Investing in Our Planet

Investing in Our Planet

GEF Annual Report 2006-07

The Global Environment Facility

About the GEF

Today the GEF is the largest funder Since 1991, the GEF has achieved a

(GEF) unites 178 countries in part- of projects to improve the global strong track record with developing

nership with international environment. An independent countries and countries with

institutions, nongovernmental financial organization, the GEF economies in transition, providing

organizations (NGOs), and the provides grants for projects $7.4 billion in grants and leveraging

private sector to address global related to biodiversity, climate $28.0 billion in cofinancing for

environmental issues while change, international waters, land more than 1,900 projects in over

supporting national sustainable degradation, the ozone layer, and 160 countries.

development initiatives. persistent organic pollutants.

GEF Annual Report 2006–2007

Time for Change: Message from Monique Barbut,

GEF Chief Executive Officer and Chairperson 2



Investing in Our Planet

The 4th Replenishment of the GEF Trust Fund 5

Resource Allocation Framework:

An effective way to work together 6

The New Project Cycle: Simpler process, reduced burden 8

Results-Based Management Framework:

Measuring our mutual impact 12

Focal Area Strategies 14

Capacity Building:

Helping countries get the most from GEF Resources 17

GEF Country Support Program for GEF Focal Points 18

Small Grants Program 24



The GEF Portfolio 27



GEF Focal Areas

Climate Change 31

Biodiversity 36

Persistent Organic Pollutants 38

Land Degradation 40

International Waters 42

Ozone Depletion 44

GEF Projects and Programs Entering the Work Program in 2006 46



Independent Bodies

Improved Effectiveness for the GEF’s Expert Scientific and Technical

Advisory Panel (STAP) 55

GEF Evaluation Office 56



GEF Contacts

GEF Council Members and Alternates 2006–2007 60

Details of Country Focal Points and Regional Focal Points of

Non-Governmental Organizations in 2006–2007 64

STAP Secretariat and Members 66

GEF New Publications 2006–2007 68

Acronyms and Abbreviations 70



Financial Statements and Independent Auditor Opinions

2006 (05)–2007 (06) see enclosed CD









g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 1

Time for Change

Message from Monique Barbut, GEF Chief Executive Officer and Chairperson

Over the past two years, the Global from a project-driven approach to a sentatives, or focal points, so that

Environment Facility (GEF) has more tightly defined programmatic they can comprehend and benefit

been working to plan and imple- approach targeted to fit well into faster and more easily from the

ment changes to our mission, our revised strategies for each focal support of the GEF. We have also

institutional culture, and our oper- area. We are also building syner- been listening closely to these

ating methods so as to provide an gies for cross-cutting issues such as countries’ concerns and priorities

even better, more responsive serv- sustainable forestry and chemicals so as to be more accountable in this

ice to recipient countries, especially management. respect.

the poorest and most vulnerable

among them. Innovation is a characteristic that To enhance our focus we are draw-

an institution such as the GEF ing more carefully on each partner-

I believe that these reforms were clearly must foster by using its ing country’s comparative advan-

indispensable in order to meet our resources as “seed money” to tage, thus solidifying the GEF cor-

goal of driving global environmen- finance imaginative entrepreneur- porate family with a strong, unified

tal benefits. And they were timely: ial efforts and technologies that do presence and a simplified first-

public awareness of growing envi- not yet have a market base. Thus class project portfolio that is in line

ronmental challenges, from climate we are making the GEF an increas- with the countries’ priorities.

change to habitat loss, has been ingly powerful leverage for capital

MONIQUE BARBUT

growing steadily. So have the chal- on sustainable development. Procedurally, in order to ensure

lenges we are facing. quality at entry of all project pro-

The GEF has also sought to be more posals,we have created a simplified

To meet these challenges, we have equitable by leveling the playing Project Identification Form where-

shifted gears in the GEF and put field, so that the countries most by the Secretariat provides com-

into place a five-point sustainabili- endangered by the shifting impact ment and clearance before fully

ty compact that is raising the of the changing environment can developing a project. The project

impact of GEF investments to a keep up with the rest of the world. cycle has been redesigned to

new level of results and making Thus we seek results that are posi- ensure that a full-size project will

the GEF a leading force for sustain- tive for these countries, both for the take no more than a maximum of

able development. environment we share and for 22 months to progress from identi-

their development. fication to start of implementation.

The key elements of the sustainabil-

ity compact are strategy, innovation, To be accessible, the GEF needs to In addition, we have put into place

equity, accessibility, and focus. be understood, and we are estab- a results-based management

lishing a direct dialogue and sup- framework, a new monitoring sys-

Strategically, we are moving away port to countries and their repre- tem that will help demonstrate







2 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

measurable results and true global lar and every donor dollar invested. are an active participant. This is a holders with which we work. As an

environmental benefits. A funda- Indeed, we are proud of our status key factor in ensuring that the GEF independent, transparent entity

mental change has also taken place as the recognized financial or receives the support it deserves and with no vested interests, the GEF

in the way we disseminate GEF implementing mechanism for needs. As many of you know, I per- stands as a unique bridge between

funds aimed at improving pre- many major multilateral environ- sonally called every country focal the UN agencies, the development

dictability and therefore helping mental agreements and conven- point—some 180 of them—to banks, and bilateral donors. If we

countries better program their tions, including the Convention on introduce our Resource Allocation truly want to foster the kind of

activities. The Resource Allocation Biological Diversity, the Montreal Framework one-on-one. While I can innovation we need to get results,

Framework, in the climate change Protocol, and the Stockholm only wish that I could achieve that we should take steps to increase

and biodiversity focal areas, allo- Convention. The respective confer- level of personal contact every sin- the GEF’s own resources. A

cates specific resources, making it ences of parties to these conven- gle day, please realize that you are stronger GEF will mean a better

easier for countries to plan ahead tions have provided us with impor- always free to call me—or any of chance of advancing our collective

and prioritize GEF resources. tant guidance to improve our per- my GEF colleagues—to discuss goal to protect the world’s

formance as an integral part of the what is on your mind. resources for future generations.

These and other reforms noted in conventions’ functioning.

this report and in other GEF com- This report covers the two years

munications are quite evolutionary, So, to build on this foundation, we over which these ideas and reforms

even revolutionary, from the GEF’s have undertaken some far-reach- have been developed and put in

point of view. And, just as defini- ing and sometimes challenging place. The sections that follow

tively, they build upon a very solid reforms. Although they are still too highlight these activities and set

foundation: since 1992, the GEF— new to really assess, there is no the tone for the coming years.

together with its partners—has doubt that, slowly but surely, we Monique Barbut

invested close to $38 billion in more are seeing some positive results, Looking forward, the GEF as an CEO and Chairperson

than 2,000 hand-selected projects and a more responsive, more institution has to gear up to play a Global Environment Facility

in over 165 countries. That makes dynamic GEF. meaningful role for the 21st centu-

the GEF, proudly, the largest funder ry. There is a large and growing

of environmental projects in the My colleagues and I work hard, demand for GEF resources, and

developing world. every day, to earn the trust placed together we can and should play

in us. We are doing a more inten- an even more central role in help-

Of significant note, for every dollar sive job of communicating to the ing our planet reverse the disturb-

we have invested, on an average, an world about what we do and the ing environmental trends that con-

additional $4 has been contributed achievements we accomplish tinue to plague us. Today’s chal-

by a broad range of donor coun- together. The GEF is becoming bet- lenge is to build on past achieve-

tries and institutions, ensuring sig- ter known to those outside the ments by further catalyzing the

nificant leverage for every GEF dol- small, insular world in which we participation of the various stake-







g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 3

4 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

Investing in Our Planet

The 4th Replenishment The replenishment discussions These reforms have produced a rev- Requiring GEF agencies to

were based on the third Overall olution in the way the GEF con- adhere to minimum fiduciary

of the GEF Trust Fund

Performance Study of the GEF ducts its day-to-day work. Though standards

which provided an independent putting these elements in place

In November 2004, the GEF Council

evaluation of the operations of the took over a year and effectively The 32 donors to this replenish-

requested the World Bank, as

GEF during the third replenishment delayed the start or GEF-4, their ment were Australia, Austria,

trustee of the GEF Trust Fund in

period. The study evaluated the impact has been strong throughout Belgium, Canada, China, the Czech

cooperation with the CEO and

results of GEF activities; the sus- the system. The components of this Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,

chairperson of the GEF, to initiate

tainability of results at the country reform can be summarized as Germany, Greece, India, Ireland,

the fourth replenishment of the

level; the GEF as a catalytic institu- follows: Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea,

GEF Trust Fund (the GEF-4). The

tion; GEF policies, institutional Luxembourg, Mexico, the

GEF Trust Fund is replenished once

structure and partnerships; and the Implementing the Resource Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria,

every four years by a varying num-

GEF implementation processes. Allocation Framework Norway, Pakistan, Portugal,

ber of donors who negotiate their

Revising and focusing the GEF Slovenia, South Africa, Spain,

contributions in a multistakeholder

In July 2006, 32 donors agreed at focal area strategies Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the

process that includes considera-

the GEF Council meeting in Cape Streamlining the project cycle United Kingdom, and the United

tions on operational adjustments

Town on a fourth replenishment of and developing rules and proce- States.

of the GEF work program.

the GEF for a total of $3.13 billion to dures for management of project

support programming during the cycle processes Many donors increased their con-

GEF-4 replenishment discussions

2006–2010 period. This represented Implementing a results-based tribution levels and helped achieve

included the following subjects:

the biggest amount ever pledged to management strategy a GEF-4 replenishment larger than

(i) the Third Overall Performance

a single institution for the financ- Simplifying the approach to that of the GEF-3, demonstrating

Study of the GEF (OPS3); (ii) pro-

ing of global environmental proj- applying incremental cost extraordinary financial support to

gramming of resources for the

ects, and the biggest in the history Developing a communications the GEF. The countries that agreed

GEF-4; (iii) policy recommendations

of the GEF. Along with the replen- and outreach strategy to provide voluntary supplemental

for the GEF-4; and (iv) financial

ishment, donors also agreed on an Establishing a level playing field contributions were Australia,

arrangements and burden sharing

ambitious set of reforms to among all GEF agencies Austria, Belgium, Canada, China,

for the GEF-4. The establishment of

improve the efficiency and effec- Ensuring that countries are in Denmark, Finland, France,

the new Resource Allocation

tiveness of the institution. The the driver’s seat when it comes Germany, Greece, India, Ireland,

Framework was a key issue for the

incoming CEO and chairperson, to setting programming Japan, Korea, the Netherlands,

GEF-4 replenishment discussions,

Monique Barbut, also enacted addi- priorities Portugal, Spain, Sweden,

which were held for more than a

tional reforms to further the insti- Developing a programmatic Switzerland, and the United

year, from March 2005 to June

tutional development agenda. approach Kingdom.

2006.









g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 5

Resource Allocation fashion, but are subject to a prede- developed to measure a country’s GEF Performance Index (GPI)

Framework: An Effective termined allocation. potential to generate global envi- The second component of the

Way to Work Together ronmental benefits in the focal framework, the GEF Performance

The GEF RAF is built on two key pil- areas of biodiversity and climate Index, measures each country’s

Since its inception, the GEF had lars. The first pillar, a country’s change. capacity to successfully implement

been primarily allocating funds in potential to generate global envi- GEF programs and projects based

a “first-come, first-serve” manner. ronmental benefits, reflects the GBI for Biodiversity on the country’s current and past

As individual projects were pro- mandate of the GEF to provide The GBI for biodiversity measures performance. It is composed of

posed, they were usually put in line incremental cost financing to gen- the potential global benefits that three indicators:

for approval if the project met the erate global environmental bene- can be realized from biodiversity- Portfolio Performance Indicator,

appropriate criteria. fits. The second pillar, country per- related activities in a country. It with a weight of 20 percent in

formance, reflects the national poli- reflects the complex, highly uneven GPI, is equally split between an

During negotiations on GEF-3 cies and enabling environment distribution of species and threats indicator developed from GEF

replenishment in the earlier part of that facilitate successful imple- to them across the ecosystems of project ratings (contained in the

the decade, it was recommended mentation of GEF projects. These the world, both within and across Project Implementation Review)

that the GEF move away from this two pillars are reflected in the RAF countries. It recognizes the richness and an indicator developed from

allocation method and, as was through the two indexes: of available data in some areas of ratings from implementation

being done at many similar 1) The GEF Benefits Index (GBI), a biodiversity through the inclusion completion reports on World

institutions, take a more holistic measure of the potential of each of detailed indicators and acknowl- Bank environment-related projects

approach, one that looked at a country to generate global envi- edges the data gaps in other areas by the World Bank Operations

country’s overall performance and ronmental benefits in a particu- through the inclusion of broad Evaluation Department

potential in relation to generating lar focal area; for example, in the indicators. It is aligned with the

global environmental benefits. climate change area, the country’s 2010 targets of the Convention on Country Environmental Policy

current greenhouse gas emissions Biological Diversity. and Institutional Assessment

This new way of disseminating GEF level is a base factor, and Indicator, with a weight of 60

funds, the Resource Allocation 2) The GEF Performance Index GBI for Climate Change percent in GPI, is based on the

Framework (RAF), was put in place (GPI), a measure of each country’s The GBI for climate change meas- Policies and Institutions for

in the current period, initially capacity, policies, and practices ures the potential global benefits Environmental Sustainability

affecting two of six focal areas— relevant to a successful imple- that can be realized from climate indicator from the World Bank’s

climate change and biodiversity— mentation of GEF programs and change mitigation activities in a Country Policy and Institutional

which together represent approxi- projects. country. The approach reflects the Assessment (CPIA), and

mately two-thirds of GEF resources. objectives of the GEF climate

Since July 2006, resources in these GEF Benefits Index (GBI) change programs to address long- Broad Framework Indicator, with

two focal areas are no longer pro- For the initial application of the term priorities to mitigate climate a weight of 20 percent in GPI, is

vided in a first-come, first-serve RAF, separate indexes have been change. based on the average of the five







6 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

indicators under the Public group is equal to the allocation of efforts based on the needs of the

Sector Management and the highest-ranked country in the country overall, ensuring maximum

Institutions cluster of the CPIA group. Ten percent of RAF resources benefits and avoiding redundancies.

were set aside for global and

Allocations under the RAF regional projects, enabling activi- Like many other GEF reforms, the

From these calculations, each coun- ties, and cross-cutting capacity RAF is designed to be a work in

try is assigned a figure representing building. progress, with semiannual Council

a maximum allocation possibility, reports and a mid-period review to

publicly disclosed at the beginning Unused allocations at the end of fine-tune the program to best meet

of the replenishment period, and the replenishment period will not the needs of all stakeholders in the

subject to adjustment every two be carried forward as part of the 5th replenishment period begin-

years. This figure is not an entitle- country or group allocation into the ning in 2010.

ment, but is a country’s focal area next replenishment period. Unused

maximum against which appropri- allocations will be carried over as

ate projects can be selected. part of the total funds available for

a new allocation in the next replen-

For each focal area, all eligible ishment period.

countries are listed in decreasing

order of allocations. The highest- The RAF system offers a number of

ranked countries whose cumulative benefits to the GEF, donors, and

allocations equal 75 percent of the recipient countries alike. For exam-

total resources in the focal area ple, now that countries know their

receive specific country indicative potential allocation in advance,

allocations equal to their respective they can plan ahead over a four-

allocation. year period, selecting projects and

deploying funds more proactively.

The remaining countries are placed In fact, many recipient countries

in a group with collective access to have taken the opportunity to cre-

the indicative allocations for the ate a central mechanism that holis-

group consisting of the resources tically organizes information from

available for a focal area that are dozens or hundreds of the agencies,

not excluded from the RAF and are ministries, NGOs, community

not allocated to individual coun- groups, and other environmental

tries. The upper limit on approved stakeholders within their borders.

projects for any country in the They can then prioritize potential







g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 7

The New Project Cycle: In this new project cycle, all medi- medium-size projects have to Once the GEF Secretariat has com-

um- (up to $1 million) and full-size receive the approval of the CEO of pleted its review and has circulated

Simpler Process, Reduced

projects have been implemented the final project document within the PIF among all GEF agencies and

Burden according to a revised project cycle 12 months from the Project relevant Convention Secretariats,

approved by the Council in June 2007. Identification Form (PIF) approval. the CEO will consider the PIF for

One of the principal obstacles to The new project cycle also allows a inclusion in a work program. PIFs

efficient use of GEF resources was By reducing the number of process- more strategic programming of cleared for work program inclusion

the complexity and time/consum- ing steps and harmonizing the doc- GEF resources and increases trans- will be sent for STAP screening.

ing nature of the process leading umentation requirements with the parency in the decision-making STAP comments will then be post-

from project concept to its imple- standard procedures of the GEF process by posting on the GEF Web ed on the Web site together with

mentation. Therefore, one of the agencies, the new project cycle site all the documents and the deci- the PIF.

key elements of the new CEO’s reduces the time needed for project sions related to each PIF submitted

reform was the design of a new preparation. Full-size projects have to the GEF Secretariat. All PIFs cleared for work program

project cycle. Its main goal is to to be endorsed by the CEO within inclusion will be eligible for a GEF

make the work simpler, faster and 22 months from the date of Council Step 1: CEO Review of the PIF project preparation grant, which

more predictable. approval of the work program; In the new project cycles which may be approved by the GEF CEO

GEF agencies can submit PIFs to for an amount based on the esti-

the GEF Secretariat on a rolling mated incremental costs of project

Develop concept Option to request basis, if endorsed by the country’s preparation. Agencies now have

Step 4 Project Identification Project Preparation Grant operational focal point. The GEF the option to request a fee advance

Project Cycle Paper Form (PIF) (PPG)

Secretariat’s review of a PIF focuses on the amount of the project

on the following elements: preparation grant.

Final evaluation

CEO CEO Country eligibility

Clearance Approval Step 1 Consistency with GEF strategic If the agreed-upon milestones and

Project of PIF of PPG Project Cycle Paper

impacts objectives and programs agreements in the PIF and project

continue after Comparative advantage of the preparation grant approval letters

Implement, monitor, and completion

evaluate project of GEF GEF agency submitting PIF are not achieved, the CEO will con-

funding Council Approval

of PIF

Step 2 Estimated cost of the project, sult with the recipient country and

Project Cycle Paper

including expected cofinancing relevant GEF agency. The CEO may

Availability of resources for the agree to revised milestones and

CEO Endorsement

GEF grant request within the understandings or decide to cancel

Council Review of

Project Document

Prepare project proposal focal area and under the the project concept.

Resource Allocation Framework

Step 3 Milestones for further project

Project Cycle Paper

processing







8 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 9

Step 2: Council Approval of the In approving the work program, scope of projects under the efits that are consistent with

Work Program the Council will provide guidance program focal area strategies, with an

The second step in the GEF new to the Secretariat and the agencies Risks and mitigation measures adequate explanation for any

project cycle is approval of the on the strategic directions and pro- Program coordination, monitor- changes in expected global

work programs (comprising PIFs for gramming framework for the GEF. ing, and evaluation benefits since PIF approval

full-size projects, program frame- Other relevant information, Cost-effective use of GEF funds

work documents, nonexpedited Beginning in fiscal year 2008, including program implementa- focus on review of the project

enabling activities, and agency programmatic approaches for GEF tion, indicative total GEF budget, which includes cost

fees) by the GEF Council. The funding will only be submitted to amount, potential cofinancing tables for project components,

Council reviews the work programs the Council at its meetings, not and sources, the program results project management, and con-

during the twice-yearly Council intersessionally. The Program framework, a list of potential sultants

meetings and through several Framework Document (PFD), which projects and the program imple- Compliance with GEF’s monitor-

intersessional work programs and includes documentation for secur- mentation timeline ing and evaluation policy

gives decisions by mail on a no- ing approval and guiding imple- Cost-effective use of the project

objection basis, between Council mentation of a specific program, Step 3: CEO Endorsement preparation grant as explained

meetings. The work program docu- is presented to the Council in a The third step in the GEF project in the project preparation grant

ment to be reviewed by the Council work program. The Council cycle is the GEF CEO’s endorsement status report (which is included

focuses on policy and strategic reviews the PFD and endorses the of the projects before such projects as an annex attached to the

issues for Council consideration overall objective and scope of the are approved by the GEF agencies. Request for CEO Endorsement)

and describes the overall program- program. PFDs will also identify, The final GEF funding amount is

matic coherence of the concepts to the extent possible, all projects confirmed by the CEO at this point. Within 10 business days of receiv-

presented in the following terms: to be financed under the program. The agencies transmit for CEO ing a draft final project document

Their collective contributions to The PFD contains the following key endorsement the same documenta- for endorsement, the Secretariat

the GEF strategic objectives and information: tion that they submit for approval will review the proposal, and the

programs Background and program rationale by their respective internal approv- CEO will determine whether the

Their focal area and geographic Value-added of the program ing authorities, plus a Request for proposal is in compliance with the

balance, including a cumulative (including cost-effectiveness) CEO Endorsement, which summa- conditions for endorsement. As

assessment of previous work Program objective and results rizes key information of the project. soon as the CEO has determined

programs Consistency of the program with The project proposals are reviewed that the project proposal meets the

Their innovative elements, as national/regional by the Secretariat for compliance conditions for endorsement, the

well as replication potential; priorities/plans/policies with the following conditions for Secretariat will circulate the draft

The key assumptions and risks Alignment with GEF focal area endorsement: final project document to Council

in the further development of strategy High likelihood that the project, members. Within four weeks of

the portfolio Expected global environmental as designed, will deliver its out- receiving such a document, and

The resource programming benefits comes and will generate appro- prior to CEO endorsement and final

implications Type of operations and potential priate global environmental ben- approval by the agency concerned,





10 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

Council members may transmit to the case that the amount endorsed ments. At the end of the two-week period. The CEO may also deter-

the CEO any concerns they may by the CEO is reduced from the circulation period, the CEO will mine, in consultation with the

have regarding the proposal related amount approved by the Council send an approval letter to the country and the agency concerned,

to technical, procedural, or policy for the project or fee, the trustee agency indicating the approval of to stop further project preparation

issues or inconsistency with the will release the remainder of the the project, the grant amount, and and cancel the project.

