PROJECT PERFORMANCE REPORT
(INCORPORATING THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW)
2001

---

ii

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................
V
1.
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................
1
2.
GEF Portfolio Analysis ..........................................................................................................
3
A.
Overall GEF Portfolio ..................................................................................................
3
B.
Growth of Portfolio and Disbursements .......................................................................
4
C.
Time from Allocation to Implementation .....................................................................
4
3.
2001 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW ....................................................................................
9
A.
Overview of Projects Covered in the Review and Trends ...........................................
9
B.
Ratings ..........................................................................................................................
11
C.
Portfolio Highlights by Focal Area ..............................................................................
14
1.
Biological Diversity ..........................................................................................
14
2.
Climate Change .................................................................................................
17
3.
International Waters ..........................................................................................
21
4.
Ozone Depletion ...............................................................................................
24
4.
SUMMARY OF RECENT EVALUATION FINDINGS ..............................................................................
25
A.
Biodiversity Program Study .........................................................................................
25
B.
Climate Change Program Study ...................................................................................
29
C.
International Waters Program Study ............................................................................
32
D.
Medium-Sized Projects Evaluation ..............................................................................
34
5.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE REVIEW ....................................................................................................
37
A.
Inherent Features of Success in Projects and Dealing with Risk .................................
37
B.
Engaging the Private Sector .........................................................................................
38
C.
Adaptive Management ­ Changes in Project Design ...................................................
39
D.
Replication, Catalytic Effect, Horizontal Exchanges, and Mutual Learning ...............
40
E.
Extension of the PIR/PPR Process ...............................................................................
40
F.
Other Matters ................................................................................................................
41
APPENDICE:
A.
List of Projects Included in 2001 PIR ..........................................................................
43
B.
Guidelines for the 2001 PIR .........................................................................................
51
C.
1.
United Nations Development Program PIR Overview .....................................
57
2.
United Nations Environment Program PIR Overview ......................................
65
3.
World Bank PIR Overview ...............................................................................
77
D.
List of Completed Projects as of June 30, 2001 ...........................................................
89
iii

---

iv

---

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This GEF Project Performance Report presents
change. As shown in Table 1, of the full
mainly the results of the 2001 Project Imple-
projects and MSPs, UNDP and the World
mentation Review (PIR), a monitoring process
Bank each implement 42 percent, while 8 per-
based upon reporting by the GEF implement-
cent are implemented by UNEP. Another 8
ing agencies. The report also draws upon addi-
percent have more than one implementing
tional information about the performance of
agency. The total funding for these projects
GEF programs and projects from evaluations
was US$3,313 million, of which 55 percent
and other studies. This broader focus provides
was allocated to World Bank projects, 30 per-
insights into important cross-cutting issues and
cent to UNDP projects, 5 percent to UNEP
lessons identified from implementation experi-
projects, and 10 percent to projects with mul-
ence. The Second Overall Performance Study
tiple implementing agencies. The enabling
(OPS2) of the GEF that was completed at the
activity projects were not included in the PIR.
end of 2001 is not reported upon here, as a sepa-
rate report on it has been published and dissemi-
During FY2001, 54 full projects, 33 MSPs,
nated widely.
and 76 enabling activity projects with total
GEF funding for $505.28 million were ap-
Following guidelines developed by GEF's Se-
proved. The value breakdown was $466.37
nior Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator,
million for full projects, $25.95 million for
each implementing agency prepared an analy-
MSPs, and $12.96 million for the enabling
sis of its GEF portfolio, an overview emphasiz-
activities. This compares with $485.1 million
ing key lessons and trends to date, and individual
approved for 40 full projects, 48 MSPs, and
reports on all ongoing full and medium-sized
35 enabling activities in the previous fiscal
projects that have been in implementation for at
year. Implementation of 18 projects was com-
least one year by June 30, 2001. The implement-
pleted in FY2001, compared with 27 projects
ing agencies rated each of the projects on two
in FY2000. Cumulative disbursements for the
aspects: implementation progress and the like-
entire GEF portfolio (including enabling ac-
lihood that the project's global environmental
tivities and project development funds) in-
objectives would be reached. In addition to sub-
creased during the FY2001 to $1,244 million,
mitting the reports to the GEF secretariat, the
up from $1,024 million in the previous fiscal
three implementing agencies also shared the re-
year. Disbursements in relation to commit-
sults of their reviews and the individual project
ments were 43 percent as of June 30, 2001,
reports with each other. These reports formed
down from 53 percent in 2000 and 46 per-
the basis for reviews during the autumn of 2001
cent in June 1999. Amounts disbursed for all
by GEF focal area interagency task forces in
GEF projects during FY2001 were $220.3
biological diversity, climate change, interna-
million, thus continuing the upward trend in
tional waters, and phase-out of ozone-depleting
disbursements that has been evidenced in all
substances (ODS). This present report has been
consecutive years. In 2001, the time between
prepared by the GEF Monitoring and Evalua-
work program allocation, final implementing
tion Unit.
agency approval (commitment), and the be-
ginning of project implementation for GEF
As of June 30, 2001, a total of 519 full and me-
projects increased somewhat.
dium-sized projects (MSPs) had been allocated
funding in approved GEF work programs. Ad-
The 2001 PIR includes 205 ongoing full and
ditionally, 394 enabling activity projects had
medium-sized projects that had been in imple-
been approved in biodiversity and climate
mentation for at least one year as of June 30,
v

---

2001. This continues the trend of a steady in-
on the first criterion, implementation progress,
crease in the portfolio under implementation,
are: HS=13%, S=76%, PS=7%, U=3%, and not
from 171 projects in 2000, 135 projects in
rated=2%. Ratings on development/global en-
1999, and 119 projects in 1998. As the GEF
vironment objectives were: HS=13%, S=76%,
portfolio continues to mature, more projects
PS=6%, U=3%, and not rated=2%. It was noted
come into the PIR. As in previous years, about
that the introduction of the category "Partially
half of the projects (51 percent or 103
Satisfactory" seems to be helpful to identify
projects) are in the biodiversity focal area.
those projects that are not quite performing to
With 63 projects or 31 percent of the total,
expectations. Concern was expressed about the
climate change is the second largest focal area
lack of connection that seems to exist in par-
in 2001 PIR. In addition, two projects cover-
ticular project PIRs between the descriptions of
ing multiple focal areas also contain issues
project progress and achievement and the rat-
under the climate change focal area. The 2001
ings. The M&E Unit identified 10 projects where
PIR portfolio includes 24 international wa-
there seems to be a discrepancy between the rat-
ters projects, or 11 percent of the total. A to-
ing and narrative assessments.
tal of 65 projects were included in the PIR
for the first time in 2001. This represents al-
It has been agreed by the GEF secretariat and
most one-third (32 percent) of the total 2001
the implementing agencies that the PIR process
PIR portfolio and implies a major renewal of
will be supplemented by other M&E tools. This
the portfolio. At the same time, 18 projects
is primarily a new review modality, termed the
(9 percent) were completed during the PIR
Secretariat Managed Project Review (SMPR).
period. The largest number of projects (22
In addition, the M&E Unit will further review
percent of the total) is in the Latin America
and utilize the implementing agencies' project
and the Caribbean region, followed by Asia
mid-term and terminal evaluations and initiate
(21 percent), Africa (20 percent), and the
selected impact evaluations as the portfolio
Europe and Central Asia region (17 percent).
matures.
The Middle East and North Africa region had
10 percent of the projects. Another 10 per-
The following general lessons emerge from the
cent were global or regional projects. The re-
review of the focal areas. In biodiversity, quan-
gional distribution varies somewhat by focal
tification of financial resources leveraged dur-
area.
ing project preparation and implementation is
difficult because of the difficulty of isolating the
The PIR is a monitoring tool which relies on
influence of GEF projects given the presence of
individual implementing agency reporting
a number of other contributing factors. The re-
and rating of project performance. The imple-
view found that a more careful assessment of
menting agencies rated their projects on two
sustainability risks during project design is
criteria: implementation progress and likeli-
needed, together with the inclusion of specific
hood of attaining development/global envi-
measures to facilitate financial sustainability.
ronment objectives. In order to seek
Furthermore, a strategy for ensuring
improvements in rating practices, a new cat-
sustainability of project outcomes after GEF
egory ­ Partially Successful (PS) ­ was added
funding ends should be explicitly included in the
to the ratings in 2001. This was utilized by
design of all projects. Projects in this year's PIR
the two UN agencies, while the World Bank
report again demonstrate that limited capacity
rated its projects according to the old rating
for project implementation is still a major con-
system consisting of Highly Satisfactory
straint to achieving project objectives but, this
(HS), Satisfactory (S), and Unsatisfactory
year, there are some concrete examples on how
(U). The category Highly Unsatisfactory (HU)
to overcome this problem. Where NGO capac-
was dropped as redundant. The "realism" of
ity is very weak in biodiversity conservation, an
the ratings system was discussed. The ratings
MSP can build capacity in areas such as com-
vi

---

munity participation in decision making, orga-
tained support from the recipient countries
nization/planning skills, and the forging of part-
often results in implementation delays and,
nerships locally, nationally, and internationally.
more importantly, failure to achieve the in-
The review concluded that a review of project
tended global environmental objectives. In
risk assessment modalities, tools, and method-
certain complex situations, it is not advis-
ologies should be conducted at each of the three
able to utilize single projects as the tool to
implementing agencies to extract lessons, expe-
address the targeted issues, but to use a se-
riences, and best practices. Most GEF projects
ries of projects in a programmatic frame-
have as one of their goals the generation of new
work. In these cases, indicators need to be
scientific information. The PIR identified a clear
developed that identify triggers when the
weakness in connecting scientific knowledge
project can move to a next stage. Sometimes,
with end users' needs. Incorporating local com-
the catalytic role of GEF is to foster politi-
munities and indigenous people's knowledge in
cal commitment and help countries and sec-
the design of the project may help identify areas
tors reach agreement on how best to achieve
that are likely to succeed as conservation areas.
sustainable development of a transboundary
water body. Participation of local commu-
The climate change projects in this PIR contain
nities and other stakeholders in project de-
a few good examples of replication as an ele-
velopment and implementation can be
ment of project implementation that seems to
effective for promoting understanding of and
have produced significant results. Replication
commitment to the project's objectives, but
through GEF-funded projects means incorporat-
it can also be time-consuming. It is impor-
ing elements to promote dissemination and learn-
tant to see participation and involvement of
ing so that other actors are encouraged to
multiple stakeholders as a "two-way street."
undertake and/or "scale up" the results achieved
The purpose of participation is not only to
through GEF-supported activities. There are
communicate project objectives to local popu-
varying levels of private sector involvement in
lations or to convince them that the objec-
GEF-financed projects, for example, awareness
tives are set correctly. Equally important is
raising, training and study tours, support of
learning from and getting the full support
"soft" business costs, capital subsidies, provi-
of local inhabitants, who have accumulated
sion of guarantees, and other forms of contin-
local knowledge that has to be taken into
gent financing. Projects demonstrate one or more
consideration. The international waters fo-
of the different types of private sector involve-
cal area has embarked on a systematic ef-
ment. Projects implemented through the Inter-
fort to promote horizontal linkages and
national Finance Corporation (IFC) demonstrate
mutual learning between projects. Efforts to-
how GEF resources can be applied towards re-
wards horizontal linkages and learning be-
ducing the "incremental risk" associated with
tween projects should be continued and
energy efficiency activities, and provide strong
strengthened.
examples for the private sector. Sound capacity
building, often over the longer term involving
In the ozone focal area, it was noted that ille-
political, institutional, and technical aspects,
gal trade in ozone depleting substances (ODS)
often leads to projects which have high degrees
remains an issue, but there are no clear rules
of leverage, replication, and policy influence.
under the Montreal Protocol on how these
While there is evidence of benefits to people and
seized quantities should be dealt with and ac-
communities under those projects that cater to
counted for. It was further noted that among
rural development needs, these experiences have
the 11 projects in the PIR portfolio, there is a
not yet been systematically documented.
wide range in cost-effectiveness. This indi-
cates the necessity for continuing to focus on
In the international waters focal area, it has
country and sector-specific strategies while
been proven in many cases that lack of sus-
providing support for mitigation of ODS.
vii

---

During 2001, program studies in the three
stantially addressed the issue of project
main GEF focal areas of biodiversity, climate
sustainability. Another 24 percent had partially
change, and international waters, as well as
addressed this issue, and, in 34 percent of the
an evaluation of the MSPs, were conducted.
projects, it was either not addressed or very
All of these evaluations were carried out by
poorly addressed. The Program Study recom-
interagency teams led by independent con-
mendations primarily relate to the four issues
sultants under the auspices of the M&E Unit.
that the report highlighted as needing attention:
The objective was to carry out comprehen-
achievement of objectives, project impacts on
sive evaluations of the experiences in the fo-
biodiversity, sustainability of project activities
cal areas, as well as provide evaluative
and gains, and learning from past lessons.
documentation on the program results and im-
pacts to the OPS2.
The Climate Change Program Study found that
GEF-financed projects have demonstrated im-
The Biodiversity Program Study found that a
portant and effective approaches for facilitating
very large portion of the projects assessed had
and accelerating greater demand for and supply
protected areas as their major focus. More
of energy-efficient manufactured products, par-
than half of such projects were assessed to
ticularly lights, but also refrigerators, motors,
have fully or mostly met their objectives, even
and building materials. Some project approaches
though they are invariably the most difficult
have resulted in sustained reductions in the price
and complicated types of projects to imple-
of the products and highly cost-effective abate-
ment. Furthermore, over half of the protected
ment of carbon emissions. Market gains for ef-
areas projects were assessed to have had com-
ficient lights, in particular, are being sustained
prehensive or partial stakeholder participa-
and replicated. GEF has facilitated implemen-
tion, some benefit-sharing activities, and
tation of important regulatory frameworks that
some measures for ensuring sustainability.
support grid-connected renewable energy, but
Nearly half of the projects working to estab-
only in two countries so far (Mauritius and Sri
lish biodiversity conservation and sustainable
Lanka). Other impacts have been limited to one-
regimes in production landscapes outside pro-
time technology demonstrations, research, and
tected areas had mostly achieved their objec-
increased skills and awareness. Rural applica-
tives, while the other half had only partly
tions of solar photovoltaics (PV) constitute the
achieved theirs. Overall, almost half the
largest single group of projects in the climate
projects reviewed had mostly achieved their
change portfolio. However, most of these
objectives or were found likely to achieve
projects have little or no implementation expe-
them. However, the other half of the projects
rience yet. Several business models and schemes
had achieved their objectives only partly or
to extend credit to businesses and consumers
minimally. There were many reasons that pre-
show promise of being sustainable and further
vented the full achievement of objectives, in-
replicated. Awareness of solar home systems is
cluding lack of implementation capacity,
increasing in several countries, and technical
unrealistic and over-ambitious objectives, and
standards are improving. The impact of projects
shortage of time and funds. For a large pro-
on rural electrification planning and policies has
portion of the GEF projects reviewed, it was
been small, but more recent projects are empha-
not possible to directly answer the question:
sizing these issues. Viable energy-service com-
What impact did they have on biodiversity?
panies (ESCOs) have been established in two
This was mainly because projects, for the
countries (Tunisia and China) as a result of GEF
most part, did not systematically collect the
projects. Projects for coal-bed methane, gas-
required information. Also, for most projects,
pipeline leakage repair, fuel switching, decen-
there was no baseline data against which the
tralized wind power, utility demand-side
current status could be compared. Only about
management, village-scale mini-grids, and dis-
10 percent of the projects reviewed had sub-
trict heating-efficiency improvements have all
viii

---

shown significant impacts and could all be rep-
The Medium-Sized Projects (MSPs) Evalua-
licated on larger scales and used as models for
tion found that it is too early in the imple-
ongoing and future GEF projects.
mentation of most MSPs to determine their
specific impacts on biodiversity conservation,
The International Waters Program Study con-
climate change, and international waters. In-
cluded that GEF's projects align well with the
terim or indirect indicators of progress were
strategic guidance adopted by the GEF Coun-
assessed in capacity development, innovation,
cil. The projects have made, and continue to
awareness raising, and prospects for
make, significant contributions to the imple-
sustainability and leverage. The most impor-
mentation of existing global and regional agree-
tant types of MSP leveraging have been co-
ments that address the protection and restoration
financing, scaling up, and replication, in
of freshwater and marine ecosystems, notably
addition to positive impacts on government
the Global Program of Action for the Protec-
policies with implications for global environ-
tion of the Marine Environment from Land-
mental issues. An encouragingly high propor-
Based Activities. GEF can be seen as a major,
tion of the MSPs that have reached advanced
or possibly the major, facilitator of the imple-
stages of implementation have made substan-
mentation and increased adoption of interna-
tial progress in these areas. MSPs are gener-
tional water laws, action plans, and regional
ally positively regarded by diverse
environmental protection agreements. The pro-
stakeholders, and the local and participatory
motion and sustenance of such regional agree-
emphasis of most MSPs has helped create
ments and their environmental protection
more favorable conditions for the achievement
activities is one of the measurable and concrete
of long-term environmental goals. From a
benefits of GEF international waters activities.
technical perspective, the planning of some
The study found, however, that overall project
MSPs could have benefited from more focus
performance varies among individual projects
on the specifics of project sustainability and
and operational programs. Most of the project
replication. The prevailing 2-3 year time
impacts, such as the improvement of the state
frame for MSPs is often too short, and few of
of ecosystem, are yet to be obtained. However,
the projects can be expected to achieve
important results have been achieved in pre-
sustainability in this time. Project developers
paring and planning political and scientific pro-
should be encouraged to plan implementation
cesses that are likely, under the right
over longer time frames if this suits local ab-
circumstances, to lead to impacts on the ground.
sorptive capacities and is likely to enhance
This is not surprising given the long time that
sustainability. While MSPs should not be uti-
is required to achieve actual improvements in
lized for project development, a second phase
the international waters environment. The re-
for promising MSPs should be permitted if
view of completed projects that was carried
the original MSP has been successful in reach-
out as part of the study showed, nevertheless,
ing its objectives, as is done with FSPs. While
that some present and future reductions in stress
there have been improvements in processing
on the marine environment can be directly at-
over time, reality has fallen far short of the
tributed to GEF projects. A review of demon-
expectations that MSPs would provide a rela-
stration projects found that these are generally
tively fast-moving and flexible funding op-
both well conceived and satisfy the criteria for
portunity. While some of the sources of delay
GEF support. The use of science-based
can and should be addressed as a matter of
transboundary diagnostic analyses (TDAs) as
priority, it is clear that some of the early ex-
a basis for facilitating countries' agreements
pectations for rapid MSP processing were
on joint remedial or preventive actions through
misplaced. The MSP portfolio contains many
strategic action programs (SAPs) should con-
complex projects that are a considerable chal-
tinue. However, where feasible, efforts should
lenge for their proponents and require a level
be made to shorten the time required for a TDA.
of management effort that is comparable to
ix

---

many larger projects. MSPs have clearly
contribute to project sustainability. The objec-
achieved the stated GEF Council objective of
tives, scope, and timing of a project should be
broadening the range of partners able to ac-
designed on a sound and reasonable basis. The
cess GEF resources. The wide variety of MSP
complexity of project design should be reduced
executing agencies includes a diverse range
to be within the capacity of project management.
of government agencies, NGOs, research in-
An appropriate policy, legal, and regulatory
stitutions, international and intergovernmen-
framework, including linkages with policies in
tal organizations, as well as the private sector.
other relevant sectors, is important to project
Private sector participation has been limited
implementation. It is important for the project
to very few projects, although it was signifi-
to have adaptability and flexible management
cant in these projects. Engaging this broad-
in order to adjust to the changing policy, legal,
ened range of partners has generated clear,
and regulatory framework. The implementation
positive benefits for the GEF agenda. The
of multicountry projects is often complicated by
MSP niche is clearly an important one in the
the number of legal agreements that have to be
GEF family.
signed with different entities. The criticality of
identifying and mitigating risk in projects was
The following cross-cutting issues were high-
recognized.
lighted specifically during the 2001 perfor-
mance review:
Engaging the Private Sector. Private sector
partnerships and mobilization of additional pri-
Inherent Features of Success in Projects
vate funding are seen as increasingly important
and Dealing with Risk. Good project design
for GEF as the role and opportunities for the
is seen as critical to project success. How-
private sector in addressing environmental is-
ever, there is a need to identify the features
sues is generally increasing. These types of part-
that specifically improve the delivery of glo-
nerships enhance the chances that a project will
bal environmental benefits. Securing active
be replicated and can create an appropriate en-
participation of all relevant stakeholders, in-
vironment for the project to be catalytic. In ad-
cluding communities, NGOs, national gov-
dition, partnerships created throughout the life
ernments, etc., is critical to project success.
of a project can increase participation, contrib-
Participation could be viewed as one of the
ute to sustainability, and facilitate vital commu-
important factors underlying the sustainability
nication networks and contacts that could not
of a project. Active participation should be
have been established within the usual time
ensured through the entire life of a project,
frame of the project.
beginning with the early stages of problem
identification and recognition and continuing
Adaptive Management ­ Changes in Project
through project implementation and impact
Design. It was broadly agreed that within a
evaluation. Long-term project objectives
project's overall and immediate objectives, flex-
should be balanced with meeting some of the
ible management in implementation is very de-
immediate needs of the stakeholders. Inad-
sirable, if this is a way to incorporate into the
equate capacity is often identified as a con-
project the context and realities in which the
straint to effective implementation and
project is operating. Project logical frameworks
sustainability of GEF projects. Experience to
should not be regarded as static documents,
date points to the value of the MSPs as an
but should be adapted and amended during the
effective instrument to support capacity de-
life of the project according to changing local
velopment. Closely related to active partici-
conditions and lessons learned. The need for
pation and capacity building is the need for
making changes in project design may stem
effective partnership to ensure project suc-
from a variety of sources, including changes
cess. Effective partnerships enhance partici-
in the external environment or faults in the origi-
pation, strengthen institutional capacity, and
nal design. Phased approaches to projects are
x

---

seen as one of the essential modalities to be
tation. The explicit replication strategy within
explored for introducing flexibility into project
a project should recommend supporting ac-
design and management. This would necessi-
tivities such as drawing out lessons learned
tate the careful development of indicators,
and best practices, enabling staff exchanges,
closely related to the objectives of the project,
and creating communication and dissemina-
the attentive monitoring of project progress,
tion strategies. While there are a number of
and the introduction of triggers that would
examples of horizontal exchanges and mu-
enable GEF to move into the next phase of the
tual learning in the PIR portfolio, this has been
project.
systematically undertaken only in the inter-
national waters focal area. GEF should build
Replication, Catalytic Effects, Horizontal Ex-
upon the experiences gained in the interna-
changes, and Mutual Learning. The impor-
tional waters program's ongoing projects,
tance of replication and catalytic effects by GEF
which can also provide lessons and models
projects was reaffirmed. The experience, how-
for other focal areas. Knowledge management
ever, shows that the factors and conditions that
systems being established by the M&E team
contribute to these vary between focal areas.
and the implementing agencies should em-
Replication has to be consciously designed as
phasize learning as well as modes and meth-
part and parcel of project design and implemen-
ods of encouraging replication.
xi

---

xii

---

1. INTRODUCTION
This GEF Project Performance Report presents
each of the projects on two aspects: implemen-
mainly the results of the 2001 Project Imple-
tation progress and the likelihood that the
mentation Review (PIR), a monitoring process
project's global environmental objectives would
based upon reporting by the GEF implement-
be reached.
ing agencies. The report also draws upon addi-
tional information about the performance of
In addition to submitting the reports to the GEF
GEF programs and projects from evaluations
secretariat, the three implementing agencies
and other studies. This broader focus provides
also shared the results of their reviews and the
insights into important cross-cutting issues and
individual project reports with each other. These
lessons identified from implementation expe-
reports formed the basis for reviews during the
rience. The Second Overall Performance Study
autumn of 2001 by GEF focal area interagency
(OPS2) of the GEF that was completed at the
task forces on biological diversity, climate
end of 2001 is not reported upon here, as a sepa-
change, international waters, and the phase-out
rate report on it has been published and dis-
of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). Follow-
seminated widely.
ing these focal area reviews, an interagency
meeting called by the Senior Monitoring and
PIRs are carried out annually by the GEF sec-
Evaluation Coordinator was held in Washing-
retariat and implementing agencies--United
ton, DC, on December 11, 2001. It focused on
Nations Development Programme (UNDP),
identifying cross-cutting issues based on the
United Nations Environment Programme
task force reviews.
(UNEP), and the World Bank--at the request
of the GEF Council. They have two purposes:
A large number of project managers and other
(i) to provide a comprehensive overview of the
staff from the implementing agencies and GEF
GEF project portfolio and trends in perfor-
secretariat contributed to the PIR process. The
mance and (ii) to highlight themes or issues that
individual 2001 project reports were based on
may lead to (a) refining the GEF operational
submissions by project managers and reviewed
programs, (b) improving project design and
by implementing agency headquarters staff.
management, (c) identifying scientific and tech-
Project managers from selected projects were
nical questions for further consideration, includ-
invited to participate in the task force meetings
ing by GEF's Scientific and Technical Advisory
as well as the interagency meeting to bring in
Panel (STAP), and (d) identifying lessons from
concrete experiences and insights from project
experience and topics for further exploration
implementation that have broader applicabil-
through evaluations and other studies.
ity to the GEF as a whole.
Following guidelines developed by GEF's Se-
This report, prepared by the GEF Monitoring
nior Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator,
and Evaluation (M&E) team is organized as
each implementing agency prepared an analy-
follows. Chapter 2 contains an analysis of
sis of its GEF portfolio, an overview empha-
GEF's active portfolio, including related finan-
sizing key lessons and trends to date, and
cial information up until June 30, 2001. Chap-
individual reports on all ongoing full and me-
ter 3 summarizes the 2001 PIR in sections that
dium-sized projects (MSPs) that had been in
cover the portfolio overview and trends, an
implementation for at least one year by June
analysis of the project ratings, and highlights
30, 2001. The implementing agencies rated
by focal area. Chapter 4 presents the main find-
1

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
ings of the evaluations carried out in 2001 by
ter 5 synthesizes the principal conclusions and
the GEF M&E team together with the GEF sec-
recommendations of this year's project perfor-
retariat and implementing agencies. The report
mance review. Annex A lists all projects that
contains summaries of the focal area program
were included in the 2001 PIR. Annex B con-
studies in biodiversity, climate change, and in-
tains the guidelines for carrying out the 2001
ternational waters, as well as an evaluation of
PIR. Annex C contains the overview reports by
the MSPs, that were carried out as detailed
each of the implementing agencies. Finally,
background studies in support of OPS2. Draw-
Annex D contains a list of all projects that have
ing upon the PIR and these evaluations, Chap-
been completed.
2

---

2. GEF PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS
A. OVERALL GEF PORTFOLIO
percent to UNEP projects, and 10 percent to
projects with multiple implementing agencies.
As of June 30, 2001, a total of 519 full and
The enabling activity projects were not included
medium-sized projects had been allocated
in the PIR.
funding in approved GEF work programs.
Additionally, 394 enabling activity projects had
Table 2 shows the distribution of the GEF
been approved in biodiversity and climate
portfolio by focal area as of June 30, 2001. By
change. As shown in Table 1, 42 percent of
value, 41 percent of the full and medium-sized
the full and medium-sized projects are
projects were in the biological diversity focal
implemented by both UNDP and the World
area and 36 percent in climate change. Together
Bank, while 8 percent are implemented by
these two focal areas thus constituted 77 percent
UNEP. Another 8 percent have more than one
of the total GEF funding. The international
implementing agency. The total funding for
waters focal area represented 14 percent, the
these projects was US$3,313 million, of which
ozone focal area 5 percent, and projects with
55 percent was allocated to World Bank
multiple focal areas 4 percent of the total value
projects, 30 percent to UNDP projects, 5
of GEF funding.
TABLE 1
GEF PROJECT ALLOCATIONS BY IMPLEMENTING AGENCY (AS OF JUNE 2001)
FSPs
MSPs
Enabling Activities
Implementing Agency
# Projects
US$ Million
# Projects
US$ Million
# Projects
US$ Million
UNDP
169
$944.0
47
$35.9
277
$74.4
UNEP
22
$141.6
20
$14.1
85
$26.3
World Bank
168
$1,799.7
52
$39.8
30
$11.5
Multiple IAs
39
$337.0
2
$1.5
2
$2.3
Total
398
$3,222.2
121
$91.2
394
$114.5
TABLE 2
GEF PROJECT ALLOCATIONS BY FOCAL AREA (AS OF JUNE 2001)
FSPs
MSPs
Total Allocations
Focal Area
# Projects
US$ Million
# Projects
US$ Million
%
US$ Million
Biodiversity
175
$1,294.2
75
$57.0
41
$1,351.2
Climate Change
140
$1,170.5
29
$21.4
36
$1,191.9
International Waters
53
$456.0
7
$5.5
14
$461.5
Ozone Depletion
17
$163.8
4
$2.9
5
$166.7
Multiple Focal Areas
13
$137.6
6
$4.5
4
$142.1
Total
398
$3,222.2
121
$91.2
100
$3,313.4
3

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
FIGURE 1
CUMULATIVE GEF PORTFOLIO ­ ALLOCATION, COMMITMENTS AND DISBURSEMENTS 1991-2001
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
$US Million 1500
1000
500
0
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Fiscal Year
Disbursements (cumulative)
Approved commitments (cumulative)
Work program allocations (cumulative)
B. GROWTH OF PORTFOLIO AND
FY2001 to $1,244 million, up from $1,024
million in the previous f iscal year1 .
DISBURSEMENTS
Disbursements in relation to commitments
were 43 percent as of June 30, 2001, down from
Figure 1 illustrates the growth of the entire GEF
53 percent the year before and 46 percent in
portfolio (including enabling activities and
June 1999. Amounts disbursed for all GEF
project development funds) by amounts
projects during FY2001 were $220.3 million,
allocated, committed, and disbursed from the
thus continuing the upward trend in
beginning of operations in June 1991 through
disbursements that has been evidenced in all
June 2001. During FY2001, 54 full projects,
consecutive years.
33 medium-sized projects, and 76 enabling
activity projects with total GEF funding of
$505.28 million were approved. The value
C. TIME FROM ALLOCATION TO
breakdown was $466.37 million for full
projects, $25.95 million for medium-sized
IMPLEMENTATION
projects, and $12.96 million for the enabling
activities. This compares with $485.1 million
Over the years, there has been repeated concern
approved for 40 full projects, 48 medium-sized
by GEF Council members and others about
projects, and 35 enabling activities in the
the long preparation time for GEF projects and
previous fiscal year. Implementation of 18
the lack of transparency and feedback during
projects was completed in FY2001, compared
the initial phases of the project cycle. The PIRs
with 27 projects in FY2000.
have been analyzing the average use of time at
the various early steps of project initiation.
Cumulative disbursements for the entire GEF
portfolio (including enabling activities and
For the World Bank GEF projects, the
project development funds) increased during
downward trend in elapsed time from GEF
1 Sources: 2000 Project Performance Report, GEF Projects ­ Allocations and Disbursement (R.3/Inf.3) and Global
Environment Facility Trust Fund Consolidated Financial Statement.
4

---

GEF Portfolio Analysis
FIGURE 2
AVERAGE TIME BETWEEN GEF ALLOCATION, COMMITMENT AND EFFECTIVENESS
FOR WORLD BANK PROJECTS, BY FISCAL YEAR OF COMMITMENT
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
FY92
FY93
FY94
FY95
FY96
FY97
FY98
FY99
FY00
FY01
Average time between GEF approval and commitment by World Bank
Average time between commitment (World Bank approval) and effectiveness
Average time between GEF approval and effectiveness
Council to Bank management approval was
exceeded the Bank standard but is an
reversed in 2000 and worsened in 2001. For the
improvement over 2000 and 1999 when the
17 full projects approved by the Bank's Board
average was approximately 7 months in both
in 2001, the average number of days since GEF
cases. However, this average masked wide
Council approval was 640 ­ 29 percent higher
variation. Six projects (55 percent) exceeded
than the 2000 figure of 496 days. Nine of the
the Bank standard, with an average elapsed time
projects approved in FY01 were in the range of
of 8 months. In contrast, the five projects that
600 to 1,454 days, and four of the five with the
were less than the Bank standard averaged less
longest delays were protected area projects.
than 2 months (54 days) in elapsed time. The
Protected area projects are particularly
reasons for the lengthy delays in effectiveness
complex, with features that usually require
appear to be project or country-specific rather
considerable time for preparation, such as
than systemic. These include the following:
resolution of resource management issues,
fulfillment of legal requirements set by the
participation strategies, and consensus building.
Bank, such as legislative actions, co-financing
arrangements, and appointment of key staff;
By focal area, there was little difference in
local elections and/or other changes in
elapsed time: 618 days for climate change (5
government that often affect project officials;
projects) and 590 days for biodiversity (11
lengthy local procedures for project approval;
projects). The single international waters
and establishment of institutional arrangements
project took 1,213 days due to country-specific
for project implementation. The main
circumstances. For the 14 MSPs approved in
characteristics of projects that became effective
2001, the time elapsed from Council approval
quickly included f irm ownership and
to World Bank management approval fell to 106
commitment by the country and the
days from 138 days in 2000.
establishment of a core project management
team by project appraisal.
Compared with the Bank service standard of 6
months, the average elapsed time for GEF
In the case of UNDP (Figure 3), the years since
projects from Board Approval to effectiveness
1995 have seen a significant decrease in the
was just over 5 months for the eleven FSPs that
average elapsed time from GEF Council
became effective in 2001. This not only
approval to the beginning of implementation
5

