PROJECT PERFORMANCE REPORT
2002

---

ii

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS .........................................................................................................................................
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................
iv
I.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................
1
II.
GEF PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................
3
A.
Overall GEF Portfolio .....................................................................................................
3
B.
Growth of Portfolio and Disbursements .........................................................................
4
C.
Time from Allocation to Implementation .......................................................................
4
III.
2002 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW .....................................................................................
8
A.
Overview of Projects Covered in the PIR 2002 ..............................................................
8
B.
Ratings .............................................................................................................................
11
IV.
SECRETARIAT MANAGED PROJECT REVIEWS AND TERMINAL EVALUATION REVIEWS .........................
16
A.
SMPR ..............................................................................................................................
16
B.
TER ................................................................................................................................
16
V.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................
17
A.
Implementation Approach ...............................................................................................
17
1.
Partnership arrangements .......................................................................................
17
2.
Identification, assumptions and mitigation of risks ...............................................
17
3.
Attention during preparation to comments made at proposal stage .......................
19
4.
Logical frameworks ................................................................................................
19
5.
Conclusions on implementation approach .............................................................
20
B.
Sustainability and Country Ownership ...........................................................................
20
1.
Accomplishments in financial sustainability of GEF activities .............................
20
2.
Development of ownership .....................................................................................
22
3.
Dissemination of knowledge ..................................................................................
24
4.
Some key issues affecting sustainability ................................................................
24
5.
Conclusions on sustainability and country ownership ...........................................
27
C.
Stakeholder Participation, including Private Sector Involvement ..................................
27
1.
Diverse approaches to stakeholder participation ....................................................
27
2.
Private sector involvement in GEF projects ...........................................................
31
3.
Conclusions on stakeholder participation and private sector involvement ............
33
D.
Financial Planning ...........................................................................................................
33
E.
Cost Effectiveness ...........................................................................................................
34
F.
Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................................................................
35
1.
Strengths in M&E systems .....................................................................................
35
2.
Weaknesses in M&E systems .................................................................................
36
3.
Conclusions on monitoring and evaluation ............................................................
37
iii

---

APPENDICES
A.
List of Projects Included in the PIR 2002 .......................................................................
B.
Guidelines for the 2002 PIR ............................................................................................
C.
1.
United Nations Development Program PIR Overview ..........................................
2.
United Nations Environment Program PIR Overview ...........................................
3.
World Bank PIR Overview .....................................................................................
D.
List of Completed Projects as of June 20, 2002 ..............................................................
E.
List of Projects under TER ..............................................................................................
F.
List of Project under SMPR ............................................................................................
iv

---

ACRONYMS
Bio
Biodiversity
CBD
Convention on Biological Diversity
CC
Climate Change
CFC
Chlorinated Fluorcarbons
COP
Conference of the Parties
CP
Conference of the Parties
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GEF M&E
Global Environment Facility Monitoring & Evaluation Unit
IA
Implementing Agencies
IFC
International Finance Corporation
IW
International Waters
MP
Montreal Protocol
ODS
Ozone Depleting Substances
PIR
Project Implementation Review
PPR
Project Performance Review
SBSTTA
Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice
SMPR
Secretariat Managed Project Review
TE
Terminal Evaluation
TER
Terminal Evaluation Reviews
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
WB
World Bank
v

---

vi

---

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Project Performance Review (PPR) draws
Terminal Evaluations, which are carried out
on the findings of the 2002 Project Implemen-
by IAs, are primarily a tool for generating
tation Review (PIR), a monitoring process based
lessons from individual projects that might
upon reporting by the GEF Implementing Agen-
apply across the portfolio, but they are also
cies (IAs) on all projects under implementation
an accountability tool. Terminal Evaluation
for at least one year as of June 30, 2002. The
Reviews are conducted and implemented by
2002 PPR also incorporates findings, lessons,
the GEF M&E. The reviews assess project
and recommendations from two new instru-
adherence to the GEF's eight project review
ments used this year by the GEF Monitoring &
criteria. The 2002 PPR includes 18 TERs,
Evaluation Unit (GEF M&E): Secretariat Man-
covering all terminal evaluations submitted
aged Project Reviews (SMPRs) and Terminal
by IAs for fiscal year 2002.
Evaluation Reviews (TERs).1
Chapter I of this report describes the objec-
Under the PIR Implementing Agencies report
tives and the review process of the 2002 PPR.
on all projects and rate their project perfor-
Chapter II analyzes the active GEF portfo-
mance. Each IA prepares an overview of its GEF
lio, including financial information, through
portfolio, a summary emphasizing key lessons
June 30, 2002. Chapter III presents an over-
and trends to date, and individual reports for all
view of the projects included in the 2002 PIR,
ongoing full and medium-size projects. Projects
together with an analysis of PIR ratings and
are rated based on two factors: implementation
trends. Chapter IV describes the SMPRs and
progress and likelihood of attaining develop-
TERs. Chapter V synthesizes the principal
ment/global environment objectives.
findings and recommendations of this year's
project performance review. Supporting
The Secretariat Managed Project Review
documentation are attached as appendices.
(SMPR) is a new GEF M&E tool intended to
complement the PIR process, to enhance the
As of June 30, 2002, a total of 621 full and
PPR review and implement the GEF strategy
medium-size projects had been allocated
"Driving for Results".2 The SMPR is also a fol-
funding in approved GEF work programs.
low up on the recommendation from the Sec-
Additionally, 495 enabling activity projects
ond Overall Performance Study that the GEF
had been approved in biodiversity and climate
Secretariat strengthen its participation in regu-
change. Forty-one percent of these projects
lar project monitoring and evaluations. For its
are implemented by the World Bank, 40 per-
pilot year, the SMPR was led by the GEF M&E,
cent by UNDP, and 10 percent by UNEP,
in collaboration with and supported by GEF
while 10 percent have multiple implement-
Secretariat (GEF Secretariat) focal area teams,
ing agencies. The total funding for these
implementing agencies' (IAs) staff, and exter-
projects was US$3,671 million, of which 54
nal independent consultants. Fifteen projects
percent was implemented by the World Bank
were selected according to specific agreed cri-
projects, 29 percent by UNDP projects, 4
teria and reviewed.
percent by UNEP projects, and 13 percent by
1 In the past, implementing agency overviews have drawn information from terminal reports and evaluations. This year, the GEF M&E unit
has begun a systematic review of all Implementing Agency terminal evaluation reports for medium-size and full projects using the TER.
2 GEF/C.16/5. Driving for Results in the GEF: Streamlining and Balancing Project Cycle Management.
vii

---

projects with multiple implementing agen-
ture) increased from 333 days for the FY2001
cies.
to 362 days in FY2002, representing an increase
of 8 percent.
In terms of the growth of the overall GEF
Because the number of UNEP projects is lim-
portfolio (including enabling activities and
ited, only aggregated analysis is possible. There
project development funds), 46 full-size
has been a slight increase in UNEP's average
projects (FSPs), 52 medium-size projects
processing time for full-size projects, from 229
(MSPs) and 95 enabling activities (EAs) were
days in 2001 to 252 in 2002.
approved, for a total of US$394.57 million
in GEF funding, during fiscal year (FY) 2002.
Regarding the difference in processing time by
The breakdown by project type was
project type, full-size projects require 298 days,
US$321.90 million for FSPs, US$41.89 for
on average, to become effective, whereas a much
MSPs, and US$30.77 for EAs. This compares
shorter time is necessary for medium-size
with US$505.28 million approved for 54
projects (163 days) and enabling activities (148
FSPs, 33 MSPs, and 76 EAs in the previous
days).
fiscal year.
As the GEF portfolio matures, more projects
Cumulative disbursements for the entire GEF
enter the PIR process. The 2002 PIR includes
portfolio (including enabling activities and
272 ongoing projects that have been under
project development funds) increased during
implementation for at least one year by June
FY2002 to US$1,540 million, up from
30th, 2002. This number reflects the steady
US$1,224 million in the previous fiscal year.
growth of the portfolio under implementation,
Amounts disbursed for all GEF projects dur-
from 135 projects in 1999 to 2001's 205
ing FY2002 were US$295.3 million, thus
projects. This year, 67 projects entered the PIR,
continuing the upward trend in disbursements
which represents almost 25 percent of the total
that has been evidenced every year.
2002 PIR portfolio. Twenty-nine percent of the
biodiversity projects, 16 percent of the climate
For the past several years, the PPR has ana-
change projects, and 33 percent of the interna-
lyzed the time it takes for projects to go
tional waters projects were included in the PIR
through the steps involved in project prepa-
for the first time this year. At the same time, 21
ration. During FY2002, the elapsed time be-
projects (9 percent) were completed during
tween GEF Council and World Bank approval
FY2002, and have exited the PIR review pro-
significantly reduced in 2002. The twenty
cess.
new full-size projects received Bank approval
in an average of 409 days, reduced of 36 per-
In terms of ratings on the two measures of
cent compared with the average of 640 days
project performance--implementation progress
in 2001. This is the lowest average elapsed
and the likelihood of attaining development/glo-
time for several years. And, while the World
bal environment objectives--the World Bank
Bank has set a service standard of 4 months
uses a scale of highly satisfactory (HS), satis-
on average for all projects to progress from
factory (S) or unsatisfactory (U). It also uses a
board approval to project effectiveness, or
partially satisfactory (PS) rating for IFC
commencement, this period increased from
projects. UNDP and UNEP use the additional
159 days in FY2001 to 269 days in FY2002,
category of partially successful (PS), which was
the highest time ever recorded for World Bank
introduced in the 2001 PIR.
GEF projects.
Results of Ratings
In the case of UNDP, the average elapsed time
This year's PIR portfolio includes 23 projects
from GEF Council approval to the beginning
that were rated highly satisfactory on both their
of implementation (project agreement signa-
implementation progress and likelihood of
viii

---

achieving their development/ environmental
whether risks have been appropriately iden-
objectives. By focal area, there are 14
tified during preparation and mitigated dur-
biodiversity; four climate change, four interna-
ing implementation.
tional waters, and one multi-focal project among
this "highly satisfactory" group.
Projects examined as part of the 2002 SMPR
generally seem to be performing well in terms
A further 12 projects were rated highly satis-
of implementing partnership arrangements
factory on the likelihood of achieving their de-
with government departments, executing
velopment/environmental objectives, and
agencies, and private sector entities. How-
satisfactory in their implementation progress.
ever, all focal area task forces could, based
Seven projects were rated highly satisfactory on
on the PIR, cite examples of projects that,
implementation progress, but satisfactory on
during preparation, insufficiently assessed in-
likelihood of achieving their development/en-
stitutional capacity (local or national). The
vironmental objectives.
climate change task force specifically con-
cluded that projects do not focus enough on
This year's PIR portfolio includes eight projects
building capacities at the local and regional
that were rated unsatisfactory on both imple-
level during preparation, even though local
mentation progress and likelihood of achieving
authorities and municipalities are increas-
their development/environmental objectives. In
ingly becoming the key to project implemen-
addition, four projects were rated unsatisfactory
tation.
on the likelihood of achieving the development/
environmental objectives, and partially satisfac-
Several SMPRs noted that, during project
tory or satisfactory on implementation progress.
preparation, important comments to project
A further six projects were rated unsatisfactory
design by GEF Secretariat, GEF Council,
on implementation progress, but partially sat-
STAP and other agencies went unheeded.
isfactory or satisfactory on the likelihood of
During both design and implementation, IAs
achieving their development/environmental ob-
need to fully consider and integrate into the
jectives.
design of the project many useful comments
formally submitted by other GEF entities on
As noted, the 2002 Project Performance Report
project design documents. Finally, some
is a distillation of the results of the PIR, focal
projects exhibited poor identification and
area task forces, interagency meetings, and the
management of risks. The biodiversity task
various reviews that comprised this year's PPR
force found that design and unilateral imple-
process. The main findings and conclusions are
mentation by a particular ministry or institu-
focused on projects' implementation ap-
tion in isolation from other stakeholders is
proaches; sustainability and country ownership;
frequently a risk factor. Several projects in
stakeholder participation, including private sec-
this year's biodiversity portfolio are imple-
tor involvement; financial planning; cost effec-
mented by the ministry of environment with-
tiveness; and monitoring and evaluation.
out the involvement of other key ministries.
In the climate change focal area, inadequate
Implementation Approach
analysis of market risks and financial mod-
The assessment of the implementation approach
els has led to implementation problems in
focused on four primary issues: whether
several projects. Risks that were not antici-
changes to the project that have taken place since
pated during project preparation have some-
endorsement are consistent with GEF guide-
times seriously constrained project activities.
lines; whether the project design and approach
Systems and capacities among Implement-
to implementation address formal recommen-
ing Agencies to prevent these situations vary,
dations made during the project approval pro-
it is important to develop systems to identify
cess; the nature of project partnerships; and
emerging risks were systems are not in place.
ix

---

Sustainability and Country Ownership
cal demonstration activities, participatory stra-
Sustainability refers to factors that ensure
tegic action plans (SAPs), and external com-
continuation of project benefits after project
munications programs.
completion. Several GEF M&E studies have
analyzed sustainability within GEF projects,3
Beyond these examples, many projects are still
generally with a focus on f inancial
struggling with the issue of sustainability. Of-
sustainability. Despite projects that feature
ten, sustainability is not addressed early enough
aspects with a high likelihood of
in the implementation cycle, and even then at-
sustainability, the consensus is that GEF
taining sustainability within the typical GEF
projects are not doing enough to ensure the
project lifetime of 3 to 4 years is a daunting
sustainability of overall project outcomes and
challenge.
impacts.
Stakeholder Participation
Noteworthy efforts to ensure project finan-
Effective public involvement, particularly stake-
cial sustainability can be found in all the fo-
holder participation, is critical to the success of
cal areas. Among climate change projects,
GEF-financed projects. This year's PPR ana-
success has been achieved in creating demand
lyzes private sector engagement, as one aspect
for energy service companies' (ESCOs) ser-
of the overall stakeholder participation. The PPR
vices, applying microcredit business and fi-
concludes that effective participation, particu-
nance models for off-grid photovoltaics, and
larly in the biodiversity and international wa-
developing regulatory frameworks for small
ters projects, makes vital contributions to project
hydropower producers. Other projects have
achievement when it links global environmen-
used a variety of fee-based approaches to
tal protection efforts with local and national
achieve f inancial sustainability. In the
needs. However, the conclusions of the PIRs and
biodiversity focal area, projects have sought
task force discussions suggest that the extent
financial sustainability by experimenting
and depth of both stakeholder participation and
with variations of user fees and establishing
private sector partnerships vary considerably
conservation trust funds at either national or
across focal areas and regions and need consid-
individual protected areas, but there is much
erable enhancement.
room for improvement in financial arrange-
ments for biodiversity conservation, as a re-
Biodiversity projects incorporate local stake-
cent study commissioned by GEF M&E
holder participation into project planning and
concluded.4
implementation most frequently--an appropri-
ate strategy given the projects' potential effects
Using another approach to sustainability, sev-
on people whose livelihoods or basic needs de-
eral international waters projects are seeking
pend on local natural ressources. International
to incorporate project objectives and activi-
waters projects have shown an increasing ten-
ties in the regular operations of executing
dency to complement top-down multicountry
agencies, joint institutional arrangements, or
approaches with bottom-up approaches that in-
country institutions that are involved in the
clude stakeholder participation and demonstra-
project. Other IW projects are building strong
tion projects. The climate change focal area, has
constituencies and country commitment with
less examples of participatory approaches, but
a "bottom-up" approach to project planning
has a higher degree of private sector involve-
and implementation, including successful lo-
ment among GEF projects. Just as some projects
3 Focal areas program studies, OPSs, and thematic reviews on financial sustainability of biodiversity projects
4 Review of Financial Arrangements in the GEF Biodiversity projects (GEF/c.21/Inf.13).
x

---

have excelled in this area, the PPR finds a num-
examined. While cost effectiveness across the
ber of projects where the lack of stakeholder
portfolio can be broadly assessed, a lack of
participation has caused substantial problems
clear GEF Secretariat guidelines on cost ef-
and is likely to prevent projects from reaching
fectiveness allows dissimilar criteria and ap-
their objectives.
proaches to be applied, preventing reliable
conclusions from being drawn. For many
Financial Planning
projects, specially in biodiversity, the assess-
Financial planning encompasses changes in to-
ment of cost effectiveness was complicates.
tal estimated project costs, co-financing (includ-
ing monetary and in-kind contributions), the
Monitoring and Evaluation
choice of financial instruments, and the poten-
All the information sources used in the PPR
tial impact of financial changes on project ac-
indicate that the monitoring and evaluation
tivities. The main issues identified in this PPR
systems and components in projects are in
relate to co-financing, notably the lack of ap-
general not fully satisfactory. Nevertheless,
propriate reporting, which may have contributed
there are variations between projects which
to a few cases of extreme shortfalls in co-fi-
could point to further improvements.
nancing and subsequent problems to meet
project objectives.
At the project planning stage, strong M&E
systems are associated with simple overall
Among SMPR projects, co-financing has ex-
project designs whose objectives can be
ceeded the estimates at project approval. In ad-
achieved with the time and resources avail-
dition, PIRs and TERs indicated that several
able to the project. During implementation,
projects have proactively identified potential
strong M&E systems are evidenced by the
sources of co-financing and secured these con-
existence of monitoring staff and an adequate
tributions. Some projects also adapted to chang-
budget for monitoring activities. Poorly
ing circumstances, for example, by achieving
planned M&E systems tend to concentrate
anticipated co-financing levels despite national
on inputs and outputs, rather than progress
financial crises. One difficulty for reviewers is
towards objectives. For example, PIRs some-
the lack of consistent reporting on co-financ-
times report impacts without establishing the
ing. Many of the projects reviewed indicated
proper links between project outcomes and
that their financial plans and levels of co-fi-
the claimed impacts or simply provide too
nancing had changed since endorsement, but
little information to enable assessing impacts.
guidelines for reporting these changes are not
Projects also often lack reliable baseline in-
clear.
dicators for measuring--directly or indi-
rectly--project performance in areas such as
Cost Effectiveness
capacity building.
The PPR evaluates cost effectiveness by com-
paring a project's achievement of environmen-
On the basis of the evidence presented in the
tal and development objectives and its outputs
diverse sources that contributed to this review,
to inputs, costs, and implementation time.
it is clear that the overall role and impact of
Whenever possible, compliance with the con-
monitoring and evaluation in the project port-
cept and guidelines on incremental costs is also
folio needs to be strengthened.
xi

---

---

1. INTRODUCTION
The GEF Project Performance Report (PPR)
for three reasons: to complement the Project
has three objectives:
Implementation Review (PIR) process, to en-
hance the Portfolio Performance Review (PPR)
1. To provide a basis for decision-making on
and the GEF's "Driving for Results"6 strategy,
possible improvements to policies, strate-
and to follow up on an OPS2 recommendation
gies, program management, procedures,
that the GEF Secretariat should strengthen its
and projects
participation in regular evaluations and moni-
2. To promote accountability for resource use
toring activities of projects.
relative to objectives by participating coun-
tries, GEF Implementing Agencies, and ex-
Terminal Evaluation Reviews are conducted
ecuting agencies
and implemented by GEF M&E. They exam-
3. To document, provide feedback on, and
ine terminal evaluations, which are completed
disseminate results and lessons learned.
by IAs generally after project closure. Draw-
ing on the PIRs, Implementing Agencies' sum-
This PPR draws on the findings of the 2002
mary reports, SMPRs, and TERs, GEF M&E
Project Implementation Review (PIR), a moni-
prepared four papers, one for each focal area.
toring process based upon reporting by the GEF
These papers were the basis for reviews by the
Implementing Agencies (IAs) on all projects
GEF interagency task forces on biological di-
under implementation for at least one year as
versity, international waters, climate change,
of June 30, 2002. The 2002 PPR incorporates
and the phase out of ozone-depleting sub-
findings, lessons, and recommendations from
stances (ODS). Task forces seek to identify
two instruments used this year by the GEF
emerging issues across each focal area by draw-
Monitoring & Evaluation Unit (GEF M&E):
ing on PIRs, IAs' overviews, and task force
Secretariat Managed Project Reviews (SMPRs)
members' knowledge of their respective focal
and Terminal Evaluation Reviews (TERs).5
area portfolios. Following the focal area task
force reviews, which were conducted in late
Under the PIR, each implementing agency pre-
2002, an interagency meeting was held in
pared an overview of its GEF portfolio, a sum-
Washington, DC, on January 28­29, 2002 to
mary emphasizing key lessons and trends to
discuss the main findings and agree on a num-
date, and individual reports on all ongoing full
ber of recommendations.
and medium-size projects. The IAs also gave
each of their projects a rating on two grounds:
Chapter II of this report analyzes the active
implementation progress and the likelihood
GEF portfolio, including financial information,
that the project's global environmental objec-
through June 30, 2002. Chapter III presents an
tives would be reached.
overview of the projects included in the 2002
PIR, together with an analysis of PIR ratings
Secretariat Managed Project Reviews (SMPRs)
and trends. Chapter IV summarizes key find-
have been adopted as a GEF M&E modality
ings from the discussions of the four focal area
5 In the past, implementing agency overviews have drawn information from terminal reports and evaluations. This year, the GEF M&E unit
will begin a systematic review of all GEF funded medium-size and full projects using the TER.
6 GEF/C.16/5. Driving for Results in the GEF: Streamlining and Balancing Project Cycle Management.
1

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
task forces. Chapter V synthesizes the princi-
porting documentation is supplied in the ap-
pal thematic conclusions and recommendations
pendices.
of this year's project performance review. Sup-
2

---

II. GEF PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS
A. Overall GEF Portfolio
allocated to World Bank projects, 29 percent
to UNDP projects, 4 percent to UNEP projects,
As of June 30, 2002, a total of 621 full and
and 13 percent to projects with multiple Imple-
medium-size projects had been allocated fund-
menting Agencies. Additionally, 495 enabling
ing in approved GEF work programs. As shown
activity projects with a total worth of 183 mil-
in Table 1, 41 percent of these projects are
lion had been approved 336 of these activities
implemented by the World Bank, 40 percent
were implemented by UNDP, 101 by UNEP,
by UNDP, and 10 percent by UNEP, while 10
32 by the World Bank and 26 by multiple IAs.
percent have more than one implementing
agency. The total funding for these projects was
Table 2 shows the distribution by focal area of
US$3,671 million, of which 54 percent was
the GEF portfolio as of June 30, 2002. By
TABLE 1
GEF PROJECT ALLOCATIONS BY IMPLEMENTING AGENCY (AS OF JUNE 30, 2002)
FSPs
MSPs
Totals
Implementing
#
US$
#
US$
#
US$
Agency
Projects
Million
Projects
Million
Projects
(%)
Million
(%)
UNDP
180
1,003.87
66
52.89
246
40
1,056.76
29
UNEP
22
128.13
38
26.42
60
10
154.54
4
World Bank
190
1,930.18
66
51.64
256
41
1,981.82
54
Multiple IAs
54
474.22
5
4.12
59
10
478.34
13
Total
446
3,536.40
175
135.06
621
100
3,671.46
100
TABLE 2
GEF PROJECT ALLOCATIONS BY FOCAL AREA (AS OF JUNE 30, 2002)
FSPs
MSPs
Total Allocations
No. of
US$
No. of
US$
US$
Focal Area
Projects
Million
Projects
Million
%
Million
Biodiversity
185
1,324.23
106
82.50
38.32
1,406.73
Climate Change
161
1,304.07
39
29.55
36.32
1,333.62
International Waters
62
544.33
8
6.49
15.00
550.82
Ozone Depletion
17
166.15
5
3.77
4.63
169.92
Multiple Focal Areas
21
197.63
16
12.17
5.71
209.80
Persistent Organic
Pollutants
1
0.58
0.02
0.58
Total
446
3,536.40
175
135.06
100.00
3,671.46
3

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
value, 38 percent of the full and medium-size
proved for 54 FSPs, 33 MSPs, and 76 EAs in
project portfolio was allocated to the
the previous fiscal year.
biodiversity focal area, 36 percent to climate
change, 15 percent to international waters, six
Cumulative disbursements for the entire GEF
percent to ozone, and four percent to projects
portfolio (including enabling activities and
with multiple focal areas. The PIR 2002 shows
project development funds) increased during
the first inclusion in the portfolio of a persis-
FY 02 to US$1,540 million, up from US$1,224
tent organic pollutants project, which repre-
million in the previous fiscal year. Amounts
sents just 0.02 percent of the total portfolio
disbursed for all GEF projects during FY 02
value. Most of the enabling activities were in
were US$295.3 million, thus continuing the
the climate change focal area.
upward trend in disbursements that has been
evidenced every year.
B. Growth of Portfolio
and Disbursements
C. Time from Allocation
to Implementation
Figure 1 illustrates the growth of the overall
GEF portfolio (including enabling activities
Over the years, GEF Council members and
and project development funds) by amounts
others have expressed concern about the long
allocated, committed, and disbursed from the
preparation time for GEF projects, as well as
beginning of operations in June 1991 through
the lack of transparency and feedback during
June 2002, the total work program allocation
initial phases of the project cycle. This has been
as of June 30, 2002 was US$3,855.13 million.
addressed for some years in the PPR, by ana-
During FY 02, 46 full-size projects (FSP), 52
lyzing the time it takes projects to go through
medium-size projects (MSP) and 95 enabling
the steps involved in project preparation. It is
activities (EA) were approved, for a total of
nevertheless important to point out that the dif-
US$394.57 million in GEF funding. The value
ferences in the number of stages and milestones
breakdown was US$321.90 million for FSPs,
required by IAs account for some of the inter-
US$41.89 for MSPs, and US$30.77 for EAs.
agency variations in elapsed time.
This compares with US$505.28 million ap-
FIGURE 1
CUMULATIVE GEF PORTFOLIO ­ ALLOCATION, COMMITMENTS AND DISBURSEMENTS 1991-2002
5000.0
4000.0
3000.0
2000.0
$US Million
1000.0
0.0
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Fiscal Year
Disbursements (cumulative)
Approved commitments (cumulative)
Work program allocations (cumulative)
4

---

GEF Portfolio Analysis
For World Bank GEF projects, the elapsed time
For climate change, average elapsed times
between GEF Council and World Bank ap-
declined from 618 days in 2001 to 212 days
proval significantly improved in 2002. The
in 2002.
twenty new full-size projects received Bank
approval in an average of 409 days, an improve-
For international waters, there was a sig-
ment of 36 percent compared with the average
nificant reduction from 1,213 days (one
of 640 days in 2001. This is the lowest average
project only) in 2001 to 258 days in 2002.
elapsed time for several years.
For biodiversity projects, there was a re-
Looking at World Bank projects by region,
duction from 590 days to 535 days.
the Latin America and the Caribbean region
has the lowest number of elapsed days (266),
For the 10 MSPs approved in 2002, the aver-
and the Africa region has the highest (597
age elapsed time from Council to World Bank
days). There were two projects, one in East
approval rose from 106 days in 2001 to 120
Asia and the Pacific, the other in the Eastern
days in 2002.
and Central Asia region, for which manage-
ment approval took over 1,000 days, which dis-
The World Bank has set a service standard of
torted the average numbers for these regions.
4 months for the average elapsed time for all
The main reasons for the delays are that the
projects to progress from board approval to
Bank was seeking to establish more effective
project effectiveness (i.e., commencement).
coordinating mechanisms and because of a
However, this period rose from 159 days in
change in government, it also needed to se-
FY2001 to 269 days in FY2002, the highest
cure the new government's full commitment
time ever recorded for World Bank GEF
to the project.
projects. Factors contributing to the lengthy
delays in effectiveness included: complicated
There was an improvement in the average
legal processes for the approval of donor-
elapsed times from project approval to comple-
financed projects in some recipient countries;
tion:
problems meeting legal requirements set by the
FIGURE 2
AVERAGE TIME BETWEEN GEF ALLOCATION, COMMITMENT AND EFFECTIVE
WORLD BANK PROJECTS, BY FISCAL YEAR OF COMMITMENT
1500
1000
Days
500
0
FY92
FY93
FY94
FY95
FY96
FY97
FY98
FY99
FY00
FY01
FY02
Average time between GEF approval and commitment by World Bank
Average time between commitment (World Bank approval) and effectiveness
Average time between GEF approval and effectiveness
5

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
World Bank; and delays in finalizing institu-
ship and commitment by the host country and
tional arrangements7 . Eight World Bank MSPs
the establishment of a core project management
became effective in the FY2002. Their aver-
team by the project appraisal stage.
age elapsed time was 28 days, which was con-
siderably lower than the 46 days in FY2001.
In the case of UNDP (Figure 3), the average
The main characteristics of projects that be-
elapsed time from GEF Council approval to
came effective quickly included firm owner-
the beginning of implementation (project
FIGURE 3
AVERAGE TIME BETWEEN GEF APPROVAL AND PROJECT AGREEMENT SIGNATURE
FOR UNDP GEF PROJECTS, BY FISCAL YEAR OF PROJECT AGREEMENT SIGNATURE
1000
800
600
Days
400
200
0
FY92
FY93
FY94
FY95
FY96
FY97
FY98
FY99
FY00
FY01
FY02
FIGURE 4
AVERAGE PROCESSING TIME FROM GEF APPROVAL TO PROJECT INTERNALIZATION
FOR UNEP GEF PROJECTS, BY FISCAL YEAR
500
400
300
Days
200
100
0
92-94
95-96
97-98
99-00
2001-2002
Fiscal Year
7 Source: World Bank Group ­ Global Environment Facility, Project Implementation Review, FY02 Overview Report, page 11, paragraph 10.
6

---

GEF Portfolio Analysis
agreement signature) increased from 333 days
UNEP's average processing time, from 229
for the FY2001 to 362 days in FY2002. This
days for 2001 to 252 for 2002.
represents an increase of 8 percent.
The difference in processing time by project
Because the number of UNEP projects is lim-
type. While, on average, 298 days are neces-
ited, only aggregated analysis is possible. Fig-
sary for full-size projects to become effective,
ure 4 shows an overall trend in processing time
a much shorter time is necessary for medium-
for full projects, using data averaged by 2-year
size projects (163 days) and enabling activi-
periods. There has been a minor increase in
ties (148 days).
7

---

---

III. 2002 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW
A. Overview of Projects
With 75 active projects, or 28 percent of the
total, climate change is the second largest fo-
Covered in the PIR 2002
cal area in the 2002 PIR. UNDP accounts for
55 percent of this portfolio, while the Word
The 2002 PIR includes 272 ongoing projects
Bank and International Finance Corporation
that had been under implementation for at least
(IFC) total is 41 percent. UNEP, with three
one year by June 30th, 2002. This number re-
projects, has 4 percent. Twelve new climate
flects the steadily growing portfolio under
change projects entered the CC portfolio in
implementation, from 135 projects in 1999 to
2002, and 7 projects were completed.
205 in 2001. As the GEF portfolio matures,
more projects enter the PIR process. Table 3
The 2002 PIR portfolio includes 36 interna-
provides a breakdown by focal area and imple-
tional waters projects, 13 percent of all GEF
menting agency of the projects included in the
projects. This represents 12 projects more than
2002 PIR.
in the previous year's PIR, which is a reflec-
tion of the maturation of the GEF international
As in previous years, about half the projects
waters portfolio. Another 12 projects (4 per-
are in the biodiversity focal area representing
cent of the total) are in the ozone focal area.
53 percent of the portfolio. The World Bank
Four projects are in multiple focal areas.
implements 53 percent of the total of
biodiversity projects, followed by UNDP with
The table 4, shows the total GEF funding by
37 percent. UNEP and the Multiple IAs repre-
focal area and IA. Across the IAs, the World
sent 8 and 2 percent respectively. A total of 42
Bank represents 62 percent of the total GEF
biodiversity projects are included in the PIR
funding, followed by UNDP with 28 percent
process for the first time, and 11 were com-
and UNEP and Multiple IAs with 7 and 3 per-
pleted during 2002.
TABLE 3
2002 PIR PORTFOLIO BY FOCAL AREA (ONGOING PROJECTS)8
UNDP
UNEP
World Bank
Multi IAs
Total
(%)
Focal Area
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No. (%)
Biodiversity
54
11
77
3
145
53
Climate Change
41
3
31
75
28
International Waters
11
10
13
2
36
13
Ozone
8
2
2
12
4
Multiple
1
3
4
1
Total
115
26
126
5
272
100
8 Projects that are implemented by multiple agencies are counted under the multi-IA category, and are not counted under a single IA, to avoid
double counting.
9

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
TABLE 4
2002 PIR PORTFOLIO BY FOCAL AREA (ONGOING PROJECTS)
UNDP
UNEP
World Bank
Multi IAs
Total
(%)
GEF
GEF
GEF
GEF
GEF
GEF
Funding
Funding
Funding
Funding
Funding
Funding
Focal Area
(US$)
(US$)
(US$)
(US$)
(US$)
(%)
Biodiversity
208.90
45.70
438.10
26.20
718.90
47
Climate Change
122.43
9.29
343.64
475.36
31
International Waters
64.55
43.80
110.95
27.40
246.70
16
Ozone
24.44
1.36
49.24
75.04
5
Multiple
3.51
17.99
21.50
1
Total
423.83
100.15
959.92
53.60
1,537.50
100
(%)
28%
7%
62%
3%
100%
cent respectively. Among the focal areas,
for the first time this year. At the same time,
Biodiversity has 47 percent of the total GEF
21 projects (9 percent) were completed during
funding, Climate Change represents 31 percent
this PIR period, and have exited the review pro-
and IW accounts for 16 percent. Ozone and
cess.
multiple focal areas projects represents 5 and
1 percent.
Table 6 shows the distribution of the 2002 PIR
portfolio by region. It shows that the largest
Overall, 67 projects are included in the PIR
number of projects (25 percent of the total) is
for the first time in 2002 (see Table 5). This
in Latin America and the Caribbean, followed
represents almost 25 percent of the total 2002
by Africa (19 percent), East Asia and the Pa-
PIR portfolio. Twenty-nine percent of the
cific (16 percent), Eastern and Central Asia (15
biodiversity projects, 16 percent of the climate
percent), the Middle East and North Africa (10
change projects, and 33 percent of the interna-
percent), and South Asia (6 percent). Another
tional waters projects were included in the PIR
8 percent were global or regional projects.
TABLE 5
THE 2002 PIR PORTFOLIO
Number
Percentage
New in
Number
Focal Areas
of Projects
of Portfolio
2002 PIR
Completed
Biodiversity
145
53
42
11
Climate Change
75
28
12
7
International Waters
36
13
12
3
Ozone
12
4
1
Multiple
4
1
Total
272
100
67
21
10

