71574 v1 GEF COUNTRY PORTFOLIO STUDY: JAMAICA March 2011 MAIN REPORT (Volume 1) Unedited 1 JAMAICA COUNTRY PORTFOLIO STUDY Consultants: David Todd: Team Leader David Lee: Environment and Energy Specialist GEF Evaluation Office Robert D. van den Berg: Director Carlo Carugi: Task Manager 2 Volume One Table of Contents ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND, CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED ....................................... 8 1.1 Background and Objectives..................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Scope and Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 8 1.3 Overview of the GEF Portfolio ................................................................................................................ 9 1.4. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 11 1.4.1. Results .................................................................................................................................................................. 11 1.4.2. Relevance ............................................................................................................................................................ 12 1.4.3. Efficiency ............................................................................................................................................................. 13 1.5. Lessons Learned ........................................................................................................................................ 13 CHAPTER 2: STUDY FRAMEWORK AND CONTEXT ......................................................................... 16 2.1 Methodology and Limitations ............................................................................................................... 16 2.2. Key Questions ............................................................................................................................................. 17 2.3 The Jamaican Economic, SocIal and Political Context ................................................................. 18 2.4. Jamaica’s Natural Environment ........................................................................................................... 19 2.4.1. Overview.............................................................................................................................................................. 19 2.4.2. Biodiversity ........................................................................................................................................................ 20 2.4.3. International Waters ...................................................................................................................................... 23 2.4.4. Climate Change ................................................................................................................................................. 24 2.4.5. Ozone Depleting Substances ....................................................................................................................... 25 2.4.6. POPs....................................................................................................................................................................... 26 2.4.7. Desertification and Land Degradation .................................................................................................... 26 2.5. The National Environmental Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework....................... 26 2.5.1. Environmental Policy Framework............................................................................................................ 26 2.5.2. The Environmental Legislative Framework ........................................................................................ 27 2.5.3. Environmental Administrative Framework ......................................................................................... 29 2.5.4. The Global Environment Dimension....................................................................................................... 30 CHAPTER 3: THE GEF PORTFOLIO IN JAMAICA ................................................................................. 35 3.1 The Portfolio of National Projects ....................................................................................................... 35 3.2 Jamaica’s Participation in Regional and Global Projects ............................................................ 38 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF GEF SUPPORT ............................................................................................ 40 4.1. Biodiversity ................................................................................................................................................. 40 4.1.1 Enabling and Capacity Development Activities ........................................................................................ 40 4.1.2 Pilot and Demonstration Activities ................................................................................................................ 41 4.1.3 Full Size Activities ................................................................................................................................................. 42 4.2. International Waters ............................................................................................................................... 42 4.2.1 Enabling and Capacity Development Activities ........................................................................................ 42 4.2.2 Pilot Activity ............................................................................................................................................................ 43 4.3. Climate Change .......................................................................................................................................... 44 4.3.1 Enabling Activities/Capacity Development ............................................................................................... 44 4.3.2 Pilot Activities......................................................................................................................................................... 45 4.3.3 Full Size Activities ................................................................................................................................................. 45 3 4.4. Persistent Organic Pollutants ............................................................................................................... 48 4.5. Desertification and Land Degradation ............................................................................................. 48 4.6. Multi Focal Activities ............................................................................................................................... 48 4.6.1 Enabling and Capacity Development Activities. ....................................................................................... 48 4.6.2 Pilot and Demonstration Activities ................................................................................................................ 49 CHAPTER 5: RELEVANCE OF GEF SUPPORT........................................................................................ 50 5.1. Biodiversity ................................................................................................................................................. 50 5.1.1 Enabling and Capacity Development Activities ........................................................................................ 50 5.1.2 Pilot and Demonstration Activities ................................................................................................................ 51 5.1.3 Full Size Projects.................................................................................................................................................... 51 5.1.4 Summary ................................................................................................................................................................... 51 5.2. International Waters ............................................................................................................................... 52 5.2.1 Enabling, Capacity Development and Pre-Investment Activities ...................................................... 52 5.2.2 Pilot Project ............................................................................................................................................................. 52 5.2.3 Summary ................................................................................................................................................................... 53 5.3. Climate Change .......................................................................................................................................... 53 5.3.1 Enabling and Capacity Development Activities ........................................................................................ 53 5.3.2 Pilot and Demonstration Activities ................................................................................................................ 55 5.3.3 Full Size Activities ................................................................................................................................................. 55 5.3.4 Summary on Climate Change ........................................................................................................................... 56 5.4. Persistent Organic Pollutants ............................................................................................................... 56 5.5. Desertification and Land Degradation .............................................................................................. 56 5.6. Multi Focal Area Activities ..................................................................................................................... 56 5.6.1 Enabling Activities ................................................................................................................................................ 56 5.6.2 Pilot Activities......................................................................................................................................................... 57 CHAPTER 6: EFFICIENCY OF GEF SUPPORT ...................................................................................... 59 6.1 The GEF Activity Cycle ............................................................................................................................. 59 6 .2 Agency Processes ...................................................................................................................................... 62 6.2.1 UNDP ......................................................................................................................................................................... 62 6.2.2 UNEP........................................................................................................................................................................... 64 6.2.3 World Bank .............................................................................................................................................................. 64 6.2.4 Summary of Agency Processes ........................................................................................................................ 65 6.3 The GEF Focal Point Process ................................................................................................................. 65 6.3.1. Operations of the Focal Point...................................................................................................................... 65 6.3.2. Experience of Developing the GEF Portfolio......................................................................................... 66 6.3.3. The RAF and the STAR ................................................................................................................................... 67 6.3.4. Working with GEF Agencies ........................................................................................................................ 67 6.3.5. Challenges facing the Focal Point .............................................................................................................. 67 6.3.6 Partnerships, Collaboration and Synergies ................................................................................................ 68 6.4. The Role of Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................ 69 6.5 National Ownership ................................................................................................................................. 69 ANNEXES ......................................................................................................................................................... 71 Annex 1: Standard Terms of Reference and Evaluation Matrix for GEF Country Portfolio Studies ............................................................................................................................................................. 72 Annex 2: Persons Met by the Jamaica CPS Team .............................................................................. 84 Annex 3: Sites Visited by CPS Mission .................................................................................................. 87 4 Annex 4: Documents Cited in Text......................................................................................................... 88 VOLUME TWO: Jamaica Demand Side Management Project Review of Outcomes to Impacts 5 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BJCMNP Blue and John Crow Mountains National Park CANARI Caribbean Natural Resources Institute CARICOM Caribbean Community CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CBO Community-based Organisation CCAM Caribbean Coastal Area Management CDB Caribbean Development Bank CDC Community Development Committee CEO Chief Executive Officer CFC Chlorofluorocarbons CFL Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species CLME Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystems CO Country Office COP Conference of the Parties CPACC Caribbean Planning for Adaptation to Global Climate Change CPE Country Portfolio Evaluation CPS Country Portfolio Study CSME Single Market and Economy DFID Department for International Development (UK) DP Development Planning DRR Disaster Risk Reduction DSM Demand Side Management EC European Commission ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean EFJ Environmental Foundation of Jamaica EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMS Environment Management System ENACT Environmental Action Project EO Evaluation Office ERC Evaluation Resource Centre EU European Union EVI Environmental Vulnerability Index FSP Full Size Project GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment Facility GHG Greenhouse Gas GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit ha. Hectares HCFC Hydro chlorofluorocarbons HDI Human Development Index ICR Implementation Completion Report ICT Information and communication technology IDB Inter American Development Bank IDP International development partner IFI International Financial Institution IMF International Monetary Fund ISP Inter-American Strategy for Participation IT Information Technology IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature IWCAM Integrated Water and Coastal Area Management Project JA-CHM Jamaica Clearing House Mechanism JAMR Jamaica Association on Mental Retardation JCDT Jamaica Conservation and Development Trust JNPTF Jamaica National Park Trust Fund JPAS Jamaica Protected Area System JPSCo Jamaica Public Service Company Km2 Square Kilometres LGGE Low Greenhouse Gas Emission LSDP Local Sustainable Development Plan M Million MARPOL Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MDG Millennium Development Goal 6 ME&M Ministry of Energy and Mining MOA Ministry of Agriculture MTF Medium Term Socio-Economic Policy Framework MSP Medium Size Project NCC National Communication on Climate Change NCSA National Capacity Self Assessment NEPA National Environment Protection Agency NEST National Environment Societies Trust NFMCP National Forest Management and Conservation Plan NGO Non Governmental Organisation NIP National Implementing Plan NRCA Natural Resources Conservation Authority NRV Natural Resource Valuation NSAPBD National Strategy and Action Plan for Biological Diversity NSS National Statistical System OAS Organization of American States ODA Official Development Assistance ODPEM Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management ODS Ozone Depleting Substances OPM Office of the Prime Minister OUR Office of Utilities Regulation p.a. Per Annum PANOS Jamaican NGO affiliated to international network of PANOS Institutes PARC Protected Areas Resource Conservation PAS Protected Area System PBPA Portland Bight Protected Area PDF Project Development Fund PCJ Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica PDC Parish Development Committee PIDP Parish Infrastructure Development Programme PIOJ Planning Institute of Jamaica POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants PPG Project Preparation Grant PSRP Public Sector Reform Programme RADA Rural Agricultural Development Agency RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands of International Importance RC Resident Coordinator RCF Regional Cooperation Framework RCU Regional Coordination Unit ROtI Review of Outcomes to Impacts SDNP Sustainable Development Network Programme SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SGP Small Grants Programme (GEF) SIDS Small Island Developing States SOE State of the Environment SOPAC South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission STAR System for Transparent Allocation of Resources STATIN Statistical Institute of Jamaica TOR Terms of Reference UK United Kingdom UN United Nations UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNCT United Nations Country Team UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services USA United States of America USAID United States Agency for International Development USDE Unit for Sustainable Development (OAS) UWI University of the West Indies WB World Bank 7 CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND, CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED 1.1 Background and Objectives Country Portfolio Studies (CPSs) are an addition to Country Portfolio Evaluations (CPEs), which comprise one of the main evaluation streams of work of the GEF Evaluation Office. The CPSs provide additional coverage of country portfolios, but have a reduced focus and scope. The purpose of CPEs and CPSs is to provide the GEF Council with an assessment of how GEF is implemented at the country level, to report on results from projects and assess how these projects are linked to national environmental and sustainable development agendas as well as to the GEF mandate of generating global environmental benefits within its focal areas. The studies have the following objectives: i. independently evaluate the relevance and efficiency1 of the GEF support in a country from several points of view: national environmental frameworks and decision-making processes; the GEF mandate and the achievement of global environmental benefits; and GEF policies and procedures; ii. assess the effectiveness and results2 of completed projects aggregated at the focal area; iii. provide feedback and knowledge sharing to (1) the GEF Council in its decision making process to allocate resources and to develop policies and strategies; (2) the Country on its participation in, or collaboration with the GEF; and (3) the different agencies and organizations involved in the preparation and implementation of GEF funded projects and activities. 1.2 Scope and Methodology The Jamaica Country Portfolio Study covered the full range of GEF-financed interventions, including national projects and Jamaican elements of regional and global projects. Although the principal focus was on completed projects, those still active were also assessed in terms of their relevance. The CPS used a variety of evaluation methods. Its starting point was a detailed review of public and internal documents, including those from UNDP, UNEP, the World Bank, the GEF Evaluation Office, Jamaican Government and Non Government Organisations and other sources. These documents yielded initial data sets, which provided directly relevant information, as well as establishing key questions for follow up through primary data collection. After the initial desk review work, a programme of semi-structured interviews3 was drawn up with a broad range of partners in Government, Parastatals, Civil Society, International Development Partners and other bodies. Respondents were invited to draw on their understanding and experience of 1 Relevance: the extent to which the objectives of the GEF activity are consistent with beneficiaries‟ requirements, country needs, global priorities and partners‟ and donors‟ policies; Efficiency: a measure of how economically resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are converted to results. 2 Results: the output, outcome or impact (intended or unintended, positive and/or negative) of a GEF activity; Effectiveness: the extent to which the GEF activity‟s objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance. 3 A list of persons contacted is provided as Annex 2. 8 activities, projects, processes, challenges and results. These interviews provided the major source of primary data assembled by the study team. To explore the long-term results of one major GEF activity a Review of Outcomes to Impacts (ROtI) was undertaken for the Jamaica Demand Side Management Project. This is attached as Volume Two of this study. Using the standard ROtI methodology,4 the CPS Team conducted group and individual interviews and critically reviewed documents to explore progress along a theoretical chain from outputs to Global Environment Benefits. An additional source of evaluative material was a review of existing evaluations of projects and of the UNDP energy and environment portfolio5. The CPS team also undertook limited field level verification of results, to add to the understanding of results achieved, beneficiary perceptions of participating in GEF-supported activities and sustainability of benefits. A coherent understanding of the issues under review was obtained through triangulation of methods (desk review of monitoring data, evaluation reports, interviews and field verification) and sources (Implementing and Executing Agency staff, project personnel and beneficiaries). A specific feature of the Jamaica CPS is that it was conducted in parallel with the UNDP Assessment of Development Results for Jamaica (2002-2010). The Team Leader and consultant conducting the CPS were also responsible for coverage of the UNDP Energy and Environment portfolio. This provided advantages for both studies. For the CPS, as well as cost savings, the sharing of team members meant that the UNDP GEF portfolio was studied in greater detail than would otherwise have been possible. Substantive issues, such as the overlap between GEF and Agency project cycles were also clarified. 1.3 Overview of the GEF Portfolio As shown in Table 1.1, in terms of GEF funding and Co-Funding, completed activities in the GEF portfolio are predominantly in the Climate Change Focal Area. However, it will be seen later that these figures are skewed by one early Full Size Project (FSP) and that, apart from this, the portfolio has been balanced between the areas and consists of predominantly small inputs. Table 1.2 clarifies the balance among activities. The national portfolio consists largely of UNDP implemented activities, which are either Enabling Activities or MSPs, often with a focus on capacity development. All projects are under the half million dollar level except for one early World Bank project ($3.8 million) and two recent FSPs, which are just getting started. In addition to these activities, Jamaica has participated in several regional and global projects. Several of these have had relatively small national capacity development inputs, but others have had pilot or demonstration activities in Jamaica, which have been larger than most activities in the national portfolio. These regional (and global) projects are therefore a 4 See: GEFEO and Conservation Development Centre (2009), Towards Enhancing the Impacts of Environmental Projects: the ROtI Handbook, Washington, DC. 5 See: UNDP, „Outcome Evaluation of UNDP‟s Environment and Energy Programme: A Mid-Term Perspective‟, by Hugo Navajas, UNDP Jamaica, Kingston, 2010. 