Project Implementation Review 2001 by benbenzhou

VIEWS: 53 PAGES: 65

									Project Implementation Review 2001
            UNDP/GEF




         Performance Report

           September 2001
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.                      TRENDS AND LESSONS LEARNED .................................................................................................. 2
     1.1.    CATALYTIC EFFECTS AND RESOURCES LEVERAGED ............................................................................................. 2
        1.1.1.   Dissemination ............................................................................................................................................. 2
        1.1.2.   Demonstration and replicability ................................................................................................................. 4
        1.1.3.   Formulation and Review of Policies and Legislation ................................................................................. 5
        1.1.4.   Partnerships ................................................................................................................................................ 6
        1.1.5.   Financial Leveraging .................................................................................................................................. 9
     1.2.    IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES: CHALLENGES & LESSONS LEARNED ......................................................................... 12
        1.2.1.   Capacity constraints ................................................................................................................................. 12
        1.2.2.   Political factors ........................................................................................................................................ 13
        1.2.3.   Time frames .............................................................................................................................................. 13
        1.2.4.   Working with communities ........................................................................................................................ 14
        1.2.5.   Adaptive management ............................................................................................................................... 16
        1.2.6.   Innovation ................................................................................................................................................. 17
     1.3.    FURTHER NEEDS FOR INFORMATION EXCHANGE ............................................................................................... 17
2.                      PORTFOLIO OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................. 19
     2.1.    TOTAL UNDP/GEF PROJECT PORTFOLIO .......................................................................................................... 19
     2.2.    PIR 2001 PROJECT PORTFOLIO .......................................................................................................................... 20
        2.2.1.   Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 20
        2.2.2.   Impact Achievement .................................................................................................................................. 24
        2.2.3.   Implementation Progress .......................................................................................................................... 24
3.                      FOCAL AREA HIGHLIGHTS ............................................................................................................ 26
     3.1.    BIODIVERSITY ................................................................................................................................................... 26
        3.1.1.   Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 26
        3.1.2.   Emerging issues ........................................................................................................................................ 27
     3.2.    CLIMATE CHANGE ............................................................................................................................................. 33
        3.2.1.   Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 33
        3.2.2.   Portfolio Breakdown by Substantive Clusters........................................................................................... 34
        3.2.3.   Recent Interesting Experiences ................................................................................................................. 34
     3.3.    INTERNATIONAL WATERS ................................................................................................................................. 36
        3.3.1.   General overview of Implementation Progress......................................................................................... 36
        3.3.2.   Institutional and Legal Reform ................................................................................................................. 38
        3.3.3.   M&E Tools/Indicators .............................................................................................................................. 39
        3.3.4.   Sustainability and Replication .................................................................................................................. 40
        3.3.5.   Private Sector Involvement ....................................................................................................................... 40
        3.3.6.   Resources Leveraged ................................................................................................................................ 41
        3.3.7.   Capacity Building ..................................................................................................................................... 42
        3.3.8.   Lessons Learned & Best Practices ........................................................................................................... 43
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 45

ANNEX A:                LIST OF PIR 00 PROJECTS ............................................................................................................... 47

ANNEX B:                STATUS REPORTS ON PROJECTS WITH FUNDING ALLOCATIONS ................................... 53

ANNEX C :               LIST OF PROJECTS OPERATIONALLY COMPLETED DURING FY 00 ................................. 60

ANNEX D:                LIST OF MID-TERM AND FINAL EVALUATIONS REPORTS FOR PIR 2001 REPORTS .... 61
     Introduction

The annual GEF Project Implementation Review (PIR) complements the regular UNDP Monitoring
and Evaluation procedures employed during project implementation. The PIR exercise has a
threefold purpose: (a) ensuring accountability in the use of resources ; (b) providing a clear basis for
decision-making and (c) learning and disseminating practical lessons gathered from our field
experience that can guide future interventions.
The PIR covers only a subset of the UNDP/GEF‘s portfolio. According to the PIR selection criteria
individual project information was collected for all full and medium-sized projects under
implementation for a minimum of one year, as of June 30, 2001. Projects that were operationally
completed before June 30, 2000 were not included in this year‘s review. A total of 96 projects
qualified for the 2001 PIR – a 33% increase compared to 72 projects that reported on last year PIR-.
A detailed statistical analysis of all projects is provided in Chapter 3 of this report.
Due to the decentralized way in which UNDP/GEF operates, the PIR process involves a broad
range of actors at all levels. A questionnaire, based on PIR 2001 guidelines provided by the GEF
Secretariat‘s M&E Team, was sent out to UNDP Country Offices that have projects meeting the
review criteria. Questionnaires were filled out jointly by projects and the UNDP Country Office
concerned. The reports prepared were reviewed and analyzed first by our Team of Regional
Coordinators in the field and subsequently in headquarters by Technical Advisors and the
UNDP/GEF M&E Team.
The PIR is now in its seventh year, and its questions and content have been adapted to the special
information needs of the GEF Council and the Implementing Agencies. In addition to reporting on
the general performance of GEF projects, implementation progress and impact achievements, the
2001 PIR is the fourth year in which we have attempted to gather information on catalytic effects,
resources leveraging efforts and the successes of projects as outlined in Chapter 1. The results
reported here largely confirm the leveraging successes summarized in previous year‘s PIRs. This
chapter also includes a summary of trends, challenges and lessons learned from the implementation
of UNDP/GEF projects.
Succinct overviews for biodiversity, climate change, and international waters highlighting general
trends in each focal area are included in Chapter 3. Annex A lists all 96 projects for which
individual reports have been prepared. Annexes B contain brief status reports on projects that
entered the GEF Work Program before June 30, 1999 and as of today, have not been approved by
UNDP. Annex C lists all projects that were operationally completed during FY 00 and therefore did
participate in the PIR for the last time. Annex D contains a list of all mid-term reviews, evaluation
reports and project completion reports that have been completed from July 1, 2000 through June 30,
2001 or are planned through June 2002.




                                                   1
1. Trends and Lessons Learned


   1.1. Catalytic effects and resources leveraged

1.    As in previous years, acknowledging its importance, this PIR tries to capture and report on the
catalytic effects and the resources leveraged by UNDP/GEF projects. Catalytic effects refer to those
consequences of UNDP/GEF interventions that are initiated or stimulated by project activities and
which often go beyond contributing to project specific goals. Financial leveraging refers to funds
mobilized in association with a GEF project, which is also being interpreted as a sign of the
commitment of GEF recipient countries and others to protecting the global environment.
2.     Some of the findings summarized below confirm what was already highlighted in previous
year‘s PIR analysis. GEF funding in general empowers national constituencies for environmental
protection. Outreach efforts contribute to awareness raising of global environmental issues (at the
local and national level) which enables the constituency to grow and is a prerequisite for the change
in attitudes and actions of targeted actors and institutions. Changes in attitudes and actions result in
formulation or revisions of policies and legislation at both local and national levels. Effective
communication and dissemination of project knowledge and experience leads in many cases to the
formulation, funding and implementation of projects with similar objectives. The combination of
these help to create an environment conducive to the achievement of GEF, CBD and UNFCCC
goals.
3.    This section reports on UNDP/GEF projects‘s dissemination efforts, demonstration effects
and replicability, contributions to the formulation and review of policy and legislation, partnerships,
and financial leveraging.



       1.1.1.           Dissemination

4.    The information collected from UNDP/GEF projects through this year‘s PIR reveal the
significant outreach and dissemination effort being conducted by a large number of projects. Taking
full advantage of more easily available technologies such as the internet, engaging the mass media,
supporting information centers and clearinghouses, and also maintaining more ―traditional‖
methods such as newsletters, seminars, or field visits for example, UNDP/GEF projects are
communicating with others at the local, national and international level. Thus, showing their
commitment to raise the awareness about global environmental issues as well as sharing lessons and
technical knowledge gained through project implementation.

5.    In China for example, the Commercialization of Renewable Energy project promoted the
establishment of the Chinese Renewable Energy Association (CREIA) which has by its very nature
a knowledge dissemination function. It serves as a unique platform for its members to exchange
information on technology developments, business development, marketing strategies, enterprise
management and financing opportunities. The international study-tours and numerous domestic
workshops co-organized by CREIA have also provided many opportunities to learn from foreign
experiences. In a similar effort, the Energy Efficiency Improvement project in Egypt has created an



                                                   2
Energy Efficiency center, which will operate as a dissemination point for energy efficiency related
matters for different actors such as energy suppliers, manufacturers, distributors and end-users. In
other cases, information and knowledge is made available and shared through clearinghouses, such
as the one being developed by the India Coalbed Methane (CBM) Recovery project that will be
fully functional by the end of 2001.

6.    The unique and innovative character of UNDP/GEF projects attract in some cases the mass
media. In the Costa-Rica Talamanca-Caribbean Biological Corridor for example, two national
television programs have already been aired about the corridor. Besides, in July last year a mission
of United Nations Television visited the project and a three minute program has been prepared that
will be shown next year in CNN as part of the Rio+10 activities. In India, the Bio-Methanation
project has prepared a video film on the Demonstration plant for bio-methanation of pulp and paper
mill effluent. In the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor project seven high profile public activities
were held to launch the programme in seven countries receiving broad media coverage. In the Small
Grants Programme, the priority given to communications, both at headquarters and country level,
has resulted in an increased number of projects featured by the local, national and UN media.

7.    In other cases, less far-reaching but more focused efforts prove also effective. In Egypt, the
Lake Manzala project is keen to disseminate the performance results of the engineered wetlands to
the scientific community to promote replication in Egypt and the middle East. So far, two papers
have been prepared presenting the results. One of them was presented at a national conference. The
second will be presented in an ASCE conference on wetlands in the USA in August 2001. When
reports are not enough to convey the message, some projects bring selected stakeholders to see
results on the ground. In Panama Darien BD Conservation project for example, potential
participants in the micro-credits initiative visited neighboring communities were micro-credit
committees were already producing results. Visits from other UN Agencies and different
government departments were organized to strengthen and promote existing and potential strategic
alliances with other programs and project operating in the region.

8.    Publications are produced in many projects such as the in Southern Africa SABONET. Up to
this moment, 16 issues of the project newsletter, SABONET News have been and distributed to
over 65 countries round the world. A total of 12 issues of the SABONET Report Series have been
published and disseminated to herbaria within the region and further afield

9.    One project stands out in their contribution to share and disseminate knowledge on one
particular GEF focal area. The IW-LEARN aims to improve global management of transboundary
water systems by increasing the capacity to replicate best practices and lessons across the GEF IW
portfolio. It intends to do so by assembling project managers into a cohesive and mutually
supportive community of practice. The following is a sample of IW-LEARN activities:

      On going peer-to-peer technical assistance across IW projects provided via 20 active
       (trained) members of the I-team electronic forum
      PEMSEA delivering free distance-learning module on local bay issues via its Web site
      Usage of instant messaging service to coordinate its most recent TPR process.
      Organization of a International Waters conference in Budapest (October 2000)

10. The Country Dialogue Workshops program complements project efforts by drawing upon
experiences and transferring knowledge at a national level. In addition to the workshops



                                                 3
themselves, reports are prepared by the OFPs containing summaries of the CDW. They are
available on the CDW website and distributed nationally by the OFP in some cases.


       1.1.2.           Demonstration and replicability

11. UNDP/GEF projects through their efforts to raise awareness, to strengthen institutions, and to
share their knowledge and experience often provide the inspirational basis for further project
development and follow-up actions. Even though for many projects it is still too early to show
replication of their activities, a number of projects in the PIR provide successful examples.

12. A variety of actors, from local governments, to bilateral and multilateral donors, NGOs or the
scientific community, take the lead to follow up and replicate projects results. In India for example,
the Small Hydro project has motivated various State Governments to set small hydro projects in
remote and isolated locations. Thirteen states in India have announced their policies to invite private
sector to set up SHP projects. Twenty-six agreements and 180 MOUs have been signed in the State
of Himachal Pradesh to set up SHP by the private sector. A number of NGOs have also expressed
interest based on the experience gained by another NGO involved in the project. In Bulgaria, the
Energy Efficiency Demonstration project has actively influenced the development of a new UN
ECE regional project for the development of a network of energy efficient demonstration zones,
founded by the UN Foundation through the Energy Efficiency 2000 project. It was also used as a
model for the South East European Cooperative initiative (SECI) and the USAID regional project
municipal Energy Efficiency network (MUNEE).

13. In another example, the Aquatic Weeds project in the Ivory Coast for instance has achieved
considerable success in developing methodologies for weeds control and will ensure that these are
disseminated properly before termination of project. In particular links will be made with pipeline
projects in Africa that are working in invasive species control. Yet, the project regrets that there has
been insufficient time and resources to build up the capacity of the institutions to ensure replication
of project results.

14. In Chile, thanks to the positive experience gained by the country on issues related to removal
of barriers after the implementation of the Reduction of Greenhouse Gases project, the government
has started the preparations for two important joint implementation projects already approved by the
Energy Commission.

15. The SABONET project in Southern Africa has stimulated the formation of the East Africa
BOZONET project focussing on the development of taxonomic capacity in the zoological and
botanical fields in East Africa

16. The Dryland Agro-biodiversity project in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the Palestine Authority
also provides a successful case. The Regional component and the Syrian project component have
contributed to the development of a project proposal on the use of indigenous species in the
rehabilitation of the Nebek area led by the International Plant Resources institute (IPGRI) and local
communities. The project is also a model for the development of a World Bank funded project and
is providing support to its preparation by granting access to the surveyed eco-botanical and eco-
geographic data, reports of consultants and the use of developed methodologies. The International




                                                   4
Center for International Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA), has been approached to develop similar
projects in Central Asia, Yemen, Egypt and Iran

17. The case of the Country Dialogue Workshops programme illustrates an interesting example of
how pilot and successful experiences are reproduced. In view of the limited resources available to
the programme and despite a tight schedule, only a number of countries could benefit from the
CDWs. In response to this situation, some countries have chosen to use the CDW methodology and
materials to conduct their own CDWs in coordination with the local IA offices.


       1.1.3.           Formulation and Review of Policies and Legislation

18. UNDP/GEF projects continue to show significant results of their efforts dealing both directly
and indirectly with the formulation and review of new and existing environmental policies and
legislation at the national and local level.

19. In the Madagascar Environmental Program Support project for example, the National
Biodiversity Strategy has been finalized and validated at the national level after a series of regional
consultations. The strategy highlights the contribution of the environmental sector in development
and poverty alleviation and emphasizes the importance of ensuring full community involvement in
its implementation. Two laws relating to the intellectual property rights and the access to living
resources were also approved and will be soon submitted to the National Assembly. Legislation
proposals on access and exchange of genetic resources have been also drafted in Syria as part of the
Dryland Agro-biodiversity project.

20. Two Greenhouse Gas Reduction through Energy Efficient Building Technology projects also
report on important progress in the formulation of new policies. In Russia, the project prepared a
National Report ―Heat Supply in the Russian Federation: ways out of the Crisis‖ including
systematic recommendations for all levels of government regarding the development of programs
for heat supply system reconstruction and reforms in the housing and utilities sectors. The
governmental working group developing the National Strategy for Municipal Heat Supply Reform
is using the report as the primary guidance. In West Africa the project has initiated national policy
dialogues on energy regulations and a text for energy and thermal comfort regulations has been
elaborated together with supporting scientific tools. The latter are specifically designed to assist in
the practical application of recommended measures.

21. In some cases, projects share their experiences, including specific research results and
technical concepts as an input to current work in the development of policies. In the Yemen Socotra
project for example, the project-supported research on the island biodiversity and natural resource
base was used as a crucial input for the zoning plan now established by presidential decree and that
forms the basis for the archipelago‘s development master plan. In the India Small Hydel Resources
project, a plan for the SHP sector during 2002-2007 has been prepared by the Ministry that has
drawn a number of experiences from the UNDP-GEF project. Most of the activities are proposed to
be extended for the entire country. In Lebanon, the impact of the In-situ Conservation for BD
Protection project in establishing new protected areas is already evident in the legal proclamation of
four new protected areas by the Lebanese Parliament in addition to the three existing reserves.




                                                  5
22. In other cases, projects concentrate their efforts in building consensus and generating policy
frameworks necessary to develop more specific legislation. In the PEMSEA project a draft
Environmental Strategy for the Seas of East Asia has been developed and comprehensive
consultations are currently being undertaken to ensure full support and commitment from all
stakeholders. In addition, the Declaration of Bohai Environmental protection was signed during the
7th Programme Steering Committee. Actions planned under the Declaration include the setting up of
a trans-regional coordination organ, the formulation and implementation of the Bohai management
Law and the possible establishment of a special fund

23. In projects where new environmental legislation or the review of existing ones is a key
component, it is not enough to assist in the preparation of proposals or provide technical input.
Often an additional effort is needed to push the proposal through the legislative process by
promoting consensus and bringing it to the attention of decision-makers.

24. The Building Environmental Citizenship to support Transboundary Pollution Reduction
project in the Danube provides an example of good practice in promoting its outputs. The project
recognizes in its report that ― the foremost challenge which may affect the achievement of the
project results is the degree of commitment from the governments of Hungary and Slovenia to put
in place in a timely fashion the suggested recommendations from the project affecting their legal
and institutional framework”. In light of this priority the project team -determined to gain the high
level political support necessary- has put in place a detailed plan to ensure that the interim results as
well as the final draft of outputs are shared with the high level government officials and throughout
various departments in the ministries. The plan includes meetings with decision-makers, request
feedback, and promoting the project proposals by emphasizing their importance in the framework
of other conventions and processes such as the EU accession with special regard to the
implementation of the new access to environmental information directive and the Water Framework
Directive.


