1S8250 Project ImDplmentation Review 1 997 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REviEW OF THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILn1Y 1997 The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is afinancial mechanism that promotes international cooperation and fosters actions to protect the global environment. The grants and concessional funds disbursed complement traditional development assistance by covering the additional costs (also known as "agreed incremental costs") incurred when a national, regional, or global development project also targets global environmental objectives. The GEF has defined four focal areas for its programs: biological diversity, climate change, international waters, and ozone layer depletion. Land degradation issues, primarily desertification and deforestation, as they relate to these four areas, are also being addressed. The GEF operates the financial mechanism for the Conivention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. GEF projects are carried out by three implementing agencies: the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United National Environment Programme (UNEP), and the World Bank. 1iii TABLE OF CoNTENs Executive Summary ................................................v I. Introduction .................................................1 11. Portfolio Analysis ................................................3 A. Overall GEF Portfolio ................................................3 B. Commitments and Disbursements ................................................ 5 C. Trends in Time from Allocation to Implementation .............................................,,,.,. 5 III. Coverage of the 1997 PIR ...............................................7 A. Portfolio Reviewed ...............................................7 B. Performance Ratings ................................................7 C. Review of Problem Projects ...............................................8 IV. Portfolio Highlights by Focal Area ...............................................9 A. Biological Diversity .....9..........................................9 B. Climate Change ............................................... 12 C. International Waters ................................................ 14 D. Elimination of Ozone Depleting Substances ............................................... 15 V. Cross-Cutting Issues ............................................... 17 A. Stakeholder Involvement ............................................... 17 B. Recipient Commitment ............................................... 19 C. Non-traditional Implementation Arrangements ................................................ 21 D. Capacity Building ............................................... 23 E. Public Awareness ............................................... 26 E Performance Indicators/Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................... 26 VI. Actions Taken and Recommendations for the Future ................. .............................. 28 Appendices: A. List of Projects Included in 1997 PIR ............................................ 29 B. PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies 1. United Nations Development Programrne (UNDP) .............. .............................. 33 2. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) ............. ...................... . ....... 42 3. The World Bank ............................................ 48 EXECUTrVE SUMMARY A s of June 1997, the GEF had allocated fundinig ments not used to working this way; they may need in approved work programs to 230 projects support to rethink their own roles and approaches. totalling almost US$1.6 billion. Cumulative Strong commitment by recipient countries and orga- disbursements increased to US$479 million by the end nizations is a major determinant of project implemen- of FY97. Disbursements during the year, however, tation success, and even more so for long term were slightly lower than in FY96. The average time for sustainability. To gain recipient ownership and com- a project to move from allocation to commitment to mitment, projects have to respond to national or local implementation decreased significantly during the interests in addition to seeking global environmental year. (see pp. 3-6) benefits. Careful integration of project interventions with national policies and priorities is needed to help The 1997 PIR included 105 projects that had ensure that links between project efforts and global been implemented for at least a year. Half were environmental benefits can be effectively made and biodiversity projects; a third addressed climate change. sustained. One effective way of involvinlg the private Agencies rated 34 percent of the PIR projects "highly sector as partners is providing opportunities for direct satisfactory" on implementation progress or prospects interaction with government agencies on issues that for achieving global environmental objectives, 18 per- affect them. The PIR also underscored the need to be cent on both. Sixteen percent were rated "unsatisfac- sure that incentives used to attract private businesses tory' on at least one measure, slightly more than last do not make continuation of project activities difficult year. (see pp. 7-8) once GEF funding ends. (see pp. 17-23) The PIR reviewed portfolio highlights and in- Capacity building efforts have trained hundreds sights gained during the year in each focal area (see pp. of people involved in projects, strengthened environ- 9-16), 3 cross-cutting issues identified in advance for mental organizations, and created networks to ex- special attention, and 3 others that emerged from the change experiences. But more precisely defining the review. The importance of broad and continuous intended results and impacts of capacity building and stakeholder involvement in projects is increasingly institutional strengthening is a high priority. A lesson clear. For participation to be effective, stakeholders that emerged clearly from the PIR was the importance must be actively engaged in decision making prD- of information dissenmination and public awareness- cesses. Peniodic consultations about project activities raising activities in stimulating the adoption of new are not enough. Many GEF projects are doing this wi[h technologies or behaviors, strengthening ownership of success, but others are not. Actively involving stake- projects, and creating a more favorable enabling envi- holders is not easy and takes a lot of time. Local ronment for policy and attitude changes. Finally, more institutions often need to be strengthened to allow for systematic effort is needed to identify and disseminate effective participation. Pursuit of genuine stakeholder information on performance indicators for GEF involvement can meet with resistance from govern- projects and programs. (see pp. 23-27) iv 1. INTRODUCF1ON 1. At the request of the GEF Council, project imple- the 1997 review. In addition, the status of each project mentation reviews (PIRs) are carried out annually by rated as unsatisfactory, and actions being taken to the GEF implementing agencies (IAs) and secretariat address implementation problems affecting them, was (GEFSEC). These reviews have two purposes: (1) to discussed. examine the status of GEF projects, especially with regard to implementation progress and the prospects 4. It is clear from the 1997 review that the PIR of achieving global environmental objectives, and (2) process is becoming increasingly integrated with to identify lessons learned from GEF experience and implementing agencies' internal procedures. It is also share them broadly within the GEF family and with serving as the basis for broader portfolio management other interested parties. The 1997 PIR was the third approaches being applied in the lAs. For example, annual implementation review conducted by the GE:F. UNEP used the occasion of the PIR to hold the first comprehensive internal review of its GEF portfolio. It 2. The PIR process is designed to complement ar.d involved not only its project managers and GEF coor- strengthen internal portfolio management procedures dination staff, but also the offices responsible for moni- used by the implementing agencies. Based on recoin - toring and evaluating projects in UNEP generally. mendations of the 1996 PIR and discussions among UNEP's GEF Coordination Unit reports that this has GEFSEC and the lAs, minimum common reporting encouraged mainstreaming of GEF activities and an guidelines were issued by GEF's Senior Monitoring expanded dialogue on monitoring and evaluation ap- and Evaluation Coordinator. Each agency was asked to proaches within the organization. UNDP used the PIR prepare a finianicial analysis of its GEF portfolio, an guidelines as the basis for a standardized, automated overview emphasizing key trends in this portfolio and report for its GEF projects. This is facilitating integra- lessons learned to date, and individual reports for all tion of performance information with existing data projects that had been in implementation for at least a bases. UNDP's GEF Coordination Unit included in this year as of June 30, 1997. Each project report rated reporting format information on stakeholder involve- implementation progress and the likelihood that its ment, capacity building, and project success factors global environmental objectives would be achieved. In that was used to conduct substantial analyses. For the addition, agencies were asked to address two cross- first time, UNDP included impact ratings for each cutting issues in their overviews and project reports: project. The 1997 review was the first time the PIR was (1) experience in obtaining stakeholder involvement conducted simultaneously with the World Bank's an- and assuring that projects are country-driven and re- nual review of portfolio performance (ARPP). This flect recipient commitment, and (2) the extent of pri- integration will become closer in 1998, when GEF vate sector (NGO and for-profit) involvement in the projects start to use a fully electronic reporting format project and any factors that may limit such involve- along with all other Bank projects. ment. As long as these minimum guidelines were met, agencies were free to adjust their reporting formats to 5. Many people, including task and project manag- suit their intemal management priorities. ers and staff in IA GEF coordination units and the secretariat, contributed to making the 1997 PIR a suc- 3. The three lAs reviewed internally the portion of cessful review. In particular, the GEF recognizes the their GEF portfolios covered by the PIR. Each then frank, informative and insightful reports prepared for shared the results of its review with GEFSEC and the the Biodiversity Conservation and Natural Resource other lAs. These reports became the basis for an inter- Management Program in Papua New Guinea and the agency review meeting organized by the Senior Moni- Biodiversity Conservation in the Chocb Region project toring and Evaluation Coordinator held in New Ycrk in Colombia. These reports made an extremely valu- on November 20-21, 1997. It featured discussion of able contribution to our understanding of the factors five detailed presentations, involving nine projects, that influence stakeholder involvement and project which highlighted the cross-cutting issues chosen ior success. 2 Project Inplcementation Review of the Global Environment Facility 1997 6. This report presents the results of the 1997 PIR. PIR, as well as a few other key topics that emerged Section II contains an analysis of the entire GEF portfo- from the review. These sections also draw on the find- lio through June 30, 1997. Section III provides an ings of the study of GEF Project Lessons' conducted overview of the projects covered in the 1997 PIR. The for the secretariat's monitoring and evaluation team principal chapters of the report are Section IV, which during 1997. Finally, Section VI discusses actions highlights the portfolio in each GEF focal area, and taken as a result of the PIR and recommendations for Section V, which summarizes the discussion of cross- future PIRs. Copies of the overview reports from each cutting issues selected for special attention in the 1997 implementing agency are included in Appendix B. ' Lessons Lear-ned During the GEF Pilot Phase, Resource Futures International, Ottawa, Ontario; Deceniber 1997. The Project Lessons study was the first examination of project experience conducted by GEF's Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator. The study assessed experience to date under projects approved during the Pilot Phase to identify factors that account for GEF project success or problems. It entailed a general review of 30 projects, with field visits to 5 and more detailed analysis of 6 of these projects. It focused particular attention on three areas identified as high priority by project managers: (1) building partnerships and understanding among project implementers and communities, (2) integration of project activities with national policies and prionties, and (3) approaches to ensure effective private sector involvement in GEF projects. The studywil provide the basis for aseries of "Project Lessons Notes" planned by the GEFSEC Monitoring and Evaluation team beginning in 1998. 3 11. PORTFOLIo ANALYSIS A. OVERALL GEF PORmToLIO 8. Figure 1 illustrates the growth of the GEF portfo- lio, including amounts allocated, committed and dis- 7. As of June 30, 1997, a total of 230 projects2 had bursed, from June 1991 through June 1997. During been allocated funding in approved GEF work pro- FY97, 44 projects with GEF funding of US$374 mil- grams. As shown in Table 1, 118 (51 percent) of these lion were approved by the GEF Council. This repre- are administered by UNDP, 99 (43 percent) by the sents an increase over the US$321 million approved World Bank, 10 (4 percent) by UNEP, and 2 (1 per- the previous year. During the year ending in June cent) by more than one GEF implementing agency. 1997, 16 GEF projects were operationally completed. One project (PRINCE) is administered directly by the GEF secretariat. Funding for these projects totaled 9. Table 2 shows the distribution of the GEF portfo- US$1,594 million, of which US$1,064 million (67 lio as of June 1997 by focal area. It included 97 biologi- percent) was in World Bank projects, US$460 million cal diversity projects (US$585 million), 95 climate (29 percent) in UNDP projects, US$36 million (2 per- change projects (US$606 million), 19 international cent) in UNEP projects, US$31 million (2 percent) in wvaters projects (US$180 million), 11 projects to phase multi-IA projects and US$3 million administered by out ozone depleting substances (US$113 million), and GEFSEC. A total of US$733 millionwas approved for 116 8 multi-focal area projects (US$110 million). Region- projects during the GEF Pilot Phase and US$861 million ally, Asia and the Pacific and Sub-Saharan Africa each for 114 projects during GEFI. In addition, as of June account for the largest portion of approved GEF 1997, US$22 million had been approved during GEFI projects (21 percent), followed by Latin American and using expedited procedures for 107 enabling activities the Caribbean (18 percent). under the biodiversity and climate change conventions. TABLE 1. GEF FfNANCED PROJECTS BY IMPLEMENTING AGENCY (AS OF JUNE 1997) Pilot Phase GEF (FY Feb 95-Jun 97) Total # Projects US$ Millions # Projects US$ Millions # Projects US$ Millions UNDP 56 256 62 204 118 460 UNEP 6 22 4 14 10 36 World Bank 53 452 46 612 99 1064 All lAs 0 0 2 31 2 31 Others* 1 3 0 0 1 3 Total 116 733 114 861 230 1594 PRINCE project managed by GEF secretariat 2 Unless otherwise noted, the numbers in this section exclude enabling activities and pre-investment funds. 