Get documents about "Strategic Goal Five Protect the Environment - The FY 2001 APP
Document Sample
February 2000
C H A P T E R 7
Strategic Goal Five:
Protect the
Environment
P ROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT is essential for sustainable development. USAID
accomplishes this through activities carried out in concert with nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), the private sector, universities, other U.S. government agencies
and donors, and our partner countries. The six performance goals are
§ The world’s environment protected for long-term sustainability
§ Conservation of biologically significant habitat improved
§ The threat of global climate change reduced
§ Urban population’s access to adequate environmental services increased
§ The use of environmentally sound energy increased
§ Sustainable management of natural resources increased
A. Development Trends in USAID-Assisted Countries
CONTEXT INDICATORS
§ The World’s Environment Protected for Long-Term Sustainability: National
environmental management strategies, participation in international environment
treaties
§ Conservation of Biologically Significant Habitat Improved: Nationally protected
areas, in hectares and as percentage of total land area
§ Threat of Global Climate Change Reduced: Carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions per
capita
§ Urban Population’s Access to Adequate Environmental Services Increased:
Percentage of urban population with access to safe drinking water and percentage of
urban population with access to sanitation services
§ Use of Environmentally Sound Energy Increased: GDP per unit of energy used
§ Sustainable Management of Natural Resources Increased: Change in forested
land area, as percentage and in hectares
February 2000
A.1. The World’s Environment Protected for Long-Term Sustainabillity
The indicator for this goal is a 20-point index that includes national environmental action
plans, or similar strategies, and participation in international environmental treaties: the
Biodiversity Convention, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), and three other environmental treaties.
This index is a proxy: having an environmental action plan or ratifying a treaty does not
necessarily mean that a country is willing or able to carry it out
Table 7.1: Performance Goal: The World’s Environment Protected for Long-Term Sustainability
All USAID-assisted countries with contributing programs *
Context Indicator: National environmental strategies and international environmental treaties (a 20-point index)
Source: World Development Indicators 1999 (Table 3.13); Treaty ratification information sources and USAID
calculations
(Year of data) refers to the calendar
year of the data. In most cases the Sub-Saharan Latin America/
data lags the reporting year. Asia/Near East Europe/Eurasia
Africa Caribbean
Baseline and most 14.1 13.1 12.5 14.5
recent data (1999)
FY01 Target TBD TBD TBD TBD
FY07 Target TBD TBD TBD TBD
Note:
Data sources include World Development Indicators 1999; and ratification update sites online (see annex B).
Includes all countries with expected programs under any Agency environment strategic objective See annex A for country list.
Countries reporting data under the SOs:
Africa: Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Namibia, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe
ANE: Egypt, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Philippines, West Bank/Gaza
E&E: Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Ukraine
LAC: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Rep., Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua,
Panama, Paraguay, Peru
See Annex B for detail on methodology
Chart 7.1
Status of Environmental Treaties Ratified
44 USAID assisted countries with environmental programs Signed
No Action
Montreal Protocol
for CFC Controls
Convention Kyoto
on Biological Protocol
Diversity Convention on
Trade of
Framework Endangered
Law of Convention Species
the Sea on Climate Vienna Convention (CITES)
Change on the Protection
of the Ozone Layer
*
There are some differences in the list of countries that USAID assisted in FY 1999 and in FY 2001 under most indicators and
performance goals, and there were some changes in indicators. There are many reasons for these differences, including, but not
limited to, the opening of new programs, the closing of graduating programs, and the reprogramming or suspension of assistance in
countries in crisis. Thus, all data in each APR or APP table apply to the specific list of countries assisted in the fiscal year covered
by the table, and baseline figures were recalculated in accordance with the revised country list. The source of the country lists for
both documents is the FY 2000 Congressional Presentation. For the FY 1999 APR, all countries with actual budget obligations over
$500,000 for FY 1998 were considered for inclusion in each data table. For the FY 2001 APP, countries with programs over
$500,000 in the FY 2000 budget request were included in tables relevant to their program focus. Data in the FY 1999 APR and FY
2001 APP tables should not be compared with each other.
132 USAID FY01 Annual Performance Plan
February 2000
According to this indicator, there is a medium level of commitment across all regions.
USAID is working hardest in eastern Europe and Eurasia , where several countries will
complete action plans before FY00. In Russia, USAID supports regional rather than
national environmental action plans.
General notes: A 20-point scale was used to assess a government’s commitment to the
environment, with levels of commitment valued as follows: USAID is
working hardest
§ Low 0–7.5 in eastern
§ Medium 8–14.5 Europe and
Eurasia, where
§ High 15–20
several
The scores were averaged for USAID-assisted countries in four regions. The scale is countries will
based on whether a country had prepared any of four types of national environmental complete action
management strategies or had participated in any of six major international plans before
environmental treaties. It does not indicate the degree to which an environmental strategy FY00.
has been carried out or an international treaty has been followed. Regional scores give
only a general idea of political commitment to environmental issues.
Protect the Environment 133
February 2000
A.2. Conservation of Biologically Significant Habitat Improved
A proxy indicator for this performance goal is nationally protected areas. This indicator is
being reviewed to see how best to encompass the complexity of biodiversity
conservation.
Table 7.2: Performance Goal: Conservation of Biologically Significant Habitat Improved
USAID-assisted countries with contributing programs in SO 5.2
Context Indicator: Nationally protected area in thousands of square kilometers (and as percent of total land area)
Source: World Development Indicators and World Resources Institute based on data from the World Conservation
Monitoring Center
(Year of data) refers to the
calendar year of the data. In most
Sub-Saharan Latin America/
cases the data lags the reporting Asia/Near East Europe/Eurasia
Africa Caribbean
year.
370 25 705 804
Baseline (1994)
(8.9) (3.6) (4.1) (11.2)
373 34 517 857
Most Recent Data (1997)
(9.6) (4.5) (3.1) (12.9)
380 34 527 874
FY01 Target (1999)
(9.8) (4.6) (3.1) (13.1)
412 37 571 947
FY07 Target (2007)
(10.6) (5.0) (3.4) (14.3)
Includes all countries with expected programs under the Agency’s environment strategic objective 5.2: Biological diversity
conserved. See annex A for country list.
Countries reporting data under the SO:
Africa: Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Namibia, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe
ANE: Egypt, Nepal, Philippines
E&E: Russia
LAC: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru
Since the most recently available information is from 1994, projecting this to 2000 is difficult at best. A nominal 1 percent per year
increase in area is given for targets. If current data reporting remains the same, actual 2000 figures would not be available until
2005.
