o~~~ _ m ~D 00 0 PROJECT PERFORMANCE REPORT (INCORPORATING THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW) 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................... v I INTRODUCTION .1 2. GEF PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS ..3 A. Overall GEF Portfolio .3 B. Disbursements .4 C. Time from Allocation to Implementation .6 3. 1998 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW .7 A. Overview of Projects Covered in the Review .7 B. Portfolio Highlights by Focal Area .9 4. SUMMARY OF RECENT EVALUATION FINDINGS ..17 A. Evaluation of Experience with Conservation Trust Funds .17 B. Evaluation of the Small Grants Programme .19 C. UNDP Integrated Coastal Management Projects 22 D. Evaluation of the Biodiversity Data Management (BDM) Proj ect .24 E. World Bank Quality Assurance Group's Review of Africa Biodiversity Projects .26 5. CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES ..28 A. Sustainability .28 B. Leveraging .30 C. Capacity Building .33 D. Project Leadership .35 E. Multi-Country Organizational Arrangements .35 F. Indicators .37 6. SYNTHESIS OF PIR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIIONS ..38 A. Flexible, Long-Term Approach.38 B. ndicators .39 C. Leveraging .39 D. Topics for In-Depth Review for 1999 PIR .39 E. Dissemination of PIR Findings .40 F. The Role and Purpose of the PI .40 APPENDICES: A. List of Projects Included in the 1998 PIR .41 B. Definition of Ratings Used in 1998 PIR .45 C. PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies . . .46 1 . United Nations Development Program (UNDP) .46 2. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) .70 3. The World Bank .82 iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This GEF Project Performance Report Although there are exceptions, most presents the results of the 1998 Project Imple- projectreports submitted for the 1998 PIR did mentation Review (PIR), and draws on not have satisfactory indicators to measure and additional insights about the performance of monitor achievement of their intended GEF's programs from evaluations and other outcomes and impacts. The PIR reports reflect studies. This is a broader focus than in previous a general lack of clarity in determining years. The report provides an assessment of linkages between project goals, objectives, important cross-cutting issues and lessons and outputs. Project monitoring systems focus identified from implementation experience. more on processes (e.g., procurement) and production of outputs than on results. The As of June 30, 1998, a total of 267 projects need for greater attention to project indicators had been allocated over US$1.9 billion of GEF is a clear message from the 1998 review. funding. Cumulative disbursements were US$612 million. Amounts disbursed for GEF The conclusion that stands out most projects during FY1998 were US$133 million, strikingly from the reports and discussions that down slightly from FYl997, and considerably made up the 1998 PIR is the need for an less than the US$336 million in new projects approach to addressing global environ- approved by the GEF Council during the year. mental problems that is longer term and In 1998, there was continued reduction in the more flexible than current project time between work program allocations, final instruments. Whether the challenge is project approval by GEF's implementing conservingbiodiversity,reducingtheemission agencies (IAs), and the beginning of of greenhouse gases, or slowing the implementation. degradation of international waters, experience indicates that being able to make The PIR covered 119 projects, 25 of which a commitment of support over a longer time were included for the first time in 1998. Twenty- period and adapt to changed circumstances eight percent of the PIR portfolio was rated and opportunities are often prerequisites to "highly satisfactory" by the implementing achieving and sustaining global environmental agency, 59 percent was rated "satisfactory," and results. In many cases, this requires a phased 13 percent was rated "unsatisfactory" or "highly approach that sets out firm benchmarks and unsatisfactory." Ratings improved on 15 provides assurance of support over ten years projects from 1997 to 1998; they declined for or longer if these benchmarks are met. Project 11 projects. The principal causes of proposals shouldidentifyclearobjectivesand unsatisfactory performance were lower than performance indicators, but devote less effort expected implementation capacity by executing to mapping out detailed implementation plans. agencies; participative approaches taking more Instead, project managers should be given time than expected; changes in market flexibility to select and modify the activities conditions, especially related to climate change and tactics needed to achieve these objectives, projects; reductions in government counterpart based on monitoring and evaluation systems and other contributions; lack of government that incorporate regular review of performance commitment to project activities; and information. procurement delays. v A major implication of making a longer Leveragin GEF should adopt a broader term commitment to address many of the definition of leveraging for its programs and challenges GEF and its partners face is that projects that reflects financial resources-both GEF will need a more strategic focus on the during design and implementation-and actions issues, problems, and places to which it is able catalyzed by GEF activities. to provide sustained support. With a change to a longer term, benchmarked approach, GEF Capacity Buildintg. GEF projects are should move from an organizational culture strengthening a wide variety of organizations, based on project approval to one more focused from government agencies, to scientific and on achieving and measuring project and research institutions, to national and program results. In particular, this suggests international associations, to NGOs and the need for program managers in the GEF community-based organizations (CBOs). The secretariat to take on a more strategic role, review concluded, however, that more emphasis one based less on individual project reviews needs to be placed on identifying specific and more on assessment of program direction capacity-building needs, so project design and and results and on identifying and feeding implementation can be tailored to address key back through the focal area task forces lessons constraints and institutions. Considerably more about what is working in the field. attention is needed on defining the results and qualitative impacts of GEF's capacity building The report also highlights conclusions efforts. There is an urgent need to develop drawn from the PIR reports and several indicators that measure the application of evaluations on three cross-cutting issues knowledge gained and other changes brought selected for special attention in the 1998 about through capacity building efforts and the review-sustainability, leveraging, and resulting benefits for the global environment. capacity building: Assessment of qualitative impacts may be difficult within the timeframe of a typical Sustainability. Sustaining project project, however, since many of these changes activities following the completion of GEF occur over a longer period. This needs to be funding is proving to be much more difficult reflected in the monitoring systems developed, than expected. Most terminating GEF as well as the way GEF addresses the length of projects face continued needs for external the commitment required to achieve its intended support. The implementation review impacts. highlighted five ingredients for sustainability: (1) a policy framework that provides Four topics were identified during the PTR appropriate incentives, including prices, for for in-depth review in 1999. Specific plans for practices that produce global environmental these thematic reviews will be developed by the benefits; (2) long term funding sources; (3) corporate M&E team in conjunction with the lAs public awareness and understanding of the and program managers in the GEF secretariat. benefits of new approaches and activities; (4) They may include detailed desk reviews, focus local ownership, brought about by genuine groups or workshops with project managers, and participation and influence of all key possibly limited field visits. The objective of stakeholders in decision-making and these reviews is to build on the 1998 and prioritization of activities; and (5) the ability previous PIRs to identify nmore comprehensively of institutions, including private businesses, the lessons from experience and define more to use effectively the resources provided. precisely issues requiring further evaluation. Achieving sustainability in many of the efforts The results of these reviews should be available that GEF supports requires longer time for the 1999 PIR. The four topics are: horizons. vi * Achieving financial sustainability in * The overall progress of countries biodiversity proj ects; receiving GEF assistance in the ozone focal area in implementing their ODS * Experience with GEF-funded off-grid solar phase-out programs. photovoltaics projects, including their potential impact on global greenhouse gas Finally, the review concluded that emissions; more needs to be done to disseminate the findings of the P[Rs and project and program * Experience with multi-country imple- evaluations; to use the results of the reviews mentation arrangements in GEF projects, to identify important topics for in-depth including their requirements for assessment by GEF's M&E program, STAP collaboration among lAs and with other and others; and to feed back the lessons of organizations; and experience into new project and program design. vii 1. INTRODUCTION 1. This GEF Project Performance Report overviews and project reports the prospects for presents the results of the 1998 GEF Project sustaining and/or replicating project-supported Implementation Review (PIR). In addition, for activities following completion of GEF funding. the first time, this year's report goes beyond In addition, they reported on two other cross- the implementation review to draw on cutting issues: (1) experience in leveraging additional information and insights about the additional resources and actions for activities performance of GEF's programs from likely to achieve global environmental evaluations and other studies. This broader objectives, and (2) the extent to which projects focus complements Program Status Reviews had built recipient capacity and strengthened prepared for each Operational Program (OP), institutions. and provides an assessment of important cross- cutting issues and lessons identified from 4. The three lAs shared the results of their implementation experience. reviews and the individual project reports with GEFSEC and the other agencies. For the first 2. At the request of the GEF Council, PIRs time this year, these reports were the basis for are carried out annually by the GEF reviewsbyGEF'sfocalareataskforcesoftheir implementing agencies (IAs) and secretariat respective portfolios-biological diversity, (GEFSEC). They have two purposes: (1) to climate change, international waters, and phase provide a comprehensive overview of the GEF out of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). portfolio and trends in performance, and (2) to Culminating the process, an interagency review highlight themes or issues that may lead to (a) meeting organized by the Monitoring and refining Operational Programs, (b) improving Evaluation Coordinator was held in Washington project design and management, (c) identifying on December 15, 1998. It featured discussion scientific and technical questions for further of the highlights of the task force reviews and consideration, including by GEF's Scientific cross-cutting issues. Actions taken in response and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP), and (d) to the recommendations of the 1997 PIR were identifying lessons from experience and topics reviewed. In addition, the status of each project for further examination through evaluations and rated as unsatisfactory, and actions being taken other studies. The 1998 PIR was the fourth to address implementation problems affecting annual implementation review conducted by them, was discussed. GEF. 5. It is clear from the 1998 review that 3. Following guidelines developed by the UNDP's GEF Coordination Office has given Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator, each high priority to its monitoring and evaluation agency prepared an analysis of its GEF function, including its use of the PIR process. portfolio, an overview emphasizing key trends It has dedicated staff resources to monitoring and lessons learned to date, and individual and evaluation, supported a series of logical reports for all projects that had been in framework workshops for its personnel and implementation for at least a year as of June partners, identified and trained GEF focal points 30, 1998. The agencies rated each project on in its country offices, and put in place systems implementation progress and likelihood that its to reinforce implementation oversight in global environmental objectives would be countries with difficult projects or where project achieved. Agencies addressed in their ownership or its own institutional capabilities 1 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report are relatively weak. For a second year, UNEP * India Development of High-Rate Bio- used the PIR as an occasion to bring together Met hanation Processes its GEF staff and project managers to discuss design, implementation and procedural issues. * Pollution Control and Other Measures to From this discussion resulted an insightful Protect Biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika overview report. On the other hand, the quality and timeliness of the World Bank's . Panama Biodiversitv Conservation in the contributions to this year's PIR process were Darien Region less satisfactory. In part, this reflects the institutional changes underway at the Bank as * Poland Efficient Lighting Project the 1998 PIR was prepared, which include moves away from the kind of narrative and * Nepal Biodiversity Conservation issues-based reporting on implementation progress and lessons leamed on which the GEF * South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation review process is based. Program 6. A large number of project managers and 7. Chapter 2 of this report contains an staff in the implementing agencies and the GEF analysis of the entire GEF portfolio through secretariat contributed to making the 1998 PIR June 30, 1998. Chapter 3 summarizes the 1998 a successful review. In particular, the reports PIR in two sections: (a) an overview of the on nine projects were identified as worthy of projects covered and (b) portfolio highlights by recognition for their comprehensive review of GEF focal area. The PIR overview reports from implementation experience, candor, and each IA are included in Appendix C. Chapter 4 strategic reflections on lessons leamed: presents the main findings and conclusions of several project and program evaluations * Dominican Republic Conservation and conducted by GEFSEC and the lAs during the Management ofBiodiversity in the Coastal past year. Drawing on the PIR and these Zone evaluations, Chapter 5 discusses the cross- cutting issues selected for attention in the 1998 * Hungary Energy Efficiency Co-Financing PIR. Finally, Chapter 6 is a synthesis of the Program principal conclusions and recommendations of this year's review. * India Alternate Energy 2 2. GEF PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS A. Overall GEF Portfolio 9. Figure 1 illustrates the growth of the GEF portfolio, including amounts allocated, S. As of June 30, 1998, a total of 267 committed, and disbursed, from June 1991 projects' had been allocated funding in throughJune 1998. DuringFY1998,50projects approved GEF work programs. As shown in with GEF funding of US$336 million were Table 1, 46 percent of these are administered approved by the GEF Council. This compares by the World Bank, 42 percent by UNDP, seven to US$3 74 million approved for 44 projects the percent by UNEP, and four percent by more than previous year. Implementation of 22 proj ects one GEF implementing agency. One project is was completed in FYI 998. administered by the GEF secretariat. Funding for these projects totaled US$1,923 million, of 10. Table 2 shows the distribution ofthe GEF which 64 percent was in World Bank projects, portfolio as of June 30, 1998. By value, 39 28 percent in UNDP projects, three percent in percent were biological diversity projects, 38 UNEP projects, and four percent in multi-IA percent climate change projects, 14 percent projects. In addition, as of June 1998, over international waters projects, six percent US$36 million had been approved during GEFI proj ects to phase out ozone depleting for 185 individual country enabling activities substances, and three percent multi-focal area under the biodiversity and climate change projects. conventions. TABLE I GEF PROJECT ALLOCATIOANS BY IMPLEmENTIAG AGENVCY (AS OF JUAE 1998) Pilot F'hase GEF1 (February 95-June 98)* Total # Projects (US$m) # Projects (US$m) # Projects (US$m) UNDP 56 256 56 276 112 532 UNEP 6 22 13 38 19 60 World Bank 53 452 71 785 124 1,237 More than One IA 0 0 11 91 11 91 Others** 1 3 0 0 1 3 Total 116 733 151 1,190 267 1,923 * Source: Operational Report on GEF Programs ** PRINCE project managed by GEF secretariat Unless otherwise noted, the numbers in this section exclude individual country Enabling Activities and pre-ivestmcnt funds. 3 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report FIGURE I CUMULATIVE GEF PORTFOLIO - ALLOCATIONS, COMMITMENTS, AND DISBURSEMENTS 1991 - 1998 2 0 0 0 -- --- - - -- - - _---__ __ _ 000 -. ___________-- -_ ~~~~~~~~~~*I I I Jun-91 Dec-91 Jco-92 Dec-92 J93 Dec-93 Jun-94 Dec-94 Jun-95 Dec-95 Jun-96 Dec-96 J-97 Dec-97 Jun-98 ilDisbu-semeots (cum ulaive) mApproced commitments (cum ulative) fW ork program allocations (cum ulative) B. Disbursements increased during FY1998 to US$612 million.2 Disbursements under many projects 11. Cumulative disbursements for the included in this year's PIR continued to be entire GEF portfolio (including enabling well below initial projections. This shortfall activities and project development funds) is generally due to over-ambitious estimates in TABLE 2 GEF PROJECTALLOCATIONS BY FOCAL AREA (AS OF JUNE 1998) Pilot Phase GEF1 (February 95-June Total 98)* # Projects (US$m) # Projects (US$m) # Projects (US$m) Biodiversity 58 332 62 413 120 745 Climate Change 41 259 51 468 92 727 International Waters 12 118 19 151 31 269 Ozone 2 4 13 111 15 115 Multi-Focal 3 20 6 47 9 67 Total 116 733 151 1,190 267 1,923 Source: Operational Report on GEF Programs 2 Source: Implementing agency quarterly financial reports; implementing agency PIR overview reports. 4 GEF Portfolio Analysis project designs-many included activities for Disbursements remained basically the same for which there were few precedents on which to the World Bank (from US$75.6 million in 1997 base projections-and to the considerable to US$75.7 million in 1998), increased from amount of time it has taken to expand US$4.7 million to US$6.9 million for UNEP stakeholder involvement under many GEF froml997tol998,butdecreasedfromUS$55.9 projects. Disbursements in relation to million to US$49.9 million for UNDP. The commitments were 43 percent as of June 1998, stagnation in annual World Bank disbursements the same as in June 1997. Disbursements in results from decreases in infrastructure and trust relation to amounts committed by the World fund projects that have large, lumpy Bank increased to 34 percent at the end of disbursements; the Asia financial crisis, which FY1998, compared to 33 percenta year earlier; slowed implementation of projects in that for UNDP, disbursements in relation to region; and late entry into the portfolio of commitments remained at 62 percent, while for several large IFC investment funds that had not UNEP, disbursements declined to 52 percent begun to disburse before the end of FY1998. from 61 percent of amounts committed.3 The decline in UNDP disbursements is due mainly to the completion of many Pilot Phase 12. Amounts disbursed for GEF projects projects while GEFI projects were only starting were US$133 million during the year4, down implementation. slightly from US$141 million in FY1997. FIGURE 2 A VERAGE TIME BETWEEN GEF ALLOCATION, COMMITMENT, AND EFFECTiVENESS FOR WORLD BANK PROJECTS, BY FISCAL YEAR OF COMMITMENT 1600 -_ = _ -r - _ 100 400 -_- -___ 200_Ur_ 1 0* FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 - -Average time between GEF approval and commitment by World Bank - Average time between commitment (World Bank approval) and effectiveness -~ - -Average time between GEF approval and effectiveness The difference in disbursement rates between the World Bank, on the one hand, and UNDP and UNEP on the other, is largely explained by the fact that more of the Bank's GEF projects are large investment projects which initially disburse more slowly. Source: Implementing Agency quarterly financial reports: implementing agency PIR overview reports. 5 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report C. Time from Allocation 14. Likewise, as illustrated in Figure 3, the to Implementation average time for a UNDP GEF project to move from work program allocation to the beginning 13. In 1998 there was a further reduction in of implementation (signature of the project the time between work program allocations, agreement) fell from 425 days in FY1997 to final agency approval (commitment), and the 406 days in FY1998, continuing trends begun beginning of project implementation in the in 1996. UNDP reported that 58 percent of its World Bank and UNDP. As shoxvn in Figure 2, projects had signed project agreements within projects approved bv the World Bank in a year after work program allocation. These FX'1998 took less time on average to reach reductions reflect greater decentralization of the commitment stage than during the project approval authority and the identification previous year(434dayscomparedto536days of GEF "focal points" within each UNDP in FY1997). Fifty-six percent were approved country office to liaise closely with within a year or less of allocation in work governments and executing agencies. In programs. For World BankoGEF projects which addition, UNDP/GEF has invested heavily in became effective in FY1998, the average length training country offfice focal points, government of time between commitment and the beginning of ficials, NGO representatives, and consultants of implementation remained basically the same on GEF procedures, eligibility criteria, and the (137 days compared to 139 days in 1997). logical framework methodology. FIGURE 3 A VERAGE TIME BETWEEN GEF APPROVAL AND PROJECT AGREEMENT SIGNATURE UNDP GEF PROJECTS, BY FISCAL YEAR OF PROJECT AGREEMENT SIGNATURE 900 X , _ 800 _ 700 2 600 O D 500 a y 400- S 300 l 200- 1 000 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 6 3. 1998 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW A. Overview of Projects biodiversity, 42 climate change, 12 Covered in the Review international waters, six ozone, and two multi- focal area projects. A total of 62 of these 1. Portfolio Reviewed projects are administered by the World Bank, 48 by UNDP, and eight by UNEP. 15. The 1998 PIR covered 119 projects that had been in implementation for at least a year as of 2. Performance Ratings June 30, 1998, up from 105 projects in 1997. Table 3 shows the distribution of these projects: 17. Each agency rated performance with Appendix A contains a complete list. Ten regard to implementation progress (IP) and projects included in the 1997 PIR were prospects for achieving development/global completed and not reviewed this year. In view environmental objectives (DO) for its projects of its recent evaluation (see Chapter IV below), in the PIR. They used a 4-point scale: highly the GEF Small Grants Programme, which was satisfactory (HS), satisfactory (S), included in past PIRs, also was not reviewed. A unsatisfactory (U), and highly unsatisfactory total of 25 projects were included for the first (HU). Definitions for these ratings are in time in 1998. Appendix B. 16. The PIR portfolio includes slightly less than 18. A total of 33 projects, or 28 percent of half of the projects for which GEF funding has the PIR portfolio, were rated "highly been allocated in approved work programs. The satisfactory" by the implementing agency on portfolio reviewed was made up of 57 either IP or DO. This is fewer than last year, when 34 percent of projects were rated highly TABLE 3 PROJECTS INCLUDED IN 1998 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW Biodiversity Climate International Ozone Multiple Total Change Waters Global 4 6 0 0 2 12 Africa 15 9 3 0 0 27 Arab States/ Middle East 0 4O Europe/Central Asia 6 5 2 6 0 19 Latin America & the 15 7 3 0 0 25 Caribbean Asia and Pacific 13 11 1 0 0 25 Total 57 42 12 6 2 119 7 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report satisfactory on one or both measures. By 18 percent (World Bank) and 17 percent (UNDP) agency, UNEP rated five (62 percent) of its unsatisfactory ratings in the 1997 PIR. projects as highly satisfactory, UNDP 14 (29 percent), and the World Bank 14(23 percent). 3. Review of Problem Projects By focal area, 32 percent of biodiversity projects, 21 percent of climate change, 25 20. The status of the 15 projects rated percent of international waters, and 33 percent unsatisfactory was reviewed at the interagency of ozone projects were reported as perforning PIR meeting. In addition, the GEF secretariat highly satisfactorily. Approximately 59 identified another 15 projects that were rated percent of the PIR portfolio (71 projects) were satisfactory, but that appeared to be having rated "satisfactory." implementation problems, at least in some components. While ratings were not changed, 19. The remaining 15 projects, or 13 theseprojectswerealsoreviewedindividually. percent of the PIR portfolio, were rated In general, the principal causes of unsatisfactory "unsatisfactory" or "highly unsatisfactory" performance were (1) lower than expected by the implementing agency on either IP, DO implementation capacity by executing agencies, or both. In 1997, 16 percent of projects including NGOs in several cases; (2) included in the PIR were rated unsatisfactory. participative approaches taking more time than Of the biodiversity projects included in the expected; (3) changes in market conditions, PIR, 9 percent were rated unsatisfactory, as especially related to climate change projects; (4) were 14 percent of climate change and 33 reductions in government counterpart and other percent of intemational waters projects. The contributions, especially inAsia and Russia; (5) World Bank reported that 11 (18 percent) of lack of government commitment to project its projects included in the 1998 PIR were activities; and (6) procurement delays. In four making unsatisfactory progress; UNDP had cases, projects were terminated and some or all four (eight percent) unsatisfactory projects; GEF funding cancelled during the past year due UNEP had none. These ratings compare to to continuing performance problems. In others, TABLE 4 PROJECT RATINGS HS S U HU Rating Rating Highly Unsatis- Highly Improved Declined Satisfactory Satisfactory factory Unsatis- since from factory 1997 1997 Biodiversity 18 34 5 0 7 6 Climate Change 9 27 5 1 6 3 International Waters 3 5 4 0 0 2 Ozone 2 4 0 0 1 0 Multi-focal area 1 1 0 0 1 0 Total 33 71 14 1 15 11 8 1998 Project Implementation Review projects are being redesigned or reformulated 24. With regard to actual use of funds, to reflect a more realistic assessment of approximately 65 percent5 of the projects in implementation and financial capabilities, and the PIR focus on biodiversity conservation in more structured monitoring systems put in place. protected areas. Twenty-six percent support the development of national biodiversity action plans and/or related research or studies. B. Portfolio Highlights by Twenty-four percent directly address issues Focal Area of sustainable use of biological resources. Most projects are located in specific areas or 21. This section provides a summary of the regions within a country, although 19 percent projects in implementation in each focal area. provide support for broader national It highlights key issues and areas of significant biodiversity programs. progress identified during the PIR. 25. The information provided in project 22. While there are now almost 140 GEF reports and the discussion by the biodiversity projects for which there is implementation task force reinforced the conclusions and experience (those included in the 1998 PIR plus lessons identified in previous years' reviews. another 19 completed projects), the complexity This underscores the need for GEF to give of addressing global environmental issues and more attention to disseminating PIR results the multitude of settings in which these projects and getting the lessons emerging from the are carried out calls for a certain degree of review to those who can best apply them, caution and modesty in drawing lessons from especially field staff. In particular, the review and generalizing about this experience. With of the 1998 PIR biodiversity portfolio this caveat in mind, however, this section of the reiterated that: report discusses insights gained in implementing GEF projects and the principal challenges that * The active and full engagement of appear to be facing each portfolio. communities in all stages of project design, implementation, and 1. Biological Diversity monitoring is a key determinant of project success. It leads to greater 23. The 1998 PIR included 57 biodiversity "ownership" of project activities. projects: 31 from the World Bank, 22 from Several GEF projects (e.g., China Nature UJNDP, and four from UNEP. Although most Reserves and the conservation trust fund were approved during the Pilot Phase, before projects in Mexico, Peru, and Uganda) GEF's Operational Programs (OPs) were have succeeded in bringing about more developed, they have been grouped by OP in the participative management processes for Operational Report on GEF Programs. Based nature reserves. Some reported positive on this categorization, 24 projects are in OP3 results from involving local stakeholders (forest ecosystems), 13 projects are in OP2 in decision-making and management (coastal, marine and freshwater ecosystems), and through local committees (see Box 1). four projects are in OPI (arid ecosystems) and However, while stakeholder repre- in OP4 (mountain ecosystems). Nine projects sentatives have been successful in giving are regarded as short-term response measures, a voice to communities and safeguarding and three are considered global/regional support their interests, they are not always as programs for enabling activities. effective in ensuring that information is 5 These numbers are approximate and the categories are not mutually exclusive, i.e., a project could be counted in more than one category. 9 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report communicated back to those they represent. Engaging a wide range of Box 1: INvoLviNG CommuNiTiEs THRouGH LOcAL COMMIrTEES stakeholders takes considerably more time than originally expected, and often > Ghana Coastal Wetlands - Local Site Management requires those involved in carrying out Committees (LSMCs) from five areas are working project activities to develop new skills and with executing agencies to identify problems and approaches. In addition, the requirements priority activities. The project has also constituted (including reporting) of donors and the micro-enterprise review subcommittees to needs of local communities often contrast. prescreen proposals for eligibility under the These differences need to be identified Community Investment Support Fund (CISF). and resolved early in proj .ect ande resolved Thear ine s ploject Uganda Mgahinga-Bwindi Impenetrable Forest development. The needs of local Conservation - the Local Community Steering communities must drive projects; Committee (LCSC) is represented on the board of otherwise, the sense of ownrership vital directors of the Trust Fund and has considerable to long-term success will be lost. influence on the selection of activities financed by the Fund. * Biodiversity projects need to combine conservation efforts with activities that > South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation - Through address more immediate socio- Conservation Area Coordination Committees economic needs and are sensitive to (CACCs), representatives of communities are now p)olitical processes. This may call for in direct contact with a number of government pitica pross thistma cl for agencies, NGOs and national and regional financing schools, health posts, or other institutions that have offered their time and support community priorities, as was done with projects. Community participation in these through Uganda's Mgahinga-Bwindi committees along with representatives of other Conservation Trust Fund, or developing organizations has given them access and contacts alternative sources of income (e.g., they previously lacked. As a result, institutions retraining turtle shell carvers in the which in the past had little to do with these Seychelles). Experience from the South communities have now found new partners in their rural development programs. Pacific Biodiversity Conservation project, however, underlines the need to balance income-generation with conservation. * GEF biodiversity projects are generally achievable benchmarks set within the overly ambitious, have too many context of a long-term commitment. Project objectives, and have implementation proposals should identify clear objectives, periods that are too short. Project but leave flexibility for the selection of designers and managers often misjudge activities to achieve these objectives. the complexity of the issues they are trying to address and underestimate the * The long-term financing and time needed for truly participative sustainability of biodiversity conservation processes. A longer time horizon is and sustainable use projects remain needed to work through the complex major questions. While several GEF- institutional, policy, human resource assisted biodiversity projects have been development, and financing issues related successful at attracting significant additional to biodiversity conservation and amounts of funding from other sources (e.g., sustainable use. A flexible, phased conservationtrustfundsinBhutanandPeru, approach to design and implementation Guyana Iwvokrama Rain Forest), many others is required, one that is based on firm but have had disappointing experience with 10 1998 Project Implementation Review fundraising. In several projects, proponents Conservation Trust, Guatemala Montagua are actively looking at various approaches Conservation and Sustainable Development, to long-term financing, including the Lebanon Protected Areas), project executing creation of trust funds. For example, in a agencies or implementation units were number of protected areas in the South required to take on a broader role of building Pacific islands, the Biodiversity the capacity ofNGOs and other organizations Conservation proj ect has promoted the that were originally expected to carry a greater creation of trust accounts with funds from share of implementation responsibilities. On income-generating activities to support the the other hand, the PIR identified several areas following project completion. A successful efforts to strengthen local NGOs. conclusion of the review is that the chances For example, in Jordan, the Royal Society for of achieving financial sustainability for the Conservation of Nature (RSCN)-the biodiversity projects are likely to be greater executing agency for the Dana Wildlands and by combining sources of finance (e.g., Azraq Wetlands project-now provides government budget, user fees, trust funds) training courses in protected area rather than relying on a single source. management, public awareness techniques, and ecotourism development for Yemen, I It is important to understand the root Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority. causes of the threats to biodiversity loss. Strengthening RSCN also allowed it to This often implies giving attention to the become an effective partner with the policy and socio-economic environment Jordanian government in developing national within which biodiversity projects are policy for protected areas. carried out, in addition to technical or site- specific factors. 