G l o b a l E n v i r o n m e n t F a c i l i t y
GEF/ME/C.25/1
May 5, 2005
GEF Council
June 3-8, 2005
Agenda Item 5 (b)
GEF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW (2004)
(Prepared by the Office of Monitoring and Evaluation)
Recommended Council Decision
The Council, having reviewed the document GEF/ME/C.25/1 Annual Performance
Report (2004) endorses its recommendations and requests that the GEF Office of
Monitoring and Evaluation reports on the follow-up of the following recommendations
and the management response to the June 2006 Council meeting:
·
The transparency of the GEF project approvals process should be increased. The
GEF Secretariat and Implem
enting Agencies should make project proposal
status information available to proponents through internet accessible databases
and project tracking tools.
·
GEF Secretariat should institute an active management approach to the project
approvals process, in
cluding accountability for processing time standards within
the GEF Secretariat and Implementing Agencies.
·
UNDP and UNEP should set in place terminal evaluation review processes for
GEF projects to improve their quality and meet the concerns of the GEF.
· Recommendations to improve project M&E systems have been issued in the
past, as well as request to include an assessment of project M&E systems in all
terminal evaluation reports. While there have been advances in upgrading
project M&E systems, there is still considerable room for improvement, and
therefore the Office considers that these recommendations continue to be valid.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................1
1. INTRODUCTION
...................................................................................................................3
2. PROCESSES THAT AFFECT THE ATTAINMENT OF GEF RESULTS: ELAPSED TIME IN THE
PREPARATION OF GEF PROJECTS...............................................................................................5
Key Findings on Elapsed Time in the Preparation of GEF Projects.................................5
Rationale for a Methodology of the Review .....................................................................6
The GEF Project Approval Process ..................................................................................6
Timeframes for Project Processing ...................................................................................7
GEF Project Approval Timeframes ..................................................................................7
Experience of the Implementing Agencies .......................................................................8
Summary of Implementing Agency Experience ...............................................................9
Experience with Focal Areas ............................................................................................9
Focal Area Summary ......................................................................................................10
Regional Experience .......................................................................................................10
Factors Affecting the Duration of the Project Cycle ......................................................10
Complexity of the GEF Structure and Process ...............................................................10
Management of the Project Cycle ...................................................................................11
Recommendations ...........................................................................................................13
3. THE QUALITY OF TERMINAL EVALUATION REPORTS ..............................................................15
Summary of Findings on the Quality of Terminal Evaluation Reports ..........................15
Methodology for the Assessment of the Quality of the Reports.....................................15
Distribution of the Terminal Evaluation Reports............................................................17
Assessment on the Quality of Project Terminal Evaluation Reports..............................17
Quality of Terminal Evaluation Reports by IA...............................................................21
4. THE QUALITY OF PROJECT M&E SYSTEMS.............................................................................24
Summary of Findings on the Quality of Project M&E Systems.....................................24
Background and Relevance.............................................................................................24
Methodology for the Assessment of the Quality of the Project M&E Systems .............25
Assessment on the Quality of Project M&E Systems.....................................................26
Quality of Project M&E Systems by Focal Area ............................................................27
Quality of Project M&E Systems by IA .........................................................................29
Appendix A: GEF Portfolio Overview ......................................................................................31
Appendix B: Projects Included in the APR 2004 (as of June 30, 2004)....................................41
Appendix C: Elapsed Time Full Data Tables by Implementing Agencies ................................57
Appendix D: List of Terminal Evaluation Reports Reviewed ...................................................59
Appendix E: Ratings for the Quality of the Terminal Evaluation Reports and M&E Systems .64
Appendix F: Strengths and Weaknesses of IA Terminal Evaluation Reports ...........................65
Appendix G: Ratings on the Achievement of Objectives and Sustainability
Provided by the IA in Reports Prepared in FY04 ...........................................................66
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.
This Annual Performance Review (APR) is a step towards an annual account of the
results of GEF activities, processes that affect accomplishment of results and the state of project
monitoring and evaluation activities across the system.
2.
This year the APR does not include a chapter on results. They would have been drawn
partly from the recently completed program studies, but these will be discussed separately by
Council. The discussion of results could also have been drawn from the outcome and
sustainability ratings of project terminal evaluations. But the mixed quality of terminal
evaluations and monitoring systems of projects made a significant portion of the available data
unreliable. In subsequent years the Office will verify the achievements of project objectives and
the likelihood of sustainability of project outcomes presented in terminal evaluations and will
report on these verified achievements. The Project Implementation Review (PIRs) Overview
Reports present implementing agency assessments of project achievements by focal areas. In
account of the independence of the APR, the Implementing Agency PIR Overview Reports are
presented to Council as information documents. These are: Project Implementation Review 2004
- Overview Report/UNDP, GEF/ME/C.25/Inf.2 (Prepared by UNDP); Project Implementation
Review 2004 - Overview Report/UNEP, GEF/ME/C.25/Inf.3 (Prepared by UNEP ); and Project
Implementation Review 2004 - Overview Report/World Bank, GEF/ME/C.25/Inf.4 (Prepared by
the World Bank).
3.
On process issues, the APR focuses on a review of timeframes associated with GEF
project design. This review indicates that the average elapsed times from pipeline entry to
program inclusion for GEF full-sized projects regularly exceed the 730 day (24 month) standard
expected of routine investment loans or technical assistance grants at multi lateral development
banks such as the World Bank. The record for medium-sized projects is also well beyond what
was originally expected for this type of grant. No major elapsed time differences among
Implementing Agencies were detected. Some of the critical factors affecting the duration of the
cycle identified by the review are related to the complexity of the GEF structure and process.
These include the need to address the GEF and Implementing Agency processing steps and the
specific characteristics of GEF projects which include among others determining baselines and
securing co-financing. Other factors are lengthy approval periods of GEF focal points and other
political and institutional issues. Although this review is consistent with the findings of other
performance reviews and evaluation reports, there is a clear need within the GEF to establish a
more uniform and integrated approach to gathering and maintaining critical data on project cycle
timeframes.
4.
The Office review of Implementing Agency terminal evaluations found that most of the
World Bank reports (i.e., Implementation Completion Reports) were of satisfactory or above
quality. UNEP reports ratings for fiscal year 2004 showed a slight improvement compared to the
reports completed between January 2001 and June 2003. UNDP terminal evaluation quality
ratings, on the other hand, exhibited a decline. While there is not sufficient information to
interpret this decline as a trend, this decline is a matter of concern because it contributed
disproportionately to the drop on the ratings of the quality of terminal evaluation reports
submitted in fiscal year 2004. There is still room for improvement for the World Bank, but more
1
needs to be done by UNDP and UNEP. Particular areas in which reports need to improve are:
presentation of actual project cost; report consistency; completeness of evidence and convincing
substantiation and use of ratings; assessment of sustainability of outcomes; and the assessment of
relevant outcomes and objectives. In line with international best practices, and for the sake of
clarity and standardization, the Office of Monitoring and Evaluation has requested the
Implementing Agencies to provide ratings on the achievement of objectives/outcomes,
sustainability and quality of the M&E systems using a six scale rating system in terminal
evaluation reports.
5.
The analysis of the quality of project monitoring and evaluation systems seem to suggest
that there is an improvement when comparing projects that started before 1995 with those that
started after 1995, the point at which the GEF Council requested that project level monitoring
and evaluation plans be included in all projects approved for GEF funding. However, there is a
substantial gap in the information as the quality of the project monitoring and evaluation systems
is unknown for a large percentage of projects: 18 of 75 reports from the period under
consideration did not provide sufficient information on the systems. Therefore, the Office
requests to Implementing Agencies that future terminal evaluations include an assessment of
project monitoring and evaluation systems.
Recommendations
·
The transparency of the GEF project approvals process should be increased. The
GEF Secretariat and Implementing Agencies should make project proposal status
information available to proponents through internet accessible databases and
project tracking tools.
·
GEF Secretariat should institute an active management approach to the project
approvals process, including accountability for processing time standards within the
GEF Secretariat and Implementing Agencies.
·
UNDP and UNEP should set in place terminal evaluation review processes for GEF
projects to improve their quality and meet the concerns of the GEF.
·
Recommendations to improve project M&E systems have been issued in the past,
as well as request to include an assessment of project M&E systems in all terminal
evaluation reports. While there have been advances in upgrading project M&E
systems, there is still considerable room for improvement, and therefore the Office
considers that these recommendations continue to be valid.
2
1.
INTRODUCTION
6.
In November 2004, the GEF Council approved the Office of Monitoring and Evaluation's
proposal to gradually transfer its direct monitoring functions to the implementing agencies and
the GEF Secretariat, allowing the Office to focus more on assessing results of GEF activities and
on overseeing monitoring and evaluation operations across the GEF system. Consistent with this
shift, this first issue of the GEF Annual Performance Review (APR), the successor of the Project
Performance Report (PPR), will be a first step in the direction of an annual presentation of the
results of GEF activities, the processes that affect the accomplishment of results, and the findings
of the Office's oversight of project monitoring and evaluation activities across the portfolio. The
Annual Performance Review also provides the GEF Council, and other GEF institutions and
stakeholders, with feedback to help improve the performance of GEF projects. Given these
changes, the overview of the GEF portfolio is presented in Appendix A, and the list of projects
included in the 2004 APR is included in Appendix B.
7.
Future APRs will include four chapters:
(i) Results of GEF activities
(ii) Processes that affect attainment of GEF results
(iii) Quality of project terminal evaluations reports
(iv) Quality of project monitoring and evaluation systems.
8.
This year the APR does not include a chapter on results because these are more
comprehensibly covered in the Biodiversity, Climate Change, International Waters and
Integrated Ecosystem Management Program Studies. The program studies were presented to the
GEF Council in November 2004 (GEF/ME/C.24/Inf.1, Inf. 2, and Inf. 3) and were major inputs
to the Third Overall Performance Study (OPS3). The GEF Secretariat coordinated with the
implementing agencies to prepare the GEF Management Responses (GEF/ME/C.24/7) to these
studies, which were also presented to Council in November 2004. The OP12 study and
correspond ing management response (GEF/ME/C.25/5 and GEF/ME/C.25/6) are being presented
to the June 2005 Council session. The discussion of results could also have been drawn from the
outcome and sustainability ratings of project terminal evaluations. But the mixed quality of
terminal evaluations and monitoring systems of projects made a significant portion of the
available data unreliable.
9.
For the next APR, an attempt will be made to verify and report on outcome and
sustainability ratings of terminal evaluations and to supplement this with results reported through
other credible and legitimate sources of information, such as other GEF evaluations, evaluations
of GEF partners, and data coming out of independent monitoring systems. The aim will be to
give the GEF Counc il an annual update of the results that the GEF is achieving on various levels
and by focal areas. The benchmarking of existing monitoring and evaluation systems in the GEF
family will also be very valuable for this task.
10.
Chapter two on process and performance issues is dedicated to the study of elapsed time
in preparing GEF projects, which was undertaken as a follow-up to the last PPR. This is a topic
for which the May 2004 Council specifically requested further review by the Office.
3
11.
Chapters three and four of the APR refer to the quality of project terminal evaluations
and the quality of project M&E systems, respectively. As the GEF project portfolio matures, an
increasing number of terminal evaluation reports permit a more systematic analysis than in
previous years. Larger dataset will allow the Office to identify and track issues that may be in
need of improvement. These chapters are a first step to doing so. The number of terminal
evaluations is still relatively low, and the analysis that can be done is still relatively limited.
However, it is hoped that these limitations will diminish in the coming years as implementing
and executing agencies submit more terminal evaluation reports that comply with the GEF
Terminal Evaluation Guidelines. As ratings in terminal evaluation reports become more
consistent, the Office will be able to rely more on them and report on an aggregated basis on the
levels of accomplishment of projects at exit, based on the ratings for achievement of project
objectives and the likelihood of sustainability of outcomes. The Office will also report on the
relationship between validated ratings and rating in terminal evaluations to assess the disconnect
between independent ratings and those provided in project implementation reports.
12.
The role of the Office of M&E in the review of terminal evaluation reports could be
transitional and/or complementary. The Office will work with the evaluation departments of
implementing and executing agencies to establish independent validation processes of terminal
evaluation findings and ratings, thus addressing GEF concerns. Presently, the World Bank's
terminal evaluation independent review process by the Operations Evaluation Department (OED)
meets most of our concerns. Therefore, the Office will primarily use OED's validation of
terminal evaluation reports and, where necessary, complement this with a relatively minor effort
to address the specific information needs of the GEF. The Office is consulting with the other
evaluation departments of GEF's partners to set in place terminal evaluation review processes
that are independent and meet GEF concerns.
13.
The analysis of 75 project terminal evaluation reports (submitted since January 2001) was
supplemented by some information provided during the focal area task forces that took place
during November and December of 2004. Starting this year, the annual overview reports of
UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank are being presented to the Council as separate informational
documents. The findings and conclusions presented in this report were also shared and discussed
with the implementing agencies on various occasions, including during the program studies
review process and the Interagency Meeting held in Washington, DC, in January 2005.
Individual reviews of project evaluations were also sent to the implementing agencies for
comments.
4
2.
PROCESSES THAT AFFECT THE ATTAINMENT OF GEF RESULTS: ELAPSED
TIME IN THE PREPARATION OF GEF PROJECTS1
Key Findings on Elapsed Time in the Preparation of GEF Projects
Performance of Project Preparation
·
Data indicates that the average elapsed times for GEF full-sized projects regularly
exceed the 730-day (24-month) standard expected of routine investment loans or
technical assistance grants at multilateral development banks, such as the World
Bank. The record for medium-sized projects is also well beyond what was
originally expected for this type of grant.
·
The trends that have emerged are consistent with the findings of other performance
reviews and evaluation reports, but there is a clear need to establish a more uniform
and integrated approach to gathering and maintaining critical data within the GEF.
·
The critical factors affecting the duration of the cycle come into play primarily in
the development of project concepts and project preparation and appraisal.
·
Over the years, the length of time to reach project start-up after initial approval by
an implementing agency has decreased, but the amount of time spent in project
preparation has either increased or remained flat.
Factors Affecting Duration of Project Preparation
·
The nature of the GEF structure, with its intersecting, multilayered institutional
requirements creates competitive tensions and confusion between implementing
agencies and the GEF Secretariat.
·
At the operational level, the lines between the roles and responsibilities of the GEF
Secretariat and implementing agency staff have not been clearly and consistently
drawn, frustrating both parties over the handling of projects in the review process.
This may create a clash between the incentives driving the implementing agency to
move a project through the GEF process to meet internal IA deadlines and the
quality control priorities of the GEF Secretariat reviewer.
·
The information systems for effective central coordination and management of the
project cycle are not well integrated and maintained by the GEF Secretariat and
implementing agency family, making it difficult to routinely track and monitor the
development of projects at the Secretariat level.
·
The GEF project approvals process is not sufficiently transparent, and this lack of
transparency also contributes to project delays. The inability of project proponents
to track the current status of their proposal also generates a great deal of tension and
criticism of the GEF as a whole.
1 This section of the 2005 Annual Performance Report is taken from the working paper prepared externally for the
Office of Monitoring and Evaluation titled "Review of Factors Affecting the Length of Time Required To Prepare,
Process, and Begin Implementation of GEF Projects" (April 2005).
5
Recommendations
·
The transparency of the GEF project approvals process should be increased. The
GEF Secretariat and implementing agencies should make project proposal status
information available to proponents through Internet-accessible databases and
project tracking tools.
·
GEF Secretariat should institute an active management approach to the project
approvals process, including accountability for processing time standards within the
GEF Secretariat and implementing agencies.
Rationale for a Methodology of the Review
14.
This year the chapter on processes that affect the attainment of GEF results focuses on
the elapsed time in the preparation of GEF projects. Following its review of the Report of the
Monitoring and Evaluation Unit (GEF/C/23/3) and the associated 2003 Project Performance
Report (GEF/C.23/Inf.5, April 21, 2004), the GEF Council explicitly asked what was then the
Monitoring and Evaluation Unit to give a high priority
to examining the causes of time delays in "project
Box 1. Sources of information for the
review on the elapsed time of the
preparation and implementation and disbursement of
preparation of GEF projects
funds..." This review responds to the Council's
request. The review's central objectives are to: a)
The review is based on information provided by
examine the elapsed times involved in taking projects
the GEF Secretariat, the World Bank, UNDP,
and UNEP. These sources include Overall
through the GEF project cycle; b) assess the factors
Performance Studies, annual Project
that affect the times required to prepare, approve, and
Performance Reviews, special program studies
initiate the implementation of projects; and c)
on biodiversity, international waters, and
climate change, and interviews with technical
recommend steps to address those factors that cause
staff and program managers from the
delays while taking into account the need to ensure
agencies. With the exception of a limited
quality of project preparation.
number of interviews with people involved in
GEF projects in Africa and Latin America, this
study did not entail field work in recipient
15.
The review focused primarily on the
countries. With regard to the experience of the
experience of the GEF Secretariat and the three
World Bank, the review drew heavily on the
study of elapsed times for preparation and
implementing agencies of the GEF and on the elapsed
approval of full-sized GEF projects recently
times associated with the preparation of GEF full-
undertaken by the Bank's GEF team as part of
sized projects and medium-sized projects. It focused
the Bank's FY2004 Portfolio Improvement
Plan. Data on elapsed time for specific
particularly on the period from the time a project
agencies is derived from the databases and
enters the GEF pipeline until implementation of the
project information systems of each of the
project begins. The review did not examine experience
implementing agencies and the GEF
Secretariat.
with other types of GEF instruments, such as enabling
activities, national capacity self-assessments, or small grants, and it did not cover executing
agencies brought into the GEF under the policy of expanded opportunities.
The GEF Project Approval Process
16.
The GEF project cycle involves two interrelated processes: the process by which the GEF
Council and Secretariat review, approve, and eventually evaluate projects brought to the GEF by
the implementing and executing agencies, and the process by which these agencies develop,
6
approve, and implement those projects. It is important to note that each of the implementing and
executing agencies follows its own internal project cycle, which may involve different terms and
internal procedures.2 The figure below, taken from the Biodiversity Program Study, shows the
basic steps in the project cycle. In each of the six steps identified below, multiple sub-steps are
also undertaken.
17.
The GEF Secretariat is primarily consulted in steps 2 and 3, to which there are a number
of sub-steps: 1) concept agreement, 2) Project Development Facility (PDF) Block A, B, or C
approval, 3) approval for work program inclusion, and 4) council approval, which is followed by
CEO endorsement (when required).
Timeframes for Project Processing
18.