---

2002 Project Implementation Review
TABLE 6
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF 2002 PIR PROJECTS
Climate
International
Multi-
2002
Region
Biodiversity
Change
Waters
Ozone
Focal
Total
(%)
Africa
40
9
3
52
19
East Asia &
Pacific
26
14
4
44
16
Europe &
Central Asia
9
12
9
12
42
15
Global
6
8
6
2
22
8
Latin America &
Caribbean
47
13
6
2
68
25
Middle East &
North Africa
10
10
8
28
10
South Asia
7
9
16
6
Total
145
75
36
12
4
272
100
The regional distribution varies by focal area.
and global projects each have 17 percent of the
In biodiversity, almost two-thirds of the projects
international waters portfolio, while the East
are split between Latin America and the Car-
Asia and Pacific accounts for 11 percent and
ibbean and Africa (32 percent and 28 percent,
Africa for 8 percent.
respectively), followed by East Asia and the
Pacific (17 percent). The Middle East and
In accordance with the GEF mandate, all of
North Africa and Eastern and Central Asia re-
the ozone projects are in Europe and Central
gions have only 6 and 7 percent of the projects
Asia.
respectively, while South Asia and global
projects account for about 5 percent each.
Figure 5 shows how the distribution of projects
by region has been changing in the last 3 years.
In climate change, the distribution of projects
Projects in the East Asia and Pacific, Latin
among the regions is fairly balanced. The East
America and Caribbean, and Middle East and
Asia and the Pacific region has 19 percent;
North Africa regions have all increased, from
Latin America and the Caribbean, 17 percent;
between 1 to 6 percent, since 2000; however,
Europe and Central Asia, 16 percent; the
for the same period, projects in the Africa, East-
Middle East and North Africa, 13 percent; Af-
ern and Central Asia, and South Asia regions
rica and South Asia have 12 each, while global
as well as global projects have declined from
projects account for 10 percent.
between 1 to 4 percent.
For international waters, the regional distribu-
tion follows still another pattern. Europe and
B. Ratings
Central Asia account for 25 percent of the to-
tal number of projects, followed by 22 percent
The PIR is a monitoring tool that relies on each
for the Middle East and North Africa region.
implementing agency to report and rate project
The Latin America and the Caribbean region
performance. The following tables present the
11

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
FIGURE 5
REGIONAL PERCENTAGE OF GEF PROJECTS IN PIR OVER YEARS (2000­2002)
30
25
25
23
22
20
20
19
17 17
16
15
15
Percentage
12
11
10
10
10 10
10 10
10
10
9
8
6
5
0
AFR
EAP
ECA
LAC
MENA
SA
Global
Regions
2000
2001
2002
ratings for implementation progress and meet-
implementation progress and likelihood of at-
ing development/global environmental objec-
taining development/global environment objec-
tives by focal area and implementing agency.
tives. The World Bank rated its projects as
highly satisfactory (HS), satisfactory (S) or
As shown above, the Implementing Agencies
Unsatisfactory (U). The World Bank also uses
rated their projects according to two criteria:
a partially satisfactory (PS) rating for IFC
TABLE 7
RATINGS ON IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS
Ratings on Implementation Progress
Highly
Partially
Not
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Rated
Total
%
%
%
%
%
%
Biodiversity
14
71
5
7
3
100
Climate Change
9
69
8
5
8
100
International Waters
14
78
6
3
100
Multiple
100
100
Total
12
72
6
6
4
100
UNDP
10
69
11
4
6
100
UNEP
20
72
4
0
4
100
World Bank
13
75
2
9
1
100
Multiple IAs
0
100
0
0
0
100
Total
12
72
6
6
4
100
12

---

2002 Project Implementation Review
TABLE 8
RATINGS ON DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
Ratings on Development Objectives
Highly
Partially
Not
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Rated
Total
%
%
%
%
%
%
Biodiversity
13
74
5
5
3
100
Climate Change
8
72
9
3
8
100
International Waters
22
69
3
3
3
100
Multiple
0
100
0
0
0
100
Total
13
73
6
4
5
100
UNDP
11
67
12
3
7
100
UNEP
32
60
0
0
8
100
World Bank
11
80
2
6
1
100
Multiple IAs
0
100
0
0
0
100
Total
13
73
6
4
5
100
projects. The two UN agencies use the addi-
1999 to 2002. The GEF M&E unit does not
tional category of partially successful (PS),
have the opportunity to assess the accuracy of
which was introduced in the 2001 PIR. Figure
the ratings.
7 shows the trends in PIR project ratings from
FIGURE 6
TRENDS IN PIR PROJECT RATINGS DEVELOPMENT
80
76
72
70
64
61
60
50
40
29
30
% of PIR Portfolio
24
20
13
12
10
7
9
6
6
6
6
3
4
2
0
0
0
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
HS S PS U NR
13

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
Projects with highly satisfactory ratings
being adopted by other countries in Latin
in the PIR. This year's PIR portfolio includes
America. Stakeholders have been involved
23 projects that were rated highly satisfactory
by providing local knowledge on tradi-
in both their implementation progress and like-
tional uses, which are then incorporated
lihood of achieving their development/environ-
into the management plans. Through this
mental objectives. A further 12 projects were
project, 10 additional wetlands were in-
rated highly satisfactory in their likelihood of
cluded in the Ramsar list. In addition, the
achieving their development/environmental ob-
project identified 81 additional wetlands
jectives, and satisfactory in their implementa-
that are under special management and
tion progress. Seven projects were rated highly
conservation. Furthermore, plans to drain
satisfactory in their implementation progress,
some interior wetlands were canceled due
but satisfactory in the likelihood of achieving
to the intervention and recommendations
their development/environmental objectives.
of this project.
The distribution by agency of the 23 projects
In climate change, projects that were rated
that were rated highly satisfactory on both cri-
highly satisfactory include:
teria is: UNDP, nine; UNEP, four; and the World
Bank, 10. The distribution by focal area is
China Barrier Removal for the Widespread
biodiversity, 14; climate change, four; interna-
Commercialization of Energy-Efficient,
tional waters, four; and multi-focal, one.
CFC-free Refrigerators in China, under
which manufacturers of home appliances
In biodiversity, some projects that were rated
have considerably reduced (by as much as
highly satisfactory include:
40 percent) the energy use of their prod-
ucts compared to the prevailing standard.
The Development of Best Practices and
They also have considerably increased
Dissemination of Lessons Learned for
sales of these energy-efficient products,
Dealing with the Global Problems of Alien
resulting in the prevention of 100 million
Species That Threaten Biological Diversity
tons of CO equivalents being emitted.
2
project succeeded in generating best prac-
tices to prevent, control, and eradicate alien
In the Sri Lanka Energy Services Delivery
species that threaten biodiversity. The
Project, grid-connected mini-hydro capac-
project produced various publications, in-
ity has risen by 3,000 percent to 30 MW in
cluding a Toolkit of Best Prevention and
4 years. The project has promoted the adop-
Management Practices for Invasive Alien
tion of tariff policies favorable to its ob-
Species, and developed a Global Invasive
jectives by working closely with the
Species Database. The project, through the
government. Private company sales of so-
GISP (Global Invasive Species Program),
lar home systems have increased from less
contributed to discussions on the alien spe-
than 30 systems per month to 1,300 sys-
cies issue at the CBD/SBSTTA.
tems per month in 3 years and capacity
building activities have led to the creation
In Wetland Priorities for Conservation Ac-
of several energy service companies
tion in Ecuador, the project collected data
(ESCOs).
on wetland in three regions: coastal, inte-
rior coastal, and Galapagos. The project de-
In international waters, a project that was
veloped a methodology for identifying and
rated highly satisfactory was:
characterizing wetlands and developing
management plans. This methodology was
The Global Removal of Barriers to the Ef-
accepted by the Ramsar Convention and is
fective Implementation of Ballast Water
14

---

2002 Project Implementation Review
Control and Management Measures in De-
rated unsatisfactory due to the reported lack
veloping Countries (GloBallast), under
of government commitment to meet its obliga-
which pilot countries have established pro-
tions under the Ramsar Convention and to
cedures for collecting ballast water report-
implement corrective measures in a timely
ing forms from vessels visiting their
manner (the development of the Kulevi oil ter-
demonstration ports. The data is used for
minal within the protected area). There also
risk assessments. Participating countries
seems to be mounting pressure to begin peat
are implementing national ballast water
exploitation in a national park. The Syria Con-
management plans and extending the pro-
servation of Biodiversity and Protected Areas
cedures to other ports.
Management project was rated unsatisfactory
due to significant governance, institutional,
Projects with unsatisfactory ratings in the
financial management, and procurement is-
PIR. This year's PIR portfolio includes eight
sues. The Zimbabwe Park Rehabilitation and
projects that were rated unsatisfactory on both
Conservation project continues to be rated un-
implementation progress and likelihood of
satisfactory due to the political situation and
achieving their development/environmental ob-
the World Bank's decision to suspend all dis-
jectives. In addition, four projects were rated
bursement to the country.
unsatisfactory on the likelihood of achieving
the development/environmental objectives, and
One project in climate change (compared to
partially satisfactory or satisfactory in their
none in the 2001 PIR), the Global Renewable
implementation progress. A further six projects
Energy and Energy Efficiency Fund project,
were rated unsatisfactory in their implementa-
was rated unsatisfactory on both counts be-
tion progress, but partially satisfactory or sat-
cause the energy efficiency private equity fund,
isfactory in the likelihood of achieving their
whose creation was the project's objective, had
development/environmental objectives.
a lower than expected return, which caused
investors to withdraw their funds. This was at-
In the case of biodiversity, six projects were
tributed to the deterioration of market condi-
rated unsatisfactory on both counts, compared
tions and a trend towards disinvestments in the
with four such projects in the 2001 PIR. The
private power sector.
Sri Lanka Conservation of Biodiversity
Through Integrated Collaborative Management
One project in the international waters focal
in the Rekawa, Usangoda, and Kalametiya
area, the Lake Victoria Environment project,
Coastal Ecosystems project was rated unsatis-
was rated unsatisfactory on both counts. This
factory because of limited achievements and
rating was specifically attributed to the project's
delays in implementation reportedly caused by
Kenya portion, which faced problems related
national elections and subsequent staff turn-
to procurement, financial management, lack of
over in relevant state institutions. The Philip-
annual audits, and repeated delay of fund flows
pines Conservation of Priority Protected Areas
to the field level.
project was rated unsatisfactory because of
continuing implementation problems; the
Ozone Depletion. Most countries are in com-
project was closed at the end of FY02. Its pro-
pliance with the Montreal Protocol (MP) and
curement and financial management practices
the Conference of the Parties (CP), although
are currently under investigation by the World
not all countries have achieved full phase-out.
Bank. The Madagascar Environment Project
Poland achieved 100% phase out of Chlori-
II was rated as unsatisfactory because of slow-
nated Fluorcarbons (CFCs), which made it fully
down of implementation after the December
compliant with the MP regarding these sub-
2001 presidential elections. The Georgia Inte-
stances. Belarus , achieved full phase-out of
grated Coastal Zone Management project was
Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) in the
15

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
household refrigerator manufacturing sector
UNEP's regional ODS projects are different
and the solvent sector. Estonia, Kazakhstan,
from the national activities. They promote re-
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are on track for full
gional networking and sharing of knowledge.
phase-out of Annex A and B substances be-
They also address the important transboundary
tween 2002-2004.
issue of illegal trade in ODS which continues
to be an important issue for Countries with
Countries experiencing difficulty in comply-
Economies in Transition (CEITs). They face
ing with original or revised schedules are
national legal problems (such as import duty
mostly Newly Independent States. Azerbaijan
avoidance through smuggling) as well as com-
is not in compliance with CFC phase-out deci-
pliance issues with the MP. There is no official
sion X/20, which scheduled full phase out for
reporting on detected illegal trade or estimated
January 1st, 2003. Turkmenistan has proposed
black market trade, because the Montreal Pro-
a new phase-out schedule, because it could not
tocol (MP) gives no guidance on the issue.
achieve the schedule outlined in MOP XI/25.
Despite widespread adoption of ODS trade and
Latvia expected full phase-out in 2001, but this
licensing rules (under the UNEP project), the
has not yet been confirmed. Lithuania, was on
project's impact on illegal trade remains un-
track for compliance by 2001, but numbers
known. Other PIR reports confirm that ODS
have not been reported to the Ozone Secretariat
smuggling continues in large countries such as
and one subproject was found to be unsuccess-
India and China. Establishing an inter-agency
ful due to a company bankruptcy.
task force on ozone would be helpful to set the
direction for future GEF activities in the ozone
focal area.
16

---

IV. SECRETARIAT MANAGED PROJECT
REVIEWS AND TERMINAL EVALUATION
REVIEWS
A. SMPR
performance against the eight GEF criteria
considered in the SMPR questionnaire. The
The overall purpose of the SMPR is to assess
SMPR criteria are different from those of the
whether projects are implemented in confor-
PIR, and the ratings are not directly compa-
mity with project objectives and GEF policies,
rable. Two of the climate change projects were
standards, and procedures, especially concern-
rated partially satisfactory and three satisfac-
ing attainment of global environmental benefits
tory, while six out of the seven biodiversity
and incorporation of lessons learned to improve
SMPRs were rated partially satisfactory or
portfolio quality. In addition, the SMPR pro-
unsatisfactory (see the next chapter on portfo-
vides added assurance to the GEF Council and
lio highlights). In international waters, two
other partners that GEF is moving forward in
projects were rated satisfactory and one highly
implementing its "Driving for Results" strat-
satisfactory according to the SMPR criteria.
egy. The SMPR was conducted as a pilot exer-
The panels concluded that projects reviewed
cise during the 2002 calendar year. GEF M&E
in 2002 have performed best overall in ensur-
led the exercise with support from and in col-
ing stakeholder participation and country own-
laboration with GEF Secretariat focal area
ership, but are facing significant challenges in
teams, Implementing Agencies' (IAs) staff, and
the areas of sustainability, replicability, and the
external independent consultants. The SMPR
development of adequate M&E systems to
was intended to be complementary to the ex-
measure project outcomes. More detailed in-
isting review, monitoring, and evaluation
formation on the SMPR findings and lessons
mechanisms of the IAs and GEF M&E. Its
is provided in a GEF Council document, GEF
implementation was coordinated with the IAs'
Secretariat Managed Project Review (GEF/
existing monitoring and evaluation efforts, and
c.21/Inf.7).
field visits were made in conjunction with the
IAs' midterm reviews. The modality used for
implementing the SMPR in the pilot phase was
B. TER
the review of 15 projects selected according to
specific agreed criteria. While this sample is
Terminal evaluation reviews have accountabil-
not statistically representative, the SMPRs en-
ity functions and are tools for learning lessons
abled a deeper review of key issues in GEF
during individual projects that might apply
projects and yielded findings relevant to the
across the portfolio. The reviews examine the
PPR.
terminal evaluations completed by Implement-
ing Agencies to assess project performance in
Of the 15 SMPRs that were carried out during
reference to objectives, using the eight GEF
2002, seven were biodiversity projects, five
project review criteria. Given the fact that the
were climate change projects, and three were
GEF M&E unit and IAs are just in the process
international waters projects. Panels participat-
of developing terminal evaluation guidelines,
ing in this year's SMPR provided an overall
this year's TERs were not expected to fully
rating of the projects, based on the projects'
address all GEF review criteria. Terminal evalu-
17

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
ations are a major tool for generating lessons,
ering all terminal evaluations submitted by IAs
but also contribute to the accountability of re-
for the fiscal year ending in June 30, 2002.
source use within the IAs and for the GEF
TERs did not rate projects. The results of the
Council. The 2002 PPR includes 18 TERs, cov-
TERs are included in Chapter V.
18

---

V. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
This section brings together, under the GEF
project appraisal, they have frequently been
review criteria, the main findings and conclu-
underestimated or the strategies intended to
sions from the PIR, focal area task forces, in-
cope with them have proved inadequate. There-
teragency meetings, and the various reviews
fore, many risks identified at the project prepa-
that comprised the PPR process.
ration stage have later materialized, causing
severe problems for project implementation.
All focal area task forces could cite examples
A. Implementation
of inaccurate projects assumptions during their
Approach
preparation phase. One refers to the assump-
tion that there is sufficient institutional capac-
The assessment of the implementation ap-
ity (local or national) to carry out the project.
proach focuses on whether changes that have
For example, some biodiversity projects have
taken place since project endorsement are con-
decided to concentrate on achieving their ob-
sistent with GEF guidelines; whether the imple-
jective by providing the most effective short-
mentation approach adequately addressed
term implementation arrangements, without
formal recommendations made during the
making local capacity building a specific ac-
project approval process; the nature of project
tivity or objective.
partnerships; and whether risks have been ap-
propriately identified during preparation and
Climate Change. The climate change task
mitigated during implementation.
force also concluded that projects do not give
sufficient attention to building capacities at the
1. Partnership arrangements
local and regional level during preparation,
Projects examined as part of the 2002 SMPR
even though local authorities/municipalities are
generally seem to be performing well with re-
increasingly becoming the key to project
gard to implementation of partnership arrange-
implementation. Projects that are implemented
ments with government departments, executing
through municipalities seem to face unique
agencies, and private sector entities. The Imple-
challenges. For example, under the Russia's
mentation of the Integrated Watershed Man-
Capacity Building to Reduce Key Barriers to
agement Practices of the Pantanal and Upper
Energy Efficiency in Russian Residential
Paraguay River Basin project provides a good
Building and Heat Supply project, operation,
example of close coordination and partnership
investment, and tariff issues are all the respon-
between the National Water Agency (ANA),
sibility of municipalities. This is almost always
various state and local government bodies, and
the case for district heating/hot water projects
the project management unit. Co-financing
in Central and Eastern European countries.
contributions have exceeded estimates at
Consequently, most district heating projects
project approval, and several of this project's
work with municipal bodies and try to estab-
activities have been incorporated into the gov-
lish positive demonstration cases for a re-
ernments' budget.
formed, energy-efficient system with higher
cost recovery. But a municipality's financial
2. Identification, assumptions and
strength and autonomy is frequently limited,
mitigation of risks
and municipalities are often subject to finan-
Some projects exhibited poor management of
cial and institutional constraints, as well as high
risks. Even where risks were identified during
political pressure to maintain social equity. The
19

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
projects try to overcome these constraints by
Biodiversity. The biodiversity task force found
developing and implementing integrated tech-
that design and implementation by a particu-
nical and institutional solutions, which improve
lar ministry or institution in isolation from other
the utility's heat service, cost recovery, and
stakeholders is frequently a risk factor. Sev-
management capacity. The Bulgaria Energy
eral projects in this year's biodiversity portfo-
Efficiency Strategy to Mitigate Greenhouse
lio are implemented by the relevant ministry
Gas Emissions project also highlights some
of environment without the involvement of
specific challenges of working with munici-
other key ministries. A specific problem en-
palities. This project has formed a Municipal
countered by several projects is that the broader
Energy Efficiency Network in which 148 mu-
national development agenda (for example with
nicipalities are presently involved. Such a net-
regard to infrastructure, structural adjustment,
work can function as a prime vehicle for policy
and regulatory frameworks) overrides the con-
change, replication, and capacity building and
servation objectives supported by GEF
contribute towards increased sustainability of
projects. In Vietnam (Creating Protected Ar-
project impacts. For example, the network de-
eas for Resource Conservation using Land-
scribed above contributed directly to the ini-
scape Ecology, implemented by UNDP), the
tial floating of an energy-efficiency bond in
government has begun construction of a dam
one of its member cities to pay for municipal
outside of the Na Hang Protected Area, but
lighting retrofits to more efficient, newer light-
inside the project site, which will affect the
ing sources. Nevertheless, the project as a
protected area by inundating most of the low-
whole faces problems due to limited munici-
lying areas. While the low-lying areas account
pal financial self-governance and fiscal decen-
for a small proportion of the total area, and are
tralization as well as policy and institutional
largely agricultural land, the potential influence
factors at the federal level that affect the ca-
of the large number of construction workers
pacity of municipalities to influence such
and the destination of communities to be relo-
changes.
cated due to flooding is unknown. The govern-
ment has also begun upgrading a major
In the climate change focal area, inadequate
communication link between southern and
analysis of market risks and financial models
northern Vietnam and is considering one route
has led to implementation problems in several
for this link that would pass through the Yok
projects. The Indonesia Solar Home Systems
Don National Park supported by the GEF. No
Project, for example, is not achieving even its
decision on the road has been made yet. Among
scaled-down objectives, largely because of
the institutions selected to participate in imple-
macroeconomic difficulties facing the coun-
menting the GEF project, there were no repre-
try. The World Bank, cognizant of the extent to
sentatives of the ministries responsible for the
which macroeconomic factors are affecting the
abovementioned national development efforts.
project, is considering the project's early clo-
sure. Another common problem is that aspects
Similarly, in the case of Cambodia (Biodiversity
identified in the logical framework as risks
and Protected Areas Management Pilot Project
should be regarded as issues to be addressed
for the Virachey National Park, implemented
by the project. For example, the appropriate-
by the World Bank), the government has re-
ness of a particular demonstration site and the
cently initiated the process of allocating for-
level of local implementation capacity should
est-logging concessions around the country.
be considered as part of the project design.
One of these concessions is located within the
"Risks" should be factors external to the project
boundaries of the Virachey National Park
intervention framework and beyond the
project (although outside the park itself). These
project's immediate control.
and other cases highlight the dual roles--GEF
20

---

Findings and Conclusions
project implementers and development agen-
the GEF should not move away from high-risk
cies--that IAs may play in such situations. This
projects altogether, since these may offer un-
review suggests that GEF IAs should pay in-
usually large environmental gains.
creased attention to their potential role as bro-
kers in the environment and development
agendas. In Peru, several World Bank
3. Attention during preparation to
biodiversity projects have been affected by
comments made at proposal stage
weaknesses and constraints in the overarching
Several SMPRs noted that, during project
environmental institution. The biodiversity task
preparation, comments about project propos-
force questioned the wisdom of allowing min-
als by IAs other than the sponsoring IA, GEF
istries of environment to act as lead institutions
Secretariat, GEF Council and STAP were given
in implementing biodiversity projects where
insufficient attention. Such issues sometimes
the ministries have a weak mandate and poor
remained unresolved or, in a few cases, actu-
capacity. It is imperative that the sectoral min-
ally worsened during implementation. This in-
istries in agriculture, forestry, and natural re-
dicates that these projects did not fully
sources, as well as ministries of finance and
incorporate the recommended changes. The
planning also support biodiversity projects.
PPR review process also identified weaknesses
Risks that emerge during implementation.
Risks that could have not been anticipated dur-
ing project preparation have at times seriously
Box 2
constrained project activities. To prevent these
The World Bank's projects-at-risk system
situations, it is important to develop systems
The Bank's projects-at-risk system is a tool
to identify emerging risks. Once risks have
used for early identification of those opera-
been identified, they must be monitored and
tions where self-assessment (of project per-
carefully managed, so that the project will be
formance) by task managers may be too op-
able to quickly adapt to any new circumstances.
timistic, and influenced more by hope more
For example, the World Bank assesses project
than objective judgment. It is an early warn-
risks using a risk flag and index system that
ing of possible failure. The concept tries to
measures whether unsatisfactory projects are
go below current, and visible, ratings to un-
also projects at risk and whether these projects
cover the picture underneath. There are two
have improved (see Box 2). In the East Asia
types of at-risk projects: projects graded as
and the Pacific region, for example, manage-
problems based on the latest Project Super-
ment has responded to the risks identified by
vision Reports ratings, that is, projects rated
this system by (a) encouraging clients to seek
unsatisfactory on implementation progress
longer term assistance that can progressively
or on their progress toward achieving devel-
build capacity; (b) setting more modest objec-
opment objectives, and projects graded as
potential problems based on the presence
tives and allowing more time to achieve them;
of at least three of 12 leading indicators of
and (c) building more flexibility into project
future problems in such areas as financial
designs to adapt to evolving conditions. In Peru,
performance, M&E, project management,
the system identified overarching institutional
and country environment. Each of the 12 in-
weaknesses in a national agency executing sev-
dicators is a "flag" pointing toward final out-
eral GEF projects. In response, the World Bank
comes. Being "at risk" does not ordain a
moved routine project administration to an in-
negative outcome. In fact, the primary pur-
stitution with stronger administrative capaci-
pose of this classification is to bring added
ties and is planning to contract the majority of
managerial attention to such projects to help
field activities to be carried out during the rest
prevent unsatisfactory outcomes.
of the project. It is important to point out that
21

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
in GEF guidelines on how to deal with funda-
ment a project and that which a project is
mental changes in projects during implemen-
intended to develop.
tation. Furthermore, Implementing Agencies
do not always send the final project document
IAs will retrofit logframes to projects that
negotiated with countries to the GEF Secre-
have at least 2 years of implementation
tariat, making it difficult for GEF Secretatiat
time remaining and whose original
to have a precise picture of the activities it sup-
logframes are inadequate. Logframes
ports. Replication is another area that requires
should also be retrofitted for projects that
more attention during project preparation and
are undergoing significant changes during
implementation. Project approaches to repli-
implementation.
cation are often vague, and few PIRs report on
such activities.
The M&E unit, in cooperation with the
GEF Secretariat and IAs, will identify
4. Logical frameworks
weaknesses in the use of the logframe, will
The logical frameworks (logframes) for all 18
document good practices in preparing logi-
projects examined during terminal evaluation
cal frameworks, and on this basis, and
reviews were found to be weak. Many failed to
drawing on the lessons and accomplish-
establish a consistent logical strategy with a
ments of partner agencies, and will orga-
clear link between inputs/activities, outputs,
nize learning events that address the
and objectives. A common weakness was the
identified weaknesses.
absence of measurable or verifiable indicators.
GEF Secretariat should re-examine the
5. Conclusions on implementation approach
project review criteria on replication and
make them more prominent in the review
IAs need to take into account more fully--
process.
during design and implementation--com-
ments formally submitted by other GEF
entities on project design documents.
B. Sustainability and
Country Ownership
Project preparation should distinguish be-
tween root causes and identified project
Sustainability refers to factors that ensure con-
risks and develop risk mitigation strategies,
tinuation of project benefits after completion
as well as systems to monitor risks more
of project implementation, within or outside
carefully during implementation. Financial
the project domain. The issue of sustainability
and country-level risks affecting the project
within the context of GEF projects has been
should also be monitored.
analyzed in several GEF M&E studies.9 Dis-
cussion has usually focused on f inancial
During preparation there is a need to prop-
sustainability. Other factors contributing to
erly assess institutional and partner capac-
sustainability include building country owner-
ity at local and national levels and, in
ship and mainstreaming project activities or
relevant sectors, to give more attention to
objectives in the operations of government and
building capacity at the local level. There
partner agencies. The general consensus is that,
should be a clear distinction between the
even though some aspects of projects might
capacity required to successfully imple-
have a high likelihood of sustainability, GEF
9 Focal areas program studies, OPSs, and thematic reviews on financial sustainability of biodiversity projects
22

---

Findings and Conclusions
projects are not doing enough to ensure the
lution of its business and policy models for both
sustainability of overall project outcomes and
off-grid and on-grid renewable energy.
impacts.
Microcredit business and finance models for
The discussion on sustainability in this year's
off-grid PV and regulatory frameworks for
PPR provided several examples of projects that
small hydropower producers both appear highly
are trying to promote sustainability by estab-
sustainable. The Bolivia project continues to
lishing appropriate financial mechanisms,
design and experiment with new business and
mainstreaming project activities within execut-
financing models, since funds are no longer
ing and Implementing Agencies, influencing
available from the Popular Participation Law10 .
policy frameworks, and/or disseminating
These efforts appear highly motivated and de-
knowledge.
signed to promote sustainability. For example,
the project tried to increase affordability by
1. Accomplishments in financial
attracting end-user credit from micro finance
sustainability of GEF activities
institutions (which in turn received credit from
There are several good examples of projects
a bank) without the use of Popular Participa-
seeking to develop the financial sustainability
tion Law funds. The India Renewable Re-
of project benefits. The Côte d'Ivoire Energy
sources Development project provides an
Efficiency Market Development project (World
example of financial sustainability achieved by
Bank) focused on sustainability from the start.
transforming the PV and wind power markets
The project took a holistic approach by seek-
in India (see Box 3).
ing to create a demand for energy service com-
panies' (ESCOs) services, supply those
Other projects have helped introduce a variety
services, and increase the availability of financ-
of fee-based approaches to f inancial
ing to support the services. Four new ESCOs
sustainability. Under the Gulf of Aqaba Envi-
have been created and relationships have been
ronmental Action Plan (Jordan), cost recovery
established between them, their clients, and
mechanisms have been put in place to assist in
their financiers. A revolving fund established
promoting the financial sustainability of pro-
under the project serves as a funder of last re-
tected areas and environmental protection.
sort, and many projects have been financed
These include marine park fees (diving fees,
without revolving fund assistance. However,
visitor fees, and beach facility fees), issuance
when this project was reviewed as part of the
of permits (air emission permits, cooling wa-
2002 SMPR, the panel was concerned that the
ter discharge permits, resource user fees for
interest rate of the revolving fund is not being
import/export), and fines for environmental
gradually increased to market levels and that
damages, including industrial pollution and oil
private financial institutions are rarely involved
spills. All revenue from these fees and fines
in sub-project financing. Both the Sri Lanka
will be earmarked for the Department of Envi-
Energy Services Delivery and the Bolivia Ru-
ronment, Regulation, and Enforcement.
ral Electrification with Renewable Energy
o
The Philippines Conservation of Priority
Through Popular Participation Law projects
Protected Areas project (CPPAP) has experi-
demonstrate strong attention to f inancial
mented with an interesting variation of user
sustainability by project management. The Sri
fees, including requiring peasant farmers in
Lanka project continually promoted the evo-
park buffer zones to pay fees for keeping pigs
10 The expected subsidies from the Popular Participation Law were not available to private service providers, as had been expected when the
project was designed.
23

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
Box 3
Using renewable energy market transformations to achieve sustainability
The India Renewable Resources Development (IREDA) project is a good example of market trans-
formation to promote the adoption of renewable energy for rural electrification in a sustainable way.
This has been achieved through rural PV financing, as well as through private sector development
of investments in renewable energy. The project helped promote a critical shift in the government's
approach to renewable energy development, from one that was largely state administered to a more
market-driven approach with active private sector involvement. IREDA's role in financing renewable
energy investments has encouraged other lenders to support the sector. For example, renewable
energy project financing is now available from a substantial number of national and local banks,
non-bank financial institutions, cooperatives, foundations/trusts, and government-owned financial
institutions, starting from a zero base in 1993. By FY2002, IREDA's annual loan disbursement level
had reached $134 million, compared to less than $4 million in 1993. IREDA has now attracted
additional international support in excess of $350 million. Over 3400 MW of wind, small hydro,
biomass, solar photovoltaic, and other renewable energy power systems were in operation by De-
cember 2001, compared to about 100 MW in 1992. The vast majority of these investments were
developed by the private sector or NGOs, as part of IREDA's financing for over 1,500 projects. The
project helped catalyze an unprecedented growth in investment in the renewable energy industry.
This promoted an increased share of renewable energy in the overall Indian power generation
capacity, from a mere 0.13 percent in 1992 to nearly 3.4 percent by 2001. The carbon emissions
avoided as a direct result of the project are estimated to be 1.1 million and 94,000 tons, respectively,
over the lifetime of the financed wind and PV projects.
or fighting cocks on land adjacent to park
Conservation project, which by strengthening
boundaries. The Costa Rica Ecomarkets project
the National System of Protected Areas
is supporting a direct payment to provide
(SNAP), contributed to convincing donors to
biodiversity conservation benefits to private
support the FUNDESNAP, which has a target
land owners. Despite such initiatives, few pro-
of $63 million over the next 30 years.
tected areas are capable of generating sufficient
revenues, either from visitor fees or other user
Despite important contributions to the finan-
payments, to be self-sustaining11 .
cial sustainability of GEF projects, a study on
financial arrangements for biodiversity conser-
Other projects in the biodiversity focal area
vation commissioned by the GEF M&E unit
seek financial sustainability by establishing
concluded that there is room for improvement.
conservation trust funds--using GEF financ-
The study included four field visits and a de-
ing as part of the capitalization to support pro-
tailed review of 18 projects. Financial arrange-
tected area financing--at either the national or
ments were defined as the means to generate
the individual protected area. Trust funds have
revenues or secure income to support project
been especially popular in Latin America and
outcomes.12 Some of the key lessons and find-
Africa. One example is the Bolivia Biodiversity
ings of the study were:
11 Review of GEF's Engagement with the Private Sector ­ Interim Report (GEF/c.21/Inf.8).
12 Review of Financial Arrangements in the GEF Biodiversity projects (GEF/c.21/Inf.13).
24

---

Findings and Conclusions
The selection of financial arrangements in
The financial sustainability solutions
GEF projects has often been based on in-
adopted by many of the projects are based
adequate information.
on a single or a few similar revenue-gen-
Many of the projects reviewed did not pre-
erating activities. This lack of diversifica-
pare plans to develop long-term financial
tion makes it diff icult for projects to
resources to sustain gains made by the
manage financial instability due to changes
project.
in the global economy, shifts in political
Longer time frames than currently used are
support, and other external factors.
needed to ensure sufficient revenue for the
financial sustainability of the project.
Adequate linkages have generally been
B. Development of
established with national and/or local-level
actors. Many of the financial arrangements
ownership
aimed at mitigating threats from local com-
munities are well developed.
Several international waters projects are seek-
The linkages between capacity building
ing to incorporate project objectives and ac-
components and revenue-generating
tivities in the regular operations of executing
activities should be strengthened by
agencies, joint institutional arrangements, or
more direct interventions from projects in
country institutions that are involved in the
the form of grants, credits, or equity in-
project. For example, in the case of UNDP's
vestments.
Implementation of the (Strategic Action Plan
Box 4
Obtaining government financial commitments
The objective of Western Indian Ocean Islands Oil Spill Contingency Planning project, implemented
by the World Bank, is to "protect the mainly pristine aquatic ecosystems and rich biodiversity of the
Western Indian Ocean Islands (Comoros, Mauritius, Madagascar, Seychelles, and Reunion) from
the risks of oil spills in harbors and along the high traffic oil routes of the WIO and in particular of the
Mozambique Channel." The development objective was "to enable the four countries to directly
prevent, contain and clean the small-medium oil spills (Tier 1, 2) frequently occurring in harbors or
along marine routes, and to strengthen the ability and coordination of participating countries and
the regional organization to prevent, contain and clean Tier 3 major spills in cooperation with South
Africa's response facilities." This project has addressed several key factors affecting sustainability.
Sustainable financing mechanisms have been established in all countries. Participating govern-
ments have allocated the necessary budget within existing agencies to ensure operations of project
installations or have established a separate fund to pay for ongoing project activities. Conventions
have been ratified by all four countries, national legislation has been harmonized, and there is
evidence of good political support. The project used media and public relations campaigns to gain
support from the private sector and to disseminate public information to build oil spill detection and
response capacity. Sustainability was an objective of the project and was pursued vigorously through-
out. Project outputs were directly related to institutional changes, capacities, financial mechanisms,
and legal reforms that would be in place at the end of the project. Despite these achievements, the
project has not so far been successful at generating the financial commitment from participating
governments to support an international cooperation mechanism to continue coordinating regional
activities once GEF project funding ends.
25

