SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT

THE ROLE AND CONTRIBUTION OF UNDPIN ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

EVALUATION OF

United Nations Development Programme

Evaluation Office, August 2008United Nations Development Programme

SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT

THE ROLE AND CONTRIBUTION OF UNDP IN ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

EVALUATION OF

Copyright © UNDP 2008, all rights reserved.Manufactured in the United States of America. Printed on recycled paper.

Design: Suazion, Inc. (NY, suazion.com) Production: A.K. Office Supplies (NY)

Core Team Michael P. Wells Team LeaderHenrik Secher Marcussen Senior ConsultantJuha I. Uitto Evaluation Office (Task Manager)Howard M. Stewart Evaluation Office

Case Study Slavjanka Andonova FYR MacedoniaConsultants Fidèle Hien Burkina Faso

Kazi F. Jalal China, Malawi, ThailandPeter Johnston Pacific IslandsLamia Mansour Desk studiesViolet Matiru KenyaHugo Navajas EcuadorSusan Tamondong Kenya, Malawi

Advisory Panel Yolanda KakabadseNancy MacPhersonJon Teigland

Research Assistant Nurit Bodemann-Ostow

EVALUATION TEAM

EVALUATION OF THE ROLE AND CONTRIBUTION OF UNDP IN ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

F O R E W O R D i

This report presents the results of an independentevaluation of the role and contribution of UNDPin environment and energy conducted by theUNDP Evaluation Office. Environment andenergy related topics have in various formsfeatured centrally in UNDP’s programme for along period of time. Recognizing the importanceof the topic, the Executive Board in its annualsession in June 2006 (2006/19) approved theinclusion of this evaluation in the EvaluationOffice’s work plan.

The main purpose of this evaluation was to assessUNDP’s positioning and contributions to managingenvironment and energy for sustainable develop-ment. The scope of the evaluation covered allprogrammatic and operational aspects of theenvironment and energy area in all UNDP’sgeographic regions and at the global, regional andcountry levels. The evaluation primarily focusedon the period from 2002 to 2007. However, theevaluation also considered how events before thisperiod shaped UNDP’s approach to environmentand energy. Building upon an independent andobjective analysis of the past, the evaluation hasprovided perspectives towards how UNDP ispositioned to move forwards in its environmentand energy work.

The evaluation concludes that environment andenergy remain central to UNDP’s core mission ofpoverty reduction. It is evident that the negativeconsequences of environmental degradation areborne disproportionally by the poorest countriesand people. UNDP programmes in environmentand energy have made significant contributionsto international environmental efforts. However,the organization’s responsiveness to nationalpriorities has been uneven. While UNDP’senvironment and energy work in many middleincome countries has been highly complementaryto the organization’s overall programme, the matchhas been less evident in the least developed countries

and the small island developing states. Similarly, thecapacity for planning, managing and implementingenvironment and energy work varies significantlywithin UNDP and many country offices lack theexpertise needed to engage in high level policydialogue with the governments and other partners.Importantly, mainstreaming of environmentalconsiderations into other major areas, such aspoverty reduction and democratic governance,has been limited, leading to missed opportunitiesto link environment and development in acomprehensive manner.

The evaluation makes a number of recommenda-tions. UNDP should formulate its environmentand energy priorities in a more strategic manner,building upon its poverty mandate and comparativeadvantages. It should strengthen its policy dialoguein order to better identify and respond to nationalsustainable development priorities of the programmecountries, in particular in the least developingcountries and small island developing States.The organization should also incorporate environ-ment and energy into the focus areas of povertyreduction, democratic governance, and crisisprevention and recovery. Such mainstreamingwill require leadership and commitment at alllevels of the organization. Likewise, it willrequire strong partnerships with governmentsand other partners. In order to fulfil its goals inthis important area, UNDP must also strengthenits own capacities in environment and energy,especially in the country offices.

We are very grateful to the Executive Boardmembers, governments and civil societyrepresentatives in the case study countries whovery generously shared their time and ideas. Iwould like to express our particular gratitude toall the resident representatives, UNDP staff andmembers of the UN country teams in thecountries visited by the evaluation team, as wellas the colleagues in New York who provided vital

FOREWORD

F O R E W O R Di i

feedback to the team to enable them to reachtheir conclusions.

This report is the result of the dedication and hardwork of a number of people who participated inthe evaluation team. The Evaluation Office isdeeply grateful to the team leader, Michael Wells,who ably guided the evaluation through thesehighly complex issues and led the drafting of thereport. Other members of the core evaluationteam included Henrik Secher Marcussen as wellas Evaluation Office staff Juha Uitto (taskmanager) and Howard Stewart. The country casestudies all benefited from the participation ofadditional experts, including Slavjanka Andonova(FYR Macedonia), Fidèle Hien (Burkina Faso),Kazi Jalal (China, Malawi and Thailand), PeterJohnston (Pacific Islands), Violet Matiru (Kenya),Hugo Navajas (Ecuador) and Susan Tamondong(Kenya and Malawi). Lamia Mansour contributedto desk studies at the early stages of the evaluation.

The Evaluation Office invited leading experts toserve on an independent advisory panel for theevaluation. I would like to express our gratitudeto Yolanda Kakabadse (Executive President ofFundación Futuro Latinoamericano), NancyMacPherson (Special Adviser, Performance

Assessment, IUCN) and Jon Teigland (SeniorAdvisor, Evaluation Department, Norad). The finalreport benefited from their advice and suggestions.

Other colleagues in the Evaluation Office madeimportant contributions to the report, includingNurul Alam, S. Nanthikesan and Sukai Prom-Jackson who reviewed various versions of thedraft report; Kutisha Ebron who handledadministrative support; and Anish Pradhansupported the production of the report. Researchsupport and data analysis was provided by NuritBodemann-Ostow. I would also like to expressmy appreciation to Elizabeth Mook for hereditorial contribution.

I hope that this evaluation will be useful inhelping UNDP respond more systematically andeffectively in supporting developing countries tocope with the urgent challenges posed byenvironmental degradation and global climatechange, and to move towards sustainabledevelopment for their populations.

Saraswathi MenonDirector, UNDP Evaluation Office

C O N T E N T S i i i

Acronyms and Abbreviations v

Executive Summary vii

SECTION I: CONTEXT

1. Rationale, Scope and Approach

1.1 Evaluation Issues1.2 Evaluation Criteria1.3 Evaluation Approach1.4 Structure of the Report

2. Environment and Energy in UNDP

2.1 Global Context2.2 Emerging Priorities2.3 Goals and Objectives and Reporting on Performance2.4 Organization2.5 Major Partnerships2.6 Financial Resources

SECTION II: ASSESSMENT OF UNDP’S WORK IN ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

3. Activities and Programmes

3.1 Country Programmes3.2 Country Offices and Non-programmatic Activities3.3 Global and Regional Levels3.4 Mainstreaming Poverty and Environment3.5 Strategy and Performance Reporting

4. Major Thematic Areas

4.1 Climate Change4.2 Energy4.3 Biodiversity4.4 Reliance on GEF

SECTION III: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5. Conclusions

6. Recommendations

CONTENTS

C O N T E N T Si v

Annexes

1. Terms of Reference2. UNDP Priority Setting and Performance Reporting3. Case Study Country Data4. Environment and Energy in the UNDP Country Cooperation Frameworks5. Country Case Study Summaries6. List of People Consulted7. Selected Bibliography

Additional annexes available online (see undp.org/eo)8. UNDP-GEF Project Approvals by Focal Area, Region, and GEF Phase, 1991-20079. Environment and Energy Projects in the Case Study Countries

Boxes

1. Performance reported in the MYFFs2. Phase Out of Methyl Bromide in Malawi3. Prespa Lake International Ecosystem Management Project4. Kiribati – A Solid Waste Management Success5. Carbon Finance in Eastern Europe and the CIS6. Multifunctional Platforms in Burkina Faso7. UNDP Energy Assistance in the Pacific8. Galapagos Islands, Ecuador

Tables

1. Case Study Countries and Regional Centres/Sub-Regional Resource Facilities2. Total UNDP Environment and Energy Expenditures

by Service Line During MYFF-2 Phase3. Country Office Environment and Energy Team Staff Details

Supplied by Case Study Countries4. CO2 Emissions Avoided during PIR 2007 Period5. Summary of Projects that Avoided the Greatest Amount of

CO2 Emissions during the PIR 2007 Period6. Top 10 Countries with (a) Lowest Electrification Rates and

(b) Highest GEF Resource Allocations for Climate Change7. GEF Biodiversity Portfolio Summary Impact

Figures

1. Regional Funding Growth for UNDP Energy Projects: 1986–20052. UNDP Energy Portfolio: 1996–2005

A C R O N Y M S A N D A B B R E V I A T I O N S v

ADB Asian Development Bank

ADR Assessment of Development Results

AECID Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo

BDP Bureau for Development Policy

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CCF Country Cooperation Framework

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

CIS Commonwealth of Independent States

CPD Country Programme Document

DDC Drylands Development Centre

EE Environment and Energy

EEG Environment and Energy Group

ESDG Environmentally Sustainable Development Group

GCF Global Cooperation Framework

GEF Global Environmental Facility

HDR Human Development Report

IIED International Institute for Environment and Development

IUCN The World Conservation Union

LAC Latin America and the Caribbean

LDC Least developed country

MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

MDG Millennium Development Goal

MDG7 MDG Goal Seven: ‘Ensuring Environmental Sustainability’

MEA Multilateral environmental agreements

MFF Mangroves for the Future

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MYFF Multi-year funding framework

NDI National Dialogue Initiative

NGO Non-governmental organization

PEI Poverty-Environment Initiative

PIRs Project Implementation Reviews

POPs Persistent organic pollutants

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

A C R O N Y M S A N D A B B R E V I A T I O N Sv i

RAF Resource Allocation Framework

RBAP Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific

RBEC Regional Bureau for Europe and CIS

RCF Regional Cooperation Framework

REP-PoR Regional Energy Programme for Poverty Reduction

ROAP Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

ROAR Results-oriented annual report

SGP GEF Small Grants Programme

SIDS Small Island Developing State(s)

SURF Sub-Regional Resource Facility

TOR Terms of reference

TRAC Targeted Resource Allocation from Core

UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization

UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services

UNSO Office to Combat Desertification and Drought (formerly UN Sudano-Sahelian Office)

UNV United Nations Volunteer

WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y v i i

RATIONALE, SCOPE AND APPROACH

The UNDP Executive Board, in its decision 2006/19, approved the 2006-2007 programme of workfor the Evaluation Office, including the conductof the evaluation of the role and contribution ofUNDP in environment and energy. The presentreport sets out the findings of the evaluation, whichassessed the relevance, effectiveness, efficiencyand sustainability of UNDP’s work at the global,regional and national levels. While focused mainlyon the period 2002–2007, the evaluation alsoconsidered how events before 2002 shaped theapproach of UNDP to environment and energyas well as how the organization is positioned tomove forwards.

The goals and objectives of UNDP for the evaluationperiod are identified in two multi-year fundingframeworks (MYFFs), for 2000–2003 and 2004–2007, recently succeeded by the strategic plan,2008–11. Both MYFFs as well as the new strategicplan indicate a strong UNDP commitment toenvironment and energy.

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) hasbeen by far the most significant financing sourcefor UNDP environment and energy programmes.The present evaluation did not evaluate theperformance or mandate of GEF but consideredthe implications of GEF funding for UNDP, itseffect on priority setting and its impact on resourceallocations at different levels within UNDP.

Country-level case studies provided the principalinformation source and focus of analysis. Theevaluation team visited eight countries and tworegional centres, while specific studies on keyprogrammatic areas in environment and energywere also undertaken. Global consultations focusedon UNDP headquarters staff and management,as well as on organizations whose interests andgoals overlap with those of UNDP, including the

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).The evaluation was hampered by a lack of reliabledata on the financial resources used for environmentand energy activities not financed by GEF, and alack of useful performance measures.

ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY IN UNDP

UNDP became significantly involved in the area ofenvironment following the 1992 UN Conferenceon Environment and Development in Rio deJaneiro, where GEF was officially launched andthe first two major multilateral environmentalagreements were adopted.UNDP emerged from Riowith the mandate of becoming the ‘SustainableDevelopment’ organization of the United Nations.The role of UNDP in the environment fieldexpanded dramatically in the 1990s, encouragedby supportive administrators, especially during thesecond half of the decade. From 2000 onwards a new Administrator significantly downgradedenvironment and natural resource managementas having relatively little to contribute to the coreUNDP mandates of poverty and governance.Since the early 2000s, the most significant changeshave been decentralization from headquarters anda sharp decline in the number of core staff positionsin environment. At present, the majority of staffworking on environment and energy are supportedby GEF funding.

The formulation ‘environment and energy’ used byUNDP presents some challenges. While clearly animportant player in the area of environment indeveloping countries, UNDP has only a small rolein the overall energy picture and has very modestresources available for energy.

While reliable data on the overall use of UNDPfinancial resources for environment and energy havebeen hard to obtain, there are strong indicationsthat core-funded environment and energy activitieswere in decline as UNDP was progressively

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yv i i i

increasing its share of GEF resources. To dateUNDP-GEF project approvals have a cumulativetotal value of more than $2.3 billion. The averageannual value of UNDP-GEF projects approvedsince 2002 has exceeded $200 million. During themost recent GEF funding phase (2003–2006),UNDP had the highest value of project approvalsamong the GEF implementing agencies.

The main focus of the UNDP-GEF team hasbeen projects generating significant globalenvironmental benefits. This goal effectivelyseparated their efforts from other UNDP activities.UNDP-GEF had access to substantial newfinancial resources during a period when the rest ofUNDP was facing severe funding cutbacks. Staffwere, and continue to be, encouraged to identify andprepare the greatest possible number of projectslikely to be approved by the GEF Secretariat andthe GEF Council, in what frequently became acompetition with the World Bank and UNEP.

Differences between the GEF activities and coreactivities of UNDP emerged at an early stage,and there was little sense that GEF resourcescame in response to a prioritization of overallenvironment and energy needs and opportunitiesat national levels. This division was reinforced asUNDP moved away from project implementationwhile GEF remained almost entirely projectdriven. To many in UNDP, the well-resourcedGEF programme, while widely recognized asprofessionally managed, innovative and effective,has been of limited relevance to the main UNDPmission of poverty reduction. Since 2005 therehave been serious efforts to improve the collabo-ration between UNDP-GEF and the rest of theEnvironment and Energy Group.

UNDP has many areas of active collaborationwith UNEP, including jointly implemented GEFprojects.The potential benefits of such collaborationarise from the UNDP network of country officeswith considerable experience implementing nationalprojects, combined with the scientific andtechnical expertise of UNEP and its networks inspecific environmental areas. However, there hasbeen a less-than-constructive rivalry between UNDP

and UNEP over financial resources. During the lasttwo years, several new partnerships and memorandaof understanding have emerged between the twoorganizations, with strong support from the UNEPExecutive Director and the UNDP Administrator.This has helped build and improve relationshipsat the operational levels, although most of thecurrent collaborative arrangements are so newthat it would be premature to attempt to assesstheir results.

ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMMES

The project design and in most cases theimplementation work carried out by UNDP andits partners is generally of high quality. The mostimpressive projects often appear to be those whereother donors have been encouraged to supportparallel activities that complement GEF projects,leading to a more diverse set of activities respondingto a range of local and national priorities.

However, the availability of GEF funding hasbeen the most important driving force determiningwhere, how and when UNDP country-levelenvironment and energy work was undertaken.Partly as a result, UNDP environment and energycountry portfolios often appear to be a series ofopportunistic projects for which funding wasavailable. In the least developed countries (LDCs)and small island developing states (SIDS) inparticular, there is almost total reliance on GEFsupport for environment and energy activities, asother donors have scaled back and governmentcommitments are often miniscule. The relianceof UNDP on GEF to support its environment andenergy work has caused high-priority nationalenvironmental issues—such as environmentalhealth, water supply and sanitation and energymanagement—to be replaced by GEF prioritiesrelated to climate change mitigation, biodiversityand international waters.

While many current projects appear impressiveand innovative as stand-alone initiatives, sustaininggains and benefits over the longer term is aubiquitous problem, with a fragile institutionalmemory of terminated initiatives that declines

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y i x

rapidly over time. Sustainability is clearly impairedby weak counterpart institutions with staffingand budget constraints and limited coordinationamong institutions and projects, as well as cycles ofpolitical instability. Those factors are compoundedby the meagre allocation of core resources, theuncertainty and unpredictability of future GEFfunding and the fact that few recipient countriesshare the GEF environmental priorities, particularlywhere global issues overshadow local issues.

The headquarters’ environment and energyprogramme has focused on studies and advocacywork. Much of this has been of high quality,although the impacts of such work are unclearand synergies with the country programmes arenot easy to detect.

There is virtually no sign that the global plansand strategies of UNDP have had any significantinfluence on the allocation of financial resources orthe selection of programme priorities and activitiesfor the decentralized country programmes. Theshift from MYFF-1 to MYFF-2 had littlepractical impact beyond requiring country officesto retrofit some of their reporting to fit the newguidelines from headquarters, and there seemslittle expectation of any significant differenceduring the shift to the strategic plan, 2008–11.This finding appears to be systemic and UNDP-wide, rather than a particular feature of theenvironment and energy practice.

Mainstreaming within UNDP has been limited.There has been relatively little collaborationbetween environment and energy and the otherUNDP practice areas. There is little evidence of clearly developed or articulated strategies orpractical initiatives linking or genuinely main-streaming environmental initiatives into theUNDP core work on poverty, governance, humanrights or sustainable livelihoods. At the countrylevel, too, mainstreaming has been limited.Systemic barriers to country-level mainstreaminginclude the often weak position of ministries ofenvironment with which UNDP mainly worksand the dominance of GEF-funded portfolios thatfocus on global, rather than national, environmentalproblems. The UNDP-managed GEF National

Dialogue Initiative has helped countries bettercoordinate their GEF-financed activities.

The still relatively new UNDP-UNEP Poverty-Environment Initiative is attempting to addressthe vital need to mainstream environment intodevelopment planning and implementation.While there are promising signs, progress on theground has not been problem-free. Currentefforts to scale up the initiative will require bothadditional support and operational clarification ifthey are to be effective. Engaging the rest ofUNDP in environmental mainstreaming is acritical unmet need.

Since 2005, a variety of efforts have been made tobring together and synergize the GEF and non-GEF environment and energy work of UNDP.A unified approach to water governance has beenthe most successful example of convergence thusfar. Other notable efforts towards harmonizationhave taken place in the Bratislava and Bangkokregional centres. While these are promisinginitiatives, time will tell whether they becomesuccessful and can be replicated in other areas.

At the country level, UNDP is valued by nationalgovernments as a long-term trusted partner,supporting national planning and contributing tocapacity development. UNDP has also been amajor avenue to GEF funding. The relevance and effectiveness of UNDP’s environmentalprogramming is, of course, directly influenced bythe commitment and capacity of recipientgovernments, and UNDP has long struggledwith how to build and retain capacity in partnercountries. Even so, long-term capacity gains inthe areas of environment and energy are seldomapparent, especially in LDCs and small islanddeveloping states.

UNDP capacity in environment and energy leavesmuch to be desired. While staff at headquartersand in the regional centres are recognized fortheir expertise and the results they achieve, mostare funded through extra-budgetary sources, whichis not conducive to long-term capacity or careerdevelopment. With a few notable and impressiveexceptions, the environment and energy teams in

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yx

country offices are few in number and often lackthe relevant technical expertise.These hard-workingteams are often stretched to the limit, especially inthe smaller country offices. Lacking the capacity toengage in policy dialogue with the governments,their main role is usually limited to administrativemanagement tasks.

MAJOR THEMATIC AREAS

CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change has been a major component ofthe environment and energy work of UNDP andis central to its future plans in these areas. Since1992 UNDP has mobilized about $3 billion tofund over 400 large-scale and 1,000 small-scaleenergy and climate projects, almost entirely withGEF funding and related co-financing. Climatechange is also prominent in the UNDP strategicplan, 2008–2011. UNDP has built up a significantbody of expertise and experience in the climatechange area, mostly at headquarters and in theregional centres.

The fit between UNDP’s poverty reductionmandate and the GEF objective of mitigating globalclimate change has been less than convincing.Most of the climate change activities—of GEFand therefore of UNDP—at the country levelhave been aimed at mitigating greenhouse gasemissions, a global concern rather than a specificconcern of individual developing countries. Suchprojects are often marginally relevant to themainstream development agendas of countries,especially LDCs and small island developingcountries, and have distracted attention from theimportance of providing affordable energyservices to the poor. UNDP recently establishedthe ‘Millennium Development Goal (MDG)Carbon Facility’, a pioneering initiative forUNDP, as a model of collaboration with theprivate sector as well as governments, although itis too early to assess this activity and to determinehow it will contribute to development.

Using GEF resources, UNDP has helped over100 countries prepare national climate changevulnerability assessments, national adaptation

plans, and national communications to theUnited Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change (UNFCCC). A variety ofstudies indicate that the LDCs and small islanddeveloping states will be hardest hit by climatechange and are most in need of support. Climatechange adaptation therefore seems a morenatural area for UNDP to engage in than mitiga-tion, where the benefits are largely global.

ENERGY

The energy-related portfolio of UNDP hasincreased significantly since the 1990s. Theevaluation found examples of important country-level work introducing energy efficiency and cleanrenewable energy, mostly in larger middle-incomecountries. Most of the increase in the energy-related activities of UNDP has been in climatechange projects funded by the GEF, however.The activities funded by UNDP’s regular resourceshave actually declined during the past decade.Thishas reduced the focus on the LDCs, particularlyin Africa. Here, while energy is closely related topoverty reduction and economic opportunities,the potential for achieving global environmentalbenefits through greenhouse gas emissionmitigation—and consequently for mobilizingfinancial resources—is relatively small. Althoughthe MYFF performance report states that over halfof the UNDP energy-related projects and financinghave dealt with expanding energy access to thepoor, the evaluation did not find convincingevidence of this in the countries visited.

Most of the funding for UNDP ‘energy’ work hasbeen GEF support for mitigating greenhouse gasemissions, relatively little of which flows toLDCs and small island developing states.

The ongoing dependence on GEF funding—oreven on the emerging MDG Carbon Facility—willnot encourage a meaningful energy programmethat addresses poverty and sustainable developmentissues. The problems related to energy-povertylinkages are fundamentally different from thoserelated to climate change mitigation and cannot beaddressed through the same means and mechanisms.

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y x i

BIODIVERSITY

Biodiversity conservation and sustainable use has been a substantial focus for UNDP, with acumulative total of $820 million in GEF projectfunding to date. UNDP has made a major contri-bution to biodiversity conservation, oftenworking effectively with a broad range ofstakeholders from governments and internationalconservation groups to local communities.

The ‘Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’, arecent scientific assessment of the state of theworld’s ecosystems, determined that the conditionand sound management of ecosystems is a ‘dominantfactor’ determining the chances of success in fightingpoverty in all regions, particularly in sub-SaharanAfrica. Well protected and sustainably used bio-diversity in turn is a key element of well managedecosystems; it is as important as effective watermanagement for ensuring effective and sustainablepoverty alleviation.

While it seems clear that UNDP should continueto work in biodiversity because the condition andmanagement of ecosystems is important for povertyalleviation, such arguments appear to have donelittle to engage UNDP as a whole. Links with thepoverty and governance practices of UNDP havebeen few and far between. At a corporate levelUNDP simply has not viewed biodiversity as apriority. Environment and Energy Group’s limitedbiological diversity resources have been used atvery local levels (such as the Equator Initiative)and at the global level for advocacy and participationin international conservation processes. Whilethe poverty and governance practices of UNDPhave shown little interest in biodiversity, theUNDP-GEF biodiversity portfolio has started toevolve away from site-specific protected area worktowards an emphasis on poverty and governance,emphasizing strengthening capacities andgovernance of biodiversity resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusion 1. Environment and energy arecentral to the mission of UNDP.

The relevance of environment and energy to theprincipal UNDP mission of poverty reduction seems

overwhelmingly clear. The negative consequencesof the deteriorating international environmentalsituation on the poorest countries and communitieshave been elaborated unequivocally by a varietyof credible international bodies and studies,notably the International Panel on Climate Changeand the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

UNDP programmes in environment have madesignificant contributions to international environ-mental efforts. Programmes in environment and, toa lesser extent, energy have expanded significantlysince the 1990s, and UNDP is now among theleading global organizations working in theseareas. It has produced high-quality analyticalknowledge products recognized for their value inpolicy dialogue, advocacy and awareness raising.These have not, however, translated systematicallyinto programming.

UNDP plans and strategies have emphasizedenvironment and energy as high priorities for theorganization throughout the last decade. Thestrategic plan, 2008-2011, and its predecessorMYFFs (for 2000–3 and 2004–7) all highlightedenvironment and energy, while UNDP’s seniormanagement and headquarters staff have beenenergetic in representing UNDP in a variety ofimportant international environmental fora, althoughleadership within country-level programmes isless evident.

Conclusion 2. UNDP corporate plans and strategies have had little influence on theselection of programme priorities and activitiesfor the country programmes. In practice, theavailability of financial resources from GEF hashad a far greater influence on the priority settingand choice of activities of country offices.

Environment and energy programmes in UNDPhave relied predominantly on outside funding,mobilizing an average of over $200 millionannually from GEF and $30 million from theMontreal Protocol on Substances that Depletethe Ozone Layer during the past five years,supplemented by significant co-financing fromproject partners. The use of core budget resourcesfor environment and energy has been verylimited since about 2000.

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yx i i

UNDP has been effective and efficient inimplementing GEF projects and has made asignificant contribution to GEF’s overall success.Using GEF funding, UNDP has built up aspecialized and capable technical team atheadquarters and in the regional centres that is acredit to the organization.

While the success in mobilizing funds is to becommended and the GEF-funded projectsimplemented by UNDP are generally of highquality, the former has steered UNDP’s environ-ment and energy programming towards the so-called ‘global’ environmental issues. In contrast,national sustainable development priorities—such as water supply and sanitation, energyservices, waste management and local and indoorair pollution—have received scant attention.

UNDP has not developed a clear corporateposition, competence or niche for environmentand energy that is independent of its roleimplementing GEF projects. Governments andother national stakeholders generally considerUNDP environment and energy work at thecountry level as synonymous with GEF projects.There is little sign that the environment andenergy agenda resulting from GEF priorities isperceived as important or even particularlyrelevant within much of UNDP, which continuesto regard GEF primarily as a potential source offunds for country offices that are highlydependent on their ability to mobilize resources.

Conclusion 3. UNDP responsiveness to nationalpriorities has been uneven. The type andeffectiveness of environment and energy work done by UNDP vary significantly betweenpartner countries, with some project portfoliosappearing opportunistic and uncoordinated.

UNDP responsiveness to national priorities inenvironment and energy has been varied andlargely dependent upon the type of countriesinvolved. UNDP programmes in the LDCs andsmall island developing states tend to bedominated by support for the preparation ofplans and strategies. Those efforts have been ofvariable quality, rarely provide a sound guide for

future investments and do not always appearrelevant to the most pressing needs of countries.Countries viewed many such plans as worthwhileonly as a step towards further internationalfunding, little of which has materialized. Thereare indications of a better fit between nationalpriorities in environment and energy with theservices provided by UNDP in the larger, higherincome countries where government environmentprogrammes are able to draw on additionalresources, including China.

The project-based country portfolios suffer frommany of the problems endemic to developmentprojects, notably a limited focus on longer termimpacts and significant challenges to sustainingbenefits after project completion. There are fewobvious signs of genuine improvements in govern-ment capacities for environmental managementover the last decade or two, especially in the LDCsand small island developing states, and lack ofcapacity is continually cited as a principal barrierto progress. Significant capacity often existsoutside government, and this could be developedand utilized more effectively.

Conclusion 4. Imbalances in priority setting and programming arising from the substantialreliance of UNDP on GEF funding have receivedinsufficient attention.

Insufficient efforts have been made by UNDPsenior management at a strategic, global level toencourage staff to identify the key differencesbetween UNDP and GEF priorities and to alertdonor partners that there are important gaps tobe filled. Rather, staff have been encouragedimplicitly, if not pressured, to seek whateverfunding is available and make the most of it,which they have generally done with considerableskill and persistence.

While UNDP has sought opportunities to broadenaccess to the significant resources for greenhousegas mitigation available through GEF, moreeligible project opportunities are obviously foundin relatively well-off industrialized countries ratherthan in LDCs and small island developing states.Opportunities for greenhouse gas mitigation in

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y x i i i

Africa, for example, have so far been limited.Partly as a result, the pervasive challenge ofsupporting low-cost energy access for the poorestcountries and communities has tended to receiveless attention from UNDP than carbon mitigation,for which funding has become easier to obtain.

Within UNDP, recent efforts to harmonize GEFwith other environment and energy work areboth commendable and long overdue. Notableprogress has been made at the regional and globallevels. The urgency of such convergence effortshas been fuelled by some uncertainty over thelevel of future UNDP access to GEF resources andincreased awareness of the need for more diversifiedfunding sources, apparently assuming that corebudget support would remain very limited. Evenso, further integration or convergence of GEF teamswith the rest of the Energy and EnvironmentGroup remains challenging.

Conclusion 5. Capacity for planning andmanaging environment and energy work variesconsiderably within UNDP. Most country officeslack the capacity to engage in high-level policydialogue with the governments.

With a few notable and impressive exceptions,country office environment and energy teams donot appear strong, and they only rarely participatein high-level policy discourse with governmentsand other donors on environment and energytopics outside the areas of specific interest to GEF.Project implementation tends to absorb most of theattention of country office environment and energyteams. Overstretched staff and the limitations ofUNDP management capacities mean that manynational stakeholders are dissatisfied with projectmanagement while headquarters and regionalcentre staff have also expressed concerns.

Within the country offices, enthusiasm for andeffectiveness in environment and energy workappear to vary significantly depending on theinterest and convictions of the respective residentrepresentatives, which differ substantially.

In some countries frequent turnover amongcountry office staff and among their governmentcounterparts has led to losses of institutional

memory that undermine learning processes. Thismay be at least partly attributable to the lack ofattractive career paths for technical staff within theorganization. Country offices are also burdenedwith poor administrative systems and reportingdemands from headquarters that are burdensomeand shift frequently.

Conclusion 6. Mainstreaming within UNDP—that is, including environmental considerationsin other major practice areas such as povertyreduction and democratic governance—hasbeen very limited at any level (headquarters,regional centres or country offices).

Within countries, there are few indications thatUNDP has played an influential role in helpinggovernments develop and implement soundenvironmental policies of direct relevance to thesectors where economic growth is anticipated(such as agriculture, industry, transport andmining). The emerging UNDP-UNEP Poverty-Environment Initiative holds some promise inthis area, but requires careful nurturing andcannot do the job alone.

Adaptation to climate change seems likely toemerge as one of the most prominent issues ininternational development and thus attractsubstantial resources. It seems clear that adaptationmeasures will need to be implemented across a broadspectrum of development sectors, especially inthe most vulnerable countries, the LDCs andsmall island developing states. So far, UNDP hastreated adaptation as an environmental issue,even though it is very closely linked with poverty,economic development, governance and disastermanagement. UNDP must start to treat adaptationas a multisectoral development issue, not just anenvironmental one, if it is to play a leadership rolein this area. This shift will require genuinelymainstreaming adaptation within the organizationthrough effective integration with poverty work.

Advocating for the need to integrate environmentalthinking and considerations across the entire rangeof development sectors within governments willcontinue to be a ‘hard sell’ for country offices if the case for mainstreaming cannot be madeeffectively within UNDP.

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yx i v

Conclusion 7. The role of UNDP in environmentand energy within the United Nations system is potentially important but not fully realized.

UNDP has the potential to play an extremelyimportant role in the area of the environment andenergy in the context of sustainable developmentwithin the United Nations system, where itsoperational and country-driven focus, augmentedby a growing technical capacity in emergingpriority areas, seems broadly complementary tothe normative and scientific focus of UNEP.

The relationship and quality of operationalcollaboration between UNDP and UNEP haveimproved significantly during the last two tothree years, although there continue to bechallenges at the operational levels.There has beenpositive collaboration on the implementation ofGEF projects, several new partnerships havebeen entered into and the senior management ofboth organizations have sent strong signals ofsupport for further collaboration. A review oflonger term cooperation has revealed thatcompetition for resources, incompatibilities inorganizational culture and systems, a lack ofclarity over respective roles at the field level andlingering distrust among staff are in some casesstill proving hard to overcome.

Further opportunities for enhancing cooperationwith other United Nations agencies active inenvironment and energy, such as the United NationsIndustrial Development Organization, exist.

Conclusion 8. Measuring progress in environmentand energy continues to be a challenge.

Substantial efforts have been and continue to beinvested in results-based management in allUNDP programme areas. Yet UNDP reportingon environment and energy continues to focus oninputs and activities rather than on outcomes.Developing reliable, cost-effective indicators forenvironmental and energy investments, policychanges, and capacity development remains aworthwhile but exceedingly difficult goal.Despite some commendable progress withinindividual technical areas, it is evident that noteverything important can be measured, and it is

not easy to establish what would have happenedin the absence of the activity being assessed. Theperformance reporting challenge is compoundedby the fact that UNDP is only one contributor tothe development results of a programme country.The key is to assess carefully the impact andnational results that UNDP helps achieve, and toanalyze and document these in coordination withother partners, rather than trying to separate theimpact of the UNDP contribution. Without clearresults frameworks and reporting on outcomes,UNDP has allowed itself to be drawn into makingrepresentations and commitments on performancereporting that are unrealistic given its resources.

Conclusion 9. UNDP has taken some importantsteps to reposition for future work in environmentand energy, including seeking more diversefunding sources, although progress seems likelyto be limited unless genuine mainstreaming of environment and energy takes place withinthe organization.

The strategic plan, 2008-2011, presents a coherentset of energy and environmental priorities forUNDP, but is unconvincing insofar as these are nottied to resource allocations, and the plan does notacknowledge or react to the major issues resultingfrom the high level of dependence on GEF resources.

While the emergence of some new funding sourcesis encouraging, the emphasis still appears to be ongoing after available money rather than allocatingcore resources to sets of activities that are consistentwith the UNDP mandate. As a result, thereappears to be a real risk that environment andenergy will continue to receive insufficient orunbalanced attention, particularly in the LDCsand small island developing states.

The ability of UNDP to realize exciting newopportunities to work with a more diverse set offunding sources such as carbon market andadaptation funds may be constrained by limitedcapacity in its country offices. The move to a ‘OneUnited Nations’ approach may help overcomethose limitations to some extent. Yet even if itachieves greater cooperation with UNEP andother specialized agencies, UNDP will still needto strengthen its in-house environment and energy

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y x v

capacities if the country offices are to providehigh-quality support to programme delivery atthe country level.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1. UNDP should demonstratemore clearly the pursuit of its defined mandatein environment and energy rather than the specificpriorities of a limited number of major donorsor funds.

n UNDP must formulate its strategic environ-ment and energy priorities in response to itsmission and capabilities, as well as to thenational sustainable development priorities ofits partner countries. It should start to buildcoherent corporate plans for the environmentand energy in the context of sustainabledevelopment. UNDP must mobilize andallocate resources that support these plans,rather than choosing priorities and activitiesopportunistically based on the availability of funding.

n UNDP should reformulate strategic environ-ment and energy priorities, identify resourcegaps, and present these to donors. In particular,the plans should (i) identify national sustainabledevelopment priorities not eligible for GEFfunding and indicate how they will be addressed,especially in LDCs and small island developingstates; (ii) make overall resource allocationsamong countries and topics based on actualneeds and opportunities and (iii) develop acoherent UNDP-wide energy strategy thatidentifies a realistic niche for the organizationreflecting needs in the poorest countries.

n To monitor progress in the above areas, UNDPshould regularly report on the source andallocation of financial and human resources tothe goals, priorities and programmes adopted.