The GEF has established timeframes for processing project proposals at each stage of the
approval process. As reflected in the schedules of the Program Management Bulletin, proceeding
without interruption, a full-sized project will take, at least 152 days (5 months) to pass through
the GEF review and approval process. The processing time for medium-sized projects is
approximately 61 days (2 months), as they are not formally reviewed by the Secretariat for
pipeline entry or work program inclusion but submitted directly to the CEO for endorsement on a
rolling basis. The implementing agencies also have established time periods for project review
and approval within their own individual project cycles.
GEF Project Approval Time frames
19.
The central question is how long it takes to move a project through the process of
approval to implementation. In this section, we will examine "elapsed time" data to illustrate the
overall performance of the GEF and the individual experience of the three implementing
agencies. The main focus will be on full-sized GEF projects. The information has been drawn
from a variety of sources, as no single source of project information provides a comprehensive,
overall picture of the experience of the GEF through all the stages of the project cycle. While the
data provided by an implementing agency is considered accurate for that implementing agency,
no unified methodology ties the calculations of the implementing agencies together. As a result,
2 For the World Bank, project start-up is described as "project effectiveness," while for UNDP this stage is termed
"ProDoc" (when the project document gains approval from UNDP). For the purposes of this review, this stage in
the project cycle will be generalized as "project start-up."
7
judgments about the elapsed time performance of GEF as a whole are estimates that must be
taken with a measure of caution.
Experience of the Implementing Agencies
20.
World Bank: The World Bank recently conducted an internal review to explain elapsed
times between processing steps in the GEF project cycle.3 This report used data from 65 full-
sized projects, including both freestanding and blended4 projects. For the complete data, see
Table 1 in Appendix C.
21.
The average amount of time it takes to develop and take a Bank GEF project to
implementation is slightly more than 1,144 days (37.6 months). For all stages of the project
cycle, the elapsed times are shorter for so-called blended projects and longer for freestanding
projects. The differences between "blended" and "freestanding" projects may be accounted for
in part by management priorities within the Bank. According to a number of sources, Bank
managers tend to give a high priority to processing investment loans, so that they would tend to
push harder for a GEF project "blended" with such a loan than for a freestanding GEF grant.5
22.
The World Bank's record with GEF projects is more than a year greater than the
experience of the Bank with non-GEF projects. The total elapsed time for Bank projects is
between 578 and 669 days (19 and 22 months). As the Bank does not always meet its three
month standard for reaching project start-up after board approval, a general rule of thumb for the
Bank is closer to 730 days (24 months). This is 395 days (13 months) less than the Bank's
overall experience with GEF projects and some 274 days (9 months) less than its experience with
"blended" projects. The Bank's experience with "freestanding" GEF projects surpasses the
Bank's 730-day (24-month) standard by almost 548 days (18 months).
23.
UNDP: UNDP provided a sample of 48 full-sized projects that have reached project
start-up since 1995, which represents about 30 percent of UNDP's active GEF full-sized project
portfolio. The average overall elapsed time for these projects was approximately 1,241 days
(41 months). Additional data provided by UNDP indicated that the elapsed time for the time
from pipeline entry to work program inclusion has been increasing over the last 2 years, but that
the time from work program inclusion to project start-up has decreased slightly. This suggests
that by developing detailed and thorough project documents for Council approval UNDP can
reduce the time needed to move projects to implementation. For complete data, see Table 2 in
Appendix C.
24.
UNEP: In its Project Implementation Report for FY2004, UNEP provided information
on 28 projects that had been approved between 1997 and 2005. The data places UNEP's elapsed
time record squarely within the range of the other implementing agencies. The overall elapsed
time from approval of the project development fund (PDF-B) to project approval by UNEP
(project start-up) is 1,156 days (38 months). As with UNDP and the World Bank, UNEP's
largest expenditure of time is on project preparation and appraisal. UNEP's data shows varied
but approximately consistent amounts of time required from one year to the next to move from
3 Draft Report on Elapsed Time Analysis of World Bank GEF Projects ( January 12, 2005)
4 "Blended" projects are WB GEF projects that are packaged with a Bank investment loan.
5 Each year regional offices commit to specific Bank Board dates for loans and credits.
8
GEF approval to implementing agency approval/project start-up. In general, a clear message can
be distilled: the overall increase in the amount of time it takes UNEP to develop a full-sized GEF
project and initiate its implementation is due primarily to the amount of time it takes to do the
planning and design of projects rather than the time spent on their appraisal and approval. For
complete data, see Table 3 in Appendix C.
Summary of Implementing Agency Experience
25.
This review of elapsed times for each of the implementing agencies establishes the basis
for making a rough estimate for the duration of the GEF project cycle as a whole. The chart
below is derived from the elapsed time data discussed above for each implementing agency.
Based on this information, the average elapsed time for each of the stages of the cycle leading to
project start-up is roughly the following: pipeline entry to work program inclusion/Council
approval 621 days (20.4 months) and Council approval to project start-up 548 days (18 months).
So it takes roughly 1,168 days (38.4 months or 3.2 years) to develop a GEF project.
Table 2.1 Implementing Agency Experience of Average Elapsed Time of GEF Project Cycle (days)
Project Cycle
Pipeline/ Council
Council/ IA Approval
Project Start-up
Total
World Bank
465
493
186
1,144
UNDP
669
578
-
1,247
UNEP
730
365
-
1,095
Average Elapsed Time
621
487
61
1,168
Note: For both UNDP and UNEP, IA approval virtually coincides with project start-up.
Experience with Focal Areas
26.
The program performance studies prepared for the biodiversity, international waters, and
climate change focal areas in 2004 offer a view of the duration of the project cycle for each area.
The findings for the biodiversity and international water focal areas show slightly longer elapsed
times than the overall IA averages presented above, but the differences are not great enough to
raise doubts about the overall findings. The report on climate change comments on the lengthy
project cycle but does not offer an analysis of elapsed time data.
27.
Biodiversity: The 2004 Biodiversity Program Study examined project cycle timeframes,
and the data used for this analysis was drawn from this report. See Table 4 in Appendix C for
complete data. The overall average for these biodiversity projects is not notably different from
the averages for all types of full-sized projects: 1,278 days compared to 1,168 days.
28.
The 2004 Biodiversity Program Study points out that there are two interesting trends
when the data is broken down over time. First, for both full-sized and medium-sized projects,
the GEF approval process has been taking longer in recent years when compared to GEF's early
years. This is possibly due to the expanded review process and increasing complexity of
projects. The second trend is that for full-sized projects the time to work program inclusion has
increased, while time from work program inclusion to CEO endorsement has decreased. This
could be due to projects being at more advanced stages of preparation at work program inclusion.
29.
International Waters: The 2004 International Waters Program Study only examined the
development time for projects endorsed by the CEO from 2002 to 2004. Broken down by IA, it
appears that compared to their preparation times overall, the World Bank and UNEP ha ve both
9
taken longer to prepare international waters projects. UNDP has taken less time, however; the
International Waters Program Study attributes UNDP's shorter experience with these projects to
UNDP's recent attempts to streamline its internal approval process.
30.
Climate Change: The additional data UNDP presented for this review, shown in Table 2
of Appendix C, allowed a limited comparison of climate change projects with projects from the
other focal areas.
Focal Area Summary
31.
The comparison indicates that UNDP elapsed time record for these projects is best with
regard to climate change (1,044 days) and longest with international waters (1,399 days), with
biodiversity being closer to international waters. Data examined in this review shows that
biodiversity projects do not appear to take significantly longer to move to implementation than
projects in the other GEF focal areas. In general, international waters projects tend to involve
complex multinational institutional coordination that extends the time they take to reach project
start-up. In the case of climate change, the elapsed time will depend to a great extent on the
degree to which the project involves new and untested technologies or is predicated on market
conditions being ripe for a design or financial innovation.
Regional Experience
32.
Both the World Bank and UNDP provided information on the elapsed time for projects
developed in different geographic regions. The Bank's review shows that projects developed in
the Africa Region took the longest to move to project start-up. In UNDP's experience, Africa
and Latin America (approximately 1,400 days each) take the longest for pipeline entry to work
program inclusion. This snapshot offers a general pattern, but no conclusions about the causes of
longer elapsed times in one region or another. In general, however, the institutional capacity of
the recipient country would have a marked effect on the elapsed times for project preparation6.
Factors Affecting the Duration of the Project Cycle
33.
The factors that affect the duration the GEF project cycle are so numerous and varied that
it is not possible to identify just one or two culprits whose reform might shorten the time
required to prepare GEF projects and bring them to implementation. Nevertheless, the duration
of the cycle can be explained by examining its structural complexity, the factors that come into
play in the preparation of projects, and the decision making process at the level of the GEF
Secretariat. Through these three windows, one can view a mo re complete picture of the factors
that interact to influence the duration of the cycle.
Complexity of the GEF Structure and Process
34.
The GEF is a complex, multilayered institution. It is not only governed by its own
policies, procedures, and program requirements, but dependent, by design, upon the
6 Another Factor reported by the World Bank's internal review is the presence of a large number of regional projects
in Africa, which take longer to prepare.
10
performances of a variety of other institutions with separate identities and behavioral
characteristics. Each of these actors is governed by its own policies and procedures and internal
political and bureaucratic idiosyncrasies, and the behavior of each influences the performance of
the whole system. This may seem like an obvious point, but it should not be dismissed,
especially for the GEF, whose global environmental objectives and institutional design are not
commonly or easily understood in many of the countries seeking its financial support. To design
an acceptable GEF project and successfully navigate the institutional processes is no easy task,
and there can be many delays along the way. This picture of complexity is the context that
defines the GEF, and it is this context that can be said to generate many of the individual factors
that affect the duration of the project cycle.
35.
Each of the phases of the project cycle involves a wide variety of activities and generates
considerable interaction between implementing agency and project proponents on matters
ranging from fundamental issues of national policy and financial commitment to more mundane
matters of consultant contracting, the scope and sufficiency of technical work, and coordination
among the public and private entities involved in the project. Past evaluations and the work
conducted for this review have identified the major factors that determine how expeditiously
these activities can be carried out.
36.
Requirements for GEF projects may inject a level of difficulty into project preparation
and appraisal that would not be the case for more conventional technical assistance or investment
loan projects. The characteristics of GEF projects most often cited as causing delays are a)
determining baseline conditions for calculating impacts and global benefits, b) coordinating
stakeholder participation, c) establishing implementation partnerships, and d) securing co-
financing. Another of the major causes of delays in all three of these stages of the project cycle
is the capacity of the project proponent (i.e., governmental or non-governmental organization).
Furthermore obtaining project approval from GEF Focal Points may also cause delays in the
process.
37.
As has been observed in other contexts, this review identified a number of factors
affecting a small number of projects that are well beyond the control of the implementing agency
project team or the GEF. These have to do with political or military instability, personnel
changes in governmental bureaucracies, and local elections. Data is not available to analyze the
full effect these factors have on GEF projects on average.7
Management of the Project Cycle
38.
Implementing Agencies: The process for review and approval of GEF projects within the
implementing agencies is complex in its own right and includes steps that are essential to fulfill
the technical and fiduciary responsibilities of the implementing agencies. A closer look at the
internal implementing agenc y project cycles could reveal additional areas for improvement that
would have positive implications of the GEF process as a whole. However, unless major
7 It may be possible that a few outlier projects are having a considerable effect because yearly cohorts of projects are
small. Nonetheless the Office does not have sufficient information at this point to properly assess the impact of
outliers across the portfolio. The coming evaluation of the project cycle will further explore the issue of the
significance of outliers.
11
changes in the project cycle are instituted, the effort necessary to undertake such an exercise may
be greater than the benefit ultimately realized.
39.
The GEF Secretariat: The central question is whether the GEF Secretariat conducts its
review process in an expeditious manner. At first glance, the answer would appear to be that
GEF Secretariat decision making and reviews do not represent a major drag on the process of
project preparation and approval. Although few projects submitted for work program are
rejected or deferred (7 and 9 percent, respectively), the question remains whether GEF
Secretariat reviews exceed the time periods stipulated in the Program Management Bulletin.
Evidence of the extent of the delays that occur in the GEF Secretariat's review process can be
found in information provided by the World Bank.
40.
The World Bank's analysis of the data shows that there were delays in the circulation of
consolidated Council comments on two work programs; for example, fewer that 20 percent of
PDF-Bs were approved by the CEO within the established 5-day service standard. However, a
look at the average length of the delays reflected in the data provided by the Bank offers a less
alarming picture of the performance of the GEF Secretariat. Delays affecting Block B PDFs were
11 days (less than 2 work weeks) for receiving CEO approval.
41.
As currently observed, delays in the GEF review process do not account for a significant
portion of the total elapsed time in the project cycle. Such delays tend to occur in the early
pipeline and PDF-B stages of the project cycle and result from the need to resolve issues of
technical quality and eligibility. For some projects, however, delays can occur that cause
projects to miss work program submissions or, in the case of delays at CEO endorsement, force
an implementing agency to run up against tight deadlines for submissions to its internal board for
approval. Given the nature of the data, there is no way to calculate what the cumulative result of
these delays might be. Undoubtedly, some delays are caused by bureaucratic inefficiencies, and
there is a need to reach a clear understanding of the respective roles of the GEF Secretariat and
implementing agency in these reviews and approach them with greater clarity, consistency,
coordination, and oversight on the part of GEF Secretariat management. But the GEF
Secretariat's review also provides a crucial quality control function that should not be forgotten
in the drive to simplify and speed up the project cycle. As discussed earlier in this chapter,
technical weaknesses continue to be found in the GEF portfolio of projects.
42.
Pipeline Management: In 2004, the GEF Secretariat initiated a new approach to
managing the pipeline that sheds light on the reasons some projects may take so long to reach
approval and implementation. A recent review identified some 72 projects that had been in the
pipeline for over 3 years without moving beyond the concept stage to work program inclusion.
The projects had been held up for a variety of reasons ranging from difficult political,
institutional, and technical issues to bureaucratic neglect.
43.
In order to address this problem, the GEF Secretariat instituted a more aggressive
approach to pipeline management. This "use or lose" policy on the part of the GEF Secretariat
should have a ripple effect that may do a great deal to discipline and expedite the development
and approval of GEF projects overall.
12
Recommendations
Considerations for the Future
44.
The immediate potential for reducing the duration of the project cycle appears to be
improving its management by both the GEF Secretariat and the implementing agencies. While
such improvements may not produce radical decreases in the amount of time required to develop
GEF projects, they could introduce a more disciplined and transparent process. Although the
GEF Secretariat and implementing agencies should deepen their understanding of the strengths
and weaknesses of the existing management process before embarking on such a course of
action, a number of critical suggestions have emerged from this review and should be
considered. These include:
·
Increase the transparency in the project approval process. Making information on
the status of project proposals available and transparent would significantly reduce
the confusion about and criticism directed at the implementing agencies and GEF
Secretariat and would likely help reduce the time necessary for projects to reach
implementation. Although some parties may be reluctant to fully divulge this type
of information, in essence by making information on the status of projects available,
project proponents would be better able to address legitimate concerns or questions
about a project. As it stands, when proponents are unable to find out the status of a
project proposal, they have no clear path to address concerns regarding a project's
development.
One possibility for developing this transparency would be to establish and maintain
integrated project information databases within the GEF Secretariat and the IA/EAs
that would enable task leaders, focal area managers, and the GEF and implementing
agency coordinators to record and monitor the critical milestones in the project
development and use this information for routinely reporting on project progress. A
secure Web-based project development database could be created that would enable
project proponents to view current proposal status.
This level of process evolution would likely require a decision from the GEF
Council to ensure the proper level of support, coordination, and cooperation from
all relevant parties.
To take this process one step further, the GEF should continuously review and
improve the clarity and accessibility of GEF guidance materials and the
transparency of the GEF project cycle for interested public and potential project
proponents.
·
Firmly institute a more aggressive management approach to monitoring the
progress of projects through the pipeline. A number of actions would be required to
put such an approach in place. This should include clarifying the roles and
responsibilities of GEF Secretariat and implementing agency staff in the project
review and approval process and establishing clear and commonly understood
13
business standards for the duration of critical processing steps in the project cycle at
the implementing agency and GEF Secretariat levels of responsibility. Within this
framework, GEF program managers and implementing agency task managers
should be routinely accountable for meeting business standards, reporting on project
progress, and explaining the nature of delays for the project. In this regard, the
current "red zone" review of the pipeline should be made as stringent as possible
and accompanied by an explicit "use or lose" policy for the allocation of GEF
funds.
45.
Both suggestions are dependent on each other. Vigorous management requires effective
monitoring, and effective monitoring requires greater transparency and accessibility of
information about the GEF. Although some parties may be reluctant to openly divulge
information, it is in the best interest of the GEF portfolio to develop tools that enable key parties
to access information and understand the factors affecting project status. Without having such
integrated databases in place, there is little to be gained by further studies of "elapsed time" in
the project cycle. Moreover, such studies could be avoided altogether if more energetic program
management addressed the issues that cause delays in project preparation.
46.
In the longer run, the GEF might also wish to examine more structural changes in the
project cycle to determine what effect they might have on the duration of the process. The GEF
Office of Monitoring and Evaluation is currently planning to undertake a joint consultative
process with the implementing agencies to fully examine the GEF project cycle. Some of the
changes to the project cycle that have been suggested in past reviews include a) instituting a
rolling process for submitting and approving projects, b) placing more emphasis on projects that
involve strategic partnerships and programmatic approaches, and c) focusing Council priorities
on policy and program matters rather than project reviews in work program approval. While
these approaches involve changes in roles and responsibilities, it would be important to assess
whether they actually would have a marked effect of the length of the project cycle given the fact
most of the delays appear to emerge in the project preparation process.
47.
A final consideration underscores the need to carefully consider the trade-offs between
reducing the elapsed times and maintaining the quality at entry of GEF projects. In theory, at
least, time spent in project preparation and time spent in the early GEF review process contribute
directly to the substantive technical design of a project. The rush to speed up the process should
not undermine the quality of design.
14
3.
THE QUALITY OF TERMINAL EVALUATION REPORTS
Summary of Findings on the Quality of Terminal Evaluation Reports
·
Ratings of the quality of terminal evaluation reports decreased in FY04 (with
almost half rated below satisfactory quality) compared to the reports completed
before FY04. While this decrease is not viewed as a trend, the finding is a concern.
·
The analysis indicates that most of the World Bank reports (i.e., implementation
completion reports) were of satisfactory or above quality. There is still room fo r
improvement by the World Bank, but still more needs to be done by UNDP and
UNEP.
·
The review suggests that all areas (i.e., assessment criteria) need work to improve
the quality of terminal evaluation reports, but of particular note are the presentation
of actual project costs; report consistency, completeness of evidence, and
convincing substantiation and use of ratings; the assessment of sustainability of
outcomes; and the assessment of relevant outcomes and objectives.
Recommendation
·
UNDP and UNEP sho uld set in place terminal evaluation review processes for GEF
projects to improve their quality and meet the concerns of the GEF.
Methodology for the Assessment of the Quality of the Reports
48.