27. Although some project reports provide good examples of indicators and systems for - Support is needed from the full range of monitoring performance and impact, this government actors (including local and remains an area where greater attention is regional agencies) and private sector needed. In general, project indicators in the stakeholders (including timber and mining PIR portfolio focus largely on inputs, outputs, companies, wildlife traders, and large and processes rather than the results or landowners). Even in projects which have impacts of project activities. In part, the made considerable efforts to involve absence of good project indicators and community groups, NGOs, and other monitoring systems appears to reflect a lack stakeholders, the lack of active participation of focus on and identification of clear by private businesses has limited statements of project objectives, especially in performance. This is the case in the Papua terms of their intended biodiversity impact. New Guinea Conservation and Resource Management Program, Colombia 2. Climate Change Biodiversity Conservation in the Choc6 Region,GuyanalwokramaRainForest,and 28. The 1998 PIR includes 42 climate Guatemala Conservation and Sustainable change projects: 20 from UNDP, 19 from the Development in the Montagua Region World Bank, and three from UNEP. Based projects. on the categorization in the Operational Report on GEFPrograns, 13 of these projects 26. A lack of absorptive capacity (i.e., the are in OP6. They focus on one or more of ability of partners to carry out project activities) five types of renewable energy sources: has sometimes delayed implementation. In some biomass gasification, wind, solar cases (e.g., Panama Darien Biodiversity photovoltaics (PV) or water heating, solid Conservation, Uganda Mgahinga-Bwindi waste, and geothermal. Eleven projects are 11 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report BOX2: ADAPTING TO CHANGINGMARKETCONDITIONS: THE CHILE REDUCTION OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS PROJECT Originally, this project had two components: one focusing on producing methanol from organic wastes, and the other to create energy service companies (ESCOs) to help reduce energy consumption by electric motors in the copper mining industry. Before the project began implementation, however, the first component was overtaken by events. Chilean imports of Argentine natural gas increased substantially, greatly reducing methanol pnces. This component was reformulated to pilot the use of sustainably grown biomass to generate power through gasification in remote islands not connected to the electricity grid. More recently, the second component has also experienced significant difficulties. These were due to three factors: (1) reluctance by companies to divulge to ESCOs energy consumption data that they regarded as confidential and sensitive, (2) decreased electricity prices due to an increased number of power plants and the influx of natural gas, and (3) the willingness of mining industries to invest in more efficient motors on their own, without project assistance, for new facilities being built. As a result, this component, too, is being redesigned to focus on energy efficiency of small and medium-sized urban enterpnses (e.g., food processing, light industry). in OP5 and aimed at energy efficiency and created incentives to attract private investment conservation. There are five basic types of in wind power facilities. A local manufacturing projects in this OP: demand-side management, base for producing wind generation equipment efficient lighting, buildings, boiler conversion, emerged as a result. In the China Sichuan Gas and transport. Eight projects are classified as Transmission project, pricing policies were short-term response measures and another clearly identified as the key factor to sustain eight are regarded as enabling activities that incentives for reducing gas leaks. Pricing help developing country parties to the United policies were also found to be important to Nations Framework Convention on Climate ensure financial viability of power entities Change (UTNFCCC) prepare their national involved in the Philippines Leyte-Luzon and communications to the convention. The Lithuania Klaipeda Geothermal projects. The remaining two projects, both in Brazil, are implementation of China's Coal-Bed Methane included in OP7, reducing long-term costs of project brought about policy and institutional low GHG-emitting energy technologies. changes that led to sizable investments through joint ventures. Where policy or regulatory 29. A consistent conclusion from previous frameworks have been adjusted to accommodate reviews of the climate change portfolio-the new technologies, opening of new markets has importance of a favorable policy occurred. For example, in the cases of the framework and incentives for the adoption Mauritius Sugar Bio-Energy, Costa Rica Tejona of alternate energy and more energy- Wind Power, and Poland Coal-to-Gas projects, efficient products and technologies-was the original physical objectives of the projects again the topic of substantial discussion in the have not been achieved, but other private and 1998 PIR reports. Several projects report public investments were stimulated by creation positive impacts on policies and regulations of supportive policy frameworks. that have led to greater private sector participation and investments. For example, 30. Projects involving significant policy and the wind farm component of the India regulatory reforms may require longer Alternate Energy project helped bring about timeframes than a typical GEF project to policy changes by state governments that adequately monitor market responses and 12 1998 Project Implementation Review determine the results of these changes in terms monitoring and evaluation program, and/or of global environmental objectives. Legislative STAP. First, energy service companies changes, price adjustments, and withdrawal of (ESCOs) are significant actors in several subsidies are often only beginning to have an projects carried out under OP5-removal of impact by project completion. barriers to energy efficiency and energy conservation-including the Hungary Energy 31. The lack of stakeholder involvement has Efficiency Co-Financing and Chile Reduction been a key reason for poor progress in several of Greenhouse Gas Emissions projects. projects. For example, inadequate stakeholder However, working with ESCOs is often consultations at the outset delayed difficult. They have a lot of potential, but implementation of the India Development of legal, regulatory, institutional, and financial High Rate Bio-Methanation Processes and issues often limit their effectiveness. Barriers Optimizing Development of Small Hydel to ESCOs becoming commercially viable are Resources in the Hilly Region projects. One considerable, even in relatively conducive crucial assumption-that beneficiary environments. An assessment of experience organizations would be willing and able to with ESCOs could identify opportunities contribute 50 percent of the costs of individual where GEF might best focus its attention in projects under the Bio-Methanation project- the future. Second, rural off-grid solar PV proved to be incorrect once these consultations projects, such as the Zimbabwe Photovoltaics were held. Both projects have spent two years and India Alternate Energy projects, are an developing partnerships and collaboratively important part of GEF's portfolio in OP6- selecting project sites. The level of community promoting adoption of renewable energy. participation in the Hilly Hydel project has led Experience in Zimbabwe and India shows that state governments in India to reconsider the it can be difficult to sustain project importance of stakeholder participation in the achievements. Strategically, an examination small hydro sector. Lack of stakeholder of lessons learned from the current portfolio consultations also created delays in the selection of rural PV projects could help assess their of sites for several projects (e.g., TAKAGAS in potential impact on global greenhouse gas Tanzania, Waste-to-Energy inPakistan). Onthe emissions and how many of these activities other hand, the China Methane from Municipal require GEF funding before they can Waste project seems to be making good progress reasonably be expected to be replicated with due to broad stakeholder participation, including other resources. key municipal agencies, in the design process. 3. International Waters 32. Many problems associated with new technologies are not technical but relate to 34. The 1998 PIR includes 12 international country-specific administrative and management waters projects: six from UNDP, five from the issues. During the review, concern was expressed World Bank, and one from UNEP. Three that the few projects in OP7-which seeks to address transboundary environmental issues reduce the long-term costs of new low GHG- in water bodies shared by more than one emitting technologies-are often limited to one country: the Black Sea, Rio Bermejo, and or two countries. This limits opportunities to Lake Victoria. Three others-Industrial Water gain experience under a variety of settings. Pollution Control in the Gulf of Guinea Large There is a greater need to recognize the value of Marine Ecosystem, Pollution Control and a "portfolio" of parallel but coordinated efforts Other Measures to Protect Biodiversity in in several countries under this OP. Lake Tanganyika, and Prevention and Management of Marine Pollution in East 33. Two areas were identified for further Asian Seas-provide support for a variety of attention by the climate change task force, GEF's activities within the framework of a regional 13 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report project. The first two of these proj ects that may be ancillary to the necessary policy, originally built upon the interest of legal, and institutional reforms and priority researchers. The latter focused on three investments envisioned by GEF's demonstration projects within a regional Operational Strategy. In fact, too many context but not specifically on transboundary interventions on too many issues, some of issues. Three projects are limited to one purely domestic benefit, may be especially country-Jordan Gulf of Aqaba Environ- symptomatic of international waters projects mental Action Plan, Yemen Marine approved during the GEF Pilot Phase. Ecosystems of the Red Sea Coast, and Egypt Lake Manzala Engineered Wetlands- One important lesson is that projects need a although two of these were later linked to a strategic phase when cooperating countries can broader GEF-supported regional program in set priorities and agree to focus on only the top the Red Sea area. The remaining three-Oil one or two transboundary issues. Pollution Management for the Southwest Mediterranean, Wider Caribbean Initiative for 36. Many of the accomplishments reported in Ship-Generated Waste, and Eastern Caribbean the international waters projects are procedural (OECS) Ship-Generated Waste in nature. This is consistent with the strategic Management-aim primarily to reduce approach mentioned above. For example, both pollution from ships; the Jordan Gulf ofAqaba the Gulf of Guinea (see Box 3) and East Asian project also includes components related to Seas projects have been successful at creating ship waste. mechanisms to bring private businesses and other key stakeholders into the decision-making 35. Proportionately, international waters process.6 However, it is too early to identify the projects were experiencing more long-term impact these actions may have in implementation problems than proj ects in reducing the transboundary threats, and there is other focal areas. During the review, this was a need to link these "political" accomplishments attributed primarily to two factors: eventually to technical achievements. ' The regional approach of intemational 37. The Black Sea experience also highlights waters projects is institutionally complex. the importance of inter-ministerial, cross- This is especially true where projects sectoral coordination in each country to attempt to work through, or develop, achieving on-the-ground results. The initial regional mechanisms with weak GEF project involved mostly environmental institutions. A lesson drawn in the report officials and experts, while the intent of the on the Lake Tanganyika project is that the current follow-on project is to mobilize the broad range of institutions involved has agriculture, industry, and municipal sectors. meant few resources are available to Finance and planning ministries are also address each individual organization, encouraged to participate. limiting capacity building impact. 38. The international waters focal area is * Projects have tended to be too ambitious, unique within GEF in depending on and have not sufficiently sequenced implementing agency collaboration to actions according to agreed priorities. leverage policy, legal, and institutional Project reports describe many activities reforms-and investments-to address For additional information on experience involving privatc sector stakeholders in Batangas Bay, the Philippines, under the East Asian Seas project, see GEF Lessons Notes No. 4, November 1998.. 14 1998 Project Implementation Review Box 3: LEVERAGING POLICY AND INDUSTRY COMMITMENTS IN THE GULF OF GUINEA The Industrial Water Pollution Control in the Gulf of Guinea Large Marine Ecosystem project has overcome early implementation difficulties to become a satisfactory project. In part, this was because it moved from a narrow initial technological focus of interest to only a few research organizations in the region, to encouraging a broader process to create a framework for shared management of transboundary problems affecting the Gulf of Guinea ecosystem. The project has raised awareness and increased commitment at the policy level in several countries to address common pollution problems. This culminated in a ministerial declaration in 1998 in which governments agreed to sustain regional approaches-as opposed to unilateral actions-to solving shared environmental issues. In addition, the Gulf of Guinea project has actively included private businesses in its consultative processes and decision-making structures. Industry involvement in formulating regulatory and other measures has made regulations more practical and increased the prospects of compliance. For example, creation of a Waste Stock Exchange Management System, an initiative of the private sector that received project support, is expected to lead to reduced pollution through reduction and recycling of wastes on a commercial, cost-effective basis. complex trans-boundary water problems. It implementing their ODS phase-out programs, is important that the regular programs of IAs, as which form the framework for GEF-funded well as other donors, support recipient country activities. The review concluded that more needs in this area. As the Black Sea report notes, information about the status of these programs progress can be delayed when decisions on was needed to judge the impact of GEF priority investments are not forthcoming. The projects. Broader country progress will be World Bank is currently addressing this partofreportingonGEFprojectperformance deficiency. It recently announced an initiative in the future. A complementary portfolio for priority investments in the six Black Sea study will also be undertaken in 1999 to countries that may constitute the basis for a provide and analyze this information as a strategic partnership, with GEF focusing on supplement to the reporting provided in the nutrient reduction in the basin. Elsewhere, there 1998 PIR. This may include the definition of are also encouraging signs of IA collaboration. specific project and country program For example, concerns expressed in previous milestones, where feasible. PIRs about the limited number of countries actively involved in the Gulf of Guinea project 41. Through its ozone projects, GEF has may now be resolved as UNDP and UTNEP join gained experience working in countries in forces with the Regional Seas Programme to transition-especially with private businesses address the entire large marine ecosystem. Still, there-that can provide insights valuable to more effort is needed to address the complexity other programs. Contacts with private of problems and challenges of coordination in companies were facilitated in the case of some the international waters area. products (e.g., refrigeration and foam) by the fact that all manufacturers buy their chemical 4. Phase Out of Ozone inputs from a limited number of suppliers. Depleting Substances This helped project managers to identify through these suppliers individual firms with 39. Thel998PIRportfolioincludedsixozone which to work. This information would projects, all from the World Bank. usually not have been available from government sources. In other subsectors (e.g., 40. There was little discussion in project solvents), however, this supplier network does reports of overall progress by countries in not exist and it has been much more difficult 15 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report to reach individual companies. It has been especially difficult to reach small Box4: THE EFFECTOFTHE BROADER POLICYAND and medium sized enterprises usinECONOMIc CONTEXT ON THE PHASE-OUT OF OZONE and medium sized enterprises using DPEIGSBTNE NBLA ODS. A lesson from this experience is that proj'ects should try to find upstream GEF's portfolio of ODS phase-out projects in Central and networking systems through which to Eastern Europe has been especially affected by the pace of reach individual enterprises whenever broader economic change. This is well illustrated by the project possible. in Bulgaria. The project has been substantially delayed, although performance improved in 1998 due to measures taken 42. Another lesson from the ODS by the government to strengthen its Ozone Task Force and portfolio is the need for flexibility to exempt participating companies from paying Value Added Tax adj ust implementation arrangements on goods purchased under the project. Activities at several and schedules until companies can get enterprises originally included were canceled due to delays in on a viable financial footing, especially privatization or because they were no longer financially viable. On a viable financial footing, especially As a result, investment plans in participating companies had to in economies undergoing rapid be adjusted, other enterprises were considered for inclusion in economic change. The countries in the program, and funds were reprogrammed to new activities. which GEF ODS phase-out proj ects are The latter include training of refrigeration technicians in the use now being completed are generally of non-ODS substances. those that started reforming their economies early, i.e., Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia. Even in these countries, implementation has taken much longer than expected, and enterprises 43. The ozone task force concluded that more originally included in the GEF program were effort was needed to communicate the lessons changed because some went out of business identified in implementation reviews to project or stopped producing products using ODS. As managers and designers. The UJNEP-IE Ozone illustrated by the case of Bulgaria (Box 4), in Clearinghouse and others are developing other countries that have not moved as rapidly checklists for project design based on experience to reform, even greater implementation under the Multilateral Fund of the Montreal flexibilityandrealismaboutthetimerequired Protocol. GEF should look for ways to to carry out projects is needed. contribute to this process. 16 4. SUMMARY OF RECENT EVALUATION FINDINGS 44. Program evaluations and other reviews the situation of the country it serves. However, conducted by GEF's corporate M&E team and/ the team found it useful to group them into two or lAs provide insights and lessons that general categories. "Parks funds" support complement those from the PIR. This section specific protected areas within a national summarizes the findings of five evaluations and protected areas system. (The majority of GEF- other assessments carried out during the past supported funds fall into this category.) "Grants year that are especially relevant to the themes funds" channel resources to specific groups examined in this year's review. (typically NGOs and community-based organizations) for a broad range of conservation A. Evaluation of Experience and sustainable development projects, and with Conservation Trust often include the development of civil society Funds, institutions among their obj ectives. These two types of funds tend to have significant differences in their relation to national 45. GEF has supported conservation trust funds strategies, and in their governance structures, in several countries as a means of providing long- strategies , andi goernance s eas term funding for biodiversity conservation. An ro m a evaluation was carried out in 1998 to determine with which they meet GEF criteria. the extent to which the advantages of trust funds 48 Conservation trust funds were often seen have been realized, how concerns expressed mainly as financial mechanisms that could take about them have been addressed, what large amounts of money from debt swaps or conditions are needed for funds to function effectively, and their impact to date on ineatolgrtsnd"ti"thmno smaller projects over long periods. Their blodiversity conservation and sustainable use. boards of directors and staff reflected this emphasis. But a key conclusion of the 46. The evaluation analyzed the experience of y 13 funds to identify lessons and make evaluation is that the overall success of 13comfundsation identifyn lesson andismakce to conservation trust funds depends on their ability to participate in developing national conservation trust funds. It focused on GEF- conservation strategies, to work with other supported funds' and six others selected to . X include funds of various sizes and types, mpublc and private agencies to develop agile geographical balance, and insights on particular m ,.community groups and others becoming aspects of interest, such as innovative funding cmuiygop n tesbcmn aspects of interest, suchmas innovativefunding involved in biodiversity conservation for the mechanisms. Visits were made to seven funds first time-in short, to be more than just financial mechanisms. To succeed, trust funds 47. The evaluation showed that there is no need the governance structures, staff, and typical conservation trust fund. A fund's technical support to allow them proactively to structure, scope of activities, priorities, and influence their environment, monitor their procedures vary according to its purposes, and results and learn from experience, maintain 7 The full report of this evaluation, and a summary evaluation report, are available on the GEF web site (www.gefweb.org). Copies may also be requested from the M&E Team, GEF Secretariat, telephone: (202) 458-2548; fax (202) 522-3240; e- mail: geflessons(gefweb.org. GEF experience to date is largely with trust funds supported by the World Bank. 17 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report credible and transparent procedures, and 51. Trust funds have leveraged substantial support participatory approaches to additional funding for conservation. This has conservation and sustainable development. happened at the level of the fund itself-for example, the six GEF funds with operating 49. Theevaluationfoundthattrustfundshave experience have raised more than US$33 many accomplishments. They have: million in non-GEF contributions-and at the level of projects financed by the fund, which * helped create new national parks and generally include substantial counterpart expand existing protected areas. By contributions by recipients. However, only one providing an increased "resource security" of the funds studied has met its objectives for for their operations-the assurance that raising additional endowment funding. Most their basic operating costs and staff salaries of the money raised has been short-term project will be covered-trust funds have allowed financing or six-to-ten year sinking funds. protected area managers to concentrate on conservation activities, attracting project 52. Most of the funds studied were private funding, and collaborating with institutions with mixed public-private communities and interested organizations; governing bodies. Non-governmental board members typically held the majority, with * generated and managed substantial government sometimes limited to one or two financial resources; seats. The team found advantages of larger over smaller boards, especially because of their * enabled the participation of civil society ability to establish working committees to deal institutions in resource conservation; with the diverse issues that funds must address: financial management, fundraising, technical * increased the level of scientific research oversight, etc. Also, governing boards whose applied to conservation issues; and members are elected in their personal capacity-rather than as formal representatives * increased public awareness of conservation of organizations or sectors-tend to develop a issues. stronger sense of "ownership" of the fund as an institution, and work more effectively to 50. Uncertaintyremains,however,abouttrust implement the fund's mission. The more funds' ability to show long-term biodiversity formally representative boards tend to see their conservation impact. In part, this is due to the role in terms of allocating resources among difficulty of measuring biodiversity impact, and their various agencies and sectors. of attributing results to a particular intervention, especially over the short term. It is also true 53. The GEF-supported funds have that trust funds generate relatively small successfully applied an asset management amounts of resources in relation to national model developed by the World Bank. It conservation needs. The two types of trust includes development of investment guidelines funds are addressing concerns about achieving that reflect a conservative risk strategy and impact in distinct ways. An example from the portfolio diversification; competitive, "parks funds" is the protected areas fund in international selection of experienced, Mexico, which has used a logical framework professional asset managers; and active methodology to define the impacts it intends oversight by the fund's board of directors of to have in each protected area and in the system investment performance compared to standard as a whole. Several "grants funds" have chosen benchmarks. GEF-supported funds have a programmatic or geographic niche in which generally established spending rules or to focus their activities to achieve maximum practices that preserve capital and build impact. cushions when investment returns are good that 18 Summary of Recent Evaluation Findings permit them to continue program support 57. The evaluation concluded that the SGP during financial market declines. occupies a unique niche not only within GEF but within all international environmental 54. Trust funds have attracted highly qualified efforts. Many national programs have engaged personnel but still require capacity-building a wide range of actors in addressing global assistance to develop their potential as environmental problems, leading to new institutions. Among the community of trust coalitions and partnerships. The SGP provides funds there is a considerable store of experience a stream of funding which, while modest, is and innovation, and potential for developing unmatched by other environmental programs "learning networks" to share this knowledge. in terms of innovation, flexibility, and responsiveness. There is no comparable 55. An important factor influencing the mechanism for raising environmental management of trust fund programs has been awareness and building capacity across such a the extent to which there is an "effective broad spectrum of constituencies within the demand" for these activities among target recipient countries. National ownership of the groups. Contrary to original expectations, some SGP and commitment to its participatory funds have not been able to make grants with principles is shown by the talented and all of the resources they had available without experienced people attracted to become first devoting considerable effort to helping national steering committee members, as well NGOs and community organizations prepare as enormous voluntary inputs from all levels project proposals and strengthen of society. implementation capacity to meet their standards, or devising new approaches around 58. The evaluation assessed program impacts burdensome government contracting or in four areas: capacity development, leveraging financial procedures. of experience, sustainability, and raising awareness. In addition, it identified a number B. Evaluation of the Small of program issues for attention by GEF. Grants Programmes 1. Capacity Development 56. As of June 1998, GEF's Small Grants Programme (SGP) had set up 45 national 59. The evaluation found that the SGP had programs and made grants to more than 1,100 significant positive capacity building impacts projects at a total cost of US$42 million over in many countries, even without a six years. A comprehensive, independent systematically planned strategy. Progress in evaluation was carried out for UNDP in 1998 technical and organizational capacity among to review the performance of the program, NGOs and community-based organizations especially its "Operational Phase" from 1995 (CBOs) has been impressive. It has enhanced to 1998. It was based on interviews, visits to the credibility of these organizations and their seven countries and studies on two others, and ability to make important contributions to a self-evaluation questionnaire sent to the solving local as well as global environmental country programs. problems. Many SGP proj ects have encouraged NGOs, CBOs, and communities to learn about This section is summarized from the "Report of the Second Independent Evaluation of the Global Environment Facility Small Grants Programme (GEF/SGP)". The report is on the lNDP/GEF web site (http://www.undp.org/gef/) or can be obtained from Marie Khan Kacou in the UNDP/GEF SGP management unit, telephone: (212) 906-5842, fax: (212) 906- 6568, email: marie.khan.kacouaundp.org. 19 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report environmental issues and integrate them with for co-financing quite limited in countries their existing development programs, often where donor programs are shrinking, public where the environment had previously been funds are limited, and/or there is no tradition ignored. Environmental knowledge and a for philanthropy. The program also attracted variety of technical skills have been acquired extraordinarily high amounts of volunteer by a large number of organizations, including inputs to its projects. They come from the ability to analyze local natural resource universities and research institutions, issues, diagnose problems, and implement government scrviccs, NGOs, privatc and public solutions. Organizational strengthening has sector organizations and individuals, local taken place through the management of SGP- government representatives, national and financed projects, with special emphasis on foreign experts with development projects, as developing viable proposals, participatory well as the volunteer members of national planning, management of financial resources, steering committees. Some replication and and meeting donor reporting requirements. scaling-up of promising projects has taken place. 60. SGP grants have been used to increase and diversify community access to sources of 63. Although the SGP encourages grants to technical assistance and training, including be used for policy analysis and dialogue, the government services, research institutions, and evaluation found that this opportunity remains specialized NGOs. Interactions with undeveloped in most countries. The most government agencies have given communities obvious policy impact has been convincing key confidence and led to working relationships that decision-makers of the benefits of a have persisted beyond the life of individual participatory approach to the design and projects. Such links have provided valuable implementation of development programs. In opportunities for government technicians and some countries, the SGP has also been able to university researchers to work closely with influence spending policies of national grassroots communities. Grants have also environmental funding agencies. fostered the development of networks and collaborationbetweendifferenttypesofNGOs. 64. Skillful use of the media has helped several national SGPs achieve recognition as 61. Women's groups have been given sizeable programs focusing on environmental problem- support and the special needs of women have solving, community action, and activities received considerable attention in all of the SGP related to meeting the country's international country programs visited as part of the obligations. The SGP is often the GEF evaluation. It was found that women are showcase, more recognized by NGOs and the generally more receptive and sensitive to public than other GEF-supported activities. environmental issues than men. Grants have helped women enhance their role and capacities 3. Sustainability within their communities, and strengthened their will to increase their involvement in the 65. A mix of approaches has been used to developmentprocess. enhance project sustainability, but the evaluation concluded that it is too early to 2. Leveraging of Experience assess their impacts. The evaluation identified several characteristics associated with high 62. The evaluation found that most country potential for sustainability: (a) strong programs had attracted co-financing from other community adhesion to the project goals and sources for their grants, although the amounts approach; (b) addressing genuine priority needs varied between countries. While they were of the community; (c) communities that are substantial in some places, it found the potential unified and/or experienced in implementing 20 Summary of Recent Evaluation Findings small projects; (d) strong and consistent 5. Major Programming Issues leadership from the implementing NGO/CBO and/or within the community; (e) the capacity 69. The evaluation identified a number of to network or link with others, either programming issues for attention by GEF. technically, financially, or politically; and Among them, three in particular stand out: (f) viable income-generating components. 70. Tension between community priorities 66. Working against susLainability, most SGP and GEF's focal areas. Many national SGPs grants are for a maximum of two years. Most are struggling to establish credible links projects, especially those to inexperienced between the community-level activities CBOs and communities, require additional supported by their grants and the global support before serious progress can be environmentalproblemstargetedbyGEF. The anticipated. The evaluation found experience prospect of meeting basic needs or capacity to be disappointing with income-generating building often provides the SGP or its NGO activities, which it attributed to the fact that grantees with their entry point to a community. most country programs and their partner NGOs But winning the confidence of communities- have limited small business expertise or especially ones without a history of external experience. assistance-and helping them organize takes time, involves much uncertainty, and is unlikely 67. The idea of country program sustainability to succeed if it begins with an explicit emphasis remains unclear in most countries. So far, only on GEF focal areas. As a result, many SGP the Mexico and Philippines SGPs have taken projects begin with activities that are not related concrete steps toward financial and institutional to global environmental problems. Identifying independence, although both expect to need projects which balance immediate community another three years or more under the SGP needs with the GEF focal areas has been umbrella before their operations become especially challenging in countries where donor sustainable. The evaluation concluded that a support has decreased and economies are significant number of country programs have struggling. In these places, many community little prospect of achieving independence under and NGO programs have run out of funds and existing donor and national government governments have not made up the difference. spending priorities. This pressures the SGP to support community basic needs instead of global objectives. 4. Awareness Raising 71. Target projects and organizations. The 68. The SGP has helped establish a new SGP projects which have moved fastest and generation of NGOs in some countries, notably shown the greatest progress are usually those Poland and Jordan. SGP awareness-raising involving experienced NGOs in urban or semi- efforts have directly increased the participation urban areas. These projects also require far of dynamic individuals and groups in less management support and supervision, an environment issues in general, as well as in important consideration in a program that has projects. Combined with skillful use of the stressed keeping operating expenses low. media, this has led to substantially increased However, this contrasts with the target of the environmental awareness. Awareness raising SGP, which is to work with poor rural related to GEF's focal areas has been most communities and inexperienced CBOs. effective among NGO grantees and Projects of this type have generally progressed collaborating organizations, including much more slowly. The evaluation concluded government agencies, but was much less that the program has so far given little attention evident at the community level. to the important operational implications ofthe 21 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report choices between these types of projects and international Group of Experts on the Scientific their different definitions of "community." Aspects of Marine Environment Protection (GESAMP), based on worldwide experience. 