Recommendation 2. UNDP should assume aproactive role to respond to national priorities.

n UNDP should strengthen its policy dialoguewith programme countries to better identifynational sustainable development priorities,

in particular in LDCs and small islanddeveloping states. It should also advocate andseek opportunities to incorporate environmentand energy concerns into national developmentplans and programmes and develop country-level capacities to work on these.

n In developing the country programmedocument with the governments, UNDPshould conduct periodic stocktaking ofcountry-level environment and energyportfolios. Partners should be invited toparticipate in the reviews. In countries wheregovernmental capacity is limited, UNDPshould encourage collaboration with andenhanced roles for capable individuals andorganizations outside government.

Recommendation 3. UNDP should identify andimplement institutional arrangements andincentives to promote the mainstreaming ofenvironment throughout all major practice areas.

n UNDP should incorporate environment andenergy within its main practices of povertyreduction, democratic governance and crisisprevention and recovery. This will requireleadership and commitment at all levels of theorganization, not only within the environmentand energy practice.

n Mainstreaming will require strong partnershipswith governments, other United Nationsorganizations and other actors active in the field,such as civil society and academic organizationswhich UNDP must foster.

n UNDP should accelerate the transition of climatechange adaptation from an environmental issueto a mainstream development concern thatengages the entire organization. Climate changeadaptation should be considered as a flagshippriority for UNDP as a whole.

Recommendation 4. UNDP should identifyoptions for strengthening the environment andenergy capacities of the country offices.

n UNDP should intensify existing efforts tofocus resident representatives’ attention on

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Yx v i

environment and energy as a key componentof sustainable development and build theirindividual capacities in these areas.

n UNDP should consider establishing newpositions, upgrading existing posts andincreasing the availability of staff based in theregional centres.

n UNDP should explore improvements inlonger term career opportunities for technicalspecialists currently based at the regionalcentres and country offices.

CONTEXTSECTION I

C H A P T E R 1 . R A T I O N A L E , S C O P E A N D A P P R O A C H 3

The UNDP Executive Board, in its decision2006/19, approved the 2006-2007 programme ofwork for the Evaluation Office, including the conduct of the evaluation of the role andcontribution of UNDP in environment andenergy. The present report sets out the findings ofthe evaluation, which assessed the relevance,effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability ofUNDP’s work at the global, regional and nationallevels. The evaluation supports the UNDPAdministrator’s substantive accountability to theExecutive Board.

Environment and energy in various formulationshas featured as one of the key thematic areas of UNDP’s work since the 1980s. In the 2004–2007 multi-year funding framework (MYFF),‘Managing Environment and Energy for SustainableDevelopment’ was one of the five main practiceareas. The new UNDP strategic plan, 2008–2011, identifies ‘Environment and SustainableDevelopment’ as one of four focus areas.

The objective of the evaluation is to assessUNDP’s positioning and contributions tomanaging environment and energy for sustainabledevelopment. The evaluation is both retrospectiveand prospective, i.e., taking stock of the pastwhile looking into the future with respect toUNDP’s role. The intended audience of the reportincludes the UNDP Executive Board, seniormanagement, the Bureau for DevelopmentPolicy (BDP), regional centres, country offices,national governments and counterparts, otherUN agencies and the international developmentcommunity at large.

The evaluation covers all programmatic andoperational aspects of the environment andenergy practice in all UNDP’s geographic regionsand at all levels—global, regional and countrylevels. The evaluation covers the period from

2002 to 2007. In order to contextualize andsituate the current programme in its historicalcontext, the evaluation also considers how eventsbefore 2002 shaped UNDP’s approach toenvironment and energy as well as how theorganization is positioned to move forwards. Themost recent initiatives obviously cannot yet beevaluated and are noted as being underway.

The evaluation does not aim to analyze individualprojects, programmes or advocacy and policyinitiatives in environment and energy. It analyzes aselection of major technical areas of environmentand energy that UNDP is active in.

1.1 EVALUATION ISSUES

There are two basic issues: (i) UNDP’s contributionsto environment and energy in relation to its mainmission of poverty reduction and (ii) its effectivenessin using the financial resources that were madeavailable from core and external sources. Thisevaluation focuses on both issues, with anemphasis on the first one.

Assessing UNDP’s performance in environmentand energy based on its contributions to theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs) ishindered by the way the MDGs address environ-ment and energy. MDG-7 on environment hasfour targets, two of which are quantified, butthese apply to clean water and sanitation as wellas urban slums, areas in which UNDP does notwork. Energy was not an explicit goal in theMDGs. While it can be argued that environmentand energy are implicit in all of the MDGs, thisdoes not provide a basis for assessing progress.

In addition, the evaluation looks specifically atthe following issues:Mainstreaming: UNDP has aimed to incorporate

Chapter 1

RATIONALE, SCOPE AND APPROACH

C H A P T E R 1 . R A T I O N A L E , S C O P E A N D A P P R O A C H4

environmental management across its entirerange of programming since well before 2002.Two aspects of environmental mainstreaming wereassessed by this evaluation: (i) mainstreamingwithin UNDP, for example, within the povertyreduction and governance practices and (ii)mainstreaming at the country level, that is, howUNDP has incorporated environment and energyinto its country programmes and helped the partnercountries to incorporate these considerations intotheir own policies and productive sectors.

Availability of resources: The evaluation hasanalyzed how UNDP allocated and mobilizedresources for environment and energy from itsown and external sources. It also focused on howresources have been used and how this has affectedthe direction and performance of UNDP’s workin this area. The Global Environment Facility(GEF) has been by far the most significant financingsource for UNDP environment and energyprogrammes.1 Within UNDP, GEF programmeshave received significantly more resources thanenvironment and energy work financed fromUNDP’s core budget. This evaluation did notevaluate GEF’s performance or mandate butrather whether UNDP’s partnership strategy withGEF has enabled UNDP to provide effective andrelevant support to programme countries.

Responsibility for environment and energy withinthe United Nations: UNDP’s role within the UNsystem, especially its relationship and division ofresponsibilities with United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP) and other agencies, hascome under increasing scrutiny since the 2006high-level panel report, ‘Delivering as One’.2

This evaluation assessed the effectiveness andadded value of partnerships between UNDP andUNEP on environment and energy topics.

1.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The essential criteria included under objectives-based evaluations, that is, relevance, effectiveness,efficiency and sustainability, were addressed:

1. Relevance, or the rationale for UNDP’sinvolvement in the field vis-à-vis other actorsand its own organizational mandate supportingthe development results of partner countries;

2. Effectiveness, or the positioning of UNDP’sprogrammes and non-programmatic activitiesat the global, regional and national levels andtheir effectiveness in achieving results;

3. Efficiency, or the relative ability of theapproaches used, partnerships forged andresources allocated and mobilized to enableUNDP to achieve its stated goals; and,

4. Sustainability, or the contribution of UNDP’swork to sustainable human development andto lasting change in the areas of environmentand energy.

1.3 EVALUATION APPROACH

This was an objectives-based evaluation, focused onwhether actual outcomes are likely to achieve statedobjectives. The evaluation considered the changingglobal environmental debate as well as evolvinginternational concerns and priorities.The evaluationlines of inquiry recognized the following:

1. Positioning and performance: Inquiriesprimarily consisted of (i) an analysis of thepolicies, strategies and priorities adopted byUNDP in defining its role in managingenvironment and energy for sustainabledevelopment, (ii) an overview of the program-matic and non-programmatic activities under-taken and (iii) a performance assessment ofthe various activities at the global, regionaland national levels. The evaluation alsoconsidered the links between country-leveloperational programmes and higher levelplanning processes for environment and

1. At the end of 2007, the GEF Project Database online showed 1,107 UNDP projects since 1992 have received GEFgrants amounting to $2.7 billion, approximately half of which have been approved since 2002.

2. ‘UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on UN System-wide Coherence in the Areas of Development, HumanitarianAssistance and the Environment’ 2006.

C H A P T E R 1 . R A T I O N A L E , S C O P E A N D A P P R O A C H 5

energy, including the two MYFFs and thedevelopment of the strategic plan for2008–2011.

2. Programmatic and thematic architecture:The evaluation considered the effectiveness ofthe organizational architecture for environ-ment and energy within UNDP since 2002,including the expansion of the regionalcentres. These inquiries included such areasas setting priorities for environment andenergy within the organization, promotingorganizational learning and feeding lessonsinto policies and programmatic development.The evaluation also examined human andfinancial resource allocations at the country,regional and headquarters levels and assessedthe consequences of these allocations onoperational activities. Consideration was alsogiven to the value that each vertical level(country, regional, global) adds to informationflows and decision-making in the practice area.The horizontal organizational configurationsestablished for different environment andenergy technical areas were also studied fortheir influence on the priority-setting andcoherence of these areas.

The evaluation thus analyzed UNDP’s policy,praxis and performance along two principal axes.First, the entire environment and energy practicearea was analyzed holistically at the main levelsof operations, i.e., national, regional and global.Then the evaluation assessed a selection of themost important technical areas, namely climatechange, energy and biodiversity, at all of theabove levels. Important cross-cutting issues,mainly mainstreaming and partnerships, meritedspecific attention in the evaluation.

The evaluation took place between June 2007 andFebruary 2008, with country and regional centrevisits between August and November 2007.

1.3.1 CASE STUDY APPROACH

To this end, this evaluation adopted a case studyapproach. Country-level case studies providedthe principal information source and focus ofanalysis for the evaluation. These case studies

were particularly important for the insights theyprovided on UNDP’s work in environment andenergy at the country level, where the organization’soperational focus and most of the programmaticresources are allocated.

Extensive consideration was given to theselection of case study countries. Given the timeand resource limitations, a purposive approachwas adopted to reflect: (i) a regional balance (witha significant emphasis on sub-Saharan Africa,which is UNDP’s stated region of emphasis), (ii)a mix of country types, including large, middle-income and least-developed countries (LDCs)and small island developing states (SIDS) and(iii) an overall mix of both UNDP core andexternal funding (notably from GEF) forenvironment and energy operations. An attemptwas made to give greater weight to countries withrelatively significant UNDP environment andenergy portfolios during the second MYFF phase,that is, since 2004. In finalizing the countryselection, the Evaluation Office consulted closelywith the BDP, in particular the Environment andEnergy Group (EEG), as well as all regionalbureaux. Logistical and practical issues were alsotaken into account, including the number ofrecent evaluation visits to particular countries.The evaluation team was requested not to considerthe eight countries participating in the ‘One UN’pilot exercises.

Eight countries were visited (Table 1), includingFiji and Samoa where UNDP has multicountryoffices covering a total of 14 countries (10 fromFiji, 4 from Samoa). Two UNDP regional centresas well as the Pacific sub-regional centre werealso visited. In connection with the visit to theBangkok regional centre, a less detailed review ofthe Thailand country programme was conducted.

The selected UNDP country offices were askedto prepare background information, includingdetailed data sets of environment and energyoperations and programmatic resources in thecountries, before evaluation team visits. Countryoffices also were asked to organize meetings withkey national stakeholders, including government,

C H A P T E R 1 . R A T I O N A L E , S C O P E A N D A P P R O A C H6

donors, non-governmental organizations (NGOs),private sector and academia, based on guidanceby the evaluation team. NGOs, including IUCN,suggested key individuals and organizations fromcivil society to consult with in each case studycountry, to supplement proposals from the countryoffices and to ensure a balanced set of consultations.

Pilot country visits to Malawi and Kenya enabledthe evaluation team to refine the approach andkey questions. Four members of the internationalevaluation team participated in the pilot countryvisits to Malawi and Kenya. The other countriesand regional centres were visited by two members ofthe evaluation team, in most cases supplementedby national consultants. Fiji and Samoa werevisited by one team member supported by aconsultant from the region.

Global consultations focused on UNDP headquartersstaff and management, as well as organizationswhose interests and goals overlap with UNDP.

The evaluation team visited UNEP headquartersin Nairobi and its Regional Office for Asia andthe Pacific (ROAP) in Bangkok to discuss past,present and future partnerships and collaborationwith different UNEP divisions, as well as UNDP’sfuture positioning on environment and energywithin the UN system.Other global consultations included interviewswith the staff of international organizations with

overlapping interests, priorities and concerns.These included the GEF Secretariat, the GEFEvaluation Office, the World Bank, IUCN, theInternational Institute for Environment andDevelopment (IIED), and the World ResourcesInstitute (WRI).

The primary data collection methodology usedwas a semi-structured interview with internal andexternal stakeholders identified based on a mappingof key actors. Information sources within UNDPwere mainly staff working on environment andenergy at global, regional and national levels, aswell as resident representatives/coordinators in thecountries visited. Information sources outside UNDPincluded staff at major partner organizations andother stakeholders with an informed view of UNDPoperations, such as government departments, donoragencies, research organizations and civil society.Consultations with external stakeholders wereundertaken at national, global (or multilateral)and, where feasible, regional levels.

1.3.2 DESK STUDIES

Secondary evidence was gathered through a studyof key documents related to UNDP policies andstrategies as well as evaluative evidence fromexisting evaluations.The evaluation studied UNDP’s goals andobjectives elaborated in the 2000–2003 and

Table 1. Case Study Countries and Regional Centres/Sub-Regional Resource Facilities

UNDP Region Case Studies Regional Centres/SURFs

Africa Burkina Faso, Kenya, Malawi -

Asia & the Pacific3 China, Fiji, Samoa Bangkok, Suva

Latin America & the Caribbean Ecuador -

Europe & the Commonwealth FYR Macedonia Bratislavaof Independent States

3. A brief visit to the Thailand country office and to key government and NGO partners was made in connection with thevisit to the Bangkok Regional Centre.

C H A P T E R 1 . R A T I O N A L E , S C O P E A N D A P P R O A C H 7

2004–2007 MYFFs,4 the first of which coincidedwith the introduction of results-based managementat UNDP. The two MYFFs, together with associatedreports on progress and performance, provide the defining overview of objectives, priorities and achievements from UNDP management’sperspective. These were a critical starting pointfor the evaluation.

A significant body of project and programmeevaluations already carried out by UNDP wererelevant to this evaluation.These included outcomeevaluations of environment and energy programmes,country-level Assessments of Development Results(ADRs) and Regional and Global CooperationFramework evaluations. For the case studycountries selected for the evaluation (see below), alloutcome evaluations and ADRs were reviewed,as well as individual project evaluations and GEF Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs) ona sample basis.

Applicable evaluations carried out by the GEFEvaluation Office were also reviewed, includingthe 2003 GEF Overall Performance Study andits background papers on specific focal areas, plusthe 2007 ‘Comparative Advantages of the GEFAgencies’ study.

UNDP performance reporting at the countrylevel has been based on the results-orientedannual report (ROAR), which provides theframework for the country/regional programmes’annual critical review. ROARs were reviewed aspart of the country case studies.5

A variety of UNDP documents were reviewed,including relevant guidance materials, practicenotes and performance assessments on environ-ment and energy. Available financial data onUNDP’s environment and energy programmeswere also analyzed.Specific studies were carried out on the majortopics contained in this evaluation, including

UNDP’s relationship with UNEP and GEF, aswell as the central thematic areas. These studiesused centrally available data, policy documents,reviews and evaluations, as well as informationfrom the country and regional centre visitsundertaken as part of this evaluation.

1.3.3 EVALUATION CHALLENGES

Evaluating UNDP’s role in environment andenergy is a demanding and complex task. Severalfactors made the task more challenging:

n Shortcomings of case studies – A sample ofeight countries represented the LDCs,especially in Africa, and the SIDS. However,middle-income countries in Latin Americaand Asia are not equally well represented.The case studies involved country visits ofabout one week each, generally carried out bytwo evaluation team members. Despite theuseful preparatory work carried out by thecountry offices, the intensive itineraries arrangedand the significant amounts of informationcollected, in-depth analysis of individualprojects and programmes was not possible.

n Limited financial information – UNDP head-quarters was unable to provide reliable data onthe financial resources used for environmentand energy prior to the selection of casestudy countries. While this information isavailable for GEF-funded programmes, itcould not be provided in a usable form foractivities supported by UNDP core budgetsor other sources. Similarly, the selected casestudy country offices had difficulty in providingcoherent and consistent financial informationon their environment and energy projects.The fragmented and unreliable nature of theavailable financial information has hamperedefforts to obtain an overview or insights intotrends over time, or to analyze the nationalproject portfolios.

n Paucity of aggregated performance measures –

4. ‘Environment and Natural Resources’ was one of six critical areas in MYFF-1 and ‘Managing Energy and Environment forSustainable Development’ was one of five strategic goals in MYFF-2.

5. ‘Comparative Advantages of the GEF Agencies.’ GEF Council GEF/C.31/5 2007.

C H A P T E R 1 . R A T I O N A L E , S C O P E A N D A P P R O A C H8

While individual project inputs and outputsare monitored, performance monitoringsystems were found to provide little usableinformation on goals, results or outcomes (aresult consistent with the recent evaluation of results-based management in UNDP6).No significant application of performanceindicators at a programme level was apparent,and no systems or procedures are in place toadequately measure performance at the countrylevel or higher. There seems no reason toassume this situation is limited to UNDP’senvironment and energy practice; the practiceareas’ reliance on common systems suggeststhis may well be true across UNDP.

n Reviews of the individual technical areas thatUNDP has focused on in environment andenergy were restricted to climate change, energyand biodiversity. Other important areas arereferred to in the context of the case studies.

To address these limitations, extra care was taken tomap the stakeholders and design the semi-structuredinterviews with the identified stakeholders.

1.3.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE

An independent advisory panel of three interna-tional authorities with expertise in various aspectsof environment and energy, as well as evaluationmethodologies and approaches, was constituted.The panel reviewed the validity and quality ofevidence and verified both that findings werebased on evidence and the conclusions andrecommendations were based on findings.

This was complemented by the standard qualityassurance and review processes for evaluationsconducted by the Evaluation Office. These

included detailed reviews of the concept paper,terms of reference (TOR), inception report, anddraft evaluation report.

The inception report was developed and theevaluation approach and questions refined basedon consultations with a number of stakeholdersin UNDP headquarters and following the pilotcase studies. Stakeholder feedback was sought ondraft reports for factual inaccuracies, errors ofinterpretations and omission of evidence that couldmaterially change the findings of the report.

1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

The report is organized as follows.The next chapterin this background section traces the justificationand evolution of environment and energy inUNDP against a global context and emergingpriorities. It then describes how UNDP sets goalsand objectives and how performance is reported on.It describes the organization of environment andenergy in UNDP as well as the major partnerships.Then the available financial resources are identified.Section II contains the evaluative evidence andfindings related to activities and programmes atthe country, headquarters and regional levels.It analyzes the findings related to environmentand energy mainstreaming, as well as UNDP’sstrategies and performance reporting related tothe programmes. The second part of the sectionfocuses on major thematic areas before closing withan analysis of the role of the Global EnvironmentFacility. Section III presents the conclusions andrecommendations of the evaluation.

6. Evaluation of Results-based Management at UNDP. UNDP Evaluation Office 2007.

C H A P T E R 2 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N U N D P 9

This chapter describes UNDP’s role in environ-ment and energy in the context of (i) major globaldevelopments, (ii) emerging priorities within UNDP,(iii) setting goals and objectives and reporting onthem, (iv) the evolving organization of UNDP’senvironment and energy work, (v) UNDP’srelationships with major partners, notably UNEPand GEF and (vi) the financial resources availablefor environment and energy at UNDP.

2.1 GLOBAL CONTEXT

UNDP’s role in environment and energy since2002 has been significantly shaped by several keydevelopments during the last three to fourdecades as environment has emerged as a globalconcern. This chapter begins with a brief reviewof some of the more important landmarks as aprelude for discussing how UNDP established itsgoals and objectives in environment and energysince 2002.

The UN Conference on the Human Environment(the Stockholm Conference) in 1972 was the firstmajor conference on international environmentalissues and led to UNEP’s establishment, a keydevelopment in the current internationalenvironmental architecture. At this point UNDPwas not active in the environment field, whichbarely existed as a component of internationaldevelopment assistance.

During the late 1980s, the World Commissionon Environment and Development (WCED,a.k.a. the Brundtland Commission) promoted anintegrated approach to improving environmentalmanagement while accelerating economicdevelopment in developing countries, introducingthe concept of ‘sustainable development’ to amuch broader audience.

UNDP’s first programmatic environment rolecame in 1973, however, in response to the severeSahelian drought and famine of 1968–1974. TheUnited Nations Sudano-Sahelian Office (UNSO)was created under UNDP, even though in practiceUNSO was managed autonomously. In 1994UNSO became the UNDP Office to CombatDesertification and Drought. UNSO was activein the environment field for more than 25 years,initially in providing infrastructure to access disasterareas in 22 Sahelian countries and later under abroader mandate to combat desertification anddrought worldwide. This wider mandate appearedto contribute to UNSO’s ultimate demise as donorsperceived its earlier, more effective efforts beingdissipated; as a result, they gradually phased out support for UNSO in favour of their ownprogrammes. UNDP relocated the remainingUNSO staff to Nairobi in 2002 under a newDrylands Development Centre (DDC) thatcontinues to provide global support for drylandsdevelopment worldwide. Relevant to this evalua-tion, the director of DDC leads the Poverty-Environment Initiative (PEI), an importantUNDP-UNEP partnership programme.

UNDP became much more involved in environmentin connection with the 1992 UN Conference onEnvironment and Development (UNCED, orthe Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro. UNDPtook an active role in the conference, notablythrough the Global Forum which for the first timebrought a wide range of civil society organizationsto the table in an intergovernmental meeting.The first two major multilateral environmentalagreements—the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) andthe Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)—were adopted at UNCED. The DesertificationConvention was agreed as part of Agenda 21, aplan of action for sustainable development.

Chapter 2

ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY IN UNDP

C H A P T E R 2 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N U N D P1 0

The GEF was also officially launched atUNCED. It was set up specifically to fundprojects and programmes that protect the globalenvironment in developing countries andcountries with economies in transition. Thefunding was to be new and additional, that is, notconverting official development assistance toenvironmental programmes. Since its creation in1991 the GEF has provided a total of $7.4 billionin grants and generated over $28 billion in co-financing from other sources to support close to2,000 projects. One purpose of the GEF was tohelp the two major development agencies,UNDP and the World Bank, to mainstreamenvironmental concerns into their programming.The three original implementing agencies ofGEF projects were UNDP, UNEP and theWorld Bank, which still dominate the partner-ship even though other agencies were lateradded7.

In terms of specific thematic areas, UNCED, theGEF, and the multilateral environmentalagreements (MEAs) have had the effect ofsingling out biodiversity conservation andclimate change as ‘global’ environmentalproblems as opposed to ‘local’ or ‘national’concerns, such as water supply and sanitation,land degradation, waste management and thelack of affordable energy. This led swiftly toincreased funding for these newly defined globalproblems and, consequently, to diminishedofficial development assistance for what came tobe defined as ‘national’ and ‘local’ problems,despite their ubiquitous presence. The desertifi-cation convention may have been an exceptionwhere ‘local’ and ‘global’ environmental problemscoincided, although it wasn’t accepted as a GEFpriority until early in the current decade.

International development cooperation wasprofoundly influenced by the adoption of eightMillennium Development Goals at the 2000 UNMillennium Summit. Goal 7 (MDG-7) is toensure environmental sustainability, but its

targets are vague and the MDGs are silent onenergy. While it can be argued that environmentand energy are implicit in all of the MDGs, theycertainly are not explicit.

MDG-7 originally had three targets, while afourth was added retroactively: (i) integrate theprinciples of sustainable development intocountry policies and programmes; reverse loss ofenvironmental resources; (ii) reduce biodiversityloss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction inthe rate of loss; (iii) reduce by half the proportionof people without sustainable access to safedrinking water and sanitation and (iv) achievesignificant improvement in lives of at least 100million slum dwellers by 2020. UNDP hasfocused only on the first two targets becauseneither of the two other, quantified MDG-7targets has been seen as central to UNDP’smandate nor a priority of GEF’s global environ-mental programming. Reliance on GEF fundinghas in practice meant that UNDP has hadlimited financial resources to address theseprincipal environmental targets of the MDGs.Furthermore, the primary mandate for watersupply and urban slums lies with UNICEF andUN-Habitat respectively.

The 2005 World Summit on SustainableDevelopment reviewed progress towards theMDGs to date and reported the following forGoal 7: “Most countries have committed to theprinciples of sustainable development. But thishas not resulted in sufficient progress to reversethe loss of the world’s environmental resources.Achieving the goal will require greater attentionto the plight of the poor, whose day-to-daysubsistence is often directly linked to the naturalresources around them, and an unprecedentedlevel of global cooperation.” This assessmenthelped to re-emphasize the importance ofintegrating environmental protection witheconomic development at national levels.

7. African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Inter-American Development Bank, FAO, IFAD, and UNIDO.

C H A P T E R 2 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N U N D P 1 1

2.2 EMERGING PRIORITIES

Prior to UNCED, UNDP had not developed anysignificant environmental competence beyondthe largely autonomous UNSO. In 1991 UNDPhad one environmental staff member and thenappointed a high-level advisor who subsequentlybecame the Secretary-General of the EarthSummit. However, with a presence in virtuallyevery developing country, UNDP had by thistime become established as the UN’s principaldevelopment agency. This enabled UNDP toemerge from Rio with the mandate of becomingthe UN’s “Sustainable Development Agency”and to become one of the three initial GEFimplementing agencies. During the 1990s,UNDP took on a more active role, placingsustainable development advisers in the countryoffices and emphasizing sustainable developmentconcerns in the country programmes.

With its focus on the interaction between peopleand their natural environment, the 1992 UNDPHuman Development Report (HDR)8 emphasizedthe role of sustainable development in improvingpeople’s choices, both for current and futuregenerations. Consistent with its role as a develop-ment agency, UNDP conceptualized environmentwithin sustainable human development. TheHDR stated that “one of the greatest threats tosustainable human and economic developmentcomes from the downward spiral of poverty andenvironmental degradation that threatens currentand future generations.” The report furtherrecognized that “the poor are disproportionatelythreatened by the environmental hazards andhealth risks posed by pollution, inadequatehousing, poor sanitation, polluted water and alack of other basic services. Many of these alreadydeprived people also live in the most ecologicallyvulnerable areas.” Outlining the justification forUNDP to broaden its focus, the HDR concludedthat: “…sustainable development implies a newconcept of economic growth—one that providesfairness and opportunity for all the world’speople, not just the privileged few, without

further destroying the world’s finite naturalresources and without compromising the world’scarrying capacity” (p. 17).

For UNDP the 1990s were a period of dramaticexpansion in the environment field encouragedby supportive administrators, especially during thesecond half of the decade. From 2000 onwards,however, this trend changed significantly with anew Administrator who significantly downgradedUNDP’s emphasis on and interest in environmentand natural resource management, which was viewedas having relatively little to contribute to UNDP’score mandates addressing poverty and governance.

As part of a broader UNDP shift in emphasisupstream towards policy and capacity development,staff positions in forestry, agriculture and sustainablelivelihoods were all eliminated, as were sustainabledevelopment advisory positions that had beenestablished in more than 40 country officesduring the 1990s. These changes demoralizedUNDP’s environment staff, increased dependenceon GEF resources for environment and energyprogramming and further divided GEF-supportedactivities from UNDP’s major programmes.

2.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ANDREPORTING ON PERFORMANCE

UNDP’s goals and objectives for the evaluationperiod are identified in two MYFFs, for 2000–2003 (MYFF-1) and 2004–2007 (MYFF-2).The MYFF approach was recently succeeded bythe strategic plan for 2008–11, adopted in late2007. ‘Environment and Natural Resources’ wasone of six strategic results frameworks (or priori-ties) in MYFF-1, and ‘Managing Energy andEnvironment for Sustainable Development’ wasidentified as one of five core goals in MYFF-2(hence the title of this evaluation). Subsequentachievements in environment and naturalresources were included in the Administrator’sreports to the Executive Board on MYFF-1 andMYFF-2 (Box 1).

8. Human Development Report 1992:. Global Dimensions of Human Development. UNDP 1992.

C H A P T E R 2 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N U N D P1 2

During the formulation of both of the MYFFs,consideration was given internally to excludingenvironment as a specific priority. An internaldebate on whether UNDP should be giving priorityto environment, and to a lesser degree, energy, hascontinued until today and reappears each timeUNDP enters a new round of strategic planning.The new strategic plan, however, clearly confirmsUNDP’s commitment to the area.

2.4 ORGANIZATION

2.4.1 ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY PRACTICE

Significant changes in the organization and titleof UNDP’s environment and energy practicehave reflected key shifts in the roles, prioritiesand physical location of staff. This section coversthe period since the early 2000s, during whichtime two main features stand out: continued

9. DP/2003/12.10. DP/2007/17.

MYFF-1 (2000–2003)9

n UNDP expended $451 million in donor co-financing to the environment, including contributions fromthe Montreal Protocol and the GEF.

n The total core contribution to the sector amounted to around $113 million, while government cost-sharing came to around $227 million.

n ‘Sustainable energy’ has had an increasing role in country offices’ environment portfolios (70 percentof country offices reported having programmes).

n Twelve percent of the country offices’‘most significant achievements’ were reported in environmentand natural resources.

n ‘Strengthening national policy and legal frameworks’ was the predominant mode of assistance.

n About 70 percent of outcomes were reported as achieved in environment and natural resources,although ‘monitoring and assessment of environmental sustainability’ was one of the poorest performingareas with 40 percent of outcomes reported as unlikely to be achieved by the end of 2003.

n In biodiversity, using GEF resources, UNDP promoted conservation of 27 million hectares andsupported operations in 285 protected areas.

n Capacity building and technical assistance were reported from climate change mitigation projects in111 countries. Thirty LDCs received support in preparing national action plans to adapt and respondto climate change.

MYFF-2 (2004–2007)10

n Environment and energy received $963 million (11 percent) of total UNDP programme expendituresof $10.6 billion.

n Annual spending on environment and energy increased by 30 percent from 2004 to 2006, largely dueto GEF resources.

n Environment activities were underreported by ‘at least $130 million’, due to many environmentalprojects being misclassified under other service lines.

n About 28 percent of UNDP’s environmental resources went to sustainable development frameworksand strategies, 28 percent to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and 20 percent toaccess to sustainable energy resources.

n During 2006, country offices reported that 34 percent of environmental outcomes were associatedwith support for sustainable development frameworks and strategies in 84 countries.

n $108 million was spent on effective water governance.

Box 1. Performance reported in the MYFFs

C H A P T E R 2 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N U N D P 1 3

decentralization from the headquarters and asharp decline in the number of core staffpositions in environment.

As with other practice areas, the strategicdevelopment of environment and energy is theresponsibility of BDP. The practice area wasextensively restructured in 2001 to combineenergy and environment under an Energy andEnvironment Group11 within BDP. The role ofEEG is to provide orientation and a coherentintellectual position to UNDP on global issues aswell as to engage in global debates on core issueswith external partners. EEG also manages theenvironment and energy part of the GlobalCooperation Framework (GCF) as well as anumber of projects, most of which are externallyfunded. EEG’s core function is to link with globalprocesses, provide knowledge management andensure that all of the organization’s operations inenvironment and energy draw upon a commonunderstanding, lessons from experiences and asolid evidence base.

In 2000, the ‘New BDP Implementation Plan’defined two general corporate roles for thebureau: (i) translating Executive Board decisionson UNDP’s development priorities into specificpolicy instruments, products and service forpractical use by global, regional and countryprogrammes and (ii) actively engaging withregional bureaux and country offices to helpprovide policy support to programme countriesand systematize the ensuing lessons into a morecoherent corporate approach.

EEG is charged with providing intellectualleadership to the organization in environmentand energy while engaging in global processeswith external actors and partners. EEG is alsoexpected to unify the organization’s policies andapproaches, thus ensuring that the operational unitsare aligned according to a consistent and informedUNDP position and common understanding.EEG and other BDP headquarters units are

intended to possess the substance matter specialistknowledge and space to focus on such policyresearch on behalf of the rest of UNDP, which isoccupied with more operational aspects. Animportant function of EEG is therefore todisseminate corporate thinking and providepolicy advice to the operational units, includingthe regional bureaux and country offices.

Organizationally EEG also includes UNDP’sGEF and Montreal Protocol units. Both theGEF and Montreal Protocol units have specificmandates—to mobilize funding from theirrespective funding sources and support thedevelopment, management and monitoring ofthe ensuing projects—which differ considerablyfrom that of the EEG as a whole.

2.4.2 COUNTRY-LEVEL OPERATIONS

At operational levels environment and energy arethe responsibility of the regional bureaux and thecountry offices, each of which have focal staffmembers responsible for the practice area. At theregional bureau level, the focal point is normallyone of the programme specialists who handlesenvironment and energy practice matters inaddition to her or his other duties related tocertain sub-regions or countries.

The country offices are quite autonomous andwork under the overall oversight of the regionalbureaux. Guided by the MYFFs and now thestrategic plan, country office management hasfull authority in allocating both financial andstaff resources within the country programme.Using the Targeted Resource Allocation toCountries (TRAC) fund, country offices areallocated resources through a complex processmanaged by the regional bureaux. However, it isat the resident representative’s discretion howthese funds are used. In addition, it is expectedthat the country offices mobilize additional fundsfor their operations. The country offices reportback to the headquarters through the ROAR aswell as other mechanisms, such as the Resident

11. Its immediate predecessor had been named the Environmentally Sustainable Development Group (ESDG) and, prior tothat, Sustainable Energy and Environment Division.

C H A P T E R 2 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N U N D P1 4

Coordinator’s Annual Report. Their performanceis assessed through mechanisms such as thebalanced scorecard, which contains indicatorsrelated to client satisfaction, internal efficiency,learning and growth and financial resources. It isworth noting that none of the indicators in thebalanced scorecard pertains to substantiveperformance of the programme.

All country offices have environment and energyteams that are in charge of developing andmanaging the programme pertaining to thepractice area. This will include both upstreamactivities, such as policy dialogue and capacitydevelopment, as well as day-to-day operations.Most country offices rely on national executionfor programmes and projects. The capacity of thecountry offices’ environment and energy teamswas assessed in connection with the country casestudies and is discussed elsewhere in the report(see especially Chapter 5.5).

2.4.3 REGIONALIZATION

UNDP initiated a regionalization process in theearly 2000s designed to move the headquartersservices closer to its clients. First, Sub-RegionalResource Facilities (SURFs) were established inthe main developing regions. Over time, some ofthese SURFs were converted into full-fledgedregional centres set up to support the countryoffices with analysis, policy advice and supportfor national capacity development, knowledgenetworking and sharing of good practices.Regional centres also carry out advocacy and runtheir own regional programmes. The first regionalcentres were established in 2003–2005 in theEurope and Commonwealth of IndependentStates (CIS) region (Bratislava) and the Asia-Pacific region (Bangkok and Colombo, with asub-regional centre in Suva for the Pacific Islands).Regional centres for Southern Africa (Johannesburg),Latin America and the Caribbean (Panama), andthe Arab States (Cairo) were established later.SURFs are still operating in West Africa (Dakar)and in the Arab States (Beirut). All of thecentres, with the exception of Colombo and thePacific centre in Suva, have policy advisers andprogrammes in environment and energy.