To assess the quality of the terminal evaluations, the 75 evaluations completed between
January 2001 and December 2004 were organized by year of preparation and separated into two
groups: one including a total of 50 reports that were completed between January 2001 to June
2003 and another group of 25 reports that were completed after May 2003, when the Office of
Monitoring and Evaluation's "Guidelines for the Implementing Agencies to Conduct Terminal
Evaluations" became effective. The latter represent the reports prepared in FY04 (July 2003 to
June 2004). The number of terminal evaluation reports currently available at the GEF is 140.
This analysis examines 100 percent of the reports completed since the M&E Unit, the
predecessor to the Office of Monitoring and Evaluation, started reviewing terminal evaluations
from January 2001 forward.
49.
There are certain limitations with the dataset. For example, the size of the group of
terminal evaluation reports is still not substantial enough to determine trends on quality as there
is one year of data (FY04) to compare with those reports completed before FY04 (i.e., those
reports completed from January 2001 to June 2003). In addition, although the group includes 37
reports from the Bank and 27 from UNDP, the group of UNEP reports (13) is relatively smaller8.
50.
Finally, very few projects were visited in the field, making this mostly a desk exercise. In
those cases where substantial independent information was collected (for example, through a
8 There are 22 terminal evaluation reports from UNEP on record so these 13 represent 59 percent.
15
field visit of independent eva luators working for the Office), the analysis of the terminal
evaluation report was complemented with that information. The main purpose of the visit often
was to examine the project in light of another evaluation such as the local benefits study or the
program studies, and this was considered in the analysis. However, these visits provided an
additional independent view on the quality of the assessment of those terminal evaluation
reports. Projects that were visited were the Jigme Dorji National Park project in Bhutan, the
Renewable Energy project in Ghana, the Strategic Action Plan in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden,
and the Bolivia Biodiversity project.
51.
For comparison purposes, the Office
Box 2 Project Terminal Evaluations
ratings on the quality of the reports were
The implementing agencies perform terminal evaluations
cross checked with the ratings that the
of GEF projects around their completion. UNDP uses the
independent Operation Evaluation
term "terminal evaluations ," UNEP uses "final evaluations ,
Department of the WB provided on the
and the Bank uses the term "implementation completion
reports" to refer to these evaluations. For simplicity, the
quality of the Implementation Completion
Office will use the term "terminal evaluation reports " for
Reports that were part of the group of reports
all. UNDP and UNEP use independent evaluators to
analyzed. The review found that out of 37
conduct these evaluations, and sometimes conduct them
before the project's completion because this enables the
Bank reports, 10 medium-size projects did
evaluators to have access to the implementation team
not provide ratings9. Of the remaining 27, the
before it is disbanded. At UNEP the evaluation office is
Office upgraded three from S to HS and one
fully involved in the process. At UNDP evaluations are
contracted by management. The World Bank conducts the
from U to MU, and it downgraded three from
implementation completion reports (ICR) no longer than 6
S to MU. The remaining matched the Office
months after project completion, and the team leader or
of Monitoring and Evaluation ratings on the
sector manager designates the task team to prepare the
ICR. Subsequently, the Operations Evaluation
quality of the report. These results were
Department of the World Bank conducts an independent
considered a good indication of consistency.
review of the ICRs and prepares an Evaluation Summary
of every project. In addition, this department conducts a
52.
The projects that were upgraded by
field assessment of the results of 25 percent of projects, 1
or 2 years after completion.
the Office generally exceeded expectations in
terms of the review criteria for the quality of
TEs described in box 3. One project was jointly implemented by the WB and UNDP and both
terminal evaluation reports were considered together when the assessment of the quality of the
TEs was done since they assessed the project components for which each agency was
responsible. In cases where the ratings were downgraded, the report did not address the review
criteria in box 3 to merit the higher rating (e.g., not all relevant outcomes were analyzed, the
implications of some basic sustainability issues raised in the report were not analyzed or were
downplayed) and there were omissions in the analysis or significant contradictions.
53.
The review of the terminal evaluation reports was carried out by a team of consultants in
close coordination with senior Office staff. The Office assessed and rated the quality of the
terminal evaluation reports. Implementing agencies were also given the opportunity to comment
on the reviews.
9 OED does not review MSPs as these have been treated as Trust Funds which go through a separate review process.
The Office is in discussions with OED to find ways to address this issue.
16
Distribution of Terminal Evaluation Reports
54.
The distributions of the 75 projects by focal area and implementing agency are presented
in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 below.
Figure 3.1 Distribution of terminal evaluation reports
reviewed by focal area (75 TEs)
ODS
POPs 4%
International 3%
Waters
15%
Biodiversity
53%
Climate
Change
25%
Figure 3.2 Distribution of terminal evaluation reports
reviewed by IA (75 TEs)
Multiagency
3%
UNDP
33%
WB
48%
UNEP
16%
Assessment on the Quality of Project Terminal Evaluation Reports
55.
Table 3.1 presents the breakdown of the quality of reports completed before and after
June 30, 2004. While there was an increase in the ratings of highly satisfactory reports from zero
prior to FY04 to four during FY04, overall, ratings on the quality of the reports dropped from 33
out of 50 (66%) satisfactory or above before FY04 to 13 out of 25 (52%) in FY04. This decrease
is mostly due to a large drop in the number of UNDP reports with satisfactory quality ratings,
which decreased from 14 out of 21 (66%) to 1 out of 6 (17%) during FY04. Ratings for UNEP's
reports improved slightly. Before FY04, the quality of two out of four UNEP reports was rated as
17
satisfactory and during FY04 this proportion improved slightly to five out of nine satisfactory
(including one highly satisfactory). The proportion of Bank reports rated satisfactory or above in
their quality also improved slightly from 18 out of 26 (69%) before FY04 to eight out of 11
(73%) during FY04, including three highly satisfactory. Given the lower number of UNDP
reports in FY04, this may not be a trend, but it is nonetheless a point of concern. Appendix D
presents a table listing the 75 reports reviewed and their ratings on the quality of the report and
quality of project M&E systems.
Table 3.1. Quality of terminal evaluation reports
RATING
BEFORE FY04
FY04
HS
0
4
S
33
9
MU
13
7
U
4
5
Total number of reports
50
25
Criteria for the Assessment of the Quality of the Terminal Evaluation Reports
56.
The weaknesses and strengths of reports Box 3. Criteria for the assessment of the quality of
according to the five assessment criteria are
terminal evaluation reports
presented in Figure 3.3 (for TE reports
The ratings on the quality of the TE reports were
prepared before FY04) and Figure 3.4 (for
assessed using the following criteria:
those prepared during FY04). In general,
1. Did the report present an assessment of relevant
reports fare better in supporting lessons with
outcomes and achievement of project objectives ?
evidence, as well as in the assessment of
2. Was the report consistent and the evidence complete
relevant outcomes and objectives. However,
and convincing and were the ratings substantiated
when used?
there is reason for concern as the proportion of
3. Did the report present an assessment of
reports rated below satisfactory in all criteria
sustainability of outcomes ?
has increased compared to the group of reports
4. Were the lessons and recommendations supported
by the evidence presented?
completed before FY04. This is particularly
5. Did the report include the actual project costs (total
true for the assessment of sustainability, report
and per activity) and actual co-financing used?
consistency, and the assessment of relevant
outcomes and achievement of objectives.
18
Figure 3.3 Strengths and weaknesses of terminal
evaluation reports completed before FY04 (50 reports)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Number of projects
0
Assessment of
Report
Assessment of
Lessons,
Disclosure of
relevant outcomes
consistency:
sustainability
supported by the actual project costs
and achievement of evidence complete/
evidence
(total and per
objectives
convincing
activity) and actual
co-financing used
Assessment criteria
Satisfactory
Below satisfactory
Figure 3.4. Strengths and weaknesses of terminal
evaluation reports completed after FY04 (25 reports)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Number of projects
0
Assessment of
Report
Assessment of
Lessons,
Disclosure of
relevant outcomes
consistency:
sustainability
supported by the actual project costs
and achievement of evidence complete/
evidence
(total and per
objectives
convincing
activity) and actual
co-financing used
Assessment criteria
Satisfactory
Below satisfactory
57.
Table 3.2 presents a breakdown of the number of reports before and after FY04 that fully
meet the quality assessment criteria. Percentages are presented to facilitate comparison between
those prepared before FY04 and those completed during FY04. This table may not be
representative of trends given the low numbers in each category. Nevertheless, with time,
patterns will emerge.
The analysis shows that there is an increase in the percentage of reports that meet all five criteria
used to assess their quality. However, the percentage of projects that meet four or three of the
five criteria has decreased while the percentage that meet only two or none of the criteria has
19
increased. Six reports prepared before FY04 meet all five criteria but are not Highly Satisfactory
because not all criteria were met beyond expectations. Appendix E includes an explanation of the
rating systems for the assessment of the quality of terminal evaluation reports and Appendix F
includes a breakdown of the strengths and weaknesses of terminal evaluation reports by IA.
Table 3.2. Terminal evaluation reports meeting the quality criteria
Projects that
BEFORE FY04
FY04
met:
Number of
Percentage
Number of
Percentage
reports
reports
all 5 criteria
6
12%
4
16%
4 criteria
15
30%
3
12%
3 criteria
9
18%
3
12%
2 criteria
7
14%
7
28%
1 criteria
6
12%
3
12%
None of the
7
14%
5
20%
criteria
TOTAL
50
100%
25
100%
58.
Some examples of projects with reports of high quality (rated HS) are the Global Alien
Invasive Species (AIS) project (UNEP), the Sichuan Gas project in China (WB), and the
Environment Program in Madagascar (UNDP/WB). In all cases, the TE reports presented a very
complete set of relevant outcomes and impacts in line with the project objectives, adequate facts
to back up the assessment of outcomes including routine reporting information, and qualitative
data. In addition, weaknesses and shortcomings were systematically identified. These were
treated as lessons learned and not skipped over. For example, in the Global Alien Invasive
Species (AIS) project, the terminal evaluatio n indicates that the "Early Warning System" refers
to a database of "worst case" examples and not a system or process for intervention or reporting
incipient problems as was pointed out in the terminal evaluation report. The focus to date has
been on "icon species" and "the worst 100 AIS," omitting many significant problems,
particularly of diseases and marine species. Therefore, the database needs to be populated more
representatively, perhaps through mapping linkages to existing national and regional AIS
systems as is recommended in the terminal evaluation report.
59.
Other strengths of the TE reports mentioned above were that key dimensions of
sustainability and any shortcomings or limitations in this regard were assessed including
ecological, financial, sociopolitical, institutional, and technical constraints. For example, in the
case of the Environment Program in Madagascar, the report indicates that while the project
supported the adoption of an advanced environmental impact assessment (EIA), including
legislation and other improvements, only 26% of households introduced to conservation
technologies were using them after 2 years (when the target was 70%).
60.
Finally, the lessons learned in the Highly Satisfactory projects were comprehensive and
supported by adequate evidence and particularly insightful in terms of key measures to be taken
to improve future project performance. The terminal evaluation reports presented clear and
concise information on the level of disbursement for each of the key outputs of the project. An
actual cost breakdown structure was presented by component with a breakdown of local and
foreign investment. A cost breakdown by procurement arrangements was also presented.
20
61.
Some examples of projects with unsatisfactory quality of the terminal evaluation reports
are the Conservation of Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems in Georgia (UNDP), Regional Dryland
Ecosystems in Latin America (UNEP), and Solar Power in South Africa (WB). The report for the
project in Georgia provides some information on the project outcomes in terms of awareness
raising and improvement to the enabling environment but overall it mostly describes the
activities implemented without assessing how the y contributed to the achievement of outcomes.
In addition, the report did not ind icate why some activities were not undertaken and did not
include a cost breakdown. The report for the regional project in Latin America fails to assess
adequately the achievement of the project objective. Also the evidence on outcomes is sparse and
lacks key supporting information. For instance, the report could have explained better how
participating stakeholders have or will incorporate the model into their ongoing work for dryland
management. There were inconsistenc ies between the discussion and the ratings. In the case of
the project in South Africa, the completion report contains a very superficial assessment of
project achievements and the potential sustainability of project outcomes is not assessed.
Quality of Terminal Evaluation Reports by IA
62.
For UNDP and UNEP, data suggests that in general all areas (i.e., assessment criteria) are
in need of improvement 10. One particularly weak area is the presentation of actual project costs:
only one out of six UNDP reports and only two out of nine UNEP reports prepared in FY04
included a satisfactory presentation of the actual project costs and co-financing. This may be due
to the fact that many terminal evaluations are conducted before project completion to take
advantage of the presence of the project management team before it is disbanded. In such cases,
these actual costs can be sent to the Office after project completion. In the case of the Bank, most
reports prepared in FY04 (i.e., eight out of 11 ICRs) provided a satisfactory presentation of
actual project costs and co-financing used.
63.
Regarding the use of ratings in the reports, 22 of the 25 completed in FY04 provided
ratings on the achievement of the objectives and 23 provided ratings on sustainability. However,
the ratings were not consistent across or within IAs with some reports ranging from 1 to 5 (with
1 being the highest rating), other ratings and variations, and others using the scale from Highly
Satisfactory to Unsatisfactory as specified in the May 2003 "Guidelines for Implementing
Agencies to Conduct Terminal Evaluations." Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 present a breakdown of the
ratings provided by the IAs in the reports prepared during FY04 to illustrate this point. A list of
projects and their ratings on achievement of objectives and sustainability provided by the IAs is
presented in Appendix G.
10 Refer to Appendix F, Strengths and weaknesses of IA terminal evaluation reports.
21
Table 3.3. Bank ratings on the achievement of objectives and sustainability for reports
prepared in FY04
Achievement of objectives
Sustainability
Rating
Bank report
OED
Rating
Bank report
OED
HS
1
-
Highly Likely
2
2
S
6
3
Likely
7
4
MS
-
4
Unlikely
1
2
MU
-
2
Highly Unlikely
-
-
U
3
1
Non- evaluable -
2
No rating*
1
1
No rating*
1
1
Total number
11
11
Total number
11
11
of reports
of reports
*This was a Medium-Size Project.
Table 3.4. UNDP ratings on the achievement of objectives and sustainability for reports
prepared in FY04
IA Rating
Achievement of objectives
Sustainability
HS
2
-
HS/S
-
1
S
2
3
MU
-
-
U
-
-
No rating
2
2*
Total number of reports
6
6
*Includes one project rated for sustainability as "fair," which is not an official UNDP rating.
Table 3.5. UNEP ratings on the achievement of objectives and sustainability for reports
prepared in FY04
IA Rating*
Achievement of objectives
Sustainability
HS
3
1
S
-
1
MS
-
1
U
-
-
Excellent
-
1
Very good
3
1
Good
3
4
Fair
-
-
Poor
-
-
Total number of reports
9
9
*Some reports used the HSU scale as required by the Office and others used a scale ranging from Excellent to Poor demonstrating
the inconsistency in ratings reporting.
64.
As shown in Table 3.3, the OED independent review of Bank reports downgraded four of
the ratings on achievement of objectives from S or above to below S and upgraded two from U to
MU. It is important to mention that the Bank uses a four point scale while OED uses a six scale
rating system. Two Bank reports indicated that they would have rated the outcomes as
moderately satisfactory instead of satisfactory and one report indicated that it would had used
moderately satisfactory instead of unsatisfactory had these ratings been available. OED agreed
with these assessments. Aside from these ratings issues, there were always explicit reasons for
OED's adjustments in ratings in the projects affected that were beyond the differences in rating
scales. In sustainability as well, OED downgraded one to unlikely and two to non-evaluable.
This highlights the importance and value of having an independent review process. UNDP did
not have any projects that were rated below satisfactory in either the achieveme nt of objectives
or sustainability, and UNEP only had one rated MS on sustainability (Tables 3.4 and 3.5).
However, these agencies currently do not have an independent review process in place as the
22
Bank does to corroborate the project ratings. The Office will begin conducting this verification
next year.
65.
The issues that this review has found regarding the quality of reports were discussed
during the Interagency Meetings, and the Office of Monitoring and Evaluation has requested that
IAs address these issues in all future terminal evaluation reports. In addition, in line with
international best practices, and for the sake of clarity and standardization, the Office has
requested that terminal evaluation reports provide ratings for the achievement of
objectives/outcomes, sustainability, and quality of the M&E systems using a six-scale rating
system. The suggested ratings range from "Highly Satisfactory"(HS), "Satisfactory"(S),
"Moderately Satisfactory"(MS), "Moderately Unsatisfactory"(MU), "Unsatisfactory" (U), and
"Highly Unsatisfactory" (HU). This will enable better aggregation of data and assessment of
trends in the future as the Office will also verify that the information contained in the reports
supports the ratings and will also analyze the trends. The Office has also requested that terminal
evaluations either provide a breakdown or sufficient information on final actual costs and co-
financing for the project--or be amended with this information after project closure.
23
4.
THE QUALITY OF PROJECT M&E SYSTEMS
Summary of Findings on the Quality of Project M&E Systems
·
The ratings on the quality of project M&E systems seem to suggest an improvement
when comparing projects that became effective after 1995 with those that became
effective by 1995, when the GEF Council requested that project-level M&E plans
be included in all projects accepted for GEF funding.
·
There is, however, a substantial gap in information as the percentage of reports
without sufficient M&E information ranged from 18% to 33% for the period under
consideration. Therefore, the quality of M&E systems is unknown for a number of
projects.
·
Regarding weaknesses by focal area, in international waters, only one out of 11
projects had a satisfactory M&E system, six (55%) projects did not have M&E
systems in place, two (18%) had MU ratings, and two provided insufficient
information to assess the quality. In climate change, the main concern was that eight
out of 19 (42%) reports did not provide sufficient information on the quality of the
project M&E system. This is particularly significant as only seven (37%) of the
climate change projects had satisfactory or above M&E ratings. Of the 40
biodiversity projects, 18 (45%) had below satisfactory M&E systems, and seven
(18%) did not provide sufficient information.
·
The data suggests that much work is needed to improve M&E (or integrate effective
M&E systems) in projects in all three IAs, but especially in UNDP and UNEP,
where most of the projects had either below satisfactory M&E systems or no M&E
systems according to the terminal evaluation reports.
Recommendation
·
Recommendations to improve project M&E systems have been issued in the past, as
well as request to include an assessment of project M&E systems in all terminal
evaluation reports. While there have been advances in upgrading project M&E
systems, there is still considerable room for improvement, and therefore the Office
considers that these recommendations continue to be valid.
Background and Relevance
66.
The GEF Council has indicated its concern about project M&E systems for several years.
The Council requested that the GEF Secretariat submit a paper on the monitoring and evaluation
of the GEF operations for its May 1995 meeting. One of the requirements adopted by the council
as part of the structure of a GEF-wide M&E program was that "Project level M&E plans be
24
included in all projects accepted for GEF funding"11 and that these M&E functions be well
established and operating within the implementing and executing agencies to serve GEF goals.
