancic, Head of Department of International Cooperation Ministry of International Cooperation Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning of Environment and Physical Planning Sweden Susanne Jacobsson, Deputy Director Department for Global Cooperation Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tadjikistan Usmon Shokirov, Usmon Shokirov, Minister of Nature Protection Minister of Nature Protection 40 Netherlands, the Sweder van Voorst ton Voorst, Director Environment and Development Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs Turkmenistan Khabibulla Atamuradov, Khabibulla Atamuradov, Deputy Minister Deputy Minister Ministry of Nature Protection Ministry of Nature Protection United Kingdom Adrian Davis, Head, Environment Policy Department Department for International Development (DfID) -;;{::, William Schuerch, ·'""·,. Deputy Assistant Secretary U.S. Department o(:rreasury ,A:/ ~; Uzbekistan Djavdat Nurbaev, Deputy Director Djavdat Nurbaev, Deputy Director Asian Scientific Research Institute Asian Scientific Research Institute on Hydrometeorology (SANIGMI) on Hydrometeorology (SANIGMI) 41 ANNEX C Council Members and ECE Constituencies Member: Bezard, Bruno (France) Member: Movchan, Yaroslav (Ukraine) Alternate: Grosclaude, Jean-Yves (France) Alternate: Adeishvili, Malkhaz (Georgia) Countries: France · Countries: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Georgia, Moldova, FYR Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Member: Bjornebye, Erik (Norway) Ukraine Alternate: Elkjaer, Morten (Denmark) Countries: Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Member: Roch, Philippe (Switzerland) Norway Alternate: Dubois, Jean-Bernard (Switzerland) Countries: Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tadjikistan, Member: Buys, Jozef (Belgium) Switzerland, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan Alternate: Pastvinsky, Michal (Czech Republic) Countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Member: Schuerch, William E. (US) Hungary, Luxembourg, Slovak Republic, Alternate: t.b.d. (US) Slovenia, Turkey Countries: United States Member: Davis, Adrian (UK) Member: Tveritinov, Sergey (Russian Alternate: Tillson, Jonathan (UK) Federation) Countries: United Kingdom Alternate: t.b.d. Countries: Armenia, Belarus, Russian Member: Hoven, Ingrid (Germany) Federation Alternate: Biskup, Eckhardt (Germany) Countries: Germany Member: van Voorst Tot Voorst, Sweder (The Nether lands) Member: Jacobsson, Susanne (Sweden) Alternate: de Boer, Yvo (The Netherlands) Alternate: Miller, Tonu (Estonia) Countries: The Netherlands Countries: Estonia, Finland, Sweden The constituencies for the following member Member: Legrottaglie, Alessandro (Italy) countries are yet to be determined: Alternate: Pettinari, Paola (Italy) Kazakhstan and Malta Countries: Italy Member: Melanson, Jim (Canada) Alternate: Parker, Charles (Canada) Countries: Canada Member: Montalvo, Alicia (Spain) Alternate: Cordeiro, Helena (Portugal) Countries: Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain 4Z ANNEX D GEF Small Grants Program in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia Summary Data for the Region • Pilot phase initiated 1992, SGP now in its second operational phase • Six participating countries: Albania, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Poland, and Turkey • Total GEF funding for SGP grants in the region since 1992: US$3.6 million • Total co-financing US$4.1 million • Number of SGP projects funded since the Pilot Phase: 241 • Breakdown by GEF focal area-biodiversity: 64 percent; climate change/renewable energy: 18 percent; international waters: 8 percent; multi-sector: 10 percent each country, a national coordinator and a The GEF Small Grants Program national steering committee, composed of Established as a result of the 1992 Rio Earth NGOs, government, the scientific community, Summit, the GEF Small Grants Program, donors and the private sector, manage the pro- implemented by UNDP, embodies the very gram. Over 600 partners worldwide provide essence of sustainable development and repre- co-funding and other forms of collaboration. sents one of its more successful outcomes. By providing technical support and small Activities in Central and Eastern Europe amounts of financial assistance for projects and Central Asia that conserve and restore the natural world The democratic changes in Central and while enhancing well-being and livelihoods, Eastern European countries over the last SGP has demonstrated ways in which commu- decade have expanded the potential of civil nity action can maintain the fine balance society. Many NGOs have been formed to between human needs and environmental address the serious problems of environmen- imperatives. Moreover, the program links tal degradation. Responding to the opportuni- global, national and local-level issues through ty to strengthen this community action, a transparent, strongly participatory and Poland and Turkey joined SGP in 1994, country-driven approach to project planning, Albania and Kazakhstan in 1996 and design and implementation. Lithuania and Kyrgyzstan in 2001. SGP has demonstrated that it can be a key instrument While the grants may be small, the impact is in building the capacity of these young NGOs, large. Through more than 2,JOO projects in 61 supporting action to conserve wetlands, lakes countries, SGP has addressed adverse environ- and endangered species which are a source of mental changes and enriched the lives of tens national pride, genetic diversity and sustain- of thousands of people. Multi-stakeholder able livelihoods. It has promoted adoption of cooperation and partnership at every level are less polluting, more efficient, and renewable key to SGP's success. Funding of up to $50,000 forms of energy, including biogas, biomass, per grant is provided directly to NGOs and coal-to-gas conversion, micro-hydro and wind community-based