GEF instrument. funds, which were previously set the associated agency fee.

aside for the project or fee, back to Step 4: Implementation

The CEO has discretion to endorse the GEF Trust Fund to be made If comments are provided by the Supervision, Monitoring, and

or not endorse a proposal. The CEO available for other projects, activi- Council, agencies should address Final Evaluation

will take into account any Council ties, or fees. the comments and notify the GEF The fourth step in the GEF project

member’s concerns prior to Secretariat regarding responses to cycle consists of implementation

endorsement and work to address In all cases, transfer of funds from comments and if these have any supervision, monitoring, and final

them with concerned parties, fol- the trustee to agencies will be effect on the final project docu- evaluation. Streamlining of the GEF

lowing which the CEO will recircu- made after commitment by the ment. As necessary, a revised proj- project approval process will be

late the proposal, as needed. trustee and subsequent agency ect document may be resubmitted, accompanied by more robust result

approvals of the projects or activi- and the CEO may approve the proj- verification mechanisms. As part of

The CEO will post those concerns ties, where relevant, following the ect based on the final submitted its monitoring responsibilities, the

on the GEF Web site, notify Council procedures agreed to between the project document. Secretariat will conduct an Annual

members within two days, and GEF agencies and the trustee. Monitoring Review, which will be

update the status of the project Enabling activities (EAs) under based on the submission of Project

proposal in the management infor- For medium-size projects (MSP) the expedited procedures (up to Implementation Reports by the

mation system to indicate that project cycle is shorter. The PIF has $500,000 in GEF financing, but agencies. The key issues to be mon-

endorsement will be delayed pend- to be submitted to the GEF varying across focal areas) do not itored include implementation

ing resolution of the concern Secretariat for CEO approval. Once need to submit a PIF. An EA project progress, performance indicators,

expressed by the Council member. the PIF is approved, the agency can document will be approved by the focal area strategic objectives, proj-

Endorsed final project documents start preparation of the MSP until a CEO and will be accessible on the ects at risk, actions to achieve sus-

will be posted on the GEF Web site. final MSP project document is GEF database through the GEF Web tainability and replicability, stake-

ready for CEO approval. A project site. For EAs that are not under holder involvement, and cofinanc-

The trustee will make commit- preparation grant for the project expedited procedures, processing ing status.

ments of funding to GEF agencies may be approved by the CEO, if will be the same as full-size proj-

for projects and fees upon CEO necessary, upon CEO approval of ects. The Secretariat will ask agen- The agencies are required to sub-

endorsement. The commitments the PIF. After the CEO clears the cies to revise proposals that it mit the final evaluation reports to

will be made based on the MSP final project document, it will deems not to be in compliance the GEF Evaluation Office. In addi-

amounts endorsed by the CEO, as be posted on the GEF Web site for a with the specified conditions for tion, the GEF Evaluation Office also

indicated in the endorsement letter two-week period, and a notification approval and to resubmit them for assess the adequacy of the moni-

from the CEO to GEF agencies. In will be sent to the Council for com- review, with another 10-day review toring and evaluation (M&E) sys-





g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 11

tem in the GEF, including compli- Results-Based International Waters mental benefits on both a focal

ance with the GEF M&E policy. Monitoring levels of nutrient area leve and an institutional

Management

releases at demostration sites. level—and are a major element of

Upon financial closures of projects Framework: Measuring the GEF’s evolution to a results-ori-

or activities, the GEF agencies Our Mutual Impact Land Degradation ented culture.

report any unused funds to the Percentage increase in carbon

Trustee. The GEF has put into place a new stocks (soil and plant biomass).

monitoring system that will help

The Secretariat, in consultation demonstrate and ensure the ability Persistent Organic Pollutants

with the countries and in collabo- of projects, focal areas, and the PCBs phased out and disposed of.

ration with the GEF agencies, will institution as a whole to provide

actively manage the project cycle measurable results and global envi- Ozone-Depleting Substances

as described in GEF/C.30/3, Rules, ronmental benefits. Percentage of GEF-funded countries

Procedures and Objective Criteria that meet their reporting obliga-

for Project Selection, Pipeline The Results-Based Management tions under the Montreal Protocol.

Management, Approval of Sub- Framework outlines specific objec-

projects, and Cancellation Policy tives and measurable indicators in Under the Results-Based

(November 2006). each focal area for every new proj- Management Framework, the

ect approved. A report will be made design of each new project will

once a year on the status of these include baseline data for each met-

metrics. Typical indicators under ric so that progress can be meas-

particular objectives for each focal ured and tracked systematically.

area might include, but are not

limited to the following: In addition to providing valuable

data regarding the ongoing

Biodiversity progress of individual projects,

Percentage increase in new habitat these annually measured indica-

protected (hectares). tors, in conjunction with the

results of ultimate formal project

Climate Change evaluations by the independent

Energy consumption (and green- Evaluation Office, will equip the

house gas emissions) of buildings GEF with the information needed

and appliances (kilowatt-hours per to assess how the organization’s

square meter and tons of CO2 efforts contribute to its overall

equivalent per square meter). goal—of achieving global environ-







12 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 13

Working drafts of the focal area

Focal Area Strategies BIODIVERSITY

strategies and minutes from the

meetings of the advisory groups STRATEGIC LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES STRATEGIC PROGRAMS FOR GEF-4

At the outset of GEF-4, the GEF

were posted on the GEF Web site 1: To catalyze sustainability of 1. Sustainable financing of PA systems

Secretariat led a process for revis-

throughout the process for com- protected area (PA) systems at the national level

ing the six focal area strategies,

ment from all stakeholders.

taking into account the cross-cut- 2. Increasing representation of effec-

ting issues of sustainable forest tively managed marine PA areas in

The Council approved the revised PA systems

management and sound chemicals

long-term focal area strategies and,

management. This was a direct

as a step towards a more program- 3. Strengthening terrestrial PA networks

response to the policy recommen-

matic approach, strategic programs

dations for the fourth replenish- 2: To mainstream biodiversity in 4. Strengthening the policy and regula-

were developed in support of them.

ment of the GEF Trust Fund. The production landscapes/seascapes tory framework for mainstreaming

The strategic programs were select- and sectors

revision also followed the strategic biodiversity

ed and defined in view of their 5. Fostering markets for biodiversity

elements of the Sustainability

importance, urgency, and cost- goods and services

Compact for a New GEF presented by

effectiveness from a global envi-

the CEO to Council in December 2006. 3: To safeguard biodiversity 6. Building capacity for the implemen-

ronment perspective, as well as the

tation of the Cartagena Protocol on

priorities identified by countries,

In order to ensure a broad and con- Biosafety

especially in the context of the

sultative revision process, the CEO

implementation of the RAF, as well 4: To build capacity on access and 7. Prevention, control, and management

established Technical Advisory

as overall guidance from the benefit sharing of invasive alien species

Groups on biodiversity, climate

Multilateral Environmental

change, sustainable land manage- 8. Building capacity on access and

Agreements.

ment, international waters, sus- benefit sharing

tainable forest management, and

A major effort by the TAGs was to

sound chemicals management and

align the focal area strategies with

a Strategy Advisory Group for over-

the emerging Results Based

arching coordination. Each TAG was

Management (RBM) Framework for

composed of external experts,

the GEF, in order to direct the

selected from among nominations

strategies toward tangible global

by the Council Members, a repre-

environmental benefits and to

sentative from the relevant conven-

enable adequate reporting on the

tion secretariats, a member of STAP,

implementation of the strategies.

and a member from the GEF

The long-term objectives and

Secretariat, who served as technical

strategic programs are summarized

secretary and convener of the TAG.

in the following table.





14 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

C L I M ATE C H A N G E L A N D D E G R A DATI O N



STRATEGIC LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES STRATEGIC PROGRAMS FOR GEF-4 STRATEGIC LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES STRATEGIC PROGRAMS FOR GEF-4



1: To promote energy-efficient tech- 1. Promoting energy efficiency in 1: To develop an enabling environment 1. Supporting sustainable agriculture

nologies and practices in the appli- residential and commercial buildings that will place Sustainable Land and rangeland management

ance and building sectors Management (SLM) in the main-

stream of development policy and 2. Supporting sustainable forest man-

2: To promote energy-efficient tech- 2. Promoting energy efficiency in the practices at the regional, national, agement in production landscapes

nologies and practices in industrial industrial sector and local levels

production and manufacturing 3. Investing in innovative approaches

processes 2: To upscale SLM investments that in SLM

generate mutual benefits for the

3: To improve the efficiency and per- Strategic objective not pursued global environment and local liveli-

formance of existing power plants directly in GEF-4 hoods





I NTE R N ATI O N A L WATE R S

4: To promote on-grid renewable 3. Promoting market approaches for

STRATEGIC LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES STRATEGIC PROGRAMS FOR GEF-4

energy renewable energy

1: To foster international, multistate 1. Restoring and sustaining coastal and

5: To promote the use of renewable Strategic objective not pursued cooperation on priority transbound- marine fish stocks and associated

energy for the provision of rural directly in GEF-4 ary water concerns biological diversity

energy services (off-grid)

2: To catalyze transboundary action 2. Reducing nutrient overenrichment

6: To support new low-GHG-emitting 4. Promoting sustainable energy addressing water concerns and oxygen depletion from land-

energy technologies production from biomass based pollution of coastal waters in

LMEs consistent with the GPA

7: To facilitate market transformation 5. Promoting sustainable innovative

for sustainable mobility in urban systems for urban transport 3. Balancing overuse and conflicting

areas leading to reduced GHG uses of water resources in trans-

emissions boundary surface and groundwater

basins

8: To support pilot and demonstration Reference is made to the SPA, SCCF,

projects for adaptation to climate and LDCF, and to the principle of GEF- 4. Adapting to melting ice in high-

change wide climate proofing. altitude basins and polar systems









g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 15

PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS (POPs) SUSTAINABLE FOREST M ANAGEMENT



STRATEGIC LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES STRATEGIC PROGRAMS FOR GEF-4 STRATEGIC LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES STRATEGIC PROGRAMS FOR GEF-4

1: To reduce and eliminate production, 1. Strengthening capacity for NIP 1: To protect globally significant forest 1. Sustainable financing of protected

use, and releases of POPs (National Implementation Plan) biodiversity area systems at national level (same

development and implementation 2: To promote sustainable manage- as BD#1)

2. Partnering in investments for NIP ment and use of forest resources 2. Strengthening terrestrial protected

implementation area networks (same as BD#3)

3. Generating and disseminating 3. New: Forest conservation as a means

knowledge to address future to protect carbon stocks and avoid

challenges in implementing the CO2 emissions (cross-cutting

Stockholm Convention BD/CC/LD)

4. Strengthening the policy and regula-

tory framework for mainstreaming

biodiversity (same as BD#4)

5. Fostering markets for biodiversity

OZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES goods and services (same as BD#5)

6. New: Promoting sustainable energy

STRATEGIC LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES STRATEGIC PROGRAMS FOR GEF-4

production from biomass (cross-cut-

1: To phase out production and 1. Phasing out HCFC and strengthening ting CC#4/BD/LD)

consumption of ODS of capacities and institutions 7. Supporting sustainable forest man-

agement in production landscapes

(same as LD#2)









SOUND CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT



STRATEGIC LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES STRATEGIC PROGRAMS FOR GEF-4

1: To promote sound management of 1. Integrating sound chemicals

chemicals for the protection of management in GEF projects

human health and the global envi- 2. Articulating the chemicals-related

ronment interventions supported by the GEF

within countries’ frameworks for

chemicals management









16 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

Capacity Building: the first six months of the program human resource development that identified through the NCSAs,

was to provide assistance to and had targeted the management of including guidelines for develop-

Helping Countries Get

exchange lessons among the 100 natural resources and environmen- ment of the NCSA follow-on for

the Most from GEF NCSA projects under active imple- tal issues. Countries were provided the other pathways.

Resources mentation. Support was delivered with guidelines and tools such as

by a variety of means, including the following: The countries that reached the

There is often potential for direct response to individual NCSA (a) a revised resource kit of methods stage of finalizing their needs

improvement in any country’s project queries or requests; use of and suggestions for a country to assessment considered the NCSAs

ability to meet its environmental list serves and a Web site to facili- undertake the NCSA process effi- to be a strategic tool in country

responsibilities and make the most tate networking and sharing of ciently and effectively; programming on global environ-

of resources received from the GEF knowledge across regions and (b) supplementary guidance on the mental management and a logical

and similar institutions. With this worldwide; and organization of preparation of a national strate- follow-up to enabling activities

in mind, the GEF accelerated its “learning-training” workshops gy for capacity development, and that assisted them to plan their

Strategic Approach to Enhance with NCSA teams from groups of an effective plan of follow-up focal area strategies and the medi-

Capacity Development in the peri- countries. actions; um- and full-size projects that built

od. The Global Support Program (c) synthesis reports and reviews of capacity in specific areas of global

was set up by the GEF Council in In parallel, over the course of its the outputs generated and capac- environmental management. The

2005 to provide the countries first year, the Global Support ities developed directly during NCSAs opened an opportunity for

undertaking National Capacity Program developed a range of the course of countries’ NCSAs, countries to assess the critical gaps

Self-Assessments (NCSAs) with guidelines and tools aimed at plus lessons collated from each in capacity for sustaining their

methodological support and enhancing the quality of both step of the process and supple- monitoring and reporting activities

knowledge-management mecha- capacity assessment and capacity mentary guidelines for strength- in the focal areas and to follow this

nisms. It also gave substantive development activities supported ening the outputs and impacts of by mainstreaming these strategies

inputs for the implementation of by the GEF through each of the the program; and outputs from GEF projects into

the strategic approach. The three- four strategic pathways. In addition (d) a tool for defining the scope, national frameworks for sustain-

year project started in August 2005 to using lessons derived from the objectives, and indicators of able development planning.

and was managed jointly by UNDP NCSAs, the guidelines and tools effective capacity development,

and UNEP through the guidance drew on other reviews and case to apply to the NCSA outputs and By the end of the period, most of

received from the Capacity studies of capacity-building efforts, action plan, and to each of the the 145 countries participating had

Building Task Force. including those undertaken as other pathways of the GEF strate- completed their NCSA, and the GEF

components of regular GEF focal gic approach; and had begun providing additional

The Global Support Program served area projects. Program guidelines (e) a progressive series of guides to resources to assist countries that

as a learning and support mecha- and tools also drew on broader pro- effective planning and imple- were still in the process of develop-

nism for capacity development in grams of institutional develop- mentation of actions in critical ing it. The NCSAs provide countries

the GEF program. The priority for ment, capacity building, and areas of capacity needs that are an opportunity to assess the criti-







g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 17

cal gaps in their ability to meet GEF Country Support persistent organic pollutants. The ties, policies, and programs;

their environmental responsibili- GEF is the financial mechanism for strengthen stakeholder involve-

ties under various conventions and

Program for GEF Focal those conventions and for the ment in global environmental pro-

compacts, and are an important Points Convention to Combat grams; and enhance the capacity of

tool for strategic action. The next Desertification. those countries to develop and

phase of capacity building will be The Country Support Program for implement GEF projects.

to work to proactively address GEF focal points is a $12 million, Historical Background

these identified gaps. four-year multifocal global project. The GEF’s overall performance In June 2005, the Council approved

This capacity enhancement pro- evaluations (OPS1, OPS2, and OPS3) elements for a new four-year phase

In the period, the GEF also began gram was operationalized in underscored the need to enhance of the program of assistance to

working to ensure that attention to January 2006 and is scheduled to the capacity of GEF countries to strengthen national focal points

capacity building was included as end in December 2009. develop, manage, and mainstream and Council members. This new

part of regular GEF projects going GEF projects. The evaluations phase was developed in response

forward, encourage the develop- The program focuses on providing called for the GEF to take action to to the evaluation of the first focal

ment of targeted capacity-building support to country representatives enable the GEF focal points to point support program, and in

projects both within and across (focal points) for activities related become more effective advocates response to the recommendations

focal areas, and develop further to training, outreach, and informa- for GEF programs and issues. of the three GEF Overall Performance

cross-cutting capacity development tion sharing, and strengthening of Studies as well as the third replen-

programs for least developed coun- country-level coordination. The In May 1999, a program to support ishment of the GEF Trust Fund

tries and small island developing goals are to promote genuine coun- focal points was approved by the (GEF-3).

states. try ownership and facilitate active GEF Council in response to the

involvement of recipient countries evaluations. A subsequent evalua- The Council requested that the GEF

and interested government and tion of this pilot program found Secretariat and the Implementing

civil society stakeholders in global that it had a positive, but limited, Agencies collaborate in preparing a

environmental activities. effect on the capacity of focal proposal, which was presented for

points to carry out their responsi- approval to the November 2005

The primary purpose of the bilities more effectively. The results Council meeting. The current

Country Support Program (CSP) for of the evaluation made it clear that Country Support Program for focal

focal points is to respond to GEF there is a continuing need, particu- points takes into consideration pre-

recipient countries’ requests for larly among least developed coun- vious and current efforts by the

tools to help them respond to their tries (LDCs) and small island devel- GEF to address country needs and

obligations as GEF recipient coun- oping states (SIDs), to strengthen empower focal points.

tries as well as obligations con- capacity for coordination of envi-

tained in the global conventions on ronmental activities at the country

biodiversity, climate change, and level; raise awareness of GEF priori-







18 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

Elements of the Country Support capacity of countries to develop organizations, indigenous peoples, interact with GEF Secretariat and

Program global environmental projects in a and the private sector. GEF Agency staff in order to discuss

The project comprises three compo- more strategic manner, and to priority issues.

nents. The Direct Support for Focal develop a capacity to coordinate At the end of the first year of activi-

Points is implemented jointly by and monitor global environmental ties, the focal point submits a The design and content of the 2007

the GEF Secretariat and UNEP. The activities. report to the GEF Secretariat on the subregional workshops were based

subregional workshops and the activities carried out and actual on the requests and needs

Knowledge Management Under this program, each eligible expenditures. The GEF Secretariat expressed by GEF focal points dur-

Framework are implemented by country receives financial support reviews the substantive report, and ing earlier consultations. The CSP

UNDP. The objective of these com- to carry out activities as expressed UNEP reviews the financial report. also conducted a survey in

ponents is to enhance the capacity in the guidelines for the focal point Disbursement of funds for the sec- November 2006 to identify the pri-

of focal points to better prioritize, support program, based on nation- ond year follows the approval of the ority topics of interest to focal

design, implement, cooordinate, al work plans (for a maximum of substantive and financial reports. points and specific experiences

and monitor global environmental $8,000 per year per country). they would like to present. The sur-

projects. This program also provides finan- vey results indicated that the fol-

Focal points prepare, with the guid- cial support to enable the partici- lowing are the main topics of inter-

The need for a programmatic ance of the GEF Secretariat, an pation of the operational focal est to focal points (in order of

approach to capacity building for annual work plan, outlining the point and the political focal point, importance to respondents):

focal points has become even more activities expected to be carried out or their designates, at up to two Establishing national GEF coordi-

urgent as the GEF explores ways to and their anticipated costs. constituency meetings convened nation mechanisms

operationalize the second phase of each year. In addition, selected Developing national GEF strate-

the Resource Allocation Activities funded under this com- newly appointed focal points are gies and setting priorities

Framework. ponent focus on increasing aware- invited to attend GEF familiariza- Integrating GEF into national

ness of GEF issues, creating institu- tion seminars. plans and programs

CSP—Direct Support for Focal tional memory within relevant Tracking national GEF portfolios

Points government agencies, supporting Subregional Workshops for GEF and assessing results

This component was operational- the establishment of coordination Focal Points Improving communications and

ized in February 2006. The mecha- or resource units in appropriate Beginning in 2007 the CSP organ- outreach to key stakeholders

nism and procedures to implement ministries to increase coordination ized a series of annual subregional Creating tools and methodolo-

this component were established among agencies, keeping track of workshops for focal points. These gies to support institutional

to help focal points develop nation- global environmental activities, workshops provide an opportunity memory

al activities to carry out capacity- and promoting mainstreaming and for focal points to exchange infor- Developing regional strategies

building activities in the country integration as well as strengthen- mation and share their experi- and projects

based on annual work plans. These ing stakeholder involvement, with ences, to be updated on evolving Managing stakeholder conflicts

activities contribute to building the emphasis on nongovernmental GEF policies and procedures, and to and building consensus







g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 19

Knowledge Management acquisition of knowledge, experi- Equitable and balanced repre- enhance communication and

Framework ence, and best practice targeted to sentation from within the geo- outreach efforts

The Knowledge Facility aims to meeting focal points needs. It also graphic region Decide upon constituency gover-

address the potential knowledge facilitates focal point learning Commonality of global, regional, nance issues, such as the order in

needs of focal points and to assist through exchange, discussion, and subregional environmental which countries will assume

them in carrying out their roles research, and action. The concerns Council member and alternate

and responsibilities with respect to Knowledge Facility includes a GEF Policies and efforts toward sus- seats (rotation agreements)

managing global environmental information section, targeted mate- tainable development Discuss implementation of GEF

issues within their national devel- rials for focal points, discussion Natural resource endowment projects and share lessons

opment contexts. forums, management tools, an and environmental vulnerability learned.

advanced search facility for target- Contributions to the GEF as

The design of the Knowledge ed searches on key topics of inter- defined in paragraph 25(c)(iii) of Constituency meetings can be held

Facility is based primarily on the est, and partnership links, which the Instrument prior to or after a GEF Council

needs and priorities identified by provide information on and links to meeting to deliberate on proposed

focal points themselves, in the a number of related organizations Each constituency appoints a Council meeting agenda items or

course of subregional consultations and Web sites. Council member to represent the discuss outcomes from previous

held in 2006, as well as through constituency at GEF Council meet- Council meetings. In addition,

written requests and surveys con- Council Member Support Program ings. One of the responsibilities of Council members can discuss

ducted by the CSP. The Knowledge This program is designed to help the Council member is to hold a issues related to constituency

Facility has been designed in close the GEF Council members of recipi- constituency meeting twice a year coordination.

collaboration with the GEF ent countries convene meetings of with focal points from all con-

Secretariat and Implementing and their constituency partners in stituency countries. Constituency Financial support is provided.