Chart 7.2: Nationally Protected Areas
USAID-Assisted countries with contributing programs*, by USAID Bureau
1990, 1993, 1994 and 1997
Latin America/
900 900 900 900 Caribbean
Europe/
Sub-Saharan Eurasia **
Africa
600 600 600 600
Asia/Near East
300 300 300 300
0 0 0 0
90 93 94 97 90 93 94 97 90 93 94 97 90 93 94 97
2
Nationally protected areas in measured in thousands of km .
* With programs in SO 5.2. Biological diversity conserved
** Due to lack of reporting, 1990 and 1993 are not included for the E&E region.
Source: World Development Indicators and World Resource Institute based on data from the
World Conservation Monitoring Center
134 USAID FY01 Annual Performance Plan
February 2000
Sub-Saharan Africa: USAID Africa Bureau biodiversity conservation efforts planned in
fiscal year 2001 include work in Kenya, Madagascar, Namibia, Tanzania, Uganda, and
under the regional program called the Central African Regional Program for the
Environment. In Uganda, previous investments have increased the protected-area status
of several areas. These include forming or expanding 10 national parks and strengthening
the governmental, nongovernmental, and private sector institutions having a role in their
management. In FY01 we will protect those investments as well as expand our work with
subnational government institutions managing biodiversity resources outside the formal
protected-area system. That approach will be similar to our programs in Kenya, Over the life of
Madagascar, and Tanzania. In the countries where we are active, populations of key the Parks in Peril
indicator species, such as elephants, cheetah, and Uganda kob, are stable or increasing. program, 32
parks are
Asia and the Near East: Several natural resource management programs—including expected to
activities in Egypt, Indonesia, and the Philippines—have developed model community- protect roughly
based approaches to forest management and biodiversity conservation. These approaches 25 million acres,
have proven effective for stopping deforestation while contributing to local livelihoods— an area about
demonstrating that community-based approaches can have a national impact. the size of
Kentucky.
In the Near East region, the extensive but fragile coral reef system of the Red Sea and
Gulf of Aqaba is one of the most diverse in the world. New protected areas will be
established, and the Red Sea Islands National Park Management Plan will be
implemented with the participation of relevant stakeholders.
Latin America and the Caribbean: USAID has significant biodiversity programs in
Bolivia, Brazil, Central America, Ecuador, Jamaica, Paraguay, and Mexico. Funds from
fiscal year 2001 will kick off the successor to the region’s current Parks in Peril program.
Over the life of the Parks in Peril program, 32 parks are expected to protect roughly 25
million acres, an area about the size of Kentucky. USAID’s Central America regional
program, as announced by President Clinton, will double its commitment to the
Declaración Conjunta Centroamérica–USA (Concausa), an agreement between the
governments of the United States and Central America, adding another $25 million over
five years. A significant piece of this will go to protecting the Mesoamerican biological
corridor and the Mesoamerican coral reef system. Fiscal year 2001 funds will begin
supporting this new initiative.
Europe and Eurasia: E&E continues to have activities in biodiversity conservation. The
improved management of diversity in Bulgaria, for example, depends largely on
USAID’s help in creating a supportive policy and institutional framework. The Agency’s
Global Environment Fund project has significantly strengthened administrative capacity
in two important national parks, Rila and Central Balkan. USAID/Macedonia is
providing support for the Ezeerani Strict Nature Reserve on the north shore of Lake
Prespa, to help protect a wetland important to endangered birds, both local and migratory.
A.3. Threat of Global Climate Change Reduced
Global climate change is an issue that cuts across science, politics, public policy,
economics, finance, and health to affect all aspects of life. Studies show current levels of
carbon dioxide to be the highest in 200,000 years. Levels will soon reach double the
concentrations of the preindustrial age. Global warming appears inevitable.
Protect the Environment 135
February 2000
Given current trends, by 2035 developing countries stand to surpass industrial countries
in their emission of greenhouse gases. Moreover, developing countries are most
vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, including famine, coastal drought,
coastal flooding, natural disasters, and higher incidence of climate-related disease.
Through its climate-change initiative, USAID continues to promote sustainable
development by providing assistance geared toward reducing the economic, social, and
environmental threats posed by global climate change. Given the breadth of its impact,
mitigating the threat of climate change requires the participation of many sectors,
including energy services, natural resources, and urban development. Included in the In Mexico, our
Agency’s initiative are those sector activities that help in decreasing countries’ programs will
greenhouse gas emissions or lessening their vulnerability to climate change. have prevented
over 470 million
Asia and the Near East: India, Indonesia, and the Philippines are priority countries in metric tons of
USAID’s climate-change initiative. Energy consumption in all three countries is growing CO emissions
2
rapidly, so the thrust of USAID’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will through clean
continue to be in the energy sector. USAID efforts to restructure the power sector, energy programs.
improve the efficiency of electricity generation, and expand the commercialization of
renewable energy will reduce emissions of CO2 and other pollutants, while also
improving energy efficiency. ANE is continuing with clean energy, energy efficiency,
and power sector reform in South and East Asia. The South Asia Regional Environmental
Initiative is working with the private sector on clean power systems. The U.S.–Asia
Environmental Program continues to address power sector reform and provide technical
assistance for clean and efficient energy.
Europe and Eurasia: USAID’s climate-change initiative in this region concentrates on
Poland, Russia, Ukraine, and the Kazakhstan. The Agency hopes to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions by improving efficiency in the energy sector. E&E is emphasizing
legislative and power sector reform and development of institutional capacity but is
mindful of the need for continued sustainable economic development. To achieve
climate-change objectives, the Agency is using a variety of tools. They include credit
instruments, policy reform, technological cooperation, donor coordination, private sector
partnerships, institutional capacity-building, and the collection and dissemination of
information.
Latin America and the Caribbean: USAID’s environmental programs in Brazil,
Mexico, and the Central American region are designed to reduce the growth rate of CO 2
emissions by reducing tropical deforestation and promoting the use of “clean” energy
technologies. Our Brazil program, for example, will protect forests covering an area
about twice the size of Massachusetts. To support Brazil’s increased commitment to
clean energy programming, USAID will strengthen the capacity of key Brazilian
government and private institutions. Fire management is an important new USAID
activity for reducing the threat of climate change in Brazil and Mexico. In Mexico, our
programs will have prevented over 470 million metric tons of CO2 emissions through
clean energy programs, including an additional 80 million metric tons using funds from
fiscal year 2001.
136 USAID FY01 Annual Performance Plan
February 2000
Table 7.3: Performance Goal: The Threat of Global Climate Change Reduced
USAID-assisted countries with contributing programs in SO 5.1
Context Indicator: Carbon Dioxide (CO 2) per capita industrial emissions in metric tons
Source: World Development Indicators (Table 3.5) based on Oak Ridge National Laboratory CDIAC database;
USAID calculations
(Year of data) refers to the
calendar year of the data. In most
Sub-Saharan Latin America/
cases the data lags the reporting Asia/Near East Europe/Eurasia
Africa Caribbean
year.