The rationale for this was to enable project evaluators/managers to assess accomplishments,
disseminate lessons, contribute to GEF learning and capacity building goals, and increase
accountability for the use of resources. In following years the Council has made additional
requests12.
Methodology for the Assessment of the Quality of the Project M&E Systems
67.
The quality of project M&E systems was assessed based on what the terminal evaluation
reports explicitly indicated. Therefore, this analysis only includes reports that contained
sufficient information to allow an assessment of the project M&E system. Projects whose reports
did not include a description of the project M&E system and how it was used for project
management were excluded from the analysis
because insufficient information was
provided to make an assessment.
Box 4. Project Monitoring and Evaluation Systems
The term "M&E systems" refers to the application of
68.
To analyze the quality of the project
effective (i.e., timely, sufficient, and relevant) tools such as
M&E systems and trends, the reports were
indicators, baselines, and benchmarks, as well as the
grouped by the year of project effectiveness
collection and analysis of data or the use of special
studies and reports, and other means of measuring
because it was assumed that by this time the
progress towards the achievement of objectives that
project M&E systems should have been
produces useful information for project management.
designed. In May 1995, the Council
requested that project-level M&E plans be
used in all projects. Therefore, trends in the project M&E systems quality were compared before
and after this year. This will allow tracking progress in this area over time.
69.
Project M&E systems were assessed using two criteria: first, whether the project had an
effective M&E system in place to track progress of project outcomes and impacts and, second,
whether the M&E information generated was properly used for the management of the project.
This simple approach was consistent with the Council requirements for project M&E systems as
will be discussed later.
70.
The Office assessed and rated the quality of project M&E systems (based on information
explicitly stated in the terminal evaluation reports). The IAs were also given the opportunity to
comment on the analysis. In all the cases in which project M&E systems were rated
unsatisfactory in the analysis, the terminal evaluation report came to the conclusion that M&E
systems did not satisfy the information needs of the project or that the systems were not
developed in time to provide useful information for project management.
11 "General requirements for a coordinated GEF -wide Monitoring and Evaluation System," GEF/C.4/6, May 3-5,
1995. p. 2.
12 The Negotiations for the Third Replenishment reinstated the importance of project M&E systems by indicating
"...that all projects should include provisions for monitoring the impacts and outcomes of projects, and those
existing projects which do not have such provisions and which have more than two years left in their
implementation should be retrofitted to meet such monitoring standards." "Summary of Negotiations on the Third
Replenishment of the GEF Trust Fund," GEF/C.20/4. September 19, 2002. p. 56.
25
71.
A limitation on the assessment of trends in the quality of M&E systems is that the group
includes only terminal evaluation reports completed between January 2001 and June 30, 2004;
all those completed previously are not accounted for in this analysis. Also, the number of
projects that became effective in 2000-2001 and had reports completed between January 2001
and June 2003 is 12, a small number compared to the previous periods. These biases will be
corrected in future years as more terminal evaluation reports are completed and sent to the
Office, which will enable an improved assessment of trends.
Assessment on the Quality of Project M&E Systems
72.
Figure 4.1 presents the trends in the ratings on the quality of project M&E systems.
Figure 4.1. Quality of project M&E systems
17
20
26
9
projects
100%
18%
90%
20%
27%
33%
80%
70%
60%
47%
40%
11%
38%
50%
40%
30%
56%
20%
35%
40%
35%
10%
0%
Baseline (1995 and
1996 - 1997
1998 - 1999
2000 - 2001
before)
Year of project effectiveness (or ProDoc signature)
% of projects with M&E S or above
% of projects with M&E below S
% of projects with insufficient information
Note: Three projects were excluded from the 2000-2001 period because M&E did not apply as
explained below.
73.
The ratings on the quality of project M&E systems seems to suggest that there has been
an improvement since 1995, when the Council requested that project-level M&E plans be
included in all projects accepted for GEF funding. However, there are certain limitations with the
datasets. For example, the quality of the M&E systems is unknown for those reports that did not
provide sufficient information to make an assessment. As these percentages range from 18% to
33%, their contribution to the trends could be significant.
74.
There were three projects for which the traditional concept of a project M&E system did
not apply. These were projects that primarily entailed studies and workshops, such as Global
Fuel Cell Market Prospects, the Global Assessment of Persistent Toxic Substances (RBA/PTS),
and Global Implementation of the Stockholm Convention. All three became effective in the
26
2000-2001 period and have been excluded from Figure 7. These projects have been excluded
from the analysis.
75.
The May 2003 "Guidelines for Implementing Agencies to Conduct Terminal
Evaluations" requires that reports completed after FY03 include an assessment of the project
M&E system. The percentage of reports providing sufficient information on the project M&E
systems increased from 74% (for the 50 reports completed before FY04) to 80% in FY04 (for 25
reports completed in FY04), which is an encouraging sign. This percentage will increase in
future reports.
76.
Some of the projects that had M&E systems rated satisfactory or above include the
Seychelles Avian Ecosystems project and the Regional Water project (WEMP) in the Aral Sea.
The project in the Seychelles had strong monitoring plans with clear indicators that led to the
design and implementation of seven action plans for several ecosystems in 10 islands. The
monitoring systems included species population and breeding surveys in all areas and for all
species of interest. The Seychelles government financed and implemented the M&E systems
with the guidance of scientists. The report for the Aral Sea project indicated that a
comprehensive ecological and socioeconomic monitoring system was well managed for the
wetlands restoration program, one of the project's stress reduction objectives. The project
contributed to setting up transboundary water monitoring stations to measure water flows and
quality, as well as training staff at the stations to measure and manage data. Water management
organizatio ns are using these data to improve the timing and scheduling of irrigation releases.
77.
Some of the projects with unsatisfactory M&E systems included the Philippines
Protected Areas (WB), Comoros Biodiversity and Sustainable Development (UNDP), and
Regional Marine Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa (UNEP). In the Comoros, the M&E
systems focused on completion of activities and deliverables without relating these to the
outcomes intended as a result of the activities and without identifying the baseline conditions. In
the Philippines, the project was unable to develop a successful project monitoring and evaluation
system. Moreover, the information and resource assessment activities under the biodiversity
component were not achieved.
Quality of Project M&E Systems by Focal Area
78.
The analysis identified several problems in the project M&E systems specific to the focal
areas. These problems have also been found in other studies such as the program studies, and the
Specially Managed Project Reviews (SMPRs) conducted by the Office which examine projects
under implementation
79.
The analysis of international waters reports indicated that only one out of 11 projects had
a satisfactory M&E system, six (55%) projects did not have M&E systems in place, two (18%)
had a MU rating, and two provided insufficient information to assess the M&E system quality.
All IW projects except for one became effective after 1995 so there are practically no projects
against which to compare the quality of IW project M&E systems. The International Waters
Program Study distinguishes between monitoring of environmental status, stress, and processes.
However, while the IW Program Study found an encouraging trend of recent projects that have
better logical frameworks, most projects reviewed, many of which were visited by project
27
evaluators, continue to exhibit considerable weaknesses across all three forms of monitoring. The
study found that it was particularly difficult to convince governments to sustain environmental
monitoring systems, which the evaluator characterized as the "Achilles heel" of long-term
interventions. For example, in the Black Sea, except for Romania and partially in Ukraine, a
coherent monitoring system is still not in place eve n after 10 years of discussions, capacity
building efforts, and donor support. Factors contributing to the problems seem to range from
poor project preparation to a lack of clarity in GEF guidance and multiple or incohesive sets of
indicators. The study found that indicator descriptors in logical frameworks are often too generic
for practical use and are not clearly related to the text in the project document. Logical
frameworks do not identify the stages between project outputs and outcomes, making it difficult
to conduct a post-project assessment. But M&E problems extend beyond the projects. The IW
study reports that, "The [International Waters] current monitoring-and-evaluation system seems
somewhat like a patchwork quilt with indeterminate linkages between the pieces. Each of the
pieces has value to someone at a given time, but the overall combination does not add up to a
coherent M&E system."13
80.
Only seven out of 19 (37%) climate change projects that were part of this analysis had
satisfactory or above ratings. In addition, eight (42%) reports did not provide sufficient
information to make an assessment on the quality of the project M&E systems. Some of the
problems with M&E systems in climate change were also identified in the program study. For
example, the program study found that "...there are specific limitations in the estimates,
measurement, monitoring, and reporting on GHG and CO2 emissions. In addition, the GEF
performance in the climate change area needs to be assessed in terms of qualitative results such
as market transformation, replication, and barrier removal. This study observed weaknesses and
inconsistencies in the application of GEF performance dimensions, in regular monitoring
mechanisms, and the use of results-oriented or proxy indicators. And the guidance on these
issues available to field and project staff, as well as aggregate program indicators, are not easily
usable or coherent. The current project monitoring system is not likely to yield reporting on the
GEF strategic priorities in a satisfactory manner. It is also weak on assessment of impact;
although the recent GEF post-project evaluations by the World Bank must be commended."14
81.
Of the 40 biodiversity projects, only 15 (37%) had M&E systems of satisfactory or above
quality, and seven reports (18%) provided insufficient information to make an assessment. Some
of the issues regarding M&E systems for biodiversity projects were also identified in the
Program Study. For example, regarding impact-level indicators, the Biodiversity Program Study
also identified problems related to guidance and procedures: " `The New Strategic Priorities'
developed for GEF3 and the `Measuring Results of the Biodiversity Program' (GEF/C.22/Inf.7,
October 2003) documents are signs of progress at the program outcome level. But there are still
no clear guidelines, standardized procedures, or measurable program-level targets or indicators
to assess the impacts of the GEF portfolio on biodiversity status. This shortcoming presented a
major challenge to assessing impacts and attributing credit in any meaningful way during this
study."15 The study also concluded that the IAs are beginning to develop the means for
measuring impacts at their operational levels. Furthermore, the study found that a review of
13 Program Study on International Waters, GEF/ME/C.24/Inf.1, p. 55, November 2004
14 Program Study on Climate Change, GEF/ME/C.24/Inf.2, p. 85, November 2004
15 Biodiversity Program Study 2004, GEF/ME/C.24/Inf.1, p. 88, November 2004
28
biodiversity projects recently approved showed significant improvement in the presentation of
logframes and plans for collecting and using biodiversity baselines for project preparation and
management. The weakness remains in linking outcomes and impacts at the project level to
changes in the status of local or global biodiversity (page 93).
82.
Other studies, such as the SMPRs conducted by the Office have also identified problems
with project M&E systems. The SMPR concluded that the overall effectiveness of project M&E
systems was less than satisfactory (15 of 21 projects reviewed in 2002 and 2003 were rated
below satisfactory in the quality of the M&E systems, with three rated unsatisfactory). The use
of logical frameworks and the reporting against performance indicators were two of the M&E
modalities that received the least attention and planning in 2002 and 2003 according to the
SMPR. The SMPR also found that the level of implementation of monitoring activities such as
collection of baseline and other data often had not yet been implemented by project mid-term.
Adaptive management was taking place in three of the six projects reviewed in 2003 that also
had M&E system in place. The SMPR found that projects such as Lake Manzala Wetlands and
India Energy Efficiency did not have M&E systems in place nor did they take adaptive
management measures. The Central European Grasslands project was taking into account
changing circumstances, particularly in the policy and regulatory environment associated with
the EU accession, and changing the course as necessary, even though it did not have a formal
M&E plan at the time of the SMPR. However, the ad hoc nature of this approach does not lend
itself to systematic and thorough review and measurement of project performance and impact.
Thus this project would benefit from revisiting and refining the project logframe, while
formulating an M&E system in parallel.
83.
The program studies concluded that there continues to be a need to improve project M&E
systems. The effort requires the involvement of the GEF Secretariat, the Office of Monitoring
and Evaluation, and the IAs to improve strategic coherence and develop better guidance, tools,
and indicators for assessing impacts and outcomes.
Quality of Project M&E Systems by IA
84.
The IA breakdown indicated that the Bank fared better than UNDP and UNEP on both
assessment criteria and that over 50% of Bank projects (Figure 4.2 and 4.3) had M&E systems of
satisfactory or above quality. However, the data suggests that all three IAs have much work to do
to improve project M&E (or integrate effective M&E systems), but especially UNDP and UNEP,
where most projects fared poorly in both criteria used to assess the quality of the project M&E
systems; in fact, some projects had no M&E systems according to the reports (Figures 4.4, 4.5,
and 4.6). Reports received from UNEP from January 2001 to June 2004 only include projects
that became effective after 1995, so UNEP has no M&E data on the conditions before that year
to allow for comparisons to the other agencies.
29
Fig. 4.2 Quality of M&E systems in WB
Fig. 4.3 Quality of M&E systems in WB
projects effective before May 1995 (11
projects effective after May 1995 (26 projects)
projects)
Insufficient
Insufficient
information
information
HS, 2
to assess,
to assess,
3
4
U, 3
S, 6
U, 1
MU, 3
S, 14
MU, 1
Fig. 4.4 Quality of M&E systems for UNDP
Fig. 4.5 Quality of M&E systems for UNDP
projects effective before May 1995 (6
projects effective after May 1995 (21 projects)
projects)
Insufficient
information
S, 1
to assess,
MU, 4
Insufficient
1
information
to assess, 8
U, 1
MU, 4
U, 8
Fig. 4.6 Quality of M&E systems for UNEP
projects effective after May 1995 (13 projects)
Insufficient
information
S, 2
to assess,
2
Not
applicable,
3
MU, 4
U, 2
85.
The Office has asked the implementing agencies to ensure that all terminal evaluation
reports provide an assessment of the quality of the project M&E systems as discussed in the
previous section on the quality of terminal evaluation reports. Specifically, the Office requested
that the evaluators focus on:
(a) Whether an appropriate M&E system for the project was put in place (including
capacity and resources to implement it) and whether this allows for tracking of
progress towards projects objectives.
(b) Whether the M&E system was used for project management.
30
Appendix A: GEF portfolio overview
1.
This appendix provides an overview of the GEF Portfolio and projects under
implementation. The source of information, regarding the GEF Portfolio, was compiled
and submitted by the Operations and Strategy Team of the GEF Secretariat. The
information about the projects under implementation was taken from the annual reports,
submitted by the implementing agencies.
Overall GEF Portfolio
2.
As of June 30, 2004, a total of 826 full and medium-sized projects have been
allocated funding in approved GEF work programs, compared to 722 projects by June 30,
2003, representing an increase of nearly 13 percent. As shown in Figure 1, 43 percent of
the projects are implemented by the World Bank (WB), 39 percent by the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP), and 11 percent by United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP), while 7 percent have more than one implementing agency (IA). Figure 2 shows
the funding distribution among IAs: 53 percent was allocated to Bank projects, 29 percent
to UNDP projects, seven percent to UNEP projects, and 11 percent to projects with
multiple IAs. Additionally, 708 enabling activity (EA) projects for a total of US$217
million had been approved. Of these activities 456 were implemented by UNDP, 173 by
UNEP, 37 by the Bank, and 42 by multiple IAs (Tables 1 and 2).
Figure 1.
Figure 2
Percentage of Number of Projects by
Percentage of Total GEF Funding
Implementing Agencies
by Implementing Agencies
World
Multiple
Bank
IAs & EAs
UNDP
43%
Multiple
11%
IAs
29%
7%
UNEP
UNEP
7%
World
11%
UNDP
Bank
39%
53%
31
Table 1. GEF Project Allocations by Implementing and Executing Agencies
(as of June 30, 2004)
FSPs
EAs
MSPs
Totals
Agency
Project
GEF
Project
GEF
Project GEF
Project
GEF Grant
Count
Grant
Count
Grant
Count
Grant
Count
ADB
2
14.45
3
2.28
5
16.73
GEFSEC
1
2.60
1
2.60
IADB
1
2.82
1
2.82
Multiple IAs
53
492.36
5
64.67
6
5.42
64
562.45
UNDP
225
1,297.50
456
122.23
89
74.75
770
1,494.47
UNEP
37
205.26
173
88.31
56
40.91
266
334.48
UNIDO
37
21.22
37
21.22
World Bank
261
2,609.06
37
8.47
92
74.07
390
2,691.60
Totals
580
4,624
708
305
246
197
1,534
5,126
Table 2. GEF Project Allocations by Focal Area (as June 30, 2004)
FSPs
EAs
MSPs
Totals
Focal Area
Project
GEF
Project
GEF
Project GEF
Project
GEF Grant
Count
Grant
Count
Grant
Count
Grant
Count
Biodiversity
238
1,620.80
280
90.79
143
116.11
661
1,827.70
Climate Change
199
1,657.56
228
144.80
48
37.16
475
1,839.51
International
80
734.95
15
12.98
95
747.94
Waters
Land
2
34.35
6
5.51
8
39.86
Degradation
Multi-focal Areas
38
355.81
99
19.82
24
18.60
161
394.24
Ozone Depletion
19
173.41
5
3.78
24
177.19
Persistent
4
47.15
101
49.48
5
3.28
110
99.91
Organic
Pollutants
Totals
580
4,624
708
305
246
197
1,534
5,126
3.
The distribution of GEF allocations for full and medium-sized projects in the
portfolio as of June 30, 2004, among focal areas are: 35 percent to biodiversity, 35
percent to climate change, 14 percent to international waters, three percent to ozone,
seven percent to projects with multiple focal areas, and two percent to persistent organic
pollutants. During 2004, the portfolio of projects within Integrated Ecosystems
Management (OP12) and Short-Term Response Measures (STRMs) represented less than
one percent of the GEF allocation in the portfolio (Figure 3).
32
Figure 3
Distribution of GEF Allocations by Focal Area
(As of June 30, 2003)
35%
14%
7%
.0.7%
3%
35%
2%
BD CC IW MTF LD OD POP
4.
The growth of the overall GEF portfolio continued in the upward trend of the last
two years (including EAs and project development funds). During 2004, 67 full-sized
projects (FSP), 39 medium-sized projects (MSP), and 121 enabling activity (EA) projects
were approved, for a total of $555.62 million in GEF funding. The total GEF allocation at
the end of FY04 was $5,126 billion (Figure 4 and Tables 1 and 2).
Figure 4
Cumulative GEF Resources Allocation (As June 30, 2004)
6000.0
5000.0
4000.0
3000.0
2000.0
US$ Billions
1000.0
0.0
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year
33
Gaps between Approved Commitments and IA Project Disbursements
5.
Figure 8 shows GEF allocations, commitments, and disbursements as of June 30,
2004. The cumulative work program allocation from the start of the GEF is US$5,126
billion. During FY04, 68 full-sized projects (FSP), 36 medium-sized projects (MSP) and
89 enabling activities were approved totaling $715.35 million. Cumulative disbursement
for the entire GEF portfolio increased during FY04 to $2.355 billion, up from $1.987
billion in FY03.