The organization of the SURFs and regionalcentres as well as their role vis-à-vis the countryprogrammes has evolved even over the shortperiod of their existence. Initiated as BDPoutposts, they have transformed into jointoperations with the regional bureaux. The latternow manage the regional centres, although someBDP staff still work as policy advisers. Therehave been efforts to define the correct balancebetween demand-driven work (notably, supportfor the country offices) and programmatic workon strategic and emerging regional issues (forexample, transboundary natural resourcemanagement or environmental externalities).

2.5 MAJOR PARTNERSHIPS

Partnerships are essential for UNDP to achieveits goals. This is particularly true at the countrylevel where UNDP works with a large number ofpartners, not only from the partner governmentsbut from civil society organizations, especially,national and international NGOs, academia andthe private sector. They also include donors andother UN agencies. Such partnerships wereassessed in connection with the country casestudies and will be featured throughout thereport. Two major partnerships have been ofparticular importance for UNDP, those withUNEP and with GEF.

2.5.1 UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME

As mentioned above, UNEP was established in1972 as a result of the Stockholm Conference, withthree core functions: (i) knowledge acquisition andassessment, (ii) environmental quality managementand (iii) international supporting actions, nowreferred to as capacity building and development.UNEP’s role was to be normative and catalytic, andit was not expected to have operational functionsconducted through national programmes.

UNDP has identified a number of areas wherethere has been active collaboration with UNEP:

n UNDP and UNEP collaborate on a signifi-cant portfolio of approximately $210 millionin GEF-funded projects that are under joint implementation.

C H A P T E R 2 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N U N D P 1 5

n UNDP and UNEP co-organized and co-managed the establishment of the SpainMDG Achievement Fund and oversaw the allocation of $95 million in funding to 18 countries.

n UNDP and UNEP-WCMC (WorldConservation Monitoring Centre) undertooka large work programme of workshops and publications linking biodiversity and the MDGs.

n On climate change, UNDP and UNEP:

• Co-created the ‘Nairobi Framework’during the Nairobi UNFCCC Conferenceof Parties in 2005;

• Are implementing a joint project oncapacity building for climate changenegotiators in developing countries; and

• Co-organized, with the United NationsDepartment of Economic and SocialAffairs and UNFCCC, the September2007 High-Level Event on ClimateChange (with participation by over 80heads of state).

n UNDP and UNEP are now co-managing the Millennium Assessment Follow-up byco-hosting the secretariat and co-chairingthe technical work.

n UNDP is supporting UNEP with itsenvironmental management group activitiesto make the UN carbon neutral and ‘green’UN Procurement.

n UNDP and UNEP have launched a jointsustainable energy programme.

There are many potential benefits fromoperational collaboration between UNDP andUNEP. Perhaps most important, UNDP has anetwork of country offices with considerableexperience implementing national projects thatUNEP does not, while UNEP has scientific andtechnical expertise and networks in specificenvironmental areas that UNDP does not.

Since GEF was established, UNEP has been thethird largest implementing agency (after UNDP

and the World Bank). Joint implementation ofGEF projects represents the most substantive setof collaborative activities during the periodcovered by the evaluation. These joint projectswere noted in some of the case study countries,but were not subject to individual or detailedstudy as a full assessment of the relationship anddivision of labour between UNEP and UNDP’senvironment and energy programmes wasbeyond this evaluation’s scope.

While there are many positive examples of thetwo organizations working well together, as listedabove, there has been strong competitionbetween UNDP and UNEP for financialresources, especially GEF resources. This has hadsome negative effects on relationships at bothstaff and management levels, exacerbated bywhat was perceived by UNDP as an unwelcomeexpansion of UNEP into country-level work.From 2007 onwards UNEP could no longer useGEF resources to support in-country work.

During the last two years, several new partner-ships and memoranda of understanding onspecific operational issues have emerged betweenthe two agencies, with strong support from theUNEP Executive Director and the UNDPAdministrator.The principal areas of collaborationinclude climate change and capacity developmentrelated to the Clean Development Mechanism(CDM) and chemicals management. Thewillingness of senior managers of UNDP andUNEP to work together has evidently improvedsignificantly during the last few years. This is an important development in helping build and, where necessary, improve relationships atoperational levels.

Most of the current collaborative arrangementsare so new that it would be premature to attemptto assess their results. This evaluation has reviewed(but not evaluated) the experience of one particularpartnership, the Poverty-Environment Initiative.While relatively small (only $12 million had beenspent as the evaluation began), this is an importantcase study for three reasons: (i) although still arelatively young programme that is just starting

C H A P T E R 2 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N U N D P1 6

to scale up significantly after a pilot phase, PEI is one of the longest-running examples ofoperational collaboration between the twoagencies and therefore constitutes an importanttest; (ii) PEI is aimed at environmentalmainstreaming, which this report and othersidentify as needing particular encouragement andstrengthening within UNDP and (iii) PEI is oneof very few substantive UNDP programmes inenvironment that does not rely on GEF resources.

2.5.2 GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY

GEF provides grants and concessional resourcesfor projects and programmes that address sixcomplex global environmental issues: biodiversityconservation and sustainable use, climate change,international waters, land degradation, ozonelayer depletion and persistent organic pollutants(POPs). As GEF started up in the early 1990s,UNDP appointed regional GEF advisors whowere physically located in the respective regionalbureaux. Starting around 2000, a separateUNDP-GEF team was formed reporting to thehead of BDP.

When GEF was first established, considerableemphasis was put on the funding stream beingnew and additional, rather than being existingdevelopment assistance redirected for theenvironment. However, contrary to this goal, GEFsoon became the most important source (sometimesthe only source) of international financing forgovernment environmental programmes, especiallyin the LDCs and SIDS.

Consistent with GEF’s mandate and priorities,the main focus of UNDP’s GEF team has been projects generating significant globalenvironmental benefits, that is, benefits reachingbeyond the boundaries of the countries in whichprojects were being implemented, rather thannational or local benefits. While there are clearlyprojects that can deliver both national and globalbenefits, and UNDP staff have often worked

hard to stretch GEF criteria to support suchprojects, generating national benefits is not themain purpose of GEF.

2.6 FINANCIAL RESOURCES

While reliable data on UNDP’s overall use offinancial resources for environment and energy havebeen hard to obtain, there are strong indicationsthat core-funded environment and energy activitieswere in decline as UNDP was progressivelyincreasing its share of GEF resources. UNDP’soverall core budget declined significantly duringthe 1990s, from a high of $928 million in 1994 to$634 million in 2000, recovering to $842 by 2004.By then UNDP was mobilizing nearly $100 millionof GEF funding per year. In response, UNDPcame to rely more and more on GEF resources tosupport environment and energy programmes.During the most recent GEF funding phase (2003–2006), UNDP had the highest value of projectapprovals among the GEF implementing agencies.

It has been suggested that environment and energyresources from the core budget were underreportedby about $130 million during 2004–2006 due toenvironmental projects being recorded by countryoffices as governance or poverty activities. Thisestimate of underreporting may well be correct,although environment inputs were significantlyoverreported in at least two of our case studycountries. Further investigation revealed that thefinancial reporting database used by headquartersto capture core resource use under MYFF-2 wasunreliable. The evaluation team was then advisedto seek more accurate data directly from thecountry offices. Table 2, drawn from the databasein use at headquarters, provides only an indicativegeneral overview of how financial resources wereallocated among the priority areas.

To date UNDP-GEF project approvals have acumulative total value of more than $2.3 billion.12

The average annual value of UNDP-GEF projectsapproved has increased steadily from about $70million in the early 1990s to $100 million in the

12. The most readily available data is based on GEF approvals, although this does not give a full picture of activity levels dueto the often considerable time lag between project approval and the start of implementation.

C H A P T E R 2 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N U N D P 1 7

late 1990s, $170 million around 2000 and over$200 million since 2002. UNDP has alsoincreased its share of GEF projects relative to theother implementing agencies. During the mostrecent GEF funding period, UNDP’s share ofGEF programming reached 43 percent, more thanany other implementing agency. UNDP’s cumulativeaverage share since 1992 is about 37 percent.13

Within the entire set of UNDP-GEF projects todate, the most important focal areas have beenclimate change (36 percent), biodiversity (30 percent)and international waters (13 percent). Projectscombining two or more focal areas account for 14 percent. Biodiversity has declined over time inrelative, but not absolute, terms while climatechange has had a stable share since about 2000.Other focal areas have been much smaller: landdegradation (4 percent), POPs (2 percent), ozonedepletion (1 percent), and integrated ecosystemmanagement (<1 percent), largely because theseare still new areas that (with the exception ofozone depletion) were not eligible for GEF

funding during the first decade. Land degradationand POPs have each grown rapidly since 2002,however, and currently account for 14 and 12 percentof approvals, respectively. International watersfunding has declined in both relative and absoluteterms during the last five to seven years.

In regional terms, the overall data are skewed byunusually high approvals for Asia and the Pacificand Latin America and the Caribbean and lowAfrica approvals from 1998 to 2001. Since thenthe pattern has been more consistent, with Africaand the Asia-Pacific region sharing 55-60 percentof approvals fairly equally, while Latin Americaand the Caribbean received about 20 percent.The Arab States have received about 8 percentover the last ten years, and Europe and the CIShave averaged 15 percent overall.

Comparing focal areas across regions, the totalvalue of approved projects for climate change hasexceeded biodiversity in Asia and the Pacificduring every GEF phase since 1994, while

Table 2. Total UNDP Environment and Energy Expenditures by Service Line during MYFF-2 Phase14

Service line 2004 2005 2006 Total %

Frameworks and strategies 61.7 90.1 110.4 262.2 28for sustainable development

Effective water governance 26.0 41.6 40.1 107.7 11

Access to sustainable energy services 52.6 59.7 76.1 188.4 20

Sustainable land management 15.5 19.2 14.2 48.9 5and desertification

Conservation and sustainable 86.0 86.7 90.7 263.4 28use of biodiversity

Ozone and POPs 25.9 27.3 14.1 67.3 7

Others 0.9 6.3 4.5 11.7 1

Total 268.6 330.9 350.1 949.7 100

13. These percentages include programmes implemented by UNDP on behalf of GEF ‘corporate’, notably the GEF SmallGrants Programme.

14. Includes expenditures from core resources, bilateral contributions, thematic trust funds and related co-finance, as well asrecipient government contributions.

C H A P T E R 2 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N U N D P1 8

biodiversity has led climate change in every otherregion. Biodiversity funding has been more thandouble climate change funding in Latin Americaand the Caribbean, and slightly less than doubleclimate change in Africa. In Latin America andthe Caribbean this pattern has been more or lessstable over time, while in Africa climate changehas exceeded biodiversity since 2002 after havingbeen much lower previously.

The implementing agencies receive a flat fee of 9 percent from GEF for the projects they

implement. UNDP has recently obtained accessto additional funding, notably the Spain MDGAchievement Fund. This fund was launched in2007 to programme over €500 million over fouryears through the UN system, of which $95 millionhas been allocated for environment and climatechange projects. As this fund has not yet disbursedsignificant programme funds, it fell outside thescope of this evaluation. UNDP has also reportedJapan’s 2007 commitment of $92.1 million toEEG for climate change adaptation work.

ASSESSMENT OF UNDP’S WORK IN ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

SECTION II

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S 2 1

This chapter presents the findings of the countrycase studies with regard to the countryprogrammes and their performance, as well as thebroader non-programmatic role of the countryoffices. It also reviews the results of UNDP inpolicy, advocacy, knowledge management andprogrammes at the global and regional levels. Itfocuses on mainstreaming as one of the majorstrategic considerations for UNDP, as well as therole of learning in strategy development.

3.1 COUNTRY PROGRAMMES

The evaluation placed particular importance onthe environment and energy work at the countrylevel because this is the crux of UNDP’sprogrammes aimed at supporting the partnercountries’ development efforts. This chapterdraws primarily on the findings of the eight countrystudies undertaken by the evaluation team as wellas some evidence from earlier evaluations.

3.1.1 PRIORITY SETTING OF COUNTRY PROGRAMMES

The objectives and priorities of UNDPprogrammes in each country are periodicallydocumented in Country Cooperation Frameworks(CCF) and Country Programme Documents(CPD). The drafting and finalization of thesedocuments, generally every four or five years, is amajor event in each country office, involvingextensive consultations and negotiations withgovernment and other stakeholders on the inclusionor exclusion of specific priorities. More recently,following the push towards UN coordination atthe country level, these discussions havefrequently involved other UN agencies within theframework of the UN Development AssistanceFramework (UNDAF). These strategic documentsare therefore a potentially important source ofinformation on the degree of priority given toenvironment and energy (Annex 5).

In practice, any tension between local and globalpriorities, as expressed in the MYFFs, has usuallybeen diffused by a widespread view amongcountry office staff that higher level UNDP plansand strategies can be interpreted to cover almostany activity deemed worthy within the broadpractice areas and for which financial resourcesare available. Including a specific topic inUNDP’s country programme does not guaranteean allocation of financial resources from the corebudget.This is especially the case with environmentand energy, where the availability of external fundingsubstitutes for core funds and has significantinfluence over real priority setting. As a result,the inclusion or exclusion of environment andenergy topics in UNDP country-level planningdocuments does not appear to be a strongindicator of their ranking among competingcountry office priorities. For a true picture ofUNDP’s country-level work on environment andenergy, it is necessary to look at the actual use ofresources in country programmes.

Since its launch, the availability of GEF fundinghas been the most important driving forcedetermining where, how and when UNDPcountry-level environment and energy work hasbeen undertaken. This was overwhelminglyconfirmed by all available information sources,including all of the country case studies. The casestudy country portfolios appear to be from 71 to99 percent supported by GEF resources (except forChina where GEF funding covers only 67 percent)and related co-financing, supplemented in somecases by funding through the Montreal Protocol(for example, in China and Malawi).

In a moderate number of cases UNDP hassecured or helped mobilize significant financingfrom other partners to support complementaryactivities. TRAC funds have sometimes been

Chapter 3

ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMMES

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S2 2

used as seed money to attract GEF funding, forexample, by supporting project feasibility studiesor proposal development. In a few cases TRACfunds have been allocated to support specificpriority environment or energy initiativesunrelated to GEF, for example in the SouthPacific (Box 4).

A typical country programme in the LDCs andSIDS consists of a handful of full-size GEFprojects and a relatively large number of small(less than $250,000) ‘enabling activities’ linked tothe reporting requirements of MEAs. In thelarger country programmes there are usuallymore full-sized and sometimes medium-sizedGEF projects but not more enabling activities asthere is typically only one of each type percountry. The information available on projectactivities undertaken by each of the case studycountries during the 2002–2007 period togetherwith their financing sources is listed in Annex 7.

As stated earlier in the introductory chapter, ithas been very challenging to gather accurate andcomprehensive financial data, especially forperiods predating the introduction of the newenterprise software in UNDP. We focused oncollecting accurate and comprehensive data setsin connection with the country case studies.Unfortunately, even the selected country officeshave faced challenges in providing financialinformation on their environment and energyprojects in a coherent and consistent manner.

3.1.2 RESPONSIVENESS TO NATIONAL PRIORITIES

Since the early 1990s, national priorities withinvarious aspects of environment and energy havetypically been set out in a series of plans andstrategies referred to as enabling activities. GEFfunding has been available for enabling activitiesrelated to conventions on biodiversity, climatechange and POPs. There are two major types ofenabling activity: (i) a plan or strategy to fulfilcommitments under a global environmentalconvention or (ii) a national communication to aconvention. UNDP has been particularly activein supporting these national government efforts

to participate in the evolving regime of interna-tional environmental governance. The smallerUNDP environment and energy portfolios tendto be dominated by these enabling activities,which typically have a budget of less than$250,000. These smaller projects often require aconsiderable effort to manage, particularly inLDCs and SIDS where government capacitiesare limited, contributing to high transaction costsfor the country offices.

The succession of plans and strategies requiredfrom developing countries in relation to thevarious MEAs has produced an impressive arrayof environment-related plans and strategies inmany poor countries, but little evidence ofeffective action to implement these plans. Despitea discourse emphasizing national ownership, manycountries clearly only undertook these activitiesbecause they were fully funded from outside, andthere was an expectation that they would lead tofurther international funding on a significantscale. In many cases these expectations have notbeen realized, which is hardly the fault of UNDP.

The plans and strategies developed throughenabling activities, often with UNDP support,are not consistently highly regarded. Commoncriticisms include a lack of national engagementfrom decision makers, inadequate consultationsand the excessive use of consultants to meetdeadlines. Most are prepared under the auspices ofenvironment ministries. While working throughenvironment ministries may have supported theseemerging institutions, the lack of serious dialogueon plans and strategies with more powerful andinfluential ministries such as finance, energy andinfrastructure automatically limited howseriously these products would be taken at anational level. These plans and strategies do notseem to provide a good guide to investment orfuture programming either for government or forother donors, and there is still limited localcapacity to objectively assess national needs inenvironment and energy. This is the case in all of the case study countries except China, wherethe government’s internal coordination ensures

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S 2 3

cohesiveness of policies. Enabling activities areparticularly dominant in UNDP’s environmentand energy portfolios in Malawi and the 15Pacific Island countries covered by the Fiji andSamoa multicountry offices.

Environmental issues in general appear to havebeen compelling for the rapidly growing, moreprosperous middle-income countries of East Asiawith alternative funding sources available (likeChina and Thailand) as well as the formercommunist countries now building relationshipswith the European Union (for example, FYRMacedonia). Environmental issues, and theglobal environment agenda in particular, appearto be relatively low priorities for the governmentsof sub-Saharan Africa, however, as noted in theBurkina Faso, Kenya and Malawi case studies.These and other LDCs are heavily dependent oninternational donors for developing balancedenvironment and energy portfolios or supportingthe most pressing national priorities.

China’s development strategy is largely based onidentifying and testing new approaches on asmall scale and replicating those that provesuccessful through policy measures. China usesUNDP’s support to bring in ideas and experi-ences from abroad and test them. Unlike manyother countries, the resources mobilized byUNDP, through GEF, the Montreal Protocoland other sources, pale in comparison with thoseof the government.

UNDP-GEF projects are usually developed by orwith the support of regional centre (or sometimeseven headquarters) staff with particular technicalareas of expertise, while the country offices areprimarily responsible for implementation. Thecountry offices do initiate projects at governmentrequest, but seldom have the technical capacity todevelop them to the level required for approval byGEF. Projects are approved within the focal areason a global basis rather than by reference tonational-level activities in other environmentsectors, which is not always conducive to creatinga coherent country-level portfolio.

Recent efforts to develop more coherent nationalproject portfolios based on GEF funding havebeen considerably enhanced by the UNDP-managed GEF National Dialogue Initiative(NDI). The NDI provides opportunities for thecountries to present their vision for environmentwork and brings together various actors from thegovernments, civil society, academia and so on.

GEF funding, by definition, is intended tosupport incremental activities that will generateglobal environmental benefits, with the assump-tion that ‘baseline’ activities with direct nationalbenefits will be undertaken using other financialresources. In reality this baseline barely exists inmany countries, especially not in LDCs andmany SIDS. So work considered to be in thenational interest as a precondition for GEFprogramming is not getting done in many cases.Furthermore, these projects are intended to bepilot initiatives to demonstrate what is possible,so that other donors or national governments canfinance their expansion or replication.

The result is that most UNDP environment andenergy country portfolios appear to be composedof a series of opportunistic projects for whichfunding was available. In many cases these arehigh-quality projects in their own right. Butstrategic portfolio development, the matching ofactivities with priority needs and significantattempts to compensate for the distortionsinherent in the reliance on GEF funding arelargely absent. This finding emphasizes theimportance of considering GEF as one, ratherthan the only, funding source in order to addressnational environment and energy priorities,especially in LDCs and SIDS.

In LDCs and SIDS in particular, there is an almost total reliance on GEF support forenvironment and energy activities, as other donorshave scaled back and government commitmentsare often miniscule (for example, Danida hadrecently withdrawn from Malawi, leaving fewother environmental donors). Elsewhere, andparticularly in China and Central and EasternEurope, these priorities have overlapped more

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S2 4

directly with national environment and develop-ment priorities.

Assessing consistency with national prioritieshighlights the difficulty in following UNDP’spractice of considering environment and energyas one. Most countries have ‘energy portfolios’that cover a wide range of energy supply anddistribution activities and issues in which UNDPhas little or no role. National budgets for theseportfolios are orders of magnitude greater thanbudgets for ‘environmental portfolios’.

3.1.3 EFFECTIVENESS OF PROJECTS

Virtually all UNDP monitoring and performancereporting takes place at the project level, andthere is an absence of environment and energyperformance reporting at the country officeoutcome level. This section describes some of themain trends that emerged from a strategic reviewof projects in each of the case study countries.

The scope of the evaluation did not provide foran extensive sample of individual projects to bereviewed. However, in each case study country anumber of key projects were discussed in somedetail with the country office staff and localstakeholders. A few projects were visited andprevious project evaluations were reviewed,including those highlighted in this report. Whilesuch a sample does not provide the basis forrigorous extrapolation, it was generally evidentthat the design, and in most cases implementation,work being carried out by UNDP and its partnersis of high quality.

UNDP has been found by the GEF EvaluationOffice to provide quality supervision to theprojects that it implements. The GEF 2006Annual Performance Report rated 88 percent ofUNDP-implemented projects as receivingsupervision that is moderately satisfactory orbetter.15 Quality of supervision has been found tocorrelate strongly with the likelihood of projectsachieving their outcomes.

While many current projects appear impressiveand innovative as stand-alone initiatives, sustaininggains and benefits over the longer term is aubiquitous problem. Systemic constraints limitinsight into post-project sustainability issues,especially the lack of an ex-post monitoring andevaluation culture and a fragile institutionalmemory of terminated initiatives that declinesrapidly over time. Sustainability, however, isclearly impaired by weak counterpart institutionswith staffing and budget constraints, limitedcoordination among institutions and projects, aswell as cycles of political instability. Thesefactors are all compounded by the uncertaintyand unpredictability of future funding and thefact that few recipient countries share theenvironmental priorities in particular with regardto the global issues.

One particularly successful stand-alone project,financed by the Multilateral Fund for theImplementation of the Montreal Protocol, is the Phase Out of Methyl Bromide in Malawi (Box 2).

Projects have often taken a long time to developand begin implementation. Over such longpreparation periods, the underlying context oftenchanges or is overtaken by events, threateningproject relevance and effectiveness. Otherproblems are associated with projects’ shortduration. For example, implementation timeframesare often insufficient to consolidate change orcapacity development processes, and manyprojects follow boom-to-bust cycles that providehigh levels of support that exceed local absorptivecapacities and then terminate abruptly. Projectsoften lack realistic exit strategies, thereby limitingopportunities for an effective transfer of activities.The latter is particularly problematic within projectsthat do not reflect genuine national priorities.

The most impressive projects often appear to bethose where other donors are encouraged to support

15. ‘GEF Annual Performance Report 2006’. GEF Council (GEF/ME/C.31/1). GEF Evaluation Office. 2007.

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S 2 5

parallel activities that complement UNDP’s GEF-funded projects, leading to a set of activities thatis more diverse and is responsive to a range oflocal and national priorities. In such cases it isoften easier to see the potential for povertyreduction, and it becomes easier to see howenvironmental considerations can effectively beintegrated with economic development. Examplesof these more promising broader approaches in the case study countries include the PrespaLake project in FYR Macedonia (linking totransboundary efforts in Greece and Albania, seeBox 3) and the Galapagos Islands project inEcuador (see Box 8).

The Burkina Faso country office has explicitlytargeted a move towards fewer, larger projectsthat address environmental issues within a broaddevelopment approach. This transition inapproach has helped UNDP become morerelevant in relation to government priorities.While the opportunities for demonstratingimpact, sustainability and broader-based resultsappear to have improved, reporting specificallyon achievements in environment and energy ismore complicated in such programmes.

Biodiversity projects have increasingly tried todemonstrate the local and national benefits frommore effective conservation while building policyrelevance. These projects frequently includeimpressive work supporting policy and legislation.Such projects are gradually shifting away from afocus on individual protected areas towards thegovernance of overall protected area systems andthe institutional, financial and economic sustain-ability of these systems within broader governanceframeworks. Separate work on invasive speciesmanagement has helped governments to gaugethe true scope of associated economic damage andthen develop policy and programme responsesthat match the potential risk. Implementing suchchanges in emphasis has been an enormouschallenge in an area that was not consideredcentral by much of the mainstream developmentcommunity and which still receives littleattention within UNDP. The biodiversityportfolio is discussed further in chapter 4.3.

The impacts of international waters projects have been easier to demonstrate in terms of their contributions to governance, with mostaimed at supporting the development of new or

Methyl Bromide (MeBr) is an ozone-depleting substance that is being phased out globally. Until the early2000s, Malawi was the second largest user of MeBr in Africa, mainly due to its use in the tobacco industry(lesser amounts are used in grain storage). In 2000, UNDP mobilized funding from the multilateral fundfor the Montreal Protocol to phase out the use of the estimated 111 metric tons of MeBr used annually inthe country and introduce more ozone-friendly technologies for farmers. MeBr had been used fortobacco seedbed sterilization since the early 1970s, especially by large-scale tobacco farmers.

The project took a multi-pronged approach that turned out to be very effective. There were awarenesscampaigns on the need for the phase out using radio and TV spots, posters and printed media in additionto traditional agricultural extension services. The project also promoted recommended alternativetechnologies and undertook research, testing existing alternatives under Malawian conditions. Itdemonstrated effective alternative technologies to the farmers and trained them in their use. The projectalso developed a legal framework for banning MeBr in Malawi. The subsequent import ban has beenaccompanied by training to help customs officials recognize the chemicals.

The project, executed through the Department of Environmental Affairs and the Agricultural Researchand Extension Trust, was highly successful in phasing out virtually all of the MeBr used in the tobaccosector by the time it closed at the end of 2006. Its success can be attributed to several factors, mostimportantly the well-defined target of MeBr within a known sector and the availability of alternatives thatwere both effective and economically viable. Although the initial investment is higher, the newertechnology will produce savings both in labour and land area required, as well as in water use andtransportation costs. The alternative technologies were therefore accepted and rapidly adopted by thefarmers once their initial reluctance was overcome by convincing demonstrations.

Box 2. Phase Out of Methyl Bromide in Malawi

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S2 6

strengthened institutions for internationalgovernance of shared rivers, lakes and seas. TheDanube Regional Project was characterized bythe final evaluation as “the culmination of fifteenyears of GEF assistance and a lynchpin of theDanube-Black Sea Strategic Partnership…ahighly successful project, and well-deserving inits characterization as one of the flagship effortsunder the GEF International Waters Focal Area.”16

This programme helped to catalyze some $5 billionin new investments in waste water treatment inthe Danube Basin since its launch in the early1990s. This is a case where the priorities of thecountries and their UNDP offices coincided withthose of GEF and, not incidentally, those of theexpanding European Union.

UNDP’s efforts in support of the MontrealProtocol on Substances That Deplete the OzoneLayer are generally very highly regarded, althoughthese are sometimes hard to integrate with otherdevelopment programmes.

While GEF-funded projects in the past severalyears have increasingly been directed to focus onpolicy issues, such as market transformations and barrier removal for the adoption of newtechnologies, these efforts naturally focus onglobal environmental issues. While this does notprevent country office environment and energyteams from focusing on broader sets of environ-mental and natural resource management policyissues—which a few have managed to do withsupport from particularly motivated residentrepresentatives—there is little practical incentiveto do so, and most country offices lack therequisite capacity.The country office environmentand energy teams report that their UNDP-GEFcolleagues, undoubtedly driven by perceptions ofthe types of projects that GEF is likely to finance,are mainly interested in projects and have littletime for policy issues that are not specificallyrelated to these projects. Nevertheless, there is considerable scope for projects where globalenvironmental issues merge with national

This project provides an important example of UNDP drawing on both GEF and non-GEF funding sourcesto achieve national and global environmental benefits.

The GEF-supported Transboundary Prespa Park Project is the focal point for a series of linked activitiesin a region shared by The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania and Greece. The region’sunique flora and fauna are threatened by unsustainable exploitation and inappropriate land usepractices. The project explicitly adopted an ecosystem approach that brings environmental objectivesinto policy and planning and involves spatial planning, water use management, agriculture, forestry,national park and fishery management and conservation and protected area management. Thestrengthening of transboundary coordination mechanisms appears promising so far.

The broader Prespa region programme now encompasses several projects funded by international donorsthat are clearly complementary to the original UNDP-GEF international waters project. These includerestoring the Golema River, reducing agrochemical use and improving solid waste management servicesin 20 settlements.This waste collection programme is consistent with broader efforts to generate revenuesfrom users’ payments to local service providers, of which there is little tradition. So far, revenue collectionfrom households, although insufficient to ensure self-sufficiency of the operation, has been higher thanelsewhere in the country. Local tree fruit producers’ associations appear satisfied with UNDP supportthat has allowed them to reduce the costs of key inputs (pesticides, irrigation water and fertilizers) whilealso reducing their ecological impacts. The mayor is also satisfied because these environmental activitiessupport the local government’s primary goal: the economic growth of the municipality. These paralleland linked investments, mainly managed by UNDP, seem to have increased the original project’sprospects of having genuine and sustainable impacts.

Box 3. Prespa Lake International Ecosystem Management Project

16. Fox, A. and S. de Mora, ‘Final Evaluation of the UNDP/GEF Project RER/01/G32 – Danube Regional Project: Strengtheningthe Implementation Capacities for Nutrient Reduction and Transboundary Cooperation in the Danube River Basin’,UNDP, 2007.

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S 2 7

development priorities, such as in the case ofenergy efficiency, renewable energy and sustain-able use of biodiversity.

Staying current on GEF funding priorities anddocumentation requirements is an extremelychallenging task that clearly could not bereplicated in each country office. UNDP-GEFproject design tends to be well regarded but thereare widely held concerns over the general qualityof project implementation supervised by the country offices. As a rule, UNDP relies onnational execution of projects by an implementingpartner at the country level. Adequately supervisingprojects located far from the capital cities wherethe country offices are located appears to be achallenge in some case study countries (notablyEcuador, Kenya and FYR Macedonia). It wouldbe unfair, however, to assign all implementationdifficulties to UNDP. The lack of capacity in theenvironment and energy sectors in many countriesmakes effective project implementation verydifficult indeed. Past periods of political instabilityand rapid turnover in government counterpartshave also undermined projects’ effectiveness.

While some country offices expressed a strongdesire to focus on more strategic environmentand energy activities, rather than many relativelysmall projects, it is not clear under currentapproaches how this could be financed, and manycountry offices do not appear to have sufficientlystrong staff to sustain such an approach.

3.1.4 CIVIL SOCIETY INVOLVEMENT

UNDP manages the corporate GEF SmallGrants Programme (SGP), widely recognized asone of the most successful initiatives of UNDP.The SGP makes grants of up to $50,000 in more than 100 countries and is unique amongGEF programmes in targeting poor and marginalcommunities. It helps such communities contributeto achieving global environmental goals whileresponding to local socio-economic developmentimperatives. The SGP has probably been the

most consistent and effective among the GEFprogrammes in contributing directly to povertyreduction at local levels. In many countries SGPis heralded as having really ‘made a difference’ byresponding quickly and effectively to local andnational priorities.

The SGP’s success in working with the non-governmental sector and at the community levelhas had some influence on UNDP (and GEF)programming. SGP has had to respond tofrequent criticism, usually from within the GEFCouncil and Secretariat, that its aggregateimpacts are not significant for remediation ofglobal environmental problems. A recentindependent global evaluation of the SGP wasextremely favourable,17 matching the findings oftwo previous evaluations. The governments ofseveral countries even requested additional fundsto be allocated to SGP from their national GEFallocations, thereby reducing the money thegovernment would have discretion over.

The SGP is highly regarded within UNDP andoften serves as a flagship programme for thecountry offices to demonstrate that they haveeffective environment programmes on theground. The SGP national coordinators, althoughautonomous and reporting directly to the SGP’sCentral Programme Management Team in NewYork, are usually based in the country offices, andthe resident representatives appoint the NationalSteering Committees that make grant decisions.In some cases the relationship between SGP andthe country office is close and constructive, as in Ecuador, where the collaboration wascommended by the recent global SGP evaluation,and Burkina Faso, where learning from SGPexperiences has been incorporated into the countryoffice’s two main projects. In other countries,such as Kenya, the relationship is distant orstrained. The potential benefits and opportunitiesfor synergies—not just in environment, but inpoverty reduction, governance and other areas—

17. ‘Joint Evaluation of the GEF Small Grants Programme’, Evaluation Report No. 39, GEF Evaluation Office and UNDPEvaluation Office, 2008.

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S2 8

do not seem to have been fully grasped by allcountry offices.

Relatively little other funding has been used tocomplement and build on SGP successes,suggesting that there are still few linkages toother UNDP work, even after more than adecade of SGP operations. This appears partlydue to SGP operating fairly autonomously, withproject selection strictly subject to the globalprogramme criteria. As a result, country officeshave limited influence on SGP operations.

Many of the strongest and most experiencednational SGPs are being requested by the GEFCouncil and Secretariat to prepare for ‘gradua-tion’ out of the programme. To the extent that thecountry offices consider SGP an integral part oftheir operations—and it seems almost inconceiv-able for this not to be the case—they need to

engage more with SGP in helping map out itsfuture, ideally one that links SGP operationsmore closely with country office programmes.

3.1.5 SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES

UNDP has multicountry offices in Fiji andSamoa, managing programmes in 10 and 4countries, respectively, with environmental teamsin both multicountry offices. These case studiesprovided the evaluation’s main inputs on theissues facing SIDS. The bulk of sub-regionalenvironment programmes in recent years in thePacific and a substantial percentage of energyinitiatives have been implemented by UNDPwith GEF funding, although the EuropeanCommunity has a sizeable presence in both areas.Most of the UNDP projects take the form ofPacific sub-regional programmes, seekingeconomies of scale in sharing services, skills andexperiences among the countries.

Kiribati is a fragile, isolated LDC of 92,000 people on small Pacific islands scattered over an area largerthan Western Europe. Densely populated South Tarawa, the national administrative centre, has longexperienced difficulties with solid waste management and disposal, threatening the ground water usedby households.

In 2003, a civil society organization long active in Kiribati, the Foundation for the Peoples of the SouthPacific Kiribati, approached UNDP Fiji with a concept for improved solid waste management that builtupon existing activities, including a UNDP-GEF International Waters project. With strong endorsementfrom government, community groups, the private sector and other donors, UNDP provided $227,000 incore (TRAC) funds for a government-executed, three-year project. It was agreed that operations wouldbe contracted to the private sector once a viable business concern had been established.