9 considerable and important part of the overall GEF support to Jamaica, a situation likely to be common among SIDs in general and in the Caribbean in particular. Focal Area Completed On-Going Pipeline Share of Portfolio Total GEF Total GEF Total GEF Total GEF Total GEF Total Biodiversity 0.41 0.59 2.77 10.38 3.18 13.74 26.81% 32.64% Climate Change 4.13 12.95 3.08 9.20 7.21 25.23 60.79% 59.94% International Waters 0 0 0.00% 0.00% Multifocal 0.23 0.26 0.50 0.63 0.73 1.39 6.16% 3.30% POPs 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 2.02% 0.57% Land Degradation 0.50 0.99 0.5 1.49 4.22% 3.54% TOTAL 5.01 14.04 3.77 12.00 3.08 9.20 11.86 42.09 Table 1.1: GEF Portfolio by Focal Area and Status Focal Number of GEF Support Agency Area Projects Modality (Million $) WB CC 1 FSP 3.80 UNDP CC 2 EA 0.33 UNDP CC 1 MSP 0.72 UNDP BD 2 EA 0.41 UNDP BD 1 FSP 2.77 UNDP POP 1 EA 0.24 UNDP MF 1 EA 0.23 UNDP MF 1 MSP 0.50 UNDP LD 1 MSP 0.50 UNEP CC 1 FSP 2.36 Notes: BD = biodiversity; CC = climate change; EA = enabling activity; IW = international waters; LD = land degradation; MF = multifocal; WB = World Bank; FSP=Full Size Project; MSP=Medium Size Project; POP=Persistent Organic Pollutants. Table 1.2: GEF Portfolio by Agency, Focal Area, Modality and GEF support 10 1.4. Conclusions 1.4.1. Results Introduction GEF biodiversity projects have been broadly successful in delivering their intended results, most of which have enabled Jamaica to meet its obligations to global environment conventions. Jamaica‟s participation in the many international Conventions and agreements to which it is signatory would have been significantly delayed without GEF assistance. International Waters projects have produced results in terms of capacity development, enhanced regional collaboration and successful pilot/demonstration activities, but prospects for sustainability of benefits are weak. Activities in the marine environment and watershed management are of critical importance to Jamaica and have received effective support from GEF activities. However, the high costs of investments proposed in Kingston Harbour were beyond national resources and the community based environmental management processes demonstrated by IWCAM have also already encountered sustainability issues, in the absence of continued benefit flows to communities. In the field of Climate Change, some measurable environmental benefits have been attained through the large scale adoption of Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs, with limited additional gains from energy efficiency measures taken by Government. GEF support has helped Jamaica to substantially raise its capacity in such fields as renewable energy, energy efficiency, adaptation and energy sector planning and management. The adaptation activities have raised the capacity to understand and track the effects of climate change and to plan responses to them. The major challenge concerns how the country can finance the measures necessary for further mitigation and to adapt effectively and reduce vulnerabilities associated with Climate Change. In some areas, the results of individual GEF projects have made a cumulative contribution towards broader environmental benefits. The first set of activities that has allowed accumulation of results supported integrated watershed management, sustainable land use, national communications to UNFCCC, energy efficiency and renewable energy; all of which have contributed to national policies and actions related to climate change mitigation and adaptation. A second, partially overlapping set has contributed to biodiversity conservation, as well as the quality of international waters; through strengthened national participation in the CBD, management of watersheds in areas rich in biodiversity, conservation of areas important for bird life, coastal zone management and measures to address Invasive Alien Species. Conclusion 1: GEF support in all Focal Areas has helped Jamaica to develop good capacity in environmental management and to link into international best practices. However, the country lacks the resources to scale up from these initial benefits and the GEF portfolio is not sufficiently well-known among Jamaica’s other international development partners to maximize collaboration and follow-up. Most of the activities completed with GEF assistance have been of an enabling, capacity development or pilot nature and the real challenges come with the need to sustain and scale up the results achieved. 11 Given the limited resources available to the Jamaican Government, the prospects for this to happen appear slight. This raises the importance of effective collaboration among GEF Agencies and with other international development partners, to maximize the complementarity between their activities. However, the possibilities for such collaboration are limited by the low profile of the GEF portfolio among these international stakeholders. Regarding the GEF Agencies; after an initial engagement with Jamaica through an FSP, the World Bank has mainly been active in regional activities affecting the country. Inter-Agency collaboration between the UNDP Country Office and UNEP Regional Office was found to be at a low level. International stakeholders outside the GEF Agencies claimed little knowledge of the portfolio and were therefore unable to effectively respond to it. Conclusion 2: The process of developing and managing the GEF portfolio has strengthened networking amongst national agencies engaged in environmental management. Partnership building is an additional benefit expected to result from participating in GEF activities. This is particularly important for a relatively small programme, such as that in Jamaica. In several cases, national Agencies have expanded their partner networks through GEF projects. For example, the IWCAM project has helped the National Environment and Planning Agency develop a new approach to working with government agencies, local government and community organisations. The Meteorology Service, which is the national Focal Point for the UN Convention on Climate Change, strengthened its contacts with the Cabinet of Ministers and line agencies while preparing the Second National Communication on Climate Change and (for the first time) worked directly with an NGO on climate change. Conclusion 3: It would be more appropriate to talk of “national adoption� than of “national ownership� of the GEF portfolio. The GEF portfolio has been mainly designed by Agencies, but relevant to national priorities. The Government and other stakeholders have committed to activities at various stages of design and implementation, but cannot be said to have led the process. Many national stakeholders indicated that the availability of environmental specialists in the UNDP Country Office allows for a more inclusive approach to design and implementation of GEF activities than is possible from distant offices. At national level, there is little coherence to GEF monitoring and evaluation processes, which are primarily driven by Agency systems. National stakeholders are involved in collecting monitoring data proposed by Agencies and in evaluations undertaken by these Agencies, but they are not actively engaged in design or implementation of a system to cover the entire GEF portfolio in the country 1.4.2. Relevance Introduction There has been GEF substantial support since the mid-1990s for Caribbean regional international waters activities, most of which have included Jamaica. The IWCAM project in particular is well- known in the country, by virtue of its substantialIal national demonstration project on watershed management. Other projects are less visible, although the Kingston project has left detailed analysis and some sustainable benefits to the associated water body. 12 The GEF has engaged in biodiversity activities in Jamaica since 2003; and grew in this area as earlier major funders such as US AID phased down. It has collaborated consistently with the National Environment Protection Agency, which is the main Agency mandated to develop biodiversity conservation in the country. In addition to the national elements of regional activities, there has been a progression from a set of Enabling Activities, through an MSP to the first national FSP, focusing on sustainability of the Protected Area system. In the area of climate change, there was a substantial national FSP early in GEF engagement. In addition to this, the country has participated in a set of national, regional and global activities including enabling, capacity development and pilot projects. Both mitigation and adaptation have received support. Multi-Focal Areas, the Small Grants Programme and newer GEF Focal Areas, notably Land Degradation, have also received support relevant to the country‟s national and international priorities. This support has included enabling activities and MSPs. Conclusion 4: GEF support in Jamaica has been relevant to its national environmental goals and priorities, as well as to the country’s efforts to fulfil its obligations under the international agreements to which it is signatory. This support has covered the range of GEF Focal Areas, for which the country is eligible, either through national projects or through Jamaican components of regional or global projects. 1.4.3. Efficiency Conclusion 5: All the three GEF Agencies active in Jamaica, namely UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank, have experienced problems in keeping projects within their intended time limits. Both UNEP and the World Bank have experienced substantial delays to their regional projects. With regard to the UNDP, many projects have experienced some form of delay, which frustrates partners and may reduce effectiveness, since projects often have to take short cuts to try to get back on schedule. Few projects have avoided contracting delays, because of limited national and regional availability of qualified environmental expertise, as well as administrative hold-ups. Some of these constraints are a function of the UNDP global system and difficult for its Country Office to resolve. 1.5. Lessons Learned Introduction In Jamaica, the combination of global, regional and national projects has enabled GEF to provide some degree of coverage in most of the Global Environment areas for which the country is eligible for support, even though the allocations for national projects in RAF and STAR are relatively small. Most of the results and benefits to date have been in terms of developing and assisting in the institutionalisation of environmental management. This is a long term process and there are few measurable environmental outcomes or impacts as yet, after more than fifteen years of GEF involvement. 13 Lesson 1: The Jamaica portfolio gives cause for concern about the possibilities for sustainable progress in environmental management. Jamaica has high human capacity and a substantial national budget, but high debt repayment obligations mean that Government has very few funds to implement programmes. It therefore has limited possibilities to move forward in managing its environment for the global good. Many of its GEF activities, particularly in regional and global projects, have been of a pilot or demonstration nature. Whilst they have often produced good results at field level, there are serious doubts about the availability of resources to sustain or scale up such results, since the national economy is severely stressed. Lesson 2: Many Agency procedures are not appropriate for small countries in regions with limited resources. This is seriously hampering the efficiency of GEF implementation. All the three GEF Agencies involved in Jamaica have faced severe efficiency problems. These are neither GEF specific nor Agency specific. Many of them derive from the application of inflexible procedures for recruitment and procurement in a situation where they do not work. The procedures are not adapted to the situation of Small Island Developing States in general or the Caribbean in particular. Often they require competitive bids from a greater number of environmental specialists or supply companies than are actually present in the country. When the conditions are not met, processes are referred to regional or international recruitment, which imposes severe delays. Unless more flexible procedures can be developed and applied for SIDS, desired levels of efficiency and results are very difficult to achieve. Lesson 3: Some possible procedural improvements have already been suggested by evaluations and reviews of GEF activities by its Agencies. In the case of UNDP, suggested options to improve efficiency include the use of consultant rosters and referrals; the rotation and cost sharing of specialized expertise among projects addressing common issues or “topping up� budget lines for international expertise when national or Caribbean- based candidates are not available. Unrealistic project timelines could be partially offset by budgeting additional time to compensate slow recruitment and start-up processes; and by including inception phases to expedite implementation and contracting arrangements in advance. With regard to the World Bank, suggestions have included: the need for conservative scheduling and planned cost contingencies, particularly to take account of currency fluctuations; careful planning and realistic scheduling for the establishment of new institutions; more realistic assessment of risks to project delivery; realistic assessment of implementation capacity on the ground and adequate allowance for capacity development needs; consistent measures to ensure Government commitment. In view of the complexity of the measures, which have been found necessary to deliver results, project time scales should be more realistic. Concerning the missed opportunities because of the low profile of the GEF portfolio in Jamaica, a UNDP Environment Outcome Evaluation6 proposed that results could be scaled up by earmarking “soft support� to document/ disseminate case studies, facilitate institutional exchanges and mentoring, 6 Outcome Evaluation of UNDP’s Energy and Environment Programme: A Mid-Term Perspective . Hugo Navajas, P 32- 33, UNDP Jamaica June 2010. 14 inform policymakers or parliamentary commissions, and move successful pilot experiences upstream. However, this form of support is not available through traditional GEF project funding modalities, other than through the limited funds provided for Focal Points. 15 CHAPTER 2: STUDY FRAMEWORK AND CONTEXT 2.1 Methodology and Limitations The Jamaica Country Portfolio Study methodology used a variety of evaluation methods. It started with a detailed review of public and internal documents7, including those from UNDP, UNEP, the World Bank, the GEF Evaluation Office, Jamaican Government and Non Government Organisations and other sources. These documents yielded initial data sets, which provided directly relevant information, as well as establishing key questions for follow up through primary data collection. After the initial desk review work, interviews were held with the GEF Focal Point, UNDP CO, UNEP Regional Office, World Bank, Inter American Development Bank and European Commission staff, as well as those in a broad range of Jamaican development partners. These interviews also enabled finalisation of detailed stakeholder maps, mostly sector-specific, but others of broader programmatic contacts such as with the Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ). On the basis of the stakeholder maps developed, a programme of semi-structured interviews was drawn up with a broad range of partners in Government, Parastatals, Civil Society, International Development Partners and other bodies. Respondents were invited to draw on their understanding and experience of activities, projects, processes, challenges and results. These interviews provided the main body of primary data assembled by the study team. Limited use was also made of telephone interviews and written inputs. To explore the long-term results of one major GEF activity a Review of Outcomes to Impacts (ROtI) was undertaken for the Jamaica Demand Side Management Project. This is attached as Volume 2. Using the standard ROtI methodology,8 the CPS Team conducted group and individual interviews and critically reviewed documents to explore progress along a theoretical chain from outputs to Global Environment Benefits. The CPS team also undertook limited field level verification of results. This limitation was for several reasons. Firstly, the CPS is a “scaled down� version of the GEF Evaluation Office Country Portfolio Evaluation approach and has a relatively limited budget and resources. Secondly, several projects were at early stages of implementation or had not started. Thirdly, many activities fell into the category of “enabling,� capacity building or policy support and were not intended to have discernable field level outcomes, or at least not in the short to medium term. Fourthly, direct beneficiaries were often few in “pilots� or demonstrations and locations were dispersed. Within these limitations, field visits or other direct contacts with intended beneficiaries were undertaken to add to the understanding of results achieved, perceptions of participating in GEF-supported activities and sustainability of benefits. A coherent and consistent understanding of the issues under review was obtained through the use of triangulation. Firstly, evidence from documents was compared with that from interviews. Secondly, perceptions from Agencies (whether obtained from interviews or documents) were systematically compared with those from executing partners. Thirdly, to a limited extent, perspectives of the 7 Documents consulted are listed in Annex 3. Many other documents were examined, which are not cited in this Report. 8 As detailed in the ROtI Handbook. 16 management levels in agencies and Government were compared with those of field staff and intended beneficiaries. Limitations were mainly those imposed by the absence of time or resources to conduct a broader range and greater depth of fieldwork. An additional issue was the difficulty of gaining access to some stakeholders, who were not available during the restricted period of the Study. 2.2. Key Questions According to the Standard Terms of Reference for GEF Country Portfolio Studies9, they are guided by the following key questions; and, in view of the limitations on such studies, each Country Portfolio Study will report only on those that are appropriate and for which sufficient information could be found: Effectiveness, results and sustainability a) What are the results (outcomes and impacts) of completed projects? b) What are the aggregated results at the focal area and country levels? c) What is the likelihood that objectives will be achieved for those projects that are still under implementation? d) Is GEF support effective in producing results related to the dissemination of lessons learned in GEF projects and with partners? e) Is GEF support effective in producing results which last in time and continue after project completion? Relevance a) Is the GEF support relevant to: the national sustainability development agenda and environmental priorities; national development needs and challenges; action plans for the GEF‟s national focal areas? b) Are GEF and its Agencies supporting environmental and sustainable development prioritization, country ownership and decision-making process of the country? c) Is the GEF support in the country relevant to the objectives linked to the different Global Environmental Benefits (GEBs) in biodiversity, greenhouse gases, international waters, land degradation, and chemicals focal areas? f) Is the country supporting the GEF mandate and focal areas programs and strategies with its own resources and/or with the support from other donors? Efficiency a) How much time, effort and financial resources does it take to formulate and implement projects, by type of GEF support modality? b) What role does Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) play in increasing project adaptive management and overall efficiency? 9 Attached as Annex1. 17 c) What are the roles, types of engagement and coordination among different stakeholders in project implementation? d) What are the synergies for GEF project programming and implementation among: GEF Agencies; national institutions; GEF projects; and other donor-supported projects and activities? 2.3 The Jamaican Economic, Social and Political Context Jamaica is a small island developing state (SID), with a land area of 10,991 km2. It is located in the western Caribbean Sea, about 145 kilometres south of Cuba and 191 kilometres west of Hispaniola. It consists of a mountainous inland area surrounded by coastal plains. The climate is tropical, mainly hot and humid, but is more temperate in the highlands. The island lies in the Atlantic Ocean hurricane belt and has been subject to significant damage and loss of life from a succession of hurricanes and tropical storms. The July 2010 estimated population was 2,847,232 at a density of 252 people per km2. The country is in demographic transition, with declining trends in both mortality and fertility. Just over half the population live in urban areas, with some 650,000 in the capital, Kingston. Other major urban areas include Spanish Town, Portmore, May Pen, Mandeville and Montego Bay. Jamaica is classified as a middle income country, with an estimated 2010 GDP per capita of US$8,400. The Gini coefficient, at 37.9, reflects a medium level of economic inequality. The Human Development Index is 0.699, which places Jamaica 80th in the world, in the middle ranks. The labour force in 2009 was some 1.3 million, with an estimated unemployment rate of 14.5%. The national economy presents major development challenges. The real growth rate declined from 1.4% in 2007, through -0.6% in 2008 to -4% in 200910. Remittances, tourism and bauxite account for over 85% of foreign exchange. Coupled with reliance on imports, particularly oil, food and consumer goods, this makes the economy extremely vulnerable to external shocks, as currently shown by the initIal impact of the global economic crisis. Already, this has contributed to increased inflation, falling remittances, heavily discounted tourism prices to keep market numbers stable and returns from bauxite that have declined sharply, since three of the four bauxite/alumina companies suspended operations in 2009.11 According to Labour Force Reports, there were 14,750 job losses in other sectors from October 2008 to May 2009. These major disruptions to the economy must be placed in the context of a decline in OfficIal Development Assistance due to Jamaica‟s middle income categorization. The adverse economic trends have been exacerbated by the long term problem of Jamaica‟s heavy indebtedness. In 2007 its debt-to-GDP ratio was 111.3%, which was the fourth highest in the world. This had risen to around 140 per cent by November 2010. Debt servicing consumed 56.5% of the 2009/10 national budget. Faced with this extreme financIal adversity, the Government made radical responses in an attempt to redress the situation. It concluded a 26 month standby structural adjustment agreement with the IMF, which is expected to restructure the financIal architecture and 10 Source: Background Note: Jamaica, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State, August 2010. 11 Op.cit. 18 restore confidence in the country‟s long-term prospects, therby encouraging banking and investment support. Pervasive weaknesses in the governance area have been the target of the Jamaican Public Sector Reform Programme (PSRP). This has had some achievements, including the creation of Executive Agencies and an improvement in the number of qualified technical staff. The PSRP has so far retained the existing Ministerial structures (which are many for a country the size of Jamaica); but redistributed portfolios among Ministries, privatised services and created public corporations. Its main focus to date has been on cost-cutting measures. The Jamaican public sector now has more qualified personnel in a wide variety of disciplines than at any other time in its history. However, this capacity is often not used effectively because of the limited operational budgets of Government bodies. In the current decade, Jamaica‟s major international development partners have included such bilateral bodies as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID); and such multilateral bodies as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the European Commission and the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB). Historically, bilateral donors made larger inputs than multilaterals; but their contribution began to sharply decline in 2005 and by 2007 multilaterals made a much larger contribution. The major contributors now are the European Union, IDB and the World Bank, whilst the UN agencies are extremely small players in financial terms. The GEF has been a consistent funder in the environment field while USAID, which was previously very active in support of biodiversity, has steadily reduced its funding in this area. After implementing earlier GEF-funded environmental projects, the World Bank has phased out of such activities, except for some regional activities and now has no environmental specialist in its Country Office. The IDB and European Commission now provide substantial support in Jamaica, including in the environmental area. 2.4. Jamaica’s Natural Environment 2.4.1. Overview Jamaica‟s natural environment was categorised in 2005 as being extremely vulnerable, when measured using the vulnerability index (EVI) developed by the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Most Small Island Developing States (SIDS) have been determined as being either highly vulnerable or extremely vulnerable using the EVI. The State of the Environment Report presented by NEPA to the Council of Ministers in 2005 indicated that Jamaica‟s environment is under threat from various sources and that the main productive sectors of tourism, agriculture, manufacturing, mining and quarrying are all heavily dependent on the island‟s natural resources, such as the beaches, sea, scenic beauty, land, mountains, freshwater and air. The Report noted further that there is a strong correlation between the state of the environment and the country‟s vulnerability to natural hazards. Poor environmental practices, such as improper disposal of solid waste, indiscriminate removal of forest cover, poor land use practices and the growth of squatter housing areas, tend to exacerbate the effects of these natural disasters. This has 19 become a concern given the increased frequency and intensity of tropical storms associated with climate change. The long-term degradation of Jamaica‟s watersheds has resulted in downstream damage including soil erosion, flooding, loss of homes and lives. This damage, coupled with projected increases in storms and hurricanes associated with climate change, shows that the potential for disasters has increased. Furthermore, land use planning is done with dated development plans, which are not effectively monitored or enforced. In 2001, Cabinet established the National Integrated Watershed Management Council to provide a considered approach to watershed issues. Jamaica‟s energy sector also faces a number of challenges. It is characterized by an almost complete dependence on imported petroleum (which meets over 90% of the nation‟s energy needs); high rates of energy use; inefficient electricity supply and distribution systems; and an inadequate policy and regulatory framework. Due to the energy intensity of the important aluminium and bauxite industry in Jamaica, per capita energy consumption is high when compared with most developing countries. Approximately 5% of the energy supplies mix comes from renewable sources; 4% from hydro and 1% from wind. In terms of overall environmental management, progress has been made with regard to the establishment of institutions, the development of policy, legislation and standards, and the banning or phase-out of harmful substances. However, the lack of resources, improper planning for development and the general lack of environmental awareness on the part of the population, manifested in unsustainable consumption patterns and irresponsible environmental practices have hindered effective management of the island‟s natural resources. 