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
(SAP) of the Pacific Small Island Developing
governments, business leaders, and communi-
States, the Pacific Forum and the Forum Fish-
ties in the adoption of laws, action plans, and
ery Agency played central roles during the ne-
environmentally sound resource management
gotiations and signing of the Tuna Fishery
practices. PEMSEA has also influenced na-
Treaty and are now key players in implement-
tional policy reforms, catalyzed important
ing it. In the case of the Western Indian Ocean
country investments in coastal zone manage-
Oil Spill Contingency Planning project, par-
ment, and facilitated the development and rati-
ticipating countries have allocated the neces-
fication of dozens of international agreements
sary budget within existing government
and conventions among participating countries.
agencies, or have created funds to ensure op-
But some challenges remain. To date, East Asia
erations of project installations and outputs (see
is the only region of the world that lacks re-
Box 4). In the GloBallast project, coordina-
gional marine conventions. The PEMSEA
tion with the International Maritime Organi-
project has provided the initial steps to the cre-
zation (IMO) resulted in the establishment of
ation of a regional cooperating mechanism, but
a permanent office in that organization to ad-
participating governments have yet to define a
dress ballast water issues.
more permanent and sustainable institutional
arrangement.
Other projects are building strong constituen-
cies and country commitment through the use
There are also examples of Implementing
of a "bottom-up" approach to project planning
Agencies that are mainstreaming programs into
and implementation, including successful lo-
their own operations. The World Bank, for ex-
cal demonstration activities, participatory
ample, has begun to incorporate international
SAPs, and external communications programs.
waters (IW) as a topic in its country dialogue
For example, the UNDP project Building Part-
leading to the Country Assistance Strategies
nerships in Environmental Protection and
(CAS). By incorporating it into the CAS, the
Management for the East Asian Seas
Bank has promoted IW programs in 14 coun-
(PEMSEA) has followed a two-tiered approach
tries. UNDP is also mainstreaming IW program
in building support and commitment to the pro-
activities, by using its own resources to finance
tection of international waters among 12 coun-
activities related to the GEF IW program. These
tries. Through a series of "top-down" activities,
include activities in the Black Sea area and the
the project has assisted participating countries
Caspian Sea, where a number of the SAPs and
to develop and ratify dozens of agreements and
National Caspian Sea Action Programs have
conventions to protect marine resources. Simul-
components that are appropriate for UNDP
taneously, it has carried out a series of "bot-
interventions. UNDP has also been working
tom-up" activities that resulted in quick and
with the government in Romania to develop
tangible benefits to participating countries, and
its own initiative for reducing risks from mine
have promoted sustainable management of
waste spills.
marine resources. Given the political complex-
ity of reaching international agreements in such
3. Dissemination of knowledge
a diverse geographical area, part of the project
Projects also seek to promote sustainability is
strategy consists of getting countries to dem-
disseminating knowledge and creating clearly
onstrate and share approaches to address ma-
demonstrable global impacts. For example, the
rine environmental and resource use problems,
UNEP global project, "Development of Best
while building multisector coalitions to sup-
Practices and Dissemination of Lessons
port policy agendas and sustainable coastal
Learned for Addressing the Problem of Inva-
management plans. By demonstrating success
sive Alien Species (IAS)" was successful in in-
at the local level, PEMSEA has been able to
fluencing the Conference of the Parties by
facilitate alliances among local and national
generating best practices to prevent, control,
26

---

Findings and Conclusions
and eradicate alien species that threaten
of project outcomes were considered beyond
biodiversity (see Box 5).
the project's scope. In another example,
UNEP's Redirecting Commercial Investment
4. Some key issues affecting sustainability
project, the Investment Advisory Facility
The PPR process also showed that, notwith-
helped financial institutions assess 11 renew-
standing some significant accomplishments,
able energy and energy efficiency investments.
many projects are still struggling with the is-
Of these, three had gone to closure at the time
sue of sustainability. One of the most common
the SMPR was conducted. However, the SMPR
problems is that projects often do not begin
indicated that during implementation the
addressing the issue until very late in the imple-
project shifted from supporting alternative fea-
mentation cycle. Furthermore, in many in-
sibility studies to supporting RE/EE project
stances, project management units do not have
finance type investments that were already
the appropriate technical skills to address
under development. Therefore, there was an
sustainability. For example, the Poland Coal-
insufficient basis to verify that the GEF-funded
to-Gas Project has supported more than 30 sub-
interventions had any causal link to subprojects
projects. However, although some specific
reaching financial closure, which could have
arrangements for ensuring sustainability have
been an indication of the project's sustainability.
been designed or introduced, such as capacity
building, knowledge transfer, and processing
A complex issue raised by biodiversity and in-
subproject requests, other factors, such as fu-
ternational waters PIRs, and now by SMPR
ture fuel and energy prices and environmental
panels, is the poor chances of attaining
taxes or fees, that might affect the sustainability
sustainability within the lifetime of a GEF
Box 5
Disseminating knowledge and creating demonstrable global impacts
The objective of the UNEP project "Development of Best Practices and Dissemination of Lessons
Learned for Addressing the Problem of Invasive Alien Species (IAS)" is to examine current tools and
approaches for recognizing, evaluating, and mitigating against invasive species in order to deter-
mine best practices and to disseminate this information. The project has successfully identified best
practices to prevent, control, and eradicate alien species that threaten biodiversity. It had a consid-
erable impact at both the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA)
and Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings in raising awareness of the IAS issue and advancing
policy dialogue and actions through the development of a high quality "Invasive Alien Species Toolkit
of Best Prevention and Management Practices" and a Global Invasive Species Database. The Alien
Species project was instrumental in launching the Global Invasive Species Program (GISP) Phase
I and successfully leveraging various donors' support. GISP involvement in the CBD process via
SBSTTA helped raise awareness among parties to the CBD about the need to prevent, control, and
manage IAS during implementation of national biodiversity strategy and action plans. Furthermore,
this issue has been targeted as one component of the Framework Action Plan for the Environment
under NEPAD (New Partnership for African Development).
The Alien Species project started considering follow-up activities to the project very early in project
implementation. As a result more significant follow-up initiatives, including GISP II, are taking place.
The executing agency was strongly linked to a world-class group of scientists, which was instru-
mental in building and establishing the project's credibility at the international level.
27

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
project (3-4 years). This is even more difficult
ther the national or local government's treasury.
and challenging in the case of projects imple-
With regard to broader issues of financial
mented within Least Developed Countries
sustainability, it is vital that projects devise fi-
(LDCs), for which the biodiversity task force
nancial sustainability plans that are diverse and
considered it unrealistic to set a goal of finan-
do not rely on a single source of income, such
cial sustainability of protected areas at the end
as visitor fees.
of a 4-year project. During its discussions, the
task force questioned the expectation that all
In the case of the international waters focal
projects in biodiversity will be sustainable af-
area, the complex nature of multicountry
ter GEF funding ends. In many cases,
projects and the time frame in which they are
sustainability may not be possible within such
implemented often makes sustainability objec-
a short time period. The use of visitor fees, es-
tives difficult to achieve. This is particularly
pecially for those protected areas that have high
true with regard to participating countries' fi-
visitor appeal and a large volume of tourist traf-
nancial and political commitment to mecha-
fic, may be one way of assisting with financial
nisms that would continue to support project
sustainability of recurring costs. However, few
outcomes once GEF funding ends. Many of the
protected areas are capable of generating suf-
IW focal area projects, particularly those deal-
ficient revenues either from visitor fees or other
ing with multicountry issues, are intrinsically
user payments to be self-sustaining. Even
complex. Governments require ample time to
where individual sites could be self-financing,
assess and negotiate binding agreements, es-
it is unusual for fees to be retained on site or
tablish and grant authority to international or-
for the whole protected area network to be self-
ganizations, and address all aspects of
financing. This is a global problem and arises
multicountry cooperation13 .
from both a reluctance to charge realistic fees,
often because of an "unwillingness to charge"
Notwithstanding the important achievements
rather than an "unwillingness to pay," and the
in assisting countries to develop and ratify con-
common practice of returning park fees to ei-
ventions and agreements (see Box 1), several
Box 1
Accomplishments in the ratification of conventions and international agreements
Several projects have successfully supported countries to develop and ratify international water
conventions, establish new agreements, or build capacity for convention compliance and imple-
mentation. The Western Indian Ocean Oil Spill Contingency Planning project (World Bank) has
been successful in assisting participating countries to ratify relevant MARPOL treaties. Similarly,
the Implementation of the SAP of the Pacific Small Island Developing States, a joint UNDP-
World Bank-UNEP project, has helped participating countries' ratify a fishing treaty to protect the
world's largest tuna stocks. The Caspian Environment Program (UNDP) has facilitated the nego-
tiation of the Caspian Sea Framework Convention, which four out of five participating govern-
ments are about to sign. Governments participating in this project have also prepared, or are in
the process of preparing, National Caspian Action Plans (NCAPs) and are linking these plans to
financial commitments and priority investment portfolios. GloBallast (UNDP) has played a key
role in building national and regional awareness, support, and capacity to implement the emerg-
ing Convention on Ship Ballast Water Management. UNDP's Building Partnerships in Environ-
mental Protection and Management for the East Asian Seas has also assisted participating
governments to prepare to ratify international conventions.
28

---

Findings and Conclusions
2002 PIRs have noted difficulties in obtain-
and building the necessary capacity, takes sub-
ing, within project time frames, the necessary
stantial time, effort, and resources and that
political and financial support from participat-
project time frames should be calculated ac-
ing governments for the international mecha-
cordingly (for example, see the Benguela Cur-
nisms advocated. For example, the PIR for the
rent and Yellow Sea Large Marine Ecosystems).
Preparation of the Strategic Action Program
Transboundary diagnostic analyses (TDAs),
for the Dnipro River Basin project reports that
SAPs, and other projects that depend on con-
the intergovernmental agreement for the cre-
sensus building among several countries should
ation and funding of a convention or a com-
be designed in phases, with benchmarks of
mission for the management of the Dnipro
progress and smooth continuity between
River will require a far greater degree of po-
phases. Small grants and medium-size projects
litical consensus than was anticipated in the
should be strategically allocated to contribute
project document.14 The PIR for the Implemen-
to the performance of larger projects and may
tation of the Strategic Action Program for the
also be used to address specific needs or con-
Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden also reports over-
stituencies. The GEF is currently examining
ambitious objectives and major impediments
possible long-term modalities and program-
to meeting the time frame necessary to achieve
matic approaches, but the need to assess exist-
project goals. This PIR indicates that in the case
ing activities and draw lessons remains.
of regional projects of this nature, it may be
necessary to either be more concrete with re-
5. Conclusions on sustainability and coun-
spect to outputs and deliverables or more gen-
try ownership
erous vis-ŕ-vis the time scale and length of
work plans. The project Determination of Pri-
GEF Secretariat review criteria and proce-
ority Actions for the Further Elaboration and
dures should specify more clearly the vari-
Implementation of the SAP for the Mediterra-
ous dimensions of sustainability (financial,
nean Region indicates that it may be unrealis-
institutional, social, and ecological).
tic to expect f inancial engagement from
participating countries without "intervention
GEF should take stock of its experience
from abroad." Even projects that have impres-
and approaches and further develop a
sive achievements at the country level, such as
policy on longer term modalities, includ-
the West Indian Ocean Oil Spill Contingency
ing programmatic and phased project ap-
Planning project, have problems establishing
proaches.
instruments or mechanisms for regional coop-
eration, or persuading countries to adopt com-
Projects should include f inancial
mitments to support a mechanism for
sustainability plans or strategies that are
international coordination.
diverse and do not rely on a single source
of income.
This PPR concludes that facilitating the politi-
cal, financial, and institutional commitment to
GEF projects need to engage key sector
environmental reform (such as SAP processes)
ministries more fully, including planning
13 Previous PPRs and GEF thematic reviews have also indicated that complex multicountry and multi-implementing agency structures
require careful preparation, which often leads to longer preparation periods, greater costs, and more time spent than single-country settings.
See Petri Ollila et al. Multicountry Project Arrangements, GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper # 3, September 2000, pp. 2.
14 It should be pointed out that the intergovernmental agreement was not an objective of the project, it was an "add on" at the request of the
governments involved.
29

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
and finance ministries, as well as the envi-
specify reporting requirements on stakeholder
ronment ministry, in order to ensure that
participation, thus PIR reporting of stakeholder
projects are compatible with national de-
participation and private sector involvement is
velopment priorities.
often limited or incomplete. Nevertheless, PIRs
and task force discussions provide some evi-
The roles and contributions of government
dence to suggest that the extent and depth of
must be clearly specified during project
stakeholder participation and private sector
preparation and then jointly followed up.
partnerships varies considerably across focal
areas and regions and leaves much room for
improvement.
C. Stakeholder Participa-
On the positive side, biodiversity is the focal
tion, including Private
area that most frequently incorporates local
Sector Involvement
stakeholder participation into project planning
and implementation. This is appropriate, since
Effective public involvement is critical to the
biodiversity projects often take place in areas
success of GEF-financed projects. The GEF
that are inhabited or surrounded by people who
policy document "Public Involvement in GEF-
are highly dependent on local natural resources
Financed Projects" defines public involvement
to meet their needs. Many biodiversity projects
as consisting of three related and often over-
are using stakeholder participation to establish
lapping processes: information dissemination,
a direct link between the economic needs of
consultation, and stakeholder participation.
local populations and the long-term security
Stakeholder participation is one of the 10 op-
of natural resources. For example, the India
erational principles of the GEF. Stakeholders
Ecodevelopment Project involves local people
are defined as the individuals, groups, or insti-
in biodiversity conservation as a major com-
tutions that have an interest or stake in the out-
ponent of its project strategy. By incorporat-
come of a GEF-financed project. The term
ing local people into project planning and
applies especially to those directly affected by
implementation, this project showed how com-
a project. Given the different instruments used
munity participation in development activities
by GEF projects to involve the private sector,
can support protected area programs through
for the purpose of this PPR, we have distin-
linking development activities to conservation
guished between overall stakeholder participa-
objectives, such as the provision of fuel-effi-
tion and private sector involvement in GEF
cient stoves to reduce firewood needs and em-
projects.
ployment of local people as conservation
guards and tourist guides15 . A different ap-
1. Diverse approaches to stakeholder
proach has been adopted in the South Africa
participation
Conservation Farming Project, which links
The PPR analysis concludes that participation,
agricultural research and extension with con-
particularly in the biodiversity and international
servation. Results from this project show that
waters focal areas, is making vital contribu-
it is crucial to involve farmers in research and
tions towards meeting GEF objectives when it
demonstrate that progress towards biodiversity
is used as a tool to link global environmental
conservation objectives can be linked with lo-
protection efforts with local and national needs.
cal economic benefits. The People, Land Man-
The GEF M&E 2002 PIR guidelines did not
agement, and Environmental Change (PLEC)
15 This participatory strategy was not followed in all project sites
30

---

Findings and Conclusions
project worked at developing sustainable and
also created interministerial committees to gen-
participatory approaches to incorporate or
erate support for the investments identified
"mainstream" biodiversity conservation into
during the SAP and to translate project recom-
agricultural activities. In the Forest Manage-
mendations into reforms. The SAP for the
ment and Conservation Project in Laos, suc-
Bermejo River Basin also established networks
cessful stakeholder participation at the local
to support and continue project activities. The
level has caused the government to consider
project Building Partnerships in Environmen-
of wide-ranging policy reforms (see Box 6).
tal Protection and Management for the East
Asian Seas (PEMSEA) has combined top-down
Activities in the international waters focal area
and bottom-up approaches to promote sustain-
have shown an increasing tendency to comple-
able management of marine resources among
ment such top-down multicountry approaches
12 East Asian nations. PEMSEA also facili-
as TDAs and SAPs with bottom-up approaches
tated the formation of alliances among local
that include stakeholder participation and dem-
and national governments, business leaders,
onstration projects. For example, in the case
and communities in the adoption of resource
of the Implementation of the Strategic Action
management practices.
Program for the Bermejo River Basin in Ar-
gentina and Bolivia, stakeholder participation,
In Eastern Europe, international water projects
bottom-up planning, and demonstration
seem to incorporate less participatory features
projects resulted in an SAP that strongly re-
than projects in other regions. Stakeholder par-
flects the views of local stakeholders and has
ticipation is often narrowly defined. Projects
strong national support. Both countries have
may emphasize public information and the
Box 6
Building a policy framework to nourish community participation in conservation
The Forest Management and Conservation Project under implementation by the World Bank devel-
oped a successful program for sustainably managing protected areas and production forests in the
Lao PDR. Robust community involvement played a critical role in the project's achievements. Village
Forestry Association (VFA) members prepared forest management plans and signed 50-year con-
tracts with provincial authorities to manage forest areas according to these plans. Villagers and
local government staff did boundary demarcation and prepared land use maps and 10-year land
use plans in 60 villages. Consultative processes were developed for participatory biodiversity vil-
lage assessments and infrastructure development. Innovative rapid biodiversity assessment sys-
tems were developed, including biodiversity monitoring systems in some villages. Both the village
organizations and the local government staff gained the experience necessary to sustain and ex-
pand the FOMACOP Village Forestry model and undertake some protected area management
activities.
Implementation of this model has improved the management of 145,000 hectares of forests. How-
ever, these achievements are currently compromised by the absence of an appropriate legal frame-
work, which should have been addressed at the beginning of the project. On the basis of the project
results thus far, the World Bank and the government of the Lao PDR began conversations concern-
ing possible changes to forestry sector policy that would decentralize forest resource management
from the central government to local authorities and communities and thereby clearing the way to
ensure the sustainability and replicability of successful community forestry projects.
31

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
constitution of stakeholder committees, but
ergy Services Delivery project is successfully
participation is often focused on specific as-
promoting grid-connected and off-grid energy
pects of the project. The Aral Sea Water and
services using renewable technologies prepared
Environmental Management project, for ex-
and implemented by the private sector and
ample, has largely focused on public informa-
local communities. The active involvement
tion, but seems to have had limited impact
of community-based organizations and
because of the inadequate targeting of its mes-
microfinance institutions has triggered an ex-
sages. The Lake Ohrid Conservation project
ponential market growth for solar home sys-
in Albania was more successful in its focus on
tems and village hydro schemes. In the
public information. Its activities led to a much
Malaysia Industrial Energy Efficiency project,
wider and deeper appreciation of the value of
the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers,
protecting the area by a large number of stake-
representing eight industrial sectors, has be-
holders, including government agencies. A
come the coordinator for all project-related ac-
major limiting factor, as indicated in the Prepa-
tivities in these industries. Another successful
ration of the Strategic Action Program for the
example of effective stakeholder participation
Dnipro River Basin project, shows that gov-
involves a carbon sequestration project in
ernments and civil society organizations have
Sudan, where the sustainability of project out-
been often slow to adopt instruments for stake-
comes has been enhanced through replication
holder participation.
of the approach by other villages in the region
(see Box 7). Other notable examples of climate
The Persistent Toxic Substance (PST), Food
change projects with stakeholder participation
Security, and Indigenous People of Russia
include the NGO- executed Bulgaria Energy
North project implemented by UNEP, on the
Efficiency project, Renewable Energy projects
other hand, is an example strong stakeholder
in Bolivia and Guatemala, as well as Indus-
support and country ownership. This was ac-
trial Energy Efficiency projects in Kenya.
complished by adopting a bottom-up method-
ology in developing the SAP and by properly
Task forces pointed out several instances and
incorporating stakeholders into project imple-
lessons regarding needs for improvement in
mentation. This project also has established
incorporating stakeholder participation in GEF
strong cooperation arrangements with local and
projects. Compared to the biodiversity and in-
other government agencies. Its success in con-
ternational waters focal areas, the climate
stituency building has led to wide national and
change portfolio is not as rich in examples of
international interest in the project's results and
public participation, despite efforts to improve
methods and non-GEF donor interest in fol-
this dimension based on the recognition that
low-up activities.
participation is a key ingredient for successful
GEF projects. The climate change task force
The climate change focal area also provides
agreed that many projects within this focal area
some good examples of participatory ap-
are still exclusively carried out by governments,
proaches. The project Optimizing Development
utilities providers, and energy companies, leav-
of Small Hydro Resources in the Hilly Regions
ing a significant space for improving public
of India offers an example of multi-stakeholder
participation, consistent with the GEF policy
participation, featuring collaboration between
of public involvement. It is often difficult to
the government, the private sector and NGOs.
analyze the position of particular projects be-
This project is aimed at assisting the Indian
cause their PIR reports do not contain a de-
government to develop a national strategy and
tailed stakeholder analysis.
a master plan through small hydropower (SHP)
demonstration projects in the Himalayan and
Limited stakeholder participation has also
Sub-Himalayan regions. In Sri Lanka, the En-
caused problems in projects. In the climate
32

---

Findings and Conclusions
change focal area, some projects have recog-
have been identified, and some are proceeding
nized the lack of public participation as an is-
through to implementation. Others are requir-
sue that may affect project success. Such is the
ing greater participation, consultations, and
case with the MSP Improved Household Stoves
evaluations before receiving approval from the
in Mongolian Urban Centers. This project has
Thai government regulatory authorities. As this
failed to introduce improved heating stoves
project supports only partial risk guarantees on
through a market-based system, partly because
projects initiated by the private sector, UNDP
of the absence of NGO or community-based
is encouraging full consultation between the
organization (CBO) involvement. The project
communities involved, the proponents, and
Removal of Barriers to Biomass Power Gen-
government regulatory authorities as a way of
eration and Co-generation in Thailand faces
testing the effectiveness of the Thai
implementation challenges resulting from pub-
government's regulatory procedures. It is hoped
lic protests regarding the choice of sites on
that such consultations may lead to an open,
which to build power plants. In this case, sev-
transparent, and effective approval process for
eral sites for the small-scale power projects
small, independent power projects.
Box 7
Community participation and sustainability of project outcomes
The Sudan Community-Based Rangeland Rehabilitation for Carbon Sequestration and Biodiversity
project illustrates a successful intervention for carbon sequestration that has also achieved rural
economic development through strong stakeholder participation, with additional potential benefits
for biodiversity conservation. Implemented by UNDP, the project's institutional networks were well
placed within the overall village organizational structure. Five village councils representing 17 vil-
lages were targeted. The total population consisted of 5,500 Gawamaa (agropastoralists), and 600
Kawahla (transhumants). The project integrated local development needs into project activities by
diversifying local production systems through water wells projects, an experimental nursery station,
women's irrigated gardens, sheep rearing, dairy production, food production, and para-veterinarian
training activities. The project staff and the villagers developed five village land use master plans.
These management plans were formalized within the local government structure, communicated to
the entire project population, and used for decision making. The project coordinated activities with
similar efforts in the region.
Community participation was high across the range of activities and exceeded project goals, which
suggests that the training programs and extension activities were very effective. For example, local
villagers rapidly adopted the project techniques and, outside the project area, several other villages
began to implement some of the project strategies that they learned from contact with project villag-
ers. The project achieved its objective through improved rangeland management, the use of drought-
adapted grasses and native trees to sequester carbon, as well as by planting trees/shrubs and
grasses on sand dunes. Carbon was also sequestered in the trees planted along farm boundaries
as wind breaks. As a result of the project activities, the emissions reduction over 20 years is pro-
jected at more than 67,000 tons of carbon. In addition, improved ecosystem conditions may restore
the populations of several endangered animal and plant species. It is clear that an expansion of this
participatory model beyond Gireigikh, for example, to 1,000 additional contiguous rural councils in
Kordofan State, would help validate this model of community development for carbon sequestration.
The model could then be used to attract international climate change mitigation investments.
33

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
In biodiversity, the projects Creating Protected
Areas for Resources Conservation (PARC) in
2. Private sector involvement in
Vietnam Using a Landscape Ecology Approach
GEF projects
and Georgia Integrated Costal Zone Manage-
Most private sector involvement in the GEF is
ment both face economic development activi-
taking place in the climate change focal area.
ties in their project areas that will undermine
GEF has supported a range of approaches that
their objective of biodiversity conservation.
include partnerships with utility providers, de-
This issue relates to insufficient consultation
velopment of financial markets, introduction
with non-partner ministries. In the Cambodian
of new products to specific markets, and pro-
project, Biodiversity and Protected Area Man-
motion of demand for environmentally friendly
agement, insufficient participation at the na-
technologies (see Box 8). It is in this focal area
tional level is causing problems, even though
that the challenges of engaging private sector
participation at the local level is very good.
involvement have been most prominent. Two
issues raised by the climate change task force
In the international waters focal area, the
relate to the choice of financial instruments and
launching of the Lake Manzala Engineered
the business models promoted by GEF projects.
Wetlands project in Egypt was delayed by tech-
nical problems, initial resistance by local resi-
Within its climate change portfolio, GEF has
dents to the project, and the inability to secure
designed and implemented non-grant financial
the land necessary for implementation. How-
instruments such as subsidized loans, contin-
ever, the project has resolved these problems
gent grants, risk guarantees, and private equity
and gained the support of all concerned par-
funds. However grants have been the instru-
ties by carrying out a series of local and na-
ments most frequently applied. The ongoing
tional consultations involving local residents,
review with the private sector is assessing the
government officials, UNDP staff, scientists,
effectiveness of the various instruments used.
and members of parliament.
These instruments were introduced as a way
Box 8
Promoting markets for energy efficiency
The global environmental objective of this World Bank project is reducing emissions from small and
medium-size industrial enterprises and tertiary sector enterprises in general by reducing the energy
cost per unit of production. The project successfully engaged four companies (two large companies
each with an existing client base to which it provides maintenance support, plus two smaller dedi-
cated ESCOs) in developing the ESCO business in Côte d'Ivoire. High-level government support
has been garnered for the project. The strategy of focusing on no-cost/low-cost measures with short
payback periods seems appropriate for the emerging energy efficiency market in Côte d'Ivoire. The
project partnerships, under the stewardship of the Francophone Energy and Environment Institute
(IEPF), seem to be well established. IEPF has played an outstanding role in shepherding this
project through approval and implementation, and continues to play a highly effective role in overall
project execution and management of the relationships between the various project actors. The
NGO, Econoler International, appears to be an engaged and effective project manager. The holistic
approach to energy efficiency is an integrated and pragmatic approach to developing energy effi-
ciency markets in countries such as Côte d'Ivoire. In addition, encouraging projects to seek other
sources of financing and using a revolving fund as a last resort are sound approaches to developing
local financial markets.
34

---

Findings and Conclusions
of working with tools that are closer to com-
menting contingent finance mechanisms. Care-
mercial or market conditions. However, the
ful attention should be paid to the choice of
evidence suggests there was a limited explora-
financial instruments, matching them to the
tion of the nature and implications of these fi-
market conditions, the risks to be mitigated,
nancial instruments during the project design
and the comparative advantages of the IAs and
and approval phases16 .
executing agencies implementing the project.
When lacking in-house expertise, the IAs, ex-
Two of the climate change projects in the
ecuting agencies, and the GEF Secretariat
SMPR cluster employed non-grant instru-
should seek more expertise for the development
ments. One is the Redirecting Commercial In-
of non-grant financial instruments.
vestment Decisions Toward Cleaner
Technologies project, which included a contin-
Regarding business models, some projects have
gent grant facility. However, the contingent
adopted a specific model as the standard, in-
conditions proved to be unacceptable to the
stead of allowing the broader market conditions
participating financial institutions, and the fa-
determine which approach would work best and
cility was changed to support provisioning of
adapting to unforeseen circumstances. This
expert services on a grant basis. The other fea-
dynamic approach is essential, since there are
tured project is the Barrier Removal to Secure
a variety of factors, including business cycle
PV Market Penetration in Semi-Urban Sudan.
swings, and shifting macroeconomic condi-
This project also lacked proper preparation of
tions, all of which should trigger adjustments
the financing tools, which are intended to help
in the business model.
build a semi-urban PV market, through pro-
viding credit for businesses and end users.
One clear example of such adaptation was the
Peruvian project Photovoltaic-Based Rural
GEF experience with contingent f inance
Electrification, where one of the objectives was
mechanisms is growing, for example, through
to demonstrate the viability of establishing
the use of guarantees (such as in Hungary En-
microenterprises to sell, maintain, and operate
ergy Eff iciency Co-f inancing Program
PV systems. This project's business model
(HEECP) and Removal of Barriers to Biom-
evolved in similar ways to that of the Sri Lanka
ass Power Generation and Co-generation in
Energy Services Delivery project. As docu-
Thailand) and loans (the IFC SME Program).
mented in the solar PV review17 , the Sri Lanka
However, some of the emerging experiences
project started with dealer-supplied credit, but
highlight difficulties in executing some types
shifted to third-party microfinance organiza-
of non-grant instruments. Although the intro-
tions because suppliers would not handle both
duction of non-grant financial instruments was
supply and credit due to the high credit trans-
driven by a legitimate interest in their use on a
action costs.
trial basis, there was sometimes little under-
standing of the market context and/or the com-
Other examples where similar developments
parative advantage of the IAs designing and
occurred were the Bolivia Rural Electrifica-
implementing these instruments. In the IAs,
tion with Renewable Energy Through the Popu-
and GEF Secretariat there is variable experi-
lar Participation Law project and the
ence and know-how in designing and imple-
Philippines Alternative Rural Energy and Live-
16 Review of GEF's Engagement with the Private Sector- Interm Report (GEF/c.21/Inf.8)
17 Martinot, Eric, Ramesh Ramankutty and Frank Rittner, The GEF PV Portfolio: Emerging Experience and Lessons, Monitoring and Evaluation
Working Paper 2 (August 2000).
35

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
lihood Support project. In the case of the Phil-
when it is justifiable to use a grant or subsidy
ippines, a business model shift was largely due
to promote a business opportunity. IFC activi-
to the realization that it would be difficult to
ties seek to directly address this challenge by
make PV profitable during a recession. Busi-
promoting sustainable biodiversity use and
ness cycle swings, sometimes driven my mac-
conservation through investments in private
roeconomic conditions, have had influenced
sector partnerships (for example, the Small and
the success of other business models. For ex-
Medium Enterprise Program and the Latin
ample, in the Indonesia Solar Home Systems
American Terra Capital Fund. The GEF M&E
project, supplier-provided credit is failing be-
unit is currently conducting a review of pri-
cause of the worsened macroeconomic situa-
vate sector partnerships in GEF projects (see
tion in the late1990s , which prevents suppliers
the GEF Council Paper, Review of GEF's En-
from obtaining credit from commercial banks.
gagement with the Private Sector ­ Interim
In the Argentina Renewable Energy in Rural
Report (GEF/c.21/Inf.8). This review will feed
Markets project, service concessions have been
into a revised Council policy, with new guide-
delayed because they are heavily dependent on
lines, approaches, and tools to help engage the
provincial government subsidies, which have
private sector in biodiversity conservation.
not been forthcoming during the last year.
The involvement of the private sector in IW
Under the China Energy Conservation project,
projects is small or marginal. A few projects
the EMC (Energy Management Corporation)
are looking at ways to involve the private sec-
component has successfully introduced a de-
tor as active stakeholders in consultations and
mand-side management (DSM) business
other forms of cooperation. This has led to
model for delivering energy conservation ser-
important private sector contributions to project
vices to end users by supporting three EMCs
objectives, in the form of political support, in-
in a private sector cooperation arrangement.
kind contributions, and financial sponsorship.
This is one of a number of projects that sup-
In the case of PEMSEA, during the formula-
port ESCO-type businesses. Other examples
tion of a sustainable development plan for the
include the India energy efficiency component
Manila Bay, private sector leaders provided
of a World Bank project, which supports
critical political support for the adoption of the
ESCOs through a financial intermediary, and
plan and made corporate laboratories available
the IFC-implemented Hungary Energy Effi-
to carry out sophisticated analyses of water
ciency Co-financing Program (HEECP), which
samples. The GloBallast and the Western In-
indirectly supports ESCOs by improving their
dian Ocean Oil Spill Contingency Planning
access to local banks. With regard to utility-
projects have also been able to obtain impor-
based DSM projects, these continue to gener-
tant cash and in-kind contributions from the
ate mixed results. IFC's Efficient Lighting
private sector. For example, construction and
Initiative (ELI) has experienced positive and
tourist businesses have identified equipment
negative utility impacts in Latin America. For
and vessels that can be made available in the
example, whereas utility restructuring contrib-
case of an oil spill. The Caspian Environment
utes to increased cost-consciousness, it also
Program has also reported substantial contri-
increases the risk exposure and changes pri-
butions by the petroleum industry to its activi-
orities of the unbundled or reformed utility.
ties in several participating countries.
The biodiversity portfolio shows variable ex-
3. Conclusions on stakeholder participation
perience in engaging the private sector. A key
and private sector involvement
challenge in engaging the private sector in
biodiversity conservation projects is to estab-
PIRs need to better report stakeholder par-
lish financial principles that help determine
ticipation and make a greater effort to de-
36