4 Protect Implementation Review of the Global Environment Facility 1997 FIGURE 1. CUMULATIVE GEF PORTFOLIO - ALLOCATION, COMMITMENTS AND DISBURSEMENTS 1991 - 1997 1600 1400 1200 1000 a800 600 400 200 0 Jun-91 Dec-91 Jun-92 Dec-92 Jun-93 Dec-93 Jun-94 Dec-94 Jun-95 Dec-95 Jun-96 Dec-96 Jun-97 3l Work program * Approved commitments FE1 Disbursements US$ volume(Cumulative) (cumulative) Millions (cumulative) B. COMMITMENTS AND DISBURSEMENTS cluded activities for which there were few precedents on which to base projections-and to the considerable 10. The amount of commitments (the value of projects amount of time it has proven to take to expand stake- approved by lAs) in relation to amounts allocated in holder involvement under many GEF projects. Dis- approved GEF work programs was 70 percent as of June bursements in relation to commitments rose to 43 30, 1997. This compares to 68 percent inJune 1996. For percent as of June 1997, up from 40 percent in June thc World Bank, commitments were 68 percent of alloca- 1996 and 26 percent in June 1995. Active portfolio tions, for UNDP 72 percent, and for UNEP 85 percent. disbursement rates for the World Bank increased to 33 These figures reflect the time required by the implement- percent at the end of FY97 compared to 30 percent a ing agencies to complete final project design and approval year earlier; for UNDP, disbursements increased to 62 following work program allocations. They generally do percent from 57 percent, while for UNEP, disburse- not mean that project amounts are reduced from those ments declined slightly to 61 percent from 63 percent allocated in work programs. of amounts committed.3 Disbursements are equivalent to 48 percent of commitments for the World Bank's 11. Cumulative disbursements for the entire GEF overall (non-GEF) portfolio, although a direct com- portfolio increased during FY97 to US$479 million. However, disbursements under almost all projects included in this year's PIR were well below initial The difference in disbursement rates between the World Bank, projections. This shortfall is generally due to over- on the one hand, and UNDP and UNEP on the other, is largely ambitious estimates in project designs-many in- explained by the fact that more of the Bank's GEF projects are large investment projects wihch initially disburse more slowly Portfolio Analysis 5 TABLE 2. GEF FINANCED PROJECrS BY FOCAL AREA (AS OF JUNE 1997) Pilot Phase GEF (FY Feb 95-Jun 97) Total # Projects US$ Millions # Projects US$ Millions # Projects US$ Millions Biodiversity 58 332 39 253 97 585 Climate Change 41 259 54 347 95 606 International Waters 12 118 7 62 19 180 Ozone 2 4 9 109 11 113 Multi-Focal 3 20 5 90 8 110 Total 116 733 114 861 230 1594 parison is misleading since the Bank's average projEct C. TRENDS IN TIME fROM ALLOCATION TO age is higher and its portfolio includes a number of IMPLEMENTATION large, quick-disbursing adjustment loans. Disburse- ments are 70 percent of commitments in UNDP's non- 13. GEF's implementing agencies continue to make GEF portfolio. UNEP was unable to provide a progress in reducing the time between work program comparable disbursement rate for its non-GEF allocations, final agency approval (commitment) and projects due to a difference in internal procedures. the beginning of project implementation. As shown in Figure 2, in FY97, on average, projects approved by 12. Amounts disbursed for GEF projects were the World Bank took significantly less time to reach US$141 million during the year, down from US$153 the commitment stage than during the previous year million in FY96. There were slight decreases from (536 days compared to 625 days in FY96). If two 1996 to 1997 across the board: from US$58.5 mill.on projects that took an especiallv long time to be pre- to US$54.5 million for the World Bank, from US$88.2 sented for Board approval are excluded from the analy- million to US$82.0 million for UNDP, and from sis, the decrease is even more substantial: Bank US$6.4 million to US$4.7 million for UNEP. For projects took just less than a year on average to reach UNDP and UNEP, this decrease was because many of the commitment stage in FY97. For GEF projects ap- their Pilot Phase projects are reaching completion and proved by the Bank in FY97, moreover, the average the period of significant disbursements is past, while length of time between commitment and the beginning their GEF I portfolios either have not yet fully come on of implementation ("effectiveness") decreased from stream or, in the case of UNEP, are made up largely of 150 to 137 days. enabling activities and PDF-B grants that are much smaller in size. The World Bank attributes the decline 14. Likewise, as illustrated in Figure 3, the average in its disbursements to the fact that several projects time for a UNDP GEF project to move from work with "lumpy" disbursement patterns-for example, program allocation to the beginning of implementa- projects that involve the capitalization of biodiversity tion (signature of the project agreement) fell from 495 trust funds where disbursements are made all at orLce, days to 425 days in FY97, continuing improvements or projects executed by the Intemational Finance Cor- begun in 1996. UNDP reported that 52 percent of its poration (IFC) where funds are released by the Banlc in projects had signed project agreements within a year of tranches only 2-3 times over the life of the project- allocation, and 73 percent in less than 18 months. did not have as substantial disbursements during, in These improvements reflect greater decentralization of FY97 as in the previous year. project approval authority and the identification of GEF "focal points" within each UNDP country office to liaise closely with govemments and executing agencies. 6 Projcct Implementation Review of the Global Environment Facility 1997 FIGURE 2. AVERAGE TIME BETWEEN GEF ALLOCATION, COMMITMENT AND EFFECTIVENESS FOR WORLD BANK PROJECTS, BY FISCAL YEAR OF COMMITMENT 800 -- .-- -- 600~~~~~~~----- ---- -U --- 400 _ -- --- --- - - 200 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 - -. - Average time between GEF approval and commitment by World Bank - -A - Average time between commitment (World Bank approval) and effectiveness - - -- Average time between GEF approval and effectiveness 15. This favorable trend is also seen in UNEP's GEF streamlined procedures put in place based on experi- project portfolio. The time between allocation and ence and improved quality of proposals at the time of implementation in all three lAs peaked in FY95 as the presentation in work programs compared with the changes brought about by restructuring were put into early Pilot Phase. In recent years, in fact, the remaining place and as the GEF Operational Strategy was de- Pilot Phase projects have sometimes substantially in- fined. Significant improvements in moving to imple- flated the overall averages. mentation in a more timely manner since 1995 reflect FIGURE 3. AVERAGE TIME BETWEEN GEF APPROVAL AND PROJECT AGREEMENT SIGNATURE UNDP GEF PROJECTS, BY FISCAL YEAR OF PROJECT AGREEMENT SIGNATURE 800-- FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 7 111. COVERAGE OF THE 1997 PIR A. PORTFOLIO REVIEWED Africa, 18 in Latin America and the Caribbean, 14 in Europe and Central Asia, and 12 in the Arab States/ 16. The PIR for 1997 covered 105 projects that had Middle East. Fifteen of the projects reviewed were been in implementation for at least a year as of June :t0, global or grouped activities in several countries across 1997, an increase from the 92 projects reviewed in the regions. 1996 PIR. Table 3 shows the regional and focal area distribution of these projects, and Appendix A con- tains a list of these activities. While previous P]Rs B. PERFORMANCE RATINGS included projects only from the GEF Pilot Phase, the 1997 review included 8 projects from GEFI. 18. Each agency rated the implementation progress (IP) and prospects for achieving development/global 17. Taking into account projects that have been environmental objectives (DO) for each of its projects completed, the PIR portfolio includes about half of the in the PIR. This was done using a 4-point scale: highly projects for which GEF funding has been allocated in satisfactory (HS), satisfactory (S), unsatisfactory (U), approved work programs-slightly more in and highly unsatisfactory (HU). biodiversity, substantially less in climate change. The portfolio reviewed was made up of 51 biodiversity, 37 19. A total of 35 projects, or 34 percent of the PIR climate change, 9 international waters, 5 ozone and 3 portfolio, were rated "highly satisfactory" bv the multi-focal area projects. A total of 49 of these projects implementing agency on either IP or DO, and 19 are administered by the World Bank, 47 by UNDP, 8 projects (18 percent) received this rating on both mea- by UNEP, and one by the secretariat. The PIR includ.ed sures. By agency, UNEP reported that 3 (37 percent) of 23 projects in Asia and the Pacific, 23 in Sub-Saharan its projects were performing highly satisfactorily, rABLE 3. PROJECTS INCLUDED IN 1997 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW Biodiversity Climate Change International Ozone Multiple Total Waters Global 4 8 0 0 3 15 Africa 13 7 2 1 0 23 Arab States/ Middle East 4 5 3 0 0 12 Europe/ Central Asia 7 2 1 4 0 14 Latin America and the Caribbean 12 5 1 0 0 18 Asia and Pacific 11 10 2 0 0 23 Total 51 37 9 5 3 105 S Pr-ojct Implementation Review of the Gicbal Environment Facility 1997 UNDP 17 (37 percent), and the World Bank 15 (31 performance of their regular projects, so comparisons percent". By focal area, 37 percent of biodiversity are not possible.) projects, 31 percent of climate change, 33 percent of international waters, and 40 percent of ozone projects C. REVIEW OF PROBLEM PROJECTS were reported as performing highly satisfactorily. Half of the PIR portfolio (53 projects) was rated "satisfac- 21. At the interagency PIR meeting, the status of the tory" by the implementing agencies. 17 projects identified as making unsatisfactory progress-as well as three Pilot Phase projects which 20. The remaining 17 projects, or 16 percent of the are still not approved by implementing agencies-was PIR portfolio, were rated "unsatisfactory" or "highly reviewed in detail. In general, implementation prob- unsatisfactory" by the implementing agency on either lems are most frequently due to failure to involve IP, DO or both. Of the biodiversity projects included stakeholders in project design, weak government com- in the PIR, 12 percent (6 projects) were performing mitment and/or institutional capacity, a large number unsatisfactorily, as were 22 percent of climate change of complex activities involving multiple executing (8) and international waters (2) projects and 20 per- agencies, the adverse security situation in several cent (1) of ozone activities. The World Bank reported countries, and intemational executing agencies pursu- that 9 (18 percent) of its projects included in the 1997 ing their own agendas which may not be fully consis- PIR were making unsatisfactory progress; UNDP had 8 tent with the objectives of the GEF-funded project. (17 percent) unsatisfactory projects; UNEP had none. These ratings compare to 6 percent (World Bank) and 22. Actions being taken to address the problems af- 13 percent (UNDP) unsatisfactory ratings in the 1996 fecting these projects were discussed and, in some PIR. This increase was attributed to the aging of the cases, additional suggestions made. Solutions include portfolio, i.e., implementation problems become more moving implementation responsibilities to the field apparent after 2-3 years, as does a better informed (for the World Bank), giving greater attention to stake- judgment about the prospects of a project achieving its holder participation during implementation, accelerat- objective. In addition, the World Bank adopted this ing mid-term reviews and/or restructuring projects to year additional tools to evaluate the realism of its make them simpler, and putting more emphasis on site performance ratings. In the case of the Bank, 18 per- work when national capabilities are weak. In some cent unsatisfactory GEF projects compares favorably to cases, projects may be terminated unless long-standing a ratio of 30 percent unsatisfactory projects for its problems are resolved. overall portfolio. (UNDP and UNEP do not rate the 9 IV. PORTFOLIo HIGHLIGHTS BY FOCAL AREA 23. This section provides a summary of the portfo]io sity. There has not yet been sufficient time to expect, of projects in implementation in each of GEF's four nor are there yet adequate indicators or baselines to focal areas. It highlights areas of significant progress measure, the impact of GEF-supported activities on identified during FY97. Although there are now over the actual conservation of biodiversity. 100 GEF projects for which there is significant imple- mentation experience, the complexity of addressing 26. Among the insights highlighted in the PIR are the global environmental issues and the multitude of set- following: tings in which these projects are carried out calls for a certain degree of caution and modesty in drawing * Active and full engagement of communities in all lessons from and generalizing about this experience. stages of project design, implementation and moni- With this caveat in mind, however, this section of the torinig is a key determinant of success. A number of report and the next one discuss insights gained in projects (e.g., Nepal Biodiversity Conservation, Do- implementing GEF projects over the past year and the minican Republic Conservation of Biodiversity in the principal challenges that appear to be facing each port- Coastal Zone, Mauritius Biodiversity Restoration, folio. Philippines Protected Areas, Colombia Biodiversity Conservation in the Choc6 Region, and Papua New A. BIOLOGICAL DIVERSIn Guinea Biodiversity Conservation and Natural Re- sources Management) have devoted major efforts to 24. About half of the projects included in the 1997 involving communities in decision-making processes. PIR were in the biodiversity focal area. The majority They are generating a wealth of experience that now focus on improved conservation of protected areas or needs to be more actively disseminated. Actively en- coastal zones, directly through support of field-based gaging a wide range of stakeholders can be an ex- activities and/or indirectly by strengthening the ability tremely time-consuming process. It often requires of government agencies and NGOs to manage these developing new skills among project staff (includ- areas better. Several projects concentrate on building ing NGOs), and constant reinforcement of their ef- capacity for planning and management, including forts. through training and support for preparing inventories of biological resources and for biodiversity data man- * Biodiversity projects need to combine conservation agement. A smaller number of projects-e.g., Burk:ina efforts with activities that address more immediate Faso Wildlife Ranching, West Africa Pilot Community- local and/or national socio-economic needs and are Based Natural Resource and Wildlife Management- sensitive to political processes. These might take the directly address issues of sustainable use of biological form of developing alternative income sources (e.g., resources (some of the