2.4.2. Biodiversity “Jamaica has a diverse physical environment, with a wide range of microclimates, soils, and physical features that support a great variety of forest types, including lower montane mist, montane mist, dry limestone, wet limestone, mangrove, woodland, herbaceous swamp and marsh forest. It is also an important refuge for long-distance migratory birds from North and Central America. It has 417 IUCN Red Listed species and very high levels of endemism in several vertebrate (100% for amphibians) and invertebrate taxa (there are over 500 endemic species of snails). There are 31 species of endemic birds (Jamaica is ranked 18th in the world in terms of the number of endemic birds) and 60 endemic species of orchid (29% of the total). Jamaica has seven endemic plant genera and over 900 endemic plant species�.12 Some of the key features of Jamaican biodiversity at species level are summarised in Figures 2.1 and 2.2 and Table 2.1 below. 12 See: Annual Report of the GEF Project Preparation Grant Phase for the Preparation of the Full Size Project for Strengthening the Operational and Financial Sustainability of the National Protected Area System. 2009 20 Source: http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/biodiversity-protected/country-profile-92.html Figures 2.1 and 2.2: Unique and Threatened Species in Jamaica Number of Total Number of Threatened Species Species Higher Plants 3,308 206 Mammals 24 5 Breeding Birds 75 12 Reptiles 49 8 Amphibians 24 4 Fish 200 1 Source http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/biodiversity-protected/country-profile-92.html Table 2.1: Threatened Species in Relation to Total Species 21 The first Protected Areas in Jamaica were established more than 100 years ago. Between 1937 and 1975, various legislative acts led to the creation of three conservation agencies and the creation of three Protected Areas and forest reserves. Although enforcement was minimal, the concepts of conservation were active. In the 1980s, international support increased, with the Protected Areas Resource Conservation I Project (PARC I) of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). This began to create the infrastructure necessary for a Protected Areas system and established the Montego Bay Marine Park and Blue and John Crow Mountains National Park (BJCMNP). These were the first marine and terrestrial parks in the country.13 In 1991, the Natural Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA) Act gave the Authority a mandate for the establishment, coordination and management of the national Protected Areas system (which did not include forest reserves, fisheries or wildlife reserves). The PARC I Project also took an early step towards the development of long term funding for the Protected Areas system by establishing the Jamaica National Park Trust Fund (JNPTF) in 1992. By the end of the project, two parks were evaluated as running effectively, with trained full time staff and community participation. Accordingly, USAID agreed to finance a PARC II Project, which aimed to move forward by separating the regulatory and management functions of Protected Areas and centralizing day-to-day management. The goal of the five year, US$7.75 million project was to continue the PARC I efforts and build capacity for the system through lead institutions and the creation of clear environmental and economic management goals. PARC II suffered from a series of problems and many of its goals were not realized, resulting in a setback for the entire PA system. In 1997 Cabinet approved a new Policy for Jamaica‟s System of Protected Areas. This designated six types of Protected Areas and goals for the system. In 1998 and 1999 four new Protected Areas were declared (including Portland Bight, the largest protected area, which covers 187,615 hectares) and management delegation to NGOs was proposed. The new Protected Areas further stretched the limited available resources, leaving Protected Areas management extremely ineffective. Although Government continued to make new international commitments to environmental conservation (seven between 1995 and 1998), no additional funds were allocated to the sector and there were no coherent plans to allow the obligations to be met. In 2002, the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI) published a Review of Jamaica‟s Protected Areas System and Recommendations on the Way Forward. Five NGOs have received delegated management authority for a protected area, while others are looking to obtain this status. However, institutional capacity assessments of the existing NGO partners, commissioned by The Nature Conservancy in 2004 noted that they all lacked core competencies. Currently, both the organizations and the PA system are struggling for financial survival and sustainability is a top priority. However, there is currently almost no revenue generation within the Protected Areas system and minimal coordination of fundraising. The Jamaica Protected Area System today includes three marine parks; one National Park; five other Protected Areas and two fish sanctuaries, as well as forest reserves covering 110,000ha. The Protected Areas relate to various IUCN categories such as wilderness reserve for some forest reserves, habitat species management areas, sustainable resource use areas and others. Overall, the 13 See: Situation Analysis of Jamaica’s Protected Areas System Plan. Center for Park Management. Washington DC. 2005. 22 system of Protected Areas covers nearly 2000 km2 of terrestrial areas, constituting just over 18% of Jamaica‟s land area. Summary. Jamaica had a broad range of biodiversity, particularly in its forest and marine areas. It has attempted to establish systems to protect this range, but systems and in particular human and financial resources have been inadequate for the task. Currently, there is little management of biodiversity and no prospect of financial sustainability, so that the sector is characterised by intermittent and localised conservation in response to time-bound project funding. 2.4.3. International Waters Approximately 1800 km2 of marine area or approximately 15% of the country‟s archipelagic waters fall under the national Protected Area System. These PAs are expected to provide important ecosystem functions and services to Jamaica‟s economy. The headwaters of many of Jamaica‟s main rivers are located in the Blue Mountain and the Cockpit Country forest reserve, which are the main sources of water for Kingston and the major tourist area of Montego Bay respectively. Jamaica‟s tourism industry partly relies on the scenic beauty and good coastal water quality that are provided by healthy forests and wetlands. Coral reefs are of major social, economic and biophysical importance. Reefs act as natural barriers by protecting coastlines from erosion, are a source of food and income or local communities, and support tourism and recreational activities. A significant part of the Jamaican fishing industry relies on reefs as well as the stocks renewed in the mangrove swamps and on the offshore cays for both commercial and artisanal fishing. PAs also provide spill-over effects, such as strengthening sustainable livelihood opportunities (for example by protecting water supplies and reproduction areas for valued fish species), building food and nutritional security and building resilience to the impacts of climate change, on coasts especially. The physical nearness of all ecosystems to human activities (because Jamaica is a small island) means that the value of stakeholder empowerment, awareness and support for PA declaration and management is even more heightened. 14 The coastal zone includes a variety of habitats including several large wetlands, extensive mangroves, offshore cays, and coral reefs. Perhaps the most important wetland is the Black River Morass, a game reserve of approximately 20,000 ha., which includes one of Jamaica‟s three Ramsar sites and has high levels of biodiversity and strong ecotourism potential, but no conservation status at this time. Offshore, the rugged topography of the sea floor gives rise to a diverse pattern of marine environments including deep water trenches, coral reefs and extensive offshore banks. Coastal wetland ecosystems play an important role in maintaining shoreline stability and preserving biodiversity, by functioning as a sediment trap and providing a habitat for wildlife, such as Trichechus manatus (West Indian Manatee).The country is home to 65 species of corals and 38 species of gorgonians. The Pedro Bank, one of the largest and most productive fishing grounds in the country, are the habitat for one of the largest global populations of Queen Conch (Strombus gigas), as well as being a regionally important seabird nesting and roosting area (for endangered masked boobies, roseate terns and others) and containing nesting grounds for endangered hawksbill and loggerhead turtles�.15 14 See: Annual Report of the GEF Project Preparation Grant Phase for the Preparation of the Full Size Project for Strengthening the Operational and Financial Sustainability of the National Protected Area System. 2009 15 Op.cit. 23 The GEF Focal Areas of International Waters and Biodiversity are closely inter-related in Jamaica. The country‟s coastal and marine biodiversity offers potential major contributions to the global environment; which are largely addressed through its participation in the international biodiversity agreements described in Section 2.6 below, as well as a number of international and regional agreements specifically covering the marine environment. 2.4.4. Climate Change The main Climate Change issues relate to Jamaica‟s energy sector, which faces a number of challenges. The sector is characterized by an almost complete dependence on imported petroleum (which meets over 90% of the nation‟s energy needs); high rates of energy use; inefficient electricity supply and distribution systems; and an inadequate policy and regulatory framework. Due to the energy intensity of the aluminium/bauxite industry in Jamaica, per capita energy consumption is high compared with most developing countries. Approximately 5% of the energy supplies mix comes from renewable sources; 4% from hydro and 1% from wind. Trends in GHG emissions in Jamaica are shown in Figures 2.3 to 2.5 below. Figure 2.3: Jamaica CO2 Emissions 24 Figure 2.4: Jamaica Nitrous Oxide Emissions Figure 2.5: Jamaica Methane Emissions 2.4.5. Ozone Depleting Substances Jamaica has made significant progress in phasing out Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS). The Ministry of Transport and Works has changed its motor vehicle policy to restrict the importation of vehicles older than 5 years and has placed a ban on the importation of vehicles containing CFCs. The Ministerial order “The Trade (Restriction on Importation) (Chlorofluorocarbons) Order became effective on July 1, 1999. Preliminary drafting of the Ozone Act has been completed by NEPA. Jamaica‟s National Halon Bank Management Plan was completed and submitted to UNEP for approval. 25 2.4.6. POPs POPs are present in Jamaica, from sources of waste incineration, power generation, production of mineral products, transportation, uncontrolled combustion processes, production of chemicals and consumer goods and landfill sites. Jamaica has sought to bring its position in line with the international community through participation in the relevant international agreement, as indicated below. 2.4.7. Desertification and Land Degradation Although the country does not fall into the mainstream of countries facing desertification, it faces serious problems of land degradation, particularly associated with the mining industry and deforestation of parts of its uplands. 2.5. The National Environmental Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework 2.5.1. Environmental Policy Framework The Policy for the National System of Protected Areas (1991), which is contained in Section 5 of the Natural Resources Conservation Authority Act, describes Jamaica‟s protected areas system as having a common underlying foundation of environmental protection purposes, and a standardized approach to planning and management. The goals of the protected areas system are expressed as economic development and environmental conservation. Efforts have been made to update the System Plan and begin implementation, including quality control and standards. However, the financial sustainability of protected areas remains an issue of concern. Some specific wildlife management programmes have been launched, including for game birds, the American Crocodile and the Jamaican Iguana and some improvements in these populations have been noted. The Jamaica National Environment Action Plan was first drafted in 1995 and has been updated in 1999/2000, 2006 and 2009. It has several strategies, including environmental education, national parks, watershed management and forestry reserves. In 2001, Cabinet established the National Integrated Watershed Management Council to provide a considered approach to watershed issues. This included NEPA's 'Ridge to Reef' policy for watershed management, which started in the Great River and Rio Grande watersheds. A draft Environmental Management Systems (EMS) Policy and Strategy was developed by NEPA and sent to Cabinet in January 2001. The objectives of the policy are to articulate the government‟s commitment to the promotion and use of, establish the roles of the government and private sector and communities in the use of EMS and to put in place the necessary institutional, regulatory and promotional measures to ensure successful uptake of EMS. The policy has undergone public consultation. Almost concurrently the Draft Policy on Ocean and Coastal Zone Management (Green Paper 9/01) was issued. An earlier paper, Towards National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan (Green Paper 3/01) was Jamaica's initial response to the Convention on Biological Diversity. 26 Sustainable Development is one of the stated goals of the Government of Jamaica (GoJ), with the objectives of effective conservation of the environment and sustainable use of natural resources. Following the publication of “Jamaica Environment 2001 - Environmental Statistics and the State of the Environment� by NEPA/STATIN, Local Sustainable Development Plans (LSDPs) were produced with aid from the Canadian International Development Agency, under its Environmental Action (ENACT) project. Some of these LSDPs were later formally adopted by Parish Development Committees. The basis for action was The Framework for Local Sustainable Development Planning in Jamaica which provides opportunities for 'greening' both government and private sector environmental performance. This framework was published in 2006 by the Statistical Institute of Jamaica, which acts as the technical clearing house for environmental management systems. The documents mentioned above have been built upon in the development of the Medium Term Socio-Economic Framework (MTF) and the national Vision 2030 published by the PIOJ. In addition to policy frameworks and plans, Jamaica has enacted significant legislation for the protection of the environment. The key Acts and their responsible agencies are briefly reviewed below. In the non-governmental sector, three Environmental Trust Funds have been created through Debt- for-Nature Swaps. These are the Jamaica National Parks Trust Fund (now reported to be non operational), the Forest Conservation Fund and the Environmental Foundation of Jamaica. Funds from these Trusts are granted to NGO and Community-based Organization (CBO) groups for various environmental and child welfare projects across the island. Jamaica‟s energy sector faces a number of challenges. The sector is characterized by an almost complete dependence on imported petroleum (which meets over 90% of the nation‟s energy needs); high rates of energy use; inefficient electricity supply systems; and an inadequate policy and regulatory framework. Due to the energy intensity of the aluminium/bauxite industry in Jamaica, per capita energy consumption is high when compared with most developing countries. Approximately 5% of the energy supplies mix comes from renewable sources – 4% from hydro and 1% from wind. The major response to energy issues in Jamaica has been the development of Jamaica‟s National Energy Policy. This supports the national Vision 2030 and provides the enabling environment for the achievement of the national outcome of “a secure and sustainable energy supply for our country�. It also provides support for the achievement of another national strategy, namely “to contribute to the effort to reduce the global rate of climate change�. 2.5.2. The Environmental Legislative Framework Much of the legislative framework for environmental management in Jamaica dates back to the 1950s and 1960s. Some of the most relevant Acts are discussed below. The Beach Control Act (1956) provides for the proper management of Jamaica‟s coastal and marine resources through the licensing of activities on the foreshore and seabed. The Act also addresses access to the shoreline and other rights associated with fishing and public recreation, and marine protected areas. The Town and Country Planning Act (1958) is administered by the NEPA and designates the Government Town Planner and the Town and Country Planning Authority as the responsible agencies for planning control within the legislation. 27 The Watershed Protection Act (1963) provides for the protection of watersheds and adjacent areas, and the preservation of promotion of water resources. It makes provision for watershed conservation through improved soil conservation practices. The Land Development and Utilisation Act (1966) is also administered by the NEPA and designates the Land Development and Utilisation Commission as the responsible Agency for land development. Development Plans for designated areas are written under this Act. The Wildlife Protection Act (1975) is concerned with the protection of particular species of fauna declared under the Act. It has undergone review, particularly in the areas of increased fines and the number of animals now enjoying protected status. Further amendments are being undertaken to address a variety of other issues relating to the management and conservation of natural resources, and the inclusion of flora. The Fishing Industry Act (1977) is aimed at the management of the fisheries resources of Jamaica and the establishment of fish nurseries and sanctuaries. Prior to this Act, regulation of these areas had not kept pace with the evolution of fishing and the attendant resource management issues; but the Act) provides an institutional framework for the management, planning, development and conservation of fisheries resources. The Natural Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA) Act (1991) provides for the management, conservation and protection of Jamaica's physical environment through the Natural Resources Conservation Authority. Section 9 provides for the declaration of „Prescribed Areas‟ in which specified activities require a permit, for which applicants are obliged to provide an Environmental Impact Assessment. The Natural Resources (Prescribed Areas) (Prohibition of Categories of Enterprise, Construction and Development) Order of 1996 declares the entire island Prescribed and lists the categories of enterprise, construction or development that require a permit. The Act also addresses sewage and trade effluent discharges. The 1991 Act requires subsequent environmental regulations to incorporate the 'polluter pays' principle. Although NRCA responsibilities were transferred to the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) in 2001, the Act remains the primary instrument of environmental and planning legislation pending the passing of a NEPA Act. The Forest Act (1996) and its Regulations (2001) address the sustainable management of forests on lands in the possession of the crown and vests management responsibility in the Conservator of Forests. The Act provides for the establishment of forests reserves, the establishment of protected areas, the promotion of forestry research areas, reforestation initiatives and the preparation of a Forestry Management Plan. The Endangered Species (Conservation and Regulation of Trade) Act (2000) is concerned with the protection of specified species of fauna; but recent review has identified the need for amendments to address the management and conservation of natural resources and the inclusion of flora. This Act was promulgated to document Jamaica‟s obligations under the Convention for the International Trade in Endangered Species and governs international and domestic trade in endangered species in and from Jamaica. 28 The main energy legislation is the Petroleum Act, 1979 which formed the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica as a statutory corporation to develop and manage Jamaica‟s petroleum resources and, where directed by the Minister, national renewable energy resources. Forthcoming Environmental Legislation A number of legislative instruments are currently under preparation or waiting enactment. These include: The National Environment and Planning Agency Act (Draft) is intended to combine the various Environment and Planning laws administered by NEPA under one Act. The Wetlands Policy Natural Resources Conservation Authority (Draft) sets out a management strategy for the protection of wetlands. It identifies five goals that are aimed at the sustainable use of wetlands, including the development of guidelines for any development of wetlands and the preservation of biological diversity. The Coral Reef Protection and Preservation Policy and Regulation, October 1997 (NRCA) remains in draft form and has not yet been enacted. It recognizes that Jamaica‟s coral reefs are among the earth‟s most biologically diverse, oldest and species rich ecosystems, and aims to ensure their conservation to sustain their ecological and socio-economic functions. Also associated with this initiative is the Jamaica Coral Reef Action Plan. 2.5.3. Environmental Administrative Framework Many Government agencies are involved in the environment and energy sectors. The main ones are described below. The Planning Institute of Jamaica initiates and coordinates the plans, programmes and policies for the economic, financial, social, cultural and physical development of Jamaica, provides technical support to Cabinet, and is the main interface with international funding agencies and donors. The Statistical Institute of Jamaica collects, compiles, analyses, and publishes statistical information in relation to commercial, industrial, social, economic and other activities, including the organization of the National Census. Such information provides the information necessary to identify changing pressures of settlements and industry on the environment. Office of the Prime Minister, Environment Unit promotes sustainable development for Jamaica by managing its environment and natural resources through strategic planning, policy formulation and implementation, and the utilization of appropriate technology. The GEF Focal Point is located in this Office. The National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) was formed on 1st April 2001 by the merger of the National Resources Conservation Authority, the Town Planning Department and the Land Development and Utilisation Commission, to promote sustainable development by ensuring protection of the environment and orderly development. NEPA's core functions include planning and development, environmental permits and licenses, change of agricultural land use, beach use and, 29 sewage discharge. Until a National Environmental and Planning Act is promulgated NEPA operates under the mandate of the NRCA Act and other core environmental legislation. The National Meteorological Service maintains a continuous Hurricane Watch during the hurricane season and is responsible for the issuance of severe weather warnings. The service also operates an island-wide network of rainfall and climate stations and processes the data recovered for a wide variety of needs. It houses the focal point for the Climate Change Convention. The Mines and Geology Division is the geological research and development arm of Government and is charged with developing a comprehensive understanding of the geology of Jamaica and directing the orderly development of mineral resources, in accordance with mining and environmental legislation. It has a modern analytical laboratory and a library, and is the sole distributor of blasting licenses. The Council on Ocean and Coastal Zone Management provides a formal mechanism for integrated coastal zone management. Participants include representatives from local government, private sector, shipping, fishing, marine interests, marine park management entities, and selected international/regional agencies involved in marine and ocean management. The Water Resources Authority has statutory responsibility for the management, protection, and controlled allocation and of Jamaica's surface and ground water resources. Its duties include hydrologic data collection, compilation, and analysis; water resources investigation, assessment, and planning; water resources allocation; and environmental monitoring and impact assessment. The Authority processes applications for the permitting of well drilling and testing and for the licensing of surface and ground water abstraction. Ministry of Mining and Energy provides the policy framework and strategic direction for the energy sector in Jamaica including the promulgation and amendment of legislation and regulations. The Energy Division of the Ministry oversees the functioning of the energy sector. It monitors energy supplies and the identification alternative energy sources, as well as energy conservation. The Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica mandated by the Petroleum Act of 1979 undertakes the development and promotion of Jamaica's energy resources, including national renewable energy resources. The Corporation will seek, where necessary, business partners through joint ventures with the private sector. The Jamaica Public Service Company Limited (JPSCo) is the major light and power company in Jamaica and has been so for over 85 years. It started life in private hands but became state owned in the 1970s and was privatized again in 2001. 