       1.1.4.           Partnerships

25. UNDP/GEF projects interact with other organizations and similar interventions, benefiting
from synergy effects and engaging in joint activities. This contributes to reducing overlaps between
projects and donor competition.

26. In the Conservation of Arid and Semiarid Ecosystems project in the Caucasus for example the
body of experience and information gathered by the project will be extremely valuable for the WB
protected Areas project, which plans to work in a subsection of the Arid and Semi-Arid Zone.
Similarly the West Africa Efficient building Technology project provided assistance by granting
access to energy databases and diagnosis reports to a WB project aimed at the promotion of local
energy service companies. These efforts ultimately result in significant savings in time and
resources for the GEF as a whole.

27. The International Waters portfolio provides additional examples of interaction -both intra-
GEF as well as with other organizations- promoted in part by activities of the IW-LEARN
programme. The SAP for the Dnieper River Basin project for instance benefited from the advice
given by its counterparts in the Danube and Tumen River Projects both of which commenced earlier




                                                   6
and experience similar start-up issues in the region. The Transboundary Pollution reduction in the
Danube reports that the initial design benefited from input and comments from the International
Commission of the Protection of Danube River (ICDPR). The project keeps the ICDPR informed to
avoid overlap with its planned activities.

28. In Costa Rica, the Talamanca-Caribbean Corridor project provides an example of good
practice in the coordination of three separate but complementary UNDP/GEF initiatives carried out
at three different levels. The project operates within the overall framework and in close
coordination with the Regional Programme for the Consolidation of the Mesoamerican Biological
corridor while, at the community level is engaged with the Small Grants Programme in the design
and implementation of eco-tourism sub-projects within the TC corridor.

29. In some cases, participation in different monitoring and review mechanisms allows the
opportunity to learn from each other. In Southern Africa SABONET for example, the project‘s
Secretariat has been involved in a participatory and advisory capacity with other projects in the
region such as Birdlife -were SABONET‘s coordinator has participated in Steering Committees-,
and the Southern Africa BD Support Programme.

30. The need to coordinate and cooperate with other institutions is even more evident in the case
of Global Programs. The Ballast Water Control project reports building win-win relationships with
other UN programs and GEF sister projects. Cooperative relations were established with the
Secretariat of the Convention of BD, the TRAIN SEA coast project and the GEF Caspian Sea
Environment Programme. In addition, the Country Dialogue Workshops program reports that where
efficiencies merit, the workshops have been coordinated back-to-back with other workshops (e.g.
Pacific CDW with SPREPs annual meeting).

31. In the Bañados del Este Biosphere Reserve project in Uruguay, the TRAIN SEA COAST
program, created by the United Nations for training of human resources active in coastal regions
chose the project as its regional headquarters. A number of training programs have been established
jointly with TSC benefiting from their experience.

32. The SAP for the Pacific islands Small Island Development States, significant effort has been
dedicated to developing partnerships with the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme
(SPREP), and the NGO Community, including IUCN, TNC and WWF.

33. The Small Grants Programme has been particularly successful in forging strategic alliances
with many initiatives and programmes to enhance impact in targeted ecosystems and specific
environmental issues such as adoption of renewable energy. Examples are the SGP-UNF
Community Management of Protected Areas Conservation (COMPACT) project, which has an
integrated approach to community participation in the conservation of 6 World Natural Heritage
sites and the EC SGP to Promote Tropical Forests in the Asian Region.

34. In addition, substantial progress has been achieved in mainstreaming SGP approaches and
mechanisms within UNDP. UNDP‘s own resources have been made available to SGP in a number
of countries and the programme is fully collaborating with the Africa 2000 Network and LIFE
projects. Linkages have also been established with Capacity 21, particularly on the preparations for
WSSD. Other UN agencies have contributed to specific SGP activities, including UNIFEM, UNEP,
UNF, UNFIP and UNV.



                                                 7
Private Sector involvement

35. UNDP-GEF‘s portfolio of projects under implementation already has several projects in each
focal area which are exploring and have secured a variety of partnerships with the private sector in
order to achieve global environmental benefits. Some illustrative examples of such partnerships are
presented below.

36. In climate change companies are involved in UNDP-GEF projects to promote energy
efficiency technology and renewable energy technology to reduce GHG emissions. In the Barrier
Removal for the Widespread Commercialization of Energy-efficient CFC-free Refrigerators in
China there are 16 refrigerator and 10 compressor companies designing energy efficient
refrigerators and compressors and working with the project to design a strategy to promote these
products in the Chinese market place. They are also allocating 10% of their total advertising
budgets during the project to market their new products. Their total in-kind contributions equal $30
million in co-financing. As the project progresses retail stores will also participate and receive
training to sell refrigerators to consumers. Another example is UNDP-GEF‘s Sri Lanka Renewable
Energy and Energy Capacity Building Project. This project is promoting the adoption of renewable
energy by removing national market and regulatory barriers, specifically reducing the
implementation costs of such technology. A ceramics company, Noritake Lanka Porcelain (Pvt.)
Ltd., Warakamura, Matale and a textile company, Kabool (Lanka) Ltd, Thulhiriya have partnered
with the UNDP-GEF project as volunteers for energy audits to achieve energy savings through
reduced energy consumption in their manufacturing processes. There are also several other projects
directly working with companies such as The creation and Strengthening of Capacity for
Sustainable Development of Renewable Energies in Central America, working with 9 local energy
companies in four countries in the region to promote rural electrification through small scale
renewable energy projects.

37. In biodiversity conservation there are several projects partnering with companies, particularly
in the field of eco-tourism. Companies are assisting projects raise local revenues for conservation,
employ local people to reduce pressure on the local natural resources and raising the ecolgocial
awareness of the tourists to reduce their negative impacts on the natural resources they visit. One
example is in a project in Lebanon, Strengthening of National Capacity & Grassroots In-Situ
Conservation for Sustainable Biodiversity Protection. The project has partnered with three hotels
and three eco-tourism operators to assist in the conservation of the Horsh Ehden & Al-Shouf Cedars
Reserve. The operators through attracting tourists are stimulating domestic industries such as
hotels, restaurants, souvenirs, and handicrafts. They are also providing tourists with conservation
information about the reserve. In return, by strengthening the protection of the natural resources
within the Horsh Ehden & Al-Shouf Cedars Reserve the operators expect to attract more clients to
both this site and others in the country. In another project, the Mountain Areas Conservancy
Project in Pakistan, a local tour operator, Lost Horizon Treks and Tours is contributing a portion of
its profits to a local NGO, the Mushkin-Dashkin-Turbelin Valley Conservation Fund to protect the
local natural resources. In return the project has printed brochures advertising the area which help
attract clients for the tourism operator.

38. Another type of contribution by the private sector is direct allocation of funds to support local
organisations involved in GEF projects for on-going conservation activities. An example of this is
the Swatch Group in Japan. The Swatch Group-Japan have pledged US$40,000/yr for three years to



                                                 8
support office and capacity building expenses for the Conservation Society of Pohnpei, as part of
UNDP-GEF‘s Community Conservation and Compatible Enterprise development in Pohnpei,
Federated States of Micronesia project. This has allowed the local NGO to expand their staff,
furnish and run their office in support of their community-based marine protected areas and
environmental education work in support of this project. In addition Swatch is helping disseminate
information in Japan about these conservation efforts and hope to attract other corporate donors to
support biodiversity conservation in Pohnpei. In return the company is receiving advertising
benefits. They have undertaken filming and photography on Pohnpei to support their products, and
plan future activities.

39. Several of the International Water projects also are working closely with companies. Three
examples are the Building Partnerships in Environmental Protection and Management for the East
Asian Seas (PEMSEA), the Preparation of Strategic Action Programme (SAP) and Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) for the Tumen River Area, its coastal regions and related Northeast
Asian Environs project and the project, Addressing Transboundary Environmental issues in the
Caspian Environment Programme. In the PEMSEA project various private sector partners such as
East Asian Response Pte Ltd, the International Association of Independent Tankers Owners and
Hatfield Associates will work with the project to reduce their pollution and also attend Programme
Steering Committee meetings. The Tumen River project has successfully gathered a host of
national and international companies to contribute to the project. The companies act as commercial
sounding boards for projectsto be developed, advise on financial and technical feasibility of
proposed interventions and assist in identifying sources for private sector investment and make the
necessary contacts to national investment houses. In return they are benefiting from increased
market intelligence, introductions to senior national leaders from government and business and
Production promotion and good public relations. The Caspian Environment Programme has built
partnerships with the multi-national petroleum companies in the region and has raised significant
co-financing, totaling $230,000 to date, from them for specific agreed activities such as baseline
data gathering and monitoring in the Caspian Sea.


       1.1.5.          Financial Leveraging

Amounts Leveraged


40. Leveraging encompasses amounts mobilized up-front, during implementation and after
completion including funds used for replication of successful projects and follow-up investments.
Normally only a fraction of leveraged resources, i.e. the amounts already agreed upon during
project preparation, is reported in project documents and monitoring and evaluation exercises. As in
previous years, PIR 01 attempts to capture and report the substantial financial leveraging of
additional resources during project implementation as well as after completion of project activities.
Associated funding is also included in the calculations of leveraged amounts.

41. Judging from the PIR 2001 portfolio UNDP/GEF projects continue to be successful in their
leveraging efforts totaling US$ 381.3 million in resources to complement the funding from GEF
resources. In addition to the GEF funding of US$ 419 million, the projects participating in the 2001
PIR exercise include a total of US$ 336 million in co-financing leveraged before the start-up of




                                                 9
implementation and US$ 45.5 million during implementation. About one additional dollar is
leveraged for each dollar allocated by GEF (or approximately 4 million on average per project).
Table 1 below provides a breakdown by source.


Table 1.     Sources of Leverage for UNDP/GEF Projects

                          UNDP     UN Agency Government Donors*            Private     NGOs           Total
                         (TRAC)                                            sector

    Co-financing          $17.8        $4.8        $97.5        $120.3      $51.7      $43.7         $ 335.8
  leveraged before
    start-up (US$
       million)

    Co-financing            $0         $0.5        $11.8        $15.9       $9.1        $8.2          45.5$
  leveraged during
   implementation
    (US$ million)

        Total             $17.8        $5.3        $109.3       $136.2      $60.8      $51.9          $381.3

* Besides bilateral funding agencies these numbers include funding from Multilaterals, Regional Development Banks,
Donor government ministries (or special funds) and foreign embassies.
** This column also includes funding from other projects, NGOs and private sector.


42. It is estimated that the actual resources leveraged are even higher than reported since many
times these resources are not being adequately quantified and are not being included in the reports.
Non-cash contributions such as sharing of equipment and office space, provision of free labor in the
form of volunteers or non-remunerated part time collaboration, free or reduced cost of services such
as advertising or coordination activities, even though are common and result in important savings
for the project, are not always adequately quantified and reported.

43. In addition to the significant resources mobilized up-front, UNDP/GEF projects have a
catalytic role in securing resources during implementation. In a number of projects ―leveraging
tasks‖ during implementation were added as a core project function (internalized in the Terms of
Reference of CTA‘s and other staff) or fund raising strategies developed such is Lebanon
Strengthening of National Capacity for Biodiversity Protection.

44.   Examples of successful financial leveraging efforts include:
       PEMSEA Regional Program : US$ 8.3 million from the Government, US$ 3.1 million
        from UNDP and US$ 3.9 million from SIDA
       BD Protection in Sabana-Camaguey in Cuba: US$ 0.4 million for UNDP/TRAC, US$
        15.2 million from the Government, and US$ 0.3 million from CIDA.
       The Energy-Efficient CFC-free refrigerators in China: US$ 0.2 million from bilterals,
        US$ 1.3 million from the Government and US$ 29.7 million from local enterprises.




                                                       10
45. Despite the good results achieved in leveraging additional resources some projects highlight
the difficulties faced to ensure co-financing in cases of unstable political environments, and swiftly
changing policies and priorities. In addition, long processing times and uncertainty about actual
project start-times make it difficult for project proponents to secure funds associated to government
or other donor budget cycles.

UNDP/TRAC
46. UNDP is contributing more than US$ 17 million in co-financing to GEF projects as grant
money. For example, the PEMSEA project receives US$ 3 million from UNDP/TRAC while
Madagascar Environment program Support project receives 1.5 million and Pakistan Mountain
Areas Conservancy has leveraged US$ 1.5 million from the same source.

Private Sector
47. Several projects have managed to leverage substantial amounts from the private sector for
follow-up investments, funding of project activities and surveys. In the China Promoting Methane
Recovery from Municipal Refuse project for example, one of the project sites has finalized a joint
venture agreement with an Australian-based firm that will continue to provide direct investment
into the project of over US $ 1.45 million. In the Caspian Sea, the Addressing Transboundary
Environmental Issues project has managed to secure resources from major oil companies operating
in the region to contribute to the cost of different project components such as the Oil Spill
Contingency Plan and the support to the Biodiversity Center.

Bilateral and Multilateral Funding Sources
48. Another major share of leveraged resources comes from bilateral and multilateral funding
sources, especially for follow-up projects or projects implemented parallel to UNDP/GEF projects.
In the Uruguay Bañados del Este Biosphere Reserve project, after the approval of the project the
EU granted complimentary co-financing for US$ 0.9 million for a period of three years. Additional
requests have been sent to the Spanish Araucaria program and the French Environmental Fund.

49. The Conservation of Wetland and Coastal ecosystems project in the Mediterranean region
reports that US$ 3.4 million has been mobilized from USAID in the Palestine Authority for
financing a new project aiming at developing a nature reserve and a national park in Wadi Gaza. In
the Panama Biodiversity Conservation in the Darien project, the British Embassy contributed
resources for the creation of an interactive database with all available information on the Darien
region.

Non-governmental Organizations
50. NGOs, either international or national, including foundations, research institutes, and
community-based organizations seem to play an increasing role as a source of leveraged resources,
both financial and in-kind contributions. An outstanding example here is the Regional
NGO/Government partnership for BD project in Africa, which continues to leverage resources and
has so far managed to secure additional funding of more than US$ 4.4 million through its network
of national NGOs. Other successful cases are for example, the Pakistan Mountain Areas
Conservancy project, which has secured more than $ 1.5 million from different partner
organizations, and the Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian Authority Agro-biodiversity



                                                 11
project, where the national component from Lebanon has leveraged $ 0.25 million from the Council
for Development and Reconstruction to scale-up the project activities in the target areas.

51. Leveraged contributions often provide resources for training seminars or organization of
workshops such as in Bhutan Integrated Management of Jigme Dorji or Energy efficient Building
technology in West Africa. In other cases, the additional resources allow project replication. In the
Capacity Building for Commercialization of Renewable Energy project in China for instance, two
planning grants of $ 80.000 each were awarded by the UN Foundation for the development of two $
1.5 million projects on Village Power Business Models development and Solar Heater Water
market development.

   1.2. Implementation issues: challenges & lessons learned

52. This section reports on a number of implementation issues highlighted by this year‘s PIR
projects. They include challenges faced by the projects, examples of how projects deal with them,
and lessons learned. It is recognized that lessons need to be detailed and specific enough to be of
value for their audiences and ultimately to be able to help and improve project identification, design
and implementation. The ones included in this section are proposed for consideration and perhaps
further elaboration and subsequent dissemination by the GEF. Implementation issues have been
grouped into six categories: capacity constraints; political and instability issues; time frames;
working with communities; adaptive management; and innovation.



       1.2.1.           Capacity constraints

53. Limited capacity, both of the project executing agents as well as in-country capacity at all
three levels (individual, institutional, systemic) have been identified by several projects as a main
challenge for achieving the expected project results. Executing institutions are in some cases under-
staffed –usually due to budget limitations-, and lack personnel with the necessary technical,
managerial and administrative skills. In addition, in-country capacity –at all three levels- might be
limited in terms of absence of standards and regulations, lack of legislative frameworks, or weak
organization skills of community groups for example.

54. In both cases the project suffers the consequences. Limited executing capacity affects the
quality of outputs, results in delays in their provision and might lead to deviation from the project
original objectives. Insufficient in-country capacity might jeopardize the whole project strategy.

55. There is therefore a clear need to systematically conduct assessments of relevant capacities at
all three levels (individual, institutional and systemic) as part of project identification and
preparation, including decisions on execution arrangements. In this regard, the Capacity
Development Initiative being operationally launched at the moment is timely and could provide the
overall framework for conducting ad-hoc project-specific capacity assessments.




                                                 12
       1.2.2.           Political factors

56. GEF projects are implemented in some cases in countries governed by young democracies,
under unstable political environments, or even involved in armed conflict. These factors often result
in frequent changes of staff, revision of policies and priorities, and the need to review resource
allocations. This year‘s PIR confirms the great challenges that these factors pose to project
implementation.

57. The Sub-saharan Africa region provides the most extreme cases of instability including
threats to security. In the Bangassou Forest project in the Central African Republic for example,
rebels continue to cross the border and pouch wildlife in the forest with powerful guns. This
situation not only increases insecurity in the area for carrying out project activities, but it also
reduces the motivation for local communities to manage their forest resources. The attempted coup
in Bangui in May 2001 has also contributed to the general climate of uncertainty.

58. In Eritrea‘s Conservation of Marine Biodiversity project, the majority of its core staff
abandoned the project since early 2001 after a two-year border war with Ethiopia. In the Southern
Africa SABONET project, the political instability in Angola, and recently in Zimbabwe has made
movements in most parts of the country almost impossible which has restricted the ability to
conduct project activities. In the Ivory Coast a great number of government officials were replaced
after the December 1999 military coup and new teams were busy re-organizing their departments
and overwhelmed with other priorities when the project needed to collect from them the necessary
agreements.