protected areas projects also retraining of turtle shell carvers in the Seychelles- deal with sustainable use as an element of their conser- see Box 1); educating local farmers about how the vation strategies). Finally, a few projects from the Pilot deterioration of an important resource was adversely Phase support research or collections projects in areas affecting their livelihood, as was done in the Azraq of especially rich biological diversity, e.g., Indonesia oasis in Jordan; or taking advantage of the interest of and Ethiopia. indigenous groups in participating more broadly in national political issues, as occurred in the Colom- 25. According to the implementing agencies' perfor- bia Choc6 project. Experience in Papua New Guinea mance ratings, the biodiversity portfolio is generally has shown that working patiently with communi- progressing well. To date, however, this reported suc- ties to help them identify their own alternative de- cess has been largely in terms of processes-testing velopment options works better than offering ma- and applying participative, community-based ap- terial incentives that may bring quick returns but proaches; institutional development; and raising do not change communities' conviction for conser- awareness about the need to conserve biological diver- vation. Without such conviction at the community 10 Project Imnplenentation Review of the Global Environment Facility 1997 Box 1. IDENTIFYING ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOOD SOURCES: THE SEYCHELLES BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROJECT One of the objectives of this project implemented by the World Bank is to conserve two threatened species of sea turtles by implementing a comprehensive set of actions to reduce their exploitation. These include (1) defining sustainable exploitation levels and implementing management plans consistent with these levels; (2) assessing the feasibility of Hawksbill turtle ranching: (3) retraining artisans who produce souvenirs from turtle shells; and (4) educating tourists on the ecological consequences of trade in turtle products to discourage the purchase of turtle shell handicrafts. Harvesting of turtles has now been prohibited by law, monitoring of turtle populations is underway, and a tortoise management plan is being developed. The project was very successful because government commitment was strong and an effective communications effort created awareness and built support for project activities. Perhaps most significantly, turtle shell artisans were directly involved in planning and designing the retraining program. This activity was implemented by CODEVAR, an association of local artisans, under an agreement with the Ministry of Environment and the Department of Industry. Following the legal ban on turtle harvesting and sale of turtle momentos, CODEVAR contacted the 37 carvers, all of whom were members of the association, to explain that funds were available to facilitate their leaving the profession. They were offered either cash compensa- tion, credit funds for training and the purchase of equipment to help start a new business, or a combination of the two. Their entitlement was based on the quantity of shells they had purchased and were holding ready to carve. Six took all their compensation in cash and retired. The remaining 31 received a combination of compensation and credit assistance to start a new business. About half became model boat makers, several went into coconut souvenir carving, a few into beach clothing production, and one became a taxi driver. level, interests that offer higher short-term returns plagued by a large number of complex and dispersed for resource extraction may later undermine conser- activities in environments of weak institutions and vation efforts. Another lesson from Papua New government commitment. This can be the result of Guinea is that the ability to successfully address pressures to respond to the interests of international socio-economic concerns should be a key criterion NGOs, other donors offering co-financing, or insti- in selecting sites for conservation activities. tutional incentives favoring larger projects. Overly ambitious projects can raise expectations beyond * Activities at the field level are most effective when what can be met. As a solution to this, some more undertaken in the context of national strategiesfor recent biodiversity projects (e.g., the Patagonia con- biodiversity conservation. As experience in servation project in Argentina) have attempted to split Cameroon, Congo, Papua New Guinea, Laos and longer-term and potentially complex projects into elsewhere shows, if projects are not aligned with na- separate phases and to build activities incrementally, tional policies they will often lack government com- often beginning with capacity building efforts. mitment and support. This can undermine sustainability and even short term success (for ex- * Long-term biodiversity conservation efforts often ample, through the granting of logging or mining need to be accompanied by short term measures (for concessions). example, the creation of Rhino Protection Units to curb poaching in the Indonesia/Malaysia Conserva- * A simple project design with modest objectives that tion Strategy for Rhinos project) or small scale pilot is within the ability of executing agencies to man- activities to determine the need for and help design age is a key to success. While this sounds obvious, large scale programs (e.g., the Romania Danube Delta some GEF projects-for example, Congo Wildlands, project). Cameroon Biodiversity (see Box 2)-have been Portfolio Highlights By Focal Area 11 Activities supported under various Pilot Phase tional governments and the international commu- projects to increase awareness, strengthen insti:u- nity in meeting these costs are needed. tional capacity, and expand biodiversity data collec- tion and management have often provided a foun- * The underlying causes of biodiversity loss are still dation for enabling activities to assist countries imple- often poorly understood and are likely to be much ment the biodiversity convention. broader than the GEF can address. This requires designers to give greater attention to the policy and 27. A number of key challenges facing GEF's socio-economic environment within which biodiversity portfolio can be identified from the PIR. biodiversity projects are carried out, not only tech- They include: nical or site-specific factors. It also means that biodiversity projects cannot be implemented in iso- Thie sustainability and long-term financing of lation from other national or donor-funded programs, biodiversity conservation efforts remain unanswered and that greater collaboration and policy coherence questions. Clearer expectations of the roles of na- are required. Box 2. CAMEROON BJODJVERSITY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PROJECT The objective of this project implemented by the World Bank is to help the Cameroon government consolidate and upgrade the management of protected areas with high global priority for biodiversity conservation. It focuses on 6 ecological regions including 10 national parks and other reserves. Field activities are carried out by 10 international NGOs, with cofinancing from 9 donors in addition to the GEF. A central coordinating unit (CNC) in the Ministry of Environment and Forests is responsible for overall project management. Despite progress in some field activities, the project has been plagued with major difficulties. The CNC does not have the resources to play an effective role in coordinating the large number of dispersed activities, each with a different foreign NGO executing agency that often has its own agenda and funding from a bilateral donor. Project activities represent different approaches to biodiversity conservation in the absence of a national strategy. CNC staff operate within a rigid, top-down, and procedure-dominated government structure, do not have skills needed to perform their assigned role, and lack salary and other incentives. This has led to poor communication and coordinaticn among the project, executing agencies and the ministry. Subprojects have developed independently of each other. Participation of communities, government agencies, and other stakeholders was limited and superficial during project design; most design work was done by international consultants and NGOs. Government commitment to community forestry is weak, and support for extractive exploitation is often a higher priority than conservation. While some NGOs and donors have emphasized participation at field sites, there is no sharing of experiences. Only limited efforts havr been devoted to involving private hunters and loggers in project activities. The CNC is staffed mostly by forest specialists and has little expertise in promoting participatory approaches. In retrospect, three lessons are clear from this experience: (1) the project is overly complex for the institutional environment in which it is placed; (2) significant policy and institutional changes are required to meet the project's objectives, including creation of a legal framework that includes adequate conservation incentives, fosters private sector support, and provides a basis for enforcing relevant laws and community agreements; and (3) stakeholder participation is essential for the success of conservation activities-it must start at the earliest stage of project activity and be nurtured by a supportive policy environment, staff skilled in participatory methods and conflict resolution, and continual exchanges of experience. These lessons are now being reflected in discussions to restructure the project as a result of an intensive mid-term review. 12 Project Implementation Review of the Global Environmrent Facility 1997 * While substantial effort has been devoted to involv- Takagas and Pakistan Lahore Landfill (for which GEF ing community groups in GEF biodiversity projects, funding was allocated in 1992 but which has still not a remaining challenge in many projects is to get been approved)-have experienced difficulties identi- support-from thefull range of government (includ- fying suitable sites for project activities. ing local and regional agencies) actors and private sector stakeholders, especially extractive industries 30. Approximately one-third of the climate change such as logging and mining interests, wildlife trad- projects included in the 1997 PIR involve research, ers and hunters. capacity building, or other activities aimed at assisting countries to implement the climate change conven- * There is generally an absence of good baseline infor- tion. These projects include CCTRAIN, Country Stud- mation on biodiversity. There have been isolated ies on Sources and Sinks of GHG, Country Studies on and generally uncoordinated efforts to identify in- Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Assessments, dicators to measure the biological and human im- START, Alternatives to Slash and Burn, Monitoring pacts of projects and programs, but this is very GHG including Ozone, ALGAS, Building Capacity in much a work in progress and requires major atten- the Maghreb to Respond to the FCCC, and Coopera- tion. Issues about the appropriate timeframe for tion to Support Global Change Research in the Inter- measuring impact and how to attribute results to American Institute for Global Change. They are GEF projects present particularly difficult chal- implemented by UNDP and UNEP, and are regional or lenges. multi-country projects that include activities in a num- ber of countries, sometimes together with the develop- B. CLIMATE CHANGE ment of study methodologies. They usually involve efforts to promote exchanges of experience among 28. Climate change projects made up the second participating countries. In a number of cases, these largest focal area portfolio in the 1997 PIR. Broadly projects have helped refine data collection approaches speaking, this portfolio contains four types of activi- being used for, or trained people who are actively ties: (1) capacity building and research, usually carried involved in preparing, countries' communications un- out through regional or multi-country projects; (2) der the FCCC. These projects have worked best when increased energy efficiency, primarily through demand the recipient country's executing agency is the national side management among urban electricity consumers; focal point for the climate change convention. The (3) expanded use of renewable energy sources (wind, multi-country nature of these projects has promoted solar, geothermal and biomass), several of them di- the sharing of lessons and, in the case of the Monitor- rected at rural households off national electric grids; ing GHG including Ozone project, has also led to and (4) short-term response projects from the Pilot ,twinning" arrangements between developing and de- Phase, e.g., the Coal Bed Methane and Sichuan Gas veloped country scientists and institutions. Neverthe- Transmission projects in China and the Poland Coal- less, a continuing challenge for this type of project, and to-Gas Conversion project. The Coal Bed Methane for the growing number of individual enabling activi- project illustrates how this latter group of projects ties, is to improve communications and the exchange have been successful at influencing policy change and of information and experience among countries. stimulating private investment in activities with a po- UNDP and UNEP are currently jointly developing a tential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (see Box 3). new support program to address this challenge. 