2.5.4. The Global Environment Dimension National efforts to manage the environment have been described above. The relationship between Jamaica and the global environment is largely defined and supported through its participation in a number of international (or in some cases regional) Treaties, Conventions, Protocols and other forms of agreement. The chronology of Jamaica‟s participation in such agreements is shown in Table 2.2 30 below. In terms of the main Focal Areas of interest to the GEF, notably Biodiversity, Climate Change/Chemicals, Desertification/Sustainable Land Management and International Waters, Jamaica participates in many international agreements, has taken measures to meet its obligations under these and achieved some results. Figure 2.6 shows the chronological relationship between GEF interventions and national policies and commitments to international conventions and agreements. An overview of the country‟s current and potential contribution towards Global Environment Benefits in the various Focal Areas in relation to these international commitments and, in particular, support received from the GEF is assessed in Chapters 3 to 6 below. 31 Name of Treaty Date of Entry into Force National Focal Accession for for Jamaica Point Jamaica Convention on the Prevention of Marine March 22, April 21, 1991 National Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other 1991 Environment and matter (as amended), London, Mexico City, Planning Agency Moscow, Washington, 1972 International Convention on the Prevention June 13, 1991 Sept. 12, 1991 Maritime Authority of Pollution from Ships, London, 1973 of Jamaica [MARPOL] Protocol of 1978 relating to the June 13, 1991 Sept. 12, 1991 Maritime Authority International Convention for the Prevention of Jamaica of Pollution from Ships, London, 1973 United Nations Convention on the Law of March 21,1983 Nov. 16, 1994 Maritime Authority the Sea Montego Bay, 1982 [UNCLOS]. of Jamaica Vienna Convention for the Protection of March 31,1993 June 29, 1993 National Ozone Layer, Vienna, 1990. Environment and Planning Agency Montreal Protocol on Substances that March 31,1993 June 29, 1993 National Deplete the Ozone Layer, Montreal 1987. Environment and Planning Agency London amendment to the Montreal March 31,1993 June 29, 1993 National Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Environment and Ozone Layer, London, 1990. Planning Agency Copenhagen amendment to the Montreal Nov. 7, 1997 Feb 4, 1998 National Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Environment and Ozone Layer, Copenhagen, 1992 Planning Agency Montreal amendment to the Montreal Sept. 24, 2003 Dec. 22, 2003 National Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Environment and Ozone Layer, Montreal, 1997 Planning Agency Beijing Amendment to the Montreal Sept. 24, 2003 Dec. 22, 2003 National Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances, Environment and Beijing, 1999 Planning Agency United Nations Framework Convention On Jan. 6, 1995 April 6, 1995 Meteorological Climate Change, New York, 1992 Service Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations June 28, 1999 February 16, National Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2005. Environment and Kyoto, 1997. Planning Agency Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Jan. 6, 1995 April 6, 1995 Office of the Prime Janeiro, 1992 Minister Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Signed (June 4, Office of the Prime Convention on Biological Diversity, 2001) Minister Montreal, 2000 Convention on International Trade in April 23,1997 July 22, 1997 National Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Environment and 32 Fauna (CITES) Planning Agency Convention on Wetlands of International Oct. 7, 1997 Feb. 7, 1998 National Importance especially as Waterfowl Environment and Habitats [RAMSAR] Planning Agency United Nations Convention to Combat Nov. 12, 1997 March 10, 1998 Ministry of Water Desertification Paris, 1994 [UNCCD] & Housing Convention on Transboundary Movement of January 23, April 23, 2003 Office of the Prime Hazardous Waste and their Disposal [Basel 2003 Minister Convention] Basel, 1989 Rotterdam Convention on the Prior August 20, Feb. 24, 2004 National Informed Consent Procedure for Certain 2002 Environment and Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in Planning Agency International Trade, Rotterdam, 1998. Stockholm Convention on Persistent June 1, 2007 National Organic Pollutants, Stockholm, 2001 Environment and Planning Agency Convention for the Protection and May 1, 1987 Office of the Prime Development of the Marine Environment of Minister the Wider Caribbean Region, Cartagena de Indias, 1983 [Cartagena Convention] Source: http://www.nepa.gov.jm/conventions/index.asp Table 2.2: Environmental Treaties and Protocols to which Jamaica is a Party or Signatory 33 Jamaica CPS – Timeline from the Country Environmental Legal Framework analysis National Policy Papers and Documents Draft EMS Policy & Strategy National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Green Paper Jamaica Environment 2001 Local Sustainable Development Plans Watershed Management Policy JANEAP JANEAP JANEAP JANEAP Policy for National System of Protected Areas Policy for National System of Protected Areas Vision 2030 Energy policy National Laws and Regulations NRCA Act Town & Country Planning Act (1958) Land development & Utilisation Act (1966) Watershed Protection Act (1963) Beach Control Act (1956) Endangered Species Act Wildlife Protection Act (1975) Fishing Industry Act (1976) Fishing Industry Act Forest Act Regulations to the Forest Act Petroleum Act (1979) International Treaties and Agreements Conventionon the Prevention of marine pollution MARPOL International Conevention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships UNCLOS Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer Montreal Protocol London Amendment to Montreal Protocol Copenhagen Amendment to Montreal Protocol Montreal Amendment to Montreal Protocol Beijing Amendment to Monteal Protocol UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol Convention on Biological Diversity Cartagena Protocol on BioSafety CITES RAMSAR UNCCD Basel Convention Rotterdam Convention - Pesticides Stockholm Convention - POPs Cartagena Convention GEF Projects 3049 Piloting Natural Resource Assessments in EIAs 3487 Capacity Building for Sustainable Land management 4060 Renewable Wave Energy Technologies 64 Demand Side management 3764 Strengthening Operational & Financial Sustainability NPAS 439 1st National Communication UNFCC 472 National Biodiversity Strategy & Action Plan 1760 National Implementation Plan for POPs 1862 National Capacity Self Assessment for Global Environment Management 1882 Climate Change Enabling Activity 3180 3rd National report CBD 23 Conservation Arid & Semi-Arid zones 2774 Community Based Adaptation Programme 3871 GEF Small Grants Programme 41 Building Capacity for Vulnerability Adaptation Assessments 105 Planning for Adaptation to Global Climate change 178 Participatory Approach to managing the environment 614 Rehabilitation of Heavily Contaminated Bays 840 Caribbean Renewable Energy Development Programme 1032 Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem 1084 Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change 1254 IWCAM 1310 Regional Promotion of Global Environment protection 1604 Sustainable Conservationof Globally Important Caribbean Bird Habitats 3183 Mitigating the Threat of Invasive Alien Species 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Figure 2.6: GEF Activities in Relation to National Environmental Processes 34 CHAPTER 3: THE GEF PORTFOLIO IN JAMAICA 3.1 The Portfolio of National Projects As shown in Table 3.1, the GEF portfolio of national projects in Jamaica is relatively small. Six of the seven projects completed were Enabling Activities, covering several Focal Areas and all implemented by UNDP. The only other completed activity was an early World Bank (WB) implemented FSP in the Climate Change Focal Area, which received nearly four times as much GEF funding as all the EAs put together. The apparent concentration on Climate Change is therefore somewhat misleading, in the sense that one project skews the distribution; which was otherwise fairly even between biodiversity, climate change, POPS and multi-focal activities. Projects currently under implementation comprise two MSPs and one FSP, all of which are UNDP implemented. Here, biodiversity is the principal recipient of GEF funds, since the only FSP is in this area. The two MSPs are a Land Degradation and a multi-focal project. Two more projects have been approved by Council, one of which is in its start-up phase, while the other is awaiting CEO approval. Both are in Climate Change and, for the first time, UNEP is implementing a substantial national activity, although this is a “child� project of a much larger global activity. Overall, it is striking that 10 out of the 12 national projects supported are UNDP implemented. After an initial presence, the World Bank faded from view, in keeping with a lowered overall presence in the country, which was not in a strong position to attract new loans in view of its unsustainable debt burden. The WB Country Office has no specialist in the Environment and contacts with the GEF are mainly undertaken from Washington DC. The Inter American Development Bank developed one FSP, but later withdrew from it when the Government was unable to raise the necessary co-financing16. 16 GEF Focal Point, personal communication. 35 GEF Co- Support Financing Project Title Focal Area Agency Modality (Million $) (Million $) Completed National Projects (7) Demand Side Management Demonstration CC WB FSP 3.80 8.70 Enabling Jamaica to Prepare its First National Communication in Response to its Commitments to UNFCCC CC UNDP EA 0.23 0.12 Development of a National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy & Action Plan and Report to the CBD BD UNDP EA 0.19 0 Enabling Activities for Jamaica to Develop and Implement the National Implementation Plan for the POPs Convention POP UNDP EA 0.24 0 National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) for Global Environment Management MF UNDP EA 0.23 0.30 Climate Change Enabling Activity (Additional Financing for Capacity Building in Priority Areas) CC UNDP EA 0.10 0 Assessment of Capacity Building Needs, Preparation of the Third National Report (CBD) and the Clearing House Mechanism BD UNDP EA 0.22 0.18 5.01 9.30 National Projects under Implementation (3) Piloting Natural Resource Valuation within Environmental Impact Assessments MF UNDP MSP 0.50 0.13 LDC/SIDS Portfolio Project: Capacity Building for Sustainable Land Management in Jamaica LD UNDP MSP 0.50 0.49 Strengthening the Operational and Financial Sustainability of the National Protected Area System BD UNDP FSP 2.77 7.61 3.77 8.23 National Projects Council Approved (2) TT-Pilot (GEF-4): Introduction of Renewable Wave Energy Technologies for the Generation of Electric Power in Small Coastal Communities in Jamaica CC UNDP MSP 0.72 1.42 LGGE Promoting Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in Buildings in Jamaica CC UNEP FSP 2.36 4.70 3.08 6.12 GRAND TOTAL 11.86 23.65 Notes: BD = biodiversity; CC = climate change; EA = enabling activity; IW = international waters; LD = land degradation; MF = multifocal; WB = World Bank; FSP=Full Size Project; MSP=Medium Size Project; POP=Persistent Organic Pollutants. Table 3.1: National Projects by Status and Focal Area (million $) 36 The overall expenditure on GEF activities (including declared co-financing) is presented in Table 3.2 below. This again shows the focus on Climate Change, which is skewed by the only World Bank project; which had substantial co-financing (not all of which was ultimately used for its original purpose). Focal Area Completed On-Going Pipeline Total Share Biodiversity 0.59 10.38 10.97 31.13% Climate Change 12.95 9.20 22.15 62.85% International Waters 0 0.00% Multifocal 0.26 0.63 0.89 2.53% POPs 0.24 0.24 0.68% Land Degradation 0.99 0.99 2.81% TOTAL 14.04 12 9.2 35.24 Table 3.2: An Overview of GEF Supported National Projects in Jamaica; including Stated Co- Financing During the period of the RAF, Biodiversity somewhat increased its prominence in the portfolio, influenced by the fact that Jamaica had a sizable individual allocation in this area, but was a member of the Group Allocation in the case of Climate Change, as shown in Table 3.3. GEF-4 Indicative Allocation PIFs cleared by CEO Allocations remaining to Focal Area allocation* utilized awaiting approval be programmed Biodiversity 5,150,000 4,810,125 0 339,875 Climate Change Group *** 2,630,100 0 Group *** Table 3.3: RAF GEF-4 Allocation and Utilization (All amounts in US$) Key: * Individual Allocation Countries (Biodiversity) *** Group Allocation Countries (Climate Change) After the mid-point recalculation exercise, there are 112 countries in the group that can access up to US$M 3.3 in GEF-4, up to the limits of available funding. Under GEF-5, with the STAR allocation, the amounts for Biodiversity and Climate Change are somewhat less than Jamaica utilised during GEF 4, although the predictability has been improved by the individual allocations in the Climate Change and Land Degradation Focal Areas. STAR GEF-5 Allocation PIFs cleared by CEO Allocations remaining Focal Area Indicative utilized awaiting approval to be programmed allocation Biodiversity 4,800,000 0 0 4,800,000 Climate Change 2,000,000 0 0 2,000,000 Land Degradation 2,090,000 0 0 2,090,000 Total 8,890,000 0 0 8,890,000 Table 3.4: STAR GEF-5 Allocation and Utilization (All amounts in US$) 37 3.2 Jamaica’s Participation in Regional and Global Projects In addition to its national portfolio with the GEF, Jamaica has participated in a number of regional and global projects, which are listed in Tables 3.5 and 3.6 below. These have been important to the country, particularly in view of its status as a Small Island Developing State, with significant interest in issues concerning International Waters. Furthermore, the small scale of Jamaica means that it is more attractive to some Agencies for regional activities, than for national projects, which are of a relatively small scale. Table 3.5: Jamaica Regional Projects GEF Agency Focal Agency Type Name Project Status ID ID Area Building Capacity for Conducting Vulnerability 41 UNDP EA CC and Adaptation Assessments in the Caribbean CEO Approved Region Caribbean Planning for Adaptation to Global 105 IBRD 40739 EA CC Completed Climate Change (CARICOM) A Participatory Approach to Managing the 178 UNEP MSP MF Environment: An Input to the Inter-American Completed Strategy for Participation (ISP) Demonstrations of Innovative Approaches to the 614 UNDP 1443 FSP IW Rehabilitation of Heavily Contaminated Bays in Under Implementation the Wider Caribbean Caribbean Renewable Energy Development 840 UNDP 1437 FSP CC Completed Programme Sustainable Management of the Shared Marine 1032 UNDP 2193 FSP IW Resources of the Caribbean Large Marine Under Implementation Ecosystem (CLME) and Adjacent Regions Caribbean: Mainstreaming Adaptation to 1084 IBRD 73389 FSP CC Completed Climate Change Integrating Watershed and Coastal Area 1254 UNEP FSP IW Management (IWCAM) in the Small Island Under Implementation Developing States of the Caribbean Building Wider Public and Private Constituencies for the GEF in Latin America 1310 UNDP 2185 MSP MF and the Caribbean: Regional Promotion of Under Implementation Global Environment Protection through the Electronic Media Sustainable Conservation of Globally Important 1604 UNEP MSP BD Caribbean Bird Habitats: Strengthening a Completed Regional Network for a Shared Resource Mitigating the Threats of Invasive Alien Species 3183 UNEP FSP BD Under Implementation in the Insular Caribbean 38 Table 3.6: Jamaica Global Projects GEF Agency Focal Agency Type Name Project Status ID ID Area Promoting Best Practices for Conservation and Sustainable Use 23 UNEP MSP BD of Biodiversity of Global Completed Significance in Arid and Semi-arid Zones Community-based Adaptation Under 2774 UNDP 3508 FSP CC (CBA) Programme Implement 4th Operational Phase of the GEF 3514 UNDP FSP MF Completed Small Grants Programme (RAF-1) 4th Operational Phase of the GEF 3871 UNDP 3952 FSP MF CEO Endorsed Small Grants Programme (RAF2) 39 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF GEF SUPPORT GEF support in Jamaica has covered the full range of GEF Focal Areas, for which the country has been eligible, both through national projects and through Jamaican components of regional or global projects. The results of these activities are assessed below. A Focal Area approach is adopted, since this clarifies the inter-linkages between activities, the accumulation of results and progress along the causal chain from outputs towards long term impacts and Global Environment Benefits. As described in Chapter 3, much of the GEF portfolio in Jamaica has consisted of Enabling Activities. There are three broad categories of intervention. The first is that of enabling and capacity development. Results in this area are not easy to assess. In the short term, successful fulfilment of obligations under International Conventions is a satisfactory result. In the medium term, heightened capacity, particularly of Government, to address environmental management issues is an indicator of achievement. These results are expected to promote changes in the condition of the national environment, contributing to broader changes of global significance. The time scale to reach the impacts end of this chain of results is likely to be long and progress may not be consistent. The second category of intervention in Jamaica has been that of pilot/demonstration activities. Most of these have been provided under regional projects, mainly in the area of International Waters; but climate change and biodiversity have also benefited from such interventions. The short-term results of these activities can mainly be identified through community level environmental management systems. However, the main challenge is in sustaining these systems once project support and funding are phased out. The third category is that of full-scale investment projects. These have been rare in Jamaica, as is common with SIDS, which tend to have insufficient funding access for such major activities. Investment projects may have the possibility to directly generate environmental results, although the issues of scaling up and sustainability are critical for the attainment of long-term impacts. 4.1. Biodiversity 4.1.1 Enabling and Capacity Development Activities The GEF supported two Enabling Activities to biodiversity, both of which were implemented by UNDP. The first of these was for the Development of a National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan and Report to the CBD and resulted in the successful preparation of the documents required as part of its commitment to the CBD. The next produced an Assessment of Capacity Building Needs, Preparation of the Third National Report (CBD) and the Clearing House Mechanism. Results of this second project included; assessment of the policies and legislation required for the preservation of indigenous (traditional) knowledge, access to 40 genetic resources and benefit sharing, assessment of the improvements in organisational and operational arrangements in relation to the stakeholders responsible for biodiversity management; and the Third National Report. An additional outcome, aimed at improving the capacity of the Clearing House Mechanism and public sensitisation in relation to its role was also completed. The third activity in this set was part of a global MSP, implemented by UNEP; which aimed at Promoting Best Practices for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity of Global Significance in Arid and Semi-Arid Zones. This primarily targeted researchers and produced documentation on environmental practices in developing countries, which have been regarded as successful. The evaluation of this project found that it had produced useful documentation, which would need follow up to make it available to a broader audience. The three projects achieved their intended short-term results and contributed to strengthening national capacity to plan biodiversity conservation. 4.1.2 Pilot and Demonstration Activities At the next level, of pilot and demonstration activities intended to both generate direct environmental benefits and to establish approaches for replication and up-scaling, Jamaica participated in three GEF-supported regional project, all of which were implemented by UNEP. The first of these was the Participatory Approach to Managing the Environment: An Input to the Inter-American Strategy for Participation (ISP). This included a substantial pilot activity in the Portland Bight Protected Area (PBPA), which attempted to engage local community groups in managing a Sustainable Development Area. This was evaluated as a success, but the fragility of the gains made was raised as a sustainability issue, unless follow-up support and financing for the community groups could be assured. A Full Size Project for nearly US$4 million of GEF funding and with substantial co-funding was developed by the Inter American Development Bank, to build on the results of Portland Bight pilot activity. However, this was later dropped, as the Government was not able to put together the necessary co-financing package17. The second project, Sustainable Conservation of Globally Important Caribbean Bird Habitats: Strengthening a Regional Network for a Shared Resource, was also evaluated as a success. This was particularly so for the Jamaica pilot project in Cockpit Country. This established three Local Forest Management Committees to support the creation of International Bird Areas, which were to be incorporated in national Protected Management Plans. The project also delivered a substantial body of material in the region and specifically in Jamaica to classify endemic bird species and their habitats. As a side effect of the project, the potential environmental damage from bauxite mining in forest area bird habitats was raised to the level of a national issue. The Cockpit Country had earlier been the site of a proposed World Bank FSP in the field of conservation, 17 GEF Focal Point, Personal Communication. 41 which was dropped before the UNEP pilot began, because the Government could not give assurances that bauxite mining would not be undertaken in the conservation area. The final activity of this type is the Jamaica component of the regional project, Mitigating the Threats of Invasive Alien Species in the Insular Caribbean.. This project aims to address land, wetland and marine-based species. It has only recently started, so its results are not yet available 4.1.3 Full Size Activities The only FSP in the biodiversity area provides support for Strengthening the Operational and Financial Sustainability of the National Protected Area System. A Project Preparation Grant led to a full-sized project which is under UNDP implementation. The project is intended to assist NEPA and other institutions in implementing components of the Master Plan for the national system of protected areas. The project is at an early stage and results have not yet emerged. Summary: The GEF biodiversity projects have been broadly successful in delivering their results, much of which have enabled Jamaica to meet its obligations to global environment conventions. However, most of the completed activities have been of an enabling or pilot nature and the real challenges come with the need to sustain and scale up the results achieved. Given the limited resources available to the Jamaican Government, the prospects for this to happen are very slight and collaboration between international development partners becomes of prime importance, to maximize the complementarity between their activities. 4.2. International Waters GEF support in the area of International waters has been delivered through two projects, which were of an enabling/capacity development/pre-investment nature and a third, which had a substantial pilot activity in Jamaica. 4.2.1 Enabling and Capacity Development Activities The project Heavily Contaminated Bays in the Wider Caribbean had implementing support from both UNDP and UNEP (whose support consisted largely of sharing Best Practices). In Jamaica, the University of the West Indies conducted detailed research on the water quality of the Kingston Bay, building on earlier consultancy studies supported by CIDA and the World Bank. The Bay was found to be in an extremely poor condition and the study, together with substantial institutional, investment and legal assessment, led to far-reaching proposals for infrastructure, institutional and other environmental management activities. The estimated cost of these was over US$200 million. The project therefore delivered good quality findings and proposals, which could not be effectively implemented by Government, because of inadequate investment funds. 