59. Regional projects involving sometimes a large number of countries are particularly vulnerable
to political factors. For example, in the SAP and TDA for the Tumen River project in North East
Asia, DPRK still does not join the project officially, which poses a serious challenge for project
implementation. In other cases frequent changes of high level government officials have caused
difficulties in sustaining the political will at the national level. In the SAP for the Dnieper River
Basin project for example - another IW regional initiative- two of the three participating countries
had their respective Ministers of Environment replaced since the project start, which has resulted in
delays or even total disruption in decision making. In the PEMSEA project in the Philippines,
several changes in the Focal Point has also been the reason for delays.



       1.2.3.           Time frames

60. The decision on the appropriate time frame for implementation is a crucial one and a requisite
for project success. An adequate timeframe ensures an acceptable ratio between personnel and
administration costs versus total project budget, it sets realistic expectations for all stakeholders,
and contributes to project sustainability by investing the time necessary to consolidate the processes
that build solid foundations for project implementation. However, in those cases were the time
frames are unrealistic, projects face a number of significant challenges.



                                                 13
61. The Strategic Action Programme project in the Pacific Island States for example report that
the time frame provided for the implementation of the project is insufficient. The assumption that
all 14 countries would commence implementation of their pilot projects around the time of the
signature of the Project Document and then progress simultaneously for 5 years will not hold. Since
the implementation time for each pilot project is a key consideration in its design, a major review of
the schedule of activities or the outcomes expected will be required.

62. The underestimation of the times required during the inception phases of projects is another
major cause of unrealistic timeframes. The Wetlands Biodiversity project in China for example
reports on the difficulties faced for hiring personnel due to the unavailability of required
international specialists as well as the complexities of the bidding process associated to the
implementation of the sub-contracts.

63. Trade-offs between capacity development efforts and implementation times need to be
recognized and adequately reflected in project plans. The Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
project in Ivory Coast for instance reports on output delivery delays from consultants associated to
the learning-by-doing approach adopted by the project in order to pursue its capacity development
objectives. Training and validation workshops and seminars provided by international consultants
added additional time to the completion of project components that appeared to be under-estimated.

64. The Energy Efficient Building Technology project in West Africa, which was faced with a
similar situation, proposes an alternative to deal with the trade-offs between capacity development
and implementation time. The project suggests that in those cases where capacity building
beneficiaries are expected to produce specific project outputs, the co-participation of more
experienced operators might be recommended. Delivery times may be reduced and the learning-by-
doing approach strengthened by couching from the partner operator.



       1.2.4.           Working with communities

65. Spiritual and cultural beliefs can be powerful driving forces for conservation. The South
Pacific Biodiversity Conservation program reports that for Pacific Islanders the belief in the
existence of a supernatural being in an area or the cultural significance of a place can be an
important motivation for the conservation of such place or area. These beliefs can also be
instrumental in deterring and controlling what people do in these sites. Knowledge of where these
beliefs are being practiced would help in the identification of areas that are likely to succeed as
conservation areas.

66. The Conservation of Biodiversity in the Talamanca-Caribbena Corridor in Costa Rica
highlights that local participation in activities such as building awareness or training workshops
need to consider the needs and agendas of local people. These activities might be too abstract and
do not generate any perceived direct benefit. For local communities, ―one day in a workshop is a
day without working‖. Many communities feel that they are overloaded with activities and
workshops.




                                                 14
67. The allocation of resources in communities is a very sensitive issue that can introduce
elements of conflict in community organizations if they are not managed carefully. Fair distribution
of benefits, a sense of ownership, transparency and full participation are key elements in this regard.
In the Panama Darien Biodiversity Conservation project potential conflicts with project
beneficiaries of a micro-credit initiative were minimized by ensuring their full involvement in the
design and implementation of the most adequate model for their needs. The entire responsibility for


 The Mountain Areas Conservancy Project (MACP) provides an outstanding example in working with
 communities. The project is based on the premise that in the long run conservation interventions are
 unlikely to mitigate threats to biodiversity unless communities are actively involved. Its whole strategy has
 been built around this principle. The following are a few examples of lessons and good practice reported by
 the project:

    An overall Social Mobilization Strategy provided a framework for organizing communities but was
     not specific enough for local situations. Social organization must be tailor-made for specific
     conditions.

    PRIF site activists from the neighboring valleys explained the MACP approach based on their
     experiences from the PRIF phase. The activists explained biodiversity conservation in local languages,
     using local examples and idioms. Judicious use of key local people as project proponents is a useful
     approach to obtaining community buy-in.

    MACP discovered that compliance to the PRIF Conservation Plans is better among communities in
     which social organization was sound and where contact was maintained during the bridging period
     between PRIF and MACP. Long-term sustainability depends upon ensuring that the social
     foundations are solid and upon continual follow-up by Project personnel.

    Because a community submits a resolution indicating a willingness to work with MACP does not
     mean that they are willing to take part in conservation activities. Often the resolution is made only in
     the expectation of some benefit. Follow-up meetings are needed to ensure full understanding of the
     implications of the resolution.

    A written project message was carefully developed to avoid misunderstandings with communities. The
     message was in Urdu and project teams distributed it after the community meetings. The approach
     proved helpful in reducing the initial misunderstandings.

    MACP held a gender strategy workshop addressing participation of men and women in conservation
     planning and implementation activities. Based on the workshop report, a Gender Action Plan was
     devised to integrate strategic considerations into project activities. This systematic approach has
     proven to be beneficial to an effective integration of gender issues.

    MACP tailored PRA methodology to suit conservation planning needs. The tool proved helpful in data
     collection and its analysis without creating too many expectations among the local communities.

    Understanding the philosophy of demonstration projects was difficult for project staff. Explaining the
     philosophy in ordinary easy-to-understand messages for the partner communities was even more


the management of the funds has been given to the participating community groups. The result is
that for the first time, payback has been over 90% in three of the four participating communities.




                                                          15
68. The Cross Borders project in east Africa highlights that involving project stakeholders in
project development and to implement project activities through stakeholder partnerships is time
consuming, particularly when there has been mistrust between government and communities in the
past. Biodiversity projects timelines need to anticipate the effects of such lengthy inputs. Besides,
conservation activities can only succeed if local community needs are adequately addressed. Local
communities often have a much greater wish list than what projects can provide. It is important to
establish a clear linkage between development activities and conservation of biodiversity right at
project start-up in order to have a common vision with all stakeholders. Care must be taken in not
creating excessive hopes.

       1.2.5.          Adaptive management

69. PIR 01 projects provide several examples of lessons and good practice in relation to adaptive
management to challenges faced at different stages of project implementation.

70. The Strategic Action Programme for the Pacific Island Small Island States for example
reports on the value of reviews carried out on budgets, logical framework and staffing needs very
early in implementation as part of the preparation of the Inception report. Similarly, in the
Mesoamerican Biological Corridor programme, the project team and their national counterparts
carried out an analysis of consistency with the original PRODOC in the context of the new regional
situation during the first year of implementation. With the expert support from a team of advisors-
facilitators provided by UNDP/GEF through its agreement with DSE (German Foundation for
International Development), a regional workshop was organized to develop a ―common vision‖,
which was the basis for a reviewed logframe and strategic planning for five years.

71. In other cases, revisions are carried out later during implementation when necessary. For
example, in the Building Capacity to respond to challenges of UNFCCC project in Morocco, the
project document has been revised in line with the recommendations of the mid-term project
evaluation undertaken in May 2001.

72 As recognized by the SABONET project in Southern Africa project documents and logframes
should not be regarded as static documents, but should be adapted and amended during the life of
the project according to changing local conditions and also to take into consideration lessons
learned through project activities. Needless to say, the proposed changes to project objectives
require agreement among all interested parties, including the Implementing Agency and the
government.

73 Project extensions have been granted to respond to project delays or unrealistic timeframes. In
the Ivory Coast Control of Aquatic Weeds project for example an 18 month no-cost prolongation of
the project was granted to finish off activities delayed by disbursement problems, finish final
reports and complete administrative activities.

74. In other cases, it is the external environment where the project operates that asks for
immediate response. In Egypt and the Palestine Authority Energy Efficiency Improvements project,
due to the political situation and the inability to travel freely among the various parts of the



                                                 16
Palestinian territories, the project decentralized its activities and opened a branch in the Gaza strip.
Teams were dispatched to various areas for periods of time until work is completed in these areas.
In Nepal, the Mustang Biodiversity Conservation project had to deal with the unexpected initiative
taken by the Mustang District Development Committee to construct a road through part of the
project area. In response to this situation, the project was forced to reassign project resources for
carrying out an environmental impact assessment and guidelines for the road alignment.



       1.2.6.           Innovation

75. The innovative character of certain projects is a good example illustrated by the Agro-
biodiversity project in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the Palestine authority. This is the first and only
in situ conservation project working at the same time on landraces and wild relatives in the region.
Therefore the promotion and incorporation of its concept to economic and development processes at
national end regional level will require considerable additional effort compared to other traditional
practices. Working in different ecosystems and under different implementation arrangements (NEX,
DEX and NGO) will also need to be carefully managed.



   1.3. Further Needs for Information Exchange

76. In response to the new requirement included in this year‘s PIR Guidelines received from the
GEF Secretariat, all projects included in this year‘s portfolio were asked to ― discuss whether the
project has further needs for receiving technical and operational knowledge, and suggest
areas/issues that could be subject to enhanced knowledge/information exchange ―.

77. The review of this section reveals a clear message received from a large number of projects:
to promote and strengthen networking among GEF projects. Despite efforts underway in some areas
(e.g. IW-LEARN), many projects feel they are not benefiting from experiences from the rest of the
GEF portfolio and suggest to establish active networking with similar projects at different stages of
preparation or implementation to facilitate exchange of information. Clearly, electronic mail and the
internet seem to be the most widely available and cost-effective mean at the moment to establish
networks. Face to face contact through ad-hoc meetings and seminars are also mentioned as
important and complementary means to strengthen and sustain networks.




                                                  17
78. Following is the list of issues mentioned by the projects where there is a further need to
receive or exchange knowledge and experience. They are presented by Focal Area for ease of
reference:

Focal area      Need for Information             Comments

Biodiversity    Monitoring:                      The notion of BD indicators is relatively difficult to
                 Indicators                     understand, let alone monitoring. It requires practice,
                 Participatory approaches       training and experience
                Work with communities:
                 Mobilizing communities
                 Involvement of women
                Benefit sharing of use of
                genetic resources with farmers
                Development of market
                opportunities for local
                products in foreign markets
                Conservation Trust Funds

Climate         Investment projects              Especially lessons learnt on implementation
Change          Small Hydel resources            Latest developments in technologies for SHP, specifically
                                                 project up to 100 KW suitable for village electrification
                Power system analysis            Technical assistance in the field of power system analysis
                                                 using computer simulation
International   Private sector investment        Networks that could facilitate it and that could advise
Waters                                           provincial governments on the type of steps they have to
                                                 take to become attractive to foreign investors

Across Focal    Co-financing                     How to calculate and document it
Areas           Biodiversity-International       Network with other GEF projects that integrate water and
                Waters                           Biodiversity
                Capacity building                Toolkit on capacity building assessment. A check list of
                                                 items typically looked for in these evaluations would help
                                                 rationalize the self-assessment work. Lessons learned
                                                 from similar projects elsewhere.
                Regional project-specific        Establish active networking with similar regional
                issues                           initiatives for exchange of experiences
                Local communities.               Information and methodologies for empowerment of local
                                                 communities
                More advanced/experienced        Information exchange with other similar and more
                projects.                        advanced projects

The above list should be the base for discussion between the GEF Sec and the IAs on the best way
to respond the needs expressed by the projects. Some the issues would merit the preparation of GEF
wide studies and materials while others can be dealt directly by the Implementing Agencies.




                                                    18
2. Portfolio Overview


    2.1. Total UNDP/GEF Project Portfolio

79. Since the initiation of the annual Project Implementation Review in 1995 the UNDP/GEF
annual approved Work Programme has grown from $30 million in FY 95 to over $ 161 million in
FY 01 reaching an accumulated total of $ 1,224 million as of Jun 01. Consequently the number of
projects for which monitoring information needs to be collected, analyzed and consolidated during
the PIR process keeps increasing steadily every year. The respective breakdown of FY 01 numbers
for the total UNDP/GEF project portfolio by region and focal area is shown in Table 2 below.
Compared to FY 00 the total authorized allocation shows an increase of 15 %. The total approved
UNDP budget has increased US$ 150 million or 34%.


Table 2.     UNDP/GEF Project Portfolio (as of FY 01) by Region
                                       April 91-Jun 01                           April 91-Jun 01
           Region               Total Authorized Allocation (1)         Total Approved UNDP Budget (2)
                                          ($million)                               ($million)

 Global                                      48.1                                      43.7
 Africa                                     198.4                                     138.9
 Asia & Pacific                             336.4                                     265.4
 Arab States                                116.2                                      97.3
 Europe & CIS                               132.8                                      74.4
 Latin America &
                                            298.7                                     222.7
 Caribbean
 Small Grants
                                             93.3                                      70.5
 Programme
 Total UNDP/GEF
                                           1,223.9                                    912.9
 Projects
(1) Authorized allocation refers to GEF allocation approved by GEF Council or GEFSEC CEO.
(2) Total approved UNDP budget refers to GEF allocation approved by UNDP as commitment.




                                                      19
    2.2. PIR 2001 Project Portfolio

        2.2.1.             Overview

80. As in previous years the PIR portfolio constitutes only a subset of the total portfolio of
UNDP/GEF projects. According to the general PIR 01 guidelines information was collected for all
full or medium-sized projects that have been under implementation for at least one year as of June
30, 2001. The official start up date for implementation for UNDP projects is the signing of the
Project Document by the respective host country (or at least two participating countries in the case
of regional projects). Therefore, all projects with Project Document signatures before July 1, 2000
were selected to participate in this monitoring exercise.

81. This year, 33 new projects were included in the PIR for the first time and 7 are participating
in the PIR for the last time (see Annex C). The total number of 96 projects being reviewed in the
PIR 01 exercise represents a major increase of 33% (or 24 projects) in the PIR portfolio compared
to the 00 PIR which collected information for 72 projects. In just three years, the number of
UNDP/GEF projects in the PIR portfolio has doubled, from 47 in PIR 98 to 96 in PIR 01. Graphs 1
and 2 and Tables 3 and 4 below show the distribution of PIR projects and GEF funding by focal
area and region for the last three years.

Graph 1: PIR 99/00/01 Comparison: Regional Distribution of projects1.


                                          PIR 1999/2000/2001 Comparison:
                                                    % of projects by Region




       30%


       25%


       20%


       15%


       10%


         5%


         0%
      1999
      2000        Global         Africa       Asia & The    Arab States   Europe & The   Latin America &
      2001                                     Pacific                        C.I.S       The Caribbean




1
  Regional Projects are counted as one project regardless of number of participating countries. Small Grants Programme
is counted as one project ( the SGP approved 405 projects for a total of $10.4 million of GEF funding during the
reporting period )



                                                           20
Graph 2: PIR 99/00/01 Comparison: Regional Distribution of GEF Funding2.

                                            PIR 1999/2000/2001 Comparison:
                                                    % Funding by Region


             35%


             30%


             25%


             20%


             15%


             10%


             5%


             0%
                     Global        Africa       Asia & T he        Arab States    Europe & T he   Latin America
                                                  Pacific                             C.I.S           & T he
      1999                                                                                          Caribbean
      2000
      2001




Table 3.      PIR 2001 Project Portfolio by Region

                              Number               Percentage                    GEF Funding                Percentage
                                                                                  (US$millions)

Global                            7                     7%                           $50.4                        12%
Africa                           16                    17%                           $56.2                        13%
Arab States                      16                    17%                           $64.5                        15%
Asia & Pacific                   24                    25%                          $139.0                        33%
Europe                           15                    16%                           $41.1                        10%
Latin America                    18                    19%                           $67.6                        16%
Total                            96                   100%                          $419.0                        100%




2
  Regional Projects are counted as one project regardless of number of participating countries. Small Grants Programme
is counted as one project ( the SGP approved 405 projects for a total of $10.4 million of GEF funding during the
reporting period )



                                                              21
Graph 3: PIR 99/00/01 Comparison: Distribution of projects by Focal Area


                                          PIR 1999/2000/2001 Comparision:
                                                          % of Projects by Focal Area

        50%

        45%

        40%

        35%

        30%

        25%

        20%

        15%

        10%

           5%

           0%
      1999      Multiple Focal Area       Ozone Depletion        Biodiversity    Climate Change     International Waters
      2000
      2001




Graph 4: PIR 99/00/01 Comparison: Distribution of GEF Funding by Focal Area 3.

                                                     PIR 1999/2000/2001 Comparison:
                                                               % Funding by Focal Area


           45%
           40%

           35%

           30%

           25%

           20%

           15%
           10%

             5%

             0%
    1999            Multiple Focal Area      Ozone Depletion      Biodiversity    Clim ate Change    International Waters
    2000
    2001




3
  Regional Projects are counted as one project regardless of number of participating countries. Small Grants Programme
is counted as one project ( the SGP approved 405 projects for a total of $10.4 million of GEF funding during the
reporting period )



                                                                      22
Table 4.        PIR 2001 Project Portfolio by Focal Area

                      Number             Percentage               GEF Funding          Percentage
                                                                      (US$millions)

BD                        39                 41%                        $165.6            40%
CC                        36                 37%                        $119.9            29%
IW                        12                 13%                         $82.8            20%
OZ                        7                  7%                          $16.0             4%
Multi                     2                  2%                          $34.5             8%
Total                     96                100%                        $419.0            100%

Executing Agencies

82. Table 5 below shows that UNDP/GEF is further increasing its efforts to move towards
national execution of projects. Eight projects are executed by an NGO. In addition to those formally
executed by an NGO, in some projects NGOs are subcontracted by UNOPS to execute large project
components (e.g. Regional NGO/Government partnership for BD project in Africa).