72. Measuring performance and impacts, While it recognized that none of the GEF and disseminating lessons. The evaluation projects were explicitly guided by this model, found that the SGP did not have an effective the framework was considered to be a useful strategy for measuring or assessing tool to analyze their experience and compare performance and impacts. It recommended that it to similar projects. The policy cycle involves performance indicators be developed for five steps: (1) issue definition, (2) selection projects and country programs and that of objectives, (3) formal adoption of effective monitoring and evaluation systems be management structures and funding, (4) imple- established. In addition, it found that the mentation, and (5) evaluation. It is essential program has disseminated little information on that actions and priorities at any given time be what has been learned from its experience. It appropriate to the step in the policy cycle that recommended giving systematic attention to a program has achieved. Experience suggests carefully documenting, objectively analyzing, that eight to twelve years is usually needed to and broadly disseminating lessons from SGP's complete an initial cycle through these five experience. steps. In addition to the steps of the policy cycle, the framework includes several C. UNDP Integrated principles and features associated with Coastal Management successful coastal management efforts. They Projects include (1) stakeholder participation at all phases of the program; (2) strategic issue- driven program focus and decision making; 73. UNDP funded four integrated coastal drve prga ou n dcso aig 7.nagement fudeds fu integriat d cta (3) integrated approaches and methods; (4) a management proj ects in Latin America and the commitment to adaptive learning; and (5) build- Caribbean during GEF's Pilot Phase: the . . a Patagonia Coastal Zone Management Plan in Argentina; Sustainable Development and 75. The four GEF projects differ somewhat Management of Biologically Diverse Coastal in their scope and aims. In Argentina and Cuba, Resources in Belize; Protecting Biodiversity the projects focus on one specific region rich and Sustainable Development of the Sabana- in biodiversity that is under considerable threat Camagucy in Cuba; and Conservation and from development. Both sought to provide a Management of Biodiversity in the Coastal Zone~ ~ inteDmncnRpbi. Bewe scientific basis for Integrated coastal Zoneain the7 D nndAugust1998 Republc. Betweet management, sustainable development, and January 1997 and August 1998, final project prtcinobidvstyThPagna evaluations were conducted for these projects project wl byoavrspted Thenti gon by the University of Rhode Island (URI). This proj ect was led by a respected Argentine NGO. In Belize, the project sought to create a section synthesizes the main findings and government policy framework and structure for conclusions of these evaluations." coastal management, while the Dominican Republic project was carried out in four specific 74. The URI evaluations examine the areas and was implemented exclusively through performance of the four projects through the NGOs. All four projects concentrated on the lens of a framework of an integrated coastal early steps in the policy cycle, especially on management "policy cycle" identified by the data collection and planning, although only in '° Copies of the evaluation reports can be obtained from Martin Krause in UNDP's GEF Coordination Office, 304 East 45'h Street, I"h floor, New York, NY 10017, telephone: (212)906-5723, fax: (212) 906-6998, email: martin.krause(undp.org. 22 Summary of Recent Evaluation Findings Cuba was the project explicitly conceived as in Argentina-achieved significant success in the initial phase of a longer term effort that this area. A key factor in Patagonia was the would be supported by GEF. decision to allow teachers to identify the issues and topics that were important, and to work 76. The evaluations found that the GEF with them to develop the curricula. Education projects were uniformly overly ambitious. At efforts, like research and data collection, need completion, all were at the initial stages of step to be focused on and related to institutional and 3 of the policy cycle, rather than beginning step policy issues, and sustained over long periods. 4, as they had envisioned. Furthermore, most lacked a clear conceptual framework for 79. Localownershipofprojectactivitiesand defining and carrying out their activities. As a the planning process was generally good. In result, they tended to support a broad range of the Dominican Republic, participation of activities rather than a focused set of initial communities, NGOs, and national agencies was interventions selected to build a better the primary emphasis and success of the understanding of the issues confronting coastal proj ect. Relevant government bodies were zone management. For example, the evaluation effectively involved even though the project concluded that the Belize project was unable design did not call for this. Activities at all to effectively make the strategic progression four pilot sites demonstrated the power and from an assessment of many management many benefits of community-level participation issues to a limited and well-focused agenda that in both research and the governance process. balances institutional capacity with short and Cross-sectoral activities among scientists, medium term actions. The result is a gap government, developers, and architects were between technical analysis and planning on the highly successful in Cuba in changing attitudes one hand, and effective implementation on the and minimizing adverse environmental impacts other. from development in the Sabana-Camaguey region. In Argentina, the project greatly 77. Experience under the four projects strengthened a local NGO that draws together confirmed that integrated coastal management the community of natural scientists and is informed by, but not driven by, science. conservationists in the Patagonia region. In Institutional and financial issues tendto be most Belize, however, project efforts primarily important. Especially in Argentina and the involved increased consultations with various Dominican Republic, this finding contrasted government agencies. The evaluation with the initial focus of the projects, which concluded that greater efforts were needed to emphasized scientific issues and research. The involve people living in coastal areas in evaluations highlighted the importance of planning efforts. linking data collection and scientific activities to institutional and policy issues, and of 80. Looking at the four evaluations as a research being issues-driven. In Argentina, whole, it is clear that the Sabana-Camaguey Belize, and the Dominican Republic, this was project in Cuba was regarded as the most not done as effectively as it might have been. successful. It met or exceeded its objectives, For example, in Argentina the evaluation and made substantial progress in integrating concluded that the coastal zone management science, planning, and public policy formu- plan, while rich in information on biodiversity, lation. The government's financial contribution gives limited practical guidance on how the increased from US$4 million to an estimated emerging management process should unfold. US$9 million. The project produced a comprehensive strategic plan for the Sabana- 78. The evaluations also underlined the Camaguey region that identifies the major importance of education and awareness-raising issues affecting sustainable development and activities. Several of the projects-especially biodiversity conservation, and the actions and 23 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report policy reforms required for its successful biodiversity data management plans in ten implementation. A major strength was the countries. The project also produced application of this planning process to ongoing methodological guidelines for carrying out tourism development, which led to tangible BDM activities in other countries. applications of elements of the strategy that have had significant impact on development 83. The final evaluation of the BDM project standards in the region. was carried out in mid-I 998 jointly by UNEP's Evaluation and GEF Coordination offices and 81. The evaluation states that Cuba provides, GEFSEC 's M&E team. It involved field in many respects, an unusual social and reviewsandreportsbylocalconsultantsineach institutional context for an integrated coastal of the ten countries, a two-day workshop of all management program: (1) many of the usual project participants and UNEP and GEFSEC tensions between public and private sector are evaluation staff and consultants, and a synthesis absent; (2) there are higher technical report prepared by an independent consultant. capabilities and an absence of corruption in the Cuban public sector, compared to government 84. The evaluation concluded that the BDM agencies in many countries; (3) the Cuban project was very appropriate for the government has made a major commitment to participating countries. It allowed them to reforming its policies and restructuring document information on biodiversity that was governmental institutions to follow the available, and to identify where data was stored, recommendations of Agenda 21, which how it was managed, and the conditions under provided a high degree of government support which it could be accessed. It helped countries for the project; and (4) Cuba's scientific take the first steps toward establishingnational community is technically excellent and very biodiversity information networks. It provided dedicated. The evaluation found that the the opportunity to pull together a variety of Sabana-Camaguey project exhibited a high organizations to develop common procedures degree of commitment to adaptive learning. It for the collection, processing, storage, is also possible that the fact that the project management, and exchange of biodiversity was conceived from the outset as the first phase data. of a ten-year effort may have contributed to its success relative to similar projects in the region 85. The project helped build capacity for which did not benefit from being set in this BDM in a variety of ways. Training and longer term context from the beginning. provision of equipment gave participating countries new tools to identify, organize, and D. Evaluation of the access information, including expanded use of Biodiversity Data the internet. Institutional surveys gave data managers a more comprehensive knowledge of Management (B D M) information available and linkages with others Project who collected or were interested in biodiversity data. In fact, it was only under the BDM project 82. The BDM project was implemented by that many management officials became aware UNEP in collaboration with the World thattheydealtwithandpossessedbiodiversity Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) to data. help developing countries strengthen their capacity to manage information on their 86. Some countries were more successful in biological diversity. It financed surveys to implementing project activities than others. identify sources of biodiversity data, creation The key factors that contributed to success of information networks, and development of included: 24 Summary of Recent Evaluation Findings * widespread political support and prepared under the project did not address the commitment, including the formation of issue of funding. Others did not contain project steering committees that had broad implementation schedules and budgets. More representation and met regularly; creative researching and identification of financing options for BDM plans and activities * good telecommunications facilities and would have made a useful contribution to access to advanced information overall project success. The evaluation also technology; concluded that the four-year proj'ect implementation period was too short, and that * active participation by a wide range of further donor funding was needed to continue stakeholders, especially information some project activities. suppliers and users, which led to greater sharing of experiences; and 89. Support for intra-country linkages was a major success. The project created a greater * existing in-country technical expertise and awareness of the wide variety of databases project management abilities. already existing in the participating countries, and increased possibilities of data sharing The use of local consultants also increased between organizations, particularly among acceptability and credibility of project activities government agencies and research institutions among stakeholders, contributing to successful and universities. Nevertheless, in some proj.ect implementation. countries, key institutions refused to participate in the project. The evaluation concluded that 87. The evaluation found that no training or more stakeholder representation would have capacity building needs assessments in the been beneficial in the national institutional participating countries were carried out before surveys, in particular by planners, the media, project activities began. Given the high degree NGOs, consulting firms, and other private of technical competency in the rapidly evolving sector organizations. field of environmental information systems called for in the design, this contributed to 90. At the regional and global level, the differences in implementation performance evaluation concluded that the advantages that among participating countries. Countries with a multi-country umbrella project can potentially higher levels of capacity in information offer were not fully cxploited during thc technology were able to take greater advantage implementation of the project. Linkages were of project training than were others. The formed between national institutions andUNEP evaluation concluded that capacity needs and WCMC networks through information assessments could have allowed activities to exchange, workshops, and activities related to have been tailored to each country's project management. But there was little circumstances and needs, for example, giving evidence of contacts between national and more emphasis to training in countries where regional agencies promoted by the project, or technical skills were not as strong. The linkages with other global networks, although evaluation also reported that capacity building many beneficial relationships could have been in some countries was limited due to staff established, especially through the more active turnover, especially by those who received participation of the project's international computer training. advisory committee. Likewise, greater sharing of experiences among participating countries 88. The evaluation concluded that would have been beneficial. An extremely sustainability of project activities needed more valuable feature of the evaluation itself was the serious consideration. Anumber of BDM plans promotion of exchanges among country 25 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report representatives at the final evaluation and bring real meaning to the program. In workshop. However, other opportunities of this biodiversity, it has proven very difficult to nature were limited under the project. specify meaningful strategic objectives, and the projects reviewed generally lacked E. World Bank Quality such objectives. Assurance Group's * Simplicity of Design. Biodiversity Review of Africa projects are by nature complex. Biodiversity Projects"1 Biodiversity encompasses many sectors and activities. It requires interactions with 91. In November 1997, the World Bank's multiple stakeholders, agencies, Quality Assurance Group (QAG) assessed the constituencies, and donors. Usually, the quality of the Bank's work on four biodiversity institutions charged with managing these conservation projects in Africa; a fifth project inter-relationships are new and relatively was assessed in March 1998. Three of these powerless. While the projects were are GEF projects or include GEF-financed inevitably complex, they also tended to be components. The results of these assessments overly ambitious relative to imple- provide a number of insights that complement mentation capacity. the lessons emerging from GEF's PIRs and other evaluation work. - Technical Solutions. Most Bank-financed activities are grounded in technical and 92. While the Bank's biodiversityprojects in economic solutions which are relatively Africa have been in the forefront of introducing well established by experience and stakeholder analysis and beneficiary analysis. This is less true for biodiversity participation into project design efforts, many conservation. of the conditions which normally help ensure project success at the outset are notably missing * The Macroeconomic Context. from the projects reviewed. The principal ones Biodiversity programs are particularly are: vulnerable to conditions in the national economy, especially in high-population * Ownership. Biodiversity is still primarily density, low-growth countries. In most an agenda of the international community. countries, exploitation of natural resources This has meant little integration with the almost always takes precedence over broader development agenda, shortages of conservation. Biodiversity projects are counterpart funds, and staffing difficulties. unlikely to be sustainable in stagnant or Any ownership of a biodiversity or slow-growing economies, yet these are conservation agenda is likely to be at the where many of the world's ecosystems are level of the local population, rather than most diverse, abundant, or threatened. with the national government. 93. From its assessment, the QAG identified * Clarity of Objectives. Between lofty goals four principal lessons that can contribute to and specific outputs there need to be successful Bank biodiversity operations in the strategic objectives which focus the effort future: "This section is summarized from the World Bank Environment Department's Dissemination Note No. 62, dated July 1998, entitled, "Biodiversity Conservation Projects in Africa: Lessons Learned from the First Generation." Copies are available from the Environment Department, fax (202) 477-0565. 26 Summary of Recent Evaluation Findings * Biodiversity operations are not likely to technical (STAP) reviews that must be be sustainable unless they are integrated responded to formally has added into country and Bank development objectivity and open debate to issues where strategies, or financed indefinitely by the special interest advocacy is still prominent, international community. Future efforts and can be a model of other Bank projects should be designed with more emphasis on with complex and controversial design the underlying causes of biodiversity loss. issues. More care should be taken to understand the interests of different * The biodiversity portfolio requires more stakeholders. Local resource users, aggressive supervision. In the projects international NGOs, and the private reviewed, problem definition was sector-which has been largely absent excellent. But often nothing happened: from the projects-all play a critical role. decisions were delayed or not taken, and no formal restructuring or redesign took * Stronger leadership needs to be provided place. Supervisionofbiodiversityprojects to sharpen focus on choices and must focus on learning and encourage priorities. Several of the projects change and adaptation. Greater continuity reviewed were notable for Bank leadership of staff and closer management attention at the outset in stimulating debate and is required. formulating programs. But as implementation began, the intellectual * There needs to be a more disciplined leadership of the Bank declined. Based on process in project design. Most of the the experience to date, the Bank and GEF projects reviewed had undergone should become more proactive in helping comprehensive technical and stakeholder to set the biodiversity agenda in the context reviews during preparation, which seemed of a country's overarching development to have little, if any, impact on the final needs. design. GEF's requirement of independent 27 5. CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES 94. Drawing on the PIR reports and 97. The relative significance of these evaluations summarized above, this section factors varies among focal areas. In discusses three cross-cutting issues selected for biodiversity projects, participation of the special attention in the 1998 review- entire range of actors with a stake in the sustainability, leveraging, and capacity conservation or sustainable use of important building-as well as three additional topics that resources is key. Reliable sources of arose during the task force and interagency financing are also extremely important, discussions. given the nature of many conservation activities and expenses. Conservation trust A. Sustainability funds have been able in some countries (e.g., Bhutan, Mexico, Peru, Uganda) to provide a 95. Sustaining project activities following foundation for sustainable funding of the completion of GEF funding is proving protected areas and other conservation to be much more difficult than expected. activities. But trust funds cannot be expected Most terminating GEF proj ects faced continued to provide all of the financial and other needs needs for extemal support. More recently, the for biodiversity conservation activities to be financial crises in Asia and Russia have also fully sustainable over the long term. Ideally, aggravated the ability of these countries to funding should include a mix of resources, sustain GEF-supported projects in the near from user fees to revenues from sustainable future. economic activities to government budget allocations to project funding from domestic 96. The implementation review highlighted and external organizations. five ingredients for sustainability: 98. The policy environment, and the * a policy framework that provides incentives it provides for individual practices appropriate incentives, including prices, for and corporate investments, is very important practices that produce global for projects in the climate change portfolio. environmental benefits; Public awareness was also documented in both the 1997 and 1998 PIRs to be a key factor for * long-term funding sources: the progress made by several climate change projects, especially those focusing on demand- * public awareness and understanding of side management of energy use. The the benefits of new approaches and development or identification of domestic activities; sources of finance-mostly in the private sector-that do not rely on subsidies is also * local ownership, brought about by genuine important if practices and technologies participation and influence of all key pioneered with GEF support are to be replicated stakeholders in decision-making and widely and sustained. Subsidies have been prioritization of activities; and useful in many GEF projects to provide incentives for change. However, more attention * the ability of institutions, including needs to be given to ways to maximize their private businesses, to use effectively the impact and to phasing them out. The Poland resources provided. Efficient Lighting Project (PELP) has provided interesting lessons in this regard, by focusing 28 Cross-Cutting Issues subsidies for energy-efficient light bulbs at the discussed more fully in section 5.C. below.) It wholesale level to leverage contributions by is important to keep implementation manufacturers and reductions in retail markups arrangements simple, and integrate proj ect and sales taxes. These subsidies were activities and implementation units into regular consciously phased out while the project national institutions and budgets. The PIR continued to support marketing and other identified several examples of where the latter awareness-raisingactivities. had been successful, helping to sustain activities funded by GEF. In Belize, the GEF 99. In international waters projects, project led to the creation of a Coastal Zone nurturing credible mechanisms to identify Management Authority (CZMA), a permanent transboundary issues and priorities is key to institutional structure that absorbed project the effective selection of activities and, staff. The CZMAincludes a multi-institutional ultimately, their sustainability. As experience Board of Directors (formerly the project in the Black Sea region has shown, it is steering committee), an Advisory Council important to involve a wide range of (previously the project's technical committee) stakeholders at all levels in these processes to and a CZM Institute at the University College bring about the necessary awareness and of Belize. Similarly, the coordination office ownership. External financing for the sizable for the Dominican Republic Conservation and public and private investments needed to Management of Biodiversity in the Coastal address transboundary pollution is likely to be Zone proj ect was given responsibility to a major determinant of the sustainability of coordinate biodiversity and environment policy GEF-supported activities. projects generally, and will oversee a new World Bank National Environment Policy 100. Sustainability in the ozone focal area is reform loan. The project coordinator will also more straightforward-it is achieved by coordinate the GEF biodiversity enabling phasing out the use of ODS, usually in a limited activity in the Dominican Republic. Likewise, number of manufactured products, within the institutional mechanisms developed for context of country agreements under an involving stakeholders and making decisions international convention. The viability of on activities under the East Asian Seas project enterprises that are the target of GEF-funded have been integrated into local government activities is a significant determinant of frameworks and budgets in Xiamen, China and sustainability. This has caused delays and Batangas Bay, the Philippines. adjustments in several projects in Central European countries undergoing rapid economic 102. Long-term sustainability of many of change. The policy environment is also the efforts that GEF supports requires important, not only to assure that regulations longer time horizons. One three-to-five-year and incentives encourage ODS phase-out and project will not be enough in most cases, proper recycling programs, but also to enforce especially in the biodiversity and international controls on imported goods containing ODS waters. A longer term commitment, carried where neighboring countries have different out within the framework of a flexible, ODS phase-out schedules. iterative approach based on agreed benchmarks at key stages, is needed. 101. Institutional capacity is a factor influencing sustainability across all focal areas. 103. The financial sustainability of biodiver- Where it is lacking, capacity building efforts sity projects was identified as a topic for in- may need to precede provision of substantial depth review during 1999. GEF's corporate amounts of funding. (Capacity building is M&E team will develop a proposal to conduct 29 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report the study, building on the recently completed brought about increased private sector evaluation of experience with conservation investments, often as a result of changes in trust funds. It may involve desk reviews, focus policies and regulations. They include the groups or workshops with project managers, Mauritania Wind Energy, India Alternate and a clearer definition of issues affecting Energy, Tunisia Solar Water Heating, and financial sustainability for possible further Brazil Biomass Integrated Gasification/Gas evaluation. Results should be available for the Turbine projects. Substantial funding to carry 1999 PIR. on the Guyana Iwokrama Rain Forest project has also been provided by other donors as a B. Leveraging resultofprojectactions. Mostofthesefinancial resources were not explicitly anticipated or 104. How to identify additional resources calculated as co-financing at the time of project leveraged by GEF programs-and to attribute approval. In addition, GEF-supported trust to GEF actions taken as a result of its funds in Bhutan and Peru have attracted large programs-are fundamental questions in amounts of funds from other donors that determining GEF's overall impact on the global exceeded estimates at the design stage and environment. Leveraging was a focus of the would not likely have been available for Study of GEFs Overall Performance. It was conservation in the absence of these trust funds. included as a cross-cutting issue in the 1998 The evaluation of the Small Grants Programme PIR to help further understand the broader found that many country programs had attracted effects of GEF activities and to inform the co-financing for their grants and high amounts development of an improved definition of of volunteer inputs to its projects. leveraging for use within GEF. 107. Second, in addition to financial resources, 105. The Study of GEFsOverallPerformance the PIR reports identified many actions considered leveraging in narrow terms, i.e., attributed to GEF projects that produced funding identified during project design. significant outcomes beyond those associated However, the 1998 PIR guidance requested directly with project activities. They include: project and agency reports to examine leveraging in a broader context. The PIR * Replication or expansion of activities discussion concluded that GEF should adopt based on demonstrations or models a broader definition of leveraging for its financed by GEF. For example, programs and projects that reflects financial restructuring of forestry enterprises under resources-both during design and the China Nature Reserves Management implementation-and actions catalyzed by project is providing a model for resolving GEF activities. It was a conclusion of the PIR land use conflicts elsewhere in China. In that, in the future, reporting on project Jordan, the protected area management performance should reflect this broader model and community-based approach definition. This conclusion was based on two carried out under the Dana Wildlands- reasons. Azraq Wetlands project was applied successfully to several other protected 106. First, limiting the calculation of funding areas. Efforts to expand community leveraged to co-financing identified at the participation in the Small Hydel Resources design stage can be misleading. UNDP in Hilly Regions project, which documented in its PIR reports substantial considerably delayed implementation, are financial resources that have been stimulated now leading state governments in India to by GEF activities during implementation. For adopt this approach more broadly. And in example, several climate change projects some cases, GEF support for new activities 30 Cross-Cutting Issues has stimulated private investment even though GEF-funded activities themselves have not Box 5: INFLUENCING proceeded as planned. This is the case of wind PHYSICAL PLANNING AND energy in Costa Rica through the Tejona Wind CONSTRUCTION Power project, conversion from coal to gas boilers STANDARDS IN SABANA- in Poland, and development of biomass gasification CAMAGUEY, CUBA from sugar wastes in Mauritius. The Protecting Biodiversity and * Development of common methodologies for Sustainable Development of the Sabana-Camaguey project in Cuba conducting biodiversity and climate change country actively promoted stronger links studies and assessments through several UNEP- among the science community, GEF projects has provided tools and models for government agencies, and countries not included in these projects to carry out development interests. As a result, similar assessments. construction practices have been significantly altered so that * Changes in attitudes and awareness of global causeways no longer cut off circulation within lagoons, environmental issues. For example, a successful coruction site dancens ! ~~~~~~~construction site disturbance is regional "year of the sea turtle" campaign supported kept to a minimum, and the style of by the South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation tourism facilities and infrastructure project resulted in a one-year moratorium (later is more environmentally sensitive. extended three more years) on commercial Representatives of the tourism harvesting of sea turtles in one country. The Global industry believe the scientific Biodiversity Assessment commissioned by UNEP community has become more and financed by GEF has become a standard attuned to their needs and has a much greater understanding of the scientific reference on the main issues of biological ifrainadiesta r se~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ eniIinformation and ideas that are diversity, and a large number of scientific useful to guide the development organizations and donor agencies are using the process. Similarly, scientists assessment as a foundation for initiatives they are participating in the project noted a taking in this area. radical change in the attitudes of developers, architects, and the * Broader country policy or market-level changes Ministry of Construction as they stimulated by project activities or participants. learned how to minimize These changes can result from information or envguonmental impacts and anaiyses provided to policy-makers and industry, environmental qualities of the direct involvement in preparing proposed region. Construction guidelines legislation, and reviews of existing laws to advocate detailed in the draft coastal their stricter application. For example, the Cuba management strategy developed Sabana-Camaguey project successfully influenced through the project-which reduce the physical planning and construction of tourism environmental impacts and infrastructure (see Box 5). In Belize, Bhutan, construction costs-are being Colombia, Cuba, Jordan, and elsewhere, GEF applied elsewhere in the Sabana- .. . . . .............. ~Camaguey region, and the new projects participated actively in the elaboration of Consue roache to - ~~~~~~~~~consultative approaches to national policies on protected areas and integrated planning pioneered by the project coastal management. India's Small Hydel are having an impactwell beyond Resources in Hilly Regions project and many SGP the project area. programs have convinced key decision-makers of the benefits of a participatory approach to the design and implementation of development projects and 31 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report programs. And the Coal Bed Methane between the executing agency for the project in China shows how new policies Mauritius Biodiversity Restoration and regulations, combined with the project-a national NGO-and several creation of institutions to promote new European NGOs enabled it to take technologies, can lead to substantial advantage of volunteers from Europe to investments and market restructuring. work on project activities. 108. The PIR reports also illustrate a variety * Involving key stakeholders has multiplied of approaches that have been used by GEF project impacts. For example, including projects to expand their leverage: private business organizations in decision- making bodies in * A strategic focus- the Gulf of Guinea ing of effort has Box 6: EXPANDING LINKAGES TO OTHER project and in led to systemic AGENCIES Batangas Bay, the change in Poland Philippines, under and Hungary. In The executing agency for the Economics of Greenhouse the East Asian Seas Poland, PELP's Gas Limitations project, the UNEP Collaborating Centre project has changed demand side man- on Energy and Environment at Riso National Laboratory the attitudes of all agement activity in Denmark, is also implementing a number of bilateral major stakeholder concentratedv on climate change capacity building projects and provides group stowardeaho concentrated on support to GEF enabling activities in three countries. groups toward each large-scale subs- This has allowed it to increase from eight to 15 the other and led to titution of energy- number of national teams participating in project substantial volun- efficient light workshops and the application and testing of tary private sector bulbs in several methodological guidelines developed under the project. contributions to small towns. pollution control Typically, utility efforts. The parti- companies view cipation of national these bulbs primarily as a product that will researchers in the Alternatives to Slash and decrease their revenues. But through this Burn project has reportedly had a marked experience, the project was able to influence on internal research agendas in demonstrate system-wide effects to the their institutions. utility company and show the potential benefits that could come from saving * Finally, flexibility to respond to targets capital investments in generating capacity. of opportunity with potential for In Hungary, the availability of technical significant leveraging was illustrated by the assistance funding to support the develop- ODS phase-out project in Russia. ment of energy efficiency projects is Implementation was delayed due to proving to be a valuable tool to influence concerns about the financial viability of a the financing patterns of commercial number of manufacturing enterprises using banks. ODS. By indicating a willingness to reprogram funds allocated to ODS * Another approach has been to work consumption subprojects to measures through executing agencies that have enabling the complete closure of all linkages to other agencies with similar Russian ODS production sites, GEF has program interests. One example is the leveraged more than 200 percent additional Economics of Greenhouse Gas Limitations resources and provided a key catalyst for project (see Box 6). The relationship carrying out the production program. 