---

Findings and Conclusions
rive lessons on how to incorporate the pri-
UNDP indicated that some of its projects have
vate sector into GEF projects.
not attempted to leverage additional resources
because all necessary funds were negotiated
If private investment is expected in GEF
prior to the project launching. According to
projects, project documents should present
UNDP, identifying exactly what resources have
evidence on such factors as market poten-
been leveraged by projects is difficult. Some
tial and realistic IRR, the track record of
contributions are clearly "in kind," while oth-
similar activities, consultations held with
ers are closely related to a project, but lie out-
potential investors and their requirements,
side of its "system boundary" in space or time.
realistic business opportunities, and con-
It is also often unclear what resources were le-
straints to the development of relevant
veraged during or after project preparation. The
markets
value of in-kind contributions may go up or
down. Some funders, including donor and re-
cipient governments, have reneged on finan-
D. Financial Planning
cial commitments made during project
development, or changed them from cash to
Financial planning encompasses changes in
"in kind" or vice versa. Others have produced
total estimated project costs, co-financing (in-
additional financing.
cluding monetary and in-kind contributions),
proposed types of financial instruments, and
According to the PIRs, UNEP has collected
the potential impact of financial changes on
data on actual levels of co-financing for those
project activities. The main issues identified
projects close to completion. In most UNEP
in this PPR relate to co-financing, notably the
projects, co-financing has been realized as
lack of appropriate reporting. This lack of ap-
originally planned, although changes in
propriate reporting might have contributed to
amounts and contributors have occurred. A few
a few cases of extreme shortfalls of co-financ-
projects have surpassed the co-financing lev-
ing, compared with stated expectations.
els originally envisaged. For example, the Role
of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and
For the cohort of SMPR projects, co-financ-
Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycles
ing contributions have exceeded estimates at
project obtained almost three times as much
project approval, and several of this project's
co-financing as planned. Other projects that
activities have been incorporated into the
raised additional funds include the People,
government's budget. In addition, PIRs and
Land Management, and Environmental Change
TERs indicated that several projects had pro-
(PLEC) and Implementation of the Integrated
active financial management that identified
Watershed Management Practices for the
potential sources of co-financing, including in-
Pantanal and Upper Paraguay River Basin
kind support, and secured these contributions.
projects. UNEP has found that the actual level
Some projects also adapted to changing cir-
of co-financing, particularly for in-kind con-
cumstances, for example, by achieving initial
tributions, is sometimes difficult to estimate,
co-financing levels despite a national finan-
and it has requested more guidance on how to
cial crises. A good example of this is the
obtain consistent co-financing figures.
Biodiversity Collections Project in Indonesia.
The government was able to maintain its coun-
In general, PIRs do not report co-financing
terpart funding level even during its economic
information consistently. The majority of the
crises, although the value of the negotiated
projects reviewed as part of the SMPR and sev-
government contribution was reduced by the
eral reported under PIRs indicated that they had
devaluation of the local currency.
changed their financial plans and level of co-
37

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
financing since endorsement, but that guide-
mentation time. It also examines, whenever
lines for reporting these changes are not clear.
possible, a project's compliance with the con-
The PIRs and TERs found some cases where
cept and guidelines on incremental costs. In-
co-financing had fallen far short of what was
formation on cost effectiveness derived from
expected, thus increasing the risks of not at-
SMPRs, TERs, and PIRs allows a broad as-
taining project objectives. For six out of eight
sessment of cost effectiveness across the port-
completed UNDP projects included in the TER
folio. However, a lack of clear GEF Secretariat
review, reporting costs per activity (including
guidelines on cost effectiveness has allowed the
co-financing) could not be obtained at project
application of different criteria and approaches
completion. The reason for this was that some
that are not always comparable and make it
UNDP terminal evaluations were completed
difficult to draw reliable conclusions.
before financial closure of the project to allow
evaluators to meet with the project team while
In the 15 SMPR reviews, it was either too early
it was still in the field. Furthermore, actual
in the project to assess or difficult to define
project costs and co-financing information are
cost effectiveness, especially in biodiversity
normally part of UNDP audits, rather than ter-
projects. Nevertheless, where an assessment
minal evaluations. The final cost information
could be made, most projects were found to be
from audited UNDP projects had not been re-
cost effective. Several projects in the interna-
ceived by GEF M&E at the time this report
tional waters portfolio proved more cost effec-
was prepared.
tive than originally planned, while climate
change and ozone projects were usually as cost
1. Conclusions on financial planning
effective as planned or better.
Midterm and terminal evaluations (or fi-
According to the 18 TER reviews for
nal project reports) will report co-financ-
biodiversity and international waters projects,
ing, in-kind contributions, and project
cost effectiveness was normally defined by a
costs, including breakdowns by activities
qualitative comparison with the accomplish-
or components, and explain any variation
ments and costs of non-GEF projects of simi-
from what was approved. If this informa-
lar scope and context. For climate change and
tion is not available at the time of the ter-
ozone projects, cost effectiveness was mea-
minal evaluation, then it should be sent to
sured using internationally accepted thresholds
the GEF M&E unit as soon as it becomes
for climate change projects, such as 10$/ton
available. This information will be pro-
of carbon equivalent reduced, while thresholds
vided as part of the annual PPR report from
for the phase out of specific ozone-depleting
FY 03 onwards.
substances were measured in terms of dollars
spent per kg ($/kg) of each type of ODS re-
The GEF Secretariat should develop guide-
duced.
lines for reporting on changes in project
activities, costs, and co-financing to the
Some projects became even more cost effec-
GEF Secretariat and Council.
tive than planned because: 1) Project outcomes
exceded expectations; 2) Projects successfully
leveraged significant international funding to
E. Cost Effectiveness
ensure financial sustainability after project clo-
sure and replication or scale-up of the activity;
Cost effectiveness is here interpreted as an as-
and 3) Projects used equipment and technolo-
sessment of a project's achievement of envi-
gies that were more cost effective than initially
ronmental and development objectives and
thought.
outputs in relation to inputs, costs, and imple-
38

---

Findings and Conclusions
Factors found to contribute to the reduced cost
back into project management to enable deci-
effectiveness of some projects include: over-
sion making. The Barrier Removal for the
ambitious objectives in relation to the project's
Widespread Commercialization of Energy-Ef-
time frame, slower than expected progress that
ficient CFC-Free Refrigerators in China and
increased the administrative and management
the Efficient Lightning Initiative projects claim
costs and reduction in the scope of activities,
to have strong measures of impact. A good
without a proportional adjustment of the ini-
M&E system used for the China project dem-
tial project grant.
onstrated that, from 1999 through 2001, par-
ticipating refrigerator manufacturers have
1. Conclusion on cost effectiveness
achieved average weighted energy efficiency
gains of 9.6 percent.
The GEF Secretariat should better define
cost effectiveness in project review crite-
Some projects also have good indicators of
ria and develop appropriate policies and
capacity building. For example, in the Mali
guidelines to operationalize the concept in
Household Energy Project (World Bank), pri-
the portfolio.
vate sector operators trained by the project have
continued to sell improved stoves after project
completion. More than 15,000 stoves have been
F. Monitoring and
sold since completion--an indicator of a sus-
tainable capacity building effort. The Guate-
Evaluation
mala Renewable Energy Based Small
Enterprise Development in the Quiché Region
All information sources used by the PPR to
and the Sudan Barrier Removal to Secure PV
assess the performance of monitoring and
Market Penetration in Semi-Urban Areas
evaluation systems in the GEF portfolio, show
projects are also notable. In Guatemala, the
an overall performance in this area that is only
project's 48 training events and technical as-
marginally satisfactory. The available docu-
sistance activities reached 1,400 people. In
ments highlight the features of strong and weak
addition, six high-level decision-makers' work-
project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) sys-
shops on rural credit and rural energy planning
tems, thus pointing the way to system improve-
and policy reached 90 people. These training
ments.
activities, together with demonstration projects,
have led to three new renewable energy ser-
1.
Strengths in M&E systems
vice enterprises; a new renewable energy in-
centive law, which is expected to be approved
At the project planning stage, strong M&E sys-
by the Guatemalan Congress in 2002; and eight
tems are associated with simple overall project
microenterprise activities based on renewable-
designs whose objectives can be achieved with
energy.
the time and resources available to the project.
Key baseline conditions are determined at this
Some projects have been able to establish
stage, and indicators (quantifiable if possible)
strong linkages between project outcomes and
are developed for inputs, outputs, and out-
policy changes. For example, the Chinese
comes. For example, the Industrial EE Project
project has influenced the successful introduc-
in Malaysia appears to use a functional M&E
tion of renewable energy policy targets in the
system, which is reflected in the monitoring of
national Tenth Five-Year Plan, which calls for
quantitative project indicators and the identi-
5 percent of new power generation to come
f ication and monitoring of six additional
from renewable sources by 2010. The project
project risks during implementation. The sys-
has also encouraged and supported a major new
tem is generating information that is being fed
rural electrification program in Western China,
39

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
through its interaction with the Poverty Alle-
held, the number of trainees, and the types of
viation Office in Beijing and local offices. The
training programs offered. There is very little
Chinese Renewable Energy Industries Associa-
presentation or discussion of the impacts of
tion prepared a renewable energy policy White
capacity building (See the three cases men-
Paper in 2001. This fed into a major renewable
tioned above). Furthermore, projects often lack
energy policy review and development initia-
a reliable baseline and indicators for measur-
tive by the State Economic and Trade Com-
ing--directly or indirectly--the results of ca-
mission (SETC). Other projects that make
pacity building. Often, project documents offer
strong linkages between project outcomes and
no more than such general descriptions as "lack
policy changes are Peru Photovoltaic-Based
of capacity" or "absence of know-how" as a
Rural Electrification, Sri Lanka Energy Ser-
baseline.
vices, and India Development of High Rate Bio-
Methanation Process of Reducing Greenhouse
PIRs sometimes report impacts without estab-
Gas Emissions.
lishing the proper links between project out-
comes and the claimed impacts. Examples are
During implementation, strong M&E systems
the Thailand Removal of Barriers to Biomass
are apparent because of the existence of moni-
Co-Generation from Wood Residues project,
toring staff and an adequate budget for moni-
Bolivia Rural Electrification with Renewable
toring activities. Strong M&E systems
Energy project, Guatemala Renewable Energy
generally are also used as an adaptive manage-
Based Small Enterprise Development in the
ment tool and have a schedule of evaluation
Quiché Region project and Fiji Renewable
activities, regular supervision missions, and
Energy Hybrid Village Power Systems project.
strong local involvement.
Further analysis would be necessary to estab-
lish precise linkages between these projects and
2. Weaknesses in M&E systems
the reported changes. GEF projects need to
document more explicitly the facilitation role,
Weak M&E systems exhibited some or all of
if any, that GEF projects have played with re-
the following characteristics: missing or inad-
gard to policy formulation or reform. Relevant
equate baseline data; M&E plans developed
policy changes could be categorized as direct
late in the project cycle; no integration of local
or indirect outcomes of the project. This analy-
communities into M&E activities; delay of
sis could be carried out during midterm and
baseline studies; instruments of data collection
final evaluations. The climate change task force
not identified and use of indicators not imple-
concluded that more work should be done to
mented; monitoring activities not related to
develop a set of indicators that cover processes,
progress indicators; poor assessment of project
retention rates, and behavioral change in orga-
impacts; and poor reporting and backstopping.
nizations, building upon the approach devel-
One issue raised by the task forces was a ten-
oped in an M&E working paper.18 This would
dency for M&E systems to concentrate on in-
help measure the linkages between capacity
puts and outputs, rather than on progress
building activities and environmental benefits.
towards objectives. For example, the climate
change task force reported that PIRs continue
Other times impacts are difficult to assess with
to report on capacity building in terms of such
the information provided by PIRs. For example,
elements as the number of training workshops
the regional UNEP project Initiating Early
18 Integrating Capacity Development into Project Design and Evaluation: Approach and Frameworks, Charles Lusthaus, Marie-Hélčne Adrien,
and Peter Morgan, Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper 5, December 2000.
40

---

Findings and Conclusions
Phase Out of Methyl Bromide (MB) Through
wide replication, the project partners are mo-
Awareness Raising, Policy Development, and
bilizing funding to pay for monitoring once the
Demonstration/Training conducted multiple
project is over.
workshops to develop policies and find viable
alternatives to MB. In addition, it conducted
On the basis of the evidence presented in the
trials to test the alternatives in specific crops.
diverse sources that contributed to this review,
However, the impacts in terms of MB use re-
it is clear that much can be done to improve
duction cannot be fully assessed on the basis
the overall role and impact of M&E systems in
of the PIR and other reports. Its stated inten-
the project portfolio.
tion to contribute to "early phase out" is not
supported by adequate data. The trends from
1996 suggest that there was a decrease in MB
3. Conclusions on monitoring and
use before the project began, making it more
evaluation
difficult to determine any contribution from the
At project design or during the first year
project. It is not clear that training workshops
of implementation, all projects should have
have been adequately followed up by country
developed a baseline and an M&E system
action or whether demonstration activities with
to measure outputs, outcomes, and impacts.
MB alternatives have been scaled-up within a
Projects should ensure adequate funding
participating country (such as Poland) or rep-
and staff for M&E.
licated across the region. Furthermore, there
was no indication that participating countries
IAs should ensure that project M&E sys-
developed national action plans, an expected
tems are appropriate to country capacities
outcome of the project, including timetables
and conditions and that they draw on and
and targets for the phase out of methyl bro-
contribute to national M&E resources and
mide.
capacities.
Weak systems are also often associated with
Replication plans or strategies should be
over-elaborate project designs, objectives that
monitored during project implementation.
are too ambitious for the project time frame, a
weak or non-existent logframe, and a logframe
The supervision roles of IAs should include
that is not used as a management tool. For ex-
regular missions to project sites and meet-
ample, in the Côte d'Ivoire Energy Efficiency
ings with local stakeholders.
Market Development project, there was lack of
clarity about indicators at the output and out-
Projects are encouraged to explore mecha-
come levels. As a result, though there was regu-
nisms to involve local stakeholders in
lar monitoring and reporting, the quality of the
M&E, like advisory councils, workshops,
reports is in question. Under the Czech Repub-
and collaborative arrangements with re-
lic Low Cost/Low Energy Buildings project,
search institutions.
due to yearlong delays in construction of the
buildings, the project will not have time to ad-
PIRs should focus more on reporting out-
equately monitor the buildings' performance.
comes and results and less on reporting
However, because they know that the lack of
inputs and outputs.
monitoring data will hinder the project's abil-
ity to "prove" the performance of low-cost,
The M&E unit should develop a "common
low-energy buildings, and perhaps discourage
sense" booklet on M&E.
41

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
42

---

APPENDICES
43

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
44

---

APPENDIX A
LIST OF PROJECTS INCLUDED IN 2002 PIR
Multi-Focal Area
Work
IA
Effective
GEF
Program
Approval
Date
Funding
No.
Country
IA
Project
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ Million)
1
Global
World Bank
Small and Medium Scale Enterprise
Oct-96
May-97
Aug-97
16.50
Program (replenishment ­ IFC)
2
Global
UNDP
Country Dialogue Workshops
Jul-98
Mar-00
3.51
UNEP
WB
3
Nicaragua
UNDP
Barrier Removal and Forest Habitat
Nov-98
Feb-99
.750
Conservation (Coffee/Allspice)
4
Mexico
World Bank
Oaxaca Sustainable Hillside
Apr-99
May-99
Jul-99
.74
Management Project
Total
21.50
Biodiversity
Work
IA
Effective
GEF
Program
Approval
Date
Funding
No.
Country
IA
Project
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ Million)
1
Burkina Faso
UNDP
Optimization of biodiversity in game ranching
Nov-88
Jun-90
Jun-90
2.50
systems; a pilot experiment in a semi arid area
2
Cameroon
UNDP
Sustainable Forest Management by
May-96
Oct-96
1.00
Communities in the Bamenda Highlands,
Cameroon.
3
Central African
UNDP
A Highly Decentralized Approach to BD
Apr-91
Feb-94
Feb-94
2.50
Republic
Protection and Use: The Bangassou Dense Forest
4
Comoros
UNDP
Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable
Oct-91
Oct-93
Oct-93
2.42
Development in the Federal Islamic Republic
of the Comoros
5
Cote d'Ivoire
UNDP
Control of Aquatic Weeds to enhance
Nov-88
Nov-91
3.00
and restore biodiversity
6
Eritrea
UNDP
Conservation management of Eritrea's
Apr-93
Jan-94
Jul-94
5.30
coastal, marine and island biodiversity
7
Ethiopia
UNDP
A Dynamic farmer-based approach to the
Nov-88
Mar-90
Aug-90
2.46
conservation of African Plant Genetic Resources
8
Lesotho
UNDP
Conserving Mountain Biodiversity
Oct-93
Apr-95
2.51
in southern Lesotho
45

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
Work
IA
Effective
GEF
Program
Approval
Date
Funding
No.
Country
IA
Project
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ Million)
9
Madagascar
UNDP
Environment Program Support
Jul-92
Nov-92
Dec-92
20.80
10
Regional
UNDP
Conservation priority setting for the Upper
May-94
Aug-94
0.74
Guinea Forest ecosystem, West Africa
11
Regional
UNDP
New approaches to reducing biodiversity
Apr-93
Feb-94
Feb-94
12.90
loss at cross-border sites in East Africa
12
Regional
UNDP
Southern African Biodiversity Support Programme
Oct-93
4.50
13
Regional
UNDP
Inventory, Evaluation and Monitoring of
Apr-92
4.73
Botanical Diversity in Southern Africa: A regional
Capacity and Institution Building Network
14
Regional
UNDP
African NGO-Government Partnerships for
Apr-93
Apr-94
Apr-94
4.54
Sustainable Biodiversity Action
15
Sudan
UNDP
Conservation and Management of Habitats
Jun-94
May-95
Sep-94
0.75
and Species, and Sustainable Community
Use of Biodiversity in Dinder National Park
16
Tanzania
UNDP
Development of Jozani-Chwaka Bay
Mar-96
Jun-96
0.75
National Park, Zanzibar Island.
17
Bhutan
UNDP
Integrated Management of
Sep-92
Jul-93
Jul-93
1.50
Jigme Dorji National Park
18
China
UNDP
Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation
Dec-94
Sep-95
12.03
and Sustainable Use
19
China
UNDP
Multi-Agency And Local Participatory Cooperation
Sep-96
0.75
in Biodiversity Conservation in Yunnan's
Upland Mountain Ecosystems
20
Korea
UNDP
Conservation of Biodiversity Mt. Myonghan
Jan-96
Mar-96
May-96
0.75
in the DPRK.
21
Malaysia
UNDP
Conservation and Sustainable Use of
May-95
Oct-96
6.31
Peat Swamp Forests
22
Micronesia
UNDP
Community Conservation and Compatible
Jul-95
Feb-96
Apr-96
0.75
Enterprise development in Pohnpei,
Federated States of Micronesia
23
Mongolia
UNDP
Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable
Dec-93
Oct-94
Oct-94
5.16
Livelihood Options in the Grasslands of
Eastern Mongolia
24
Nepal
UNDP
Upper Mustang Biodiversity
Nov-95
May-96
May-96
0.73
Conservation Project
25
Nepal
UNDP
Landscape-scale Conservation of Endangered
Nov-96
0.75
Tiger and Rhinoceros Populations in and
around the Chitwan National Park.
26
Pakistan
UNDP
Mountain Areas Conservancy Project
Oct-94
Feb-95
May-95
10.60
27
Philippines
UNDP
Samar Island Biodiversity Project (SIBP)
Nov-95
6.11
Conservation and Sustainable Use of the
Biodiversity of a Forested Protected Area
46

---

Appendix A: List of Projects Included in 2002 PIR
Work
IA
Effective
GEF
Program
Approval
Date
Funding
No.
Country
IA
Project
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ Million)
28
Philippines
UNDP
Sustainable management of Mount Isarogs
Jan-96
May-96
0.75
Territories
29
Philippines
UNDP
Conservation of the Tubbataha Reef
Mar-96
Jun-96
0.78
National Marine Park
30
Philippines
UNDP
Biodiversity Conservation and Management
Dec-96
Jan-96
0.74
of the Bohol Islands
31
Sri Lanka
UNDP
Conservation of Biodiversity through Integrated
Mar-96
May-96
0.75
Collaboration Management in the Rekawa,
Usangoda and Kalametiya Coastal Ecosytem
32
Sri Lanka
UNDP
Contribution to the Conservation of Globally
Apr-96
May-96
0.75
Threatened Species in the Rainforests of
Southwest Sri Lanka
33
Viet Nam
UNDP
Vietnam PARC - Creating Protected Areas for
Sep-91
Oct-94
6.01
Resources Conservation (PARC) in Vietnam Using
a Landscape Ecology Approach
34
Lebanon
UNDP
Strengthening of National Capacity & Grassroots
Apr-91
Jan-92
Jan-92
2.53
In-Situ Conservation for Sustainable
Biodiversity Protection
35
Morocco
UNDP
Transhumans for Biodiversity Conservation
Nov-95
4.37
in the Southern High Atlas
36
Regional
UNDP
Participatory Management of Plant Genetic
Mar-94
Jan-96
2.78
Resources in Oases of the Maghreb
37
Regional
UNDP
Conservation of Wetland and Coastal Ecosystems
Apr-93
May-95
Sep-95
13.44
in the Mediterranean Region
38
Regionial
UNDP
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Dryland
Oct-93
Feb-95
8.23
Agro-Biodiversity of the Fertile Crescent
39
Yemen
UNDP
Conservation and Sustainable Use of the
Sep-92
Apr-93
Apr-93
4.97
Biodiversity of Socotra Archipelago
40
Georgia
UNDP
Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystem Conservation
Sep-95
Oct-95
Mar-96
0.75
in the Caucasus
41
Uzbekistan
UNDP
Establishment of Naratau-Kyzylkum Biosphere .
Jul-96
0.75
Reserve as a Model for Biodiversity Conservation
in Uzbekistan
42
Argentina
UNDP
Consolidation and Implementation of the Patagonia
Apr-93
Nov-95
5.20
Coastal Zone Management Programme for
Biodiversity Conservation
43
Belize
UNDP
Creating a Co-Managged Protected Areas System
Feb-95
Mar-95
Mar-95
0.75
in Belize: A plan for joint Stewardship between
Government and Community.
44
Belize
UNDP
Conservation and Sustainable Use of the
Sep-94
Feb-95
Mar-95
5.36
Barrier Reef Complex
45
Brazil
UNDP
Promoting Biodiversity Conservation and
Apr-96
6.98
Sustainable Use in the Frontier Forest Mato-Grosso
47

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
Work
IA
Effective
GEF
Program
Approval
Date
Funding
No.
Country
IA
Project
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ Million)
46
Costa Rica
UNDP
Conservation of Biodiversity in the
Sep-95
Feb-96
0.75
Talamanca-Caribbean Biological Corridor
47
Cuba
UNDP
Priority Actions to Consolidate Biodiversity
Oct-94
Oct-95
3.89
Protection in the Sabana-Camaguey Ecosystem
48
Ecuador
UNDP
Galapagos Oil Spill - Environmental
Apr-97
0.53
Rehabilitation and Conservation
49
Guatemala
UNDP
Integrated Biodiversity Protection in the
Jan-91
Mar-93
Mar-93
4.00
Sarstun-Motagua Region.
50
Paraguay
UNDP
Paraguayan Wildlands Protection Initiative
Oct-94
May-96
May-96
9.21
51
Peru
UNDP
In situ conservation of Native Cultivars
Oct-94
Oct-96
5.22
and Wild relatives
52
Regional
UNDP
Conservation of Biodiversity in the
Jan-91
Nov-94
3.11
Lake Titicaca Basin
53
Uruguay
UNDP
Consolidation of the Banados del Este
Apr-93
Aug-93
Aug-93
2.50
Biosphere Reserve
54
Venezuela
UNDP
Protection and Sustainable Use of Biological
Nov-95
9.79
Diversity in the Orinoco Delta Wetlands.
55
Regional
UNDP
Biological Diversity Conservation through
Mar-94
8.00
UNEP
Participatory Rehabilitation of the Degraded Lands
of the Arid and Semi-Arid Transboundary Areas
of Mauritania and Senegal
56
Regional
UNDP
Establishment of a programme for the
Oct-93
10.94
(Belize,
UNEP
Consolidation of the Mesoamerican
Costa Rica,
Biological Corridor
El Salvador,
Guatemala,
Honduras,
Mexico,
Nicaragua,
Panama)
57
Kenya
UNEP
Lake Baringo Community-based Integrated Land
Feb-96
Apr-96
Apr-96
0.75
and Water Management Project
58
Regional
UNEP
Land Use Change Analysis as an Approach for
Dec-95
Oct-96
Oct-96
0.80
Investigating Biodiversity Loss and
Land Degradation
59
China
UNEP
Lop Nur Nature Sanctuary Biodiversity Conservation
Dec-94
Feb-95
Feb-95
0.75
60
Nepal
UNEP
Arun Valley Sustainable Resource Use and
Nov-96
Dec-96
Dec-96
0.63
Management Pilot Demonstration Project
61
Global
UNEP
Promoting Best Practices for Conservation and
Aug-95
Sep-95
Sep-95
0.75
Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Global
Significance in Arid and Semi Arid Zones
62
Global
UNEP
People, Land Management, and
Apr-93
Feb-94
Feb-94
6.27
Environmental Change (PLEC)
48

---

Appendix A: List of Projects Included in 2002 PIR
Work
IA
Effective
GEF
Program
Approval
Date
Funding
No.
Country
IA
Project
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ Million)
63
Global
UNEP
Development of Best Practices and Dissemination
Mar-94
Apr-94
Apr-94
0.75
of Lessons Learned for Dealing with the Global
Problems of Alien Species that Threaten
Biological Diversity
64
Global
UNEP
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Apr-96
May-97
May-97
7.31
65
Global
UNEP
Development of National Biosafety Frameworks
Oct-96
Apr-97
Apr-97
26.19
66
Regional
UNEP
An Indicator Model for Dyrland Ecosystem
Dec-95
Apr-96
Apr-96
0.75
in Latin America
67
Regional
UNEP
Catalyzing Conservation Action in Latin America:
Mar-96
Aug-96
Aug-96
0.75
Identifying Priority Sites and Best Management
Alternatives in Five Globally Significant Ecoregions
68
Benin
World Bank
National Parks Conservation and Management
Feb-94
Mar-96
Jul-96
7.00
69
Cameroon
World Bank
Biodiversity Conservation and Management
Apr-89
Mar-91
Dec-91
6.10
70
Ghana
World Bank
Natural Resource Management
Oct-93
Jun-94
Nov-94
8.73
71
Kenya
World Bank
Lewa Wildlife Conservancy and
Jul-95
Mar-96
Mar-96
0.75
Community Conservation (MSP)
72
Kenya
World Bank
Tana River National Primate Reserve
Apr-87
Nov-92
Jun-93
6.75
73
Madagascar
World Bank
Environment Program Support
Sep-92
Dec-92
Jun-93
12.80
74
Mauritius
World Bank
Biodiversity Restoration
May-91
Nov-91
Feb-92
1.20
75
Mauritius
World Bank
Restoration of Round Island (MSP)
Mar-96
Jul-96
Jul-96
0.75
76
Morocco
World Bank
Protected Areas Management
Dec-93
Jan-96
Apr-96
10.75
77
Mozambique
World Bank
Transfrontier Conservation Areas Pilot and
Nov-88
Dec-92
May-93
5.43
Institutional Strengthening
78
Mozambique
World Bank
Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Management
May-95
May-96
Jan-97
4.08
79
Regional
World Bank
Regional Environment Information
Apr-93
Dec-93
Apr-94
4.38
Management Project (REIMP)
80
Regional
World Bank
West Africa Pilot Community-Based Natural
Nov-88
Sep-91
May-92
7.90
Resource and Wildlife Management (GEPRENAF)
81
Regional
World Bank
Coral Reef Monitoring Network in member states
Apr-96
Jul-96
Jan-97
0.74
of the Indian Ocean Commission (COI), within the
Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network
(GCRMN) (MSP)
82
Seychelles
World Bank
Marine Ecosystems Management (MSP)
Mar-96
Jul-96
Aug-96
0.75
83
South Africa
World Bank
Conservation of Globally Significant Biodiversity
Jul-95
Dec-95
Jan-96
0.75
in Agricultural Landscapes through
Conservation Farming
84
South Africa
World Bank
Conservation Planning for Biodiversity
Jul-95
May-96
Jun-96
0.74
in the Thicket Biome (MSP)
85
South Africa
World Bank
Cape Peninsula Biodiversity
Oct-93
Feb-94
May-94
12.38
49

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
Work
IA
Effective
GEF
Program
Approval
Date
Funding
No.
Country
IA
Project
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ Million)
86
South Africa
World Bank
Sustainable Protected Area Development
Mar-95
May-96
Aug-96
0.75
in Namaqualand (MSP)
87
Uganda
World Bank
Institutional Capacity Building for Protected Areas
Apr-93
Jul-94
Mar-95
2.29
Management and Sustainable Use (ICB-PAMSU)
88
Uganda
World Bank
Kibale Forest Wild Coffee Project (MSP)
Dec-94
Feb-95
Feb-95
0.75
89
Zimbabwe
World Bank
Biodiversity Conservation in Southeast Zimbabwe
Mar-88
May-94
Mar-95
5.87
90
Bangladesh
World Bank
Biodiversity Conservation in the
Mar-94
Nov-94
Sep-95
12.20
Sundarbans Reserved Forest
91
Bangladesh
World Bank
Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation
Dec-94
Jul-95
Nov-95
5.00
92
Cambodia
World Bank
Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management
Apr-95
Feb-96
May-96
2.75
93
China
World Bank
Nature Reserves Management
Jan-91
May-91
Jul-91
17.90
94
India
World Bank
Ecodevelopment
May-91
Aug-92
Nov-92
20.21
95
Indonesia
World Bank
Conservation of Elephant Landscape in
Oct-95
Dec-95
Dec-95
0.74
Aceh Province, Sumatra (MSP)
96
Indonesia
World Bank
Kerinci Seblat Integrated
May-91
Mar-92
Jul-92
15.92
Conservation and Development
97
Indonesia
World Bank
Coral Reef Rehabilitation and
Apr-93
Feb-94
May-94
4.38
Management Project (COREMAP I)
98
Indonesia
World Bank Berbak-Sembilang Ecosystem Conservation (MSP)
Jul-96
Aug-96
Aug-96
0.73
99
Philippines
World Bank
Conservation of Priority Protected Areas
Apr-87
Apr-90
Sep-90
18.00
100
Philippines
World Bank
Mindanao Rural Development/Coastal
May-95
Dec-95
Oct-96
1.25
Resource Conservation
101
Samoa
World Bank
Marine Biodiversity Protection
Feb-95
Jun-95
Jun-95
0.93
and Management (MSP)
102
Sri Lanka
World Bank
Conservation and Sustainable
Apr-93
Nov-93
Apr-94
4.92
Use of Medicinal Plants
103
Viet Nam
World Bank
Hon Mun Marine Protected Area Pilot (MSP)
Nov-95
Jul-96
Apr-97
1.00
104
Syria
World Bank
Conservation of Biodiversity and Protected
Oct-94
Apr-95
Sep-95
0.75
Areas Management (MSP)
105
Yemen
World Bank
Protected Areas Management (MSP)
Apr-95
Aug-95
Feb-96
0.77
106
Yemen
World Bank
Coastal Zone Management along the
Jun-95
Aug-95
Feb-96
0.75
Gulf of Aden (MSP)
107
Global
World Bank
Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund (CEPF)
Jun-96
Nov-96
Dec-96
25.00
108
Croatia
World Bank
Kopacki Rit Wetlands Management (MSP)
Nov-94
Jun-95
Jul-95
0.75
109
Georgia
World Bank
Integrated Coastal Zone Management
Jun-94
Nov-94
Apr-95
1.30
110
Regional
World Bank
Central Asia Transboundary Biodiversity
Oct-93
Jun-95
Apr-96
10.49
111
Romania
World Bank
Biodiversity Conservation Management
Apr-93
May-95
Oct-95
5.50
112
Russian
World Bank
Biodiversity Conservation Management
Oct-90
Apr-92
Oct-92
20.90
Federation
50

---

Appendix A: List of Projects Included in 2002 PIR
Work
IA
Effective
GEF
Program
Approval
Date
Funding
No.
Country
IA
Project
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ Million)
113
Slovak
World Bank
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Central
Feb-96
Jun-96
Jul-96
0.75
Republic
European Grasslands (MSP)
114
Turkey
World Bank
Biodiversity and Natural Resource
Mar-94
Jun-96
Jul-96
8.54
Management Project
115
Argentina
World Bank
Biodiversity Conservation
Apr-93
Sep-93
April-94
10.39
116
Belize
World Bank
Northern Belize Biological Corridors
Nov-94
Apr-95
Mar-95
0.75
Consolidation and Maintenance
117
Bolivia
World Bank
Achieving the Sustainability of the
May-95
Jan-97
Feb-97
15.30
Bolivian Protected Area System
118
Brazil
World Bank
National Biodiversity Project (PROBIO)
Apr-87
Mar-92
Nov-92
10.28
119
Brazil
World Bank
Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO)
Apr-87
Mar-92
Aug-92
20.00
120
Chile
World Bank
Valdivian Forest Zone: Private Public
Jul-96
Jul-96
Jul-96
0.75
Mechanisms for Biodiversity Conservation (MSP)
121
Colombia
World Bank
Conservation and Sustainable use of the
Apr-95
Jun-95
Jul-95
0.75
Serrania del Baudo (MSP)
122
Colombia
World Bank
Archipelago of San Andres: Conservation and
Apr-96
Jun-96
Jul-96
1.00
Sustainable Use of the Marine Reserves (MSP)
123
Colombia
World Bank
Andes Region - Conservation and Sustainable
Apr-96
Mar-97
Jun-97
15.35
Use of Biodiversity
124
Colombia
World Bank
Mataven Forest - Conservation and
Jan-97
May-97
May-97
0.75
Sustainable Development (MSP)
125
Costa Rica
World Bank
Biodiversity Resources Development
Feb-93
Feb-94
Jun-94
7.00
126
Costa Rica
World Bank
Eco-Markets
Nov-95
Jun-96
Apr-97
8.33
127
Costa Rica
World Bank
Sustainable Cacao Production in
Jan-97
Feb-97
Feb-97
0.75
Southeastern Costa Rica (MSP)
128
Ecuador
World Bank
Monitoring System for the
Oct-94
Dec-94
Jan-95
0.94
Galapagos Islands (MSP)
129
Ecuador
World Bank
Wetland Priorities for Conservation Action (MSP)
Feb-95
Mar-95
Mar-95
0.74
130
Ecuador
World Bank
Choco-Andean Corridor (MSP)
Apr-96
Jun-96
Jul-96
1.00
131
Ecuador
World Bank
Coastal Albarradas: Rescuing Ancient Knowledge
Jul-96
Aug-96
Aug-96
0.75
and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (MSP)
132
El Salvador
World Bank
Promotion of Biodiversity Conservation
May-94
May-94
Jun-95
0.75
within Coffee Landscapes (MSP)
133
Guatemala
World Bank
Management and Protection of Laguna del
Jul-95
Sep-95
Sep-95
0.75
Tigre National Park (MSP)
134
Mexico
World Bank
Protected Areas Program (FANP)
Apr-87
May-93
Jun-93
25.00
135
Mexico
World Bank
Biodiversity Conservation through Habitat
Jun-95
Jun-95
Jul-95
0.75
Enhancement in Productive Landscapes (El Triunfo)
136
Mexico
World Bank
COINBIO - Indigenous and Community
Apr-96
Nov-96
Jun-97
7.88
Conservation of Biodiversity
51