Executing Agencies, taking advan- order to discuss matters of com- meetings provide an opportunity Council members can request up to

tage of, and ensuring integration mon interest and principally to to work toward the following US$2,000 to cover the cost of each

with, existing knowledge manage- define constituency positions for objectives: of the two constituency meetings

ment structures and available the Council meetings. per year, including the costs of

information and data. Develop constituency positions intraconstituency communication

GEF member countries have been with regard to specific Council media such as teleconferences,

The Knowledge Facility helps focal grouped into 32 constituencies, issues e-mails, courier services, and faxes.

points address their immediate with 18 constituencies composed of Share information and obtain

information needs related to the recipient countries. These 18 con- feedback on the outcome of National Dialogue Initiative (NDI)

GEF and its policies, procedures, stituencies are grouped based on a Council meetings and obtain The National Dialogue Initiative

lessons, and experiences. The mixture of the following criteria feedback on Council decisions (2004–2009), implemented by

Knowledge Facility serves as a con- and other relevant and environ- Review country and constituen- UNDP, has formed an integral com-

stantly accessible resource for ment-related factors: cy coordination issues to ponent of country support activi-







20 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

ties provided by the GEF Secretariat Inform themselves about global

and GEF partner agencies. The environmental issues and GEF

global objective of the national dia- policies and procedures

logues in GEF-4 has been congruent Take stock of activities and

with the new GEF vision and results of GEF portfolios in their

strategic guidance provided by the countries

Inter-Agency Steering Committee: Further define priorities for

To provide targeted and flexible funding and develop national

support for country-level multi- GEF programming strategies

stakeholder dialogue and sharing Strengthen national GEF

of information and experiences, coordination processes and

leading to action on national GEF mechanisms and intersectoral

matters through strategic national coordination

priority setting and strengthened Enhance interagency collabora-

coordination and partnerships. To tion and partnerships

date, some 80 dialogues have been Promote integration of GEF in

held since 2000 under the initiative national environmental and sus-

and a previous program, the tainable development plans and

Country Dialogue Workshops. processes



National dialogues have provided The NDI has enabled the GEF

unique country-level forums for partners to respond to new country

broad, multistakeholder dialogue concerns and challenges associated

on GEF-related issues, involving a with the Resource Allocation

diversity of government ministries Framework and the need for

and agencies, NGOs, communities, national priority setting and coor-

academic and research institutions, dinated programming, as well as

the private sector, as well as other helped countries understand and

partners and donors in the country. implement new GEF policies such

National dialogues have allowed as the revised project cycle and

these diverse stakeholders in GEF focal area and cross-cutting

recipient countries to achieve the strategies.

following:









g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 21

Civil Society Involvement in the GEF op its relationship with civil society Local Level to integrating GEF goals into

As informed and effective advo- through the GEF NGO Network. The At the local level NGOs and civil national policies through participa-

cates, civil society organizations, in original intent of establishing the society organizations have played tion and representation in steering

particular nongovernmental organ- GEF NGO Network was to involve an increasingly important role in committees of national environ-

izations, have had a role in shaping constituencies not previously rep- the engagement of local communi- mental action plans, national sus-

the GEF and its agenda from the resented within the GEF, similar to ties in the development, formula- tainable development strategies,

beginning. Participation by NGOs, the involvement in the United tion, and implementation of GEF and national conservation strate-

both local and international, has Nations of the UN Major Groups, activities at the local or site level. gies, and in GEF national commit-

become crucial, not only at the which include NGOs, indigenous By 2007, the Small Grants Program tees. Furthermore, NGOs have

project level but also in GEF policy peoples, business and industry, had financed more than 9,000 assisted GEF national focal points

dimensions. Village organizations women, children and youth, local projects, for a total value over $200 in identifying national priorities

and other community-based authorities, workers and trade million, and was operating in 101 relating to global environmental

groups, academic institutions, and unions, scientific and technological countries. issues.

foundations are among the NGO communities, and farmers.

partners integral to the GEF’s Opportunities for the GEF to work Local NGOs and Community Based International Level

efforts. More than 150 GEF-financed with and partner with NGOs have Organizations have also been impor- At the international level, NGOs

projects are executed or coexecuted steadily increased. NGOs have tant partners in the implementation have participated in international

by, or contain contracts or been involved with the GEF in the of many full- and medium-size proj- meetings and conferences con-

subcontracts to, nongovernmental following fields: ects. Governments in many GEF eli- vened under the multilateral envi-

groups. More than 60 regional and (a) governance and policy formula- gible countries have recognized that ronmental conventions. They have

global NGO networks are involved tion and development through without the effective engagement provided views and technical input

in the design and implementation NGO representation at consulta- of civil society, GEF interventions to the government participants

of GEF-funded transboundary tions and Council meetings; often are unable to achieve their and the parties to the conventions

waters projects. The GEF’s Small (b) project preparation and execu- goals. on the recommendations and guid-

Grants Program, administered by tion in countries; and ance directed to the GEF and other

UNDP, has provided grants of up to (c) advocacy, awareness, and out- National Level international institutions.

US$50,000, an average of reach on global environmental At the national level, strong NGOs

US$20,000, to finance more than issues. have been essential to ensuring NGO Consultations and

9,000 projects executed by NGOs, country ownership of GEF projects Representation at Council and

community-based organizations, NGOs have played a role in GEF and to supporting ongoing efforts Assembly Meetings

indigenous people’s organizations, governance and in policy formula- to mainstream the GEF mandate Prior to each Council meeting dur-

and so on. tion and development at the local, and policies within national devel- ing this period, NGO consultations

national, international, and GEF opment and environmental plans continued to be held with NGO rep-

During the period covered by this Council and assembly levels. and strategies. NGOs have con- resentatives from recipient coun-

report the GEF continued to devel- tributed effectively and proactively tries. The NGO consultations pro-







22 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 23

vided an opportunity for NGOs to the Resource Allocation Framework and leaders received national and

Small Grants Program

express their views about GEF technical seminars, OPS consulta- international awards. The follow-

activities and to engage in a sub- tions, and the Local Benefits Study. ing are a few examples:

Between July 1, 2005, and June 30,

stantive dialogue with the NGOs also played a key role in

2007, the GEF approved 2,914 new

Implementing Agencies about GEF organizing the Third Assembly of A Honduran community, The

local environmental initiatives

policies and projects. the Global Environment Facility, Association of Indigenous

through the Small Grants Program

hosted by the Republic of South Women of Moskitia, consisting

(SGP). In addition, during the peri-

The model of inclusive representa- Africa in Cape Town, August 29– of approximately 600 single

od, 3,977 previously approved SGP

tion and participation of NGOs in 30, 2006. Organized by the GEF mothers and spouses of disabled

projects continued throughout the

the GEF Council is one that is NGO Network, under the umbrella divers, was honored with the

world. The total GEF allocation for

unique among governing bodies of of the Third GEF Assembly, the annual National Environment

the Small Grants Program during

international financial institutions. NGO forum brought NGOs, indige- Award by the government of

the reporting period was approxi-

The review of the NGO network nous peoples groups, and rural and Honduras for their efforts in

mately $72.3 million, but was sig-

highlighted that many NGO repre- urban grassroots communities to recycling solid waste and gener-

nificantly supplemented by an

sentatives who have attended participate and contribute their ating income to their families in

additional $96.7 million generated

Council meetings showed an knowledge and expertise to discus- rural areas of Moskitia.

in cash and in-kind cofinancing

increasing sophistication, over the sion on the global environment,

from partners, including the GEF

years, in preparing and articulating sustainable livelihoods, and pover- In the community of

agencies, bilateral agencies, recipi-

their positions on many Council ty eradication. The forum brought Guantanamo, Cuba, Ms. Irania

ent countries, local governments,

agenda items. to the attention of governments Martinez Garcia won the CNN

the private sector, as well as the

and regional organizations the Heroes award in the “Defending

NGO and community grantees

NGOs were also invited to partici- capacity and contributions of these the Planet” category for leading

themselves.

pate in various working groups and groups in addressing global envi- the fight to transform a local

task forces convened by the GEF ronmental challenges. It also pro- toxic waste dump from a health

High Level of Recognition through

Secretariat, and to provide inputs vided recommendations as to how hazard into a community

National and International

to technical workshops and other best to incorporate the NGO’s per- resource. This SGP project also

Awards

activities initiated by the Council, spectives into policies and strate- won Cuba’s National Environment

The SGP’s unique and innovative

the Secretariat, and the Evaluation gies that make a difference at the Award.

small projects often capture the

Office. For example, NGOs played a local level.

attention of media around the

leadership role in formulating pro- A community in Tanzania won

world and are frequently cited for

posals that led to the establish- the Commission on Sustainable

awards, honors, and recognition by

ment of procedures for medium- Development award for one of

various organizations. During the

size projects and for subsequent the best practices in sustainable

period, a large number of SGP-

proposals for improving these pro- development in Africa. The

backed local community efforts

cedures. NGOs also participated in Community Water Initiative







24 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

Background on the Small Grants Program



Many environmental challenges—whether they be related to climate change, diminishing biodiversity,

water pollution, or other phenomena—are most strongly damaging at the level of the individual commu-

nity. These communities—often composed of roughly 100–300 households—are directly affected by envi-

ronmental impacts on traditional sources of food, water, livelihood, and more. In fact, many isolated rural

communities may be the only human beings immediately confronted with the everyday reality of serious

environmental problems. And yet, these communities are generally most in need of the political support

and financial resources to fight back.



With this fact in mind, the GEF created the Small Grants Program (SGP) to work with and complement each

of its focal areas. With the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) as Implementing Agency, SGP

reaches out to identified poor and vulnerable communities—through a demand-driven process owned and

managed by a national decision-making and governance body, the National Steering Committee (NSC). SGP

proactively helps these communities and their local NGO partners to develop and implement small, highly

targeted projects to address specific local challenges linked to GEF focal areas, with grant support of up

to US$50,000.



Highly responsive and flexible, SGP also provides special assistance to women and to indigenous peoples,

groups that are considered highly vulnerable. In 2007, the fourth independent evaluation of the program

found that “SGP has contributed directly to global environmental benefits while also addressing the

livelihood needs of local populations” and that “since its inception, 60 percent of projects directly or indi-

rectly targeted the poor or the poorest.” In addition, SGP fosters community leaders’ ability to network

and communicate with each other globally to share best practices, exchange lessons learned, organize site

visits, and further leverage successes. Since its inception, the GEF Small Grants Program has generated

about $512 million in assistance, consisting of $282 million in GEF investment and $230 million in cash and

in-kind cofinancing from GEF partners worldwide. The SGP, over the span of 15 years, proudly reached a

total of 10,000 projects with grantees and community-based organizations.









g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 25

project, supported by SGP part- best practices worldwide. Projects Work with Indigenous and Local

ner cofinancing, reduced the dis- are under way in the period, with Communities to Conserve

tance needed to gather water local communities in 10 countries Biodiversity

from 2 kilometers to less than featuring many different types of Many important biodiverse areas

500 meters. ecosystems, such as highland, low- are and could be under the effec-

land, arid, and seaside topogra- tive management of indigenous

An artificial coral reef project in phies. Countries supported include peoples and local communities.

Iran was the final nominee to Bangladesh, Bolivia, Guatemala, With this knowledge, SGP began its

receive the UNDP Innovation Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Morocco, work to support indigenous peo-

and Commitment Award for a Namibia, Niger, Samoa, and ples and help get appropriate

project to reverse the destruction Vietnam. recognition for Indigenous and

of local marine resources and Community Conserved Areas, natu-

rehabilitate coastal habitats by Integration of Local Actions in ral sacred sites, and ancestral

creating innovatively designed International Waters Management domains. More than 1,500 projects

artificial coral reefs and generat- The GEF’s international waters implemented by indigenous peo-

ing local income. focal area focuses on bodies of ples have been supported as of the

water that span international end of this reporting period.

Pioneering of Community-Based boundaries. Yet many of the chal- Initiatives to consolidate these

Adaptation Projects lenges affecting these waters rest efforts to promote Indigenous and

Climate change is currently consid- in the hands of local communities. Community Conserved Areas was

ered the most critical global envi- To help bridge the gap, SGP is work- also started with the aim of bring-

ronmental problem worldwide, and ing with the community-level ing together a wide range of part-

individual communities are often aspect of many of the GEF’s ongo- ners, networks, and organizations

the most severely affected. Yet they ing full-size projects. The SGP has whose joint efforts will eventually

are also the most poorly equipped taken its Community Approach to recognize an area of effectively

to deal with its impacts. Working in International Waters to efforts in managed biodiverse sites greater

conjunction with UNDP/GEF, and the South China Sea, Nile River, than the current 16 million square

with support from the GEF’s Niger River Basin, and other critical kilometers of globally protected

Strategic Priority on Adaptation international water bodies. For areas under existing national park

funds, SGP started its role as the example, SGP implemented a systems.

delivery mechanism for the microgrant component that has so

Community-Based Adaptation far benefited more than 190 com-

Program, a $5 million pilot effort to munities in the Nile River basin.

help promote adaptation at the

community level and disseminate







26 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

The GEF Portfolio

g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 27

The GEF Portfolio Allocations and Cofinancing







The Leveraging Effect of Sources of GEF Cofinancing

GEF Support



1991–2007 1991–2007



2% 6%

$629.51 $1,703.91

20% 15% <1%

GEF Allocation $7,361.80 $4378.98 $79.71 Others



Cofinancing Amount NGO

15% 28% Multilateral

$4248.88 $7967.44



Government

1%

$358.07

Foundation

80%

$28,783.45 Bilateral

32%

$8967.53

Beneficiaries



Private Sector

2006–2007 2006–2007

8% 5%

14% $776.40 $471.23 6%

$574.43

$1,619.64

10% <1%

$955.31 $48.18



2%

$161.60



33%

$3,216.75









86% 36%

$9,679.47 $3,475.57









All amounts in millions of dollars. Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.







28 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

The GEF Portfolio Project Types





GEF Allocations for GEF Allocations for GEF Allocations for GEF Allocations for GEF Allocations for GEF Allocations for GEF Allocations for

Biodiversity Projects Climate Change Projects International Waters Projects Land Degradation Projects Multifocal Area Projects Ozone Depletion Projects POPs Projects

1991–2007 1991–2007 1991–2007 1991–2007 1991–2007 1991–2007 1991–2007





7%

4%

2%

6% 2% 4% 3% 3% 3%



26%









3%









90% 91% 98% 96% 94% 97% 71%









2006–2007 2006–2007 2006–2007 2006–2007 2006–2007 2006–2007 2006–2007

6% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 6%

4%









94% 98% 98% 99% 98% 100% 90%









Enabling activities: Typically up to $450,000.

Medium-size projects: Up to $1 million; projects are accessible to NGOs.

Full-size projects: $1 million and higher.









Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.





g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 29

The GEF Portfolio Focal Areas and Regions





Total GEF Allocation Total GEF Allocation by Region

by Focal Area Including Global and Regional Projects

1991–2007 1991–2007



3%

2% $215.34

$182.73 13% 15%

Persistent Organic $990.12 $1,096.57

11% Europe and Central Asia

Pollutants (POPs) $819.86 33% 2%

$2,444.27 $166.33

Ozone Depletion 5% Latin America and the Caribbean

$352.74

Multifocal Areas Asia

21%

13% $1,542.95

Land Degradation $933.71 24% Africa

$1,773.87

International Waters Regional



Climate Change 33% Global

$2,413.15 24%

$1,791.96

Biodiversity





2006–2007 2006–2007

<1% 4% 6%

$.84 $68.51 $95.74

22%

24% $357.89

$384.80

21% 20%

$347.87 $322.43





4%

$63.24









16%

$259.31 27% 20%

$318.83 28%

$432.05

$461.51

8%

$126.28









All amounts in millions of dollars.







30 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

GEF Focal Area: Background on Climate Change





Climate Change The temperatures and weather patterns of our planet have been

changing dramatically over the past few decades, and these changes

are detrimentally impacting traditional animal habitats as well as

Between July 1, 2005, and June 30, refrigerators in China, offering vulnerable human communities, causing farmlands to flood, water

2007, the GEF approved 65 new technical assistance to manufactur- sources to evaporate, hunting grounds to disappear, and crops to

efforts in the climate change focal ers, helping upgrade technologies, atrophy. Implicated in climate change is the burning of fossil fuels,

area. The total GEF allocation in the training designers, and creating which have added significant amounts of carbon dioxide and other

focal area during the reporting new energy efficiency standards, as greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, contributing to rising tempera-

period was approximately $432 mil- well as creating consumer educa- tures and affecting long-standing patterns of rainfall and other

lion, significantly supplemented by tion efforts, labeling programs, weather phenomena.

an additional $4 billion generated bulk procurement schemes, retail

in cofinancing from partners training, and incentive programs. Through the climate change focal area, the GEF is helping in two

including the GEF agencies, bilater- The original goals of the project, distinct but complementary ways:

al agencies, recipient countries, and including selling 20 million energy-

the private sector. efficient refrigerators, were signifi- Through climate change mitigation strategies, the focal area supports

projects that reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions in the areas

cantly exceeded. Perhaps best of all,

of renewable energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable transporta-

Climate Change many Chinese manufacturers are now

tion. It is also working to improve land use and forestry manage-

Mitigation Projects producing mainly energy-efficient

ment as a means to protect carbon stocks and reduce greenhouse

refrigerators, so CO2 savings will

gas emissions.

Bringing Energy-Efficient likely escalate far into the future.

Refrigerators to China

Through climate change adaptation strategies, the focal area is

The highly successful project Bringing Solar Power to helping the most vulnerable countries adapt to environments

Barrier Removal for the Widespread Bangladesh already affected by climate change. Unlike the mitigation side and

Commercialization of Energy- The GEF-assisted Rural the other five GEF focal areas, adaptation projects are supported

Efficient CFC-Free Refrigerators in Electrification and Renewable through specifically targeted funds. In the period, the GEF managed

China was completed and had its Energy Development Project was three sources of financing related to adaptation strategies: 1) the

final evaluation done in the period. highly successful in the period. Of Strategic Priority on Adaptation (SPA), a pilot program under the GEF

Counting the entire savings over special note was the success of par- Trust Fund; 2) the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), a UNFCCC

the lifetimes of the refrigerators ticipant Grameen Shakti, a not-for- Convention fund addressing the special needs of these 48 countries;

affected by the project, the profit rural development company and 3) the adaptation window under the Special Climate Change

Evaluation Mission estimates a in Bangladesh. Nearly 70 percent of Fund (SCCF), also a UNFCCC Convention fund, which assists all

total reduction of about 630 million homes in Bangladesh have no elec- developing countries.

tons of CO2 for refrigerators pro- tricity and rely on kerosene for

duced through 2010. These impres- lighting. Grameen Shakti is provid- Since its inception, the climate change focal area has generated more

sive savings were achieved through ing affordable solar home systems, than $17 billion in assistance, consisting of $2.4 billion in GEF invest-

implementing both a technology and has supplied more than ment and $14.6 billion in cofinancing from GEF partners worldwide.

push and market pull approach to 150,000 systems, with thousands

putting energy-efficient, CFC-free more sold each month. Later in the







g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 31

period, it also began offering fuel- Providing a Source of Affordable Reducing Greenhouse Gas Climate Change

efficient cooking stoves and Loans for Energy Efficiency Emissions in China Adaptation Projects

domestic biogas systems, which Projects in Russia China's township and village enter-

bring clean sustainable energy to Many factories in Russia are using prises (TVEs) are rural, collective Reducing the Impacts of Melting

thousands of homes. The compa- equipment that is 30–40 years old economic organizations estab- Glaciers in Bhutan

ny’s efforts led to an Ashden Award and highly energy intensive. An lished at the local level that have Increasing temperatures have

for Sustainable Energy, the world’s impediment to upgrading these become a major component of the caused the melting of glaciers and

leading green energy prize, in systems is the difficulty of obtain- Chinese economy. Four TVE indus- the formation of supraglacial lakes

2006. ing favorable business loans. The trial sectors—brick, cement, metal in Bhutan. The water levels in these

Russia Sustainable Energy Finance casting and coking—account for lakes are rising, creating a high risk

Bringing Solar Lighting to Rural Program was designed to provide one-sixth of China's CO2 emissions, of potential disasters due to glacial

China long-term credit lines to Russian due mostly to the use of outdated, lakes outburst floods. Disaster

The GEF-assisted China Renewable financial institutions specifically inefficient technologies. A GEF proj- management policies, and risk

Energy Development Project con- for energy efficiency lending, and ect designed to reduce the GHG reduction and preparedness plans,

tinued successfully in the period. It is supported by a host of expert emissions from TVEs by increasing including effective early warning

has enabled sales of more than advisory services. Credit lines and the use of energy-efficient tech- systems, are not yet developed to

400,000 affordable photovoltaic partial loan guarantees are provid- nologies in the four sectors deal with these new and previously

(PV) solar home systems to ed and several dozen projects have received its final evaluation in the unknown threats.

nomadic herding communities in been financed through the period, period. The project logged some

remote areas of western China, with new equipment installed that impressive results, achieving far A new program funded by the

bringing clean sustainable energy is estimated to account for lifetime greater than anticipated GHG Least Developed Country Fund

to more than 1.6 million people off CO2 reductions of 674,190 tons. In reductions and leaving a strong (LDCF) is helping the government

the grid and largely relying on addition, the program’s 2006 sur- sustainability legacy. For example, of Bhutan integrate long-term cli-

kerosene for light. The program vey of 625 industrial companies is in the eight pilot-demonstration mate change-induced risks into the

also supported the rapid growth of recognized as the only comprehen- projects implemented, a reduction existing disaster risk management

the PV industry in China, improv- sive study of industrial energy effi- of 193,192 tons of CO2 per year has framework. The lessons learned

ing the quality of production and ciency practices in Russia and has been achieved, as compared with will facilitate replication in other

reducing costs, thereby expanding become an invaluable resource well the 85,000 tons originally antici- high-risk glacial melting areas,

the market for solar home systems beyond the program. The program pated in the project’s design. both within and outside Bhutan.

and compounding the benefits. is also serving as a successful Overall, self-replication lifetime

model for energy efficiency finance CO2 savings are estimated at about Helping Farmers Adapt in Malawi

efforts in many other countries 30 million tons. More than 90 percent of the people

throughout the world. of Malawi, mainly resource-poor

rural communities, are predomi-

nantly engaged in subsistence rain-





32 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

fed agriculture. Over the past two destruction of coastal ecosystems. and necessitate the relocation of ect under the SCCF, Adaptation to

decades, rising temperatures and a A GEF project under the Strategic 500,000 people. The goal of a new Climate Change Impacts on the

later rainy season have contributed Priority on Adaptation (SPA) fund project under the Special Climate Coastal Wetlands in the Gulf of

to some of the worst weather con- aims to address all of these vulner- Change Fund is to enhance Egypt's Mexico through Improved Water

ditions in the country's history, abilities through an integrated resilience and reduce vulnerability Resource Management is identify-

with intense rainfall, floods, approach of capacity building and to climate change impacts, includ- ing national policies to address

seasonal droughts, multi-year local pilot projects for adaptation ing creating climate change risk the impacts of climate change on

droughts, dry spells, cold spells, interventions. reduction strategies, and integrat- water resources at the national

strong winds, thunderstorms, land- ing policies and practices into land level, quantifying climate change

slides, hailstorms, mudslides, and Protecting Historic Lands in Egypt use plans and national develop- impacts on the integrity and stabil-

heat waves. A new GEF project In Egypt, the delta and the narrow ment plans. ity of Gulf of Mexico wetlands, and

under the LDCF is working to valley of the Nile are 5.5 percent of implementing pilot adaptation

improve resilience to current cli- the country's area but are home to Protecting the Economy and measures to protect the environ-

mate variability and future climate more than 95 percent of its people, Ecology of the Gulf of Mexico mental and economic services

change by developing and imple- of which 25 percent live in the low- The wetlands around the Gulf of provided by these wetlands. The

menting cost-effective adaptation elevation coastal zone areas. In this Mexico perform vital functions—as project will focus on areas that

strategies, policies, and measures context, the Nile delta and fisheries, providing water for irriga- include important urban centers

that will improve agricultural pro- Mediterranean coast include 30–40 tion and drinking, and acting as as well as poor rural localities.

duction and rural livelihoods. percent of Egypt’s agricultural pro- storm buffers—that are critical to

duction and half of its industrial economic activity over a wide area Adaptation

Minimizing the Impacts of production. Because of the concen- of the country. Studies have docu- Following guidance from the U.N.