Figure 5
Cumulative GEF Portfolio - Allocation, Commitments and Disbursements
1998 - 2003
US$ Billion
6000.0
5000.0
4000.0
3000.0
2000.0
1000.0
0.0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Disbursements (cumulative) Approved commitments (cumulative) Work program allocations (cumulative)
6.
The gap between the approved commitments and the actual disbursements was 57
percent in 2001 but has been decreasing since then and was 33 percent in 2004
(Figure 8).
Overview of Projects Covered in the PIR 2004
7.
The 2004 PIR includes 375 ongoing projects that had been under implementation
for at least one year by June 30, 2004. This number reflects the steadily growing portfolio
of projects under implementation, from 135 projects in 1999. As the GEF portfolio
matures, more projects enter the PIR process (Table 3). As in previous years, projects in
the biodiversity focal area (BD) represent the greatest portion of the portfolio, at 48
percent. Climate change (CC) is the second largest focal area in the 2003 PIR, with 43
active projects, or 29 percent of the total. At 12 percent of the portfolio, there was a
small increase in the number of projects for international waters (IW) during FY03. The
remaining focal areas, ozone depletion, multi-focal, persistent organic pollutants, and
land degradation account for 10 percent of the 2004 PIR.
8.
In FY 2004, 44 percent of the total GEF funds were allocated to biodiversity, 32
percent to climate change, and 15 percent to internationa l waters. The remaining focal
areas, ozone depletion (OD), multi-focal (MTF), persistent organic pollutants (POPs),
and others, were together allocated 9 percent of the GEF funds.
34
Figure 6
Percentage of GEF Allocations by Focal Area in the PIR 2003
50
40
30
20
10
0
BD
CC
IW
OD
MTF
POP Others
% GEF Allocation
44
32
15
5
2
1
1
9.
Overall, 37 projects are included in the PIR for the first time in 2004 (Table 3)
compared to 58 in 2003.
Table 3. New projects in the PIR 2004 (as of June 30, 2004)
FOCAL AREAS
NUMBER OF ACTIVE PROJECTS NEW IN 2004 PIR
Biodiversity
181
2
Climate Change
110
18
International Waters
45
9
Multiple
19
8
Ozone
12
1
POPs
2
0
Land Degradation
6
-
Total
375
37
10.
The percentage distribution of projects by region in the 2004 PIR was: LAC
region (24), EAP (22), AFR (18), ECA (16), MENA (8), SA (2), and global/regional
projects (10). Figure 10 presents a comparison with previous years.
35
Figure 7
Percentage of Geographical Distribution of Projects in the PIR 2003
30
25
20
15
Percentage
10
5
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
AFR
23
20
12
17
18
EAP
10
11
17
21
22
ECA
17
17
16
11
16
Global
12
10
10
13
10
LAC
19
22
27
25
24
MENA
9
10
11
10
8
SA
10
10
7
3
2
Ratings
11.
The PIR is a monitoring tool that relies on each IA to report on and rate project
performance. Every year the IAs rated their projects according to two criteria:
implementation progress and likelihood of attaining development/global environment
objectives. The World Bank rated their projects as Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory
(S), and Unsatisfactory (U). Partially satisfactory (PS) is included as a rating for IFC
projects. UNDP uses the ratings of highly satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S), Marginally
Satisfactory (MS), and Unsatisfactory (U). UNEP uses the ratings of Highly Satisfactory
(HS), Satisfactory (S), Marginally Satisfactory (MS), and Unsatisfactory (U). Figure 8
and 9 below provide the ratings for implementation progress and the likelihood of
attaining development/global environment objectives.
36
Figure 8. PIR ratings on Implementation progress
No rating
HS
9%
U
11%
6%
MS or PS
7%
S
67%
Figure 9. PIR ratings on Development/Global
Environmental objectives
No rating
HS
9%
U
10%
3%
MS or PS
7%
S
71%
Projects Rated Highly Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory in the PIRs
12.
The IAs' rated 28 projects (7%) highly satisfactory and 7 projects (2%)
unsatisfactory on both their implementation progress and the likelihood of achieving their
development/global environmental objectives. The distribution of projects by focal area
and IA is presented in tables 4 and 5:
Table 4. Distribution by focal area of HS and U projects on both IP and DO
HS Rating in
Percentage of
U Rating in
Percentage of Total number
both IP and
projects rated
both IP and
projects rated of projects in
DO
HS in both IP
DO
U in both IP
each focal
and DO
and DO
area
Bio
13
7%
4
2%
187
CC
5
5%
2
2%
109
IW
6
13%
-
-
46
MTF
2
11%
-
-
19
ODS
2
17%
1
8%
12
POPs
-
-
-
-
2
TOTAL
28
-
7
-
375
37
Table 5. Distribution by focal area of HS and U projects on both IP and DO
HS Rating on
Percentage of
U Rating on
Percentage of
Total number
both IP and
projects rated
both IP and
projects rated
of projects by
DO
HS in both IP
DO
U in both IP
each IA
and DO
and DO
WB
8
5%
3
2%
158
UNDP
13
8%
3
2%
154
UNEP
7
11%
1
2%
63
TOTAL
28
-
7
-
375
13.
The WB Hon Mun marine protected area pilot project in Vietnam was rated HS
on both the Implementation Progress and Development Objective. The project was
designed to conserve a representative example of internationally significant and
threatened marine biodiversity through co-management by local island communities and
Government agencies. The report indicates that the project has met nearly all of the
planned goals as it approaches the last year of implementation. Some key
accomplishments achieved are the completion of the draft Management Plan for the Nha
Trang Bay Marine Protected Area (MPA); formulation of an exit strategy for the IUCN
Project Staff; preparation of an environmental mitigation and monitoring plan for the new
livelihood activities that could have adverse impacts on water quality; preparation of an
environmental education plan for all primary and secondary schools in the area including
teaching materials for students and teachers; greater local participation of residents in
MPA in marine resources monitoring; and a permanent office has been provided by the
Khanh Hoa People's Committee for the NTB Marine Protected Area Authority with
possession taken by the NTB MPA Authority on June 4, 2004. The report indicates that
there is evidence that the density of fishes in the project area is measurably higher and
destructive fishing activities are close to being fully eliminated.
14.
The WB Macedonia mini-hydropower project was also rated HS on both criteria.
The project's objectives were to reduce primarily carbon dioxide by encouraging the
development of independent power plants especially mini-hydropower plants. According
to the PIR report, the objectives have been achieved. All five of the mini-hydropower
plants are operating at high rates and profitably, and an agreement has been reached on a
tariff system for purchasing power from the mini-hydropower plants. The report indicates
that the impact of the plants is to provide around 10 Gwh of electricity per year at a very
low operating cost since there is no fuel use.
15.
UNDP's Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology (TEST) to Reduce
Transboundary Pollution in the Danube River Basin was rated HS in both criteria. The
project is intended to demonstrate ways an institution can reduce pollution while
remaining financially viable. The project includes the transfer of cleaner production
technologies to pilot enterprises that are contributing to transboundary pollution in the
Danube River basin and Black Sea. The PIR indicates that 230 cleaner production options
were implemented in the 17 demonstration enterprises resulting in US$1.3 million/ year
in financial savings, 4.6 million m3/year of wastewater discharge reduction in the Danube
river basin, and an average 30% of BOD/COD reduction in effluent per unit of
38
production. In addition, investment projects have been prepared for all participating
enterprises for a total of US$47 million. Additional reduction of wastewater discharge
into the Danube river Basin is expected to be 7.9 million m3 after implementation of
these investments.
16.
In Biodiversity, UNDP's Development of Jozani-Chwaka Bay National Park in
Zanzibar Island, Tanzania, was also rated HS in both criteria. The project was designed to
promote integrated conservation and development activities in the Jozani-Chwaka
Conservation Area. The main thrust has been upgrading the status of Jozani Forest
Reserve to become a National Park. According to the PIR report, the project has achieved
its six outcomes in the area of Biodiversity Conservation, Community Based Natural
resources Management (CBNRM) and Alternative Income Generation activities. The
project has operationally finalized activities supported by the GEF funds, but to some
degree activities still continue at a limited level with support from the Government.
Efforts to seek further support from other donors are underway, focusing on policy
reform in energy sector and livelihood support.
17.
In climate change, UNDP's Barrier Removal for the Widespread
Commercialization of Energy-efficient CFC-free Refrigerators project in China has also
been rated HS in both criteria. The project was designed to promote the widespread
commercialization of energy-efficient refrigerators by removing technical, market,
commercial, information and other barriers to increased market penetration of the
technologies and products. The PIR report indicates that the project worked with
manufacturers to increase the average total refrigerator efficiency. Production and sale of
energy efficient refrigerators (consuming less than 55% energy than the standard
refrigerators) was 4.8 million units in 2003. If 2003 sales trends continue, 48 million EE
fridges could be produced and sold during the project impact period, which would exceed
the project's emissions reduction target by more than a factor of two to a total of 200
million tons of CO2 equivalent.
18.
UNEP also rated HS in both criteria the following projects which had satisfactory
progress towards the achievement of objectives: Phasing Out Ozone Depleting
Substances project in Uzbekistan, the Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in
the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand, and Support to the Implementation of the
National Biosafety Frameworks in Cuba and Poland. The project in Uzbekistan assisted
to put in place appropriate ODS legislation and there is no illegal/residual ODS
consumption in the country. In the South China Sea, the project components have been
implemented based on the revised implementation plan. The project has completed the
selection of habitat demonstration sites based on the submitted proposals by the
participating countries. National reports have been prepared and went through external
review, and are awaiting finalization and publication. The PIR indicated that the project
in Poland began with a national start-up workshop to identify gaps. A Biosafety Strategy
(policy) outline is being circulated to Ministries. The GMO Act (2003) is amended to
incorporate the EU directives and regulations. Guidelines on handling request are under
preparation. A workshop on decision making/risk assessment was organized. Three GMO
laboratories are being equipped for monitoring activities. Public awareness activities
39
included distribution of brochures and DVD on biosafety to teachers and journalists and
posting of public opinion on biotechnology/biosafety on the website.
19.
The projects rated U on both criteria from the WB include the Biodiversity and
Natural Resource Management in Turkey, the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor in
Mexico, and the Protected Areas Management Project in Tunisia. For UNDP, the projects
are the Conservation management of Eritrea's coastal, marine and island, the Lebanon -
Cross Sectoral Energy Efficiency and Removal of Barriers to ESCO Operation, and the
Barrier removal to the development of commercially institutionally and technically
sustainable solar energy services in Namibia. UNEP's project Phasing Out Ozone
Depleting Substances in Latvia was also rated U in both criteria. The PIR indicates that
the poor performance of the project in Turkey has been caused by of a series of systemic
institutional and project management failures, and by site-specific constraints for which
workable solutions have not been found. To date, no replication sites have been identified
or prioritized, and there has been no clear strategy developed for distilling the lessons
learned from the pilot sites, or for incorporating these lessons into the institutional
framework for protected area management elsewhere in Turkey. This is a serious
weakness, and the absence of progress in this area will constrain the project from meeting
its objectives. The UNDP project in Namibia has experienced considerable delays and is
just beginning. Although the ProDoc was signed in April 2003 the project started in
February 2004. The project in Lebanon has experienced delays in hiring staff and
equipment procurement, a proposal for the institutionalization of the Lebanese Center for
Energy Conservation & Planning was found unsatisfactory, although the project
conducted a few energy audits and made the recommendations available for other sectors.
The ProDoc for the project in Lebanon was signed in July of 2001 and is scheduled to
close in 2006. For the project in Latvia, UNEP-DTIE sent the Minister of Environment of
Latvia an official letter in June of 2004 requesting Latvia to begin activities under the
project within 15 days or to return the funds already transferred to enable UNEP to cancel
the project.
40
Appendix B: Projects included in the APR 2004 (As of June 30, 2004)
Biodiversity
No. Implementing
Country
Project
Funding
Agency
(US$) mill
1
WB
Argentina
Biodiversity Conservation
10.10
2
WB
Armenia
Natural Resources Management and Poverty
5.12
Reduction
3
WB
Bangladesh
Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation
5.00
4
WB
Bangladesh
Biodiversity Conservation in the Sundarbans
12.20
Reserved Forest
5
WB
Belize
Community Managed Sarstoon Temash
0.81
Conservation
6
WB
Benin
National Parks Conservation and Management
6.76
7
WB
Bolivia
Achieving the Sustainability of the Bolivian
15.00
Protected Area System
8
WB
Bolivia
Private Protected Areas (PPAs) in Bolivia
0.68
(PROMETA)
9
WB
Brazil
Amazon Region Protected Areas
30.00
10
WB
Brazil
Biodiversity Protection in Parana
8.00
11
WB
Brazil
Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO)
20.00
12
WB
Brazil
National Biodiversity Project (PROBIO)
10.00
13
WB
Burkina Faso
Partnership for Natural Ecosystem Management
7.50
(PAGEN)
14
WB
Cambodia
Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management
2.75
15
WB
Chile
Conservation of the Santiago Foothills
0.73
16
WB
Chile
Valdivian Forest Zone: Private Public Mechanisms
0.73
for Biodiversity Conservation
17
WB
China
Sustainable Forestry Development
16.00
18
WB
China
Lake Dianchi Freshwater Biodiversity Restoration
0.98
19
WB
Colombia
Andes Region - Conservation and Sustainable Use
15.00
of Biodiversity
20
WB
Colombia
Archipelago of San Andres: Conservation and
0.98
Sustainable Use of the Marine Reserves
21
WB
Colombia
Mataven Forest - Conservation and Sustainable
0.73
Development
22
WB
Costa Rica
Biodiversity Resources Development
7.00
23
WB
Costa Rica
Eco-Markets
8.00
24
WB
Costa Rica
Sustainable Cacao Production in Southeastern
0.73
Costa Rica
25
WB
Croatia
Karst Ecosystems Conservation Project
5.07
26
WB
Ecuador
Conservation of Indigenous Peoples in Pastaza
0.76
27
WB
Ethiopia
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal
1.80
Plants
28
WB
Gambia
Integrated Marine and Coastal Biodiversity
0.96
29
WB
Georgia
Integrated Coastal Zone Management
1.30
30
WB
Georgia
Protected Areas Development
8.70
31
WB
Ghana
Natural Resource Management
8.70
32
WB
Ghana
Northern Savanna Biodiversity Conservation
7.60
(NSBC) Project
33
WB
Global
Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund (CEPF)
25.00
34
WB
Grenada
Dry Forest Biodiversity Conservation
0.72
41
No. Implementing
Country
Project
Funding
Agency
(US$) mill
35
WB
Guatemala
Community Management of the Bio-Itzá Reserve
0.73
(Peten)
36
WB
Honduras
Biodiversity Conservation in Priority Protected
7.00
Areas
37
WB
India
Ecodevelopment
20.00
38
WB
Indonesia
COREMAP I
4.10
39
WB
Indonesia
Berbak-Sembilang Ecosystem Conservation
0.73
40
WB
Indonesia
Indonesia Forests and Media (INFORM)
0.94
41
WB
Indonesia
Sangihe-Talaud Forest Conservation
0.82
42
WB
Kenya
Lewa Wildlife Conservancy and Community
0.75
Conservation
43
WB
Madagascar
Environment Program Support
12.80
44
WB
Malawi
Mulanje Mountain Biodiversity
6.75
45
WB
Mauritius
Restoration of Round Island
0.75
46
WB
Mexico
COINBIO - Indigenous and Community
7.50
Conservation of Biodiversity
47
WB
Mexico
Consolidation of the Protected Area System
16.10
(SINAP II)
48
WB
Mexico
Mesoamerican Biological Corridor
14.84
49
WB
Mexico
Private Land Conservation Mechanisms
0.73
50
WB
Moldova
Biodiversity Conservation in the Lower Dniester
0.98
Delta Ecosystem
51
WB
Mongolia
Egin-Uur Watershed Conservation Initiative (IFC)
0.98
52
WB
Morocco
Protected Areas Management
10.50
53
WB
Mozambique
Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Management
4.10
54
WB
Nicaragua
Atlantic Biological Corridor
7.10
55
WB
Pakistan
Protected Areas Management
10.08
56
WB
Panama
Atlantic Mesoamerican Biological Corridor
8.40
57
WB
Panama
Effective Protection with Community Participation
0.73
of the New Protected Area of San Lorenzo
58
WB
Papua New Guinea
Forestry and Conservation
17.00
59
WB
Paraguay
Mbaracayú Biodiversity
0.97
60
WB
Peru
(PROFONANPE II): Participatory Management of
14.80
Protected Areas
61
WB
Peru
Indigenous Management of Protected Areas in the
10.00
Amazon
62
WB
Peru
Biodiversity Conservation in the Nanay River Basin
0.75
63
WB
Philippines
Mindanao Rural Development/Coastal Resource
1.25
Conservation
64
WB
Regional
Terra Capital Biodiversity Fund (IFC)
5.00
65
WB
Regional ( Belize, Bolivia, Costa Eco Enterprises Fund
1.00
Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador,
(IFC/TNC)
México, Panamá, Paraguay,
Perú,)
66
WB
Regional (Burkina Faso, Cote d West Africa Pilot Community -Based Natural
7.00
Ivoire,)
Resource and Wildlife Management (GEPRENAF)
67
WB
Regional (Comoros, Mauritius, Coral Reef Monitoring Network in member states
0.74
Seychelles, Madagascar)
of the Indian Ocean Commission (COI), within the
Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN)
42
No. Implementing
Country
Project
Funding
Agency
(US$) mill
68
WB
Regional (Kyrgyz Republic,
Central Asia Transboundary Biodiversity
10.15
Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan)
69
WB
Regional (Lesotho)
Maloti/ Drakensberg Mountain Transfrontier
15.25
Biodiversity Conservation
70
WB
Regional (México, Guatemala, Conservation and Sustainable use of the
11.00
Belize, Honduras)
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef
71
WB
Regional (South Africa)
Maloti/ Drakensberg Mountain Transfrontier
Biodiversity Conservation
72
WB
Romania
Biodiversity Conservation Management
5.50
73
WB
Russian Federation
Khabarovsky Krai Protected Areas Network for
0.75
Sikhote -Alin Mountain Forest Ecosystems
Conservation
74
WB
Samoa
Marine Biodiversity Protection and Management
0.90
75
WB
Seychelles
Marine Ecosystems Management
0.75
76
WB
Slovak Republic
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Central
0.73
European Grasslands
77
WB
South Africa
Cape Peninsula Biodiversity
12.30
78
WB
South Africa
Sustainable Protected Area Development in
0.75
Namaqualand
79
WB
Sri Lanka
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal
4.57
Plants
80
WB
Syria
Conservation of Biodiversity and Protected Areas
0.75
Management
81
WB
Tunisia
Protected Areas Management
5.33
82
WB
Turkey
Biodiversity and Natural Resource Management
8.19
Project
83
WB
Uganda
Protected Areas Management and Sustainable Use
8.00
(PAMSU)
84
WB
Ukraine
Biodiversity Conservation in the Azov-Black Sea
6.90
Ecological Corridor
85
WB
Venezuela
Conservation & Sustainable Use of the Llanos
0.94
Ecoregion
86
WB
Viet Nam
Hon Mun Marine Protected Area Pilot
0.98
87
WB
Viet Nam
Pu-Luong/Cuc Phuong Limestone Landscape
0.72
88
WB
Yemen
Coastal Zone Management along the Gulf of Aden
0.73
89
WB
Yemen
Protected Areas Management
0.74
90
UNDP
Algeria
Strengthening of National Capacity & Grassroots
2.50
In-Situ Conservation for Sustainable Biodiversity
Protection
91
UNDP
Argentina
Consolidation and Implementation of the
5.20
Patagonian Coastal Zone Management Programme
and BD Conservation
92
UNDP
Argentina
Management and Conservation of wetland
1.00
biodiversity in the Esteros del Iberia, Corrientes
93
UNDP
Bangladesh
Coastal and Wetland BD Management
5.76
94
UNDP
Brazil
MSP Establishment of Private Reserve Heritage
0.75
Reserves (RPPNs) in the Brazilian Cerrado Biome
95
UNDP
Belize
Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Belize
5.36
Barrier Reef Complex
96
UNDP
Bhutan
Linking and Enhancing Protected Areas in the
0.79
Temperate Broadleaf Forest Eco-region of Bhutan
(LINKPA)
43
No. Implementing
Country
Project
Funding
Agency
(US$) mill
97
UNDP
Brazil
Promoting BD Conservation and Sustainable Use
6.98
in the Frontier Forest Mato -Grosso
98
UNDP
Burkina Faso
Optimization of BD in game ranching systems; a
2.50
pilot experiment in a semi arid area
99
UNDP
Cambodia
Management of the Cardamom Mountain
1.00
Protected Forest and Wildlife Sanctuaries-
Cambodia
100
UNDP
Cameroon
Sustainable Forest Management by Communities
1.00
in the Bamenda Highlands, Cameroon.