organizations (CBOs) in power. Grants have also targeted activities for recognition of the essential role they play. In 43 the Aral, Black, Caspian, and Mediterranean as conversion from coal to waste wood for Seas. heating, have not only achieved global envi- ronmental benefits but also provided liveli- The Karavasta Lagoon in Albania, a wetland hoods for 20 self-help communi-ties. The suc- of international significance, provides a nest- cessful wood waste energy project now ing site for the Dalmatian Pelican, the coun- receives scaled up support as a GEF medium- try's national bird, which is threatened with size project. extinction, as well as for wintering and breed- ing of other migratory water birds. SGP sup- Cirali is a small village on the Mediterranean ported action by the Albanian Society for the coast of Turkey important for see turtle nest- Protection of Birds and Mammals to deal with ing and backed by the high mountains of the intensive illegal fishing and hunting which is Olympos National Park. The fragile natural depleting bird and fish populations. By involv- and cultural richness of the area is now threat- ing the local population in management and ened by tourism development and there is a conservation of the breeding grounds, con- need to identify more adequate development ducting workshops which have raised public alternatives. The Ulupinar farmers cooperative awareness, and creating a monitor-ing system, has taken the challenge of promoting eco- the project resulted in a so-percent increase in tourism and organic agriculture with the par- the population of pelicans and other water ticipation of the majority of the villagers as a birds, from 55,000 in i999 to 82,000 in 2000. way of protecting their culture, improving their livelihoods and conserving marine The Ana-Ymiti women's organization in ecosystems. Kazakhstan obtained an SGP grant to install a wind turbine in the maternity hospital of the Aralsk community as a means to provide a reliable and continued supply of power. In addition to improving the community's mater- nity facilities, this unit has served as a demon- stration center for renewable energy. Local authorities, teachers, children and other com- munity members have participated in semi- nars and school activities which have sensi- tized them to the influence of human activi- ties on climate change and the relationship between environment and human health. Poland's Barka Foundation is an exemplary model of a people's organization working to fight poverty and protect the environment in a village near Poznan. It has achieved remark- able social and environmental results by empowering destitute people to take action to improve their lives with support from three SGP grants. Activities to conserve endemic fruit varieties and a local breed of pig, as well 44 45 Why and How GEF Works In the past decade, GEF sought to continuous- driven GEF project development process. In ly evolve as a flexible, innovative entity that addition, GEF projects are an integrated part could respond effectively to new challenges of a country's development process. and responsibilities. GEF applies the lessons learned from its activities with the result that Strong national coordination it remains on the cutting edge of international Fully functional coordination among all stake- global environmental problem solving. Several holders is necessary for GEF projects to suc- characteristics contribute to GEF's effective- cessfully promote sustainable development ness. that addresses global environmental concerns. Countries choose an operational focal point to Stakeholder participation at all levels maintain a close working relationship among From the topmost level of its decision-making specialized and technical ministries and with structure to projects on the ground, GEF NGOs, the private sector, scientists, and local encourages the participation of a broad range governments and other interested partners in of stakeholders. Overall, GEF and its partners civil society. (See annex B for a list of current represent a comprehensive network of govern- focal points in the region). National focal ments, scientists, NGOs, civil society, the pri- points are responsible for coordinating identi- vate sector, and grassroots groups, working at fication and preparation of GEF programs and different levels toward sustainable develop- projects. For international waters projects, ment that addresses global environmental establishment of national interministerial challenges. GEF's Council, which functions as committees for participation in the project has a sort of independent board of directors been recommended by GEF and has proven to responsible for adopting an~ evaluating GEF be of great value in addressing transboundary programs, welcomes the participation of waters issues. NGOs in its deliberations and incorporates the input of the global scientific community For More Information through its Scientific and Technical Advisory For more information on GEF activities in Panel (STAP). A range of stakeholders imple- Eastern and Central Europe and the Newly ment GEF-financed projects, which also often Indepencierit States and GEF procedures and actively involve national governments, civil requirements for projects in the developing society, the private sector, local stakeholders, world, please contact: and other appropriate parties. Hutton Archer Country-driven projects Senior External Relations Coordinator "Country drivenness" is essential to ensuring GEF Secretariat the sustainability of GEF projects. This means 1818 H Street NW that initial project ideas originate in the coun- Washington DC 204 33 USA try, based on national strategies reflecting national and regional priorities. Consultation Tel: 202-473-0508 between GEF's implementing and executing Fax: 202-522-3240 agencies and national and regional partici- Internet: www.gefweb.org pants is an important element of the country-