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
FIGURE 3
AVERAGE TIME BETWEEN GEF APPROVAL AND PROJECT AGREEMENT SIGNATURE
FOR UNDP GEF PROJECTS, BY FISCAL YEAR OF PROJECT AGREEMENT SIGNATURE
900
800
700
600
500
ys
Da
400
300
200
100
0
FY92
FY93
FY94
FY95
FY96
FY97
FY98
FY99
FY00
FY01
(project agreement signature). This trend has
Since the number of UNEP projects is rather
continued during FY2001. It took on average
limited, only aggregated analysis is possible.
333 days from GEF approval to project
Figure 4 shows an overall trend in processing
agreement signature for the 13 projects that
time for full projects. Data are basically
obtained UNDP project agreement signature in
averaged for every 2 years. There has been a
FY2001. This is a reduction of 30 days since
further decrease in UNEP's average processing
FY2000, and a reduction to less than half since
time, down to 230 days for 2001.
FY1995.
FIGURE 4
AVERAGE PROCESSING TIME FROM GEF APPROVAL TO PROJECT INTERNALIZATION
FOR UNEP GEF PROJECTS, BY YEAR
500
450
400
350
300
ys
250
Da
200
150
100
50
0
92-94
95-96
97-98
99-00
2001
Fiscal Year
6

---

GEF Portfolio Analysis
FIGURE 5
AVERAGE TIME BETWEEN GEF APPROVAL AND PROJECT INTERNALIZATION BY UNEP,
BY PROJECT TYPE (1992-2001)
350
300
250
200
150
verage Days
A
100
50
0
Full Projects (1)
Medium-Size Projects (2)
Enabling Activities (3)
Average (1+2+3)
Project Type
Figure 5 shows the difference in the processing
much shorter time is necessary for a medium-
time by project type. While on average 307 days
sized project (180 days) or an enabling activity
are necessary for a full project to be effected, a
(129 days).
7

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
8

---

3. 2001 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW
A. OVERVIEW OF PROJECTS
is usually a misrepresentation of the actual
COVERED IN THE REVIEW
coverage of ecosystems. This year an attempt
was made to classify the projects in more than
AND TRENDS
one operational program with one chosen as
the primary one. Most projects are still
The 2001 PIR includes 205 ongoing projects
classified under only one operational program
that had been in implementation for at least 1
but 20 projects were classified under multiple
year as of June 30, 2001. This continues a trend
operational programs. The operational program
of steady increases in the portfolio under
for forest ecosystems (OP3) contains the
implementation, from 171 projects in 2000, 135
biggest number of projects, followed by coastal,
projects in 1999, and 119 projects in 1998. As
marine, and freshwater ecosystems (OP2) and
the GEF portfolio continues to mature, more
arid lands (OP1). The mountain ecosystems
projects come into the PIR. Table 3 provides a
operational program (OP4) has the fewest
breakdown of the projects in 2001 PIR by focal
projects in 2001 PIR. Funding follows the same
area and implementing agency.
trends. The World Bank is the implementing
agency for over half (54 percent) of the
As in previous years, about half of the projects
biodiversity projects.
(51 percent or 103 projects) are in the
biodiversity focal area. It has been pointed out
With 63 projects, or 31 percent of the total,
in previous PIRs that the classification of
climate change is the second largest focal area
projects in biodiversity by operational program
in 2001 PIR. In addition, two projects covering
TABLE 3
2001 PIR PORTFOLIO BY FOCAL AREA (ONLY ONGOING PROJECTS)2
UNDP
UNEP
World Bank
Multi-IA
Total
No GEF Funding No GEF Funding
No GEF Funding
No GEF Funding
No
GEF Funding
Biodiversity
36
$159.13
7
$10.68
56
$340.60
4
$42.09
103
$553.16
(51%)
(43%)
Climate
36
$120.22
2
$1.44
25
$192.38
0
$85.96
63
$400.04
Change
(31%)
(31%)
International 10
$66.77
4
$18.60
8
$84.07
2
$27.68
24
$197.12
Waters
(11%)
(14%)
Ozone
7
$18.97
2
$1.35
2
$83.20
11
$103.52
(5%)
(8%)
Multiple
1
$31.62
2
$17.24
1
$3.51
4
$52.37
(2%)
(4%)
Total
90
$396.71
15
$32.07
93
$717.07
7
$159.24
205
$1,305.51
2 Projects that are implemented by multiple agencies are counted under the multi-IA category, and are not counted under a single IA to
avoid double counting.
9

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
multiple focal areas also contain issues under
change projects, and 56 percent of the
the climate focal area. Thirteen projects that
international waters projects were included in
were included in PIR 2000 are not included in
the PIR for the first time this year.
the cur rent PIR as these projects have
completed implementation or have been closed.
Table 5 shows the distribution of the 2001 PIR
There are 18 new projects that have entered the
portfolio by region. It shows that the largest
PIR 2001. In terms of numbers of projects,
number of projects (22 percent of the total) is
UNDP accounts for about 57 percent of the
in the Latin America and the Caribbean region,
portfolio, while the World Bank and IFC
followed by Asia (21 percent), Africa (20
account for another 40 percent of the portfolio;
percent), and the Europe and Central Asia
UNEP, with two projects, accounts for about 3
region (17 percent). The Middle East and North
percent of the portfolio. However, in terms of
Africa region had 10 percent of the projects.
GEF allocation, the World Bank and the IFC
Another 10 percent were global or regional
account for nearly 70 percent of the total,
projects. The regional distribution varies
followed by the UNDP with 30 percent. UNEP
somewhat by focal area. In biodiversity, almost
accounts for 0.4 percent of the total .
two-thirds of the projects are split between
Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa
The 2001 PIR portfolio includes 24
(31 percent and 28 percent, respectively),
international waters projects, or 11 percent of
followed by Asia (22 percent). The Middle East
the total. Proportionally, this is a major increase
and North Africa and the Europe and Central
from the 15 projects included in the previous
Asia regions have only 9 and 6 percent of the
year's PIR and a reflection of the maturing of
projects, respectively. In climate change, on the
the GEF international waters portfolio. Another
other hand, Asia is the largest region with 30
11 projects (5 percent of the total) are in the
percent of the projects. The other regions share
ozone focal area. Four projects, 2 percent of the
the remaining projects quite equally: Europe
total, are in multiple focal areas.
and Central Asia (17 percent), Africa (14
percent), Latin America and the Caribbean
A total of 65 projects were including in the PIR
(14 percent), and Middle East and North Africa
for the f irst time in 2001 (Table 4). This
(13 percent). One-fourth (26 percent) of the
represents almost one-third (32 percent) of the
international waters projects are global or
total 2001 PIR portfolio and implies a major
multiregional in scope. Of the remainder, the
renewal of the portfolio. At the same time, 18
Europe and Central Asian region takes another
projects (9 percent) were completed during the
fourth (26 percent), Latin America and the
PIR period. Thirty-three percent of the
Caribbean have 17 percent, Middle East and
biodiversity projects, 29 percent of the climate
North Africa 13 percent, and Africa and Asia
TABLE 4
THE 2001 PIR PORTFOLIO
Number of Projects
Percentage
New in 2001 PIR
Completed
Biodiversity
103
51
34
7
Climate Change
63
31
18
13
International Waters
24
11
13
5
Ozone
11
5
­
1
Multiple
4
2
­
­
Total
205
100
65
26
10

---

2001 Project Implementation Review
TABLE 5
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF 2001 PIR PROJECTS
Biodiversity
Climate
International
Ozone
Multiple
Total
2000 PIR
1999 PIR
Change
Waters
Depletion
Africa
29
9
2
40
23%
26%
(20%)
Asia
23
19
2
44
20%
24%
(21%)
Europe/
6
11
6
11
34
17%
16%
Central Asia
(17%)
Latin America/
32
9
4
1
46
19%
17%
Caribbean
(22%)
Middle East/
9
8
3
20
9%
7%
North Africa
(10%)
Global/
4
7
7
3
21
12%
10%
Multiregional
(10%)
Total
103
63
24
11
4
205
FIGURE 6
REGIONAL PERCENTAGE OF GEF PROJECTS IN PIR OVER YEARS (1999-2001)
30%
26%
25%
23%
22%
24%
20%
21%
20%
20%
17%
19%
17%
17%
15%
16%
12%
ercentage
P
10%
10%
10%
10%
9%
5%
7%
0%
1999 PIR
2000 PIR
2001 PIR
Africa
Asia
Europe/Central Asia
Latin America/Caribbean
Middle East/North Africa
Global/Multi-regional
9 percent each. In keeping with GEF's
the differences between the regions receiving
mandate, all of the ozone projects are in Europe
GEF projects have got smaller over the past 2
and Central Asia. As evident from Figure 6,
years.
11

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
B. RATINGS
rating system consisting of highly satisfactory
(HS), satisfactory (S), and unsatisfactory
The PIR is a monitoring tool that relies on
(U). The category highly unsatisfactory
individual implementing agency reporting
(HU) was dropped as redundant. It was
and rating of project performance. Over the
noted that the introduction of the category
years, there have been concerns over instances
"partially satisfactory" seems to be helpful to
of subjectivity between and sometimes within
describe those projects that are not quite
implementing agency rating. In order to seek
performing to expectations. The "realism" of
improvements in rating practices, a new
the ratings system was discussed. The M&E
category--partially successful (PS)--was
Unit pointed to what it perceived as lack of
added to the ratings in 2001. This was utilized
concurrence between the narrative description
by the two UN agencies, while the World
of project achievement and the ratings in 10
Bank rated its projects according to the old
projects.
TABLE 6
RATINGS ON DEVELOPMENT/GLOBAL OBJECTIVE
HS (2001)
S (2001)
PS (2001)
U (2001)
Not rated
Biodiversity
14 (13%)
79 (76%)
4 (4%)
4 (4%)
2 (3%)
Climate Change
10 (16%)
47 (75%)
3 (5%)
1 (2%)
2 (3%)
Int'l Waters
1 (4%)
19 (76%)
5 (16%)
1 (4%)
Multiple
1 (25%)
3 (75%)
Total
26 (13%)
148 (76%)
12 (6%)
6 (3%)
4 (2%)
UNDP
9 (11%)
64 (77%)
4 (5%)
2 (2%)
4 (5%)
UNEP
3 (22%)
8 (62%)
2 (16%)
World Bank
9 (10%)
73 (85%)
1 (2%)
3 (3%)
Multi-IA
4 (29%)
7 (50%)
3 (21%)
Note: Ozone projects were not rated according to this system and are not included.
TABLE 7
RATINGS ON IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS
HS (2001)
S (2001)
PS (2001)
U (2001)
Not rated
Biodiversity
13 (13%)
77 (74%)
6 (6%)
2 (4%)
2 (3%)
Climate Change
8 (12%)
48 (76%)
4 (6%)
3 (5%)
Int'l Waters
3 (12%)
18 (72%)
4 (13%)
1 (3%)
Multiple
1 (25%)
3 (75%)
Total
25 (13%)
146 (76%)
13 (7%)
6 (3%)
3 (2%)
UNDP
7 (8%)
65 (79%)
9 (11%)
1 (1%)
1 (1%)
UNEP
4 (31%)
5 (38%)
4 (31%)
World Bank
10 (12%)
67 (78%)
9 (10%)
Multi-IA
5 (36%)
8 (57%)
1 (7%)
Note: Two biodiversity projects are missing statistics (101 projects were put in the table). Ozone projects were not rated according to this
system and are not included.
12

---

2001 Project Implementation Review
Figure 7 shows the trends in ratings over the
a suitable project manager--a task that was still
past few years. The 2001 data use the
incomplete in June 2001. Three projects were
development/global objective rating.
rated "unsatisfactory" during PIR 2000, but
have improved to a "satisfactory"/"partially
Projects with Unsatisfactory Ratings. In the
satisfactory" rating in PIR 2001. Concerning
case of biodiversity, three projects were rated
implementation progress, three projects were
unsatisfactory on both implementation progress
rated unsatisfactory, and four projects were
and development/global objectives. In
rated partially satisfactory.
one project, the site has been chosen for
resettlement, and there is political unrest in the
In the international waters focal area, two
area. This caused suspension of disbursements
projects have improved their ratings from
to the country. In another project, the authorities
"unsatisfactory" to "satisfactory" since the
in the country did not pass the critical
2000 PIR. One project was also rated
legislation to benefit the GEF biodiversity
"unsatisfactory" the previous year, due to
objectives. In a third, there had been poor
mismanagement that was confirmed by a fraud
performance of the livelihood component of the
and corruption investigation. The former
project, and a portion of the GEF grant was
project management unit was disbanded. One
cancelled. In another two projects, there were
project was upgraded from "unsatisfactory" to
delays in project start-up due to unresolved
"satisfactory" because the government has
legal issues, and the projects were rated
taken action to improve financial management
unsatisfactory in their implementation progress.
and opened a cash accounts in local commercial
banks to facilitate procurement at the local
In climate change, one project was rated
level.
unsatisfactory during both 2000 and 2001 with
regard to the likelihood of reaching the global
Only one project was rated "unsatisfactory" on
environmental objectives. This is due to delays
implementation progress. The M&E Unit
at the executing agency in identifying and hiring
questioned whether it is realistic to expect this
FIGURE 7
TRENDS IN PIR PROJECT RATINGS, 1998-2001
80
76
70
64
59
61
60
50
r
t
f
olio
o
40
28
29
30
24
% of PIR P
20
13
13
9
10
6
6
7
3
2
0
1998 (119 Projects)
1999 (135 Projects)
2000 (171 Projects)
2001 (205 Projects)
HS
S
PS
U/HU
Not rated
13

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
project to reach its global objectives of stabilizing
activities projects not approved under expedited
the environment and improving the management
procedures), with a total of $553.16 in GEF
of international waters because the project's
funding. The list of projects is included as
focus has been moving from the environmental
Annex A. This compares to 83 projects included
objectives towards sustainable irrigation.
in the 2000 PIR, 67 in the 1999, and 57 in 1998
reviews. A total of 34 projects or $101.30
In addition, there were five projects that have
million (33 percent and 18 percent respectively)
been rated "partially successful" on one or both
are included in the PIR 2001 process for the
criteria of achievement of global environment
first time. In fiscal year 2001,seven projects
objectives and implementation progress. A
(three World Bank, two UNDP, one UNEP, and
project has taken longer than originally planned
one UNDP/UNEP) were completed, accounting
to enter into its full-scale implementation stage.
for $28.83 million. These completed projects
This has been mainly due to its size and
are included in PIR 2001. About 45 percent of
complexity. In addition, institutional aspects
the funding in the GEF work program is
required more time than expected for
allocated to projects with less than 1 year of
discussions, consensus building, planning, and
implementation, which, therefore, are not yet
securing the required official approvals.
included in the PIR process.
Also two other projects have suffered from
As it has been in previous years, about two-
institutional changes in the country that
thirds of GEF funding for biodiversity
prevented the project activities from starting
conservation and sustainable use in this PIR
promptly and in a smooth and coordinated way.
period is implemented through the World
Further, the national responsibility for the
Bank, accounting for about half of the projects
projects moved from the secretariat of water
($340.60 million; 56 projects). About 30
resources to the newly established water agency,
percent of the funding is implemented by
thereby affecting the national support for the
UNDP ($159.13 million; 36 projects) and 2
projects.
percent by UNEP ($10.68 million; seven
projects).
The rating in one project shifted in 2001 from
"satisfactory" to "partially satisfactory"
It has been pointed out in numerous occasions
concerning the achievement of its global
and in previous PIRs that the classification of
environment objective. This reflected the
biodiversity projects by OPs is usually a
complexity of implementing selected
misrepresentation of the actual coverage of
components on a regional scale and the
ecosystems. In the last year, the GEF secretariat
difficulty of realizing tangible outputs within
has tried to classify the projects using one OP
a 1-year time frame.
as the primary with other OPs as applicable.3
Most projects are still classified under one OP
C. PORTFOLIO HIGHLIGHTS BY
but 20 or so were classified under more than
one OP. In any case, the forests ecosystem
FOCAL AREA
seems to still attract more than one-third of the
projects in this year's biodiversity PIR, followed
1. BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
by the coastal, marine, and freshwater OP and
the arid and semi-arid ecosystems OP. Funding
The PIR 2001 biodiversity portfolio includes
follows the same trends.
103 projects (full, medium-sized, and enabling
3 Work is presently underway on indicators to classify projects according to the actual ecosystem in which they are making an intervention.
14

---

2001 Project Implementation Review
Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and
management structure, the project closes,
Asia received about the same number of
external support to the protected area ends,
projects (about 30), although Asia still receives
and the government is usually unable to
the greatest percentage of funding (34 percent).
afford sustaining the management effort.
The average size of projects in Asia and the
During project preparation of most
Europe and Central Asia region are greater than
projects, it is assumed that it will be
all other regions (more than $6 million
possible to mobilize follow-up donor or
compared to $5 million). As expected, the
government support, but a signif icant
number of projects from the Pilot Phase
number of projects are experiencing
(FY91­94) is decreasing relative to previous
difficulties achieving this. The review
PIRs. About 80 percent of the projects and 70
meeting found that a more careful
percent of the funding were approved after the
assessment of sustainability risks is needed
GEF was restructured (FY95).
during project design, together with the
inclusion of specific measures to facilitate
Lessons. The following paragraphs present a
financial sustainability. Furthermore, a
summary of several issues that were discussed
strategy for sustaining project outputs and
during the biodiversity PIR 2001 task force
outcomes after GEF funding ends should
meeting held on November 19, 2001. It was
be explicitly included in the design of all
agreed by this group that not all issues should
projects.
have new recommendations or follow-up
actions at this point.
Enhancing local capacity for project imple-
mentation. Projects in this year's PIR re-
Leveraging financial resources. As stated
ports demonstrate again that limited
in previous PIRs, quantifying financial
capacity for project implementation is still
resources leveraged during project
a major problem in achieving project ob-
preparation and implementation is difficult
jectives. However, this year, there are some
because of the challenge of isolating the
concrete examples on how to improve ca-
influence of GEF projects with the presence
pacity. Some projects have reported that
of a number of other contributing factors.
capacity building is now integrated as a
The World Bank reported that there are
project component. MSPs are reported to
more cases of projects leveraging
be considered an effective instrument in
additional resources in biodiversity than in
supporting the development of NGO capac-
climate change. Some of the most
ity for project implementation and strength-
prominent examples include leveraged
ening the cooperation between the
resources for seed funds and funding to
government sector and civil society. Where
replicate GEF activities. In a number of
NGO capacity is very weak in biodiversity
projects in the UNDP/GEF portfolio,
conservation, an MSP can build capacity
"leveraging tasks" have been added during
in areas such as community participation
implementation as a core project function
in decision making, organization/planning
or as fundraising strategies. The World
skills, and the forging of partnerships lo-
Bank observed that conventional 5-year
cally, nationally, and internationally.
biodiversity conservation projects often
have difficulty in mobilizing donor support
Assessing political, institutional, and
to sustain their achievements. A typical 5-
economic risks. Particular issues regarding
year protected area management project
risk assessment were identified in this
develops a sound management plan for the
year's PIRs: (1) a more careful attempt
area and initiates an effective management
should be made to address some of these
program. But having established a
risks prior to implementation, i.e., where
15

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
policy and legal/regulatory changes are
between scientists and end users of
identified as critical to a project outcome,
biodiversity. Participating scientists gravi-
approval can be made a condition of
tated towards their professional interests
appraisal, as is presently being done with
and postponed establishing critical linkages
several protected area projects; (2) if
with end users of biodiversity information.
NGO management capacity is weak, the
The Alien Species project (UNEP) is an-
project design could be phased to
other example of a successful project
accommodate this, or a programmatic
that has being instrumental in generating
approach could be adopted and a precursor
highly scientific material (i.e., best prac-
project implemented first; (3) specific
tices to prevent, control, and eradicate alien
mitigation measures need to be identified
species that threaten biodiversity). The
at appraisal and closely monitored during
project developed various publications and
implementation; (4) if these are not
outputs but has encountered several chal-
effective, alternative approaches need to be
lenges to disseminate its outputs and reach
devised in a timely manner; and (5) when
end users.
unexpected risks arise, mitigation measures
have to be quickly formulated and agreed
Working with communities and providing
with government, and if necessary, high
benefits to stakeholders. Incorporating
level intervention may be required. The
local communities and the knowledge of
review meeting concluded that (1) a review
indigenous people in the design of projects
of project risk assessment modalities, tools,
may help identify areas that are likely to
and methodologies should be conducted at
succeed as conservation areas. For ex-
each of the three implementing agencies
ample, spiritual and cultural beliefs can
to extract lessons, experiences, and best
be powerful driving forces for conserva-
practices, and (2) the biodiversity task force
tion, as presented in the South Pacific
should discuss this topic further in one of
Biodiversity Conservation program
its regular meetings.
(UNDP). Participation modalities of lo-
cal communities in project implementation
Connecting scientific knowledge with end
need to reflect local communities' needs
users' needs. Most GEF projects have the
and agendas. For example, local commu-
generation of new scientific information
nities participating in the Costa Rica
as one their goals. The PIR identified a
Conservation of Biodiversity Corridor
clear weakness in connecting scientific
(UNDP) project expressed that they have
knowledge with end users' needs. GEF
to gain some benef its from participating
projects need to be structured to ensure that
in a project because a one-day workshop
practical applications are fully accom-
means a day without working and earn-
plished, when applicable, based on the
ing income. Involving project stakeholders
scientific information. SABONET (UNDP),
in the development and implementation
considered a successful project in South-
of biodiversity projects is time-consum-
ern Africa, was designed and managed by
ing, particularly when there has been a
botanists wanting to transfer knowledge
less than optimal relationship between
from South Africa to scientists and end
governments and communities in the past.
users of biodiversity information in nearby
Several projects this year conclude that
countries. The project is in its last year and
the typical approach of consultation-
has been widely sued to train staff from
centered work with communities is some-
participating institutions and strengthen
times inadequate, but a longer term
scientific institutions, but it still has to
perspective toward participation would be
show that it can effectively bridge the gap
an improvement over one-time consulta-
16

---

2001 Project Implementation Review
tion events. Alternative livelihood activities
The oldest project (in terms of elapsed time
compensate local natural resources users
since entry into the GEF work program) is the
for reducing extraction rates and conserv-
India Optimizing Development of Small Hydel
ing biodiversity. Although all projects
Resources in Hilly Areas project, which is being
support some alternative livelihood, not
implemented through the UNDP; this project
all interventions create sufficient enabling
entered the work program in December 1991
conditions for them. Experiences docu-
and has been under implementation since
mented in this year's PIRs indicate that
March 1994.
people want to see significant improve-
ments in their livelihoods as a condition
In terms of numbers of projects, UNDP accounts
for collaborating in conservation activi-
for about 57 percent of the portfolio, while the
ties. While UNDP reports that projects
World Bank/IFC account for another 40 percent
should have significant short-term gains
of the portfolio; UNEP, with two projects,
for the communities, the World Bank
accounts for about 3 percent of the portfolio.
claims that short-term benefits, specifi-
However, in terms of GEF allocation, the World
cally the provision of handouts, should
Bank/IFC account for nearly 70 percent of total,
not be the primary incentive for partici-
followed by the UNDP with 30 percent. UNEP
pation, if long-term sustainability is to be
accounts for 0.4 percent of the total.
achieved. These are pursued further in two
ongoing evaluations: "Financial arrange-
Geographically, while the Europe and Central
ments for sustainability in biodiversity
Asia and the East Asia and Pacific regions
conservation" and "Social impacts of GEF
account for the largest (11 each) share of
projects."
projects, East Asia accounts for the largest share
(nearly 30 percent) of GEF allocation, followed
by Global projects (20 percent). Further
2. CLIMATE CHANGE
analysis shows that OP 5 projects in the East
The PIR 2001 includes 63 projects in the
Asia and Pacific region account for nearly 18
climate change focal area covering operational
percent of the total GEF allocation, followed
programs 5, 6, 7, and 11; enabling activities;
by OP 6 global projects (15 percent).
and short-term response measures.4 In addition,
The main issues covered during the PIR were:
two projects covering multiple focal areas--
Small and Medium Enterprises 1 and 2
Evidence of Replication and Influence on
implemented through the World Bank/IFC, and
Policy. Encouraging replication through GEF
Oaxaca Hillside Management implemented
projects is the key to achieving the catalytic
through the World Bank--also contain issues
function of the GEF. Replication through GEF-
under the climate focal area.
funded projects means incorporating elements
in projects to promote dissemination and
The 63 projects account for a total GEF
learning so that other actors are
allocation of $400 million; with co-financing,
encouraged to undertake or "scale up"
the total cost comes to $1.92 billion. Thirteen
the results achieved through GEF-
projects that were included in PIR 2000 are not
supported activities. Such replication may occur
included in the current PIR as these projects
through government funding, donor support
have completed implementation or have been
from other bilaterals and multilaterals,
closed. There are 18 new projects that have
investment by the private sector, user fees, etc.
entered the PIR 2001.
4 The PIR 2000 included 58 projects in the climate change focal area.
17

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
Climate change projects in this PIR contain a
key to replication of the energy service
few good examples of replication as an element
company (ESCO) concept in China. Under the
of project implementation that seems to have
project, being implemented through the World
produced significant results. Two are described
Bank, three energy management companies
below.
(EMCs) have been established and have entered
into 173 performance contracts for an aggregate
According to the PIR documentation, the In-
investment of $33.7 million. The dissemination
dia Optimizing Developing of Small Hydel
component has produced several information
Resources in Hilly Areas project has demon-
products, including news articles and
strated influence on national policy on small
brochures, and has utilized a variety of
hydro projects in India. The demonstration
channels, such as its website, newspapers, and
projects under the GEF-financed project have
technical magazines, to disseminate them. This
established technologies for small hydro--20
has created widespread awareness of and
demonstration projects in all, accounting for a
interest in the energy management company
total of 5,750 KW, of which seven are grid-con-
concept in China and paved the way for a
nected and 13 are stand-alone/local-grid. It has
national replication program that is currently
also been established that projects up to 100
being prepared. For example, seven to eight
KW can be synchronized with the grid. The
ESCOs have been established, while another 50
project has demonstrated a strong replication
are under consideration.
effect after a long period of little progress in
implementation. Thirteen states in India have
Private Sector Involvement. There are varying
announced their policies to invite the private
levels of private sector involvement in GEF-
sector to set up small hydro projects. Twenty-
financed projects ­ awareness raising, training
six agreements and 180 MOUs have been
and study tours, support of "soft" business
signed in the State of Himachal Pradesh alone
costs, provision of guarantees and other forms
for operations by the private sector. The Minis-
of contingent financing, capital subsidies, etc.
try of Non-conventional Energy Sources
Projects demonstrate one or more of the
(MNES) is targeting a capacity addition of 800
different types of involvement. The PIR 2001
MW in small hydro in the next 5 years. The
climate change portfolio contains projects that
balance between a decentralized and central-
demonstrate these different levels of
ized approach to implementation--focusing the
engagement with the private sector. Some
project activities in a few states with hilly re-
examples are described below.
gions in India, while at the same time
maintaining the MNES and IREDA as liaison
The UNEP-implemented Redirecting Com-
points in the central government--seems to
mercial Investment Decisions to Cleaner
have aided replication efforts immensely. The
Technologies project is a good example of pro-
small hydro center at Roorkee University,
viding GEF support for upfront "soft" business
AHEC, was strengthened under the project and
costs instead of a capital subsidy to deal with
became a strong catalyst working with a vari-
barriers to entry of commercially viable trans-
ety of stakeholders. Thus after several years
actions. The Investment Advisory Facility (IAF)
during which the project had built capacity and
established in 1999 under this MSP provides
established sound technical models but had very
banks and financiers with targeted expertise and
little to show for impact, it is now beginning to
support to evaluate proposals in the sustainable
influence the development of small hydro
energy sector and to help these institutions
policy in a significant way in India.
develop the skills to evaluate such projects in-
dependently. The IAF has supported 11
The China Energy Conservation Project
investment evaluations at a cost of about
includes an information component that was
$340,000 to the project. The gross value of these
18

---

2001 Project Implementation Review
proposed investments is about $218 million. It
towards reducing the "incremental risk"
is hoped that at least 30 percent of these pro-
associated with energy efficiency activities and
posed investments are realized.
can provide strong examples for the private
sector. For example, in Hungary, the Hungary
In the China Energy Conservation project three
Energy Efficiency Co-financing Program
demonstration energy management companies,
(HEECP) provided an incentive for commercial
through implementation of 173 (100 last year)
banks to make loans for energy efficiency
projects, have successfully pioneered energy
investments, a new area of business for
performance contracting in China through the
Hungarian banks. The incentive takes the form
use of the IBRD loan. These projects amount
of a loan guarantee covering up to 50 percent
to $33.7 million. The investments account for
of the loans made at commercial rates to energy
abatement of about 330,000 tons of CO . Two
service companies (ESCOs) or to end users in
2
of the three EMCs seem to be sustainable since
the public and private sector for energy
they have already demonstrated their
efficiency enhancement investments. Following
profitability.
the successful demonstration of this project, a
local district utility has established its own
Projects implemented through the IFC
guarantee program for its customers based on
demonstrate how GEF resources can be applied
the project model and utilizing its own
BOX 1: RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS IN SRI LANKA ­ FACILITATING THE PRIVATE SECTOR
Two projects in the portfolio demonstrate the synergies that can be built between the comparative
advantages of the different GEF implementing agencies. The Sri Lanka Renewable Energy
and Energy Capacity Building project, being implemented through UNDP, aims to build up the
professional design and implementation capacity of renewable energy technology and energy
efficiency industry. The Sri Lanka Energy Efficiency Management Association (SLEEMA), an
industry association, was established under the project. The project has provided training for
local engineers and technicians in wood gasification technology and wind and mini-hydro turbine
technology, and in theoretical and practical aspects of efficient use of energy in industry. Several
proposals emanating from this capacity building activity have been supported under the World
Bank-implemented Sri Lanka Energy Services Delivery project, under which 16 mini-hydro
projects, totaling 29.6 MW capacity, have been developed by 11 different developers; more
than 30 MW will be produced through 9 projects under preparation by 6 different developers.
The mini-hydro component in this project illustrates the necessity of clear price signals for
long-term sustainable development of markets. Tariffs were tied to the short-run, avoided utility
costs based on the international price of oil. In 1997 and 1998, tariffs were set at the equivalent
of 5 cents/KWh, and mini-hydro development flourished. During the downturn in oil prices in
1998-99, the tariffs were the equivalent of 3.5 cents/KWh, and as a result all development
essentially stopped in 1999. The fluctuation has seriously hurt the sustainable development
prospects of a market for mini-hydros in Sri Lanka.
A 3MW wind-farm continues to operate satisfactorily, and private developers are seriously
investigating other sites to establish another 22.5 MW. A key innovation of the project has been
the involvement of micro-finance institutions in the provision of providing outreach for solar
home system consumer loans; one micro-finance institution has now been upgraded to a
participating credit institution to access the credit line directly.
19