42 A second project, which falls into the enabling/capacity development category, deals with Sustainable Management of the Shared Marine Resources of the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME) and Adjacent Regions,. This commenced in 2008 and is on-going. The project is not listed in the UNDP Jamaica portfolio, since it is managed from the UNDP Regional Service Center‟s Energy and Environment Unit in Panama and from New York. Project activities started one year late and an extension has been requested. There are no available results reports yet. 4.2.2 Pilot Activity The best-known GEF-supported IW project in Jamaica is of a pilot/demonstration nature. This is the regional Integrated Watershed and Coastal Area Management Project (IWCAM), which had implementation components for both UNDP and UNEP. The UNEP Caribbean Regional Coordination Unit in Jamaica dealt with policy, legislative and staff aspects, while the UNDP Country Office managed the pilot project. In Jamaica, the direct results of the project came from its demonstration activities in the East Portland Watershed, which were completed in 2010. The most substantive outcome of the project was an approach to integrated watershed management that is seen in Jamaica as effective and innovative; and as one which is likely to be replicated on a wider scale. It demonstrated innovative watershed management practices that build local capacity and apply ecosystem principles. An integrated approach was piloted in Portland parish, reaching over 7,000 households. There were initiatives in training and infrastructure support for solid waste management, environmental monitoring, community clean-ups, awards for community and school sanitation, improved farming techniques, waste recycling, and the creation of a Stakeholders Group with planning and oversight functions. An Environment Centre will be created to offer information on IWCAM initiatives and sustain activity after the project has finished. In terms of demonstrated environmental benefits, it is too early to measure the project‟s contribution to the condition of the watershed, so in this sense effectiveness is difficult to verify. However, the process was valued by Government partners at NEPA and PIOJ, who consider that the IWCAM experience provides a working model for Jamaica‟s 23 watersheds. One of the institutional results of the project is that in March 2010 a Memorandum of Understanding was signed among government agencies to apply the IWCAM model in future initiatives. This is a major contribution in a critical area for the Jamaican environment, which also has the potential to feed into disaster risk reduction. Overall, the project can be seen as very effective in its role as a “demonstration� approach. The IWCAM project has strengthened NEPA‟s approach to policy and programme implementation. It is now able to approach integrated watershed management from an ecosystems perspective that links conservation to a broader development context and encourages the engagement of local government, farmers groups, community Organisations and schools. However, on the basis of a field visit made to the project area, the CPS team discovered that community impetus for environmental management is 43 already reducing and that there are considerable doubts about the sustainability of necessary activities, in the absence of long-term funding. Summary. Activities in the marine environment and watershed management are of critical importance to Jamaica and have received effective support from GEF activities. However, the high costs of investments proposed in Kingston Harbour were beyond national resources and the community based environmental management processes demonstrated by IWCAM have also already encountered sustainability issues, in the absence of continued benefit flows to communities. 4.3. Climate Change The Climate Change portfolio has been the largest in terms of GEF funding, although this is largely driven by one substantial FSP. 4.3.1 Enabling Activities/Capacity Development There has been considerable GEF support of an enabling/capacity development nature, both at national and regional level, covering both mitigation and adaptation. In 2001, the GEF funded an Enabling Activity, implemented by UNDP, which assisted Jamaica to complete its First National Communication to the UNFCCC. Between 2005 and 2010, support was also provided for Jamaica‟s Second National Communication to the UNFCCC, following a PDFA. By this time, responsibility for Climate Change was vested in the Meteorological Service, Office of the Prime Minister. The consultations and assessments held during this process resulted in broadening the Meteorology Service‟s contacts with line ministries, NGOs and civil society Organisations. This led to an innovative awareness campaign with the NGO PANOS in which climate change information and good practices have been incorporated into the music of recognized reggae artists. Although the Second National Communication to the UNFCCC was not completed in time for COP 15, the process provided inputs into the design of a proposed national Climate Change Resilience Plan. This activity can therefore be seen as effective, despite missing the target date for its Communication. The work undertaken also provided background data for the development of the National Energy Policy. UNDP “topped up� this project with its own funds to introduce an advocacy and communication component, which had been lacking. This contributed to national awareness raising on the issues of Climate Change and helped prepare the national Delegation to the COP. In addition to its Enabling Activities with regard to mitigation projects, Jamaica has participated in several GEF regional programmes to raise its capacity in the field of adaptation. The (UNDP) project Building Capacity for Conducting Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessments in the Caribbean Region was a regional enabling activity. The results of this project could not be located, but it was followed by the much larger Caribbean Planning for Adaptation to Global Climate Change (CPACC) project, with the World Bank as Agency, which ran from 1997 to 2002. This project delivered results to the participating countries, including Jamaica, in terms of the definition and collection of data sets, from which baselines could be constructed for future adaptation initiatives. It designed and established a Sea Level/Climate Monitoring Network in the region, developed databases and information systems, provided an inventory of coastal 44 resources for use in Geographical Information System format and associated capacity development, assisted countries to identify their specific climate change issues and plans to implement responsive actions and generally raised the profile of Climate Change issues throughout the region. Some weaknesses were also present, most notably the relatively low level of political buy in to the required actions and the danger of a substantial implementation gap between the results of the research undertaken and the capacity to effectively respond to its findings. Following on the CPACC project, after a “bridge� project financed by CIDA, came the Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change Project, also implemented by World Bank. The project ran from 2003-2009, and resulted in enhanced capacity in the region to address adaptation issues. The Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre, one of the key outcomes arising from the earlier project, was able to take a management role on behalf of the region when the original Executing Agency, CARICOM, withdrew. Jamaica benefitted directly from the project through assistance with the development of its National Adaptation Strategy. 4.3.2 Pilot Activities In addition to the enabling and capacity development support received, Jamaica participated in the Caribbean Renewable Energy Development Programme; which covered 13 countries and was implemented by UNDP between 2003 and 2009. The project was subject to substantial hold-ups and changes of partner and delivered fewer results than anticipated. A set of workshops raised the level of awareness around the region concerning the potential of renewable energy. The most discernable result for Jamaica came from the demonstration project, the Wigton Wind Farm. This delivered 20 MW to the national grid and was an early example of this possibility, which had been opened up in the country by legislative changes removing the monopoly of energy production. In 2009, Jamaica received a PPG to prepare a project on Renewable Wave Energy Technologies, which was approved in late 2010. It is too early for results to have emerged from this activity. Another project, which was developed with the support of a PPG, was recently approved by GEF Council. This targets Promoting Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in Buildings in Jamaica. This is the child of a global UNEP programme in this area and is too early for results from this project. Jamaica is also participating in the global Community-Based Adaptation Programme, which will be funded through the SGP. This will support small scale projects, which will have a demonstration character, with the intention of replication on a larger scale. No projects have yet been completed, so that it is too early to consider results. 4.3.3 Full Size Activities The Demand Side Management Demonstration Project was the earliest GEF FSP in any Focal Area in Jamaica and was implemented by the World Bank. It ran from 1994 to 45 1999. As part of this Country Portfolio Study, a Review of Outcomes to Impacts (ROtI)18 was conducted for this project, to assess its contribution towards its intended long-term results or impacts. This discovered that, ten years after completion, the project has partially achieved its intended progress towards impact and the expected Global Environment Benefit. Initially, the project had generated a significant market share of the domestic lighting market for Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs (CFLs), thereby delivering a reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions. According to a World Bank assessment19, “the use of CFLs resulted in GHG emissions reductions of approximately 132 kilotons (Kt) in 1995-2004, with additional reductions of 245 Kt expected through 2010. Of this total, 91-108 Kt are attributable to JDSMP in 1995-2004 and an additional 111-150 Kt in the period to 2010�. These estimates are detailed in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1 below. Table 4.1: GHG Emissions Reductions Resulting from Use of CFLs 20 18 Volume Two of this Report 19 World Bank-GEF Post-Implementation Impact Assessment: Jamaica Demand Side Management Demonstration Project , World Bank, 2006. 20 Op. cit. Table 8.3 46 Figure 4.1: Alternative Scenarios of GHG Reductions Resulting from Switch to CFLs 21 In addition to these results, with direct GEBs, the project also raised capacity and interest in energy efficiency in buildings, leading to substantial take up in the Government sector, but relatively little in the private sector. Small project activities in support of Solar Photovoltaic Units for rural communities and of Solar Water Heaters for housing had delivered very modest results. At the institutional level, the project greatly raised the awareness, interest and capacity of Government concerning the potential benefits of promoting energy efficiency and demand side management, (which were mainly reductions in the cost of doing business for Government). In the early post-completion period, it appeared that the project‟s contribution might fade away (apart from the market transformation for CFLs), as a result of the privatisation of the main national energy supplier, since the new Company was mainly interested in enhancing sales of energy and therefore had little commitment to Demand Side Management. However, Government‟s interest revived and strengthened as part of the process of developing a national Energy Policy. This has a component sub-policy on Energy Conservation and Efficiency that explicitly refers to the DSM project as part of its antecedents. The issues around Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Demand Side Management have also, over time, been well incorporated at all levels of the national educational system, including at University level, which is a regional facility. 21 Op. cit. Figure 8.3 47 Summary. Overall, in the field of Climate Change, GEF support has helped Jamaica to substantially raise its capacity in such fields as renewable energy, energy efficiency, adaptation and energy sector planning and management. In terms of tangible environmental benefits, the main results so far have been through the large scale adoption of Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs, with limited additional gains from energy efficiency measures taken by Government. The adaptation activities have raised the capacity to understand and track the effects of climate change and to plan responses to them. Both in mitigation and adaptation, the major challenge concerns how the country can finance the measures necessary to further reduce GHG emissions, adapt effectively and lower vulnerabilities associated with Climate Change. 4.4. Persistent Organic Pollutants The GEF also supported Enabling Activities for Jamaica to Develop and Implement the National Implementation Plan for the POPs Convention between 2003 and 2009. As a result of the GEF support (UNDP implemented) Jamaica ratified the Stockholm Convention in 2007 and completed its The National Implementation Plan, which is not yet legally in force. 4.5. Desertification and Land Degradation The project Developing Sustainable Land Management to address Land Degradation in Jamaica was formulated with the assistance of PDF A grant. It held its start up meeting in June 2010. Pilot sites have since been identified for small demonstration projects on sustainable land use and rehabilitation of degraded mining sites. These will inform the design of a national Land Management Plan, with chances for replication on a wider scale. This project has not yet produced any results and its effectiveness cannot be judged. 4.6. Multi Focal Activities 4.6.1 Enabling and Capacity Development Activities. The GEF supported a UNDP-implemented Multi-Focal Enabling Activity for the National Capacity Self Assessment for Global Environmental Management (2003). This was executed by the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) and identified capacity gaps; leading to the preparation of plans for short, medium and long term activities in support of Jamaica‟s global commitments in biodiversity, climate change and desertification, which fed into later GEF support in these areas. Implementation of the capacity development project, Incorporating Natural Resource Tools into Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures (NRV) has been stalled by 48 delays, but is expected to strengthen NEPA‟s capacity for making informed decisions on licensing and permit applications. It could also provide inputs for future carbon emissions and PES (payment for environmental service) initiatives that are under consideration. There are no results as yet. 4.6.2 Pilot and Demonstration Activities The GEF-supported Small Grant Programme has helped many small scale organisations to pursue environmental and sustainable development objectives. In view of the scale of these activities, they can be categorised as pilot projects, since they need substantial scaling up or replication to generate progress towards GEBS. For example, the Jamaica Conservation Development Trust introduced agro-forestry, organic coffee cultivation and other income generating activities in rural communities near the John Crow national park in Jamaica‟s Blue Mountains. Such initiatives have made a small-scale contribution towards lowering the threat of biodiversity loss from logging within the protected area, while encouraging local “buy in� to conservation goals. This type of approach has the potential for incorporation into the management plans of other Protected Areas. An award for the Jamaica Association on Mental Retardation has enabled the Kingston facility to meet part of its food needs, by rehabilitating hillsides with used tyres placed along contour lines, using composting techniques for horticulture. Initial attempts to sell aromatic herbs were successful but business training is needed, as well as drip irrigation to offset seasonal drought. Overall, there have been 75 approved SGP projects in Jamaica. Many of these cover more than one GEF Focal Area to some degree, although most are not designed to be fully multi-focal. For this reason, the 75 projects as described in SGP databases score more than 75 in their coverage of Focal Areas, as indicated in the following figures: Land Degradation (42 projects), Biodiversity (31 projects), Climate Change Mitigation (14 projects), Adaptation (10 projects) and Multi Focal (4 projects). It can be seen that land degradation and biodiversity (sometimes together) are the main areas addressed. 49 CHAPTER 5: RELEVANCE OF GEF SUPPORT The relevance of GEF support concerns the extent to which it helps Jamaica meet its commitments under international agreements and conventions concerning the global environment, whilst assisting in national environmental management, according to the policies and laws of the country. Since most international agreements relate to the major Focal Areas supported by the GEF, relevance is most readily addressed within this framework. As with results, it is helpful to view the GEF portfolio in terms of a progression from Enabling Activities and capacity development, through pilot and demonstration activities to full size projects, although specific projects may have components which span these categories. 5.1. Biodiversity As shown in Section 2.4, Jamaica began to make systematic efforts to protect its biodiversity in the 1980s, initially with support from USAID. The 1991 National Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA) Act established a mandate for developing a Protected Areas System (PAS), while the 1992 Jamaica National Park Trust Fund was the first attempt to sustainably finance such a system. During the 1990s, several new Protected Areas were declared. National efforts continued to establish and sustain national systems of biodiversity protection. However, the results of these efforts have been hampered by inadequate human and financial resources. In terms of the major international agreements concerning biodiversity, Jamaica acceded to the CBD in 1995, CITES in 1997, RAMSAR (1997) and the Cartagena Convention in 2001. This history clearly established the national importance of biodiversity and the commitment of Jamaica to meet the intentions of the international agreements. The GEF portfolio in this area is now reviewed to assess its relevance to the commitment and intentions of the country. 5.1.1 Enabling and Capacity Development Activities These support activities came from national, regional and global projects. The first was in 1998, with (UNDP implemented) assistance for the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan and the Country‟s Report to the CBD. A follow up to this was implemented by UNDP and executed by NEPA from 2008 to 2010. This helped prepare Jamaica‟s Third National Report to CBD and supported the Clearing House Mechanism. The objectives of this project were to assess Jamaica‟s existing capacities, needs and priorities to fulfill its obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity and included:  Assessing capacity needs in the areas of preservation of indigenous knowledge, access to genetic resources and benefit sharing  Conducting initial assessments and identify monitoring programs, including taxonomy for biodiversity 50  Increasing the capacity of the Jamaica Clearing House Mechanism (JA-CHM) to provide relevant data to assist in the country's development of the various sectors  Sensitizing the public to the JA-CHM and its potential to assist in economic planning and hence development  Developing the Third National Report to the CBD. At the regional level, Jamaica was one of three Caribbean countries participating in a project to help conserve Globally Important Caribbean Bird Habitats. The goal of this UNEP-implemented FSP was: "Conservation status of globally important sites for biodiversity in the Caribbean is enhanced through strengthened local and national partnerships and increasingly aware national and international networks of public and private sector stakeholders and decision-makers�. Jamaica was also the only Caribbean participant in a global MSP, implemented by UNEP, concerning sustainable use of biodiversity of global significance. Activities focussed on research, workshops, networks and information dissemination and were conducted the University of the West Indies. 5.1.2 Pilot and Demonstration Activities A biodiversity activity at this level is the Jamaica component of a regional (UNEP) project on Invasive Alien Species. This is implemented through the University of West Indies in Jamaica and has components covering both marine and terrestrial invasive alien species, as well as a focus on wetlands. 5.1.3 Full Size Projects Specific GEF support to the Protected Areas system is a relatively late area of activity and has entered an arena where substantial internationally and nationally funded interventions have already failed to achieve their intended objectives. In Jamaica, one of the critical elements of Protected Areas concerns their long-term funding. In September 2010, a FSP was approved (following a PPG) by the GEF CEO with the objective to consolidate the operational and financial sustainability of Jamaica„s national system of Protected Areas. Three main components are intended to help achieve this: (1) strengthening of planning and revenue generation; (2) rationalizing and integrating the national system of Protected Areas; and, (3) increasing the effectiveness of protected area management. As shown earlier, the country has been struggling with these issues since the 1980s and the assistance therefore builds on earlier activities and remains highly relevant. 5.1.4 Summary The GEF has engaged in biodiversity activities in Jamaica since 2003; and grew in this area as earlier major funders such as US AID phased out. It has collaborated consistently with the National Environment Protection Agency, which is the main Agency mandated to develop effective biodiversity conservation in the country. Apart from the national elements of regional and global activities, there has been a progression from a set of 51 Enabling Activities, through an MSP to the first national FSP, focusing on sustainability of the Protected Area system. GEF interventions are therefore assessed as highly relevant to assist Jamaica to meet its national and international objectives in this focal area. 5.2. International Waters Jamaica‟s marine environment is of great importance to the island in terms of its biodiversity, fisheries and tourism benefits. The country has substantial legislation in this area; including the Beach Control Act, the Watershed Protection Act and the Fishing Industry Act. There are also pending policies on Wetlands and Coral Reef Protection. The Country also has a Council on Ocean and Coastal Zone Management. Jamaica has acceded to several international and regional agreements; including UNCLOS, London Dumping, the Cartagena Convention and Marpol. 5.2.1 Enabling, Capacity Development and Pre-Investment Activities The country has participated in IW regional projects from an early stage. A project on heavily contaminated bays was implemented by UNDP (through UNOPS) from 1995 to 1998. The main activity in Jamaica was to develop an institutional entity responsible for the rehabilitation and environmental management of Kingston Harbour, to design and construct a pilot wastewater treatment facility for the Kingston metropolitan area; and to support the initial operation and maintenance of the treatment facility. (GEF funding of US$2,500,000) There was also a UNEP component, which consisted largely of sharing Best Practices, the Final Workshop of which was not held until 2009. Another regional project, (prepared with PDF-B support) has looked at the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME). This is again UNDP implemented and UNOPS executed. The specific objectives of the project are: to identify, analyze and agree upon major transboundary issues, root causes and actions required to achieve sustainable management of the shared living marine resources in the Caribbean Sea LME; to improve the shared knowledge base so that sustainable use and management of transboundary living marine resources will be possible; to implement legal, policy and institutional reforms regionally and nationally to achieve sustainable transboundary living marine resource management; to develop an institutional and procedural approach to LME level monitoring, evaluation and reporting for management decision making. The project is not listed in the UNDP Jamaica portfolio, since it was managed from New York and does not appear to be well-known in the country. 5.2.2 Pilot Project The best-known GEF-supported IW activity in Jamaica is the regional IWCAM, which was completed in 2010. This had a complex institutional structure. The Executing Agencies were UNOPS, the Caribbean Environmental Health Institute in Saint Lucia and the Secretariat of the Cartagena Convention. UNOPS was responsible for the demonstration projects, which were implemented by UNDP. The UNEP Caribbean Regional Coordination Unit in Jamaica, with assistance from the Policy Section in Nairobi, had lead responsibility for policy and legislative reforms and for staff matters. The overall objective of the project was to strengthen the capacity of the participating 52 countries to implement an integrated approach to the management of watersheds and coastal areas (IWCAM). The long-term goal was to enhance the capacity of the countries to plan and manage their aquatic resources and ecosystems on a sustainable basis. The project recognised the integrated and interlinked nature of watersheds and coastal areas in small islands and aimed to develop a more sectorally-coordinated management approach, both at the national and the regional level, with a strong emphasis on an expanded role for all stakeholders within a participatory management framework. The specific objective for the Jamaican component (US$601,000), which was executed by the National Environment Management Agency, was to support a demonstration project in the East Portland Watershed with the specific objectives to develop:  A model watershed area management mechanism including effective administrative procedures, monitoring and data collection, compliance and enforcement mechanisms and removal of socio-economic barriers through sustainable economic development.  Applicable solutions to detrimental watershed activities  Demonstrations of alternative livelihoods and land-use practices. Identification of transfer mechanisms and replication potential. 5.2.3 Summary The GEF has provided substantial support since the mid-1990s for Caribbean regional international waters activities, most of which have included Jamaica. The IWCAM project is well-known in the country, by virtue of its substantial national demonstration project on watershed management. The other projects are less visible, although the Kingston Harbour project designed an institutional structure to manage the associated water body. 5.3. Climate Change National climate change mitigation activities in Jamaica have centred on issues of energy efficiency, seen primarily as a cost saving measure, particularly for Government. Renewable energy is still a minor element. Adaptation issues are increasingly viewed as important, particularly because of the country‟s high susceptibility to natural disasters. Jamaica acceded to UNFCCC in 1995 and to the Kyoto Protocol in 1999. 