83. In many cases national execution is not possible because financial and governance structures
do not meet the UNDP standards for execution. UNOPS or NGO execution provides a means of
enabling project implementation where national capacities for execution are wanting. Execution by
UN Specialized Agencies such as UNITAR, FAO, or WMO is chosen in cases where the technical
nature of the whole project or the implementation of regional components so requires.

Table 5.        Executing Agencies for UNDP/GEF Projects

Type                                            Number of projects                    Percentage

NEX/Government4                                           54                            56%

UNOPS                                                     29                            31%

Other UN Agency                                            5                             5%

NGO                                                        8                             8%

Total                                                     96                            100%




4
    Includes 3 projects executed by InterGovernmental Organizations



                                                           23
         2.2.2.           Impact Achievement

84. Using the rating categories provided in the PIR guidelines a total of 9 projects were rated
highly satisfactory (HS) and 75 projects satisfactory (S) on impact achievement, representing about
88% of the PIR 01 portfolio. One project reported that it was too early in implementation to
measure the potential impact of project activities. Only three projects rated their potential impact
achievement with unsatisfactory (U) -Eritrea’s Coastal and marine Biodiversity, Burkina Faso’s
Nazinga Ranch and Romania Energy Efficiency improvement-. Compared to FY 99 and FY 00, this
seems to continue a trend of high potential impact achievement for UNDP/GEF projects.

                                      Ratings for Development Objective 99/00/01




                  80%

                  60%

                  40%

                  20%

      1999         0%
      2000                   HS           S                  PS               U     NA
      2001




         2.2.3.           Implementation Progress

85.     The picture for the rating of implementation progress looks fairly similar. A total of 6 projects
        report highly satisfactory progress and 71 projects satisfactory progress in implementation.
        Two projects rated the achievement of its immediate objectives as unsatisfactory (Eritrea
        Coastal, Marine & Island Biodiversity, Burkina Faso’s Nazinga Ranch).These figures
        translate into a success rate of 80%

                        Rating for Immediate Objective: 99/00/01



             80%
             70%
             60%
             50%
             40%
             30%
             20%
             10%

      1999   0%
      2000              HS            S                PS                 U        NA
      2001




                                                        24
25
3. Focal Area Highlights


   3.1. Biodiversity

         3.1.1.           Overview

86. The PIR 2001 contains 39 biodiversity projects. This represents a 35 % increase compared to
last year‘s PIR. One point of interest in 2001 is the entry into the PIR group of a significant number
of MSP projects – eight. Of these projects, international NGO‘s play a major role in 4, national
NGO‘s and statutory bodies in 3, and one is a purely government project. In general the issues
associate with the MSP‘s are similar to those for Full Projects, however we note differences where
they occur.

87. The following tables present the distribution of projects by geographic area and by
Operational Program.

Table 6. PIR 2001 Biodiversity projects by Region

          Region          Number of Projects      % of total       GEF Funding          % of total
                                                                   US$ millions
 Global                            1                3%                 1.76              1.06 %
 Africa                           12               31 %               45.34             27.37 %
 Asia & The Pacific                9               23 %               41.17             24.85 %
 Arab States                       5               13 %               29.59             17.86%
 Europe & The C.I.S.               1                3%                 0.75              0.45%
 Latin America                    11               28 %               47.05             28.40%
 & The Caribbean
 Total                            39               100%              165.66              100%

Table 7. PIR 2001 Biodiversity projects by Operational Program.

 Operational Programme     Number of Projects     % of total       GEF Funding          % of total
                                                                   US$ millions
 1: Arid and Semi-Arid             6                15%               19.72               12%
 Ecosystems
 2: Coastal, Marine and           12                31%               64.97               39%
 Freshwater Ecosystems
 3: Forest                        15                38%               65.62               40%
 Ecosystems
 4: Mountain Ecosystems            5                13%               13.59               8%
 Enabling Activity                 1                 3%                1.76               1%
 Total                            39               100%              165.66              100%

88. Africa and Latin America stand out as the regions with larger portfolios, both in terms of
numbers and funding, followed closely by the Asia & Pacific region. Arab States has also built a
relatively large portfolio, particularly in terms of funding.



                                                 26
89. Projects allocation to the four biodiversity OPs is somewhat arbitrary as many of them cover
more than one Program. That is, the OPs are not mutually exclusive from each other. Lake Titicaca,
for example, could be assigned to Drylands (OP1), Coastal and Freshwater (OP2), or Mountains
(OP4), and to the International Waters as well as the Biodiversity Focal areas. Other cases are less
extreme, but still the principle holds. Initial allocation to the OPs was made more for convenience
than for technical reasons.

90. Most projects have satisfactory ratings in Project Impact as well as in Implementation
Progress and a few have Highly Satisfactory ratings. The proportion of projects in these two
categories is not very different from the one observed in the PIR 2000.

91. As far as the Development objective, only one project is rated unsatisfactory - Conservation
management of Eritrea’s Coastal, Marine and Island Biodiversity-, and one reports that a rating is
not available- Nazinga Ranch in Burkina Faso-. In the former case, Eritrea has recently emerged
from a protracted war during which much project activity came to a standstill. The CTA resigned in
August 2000. Several support staff and counterpart staff were called up. Other staff were on
security duty in the project town of Massawa. Since peace became a reality in late 2000, project
activities have started to resume. In the latter, UNDP/GEF disbursement to the project was
suspended in December 1998 and it has only resumed in July 2001 after government acceptance
and satisfactory completion of legal requirements for establishing the ranch.

92. There are not unsatisfactory projects in relation to progress made towards the achievement of
Immediate objectives.


       3.1.2.           Emerging issues

93. One point of interest in 2001 is the entry into the PIR group of a significant number of MSP
projects – eight. Of these projects, international NGO‘s play a major role in 4, national NGO‘s and
statutory bodies in 3, and one is a purely government project. In general the issues associate with
the MSP‘s are similar to those for Full Projects, however we note differences where they occur.

Process

94. This year, the quality and objectivity of the reports provided by the Country Offices to HQ
improved markedly. UNDP/GEF recognizes, however, that further work is needed. The major
involvement of international conservation NGO‘s (CI, WCS, TNC and FFI) did not seem to
improve the quality or timeliness of reporting. Particular attention should be given in the future to
select and apply better indicators in the log-frame matrices, to further elaborate assumptions, and to
gather more detailed descriptions of achievements under the various immediate objectives.




                                                 27
Measuring Biodiversity impacts on the ground

95. Several projects indicate that they are already measuring biodiversity impacts on the ground.
The Aquatic Weeds project in Ivory Coast project deserves special mention. This initiative reports
success in using insects (biological control) to reduce the cover of invasive aquatic weeds. These
weeds are known to cause great ecological and economic damage to affected water bodies, and this
UNDP/GEF experience is already being replicated in other areas such as Lake Victoria.

96. Care is needed in interpreting stated project results, particularly where they relate to impacts
on the status of biodiversity. For example, Lebanon In-situ BD Conservation reports 10% increases
in floristic cover, plus increases in several species of fauna. Comoros BD Conservation reports
increases in marine turtles, Livingstone flying foxes, and reduced forest losses. A third group of
projects (e.g., East Africa Cross Borders, Syria Fertile Crescent, Lebanon In-situ Conservation)
describe measurable decreases in pressure on biodiversity resources, such as coelacanths, or
increases in varieties of cultivars (e.g., Ethiopia Plant Genetic).

97. We should see if they are confirmed in future PIRs. Short-term interests of critical
stakeholders sometimes distort the censuses. The Pakistan Mountain Areas project, for example,
reported a tendency to inflate counts in the number of game species, with the expectation that these
would lead to higher trophy hunting quotas. In this case, the project leaders will need to seriously
discuss with stakeholders the long-term repercussions of cheating and over-hunting. Also, projects
do not use appropriate ―no-project control‖ areas when assessing their results. The Eastern
Mongolia Grasslands project, for example, reported increases in plant cover in the 2000 PIR, but it
now reports that cover has decreased. The explanation for this apparent contradiction lies in the
large between-years variations in productivity, characteristic of semi-arid habitats.

Using control sites to evaluate impacts

98. Regional between-year changes in productivity and abundance of organisms can easily mask
the real impacts of projects. A rainy year, leading to an unusually high productivity, may
erroneously lead evaluators to conclude early beneficial impacts of the project (this seems to have
been the case in Mongolia Grasslands). Conversely, a sequence of dry years may lead them to
conclude that the project does not have an impact, when it has. Without the project, the combined
effect of drought and high human impact would have been higher than with the intervention, and
appropriate controls would have helped uncover the true project impacts.

99. National or state-level changes in social, political or economic landscape (unemployment,
natural resource use policies, balance of trade, structural adjustment of the economy, etc.) can also
affect project sites and influence project impacts. For example, temporal increases in
unemployment levels can lead to regional or even national overexploitation of resources,
independently of the project. A positive balance of trade may lead to reductions in forest losses.
Appropriate ―no-project control‖ sites are difficult to find, but evaluators should be aware of these
overriding effects and look for ways to take them into account.

100. Wherever possible UNDP/GEF will assist countries to design projects with appropriate
controls that will allow them to contrast project sites with nearby, ―no-project areas‖, and thus




                                                 28
distinguish project impacts from overall regional changes in biotic and, sometimes, also social and
economic conditions.

Providing early benefits to stakeholders

101. Alternative livelihood (AL) activities compensate local natural resource users for reducing
extraction rates and conserving biodiversity. Although all projects support some AL, not all
interventions create sufficient enabling conditions for them. The Socotra project in Yemen could
not achieve one of its main objectives, sustainable use of land and marine resources, because it did
not grant enough AL and was unable to convince local communities to reduce their harvests. The
Bhutan Jigme Dorji project is confronting how to compensate people for lower, albeit sustainable,
harvests from the mountain ecosystems; the Fertile Crescent (Syria) and the Pakistan Mountain
Areas (MACP) projects face similar challenges. The argument that projects will allow for
sustainable harvest instead of short-term non-sustainable gains is not sufficient. The failed forestry
project in New Ireland (PNG) showed that local stakeholders were not willing to exchange up-front
high incomes for lower and more sustainable incomes.

102. Local communities strongly supported the re-designed Darien project in Panama largely
because of its prompt delivery of micro credits to assist people in AL. Ensuring an adequate water
supply is also a powerful means to provide benefits to local stakeholders and to conserve
biodiversity. The Lesotho Mountain BD and Syria Fertile Crescent projects state that a major
reason for local acceptance of the interventions has been their expectation of better water harvests.

103. A basic assumption of the incremental costs paradygm has been that for projects to obtain
global benefits, local communities only need to maintain their current level of well-being. But
experiences documented in the PIRs, indicate that people want to see significant improvements in
their livelihoods, as a condition for collaboration in conservation. UNDP and the GEF will therefore
need to find new ways to significantly increase short-term gains for the communities they are
seeking to transform into custodians of biodiversity. Two ways to provide benefits are for projects
to support the removal of barriers preventing communities from accessing markets, and by helping
to eliminate intermediaries.

104. Without these initial benefits, over and above their current situation, it will be difficult to get
the needed support.

Engaging the scientific community

105. The ―Program Status Report‖ and the ―Biodiversity Program Study‖ encourage Implementing
Agencies to work more with scientists. On reviewing the PIRs, it is apparent that Implementing
Agencies will have to develop new approaches in working with the scientific community. Scientists
are legitimately driven by their desires to understand nature, whereas project managers aim at using
knowledge to protect biodiversity. The challenge is to reach win-win solutions, in which scientists
obtain their legitimate results and projects achieve their conservation objectives.

106. Making the right decisions early on in implementation can be critical. Frequently, scientific
information becomes a building block for activities spearheaded later. In the Madagascar




                                                  29
Environment Program Support case, for example, the contractor in charge of initial inventories, to
be used in later activities, did not perform adequately and implementation was delayed.

107. SABONET is a successful project in Southern Africa, designed and managed by botanists
wanting to transfer knowledge from South Africa to scientists and end users of biodiversity
information in nearby countries. The project is in its last year, has been immensely good at training
people and strengthening scientific institutions, but still has to show that it can effectively bridge
the gap between scientists and end users of biodiversity. Participating scientists gravitated towards
their professional interests and postponed establishing critical linkages with end users of
biodiversity information. It will now require large efforts to build these linkages in the short time
left.

108. This case points to an issue in designing projects in which scientists and conservationists
collaborate: the need to structure interventions that ensure that practical applications are fully
accomplished. UNDP/GEF is currently testing approaches in which end users of information are
brought to the negotiating table in the first phases of project design.

109. A more difficult situation developed in Yemen Socotra. An important scientific institution
participated in the initial project design, but after the project was approved and resources allocated,
project managers found it difficult to coordinate the science-oriented activities with the more
operational needs of the project. The thrust of the Socotra project was conservation and sustainable
uses of biodiversity, scientists were mostly interested in taxonomy and basic inventories, and
project managers did not have the means to bring scientists back into the project‘s mainstream.
Again, this example suggests that Implementing Agencies will have to develop new ways to engage
the scientific community.

110. Engaging the scientific community remains urgent. There are several projects aiming at
sustainable uses of biodiversity that require sound scientific information (e.g., Syria Fertile
Crescent, Bhutan Jigme Dorji, Belize Barrier Reef Conservation, Nazinga Ranch, Mesoamerican
Biological Corridor, Ethiopia plant Genetics, Mongolia Grasslands), but Implementing Agencies
confront a dilemma. They need to help local stakeholders to achieve sustainable uses of natural
resources based on insufficient knowledge. This knowledge is usually one of the early building
blocks needed to structure more complex components leading to optimal harvesting regimes and
sharing of benefits. These problems appear in a context of limited available time and GEF policy
limitations regarding basic research. Sustainable use of biological resources frequently requires
basic and targeted scientific research. Depending on previous knowledge, the time needed for it can
be four to seven years, comparable to the standard length of UNDP/GEF projects. Confounding
these issues, in many cases competent researchers are not available when required, and may even
need to be trained by the project.

111. If the GEF is serious in its commitment to invest and have an impact in the production
landscape, we will need a GEF-wide discussion to address the most urgent requirements of
scientific information in sustainable use projects.




                                                  30
Engaging indigenous people

112. Recent studies have also requested that Implementing Agencies work more to integrate
indigenous knowledge into GEF projects, the assumption being that indigenous knowledge has been
instrumental in maintaining biodiversity in the past and therefore has application in our current
efforts. Projects aiming at conserving agro-biodiversity (e.g., Ethiopia, Fertile Crescent), or
sustainable uses of selected species (e.g. Bhutan, Belize, Nazinga) seem to have a special need to
incorporate more indigenous knowledge.

113. In many cases, however, we do not known what attributes of indigenous practices are
associated with conservation, and in a global market economy, we do not know if these practices
will lead to sustainable outcomes. Anecdotal experiences indicate that the utility of indigenous
knowledge is not effective when the broader context changes. The GEF should strengthen its
engagement with the scientific community to clarify these important points.

Shortening project start

114. A recurrent issue cited is the length of time to build start-up social capital for conservation.
As examples see: China Wetlands, Uruguay Bañados del Este, Cuba Sabana-Camaguey, South
Pacific BD conservation, Socotra, Paraguay Wildlands, Lebanon, Regional Birdlife project,
Bangassou, Mesoamerican Biological Corridor. Again, the involvement of international
conservation NGO‘s does not seem to shorten, or lengthen, this start up time. In most projects, it
takes a year or more from the moment the project document is signed (effectively starting the
project) to the moment when activities begin in the field. Time is spent recruiting and training staff,
team building, creating awareness among constituencies, including governments, and learning how
to operate a project in a fairly complex national and international system. Although building social
capital during the inception phase is critical for project success and sustainability, it is also
important that it be fast tracked. UNDP/GEF will explore different options to help reduce
preparation time.

Implementing complex objectives

115. Projects are usually comprised of a series of objectives with different degrees of difficulty. By
design, all of them need to be implemented in a coordinated way, or the goal of removing all threats
during the life of the project will not be achieved. PIRs are showing that some objectives are easier
and faster to implement than others, and sometimes seem to suggest that more difficult objectives
may not be realized during the project life.

116. Project objectives such as increasing awareness, improving education, identifying sites and
threats, and sometimes performing inventories (Madagascar is an exception, see later) are generally
simpler and faster than to satisfy then objectives requiring deeper commitments that affect people‘s
life styles (e.g, Uruguay Bañados del Este, Regional Birdlife project, Fertile Crescent, Socotra,
Pakistan, Panama, Med-Wet). Establishing protected areas (e.g., Patagonia Coastal Zone
Management) requires financial commitments from local stakeholders, and is more difficult than to
raise awareness. In turn, establishing protected areas seems simpler than implementing changes in
the production landscapes (e.g., Cuba, Socotra, Patagonia, Mongolia, Guatemala, Panama,




                                                  31
Vietnam, Comoros). Obtaining inter-sector commitments and, especially their follow-up
implementation, is even more difficult (e.g., Uruguay, Mongolia). The Guatemala PIR indicates that
building effective linkages between established institutions can be as difficult as building new ones.