Climate Change in Colombia tration of much of Egypt's infra- mented ongoing changes in the Framework Convention on Climate

Colombia is highly vulnerable to structure and development along wetlands of the Gulf of Mexico and Change (UNFCCC), the GEF original-

the effects of climate change over the low coastal lands and the have raised urgent concerns about ly adopted a staged approach to

a wide range of sectors and geo- reliance on the Nile delta for prime their integrity. Other studies have adaptation. Stage I encompassed

graphical regions. For example, agricultural land, climate-change- indicated that the Gulf of Mexico assessments and Stage II focused

melting Andean glaciers will limit induced sea level rise will have wetlands are particular vulnerable on capacity building. Also under

water availability for fragile moun- a direct and critical impact on to subsidence and saline intrusion, the UNFCCC, since its inception the

tain ecosystems, agricultural Egypt’s entire economy, and obser- both a result of changing climate. GEF has disbursed about $120 mil-

and domestic purposes, and vations confirm that sea levels are Effective adaptation measures lion for national communications,

hydroelectricity, and sealevel rise already rising. A study revealed would have a major economic and of which a significant amount

will cause inundation of coastal that, for example, a 0.3 meter sea social impact in Mexico and in is allocated by the countries to

regions and saltwater intrusion, level increase in Alexandria would particular over the selected areas vulnerability and adaptation

which in turn will lead to the relo- result in land and property losses where most of the population is assessments. In addition, the GEF-

cation of coastal communities and in the tens of billions of dollars, below the poverty line. A new proj- financed projects under Stages I







g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 33

and II have built the capacities of because until that time multilateral It focuses on biodiversity and sus- need for replacement power sup-

developing countries, especially and bilateral organizations had tainable land management along plies from fossil fuels.

small island states, to gather and mainly focused on research, assess- coastal areas and sustainable use

process data. The projects have also ments, and screening tools, rather of fresh water resources. Least Developed Countries Fund

helped establish the institutional than on-the-ground adaptation. The GEF mobilized over $160 mil-

and local capacities to move to the Through this program, the GEF has The pilot projects will form the lion for the LDCF. This fund applies

next step and start implementing financed the first concrete adapta- foundation for learning and adap- a streamlined procedure—includ-

adaptation projects on the ground. tion projects, implementing meas- tive capacity building, not only in ing principles, modalities, and

ures for the specific purpose of the project countries’ but across the criteria to access the funds—that

The GEF received the mandate from reducing vulnerability and increas- Caribbean region. meets the needs of the LDCs. The

the Climate Convention in 2001 to ing the adaptive capacity of vulner- results speak for themselves.

finance adaptation projects on the able communities and the ecosys- Colombia. Colombia is highly vul- Although these countries are some

ground. Thanks to this guidance, tems on which their lives depend. nerable to the effects of climate of the poorest in the world, and the

the GEF began piloting adaptation The following examples illustrate change over a wide range of sectors least capable of adapting to the

action under three financing the types of adaptation projects and geographical regions. Melting adverse impacts of climate change,

avenues: that the GEF has financed through Andean glaciers will limit water 21 of them have developed and sub-

the SPA. availability for fragile mountain mitted their National Adaptation

Strategic Priority on Adaptation ecosystems, agricultural and Plans of Action (NAPAs) and 10 of

(SPA), a $50 million pilot within Caribbean Islands (Dominica, domestic purposes, and hydroelec- them have submitted a concrete

the GEF trust fund St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the tricity. Sea level rise will cause adaptation project to the GEF

Least Developed Countries Fund Grenadines). Small island states inundation of coastal regions and under the LDCF. The LDCs have

(LDCF) whose resources are are highly vulnerable to the saltwater intrusion, which in turn made impressive progress toward

accessible only to the 49 least impacts of climate change because will lead to the relocation of coastal reducing their vulnerability to cli-

developed countries (LDCs) of their susceptibility to sea level communities and destruction of mate change. They are now posi-

Special Climate Change Fund rise, the location of critical infra- coastal ecosystems. This project tioned to provide examples of

(SCCF), whose resources are structure in coastal areas, and the aims to address all of these vulner- adaptation experience and lessons

accessible to all developing fact that most of the local popula- abilities through an integrated learned to other countries around

countries. The funds integrate tions live in coastal zones. This approach of capacity building and the world.

adaptation measures into devel- project aims to support Dominica, pilot projects for local adaptation

opment practices. St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the interventions. This project also Bhutan. The NAPA for Bhutan

Grenadines in their efforts to links mitigation and adaptation. highlighted the country’s vulnera-

Strategic Priority on Adaptation implement specific pilot adapta- Because of Colombia’s strong bility to glacial lake outbursts.

The SPA was a groundbreaking ini- tion measures addressing the reliance on hydropower, timely As water levels increase, critical

tiative, not only within the GEF impacts of climate change on the adaptive measures in water man- thresholds can be reached, causing

context, but also worldwide, natural resource base of the region. agement could prevent or limit the catastrophic flash floods down-







34 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

stream into the valleys. Such mas- investments aimed at improving lands for their daily freshwater rising temperatures could increase

sive flash floods pose a major agricultural practices, land man- needs. As Andean glaciers are pro- water demand in the agricultural

threat to life as well as infrastruc- agement, and natural systems, as jected to rapidly recede over the sector even further, causing major

ture and the economy in the affect- well as rural livelihoods, through coming years, freshwater access shortages in water and, ultimately,

ed valleys, such as farming areas. targeted adaptation interventions will be severely strained in the grain, which affects the livelihoods

As a follow-up to the NAPA, Bhutan in crop diversification, cropping region, threatening agriculture, of millions of people. China has

has requested financing through sequences, conservation tillage, hydropower generation, and accessed the SCCF’s resource, to

the LDCF aimed at reducing food storage, and irrigation and health. The GEF has financed, implement adaptation measures

Bhutan’s vulnerability to glacial efficient water use, and (b) creation through the SCCF, a project that that will enhance the resilience of

lake outbursts. This project has a of an enabling environment for cli- will implement measures to meet agricultural and water develop-

two-pronged strategy: first, physi- mate risk management, including the anticipated consequences of ment to climate change in the

cal measures to artificially lower activities in policy development the catastrophic glacier retreat basin. This will be achieved

the water level of critical glacial and implementation, institutional induced by climate change. This through the identification and pilot

lakes will be implemented, and sec- coordination, and generation of will be achieved through the demonstrations of a range of adap-

ond, capacities for responding to knowledge on climate risk man- design and implementation of tation options in the agricultural

and predicting disasters will be agement. strategic pilot adaptation measures sector: exploration of alternative

increased through development of to address key impacts of glacier water sources, improved efficiency

targeted disaster risk management Special Climate Change Fund retreat, including management of irrigation, and promotion of

and installation of early warning The SCCF, a special fund established plans for potable water systems alternative (less water-consuming)

systems. by the UNFCCC, addresses the spe- in urban areas, promotion of less crops. The project also supports

cial needs of developing countries water-consuming management mainstreaming adaptation into

Malawi. This country is heavily under the climate regime. The fund practices in the agricultural sector, national agricultural planning.

dependent upon rain-fed subsis- includes four avenues of financing: and measures to increase the

tence agriculture, with more than (a) adaptation, which is the top natural water storage capacity Thanks to the new climate funds,

80 percent of the population gener- priority; (b) technology transfer; (c) of highland ecosystems. innovative approaches are being

ating their daily livelihoods from energy, transport, industry, agricul- promoted among the GEF agencies

small-scale agriculture. As Malawi ture, forestry, and waste manage- China. The Huang-Huai-Hai (3H) that integrate adaptation into

faces increasing rates of extreme ment; and (d) economic diversifica- Basin is home to more than 400 development programs and

weather events, such as recurrent tion. The resources for adaptation million people and is China’s prime policies.

floods and droughts, efforts at now amount to about $65 million. agricultural area. With a high

fostering sustainable economic water demand, the region is sensi-

growth and improved rural liveli- Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. tive to the decreases in stream

hoods are at risk of failing. An LDCF Millions of people throughout the flows and groundwater recharges

project is addressing this situation Andean region depend on run-off that are projected as an impact of

through two key components (a) from glacial melting in the high- climate change. At the same time,







g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 35

GEF Focal Area: Biodiversity

Between July 1, 2005, and June 30, include establishing sustainable versity richness. Within this semi- Policy and Strategy, and a national

2007, the GEF approved 80 new long-term financing mechanisms; arid savannah ecosystem, biodiver- community-based Wildlife Conflict

efforts in the area of biological establishing legal, institutional, sity is concentrated in critical wet- Management and Early Warning

diversity and biosafety, including and financial arrangements to pilot lands habitat found only in the System Framework. The project

two enabling activities. The total market-based mechanisms for pay- northern part of the country in also strengthened CBNRM policy

GEF grants approved in this area ment for environmental services; three primary wetlands: the and the implementation (including

during the reporting period was and documenting links between Okavango Delta, Chobe Linyanti, developing the capacity of local

approximately $385 million, signifi- land-use changes, water services and the Makgadikgadi Wetlands CBOs and NGOs) and on-the-

cantly supplemented by an addi- improvements, and biodiversity system. These wetlands identify an ground interventions in high-biodi-

tional $1.5 billion generated in cofi- conservation. Ultimately, it is oasis of biodiversity resources versity and conflict areas; and it

nancing from partners, including expected that, as a result of the pro- increasingly under threat from focused on livelihood-enhancing

the GEF agencies, bilateral agen- gram, 200,000 hectares of forests overexploitation, wildlife conflict community participation in

cies, recipient countries,and the and other natural ecosystems of with communities, and agricultural wildlife management, conflict reso-

private sector. global biodiversity significance will transformation. Project sites focus lution, and monitoring and evalua-

be under effective management by on communities experiencing the tion. The project’s objective was to

Environmental Services Project landowners in the buffer zones of highest level of wildlife conflict, reduce the incidence of wildlife

in Mexico protected areas and the corridors engaged at some level in communi- conflict within the project area, by

The Environmental Services Project that connect them, including the ty-based natural resource manage- helping communities monitor, co-

in Mexico protects globally signifi- Mexican portion of the ment, and living adjacent to the manage, and directly benefit from

cant forest and mountain ecosys- Mesoamerican Biological Corridor. protected area network in critical the sustainable use of biodiversity

tems. It was initiated during the wetlands habitat. resources, as well as to strengthen

period with a grant from GEF of $15 Wildlife Conflict Management Botswana's overall wildlife policy

million, and cofinancing of $166.8 and Biodiversity Conservation for The project assisted the Botswana and institutional framework.

million from GEF partner organiza- Improved Rural Livelihoods in Department of Wildlife and (GEF: $5.8 million; Total project:

tions. By using payments for Botswana National Parks in collaboration $30.8 million.)

ecosystem services to augment and This project has been designed to with local NGOs, Ngamiland and

diversify revenue for the manage- strengthen conservation, sustain- Chobe District governments, and Conservation and Sustainable Use

ment of Mexico's protected area able use, and mainstreaming of key agencies in strengthening of Wild Relatives of Crops in China

system, the project aims to ensure wildlife and biodiversity resources conservation, sustainable use, and Wild relatives of rice, soybeans,

the provision of environmental in Botswana’s economic develop- mainstreaming considerations and wheat are significant for

services that bring both national ment. The project is aimed at of wildlife and biodiversity in sustainable development in both

benefits, such as water services, enhancing biodiversity conserva- Botswana’s economic development. China and the world. The China

and global benefits, such as biodi- tion in Botswana’s northern wet- Policy and institutional reforms Agricultural Agenda 21 (1999) iden-

versity conservation and carbon land areas because of their excep- include development of a National tified a large number of important

capture. The projects' activities tional but highly vulnerable biodi- Wildlife Conflict Management in-situ conservation sites, but







36 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

because of capacity and financial resources of three distinct GEF focal Background on Biodiversity

constraints, threats still exist at areas: biodiversity, climate change

most sites. This project aimed at and land degradation. More than The current rates of species

eliminating barriers to the main- $44 million was invested during extinction on our planet in the

streaming of conservation of wild the first six months of the program, 21st century exceed the extinc-

relatives within the agricultural and the GEF has decided to create a tion rates experienced over the

sector, thus promoting integration new initiative designed to scale up past hundreds of millions of

of conservation and production, its investments in high-biodiversi- years of geologic time by factors

and ensuring that the global envi- ty, highly forested countries. The of 100 to 1,000 times. The envi-

ronmental benefits secured there- newly created GEF SFM Tropical ronmental cost of this danger-

by are sustainable. The project Forest Account (TFA) is starting to ous trend is staggering, as is

involved participation from local provide incentives for countries to the impact on the human com-

stakeholders in eight diverse direct part of their resources from munities that depend upon

provinces and autonomous regions the Resource Allocation Framework these natural plant and animal

to secure conservation of wild rela- to SFM. TFA advances the GEF’s resources for their sustenance,

tives of soybean, wheat, and rice in three focal-area strategies by particularly in the developing

their natural habitats. This was fostering a convergence of invest- world.

achieved through a combination of ments in high tropical forest cover

actions aimed at establishing sus- regions. The initial target area Since 1991, the GEF has helped

tainable sources of financial and comprises three regions of large, more than 150 countries reduce

other incentives for conservation, intact, tropical forest: Amazonia, their rate of biodiversity loss,

modification to the legal frame- the Congo Basin, and New following the global policy

work, capacity building, and aware- Guinea/Borneo. Each of these framework of the Convention

ness raising. (UNDP, GEF: $8.06 regions has over 8 million hectares on Biological Diversity (CBD).

million; Total project: $20.9 million.) of wet broadleaf forest, and the 17 As of the end of FY 2007, the

countries within them house 54 GEF has generated $8.6 billion

Taking a Multifocal Approach to percent of tropical forest cover and in assistance, which consists of

Deforestation Issues contain 68 percent of tropical $2.4 billion in GEF investment

In the latter part of the reporting forest carbon. and $6.15 billion in cofinancing

period, the GEF initiated a sustain- from GEF partners worldwide.

able forest management (SFM)

program, addressing threats to

forest ecosystems arising from a

variety of sources. This multidisci-

plinary initiative draws upon the







g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 37

GEF Focal Area: Persistent Organic Pollutants

Between July 1, 2005, and June 30, Cleaning Up PCBs, One of the Most is well on its way toward its origi- Southeast Asia, and elsewhere in

2007, the GEF approved 25 new Widespread Environmental nal goal of disposing of 280 tons of the world.

efforts in the persistent organic Toxins equipment, and has even raised

pollutants (POPs) focal area. The Now known to be carcinogenic and that goal to 420 tons. Developing Safer Approaches to

total GEF allocation in the focal toxic to humans, fish, and wildlife, Termite Control

area during the reporting period polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), a Finding Alternatives to DDT in No fewer than six of the deadliest

was approximately $68 million, class of synthetic organic chemi- Fighting Malaria-Carrying Insects POPs were traditionally used in ter-

significantly supplemented by an cals, were used extensively in elec- DDT is a pesticide that was widely mite control. The Stockholm

additional $100 million generated trical equipment and other applica- used in many agricultural applica- Convention allows the limited use

in cofinancing from partners tions for more than 60 years. tions since the 1940s. By the 1970s, of three of them until sustainable

including the GEF agencies, bilater- Today, PCB production is banned it was found to have accumulated alternatives can be found. The GEF

al agencies, recipient countries, and under the Stockholm Convention, to toxic levels in the food chain, is working to reduce and eventual-

the private sector. yet in developing countries a wide and was implicated in the near ly eliminate the use of all POPs for

array of PCB-containing equipment extinction of several species, termite control by addressing the

Program Shifts Focus from is still in service, and a significantly including the American Bald Eagle. constraints that limit the adoption

Planning to Action higher volume of discarded equip- As a result, it has been banned in of alternative methods. During the

The persistent organic pollutants ment is being housed in mass stor- all applications except control of period, the GEF also helped China

area began its efforts primarily age sites, where the potential for insects in malaria-prone areas, due reduce its output of these POPs by

funding the development of leakage into the environment is to the lack of readily available working to permanently close the

national implementation plans as high. The GEF has been working to alternatives to fighting this deadly country's largest chlordane and

mandated by the Stockholm help countries locate and safely disease. The GEF's highly successful mirex plant, which had a produc-

Convention, helping more than 130 destroy PCBs. Some early projects first effort to identify sustainable tion capacity of 500 metric tons of

countries assess their unique POP were continuing to demonstrate alternatives to DDT in Mexico and chlordane and 250 metric tons of

situations, and drafting a path for- success in the period. For example, several countries in Central mirex.

ward. Near the end of the current many former Soviet republics have America was completed in the peri-

period, it was determined that the the responsibility of disposing of od. The project demonstrated sig- In Africa, Removing Barrels of

majority of the countries had com- large volumes of abandoned elec- nificant progress in reducing the Leaching Pesticides

pleted these plans or were about trical equipment. In Moldova, the incidence of malaria without the Throughout Africa, more than

to, leading to an anticipated strate- GEF has helped export 900 tons of use of DDT, with an average of 50,000 tons of obsolete pesticides

gic shift in focal area funding, with such equipment for final disposal. between 26 percent and 80 percent have accumulated, often stored in

projects focusing on implementa- In Latvia, the GEF has been highly reduction in each country, and leaky drums leaching contamina-

tion, rather than preparation successful in mobilizing the private about 30 percent reduction for the tion into the soil, water, air, and

efforts, gaining support. sector and forging public-private whole subregion. This success is food, and poisoning people and

partnerships to raise awareness of forming the framework for new wildlife. Passing militias have even

the issue and identify PCB-carrying DDT reduction projects under way been known to use found drums

equipment. As a result, the project in Africa, the Middle East, for target practice. Through the





38 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

Africa Stockpiles Program, the GEF Background on Persistent Organic Pollutants

and a wide variety of private and

public sector partners are working Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are a group of manufactured

to inventory and safely dispose of chemicals that have been used for decades but have more recently

these dangerous stores. During the been found to share a number of disturbing characteristics, including

period, assessments were complet- the ability to cause damage to the endocrine and nervous systems of

ed or ongoing in seven countries, humans and animals, to resist degradation and endure in the environ-

including Ethiopia, Mali, Morocco, ment for decades, and to drift extensively, often contaminating areas

Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, and thousands of miles away from any known source. An initial "Dirty

Tunisia. An extensive safe disposal Dozen" of these dangerous chemicals have been identified, including

effort will begin shortly, with some organochlorine pesticides such as DDT, mirex, and chlordane; industri-

1,171 tons in Tunisia and 800 tons in al chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); and unwanted

Mali first in line for removal. chemical by-products such as dioxins and furans.