5.3.1 Enabling and Capacity Development Activities Mitigation An early Enabling Activity assisted the Ministry of Water and Housing to assess greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from forestry, industrial processes, land use change and the energy and transport sectors. Building on this support, Jamaica completed its First National Communication to the UNFCCC in 2001. Later the country was also support for its Second National Communication. By this time, responsibility for Climate Change was vested in the Meteorological Service, Office of the Prime Minister. The Communication including a national inventory of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removal by sinks of all GHGs not covered by the Montreal Protocol. The project suggested 53 mechanisms and priorities for improving capacity and prioritising the activities needed to address climate change issues; both in terms of mitigation as well as adaptation and reduction of vulnerability. The incorporation of climate change into national development policy and a sustainable programme to facilitate education and public awareness of climate change were also supported. In the event, the Communication was not completed in time for the COP, although most of the work had been undertaken. In 2009, the country received a PPG to develop a project on Renewable Wave Energy Technologies, on the basis of which a UNDP implemented MSP is now in its start-up phase. The national partners are the Ministry of Energy and Mining and the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica. The project aims to explore possibilities for the introduction of renewable wave energy technologies for the generation of electric power in Small Coastal Communities in Jamaica. As well as cooperation with the government partners, this will require coordination with possible private sector partners, as well as bilateral and multilateral financing institutions. In addition to these national Enabling Activities, Jamaica participated in a regional FSP, which covered 13 countries, to help develop renewable energy. This received just over US$ 4 million of GEF funding, including a PDF A and PDF B. It also had substantial co- funding, including from GTZ and national Governments. It was implemented by UNDP, with CARICOM as the Executing Agency in the region. The project aimed to remove barriers to renewable energy use in the Caribbean. Through actions to overcome policy, finance, capacity, and awareness barriers, it expected to help increase the contribution of renewable energy sources to the region‟s energy balance. Although the GEF support finished in 2009, the project continues with GTZ funding. Adaptation Jamaica has been party to several regional projects in the area of adaptation to Climate Change. An early (UNDP) activity aimed to build capacity for conducting Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessments. Information on whether this activity was undertaken could not be located. However, Jamaica later participated in a World Bank Enabling Activity on the related theme of Planning for Adaptation. The regional Agency was CARICOM, with the Organization of American States as Executing Agency. The responsible Agency in Jamaica for adaptation activities is now the Meteorological Office of the Ministry of Land and Environment. Although this was a very substantial project, completed more than eight years ago, the World Bank website states “No evaluation documents available for this project.� Another World Bank implemented regional enabling activity focused on mainstreaming adaptation. It aimed to facilitate an enabling environment for climate change adaptation in participating states. Its activities included: building regional capacity to collect, and analyze data, thus expanding the knowledge base on climate change impacts in order to assess the associated physical, and socioeconomic vulnerabilities; building in-country capacity to formulate, and analyze adaptation policy options, and finalize sectoral adaptation; building capacity in preparation for a regional position for the UNFCCC; helping to develop a regional strategy, including the preparation of business plans, and 54 mobilization of resources; and supporting public education and outreach programs, by strengthening information access and data resources, and, fostering public awareness, through technical assistance and capacity building. The project ran from 2003-2009, with an ICR in the same year. 5.3.2 Pilot and Demonstration Activities Mitigation A major initiative currently awaiting CEO approval is a Low Greenhouse Gas Emission (LGGE) buildings project, which is expected to start in March 2011, with the title Promoting Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in Buildings in Jamaica. This has several national partners, including: University of the West Indies (UWI), in corporation with the Center of Excellence for Renewable Energy (a division of the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica/Ministry of Energy), the Scientific Research Council of Jamaica, the University of Technology, the National Housing Trust, and possible Private Sector Organizations. Although operating in the same field as the earlier GEF- World Bank Demand Side Management Project and as some current (self-funded) UNDP activities, it takes a completely different approach. It will finance the construction of a prototype net zero energy, zero-carbon „smart‟ building as a demonstration project, accompanied by active dissemination and training programmes. Its primary goal is “to build an innovative new prototype that offers radically better solutions�, which “demonstrate that tropical and sub-tropical countries are not restricted to modest, incremental improvements which will do relatively little to solve the problem of climate change, but can move directly to far superior solutions that will transform energy efficiency and productivity in tropical and sub-tropical regions. This will result in improved building practices�. The “modest … improvements� referred to in a somewhat dismissive manner are exactly the type promoted by the earlier GEF-sponsored activities, which focused primarily on retro-fitting existing buildings. Adaptation Jamaica will also participate in the UNDP implemented global Community-Based Adaptation Programme, which aims at “Responding to Climate Change One Community at a Time�. The programme is managed from New York and funding for activities will be made available through the Small Grants Programme. No projects have yet been funded. 5.3.3 Full Size Activities Climate Change activities in Jamaica received early GEF support (US$ 3.8 million) for the Demand Side Management Demonstration Project, which ran from 1994 to 1999. This Full Size Project was implemented by the World Bank in collaboration with the Jamaica Public Service Company, a Government-owned body, which was at that time the only power supply facility in the country. The Inter American Development Bank was the other major international funder (US$ 3.5 million) of this activity: which had several components including; energy efficient lighting for homes, energy audits for Government 55 and private sector buildings, and some small add-ons at a late stage in the project in the areas of solar PV and solar water heating. 5.3.4 Summary on Climate Change The GEF has made relevant interventions in the field of Climate Change in Jamaica, through national, regional and global activities. Both mitigation and adaptation have received substantial support. Compared with biodiversity, Jamaica has relatively recently focused on issues in this Focal Area and GEF support has therefore been particularly relevant here in raising awareness and capacity and enabling the country to participate actively in the Conventions and Protocols to which is it a signatory. 5.4. Persistent Organic Pollutants GEF support in this area has enabled Jamaica to develop and start to implement its National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention. This (UNDP) project was executed by NEPA between 2003 and 2009. It designated a focal point for POPs in Jamaica, engaged relevant stakeholders in discussions surrounding the implementation of the convention and established coordinating mechanisms and organizing processes for POPs activities. It oversaw preparation of a National Implementation Plan (NIP), including inventories and assessments and the setting of priorities. The objectives of the NIP and specific actions for implementation of POPs will proceed based on the endorsement of relevant stakeholders. By the end of the project, it was intended that Jamaica would be able to ratify and implement the Stockholm Convention, which it did in 2007. The Plan was completed but is not yet legally in force. Clearly, with regard to POPs, GEF support has been relevant in assisting Jamaica to ratify the Convention and develop the associated Plan. 5.5. Desertification and Land Degradation Jamaica suffers substantial land degradation issues, associated with deforestation and mineral extraction industries. It joined the UNCCD in 1997. The country is now receiving assistance to develop approaches to address Sustainable Land Management and Land Degradation. The project is implemented by UNDP in association with the Forestry Department and aims to deliver the following: conduct assessment of the major factors causing land degradation in Jamaica, including socio-economic issues, drought assessment, and policy and legislation related to land degradation; develop and implement pilot projects to demonstrate effective approaches to combat land degradation. The project is relevant to pressing national concerns on sustainable land management. 5.6. Multi Focal Area Activities 5.6.1 Enabling Activities Jamaica has participated in several Multi-Focal activities. An influential Enabling Activity was the National Capacity Self Assessment for Global Environmental Management, which was implemented by UNDP and NEPA. It aimed to provide Jamaica with the opportunity to conduct a thorough self-assessment and analysis of national capacity needs, priorities and constraints with respect to its efforts to meet its 56 global environmental management objectives.. The NCSA process was to take into consideration and evaluate the relevant activities and outputs of the National Communication on Climate Change (NCCC), the National Strategy and Action Plan for Biological Diversity (NSAPBD) and National Reports to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). In terms of biodiversity, therefore, the GEF support began after Jamaica signed the CBD and enabled it to prepare its Strategy and Action Plan. The NCSA project then enabled the country to assess what additional capacity might be needed to move forward from this process. A current UNDP implemented MSP (executed by NEPA) aims to develop a set of natural resource valuation techniques, and incorporate these into Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) processes. Specifically it is attempting to strengthen the implementation of EIAs and to contribute to the implementation of SEAs; through the development and application of natural resource valuation tools. The project has worked in parallel with the Canadian (CIDA) and Government of Jamaica-funded Environmental Action Programme (ENACT); to ensure that SEAs are undertaken on various sectoral policies, programmes and plans. Jamaica is also listed on GEF files as a participant in the project, Building Wider Public and Private Constituencies for the GEF in Latin America and the Caribbean: Regional Promotion of Global Environment Protection through the Electronic Media. However, the Terminal Evaluation for this project shows that there was no component in the country. 5.6.2 Pilot Activities The country participated in the UNEP regional project, Participatory Approach to Managing the Environment: An Input to the Inter-American Strategy for Participation (ISP), which was executed by the Organization of American States/Unit for Sustainable Development OAS/USDE. The Jamaica pilot project aimed to promote and institutionalize citizen participation and empowerment in the decision-making process for the conservation and sustainable development of the Portland Bight Protected Area (PBPA). The project intended to demonstrate that local communities could be empowered to manage their land and the resources they depend upon and become effective change agents toward sustainable development. A national NGO, Caribbean Coastal Area Management (CCAM) was responsible for administering the Portland Bight Sustainable Development Area. Its approach consisted of training and supporting stakeholder councils to gradually assume complete management responsibility within a five-year period. This project was relevant to national concerns on participatory national resource management and relates to the later IWCAM project. The UNDP Small Grants Programme has been very active in Jamaica, with projects in such fields as biodiversity, alternative energy and land management. Its Steering Committee includes the UNDP Country Office and the Environmental Foundation of Jamaica, where the Secretariat is housed. The core allocation for GEF 5 is US$1.5 million and the Secretariat is hoping to receive additional STAR funds after the National Portfolio Formulation Exercise. The Small Grants Programme is well-known in the 57 country and supports a range of activities relevant to community-based natural resource management. 5.7. Summary As shown above, GEF projects have been relevant to Jamaica‟s national policies and legislation; and to its commitments to international environmental agreements. This has been summarised in the chronology of the projects and key environmental actions taken by the Government of Jamaica, broken down by GEF Focal Area, has been provided in Figure 2.6. 58 CHAPTER 6: EFFICIENCY OF GEF SUPPORT The overall support of GEF-financed activities depends on many factors, including the GEF Activity Cycle, Agency systems, Government Ministry and Agency procedures and the role of other stakeholders. When all of these factors are taken into consideration, it can be anticipated that the overall path of a GEF project will be long and that there may be considerable variation between projects. These aspects are explored in this chapter. 6.1 The GEF Activity Cycle A schematic view of the GEF Activity Cycle is provided in Figure 6.1 below. It can be seen that the majority of steps are taken before the project starts. An important element is the design/preparation stage. The option has always been available to obtain GEF funds to assist in this process, which may include original research and extensive consultation processes. Projects which have received GEF assistance for this stage (earlier called PDFs and now PPGs) may therefore show a long duration in moving from stage A to stage B. This does not in itself reflect inefficiency, but a thorough preparation process. On the other hand, once a project has been approved by Council, the step to CEO endorsement does not appear to require substantial additional work. However, this stage of the Cycle may run into problems of availability of funds, either overall or for specific Focal Areas. The efficiency of the Activity Cycle cannot therefore be assessed simply by comparing the durations of stages across projects. This measure is mainly informative when projects and other elements of the system are compared across similar activities in similar situations. Figure 6.1: Key elements of the GEF Activity Cycle Bearing in mind the above reservations and the large amount of missing information in the GEF project information system, a brief analysis of the Activity Cycle for the GEF Jamaica portfolio is presented below. 59 A- B- C- Project Title B C D D-E B-E A-E Demand Side Management Demonstration - - - 134 468 - Strengthening the Operational and Financial Sustainability of the National Protected Area System 59 565 59 - - - LGGE Promoting Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in Buildings in Jamaica 40 115 - - - - Key: - No data Table 6.1: Duration of Activity Cycle for GEF Supported FSPs in Jamaica A- B- C- Project Title B C D D-E B-E A-E Piloting Natural Resource Valuation within Environmental Impact Assessments - - 351 - - - LDC/SIDS Portfolio Project: Capacity Building for Sustainable Land Management in Jamaica - - - - - - TT-Pilot (GEF-4): Introduction of Renewable Wave Energy Technologies for the Generation of Electric Power in Small Coastal Communities in Jamaica - 397 61 31 489 489 Key: No data Table 6.2: Duration of Activity Cycle for GEF Supported MSPs in Jamaica 60 A- B- C- Project Title B C D D-E B-E A-E Enabling Jamaica to Prepare its First National Communication in Response to its Commitments to UNFCCC - - 109 - - - Development of a National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy & Action Plan and Report to the CBD - - 367 0 - - Enabling Activities for Jamaica to Develop and Implement the National Implementation Plan for the POPs Convention - - 222 0 - - National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) for Global Environment Management - - 109 0 341 - Climate Change Enabling Activity (Additional Financing for Capacity Building in Priority Areas) - - - - - - Assessment of Capacity Building Needs, Preparation of the Third National Report (CBD) and the Clearing House Mechanism - - - - - - Key: - No data Table 6.3: Duration of Activity Cycle for GEF Supported EAs in Jamaica 61 Given the small number of projects, particularly within each type of activity (FSP, MSP, EA) it is not possible to make any strong conclusions on the efficiency of the GEF project cycle. It can be noted, however, that within the categories, there are substantial differences between projects. For example, looking at the two GEF 4 FSPs, the biodiversity project took 565 days for CEO Endorsement, as against only 115 days for the climate change project. Among the Enabling Activities, the first Biodiversity project took far longer than the others to get Agency or EA approval. Certainly, it can be said that the limited available data do not suggest any clear systemic delays across the GEF cycle, but rather that individual projects get held up for specific reasons or combinations of reasons. Furthermore, there is just as much variation moving from Stage C to D, which is the domain of Implementing and Executing Agencies as from B to C, which is within the GEF system. 6 .2 Agency Processes The largest part of the Jamaica national portfolio has been implemented by UNDP. After an early substantial input with the Demand Side Management Project, the GEF profile of the World Bank has reduced and its Country Office has no environment specialist. The Bank‟s presence has continued through a number of regional activities, managed from Washington DC. UNEP has, until recently, been engaged in global and regional projects, in which Jamaica has participated. The Inter American Development Bank prepared a project, but later dropped it. 6.2.1 UNDP With regard to the UNDP-GEF activities, the GEF portfolio has not operated efficiently. Many projects have experienced some form of delay, which frustrates partners and may reduce effectiveness, since projects often have to take short cuts, to try to get back on schedule. Few projects have avoided contracting delays, because of limited national and regional availability of qualified environmental expertise, as well as administrative hold- ups. For example, the commencement of the Capacity Building for Sustainable Land Management project was delayed for two years after its approval in January 2008 due to successive delays and problems in recruiting a lead expert and Project Manager. This recruitment process had to be conducted three times, before a suitable candidate could be identified. Under these conditions, implementation can become slow and disjointed. For example, Strengthening the Operational and Financial Sustainability of the National Protected Area System was supposed to be implemented from September 2008 to January 2010. At the time it commenced, there was no Head of Energy And Environment in the UNDP CO, which contributed to delays in the recruitment of project staff. By the end of 2009 only 30% of the budget had been spent, and an extension was requested. Delays in obtaining clearance from the National Protected Areas Committee on ToRs for consultant posts also held up implementation. The Biodiversity Add on project was signed in May 2008; the project coordinator arrived in April 2009 and the project work plan was revised. Project activities commenced several months later, and a 6-month project extension was approved until January 2010. 62 The Second National Communication on Climate Change faced delays in identifying and hiring project consultants. The late recruitment of a mitigation expert led to delays in the analysis of mitigation options and preparing the final report, as a result of which the project had to be extended. The Natural Resource Valuation project was scheduled to begin implementation in September 2008, but had only spent 1.3% of a budget exceeding US$ 500,000 one year later. It went through a long recruitment process for the environmental economics specialist due to the limited expertise available. IWCAM experienced delays in the procurement and installation of stream flow monitoring stations. Implementation delays affect programme and financial delivery. Between 2007 and 2009, the UNDP GEF portfolio substantially under spent against its budget.22 A number of factors contributed to this unfavourable situation. GEF funding processes appeared to be slow, the preparation of environment projects in the UNDP system requires inputs from many staff in different locations, both UNDP and Government of Jamaica procurement processes are slow and the institutional profile of the environment sector in the Jamaican Government is complex and subject to frequent changes. Regional projects face even greater hurdles before and during implementation. In many cases, UNDP provides contracting and procurement services for projects. Its performance is affected by high staff workloads, slow administrative processes and the large volume of applications that must be processed for project positions. The main challenges to the efficiency of the UNDP-GEF portfolio have included extended contracting delays caused by the limited availability of qualified environmental expertise, over-ambitious project timelines that are exacerbated by recruitment delays, and slow disbursement processes that are attributed to problems with the UNDP harmonized cash transfer mechanism. Some of these constraints are a function of the UNDP global system and difficult for its Country Office to resolve. Possible options to improve the situation include the use of consultant rosters and referrals; the rotation and cost sharing of specialized expertise among projects addressing common issues or “topping up� budget lines for international expertise when national or Caribbean-based candidates are not available. Unrealistic project timelines could be partially offset by budgeting additional time to compensate slow recruitment and start-up processes; and by including inception phases to expedite implementation and contracting arrangements in advance. The UNDP Country Office programme staff are regarded by local stakeholders as responsive and supportive. However, there appears to be a limited internal monitoring budget for GEF activities and field visits depend on project funds or “piggybacking� on other activities. This seems surprising, since GEF project budgets include a provision for management, some of which is applied to services provided by global and regional levels of the UNDP GEF operation, whilst some reaches the national level. Within the UNDP Country Offices, financial records indicate that most GEF management funds are expended during the project preparation stage, rather than during implementation. The 22 Executive Snapshot V. 4.5: Programme Financial Summary – RBLAC/Jamaica 63 combination of heavy workloads, limited staff and resources does not allow for in-depth monitoring. Nevertheless, Jamaican Government and NGO partners consider UNDP monitoring of GEF activities satisfactory and regard the UNDP team as responsive and effective partners. UNDP regional projects have also experienced implementing inefficiencies. The Caribbean Renewable Energy Development Programme (UNDP Regional) had a problematic institutional start up. A succession of four different bodies was exhausted before the funding arrangements could be settled, resulting in a substantial delay in start up. There were then delays in procurement processes. In the case of the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem project, managed from the UNDP Regional Office in Panama, recruitment of the Regional Project Coordinator took one year, so the project was substantially delayed in starting. 6.2.2 UNEP The UNDP has not been alone in experiencing inefficiencies and delays in its GEF activities. For example, the UNEP regional project, Sustainable Conservation of Globally Important Caribbean Bird Habitats: Strengthening a Regional Network for a Shared Resource suffered major disruptions, delays and inefficiencies. The Executing Agency, BirdLife Jamaica, collapsed and overall management was taken over by BirdLife international headquarters in UK. Local activities were subcontracted to several individuals and organisations, which eventually worked reasonably well. The Jamaica component of the regional (UNEP) project, Mitigating the Threats of Invasive Alien Species in the Insular Caribbean, has suffered from major start up delays, which seem to have largely resulted from technical disagreements between the regional management institution and the national executing partners. As a result, project components started very late or, in some cases, using the researchers‟ own resources. 6.2.3 World Bank The World Bank implemented project, Caribbean Planning for Adaptation to Climate Change suffered from cumulative delays. At its start, there were problems in housing the Project Implementation Unit, which eventually had to move to a different location. This delay led to funding problems as the value of the Special Drawing Rights declined and the project had inadequate resources. Similarly, in the case of the World Bank implemented Caribbean Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change project, the original Executing Agency dropped out and another took over. Regional collaboration took more time than anticipated. The project had two extensions and internal management documents noted the apparent lack of anticipation of these overruns. Reviews of the World Bank-GEF Activities have suggested a number of measures to respond to inefficiencies experienced in the operating environment in the region. These include: the need for conservative scheduling and planned cost contingencies, particularly 64 to take account of currency fluctuations; careful planning and realistic scheduling for the establishment of new institutions; more realistic assessment of risks to project delivery; realistic assessment of implementation capacity on the ground and adequate allowance for capacity development needs; consistent measures to ensure Government commitment. In view of the complexity of the measures, which have been found necessary to deliver results, project time scales should be more realistic. 