32 Cross-Cutting Issues C. Capacity Building the Global Biodiversity Assessment, to study tours to acquaintproject participants 109. Capacity building and institutional with how others are addressing issues strengthening are features of most GEF similar to those they confront. Increased projects, and are closely linked to sustainability. awareness of environmental issues by This was identified as a cross-cutting issue for NGOs and CBOs was one of the key the 1998 PIR to gain insights into the successesoftheSmallGrantsProgramme ingredients of capacity building and the lessons documented in the recent evaluation. The emerging from the experience. ALGAS project (see Box 7) is another example of a project that has increased the 110. The PIR reports and evaluations understanding of issues and options sunmmarized above show that GEF projects are relating to climate change. strengthening a wide variety of organizations, from government agencies, to scientific and * Transferring technologies or providing research institutions, to national and technical skills, including the ability to international associations, to NGOs and diagnose problems and implement conmnunity-based organizations (CBOs). They solutions. The provision of training and do this in many ways, especially by: often new equipment is a feature of many GEF projects. Improving methodologies Increasing knowledge and awareness of for analysis of global environmental issues environmental issues. Examples range is a focus of many of the projects in the from biodiversity and climate change PIR portfolio regarded as enabling country studies supported under several activities, including the ALGAS project. UNEP-GEF projects and the production of Box 7: DEFINING CAPACITY TO ADDRESS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The Asia Least-Cost Greenhouse Gas Abatement Strategies (ALGAS) project helped 12 participating countries expand their capacity to quantify GHG emissions, prepare baselines and inventories of GHG emissions and sinks, identify least-cost options to reduce emissions or enhance sinks, develop natonal policy responses to implement these measures, and design national portfolios of technical assistance and investment projects to help reduce growth of GHG emissions. The project provided extensive training for scientists and others in the region, promoted networks and linkages among the participating countries and with similar projects in the region, and provided technical assistance from international and Asian experts. Like many capacity building projects, ALGAS has struggled to define indicators of capacity that can be used to identify needs and measure results. During the interagency PIR meeting, a presentation on ALGAS put forward the following definitions developed by the project. Technical capacitv = * level of understanding of issues and options related to climate change * Asian experts able to contribute to IPCC global assessments * improvements in IPCC GHG inventory methodology Institutional capacity = * level of involvement of national decision-makers * cross-sectoral representation of government agencies, NGOs, research institutions, and private sector * ability to update national GHG inventories, install and operate analytical models, and use models to identify least-cost GHG abatement strategies 33 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report * Creating or reinforcing new institutional under the South Pacific Biodiversity structures. Examples include support for Conservation project (see Box 1 on central coordination entities under the page 10). BDM project, a new coastal zone management agency in Belize that brought 111. Considerably more attention is needed together under one agency all government on the results and qualitative impacts of agencies dealing with coastal zones, and GEF's capacity building efforts. With only a creation of conservation trust funds. few exceptions, such as Nepal Biodiversity Conservation and Dominican Republic Coastal * Improving project design and Zone, project reporting was limited to outputs management capabilities. Especially for (e.g., number of people trained or participating NGOs and CBOs, this is often the product in workshops). Discussion of the ALGAS simply of being involved with a donor projectduringthe interagencymeetingincluded project for the first time. The Mgahinga- measures it has developed to measure technical BwindiConservationTrustinUgandahas and institutional capacity (see Box 7). dedicated considerable effort to helping However, in general there was little focus on community groups put together and carry or documentation of changes in skills or out small projects. This has also been a individual and organizational performance. major contribution of the Small Grants Programme. 112. Moreover, in many cases there appeared to be an explicit or implicit assumption that * Stimulating the creation of networks lack of human capacity or skills is the main among national or intemational institutions problem impeding accomplishment of global or individuals engaged in similar work. environmental objectivcs. This assumption This has been a feature of most multi- does not tally with international experience that country GEF projects, including ALGAS enabling or disabling characteristics of and BDM. The Gulf of Guinea project has organizations can be attributed as much to their built a network of 350 managers and internal organizationalprocesses andpolitical, scientists, linked by an electronic economic, cultural, or other contexts as to the messaging system, on matters related to skills and competence of their personnel. ecosystem degradation, socio-economic Indeed, an insightful discussion in the report impacts, and management measures to on the Dominican Republic Coastal Zone improve environmental quality and project identified the following ingredients of livelihoods. institutional viability, which are very relevant to any discussion of capacity building: * Promoting increased interaction among adequate budgets, equipment, trained government agencies, academic and personnel, scientific credibility, clear business organizations, NGOs and institutional mandate and linkages to other community groups, and other donors. organizations, and political support and This has often led to greater and diversified recognition through government adminis- access to resources, and a more enlightened trations over time. debate about national and global environmental issues. More importantly, 113. Motivation to apply knowledge gained it has led to broader working relationships from education and training depends very much and institutional credibility that have lasted on the enabling environment within a country. beyondindividualprojectactivities. This In fact, there was ample evidence from the has been a result, for example, ofthe Small review that benefits that should result from Grants Programme and the Conservation training and other capacity building inputs, Area Coordination Committees created especially in government agencies, are often 34 Cross-Cutting Issues lost due to mistrust and poor relations among determinant of project success. More often participating institutions, reluctance to change than not, projects rated as highly satisfactory institutional structures, and staff turnover have dynamic and enterprising leaders, while because of inappropriate policies, competition those rated as unsatisfactory were plagued with for their services from others, and/or changes ineffective leaders and rapid turnover of inmanagement resulting frompolitically driven leadership. Successful leaders also served as decisions. local "champions" for their projocts. The Small Grants Programme evaluation also found that 114. More emphasis needs to be placed on the emergence of such individuals is often key identifying specific capacity-building needs, to progress in the early phases of a project, so project design and implementation can although over-reliance on one or two people in be tailored to address key constraints and an organization or community can eventually institutions. As the evaluation of the jeopardize sustainability. Biodiversity Data Management project showed, this is especially important for multi- 117. The discussion by the international country projects that involve nations with very waters task force brought out the importance different conditions. These projects, in of project leadership. The East Asian Seas, particular, need the flexibility to adjust capacity Black Sea, and Gulf of Guinea projects are led building efforts and strategies to the situation by highly respected, charismatic international in each country, since it is not likely that "one waters professionals. Their technical size fits all." At the same time, multi-country competence, political astuteness, and proj ects allow rich opportunities for professional credibility allowed them access to participating countries to learn from each other the highest levels of government to, in some and strengthen intra-regional consulting cases, turn around projects that strayed or to capacity. For example, under ALGAS, many adjust projects to meet GEF's Operational "national" experts became "international" Strategy. In addition, the SGP evaluation found experts as the project provided chances for that the competence and energy of the them to provide advice and experienc,e to others individual selected as the national coordinator within the Asia region. stood out as the single most important factor determining the effectiveness of the country 115. There is an urgent need to develop program and the quality of its portfolio. indicators that measure the application of knowledge gained and other changes 118. ThisconclusionwasechoedinotherPIR brought about through capacity building discussions and evaluation findings. An efforts and the resulting benefits for the important lesson is that leadership attributes global environment. Assessment of must extend beyond technical competence qualitative impacts may be difficult within the to include communications skills, timeframe of a typical project, however, since entrepreneurial abilities, management many of these changes occur over a longer expertise, and political skills. period. This needs to be reflected in the monitoring systems developed, as well as the E. Multi-Country way GEF addresses the length of the Organizational commitment required to achieve its intended Arrangements impacts. D. Project Leadership 119. There were a sizable number ofregional D* Project Lea de or multi-country projects in the 1998 PIR. They include most of the international waters 116. The quality of project leadership was portfolio and several "enabling activity" identified in the 1998 review as a key 35 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report projects implemented by UNDP and UNEP, Box8 THENEEDFoRLoNG-TERm e.g., the blodiversity and climate change CommiTmENT To CompLEx, REGioNAL country studies projects, BDM, and regional ISSUES: THE CASE OF LAKE VICTORIA climate change capacity building or research projects in Africa, Asia, and the Maghreb. The Lake Victoria Environmental Management project is a five-year project involving more than 120. A number of advantages of the multi- US$77 million in financing, US$34 million from country umbrella approach were documented GEF. The project has ten components ranging in PIR reports. They include sharing from fisheries management, water hyacinth control, water quality, management of land use in the catchment area, wetlands management, similar issues, developing and testing pollution disaster contingency planning, and guidelines and methodologies intended to be institutional support for lake-wide research and applied in many countries under varying management. Funding is channeled through circumstances, and the ability to "bundle" secretariats in each of the three participating technical assistance and training for several countries to a variety of implementing agencies in similar countries. These advantages are the lake region. Implementation was seriously demonstrated by the Economics of Greenhouse delayed by procurement issues and lack of Gas Limitations project (see Box 6 on page 32), counterpart funding. Many of these issues are now resolved and the project is at the point the ALGAS project highlighted above (see Box where it can begin implementation on the ground. 7 on page 33), and others. But now only two and a half years remain to actually carry out the ambitious set of project 121. At the same time, multi-country projects activities. tend to be much more complex. They often involve the development of regional Discussion of this experience during the 1998 mechanisms built on weak local institutions. PIR highlighted the need for a long-term (10-15 (For example, see Box 8 on the Lake Victoria years) commitment to complex undertakings Environmental Management pro'ect.) such as the one at Lake Victoria. Traditional Eniomna aaeetpo ect)projects, with their shorter timeframes and Resources available to address institutional emphasis on a priori design, are not appropriate. weaknesses can be stretched thin by the broad Efforts to prioritize and simplify the Lake Victoria range of institutions involved in some multi- project and to develop a phased approach to country projects, limiting capacity building addressing the many problems facing the lake impact on any one organization. To be are only likely to succeed in the context of a long- effective, regional efforts often require greater term commitment. Otherwise, it will be extremely collaboration among GEF's implementing difficult to reach agreement at this point to leave some activities for later while concentrating agencies (including their regular programs) and immediate attention on a few key priorities. other donors, because of the scope of activities. 122. Despite the advantages a multi-country project can offer, UNEP's overview report identified a number of areas-including project have pointed to several such instances in the development financing ceilings and deadlines, case of enabling activities, where GEF shifted and obtaining country endorsements-where from an initial emphasis on a multi-country standard GEF practices and requirements are approach (e.g, the biodiversity and climate much more difficult for multi-country proj ects. change country studies projects and the In addition, experience has shown that moving regional capacity building projects in Africa, from a multi-country approach to individual Asia, and the Maghreb) to enabling activity country projects dealing with the same issue projects in individual countries. To some has constrained the provision of technical extent, this undermined the rationale for and support to governments. UNDP and LUNEP interest in the earlier regional projects. This 36 Cross-Cutting Issues question is being examined in greater depth as indicators. Unfortunately, some GEFI projects part of an evaluation of biodiversity enabling included in the PIR also share this shortcoming. activities currently being conducted by GEF's A more thorough review of more recent corporate M&E team. projects, approved after use of the Logical Framework and similar methodologies were put 123. One of the actions recommended by the into wider use, might reveal substantial 1997 PIR was a more in-depth examination of improvements. Future PIRs will also provide experience with institutional arrangements in a basis for judging the extent of these regional projects. This was not done, and the improvements. 1998 review reiterated the need to move forward with an analysis of multi-country 126. The World Bank, which last year implementation arrangements to identify committed to retrofit all of its GEF projects models, strengths and weaknesses of various with indicators by June 1998, fell considerably approaches, coordination requirements among short of this goal. Only about one-third had lAs and other organizations, and criteria for indicators by that date, about the same as the evaluating their effectiveness. Bank's overall average. The World Bank has stated that further work on retrofitting proj ects F. Indicators with indicators is a high priority for its GEF operations in 1999. In general, an explanation 124. Although there are several exceptions, given by implementing agencies for some of most of the project reports submitted for the the delay in developing indicators for GEF 1998 PIR do not yet have satisfactory projects once implementation has begun is the indicators to measure and monitor need to discuss them with the countries achievement of their intended outcomes and concerned, and the resistance they sometimes impacts. The PIR reports reflect a general lack encounter in this process. of clarity in determining linkages between project goals, objectives, and outputs. In 127. The PIR concluded that clearer and addition, there is very little strategic use of more specific guidance on monitoring evaluation assumptions. Project monitoring indicators for GEF projects is needed, and systems focus more on processes (e.g., should be a high priority for the corporate procurement) and production of outputs than M&E team and focal area task forces. In on results. addition, broader dissemination should be given to existing resources and guidelines, such 125. This may reflect the composition of astheWorldBank'srecentlyrevisedGuidelines projects in the PR portfolio, most of which for Monitoring and Evaluation of Biodiversity began during GEF's Pilot Phase when less Projects and its companion for climate change explicit attention was given to identification projects that is due to be published in early of clear objectives and measurable impact 1999. 37 6. SYNTHESIS OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 128. As UNEP points out in its overview report, managers should be given flexibility to select it is important that recommendations resulting and modify the activities and tactics needed from the PIR and evaluation reports be to achieve these objectives, based on integrated into the management of GEF monitoring and evaluation systems that operations. Many people throughout the GEF incorporate regular review of performance family devote substantial time and effort to the information. The World Bank has recently annual implementation reviews and project and introduced a new Adaptable Program Lending program evaluations. Tojustify this allocation (APL) approach, which embodies many of of resources, the lessons emerging from their these features. Its use in GEF projects should work must be applied. This final chapter of be expanded. UNDP's new approach to the the 1998 GEF Program Performance Report Small Grants Programme-which involves summarizes the principal conclusions and longer term commitments, performance recommendations from this year's review. benchmarks, and a greater emphasis on monitoring and evaluation at the project and overall program level-is a similar model that A. Flexible, Long-Term couldbe followed. Approach 130. This approach puts a premium on the 129. The conclusion that stands out most quality of project leadership and management strikingly from the reports and discussions that systems in the institutions that make up the GEF made up the 1998 PIR is the need for an family and their partners in recipient countries. approach to addressing global As UJNDP's experience in its climate change environmental problems that is longer term portfolio indicates, where field offices and and more flexible than current project national counterparts are strong, providing instruments. Whether the challenge is flexibility to change course in response to conservingbiodiversity,reducingtheemission performance and new situations has worked of greenhousedgases, oreslowing the degradation relatively well. Where this is not the case, of international waters, experience indicates however, it has led to increasingly problematic that being able to make a commitment of projectsthathavebeenunabletoadapt. support over a longer time period and adapt to changed circumstances and opportunities are 131. Acmajormimplication ofmakingalonger often prerequisites to achieving and sustaining term commitment to address the challenges global environmental results. In many cases, GEF and its partners face is that GEF will this requires a phased approach that sets out need a more strategic focus on the issues, firm benchmarks (including adoption of problems, and places to which it is able to appropriate policy reforms) and provides provide sustained support. With a change to assurance of support over ten years or longer a longer term, benchmarked approach, GEF if these benchmarks are met. Project should movefroman organizational culture proposals should identify clear objectives based on project approval to one more and performance indicators, but devote less focused on achieving and measuring project effort to mapping out detailed and program results. In particular, this implementation plans. Instead, proj ect suggests the need for program managers in the 38 Synthesis of Conclusions and Recommendations GEF secretariatto take onamore strategic role, 135. In addition to the project level, one based less on individual project reviews identifying indicators to measure and and approval and more on working with monitor progress toward its program implementing agencies to (1) facilitate periodic objectives is a high priority for GEF. GEF assessments of program direction and results, must be able to communicate convincingly to and (2) through the focal area task forces, its various stakeholders the collective results identify and feed back lessons about what is of all of its activities. Work began in early 1999 working in the field and what is not. to identify program indicators for GEF's biodiversity and climate change programs. B. Indicators C. Leveraging 132. The need for greater attention to project indicators is a clear message from the 1998 136. GEF should adopt a broader definition review. It is also essential for the longer term, of leveraging for its programs and projects phased approach described above to work. that reflects financial resources-both GEF's implementing agencies must make during design and implementation-and firm commitments to retrofit each ongoing actions catalyzed by GEF activities. In the project with a significant implementation future, reporting on project performance, period still remaining with indicators that including for PIRs, should reflect this broader measure progress toward its objective. definition. The precise details of such a broader definition should be developed during 1999 133. Two priorities for indicator development under the leadership of the GEF secretariat. were identified during the review. First, GEF should give more attention to analyzing D. Topics for In-Depth capacity needs, and defining indicators to Review for 1999 PIR measure the results sought from its capacity building efforts. Second, the international 137. Four topics were identified for in-depth waters task force and the secretariat's M&E review during 1999 as a result of the PIR. team should produce guidance to assist Specific plans for these thematic reviews will countries in understanding the purpose of be developed by the corporate M&E team in GEF's framework of international waters conjunction withGEFSECprogram managers project indicators, choose indicators appro- and the IAs. They may include detailed desk priate to each activity, and monitor progress in reviews, focus groups or workshops with achieving them. Guidelines for conducting project managers, and possibly limited field Transboundary Diagnostic Analyses (TDAs) visits. The objective of these reviews is to build and Strategic Action Programs (SAPs) should on the 1998 and previous PIRs to identify more be issued. comprehensively the lessons from experience and define more precisely issues requiring 134. As indicators and M&E systems focus on further evaluation. The results of these reviews longer term results, there will be a need to should be available for the 1999 PIR. The four rethink how resources are programmed for topics are: monitoring and evaluation. Funding these activities only through projects will not be * Achieving financial sustainability in sufficient, since many of the results they will biodiversity projects: be designed to measure will occur after project activities and supervision are completed. 39 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report * Experience with GEF-funded off-grid PV F. The Role and Purpose projects, including their potential impact of the PIR on global greenhouse gas emissions; 139. Finally, the individual task force reviews imExplerenceat vith arraemultsi-nt Gand the interagency PIR meeting included useful discussions of the role, purpose, and projects, including their requirements for future direction of GEF's annual collaboration among lAs and with other implementation reviews. There was consensus organizations; and that the increasing number of projects included in the review made it difficult for each PIR to * The overall progress of countries receiving cover all topics of interest in satisfactory depth. GEF assistance in the ozone focal area in Therefore, future reviews should be more implementing their ODS phase-out focused around key cross-cutting issues, while programs. retaining a comprehensive tracking of performance and underlying forces. It was agreed that the quality and depth of reporting E. Dissemination of PIR must be improved. But even when this was Findings done, caution was expressed about the extent to which lessons could confidently be identified 138. More needs to be done to disseminate the solely from the PIR process. Rather, the PIR findings of the PIRs and project and program was viewed as a good scoping exercise, that is evaluations; use the results of the reviews to a process to identify themes or issues that identify important topics for more in-depth deserve follow-up through more in-depth assessment by GEF's M&E program, STAP, evaluations and studies, including STAP and others; and feed back the lessons of selective reviews. The points raised in these experience into new project and program discussions will be reflected in the guidelines design. for the 1999 project implementation review. 40 APPENDIX A LIST OF PROJECTS INCLUDED IN 1998 PIR Multi focal areas Work ~ IA Effective US$ Disbursed as IA Project Description Wor (k Approval Date U S S disbursed . Program (A) (B) (C) millions of 6/30/98 disbursed 1 GEFSEC PRINCE Jul-93 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 2.40 55.81 Total 6.90 Biodiversity _ IA Project Descri ption Work IA Effective US$ Disbursed as % [A Project Description Program (A) Approval Date millions of 6/30/98 disbursed (B) (C) 1 WB ALGERIA El Kala National Park/Wetlands May-91 Apr-94 Sep-94 8.99 3.37 37.49 2 UNEP BD Country Studies Phase 1 Dec-91 Mar-92 Mar-92 5.00 4.51 90.20 3 UNEP BD Country Studies Phase 2 Dec-92 Jun-94 Jun-94 2.00 1.57 78 50 4 UNDP BELIZE Sustainable Development in Dec-91 Feb-93 Mar-93 3.00 2.70 90.00 Coastal Resources 5 WB BHUTAN Trust Fund for Conservation May-91 May-92 Nov-92 10.35 10.51 101.55 6 UNEP Biodiversity Data Management Dec-92 Jun-94 Jun-94 4.00 3.78 94.43 7 WB BOLIVIA Biodiversity Conservation Apr-92 Nov-92 Jul-93 4.62 4.42 95.67 8 WB BRAZIL National Biodiversity Project May-91 Apr-96 Dec-96 10.00 1.03 10 30 9 WB BRAZIL Biodiversity Fund Project May-91 Apr-96 Sep-96 20.00 10.00 50.00 10 UNDP BURKINA FASO Nazinga Ranch Dec-92 Feb-95 Jul-95 2 43 2.43 100.00 11 WB CAMEROON Biodiversity Conservation May-93 Mar-95 Dec-95 5.96 2.21 37.08 and Management 12 WB CHINA Nature Reserves Management Feb-95 Jun-95 Aug-95 17.90 9.40 52.51 13 UNDP COLOMBIA Biodiversity Conservation in May-91 Feb-92 Feb-92 9.00 8 21 91.23 the Choco Region 14 WB CONGO Wildlands Protection May-91 Mar-93 Oct-93 10.05 6.50 64 68 15 UNDP COSTA RICA Conservation of La Sep-91 Apr-93 May-93 7.99 7.99 100 00 Amistad and Osa Conservation Areas 16 UNDP COTE D'IVOIRE Aquatic Weeds Control Dec-92 Jun-95 Nov-95 3 00 0.70 23.48 17 UNDP CUBA Protecting Biodiversity and Sep-91 Jul-93 Dec-93 2.00 1.94 96.84 Establishing Sustainable Development Sabana-Camaguey Ecosystem 18 WB CZECH Republic Biodiversity Protection Dec-91 Oct-93 Jan-94 2.30 1 86 80.87 19 UNDP DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Conservation Oct-93 Nov-93 May-94 3.00 2.03 67.67 and Management of Biodiversity in the I iCoastal Zone 20 WB ECUADOR Biodiversity Protection Apr-92 May-94 Jul-94 7.20 6 52 90.56 21 WB EGYPT Red Sea Coastal/Marine Apr-92 Nov-92 Dec-94 5.29 2.11 39 89 Resource Management 22 UNDP ETHIOPIA Conservation of Plant Dec-92 Apr-94 Sep-94 2 50 0.80 31.86 _ ______ Genetic Resources 23 UNDP GABON Effective Management of May-91 Jan-94 Jul-94 1.00 0 73 73.00 _ ______ Wildlife Trade 24 WB GHANA Coastal Wetlands Dec-91 Aug-92 Mar-93 7.32 2.88 39.34 25 UNEP Global Biodiversity Assessment Dec-92 May-93 May-93 3.30 3 13 94 85 26 UNDP GUATEMALA Conservation and May-95 Apr-97 Apr-97 4.00 0.87 21.65 Sustainable Development of the Motagua Region 27 UNDP GUYANA lwokrama Rain Forest May-91 Apr-92 Feb-93 3.00 2.71 90.25 _ ______ Programme I _ _ 28 WB INDIA Ecodevelopment Sep-96 Dec-96 19.70 3.09 15.69 41 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report 29 WB INDONESIA Biodiversity Collections Apr-92 Jun-94 Jul-94 748 5.31 70.99 30 WB INDONESIA Kerinci Sablat Integrated May-95 Apr-96 Aug-96 13.70 0.72 5.26 Conservation and Development 31 UNDP JORDAN Dana/Azrak 11 Aug-96 Oct-96 Apr-97 1.95 0.64 33.09 32 WB LAO PDR Wildlife and Protected Areas May-91 Mar-04 Jan-95 4.96 2.19 44.15 Conservation 33 UNDP LEBANON Protected Areas Feb-96 Feb-96 Feb-96 2.50 0.84 33.41 34 WB MADAGASCAR Second Environment Aug-96 Dec-96 Jun-97 20.80 0.65 3.13 Support Program (EP2) 35 WB MALAWI Lake Malawi/Nyasa Biodiversity Dec-91 Dec-94 Jul-95 5.00 3.27 65.40 Conservation 36 WB MAURITIUS Biodiversity Restoration May-95 Nov-95 Feb-96 1.20 0.62 51.67 37 UNDP MAURITIUS Restoration of Native Forest May-93 Jun-95 Jun-95 0.20 0.08 40.00 38 WB MEXICO Protected Areas Program May-91 Mar-92 Apr-93 26.10 26.10 100.00 39 WB MOZAMBIQUE Transfrontier Dec-92 Dec-96 May-97 5.00 0.70 14.00 Conservation Areas 40 UNDP NEPAL Biodiversity Conservation Dec-91 Jun-93 Sep-93 3.80 2.75 72.34 41 UNDP PANAMA Biodiversity Conservation in Jan-92 Feb-94 May-94 2.00 1.37 68.40 Darien Region 42 UNDP PAPUA and NEW GUINEA Conservation Dec-91 Jul-93 Oct-94 5.00 4.81 96.27 and Resource Management Programme 43 WB PERU National Trust Fund for Protected Dec-91 Mar-95 Sep-95 5.00 5.22 104.40 _ ______ Areas 44 WB PHILIPPINES Conservation of Priority May-91 May-94 Oct-94 19.01 5.15 27.09 _ ______ Protected Areas 45 UNDP REGIONAL - INDONESIA AND MALAYSIA May-93 Dec-94 Dec-94 2.00 0.97 48.50 Conservation Strategy for Rhinos in I___ _ Southeast Asia__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 46 UNDP REGIONAL Ecologial Zoning and Geographic May-91 Jan-93 Mar-93 4.50 4.22 93.78 Monitoring of the Amazon River 47 UNDP REGIONAL South Pacific Biodiversity Jan-92 Jan-93 Apr-93 6.27 6.02 95.95 (Samoa) 48 WB ROMANIA Danube Delta Biodiversity Apr-92 Aug-94 Feb-95 4.50 2.75 61.11 49 WB RUSSIA Biodiversity Conservation Dec-94 May-96 Nov-96 20.10 2.57 12.79 50 WB SEYCHELLES BiodiversityConservation Dec-91 Nov-92 Mar-93 1.80 1.85 102.78 & Marine Pollution Abatement 51 WB SLOVAK Republic Biodiversity Protection Dec-91 Sep-93 Oct-93 2.48 2.18 87.90 52 UNDP SRI LANKA Wildlife Conservation Dec-91 Jan-92 May-92 4.09 2.87 70.32 53 WB TURKEY In-Situ Conservation of Genetic Apr-92 Mar-93 Mar-93 5.40 4.64 85.93 Biodiversity 54 WB UGANDA Bwindi and Mgahinga Gorilla May-91 Jan-95 Jul-95 4.00 4.35 108.75 National Park Conservation 55 WB UKRAINE Danube Delta Biodiversity Apr-92 Jul-94 Aug-94 1.61 1.28 79.50 56 UNDP VIETNAM Wildlife Conservation May-91 Jan-92 Jul-92 3.00 3.00 100.00 57 WE West Africa Pilot Community Based Natural May-91 Sep-95 May-96 7.02 1.11 15.81 Resource and Wildlife Mgmnt Project Total 375.38 Climate Change Work ~ IA Effective US$ Disbursed as IA Project Description PrWork Approval Date millions of 6/30198 disbursed Program (A) (B) (C) milos o6/09 dsbre 1 UNDP BENIN - Carbon Sequestration & Dec-92 Jul-93 Jan-94 2.50 2.01 80.32 Rangeland 2 UNDP BRAZIL - Biomass Integrated Sep-92 Sep-92 8.12 7.97 98.15 Gasification/Gas Turbine 3 UNDP BRAZIL - Biomass Power Generation: Apr-96 Mar-97 Oct-92 3.75 1.08 28.73 _ ______ Sugar Cane Bagasse and Trash 4 UNDP CHILE Reduction of GH Gas Emissions May-92 Jun-95 Jun-95 1.70 0.71 41.53 42 Appendix A: List of Projects Included in the 1998 PIR 5 UNDP CHINA Development of Coal-Bed Methane Apr-92 Apr-92 Jun-92 10.00 10.00 100.00 Resources 6 WB CHINA Efficient Industrial Boilers Apr-96 Dec-96 Feb-97 32.81 1.50 4.57 7 UNDP CHINA Promoting Methane Recovery Apr-96 May-97 5 29 1 86 35.25 and Utilization from Mixed Municipal Refuse 8 WB CHINA Sichuan Gas Transmission Apr-92 Jan-94 Sep-94 10.71 2.15 20.07 9 WB COSTA RICA Tejona Wind Power Dec-93 Dec-93 Nov-95 3.30 0.00 0.00 10 UNEP Country Case studies on Greenhouse Dec-91 Jul-92 Sep-92 4.50 4.32 96 00 Gases 11 UNEP Country Studies on Climate Change Impacts + Feb-95 Feb-96 Mar-96 2.00 1.82 91 00 Adaptation Assessments 12 UNEP Economics of Greenhouse Gas Limitations Feb-95 Mar-96 Apr-96 3.00 0 86 28.67 13 UNDP GLO Climate Change Capacity Building May-93 Jan-94 Sep-95 2.00 0 65 32.43 14 UNDP GLO Research on Methane May-91 Jan-92 Jan-93 5.00 _ _____ Emissions from Rice Fields 15 UNDP GLO Training Programme on Climate Change May-95 Mar-96 Mar-96 2.56 2.14 83.49 _ - (CC:TRAI N) 16 UNDP GLOBAL Alternative to Slash and Burn Jun-96 Jun-96 Jun-96 2.94 Agriculture (Phase II) 17 WB HUNGARY Energy Efficiency Co-Financing Apr-96 Mar-97 May-97 5.00 0.00 0.00 _ ______ Program . . 