Recognizing the dangers of POPs, many countries began limiting or

banning their production, use, and release, with these efforts culmi-

nating in the Stockholm Convention of 2001, which was signed by

150 countries. The GEF is the lead institution helping developing

countries and countries in transition to implement the tenets of the

Stockholm Convention. The GEF is helping countries create national

inventories of POPs and reduce or eliminate their use and release into

the environment, as well as assisting with safe disposal and the devel-

opment of environmentally sound alternative products, practices, and

techniques. Since its inception in 2002, the GEF POPs focal area has

generated more than $420 million in assistance, consisting of $215

million in GEF investment and $208 million in cofinancing from GEF

partners worldwide.









g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 39

GEF Focal Area: Land Degradation

Between July 1, 2005, and June 30, Assisting Sub-Saharan Africa have remained poor, and millions Working with a select group of

2007, the GEF approved 29 new ini- Land degradation impacts in Sub- of households are still engaged in research partners, including

tiatives in the land degradation Saharan Africa, home to some 717 subsistence farming. At the same Michigan State University and

focal area. The total GEF allocation million people, are among the most time, the natural resources and Colorado State University, the land

in the focal area during the report- severe on the planet, and accelerat- ecological foundations essential for degradation focal area began a

ing period was approximately $259 ing at an alarming pace. For exam- sustained advances in the country's nontraditional effort that invests in

million, significantly supplemented ple, more than 30 percent of the agricultural productivity are rapid- developing a methodology as

by an additional $1.94 billion gen- land area of Burkina Faso, Burundi, ly shrinking. Causes related to opposed to focusing on an area.

erated in cofinancing from part- Lesotho, Rwanda, and South Africa human activity include unsustain- The Carbon Benefits Project:

ners including the GEF agencies, is degraded to the extent that biot- able agricultural practices such as Modeling, Measurement, and

bilateral agencies, recipient coun- ic functions of the land are consid- overcultivation, nutrient inputs, Monitoring seeks to develop a sim-

tries, and the private sector. ered irreclaimable. And salinization poor irrigation practices, deforesta- ple, rigorous, and cost-effective

affects between 27 percent and 34 tion, and overgrazing. In response, method for measuring the carbon

Restoring Growing Conditions percent of irrigated surfaces in the land degradation focal area, in in the soil, both above and below

in Central Asia Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan, and conjunction with the biodiversity ground, as a means to protect car-

Decades of improper irrigation in Tanzania. During the period, the and climate change areas, has bon stocks and avoid carbon diox-

the agricultural lands surrounding GEF developed the Strategic begun the India Country Program ide emissions. In addition to pro-

Aral Lake, once the world's fourth Investment Program for Sustainable Land and Ecosystem viding the ability to better measure

largest lake, have led to the signifi- Sustainable Land Management in Management. The effort is based the quality of the soil, it will also

cant shrinkage and salinization of Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP), a far- on the experience that a purely help developing countries partici-

the water, and desertification of reaching, multipartner, billion-dol- conservationist approach to natu- pate in the carbon benefits market,

nearby farms in Kazakhstan, lar initiative designed to push for- ral resources is not likely to work. bringing in a whole new dynamic

Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, ward a sustainable agriculture Therefore, teams are working to for financial sustainability of

Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. agenda in 28 participating coun- find innovative win-win combina- forestry investment. The project is

During the period, the focal area tries, boosting food security and tions for sustainable ecosystem also notable because of the strong

began a programmatic effort work- improving natural resource–based and resource management that link it makes between climate

ing for sustainable land manage- livelihoods by reducing land degra- takes into account traditional tech- change issues and the health of

ment for sustainable agriculture in dation. Assessment efforts are niques and approaches and adapts forest soils, and will have wide-

the region, mostly through improv- under way in all countries. them to current challenges by spread applicability worldwide.

ing the efficiency of water use and incorporating new techniques and

implementing crop diversification Helping Farmers in India approaches. Project concepts are Measuring Our Positive Impact

strategies. Dozens of individual An estimated 72 percent of India’s currently being assessed and will The land degradation focal area is

efforts are under way, focusing population lives in rural areas, with be implemented shortly. working to develop measurable

both on challenges within specific agriculture the main or only source and verifiable indicators that can

countries and efforts valuable to of livelihood. In spite of the Green Developing an Advanced New help gauge the progress it is mak-

the region as a whole. Revolution, most Indian farmers Carbon Benefits Methodology ing in all of its program efforts.



40 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

During the period, the focal area Background on Land Degradation

launched Ensuring Impacts from

SLM—Development of a Global Decreases in soil fertility and quality caused by climatic variations

Indicator System, the first phase of a and human activities such as overuse of chemical fertilizers, forest

three-phase process that will provide cutting and improper irrigation and farming methods greatly

the scientific-technical basis for affect the food security and livelihoods of millions of people

selecting such indicators, develop a around the world, and can have devastating impacts on wildlife.

community of practice for GEF proj- For example, more than 250 million people are directly affected by

ects in land degradation, develop desertification of their once useful land, with about 1 billion more

knowledge management tools and at risk, including many of the world’s poorest citizens.

guidelines as well as exchanges of

experiences, and develop the suitable The GEF land degradation focal area, initiated in 2002, is working

frameworks and mechanisms to to arrest and reverse current trends in land degradation through

monitor results from SLM projects. It sustainable land management. In 2003, the group was designated

is expected that three to five crucial the financial mechanism for the Convention to Combat

impact indicators will be ultimately Desertification. Since land degradation is associated with a range

identified. These will likely be of other ecological concerns, the focal area is closely linked with

diverse. For example, some may be most other GEF focal areas, particularly biodiversity, climate

chemical, such as carbon stores, and change, and international waters. The focal area also works to

others may be economic, such as a strategically prioritize projects that have the widest possible appli-

metric related to residents’ improving cations. Since its inception in 2002, the land degradation focal area

ability to make a living off their agri- has generated more than $2.64 billion in assistance, consisting of

cultural lands. $353 million in GEF investment and $2.25 billion in cofinancing

from GEF partners worldwide.









g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 41

GEF Focal Area: International Waters

Between July 1, 2005, and June 30, opportunities for interaction with among the basin countries on sus- projects accompanied a decrease

2007, the GEF approved 19 new colleagues. Small-group discussion tainable water resources manage- in phosphorus levels by nearly 50

projects in the focal area of inter- tables led by expert facilitators ment, including capacity building, percent and nitrogen levels by 20

national waters. The total GEF allo- stimulated the sharing of ideas and training, education, awareness rais- percent in the Danube, and great

cation in the area approved by the building of relationships for ongo- ing, knowledge and information reductions in the extent of the dead

GEF Council during the reporting ing communication, and a rollick- sharing, and, especially environ- zone in the western Black Sea.

period was approximately $126 mil- ing session of GEFoardy, based on mental conservation field activities Experts consider the Danube pro-

lion, significantly supplemented by the game show Jeopardy, was an to activate and engage local com- gram a model for reclaiming some

an additional $1.41 billion generat- unusual and enjoyable way to munities at more than 170 pilot of the more than 200 other dead

ed in cofinancing from partners learn about the GEF and its moni- sites. The Nile River Basin comprises zones identified across the planet,

including the GEF agencies, bilater- toring and evaluation require- ten culturally disparate countries, and the European Union highlight-

al agencies, recipient countries, and ments. The GEF looks forward to many of them among the world's ed it as a model for transboundary

the private sector. the possibility of topping the suc- poorest. With this success, the last waters governance in a report to

cess of this conference with an phase of the project was approved the UN Commission on Sustainable

Fourth Biennial GEF International interactive schedule of learning by the Council and initiated in late Development. Furthermore, the

Waters Conference opportunities at the fifth 2007. program ended with the partici-

A key element in the GEF’s strategy International Waters Conference, pant countries well positioned, and

for international waters includes scheduled for Australia in late Completion of Danube Basin and with high-level commitment, to

the sharing of project experiences 2009. The innovative use of daily Black Sea Regional Projects and carry on with the program's work

and structured learning for the videos to capture participant feed- Dramatically Reduced “Dead and capitalize on its successes

portfolio. One of the components back at the Cape Town conference Zone” going forward with two function-

of this approach is a biennial port- can be viewed at the GEF One of the focal area’s first and ing regional treaties and institu-

folio conference aimed at South-to- International Waters knowledge longest-term series of projects, tions.

South learning while projects are management resource center begun in the early 1990s during the

under way. The Fourth Biennial (http://www.iwlearn.net). GEF’s pilot phase, came to a highly Focus of the International Waters

GEF International Waters successful conclusion during the Strategy

Conference brought more than First and Second Phases of Nile period. Over more than 15 years, the The international waters focal area

300 participants to Cape Town in Basin Initiative GEF worked with 16 countries and unveiled a GEF Council–approved

July 2007, and by all indicators it The first phase of the GEF Nile several organizations in an effort to four-point strategy during the

was the most successful ever. The Transboundary Environmental reduce nitrogen and phosphorus period, which is guiding the focal

GEF Secretariat and agencies Action Project (NTEAP) was com- pollution and reduce the highly area's activities through 2010. It is

worked together through the GEF pleted in the period with assistance polluted dead zones in the Danube designed to promote international

IW:LEARN program to organize the of the World Bank and UNDP. The Delta and downstream Black Sea. cooperation on transboundary

learning event to meet the past project was highly successful in its Many individual country actions surface water, groundwater, and

participants requests for more activities to secure cooperation and other development assistance coastal and marine issues and to







42 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

catalyze action to address those Benefits of “Google Earth” Background on International Waters

issues. The strategies are as follows: for the South China Sea

Large Marine Ecosystem Seventy percent of our planet is made

Restoring and sustaining coastal Project and its Innovative up of coastal and marine ecosystems,

and marine fish stocks and asso- Approach to Fish Refugia and coastal economies depend on

ciated biological diversity them to generate sustainable commu-

The international waters focal area nities. More than 2.5 billion people

Reducing nutrient overenrich- has been investigating using the currently face water shortages and

ment and oxygen depletion from exciting Google Earth technology water stresses due to both environ-

land-based pollution of coastal as a tool to disseminate informa- mental and human factors. Finding

waters in large marine eco-sys- tion about its program, and to com- solutions to these problems is

tems consistent with the GPA municate with project participants thwarted by the fact that most of

as well as politicians and members the world’s waterways flow across

Balancing overuse and conflict- of the public in the Black Sea and multiple countries.

ing uses of water resources in in the South China Sea. The first

surface and groundwater basins project to be featured is the South The GEF international waters focal

that are transboundary in nature China Sea project, which is working area targets transboundary water

to reverse environmental degrada- systems, addressing vital issues

Reducing persistent toxic sub- tion of large marine ecoystems in including water pollution, overex-

stances and testing adaptive the South China Sea and Gulf of traction of groundwater resources,

management of waters with Thailand. The project's Google overfishing, and invasive species, as

melting ice Earth layer includes information on well as working to balance compet-

a number of efforts, including work ing uses of water resources. Since

to establish a regional system of 1991, the GEF has worked with 155

fisheries refugia in the area. This countries, catalyzing collective

exciting application of Google action to protect the freshwater

Earth and the South China Sea and marine systems that they share.

project can be seen at As of the end of FY 2007, the GEF has

http://earth.google.com/outreach/ generated more than $4.6 billion in

kml_entry.html#tSouth%20China% assistance, consisting of $934 million

20Sea%20Project. in GEF investment and $3.7 billion in

cofinancing from GEF partners

worldwide.









g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 43

GEF Focal Area: Ozone Depletion

Between July 1, 2005, and June 30, consumption of these chemicals by Indeed, in September 2007, the

2007, the GEF approved one new more than 99 percent, from Montreal Protocol adapted a resolu-

effort—a medium-size project in 296,000 tons in 1991 to just 350 tion to strengthen HCFC phase-out

the ozone depletion focal area. The tons in 2006. In this way, the GEF goals. As the Ozone Layer Depletion

total GEF allocation in the focal made a significant contribution to focal area transitions from empha-

area during the reporting period the ongoing success of the sis on CFCs to emphasis on HCFCs,

was approximately $0.84 million, Montreal Protocol, and to the hope it is funding surveys in all coun-

supplemented by an additional the world now holds for a repair of tries under its purview to assess

$0.41 million generated in cofi- the damage done to the ozone layer the HCFC situation and develop

nancing from project partners. and the detrimental impact it has specific strategies for phaseout.

had on the health of the earth and

Close to Victory over CFCs its inhabitants.

The reporting period can best be

characterized as a period of transi- Gearing Up to Tackle HCFCs

tion for the GEF ozone depletion With the successful phaseout of the

focal area. There was one new proj- most potent ozone-depleting sub-

ect approved and active during the stances well under way, the inter-

period, giving continuing support national community turned its

for the countries of Azerbaijan, attention to the threats to the

Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and ozone layer posed by hydrochloro-

Uzbekistan, helping them put the fluorocarbons (HCFCs). These chem-

finishing touches on meeting their icals, although somewhat less

commitments to the Montreal harmful to the ozone layer than

Protocol. The countries of the for- CFCs, are now being produced in

mer Soviet Union had been the large and increasing quantities,

third-largest consumer of ozone- and are also potent greenhouse

depleting substances, and in the gases that contribute to climate

years leading up to the period, the change.

GEF helped 18 of them reduce their









44 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

Background on Ozone Depletion



The dramatic ongoing depletion of the ozone layer,

a natural shield around the earth which filters

ultraviolet radiation from the sun, is responsible for

a number of serious impacts on human health and

the environmental, notably an increase in cases of

skin cancer. The main cause of the damage to the

ozone layer was demonstrated to be the human use

of several groups of halogenated hydrocarbon

chemicals including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),

halons, carbon tetrachloride (CTC) and methyl

bromide, in varied applications such as refrigerants.



In response to this realization, the international

community came together to adapt an unprecedented

agreement calling for the phasing out of these

chemicals. Adopted in 1987, more than 190 countries

have signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that

Deplete the Ozone Layer. In addition, a Multilateral

Fund was established to provide technical and finan-

cial assistance to developing countries to help them

meet their commitments under the agreement.

However, the agreement could not anticipate the needs

of the new nations formed after the fall of the Soviet

Union, many of them particularly significant produc-

ers and consumers of ozone-depleting substances. The

GEF has stepped in to complement and help accelerate

the work of the Multilateral Fund by helping these

nations phase out their use of these chemicals. Since

its inception, the GEF Ozone Layer Depletion focal area

has generated about $370 million in support, consist-

ing of $183 million in GEF investment and $187 million

in cofinancing from GEF partners, including the GEF

Agencies, bilateral agencies, recipient countries, and

the private sector.









g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 45

GEF Projects and Programs Entering the Work Program in 2006

COUNTRY PROJECT NAME AGENCY GEF COFIN TOTAL

AMOUNT AMOUNT PROJECT

COST





BIODIVERSITY



Global Indigenous Peoples' Network for Change UNEP 0.94 0.50 1.44

Global Coastal Resilience to Climate Change: Developing a Generalizable Method for Assessing Vulnerability and Adaptation

of Mangroves and Associated Ecosystems UNEP 1.00 1.00 2.00

Global Conservation & Management of Pollinators for Sustainable Agriculture through an Ecosystem Approach UNEP 8.51 18.65 27.16

Global Conservation and Adaptive Management of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) FAO 4.23 14.50 18.73

Global Institutionalizing Payments for Ecosystem Services UNDP 6.15 12.03 18.17

Global Supporting Country Early Action on Protected Areas (resubmission from Feb 2006 IWP) UNDP 9.47 4.04 13.50

Global Biodiversity and Agricultural Commodities Program (BACP), Phase 1 World Bank/IFC 7.44 11.67 19.11

Global Building the Partnership to Track Progress at the Global Level in Achieving the 2010 Biodiversity Target (Phase I) UNEP 3.95 10.38 14.33

Global Knowledge Base for Lessons Learned and Best Practices in the Management of Coral Reefs UNEP 0.97 0.95 1.91

Global National Reporting to the CBD: Supporting Countries to Prepare the Third National Report on Biodiversity (Phase II) UNDP 1.00 1.00

Global Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund (CEPF), Phase 2 World Bank 20.00 80.00 100.00

Global Conservation and Use of Crop Genetic Diversity to Control Pests and Diseases in Support of Sustainable Agriculture

(Phase 1) UNEP 3.76 4.27 8.04

Regional West African Regional Biosafety Program World Bank 6.10 15.54 21.64

Regional Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation into Tourism through the Development and Dissemination of Best Practices UNEP 1.00 1.31 2.31

Regional Integrated Management of the Montecristo Trinational Protected Area IADB 3.65 5.60 9.25

Regional Latin America: Multi-country Capacity-building for Compliance with the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety World Bank 5.26 10.75 16.01

Regional Biodiversity Conservation in Coffee: Transforming Productive Practices in the Coffee Sector by Increasing Market Demand

for Certified Sustainable Coffee UNDP 12.64 81.61 94.25

Regional Mainstreaming Conservation of Migratory Soaring Birds into Key Productive Sectors along the Rift Valley/Red Sea Flyway

(Tranches 1 and 2) UNDP 10.24 15.60 25.84

Regional Enhancing the Effectiveness and Catalyzing the Sustainability of the W-Arly-Pendjari (WAP) Protected Area System UNDP 5.62 18.59 24.21

Albania Butrint National Park: Biodiversity and Global Heritage Conservation World Bank 0.98 1.21 2.18

Argentina Biodiversity Conservation in Productive Forestry Landscapes World Bank 7.25 7.22 14.47

Belarus Catalyzing Sustainability of the Wetland Protected Areas System in Belarusian Polesie through Increased Management

Efficiency and Realigned Land Use Practices UNDP 2.41 9.09 11.50

Belize Integrating Protected Area and Landscape Management in the Golden Stream Watershed UNDP 1.00 1.12 2.12

Bhutan Integrated Livestock and Crop Conservation Program UNDP 0.92 2.00 2.92

Bosnia-Herzegovina Forest and Mountain Protected Areas Project World Bank 3.40 3.50 6.90

Botswana Building Local Capacity for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in the Okavango Delta UNDP 4.28 8.65 12.93

Botswana Wildlife Conflict Management and Biodiversity Conservation for Improved Rural Livelihoods World Bank 5.82 25.00 30.82

Brazil National Biodiversity Mainstreaming and Institutional Consolidation Project World Bank 22.00 75.00 97.00

Brazil Effective Conservation and Sustainable Use of Mangrove Ecosystems in Brazil UNDP 5.33 15.35 20.68

Brazil GEF Sustainable Cerrado Initiative, Tranche 1 World Bank 13.00 54.00 67.00

Brazil Tabuleiro State Park: Conservation of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Rehabilitation World Bank 1.00 1.35 2.35

Bulgaria Conservation of Globally Important Biodiversity in High Nature Value Semi-natural Grasslands through Support for the

Traditional Local Economy UNDP 1.00 1.20 2.20

Cambodia Implementation of the National Biosafety Framework of Cambodia UNEP 0.64 0.46 1.10

Chile Regional System of Protected Areas for Sustainable Conservation and Use of Valdivian Temperate Rainforest UNDP 5.04 15.61 20.65

China Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Wild Relatives of Crops (resubmission from Feb 2006 IWP) UNDP 8.06 12.84 20.90

China Guangxi Integrated Forestry Development and Biodiversity Conservation World Bank 5.60 199.33 204.93





46 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

COUNTRY PROJECT NAME AGENCY GEF COFIN TOTAL

AMOUNT AMOUNT PROJECT

COST





Colombia Colombian National Protected Areas Conservation Trust Fund World Bank 15.35 27.50 42.85

Congo Agricultural Development and Rural Road Rehabilitation Project World Bank 3.85 20.00 23.85

Congo DR Support to ICCN's Program for the Rehabilitation of the National Parks Network World Bank 7.28 48.60 55.88

Costa Rica Overcoming Barriers to Sustainability of Costa Rica's Protected Areas System UNDP 5.14 20.31 25.44

Costa Rica Mainstreaming Market-based Instruments for Environmental Management Project World Bank 10.00 80.30 90.30

Croatia Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in the Dalmatian Coast through Greening Coastal Development UNDP 7.31 24.33 31.64

Cuba Mainstreaming and Sustaining Biodiversity Conservation in Three Productive Sectors of the Sabana Camaguey Ecosystem UNDP 4.32 23.35 27.67

Czech Republic Support for the Implementation of the National Biosafety Framework UNEP 0.45 1.43 1.89

Egypt Support the Implementation of the National Biosafety Framework UNEP 0.91 1.39 2.30

El Salvador Protected Areas Consolidation and Administration World Bank 5.35 8.40 13.75

Estonia Support the Implementation of the National Biosafety Framework UNEP 0.67 0.28 0.95

Ethiopia Sustainable Development of the Protected Area System UNDP 9.32 22.43 31.75

Guatemala Improvement of Management Effectiveness in the Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR) IADB 4.41 10.94 15.35

India Mainstreaming Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plant Diversity in Three Indian States UNDP 5.28 6.48 11.76

India Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement World Bank 11.83 35.60 47.43

Indonesia Partnerships for Conservation Management of the Aketajawe-Lolobata National Park, North Maluku Province World Bank 1.00 1.09 2.09

Indonesia Fisheries Revitalization Project (FRP) World Bank 8.00 87.00 95.00

Jordan Integrated Ecosystem and Natural Resource Management in the Jordan Rift Valley World Bank 6.50 6.10 12.60

Kazakhstan Conservation and Sustainable use of Biodiversity in the Kazakhstani Sector of the Altai-Sayan Mountain Ecoregion UNDP 2.42 16.34 18.76

Kenya Improved Conservation and Governance for Kenya Coastal Forest Protected Area System UNDP 0.81 2.29 3.10

Korea DPR Updating of NBSAP, Preparation of 2nd National Reports, and Establishment of a National Clearing House

Mechanism (CHM) UNEP 0.13 0.08 0.21

Lithuania Support for the Implementation of the National Biosafety Framework UNEP 0.69 0.40 1.09

Mauritius Support the Implementation of the National Biosafety Framework UNEP 0.43 0.21 0.64

Mexico Consolidation of the Protected Area System (SINAP II) - Tranche 3 World Bank 7.35 7.35 14.70

Mexico Environmental Services Project World Bank 15.35 166.79 182.14

Moldova Support to the Implementation of the National Biosafety Framework UNEP 0.54 0.15 0.69

Nicaragua Strengthening and Catalyzing the Sustainability of Nicaragua’s Protected Areas System UNDP 2.15 3.82 5.97

Pakistan Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation into Production Systems in the Juniper Forest Ecosystem UNDP 1.00 1.54 2.54

Romania Strengthening Romania's Protected Area System by Demonstrating Best Practices for Management of Small Protected

Areas in Macin Mountains National Park UNDP 1.00 2.10 3.10

Russian Federation Development of National Biodiversity CHM (Add On) UNEP 0.38 0.03 0.40

Serbia Transitional Agriculture Reform World Bank 4.84 32.31 37.15

Seychelles Mainstreaming Biodiversity Management into Production Sector Activities UNDP 4.00 7.59 11.59

Seychelles Mainstreaming Prevention and Control Measures for Invasive Alien Species into Trade, Transport and Travel Across the