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
Work
IA
Effective
GEF
Program
Approval
Date
Funding
No.
Country
IA
Project
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ Million)
137
Nicaragua
World Bank
Atlantic Biological Corridor
Sep-92
May-93
Sep-94
7.43
138
Panama
World Bank
Atlantic Mesoamerican Biological Corridor
Apr-93
May-94
Oct-94
8.69
139
Panama
World Bank
Effective Protection with Community Participation
Jun-95
Jun-95
Jul-95
0.75
of the New Protected Area of San Lorenzo
140
Peru
World Bank
Collaborative Management for the Conserv. and
Jun-95
Aug-95
Sep-95
0.75
Sust. Devt. of the (Tumbes)
Noroeste Biosphere Reserve (MSP)
141
Peru
World Bank
Vilcabamba - Participatory Conservation and
Jun-95
Sep-95
Sep-95
0.75
Sustainable Development with Indigenous
Communities (MSP)
142
Peru
World Bank
Biodiversity Conservation in the
Apr-97
May-97
Jun-97
0.77
Nanay River Basin (MSP)
143
Venezuela
World Bank
Conservation & Sustainable Use
May-95
Jun-95
Jun-95
0.96
of the Llanos Ecoregion (MSP)
144
Regional
World Bank/
Terra Capital Biodiversity Fund (IFC)
Sep-91
Oct-93
Sep-94
5.00
IFC
145
Honduras
World Bank
Biodiversity Conservation in
Dec-92
Sep-93
Jul-94
7.30
UNDP
Priority Protected Areas
Total
718.90
Climate Changes
Work
IA
Effective
GEF
Program
Approval
Date
Funding
No.
Country
IA
Project
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ Million)
1
Bolivia
UNDP
Rural Electrification with Renewable Energy
May-99
Jul-99
4.218
through the Popular Participation Law
2
Brazil
UNDP
Biomass Power Generation: Sugar Cane
Apr-96
Mar-97
Jun-97
3.750
Bagasse and Trash
3
Bulgaria
UNDP
Energy Efficiency Strategy to Mitigate Greenhouse
Oct-96
Oct-96
May-98
2.575
Gas Emissions. Energy Efficiency Demonstration
Zone in the City of Gabrovo
4
China
UNDP
CPR: Barrier Removal for the Widespread
Jul-99
Dec-99
9.617
Commercialization of Energy-Efficient CFC-Free
Refrigerators in China
5
China
UNDP
Promoting Methane Recovery and Utilisation
Apr-96
May-97
5.285
from Mixed Municipal Refuse
6
China
UNDP
CPR: Capacity Building for the Rapid
Apr-97
Feb-99
8.800
Commercialization of Renewable Energy
7
Cuba
UNDP
Producing Energy Efficient Refrigerators without
Mar-00
May-00
0.750
making use of Ozone Depleting Substances
52

---

Appendix A: List of Projects Included in 2002 PIR
Work
IA
Effective
GEF
Program
Approval
Date
Funding
No.
Country
IA
Project
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ Million)
8
Czech Republic
UNDP
Low Cost/Low Energy buildings
Aug-98
Nov-98
0.448
in the Czech Republic
9
Egypt
UNDP
Regional - Energy Efficiency Improvements
Oct-96
Aug-98
4.110
and GHG Reduction in Egypt and
the Palestinian Authority
10
Egypt
UNDP
Egypt ­ Introduction of Viable Electric and
Nov-99
Mar-00
0.749
Hybrid Electric Bus Technology in Egypt
11
Fiji
UNDP
FIJ: Fiji Renewable Energy Hybrid
Feb-99
Jun-00
0.740
Village Power Systems
12
Ghana
UNDP
Renewable Energy-based Electricity for Rural,
Aug-96
Jan-98
2.472
Social and Economic Development
13
Guatemala
UNDP
Renewable Energy Based Small Enterprise
0.383
Development in the Quiche Region of Guatemala
14
Hungary
UNDP
Public Sector Energy Efficiency Programme
4.200
15
India
UNDP
Optimizing Development of Small Hydel
Dec-91
Jan-94
Mar-94
7.500
Resources in Hilly Areas
16
India
UNDP
Development of High Rate BioMethanation
May-92
Jan-94
Mar-94
5.500
Processes as Means of Reducing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
17
India
UNDP
India: Coal Bed Methane Capture and
9.198
Commercial Utilisation -FULL
18
India
UNDP
Cost Effective Options for Limiting GHG Emissions
1.500
19
Jordan
UNDP
Jordan - Reduction of Methane Emissions and
Apr-96
Apr-96
Aug-97
2.500
Utilization of Municipal Waste for Energy in Amman
20
Kenya
UNDP
Removal of barriers to energy conservation and
Oct-98
Apr-00
3.193
energy efficiency in small and
medium scale enterprises
21
Latvia
UNDP
Economic and Cost-Effective Use of Wood Waste
Feb-98
Jul-98
0.750
for Municipal Heating Systems in Latvia
22
Malawi
UNDP
National Sustainable and
3.353
Renewable Energy Programme
23
Malaysa
UNDP
Industrial Energy Efficiency and
Apr-98
Jul-99
7.301
Improvement Project
24
Morocco
UNDP
Market Development for Solar Water Heaters
2.965
25
Morocco
UNDP
Building Capacity in the Maghreb to Respond
2.500
to the Challenges and Opportunities created by
National Response to the UNFCCC
26
Pakistan
UNDP
Fuel Efficiency in the Road Transport Sector
May-92
Jul-95
May-96
7.000
27
Palestine
UNDP
Energy Efficient Buildings
2.475
28
Palestine &
UNDP
Energy Efficiency Improvemens and
May-97
Jul-98
0.500
Egypt
Greenhouse Gas Reduction
53

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
Work
IA
Effective
GEF
Program
Approval
Date
Funding
No.
Country
IA
Project
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ Million)
29
Peru
UNDP
Renewable Energy Systems in the
0.748
Peruvian Amazon Region (RESPAR)
30
Peru
UNDP
Photovoltaic-based Rural Electrification in Peru
Apr-98
Apr-99
3.955
31
Philippines
UNDP
Palawan Alternative Rural Energy and
Oct-99
Feb-00
0.750
Livelihood Support Project
32
Regional -
UNDP
The creation and strenghtening of Capacity for
Oct-99
Apr-00
0.750
Costa Rica
Sustainable Renewable Energy Development
in Central America
33
Romania
UNDP
Capacity Building for GHG Emission Reduction
Sep-00
2.036
through Energy Efficiency improvement in Romania
34
Russian
UNDP
Capacity Building to Reduce Key Barriers to
Oct-96
Oct-96
Feb-98
2.980
Federation
Energy Efficiency in Russian Residential
Buildings and Heat Supply
35
Sri Lanka
UNDP
Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency
Apr-96
Jan-98
1.510
Capacity Building
36
Sudan
UNDP
Sudan - Barrier Removal to Secure PV Market
May-99
Jan-00
0.750
Penetration in Semi-Urban Sudan -MEDIUM < 750
37
Syria
UNDP
Syria - Supply-Side Efficiency and Energy
Oct-96
Nov-98
4.070
Conservation and Planning
38
Thailand
UNDP
Removal of Barriers to Biomass Co-Generation
6.805
from Wood Residues in Thailand
39
Tunisia
UNDP
Experimental Validation of Building Codes and
4.360
Removal of Barriers to their Adoption
40
Tunisia
UNDP
Tunisia -Barrier Removal to Encourage and
Feb-99
Apr-99
0.710
Secure Market Transformation and
Labelling of Refrigerators.
41
Uganda
UNDP
Uganda photovoltaic pilot project (PV)
Oct-95
Nov-97
1.756
for rural electrification
42
Global
UNEP
Redirecting Commercial Investment Decisions
Mar-99
Jul-99
0.750
to Cleaner Technologies -
A Technology Transfer Clearinghouse
43
Global
UNEP
Fuel Cell Bus and Distributed Power Generation
Apr-00
May-00
0.691
market Prospects and Intervention Strategy Options
44
Global
UNEP
Assessment of Impacts and Adaptation to Climate
Nov-00
May-01
7.850
Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors
45
Argentina
World Bank
Renewable Energy in Rural Markets
Nov-97
Mar-99
Dec-99
10.000
46
Brazil
World Bank
Energy Efficiency
May-97
Oct-99
Feb-01
20.000
47
Cape Verde
World Bank
Energy & Water Sector Reform and Development
Mar-98
May-99
Dec-99
4.700
48
China
World Bank
Beijing Second Environment
Dec-99
Jun-00
May-02
25.000
49
China
World Bank
Energy Conservation
May-97
Mar-98
Dec-98
22.000
50
China
World Bank
Fuel Efficient Industrial Boilers
Apr-96
Dec-96
Feb-97
32.810
54

---

Appendix A: List of Projects Included in 2002 PIR
Work
IA
Effective
GEF
Program
Approval
Date
Funding
No.
Country
IA
Project
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ Million)
51
China
World Bank
Sichuan Gas Transmission and Distribution
Apr-92
Mar-94
Sep-94
10.000
Rehabilitation/Sichuan Gas
Development & Conservation
52
Costa Rica
World Bank
Tejona Wind Power
Dec-92
Sep-94
Nov-95
3.300
53
Cote d'Ivoire
World Bank
Energy efficiency service market (MSP)
Jul-98
Apr-99
Jun-99
0.695
54
Global
World Bank
Efficient Lighting Initiative (IFC) Tranche I
Aug-98
Jun-99
Sep-99
9.350
55
Global
World Bank
Efficient Lighting Initiative (IFC) -Tranche II
Aug-98
Mar-00
May-00
5.650
56
Global
World Bank
Renewable Energy and Energy
Apr-96
Dec-97
Feb-00
30.000
Efficiency Fund (IFC)
57
Global
World Bank
Solar Development Group (IFC)
Oct-98
Jan-01
Mar-01
10.000
58
Global
World Bank Photovoltaic Market Transformation Initiative (IFC)
May-97
Jun-98
Jul-98
30.000
(Kenya,
India,
Morocco)
59
Hungary
World Bank
Energy-Efficiency Co-Financing Program (IFC)
Apr-96
Mar-97
May-97
0.700
60
India
World Bank
Energy Efficiency
Dec-97
Jun-00
Jan-01
5.000
61
India
World Bank
Alternate Energy
Dec-91
Nov-92
Apr-93
26.000
62
Indonesia
World Bank
Solar Home Systems (SHS)
Oct-95
Jan-97
Oct-97
24.300
63
Lao PDR
World Bank
Southern Provinces Renewable Energy (MSP)
Nov-97
Feb-98
Feb-98
0.740
64
Latvia
World Bank
Solid Waste Management and
Jan-97
Feb-98
Jul-98
5.120
Landfill Gas Recovery
65
Lithuania
World Bank
Klaipeda Geothermal Demonstration
May-95
May-96
Oct-96
6.900
66
Macedonia
World Bank
Mini-HydroPower Project (MSP)
Dec-99
Jan-00
May-00
0.750
67
Mexico
World Bank
Renewable Energy for Agricultural
May-99
Dec-99
Aug-00
8.900
Productivity (RETS)
68
Mongolia
World Bank
Improved Household Stoves in
Sep-00
Feb-02
Mar-02
0.750
Mongolian Urban Centers (MSP)
69
Poland
World Bank
Coal-to-Gas Conversion Project
Dec-91
Nov-94
Jun-95
25.000
70
Poland
World Bank
Zakopane/Podhale Geothermal District
May-99
May-00
Jul-00
5.400
Heating and Environment
71
Regional
World Bank
Planning for Adaptation to
May-95
Mar-97
Apr-97
5.000
(Caribbean)
Climate Change (CARICOM)
72
Senegal
World Bank Sustainable and Participatory Energy Management
Apr-96
Jun-97
Dec-97
4.700
73
Sri Lanka
World Bank
Energy Services Delivery
Apr-96
Mar-97
Jul-97
5.900
74
Tunisia
World Bank
Solar Water Heating
May-93
Nov-94
May-95
4.000
75
Uruguay
World Bank
Landfill Methane Recovery
Mar-00
May-00
Nov-00
0.975
Demonstration Project (MSP)
Total
475.362
55

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
International Waters
Work
IA
Effective
GEF
Program
Approval
Date
Funding
No.
Country
IA
Project
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ Million)
1
Regional -
UNDP/UNEP/
Addressing Transboundary Environmental Issues
Nov-98
Apr-00
Apr-99
8.745
Azerbajan
WB
in the Caspian Environment Programme
2
Regional -
UNDP
Building Environmental Citizenship to support
Feb-00
Mar-00
Apr-00
0.75
Hungary
transboundary pollution reduction in the Danube:
A pilot Project in Hungary and Slovenia
3
Regional -
UNDP
Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology
Oct-00
0.99
Slovak Rep.
(TEST) In the Danube River Basin
4
Regional -
UNDP
Preparation of the Strategic Action Pan for the
Mar-98
Mar-00
7.261
Ukraine
Dnieper Preparation River Basin and Development
of SAP Implementation Mechanism
5
Egypt
UNDP
Lake Manzala Engineered Wetlands
Dec-92
Jun-97
Jun-97
5.26
6
Regional -
UNDP
Preparation of Strategic Action Programme (SAP)
Mar-98
Jun-99
5.199
China
and Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) for
the Tumen River Area, its coastal regions and
related Northeast Asian Environs
7
Regional -
UNDP
Building Partnerships in Environmental Protection
Nov-98
16.224
Philippines
and Management for the East Asian Seas
(PEMSEA)
8
Regional -
UNDP
Implementation of the Strategic Action
Jul-98
Feb-00
12.29
Samoa
Programme (SAP) of the Pacific Small Island
Developing States-14 countries
9
Regional -
UNDP
Implementation of the Strategic Action
Nov-97
Feb-99
Sep-99
19.34
Saudi Arabia
UNEP
Programme (SAP) for the Red Sea
WB
and Gulf of Aden
10
Uruguay
UNDP
Environmental Protection of the Rio de La Plata
Jan-99
Nov-99
6.007
and its Maritime Front: Pollution Prevention and
Control and Habitat Restoration
11
Global
UNDP
IW:LEARN
Jul-98
Mar-00
1.93
12
Global
UNDP
Knowledge Sharing in International Waters -
Jul-98
Mar-00
5.41
Train-Sea-Coast
13
Global
UNDP
Removal of Barriers to the Effective
May-99
Feb-00
7.612
Implementation of Ballast Water Control and
Management Measures in Developing Countries
14
Regional
UNEP
Determination of Priority Actions for the Further
Mar-98
May-00
Jan-00
6.4
Elaboration and Implementation of the Strategic
Action Programme for the Mediterranean Region
15
Regional
UNEP
Formulation of a Strategic Action Programme
May-00
Jun-00
Jan-01
3.93
for the Integrated Management of the San Juan
River Basin And its Coastal Zone
16
Brazil
UNEP
Implementation of Integrated Watershed
Jul-98
Sep-99
Sep-99
6.678
Management Practices for the Pantanal and
Upper Paraguay River Basin
56

---

Appendix A: List of Projects Included in 2002 PIR
Work
IA
Effective
GEF
Program
Approval
Date
Funding
No.
Country
IA
Project
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ Million)
17
Regional
UNEP
Implementation of the Strategic Action Program
Nov-00
May-01
May-01
11.04
for the Bermejo River Basin
18
Regional
UNEP
Development and Protection of the Coastal and
Jul-00
Aug-00
Aug-00
0.75
Marine Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa
19
Brazil
UNEP
Integrated Management of Land Based Activities
Jul-98
Oct-99
Oct-99
4.771
in the Sao Francisco Basin
20
Global
UNEP
Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA)
Sep-97
Mar-99
Mar-99
6.785
21
Global
UNEP
Role of Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and
Oct-98
Jul-99
Jul-99
0.72
Undisturbed Nutrients and Carbon Cycles
22
Global
UNEP
Regionally Based Assessment of
Dec-99
Aug-00
Aug-00
2.662
Persistent Toxic Substances
23
Russian
UNEP
Persistent Toxic Substances (PTS), Food Security
Feb-00
Feb-01
Feb-01
0.75
Federation
and Indigenous Peoples of the Russian North
24
Georgia
World Bank
Agricultural Research, Extension and Training
May-98
May-00
Feb-02
2.5
(Formerly Agric. II)
25
Regional
World Bank
Lake Ohrid Management
May-97
Jun-98
Dec-98
4.28
(Albania,
Macedonia)
26
Regional
World Bank
Mekong River Water Utilization
Mar-99
Feb-00
Mar-00
11.1
(Cambodia,
Thailand
Vietnam)
27
Regional
World Bank Lake Victoria Environmental Management (46871)
Apr-96
Jul-96
Mar-97
12.266
(Kenya)
28
Regional
World Bank Lake Victoria Environmental Management (46872)
Apr-96
Jul-96
Mar-97
12.266
(Tanzania)
29
Regional
World Bank Lake Victoria Environmental Management (46870)
Apr-96
Jul-96
Mar-97
12.266
(Uganda)
30
Egypt
World Bank Red Sea Coastal and Marine Resource Management
Apr-92
Nov-92
Dec-94
19
31
Jordan
World Bank
Gulf of Aqaba Environmental Action Plan
Oct-95
Jun-96
Jun-96
2.995
32
Poland
World Bank
Rural Environmental Protection
Jul-98
Nov-99
Mar-00
3
33
Regional
World Bank
Water and Environmental Management
May-97
Jun-98
Sep-98
12.525
(Kazak.,
of the Aral Sea Basin
Kyrgyz,
Tajik.,
Turkmen.,
Uzbek.)
34
Regional
World Bank
Strategic Action Plan (SAP) for the Red Sea
Nov-97
Feb-99
Sep-99
5.61
(Red Sea
countries)
57

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
Work
IA
Effective
GEF
Program
Approval
Date
Funding
No.
Country
IA
Project
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ Million)
35
Regional
World Bank
Western Indian Ocean Oil Spill
Jul-98
Dec-98
Mar-99
3.502
(Comoros,
Contingency Planning
Mauritius,
Madagascar,
Seychelles)
36
Regional
World Bank
Ship-Generated Waste Management
Dec-92
May-95
Nov-96
13.018
(Org. of
Eastern
Caribbean
States)
Total
246.701
Ozone
Work
IA
Effective
GEF
Program
Approval
Date
Funding
No.
Country
IA
Project
(A)
(B)
(C)
(US$ Million)
1
Azerbaijan
UNDP
Country Programme Review of Ozone Depletion
Mar-98
Feb-99
7.04
Projects for Azerbaijan (4 PROJECTS)
2
Estonia
UNDP
Country Programme Review of Ozone Depletion
Jul-00
Aug-00
.919
Projects for Estonia (2 PROJECTS)
3
Kazakhstan
UNDP
Country Programme Review of Ozone Depletion
5.60
Projects for Kazakhstan (5 PROJECTS)
4
Latvia
UNDP
Country Programme Review of Ozone Depletion
Jun-00
Jun-00
1.439
Projects for Latvia (3 PROJECTS)
5
Lithuania
UNDP
Country Programme Review of Ozone Depletion
May-98
May-98
4.533
Projects for Lithuania (4 PROJECTS)
6
Regional
UNEP
Promoting Compliance with the Trade & Licensing
Jan-98
Mar-00
Mar-98
.694
Provisions of the Montreal Protocol in Countries
with Economies in Transition
7
Regional
UNEP
Initiating Early Phaseout of Methyl Bromide
Sep-99
Feb-98
Mar-00
.663
through Awareness Raising, Policy Development
and Demonstration/Training Activities
8
Russian
World Bank
Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances
May-95
May-96
Sep-96
25.700
Federation
9
Tajikistan
UNDP
Country Programme Review of Ozone Depletion
Jul-00
Sep-00
1.071
Projects for Tajikistan (2 PROJECTS)
10
Turkmenistan
UNDP
Country Programme Review of Ozone Depletion
Oct-98
Feb-99
.515
Projects for Turkmenistan (1 PROJECT)
11
Ukraine
World Bank Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substance Phaseout
Jul-96
Jun-96
Mar-99
23.540
12
Uzbekistan
UNDP
Country Programme Review of Ozone Depletion
Oct-98
Mar-99
3.319
Projects for Uzbekistan (2 PROJECTS)
Total
75.041
58

---

APPENDIX B
GUIDELINES FOR THE 2002 PIR
Guidelines for
FY 2002 GEF Project Implementation Review (PIR)
1. The 2002 PIR Process and Schedule
force reviews will also draw on other ma-
The 2002 GEF PIR process will, as in previ-
terial, including the agency overviews and
ous years, involve: (1) PIR reviews by the
conclusions of earlier studies.
Implementing Agencies (IAs) that will be sub-
(3) Based on the reviews of the focal area task
mitted to the GEF M&E Team; (2) reviews of
forces an interagency meeting will be held
the PIR reports by GEF focal area task forces
in early December 2002.
in their respective portfolios, and (3) a one-
day interagency review meeting. Beginning in
2. Portfolio Themes and Lessons Learned
PIR 2002, we will include an annual stocktak-
Overview
ing of enabling activities as part of the PIR
Each IA shall provide an overview report iden-
process.
tifying portfolio themes and lessons learned
based on its internal PIR process. The IAs
(1) The IA PIR for 2002 will be conducted
should devise an internal review process that
between May and September, 2002. Al-
will allow them to effectively identify cross-
though the GEF M&E team will accept
cutting themes emerging from the portfolio.
staggered submissions of the reports dur-
The portfolio themes to be identified would
ing this period, they must be submitted no
include the following categories:
later than September 25, 2001. The agen-
cies will submit (or make available on elec-
(a) Basic GEF issues and project review cri-
tronic databases):
teria (such as sustainability, replication and
leverage). These will be identified and
portfolio themes (an overview of
agreed upon at the GEF level, and shall be
agency experience)
continuously monitored and reported upon
individual project reports
annually.
portfolio indicators (including sum-
(b) Specific issues that emerge from the Imple-
mary tables with project data)
menting Agency's review as well as the two
themes focused in the Secretariat Managed
(2) Once the IA reports are received by GEF
Project Review: GEF's Private Sector En-
M&E team, they will be distributed to pro-
gagement and Participation of Intended
gram managers within GEFSEC and IA
Beneficiaries and Effected Groups of
members of the four GEF focal area task
People. These should be reported by focal
forces. Each focal area task force will
area so that they can be referred to the fo-
schedule a review meeting of their respec-
cal area task forces for further discussion
tive portfolios during early- to mid-Novem-
and analysis.
ber 2002. These reviews will focus on
(c) Issues or topics for which: (i) OPs require
trends identified in the project reports, pro-
clarification or elaboration; (ii) additional
gram and project cycle issues. The task
operational guidance is needed on project
59

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
development, implementation or evalua-
what it is trying to achieve, its principal
tion; (iii) referral to STAP for scientific or
activities, and major accomplishments and/
technical advice is indicated; (iv) review
or problems during the past year. (Please
in greater depth in M&E studies would be
do not repeat the project goal or objective
beneficial; and/or (v) dissemination of
in this section.)
good practices and lessons learned is rec-
4.4 Project "Goal"19
ommended.
A statement of the goal to which the project
contributes.
3. Individual Project Reports
4.5 Indicators of Goal Achievement and Re-
Reports shall be submitted on all full and me-
lated Targets
dium-sized (but not pre-investment or indi-
List the indicators being used to monitor
vidual country enabling activities) GEF
progress toward achievement of the
projects which began implementation on or
project's goal, together with any relevant
before June 30, 2001, and were in implemen-
target values for these indicators. If spe-
tation during FY 2002, including those projects
cific indicators are not identified, include
which completed implementation during FY02.
a discussion of how the project manager is
Implementation Completion Reports, Perfor-
determining progress toward achievement
mance Audit Reports or Evaluation Reports
of the goal, and state when project indica-
prepared during FY02 need to be submitted as
tors will be put in place. For each indica-
part of the PIR.
tor, include the actual level achieved.20
4.6 Project Purpose21
The individual project implementation reports
State the project's purpose or purposes.
should include the following information:
4.7 Indicators of Purpose Achievement and
Related Targets
4.1 Project Name, Country and GEF Focal
List the indicators being used to monitor
Area and Operational Program/EA/STRM,
progress toward achievement of the project
Approval Date and Effective Date
purpose(s), together with any relevant tar-
4.2 Financial Data
get values for each indicator. If specific
This section should include: total project
indicators are not identified, include a dis-
cost, GEF grant amount, cof inancing
cussion of how the project manager is de-
(planned for all projects and actuals real-
termining progress toward achievement of
ized for projects that have undergone a
the project purpose(s)22 , and state when
mid-term review or completed implemen-
project indicators will be put in place. For
tation) by source, and disbursements.
each indicator, include the actual level
4.3 Brief Project Description
achieved.
A brief description (50-100 words) --in
4.8 Assumptions and Risks
simple and direct language--of the project,
List major risks identified in the project
19 This should be the highest level in the project's Logical Framework, which is often labeled the "goal" to which the project contributes.
Different implementing agencies are using different terms for this level. The World Bank often refers to this level as the "CAS Objective"
and/or the "GEF Operational Program" or "Program Purpose". UNEP uses "overall objective" to describe this level, while UNDP recently
has used "goal".
20 It is understood that at this level, information may not be available on every indicator each year. Reports should include the most recent data
on the goal-level indicators.
21 This should be the second highest level in the project's Logical Framework, which is typically labeled as the "project purpose". Different
implementing agencies are using different terms for this level. The World Bank often refers to this level as the "development objective" and/
or "global objective". UNEP uses "outcomes" to describe this level, while recent UNDP projects use "purpose".
22 For example, UNDP projects are supposed to have "indicators of performance" that are rated and reported on in APRs.
60

---

Appendix B: Guidelines for the 2002 PIR
design and others that have been made
Additionally, the IAs should provide lists/tables
since. Rate the risk that affect implemen-
on the status of the portfolio as follows:
tation or prospects for achieving project
objectives and comment on what the
1. A list of all full and medium-sized (but not
project is doing to avoid them. For this
pre-investment or individual country en-
purpose, use the 4 point scale in Annex 1:
abling activities) GEF projects which be-
high (H), substantial (S), modest (M) and
gan implementation on or before June 30,
low (L).
2001, and were in implementation at least
4.9 Implementation Issues and Actions Taken
some part of FY2002 ( for which individual
Give an account of which signif icant
reports will be prepared)
policy, institutional, scientific and techni-
cal issues or changes that have arisen dur-
2. A brief status report on all projects for
ing project implementation, including
which:
changes in project assumptions/risks. As-
sess how well the project has responded to
a) funding was allocated in GEF Work
such issues/changes and describe the
Programs before June 30, 2001, but
project's use of adaptive management or
which have not been approved for-
flexible approaches to reach project objec-
mally by the IA.
tives.
b) formal approval was made by the IA
on or before September 30, 2001, but
4. Portfolio Indicators
which have not begun disbursements
On the basis of the individual project reports
by June 30, 2002.
each IA should provide a report that summa-
rizes the overall performance indicators and
3. A list of all GEF projects that were opera-
portfolio trends. This should include analysis
tionally completed during FY02. Reports
of:
on these projects should also be included
in the PIR.
(a) the performance of its GEF projects (pos-
4. A list of (a) all mid-term reviews, evalua-
sibly relative to comparable non-GEF port-
tion reports (self evaluations or indepen-
folios) on (i) length of time from formal
dent evaluations) and/or project completion
IA approval to first disbursement; and (ii)
reports that have been completed from July
disbursement history;
1, 2001, through June 30, 2002, and (b)
(b) implementation progress (IP) and accom-
mid-term reviews, evaluation reports and/
plishment of project purposes (DO), trends
or implementation completion reports un-
in each focal area, and common factors that
derway as of June 30, 2001, or planned
appear to account for either deterioration
through June 2002.
or improvements in ratings and or perfor-
5. A brief status report on implementation of
mance in relation to those included in the
enabling activities supported under the
2001 PIR.
various conventions, including a list of the
enabling activity projects.
61

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
ANNEX 1 - DEFINITION OF RATINGS
Implementation Progress Ratings
Highly Satisfactory/ Good Practice (HS)
Implementation of all components is in substantial
compliance with the original (or formally revised)
implementation plan for the project. The project can
be presented as "good practice".
Satisfactory (S)
Implementation of most components is in substan-
tial compliance with the original/formally revised
plan except for a few that are subject to remedial
action.
Partially Satisfactory (PS)
Implementation of several components is not in sub-
stantial compliance with the original/formally re-
vised plan.
Unsatisfactory (U)
Implementation of most components is not in sub-
stantial compliance with the original/formally re-
vised plan.
Project Purpose (Global Environment Objective/
Development Objective) Ratings
Highly Satisfactory Good Practice (HS)
Project is expected to achieve or exceed all its ma-
jor purposes and global environmental objectives
and yield substantial global environment benefits.
The project can be presented as "good practice".
Satisfactory (S)
Project is expected to achieve most of its major glo-
bal environmental objectives and purposes and to
yield satisfactory global environmental benefits
without major shortcomings.
Partially Satisfactory (PS)
Project is expected not to achieve several of its major
global environmental objectives or purposes nor
yield substantial global environmental results.
Unsatisfactory (U)
Project is expected not to achieve most of its major
global environment objectives or purposes nor to
yield worthwhile global environmental results.
62

---

Appendix B: Guidelines for the 2002 PIR
Risk Rating
Assumption and risk rating is often done on the basis a Logical Framework approach. The risk that
individual assumptions relevant to the project may not prove to be accurate, and, may seriously affect
implementation or prospects for achieving project objectives, should be rated on the following scale:
High Risk (H)
There is a probability of greater than 75% that the
assumption may fail to hold or materialize.
Substantial Risk (S)
There is a probability of between 51% and 75% that
the assumption may fail to hold or materialize.
Modest Risk (M)
There is a probability of between 26% and 50% that
the assumption may fail to hold or materialize.
Low Risk (L)
There is a probability of less than 25% that the as-
sumption may fail to hold or materialize.
63

---

---

APPENDIX C1
WORLD BANK ­ GEF PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW
FY 2002 Summary Report
Eight projects closed and exited the portfolio,
5 FSPs and 3 MSPs.
Portfolio Overview
Twenty four projects had been approved by the
GEF Council prior to June 30, 2000 for inclu-
Through June 30, 2002, the World Bank
sion in the work program but had not yet re-
Group's GEF approved portfolio comprised
ceived Bank management approval by June 30,
273 projects with total GEF grant commitments
2002. This is a much higher number than in
of $2.14 billion that are associated with an ad-
FY01 when nine projects were slow in matur-
ditional $10.44 billion in co-financing. There
ing. Progress toward appraisal is advanced for
were 205 full-sized projects ($2.08 billion) and
a number of these projects with Bank Man-
68 medium-sized projects ($52 million). Total
agement approval expected shortly thereafter.
commitments increased by 10% over 2001
while the number of projects was 19% higher.
The FY02 PIR portfolio comprises 127
projects, 85 FSPs and 42 MSPs. Total GEF
There was no change from FY01 in the distri-
grant commitments for these projects are
bution of the portfolio by focal area for either
$969.75 million. Thirty nine projects are in
full size or medium size projects, based on GEF
LCR with commitments of $203.8 million, fol-
commitments. The climate change focal area
lowed by ECA with commitments of $194.8
(41%) had a slightly higher share of commit-
million from 18 projects and EAP also with 18
ments than biodiversity (40%), followed by In-
projects but a slightly lower commitment of
ternational Waters (10%) and ODS Phase-Out
$190.7 million.
(7%). However, biodiversity continued to have
a far higher number of projects (97 FSP, 50
Performance
MSP) than climate change (69 FSP, 11 MSP).
The proportion of projects rated satisfactory
The distribution of the portfolio by region for
or better on Implementation Progress has re-
both full and medium sized projects, based on
mained stable for the past four years at around
commitments, is identical to FY01. Latin
the 90% level. This year's performance of 89%
America and the Caribbean region (LCR),
of projects rated satisfactory or better is two
therefore, still has the highest share of com-
percentage points lower than the correspond-
mitments.
ing result of 91% for FY01. There was a paral-
lel increase of one percentage point in projects
The Bank's active portfolio included 177
rated partially satisfactory and unsatisfactory
projects with a total GEF commitment of $1.31
respectively. For satisfactory and above, ECA,
billion - 121 FSPs and 56 MSPs. During the
LCR (on a much larger number) and SAR
year twenty FSPs and eight MSPs were ap-
achieved 94% or higher. AFR had the highest
proved by the Bank's management while thir-
number (4) of projects with unsatisfactory rat-
teen FSPs and eight MSPs became effective.
65

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
ings, EAP had three projects in this category,
rated unsatisfactory on both Implementation
while IFC had the highest proportion of par-
Progress and Global/Development Objective.
tially satisfactory or unsatisfactory projects
By region, LCR and SAR had satisfactory or
(38%). The ECA portfolio has noticeably im-
higher ratings of 100% followed by EAP and
proved performance compared with 2001,
ECA each with 94%. IFC had the highest pro-
when 20% of its projects were rated unsatis-
portion of partially satisfactory or unsatisfac-
factory, whereas only 6% now fall in that cat-
tory projects (38%), followed by AFR, 15%..
egory.
PROJECTS AT RISK23
The ratings for Global/Development objectives
were also slightly lower than in FY01. Ninety
The proportion of projects at risk increased
two percent of projects were rated at least sat-
slightly while the actual number nearly
isfactory, compared with 95% in FY01, al-
doubled. There were eleven projects at risk, rep-
though the highly satisfactory rate remained
resenting 10% of the portfolio, an increase from
constant at12%. The number of less than satis-
six projects at risk, representing 7% of the port-
factory projects in this PIR (8) increased from
folio in FY01, marginally lower than the 11%
5 in FY01 mainly due to changes in the perfor-
in 2000 and much better than the 15% in 1999.
mance of IFC projects where two were down-
Among the projects at risk in FY02, three each
graded to partially satisfactory and one to
were in AFR and EAP and two in LCR. It is
unsatisfactory from FY01. Seven projects were
also significant that 6% of the stand alone GEF
23 Projects at risk of not meeting their development objectives. Includes both actual problem projects (those rated less than satisfactory on
development objectives and/or implementation progress) and potential problem projects (those that are satisfactory on IP or DO but are
associated with three or more other risk factors). The system only tracks full size projects.
BOX 1
RATINGS FOR IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS AND DEVELOPMENT/GLOBAL OBJECTIVE
Rating
FY97 (49)*
FY98 (62)
FY99 (56)
FY00 (84)
FY01 (96)
FY02 (127)
Implementation Progress
Highly Satisfactory
20
18
12
12
14
14
Satisfactory
67
66
79
77
77
75
Partially Satisfactory
1
2
Unsatisfactory
12
16
9
11
8
9
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
Development/Global Objective
Highly Satisfactory
28
18
16
17
12
12
Satisfactory
65
74
80
76
83
80
Partially Satisfactory
1
1
Unsatisfactory
6
8
4
7
4
7
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
*Figures in () are the number of projects
66