Baseline (1995) 0.08 0.88 11.53 1.75
Most Recent Data (1996) 0.08 0.91 10.69 1.86
FY01 Target (1999) 0.08 0.79 10.52 1.75
FY07 Target (2005) 0.07 0.73 9.71 1.52
Note:
Includes all countries with expected programs under the Agency’s environment strategic objective 5.1: Threat of global climate
change reduced. See annex A for country list.
Countries reporting data under the SO:
Africa: Tanzania
ANE: Egypt, India, Nepal, Philippines
E&E: Russia
LAC: Brazil, Haiti, Mexico
CO 2 emissions (expressed in metric tons) are those stemming from the burning of fossil fuels and the manufacture of cement,
including those produced during consumption of solid fuels, liquid fuels, gas fuels, and gas flaring.
Chart 7.3: CO2 Emissions Per Capita**
USAID-Assisted countries with contributing programs* , by USAID Bureau
1986-1996
3.0 * Average of all countries with programs in SO 5.1: Threat of global
climate change reduced
2.5 AFR - Tanzania
2.0 ANE - Egypt, India, Nepal, Philippines
with Russia
E&E - Russia
1.5 reporting
LAC - Brazil, Haiti, Mexico
1.0
** CO2 emission are metric tons of industrial metric tons.
0.5
0.0 Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators, 1999 (from DOE
CDIAC)
86 96
Protect the Environment 137
February 2000
A.4. Urban Population’s Access to Adequate Environmental Services Increased
Urban population’s access to adequate environmental services has improved despite rapid
migration to cities (the world’s urban population is currently growing four times as fast as
the rural population). By 2000, more than half the world’s population will live in urban
areas. Currently, 17 of the world’s 21 cities with populations over 10 million are in
developing countries. In the Asia–Pacific region, the annual urban growth rate is more
than 4 percent, but at 5 percent a year Africa has the highest urban growth rate of all
regions. Unless cities can properly manage their environmental problems, opportunities
for sustainable development, economic growth, and social equity will be lost. The
Agency's goal is to improve access to water and sanitation services. USAID has two
indicators for sustainable urbanization:
§ Percentage of urban population with access to safe drinking water
§ Percentage of urban population with access to sanitation services
138 USAID FY01 Annual Performance Plan
February 2000
Table 7.4: Performance Goal: Urban Population’s Access to Adequate Environmental
Services Increased
USAID-assisted countries with contributing programs in SO 5.3
Context Indicator: (a) Percent of urban population with access to safe drinking water;
(b) Percent of urban population with access to sanitation services
Source: World Development Indicators (Table 3.6); USAID calculations
(Year of data) refers to the calendar
year of the data. In most cases the Sub-Saharan Latin America/
Asia/Near East Europe/Eurasia
data lags the reporting year. Africa Caribbean
(a) water 95 93 73 80
Baseline (1995)
(b) sanitation 89 78 75 78
Most Recent Data (a) water n/a 95 n/a n/a
(1996) very few
countries reporting (b) sanitation n/a 95 n/a n/a
(a) water 96 96 75 82
FY01 Target
(b) sanitation 90 80 78 80
(a) water 100 99 81 89
FY07 Target
(b) sanitation 100 84 81 85
Includes all countries with expected programs under the Agency’s environment strategic objective 5.3: Sustainable urbanization
including pollution management promoted. See annex A for country list.
Countries with programs under the SO:
Africa: South Africa, Zimbabwe
ANE: Egypt, India, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco
E&E: Romania, Russia, Ukraine
LAC: Bolivia, Brazil, Dominican Rep., Ecuador, El Salvador, Haiti, Jamaica, Peru
Since the rate for 1995 is the most recent value between 1991 and 1995, projecting this to 2000 and beyond is difficult at best. A
nominal 1 percent per year increase over five years of the growth rate is given for 2000. If current data reporting remains the same,
actual 2000 figures would not be available until 2005.
Chart 7.4a: Percent of Urban Population with Access to Sanitation Services
USAID-Assisted countries with contributing programs*, by USAID Bureau
1987-1996
100 100 100 100
Latin America/
90 90 90 90 Caribbean
80 80 80 80
70 70 70 70
Sub-Saharan Asia/Near East
60 Africa 60 60 60
Europe/Eurasia**
50 50 50 50
87 96 87 96 87 96 87 96
Regional averages are unweighted.
* With programs in SO 5.3 Sustainable urbanization promoted
** E&E region: Romania and Ukraine only reported in 1993.
Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators, 1999
Protect the Environment 139
February 2000
Chart 7.4b: Percent of Urban Population with Access to Safe Water
USAID-Assisted countries with contributing programs*, by USAID Bureau
1987-1996
100 100 100 100
Latin America/
Europe/Eurasia ** Caribbean
90 90 90 90
80 80 80 80
Sub-Saharan Asia/Near East
70 Africa 70 70 70
60 60 60 60
50 50 50 50
87 96 87 96 87 96 87 96
Regional averages are unweighted .
* With programs in SO 5.3 Sustainable urbanization promoted
** E&E region: Romania and Ukraine only reported in 1993.
Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators, 1999
Sub-Saharan Africa: USAID’s strategy in Africa has been to emphasize support for
biodiversity and natural resource management issues rather than for sustainable
urbanization. However, the Agency is reassessing its strategy in Africa through a study of
water, sanitation, and urban issues in the region. After identifying urban–rural links
important to Africa’s natural resource base, the Agency will develop a USAID action
plan for the region's urbanization.
Asia and the Near East: The Agency has significant programs in water resource
management in the Middle East, where the degradation and depletion of water resources
pose the most critical challenges to sustainable development. USAID activities seek to In Alexandria,
improve the management of freshwater supplies and to improve the quantity and quality Egypt, 3.8 million
of wastewater treatment. In Alexandria, Egypt, for example, 3.8 million people will be people will be
served by USAID-funded sewage and wastewater treatment facilities in urban centers, served by USAID-
and in fiscal year 2001, it is expected that more than 1 billion liters of water per day will funded sewage
be treated to design standards. In fiscal year 2001, ANE will continue to play a leading and wastewater
role in promoting integrated, efficient water management in the Middle East. USAID treatment
water programs reduce conflicts, build capacity, promote partnerships, and transfer facilities in urban
appropriate technology. centers.
Europe and Eurasia: USAID’s programs for fiscal year 2001 address municipal
services throughout the region. The Agency has been helping Environmental Funds in
central Europe develop transparent procedures for evaluating and financing
environmental investments. These funds represent an indigenous source of financing for
pollution prevention, energy efficiency, and environmental infrastructure projects,
usually capitalized by pollution charges or environmental taxes. Financing is available to
both companies and municipalities.