Production Landscape UNDP 2.00 4.61 6.61

Sierra Leone Wildlife Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Project World Bank 5.35 11.60 16.95

Slovak Republic Support to the Implementation of the National Biosafety Framework of Slovakia UNEP 0.47 0.14 0.61

South Africa National Grasslands Biodiversity Program UNDP 8.65 37.26 45.91

Tajikistan Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development in the Gissar Mountains of Tajikistan UNDP 1.00 0.75 1.75

Tanzania Support the Implementation of the National Biosafety Framework UNEP 0.78 0.61 1.39

Tunisia Capacity Building for the Implementation of the National Biosafety Framework UNEP 0.85 0.92 1.77

Uruguay Catalyzing the Implementation of Uruguay's National Protected Area System UNDP 2.84 4.90 7.75

Venezuela Expanding Partnerships for the National Parks System (resubmission) World Bank 6.35 18.52 24.87





g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 47

COUNTRY PROJECT NAME AGENCY GEF COFIN TOTAL

AMOUNT AMOUNT PROJECT

COST





Venezuela Biodiversity Conservation in the Productive Landscape of the Venezuelan Andes UNDP 7.70 29.55 37.24

Vietnam Implementation of the National Biosafety Framework UNEP 1.00 0.64 1.63

Zambia Zambia Biological Diversity Enabling Activity (Add On) UNDP 0.15 0.02 0.17







C L I M AT E C H A N G E



Global A Policy Forum of Power Sector Regulatory Frameworks for On-grid Renewable Energies World Bank 1.00 0.75 1.75

Global Community-based Adaptation (CBA) Programme UNDP 5.01 4.53 9.53

Global Solar Water Heating Market Transformation and Strengthening Initiative, Phase 1 UNDP/UNEP 12.29 19.15 31.44

Global Adaptation Learning Mechanism: Learning by Doing UNDP 0.72 0.65 1.37

Regional Implementation of Pilot Adaptation Measures in coastal areas of Dominica, St. Lucia and St. Vincent & the Grenadines World Bank 2.40 4.00 6.40

Regional Financing Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Investments for Climate Change Mitigation UNEP 3.00 9.26 12.26

Regional Adaptation to Climate Change—Responding to Shoreline Change and its human dimensions in West Africa through

integrated coastal area management. UNDP 4.00 4.00 8.00

Regional Cogen for Africa UNEP 5.62 61.59 67.20

Regional First Regional Micro/Mini-Hydropower Capacity Development and Investment in Rural Electricity Access in Sub-Saharan

Africa UNDP 19.17 121.34 140.51

Regional African Rift Geothermal Development Facility (ARGeo) UNEP/World Bank 19.05 55.55 74.60

Regional Promoting Sustainable Transport in Latin America (NESTLAC) UNEP 0.99 1.42 2.41

Regional Lighting the "Bottom of the Pyramid" World Bank/IFC 5.40 6.75 12.15

Regional Sustainable Energy Financing World Bank/IFC 9.48 21.60 31.08

Regional CleanTech Fund IADB 1.00 61.20 62.20

Regional LAC Regional Sustainable Transport and Air Quality Project World Bank 21.18 56.37 77.55

Regional Integrating Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change into Sustainable Development Policy Planning and

Implementation in Southern and Eastern Africa UNEP 1.00 1.27 2.27

Regional Greening the Tea Industry in East Africa UNEP 3.42 25.61 29.04

Regional Barrier Removal to the Cost-Effective Development and Implementation of Energy Standards and Labeling Project (BRESL) UNDP 6.85 27.35 34.20

Argentina Energy Efficiency Project World Bank 15.50 82.61 98.11

Armenia Renewable Energy Project World Bank 3.25 15.50 18.75

Bangladesh Improving Kiln Efficiency for the Brick Industry UNDP 3.35 11.04 14.39

Belarus Removing Barriers to Energy Efficiency Improvements in the State Sector in Belarus UNDP 1.60 8.37 9.96

Brazil Second National Communication of Brazil to the UNFCCC UNDP 3.40 4.18 7.58

Brazil Market Transformation for Energy Efficiency in Buildings UNDP/IADB 13.75 64.83 78.58

Bulgaria Building the Local Capacity for Promoting Energy Efficiency in Private and Public Buildings UNDP 1.00 6.27 7.27

Burkina Faso Transformation of the Rural PV Market (prev. Energy Sector Reform) UNDP 1.76 4.13 5.89

China Energy Efficiency Financing World Bank 13.50 583.15 596.65

China Demonstration of Fuel Cell Bus Commercialization in China, Phase 2 UNDP 5.77 12.86 18.63

China GEF-World Bank-China Urban Transport Partnership Program (CUTPP) World Bank 21.35 585.75 607.10

Colombia Integrated National Adaptation Plan: High Mountain Ecosystems, Colombia's Caribbean Insular Areas and Human

Health (INAP) World Bank 5.57 11.90 17.47

Egypt Bioenergy for Sustainable Rural Development UNDP 3.34 13.30 16.64

Egypt Sustainable Transport UNDP 7.18 28.57 35.75

Ghana Energy Development and Access Project (formerly) Development of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency World Bank 5.50 157.00 162.50





48 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

COUNTRY PROJECT NAME AGENCY GEF COFIN TOTAL

AMOUNT AMOUNT PROJECT

COST





Ghana Ghana Urban Transport World Bank 7.35 29.00 36.35

Guinea Electricity Sector Efficiency Improvement Project World Bank 4.50 9.20 13.70

Honduras Rural Infrastructure (Electrification Sector) World Bank 2.70 18.74 21.44

India Market Transformation for Energy Efficient Refrigerators and Air-conditioners UNDP 5.66 25.95 31.61

India Enabling activities for Preparing India's Second National Communication to UNFCCC UNDP 3.85 6.50 10.35

India Coal Fired Generation Rehabilitation Project World Bank 45.40 299.70 345.10

Indonesia Bus Rapid Transit and Pedestrian Improvements in Jakarta UNEP 6.16 187.98 194.14

Indonesia Integrated Microhydro Development and Application Program (IMIDAP), Part I UNDP 2.12 18.46 20.58

Jordan Promotion of a Wind Power Market World Bank 6.35 82.60 88.95

Kenya Market Transformation for Efficient Biomass Stoves for Institutions and Small and Medium-Scale Enterprises UNDP 1.00 5.65 6.65

Kenya Development and Implementation of a Standards and Labeling Programme in Kenya UNDP 2.35 8.76 11.11

Kiribati Kiribati Adaptation Program—Pilot Implementation Phase (KAP-II) World Bank 1.90 4.80 6.70

Macedonia Sustainable Energy Program World Bank 5.85 28.80 34.65

Mauritania Adrar Solar Initiative and Decentralized Electrification in the Northern Coastline of

Mauritania through Hybrid (Wind/Diesel) Systems UNDP 2.80 9.36 12.16

Mexico Integrated Energy Services for Small Localities of Rural Mexico World Bank 15.35 81.50 96.85

Mexico Grid-connected Photovoltaic Project UNDP 1.00 1.00 2.00

Mongolia Renewable Energy and Rural Electricity Access (RERA) World Bank 3.50 12.80 16.30

Mongolia Heating Energy Efficiency World Bank 7.20 20.00 27.20

Morocco Energy Efficiency Codes in Residential Buildings and Energy Efficiency Improvement in

Commercial and Hospital Buildings in Morocco UNDP 3.28 12.61 15.89

Namibia Barrier Removal to Namibian Renewable Energy Programme (NAMREP), Phase II UNDP 2.60 7.64 10.24

Nicaragua Promotion of Environmentally Sustainable Transport in Metropolitan Managua UNDP 4.23 60.59 64.82

Peru Second National Communication of Peru to the UNFCCC UNDP 1.85 1.01 2.86

Peru Rural Electrification World Bank 10.35 134.95 145.30

Philippines Philippines Sustainable Energy Finance Program World Bank/IFC 5.30 20.00 25.30

Russian Federation Renewable Energy Project (RREP) World Bank 10.35 66.80 77.15

Rwanda Sustainable Energy Development Project (SEDP) World Bank 4.50 22.35 26.85

South Africa Sustainable Public Transport and Sport: A 2010 Opportunity UNDP 11.20 323.94 335.14

Sri Lanka Portfolio Approach to Distributed Generation Opportunity (PADGO) (Phase 1) World Bank/IFC 3.60 24.95 28.55

Tanzania Tanzania Energy Development and Access Project (TEDAP) World Bank 6.50 32.30 38.80

Uruguay Uruguay Wind Energy Programme (UWEP) UNDP 1.00 6.01 7.01

Vietnam Hanoi Urban Transport Development World Bank 10.15 328.89 339.04

Zambia Increased Access to Electricity Services World Bank 4.74 22.10 26.84







I N T E R N AT I O N A L WAT E R S



Global Building Partnerships to Assist Developing Countries to Reduce the Transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms in Ships'

Ballast Water (GloBallast Partnerships) UNDP 6.39 17.70 24.09

Global Pollution Reduction through Improved Municipal Wastewater Management in Coastal Cities in ACP Countries with

a Focus on SIDS UNDP 1.00 1.20 2.20

Regional World Bank/GEF Partnership Investment Fund for Pollution Reduction in the Large Marine Ecosystems of East Asia

(Tranche 1, 2nd Installment) World Bank 10.00 80.87 90.87





g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 49

COUNTRY PROJECT NAME AGENCY GEF COFIN TOTAL

AMOUNT AMOUNT PROJECT

COST



Regional Regional Activities of the Strategic Partnership for a Sustainable Fisheries Investment Fund in the Large Marine

Ecosystems of Sub-Saharan Africa, Tranche 1 World Bank 1.00 0.33 1.33

Regional World Bank-GEF Investment Fund for the Mediterranean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem Partnership, Tranche 1,

2nd Installment World Bank 15.00 45.00 60.00

Regional Implementation of Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia (SDS-SEA) UNDP 11.58 33.37 44.95

Regional Integrated Ecosystem Management of the Gulf of Fonseca IADB 5.60 21.33 26.93

Regional Demonstrating and Capturing Best Practices and Technologies for the Reduction of Land-sourced Impacts Resulting

from Coastal Tourism UNEP 6.01 23.36 29.37

Regional Lake Skader-Shkoder Integrated Ecosystem Management World Bank 5.00 11.16 16.16

Regional Strategic Partnership for a Sustainable Fisheries Investment Fund in the Large Marine Ecosystems of Sub-Saharan

Africa (Tranche 1, Installment 1) World Bank 12.74 75.00 87.74

Regional Western Indian Ocean Marine Highway Development and Coastal and Marine Contamination Prevention Project World Bank 11.70 14.50 26.20

Regional Programme for the Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems: Agulhas

and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems Project (ASCLMEs) UNDP 12.92 18.26 31.19

Regional World Bank/GEF Partnership Investment Fund for Pollution Reduction in the Large

Marine Ecosystems of East Asia (Tranche 1 of 3 tranches) World Bank 5.14 459.93 465.07

China Ningbo Water and Environment Project—under WB/GEF Partnership Investment Fund

for Pollution Reduction in the LME of East Asia World Bank 5.35 133.90 139.25

China Participatory Planning and Implementation in the Management of Shantou Intertidal Wetland UNEP 0.40 0.52 0.92

China Second Shandong Environment—under WB/GEF Partnership Investment Fund for Pollution Reduction in the LME

of East Asia World Bank 5.35 201.90 207.25

China Liaoning Medium Cities Infrastructure—under WB/GEF Partnership Investment Fund for Pollution Reduction in the LME

of East Asia World Bank 5.35 187.70 193.05

Indonesia Demonstration of Community-based Mgt of Seagrass Habitats in Trikora Beach East Bintan, Riau Archipelago Province,

Indonesia UNEP 0.40 0.39 0.79

Philippines Manila Third Sewerage Project (MTSP)—under WB/GEF Partnership Investment Fund for Pollution Reduction in the LME

of East Asia World Bank 5.35 87.81 93.16







L A N D D E G R A D AT I O N



Global Ensuring Impacts from SLM—Development of a Global Indicator System UNDP 1.00 - 1.00

Global Supporting Capacity Building for the Third National Reporting to CRIC-5/COP-8 UNDP 0.51 0.45 0.97

Global Supporting Capacity Building for the Third National Reporting to CRIC-5/COP-8 IFAD 0.64 0.51 1.14

Regional Central Asia Countries Initiative for Land Management (CACILM) Multicountry Partnership Framework Support Project

—under CACILM Partnership Framework, Phase 1 ADB 3.03 3.30 6.33

Regional SIP PROGRAM: Strategic Investment Program for SLM in Sub-Saharan Africa (SIP) World Bank

/UNDP/ UNEP/

AfDB/ IFAD/

FAO 123.70 978.43 1,102.12

Regional Central Asian Countries Initiative for Land Management (CACILM) Multi-country Partnership Framework Phase 1 ADB 4.69 134.82 139.51

Regional Sustainable Land Management in the High Pamir and Pamir-Alai Mountains—and Integrated and Transboundary

Initiative in Central Asia Phase I UNEP 3.65 6.00 9.65

Regional Fouta Djallon Highlands Integrated Natural Resources Management Project (FDH-INRM) (Tranches 1 and 2) UNEP 11.55 33.00 44.55

Regional Dummy Project for 3 SIP (3398, 339, 3390) World Bank/IFAD 7.84 69.70 77.54





50 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

COUNTRY PROJECT NAME AGENCY GEF COFIN TOTAL

AMOUNT AMOUNT PROJECT

COST





Argentina Sustainable Management of Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems to Combat Desertification in Patagonia (resubmission) UNDP 5.53 26.57 32.10

Bhutan Sustainable Land Management World Bank 7.96 8.23 16.18

Burkina Faso Partnership Programme for Sustainable Land Management (CPP), Phase 1 UNDP 7.98 60.71 68.69

Burkina Faso CPP Burkina Faso: Sub-programme of the Northern Region-under Partnership Programme for Sustainable Land

Management IFAD 2.02 27.82 29.83

Cameroon Sustainable Agro-Pastoral and Land Management Promotion under the National Community Development Program

Support Program (PNDP) World Bank 6.35 92.00 98.35

Cuba CPP Cuba: Supporting Implementation of the Cuban National Programme to Combat Desertification and Drought

(NPCDD) UNDP/UNEP/FAO 10.00 79.44 89.44

Ethiopia SIP-Country Program for Sustainable Land Management (ECPSLM) World Bank 9.35 28.80 38.15

Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Sustainable Land Management World Bank 10.35 72.80 83.15

Kyrgyzstan CACILM: Southern Agriculture Area Development Project—under CACILM Partnership Framework, Phase 1 ADB 2.50 29.53 32.03

Mauritania Community-based Watershed Management Project World Bank 6.35 58.60 64.95

Namibia CPP: Country Pilot Partnership for Integrated Sustainable Land Management, Phase 1 UNDP/World Bank 2.25 51.99 54.24

Namibia CPP Namibia: Sustainable Land Management Support and Adaptive Management Project (NAM SLM SAM) UNDP 7.00 34.35 41.35

Nicaragua Sustainable Land Management in Drought-Prone Areas of Nicaragua UNDP 3.34 17.49 20.84

Niger Sustainable Co-Management of the Natural Resources of the Air-Tenere Complex UNDP 4.23 5.24 9.47

Pakistan Sustainable Land Management for Combating Desertification (Phase I) UNDP 2.34 2.60 4.94

Senegal Groundnut Basin Soil Management and Regeneration UNDP 4.01 10.09 14.10

Senegal SIP: Integrated Ecosystem Management in Four Representative Landscapes of Senegal, Phase 2 UNDP 3.64 7.79 11.43

Tajikistan Demonstrating Local Responses to Combating Land Degradation and Improving Sustainable Land Management in

SW Tajikistan—under CACILM Partnership Framework, Phase 1 UNDP 1.00 1.05 2.05

Tajikistan CACILM: Rural Development Project under CACILM Partnership Framework, Phase I ADB 3.50 20.66 24.16

Uzbekistan CACILM Partnership Framework—Land Improvement Project ADB 3.00 77.18 80.18







M U LT I P L E F O C A L A R E A S



Global Small Grants Programme, Fourth Operational Phase UNDP 106.00 147.00 253.00

Global The GEF Earth Fund (formerly GEF Public-Private Partnership Fund) World Bank/IFC 50.19 160.00 210.19

Global SGP Small Grants Program, 4th Operational Phase, RAF Allocations 1 UNDP 13.65 13.65

Global Small Grants Programme, Third Operational Phase, Year 2, Tranche 3 UNDP 20.00 20.00 40.00

Global Country Support Program for GEF Focal Points UNDP/UNEP 11.86 0.27 12.13

Global GEF-Development Marketplace Partnership World Bank 5.00 7.60 12.60

Global Small Grants Programme (Third Operational Phase), Tranche 2 UNDP 25.00 50.00 75.00

Global Small Grants Programme (Third Operational Phase), Tranche 2, Installment 2 UNDP 15.00 15.00 30.00

Global SGP Small Grants Program, Fourth Operational Phase, RAF Allocation 2 UNDP 4.00 4.00

Regional Sustainable Environmental Management for Sixaola River Basin IADB 4.00 15.88 19.88

Regional Strategic Partnership for the Mediterranean Large Marine Ecosystem-Regional Component: Implementation of

Agreed Actions for the Protection of the Environmental Resources of the Mediterranean Sea and Its Coastal Areas UNEP/UNIDO 13.59 29.61 43.20

Regional World Bank-GEF Investment Fund for the Mediterranean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem Partnership, Tranche 1,

1st Allocation World Bank 10.00 90.00 100.00

Regional Sustainable Management of the Water Resources of the la Plata Basin with Respect to the Effects of Climate Variability

and Change UNEP 11.46 50.56 62.02





g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 51

COUNTRY PROJECT NAME AGENCY GEF COFIN TOTAL

AMOUNT AMOUNT PROJECT

COST





Regional Integrated Ecosystem Management in the Prespa Lakes Basin of Albania, FYR-Macedonia and Greece UNDP 4.51 9.40 13.91

Regional Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Project (SWIOFP) World Bank 12.73 22.95 35.68

Antigua and Barbuda Demonstrating the Development and Implementation of a Sustainable Island Resource Management Mechanism in a

Small Island Developing State UNDP 3.19 4.70 7.90

Barbados National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) for Global Environmental Management UNEP 0.21 0.04 0.25

Brazil Caatinga Conservation and Sustainable Management Project World Bank 10.35 13.06 23.41

Brazil National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment for Global Environmental Needs (NCSA) UNDP 0.17 0.01 0.18

Bulgaria Integrating Global Environmental Issues into Bulgaria's Regional Development Process UNDP 0.55 2.13 2.67

Burkina Faso National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment for Global Environmental Management UNDP 0.23 0.05 0.28

Central African

Republic National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) for Global Environmental Management UNDP 0.23 0.08 0.30

Chad National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment (NCSA) for Global Environmental Management UNDP 0.23 0.05 0.28

Comoros National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) for Global Environmental Management UNDP 0.22 0.04 0.26

Congo DR National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment for Global Environmental Management in DR Congo UNDP 0.23 0.03 0.25

Cuba National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) for Global Environmental Management UNEP 0.23 0.05 0.27

Dominican Republic National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) for Global Environment Management UNDP 0.23 0.02 0.25

Gabon National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment (NCSA) for Global Environmental Management UNDP 0.20 0.04 0.24

Haiti National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) for Global Environment Management UNEP 0.21 0.05 0.26

Malaysia National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment for Global Environment Management (NCSA) UNDP 0.17 0.10 0.27

Mauritania National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment (NCSA) for Global Environmental Management UNDP 0.23 0.03 0.25

Morocco The Middle Atlas Forest Restoration project UNDP 1.00 2.11 3.11

Mozambique Zambezi Valley Market Led Smallholder Development World Bank 6.55 21.00 27.55

Niger National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment (NCSA) for Global Environmental Management UNDP 0.23 0.04 0.26

Paraguay National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment for Global Environmental Management UNDP 0.20 0.05 0.25

Philippines National Program Support for Environment and Natural Resources Management Project (NPS-ENRMP) World Bank 7.35 50.00 57.35

Slovak Republic Integration of Ecosystem Management Principles and Practices into Land and Water Management of Slovakia’s

Eastern Lowlands UNDP 1.00 3.35 4.34

Sri Lanka Participatory Coastal Zone Restoration and Sustainable Management in the Eastern Province of Post-Tsunami Sri Lanka IFAD 7.27 7.57 14.84

Tanzania National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment for Global Environmental Management (NCSA) UNDP 0.22 0.02 0.24

Togo National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) for Global Environmental Management UNDP 0.23 0.05 0.28







OZONE DEPLETION



Regional Continued Institutional Strengthening Support for CEITs to meet the obligations of the Montreal Protocol UNEP 0.84 0.41 1.24







P E R S I S T E N T O R G A N I C P O L L U TA N T S ( P O P S )



Global Action Plan Skills Building for 15 Least Developed Countries to assist with National Implementation Plan of Development

under the Stockholm Convention UNDP 0.70 0.75 1.45

Global Demonstrating and Promoting Best Techniques and Practices for Reducing Health-care Waste to Avoid Environmental

Releases of Dioxins and Mercury UNDP 11.05 13.54 24.60







52 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

COUNTRY PROJECT NAME AGENCY GEF COFIN TOTAL

AMOUNT AMOUNT PROJECT

COST





Regional Demonstration of Sustainable Alternatives to DDT and Strengthening of National Vector Control Capabilities in

Middle East and North Africa UNEP 5.56 8.42 13.98

Regional Regional Project to Develop Appropriate Strategies for Identifying Sites Contaminated by Chemicals listed in

Annexes A, B, and/or C of the Stockholm Convention UNIDO 2.65 2.00 4.65

Bahamas Enabling Activities for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs): National Implementation Plan

for The Commonwealth of The Bahamas UNEP 0.39 0.13 0.53

Brazil Development of a National Implementation Plan in Brazil as a First Step to Implement the Stockholm Convention on

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) UNEP 1.85 1.68 3.53

Cape Verde The Development of a National Implementation Plan for Cape Verde UNEP 0.30 0.02 0.32

China Strengthening Institutions, Regulations and Enforcement Capacities for Effective and Efficient Implementation of the

National Implementation Plan (NIP) in China UNIDO 5.41 9.83 15.24

China Environmentally Sustainable Management of Medical Waste in China UNIDO 12.00 33.08 45.08

China Alternatives to DDT Usage for the Production of Anti-fouling Paint UNDP 11.91 12.25 24.16

Congo DR Preparation of the POPs National Implementation Plan under the Stockholm Convention UNDP 0.50 0.07 0.57

Dominican Republic POPs Enabling Activity in Dominican Republic UNDP 0.45 0.02 0.47

Ecuador Development of National Implementation Plans for the Management of POPs - Ecuador (add-on) UNEP 0.05 0.02 0.06

El Salvador El Salvador: Initial Assistance to Enable El Salvador to Fulfil Its Obligations Linked to The Stockholm Convention on

Persistent Organic Pollutants UNDP 0.43 0.40 0.83

Eritrea Enabling Activities to Facilitate Early Action on the Implementation of the Stockholm Convention on POPs UNIDO 0.35 0.04 0.38

Guinea Development of National Implementation Plans for the Management of Persistent Organic Pollutants (add-on) UNEP 0.08 0.02 0.09

India Development of a National Implementation Plan in India as a First Step to Implement the Stockholm Convention on

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) UNIDO 3.56 7.08 10.64

Latvia Environmentally Sound Disposal of PCBs Containing Equipment and Waste UNDP 1.00 1.84 2.84

Mali Development of National Implementation Plans for the Management of Persistent Organic Pollutants - Mali (add-on) UNEP 0.09 - 0.09

Moldova POPs Management and Destruction Project World Bank 7.90 7.40 15.30

Romania Disposal of PCB Wastes in Romania UNIDO 1.00 1.02 2.02

Sierra Leone Enabling Activities to Facilitate Early Action on the Implementation of the Stockholm Convention on POPs in Sierra Leone UNIDO 0.39 0.39

Suriname Initial Assistance to Enable Suriname to Fulfill its Obligations Under the Stockholm Convention on POPs UNDP 0.41 0.02 0.43

Trinidad and Tobago Initial assistance to enable Trinidad and Tobago to fulfill its obligations under the Stockholm Convention on POPs UNDP 0.43 0.40 0.83

Zambia Development of a National Plan for Implementation of the Stockholm Convention on POPs in Zambia—

POPs enabling activities (add-on) UNEP 0.06 0.02 0.08









g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 53

Independent Bodies

54 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

Improved Effectiveness Several changes had been made to Assist the GEF in delivering As a result, UNEP, in consultation

the structure and functioning of improved strategies for the GEF’s with the members of the STAP, pro-

for the GEF’s Expert

the STAP as a result of Council deci- focal areas, for approval by the posed changes to the structure and

Scientific and Technical sions in 2005 and 2006. These GEF Council functioning of the STAP that were

Advisory Panel (STAP) included a more independent approved by the GEF Council early in

review function so that the STAP, Advise on a limited number of 2007.