29. Compared to the biodiversity portfolio, fewer 31. Demand side management projects to increase climate change projects were rated highly satisfactory. energy efficiency in Thailand, Jamaica, Mexico, Po- The largest number of projects with implementation land, Chile and Cote d'Ivoire/Senegal were included in problems was in this portfolio. In general, where there the 1997 PIR. Many involved production and sale of have been implementation difficulties they are report- compact fluorescent lightbulbs for residential and edly due to the failure to adequately engage stakehold- school use and in street lights. The Chile project aims ers in the design process. This resulted in low recipient to increase the efficiency of electric motors used by commitment to projects and lengthy delays as stake- mining companies, while in Cote d'lvoire/Senegal the holders have been belatedly involved during imple- focus is on increasing the energy efficiency of build- mentation. In addition, two projects which seek to ings. A key insight resulting from this year's review is generate energy from municipal waste-Tanzania that the success of demand side management activities Portfolio Highlights By Focal Area 13 Box 3. THE CHINA COAL BED METHANE PROJECT China accounts for a third of worldwice methane emissions from human activity, mostly as a byproduct of coal mining. Less than 10 percent of the methane generated by China's coal mines is recovered. In the early 1990s, coal bed methane was viewed mostly as a safety risk and disposing of it a cost of production. There was little knowledge about methane's economic potential or awareness of the environ- mental impact of venting it into the atmosphere. Pricing policies were a disincentive to exploit this prospective energy source, and there were no financial mechanisms or management structures to coordinate methane recovery. In response to this situation, in 1992 UNDP began a US$10 million GEF-funded project aimed at (1) demonstrating technologies that reduce methane emissions and recover the gas for use as a fuel; (2) assessing the methane resources of coal mines and the potential for using methane gas as a domestic energy source; and (3) increasing the awareness of top policy makers of the benefits of coal bed methane recovery and use. The project successfully demonstrated at three sites a wide variety of techniques and technologies that Chinese coal mines can employ to reduce atmospheric methane emissions and recover methane as a fuel. Training workshops were held at these sites in resource assessment and related technologies. The project also prepared a detailed assessment and data base of China's coal bed methane resources, and strengthened national capacity to conduct resource assessments on an on-going basis. The China United Coal Bed Methane Development Corporation was created in 1996 as a joint venture between 3 govemment agencies to formulate policies and regulations, appraise investment opportunities, and negotiate joint ventures between domestic and intemational companies. As a direct result of these activities, several exploration and/ or development agreements for joint ventures have been signed with international investors (including Amoco, ARCO and Philips-US), and more are tnder active discussion or negotiation. Over 500 people took part in overseas study tours, domestic workshops and international training programs sponsored by the project. They included senior policy-makers, executives of national corpora- tions, and managers and chief engineers of major coal mines. This, together with other project activities, helped bring about a major change in the policy environment. Recovery of coal bed methane has now been established as a national priority, preferential policies and a new financial mechanism to stimulate recovery and exploitation of methane have been introd-uced, and China has allocated about US$80 million for the capture and use of coal bed methane in its 1996-2000 Five-Year Plan. is strongly linked to effective public awareness and extra-market incentives. The effect of these subsidies and information campaigns. These projects have also had other special arrangements on the sustainability of these generally successful experience involving private busi- programs once GEFfunding is completed remains a key nesses and NGOs. NGOs have played an especially question. important role in education and awareness-raising ac- tivities. 33. Finally, as was also the case in the 1996 PIR, one of the main conclusions of the review was that the 32. A number of projects included in the review- policy framework and enabling environment are ex- e.g., India Energy Efficiency, India Small Hydel. Re- tremely important for the successful adoption and sources in Hilly Regions, Zimbabwe Photovoltaics, replication of alternative energy and more energy- Mauritania Wind Energy, Benin Woodlots, Mali efficient products and technologies. In Chile, the en- Household Energy-focus on adoption of alternative ergy efficiency project appears to have created energy sources in rural areas. While most have been conditions for independent energy service companies relatively successful in achieving their project outputs, (ESCOs) to operate with the mining sector. The Indian this has often been due to the use of subsidies or other government is reevaluating its screening of small hydro 14 Project Implementation Review of the Global Environment Facility 1997 projects based on experience under the GEF project. mechanisms, both within and among countries. These In some cases, operations that blend World Bank and projects have created or strengthened numerous inter- GEF funding have catalyzed regulatory and pricing institutional linkages and networks. The Red Sea/Gulf changes. In general, however, this appears to be an of Aden SAP (see Box 4) and a number of PDF-Bs area where greater attention could be given by GEF under implementation by UNEP provide a positive implementing agencies. experience in building on existing regional conven- tions. These conventions have also served as a vehicle for getting stakeholder involvement from govern- C. INTERNATIONAL WATERS ments, as well as NGOs and national science and academic communities. 34. Nine international waters projects were included in the 1997 review. Three projects focus on prevention 37. Projects in the Gulf of Guinea and Yemen have of oil spills and/or ship waste. Two, in Jordan and resulted in stricter enforcement of licensing and other Yemen, are single-country projects, although they are regulations governing fishing. In Jordan, the project linked conceptually to the regional Red Sea/Gulf of has led to new construction methods for the installa- Aden project approved in the November 1997 work tion of power cables and thermal power pipes. And program. Three others-Gulf of Guinea, Lake under the China Ship Waste project, national stan- Tanganyika, and Prevention and Management of Ma- dards for oil spill contingency plans, originally ex- rine Pollution in the East Asian Seas-provide support pected to cover only 6 ports, will now be applied to all for a number of specific activities within the frame- ports throughout the country. work of a regional project. 38. Implementation experience has highlighted the 35. With one exception, the PIR portfolio is not rep- importance of extending the geographic coverage of resentative of the current emphasis in the international projects to coincide with the natural limits of the waters focal area on supporting Transboundary Diag- ecosystem (e.g., large marine ecosystem, river basin) nostic Analyses (TDAs) and Strategic Action Programs under consideration. In addition, the broad targeting (SAPs). To date, GEF efforts have led to the develop- and inclusion of stakeholders beyond those in the ment and endorsement at the ministerial level of SAPs environment sectors has proven to be an important for the Black Sea, Danube River Basin, Red Sea, and the lesson. South Pacific Small Island Developing States. For ex- ample, through the Environmental Management of the 39. The PIR identified a number of key challenges Black Sea project, a plan that sets clear policy goals for facing GEF's international waters portfolio: the next 2-3 decades has been agreed upon, and enough of the institutions in the region now have * A major challenge will be implementing the numer- sufficient technical capacity to implement the plan. ous SAPs currently underway, through national, pri- However, the ability of the Black Sea countries to vate sector, and other donor investments. GEF fund- mobilize sufficient financial resources and political ing for the implementation of SAPs will be modest. commitment to carry out the actions called for in the Expectations in this regard need to be realistic and plan will determine the long-term success or failure of made clear to our partners from the outset. this effort. An additional 15 SAP development projects are underway or about to begin. * There is a need to identify or refine indicators to measure and document the global environmental 36. The international waters projects reviewed have benefits and impacts from international waters employed a range of mechanisms-including multi- projects, the success of SAPs, and the contribution sectoral committees, national working groups, and of GEF to these results. technical commissions-to engage stakeholders from government agencies, NGOs, private businesses and * A key to the successful implementation of interna- the science and academic community. For example, tional waters projects will be dealing effectively with the Southwest Mediterranean Oil Pollution Manage- occasional unwillingness of governments or indus- ment, Black Sea and East Asian Seas projects all report tries to share data, or of governments to encourage positive experiences in building new cooperation NGO participation. Portfolio Highlights By Focal Area 15 Box 4. THE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS OF DESICNING A GEF INTERNATIONAL WATERS PROJECr: THE CASE OF THE RED SEA/GULF OF ADEN In October 1995, the preparation of a Strategic Action Program (SAP) for the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden was initiated with GEF support. The SAP process was led by the Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Marine Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA) and was supported by all 3 GEF implementing agencies. It resulted indirectly from two Pilot Phase projects in the region: Egypt Red Sea Coastal/Marine Resource Management and Yemen Marine Ecosystems of the Red Sea Coast. Although both projects were just getting underway, they acted as important catalysts for broader regional cooperation. For example, a regional capacity building component provided a mechanism for collaboration among GEF's implementing agencies and led to the identification of the need for a regional action program. The development of the SAP used a participatory process for reaching agreement on environmental trends, threats and priorities at the regional level. Country teams undertook national surveys and prepared national reports. National workshops were conducted to identify priority actions required by each country as an input to the reports. Participants included representatives of national and local governments, academic and applied research institutes, non-governmental organizations, and community groups. The priorities emerging from the national reports formed the basis for those identified in the SAP. In addition, navigation risk workshops were held in Egypt and Yemen, and a living marine resources workshop was held in Saudi Arabia. A task force of PERSGA, country members, and IA representatives finalized these priorities through a series of meetings. The resulting SAP was endorsed by PERSGA's Council of Ministers. The SAP provided the basis for a new US$19.3 million GEF project approved in the November 1997 work program. Its activities will include institutional strengthening to facilitate regional cooperation, reduction of navigation risks and marine pollution, sustainable use and management of living marine resources, development of a regional network of marine protected areas, support for integrated coastal zone management, and enhanced public awareness and participation. The project will be implemented by all 3 lAs, based on roles clearly defined among them at the outset of the SAP process: UNEP is responsible for institutional strengthening to facilitate regional cooperation; the World Bank for coastal zone management and reducing navigation risks and marine pollution; and UNDP for public awareness, sustainable use and management of living marine resources, developing a regional network of marine protected areas, and monitoring and evaluation of program impacts. Co-financing is expected from PERSGA and other donors including the Islamic Development Bank and thr European Union. Greater attention needs to be given to consultation search Network for Ozone and GHG in the Southern in the earliest stages of project identification, a:nd Cone project. to coordination among GEF's implementing agen- cies to avoid duplication and overlap and to build 41. A key lesson from the experience under the on existing programs (e.g., UNEPs Regional Seas phase-out projects is the need to updatefinancial re- Program) whenever possible. views of targeted enterprises to ensure their viability if there are delays in implementation. The Bulgaria, D. ELIMINATiON OF OZONE-DEPLETING Hungary and Slovenia ODS phase-out projects were SUBSTANCES delayed following appraisal waiting for GEF's ODS policy to be clarified by the Council. The changing 40. Only 5 projects in this focal area were included economic situation in the region, slow progress on in the 1997 PIR. Four were World Bank ODS phase- privatization, and substantial pre-project financing out projects in Eastem and Central Europe (see Box 5). provided by firms in anticipation of downstream fund- The other was UNDP's regional Monitoring and Re- ing affected the financial viability of the enterprises 16 Project Implementation Review of the Global Environment Facility 1997 Box 5. PHASE OUT OF OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES IN HUNGARY The ODS Phase-Out project in Hungary is one of the first funded by the GEF in this focal area in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, countries not eligible to receive assistance from the Multilateral Fund for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Begun in early 1996, this US$6.9 million project implemented by the World Bank seeks to phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in refrigeration, foams, aerosols and solvents through the adoption of new, cost-effective CFC-free technolo- gies, and to phase in the operation of a national network of recovery/reclamation/recycling (3R) of refrigerants. The 3R subproject is implemented by the Hungarian Association of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Enterprises. Twelve investment subprojects were selected based on their impact on CFC consumption and eligibility criteria developed for the Multilateral Fund. The project helps finance investments in private industries which together account for more than half of Hungary's ODS consumption. They include producers of hot water storage tanks, refrigerators and freezers, sandwich panels, printed circuit panels, and gas-sterilizer cartridges. Participating firms are contributing approximately US$1.5 million toward ODS phase-out investments. Because the enterprises assisted must be financially viable, the project has had to continually monitor their financial health and make adjustments accordingly. For example, one subproject was delayed because of a change of company ownership, and another was removed from the project when the firm ceased the activity which uses ODS. The project has taken part in regular workshops organized by the World Bank with representatives of similar GEF activities in Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Poland. This has proven to be an effective way to share experiences and learn from each other; in fact, the Slovenia program provided a model for some activities in Hungary. originally selected. This resulted in adjustments to the European market-can help accelerate the pace of sub-project design and, in some cases, the choice of implementation. The ODS phase-out projects have enterprises to be included in the project. On the other also benefited from rotating workshops to share les- hand, experience in the Czech Republic showed that sons and exchange information. strong economic incentives-in this case, entry into 17 V. CROSS-CITITMNG ISSUES 42. This section summarizes conclusions on cross- 46. The international waters projects reviewed had cutting issues identified for special attention in the mixed experience engaging stakeholders. In some 1997 PIR and a few additional topics highlighted dur- cases-e.g., East Asian Seas and Gulf of Guinea-there ing the review. has been very active and diverse involvement. In oth- ers, for example in the Lake Tanganyika project, there A. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT has been much less success, due in part to the security situation in that region. Building on an existing mecha- 43. The importance of genuine, broad and contiriu- nism such as a regional convention to bring together a ous stakeholder involvement in projects is increasingly wide range of stakeholders, from national and local clear from the implementation of the GEF portfoLio. governments to private industries to academic institu- For their participation to befully effective, stakehcild- tions to NGOs and community groups, has been a ers must be actively engaged in decision making fora feature of the Strategic Action Program process that and processes. Periodic consultations with partici- now characterizes much of the international waters pants about project activities are not enough. Many portfolio. GEE projects are doing this, with considerable success. Some of their experiences are highlighted in this sec- 47. Actively involving stakeholders is not easy. Lo- tion and elsewhere in the report. However, others are cal institutions of all kinds often need to be strength- not, and some Pilot Phase projects (e.g., India Srmall ened to allow effective participation. Experience from Hydel Resources in Hilly Regions) are having to com- all focal areas shows that it can be a very political pensate for very limited stakeholder involvemene in process to build and maintain support for project their design-often at the cost of significant imple- initiatives from a large number of stakeholders with mentation delays and project restructuring. disparate interests and perspectives. To sustain par- ticipation, underlying structural issues such as prop- 44. Biodiversity projects have most often devoted erty rights, empowerment, and local governance must efforts to expanding the involvement of NGOs and be addressed. Pursuit of greater, genuine stakeholder communities in protected areas and coastal zones. involvement has sometimes encountered resistance However, even where major progress has been macLe in from govenlments, who are not used to working this involving these groups, participation of the full range way and may need support to rethink their own roles of government actors (including local and regional and approaches. agencies), private business interests, and the science community with a stake in project outcomes requires 48. One important dimension of this process is the more attention. identification or development of broad coordination or policy formulation mechanisms that link local stake- 45. The variety of climate change projects in the PIR holders and activities with national policies and actors. portfolio-including research activities, capacity de- These mechanisms provide a vehicle for a variety of velopment, demand-side energy efficiency, introduc- stakeholders to voice their interests and develop a sense tion of alternative energy sources, and large industrial of ownership for decisions. In fact, those involved with activities-has meant that a wide range and large r.um- the Colombia Choc6 Biodiversity project report that put- ber of possible stakeholders need to be involved. In ting in place these coordination mechanisms is as impor- rural areas, participation issues are similar to those tant to project success as community participation (see facing biodiversity projects. In other projects, the in- Box 6). Colombia's experience indicates that these volvement of private businesses and their customers mechanisms are more effective when they are initially has been very important. Going beyond the primary focused on the completion of specific short term tasks. government executing agency orfocal point to engage This tends to make these bodies more committed to a full range of public sector agencies is critical when obtaining concrete results, and gives them a stronger policy and regulatory issues are keys to project success basis for evolving into more comprehensive vehicles for and sustainability. 18 Project Implementation Review of the Global Environment Facility 1997 participation. In addition to the Colombia project, there Genetic Diversity, Mauritius Restoration of Natural For- are a growing number of examples of coordination est, Southwestem Mediterranean Oil Pollution Manage- mechanisms and active local participation in decision- ment, and Gulf of Guinea projects, as well as the making in the GEF portfolio, including under the East biodiversity trust funds established in Peru and Uganda. Asian Seas, Black Sea, Turkey In-Situ Conservation of Box 6. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF COORDINATION MECHANISMS IN COLOMBIA: THE BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE CHOCO REGION PROJECr This project, one of the first funded by the GEF, is implemented by UNDP and began in 1992. It seeks to support a new development strategy for the Choc6 Biogeographic Region that would conserve and sustainably use biological resources based on scientific knowledge and the participation of local communi- ties. Initial stages of implementation were difficult given a complex project design set in a fluid institutional environment involving a diverse variety of stakeholders and covering a large geographic area. Government agency mandates and leadership changed regularly at national and local levels, with responsibilities for environmental concems divided among many organizations and indigenous groups with different territorial jurisdictions. The project was designed by national government officials with some consultation with-but little real participation from-people in the region. The project's offer to fund community-driven initiatives created unrealistic expectations and was met by a large number and variety of proposals, many of which lacked a coherent focus and/or were ineligible for GEF financing. They overwhelmed the project's ability to handle them administratively. Two key changes were made in 1995 in response to these problems. First, stakeholder representation was made official through the establishment of an "Expanded Project Team" which included members from Afrocolombian and indigenous people's communities. The team served as a vehicle for fully incorporating communities in decision-making at both the project coordination and national steering committee levels. The Expanded Team has become a mechanism for genuine participation, for reaching agreement on development approaches and priorities, and for evaluating project results and impact. It has improved the quality and ownership of project activities and strengthened prospects for long-term sustainability. Second, responsibilities were decentralized to the project area. Working groups of local and regional government institutions, community organizations, and NGOs were formed to develop "Territorial Programs' that define land uses for globally significant areas and identify management activities responsive to local needs and consistent with conservation and sustainable use priorities. The Territorial Programs gave needed focus to conservation planning and management in the area and provided the tools for resource use and development in the Choco. In addition, the working groups have become effective mechanisms for participation by and coordination among the wide variety of organizations and interests. From its initial struggles, the Choco project has become a highly successful model of interinstitutional coordination and genuine community participation in decision-making, not only for the project but elsewhere in Colombia. This took substantial time and human and financial resources to organize and to overcome resistance to new concepts and behaviors. Still, several challenges remain. More effort needs to be made to involve central government and private sector stakeholders in the participatory mechanisms pioneered to date. The Expanded Team and Territorial Program approaches are not yet fully institutional- ized. The creation of one vehicle for continuing project activities, namely the Environmental Research Institute for the Colombian Pacific Region, while reflective of the project's participatory approach, required extensive rounds of consultations and is just getting started. These are all priorities for a second phase of the project planned to begin in 1998 with Colombian government support. Maintaining financial commitment through successive administrations will be crucial to sustaining project results. Cross-Cutting Issues 19 49. For the implementing agencies, it is often very attention to social issues is inadequate. In Cameroon, time consuming to involve a broad range of stakehold- efforts to involve communities exacerbated potential ers and encourage effective coordination mechanisrms. conflicts among stakeholders by bringing them into It requires that substantial resources specifically be the open. In Uganda, local politicians tried to direct devoted to promoting participation. This is especially funds intended for conservation to broader commu- true when working with communities. For example, nity needs. And in Panama, issues arose about the the South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Program extent to which traditional authorities represented the reported that it took 2-3 years of awareness raising to views and interests of forest communities. These prob- enlist community support. Reports from the Papua lems do not argue for avoiding increased stakeholder New Guinea Biodiversity project-which was unable involvement. On the contrary, resolving issues like to overcome cultural, political, and economic hurdles these may well be essential for achieving long term at its first site and had to terminate activity there when sustainable development and global environmental it became clear that its conservation objectives were benefits. But they illustrate some of the complications unlikely to be met-have documented a wealth of more participative approaches can entail. experience and insights on this process.4 They are supported by reports from other community-based 51. NGOs are reported to have been very successful conservation projects included in the review, e.g., at reaching out to stakeholders, especially rural com- biodiversity projects in the Darien region of Panama, munities, in many projects revie-wed in the PIR. Never- Nepal, the Philippines, and Colombia, among others. theless, there were instances in the projects reviewed In order to build effective partnerships with comniu- where local communities reported that NGOs do not nities and earn their trust, considerable effort often necessarily represent their views, and where differ- must be devoted to understanding conmnmunity per- ences between international and national/local NGOs spectives, decision-making structures, and capabili- reportedly caused implementation difficulties. Differ- ties. The way project staff interact with communities, ent institutional cultures and perspectives between especially at the outset, is critical for gaining ind NGOs and government agencies have also sometimes keeping their respect, and avoiding expectations of limited NGO participation. rapid or easy returns. New skills are frequently needed by project staff and organizations (including 52. Two other issues regarding stakeholder involve- NGOs). So is patient and continual support from ment were highlighted during the review. First, there project executing agencies. Project implementers of- was little explicit treatment of gender issues in the PIR ten need to resist pressures for rapid project imple- reports. This requires further attention in future re- mentation in order to have time to build sufficient views. Second, while considerable progress has been trust and understanding in communities. Only in this made in engaging stakeholders more actively in GEF way can they help communities identify their own projects, better measures of how expanded participa- solutions and development options, which are critical tion leads to the actual achievement of global envi- steps in long term conservation and sustainable use of ronmental objectives are needed. biodiversity and natural habitats. B. RECIPIENT COMMITMENT 50. Experience under three of the biodiveisity projects included in the 1997 PIR shows that comnu- 53. Strong commitment by recipient countries and nity involvement can give rise to short run difficulties organizations is a major determinant of project as communities and other groups have a voice foi the implementation success, and even more so for long first time. This can be especially true when project term replication and sustainability. In projects re- implementers do not have the right skills or when viewed in the 1997 PIR that were having implementa- tion problems, weak recipient commitment was usually a factor. In a few cases, this led to a shift in For a full discussion if this experience, see Race for the implementation responsibility from national institu- Rainforest: Evaluating Lessons from an lntegrated Conservation tions to the implementing agencies. Where this was and Development "Experiment" in New Ireland, Papua New done it may have had positive short term benefits in Guinea, by Rob McCallum and Nikhil Sekhran, UNDP, 1997. accelerating project implementation, but the long term effect of such a shift on sustainability remains a ques- tion. 20 Project Implementation Review of the Global Environment Facility 1997 54. A clear conclusion of this year's review is that, in of natural gas transmission losses in the two China order to gain recipient ownership and commitment, climate change projects, and in the energy efficiency projects have to respond to some national or local projects reviewed interest in addition to aiming to achieve global envi- ron,nental benefits. In projects that work with com- * by making conservation or restoration of an impor- munities and seek to change their behaviors, activities tant resource a rallying point-e.g., the Jordan Dana must address community needs. While economic in- and Azraq Protected Areas project (see Box 7) terests are obviously a large part of this, they are not the only interest that national or local groups can have * by increasing mine safety-e.g., the China Coal Bed in a GEF-funded project. The PIR identified a number Methane project of ways that global environmental projects can and have responded to important needs: * by creating a vehicle for greater political participa- tion by indigenous groups-e.g., the Colombia * by identifying and supporting alternative sources of Choc6 biodiversity project income-e.g., in biodiversity projects in the Seychelles, Jordan, China, and Ukraine's Danube * by creating an opportunity and forum for the pri- Delta. among others vate sector to influence policies and regulations- e.g., the Batangas Bay subproject of the East Asian * by increasing prospects for economic savings or re- Seas project (see Box 8) turns-e.g., the capture of methane and reduction Box 7. DEVELOPING SUPPORT FOR CONSERVATION IN JORDAN'S AZRAQ OASIS The Azraq oasis is a large wetland complex recognized for its biological uniqueness when it was designated as a Ramsar Convention site in 1977. It has been an important cross-roads for millennia, and until recently, was a major stopping point for migratory birds. However, as the result of water extraction for agriculture and to meet the needs of a rapidly growing urban population in and around Amman, the entire Azraq wetland became totally desiccated in 1992. Through the UNDP/GEF-funded Conservation of Dana Wildlands and Azraq Wetland project in Jordan, this trend has been reversed and the oasis is coming back to life. Although a long-term solution will require fundamental changes to ease pressure from growing urban water demands, a start has been made. A key factor in this success was securing agreement to pump water back into the oasis for the restoration effort. This was done by persistent efforts over more than two years to generate political and community support. The project developed an information campaign, including media coverage of