An independent evaluation in late 2006 and a final Tripartite Review in early 2007 concluded that theeffort had been successful and highly relevant for Kiribati in terms of improved access to essential servicesby low-income people and improved local capacity to deal with environmental vulnerability. The projectprovided a good model for Kiribati and other Pacific atoll nations for better management of solid waste:

n The key achievement has been the establishment of an income-generating venture for South Tarawa,with improved island cleanliness and hygiene. Pollution has been reduced appreciably.

n The commercially viable recycling system has been a very effective model of government, communityand private sector collaboration.

n Over 100 households were financially supported with $260,000 in 2007 payouts.

n The volume of rubbish dumped at landfills has fallen by over 50 percent.

Practical opportunities have been identified to extend the project and there is potential for replication.Nearby countries are well aware of the achievements, and UNDP Fiji has received three proposals forsimilar solid waste management initiatives based on the Tarawa experience. This is a good example ofUNDP’s ability to build effectively on earlier work, cooperate with other donors, and build a successfulgovernment, NGO and private sector coalition with excellent prospects of sustainability, environmentalimprovement and modest poverty reduction.

Box 4. Kiribati – A Solid Waste Management Success

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S 2 9

Operational weaknesses in the environment andenergy programmes of the two multicountryoffices are elaborated in an annex to this report.These have been exacerbated, and to some degreecaused, by the extraordinary logistical challengesof working in this sub-region with its smallpopulation widely dispersed over enormous areas.Despite extraordinarily high operational costs,the multicountry offices do not receive additionalfinancial resources to offset these costs. Seniorstaff characterize the situation as a negative spiralwhere extraordinarily high operating costs reducethe quality of service, leading in turn to evenlower resource allocations. This situation isparticularly extreme for UNDP Fiji with itsresponsibility not only for managing 10 countryprogrammes with its tiny staff, but also respondingto headquarters’ planning and reporting informationneeds for each of them. Not surprisingly,UNDP’s credibility in environment within thesub-region appears to be eroding.

While GEF funding dominates the Pacificenvironment agenda and choice of activities,at least two impressive programmes havedemonstrated what can be achieved whenUNDP commits its core or other funds to theseareas. Box 4 describes a project in Kiribati underUNDP Fiji.

3.2 COUNTRY OFFICES AND NON-PROGRAMMATIC ACTIVITIES

UNDP is valued by national governments forseveral reasons, notably being a long-termpartner, supporting national planning andstrategy development processes and contributingto capacity development. These strengths areclearly relevant in all of the sectors where UNDPprovides development assistance, not justenvironment and energy. In addition, both donorand government partners in many countriesrecognize UNDP’s suitability as an appropriatespokesperson or coordinator for the internationalcommunity due to the agency’s objectivity andneutrality. Environment and energy workbenefits considerably from these strengths.

From the countries’ perspective UNDP hasobviously been a major gateway to the GEF, andfor that reason it has been a key partner for anyonehoping to access GEF funding. Community-level initiatives of the SGP are widely appreciated.Also with GEF resources, UNDP has been a majorsupporter of government activities in compliancewith MEAs. Many environment ministrieswould not have been able to respond adequatelyto the reporting requirements of these globalagreements without the substantial technicalsupport they have received from UNDP. Thecountry offices have been an important factor inmobilizing international resources for environ-ment ministry activities, even though a lot of thiswork seems to take place outside mainstreampolicy formulation and decision making.

3.2.1 ENHANCING GOVERNMENT ATTENTION

The relevance and effectiveness of UNDP’senvironmental programming is directly influencedby the commitment and capacity of recipientgovernments. Many national stakeholders expressedthe view that international donors are tending tosupport a global environmental agenda thatdiverges from national environment and developmentagendas, especially in LDCs and SIDS. UNDP’sreliance on GEF funding does not enable it tocounter this view. Our assessments of LDCs andSIDS in particular suggested that governments’interest in environmental management issues isstagnating. Very few of the stakeholders interviewedsuggested that environmental issues figure highamong their government’s priorities. Among thecase study countries, feedback from nationalstakeholders and experienced observers inBurkina Faso, Fiji, Kenya and Malawi give littleroom for optimism regarding the priority thesegovernments are assigning to environment andenergy. FYR Macedonia is starting to giveenvironment more attention in the context of EUaccession, while in China the issue is highlyvisible, the national government is becomingfully engaged and it is local governments’commitment that may be inconsistent.

It is somewhat paradoxical that governments,particularly of LDCs and SIDS, do not give

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S3 0

higher priority to the environment, given thefundamental importance of the natural resourcebase for their economic growth (for example, inBurkina Faso, Kenya, Malawi and the PacificIsland states). UNDP, with the encouragement ofother international partners, often acts as anadvocate trying to ensure that principles ofsustainable natural resource management are notignored. However, a lack of resources hampersimportant work in this area on a significant scale.

Environmental legislation is now in place inmany countries, and UNDP has helped bringthis about. Unfortunately the capacity anddecisiveness needed for effective implementationare often lacking, especially among relatively newenvironment ministries and departments thattend to lack political influence and have no fieldpresence. Environmentally related shocks anddisasters do periodically lead to a renewed focuson natural resource management, for example, incases of drought and famine in sub-SaharanAfrica, but there appears to be little sustainedappetite for addressing the long-term structuralconstraints to reduce vulnerability to such events.

3.2.2 BUILDING COUNTRY CAPACITY

Based on the observations of the evaluation teammembers and their discussions with nationalstakeholders in the case study countries, there islittle sign that the capacities of many developinggovernment agencies responsible for environmentand energy are improving; in some cases thesecapacities appear to be deteriorating, especially inLDCs and SIDS. This is despite UNDP’s effortsaimed at capacity development, including theenabling activities. This pattern applies equally toenvironment ministries and to departmentswithin ministries with environmental mandatessuch as forests, fisheries, wildlife, soil conservation,pollution control and waste management.

While some bright, motivated people are makinga difference, not enough seem to remain ingovernment for long. Fiji’s Ministry ofEnvironment had lost 14 of its professional staffof 22 during the last year, although it isimportant to note that in Fiji, as elsewhere,

former government employees whose capacitieshave been developed may still be contributing inthe country either within NGOs or as consultants.According to national and international stakeholders,none of the Pacific Island states has significantlyimproved their government capacity to manageenvironment and energy during the last fifteenyears (Samoa may be an exception). Assessmentswritten ten to twenty years ago in some of thecase study countries elaborating and lamentinglimited capacities in the environmental sectorappear equally applicable today, despite significantinvestments in capacity development over recentdecades. Compounding unattractive careerprospects for trained staff and continual recruitingof capable people by international organizations,a massive shortage of skilled workers over comingdecades in Europe seems likely to fuel a continuationand expansion of the brain drain, furtherdepleting limited national human resources.

In LDCs and SIDS there often seems to be agreater capacity and even engagement in theNGO and private consulting sectors than ingovernment. In the case study countries it isevident that governments are often unwilling orunable to tap this expertise through partnershipswith NGOs. In several countries where governmentcapacities in environment and natural resourcemanagement are modest, certain NGOs are notablyknowledgeable and effective in a variety ofsectors, including sustainable land management,water, food security, famine relief and community-based development (notably in Burkina Faso,Ecuador, Fiji, Kenya, Malawi and Samoa). It isnot clear that UNDP is taking full advantage ofthis, although there are recent, emerging signs of cooperation in some countries. There areexceptions, notably the Sustainable Socio-economic Empowerment for Poverty Reductionproject in Malawi, where NGOs have been engagedin a highly regarded literacy and learning initiativethat seems more typical of an SGP project.

UNDP and others have long struggled with howto build and retain capacity in extremely smallcountries, most of which will never have thecritical population mass for a wide range of skills,

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S 3 1

and nearly all of whom lose a high percentage of skilled government staff to emigration andnon-government sectors. Capacity limitationscontinue to be universally, and justifiably, cited asa barrier to progress, most recently in the case ofclimate change. Looking at recent models, thereseems little basis for expecting increased capacitydevelopment investments to yield significantbenefits. While most UNDP environment andenergy initiatives have had significant capacitydevelopment elements, long-term capacity gainsin government seldom seem apparent in LDCsand SIDS. Capacity may indeed be built on ashort-term basis through project-supportedinterventions, but it is not at all clear how can anysuch gains be sustained. The implications of themany failed efforts over recent decades for currentand future capacity development programmes donot seem to have been analyzed at a strategiclevel, either within UNDP or elsewhere.

3.2.3 CAPACITIES FOR DECENTRALIZEDENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Capacity limitations come into even sharperfocus in countries that have decentralizedenvironmental management. UNDP has supporteddecentralization in several of the case studycountries, with some promising results. But thechallenge is massive. Decentralization oftenresults in shifts of authority and responsibility fordecision making and provision of services to locallevels without adequate financial resources andwith extremely modest local human resourcecapacities. If environment and energy capacitiesin national government are limited, they are oftenalmost nonexistent in local government.Decentralization in the forestry sector in Malawi,for example, appears to have virtually eliminatedthe capacity in the centre with no significant gainin local capacity, considerably exacerbated bypersonnel losses due to HIV/AIDS.

In FYR Macedonia, UNDP project staff placedwithin ministries or local governments serve asresource people to these organizations while alsocontributing to their longer term capacitydevelopment. UNDP also provides its nationalcounterparts with access to global networks of

knowledge and expertise. However, FYRMacedonia faces the need to rapidly developlocal environmental management capacities aspart of its EU accession process. Even in such asmall country UNDP’s approach of supportinglocal governments cannot come close to meetingthe capacity development needs for decentralizedenvironmental management.

Even excellent national legislation and policieswill prove ineffective without dramaticallyenhanced local capacities, not least to offset the widespread tendency for local authorities and their private sector partners to emphasizeincreased economic activity above any environ-mental considerations.

3.2.4 COORDINATION ROLE

The coordination role played by UNDP vis-à-visthe UN Country Teams and donors in environmentand energy varies considerably. Coordination hasbeen carried out to the satisfaction of all majordonor partners in some cases, for example, inBurkina Faso and in Ecuador, specifically for theGalapagos Islands, while in others, like Kenya,UNDP has lacked the staff resources andcredibility to carry out the role adequately. Insome smaller countries like FYR Macedonia, thedonor community is so small that informalcoordination suffices. In yet other cases UNDPhas been unable to successfully promote donorcoordination because of a combination ofcapacity limitations in the country office and alack of sustained government interest (as inMalawi). Here again, the personal commitmentof the resident representative or a senior UNDPstaff member who can command respect amongother partners seems a prerequisite.

In a promising example in Ecuador (separatefrom the Galapagos), UNDP’s SustainableDevelopment Unit chairs an EnvironmentWorking Group composed of several UN agencies,the Spanish cooperation agency AECID and theMinistry of Environment. This working grouphas been effective in coordinating agency rolesfor the recently approved Yasuní BiosphereReserve project. Procurement and contracting for

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S3 2

the Yasuní project will be managed by an intera-gency panel with oversight by the Ministry ofEnvironment. This model has worked so wellthat it is being considered for other projects inother sectors.

3.2.5 COUNTRY OFFICE HUMAN RESOURCES

The technical capacities of the country offices arenot highly regarded by many national stakeholders(in both governments and civil society), donors orUNDP staff at headquarters and the regionalcentres. The country offices rely on poor systemsand overstretched staff hampered by endlessrequests and requirements from headquarters,including frequently shifting administrative andfinancial reporting requirements. Too much timeis being used on cumbersome reporting systems.This has led to significant delays in very basicproject management procedures (such asprocurement, contracting and disbursements),poor communications with partners, inadequatesupervision of technically challenging projectsand limited capacity to effectively engage withgovernments on key policy issues.

Many environment and energy staff are relativelyinexperienced, work on short-term contracts,lack technical expertise and spend a significantamount of time on reporting. This does not aiddelivery of timely, relevant and effective servicesto the countries. There is a lack of consistentevidence-based advice to countries and a similarlack of people with the time and often expertiseand stature to provide advice. It seems clear thatthe country offices are frequently driven more byfunding opportunities in their general areas ofconcern than by the systematic analysis ofpriority issues.

With a few notable and impressive exceptions,such as China, the country office teams have verylimited capacities to identify, prepare and manageprojects, especially in the LDCs and SIDS.

The environment and energy teams in the countryoffices vary from one person in the smaller officesto up to 15 in China (see Table 3). The LDCsand SIDS tend to have one lead person who may

be a regular international or national staffmember or a UN Volunteer, supported by a fewtemporary or junior staff with uncertain fundingsupport, often consultants or junior professionalofficers. Our observations were that these teamsare very hard working and stretched to the limit,especially in the smaller country offices. Butjunior, inexperienced staff are often playing toobroad a role, without adding a lot at a policy levelor having credibility with government.The additionof volunteers and junior professional officers cannotmake up for the need to have more permanentstaff on board, ideally with a professionalbackground in natural resource management.

The post of environmental focal point in acountry office is very demanding, requiring theincumbent to stay current on a wide range ofrapidly evolving technical issues while managing abroad portfolio of projects and facing tremendouspressure to mobilize resources. In the LDCs andSIDS, this means operating in a sector where thenational capacity is often extremely limited andwhere project proponents and implementers(such as environment ministries) often lack politicalsupport. These challenges are compounded byfrequent changes in key government counterpartsand long periods where government staffpositions remain unfilled.

Some of the case study country offices areexpanding their environment and energy teams. China has increased the size of its teamsignificantly, from 6 to 15 staff members since2005. Burkina Faso, FYR Macedonia and Malawias well as the Fiji and Samoa multicountry officeshave also expanded their human resourcesfocused on environment and energy, although thefunding for most of the additional positions isuncertain and fragile, and it is unclear if thisincreased momentum will be sustained. Again,the personal commitment of the residentrepresentatives to the environment and energyagenda and their ability to be entrepreneurial infinding additional resources has been critical.

The country offices have suffered from high ratesof staff turnover. In some cases this has led to

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S 3 3

Table 3. Country Office Environment and Energy Team Staff Details Supplied by Case Study Countries

Country Total No. Staff Position No. of Source of Funds Time Periodof Staff Staff Employed

Burkina Faso 4 National Staff 1 UNDP Core 1990-present

1 UNDP Core 1996-present

1 UNDP Core 2006-present

Junior Professional Officer 1 Government of Luxembourg 2006-present

UN Volunteer 1 Japan International Cooperation 2005-presentAgency/UNDP Core

China 18 International Staff 1 Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific 2005-present

National Staff 6 Extra-Budgetary 2006-present

Seconded Staff 1 Italian Government 2007-present

Support Staff 3 Extra-Budgetary 2006-present

Long-term Consultants 5 EU Project 2006-present

1 Extra-Budgetary 2007-present

1 UNDP Core 3 2007-present

Ecuador 4 National Staff 1 UNDP Core 2001-present

1 National Project 2004-present

Support Staff 1 National Project 2001-present

1 National Project 2004-present

Kenya 10 International Staff 1 UNDP Core (PEI) 2006-present

National Staff 1 Regular Budget 1997-present

1 Extra-Budgetary 2001-present

1 UNDP Core 2001-present

1 UNOPS (SGP) 2001-present

1 UNOPS (SGP) 2000-present

1 UNOPS (SGP) 1994-present

UN Volunteers 1 UNV 2007-present

1 UNV 2007-present

Long-term Consultant 1 UNDP Core 2004-present

FYR Macedonia 3 National Staff 1 Extra-Budgetary and UNDP Core 2003-present

1 Extra-Budgetary 2007-present

Junior Professional Officer 1 Government of Japan 2006-present

Malawi 1 National Staff 1 Extra-Budgetary 1998-present

Pacific Island 5 National Staff 1 UNDP Core 1999-presentstates (Fiji MCO)

1 Extra-Budgetary 2005-present

1 Extra-Budgetary 2006-present

Young Professionals on 2 Extra-Budgetary 2006-presentService Contracts

Pacific Island 8 International Staff 1 Extra-Budgetary 2001-presentstates (Samoa

National Staff 1 UNDP Core and Extra-Budgetary 2000-presentMCO)1 Extra-Budgetary 2000-present

Junior Professional Officers 1 Government of Netherlands 2005-2007

Support Staff 1 Extra-Budgetary 2006-present

Short-term Interns 1 UNDP Core 2007-present

1 - 2007

2 - 2008

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S3 4

disquieting lapses in institutional memory. In atleast two of our seven case study countries, thecountry office staff were unaware of earlierUNDP activities that had generated lessons or experiences relevant to current or plannedinitiatives. In many country offices where theenvironment and energy programme is led by astrong and experienced national officer, the real‘lessons learned’ are mostly possessed by andlimited to this individual.

3.3 GLOBAL AND REGIONAL LEVELS

The role of EEG at the global and regional levelscombines different functions, including ‘thinktank’ research, policy advice and programmeimplementation. However, with the emphasisand relative weight given to each role changingcontinually, there are various opinions withinUNDP on the value of these functions. Thecountry offices tend to appreciate the policyadvice received through EEG (especially fromthe GEF unit, because this is directly and practically linked to specific projects), while theglobal programme’s contributions are not alwaysunderstood. This mutability combined with theinternal incentives to raise external funds forEEG’s own programmatic activities has resultedin a certain lack of direction and has diluted theimpact of any of the three basic functions. BDPappears aware of this, and there are effortsunderway to consolidate the GCF.

The regionalization process started in the early2000s was intended to bring UNDP closer to itsclients. Initially motivated to allow BDP toprovide more efficient policy support to theprogramme countries by outposting its policyadvisers to the regions, the process was taken overby the regional bureaux, which gradually assumeda greater role in management of the decentralizedunits. Now the regional centres are integral unitsof the regional bureaux. BDP’s role remained toprovide intellectual inputs to their work. As

discussed earlier in chapter 2, the regionalizationprocess has proceeded at highly varying paces inthe different regions.

3.3.1 POLICY, ADVOCACY AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Over the years UNDP, through EEG, has participated in important intergovernmental andglobal policy events and discussions, such as theWorld Summit on Sustainable Development(WSSD) in 2002, the annual sessions of theCommission on Sustainable Development andthe UN Climate Change Conference held inBali, Indonesia, in December 2007. A particularcontribution was through the ‘Greening ofWSSD’ effort, which was the first-ever attemptto reduce the environmental impact of a majorUN conference on the host city, in this caseJohannesburg, South Africa. UNDP joined GEFand IUCN to help local authorities andcommunities manage critical areas like transport,waste, energy and water more sustainably duringthe summit.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)was a major, international, multi-actor effort toprovide a state-of-the-art scientific assessment ofthe condition and trends pertaining to globalecosystems and the services they provide forhuman well-being. Between 2001 and 2005, MAinvolved well over one thousand scientists andwas sponsored by 16 international agencies,amongst them UNDP, although its role in theMA was limited.

Through EEG’s work, and activities such as theHDRs, UNDP has played a role in global policydialogue on environment and energy issues,although it is not generally recognized as a majorplayer in the field. The two latest HDRs18 bothfocused on environment-related themes. TheHDRs are arguably the best-known products ofUNDP and are widely cited. Several otherstudies and reports produced by EEG have been

18. Human Development Report 2006. Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis. UNDP 2006. Also HumanDevelopment Report 2007/2008. Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World. UNDP 2007.

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S 3 5

recognized for their high quality, in particulartheir ability to extract experiences and lessonsfrom the field and draw broader conclusions.19

The Equator Initiative, a partnership programmerun by EEG since 2002, was designed to “reducepoverty through the conservation and sustainableuse of biodiversity by identifying and strengtheninginnovative community initiatives.”20 The initiativeis primarily concerned with advocacy workthrough four action areas: (i) the Equator Prize isawarded biennially to communities from thetropical developing countries for efforts thatconserve biodiversity while also reducingpoverty; (ii) Equator Knowledge promotesknowledge management through research,documentation and sharing of lessons learnedand through raising public awareness concerningbiodiversity; (iii) Equator Dialogues are intendedto create a platform for community dialogue andevents and (iv) Equator Ventures promotessmall- and medium-sized business enterprises thatconserve and use natural resources to generatesustainable income opportunities. The EquatorInitiative is supported by 12 organizations,including donor agencies, NGOs, academics andthe CBD. While the Equator Initiative hascreated interest and awareness through its well-received advocacy work, it is difficult togauge its impact on biodiversity conservation andsustainable use or how it connects with thecountry office programmes.

3.3.2 EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAMMES

Apart from providing intellectual leadership andpolicy advice, BDP is also the custodian of theGCF, within which EEG develops and managesthe global programme on environment andenergy. The stated purpose of the GCF is tocreate and share knowledge through a globalnetwork and to link global advocacy and analysis

to the policy support function. The GCF is thusintended to contribute to policy development at UNDP.

The environment and energy global programmehas consisted of a wide range of activities, manyof which have been small and somewhatscattered. The Second GCF (2001–2003)contained no fewer than 46 environment andenergy projects with a total value of $42 million.Out of this sum, just $6.4 million was from theGCF core; the rest came from cost sharing andtrust fund contributions. The smallest project inthe environment and energy practice areaamounted to just $55,000. A 2004 GCF evalua-tion concluded that the global programme hadnot fully articulated what it intended to do.21

The current global programme still containsactivities under all MYFF-2 service lines,identifying four crosscutting themes: poverty-environment, climate change, environmentalgovernance, and community-based initiatives. Theglobal programme’s main projects are: MDGCarbon Facility, Access to Energy Services,Drylands Development Centre 2005 Operations,Effective Water Governance, Biodiversity GlobalProgramme, Sound Management of Chemicals,Climate Change, Equator Initiative and Frameworksand Strategies for Sustainable Development.22

As is apparent from the list, these projects areclosely related to larger operations funded byGEF and the Montreal Protocol. Additionalfunding through Thematic Trust Funds (TTFs)from various donors has been raised for theseactivities. A separate evaluation of the ThirdGCF is currently underway.

Apart from the GCF, there are global programmesfunded and implemented under GEF. Theirnature, however, is quite different because they

19. For instance, Energizing Poverty Reduction: A Review of the Energy-Poverty Nexus in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers’,UNDP 2007, and Making Progress on Environmental Sustainability: Lessons and Recommendations from a Review of over150 MDG Country Experiences, UNDP 2006.

20. ‘Equator Initiative Annual Narrative Report 2007’ UNDP 2007.21. ‘Evaluation of the Second Global Cooperation Framework of UNDP’. UNDP Evaluation Office 2004.22. ‘UNDP Global Programme 2006 Annual Report’. UNDP/BDP 2007.

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S3 6

are projects with practical objectives addressingspecific global environmental issues. Examples ofthese include the projects on ‘Removal of Barriersto the Introduction of Cleaner Artisanal GoldMining and Extraction Technologies’ (GEFgrant: $7.1 million) and the recent ‘SupportingCountry Early Action on Protected Areas’ (GEFgrant: $9.5 million).

Each of the five regional bureaux manages aRegional Cooperation Framework (RCF)consisting of regional programmes in each of thepractice areas. The direction and emphasis givento the various programmes varies considerably byregion. Independent evaluations have beenrecently completed of three of the five RCFs, inAfrica, Asia and the Pacific and Latin Americaand the Caribbean,23 revealing highly diverseapproaches to the environment and energyprogramme. In Latin America and the Caribbean,the main effort was under the banner of energyand climate change, where the focus was onknowledge generation and sharing, advice forpolicy formulation and support to specificprogrammes in energy, climate change, riskmanagement and biodiversity. The evaluationfound that their results were mixed, with only 4 of the total of 18 initiatives performing asexpected. Similarly, in Africa, the integration ofenvironmental sustainability into the regionalprogramme was found to be weak. In Asia andthe Pacific, sustainable development was initiallyone of the three main thematic areas of the RCF,but during implementation, activities under itwere submerged within the poverty and governancethemes and core funding for environment was cut significantly.

Established in 2005, the Regional Centre inBangkok (RCB) supports 25 country offices and their national partners in the Asia-Pacificregion. Energy and environment for sustainable

development is one of the three main focus areas.The overall strategic outcome of the practice areain RCB has been framed in the context ofachieving the MDGs and social and economicdevelopment,24 implying close linkages betweenenvironment and energy and the poverty anddemocratic governance areas.

The Asia-Pacific region has a large portfolio ofGEF-funded projects, consisting of 160 approvedprojects of which 130 are under implementation,amounting to a total of $307 million in GEFfunding and $530 million leveraged in cash andin-kind co-financing.25 The portfolio is focusedon climate change mitigation, which accounts formore than half of the resources and half of theprojects. This is followed by biodiversity withslightly over a quarter of the resources and projects.While there is demand from the governments inthe region, regional technical advisers have foundthat this is not always the case with the countryoffices. GEF is primarily seen as a source forgenerating revenue for the country offices, whilethe programmatic work tends to be driven by theGEF technical staff in RCB. Furthermore, GEFis project-driven with its own logic and cycles,which are difficult to integrate into the countryprogrammes. The country offices don’t feel thatthey are in control of the GEF-funded projects.Recent changes in GEF policies, such as theintroduction of the resource allocation framework(RAF), have aggravated these difficulties.Consequently, the regional GEF staff foresee thatfuture programming will become harder, withmore emphasis on a larger number of smallerprojects with high requirements for co-financingand leveraging additional financing.

A significant new initiative without GEFfunding is the joint UNDP-IUCN Mangrovesfor the Future (MFF) partnership, which aims topromote investment and action in ecosystem

23. ‘Evaluation of the Second Regional Cooperation Framework in Africa’. UNDP Evaluation Office 2007; ‘Evaluation ofthe Second Regional Cooperation Framework in Asia and the Pacific’. UNDP Evaluation Office 2007; ‘Evaluation ofthe Second Regional Cooperation Framework in Latin America and the Caribbean’. UNDP Evaluation Office 2007.

24. ‘2007 Consolidated Workplan’, Regional Centres in Bangkok and Colombo. UNDP 2007.25. ‘Regional Business Plan for 2007’. Asia and the Pacific Region. UNDP Environment Finance Group 2007.

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S 3 7

conservation in coastal areas.26 The initiativeemerged from the response to the Indian Oceantsunami, recognizing the need to go beyond theshort-term responses to develop a longer termvision for sustainable coastal development. TheRegional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific(RBAP) allocated $400,000 of core funds for2008–2011 to the initiative. Several bilateraldonors have pledged to invest $12 million, andthe project is seeking private sector funding fromcoastal industries, such as ports and tourism. Theproject has begun work in a number of countriesalong the Indian Ocean. Even some tsunami-affected African countries have expressed interestin joining, thus raising the option of turningMFF into a cross-regional initiative. MFF is alsointended to operate as an umbrella for relevantprojects funded from different sources (includingGEF) and implemented by different agencies(such as UNEP and FAO).

As the only major environmental initiativeoutside of the EEG ambit in the region (apartfrom the ongoing Regional Energy Programmefor Poverty Reduction (REP-PoR); see sectionon energy in chapter 4), MFF shows a verypromising approach to partnership building.However, the collaborative mechanisms at thenational level are unclear. In Thailand, one of theearly countries to join, the relationship betweenRCB and IUCN is strong, but the relationshipwith the country office is non-existent. Logically,the country office should facilitate the implemen-tation of MFF at the national level, but as this isa RCB project it has not been included in thecountry office work programme, nor can the countryoffice dedicate resources to the project unless it iscompensated financially for it. This demonstratesthe generally problematic link between RCB andthe country office in the host country.

Recently, there have been efforts to integrate thecore and GEF-funded environment and energyagendas in RCB. The distinction between themodes of operation is blurring as the GEF

strategy is moving from site-specific projectimplementation upstream towards systemiccapacity and policy. However, it is often difficultto discern the results of policy dialogue unless itis linked to implementation on the ground.UNDP’s comparative advantage as a developmentagency is that it can link environment and energyto multisectoral work in governance and povertyreduction using its country office network.However, there are significant challenges to such integration.

A specific challenge is posed by the RAF, whichfavours large middle-income countries that havehigh potential for global environmental remediation,while UNDP must give priority to LDCs andother poor countries. UNDP can no longerexpect that GEF resources will be available tosubsidize environment work in the poorestcountries. For this, core and other resources willbe needed. However, many country offices stillfail to see environmental sustainability as a basicdevelopment issue. In particular, climate changeadaptation and risk management are crosscuttingdevelopment considerations within UNDP’s coremandate. PEI (see chapter 3), which is evolvingin the region as a joint UNDP-UNEP initiative,may in the future play an important role.

Four years into operation, the Bratislava RegionalCentre (BRC) has pioneered an integratedenvironment and energy programme and serves asa model for reform in other regions. Significantprogress has been made towards integrating theGEF-funded and other programmes within the regional centre both administratively andtechnically. A particular positive result has beenthat BRC now can speak with one voice to theregion’s governments and other partners. GEF stilldominates by providing approximately 90 percentof the funding, resulting in some importantthematic areas not receiving very much attention,notably waste management, water and sanitation,all priorities for the countries in the region butnone eligible for GEF support.

26. ‘Mangroves for the Future: A Strategy for Promoting Investment in Coastal Ecosystem Conservation’, 2007-2012.UNDP and IUCN 2006.

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S3 8

Nevertheless, it is evident that strong synergies ininformation flow, coordination and commonmissions result from an integrated environmentand energy practice. The downside is that suchintegration absorbs more time through participationin meetings and being kept informed about what is happening both in UNDP and GEF.Some resistance to this integration has stemmedfrom the differing cultures, for example withaccountability on the GEF side tending to bemore rigorously linked to the delivery of projectsand financial results. Experiences with integratedprojects and activities are still limited, and it isnot yet clear how much further integration canproceed. Practical integration opportunities haveso far been mostly in the climate change area.The regional priorities are developing marketsfor environmentally friendly technologies andprotecting national development prospects fromthe risks of climate change.

BRC has proved itself as an important centre ofinnovation within the environment and energypractice, particularly in the area of internationallake and river basin projects. The region boasts animpressive portfolio of relatively few, largemulticountry projects with long (ten to fifteenyear) time horizons in Eastern Europe.The eleven-country Danube project that was recently handedover to the countries is a flagship. It and the overallDanube/Black Sea partnership have demonstratedexemplary cooperation between UNDP, theWorld Bank and the European Union. Othernotable projects include those around theCaspian Sea, Lake Peipsi and Prespa Lake, whichall have followed the process starting with ascientific transboundary diagnostic analysis toidentify the environmental threats, leading tostrategic action programmes and establishment ofmechanisms for coordinating actions across thecountries. Some of them have led to internationalconventions around the water bodies.27

These projects, primarily funded by GEF, havereceived limited support or inputs from the

country offices in the region because the countryoffices lack the human resources to participateand it is unclear how to involve them in regionalprojects. The Prespa Lake project, which issupported by the FYR Macedonia and Albaniacountry offices, is an exception. Other wateractivities in the region involve the country officesmore, although there are few examples yet ofintegrative activities on the ground.

UNDP has the mandate to lead UN Water,started at WSSD in 2002. In the region UNDPhas established a solid role in integrated waterresources management and water governanceand, as an on-the-ground project developmentand implementation organization, UNDP alsoleads coordination efforts in the Danube andBlack Sea basins, the Caspian, and the SouthCaucasus (Kura/Aras basin).

Other notable water activities initiated by BRCinclude the UNDP-Coca-Cola Water Partnership‘Every Drop Matters’ (funded with $5 million bythe Coca-Cola Company); SNS Real, a partnershipwith a private Dutch bank investing in affordableloans for water-related investment projects in the region; and the Water Wiki, a new andinnovative approach to support and facilitateknowledge management.

The biodiversity portfolio, while more recent, isimpressive. Important progress has been made inhelping countries implement conservationlegislation, especially in Central Asia, as well assupporting the ratification of the Ramsar andBonn conventions. Work on fisheries and waterlaw improvements has been generally successful.One constraint in this area has been the weak capacity of the country offices to identify,prepare and manage projects. As in otherprogramme areas, the understaffed and overworkedenvironment units in the country offices areunder tremendous pressure to mobilize resources,resulting in inadequate support to projectdevelopment and implementation.

27. While most of these projects are classified by GEF under International Waters, the Danube and Prespa Lake projects areboth GEF Integrated Ecosystem Management projects.

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S 3 9

3.3.3 ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY STAFFING

UNDP began significantly reducing BDP staff in2000, especially at headquarters. In the first year,staff positions were reduced from 250 to 215,of which only 117 would remain in New York.Out of 110 approved professional positionsin BDP, what was then ESDG was to receivenine positions in the headquarters and seven indecentralized locations. By 2004, a further three ofthe headquarters positions had been retracted.28

At the time of this evaluation,29 EEG had 123posts at headquarters and in the regions. Thisconstituted about a third of all 353 BDP posts.However, only 18 percent of these were fundedfrom core resources.30 At headquarters, EEGcore professional positions consisted of 10 posts(the director, practice manager, six policy advisersand two knowledge managers). In addition, severalnon-core professionals have been hired using projectfunds. The bulk of EEG staff in the headquarters,however, consists of those working with the GEFand Montreal Protocol units, amounting to 22 professional staff in January 2008.

Outside headquarters the contrast is even starker.EEG has only four core-funded, outposted policyadvisers globally. For example, at the end of 2007,the RCB environment and energy team consistedof 21 staff members. Of these, two were core-fundedBDP policy advisers (half of the global total),while 14 were funded through GEF or the MontrealProtocol, three by RBAP and two through shorterterm donor arrangements.

EEG staff feel that they have been ‘punished fortheir success’ in raising funds, notably GEFresources, to support staff positions by beingdenied core resources for functions such asknowledge management and global advocacy.

Of the operational units in the headquarters,each of the five regional bureaux, as well as theBureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, has a

staff member serving as the environment focalpoint, although this is not a full-time positionand is usually not filled by a technical specialist.

3.4 MAINSTREAMING POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENT

The 2004 UNDP Environmental MainstreamingStrategy, states that “Environmental mainstreamingis the integration of environmental considerationsinto UNDP’s policies, programming and operationsto ensure the coherence and sustainability of our mission and practices.” A policy of environ-mental mainstreaming has been promoted sincethe late 1990s, with an action plan adopted in 1999. Most recently, the UNDP strategic plan for 2008–2011 includes ‘MainstreamingEnvironment into Development’ as one ofUNDP’s four ‘Environment and SustainableDevelopment’ priorities.

A certain lack of clarity over mainstreamingpersists, however, including how mainstreamingshould be interpreted in practice. For this evaluation, two aspects of environmental main-streaming have been considered: (i) mainstreamingwithin UNDP, that is, how environmentalconsiderations have been integrated within thepoverty reduction, democratic governance and crisisresponse and recovery practices and (ii) main-streaming at the country level, or whether theenvironment is taken into account not just byenvironment ministries but by ministries anddepartments responsible for key economicdevelopment sectors, including industry, agriculture,transport, water and energy, as well as localgovernments. In addition, this chapter considersthe promising joint UNDP-UNEP initiative,PEI, which is explicitly aimed at mainstreaming.

3.4.1 MAINSTREAMING WITHIN UNDP

There has been relatively little collaborationbetween environment and energy and the other

28. ‘Evaluation of the Second Global Cooperation Framework of UNDP’. UNDP Evaluation Office 2004.29. UNDP BDP, June 2007. Updated data from BDP HR Adviser.30. In contrast, 96 percent of the MDG Support Team, 77 percent of the Poverty Group, 73 percent of the Democratic

Governance Group and 70 percent of the Capacity Development Group are funded from the core.