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
resources. This replaces an earlier program
demonstration projects of technologies and
where the utility provided grants to its
business models.
customers for insulation upgrades. The IFC-
implemented Efficient Lighting Initiative (ELI)
One of the key achievements of the project is
is a partnership project that seeks a long-term
the establishment of the China Renewable En-
and sustained impact on markets by increasing
ergy Industries Association (CREIA). CREIA
demand, capital accessibility, product
has exceeded expectations and become a ma-
availability, and competition to produce
jor catalytic force in project implementation. It
downward pressure on prices. The program--
has reinforced its staff and become a recognized
while being implemented in seven countries:
player within the domestic and international
Argentina, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia,
renewable energy communities. More than 40
Peru, Philippines, and South Africa--benefits
major Chinese renewable energy companies are
from cross-fertilization from a global set of
now members of the association. CREIA staff
principles, facilitated by an ELI toolkit. One of
are being trained at the U.S. National Renew-
the highlights of ELI is an M&E function that
able Energy Laboratory (NREL) in order to
is integrated into program implementation. ELI
reinforce CREIA's capacity in the development
has leveraged substantial in-kind and direct
of its Investment Opportunity Facility (IOF).
investments from utility and lighting industry
CREIA's business plan is being reinforced with
companies.
the help of a specialized external consultant.
The ability to influence energy policy in China
Capacity Building. As seen from the previous
has been considerably enhanced because of
examples, sound capacity building, often
CREIA's access to the government on behalf
involving political, institutional and technical
of the renewable energy industry; in addition,
aspects over the longer term, may lead to
there is access through the project to the advi-
projects that have high degrees of leverage,
sory group and the China Council on
replication, and influence on policy. A
International Cooperation on Environment and
particularly outstanding example of capacity
Development.
building is the China Capacity Building for
Rapid Commercialization of Renewable Energy
The project has developed new partnerships
project.
with the United Nations Foundation (UNF) and
the EU. The main benefit of the project is its
The goal of the project is the widespread
position as an interface between national policy
adoption of renewable energy technologies in
development and local implementation, in
China by removing a range of barriers to
which it feeds the results of project experience
increase their market penetration. One of the
to the central government regarding what
major objectives is the strengthening of national
approaches are effective and workable as
capacity involving: (i) information and
practical policy initiatives, for example, a power
awareness--creating resource assessments and
purchase agreement for the sale of electricity
technology inventories, market surveys and
from the Dengta Livestock Farm to the local
business opportunities, and international best
utility company.
practices; and (ii) enabling environment--
helping develop supportive policy, sustainable
Social Impact. While there is evidence of
business models for village power systems, and
benefits to people and communities under those
risk mitigation. The project has done this
projects that cater to rural development needs,
through a combination of top-down and bottom-
these experiences have not been systematically
up approaches, combining sector studies,
documented. There are a cluster of projects in
guidebooks, national workshops/seminars, and
this PIR that could provide some insight into
policy recommendations with f ield-level
this issue.
20

---

2001 Project Implementation Review
The Sudan Rangeland Management Project,
through the purchase and proper use of
which has completed implementation, shows a
improved biomass and kerosene stoves was the
3 tons/hectare increase in carbon sequestered
key to the project's success in reducing carbon
in the project management area, compared to
dioxide emissions and wood-fuel consumption.
non-project sites. The project also documents
a very positive impact on local communities in
The Senegal Participatory Energy Management
terms of non-agriculture-based income
project aims to bring 300,000 hectares of
generation activities, such as sheep fattening,
natural forests under community control,
handicrafts, sewing, etc. This has resulted in
produce fuel-wood sustainably for urban
demand for similar activities under other
markets, and help meet the demand for
development projects in the area.
household fuels without loss of forest cover or
biodiversity. Among other activities, the project
The Benin Participatory Management of
promotes fuel substitution and use of improved
Forests and Village Reforestation for Carbon
stoves and supports micro-enterprises (e.g.,
Reduction, which completed implementation in
beekeeping, animal husbandry, f irebreak
1998, offers another example of local benefits
creation) for generating income for women and
provided by a GEF project. The final evaluation
women's groups.
notes that the "feeling among village residents
that there is concern for improving their living
3. INTERNATIONAL WATERS
conditions, and not only for achieving an
objective external to their concerns, largely
The international waters portfolio included in
explains their enthusiasm for total involvement
the 2001 PIR contained a total of 24 projects.
in project activities." 5 The evaluation report
This is a significant increase from last year
underscored the importance of social benefits,
when only 15 projects were covered in the PIR.
but viewed it as outside the scope of the
The increasing number of projects reflects the
evaluation. It did, however, provide a list of
maturing of GEF's international waters
activities that provided economic benefits under
portfolio. Similarly, GEF funding for the
the project--offering poles for sale, making
projects included in the 2001 PIR is
soap from karate, spreading manure,
significantly higher than in 2000, $197.12
establishing anti-erosion barriers or dikes of
million, as compared with $142.2 million the
plant material, planting nurseries and vegetable
previous year. The international waters projects
gardens. An important innovation cited in the
in the 2001 PIR portfolio have attracted $287.46
evaluation was the project's emphasis on
million in co-financing from the implementing
building a regular consultation and feedback
agencies and other partners. The new character
mechanism.
of the 2001 PIR international waters portfolio
can be seen in the fact that 13 of the 24
The Mali Household Energy project has been
projects--or 56 percent of the total--are
identified as providing some good practices in
included in the PIR for the first time. Older
community participation. The project
projects are gradually being closed: f ive
demonstrated that it is feasible to restructure
projects were completed since the 2000 PIR.
the fuel-wood trade by devolving control of
This year, only two projects--Egypt: Lake
natural resources to local communities and
Manzala Engineered Wetlands (UNDP) and
eliminating the existing market failure through
Regional: Eastern Caribbean Ship-Generated
the creation of rural markets. The incentive for
Waste Management (World Bank)--originated
households to reduce their energy expenditures
from the Pilot Phase.
5 Samir Amous, et al, Nov 1998, Project Evaluation Report.
21

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
UNDP had the largest number (10) of projects
commitment and help countries and sectors
in the PIR portfolio, followed by the World
reach agreement on how best to achieve
Bank (8) and UNEP (4). Two of the projects
sustainable development of a transboundary
are implemented by all three implementing
water body.
agencies. However, when ranked by both GEF
funding and co-financing, the World Bank's
From this point of view, the 2001 PIR
portfolio is largest. Six of the projects, or
international waters portfolio presents cases of
approximately one-fourth, are in Eastern
both successes and possible failures that can
Europe and Central Asia. The Latin America
be primarily related to the level of country
and Caribbean region follows with four
commitment. The Preparation of Strategic
projects. Three are in the Middle East and North
Action Program (SAP) and Transboundary
Africa region, while there are two each in Sub-
Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) for the Tumen River
Saharan Africa and in Asia. In addition, another
Area, Its Coastal Region, and Related
six projects are global or multiregional in scope.
Northeast Asian Environment (UNDP) has
Looking at the dollar figures shows that the
endeavored to obtain country commitments and
Africa region is leading with 20 percent of GEF
involve provincial governments in project
funding. Next is the Europe and Central Asia
formulation and design at early stages of the
region, with $35.95 million in GEF funding,
project. It secured more than $2 million in co-
accounting for 19 percent. However, this
financing from national governments. However,
region's projects have leveraged the highest
this project also has distinct political risks that
proportion of co-financing, with 37 percent of
will have to be addressed. As of July 2001, the
the total co-financing ($107.10 million). With
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
the same number of projects as the Europe and
(DPRK) had not yet joined the project, but had
Central Asia region, the global and multi-
reiterated its in-principle interest and
regional projects have secured only 6 percent
willingness to participate in the project.
of the total co-financing ($16.92 million).
The Water and Environmental Management in
The main issues in the review were:
the Aral Sea (World Bank) project highlighted
the need for ensuring political commitment to
Country Commitment. Country commitment
project objectives. The project's implementa-
to a project's objectives and implementation is
tion, suffering from the weaknesses of the
a decisive factor in a project's success at
multicountry institutional framework, was un-
achieving its overall goals, particularly in
able to manage growing conflicts and
multicountry initiatives involving shared water
technical-economic problems. This conclusion
resources. It has been proven in many cases that
would indicate that the process of facilitating
lack of sustained support from the recipient
and maintaining country commitments plays a
countries often results in implementation delays
critical role. Achieving a sufficient level of
and, more importantly, failure to achieve the
commitment from riparian/littoral countries
intended global environmental objectives.
is both an objective and an indispensable pre-
requisite, if global benefits are to be accrued.
In certain complex situations, it is not advisable
It may require time, resources, and, most im-
to utilize single projects as the tool for
portantly, flexible approaches. It is essential
addressing the targeted issues; instead a series
to ensure political commitment at the highest
of projects in a programmatic framework is
level towards the implementation of agreed
needed. In these cases, indicators should be
SAPs.
developed to identify triggers when the project
can move to the next stage. Sometimes, the
The role of regional bodies was questioned in
GEF's catalytic role is to foster political
light of the Aral Sea experiences. In some cases,
22

---

2001 Project Implementation Review
BOX 2: PROMOTING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS
Two UNEP-implemented projects in Brazil, Integrated Management of Land-based Activities
in the São Francisco Basin and Implementation of Integrated Watershed Management Prac-
tices for the Pantanal and Upper Paraguay River Basin, have emphasized public involvement
starting with the project design. Workshops involving broad stakeholder groups were orga-
nized in both project areas as part of project preparation. The project components were formu-
lated in close consultation with the various stakeholders, including local people, institutions,
communities, and economic entities. Similarly, project implementation is being undertaken
with public participation. For instance, volunteers carry out water quality monitoring. This has
enhanced community ownership of the projects. Evaluation of the impact of mining in the
Pantanal included a community survey to identify public perceptions and sharing of results
between the responsible agency and the communities.
The extensive consultations resulted in some delays in project start-up in both cases. Further-
more, the complex nature of the projects resulting from the broad stakeholder participation
has made project coordination demanding. Nevertheless, it has been found that the projects'
"inclusivity" was greatly improved by the emphasis on public and stakeholder participation and
encouragement of NGO involvement. This has led to the development of a joint "basin vision"
shared by all major stakeholder groups. Popular acceptance of the projects' objectives has led
to more successful implementation, and community ownership has promoted sustainability of
the actions. Effective communication has proven to be essential. Public information and edu-
cation are prerequisites for action and involvement. These participatory processes were facili-
tated by the supportive institutional and legal framework in the country. The new Brazilian
Water Law makes stakeholder involvement a requirement for all projects.
the regional bodies do not have suff icient
necessitate the careful development of
political clout with national priority issues. The
indicators, closely related to the objectives of
role and capacity of regional bodies needs to
the project, and the introduction of triggers
be assessed with regard to their comparative
that would enable GEF to move into the next
advantages over national decision-making
phase of the project.
bodies.
Success of Participation and Involvement of
Flexible Project Management. The lack of
Local Communities. Participation of local
projects' flexibility to adapt to changing
communities and other stakeholders in project
circumstances appears as a major issue. It is
development and implementation can be an
causing difficulties and possibly failures in
effective means of promoting understanding of
GEF projects. Changes often occur,
and commitment to the project's objectives.
particularly given the long gestation periods
But it can also be time-consuming. Several
of GEF projects, that require the ability to
projects in the 2001 PIR portfolio demonstrate
modify project design if the global objective is
successful public participation. One project,
to be met. Phased approaches to projects
UNDP's medium-sized project, Building
are seen as one of the essential modalities to
Environmental Citizenship to Support
be explored for introducing flexibility into
Transboundary Pollution Reduction in the
project design and management. This will
Danube, is specifically designed to address
23

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
public participation. It prepared guidelines for
4. OZONE DEPLETION
implementing existing legislation on public
access to water-related and environmental
There are 11 ongoing projects accounting for a
information in Slovenia. In Hungary, the project
total GEF allocation of $103 million in the PIR
supported NGOs in the preparation of a citizen's
2001 ODS portfolio, all of them in the Europe
guide on public access to water-related and
and Central Asia region. UNDP accounts for
environmental information.
nearly two-thirds of the portfolio in terms of
numbers of projects, while UNEP and the World
There is a recognized need to consider
Bank have two projects each. However, in terms
participation of stakeholders in a qualitative
of GEF allocation, the World Bank accounts
manner. It is important to see participation and
for approximately 80 percent of the resources.
involvement of multiple stakeholders as a two-
way street. The purpose of participation is not
In the PIR portfolio, two projects target regional
only to communicate project objectives to local
capacity-building activities implemented
populations or to convince them that the
through UNEP to: (i) enhance the capacity of
objectives are set correctly. Equally important
national ozone focal points and agricultural
is learning from and getting full support of the
ministries to design and implement effective
local inhabitants, who have most likely
methyl bromide phase-out policies through
accumulated local knowledge concerning their
awareness-raising activities, policy
environment.
development, demonstration projects, and
training programs; and (ii) enhance the capacity
Mutual Learning and Horizontal Exchanges.
of national ozone focal points to design and
The international waters focal area has
implement effective phase-out policies through
embarked on a systematic effort to promote
training and regional cooperation to decrease
horizontal linkages and mutual learning
the incidence of illegal ODS trade
between projects. The UNDP-implemented
projects, IW:LEARN and Train-Sea-Coast, have
Illegal Trade of ODS. The UNEP-implemented
attempted to encourage information sharing
project, Promoting Compliance with Trade and
through the development of a database on best
Licensing Provisions of Montreal Protocol,
practices and lessons learned, web-based
notes that the annual volume of illegal export/
communication tools, and country-specific
import may reach significant volumes in certain
training courses. Efforts towards horizontal
countries. There have been no communications
linkages and learning between projects should
about off icially registered cases of illegal
be continued and strengthened.
export/import of ODS specifying actual
amounts of ODS seized. Countries in the
The first Biennial GEF International Waters
region, most of w hich are already non-
Conference was held in Budapest in October
compliant with the Protocol phase-out
2000. The conference brought together some
requirements, are afraid of or do not know how
200 participants, including managers and staff
to report these quantities to the Ozone
from GEF international waters projects around
Secretariat; there are no clear rules under the
the world. The conference provided an excellent
Montreal Protocol on how these seized
opportunity for exchanging information and
quantities have to be dealt with and accounted
experiences between projects through formal
for while reporting to the Secretariat.
sessions, workshops, and panel discussions. The
f irst conference should be seen as a pilot
Wide Variation in Cost-effectiveness. Among
activity that will provide guidance to the second
the 11 projects in the PIR portfolio, there is
conference, to be held in September 2002 in
a wide range in cost-effectiveness--from
China, and further events.
$6.4/kg to $36.6/kg. The variation has been
24

---

2001 Project Implementation Review
attributed to a variety of factors, including the
out refrigerants could be as low as $6/kg. This
sectors, scale, and type of ODS being phased
indicates the necessity for continuing to focus
out. For example, the phase-out of solvents
on country and sector-specific strategies while
could cost as much as $36/kg while phasing
providing support for mitigation of ODS.
25

---

---

4. SUMMARY OF RECENT EVALUATION FINDINGS
Program evaluations and other studies and
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
reviews conducted by the GEF M&E team or
resources, capacity development, stakeholder
the implementing agencies provide insights into
participation, and project sustainability? What
the GEF programs and identify lessons that can
was the progress and relative success of the
be fed into the development of new projects. This
projects in achieving their specific objectives?
section summarizes the f indings of four
What were the outstanding lessons or examples
evaluations that were completed during the past
of best practices? What were the major
year. These included program studies in the three
implementation issues, risks, or assumptions
main GEF focal areas of biodiversity, climate
that may have jeopardized the achievement of
change, and international waters, as well as an
objectives? How significant, diverse, and
evaluation of the medium-sized projects. All of
comprehensive was the "coverage" of the
these evaluations were carried out by
portfolio? The report was submitted to the GEF
interagency teams led by independent
Council in May 2001 (GEF/C.17/Inf.4).
consultants under the auspices of the M&E team.
The objective was to conduct comprehensive
The report has seven sections. Section 1
evaluations of the focal areas' achievements, as
presents the background to the total GEF
well as provide evaluative documentation on the
biodiversity portfolio as of June 2000. Section
program results and impacts to the OPS2.
2 introduces the various methodologies used,
describes the terms of reference for the study,
A. B
and lists the projects reviewed and visited. The
IODIVERSITY PROGRAM
analysis and f indings are divided in two
STUDY
categories: those related to the coverage of the
GEF portfolio (Section 3) and those related to
The Biodiversity Program Study was conducted
achievements, impacts, and lessons learned
between September 2000 and March 2001 in
(Sections 4, 5, and 6). The final section contains
collaboration with the three GEF implementing
the conclusions and recommendations.
agencies, STAP, and independent consultants.
The main objectives of the study included:
According to the objectives of the program
study, the GEF biodiversity portfolio (excluding
Highlight and assess achievements, initial
projects supporting biodiversity enabling
impacts, and lessons learned from the GEF
activities), as of June 30, 2000, was divided into
biodiversity portfolio
two cohorts: Cohort 1--all full and medium-
Conduct an analysis of the area covered by
sized projects under implementation as of June
GEF-assisted projects, including a
30, 1998, plus all completed projects (the
comparison with lists of globally important
"mature portfolio," 82 projects, $500 million)
ecosystems ("coverage")
and Cohort 2--all full and medium-sized
Assess mechanisms for incorporating
projects that were initiated or entered in the
lessons learned into more recently approved
GEF Work Program between July 1, 1998, and
projects.
June 30, 2000 (the "new portfolio," 128
projects, $630 million).
In pursuing these objectives, the study tried to
answer the following questions: what were the
The Biodiversity Program Study used two
major achievements and impacts of the GEF
distinct but inter related approaches: a
biodiversity portfolio (and projects) in terms of
quantitative analysis focused on the coverage
27

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
of the portfolio and a qualitative assessment of
migratory species, taxonomy, World Heritage
the achievements and initial impacts of, and
sites, and indigenous communities.
lessons learned from, GEF biodiversity projects.
Where Are GEF Projects Located? What Are
In addition, the study evaluated the available
They Doing? The quantitative analysis was
mechanisms for learning from past lessons and
based on a study of Cohort 1 projects and used
assessed how much new projects had benefited
various indicators, including coverage in terms
from lessons learned in past projects. The
of the number and hectares of protected areas
qualitative analysis of projects from Cohort 1
and the number and area of sites from special
included eight projects that were visited by
lists of globally significant ecosystems. A
members of the Biodiversity Program Study
major focus of the GEF biodiversity portfolio
team in the following nine countries: Argentina,
has been to support new or existing protected
Central African Republic and Gabon (one
areas. Most projects dealing with protected ar-
project), Indonesia, Mauritius, Peru,
eas include establishing new areas, developing
Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Yemen. A selected
management plans, setting up sustainable fi-
group of forestry projects (OP3) in Cohort 2
nancing of protected areas, addressing
were analyzed to determine the benefits they
sustainable use related to protected areas, and
had derived from the lessons learned from
enabling participation by stakeholders and lo-
earlier projects, to determine whether they were
cal beneficiaries. The study estimated that about
establishing baselines against which project
49 projects in Cohort 1 (62 percent) included
achievements could be measured, and to assess
these types of activities as a part of their objec-
how well they were addressing the issue of
tives. These 49 projects affect about 320
sustainability. The study also reviewed the
protected areas covering a total of about 60 mil-
mechanisms used in the three implementing
lion hectares and involving about $350 million
agencies and the GEF Secretariat to feed
in funding. About 60 percent of the protected
lessons learned from past projects into the
areas covered are located in forest ecosystems.
design and implementation of new projects.
It is clear that the GEF has also covered, through
GEF Biodiversity Portfolio. Over the last 9
its projects, many globally important sites and
years, from 1991 through June 2000, the GEF
species such as those selected for the World
has allocated approximately $1.18 billion to
Heritage Program, WWF's Global 200 Earth's
cover the incremental costs of conservation and
Distinctive Ecoregions, Ramsar, UNESCO
sustainable use of biodiversity resources around
MAB Reserves, Migratory Species, and the
the world and leveraged about $2 billion in co-
IUCN lists of threatened and endangered
financing. This funding is distributed among an
species. More than half of the projects in Cohort
impressive 395 full, medium-sized, and
1 dealt with some type of capacity development
enabling activity projects in 123 developing
activities, through information dissemination
countries and countries with economies in
and training and education, addressing both
transition, and in four types of ecosystems: arid
individual and institutional aspects. Similarly,
and semi-arid; coastal, marine, and freshwater;
more than half of the projects included research
forests; and mountains. The projects support
as an objective--mostly in the form of applied
diverse activities to promote conservation,
research such as the provision of information
encourage sustainable use of resources, and
and development of databases and information
enhance the sharing of benefits at the local,
systems, monitoring and evaluation, and
national, and global levels. In addition, these
research on or about protected areas. Policies,
projects have provided support to the
laws, and regulations were addressed in about
Convention on Biological Diversity, particularly
half of the projects in Cohort 1, including
to activities related to alien and invasive species,
proposals for implementing plans and
28

---

Summary of Recent Evaluation Findings
strategies; strengthening, supporting, and
indigenous knowledge, have been identified.
establishing policies and laws; as well as
Nevertheless, it must be noted that most of these
focusing on policies regarding regional
projects were working with institutions without
collaboration. Furthermore, the study estimated
much previous experience of stakeholder
that about one-third of the projects in Cohort 1
participation.
dealt directly with the management of protected
areas, another third with the implementation of
A significant number of the projects assessed
sustainable use programs, and the final third
were capacity development projects. These
with the participation of stakeholders in
addressed a variety of capacity needs at the
biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.
individual, institutional, and systemic levels.
Overall, the projects were able to develop
What Have Been the Major Achievements
individual capacities, though institutional and
and Impacts? In looking at the findings, it
systemic capacities proved harder to develop.
must be kept in mind that projects that aim to
The various training programs were appropriate
conserve biodiversity are among the more
to the socioeconomic, political, and cultural
difficult types of projects to implement. In
realities of the country. There was no evidence
addressing biodiversity conservation issues,
that institutional capacities would be sustained
projects attempt to achieve objectives that,
after GEF funding ended, partly because, for
while having significant long-term and global
many of the ongoing projects, it was too early
benefits, often imply loss of access to natural
to assess this element. Furthermore, it was found
resources, especially for rural communities.
that some of the most successful components
These projects work with governments for
of even non-capacity-development projects
which biodiversity conservation is usually not
were their capacity development aspects.
a priority, and they incorporate scientif ic
principles that are new, evolving, often counter-
A very large portion of the projects assessed
intuitive, and difficult to fully understand or
had protected areas as their major focus. More
explain to stakeholders. It must also be noted
than half of such projects were assessed to have
that there are no standards by which the
fully or mostly met their objectives, even though
achievements of GEF projects can be assessed
they are invariably the most difficult and com-
objectively. Consequently, the achievements of
plicated types of projects to implement.
the GEF biodiversity portfolio must be looked
Furthermore, more than half of the protected
at in this context and along with the quantitative
areas projects were assessed to have had com-
achievements described above.
prehensive or partial stakeholder participation,
some benefit sharing activities, and some mea-
Stakeholder participation was comprehensive
sures for ensuring sustainability. Nearly half of
in around 30 percent of the projects reviewed
the projects working to establish biodiversity
and partial in more than 20 percent. For another
conservation and sustainable regimes in pro-
nearly 25 percent, it was planned but the
duction landscapes outside protected areas had
information available did not indicate whether
mostly achieved their objectives, while the other
or not it took place and, if so, to what extent.
half had only partly achieved their objectives.6
While documentation did not allow the full
evaluation of participation effectiveness, some
About 60 percent of the projects had
lessons, notably the limited involvement of the
substantially addressed science and technology
private sector and weak use of traditional and
issues, with the level going up to 80 percent in
6 It should be noted here that ongoing projects were assessed on the basis of their achievements in relation to the stage of implementation they
were in. While completed projects have no opportunities for improving their performance, there is always the possibility that ongoing
projects will achieve their objectives before completion.
29

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
completed projects. Nevertheless, the
percent had partially addressed this issue and,
recognition of traditional knowledge and
in 34 percent of the projects, it was either not
appropriate involvement of social scientists are
addressed or very poorly addressed. For the rest
two issues that need further attention.
(30 percent) some planned to deal with the issue,
but available information did not specify
The GEF has also been focusing on issues
whether they had managed to do so; for others,
related to land degradation. Of the projects
there was no information. However, even for
reviewed, nearly 50 percent had substantially
completed projects, there was no system of
addressed land degradation issues, and another
conducting a post-completion assessment to see
10 percent partially addressed this issue.
whether project activities, institutions, and gains
continued after the project was completed.
Overall, almost half the projects reviewed had
Consequently, it was not possible to determine
mostly achieved their objectives or were found
how many of the completed projects that were
likely to achieve them (including 8 percent that
assessed to have addressed this issue had done
had fully achieved them). However, the other
so effectively. A review of the forestry projects
half of the projects had achieved their objectives
in Cohort 2 shows that most of the projects are
only partly or minimally. On that score, there
now addressing the issue of sustainability in
was not much difference between completed
their design, though this assessment is based
and ongoing projects. In understanding these
on project proposals and not on actual project
f indings, it must be recognized that it is
implementation.
unrealistic to expect all the projects to fully
achieve all their objectives. Many reasons
Are Projects Learning from Past Lessons?
prevented the full achievement of objectives,
About half the projects assessed reportedly had
including lack of implementation capacity,
some lessons from past projects incorporated
unrealistic and over-ambitious objectives, and
into their design; a third had not. However, as
shortage of time and funds.
the findings of the study demonstrated little
difference between the achievements and levels
For a large proportion of the GEF projects
of impact of completed (older) projects and the
reviewed, it was not possible to directly answer
ongoing (newer) projects, lessons learned
the question: What impact did they have on
appear to have had little impact Therefore, the
biodiversity? This was mainly because projects
mechanisms for ensuring that lessons learned
for the most part did not systematically collect
are incorporated in new and ongoing projects
the required information. Also, for most
need attention and improvement. The newer
projects, there was no baseline data against
projects among those assessed and the new
which the current status could be compared. In
forestry projects in Cohort 2 seem to be
the absence of baseline data, it was only
performing better in this regard.
possible to partly assess the impact that projects
were having on biodiversity. However, it seems
Recommendations. Recommendations
that GEF projects have begun to address this
primarily relate to the four issues that the report
gap. A review of a group of newer forestry
highlighted as needing attention: achievement
projects in Cohort 2 reveals that almost all of
of objectives, project impacts on biodiversity,
them have carried out, or propose to carry out,
sustainability of project activities and gains, and
biological and socioeconomic baseline studies.
learning from past lessons.
Only about 10 percent of the projects reviewed
Achievement of objectives. Three main
had substantially addressed the issue of project
recommendations were proposed in the area of
sustainability, another of the cross-cutting issues
achivement of objectives. First, the report
in the Biodiversity Program Study. Another 24
recognized that limited implementation
30

---

Summary of Recent Evaluation Findings
capacity was cited as a major cause for
conservation must be seen to contribute to
inadequate project achievements. The
economic growth and environmental security,
development of the requisite individual,
or at least not to detract from it.
institutional, and systemic capacities must be
given central priority during GEF project
B. CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAM
implementation. Second, part of the problem
with project achievements might be due to too
STUDY
little attention being paid in project design and
implementation to livelihood and tenure issues
During the last decade, GEF has provided more
and the issues' underlying causes. Thus all
than one billion dollars for more than 270
projects in protected areas should include
climate change-related projects in 120
related production landscapes.
countries. Not counting enabling activities and
some short-term measures, 120 of those
Impacts in biodiversity. To determine a project's
projects in 60 countries demonstrate an
impact on biodiversity, and on other related
impressive range of approaches to promoting
issues, there has to be an ongoing and far more
energy efficiency, renewable energy, and (to a
effective monitoring system, based on a pre-
lesser extent) sustainable transport. The Climate
initiation baseline study. The baseline study
Change Program Study set out to answer four
should record the status, trends, and rates of
questions about that subset of 120 projects (the
change of the existing biodiversity resources;
full report was presented to the GEF Council
available individual, institutional, and systemic
as GEF/C.17/Inf.5):
capacities; and the relevant socioeconomic and
political parameters. Impact indicators and
1. Are activities relevant to country needs and
standards must be formulated prior to, and used
global objectives?
for, the baseline study. Where the available data
2. What are the most significant implemen-
are not adequate, building up a requisite
tation issues and lessons?
database (on the various aspects mentioned
3. What are the impacts/likely impacts of GEF
above) should be among the f irst project
projects?
activities so that monitoring of project impacts
4. What are the factors influencing
can begin right from the start.
sustainability and replication?
Sustainability. The study recommends several
The study resulted in seven new reports and
ways to improve this aspect of project design
incorporated one previously completed report:
and implementation. Funding patterns during
the project must be compatible with the
Energy-efficient products manufacturing
economic realities of the host country.
and marketing cluster review
Therefore, demonstrating and operationalizing
Grid-connected renewable energy cluster
ways to meet conservation objectives within the
review
levels of f inancial resources likely to be
Energy service company cluster review
available on a sustainable basis must be an
Solar thermal power plant cluster review
objective for all projects. There must be a
Rural solar photovoltaic (PV) cluster
continued movement away from "big budget,"
review (published in August 2000)
time-bound projects to long-term activities
Assessment of GEF climate change
involving the same or lesser amounts of money,
portfolio coverage
distributed over a longer time period and in
Two country reviews, for China and
accordance with agreed qualitative benchmarks
Mexico, that assess how GEF projects are
of progress. For most governments to have the
collectively addressing country and global
"political will" to conserve biodiversity,
environment objectives.
31

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
The initial direction of the climate change
development and electrification programs and
portfolio was established by the Ad-hoc
reducing electric power demand. Still, it is fair
Working Group on Global Warming and Energy
to say that most GEF projects do not result from
(AWGGWE) set up by the GEF Scientific and
coherent, integrated approaches to development
Technical Advisory Panel (STAP). Based on a
and environment at the country level, but are
STAP-developed list of technical interventions
rather conceived on an ad-hoc basis.
that reduce or limit emissions of greenhouse
gases, early GEF projects often focused on
As the portfolio evolved, the need to support
demonstrations of a variety of technologies.
rural energy enterprises, provide financial
More recent projects have gone beyond
intermediation, and attract private sector
technology demonstrations to focus on
financing became apparent. To respond to these
sustainable market-oriented approaches that
needs and demonstrate how the GEF can
pilot new business models, f inancing
leverage private sector resources to achieve
mechanisms, demand-side incentives, and
global benef its, the International Finance
means of public involvement. Over time, the
Corporation (IFC) of the World Bank Group
portfolio has become dominated by a smaller
developed five projects that feature new forms
number of technology applications and
of enterprise support, financial intermediation,
strategies that are not necessarily related first
and private sector co-financing. These projects
and foremost to short-term greenhouse-gas
have used GEF funding commitments to
reduction, but rather reflect the complex
mobilize more than $200 million of private
balance of needs, interests, and interactions
sector co-financing to date. Impacts from two
among governments and GEF implementing
of these projects are described in the cluster
agencies.
reviews, while the other three have just started.
All five will warrant a separate cluster review
Due to the confines of time and resources
in the future.
available for the program study, it was not
possible to arrive at a definitive assessment of
Replication of successful outcomes and
the degree to which country needs have been
models has gained increased attention in
met through GEF-financed projects. Such an
more recent projects. Because GEF projects
assessment would require a comparison of
are small relative to the scale of the climate
needs existing before initiation of the projects
change problem, recognition has grown that
with those existing now. Such data are often
achieving global environmental objectives
lacking or diff icult to obtain. In addition,
depends greatly on replication and indirect
national communications under the United
impacts through demonstration of project
Nations Framework Convention on Climate
benefits. Measuring achievement of global
Change (UNFCCC) do not always fully reflect
environmental objectives is challenging
national development priorities.
because replication of GEF projects is difficult
to monitor. Some projects--such as those
Detailed reviews of the GEF-financed climate
for efficient lighting, efficient refrigerators,
change portfolios in China and Mexico indicate
rural solar PV, coal-bed methane, and electric
that GEF projects are consistent with national
power demand-side management--have
priorities in those countries. Furthermore, the
clearly been replicated. Replication of other
technology applications promoted in GEF
projects has so far been minimal or remains
projects are broadly relevant to at least some
undocumented.
national objectives in virtually all countries. For
example, the GEF has clearly helped with a
Emerging Lessons. Eight significant lessons
number of core country priorities, such as
that emerged from the climate change program
promoting renewable-energy-based rural
study are highlighted in this synthesis:
32