the plight of the oasis and the communities who depend on it. At the same time, a very effective project director built contacts with government agencies and universities, and lobbied them on behalf of this effort. The project also provided local farmers with information from project-funded surveys of groundwater quantity and quality, irrigation water quality, and salinization to highlight the effects of the deterioration of the oasis on their livelihood, and the need for changed practices. This led to greater cooperation as they began to see the project as a partner. Perhaps most importantly, the project helped create a local organization, Friends of Azraq, through which, for the first time, the surrounding villages have become empowered to address environmental issues related to the oasis. Friends of Azraq includes conservationists and agricultural interests-potential adver- saries-who both participate openly in group debates and policy decisions. Prior to the formation of the organization there was little cooperation between the two villages of the area, nor was there a mechanism for direct communication with government agencies responsible for water issues. Friends of Azraq has become a strong advocate for rehabilitation and sustainable management of the wetland and surrounding area. Cross-Cutting Issutes 21 55. Important lessons were documented in the re- implementers often face, since-as discussed in the view on how increased involvement of government, previous section of this report-projects working with private sector and community stakeholders can lead to communities often need to be allowed sufficient time greater ownership of project activities and initiatives, to help them identify their own solutions and develop- and to greater commitment to project outcomes and ment options. objectives. For example, including private business representatives in decision-making processes can lead C. NoN-TRADITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION to better compliance with government regulations. In ARRANGEMENTS addition, the dissemination of information and cam- paigns to raise awareness about environmental issujes 58. The 1997 PIR focused attention on two types of and the benefits of participating in project activities "non-traditional" implementation arrangements: ways have had a positive effect on recipient commitment in to stimulate greater participation of private businesses several projects. in GEF activities, and the creation of conservation trust funds under several biodiversity projects. 56. Careful integration of project interventions with national policies and priorities is needed to help Sn- 59. Climate change projects have made great efforts sure that links between project efforts and global to involve private businesses as suppliers and installers environmental benefits can be effectively made aind of solar energy equipment or as manufacturers and sustained. One way of doing this is to relate project distributors of energy-efficient lightbulbs. Most of the activities to national environmental strategies. T'his GEF projects reviewed that aim at increasing energy was reported to be one of the explanations for the very efficiency or introducing alternative energy technolo- different implementation experience under GEE gies have underwritten a variety of subsidies or other biodiversity projects in the Seychelles and Cameroon. incentives as a way of attracting private sector partici- In the Seychelles, project activities were selected pation. As this first phase of GEF projects begins to within the framework of a national environmental ac- come to a close, however, it is becoming increasingly tion plan. They were successfully implemented. In clear that these incentives run the risk of hindering Cameroon, however, there was no such plan when the replication and the long term sustainability of project project was designed. As a result, the project has suf- activities and benefits. For example, subsidized impor- fered from a lack of strategic focus and is basically a tation and warehousing of solar equipment by the basket of individual field activities carried out by sepa- Zimbabwe Photovoltaics project weakened local rate NGOs with very little central government ownaer- manufacturing capacity. Thus, an effective balance ship. Through a UNEP-funded enabling activity, the needs to be found between attracting private busi- GEF is now assisting Cameroon develop a national nesses and distorting the marketplace in ways that biodiversity strategy, and as a result of the 1997 PIR, will make continuation of these initiatives difficult. this work will be harmonized with the mid-term re- view of the Cameroon biodiversity project. 60. In many countries GEF projects work with estab- 57. The PIR has demonstrated clearly that pro jects lished businesses. As the Project Lessons study has operate within a political context. The Project Lessons documented, however, in others like Zimbabwe, ex- study offers a number of insights based on GEF experi- panding private sector participation has required ef- ence on how this can be taken into account. They forts to strengthen small, young businesses providing include seeking and continually nurturing the support new products or services, in this case the installation of of a wide range of political interests in addition to PV equipment in rural areas. This can include expand- senior government officials and middle managers who ing their awareness and understanding of the market- implement government policies; recognizing the im- place. Some GEF projects have also increased the pact of elections and other changes in leadership and quantity and quality of private sector services by help- how this can affect support for the project and the pace ing set and enforce industry quality and performance and extent of policy changes; and often aiming to standards. Industry associations have played a role in produce quick, tangible results in order to gain politi- this process, especially where continued participation cal support. This last point, of course, underscores the in project activities depends on remaining a member in difficult challenges and balancing act that project good standing. 22 Pro.ic riplementation Review of the Global Environment Facility 1997 Box 8. INVOLVING THE PRIVATE SECTOR AS A PARTNER IN ADDRESSING GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: REDUCING POLLUTION IN THE PHILIPPINES' BATANGAS BAY Batangas Bay is a "demonstration" site under UNDP's Prevention and Management of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas project. The bay has a deep-water port which is developing quickly and expected to become the second largest in the Philippines. It is lined with over 50 industrial plants-from oil refineries to food processing to ship building-and supports 1,000 fishermen. A portion of the bay contains coral reefs that attract thousands of tourists every year. Industrial effluents, municipal sewage and organic wastes from agriculture discharge into the bay. As development occurs, increased risk of degradation from land-based activities and oil and chemical spills from maritime operations and accidents is expected. The East Asian Seas project helps the provincial government of Batangas undertake preventive and corrective measures to keep the bay clean. The main vehicle for this was the creation of the Batangas Bay Council for Integrated Coastal Management. The Council has been delegated authority to oversee the formulation, adoption, implementation and policy direction of a strategic environmental management plan for the Batangas Bay region and related actions. It includes members from the provincial government, municipal govemments in the bay area, the Coast Guard, Ports Authority, and other government and non- governmental organizations. Significantly, the Council also includes a member from the Batangas Bay Coastal Resource Manage- ment Foundation, an association formed in 1991 by key private industries, including three multinational oil companies. In fact, participation in the project provided the stimulus needed to revitalize the Foundation. It has been a practical way for businesses to become involved as a group, rather than individually. Through it, some members have provided technical assistance to help other firms develop waste audits and management plans. The Foundation also plans to hire a person to work with the Council to raise awareness about environmental problems in the bay and encourage other companies to participate in the project. Membership on the Council gave the private sector an incentive and a forum for becoming actively involved in addressing pollution problems in Batangas Bay. It provided an opportunity to influence government policies and decisions. As a result, private companies have negotiated voluntary agreements wvith central and local governments on waste reduction, maintained oil spill equipment and conducted response exercises, and participated in pollution management audits and the marine pollution monitoring program. The Council has been involved in helping identify infrastructure needs and prospects for joint private-public investments in marine pollution prevention, control and mitigation. 61. Beyond using the private sector to supply goods strates (see Box 8), one incentive that can be particu- and services, several projects included in the 1997 PIR larly effective is providing the opportunity for direct have gained valuable experience on how to involve involvement with government agencies in decision- private businesses as partners in addressing global en- making on issues that affect them. This can require vironmental issues. For example, the Gulf of Guinea changes in government attitudes, including greater and East Asian Seas projects have involved businesses willingness to delegate responsibilities to local govern- in groups that have made a direct input into the devel- ment and to the councils on which private businesses opment of new regulations to control and limit pollu- are represented. Such fora can also help remove un- tion and to monitor pollution levels. These projects productive labels and stereotypes that often cloud have found that to engage private industry effectively communication and understanding between busi- as partners, aforum has to be created. Even when this nesses and government. is done, private sector participation is not automatic. Incentives need to be found to encourage their in- 62. Four of the biodiversity projects included in this volvement. As the experience in Batangas Bay in the year's PIR include the creation of conservation trust Philippines under the East Asian Seas project demon- funds: Peru National Trust Fund, Uganda Mgahinga Cross-Cuting Issues 23 and Bwindi Park Conservation, Bhutan Trust Fund, projects-will need to be closely monitored to be sure and Mexico Protected Areas. In all but Mexico, these that financial management procedures and controls funds were operational for all of FY97. They have are in place to preserve the value of the funds' capital supported management plans for parks and other pro- while generating sufficient returns to finance field- tected areas by financing improved park administra- level projects; that administrative costs are kept under tion, research and community development activities. control; and that appropriate mechanisms are being All are serving as multi-stakeholder fora, building new implemented to guarantee that subprojects are consis- partnerships among governments, NGOs, community tent with the biodiversity purposes for which the funds groups, scientists and others (see Box 9). For example, were created and with GEF's specific selection criteria, in Uganda, representatives of several NGOs and of the including incremental costs. Local Community Steering Group are members of t he Board of Trustees. Trust funds have also attract:ed D. CAPACITY BUILDING other sources of funding for biodiversity conservation beyond GEF's contributions. As of June 1997, ,he 64. Building capacity and strengthening institutions three trust funds that were in operation had receiv7ed is a primary focus of GEF projects carried out by US$24.2 million in additional resources. UNDP and UNEP. Through these efforts, hundreds of people have been trained, national environmental 63. While these trust funds appear to be off to a good agencies and NGOs have been created or strength- start, they-and others created through GEF ened, and regional and global networks have been Box 9. CONSERVATION TRuSTS: SUPPORTING NEW PARTNERSHIPS FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Whether operating within existing private foundations or by creating new non-profit entities, conser- vation trust funds have served to bring together key public and private stakeholders as joint decision-makers to carry out a variety of conservation activities. * In Uganda, the Mgahinga and Bwindi Park Conservation Trust is managed by a board of 9 trustees drawn from the public park and forest services, NGOs, research institutions, private tourism compa- nies, and local residents of the two parks. A steering committee of local government and community representatives and NGOs provides advice to the Board on interactions at the local level. * In Peru, the Protected Areas Fund (FONANPE) created by the GEF project is managed by a non- profit entity with 7 board members representing the government, NGOs and an international donor. A good working relationship has been formed with the National Institute of Natural Resources, a coalition of government agencies servicing the parks, leading to a takeoff in project operations within 14 parks and protected areas. * The Bhutan Trust Fund was created to launch a comprehensive nationwide environmental program. In addition to achieving its objectives of expanding conservation implementation capacity and attracting additional capital, it has raised conservation awareness within the country and abroad. In 1996, the Fund amended its charter so that the current board comprised of 5 government and one intemational NGO members will, in 2001, take on a broader representation of government, local NGOs and the private sector. * In Mexico, GEF funds were used to create an endowment within the non-profit Fondo Mexicano para la Conservaci6n de la Natureleza (FMCN) aimed at providing basic conservation support directly to selected protected areas and their communities. While the FMCN board provides general oversight of the fund, a 7-member technical comrnittee of public, private, social, academic and conservation groups will provide the overall management and direction. 