---

Appendix C1: World Bank ­ GEF Project Implementation Review
portfolio was at risk compared with 20% for
Quality of Risky Projects were found to be sat-
blended projects, which perhaps is an indica-
isfactory, compared with 78% for the overall
tion that the broader range of issues addressed
sample. This would suggest that risky GEF
by blended projects increases the chances of
projects are being given the supervision atten-
them being risky.
tion that is commensurate with the problem.
Averages for the realism and proactivity indi-
Net Disconnect25
ces24 of the Bank-GEF portfolio were 100%
and 88% respectively, compared with 86% and
Of five projects for which completion reports
100% in FY01. This realism index means that
were written during FY02 only one (Indonesia
all the projects at risk are actual problem
Solar Homes Systems) was rated unsatisfac-
projects, while the proactivity index signifies
tory, and this project was also rated unsatis-
a decline in the proportion of problem projects
factory by OED. A second project, Indonesia
being addressed through upgrading, restruc-
Biodiversity Conservation, was rated satisfac-
turing, etc, though this is no worse than the
tory by the region but marginally unsatisfac-
overall Bank average. Of five actual problem
tory by OED giving a net disconnect of 20%,
projects in FY01 three remained in unsatis-
but on a small number of projects. No other
factory status while eight new ones were
project had a disconnect.
added.
Elapsed Time Between Project
Quality Assessments
Processing Steps
Quality of Entry
From GEF Council Approval to Bank
The Quality at Entry Assessment for 2001 car-
Management Approval
ried out by the Bank's Quality Assurance Group
There was significant improvement during
(QAG) found a 100% overall satisfactory out-
FY02 in average elapsed time between GEF
come for GEF projects which was in line with
Council approval and Bank Management ap-
the results for IBRD projects as a whole. The
proval ­ projects are being prepared and ready
report noted, however, that there tended to be
for appraisal in a shorter time - which reverses
an implicit assumption in environment and
the upward trend since 1999. The FY02 result
GEF projects that because these projects are
of 409 days for FSPs is 20% lower than the
expected to have an overall beneficial effect
average for the previous three years and is the
on the environment, they can do "no harm" to
lowest since 1993. Even so there were a few
the environment or vulnerable groups. This is-
outliers, such as the Ukraine Biodiversity in
sue is being assessed in depth by the Bank's
the Azov-Black Sea Ecological Corridor
GEF team with assistance from the Quality As-
Project which took 1423 days to move from
surance and Compliance Unit.
GEF Council to Bank Management approval
and the Papua New Guinea Forest and Conser-
Quality of Supervision
vation Project which took 1174 days. The rea-
With respect to supervision, all five GEF
sons for delays were internal political and
projects included in QAG's 2002 Supervision
administrative changes in both cases and in the
24 Realism Index: The ratio of actual problem projects to total projects at risk. Proactivity Index: The proportion of projects rated as actual
problem projects twelve months earlier that have been upgraded, restructured, suspended, closed, partially or fully canceled, or located in a
post-conflict country with a Board-approved transition strategy.
25 Net disconnect: The difference between the percentage of projects rated as unsatisfactory by OED and the percentage rated by the regions
in the final PSR as unsatisfactory for achieving their development objectives.
67

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
case of the latter, issues related to the Bank's
From Bank Management Approval
policy dialogue.
to Effectiveness
On the other hand the average time between
Taking account of the number of projects per
Bank Management approval and effectiveness
region on which the analysis is based, LCR had
for FSPs increased from 159 days in FY01 to
the most favorable outcome, 266 days. The
269 days in FY02, a 70% increase to more than
Africa region had the least favorable average
twice the Bank standard of 120 days and the
elapsed time, 597 days, followed by EAP with
highest ever recorded for GEF projects (previ-
529, which was distorted by the PNG project.
ously 215 days in FY00). Altogether, 70% of
Similarly, the ECA average of 445 days would
the projects in the Bank-GEF portfolio took
be only 200 days if not for the Ukraine project.
longer than the Bank standard, compared with
The results also show that biodiversity projects
QAG's finding that for the past few years 40%
have longer processing time than projects in
of the projects in the overall Bank portfolio
other focal areas. While the averages for inter-
have exceeded the standard. To some extent
national waters and climate change projects
the results are biased by an outlier in EAP, the
were 212 and 258 days respectively,
China Renewable Energy Development
biodiversity projects took twice as long to pre-
project, which took 918 days to become effec-
pare, 535 days. This is largely due to complex-
tive.
ity of project design and the need to undertake
social assessments that require lengthy field
The factors contributing to delay included
investigations. But there are complicated cli-
complicated legislative processes in the recipi-
mate change projects also, such as the China
ent countries for approval of donor financed
Energy Scale-Up and the Morocco Solar Based
projects, fulfilling the legal requirements set
Power Thermal Plant, which are slow in ma-
by the Bank and putting in place required
turing.
institutional arrangements. Looking at the trend
FIGURE 4
AVERAGE ELAPSE TIME (IN DAYS) BETWEEN BANK MANAGEMENT APPROVAL TO ???????
300
250
200
150
No. of Days
100
50
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Bank FY
Average Lag time (in days) -- combined
Average Lag time (in days) -- Full Sized Projects
Average Lag time (in days) -- Medium Sized Projects
68

---

Appendix C1: World Bank ­ GEF Project Implementation Review
over the past few years the main lesson is
The conflict in Colombia has affected the
that many effectiveness conditions can some-
Bank's portfolio more seriously during FY 02
times be addressed by the time of Bank Man-
than previously. In response, some activities
agement approval--they could be made
have been adjusted. For example, in the Con-
conditions of appraisal or Board submission--
servation and Sustainable Use of the Serrania
which would give sufficient time to deal with
del Baudo Project a series of public awareness
these more complicated issues during prepa-
workshops had to be canceled and radio broad-
ration rather than making them conditions of
casts used instead.
effectiveness.
In Ecuador, an oil pipeline is being constructed
The Bank-GEF team is examining whether
in a region of the country where the Choco
there are additional GEF specific factors con-
Andean Corridor project is also located. The
tributing to this problem and has included spe-
Bank is in no way associated with the pipeline
cial attention to reducing effectiveness delays
which does not pose a direct threat to the
in its portfolio improvement management plan
project's activities. Nevertheless the Bank has
for the current FY.
tried to address any foreseeable threat to the
Corridor from this pipeline by recommending
Cross-cutting Portfolio Issues
good practices from other countries and help-
and Results
ing the project adapt by devising a mitigation
strategy as part of the conservation manage-
Risk Analysis and Management
ment plan for the area.
The risks identified during project design of-
ten arise and can have significant implications
A serious risk to the Georgia Integrated Coastal
for implementation as well as for the
Zone Management (ICZM) is construction of
sustainability of outcomes. The most common
the Kulevi oil transit terminal abutting the pro-
risks are economic crises, limited institutional
tected wetland supported by the project, and
capacity, availability of counterpart funding
the slow response from government. The pro-
and political conflict. Some examples are pre-
posed risk minimization measures included
sented below of how these risks have affected
strengthening environmental enforcement and
the portfolio and how project task teams have
introduction of market based instruments, to-
sought to address them.
gether with continued dialogue between the
Bank and government on project benefits.
Although the effects of the Asian economic
crisis have abated during the past two years,
Resources Leveraged
the Indonesia Solar Home Systems Project is
The Bank Group-GEF program continues to
still affected by the country's economic diffi-
have a favorable overall ratio of GEF$1 to non-
culties and is not achieving even its scaled-back
GEF$5 for cumulative commitments, with sev-
objectives. In consequence, early closure of the
eral examples in the portfolio of leveraging
project is being considered. In Latin America,
beyond the original agreed financing plan. Also
the economic crisis in Brazil, Argentina and
on a favorable note, the ratio in the Africa re-
spillover to Uruguay has contributed to delays
gion, which was traditionally below the Bank
in project implementation (Argentina and Uru-
average, has increased from 1:2.5 to 1:4.
guay), and to a reduction in counterpart fund-
ing in Brazil as a result of devaluation of the
Catalytic Effects and Replication
Real. Several IFC projects have also been af-
There are a number of good examples in the
fected. Task teams are monitoring the situation
portfolio of replication. The Brazil National
closely but have not yet designed appropriate
Biodiversity Project (PROBIO) has influenced
response strategies.
the formulation of new projects at the federal
69

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
level such as, Amazon Region Protected Areas
trained and retained by the project have been
ARPA (which is already Bank Approved) and
important factors for sustainability. In the case
Ecological Corridors, as well as at the state
of the Mali Household Energy Project,
level. The Biome Level Assessment method-
sustainability is rated as likely because a trans-
ology used in PROBIO is being applied for
parent and pro-active regulatory framework for
policy making purposes in various states such
the sector is in place. The evolution of the gov-
as Minas Gerais and Pernambuco. The Mexico
ernment agency responsible for renewable en-
­ Oaxaca Hillside Management (MSP) specifi-
ergy to a mature financial institution in India,
cally addresses agricultural practices along hill-
including the ability to mobilize additional re-
sides and also includes targeted research on
sources, is an important reason for the highly
carbon sequestration. Based on the results of
likely sustainability of the India Renewable
this project, a Prototype Carbon Fund (PCF)
Resources Development Project.
project on marketing carbon credits is currently
under preparation.
Emerging Focal Area
In the East Asia region, the China Nature Re-
Lessons and Good
serves Management Project's advanced nature
Practices
reserve planning methodology has been widely
disseminated by the State Forestry Adminis-
Biodiversity
tration to other SFA-managed nature reserves,
and the SFA plans to replicate its use in 150
Sustainable Financing of Biodiversity
national-level nature reserves. In Cambodia the
Conservation
Cambodia Biodiversity and Protected Area
One of the greatest challenges for conserva-
Management Project's conservation awareness
tion is how to cover the recurrent costs of parks
activities have encouraged provincial develop-
and protected areas. Worldwide, protected ar-
ment staff to include national park staff in lo-
eas (PAs) are generally constrained by lack of
cal economic planning and management to
adequate budgets, and timing of budget flows,
better harmonize development and conserva-
which make few of them capable of generat-
tion initiatives.
ing sufficient revenues (either from visitor fees
or other user payments) to be self-sustaining.
In South Asia, the Sri Lanka Energy Services
Visitor fees and Conservation Trust Funds are
Delivery Project has been catalytic in the de-
the most widely used mechanisms by GEF
velopment of renewable energy, particularly in
projects, payment for environmental services
the small and village hydro sector. The techni-
(PES) is a relatively new approach being pio-
cal assistance component of the project has
neered by the Bank, while the IFC has focused
helped catalyze private sector delivery of en-
on aligning private sector investment with
ergy efficiency services and the development
biodiversity conservation.
of the first ESCO in Sri Lanka.
One of the more interesting examples of visi-
Sustainability of Project Outcomes
tor and other user payments from the portfolio
is the Gulf of Aqaba Environmental Action Plan
Although a number of factors contribute to the
(Jordan) where cost recovery mechanisms in-
likelihood of sustainable project outcomes,
clude marine park fees (diving fees, visitor fees,
several of the projects that closed in FY02 em-
and beach facility fees); issuance of permits
phasized the importance of institutional as-
(air emission permits, cooling water discharge
pects. In East Asia, for both the Indonesia
permits, resource user fees for import/export
Biodiversity Collections Project and the China
of all goods); and fines for environmental dam-
Nature Reserves Management Project, staff
70

---

Appendix C1: World Bank ­ GEF Project Implementation Review
ages, including industrial pollution and oil
achieve significant conservation gains through
spills. All revenue from these fees and fines
PES, service payments must be guaranteed over
will be earmarked for the Department of Envi-
a long time, such as 20 years, to provide suffi-
ronment, Regulation and Enforcement.
cient incentive for conservation. Equally im-
portant, adequate and reliable sources of
Lessons emerging from Bank-GEF projects
finance must be secured to implement the pay-
are:
ments system, and the areas that will benefit
from the payment system must be accurately
that most PAs and all PA networks will
defined and their ownership or use rights must
need continued input of government fund-
be clear. The Costa Rica Ecomarkets Project
ing;
provides participating small landowners with
many parks will continue to need addi-
payments for the environmental services their
tional outside support, including longterm
land provides when forest cover is maintained.
support for PA management, including
potential second phase support from GEF
34. The IFC is promoting sustainable land use
or other donors;
and improved natural resource management
additional sources of reliable regular fund-
through small loans under its Small and Me-
ing are needed, in addition to government
dium Enterprise (SME) Program and invest-
budgets and should not be used to supple-
ments in private sector partnerships in South
ment/not replace government budgets;
America through the Terra Capital Fund. The
PA funding should be diversified and not
private sector still has much to learn in identi-
dependent on any one source, such as tour-
fying and evaluating business opportunities
ism revenues which may be impacted by
which are profitable but lead to conservation
political, climatic and economic distur-
benefits. According to IFC experience, a key
bances; and
challenge is financial discipline to determine
to ensure adequate government support,
when it is justifiable to use a grant or subsidy
both political and financial, there must be
to promote a business opportunity. Further-
greater understanding among policy mak-
more, successful biodiversity investment re-
ers, local agencies and communities of the
quires a number of supporting conditions,
key role that PAs provide in ensuring envi-
including legal and institutional frameworks,
ronmental benefit
technical assistance and market access for
biodiversity products--all of which have to be
To address the delays and unpredictability of
addressed in the process of catalyzing and
government budgets and variable visitor in-
building this new business sector.
come, the Bank has helped to establish several
conservation trust funds, using GEF financing
Conservation in production landscapes
as part of the capitalization to support protected
A key lesson from the Bank's experience over
area financing at either the national network
the past decade is the need to expand the con-
level or individual protected areas. In spite of
servation imperative beyond protected areas to
the apparent success of trust funds, few donors
seek oppor tunities for mainstreaming
are willing or able to capitalize such mecha-
biodiversity concerns into land and water man-
nisms. In this regard the GEF has played, and
agement in the broader production landscape.
will continue to play, a critical role in catalyzing
This means explicitly linking conservation with
funds and endowing and leveraging resources
people's local development needs. Key ele-
for their capitalization.
ments in this strategy are the need to work
across sectors and institutions, promoting col-
The Bank has only recently begun working with
laborative partnerships both within the public
payments for environmental services. To
sector among government agencies and be-
71

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
tween governments, NGOs and other sectors
ment/purchase decisions and policy formu-
of civil society.
lation to support the renewable energy (RE)
sector.
A successful example of this approach is the
Evaluating projects in terms of number of
India Ecodevelopment project which has
PV system installations may overlook im-
shown that development activities support PAs
portant consequences. Benefits from the
best when they are explicitly linked to threat
solar home systems (SHS), and after-sales
alleviation and conservation objectives, for
service and maintenance experience,
example, provision of fuel efficient stoves to
should be the focus of monitoring and
reduce firewood needs, employment as con-
evaluation.
servation guards and tourist guides.
The pace of RE market development is
slower than envisaged. This may be be-
Where project success depends on socio-eco-
cause the intervention is designed for ru-
nomic benefits from biodiversity, conservation
ral and poorer population segment, or lack
activities need to provide a competitive alter-
of RE awareness. Enough time should be
native for project target groups if they are to
allowed to develop markets and projects
be sustainable once project support ends. This
and to identify suitable RE business mod-
underlines the importance for projects to de-
els in the country.
velop incentive frameworks, i.e. tax incentives,
Affordable financing accessible to rural
targeted subsidies, or creation of viable niche
consumers is essential for selling PV prod-
markets.
ucts in rural areas. In India, Solar PV in-
vestments began only after on-lending rates
For instance, the Uganda Kibale Forest Wild
to intermediaries and end users were re-
Coffee MSP was designed to provide revenue
duced from 10.3% to 2.5% for rural appli-
for Kibale National Park and local farmers
cations and 5% for other sectors.
through marketing of wild coffee from local
The target rates for return on investment
forests in blends with organically-farmed cof-
are sometimes higher than realistically pos-
fee. The main lesson learned from this project
sible in the renewable energy market, as
is that feasibility studies to assess the market
occurred with the SDG and REEF projects.
potential of a prospective commodity are nec-
Availability of concessional GEF financ-
essary prior to initiation of projects aiming to
ing has helped to mobilize signif icant
establish financial returns from selling a prod-
amounts of non-GEF private sponsor and
uct on the global market
other co-financing., but the IFC-managed
funds have placed far less deals than ex-
Climate Change
pected;
Although the implementation experience is still
Significant work still needs to be done to
limited, several business models have been
expand and extend the consumer finance
tested by the World Bank and the IFC for rural
infrastructure supporting local PV compa-
applications of PV and already have shown
nies sales efforts. Many domestic FIs with
some promising results, although the projects
rural infrastructure are not credit-worthy.
have not been as effective as originally expected
Use of GEF funds as a partial risk guaran-
in leveraging and expansion of the PV market.
tee has helped to stimulate new market
Emerging lessons include the following:
entrants from among local commercial
banks and other financial intermediaries.
Awareness through dialogue, training and
and
demonstration investments is key to in-
Local PV enterprises tend to require in
creased confidence in technologies and
addition to financing a significant amount
benefits, which in turn influence invest-
of technical support in basic business pro-
72

---

Appendix C1: World Bank ­ GEF Project Implementation Review
cesses (preparing business plans, imple-
done in HEECP/HEECP2. However, it is also
menting management systems, expanding
quite clear that IFC management would not
their sales and distribution networks, etc.)
commit to engage further in the development
as they expand their businesses.
or use of this product without the shared risk
coverage provided by the GEF funds.
Lessons from IFC's involvement with the
private sector
Looking Ahead
The use of GEF funding to support private eq-
uity-type funds targeting global environmen-
The continuing impact of efforts during the past
tal objectives (e.g. biodiversity conservation,
few years to improve performance of the Bank-
or clean energy technologies) either in a re-
GEF portfolio is evident in the positive trend
gion or globally has successfully mobilized IFC
of a number of indicators. These achievements
and private capital to support equity-type in-
will be consolidated through continued atten-
vestments. However, the performances of these
tion to several key project and portfolio man-
funds in actually placing funds in investments
agement factors included as part of a portfolio
that meet the investors return criteria has been
improvement plan presently being imple-
less than satisfactory. This illustrates both the
mented. The plan includes the following ac-
difficulty of investments in the target sectors
tions:
and the demanding nature of private equity
funds. Private equity funds also take consider-
Improve the overall quality of PSRs;
able time to develop, document for prospec-
Improve focal area specific M&E;
tive investors, and complete capital
Address GEF criteria in MTRs;
mobilization (2-4 years on average). There is
Address GEF criteria in ICRs;
thus a considerable risk that by the time such
Reduce project processing time from GEF
funds become operational significant market
Council to Bank Management approval and
changes may occur which renders them less
from Bank Management approval to effec-
effective.
tiveness;
Improve monitoring of project risks dur-
IFC has been more successful in using GEF-
ing implementation
supplied funds to provide partial risk guaran-
Take actions to address problem projects;
tees to commercial banks and other financial
and
intermediaries (leasing companies and non-
Include sustainability and replication in-
bank FIs) to help mobilize commercial financ-
dicators respectively, in the project log-
ing for a class of energy efficiency investments
frame
which raise unique structuring and
collateralization issues for FIs. This has been
73

---

---

APPENDIX C2
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW 2002
UNDP/GEF Summary
Performance Report
September 2002
Introduction
retariat, UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank,
that UNDP implements on behalf of Member
States. Projects that were operationally com-
The annual GEF Project Implementation Re-
pleted before June 30, 2001 were not included
view (PIR) complements the regular UNDP
in this year's review. A total of 119 projects
Monitoring and Evaluation procedures em-
qualified for the 2002 PIR ­ a 24 % increase
ployed during project implementation.
compared to 96 projects in PIR 2001 and a 65
% increase compared to 72 projects in PIR
The PIR covers only a subset of the UNDP/
2000.
GEF's portfolio. According to the PIR selec-
tion criteria individual project information was
In addition to reporting on the general perfor-
collected for all full and medium-sized projects
mance of GEF projects, implementation
under implementation for a minimum of one
progress and impact achievements, the PIR
year, as of June 30, 2002. This also includes
overview report ­ now in its eighth year ­ has
the Country Dialogue Workshop (CDW)
been restructured to better inform the discus-
Programme, a joint initiative of the GEF Sec-
TABLE 1
UNDP/GEF PROJECT PORTFOLIO (AS OF FY 02) BY REGION
April 91-Jun 02
April 91-Jun 02
Total Authorized Allocation26
Total Approved UNDP Budget27
Region
($million)
($million)
Global
66.9
66.3
Africa
240.2
172.6
Asia & Pacific
354
300.5
Arab States
117.1
109.5
Europe & CIS
141.3
120.9
Latin America & Caribbean
317.7
255.8
Small Grants Programme
96.8
70.5
Total UNDP/GEF Projects
1,335.5
1,101.3
26 Authorized allocation refers to GEF allocation approved by GEF Council or GEFSEC CEO.
27 Total approved UNDP budget refers to GEF allocation approved by UNDP as commitment.
75

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
FIGURE 1
PIR 00/01/02 COMPARISON: DISTRIBUTION OF GEF FUNDING BY FOCAL AREA28
50
40
30
20
10
0
Multiple Focal
Ozone Depletion
Biodiversity
Climate Change
International
Area
Waters
2000
2001
2002
28 Regional Projects are counted as one project regardless of number of participating countries.
sions between the GEF Secretariat and the
Portfolio Overview
Agencies within the Focal Area Taskforces as
part of the overall PIR review. Particular em-
Since the initiation of the annual Project Imple-
phasis has been dedicated to the focal area over-
mentation Review in 1995 the UNDP/GEF
views, but the report also includes a summary
annual approved Work Programme has grown
of trends and crosscutting issues concerning
considerably reaching an accumulated total of
UNDP/GEF projects.
$ 1,300 million as of June 2002. Consequently
TABLE 2
DISTRIBUTION OF UNDP/GEF PIR PROJECTS BY EXECUTING AGENCIES
Number of
Percentage of
GEF Funding
Projects
all projects
(US$ Millions)
National Execution
72
61 %
257.71
UN Agency
19
16 %
48.80
UNOPS
10
8 %
91.00
Non-Governmental Organization
15
13 %
28.56
Other
3
2 %
33.68
TOTAL
119
100 %
459.75
76

---

Appendix C2: Project Implementation Review 2002
FIGURE 3
PIR 00/01/02 COMPARISON: DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE DISTRIBUTION29
% FUNDING BY FOCAL AREA
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
HS
S
PS
U
NA
2000
2001
2002
the number of projects for which monitoring
creasing steadily. The total number of 119
information needs to be collected, analyzed and
projects being reviewed in the PIR 02 exercise
consolidated during the PIR process keeps in-
represents a major increase of 24% (or 23
FIGURE 4
PIR 00/01/02 COMPARISON: IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVE DISTRIBUTION
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
HS
S
PS
U
NA
2000
2001
2002
77

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
projects) in the PIR portfolio compared to the
Compared to previous years this reflects an
PIR 01 which collected information for 96
overall maturing of the ongoing portfolio. OP3
projects.
(Forest ecosystem) projects are significantly
underrepresented in the PIR sample (54% of
Biodiversity (BD) remains the largest Focal
the total) indicating that a significant change
Area with 56 projects or 47% of the PIR port-
is taking place in the distribution.
folio (both in terms of numbers of projects and
GEF funding) followed by Climate Change
As in previous years, and as with most
(CC) (41 projects or 35 % of the portfolio) and
biodiversity activities, while positive project
International Waters (13 projects or 13 % of
impacts on the state of biodiversity are re-
the portfolio). In terms of funding the gap be-
ported, it is difficult to verify these objectively.
tween Biodiversity and Climate Change has
Despite this there is good reason to suspect sig-
increased significantly from last year, from
nificant direct impacts on biodiversity given
11% to 17 % difference. This year did also in-
that many projects report success in establish-
cluded 8 ozone depletion projects and one in
ing new protected areas, and particularly com-
the multiple focal area category (Country Dia-
munity based or co-managed marine protected
logue Workshops Programme).
areas. Predictably impact on the ability to "re-
spond" to the biodiversity problem is consid-
Using the rating categories provided in the PIR
ered much more extensive and significant.
guidelines a total of 13 projects were rated
Reports of significant increases in capacity at
highly satisfactory (HS) and 81 projects satis-
national, provincial and local levels are exten-
factory (S) on impact achievement, represent-
sive. Projects with a particular emphasis on
ing about 84% of the PIR 02 portfolio. Only
capacity development all report meeting or even
three projects rated their potential impact
exceeding their targets. Particularly notable in
achievement with unsatisfactory and projects
this regard are the OP13 projects on
in the Ozone Programme provide a single DO/
agrobiodiversity in Ethiopia, date palms in
IO rate. The eight projects included in this
North Africa, and the Cross-borders and NGO-
year's PIR are rated satisfactory (S). The pic-
government partnerships projects in Africa.
ture for the rating of implementation progress
Many projects report success in developing
looks fairly similar. A total of 11 projects re-
particular elements of capacity such as strength-
port highly satisfactory progress and 82
ened enabling environments in general (Cote
projects satisfactory progress in implementa-
d'Ivoire, the Philippines), integrated coastal
tion. Four projects rated the achievement of its
zone management frameworks (Belize and
immediate objectives as unsatisfactory. These
Madagascar), participatory planning processes,
figures translate into an implementation suc-
management plans, and awareness raising.
cess rate of 83 % for the UNDP/GEF projects
that participated in PIR 2002.
Despite these reported achievements, projects
do not report on linkages between developed
capacity and threat reduction or biodiversity
Focal Area Overviews
impact. This is of particular concern where
projects are raising awareness, involving com-
Biodiversity
munities in planning and management of pro-
tected areas, or working with communities on
alternative livelihood activities. Reports of lim-
The UNDP/GEF Biodiversity portfolio re-
ited public sector involvement ­ suggesting that
ported on in the PIR sample reflects approxi-
the project is seen as "outside" the mainstream
mately 77% of the overall UNDP GEF BD
of government action, and serious delays the
portfolio of projects under implementation
launch of activities related to the development
78

---

Appendix C2: Project Implementation Review 2002
of alternative sustainable livelihoods and pri-
The importance of transferring lessons and
vate sector involvement (particularly in marine
experiences between projects is reported from
and coastal projects) are suggesting flaws in
several projects. For example, marine protected
the participatory development process. These
area projects in the Philippines report the im-
reports also raise significant concerns about
portance of learning lessons from each others
sustainability of project impacts after project
experiences. The Lesotho project notes that
closure. A notable exception to this concern is
transfer of experience between sites within the
the Brazil project, and those projects report-
same project was important. The establishment
ing significant increases in ecotourism.
of an IPGRI based project "mentoring" team
for agrobiodiversity projects was similarly
While most reports note the importance of
noted as having provided significant benefit
continuity and a long term perspective with a
to the Arab States Dryland Agrobiodiversity
view to achieving some specific long term
project.
goal, this seems very difficult to actually imple-
ment. Institutions implementing projects tend
Notions such as "adaptive management",
to focus on carrying out the activities that are
"sustainability" and "participation" are fre-
within their own competence, rather than on
quently professed but are often not fully put
focusing on what needs to be done and who
into practice. While flexibility and "adaptive
can best do it.
management" is regularly referred to as being
important, so far the Madagascar coastal and
Projects report a range of challenges experi-
marine resources project seems to be the only
enced during implementation: Many projects
one effectively applying it, suggesting that the
report difficulties associated with management
theory is much easier than the practice.
of the project as an entity. These difficulties
have generally been addressed by arranging
The importance of establishing a broad network
appropriate training and by UNDP country of-
of partnerships is recognized by almost all
fices stepping in to provide temporary assis-
projects and is very widely applied with
tance with issues such as procurement and
projects often having extensive networks of
financial management. However, this is rarely
partners within local, provincial, national and
planned for and project designs are often over-
international government institutions, NGO's,
ambitious, particularly with respect to possible
and academic and research institutions. Part-
first year achievements. A number of projects
nerships with the private sector are much more
report on governments not following through
limited, except in the case of coastal and ma-
on f inancial or staff ing commitments
rine projects where the engagement of the tour-
(Cameroon, Guatemala, Paraguay, Philippines,
ism industry through "Codes of Conduct" and
Tanzania, and Vietnam). In other cases smooth
enlisting their support in monitoring infringe-
project implementation has been disrupted by
ments seems to be particularly successful.
social unrest (Central African Republic, Cote
d'Ivoire, Nepal, Paraguay) and war (Eritrea) ­
Projects vary considerably in their approach to
though note that biodiversity projects in Leba-
the leverage of additional resources. Some
non and Sudan (in both cases dealing with pro-
projects pay no attention to this on the basis
tected areas) report as being influential in
that the project was correctly and fully designed
national reconciliation and peace building. A
and all the required resources were negotiated
number of projects seem to have neglected the
prior to project launching. Others continue to
key issue of how to sustain project achieve-
seek to expand the resources available to them
ments after the end of the project until very
throughout their life and beyond into the fu-
late in project implementation, undermining
ture. Resources leveraged may be from other
prospects for sustainability.
donors, NGO's, foundations, or through the
79

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
establishment of revolving or capitalized trust
aged to incorporate PV into their planning for
funds and debt swaps. Some resources are
rural electrification.
clearly "in-kind", others are closely related to
the project but lie outside the project "system
Development of an innovative and effective
boundary" ­ in space or time.
financing mechanism still constitutes a great
challenge for all PV projects. In the Uganda
project, public awareness activities, training
Climate Change
and general capacity building activities by the
project have resulted in an increase in the num-
ber of financial institutions involved in giving
There were 41 climate change projects in the
vendor credit for solar technology.
2002 PIR process. Nineteen of these projects
(46% of total) reviewed fall into OP6, Promot-
Projects focusing on using waste biomass for
ing Renewable Energy and 17 (41%) are con-
heat and power are looking at a small number
sidered Energy Efficiency (OP5) projects. One
of demonstration sites, and an analysis reveals
project falls into the Sustainable Transport OP
that their replication potential is significantly
(OP11) and yet another one falls into the Re-
large although identifying the financing to pur-
ducing Costs OP (OP7). Of the remaining
sue this replication is a challenge.
projects, two were EA projects and the other is
considered to be a STRM project (Short term
Three projects (Jordan, China and India) fo-
measures). For the first time, these projects will
cus on converting biomass from the municipal
be reviewed not just by operational program,
waste stream to methane and utilizing the meth-
but rather by clusters within those programs.
ane for generating electricity. International pri-
(Only sub-clusters that had at least three
vate sector par tners and joint-venture
projects that underwent a PIR this year are re-
companies are already examining the possibili-
viewed here.)
ties of expanding the power generation facility
Renewable Energy Projects (OP6)
and the potential for replication activities given
the success to date. Their high cost-effective-
ness makes them good potential candidates as
One of the most important outputs of the So-
CDM projects, which can play a part of filling
lar PV projects has been their influence on
the financing gaps. The other two projects are
national policy or legislation. In Uganda, the
dealing with agricultural residues and the pro-
PV project has led to the removal of all taxes
cess of biomass either in boilers or gasifiers.
and tariff on PV equipment and influenced the
As a direct result of one project (Brazil), two
adoption of a rural electrification strategy plan
sugar mills are already using trash in their con-
which emphasizes the use of PVs in rural ar-
ventional boilers, and it is expected that a large
eas. In Bolivia and Peru, the projects have con-
number of other mills will begin using sugar
tributed to the enactment of laws which
cane to generate energy. The Thailand project
established the basis for the development of
is still finalizing the rules governing the re-
isolated and border localities in which the ap-
volving fund for investment in biomass power
plication of renewable energy technologies was
generation.
declared a matter of national interest, as well
as identifying an agency as the executor of ru-
There are 8 projects in this year's PIR that
ral electrification activities and administrator
attempt to remove barriers to a number of
of an annual fund of the national budget. How-
mixed renewable energy technologies. All
ever, it is also recognized (Ghana) that gov-
of them were rated as being successful this
ernments can change their commitments to
year and despite the disparate nature of these
partnerships rapidly. Utilities must be encour-
technologies, there are some common lessons
80

---

Appendix C2: Project Implementation Review 2002
and experiences that can be drawn from this
led to the development of a commercial build-
cluster.
ing code while in the Czech Republic the
project has succeeded in revising laws to pro-
To encourage the adoption of renewable en-
mote energy efficient buildings. Since a large
ergy technologies several projects (Fiji, Sri
number of projects represent win-win options,
Lanka, regional Central American) are influ-
these efforts will bring about market-based
encing governments to put a renewable energy
stimuli for the construction of more energy
based rural electricity legal framework in place,
efficient buildings (Russia). While recogniz-
as well as increasing capacity of government,
ing the need for governmental regulation, the
non-governmental, and industrial proponents.
experiences from this sub-cluster also under-
The India project has been successful in help-
line the importance of learning-by-doing. In a
ing the Indian Government re-evaluate its ap-
sector where it is hard to see immediate out-
proach to small hydro development: increasing
puts in the form of widespread adoption of
both the reliance upon the private sector and
energy efficiency standards in building con-
the consultation with and participation of lo-
struction (because of slow inventory turnover)
cal stakeholders. The replication plan devel-
technical assistance to stakeholders will ensure
oped under this project has already begun to
that they are in fact adopting best practices.
attract international investors. However, a con-
tinuing uncertainty is whether energy produc-
The three projects focusing on Appliance En-
tion from renewable energy sources will be
ergy Efficiency that underwent a PIR in this
cost-effective for rural consumers with low
year all differ in their scale, funding commit-
incomes. This has immediate implications for
ments, focus and impact while emphasize do-
the profitability of these technologies, since
mestic manufacturing of more energy efficient
these projects are premised on large and en-
refrigerators. The China project combines tech-
thusiastic private sector participation. Two
nology push ­ supply side interventions ­ with
projects in the Latin American region (Guate-
demand pulls, which raise consumer aware-
mala and Bolivia) target largely indigenous
ness. The hallmark of the project is the wide-
populations and have adopted a participatory
spread private sector interest in manufacturing
approach to stimulate businesses in local com-
energy efficient refrigerators. The projects in
munities, with outcomes such as establishment
Tunisia and Cuba are directed at transforming
of a local bank to cover part of the cost of re-
markets mainly via supply-side interventions.
newable energy installations and links with
These include establishing legislation for en-
national finance agencies to manage the re-
ergy labeling cold appliances. An important
sources in a project revolving fund.
consideration is the threat posed by the avail-
ability of cheaper imports. Cuba and China
Energy Efficiency (OP5)
have been able to deal with this via legislation.
Thus, the policy component of project design
Most of the Buildings Energy Efficiency
plays a critical role in implementation, along
projects aim to introduce incentives for resi-
with dialogue and coordination with relevant
dents and distribution companies to adopt en-
government agencies.
ergy efficiency measures by two methods; to
make end-users pay for actual consumption
Municipal Energy Efficiency projects seek
(Egypt, Russia), and to introduce construction
to achieve greenhouse gas reductions through
and material codes which make buildings more
different approaches within heating, lighting
energy efficient (Czech Republic and Tunisia).
and other municipally-based energy efficiency
Influencing government regulation and creat-
efforts, such as improving energy use and ther-
ing and enforcing sector wide building codes
mal performance in hospitals and schools. In
play an important role; the project in Egypt has
Bulgaria, project results and demonstration
81