117. We will have to keep in mind this gradient of difficulties when preparing new projects and
allocating time and financial resources to the various objectives. It is also important that executing
agencies are aware of the difficulties posed by the various immediate objectives and plan
accordingly. Recognition of these various difficulties will also become important as the portfolio
progressively shifts away from protected areas and more towards interventions in the production
landscape. If this pattern of increasing challenges in the implementation of various objectives is
robust, the time required for the successful completion of these latter projects is likely to be longer
or the chances of failure higher, than for protected areas projects.

Learning about sustainability

118. Sustainability has proven to be an elusive concept and its application to projects has been
confusing. The South Pacific Conservation Program provided us this year with its last PIR, which
gives useful statistical insights into this complex issue. During eight years of implementation, the
project attempted to establish seventeen Conservation Areas (CA) on different islands. In all
seventeen CAs, the project developed partnerships for conservation and sustainable uses of natural
resources. The project is considered successful and is currently being replicated elsewhere in the
region with non-GEF monies.

119. Although all CAs were designed to persist after completion, at the end only seven are thought
to be sustainable, and three are unsustainable. The fate of the remaining seven CAs is unknown.
Project proponents think that, perhaps, three years after completion, they will be able to determine
which CAs can continue without added external funding. Projects on nearby islands with similar
inhabitants and environments have had disparate outcomes, because of disparate initial capacities,
conflicts among islanders, disagreements with absentee stakeholders, and lack of government
support. Governments have not always taken enough ownership of the UNDP-GEF interventions in
the region.

120. If seen as a quasi-experiment, this seventeen-island project has only 7/17 (i.e., 41%) successes
(sustainable) after eight years of implementation. In a similar number of islands, even after eight
years of implementation it is not known whether the interventions will be sustainable. Moreover, it
is unlikely that the answer will be known for three years or more. Although these results are based
on a small sample, they suggest that signals for sustainability are subtle, and that a fraction (perhaps
less than half) of the interventions fostering integrated conservation and development (ICDPs) are
sustainable overall.

In concluding

121. The 2001 PIRs show significant improvements over previous reports, and UNDP/GEF is in
the process of continuously improving assessments and reporting. Several issues will need further
attention, including improving planning documents and monitoring tools, reducing project start-up
times, finding ways to increase net benefits to local stakeholders, improving linkages with scientific
communities, and defining appropriateness of indigenous knowledge under market conditions.




                                                  32
122. This year‘s PIR also provided important insights into sustainability. Results suggest that
relatively small differences, difficult to detect during project design and implementation, account
for successes and failures. Even under the best of conditions, integrated conservation and
development can fail, and only a fraction of the interventions achieve the goal of persistence
without additional external funding.


    3.2. Climate Change


        3.2.1.               Overview


123. This year‘s PIR covers 35 projects, an increase of two projects from last year. However, due
to the fact that a number of Pilot Phase projects were completed during the last year, there are only
8 projects from the Pilot Phase included. The remaining 27 projects are from either GEF I or GEF
II. Of these 25 projects from GEF I or II, 6 of them are considered MSP‘s.

124. As far as the breakdown of projects by Operational Programmes is concerned, a slightly
larger number of projects is included from OP6 than OP5. Four new projects were added to the PIR
this year under OP6 and one was added under OP5. The generic Capacity Building, Targeted
Research and Systematic Observation categories includes no projects this year as the 4 Pilot Phase
projects included last year are operationally completed (Alternatives to Slash and Burn; Reduction
of Methane Emissions from Rice Paddies; the WMO Observatory Network Project; and the START
project). One additional OP11 Project has been added—the Egypt Electric and Electric Hybrid Bus
MSP.

Table 8.      Breakdown of CC Projects included in PIR by Operational Program
           Operational Program             Number of          Percentage of total   Number (percentage)       Number
                                        Projects Included,    projects, PIR 2001     of Total, PIR 2000   (percentage) PIR
                                            PIR 2001                                                            1999
 OP 5 Energy Efficiency                        13 (1)             37.1%             12 (37.5%)          4 (15.4%)
 OP 6 Renewable Energy                          14                40.0%             10 (28.1%)          9 (34.6%)
 OP 7 Low GHG Energy                             1                2.8%                1 (3.1%)            1 (4%)
 Technologies
 STRW                                          1 (1)              2.8%                2 (6.2%)          2 (7.7%)
 Cap Bldg, TR and Obs.                           -                  0                4 (12.5%)           4 (15%)
 Enabling Activities                             3                8.6%               4 (12.5%)           5 (19%)
 Possible OP11-Transport                         2                5.7%                1 (3.1%)              1*
 (Pilot Phase & GEF II)
 OP12 Integrated Land Use                        1                2.8%                2 (6.2%)              3*
 (Pilot Phase)
 Total                                          35                100%              32 (100%)          26 (100%)
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicated that a project could also have been counted in the row where the parentheses
occurs, but was not due to its already being counted in another row. These cases are the Chile GHG Reduction Project
and the Cuba Efficient Refrigerator MSP.




                                                             33
        3.2.2.              Portfolio Breakdown by Substantive Clusters

125. Using the cluster breakdowns developed earlier for evaluations of GEF projects, the portfolio
in the two major operational programs—OP5 and OP6—break down as shown in the table below.
Within OP5, the largest cluster has to do with efficient building design. Several of these projects
also include a focus on district heating as they are based in eastern Europe. The technology for
improving the energy efficiency of buildings in either hot or cold climates seems to be relatively
well understood, and based upon these projects, it seems to be readily transferable, if the retrofits or
the new construction can be financed. For efficient appliances, the technology is again well-
understood. However engaging the private sector may be a challenge. In the projects dealing with
supply-side efficiency, large gains can be made with small sums of money on the basis of technical
assistance. For the industrial energy efficiency cluster, the projects are too early in their life-times
to make any concrete conclusions regarding effectiveness.

126. Within the clusters found in OP6, the largest set of projects falls within the category of energy
for off-grid areas. These 5 projects are mostly, if not entirely, focused on PV‘s. Experience to date
has been fairly well-summarized in the GEF review of PV‘s. The second largest clustering of
renewable energy projects focuses on the use of various forms of biomass—either through
combustion, gasification, or digestion—to generate electric power. Landfill projects and biogas
projects are making relatively steady operational progress and their relatively high ex ante cost-
effectiveness ratios (UAC‘s) do appear to be justifiable with on-the-ground operations. However,
for the only gasification project in this year‘s PIR, the economics remain a challenge even though
the technology performs quite well. No projects included in this year‘s PIR focus on direct
combustion of biomass in boilers. Three projects are generally capacity building for renewable
energy and include several technologies in their approach. While the capacity-building elements of
these projects appear to be proceeding smoothly, it is still too early in their lives for them to have
led to appreciable follow-on investments. There is only one project in this year‘s PIR which
focuses exclusively on small hydro promotion and development.

Table 9.      Project Clusters Within GEF Operational Programs
           Clusters Within                                     Clusters Within
                                       Number of                                             Number of
  Operational Program 5: Energy                             Operational Program 6:
                                        Projects                                              Projects
             Efficiency                                       Renewable Energy
Efficient Buildings                       4        Off-grid Renewables—all or mostly PV          6
(& District Heating)
Efficient Appliances (Refrigerators)      3        Biomass—                                      4
                                                   (including landfill gas & biogas)
Supply-side electrical efficiency         3        Renewable—Multiple Technologies               3
Industrial Energy Efficiency              2        Small Hydro                                   1
Other                                     1        Other                                         -



        3.2.3.              Recent Interesting Experiences

127. In the China Renewable Energy, interest and participation expressed through the Renewable
Energy Industries Association have exceeded the expectations held at the time of project design and
inception. CREIA has played an increasingly active and visible role in the promotion of renewable
energy around China. It has already begun playing an active role in leveraging out investment



                                                   34
resources for its various constituent groups. The remaining years of the project will see whether or
not this large expression of interest leads to strong follow-up with on-the-ground investments.

128. The Czech Republic Low-Cost/Low Energy Buildings Project has completed its design tasks
and has stimulated investments in test buildings for public housing that will result in a 60%
reduction in the energy required to maintain comfort levels. The interest and involvement
generated have exceeded expectations at the time of project design and approval.

129. The Sudan Rangeland Management Project which is operationally completed now shows a 3
ton per hectare increase in the project management area in 5 years time. This was the project‘s
target achievement level for 20 years. With both this project and the Benin Forest Management
Project (completed last year), there is a unique opportunity to study these two Pilot Phase land-use
management projects and see what relevance they might have to the design of future OP12 projects.
Both projects have final evaluations available either in draft or final form.

130. The China Refrigerator Efficiency Project has exceeded its goals in terms of both public
participation at workshops and industry participation. While this is partly the result of the over-
extended project preparation period caused by delays in the GEF approval process, this project
appears set to exceed its goals on implementation and impact as well as capacity building.

Actions Taken

131. No projects were rated as Unsatisfactory in last year‘s PIR. However, there are two projects
that have been under close examination due to slow progress. These are the Pakistan FERTS
project and the Maghreb Regional Capacity Building Project. Both of these projects seem to have
made significant progress this year.

132. The Pakistan Fuel Efficiency in the Road Transport Sector (PAK/92/G31) seems to have
begun making a difference through both the implementation of new polices and the implementation
of instrumented tune-ups. The government has initiated weigh stations for vehicles and has begun
fining owners of smoke-emitting vehicles, in keeping with new environmental policies. The owners
of the tune-up stations are very happy with the new equipment and are reporting increased incomes.
Overall emission reductions do appear to be taking place based upon improved vehicular
performance after the instrumented tune-ups.

133. The Maghreb Regional Capacity-Building Project has once again been reformulated and re-
started with a new CTA this year. All countries within the region are expected to present or to have
presented their initial national communications to the UNFCCC by the completion of COP7 this
year. The project has been making considerable progress in sharing experiences between the
countries of the region.

134. The project that appears to continue to face problems is the Romania Energy Efficiency
Project (ROM/96/G31). Despite having been reformulated and placed under OPS execution, little
progress has been made. Compounding this, the Chief Technical Adviser that was recently recruited
did not assume his position. Quarterly updates on progress will be requested from UNOPS to see
whether or not the problems of this project can be overcome, or whether it has completely lost its
relevancy due to the significant delays.




                                                 35
   3.3. International Waters

135. A total of twelve UNDP-GEF International Waters projects under implementation for one
year or more reported to the 2001 PIR, four each in Operational Programmes 8 and 9, 3 in OP10
and one pilot phase/unassigned. These projects included three from E.Europe/CIS, three from
Asia/Pacific, two from Arab States, three Global, one from Latin America/Caribbean and none from
Africa. These twelve projects represented a total of $90,970,652 in GEF financing, $61,672,356 in
co-financing, for a total financing of $152,643,008 (60% GEF, 40% other sources). The average
GEF financing for the 12 projects reporting was $7.58 million.


      3.3.1.           General overview of Implementation Progress

General distribution of ratings:

136. Nine of twelve projects reported Satisfactory Impact Ratings, two reported Partially
Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory, and one, Danube Public Participation, reported Satisfactory/Highly
Satisfactory. Of the three projects reporting for a second or greater year, two (Caspian, Red Sea)
reported shifts in some components from Satisfactory to Partially Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory in
the Impact and/or Implementation Ratings. All three remained as Satisfactory for the (overall)
Implementation Progress rating.

                         GEF               Co-                         Implementation     Impact
      Project                                         Total \Funding
                        Funding          funding                       Progress Rating    Rating

IW:LEARN               $1,940,400       $1,777,700      $3,718,100            S              S
Tumen River SAP        $4,957,200       $2,000,800      $6,958,000            S              S
Dnieper River SAP      $7,000,000       $7,255,000     $14,255,000            S              S
Red Sea SAP           $19,000,000      $17,600,000     $36,600,000            S             PS
PEMSEA                $16,224,000       $8,338,000     $24,562,000            S              S
GloBallast             $7,392,000       $2,800,000     $10,192,000            S              S
Caspian Sea SAP        $8,394,862       $6,814,530     $15,209,392            S              S
Danube Public
Particip.               $750,000        $832,995        $1,582,995             S             S
Rio de la Plata SAP    $5,682,290      $4,004,746       $9,687,036            PS             S
South Pacific SIDS    $12,000,000      $8,058,383      $20,058,383             S             S
Lake Manzala
Wetlands               $4,500,000        $346,202       $4,846,202            S              S
Train-Sea-Coast        $3,129,900       $1,844,000      $4,973,900            S              S
TOTALS                $90,970,652      $61,672,356     $152,643,008           S              S

137. The reductions in some Impact and Implementation ratings in the Caspian project primarily
reflected the emerging reality that the Framework Convention will not be signed until the legal
status of the Caspian is resolved, and that the World Bank executed PIPP project remains well
behind the original programme; it is scheduled for completion in December 2003, over a year after
the planned closing of the PCU in Azerbaijan. In the Red Sea, the shift to Partially Satisfactory




                                                36
reflected the complexity of implementing selected components on a regional scale and the difficulty
of realizing tangible outputs within a one year time frame.

138. Eleven of the twelve projects reported Satisfactory Implementation Progress ratings; only one,
the Rio de la Plata SAP project, reported Partially Satisfactory. The PS rating in the Plata project
primarily reflected the fact that the Project has taken longer than originally planned to enter into its
full scale implementation stage, due mainly to its size and complexity. In particular, the delays
reflect the lengthy negotiation of scientific cooperation agreements and similar arrangements with
the governmental environment agencies of both countries, and the substantial time spent on
discussions, consensus building, planning and securing the required official approvals.
Nevertheless, it is believed that these activities are setting a solid foundation for the
implementation, at a later stage, of the Strategic Action Program.

139. Actions taken to improve implementation progress of 2001 PIR 'problem projects': None
required; all three projects also reporting in 2000 reported identical implementation ratings in 2001
(S).

Implementation Highlights

140. Awareness Raising/Public Participation
   The Danube Public Participation MSP prepared guidelines for implementing existing
    legislation on public access to water-related and environmental information in Slovenia and
    supported NGOs in the preparation of a citizen‘s guide on public access to water-related and
    environmental information in Hungary.
   The GloBallast PCU has established a global information/communication network, information
    resource centre and clearinghouse function.
   The Lake Manzala Engineered Wetlands project reports extensive community participation in
    the early planning stages of the project that have resulted in the build up of the public awareness
    of the local community about pollution hazards and in deciding on the project site.
   IW:LEARN’s first facilitated thematic session (launched 03/2001) via IW e-forum led to the
    current drafting of the collaborative knowledge product, ―Global Perspectives on Public
    Participation in International Waters Management‖.
   With support from the Red Sea SAP project, 120 schools in the region have established
    environmental clubs.

141. Research and Development
   The GloBallast project held a Global R&D Symposium at which ballast water treatment
    standards were developed.




                                                  37
     3.3.2.             Institutional and Legal Reform

Institutional Reform & Strengthening

142. The two bi-national governmental organizations which run the Rio de la Plata Project
(Technical Commission for the Maritime Front and Rio de la Plata Managing Commission), have
set up a comprehensive cooperation and coordination structure for the implementation of the
Project. This institutional framework constitutes an important innovation which may set the
foundations for more comprehensive bi-national agreements for the protection of the Project area‘s
environment.

143. In the PEMSEA project, the Bataan Coastal Care Foundation was established for the
management of the Bataan ICM site.

144. PERSGA and the GEF IAs agreed in April 2001 to focus more efforts on identification of
measures that could be taken to strengthen the capacity and performance of PERSGA over the
medium-term following completion of the Red Sea SAP Project.

Legal and Policy Reform

145. Slovenian stakeholders in the Danube Public Participation MSP submitted concrete
recommendations for amendments to the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) to drafters of the
Act‘s amendments at the Slovenian Ministry of Environment.

146. Pilot countries in the GloBallast project have made significant progress in preparation of their
National Ballast Water Management Plans and specific regulations are presently being considered
by three pilot countries. All six participating countries have commenced inspection of ships calling
at their established demonstration sites, and systematic collection of the IMO ballast water reporting
forms as recommended in the guidelines; two countries have regulated the process through
ministerial ordinances and locally applicable regulations. The project has also entered into
cooperative arrangements with the World Maritime University for the review of legislation in each
country and the development of model legislation for the implementation of IMO ballast water
management requirements.

147. As a result of support from the Caspian Environment Programme, approximately 95% of the
text of the Framework Convention for the protection of the Caspian Sea environment has now been
agreed by the five riparian countries. However, further progress is unlikely until the legal status of
the Caspian is resolved.

148. The Rio de la Plata project has established a Coordination Commission, an advisory body
made of representatives of the governmental agencies in charge of creating or implementing
environmental legislation. Its purpose is to improve communication and coordination with the
Project and contribute to the operationalizaton of the Strategic Action Programme at the national
levels.




                                                 38
149. A new international convention supporting efforts to secure sustainable economic benefit
from the western central Pacific tuna resource has been finalized, with the participating country
involvement in the final sessions supported principally by the GEF South Pacific SIDS project. The
project has also supported these efforts through the provision of scientific and technical advice to
participating countries to assist with the development of national tuna management plans. In
addition, the project has had significant input to the drafting of a regional oceans policy for the
Pacific Islands region.

150. The PEMSEA programme completed a draft of the Environmental Strategy for the Seas of
East Asia (ESSEA) and participating governments have expressed their support.