24 Project Implementation Review of the Global Environment Facility 1997 created to share experiences. UNEP's activities give 66. GEF projects are training pools of experts who particular emphasis to enhancing the technical and are contributing to countries' ability to implement the scientific capacity that developing countries need to biodiversity and climate change conventions. UNEP- understand, monitor and respond to global environ- funded country studies and the Biodiversity Data Man- mental issues better. agement project (see Box 10) are providing the scientific and information basis for national 65. Capacity building is a component of most coun- biodiversity strategies and national communications try projects reviewed in the 1997 PIR. In addition, the under the global conventions. The methodologies de- portfolio includes a large number of regional or multi- veloped under these projects are helping other coun- country "umbrella" projects with specific capacity tries with their own strategies and communications. building objectives. Through workshops, multi-coun- The Inter-American Institute for Global Change try training courses, and the promotion of networks, project financed a large training effort in Latin America these umbrella projects have served as effective ve- which is reportedly supporting national and regional hicles for linking people working on similar problems assessments of land-use changes that are feeding into throughout the world. Regional and multi-country the process of national communications to the climate projects, however, often require considerable effort change convention. The Global Monitoring of Green- devoted to logistics and coordination. house Gases project has established monitoring sta- BOX 10. BUILDING CAPACITY FOR BIODIVERSITY DATA MANAGEMENT GEF's Biodiversity Data Management Capacitation in Developing Countries and Networking Biodiversity Information project, begun by UNEP in 1994, is helping build national capacity and exchange of information between Parties to the CBD. Focusing initially on data compiled in the GEF Biodiversity Country Studies project, the BDM project aims to mobilize these data as key tools in building enhanced national capacity for planning biodiversity strategies and actions for conservation and sustainable use. Ten countries (Bahamas, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Papua New Guinea and Thailand) have conducted national institutional surveys of existing capability for data management, and prepared national plans to manage and apply biodiversity data in support of the CBD. For example, the Kenya Wildlife Service has used the project to organize the information being used to manage the country's national parks. Egypt has standardized all data related to its national protected areas and is making it available free of charge to all interested users within the country. To support these activities, and promote their application in other countries, the project has prepared and field tested guidelines and resource materials in several areas. Guidelines for national institutional surveys help countries assess their capacity to manage biodiversity information. A guide to information management describes a step-by-step information cycle comprising agreement on priority issues, determina- tion of information needs, design of information products, and stakeholder involvement. An electronic resource inventory provides a wide range of information and reference directories on software, hardware, methodologies, standards, common practices, data sources, key organizations and exemplary projects related to biodiversity data management. The resource inventory has promoted both North-South and South-South cooperation. These supporting materials greatly facilitated development of BDM plans in the 10 participating countries by providing valuable information on methodologies, softw.7are, data sources, and organizations with relevant expertise that planners could draw upon to supplement national skills. The 10 countries participating in the project are expected to complete their BDM plans by the end of 1997. As a final project activity, a participatory evaluation process is being planned to consider how the project can contribute to the CBD Secretariat's Clearing House Mechanism, how to assist the 10 countries implement their BDM plans, and how to extend the benefits of the project to other interested countries in the most cost effective manner. Cross-Cutting Issues 25 tions in 6 countries and provided training for national 69. The success of demand-side energy efficiency staff who have been "twinned" with experts from de- projects in the PIR climate change portfolio can be veloped country meteorological institutions. Under strongly linked to effective public awareness cam- the ALGAS project, over 160 national technical experts paigns. For example, in Poland, professional advertis- in Asia have received training in GHG inventor ies, ing and an educational campaign at schools resulted in mitigation and project identification. These experts are heightened public awareness and greater use of com- now providing inputs to national communications and pact fluorescent lighting (see Box 11). InJamaica, good helping identify climate change mitigation projects for community response to the Demand Side Management future funding. Through the Research Program on project was attributed to an NGO-designed public Methane Emissions from Rice Fields project, more awareness campaign that includes media coverage and accurate estimates of methane emissions from rice pro- school campaigns. duction have been calculated and training has been provided to the country teams working on the ALGAS 70. Greater awareness of project benefits can project. These estimates reportedly are being used stimulate behavior changes and investments beyond throughout Asia and will form an important part of the project-funded activities. A public information cam- national communications of countries in the region. paign in support of the Poland Coal-to-Gas conversion project led to overwhelming expressions of interest 67. There are indications that the various GEF- from potential participants, surpassing expectations funded capacity building projects are at a stage of and leading to more widespread conversions funded potentially producing global environmental benefits, outside the GEF project. In Jordan, a public awareness depending on countries' ability to put this capacity to campaign on sound environmental practices under the effective use. However, while most projects are moni- Gulf of Aqaba project led to changes in practices by toring the quantity of training and other outputs pro- coastal hotels. duced, the review noted the absence in most projects of clear statements of intended capacity building !ut- 71. Information provided to communities increased comes or impacts. Likewise, there is little baseline their participation in conservation projects. One ex- information and very few indicators to measure the ample of this was reported in Ghana, where the Coastal effectiveness and results of capacity building, espe- Wetlands project distributed the results of bird and cially in terms of global environmental objectives. turtle studies to communities with a resulting increase The more widespread use of the logical framework for in voluntary protection activities. An effective way of new GEF projects will address this to a considerable promoting dialogue with communities is by involving extent, but the need to define more precisely the in- them in monitoring the physical and socio-economic tended impacts of, and develop indicators for, capacity results of the project. For example, respected members building and institutional strengthening projects was of the community play an important role as park man- identified as a high priority for future attention. agers in Jordan's Dana Reserve, and act as witnesses to the effects of improved area management. The Belarus E. PUBLIC AWARENESS Biodiversity project found that disseminating project results to communities enhanced their sense of partici- 68. A lesson that emerged clearly from the 1997 PIR pation and support for changes in conservation man- was the importance of information dissemination and agement practices. public awareness-raising activities in stimulating the adoption of new technologies or behaviors, strength- 72. One of the insights gained in implementing the ening buy-in to and sustainability of conservation Papua New Guinea Biodiversity project is that to estab- projects, and creating a more favorable enabling en- lish an enabling environment for conservation, vironmentfor policy and attitude changes. This lesson projects need to invest in education. This requires that does not appear to have resulted from a conscious attention be given to media outreach, involving strategy across GEF projects, however. The review churches and other local institutions, developing concluded that information dissemination and aware- school curricula, and providing training to teachers ness raising should be expanded in GEF projects and and other educators. The Sustainable Development in programs, and that more effort is needed to dissmi- Sabana-Camaguey project in Cuba and the Coastal nate experience in this area. Zone Management projects in Belize and the Domini- can Republic report similar lessons. 26 Project )implteentationi Review of the Global Environmnent Facility 1997 Box 1 1. PUBLIC AWARENESS RAISING AS A K(EY INGREDIENT TO SUCCESSFUL ADOPTION OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY PRACTICES: THE CASE OF POLAND The Poland Efficient Lighting Project (PELP) is a US$5 million project implemented by the Interna- tional Finance Corporation (IFC) and executed by private sector entities in partnership with several national and intemational NGOs. Now nearly completed, its objective is to reduce GHG emissions by decreasing electricity consumption from residential lighting, as well as in utility services in selected municipalities, by stimulating the Polish consumer market for efficient lighting products. To achieve this PELP undertook five programs: (1) compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) subsidies; (2) CFL luminaire subsidies; (3) pilot demand-side management (DSM) activities; (4) public education; and (5) monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of project impacts. Consumer reluctance to make high up-front investments in unfamiliar energy efficient light bulbs was identified as a principal barrier to greater widespread market penetration of CFLs in Poland. Over a two year period PELP matched US$2.6 million in subsidies to reduce initial CFL purchase prices with a US$430,000 consumer education and awareness strategy to increase the public's knowledge of efficient lighting products and their benefits. The result was the sale of over 1.2 million CFLs at a modest per unit subsidy to largely first-time buyers. PELP's CFL, luminaire and DSM components were accompanied by promotional campaigns support- ing efficient lighting products built around a special logo backed by Polish consumer, environmental and energy efficiency partner organizations. The logo was affixed to energy efficient lamps and luminaires to increase consumer awareness of, and confidence in, such products. The project and its logo were promoted through posters, professional publications, newspapers, magazines, public and press events, and television advertisements. The logo is now widely recognized in Poland, and is commonly requested by first time CFL buyers. The public education component also included energy efficiency education for Polish grammar schools, as well as programs for professional lighting designers and the public on energy efficiency awareness. Finally, through consumer and more general surveys, the M&E component is testing the extent to which awareness and attitudes have changed, and what effects this is having on markets for efficient lighting products. Preliminary results suggest that PELP has been very successful in raising consumer awareness of CFLs. Over 98% of consumers who purchased CFLs during PELP's first season of subsidies were at least "satisfied" with their purchase, and almost 80% said they intended to buy more CFLs during the second season. Almost twice as many Polish households as at program inception now own at least one CFL. The ultimate measure of PELP's success is how much it will reduce electricity demand, and consequently GHG emissions. Preliminary estimates show that its direct effects have reduced emissions by over 200,000 tons of carbon, and PELP's broader effects on the Polish lighting market will likely lead to much greater emission reductions. 73. The PIR concluded that, although media out- F. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS/MONITORING reach can be time-consuming, GEF projects should be AND EVALUATION more aggressive in pursuing opportunities to use the media as a vehiclefor disseminating information and 74. A number of PIR reports identified specific ac- raising awareness about project activities and global tivities that have been carried out to select perfor- environmental issues generally. mance indicators and use them in monitoring and Cross-Cutting Issues 27 evaluating project results. As the experience under the ation guidelines for its GEF biodiversity, climate China Nature Reserve Management and the Philip- change and international waters projects, and these pines Protected Areas projects shows (see Box 12), have been provided to the other implementing agen- these efforts are beginning to provide lessons on the cies to use, as appropriate. It is near completing a process of developing good monitoring and evaluation comprehensive revision of the biodiversity guidelines, plans and insights about which indicators will be most which were originally issued in 1992.5 The revised useful in monitoring the progress and impact of version focuses on measuring the biophysical impact projects in GEF's focal areas. of project activities, and will be used throughout the World Bank for all biodiversity projects. An update of 75. Despite the progress that has been made, how- the climate change guidelines is planned in 1998. ever, over half of the GEF projects reviewed appear not to have identified, nor to be using regularly, clear 76. While these are positive steps, the PIR concluded results-oriented objectives or indicators to monitor that a more systematic effort should be led by GEF's and evaluate their impact. Little work has been under- Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator to taken to define precise strategic objectives and corre- catalog existing work on and experience with perfor- sponding indicators for GEF's operational programs. mance and impact indicators at both the project and UNDP is placing increased emphasis on logical frame- program level, to identify indicators that would be work training and, like the World Bank and UNEP, especially appropriate for GEF projects and opera- requires logframes with performance indicators for all tional programs, and to disseminate this iniformation new projects. The World Bank will retrofit all of its within the GEFfamily, together with a list of resources GEF projects with monitoring indicators by June on which implementing agencies and the secretariat 1998. The Bank has also issued monitoring and evalu- can draw. Box 12. EXPERIENCE DESIGNING MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLANS, INCLUDING PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Under the World Bank's China Nature Reserves Management project, the process of developing an M&E plan in a participatory manner took nearly a year. Several workshops were held in the field and involved multiple stakeholders. The final plan focuses on simplicity, cost-effectiveness and sustainability and the understanding that indicators should be: (1) useful to the management of the protected area, (2) inexpensive to collect and maintain, (3) integrailed with nature reserve research programs, (4) practical, (5) pertinent and relevant, and (6) reliable. Valuable lessons learned through this process included the good team building experience that participatory effcrts bring about. Timing is also important. Developing an M&E plan before completing the final project design or beginning implementation can cause the plar. to be overly complex and the capacity to implement it overestimated, as initially experienced by the P'hilippines Protected Areas project. Subsequent to the initial design of the M&E plan in