101
UNDP
Central African Republic
A Highly Decentralized Approach to BD Protection
2.50
and Use: The Bangassou Dense Forest.
102
UNDP
Chile
Biodiversity Conservation in Salar del Huasco
0.86
103
UNDP
Chile
MSP: Conservation and Sustainable Use of Chiloe
4.08
Globally Significant Biodiversity
104
UNDP
China
Wetlands BD Conservation and Sustainable Use
12.03
105
UNDP
China
Multi-Agency And Local Participatory Cooperation
0.75
in BD Conservation in Yunnan's Upland Mountain
Ecosystems
106
UNDP
Colombia
Biodiversity Conservation in the Paramo and
4.03
Montana Forest Ecosystems of the Colombian
Massif
107
UNDP
Cote d' Ivoire
Control of Aquatic Weeds to enhance and restore
3.00
BD
108
UNDP
Cuba
Priority Actions to Consolidate BD Protection in the
4.20
Sabana-Camaguey Ecosystem -FULL
109
UNDP
Cuba
Strengthening the National System of Protected
2.15
Areas
110
UNDP
DPR Korea
Conservation of BD Mt. Myonghan in the DPRK.
0.75
111
UNDP
Ecuador
Integrated Programme for the Control of
18.68
Introduced Species in Galapagos Archipelago
112
UNDP
Ecuador
Galapagos Oil Spill - Environmental Rehabilitation
18.68
and Conservation
113
UNDP
Egypt
Conservation & Sustainable Use of Native
Biodiveristy Resources used for Herbal, Medicinal,
Pharmaceutical & Cosmetic Purposes
114
UNDP
Eritrea
Conservation management of Eritrea's coastal,
4.98
marine and island BD
115
UNDP
Georgia
Conservation of Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems in
0.75
the Caucasus
116
UNDP
Ghana
BD Conservation of Lake Bosumtwe Basin
0.52
117
UNDP
Guatemala
Integrated BD Protection in the Sarstun-Motagua
4.00
Region.
118
UNDP
India
Gulf of Mannar -Multi-Sectoral and Integrated
7.87
Systems Approach to the Conservation,
Management and Sustainable Utilization of Coastal
Biodiversity.
119
UNDP
Iran
Conservation of the Asiatic cheetah, its Natural
0.75
Habitat and Associated Biota in the I.R. of Iran
120
UNDP
Lebanon
Lebanon - Strengthening of National Capacity &
2.53
Grassroots In-Situ Conservation for Sustainable
BD Protection
121
UNDP
Lesotho
Conserving Mountain BD in southern Lesotho
2.48
122
UNDP
Madagascar
Madagascar environment program support
123
UNDP
Malaysia
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Tropical Peat
6.31
Swamp Forests and Associated Wetland
Ecosystems
44
No. Implementing
Country
Project
Funding
Agency
(US$) mill
124
UNDP
Mexico
Biodiversity Conservation in the Sierra Gorda
6.73
Biosphere Reserve
125
UNDP
Mexico
Capacity Building for Implementation of the
1.46
Cartagena Protocol
126
UNDP
Micronesia
Community Conservation and Compatible
0.75
Enterprise development in Pohnpei, Federated
States of Micronesia
127
UNDP
Mongolia
BD Conservation and Sustainable Livelihood
5.16
Options in the Grasslands of Eastern Mongolia
128
UNDP
Mongolia
The Conservation of the Great Gobi and Its
0.98
Umbrella Species
129
UNDP
Morocco
Transhumance for BD Conservation in the
4.37
southern High Atlas
130
UNDP
Nepal
Upper Mustang BD Conservation Project
0.73
131
UNDP
Nepal
Landscape-scale Conservation of Endangered
0.75
Tiger and Rhinoceros Populations in and around
the Chitwan National Park.
132
UNDP
Nicaragua
Establishment of a programme for the
Consolidation of the Mesoamerican Biological
Corridor.
133
UNDP
Pakistan
Mountain Areas Conservancy Project
10.60
134
UNDP
Papua New Guinea
Milne-Bay Province Marine Integrated
3.55
Conservation
135
UNDP
Paraguay
Paraguayan Wildlands Protection Initiative -FULL
9.21
136
UNDP
Peru
In situ conservation of Native Cultivars and Wild
5.22
relatives
137
UNDP
Peru
Conservation and Sustainable use of the Coastal
0.75
Lomas of Southern Peru
138
UNDP
Philippines
Samar Island BD Project (SIBP) Conservation and
6.11
Sustainable Use of the BD of a Forested Protected
Area.
139
UNDP
Philippines
Conservation of the Tubbataha Reef National
0.77
Marine Park
140
UNDP
Philippines
BD Conservation and Management of the Bohol
0.74
Islands (Pamilacan-Balicasag-Panglao Islands)
Marine Triangle
141
UNDP
Philippines
Sustainable management of Mount Isarogs
0.75
Territories
142
UNDP
Regional
Southern African BD Support Programme
4.50
143
UNDP
Regional
Regional - Conservation of Wetland and Coastal
13.44
Ecosystems in the Mediterranean Region
144
UNDP
Regional
Conservation of BD in the Lake Titicaca Basin
3.11
145
UNDP
Russian Federation
Demonstrating Sustainable Conservation of
2.36
Biological Diversity in Four Protected Areas of
Russia's Kamchatka Oblast. Phase 1.
146
UNDP
Senegal/Mauritius
Biological Diversity Conversation through
7.89
Participatory Rehabilitation of Degraded
Mauritania an Senegal
147
UNDP
South Asia
Capacity building network for southern African
4.72
Botanical diversity
148
UNDP
Sri Lanka
Conservation of BD through Integrated
0.75
Collaboration Management in the Rekawa,
Usangoda and Kalametiya Coastal Ecosystem
149
UNDP
Sri Lanka
Project name: Contributing to the Conservation of
0.75
the Unique BD in the Threatened Rain Forests of
Southwest Sri Lanka
45
No. Implementing
Country
Project
Funding
Agency
(US$) mill
150
UNDP
Sudan
Sudan - Conservation and Management of
0.75
Habitats and Species, and Sustainable Community
Use of BD in Dinder National Park
151
UNDP
Suriname
Conservation of Globally Significant Forest
9.59
Ecosystems in the Suriname's Guyana Shields.
152
UNDP
Syrian Arab Republic
Regional: Conservation and Sustainable Use of
8.23
Dryland Agro-BD of the Fertile Crescent
153
UNDP
Tanzania
Development of Jozani-Chwaka Bay National Park,
0.75
Zanzibar Island.
154
UNDP
Tanzania
Reducing Biodiversity Loss at Selected Cross
.
Borders Sites in East Africa
155
UNDP
Tunisia
Regional - Participatory Management of Plant
3.08
Genetic Resources in Date Palm Oases of the
Maghreb
156
UNDP
Uzbekistan
Establishment of Naratau-Kyzylkum Biosphere
0.75
Reserve as a Model for BD Conservation in
Uzbekistan.
157
UNDP
Venezuela
Protection and Sustainable Use of Biological
9.79
Diversity in the Orinoco Delta Wetlands.
158
UNDP
Viet Nam
Vietnam PARC - Creating Protected Areas for
6.04
Resources Conservation (PARC) in Vietnam Using
a Landscape Ecology Approach
159
UNDP
Viet Nam
In situ Conservation of Native Landraces and their
0.93
Wild Relatives in Vietnam
160
UNDP
Zimbabwe
Conservation and sustainable use of traditional
0.97
medicinal plants in Zimbabwe
161
UNEP
Bulgaria
Support for the Implementation of the National
0.41
Biosafety Framework for Bulgaria
162
UNEP
Cameroon
Support for the Implementation of the Na tional
0.56
Biosafety Framework for Cameroon
163
UNEP
China
Support for the Implementation of the National
1.00
Biosafety Framework for China
164
UNEP
Cuba
Support to the National Biosafety Framework for
0.65
Cuba
165
UNEP
Global
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
7.31
166
UNEP
Global
Conservation and Sustainable Management of
5.30
Below-Ground Biodiversity - Phase I
167
UNEP
Global
Global Biodiversity Forum (GBF): Multistakeholder
1.00
support for the implementation of the Convention
on Biological Diversity
168
UNEP
Global
Development of National Biosafety Frameworks
2.61
169
UNEP
Global
Promoting Best Practices for Conservation and
0.75
Sustainable Use of Biodiversity of Global
Significance in Arid and Semi-Arid Zones
170
UNEP
Kenya
Support for the Implementation of the National
0.51
Biosafety Framework for Kenya
171
UNEP
Kenya
Lake Baringo Community Based Land and Water
0.75
Management Project
172
UNEP
Namibia
Support to the Implementation of the National
0.67
Biosafety Framework of Namibia
173
UNEP
Nepal
Arun Valley Sustainable Resource Use and
0.63
Management Pilot Demonstration Project
174
UNEP
Poland
Support to the Implementation of the National
0.46
Biosafety Framework for Poland
175
UNEP
Regional
Development of a Wetland Site and Flyway
10.35
Network for Conservation of the Siberian Crane
and other Migratory Waterbirds in Asia
46
No. Implementing
Country
Project
Funding
Agency
(US$) mill
176
UNEP
Regional
Community Based Management of On-Farm Plant
0.75
Genetic Resources in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas of
Sub-Saharan Africa
177
UNEP
Regional
Biodiversity Conservation and Integration of
0.75
Traditional Knowledge on Medicinal Plants in
National Primary Health Care Policy in Central
America and the Caribbean
178
UNEP
Regional
Conservation of Gramineae and Associated
0.97
Arthropods for Sustainable Agricultural
Development in Africa
179
UNEP
Regional
Biodiversity Indicators for National Use
0.85
180
UNEP
Regional
Development of the Econet for Long-term
0.78
Conservation of Biodiversity in the Central Asia
Ecoregions
181
UNEP
Regional
Catalyzing Conservation Action in Latin America:
0.75
Identifying Priority Sites and Best Management
Alternatives in five Globally significant Ecoregions
182
UNEP
Regional
Emergency Response to Combat Forest Fires in
0.75
Indonesia to Prevent Haze in South East Asia
183
UNEP
Regional
Land Use Change Analysis as an Approach for
0.80
Investigating Biodiversity Loss and Land
Degradation (LUCID)
184
UNEP
Regional
Desert Margin Program
5.62
185
UNEP
Regional
Biological Diversity Conservation through
7.89
Participatory Rehabilitation of the Degraded Lands
of the Arid and Semi-Arid Transboundary Areas of
the Mauritania and Senegal
186
UNEP
Regional
Management of Indigenous Vegetation for the
8.72
Rehabilitation of Degraded Rangelands in the Arid
Zone of Africa
187
UNEP
Uganda
Support for the Implementation of the National
0.56
Biosafety Framework for Uganda
Climate Change
No.
Implementing
Country
Project
Funding
Agency
(US$) mill
1
WB
Argentina
Renewable Energy in Rural Markets
10.00
2
WB
Bangladesh
Rural Electrification And Renewable Energy
8.20
Development
3
WB
Brazil
Energy Efficiency
15.00
4
WB
Cape Verde
Energy & Water Sector Reform and Development
4.70
5
WB
China
Beijing Second Environment
25.00
6
WB
China
Energy Conservation
22.00
7
WB
China
Energy Conserve II
26.00
8
WB
China
Fuel Efficient Industrial Boilers
32.81
9
WB
China
Renewable Energy Development
35.00
10
WB
China
Passive Solar Rural Health Clinics
0.75
11
WB
Cote d Ivoire
Energy efficiency service market
0.73
12
WB
Ecuador
Power and Communications Sector Modernization
2.84
(PROMEC)
47
No.
Implementing
Country
Project
Funding
Agency
(US$) mill
13
WB
Global
I-Efficient Lighting Initiative (IFC) Tranche I
9.35
14
WB
Global
II-Efficient Lighting Initiative (IFC) -Tranche II
5.65
15
WB
Global
Photovoltaic Market Transformation Initiative
30.00
(IFC)
16
WB
Global
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Fund
30.00
(IFC)
17
WB
Global
Solar Development Group (IFC)
10.00
18
WB
Global
Renewable Energy Sustainable Livelihood Projects
0.80
for Youth
19
WB
Guinea
Rural Energy
2.00
20
WB
Hungary
Hungary Energy Efficiency Co-Financing Program
5.00
(IFC)
21
WB
Hungary
Hungary Energy Efficiency Co-Financing Program
0.70
2 (IFC)
22
WB
India
Energy Efficiency
5.00
23
WB
Indonesia
Western Java Environmental Management
3.11
24
WB
Lao PDR
Southern Provinces Renewable Energy
0.74
25
WB
Latvia
Solid Waste Management and Landfill Gas
5.12
Recovery
26
WB
Macedonia
Mini-Hydro Power Project
0.75
27
WB
Mexico
Climate Friendly Measures In Transport
5.80
28
WB
Mexico
Methane Gas Capture/Landfill Demonstration
6.27
29
WB
Mexico
Renewable Energy for Agricultural Productivity
8.90
(RETS)
30
WB
Mongolia
Improved Household Stoves
0.75
31
WB
Philippines
Metro Manila Urban Transport - Marikina Bicycle
1.30
Network
32
WB
Philippines
CEPALCO Grid-Connected Photovoltaic Distributed
4.00
Utility Pilot Plant (IFC)
33
WB
Poland
Coal-to-Gas Conversion Project
25.00
34
WB
Poland
Zakopane/Podhale Geothermal District Heating
5.40
and Environment
35
WB
Regional
I-Commercializing Energy Efficiency Finance
11.25
(CEEF)(IFC) (Tranche I)
36
WB
Regional (Antigua and
Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change
5.00
Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, (MACC)
Dominica, Grenada, Guyana,
Jamaica, Saint Lucia, St. Kitts
and Nevis, St. Vincent and the
Grenadines, Trinidad and
Tobago,)
37
WB
Romania
Energy Efficiency Project
10.00
38
WB
Senegal
Sustainable and Participatory Energy Management
4.70
39
WB
Sri Lanka
Renewable Energy for Rural Economic
8.00
Development
48
No.
Implementing
Country
Project
Funding
Agency
(US$) mill
40
WB
Thailand
Building Chiller Replacement Program
2.50
41
WB
Tunisia
Solar Water Heating
4.00
42
WB
Uganda
Energy for Rural Transmission
12.10
43
WB
Uruguay
Landfill Methane Recovery Demonstration Project
0.98
44
WB
Viet Nam
SEIER (Renewable Energy component)
4.50
45
UNDP
Bolivia
Rural Electrification with Renewable Energy
4.45
through the Popular Participation Law
46
UNDP
Brazil
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Buses for Urban Transport
12.62
47
UNDP
Bulgaria
Energy Efficiency Strategy to Mitigate Greenhouse
2.60
Gas Emissions. Energy Efficiency Demonstration
Zone in the City of Gabrovo
48
UNDP
Chile
Barrier Removal for Rural Electrification with
6.07
Renewable Energies.
49
UNDP
China
Energy Conservation and GHG Emissions
8.00
Reduction in Township and Village Enterprise
Industries in China 2
50
UNDP
China
CPR: Promoting Methane Recovery and Utilization
5.31
from Mixed Municipal Refuse
51
UNDP
China
CPR: Capacity Building for the Rapid
8.85
Commercialization of Renewable Energy
52
UNDP
China
CPR: Barrier Removal for the Widespread
9.86
Commercialization of Energy-Efficient CFC -Free
Refrigerators in China
53
UNDP
China
China's Initial National Communication: Needs
3.60
Assessment and Enabling Activity Preparation
54
UNDP
China
Demonstration for Fuel Cell Bus
5.82
Commercialization in China
55
UNDP
China
Improving Lighting Energy Efficiency in China:
The China Green Lights Program
56
UNDP
China
Targeted Research
1.72
57
UNDP
Czech Republic
Low Cost/Low Energy buildings in the Czech
0.45
Republic
58
UNDP
Egypt
Regional - Energy Efficiency Improvements and
GHG Reduction in Egypt and the Palestinian
Authority
59
UNDP
Egypt
Introduction of Viable Electric and Hybrid Electric
0.75
Bus Technology in Egypt
60
UNDP
Fiji
Fiji Renewable Energy Hybrid Village Power
0.75
Systems.
49
No.