140 USAID FY01 Annual Performance Plan
February 2000
Latin America and the Caribbean: The LAC Environmental Partnership is scheduled
to begin using funds for fiscal year 2001, but no targets are set yet. The partnership will
emphasize pollution prevention techniques and technologies for industry as well as cost-
effective environmental management systems to provide clean water (including
substantial work in rural areas). In El Salvador, for example, USAID works to protect
watersheds, reduce pollution, and raise public awareness about factors affecting water
quality and its effects on health and the environment. Household access to clean water in
targeted municipalities has risen 9 percent—bringing clean water to 38 percent of
Salvadoran households.
A.5. Use of Environmentally Sound Energy Increased
Energy is a critical economic factor as well as being crucial to providing services that
sustain and improve the quality of life of the average citizen. However, energy
production and use are a major source of pressure on the environment. More efficient use
and provision of energy services and increased reliance on environmentally clean and
renewable energy sources are therefore critical for achieving environmentally sustainable
development.
Protect the Environment 141
February 2000
Table 7.5: Performance Goal: Use of Environmentally Sound Energy Increased
USAID-assisted countries with contributing programs in SO 5.4
Context Indicator: GDP per unit of energy use (energy efficiency)
Source: World Development Indicators (Table 3.8) (1998); USAID calculations
(Year of data) refers to the calendar
year of the data. In most cases the Sub-Saharan Latin America/
data lags the reporting year. Asia/Near East Europe/Eurasia
Africa Caribbean
Baseline (1994) n/a* 1.30 0.90 2.97
Most Recent Data (1996) n/a* 1.29 1.04 3.01
FY01 Target (1999) n/a* 1.34 0.93 3.06
FY07 Target (2007) n/a* 1.45 1.00 3.31
Includes all countries with expected programs under the Agency’s environment strategic objective 5.4: Use of environmentally
sound energy services increased. See annex A for country list.
Countries with programs under the SO:
Africa: none
ANE: Egypt, India, Nepal, Philippines
E&E: Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Ukraine
LAC: Brazil, Dominican Rep., Mexico
The energy efficiency indicator is the measure of GDP per unit of energy use, defined as the U.S. dollar estimate of the real GDP (at
1987) prices per kilogram of oil equivalent of commercial energy use. The larger the ratio, the greater the energy efficiency. The
most recent data are from 1996.
*There are no programs for objective 5.4 in sub-Saharan Africa.
Chart 7.5: GDP per Unit of Energy Use*
USAID-Assisted countries with contributing programs*, by USAID Bureau
1986-1996
4 4 4 4
Sub-Saharan Asia/Near East Europe/Eurasia **
3 Africa 3 3 3
No countries
2 reporting under 2 2 2
the SO Latin America/
1 1 1 1 Caribbean
0 0 0 0
86 96 86 96 86 96 86 96
Regional averages are unweighted .
* With programs in SO 5.4 Use of environmentally sound energy services increased
** E&E region: from 1986-91 NIS countries were not included due to lack of reporting.
Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators, 1999
142 USAID FY01 Annual Performance Plan
February 2000
Europe and Eurasia: For the past 10 years USAID has championed the use of clean
production technology, which minimizes pollution and increases energy efficiency,
throughout the region. For example, cleaner production practices are being introduced in
Russia and will be disseminated through the Agency’s Replication of Lessons Learned
project in 2000 and 2001. E&E programs are making an effort to link sustainable
economic development and environmental stewardship. E&E continues to emphasize
energy sector reform and privatization.
Latin America and the Caribbean: USAID has clean-production programs in three
E&E programs
countries: Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and Mexico. In Brazil, the Agency is engaged
are making an
with the minister of mines and energy and the National Electric Power Agency to identify
effort to link
policies and regulations addressing clean rural energy services. Encouraged by the
sustainable
success of USAID-funded demonstration activities in photovoltaics, several commercial
economic
firms in the Dominican Republic are making renewable energy a multimillion-dollar
development and
business. That has led to millions of dollars’ worth of panels being imported from the
environmental
United States. In 10 states in Mexico, working through agricultural development and
stewardship. E&E
construction organizations, USAID is initiating some 200 renewable-energy projects.
continues to
Agencywide: The Agency will also be working in policy and institutional reform, emphasize
including legal and regulatory restructuring of energy sectors, at both the national and energy sector
state levels in developing countries. This will promote energy efficiency, both in end use reform and
and in conditions for greater use of environmentally clean and renewable sources of privatization.
energy.
A.6. Sustainable Management of Natural Resources Increased
Sustainable natural resource management is essential for economic sustainability. Among
the problems USAID’s programs address
§ Loss of forests, which affects watersheds, biodiversity, and climate change
§ Competition artisanal fisheries face from commercial trawlers
§ Problems with water consumption and management
§ Declines in wildlife populations.
The Agency’s strategy addresses sustainable management in five critical areas: forests,
water resources, coastal zones, agriculture, and community-based natural resource
management. To promote better resource management, programs work at both national
s
and local level to devolve ownership and control of natural resources to local
communities.
Protect the Environment 143
February 2000
Table 7.6: Performance Goal: Sustainable Management of Natural Resources Increased
USAID-assisted countries with contributing programs in SO 5.5
Context Indicator: *Average annual change in total forest area as measured in thousands of sq. km. And percent
change
Source: World Development Indicators 1998 (Table 3.1); USAID calculations
(Year of data) refers to the calendar
year of the data. In most cases the Sub-Saharan Latin America/
Asia/Near East Europe/Eurasia
data lags the reporting year. Africa Caribbean
Baseline (1990–95) Most Recent
Data*
–0.81 –2.03 0.01 –2.13
FY01 Target –0.78 –1.97 0.02 –2.07
FY07 Target –0.72 –1.81 0.02 –1.91
Includes all countries with expected programs under the Agency’s environment strategic objective 5.5: Sustainable management of
natural resources increased. See annex A for country list.
Countries reporting data under the SO:
Africa: Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Namibia, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe
ANE: Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Philippines
E&E: Albania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russia, Ukraine
LAC: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Rep., Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua,
Panama, Paraguay, Peru
Total forest area includes both natural forest and plantation area. Annual deforestation refers to the permanent conversion of natural
forest area to other uses, including shifting cultivation, permanent agriculture, ranching, settlements, or infrastructure. Deforested
areas do not include areas logged but intended for regeneration or areas degraded by fuel wood gathering, acid precipitation, or
forest fires. These data, therefore, do not reflect the full extent of forest and biodiversity losses through degradation.
Since the most recent available information is from 1995, projecting this to 2000 is difficult at best. A nominal 1 percent per year
decrease in the rate is given for fiscal year 2001 and 2007 targets.