18 WB INDIA Alternate Energy Dec-91 Dec-92 Apr-93 27 62 20.10 72.77 19 UNDP INDIA Bio-methanation Process Jan-92 Jan-94 Mar-94 5.50 1.57 28.55 20 UNDP IND A Optimizing Development of Small Jan-91 Jan-94 Mar-94 7.50 2.97 39.60 Hydel Resources in the Hilly Regions of India _ _ _ 21 WB IRAN Teheran Transport Emissions Apr-92 Oct-93 Jan-94 2.17 2.13 98.16 Reduction _ _ 22 WB JAMAICA Demand Side Management May-93 Mar-94 Aug-94 4.10 1 71 41 71 Demonstration 23 WB LITHUANIA Klaipeda Geothermal May-95 Sep-96 Oct-96 6.90 3.48 50.43 I __I__I Demonstration _ 24 WB MALI Household Energy Project Dec-92 Jun-95 Oct-95 2.50 1.21 48 40 25 UNDP MAURITANIA- Decentralized Wind Electrc Dec-92 Jun-94 Sep-94 2.08 2.07 99 47 Power for Social and Economic Development |I_____ 26|WB MAURITIUS- Sugar Bio-Energy Technology May-91 Mar-92 Dec-93 3.38 3.39 100.30 27 WB MEXICO High Efficiency Lighting Pilot Dec-91 Mar-94 Feb-95 10.71 10 72 100.09 28 WB MOROCCO Repowering of Power Plant Dec-92 Sep-94 Apr-96 6.08 0.37 609 29 UNDP PAKISTAN Fuel Efficiency Transport Sector Jan-92 Jul-95 May-96 7.00 0 41 5.84 30 WB PHILIPPINES Leyte-Luzon Geothermal May-91 Jun-94 Mar-95 31 69 26.79 84.54 31 WB POLAND Coal-to-Gas Project Dec-91 Nov-94 Jun-95 24 92 0.85 3 41 32 WB POLAND Efficient Lighting Project (PELP) Dec-94 May-95 Aug-95 5.00 4.70 94.00 33 UNDP REGIONAL Asia Least Cost GHG Dec-91 Aug-93 Aug-94 9.50 5.47 57.58 _Abatement Strategy (Philippines) ALGAS 34 UNDP REGIONAL Building Capacity in Mahgreb May-93 Sep-94 Dec-94 2.37 0 41 17.24 for CCC (Morocco) 35 UNDP REGIONAL Cote d'lvoire Senegal Energy Dec-92 Dec-94 Sep-95 3 50 2.06 58 98 Efficiency 36 WB REGIONAL Planning for Adaptation to May-95 Mar-97 Apr-97 5 91 1.42 24.03 Climate Change (Caribbean) CARICOM 37 WB RUSSIA Greenhouse Gas Reduction Dec-92 Dec-95 Dec-96 3.20 0.29 9.06 38 UNDP SUDAN Community-Based Rangeland Aug-94 Aug-94 Oct-94 1.50 0.90 60.19 39 UNDP TANZANIA - Electricity, Fuel and Fertilizer May-93 Dec-93 Mar-94 2.50 0.74 29.68 from Municipal and Industrial Organic Waste TAKAGAS 40 WB THAILAND Promotion of Electricity Dec-91 Apr-93 Nov-93 10.12 5.98 59.09 Energy Efficiency 41 WB TUNISIA So ar Water Heating May-93 Nov-94 May-95 4.05 0.66 16.30 42 UNDP ZIMBABWE - Photovoltaics Dec-92 Feb-92 Feb-92 4.59 4.30 93.75 Total 299.56 43 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report International Waters I A Proj ect Des cri ption Work IA Effective US$ Disbursed as d IA Project Description Program (A) Apoa Dte millions of 6/30/98 disbursed (B) (C) 1 UNDP EGYPT - Lake Manzala Engineered Dec-92 Jun-97 Jun-97 4.50 0 44 9 82 Wetlands 2 WB JORDAN Gulf Aqaba Environmental Oct-95 Jun-96 Jun-96 2.70 0.53 19.63 Action Plan 3 UNDP REGIONAL Environmental Management May-92 Dec-92 Oct-94 9.30 9.23 99 25 & Protection of the Black Sea (Turkev) 4 UNDP REGIONAL Gulf of Guinea Dec-91 Oct-93 Jul-94 6.00 3.80 63 33 5 WB REGIONAL Lake Victoria Environmental Apr-96 Jul-96 Mar-97 35.00 2.38 6.80 Management Project 6 WB REGIONAL OECS Ship-Generated Dec-92 May-95 Nov-96 12.51 0.48 3.84 Waste Mgmt (Caribbean) 7 UNDP REGIONAL Pollution Control and Other Dec-91 Oct-93 Feb-95 10 00 4.97 49.72 measures to Protect Biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika 8 UNDP REGIONAL South East Asian Seas Dec-91 Jul-93 Nov-93 8 00 5 57 69.63 (Philippines) 9 UNEP REGIONAL Strategic Action Programme Nov-96 Apr-97 Mar-99 3.22 0 00 0 00 for the Binational Basin of the Bermejo River (Argentina - Bolivia) 10 WB REGIONAL Wider Caribbean Initiative May-93 Jun-94 Sep-94 5 50 2 93 53.27 for Ship-Generated Waste 11 UNDP YEMEN Marine Ecosystems of the May-92 Apr-93 Jun-93 2.80 1.62 57 86 Red Sea Coast Total 99.53 Ozone Work IA Effective US$ Disbursed as % _ IA Project Description Program (A) Approval Date millions of 6/30/98 disbursed (B) (C) 1 WB BULGARIA ODS Phase-Out May-95 Nov-95 May-96 10.50 2 31 22.00 2 WB CZECH Republic - Phase Out of Dec-92 Aug-94 Dec-94 2.49 2.42 97.19 Ozone Depleting Substances 3 WB HUNGARY ODS Phase-Out May-95 Nov-95 Feb-96 6 90 5.89 85.36 4 WB RUSSIA ODS Consumption Phase-Out Apr-96 May-96 Sep-96 60.00 2.82 4.70 5 WB SLOVAK REP Investment Project for May-95 Jun-96 Nov-96 3 50 2.66 76.00 the Phase Out of Ozone Depleting Substances in the Production of Refrigerators and Freezers 6 WB SLOVENIA Phase Out of Ozone Depleting May-95 Nov-95 Dec-95 6.20 5.90 95.16 ________ Substances Total 89.59 Grand Total | 870.951 405.40 46.55 44 APPENDIX B DEFINITION OF RATINGS USED IN 1998 PIR Assumption and Risk Ratings The risk that individual assumptions relevant to the project may not prove to be accurate and, thus, may seriously affect implementation or prospects for achieving project objectives, should be rated on the following scale: High (H) There is a probability of greater than 75% that the assumption may fail to hold or materialize. Substantial (S) There is a probability of between 51% and 75% that the assumption may fail to hold or materialize. Modest (M) There is a probability of between 26% and 50% that the assumption may fail to hold or materialize. Low (L) There is a probability of less than 25% that the assumption may fail to hold or materialize. Imiplemnentationz Progress Ratings Highly Satisfactory (HS) Implementation of all components is in substantial compliance with the original (or formally revised) implementation plan for the project. Satisfactory (S) Implementation of most components is in substantial compliance with the original/formally revised plan except for a few that are subject to remedial action. Unsatisfactory (U) Implementation of most components is not in substantial compliance with the original/formally revised plan but remedial action has been agreed. Highly Unsatisfactory (HU) As in "U", but remedial action has not been agreed. Global Environment/Development Objective Ratings Highly Satisfactory (HS) Project is expected to achieve or exceed all its major global environment/development objectives and yield substantial global environment benefits. Satisfactory (S) Project is expected to achieve most of its major global environmental/development objectives and to yield satisfactory global environmental benefits without major shortcomings. Unsatisfactory (U) Project is expected not to achieve most of its major global environmental/development objectives nor to yield substantial global environmental results. Highly Unsatisfactory (HU) Project is expected not to achieve any of its major global environment/development objectives nor to yield worthwhile global environmental results. 45 APPENDIX C.1 UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY Project Implementation Review 1998 Summary Performance and Lessons Learned Overview I INTRODUCTION implementation phase. This year's PIR shows that for every dollar (US) invested by the GEF 1.1 M&Ein UNDP and the PIR process in UNDP/GEF projects, an additional 3.45 dollars are secured in co-financing during The annual GEF Project Implementation preparation and implementation. Review (PIR) has become an integral part of UNDP's regular monitoring system composed The PIR reports for individual projects are the of the Tripartite Project Review (TPR), the result of a collaborative effort, reflecting the Annual Programme/Project Report (APR), the views of UNDP/GEF Country Office focal Mid-term Report, and the Final Completion points, regional coordinators, and technical Report. For UNDP/GEF the PIR is the advisors.Inthissense,thePIRisaUNDPreview moment to take stock and review the reflecting UNDP/GEF's consolidated view on performance of its portfolio. its portfolio. The reporting format was sent electronically to UNDP Country Offices that This summary of the 1998 PIR combines have projects meeting the review criteria. At information provided by the specialized PIR headquarters, the regional coordinators and reporting forms, by UJNDP's monitoring and technical advisors reviewed the completed evaluation tools, and by other independent reports. evaluations and lessons learned studies. The purpose of the PIR is twofold: (a) to report on The UNDP/GEF portfolio encompasses a variety the performance of the UNDP/GEF portfolio of project types such as Full Projects, PDFs, to the GEF Council, and (b) to identify and PRIEFs, and Enabling Activities. According to the address new challenges and identify and disse- PIR selection criteria, the PIR reports on only a minate successful strategies and lessons that subset of the total portfolio. Enabling activities are emerging from project implementation. and projects, which were operationally Through the PIR and other M&E tools, completed before June 10,1997, are not included UNDP/GEF provides feedback to its project in the review. Projects, which started partners, and if necessary the unit supports implementation after June 30, 1997, are also corrective measures to ensure that each project excluded. is progressing according to the objectives and timetables stated in the project document. The review under the Regular PIR includes all full UNDP/GEF projects (excluding enabling The PIR is indispensable for continual activities, PRIFs, PDFs) that have been under improvement of the portfolio, and for implementation for more than one year as ofJune uncovering important information such as the 30, 1998. To be selected for the review, projects fact that the process of leveraging co- alsohadtohavetheirProjectDocumentssigned financing continues throughout a project's before June 30, 1997. 46 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies The review under the Status PIR TABLE 1: NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECTS INCLUDED includes all projects (including IN THE PIR BY REGION PDFs, and PRIFs), which were approved by the GEF Council Region Full Status Total before June 30, 1996, but which Report Report have not yet been formally Global 3 0 3 approved (ProDoc Signature). It Africa 13 8 21 also includes all projects that have Asia & Pacific 13 5 18 had their ProDocs signed before Arab States 6 1 6 September 30, 1997, but which LatinAmerica& 11 0 16 have not yet begun disbursement. Caribbean Total 47 20 67 It is important to recognize that the vast majority (90%) of projects included in the PIR review are still TABLE 2: NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECTS INCLUDED Pilot Phase Projects. IN THE PIR BY FOCAL AREA Based on guidelines provided from Focal Area Full Status Total the GEF Secretariat, PIR reports ct Te Report Report cover all aspects of project Biodiversity 22 11 32 performance including imple- Climate Change 19 6 25 rnentation and impact rating, International Waters 6 2 7 leveraging, capacity building, MulotnFoal 0 1 0 stakeholder involvement, and Total 47 20 67 lessons learned. 1.2 StatisticalAnalysis Table 4 clearly shows that UNDP/GEF is moving towards national execution of its The geographical distribution of projects projects. Already more than 60% of UNDP/ included in the PIR reveals that Africa, Asia & GEF projects are nationally executed which Pacific, and Latin America & Caribbean account contributes to enhanced national ownership each for approximately one quarter of all projects of GEF projects and builds national capacity. reviewed under the PIR. Europe & CIS and Arab States account for approximately 10% of the 2 TRENDS AND LESSO,S LEARNED remaining PIR projects. Large scale pipeline development and proj ect implementation in the 2.1 Cross Cutting Issues Arab States and Europe & CIS region has started later than in the other regions, which explains 2. 1.1 Capacity Development the small number of projects from those regions in the present PIR. The distribution by focal area GEF goals such as sustainability, leveraging, shows that Biodiversity and Climate Change projects awareness raising, and many other overriding each account for approximately 45% of the total objectives can only be achieved by enhancing number of projects included in the PIR review, the human and institutional capacities of Intemational Waters projects represent approximately recipient countries. The 1997 PIR highlighted 10% of all PIR projects. There are a number of IW the importance of consultations, inter- projects which have started implementation recently . . . .re and will be included in next year's PIR. institutional networking, and awareness raising. UNDP/GEF's capacity development 47 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report TABLE 3: FINANCIAL DATA FOR ALL UNDP/GEF PROJECTS AS OF FY 1998 Region April 91-Jun 98 April 91-Jun 98 Jan 92-Jun 98 Total Authorized Total Approved UNDP Total Actual Allocation (1) Budget (2) Expenditure (3) ($'000) (S'000) ($'000) Global 27,425 25,985 24,940 Africa 136,109 95,080 46,030 Asia & Pacific 165,310 118,095 72,700 Arab States 83,270 30,880 10,760 Europe & CIS 58,175 37,570 21,300 Latin America & 131,700 81,810 61,180 Caribbean Small Grants 38,900 38,900 28,670 Programme Total UNDP/GEF 640,889 428,320 265,580 Projects (1) Authorized allocation refers to GEF allocation approved by GEF Council or GEFSEC CEO. (2) Total approved UNDP budget refers to GEF allocation approved by UNDP as commitment. (3) Actual expenditure refers to the actual disbursed amounts. initiatives continue focusing on increasing to develop objectively verifiable indicators, human resource and institutional strengths; on which measure the application of the gained promoting networking and the creation of knowledge and the resulting benefits for the partnerships; on building public awareness; global environment. Projects usually use indirect and on providing decision makers wvith indicators such as "number of degrees and information and training conducive to the certificates earned," or "number of managers development of appropriate policies. introduced to new methodologies." Developing such capacities is one of the central missions of UNDP. Hence capacity Projects provide training and education through building measures are an integral part of a large variety of mechanisms such as: almost all UNDP/GEF projects. The 1998 PIR internships and scholarships; short-term tech- systematically reports quantitative and nical training; workshops; in-service training; qualitative data on human resource and staff exchanges; study tours; and many more. institutional development. Depending on the objective of the project, human capacity is built in areas such as: natural resource 2.1.1.1 Human Resource management; pollution response; international Development conventions and national regulations; risk assessment/risk management; natural resource Building human capacity through training and damage assessment; environmental impact education remains one of the cross-cutting assessment; GIS introduction; and many more. successes of The recipients of UNDP/GEF capacity building p r o j e c t s . TABLE4: EXECUTINGAGENCYTYPE efforts include However, it is key national and difficult to T Number Percentage local stakehold- measure the UNOPS 13 27% ers from govern- impact of the Other UN Agencies 4 8% ments, NGOs, training initia- Others 2 4% academic, and tives. More TOTAL 47 100% private sector work is needed institutions. 48 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies TABLE 5: PROJECT CONTRIBUTION TO INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Institution Government NGOs For Academic/ Others Profit Research _____Org. Institution Natl. Reg. Local Intl. Natl. Comm. Org Limited 53 21 41 19 14 6 17 10 12 Moderate 318 46 57 1 143 85 70 260 33 Substantial 239 65 175 10 36 164 6 127 15 TOTAL 610 132 273 30 193 255 93 397 60 * Information based on 37 projects Project examples include: institutions have benefited from UNDP/GEF capacity building initiatives. On average each * The Regional Gulfof Guineaproject trained project has enhanced the capacity of 54 more than 600 scientists, managers and institutions. The majority of these institutions government officials. Their skills were (43%) reported substantial increases in upgraded and they were exposed to new capacity. Most were governmental institutions approaches for pollution monitoring, either at the national, regional, or local level. information management, etc. 24% of the 2,000 institutions are NGOs, and another 20% are academic or research * The Lake Tanganyika project conducted a institutions. Ninety-two private sector large number of training courses in subjects organizations (4.6%) benefited from capacity such as fishing practices, environmental strengthening activities - an average of education methods, GIS introduction, almost 3 for-profit organizations per project. underwater survey training, etc. Table 5 summarizes the data gathered through the PIR process. * The Vietnam BD conservation project helped to build capacity through short-term 2.1.1.3 Conclusions and Lessons international scholarships and study tours. Learned * The Cuba Sabana-Camaguey project A capacity needs assessment seems to be a trained more than 500 people in fields fundamental requisite to effectively address related to GIS, biodiversity, environmental and tailor capacity building programmes to research, etc. recipient countries, institutions, and relevant stakeholders. During project design, * The Lebanon Protected Areas Project has eventually at the PDF B level, and at early build management expertise in a series of stages of implementation, more emphasis national NGOs which are today managing should be put on the identification of capacity three protected areas under an innovative needs. GEF-leveraged government mandate. Second phase projects such as the Belize 2.1.1.2 Institutional Development Coastal Zone Management project or proj ects that can build on the capacity of an existing Institutional development is the second pillar of institution can afford to spend less energy and capacity building efforts. All told, some 2,000 resources on capacity building. 49 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report People's motivation to participate in education institutions directly involved in projects. These and training measures and apply the new actions are reflected in greater awareness about knowledge depends very much on the global environmental issues, changed attitudes, enabling environment within the country. E.g., the establishment of new policies and a lack of legislation which could accord regulations, and new regulatory mechanisms. incentives to invest in renewable energy (tax The leveraged actions go beyond contributing compensation) discourages people from to project specific goals. They also help to create participating in capacity building efforts. an environment conducive to the achievement Other constraints include: deeply rooted of GEF, CBD, and UNFCC goals. mistrust and poor relations between project beneficiaries and government; rapid turnover Awareness of senior government officials. Capacity building and dissemination of The efforts of UNDP/GEF projects in building information leads to heightened awareness about human and institutional capacity are global environmental issues. For the majority demonstrated by the large number of people of GEF partners, issues related to the global trained and institutions strengthened. environment are still very new and are often not However, it is difficult to fully capture and perceived as the most important and urgent ones. measure the results or impacts of capacity With many countries struggling to resolve building efforts. More emphasis should be put economic, social, and political crises, it should on developing appropriate indicators for be recognized that UNDP/GEF projects are capacity building. The successes of projects playing an extremely important role by raising in terms of leveraging "actions" and financial awareness of the global environment in resources which is one of the cross-cutting situations where it would not be on the agenda issues of this year's PIR, could be interpreted at all. The recent evaluation of the SGP has also as one indicator. highlighted this key contribution. 2.1.2 Leveraging Project examples include: Leveraging has many dimensions. This year's * The Jordan Dana/Azraq II and Lebanon PIR is the first attempt to capture and fully Protected Areas projects have contributed report on leveraging efforts of UNDP/GEF towards enhancement of the overall enabling projects. The leveraging report is divided into environment for conservation through (a) "actions" leveraged and (b) financial awareness raising and dissemination efforts. resources leveraged. Financial leveraging can be seen as a result or indicator of leveraged * The Zimbabwe PV project reports that actions such as greater awareness or changed project activities have led to more extensive attitudes. However, since our partners are not media coverage of global environmental familiar with the process of reporting on issues. leveraging, and because definitions need to be further refined, the information captured * The Black Seaproject reports that proposals in PIR reports will not be complete until were discussed to introduce special chapters reporting on leveraging becomes a well on ecology and environment protection into established feature of the PIR. school education manuals. 2.1.2.1 Actions "leveraged" Attitudes Projects have stimulated and initiated a wide Attitudinal change amongst key actors is an range of actions internal and external to important prerequisite for impacting the course 50 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies of action beyond the scope of specific projects. Changed attitudes result in changed actions, which are sometimes The East Asian Seas project has difficult to capture in a reporting format such as the PIR. increased awareness and Nevertheless, attitudinal change is a strong indicator for concern among participating leveraging, sustainability, and replication, countries regarding marine pollution and associated issues such as biodiversity conservation, One way to help facilitate attitudinal change amongst decision- transboundary pollution, land makers is through successful demonstration of new degradation, sea level rise, etc. technologies or new approaches. Participatory approaches This is reflected in the move by have proven to be successful, e.g., in the Colombia Choco countries to ratify and implement project and India s Hilly Hydel and GHG projects. State international conventions on governments in India are changing their policies to foster prevention of marine pollution- participation in setting up hydropower projects. The Hilly more than 30 since the Hydel project has demonstrated that the participation of local coTeencetnt t of the project. communities is a key determinant of success in the capacities, and financial establishment and operation of hydropower projects. commitments have been integrated into the local Some projects (e.g., Regional South Pacific BD project and governments' planning, Guayana Rain Forest project) report that the creation of operational, and fiscal cycle. employment opportunities for beneficiaries and income Private sector support and public generating activities (ecotourism, etc.) has helped to change awareness have also been community's attitudes and practices towards wildlife strengthened, therebyiensuring preservation. future actions. Replication of ICM sites has occurred at three sites Other project examples include the following: in China, and is planned for three sites in the Philippines. Other * Private sector involvement in the Regional Gulf of Guinea participating countries (Malaysia, project resulted in attitude change amongst decision- Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, makers in the private sector who are now more amenable Cambodia, and DPR Korea) have ,>, >, . / . . ~~~~~~~expressed a desire to set up ICM to cooperation. The success of the Brazil Biomassproject sites,ea a folo-o to of the J ~~~sites, as a follow-on action of the has contributed to Shell's decision to create a new existing project. company dealing with renewable energy resources. * The Belize Coastal Zone Management project has helped to ensure the designation of a World Heritage Site, which will direct other donor funding to the project area and ensure environmentally sound practices by the private sector, e.g. in sewage and solid waste disposal methods. * The Global Alternatives to Slash & Burn project highlights that as a result of attitudinal change environmental considerations are now being incorporated into national projects as a routine matter. For example, the Indonesian government has decided that all future environmental planning research should incorporate the ASB approach. Policies and Legislation Projects have helped leverage development of new policies and regulations by providing law makers with information on win-win outcomes, co-formulating legislation, and demonstrating that existing legislation can be applied. 51 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report Projects provide important technical * The formulation of National Action Plans background information for lawmakers who on Climate Change in East Asian countries use them as a basis for decision making. builds on results achieved through the Projects have even been requested on occasion Regional ALGAS project. by national environmental authorities to submit papers, concepts and technical reviews * The Guatemala Motagua Region project has for environmental legislation and review significantly contributed towards existing laws and co-formulate new decentralization of protected area legislation. Outstanding examples are: management. Colombia Choco, Cuba Sabana-Camaguey, Vlietnani Conservation Training, and Regional * The Guyana Rain Forest project has paved East Asian Seas. the way for other activities and programmes such as Chinas Coal Bed Methane The Colombia Choc6 project has development of the project highlights that new contributed not only to the National Protected Areas sets of policies and production of information and System, the establishment regulations combined with knowledge but also, and perhaps of the Environmental the creation of a new entity more importantly, to the Protection Agency, the development of innovative to promote and manage the methodological tools and strategic strengthening of the new technology are clear instrumentsforbasicandapplied Guyana Forest Com- indicators that the project has research by the scientific community mission, and the National helped to overcome barriers and traditional knowledge bearers, Resources Management strengthening of sustainable and initiated the restructuring productive practices, community Project all of which of market segments. participation in decision-making represent advances in processes, project management at policy and legislation. Some more examples of the grassroots level, social communication, ethno- policy and legislative reform environmental education and inter- * The Regional South catalyzed by UNDP/GEF institutional territorial management. Pacific BD project has projects include: The experience acquired by the influenced government Project in developing a participatory decision-makers to extend * The Belize Coastal Zone strategy and mechanisms is viewed ManagemBentz projecthas Zoas a model for other GEF projects a moratorium on commer- Management project has as well as some national, regional cial harvesting of sea contributed towards and local institutions. turtles. development of a legis- lative framework (CZM * The Gulf of Guinea Act) and establishment of States have adopted the a CZM authority. "Accra Declaration," which is a direct result of the Regional Gulf of Guinea project. * The Regional Maghreb GHG project has contributed towards integration of 2.1.2.2 Financial Leveraging environmental impact assessment procedures into current policies. The recent Berlin LogFrame workshop has shown that actors within the GEF family * The Regional African Energy Efficiency interpret terminology differently. Part of the project has proposed a regulatory problem is that some terms have different framework for energy efficiency in connotations within the lAs. The terms buildings. "leveraging," "co-financing," and "associated 52 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies financing" cause particular problems as they agenda as more immediate problems. This imply different things within GEF and UNDP. shift in national priorities demonstrates clear In order to promote discussion and with a view national commitment to conservation goals towards standardizing use of terminology, a and should be considered as a source of co- definition of these terms is provided. financing to the proj ect. Definition of financial leveraging (financial Only a fraction of leveraged resources is leveraging = co-financing): Monies leveraged currently captured in the existing formats, in association with a GEF project to address namely those amounts which have been global environmental objectives. This includes leveraged up front during project preparation funds to reach the sustainable development and are reflected as co-financing in the project baseline. Two types of leverage may be budget. Resources leveraged during project distinguished: implementation are reported for the first time in the 1998 PIR. 1. Complementary funds: New and additional monies leveraged to address the UNDP/GEF projects have leveraged 3.45 global environmental problem. This can additional dollars for each dollar allocated by include activities in the country's national GEF. Leveraged resources of the 47 projects sustainable development interest, required included in the regular PIR amount to US$623 to fortify the baseline, or a portion of the million (includes: co-financing reflected in the incremental costs. budget + in-kind contributions + resources leveraged during implementation; excludes: 2. Substitutional funds: Baseline activities associated financing). The sum of GEF that have been modified (thematically or financing for all full PIR projects amounts to spatially) in order to address the global US$181 million. From the total of US$623 environmental problem (this may include in- million only US$61 million (9%) are reflected kind contributions such as when a in the project budgets as co-financing, government agency reallocates staff time or constituting leveraging during project office space, or cash outlays). The leverage preparation. relates to the amounts substituted. This is the first time that UNDP/GEF has Definition of Associated Financing: Funding captured systematically leveraged resources associated with achievement of global in its reporting apart from the regular reporting environmental objectives that would be on co-financing and associated financing. appropriated irrespective of GEF intervention Although the definition of "leveraging" has (associated financing = realistic baseline). to be further refined the PIR brings to light the extraordinary capacity of our projects to Clarity needs to be brought to the relationship mobilize resources for global environmental between co-financing and leveraging. UNDP protection. treats financial and in-kind resources leveraged to cover sustainable development activities, Financial leveraging has many dimensions. It necessary to capture global benefit, as co- includes subsidies from project partners, financing. The rationale is, that without this follow on investments, support of specific leveraged support, the proj ect would not be able project activities, and soft loans from revolv- to achieve its objectives, and even though it may ing funds. The leveraged resources come from be in the national interest to conduct these a multiplicity of sources such as private and activities, they may not be as high on the national public companies, governments, UNDP and 53 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report other UN agencies, regional development and the Guyana Rain Forest project have been banks, bilateral agencies, and NGOs. successful in leveraging funds from the UNDP/ Capacity 21 window and stimulated In several projects with strong private sector collaboration with UNDP's Global Programme involvement, participating companies are on Forests. The UNDP Country Office in subsidizing the project by contributing Lebanon has worked with FFEM on the budgetary resources to cover costs related to formulation of a Wetlands/Coastal component travel, communication, remuneration, and of the Mediterranean Initiative, which amounts other administrative expenses. These to US$250,000 from FFEM to be managed subsidies are only partially reflected in the jointly by FFEM and Lebanon Protected Areas project budgets under "in-kind" contribution. project. In addition, the Lebanon project has In the case of the Brazil Biomass project these been extremely successful in mobilizing both the costs amount to approximately US$4 million. Arab and Lebanese private sector for contri- The same is true for projects with strong NGO butions to the project and well over US$250,000 involvement, e.g., in the Guatemala has now been mobilized from private Arab Montagua Region project. The level of businessmen and philanthropists through involvement in and support from private targeted fund raising by the NGOs and the companies for renewable energy technology project management team. projects is a clear indicator of the leveraging capacity of projects. Some other examples of successful financial leveraging efforts include: Furthermore, several successful UNDP/GEF projects in the climate change area have * The ALGAS project, which has leveraged attracted significant investments from the US$500,000 from the ADB; private sector. In the case of the China Coal Bed Methane project, these investments * The Costa Rica Osa-La Amistad project, amount to more than US$500 million. which has leveraged more than US$800,000 from government, bilaterals, and NGOs; Projects leverage funds to secure additional support for project activities which cannot be * The Colombia Choco project has secured funded directly through the project budget but almost US$5 million from government and which are complementary to the project and subcontractors; contribute to its development goals. The India GHG project has leveraged substantial * The Guatemala Motagua Region project: resources (approximately US$1.8 million) US$740,000 obtained from government and from the government, beneficiary bilaterals; organizations, and UNIDO to support proj ect activities in the leather sector. A revolving * The Guyana Rain Forest project US$8.3 fund created under the India Hilly Hydel million secured from bilaterals, and UN project has given soft loans to private programs such as Capacity 21 and ITTO; companies and a NGO for setting up demonstration projects. * The Regional South Pacific BD project: US$1 million from different sources; There are promising examples of co-financing from UNDP and other UN-agencies indicating * The Regional East Asian Seas project: UNDP's successes in its mainstreaming US$11.3 million. efforts. The Lebanon ProtectedAreas project 54 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies TABLE 6: IMPLEMENTATIONPROGRESS RATING 2.2 Performance Rating Project as a whole: Percentage Ninety percent of the projects reported that Highly Satisfactory 11% their implementation progress was either Satisfactor 80% Unsatisfactory 6.5% satisfactory or highly satisfactory. Highly Unsatisfactory 2.5% Implementation progress refers to: the TOTAL 100% delivery of inputs and achievement of outputs (focus on features such as workplan, timeliness, disbursement, procurement, TABLE 7: IMPACT RATING quality of technical advice, goods and services Project as a whole: Percentage_____________ - created, etc.). Only 9% of the projects HiPhoe Satisfactorl 34% reported unsatisfactory or highly unsatis- Satisfactory 60% factory progress. Explanations will be Unsatisfactory 6% provided under the focal area sections. One Highly Unsatisfactory 0% indicator for implementation progress is the TOTAL 100% average timing of disbursement. The PIR shows that the percentage of planned vs. actual expenditures for all full PIR projects is 82.9%. Ninety-four percent of the projects report learned satisfactory or highly satisfactory impact. Impact is understood as: contribution to GEF's Leveraging is much more than showing co- global objectives resulting in global financing 1S amounts mo than projectmbudgcenvironmental benefits (global objectives are financing~~~~~ amut in th prjc'ugt laid down in the four focal areas, and 10 Leveraging also refers to resources mobilized oatidown pogr fan area ually during project implementation and "actions" oprtoa rgas n r sal during project implementation and "actions" reflected in the development objective of the initiated such as awareness raising, attitude Project). changes, and changes in policies and regulations. oe Projects are reporting many examples of Only 6% of the projects report unsatisfactory successful leveraging. Leveraging in fact is a Only 6% aofacts impact unations raroesswhic strts n te prjec forulaionor highly unsatisfactory impact. Explanations process, which starts in the project formulation will be provided under the focal area sections. phase and continues during the project cycle. Only a small part of leveraged resources is documented (as co-financing) in the project 2.2.] ConclusionsandLessonsLearned budget. Large sums, leveraged during Ratings are reflecting UNDP/GEF's implementation, are not captured by the existing consolidated view on project performance. documentation. The PIR is the first attempt to Recently introduced tools such as the Logical report on leveraging. Framework approach and the identification of Recommendation: Definitions should be objectively verifiable indicators contribute to further refined in order to capture all relevant base the ratings on more solid ground. Ninety percent of all regular PIR projects have started resources and actions leveraged by GEFprojects. in the pilot phase where tools such as Indicators for leveraging should be developed LogFrame and indicators were not and consistently applied. UNDP/GEF suggests LogFrati calir c we r t that he GFSEC &E tam tgethe wit thesystematically introduced. The PIRs for the that the GEFSEC M&E team together with the y t increasingly benefit from lAs conduct a study to further explore this issue. years to come wof Lgreasmels and fran the introduction of LogFrame tools and rati5gs 55 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report TABLE 8: TYPE OF STAKEHOLDER INVOLVED IN THE 3 PHASES OF THE PROJECT CYCLE Government NGOs For Academic/ Others Project Profit Research Phase Org. Institution Natl. Reg. Local Intl. Nati. Comm. Org Design 39 13 12 16 18 13 11 30 7 Implem. 39 21 22 22 28 27 21 38 13 M&E 38 13 14 14 20 14 8 21 10 TOTAL 116 47 48 52 66 54 40 89 30 Information based on 43 projects will be based on obj ectively verifiable workshop but an ongoing task during the whole indicators. For the assessment of project project cycle. A phased approach would be impact many projects highlight that a longer extremely helpful in allowing projects to start assessment period is needed in order to make slowly, build trust amongst the maj or definite statements on trends in environmental stakeholders, and lay a solid ground for a quality. successful intervention. 2.3 Stakeholder Involvement 3 FOCAL AREA HIGHLIGHTS The 1997 PIR reported that several projects 3.1 Biodiversity have made substantive efforts to shift from consultation (passive participation) to active In the PIR 1998 there are 22 Biodiversityprojects involvement (active participation). These under active implementation: 2 projects under efforts continue, and are proving to be OPI (drylands), 6 projects under OP2 (coastal, essential in order to enhance stakeholder freshwater, marine), 12 projects under OP3 "ownership" of conservation initiatives. (forests), and 3 projects under OP4 (mountains). (Some projects contribute to more than one OP, Table 8 shows that projects are involving a but for simplicity they are assigned to just one broad range of stakeholders in all stages of of them). The percentages of projects in the PIR the project cycle. It is not surprising that the and in the various OPs roughly correspond to vast majority are involving govemment and their proportions in the overall portfolio. The academic institutions in design, total resource commitment from GEF for these implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. projects is about US$69 million. But it should be highlighted that community organizations and for-profit institutions are Iniplementation Progress also active partners in many projects. Sixty- twopercentoftheprojectsinvolvecommunity Except for the Panama Darien and the organizations in project implementation and Guatemala Montagua Region interventions, all 48% involve for-profit organizations. projects obtained at least a satisfactory implementation rating. Moreover, five projects 2.3. 