151. The PEMSEA project also announced the signature of the Declaration of Bohai
Environmental Protection during the 7th Programme Steering Committee in July 2000. The
Declaration outlines the guiding principles for the protection and preservation of the Bohai Sea's
resources and environment. Actions planned under the Declaration include the setting up of a trans-
regional coordination organ for the integrated management of Bohai Sea, the formulation and
implementation of the Bohai Sea Management Law, and the possible establishment of a special
fund for Bohai Sea to be used to increase public awareness and to build capacity in the field of
marine environmental protection.

152. In the Red Sea SAP project, a draft protocol for conservation of habitat and biodiversity and
management of protected areas has been agreed by government representatives. PERSGA states
representatives have also approved the Regional Action Plan (RAP) for Conservation of Coral
Reefs. The consistency of the national legal frameworks, especially those for Living Marine
Resources, Coastal Zone Management and Habitats, with regional legal requirements are currently
under review.


       3.3.3.           M&E Tools/Indicators


153. In the PEMSEA project, Integrated Information Management System (IIMS) software was
developed and transferred to the ICM project sites in Bataan, Danang, Bali, Nampo, Klang, and
Chonburi, and to environmental management projects in Manila Bay and Bohai Sea. The Red Sea
project has initiated work on development of a regional GIS and database.

Environmental Monitoring:

154. Baseline port biota surveys have been completed for each of the six GloBallast demonstration
sites.

155. The Caspian Sea TDA is now being developed using historical data and new data collected
during the project. The lack of historical data available, or made available, to the project has been a
serious limitation.

156. The Dnipro River basin project completed the last of two river expeditions designed to
update the hydrological information in the transboundary regions of the river. The ensuing analysis




                                                  39
will form the latest in core scientific information available on water quality throughout the Dnipro
basin and will be used to update data from the previous TDA conducted in 1996.

157. Completion of hydrographic surveys, preparation of new charts and proposed new routing
measures in the Red Sea have already contributed to reducing navigation risk.

158. In the Red Sea, standard reporting methodologies and surveys have been conducted to assist
with monitoring of the status of key habitats. For coral reefs the baseline has been established and
priority actions identified.


     3.3.4.            Sustainability and Replication

159. Interviews with representatives from engineering firms bidding to act as the National
Consultant for the Lake Manzala Engineered Wetlands project reflected their understanding of the
high potential of expansion and replication of this technique in Egypt and the Middle East.

160. Under the PEMSEA project, six ICM demonstration projects (Cambodia, DPR Korea,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam), two ICM parallel projects (Philippines and RO Korea)
and three subregional sea area projects (Manila Bay, Gulf of Thailand and Bohai Sea) are now fully
operational. The programme has also presented the concept of a Regional Mechanism and Marine
Environment Resource Facility (MERF) to its first Intersession Consultative Group (ICG) meeting;
the ICG expressed strong support for establishment of the Regional Mechanism/MERF.

161. The PEMSEA project also established a working partnership with the Global Programme of
Action on Land-based Pollution (GPA) in replicating PEMSEA ICM working models in GPA‘s
activities.

162. In the Red Sea, the core operational cost of PERSGA Secretariat is so far fully supported by
continuous and to some extent regular and predictable financial contribution of member countries.
The PERSGA Council approved a parallel and expanded programme that PERSGA is currently
implementing and financing from its core budget. A matching increase in countries contribution is
envisaged.


     3.3.5.            Private Sector Involvement

163. The private sector has shown a great deal of interest in the GloBallast project. The initiative
taken by the International Cargo Handling Co-ordination Association (ICHCA) to organize a
conference to inform their members on issues regarding ballast water management illustrates the
growing concern of the industry vis-à-vis this particular matter.

164. In support of the PEMSEA Batangas ICM demonstration site, Batangas Environmental
Services Inc (BESI) was incorporated. BESI is an incorporated company formed to act on behalf of
Batangas Province, 3 cities and 31 municipalities with regard to the development, financing,
operation and management of the integrated solid waste management system. Through an MOA
signed on February 2000 with the Provincial Government of Bataan and IMO, the Petron



                                                 40
Corporation supports the development and implementation of an ICM parallel site in the Province
of Bataan by identifying private sector representatives to the Project Coordinating Committee,
providing technical support to the Bataan Coastal Resources Management Project, and promoting
ISO 14000 certification and sharing experiences and lessons learned with other interested
industries.

165. The Tumen River project has successfully engaged a number of national, regional and multi-
national companies in the project. These companies act as commercial sounding boards for projects
to be developed under the TDA/SAP, advise on financial and technical feasibility of proposed
interventions, have capacity to implement enabling measures and participate in projects or sub-
components, and assist in identifying sources for private sector investment and making the
necessary contacts with national investment houses. Benefits the companies accrue include market
intelligence, introductions to senior government and business leaders, production promotion and
public relations, and identification of new markets.


     3.3.6.            Resources Leveraged

166. The GloBallast project has organized a regional workshop on ballast water management in
the Baltic region fully funded from the IMO‘s Technical Cooperation Fund. The project also
leveraged a contribution of approximately $60,000 from the shipping industry to the GloBallast
R&D Symposium through the in-kind participation of key note speakers and other presenters.

167. The Caspian Environment Programme has already leveraged over $534,000 in private sector
resources, from companies including British Petroleum, Shell, Exxon-Mobil and OKICO, covering
activities including a contaminants cruise, biodiversity strategy development, oil spill contingency
planning, and creation of a biodiversity center.

168. The Rio de la Plata/Maritime Front project has achieved several cooperation and co-
financing agreements with international organizations, including the IADB/FFC Technical
Cooperation Agreement (USD 400,000); a cooperation agreement with IFREMER (French Institute
for the Sea); a contribution of approximately USD 1,000,000 from the FFMAM (French Fund for
the World Environment); and a training agreement with the International Maritime Organization
(IMO).

169. A Canadian funded project (NAWQAM) has decided to fund research work and training
activities related to reuse of treated water in irrigation in the Lake Manzala Engineered Wetlands
project. A cooperation agreement between the two projects will be signed later this year.

170. Government co-financing to the PEMSEA Programme has to date totaled US$ 8.3 million.
This exceeds the originally estimated amount of US$3.3 million indicated in the UNDP-GEF
Project Document by 150 percent. These inputs represent the counterpart support of participating
countries in the implementation of six demonstration sites on integrated coastal management (ICM),
two ICM parallel sites, two environmental management projects and a workshop for the regional
network for local governments. In addition, the private sector and other international agencies have
co-sponsored activities with PEMSEA.




                                                41
171. IW:LEARN received significant contributions of pro bono technical assistance from
Etensity.com (total value: $85,000) and the Marasco-Newton Group ($1,600) helping to further
advance IW:LEARN‘s ―International Waters Community Resource Center‖ (IWCRC) Web site
from concept to concrete design, now being implemented.
172. In the Red Sea, IMO has offered to seek funding for the implementation of national and
regional contingency planning from its own sources, and from potential donors, while the World
Bank has submitted a funding application to BNPP.

Investments

173. In Egypt, a public sector contracting company was contracted to construct the Lake Manzala
Engineered Wetlands facility in a period of 9.5 months with an estimated cost of L.E. 5.75 million
(US$ 1.48 million).


     3.3.7.             Capacity Building

174. NGOs, who are significant end-users of water-related environmental information and a major
constituency in support of protection and restoration of the Danube River, have indicated that
capacity built through the Danube Public Participation MSP project will increase their ability to
participate in environmental decision-making relating to pollution of the Danube. Similarly,
government officials participating in the project have indicated that the project and its outputs have
augmented their capacity to provide relevant environmental information to the public, thereby
increasing the potential for public involvement in support of Danube restoration efforts.

175. Efforts through the South Pacific SIDS SAP project have addressed both high seas and
national components of management of the globally significant Western Central Pacific tuna stocks,
strengthening the capacity of participating countries to develop robust national arrangements for the
management and conservation of tuna within EEZs as well as to increase their collective capacity to
negotiate complimentary arrangements with fishing entities for the high seas.

176. The Lake Manzala Engineered Wetlands project deployed a mission representing the project
staff and EEAA to visit wetland facilities in the United States in order to obtain first hand
information about the construction and operation of constructed wetland facilities.

177. The Red Sea SAP project completed training on shark identification and stock assessment and
finished preparation of an Elasmobranch field identification guide.

Inter-project Cooperation

178. TRAIN-SEA-COAST is collaborating with its Global Knowledge-Sharing sister project
IW:LEARN in the ‗distancizing‘ of two training courses,, TSC/Red Sea's "Management of MPAs"
and the course ―Preparation of a GEF Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and Strategic Action
Programme‖.
179. The GloBallast project has established cooperative relationships with the Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity, the Train- Sea-Coast project of UN-DOALOS and the GEF




                                                 42
180. Caspian Environment Programme. Plans are underway with Train-Sea-Coast to develop
model training course packages for the implementation of IMO ballast water management
requirements.

181. The Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA) Project (UNEP) has asked for the
participation of the Rio de la Plata/Maritime Front Project, to integrate the group of experts for
Sub-region 38. Similarly, on behalf of SPREP, the South Pacific SIDS project serves as the focal
point for Pacific SIDS activities associated with GIWA.

182. The PEMSEA project explored potential areas of collaboration with the GEF/UNDP Tumen
River Project. Areas identified for present and future collaboration included the use of PEMSEA‘s
expertise and experience in financial investment through the public-private sector partnership,
integrated information management systems and training in project development and management.

183. IW:LEARN is in ongoing collaborative discussions with Train-Sea-Coast, IWRN, RBI,
UN/DESA‘s Virtual Water Learning Center and SIDSnet, as well as IW distance learning course
providers and similar portal and training projects world-wide.

184. The Red Sea project managed to promote a partnership with ROPME (―a sister regional
organisation‖), the Saudi Arabian National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and
Development (NCWCD) and international coral reef conservation initiatives in order to develop a
regional coral reef conservation strategy. In Sudan, SAP activities are coordinated with the
National Biodiversity Action Plan, and the National Oil Spill Contingency Plan for Sudan was also
prepared under the auspices of PERSGA.


     3.3.8.             Lessons Learned & Best Practices

185. Train-Sea-Coast project concluded that Course Development Units may only achieve
sustainability once they have carved a niche within the training institutions where they are hosted
and they have earned a solid reputation at the national and regional levels.

186. A key lesson gleaned to date by the Danube Public Participation MSP involves the necessity
of viewing each country, and its efforts to increase public access to environmental information and
related public participation, separately, although within the common framework of the project. A
related lesson is the importance of bringing diverse stakeholders together in the effort to overcome
barriers to public access to information and public involvement generally.

187. The Caspian Environment Programme has found that the employment of local public
participation advisors at the coast regions, instead of a single PCU based international consultant, is
working well. In four of the five countries Caspian coastal concern groups have been established
which are preparing good projects for funding under a micro grants scheme.

188. The Dnipro River project has learned that where changes in senior personnel have occurred at
the Ministerial level there is a constant need to provide background briefings and positive
reinforcement for new officials.




                                                  43
189. The PEMSEA programme observed that creation of working ICM models in Batangas and
Xiamen is a positive step towards promoting confidence, changing perceptions and replicating
integrated coastal management and thereby strengthening local governance.

190. The IW:LEARN project noted that facilitated collection and/or specific incentives may be
necessary to adequately assemble ―high quality‖ knowledge resources which meet expressed needs
of the IW community and that this is doubly true for more specialized forms of knowledge
products, such as on-line seminars or distance learning courses.

191. The Tumen River project observed that project implementation through a network of local
expert institutions can significantly enhance national ownership of the project and help to establish
a genuine regional network of scientists, politicians, government agencies and NGOs; a business
network is envisaged as well.

192. The Red Sea SAP project cited the importance of securing written commitments from
countries to financially and institutionally support a project during implementation and beyond.
The project also identified some best practices for starting a micro-grants programme (MGP),
including conducting a socio-economic marketing assessment in order to: 1) generate baseline data
for environmental awareness, 2) identify gaps, and 3) design appropriate approaches and areas of
interventions for raising awareness using the MGP facility




                                                 44
Conclusions and Recommendations
193. This chapter highlights key issues, conclusions and recommendations emerging from the PIR
review. Many more findings and lessons are embedded in the previous chapters.

Catalytic effects

194. GEF funding in general empowers national constituencies for environmental protection.
Outreach efforts contribute to awareness raising of global environmental issues (at the local and
national level) which enables the constituency to grow and is a prerequisite for the change in
attitudes and actions of targeted actors and institutions. Changes in attitudes and actions result in
formulation or revisions of policies and legislation at both local and national levels. Effective
communication and dissemination of project knowledge and experience leads in many cases to the
formulation, funding and implementation of projects with similar objectives. The combination of
these helps to create an environment conducive to the achievement of GEF, CBD and UNFCCC
goals.

195. This year‘s PIR reveal the significant outreach and dissemination effort being conducted by
a large number of projects. Taking full advantage of more easily available technologies such as the
internet, engaging the mass media, supporting information centers and clearinghouses, and also
maintaining more ―traditional‖ methods such as newsletters, seminars, or field visits for example,
UNDP/GEF projects are communicating with others at the local, national and international level

196. UNDP/GEF projects through their efforts to raise awareness, to strengthen institutions, and to
share their knowledge and experience often provide the inspirational basis for further project
development and follow-up actions. Even though for many projects it is still too early to show
replication of their activities, a number of projects in the PIR provide successful examples.

197. UNDP/GEF projects continue to show significant results of their efforts dealing both directly
and indirectly with the formulation and review of new and existing environmental policies and
legislation at the national and local level.

198. UNDP/GEF projects interact with other organizations and similar interventions, forming
partnerships, benefiting from synergy effects and engaging in joint activities. This contributes to
reducing overlaps between projects and donor competition. In particular, several projects are
already exploring and have secured variety of partnerships with the private sector in order to
achieve global environmental benefits

Resources leveraged

199. UNDP/GEF projects have leveraged a total of US$ 381.3 million in resources to complement
the funding from GEF resources resulting in one additional dollar is leveraged for each dollar
allocated by GEF (or approximately 4 million on average per project).

Implementation issues

200. It is recognized that lessons need to be detailed and specific enough to be of value for their
audiences and ultimately to be able to help and improve project identification, design and



                                                 45
implementation. The ones included in this report are proposed for consideration and perhaps further
elaboration and subsequent dissemination by the GEF.

201. Limited capacity, both of the project executing agents as well as in-country capacity at all
three levels (individual, institutional, systemic) have been identified by a number of projects as a
main challenge for achieving the expected project results. Limited executing capacity affects the
quality of outputs, results in delays in their provision and might lead to deviation from the project
original objectives. Insufficient in-country capacity might jeopardize the whole project strategy.
There is therefore a clear need to systematically conduct assessments of relevant capacities at all
three levels (individual, institutional and systemic) as part of project identification and preparation,
including decisions on execution arrangements.

202. The decision on the appropriate time frame for implementation is a key one and a requisite
for project success. An adequate timeframe ensures an acceptable ratio between personnel and
administration costs versus total project budget, it sets realistic expectations for all stakeholders,
and contributes to project sustainability by investing the time necessary to consolidate the processes
that build solid foundations for project implementation.

203. People‘s needs and beliefs are crucial elements of any conservation strategy. Conservation
activities can only succeed if local community needs are adequately addressed. It is important to
establish a clear linkage between development activities and conservation of biodiversity right at
project start-up in order to have a common vision with all stakeholders. Care must be taken in not
creating excessive hopes.

204. Spiritual and cultural beliefs can be powerful driving forces for conservation. The belief in
the existence of a supernatural being in an area or the cultural significance of a place can be an
important motivation for the conservation of such place or area. Knowledge of where these beliefs
are being practiced would help in the identification of areas that are likely to succeed as
conservation areas.

205. A significant number of projects have stressed the need to promote and strengthen
networking among GEF projects Despite efforts underway in some areas (e.g. IW-LEARN),
many projects feel they are not benefiting from experiences from the rest of the GEF portfolio and
suggest to establish active networking with similar projects at different stages of preparation or
implementation to facilitate exchange of information. Clearly, electronic mail and the internet seem
to be the most widely available and cost-effective mean at the moment to establish networks. Face
to face contact through ad-hoc meetings and seminars are also mentioned as important and
complementary means to strengthen and sustain networks.