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S4 0

main practice areas within UNDP, giving a strongimpression that environmental mainstreaming hasnot taken place to any significant extent. Thisobservation seems equally applicable at headquarters,regional centres and country offices. Even insmaller country offices, staff report minimalcommunications between the environment teamand the rest of the office. There is every indicationthat this is not a new development.

While UNDP staff working in environment andenergy are thoroughly convinced of the need formainstreaming, there seems to be little intereston the part of UNDP’s poverty reduction anddemocratic governance practices. Crucially there arevery few institutional incentives for mainstreamingto take place within the organization. We weretold there is no structure to facilitate collaborativework with poverty and governance. It would notbe exaggerating to say that in significant parts of UNDP, including some country offices,environment work is only tolerated because it isvery largely externally funded.

There have been numerous planning andprogramming documents in the past decade thatindicate the broad role of energy and environmentwithin UNDP regional and national programmes,and there are government national planningdocuments that discuss environmental issues. Butthere is little evidence of clearly developed orarticulated strategies that link or genuinelymainstream environmental initiatives into UNDP’spoverty, governance, human rights or sustainablelivelihoods core work.

The HDR has been a barometer of prioritieswithin the organization since it was launched in1990 and has emerged as a key document in thedevelopment literature. The 2007/08 HDR onclimate change, and the 2006 HDR on water,suggest that these topics have recently engagedUNDP more broadly. An internal UNDP discus-sion was launched on both the Environment andEnergy and the Human Development Reportnetworks regarding the implications to UNDP ofthe HDR and, in particular, climate changeadaptation. This discussion clearly shows that

environment, including climate change adaptation,is still seen primarily as a separate sector and thelinkages to poverty reduction have not receiveddue attention.

One of the early arguments for engaging UNDPas a GEF implementing agency was the opportunityto introduce and embed, in other words tomainstream, environmental considerations withinUNDP’s principal mission of poverty reduction.Instead, GEF resources have been used todevelop a separate and autonomous environmentfunction within UNDP that—while broadlyrecognized as competent and well organized—has generally exchanged neither resources norknowledge with the rest of the organizationduring the last fifteen years. Ironically, one resultof UNDP’s success in accessing GEF resourcesseems to have been to minimize the incentive for mainstreaming.

UNDP does not have a safeguards policy like, forexample, the World Bank. There is an implicitassumption that UNDP projects do not causeenvironmental or social harm, although no set ofprocedures are in place to monitor this. While itmight be argued that UNDP’s goals of technicalassistance and capacity development are lesslikely to cause inadvertent harm than the largeinvestment or infrastructure projects frequentlysupported by the development banks, the lack ofsafeguards does seem an unusual omission. It alsoprovides even less incentive for the poverty andgovernance practices of UNDP to routinelyconsider environment as part of their work.

3.4.2 MAINSTREAMING AT THE COUNTRY LEVEL

UNDP tends to focus its environmental relation-ships on ministries of environment, especially insmaller countries, LDCs and SIDS, although itsoverall counterpart is most often the ministry offinance or planning. Many of the environmentministries were set up during the early 1990sfollowing UNCED in Rio de Janeiro. UNDP hashelped many of these ministries mobilizefinancial resources, especially for the nationalplans, strategies and other communications

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S 4 1

required for compliance with MEAs. However,most of these relatively new and often juniorministries lack resources, capacity and influence.Few are able to have a significant impact onmajor social and economic development decisions.As a result, their ability to promote or contributesignificantly to mainstreaming environment withinnational development processes is often modest.

The types of work carried out by UNDP inenvironment and energy can be difficult tomainstream within countries. The environmentportfolio is almost entirely based on individualprojects of limited duration in the areas ofclimate change, biodiversity and internationalwaters. Such projects can become very complexwhen they involve several ministries or departmentsfrom different sectors, while lead ministries aresometimes reluctant to share the resources orbenefits attached to projects. Furthermore, GEFpriorities are related to global environmentalbenefits and are not always perceived as supportingnational environment and development prioritieslinked to poverty reduction. Outside the contextof specific projects, country office staff do notconsistently engage with government counter-parts on the environmental issues arising in keyeconomic development sectors. To do so wouldrequire staff who have broad development experi-ence based on solid environmental knowledge;this is lacking in most country offices.

GEF has periodically asked UNDP for evidenceof mainstreaming.31 A 2007 submission to theGEF Council on this topic highlighted therelative paucity of unequivocally convincingexamples within UNDP’s country work. A fewindividual successes were reported. For example,UNDP reports facilitating consultations in Kenya between the Ministry of Energy,parliamentarians, civil society organizations andthe private sector that led to new energy laws. The other examples of mainstreamingprovided were scattered and did not add up to asignificant impact.

Malawi illustrates the dilemmas faced by thecountry offices, especially in Africa. The govern-ment has prioritized economic growth, agriculturaldevelopment and food security, and these arereflected in the United Nations DevelopmentAssistance Framework for 2008–11. Although itis a crosscutting concern, environment is usuallytreated as a separate sector. While there are keyenvironmental issues and opportunities withinagriculture, the mainstay of the economy, UNDPhas had neither the people nor the financialresources to engage the ministries and departmentsconcerned. Instead, UNDP’s environment andenergy portfolio in Malawi largely consists ofstand-alone projects and enabling activitiesrelated to MEAs, largely funded by GEF and the Montreal Protocol, and executed by theDepartment of Environmental Affairs. Whilethese projects have positive aspects, they are notmainstreaming. This particular situation may beimproved by some anticipated changes, including(i) an expansion of the country office environmentand energy team, with renewed links to crisisprevention and recovery, (ii) the start up of a PEI pilot with the Ministry of EconomicPlanning and Development and (iii) the launchof a national SGP.

Variations on this theme were noted in BurkinaFaso and Kenya where government efforts topromote economic growth do not seem closelytied to sustainably managing the natural resourcebase. While environmental responsibilities inBurkina Faso are spread over several ministries,which suggests the potential for mainstreaming,many stakeholders do not see evidence that it hasstrengthened priority setting and decision makingrelated to natural resources management. UNDPhas helped develop new energy legislation in Kenyabut has not been able to engage consistently withthe government on environmental policy issues,largely due to the demands of managing anextensive portfolio of small, stand-alone environmentand energy projects.

31. See, e.g., ‘Report of GEF Agencies on Efforts to Mainstream Global Environmental Challenges into Core DevelopmentWork’. GEF Council (GEF/C.32/Inf.4), November 2007.

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S4 2

In many countries it is proving difficult forUNDP to consistently and convincingly engagein environmental issues within those economicdevelopment sectors and programmes that aim toincrease incomes and productivity. Instead,UNDP’s efforts to mainstream environmentusually start from the limited set of globalenvironmental issues, a more challenging taskand one apparently viewed by countries as lessresponsive to their national priorities. This issuecame up repeatedly in discussions with governmentdepartments, NGOs and donors. Governmentsdo not often recognize UNDP as principal policyadviser on environment and energy issues.UNDP’s ability to articulate its role in naturalresource management as countries pursueeconomic growth strategies seems very limited at the country level, with a few impressiveexceptions. UNDP prides itself on helpinggovernments get policies right. But the countryoffices, with individual sector specialists fromheadquarters or regional technical advisers morefocused on projects, rarely have the appropriatestaff to help governments develop policy. ThusUNDP does not consistently give the kind ofadvice that is needed (a notable exception would bethe important work done to pass environmentallegislation in many countries). If UNDP is to domore high-level strategy work to help governmentsgenuinely mainstream environment, it will needto make significantly more experienced peopleavailable to the country offices.

The inclusion of environmental considerations innational development plans and strategies (includingPoverty Reduction Strategy Papers–PRSPs) is conventionally presented as evidence ofenvironmental mainstreaming. The same is truefor key UNDP documents such as the CCF.While the absence of environment from suchplans and strategies would be a cause for concern,its inclusion is clearly only a first step towardsdemonstrating that mainstreaming is actuallytaking place.

The NDI aims to strengthen intersectoral andinteragency coordination and partnerships. Thisprogramme facilitates country-level multi-stakeholder dialogues aimed at strengtheningpriority setting in the GEF focal areas, but itserves a broader purpose. The approach relies onproviding government agencies, NGOs,communities, academic and research institutions,private sector, donors and the media withopportunities to participate more effectively innational decision making. The closely relatedCountry Support Programme aims to strengthencountry-level coordination and promote countryownership of GEF-financed activities. Theseimportant programmes appear to have helpedcountries coordinate more actively the range ofGEF-financed activities they are undertakingwith support from UNDP and the other GEFimplementing agencies. This has been a usefulcontribution to mainstreaming, although it ismainly focused on activities in the GEF focalareas that aim to generate global benefits, ratherthan on environment and energy from theperspective of national priorities.

UNDP has also taken some promising stepstowards developing capacity in and implementingstrategic environmental assessments, most activeso far in Eastern Europe, which could also makean important mainstreaming contribution.

3.4.3 POVERTY-ENVIRONMENT INITIATIVE

The UNDP-UNEP Poverty-EnvironmentInitiative directly and explicitly supports environ-mental mainstreaming at the country level. PEIhas worked with key decision-making ministriesin several pilot countries and is in the process ofexpanding. It responds to the followingdiagnosis: “poverty-environment linkages havebeen poorly integrated into PRSPs…have not beenoperationalized…[and] there is still a generallack of understanding of how environment andpoverty are linked and/or how to includeenvironmental sustainability in national, sectoraland district development processes.”32

32. PEI documentation.

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S 4 3

PEI gives nine countries in Africa and Asiafinancial and technical support to build capacityfor mainstreaming poverty-environment linkagesinto national development plans (such as PRSPsand MDG Achievement Strategies), budgets andsector programmes. Recent efforts have begun toexpand PEI to other countries and regions,coordinated by a joint facility established in 2007in Nairobi.

UNDP and UNEP had begun working in thisarea separately and were subsequently encour-aged to join forces by governments and by otherdonors. UNDP had started piloting ‘poverty andenvironment’ programmes in six countries in2000, including Kenya and Tanzania, withsupport from DFID, the European Commisionand Danida. UNEP, encouraged by its GoverningCouncil to advise governments on how toincorporate environmental considerations intoPRSPs and national development plans, startedto develop comparable pilot projects in sevenAfrican countries, also including Kenya andTanzania. At this point there was no coordination.

Recognizing that these two parallel and similarinitiatives risked showing the UN system asunable to coordinate, cooperation becameessential. A joint initiative was eventually negotiatedand then launched at WSSD in Johannesburg in2005, based on a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) emphasizing that UNDP’s experience inworking with governments at the country levelwould be combined with UNEP’s normative andadvocacy role in environment at global, regionaland sub-regional levels. This MOU designatesUNDP as the country-level executing partnerwith UNEP providing substantive expertise andcapacity to the programming. Joint pilot projectswere then launched in Kenya, Rwanda andTanzania with fully integrated work plans,pooled resources and shared staffing. PEI hasbeen consistently supported with advice from thePoverty-Environment Partnership, an informalnetwork of development agencies and interna-tional NGOs that aims to address key poverty-environment issues within the MDG framework.

The new UNDP-UNEP partnership duly movedforwards, progress was made and PEI began tobe cited as an example of how the UN family oforganizations could and should work together.Scaling up to more than 40 developing countriesover the next five years is now anticipated. Theexpectations of donors and other stakeholdersappear very high, with PEI regarded, at leastinformally, as a test case for the UN ‘Deliveringas One’ model.

Progress on the ground has not been free ofproblems, however. Interviews for this evaluationshowed the actual experiences from the jointpilot projects in Kenya, Rwanda and Tanzania tobe varied. On the positive side, at least somesenior government decision makers have beenengaged and are enthusiastic, there is expandedawareness of the issues, a programmatic modelhas been developed, a range of analytical toolshave been tested, some indicators have beendeveloped and an exchange of capacity develop-ment experiences has taken place. In Kenya andTanzania in particular, effective steps have beentaken to coordinate with existing bilateralprogrammes with comparable objectives, mainlyfunded by Danida.

Similarly, in Asia, PEI is building upon existingwork, initially in Vietnam. In 2007 a jointworkshop was organized to develop PEI work inseveral new countries. PEI is seen as an umbrellaunder which related work, including selectedprojects funded by GEF, could contribute. Thecooperation between RCB and UNEP’s ROAPis close, with joint management of funds andjoint missions. Environmental expertise fromUNEP is also being used by the region’s UNDPcountry offices that lack capacity.

PEI clearly has some way to go before tangibleimpacts are likely to become apparent. BringingUNDP and UNEP together operationally hasproved challenging, with a variety of problemsstill to be resolved. These include inconsistenciesin procedures, document formats, implementationand funding protocols, and reporting standards,many of which have contributed to significant

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S4 4

delays.33 These factors appear to have hinderedboth effectiveness and efficiency. More broadly,the impacts of the PEI pilot projects have alsobeen influenced by local differences, such asnational interest, ownership and capacity.

These challenges have not been helped by theoften tenuous state of trust and respect betweenthe staff of UNDP and UNEP, exacerbated insome cases by the unclear roles of the UNDPcountry offices. Difficulties have ranged fromsome country offices resenting being treated “as acontractor,” to others that insist on treating PEIas “just one more project” to be implemented.These difficulties have not gone unnoticed athigher levels, with the UNEP executive directoremphasizing the need to “…encourage the supportand engagement of senior managers in UNDPand UNEP to ensure that habits of the past donot get in the way of dynamic and effectivepartnerships between our two institutions.” 34

History clearly cannot be ignored or overcome ina short period, although there are regions wherecooperation between UNDP and UNEP staff isexemplary, such as in Bangkok. Here, differencesin procedures, formats, allegiances and so forthwere overcome. A series of joint regionalworkshops were held that engaged nationalpolicymakers, and the UN resident coordinator’srole was enhanced to set the tone for the jointeffort. This effort also had strong buy-in from thepoverty and governance practices in severalUNDP country offices.

UNDP and UNEP have signed a joint program-ming agreement designating UNDP as the‘managing agent’ for PEI. The exact function ofthe coordination unit recently established inNairobi is still evolving, however, and the divisionof labour between UNEP and UNDP requiresfurther clarification, especially during the veryambitious scaling-up phase now being launched.Convincing arrangements do not yet seem to be

in place to ensure that effective communicationsand decision making will reduce complexity andminimize transaction costs. Within UNDP,the roles of BDP, the regional bureaux and the autonomous country offices also need further definition.

The scaling up of PEI, while promising andobviously necessary at some point to achievesignificant impacts, currently appears fraughtwith risk. PEI’s potential could easily be lost iforganizational complexity, administrative practicesand routines, decision-making structures, agencyrivalries and duplication, and the struggle forinstitutional territory are not effectivelyaddressed. The project document itself—agenerally frank and admirable analysis—does notdefine outcome, achievement and impact indicators,explaining that “appropriate” poverty-environmentindicators and monitoring systems will bedeveloped later. This is a tall order given thenature of the capacity development that will beneeded across the various ministries and otherlocal and national stakeholders.

To be effective, mainstreaming must eventuallylead to action on the ground with positiveoutcomes. Seen in this light, some members of the Poverty-Environment Partnership wouldlike to see PEI connect more clearly with localcommunities and their daily struggle for survival.There may be a role here for SGP with its experience in linking community-level initiativesto policy issues, especially as SGP has strongprogrammes based in the UNDP country officesof each of the PEI pilot countries.

A more critical issue is how to engage the rest ofUNDP in environmental mainstreaming. Thereis a certain irony in the level of effort being madethrough PEI to persuade governments thatenvironment is an essential consideration innational development planning and fightingpoverty, while the major UNDP departments

33. ‘Harmonization of UNEP and UNDP Operational Procedures for Joint Programming’. Dalberg Final Report,2006.

34. 16 August 2006

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S 4 5

responsible for poverty reduction and governanceremain uninvolved and apparently unmoved bythis line of argument. PEI needs championswithin UNDP beyond the environment team.There may be opportunities to link with UNDP’semerging efforts in strategic environmentalassessments, although so far this initiative has alsostayed mainly within UNDP’s environment team.

The principles of the PEI approach appearlogical, sensible and badly needed. If environmentis indeed to be mainstreamed into developmentplanning and implementation, which is widelyregarded as a precondition for sustainabledevelopment (and recognized as such in UNDP’snew strategic plan), then an approach based onthese or very similar principles seems essential.PEI appears an excellent complement to much of UNDP’s GEF-financed work. Few otherinternational environmental initiatives have soexplicitly and consistently focused on communi-cating environmental issues to key nationaldecision makers, such as the ministries of finance,planning, economic development and so on.PEI actually appears to have the potential to helpfill this crucial gap, not only in UNDP, but ininternational environmental work in general.There is a lot at stake here: mainstreamingenvironment, the numerous UNEP-UNDPpartnerships that have recently been launchedand even the viability of translating ‘One UN’into operational reality.

3.5 STRATEGY AND PERFORMANCE REPORTING

3.5.1 LEARNING AS A CONTRIBUTION TO STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT

Despite a stated emphasis on generating lessonslearned, there appears to have been little systematicanalysis of experiences to date as a basis fordeveloping future strategies (exceptions include auseful review of lessons learned by countriesstriving to meet MDG-7 and some high-quality

lessons learned publications by the GEF unit35).Future priorities are instead identified andselected through an internal discourse betweenstaff and management that is based on perceivedfundraising opportunities and a limited understand-ing of the impacts of previous strategies.

The Regional Bureau for Africa developed aregional strategy related to poverty reduction andnatural resources management, which providesimportant guidance to the country programmes.However, this strategy does not seem to have hadmuch more influence than the MYFFs in guidingthe country offices, which are, not surprisingly,more responsive to both the government and theprospect of accessing diverse external funding sources.

Led by BRC and building on the integration ofthe regional and GEF teams within the centre, aregional environment and energy strategy forEurope and CIS was being developed during theevaluation. Now being replicated in otherregions, this has the potential to emerge as a bestpractice model of strategic planning linked topractical goals and objectives. One of the mostimportant thrusts of the Europe and CISstrategy development process has been aligningfunding at different levels within the organization.Historically, financial resource allocationsbetween different themes and priority areas havebeen carried out separately at the headquarters,regional and country levels. In practice, thismeans that a particular theme may be prioritizedand supported by one level but not the others.Implementing effective strategies at global,regional and national levels throughout theorganization must be extremely challengingunder such arrangements.

The Europe and CIS strategy was apparently thefirst to try to align TRAC funding at all levels,and this is being done for each sub-practice—climate change, biodiversity, international watersand so on. This model seems likely to increase

35. Making Progress on Environmental Sustainability: Lessons and Recommendations from a Review of over 150 MDG CountryExperiences. UNDP 2005; Conserving Forest Biodiversity: Threats, Solutions and Experiences, UNDP-GEF2003; Solar Photovoltaics in Africa: Experiences with Financing and Delivery Models, UNDP-GEF 2004.

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S4 6

overall programme coherence, providing countrieswith the opportunity to invest in activities (withtheir own TRAC funds) that are assured ofinstitutional support throughout all levels atUNDP. This should result in better service to thegovernments while providing adequate technicalsupport to the country offices.

3.5.2 PERFORMANCE REPORTING

While the MYFFs may have provided usefulguidance on UNDP priorities, the goals andobjectives articulated are quite general. Staff atcountry offices and headquarters, includingresident representatives, did not regard theMYFFs as identifying performance goals andtargets that were particularly relevant to them.One reason why the influence of the MYFFsseems limited is that they were disconnectedfrom the allocation of financial resources,especially at the country level where residentrepresentatives have full control over the countryoffice budget. Several respondents characterizedthe MYFFs as a menu of potential activities forcountries to choose from.This has had two results:

1. In a positive sense, UNDP has retainedconsiderable flexibility to focus on areas ofemerging interest, especially where and whenfunding becomes available. In some ways thisis essential as UNDP develops its workprogrammes without knowing what financialresources may become available.

2. On the other hand, a basis for measuringperformance had not been established. Evenin the detail underlying the MYFF, there areno targets against which progress could beassessed. The MDGs themselves containtargets, but these are intended for nations,supported by the entire developmentcommunity, not just for UNDP.

Nevertheless, it does appear that the MYFFsencouraged the country offices to work withinbroad programme areas, thus providing UNDPwith a more focused programme than had beenthe case before 2001.

The Administrator’s reports on UNDP’sperformance during the two MYFF periods areexpressed almost entirely in terms of moneyspent and numbers of countries worked in.Because it is much easier to measure these kindsof inputs rather than outcomes or results, that iswhat most organizations do, even though thistells little about impacts or effectiveness. Apersistent problem is the confusion betweenactivities and outcomes, with these two oftentreated as if synonymous.

Setting targets in environment and energy andselecting indicators that will be useful in assessingperformance is hard, as all major organizationsworking in these areas have experienced. Thespecific problem here, however, is UNDP’sassertion that MYFF-1 supported the introductionof results-based management for reporting,monitoring and setting targets with identifiedindicators, with no indication that this actuallyhappened in either MYFF-1 or MYFF-2.36

Finding meaningful indicators and measuringprogress in a way that is useful has been particularlyelusive in the case of capacity development.While UNDP has constantly reiterated thatcapacity development is its comparativeadvantage, there have been no effective progressassessments beyond reviews of individual, short-term projects. Many stakeholders do not considerthat the overall government capacity for environ-mental management in UNDP partner countrieshas improved significantly over the past decadeor so; in LDCs and SIDS it appears to havedeclined.

While the ROARs introduced during MYFF-1were for assessing country-level outcomes andimpacts, no reliable mechanisms have beenestablished for aggregating the national ROARsor any other performance indicators above thelevel of individual projects (Annex 2). Beyondmeasuring and assessing individual projectperformance, the MYFF/ROAR approach did

36. A finding consistent with the results of the 2007 evaluation of results-based management.

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S 4 7

not enable assessing the performance of countryprogrammes, regions, thematic areas nor—itappears—the organization as a whole.

Many of the methodological problems are attrib-utable to a lack of indicators and baseline data, alack of effort in quantifying outputs and thedifficulty of isolating impacts of a single actor onthe country development scene. The outcomesdocumented in the ROARs more accuratelydescribe the general areas in which UNDP plansto work. Another performance management tool,the Balanced Scorecard, does not have anyindicators measuring the technical substance ofthe programme.

Although performance reporting was simplifiedfor MYFF-2, it was still based mainly on inputs:the amount of money spent, the number ofcountries worked in and so on. None of the casestudy country offices made significant program-

matic changes in the shift from MYFF-1 toMYFF-2, although ongoing programmes wererepackaged into a new format for reportingpurposes. The difference in emphasis betweenthe two MYFFs did not seem to reach down toaffect the country programmes. Residentrepresentatives and environment team leadersfeel that headquarters focuses more on delivery,that is, on spending the budgeted allocation,rather than achieving performance targets.

Given these limitations, it is evident that littleeffective performance reporting takes place at thecountry level or above. While there are standardprocedures to evaluate completed projects, thereare no aggregation processes in place to reliablycollect all the impacts of the initiativesundertaken to assess overall progress withinnational UNDP programmes in environmentand energy.37

37. A finding confirmed by the recent evaluation of results-based management in UNDP.

C H A P T E R 3 . A C T I V I T I E S A N D P R O G R A M M E S4 8

n UNDP country programmes are intended to respond to priorities negotiated with the partner governments, within the boundaries of UNDP’s global planning frameworks. However, instead offollowing clear strategies and showing leadership, UNDP has tended to allow available funding fromexternal sources to shape these programmes. Consequently, the country programmes often appear to be a collection of opportunistic projects rather than coherent portfolios.

n How well UNDP programming has reflected national priorities depends largely on the type ofcountry. In middle-income countries and especially China there has been a good match. In LDCs andSIDS, the focus on global environmental problems has left large gaps in national priority areas relatedto environment and energy.

n In all case study countries, the evaluation reviewed a number of key projects. It was found that ingeneral the design and, in most cases, implementation work carried out by UNDP and its partners is of high quality.

n The headquarters environment and energy programme has focused on studies and advocacy work.Much of this has been of high quality, but the impacts of such work are unclear and synergies withthe country programmes appear limited.

n The programmatic activities by the headquarters and regional centres were assessed largely based onseparate evaluations of the global and regional cooperation frameworks and visits to two centres. InEurope and CIS, the BRC has proved itself as an important centre of innovation within the environmentand energy practice. The centre has pioneered an integrated environment and energy programmeand serves as a model for reform in other regions.

n Mainstreaming within UNDP has been limited. There has been relatively little collaboration betweenenvironment and energy and the other practice areas within UNDP. There is little evidence of clearlydeveloped or articulated strategies that link or genuinely mainstream environmental initiatives intoUNDP’s poverty, governance, human rights or sustainable livelihoods core work.

n Mainstreaming at the country level has also been limited. There are systemic barriers to this, whichinclude the often weak position of ministries of environment with whom UNDP works as well as thedominance of portfolios that focus on the global, rather than national, environmental problems.

n The still new UNDP-UNEP Poverty-Environment Initiative is attempting to address the vital need tomainstream environment into development planning and implementation. Current efforts to scale upPEI will require both additional support and operational clarification to be effective. Engaging the restof UNDP in environmental mainstreaming is a critical unmet need.

n At the country level, UNDP is valued by national governments as a long-term trusted partner, supportingnational planning and contributing to capacity development. UNDP has also been a major avenue toGEF funding. The relevance and effectiveness of UNDP’s environmental programming is directlyinfluenced by the commitment and capacity of recipient governments. UNDP has long struggledwith how to build and retain capacity in partner countries. Still, long-term capacity gains in the areasof environment and energy are seldom apparent, especially in LDCs and SIDS.

n UNDP’s own capacity in environment and energy leaves much to be desired. While the staff inheadquarters and the regional centres are recognized for their expertise and the results they achieve,most of them are funded through extra-budgetary sources, which is not conducive to long-term capacityor career development for the staff.The environment and energy teams in the country offices are mostlysmall and often lack technical expertise in the field. Their main role is usually limited to administrativemanagement tasks, without capacity to engage in policy dialogue with the governments.

n UNDP’s strategy has not been formulated in a clear and cohesive manner. The planning documentsand performance reporting systems, rather than focusing on well-defined goals and results, focus onbroad areas where UNDP operates, as well as inputs and activities.

Key Points

C H A P T E R 4 . M A J O R T H E M A T I C A R E A S 4 9

While resource and time limitations preventedthe evaluation team from conducting in-depthreviews of all the major thematic areas, thischapter provides an overview and assessment ofthe performance and positioning of UNDP inthree priority areas: climate change, energy andbiodiversity. It also discusses the impact of thedominance of GEF on priority setting inUNDP’s environment and energy programme.

4.1 CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change has been a major component ofUNDP’s environment and energy work and iscentral to the organization’s future plans in thisarea. Since 1992 UNDP has mobilized about $3 billion to fund over 400 large-scale and 1,000small-scale energy and climate projects, almostentirely with GEF funding plus co-financing.Climate change is also prominent in UNDP’sstrategic plan for 2008 onwards. The broaderattention that climate change has receivedrecently virtually guarantees that this will be thepre-eminent environmental issue during the nextdecade, with climate change adaptation emergingas a key development issue.

Most of UNDP’s climate change activities at thecountry level have been aimed at mitigatinggreenhouse gas emissions, a global concern ratherthan one of developing countries in particular.Such projects are often of marginal relevance tocountries’ mainstream development agendas,especially in LDCs and SIDS. Projects haveincluded support for renewable energy, energyefficiency, sustainable transportation and newclean energy technologies. A shift from technology-based to market-based approaches has encouraged

tackling barriers that inhibit countries’ progresstowards more ‘climate-friendly’ energy policies.Minor activities targeting climate change adaptationplanning have helped developing countriesprepare for and respond to the impacts of climatechange, and support has also been given to helpcountries fulfil UNFCCC reporting obligations.

4.1.1 GHG EMISSION MITIGATION

Direct impacts are obviously in terms of reducedgreenhouse gas emissions (Table 4), although asthe portfolio shifts more towards barrier removalthis will become a less important indicator. Asreported by the PIR, emissions of about 89 millionmetric tons of CO2 were avoided during 2007,with projects in the portfolio having cumulativelyavoided emissions of about 386 million metrictons. Energy efficiency projects avoided virtuallyall of these amounts, with 86 and 377 millionmetric tons, respectively.38 While interesting,these data have limited significance to thecountries concerned.

Only six projects accounted for 98 percent of theemissions reductions of the entire globalportfolio (Table 5). Five of these are in the Asia-Pacific region and three in China. The other 58 projects in the global portfolio contribute just over 1 percent to the total emissions avoided.The market transformation indicator has provedsignificantly more difficult to quantify and has to be assessed on a project-by-project basis.Renewable energy projects have in some caseshad a socio-economic impact by providinghouseholds with energy.

Reviews of the performance of UNDP’s climatechange projects by GEF have generally been

Chapter 4

MAJOR THEMATIC AREAS

38. According to the PIR, CO2 emission savings should be calculated over 10-20 years.

C H A P T E R 4 . M A J O R T H E M A T I C A R E A S5 0

Table 4. CO2 Emissions Avoided during PIR 2007 Period

UNDP Region Total CO2 Emissions Avoided (million tons CO2)

Africa (S&E) 1.44E–03

Arab States 3.44E+00

Asia and the Pacific 8.52E+01

Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States 8.94E–02

Global 0.00E+00

Latin America and the Caribbean 2.19E–01

Grand Total 8.89E+01

Source: ‘UNDP-GEF Project Implementation Review: Climate Change Focal Area Summary Report 2007’.

Table 5. Summary of Projects that Avoided the Greatest Amount of CO2 Emissions during the PIR 2007 Period

Country Project Title OP Emissions avoided Cumulative (million tons CO2 CO2 Reduction

per year) (million tons CO2)

Egypt Energy Efficiency Improvements 5 2.97 11.79and Greenhouse Gas Reduction

China Energy Conservation and 5 2.05 2.24GHG Emissions Reduction in Township and Village Enterprise Industries in China Phase II

China Barrier Removal for the 5 75.00 347.90Widespread Commercialization of Energy-efficient CFC-free Refrigerators in China

China End Use Energy Efficiency 5 3.84 5.84Project (EUEEP)

Malaysia Industrial Energy Efficiency 5 2.04 7.57and Improvement Project

Philippines Capacity Building to Remove 6 2.01 6.55Barriers to RE Development Project

Total 87.91 381.89

Source: ‘UNDP-GEF Project Implementation Review: Climate Change Focal Area Summary Report 2007’.

C H A P T E R 4 . M A J O R T H E M A T I C A R E A S 5 1

favourable. However, the selection of projects andallocations of resources between countries for allGEF climate change projects (i.e., thoseimplemented by World Bank and UNEP as wellas UNDP) was described by the GEF’sindependent programme study in 200439 as “notrevealing any evidence of strategic choice.”

UNDP has built up a significant body ofexpertise and experience in this area, althoughthis expertise is located mostly at headquartersand the regional centres, and there is limitedexpertise in most country offices. There areconcerns that the stream of projects entering thepipeline is beyond the capacity of many countryoffices to implement effectively40, raising theprospect that the ‘resource mobilization successes’of headquarters and the regional centres willbecome ‘implementation liabilities’ for thecountry offices and UNDP as a whole.

Climate change mitigation has had a somewhatuncomfortable fit with the rest of UNDP’sagenda, reflecting the differing objectives ofUNDP and GEF. In the developing world themajor opportunities for emission reductions canbe found in the more industrialized, middle-income countries plus the former Soviet bloc.Potential carbon gains from investing in sub-Saharan Africa or in the SIDS are almostnon-existent, although there are opportunities toensure that future development of energy sourceswill be carbon-friendly. Recently the GEF’s newRAF has begun to concentrate support formitigation activities in the countries that are themain greenhouse gas emitters. This means thatthe poorest countries are among those least likelyto benefit from international investments inreducing carbon emissions.

Most climate change efforts within UNDP havebeen focused on energy efficiency and conservationto reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Synergies, oreven cooperation, with non-GEF UNDP staff

interested in enhancing the access of the poor toreliable and affordable energy sources (especiallyrural electrification) have been limited. Followingthe argument that poor communities cannotdevelop without access to electricity, it appearsthat heavy reliance on GEF has moved UNDPtowards an approach where the needs of thepoorest countries are not being prioritized. Thisdilemma has not escaped the attention of UNDPstaff who recognize that GEF climate changefunding will largely be unavailable to LDCs andSIDS. The only solution to serve these countries’energy and environment needs is therefore toallocate funds from UNDP core funds or otherexternal sources.

4.1.2 CARBON FINANCE

One of the most promising features of the globalresponse to climate change has been the rapidgrowth of carbon trading, or the buying and sellingof emission permits, an area that is not in theGEF mandate. Of particular interest to UNDP andits mission, the Clean Development Mechanismhas allowed industrialized countries to invest inprojects that reduce emissions in developingcountries as an alternative to more expensiveemission reductions in their own countries.

CDM benefits have so far been limited to a smallgroup of countries (notably China, India, Braziland Mexico). Very few LDCs or SIDS are readyto participate in carbon markets on a significantscale, although their carbon sequestrationpotential may increase significantly if credits for sustainable land management or avoideddeforestation are approved during the negotiationsfor a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, whichexpires in 2012.

In response to this emerging source of funds,UNDP has recently established the MDG CarbonFacility, which aims to realize ‘developmentbenefits’ from the sale of carbon credits. Thetarget market is countries that have not benefited

39. ‘Climate Change Program Study’. GEF Office of Monitoring and Evaluation, 2004.40. See, for example, ‘UNDP Environment Finance Group Regional Business Plan for 2007: Asia and the Pacific Region’.

C H A P T E R 4 . M A J O R T H E M A T I C A R E A S5 2

significantly from CDM (due to lack of capacity,opportunity and so on) as well as regions withincountries (notably China) that have not benefitedso far. To underwrite its MDG Carbon Facility,UNDP succeeded in attracting bids from majorbanks, one of which has committed to guaranteeingan attractive carbon price for carbon offsetprojects around the developing world for 15 millioncarbon credits. This is a path-breaking initiativefor UNDP as a model of collaboration with theprivate sector (that is, the bank and the investorsin the facilities generating the carbon credits) aswell as the governments concerned. Critically, italso promises full cost recovery and does not relyon GEF funding.

It is too early to assess how UNDP’s entry intothis arena is likely to turn out and whether UNDPhas found a unique niche. While this market has already attracted some institutions withconsiderably more carbon finance experience, fewpossess UNDP’s developing country experience.

UNDP is not an early starter here and the MDGCarbon Facility is small. The World Bank, forexample, has 10 funds, a decade of experience,and $2 billion under management, but even so isno longer a significant player in the rapidlyexpanding carbon market. Among the WorldBank funds, there are community, forestry andbiocarbon funds. Because these areas all overlapwith UNDP interests, they may ultimately proveto be appropriate areas for UNDP’s focus. TheWorld Bank’s experience with projects that donot readily attract private sector investments,which is exactly the type of projects UNDP islooking for, is that such deals are hard to close.This corresponds with early UNDP experience,underscoring that considerable hands-on work byhighly capable and knowledgeable staff is usuallyrequired to close deals between project promoters,investors and governments.

However, UNDP has started to assemble apromising pipeline of projects following high-

Eastern Europe and the CIS have been slow to participate in the carbon finance market due to lowawareness and understanding, even though these countries include some of the world’s worst greenhousegas producers. Six CIS countries are counted among the most carbon-intense economies globally. Butpotential investors have been deterred by the absence of needed institutional and legal frameworks aswell as problems with the overall business environment.