6.2.4 Summary of Agency Processes It has been shown that many GEF projects, whether national, regional or global, have suffered from delays, often extensive. In 6.1, the overall GEF Activity Cycle was reviewed and it appeared that was no clear trend of delays in those parts of the cycle managed directly by the GEF, but that there were substantial differences between projects. There was also considerable variation in the time taken to gain approval by Implementing and Executing Agencies. At the extreme of this process, projects have been dropped altogether. Two specific examples of reasons for dropping a project at this stage have been difficulties in raising co-financing and breakdown in negotiations between an agency and the Government on conditionalities imposed on a project. The main reason for inefficiencies in the Jamaica portfolio has clustered around issues of recruitment, procurement and capacity of institutions designated to house project personnel. Jamaica faces a range of challenges associated with SIDS operating in inflexible institutional systems designed for larger countries and portfolios. These systems require competitive processes, which cannot be met in countries and regions with limited specialist environmental personnel and suppliers. This has led on numerous occasions to delays, repeat recruitment exercises and sometimes selection of international applicants, who are later found inappropriate for regional requirements. 6.3 The GEF Focal Point Process 6.3.1. Operations of the Focal Point The GEF Operational Focal Point (FP) has no office or staff, but established a GEF Support Group in 2004 to help develop and review proposals. This group has broad representation; including the Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ), NEPA, energy sector bodies and the Forestry Department. This broad range of stakeholders has helped to develop the GEF portfolio and has been particularly useful in helping prepare project proposals and apply for Project Preparation Grants, which require extensive consultation, including public meetings. With the Support Group, the FP is able to gather all views before pushing ahead with any proposal. The PIOJ plays an important part in funding preparations, in view of its expertise in this area and its coordinating role with international agencies. PIOJ used to hold meetings with all the donors and agencies involved in the environment sector, but these seem to have faded away. This process needs to be revived on a regular basis. Now the GEF is promoting the inclusion of the Convention Focal Points in the GEF planning processes, but it is not clear how far this will go. If they can sign off on proposals, there will no longer be a role for the GEF FP. 65 The GEF FP support funds are used to develop databases and documentation and for small consultancies 6.3.2. Experience of Developing the GEF Portfolio In the early days of GEF financing, the process was unstructured. Although funds were potentially available, the country had no system in place to raise the necessary co- financing. So Enabling Activities were the mainstay of the portfolio, with some larger projects through the World Bank. Gradually, as the Focal Point got more information from the GEF, she was able to put together a more structured approach. The experience of developing a GEF portfolio has been mixed. Support from the relevant Agency is very important. Co-financing has been a major challenge and has meant that many proposed projects could not go ahead. Often, a GEF project proposal is fully developed before they start to look for the co-financing. Issues around baselines and Incremental Costs have also posed many difficulties. The GEF portfolio so far has been very much on a project by project basis. There has been a complex institutional environment, with several Agencies, numerous consultancies, different levels of support and involvement by a broad range of Government Agencies. So it has been very challenging to produce proposals in a timely and effective manner. Enabling Activities have not been so difficult to put together. The institutional complexity has been an important reason for the central role played by UNDP in the GEF portfolio, since its environment team are always available for engagement. The capacity development process in the environment sector is a long one. For example, in terms of Climate Change, the GEF has so far played an important role in the initial process of raising awareness, but there are still capacity issues to be addressed. In biodiversity, the GEF project assistance to financial and operating systems will play an important role in raising the long term capacity of the Protected Area System. Whilst development of a coherent GEF portfolio has been a long process, the SGP has already become an effective GEF activity, which presents the opportunity for communities to participate. It has been a major factor in raising an identity for the GEF. The Community-Based Adaptation to Climate Change project is expected to provide a similar opportunity, which also has a practical focus and will be managed by UNDP. The GEF in Jamaica has mainly been a positive experience. In particular, the SGP has moved the portfolio forward and established and a good reputation at community level. Few implementation projects have been completed, but when they are, they are expected to have a positive effect on environmental management and to further raise the profile of the GEF. 66 6.3.3. The RAF and the STAR The RAF brought some structure into the GEF process and helped the FP to pull together programmes in biodiversity and climate change. Whilst Jamaica had a national allocation in biodiversity, it was part of the regional funds for climate change. The processes during the RAF period were very confused and seemed to change every month, so that the country did not feel able to follow what was happening. Jamaica‟s understanding of the GEF perspective was that it should try to do fewer, but more substantial projects23. In the post-RAF era, the country will for the first time have the opportunity to plan its programme and the GEF portfolio may be more country-driven. There have been many ideas for GEF projects, but often they are not eligible or viable. In principle, anyone can develop a funding proposal, but in practice the co-funding rules eliminate most potential stakeholders. The room for manoeuvre is very limited in the GEF system and there is little possibility of changing priorities or responding to specific events, such as natural disasters. The Jamaica STAR allocation is US$2 million per annum, so there is not so much to plan and certainly little room for national discretionary use of funds. Regional projects will therefore continue to be needed to offer valuable additional possibilities. Overall, the GEF system still does not seem well adapted to the needs of SIDS. 6.3.4. Working with GEF Agencies The development of the GEF programme has drawn heavily on UNDP. Their Country Office makes them reachable and they are able to assist the Focal Point by clarifying procedural and programming issues and offering expert advice. In terms of the GEF, they are the most approachable face of the international agencies. However, preferences of the GEF system do not always favour this approach. When the Jamaican Government first considered a project on Low Greenhouse Gas Emissions Buildings, they intended to work with UNDP on it, since it fitted well with other work this Agency was doing in the country. However, the FP understood from the GEF Secretariat that this would not be funded as a national project, so the country turned to UNEP, which is said to have a comparative advantage for regional and global projects according to the GEF system. 6.3.5. Challenges facing the Focal Point In terms of implementation challenges, hiring consultants and project staff has been very difficult, particularly with UNDP. The recruitment process in-country is often quickly completed; the interview panel makes its recommendations, but by the time the UNDP system makes its formal selection and offer letter, the potential consultants or staff are no longer available. Other donors, such as the EC and IDB seem to be able to discuss such issues and take action much more quickly. Another major challenge is that the national level components of Regional Programmes have often been difficult to implement. For example, the Caribbean Large Marine 23 GEF Operational Focal Point (pers.comm.) 67 Ecosystem Project suffered from weak communication and changes in key personnel, so that it is now virtually restarting from scratch. The expected involvement of Jamaica became unclear in this process and there will be a meeting in Panama to try to resolve the challenges. The first IDB proposal for a substantial national activity, following up on the IWCAM demonstration project, was caught up in the economic decline of the country. The PIOJ, the Government‟s main interface with international agencies, informed the FP that the country could not meet the co-financing requirement, so that the project had to be dropped. The Heavily Contaminated Bays project also ran into co-financing problems and most of its proposed investment programme could not go ahead. In the case of pilot or demonstration activities, which are usually in regional projects, it is good that the country has been able to select its own location, as in the case of the IWCAM project. However, the major challenge is that the pilots cannot play an effective catalytic role; since there are no national resources for replication or scaling up and they just finish without follow up. 6.3.6 Partnerships, Collaboration and Synergies The immediate counterpart for UN implemented activities is the Jamaican Institute of Planning (PIOJ), while the National Environment Protection Agency (NEPA) executes many of these activities. NEPA‟s regulatory and coordination mandate opens access to other stakeholders, and it has considerable institutional memory and project implementation experience. National partners value the role and assistance of the UNDP Country Office in assisting them to execute GEF initiatives in Jamaica. They indicated that its greatest asset is its flexibility and responsiveness to their needs. Partnership building is an important additional benefit expected to result from participating in GEF activities. This is particularly important for a relatively small programme, such as that in Jamaica. In several cases, national Agencies have expanded their partner networks through GEF projects. The IWCAM project has helped NEPA develop a new approach to working with government agencies, local government and community Organisations. The Meteorology Service, which is the national Focal Point for the UN Convention on Climate Change, strengthened its contacts with the Cabinet of Ministers and line agencies while preparing the Second National Communication on Climate Change and (for the first time) worked directly with an NGO on climate change. UNDP has implemented its GEF activities with an inclusive approach to design and implementation, which has produced good results over time and has contributed to the quality of national environmental management, although this would be difficult verify through evaluation.24 An area of less effective performance concerns inter-agency collaboration between UNDP and UNEP, which was found to be at a low level. The main positive example of 24 See also, UNDP, „Outcome Evaluation of UNDP‟s Environment and Energy Programme: A Mid-Term Perspective‟, by Hugo Navajas, UNDP Jamaica, Kingston, 2010, P18 68 such collaboration encountered was in the regional IWCAM project, which identified complementary roles for the two agencies.25 However, this collaboration was externally determined and was not a result of national initiatives. For sustainability and replication of most of the GEF-supported activities to be viable, substantial follow-up actions are needed to expand their outcomes, demonstration value and policy effect. However, the CPS found that, outside of the immediate circles involved with GEF activities, they are not well-known. This reinforces an earlier finding of a UNDP Environment Outcome Evaluation.26 In particular, other International Development Partners contacted had very partial knowledge of the GEF portfolio, a factor that may seriously restrict the possibilities of raising co-funding or developing partnerships with them. This weakness is particularly important in view of the extremely limited sources available to the Government of Jamaica for environmental activities, even those of high national priority. 6.4. The Role of Monitoring and Evaluation In terms of the Jamaica GEF portfolio as a whole, Monitoring and Evaluation have played a very limited role. Agencies manage their projects on the basis of monitoring data, most of which concerns progress against input and output targets, with some consideration of progress toward outcomes. Terminal Evaluations or their equivalent are not normally undertaken for Enabling Activities, but are available for some MSPs and FSPs. The World Bank has also conducted a post project Impact Assessment of its only national project. On behalf of the Government, the Planning Institute of Jamaica monitors all donor-funded activities, including those of the GEF. Overall, since few projects have been completed, there is little evaluation information on the portfolio. What there is has been collected by individual Agencies and is not put together in any coherent fashion to assess the GEF portfolio. The country, through its Focal Point and PIOJ, is informed of evaluation exercises and findings, but does not play a lead role in them and there is no national database of GEF activities and their results. Overall, there is no coherent national level evaluation of GEF activities, so it is not possible for the FP to develop a clear overview of how the portfolio is working or to derive best practices 6.5 National Ownership The GEF portfolio has been mainly designed by Agencies, but is relevant to national priorities. The Government and other stakeholders have committed to activities at various stages of design and implementation, but cannot be said to have led the process. The highest degree of partnership obtains between UNDP and national partners, in view of the availability of its Programme Officers in the Country Office. The Focal Point has provided consistent support to the portfolio development process and is beginning to move towards a more proactive role, in the light of changes of emphasis in the GEF 25 UNDP co-finances the Strategic Flexible Funding Facility with DFID, and collaboration is being sought for disaster reduction projects. 26 Outcome Evaluation of UNDP’s Energy and Environment Programme: A Mid-Term Perspective . Hugo Navajas, P 32-33, UNDP Jamaica June 2010. 69 system under the RAF and now under the STAR. However, the Focal Point has no office and minimal resources, so the possibilities for an enhanced role, which might promote and coordinate increased national ownership currently appear limited. Hence, on the basis of experience to date, it would be more appropriate to talk of “national adoption� rather than “national ownership� of the GEF portfolio. 70 ANNEXES 71 ANNEX 1: STANDARD TERMS OF REFERENCE AND EVALUATION MATRIX FOR GEF COUNTRY PORTFOLIO STUDIES Background 1. Country Portfolio Studies (CPSs) are an addition to the Country Portfolio Evaluations (CPEs) which is one of the main evaluation streams of work of the GEF Evaluation Office.27 By capturing aggregate portfolio results and performance of the GEF at the country level they provide useful information for both the GEF Council and the countries. CPEs‟ relevance and utility will increase in GEF-5 with the increased emphasis on country ownership and portfolio development at the country level. The CPSs complement the CPEs and provide additional coverage of country portfolios, but have a reduced focus and scope. They are undertaken where opportunities to collaborate with independent evaluation offices of GEF partners present themselves. With a relatively lower investment in costs and efforts the Evaluation Office will be able to study the GEF portfolio in a country where a country level evaluation of a GEF Agency is taking place, thus reducing the evaluation burden to these countries while gaining insights and understanding through information exchange and collaboration. 2. This document is based on the revised standard terms of reference (TOR) for CPEs approved on 16 September 2010. CPSs will be conducted fully and independently by the GEF Evaluation Office in collaboration with GEF Agency evaluation offices. Collaboration with future or ongoing evaluations conducted by GEF Agency evaluation offices will produce more informed and complete evaluations. The exchange of information will provide the evaluations with a broader context and a better understanding of priorities and how the country portfolio has evolved. This joint work will also lead to parallel reporting to the GEF Council and the Agency concerned. CPSs are limited in scope compared to CPEs, with more concrete questions, fewer number of stakeholders to be interviewed (basically the key actors participating in the GEF in the country) and limited visits to projects (one or two completed projects to verify results). 3. These standard TOR will be used to guide CPSs without having to prepare country specific TOR as is done for CPEs. In addition, specific agreements will be developed between the GEF Evaluation Office and the relevant GEF Agency evaluation office to govern the collaboration between offices. Such agreements will highlight the reciprocal benefits and synergies of the collaboration from the point of view of the two offices and the concerned country. Objectives 4. The purpose of CPEs and CPSs is to provide the GEF Council with an assessment of how GEF is implemented at the country level, to report on results from projects and assess how these projects are linked to national environmental and sustainable development agendas as well as to the GEF mandate of generating global environmental benefits within its focal areas. These studies will have the following objectives: iv. independently evaluate the relevance and efficiency28 of the GEF support in a country from several points of view: national environmental frameworks and decision-making processes; the GEF mandate and the achievement of global environmental benefits; and GEF policies and procedures; 27 Countries having undergone CPEs during GEF-4 are: Costa Rica, the Philippines, Samoa, Benin, Cameroon, Madagascar, South Africa, Egypt, Syria, Moldova, and Turkey. 28 Relevance: the extent to which the objectives of the GEF activity are consistent with beneficiaries‟ requirements, country needs, global priorities and partners‟ and donors‟ policies; Efficiency: a measure of how economically resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are converted to results. 72 v. assess the effectiveness and results29 of completed projects aggregated at the focal area; vi. provide feedback and knowledge sharing to (1) the GEF Council in its decision making process to allocate resources and to develop policies and strategies; (2) the Country on its participation in, or collaboration with the GEF; and (3) the different agencies and organizations involved in the preparation and implementation of GEF funded projects and activities. 5. CPSs do not have an objective of rating the performance of GEF Agencies, partners or national governments. The studies will analyze the performance of individual projects as part of the overall GEF portfolio, but without rating such projects. However, information on performance will be gathered and integrated into the general reporting of the CPE stream of evaluation work of the Office, as well as the performance stream of work. Key Evaluation Questions 6. GEF CPSs are guided by the following key questions and each case study will report only on those that are appropriate and for which sufficient information could be found (also identifying which questions were inappropriate and for which questions insufficient information was available): Effectiveness, results and sustainability g) What are the results (outcomes and impacts) of completed projects? h) What are the aggregated results at the focal area and country levels? i) What is the likelihood that objectives will be achieved for those projects that are still under implementation? j) Is GEF support effective in producing results related to the dissemination of lessons learned in GEF projects and with partners? k) Is GEF support effective in producing results which last in time and continue after project completion? Relevance d) Is the GEF support relevant to: the national sustainability development agenda and environmental priorities; national development needs and challenges; action plans for the GEF’s national focal areas? e) Are GEF and its Agencies supporting environmental and sustainable development prioritization, country ownership and decision-making process of the country? f) Is the GEF support in the country relevant to the objectives linked to the different Global Environmental Benefits (GEBs) in biodiversity, greenhouse gases, international waters, land degradation, and chemicals focal areas? l) Is the country supporting the GEF mandate and focal areas programs and strategies with its own resources and/or with the support from other donors? Efficiency e) How much time, effort and financial resources does it take to formulate and implement projects, by type of GEF support modality? 29 Results: the output, outcome or impact (intended or unintended, positive and/or negative) of a GEF activity; Effectiveness: the extent to which the GEF activity‟s objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance. 73 f) What role does Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) play in increasing project adaptive management and overall efficiency? g) What are the roles, types of engagement and coordination among different stakeholders in project implementation? h) What are the synergies for GEF project programming and implementation among: GEF Agencies; national institutions; GEF projects; and other donor-supported projects and activities? 7. Each of these questions is complemented by indicators, potential sources of information and methods, as contained in the standard CPE evaluation matrix annexed to these TOR. This matrix can be used to determine which questions are approprIate and for which sufficient information could be found. Scope and Limitations 8. CPSs can cover GEF supported activities in the country at different stages of the project cycle (ongoing and completed) and implemented by all GEF Agencies in all focal areas, including applicable GEF corporate activities such as the Small Grants Programme. The main focus of the evaluation will be nationally implemented projects. In addition, national components of regional and global projects could be taken into consideration to present the overall support and participation in the GEF, but without attempting to fully assess their aggregate relevance, results and performance.30 Special attention will be paid to international waters projects which are usually regional in nature. 9. The main focus of CPSs will be on completed projects and partly on ongoing projects. The stage of the project will determine the expected focus (see table 1). Table 1. Focus of Evaluation According to Stage of Project Focus On an Exploratory Basis Project Status Relevance Efficiency Effectiveness Results Completed Full Full Full Full Ongoing Full Partially Likelihood Likelihood 10. The GEF does not have country programs, so there is no GEF framework with predetermined objectives against which to assess overall results of the GEF support. 31 The CPS will therefore consider the portfolio of projects and activities, their objectives, their internal coherence and how the portfolio has evolved. The country programs of GEF Agencies, as agreed with the government and the country‟s national strategies and mid- and long-term goals, will be considered as a relevant framework for GEF support. 11. GEF support is provided through partnerships with many institutions, so it is challenging to consider GEF support separate from the contribution of partners. The CPS will not attempt to provide a direct attribution of development results to the GEF, but will try to address the contribution of the GEF support to the overall achievements. 12. The context in which these projects were developed, approved and are being implemented constitutes another possible focus of the CPS. To the extent feasible, the study will include a brief historical presentation of the national sustainable development and environmental policies, strategies and 30 The review of selected regional projects will feed into the aggregate assessment of the national GEF portfolio described above. 31 Voluntary National Portfolio Formulation Exercises (NPFEs) are being introduced in GEF-5. CPSs that will be conducted in countries having chosen to do an NPFE will use it as a basis for assessing the aggregate results, efficiency and relevance of the GEF country portfolio. 74 priorities, legal environment in which these policies are implemented and enforced and their relationship to GEF Agency country strategies and programs, and the relevant GEF strategies, policies, principles, programs, and projects. 