                                                  46
          Annex A: List of PIR 00 Projects

                                       Focal                    PIMS
#         Region          Country              Project Number                        Short Title
                                       Area                      No
1    Latin America     ARGENTINA        BD      ARG/97/G31      604    Consolidation and Implementation of
     & The Carribean                                                   the Patagonia Coastal Zone
                                                                       Management Programme for
                                                                       Biodiversity Conservation
2    Latin America     BELIZE           BD      BZE/98/G32      1238   Conservation and Sustainable Use of
     & The Carribean                                                   the Barrier Reef Complex
3    Latin America     BELIZE           BD      BZE/98/G35      1204   MSP Creating a Co-Managged
     & The Carribean                                                   Protected Areas System in Belize: A
                                                                       plan for joint Stewardship between
                                                                       Government and Community.
4    Asia              BHUTAN           BD      BHU/96/G33      519    Integrated Management of Jigme Dorji
     & The Pacific                                                     National Park
5    Africa            BURKINA FASO     BD      BKF/94/G31      139    Optimization of biodiversity in game
                                                                       ranching systems; a pilot experiment in
                                                                       a semi arid area
6    Africa            CENTRAL          BD      CAF/95/G31      143    A Highly Decentralized Approach to
                       AFRICAN
                                                                       Biodiversity Protection and Use: The
                       REPUBLIC
                                                                       Bangassou Dense Forest.
7    Asia              CHINA            BD      CPR/98/G32      520    Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation
     & The Pacific                                                     and Sustainable Use
8    Africa            COMOROS          BD      COI/97/G32      206    Conservation of Biodiversity and
                                                                       Sustainable Development in the Federal
                                                                       Islamic Republic of the Comoros
9    Latin America     COSTA RICA       BD      COS/99/G35      1469   Conservation of Biodiversity in the
     & The Carribean                                                   Talamanca- Caribbean Biological
                                                                       Corridor
10   Africa            COTE d'IVOIRE    BD       IVC/94/G31     242    Control of Aquatic Weeds to enhance
                                                                       and restore biodiversity
11   Latin America     CUBA             BD      CUB/98/G32      1326   Priority Actions to Consolidate
     & The Carribean                                                   Biodiversity Protection in the Sabana-
                                                                       Camaguey Ecosystem
12   Asia              DEMOCRATIC       BD      DRK/00/G35      1014   Conservation of Biodiversity Mt.
                       PEOPLE'S
     & The Pacific                                                     Myonghan in the DPRK.
                       REPUBLIC OF
                       KOREA
13   Africa            ERITREA          BD       ERI/97/G31     230    Conservation management of Eritrea's
                                                                       coastal, marine and island biodiversity
14   Africa            ETHIOPIA         BD      ETH/93/G31      236    A Dynamic farmer-based approach to
                                                                       the conservation of African Plant
                                                                       Genetic Resources
15   Europe & CIS      GEORGIA,         BD      GEO/99/G35      1265   Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystem
                       REPUBLIC OF
                                                                       Conservation in the Caucasus
16   Global            GLOBAL           BD      GLO/98/G32      721    Biodiversity Planning Support
                                                                       Programme
17   Latin America     GUATEMALA        BD      GUA/95/G31      1330   Integrated Biodiversity Protection in
     & The Carribean                                                   the Sarstun-Motagua Region.
18   Arab States       LEBANON          BD      LEB/95/G31       66    Strengthening of National Capacity &
                                                                       Grassroots In-Situ Conservation for
                                                                       Sustainable Biodiversity Protection
19   Africa            LESOTHO          BD      LES/97/G31      243    Conserving Mountain Biodiversity in
                                                                       southern Lesotho




                                                     47
                                       Focal                      PIMS
#         Region           Country             Project Number                          Short Title
                                       Area                        No
20   Africa            MADAGASCAR       BD      MAG/96/G31         390   Madagascar environment program
                                                                         support
21   Asia              MICRONESIA,      BD      MIC/99/G35        1046   Community Conservation and
                       THE FEDERATED
     & The Pacific                                                       Compatible Enterprise development in
                       STATES OF
                                                                         Pohnpei, Federated States of
                                                                         Micronesia
22   Asia              MONGOLIA         BD      MON/97/G32        628    Biodiversity Conservation and
     & The Pacific                                                       Sustainable Livelihood Options in the
                                                                         Grasslands of Eastern Mongolia
23   Asia              NEPAL            BD      NEP/99/G35        1051   Upper Mustang Biodiversity
     & The Pacific                                                       Conservation Project
24   Asia              PAKISTAN         BD      PAK/98/G31        947    Mountain Areas Conservancy Project
     & The Pacific
25   Latin America     PANAMA           BD      PAN/94/G31        550    Biodiversity Conservation in the Darien
     & The Carribean                                                     Region
26   Latin America     PARAGUAY         BD      PAR/98/G33        1421   Paraguayan Wildlands Protection
     & The Carribean                                                     Initiative
27   Latin America     PERU             BD      RLA/95/G31        580    Conservation of Biodiversity in the
     & The Carribean                                                     Lake Titicaca Basin
28   Arab States       Regional         BD      RAB/97/G31        828    Conservation of Wetland and Coastal
                                                                         Ecosystems in the Mediterranean
                                                                         Region
29   Africa            Regional         BD      RAF/97/G31        244    African NGO-Government Partnerships
                                                 (Burkina Faso)          for Sustainable Biodiversity Action
30   Africa            Regional         BD      RAF/97/G33        160    Capacity building network for southern
                                                 (South Africa)          African Botanical diversity
31   Africa            Regional         BD      RAF/97/G35        293    Conservation priority setting for the
                                                    (Ghana)              Upper Guinea Forest ecosystem, West
                                                                         Africa
32   Asia              Regional         BD      RAS/91/G31        635    South Pacific Biodiversity
     & The Pacific                                  (Samoa)              Conservation Programme
33   Latin America     Regional         BD      RLA/97/G31        1434   Establishment of a programme for the
     & The Carribean                              (Nicaragua)            Consolidation of the Mesoamerican
                                                                         Biological Corridor
34   Arab States       SUDAN            BD      SUD/98/G41        987    Conservation and Management of
                                                                         Habitats and Species, and Sustainable
                                                                         Community Use of Biodiversity in
                                                                         Dinder National Park
35   Arab States       SYRIAN ARAB      BD      RAB/97/G32        258    Conservation and Sustainable Use of
                       REPUBLIC
                                                                         Dryland Agro-Biodiversity of the
                                                                         Fertile Crescent
36   Africa            UNITED           BD      RAF/97/G32        1231   New approaches to reducing
                       REPUBLIC OF                (Tanzania)             biodiversity loss at cross-border sites in
                       TANZANIA
                                                                         East Africa
37   Latin America     URUGUAY          BD      URU/97/G31        608    Consolidation of the Banados del Este
     & The Carribean                                                     Biosphere Reserve
38   Asia              VIET NAM         BD       VIE/95/G31       643    Vietnam PARC - Creating Protected
     & The Pacific                                                       Areas for Resources Conservation
                                                                         (PARC) in Vietnam Using a Landscape
                                                                         Ecology Approach
39   Arab States       YEMEN            BD      YEM/96/G32        255    Conservation and Sustainable Use of
                                                                         the Biodiversity of Socotra Archipelago




                                                     48
                                        Focal                    PIMS
#         Region              Country           Project Number                       Short Title
                                        Area                      No
40   Latin America     BOLIVIA           CC      BOL/97/G31       605   Rural Electrification with Renewable
     & The Carribean                                                    Energy through the Popular
                                                                        Participation Law
41   Latin America     BRAZIL            CC      BRA/96/G31      541    Biomass Power Generation: Sugar
     & The Carribean                                                    Cane Bagasse and Trash
42   Europe & CIS      BULGARIA          CC      BUL/96/G32      149    Energy Efficiency Strategy to Mitigate
                                                                        Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Energy
                                                                        Efficiency Demonstration Zone in the
                                                                        City of Gabrovo
43   Latin America     CHILE             CC      CHI/93/G31      544    Reduction of Greenhouse Gases
     & The Carribean
44   Asia              CHINA             CC      CPR/96/G31      556    Promoting Methane Recovery and
     & The Pacific                                                      Utilisation from Mixed Municipal
                                                                        Refuse
45   Asia              CHINA             CC      CPR/97/G31      557    Capacity Building for the Rapid
     & The Pacific                                                      Commercialization of Renewable
                                                                        Energy
46   Asia              CHINA             CC      CPR/98/G31      558    Barrier Removal for the Widespread
     & The Pacific                                                      Commercialization of Energy-Efficient
                                                                        CFC-Free Refrigerators in China
47   Latin America     CUBA              CC      CUB/00/G35      1222   Producing Energy Efficient
     & The Carribean                                                    Refrigerators without making use of
                                                                        Ozone Depleting Substances
48   Europe & CIS      CZECH             CC      CEH/98/G35      349    Low Cost/Low Energy buildings in the
                       REPUBLIC
                                                                        Czech Republic
49   Arab States       EGYPT             CC      EGY/97/G31      452    Regional - Energy Efficiency
                                                                        Improvements and GHG Reduction in
                                                                        Egypt and the Palestinian Authority
50   Arab States       EGYPT             CC      EGY/99/G35      1237   Introduction of Viable Electric and
                                                                        Hybrid Electric Bus Technology in
                                                                        Egypt
51   Asia              FIJI              CC       FIJ/99/G35     995    Fiji Renewable Energy Hybrid Village
     & The Pacific                                                      Power Systems
52   Africa            GHANA             CC      GHA/96/G31       9     Renewable Energy-based Electricity
                                                                        for Rural, Social and Economic
                                                                        Development
53   Global            GLOBAL            CC      GLO/98/G31      2339   National Communicatiosn Support to
                                                                        Climate Chagne
54   Asia              INDIA             CC       IND/92/G31     458    Optimizing Development of Small
     & The Pacific                                                      Hydel Resources in Hilly Areas
55   Asia              INDIA             CC       IND/92/G32     464    Development of High Rate
     & The Pacific                                                      BioMethanation Processes as Means of
                                                                        Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
56   Asia              INDIA             CC       IND/93/G31     462    Cost Effective Options for Limiting
     & The Pacific                                                      GHG Emissions
57   Asia              INDIA             CC       IND/98/G34     744    Coal Bed Methane Capture and
     & The Pacific                                                      Commercial Utilisation
58   Arab States       JORDAN            CC      JOR/96/G31       55    Reduction of Methane Emissions and
                                                                        Utilization of Municipal Waste for
                                                                        Energy in Amman
59   Africa            KENYA             CC      KEN/98/G31      874    Removal of barriers to energy
                                                                        conservation and energy efficiency in
                                                                        small and medium scale enterprises




                                                      49
                                     Focal                     PIMS
#         Region           Country           Project Number                        Short Title
                                     Area                       No
60   Asia              MALAYSIA       CC     MAL/98/G31         752   Industrial Energy Efficiency and
     & The Pacific                                                    Improvement Project
61   Asia              PAKISTAN       CC      PAK/92/G31       463    Fuel Efficiency in the Road Transport
     & The Pacific                                                    Sector
62   Arab States       PALESTINE      CC      PAL/97/G31       811    Energy Efficiency Improvemens and
                                                                      Greenhouse Gas Reduction
63   Latin America     PERU           CC      PER/98/G31       1423   Photovoltaic-based Rural
     & The Carribean                                                  Electrification in Peru
64   Asia              PHILIPPINES    CC      PHI/99/G35       1130   Palawan Alternative Rural Energy and
     & The Pacific                                                    Livelihood Support Project
65   Arab States       Regional       CC      RAB/94/G31        70    Building Capacity in the Maghreb to
                                                (Morocco)             Respond to the Challenges and
                                                                      Opportunities created by National
                                                                      Response to the UNFCCC
66   Africa            Regional       CC      RAF/93/G32       392    Control of greenhouse gas emissions
                                               (Ivory Coast)          through energy efficient building
                                                                      technology in West Africa
67   Latin America     Regional       CC      RLA/99/G35       1516   The creation and strenghtening of
     & The Carribean                           (Costa Rica)           Capacity for Sustainable Renewable
                                                                      Energy Development in Central
                                                                      America
68   Europe & CIS      ROMANIA        CC     ROM/98/G31         98    Capacity Building for GHG Emission
                                                                      Reduction through Energy Efficiency
                                                                      improvement in Romania
69   Europe & CIS      RUSSIAN        CC      RUS/96/G31       114    Capacity Building to Reduce Key
                       FEDERATION
                                                                      Barriers to Energy Efficiency in
                                                                      Russian Residential Buildings and Heat
                                                                      Supply
70   Asia              SRI LANKA      CC      SRL/96/G32       600    Renewable Energy & Energy
     & The Pacific                                                    Efficiency Capacity Building
71   Arab States       SUDAN          CC      SUD/93/G31        73    Community-Based Rangeland
                                                                      Rehabilitation for Carbon Sequestration
72   Arab States       SUDAN          CC      SUD/99/G41       219    Barrier Removal to Secure PV Market
                                                                      Penetration in Semi-Urban Sudan
73   Arab States       SYRIAN ARAB    CC      SYR/96/G31       441    Supply-Side Efficiency and Energy
                       REPUBLIC
                                                                      Conservation and Planning
74   Arab States       TUNISIA        CC      TUN/98/G35       993    Barrier Removal to Encourage and
                                                                      Secure Market Transformation and
                                                                      Labelling of Refrigerators.
75   Africa            UGANDA         CC     UGA/97/G32        383    Uganda photovoltaic pilot project (PV)
                                                                      for rural electrification
76   Europe & CIS      Regional       IW      RER/98/G32       832    Addressing Transboundary
                                                                      Environmental Issues in the Caspian
                                                                      Environment Programme
77   Arab States       EGYPT          IW     EGY/93/G31         77    Lake Manzala Engineered Wetlands
78   Global            GLOBAL         IW     GLO/98/G33        2194   IW:LEARN
79   Global            GLOBAL         IW     GLO/98/G35        2196   Knowledge Sharing in International
                                                                      Waters - Train-Sea-Coast
80   Global            GLOBAL         IW     GLO/99/G31        2197   Removal of Barriers to the Effective
                                                                      Implementation of Ballast Water
                                                                      Control and Management Measures in
                                                                      Developing Countries




                                                   50
                                     Focal                     PIMS
#         Region           Country           Project Number                        Short Title
                                     Area                       No
81   Latin America     Regioanl       IW      RLA/99/G31        585   Environmental Protection of the Rio de
     & The Carribean                            (Uruguay)             La Plata and its Maritime Front:
                                                                      Pollution Prevention and Control and
                                                                      Habitat Restoration
82   Arab States       Regional       IW      RAB/97/G33       810    Regional - Implementation of the
                                              (Saudi Arabia)          Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for
                                                                      the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden
83   Asia              Regional       IW      RAS/98/G31       639    Preparation of Strategic Action
     & The Pacific                               (China)              Programme (SAP) and Transboundary
                                                                      Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) for the
                                                                      Tumen River Area, its coastal regions
                                                                      and related Northeast Asian Environs
84   Asia              Regional       IW      RAS/98/G32       990    Implementation of the Strategic Action
     & The Pacific                               (Samoa)              Programme (SAP) of the Pacific Small
                                                                      Island Developing States- 13 countries
85   Asia              Regional       IW      RAS/98/G33       637    Prevention and Management of Marine
     & The Pacific                             (Philippines)          Pollution in the East Asian Saeas-
                                                                      PHASE II
86   Europe & CIS      Regional       IW      RER/98/G31       833    Preparation of the Strategic Action Pan
                                                (Ukraine)             for the Dnieper Preparation River Basin
                                                                      and Development of SAP
                                                                      Implementation Mechanism
87   Europe & CIS      Regional       IW      RER/99/G35       1268   Building Environmental Citizenship to
                                                (Hungary)             support transboundary pollution
                                                                      reduction in the Danube: A pilot
                                                                      Project in Hungary and Slovenia
88   Global            GLOBAL        MTP     GLO/98/G34        2340   Country Dialogue Workshop
89   Global            GLOBAL        MTP     INT/95/G52        2341   Small Grants Programme
90   Europe & CIS      Regional      OD      RER/95/G43        2303   Country Programme Review of Ozone
                                                 (Latvia)             Depletion Projects for Latvia
91   Europe & CIS      Regional      OD       RER/95/G43       2304   Country Programme Review of Ozone
                                                (Lithuania)           Depletion Projects for Lithuania
92   Europe & CIS      Regional      OD       RER/95/G44       2307   Country Programme Review of Ozone
                                               (Uzbekistan)           Depletion Projects for Uzbekistan
93   Europe & CIS      Regional      OD       RER/95/G44       2305   Country Programme Review of Ozone
                                              (Turkmenistan)          Depletion Projects for Turkmenistan
94   Europe & CIS      Regional      OD       RER/96/G41       2301   Country Programme Review of Ozone
                                               (Azerbaijan)           Depletion Projects for Azerbaijan
95   Europe & CIS      Regional      OD       RER/97/G42       2302   Country Programme Review of Ozone
                                                 (Estonia)            Depletion Projects for Estonia
96   Europe & CIS      Regional      OD       RER/98/G41       2306   Country Programme Review of Ozone
                                               (Tajikistan)           Depletion Projects for Tajikistan




                                                   51
     Annex B: Status reports on projects with funding allocations
For all projects which funding was allocated in the GEF Work Programme before 20 June 1999, but have not been approved formally by
the Implementing Agency.

                                   GEF
                                                                                                        GEF Funding
  Region         Country           PIMs       OP                         Title                                              WP Entry
                                                                                                           ($M)
                                 Number
 Africa      DEMOCRATIC          270         3      Rehabilitation of Protected Areas in the          $6.31               4-Nov-97
             REPUBLIC OF                            Democratic Republic of the Congo
             CONGO

   Project   The project will assist DRC in (a) restructuring the ICCN, (b) rehabilitating back to basic functioning of the protected
  summary
             areas, and (c) involving local communities in the management of its protected areas system to ensure the conservation of its
             important biological diversity.


   Status    The project was approved in November 1997 for a total of USD 6.31 million. The implementation of this project was put
             on hold by GEFSEC pending the establishment of a Congo Basin Forest Strategic Action Plan. As this Forest SAP‘s sister
             project "Development of Congo Basin Strategic Action Plan" was recently completed, the Democratic Republic of Congo
             (in collaboration with WWF, UNDP and an associated GTZ project) has begun to finalize the project document. It is
             expected that the project document will be circulated to Council and GEFSEC in October 2001.