---

Summary of Recent Evaluation Findings
1. Lessons and good practices are emerging
6. Long-term programmatic approaches
but need to be better incorporated into
require sufficient GEF "credibility" and
project designs to promote learning. One
experience in a country. Country
of the key advantages of supporting
stakeholders need time to accumulate
projects through GEF operational programs
experience with GEF-financed projects
is being able to facilitate the dissemination
before they are willing and able to develop
of lessons among all participants in the
long-term programmatic approaches that
GEF programs. This study finds that such
apply the principles of GEF operational
dissemination is slow and only recently has
programs over longer time frames with
become more eff icient. Although the
more comprehensive results.
annual PIRs provide a forum for learning,
the first concerted effort to pass on lessons
7. The GEF's potential for influencing policy
from the climate change program was the
needs to be better utilized. The influence
solar PV cluster review, which was
of GEF projects is evident in three policy
completed in 2000.
areas ­ national codes and standards,
electric power sector policies, and rural
2. Indirect influences and impacts are key
electrification policies. But that influence
GEF results. Some of the key impacts
has so far been modest, and additional
of GEF-financed projects are indirect in the
policy areas could be addressed.
sense that those impacts were not explicit
objectives of the projects. In many cases,
8. The contribution of GEF-financed projects
significant impacts from projects have
to social benefits and poverty alleviation
been recorded during project preparation
needs to be assessed. The social and
(PDF) phases or early in project
development benefits of GEF projects,
implementation.
especially those that cater to rural energy
development needs, need to be better
3. Replication of project results is not well
documented. An assessment of these
planned or monitored. In general, GEF
benef its is a key to helping countries
projects have not been operational long
improve sustainable development
enough to gauge how well their replication
programs. Many projects do promote
is providing global environmental benefits.
strong beneficiary participation, but fail to
Still, most projects contain few provisions
document benefits or impacts occurring in
or plans for achieving or monitoring
local communities.
replication.
Impacts. Eleven projects in the portfolio were
4. Project risk assessment and management
completed as of early 2001. Another 25-30
need to be strengthened. Implementation
projects have been operational long enough for
of projects is often hindered by project
their impacts to begin to become evident. The
managers' inability to adjust to changes in
impacts of these 35-40 projects have been
markets, policies, macroeconomic
analyzed by project application (cluster):
conditions, co-financing, and government
commitments.
Energy-efficient products. GEF-f inanced
projects have demonstrated important and
5. Transfer of technological know-how is more
effective approaches for facilitating and
difficult than project proponents anticipate.
accelerating greater demand for and supply of
Such transfer appears impeded by problems
energy-eff icient manufactured products,
with technology acquisition and application
particularly lights (nearly 5 million of which
to domestic conditions.
have been installed through GEF projects), but
33

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
also refrigerators, motors, and building
ESCOs. With the exceptions of China and
materials. Some project approaches have
Hungary, no other countries have documented
resulted in sustained reductions in the price of
replication or energy-savings impacts of
the products and in highly cost-effective
ESCOs from GEF projects. Prospects for the
abatement of carbon emissions. Market gains
emergence and sustainability of ESCOs appear
for eff icient lights in particular are being
strongest as a result of the China project, which
sustained and replicated.
is also pioneering the resolution of key policy
and legal issues to allow growth of the ESCO
Grid-connected renewable energy. GEF has
industry. Several GEF projects appear to be
facilitated implementation of important
increasing awareness and acceptance of ESCOs
regulatory frameworks supportive of grid-
among industrial clients, policy makers, and
connected renewable energy, but has done so
financiers.
in only two countries so far (Mauritius and Sri
Lanka). Other impacts have been limited to one-
Other applications. Projects for coal-bed
time technology demonstrations, research, and
methane, gas-pipeline leakage repair, fuel
increased skills and awareness. GEF's largest
switching, decentralized wind power, utility
market impact has been in India, where direct
demand-side management, village-scale
and indirect influences on private sector power
mini-grids, and district heating-eff iciency
project development and f inancing have
improvements have all shown signif icant
resulted in nearly 1,000 MW of new renewable-
impacts and could all be replicated on larger
energy generating capacity.
scales and used as models for ongoing and
future GEF projects. So far, three projects ­
Off-grid solar PV. Rural applications of solar
coal-bed methane in China, decentralized wind
photovoltaics (PV) constitute the largest single
in Mauritania, and demand-side management
group of projects in the climate change
in Thailand ­ are being replicated.
portfolio. However, most of these projects have
little or no implementation experience yet. Of
Sustainability. The Climate Change Program
roughly 600,000 solar home systems expected
Study found that projects have promoted
from approved projects, only 18,000 have been
sustainability by:
installed thus far. Several business models and
schemes to extend credit to businesses and
Demonstrating models for sustainable
consumers show promise of being sustainable
businesses, both public and private
and further replicated. Awareness of solar home
Promoting "market transformation"
systems is increasing in several countries, and
approaches that expand markets for energy-
technical standards are improving. The impact
efficient products
of projects on rural electrification planning and
Negotiating voluntary agreements with the
policies has been small, but more recent
private sector to take energy-inefficient
projects are emphasizing these issues.
products off the market
Creating new legal frameworks and
Energy service companies. Viable energy
precedents for energy service companies.
service companies (ESCOs) have been
established in two countries (Tunisia and China)
The study also revealed factors that can
as a result of GEF projects. Financing for
negatively influence sustainability:
existing ESCOs has been facilitated in the
Hungary project. Other projects with ESCO
Privatization of power utilities without
components provide technical assistance,
consideration of the future existence and
training, and audits, but are not expected to lead
role of demand-side management units
to full-service (i.e., "performance-contracting")
Short-term power-purchase tariffs for grid-
34

---

Summary of Recent Evaluation Findings
based renewable energy that are hostage to
overall project performance varies. Most of the
fluctuations in conventional fuel prices
project impacts could only be found at the
Dependence of consumer finance and rural
process level. This is not surprising given the
businesses on the resources of GEF projects
long time that is required to show actual
where viable and sustainable commercial
improvements in the international waters
sources are no created
environment. The review of completed projects
Project implementation arrangements that
that was carried out as part of the study
fall into an "equipment installation and
nevertheless showed that some present and
demonstration" role and fail to demonstrate
future reductions in stress on the marine
business models.
environment can be directly attributed to GEF
projects.
C. INTERNATIONAL WATERS
The regional distribution of international wa-
PROGRAM STUDY
ters interventions is relatively well balanced.
Overall, Africa has the largest share of GEF
At the time of the International Waters Program
international waters funding ($104.5 million),
Study (GEF/C.17/Inf.6) completed in 2001,
followed by Asia ($90.8 million), Latin America
GEF had provided support to 41 full projects
and the Caribbean ($56.6 million), Eastern
and four MSPs in the international waters focal
Europe ($40.1 million), and the Small Island
area, which includes GEF operational programs
Developing States ($12.3 million). Another
8, 9, and 10. Eleven of these projects had been
$20.9 million has been allocated to global
completed. In addition, project development
projects. In addition, the shifts in emphasis
funds (PDFs) had been approved for 22
among regions, as evidenced by the balance
projects, which may enter the GEF portfolio
between projects currently under implementa-
upon further development.
tion and the preparatory and pipeline concepts,
appear entirely appropriate.
The study concluded that GEF's projects align
well with the strategic guidance adopted by the
A review of demonstration projects found that
GEF Council. The projects have made, and
these are generally both well conceived and
continue to make, significant contributions to
satisfy the criteria for GEF support. The
the implementation of existing global and
potential incremental benefits that can accrue
regional agreements that address the protection
from both global and regional demonstration
and restoration of freshwater and marine
projects continue to justify allocation of
ecosystems, notably the Global Program of
resources to demonstration projects of similar
Action for the Protection of the Marine
nature. However, only limited impacts could be
Environment from Land-based Activities. GEF
identified from the four project site visits,
can be seen as a major, or possibly the major,
which was largely due to the fact that the
facilitator of the implementation and increased
projects had not yet reached sufficient maturity
adoption of international water laws, action
to produce quantifiable environmental benefits.
plans, and regional environmental protection
agreements. The sustenance and promotion of
The study highlighted a number of recommen-
such regional ag reements and their
dations that can ensure a more effective and
environmental protection activities is one of the
responsive international waters program for the
measurable and concrete benefits of GEF
GEF. The use of science-based transboundary
international waters activities.
diagnostic analyses (TDAs) as a basis for the
facilitation of countries' agreements on joint
The study found, however, that among
remedial or preventive actions through strate-
individual projects and operational programs
gic action programs (SAPs) should continue.
35

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
BOX 3. DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO CREATING A TRANSBOUNDARY DIAGNOSTIC ANALYSIS
One of the more detailed and well-structured TDAs examined by the study concerned the
South China Sea, which involved the cooperation of seven countries (Cambodia, China, Indo-
nesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam). The development of the South China
Sea TDA began with the establishment of national committees in each of the seven participat-
ing countries. Each of these national committees prepared a country report that contained a
national analysis of water-related problems and concerns. These country reports were then
considered at a meeting of national coordinators and invited regional scientists. At this meet-
ing, each of the issues raised within the country reports were collectively assigned weightings
so that an initial list of major concerns could be defined.
The process of ranking issues in the South China Sea differs considerably from the one under-
taken for the UNDP-implemented Pollution Control and Other Measures to Protect Biodiversity
in Lake Tanganyika project, where priorities were assigned partly on the basis of consider-
ations such as "feasibility" and "additional benefits," which would normally be considered at a
later stage.
In the South China Sea, the analyses in the national reports and in the TDA itself identify a
series of root causes of current environmental problems and threats in the region, the most
important of which are: rapid growth in coastal populations, rapid economic growth over the
last decade, the pace of industrialization, and the influence of globalization of trade. The re-
sulting GEF project in the region, Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South
China Sea and Gulf of Thailand, contains four major components, three of which (habitat
degradation and loss, overexploitation of fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand, and land-based
pollution) correspond to categories of issues identified in the TDA. The full project implemented
by UNEP will derive specific national actions in relation to each of these categories. The se-
lected national actions in the resulting project will lead to a high-level intergovernmental meet-
ing at which these actions will be adopted within a SAP.
Source: International Waters Program Study, J.M. Bewers and J.I. Uitto. M& E Evaluation Report #1-01.
However, where feasible, efforts should be
agencies to ensure competent project
made to shorten the time required for a TDA.
management and the sustainability of any
activities (administrative arrangements or
All high-risk projects, or those with high-risk
organizations) engendered through GEF
components, should be subjected to a mid-term
international waters projects.
review. The current procedures for feeding back
"lessons learned" to the formulation of projects
Given the complex nature of international
in the international waters focal area are
waters projects, which can involve the
unclear. Accordingly, there is a need to
cooperation of a large number of countries and
formalize this process in a transparent and
several implementing agencies, an interagency
effective mechanism within the GEF.
advisory function is needed within the GEF to
help ensure overall coordination and effective
GEF should consider increased assessments
development of the international waters focal
of the suitability of proposed executing
area.
36

---

Summary of Recent Evaluation Findings
D. MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECTS
substantial progress in these areas. MSPs are
generally positively regarded by diverse
EVALUATION
stakeholders, and the local and participatory
emphasis of most MSPs has helped create more
The Medium-Sized Projects (MSPs) Evaluation
favorable conditions for the achievement of
found that it is too early in the implementation
long-term environmental goals. From a
of most MSPs to determine their specif ic
technical perspective, the planning of some
impacts on biodiversity conservation, climate
MSPs could have benefited from more focus
change, and international waters. Interim or
on the specifics of project sustainability and
indirect indicators of progress were assessed
replication. The prevailing 2-3 year time frame
in capacity development, innovation, awareness
for MSPs is often too short, and few of the
raising, prospects for sustainability, and
projects can be expected to achieve
leverage. The most important types of MSP
sustainability in this time. Projects should be
leveraging have been co-financing, scaling up,
encouraged to plan implementation over longer
and replication, in addition to positive impacts
time frames if this suits local absorptive
on government policies with implications for
capacities and is likely to enhance sustainability.
global environmental issues. An encouragingly
While MSPs should not be utilized for project
high proportion of the MSPs that have reached
development, a second phase for promising
advanced stages of implementation have made
MSPs should be permitted if the original MSP
BOX 4: RENEWABLE ENERGY-BASED SMALL ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT IN THE
QUICHÉ REGION OF GUATEMALA
The overall objective of the UNDP-implemented project is to create and strengthen the capac-
ity for renewable energy service development based on cooperation with existing rural devel-
opment programs currently operating in the Quiché region of Guatemala. The energy provided
by the project by micro-hydro electric facilities and solar PV home systems is starting to make
a difference perceived by the communities. The availability of lighting in the villages expands
the productive hours of the day and enables the communities to attract teachers to the school.
An inspiring view expressed by one of the community leaders indicated that, while they had
always had the river, they did not know how to benefit from it before the project started its
micro-hydro development. The MSP showed them how to use it and provided the necessary
technical assistance and capacity building. Now the community recognizes the river as a re-
source that needs to be protected.
The MSP has had a catalytic role in the region and has excellent replication potential. The
neighboring communities have become aware of the progress made in the participating com-
munities and are seeking information. The pilot project has proven that the approach can work.
The communities see the benefits and are willing to pay for the consumption. However, due to
the poverty levels and lack of rural credit in the area, an initial grant is needed for the equip-
ment, without which replication cannot take place.
On a national level, the MSP is intended to contribute to the policy dialogue concerning rural
electrification. The project is used to demonstrate financially, technically, and socially feasible
models to provide electricity for remote rural villages through renewable energy sources. It
also aims to attract private sector interest.
37

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
has been successful in reaching its objectives,
The MSP niche is clearly an important one in
as is done with FSPs.
the GEF family. The GEF Small Grants
Program is able to support initiatives at the
Expedited Procedures. While there have been
grassroots or community level, while full-sized
improvements in processing over time, reality
GEF projects can support more visible national-
has fallen far short of the expectations that
level actions. MSPs are often able to bridge the
MSPs would be a relatively fast-moving and
gap by addressing local concerns while at the
flexible funding opportunity. Many dedicated
same time supporting the implementation of the
and determined stakeholders as well as
national development agenda. MSPs may not
implementing agency staff have become
support actions across several provinces or
frustrated and discouraged by what, to them,
regions within a country, but their activities are
seem interminable and inexplicable delays.
usually on a large enough scale for their
While some of the sources of delay can and
successes to generate interest and attention at
should be addressed as a matter of priority, it is
the provincial or national level. The size of the
clear that some of the initial expectations for
funding also allows some activities that go
rapid MSP processing were misplaced. The
beyond local community levels to include some
MSP portfolio contains many complex projects
capacity building and policy development for
that are a considerable challenge for their
local and national government agency partners.
proponents and require a level of management
effort that is comparable to many larger projects.
Complementing the national MSPs, UNEP in
particular has developed a strong portfolio of
Options for expediting processing by reducing
multicountry global and regional MSPs that
the level of implementing agencies and GEF
appear to be successfully addressing a range of
secretariat supervision and technical
issues that are less suited to individual country
responsibility, at least for smaller MSPs, should
projects. While it is not always easy to
be explored jointly by the agencies, the
demonstrate country ownership of these global
secretariat, and some of the organizations with
and regional MSPs and the national activities
experience as MSP executing agencies. The
are sometimes not widely known within the
options considered should include the
countries, this is a worthwhile set of projects
disbursement of some MSPs as grants rather
that clearly adds value to the GEF portfolio.
than projects, possibly on the basis of an annual
competition, and local approval of smaller
The evaluation expressed particular concern
MSPs by competent national intermediaries in
that there is now considerable uncertainty over
certain countries.
future GEF funding for MSPs. When the MSPs
began in 1996, it was indicated that financial
Strategic Results. MSPs have clearly achieved
resources would be available to support all
the stated GEF Council objective of broaden-
proposals that satisfied the GEF's eligibility
ing the range of partners able to access GEF
requirements and were technically satisfactory.
resources. The wide variety of MSP executing
This is far from the current reality. Funding
agencies includes a diverse range of govern-
limitations have now become an important
ment agencies, NGOs, research institutions, and
constraint. GEF should allocate specif ic
international and intergovernmental organiza-
funding resources for MSPs to help ensure that
tions, as well as the private sector. Private sector
these valuable projects are not subsumed by
participation has been limited to very few
implementing agency management preferences
projects, although it was significant in these
for full projects.
projects. Engaging this broadened range of part-
ners has generated clear, positive benefits for
Information. Stakeholders in many countries
the GEF agenda.
lack information about MSPs and do not un-
38

---

Summary of Recent Evaluation Findings
derstand them. There is a clear need to improve
ownership, and is often particularly hard for
information dissemination related to MSPs, al-
NGOs to access. The lack of capacity in the
though this must be done in a way that does not
focal points is a fact in several countries and
raise unrealistic expectations when funds are
should be addressed with GEF support. The
limited. The objective should be to increase the
already-existing support to operational focal
quality rather than the number of proposals sub-
points should better publicized to enable better
mitted. Country Dialogue Workshops should be
use by the countries. Focal points consisting of
used for providing realistic information on
broadly representative and not-too-large
MSPs. The GEF NGO network should also be
committees have worked well in a few cases,
mobilized to promote MSPs.
particularly when these committees develop a
GEF programmatic approach or country vision,
Country Ownership. The operational focal
although added bureaucracy and further delays
point endorsement system does not work
could also result from such arrangements, and
effectively for MSPs in many countries, is of
care would need to be taken to avoid further
doubtful value as a demonstration of country
limiting NGO opportunities.
39

---

---

5. CONCLUSIONS OF THE REVIEW
This final chapter of the report draws on the
factors have been identified as inherent features
results of the PIR, including the focal area task
of successful projects in the implementing
force reviews and interagency meeting,
agencies' summary reports of PIR 2001.7
highlighting the conclusions on cross-cutting
issues arrived at through these review processes.
Active Participation. Securing active partici-
pation of all relevant stakeholders, including
A. INHERENT FEATURES OF
communities, NGOs, national governments,
etc., is critical to project success. First, various
SUCCESS IN PROJECTS AND
concerns of stakeholders can be accommodated
DEALING WITH RISK
to avoid future potential conflicts. Second, di-
versified information and ideas can be obtained
Twenty-five projects in the 2001 PIR portfolio
and generated in the process. Third, active par-
were rated "highly successful." The interagency
ticipation strengthens ownership of those
meeting discussed the factors that contributed
involved, resulting in an overall increase in the
to the success of these projects and, conversely,
level of commitment.
the factors whose absence threatens project
success (altogether, six projects have been rated
Participation could be viewed as one of the
"unsatisfactory" by the implementing
important factors underlying the sustainability
agencies). It was noted that while OPS2 and
of a project. Active participation should be
other evaluations gave generally good marks
ensured through the entire life of a project,
to GEF, the successes mostly related to
beginning with the early stage of problem
processes, and there were few indications of
identification and recognition and continuing
real on-the-ground environmental impacts. It
through project implementation and impact
is important to incorporate the use of impact
evaluation. Long-term project objectives should
indicators more systematically in projects.
be balanced with meeting some of the
immediate needs of the stakeholders.
The implementing agencies identified features
that were considered central for successful
Capacity Building. Inadequate capacity is
projects. Good project design is seen as critical
often identified as a constraint to effective
to project success. However, there is a need to
implementation and sustainability of GEF
identify the features that specifically improve
projects in the PIR summary reports prepared
the delivery of global environmental benefits.
by the implementing agencies. It is important
These are not yet systematically analyzed. The
for projects to integrate capacity development
lessons from the focal area task force reviews
as a project component. Competence and
tended to confirm that less successful projects
efficiency of executing agencies is another
have features that are contrary to those
essential element for successful project
identified by the implementing agencies. The
implementation. In addition, capacity
factors associated with unsatisfactory projects
development plays an important role in
most often deal with recipient country policy,
promoting active stakeholders' participation in
legal, and regulatory frameworks. The following
addressing local and global concerns.
7 This part does not include the factors that are analyzed in other parts of the report.
41

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
Experience to date points to the value of MSPs
project objectives is a key to smooth and
as an effective instrument to support capacity
successful project implementation.
development. Due to the diversity of executing
agencies in the MSP portfolio, NGOs and
Conducive Framework. All the GEF projects
small, local communities have benefited from
are embedded in an overall political and social
GEF funding towards capacity building. How-
setting. The external factors are therefore
ever, great variation has been observed in NGO
important to the success of project
capacity; very few NGOs have the capacity to
implementation. An appropriate policy, legal,
execute an MSP. Therefore, project designers
and regulatory framework, including linkages
need to be attentive to this fact to ensure that
with policies in other relevant sectors, is
the executing agencies have adequate capacity
important to the project implementation.
to deliver the project's expected outcomes, to
manage the complexity of policy dialogues with
It is important for the project to be adaptable
stakeholders, and handle other elements of
and have flexible management in order to adjust
project implementation.
to a changing policy, legal, and regulatory
framework.
Effective Partnerships. Closely related to
active participation and capacity building is the
Special Needs of Multicountry Approach.
need for effective partnerships to ensure project
The implementation of multicountry projects
success. Effective partnerships enhance
is often complicated by the number of legal
participation, strengthen institutional capacity,
agreements that have to be signed with differ-
and contribute to project sustainability.
ent entities. The f inal consolidation of
Effective par tnerships can improve the
multinational agreements for transboundary
coordination of supervision and information
projects can follow a long negotiation process
sharing among stakeholders, executing
and require lengthy efforts from all stakehold-
agencies, implementing agencies and task
ers involved. Technical refinement of project
teams, etc. It is noted that the need to coordinate
activities should be achieved in formal nego-
and cooperate with other institutions is even
tiations to ensure high-level political "buy-in."
more evident in the case of regional and global
A sense of equity among collaborating part-
programs.
ners in regional initiatives should be
maintained, and the division of management
Multilevel partnerships should not confuse or
responsibility for project resources should be
blur the roles and responsibilities of different
carefully agreed upon.
levels of management and participating orga-
nizations. This is a problem to watch out for
Dealing with Project Risk. The criticality of
when projects are designed with complicated
identifying and mitigating risk in projects was
institutional frameworks involving several or-
recognized. There was a general agreement that
ganizations at different levels--local, national,
GEF should not avoid risk, but manage risk.
and supra-national.
Each of the implementing agencies identify
risks through somewhat different mechanisms.
Sound Project Design. The objectives, scope,
and timing of a project should be designed on
B. ENGAGING THE PRIVATE
a sound and reasonable basis. The complexity
of project design should be reduced to be within
SECTOR
the project managers' capacity. A very
ambitious project design and time management
Private sector partnerships and mobilization of
framework is usually a factor in unsuccessful
additional private funding are seen as increas-
project implementation. Clear understanding of
ingly important for GEF as the role and
42

---

Conclusions of the Review
opportunities for the private sector in the pro-
need to better define what is meant by the
tecting the environment is generally increasing.
private sector and what achievements are
These types of partnerships enhance the
expected through GEF-financed interventions.
chances that a project will be replicated
The need for including private resource users,
and that the environment created for the project
such as small farmers, in the definition was
will be catalytic. In addition, partnerships
emphasized.
created throughout the life of a project can pro-
vide greater participation, contribute to
C. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ­
sustainability, and facilitate vital communica-
tion networks and contacts that could not have
CHANGES IN PROJECT DESIGN
been established within the usual time frame
of the project. Furthermore, such partnerships
It was broadly agreed that within a project's
can improve synergy effects and may contrib-
overall and immediate objectives, flexible
ute to reducing donor competition and overlaps
management in implementation is very
between projects.
desirable, if this is a way to incorporate into the
project the context and realities in which the
Within the GEF focal areas, climate change has
project is operating. Project logical frameworks
developed the most varied experiences in
should not be regarded as static documents, but
working with the private sector. Still, there are
should be adapted and amended during the life
varying levels of private sector involvement in
of the project according to changing local
GEF-financed projects--including awareness
conditions and lessons learned. Without
raising, training and study tours, support of
reducing significantly the amount of inputs to
"soft" business costs, provision of GEF funds
and outputs from the project, the implementing
guarantees and other forms of non-grant,
agency would thus have a relatively free hand
contingent financing, capital subsidies, etc.
in rearranging inputs and activities if this
There are several projects in the portfolio that
enhances the likelihood of achieving global
demonstrate the different levels of engagement
environmental benefits. All changes must be
that are possible with the private sector.
made in agreement with the recipient country
and within GEF guidelines and procedures.
The 2001 PIR reports an increased involvement
of the private sector in the implementation of
The need for making changes in project design
biodiversity projects. In particular, UNDP
may stem from a variety of sources, including
involvement with the private sector has centered
changes in the external environment, as well
on the field of eco-tourism, while the World
as faults in original design. The implementing
Bank/IFC Terra Capital Fund Project involves
agencies make changes and reallocate funds
organic farming and non-timber forest
between budget lines within the budgetary
products. The latter project illustrates the
framework of the projects. The practices should
obstacles to promoting business development
be codified with the objective of not increasing
and investment oriented toward biodiversity
bureaucratic procedures or discouraging
protection. In general terms, partnerships with
adaptive management. The implementing
the private sector often require much patience
agencies should be encouraged to make better
and hand holding as well as extensive guidance
use of mid-term reviews for the purposes of
on how to prepare business plans and how to
adaptive management.
conduct monitoring.
There should be a clear differentiation,
Working with the private sector also may
however, between candidates for adaptive
require working with host country governments
management versus projects failing primarily
to facilitate private investment. There is also a
due to faulty project design or poor project
43

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
implementation. The M&E Unit would be
the PIR portfolio, this has been undertaken
involved in the review of these latter cases. In
systematically only in the international waters
this regard, it will be important for GEF M&E
focal area through projects such as the UNDP-
to clearly define ways and means to address
implemented IW:LEARN. Similarly, the
accountability issues.
experiences gained with the First Biennial GEF
International Waters Conference, held in
Phased approaches to projects are seen as one
Budapest in October 2000, were highly positive,
of the essential modalities to be explored for
and provided an opportunity for exchanging
introducing flexibility into project design and
information and experiences between projects
management. This would necessitate the careful
through formal sessions, workshops, and panel
development of indicators that are closely
discussions. GEF should build upon the
related to the objectives of the project, the
experiences gained in the international waters
attentive monitoring of project progress, and
program, whose ongoing projects can also
the introduction of triggers that would enable
provide lessons and models for other focal
GEF to move into the project's next phase.
areas. Various possible modalities for
supporting mutual learning and horizontal
D. REPLICATION, CATALYTIC
exchange can be identified, including: (i)
establishing a corporate mechanism, perhaps
EFFECTS, HORIZONTAL
under M&E; (ii) incorporating specif ic
EXCHANGES, AND MUTUAL
components in projects; and (iii) designing
L
projects specifically to promote horizontal
EARNING
exchanges and mutual learning.
The PIR review reaffirmed the importance of
Knowledge management systems being
replication and catalytic effects by GEF. The
established by the M&E team and the
experience, however, shows that the factors
implementing agencies should emphasize
and conditions that contribute to these vary be-
learning and modes and methods of
tween focal areas. Project managers and
encouraging replication.
implementers cannot expect replication to strike
serendipitously; it has to be consciously de-
E. EXTENSION OF THE PIR/
signed as part and parcel of project design and
implementation. The explicit replication strat-
PPR PROCESS
egy within a project should recommend sup-
porting activities such as drawing out lessons
It has been agreed by the GEF secretariat and
learned and best practices, enabling staff ex-
the implementing agencies that the PIR process
changes, and creating communication and dis-
will be supplemented by other M&E tools. This
semination strategies. Project components on
is chiefly a new review modality, termed the
dissemination and catalytic effects are not very
Secretariat Managed Project Review (SMPR).
common in existing project designs. The GEF
In addition, the M&E Unit will further review
project review criteria include an explicit repli-
and utilize the implementing agencies' project
cation strategy and communication compo-
mid-term and terminal evaluations and initiate
nents. Adherence to these criteria should be
selected impact evaluations.
more systematically reviewed in new projects,
particularly, where possible, during mid-term
In partnership with the IAs, the M&E Unit,
reviews of projects under implementation.
through the SMPR, will first lead reviews of a
subset of the active project portfolio each year.
While there are a number of examples of
The SMPR will focus on the GEF project
horizontal exchanges and mutual learning in
review criteria, i.e., global benefits, incremental
44

---

Conclusions of the Review
costs, replication, national ownership, and local
F. OTHER MATTERS
participation. Next, the examination of all mid-
term reviews and terminal evaluations will
Other matters that were discussed at some
provide further data to analyze how well the
length during the PIR process included impacts
portfolio is doing in terms of results and
of GEF activities on local communities, as well
impacts. Third, as the portfolio is fast maturing,
as leveraging. These are not included in the
a growing number of final impact evaluations
present reports because they will be addressed
will be carried out, mainly as a cluster or cohort
elsewhere. The M&E Unit is beginning a full
of similar projects. These new tools will provide
evaluation of the social impacts of GEF
a wider and firmer basis for the annual s.
projects. This will be reported upon at a later
stage. Leveraging will be dealt with in a Council
paper prepared by the GEF secretariat for the
May 2002 Council meeting.
45

---

---

APPENDICES
47

---

---

APPENDIX A
LIST OF PROJECTS INCLUDED IN 2001 PIR
Multi-Focal Area
Work
IA
Effective
Disbursed
No.
IA
Country
Project Title
Program
Approval
Date
GEF Funding
as of
Percentage
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ mil.)
6/30/01
Disbursed
1
WB
Global
Small and Medium Scale Enterprise Program (replenishment - IFC)
Oct-96
May-97
Aug-97
$16.50
$9.10
55.2%
2
UNDP/
Global
Country Dialogue Workshops
Jul-98
Mar-00
$3.51
$1.29
36.7%
UNEP/WB
3
UNDP
Global
GEF Small Grants Program (Second Operational Phase)
Nov-98
Feb-99
$31.62
4
WB
Mexico
Oaxaca Sustainable Hillside Management Project (MSP)
Apr-99
May-99
Jul-99
$0.74
$0.39
53.1%
Total
$52.37
$10.78
20.6%
Biodiversity
Work
IA
Effective
Disbursed
No.
IA
Country
Project Title
Program
Approval
Date
GEF Funding
as of
Percentage
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ mil.)
6/30/01
Disbursed
1
WB
Argentina
Biodiversity Conservation
May-97
Oct-97
May-98
$10.39
$1.10
10.5%
2
UNDP
Argentina
Consolidation and Implementation of the Patagonia Coastal Zone
Management Program for Biodiversity Conservation
May-97
Dec-99
$5.20
3
WB
Bangladesh
Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation
Jan-99
Dec-99
$5.00
$0.14
2.9%
4
WB
Belize
Northern Belize Biological Corridors Consolidation
and Maintenance (MSP)
Nov-98
Apr-99
Apr-99
$0.77
$0.41
52.7%
5
UNDP
Belize
Creating a Co-managed Protected Areas System in Belize
Mar-99
Apr-99
$0.75
$0.54
71.6%
6
UNDP
Belize
Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Barrier Reef Complex
Oct-98
Apr-99
$5.36
$1.94
36.2%
7
UNDP
Bhutan
Integrated Management of Jigme Dorji National Park
Oct-96
Aug-97
Aug-97
$1.50
8
WB
Brazil
National Biodiversity Project (PROBIO)
May-91
Apr-96
Dec-96
$10.00
$4.80
48.0%
9
WB
Brazil
Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO)
May-91
Apr-96
Sep-96
$20.00
$16.10
80.5%
10
UNDP
Burkina
Optimizing Biological Diversity within Wildlife Ranching Systems:
Faso
a Pilot Demonstration in a Semi-arid Zone
Dec-92
Jul-94
Jul-94
$2.50
11
WB
Cambodia
Biodiversity and Protected Area Management Pilot Project for the
Virachey National Park
Jun-99
Mar-00
$2.75
$0.23
8.2%
12
WB
Cameroon
Biodiversity Conservation and Management
May-93
Mar-95
Dec-95
$5.96
$4.40
73.8%
13
UNDP
Central
A Highly Decentralized Approach to Biodiversity
African
Protection and Use: the Bangassou Dense Forest
May-95
Mar-98
Mar-98
$2.50
$1.16
46.6%
Republic
14
WB
China
Nature Reserves Management
Feb-95
Jun-95
Aug-95
$17.80
$13.75
77.2%
15
UNEP
China
Lop Nur Nature Sanctuary Biodiversity Conservation
Jan-99
Mar-99
Mar-99
$0.75
$0.40
53.3%
16
UNDP
China
Wetland Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use
Jan-99
1-Dec
$11.69
$1.99
17.0%
17
WB
Colombia
Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in the Western Slope of the
Serrania del Baudo (MSP)
Apr-99
Jun-99
$0.73
$0.27
37.2%
18
UNDP
Comoros
Island Biodiversity and Participatory Conservation in the
Federal Islamic Republic of Comoros
Oct-95
Nov-97
Nov-97
$2.44
$1.41
57.7%
19
WB
Costa Rica
Biodiversity Resources Development
May-97
Mar-98
Jul-98
$7.28
$3.60
49.4%
20
UNDP
Costa Rica
Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Development in
La Amistad and La Osa Conservation Areas
Sep-99
Mar-00
$0.75
$0.31
41.3%
21
UNDP
Côte
Control of Aquatic Weeds to Enhance/Restore Biodiversity in
d'Ivoire
the Water Bodies of Côte d'Ivoire
Dec-92
Dec-95
$3.00
$1.53
50.8%
49