The Establishment of the rather than the GEF agencies, strategic, innovative, or contro-

Instrument for the Restructured selects candidates from the Roster, versial projects, and work with Key issues included the need to

Global Environment Facility and a more flexible system of STAP the GEF throughout the lifetime make the STAP’s advice more

charged the United Nations membership, with overlapping of these projects strategic, timely, and effective,

Environment Programme (UNEP) terms of office and cross-cutting together with necessary changes

with establishing, in consultation roles intended to improve the Make better use of the “targeted to enable panel members and the

with the United Nations STAP’s responsiveness. research” modality STAP Secretariat to support these

Development Programme (UNDP) redefined expectations.

and the World Bank and on the The Third Overall Performance Translate new knowledge, e.g.,

basis of guidelines and criteria Study of the GEF (OPS3) and the from scientific assessments such In considering a response to the

established by the GEF Council, the joint evaluation of the GEF activity as the Millennium Ecosystem new challenges in GEF-4 and look-

Scientific and Technical Advisory cycle identified a number of further Assessment or from Convention ing ahead to GEF-5, UNEP took into

Panel (STAP) as an advisory body to improvements that could be made subsidiary bodies, into action- account the STAP’s track record of

the GEF. This board of internation- to the fundamental design and able policy advice advice, including the effective

ally recognized, independent indus- functioning of the STAP. In advice provided on sustainable

try experts that assists the GEF in response, the STAP, in its meeting Provide the GEF with scientific transport, liquid biofuels, and land

keeping up with the developments of October 2006, convened a brain- and technical guidance on how degradation.

germane to each focal area was storming session on its future, to make operational the recom-

fine-tuned in the period for greater attended by the CEO, the GEF mendations made to the GEF by UNEP proposed that the STAP, on

effectiveness. Secretariat, the GEF Evaluation the Conference of Parties of mul- behalf of the GEF, should develop

Office, and Implementing Agency tilateral environmental agree- and maintain a broader network of

The GEF Council at its meeting in staff. The CEO of the GEF recom- ments where the GEF serves as a global scientific and technical

June 2006, requested the executive mended that the STAP do the fol- financial mechanism expertise, using the most appropri-

director of UNEP and the chair of lowing: ate mechanisms, including but not

the STAP to review the terms of ref- Establish effective working rela- limited to memoranda of under-

erence of the STAP and to develop a Make its input into the project tions with the GEF Evaluation standing with scientific institu-

proposal for the Council to enhance cycle more effective by applying Office to enable science-based tions in the public and private sec-

the panel’s effectiveness and rele- its expertise selectively and ear- evaluation. tors.

vance to the GEF. lier in the project cycle, and by

redefining the role of the Roster



g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 55

To build previously agreed upon As always, the panel continues to evaluations, plus overall perform-

GEF Evaluation Office

and implemented changes, and to be responsible for connecting the ance studies (OPS).

improve the level of strategic GEF to the most up-to-date, author-

The GEF works through a partner-

advice provided to the GEF Council, itative, and globally representative GEF Evaluation Office

ship involving 176 member coun-

UNEP proposed that the number of science in each area, and for pro- The GEF Evaluation Office reports

tries, the 10 GEF agencies, a number

members appointed to the panel be viding input into programmatic directly to the GEF Council. It has

of recipient countries, nongovern-

reduced from 15 to 6, including the approaches, technical strategies the central role of ensuring the

mental organizations, and the pri-

chair, and that each member be and challenges, project feasibility, independent evaluation function

vate sector. With such a large and

contracted for three months per and more. within the GEF by setting mini-

complex alliance, accurate monitor-

year instead of one. The conse- mum requirements, and of ensur-

ing and evaluation (M&E) poses a

quent cost savings were to enable ing oversight of the quality of M&E

significant challenge.

the panel to engage with networks at the program and project levels.

of scientific institutions as indicat- The Evaluation Office routinely

According to the GEF Monitoring

ed above. Because of the additional evaluates GEF policies, strategies,

and Evaluation Policy, M&E allows

operational duties implied by the principles, and procedures, as well

the GEF to track progress in fulfill-

proposed changes, it was proposed as focal area programs and priori-

ing its general mission of making a

that the STAP Secretariat be ties, and reports on overall portfolio

positive impact on the global envi-

strengthened by adding one performance. Findings and recom-

ronment. It also promotes learning,

professional post. mendations of evaluations general-

feedback, and knowledge sharing

ly are routinely used by the GEF

of results and lessons learned

With regard to the new GEF project Council in decision making.

among the GEF and its partners.

cycle, UNEP recommended that the

STAP focus on (a) the provision of Results

Monitoring and evaluation is a

advice on the scientific rationale During fiscal year 2006, the GEF

shared responsibility at the GEF,

for new strategic programs, (b) the Evaluation Office completed and

with each partner having a role.

review of the scientific rationale of disseminated the Third Overall

M&E in the GEF has two main

existing strategic programs, (c) the Performance Study to all major

objectives: to promote accountabili-

provision of tools for screening stakeholders

ty for the achievement of GEF

project concepts for scientific and The office also completed a num-

objectives and to promote learning

technical soundness and of over- ber of evaluations, such as the

and knowledge sharing to improve

sight of the screening process, and Local Benefits Study, the evalua-

performance. Various types of eval-

(iv) the provision of advice on proj- tion of GEF support to Costa Rica,

uations are conducted within the

ect development on a selective and the 2006 Annual

GEF context, including project, pro-

basis. Performance Report

gram, country portfolio, impact,

In fiscal year 2007 the office

cross-cutting, thematic, and process

completed several evaluations,





56 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

including the Joint Evaluation of nancing, and quality of M&E. In sometimes confusing to stakehold- ments in developing local incen-

the GEF Activity Cycle and the APR 2007 it was found that ers. Furthermore, lack of a national tives to ensure environmental

Modalities, the Evaluation of the overall quality of terminal GEF strategy, for example in the gains. At the national scale, the

Incremental Cost Assessment, evaluation reports improved. Philippines, has reduced potential development of supportive policy

and the Evaluation of the Furthermore, while the projects’ results and led to inefficiencies. As and legislative frameworks enabled

Experience of Executing M&E plans improved significantly a result, the GEF Council asked the socioeconomic and political incen-

Agencies, which were presented from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year Secretariat to prepare a proposal on tives for local environmental man-

at the December 2006 Council 2007, further improvement is need- developing country assistance agement. Shortcomings that were

Two country portfolio evalua- ed in reporting financial informa- strategies that lead to better coordi- encountered often started with

tions on the Philippines and tion. The APR 2007 reported that all nation and programming at the inadequate understanding of the

Samoa and the Annual verified Council decisions in the country level; to ensure the trans- community in terms of its socioe-

Performance Report 2007 were Management Action Record show a parency of and better access to conomics, institutions, and

presented to the GEF Council medium and higher level of adop- information on GEF procedures and resource access, use, and needs.

during its June 2007 meeting tion, compared to previous years. the status of projects in the GEF The Council requested that the

Work began on other evalua- Activity Cycle; and to take into GEF Secretariat present reformed

tions, including the Catalytic The Country Portfolio account Samoa’s experience with guidelines to result in a simplified

Role of the GEF, evaluations of Evaluations (Costa Rica 2006, the the GEF in its further development demonstration of the project base-

the GEF Capacity Development Philippines 2007, and Samoa 2007) of the GEF Pacific Alliance for line, incremental costs, and

Activities, the first Impact showed that this type of evaluation Sustainability. cofunding.

Evaluation, and the Joint is feasible and valid, even when the

Evaluation of the Small Grants GEF does not have a country pro- The study on Local Benefits in The Joint Evaluation of the GEF

Program gram as such, but a portfolio of Global Environmental Programs Activity Cycle and Modalities

projects approved at different addressed the role and achieve- found that the GEF activity cycle

Highlights times and in different contexts. ment of benefits at the local level was widely regarded as complex,

The Annual Performance The evaluations concluded that that are generated by GEF activi- long, and costly. Almost since the

Reports (APRs) for fiscal years GEF support to the countries has ties. The study found that for many GEF began, the need to streamline

2006 and 2007 reported that 75 achieved on-the-ground results, areas of GEF-supported activity, and simplify the cycle has been

percent of the completed projects and has been relevant to the local and global environmental highlighted by numerous evalua-

had outcomes that are in the satis- progress of the countries’ environ- benefits are strongly interlinked. tions, the overall performance stud-

factory range or better. In 2006 rec- mental agendas, but could be more Moreover, these interlinkages are ies, the GEF Council, and many of

ommendations included the need relevant in terms of the contribu- particularly found in activities that the GEF’s partners and stakehold-

for all agencies to establish a struc- tions to global benefits. The evalua- depend on lasting changes in ers. More recent GEF replenishment

tured supervision of GEF projects tions also found that GEF opera- human behavior to achieve and negotiations emphasized that the

and the need to ensure that all tional information, for example, on sustain global environmental GEF should be “making its process-

evaluations provide information on project procedures and require- gains. Also, in some GEF projects es more expeditious, streamlined

sustainability of outcomes, cofi- ments, is often unavailable and there were considerable achieve- and efficient” (GEF 2002k, para-





g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 57

graph 19). In addition, the low cycle ties that the ExAs face when additional funding to cover their For More Information

efficiency implies that the GEF is preparing proposals for new incremental costs. There remains

not effective in leading projects projects. Furthermore, ExAs lack weak understanding and much The GEF Monitoring and

through the full activity cycle. No an incentive structure for their confusion about incremental cost Evaluation Policy, Evaluation

easy fix will improve the activity enhanced participation. The cur- concepts and procedures, and com- Document 2006, No. 1.

cycle. What is needed is a radical rent low level of ExA involvement plying with minimum require- (Washington, DC: GEF Evaluation

redrawing of the cycle, maintaining in the GEF curtails achievement ments for incremental cost report- Office)

the quality and attributes for GEF of the objectives of the ExAs with ing does not guarantee a quality Signposts (GEF Evaluation Office

funding. A shift toward results- expanded opportunities policy in project. As expected, the GEF is not summaries of recent evaluations

based management would ensure the longer run. A recommendation the only source of funding to cover and studies highlighting find-

quality during implementation and that came out of the study was that incremental cost; on average, the ings and recommendations)

enable a dramatic reduction of the the GEF should set in motion a GEF contributes about 40 percent GEF Evaluation Office Web site:

detailed “blueprint” information longer-term process of assessing its of the total incremental cost. Some http://www.gefeo.org

currently required in the formula- core partnership philosophy and focal areas have developed more

tion and appraisal stages. The the consequences for the GEF struc- formalized or standardized

Council approved a new project ture, including a final assessment approaches to estimate the GEF

cycle for immediate application. of these issues in the Fourth contribution to the incremental

Overall Performance Study. cost of a project, such as cofinanc-

The Evaluation of the ing ratios (international waters),

Experience of Executing The Evaluation of Incremental sliding scales (for funding adapta-

Agencies under Expanded Cost Assessment found that incre- tion to climate change projects

Opportunities in the GEF aimed mental reasoning underpins the under the Least Developed

at reviewing the experience of the global environmental focus of GEF Countries Fund), and cost-sharing

seven Executing Agencies (ExAs) in project design. Incremental reason- arrangements (land degradation).

working with the GEF and provid- ing takes place at the concept Incremental cost assessment and

ing recommendations to enhance phase, well before the process of reporting should be dropped as

their involvement. The overarching incremental cost assessment takes requirements for GEF projects.

conclusion from this evaluation place (during project design and

was that the ExAs faced two kinds drafting of the project document).

of structural constraints: at the Incremental reasoning was con-

policy and strategic level and in firmed to be used (mostly implicit-

preparing project proposals. The ly) to justify and agree on the glob-

lack of ExA involvement in develop- al benefits—and the ways in which

ment of new policies, strategies, the proposed GEF project will

and programs adds to the difficul- secure these benefits—and provide







58 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

GEF Contacts









g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 59

Council Members, Alternates, and Constituencies





Date of Date of

Council Member Appointment Alternate Member Appointment Constituencies



AISI, Robert G. 01/23/2006 REBUELTA-TEH, Analiza 01/23/2006 Cook Islands, Fiji, Indonesia, Kiribati, Marshall

(Papua New Guinea) (Philippines) Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua

New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon

Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu



ANDERSEN, Geert Aagaard 09/01/2005 BJORNEBYE, Erik 09/01/2002 Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway

(Denmark) (Norway)



ARASTOU, Seyed Motjaba 08/17/2005 AMIN-MANSOUR, Javad 03/01/2005 Iran



AYUDHYA, Petipong Pungbun Na 02/20/2006 VAN TAI, Nguyen 02/20/2006 Cambodia, Korea DPR, Lao PDR, Malaysia,

(Thailand) (Vietnam) Mongolia, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam



TOTSKIY, Anatoly 09/21/2006 DAVTYAN, Ruzanna 08/17/2006 Armenia, Belarus, Russian Federation

(Russian Federation) (Armenia)



DALI, Najeh 10/11/2005 KONDOS, George 06/13/2006 Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia

(Tunisia) (Egypt)



DE JONG, Gerben 09/02/2005 VAN DEN BERGEN, Vincent 04/01/2002 The Netherlands

(Netherlands) (Netherlands)



DOUNGOUBE, Gustave 05/30/2006 t.b.a. Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic,

(Central African Republic) Congo, Congo DR



EHRHARDT, Roger 01/01/2004 GUTHRIE, Tina 08/03/2005 Canada

(Canada) (Canada)



FERNANDEZ, Ramon 10/01/2003 MARTIN, Marc-Antoine 09/01/2002 France

(France) (France)



GRAYEB BAYATA, Claudia 06/01/2005 SEMPRIS, Emilio 10/01/2004 Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,

(Mexico) (Panama) Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Venezuela



JOST, Manuela 06/14/2005 HILBER, Anton 04/01/2005 Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic,

(Switzerland) (Switzerland) Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,

Uzbekistan



KABWAZA, Raphael Peter 01/01/2005 POLICARPIO, Napica Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique,

(Malawi) (Mozambique) Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia,

Zimbabwe





60 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

Date of Date of

Council Member Appointment Alternate Member Appointment Constituencies



KRAEVA, Emiliya 10/01/2004 IVANOV, Violeta 11/01/2004 Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia,

(Bulgaria) (Moldova) Moldova, Poland, Romania, Ukraine



KUMAR, Dhanendra 11/28/2005 AHMED KHAN, Zakir 11/14/2005 Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka

(India) (Bangladesh)



LUGRIS, Fernando 08/26/2005 ROSELLINI, Adolfo 08/26/2005 Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay

(Uruguay) (Argentina)



MIYAHARA, Takashi 08/22/2005 TAKANO, Shuichi 07/27/2005 Japan

(Japan) (Japan)



MONTALVO, Mauricio 03/13/2006 LAZARY TEIXEIRA, Carlos Alfredo 12/06/2005 Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador

(Ecuador) (Brazil)



MONTEIRO, Carlos Alberto 11/01/2004 SARR, Momodou 05/01/2004 Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chad, Guinea-Bissau,

de Sousa (Gambia) Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, The Gambia

(Cape Verde)



NIETO, Alejandro 10/13/2005 MOTA PINTO, Nuno 11/01/2003 Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain

(Portugal)



PARK, Kang-ho 12/01/2004 COOK, Alan 12/01/2004 Australia, New Zealand, Republic of Korea

(Republic of Korea) (New Zealand)



PEEL, Kenneth 03/20/2006 REIFSNYDER, Daniel 05/30/2006 United States

(United States) (United States)



PERSUAD, Doorga 03/01/2005 COOPER, Donald 03/01/2005 Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados,

(Guyana) (Bahamas) Belize, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic,

Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, St. Kitts and

Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Suriname, Trinidad

and Tobago



SHAH, Shuja 08/25/2005 LUTFI, Sultan 02/01/2001 Afghanistan, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Syria,

(Pakistan) (Jordan) Yemen



SODERINI, Ludovica 110/01/2003 D’ONOFRIO, Gaetano 01/01/2004 Italy

(Italy)









g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 61

Date of Date of

Council Member Appointment Alternate Member Appointment Constituencies



STEINKE, Marita 09/04/2003 HERMANN, Walter 10/01/2003 Germany

(Germany) (Germany)



TREPPEL, Leander 02/24/2006 MARQUES, Miguel 03/30/2006 Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary,

(Austria) (Luxembourg) Luxembourg, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Turkey



WAISS, Aboubaker Doulé 12/01/2004 WOLDEYOHANNES, Mogos 03/01/2005 Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya,

(Eritrea) Madagascar, Mauritius, Rwanda, Seychelles,

Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda



WALLENIUS, Tapio 05/05/2006 GARCIA-THARN, Amalia 10/1/2005 Estonia, Finland, Sweden

(Finland) (Sweden)



WHEATLEY, Josceline 03/01/2004 WHALEY, Christopher 05/30/2006 United Kingdom

(United Kingdom) (United Kingdom)



WOROU, Theophile Chabi 03/01/2005 OTENG-YEBOAH, Alfred 05/01/2004 Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea, Nigeria,

(Benin) (Ghana) Sierra Leone, Togo



ZOU, Jiayi 03/01/2005 YANG, Jinlin 03/01/2005 China

(China) (China)









62 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 63

Details of Country Focal Points and Regional Focal Points of Non-Governmental

Organizations in 2006 – 2007





Africa Europe Americas

Northern Africa Eastern Africa Western Europe South America

November 2004–2008 November 2004–2008 June 2007–November 2010 November 2003–2007

Salah Sahabi-Abed Rajen Awotar Jurgen Maier German Rocha

Association de Recherche sur le Council for Development German NGO Forum Environment Corporacion Pais Solidario (CPS)

Climat et l’Environment (ARCE) Environmental Studies and and Development Calle 70 No. 13-29

IFHR Cite des HLM, Conservation (MAUDESCO) Am Michaelshof 8-10 Bogota, Colombia

Gambetta P O Box 1124, Port Louis, Mauritius 53177 Bonn, Germany Tel: 571 249 5336

31000-Oran Tel: 230 947 9333/763 0744 Tel: 49 228 359 704 Fax: 571 249 1044

Algeria Fax: 230 454 3900 Fax: 49 228 92399356 E-mail: cpscol@yahoo.com

Tel: 213 772 41 1375 GSM E-mail: maudesco@intnet.mu E-mail: chef@forumue.de cenprof@sky.net.co

Telefax: 213 41 538 397

E-mail: salah_sahabi@yahoo.com Western Africa Meso America

June 2007–2011 (second term) June 2006–November 2009

Southern Africa Djimingue Nanasta Felipe Villagran

November 2005–2009 ENDA Tiers Monde Programme MERO LEC A.C.