UNDP has launched ‘Leveraging Carbon Finance for Sustainable Development in Southeastern Europeand the CIS’, a project aimed at developing public and private sector capacities to access carbon finance,identifying opportunities and providing project management services to individual projects. Under thisimpressive initiative, capacity development and pilot initiatives have been launched in several countries.FYR Macedonia recently presented a strategy for CDM participation, with other countries following.

A key objective was to identify viable projects for support by the MDG Carbon Facility. This has beendifficult, however. Early experience showed that proactive efforts would be needed, going well beyondsimply declaring the fund open. The capacity development effort for both governments and UNDP staffappears to have worked well following effective collaboration between BRC, the country offices andrespective headquarters units (EEG, UNDP-GEF and the Regional Bureau for Europe and the CIS at theheadquarters). As a result, over 70 percent of the global pipeline for the MDG Carbon Facility hasoriginated from this region (as of late 2007).

UNDP capacity development and training support to the FYR Macedonia Ministry of Environment andPhysical Planning has supported an effective government climate office (to be closed in 2008 but possiblyabsorbed by the ministry). More recent UNDP-supported efforts to mobilize carbon finance, admittedlysupply-driven, have generated innovative CDM proposals to the emerging MDG Carbon Facility. FYRMacedonia’s strong progress in this area seems largely attributable to UNDP capacity development withstrong support from BRC. The country office, which is particularly strong in this area, is now addressing‘climate proofing’ of its entire project portfolio, not just environment and energy, inspired by similarwork in the Armenia country office.

Box 5. Carbon Finance in Eastern Europe and the CIS

C H A P T E R 4 . M A J O R T H E M A T I C A R E A S 5 3

quality preparation work, mainly led by theBratislava and Bangkok regional centres, andfour projects had been approved by early 2008.UNDP has made considerable progress inbuilding carbon finance capacity within its ownorganization as well as certain partner governments,while deepening staff understanding of thecarbon markets and gaining valuable experiencein collaborating with the private sector (Box 5).

The main justification for UNDP’s participationin carbon markets—in other words the link topoverty reduction—appears to rest on thegeneration of local and national developmentbenefits in the following areas: food security,education, biodiversity protection, communitybenefits, water purification, watershed protection,gender equality, health care, secure land tenure,improved sanitation, poverty alleviation and humanrights. But the mechanisms for transferring resourcesto these areas will all need to be negotiated andestablished separately as part of each carbon‘deal’. This will be a complex institutionalchallenge, especially given the lack of capacityand relevant experience in the countries thatUNDP is targeting. How and on what scale these‘development dividends’ can be realized thereforeremains to be seen. But unless these dividendscan be realized on a significant scale and withclear welfare gains, UNDP may appear to beignoring the interests of the countries, as well asthe constituents within these countries, that aremost in need of its support.

4.1.3 ADAPTATION

Very modest levels of international funding haveso far been provided for climate change adaptation.GEF administers three small funds and on aninterim basis will administer a new AdaptationFund that will be governed directly by theUNFCCC.41 This fund will receive 2 percent ofCDM projects plus direct contributions, althoughthe scale of financial resources likely to becomeavailable is not yet clear. Most needs estimates

for the next decade or so are at least severalbillion dollars.

UNDP has helped over 100 countries preparenational climate change vulnerability assessments,national adaptation plans and national communi-cations to the UNFCCC using GEF resources.Based on this experience, UNDP expects to be ina position to help countries access adaptationresources. The recently launched UNDP-SpainMDG Achievement Fund is also expected to provide direct support for climate changeadaptation. UNDP has also recently formedclimate change partnerships with the WorldBank, regional development banks, UNEP andother UN agencies, although it is still unclearhow these arrangements will develop. It isimportant to note, however, that the scale offinancial and human resources dedicated toclimate change adaptation within UNDP has sofar been tiny.

A variety of studies indicate that the LDCs andSIDS will be hardest hit by climate change, andthese are the countries most in need of adaptationsupport for awareness raising, capacity developmentand action on the ground. In many ways climatechange adaptation therefore seems a more naturalarea for UNDP to engage in than mitigation,where the benefits are largely global.The adaptationchallenge cannot be overstated, however. Thecountries most in need of support for climate changeadaptation are UNDP’s weakest constituents interms of resources and capacity and have so farshown little sign of effectively integrating theirdevelopment planning across multiple sectors, aprerequisite for adaptation to be effective. At aminimum, country offices in these countries willrequire significantly enhanced human andfinancial resources to be effective in this area.

While climate change is regarded within UNDPas an environmental issue, adaptation to itsimpacts is primarily a question of sustainabledevelopment and risk management. Climate

41. UNFCCC will approve Adaptation Fund projects on a one-country, one-vote basis, in contrast to GEF Council projectapproval voting on the size of donor contributions.

C H A P T E R 4 . M A J O R T H E M A T I C A R E A S5 4

change impacts vary considerably from locationto location, are harder to predict and cover a verywide range of impacts from sea-level rise andstorms and floods, to shifts in growing seasons,vegetation cover and water resources depletion.Preparedness and responses must therefore covera huge range of issues. The common denomina-tor, as usual, is that poor people living in marginalareas are the most vulnerable and have the leastresources to cope with and recover from a short-term disaster or longer term degradation. Capacityplays an important role in reducing people’svulnerability to climate change. Defining capacity,and UNDP’s role in building it, in the context ofclimate change adaptation poses new challenges.

So far UNDP has had a very small team workingon adaptation at headquarters, and this effortneeds to increase dramatically.This team is helpingraise awareness and train staff throughout theorganization and also is working with someregional programmes to incorporate adaptationinto their planning and strategy development.Reviews of country programmes are underway toassess the vulnerability of current and plannedactivities to climate change as a prelude to ‘climateproofing’. This is a good start. Climate riskassessments of new projects are expected to becomestandard procedure in UNDP and throughoutthe international development community.Institutionally, the current arrangements foradaptation work, which have generated usefulexperience to date, do not appear sufficient asadaptation needs gather increasing momentum.

UNDP seems uniquely positioned within the UNsystem to take the lead on adaptation based on itsbroad range of responsibilities and competenciesacross a range of development sectors as well asits experience supporting national developmentplanning and strategy development. The 2007/08HDR on climate change is an excellent product.While it is unfortunate that the organization haswaited so long to focus on this topic, the reportgives UNDP a key opportunity to use its collective

power to help make the case for mainstreamingthrough adaptation, especially in poorer countries.

Continuing business as usual within UNDP, thatis, treating adaptation as one more new environ-ment programme, cannot be effective, however.Resource mobilization, country office capacitiesand mainstreaming within the organization allrequire major adjustment and realignment.Adaptation measures will certainly requireintegration with national development plans andprogrammes across a range of sectors. This seemsunlikely to happen if adaptation continues to beperceived primarily as an environmental issue,which is very much the case at present, bothwithin UNDP and outside. While the need tomainstream crisis prevention and recovery strategiesseems obvious and has begun in a few cases, UNDPwill have little credibility unless it can demonstratethat its own poverty reduction and democraticgovernance practices are also full participants.

4.1.4 UNDP CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY

UNDP is currently developing its first climatechange strategy, hampered by considerableuncertainty over the course of negotiationstowards the successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Thearguments for UNDP to increasingly prioritizethis area are clear: “Climate change threatensdeveloping communities’ economic, social andphysical well-being, pervading all areas of humandevelopment. It could negate or reverse decadesof progress and obliterate any hope of reachingthe MDGs. And those most affected, and leastresponsible for its onset, are least able to cope. Itis an issue of inequality and an issue of insecurity.It has the potential to widen the already yawninggap between the haves and have-nots. The waythe world deals with climate change today willhave a direct bearing on the human developmentprospects of a large section of humanity. Failurewill consign the poorest 40% of the world’spopulation—some 2.6 billion people—to a futureof diminished opportunity.”42 This argumentseems irrefutable.

42. HDR 2007/08.

C H A P T E R 4 . M A J O R T H E M A T I C A R E A S 5 5

The new climate change strategy aims to defusetensions between UNDP’s GEF and core activitiesrelated to energy and climate change and tomerge the objectives of the two groups.Achievement of this goal appears critical.

4.2 ENERGY

Energy appears to be a prerequisite for liftingpeople and communities out of poverty. A largesegment of the world’s population still hasinadequate access to energy: at least 1.6 billionpeople live without electricity in their homes andmore than a third of humanity relies on wood,charcoal and dung as their main sources of energyfor cooking and heating.43 If UNDP cares aboutpoverty, it must care about energy. In fact, EEGhas undertaken some excellent analytical work onthe relationship between energy and poverty,such as ‘Energy Services for the MillenniumDevelopment Goals’, the report on ‘Energizingthe Millennium Development Goals’ cited aboveand a recent study on energy in the PRSPs.44

The formulation ‘environment and energy’ usedby UNDP presents some challenges. Whileclearly an important player in environment indeveloping countries, UNDP has a very smallrole in the overall energy picture and hasminiscule resources available for energy. Mostfunding for UNDP ‘energy’ work has in fact beenGEF support for mitigating greenhouse gasemissions, little of which flows to LDCs andSIDS. Based on resource allocations, there is littlesign that supporting the provision of affordableenergy services to the poor—arguably theprincipal energy challenge for developmentagencies—has been an institutional priority.

UNDP’s niche in energy is specific and defined inthe context of poverty reduction and sustainable

development. It works neither in the oil andnatural gas sectors nor in large-scale infrastructure,which is in the purview of the development banks.MYFF-2 in 2004 defined the organization’senergy goal in the following way:

“UNDP supports energy activities to reducepoverty and achieve sustainable developmentobjectives at the local, national and globallevels. Its work is focused on strengtheningnational policy frameworks to support energyfor poverty reduction; promoting ruralenergy services to support growth and equitywith specific focus on the situation of women;promoting clean energy technologies tomitigate climate change; and increasingaccess to investment financing for sustainableenergy, including through the CleanDevelopment Mechanism. Activities in theseareas complement and help integrate GEFprogrammes in the field of climate changeand support sustainable livelihoods.”

Promoting rural energy services for household andproductive activities covers both non-renewableand renewable energy. It is intended to addresssocial, economic and environmental considera-tions. The thrust of the work is on capacitydevelopment, studies and policy analysis andpilot projects. Priority is also given to energyefficiency and clean energy technologies thatsupport the transition to lower emissions. In thiscontext, the EEG energy work under the TTF iscomplementary to the UNDP-GEF programmesby supporting activities that are not eligible forGEF support and that address local sustainabledevelopment needs. Similarly complementary toGEF-funded climate change work is the energyprogramme supporting developing countries’access to new energy finance mechanisms,including CDM.

43. Energizing the Millennium Development Goals: A Guide to Energy's Role in Reducing Poverty. UNDP/BDP Energy andEnvironment Group. 2005.

44. Energy Services for the Millennium Development Goals. UNDP, UN Millennium Project, World Bank and ESMAP (2006); Energizing Poverty Reduction: A Review of the Energy-Poverty Nexus in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers.UNDP (2006).

C H A P T E R 4 . M A J O R T H E M A T I C A R E A S5 6

4.2.1 RESOURCES

UNDP’s energy-related portfolio has increasedsignificantly since the 1990s. Apart fromquantity, there has also been a distinct qualitativechange from conventional energy sources to a focuson sustainable energy. This shift has coincidedwith the increased attention to sustainabledevelopment and climate change. The growth infunding has been marked in all regions, butparticularly so in the Asia-Pacific and LatinAmerica and Caribbean regions (Figure 1).

A closer look at this positive trend reveals animportant factor (Figure 2). Although UNDP’senergy-related activities as a whole haveincreased substantially, most of this increase hasbeen in climate change projects funded by theGEF. In fact, the activities funded by UNDP’sregular resources have actually declined duringthe past decade, thus having a negative effect onLDCs and Africa, especially. In these places,energy is closely related to poverty reduction and

economic opportunities, but the options forachieving global environmental benefits throughgreenhouse gas emission reductions is minimal.One GEF initiative that has addressed such localissues is the SGP, albeit on a small, local scale.

In order to mobilize resources to address countrydemand in areas that are beyond the mandates ofGEF, the Montreal Protocol and DDC, UNDPestablished and managed two TTFs: on energyfor sustainable development and on environment.In late 2004, these funds were merged to formthe TTF for Environment and Energy, managedby EEG, designed as a flexible co-financingmodality for both country-level and global initiatives. Altogether, these TTFs, from theirinception in 2001 to 2006, attracted $26.8 millionin funding from a number of bilateral donors,including Austria, Germany, Luxembourg, Norwayand Sweden.45 While commendable, these fundspale in comparison to those mobilized from theGEF, which has provided $1.89 billion to UNDP

Figure 1. Regional Funding Growth for UNDP Energy Projects: 1986–2005

US$

Mill

ion

s

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0Global Africa Asia and

the PacificArab States Eastern

Europe andthe CIS

Latin Americaand the

Caribbean

n 1986–1990 n 1991–1995 n 1996–2000 n 2001–2005

45. ‘Thematic Trust Fund on Environment and Energy: 2006 Interim Report’. UNDP/BDP 2007.

C H A P T E R 4 . M A J O R T H E M A T I C A R E A S 5 7

since 2002, of which climate change fundingalone was $306.8 million.

4.2.2 RESULTS

According to the MYFF Cumulative Report2004–2006, a total of 51 countries reportedoutcomes under the ‘sustainable energy services’service line in 2006 and about 22 percent (63 of282) of all environmental outcomes reported bycountry offices were related to energy. Almosthalf of these outcomes (30 of 63) were related tolow-emissions energy technologies, which wouldprincipally be GEF-funded projects.

The evaluation found examples of importantcountry-level work introducing clean renewableenergy and energy efficiency, largely throughGEF funding. Most of this work was in largermiddle-income countries. In China, the ‘EnergyConservation and Greenhouse Gas EmissionsReduction in TVEs (Township and VillageEnterprises)’ project has achieved considerablesuccess in promoting new technologies in thisburgeoning sector. It is now leading to a newproject focusing on the housing sector (including

the brick industry) in small towns. The ‘CapacityDevelopment for China Green Lights Programme’supported the country in setting the firstefficiency standards for lighting products. Sincethen, the government has strategically expandedthe programme with significant success.

Although over half of UNDP’s energy-relatedprojects and financing have dealt with expandingenergy access to the poor, according to theMYFF report, the evaluation did not findconvincing evidence of such access in thecountries visited. As evident from Figure 1 above,the share of Africa, where lack of access to energyservices by poor people is widespread, is very low.There are a few successful small-scale projects,such as the ‘Multifunctional Platforms’ in Maliand Burkina Faso, which are addressing localcommunities’ demand for affordable energy,using a diesel motor to produce a variety of‘goods’ in villages (see Box 6).

UNDP’s regional energy programmes weredesigned to enhance knowledge sharing betweenthe various country programmes and help scale

Figure 2. UNDP Energy Portfolio: 1996–2005

US$

Mill

ion

s1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

n GEF Small Grants Programme

n Other Cost-sharing

n GEF-leveraged Co-funding/Parallel Funding

n GEF Grant

n UNDP Energy Thematic Trust Fund

n UNDP Regular Resources

1996–2000 2001–2005

C H A P T E R 4 . M A J O R T H E M A T I C A R E A S5 8

up successes. The recent evaluation of the AfricaRCF46 recognized that the programme hadsupported the development of an ECOWAS(Economic Community of West African States)Regional White Paper on increasing access toenergy for rural and peri-urban populations,which had been ratified by the member states.The document was now being used to attractfinancing and donor interest. The member statesalso approved guidelines for developing andpiloting MDG-based energy access strategiesand costing methodologies. The TTF activitiesalso included support for the Global Village

Energy Partnership to help countries developnational plans to expand access to energy servicesfor the poor.

REP-PoR, started in mid-2005 by RCB as partof the Asia-Pacific RCF, is concerned withpromoting an understanding of the relationshipbetween poverty, energy and gender. The projectis aimed at enabling countries to formulate theirresponses to energy security concerns. One ofthe main outputs of REP-PoR was a major oilpricing study publicly launched in October2007.47 The study contains an innovative

The technology behind the project component ‘Les Plateformes Multifonctionelles’ within the ARSAProgramme (‘Le Programme d’Amélioration des Revenus et de Securité Alimentaire’) was originallydeveloped by UNIDO. In Mali, a similar programme showed promising results and has now spreadwidely in the country.

The multifunctional platforms may provide electricity to parts of the surrounding community, rechargebatteries, allow for TV or video presentations in the village, assist in pumping water from the local borehole,provide water to small-scale irrigation in the village or provide electricity for hand tools used by localartisans. But the critical goal may be cheap financial solutions for women who are situated at the lowerend of the energy chain and struggle with heavy, cumbersome and time-consuming tasks, such asgrinding and milling of agricultural produce. By using the diesel engine installed for a variety of purposes,women may be relieved of some heavy daily duties, like breaking shea nuts or husking and hulling therice or maize manually. Now instead they can use time gained for attending literacy classes, participatingmore actively in public life, attending courts (for resolving conflicts over land access, for instance) orspeaking at public meetings. They may even generate surpluses to eventually invest in small businesses.In general, the results may be improved livelihoods, greater income and an improved quality of life. Moreover,the involvement of women’s associations in running the diesel engine may reduce inequality andestablish a more equal gender balance in the local community. And the higher agricultural output andability to invest in improved land management measures are also believed to benefit the environment.

The idea behind ‘Les Plateformes’ is simple but as always, when technological solutions to complexdevelopment problems are sought, the solution’s potential is only realized where local complexities areseriously addressed.The potential exists to address pertinent energy challenges, in this case those faced bywomen heavily involved in manual agricultural tasks, but there is no single (and simple) ‘technological fix’.

So far around 120 motors have been installed, and before the end of 2008 this will have doubled. Theambitious longer term task is to have a ‘platform’ established in each of Burkina Faso’s 8,000 villages!Whether this will happen or not is highly dependent on a number of factors: that maintenance andrepairs are regularly attended to, that the women’s associations tasked with managing the motors arelegitimate and recognized bodies within the local community structure and that a number of additionalmeasures are evaluated (for example, marketing aspects, improved quality of produce and transport).Thus the platforms are seen primarily as one element in the much wider and complex chain of challengesthat any good idea within the development sphere is faced with. If these broader considerations aredealt with, the platforms may build on their proven potential and multiply.

Box 6. Multifunctional Platforms in Burkina Faso

46. Evaluation of the Second Regional Cooperation Framework for Africa. UNDP Evaluation Office 2007.47. Fuel to Change–Overcoming Vulnerability to Rising Oil Prices: Options for Asia and the Pacific. UNDP Regional Centre in

Bangkok, 2007.

C H A P T E R 4 . M A J O R T H E M A T I C A R E A S 5 9

composite oil price vulnerability index. Itprovides policy prescriptions and options tocountries based on their vulnerability to changesin oil prices. The study attracted considerableattention from the press and the public, alongwith governments in the region. In the PacificSIDS, UNDP’s role in energy has beenrecognized positively by stakeholders (Box 7).

4.2.3 ENERGY FOR POVERTY REDUCTION ORFOR CLIMATE MITIGATION?

Limited access to energy services remains a keyconstraint to the poor people in developingcountries. Recognizing this, EEG has focused itsenergy work on mainstreaming energy consider-ations into national development strategies anddeveloping local capacities to expand energy service

delivery. One of the key goals in the new UNDPstrategic plan, 2008–2011, is ‘Expanding access toenvironmental and energy services for the poor:developing national capacity for service delivery’.

Yet UNDP’s work in energy tends to bedominated by climate change projects funded byGEF. These are hardly compatible with the focuson LDCs and SIDS, where climate changemitigation is not a national priority and even thepotential gains for greenhouse gas emissionreductions are minimal. Potential contradictionsbetween UNDP and GEF priorities can beillustrated by the ‘Barrier Removal to RenewableEnergy Project’ in Malawi, one of three largeenvironment or energy projects implemented byUNDP in Malawi since 2002, and thus a major

Virtually all stakeholders interviewed about UNDP’s energy initiatives in the Pacific had positive responses.This comment from a knowledgeable observer was typical:“UNDP Apia has been unusually good aboutworking in conjunction with others, particularly the Secretariat of the Pacific Geosciences Commission,the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific and the Asian Development Bank (ADB).Most of their energy and environment projects … have been multiple-donor … or have specificallyworked in cooperation with others. … Energy projects have generally been very relevant and havebeen created in close cooperation and coordination with other agencies and the governments affected.The efficiency in use of resources [has been] the best I’ve seen for similar projects of UNDP and others inAsia and the Pacific over the past fifteen years.” Many of the benefits appear attributable to having anoutsourced energy officer from RCB based at UNDP in Fiji. Numerous informants referred specifically tothe success of the multicountry ‘Pacific Islands Energy Planning and Strategic Action Planning’ project(PIEPSAP), which serves 14 Pacific Island countries and is financed through a $2 million Danish grant toUNDP, less than $50,000 per country served per year on average. There has been no GEF support.

Why has PIEPSAP been successful? Among the reasons given are the following:

n PIEPSAP has a wide menu of options, from which individual countries can select assistance that suitstheir needs. This built-in flexibility in design allows PIEPSAP to respond quickly to changing nationalpriorities and needs.

n The project works directly with governments, power utilities and others, according to the need.

n The project was embedded within the energy section of a Pacific regional organization, the Secretariatof the Pacific Geoscience Commission (SOPAC), and could tap into wider SOPAC experience and skills.

n Project staff do not push pre-ordained solutions but listen well to country views.

n The service is demand-driven and practical.

n There has been genuine ‘leveraging’ with PIEPSAP advice linked directly to, or followed up by, relatedassistance from the ADB, European Commission, World Bank and others.

n International staff used personal networks to mobilize additional funding from their home countries.

PIEPSAP is a good example of how a regional UNDP project can respond effectively and efficiently tonational demands in a geographically widespread region with widely differing needs. However, it neverwould have occurred, or succeeded, without an officer based at UNDP with good technical skills in theenergy sector and the ability to locate and bring to the region extra-budgetary funding.

Box 7. UNDP Energy Assistance in the Pacific

C H A P T E R 4 . M A J O R T H E M A T I C A R E A S6 0

component of the national environmentportfolio. This project has aimed to mitigategreenhouse gas emissions by encouragingincreased use of photovoltaic panels byhouseholds, institutions, commercial entities andagro-industries. While the project has movedmore slowly than anticipated, it does appear tohave generated some momentum in encouragingbanks to offer loans to off-grid householdswishing to invest in solar panels. It also seems tohave boosted the emergence of a new, albeitunregulated, industry in solar panel installationand maintenance. More households in poorcommunities are now receiving enough power forlighting. Although unquantified, this seems anotable welfare gain and a potentially significantcontribution to poverty reduction that is environmentally neutral. However, the mid-termevaluation of this project rated its performance asunsatisfactory, largely because the emissionreduction impacts were ‘miniscule’.48 While it isnot clear why there was ever an expectation ofmore significant carbon savings from such aproject in Africa, the reaction to this project doesillustrate how hard it is to use GEF financing toexpand the provision of affordable energy servicesto the poor, widely regarded as a prerequisite foroff-grid communities to escape from poverty.Furthermore, had comparable funding beenavailable for a project with the provision ofaffordable energy services to the poor as aprinciple objective, consistent with UNDP’spoverty reduction mission, there can be littledoubt that a totally different set of activitieswould have been undertaken.

Due to its key link to poverty, energy can bemainstreamed into the sustainable humandevelopment approach that is UNDP’s mainemphasis. The problems related to the energy-poverty linkages are fundamentally differentfrom those related to climate change mitigationand cannot be addressed through the same meansand mechanisms. Consequently, it is essential for

UNDP to organize its energy work differentlyand to mobilize funds for it separately. Theongoing dependence on GEF funding—or evenon the emerging MDG Carbon Facility—willnot encourage a meaningful energy programmethat addresses poverty and sustainable developmentissues. There is also little geographical overlapbetween the two. Climate change mitigation ismost effectively advanced by assisting middle-income countries to reduce greenhouse gasemissions from industry, traffic and the urbansector, while the greatest need for energy servicesfor poverty reduction lies in LDCs, especially inAfrica. This discrepancy in goals is concretelydemonstrated by comparing the prioritycountries within GEF’s RAF to those countrieswith the lowest access to electricity (Table 6).

A clear challenge for UNDP will be to ensurefunding for programmatic activities in thepoorest countries whose needs are related toenhancing the penetration of energy services andwhich are not eligible for significant fundingfrom GEF. These countries are moreover at theheart of UNDP’s poverty reduction and humandevelopment mandate, as recognized by thestrategic plan, 2008-2011.

The Associate Administrator summarized UNDP’sapproach at the Commission for SustainableDevelopment meeting in May 2007, stating thatUNDP aims to mainstream energy needs of thepoor in national development plans and povertyreduction strategies in over 160 countries.Although energy’s centrality to the MDGs isaccepted conceptually, it has not been internalizedat an operational level in the countries or inUNDP49. Energy is still largely seen as a singlesector, hardware-driven issue with limited linkagesbetween energy service delivery and impacts onpoverty reduction. Neither is there a single energygoal amongst the MDGs, as this was consideredtoo political an issue. Yet, energy access is criticalto the achievement of virtually all MDGs.

48. Project Mid-Term Evaluation 2007 and Climate Change Project Implementation Review 2006.49. Energizing Poverty Reduction: A Review of the Energy-Poverty Nexus in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers.

UNDP 2007.

C H A P T E R 4 . M A J O R T H E M A T I C A R E A S 6 1

Energy is thus at the heart of UNDP’s povertymandate. However, the energy agenda in theorganization appears to have been largelydisplaced by climate change mitigation. Therewould be ample scope for UNDP to advanceenergy access in those regions and countrieswhere access remains a key poverty issue bypromoting cheap renewable and non-renewableenergy sources for rural and productive electrifi-cation. It could do so with other UN agencies,such as UNIDO, but these partnerships havebeen clearly underutilized. Also, the interest fromthe UNDP country offices for energy workappears to be low.

To some extent senior UNDP management hasrecognized this issue. The strategic plan, 2008-2011, the Regional Programme Document forAsia and the Pacific (2008–2011), and the Asia-Pacific Climate Change, Energy and EcosystemsProject all highlight an intention to align energyfor poverty reduction with climate change

mitigation and adaptation. There is, however, aneed for corresponding resource allocations andmore clarity on how carbon finance can beexpected to benefit the poor in LDCs and SIDS.

Between EEG and the regional bureaux, notablyin Africa, there already exist promising plans forprogrammatic development in energy services forthe poor. It will be essential to ensure that suchprogrammes receive adequate funding. It will also be important that similar programmes bedeveloped in LDCs in other regions andintegrated into the overall country programmesin the respective countries where they operate.

4.3 BIODIVERSITY

Biodiversity has been a very important thematicarea for UNDP in terms of financial resources,with a cumulative total of $820 million in GEFproject approvals to date, including $330 millionsince 2002, plus significant co-financing.

Table 6. Top 10 Countries with (a) Lowest Electrification Rates and (b) Highest GEF Resource Allocations for Climate Change

(a) Electrification Rate (%) 2000–2005 (b) GEF-4 Resource Allocations for Climate Change (US$ million)

1. Congo DRC (6) 1. China (150)

2. Mozambique (6) 2. India (74.9)

3. Burkina Faso (7) 3. Russian Federation (72.5)

4. Malawi (7) 4. Brazil (38.1)

5. Uganda (9) 5. Poland (38.1)

6. Lesotho (11) 6. Mexico (28.3)

7. Myanmar (11) 7. South Africa (23.9)

8. Tanzania (11) 8. Ukraine (18.9)

9. Kenya (14) 9. Turkey (17.5)

10. Ethiopia (15) 10. Iran, Islamic Republic of (16.5)

Sources: (a) Human Development Report 2007/2008. UNDP. (b) GEF Resource Allocation Framework.

C H A P T E R 4 . M A J O R T H E M A T I C A R E A S6 2

Biodiversity has been the number one recipientof UNDP-GEF funding to date in every regionexcept Asia-Pacific (where it is number two).Remarkably, a large number of projects funded bythese significant resources has been carried out inalmost total isolation from any other UNDPactivities (some notable exceptions are referred tobelow). This leads to two key questions: (i) whathas been achieved and (ii) how does this supportUNDP’s overall mission?

The short-term achievements of individualbiodiversity projects can usually be figured out,even in the frequent cases where baseline studiesare absent. Tracking and reporting on the longerterm impacts of projects is harder as few locationsand fewer projects have mechanisms set up to dothis. Aggregating the results of individual projectshas not proven a very meaningful process so far forUNDP or for other organizations active in thisfield. UNDP has cooperated with continuing effortsby international conservation organizations toimprove the effectiveness of biodiversity monitoring.

Biodiversity is the only UNDP-GEF focal areato have a Global Portfolio Performance Report,

the first of which was prepared in 2007. Thisvaluable and refreshingly frank document makesa number of useful observations and provides anoverall summary of performance data for projectsfocused on protected areas (Table 7).

However, while such data is useful, its limitationsare well understood by practitioners: (i) theestablishment of a protected area, although animportant first step often reflecting a sustainedeffort over a long period of time, is not always astrong indicator of conservation progress as manysuch areas are under severe pressure or alreadydegraded; (ii) the size of a protected area is notalways a reliable indicator of its conservationvalue; (iii) management effectiveness is a criticalvariable, but it tends to be assessed in terms ofinputs like budget, staff and equipment ratherthan outputs like how effectively a protected areais meeting its conservation goals and (iv) whileprotected areas are a cornerstone of conservation,they cannot substitute for the importance ofconserving biodiversity in other types of managedlandscapes, such as forests and agriculture,making the integration of biodiversity with otherdevelopment sectors absolutely essential.

Table 7. GEF Biodiversity Portfolio Summary Impact

Regions GEF Cofinance New PAs PAs PAs where PAs whereexpenditure to date established established management management

to date (US$ millions) (number) (million ha) effectiveness effectiveness(US$ millions) improved improved

(number) (million ha)

SEA 38.95 125.59 11 3.46 80 0.96

ECIS 52.51 98.65 10 1.28 83 14.00

LAC 74.00 133.17 43 2.04 137 3.20

WCA 11.92 14.33 58 0.34 36 20.27

AP 48.91 77.19 28 2.80 75 8.30

AS 16.21 9.04 4 0.03 8 5.01

Total 242.50 457.97 154 9.95 419 51.74

Note: PA = Protected Area, SEA = Southern and Eastern Africa, ECIS = Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States,LAC = Latin American and the Carribean, WCA = West and Central Africa, AP = Asia and the Pacific, AS = Arab States.

C H A P T E R 4 . M A J O R T H E M A T I C A R E A S 6 3

Despite these data limitations, there is no doubtthat UNDP has made a major contribution tobiodiversity conservation by supporting someextremely important protected area sites andsystems in a variety of countries, often workingvery effectively with the entire set of stakeholders:governments, international conservation groups,local authorities and communities.

Although GEF funding represents the largestever international investment in biodiversityconservation, its resources are insignificantcompared to the challenges. At a global level theGEF Overall Performance Study of 2005 foundthat “the GEF biodiversity programme [inpractice being implemented by UNDP, theWorld Bank and UNEP], as likely the world’slargest government-funded mechanism forbiodiversity conservation in developing countries,has had notable impact on slowing or reducingthe loss of biodiversity, although global trends inbiodiversity loss continue to be downward.” Butthe situation remains bleak: “even though moreareas are being protected, the proportion ofspecies threatened with extinction continues toincrease, and individual populations continue todecline. Unprecedented efforts will be required toconserve habitats and to manage ecosystems andspecies in a sustainable way if the rate of speciesloss is to be significantly reduced by 2010.”50

Beyond existing challenges, climate change islikely to emerge as the single greatest threat tobiodiversity, if it has not already done so, bringingabout wholesale changes to ecosystems uponwhich humanity depends.

Several notable biodiversity initiatives have beenlaunched within the case study countries. TheChina country office has overcome some lesssuccessful early initiatives by helping establish thenew China Biodiversity Partnership Framework.This framework provides a coordination structurefor all biodiversity work in the country. It isbased on a diverse partnership that UNDP

played a key role in assembling (with $12 millionthrough GEF and $30 million from theEuropean Union). This initiative is said to haveraised awareness in several provinces, ministries,universities and the media, despite a complex andchallenging management structure. Bringing civilsociety partners into the project under termsacceptable to the government has beencontentious. As in other sectors, China has a veryclear idea of how it plans to use internationaldevelopment assistance and asserts strong anddirect national ownership.

Two-thirds of UNDP’s environment and energyportfolio in Ecuador consists of activities in theGalapagos Islands, a World Heritage Site,continuing a long-standing UNDP commitmentto this area (Box 8). GEF funds have been usedfor biodiversity conservation and renewableenergy. UNDP is attempting to bridge the gap between conservation and socio-economicdevelopment—a major concern on the archipelago.By seeking institutional coordination andpromoting sustainable development within regionaldevelopment planning, UNDP has attractedfunding from a variety of sources. However, theoverall environmental situation in the Galapagoscontinues to decline, partly due to the pressuresof uncontrolled migration and excessive tourism.

A recent global, scientific assessment of the stateof the world’s ecosystems determined that in allregions, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, thecondition and management of ecosystems is a‘dominant factor’ affecting the chances of successin fighting poverty. Many of the regions facingthe greatest challenges in achieving the MDGsalso face significant problems of ecosystemdegradation.51 The Millennium EcosystemAssessment, for which UNDP was a fundingpartner, also provided an articulate and compellingset of arguments showing how sustainable socialand economic development depends on biodiversityconservation, and notably the maintenance of

50. ‘2007 Millennium Development Goals Report’ quoted in ‘UNDP-GEF Biodiversity Portfolio Performance Report’, p. 22.51. Poverty-Environment Partnership. Assessing Environment’s Contribution to Poverty Reduction: Environment for the MDGs.

UNDP, UNEP, IIED, IUCN and WRI for the Poverty-Environment Partnership. 2005.

C H A P T E R 4 . M A J O R T H E M A T I C A R E A S6 4

ecosystem services such as provision of fresh water,flood control and local climate stabilization.

Such arguments appear to have done little toengage UNDP as a whole even though countryoffices have certainly supported biodiversityprojects when UNDP-GEF has provided accessto the funding. Links or exchanges of informa-tion—let alone collaboration—with the povertyand governance practices of UNDP have beenrare. There is no evidence that UNDP at acorporate level has viewed biodiversity as apriority. EEG’s limited biological diversityresources have been used at very local levels (suchas the Equator Initiative) and at the global levelfor advocacy and participation in internationalconservation processes.