Implementing
Country
Project
Funding
Agency
(US$) mill
61
UNDP
Guatemala
Renewable Energy Based Small Enterprise
0.41
Development in the Quiche Region of Guatemala
62
UNDP
Hungary
Public Sector Energy Efficiency Programme
4.20
63
UNDP
Hungary
Capacity Building for Improving the Quality of
GHG Inventories
64
UNDP
India
Optimizing Development of Small Hydel
7.50
Resources in the Hilly Regions of India
65
UNDP
India
IND: Development of High Rate BioMethanation
5.50
Processes as Means of Reducing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
66
UNDP
India
Biomass Energy for Rural India
4.23
67
UNDP
India
Coal Bed Methane Capture and Commercial
9.19
Utilization -FULL
68
UNDP
India
Enabling Activities for the preparation of India's
2.00
Initial National Communication to the UNFCCC
69
UNDP
Iran
Carbon Sequestration in the Decertified
0.75
Rangelands of Iran
70
UNDP
Jordan
Jordan - Reduction of Methane Emissions and
2.74
Utilization of Municipal Waste for Energy in
Amman
71
UNDP
Kenya
Removal of barriers to energy conservation and
3.19
energy efficiency in small and medium scale
enterprises
72
UNDP
Latvia
Economic and Cost-Effective Use of Wood Waste
0.75
for Municipal Heating Systems in Latvia
73
UNDP
Lebanon
Energy Efficient Buildings
74
UNDP
Lebanon
Lebanon - Cross Sectoral Energy Efficiency and
3.40
Removal of Barriers to ESCO Operation
75
UNDP
Lithuania
Elimination of Green House Gases in the
1.00
Manufacturing of Domestic Refrigerators and
Freezers at Snaige
76
UNDP
Malawi
National Sustainable and Renewable Energy
3.42
Programme
77
UNDP
Malaysia
Industrial Energy Efficiency and Improvement
7.30
Project
78
UNDP
Malaysia
Barrier Removal for Biomass Residues
4.03
Cogeneration, Tranche-1
79
UNDP
Mexico
Project to demonstrate Fuel Cell Buses and
6.90
Associated Fuel Supply system in Mexico , Phase I
80
UNDP
Mongolia
Commercialization of super-insulating building
0.75
technology in Mongolia
81
UNDP
Morocco
Market Development for Solar Water Heaters.
2.97
50
No.
Implementing
Country
Project
Funding
Agency
(US$) mill
82
UNDP
Namibia
Barrier removal to the development of
2.70
commercially institutionally and technically
sustainable solar energy services in Namibia
83
UNDP
Pakistan
Fuel Efficiency in the Road Transport Sector
7.00
84
UNDP
Palestine
Lebanon/Palestine - Energy Efficient Buildings
85
UNDP
Panama
Capacity Building for Stage II Adaptation to
Climate Change in Central America, Mexico and
Cuba
86
UNDP
Peru
Photovoltaic-based Rural Electrification in Peru.
3.96
87
UNDP
Peru
Renewable Energy Systems in the Peruvian
0.75
Amazon Region (RESPAR).
88
UNDP
Philippines
Capacity Building to Remove Barriers to RE
5.45
Development Project
89
UNDP
Philippines
Palawan Alternative Rural Energy and Livelihood
0.75
Support Project
90
UNDP
Poland
Integrated Approach to Wood Waste Combustion
0.98
for Heat Production in Poland
91
UNDP
Poland
Gdansk Cycle Infrastructure and Promotion
1.00
Project
92
UNDP
Romania
Capacity Building for GHG Emission Reduction
2.29
through Energy Efficiency improvement in
Romania
93
UNDP
Russian Federation
Capacity Building to Reduce Key Barriers to
3.38
Energy Efficiency in Russian Residential Buildings
and Heat Supply
94
UNDP
Russian Federation
Low Cost Energy Efficiency Measures in the
1.00
Russian Educational Sector
95
UNDP
Samoa
South Pacific Renewable Energy Initiative
96
UNDP
Slovakia
Removal of Barriers to Creation of a Market for
Biomass Energy in Slovakia
97
UNDP
Slovenia
Removing Barriers to the Increased Use of
4.40
Biomass as an Energy Source
98
UNDP
South Africa
Pilot Production and Commercial Dissemination of
0.80
Solar Cookers in South Africa
99
UNDP
Sudan
Barrier Removal to Secure PV Market Penetration
0.75
in Semi-Urban Sudan.
100
UNDP
Syrian Arab Republic
Supply-Side Efficiency and Energy Conservation
4.61
and Planning.
101
UNDP
Thailand
Removal of Barriers to Biomass Power Generation
6.83
and Co-generation in Thailand
51
No.
Implementing
Country
Project
Funding
Agency
(US$) mill
102
UNDP
Tunisia
Tunisia - Experimental Validation of Building
4.36
Codes and Removal of Barriers to their Adoption
103
UNDP
Tunisia
Tunisia -Barrier Removal to Encourage and Secure
0.71
Market Transformation and Labeling of
Refrigerators.
104
UNDP
Turkmenistan
Improving the Energy Efficiency of the Heat and
0.75
Hot Water Supply
105
UNDP
Ukraine
Overcoming Market Barriers to the
Implementation of Energy Efficiency
Improvements and Renewable Energy
Technologies in Ukraine
106
UNEP
Global
Solar and Wind Energy Resource Assessment
6.81
107
UNEP
Global
Assessment of Impacts of and Adaptation to
7.85
Climate Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors
(AIACC)
108
UNEP
Global
Joint Geophysical Imaging (JGI) Methodology for
0.98
Geothermal Reservoir Assessment
109
UNEP
Global
Promoting Industrial Energy Efficiency through a
0.95
Cleaner Production / Environmental Management
System Framework.
110
UNEP
Global
Redirecting Commercial Investment Decisions to
0.75
Cleaner Technologies - A Technology Transfer
Clearinghouse
International Waters
No.
Implementing
Country
Project
Funding
Agency
(US$) mill
1
WB
Argentina
Coastal Contamination Prevention & Marine
8.35
Management
2
WB
Bulgaria
BS/Wetlands Restoration and Pollution Reduction
7.50
Project
3
WB
Georgia
Agricultural Research, Extension and Training
2.48
(Formerly Agric. II)
4
WB
Global
Lake Basins Management Initiative
0.97
5
WB
Poland
Rural Environmental Protection
3.00
6
WB
Regional
Baltic Sea Development (Tranche-1)
5.50
7
WB
Regional
Strategic Action Plan (SAP) for the Red Sea
5.61
8
WB
Regional (Albania, Macedonia) Lake Ohrid Management
4.10
9
WB
Regional (Brazil, Paraguay, Guarani Aquifer
13.40
Uruguay, Argentina)
10
WB
Regional (Cambodia,
Mekong River Water Utilization
11.00
Thailand, Vietnam)
52
No.
Implementing
Country
Project
Funding
Agency
(US$) mill
11
WB
Regional (Comoros,
Western Indian Ocean Islands Oil Spill
3.15
Madagascar, Mauritius,
Contingency Planning Project
Seychelles,)
12
WB
Regional (Kenya, Tanzania, Lake Victoria Environmental Management
35.00
Uganda)
(46870/71/72)
13
WB
Regional (Kenya, Tanzania, Lake Victoria Environmental Management
Uganda)
(46870/71/72)
14
WB
Regional (Kenya, Tanzania, Lake Victoria Environmental Management
Uganda)
(46870/71/72)
15
WB
Romania
BS/ Agricultural Pollution Control Project
5.15
16
UNDP
Chad
Reversal of land and water degradation trends in
5.00
the Lake Chad Basin Ecosystem
17
UNDP
Cuba
Demonstration of Innovative Approaches to the
6.91
Rehabilitation of Heavily Contaminated Bays in
the Wider Caribbean
18
UNDP
Egypt
Lake Manzala Engineered Wetlands
5.26
19
UNDP
Egypt
Egypt - Developing Renewable Underground
0.83
Water Resources in Arid Lands, A Pilot Case - The
Eastern Desert of Egypt
20
UNDP
Estonia
Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin Management Program
21
UNDP
Global
Removal of Barriers to the Effective
7.61
Implementation of Ballast Water Control and
Management Measures in Developing Countries
22
UNDP
Global
Artisanal Gold Mining
7.12
23
UNDP
Global
Capacity Building for Small Island Developing
1.00
States through SIDS Net
24
UNDP
Namibia
Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem
15.46
25
UNDP
Philippines
Partnerships for Environmental Management in
the Seas of East Asia
26
UNDP
Regional
Regional - Implementation of the Strategic Action
19.00
Programme (SAP) for the Red Sea and Gulf of
Aden
27
UNDP
Regional
Control of eutrophication, hazardous substances
4.35
and related measures for rehabilitating the Black
Sea ecosystem, Tranche-1
28
UNDP
Regional
Strengthening the implementation capacities for
5.35
nutrient reduction and transboundary cooperation
in the Danube River Basin
29
UNDP
Regional
Environmental Protection of the Rio de La Plata
6.01
and its Maritime Front: Pollution Prevention and
Control and Habitat Restoration
30
UNDP
Samoa
Implementation of the Strategic Action
12.29
Programme (SAP) of the Pacific Small Island
Developing States (13 countries)
31
UNDP
Slovakia
Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology
0.99
(TEST) In the Danube River Basin
32
UNDP
Ukraine
Preparation of the Strategic Action Plan for the
7.26
Dnipro River Basin and Development of SAP
Implementation Mechanism
53
No.
Implementing
Country
Project
Funding
Agency
(US$) mill
33
UNEP
Brazil
Integrated Management of Land Based Activities
4.77
in the Sao Francisco Basin
34
UNEP
Global
Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA)
6.79
35
UNEP
Regional
Determination of Priority Actions for the Further
6.29
Elaboration and Implementation of the Strategic
Action Programme for the Mediterranean Region
36
UNEP
Regional
Implementation of Integrated Watershed
6.32
Management Practices for the Pantanal and Upper
Paraguay River Basin.
37
UNEP
Regional
Formulation of a Strategic Action Programme for
3.64
the Integrated Management of the San Juan River
Basin and its Coastal Zone
38
UNEP
Regional
Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in
16.41
the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand
39
UNEP
Regional
Implementation of the Strategic Action Program
3.22
for the Bermejo River Binational Basin
40
UNEP
Regional
Reduction of Environmental Impact from Tropical
4.45
Shrimp Trawling through the Introduction of By-
catch Reduction Technologies and Change of
Management
41
UNEP
Regional
Implementation of the Strategic Action
19.00
Programme (SAP) for the Red Sea and Gulf of
Aden
42
UNEP
Regional
Demonstration of Innovative Approaches to the
Rehabilitation of Heavily Contaminated Bays in
the Wider Caribbean Region
43
UNEP
Regional
Addressing Transboundary Environmental Issues
8.39
in the Caspian Environment Programme (CEP) -
Strengthening Institutional, Legal, Regulatory and
Economic Frameworks for SAP Implementation
44
UNEP
Regional
Development and Implementation of Mechanisms
0.97
to Disseminate Lessons Learned and Best
Practices in Integrated Transboundary Water
Resources Management in Latin America and the
Caribbean
45
UNEP
Regional
Protection of the North West Sahara Aquifer
0.60
System (NWSAS) and related humid zones and
ecosystems.
54
Multi-Focal
No.
Implementing
Country
Project
Funding
Agency
(US$) mill
1
WB
Burkina Faso, Cameroon,
Climate, Water and Agriculture: Impacts on and
0.70
Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana,
Adaptation of Agro-Ecological Systems in Africa
Kenya, Niger, Nigeria,
Senegal, South Africa,
Zambia, Zimbabwe.
2
WB
Ethiopia, Madagascar, Niger. Integrated Land and Water Management (ILWM)
0.98
Initiative for Africa
3
WB
Global
Small and Medium Scale Enterprise Program
17.44
(replenishment - IFC)
4
WB
Mexico
Oaxaca Sustainable Hill-Side Management Project
0.72
5
WB
Mongolia
Dynamics of Biodiversity Loss and Permafrost Melt
0.80
in Lake Hovsgol National Park (targeted research)
6
WB
Nicaragua
Barrier Removal and Forest Habitat Conservation
0.73
(Coffee/Allspice)
7
WB
Nicaragua, Costa Rica,
Integrated Silvo-Pastoral Ecosystem Management
4.50
Colombia
8
WB
Zambia
Sustainable Land Management in the Zambian
0.75
Miombo Woodland Ecosystem
9
UNDP
Global
Country Dialogue Workshop
3.51
10
UNDP
Mexico
Strategic Planning and Design for the
0.65
Environmental Protection and Sustainable
Development of Mexico
11
UNDP
South Africa
Best Environmental Practice in the Hosting of the
1.00
World Summit on Sustainable Development
12
UNEP
Global
Global Environmental Citizenship
13
UNEP
Global
Technology Transfer Networks (TTN) Phase II:
1.28
Prototype verification and Expansion at the
Country Level
14
UNEP
Global
Integrated Management of Peatlands for
1.00
Biodiversity and Climate Change: The Potential of
Managing Peatlands for Carbon Accumulation
while Protecting Biodiversity
15
UNEP
Global
Assessment of Soil Organic Carbon Stocks and
0.98
Change at National Scale
16
UNEP
Regional
Support for World Parks Congress, September 8-
17, 2003, Durban, South Africa
17
UNEP
Regional
Finalization of the Action Plan on the Environment
0.30
Component of the New Partnership for Africa's
Development
55
Ozone
No.
Implementing
Country
Project
Funding
Agency
(US$) mill
1
WB
Russian Federation
Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances
60.00
2
WB
Ukraine
Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substance Phaseout
23.20
3
UNEP
Azerbaijan
Phasing Out Ozone Depleting Substances in
6.92
Azerbaijan
4
UNEP
Estonia
Phasing Out Ozone Depleting Substances in
0.92
Estonia
5
UNEP
Kazakhstan
Phasing out Ozone Depleting Substances -
5.60
Kazakhstan
6
UNEP
Latvia
Phasing Out Ozone Depleting Substances in
1.47
Latvia
7
UNEP
Lithuania
Phasing Out Ozone Depleting Substances in
4.65
Lithuania
8
UNEP
Regional
Promoting Compliance with the Trade and
0.69
Licensing Provisions of the MP in CEIT's
9
UNEP
Regional
Initiating Early Phase-Out of Methyl Bromide
0.66
through Awareness raising, Policy Development
and Demonstration/Training Activities
10
UNEP
Tajikistan
Phasing Out Ozone Depleting Substances in
0.99
Tajikistan
11
UNEP
Turkmenistan
Phasing Out Ozone Depleting Substances in
0.52
Turkmenistan
12
UNEP
Uzbekistan
Phasing Out Ozone Depleting Substances in
3.41
Uzbekistan
Persistent Organics Pollutants
No.
Implementing
Country
Project
Funding
Agency
(US$) mill
1
UNEP
Global
Persistent Toxic Substances (PTS), Food Security
0.72
and Indigenous Peoples of the Russian North
2
UNEP
Global
Development of National Implementation Plans
6.19
for the Management of Persistent Organic
Pollutants
Integrated Ecosystem Management
No.
Implementing
Country
Project
Funding
Agency
(US$ mill)
1
UNDP
Mexico
Integrated Ecosystem Management in Three
15.65
Priority Eco-regions
2
UNDP
Senegal
Integrated Ecosystem Management of Four
4.35
Representative Landscapes of Senegal
56
Appendix C: Elapsed Time Full Data Tables by Implementing Agencies
Table 1: World Bank-GEF Full-sized Projects, FY00 to FY04 (days)
Project Type
Pipeline to
Pipeline to GEF
Pipeline to Bank
GEF Council Approval
Management
Project Start-up Council Approval
Management Approval to Bank Management
Approval to Project
Approval
Start-up
Overall
1144
465
958
493
186
Blended
998
377
821
444
176
Freestanding
1271
538
1074
535
192
Africa
1539
621
1317
697
222
East Asia
885
353
736
383
149
Pacific
Eastern
1156
481
1010
529
146
Europe/
Central Asia
Latin
1043
426
818
392
222
America and
the Caribbean
Table 2: UNDP Project Approval Timeframes by Focal Area (days)
Focal Area
Pipeline to Work
Work Program to
Total
Program
Project Start-up
Biodiversity
704
578
1282
International Waters
717
683
1399
Climate Change
507
537
1044
Table 3: UNEP Full-sized Projects* (days)
Number
PDF-B IA PDF-B
FP
FP IA
FP Appraisal/
PDF-B Approval
Year
of
Approval
Maturation Appraisal
Approval
Approval
to FP Start -up
Projects
Total
1997 - 2000
5
113.7
244.8
344.8
39.8
384.6
749.0
2001
6
88.3
382.5
281.3
69.7
351.0
907.7
2002
6
207.8
624.4
354.2
48.2
402.3
1289.2
2003
3
114.3
827.3
190.0
17.0
207.0
1148.7
2004 & 2005
8
76.3
812.5
357.9
50.6
408.5
1378.7
Cumulative
28
122.3
590.4
320.4
48.6
369.0
1156.7
Average
* Note: In developing the cumulative averages for different stages of the project cycle, there was some
variation in the number of projects included in each year. These discrepancies do not alter the underlying
trends in each stage.
57
Table 4 GEF Biodiversity Projects (days)16
GEF Approval Process
Breakdown of the GEF Approval Process for
GEF to Project Start-up
(Pipeline to CEO
FSPs
(begin implementation)17
Endorsement)
FSP
MSP
Pipeline Entry to Work
Work Program
FSP
MSP
Program Inclusion
Inclusion to CEO
Endorsement
Total
1095
657
876
438
402
146
UNDP 1059
803
986
438
584
146
UNEP 1351
657
1022
402
183
110
WB
949
584
767
438
438
183
16 Because of the limited data available regarding specific dates in the project cycle, especially for projects
approved during the early years of the GEF, the figures for this table have been calculated using the best
available data within each specific timeframe. Because of this factor, readers will note that total time
periods cannot be directly computed by simply adding the two phases of project approval. The figures
provided are averages (means), not medians.
17 Data on the approval process for UNEP projects was provided directly by UNEP because it was not
available at the GEF Secretariat.
58
Appendix D: List of terminal evaluation reports reviewed
Quality of the terminal evaluation report
Quality of M&E syst.