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
Work
IA
Effective
Disbursed
No.
IA
Country
Project Title
Program
Approval
Date
GEF Funding
as of
Percentage
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ mil.)
6/30/01
Disbursed
22
WB
Croatia
Kopachi Rit Wetlands Management (MSP)
Nov-98
Jan-99
$0.75
$8.72
1162.8%
23
UNDP
Cuba
Priority Actions to Consolidate Biodiversity Protection in the
Sabana-Camaguey Ecosystem
Nov-99
Nov-99
$3.89
$1.30
33.4%
24
WB
Ecuador
Monitoring System for the Galapagos Islands (MSP)
Nov-98
Jan-99
Feb-99
$0.94
$0.33
35.4%
25
WB
Ecuador
Wetland Priorities for Conservation Action (MSP)
Mar-99
Apr-99
Apr-99
$0.74
$0.49
66.3%
26
WB
El Salvador
Promotion of Biodiversity Conservation within Coffee
Landscapes (MSP)
May-98
Jun-98
Jul-99
$0.75
$0.61
81.1%
27
UNDP
Eritrea
Conservation Management of Eritrea's Coastal, Marine &
Island Biodiversity
Apr-97
Aug-98
$5.39
28
UNDP
Ethiopia
A Dynamic Famer-based Approach to the Conservation of
African Plant Genetic Resources
Dec-92
Apr-94
Sep-94
$2.46
29
UNDP
Georgia
Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystem Conservation in the Caucasus
Sep-99
Apr-00
$0.75
$0.46
61.7%
30
WB
Georgia
Integrated Coastal Zone Management
Jul-98
Dec-98
May-99
$1.30
$0.78
59.9%
31
WB
Ghana
Natural Resource Management
Nov-97
Jun-98
Dec-98
$8.93
$4.89
54.7%
32
UNEP
Global
Promoting Best Practices for Conservation and Sustainable Use
of Biodiversity of Global Significance in Arid and Semi-arid Zones
(MSP)
Aug-99
Oct-99
Oct-99
$0.75
$ 0.28
38.0%
33
UNEP
Global
People, Land Management & Environmental Change (PLEC)
May-97
Mar-98
Mar-98
$6.28
$ 4.25
68.8%
34
UNEP
Global
Development of Best Practices and Dissemination of Lessons
Learned for Dealing with the Global Problem of Alien Species
That Threaten Biological Diversity
Jan-98
May-98
May-98
$0.75
$0.70
93.9%
35
UNDP/
Global
Biodiversity Planning Support Program
Jul-98
Apr-99
$3.43
UNEP
36
WB
Guatemala
Support for the Management and Protection of Laguna del Tigre
National Park and Biotope
Jul-99
Sep-99
$0.72
$0.35
47.9%
37
UNDP
Guatemala
Integrated Biodiversity Protection in the Sarstun-Motagua Region
(RECOSMO)
Feb-95
Apr-97
Apr-97
$4.00
38
WB/UNDP
Honduras
Biodiversity Conservation in Priority Protected Areas
May-97
Oct-97
Aug-98
$7.30
$1.89
25.8%
39
WB
India
Ecodevelopment
May-95
Sep-96
Dec-96
$20.21
$9.55
47.2%
40
WB
Indonesia
Conservation of Elephant Landscape in Aceh Province, Sumatra
Oct-99
Dec-99
Dec-99
$0.74
$0.34
46.4%
41
WB
Indonesia
Biodiversity Collections
Apr-92
Jun-94
Jul-94
$7.20
$6.31
87.6%
42
WB
Indonesia
Kerinci Seblat Integrated Conservation and Development
May-95
Apr-96
Aug-96
$14.40
$4.37
30.3%
43
WB
Indonesia
Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Project (COREMAP)
May-97
Mar-98
Jun-98
$12.28
$3.76
30.6%
44
WB
Kenya
Lewa Wildlife Conservancy and Community Conservation
Jul-99
Mar-00
Mar-00
$0.75
$0.45
60.5%
45
WB
Kenya
Tana River National Primate Reserve
May-91
Nov-96
Jul-97
$6.20
$1.11
17.9%
46
UNEP
Kenya
Lake Baringo Community-based Land and Water Management
Project
Feb-00
May-00
May-00
$0.75
$0.24
32.0%
47
UNDP
Korea DPR
Conservation of Biodiversity at Mount Myohyang
Jan-00
Jun-00
$0.75
48
WB
Lao PDR
Wildlife and Protected Areas Conservation
May-91
Feb-94
Jan-95
$5.00
$2.67
53.4%
49
UNDP
Lebanon
Strengthening of National Capacity and Grassroots In-situ
Conservation for Sustainable Biodiversity Protection
May-95
Feb-96
Feb-96
$2.53
$2.11
83.5%
50
UNDP
Lesotho
Conserving Mountain BD
Nov-97
May-99
$2.51
$0.15
6.1%
51
WB/UNDP
Madagascar
Environment Program Support II
Oct-96
Dec-96
Jun-97
$21.30
$21.42
100.6%
52
WB
Mauritius
Biodiversity Restoration
May-95
Nov-95
Feb-96
$1.20
$0.80
66.3%
53
WB
Mexico
Protected Areas Program (FANP)
May-91
Jun-97
Jul-97
$25.00
$15.00
60.0%
54
WB
Mexico
Biodiversity Conservation Through Habitat Enhancement in
Productive Landscapes (El Trufino)
Jun-99
Jun-99
Jul-99
$0.73
$0.37
50.5%
55
UNDP
Micronesia
Community Conservation and Compatible Enterprise
Development on Pohnpei
Jul-99
May-00
$0.75
$0.21
28.7%
56
UNDP
Mongolia
Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Livelihood Options in
the Grasslands of Eastern Mongolio
Dec-97
Nov-98
Nov-98
$5.16
$1.35
26.2%
57
WB
Morocco
Protected Areas Management
Jan-98
Nov-00
$10.35
$0.46
4.5%
58
WB
Mozambique Transfrontier Conservation Areas Pilot and Institutional
Strengthening
Dec-92
Dec-96
May-97
$5.00
$2.98
59.6%
50

---

Appendix A: List of Projects Included in 2001 PIR
Work
IA
Effective
Disbursed
No.
IA
Country
Project Title
Program
Approval
Date
GEF Funding
as of
Percentage
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ mil.)
6/30/01
Disbursed
59
UNDP
Nepal
Upper Mustang Biodiversity Project
Nov-99
Jun-00
$0.75
$0.07
8.8%
60
WB
Nicaragua
Atlantic Biological Corridor
Oct-96
Jun-97
Oct-98
$7.43
$2.21
29.8%
61
UNDP
Pakistan
Mountain Areas Conservancy Project
Oct-98
Jun-99
$10.60
62
WB
Panama
Atlantic Mesoamerican Biological Corridor
May-97
Jun-98
Nov-98
$8.60
$2.96
34.4%
63
UNDP
Panama
Biodiversity Conservation in the Darien Region
Jan-92
Feb-94
May-94
$3.00
64
WB
Panama
Effective Protection with Community Participation of the New
Protected Area of San Lorenzo
Jun-99
Jun-99
Jul-99
$0.73
$0.38
51.4%
65
UNDP
Paraguay
Paraguayan Wildlands Protection Initiative
May-99
Jun-00
$9.20
$0.04
0.4%
66
UNDP
Peru
Conservation of Biodiversity in the Lake Titicaca Basin
Feb-95
Dec-98
$3.11
$0.59
19.0%
67
WB
Peru
Collaborative Management for the Conservation and Sustainable
Development of the (Tumbes) Noroeste Biosphere Reserve
Jun-99
Sep-99
Oct-99
$0.73
$0.73
99.7%
68
WB
Peru
Vilcabamba-Participatory Conservation and Sustainable
Development with Indigenous Communities
Jun-99
Oct-99
Oct-99
$0.73
$0.34
45.9%
69
WB
Philippines
Conservation of Priority Protected Areas
May-91
May-94
Oct-94
$20.00
$10.27
51.3%
70
WB
Regional
West Africa Pilot Community-based Natural Resource and
Wildlife Management (GEPRENAF)
Dec-92
Sep-95
May-96
$7.00
$3.63
51.9%
71
UNDP/
Regional
Establishment of a Program for the Consolidation
UNEP
of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor
Apr-99
Nov-99
$10.60
$1.69
16.0%
72
UNDP
Regional
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Dryland Agro-biodiversity
of the Fertile Crescent
Nov-97
Mar-99
$8.18
$2.08
25.4%
73
UNDP
Regional
South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Program
Jan-92
Apr-93
$10.00
$0.83
8.3%
74
UNDP
Regional
African NGO-Government Partnership for Sustainable
Biodiversity Action (Birdlife)
May-97
May-98
May-98
$4.52
$2.20
48.6%
75
UNDP
Regional
Inventory, Evaluation, and Monitoring of Botanical Diversity in
Southern Africa: a Regional Capacity and Institution Building
Network (SABONET)
Feb-96
Oct-97
Oct-97
$4.73
$0.00
0.0%
76
UNDP
Regional
Conservation of Wetland and Coastal Ecosystems in the
Mediterranean Region
May-97
Sep-99
$13.27
$2.10
15.8%
77
UNDP
Regional
Conservation Priority-setting for the Upper Guinea Forest
Ecosystems, West Africa
May-98
Sep-98
$0.74
78
UNDP
Regional
Reducing Biodiversity Loss at Cross-border Sites in East Africa
Mar-97
Mar-98
Mar-98
$12.90
79
UNEP
Regional
Indicator Model for Dryland Ecosystems in Latin America (MSP)
Dec-99
May-00
May-00
$0.75
$0.29
38.7%
80
WB
Regional
Central Africa Region: Regional Environment Information
Management Project (REIMP)
May-97
Dec-97
Apr-98
$4.35
$2.54
58.5%
81
UNEP
Regional
Emergency Response to Combat Forest Fires in Indonesia
Jun-98
Jul-98
Jul-98
$0.75
$0.61
81.6%
82
WB
Regional
Central Asia Transboundary Biodiversity
Nov-97
May-00
$13.60
$0.77
5.7%
(Kyrgyzstan,
Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan)
83
WB
Regional
Terra Capital Biodiversity Fund
Oct-95
Nov-97
Oct-98
$5.00
$1.80
35.9%
(Latin
America)
84
WB
Romania
Danube Delta Biodiversity
Apr-92
Aug-94
Feb-95
$4.50
$0.88
19.6%
85
WB
Russian
Biodiversity Conservation
Nov-94
May-96
Nov-96
$20.10
$13.59
67.6%
Federation
86
WB
Samoa
Samoa Marine Biodiversity Protection and Management Project Not Available
Jul-99
$0.90
$0.29
32.2%
87
WB
Seychelles
Management of Avian Ecosystems (MSP)
Jun-98
Jul-98
Sep-98
$0.74
88
WB
South Africa
Conservation of Globally Significant Biodiversity in Agricultural
Landscapes in South Africa Through Conservation Farming
Jul-99
Feb-00
$0.75
$0.31
41.5%
89
WB
South Africa
Conservation Planning for Biodiversity in the Thicket Biome
Jul-99
Jun-00
$0.74
$0.27
36.1%
90
WB
South Africa
Cape Peninsula Biodiversity
Nov-97
Feb-98
Jun-98
$12.40
91
WB
Sri Lanka
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants
May-97
Dec-97
May-98
$5.42
$2.04
37.6%
92
UNDP
Sudan
Conservation and Management of Habitats and Species, and
Sustainable Community Use of Biodiversity in Diner National Park
Jun-98
Oct-99
$0.75
$0.20
26.7%
51

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
Work
IA
Effective
Disbursed
No.
IA
Country
Project Title
Program
Approval
Date
GEF Funding
as of
Percentage
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ mil.)
6/30/01
Disbursed
93
WB
Syria
Conservation of Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management
Project
Oct-98
Oct-99
$0.75
$0.10
13.3%
94
WB
Uganda
Bwindi Impenetrable National Park & Mgahinga Gorilla National
Park Conservation
May-91
Jan-95
Jul-95
$4.00
95
WB
Uganda
Protected Areas Management and Sustainable Use
(ICB-PAMSU)
May-97
Jul-98
Mar-99
$10.29
$10.50
102.0%
96
WB
Uganda
Kibale Forest Wild Coffee Project (MSP)
Dec-98
Feb-99
Feb-99
$0.75
97
UNDP
Uruguay
Consolidation of the Banados del Este Biosphere Reserve
Apr-97
Sep-97
Sep-97
$2.50
98
WB
Venezuela
Conservation & Sustainable Use of the Llanos Ecoregion (MSP)
Jun-99
Jun-99
Jun-99
$0.96
$0.34
35.5%
99
UNDP
Viet Nam
Protected Areas for Resource Conservation (PARC)
Oct-95
Nov-98
$6.04
100
UNDP
Yemen
Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Biodiversity of
Socotra Archipelago
Oct-96
May-97
May-97
$4.97
$4.52
91.0%
101
WB
Yemen
Protected Area Management
Apr-99
Feb-00
$0.74
$0.08
10.1%
102
WB
Yemen
Coastal Zone Management along the Gulf of Aden (MSP)
Jun-99
Feb-00
$0.73
$0.08
10.3%
103
WB
Zimbabwe
Biodiversity Conservation in Southwest Zimbabwe
Apr-92
Jun-98
Mar-99
$4.80
$1.93
40.2%
Total
$553.16
$219.12
39.6%
Climate Changes
Work
IA
Effective
Disbursed
No.
IA
Country
Project Title
Program
Approval
Date
GEF Funding
as of
Percentage
Climate Change
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ mil.)
6/30/01
Disbursed
1
World
Bank/IFC
Argentina
Efficient Streetlighting
Nov-98
Feb-99
$0.74
$0.50
95.0%
2
World
Bank
Argentina
Renewable Energy in Rural Markets
Nov-97
Mar-99
Dec-99
$10.00
3
UNDP
Bolivia
Rural Electrification with Renewable Energy Through the Popular
Participation Law
May-99
Jul-99
$4.22
$0.51
44.5%
4
UNDP
Brazil
Biomass Power Generation: Sugar Cane Bagasse and Trash
Apr-96
Mar-97
Jun-97
$3.75
$3.02
80.5%
5
UNDP
Bulgaria
Energy Efficiency Strategy to Mitigate GHG Emissions
Oct-96
Oct-96
May-98
$2.58
$1.04
77.6%
6
World
Bank
Cape Verde
Energy and Water Sector Reform and Development
Mar-98
May-99
Dec-99
$4.71
7
UNDP
Chile
Reduction of Greenhouse Gases
Dec-92
Jun-95
Jun-95
$1.70
8
UNDP
China
Barrier Removal for the Widespread Commercialization of
Energy-efficient CFC-free Refrigerators in China
Jul-99
Dec-99
$9.62
$1.55
76.7%
9
UNDP
China
Capacity Building for the Rapid Commercialization of Renewable
Energy
Apr-97
Feb-99
$8.80
$6.33
98.0%
10
World
Bank
China
Efficient Industrial Boilers
Apr-96
Dec-96
Feb-97
$32.81
11
World
Bank
China
Energy Conservation Project
Mar-98
Dec-98
$22.00
$6.39
12
UNDP
China
Promoting Methane Recovery and Utilization from Mixed
Municipal Waste
Apr-96
May-97
$5.29
$4.12
77.9%
13
World
Bank
China
Sichuan Gas Development & Conservation
Apr-92
Jan-94
Sep-94
$10.00
$9.61
14
World
Côte
Bank
d'Ivore
Energy Efficiency Service Market
Jul-98
Jan-99
Jun-99
$0.73
15
UNDP
Cuba
Producing Energy Efficient Refrigerators Without Making Use
of Ozone Depleting Substances
Mar-00
May-00
$0.75
10.0%
52

---

Appendix A: List of Projects Included in 2001 PIR
Work
IA
Effective
Disbursed
No.
IA
Country
Project Title
Program
Approval
Date
GEF Funding
as of
Percentage
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ mil.)
6/30/01
Disbursed
16
World
Czech
Bank
Republic
Kyjov Waste
Aug-98
Nov-98
$5.09
17
UNDP
Czech
Republic
Low Cost/Low Energy Buildings in the Czech Republic
Jul-98
Jan-99
$0.45
$0.20
73.0%
18
UNDP
Egypt
Energy Efficiency Improvement & Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Project
Oct-96
Aug-98
$4.11
$2.48
97.2%
19
UNDP
Egypt
Introduction of Viable Electric and Hybrid Electric Bus Technology
Nov-99
Mar-00
$0.75
$0.00
0.0%
20
UNDP
Fiji
Promoting Sustainability of Renewable Energy Technologies
and Rural Renewable Energy Service Companies in Fiji
Feb-99
Jun-00
$0.74
$0.11
36.2%
21
UNDP
Ghana
Renewable Energy-based Electricity for Rural, Social and
Economic Development
Aug-96
Jun-98
$2.47
$0.83
69.4%
22
World
Global
Efficient Lighting Initiative (Tranch I) - Argentina,
Bank/IFC
Peru, South Africa
Mar-99
Aug-99
$9.58
23
World
Global
Efficient Lighting Initiative (Tranch II) - Czech Republic,
Bank/IFC
Hungary, Latvia, and Philippines
May-00
$5.65
24
UNEP
Global
Fuel Cell Market Prospects and Intervention Strategy Options
Apr-00
Apr-00
Apr-00
$0.69
$0.46
66.7%
25
UNDP
Global
National Communications Support Program on Climate Change
Aug-98
$1.81
26
World
Bank/IFC
Global
Photovoltaic Market Transformation Initiative
Jun-98
Jul-98
$30.00
$0.00
0.0%
27
UNEP
Global
Redirecting Commercial Investment Decisions to Cleaner
Technologies ­ a Technology Transfer Clearing House
Mar-99
Jul-99
Jul-99
$0.75
$0.50
66.7%
28
World
Bank/IFC
Global
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Fund (REEF)
Dec-97
Feb-00
$30.00
29
World
Bank/IFC
Hungary
Energy Efficiency Co-financing Program
Apr-96
Sep-96
Feb-97
$5.00
$3.75
88.2%
30
UNDP
India
Coalbed Methane Recovery and Commercial Utilization
May-98
$9.20
$0.32
7.2%
31
UNDP
India
Cost-effective Options for Limiting Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(Selected Options for Stabilizing GHG Emissions for
Sustainable Development)
May-93
Jun-98
$1.51
$0.41
34.7%
32
UNDP
India
Development of High-rate Biomethanation Processes as
Means of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
May-92
Jan-94
Mar-94
$5.50
$2.87
87.1%
33
UNDP
India
Optimizing Development of Small Hydel Resources in Hilly Areas
Dec-91
Jan-94
Mar-94
$7.50
$7.20
100.0%
34
World
Bank
India
Renewable Resources Management Project (Alternate Energy)
Dec-91
Dec-92
Apr-93
$27.62
$24.59
35
World
Bank
Indonesia
Solar Home Systems
Oct-95
Jan-97
Oct-97
$20.00
36
UNDP
Jordan
Reduction of Methane Emissions and Utilization of Municipal
Waste for Energy in Amman
Apr-96
Apr-96
Aug-97
$2.50
$3.45
98.6%
37
UNDP
Kenya
Removal of Barriers to Energy Conservation and Energy
Efficiency in Small and Medium Enterprises
Oct-98
Apr-00
$3.19
$0.27
136.6%
38
World
Bank
Lao PDR
Southern Provinces Rural Electrification Project
Feb-98
$0.74
$0.28
56.0%
39
World
Bank
Latvia
Solid Waste Management
Feb-98
Jul-98
$5.12
$1.04
40
World
Bank
Lithuania
Klaipeda Geothermal Demonstration
May-95
May-96
Oct-96
$6.90
$6.90
100.0%
41
World
Bank
Macedonia
Mini-hydropower Project
Dec-99
Apr-00
$0.75
42
UNDP
Malaysia
Industrial Energy Efficiency and Improvement
Apr-98
Jul-99
$7.33
$1.41
34.3%
43
UNDP
Pakistan
Fuel Efficiency in the Road Transport Sector
May-92
Jul-95
May-96
$7.00
$1.33
69.3%
44
UNDP
Palestinian
Authority
Energy Efficiency Improvement & Greenhouse
and Egypt
Gas Reduction
May-97
Jul-98
$2.48
$1.59
89.3%
45
UNDP
Peru
Photovoltaic-based Rural Electrification in Peru
Apr-98
Apr-99
$3.96
$0.33
17.9%
53

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
Work
IA
Effective
Disbursed
No.
IA
Country
Project Title
Program
Approval
Date
GEF Funding
as of
Percentage
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ mil.)
6/30/01
Disbursed
46
UNDP
Philippines
Palawan New and Renewable Energy and Livelihood Support
Oct-99
Feb-00
$0.75
$0.21
66.8%
47
World
Bank
Poland
Coal to Gas Conversion
Dec-91
Nov-94
Jun-95
$25.00
$6.69
48
World
Bank/IFC
Poland
Efficient Lighting Project
Dec-94
May-95
Aug-95
$5.00
$5.00
100.0%
49
UNDP
Regional
Building Capacity in the Maghreb to Respond to the Challenges
and Opportunities Created by National Response to the
Framework Convention on Climate Change.
May-93
Sep-94
Dec-94
$2.50
$1.25
53.0%
50
World
Bank
Regional
CARICOM: Planning for Adaptation to Climate Change
May-95
Mar-97
Apr-97
$6.30
51
UNDP
Regional
Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Through Energy Efficient
Building Technology in West Africa (Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal)
Dec-92
Dec-94
Feb-95
$3.50
$3.45
98.6%
52
UNDP
Regional
The Creation and Strengthening of Capacity for Sustainable
Development of Renewable Energies in Central America
Oct-99
Apr-00
$0.75
$0.35
90.1%
53
UNDP
Romania
Capacity Building for GHG Emission Reduction through Energy
Efficiency Improvement
Sep-00
$2.27
$0.01
0.4%
54
UNDP
Russian
Capacity Building to Reduce Key Barriers to Energy Efficiency
Federation
in Russian Residential Buildings and Heat Supply
Oct-96
Oct-96
Feb-98
$2.98
$1.81
91.0%
55
World
Bank
Senegal
Sustainable Participatory Energy Management
Apr-96
Jun-97
Dec-97
$4.70
56
World
Bank
Sri Lanka
Energy Services Delivery
Apr-96
Mar-97
Jul-97
$5.90
$1.60
57
UNDP
Sri Lanka
Renewable Energy and Energy Capacity Building
Apr-96
Jan-98
$1.51
$0.99
73.3%
58
UNDP
Sudan
Barrier Removal to Secure PV Market Penetration in Semi-urban
Sudan
May-99
Jan-00
$0.75
$0.03
9.5%
59
UNDP
Sudan
Community-based Rangeland Rehabilitation for Carbon
Sequestration and Biodiversity
Dec-92
Aug-94
Oct-94
$1.50
$1.50
100.0%
60
UNDP
Syria
Supply-side Efficiency and Energy Conservation and Planning.
Oct-96
Nov-98
$4.07
$0.19
53.5%
61
UNDP
Tunisia
Barrier Removal to Encourage & Secure Implementation of
Standards and Labeling of Cold Appliances and Transformation
of the Cold Appliance Market
Feb-99
Apr-99
$0.71
$0.07
26.7%
62
World
Bank
Tunisia
Solar Water Heating
May-93
Nov-94
May-95
$4.00
$2.87
63
UNDP
Uganda
Photovoltaic Pilot Project for Rural Electrification
Oct-95
Nov-97
$1.76
$1.14
58.1%
Total
$400.04
$120.55
30.1%
International Waters
Work
IA
Effective
Disbursed
No.
IA
Country
Project Title
Program
Approval
Date
GEF Funding
as of
Percentage
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ mil.)
6/30/01
Disbursed
1
UNDP
Regional
Building Partnerships in Environmental Protection and
Management for the East Asian Seas (PEMSEA)
Nov-98
Oct-99
Oct-99
$16.22
$2.23
13.7%
2
UNDP
Regional
Building Environmental Citizenship to Support Transboundary
Pollution Reduction in the Danube: a Pilot Project in Hungary
and Slovenia
Feb-00
Mar-00
Apr-00
$0.75
$0.48
64.0%
3
UNDP
Ukraine
Preparation of the Strategic Action Program for the Dnieper
River Basin and Development of SAP Implementation Mechanism
Mar-98
Mar-00
$7.00
$1.47
21.0%
4
UNDP
Global
International Waters Distance Learning Project (IW: LEARN)
Jul-98
Mar-00
$1.94
$0.58
29.9%
5
UNDP
Global
Knowledge Sharing in International Waters - Train-Sea-Coast
Jul-98
Mar-00
$5.25
6
UNDP
Global
Removal of Barriers to the Effective Implementation of Ballast
Water Control and Management Measures in Developing
Countries (GloBallast)
May-99
Feb-00
$7.61
$1.33
17.4%
54

---

Appendix A: List of Projects Included in 2001 PIR
Work
IA
Effective
Disbursed
No.
IA
Country
Project Title
Program
Approval
Date
GEF Funding
as of
Percentage
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ mil.)
6/30/01
Disbursed
7
UNEP
Global
Global International Waters Assessment
Sep-97
Mar-99
Mar-99
$6.50
$1.26
19.4%
8
UNDP
Regional
Environmental Protection of the Rio de La Plata and Its
Maritime Front: Pollution Prevention and Control and
Habitat Restoration
Nov-98
Nov-99
$6.01
$0.49
8.2%
9
UNDP
Egypt
Egypt - Lake Manzala Engineered Wetlands
Dec-92
7-Jun
Jun-97
$4.50
$1.61
35.8%
10
UNDP
Regional
Preparation of Strategic Action Program (SAP) and
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) for the Tumen River
Area, Its Coastal Regions and Related Northeast Asian Environs
Mar-98
Jun-99
$5.20
$1.57
30.3%
11
UNDP
Regional
Implementation of the Strategic Action Program (SAP) of the
Pacific Small Island Developing States (14 countries)
Jul-98
Feb-00
$12.29
$1.34
10.9%
12
UNDP/
Regional
Addressing Transboundary Environmental issues in the
UNEP/WB
Caspian Environment Program
Nov-98
Apr-99
Apr-99
$8.34
$3.38
40.5%
13
UNDP/
Saudi
Implementation of the Strategic Action Program (SAP)
UNEP/WB Arabia
for the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden
Nov-97
Feb-99
Sep-99
$19.34
0.0%
14
UNEP
Global
The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and
Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycles
Oct-98
Jul-99
Jul-99
$0.72
$0.42
58.8%
15
UNEP
Brazil
Integrated Management of Land-based Activities in the
Sao Francisco Basin
Jul-98
Oct-99
Oct-99
$4.77
$1.44
30.2%
16
UNEP
Brazil
Implementation of Integrated Watershed Management
Practices for the Pantanal and Upper Paraguay River Basin
Jul-98
Sep-99
Sep-99
$6.62
$2.95
44.6%
17
World
Bank
Regional
Western Indian Ocean Oil Spill Contingency Planning
Jul-98
Dec-98
Mar-99
$3.16
$0.98
30.9%
18
World
Regional
Bank
(Kenya)
Lake Victoria Environmental Management
Apr-96
Jul-96
Mar-97
$35.00
$6.42
18.3%
19
World
Regional
Bank
(Tanzania)
Lake Victoria Environmental Management
Apr-96
Jul-96
Mar-97
20
World
Regional
Bank
(Uganda)
Lake Victoria Environmental Management
Apr-96
Jul-96
Mar-97
21
World
Bank
Regional
Mekong River Water Utilization
Jun-99
Feb-00
Mar-00
$11.10
$1.07
9.6%
22
World
Bank
Regional
Lake Ohrid Management
May-97
Jun-98
Dec-98
$4.28
$0.86
20.1%
23
World
Bank
Regional
Water and Environmental Management of the Aral Sea Basin
May-97
Jun-98
Sep-98
$12.03
$3.70
30.8%
24
World
Bank
Poland
Rural Environmental Protection
Jul-98
Nov-99
Mar-00
$3.00
$0.72
23.9%
25
World
Bank
Regional
Ship-generated Waste Management
Dec-92
May-95
Nov-96
$12.50
$1.18
9.5%
26
World
Bank
Jordan
Gulf of Aqaba Environmental Action Plan
Oct-95
Jun-96
Jun-96
$3.00
$1.65
55.2%
Total
$197.13
$37.13
18.8%
Ozone
Work
IA
Effective
Disbursed
No.
IA
Country
Project Title
Program
Approval
Date
GEF Funding
as of
Percentage
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ mil.)
6/30/01
Disbursed
1
UNDP
Azerbaijan
Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances
Mar-98
Feb-99
$7.04
$7.04
100.0%
2
UNDP
Estonia
Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances
Jul-00
Aug-00
$0.97
$0.40
41.2%
3
UNDP
Latvia
Jul-97
2-Jun
$1.44
$1.25
86.8%
4
UNDP
Lithuania
Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances
Jul-97
May-98
$4.53
$4.24
93.6%
55

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
Work
IA
Effective
Disbursed
No.
IA
Country
Project Title
Program
Approval
Date
GEF Funding
as of
Percentage
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ mil.)
6/30/01
Disbursed
5
UNEP
Regional
Initiating Early Phase-out of Methlyl Bromide in CEITs Through
Awareness Raising, Policy Development, and Demonstration/
Training Activities
Sep-99
Mar-00
Mar-00
$0.66
$0.22
33.2%
6
UNEP
Regional
Promoting Compliance with the Trade and Licensing Provisions
of the Montreal Protocol in Countries with Economies in Transition
Jan-98
Feb-98
Mar-98
$0.69
$0.44
63.3%
7
World
Russian
Bank
Federation
Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances
May-95
May-96
Sep-96
$60.00
0.0%
8
UNDP
Tajikistan
Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances
Jul-00
Sep-00
$1.15
$0.68
59.1%
9
UNDP
Turkmenistan Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances
Oct-98
Feb-99
$0.52
$0.32
61.5%
10
World
Bank
Ukraine
Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances
Jul-96
Jun-96
Mar-99
$23.20
0.0%
11
UNDP
Uzbekistan
Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances
Oct-98
Mar-99
$3.32
$2.72
81.9%
Total
$103.52
$17.31
16.7%
Grand Total
$1,305.51
$404.89
31.0%
56

---

APPENDIX B
GUIDELINES FOR THE 2001 PIR
1. THE 2001 PIR PROCESS
force reviews will also draw on other
material like the agency overviews and
AND SCHEDULE
conclusions of earlier studies.
The 2001 GEF PIR process will, as in 2000,
(3) Based on the reviews of the focal area task
involve: (1) PIR reviews by the Implementing
forces an interagency meeting will be held
Agencies (IAs) that will be submitted to the
in early December, 2001.
GEF M&E Team; (2) reviews of the PIR reports
by GEF focal area task forces in their respective
portfolios, and (3) a one-day interagency review
2. INDIVIDUAL PROJECT REPORTS
meeting.
Reports will be submitted on all full and me-
(1) The IA PIR for 2000 will be conducted
dium-sized (but not pre-investment or individual
between July and September, 2001. IA
country enabling activities) GEF projects which
reports to GEF M&E team will be
began implementation on or before June 30,
submitted no later than September 25,
2000 and were in implementation during FY
2001. The agencies will submit (or make
2001, or for which the Implementation Comple-
available on electronic databases):
tion Report, Performance Audit Reports or
Evaluation Reports were prepared during that
individual project reports
year. The reports should comprise:
an overview of agency experience
2.1.
Project Name, Country and GEF
Operational Program/EA/STRM
summary tables with project data
2.2.
Brief Project Description
(2) Once the IA reports are received by GEF
M&E team, they will be distributed to
A brief description (50-100 words)--in
program managers within GEFSEC and
simple and direct language--of the
IA members of the four GEF focal area
project, what it is trying to achieve, its
task forces. Each focal area task force will
principal activities, and major
schedule a review meeting of their
accomplishments and/or problems
respective portfolios during early to mid-
during the past year. (Please do not
November, 2000. These reviews will focus
repeat the project goal or objective in this
on trends identified in the project reports,
section.)
program and project cycle issues. The task
8 This should be the highest level in the project's Logical Framework, which is often labeled the "goal" to which the project contributes.
Different Implementing Agencies are using different terms for this level. The World Bank often refers to this level as the "CAS Objective"
and/or the "GEF Operational Program" or "Program Purpose." UNEP uses "overall objective" to describe this level, while UNDP recently
has used "goal."
5 7