While the poverty and governance practices ofUNDP have shown little interest in biodiversity,the UNDP biodiversity portfolio is showingsigns of evolving away from site-specificprotected area work towards an emphasis onpoverty and governance. Even the earliestbiodiversity projects had often set out to providesocial and economic benefits from conservationto local communities, although the results wereoften mixed. UNDP’s more recent biodiversitywork has emphasized strengthening capacitiesand institutions to ensure effective governance ofbiodiversity resources, for example, by identifyingthe benefits from conservation for localcommunities. In a promising example, collaborationwith PEI in Botswana has helped link povertymitigation strategies directly with protected area

UNDP Ecuador has dedicated over 70 percent of its environment and energy resources to the GalapagosIslands. Conservation of the archipelago’s celebrated biodiversity is threatened by accelerated populationgrowth, uncontrolled immigration, booming tourism and the spread of invasive plant and animal species.These factors are aggravated by institutional capacity limitations and a lack of coordination betweendonors, counterparts and projects. Local residents perceive a gap between conservation and development,with international assistance having largely focused on conserving protected areas despite the area’srapid population growth, basic service deficiencies and limited public investment. The islands have beenhost to a succession of environmental projects and research activities. Yet despite the scale of funding,technical expertise and studies, there has been relatively little sustained success. Good progress hasbeen made in combating invasive species, and this is among the most tangible outcomes achieved.

UNDP is possibly the most consistent and high-profile development actor here, having implementedseveral projects using both GEF and other resources. UNDP has played a crucial role in supporting theinstitutional stability of key government organizations, including the Galapagos National Park Service.Two projects are very relevant but face constraints that have weakened their effectiveness.The Galapagos20/20 initiative produced a strategy document (the ‘Galapagos Blueprint’) to build local governancecapacities, control illegal immigration, develop a new tourism model and strengthen productive sectorsthrough credit and public works programmes. Yet the initiative is little known on the archipelago andconsidered a missed opportunity by many due to the limited involvement and ownership of localstakeholders. The PROINGALA (Institutional Strengthening and Systematic Integration of SustainableDevelopment and Conservation in Galapagos) project is undermined by design flaws, slow implementa-tion and weak capacities of local institutions, with a recent evaluation recommending major changes.UNDP also played a key role in creating the Galapagos Donor Roundtable, which although supported bystakeholders, has not so far improved coordination or impact on the ground. More successfully, a UNDPproject targeting alien species eradication is considered a global best practice.

Among the lessons are the need to apply an integrated strategy that can link development and conservationvisions in order to reverse current trends. For this to happen, support modalities must also be reconsidered.For example, instead of the standard project cycle of three to five years, medium-term processes thatcombine capacity development and technical support seem more likely to consolidate and sustain impacts.UNDP faces the challenge of generating enabling conditions that local institutions can appropriate.Once established, these conditions can be managed effectively and carried forward on the basis of astrategic vision that is understood and supported by the various Galapagos stakeholders, even as thecountry office considers redirecting its environmental portfolio to Ecuador’s mainland.

Box 8. Galapagos Islands, Ecuador

C H A P T E R 4 . M A J O R T H E M A T I C A R E A S 6 5

management. Such links should not be overem-phasized, however, as the social and economicbenefits from protected areas tend to be local,indirect and hard to quantify.

There is clearly a need for analogous conceptualbreakthroughs on a larger scale if biodiversity isto become an influential and important, and notjust a large, component of UNDP’s programming.Unfortunately the dialogue appears to sufferfrom an abiding caricature of the biologicaldiversity agenda as being driven by northernenvironmentalists more concerned about wildlifeor plants than the welfare of poor people, whichso far UNDP has not been able to overcome.

4.4 RELIANCE ON GEF

UNDP’s reliance on GEF to support its environ-ment and energy work has caused prioritynational environmental issues like environmentalhealth and safety, sanitation, water resourcemanagement, soil management, energy manage-ment and so on to be passed over in favour ofGEF priorities related to climate change mitigation,biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, andinternational waters. There was a concurrent lossof interest in issues related to desertification andland management, both of which became fullyeligible for GEF funding only early in thisdecade. The lack of core budget resources forenvironment provided strong internal incentivesto maximize UNDP’s share of GEF resources.Staff were encouraged to identify and prepare thegreatest possible number of projects likely to beapproved by the GEF Secretariat and GEFCouncil, in what frequently became a fiercecompetition with the World Bank and UNEP.This emphasis continues today, as senior UNDP-GEF staff receive performance assessments based—up to 30 percent—on the value of new projectmoney they generate.

Within EEG, the imbalance of financial andhuman resources between UNDP-GEF and therest of EEG has been evident at all levels—atheadquarters, the regional centres and thecountry offices. Very few policy advisers are

funded from the core budget, with negativeimplications for career prospects and institutionalcontinuity. In areas such as biodiversity, whereUNDP has secured GEF approval for projectsworth over $800 million since 1991, there is stillvery little core capacity to carry out relevantanalytic studies or reviews.The separation of GEFfrom other activities in environment and energysometimes even led to competition for fundingfrom the same external donor, most often at thecountry level.

Planning documents from 2006 (the latest datefor which such information was available) showthat the GCF, all TTFs, and the DrylandsDevelopment Centre/Poverty Environment Centrewere each expected to receive about one percentof the $266 million anticipated to be available forenvironment and energy activities in 2007, whileGEF and Montreal Protocol activities wereexpected to receive 92 percent.

Our case study countries’ experiences suggestthat this remains the situation. In a number ofcountries UNDP has become the spokespersonfor the dwindling community of donors stillactive in environment. This reflects not so muchthe advance of UNDP as the retreat of otherdonors. UNDP has held its ground almostentirely as a result of its access to GEF funding.China is an important exception here, as in manyother regards. China has used UNDP and GEFfunding strategically to pilot initiatives that it hasample financial resources to replicate and scale upif they prove successful.

To many in UNDP, the well-resourced GEFprogramme, while widely recognized as profes-sionally managed, innovative and effective, hasbeen of limited relevance to UNDP’s mainmission of poverty reduction. A pattern becameestablished in which the UNDP environment andenergy teams working on GEF and other projectsseldom coordinated or exchanged information,leading to a ‘two-track world’ of programme andproject approval that rarely intersected. As GEFbecame more established, differences in bothstyle and substance between UNDP’s GEF and

C H A P T E R 4 . M A J O R T H E M A T I C A R E A S6 6

core activities emerged. These differences werereinforced by specialized GEF terminology aswell as unclear and frequently changing criteriafor the allocation of GEF financial resourcesbetween countries and projects, all of whichproved hard to communicate to outsiders. Inparticular, there was little sense that GEFresources came in response to a prioritization ofoverall environment and energy needs andopportunities at national levels. These factors ledto a situation where comparatively few technicalspecialists within UNDP had deep insights intohow GEF operated and how to access GEFresources (a circumstance mirrored in the otherGEF implementing agencies). The emergingdivision between UNDP’s GEF and coreenvironment staff was reinforced by UNDPdeemphasizing project implementation whileGEF remained almost entirely project-driven.

While GEF has had a very strong influence onUNDP, it is fair to observe that UNDP has hadsome important influence on GEF policies andprogrammes, although this is not easy todocument nor is it the focus of this evaluation.Certainly there are indications that UNDP staffhave had some success in persuading the GEFSecretariat and the other implementing agenciesto interpret their project selection priorities andcriteria in ways that provided greater support fornational benefits in partner countries. This hasbeen most evident in biodiversity conservationand climate change and in capacity developmentfor all GEF focal areas.

UNDP’s adoption of the MDGs as an overarchingpriority had relatively little direct impact on thesituation. GEF also embraced the MDGs, whichmay have contributed to a greater effort to designGEF projects with a more visible poverty andgovernance focus. Progress in monitoring MDG-7appears to have been modest at best, and themeasurement of progress has been severelyhampered by insufficient monitoring capacityand systems, especially in LDCs and SIDS.52

Our case studies generally found little or nosystematic information available related toMDG-7 in the LDCs and SIDS.

There have been serious efforts to improve thecollaboration between UNDP-GEF and the restof EEG. This report documents some notablesigns of progress amidst clearly enhancedwillingness to work together. The availability ofGEF funding continues to drive country-levelenvironment and energy work. Since 2005,however, there have been more convincing,sustained efforts to find areas of commonground, share knowledge and undertake jointwork programmes. Consistent with these efforts,all UNDP-GEF staff were recently instructed tostart spending 10-20 percent of their time onnon-GEF matters, which in practice meansincreasing the amount of time they spendresponding to country office requests for supportand information. More recently, convergenceefforts have become more urgent because ofincreased awareness of the need to seek morediversified funding sources, apparently under theassumption that core budget support wouldremain very limited.

A unified approach to water governance withinBDP has been the most striking example ofconvergence between GEF and non-GEF groupsso far. Considerable impetus was provided by the2006 HDR on water management issues andtheir importance for achieving the MDGs. Thesuccess of this HDR led senior management tosupport the preparation of UNDP’s first WaterGovernance Strategy encompassing all UNDPactivities related to water. A unified water teamwas launched in mid-2006, with the team’s headspending 80 percent of his time on GEF and 20 percent on other matters. This is an interestingcontrast to the situation twenty years earlier, whenmost UNDP resources for water were focused onissues of more obvious national and local concernsuch as potable water supply and sanitation. Theunified water group has recognized this imbalance

52. Making Progress on Environmental Sustainability: Lessons and Recommendations from a Review of over 150 MDG CountryReports. UNDP 2006.

C H A P T E R 4 . M A J O R T H E M A T I C A R E A S 6 7

and aims to address it with a programme thatfocuses on developing capacities for sound watergovernance at national and international levels.There have been some promising early signs ofprogress. The Stockholm-based Water GovernanceCentre has now been fully integrated with thenew UNDP Water Governance Strategy. Therehas also been support for integrated waterresource management planning in SIDSsupported by UNDP-GEF’s international watersprogrammes, now operating in the Caribbeanand soon to start elsewhere.

In another contribution to convergence, theentire EEG met, for only the second time, in2006. The main outputs of this meeting were aset of papers on the opportunities and constraintsfacing the introduction of a unified workprogramme. Future priorities identified or re-emphasized here included (i) a renewed emphasis onenvironment and energy policy and governanceand (ii) a strong focus on environmental finance,

especially the MDG Carbon Facility, climatechange adaptation, and payments for ecosystemservices. Such payments were recently highlightedby the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment as apromising mechanism for linking biodiversityconservation with economic development. Thisagenda of priorities was largely reflected in theenvironmental and energy sections of the UNDPstrategic plan, 2008-2011, and in the preparationof joint work programmes that included all workin the sector.

Other notable convergence activities have takenplace in the Bratislava and, more recently, Bangkokregional centres, as discussed elsewhere. InFebruary 2008 EEG’s Core Management TeamRetreat took some further decisions to promotebetter integration. This included sharing the salarycosts of the UNDP-GEF executive coordinatorand principal technical advisors between GEFand BDP, thus allowing these individuals tospend more time on non-GEF work.

C H A P T E R 4 . M A J O R T H E M A T I C A R E A S6 8

n Climate change has been a major component of UNDP’s environment and energy work and is centralto the organization’s future plans. Since 1992, UNDP has mobilized about $3 billion from GEF andrelated co-financing, mostly for projects aimed at mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. UNDP hasbuilt a significant body of expertise and experience in this area, mostly in the headquarters and theregional centres, but not in the country offices. The fit between UNDP’s poverty reduction mandateand the GEF objective of mitigating global climate change has been less than convincing, however,especially in the LDCs and SIDS.

n Through the establishment of the MDG Carbon Facility, UNDP has entered into the area of carbonfinance, one of the most rapidly emerging global responses to climate change. UNDP’s target marketis countries and regions that have not benefited significantly from the CDM. The organization hasstarted to put together a promising pipeline of projects mainly led by the Bratislava and Bangkokregional centres. However, it is too early to assess UNDP’s effectiveness in this area, where some largerand more experienced organizations have already carved out significant roles. Ensuring that carbonfinance benefits make genuine contributions to poverty reduction, especially in the LDCs and SIDS,will be a complex institutional challenge, especially given the lack of capacity and experience in thecountries, both in the governments and UNDP country offices.

n UNDP seems uniquely positioned within the UN system to take the lead on adaptation to climatechange based on its competencies across a range of development sectors. It will also present anopportunity to focus on the LDCs and SIDS that will be hardest hit by climate change. However, it willbe important for UNDP not to continue treating adaptation solely as an environmental issue. Effectiveadaptation measures will require integration with national development plans and programmesacross all sectors and will need to engage all of UNDP, not just EEG. There is little evidence so far thatthese requirements are being met.

n UNDP’s energy-related portfolio has increased significantly since the 1990s. Most of this increase hasbeen in climate change projects funded by GEF while UNDP’s regular resources have declined. Thishas resulted in an emphasis on countries and sectors where the opportunities for GHG mitigation aregreatest, with negative effects on work in Africa, and LDCs in general, and limited practical engagementin supporting the provision of affordable energy to the poor. The evaluation found examples ofimportant country-level work introducing clean renewable energy and energy efficiency, mostly inlarger middle-income countries.

n Energy would provide excellent opportunities for mainstreaming. There are promising plans forprogrammatic development in energy services for the poor, although current resource allocations are well below the levels that would be required for such work to become strategically significant.

n Biodiversity conservation and sustainable use has been a large thematic area for UNDP, with acumulative total of $820 million in GEF project funding to date. UNDP has made a major contributionto biodiversity conservation, often working effectively with a broad range of stakeholders fromgovernments and international conservation groups to local communities.

n UNDP should continue to work in biodiversity because it is a critical determinant of the health ofecosystems, which in turn is important for poverty alleviation. While the UNDP-GEF biodiversityportfolio is moving towards an emphasis on poverty and governance, the poverty and governancepractices of UNDP have shown little interest in biodiversity.

n Since 2005, serious steps have been taken to move towards an integrated environment and energypractice encompassing all groups irrespective of funding source. There has been emphasis on findingareas of common ground, sharing knowledge and undertaking joint work programmes. A unifiedapproach to water governance within BDP has been the most striking example of this convergence so far.

Key Points

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SECTION III

C H A P T E R 5 . C O N C L U S I O N S 7 1

Conclusion 1. Environment and energy arecentral to the mission of UNDP.

The relevance of environment and energy to theprincipal UNDP mission of poverty reduction seemsoverwhelmingly clear. The negative consequencesof the deteriorating international environmentalsituation on the poorest countries and communitieshave been elaborated unequivocally by a varietyof credible international bodies and studies, notablythe International Panel on Climate Change andthe Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

UNDP programmes in environment have madesignificant contributions to international environ-mental efforts. Programmes in environment and, to

a lesser extent, energy have expanded significantlysince the 1990s, and UNDP is now among theleading global organizations working in theseareas. It has produced high-quality analyticalknowledge products recognized for their value inpolicy dialogue, advocacy and awareness raising.These have not, however, translated systematicallyinto programming.

UNDP plans and strategies have emphasizedenvironment and energy as high priorities for theorganization throughout the last decade. Thestrategic plan, 2008-2011, and its predecessorMYFFs (for 2000–3 and 2004–7) all highlightedenvironment and energy, while UNDP’s senior

Chapter 5

CONCLUSIONS

1. Environment and energy are central to the mission of UNDP.

2. UNDP corporate plans and strategies have had little influence on the selection of programmepriorities and activities for the country programmes. In practice, the availability of financialresources from GEF has had a far greater influence on the priority setting and choice of activitiesof country offices.

3. UNDP responsiveness to national priorities has been uneven. The type and effectiveness ofenvironment and energy work done by UNDP vary significantly between partner countries,with some project portfolios appearing opportunistic and uncoordinated.

4. Imbalances in priority setting and programming arising from the substantial reliance of UNDPon GEF funding have received insufficient attention.

5. Capacity for planning and managing environment and energy work varies considerably withinUNDP. Most country offices lack the capacity to engage in high-level policy dialogue with thegovernments.

6. Mainstreaming within UNDP—that is, including environmental considerations in other majorpractice areas such as poverty reduction and democratic governance—has been very limited atany level (headquarters, regional centres or country offices).

7. The role of UNDP in environment and energy within the United Nations system is potentiallycentral but not fully realized.

8. Measuring progress in environment and energy continues to be a challenge.

9. UNDP has taken some important steps to reposition for future work in environment and energy,including seeking more diverse funding sources, although progress seems likely to be limitedunless genuine mainstreaming of environment and energy takes place within the organization.

Conclusions

C H A P T E R 5 . C O N C L U S I O N S7 2

management and headquarters staff have beenenergetic in representing UNDP in a variety ofimportant international environmental fora, althoughleadership within country-level programmes isless evident.

Conclusion 2. UNDP corporate plans and strategies have had little influence on theselection of programme priorities and activitiesfor the country programmes. In practice, theavailability of financial resources from GEF hashad a far greater influence on the priority settingand choice of activities of country offices.

Environment and energy programmes in UNDPhave relied predominantly on outside funding,mobilizing an average of over $200 millionannually from GEF and $30 million from theMontreal Protocol on Substances that Depletethe Ozone Layer during the past five years,supplemented by significant co-financing fromproject partners. The use of core budget resourcesfor environment and energy has been verylimited since about 2000.

UNDP has been effective and efficient inimplementing GEF projects and has made asignificant contribution to its overall success.Using GEF funding, UNDP has built up aspecialized and capable technical team atheadquarters and in the regional centres that is acredit to the organization.

While the success in mobilizing funds is to becommended and the GEF-funded projectsimplemented by UNDP are generally of highquality, the former has steered UNDP’s environ-ment and energy programming towards the so-called ‘global’ environmental issues. In contrast,national sustainable development priorities—such as water supply and sanitation, energyservices, waste management and local and indoorair pollution—have received scant attention.

UNDP has not developed a clear corporateposition, competence or niche for environmentand energy that is independent of its roleimplementing GEF projects. Governments andother national stakeholders generally considerUNDP environment and energy work at the

country level as synonymous with GEF projects.There is little sign that the environment andenergy agenda resulting from GEF priorities isperceived as important or even particularlyrelevant within much of UNDP, which continuesto regard GEF primarily as a potential source offunds for country offices that are highlydependent on their ability to mobilize resources.

Conclusion 3. UNDP responsiveness to nationalpriorities has been uneven. The type andeffectiveness of environment and energy workdone by UNDP vary significantly betweenpartner countries, with some project portfoliosappearing opportunistic and uncoordinated.

UNDP responsiveness to national priorities inenvironment and energy has been varied andlargely dependent upon the type of countriesinvolved. UNDP programmes in the LDCs andsmall island developing states tend to bedominated by support for the preparation ofplans and strategies. Those efforts have been ofvariable quality, rarely provide a sound guide forfuture investments and do not always appearrelevant to the most pressing needs of countries.Countries viewed many such plans as worthwhileonly as a step towards further internationalfunding, little of which has materialized. Thereare indications of a better fit between nationalpriorities in environment and energy with theservices provided by UNDP in the larger, higherincome countries where government environmentprogrammes are able to draw on additionalresources, including in China.

The project-based country portfolios suffer frommany of the problems endemic to developmentprojects, notably a limited focus on longer termimpacts and significant challenges to sustainingbenefits after project completion. There are fewobvious signs of genuine improvements ingovernment capacities for environmental manage-ment over the last decade or two, especially in theLDCs and small island developing states, andlack of capacity is continually cited as a principalbarrier to progress. Significant capacity oftenexists outside government, and this could bedeveloped and utilized more effectively.

C H A P T E R 5 . C O N C L U S I O N S 7 3

Conclusion 4. Imbalances in priority setting and programming arising from the substantialreliance of UNDP on GEF funding have receivedinsufficient attention.

Insufficient efforts have been made by UNDPsenior management at a strategic, global level toencourage staff to identify the key differencesbetween UNDP and GEF priorities and to alertdonor partners that there are important gaps tobe filled. Rather, staff have been encouragedimplicitly, if not pressured, to seek whateverfunding is available and make the most of it,which they have generally done with considerableskill and persistence.

While UNDP has sought opportunities tobroaden access to the significant resources forgreenhouse gas mitigation available throughGEF, more eligible project opportunities areobviously found in relatively well-off industrializedcountries rather than in LDCs and small islanddeveloping states. Opportunities for greenhousegas mitigation in Africa, for example, have so farbeen limited. Partly as a result, the pervasivechallenge of supporting low-cost energy accessfor the poorest countries and communities hastended to receive less attention from UNDP thancarbon mitigation, for which funding has becomeeasier to obtain.

Within UNDP, recent efforts to harmonize GEFwith other environment and energy work areboth commendable and long overdue. Notableprogress has been made at the regional and globallevels. The urgency of such convergence effortshas been fuelled by some uncertainty over thelevel of future UNDP access to GEF resourcesand increased awareness of the need for morediversified funding sources, apparently assumingthat core budget support would remain verylimited. Even so, further integration or conver-gence of GEF teams with the rest of the Energyand Environment Group remains challenging.

Conclusion 5. Capacity for planning andmanaging environment and energy work variesconsiderably within UNDP. Most country offices

lack the capacity to engage in high-level policydialogue with the governments.

With a few notable and impressive exceptions,country office environment and energy teams donot appear strong, and they only rarely partici-pate in high-level policy discourse with govern-ments and other donors on environment andenergy topics outside the areas of specific interestto GEF. Project implementation tends to absorbmost of the attention of country office environmentand energy teams. Overstretched staff and thelimitations of UNDP management capacities meanthat many national stakeholders are dissatisfiedwith project management while headquarters andregional centre staff have also expressed concerns.

Within the country offices, enthusiasm for andeffectiveness in environment and energy workappear to vary significantly depending on theinterest and convictions of the respective residentrepresentatives, which differ substantially.

In some countries frequent turnover amongcountry office staff and among their governmentcounterparts has led to losses of institutionalmemory that undermine learning processes. Thismay be at least partly attributable to the lack ofattractive career paths for technical staff withinthe organization. Country offices are alsoburdened with poor administrative systems andreporting demands from headquarters that areburdensome and shift frequently.

Conclusion 6. Mainstreaming within UNDP—that is, including environmental considerationsin other major practice areas such as povertyreduction and democratic governance—hasbeen very limited at any level (headquarters,regional centres or country offices).

Within countries, there are few indications thatUNDP has played an influential role in helpinggovernments develop and implement soundenvironmental policies of direct relevance to thesectors where economic growth is anticipated(such as agriculture, industry, transport andmining). The emerging UNDP-UNEP Poverty-Environment Initiative holds some promise in

C H A P T E R 5 . C O N C L U S I O N S7 4

this area, but requires careful nurturing andcannot do the job alone.

Adaptation to climate change seems likely toemerge as one of the most prominent issues ininternational development and thus attractsubstantial resources. It seems clear that adaptationmeasures will need to be implemented across abroad spectrum of development sectors, especiallyin the most vulnerable countries, the LDCs andsmall island developing states. So far, UNDP hastreated adaptation as an environmental issue,even though it is very closely linked with poverty,economic development, governance and disastermanagement. UNDP must start to treat adaptationas a multisectoral development issue, not just anenvironmental one, if it is to play a leadership rolein this area.This shift will require genuinely main-streaming adaptation within the organizationthrough effective integration with poverty work.

Advocating for the need to integrate environ-mental thinking and considerations across theentire range of development sectors withingovernments will continue to be a ‘hard sell’ forcountry offices if the case for mainstreamingcannot be made effectively within UNDP.

Conclusion 7. The role of UNDP in environmentand energy within the United Nations system ispotentially important but not fully realized.

UNDP has the potential to play an extremelyimportant role in the area of the environment andenergy in the context of sustainable developmentwithin the United Nations system, where itsoperational and country-driven focus, augmentedby a growing technical capacity in emergingpriority areas, seems broadly complementary tothe normative and scientific focus of UNEP.

The relationship and quality of operationalcollaboration between UNDP and UNEP haveimproved significantly during the last two tothree years, although there continue to bechallenges at the operational levels. There havebeen positive collaborations on the implementationof GEF projects, several new partnerships have

been entered into and the senior management ofboth organizations have sent strong signals ofsupport for further collaboration. A review of longerterm cooperation has revealed that competitionfor resources, incompatibilities in organizationalculture and systems, a lack of clarity over respective roles at the field level and lingeringdistrust among staff are in some cases stillproving hard to overcome.

Further opportunities for enhancing cooperationwith other United Nations agencies active inenvironment and energy, such as the United NationsIndustrial Development Organization, exist.

Conclusion 8. Measuring progress in environmentand energy continues to be a challenge.

Substantial efforts have been and continue to beinvested in results-based management in allUNDP programme areas. Yet UNDP reportingon environment and energy continues to focus oninputs and activities rather than on outcomes.Developing reliable, cost-effective indicators forenvironmental and energy investments, policychanges and capacity development remains aworthwhile but exceedingly difficult goal.Despite some commendable progress withinindividual technical areas, it is evident that noteverything important can be measured, and it isnot easy to establish what would have happenedin the absence of the activity being assessed. Theperformance reporting challenge is compoundedby the fact that UNDP is only one contributor tothe development results of a programme country.The key is to assess carefully the impact andnational results that UNDP helps achieve, and toanalyze and document these in coordination withother partners, rather than trying to separate theimpact of the UNDP contribution. Without clearresults frameworks and reporting on outcomes,UNDP has allowed itself to be drawn into makingrepresentations and commitments on performancethat are unrealistic given its resources.

Conclusion 9. UNDP has taken some importantsteps to reposition for future work in environmentand energy, including seeking more diversefunding sources, although progress seems likely

C H A P T E R 5 . C O N C L U S I O N S 7 5

to be limited unless genuine mainstreaming of environment and energy takes place withinthe organization.

The strategic plan, 2008-2011, presents acoherent set of energy and environmental prioritiesfor UNDP, but is unconvincing insofar as theseare not tied to resource allocations, and the plandoes not acknowledge or react to the major issuesresulting from the high level of dependence onGEF resources.

While the emergence of some new fundingsources is encouraging, the emphasis still appearsto be on pursuing available money rather thanallocating core resources to sets of activities that are consistent with the UNDP mandate. Asa result, there appears to be a real risk that

environment and energy will continue to receiveinsufficient or unbalanced attention, particularlyin the LDCs and small island developing states.

The ability of UNDP to realize exciting newopportunities to work with a more diverse set offunding sources such as carbon market andadaptation funds may be constrained by limitedcapacity in its country offices. The move to a‘One United Nations’ approach may help overcomethose limitations to some extent. Yet even if itachieves greater cooperation with UNEP andother specialized agencies, UNDP will still needto strengthen its in-house environment andenergy capacities if the country offices are toprovide high-quality support to programmedelivery at the country level.

C H A P T E R 6 . R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 7 7

Recommendation 1. UNDP should demonstratemore clearly the pursuit of its defined mandatein environment and energy rather than thespecific priorities of a limited number of majordonors or funds.

n UNDP must formulate its strategic environ-ment and energy priorities in response to itsmission and capabilities, as well as to thenational sustainable development prioritiesof its partner countries. It should start tobuild coherent corporate plans for theenvironment and energy in the context ofsustainable development. UNDP mustmobilize and allocate resources that supportthese plans, rather than choosing prioritiesand activities opportunistically based on theavailability of funding.

n UNDP should reformulate strategic environ-ment and energy priorities, identify resourcegaps and present these to donors. In particular, the plans should (i) identifynational sustainable development prioritiesnot eligible for GEF funding and indicatehow they will be addressed, especially inLDCs and small island developing states;(ii) make overall resource allocations amongcountries and topics based on actual needsand opportunities; and (iii) develop acoherent UNDP-wide energy strategy thatidentifies a realistic niche for the organiza-tion reflecting needs in the poorest countries.

n To monitor progress in the above areas, UNDPshould regularly report on the source andallocation of financial and human resources tothe goals, priorities and programmes adopted.

Recommendation 2. UNDP should assume aproactive role to respond to national priorities.

n UNDP should strengthen its policy dialoguewith programme countries to better identifynational sustainable development priorities,

in particular in LDCs and small islanddeveloping states. It should also advocate andseek opportunities to incorporate environmentand energy concerns into national develop-ment plans and programmes and developcountry-level capacities to work on these.

n In developing the country programmedocument with the governments, UNDPshould conduct periodic stocktaking ofcountry-level environment and energyportfolios. Partners should be invited toparticipate in the reviews. In countries wheregovernmental capacity is limited, UNDPshould encourage collaboration with andenhanced roles for capable individuals andorganizations outside government.

Recommendation 3. UNDP should identify andimplement institutional arrangements andincentives to promote the mainstreaming ofenvironment throughout all major practice areas.

n UNDP should incorporate environment andenergy within its main practices of povertyreduction, democratic governance and crisisprevention and recovery. This will requireleadership and commitment at all levels of the organization, not only within theenvironment and energy practice.

n Mainstreaming will require strong partnershipswith governments, other United Nationsorganizations and other actors active in thefield, such as civil society and academicorganizations which UNDP must foster.

n UNDP should accelerate the transition ofclimate change adaptation from an environ-mental issue to a mainstream developmentconcern that engages the entire organization.Climate change adaptation should be considered as a flagship priority for UNDPas a whole.

Chapter 6

RECOMMENDATIONS

C H A P T E R 6 . R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S7 8

Recommendation 4. UNDP should identifyoptions for strengthening the environment andenergy capacities of the country offices.

n UNDP should intensify existing efforts tofocus resident representatives’ attention onenvironment and energy as a key componentof sustainable development and build theirindividual capacities in these areas.

n UNDP should consider establishing newpositions, upgrading existing posts andincreasing the availability of staff based in theregional centres.

n UNDP should explore improvements inlonger term career opportunities for technicalspecialists currently based at the regionalcentres and country offices.

ANNEXES

A N N E X 1 . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E 8 1

BACKGROUND

Managing environment and energy for sustainabledevelopment is one of the five practice areas ofUNDP under the current multi-year fundingframework (MYFF 2004-07). UNDP has for a long time been involved in the area in differentways but its role and contribution has never been evaluated.

The normative underpinnings place managingenvironment and energy firmly within theconcept of sustainable human development inUNDP. The 1992 Human Development Report1

emphasized the interconnections betweenpoverty, environment and human development.It stated that “one of the greatest threats tosustainable human and economic developmentcomes from the downward spiral of poverty andenvironmental degradation that threatens currentand future generations.” The report furtherrecognized that “the poor are disproportionatelythreatened by the environmental hazards andhealth risks posed by pollution, inadequatehousing, poor sanitation, polluted water and alack of other basic services. Many of these alreadydeprived people also live in the most ecologicallyvulnerable areas.” Outlining the justification forUNDP, a development agency, in the fieldconcluded that:

“…sustainable development implies a newconcept of economic growth – one thatprovides fairness and opportunity for all theworld’s people, not just the privileged few,without further destroying the world’s finitenatural resources and without compromisingthe world’s carrying capacity.” (p. 17)

The concept of intergenerational equity wascentral to the United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development (UNCED), orEarth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.UNDP played an important role in the Summitand was also designated as one of the threeimplementing agencies of the newly createdGlobal Environment Facility (GEF). The purposeof this move was to explicitly mainstream environ-mental concerns into the development policiespursued by UNDP.

The 2004-07 MYFF defines Energy andEnvironment for Sustainable Development2 asthe third Goal for UNDP. The area consists of sixService Lines:

3.1 Frameworks and strategies for sustainabledevelopment – UNDP seeks to develop countrycapacity to manage the environment andnatural resources; integrate environmental andenergy dimensions into poverty reductionstrategies and national development frameworks;and strengthen the role of communities and ofwomen in promoting sustainable development.

3.2 Effective water governance – Supports thesustainable use of marine, coastal andfreshwater resources and improved access towater supply and sanitation services. Thisrequires the appropriate local, national andregional water governance frameworks, andapplication of integrated water resourcesmanagement approaches. This service linealso promotes cooperation in transboundarywaters management.

3.3 Access to sustainable energy services –UNDP supports energy activities to reduce

Annex 1

TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. Human Development Report 1992. Global Dimensions of Human Development, UNDP 1992.2. Second Multi-year Funding Framework, 2004-2007, UNDP.

A N N E X 1 . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E8 2

poverty and achieve sustainable developmentobjectives at the local, national and globallevels. Its work is focused on strengtheningnational policy frameworks to support energyfor poverty reduction; promoting ruralenergy services to support growth and equitywith specific focus on the situation ofwomen; promoting clean energy technologiesto mitigate climate change; and increasingaccess to investment financing for sustainableenergy, including through the CleanDevelopment Mechanism. Activities in theseareas complement and help integrate GEFprogrammes in the field of climate changeand support sustainable livelihoods.

3.4 Sustainable land management to combatdesertification and land degradation – Landdegradation is one of the major causes ofrural poverty, as well as one of its effects.UNDP works to break this cycle and reducepoverty through sustainable land managementand by maintaining land-based ecosystemintegrity, particularly in drylands where thepoorest, most vulnerable and marginalizedpeople live. UNDP assists countries andcommunities in land governance, droughtpreparedness, reform of land tenure andpromotion of innovative and alternativesustainable land practices and livelihoods.Special emphasis is given here to thesituation of rural women. UNDP supportsinstitutional and systemic capacity building toaddress desertification and land degradationfor rural poverty reduction, through local,national and global multi-stakeholderdialogue and action. UNDP promotes themainstreaming and integration of majorenvironmental conventions to reduce landdegradation, help land users adapt to climatechange, and maintain services throughecosystem integrity.

3.5 Conservation and sustainable use ofbiodiversity – Through a close integration ofGEF and core activities, UNDP helpscountries and communities maintain andbenefit from the biodiversity and ecosystemservices that underpin human welfare andeconomic development, and provide the poor

with food security, fuel, shelter, medicinesand livelihoods – as well as clean water,disease control, and reduced vulnerability tonatural disasters. UNDP supports thesustainable management of agriculture,fisheries, forests and energy, and a pro-poorapproach to conservation and protectedareas, biotechnology and the development ofviable, new markets for ecosystem services.

3.6 National/sectoral policy and planning to controlemissions of ozone-depleting substances andpersistent organic pollutants – The MontrealProtocol and GEF programmes of UNDPsupport governments as they develop andstrengthen national and sectoral strategies forthe sustained reduction and elimination ofozone-depleting substances (ODS) andpersistent organic pollutants (POPs).Enterprises are assisted in maintaining theireconomic competitiveness through provisionof best available alternative technologies andopportunities for capacity development.

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION

The overall objective of the evaluation is to assessUNDP’s positioning and contributions tomanaging environment and energy for sustainabledevelopment. The evaluation will be bothretrospective and prospective, i.e. taking stock ofthe past while looking into the future withrespect to UNDP’s role in the field, especiallywith regard to the UN reform process. Whiletaking a longer term perspective on the issue, theevaluation will focus on the period of the past fiveyears since 2002.

The results of the evaluation will be reported tothe UNDP Executive Board, both to ensureUNDP’s accountability for achieving its intendedresults, as well as to guide decision-makingregarding its future niche and strategies in thearea. The evaluation will provide recommendationsfor enhancing UNDP’s performance andstrategic positioning, in particular with regard toits role within the UN system.

A N N E X 1 . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E 8 3

This evaluation will not study or attempt toconclude on the impact of UNDP’s myriad ofindividual projects, programmes, advocacy andpolicy initiatives in environment and energy, norwill it analyze in depth each major technical areaof environment and energy that UNDP is activein. The emphasis, rather, will be on the overalleffort by the organization to optimize its contri-bution in environment and energy within thecontext of sustainable development.

KEY EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS

The essential criteria included under objectives-based evaluations will be addressed, i.e., relevance,effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability:

n Relevance – The rationale for UNDP’sinvolvement in the field viz. other actors andits own mandate.

n Effectiveness – Positioning of UNDP’sprogrammes and whether they have beeneffective in achieving their results.

n Efficiency – Use of approaches, partnerships,resources.

n Sustainability – Whether the results ofUNDP’s work have contributed to sustainablehuman development and whether they havecontributed to lasting change.