Name
IA
GEF
OME
rating
Outcomes
and
objectives
Report
consistent
Sustainab
ility
Lessons
Actual
costs &
co
GEF OME
rating
Effective
M&E
system
Informatio
n used for
mgmt
Date
effect or
Prodoc
FY IA
prepared
the TE
Biodiversity
Belize - Creating A Co-Managed Protected
Areas (PA) System
UNDP
S
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
U
N
N
1998
2003
Bhutan Integrated Management of Jigme Dorji
National Park (JDNP)
UNDP
U
N
N
Y
Part
N
MU
N
Part
1997
2004
Costa Rica - Conservation of Biodiversity in
the Talamanca Caribe Biological Corridor
UNDP
MU
Y
Part
Part
Part
Part
U
N
N
2000
2003
Ethiopia - A dynamic farmer-based approach
to the conservation of plant genetic resources
UNDP
S
Part
Part
Y
Y
N
MU
Part
N
1994
2003
Comoros - Conservation of biodiversity and
sustainable development
UNDP
S
Y
Part
Y
Part
Part
U
N
N
1997
2003
Georgia - Conservation of Arid and Semi-arid
Ecosystems in the Caucasus
UNDP
U
Part
Part
Part
N
N
U/A
N/I
N/I
1999
2004
Panama - Biodiversity Conservation in the
Darien Region
UNDP
U
N
N
Part
N
Part
MU
Part
N
1994
2001
Regional - African NGO-Government
Partnership for Sustainable Biodiversity
Action
UNDP
S
Y
Y
Y
N
N
U
N
N
1998
2003
Regional - Conservation Priority-Setting for the
Upper Guinea (UG) Forest Ecosystems, West
Africa
UNDP
S
Y
Y
Y
Y
Part
U/A
N/I
N/I
1998
2002
Regional - South Pacific Biodiversity
Conservation Programme (SPBCP)
UNDP
S
Y
Y
Y
Y
Part
MU
Part
N
1993
2002
Uruguay - Consolidation of the Bañados del
Este Biosphere Reserve
UNDP
MU
Part
Part
Part
Y
Part
MU
Part
Part
1997
2004
Madagascar - The Environment Program
UNDP/
Phase II Project
WB
HS
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
MU
Part
N
1997
2004
China - Lop Nur nature sanctuary biodiversity
conservation project
UNEP
MU
Part
Part
Part
Y
Part
MU
N
Part
1998
2004
Global - Development of best practices and
dissemination of lessons learned for dealing
UNEP
HS
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
S
Part
Y
1998
2004
59
Quality of the terminal evaluation report
Quality of M&E syst.
Name
IA
GEF
OME
rating
Outcomes
and
objectives
Report
consistent
Sustainab
ility
Lessons
Actual
costs &
co
GEF OME
rating
Effective
M&E
system
Informatio
n used for
mgmt
Date
effect or
Prodoc
FY IA
prepared
the TE
with the global problem of alien invasive
species (AIS) that threaten biological diversity.
Global - People, Land Management, and
Environmental Change (PLEC)
UNEP
MU
Part
Part
Part
Y
N
S
Part
Y
1998
2003
Global - Promoting Best Practices for
Conservation and Sustainable Use of
Biodiversity of Global Significance in Arid and
Semi-arid Zones
UNEP
S
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
U/A
N/I
N/I
1999
2004
Kenya - Lake Baringo Community-based
Integrated Land and Water Management
Project
UNEP
MU
Y
N
Part
Y
Part
MU
Part
Part
2000
2004
Regional - An Indicator Model for Dryland
Ecosystems in Latin America
UNEP
U
N
N
N
Part
N
U
N
N
1999
2004
Belize - Northern Belize Biological Corridors
Project
WB
S
Part
Y
Y
Y
Y
S
Y
Y
1999
2003
Bolivia - Biodiversity Conservation Project
WB
MU
Part
Part
Y
Y
Part
U/A
N/I
N/I
1993
2001
Cameroon - Biodiversity Conservation and
Management
WB
S
Part
Y
Part
Y
Part
MU
N
Part
1995
2004
China - Nature Reserves Management
WB
S
Y
N
Part
Y
Y
S
Y
Y
1995
2003
Ecuador Monitoring the Galápagos Islands
WB
MU
Part
Part
Part
Part
Part
S
Y
Y
1999
2003
Ecuador- Wetland Priorities for Conservation
Action
WB
S
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
S
Y
Part
1999
2003
Egypt - Red Sea coastal and marine resource
management project
WB
S
Part
Part
Y
Y
Y
S
Y
Y
1994
2003
Guatemala - Management and Protection of
Laguna del Tigre National Park and Biotope
WB
S
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
S
Part
Y
1999
2003
Indonesia - Biodiversity Collections Project
WB
S
Y
Y
Y
Y
Part
S
Y
Y
1994
2002
Indonesia - Kerinci Seblat - Integrated
Conservation and Development Project (ICDP) WB
S
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
S
Y
Part
1996
2003
Kenya - Conservation of the Tana River
Primate National Reserve (TRNPR)
WB
S
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
MU
Part
N
1997
2003
Laos - Forest Management and Conservation
WB
S
Y
Y
Y
Y
Part
S
Y
Y
1995
2001
Mauritius - Biodiversity Restoration Project
WB
S
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
S
Y
Y
1996
2003
60
Quality of the terminal evaluation report
Quality of M&E syst.
Name
IA
GEF
OME
rating
Outcomes
and
objectives
Report
consistent
Sustainab
ility
Lessons
Actual
costs &
co
GEF OME
rating
Effective
M&E
system
Informatio
n used for
mgmt
Date
effect or
Prodoc
FY IA
prepared
the TE
Mexico - El Triunfo Biosphere Reserve: Habitat
Enhancement in Productive Landscapes
WB
MU
Part
N
Y
Part
Y
U
N
Part
1999
2003
Mexico - Protected Areas Program
WB
MU
Part
N
Part
Y
Y
S
Y
Part
1997
2004
Mozambique Transfrontier Conservation Areas
Pilot And Institutional Strengthening Project
WB
S
Y
Part
Y
Y
Part
U
N
N
1997
2004
Philippines - Conservation of Priority Prot.
Areas
WB
S
N
Part
Y
Y
Y
U
N
N
1994
2004
Republic of Croatia Kopacki rit Wetland
Management Project
WB
MU
Y
Part
Y
Part
Part
S
Y
Part
1999
2004
Russia Biodiversity Conservation Project
WB
U
Part
N
Part
Y
Y
U/A
N/I
N/I
1996
2004
Seychelles - Management of Avian
Ecosystems
WB
S
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
HS
Y
Y
1998
2003
Uganda - Bwindi Impenetrable National Park
and Mgahinga Gorilla National Park
Conservation
WB
U
N
N
Part
Part
Part
U/A
Part
N/I
1995
2001
Uganda - Kibale Forest Wild Coffee Project
WB
MU
Part
Part
Part
Y
N
U/A
N/I
N/I
1999
2002
Climate Change
Brazil - Biomass Power Generation: Sugar
Cane Bagasse and Trash.
UNDP
MU
Part
Part
Part
Y
Part
U/A
N
N/I
1996
2003
Bulgaria - Energy Efficiency Strategy to
Mitigate GHG (greenhouse gases) Emissions
Energy Efficiency Zone in the City of Gabrovo
UNDP
MU
Part
N
Part
Part
N
U/A
N/I
N/I
1998
2004
Ghana - Renewable Energy-Based Electricity
for Rural, Social and Economic Development
UNDP
MU
Part
Part
Part
Part
N
U/A
N
N/I
1998
2003
Guatemala - Renewable Energy-Based Small
Enterprise Development in the Quiche Region
UNDP
MU
Part
Part
N
Part
N
U/A
N/I
N/I
2000
2003
Regional - Creation and Strengthening of the
Capacity for Sustainable Renewable Energy
(RE) Development in Central America (FOCER)
UNDP
S
Y
Y
Part
Y
Part
S
Y
Y
2000
2003
Regional (Cote d'Ivoire & Senegal) - Control of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Energy
Efficient Building Technology in West Africa
UNDP
U
Part
N
Part
N
N
U/A
N/I
N/I
1995
2001
Sudan - Community Based Rangeland
UNDP
S
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
MU
Part
Y
1995
2001
61
Quality of the terminal evaluation report
Quality of M&E syst.
Name
IA
GEF
OME
rating
Outcomes
and
objectives
Report
consistent
Sustainab
ility
Lessons
Actual
costs &
co
GEF OME
rating
Effective
M&E
system
Informatio
n used for
mgmt
Date
effect or
Prodoc
FY IA
prepared
the TE
Rehabilitation for Carbon Seq. and
Biodiversity
Uganda - Photovoltaic pilot project for rural
electrification (UPPPRE)
UNDP
S
Y
Y
Part
Y
Y
U/A
N/I
Part
1997
2003
Global - Fuel Cell Bus and Distributed Power
Generation Market Prospects and Intervention
Strategy Options
UNEP
MU
Part
Part
N/A
Part
N
N/A
N/A
N/A
2000
2003
Global - Redirecting commercial investment
decisions to cleaner technology - a technology
transfer clearing house
UNEP
S
Y
Y
Part
Part
N
MU
N
Part
1999
2003
Argentina - Efficient Street Lighting Program
WB
S
Y
Part
Part
Y
Y
S
Y
Y
1999
2002
China Sichuan Gas Transmission and
Distribution Rehabilitation
WB
HS
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
S
Y
Y
1994
2004
Czech Republic - Kyjov Waste Heat Utilization
Project
WB
MU
Part
N
Y
Y
Y
MU
Part
Part
1998
2002
India - Renewable Resources Development
Project (Alternate Energy)
WB
S
Y
Part
Y
Y
Y
S
Y
Y
1993
2001
Indonesia - Solar Home Systems (SHS)
WB
HS
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
HS
Y
Y
1997
2004
Lithuania - KLAIPEDA GEOTHERMAL
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
WB
S
Y
Part
Y
Part
Part
S
Y
Y
1996
2003
Mali - Household Energy Project
WB
MU
Part
N
Part
Y
Part
U/A
N/I
N/I
1995
2002
South Africa - Concentrating Solar Power for
Africa (CSP-Africa)
WB
U
Part
N
N
N
Y
U/A
Part
N/I
2000
2001
Sri Lanka - Energy Services Delivery (ESD)
WB
S
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
S
Y
Y
1997
2003
International Waters
Global - Strengthening Capacity for Global
Knowledge-Sharing in International Waters
UNDP
S
Y
Part
Y
Y
Part
U
N
N
2000
2003
Regional - Developing the Implementation of
the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
UNDP
S
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
U
N
N
1997
2001
Regional - Hungary and Slovenia Building
Environmental Citizenship to Support
Transboundary Pollution Reduction in the
Danube: A Pilot Project
UNDP
MU
Part
Part
Y
Y
N
U/A
N/I
N/I
2000
2002
62
Quality of the terminal evaluation report
Quality of M&E syst.
Name
IA
GEF
OME
rating
Outcomes
and
objectives
Report
consistent
Sustainab
ility
Lessons
Actual
costs &
co
GEF OME
rating
Effective
M&E
system
Informatio
n used for
mgmt
Date
effect or
Prodoc
FY IA
prepared
the TE
Regional - Implementation of the Strategic
Action Programme(SAP) for the Red Sea and
Gulf of Aden
UNDP
U
N
N
N
N
N
MU
Part
N
1999
2004
Regional - Preparation of A Strategic Action
Program (SAP) and Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis (TDA) for the Tumen River Area, Its
Coastal Regions and Related Northeast Asian
Environs
UNDP
S
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
U
N
N
1999
2002
Yemen - Protection of Marine Ecosystems of
the Red Sea Coast
UNDP
S
Y
Part
Y
Y
N
U
N
N
1993
2001
Regional - Addressing Transboundary
UNDP/
Environmental Issues in the Caspian
UNEP/
Environment Programme (CEP)
WB
S
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
U
N
N
2000
2003
Regional Development and Protection of the
Coastal and Marine Environment in Sub-
Saharan Africa
UNEP
S
Y
Y
Part
Y
Y
MU
Part
N
2000
2004
Jordan - Gulf of Aqaba Environmental Action
Plan
WB
S
Y
Part
Part
Y
Y
U/A
Part
N/I
1996
2003
Regional - OECS Ship-Generated Waste
Management
WB
S
Y
Part
Part
Part
Y
U
N
N
1996
2004
Regional - Water and Environmental
Management Project (WEMP) in the Aral Sea
Basin
WB
S
Y
Y
Part
Y
Y
S
Y
Y
1998
2004
Ozone Depleting Substances
Regional - Initiating early phase out of methyl
bromide (MB) in countries with economies in
transition through awareness-raising, policy
development and demonstration and training
activities
UNEP
MU
Part
Part
Part
N
N
U/A
N/I
N/I
1999
2004
Belarus - ODS PHASEOUT
WB
S
Y
Part
Y
Y
Y
S
Y
Y
1997
2002
Poland - Phaseout of Ozone Depleting
Substances
WB
S
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
S
Y
Y
1997
2001
63
Quality of the terminal evaluation report
Quality of M&E syst.
Name
IA
GEF
OME
rating
Outcomes
and
objectives
Report
consistent
Sustainab
ility
Lessons
Actual
costs &
co
GEF OME
rating
Effective
M&E
system
Informatio
n used for
mgmt
Date
effect or
Prodoc
FY IA
prepared
the TE
Persistent Organic Pollutants
Global - Regionally-Based Assessment of
Persistent Toxic Substances (RBA/PTS)
UNEP
S
Y
Y
Y
N
Part
N/A
N/A
N/A
2000
2004
Global - Support to the Implementation of the
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants
UNEP
S
Y
Y
N/A
Part
N
N/A
N/A
N/A
2001
2004
64
Appendix E: Ratings for the Quality of the Terminal Evaluation
Reports and M&E Systems
The ratings on the quality of the evaluation report were as follows:
a. Highly Satisfactory: If there is clear evidence that all five criteria were fully
addressed. These can be considered best practice.
b. Satisfactory: If at least one of the first two criteria is addressed while the other
one is at least partially addressed and at least two of the remaining criteria are
partially addressed.
c. Marginally Unsatisfactory: If either: a) the two first criteria are only partially
addressed or, b) one is at least partially addressed while the other is not and
one of the next two criteria is addressed and the other is at least partially
addressed.
d. Unsatisfactory: If either: a) the first two criteria were not addressed or, b) if
only one was partially addressed while the second was not, and two of the
remaining three criteria were not addressed.
Overall project M&E systems were rated as follows:
a. Highly Satisfactory: If the project exceeded expectations in terms of collecting
additional data or conducting additional studies not initially considered in the
project design and this information has been used to improve project
implementation and results (e.g. information collected was used for adaptive
management), has provided clear evidence of the project impacts, and systems
are in place to ensure data will continue to be collected and used after project
closing.
b. Satisfactory: If the project developed and used the tools selected during the
project design such as indicators (including baseline conditions) and effective
systems for data collection, and these tools allowed it to measure progress
towards the objectives, and the information collected was used for adaptive
management.
c. Marginally Unsatisfactory: The M&E tools used did not fully address the
information needs of the project and resulted in significant information gaps
for adaptive management, or if gathered information was not used for adaptive
management.
d. Unsatisfactory: If the project had no M&E system, or if information produced
by the system is insufficient or unreliable to be used for adaptive
management.
If the report did not provide sufficient information on the project M&E systems to
respond to the questions above, then the project was rated as "Insufficient information to
assess".
65
Appendix F: Strengths and Weaknesses of IA Terminal Evaluation
Reports
Criteria for the assessment of the quality of TEs
UNDP
Baseline
Assessment of relevant
Report consistency:
Assessment of
Lessons, supported Disclosure of actual
outcomes and
evidence complete/
sustainability
by the evidence
project costs (total
achievement of
convincing and ratings
and per activity) and
objectives
substantiated
actual co-financing
used
Yes
14
10
13
13
2
Partially
6
9
7
4
8
No
1
2
1
4
11
Total
21
21
21
21
21
FY04
Yes
1
1
2
2
1
Partially
3
2
3
2
1
No
2
3
1
2
4
Total
6
6
6
6
6
UNEP
Baseline
Yes
2
2
1
1
1
Partially
2
2
2
2
No
1
3
Total
4
4
3
4
4
FY04
Yes
6
5
3
5
2
Partially
2
2
4
2
3
No
1
2
1
2
4
Total
9
9
8
9
9
WB
Baseline
Yes
16
11
16
21
18
Partially
9
9
7
4
7
No
1
6
3
1
1
Total
26
26
26
26
26
FY04
Yes
7
5
6
9
8
Partially
3
4
5
2
3
No
1
2
0
Total
11
11
11
11
11
Note: There are two terminal evaluation reports for which the assessment of sustainability was not
applicable due to the nature and activities of the project. These were the Global - Fuel Cell Bus Market
Prospects and Strategy Options and the Global POPs. Therefore they are not included in this table.
66
Appendix G: Ratings on the Achievement of Objectives and
Sustainability Provided by the IA in Reports Prepared in FY04
Project Name
IA
Achievement
Sustain-
of objectives
ability
Bhutan Integrated Management of Jigme Dorji National Park
(JDNP)
UNDP
No rating
fair
Bulgaria - Energy Efficiency Strategy to Mitigate GHG
(greenhouse gases) Emissions Energy Efficiency Zone in the
City of Gabrovo
UNDP
HS
HS/S
Georgia - Conservation of Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems in
the Caucasus
UNDP
No rating
No rating
Regional - Implementation of the Strategic Action
Programme(SAP) for the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden
UNDP
S
S
Uruguay - Consolidation of the Bañados del Este Biosphere
Reserve
UNDP
HS
S
Madagascar - The Environment Program Phase II Project
UNDP/
WB
S
Likely
China - Lop Nur nature sanctuary biodiversity conservation
Very Good
project
UNEP
Excellent
Global - Development of best practices and dissemination of
lessons learned for dealing with the global problem of alien
invasive species (AIS) that threaten biological diversity.
UNEP
HS
S
Global - Promoting Best Practices for Conservation and
Sustainable Use of Biodiversity of Global Significance in Arid
Good
Good
and Semi-arid Zones
UNEP
Global - Regionally-Based Assessment of Persistent Toxic
Substances (RBA/PTS)
UNEP
HS
MS
Global - Support to the Implementation of the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
UNEP
HS
HS
Kenya - Lake Baringo Community-based Integrated Land and
Good
Good
Water Management Project
UNEP
Regional - An Indicator Model for Dryland Ecosystems in
Very Good
Good
Latin America
UNEP
Regional Development and Protection of the Coastal and
Good
Good
Marine Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa
UNEP
Regional - Initiating early phase out of methyl bromide (MB)
in countries with economies in transition through awareness-
raising, policy development and demonstration and training
Very Good
Very Good
activities
UNEP
Cameroon - Biodiversity Conservation and Management
WB
S
Likely
China Sichuan Gas Transmission and Distribution
Highly
Rehabilitation
WB
S
Likely
Indonesia - Solar Home Systems (SHS)
WB
U
Likely
Mexico - Protected Areas Program
Highly
WB
HS
Likely
Mozambique Transfrontier Conservation Areas Pilot And
Institutional Strengthening Project
WB
S
Likely
Philippines - Conservation of Priority Protected Areas
WB
U
Unlikely
Regional - OECS Ship-Generated Waste Management
WB
S
Likely
Regional - Water and Environmental Management Project
(WEMP) in the Aral Sea Basin
WB
U
Likely
Republic of Croatia Kopacki rit Wetland Management Project
WB
No rating
No rating
Russia Biodiversity Conservation Project
WB
S
Likely
67