---

GEF 2001Project Performance Report
2.3.
Project "Goal" 8
2.7.
Assumptions and Risks Ratings
Present a statement of the goal to which
List major assumptions identified in the
the project contributes.
project design and others that have been
made since. Rate the risk that each
2.4.
Indicators of Goal Achievement and
assumption may seriously affect
Related Targets
implementation or prospects for
achieving project objectives. For this
List the indicators being used to monitor
purpose, use the 4 point scale in Annex
progress toward achievement of the
1: high (H), substantial (S), modest (M)
project's goal, together with any relevant
and low (L).
target values for these indicators. If
specific indicators are not identified,
2.8.
Project Progress and Achievement
include a discussion of how the project
Ratings
manager is determining progress toward
achievement of the goal, and state when
Using the 4-point scales described in An-
project indicators will be put in place.
nex 1, list the ratings for implementation
For each indicator, include the actual
progress (IP) and achievement of the
level achieved.9
project's purpose12 for each project for
2000 and 2001. This section should in-
2.5.
Project Purpose 10
clude assessment of risks and a brief
explanation of the basis for the 2001 PIR
State the project's purpose or purposes.
ratings. The reasons for any changes in
ratings since 2000 should be discussed.
2.6.
Indicators of Purpose Achievement
For all projects rated "unsatisfactory" on
and Related Targets
either measure, and for projects where
ratings have declined since 2000, this
List the indicators being used to monitor
section should also include a description
progress toward achievement of the
of actions being taken to address imple-
project purpose(s), together with any
mentation problems.
relevant target values for each indicator.
If specific indicators are not identified,
2.9.
Issues During Implementation/
include a discussion of how the project
Management Adaptation Approaches
manager is determining progress toward
achievement of the project purpose(s)11,
Give an account of which significant
and state when project indicators will be
policy, institutional, scientific and tech-
put in place. For each indicator, include
nical issues or changes that have arisen
the actual level achieved.
during project implementation, includ-
9 It is understood that at this level, information may not be available on every indicator each year. Reports should include the most recent data
on the goal-level indicators.
10 This should be the second highest level in the project's Logical Framework, which is typically labeled as the "project purpose". Different
Implementing Agencies are using different terms for this level. The World Bank often refers to this level as the "development objective" and/
or "global objective". UNEP uses "outcomes" to describe this level, while recent UNDP projects use "purpose."
11 For example, UNDP projects are supposed to have "indicators of performance" that are rated and reported on in APRs.
12 This has been referred to in past PIRs as the prospects for achieving the project's development/global environmental objective(s) (DO).
58

---

Appendix B: Guidelines for the 2001 PIR
ing changes in project assumptions/
portfolios) on (i) length of time from
risks. Assess how well the project has
formal IA approval to first disbursement,
responded to such issues/changes and
(ii) disbursement history, and (iii) project
describe the project's use of adaptive
ratings;
management or flexible approaches to
reach project objectives.
(b) ratings of implementation progress (IP)
and accomplishment of project purposes
2.10. Demonstration Effects, Replicability
(DO), trends in each focal area, and
of GEF Projects / Further Needs for
common factors that appear to account for
Information Exchange
either deterioration or improvements in
ratings in relation to those included in the
Describe whether the project was
2000 PIR; and
designed to, or has otherwise engaged
in, special efforts to draw and
(c) issues or topics for which:
disseminate lessons and transferring
knowledge--through workshops,
OPs require clarification or elabora-
exchange of personnel or other forms of
tion;
cooperation--and whether this has had,
or could be expected to have,
additional operational guidance is
demonstration and replication effects.
needed on project development,
implementation or evaluation;
Discuss whether the project has further
needs for receiving technical and
referral to STAP for scientif ic or
operational knowledge, and suggest
technical advice is indicated;
areas/issues that could be subject to
enhanced knowledge/information
review in greater depth in M&E studies
exchange.
would be beneficial; and/or
2.11. Lessons Learned/Good Practice
dissemination of good practices and
lessons learned is recommended.
Describe lessons from experience and
examples of good practice that have
resulted from project implementation to
4. PROJECT LISTS/STATUS
date.
The IAs should provide lists/portfolio status,
3. SUMMARY PERFORMANCE
as follows:
AND LESSONS LEARNED
4.1.
A list of all full and medium-sized
OVERVIEW
(but not pre-investment or individual
country enabling activities) GEF projects
On the basis of the individual project reports
which began implementation on or
each Implementing Agency should provide a
before June 30, 2000 and were in
narrative report that summarizes the conclu-
implementation at least some part of
sions of its internal PIR. This should include
FY2001 (for which individual reports
analysis of:
will be prepared)
(a)
the performance of its GEF projects
4.2.
A brief status report on all projects for
(possibly relative to comparable non-GEF
which:
59

---

GEF 2001Project Performance Report
a) funding was allocated in GEF Work
4.4.
A list of (a) all mid-term reviews, evalu-
Programs before June 30, 1999, but
ation reports (self evaluations or
which have not been approved
independent evaluations) and/or project
formally by the IA.
completion reports that have been com-
pleted from July 1, 2000 through June
b) formal approval was made by the IA
30, 2001, and (b) mid-term reviews,
on or before September 30, 2000,
evaluation reports and/or implementa-
but which have not begun disburse-
tion completion reports underway as of
ments by June 30, 2001.
June 30, 2001, or planned through June
2002.
4.3.
A list of all GEF projects that were
operationally completed during FY01.
Reports on these projects should also be
included in the PIR.
60

---

Appendix B: Guidelines for the 2001 PIR
ANNEX 1 ­ DEFINITION OF RATINGS
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS RATINGS
Highly Satisfactory/Good Practice (HS)
Implementation of all components is in substantial
compliance with the original (or formally revised)
implementation plan for the project. The project can
be presented as "good practice".
Satisfactory (S)
Implementation of most components is in substantial
compliance with the original/formally revised plan
except for a few that are subject to remedial action.
Partially Satisfactory (PS)
Implementation of several components is not in
substantial compliance with the original/formally
revised plan.
Unsatisfactory (U)
Implementation of most components is not in
substantial compliance with the original/formally
revised plan.
PROJECT PURPOSE (GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT OBJECTIVE/DEVELOPMENT
OBJECTIVE) RATINGS
Highly Satisfactory/Good Practice (HS)
Project is expected to achieve or exceed all its major
purposes and global environmental objectives and
yield substantial global environment benefits. The
project can be presented as "good practice."
Satisfactory (S)
Project is expected to achieve most of its major global
environmental objectives and purposes and to yield
satisfactory global environmental benefits without
major shortcomings.
Partially Satisfactory (PS)
Project is expected not to achieve several of its major
global environmental objectives or purposes nor yield
substantial global environmental results.
Unsatisfactory (U)
Project is expected not to achieve most of its major
global environment objectives or purposes or to yield
worthwhile global environmental results.
61

---

GEF 2001Project Performance Report
ASSUMPTION AND RISK RATING
Assumption and risk rating is often done on the basis a Logical Framework approach. The risk that
individual assumptions relevant to the project may not prove to be accurate, and, may seriously affect
implementation or prospects for achieving project objectives, should be rated on the following scale:
High Risk (H)
There is a probability of greater than 75 % that the
assumption may fail to hold or materialize.
Substantial Risk (S)
There is a probability of between 51 % and 75 %
that the assumption may fail to hold or materialize.
Modest Risk (M)
There is a probability of between 26 % and 50 %
that the assumption may fail to hold or materialize.
Low Risk (L)
There is a probability of less than 25 % that the
assumption may fail to hold or materialize.
62

---

APPENDIX C1
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
PIR OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTION
mobilized in association with a GEF project,
which is also being interpreted as a sign of the
commitment of GEF recipient countries and
The annual GEF Project Implementation
others to protecting the global environment.
Review (PIR) complements the regular UNDP
Monitoring and Evaluation procedures
Dissemination
employed during project implementation.
A significant outreach and dissemination effort
The PIR covers only a subset of the UNDP/
is being conducted by a many projects. Taking
GEF's portfolio. According to the PIR selection
full advantage of more easily available technolo-
criteria individual project information was
gies such as the internet, engaging the mass
collected for all full and medium-sized projects
media (Talamanca-Caribbean Biological Cor-
under implementation for a minimum of one
ridor project in Costa-Rica), supporting
year, as of June 30, 2001. Projects that were
information centers and clearinghouses (Com-
operationally completed before June 30, 2000
mercialization of Renewable Energy project in
were not included in this year's review. A total of
China and the Energy Efficiency Improvement
96 projects qualified for the 2001 PIR--a 33%
project in Egypt), and also maintaining more
increase compared to 72 projects that reported
"traditional" methods such as newsletters, semi-
on last year PIR.
nars, or field visits. For example, UNDP/GEF
projects are communicating with others at the
In addition to reporting on the general
local, national and international level, thus,
performance of GEF projects, implementation
showing their commitment to raise the aware-
progress and impact achievements, the 2001
ness about global environmental issues as well
PIR is the fourth year in which we have
as sharing lessons and technical knowledge
attempted to gather information on catalytic
gained through project implementation.
effects and resources leveraged. The report also
includes a summary of trends and lessons
The IW:LEARN project, aimed at improving
learned from UNDP/GEF projects.
global management of transboundary water
systems by increasing the capacity to replicate
TRENDS AND LESSONS LEARNED
best practices and lessons across the GEF IW
portfolio stands out in their contribution to
Catalytic Effects and Resources
share and disseminate knowledge on one
Leveraged
particular GEF focal area.
Catalytic effects refer to those consequences of
Demonstration and Replicability
UNDP/GEF interventions that are initiated or
stimulated by project activities and which often
UNDP/GEF projects through their efforts to
go beyond contributing to project specific
raise awareness, to strengthen institutions, and
goals. Financial leveraging refers to funds
to share their knowledge and experience often
6 3

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
provide the inspirational basis for further
or the review of existing ones is a key compo-
project development and follow-up actions.
nent, proposals are pushed through the
Even though for many projects it is still too
legislative process and brought to the attention
early to show replication of their activities, a
of decision-makers (Building Environmental
number of projects in the PIR provide
Citizenship to Support Transboundary Pollution
successful examples.
Reduction project in the Danube).
A variety of actors, from local governments, to
Partnerships
bilateral and multilateral donors, NGOs or the
scientific community, take the lead to follow
UNDP/GEF projects interact with other
up and replicate projects results. In India for
organizations and similar interventions,
example, the Small Hydro project has motivated
benefiting from synergy effects and engaging in
various State Governments to set small hydro
joint activities. This contributes to reducing
projects in remote and isolated locations. In
overlaps between projects and donor
Chile, the government has started the prepara-
competition.
tions for two important joint implementation
projects after the positive experience gained by
Inter-Agency interaction (Conservation of Arid
the country on issues related to removal of bar-
and Semi-arid Ecosystems project in the
riers after the implementation of the Reduction
Caucasus, West Africa Efficient Building
of Greenhouse Gases project. The SABONET
Technology project) is common and often
project in Southern Africa has stimulated the
results in sharing experience and information,
formation of the East Africa BOZONET project
access to databases, diagnosis reports and
focusing on the development of taxonomic ca-
lessons learned, which ultimately result in
pacity in the zoological and botanical fields in
significant savings in time and resources for the
East Africa.
GEF as a whole.
Formulation and Review of Policies
Coordination and cooperation with other
and Legislation
institutions is also encouraged and is even more
evident in the case of Global Programs. The
UNDP/GEF projects continue to show signifi-
Ballast Water Control project for example
cant results of their efforts dealing both directly
reports building win-win relationships with
and indirectly with the formulation and review
other UN programs and GEF sister projects.
of new and existing environmental policies and
Cooperative relations were established with the
legislation at the national and local level.
Secretariat of the Convention of BD, the TRAIN
SEA coast project and the GEF Caspian Sea
In some cases, projects share their experiences,
Environment Programme.
including specific research results and techni-
cal concepts as an input to current work in the
The Small Grants Programme has been
development of policies (Yemen Socotra, India
particularly successful in forging strategic
Small Hydel Resources). In other situations,
alliances with many initiatives and programmes
projects initiate national policy dialogue on
such as the SGP-UNF Community
energy regulations (West Africa Control of
Management of Protected Areas Conservation
Greenhouse Emissions), facilitate consultations
(COMPACT) project.
(Madagascar Environmental Program Support
project), or support building consensus and gen-
Private Sector Involvement
erating policy frameworks necessary to develop
more specific legislation (PEMSEA project). In
UNDP-GEF's portfolio of projects under
projects where new environmental legislation
implementation already has several projects in
64

---

Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies
each focal area which are exploring and have
increased market intelligence, introductions to
secured a variety of partnerships with the
senior national leaders from government and
private sector in order to achieve global
business and production promotion and good
environmental benefits.
public relations.
In climate change companies are involved in
Financial Leveraging
UNDP-GEF projects to promote energy
efficiency technology and renewable energy
UNDP/GEF projects in the PIR 2001 portfolio
technology to reduce GHG emissions. Their
continue to be successful in their leveraging
support is provided by helping designing
efforts totaling US$ 381.3 million in resources
marketing strategies and training retail stores on
to complement the funding from GEF resources
how to sell energy-saving products (Barrier
maintaining the ratio of one additional dollar
Removal for the Widespread Commercialization
leveraged for each dollar allocated by GEF
of Energy-efficient CFC-free Refrigerators in
(or approximately 4 million on average per
China) or partnering with the UNDP-GEF
project) reported in last year's PIR.
project as volunteers for energy audits to
achieve energy savings through reduced energy
Leveraging encompasses amounts mobilized
consumption in their manufacturing processes
up-front, during implementation and after
(Sri Lanka Renewable Energy and Energy
completion including funds used for replica-
Capacity Building Project).
tion of successful projects and follow-up
investments.
In biodiversity conservation there are several
projects (Strengthening of National Capacity &
It is estimated that the actual resources lever-
Grassroots In-situ Conservation for Sustainable
aged are even higher than reported since many
Biodiversity Protection, Mountain Areas
times these resources are not being adequately
Conservancy Project in Pakistan) partnering
quantified and are not being included in the
with companies, particularly in the field of eco-
reports. Non-cash contributions such as sharing
tourism. Companies are assisting projects raise
of equipment and office space, provision of
local revenues for conservation, employ local
free labor in the form of volunteers or non-
people to reduce pressure on the local natural
remunerated part time collaboration, free or
resources and raising the ecological awareness
reduced cost of services such as advertising or
of the tourists to reduce their negative impacts
coordination activities are common and result in
on the natural resources they visit. Another type
important savings for the project.
of contribution by the private sector is direct
allocation of funds to support local
Challenges and Lessons Learned
organisations involved in GEF projects for on-
going conservation activities
Several projects mention limited capacity, both
of the project executing agents as well as in-
Several of the International Water projects also
country capacity at all three levels (individual,
are working closely with companies.
institutional and systemic) as a challenge for
(PEMSEA, Tumen River, Caspian Environment
achieving the expected project results.
Programme). The companies act as commercial
Executing institutions are in some cases under-
sounding boards for projects to be developed,
staffed--usually due to budget limitations--,
advise on financial and technical feasibility of
and lack personnel with the necessary technical,
proposed interventions and assist in identifying
managerial and administrative skills. In
sources for private sector investment and make
addition, in-country capacity--at all three
the necessary contacts to national investment
levels--might be limited in terms of absence of
houses. In return they are benefiting from
standards and regulations, lack of legislative
65

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
SOURCES OF LEVERAGE FOR UNDP/GEF PROJECTS
UNDP
UN
Private
(TRAC)
Agency
Government Donors*
sector
NGOs
Total
Co-financing
$17.8
$4.8
$97.5
$120.3
$51.7
$43.7
$ 33
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.
frameworks, or weak organization skills of
need to be recognized and reflected in project
community groups for example. There is
plans.
therefore a clear need to systematically conduct
assessments of relevant capacities at all three
Several UNDP/GEF projects provide successful
levels (individual, institutional and systemic) as
stories and lessons about working with
part of project identification and preparation,
communities. The South Pacific Biodiversity
including decisions on execution arrangements.
Conservation Program for example reports that
spiritual and cultural beliefs can be powerful
GEF projects are implemented in some cases in
driving forces for conservation. The project
countries governed by young democracies,
understood their importance and incorporated
under unstable political environments, or even
them into its strategy in order to be successful.
involved in armed conflict. These factors pose
The Panama Darien Conservation project
great challenges since they often result in
provides a good example in the management of
frequent changes of staff, revision of policies
resources in communities. Potential conflicts
and priorities, and the need to review resource
with project beneficiaries of a micro-credit
allocations.
initiative regarding distribution issues and
ownership were minimized by ensuring their
The decision on the appropriate time frame for
full involvement in the design and
implementation is a crucial one and a requisite
implementation of the most adequate model for
for project success. An adequate time frame
their needs. The result is that for the first time,
ensures an acceptable ratio between personnel
payback has been over 90%.
and administration costs versus total project
budget, sets realistic expectations for all
UNDP/GEF projects also offer numerous
stakeholders, and contributes to project
examples of adaptive management in
sustainability by investing the time necessary to
response to challenges faced at different stages
consolidate the processes that build solid
of implementation. For example, during the
foundations for project implementation. Time
first year of implementation the Mesoamerican
required during the inception phases is often
Biological Corridor project organized a
underestimated. Trade-offs between capacity
workshop to review the consistency of the
development efforts and implementation plans
PRODOC in the context of the new regional
66

---

Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies
situation. In other cases, revisions are carried
PORTFOLIO OVERVIEW
out later during implementation when
necessary (Building Capacity to Respond to
Since the initiation of the annual Project
Challenges of UNFCCC project in Morocco).
Implementation Review in 1995 the UNDP/
Budgets, logical frameworks and staffing needs
GEF annual approved Work Programme has
are adapted and amended during the life of the
grown from $30 million in FY 95 to over $ 161
project according to changing local conditions,
million in FY 01. Consequently the number of
monitoring of assumptions, and also to take into
projects for which monitoring information
consideration lessons learned through project
needs to be collected, analyzed and consolidated
activities.
during the PIR process is increasing steadily.
The innovative character of certain projects is
With 39 projects (or 41%) the biodiversity focal
illustrated by the Agro-biodiversity project in
area has the biggest share of the PIR portfolio,
Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the Palestine
with the climate change portfolio being a close
authority. This is the first and only in situ
second with 36 projects (or 37 %). There were
conservation project working at the same time
12 international waters projects under review
on landraces and wild relatives in the region.
and the PIR this year did also include 7 ozone
The promotion and incorporation of its concept
depletion projects and two in the multiple focal
to economic and development processes at
area category (GEF Small Grants Programme
national end regional level will require
and the Country Dialogue Workshops
considerable additional effort compared to
Programme).
other traditional practices. Working in different
ecosystems and under different implementation
The distribution of PIR projects by focal area
arrangements (NEX, DEX and NGO) will also
over the last three years is presented in the
need to be carefully managed.
following graph:
PIR 99/00/01 COMPARISON: DISTRIBUTION OF GEF FUNDINDING PROJECTS BY FOCAL AREA.13
PIR 1999/2000/2001 COMPARISON: % OF PROJECTS BY FOCAL AREAS
45%
1999 2001 2002
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Multiple Focal Area
Ozone Depletion
Biodiversity
Climate Change
International Waters
13 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 )
67

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
The distribution of PIR projects by type of executing agency is presented in the following table:
Type
Number of projects
Percentage
NEX/Government 14
54
56%
UNOPS
29
31%
Other UN Agency
5
5%
NGO
8
8%
Total
96
100%
RATINGS FOR IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVES 99/00/01
80%
1999 2001 2002
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
HS
S
PS
U
NA
Using the rating categories provided in the PIR
achievement for UNDP/GEF projects. The
guidelines a total of 9 projects were rated highly
picture for the rating of implementation
satisfactory (HS) and 75 projects satisfactory
progress looks fairly similar. A total of six
(S) on impact achievement, representing about
projects report highly satisfactory progress; 72
87% of the PIR 01 portfolio. One project
projects report satisfactory progress in
reported that it was too early in implementation
implementation. Only one project rated the
to measure the potential impact of project
achievement of its immediate objectives as
activities. Only three projects rated its potential
unsatisfactory. These figures translate into a
impact achievement with unsatisfactory (U).
success rate of 88% for UNDP/GEF rated
Compared to FY 99 and FY 00, this seems to
projects.
continue a trend of high potential impact
14 Includes three projects executed by intergovernmental organizations
68

---

Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies
RATINGS FOR DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 99/00/01
80%
1999 2001 2002
60%
40%
20%
0%
HS
S
PS
U
NA
69

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
70

---

Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies
APPENDIX C2
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
PIR OVERVIEW
PORTFOLIO OVERVIEW
2001 PIR, but will be under review in the FY
2002 PIR.
AND STATUS
The following eight projects were completed
UNEP's GEF Project Implementation Review
in the preceding fiscal year: "Biodiversity
(PIR) for FY 2001 covered a total of 15 full
Country Studies - Phase I/Phase II",
and medium size projects. This excludes jointly
"Economics of GHG Limitation-Phase I",
implemented projects, in which UNEP is not
"Global Biodiversity Assessment", "Pilot
the lead agency. The portfolio under review
Biosafetry Enabling Activity", "A Participatory
included 7 biodiversity projects, 2 climate
Approach to Managing the Environment: An
change projects, 4 international waters projects
Input to the Inter-American Strategy for
and 2 projects dealing with protection of the
Participation", "Strategic Action Programme
ozone layer.
for the Binational Basin of the Bermejo River",
and "Rescue Plan for the Cap Blanc Colony of
UNEP's overall GEF portfolio consists of 22
the Mediterranean Monk Seal".
full size projects, 19 medium size projects, 9
PDF As, 27 PDF Bs, and 76 Enabling Activities,
SUMMARY PERFORMANCE
including the clearinghouse add-on modules for
biodiversity enabling activities. Of the 22 full
AND LESSONS LEARNED
size projects in the portfolio, 7 are on
biodiversity including biosafety and land
A. Overview
degradation, 4 on climate change, and 11 on
international waters including POPs. This
(i) Disbursement History
includes 2 full sized projects and 4 PDF Bs that
are jointly implemented, with the UNEP as the
The average time frame from formal IA
lead agency. Of the 19 medium sized projects,
approval to first disbursement of UNEP's GEF
9 are on biodiversity, 2 on climate change, 3 on
project has been reduced to 2 weeks. For all
international waters, 2 on protection of the
GEF funded projects that have been formally
ozone layer, and 3 in the multiple focal area.
approved by UNEP on or before September 30,
The PIR for FY 2001 is therefore reviewing
1999, disbursements have already begun.
approximately 38 % of the overall portfolio of
UNEP's GEF full and medium size projects.
(ii) Ratings of Implementation Progress
All UNEP GEF financed projects endorsed into
On average, UNEP projects reviewed during
the GEF Work Programme before June 30, 1998
PIR 2001 had a rating of (S) for Implementa-
have been committed (i.e. internally approved
tion Progress. This was similar to the average
by UNEP). Among them those projects, which
ratings of the FY 2000 PIR. The implementa-
have not yet been under implementation for
tion progress is significantly influenced by the
more than one year, are not subject to the FY
level and effectiveness of coordination and
71

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
mobilization of institutions and individuals
The Alien Species project (Development of Best
participating in project design and implemen-
Practices and Dissemination of Lessons
tation. Most of UNEP's projects reviewed this
Learned for Dealing with the Global Problem
year are multi-country projects, which involve
of Alien Species that Threaten Biological
a large number of countries than in most con-
Diversity) was instrumental in generating best
ventional GEF projects. Projects, which exceed
practices to prevent, control and eradicate alien
the original project implementation plans by
species that threaten biodiversity. The project
approximately one year, have to undergo an
developed various publications including a
Internal UNEP Project Revisions to enable an
Toolkit of Best Prevention and Management
extension of project duration.
Practices for Invasive Alien Species, and
developed Global Invasive Species Database.
(iii) Accomplishment of Project Purpose
The Arid and Semi-Arid project (Promoting
Among 15 projects covered by this year's PIR
Best Practices for Conservation and Sustainable
(See paragraph 9 below for detail), three were
Use of Biodiversity of Global Significance in
assessed "Highly Satisfactory", ten
Arid and Semi-Arid Zones) has increased
"Satisfactory, and two "Partially Satisfactory".
cooperation and coordination of activities
In terms of percentage, those evaluated "Highly
between Institutions of Excellence in both
Satisfactory" have decreased, while those rated
biodiversity and land degradation through the
"Satisfactory" have increased. This does not
analyses of relevant experiences and best
necessarily mean the level of achievement of
practices. An all participating meeting was held
the UNEP's GEF projects has deteriorated this
in April 2001 and numerous additional draft
year. Rather it is the result of more rigorous
case studies are being included into the project.
PIR exercise conducted within UNEP this year.
The Fuel Cell project (Fuel Cell Market
This year's portfolio can be divided into four
Prospects and Interventions Strategy Options)
different types of projects: (i) assessment and
has conducted an analysis of market prospects
knowledge management, (ii) development of
for fuel cell bus and distributed power
tools and methodologies, (iii) management of
generation and intervention strategy options.
trans-boundary and critical ecosystems, and
Two international workshops were successfully
(iv) short-term emergency response measures.
convened and the Fuel Cell Bus Strategy Note
was provided to the November 2000 GEF
UNEP's GEF projects reviewed in the FY 2001
Council Meeting.
PIR exercise include several activities related
to assessment and good practices on selected
The Carbon Cycles project (The Role of the
issues.
Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed Nutrient and
Carbon Cycles) aims at e valuating coastal
The GIWA (Global International Waters
system eutrophication, and changes, regional
Assessment) project, the first systematic global
forcings, and function of the global coastal
assessment of the environmental conditions
systems to act as sinks or sources of carbon
and problems in International Waters, has dealt
and nitrogen. Planned activities including
with initial implementation diff iculties.
workshops, training, networking through the
Although the implementation is still behind
mentor system, and development of new system
the original schedule, basic methodologies have
models were all implemented successfully as
been developed, the GIWA network has been
planned.
expanded to cover almost all sub-regions
originally planned, and the GIWA home page
A substantial part of UNEP's portfolio is related
has been set up.
to development of tools, methodologies
72

---

Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies
and guidelines for sound environmental
Facility has now supported 11 different
management. These projects have assisted
investment evaluations. The project has easily
countries in strengthening necessary building
surpassed the GHG mitigation target of 1
blocks and a scientific basis for developing
million tons CO avoided.
2
national strategies and frameworks for the GEF
focal areas.
The ODS Compliance project (Promoting
Compliance with the Trade and Licensing
The PLEC (People, Land Management and
Provisions of the Montreal protocol in
Environmental Change) project has been
Countries with Economies in Transition)
developing sustainable and participatory
promoted adoption of licensing regulations to
approaches to biodiversity conservation within
prevent illegal trade in ozone depleting
agricultural and other natural resource
substances. Nineteen out of twenty participating
management systems. The 3rd year of PLEC
countries successfully introduced national ODS
implementation has been very active and very
legislation.
productive. At the global level, "PLEC
Agrodiversity Database Manual" and
The Methyl Bromide project (Initiating Early
"Guideline for Field Assessment of Land
Phase-out of Methyl Bromide in CEITs through
Degradtion" have been developed. Twenty-one
Awareness Raising, Policy Development and
demonstration sites have been actively involved
Demonstration/Training Activities) is a regional
in surveys, assessment and networking.
initiative to assist CEITs in achieving an early
implementation of methyl bromide phase-out
The Baringo project (Lake Baringo Commu-
provisions of the Montreal Protocol. The project
nity-based Integrated Land and Water
has successfully implemented the expected
Management) started its implementation. This
activities for the reporting period.
project prompted the designation of the Lake
Baringo as a Ramsar site and succeeded in
Of the 15 projects reviewed, two projects fall
involving various actors in the region.
under the category of trans-boundary/critical
ecosystem management. Both the Sao
The Indicator Model project (Indicator Model
Francisco project (Integrated Management of
for Dryland Ecosystems in Latin America) is
Land-based Activities in the Sao Francisco
aimed at providing the GEF and its partners
Basin) and the Pantanal project
with a tool to collate, organize and better
(Implementation of Integrated Watershed
understand linkages between land degradation,
Management Practices for the Pantanal and
biodiversity loss, and community impacts
Upper Paraguay River Basin) are to support
in dryland areas. The indicators model software
an integrated approach in the planning and
has been developed and three pilot projects
management for ecologically critical water
in Mexico, Chile, and Brazil have been
bodies. Under the Sao Francisco project
executed.
about 80 % of the relevant information and
data have already been collected. Eighteen out
The Commercial Investment Decisions project
of 24 project activities are already on going.
(Redirecting Commercial Investment
Under the Pantanal project, data and
Decisions in Cleaner Technologies--a
information necessary for the diagnostic
Technology Transfer Clearinghouse) aims at
analysis have been collected. Some good
promoting commercial investments in
preliminary results have been obtained from
renewable energy technologies and energy
the demonstration projects.
efficiency by providing financial institutions
with advice and information concerning
The last type of UNEP GEF financed projects
specific investments. The Investment Advisory
covered in the FY 2001 PIR includes two
73

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
emergency short-term measure projects. The
effective implementation of similar projects in
main issue in question is to ensure that these
the future.
projects help prevent emergency situations from
recurring or address them in an effective
The following chapters consist of three parts,
manner, should the situation arise again.
(i) Project Impacts, (ii) Issues during
Implementation, and (iii) Participation/
The Indonesian Forest Fires project
Communications/Demonstrations.
(Emergency Response to Combat Forest Fires
in Indonesia to Prevent Haze in South East
II. Project Impacts
Asia) assisted countries in the region to
coordinate their efforts to mitigate the short and
All projects are implemented to create intended
long-term impacts of forest fires. Although the
impacts. As a matter of fact a project can be
overall project implementation was delayed,
seen as a process to generate intended impacts
remaining activities such as establishment of
over a certain period of time. Project impacts
GIS database and some training activities were
are initiated at the project preparation stage, are
successfully completed. This project is rather
magnified during project implementation, and
unique as it aimed to address an emergency
fade, stay, or proliferate at the stage following
situation. As such, assessment of this project
project completion.
should take into account the peculiar situation
in Indonesia and South East Asia at the time of
Project impacts could take various forms.
the fire emergency.
Impacts created by UNEP/GEF projects for this
year are discussed from the following
The Lop Nur project (Lop Nur Nature
perspectives, (i) international impacts, (ii)
Sanctuary Biodiversity Conservation) in China
innovation, (iii) legislative impacts, (iv) UNEP's
has successfully established a nature sanctuary
comparative advantage, (v) multi-country
to protect wild camels and other species.
approach, and (vi) clear objectives and sound
Institutional capacity necessary for the newly
project design.
created sanctuary has been strengthened. An
international conference held in Beijing
(i) International Impacts
promoted cooperation with Mongolia to protect
the wild camel.
Project impacts could be created at the
international or regional level by both multi-
B. Lessons Learned
county projects and single country projects.
International impacts once created may
I. Introduction
generate extensive influence upon related
policies and programs of both developed and
Fifteen UNEP GEF f inanced projects are
developing countries in the world. If an
reviewed this year. Eleven are multi-country
international impact is taken up by a relevant
projects and the rest single-country projects.
international environmental convention forum,
Major components of these projects are
chances are much higher that such an impact
assessment, development of tools,
may proliferate to other countries.
methodologies and guidelines for sound
environmental management, preparation of
The Alien Species project supported GISP (The
environmental plans and strategies, enabling
Global Invasive Species Programme), which in
activities, and demonstration projects.
turn has contributed to the development of the
Experience in implementing such type of
Interim Guiding Principles for the
projects could enrich the GEF's body of
implementation of Article 8(h) of the CBD
knowledge, which in turn contributes to more
presented at SBSTTA 6 and will be finalized
74

---

Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies
at the Conference of the Parties in 2002 (COP
provide significant leverage to GEF resources,
6). Three consultative documents on invasive
since information barriers can be quite cheap
alien species were provided by the GISP team
to address compared to subsequent investment
as commissioned by the CBD.
decisions. The success of this approach has led
to two subsequent actions: continued support
The ODS Compliance project prompted the
of this approach by the Sustainable Alternatives
bringing up of the issue of illegal trade in ODS
Network and similar service by UNEP for a
and ODS containing products to the Meeting
different target group (i.e. policy decision
of Parties (MOP) of the Monreal Protocol. This
makers).
issue had been extensively discussed among
participating countries during the two regional
PLEC introduced on-farm "expert farmers"-led
workshops under the project. A Decision was
demonstrations i.e. local expert farmers teach
taken by MOP on this issue at its 12th meting.
others on conservation farming. As PLEC
The Lop Nor project is a single country project,
demonstration models are being further
but the international conference held in Beijing
improved, they are now also being replicated
in August 2000 on the protection of the Wild
by other projects or organizations. In Brazil and
Bactrian camel resulted in promoting
Tanzania, several r ural extension and
cooperation between China and Mongolia.
conservation programms are adopting PLEC's
The Baringo project is again a single country
demonstration approaches. Even international
project implemented in Kenya. The project has
attention is being paid to this innovative
contributed to the development of supportive
approach.
policies for environmental conservation and the
Lake Baringo ecosystem has been enlisted as
The Regional Mentor scheme introduced by
Kenya's fourth RAMSAR site in recognition
Carbon Cycles project proved very effective. A
of the international importance of the lake
few experts are appointed respectively for Asia,
ecosystem.
Central America and South Africa. They provide
training through workshops, extend the network
(ii) Innovation
of committed scientists, and develop tools and
methods for university course curricula. They
UNEP has been actively promoting innovative
are vital contributors in the total project
approaches through a number of GEF projects.
management, development and decisions
Once such approaches are proven effective, the
framework. This scheme is highly transportable
replication potential could become far-
to any integrated project. The model has already
reaching. Although risk associated with
attracted strong attention from UNESCO's
innovative approaches is usually higher than
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
that of conventional approaches, it is
and is being pursued as a model for
worthwhile for GEF to give more support to
implementation of the GOOS program.
such projects.
(iii) Legislative Impacts
The Investment Advisory Facility (IAF) activity
introduced by the Commercial Investment
Projects which have successfully prompted
Decisions project has demonstrated significant
relevant national legislation are considered
effectiveness of this approach. By addressing
quite effective in creating sustainable impacts.
information barriers for financiers, the project
This is because legislative action usually makes
has helped them build the capacity to take
a country truly committed to project objectives.
rational investment decisions in the renewal
Further such action creates long lasting
energy and energy eff iciency sector. This
enabling environment, in which capacities of
approach seems to be an effective way to
relevant institutions are to be strengthened.
75