this project, a simplified, easier to implement plan was reformulated and is now being used. Guidelines for Project-Based Monitoring and Evaluation of Biodiversity (Draft, September 1997). The World Bank, Global Environment Division, Environment Department, Washington DC. 80 pp. 28 VI. ACTIONS TAKEN AND RECOMMENDAMONS FOR THE FUTuRE 77. As a result of the 1997 PIR, four specific actions 78. In addition to these actions, several steps were were agreed upon among the GEF secretariat and agreed upon to further improve the project implemen- implementing agencies: tation review and the dissemination of its findings: * In addition to the publication of reports of its evalu- * The 1997 PIR report will be distributed at the April ation studies and project implementation reviews, 1998 GEF CounciVAssembly meeting in six lan- the GEF will initiate a series of "dissemination notes" guages. A workshop will be organized at the Assem- to highlight particularly interesting case studies and bly to discuss the 1997 PIR results. In addition, the lessons from experience. Initial topics for this series Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator, in would draw on the Project Lessons study and analy- collaboration with the implementing agencies' GEF sis from the PIR. The Monitoring and Evaluation team coordination units, will actively seek other ways to in the secretariat will take the lead on this effort, disseminate PIR results, especially to give feedback although individual notes could be prepared by to project officers who have provided input to the implementing agencies. review. T The GEFSEC Monitoring and Evaluation team will * It was agreed that including a review of focal area lead, working closely with the three focal area task portfolios by the respective GEF task forces would forces and GEF coordination units in the lAs, a sys- make a valuable input to the interagency review. The tematic effort to identify performance and impact 1998 review will involve task force reviews of the indicators appropriate for GEF projects and opera- PIR portfolio prior to the interagency meeting. tional programs. - The participants in the 1997 review believed that the * An effort to take stock of experience with various practice of identifying 1-2 cross-cutting topics as a institutional arrangements in regional projects will focus for PIR reports and the interagency meeting be carried out over the next year. It was agreed to worked well and should be continued. Candidate ask GEFs international waters task force to lead this topics for 1998 include the GEF's progress at lever- activity The results will be discussed during the 1998 aging additional resources and actions to address PIR. global environmental issues, capacity building/insti- tutional development, and experience with regional * The review agreed on one country-specific action to projects. increase coordination between activities funded by more than one implementing agency. In Cameroon, the mid- * Preparations for the 1998 PIR should start as early term review of the World Bank GEF biodiversityproject as possible. In order to further integrate the PIR ex- will be harmonized with elaboration of the national ercise into lAs' current monitoring procedures, the biodiversity strategy through a UNEP-funded enabling guidelines for the FY98 review will be issued inJanu- activity, with the aim of helping define a more strategic ary 1998. context for project activities. 29 AP]PENDiX A LIST OF PROJECaS INICLUDED IN THE 1997 PIR Multi focal areas IA Project Description Work IA Effective US$ Disbursed as % Program Approval Date mios of 6/30/97 Disbursed 1 UNEP BD Country Studies Phase 1 Dec-91 Mar-92 Mar-92 5.00 3.02 60 1 GEFSEC PRINCE (as of 0 1/31/1997) Jul-9, Jul-93 Nov-94 2.60 1.06 40.69 2 WB Small and Medium Scale Enterprise Program Apr-94 Dec-95 Mar-96 4.30 1.20 27.91 3 UNDP Small Grants Programme Dec-951 Mar-92 Jun-92 14.94 14.82 99.20 Total 21.84 Biodiversity IA Project Description Work IA Effective US$ Disbursed as /0 Program Approval Date mios of 6/30/97 Disbursed 1 WB ALGERIA El Kala National Park/Wetlands May-91 Apr-94 Sep-94 9.20 2.90 31.52 2 UNEP BD Country Studies Phase 1 Dec-9) Mar-92 Mar-92 5.00 4.48 89.60 3 UNEP BD Country studies Phase 2 [ Dec-92 Jun-94 Jun-94 2.00 1.56 78.00 4 WB BELARUS Biodiversity Protection May-91 Sep-92 Dec-92 1.00 1.03 103.00 5 UNDP BELIZE Sustainable Development in Coastal Resources Dec-91 Feb-93 Mar-93 3.00 2.51 83.67 6 WB BHUTAN Trust Fund for Conservation May-91 May-92 Nov-92 10.00 10.51 105.10 _7 UNEP Biodiversity Data Management Dec-92 Jun-94 Jun-94 4.00 2.05 51.25 8 WB BOLIVIA Biodiversity Conservation Apr-92 Nov-92 Jul-93 4.50 3.97 88.22 9 UNDP REGIONAL Ecologial zoning and geographic monitoring of the Amazon River May-91 Jan-93 Mar-93 4.50 4.22 93.78 10 UNDP BURKINA FASO Optimization of biodiversity in game Ranching systems Dec-92 Feb-95 Jul-95 2.43 0.35 14.40 11 WB CAMEROON Biodiversity Conservation and Management May-93 Mar-95 Dec-95 6.29 0.55 8.74 12 WB CHINA Nature Reserves Management Feb-55 Jun-95 Aug-95 17.90 6.28 35.08 1 3 UNDP COLOMBIA Biodiversity Conservation in the Choco Region May-91 Feb-92 Sep-92 6.00 5.17 86.17 14 WB CONGO Wildlands Protection May-91 Dec-92 Oct-93 10.00 5.66 56.60 15 UNDP COSTA RICA Conservation of La Amistad and Osa Conservation Areas Jan-93 Apr-93 May-93 8.00 5.37 67.13 16 UNDP COTE D'IVOIRE Aquatic I I Weeds Control Dec-92 Jun-95 Nov-95 3.00 0.42 14.00 17 UNDP CUBA Protecting Biodiversity and Establishing Sustainable Development Sabana-Camaguey Ecosystem Dec-9'1 Jul-93 Dec-93 2.00 1.75 87.50 1 8 WB CZECH Republic Biodiversity Protection Dec-9'1 Oct-93 Jan-94 2.30 1.86 80.87 19 UNDP DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Conservation and Management of Biodiversity in the Coastal Zone Oct-93 Nov-93 May-94 3.00 2.03 67.67 20 WB ECUADOR Biodiversity Protection Apr-92 May-94 Jul-94 7.20 5.12 71.11 21 WB EGYPT Red Sea Coastal/Marine I Resource Management Apr-52 i Nov-92 Dec-94 4.75 1.02 21.47 22 UNDP ETHIOPIA Conservation of Plant F i I _ Genetic Resources Dec-92 Apr-94 Sep-94 2.50 0.45 18.00 30 Project Inplementatioss Review of the Global Environment Facility 1997 Biodiversity (cont'd) IA Project Description Work IA Effective US$ Disbursed as % Program Approval Date mios of 6/30/97 Disbursed 23 UNDP GABON Effective Management of Wildlife Trade May-91 Jan-94 Jul-94 1.00 0.73 73.00 24 WB GHANA Coastal Wetlands Dec-91 Aug-92 Mar-93 7.20 1.96 27.22 25 UNEP Global Biodiversity Assessment Dec-92 May-93 May-93 3.30 3.02 91.52 26 UNDP GUYANA Programme for Sustainable Forestry May-91 Apr-92 Feb-93 3.00 2.22 74.00 27 WB INDONESIA Biodiversity Collections Apr-92 Jun-94 Jul-94 7.20 3.41 47.36 28 INDP JORDAN Conserv. of Dana Wildlands and Azraq Wetland and Institutional Strengthening of RSCN Arab States May-92 May-93 Oct-93 6.30 5.11 81.11 29 WB LAO PDR Wildlife and Protected Areas Conservation May-91 Feb-94 Jan-95 5.00 1.33 26.60 30 UNDP LEBANON National Capacity for _ Biodiversity Protection May-95 Feb-96 Feb-96 2.50 0.35 14.00 31 WB MALAWI Lake Malawi/Nyasa Biod'y Conservation Dec-91 Dec-94 Jul-95 5.00 1.88 37.60 32 WB MAURITIUS Biodiversity Restoration May-95 Nov-95 Feb-96 1.20 0.44 36.67 33 UNDP MAURITIUS Restoration of Native Forest May-93 Jun-95 Jun-95 0.20 0.08 40.00 34 WB MEXICO Protected Areas Program May-91 Mar-92 Apr-93 26.20 7.04 26.87 35 UNDP NEPAL Biodiversity Conservation Dec-91 Jun-93 Sep-93 3.80 1.55 40.79 36 UNDP PANAMA Biodiversity Conservation in Darien Region May-91 Feb-94 May-94 3.00 0.78 26.00 37 UNDP ! PAPUA and NEW GUINEA Con- I servation and Resource Management Programme Dec-91 Jul-93 Oct-94 5.00 3.55 71.00 38, WB PERU National Trust Fund for Protected I g I Areas Dec-91 Mar-95 Sep-95 5.00 5.22 104.40 39 WB PHILIPPINES Conservation of Priority Protected Areas May-91 May-94 Oct-94 20.00 3.70 18.50 40 UNDP REGIONAL - INDONESIA AND MALAYSIA Conservation Strategy for Rhinos in Southeast Asia May-93 Dec-94 Dec-94 2.00 0.97 48.50 41 WB ROMANIA Danube Delta Biodiversity Apr-92 Jul-94 Feb-9 4.50 2.08 46.22 42 UNDP SAMOA REGIONAL South Pacific r Biodiversity May-91 Jan-93 Apr-93 8.20 2.55 31.10 43 WB SEYCHELLES Biodiversity Conservation & Marine Pollution Abatement Dec-91 Nov-92 Mar-93 1.80 1.58 87.78 44 WB SLOVAK Republic Biodiversity Protection Dec-91 Sep-93 Oct-93 2.30 1.99 86.52 45 UNDP SRI LANKA Wildlife Conservation Dec-91 Jan-92 May-92 4.10 2.44 59.51 46 WB TURKEY In-Situ Conservation of Genetic I | Biodiversity Apr-92 Feb-93 Mar-93 5.10 3.91 76.67 47 WB UGANDA Bwindi and Mgahinga Gorilla National Park Conservation May-91 Jan-95 Jul-95 4.00 4.35 108.75 48|WB UKRAINE Danube Delta Biodiversity Apr-92 Jun-94 Aug-94 1.50 0.77 51.33 49 WB UKRAINE Transcarpathian Biodiversity Dec-91 Jul-93 Oct-93 0.50 0.57 114.00 150 UNDP VIETNAM Wildlife Conservation May-91 Jan-92 May-95 3.00 2.95 98.33 51 WB West Africa Pilot Community Based Natural Resource and Wildlife Mgmnt Project May-91 May-91 Jul-95 4.00 0.66 16.50 Tota I 264.47 Appendix A. List of Projects Included in 1997 PIR 31 Climate Change IA Project Description W/ork IA Effective US$ Disbursed as % Program Approval Date mios of 6/30/97 Disbursed 1 UNDP BENIN - Management of Woody Savanna Dec-92 Jul-93 Jan-94 2.50 1.61 64.40 2 UNEP Capacity Building and Infrastructure Jun-94 Jul-94 Jul-94 2.80 2.80 100.00 3 UNDP CHILE Reduction of GH Gas Emissions Dec-92 Jun-95 Jun-95 1.70 0.41 24.12 4 UNDP CHINA Development of Coal-Bed Methane Resources May-91 Apr-92 Jun-92 10.00 9.43 94.30 5 WB CHINA Sichuan Gas Transmission Apr-92 May-94 Jun-94 10.71 0.60 5.60 6 UNDP Climate Change Training (Phase 11) May-95 Mar-96 Mar-96 2.70 1.04 38.52 7 WB COSTA RICA Tejona Wind Power Dec-93 Dec-93 Nov-95 3.30 0.00 0.0 8 UNDP West Africa Energy Efficiency Dec-92 Dec-94 Aug-95 3.50 1.40 40.00 9 UNEP Country Case studies on Green house gases Dec-91 Jul-92 Sep-92 4.50 4.32 96.00 10 UNEP Country Studies on Climate Change Impacts Feb-95 Feb-96 Mar-96 2.00 1.00 50.00 11 UNEP Economics of Greenhouse Gas Limitations Feb-95 Mar-96 Apr-96 3.00 0.86 28.67 12 UNDP Global Change System for Analysis, Research & Training (START) May-92 May-93 May-93 4.10 3.94 96.10 13 WB INDIA Alternate Energy Dec-91 Nov-92 Sep-94 26.00 19.38 74.54 14 UNDP INDIA Bio-methanation Process May-92 Jan-94 Mar-94 5.50 0.92 16.73 15 UNDP INDIA Optimizing Development of Small Hydel resources in the Hilly Regions of India Dec-91 Jan-94 Mar-94 7.50 1.14 15.20 16 WB IRAN Teheran Transport Emissions Reduction Apr.92 Oct-93 Jan-94 2.00 1.74 87.00 17 WE JAMAICA Demand Side Management M M Demonstration Maye93 Mar-94 Aug-94 3.80 1.05 27.63 1 8 UNDP GLOBAL Alternative to Slash and Burn Agriculture (Phase 11) May-95 Jun-96 Jun-96 3.00 3.00 100.00 19 WB MALI Householf Energy Project Dec-92 Jun-95 Oct-95 2.50 0.68 27.20 20 UNDP MAURITANIA- Decentralized Wind Electric Power for Social and Economic Development Dec-92 Jun-94 Sep-94 2.00 0.45 22.50 21 WB MAURITIUS- Sugar Bio-Energy I I | Technology May-91 Feb-92 Dec-93 3.30 0.87 26.36 22 WB MEXICO High Efficiency Lighting Pilot Dec91 Mar-94 Feb-95 10.00 10.72 107.20 23 UNDP Monitoring GH Gases May-91 Oct-92 Oct-92 4.80 4.08 85.00 24 WB MOROCCO Repowering of Power Plant Dec 92 Sep-94 Apr-96 6.09 0.37 6.08 25 UNDP PAKISTAN Fuel Efficiency Transport A l M 7 0 3 I L I Sector Apr-92 Jul-95 May-96 7.00 0.24 3.43 26 WB PHILIPPINES Leyte-Luzon Geothermal May-91 May-94 Mar-95 30.60 25.62 83.73 27 WB POLAND Coal-to-Gas Project Dec-91 Nov-94 Jun-95 26.00 0.38 1.46 28 WB POLAND Efficient Lighting Project (PELP) Dec-94 May-95 Aug-95 5.00 4.70 94.00 29 UNDP REGIONAL Asia Least Cost GHG Abatement Strategy (Philippines) Dec-91 Aug-93 Aug-94 9.50 5.47 57.58 30 UNDP REGIONAL Buildina Capacitv in 0 14.40 | Mahgreb for CCC oroccoJ |May-93 Sep-94 Dec-94 2.50 0.36 14.40 32 Project Implementation Review of the Global Environment Facility 1997 Climate Change (cont'd) IA Project Description Work IA Effective US$ Disbursed as % Program Approval Date mios of 6/30/97 Disbursed 31 UNDP REGIONAL Cooperation to Support Global Change research in the Inter- American Institute for Global Change IAI) (Brazil) May-92 May-93 Jan-94 2.90 2.21 76.21 32 UNDP Research Programme on Methane Emissions from Rice Fields May-91 Jan-92 Jul-92 5.00 3.90 78.00 33 UNDP SUDAN Rangeland rehabilitation for Carbon Sequestration and biodiversity Dec-92 Aug-94 Oct-94 1.50 0.60 40.00 34 UNDP TANZANIA - Electricity, Fuel and Fertilizer from Municipal and Industrial Organic wasteTAKAGAS May-93 Dec-93 Mar-94 2.50 0.75 30.00 35 WB THAILAND Promotion of Electricity _~WB Energy Efficiency Dec-91 Apr-93 Nov-93 9.50 5.75 60.53 36 I WB TUNISIA Solar Water Heating May-93 Nov-94 May-95 4.00 0.50 12.50 37 | UNDP ZIMBABWE - Photovoltaics May-91 Feb-92 Sep-95 7.00 4.78 68.29 Total 240.30 International Waters IA Project Description Work IA Effective US$ Disbursed as % Program Approval Date mios of 6/30/97 Disbursed I WB CHINA Ship Waste Disposal May-91 May-92 Dec-92 30.00 31.60 105.33 2 WB JORDAN Gulf Aqaba Environmental Action Plan Oct-95 Jun-96 Jun-96 2.70 0.30 11.11 3 UNDP REGIONAL Environmental Management & Protection of the Black Sea (Turkey) May-92 Dec-92 Oct-94 9.30 9.23 99.25 4 UNDP REGIONAL Gulf of Guinea Coted'lvoire) Dec-91 Oct-93 Oct-94 6.00 3.37 56.17 5 WB REGIONAL Oil pollution Management Project for the Southwest Mediterranean Apr-92 Apr-94 May-94 18.26 4.53 24.81 6 UNDP REGIONAL Pollution Control and Other measures to Protect Biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika Dec-91 Oct-93 Feb-95 10.00 2.18 21.80 7 UNDP REGIONAL South East Asian Seas (Philippines) Dec-91 Jul-93 Nov-93 8.00 3.87 48.38 8 WB REGIONAL Wider Caribbean Initiative or Ship-Generated Waste May-93 Jun-94 Sep-94 5.50 2.42 44.00 UNDP YEMEN Marine Ecosystems of the Red -- _____ Sea Coast May-92 Apr-93 Jun-93 2.80 1.62 57.86 Total I 92.56 Ozone IA Project Description Work IA Effective US$ Disbursedas % Program Approval Date mios of 6/30/97 Disbursed 1 UNDP REGIONAL Southern Cone Monitoring | May-92 | Jun-94 Oct-94 1.90 1.86 | 97.89 2 WB BULGARIA ODS Phase-Out May-95 Nov-95 May-96 10.50 0.60 5.71 3 WB CZECH Republic - Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances Dec-92 Aug-94 Dec-94 2.30 2.04 88.70 4 WB HUNGARY ODS Phaseout I May-95 Nov-95 Feb-96 6.90 4.50 65.22 5 WB SLOVENIA Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances May-95 Nov-95 Dec-95 6.20 4.20 67.7 Total 27.80 Grand Total 646.97 33 APPENDIX B. 1. UNITED NAmONS DIEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW 1997 1. OVERVIEW were reviewed and individual reports were submitted to UNDP-GEF headquarters. This year's PIR also in- The annual GEF Project Implementation Review cludes all pre-investment funds such as PDFs, PRIFs, (PIR) complements UNDP's regular monitoring system and PPAs active for over one year that have not yet composed of the Tripartite Project Reviewv, the resulted in the submission of a Project Brief. Programme Performance Evaluation Reports, the NMid- term Report, and the Final Completion Report. The The 1997 PIR form covering all aspects of imple- goal of the PIR is to identify challenges and successful mentation was sent electronically to UNDP Country strategies specific to GEF projects, and to share them Offices that have projects meeting the review criteria. with a broad audience for the continual improvement This 10 page questionnaire probed a range of imple- of portfolio performance. mentation issues including implementation and im- pact rating, stakeholder involvement, capacity This year's UNDP-GEF FIR is the first product of development, and lessons learned. The new and inno- a major effort to further enhance monitoring a