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
activities of policy and advocacy issues have
replication activities. Local financial insti-
been disseminated through MEEN (Municipal
tutions may be keen to provide assistance,
Energy Efficiency Network) and by so trigger-
but may not have the adequate legal and
ing similar, yet non-GEF funded, energy effi-
institutional framework to operate in.
ciency projects in several other municipalities.
The Latvian project, focusing on energy effi-
Institutional development and capacity
ciency of municipal heating systems, has ex-
building are critical elements of most UNDP-
perienced several delays associated with
GEF projects, and going beyond these activi-
changing political, sectoral and institutional
ties to stimulate sustainable investment remains
factors. All projects have shown that targeted
a challenge:
training for professionals, non-professionals,
and high-level decisions makers to enhance in-
i.
Emphasize learning by doing: Task spe-
stitutional and human capacity development is
cific training and specific technical/mana-
achievable and also key to project success.
gerial training/assistance means that
However, identifying and obtaining sustainable
system failures are reduced and more eas-
financing for the identified efforts is a chal-
ily "absorbed". This also means that there
lenge.
is actual technology "transfer" rather than
merely technology "sale". Local capacity
Main Experiences and Lessons
building also ensures the sustainability and
ownership of the project; intermediary
An analysis of projects reveals that financing
agencies will carry on the project without
issues ­ whether it is leveraging additional
day to day oversight by project staff.
funds or setting up innovative loan/subsidy
ii. Establish good working relationships with
schemes ­ is critical and affects project per-
Government partner agencies: While this
formance and some areas deserve additional
may seem trivial, it is the only way to in-
consideration:
fluence government policy and regulations,
especially in the areas requiring legislation
i.
Sufficient financing for operations: Project
and regulation, such as energy efficiency,
costs should be fully accounted for at
appliance labeling, and establishing stan-
project outset (a project design issue),
dards.
while innovative approaches to private sec-
tor partnerships can sometimes be used to
A number of projects identified public aware-
fill apparent gaps.
ness as a critical requirement for project suc-
ii. Private sector participation: The two chal-
cess. Awareness amongst all groups of
lenges are to identify technologies which
stakeholders and beneficiaries will serve as an
are cost-effective and ready for private fi-
important vector for market development.
nancing, and to attract private investment
resources. Since private sector participa-
International Waters
tion is often a critical challenge, involving
potential investors at the beginning will
The 13 UNDP-GEF International Waters
make the project more private-sector
projects reporting to 2002 PIR span the full
friendly and aid subsequent replication.
range of priority international waters issues as
iii. Innovative financing mechanisms: It is
identified in the GEF Operational Strategy, e.g.
important to construct innovative and "in-
water quality/quantity issues, overfishing, habi-
centive-based" means to finance projects
tat/species loss and introduction of exotic spe-
and to use project resources to leverage
cies, while two of them are knowledge sharing
further investments when facing the chal-
projects so in effect cover all the issues. Clearly
lenge of leveraging investment capital into
pollution is the most prevalent issue being ad-
82

---

Appendix C2: Project Implementation Review 2002
dressed by this cohort of projects reporting to
nity awareness activities funded under
the 2002 PIR. 7 projects are involved in either
TumenNet have increased the number of pub-
the development or implementation of TDA/
lications on transboundary environmental is-
SAPs and therefore, focus on assisting groups
sues in the Tumen region.
of countries to better understand their
transboundary water-related environmental is-
GloBallast reports that in several of its six pi-
sues and to enact and implement the necessary
lot sites, submission rates of ballast water re-
legal, policy and institutional reforms, and in-
porting forms by ships approach 60-70%, far
vestments
in excess of the 25% target. This is particu-
larly encouraging since this is a voluntary
The projects reporting are principally having
scheme, and that in developed countries such
project impacts related to process, with only
as the US, the Coast Guard is only achieving
modest stress reduction impacts; it is still too
an average compliance rate of 30% across all
early in the implementation of SAPs and other
ports.
regional and global programmes to gauge any
direct environmental status impacts attributable
Through IW:LEARN, demonstration activities,
to the GEF interventions.
their replication and sustainability (among
other issues) have been discussed explored and
The Red Sea project supported a high-level
shared across IW projects, while projects have
meeting of policy and decision-makers from
several ongoing electronic forums through
fisheries sector for need of a regional fisheries
which to provide direct feedback to each other,
organisation/regional fisheries commission
the GEF Secretariat, implementing and execut-
(RECOFI). Development of a new Convention
ing agencies, regarding on-the-ground imple-
for the management and conservation of west-
mentation of their programs and policies.
ern and central Pacific migratory fish stocks
has received significant support from the Pa-
Due to implementation issues, the TEST
cific Islands SAP project.
project has been re-organized to a more flex-
ible implementation mechanism, which allows
Several Dnipro River demonstration projects
improved tailoring of project activities to un-
(Belarus, Ukraine, Russia) focusing on munici-
expected country/company needs. Moreover
pal and industrial pollution and biodiversity
this arrangement has favored better control and
protection, including environmental audit and
management of the project, thereby reducing
management systems to reduce pollution, and
the risks of failure related to lack of perfor-
the development of a planning and manage-
mance of national counterparts.
ment framework for ecological corridors. The
Dnipro project has also executed a highly suc-
Significant Dnipro project milestones such as
cessful small grants program.
an Intergovernmental Agreement on the cre-
ation and funding of a Dnipro Regional Coun-
Local authorities in the provinces, coastal cit-
cil and a Convention on the Dnipro River
ies, municipalities and districts surrounding the
required political consensus far greater than an-
PEMSEA Bohai Sea pilot site have adopted the
ticipated in the Project Document. Similar in-
ecosystem management approach, developed
stitutional issues have been experienced by
and implemented functional zoning schemes,
PEMSEA (Malaysia and Thailand) and the In-
planned treatment facilities to reduce discharge
tegrated Coastal and Watershed Management
of sewage and industrial wastes into rivers and
component of the Pacific Island SAP project.
bays, and promoted environmental awareness
The Rio de la Plata project undertook a num-
through local media and educational channels.
ber of steps to overcome the constraints posed
Similar mass media campaigns and commu-
by the time required in the institutional deci-
83

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
sion-taking processes. The global, multi-cul-
International organizations such as IMO, FAO,
tural nature of the Globallast project, involv-
ALECSO, CAMRE, ROMPE, to mention a
ing a large variety of institutional systems and
few, have become more and more involved in
countries at different stages of development,
project implementation. These partnerships
has sought to harmonise different approaches
have leveraged technical, financial and knowl-
through standardized templates and models, fa-
edge support to the project and to the region at
cilitating maximum communications with and
large.
between countries, and including capacity
building and institutional strengthening ele-
Almost all of the projects have acquired addi-
ments in all activities.
tional resources and support from governments
and donors, institutions and organizations on a
26. Some lessons and experiences reflecting
national, regional and international level. The
the challenges faced in securing the substan-
additional resources have been used for sup-
tial co-financing, the Red Sea evaluation rec-
port contingency planning; support of partici-
ommended that the GEF and other donors
pating countries in the implementation of
secure written commitments from countries to
demonstration sites and workshops for a re-
financially and institutionally support a project
gional network for local governments; and col-
during implementation and beyond. Such ef-
laborative ecosystem research.
fort put into the Caspian projects have also
been well spent in terms of the plans contain-
ing some real financial commitments from the
Cross-Cutting Issues
countries. Globallast observes that there is a
natural tendency for recipient countries to slip
This year's PIR reaffirms the need to strengthen
into accepting programme support as a substi-
cross project learning by active networking;
tute rather than a supplement to their own ef-
the projects are not benefiting from the knowl-
forts.
edge and experience available from other in-
terventions in the GEF portfolio. UNDP/GEF
The Dnipro project found that good prepara-
is developing a support strategy focused on two
tory assessment of local talent and effective use
objectives: i) to capture knowledge generated
of national specialists in all aspects of program
at project level; and ii) to facilitate cross-project
activities enhances country buy-in and helps
learning.
counter negative stereotypes associated with
donor projects where international consultants
Within the Biodiversity Focal Area, so far the
dominate. The TumenNet project implementa-
networks have been driven by the projects with
tion through a network of local expert institu-
the objective of improving their performance
tions has signif icantly enhanced national
by looking beyond their own boundaries. The
ownership of the project and helped to estab-
Mountain Biodiversity project in Lesotho used
lish a genuine regional network of scientists,
staff and community groups from one project
politicians, government agencies and NGOs.
site to participate in consultations and training
The Pacific Islands SAP project noted that most
in other project sites. The exchange of views
Pacific Island States have an increasing num-
and experience across geographical areas
ber of commitments to regional and global ini-
proved extremely useful and encouraged rep-
tiatives, results in limited local capacity.
lication of best practices across protected sites.
The Bohol Reef project in the Philippines was
The GEF support to IW projects has helped to
part of a thematic Tripartite Review (TPR) with
create/maintain/strengthen partnerships with
other projects sharing similar experiences and
numerous national, regional and international
problems.
institutions and organizations. Regional and
84

---

Appendix C2: Project Implementation Review 2002
Demonstration of technologies and approaches
international partner in the operation and ex-
is frequently an objective of climate change
pansion of a landfill gas operation and a liquid
projects. In order to be able to achieve replica-
waste biogas generator. The success of the Pa-
tion in other projects and geographical areas,
kistan Road Transport Sector project has
dissemination of the lessons learned is essen-
largely depended on the extensive public-pri-
tial. In other cases has for example the India
vate sector partnerships involving automotive
Coal-Bed Methane project not yet been repli-
manufacturers and workshops.
cated in other countries. Networks for projects
of various sub-clusters within the Climate
In the Biodiversity Focal Area, several projects
Change Focal Area is planned (one for biom-
report on partnerships and collaboration agree-
ass already exists). The purpose of these ef-
ments with the private sector. Successful links
forts is to create ongoing mutual learning
have been established with the tourism sector
networks of similar projects that would allow
and particularly in coastal and marine projects
for the exchange of experiences and lessons.
(Tubbataha Reef in the Philippines, and Mada-
gascar Coastal Development and MedWet, the
The International Waters Focal Area is paying
In-situ Conservation in Lebanon). In the Up-
particular attention to cross-project learning.
per Guinea Forest Ecosystem project Rio Tinto
Two of the projects in the PIR portfolio,
has provided funding for biological and socio-
IW:LEARN and Train-Sea-Coast, are specifi-
logical assessments. In the Community Con-
cally targeted at knowledge sharing involving
servation project in Micronesia, a private
both more traditional training as well as net-
research company is providing subsidized sat-
working and distance learning through elec-
ellite imagery and vegetation mapping. In
tronic media. IW: LEARN manages a network
Lesotho, the Mountain Biodiversity project is
that involves all GEF International Waters
exploring private sector involvement in sustain-
projects. The experiences with both projects
able use projects based on extraction and use
have been overwhelmingly positive and these
of natural resources such as oils, fruit extracts,
could provide replicable models for horizontal
and aloes. Regardless of the above-mentioned
exchanges and structured learning in other fo-
examples, partnerships with the private sector
cal areas as well.
remain very limited in general. Further guid-
ance and support ­ particularly during explor-
Mobilization of the private sector to conser-
atory phases at early stages of project
vation and sustainable development efforts is
implementation ­ on aspects such as small en-
an essential goal for UNDP/GEF projects. How
terprise development and links with regional
far this process has gone varies considerably
or international partners might be very useful.
between the focal areas. There are also signifi-
Cross project learning and transfer of lessons
cant barriers that remain to be overcome. It is
should be encouraged.
equally important that the incentives for pri-
vate sector participation are in place.
Several projects in the International Waters
Focal Area involve private sector participation.
The Climate Change Focal Area has over the
This involvement takes different forms. The
years demonstrated successful involvement of
GloBallast project approach relies on the ship-
the private sector through various channels, in-
ping industry collaboration. The project has
cluding technology development and transfer,
exceeded its target rates of ballast water report-
market transformations, and financing. The
ing by ships in its six pilot sites. The Caspian
Guatemala Quiché project is utilizing a par-
Sea and the Red Sea projects have involved the
ticipatory approach to promoting businesses in
oil and gas industry and have been able to se-
local communities through renewable energy.
cure a limited amount of co-financing from
In Jordan, a local company partners with an
companies and organizations.
85

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
A crosscutting issue for all focal areas relate
is harder to demonstrate. For instance, it has
to challenges experienced by using perfor-
been noted in the case of the renewable energy
mance indicators when reporting on impacts
cluster that most of the projects will achieve
of the projects at the level of development ob-
the indicators related to project outputs while
jective and at outcome level. These might be
there is no measuring that the overall goal will
explained by lengthy periods needed for these
be achieved. Similarly, the projects dealing with
to appear- in particular in relation to impacts
marked transformation of the building sector
on environmental status- and by the limited
to promote energy efficiency demonstrate
availability of appropriate parameters to assess
strong implementation progress when it comes
and measure impact. Most of the indicators pro-
to transfer of best practices and capacity de-
vided in logframes are process ­ not impact ­
velopment, while evidence of market transfor-
indicators, therefore compromising projects'
mation and subsequent investments can only
capacity to identify and report on impact.
be expected after completion of the projects.
In the Biodiversity Focal Area most impacts
The International Waters Focal Area promotes
reported ­ or progress towards its achievement
an indicator framework that tracks three levels
­ are related to changes in response. Capaci-
of indicators: process indicators, stress reduc-
ties for conservation and sustainable use are
tion indicators, and environmental status indi-
built and developed by strengthening enabling
cators. The projects included in the PIR report
environments, establishing and extending pro-
basically on process indicators. There are, how-
tected areas, developing and improving man-
ever, modest impacts reported concerning
agement plans and frameworks, fostering wider
stress reduction in the international waters en-
stakeholder involvement and participation, and
vironments that are subject to the projects. This
developing alternative sustainable livelihoods,
is inevitable due to the long-term nature of the
among others. However it is often difficult to
environmental status impacts resulting from
assess the extent to which this have actually
interventions in international waters.
been achieved in those cases where indicators
refer to number of people trained, research or
All GEF projects are dealing with external
studies completed. An effort has to be made to
risks as they operate in an external environ-
go beyond processes and measure actual
ment that affects their efficiency and effective-
changes in the ability to respond to the
ness. These external factors that are beyond the
biodiversity problem. Better indicators need to
control of the project can pose serious risks
accompany objectives that define precisely
both to project implementation progress, as
what has changed, to what extent, and whether
well as to how well the project achieves its in-
it is sustainable. Qualifiers such as "improve-
tended development objective.
ment" or "strengthening" need to be defined
precisely and include appropriate targets. In-
Biodiversity changes might depend on factors
termediate milestones will allow assessment of
beyond the influence of the project. Identified
progress.
risks and assumptions will need to be moni-
tored and reported on as a complement to im-
In the CC focal area, the projects are often
pact indicators. These "reality checks" need to
aimed at market transformations to facilitate
be kept in mind at all times to avoid frustration
the adoption of specific technologies through
and sense of under-achievement as far as im-
capacity development, demonstrations and
pact.
transfer of technologies and best practices, and
policy influence. The indicators are mostly
The Climate Change Focal Area reports sev-
geared towards measuring these, while the
eral cases where project performance has been
achievement of the project's intended impacts
negatively influenced by external factors such
86

---

Appendix C2: Project Implementation Review 2002
as political, economic and social aspects (Peru,
Danube TEST, of how projects have adopted
Malawi and Latvia). Thus, it is essential that
flexible implementation approaches in order to
the projects identify the external risks at the
better respond to changes in external condi-
outset and continue to vigilantly monitor the
tions or the recommendations of evaluations.
risk factors throughout to project cycle in or-
der to be able to adapt to the changing condi-
The project modality often limits the dura-
tions. In general, it is important to identify what
tion of the GEF intervention and poses time
are the conditions that will be necessary and
constraints that hamper the achievement of the
sufficient to allow climate change projects to
long-term benefits and sustainable outcomes
achieve their development objectives, beyond
and impacts. Whether a full project or an MSP,
producing the mere outputs.
it is essential to set the project period realisti-
cally in order to allow for all activities to be
International Waters projects are equally sus-
undertaken with sufficient time as many of the
ceptible to disturbances by external factors. It
processes involved are complex and time con-
might be argued that the multi-country nature
suming. Furthermore, the innovative nature of
multiplies the risks, as unexpected occurrences
GEF interventions requires institutional capac-
in one country may affect the entire project.
ity to absorb these new approaches which is a
Therefore, vigilance in relation to the external
long-term process. Another dimension need-
risks is essential in the focal area. The Interna-
ing attention is that project activities are often
tional Waters PIR portfolio demonstrates posi-
interlinked so that coordination or sequencing
tive cases, such as those of the Red Sea and
of the activities is essential.
87

---

---

APPENDIX C3
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW 2002 OVERVIEW
PORTFOLIO OVERVIEW
(24 countries) and POPs (17 countries). Thus,
UNEP's PIR for FY 2002 is reviewing approxi-
AND STATUS
mately 52.4% of the overall portfolio of
UNEP's GEF full and medium size projects.
UNEP's GEF Project Implementation Review
The UNEP portfolio of Activities on-going in
(PIR) for FY 2002 covered a total of 27 full
FY2002, is valued at $369 million including $
and medium size projects. This excludes jointly
194 million GEF financing. In addition, UNEP
implemented projects, in which UNEP is not
is currently co-implementing, with partner
the lead agency. The portfolio under review
agencies, fifteen projects whose UNEP com-
included 12 biodiversity projects, 3 climate
ponent is valued at $ 30 million. The overall
change projects, 10 international waters
work programme has involved participation of
projects and 2 projects dealing with protection
144 countries directly. Through the wider en-
of the ozone layer.
vironmental benefits arising from these activi-
ties and through the major global assessments,
UNEP's overall GEF portfolio in FY2002 con-
UNEP's work within the GEF impacts globally.
sists of fifty-one full size and medium sized
projects, thirty-one PDF activities. UNEP is as-
All UNEP GEF financed projects endorsed into
sisting sixty countries with enabling activities
the GEF Work Programme before June 30,
for biodiversity (27 countries), climate change
2001 have been committed (i.e. internally ap-
FIGURE 1
AVERAGE PROCESSING TIME FROM GEF APPROVAL TO PROJECT ?????????????
UNEP GEF PROJECTS, BY YEAR
450
400
350
300
250
Days
200
150
100
50
0
92-94
95-96
97-98
99-00
2001-2002
Fiscal Year
89

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
proved by UNEP). Among them, those projects,
are necessary for a full project to be ef-
which have not yet been under implementation
fected, much shorter time is necessary for
for more than one year, are not subject to the
a medium-size project (163 days) and an
FY 2002 PIR, but will be under review in the
enabling activity (148 days).
FY 2003 PIR.
(ii) Co-financing
Actual levels of co-financing were col-
SUMMARY PERFORMANCE
lected for those projects whose implemen-
tation has come close to completion. In
AND LESSONS LEARNED
most projects, co-finance has been realised
as originally planned, although changes in
Overview
the amount and contributors are not un-
common. A few projects have surpassed
(i) Time from Allocation to Implementation
the co-financing levels originally envis-
Since the number of UNEP projects is
aged. For example, the Carbon Cycles
rather limited, only aggregated analysis is
project obtained co-finance almost three
possible to see the general trend of time
times more than planned. Other projects,
from allocation to implementation. Figure
which raised funds additional to the origi-
1 shows the general trend in processing
nally planned, include the Alien Species
time for full projects. Data are basically
project, PLEC, the Clean Technologies
averaged for every two years. Although a
Clearinghouse project, and Sub-Saharan
slight increase is recorded in FY 01-02,
Africa project. The Alien Species project
there has been a decrease in average pro-
informally reported that the actual level of
cessing time, from 420 days in FY 95-96
in-kind contribution from scientists could
down to 237 days and 252 days in FY99-
have been twice as much as planned. The
00 and FY 01-02 respectively. Figure 2
actual level of co-financing is sometimes
shows the difference in the processing time
difficult to estimate. This is so in particu-
by project type. While on average 298 days
lar with in-kind contribution. Sound guid-
FIGURE 2
AVERAGE TIME BETWEEN GEF APPROVAL AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION BY ?????????????
(1992­2001)
350
300
250
200
150
verage Days
A
100
50
0
Full Projects
Medium Sized Projects
Enabling Activities
Average
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1+2+3)
Project Type
90

---

Appendix C3: United Nations Environment Program
ance is necessary to obtain consistent co-
ence in implementing such type of projects
finance figures.
could enrich the GEF's body of knowledge,
(iii) Ratings of Implementation Progress
which in turn contributes to more effective
On average, UNEP projects reviewed dur-
implementation of similar projects in the fu-
ing PIR 2002 had a rating of (S) for Imple-
ture.
mentation Progress. This was similar to the
average ratings of the FY 2001 PIR. The
The following chapters summarize various les-
implementation progress is significantly
sons learned through the implementation of
influenced by the level and effectiveness
these projects under three broad categories, (i)
of coordination and mobilization of insti-
Project Impacts, (ii) Issues during Implemen-
tutions and individuals participating in
tation, and (iii) Participation/Communications/
project design and implementation. Most
Demonstrations.
of UNEP's projects reviewed this year are
multi-country projects, which involve a
Project Impacts
large number of countries than in most con-
All projects are implemented to create intended
ventional GEF projects. Projects, which ex-
impacts. As a matter of fact a project can be
ceed the original project implementation
seen as a process to generate intended impacts
plans by approximately one year, have to
over a certain period of time. Project impacts
undergo an Internal UNEP Project Revi-
are initiated at the project preparation stage,
sions to enable an extension of project du-
are magnified during project implementation,
ration.
and fade, stay, or proliferate at the stage fol-
(iv) Accomplishment of project purpose
lowing project completion.
Among 27 projects covered by this year's
PIR, 8 were assessed "Highly Satisfac-
Project impacts could take various forms. Im-
tory", and 19 "Satisfactory. In terms of
pacts created by UNEP/GEF projects for this
percentage, those evaluated "Highly Sat-
year are discussed from the following perspec-
isfactory" have increased, while no project
tives, (i) international impacts, (ii) innovation,
was rated either "Partially Satisfactory" or
(iii) legislative impacts, (iv) UNEP's compara-
"Unsatisfactory" this year. In addition, two
tive advantage, (v) multi-country approach, (vi)
brief status reports were added to the PIR
sound project design, and (vii) long-term con-
2002 on the implementation of UNEP en-
sideration.
abling activities: one report for climate
change and the other for biodiversity.
International Impacts
Project impacts could be created at the inter-
Lessons Learned
national or regional levels by both multi-county
projects and single country projects. Interna-
Introduction
tional impacts once created may generate ex-
The PIR 2002 contains individual reports for
tensive influence upon related policies and
twenty-seven UNEP GEF financed projects
programs of both developed and developing
and two brief status reports on UNEP's enabling
countries in the world. If an international im-
activities. Of the 27 projects reviewed, 22 are
pact is taken up by a relevant international en-
multi-country projects and the rest single-coun-
vironmental convention forum, chances are
try projects. Major components of these
much higher that such an impact may prolifer-
projects are assessment, development of tools,
ate to other countries.
methodologies and guidelines for sound envi-
ronmental management, preparation of envi-
Being global assessments, the results of the MA
ronmental plans and strategies, enabling
(Millennium Ecosystems Assessment), GIWA
activities, and demonstration projects. Experi-
(Global International Waters Assessment) and
91

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
RBA/PTS (Regionally Based Assessment of
component consists of, among other things, the
Persistent Toxic Substances) will have funda-
use of appropriate economic instruments, and
mental international impacts. In fact, they lay
their implementation at the national level. The
a basis upon which future global policy direc-
draft analysis on application of economic in-
tions and priorities will be deliberated. Any
struments was finalized, and five MOUs for
technical guidelines and methodologies
the pilot projects were signed.
adopted by these global assessments could have
significant global implications.
The Investment Advisory Facility (IAF) activ-
ity introduced by the Technology Transfer
The Alien Species project was instrumental in
Clearinghouse project demonstrated significant
launching GISP (The Global Invasive Species
effectiveness of this approach. By addressing
Programme) Phase I. GISP successfully el-
information barriers for financiers, IAF func-
evated the profile of the invasive species is-
tioned as an effective way to provide signifi-
sue. GISP II is underway by successfully
cant leverage to GEF resources. The success
leveraging various donors' support. GISP
of this approach has led to two follow-up ac-
involvement in the CBD process via
tions.
SBSTTA resulted in incorporation of the inva-
sive species as an important consideration in
AIACC (Assessment of Impacts of and Adap-
development of National Biodiversity and
tation to Climate Change in Multiple Regions
Management Plans. Furthermore, this issue has
and Sectors) adopted the regional mentor
been targeted as one component of the Frame-
system to ensure quality and timely technical
work Action Plan for the Environment under
assistance to researchers in developing coun-
NEPAD (The New Partnership for African De-
tries for the full duration of their projects. IPCC
velopment).
lead authors contribute their time for this ac-
tivity.
The ODS Compliance project raised the issue
of illegal trade in ODS and ODS containing
Legislative Impacts
products to the Meeting of Parties (MOP) of
Projects that have successfully prompted rel-
the Montreal Protocol. This issue had been
evant national legislation or framework of ac-
extensively discussed among participating
tion are considered quite effective in creating
countries during the two regional workshops
sustainable impacts. This is because legislative
under the project. A decision was taken by
action usually makes a country truly commit-
MOP on this issue at its 12th meting.
ted to project objectives. Further such action
creates long lasting enabling environment, in
Innovation
which capacities of relevant institutions are to
UNEP has been actively promoting innovative
be strengthened.
approaches through a number of GEF projects.
Once such approaches are proven effective, the
The Biosafety project aims at assisting up to
replication potential could become far-reach-
100 countries to prepare their national biosafety
ing. Although risk associated with innovative
frameworks, major elements of which are le-
approaches is usually higher than that of con-
gal instruments, administrative systems, risk
ventional approaches, it is worthwhile for GEF
assessment procedures and systems of public
to give more support to such projects.
participation. Assistance is provided so that par-
ticipating countries could take into account
The Mediterranean project saw a need to cre-
their national needs and priorities within the
ate a sustainable financial platform for contin-
common framework. This process will ensure
ued implementation of SAP/MED. The project
the sustainability of the national biosafty
has a component to address this concern. The
frameworks.
92

---

Appendix C3: United Nations Environment Program
The ODS Compliance project was fundamen-
ary ecosystems will never be managed in a sus-
tal in catalysing the political will in participat-
tainable manner.
ing countries, and in assisting them in
establishing an ODS licensing system. The
UNEP has been catalysing regional agreements
project enabled 20 out of 21 participating coun-
to sustainably manage trans-boundary ecosys-
tries to introduce ODS licensing regulations.
tems. The Forest Fire project resulted in the
To help these countries implement the regula-
ASEAN Haze Agreement, which was signed
tions, staff training and other assistance have
in June 2002, which lays the basis for coordi-
been provided under the project.
nated action to combat a common environmen-
tal issue in the region.
UNEP's Comparative Advantage
The Methyl Bromide project created signifi-
One of the prominent features of UNEP's GEF
cant impacts at national level through the re-
projects is its strong scientific orientation. This
gional approach. The Policy Development
is a reflection of one of UNEP's comparative
Workshop developed national action plans,
advantages within GEF, its extensive linkage
enabled mutual leaning about different policy
to scientific organizations. This approach is
approaches to phase out methyl bromide, and
effective because scientific findings are in
helped to establish a network of policy experts
many cases the basis for subsequent correc-
among participating countries. Given the en-
tive actions.
couraging impacts created by the project, two
countries joined this project in middle 2001.
UNEP has been instrumental in facilitating a
The cost for these two additional countries was
strong linkage with the scientific community
provided by non-GEF sources.
in conducting global assessments such as the
MA, GIWA and RBA/PTS. In fact, all of these
Sound Project Design
assessments are being conducted on a sound
Without sound project design, projects cannot
scientific basis, involving numerous top class
deliver intended results, hence no significant
scientists in the world.
impacts are created. Indeed, clear understand-
ing of project objectives and corresponding
AIACC also represents an important part of
sound design of the project are a key to smooth
the international effort of UNEP to support
and successful project implementation.
better management and development decisions
by scientific capacity building and understand-
The Baringo project was designed based upon
ing. World leading scientists and relevant sci-
a sound concept of strategic partnerships. The
entif ic networks such as IPCC are fully
project has drawn upon existing activities al-
involved in the project.
ready established in the area, promoted farmer-
to-farmer extension, capitalising on indigenous
Multi-Country Approach
knowledge, and maximized use of data and in-
Global environmental problems cannot be dealt
formation already existing.
with solely by any single county. Coordinated
actions are always necessary by countries con-
The MA intended to strengthen the capacity
cerned. In many cases the regional approach is
of institutions involved in the projects for pro-
considered useful, because countries in a re-
moting replication and self-reliance. A lot of
gion tend to have political, social, economic
research institutes and government agencies are
and cultural factors in common, although in
directly involved in sub-regional ecosystem
different degrees. The regional approach is also
assessments. Capacities built during this pro-
essential to protect trans-boundary ecosystems.
cess at the local, national, regional, and global
Without coordinated actions agreed upon and
levels will not be lost at the completion of the
taken by the countries concerned, trans-bound-
assessment.
93

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
Long-term Consideration
contacts and countries. The database facilitated
Any project has to end. Thus, it is imperative
monitoring of the progress in each country,
to consider, even at the design stage, a strategy
which enabled the project team to focus their
on how to retain impacts created by a project
attention on potential bottlenecks.
after its completion. There are a number of
ways to sustain project impacts.
The Mediterranean project experienced an ini-
tial delay due to the late recruitment of the
The Cleaner Technologies Clearinghouse
Project Manager. The timetable for the project
project succeeded in catalysing climate friendly
was modified accordingly. Also the project suf-
investments. The success of this project resulted
fered from rather slow responses from partici-
in continued support of the same approach by
pating countries. To address this issue, a number
the Sustainable Alternatives Network project
of measures were taken, which included (i)
and similar service by UNEP for a different
preparation of clear ToRs for national coordi-
target group (i.e. policy decision makers).
nators, (ii) financial supports to assist opera-
tions of national coordinators etc, and (iii) five
The Carbon Cycles project ended in May 2002.
sub-regional courses to train technical experts.
But the scientists' network developed under the
project is still active. They are developing ad-
The biodiversity enabling activities portfolio
ditional nutrient budgets, and providing a test
is suffering from a large variation in speed of
database for developed models. This is con-
implementation by different countries. A con-
sidered as a result of successful network build-
certed effort has been made to bring the coun-
ing exercises adopted by the project.
tries into better synchronicity (for reporting,
etc.) and speed implementation of slow coun-
Issues During Implementation
tries. This is now beginning to show results.
There are many factors, which influence
smooth and effective implementation of a
The Pantanal project continued to suffer from
project. Flexible project management ensures
the frequent changes of key project staff and
the successful delivery of the project. Projects
difficult coordination between the project tech-
are, in general, managed in terms of (i) time,
nical unit and the backstopping government
(ii) resources, (iii) institution, and (iv) staffing.
agency. The situation has been rectified as more
attention is being paid by the government and
Time Management
international agencies concerned to address this
Delay in project implementation is not uncom-
issue.
mon. Time is a scarce resource, thus strict time
management is essential. Strong commitment
Resources Management
to a project tends to dissipate if a project is
Any project has certain risks or uncertainties,
significantly delayed. However, the conse-
which may prevent smooth project implemen-
quence of delays is not always negative. In
tation. Flexible management of project re-
some cases the original timeframe could be
sources such as funds and back up plans could
viewed as an optimistic estimation. Often de-
be a key to handling manifested risks and un-
lays result in improved coordination and par-
c e r t a i n t i e s .
ticipation, which will in the end contribute to
the successful implementation of a project.
AIACC added two major activities to those
included in the project document. One was the
The Biosafety project quickly set up a data-
addition of the outreach programme and the
base, for sound management and timely execu-
other was the addition of the climate change
tion of the project activities. This database
scenarios advisory group. Furthermore, a
allowed the project team to keep tabs on all
project kick-off workshop was added to con-
94

---

Appendix C3: United Nations Environment Program
duct training on key methodologies. The cost
Since many projects last over several years,
of this workshop was covered by the balance
however, change in key project staff in the
of PDF-B funds.
middle of the project should be considered
as a risk. A sound back up plan is necessary
RBA/PTS had re-configuration of the budget
to avoid disruption in the project implementa-
in response to requests from the supporting
tion, should unexpected staff change become
countries regarding for which regions funds
a reality. Also important is to flexibly hire a
should be spent. Sub-projects were developed
necessary expert(s) even in the middle of
for each region, and participation in regional
the project, responding to the changing needs
workshops was expanded to include all coun-
that were not envisaged at the project design
tries of each region.
stage.
Institutional Arrangements
GIWA found that coordination with sub-re-
Competence and efficiency of executing agen-
gional teams is more difficult than originally
cies is an essential element for successful
anticipated. Extensive efforts were necessary
project implementation. Careful consideration
for improved supervision, coordination and
is necessary to provide conditions, which make
training. It was decided to strengthen the core
project offices competent and efficient. Also
team so that proper super vision and
important is the inter-agency cooperation.
backstopping could be provided to sub-regional
Without agreement on roles and responsibili-
teams.
ties of each of the executing and participating
agencies, efficient project implementation can-
The ODS Compliance project found the im-
not be ensured.
portance of using local consultants. In fact lo-
cal consultants hired under this project were
The MA has a rather complicated institutional
quite instrumental in narrowing the language
and operational framework, which consists of
and cultural gap that otherwise might have af-
the MA Board, Executive Committee, Assess-
fected the implementation of the project.
ment Panel, Working Groups, Secretariat, etc.
There are certain drawbacks from this arrange-
Communications /Participation/
ment in terms of administrative burdens, but
Demonstrations
the benefits derived from this outweigh the
Three different groups of people are usually
drawbacks.
identified in relation to a project. The first
group is those who promote a project. They
The strength of project institutional set-up
are project proponents, which include staff of
changes during implementation.
the executing agencies and participating orga-
nizations. Communications are mostly related
In climate change enabling activities, widely
to exchange of ideas and information among
different technical and institutional capabili-
this first group. The second group is local
ties of countries have affected the costs and
people residing in project areas. They could
time required to prepare their national com-
benefit or suffer from the project. The word
munications. Organising regional technical
"participation" is mainly meant for this group
assistance has been helpful in addressing this
of people, who are expected to be involved in
issue, though the different time-scales of coun-
project activities. The third group is people not
tries have made this a challenging task.
living in project areas. Those people cannot par-
ticipate in the project, but they could become
Staffing
interested to replicate similar projects in their
Without appropriate staff with required exper-
areas. Thus the third group of people are the
tise, projects cannot be successfully executed.
target of "demonstration" activities.
95