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
The ODS Compliance project was fundamental
Coordinated actions are always necessary by
in catalysing the political will in participating
countries concerned. In many cases the
countries, and in assisting them in establishing
regional approach is considered useful,
an ODS licensing system. The project enabled
because countries in a region tend to have
19 out of 20 participating countries to introduce
political, social, economic and cultural factors
ODS licensing regulations. To help these
in common, although in different degrees. The
countries implement the regulations, staff
regional approach is also essential to protect
training and other assistance have been
transboundary ecosystems.
provided under the project.
The Alien Species project found that problems
The Lop Nor project resulted in a creation of a
that arise as the issue of invasive alien species
new nature reserve called the Arjin Shan Lop
are variable with respect to specific regions.
Nur Nature Reserve. It was gazetted as a
This necessitates cooperation among
provincial protected area by the Xinjiang Uighur
governments and other stakeholders in initiating
Autonomous Region Government in May 2000.
innovative approaches to address the issue.
They will be the focus of the next phase of GISP.
(iv) UNEP's Comparative Advantage
The Methyl Bromide project created significant
One of the prominent features of UNEP's GEF
impacts at national level through the regional
projects is its strong scientific orientation. This
approach. The Policy Development Workshop
is a reflection of one of UNEP's comparative
developed national action plans, enabled mutual
advantages within GEF, its extensive linkage
leaning about different policy approaches to
to scientific organizations. This approach is
phase out methyl bromide, and helped to
effective because scientific findings are in
establish a network of policy experts among
many cases the basis for subsequent corrective
participating countries. A demonstration project
actions.
has provided useful technical information
concerning alternative substances to methyl
The Fuel Cell project is a good example, in
bromide, which could be applied to major crops
which UNEP has been instrumental in
in the region.
developing broad strategy and bringing in
scientific aspects of a strategy. In the case of
(vi) Clear Objectives and Sound Project
this study, linking to the long term IPCC
Design
mitigation and emissions scenarios is critical
to making a solid case for early investment in
Without clear visions, goals and objectives,
fuel cell applications.
projects cannot be managed properly, hence no
significant impacts are created. Indeed clear
The Alien Species project demonstrated
understanding of project objectives is a key to
through the successful implementation of the
smooth and successful project implementation.
project that to address scientific information
gaps that are directly linked to practical
The Indonesian Forest Fires project was
resource management issues is cost-effective,
approved in an expedited manner, since it was
and to ally with the scientific community is
an emergency response measure project. This
essential in producing high quality outputs.
lack of time for project preparation could have
resulted in the setting of unrealistic objectives
(v) Multi-Country Approach
and in developing unattainable time frames for
various activities. The project could have been
Global environmental problems cannot be
more effective if more time and effort had been
dealt with solely by any single county.
spent at the beginning on preparation, review
76

---

Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies
and assessment of the real need and activities
GIWA suffered from initial start up difficulties.
of the project.
Selection and appointment of key project staff,
underestimation of time necessary for
GIWA quoted a lesson learned from the
establishing a global network, and technical
methodology development that a qualitative
difficulties encountered to develop universal
description of the assessment process should
methodologies all contributed to the delay.
have been prepared before discussions on
Remedial actions have been taken and the
detailed quantitative methodologies. This is
project is now being put back to the normal
another example for a need to share clear vision
track. At the moment the delay is about six
regarding a key project element.
months.
The Carbon Cycles project has been very
Frequent changes in key project staff and the
successfully implemented. The clear
consequent discontinuity caused a delay to both
understanding of project objectives by all
the Sao Franscisco project and the Pantanal
participating parties has been an important
project in an average of six months. The
factor for this success.
technical coordinator and the national director
in charge of this project have been changed two
III. Issues During Implementation
or three times during a short period after their
inception towards the end of 1999. It is
There are many factors, which influence
important, however, to note that these staff
smooth and effective implementation of a
changes were in part due to the major change
project. These factors are, in general, managed
in the recipient government structure, a factor
in terms of (i) time, (ii) resources, (iii)
external to these two projects. The two projects
institution, and (iv) staffing.
are now being implemented smoothly with
competent staff and renewed government
(i) Time Management
commitment.
Delay in project implementation is not
(ii) Resources Management
uncommon. Time is a scarce resource, thus
strict time management is essential. Strong
Any project has certain risks or uncertainties,
commitment to a project tends to dissipate if a
which may prevent smooth project
project is significantly delayed. However the
implementation. Flexible management of
consequence of delays is not always negative.
project resources such as funds and back up
In some cases the original timeframe could be
plans could be a key to handling manifested
viewed as an optimistic estimation. Often delays
risks and uncertainties.
result in improved coordination and
participation, which will in the end contribute
The Carbon Cycles project encountered
to the successful implementation of a project.
unexpected lack of progress in the development
of South Asian databases. Additional funding
The Indonesian Forest Fires project was delayed
was secured from a non-GEF source and field
more than one year. Causes of the delay
data gathering capacity was strengthened with
included unrealistic original time schedules,
direct assistance from LOICZ, the executing
unattainable objectives setting, and unexpected
agency of this project. Furthermore a training
changes in key project staff. However, persistent
scholarship is planned for this region for 2002
efforts made by those involved in the project
to cope better with the problem
have brought it close to completion, with most
of the originally planned activities properly
The Arid and Semi-Arid project noticed at an
executed.
early stage of its implementation that
77

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
participants would benef it from face-to-
The ODS Compliance project has promoted the
face discussions to share project goals and
strengthening of direct co-operation between
purposes, to identify processes to improve
environmental and customs authorities as one
case studies, and to identify region-specific
of the main instruments for effectively
project agenda. Consequently, the project was
monitoring and controlling the import and
revised to accommodate an all participants
export of ODS in the region. This concern was
meeting.
addressed at two regional workshops organized
under this project, to which staff from both
(iii) Institutional Arrangements
environmental and customs authorities were
invited. Signif icant need still exists to
Competence and eff iciency of executing
strengthen such efforts at the national level. This
agencies is an essential element for successful
co-operation has in some countries materialised
project implementation. Careful consideration
in national workshops for government
is necessary to provide conditions, which make
authorities on ODS legislation and policies.
project offices competent and efficient. Also
important is the inter-agency cooperation.
(iv) Staffing
Without agreement on roles and responsibilities
of each of the executing and participating
Without dedicated staff with required expertise,
agencies, efficient project implementation
projects cannot be successfully executed. Since
cannot be ensured.
many projects last over several years, however,
change in key project staff in the middle of the
Location of the project office is an important
project should be considered as a risk. A sound
factor for efficient project implementation. The
back up plan is necessary to avoid disruption
project office of the Baringo project was moved
in the project implementation, should
at the initiation of the project and is now hosted
unexpected staff change become a reality.
by a branch off ice of a national research
institute located in the project area. This has
PLEC suffered from personnel transfer,
strengthened the land management, including
departure and death of several key project staff,
soil fertility regeneration activities of the project
which substantially affected project
and also provided opportunities for interactions
implementation. The original project document
between researchers at the institute and project
identified the personal transfer at participating
staff.
institutions as a risk. This risk was considered
to be addressed by, among other things,
Under the Indicator Model project the Chilean
identifying back up leadership and inter cluster
working group has set up a unique implemen-
collaboration. Measures were taken to address
tation arrangement, combining three different
these initial staffing problems. As a result, these
types of institutions, one from the government,
"losses" have now been recovered and the
another from the NGO and the last from the
project implementation has resumed almost
academia. This arrangement has been very use-
back to the originally anticipated level.
ful in delivering diversified expertise required
by this project.
GIWA has encountered staffing problems. The
initial weakness of the core team of both the
Interagency coordination is essential and in
number of professional staff involved in
some cases it is the key to the success. In the
executing the substantive work of the project
case of the Fuel Cell project, there has been a
as well as in terms of their capacity and
high level of cooperation between UNDP, WB,
understanding of the actions required to meet
IFC and UNEP, which has contributed to the
project mile stones has led to the substantial
high quality outcomes of the project.
project delay. The Scientific Director and the
78

---

Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies
Southern Hemisphere Co-ordinator had to be
people are the target of "demonstration"
replaced. Consultants were hired to fill vacant
activities.
posts as an interim measure. The linkages
between the Core Team and the University of
(i) Communications
Kalmar have been strengthened drawing into
GIWA a few experts. In addition, a strong
Although the use of internet has significantly
backstopping support has been provided by the
facilitated communications mainly among
UNEP Headquarters to the Core Team. As a
executing and participating agencies, questions
result, the project has been put in the normal
still remain on how the internet should be
track of operations, although still its
effectively used. A number of different
implementation is about six months behind the
approaches have been tried for better
schedule.
communications.
Both the Sao Francisco project and the Pantanal
In the Indicator Model project, communications
project suffered from an initial staff ing
between the partners in Chile, Mexico and
problem. The technical coordinator and the
Brazil and the U.S. remain a challenge. Internet
national coordinator have been changed a few
communication works well in some instances
times for both projects after its inception in late
to achieve consensus but in others has failed.
1999. These personnel changes were at least in
In fact the partners agreed that consensus could
part due to requests from the recipient
only be reached via a face-to-face meeting. The
government. Also related was the change in the
partners are working to better coordinate
government structure, which had direct linkage
activities via internet but this is likely to be a
to these projects. Mainly due to these changes
continuing challenge for coordinating results
in key project staff, both projects were delayed
of the team efforts in Chile, Mexico and Brazil.
by about six months. The staffing problem
encountered by these two projects has now been
Two regional workshops were held under the
properly addressed.
ODS Compliance project. During the
workshops, establishment of an informal
IV. Communications /Participation/
network among participating countries was
Demonstrations
discussed. Such a network would further
facilitate the exchange of information and
Three different groups of people are usually
experiences between country focal points and
identified in relation to a project. The first
with international experts. It is likely that two
group is those who promote a project. They are
informal networks will be developed for each
project proponents, which include staff of the
of the two sub-regions involved.
executing agencies and participating
organizations. Communications are mostly
The internet has been used in a variety of ways
related to exchange of ideas and information
to meet different needs of each project. The
among this first group. The second group is
Carbon Cycles project developed the website
local people residing in project areas. They
"publication" mechanisms so that everyone is
could benefit or suffer from the project. The
identified with their quality contribution. The
word "participation" is mainly meant for this
Methyl Bromide project was linked to RUMBA,
group of people, who are expected to be
which was established on the internet to provide
involved in project activities. The third group
up-to-date information on experiences with
is people not living in project areas. Those
alternatives to methyl bromide. GIWA used its
people cannot participate in the project, but they
website for a peer review. PLEC organized an
could become interested to replicate similar
email forum to exchange ideas on studying
projects in their areas. Thus the third group of
relationships between biodiversity and
79

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
agrodiversity. The Sao Franscisco and Pantanal
format that relied upon full participation of all
projects established an interactive website to
countries. A similar approach was taken for
ensure proper information exchange among
carrying out the national surveys and reports.
project proponents. It is expected more effective
The countries themselves organized their own
use of the internet will be identified through
national survey teams to carry out the surveys,
these valuable experiences.
while UNEP provided technical advice and peer
review. Countries also incorporated stakeholder
(ii) Participation
involvement into the national action plans
developed under this project. Furthermore,
Participation is an essential element to
representatives from methyl bromide user
determine the impact of a project. As a matter
organizations and other agricultural
of fact, participation could be viewed as the
organizations participated in the training
most important factor underlying sustainability
workshops and the seminar on the
of a project. More specifically participation
demonstration project.
is important because (i) various concerns
of stakeholders can be accommodated to
The draft scaling/scoping methodology
avoid future potential conflicts, (ii) diversified
developed under GIWA was peer reviewed by
information and ideas can be obtained and
a large number of independent experts. The
generated in the process, and (iii) overall
draft was placed on the GIWA website to ensure
increase in the level of commitments through
all those interested could make comments. In
strengthened ownership of those involved.
addition, the GIWA network building has
continued throughout the period. Now the
Regarding PLEC, full involvement of farmers
network covers 62 sub-regions out of 66
has been a fundamental feature of the project
originally envisaged.
philosophy and design, and the result has been
very encouraging. In particular the expert
(iii) Demonstration/Dissemination
farmers' lead demonstration approach has been
successful in expanding participation.
Demonstration and dissemination of project
Recognition of the value of farmers' knowledge
outcomes is an important activity to promote
in agrodiversity is important and pays off when
replication of successful projects in other
involving them as educators of their fellow non-
areas. As touched upon below, there are many
expert colleagues.
ways to demonstrate and disseminate
encouraging project results. However, even
The Baringo project has succeeded in
without any particular demonstration/
mobilising local communities in the catchment.
dissemination efforts, international impacts
A large number of farmers were trained in
created by some projects (e.g. Alien Species
sustainable ag riculture and dry land
project), and innovative approaches
agroforestry. In addition study tours on
successfully introduced by some projects (e.g.
alternative sustainable livelihoods for targeted
Commercial Investment Decisions project) as
groups were organized, and a moratorium on
outlined above could generate far reaching
fishing has been introduced. The project has
replication effects.
also been successful in forging partnerships
with local NGOs.
The Baringo project has organised village-to-
village exchange visits to facilitate the transfer
The Methyl Bromide project has been carried
of community experiences in rehabilitating
out in such a way that countries are fully
degraded land. Replication of pilot
involved and have ownership over all of the
demonstration activities will be a strong
activities. The regional workshops adopted a
component of the next phase of the project.
80

---

Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies
The primary goal of the Arid and Semi-Arid
C. Conclusions
project is to disseminate lessons learned and
promote partnerships between institutions
Overall the performance of UNEP's GEF
through workshops, international meetings, and
projects for FY 2001 has been "Satisfactory",
publications. Thus a communication strategy
although the level of progress is different from
is now being developed to ensure that case
project to project. All projects reviewed this
studies, best practices, and other relevant
year's PIR are still under implementation.
information are developed with a participatory
Nevertheless significant impacts have already
approach involving diverse stakeholders and
been generated as outlined in this summary. It
ultimately is widely and effectively
should be stressed that most of UNEP's projects
disseminated.
reviewed this year are clearly capitalizing on
comparative advantages of UNEP within GEF.
PLEC is primarily a demonstration and
This fact ensures maximum impacts to be
information exchange project. The PLEC'
created by the GEF funds allocated to UNEP
demonstrative farmer-centred concept on
projects this year.
agrodiversity management is being adopted
outside project areas. Moreover, PLEC and its
GEF operations continue to shift focus to the
products have been introduced through various
results and quality of supported projects. What
fora to audiences internationally at conferences
is most important is to create impacts that meet
of UN conventions and other regional and
original project objectives. Given considerable
global meetings. Dissemination efforts of
risks and uncertainties associated with most of
PLEC continue to be very strong. PLEC has
UNEP's GEF projects, flexible management of
produced written materials (books, reports,
projects becomes essential. Flexible project
manuals, conference papers, local/national/
management should ensure appropriate project
international newsletters, such as PLEC News
monitoring and subsequent corrective actions.
& Views), videos, press articles, radio and TV
It is hoped that lessons leaned through this
presentations etc. The PLEC web site also
year's PIR will be useful in further improving
continues to add new materials.
overall performance of GEF projects.
81

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
82

---

Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies
APPENDIX C3
WORLD BANK
PIR OVERVIEW
WORLD BANK ­ GEF PORTFOLIO AT A GLANCE
FY96
FY97
FY98
FY99
FY00
FY01
Product
Active Portfolio a/
Number b/
59
74
89
99
130
159
Net Commitments ($ million) c/
506
701
886
950
1041
1120
Board Approved Portfolio d/
Number b/
15
16
18
27
34
34
Net Commitments ($ million) c/
126.1
198.7
211.5
121.1
135.5
233
Completed Projects e/
Number
1
3
9
9
10
7
Net Commitments ($ million) c/
4.5
31.5
39.9
49.5
92.7
30.4
Portfolio Performance (%) f/
Projects at Risk g/
12
19
21
15
11
7
Problem Projects h/
7
15
15
15
8
6
Realism Index I/
57
77
71
45
75
86
Disbursement to Commitment Ratio
33
41
39
43
44
NOTES:
a/ Projects approved by Bank Management through that FY excluding those completely cancelled and/or closed during the FY.
b/ Since FY99 includes MSPs
c/ Amount of GEF grant
d/ Projects approved by Bank Management in that FY
e/ Projects closed during that FY
f/ For consistency with previous years, this is the active portfolio, excluding projects where the IFC or a Regional Development Bank is
the Executing Agency.
g/ Actual and potential problem projects
h/ Share of problem projects is the actual number of problem projects as a proportion ot total projects in the `Approved Portfolio.'
I/ Realism Index is the ration of Actual Problem projects to total Projects at Risk.
PORTFOLIO OVERVIEW
number of projects approved by Council
increased by 13% from FY00 through the
The Bank-GEF approved portfolio at June 30,
addition of 15 FSPs and 12 MSPs, with
2001 comprised 229 projects which included
allocations of $235 million and $8.8 million
176 full-sized projects (FSPs) and 53 medium-
respectively.
sized projects (MSPs). Total allocation was
$1.94 billion, consisting of $1.90 billion for
The Bank's active GEF portfolio at June 30,
FSPs and $40.1 million for MSPs. The total
2001 consisted of 149 projects with $1.12
83

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
billion in commitment, 100 FSPs with net
In addition the Bank's Quality Assurance Group
commitment of $1.08 billion, and 49 MSPs with
(QAG) conducts an annual review of the overall
commitment of $34.9 million. Eleven FSPs and
Bank portfolio and annual surveys to assess the
17 MSPs became effective in FY01 while seven
quality of entry and of project supervision. All
projects were completed and closed, resulting
projects are also subject to a final evaluation
in a net increase of 21 projects. Seven other
(Implementation Completion Report) which is
projects were canceled during the year prior to
independently checked by the Operations
Bank management approval, six FSPs and one
Evaluation Department (OED). Thus, there are
MSP.
many procedures in place to strengthen
implementation, monitor and provide feedback
Nine projects had been approved by the GEF
on the performance of the portfolio. It is against
Council prior to FY99 for inclusion in the work
this background that the statistics discussed
program but had not received Bank
below serve as benchmarks for measuring
management approval by the end of FY0115 .
performance.
The reasons for delay are discussed in para 17
below. Seven of these projects are now
There was a slight improvement in the overall
scheduled for Board presentation within FY02.
ratings for Implementation Progress (IP),
compared with FY00, a two percentage points
There were 9816 projects in the FY01 PIR,
increase in the projects rated highly satisfactory
comprising 71 FSPs and 27 MSPs. Total GEF
from 12% to 14%, and a three percentage points
commitment was $802 million, FSPs
fall in projects rated unsatisfactory from 11%
accounting for $782 million and MSPs $20
to 8%. The overall satisfactory and higher rating
million. ECA had the largest commitment,
was 91% compared with 89% for FY00. By
$184 million from 15 projects, followed by EAP
focal area, 88% of climate change and 86% of
with commitment of $174 million also from 15
biodiversity projects were rated satisfactory. At
projects. By focal area, Biodiversity had the
the regional level for satisfactory and above
highest number of projects, 57, and largest
ratings, both AFR and LCR achieved 96%. ECA
commitment, $327 million, followed by climate
had the highest number (3) and proportion of
change with 25 projects and $281 million in
projects with unsatisfactory ratings (20%), EAP
net commitment.
had two projects in this category (13%) while
SAR, MNA and AFR had one project each in
PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE
the category. The AFR portfolio has noticeably
improved performance as compared with 2000.
Implementation Progress/Global
Objectives Ratings
The ratings on Global/Development objectives
(DO) also improved slightly over FY00. Ninety
The Bank maintains a comprehensive project
five percent of projects were rated at least
implementation supervision process. It requires
satisfactory in the present PIR, compared with
a minimum of two visits annually to each
93% in FY00, although the highly satisfactory
project followed by a full monitoring report
rating fell from 17% to 12%. Four projects (4%)
including a project status report (PSR) which
were rated unsatisfactory in FY01, compared
is intended to alert Bank management to the
with 7% in FY00. By region, ECA, LCR and
key issues affecting a project's implementation.
SAR had satisfactory or higher ratings of 100%.
15 Projects approved in the GEF work program prior to June 30, 1999, but not approved by Bank management up to June 30, 2001.
16 As each of the three countries in the Lake Victoria project is treated separately in terms of project supervision, the analysis of the project
indicators presented below is based on three projects resulting in a total project count of 98.
84

---

Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies
BOX 1: SUMMARY OF RATINGS BY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS AND DEVELOPMENT/GLOBAL OBJECTIVE
Rating
FY97 (49)*
FY98 (62)
FY99 (56)
FY00 (84)
FY01 (96)
Implementation Progress
Highly Satisfactory
20
18
12
12
14
Satisfactory
67
66
79
77
77
Partially Satisfactory
1
Unsatisfactory
12
16
9
11
8
Total
100
100
100
100
100
Development/Global Objective
Highly Satisfactory
28
18
16
17
12
Satisfactory
65
74
80
76
83
Partially Satisfactory
1
Unsatisfactory
6
8
4
7
4
Total
100
100
100
100
100
*Figures in ( ) are the number of projects
MNA had the highest proportion of
Update (looking at the portfolio toward the end
unsatisfactory projects, but this was only one
of FY01) which found 14% of projects in the
project in a portfolio of eight.
overall Bank portfolio to be at risk. For stand
alone GEF projects 6% of the portfolio was at
Projects at Risk
risk while for blended projects the correspond-
ing figure was 8%. Among the projects at risk,
Identification of projects at risk is a portfolio
three were in AFR (Lake Victoria Environmen-
monitoring tool that alerts management to
tal Management (Kenya component); Kenya
projects that are in danger of achieving
Tana River; and Zimbabwe Park Rehabilitation
unsatisfactory outcomes and enables them to
and Conservation) reduced from five in FY00,
address those factors (designated as risk
and one each in EAP (Philippines Conserva-
flags) that could contribute to this result.
tion of Priority Protected Areas), ECA (Aral
Projects at risk include actual problem projects,
Sea Water and Environmental Management)
those for which IP is unsatisfactory and/or the
and MNA (Morocco Protected Areas Manage-
DO are not likely to be achieved; and potential
ment), while LCR and SAR have no projects at
problem projects, which are rated satisfactory
risk. The projects at risk were:
on IP and DO but have other risk factors
historically associated with unsatisfactory
Five of the projects at risk are actual problem
outcomes.
projects, the exception Lake Victoria
Environmental Management Project (Kenya
The proportion of projects at risk continued the
component), was a potential problem projects.
downward trend of the past two years. There
This project was upgraded from actual problem
were six projects at risk, representing 7% of
project in 2000. Among the actual problem
the portfolio, a decline from 11% in 2000 and
projects only Kenya Tana River was also
15% in 1999. This result also compares favor-
included as a potential or actual problem project
ably with the most recent QAG Portfolio Status
in 2000.
85

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
Risky country was the most common at risk
fifteen projects that exited the portfolio. Seven
flag, accounting for 15 of the 66 flags (23%)
closed during FY01 while eight closed in FY00
followed by macro-economic management, 12
but the ICRs were completed during the present
flags (18%), which was a similar distribution
fiscal year. Among the fifteen one project,
pattern to the 2000 PIR. With several projects
Thailand Promotion of Electric Energy
in the portfolio, a number of these flags were
Efficiency, was rated highly satisfactory in the
associated with Zimbabwe. Slow disbursement,
ICR and in OED's Evaluation Summary. Six
inadequate counterpart funds and effectiveness
projects received satisfactory ratings from both
delays were the other risks with more than 10%
sources, while two projects received
occurrence.
unsatisfactory ratings in both. Three projects
were rated satisfactory by the ICR but
Quality of Supervision
moderately satisfactory by OED, while one
project was rated unsatisfactory in the ICR but
Project supervision is instrumental in
only moderately unsatisfactory by OED. For
contributing to projects' achievement of
two projects, the OED evaluation had not been
development objectives as those with a highly
completed at the time of the PIR. In the
satisfactory supervision rating have a 90%
overwhelming majority of cases, therefore,
chance of achieving their development
OED gave the same or higher rating than the
outcomes. QAG's FY00 Quality of Supervision
ICR.
Report (QSA 4) for a Bankwide sample of 150
projects, found 92% had a satisfactory or better
Disbursement
rating (the Bank standard is 90%), while on a
relatively small sub-sample of 13 GEF projects
Disbursements for all projects, including PDFs
the comparable average rating was 83%. It was
and Enabling Activities totaled $137.5 million
acknowledged that sampling error (given the
in FY01, which represents an increase of 25%
small sample size) could be a consideration.
in cumulative disbursements over the sum to
the end of FY00. Cumulative disbursements
Against this background, for GEF projects the
were 44% of total World Bank GEF
share of highly satisfactory rating was 25%,
commitments, which shows little change from
compared with 14% for the full Bank sample.
FY00 when the proportion was 43%. Five
The GEF projects with this rating were: Czech
projects which were approved by Bank
Republic--Kyjov Waste Heat Utilization;
management on or before September 30, 2000
Indonesia ­ Biodiversity Collection; Indonesia
had not yet begun disbursements up the end of
­ Solar Home Systems; and Lituania--
June 2001. However, disbursements for one of
Klaipeda Environment). None of the GEF
these projects started in July, another has
projects was rated unsatisfactory overall,
submitted its first disbursement request, and a
although two were rated marginally
third is expected to begin disbursement in
unsatisfactory.
October 2001. The most lengthy delays have
been caused by the need to signif icantly
Net Disconnect 17
redesign some projects. All of the projects
identified in the 2000 PIR as experiencing
Implementation Completion Reports (ICR) and
disbursement delays have now begun
OED Evaluation Summaries were prepared for
disbursement.
17 The difference between the percentage of projects rated unsatisfactory in the ICR by ICR and the percentage rated as unsatisfactory by
the Regions.
86

---

Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies
Elapsed Time Between Project Cycles
consensus building. For example, the Bank
requested additional institutional measures for
From GEF approval to bank management
the Benin National Parks Project, including
approval. The downward trend since 1992 in
establishment of a Wildlife Management Entity
elapsed time from GEF Council to Bank
and passage of legislation. For the projects
Management approval was reversed in 2000 and
experiencing the longest delays, other specific
worsened in 2001. For the 17 FSPs approved
reasons for delay included international
by the Bank's Board in 2001 the average
sanctions in Pakistan (1454 days elapsed) and
number of days since GEF Council approval
local elections in Argentina (1213 days),
was 640, which is 29% higher than the 2000
political factors that were beyond the Bank's
f igure of 496 days. Nine of the projects
control. In Georgia the long period required to
approved in FY01 exceeded eighteen months,
achieve consensus among a diverse group of
and four of the five with the longest delays were
local stakeholders together with limited
protected area projects. By focal area there was
institutional capacity contributed to 1149 days
little difference in elapsed time, 618 days for
delay. In other countries, the complexity of
climate change (5 projects) and 590 days for
some project designs that required extended
biodiversity (11 projects) projects. The single
consultations with development partners and
international waters project took 1213 days due
changes in local institutional arrangements
to country specific circumstances. For the 14
were the main factors.
MSPs approved in 2001, the time elapsed from
Council approval to Bank Management
From bank management approval to
approval fell to 106 days from 138 days in 2000,
effectiveness (based on effectiveness date).
which is closer to the 1999 average of 95 days.
Compared with the Bank standard of six months
Figure 1 presents the trend since 1992.
the average elapsed time for GEF projects from
Board Approval to effectiveness was just over
Protected area projects are complex with
five months for the eleven FSPs that became
features that usually require considerable time
effective in 2001. This not only exceeded the
for preparation such as resolution of resource
Bank standard but is an improvement over 2000
management issues, participation strategies and
and 1999 when the average was approximately
FIGURE 1
AVERAGE TIME LAG (IN DAYS) BETWEEN GEF APPROVAL TO BANK MANAGEMENT APPROVAL
900
800
700
600
ys 500
400
.
of Da
No 300
200
100
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Bank FY
Average Lag time (in days) -combine
Average Lag time (in days) -Full Sized Projects
Average Lag time (in days) -Medium Sized Projects
87

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
seven months in both cases. However, this
management team by project appraisal that
average masked wide variation. Six projects
subsequently had responsibility for
(55%) exceeded the Bank standard, with an
implementation. Thus motivated, these
average elapsed time of eight months. In
management teams facilitated local clearances.
contrast, the five projects which were less than
Bank task teams need to take fuller account of
the Bank standard averaged less than two
national socio-political features that could
months (54 days) in elapsed time. By
affect project processing time and to make
comparison, over the last several years, about
allowance for these factors in programming the
40% of the overall Bank portfolio has needed
preparation timetable whenever they can be
more than six months to become effective.
anticipated.
(ARPP, 2000)
The 17 MSPs that became effective had average
The reasons for the lengthy delays in
elapsed time of 45 days between CMU approval
effectiveness appear to be project or country
and effectiveness, which is slightly lower than
specific rather than systemic, and included the
last year (49) but much higher than in 1999
following: fulfillment of legal requirements set
which was 25 days when there were only 10
by the Bank such as legislative actions, co-
projects. The annual trend is illustrated in
financing arrangements and appointment of key
Figure 2 above.
staff; local elections and/or other changes in
government often affecting project officials;
EMERGING PORTFOLIO ISSUES
lengthy local legal procedures for project
approval; and establishment of institutional
AND OUTCOMES
arrangements for project implementation. Most
of the signif icant factors were beyond the
Resources Leveraged
Bank's control. The main characteristics of
projects that became effective quickly included
It is often difficult to isolate the influence of GEF
firm ownership and commitment by the client,
projects in leveraging additional financial
and the establishment of a core project
resources in excess of the sums originally
FIGURE 2
AVERAGE TIME LAG (IN DAYS) BETWEEN BANK MANAGEMENT APPROVAL TO EFFECTIVENESS
250
200
150
100
No. of Days
50
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Bank FY
Average Lag time (in days) -combine
Average Lag time (in days) -Full Sized Projects
Average Lag time (in days) -Medium Sized Projects
88

---

Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies
programmed as cofinancing, for the same project
protection of Wadi Rum as a component of the
or for parallel operations. However, the examples
Bank-f inanced Jordan Second Tourism
given below are among the clearest cases in the
Development Project which was implemented
portfolio where it was possible to do so.
by ARA and is now being implemented by
ASEZA--the Aqaba Special Economic Zone
In LCR the Mexico Protected Areas Program
Authority--the new regional entity that has
(FANP), in addition to leveraging $5 million
replaced the Aqaba Regional Authority (ARA).
up to the end of FY00 (reported in the 2000
PIR), has leveraged an additional $1 million in
The IFC HEECP and HEECP2 have achieved
seed funds to promote the establishment of
significant leveraging of GEF funds through
mechanisms to achieve financial autonomy in
IFC's new resource commitments combined
selected reserves.
with the f inancing that commercial banks
themselves will supply under the partial
The Transfrontier Conservation Area Pilot and
guarantee program. GEF financing of $5.7
Institutional Strengthening Project in
million is leveraging approximately $93 million
Mozambique has accelerated interest in
in end user ESCO financing. The Efficient
transfrontier conservation areas, mainly as a
Lighting Initiative program in Hungary is
result of the high political profile that the areas
further able to boost this leverage through its
have received. USAID and KfW are preparing
activities and close coordination with HEECP/
substantial investments (expected to total about
HEECP2.
$12 million) in one of the Transfrontier
Conservation Areas (TFCA) and are also
Demonstration Effects
interested in cooperating with other donors in
and Replication
the area to build on the base established by the
project. In addition, co-funding provided by the
One of the emerging lessons is that a replication
Ford Foundation at the very beginning of the
approach should be made explicit in project
project permitted early initiation of project
design, which should recommend supporting
activities when funding from GEF was not
activities such as staff exchanges,
immediately available. The Ford Foundation
communication and dissemination strategies. It
will continue substantial funding for the
is often overlooked in project design that
Chimanimani TFCA throughout a successor
projects should include activities and strategies
project.
to facilitate dissemination.
The Egypt ­ Red Sea Coastal and Natural
The China Energy Conservation Project has
Resources Management Project has been
provided a good example of how this can be
implemented in close cooperation with
achieved. The Information Component has
USAID's environmental programs in Egypt.
produced several information products,
The original surveying, data gathering, analysis
including news articles and brochures, and has
and development of the Red Sea GIS, all of
utilized a variety of channels, such as its web
which were undertaken by the GEF team, have
site, newspapers and technical magazines, to
helped to leverage the larger financial resources
disseminate them. This has created wide-spread
of the USAID programs for complementary
awareness of and interest in the energy
activities on environmental protection and
management company concept in China and
biodiversity on the Red Sea coast.
paved the way for a national replication
program that is currently being prepared.
The Jordan ­ Gulf of Aqaba Environmental
Similarly, information management under the
Action Plan has been instrumental in the
South Africa Cape Peninsula Biodiversity
generation of a $ 7.5 million dollar loan for the
Conservation Project has evoked great interest
89