Sub-Saharan Africa: Experience in Africa has shown that maintaining a long-term
perspective ensures a sustainable return on development investments. Local management,
especially community-based natural resource management, has proved to be a promising Long-term
approach throughout Africa. That is especially the case when local management schemes studies have
are linked to market-oriented enterprises. Data show that since 1991 the average annual shown that
growth in income generated through USAID-funded natural resource management natural resource
management
programs in Africa has doubled every year. Moreover, for the first time, satellite imagery
has shown large areas of improvement in vegetative quality in areas under program spreads rapidly
management over the past 20 years. once the key
enabling
Linking resource management with local empowerment—developing local structures for conditions—
natural resource management—has also contributed to civil society objectives. Long-term policies,
studies have shown that natural resource management spreads rapidly once the key institutions, and
enabling conditions—policies, institutions, and approaches—are established. Fiscal year approaches—are
2001 activities will build on this synergy between natural resource management and the established.
strengthening of civil society.
Asia and the Near East: USAID has significant resource management programs in
Indonesia, Nepal, and the Philippines. In Indonesia the Agency is working toward
stabilizing and improving community-based resource management efforts. It is expected
that in fiscal year 2001 improved or stabilized land management will have increased
144 USAID FY01 Annual Performance Plan
February 2000
significantly over the year before. In the Philippines, USAID has also had impressive
results creating incentives for sound coastal resource management. Partnerships in coastal
resource management between local governments, communities, and the private sector
are steadily spreading to other areas. A minimum of 2,100 kilometers (1,300 miles) of
coastline is expected to be under effective management by fiscal year 2001.
The Agency will explore opportunities to apply the Tropical Forest Conservation Act in
ANE to help set locally run national endowments for the conservation of forests. It will
also continue developing model community-based approaches to forest management.
Latin America and the Caribbean: USAID has emphasized sustainable forestry Data on forest
management in Bolivia because some of the largest forested areas are found outside of cover may be
parks. (Similar efforts in Honduras have been reduced for lack of government especially
commitment.) In fiscal year 2001, the Agency plans to design a follow-up to the Bolivian unreliable
Sustainable Forestry project. In Brazil, the Agency will continue with fire prevention andbecause of
control activities begun in fiscal years 1999–2000. changing
definitions,
Europe and Eurasia: USAID supports resource management efforts in Albania and varying in-
Russia’s far east. In the Russian far east, the Agency supports sustainable forestry by country data
promoting alternatives to unfinished-wood exports. It expects the area of managed land to reporting
increase and forestry practices to improve. Russia’s forestry management work is procedures, and
expected to continue into 2001. There is some possibility of beginning this type of work reporting
in Romania. intervals that
vary from nation
B. What USAID Does by Key Program Categories and Most to nation.
Frequently Used Indicators for Performance Measurement
B.1. Sustainable Management of Natural Resources Increased
Sustainable management of natural resources is perhaps USAID’s most diverse and
historically its oldest program cluster. It yields a wide range of indicators at the program
and strategic level. For example, strategies and programs that fall under this objective
include measures of the number of farmers and households adopting improved
agricultural processes. They also include improvements in coastal zone management,
better soil conservation techniques, use of integrated pest management, enhanced
watershed management, and the strengthening (environmental education, skills upgrades,
civil society training, structural and functional help) of community-based natural resource
organizations. No single indicator (or even two or three indicators) is likely to capture
this diversity of the Agency’s on-the-ground efforts.
Natural forest and planted trees (plantation) are very different kinds of land cover. Such
distinctions are often defining characteristics of where USAID targets its programs.
Measurement reliability is also an issue. According to the World Bank, data on forest
cover may be especially unreliable because of changing definitions, varying in-country
Protect the Environment 145
February 2000
data reporting procedures, and reporting intervals that vary from nation to nation. Further
limiting interpretation of these data is the fact that for some countries the data sets use
different baselines or standard reference years (for example, 1990 versus 1995). The
Agency’s programs are diverse, and they include sustained emphasis on community-
based natural resources.
More than half the Agency’s operating unit–level programs have a natural resource
management strategic objective. Regional differences in emphases, further complicate the
choice of indicators. For example, Africa concentrates heavily on capacity-building,
while Latin America and the Caribbean has worked extensively on upgrading park
management. Several programs have a strong policy emphasis, while others are targeted
directly to farmers and rural households. Close to half of all operating units with a natural Many of these
resource objective use the number of families or households adopting sustainable field-based
agriculture practices as an indicator for better management practices. More than a third of activities
operating units use one or more of the following indicators: 1) area of forest, water support the
resources, or coastal zone under resource management plans, 2) area of land under development of
sustainable agricultural practices, and 3) number of policies implemented or supported a national
that promote better management of natural resources. One or more of these lower level commitment to
indicators may be substituted for the current Agency-level performance goal indicators as the environment.
the result of ongoing discussions among USAID’s technical staff.
More than 40 percent of field missions or operating units have strategic environmental
objectives that address some element of policy formulation. Many of these field-based
activities support the development of a national commitment to the environment. Policy-
related strategic objectives vary from 50 percent in energy to just over 30 percent each in
biodiversity and urban programs. Ten operating units have strategic objectives directly
related to strengthening the policy environment. Progress in strategic objectives is
measured mainly by assessing enactment of specific legislation and national policy
formulation. Other strategic objectives measure whether citizens and nongovernmental
organizations have accurate environmental information and are involved in decision-
making about the environment.
USAID works with two givens: 1) the range of USAID’s environmental portfolio
(energy, biodiversity, etc.) is wide, and 2) the earth’s natural resources continue to
decline. With that in mind, the Agency continues to emphasize getting the right
environmental policies in place at the national level (especially for the long run). Since
many operating units are engaged in activities related to environmental policy, USAID
continues to seek the best formulation of a policy performance measure.
B.2. Biological Diversity Conserved
USAID’s on-the-ground biodiversity strategies and activities are very diverse. There is
often a long lag time before new data are available. Questions arise as to how to
accurately measure the health of plant and animal biodiversity. For example, habitats that
are “protected” can be rich in biological diversity or, in stark contrast, such habitats can
be void of the critical animals and unique plants that made it biologically diverse in the
first place. It is difficult to define indicators for the richness of animal and plant life
within the protected areas (species number and kind, threatened species, species diversity,
etc.).
146 USAID FY01 Annual Performance Plan
February 2000
Protection itself is another issue. That is, designating land as “protected” does not
necessarily mean that protection has occurred or is currently in force. From a monitoring
perspective, no single indicator can capture the complexity and ingenuity of USAID’s
wide-ranging efforts to conserve biodiversity or provide any real insight into habitat
sustainability. Also, in some cases the Agency has directed its attention to areas of less
than a thousand hectares (four square miles). That falls below the landmass defined as a
“protected area.”