1 Conclusions and Lessons Learned reported Highly Satisfactory implementation ratings. The Darien project has passed through Projects report that stakeholder involvement many difficulties, including local political is a process which needs time, dedication, and instability and high personnel turnover for also resources. Stakeholder Involvement is not various reasons, including the harsh living just a single event covered by a stakeholder conditions at the project site. UNDP just 56 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies Further examples of ex-post leveraged actions relate to education and awareness. Conservation education requires time to evoke attitudinal change, and needs to build a basic awareness and understanding among communities of conservation issues, before it is possible to have more in depth discussions of conservation needs, challenges, and strategies, and translate changing attitudes to conservation actions. One example is the successfully piloted innovative conservation education approaches in the Papua New Guinea Biodiversity Program, which in turn have served to bolster the conservation constituency. The program has forged linkages with local church groups working at the field site in Bismarck Ramu, developing messages that could be disseminated by pastors and other church personnel. This strategy builds on existing infrastructure and socio- cultural norms, although care has been taken not to show preference to any one group. Other projects have made heavy use of local radio, which provides an effective and cost-efficient means of reaching out to communities in remote locations. Increasing emphasis has been placed, throughout the portfolio, on raising the awareness of civil society on the genesis of conservation dilemmas, and the global and domestic benefits that accrue from biodiversity conservation. completed an independent evaluation of the the various disciplines or institutions strength- Darien project and will introduce measures to ened. However, to evaluate the long-term colTect the course of the project to ensure the impacts of these biodiversity conservation biodiversity of the Darien is protected. interventions, there is a need for longer term monitoring and evaluation systems to capture In Guatemala, project inception needed to forge these impacts. a mutual consensus between NGO and government partners regarding implementation Capacity development modalities and strategies. Although GEF projects encourage NGO participation in projects, One long-term impact of capacity building and collaboration is often hampered by mutual institutional strengthening will be an effective distrust between NGOs and government increase in the absorptive capacity in the agencies, or the dearth of existing working country for new conservation initiatives, and relationships, requiring an initial investment in in changing frameworks and attitudes towards conflict resolution (and longer lead times for conservation. Experience has shown (for design). These conflicts have recently been example in the Argentina Patagonia project) addressed, and progress has now been re- that success of projects is tightly related to established. the presence in the country of qualified NGOs that can professionally carry out the needed It is important to recognize that while planning and execution. In this PIR, several implementation progress is necessary for projects (Ethiopia Plant Genetics, Lebanon achieving impact, it is not a sufficient indicator ProtectedAreas, Mauritiuls Forests, Panama of impact. Darien) expressed that they could have benefited from the presence of more Impact technically qualified NGOs. Impact estimates of all biodiversity projects in Actions "leveraged" the FY 98 PIR indicate they are either likely, or very likely, to have significant impacts on the It becomes all the more important to capture biodiversity of recipient Party countries. ex-post impacts that also demonstrate evidence of country commitment, additional Presently, all projects report on indicators for to national commitments made at the time of the short-term impact, such as people trained in 57 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report submitting the project brief to Council for triggered by the GEF projects. The total amount approval. There is already some evidence of to be leveraged by these projects is still in how projects are starting to improve the progress. Recognizing that co-financing may overall country framework of attitudes be more effectively leveraged once new towards the CBD and conservation. For conservation prototypes have been demonstrated example, the Capacity Building and raises an important lesson. Conservation Demonstration project in Lebanon reports an opportunities may be enhanced by extending the important role in training people and in raising focus of fund raising activities to project national awareness about the importance of implementation phase, and by generating the CBD and the need to support it. Without residual capacity to continue raising funds after the project the degree of awareness among project completion, in addition to raising co- people about the CBD would be much smaller; financing during the design phase of the proj ect. with it a new set of national options is starting to unfold. Although in several cases Sustainability (Colombia Choc6, Burkina-Faso Nazinga Ranch, Cuba Sabana-Camaguey, Jordan In general, the menu of options for reaching Dana/Azraq), projects leveraged policies on sustainability is limited. This is an issue linked issues directly related to the proj'ect, in others to difficulties in capturing, in tangible terms, the the projects were also sought as a source of positive externalities of biodiversity advice for matters with important conservation. Projects report some success at consequences for the national biodiversity doing this. The Indonesia and Malaysia frameworks (for example, Jordan, Colombia). Conservation Strategy for Rhinos has sought to These are all very important actions leveraged achieve sustainability by developing eco-tourism by UNDP/GEF projects that, although not facilities at Way Kampas National Park in fully quantifiable yet, should not be dismissed. Sumatra; profits from the venture will be The existing M&E systems do not capture channelled to the field patrol units established leveraging in terms of long-term and profound to protect rhinos. Bridging funds have been impacts. New and additional capacity for long secured from other donor agencies to cover term (10 year horizon?) monitoring and recurrent costs until the eco-tourism venture is evaluation should be established. fully operational. However opportunities to internalize biodiversity externalities need to be Fiinancial leveraging more fully explored, through institution of "user pays" mechanisms and other fiscal instruments Similarly, experiences from project (thus capturing rent from productive sectors). implementation are showing that important In some cases, trust funds will still be needed to financial resources are being leveraged during cover the recurrent costs of management, project implementation, as well as after particularly in cases where economic constraints completion. Almost US$15.5 million of new mean that governments are unable to absorb resources were obtained by capacitated these costs, and where national turmoil project participants during project forecloses market opportunities for biodiversity implementation. The single most important conservation. new co-funding was for the Guyana project (US$8.3 million), but there were 11 other Recognizing the challenges of capturing long - projects (mostly Pilot Phase projects) that term solutions for sustainable use and brought new accumulated funding in amounts conservation of biodiversity emphasizes the need varying between USS200,000 to US$1.4 for short-term solutions to protect biodiversity million. More important than the absolute in the meantime. Attention needs to be paid to sums, in these cases are the conservation- enhancing basic policing, enforcement, and sustainability processes that have been outreach functions-while at the same time 58 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies seeking to involve local communities in that the time initially allocated to securing conservation efforts through integrated biodiversity global benefits was too conservation and development programs. Such optimistic, and another phase was needed. "carrot and stick" approaches, embodying both This PIR indicates that the Gabon and Burkina short-term response and longer term stabiliza- Faso projects may end up in this category. tion strategies, offer a blend of incentives and penalties to abet conservation management. A lesson emerging as projects enter finalization, and with second phase projects The success of early responses to a great extent now included in the PIR, is the need to select hinges on the performance of protected areas a realistic timeframe. An alternative to simply staff and other key conservation workers. By increasing the time ofproject intervention, or building new ranger quarters and upgrading park planning a second phase towards the end of infrastructure, the Costa Rica Biodiversity the first phase, is to lay out a benchmarked Conservation La Amistadproject has improved approach in designing projects. working conditions for rangers and other parks Benchmarking proj'ect interventions can personnel working at the forefront of reduce the risk of planning over a longer and conservation efforts in a bid to enhance work more realistic timeframe, if the release of incentives. Although several projects have paid funds is contingent on milestones being met. attention to this need, other opportunities for In some cases, benchmarking may be providing incentives need to be investigated. For orchestrated thematically, allowing social instance, the possibility of providing insurance mobilization, planning, and policy change to conservation workers forced to operate in followed by activities to fully mature the difficult conditions, with poor security (i.e., conservation process. Selecting benchmark Indonesia/Malaysia-Conservation Strategyfor indicators as a basis for moving to the next Rhinos project), could be considered. phase may include the mobilization of financial resources, evidence of policy or As part of its regular operations, UTNDP monitors regulatory change, where this is a necessary its projects and looks for lessons learned. During element of efforts to mitigate the root causes FY 98 UNDP prepared a desk study of coastal of biodiversity loss, and evidence of and freshwater projects (OP2) under imple- community commitment, such as sweat equity mentation and produced a guide for its Country inputs. Several projects (notably the PNG Offices that will help them in future project Biodiversity Conservation and Resource preparation. The document contrasts project Management Programme) have identified approaches with current best practice and makes indicators of community receptivity to and the practical suggestions for project design under social feasibility of biodiversity conservation. OP2. While these indicators are socio-culturally specific, they may be modified to suit Benchmarking prevailing socio-economic and other specific circumstances. Two projects (Belize, Cuba) and one PRIF (Pakistan) successfully completed a first phase The PIR provides good examples where and recently submitted to Council proj ect briefs benchmarking could have been advantageous. for a consolidation and final phase. In all these In Gabon, community-based conservation projects there were important capacity building contradicts existing laws on resource activities that led the proponents to management, hampering efforts to secure conceptualize the consolidation phase and, wider community participation in judging from their previous performance, are conservation efforts. Resolution of issues such likely to also be successful in the phase. As as these often requires considerable attention discussed in earlier PIRs, these projects showed to be paid at an early stage to advocacy-to 59 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report sensitize decision makers within key of the projects included in the PIR, governments institutions to the benefits of new strategies and various non-government and community- and approaches. In this case setting legal based organizations are regularly part of the reform as a benchmark for the next release of stakeholders, steering committees, and training funds could have had a positive impact in efforts. There is also often greater emphasis on creating the necessary conditions for securing women in biodiversity proj ects. This relates not community participation. only to the UJNDP-wide policy towards women, but to the role women play as custodians of BD Stakeholder Involvement in many settings. In general, stakeholder involvement (for example, Colombia, Panama, The 1997 PIR reported that several projects Guyana) increased during project execution. have made substantive efforts to shift from consultation (passive participation) to active Status Report Biodiversity involvement (active participation). These efforts continue, and are proving to be Eleven PDFs and PRIFs are listed in the slow essential in order to enhance stakeholder implementation category (Status Reports). "ownership" of conservation initiatives. The Colombia project suggests that greater efforts The India Eco-Development project produced a are needed to involve stakeholders at the project currently implemented by the WB. Only design stage of projects, to enable them to closure of this project is pending. articulate their perspectives and needs, and shape activity design. The South Pacific Three African PDFs have had delays due to Biodiversity project reports that getting all political unrest: Congo Protected Areas, Lesotho stakeholders involved in a constructive Mountains Biodiversity, and Upper Guinea dialogue has taken about two years. This Rainforest. As soon as situation permits, concurs with trends of generating stakeholder activities will continue. involvement found in other projects (for example, Costa Rica, Colombia, Darien, and India Gulf of Mannar has been slow in Guatemala). Such emerging trends are preparation but is expected to generate a Project showing that whereas stakeholder Brief very soon. Another India PDF, Andaman involvement is critical for project success, and Nicobar has a very slow start but has having them really committed to project goals recently commenced activities. and agreeing to participate as part of an integrated team, is challenging, time Regional Western Indian Ocean and White consuming, and perhaps one of the biggest Rhinos are stopped. In the Western Indian Ocean challenges in the implementation of case there is a discrepancy between GEFSEC biodiversity projects. These initiatives show and requesting countries in the goals of the that the process of engagement should not be project, whereas in the rhino case it is a short changed but rather allocated additional discrepancy among participants. time and resources (working within the constraints posed by absorptive capacity). TheBrazilJuruena Non-TimberForestProducts (NTFP) PDF has been delayed for lack of The complexities of generating stakeholder agreements on the scope with authorities. An participation is multiplied by the very wide interesting outcome of this PDF is that it was set of stakeholders often found in biodiversity found out that with current market prices and focal area projects when compared to other transport costs, concentrating on NTFP would focal areas. While the private sector is not be a feasible strategy for conservation in the typically not involved as a stakeholder perhaps region. Therefore the work has been re-focused because of the protected areas nature of many to treat NTFP as one element of a wider scope 60 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies brief that will soon be brought to bilateral executing agency, who have become consultations. extremely supportive and cooperative. The first such station established with project UNDP/GEF is concerned about the delays in the funds was opened at the end of September time required by some its PDFs and PRIFs in 1998. producing eligible Project Briefs, and is working to implement a procedure to expedite delivery. More than any other project in UNDP/GEF's climate change portfolio, the Chilean GHG 3.2 Climate Change Reduction project is the one that has been most overtaken by external events. Originally, this This year's PIR includes 19 climate change project had two elements: the first focusing projects that account for slightly more than US$ on improving the use of energy efficient 96 million. Although a few Pilot Phase projects motors in the Chilean mining sector and the were operationally completed previously, several second focusing on producing methanol from additional ones are winding down in this year. organic wastes. From the time when the initial Until now, the PIR has focused exclusively on project was approved, Argentine natural gas Pilot Phase Projects. This is the first year that made headway into the Chilean economy, the PIR has included proj ects from GEF 1. Future making it the source of arguably the cheapest PIRs can be expected to focus increasingly on methanol in the world. As a result, the GEFI projectsasthemoresuccessfulPilotPhase methanol portion of the project was projects become operationally completed. reformulated to focus on rural electrification through biomass gasification. This portion of In terms of breakdown by Operational Program, the project seems to be making satisfactory the fit is not perfect as most of these projects progress this year. However, the portion of preceded the programs. However, three projects the project dealing with efficient motors has deal very clearly with energy efficiency and more recently encountered problems. Having belong in OP5. Six projects focus on some convinced the mining industry that substantial expanded utilization of renewable energy, savings could be achieved, there has still been belonging to OP6. Two projects fit into OP7 and no interest in the establishment of a revolving four can be considered the full-project equivalent fund for the procurement of these motor drives of Pilot Phase enabling activities. The remainder, as the mining companies are largely interested considered short-term, include two carbon in and capable of self-financing the initiatives. sequestration/rangeland management programs, In addition, some of the interest in saving one coal-bed methane project, and one targeted electricity is being lost as, again due to the research and monitoring project. influx of natural gas and the privatization of the electricity sector, the price of electricity For the three projects under OP5, the Regional is expected to fall significantly over the African Energy Efficient Buildings project coming two years. As a result, the project is appears to be making very satisfactory headway. currently undergoing yet another Significant training has taken place and the reformulation. project is about to launch a program of demons- tration incorporating new, more energy-efficient With one notable exception (discussed elements into West African buildings. The below), all of the 6 projects that fall into the Pakistan Road Transport project finally seems realm of OP6 on renewable energy made to be getting off the ground, largely because the satisfactory progress this year. The Zimbabwe final impasse that was causing delays (i.e., PV project is being operationally concluded whether the demonstration tune-up stations this year and has surpassed its stated goal of should be nationally procured or procured via facilitating the dissemination of 9,000 PV UNIDO) was resolved in favor of the national systems. By current counts, nearly 10,000 61 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report systems have been distributed with the still has not been built. As this is being written, assistance of the project. The Mauritania the Tanzanian government, the Danish project, which has also been operationally government, and UNDP have fielded a joint concluded this year, has electrified all of the mission to consider which future alternatives 19 villages targeted in the project. While these should be pursued with this project. all appear to be working, in a few cases there is a seasonal shortfall of electricity-a fact The two projects under OP7 are both set in Brazil that reflects the weak information based upon and are part of the same programmatic initiative which the project was built. These two to utilize biomass for advanced power projects both appear to have achieved their generation. The BIG/GTPhase II project has stated goals. now been operationally closed, having led successfully to the public/private consortium and Both India s Hilly Hvdel and Biomethanation the follow-on World Bank/GEF project. A final projects have made satisfactory progress this project evaluation report is available. The year. In the case of the latter, four of the Sugar-Cane Bagasse and Trash project is a targeted 29 units are in operation. The GEFl project designed to apply the information remainder have been identified, selected, and learned in the BIG/GT project to the utilization should be under construction. Many factory of the same technology to utilize sugar-cane owners are either reluctant to finance half of waste. It has made satisfactory progress this year the investment due to the perceived risks of and has already characterized sugar-cane trash the return to the investment or the for energy use; tested a dry-cane cleaning station; unfamiliarity with the technology. As more and tested a green-cane harvester. All of these demonstration units become operational, this are necessary preconditions to effectively utilize barrier is expected to come down. With sugar-cane wastes for electricity generation. respect to the former project, 18 out of 100 watermills have been built, with the remainder Among the four enabling activity proj ects, all planned and scheduled to take place before of the appear to have made successful progress the end of the project (December 1999). All this year. The Regional ALGAS and the Africa 25 small hydro-electric sites have been regional projects are already operationally selected and are under construction. Both of completed, with only minor bookkeeping these projects have made considerable adjustments required. Both have final evaluation progress in the past year, as they both received reports available in draft form. The Maghreb unsatisfactory ratings on the PIR for 1997. regional project should be completed by the end of 1998. All three of these projects were designed The one GEF I project found in OP6 that is as enabling activities prior to the formal included in the PIR is the Clhina Landfill Gas development of the phrase "enabling activities." project. This project has made satisfactory In some ways, the development of the GEF progress as indicated in the PIR. However, it guidelines for the enabling activities has is still too early to judge the performance undermined the rationale for and interest in these characteristics of the landfill gas technology projects. Each had to adjust in a slightly different in the Chinese context. manner. For ALGAS, the project continued its planned approach of following the formal The only one of the six projects under OP6 analysis from inventory to abatement analysis that received an unsatisfactory rating this year and project identification. The Maghreb project is the Tanzania Takagas project. This project concentrated on sponsoring activities and the was originally designed to accelerate the production of the materials, which could not be fermentation of organic wastes and utilize the supported under the newly defined enabling captured methane. It also received an activities. The Africa project redirected its efforts unsatisfactory rating last year. The plant itself toward supporting the countries in preparing 62 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies their initial national communications. However, capacity and awareness with respect to the so far, only Zimbabwe has finalized and challenges and opportunities posed by the presented its initial national communication. All climate change focal area. Many of the of these projects will have been successful benefits from these capacity building efforts despite being undermined by the later are synergistic-where efforts from one development of events. All of them have served project benefit another-thereby becoming to create strengthened national capacity in the visible only with a portfolio-wide overview. climate change arena. Three examples come to mind from the perspective of a broader overview. CC: TRAIN Phase II is the other project in the EA category. It is now in the second full year of First, the ALGAS project has trained over 175 implementation and is currently undergoing an national experts from the 12 participating independent mid-term evaluation that will be countries in the IPCC inventory methodology. available in draft by COP4. The training In addition, it has trained experts on the materials developed under CC: TRAIN are now measurement of methane emissions from rice available for use by all parties to the UNFCCC. paddy; on GHG abatement analysis; and on the development of abatement projects. This Under the short-term window, the China Coal- capacity-building initiative has laid a bed Methane project appears to have been very relatively solid foundation in the Asian region successful. As has been indicated previously, for future response in the climate change focal the Chinese Government has created a new area. Similar experiences can be traced for agency to oversee coal-bed methane both the African and Maghreb regional development, and the project has spurred the projects. All of these experts are now development of numerous joint ventures to available to assist their countries and others harness this resource. This project will be in the preparation of climate change national operationally completed during calendar year communications. Unfortunately, only time 1998. The two range management and carbon will tell how much of this capacity remains sequestration projects (Benin and Sudan) appear in situ and how much is lost through attrition, to have been very successful at improving forest but capacity building and training remain and rangeland management in the project areas. perpetual processes. The main emphasis of the Sudan projects was to take the pressures off the land by introducing Second, the IAI component of the START alternative livelihood systems and modified project trained well over 200 national rangeland practices so as to reduce the participants in GIS, remote sensing, and overutilization and thereby also improving mapping, as required for environmental and carbon storage. Later this year, actual field data land-use analysis. Many of these national on carbon sequestration potential attributable to experts are now involved not only in preparing initiatives of this kind will be available to inform national communications, but also in helping deliberations in the development of the carbon their countries plan and manage land-use and sequestration programme (OP 12). In the context forestry and to be better able to document of the Sudan project, a series of publications are climate change trends and patterns. This being planned to further highlight the carbon project continues to have very strong support sequestration results in the project and potentials at the local level, merely because it was so for carbon sequestration in the drylands. effective in building capacity within the region. Capacity Development Thirdly, the Global Research project on Many of the projects included in the PIR this methane emissions from rice paddies has not year have played an important role in raising both only helped improve the global understanding 63 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report of this problem, but has also provided training In the first instance, it is clear that a number of to national professionals through theALGAS the UNDP-GEF Pilot Phase projects have project. contributed to successful capacity building among recipient countries. These projects- Actions "Leveraged" such as START, IAI, or Methane from Rice Paddies-have contributed both to strengthen A few of the examples listed below will show capacity in the countries involved and to raise that many of the projects have had successful public awareness of climate change generally effects on leveraging activities elsewhere in in these recipient countries. In both last year's government. The section below highlights PIR and this year's, it has been pointed out that some of these. these projects had a positive impact on the enabling activity process, with successful carry- In India,boththeBiomethanation project and over from these projects to the nationally the Hilly Hydel projects have appear to have executed EAs. However, to date, there has been had leveraging impacts. The Biomethanation little or no systematic effort to share experiences project, which originally proposed that GEF and promote synergistic cooperation between would support the construction of 16 these projects, which are largely executed in demonstration plants, so convinced the different regions with different participants. With government of the value of these projects, that a little thought and minimal resources, it should they increased both the funding and the target be possible to catalyze greater synergistic of the project to 29 demonstration plants. In benefits from these different capacity-building the Hilly Hydel project, although the project efforts by adopting a cross-cutting, was originally slow in reaching implemen- programmatic approach. Such activities would tation, the government is now considering enhance both the benefits from these projects as writing into their practice for all small hydro well as the visibility of the GEF and its support initiatives this approach to involving local for climate-change related activities in its decision-makers in the planning process. recipient countries. In the case of China s Coal-Bed Methane The second lesson relates to leveraging and project, the government has not only commitment. Many of the Pilot Phase projects established a coal-bed methane agency, but appear to have been prepared with minimal they have been convinced to allow an entirely stakeholder consultations, as was discussed in new set of joint ventures to be created to the 1997 PIR. At the same time, they underwent capture the resource. In Mauritania, the no detailed incremental-cost analysis. This approach adopted under the Wind Electric means that in many cases, there may be little or project has been adopted not only in the no counterpart budget and the commitment of follow-on project, but it appears to form the national executing agencies may be tepid, at best. basis for all of the Government's thinking with Across a number of these Pilot Phase projects, respect to rural electrification. the willingness of national executing agencies to contribute human resources, financial Lessons Learned resources, and policy analysis and changes to a project have been a major determinant of Upon reflection, four lessons emerge from the success. In several projects, governments have experience of this year's PIR with relation to taken time to consider their position with respect climate change. While two of these relate to Pilot Phase projects. In the cases where they directly to the cross-cutting themes of capacity have responded favorably through larger building and leveraging, the others are more commitments to the project, the projects have general in character, relating to the tended to be successful, even though they are implementation of GEF climate change delayed. In other cases where the GEF projects projects. 