                                                                   53
                           GEF
                                                                                                     GEF Funding
 Region      Country      PIMs  OP                                     Title                                              WP Entry
                                                                                                        ($M)
                         Number
Asia &      INDIA        568    2          Multi-Sectoral and Integrated Systems Approach          $7.65                7-May-99
The                                        to the Conservation, Management and Sustainable
Pacific                                    Utilization of Coastal Biodiversity
  Project   The overall objective of this project is to conserve the Gulf of Mannar's globally significant assemblage of coastal
 summary
            biodiversity conservation into coastal zone management plans. By the end of this project a significant sustainable
            development baseline will have been leveraged through co-financing and policy shifts towards biodiversity conservation.
            Park management will have been strengthened and attendant biodiversity conserved.Sustainable livelihoods will be zoned
            for managment of priority habitats, and buffer zone communities will be full participatory stakeholders in park managment.
            This project has already leveraged significant co-financing from the GoI and GoTN, as well as significant policy in the
            establishment of the Trust.


  Status    This project received CEO endorsement on 9 January 2001 and Delegation of Authority was given 24 January 2001.
            Although UNDP has signed the project document, it is still pending signature with the Government of Tamil Nadu. There
            was some earlier confusion, as the Department of Economic Affairs had indicated that the dosument signature can take
            place only once the requisite clearances, Foreign Currency Regulation Act, for the Trust was received. The project
            document is expected by be signed by end of September 2001.




                                                                  54
                               GEF
                                                                                                     GEF Funding
  Region        Country       PIMs  OP                                Title                                              WP Entry
                                                                                                        ($M)
                             Number
Latin         SURINAME       1343   3          Conservation of Globally Significant Forest         $9.24               15-May-99
America                                        Ecosystems in the Suriname's Guyana Shields
& Carribean
              The project aims at protecting the rich biodiversity and pristine ecological function of Suriname‘s Guayana Shield
              tropical forest wilderness area. The project has been strategically designed to trigger long-term conservation processes
              within a network of priority forest PAs and constitutes the first step of a long-term programmatic approach to
   Project
  summary
              conservation. The project would contribute to institutional learning in the conservation arena by operationalizing
              protected area management in 2 key globally important and representative sites, namely the Central Suriname Nature
              Reserve (CSNR), the single largest tropical forest reserve in the Guayana Shield, and the Sipaliwini Nature Reserve
              (SNR) in south Suriname.
              The project document was signed by the President of the Republic of Suriname and the UNDP Resident Representative
              on 8 April 2000, with UNOPS o.i.c signature on 13 July 2001 and UNFIP's Executive Director on 28 August 2001. To
              date the following project activities were implemented: (i) Establishment of the Suriname Conservation Fund (SCF) with
              the Deed notarised and registered at the Ministry of Justice, (ii) the establishment of the Board of Directors and the
              signing of the Grant Agreement by UNDP with SCF for use of GEF funds, and (iii) Development and approval of a
              SCF Operations Manual with concomitant training for Board members in November 2000.

              Conservation International Suriname signed a contract for the preparation of the management plan for the two Nature
              reserves: The Central Suriname Nature Reserve (CSNR) and the Sipaliwini Nature Reserve (SNR). A stakeholder
   Status
              workshop for the development of a management plan for the SNR was held in July and a review workshop on the draft
              Management Plan Outline of the CSNR in October.

              A Contract was signed with WWF for the provision of in-country training for biodiversity Conservation in October and
              a long term workplan developed for the on-going provision of this support. A management-consulting firm was
              contracted for the assessment of training needs. A second contract was signed with WWF for the provision of legal
              assistance in the drafting of proposed amendments to existing Game Law and Game Resolution. Finally, a operational
              plan is being prepared to guide project management and implementation.




                                                                 55
                               GEF
                                                                                                       GEF Funding
  Region       Country        PIMs  OP                                 Title                                               WP Entry
                                                                                                          ($M)
                             Number
Latin         ECUADOR        1348   3          Formulation of a proposal for Biodiversity            $1.00                23-Jul-98
America                                        Conservation in the Ecuadorian Choco
& Carribean

   Project    The main objective of the Preparatory assistance phase is to finalise the proposal for a project to be submitted to GEF,
  summary     through UNDP, for funding to conserve globally outstanding biodiversity in the Ecuadorian Choco. This will entail: 1.
              the definition of the geographical focus of the full-scale project within the Choco region 2. The identification of
              communities to take part in the project both in the establishment of new conservation areas and in the alternative
              productive practices demonstration projects 3. the formulation of the capacity-building programme to strengthen
              biodiversity management skills in the project zone 4. the detailing of implementing arrangements for the full scale
              project and 5. final project preparation including calculations of incremental and baseline funding requirement.


   Status     Preparatory Assistance is under implementation and the Full Scale PRODOC is being completed. The Ministry of
              Environment has collected comments and observations on the project from UNDP and other stakeholders within the
              Ministry and its programmes. The consultant has been given 8 weeks to finalize the proposal with consideration given to
              these comments. Full Scale activities are programmed to be initiated in September, pending approval from GEF and
              signature from the Ecuadorean government.




                                                                  56
                              GEF
                                                                                                        GEF Funding
  Region      Country        PIMs  OP                                    Title                                               WP Entry
                                                                                                           ($M)
                            Number
Latin        BOLIVIA        581    1          Action for a Sustainable Amazonia                       $3.80                15-Oct-95
America &
Carribean

   Project   The project's principal objective is to promote the formulation and application of policies that incorporate biodiversity
  summary    conservation values and principles into sectoral development planning and reform. This will be achieved through the
             identification and provision of alternative production practices for agro-forestry and and extractive sectors, valuation of
             biological goods and services for assessing planning and investment priorities, consensus building activities with
             decision-makers and civil society for policy and regulatory review. Project activities will provide critical information for
             decision makers and private sectors. The project will also strengthen and expand a broad network of stakeholders whose
             enhanced capacities will provide the basis for future collaboration in ecosystem management and conservation.


   Status    UNDP/GEF requested cancellation of this project in early 2001.




                                                                    57
                                GEF
                                                                                                        GEF Funding
  Region       Country         PIMs  OP                                 Title                                                WP Entry
                                                                                                           ($M)
                              Number
Latin        EL               584    EA         Central American Fund for Environment and             $15.00               15-Nov-96
America &    SALVADOR                           Development: Account for the Global
Carribean                                       Environment (FOCADES)

   Project   The main objective of hte Global Account in to ensure the long-term financing of critical regional environment activities
  summary    of global relevance in the Central American Isthmus.

   Status    FOCADES was established formally by regional agreement in 1997, as an independent entity with its own governing
             Board, and administrative and operational set up. Following its incorporation, however, and after consultations with
             participating governments, regional organizations and prospective donors, it became apparent that the originally proposed
             structure was organizationally cumbersome and not cost-effective. In particular, it was deemed necessary to modify
             design by: a) paring down the number of Board Members to ensure cost-effectiveness and operational flexibility, and
             reduce avenues for conflicts of interest; and b) selecting a well established regional institution to fulfill the function of
             Managing Institution of FOCADES, in lieu of the new administrative structures originally proposed within FOCADES
             and c) narrowing the scope of activities financed through the AGE with a view to increasing financial leverage, and
             minimizing overlap with other GEF activities.

             The Full-scale PRODOC is still being finalized, but with much progress in the way of legal and procedural issues.
             Among the activities taking place, a donors conference is planned for September, after which the project will be
             presented to GEF. The increased political momentum created in the region through the Plan Puebla-Panama is also
             generating political interest in making FOCADES a reality. It is expected that the FOCADES project will receive CEO
             endorsement mid-2002.




                                                                   58
                            GEF
                                                                                                              GEF Funding
 Region      Country       PIMs  OP                                        Title                                                    WP Entry
                                                                                                                 ($M)
                          Number
Latin       CUBA          1443   10         Demonstration of Innovative Approaches to the             $6.40                  5-May-99
America &                                   Rehabilitation of Heavily Contaminated Bays in
Carribean                                   the Wider Caribbean.
  Project   The project will implement demonstrations/pilot projects to test innovative technical, management, legislative and
 summary    educational approaches for reducing the input of priority international waters contaminants, the nutrients nitrogen and
            phosphorus, to Havana Bay, Kingston Harbour and the adjacent Wider Caribbean. It will further strengthen and/or help
            create new institutions responsible for the rehabilitation and sustainable management of the two bays. The project
            supports the mandate of the Cartagena Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the
            Wider Caribbean Region, particularly Article 7, Pollution from Land-based Sources, and Article 13, Scientific and
            Technical Co-operation, as well as the new Land-Based Sources Protocol currently in preparation.
  Status    UNDP and UNEP Project Documents have been finalized for submission to GEF (Sept. 2001). Delays incurred were
            primarily the result of Jamaica‘s resource mobilization efforts which regrettably did not materialize in a reasonable time-
            frame. Cuba will therefore be the sole participant in the demonstrations in addition to the regional activities coordinated by
            UNEP. Project implementation will begin in Fall, 2001.

                              GEF
                                                                                                              GEF Funding
 Region       Country        PIMs  OP                       Title                                                                   WP Entry
                                                                                                                 ($M)
                            Number
Latin       MEXICO          691    MTP Global Environmental Citizenship -FULL                               $3.21                 30-Mar-98
America &
Carribean
  Project   The project aims to generate, and strengthen, public awareness and understanding of global environmental issues, and mobilize
 summary    citizen support in latin America within the scope of the relevant Ops. The current programs of six selected networks (representing
            parliamentarians, consumers, local authorities, educators, radio broadcasters, and the religious leaders) will be supplemented by the
            project using existing delivery mechanisms. Project activities include capacity bulding, skill enhancement, production of information
            kits anchored in the Ops, and dissemination and outreach of these kits to target audiences associated with the networks. Requesting
            countries: Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru
  Status    Delays in Prodoc presentation resulted from the need to mobilize the required co-financing from participating countries and others. In
            addition, definition regarding optimal execution and implementation arrangements, including their endorsement by all, required
            additional time. Submission expected for CEO endorsement in October 01.


                                                                      59
         Annex C : List of Projects Operationally Completed During FY 00

                              Focal                       PIMS
     Region        Country            Project Number                          Short Title
                              Area                         No
Global             GLOBAL      BD      GLO/98/G32         721    Biodiversity Planning Support
                                                                 Programme
Latin America      PANAMA      BD      PAN/94/G31         550    Biodiversity Conservation in the Darien
& The Carribean                                                  Region
Asia               Regional    BD      RAS/91/G31         635    South Pacific Biodiversity
& The Pacific                              (Samoa)               Conservation Programme
Latin America      CHILE       CC      CHI/93/G31         544    Reduction of Greenhouse Gases
& The Carribean
Global             GLOBAL      CC      GLO/98/G31         2339   National Communicatiosn Support to
                                                                 Climate Chagne
Africa             Regional    CC      RAF/93/G32         392    Control of greenhouse gas emissions
                                         (Ivory Coast)           through energy efficient building
                                                                 technology in West Africa
Arab States        SUDAN       CC      SUD/93/G31          73    Community-Based Rangeland
                                                                 Rehabilitation for Carbon Sequestration




                                                     60
         Annex D: List of Mid-Term and Final Evaluations Reports for PIR 2001 Reports

  D.1    Reports Completed between 1 July 2000 and 30 June 2001
                                            Project Name                                                       Project Number       Completed Report          Date
AFRICA
African NGO-Government Partnerships for Sustainable Biodiversity Action                                         RAF/97/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Jun-00
Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Development in the Federal Islamic Republic of the Comoros         COI/97/G32      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Oct-00
Capacity building network for southern African Botanical diversity                                              RAF/97/G33      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Feb-01
Control of greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficient building technology in West Africa                 RAF/93/G32        Final Evaluation Report    Mar-01
New approaches to reducing biodiversity loss at cross-border sites in East Africa                               RAF/97/G32      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Apr-01
ARAB STATES
Building Capacity in the Maghreb to Respond to the Challenges and Opportunities created by National Response    RAB/94/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   May-00
to the UNFCCC
Community-Based Rangeland Rehabilitation for Carbon Sequestration                                               SUD/93/G31        Final Evaluation Report    May-01
Strengthening of National Capacity & Grassroots In-Situ Conservation for Sustainable Biodiversity Protection    LEB/95/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   May-01
Energy Efficiency Improvemens and Greenhouse Gas Reduction                                                      PAL/97/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Aug-01
Energy Efficiency Improvements and GHG Reduction in Egypt and the Palestinian Authority                         EGY/97/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Sep-01
ASIA PACIFIC & THE PACIFIC
Fuel Efficiency in the Road Transport Sector                                                                    PAK/92/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Oct-99
Optimizing Development of Small Hydel Resources in Hilly Areas                                                  IND/92/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Nov-99
Development of High Rate BioMethanation Processes as Means of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions                 IND/92/G32      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Jan-00
Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Capacity Building                                                          SRL/96/G32      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Nov-00
Cost Effective Options for Limiting GHG Emissions                                                               IND/93/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Aug-01
Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Livelihood Options in the Grasslands of Eastern Mongolia              MON/97/G32      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Aug-01
South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Programme                                                               RAS/91/G31        Final Evaluation Report    Oct-01
EUROPE & THE CIS
Energy Efficiency Strategy to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Energy Efficiency Demonstration Zone in the    BUL/96/G32      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Dec-00
City of Gabrovo
Capacity Building to Reduce Key Barriers to Energy Efficiency in Russian Residential Buildings and Heat         RUS/96/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Sep-01
Supply
Addressing Transboundary Environmental Issues in the Caspian Environment Programme                              RER/98/G32      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Oct-01
LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN
Integrated Biodiversity Protection in the Sarstun-Motagua Region.                                               GUA/95/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Feb-00
Reduction of Greenhouse Gases                                                                                   CHI/93/G31        Final Evaluation Report    Jun-00
Consolidation of the Banados del Este Biosphere Reserve                                                         URU/97/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Aug-00
Biodiversity Conservation in the Darien Region                                                                  PAN/94/G31        Final Evaluation Report    May-01
  D.2    List of Reports Planned through June 2002
                                             Project Name                                                      Project Number        Planned reports         PR Date
GLOBAL
National Communicatiosn Support to Climate Change                                                               GLO/98/G31        Final Evaluation Report    Jun-01
Removal of Barriers to the Effective Implementation of Ballast Water Control and Management Measures in         GLO/99/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Dec-01
Developing Countries
Conservation priority setting for the Upper Guinea Forest ecosystem, West Africa                                RAF/97/G35        Final Evaluation Report    Sep-01
Renewable Energy-based Electricity for Rural, Social and Economic Development                                   GHA/96/G31        Final Evaluation Report    Sep-01
A Highly Decentralized Approach to Biodiversity Protection and Use: The Bangassou Dense Forest.                 CAF/95/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Oct-01
Control of Aquatic Weeds to enhance and restore biodiversity                                                    IVC/94/G31        Final Evaluation Report    Nov-01
Madagascar environment program support                                                                          MAG/96/G31        Final Evaluation Report    Nov-01
ARAB STATES
Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Biodiversity of Socotra Archipelago                                     YEM/96/G32      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Oct-00
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Dryland Agro-Biodiversity of the Fertile Crescent                           RAB/97/G32      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Apr-01
Barrier Removal to Secure PV Market Penetration in Semi-Urban Sudan                                             SUD/99/G41      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Jun-01
Supply-Side Efficiency and Energy Conservation and Planning                                                     SYR/96/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Jun-01
Energy Efficiency Improvemens and Greenhouse Gas Reduction                                                      PAL/97/G31        Final Evaluation Report    Jun-01
Lake Manzala Engineered Wetlands                                                                                EGY/93/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Nov-01
Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden                         RAB/97/G33      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Nov-01
Barrier Removal to Encourage and Secure Market Transformation and Labelling of Refrigerators.                   TUN/98/G35      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Nov-01
Reduction of Methane Emissions and Utilization of Municipal Waste for Energy in Amman                           JOR/96/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Dec-01
ASIA & THE PACIFIC
Community Conservation and Compatible Enterprise development in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia         MIC/99/G35      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Feb-01
Creating Protected Areas for Resources Conservation (PARC) in Vietnam Using a Landscape Ecology Approach        VIE/95/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Feb-01
Prevention and Management of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Saeas-PHASE II                                  RAS/98/G33      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Mar-01
Cost Effective Options for Limiting GHG Emissions                                                               IND/93/G31        Final Evaluation Report    Mar-01
Industrial Energy Efficiency and Improvement Project                                                            MAL/98/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Apr-01
Promoting Methane Recovery and Utilisation from Mixed Municipal Refuse                                          CPR/96/G31        Final Evaluation Report    May-01
Integrated Management of Jigme Dorji National Park                                                              BHU/96/G33        Final Evaluation Report    Jun-01
Fiji Renewable Energy Hybrid Village Power Systems                                                               FIJ/99/G35     Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Jun-01
Preparation of Strategic Action Programme (SAP) and Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) for the Tumen       RAS/98/G31        Final Evaluation Report    Sep-01
River Area, its coastal regions and related Northeast Asian Environs
Upper Mustang Biodiversity Conservation Project                                                                 NEP/99/G35      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Dec-01
Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Livelihood Options in the Grasslands of Eastern Mongolia              MON/97/G32
EUROPE & THE CIS
Addressing Transboundary Environmental Issues in the Caspian Environment Programme                              RER/98/G32        Final Evaluation Report    Sep-01
Preparation of the Strategic Action Pan for the Dnieper Preparation River Basin and Development of SAP          RER/98/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Nov-01
Implementation Mechanism
Capacity Building to Reduce Key Barriers to Energy Efficiency in Russian Residential Buildings                  RUS/96/G31        Final Evaluation Report    Nov-01
LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN
Photovoltaic-based Rural Electrification in Peru                                                                PER/98/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Nov-01
Environmental Protection of the Rio de La Plata and its Maritime Front: Pollution Prevention and Control and    RLA/99/G31      Mid-Term Evaluation Report   Nov-01
Habitat Restoration

                                                                                            62

								
To top