Since measuring species richness is notoriously labor-intensive and the analysis equally
as time consuming, measuring the area of protected land continues to be an appealing
alternative measure when resources are limited. At the Agency level, USAID is moving Designating land
ahead, though, to identify a more meaningful indicator closer to our manageable interests. as “protected”
does not
The first step the Agency has taken is to carefully review indicators more commonly used
necessarily
by its operating units in search of a measure (or measures) that capture USAID’s
mean that
biodiversity efforts. For example, just under half of USAID’s country-level biodiversity
protection has
efforts concentrate on capacity-building with local institutions and communities to better
occurred or is
manage critical ecosystems, surrounding buffer zones, or environmental corridors where
currently in
appropriate. One approach under careful review is to judge performance more on a
force.
capacity-strengthening measure, rather than measuring increases in protected lands.
Several of the 22 operating units with biodiversity programs use a measure of the number
of biologically significant sites protected or managed as an indicator of results. Other
units assess results more in terms of policies, programs, and activities strengthened to
improve natural resource conservation and management. Regional differences in our
biodiversity programs also present a challenge in trying to define a single “best” measure.
In an effort to find a performance indicator that encompasses the complexity of
biodiversity and help the Agency measure results more effectively, alternative indicators
are now the subject of serious discussion. Candidate measures receiving the most scrutiny
are 1) a measure of improved natural resource management, 2) institutional capacity
strengthening, and 3) biodiversity policy advancement.
B.3. Threat of Global Climate Change Reduced
Carbon dioxide emissions account for the largest share of greenhouse gases associated
with the threat of global warming. CO2 emissions result primarily from the burning of
fossil fuels and from producing cement and other manufacturing processes. Data on CO 2
emissions, when available, are reported to be accurate (within 10 percent of actual
emissions). Agency’s concern about using CO2 emissions as a program performance
measure is this: To what extent are CO2 emissions within the Agency’s manageable
interest? To what extent can USAID reasonably address this major environmental
problem in the face of historical trends since 1980, which show a sharply accelerating
growth in global CO2 ? There are many contributing factors outside of USAID’s
manageable interest that influence this measure. For example, tax policies change, world
fuel prices fluctuate, a nation’s economy undergoes structural changes. Sharp and
sometimes prolonged declines in energy demand for manufacturing often stem directly
from civil strife and economic downturns. Such downturns occurred last year, for
example, in Asia and in some states of the former Soviet Union. They led to dramatic
reductions in CO2 emissions.
Protect the Environment 147
February 2000
Distinguishing among these causes of decreased CO 2 emissions is not easy. Reliable
emissions data are often available only on a national level (or adjusted per capita). This
contrasts with USAID’s efforts, which are much more localized and typically occur in
only a very limited way, in a few key countries. CO2 data are not current. They have at
least a five-year lag time. This means that emissions projections are by default often used
for both target-setting and actual data, leaving the so-called results open to question.
Carbon dioxide emissions data do not really capture the kinds of programs and strategies
the Agency employs. USAID activities in global climate change have so far involved four
activities: 1) promoting energy efficiency, renewable energy, and clean energy Distinguishing
technologies in power generation, and in industrial and urban applications; 2) reducing among these
net emissions through sustainable forest management, agroforestry, reforestation, and causes of
sustainable agriculture activities; 3) increasing participation in the Framework decreased CO2
Convention on Climate Change by supporting the development of national environmental emissions is not
action plans, joint implementation, and technology cooperation; and 4) maintaining a easy.
portfolio of cross-sectoral vulnerability and adaptation activities, including strengthening
capabilities for disaster assistance planning and mitigation.
Specifically, there are 15 USAID operating units with global climate change strategic
objectives. Two of them use the amount of carbon dioxide emissions prevented as
program-level indicators. The others rely on a variety of indicators including regional
import of cleaner environmental technologies and policies contributing to increased
efficiency and cleaner production of energy. More than 40 percent of the programs
include some type of capacity-building activities.
The Agency is trying to identify three possible candidates for performance measures.
They are 1) building capacity to strengthen public and private institutions (whose goals
are to reduce fossil-fuel emissions), 2) strengthening policies that favor clean energy
production and increased energy efficiency, and 3) facilitating technology transfer and
infrastructure improvements.
B.4. Sustainable Urbanization Including Pollution Management Promoted
A total of 21 operating units have urban programs, with the largest number in Latin
America and the Caribbean, followed by Asia and the Near East. The top two
program-level indicators used in fiscal year 1998 were the number of municipalities
adopting cleaner energy production practices and the number of people benefiting from
improved urban environmental infrastructure. Several operating units also measured the
degree to which policies and approaches support the application of sustainable
management practices. It is likely over the coming year that discussion will lead to the
proposal that one or more of these indicators will be used independently of or alongside
the current Agency indicator to better track USAID’s program impact.
Two indicators are currently used to assess whether the Agency meets its targets for
sustainable urbanization. They are 1) percent of urban population with access to safe
drinking water and 2) percent of urban population with access to sanitation services.
From a measurement perspective, these urban indicators have been used for some time by
the development community to assess household access to basic services such as
sewerage connection, regular waste collection, and access to drinkable water. Typically
these data have been on a national level with less accuracy when distinguishing between
148 USAID FY01 Annual Performance Plan
February 2000
rural, and urban areas, since different data-collection methods, definitions of access, and
the like have been used. Even definitions of city and urban boundaries have made it
difficult to assemble an integrated data set for “urban households.” That’s because some
of the largest cities are spread across different administrative jurisdictions.
From a strategy perspective, the current indicators also pose a problem, since a very
limited number of assistance programs directly address increased access to water or
sanitation. Over time, USAID has shifted its program emphasis to a much wider array of
municipal services. These include urban financing, improved municipal management
practices, policy formulation (land planning, cleaner production, etc.) and strengthening
the governance capacity of cities. In short, the current indicators are too narrowly Even definitions
targeted. They do not capture the full range or diversity of USAID’s urban programs. of city and urban
boundaries have
B.5. Use of Environmentally Sound Energy Services Increased made it difficult
It is important to note that part of USAID’s energy-related efforts are reported under the to assemble an
global climate change program cluster, because the emphasis is also on reducing carbon integrated data
dioxide emissions. USAID has energy programs in Asia and the Near East, Europe and set for “urban
Eurasia, and Latin America and the Caribbean. households.”