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
among other parks and has strongly driven the
Adaptive Management
adoption of an information technology strategy
by the South African National Park System.
During project design exogenous project risks
This project also developed a model for training
that might affect implementation are identified
contractors from previously disadvantaged
and reflected in the logical framework, together
backgrounds in communities bordering the
with mitigation strategies. Common risks
Park to develop small-scale enterprises. This
include governments' political will and
has been adopted by local organizations and
commitment, passage of critical policies and
implemented for a Biosphere Reserve east of
legislation, institutional arrangements and
Cape Town
counterpart funds.
The Romania Danube Delta Biodiversity
In general, assessments made at appraisal were
Project provided useful lessons to successor
accurate in predicting the occurrence of risks
projects both in Romania and neighboring
during implementation. In EAP, for example, a
countries, particularly with regard to the
number of the factors that contributed to
successful pilot restoration of polders to natural
implementation problems were identified as
conditions and an effective campaign with local
risks. A major reason for unsatisfactory
communities and NGOs to mobilize public
performance of the Laos Forestry and
support for protection of the Danube Delta
Conservation Project was lack of political will
ecosystem. The project also helped trigger
to adopt village level forest management
cross-border collaboration with Bulgaria, which
together with the development of supportive
developed its own wetland protection project.
policies and legislation. In the case of the
This demonstrates the possibility for effective
Philippines Leyte-Luzon Geothermal Project,
international collaboration through parallel but
the project was affected by inadequate tariff
independent projects.
adjustment, which was correctly identified at
appraisal as a risk, together with substantial cost
Promoting Private Sector
overruns and implementation delays, which
Participation
were not identified.
Several projects being executed by the World
Successful risk mitigation measures were
Bank Group have produced demonstration
implemented at the Georgia Integrated Coastal
effects that have catalyzed further investments
Zone Management Project, through adoption
from the private sector in the innovative
of the proposed mitigation strategy. In response
technologies and approaches introduced by
to the risk of inadequate incentives to encourage
these projects.
compliance the project strengthened the
capacity for enforcement. Unexpected risks
One example is Kenya where the only hire-
have also occur red. The project is now
purchase company that had decided to enter the
threatened by construction of an oil terminal
PV sector with its own funding based on
abutting the protected wetland supported by the
catalytic input provided by the PVMTI project
project, which was not known at appraisal. Civil
has been successful and this has resulted in
disturbance is also unpredictable, and in the
stimulating most of the large hire-purchase
case of the Regional Lake Ohrid Management
companies in Kenya to provide financing and
Project, it has affected the relationship between
support for solar home systems. Companies in
the two countries involved in the project,
non-PVMTI countries in the region have also
Albania and Macedonia.
expressed interest in replicating some of the
business models that are emerging from
Several courses of action emerge from an
PVMTI-funded projects.
assessment of the various risk scenarios. First,
90

---

Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies
a more careful attempt should be made to
participation in this aspect of the climate change
address some of these issues prior to
focal area. The project demonstrated that the
implementation. For example, where policy and
provision of incentives for households to reduce
legal/regulatory changes are identified as
their energy expenditures through the purchase
critical to project outcome, approval can be
and proper use of improved biomass and
made a condition of appraisal, as is presently
kerosene stoves was the key to the success of
being done with several protected areas projects.
the project in reducing CO emissions and
2
Second, if local management capacity is weak,
woodfuel consumption
the project design could be phased to
accommodate this, or a programmatic approach
Participation is also supported by timely
could be adopted, as occurred with the Uganda
achievement of project outputs. Experiences
PAMSU project. Third, mitigation measures
from several projects in East Africa confirm
identif ied at appraisal need to be closely
that initial project performance is strongly
monitored during implementation. Fourth, when
correlated with future project success as
unexpected risks arise, mitigation measures
positive early perception fuels initial
have to be quickly formulated and agreed with
commitment of relevant stakeholders.
government, and if necessary, high level Bank
Commitment of local stakeholders is enhanced
intervention sought. QAG intends to revise the
when pilot activities are implemented directly
method of monitoring risks to improve its use
to demonstrate the benefits of the project's
as a portfolio monitoring indicator.
approach thereby encouraging participation of
local communities.
Strengthening Stakeholder Participation
Capacity Building
It is important to recognize successful
community participation as a complete process,
Generally, capacity building has been integrated
beginning with stakeholder participation in
as a project component. An interesting case is
problem identification and recognition, through
the Institutional Capacity Building for PAMSU
solution implementation to evaluation. This
Project in Uganda, which evolved from an
process can consume considerable time. The
earlier project design. During preparation of the
typical approach centered on consultation is
original project, capacity constraints were
inadequate. Additionally, perceived short-term
identified as such a high risk that it was decided
benefits should not be the primary incentive
to undertake a precursor project first to build
for participation although a delicate balance is
capacity in the Wildlife Authority and then
required so that communities are aware that they
design and implement the overall project.
will capture the benefits of sustainable natural
resources management.
Experience to date points to the efficacy of the
MSP as an effective instrument to support NGO
From the Laos Forest Management and
capacity development. Particularly within the
Conservation Project the lesson was learned
MSP portfolio, great variation has been ob-
that community conservation activities should
served in the capacity of executing agencies,
be voluntary, not compensation based, in order
given the presence of a wide spectrum of gov-
to create ownership and facilitate sustainabilitiy.
ernment and non governmental organizations
Paying communities to practice sustainable
as project implementing entities. In this sub-
development does not create ownership and is
set of the portfolio, careful attention during
not sustainable.
project design needs to be paid to this issue in
order to ensure that the executing agencies have
The Mali Household Energy Project has been
adequate capacity to deliver the project's ex-
identified as a good practice in community
pected outcomes, to manage the complexity of
91

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
policy dialogue with stakeholders, and other
management initiatives involving rural
key elements.
communities, NGOs and government. OED's
Evaluation summary noted that even for a
In the transfer of new technologies or innovative
process-oriented project, it is vital that a logical
processes, such as in the IFC's Efficiency
framework with clear objectives and indicators
Lighting Initiative (ELI), the time and effort
be part of the project formulation, and that the
needed to build capacity in the national
project be adequately appraised.
executing agencies should not be
underestimated. IFC found it necessary to
Early experience with implementing both the
devote considerably more time and attention to
Indonesia Aceh and Berbak-Sembilang MSPs
transfer of knowledge to local implementing
also suggests that the projects' designs included
entities operating in each of the seven countries
more activities than the project management
involved
teams have capacity to implement successfully.
Both government and NGO project proposers
Creating Effective Partnerships
should be encouraged to submit simpler and
more realistic project designs, although
Analogous to capacity building is the creation
diff iculties have been experienced in
of partnerships with civil society groups
persuading them to adopt this approach. But
(NGOs, CBOs, Trusts, Endowments, private
the Bank has the ultimate responsibility during
companies, etc.). In the Africa Region, a
appraisal to make a realistic assessment of
number of lessons are emerging of the benefits
capacity and take a firm decision on the risks
of partnerships with NGOs, local community
to implementation of the project.
groups and the private sector. These
partnerships have helped to provide vital
Clear understanding of roles and
communication networks and contacts which
responsibilities. The importance of clearly
could not have been established within the usual
def ining and communicating roles and
timeframe of a project. The projects' impacts
responsibilities of key stakeholders at different
were enhanced by building on the achievements
levels of a project is evident from a number of
of long-standing outreach and awareness raising
project experiences. This is particularly
activities by these local organizations. The
necessary as several projects are being designed
Mozambique Transfrontier Conservation Area
with complicated institutional frameworks
Pilot and Institutional Strengthening Project is
involving several organizations at different
a good example of partnerships among
levels--local, national and supra-national. A
government agencies, NGOs, rural
necessary entry point is to clearly define and
communities and the private sector across
discuss the organization and management
national boundaries.
design with all concerned parties at appraisal
beginning with IAs--project implementing
Project Cycle Management
agency interaction, then at each level of
and Organization
management and coordination, identifying the
relevant organizations and their responsibilities.
Less complex project designs. In the EAP
Well organized project launch workshops are
portfolio several projects, both full-size and
also appropriate forums for communicating the
NGO-prepared MSPs, have over-ambitious
project objectives, organizations and
project designs. The ICR for the Laos PDR
institutional responsibilities with all relevant
Forest Management and Conservation Project
stakeholders.
concluded that this project was over-ambitious
in scope and timing. It under-estimated the
Give adequate attention to a project's final
effort needed to implement natural resource
year. In a project's final years, more progress
92

---

Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies
is made if planning for a possible extension is
sharing and participation in joint missions is
put "on the back burner" and efforts are focused
important in disseminating current information
on achieving project objectives. Recipients
across projects. In-country project teams would
naturally want to utilize all a project's available
also benef it from meeting periodically to
resources. If, in its last two years, it seems likely
exchange information, such as through regional
that the project's resources will not all be used
thematic workshops. A number of good
by the closing date, they sometimes focus more
examples have emerged from the ODS projects
on how to justify an extension than on current
in Russia, Ukraine and Central Asia, several
activities. Task Managers must shift their focus
operations supporting biodiversity conservation
back to immediate tasks by insisting that
and sustainable use in Uganda, and regional
extension planning be put on the "back burner"
projects targeted to transboundary ecosystems
and that progress in the final two years will
in East Africa through participation of
determine whether or not an extension is
management staff and other relevant
possible.
stakeholders of national components as
observers in all supervision missions to the
Information Exchange
different participating countries.
Among Institutions
CONCLUSIONS
It is important that regional projects establish
horizontal linkages with national and regional
The above analysis shows that the performance
environmental organizations. Such projects are
of the Bank--GEF portfolio is generally
particularly complicated, and require careful
meeting or exceeding the Bank's standards.
planning, especially in the case of IW projects,
There are a few areas that require improvement,
which typically involve a number of regional
such as the elapsed time in project preparation
organizations in addressing transboundary
and the quality of supervision, which are to be
issues. OED's review of the Lake Malawi
addressed by the Bank-GEF coordination team
Biodiversity Conservation Project found that
through an overall portfolio management
clear and unambiguous agreements and
improvement plan. With ten years experience
protocols on communication are required
a considerable body of knowledge is now in
among the concerned organizations; otherwise
place on Bank-GEF operations, which the Bank
a GEF project can become enclave activities of
will continue to document and disseminate
questionable operational importance. The
more widely to project task teams and clients.
report also stated that GEF projects need strong
Finally, the lessons learned from projects
linkage to existing environmental institutions
already implemented are being applied and
in order to mainstream the activities and
good practices replicated in new operations.
leverage outputs.
This includes better integration with sustainable
development activities through an improved
A conscious effort is required to achieve
understanding of the global environment--
synergy in implementation supervision support
national development nexus, increased
among task teams in the Bank, and with other
stakeholder involvement and improved risk
IAs. Cross support in the form of information
management and assessment.
93

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
94

---

Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies
APPENDIX D
LIST OF COMPLETED PROJECTS AS OF JUNE 30, 2001
GEF
Total
Work
Approval
Date of
No
Country
Region
IA
Project
Focal Area
OP
Funding
Cost
Program Date by
Project
Closing
(US$ mil) (US$ mil) Entry Date
IA
start
date
1
Algeria
AFR
World Bank El Kala National Park and Wetlands
Management
Biodiversity
2
$9.32
$11.68
May-91
Apr-94
Sep-94
Jun-99
2
Argentina LAC
UNDP
Patagonian Coastal Zone Management
Plan
Biodiversity
2
$2.80
$2.80
Dec-91
Feb-93
Dec-93
3
Belarus
ECA
World Bank Forest Biodiversity Protection
Biodiversity
3
$1.00
$1.25
May-91
Sep-92
Jan-93
Jun-97
4
Belarus
ECA
World Bank Phase-out of Ozone-Depleting
Substances
Ozone
$7.20
$8.80
Apr-96
May-97
Aug-97
Dec-00
5
Belize
LAC
UNDP
Sustainable Development and
Management of Biologically Diverse
Coastal Resources
Biodiversity
2
$3.00
$3.00
Dec-91
Feb-93
Mar-93
Feb-98
6
Benin
AFR
UNDP
Carbon Sequestration and Rangeland
Climate Change
STRM
Dec-92
Jul-93
Jan-94
7
Bhutan
SAS
World Bank Trust Fund for Environmental
Conservation
Biodiversity
$10.00
$20.59
May-91
May-92
Nov-92
Dec-97
8
Bolivia
LAC
World Bank Biodiversity Conservation
Biodiversity
3
$4.50
$8.35
Apr-92
Nov-92
Jul-93
Dec-98
9
Brazil
LAC
UNDP
Biomass Integrated Gasification/Gas
Turbine
Climate Change
7
Sep-92
Sep-92
Sep-92
Feb-96
10
Bulgaria
ECA
World Bank Ozone Depleting Substances Phase-out
Ozone
STRM
$10.50
$13.50
May-95
Nov-95
May-96
Apr-00
11
Chile
LAC
UNDP
Reduction of Greenhouse Gases
Climate Change
5
$1.70
$1.70
Dec-92
Jun-95
Jun-95
FY2001
12
China
EAP
World Bank China Ship Waste Disposal
International
Waters
9
$30.00
$67.20
May-91
May-92
Dec-92
Jun-97
13
China
EAP
UNDP
Development of Coal Bed Methane
Resources
Climate Change
STRM
May-91
Apr-92
Jun-92
Dec-98
14
Colombia
LAC
UNDP
Conservation of Biodiversity in the
Choco Region
Biodiversity
3
$6.00
$9.00
May-91
Feb-92
Sep-92
Dec-99
15
Congo
AFR
World Bank Wildlands Protection and Management
Biodiversity
3
$10.00
$13.90
May-91
Dec-92
Oct-93
Jul-00
16
Costa
LAC
UNDP
Conservation of Biodiversity and
Rica
Sustainable Development in La Amistad
and La Osa Conservation Areas
Biodiversity
3
$8.00
$8.00
Dec-91
Apr-93
May-93
17
Cuba
LAC
UNDP
Protecting Biodiversity and Establishing
Sustainable Development in the Sabana-
Camaguey Region
Biodiversity
2
$2.00
$2.00
Dec-91
Jul-93
Dec-93
Aug-97
18
Czech
Republic
ECA
World Bank Biodiversity Protection
Biodiversity
3
$2.00
$2.75
Dec-91
Oct-93
Jan-94
Dec-97
19
Czech
Republic
ECA
World Bank Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances
Ozone
7
$2.30
$4.15
Dec-92
Aug-94
Dec-94
Mar-98
20
Dominican
Biodiversity Conservation and
Republic
LAC
UNDP
management in the Coastal Zone
Biodiversity
3
$3.00
$3.00
May-92
Dec-93
May-94
Oct-97
21
Ecuador
LAC
World Bank Biodiversity Protection
Biodiversity
3
$7.20
$8.80
Apr-92
May-94
Jul-94
Jun-00
22
Gabon
AFR
UNDP
Conservation of Biodiversity Through
Effective Management of Wildlife Trade
Biodiversity
3
$1.00
$1.00
May-91
Jan-94
Jul-94
Jun-97
23
Ghana
AFR
World Bank Coastal Wetlands Management
Biodiversity
2
$7.20
$8.30
Dec-91
Aug-92
Mar-93
Dec-99
24
Global
AFR
World Bank Global: World Water Vision - Water and
International
Nature - Environment and Ecosystems
Waters
10
$0.70
$13.80
Apr-99
Jun-99
Jun-99
Dec-00
25
Global
Global
UNDP
Alternatives to Slash and Burn
Climate Change
STRM
$3.00
$4.50
Feb-92
Nov-93
Apr-94
Dec-95
26
Global
Global
UNEP
Biodiversity Country Studies- Phase I
Biodiversity
EA
$5.00
$5.22
Mar-92
Dec-97
95

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
GEF
Total
Work
Approval
Date of
No Country Region
IA
Project
Focal Area
OP
Funding
Cost
Program Date by
Project
Closing
(US$ mil) (US$ mil) Entry Date
IA
start
date
27
Global
Global
UNEP
Biodiversity Country Studies- Phase II
Biodiversity
EA
$2.00
$2.10
Jun-94
Dec-97
28
Global
Global
UNEP
Biodiversity Data Management
Biodiversity
EA
$4.00
$5.39
Jun-94
Dec-97
29
Global
Global
UNDP
Biodiversity Planning Support Program
Biodiversity
EA
$3.10
$4.20
Jul-98
Apr-99
5-Jun
30
Global
Global
UNDP
Climate Change Capacity Building
Climate Change
EA
May-93
Jan-94
Sep-95
May-97
31
Global
Global
UNDP
Climate Change Training Phase II (CC TRAIN)
Climate Change
EA
$2.58
$3.70
May-95
Mar-96
Mar-96
32
Global
Global
UNEP
Country Studies on Sources and Sinks
of Greenhouse gases
Climate Change
EA
Dec-91
Jul-92
Sep-92
Mar-97
33
Global
Global
UNEP
Economics of GHG Limitations
Climate Change
EA
$3.00
$3.00
Feb-95
Mar-96
34
Global
Global
UNEP
Economics of GHG Limitations - Phase I
Climate Change
EA
$3.00
$3.30
Feb-95
Mar-96
May-96
FY2001
35
Global
Global
UNDP
Global Alternatives to Slash and Burn
Agriculture - Phase II
Climate Change
STRM
$2.94
$6.31
May-95
May-95
Jun-96
Jun-98
36
Global
Global
UNEP
Global Biodiveristy Forum - Phase II
Biodiversity
STRM
$0.75
$1.64
Feb-98
37
Global
Global
UNEP
Global Biodiversity Assessment
Biodiversity
STRM
$3.30
$3.48
May-93
Apr-98
38
Global
Global
UNEP
Global Biodiversity Forum (GBF) - Phase II
Biodiversity
STRM
$0.70
$1.60
Feb-98
Apr-98
Apr-98
FY2001
39
Global
Global
UNDP
Global Change System for Analysis,
Research and Training (START)
Climate Change
STRM
$4.10
$5.58
May-92
May-93
May-93
Jun-98
40
Global
Global
UNDP
Monitoring of Greenhouse Gases
Climate Change
STRM
$4.80
$11.50
May-91
Oct-92
Jan-93
Dec-98
41
Global
Global
UNDP
National Communications Support to
Climate Change
Climate Change
EA
$1.80
$3.30
8/19998
FY2001
42
Global
Global
UNEP
Pilot Biosafety Enabling Activity
Biodiversity
EA
$2.74
$2.74
Nov-97
Sep-98
43
Global
Global
UNDP
Research Program on Methane
Emissions from Rice Fields
Climate Change
STRM
$5.00
$5.00
May-91
Jan-92
Jul-92
Jun-98
44
Global
Global
World
Small and Medium Enterprise Program
Bank/IFC
(pilot phase)
Multiple
STRM
$4.30
$15.70
Jul-94
Dec-95
Mar-96
Dec-98
45
Global
Global
World Bank Water for Nature (MSP)
International
Waters
$0.70
46
Guyana
LAC
UNDP
Program for Sustainable Forestry
(Iwokrama Rain Forest Program)
Biodiversity
3
$3.00
$3.40
May-91
Apr-92
Feb-93
May-97
47
Hungary
ECA
World Bank
Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances
Ozone
STRM
$6.90
$8.39
Nov-94
Nov-95
Feb-96
Dec-98
48
Iran
ECA
World Bank Teheran Transport Emissions Reduction
Climate Change
5
$2.00
$4.00
Apr-92
Oct-93
Jan-94
Dec-97
49
Jamaica
LAC
World Bank
Demand Side Management Demonstration
Climate Change
5
$3.80
$12.50
May-93
Mar-94
Aug-94
Dec-99
50
Jordan
MNA
UNDP
Conservation of Dana and Azraq
Protected Areas
Biodiversity
2
$6.30
$6.30
May-92
May-93
Oct-93
May-96
51
Jordan
MNA
World Bank Gulf of Aqaba Environmental Action
International
Waters
8
$2.70
$12.67
Oct-95
Jun-96
Dec-99
52
Mali
AFR
WB
Household Energy
Climate Change
6
$2.50
$8.60
Dec-92
Jun-95
Oct-95
Dec-00
53
Mauritania AFR
UNDP
Decentralized Wind Electric Power for
Social and Economic Development
Climate Change
6
Dec-92
Jun-94
Sep-94
Jul-96
54
Mauritania AFR
UNEP
Rescue Plan for Cap Blanc Colony of the
Mediterranean Monk Seal
Biodiversity
STRM
$0.20
$0.20
Aug-97
Nov-97
Nov-97
FY2001
55
Mauritania AFR
UNEP
Rescue Plan for the Cap Blanc Colony
of Mediterranean Monk Seal - MSP
Biodiversity
STRM
$0.15
$0.23
Oct-97
Aug-98
56
Mauritius
AFR
UNDP
Restoration of Highly Degraded and
Threatened Native Forests
Biodiversity
3
$0.20
$0.20
May-93
Jun-95
May-98
57
Mauritius
AFR
World Bank Sugar Bio-energy Project
Climate Change
6
$3.30
$55.10
May-91
Feb-92
Dec-93
Dec-97
58
Mexico
LAC
World Bank High Efficiency Lighting Project
Climate Change
5
$10.70
$25.00
Dec-91
Mar-94
Feb-95
Dec-97
59
Mexico
LAC
World Bank Protected Areas Program
Biodiversity
3
$8.70
$16.30
May-91
Mar-92
Apr-93
Dec-97
60
Moldova
ECA
WB
(Phase I) Biodiversity Strategy, Action
Plan, and National Report to the
Conference of the Parties
Biodiversity
EA
$0.10
$0.10
Mar-98
Mar-98
1-Apr
61
Mongolia
EAP
UNDP
Biodiversity Project
Biodiversity
1
$1.50
$1.50
May-93
Mar-94
Apr-98
62
Nepal
SAS
UNDP
Biodiversity Conservation
Biodiversity
4
$3.80
$8.40
Dec-91
Jun-93
Sep-93
Nov-98
63
Pakistan
SAS
UNDP
Maintaining Biodiversity with Rural
Community Development
Biodiversity
3
$2.50
Feb-94
96

---

Appendix C: PIR Overview Reports of Implementing Agencies
GEF
Total
Work
Approval Date of
No
Country
Region
IA
Project
Focal Area
OP
Funding
Cost
Program
Date by
Project
Closing
(US$ mil) (US$ mil) Entry Date
IA
start
date
64
Panama
LAC
UNDP
Biodiversity Conservation in the
Darien Region
Biodiversity
3
$3.00
$3.50
Jan-92
Feb-94
May-94
FY2001
65
Papua New
Biodiversity Conservation and Resource
Guinea
EAP
UNDP
Management
Biodiversity
3
$5.00
$5.00
Dec-91
Jul-93
Jul-98
66
Peru
LAC
World Bank National Trust Fund for Protected Areas
Biodiversity
3
$5.00
$7.86
Dec-91
Mar-95
Sep-95
Jun-96
67
Peru
LAC
UNDP
Technical Assistance to the Centre for
Energy Conservation
Climate Change
5
$0.90
$0.90
Dec-91
Nov-92
Feb-93
Jun-95
68
Philippines EAP
World Bank Leyte/Luzon Geothermal
Climate Change
6
$30.00
#####
May-91
May-94
Mar-95
Mar-00
69
Poland
ECA
World
Bank/IFC
Efficient Lighting Project
Climate Change
5
$5.00
$5.00
Dec-94
Jun-95
Jul-98
70
Poland
ECA
World Bank Forest Biodiversity Protection
Biodiversity
3
$4.50
$6.20
May-91
Dec-91
Feb-92
Dec-95
71
Poland
ECA
WB
Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances
Ozone
$6.20
$20.20
Apr-96
Mar-97
Jul-97
1-Apr
72
Regional
LAC
UNEP
A Participatory Approach to Managing the
Environment: An Input to the Inter-American
Strategy for Participation (ISP) - MSP
Multiple
$0.72
$1.56
Aug-97
Oct-98
73
Regional
LAC
UNEP
Argentina-Bolivia: Strategic Action
Program for the Binational Basin of the
International
Bermejo River
Waters
9
$3.22
$5.96
Nov-96
Nov-98
74
Regional
EAP
UNDP
Asia Least Cost GHG Abatement
Strategy (ALGAS)
Climate Change
EA
$9.50
$13.00
Dec-91
Aug-93
Aug-94
Aug-97
75
Regional
ECA
UNDP
Black Sea Environmental Management
International
Waters
8
$9.30
$32.60
May-92
Sep-92
Jun-96
76
Regional
AFR
UNDP
Building Capacity in Sub-Saharan Africa
to Respond to the UNFCCC
Climate Change
EA
$2.00
$2.00
Dec-92
Nov-94
Aug-95
Feb-97
77
Regional
AFR
UNDP
Building Capacity in the Maghreb to
Respond to Challenges and Opportunities
Created by National Response to the
Framework Convention on Climate Change
Climate Change
EA
$2.50
$2.50
May-93
Mar-98
78
Regional
EAP
UNDP
Conservation Strategies for Rhinos in
South East Asia
Biodiversity
3
$2.00
$2.00
May-93
Dec-94
79
Regional
AFR
UNDP
Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Through Energy-efficient Building
Technology in West Africa
Climate Change
5
$3.50
$5.80
Dec-92
Dec-94
Dec-94
FY2001
80
Regional
ECA
UNDP
Danube River Basin Environmental
International
Management
Waters
8
$8.50
$43.50
May-91
Feb-92
Sep-92
Mar-96
81
Regional
ECA
UNDP
Developing the Danube River Basin
International
Pollution Reduction Program
Waters
8
$3.90
$3.90
Oct-96
Oct-96
Sep-97
Sep-98
82
Regional
ECA
UNDP
Developing the Implementation of the
International
Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
Waters
8
$1.79
$8.14
Oct-96
Oct-96
Nov-96
Sep-97
83
Regional
AFR
UNDP
Industrial Water Pollution in the Gulf of
International
Guinea Large Marine Ecosystem
Waters
9
$6.00
$6.00
Dec-91
Oct-93
Oct-94
Mar-98
84
Regional
AFR
UNDP
Institutional Support for the Protection of
East African Biodiversity
Biodiversity
STRM
$10.00
$10.00
May-91
Mar-92
Sep-92
Sep-96
85
Regional
AFR
World Bank Lake Malawi/Nyasa Biodiversity
Conservation
Biodiversity
2
$5.00
$5.44
Dec-91
Dec-94
Jul-95
Jun-00
86
Regional
AFR
UNDP
Lake Victoria Environmental Management
International
Program
Waters
9
$0.40
Jul-95
87
Regional
ECA
World Bank Oil Pollution Management for the
International
Southwest Mediterranean Sea
Waters
$18.26
$20.00
Apr-92
Apr-94
Dec-99
88
Regional
LAC
UNDP
Planning and Management of Heavily
International
Contaminated Bays and Coastal Areas
Waters
10
$2.50
$2.50
Aug-93
89
Regional
AFR
UNDP
Pollution Control and Other Measures to
International
Protect Biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika
Waters
9
$10.00
$10.00
Dec-91
Oct-93
Feb-95
Oct-98
97

---

GEF 2001 Project Performance Report
GEF
Total
Work
Approval
Date of
No
Country
Region
IA
Project
Focal Area
OP
Funding
Cost
Program Date by
Project
Closing
(US$ mil) (US$ mil) Entry Date
IA
start
date
90
Regional
Regional UNDP
Regional Oceans Training Program
International
Waters
$2.58
$5.18
Dec-91
Feb-98
91
Regional
EAP
UNDP
South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation
Program
Biodiversity
STRM
$10.00
$14.30
Jan-92
Jan-93
Apr-93
FY2001
92
Regional
LAC
UNDP
START Global Change Initiative
(subproject)
Climate Change
STRM
$2.90
$2.90
Jan-94
93
Regional
LAC
World Bank Wider Caribbean Initiative for Ship-
International
generated Waste
Waters
9
$5.50
$5.50
May-93
Jun-94
Sep-94
Jan-98
94
Russian
Federation ECA
World Bank
Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Climate Change
5
$3.20
$73.20
Dec-92
Dec-95
Dec-96
Jun-99
95
Seychelles SAS
World Bank
Biodiversity Conservation and Marine
Pollution Abatement
Biodiversity
2
$1.80
$2.00
Dec-91
Nov-92
Mar-93
Dec-97
96
Slovak
Republic
ECA
World Bank Biodiversity Protection
Biodiversity
3
$2.30
$3.17
Dec-91
Sep-93
Oct-93
Jun-98
97
Slovak
Ozone Depleting Substances Reduction
Republic
ECA
World Bank (IFC)
Ozone
STRM
$3.50
$5.95
May-95
Jun-96
Nov-96
Jun-98
98
Slovenia
ECA
World Bank Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances
Ozone
STRM
$6.20
$9.72
Nov-94
Nov-95
Dec-95
Jun-98
99
Sri Lanka
SAS
UNDP
Wildlife Conservation and Protected Areas
Management
Biodiversity
3
$4.10
$4.10
Dec-91
Jan-92
May-92
Jan-97
100 Sudan
AFR
UNDP
Community-based Rangeland Rehabilitation
for Carbon Sequestration
Climate Change
STRM
$1.50
$1.50
Dec-92
Aug-94
Oct-94
Feb-00
101 Sudan
Arab
Community-based Rangeland
States
UNDP
Rehabilitation for Carbon Sequestration
CC
STRM
$1.50
$1.60
Dec-92
Aug-94
Oct-94
FY2001
102 Tanzania
AFR
UNDP
Electricity, Fuel and Fertilizer from
Municipal and Industrial Waste in Tanzania
Climate Change
6
$2.50
$3.99
May-93
Dec-93
Mar-94
Jun-97
103 Thailand
EAP
World Bank Promotion of Electricity Energy Efficiency
Climate Change
5
$9.50
$189.00
Dec-91
Apr-93
Nov-93
Dec-99
104 Turkey
ECA
World Bank In-situ Conservation of Genetic
Biodiversity/East Anatolia Watershed
Management
Biodiversity
3
$5.10
$5.70
Apr-92
Mar-93
Mar-93
Sep-98
105 Uganda
AFR
World Bank Bwindi Impenetrable National Park &
Mgahinga Gorilla National Park
Conservation
Biodiversity
4
$4.00
$6.30
May-91
Jan-95
Jul-95
Dec-00
106 Ukraine
ECA
World Bank Danube Delta Biodiversity
Biodiversity
2
$1.50
$1.74
Apr-92
Jun-94
Aug-94
Jun-99
107 Ukraine
ECA
World Bank Transcarpathian Biodiversity Protection
Biodiversity
4
$0.50
$0.58
Dec-91
Jul-93
Oct-93
Mar-97
108 Uruguay
LAC
UNDP
Conservation of Biodiversity in the
Eastern Wetlands
Biodiversity
2
$3.00
$3.00
May-92
Nov-92
Apr-93
Sep-96
109 Venezuela LAC
UNDP
Methane Leaks in Maracaibo Network
Climate Change
STRM
Oct-94
110 Vietnam
EAP
UNDP
Conservation Training and Biodiversity
Action Plan
Biodiversity
EA
$3.00
$3.00
Jan-92
Jan-92
Jul-92
Mar-97
111 Yemen
MNA
UNDP
Protection of Marine Ecosystems of the
International
Red Sea Coast
Waters
8
$2.80
$2.80
May-92
Apr-93
Jun-93
Mar-96
112 Zimbabwe AFR
UNDP
Photovoltaics for Household and
Community Use
Climate Change
6
$7.00
$7.00
May-91
Feb-92
Sep-92
Aug-97
113 Zimbabwe AFR
UNEP
Preparation of Initial National
Communication for the Implementation
of UNFCC
Climate Change
EA
$0.10
$0.10
Aug-98
FY2001
98

---