64 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies did not leverage out a suitably large commitment At that stage, a technical specialist may not from the government, the projects continue to be appropriate as his or her tendency will be struggle. The level and seriousness of the to spend too much time and effort focusing counterpart contributions leveraged out of on the purely technical aspects of the work. governments provide an interesting indicator of In contrast, what is needed (as witnessed by commitment to the project, and may even be an several UNDP-GEF proj ects) is someone with indicator of eventual project success. business or entrepreneurial skills to sell the advantages of the energy-efficient investments Two other issues relating to general project to a wider audience consisting largely of the implementation are worth raising here. First, financial and business communities. There is UNDP's ability to alter ongoing projects to fit a lesson to be learned from these experiences changing needs and goals is one of the in the design of future projects. This organization's advantages. This can be seen to understanding may exist in other fields of have worked relatively well in offices where the development assistance, but it should also be UNDP office is strong or works with a strong kept in mind within the climate change focal counterpart within the government. Projects area. such as the Chilean Reduction of GHGs, African Regional Capacity Building for the UNFCCC, 3.3 International Waters and several others have responded well and adapted to changing circumstances. In other Basic Project Data cases where neither the government counterpart nor the UNDP office is sufficiently strong, this Five UNDP-GEF International Waters full has led to increasingly problematic projects that projects under implementation for at least one have been unable to adapt. year reported to the 1998 PIR. Reported financial data are summarized below. Finally, it is interesting to note that based upon the experience of several projects, the persons Implementation Progress hired to manage a project frequently need skills other than those normally associated with the The majority of International Waters projects technical substance of the project. Technical report at least a satisfactory progress in skills are important to carrying out project implementation, with the East Asian Seas conceptualization, identification, and design, but MPP rated highly satisfactory on the for project implementation, a more entrepre- achievement of all objectives. The Lake neurial, managerial, or political profile is often Tanganyika project cited dedication of field required. For example, the technical aspects of staff under extremely difficult conditions as energy efficiency are relatively straightforward a key element contributing to what successes by the time a project is ready to be implemented. had been achieved. Difficulties relating to Project Planned Disburs. Actual Disburs. Budget (S million) ($ million) ($ million) Lake Tanganyika N/A N/A 10.0 Lake Manzala Eng. Wetland .946 .442 4.5 Gulf of Guinea LME 4.53 4.65 6.0 East Asian Seas MPP 5.14 5.57 8.0 Black Sea SAP 1.78 1.34 1.79 TOTAL 12.396 12.002 30.29 (96.8%) 65 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report delays in choice and procurement of Impact equipment were noted. In Egypt, the Lake Manzala project had been delayed due to Again, the majority of IW projects report a restructuring of the EEAA as well as delays highly satisfactory or at least satisfactory impact. in the allocation of land on which the wetland Demonstrable impacts from the Lake Manzala will be constructed. These issues have been project are not yet available due to the delayed resolved, and the project has now started up start-up of project activities over the last three at a relatively rapid pace. The Black Sea cited years. The EAS-MPP succeeded in delays due to a passive Advisory Group, slow demonstrating workable solutions to marine pace of cooperation with IFIs in organizing a pollution prevention that can be replicated by loan portfolio, and limited management the participating countries. Approaches used capacity in the PCU due to staff shortages. In included national marine and coastal policy the Philippines and China, the EAS-MPP formulation, development of regulations, coastal project cited the use of ICM national planning and management, risk assessment and demonstration sites to illustrate the potential management of sub-regional sea areas, benefits to be derived from management- institutional organization, pollution monitoring, focused monitoring efforts and the value of waste management, capacity building, and sharing information among managers of sustainable financing mechanisms. In the Gulf coastal sites. The GulfofGuineaproject noted of Guinea, National Integrated Coastal Area the enthusiasm and strong support of the Management Plans have been developed along governments as a key success factor, as well with National Steering Committees to guide and as the recognition across a broad suite of promote the multi-sectoral management stakeholders of the necessity of ICM Plans as approaches required in these plans. An ongoing management tools. mangrove pilot reforestation efforts is being "ground truthed" using satellite images and STAKEHOLDER IN VOL VEMENT Project Government* NGOs** For profit Academic Tanganyika Design n x x Implem. n,r,l i,n,c x x M&E n, r i,n Manzala Design n x x Implem. n c x x M&E n x GOG-LME Design n,r i,n x Implem. n,r,l i,c x x M&E n,r,l i,n,c x x EA S-MPP Design n,r,l i,n,c x x Implem. n,r,l c x x M&E n,r,l c x x Black Sea SAP Design n i,n x Implem. n i,n x M&E * n = national, r = regional, I = local; ** i = international, n national, c = community 66 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies fishery statistics; while limited, it will serve as project established pose ongoing threats to a baseline to track future improvements in stocks both the short and long-term sustainability of and marine biodiversity. Through both the this program. regional and national Black Sea Strategic Action Plans (SAP/NAP), the Black Sea project has In the East Asian Seas, management and contributed to the global and regional objectives coordination mechanisms (Batangas Bay of GEF by establishing a mechanism which will Council for ICM/Xiamen Marine allow countries to address transboundary Management and Coordination Committee) environmental problems. The project is in the were developed and institutionalized during process of orchestrating a "basin-wide" approach the project and include representation from to coordinating the joint efforts of 17 countries all stakeholder groups, at both the local and in addressing the priority transboundary problem national levels. Proj ect activities were in the region of eutrophication. implemented in collaboration and/or through contractual arrangements with diverse Sustainability and Replication stakeholders including universities, research institutions, industry, international agencies In Lake Manzala, it is hoped that through and organizations, and national and local national execution, the technology transfer of government units. In the Gulf of Guinea, knowledge during the design and representative stakeholders participate in the implementation of the wetland will ensure the decision-making meetings (e.g., Steering existence of local and national knowledge for Committee, TPR, at both regional and national similar future projects. In the EastAsian Seas, levels) of the project. As members of the sustainability at each of the demonstration sites Black Sea Environmental Programme has been achieved via the integration of the Steering Committee, representatives of institutional framework, capacities, and financial governments and NGOs take an active role in commitments into the local government's the implementation and day-to-day manage- planning, operational, and fiscal cycles. Private ment of the project. sector support and public awareness have also been strengthened, helping to ensure Tanganyika noted that the strong technical/ transparency and continuity in future scientific bias in the project limited NGO environmental management actions. Replication involvement because few NGOs in the region of the ICM sites has already occurred at three had these capacities. In the East Asian Seas, sites in China and is planned for three S;1tes in a lack of focus by national and community the Philippines. In the Gulf of Guinea, the NGOs on marine issues was observed to limit recently adopted Accra Ministerial Declaration their participation in International Waters contains commitments on the part of the projects. In the Gulf of Guinea, despite governments to sustain the regional approaches modest funds allocated to NGO/CBO to solving shared environmental problems, as participation, the NGOs have been very well as the replication of successful project successful at generating extra-budgetary funds components. A study of financial mechanisms in support of their activities. The Black Sea to make this process self-sustaining is currently project noted that in recent times NGOs have underway. In the BlackSea, the recent inability become more donor-driven and thus they do (due to the severe financial situation in the not act solely as independent institutions with region) on the part of the riparian countries to their own programs. financially sustain the PIU until the Secretariat is functioning and the new GEF basin-wide 67 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report Leveraging Policy or Legislation CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT Changes Proiect No. workshops No. trained The East Asian Seas project has set up Tanganyika 19 >200 Lake Manzala N/A N/A a regional network on the legal aspects GOG-LME N/A 600 of marine pollution. Related initiatives EAS-MPP N/A 500 have included drafting of national Black Sea SAP N/A N/A legislation to implement international conventions, model framework legislation on marine pollution, draft models for national million in investments related to the Black Sea coastal policy, and a training program focused environment over a period of three years. on international conventions and national regulation development. These efforts have Lessons Learned been reflected in the efforts by countries to adhere to international maritime conventions, For a project such as Lake Tanganyika in such a over 30 of which have been ratified or high-risk region, more resources need to be implemented since the start of the project. In committed to operational planning prior to the Gulf of Guinea, selected countries/areas project start-up. Earlier and more thorough have adopted domestic and industrial waste stakeholder consultations, especially at the local management policies as well as preliminary level, would have improved subsequent project fishing regulatory measures. Each country is performance. Countries need to feel that project also moving towards the creation, adoption, financial resources are being partitioned and implementation of Integrated Coastal equitably and this is best agreed upon at an early Area Management Plans. Finally, increased stage in a transparent manner. awareness has been created in the region on existing International Conventions of Several valuable lessons were reported by the relevance to marine and coastal resources. In EAS-MPP project. Flexibility in program design several Black Sea countries, the NEAPs were allows a good manager to take advantage of expanded with a special chapter for the marine opportunities for linkages with other projects and environment, the NBS-SAPs. Finally, the programs, to their mutual benefit. Enhancing the Vice President of the World Bank has technical capacity of local governments and announced the development of a major new providing meaningful participation for local initiative seeking a portfolio of up to US$500 stakeholders were found to be essential elements NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED IN PROJECTS Government NGOs Project Nat'l. Reg'l. Local Int'l. Nat'l. Comm. For profit Academic Tanganyika 48 10 5 3 6 5 4 6 Lake Manzala 3 1 GOG-LME 104 15 50 8 100 25 25 60 EAS-MPP N/A Black Sea SAP 6 6 36 0 30 3 6 25 68 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies of ICM projects. Finally, sustainable coastal and The Black Sea noted some of the following marine management requires that stakeholders lessons learned: understand the benefits to be derived before investments are made. 1) Donor coordination and inter-agency coordination are vital in order to avoid In the Gulf of Guinea, the importance of overlaps and to avoid confusingrecipients involving the private sector in project decision- of support; making and in the consultative process, including formulation of regulations, was noted. The 2) Networking existing institutions is an involvement of communities based around important first step towards consolidating intervention sites in the consultation and technical support for program imple- decision-making process was also underscored, mentation and the networks should not be in order to give them a sense of ownership and developed in such a way as to rely upon commitment to sustain the selected actions/ external support; and interventions. Finally, since NGOs are often more effective in reaching grassroots 3) Training activities should focus on small populations, they may be better placed to serve groups which can be "connected" to the as vehicles for mass mobilization and outreach problems through direct contact with the programs, with government assistance as relevant stakeholders and specialists. appropriate. 69 . GEF 1998 Project Performance Report APPENDIX C.2 UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY Project Implementation Review 1998 Overview Report Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Papua New 1. PROJECTSTATUSLIST Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, and Tunisia) 1.1 The UNEP GEF Project Implementation Review (PIR) for 1998 covered the following 2. Biodiversity Data Management UNEP projects in the GEF Work Program Capacitation in Developing Countries and which began implementation before June 10 Networking Biodiversity Information 1997 and were under implementation for part (BDM) (Bahamas, Chile, China, Costa Rica, of FY 98: Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Papua New Guinea, Poland, and Thailand) 1. Support to the Preparation of Biodiversity Country Studies, Phases I & 3. The Global Biodiversity Assessment 2 (Bahamas, Burkina Faso, China, Colombia, Democratic Republic of 4. Country Case Studies on Sources and Congo [Former Zaire], Cuba, Egypt, Sinks of Greenhouse Gases (Costa Rica, Estonia, Georgia, Ghana, Guinea, Jordan, Gambia, Mexico, Morocco, Poland, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malaysia, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, and Venezuela) TABLE 1: STATUS OF UNEP/GEF PROJECTS COVERED BY PIR 1998, AS OF JuNE 30, 1998 Project GEF Allocation Commitment Disbursement (US $ millions) 1. Support to the Preparation of Biodiversity 5 M 5 M 4.51 M Country Studies Phase I 2. Biodiversity Data Management Capaci- 4 M 4 M 2.99 M tation in Developing Countries and Networking Biodiversity 3. Support to the Preparation of Biodiversity 2 M 2 M 1.57 M Country Studies Phase II 4. The Global Biodiversity Assessment 3.3 M 3.3 M 3.13 M 5. Country Case Studies on Sources and 4.5 M 4.5 M 4.44 M Sinks of Greenhouse Gases 6. Strategic Action Programme for the 3.2 M 6.0 M Binational Basin Of The Bermejo River. 7. Country Studies on Climate Change 2 M 2 M 1.82 M Impacts and Adaptation Assessments 8. Economics of Greenhouse Gas Limitations 3 M 3 M 1.69 M - Establishment of a Methodological Framework for Climate Change Mitigation Assessment t expenditure for this project not yet recorded. 70 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies 5. Country Studies on Climate Change Building and Infrastructure: Participation in Impacts and Adaptation Assessments the Assessment, Methodology Development, (Antigua and Barbuda, Cameroon, Estonia, and other Activities of the Intergovernmental and Pakistan) Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)" has been officially closed prior to July 1997 and thus 6. Economics of Greenhouse Gas was not included in this year's PIR. Two Limitations - Establishment of a UNEP projects: "Country Case Studies on Methodological Framework for Climate Sources and Sinks of Greenhouse Gases" and Change Mitigation Assessment (Argentina, "Country Studies on Climate Change Impacts Ecuador, Hungary, Indonesia, Mauritius, and Adaptation Assessments" were Senegal, Vietnam, the SADCC, and the operationally completed in GEF FY 98 and Andean regions) have been included in this year's PIR exercise. 7. Strategic Action Programme For The 2 SUMMARYPERFORMANCE AND LESSONS Binational Basin Of The Bermejo River. LEARNED OVERVIEW 1.2 UNEP conducted an internal PIR meeting 2.1 Peiformance of GEF projects relative to discuss, and exchange experiences between to comparable non-GEFprojects - length of IJNEP staff on the implementation of UNEP's timefrom formal IA approval to first GEF funded activities. The PIR focused disbursement; analysis of disbursement particularly on UNEP's experiences in project history preparation, planning, and subsequent implementation as well as lessons learned. In Given the need for expedited procedures for addition, each project task manager prepared both Enabling Activities and Medium-Sized individual PIR reports that detailed the Projects, UNEP undertook a process that has experiences and lessons learned in project modified its internal procedures for projects implementation for their projects. As of 30 June, falling under these categories so that the length 1998, UNEP's GEF portfolio consisted of 20 full of time from formal IA approval to first size projects of which six projects entered the disbursement has now been reduced from an work program in the Pilot Phase and 14 projects average of four months down to two weeks. wereapprovedbytheCouncilinGEFI. Ofthese For full size projects and PDF Bs, length of 20 projects, there are seven projects in bio- time from formal IA approval to first diversity, four projects in climate change, five disbursement is approximately two weeks. projects in international waters, three projects dealing with stratospheric ozone depletion and 2.2 Ratings of Implementation Progress one project dealing with cross-cutting issues. and accomplishment of development and/or global environmental objectives 1.3 All UNEP GEF financed projects endorsed into the GEF Work Program before June 30, On average, UNEP projects covered during 1996, have been committed (i.e., internally PIR 98 had a rating of (S) for Implementation approved by UNEP). In addition, all UNEP GEF Progress. The ratings for regional and global financed projects that were committed before projects were greatly influenced by the level September 1997 had begun disbursements by and effectiveness of coordination and June 30, 1998. mobilization of the many institutions and individuals participating in project design and 1.4 For the 1998 PIR, eight projects had been implementation. This factor had a significant under implementation for more than one year as impact on the projects' rate of implementation of June 30, 1998. The project "Capacity and in turn, on achievement of global 71 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report Project Title GEF Allocation Cofinancing Total Cost (US $ millions) (US $ millions) (US $ millions) 1. Support to the Preparation of 5 M 1.3 M 6.3 M Biodiversity Country Studies Phase I 2. Biodiversity Data Management 4 M 1.4 M 5.4 M Capacitation in Developing Coun- tries and Networking Biodiversity 3. Support to the Preparation of 2 M 0.4 M 2.4 M Biodiv. Country Studies Phase II 4. The Global Biodiversity Assessment 3.3 M 0.3 M 3.6 M 5. Country Case Studies on Sources 4.5 M 1.8 M 6.3 M and Sinks of Greenhouse Gases 6. Strategic Action Programme for the 3.2 M 2.7 M 5.9 M Binational Basin Of The Bermejo River 7. Country Studies on Climate Change 2 M 2.0 M Impacts and Adaptation Assessments 8. Economics of Greenhouse Gas 3 M 0.27 M + 1.0 M in 3.27 M Limitations - Establishment of a associated Methodological Framework for projects Climate Change Mitigation Assessment environmental objectives and should not be have the necessary guidance for carrying out addressed at the expense of reaching global such national planning exercises. The results environmental objectives. achieved can also be used to measure progress at the global level by supporting the efforts of With respect to the accomplishment of the GEF and Conventions on Biological development and/or global environmental Diversity and Climate Change in comparably objectives, the average rating was (HS). assessingprogressofcountriestowardsreaching UNEP's projects relating to biodiversity and particular global environmental objectives. For climate change planning (the Biodiversity the "Strategic Action Programme for the Country Studies, the Biodiversity Data Binational Basin of the Bermejo River," the main Management project, the Global Biodiversity global environmental and development objectives Assessment, the Country Studies on Sources are to identify priority transboundary concerns and Sinks of Greenhouse Gases, the and needs within the Basin and to assist in Economics of Greenhouse Gas Limitations developing a watershed approach for integrating and the Country Studies on Climate Change environmental and development concerns into Impacts and Adaptation), have proven to be the planning programs of the Governments of instrumental in building national capacity for Argentina and Bolivia. Towards reaching these developing national strategies for biodiversity objectives, the project has completed its basic and climate change mitigation and adaptation. data gathering activities and partial These projects have also provided countries implementation of the demonstration projects. with the necessary scientific knowledge for Assessment of the demonstration project planning. Methodological tools for these performance and integration and analysis of data exercises were refined based on the countries' with a view to extracting strategic issues is needs and have helped to ensure that countries proceeding. 72 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies 2.3 Risk assessmentsforprojects reviewed * The Biodiversity Data Management Project catalyzed the formulation of The most common risk in projects implemented Biodiversity Information Management by UNEP is the complexity of coordination and Systems for some of the participating mobilization of the large number of institutions countries as well as information systems and individuals, from several countries, who for National Park Systems. Several bring their distinct expertise and experiences to countries are now starting to implement project design and implementation. Asaresult, their National Biodiversity Data UNEP projects on average have achieved an Management and Information Action average rating of (S) on the rate of project Plans. This will further help countries implementation. The duration of regional and keep track of their biodiversity status, global projects tends to be longer than that for actions taken to address threats, and single country projects, often due to the need coordinate activities being undertaken at for managing the participation of a large number national and regional levels thus avoiding of organizations. However, UTNEP's experience duplication. The Biodiversity Data shows that the effectiveness of such projects in Management Project is also facilitating providing a mechanism for technical assistance countries' implementation of the Clear- and exchange of experiences between countries inghouse Mechanism of the CBD. In outweighs the risks. This case was clearly addition, the tested methodology tools and displayed in the Enabling Activity exercise reference material produced for where individual country projects replaced the biodiversity information management are global umbrella project approach and then being used by other countries to carry out needed an individual "support programs" for their National Institutional Surveys. technical assistance for both biodiversity and climate change enabling activities. * The Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) has resulted in a compilation and 2.4 LeveragingAdditionalResources analysis of the level of knowledge and Actions worldwide on biodiversity. It has provided a standard scientific reference on the main While UNEP has acquired cofinancing for its issues of biodiversity, helping policy- projects, it should be noted that paragraphs 299 makers, scientists, and non-governmental and 300 of the GEF Overall Performance Study organizations contribute better to the recognized that UNEP is not a funding agency, conservation and management of the stating that it was not reasonable to expect planet's biological wealth. The assess- substantial co-financing from the organization. ment identified critical scientific issues on which consensus or disagreement Inadditiontoleveragingfinancialresourcesand exists as well as gaps in current in-kind contributions, UNEP projects resulted knowledge, providing a firm basis for in leveraged action for the benefit of the global further scientific work. The level of environment: leveraging brought about by this project has not been estimated although it has * The Biodiversity Country Studies project been confirmed that a wide variety of has resulted in an agreed need for National scientific organizations and donor Biodiversity Strategies andAction Plans. It institutions are using the data to provide also led to the Biodiversity Data the necessary background for initiatives ManagementProject. they are undertaking. Many of these 73 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report organizations have initiated action to The Economics of Greenhouse Gas address the gaps identified through the Limitations project also leveraged the GBA process. participation of additional countries from other capacity building projects financed The Country Case Studies on Sources and from non-GEF sources. As a result, the Sinks of Greenhouse Gases project and methodological guidelines were tested by 15 the project on Economics of Greenhouse countries instead of the original eight. In Gas Limitations-Establishment of a addition, non-GEF sources of cofinancing Methodological Framework for Climate were used to undertake two workshops Change Mitigation Assessment have which were organized back to back with a leveraged actions by countries to develop related World Bank meeting, thus making National Climate Change Mitigation more cost effective use of resources. Strategies based on data collected in these projects. The Sources and Sinks project * The Country Studies on Climate Change provided the required greenhouse gas Impacts and Adaptation Assessments inventory data with which countries can leveraged action has leveraged the determine where action would provide the implementation of National Climate Change most effective result. The Economics of Adaptation Plans by some countries. In GHG Limitations project helped countries addition, the project was associated with a to determine where such action is more series of additional projects in which cost-effective. In general, these two proj- funding was leveraged from non-GEF ects have leveraged further action by sources to enable additional countries to contributing to the common methodolo- carry out national adaptation and impact gical basis for national communications, assessments. As a result, a handbook to as required by the UNFCCC. While the assist countries with using tested work on methodologies is still under methodologies was further refined and has development by SBSTA, the meeting in been serving as a reference guide for July 1997 of SBSTA established a work additional countries seeking to carry out program on methodologies relevant for the their climate change impact and adaptation UNFCCC as well as the national communi- assessments. cation process. The UNEP GEF projects, complemented by the regular activities of * The Bermej o River Basin proj ect has put in UNEP/IUCCEE in the area of mitigation place measures that will leverage further analysis have been recognized as the main action by developing opportunities for the efforts in this area and follow-up actions establishment of financial incentives, private are proposed as part of the methodologies sector investment, and cost recovery in work programme endorsed by SBSTA. In environmental management. The project is addition, the guidelines are being leveraging action by instilling a high level distributed to a number of countries which of community and producer involvement are in the process of preparing their first and buy-in with the aim of replicating national communication, and the interest project experiences from its demonstration in guidance material and support is activities. It is also leveraging action significant. Morethan O00 draft guidelines towards the conservation of biological have been distributed so far. The two diversity in the territory between Baritu and projects have also been instrumental in Tariquia natural protected areas by assisting countries in the process of evaluatingthe legal and biological feasibility integrating environmental and specifically of a biological corridor which will result in climate change concerns with national and the formation ofjoint policies to address the regional development priorities. situation. In addition, revolving loan 74 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies financing is being provided from federal outstanding achievements of the project. sources to help farmers mitigate human The independent evaluation of the project pressures on the natural resources in the also concluded that it has raised area. awareness of biodiversity issues through its workshops. As a result, the project has 2.5 Building Recipient Capacity built in-country capacity that has supported national policies on All UNEP projects reviewed for PIR 98 had biodiversity and provided a framework for some level of capacity building at national level. continued improvements in biodiversity In some projects, there were significant capacity data management in the future; building components which contributed to the accomplishment of project objectives: * The Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) has helped strengthen a network The Biodiversity Country Case Study of scientific experts during its projects' (Phases land II) primary objective implementation as a result of bringing was the building of national capacity to together scientists from a wide variety of review the status of their biodiversity and disciplines. The assessment is now identification of basic needs for effective providing the necessary knowledge base conservation and sustainable use of for policymakers, scientists, and non- biodiversity. The projects resulted in the governmental organizations and donor establishment ofNational Biodiversity Units organizations by acting as a that included government, non-govern- comprehensive and scientifically based mental institutions, and the scientific reference tool relating to the status of comnmunity and which now continues to play knowledge on biodiversity, thus linking a strong role in the formulation of National science with national policy and decision Biodiversity Strategies. By building up the making; knowledge base of the countries on the status and level of biodiversity at national level, * The Country Case Studies on Sources and as well as strengthening the institutional Sinks of Greenhouse Gases arranged for base for this activity, the projects have built several institutions to provide technical the capacity of countries to prepare their assistance to specific countries National Biodiversity Strategies and Action undertaking case studies. A network Plans; between participating African countries was also catalyzed as a result of the * The Biodiversity Data Management Project project and has enabled countries to had the objectives of the strengthening of exchange experiences and lessons national mechanisms and institutions for learned. In addition, the project built access to and dissemination of national country capacity to develop national biodiversity information, the enhancement strategies for reducing greenhouse gas of existing ability and skills to utilize the emissions. The data and methodology relevant technologies and know-how in data advanced by this project has contributed management, and the development of to the knowledge-base ability of linkages with national, regional, and global governments to develop national policies networks and its exchange and management. and technologies that could minimize As noted in the independent evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions; the project, the development of national BDM capacity and biodiversity data * Oneofthemainobjectivesoftheproject management skills were considered on Economics of Greenhouse Gas 75 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report Limitations - Establishment of a as part of their country's National Methodological Framework for Climate Communications under the UNFCCC. Change Mitigation Assessment was to enhance institutional capacity in the For all the projects above using the umbrella participating countries and in the country study approach, it was noted that participating regional "centres of this type of an approach enabled countries excellence." Theregionalworkshopsheld to share experiences, lessons learned, and in April and May 1998 show that it is best practices. This was an ideal mechanism evident that the project activities have for building in-country capacity and improved the capabilities of the national facilitated the effective implementation of teams. This development is the result of a project activities and achievement of global number of different activities including environmental objectives. training workshops, technical assistance, extended research stays at UCCEE or * The Strategic Action Programme for the LBNL, and working on the project activi- Binational Basin of the Bermejo River is ties and having the opportunity to interact building recipient country capacity by with other teams involved in the same increasing governments awareness on process. All national teams are organized environmental problems in order for them through the national climate change focal to incorporate environmental concerns into point institution; policy development plans, institute change in development practices to include The capacity building objectives of the environmental sustainability and reduce project on Country Studies on Climate transboundary impacts. In addition, data Change Impacts and Adaptation acquisition that will be part of the trans- Assessments were: to advance in-country boundary analysis and will form the basis scientific and technical understanding of for the determination of strategic actions to the adverse effects of climate change; to be proposed in the SAP is helping the strengthen the capacity to address climate countries build up the necessary knowledge change issues in the countries where base. This will enable them to integrate country case studies are conducted; and to environmental considerations into decision- develop networks among countries making concerning the management of the participating in the studies and other basin. international/national experts working in the field of impacts and adaptation. Indeed, 2.6 Stakeholder Involvement one of the Performance Indicators was "The extent of enhanced capacity in the In accordance with UNEP's approved policy on four countries including technical public involvement in its GEF related activities, capability, public awareness, and political UNEP ensures that all projects involve a broad interest" which has already increased spectrum of stakeholder participation in the during the implementation of the project. development and implementation of projects: In addition, the project has produced the "UNEP Handbook on Methods for Climate * On UNEP's biodiversity projects, guidelines Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation used in national biodiversity planning Strategies" which is expected to serve as a exercises were developed by a multi- valuable technical resource for other disciplinary teams of experts worldwide and country study teams developing climate were revised and further improved based on change impact and adaptation assessments feedback from national stakeholders familiar 76 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies with their practical application at a national project is focused on public participation. level. Atthecountrylevel,UJNEP'snational The objective involves helping both biodiversity planning exercises (the Country Argentina and Bolivia institute a system Studies projects and the Biodiversity Data of public consultation on the Management) were carried out by national implementation and development projects experts and institutions with minimum of general interest in the basin, so that they involvement of external consultants and are environmentally sustainable and only upon the request of national socially acceptable. One of the institutions. The biodiversity planning Performance Indicators of the project is exercises involved a broad range of the establishment ofa public participation institutions including universities, research system. The project seeks to involve the centres, NGOs, various governmental Basin communities in practical, "hands departments, and members of the scientific on" type involvement in the identification community in each country. The Global and field testing of remedial measures, as Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) has well as in a dialogue process. As a result, provided an independent scientific forum for actions formulated through the SAP discussing the state of knowledge on process will have the advantage of biodiversity, thereby strengthening links benefiting from actual community among the scientific community on this insights and experiences, and of being topic. Further,theGBAproject ispresently acceptable to the communities as preparing a stand-alone volume from the sustainable alternatives to presently perspective of traditional knowledge on destructivepractices.Theprojecthasalso biodiversity and the relationships between made excellent efforts to integrate the cultural and scientific biodiversity that has work program elements with community, involved an extensive consultative and municipal, and provincial programs. participatory process with indigenous and local communities. 2.7 Experiences, Insights and Lessons Learned during the Past Year * The implementation of UNEP's climate change projects has involved national teams 2. 7.1 Applicable Lessons and Unre- comprised of the national climate change solved Issuesfrom PIR 1997 focal points, relevant government insti- tutions, government-designated research UNEP staff allocate a significant amount of institutions, and NGOs with overall time to the Annual GEF Project coordination resting with the government. Implementation Review and other parallel Where government institutions are GEF processes relating to monitoring, responsible for project implementation, evaluation, and financial reporting. A local research institutions and/or NGOs are prominent issue in this year's UNEP PIR was involved in providing technical assistance. that of identifying what role the It was noted that the most effective approach recommendations from the Implementing to the implementation of these types of Agencies' PIRs could play in improving GEF projects was the use of multi-disciplinary project design, development, and eventual teams of experts from several national performance. Several issues arising from the agencies, research institutions, and NGOs. 1997 PIR do not seem to have been adequately addressed by the GEF in the course of the past * In International Waters, one of the main year. The following are some of the issues components of the Bermejo River Basin that still remain unresolved: 77 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report 1. Need for improved information flow: guidelines for these activities. This, in turn, Since the last PIR, there has been some helps to provide countries with the guidance progress in improving the information needed to carry out these activities in a high flow between Implementing Agencies, quality manner. The necessity for develop- which is critical for promoting inter- ing tools, such as guidelines, methodologies, agency coordination and collaboration. etc., for guiding implementation of certain The agreement on annual portfolio key activities in the GEF needs to be planning meetings between the GEF recognized. These include the need for Secretariat and the Implementing guidelines for the development of more Agencies as well as between the standardized Transboundary Diagnostic Implementing Agencies themselves will Analyses (TDAs) and Strategic Action go a long way towards improving Programs (SAPs) in international waters so information flow particularly in regard to as to ensure a high quality of projects across upstream planning. More strategic use of the board. the inter-agency focal area task forces in a manner similar to the IWTF is also 4. Need for training and technical desirable in the biodiversity and climate backstopping for certain activities: change task forces for more effective Experience has shown that shifting from a coordination of activities in the GEF multi-country global umbrella project pipeline and portfolio. approach to an individual country project approach with activities dealing with the 2. Defining "country-driven": While same issue has constrained the provision of some attempts have been undertaken since technical support to governments. This is PIR 97 to clarify the understanding of particularly prevalent in cases where country-driven, misconceptions still arise projects have common groups of activities when regional or global projects are in new and emerging issues. In some cases, submitted for GEF financing. The separate projects had to be developed to experience is that differing definitions are provide the needed technical support such being used in these circumstances where as in the UNDP/UNEP Climate Change recommendations from governments at National Communications Support and the inter-governmental meetings, particularly Biodiversity Planning Support Programs. on issues which governments choose to implement actions in a regional or global 5. The multi-country/global umbrella project context, are construed as not being of approach also enabled cross-learning national priority. There is therefore still between countries based on their individual a need to better define the concept of experiences in dealing with the same issues. country driven. This facilitates the exchange of "lessons learned," which is now considered an 3. Use of tools in guiding GEF project important element in the GEF. In addition, development via a multi-country this approach proved to be more cost project approach: UNEP's experience effective in that training could be bundled in developing guidelines for inventorying together for several countries. Since the last biodiversity or greenhouse gas inventories PIR, there does not seem to be much has shown that a multi-country project progress in the GEF in considering the approach enables countries to share their benefits of the multi-country global umbrella experiences and have direct involvement approach for dealing with certain issues and in the evolution and refinement of the the need for pooling financial resources 78 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies together from individual country projects for 7. Inadequate financing limits for PDF cross-cutting activities between countries implementation in a multi-country such as for training and technical context: Several issues such as those backstopping. Using the multi-country/ pertaining to transboundary natural global umbrella project approach is an resources can only be effectively handled important vehicle for involvement of and in a multi-country context. The 1997 PIR collaboration among government agencies notes that it is extremely difficult to and other stakeholders. It would also enable develop a high quality project with PDF the GEF to build on what has proved to have B funding restricted to US$350,000 or worked as an ideal mechanism that less,particularlyforregionalprojectsthat accounted for a large measure of initial comprise of at least seven and in some project success. cases 20 countries. 