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
Communications/networking
with various users of the assessment. Discus-
Although use of the internet has significantly
sions at these "User Forums" and others re-
facilitated communications mainly among ex-
sulted in "User Needs Document". This
ecuting and participating agencies, questions
document greatly influenced the design of the
still remain on how the internet should be ef-
project. This will ensure maximum utilization
fectively used. A number of different ap-
and dissemination of the MA results in the fu-
proaches have been tried for better
ture.
communications.
The Russian North project took one step fur-
For better communications among those con-
ther. Indigenous peoples are main stakehold-
cerned, the San Juan project, developed "insti-
ers of the project. The project selected an
tutional mapping", which has been
indigenous peoples' organization as the project
incorporated in the stakeholder database de-
coordinator. This ensures not only indigenous
veloped under the project. The institutional
peoples are actively involved in the project, but
mapping monitors developments of institu-
also their concerns are fully addressed. This is
tional arrangements under the project, as new
reflected in the statements made by leaders of
partners, collaboration agreements, and joint
indigenous peoples that they are for the first
endeavours are being added to the project.
time involved in the project as equal partners.
The project empowered arctic indigenous or-
Under the Carbon Cycles project, the network
ganizations in their participation in the
among regional scientists was strengthened
Stockholm POPs Convention processes.
through re-engagement of regional participants
in subsequent workshops. This network build-
Second, the participation of the private sector,
ing approach was better than conventional a
whenever applicable, will significantly contrib-
"single regional visit of experts" in obtaining
ute sustainability of the project impacts.
a committed cadre of regional scientists.
The Arun Valley project involved the private
Participation
sector for installation and commissioning of
Participation is an essential element to deter-
the mini-hydro scheme. A private company will
mine the impact of a project. As a matter of
be involved in maintenance of the scheme even
fact, participation could be viewed as the most
after the project closure. Local communities
important factor underlying sustainability of a
are already committed to generating revenue
project. More specifically participation is im-
to support the system.
portant because (i) various concerns of stake-
holders can be accommodated to avoid future
Third, for most projects, the participation of
potential conflicts, (ii) diversified information
stakeholders constitutes an essential part of the
and ideas can be obtained and generated in the
project.
process, and (iii) overall increase in the level
of commitments through strengthened owner-
The international waters' projects in Latin
ship of those involved.
America (i.e. the San Juan, the Bermejo, the
Sao Franscisco and the Pantanal projects) put
First, a number of projects not only accommo-
utmost emphasis on public involvement. The
dated participation of stakeholders, but re-
popular participation component of these
sponded to the needs of stakeholders in a
projects has been promoted from the planning
constructive manner.
to the implementation through seminars,
courses, workshops and publications across
The MA created many opportunities for dia-
most of its sub-project activities. In San Juan
logue at the regional, national and local levels
project,for example, about 230 institutions are
96

---

Appendix C3: United Nations Environment Program
collaborating under some kind of legal agree-
The Baringo project prompted the designation
ment. They include universities, municipalities
of the Lake Baringo as a Ramsar site. In addi-
and NGOs, and mostly involved in binational
tion, the project was privileged to host the 02
demonstration projects and basic studies. One
commemoration of World Day to Combat De-
of such examples is the collaboration between
sertification in Kenya. These events have raised
the National University of Nicaragua and the
awareness among local communities on the im-
University of Costa Rica. They started a num-
portance of the project, which in turn demon-
ber of joint studies on the San Juan River ba-
strated the success of this project to other
sin and its coastal zones.
communities in the region.
The Methyl Bromide project was carried out
CONCLUSIONS
in such a way that countries were fully involved
and had ownership over all of the activities.
Overall the performance of UNEP's GEF
The regional workshops adopted a format that
projects for FY 2002 has been "Satisfactory",
relied upon full participation of all countries.
although the level of progress is different from
A similar approach was taken for carrying out
project to project. Most projects reviewed this
the national surveys. The countries themselves
year's PIR are still under implementation. Nev-
organized their own national surveys, while
ertheless, significant impacts have already been
UNEP provided technical advice and peer re-
generated as outlined in this summary. It should
view.
be stressed that most of UNEP's projects re-
viewed this year are clearly capitalizing on
Demonstration/Dissemination
comparative advantages of UNEP within GEF.
Demonstration and dissemination of project
This fact ensures maximum impacts to be cre-
outcomes is an important activity to promote
ated by the GEF funds allocated to UNEP
replication of successful projects in other ar-
projects this year.
eas. As touched upon below, there are many
ways to demonstrate and disseminate encour-
GEF operations continue to shift focus to the
aging project results. However, even without
results and quality of supported projects. What
any particular demonstration/dissemination
is most important is to create impacts that meet
efforts, international impacts created by some
project objectives. Given considerable risks and
projects, and innovative approaches success-
uncertainties associated with most UNEP's
fully introduced by some projects as outlined
GEF projects, flexible management of projects
above could generate far-reaching replication
becomes essential. Flexible project manage-
effects.
ment should ensure appropriate project moni-
toring and subsequent corrective actions. In this
The PTS monitoring system developed under
respect, many lessons learned through the
the Russian North project is considered as an
implementation of UNEP's GEF projects this
advanced model for the future national POPs
year should be shared with all those concerned.
monitoring system in Russia. Thus, the project
It is hoped that lessons leaned through this
Secretariat has been requested to make a pre-
year's PIR will be useful in further improving
sentation at the All-Russian POPs Conference.
overall performance of GEF projects.
97

---

---

APPENDIX D
List of Completed Projects as of June 30, 2001
GEF
Total
Work
Approval Date of
Focal
OP
Funding
Cost
Program
Date by
Project Closing
No
Country Region
IA
Project
Area
(US$ mil) (US$ mil) Entry Date
IA
start
date
1
Algeria
AFR
World
El Kala National Park and
Biodiversity
2
$9.32
$11.68
May-91
Apr-94
Sep-94
Jun-99
Bank
Wetlands Management
2
Argentina LAC
UNDP
Patagonian Coastal Zone
Biodiversity
2
$2.80
$2.80
Dec-91
Feb-93
Dec-93
Management Plan
3
Belarus
ECA
World
Forest Biodiversity Protection
Biodiversity
3
$1.00
$1.25
May-91
Sep-92
Jan-93
Jun-97
Bank
4
Belarus
ECA
World
Phase-out of Ozone-Depleting
Ozone
$7.20
$8.80
Apr-96
May-97
Aug-97 Dec-00
Bank
Substances
5
Belize
LAC
UNDP
Sustainable Development and
Biodiversity
2
$3.00
$3.00
Dec-91
Feb-93
Mar-93
Feb-98
Management of Biologically Diverse
Coastal Resources
6
Benin
AFR
UNDP
Carbon Sequestration and Rangeland
Climate
STRM
Dec-92
Jul-93
Jan-94
Change
7
Bhutan
SAS
World
Trust Fund for Environmental
Biodiversity
$10.00
$20.59
May-91
May-92
Nov-92 Dec-97
Bank
Conservation
8
Bolivia
LAC
World
Biodiversity Conservation
Biodiversity
3
$4.50
$8.35
Apr-92
Nov-92
Jul-93
Dec-98
Bank
9
Brazil
LAC
UNDP
Biomass Integrated Gasification/Gas
Climate
7
Sep-92
Sep-92
Sep-92
Feb-96
Turbine
Change
10
Bulgaria
ECA
World
Ozone Depleting Substances
Ozone
STRM $10.50
$13.50
May-95
Nov-95
May-96 Apr-00
Bank
Phase-out
11
Chile
LAC
UNDP
Reduction of Greenhouse Gases
Climate
5
$1.70
$1.70
Dec-92
Jun-95
Jun-95 FY2001
Change
12
China
EAP
World
China Ship Waste Disposal
International
9
$30.00
$67.20
May-91
May-92
Dec-92
Jun-97
Bank
Waters
13
China
EAP
UNDP
Development of Coal Bed Methane
Climate
STRM
May-91
Apr-92
Jun-92
Dec-98
Resources
Change
14 Colombia LAC
UNDP
Conservation of Biodiversity in the
Biodiversity
3
$6.00
$9.00
May-91
Feb-92
Sep-92
Dec-99
Choco Region
15
Congo
AFR
World
Wildlands Protection and
Biodiversity
3
$10.00
$13.90
May-91
Dec-92
Oct-93
Jul-00
Bank
Management
16 Costa Rica LAC
UNDP
Conservation of Biodiversity and
Biodiversity
3
$8.00
$8.00
Dec-91
Apr-93
May-93
Sustainable Development in La
Amistad and La Osa Conservation
Areas
17
Cuba
LAC
UNDP
Protecting Biodiversity and
Biodiversity
2
$2.00
$2.00
Dec-91
Jul-93
Dec-93 Aug-97
Establishing Sustainable Development
in the Sabana-Camaguey Region
18
Czech
ECA
World
Biodiversity Protection
Biodiversity
3
$2.00
$2.75
Dec-91
Oct-93
Jan-94
Dec-97
Republic
Bank
19
Czech
ECA
World
Phase-out of Ozone Depleting
Ozone
7
$2.30
$4.15
Dec-92
Aug-94
Dec-94
Mar-98
Republic
Bank
Substances
20 Dominican LAC
UNDP
Biodiversity Conservation and
Biodiversity
3
$3.00
$3.00
May-92
Dec-93
May-94 Oct-97
Republic
management in the Coastal Zone
21
Ecuador
LAC
World
Biodiversity Protection
Biodiversity
3
$7.20
$8.80
Apr-92
May-94
Jul-94
Jun-00
Bank
(continued on next page)
99

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
GEF
Total
Work
Approval Date of
Focal
OP
Funding
Cost
Program
Date by
Project Closing
No
Country Region
IA
Project
Area
(US$ mil) (US$ mil) Entry Date
IA
start
date
22
Gabon
AFR
UNDP
Conservation of Biodiversity
Biodiversity
3
$1.00
$1.00
May-91
Jan-94
Jul-94
Jun-97
Through Effective Management of
Wildlife Trade
23
Ghana
AFR
World
Coastal Wetlands Management
Biodiversity
2
$7.20
$8.30
Dec-91
Aug-92
Mar-93 Dec-99
Bank
24
Global
AFR
World
Global: World Water Vision - Water
International 10
$0.70
$13.80
Apr-99
Jun-99
Jun-99
Dec-00
Bank
and Nature - Environment and
Waters
Ecosystems
25
Global
Global UNDP
Alternatives to Slash and Burn
Climate
STRM
$3.00
$4.50
Feb-92
Nov-93
Apr-94
Dec-95
Change
26
Global
Global UNEP
Biodiversity Country Studies-
Biodiversity
EA
$5.00
$5.22
Mar-92
Dec-97
Phase I
27
Global
Global UNEP
Biodiversity Country Studies-
Biodiversity
EA
$2.00
$2.10
Jun-94
Dec-97
Phase II
28
Global
Global UNEP
Biodiversity Data Management
Biodiversity
EA
$4.00
$5.39
Jun-94
Dec-97
29
Global
Global UNDP
Biodiversity Planning Support
Biodiversity
EA
$3.10
$4.20
Jul-98
Apr-99
5-Jun
Program
30
Global
Global UNDP
Climate Change Capacity Building
Climate
EA
May-93
Jan-94
Sep-95 May-97
Change
31
Global
Global UNDP
Climate Change Training Phase II
Climate
EA
$2.58
$3.70
May-95
Mar-96
Mar-96
(CC TRAIN)
Change
32
Global
Global UNEP
Country Studies on Sources and
Climate
EA
Dec-91
Jul-92
Sep-92 Mar-97
Sinks of Greenhouse gases
Change
33
Global
Global UNEP
Economics of GHG Limitations
Climate
EA
$3.00
$3.00
Feb-95
Mar-96
Change
34
Global
Global UNEP
Economics of GHG Limitations -
Climate
EA
$3.00
$3.30
Feb-95
Mar-96
May-96 FY2001
Phase I
Change
35
Global
Global UNDP
Global Alternatives to Slash and Burn
Climate
STRM
$2.94
$6.31
May-95
May-95
Jun-96
Jun-98
Agriculture - Phase II
Change
36
Global
Global UNEP
Global Biodiveristy Forum - Phase II
Biodiversity STRM
$0.75
$1.64
Feb-98
37
Global
Global UNEP
Global Biodiversity Assessment
Biodiversity STRM
$3.30
$3.48
May-93
Apr-98
38
Global
Global UNEP
Global Biodiversity Forum (GBF) -
Biodiversity STRM
$0.70
$1.60
Feb-98
Apr-98
Apr-98 FY2001
Phase II
39
Global
Global UNDP
Global Change System for Analysis,
Climate
STRM
$4.10
$5.58
May-92
May-93
May-93 Jun-98
Research and Training (START)
Change
40
Global
Global UNDP
Monitoring of Greenhouse Gases
Climate
STRM
$4.80
$11.50
May-91
Oct-92
Jan-93
Dec-98
Change
41
Global
Global UNDP
National Communications Support to
Climate
EA
$1.80
$3.30
8/19998 FY2001
Climate Change
Change
42
Global
Global UNEP
Pilot Biosafety Enabling Activity
Biodiversity
EA
$2.74
$2.74
Nov-97
Sep-98
43
Global
Global UNDP
Research Program on Methane
Climate
STRM
$5.00
$5.00
May-91
Jan-92
Jul-92
Jun-98
Emissions from Rice Fields
Change
44
Global
Global World
Small and Medium Enterprise
Multiple
STRM
$4.30
$15.70
Jul-94
Dec-95
Mar-96 Dec-98
Bank/IFC Program (pilot phase)
45
Global
Global World
Water for Nature (MSP)
International
$0.70
Bank
Waters
46
Guyana
LAC
UNDP
Program for Sustainable Forestry
Biodiversity
3
$3.00
$3.40
May-91
Apr-92
Feb-93 May-97
(Iwokrama Rain Forest Program)
47
Hungary
ECA
World
Phase-out of Ozone Depleting
Ozone
STRM
$6.90
$8.39
Nov-94
Nov-95
Feb-96
Dec-98
Bank
Substances
48
Iran
ECA
World
Teheran Transport Emissions
Climate
5
$2.00
$4.00
Apr-92
Oct-93
Jan-94
Dec-97
Bank
Reduction
Change
100

---

Appendix D: List of Completed Projects
GEF
Total
Work
Approval Date of
Focal
OP
Funding
Cost
Program
Date by
Project Closing
No
Country Region
IA
Project
Area
(US$ mil) (US$ mil) Entry Date
IA
start
date
49
Jamaica
LAC
World
Demand Side Management
Climate
5
$3.80
$12.50
May-93
Mar-94
Aug-94 Dec-99
Bank
Demonstration
Change
50
Jordan
MNA UNDP
Conservation of Dana and Azraq
Biodiversity
2
$6.30
$6.30
May-92
May-93
Oct-93
May-96
Protected Areas
51
Jordan
MNA World
Gulf of Aqaba Environmental Action
International
8
$2.70
$12.67
Oct-95
Jun-96
Dec-99
Bank
Waters
52
Mali
AFR
WB
Household Energy
Climate
6
$2.50
$8.60
Dec-92
Jun-95
Oct-95
Dec-00
Change
53 Mauritania AFR
UNDP
Decentralized Wind Electric Power
Climate
6
Dec-92
Jun-94
Sep-94
Jul-96
for Social and Economic Development
Change
54 Mauritania AFR
UNEP
Rescue Plan for Cap Blanc Colony of
Biodiversity STRM
$0.20
$0.20
Aug-97
Nov-97
Nov-97 FY2001
the Mediterranean Monk Seal
55 Mauritania AFR
UNEP
Rescue Plan for the Cap Blanc Colony
Biodiversity STRM
$0.15
$0.23
Oct-97
Aug-98
of Mediterranean Monk Seal - MSP
56 Mauritius AFR
UNDP
Restoration of Highly Degraded and
Biodiversity
3
$0.20
$0.20
May-93
Jun-95 May-98
Threatened Native Forests
57 Mauritius AFR
World
Sugar Bio-energy Project
Climate
6
$3.30
$55.10
May-91
Feb-92
Dec-93
Dec-97
Bank
Change
58
Mexico
LAC
World
High Efficiency Lighting Project
Climate
5
$10.70
$25.00
Dec-91
Mar-94
Feb-95
Dec-97
Bank
Change
59
Mexico
LAC
World
Protected Areas Program
Biodiversity
3
$8.70
$16.30
May-91
Mar-92
Apr-93
Dec-97
Bank
60
Moldova
ECA
WB
(Phase I) Biodiversity Strategy, Action Biodiversity
EA
$0.10
$0.10
Mar-98
Mar-98
1-Apr
Plan, and National Report to the
Conference of the Parties
61 Mongolia
EAP
UNDP
Biodiversity Project
Biodiversity
1
$1.50
$1.50
May-93
Mar-94
Apr-98
62
Nepal
SAS
UNDP
Biodiversity Conservation
Biodiversity
4
$3.80
$8.40
Dec-91
Jun-93
Sep-93 Nov-98
63
Pakistan
SAS
UNDP
Maintaining Biodiversity with Rural
Biodiversity
3
$2.50
Feb-94
Community Development
64
Panama
LAC
UNDP
Biodiversity Conservation in the
Biodiversity
3
$3.00
$3.50
Jan-92
Feb-94
May-94 FY2001
Darien Region
65
Papua
EAP
UNDP
Biodiversity Conservation and
Biodiversity
3
$5.00
$5.00
Dec-91
Jul-93
Jul-98
New Guinea
Resource Management
66
Peru
LAC
World
National Trust Fund for Protected
Biodiversity
3
$5.00
$7.86
Dec-91
Mar-95
Sep-95
Jun-96
Bank
Areas
67
Peru
LAC
UNDP
Technical Assistance to the Centre for
Climate
5
$0.90
$0.90
Dec-91
Nov-92
Feb-93
Jun-95
Energy Conservation
Change
68 Philippines EAP
World
Leyte/Luzon Geothermal
Climate
6
$30.00
#####
May-91
May-94
Mar-95 Mar-00
Bank
Change
69
Poland
ECA
World
Efficient Lighting Project
Climate
5
$5.00
$5.00
Dec-94
Jun-95
Jul-98
Bank/
Change
IFC
70
Poland
ECA
World
Forest Biodiversity Protection
Biodiversity
3
$4.50
$6.20
May-91
Dec-91
Feb-92
Dec-95
Bank
71
Poland
ECA
WB
Phase-out of Ozone Depleting
Ozone
$6.20
$20.20
Apr-96
Mar-97
Jul-97
1-Apr
Substances
72 Regional
LAC
UNEP
A Participatory Approach to
Multiple
$0.72
$1.56
Aug-97
Oct-98
Managing the Environment: An Input
to the Inter-American Strategy for
Participation (ISP) - MSP
(continued on next page)
101

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
GEF
Total
Work
Approval Date of
Focal
OP
Funding
Cost
Program
Date by
Project Closing
No
Country Region
IA
Project
Area
(US$ mil) (US$ mil) Entry Date
IA
start
date
73 Regional
LAC
UNEP
Argentina-Bolivia: Strategic Action
International
9
$3.22
$5.96
Nov-96
Nov-98
Program for the Binational Basin of
Waters
the Bermejo River
74 Regional
EAP
UNDP
Asia Least Cost GHG Abatement
Climate
EA
$9.50
$13.00
Dec-91
Aug-93
Aug-94 Aug-97
Strategy (ALGAS)
Change
75 Regional
ECA
UNDP
Black Sea Environmental Management International
8
$9.30
$32.60
May-92
Sep-92
Jun-96
Waters
76 Regional
AFR
UNDP
Building Capacity in Sub-Saharan
Climate
EA
$2.00
$2.00
Dec-92
Nov-94
Aug-95
Feb-97
Africa to Respond to the UNFCCC
Change
77 Regional
AFR
UNDP
Building Capacity in the Maghreb to
Climate
EA
$2.50
$2.50
May-93
Mar-98
Respond to Challenges and
Change
Opportunities Created by National
Response to the Framework
Convention on Climate Change
78 Regional
EAP
UNDP
Conservation Strategies for Rhinos in
Biodiversity
3
$2.00
$2.00
May-93
Dec-94
South East Asia
79 Regional
AFR
UNDP
Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Climate
5
$3.50
$5.80
Dec-92
Dec-94
Dec-94 FY2001
Through Energy-efficient Building
Change
Technology in West Africa
80 Regional
ECA
UNDP
Danube River Basin Environmental
International
8
$8.50
$43.50
May-91
Feb-92
Sep-92 Mar-96
Management
Waters
81 Regional
ECA
UNDP
Developing the Danube River Basin
International
8
$3.90
$3.90
Oct-96
Oct-96
Sep-97
Sep-98
Pollution Reduction Program
Waters
82 Regional
ECA
UNDP
Developing the Implementation of the International
8
$1.79
$8.14
Oct-96
Oct-96
Nov-96 Sep-97
Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
Waters
83 Regional
AFR
UNDP
Industrial Water Pollution in the Gulf
International
9
$6.00
$6.00
Dec-91
Oct-93
Oct-94
Mar-98
of Guinea Large Marine Ecosystem
Waters
84 Regional
AFR
UNDP
Institutional Support for the
Biodiversity STRM $10.00
$10.00
May-91
Mar-92
Sep-92
Sep-96
Protection of East African Biodiversity
85 Regional
AFR
World
Lake Malawi/Nyasa Biodiversity
Biodiversity
2
$5.00
$5.44
Dec-91
Dec-94
Jul-95
Jun-00
Bank
Conservation
86 Regional
AFR
UNDP
Lake Victoria Environmental
International
9
$0.40
Jul-95
Management Program
Waters
87 Regional
ECA
World
Oil Pollution Management for the
International
$18.26
$20.00
Apr-92
Apr-94
Dec-99
Bank
Southwest Mediterranean Sea
Waters
88 Regional
LAC
UNDP
Planning and Management of Heavily
International 10
$2.50
$2.50
Aug-93
Contaminated Bays and Coastal Areas
Waters
89 Regional AFR
UNDP
Pollution Control and Other Measures International
9
$10.00
$10.00
Dec-91
Oct-93
Feb-95
Oct-98
to Protect Biodiversity in Lake
Waters
Tanganyika
90 RegionalRegional UNDP
Regional Oceans Training Program
International
$2.58
$5.18
Dec-91
Feb-98
Waters
91 Regional EAP
UNDP
South Pacific Biodiversity
Biodiversity STRM $10.00
$14.30
Jan-92
Jan-93
Apr-93 FY2001
Conservation Program
92 Regional LAC
UNDP
START Global Change Initiative
Climate
STRM
$2.90
$2.90
Jan-94
(subproject)
Change
93 Regional LAC
World
Wider Caribbean Initiative for Ship-
International
9
$5.50
$5.50
May-93
Jun-94
Sep-94
Jan-98
Bank
generated Waste
Waters
94
Russian ECA
World
Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Climate
5
$3.20
$73.20
Dec-92
Dec-95
Dec-96
Jun-99
Federation
Bank
Change
95 Seychelles SAS
World
Biodiversity Conservation and Marine Biodiversity
2
$1.80
$2.00
Dec-91
Nov-92
Mar-93 Dec-97
Bank
Pollution Abatement
102

---

Appendix D: List of Completed Projects
GEF
Total
Work
Approval Date of
Focal
OP
Funding
Cost
Program
Date by
Project Closing
No
Country Region
IA
Project
Area
(US$ mil) (US$ mil) Entry Date
IA
start
date
96
Slovak
ECA
World
Biodiversity Protection
Biodiversity
3
$2.30
$3.17
Dec-91
Sep-93
Oct-93
Jun-98
Republic
Bank
97
Slovak
ECA
World
Ozone Depleting Substances
Ozone
STRM
$3.50
$5.95
May-95
Jun-96
Nov-96 Jun-98
Republic
Bank
Reduction (IFC)
98
Slovenia ECA
World
Phase-out of Ozone Depleting
Ozone
STRM
$6.20
$9.72
Nov-94
Nov-95
Dec-95
Jun-98
Bank
Substances
99 Sri Lanka SAS
UNDP
Wildlife Conservation and Protected
Biodiversity
3
$4.10
$4.10
Dec-91
Jan-92
May-92 Jan-97
Areas Management
100
Sudan
AFR
UNDP
Community-based Rangeland Rehabi-
Climate
STRM
$1.50
$1.50
Dec-92
Aug-94
Oct-94
Feb-00
litation for Carbon Sequestration
Change
101
Sudan
Arab
UNDP
Community-based Rangeland Rehabi-
CC
STRM
$1.50
$1.60
Dec-92
Aug-94
Oct-94
FY2001
States
litation for Carbon Sequestration
102 Tanzania AFR
UNDP
Electricity, Fuel and Fertilizer from
Climate
6
$2.50
$3.99
May-93
Dec-93
Mar-94
Jun-97
Municipal and Industrial Waste in
Change
Tanzania
103 Thailand EAP
World
Promotion of Electricity Energy
Climate
5
$9.50
$189.00
Dec-91
Apr-93
Nov-93 Dec-99
Bank
Efficiency
Change
104
Ghana
AFR
UNDP
Conservation priority setting for the
Biodiversity
3
$.742
$.949
May-98
Upper Guinea Forest Ecosystem,
West Africa
105
Yemen
ARB
UNDP
Conservation and Sustainable Use of
Biodiversity
2
$4.970
$12.983
Oct-96
the Biodiversity of Socotra
Archipielago
106
China
ASP
UNDP
Preparation of Strategic Actino
International
9
$5.199
$10.666
Mar-98
Programme (SAP) and Transboundary
Waters
Diagnostic Análisis (TDA) for the
Tumen River Area, Its coastal regions
and related Northeast Asian Environs.
107 Hungary
EIS
UNDP
Building Environmental Citizenship to International
8
$.750
$1.583
Feb-00
Support transboundary pollution
Waters
reduction in the Danube: A pilot
project in Hungary and Slovenia.
108
Belize
LAC
UNDP
MSP Creating a Co-Managed
Biodiversity
3
$.750
$1.130
Nov-98
Protected Areas System in Belize: A
plan for joint Stewardship between
Government and Community.
109
Costa
LAC
UNDP
The creation and strenhtening of
Climate
6
$.750
$1.546
Oct-99
Rica
Capacity for Sustainable Renewable
Change
Energy Development in Central
America.
110 Guatemala LAC
UNDP
Renewable Energy Based Small .
Climate
6
$.468
$.781
Oct-99
Enterprise Development in the Quiche
Change
Region of Guatemala
111
Kenya
AFR
WB
Tana River Nationale Primate Reserve Biodiversity
1
$6.20
$7.14
May-91
Nov-96
112 Mauritius AFR
WB
Biodiversity Restoration
Biodiversity
3
$1.20
$1.60
May-95
Nov-95
113 Seychelles AFR
WB
Management of Avian Ecosystems
Biodiversity
2
$0.74
$1.061
Jun-98
Jul-98
114 Uganda
AFR
WB
Kibale Forest Wild Coffee Project
Biodiversity
3
$0.75
$0.75
Dec-98
Feb-99
115
China
EAP
WB
Nature Reserves Management
Biodiversity
3
$17.90
$23.60
Feb-95
Jun-95
116 Guatemala LCR
WB
Management and Protection of
Biodiversity
3
$0.72
$1.66
Jul-99
Sep-99
Laguna del Tigre National Park.
117 Regional LCR
WB
Planning for Adaptation to Climate
Climate
EA
$6.30
$6.30
May-95
Mar-97
Change.
Change
(continued on next page)
103

---

GEF 2002 Project Performance Report
GEF
Total
Work
Approval Date of
Focal
OP
Funding
Cost
Program
Date by
Project Closing
No
Country Region
IA
Project
Area
(US$ mil) (US$ mil) Entry Date
IA
start
date
118
India
SAR
WB
Alternate Energy
Climate
6
$26.00
$450.00
Dec-91
Nov-92
Change
119
Global
UNEP
People, Land Management, and
Biodiversity STRM $6.176
$11.993
Mar-97
Environmental Change (PLEC)
120
Global
UNEP
Development of Best Practices and
Biodiversity
2
$.750
$3.983
Mar-98
Dissemination of Lessons Learned for
Dealing with the Global Problems of
Alien Species that Threaten Biological
Diversity.
121
Global
UNEP
Redirecting Commercial Investment
Climate
5
$.750
$.930
Mar-99
Decisions to Cleaner Technologies a
Change
Technology Transfer Clearinghouse
122
Global
UNEP
Fuel Cell Bus and Distributed Power
Climate
9
$.691
$.691
Apr-00
Generation market Prospect and
Change
Intervention Strategy Options.
123
Global
UNEP
Role of Coastal Ocean in the
International
10
$.720
$1.178
Nov-98
Disturbed and Undisturbed Nutrients
Waters
and Carbon Cycles.
124
Global
UNEP
Initiating Early Phase-out of Methyl
Climate
Bromide through Awareness Raising,
Change
Policy development and Demostra-
tions/Training Activities.
104

---

APPENDIX E
List of Projects under TER's
Implementing agency, country/region, Project name
Referred to in Report as:
Biodiversity
UNDP Panama ­ Project BioDarien: Conservation of Biodiversity in Darien through Community
Panama
Sustainable Development
UNDP Regional, West Africa ­ Conservation Priority-Setting for the Upper Guinea Forest Ecosystems
West Africa
UNDP Regional, South Pacific ­ Biodiversity Conservation Programme
South Pacific
WB Bolivia ­ Biodiversity Conservation Project
Bolivia
WB Indonesia ­ Biodiversity Collections Project
Indonesia
WB Lao ­ Forest Management and Conservation Project
Lao
WB Uganda ­ Bwindi Impenetrable National Park and Mgahinga Gorilla National Park
Uganda ­ Bwindi
Conservation Project
WB Uganda ­ Kibale Forest Wild Coffee Project
Uganda ­ Kibale
Climate Change
UNDP Cote d'Ivoire and Senegal ­ Control of Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Energy Efficient
Cote d'Ivoire and Senegal
Building Technology
UNDP Sudan ­ Community Rangeland Rehabilitation for Carbon Sequestration and Biodiversity
Sudan
WB Czech Rep ­ Kyjov Waste Heat Utilization Project
Czech
WB India ­ Renewable Resources Development Project (Alternate Energy)
India
WB Mali ­ Household Energy Project
Mali
International Waters
UNDP Hungary and Slovenia ­ Building Environmental Citizenship to Support Transboundary
Hungary and Slovenia
Pollution Reduction in the Danube
UNDP Regional ­ Developing the Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
Black Sea
UNDP Yemen ­ Protection of Marine Ecosystems of the Red Sea Coast
Yemen
Ozone
WB Belarus ­ Ozone Depleting Substance Phaseout
Belarus
WB Poland ­ Phaseout of Ozone Depleting Substances
Poland
105

---

---

APPENDIX F
List of Projects under SMPRs 2002Desk Reviews
Implementation
ProjectCost
Focal Area
Project Name
Country/Region
IA
Period
($ millions USD)
Biodiversity
Community Conservation and Compatible Enterprise
Micronesia ­ Asia/
UNDP
2000­2003
GEF: 0.748
Development in Pohnpei
Pacific
Total: 1.929
Biodiversity
Conservation and Sustainable Use of the
Belize ­ Latin America/
UNDP
1999­2004
GEF: 5.355
Barrier Reef Complex
Caribbean
Total: 7.440
Biodiversity
Conservation of Biodiversity and Protected Areas
Syria ­ Middle East
World
2000­2003
GEF: 0.75
Management Project
and North Africa
Bank
Total: 1.43
Climate
Redirecting Commercial Investment to Cleaner
Global
UNEP
1999­2002
GEF: 0.75
Change
Technologies
Total: 0.75
Climate
Energy Efficiency Market Development
Cote D'Ivoire - Africa
World
1999­2002
GEF: 0.73
Change
Bank
Total: 0.995
Climate
Coal-to-Gas Conversion Project
Poland ­ Eastern
World
1995­2000
GEF: 25
Change
Europe/Central Asia
Bank
(original)
Total: 48.32
1995­2002
(revised)
International Building Partnerships for the Environmental
Regional ­ Asia/ Pacific UNDP
1999­2004
GEF: 16.224
Waters
Protection and Management of the East Asian Seas
Total: 28.545
International Western Indian Ocean Islands Oil Spill Contingency
Regional ­ Africa
World
1999­2003
GEF: 3.152
Waters
Planning
Bank
Total: 4.637
Field Visits
Biodiversity
Creating Protected Areas for Resource Conservation
Vietnam ­ Asia/Pacific
UNDP
1998­2003
GEF: 6.009
using Landscape Ecology
Total: 8.279
Biodiversity
Terra Capital Fund
Regional ­ Latin
World
1998­2007
GEF: 5.0
America/Caribbean
Bank
Total: N/A
Biodiversity
Biodiversity and Protected Area Management Pilot
Cambodia ­ Asia/Pacific World
2000­2003
GEF: 2.75
Project for Virachey National Park
Bank
Total: 5.0
Biodiversity
Integrated Coastal Zone Management
Georgia ­ Eastern
World
1999­2004
GEF: 1.3
Europe /Central Asia
Bank
Total: 7.6
Climate
Barrier Removal to Secure PV Market Penetration in
Sudan ­ Middle East
UNDP
1999­2002
GEF: 0.765
Change
Semi-Urban Sudan
and North Africa
Total: 1.325
Climate
Low Cost and Low Energy Buildings in the
Czech Republic ­
UNDP
1999­2002
GEF: 0.448
Change
Czech Republic
Eastern Europe/
Total: 1.428
Central Asia
International Implementation of Integrated Watershed
Brazil ­ Latin America/
UNEP
1999­2003
GEF: 6.615
Waters
Management Practices for the Pantanal and
Caribbean
Total: 16.403
Upper Paraguay River Basin
107

---

---