13. The assessment of results will be focused, where possible, at the level of outcomes and impacts rather than outputs. Project-level results will be measured against the overall expected impact and outcomes from each project. Progress towards impact of one adequately mature project (i.e. completed for at least two years) will be assessed through a field Review of Outcome to Impact (ROtI) study, where applicable. Expected impacts at the focal area level will be assessed in the context of GEF objectives and indicators of global environmental benefits. Outcomes at the focal area level will be primarily assessed in relation to catalytic and replication effects, institutional sustainability and capacity building, and awareness. Methodology 14. CPSs will be conducted by staff of GEF Evaluation Office and consultants based in the country or with extensive country experience (the study team), led by a Task Manager from the GEF Evaluation Office.32 The consultant(s) should qualify under the GEF Evaluation Office Ethical Guidelines, and will be requested to sign a declaration of interest to indicate no recent (last 3-5 years) relationship with GEF support in the country. The GEF Evaluation Office will provide extensive support in preparing databases and project review protocols, identifying and providing documentation and contact with relevant institutions as well as any necessary logistical arrangements at the local level. The GEF Operational Focal Point in the country, although not a member of the study team, will be an essential partner in the study. 15. The methodology includes a series of components using a combination of qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods and tools. The CPS will to a large extent depend on existing documents that provide overviews of issues, aggregate results or independent analysis of legal frameworks, strategies and trends in sustainable development and the environment. The expected sources of information could include documents and articles on:  Country level: national sustainable development agendas, environmental priorities and strategies, GEF-wide, focal area strategies and action plans, global and national environmental indicators  GEF Agency level: country assistance strategies and frameworks and their evaluations and reviews 16. Besides, the following are primary documents to be reviewed during the CPS:  Project level: project documents, project implementation reports, terminal evaluations, terminal evaluation reviews, reports from monitoring visits, and any other technical documents produced by projects  Evaluative evidence at country level from other evaluations implemented either by the GEF Evaluation Office, by independent evaluation units of GEF Agencies, or by other national or international evaluation departments 17. Moreover, evaluative information will be sought in the country through:  Interviews with selected GEF stakeholders, including the GEF Operational Focal Point and other relevant government departments, civil society organizations, and academia (including both local and international NGOs with a presence in the country), selected GEF Agencies, SGP and the national UN conventions‟ focal points  Interviews with selected GEF beneficiaries and supported institutions, municipal governments and associations, and local communities and authorities 32 For the study team preference will be given to local consultants when possible. 75  Field visits to selected project sites, using methods and tools developed by the GEF Evaluation Office such as the Review of Outcomes to Impact (ROtI) and the Terminal Evaluation Verification Guide, depending on the maturity of the portfolio  National consultation workshops conducted by or in collaboration with the relevant GEF Agency evaluation unit 18. Where feasible, indicators will be used to assess the relevance and efficiency of GEF support using projects as the unit of analysis (that is, linkages with national priorities, time and cost of preparing and implementing projects, etc.) and to measure GEF results (that is, progress towards achieving global environmental impacts) and performance of projects (such as implementation and completion ratings). Available statistics and scientific sources, especially for national environmental indicators, will also be used. Where sufficient data and findings are available, triangulation will be applied in the analysis to verify and validate findings. 19. The CPSs will include visits to selected project sites. The criteria for selecting the sites will be finalized during the implementation of the study, with emphasis placed on completed projects and those clustered within a particular geographic area given time and financial resources limitations both ongoing and completed projects. The Task Manager will decide on specific sites to visit based on the initial review of documentation and balancing needs of representation as well as cost-effectiveness of conducting the field visits. Process and Outputs 20. Countries for CPSs are selected based on opportunities for collaboration with GEF Agency evaluation units. The study team will complete the following tasks, with support from the GEF Evaluation Office:  Decide on specifics of collaboration with the relevant GEF Agency evaluation unit.  Secure government support, in particular the GEF Operational Focal Point, in collaboration with the GEF Agency evaluation unit.  Collect information and review literature to extract existing reliable evaluative evidence.  Prepare specific inputs to the CPS, including: - the GEF Portfolio Database, which describes all GEF support activities within the country, basic information (GEF Agency, focal area, implementation status), project cycle information, GEF and co financing financial information, major objectives and expected (or actual) results, key partners per project, etc. - the Country Environmental Legal Framework, which provides a brief historical perspective of the context in which the GEF projects have been developed and implemented. This historical perspective will be accompanied by a timeline diagram that shows how GEF support relates over time to the development of the national environmental legislation and policies, as well as to the international environmental agreements signed by the country. - a description of the country‟s contribution to the GEF mandate of achieving Global Environmental Benefits in its focal areas. This description will be based on the most readily available indicators, such main species and percentage of land under protected status for biodiversity, GHG emissions for climate change, and others used in projects documents.  Conduct at least one field study (ROtI, or field verification of terminal evaluation) of a completed national project, selected in consultation with the Office staff, which will contribute to strengthen the information gathering and analysis on results, as appropriate. 76  Conduct the evaluation analysis and triangulation of collected information and evidence from various sources, tools and methods.  Prepare draft report and presentation for consultation/workshop jointly with the relevant GEF Agency evaluation office. Workshop participants include government and other national stakeholders, project staff, donors, GEF Agencies and civil society. Stakeholders‟ feedback will be sought on the main CPS findings, conclusions and preliminary recommendations. The workshop will also be an opportunity to verify eventual errors of facts or analysis in case these are supported by adequate additional evidence brought to the attention of the Evaluation Team.  Prepare final CPS report, which incorporates comments received through consultations/workshop with national stakeholder. 21. The GEF Operational Focal Point will be requested to provide support to the CPS such as: suggestion on key people to be interviewed, facilitation of communication with relevant government departments, support with the agenda of the evaluation, field visits and meetings, and suggestions on main documents. GEF Agencies will be requested to provide support to the CPS regarding their specific projects or activities supported by the GEF, including suggestions on key project and Agency staff to be interviewed, participation in interviews, arrangement of field visits to projects, and provision of project documentation and data. 22. The main output of the CPS will be a report consisting of a systematic treatment of all the key questions that could be answered (see paragraph 6), including data, analysis, and evaluative judgments. The GEF Evaluation Office will bear full responsibility for the content of the report. Government and national stakeholders will be able to review and comment on a draft prior to finalization. The GEF Evaluation Office will take sole responsibility for including the data, analysis, and judgments in the Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation Report and will make the CPS available to the GEF Council and the general public through the GEF Web site. Key Milestones 23. The study will be conducted between [month/year] and [month/year]. The key milestones of the CPS are presented below: Milestone Deadline Preparatory work, preliminary data gathering Literature review, data gathering Finalization of the GEF country portfolio database Country Environmental Legal Framework Global Environmental Benefits description Field studies Data collection/interviews and project review protocols, portfolio overview Consolidation and triangulation of evaluative evidence Presentation of key findings through joint consultations/workshop with stakeholders Draft CPS report sent out to stakeholders Incorporation of comments received in a final CPS report Final CPS report Country response to the CPS CPS Report Outline 24. The CPS report should be a stand-alone technical document organized along the following general table of content. It should ideally be circa 25 pages. 77 CHAPTER 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations - Background and Objectives - Scope and Methodology - Conclusions (Relevance, Efficiency, Results and Effectiveness) - Recommendations CHAPTER 2. Study Framework and Context - Methodology and Limitations - Key Questions - Global Environment Benefits description - Country Environmental Legal Framework - The GEF Portfolio CHAPTER 3. Results of GEF Support - Global Environmental Impacts by Focal Area and in Multi-Focal Area Activities - Achievements in Supporting National Priorities, including Capacity Building - Catalytic and Replication Effects CHAPTER 4. Relevance of GEF Support - GEF Support and National Sustainable Development and Environmental Priorities - GEF Support and Global Conventions and other international agreements - Country Ownership CHAPTER 5. Efficiency of GEF Support - Time, Effort, and Money - Roles and Responsibilities, and the GEF Focal Point Mechanism - Coordination and Synergies ANNEXES: A. Terms of Reference B. Evaluation Matrix C. Interviewees D. Sites Visited E. GEF Portfolio in [country] F. Bibliography 78 GEF SGP Greenhouse Project 79 STANDARD EVALUATION MATRIX Key question Indicators/basic data Sources of information Methodology Is GEF support effective in producing results … Project staffs and beneficiaries, national and local Focus groups and individual interviews government representatives Project outcomes and impacts ROtI studies ROtI methodology … at the project level? Existing ratings for project outcomes (i.e., self-ratings Project-related reviews ( implementation reports, Desk review, project review protocols and independent ratings) terminal evaluations, TE reviews, etc.) Changes in global benefit indexes and other global Evaluative evidence from projects and donors, Global Literature review, meta analysis of evaluation reports environmental indicators Environmental Benefits Assessment Project staffs and beneficiaries, national and local Focus groups and individual interviews government representatives Aggregated outcomes and impact from above ROtI studies ROtI methodology Project-related reviews ( implementation reports, GEF Portfolio aggregate analysis terminal evaluations, TE reviews, etc.) Data from overall projects and other donors Desk review … at the aggregate level (portfolio and program) by ROtI studies ROtI methodology focal area? Catalytic and replication effect Project staffs and beneficiaries, national and local Focus groups and individual interviews government representatives Data from overall projects and other donors Desk review ROtI studies ROtI methodology Contribution by the GEF Project staffs and beneficiaries, national and local Focus groups and individual interviews government representatives Project-related documentation (project documents and Aggregated outcomes and impact from above logframes, implementation reports, terminal GEF portfolio aggregate analysis, desk review evaluations, TE reviews, etc.) … at the country level? Project staffs and beneficiaries, national and local Overall outcomes and impacts of GEF support Field visits, focus groups and individual interviews government representatives Data from projects financed by other donors and or by Catalytic and replication effect Desk review, ROtI methodology the government. ROtI studies Project-related reviews (implementation reports, terminal evaluations, TE reviews, etc.), ROtI studies, Desk review, ROtI methodology, GEF portfolio and Project design, preparation and implementation have project staffs and beneficiaries, national and local pipeline analysis … related to the dissemination of lessons learned incorporated lessons from previous projects within government representatives in GEF projects and with partners? and outside GEF NGO staffs, Project staff and beneficiaries, national Focus groups and individual interviews and local government representatives Availability of financial and economic resources Project-related reviews (implementation reports, Desk review, focus groups and individual interviews, Stakeholders' ownership, social factors terminal evaluations, TE reviews, etc.), NGO staffs, … which last in time and continue after project project review protocols, ROtI methodology, GEF Existence of a techical know how Project staffs and beneficiaries, national and local completion? portfolio analysis Environmental risks government representatives, ROtI studies Existence of an institutional and legal framework Country legal environmental framework Literature review, timelines, historical causality, etc. 80 Key question Indicators/basic data Sources of information Methodology Is GEF support relevant to… Relevant country level sustainable development and environment policies, strategies and action plans GEF support is within the country’s sustainable Project-related documentation (project document and development agenda and environmental priorities logframe, implementation reports, terminal Desk review, GEF portfolio analysis by focal area, evaluations, TE reviews, etc.), PMIS, Agencies' project Agency, modality and project status (national) … the country’s sustainable development agenda databases and environmental priorities? Level of GEF funding compared to other ODA in the Available databases (international as WB, OECD, etc., environmental sector and national, i.e. dept. of statistics, other) Government officials, agencies' staff, donors and civil Stakeholder consultation (focus groups, individual GEF support has country ownership and is country society representatives interviews) based (i.e., project origin, design and implementation) Country Legal Environmental Framework Literature review, timelines, historical causality, etc. GEF supports development needs (i.e., income Relevant country level sustainable development and generating, capacity building) and reduces challenges environment policies, strategies and action plans Project-related documentation (project document and Desk review, GEF portfolio analysis by focal area, logframe, implementation reports, terminal Agency, modality and project status (national) … the country’s development needs and The GEF’s various types of modalities, projects and evaluations, TE reviews, etc.), PMIS, Agencies' project challenges? instruments are in coherence with country’s needs databases and challenges Government officials, agencies' staff, donors and civil Stakeholder consultation (focus groups, individual society representatives interviews) Country Legal Environmental Framework Literature review, timelines, historical causality, etc. GEF-supported enabling activities and products GEF support linked to the national environmental (NCSA, NEAP, NAPA, national communications to UN action plan (NEAP); national communications to Desk review Conventions, etc.) … national GEF focal area action plans? UNFCCC; national POPs; National Capacity Self- Small Grant Programme country strategy Assessment (NCSA); adaptation to climate change (NAPA), etc. Government officials, agencies' staff, donors and civil Stakeholder consultation (focus groups, individual society representatives interviews) Project outcomes and impacts are related to the RAF National Conventions action plans, RAF, BD Desk review, project field visits, project review Global Benefit Index (for biodiversity and climate scorecard, etc. protocols change) and to other global indicators for POPs, land Country Legal Environmental Framework Literature review, timelines, historical causality, etc. degradation and international waters … global environmental benefits (i.e. biodiversity, Project-related documentation (project document and GHG, international waters, POPs, land degradation, logframe, implementation reports, terminal GEF portfolio analysis by focal area, Agency, modality etc.)? evaluations, TE reviews, etc.), PMIS, Agencies' project and project status (national) GEF support linked to national commitments to databases Conventions Government officials, agencies' staff, donors and civil Stakeholder consultation (focus groups, individual society representatives interviews) Global Environmental Benefits Assessment Literature review GEF Instrrument, Council decisions, focal area strategies, GEF4 programming strategy. Project-related documentation (project document and Desk review, GEF portfolio analysis by focal area, GEF activities, country commitment and project logframe, implementation reports, terminal Agency, modality and project status (national) … GEF mandate and focal area programs and counterparts support GEF mandate and focal area evaluations, TE reviews, etc.), PMIS, Agencies' project strategies? programs and strategies (i.e., catalytic and replication, databases etc.) GEF Secretariat staff and technical staff from GEF Interviews Agencies Global Environmental Benefits Assessment Literature review Country Legal Environmental Framework Literature review, timelines, historical causality, etc. 81 Key question Indicators/basic data Sources of information Methodology Is GEF support efficient? Project-related documentation (project documents and Process indicators: processing timing (according to logframes, implementation reports, terminal project cycle steps), preparation and implementation Desk review, GEF portfolio analysis, timelines evaluations, TE reviews, etc.), PMIS, Agencies project How much time, money and effort does it take to cost by type of modalities, etc. databases, RAF pipeline develop and implement a project, by type of GEF GEF Secretariat and Agencies' staff and government support modality? Projects drop-outs from PDF and cancellations officials Interviews, field visits, project review protocols National and local government officials, donors, GEF vs. cofinancing NGOs, beneficiaries Project-related reviews ( implementation reports, Level of participation terminal evaluations, TE reviews, etc.) Desk review and meta analysis of evaluation reports, What are the roles, engagement and coordination Roles and responsibilities of GEF actors interviews and field visits among various stakeholders in project Project staff, government officials Coordination between GEF projects implementation? Existence of a national coordination mechanism for GEF Secretariat staff and technical staff from GEF Interviews, field visits, institutional analysis GEF support Agencies Acknowledgement between GEF Agencies of each Project-related reviews ( implementation reports, Are there synergies among GEF Agencies in GEF other’s projects terminal evaluations, TE reviews, etc.) Desk review and meta analysis of evaluation reports, programming and implementation? Effective communication and technical support GEF Agency staff, national executing agencies (NGOs, interviews and field visits between GEF project agencies and organizations other) Acknowledgement between institutions of each other’s Project-related reviews (implementation reports, Are there synergies between national institutions for projects terminal evaluations, TE reviews, etc.) Desk review and meta analysis of evaluation reports, GEF support in programming and implementation? Effective communication and technical support interviews and field visits Project staff, national and local government officials between national institutions Acknowledgement between institutions of each other’s Project-related reviews ( implementation reports, projects terminal evaluations, TE reviews, etc.) Desk review, focus groups and individual interviews, Are there synergies between GEF support and other Effective communication and technical support and field visits donors’ support? NGO staffs and donors' representatives between institutions Complementarity of GEF support Evaluations of other donors' funded projects Meta analysis fo evaluation reports 82 IWCAM Drivers River 83 ANNEX 2: PERSONS MET BY THE JAMAICA CPS TEAM Name Organisation Position 1 Minh Pham United Nations Resident Coordinator Development Programme 2 Akiko Fujii United Nations Deputy Resident Representative Development Programme 3 Machel Stewart United Nations Programme Advisor - Poverty Development Programme 4 Margaret Jones United Nations Programme Advisor – Environment & Energy Williams Development Programme 5 Nicole Brown United Nations Programme Assistant – Environment & Energy Development Programme 6 Alan Ross United Nations Disaster Risk Reduction Consultant Development Programme 7 Andrea Sheppard Planning Institute of External Cooperation Division -Stewart Jamaica 8 Delores Wade Planning Institute of External Cooperation Division Jamaica 9 Leonie Barnaby Office of the Prime Senior Director and GEF Focal Point Minister, Environmental Management Division 10 Hyacinth Douglas UNDP GEF Small Grants National Coordinator Programme 11 Holly-Rose UNDP GEF Small Grants Programme Assistant Robinson Programme 12 Clifford Mahlung Meteorological Service Section Head, Data Processing, Climate Branch Jamaica and Climate Change Focal Point 13 Jeffery Spooner Meteorological Service Climate Branch Head Jamaica 14 Chris Corbin United Nations Programme Officer, AMEP Environment Programme – CEP/RCU 15 Tess Cieux United Nations Programme Officer, CETA Environment Programme – CEP/RCU 16 Winsome National Environment Senior Director, Strategic Planning Townsend and Planning Agency 17 Nicol Walker National Environment Project Manager, National Ozone Unit and Planning Agency 18 Sheries Simpson National Environment Manager, Projects Planning & Monitoring and Planning Agency Branch 19 Rosemarie Bryan National Environment Project Manager, Natural Resource Valuation and Planning Agency Project 20 Horace Glaze Office of Disaster Senior Director, Preparedness and Emergency Preparedness and Operations Division 84 Emergency Management 21 Michelle Edwards Office of Disaster Senior Director, Mitigation Planning and Preparedness and Research Division Emergency Management 22 Hopeton Petersen Planning Institute of Head, Sustainable Development Division Jamaica 23 Le-Anne Roper Planning Institute of Sustainable Development Planning Officer Jamaica 24 Nigel Logan Petroleum Corporation Acting Group Managing Director & CFO of Jamaica 25 Earl Green Petroleum Corporation Group Technical Director of Jamaica 26 Claon Rowe Petroleum Corporation Senior Project Engineer of Jamaica 27 Denise Tulloch Petroleum Corporation Senior Research Officer, Center of Excellence of Jamaica for Renewable Energy 28 Donna Blake The Nature Conservancy Jamaica Country Representative 29 Fitzroy Vidal Ministry of Energy & Senior Director, Energy Division Mining 30 Yvonne Barrett - Ministry of Energy & Director, Energy Division Edwards Mining 31 Marilyn Headley Forestry Department CEO & Conservator of Forests 32 Nelsa English - National Environment Project Manager, Invasive Alien Species Johnson and Planning Agency Project 33 Charles Bromfield Jamaica Maritime SGP Grantee/consultant Institute Trust Fund 34 Eron McLean Caribbean Maritime Director Corporate Planning and Institute Administration 35 Mona Webber University of the West Head, Life Sciences Indies 36 Dayne Buddo University of the West Researcher Indies 37 Kurt McClaren University of the West Researcher Indies 38 Byron Wilson University of the West Researcher Indies 39 Bert Smith Maritime Authority of Director, Legal Affairs Jamaica 40 Selvyn Thompson National Environment Watershed Officer and Planning Agency 41 Janet Bailey Fairy Hill Community Group 42 Monica Robinson Long Bay Community Group 43 Mr. Kensington Fisheries Division, Fisheries Officer Stitchel Ministry of Agriculture 44 Omar Doyley Manchionel Community Chairman DAC, IWCAM project Group 45 Patrick Cargill Driver’s River Community Group 46 Raymond Wright Petroleum Corporation Consultant of Jamaica 47 Hugh Harris Ministry of Finance 85 48 Juan Pedro IDB Country Economist Senior Specialist Schmid 49 Glaister IDB Operations Analyst Cunningham 50 JulIan Belgrave IDB Operations Specialist 51 Janet Quarrie IDB Operations Analyst 52 Gregory Dunbar IDB Operations Senior Associate 53 Rajiv Ebanks IDB Research Fellow 54 Helen Jenkinson EU Delegation Head of Sector 55 Thomas Millar EU Delegation First Secretary 57 Rohan Longmore World Bank Jamaica Economist 58 Althea Spence World Bank Jamaica Operations Analyst 59 Jerome Smith Office of the Prime Director, Natural Resources, and CBD focal Minister, Environmental point Management Division 86 ANNEX 3: SITES VISITED BY CPS MISSION IWCAM: Driver‟s River Watershed Pilot Project Invasive Alien Species Marine Laboratory, Discovery Bay SGP Projects: Jamaica Maritime Institute Trust Fund - Wind Energy Project, Kingston Biodiversity Preservation Through Seven Rivers Herbs and Spices Project Sweetwater Agricultural Cooperative Biodiversity Project Mafoota Agricultural Cooperative Biodiversity Project 87 ANNEX 4: DOCUMENTS CITED IN TEXT Annual Report of the GEF Project Preparation Grant Phase for the Preparation of the Full Size Project for Strengthening the Operational and Financial Sustainability of the National Protected Area System. The GEF. 2009 Background Note: Jamaica, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, U.S. Department of State, August 2010. Outcome Evaluation of UNDP’s Environment and Energy Programme: a Mid-Term Perspective, by Hugo Navajas, UNDP Jamaica, Kingston, 2010 Situation Analysis of Jamaica’s Protected Areas System Plan. Center for Park Management. Washington DC. 2005. Towards Enhancing the Impacts of Environmental Projects: the ROtI Handbook, GEFEO and Conservation Development Centre (2009), Washington, DC. 88