That’s because
Data are unreliable in some regions, especially in Central Asia and eastern Europe. some of the
Eighteen operating units had energy strategic objectives in FY98. The most commonly largest cities are
used program-level indicator to measure results was the number of environmental spread across
policies and regulations enacted that affect the energy sector. This was followed by the different
number of companies that have adopted environmental quality standards and the number administrative
of private sector projects investing in environmentally sound practices for enhanced jurisdictions.
energy production. These indicators relate directly to the energy-efficiency goal, but they
are the necessary precursors—rather than the direct consequence. In short, they do not
automatically “roll up” to increases in energy efficiency but represent the developmental
context in which energy-efficiency gains are likely to occur. Moreover, the current
indicator reflects national, countrywide energy efficiency changes, whereas in most cases
the Agency has targeted specific industries and localities. The Agency is reviewing
indicators that better capture its program thrust and are more within its manageable
interest. One strong candidate indicator under consideration is an index on progress in
energy policy formulation and implementation at the national and municipal level.
Another is a weighted component measure for industry adoption of energy efficiency
measures.
C. Plan for USAID Program Impact Measurement
The environmental goals and programs set forth below reflect a limited but thoughtful set
of short- and medium-term goals for what are clearly complex and ever changing long-
term problems and solutions involving many sectors. The seven performance indicators
listed are global and long term in nature. Most come from World Development
Indicators, updated annually by the World Bank and other groups outside the Agency
(and therefore unbiased as to USAID programs). They are considered important
indicators of the state of the world’s environment.
It should be noted, however, that they may not be good indicators of the performance of
the Agency’s environmental programs, for a number of reasons. Some indicators (for
Protect the Environment 149
February 2000
example, of forest cover and protected areas) are not necessarily updated every year.
Some are updated only every five years or use projections rather than actual surveys.
Most of the indicators lag several years behind the current year, so they are limited in
identifying current trends. Coverage of USAID-assisted countries (for example, on access
to urban water and sanitation) can be sporadic. As a result, goal targets based on these
indicators are generally beyond the manageable interest of the Agency and do not reflect
its success or failure. Moreover, these indicators are not comprehensive enough to reflect
the complexity and diversity of USAID’s environmental programs.
USAID’s recent review of its environmental goal recommended finding better Agency-
level performance indicators and goal-level targets. To provide a better sense of annual To provide a
performance, the Agency needs overall environmental indicators that are closer to what it better sense of
is trying to accomplish in the short and medium term. On the basis of the goal review, the annual
Environmental Center in USAID’s Global Bureau will lead an Agencywide working performance, the
group to develop more appropriate and reliable indicators outside the framework of Agency needs
World Development Indicators. overall
environmental
The Agency’s environmental targets will be revised on the strength of the working
indicators that
group’s conclusions. The current targets were subjectively set at 10 percent over the 10-
are closer to
year span of the Agency’s Strategic Plan, or a 1 percent annual increase in each indicator.
what it is trying
Independent of the issue of targets is the issue of data availability. For example, trends
to accomplish in
are often unavailable in specific USAID-assisted countries, so it is difficult to judge
the short and
whether a regional target has been met.
medium term.
A recent analysis of strategic objectives and indicators has shown some definite common
features among short- and medium-term indicators. For example, many of the Agency’s
operating units use policy-based indicators. Strategically, it makes sense to concentrate
on policy, regulatory, and legislative issues to set the stage for development in a
particular environmental program. It also makes sense to fix on policy issues if a program
has limited funding, since appropriate policy changes (backed by political commitment)
can effect positive change at a relatively low cost.
Some factors are more easily measured than others. Most operating units working on
biodiversity, for example, need to measure the adequacy of management of protected
areas or critical ecosystems. It isn’t difficult to quantify the area of critical ecosystems or
protected areas. Measuring the adequacy of management is necessarily more qualitative
and subjective, but it is an important measure. Defining adequacy of management and
figuring out how to measure it and other potential indicators will require some study but
will prove useful for performance planning.
150 USAID FY01 Annual Performance Plan
February 2000
Illustrative Association of Indicators to Program Clusters
The next page contains a graphic representation of current analysis within Protect the
Enviroment of prevalent program indicators and their relationship to program clusters.
The numbers in the program cluster column show which indicators relate to each cluster
form the indicator column(s).
Indicators common to Program Clusters Indicators specific to one
more than one cluster program cluster
Strengthened
participation in the
A
Number of environmental professionals Threat of global climate Framework Convention
1
trained and institutional capacity change reduced on Climate Change,
developed and/or decreased net
greenhouse gas
emissions
Improved management B
of biologically important
habitat, including
Number of national and regional Biological diversity improved quality of
2 conservation efforts
environmental policies, laws and conserved
regulations developed and implemented within and outside of
protected areas
and/or increased size or
number of protected
areas
Number and/or C
Number of activities structuring financial Sustainable urbanization percentage of
3
markets for improved environmental including pollution households with access
outcomes management promoted to urban environmental
services (including water
and/or sanitation)
Increased private sector D
Number of activities involving local Use of environmentally involvement in energy-
4 sound energy services
empowerment (awareness, education, related activities
organization) for better stewardship of increased (including energy
natural resources efficiency and renewable
sources of energy)
Number of resource
(i.e., water, forest,
E
coastal) user groups/
Number of activities using information Sustainable households adopting
5 improved techniques
technology (GIS, satellite imagery, etc.) management of natural
for better natural resource management resources increased and/or effectively
managing local natural
resources
Protect the Environment 151
February 2000
D. Tactics for Achieving Program Goals
For Fiscal Year 2001 and Beyond
USAID believes that its current approaches to the environment, described above, provide
an effective framework for programming. Refinements will occur as lessons are learned.
D.1. Overall Environment Goal
Progress toward this an expression of general government commitments to national
environmental programs addressing biodiversity conservation, climate change,
urbanization, natural resource management, and sustainable development. The Agency’s
approach in a region is often initially to promote environmental policy reform and to
develop the strategy needed to frame later interventions. Although policy reform is
critical, its effects may be felt only in the long term. USAID fully supports the
OECD/DAC document Shaping the 21st Century, including the goal of completing Biodiversity is
national strategies for sustainable development by 2005. being lost at
unprecedented
rates, with
D.2. Biological Diversity Improved
thousands of
Biodiversity, one measure of the earth’s health, is essential to a sustainable environment species a year
and economy. Among other things, it is fundamental to health care worldwide. Roughly becoming
25 percent of the drugs prescribed in the United States include chemical compounds extinct.
derived from wild species. Wild species are the gene bank used to maintain the vigor of
our crops and livestock. The net economic benefits of biodiversity are estimated to be at
least $3 trillion a year, or 11 percent of the world’s annual economic output.
But biodiversity is being lost at unprecedented rates, with thousands of species a year
becoming extinct. USAID works with host countries and partners to improve the
management of biologically significant areas both within and outside of officially
protected areas. Over the past few years USAID has improved the conservation of
biodiversity on more than 40 million hectares—a combined area slightly larger than
Montana. The Agency wants to increase that area to 75 million hectares over a 10-year
period in USAID-assisted countries. That means adding 3.5 million hectares a year to the
Agency’s biodiversity portfolio, especially in Africa and Latin America.