Dorothy C. Manuel Energie Privada Guanajuato No 165

ZERO Regional Environment 54 rue Carnot Plan de Ayala

Organization BP 3370 Tuxtla GTZ Mexico C.P. 29110

158 Fife Avenue, P O Box 5338, Dakar, Senegal Tel: 52 961 671 54 36

Harare, Zimbabwe Tel: 221 33 822 2496/822 5983 E-mail: lacandon@prodigy.net.mx

Tel/Fax (manual): Fax: 221 33 821 7595/823 5157

263 4 734023/734027-30/706998/ E-mail: enda.energy@sentoo.sn

700030 djim@enda.sn

E-mail: dorothy@zeroregional.com,

zambelisd@gmail.com









64 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

Asia Indigenous Peoples

Caribbean Pacific Southeast Asia November 2006–June 2011

June 2006–November 2009 November 2003–2007 June 2007–November 2010 Johnson Hugo Cerda Shiguango

Ermath Harrington Rex Horoi Faizal Parish Urbanizacion Palermo Manzana H2

Caribbean Conservation Association The Foundation of the People of the Global Environment Centre Casa 37 (Chillogallo)

The Garrison, South Pacific International (FSPI) 2nd Floor, Wisma Hing, No. 78, Quito, Ecuador

St. Michael, Barbados 6 Des Voeux Road Jalan SS2/72, Mobile: +593 99885648

Tel: (246) 426-5373 GPO Box 18006 47300 Petaling Jaya E-mail: johnsoncerda@hotmail.com

Fax: (246) 429-8483 Suva, Fiji Selangor D.E., Malaysia Skype: johnson200569

E-mail:harcon_04@yahoo.com Tel: 679 331 2250/330 8469 Tel: 60 3 7957 2007

Fax: 679 331 2298 Mobile: 60 12 322 7350 Benedict Solang

North America E-mail: rex.horoi@fspi.org.fj Fax: 60 3 7957 7003 Centre for Development Programs

June 2007–November 2010 E-mail: fparish@genet.po.my (office), in the Cordillera (CDPC)

Yabanex Batista South Asia faizal.parish@gmail.com (mission) 362 Magsaysay Avenue,

The Nature Conservancy June 2007–November 2010 Episcopal Church Compound

4245 North Fairfax Drive Jagdeesh Rao Puppala Western Asia Baguio City, Philippines

Suite 100 Foundation for Ecological Security November 2004–2008 Tel: 074 300 5175

Arlington, VA 22203-1606 (FES) Khadija Razavi Fax: 074 442 2572

United States P.B No. 29, NDDB Campus Centre for Sustainable Development E-mail: cdpc.envi@gmail.com,

Tel: +1 703 841 8170 Anand 388 001 (CENESTA) bskordimts@yahoo.com

Fax: +1 703 276 3241 India 142 Azerbaijan Avenue

E-mail: ybatista@tnc.org Tel: + 91 2692 261303 West 10 Juybar Street,

Fax: + 91 2692 262916 Fatemi Place Central Focal Point

E-mail: ed@fes.org.in 13169 Tehran, Iran

jagdeesh@fes.org.in Tel: 98 21 66 972 973 November 2006–2010

Mobile: 91 213 554 Dorothy C. Manuel

Fax: 98 21 66 400 811 ZERO Regional Environment

E-mail: khadija@cenesta.org Organization

158 Fife Avenue, PO Box 5338,

Harare, Zimbabwe

Tel/Fax (manual):

263 4 734023/734027-30/706998/

700030

E-mail: dorothy@zeroregional.com

zambelisd@gmail.com

Skype: zambelisd or zerodm1









g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 65

Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel

Secretariat Members





The panel is supported by a The panel has members who are STAP Members 2005–2006

Secretariat based in UNEP's internationally recognized experts

Regional Office for North America in the GEF’s key focal areas of work: Yolanda Kakabadse

STAP Chair

in Washington, DC, and at UNEP’s biodiversity (including biosafety),

Fundacion Futuro Latinoamericano

headquarters in Nairobi. climate change, coastal and fresh- Mariano Echeverria 843

water management, sustainable Quito, Ecuador

Washington, DC land management, and persistent Tel/Fax: +593 2 292 0635 / 6 (dial 0

Douglas Taylor when you hear recording)

organic pollutants. The panel also

Secretary, STAP Email: yolandakn@gmail.com

+1 202 974 1318 addresses cross-cutting issues such

doug.taylor@rona.unep.org as sustainable forest management,

Dr. Habiba Gitay

adaptation to climate change, and Vice Chair, STAP

Guadalupe Durón sound chemicals management. The 9918 Chase Hill Court

Associate Program Officer panel is led by a chair. Vienna, VA 22182, USA

+1 202 974 1313 Tel: +1 703 438 3064

gd@rona.unep.org Panel Member Biographies Email: hibaba.gitay@anu.edu.au

Members are appointed by the

Robin Burgess Executive Director of the United Dr. Cristian Samper

Administrative Assistant Nations Environment Programme Director

+1 202 974 1311 (UNEP), in consultation with the Chief Smithsonian Institute

rb@rona.unep.org Executive Officer of the GEF, the National Museum for Natural History

Administrator of the United Nations 10th & Constitution Avenue, NW

Mailing Address USA (Main): Development Programme (UNDP), Suite 421

900 17th Street, NW and the President of the World Bank. Washington, DC 20560-0106

Suite 506 The Chair reports directly to the GEF Tel: +1 202 633 2664

Washington, DC 20006 Council. The mandate of Members is Fax: +1 202 357 4779

USA normally for a two-year period, Email: samperc@si.edu

except for the Chair who is appointed

Nairobi for up to four years. Prof. Brian Huntley

Katherine Kinuthia Chief Executive

Administrative Assistant National Botanical Institute

+ 254 20 7624159 Kirstenbosch

Katherine.Kinuthia@unep.org Private Bag X7

Claremont 7735, Cape Town

Mailing Address Nairobi: South Africa

STAP Secretariat Tel: +27 21 799 8800 or +27 72 799

UNEP/DGEF 8766

P.O. Box 30552 Tel: +27 21 761 4155 (direct office)

United Nations Avenue, Gigiri Fax: +27 21 761 4687

Nairobi, Kenya Email: Huntley@nbi.ac.za;

laidler@nbi.ac.za

Huntley@sanbi.org; laidler@sanbi.org

66 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

Dr. Peter Schei Dr. Timothy O. Williams Prof. Anand Patwardhan Prof. Sani Ibrahim

DG PJS Chief Programme Officer TIFAC Associate Professor

Fridtjof Nansen Institute (Agriculture) Vishwakarma Bhavan School of Chemical Sciences

PO Box 326 Special Advisory Services division Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg Universiti Sains Malaysia

NO-1326 Lysaker, Norway Commonwealth Secretariat New Delhi 110 016 11800 USM, Pulau Pinang

Tel: +47 67 11 19 00 Marlborough House Tel: +91 11 26531299 Malaysia

Fax: +47 67 11 19 10 Pall Mall Fax: +91 11 26515420 Tel: +604 6577888, ext. 3555

Email: pjs@fni.no London, SW1Y 5HX Email: edtifac@tifac.org.in Fax: +604 6574854

UK Email: sani@usm.my,

Peter Hennicke Tel: +44 20 7747 6374 Prof. Thomas B. Johansson sanihim@yahoo.com

President, Wuppertal Institute Fax: +44 20 7747 6307 Professor and Director

For Climate, Environment and Energy Email: t.williams@commonweath.int International Institute for Industrial

Doppersberg 18, 42103 Wuppertal Environmental Economics

Germany Lund University

Tel: +49 202 2492 100 Prof. Anne R. Kapuscinski PO Box 196

Fax: +49 202 2492 108 Director 221 000 Lund

Email: Institute for Social, Economic and Sweden

peter.hennicke@wupperinst.org, Ecological Sustainability (ISEES) Tel: +46 46 222 0222

sylvia.borbonus@wupperinst.org University of Minnesota Fax: +46 46 222 0220

186 McNeal Hall Email:

Dr. Anjali Rambaud-Measson 1985 Buford Avenue thomas.b.johansson@iiiee.lu.se

Shanker St. Paul, MN 55108, USA

IED Innovation Energie Tel: +1 612 624 7719 or +612 624 7723 Prof. Saburo Matsui

Développement Fax: +1 612 624 5299 Professor

2, Chemin de la Chauderaie, 69340 Email: isees@umn.edu, Graduate School of Global

Francheville kapus001@umn.edu Environmental Studies

France Department of Technology & Ecology

Tel: +33 4 72 59 13 20 Ms. Angela Cropper Kyoto University

Fax: +33 4 72 59 13 39 2 Mt. Anne Drive, Second Avenue Yoshida Honmachi,

Email: a.shanker@ied-sa.fr Cascade Sakyo-ku, Kyoto City

Port of Spain Kyoto 606-8501

Trinidad and Tobago, W.I. Japan

Tel: +1 868 626 2628 Tel: +81 75 753 5151

Fax: +1 868 626 2564 Fax: +81 75 753 3335

Email: Email:

acropper@thecropperfoundation.org matsui@eden.env.kyoto-u.ac.jp









g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 67

GEF New Publications 2006–2007







New in 2006 and 2007 GEF Policies, Operations, and Future Introduction to the GEF* (2000); also GEF Projects with Components That

Development (by Mohamed T. El- available in German Address Land Degradation (1999)

GEF Annual Report 2005: Fertile Ashry, former CEO & Chairman, Global The Difference GEF Makes, 2000 10 Cases of Technology Transfer (2000)

Ground—Seeding National Actions Environment Facility): Address to the Annual Report of the Global GEF Action on Biodiversity: poster-size

for the Global Environment Second GEF Beijing Assembly (2002) Environment Facility map (2000)

GEF Global Support for Wilderness The GEF Roundtable Series 2002: A GEF Digest*: a quarterly newsletter for GEF Action on International Waters:

Areas (folder and fact sheets) Contribution to the World Summit on nongovernmental organizations poster-size map (2000)

revised and printed January; 2006 Sustainable Development, including The New Delhi Statement of the First

GEF Global Support for Biodiversity the brochures for: GEF Roundtable GEF Assembly** (1998) GEF Strategy and Operations

Conservation (folder and fact on Sustainable Energy: January 2002, Keeping the Promise (1997);

sheets), revised and printed July New York, USA; GEF Ministerial Harrison Ford narrates this video Operational Report on GEF Programs

2006∗ Roundtable on Financing the introduction to the GEF (15- and (updated yearly)

Protecting the Global Environment: An Environment and Sustainable 30-minute versions) GEF Operational Programs* (1997)

Overview of GEF Actions by Region Development: March 2002, Operational Strategy* (1996)

(folder and fact sheets), July 2006 Monterey, Mexico & June 2002, Bali, Thematic Publications The GEF Project Cycle* (1995)

Resource Mobilization and the Status of Indonesia; GEF Roundtable on Incremental Costs* (1996)

Funding of Activities Related to Land Forests: March 2002, New York, USA; What Kind of World? The Challenge of Medium-Size Projects* (1997)

Degradation GEF Roundtable on Land, Water, & Land Degradation* A Framework of GEF Activities

Linking Adaptation to Development Food Security: March 2002, New Making a Visible Difference in Our Concerning Land Degradation* (1996)

The New GEF: A Proving Ground for Our York, USA World (GEF and protected areas) Public Involvement in GEF-Financed

Sustainable Future—speech by GEF…Dynamic Partnerships: Real Keeping the Promise on Water: GEF’s Projects* (1996)

Monique Barbut (in English and Solutions (2002) Contributions to Sustaining Our Rules of Procedure for the GEF Council*

French) Operational Report on GEF Projects Planet’s Ecosystems (2000)

(2002) GEF in Africa: How the Global Rules of Procedure for the GEF Assembly*

The Challenge of Sustainability (2002) Environment Facility Is Working with (2000); Arabic, Chinese, and Russian

New in 2007 Shine a Light—15-minute video describ- African States for a Sustainable versions (2002)

ing the work of the GEF over its 10- Future; also available in French Instrument for the Establishment of the

GEF Global Action on Persistent Organic year history; narrated by Harrison Good Practices: Country Coordination Restructured Global Environment

Pollutants (folder and fact sheets), Ford (2002) and GEF (2001) Facility* (1994)

revised and printed; April 2007 GEF Securing Livelihoods—15-minute IUCN & GEF: Partners in Conservation

GEF Global Action on Sustainable Land video describing the rehabilitation of (2000) Working Papers

Management (folder and fact sheets), small farms around Lake Baringo in GEF Caring for Generations

revised and printed, March 2007 Kenya (2002) Solar Thermal Energy Comes to Working Paper 10—From Idea to

Forests: Here for Eternity—16-minute Rajasthan (2000); also available in Reality: The Creation of the Global

video that demonstrates Costa Rica’s German Environment Facility (1994)

General Interest systems of charges for ecological Mountain Matters (2000) Working Paper 11—Environmental

services (2002) Promoting Energy Efficiency and Indicators for Global Cooperation

GEF—Effective, Responsive, Targeted Powering Sustainable Development— Renewable Energy: GEF Climate (1995)

(calling card brochure) 15-minute video showing the different Change Projects and Impacts (2000) Working Paper 12—Capacity Building

High Priorities: GEF’s Contribution to approaches to renewable energy provi- GEF Global Action Waters* (2000); a Requirements for Global

Preserving and Sustaining Mountain sion in developing countries (2002) series of five fact sheets Environmental Protection

Ecosystems (2002) Life Support (brochure) (2001) GEF Action on Biodiversity (2000) Working Paper 13—Restructuring the

Biodiversity Matters: GEF’s Contribution New Business: Geothermal, Biomass, GEF Projects Related to Water Resources Global Environment Facility

to Preserving and Sustaining the Wind, Fuel Cells, Solar* (2001) (2000) Working Paper 14—The Outlook for

Natural Systems that Shape our Lives GEF Contributions to Agenda 21: The GEF Support for Activities to Address Renewable Energy Technologies

(2002) First Decade* (2000) Climate Change (1999) Working Paper 15—Implications of





68 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

Agenda 21 and UNCLOS for Global Environment Facility (GEF) Action Monitoring and Evaluation Reports GEF Lessons Notes Series

International Waters as a GEF Focal in the ECE Region: Partnerships for

Area (1998) Sustainable Development (2001); also Third Overall Performance Study (2005) 1 – Building Partnerships with

Working Paper 16—The Costs of available in French Biodiversity Program Study (2004) Communities (1998)

Adapting to Climate Change Global Environment Facility (GEF) Climate Change Program Study (2004) 2 – Encouraging Private Sector

Working Paper 17—Financing Action in the ECE Region: project fact Program Study on International Waters Involvement in GEF Projects (1998)

Protection of the Global Commons: sheets (2001) (2004) 3 – Lessons from an Integrated

The Case for a Green Planter Review of Financial Arrangements in Conservation and Development

Contribution (2000) Monitoring and Evaluation GEF-Supported Biodiversity Projects “Experiment” in Papua New Guinea

Working Paper 18—Creating Income Working Papers (2003) (1998)

and Local Employment in a Selection Biodiversity Program Study (2002) 4 – Partnership with the Private Sector:

of GEF Projects Monitoring and Evaluation Working Program Study on International Waters Lessons from Batangas Bay, The

Working Paper 19—The Global Paper 1—Achieving Sustainability of (2002) Philippines (1998)

Environment Facility as a Pioneering Biodiversity Conservation (2000) Monitoring and Evaluation Policies and 5 – When Is Conservation Best Served

Institution: Lessons Learned and Monitoring and Evaluation Working Procedures (2002) by a Trust Fund? (1999)

Looking Ahead Paper 2—The GEF Solar PV Portfolio: International Waters Program Study 6 – Building Strategic Focus in a

Working Paper 20: Mainstreaming Emerging Experience and Lessons (2001) Conservation Trust Fund (1999)

Biodiversity in Production (2000) Biodiversity Program Study (2001) 7 – The Mexican Nature Conservation

Landscapes Monitoring and Evaluation Working Review of Climate Change Enabling Fund (1999)

Paper 3—Multicountry Project Activities, Evaluation Report (2000) 8 – 1998 Project Performance Report

Regional Reports Arrangements: Report of a Thematic and Evaluation Summary Report* (1999)

Review (2000) 9 – Best Practices in Preparing National

GEF in Africa: How the Global Monitoring and Evaluation Working Study of Impacts of GEF Activities on Biodiversity Strategies and Action

Environment Facility Is Working Paper 4—Measuring Results from Phase-Out of Ozone Depleting Plans (1999)

with African States for a Sustainable Climate Change Programs: Substances, Evaluation Report 10 – 1999 Project Performance Report

Future (2001); also available in French Performance Indicators for GEF (2000) (2000); summary report also avail- (2000)

GEF in Africa; project fact sheets (2001) Monitoring and Evaluation Working able in Russian 11 – Emerging Lessons from GEF

GEF Action in the Asia-Pacific Region: Paper 5—Integrating Capacity Interim Assessment of Biodiversity Multicountry Projects (2000)

Partnerships for Sustainable Development into Project Design and Enabling Activities, Evaluation 12 – Participation Means Learning

Development (2001) Evaluation: Approach and Report* (1999); and Evaluation Through Doing: GEF’s Experience in

GEF Action in the Asia-Pacific Region; Frameworks (2000) Summary Report* (1999) Biodiversity Conservation and

project fact sheets (2001) Monitoring and Evaluation Working Project Performance Report (1996–2005)* Sustainable Use (2001)

GEF in the Western Asia Region: How Paper 6—GEF Land Degradation Experience with Conservation Trust 13 – Transforming Markets for Energy-

the Global Environment Facility Is Linkage Study (2001) Funds, Evaluation Report* (1999) Efficient Products: Experience and

Working with Countries in Western Monitoring and Evaluation Working Evaluation Summary Report of Lessons from GEF-Supported Projects

Asia for Sustainable Development Paper 7—Thematic Review of GEF- Experience with Conservation Trust 14 – Best Practices in Project Monitoring

(2001) Financed Solar Thermal Projects Funds* (1999) and Evaluation: Lessons Learned in

GEF in the Western Asia Region; project Monitoring and Evaluation Working Summary Report of the Study of GEF Manufacturing and Marketing of

fact sheets (2001) Paper 8—Contributions to Global and Project Lessons* (1998) Energy-Efficient Products

GEF in Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Agreements: Review of the Study of GEF’s Overall Performance**

Region (LAC): How the Global GEF International Waters Program (1997)

Environment Facility Is Working with Monitoring and Evaluation Working The First Decade of the GEF: Second

LAC for a Sustainable Future (2001); Paper 9—The GEF Energy-Efficient Overall Performance Study

* Documents marked with an asterisk are

also available in Spanish Product Portfolio

available in English, French, and Spanish.

GEF in Latin America and the

** Documents marked with two asterisks are

Caribbean Region (LAC); project fact

available in six languages: Arabic, Chinese,

sheets (2001)

English, French, Russian, and Spanish.









g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 69

Acronyms and Abbreviations







ADB Asian Development Bank IA Implementing Agency OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation

AF Adaptation Fund IADB Inter-American Development Bank and Development

AfDB African Development Bank IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction OFM Oceanic fisheries management

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity and Development (World Bank) OME Office of Monitoring and Evaluation,

CBO Community-based organization ICT Information and communication (GEF) now GEF Evaluation Office

CDM Clean Development Mechanism technology OPS Overall Performance Study (GEF)

CDW Country Dialogue Workshop ICWM Integrated coastal and water PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl

CEIT Countries with economies in transition management PES Payment for environmental services

CEO Chief Executive Officer IFC International Finance Corporation PIC Pacific island country

CEPF Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund IFAD International Fund for Agricultural PLEC People, land management and

CFC Chlorofluorocarbon Development environmental change

CNR Community nature reserve IMO International Maritime Organization PMIS Project Management Information

CO2 Carbon dioxide (UN) System

COP Conference of the Parties IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate POPs Persistent organic pollutants

CPB Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety Change PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

CPP Country Pilot Partnership IUCN International Union for Conservation PTS Persistent toxic substance

CSP Country Support Program of Nature PV Photovoltaics

DWFN Distant-water fishing nation IW International Waters RAF Resource Allocation Framework

EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and IW:LEARN International Waters Learning SAP Strategic Action Programme

Development Exchange and Resource Network SCCF Strategic Climate Change Fund

EEZ Exclusive economic zone LDC Least developed country SFM Sustainable forest

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization LDCF Least Developed Country Fund management

FCCC [United Nations] Framework LME Large marine ecosystem SGP Small Grants Programme

Convention on Climate Change M&E Monitoring and evaluation SIDS Small island developing state

(usually written UNFCCC) MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment SLM Sustainable land management

FFA Fisheries Forum Agency MPMF Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund SPA Special Priority on Adaptation

GDP Gross domestic product NAPA National Adaptation Programme of STAP Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel

GEF Global Environment Facility Action TDA Transboundary diagnostic analysis

GEFM&E GEF Monitoring & Evaluation Unit NCSA National Capacity Self-Assessment UNDP United Nations Development

(now GEF Evaluation Office) NDI National Dialogue Initiative Programme

GEFSEC GEF Secretariat NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s

GET Global Environment Trust Fund Development

GHG Greenhouse gas NGO Nongovernmental organization

GNP Gross national product NIP National Implementation Plan

HCFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbon ODA Official development assistance

HFC Hydrofluorocarbon ODS Ozone-depleting substances









70 g l o ba l e n v i r o n m e n t fac i l i t y

g e f a n n ua l r e p o rt 2 0 0 6 –2 0 0 7 71

Photo Credits







Cover: Christian Hofer/GEF

Inside cover: Patricia Hord

Page 1: iStock

Page 2: Deborah Campos/World Bank

Page 4: John Lewis/Auscape

Page 7: Tim Davis/Corbis

Page 9: Scott Wallace/World Bank

Page 12: Frans Lanting/Auscape

Page 21: Andrea Hill/iStock

Page 23: John Rainbird/Auscape

Page 25: Dallas and John Heaton/Auscape

Page 27: François Gilson/Auscape

Page 31: Curt Carnemark/World Bank

Page 37: Matt Tilghman/iStock

Page 39: Curt Carnemark/World Bank

Page 41: Arne Hoel/World Bank

Page 43: Martin Strmko/iStock

Page 45: Ariel Javellana/IRRI/World Bank

Page 54: Frédéric Soltan/Sygma/Corbis

Page 59: World Bank

Page 63: Ray Witlin/World Bank

Page 71: GEF

Global

Environment

Fa c i l i t y

www.theGEF.org



For more information contact:



Global Environment Facility

1818 H Street NW

Washington, DC 20433 USA

Tel: 202-473-0508

Fax: 202-522-3240

Email: Secretariat@theGEF.org









Printed on environmentally friendly paper.