6. Delaysintheprojectcycle: Giventhatthe 8. Time frame constraints for PDF attainment of written national Operational implementation in a multi-country Focal Point (OFP) endorsements for multi- context: The time required to develop country projects can cause a considerable consensus at a regional multi-country delay in the proj ect cycle, the GEF level is considerably long particularly in Implementing Agencies should be able to comparison to individual country projects submit multi-country projects to the GEF and can often take more than the GEF Secretariat without necessarily having all requirement for international waters PDF national OFP endorsements. This is Bs of 18 months. When artificially tight particularly the case when dealing with the deadlines for project implementation are priorities defined by intergovernmental imposed, experience has shown that forums since this is a formal agreement governments are pressured to hire based on the national priorities of the consultants to produce a particular output, participating governments. The problem at the expense of institutional often lies within a country's internal strengthening and adequate planning. bureaucratic requirements rather than a Given the extra time required to develop project not being considered a national consensus at a regional multi-country priority. Although the relevant government level and the need to ensure that project agency has been involved in the project from quality is not forsaken at the expense of the design phase and confirms the activity quickly producing a given output, the to be a national priority, delays in OFP period for PDF implementation of endorsement have sometimes held up regional and global projects needs to be submission and review of the project. The extended. 1997 UTNEP PIR had recommended that, to maintain the required pace of the project 9. Use of the GEF QOR: It has been noted cycle, it should be possible for the that the new format for the QOR has Implementing Agencies to submit multi- slightly improved and its bi-annual country projects to the GEF Secretariat printing is more appropriate for the kind without having all the endorsements on the of proj ect management and financial condition that any remaining national information currently being sought. endorsements would be obtained before However, an issue that still remains final approval of the project and provided unresolved from the last PIR is that the the Implementing Agency demonstrates that information provided on projects does not the project is indeed a national priority for allow one to always clearly identify the each country involved. actual site, collaborating organizations' 79 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report roles or other implementation details of a * Performance Indicators for projects still given project. Some project descriptions need to be improved; are still too vague. Recognizing the limits on information which could be included * Streamlining reporting requirements of the in the printed GEF Operational Report, GEF is still needed; the GEF could examine the possibility of the agencies posting an up-to-date intra- * Recommendations resulting from individual GEF database on the GEF web site. These proj ect evaluations should be addressed by could be most useful in carrying out the GEF; the current perception is that searches on the GEF Portfolio regarding evaluations of projects and other reporting key issues or identifying specific sites or requirements are simply generating more areas where intervention is already being paper rather than feeding into the overall undertaken. evolution of GEF strategies and policies; 10. Evaluating the impacts of the GEF: To be addressed within IA: While the GEF has embarked on efforts to evaluate the impact of the GEF on the * The feasibility of having a Project global environment, there is still a need Preparatory Advance (PPA) similar to to evaluate the impacts of GEF projects UNDP should be examined. It could assist twotothreeyearsafterprojectcompletion UNEP in further streamlining its project in order to truly determine the overall cycle and expedite project implementation; impact the GEF has actually had on the environment and to determine the * As noted in the Final Evaluation of the sustainability of its activities on the BiodiversityData Management project, mid- ground. term meetings bringing together country representatives and others directly involved 11. In-country coordination: Since the 1997 in the project can be crucial to the success PIR, experience has shown that there is a of projects. need to strengthen coordination between government agencies in countries in order 2. OP Level Issues to have effective preparation and implementation of projects. More The requirement that projects must fall within attentionneedstobegiventoempowering only one or two of the GEF Operational the GEF Operational Focal Points to Programs within the Biodiversity and Climate dischargetheirresponsibilities. Change focal areas is proving to be an impediment towards implementation of 2.7.2 Additional Experiences, and guidance of CBD and UNFCCC recommend- Lessons Learned in FY 98 ations to the GEF. Indeed, COP recommend- ations to the GEF from both Conventions require 1. Project Level Issues an integrated and comprehensive approach to addressing key environmental issues. There is To be addressed on a broader GEF-wide basis: therefore a need for adopting an approach that allows a selected number of projects to cut across * The need for projects having a capacity the GEF Operational Programs so that more building component was considered integrated and comprehensive planning and important for effective implementation of all projects; 80 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies research activities can be taken on globally 3. PROJECTREPORTS important environmental issues and problems. 3.1 Status Reports on Projects Slow to 3. Broader Portfolio Level Issues Move to Implementation The effective implementation of projects None of UNEP's GEF financed projects fall requires a stronger base of Enabling Activities. under the category of "slow" projects defined The absence of basic elements or knowledge as projects not formally approved within two base for addressing key environmental problems years of GEF allocation or proj ects that have could affect the sustainability of investment and not begun disbursements within nine months capacity building proj ects. Therefore, it is of IA approval. necessary to broaden Enabling Activities to include such basic building blocks as national 3.2 Individual Project Reports legislation and biodiversity information systems. Individual project reports of the projects 4. Key Trends in the GEF Portfolio covered under this exercise are attached to this document. As in PIR 1997, the last two half- As the GEF portfolio grows, there is a need for annual reports and the individual Annual PIR the GEF as a whole to maintain a holistic and reports for each project are attached. strategic view of its portfolio. More integrated planning is still needed. While National and Conclusions Regional Strategies/Action Plans should guide project selection, there is a need to ensure that While the PIR can be a useful exercise in the global perspective on priority areas and identifying the common problems global environmental problems is maintained. experienced in project development and This requires a more integrated approach to implementation and in providing planning. It is therefore not enough to look at recommendations for removing these how the portfolio is doing within the borders of bottlenecks, it should nevertheless be noted only the Operational Programs, but also to look that when recommendations resulting from at the portfolio from the perspective of it meeting such exercises are not addressed adequately, COP guidance. In this regard, there is a concern the practical usefulness of the GEF PIR does that the GEF in the biodiversity portfolio is get questioned. It is important that the lessons putting most of its emphasis on in-situ arising from the PIR be integrated in the conservation at the expense of addressing other management of GEF operations to facilitate relevant COP guidance. more effective processes for development and implementation rather than becoming a mechanical exercise. 81 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report APPENDIX C.3 WORLD BANK-GEF PORTFOLIO Project Implementation Review 1998 THE IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW PROCESS 1. For the second year, the PIR was optimism in ratings (characterized by a low integrated into the Bank's ARPP (Annual realism index) and a proactivity index which Review of Portfolio Performance). The ARPP indicates the timeliness with which actions are process began in June 1998 with country-and taken to upgrade, restructure, or close problem sector-specific reviews undertaken by the projects (a high or rising proactivity index is Bank's regional operational units. General desirable). The Bank also monitors a number portfolio analysis began in mid-July 1998 of factors relating to portfolio management and when supervision reporting Operations impact that are verified expost. These are the Information System (OIS) data were frozen, "disconnect" or differences in assessment and culminated with a report to the Bank's between current and ex post evaluations of Board of Executive Directors in September project outcomes and in inconsistencies between 1998. overall ratings and sub-ratings, and the share of "satisfactory outcomes" which is based on the 2. The methodology for assessing project Bank's Operations Evaluation Department performance in FY98 follows that of the (OED) confirmation that a project has concluded ARPP. Projects are rated individually on their satisfactorily. Both disconnect analysis and Implementation Progress (IP) and likely review of outcomes for the GEF portfolio are achievement of Development Objectives expected to begin in FY99, once OED reviews (DO). Portfolio health is measured in completion reports for those GEF operations that accordance with the concept of projects at have closed in previous fiscal years. risk, which includes both actual and potential problem projects. Actual problem proj ects are Portfolio Size and Composition those for which IP and/or DO are judged to be unsatisfactory or highly unsatisfactory. 3. The portfolio analysis which follows makes Potential problem projects are those which reference to three different views of the portfolio. although rated "satisfactory" by staff, face The Bank-GEF portfolio includes all approved risks historically associated with projects directly managed by the Bank, as well unsatisfactory performance as evidenced as those managed by the IFC and IDB through sub-ratings for factors such as (paragraphs 4,5,6,7,11) which are "executing counterpart funding, project management agencies" that have arrangements with the Bank performance, financial management, etc. A as Implementing Agency in accordance with the realism index' is used to identify over- GEF Instrument. The Bank-managed portfolio The ratio of actual problem projects to total projects at risk. 82 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies is comprised of those operations approved and or 34 percent). During FY98, LAC has managed by the Bank: it is this portfolio that is experienced an acceleration in growth in terms used in comparator analysis with the World of new projects (five new projects or 39 Bank's portfolio performance results (i.e. for percent increase to the LAC portfolio), with disbursementperformance, projects at risk, etc.) global operations of the IFC realizing the to ensure comparability of results (see largest growth in new commitments ($60 paragraphs 10,14,15). The FY98 PIR Group is million ora nearly threefold increase to IFC's made up of all projects in the Bank-GEF portfolio). portfolio that have been under implementation for at least 12 months as of June 30, 1998 (see 7. Biodiversity remains the focal area with paragraphs 9,15). the greatest number of projects (45 projects or 48 percent) as well as highest value of 4. Through end-June 1998, the GEF Council commitments ($371.2 million or 40.5 had approved for inclusion in GEF Work percent). In FY98, biodiversity was also the Programs a total of 118 World Bank, IFC, IDB, fastest growing focal area in terms of both and ADB-managed projects with corresponding number of new projects (11 projects) and grant resources of US$1,226.6 million. Of these, commitments ($61.1 million). six projects were dropped and three were divided into two projects in response to country and 8. In FY97, the average age of a project in designneeds, leaving anettotal of 115 projects. the Bank-GEF portfolio was 2.9 years. A Bank, IFC, and IDB managements had approved second year of major portfolio expansion has 93 of these projects as of June 30, 1998, for a reversed the aging trend, so that average age total commitment value of US$917 million. of a project in the FY98 portfolio has declined to 2.5 years. This rejuvenation of the portfolio 5. Eighteen operations valued at US$211.5 may make year-to-year comparisons of million were approved by the Bank and IFC performance problematic, as project age is managements during FY97. This represents an highly correlated to appearance of increase of 11 percent in terms of number of implementation issues/problems. Five of the projects and 30 percent in terms of commitment oldest projects exited the portfolio during value in the Bank-GEF portfolio as of the end FY98, but the average age of those projects of FY97. Nine projects exited the portfolio was only about 4.5 years. Most GEF projects during the year.2 Twenty-one GEF1 projects were completed within their originally were awaiting Bank IFC, and ADB management envisaged implementation period or, in cases approval as of end-June 1998. As the one where extension was necessary, with an remaining Pilot Phase proj ect was dropped extension of one year or less. For the Bank during the year, only GEFI projects await as a whole, the average age of active projects approval by the Bank and Executing Agencies. is 3.5 years, and 15 percent of investment operations are 15 years or older. The shorter 6. The Europe & Central Asia Region real project life for GEF operations may result continues to have the largest number ofprojects from the narrower scope and more focused (26 projects or 28 percent) in the portfolio, and design of the operations and/or more decisive Asia (East and South) continues to have the actions by project executors or Bank largest volume of commitments ($307.1 million supervision teams. 2 Three projects reported in the various PIR as having closed during FY97 were extended after the end of the FY and either closed in FY98 or are yet to close. In line with the Bank's practice, projects that closed during the fiscal year under review are included in all analyses. 83 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE considerable increase in non-investment lending leads to non-comparability of the disbursement/ 9. Of the approved projects, one IDB, four commitment ratios of the Bank and Bank- IFC, and 71 Bank-managed GEF grants were managed GEF portfolios this year. effective and active as of end-June 1998. Sixty-two of the related projects have been 11. The aggregate disbursed amount for the under implementation for more than 12 Bank-GEFportfoliototaledUS$75.7millionin months and are therefore included in the FY98 FY98 compared to USS 75.6 million for FY97. PIR Group (see Annex: Bank-GEF Projects The cohort of 18 Pilot Phase projects with included in the FY98 PIR). disbursement lags of 50 percent or over compared to original disbursement estimates, Disbursements has been reduced to only six projects due to revision of disbursement schedules to reflect 10. Aggregate disbursements during FY98 for greater realism in implementation, efforts to all 71 effective Bank-managed grants totaled redress the underlying problems (often related $73 million, representing an increase of 34 to procurement) that hindered normal percent over cumulative disbursements at end- disbursement, and project closings, both as FY97. This is slightly less than FY97 anticipated and in advance through cancellation. aggregate disbursements (S74.5 million). The Analysis of disbursement trends indicate that the disbursement ratio3 experienced a precipitous stagnation in annual disbursements results from drop to 14.4 percent from 18.9 percent in a combination of (1) a substantial decrease in FY97, largely due to substantial new the disbursements originating from the group of commitments in recent years: 41 percent of infrastructure and trust fund projects the value of the Bank-managed portfolio was characterized by large, "lumpy" disbursements committed in FY97 and FY98. The (these represented 62 percent, 66 percent, 46 disbursement ratio for the Bank as a whole percent, and 26 percent of annual disbursements has remained at 19 percent for the last two respectively for the years FY95-98) as many are years, however, growth in the Bank's portfolio either just beginning (IFC investment funds) or has stabilized in terms of the number of approaching the end of project life (IW and CC projects and nominal commitments and has infrastructure operations); (2) the Asia financial contracted in terms of real commitments while crisis (five Indonesia and one Thailand operation the Bank-managed GEF portfolio continues representing $71.6 million in commitments togrowrobustly(22percentgrowthinnumber disbursed only $2.7 million in FY98); and of projects and nominal commitments in (3) the late entry into the portfolio of large IFC FY98). Bank-managed GEF grants disbursed investment funds that had not begun to disburse are equivalent to 32 percent of grant before the end of FY98. commitments, about the same level as in FY97. Total disbursements rose substantially 12. Most operations entering the portfolio in in the Bank overall portfolio in FY98, driven FY98 became effective (i.e., met conditions by the massive quick-disbursing loans for precedent to disbursing) within four months of financial crisis support in Asia: the their approval, sustaining the positive trend established under GEF 1. Two projects required 3 The ratio of net disbursements during the year to the undisbursed balance at the beginning of that year. To avoid overstating performance, the Bank calculates the ratio by excluding Trust Fund projects (Bhutan Trust Fund, Peru Protected Areas Trust Fund, Uganda MBIFCT, Brazil Biodiversity Fund, Restructured Mexico Protected Areas that disbursed their entire balances at the time of grant effectiveness). 84 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies more than nine months to be effective, although P1R group is five for FY98. The total number for the IFC's Terra Capital Fund, achieving of projects at risk (actual plus potential or 17 effectiveness in 11 months (in this case projects) represents 21 percent (17.5 percent capitalization of the Fund) is well above the corrected for Asia performance) of the Bank- norm and should be seen as very good managed portfolio in terms of number of performance in light of the difficult situation in projects and 23 percent in terms of world financial markets. Both proj ects are now commitments, compared with 21 percent and effective and disbursing normally. 23 percent respectively, for the Bank overall portfolio. Performance of the GEF portfolio Implementation Performance and is comparable to that of the Bank as a whole. Achievement ofDevelopment Objectives Portfolio Management 13. The Bank's approach to assessing Implementation Performance and achievement 17. The trend in the Bank's indicators of of Development Objectives is summarized in active portfolio management are giving paragraph 2 above. indications that GEF-supported operations are progressively better integrated in the portfolio 14. Twelve of the 80 projects in the Bank- management practices of the regions. A managed portfolio (representing 15 percent in realism ratio of 71 percent is somewhat higher terms of number of projects and 21 percent in than the Bank's overall realism index (68 terms of commitments) received unsatisfactory percent), but must be interpreted with caution ratings for either IP, DO, or both, and are thus given the very small number of projects in included in the "problem projects" category. the "at risk" category. The proactivity ratio The corresponding percentage for FY98 for the at 40 percent is showing steady improvement Bank's overall portfolio is 17 percent in terms over the past (25 percent in 1997), but should of number of projects and 15 percent in terms still be considered inconclusive due to small of commitment value. It should be noted that sample size as it is based on upgrade of four three of the new entry "problem projects" in out often projects that were in problem project the East Asia portfolio were designated as such status last fiscal year. primarily due to the Asia crisis. MAIN FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM 15. In the FY98 PIR group of 62 projects, nine THE PIR GROUP of the Bank-managed and one IDB-managed project (16 percent in terms of number of Sustainability and Replicability projects) are designated as problem projects (these results are less affected by the Asia 18. Beginning with the Pilot Phase, every portfolio performance). This compares with GEF project addressed the basis for eight problem projects in the FY97 PIR group sustainability of the project activities at the (49 projects) and one in the FY96 PIR group end of "project life." Areview of the original (34 projects). For projects that have received sustainability discussions indicates that issues unsatisfactory ratings in the Implementation that thwart sustainability were well known and Progress area, the most recurrent problems are analyzed for each project. This review also in the areas of poor project management, shows that issues and solutions tend to cluster procurement (poor planning, bureaucratic by focal area as discussed in separate delays, weak recipient capacity), and paragraphs below. However, one factor was disbursement. cited in nearly every focal area as being key: institutional sustainability was seen to be 16. The number of potential problem projects linked to capacity building efforts undertaken in both the Bank-managed portfolio and FY98 within the project. As the discussion in 85 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report paragraph 37 on effectiveness in building funding for comprehensive management of the recipient capacity indicates, additional work transboundary area it is intended to sustain. The on capacity building impact will be needed to body of knowledge on experience with other ensure this linkage is effective. trust funds does, however, indicate that they are a contributor to sustainability, provided assets 19. Sustainability in Biodiversity. Three are prudently managed and the institution is well- areas for intervention were identified to ensure conceived and managed. that biodiversity activities would be sustainable, and thus were addressed in the 21. Sustainability and International Waters. design of nearly every project: (1) public International waters projects approach awareness including participation was sustainability through (1) consensus building included to ensure social sustainability; among nations that must cooperate regarding (2) capacity building was provided for to shared water bodies and (2) studies of various ensure institutional sustainability as noted cost recovery and financial incentives for above; and (3) a renewable source of revenue subsequent implementation by governments. In was anticipated to en sure financial nearly all cases, activities initiated in the projects sustainability. With regard to financial are intended to be followed by downstream sustainability, the main sources of revenue actions requiring substantive additional support. targetedwere: (i)governmentbudget; (ii) eco- With the exception of creating a durable nomically sustainable activities under the consensus (most projects claim success in this program; (iii) special taxes and levies; and domain, or at least in bringing together parties (iv) special mechanisms, particularly trust that had not previously cooperated effectively), funds. a sustainability test is most appropriately applied to the follow-on activities. 20. Dependence on government budgets (general revenue) has proven to be 22. Sustainability and Climate Change. problematic. Late or non-provision of Climate change projects, drawn largely from the counterpart funding has been cited as a Pilot Phase, view sustainability in terms of: problem, making the budget a less-than- (1) creating a favorable enabling environment reliable contributor to sustainability: even through appropriate policy and regulatory those projects for which government funding frameworks, (2) developing able institutions had been forthcoming in a timely and reliable through capacity building, and (3) increasing way have proven susceptible to unforeseen sources of domestic finance to support new crises. As sustainable activities are just endeavors. "Policy/regulatoryframework" was beginning in a number of countries that have the factor cited most often in CC projects, used this approach, extensive experience is particularly those promoting demand side lacking fromwhichtodrawconclusions. The management and introduction of new dialogue leading to government implement- technologies, although the precise elements of ation of taxes and levies has proven to be a "policy" needed to ensure sustainability were not long one, with only Ecuador achieving success always spelled out. Pricing was clearly at this point in time. Ironically, within the identified to be the key factor to sustain long group of projects that cited conservation incentives for obtaining more efficient use of trusts and similar mechanisms, only India, energy resources (e.g., reducing leaks in gas Laos, and Bolivia have pursued this avenue, delivery systems), to ensure financial viability and only Bolivia has been able to design and of power entities or to encourage conversion initiate a trust fund during project life. The from high carbon fossil fuels to gas. Increasing Eastern Carpathian Foundation, probably domestic finance (greater availability through undercapitalized initially, has supported some intermediaries) was cited as the key element of important activities, but is far from ensuring energy efficiency projects with high replicability potential. 86 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies 23. Where policy or regulatory frameworks have issues required for sustainability. The been adjusted to accommodate new first biodiversity intervention should technologies, opening of new markets has been provide a solid foundation for the future observed in some cases during project life. As and lay out the vision for achieving seen in wind and bagasse projects, even though sustainability, supported by realistic the original physical objectives of a project were objectives and indicators for success. not achieved, other private and public ventures Newer delivery mechanisms designed for were stimulated by creation of supportive policy long-term intervention (such as the Bank's frameworks. Standard project life appears to be Adaptable Program Loan [APL]) may be too short to fully document effects of pricing more suitable to projects supporting changes as these often occur gradually over time: protected areas and conservation subsidy/discount reductions have only begun in programs. some cases, so that a firm foothold is not yet discernible. (2) Chances of achieving financing sustainability for biodiversity projects 24. Sustainability and ODS Reduction/ couldbe increasedby combiningsources Phaseout. ODS projects relate sustainability offinance, (budget, taxes, levies, trust to the enterprises supported remaining in fund), rather than focusing on a single business and continuing to use ozone-free source. Even sources deemed reliable technologies. Enterprise financial failure and have proven to have limitations backtracking have not been issues for the (government budgets in times of crisis, projects that have been completed. Upstream difficulties in increasing trust fund due diligence review of candidate companies, a capital). standard practice for all ODS sub-projects, is seen to be the key to ensuring financial (3) Similar to biodiversity projects, climate sustainability, as is the selection of appropriate change projects requiring substantive cost-effective technologies. policy and regulatory reforms may also benefit from greater realism in the 25. Sustainability and Private Sector timeframe needed to achieve sustain- Interventions through Intermediaries. The ability. While many projects show SME program proposes two indicators of hopeful signs at the end of their life, sustainability: (1) ability of intermediaries to legislative changes, price adjustments and repay and (2) intermediaries obtaining non-GEF withdrawal of financial incentives are funding to carry on activities similar to those often only beginning to impact at end of supported by the SME program. There are project life. currently no repayment issues under the Pilot Phase SME, but many sub-projects are still not CROSS-CUTTINGISSUES fully mature. A forthcoming evaluation of SME will look at availability of additional financing Leveraging in greater detail. 27. A Competitive Environment Leverages 26. General Observations PrivateFinanceandLocalAction. Whether seen as "leverage," "catalysis," or "synergy," (1) Few biodiversity projects can achieve GEF-supported operations give rise to a sustainability in the timeframe of a single variety of complementary and downstream project (3-5 years). a longer time horizon actions in a competitive environment. The (15-20 years) is more appropriate to work most successful results are seen in climate through the complex institutional, policy, change operations: under India Alternate human resource development, andfinancing Energy, success of the windfarm power 87 GEF 1998 Project Performance Report industry has attracted additional external and clearly what the impact of their capacity building domestic sources leading to major expansion activities is in other than quantitative terms. A of installed capacity; Hungary Energy relatively short investment project life may make Efficiency will give rise to new ESCOs; the critical qualitative changes more difficult to Mexico HELP has inspired the Federal Energy assess. Even in cases where specific technical Commission to pursue new support for training is completed and the training program replacement of CFLs; and under the Tunisia is deemed replicable, it will undoubtedly be Solar Water Heating Project, a robust years before the training can be correlated to competitive market is created by five different effective results. Projects need to better identijy brands of equipment that are now produced, the desired qualitative impacts of capacity with three constructed locally, while installed building activities and when these will be capacity has increased markedly through observed. It should be expected that many of private actions. Perhaps the most notable the capacity building benefits will fall outside lesson with respect to leveraging and of project life. In such cases, provision should competition is the relative speed with which be made for monitoring and evaluation by the the "leveraged" actions give results in a recipient institutions. competitive environment. New Features of Stakeholder Involvement 28. Effective Institutions. As noted in the Evaluation of Conservation Trust Funds, 30. Making Stakeholder Representatives More CTFs emerge as very effective in leveraging Effective. Projects in nearly all focal areas have additional financial resources for made substantial progress in including conservation. Peru PROFONANPE, Bolivia representatives of key stakeholder groups in SNAP, Mexico FMCN, and Bhutan BTF are design activities as well as on formal bodies that among the CTFs that have attracted additional have direct input into implementation decision- official resources. While relatively young making activities. For biodiversity projects, institutions with limited track records, most communities are most often the stakeholders have highly qualified staff and sound decision- who gain representation given the impact of making structures that instill confidence. project decisions on buffer zone or protected area management. While formal stakeholder Project Effectiveness in Building Recipient representatives have been successful in giving a Capacity voice to communities and safeguarding their interests, they are not always as effective as they 29. Expectations Suited to the Project Life. could be in ensuring that information on the The term "capacity building" evokes the broader mandate and activities of their decision- broadest array of approaches imaginable to making body are communicated back to the help new and current practitioners operate stakeholders they represent. Projects differently: these approaches include incorporating community representation should everything from use of local traditions in therefore ensure that stakeholder representatives drama and storytelling to convey information understand the need for fully informing their key to changing community behavior, to an communities and that they have the means to do upgrade in curriculum of an existing so,throughtrainingandsupportforinformation institutions, to international conferences. dissemination. However, few projects in the PIR group state 88 Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies 31. WomenandRenewableEnergy. Renewable supported the move to greater efficiency energy projects, particularly those aimed at (Poland) and were viewed in India as increasing usage of efficient light bulbs, show a candidates for entrepreneurial opportunities strong participation rate by women, as design in solar PV. In the Mexico High Efficiency and execution decision-makers as well as Lighting Project, participant surveys revealed "beneficiaries" supporting new technologies. women are the household decision-makers for Women, particularly in Eastern European choiceoflightbulbs. Inlightofthisevidence, countries, participate in energy institutions as design of renewable energy projects should board members, administrators, and managers. emphasize strong gender focus. They represent consumer federations that have 89 Jnited Nations Development Programme JEF/Executive Coordinator )ne United Nations Plaza Jew York, NY 10017 USA elephone: 1-212-906-5044 ,ax: 1-212-906-6998 -mail: first name.last name@undp.org Inited Nations Environment Programme iEF Unit/UNEP Jairobi, Kenya elephone: 254-2-621-234 ax: 254-2-520-825 -mail: first name.last name@unep.org he World Bank ilobal Environment Division 818 H Street, NW Vashington, DC 20433 USA elephone: 1-202-473-1816 ax: 1-202-522-3256 -mail: firstnameinitiallastname@worldbank.org doe@worldbank.org) Global Environment Facility 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA Telephone: 1-202-473-0508 Fax: 1-202-522-3240 Internet: www.gefweb. org t Printed on rPrvr1Pr4nQW=