Working in many of the world’s most biologically rich countries, the Agency plans to
improve the management of forests, coasts, and biodiversity in these areas. USAID
expects to measure positive trends in habitat quality and local management capacity in
about half this area.
D.3. Threat of Global Climate Change Reduced
The Agency’s five-year climate change initiative seeks to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, protect natural habitats that sequester carbon, and encourage developing-
country policies that support the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Activities address issues in energy, industry, agriculture, forestry, and natural resources.
The climate-change initiative includes 75 percent of USAID’s forestry activities because
of forests’ role in sequestering carbon and absorbing it from carbon dioxide, a major
greenhouse gas.
152 USAID FY01 Annual Performance Plan
February 2000
D.4. Sustainable Urbanization Including Pollution Management Promoted
In fiscal year 2001, the Agency’s global programs will help 11,900 poor urban dwellers
gain access to vital environmental services, including sewage treatment and solid-waste
disposal. Because of declines in USAID’s urban environment budget in recent years, this
number will be far less than the 506,000 urban dwellers who benefited from global
programs in 1998.
Agency activities to prevent industrial pollution and improve energy efficiency have
effectively engaged the U.S. private sector in partnership with developing-country
counterparts. The successful experience of the U.S.–Asia Environmental Partnership over
the past few years has reinforced support for such partnerships, so USAID is initiating
similar programs in Africa, central and eastern Europe, and Latin America and the
Caribbean.
The Agency will
D.5. Use of Environmentally Sound Energy Services Increased continue efforts
By the end of fiscal year 2001, global Agency programs are expected to have leveraged to make
about $1.2 billion from other donors and the private sector for environmentally sound agriculture more
energy production and use. By 2001, global programs will have helped 21,000 sustainable by
households, health centers, schools, telecommunications facilities, and other service reducing
centers gain access to small-scale renewable energy systems. pesticide use
and soil erosion
The Agency will continue emphasizing increased efficiency and reliance on renewable and by slowing
energy resources, working with both public and private sectors to improve investment down the
incentives, make clean technologies available, encourage the use of renewable energy conversion of
sources, and improve energy management. wild lands.
D.6. Sustainable Management of Natural Resources
The Agency will continue its efforts to achieve sustainable forest management through
policy reform and demonstration programs, improvements in park management, and
public and private partnerships to turn “paper” parks into functional parks. The Agency
will continue efforts to make agriculture more sustainable by reducing pesticide use and
soil erosion and by slowing down the conversion of wild lands. Coastal zone
management will be improved by increasing public awareness of the economic and
environmental costs of poor coastal zone management and by introducing best practices
and management. Wildlife will be better protected through improved habitat conservation
and by developing solutions to conflicts between people and wildlife about the use of
land.
Protect the Environment 153
February 2000
CO2 emissions per capita
Trends by country 1992-1996
USAID-Assisted countries with contributing programs*
14
12 Russia
10
All graphs expressed
in CO2 emissions in
8 metric tons per capita
6
4
Mexico
Egypt
2
0 2.0
92 93 94 95 96
1.6
Brazil
1.2
India
0.8
Philippines
0.4
0.4
0.0
92 93 94 95 96
0.3
0.2
Haiti
0.1
Tanzania
Nepal
0.0
92 93 94 95 96
* With programs in strategic objective 5.1: Threat of global climate change reduces
Source: World Bank
154 USAID FY01 Annual Performance Plan
February 2000
Nationally Protected Area
Change in percent of total land area, 1994-1997
USAID-Assisted countries with contributing programs*
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Kenya
Madagascar
Malawi
Namibia
Senegal sub-Saharan
Tanzania Africa
Uganda
Zimbabwe
Egypt
Nepal Asia/
Philippines Near East
Russia Europe/Eurasia
Bolivia
Brazil
Colombia
Ecuador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Latin America/
Nicaragua
Caribbean
Panama
Peru
* With programs in strategic objective 5.2: Conservation of biologically significant habitat
improved.
Source: World Bank
Protect the Environment 155
February 2000
Access to Sanitation Services
Percent of Urban Population with Access, 1988, 1995
USAID-Assisted countries with contributing programs*
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
South Africa 78
Zimbabwe 99
Egypt 95
India 46
Jordan 91
Morocco 97
Romania 81
Ukraine 70
Bolivia 77
Dominican Rep. 89
Ecuador 70
El Salvador 89
Haiti 43
Jamaica 99
Peru 78
1988 1995
* With programs in strategic objective 5.3: Urban population’s access to adequate
environmental services increased.
Source: World Bank
156 USAID FY01 Annual Performance Plan
February 2000
Access to Safe Water
Percent of Urban Population with Access, 1988, 1995
USAID-Assisted countries with contributing programs*
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
South Africa 90
Zimbabwe
Egypt 95
India
Jordan
Morocco 97
Bolivia 88
Dominican
Rep. 88
Ecuador 81
El Salvador 82
Haiti 38
Jamaica
Peru 91
1988 1995
* With programs in strategic objective 5.3: Urban population’s access to adequate
environmental services increased.
Source: World Bank
Protect the Environment 157
February 2000
GDP per unit of energy (energy efficiency)
$US estimate of real GDP per kilogram of oil equivalent of
commercial energy use, 1990-1996
USAID-Assisted countries with contributing programs*
5.0 2.5
Philippines
Brazil Mexico
4.5
2.0
4.0
Egypt Armenia
3.5 1.5
3.0
1.0
Dominican Rep.
2.5
Georgia
2.0 0.5
90 96 90 96
1.0 1.0
India
0.8 0.8
Romania
0.6 Moldova 0.6
Russia
Nepal
Ukraine
0.4 0.4
90 96 90 96
* With programs in strategic objective 5.4: Use of environmentally sound energy
services increased.
Source: World Bank
158 USAID FY01 Annual Performance Plan
February 2000
Reductions in total forest area
Average annual percent change 1990-95
USAID-Assisted countries with contributing programs*
10 8 6 4 2 0 -2
Guinea
Kenya
Madagascar
Malawi
Namibia
sub-Saharan Senegal
Africa Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Egypt*
Indonesia
Jordan
Lebanon
Mongolia*
Asia/ Morocco
Near East Nepal
Philippines
Albania*
Bulgaria
Europe/Eurasia Georgia*
Romania
Russia*
Ukraine
Bolivia
Brazil
Latin America/ Colombia
Caribbean Dom. Rep.
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
* With programs in strategic objective 5.5: Sustainable management of natural
resources increased.
Source: World Bank
Protect the Environment 159
February 2000
160 USAID FY01 Annual Performance Plan
Related docs