METHODOLOGY

APPROACH

This will be an objectives-based evaluation,focusing on whether the programme’s actualoutcomes are likely to achieve its statedobjectives. The evaluation will take into accountthe changing global environmental debate as wellas evolving international concerns and priorities.

DATA COLLECTION

Primary data collection methods will consist of:(a) reviews of key documents and financial

information, (b) country case studies, (c) regionalconsultations, (d) global consultations, and (e) a survey questionnaire. All of these approacheswill focus on the questions listed in the sectionabove. Studies on specific themes of importancewill also be carried out.

DOCUMENT REVIEWS

UNDP’s goals and objectives are elaborated inthe multi-year funding frameworks (MYFFs) for2000-3 and 2004-7,3 the first of which coincidedwith the introduction of results-based managementat UNDP. The two MYFFs, together with theassociated reports on progress and performance,provide the defining overview of objectives,priorities and achievements from UNDPmanagement’s perspective. These will form astarting point for the evaluation.

A variety of other relevant guidance material,practice notes, performance assessments andevaluations on environment and energy havebeen produced by UNDP and will be reviewed.Similarly, applicable evaluations carried out bythe GEF Evaluation Unit will also be reviewed.

Available financial data on UNDP’s environmentand energy programmes will be summarized and analyzed.

COUNTRY CASE STUDIES

A representative sample of countries will beselected based on transparent criteria for either adetailed study involving a country study or for athorough desk study based on a review ofdocuments and evaluations and interviews with keyclaimholders. The main criteria for the selectionof countries will be to achieve (a) a regionalbalance (with emphasis on sub-Saharan Africa),(b) a mix of country typologies (e.g., largecountries, least-developed countries and SmallIsland Developing States) and (c) an overall mixof core UNDP versus GEF funding. Moreweighting will be given to countries that have

3. Environment and Natural Resources was one of six ‘critical areas’ in MYFF 1 and Energy and Environment for SustainableDevelopment was one of five ‘strategic goals’ in MYFF 2.

A N N E X 1 . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E8 4

had a significant UNDP environment and energyportfolio during the second MYFF phase,i.e., since 2004 (the reason why some UNDPcountry programmes have had smaller environmentand energy portfolios will be explored throughother inquiries).

In the full country studies, both qualitative andquantitative approaches will be used. Evaluationmethods will include interviews, focus groupdiscussions, key informant interviews, andreviews of key documents, including outcomeand project evaluations, progress reports andother relevant documents. Each country studywill produce a country report which will alsoundergo stakeholder validation.

A pilot country visit will be carried out to test andprovide an opportunity for the evaluation team toreflect on the approach and key questions.

REGIONAL CONSULTATIONS

Selected regional centres will be visited by theevaluation team to interview UNDP staff and toconsult with partner organizations operating atregional levels.

GLOBAL CONSULTATIONS

Global consultations will focus on UNDPheadquarters staff and management, and organi-zations with overlapping interests and goals withUNDP. These will explore past, present andfuture collaboration with key partners as well asUNDP’s future positioning on environment andenergy within the UN system.

Special attention will be given to UNEP,including the experience to date and future plans forthe joint UNDP and UNEP Poverty-EnvironmentInitiative. Other global consultations shall includeinterviews with selected staff of internationalorganizations, government agencies, the privatesector, national and international NGOs withoverlapping interests, priorities and concerns.These will include the GEF Secretariat, the GEFEvaluation Office, the World Bank, IUCN, theInternational Institute for Environment and

Development (IIED) and World ResourcesInstitute (WRI).

QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

The main purpose of the questionnaire surveywill be to give a range of UNDP staff working onenvironment and energy as well as the residentrepresentatives and country directors an opportunityto provided structured inputs to the evaluationprocess.The survey is expected to capture informa-tion on UNDP’s staff views on UNDP’s role andpositioning for environment and energy fromdifferent perspectives within the organization.

THEMATIC STUDIES

Specific studies will be undertaken on themes ofrelevance to the topic of the evaluation. Thesewill be specified during the inception phase ofthe evaluation and may focus on topics such asenvironmental mainstreaming; country officethematic priorities; the role of GEF in determiningthe direction of UNDP’s work in EE; and/orselected themes in UNDP’s EE work.

EXPECTED OUTPUTS AND TIMEFRAME

The main output will be a final evaluation report,not exceeding 50 pages, excluding annexes. Thefinal evaluation report will synthesize theevidence from all three components of thisevaluation. The findings, conclusions andrecommendations of the evaluation will besummarized in an Executive Summary.

There will also be reports from the countrystudies that will not exceed 30 pages each, notincluding annexes. The country reports will besummarized in an annex to the main report.

The main evaluation report is to be submitted tothe Evaluation Office by the Evaluation TeamLeader no later than 31 March 2008. The finalreport will be approved by the Evaluation Officeand the findings will be presented to UNDP’sExecutive Board in June 2008. The report willalso be circulated to the participating UNDPunits and country offices, partner organizationsand other key stakeholders.

A N N E X 1 . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E 8 5

EVALUATION TEAM

The core evaluation team will comprise threeinternational consultants. One of the internationalconsultants will be designated as the Team Leader,the other two will be designated as PrincipalConsultants. In addition, and depending on theevaluation methodology developed by this coreteam, other consultants (international and national)and advisers may be engaged to contribute to theevaluation process. The Evaluation Office TaskManager will take part in the evaluation as amember of the core team. The team will besupported by one research assistant in theEvaluation Office in New York.

The composition of the team shall reflect theindependence and substantive results focus of theevaluation. The Team Leader and all othermembers of the evaluation team will be selectedby the Evaluation Office taking into account thetechnical qualifications of the consultants in thesubject matter as well as in evaluation.

Each of the core team members will conduct theevaluation in at least two of the selected casestudy countries. The country studies will besupported by the UNDP country offices, whichwill designate a focal point to provide suchsupport in connection with the respectivecountry missions.

ADVISORY PANEL

As part of the consultative process in undertakingthe evaluation, an external Advisory Panelcomprising three individuals from differentcountries, including representatives of interna-tional agencies, will be set up by the EvaluationOffice. The members will be selected on the basisof their recognized stature in the fields ofenvironment, energy, international developmentand evaluation. The Advisory Panel will ensurequality control of the evaluation. It will reviewand provide comments on the draft evaluationreport before submission to the EvaluationOffice. The Evaluation Office will form part ofthe extended Advisory Panel, which will remain

in existence until the completion, disseminationand final review of the evaluation. The inputs andcomments of the Advisory Panel are expected toenrich the process and enhance understanding ofthe issues among a wide audience.

MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

The Evaluation Office will manage the evaluationprocess. It will provide backstopping support and ensure coordination and liaison with allconcerned UNDP units and other key agencies.The Evaluation Office Task Manager willprovide overall guidance, ensure substantivesupervision of all research, and determine theevaluation team composition.

In the case study countries and regions, thecountry offices and regional centres will supportthe evaluation team in liaising with key partnersand in discussions with the team, and makeavailable to the team all relevant evaluativematerial. They will also provide support onlogistical issues and planning for the countryvisits by the evaluation team. In addition, eachcountry office and regional centre will appoint afocal point for the evaluation who will assist inpreparing relevant documents, hiring nationalconsultants, and setting up meetings with allrelevant stakeholders.

The evaluation team will be responsible for thedevelopment, research, drafting and finalizationof the evaluation, in close consultation with theEvaluation Office and other relevant units of UNDP,notably the Bureau for Development Policy.

The Evaluation Office will meet all costs related toconducting the evaluation. It will be responsiblefor the production of the Evaluation Report andpresentation of the same to the Executive Board.

FOLLOW-UP AND LEARNING

This corporate evaluation is expected to helpUNDP identify key lessons on strategic positioningand results that can provide a useful basis forstrengthening UNDP’s role in managing

A N N E X 1 . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E8 6

environment and energy for sustainable develop-ment. It will present good practices from countrycase studies and also draw lessons fromunintended results. The country offices will beable to use the evaluation to strengthen theirstrategic position and vision vis-à-vis partners, whilethe UNDP headquarters and regional centres areexpected to use the evaluation as a tool foradvocacy, learning and buy-in among stakeholders.

The evaluation report and recommendations willbe shared within the organization through avariety of means. The evaluation will bepresented to the UNDP management who willbe responsible for preparing a managementresponse to the findings and recommendations ofthe evaluation. Innovative ways of disseminatingthe evaluation findings will be sought to reach aswide a range of stakeholders as possible.

A N N E X 2 . U N D P P R I O R I T Y S E T T I N G A N D P E R F O R M A N C E R E P O R T I N G 8 7

UNDP’s goals and objectives for the evaluationperiod are identified in two Multi-Year FundingFrameworks for 2000-2003 (MYFF-1) and2004-2007 (MYFF-2). The MYFF approachwas recently succeeded by the strategic plan,2008-11, adopted in late 2007. ‘Environment andNatural Resources’ was one of six strategic resultsframeworks (i.e., priorities) in MYFF-1, and‘Managing Energy and Environment forSustainable Development’ was identified as oneof five core goals in MYFF-2 (hence the title ofthis evaluation). Subsequent achievements inenvironment and natural resources were includedin the Administrators’ reports to the ExecutiveBoard on MYFF-1 and MYFF-2.

MYFF-1

At its introduction, MYFF-1 was described as akey building block in the application of results-based management: “it is against this frameworkof specific organizational goals and intendedresults, reinforced by the business plan, that theresults-oriented annual reports (ROARs) willreview our progress in future.”4

Environment and Natural Resources was one ofsix ‘strategic results frameworks’ (i.e., priorities)in MYFF-1. Related goals and objectives wereintended to “build on the organization’s experi-ence in environmental matters particularly instrengthening national capacity for naturalresources management, and integrating the goalsof global international agreements, conventionsand action plans.”

The main goal was spelled out as “To protect andregenerate the global environment and naturalresources asset base for sustainable humandevelopment,” and three sub-goals were identi-fied: (i) to promote the integration of soundenvironmental management with nationaldevelopment policies and programmes, (ii) tocontribute to the protection and regeneration ofthe environment and to promote access to naturalresources assets on which poor people dependand (iii) to promote equity and burden-sharing ininternational cooperation to protect and enhancethe global and regional environment.

These goals were to be met by “focusing on specificaspects of capacity building,” such as: (i) ratificationof, and national follow-up to, international conven-tions, (ii) legal/regulatory framework and policyimplementation, (iii) national/local programmesfor sustainable environmental management, (iv)management capacity of national environmentalagencies and (v) capacity for local participation inprogramme design/implementation.

MYFF-2

Consistent with its predecessor, MYFF-2 was“designed to be a key instrument for the strategicmanagement, monitoring and accountability ofUNDP.” This MYFF again drew on countryprogrammes’ identification of priority areas, thistime supplemented by three other considera-tions—the MDGs, the Secretary General’sreform programme and the “transformation ofUNDP in terms of operational effectiveness”launched with MYFF-1.5

Annex 2

UNDP PRIORITY SETTING ANDPERFORMANCE REPORTING

4. DP/1999/30.5. DP/2003/32.

A N N E X 2 . U N D P P R I O R I T Y S E T T I N G A N D P E R F O R M A N C E R E P O R T I N G8 8

Enhancing development effectiveness was “at thecore” of MYFF-2, to be achieved by focusing on five “drivers of development effectiveness”:(i) building national capacities, (ii) promotingnational ownership, (iii) advocating and fostering anenabling policy environment, (iv) promoting genderequity and (v) forging strategic partnerships.

‘Managing energy and environment for sustainabledevelopment’ was identified as one of five coregoals in MYFF-2 (hence the title of this evaluation).The others were: achieving the MDGs andreducing poverty, fostering democratic governance,supporting crisis prevention and recovery andresponding to HIV/AIDS. In an effort tosimplify the Strategic Results Framework, whichin the previous MYFF had “comprised six goals,14 sub-goals and 45 strategic areas of support,”the second MYFF had the five goals mentionedabove, but made a reduction in the number ofsub-goals, now termed ‘service lines’, to 30.

The following service lines were identified for energy and environment: (i) frameworks andstrategies for sustainable development, (ii) effectivewater governance, (iii) access to sustainable energyservices, (iv) sustainable land management tocombat desertification and land degradation,(v) conservation and sustainable use of biodiversityand (vi) national/sectoral policy and planning tocontrol emissions of ozone-depleting substancesand persistent organic pollutants.

The Administrator’s 2007 Report to theExecutive Board on MYFF-2 adopted moreassertive language than its predecessor, reportingfor environment the emergence of a “clear role forUNDP.” The report goes on to give an impres-sion of considerable progress in identifyingindicators, targeting, benchmarking and provingimpact of activities, and generally “improvingorganizational effectiveness.” Considerableprogress is noted in contrast to MYFF-1, with its three-tier structure of goals, sub-goals, and 45 strategic areas of support, UNDP was nowengaged in only 30 service lines and supporting90 types of outcome.

RESULTS-ORIENTED ANNUAL REPORT

The ROAR “is UNDP’s principal instrument forreporting on the entire range of activitiesimplemented by operational units. It provides themost comprehensive analysis of the performanceof UNDP and is a key element in meetingUNDP’s commitment to manage for results.” AROAR was required each year from everycountry office during the two MYFF phases. TheROARs related to environment and energyprogrammes should therefore be expected toprovide useful insights on UNDP’s performance.

The first reaction on looking at a country officeROAR for a particular year is that an impressiveamount of performance-related informationappears to have been assembled. There is nodoubt that a considerable level of staff time andeffort has been invested in preparing andupdating these reports. A closer look, however,highlights a number of issues that limit the utilityof this tool in assessing performance:

n Although the ROARs apparently intend todocument the eventual outcome of activities,they are often more focused on immediateoutputs and activities. As a result, they givelittle idea of whether, or to what degree, aparticular outcome has been achieved, andthey are not helpful in identifying longerterm impacts.

n Difficulties also arise from the use ofterminology and a tendency to assume thatthe concepts used are universally clear. Forexample, ‘drivers’ are a key element of theROAR structure although the term does not seem to be used consistently. There isconsiderable vagueness in the use of thefollowing drivers: ‘developing nationalcapacities’, ‘enhancing national ownership’ and‘creating an enabling policy environment’. It isnot clear exactly what these terms mean inoperational terms, how progress might beassessed or what success might look like.The looseness of the terms would be lessproblematic if appropriate indicators ofexpected achievements had been formulated,but this is rarely the case.

A N N E X 2 . U N D P P R I O R I T Y S E T T I N G A N D P E R F O R M A N C E R E P O R T I N G 8 9

n Many other terms included in goals andtargets lack the precision necessary to beuseful in performance assessment, includingfrequent plans to ‘support capacities fordialogue’, to ‘lobby’, to ‘influence’, to‘effectively deliver’, to ‘coordinate’, to‘simplify’, to ‘harmonize’, to ‘promoteeffective and innovative approaches’, to‘empower’, to ‘facilitate’ and so on. Giventhese limitations in defining planned resultsand outcomes, it obviously becomes veryhard to report progress. For example, howshould a respondent answer this: “Did effortsin this area help improve capacities toidentify and coordinate a comprehensiveagenda of specific actions to attain interna-tional, national and local development goalsand targets”? The actual answer given was“yes.” But is this a ‘yes’ to help, improve,identify, coordinate or attain, and at whatlevels? All of this, or just some? And here’sanother example: “Did efforts in this areasupport or allow domestic stakeholdersassume a coordinating role in the formulationand implementation of national, sectoral andlocal development plans and strategies?”.Again, the response is “yes,” but ‘yes’ to what?

n Some activities that may well have beenworthwhile undertakings are sometimesincluded under headings that grosslymischaracterize their scale and potentialinfluence. For example, and this is by nomeans an untypical case, we encountered theoutcome ‘integration of the environment andpoverty into national policies and strategies’with a twofold 2006 target: (i) produce areport on the ‘state of the environment’ and(ii) produce advocacy material ‘for sustainablepastoralism at global levels and commemorationof WCSD nationally’. In fact, this state ofthe environment report was simply the latestin a sequence of similar efforts producedperiodically, while the second seems a tall order,and its value is unclear from the documentation.

How significant a contribution are these tointegrating the environment and poverty intonational policies and strategies? This seemsmore to be a convenient way of categorizingsome modest activities for which fundingwas available.

n Some of these limitations were recognized bythe ROAR compilers and some smallimprovements over time are evident. Forexample, the concise ‘yes’ answers referred toin the previous point were sometimesreplaced in future years by slightly moreinformative responses such as ‘substantialongoing effort’ or ‘some effort’, althoughnotably the language has reverted back tothat of inputs and gives little information onany impacts achieved.

n There is a lack of clear indicators and targetsfor each ‘driver’, with the indicators in useneeding to be much more specific in relationto separate and clearly defined activities,outputs and outcomes. Even applying theseindicators would be hard in many cases due toan almost total lack of baseline information,meaning that any activity and output is likelyto be categorized as an improvement or an ‘outcome’.

n Most activities are undertaken in partnershipwith stakeholders and/or donors, leading todrivers such as ‘forging partnerships forresults’. This naturally makes it hard toisolate and attribute the influence of UNDPor any of the other individual partners, whichof course is a key rationale for partnerships inthe first place. Identifying the actual UNDPimpact on such components as continuingprocesses, dialogue meetings, workshops,formulation of strategies and plans is notoriouslyhard. Yet it raises the key question: Whatwould the situation be if UNDP had nottaken part? Would comparable results oroutcomes still have been achieved due to theactions of the other active partners?

A N N E X 3 . C A S E S T U D Y C O U N T R Y D A T A 9 1

Annex 3

CASE STUDY COUNTRY DATA

Basic Data on the Case Study Countries

Country Population GDP Human Environmental Electricity CO2 Protected(2004) per capita Development Performance Consumption Emissions Areas (as

(PPP US$) Index (2005) Index (2008)* per Capita per Capita % of Total(2005)

Index Rank Score Rank

(kilowatt- (metric tons) Land Area)

of 177 of 149

hours) (2004) (2000) (2004)**

Burkina Faso 13,933,000 1,213 0.370 176 44.3 144 31 0.1 11.5

China 1,312,979,000 6,757 0.777 81 65.1 105 1,684 2.7 11.3

Ecuador 13,061,000 4,341 0.772 89 84.4 22 1,092 1.7 9.3

Kenya 35,599,000 1,240 0.521 148 69.0 96 169 0.3 6.0

Macedonia FYR 2,034,000 7,200 0.801 69 75.1 74 3,863 4.4 7.1

Malawi 13,226,000 667 0.437 164 59.9 121 100 0.1 8.9

Fiji 828,000 6,049 0.762 92 69.7 92 926 0.9 9.9

Samoa 184,000 6,170 0.785 77 - - 619 - -

Sources: UNDP Human Development Report 2007/2008: Population 2004, GDP per Capita 2005, Human Development Index 2005,Electricity Consumption Per Capita 2004. Yale University, Columbia University 2008: Environmental Performance Index 2008. UnitedNations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, The World Bank, World Resources Institute 2005, WorldResources 2005, The Wealth of the Poor: Managing ecosystems to fight poverty: CO2 Emissions Per Capita 2000, Protected Areas 2004

*Note:The EPI focuses on two overarching environmental objectives: 1) reducing environmental stresses to human health and 2) promoting ecosystem vitality and sound natural resource management. These broad goals also reflect the policy priorities of environmental authorities around the world and the international community’s intent in adopting Goal 7 of the MillenniumDevelopment Goals, to “ensure environmental sustainability.”The two overarching objectives are gauged using 25 performance indicators tracked in six well-established policy categories, which are then combined to create a final score. The 2008 EPI deploys aproximity-to-target methodology, which quantitatively tracks national performance on a core set of environmental policy goals forwhich every government can be—and should be—held accountable. By identifying specific targets and measuring the distancebetween the target and current national achievement, the EPI provides both an empirical foundation for policy analysis and a context for evaluating performance. Source: The Environmental Performance Index Executive Summary(http://epi.yale.edu/ExecutiveSummary).

**Note: All areas under IUCN management categories I-V, 2004. Extent of protected areas may include marine components that artificially inflate the percentage of land area protected.

A N N E X 4 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N T H E U N D P C C F 9 3

Annex 4

ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY IN THE UNDP COUNTRY COOPERATION FRAMEWORKS

Focus Areas, Programme Components and Outcomes/Outputs by Country

Country

Burkina Faso

China

Strategic Focus Areas

CPD 2006-2010

n Élargir les opportunitésd’emplois et d’activitésgénératrices derevenus

n Réduire la vulnérabilitéde l’économie rurale etl’insécurité alimentairepour les groupesvulnérables etpromouvoir unegestion durable del’environnement

n Stabiliser/inverser latendance du VIH/SIDA

n Promouvoir la bonnegouvernance

CCF 2001-2005

n Deepening reformsand governance

n Poverty reduction

n HIV/AIDS and development

n Sustainable environment andenergy development

Environment and EnergyProgramme Components

n La gestion durable des res-sources naturelles (eau, sols,forêts) est renforcée au profitdes groupes défavorisés telsque les femmes et les jeunes

n Accroissement de superficiesforestières et de terres aménagées

n Taux de croissance des revenus par an dans les zones rurales

n Environmental governancethat emphasizes buildingnational capacity inimplementing policy, legal andregulatory measures

Planned Outcomes/Outputs

n Les politiques, la réglementa-tion des ressources naturellessont revues

n Les rendements d’uneexploitation rentable durablesdes ressources sont accrus

n Incorporation into micro-economic and sector policiesof approaches to new andrenewable energy sources andend-use energy efficiency thathave been pilot tested andshown to be effective

n Acceptance and use of market-based instruments forsustainable environmentalmanagement, notably in thewestern region

n Strengthened national capacity and empowerment of local stakeholders inenvironmental managementand in promoting biodiversityand conservation

Réduire la vulnérabilité de l’économie rurale et l’insécurité alimentairepour les groupes vulnérables et promouvoir une gestion durable de l’environnement

Sustainable environment and energy development

A N N E X 4 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N T H E U N D P C C F9 4

Focus Areas, Programme Components and Outcomes/Outputs by Country

Country Strategic Focus Areas

Environment and EnergyProgramme Components

Planned Outcomes/Outputs

China cont’d CCF 2001-2005 cont’d

CCF 2006-2010

n Achieving the MDGs and reducinghuman poverty

n Environment andenergy for sustainablehuman development

n Responding toHIV/AIDS and othercommunicablediseases

n Capacity development tonegotiate and implementglobal environmental commitments

n Support improved end-useenergy efficiency in manufacturing industries andbuildings, and enhancedapplication of new andrenewable technologies

n Mainstream biodiversityconservation concerns andactions into the socio-economic sectors and thedevelopment vision

n Strengthen disaster manage-ment efforts for natural andindustrial, particularly miningsector-related, disasters.

n Increased national capacity to address climate change

n Successful phase out of ozone-depleting substances beingused by several enterprises inthe manufacture of solvents

n Voluntary agreements toimprove energy efficiency andreduce CO2 emissions imple-mented by pilot enterprises

n Regulations, codes, guidelines,standards and labels for energy efficiency and conser-vation designed and applied to selected buildings andequipment

n Capacities increased of energyconservation centres to provideenergy efficiency services

n Implementation of the EnergyConservation Law supported

n Commercialization of new andrenewable energy technologiessupported through demonstra-tion and development ofstrategies, guidelines,standards and regulations

n A coordination mechanismamong national/internationalpartners for the effectivemanagement of biodiversitystrengthened in the followingareas: biodiversity conservationand mainstreaming bio-diversity into planning andinvestment processes

n Coordination mechanismamong national partnersstrengthened

n Capacity to analyze and assess risk improved

n Integrated risk management atthe national and communitylevel enhanced

n Existing policies and riskscenarios reviewed

n Local risk reduction plansformulated

Environment and energy for sustainable human development

A N N E X 4 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N T H E U N D P C C F 9 5

Focus Areas, Programme Components and Outcomes/Outputs by Country

Country Strategic Focus Areas

Environment and EnergyProgramme Components

Planned Outcomes/Outputs

Ecuador CCF 1999-2003

n Sustainable development

n Governance

n Poverty eradication

CP 2004-2008

n Combat poverty and create opportunities for all

n Democraticgovernance andtransparency

n Sustainable develop-ment: capacities forthe future

n Establish regulations in thepublic and private sectors toachieve sustainable develop-ment of production potentialand of the country’s naturaland environmental resources

n Provide support to the localand national governmentsthrough the introduction ofnon-polluting technologies,emissions controls andmonitoring of compliancewith environmental standards

n Planning and implementationof environmental manage-ment projects

n Strengthen protected areasand support the developmentof strategies to protect areaswhich are of global importancewith respect to biodiversityand climate change

n Reconstruction of the la Costaregion after El Niño, includingland use planning, develop-ment of catchment basins and reforestation

n Take part in conservationprogrammes in the GalapagosIslands which provide for theneeds of the islands’populationand establish a sustainabledevelopment model

n Continue to promote the rightsof indigenous peoples andtheir active participation in the life of the nation, as in theprinciples of the Indigenousand Tribal Peoples’ Convention(ILO Convention No. 169)

n Strategic areas of support tonational policy, legal andregulatory framework forenvironmentally sustainabledevelopment

n A comprehensive approach to environmentally sustainabledevelopment integrated into national developmentplanning and linked to poverty reduction, includingsustainable energy and majorbasic environmental needs

Sustainable development

Sustainable development: capacities for the future

A N N E X 4 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N T H E U N D P C C F9 6

Focus Areas, Programme Components and Outcomes/Outputs by Country

Country Strategic Focus Areas

Environment and EnergyProgramme Components

Planned Outcomes/Outputs

Ecuador cont’d

Kenya

CP 2004-2008 cont’d

CPAP 2004-2008

n Opportunities

n Empowerment

n Security

n Sustainability

n Institutional framework forsustainable environmentalmanagement and energydevelopment

n Regional cooperation andcoordination in naturalresource management and sustainable energydevelopment

Sustainability

n Integration of the environmentand poverty into nationalpolicies and strategies

n Improve community level of environment and naturalresource governance and useto build capacity and achievelocal and national benefits inbiodiversity and land manage-ment, to support alternativelivelihoods and sustainableincome-generating activities

n Improved capacity of national/sectoral authorities to plan and implement integratedapproaches to environmentalmanagement and energydevelopment that respond tothe needs of the poor

n Improved capacity of localauthorities, community-basedgroups and private sector inenvironmental managementand sustainable energydevelopment

n Improved regional capacity to coordinate and harmonisenational policies andprogrammes for managementof shared natural resources and sustainable energydevelopment

n Policies, thematic action andstrategic plans developed,reviewed, and approved;national plans reviewedthrough the poverty environ-ment initiative and betterdonor coordination achieved

n Overall national policyframework and principles, andspecific framework for forestryand wildlife sectors developed

n Environment managementinformation system, tools forintegration of environmentinto MTEF and PER guidelinesand state of environmentreports developed

n Action plans prepared bycommunities for site-specificprojects on equity, access,sustainable use for generatingbenefits

n Community experiences andexpertise scaled up to supportlocally relevant policy formula-tion in the areas of agriculture,water, biodiversity and solidwaste management

A N N E X 4 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N T H E U N D P C C F 9 7

Focus Areas, Programme Components and Outcomes/Outputs by Country

Country Strategic Focus Areas

Environment and EnergyProgramme Components

Planned Outcomes/Outputs

Kenya cont’d CPAP 2004-2008 cont’d

n Development and distributionof sustainable energy servicesto meet household needs, tooffer income-generating andemployment opportunitiesand to service all sectors of the economy

n Domestification of globalconventions through projectdevelopment to build capacityof institutions at all levels andto support the country toachieve its commitmentstowards global agreements on environment

n Evaluation of land tenuresystems to increase individualand/or joint ownership of landin targeted areas for betterland management

n Improvement of rural liveli-hoods involving diffusion ofappropriate land managementinnovations and techniquesthrough local environmentcommunities and farmer field schools

n Improvement of local resourceuse in arid and semi-arid districtsto combat land degradationand desertification

n Increased sanitation levels and improved livelihoodsthrough sustainable solidmunicipal waste managementacitivites in the urban area,with particular emphasis onthe informal settlements

n Sustainable energy strategies,action plans and pilots thatsupport broader developmentgoals and objectives,including information toolsand development ofstandards and regulations

n Capacity built for investmentand resource mobilization forsustainable energy options

n Intervention projects onclimate change and reductionof greenhouse gasesemissions

n Management of internationalwaters and other water bodiesprojects realized

n Phasing out ozone-depletingsubstances projectoperationalized

n Intervention projects onsustainable management ofbiodiversity and landdegradation realized

A N N E X 4 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N T H E U N D P C C F9 8

Focus Areas, Programme Components and Outcomes/Outputs by Country

Country Strategic Focus Areas

Environment and EnergyProgramme Components

Planned Outcomes/Outputs

Macedonia FYR

CCF 2001-2003

n Local governance and municipaldevelopment

n Environmentalgovernance andsustainable development

CP 2005-2009

n Capacity-building forgood governance andrule of law

n Promoting anenabling economicenvironment forpoverty reduction

n Sustainable develop-ment, environmentalprotection andmanagement ofnatural resources

n Strengthen the policyframework for environmentalmanagement and sustainabledevelopment

n Support the implementationof priority policy goals at thelocal level

n Support government inmaking operational basicenvironmental laws in order toachieve good environmentalgovernance on local andnational level

n Improve the state of environ-ment and livelihoods inwatersheds; put in placeintegrated watershed management and trans-boundary cooperation

n Finalize preparations for anational strategy for sustain-able development to establishand make operational theNational Council forSustainable Development

n Assist government in effortsto meet its commitments tointernational conventions

n Support operational activitiesthat strengthen the capacitiesof local stakeholders, in particular local governments,to promote environmentalprotection and sustainabledevelopment

n Test and develop mechanismsfor local implementation ofpolicy goals

n The four priority areas willsupport: (a) mainstreaming of the national strategy forsustainable development intothe activities of the MunicipalDevelopment Programme;(b) implementation of the solid waste management planin selected municipalities;(c) conservation of biodiversityby reinforcing managementcapacities in protected areasin selected ecosystems and (d) sustainable managementof international waters.

n Policy, institutional, regulatory/financial capacities forenvironment management,energy efficiency in place

n Improved ability to monitorstate of the environment

n Capacities for transboundarycooperation strengthened

n Mechanisms on watershedmanagement supported

Environmental governance and sustainable development

Sustainable development, environmental protection and management of natural resources

A N N E X 4 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N T H E U N D P C C F 9 9

Focus Areas, Programme Components and Outcomes/Outputs by Country

Country Strategic Focus Areas

Environment and EnergyProgramme Components

Planned Outcomes/Outputs

FYR Macedonia cont’d

Malawi

CP 2005-2009 cont’d

CCF 2002-2006

n Poverty ReductionStrategy SupportProgramme

n Poverty reductionthrough goodgovernance

n HIV/AIDS management

CPD 2008-2011

n Environment andenergy for sustainableeconomic development

n Disaster risk reductionand emergencymanagement

n Mainstreaming HIV/AIDS in the nationaland sub-nationaldevelopment agenda

n Responsive governance,human rights and therule of law

n Assist the country in meetingits obligations under environ-ment conventions such as theUnited Nations FrameworkConvention for Climate Change,United Nations Convention onBiological Diversity, UnitedNations Convention toCombat Desertification

n Poverty policy analysis,programming and monitoring:includes environmentalresearch, impact assessmentand monitoring

n Promotion of sustainablesocial and economicempowerment: includes thepromotion of an integratedapproach for improvedenvironmental management,and development of community-level technologies to improvethe living standards of vulnerable groups

n Assist in addressing climatechange and balancing economicgrowth with utilization ofenvironmental assets

n Develop national capacity tomainstream environmentalsustainability concerns andsustainable use of naturalresources in socio-economicsectors and the overalldevelopment strategy

n Community outreachprogrammes developed and implemented

n Capacities to implement theratified multilateral environ-mental agreements/ protocols improved

n The adoption by governmentand endorsement by civilsociety by 2003 of a holisticpoverty reduction programmewith monitorable targets andagreed benchmarks, coveringincome and other identifieddimensions of poverty

n Adoption of community-leveltechnologies for improvedenvironmental protection

n Promotion of sustainable andaffordable energy services

n Enhanced application of newand renewable technologies

n Assistance with multilateralenvironmental reportingrequirements

Poverty Reduction Strategy Support Programme

Energy and environment for sustainable development

A N N E X 4 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N T H E U N D P C C F1 0 0

Focus Areas, Programme Components and Outcomes/Outputs by Country

Country Strategic Focus Areas

Environment and EnergyProgramme Components

Planned Outcomes/Outputs

Pacific Islandstates:FederatedStates ofMicronesia,Fiji, Kiribati,MarshallIslands,Nauru, Palau,SolomonIslands,Tonga, Tuvaluand Vanuatu

Pacific Islandstates: CookIslands, Niue,Samoa andTokelau

n Poverty reduction and the MillenniumDevelopment Goals

n Good governance and human rights

n Crisis prevention andrecovery

n Environment and sustainablemanagement

n Equitable economicgrowth and povertyreduction

n Good governance and human rights

n Crisis prevention and recovery

n Sustainable environ-mental management

n Mainstream environmentalsustainability into regional and national policies andplanning frameworks

n Support Pacific communitiesto effectively manage andsustainably use their environ-ment and natural resources

n The environment-economic-governance nexus demonstratedthrough community-basednatural resource managementand use that supports imple-mentation of gender-sensitivenational policies as well as the mainstreaming of environ-ment into national plans

n National capacity to developand implement environmentalpolicies, legislative and manage-ment frameworks developedand mainstreamed throughnational policies and budgets

n Strengthened capacities forimproved access and manage-ment of multilateral environ-mental agreements

n Sustainable livelihoods ofvulnerable groups, includingwomen and youth,strengthenedthrough institutional supportand leveraging indigenousgovernance systems, tocontribute to sustainableenvironmental management

n An engendered ‘environmenthub’ of international, regionaland Samoa-based expertssupported to provide coordi-nated and gender-sensitivepolicy and technical advice onserious environmentalchallenges facing the Pacific

n Community-based environ-mental management activitiesscaled up in the Cook Islands,Niue, Samoa and Tokelau

n Engendered MDG-basedvillage and local-level plansdeveloped by communities

n Gender-sensitized environmen-tal sector plans mainstreamedinto NDPs/ SDPs in the CookIslands,Niue,Samoa and Tokelau

n Gender analysis conducted onthe differential impacts on menand women of environmentaldegradation and natural disasters

n Energy efficiency improved andrenewable energy use promoted

n Best practices and lessonslearned documented and disseminated

n South-South cooperationenhanced

Sustainable environmental management

Environment and sustainable management

Multi-Country CPD 2008-2012

Multi-Country CPD 2008-2012

A N N E X 5 . C O U N T R Y C A S E S T U D Y S U M M A R I E S 1 0 1

BURKINA FASO

CONTEXT

Burkina Faso is a landlocked country in the Sahelregion of West Africa with a population of 13.7 million (2006) and a GDP per capita of$376 (2004). The country has experiencedeconomic growth averaging 5.5 percent duringthe period 1995–2002 (a real per capita growth of around 2 percent). The economy remainsvulnerable to external shocks and highlydependent on export earnings from cotton,livestock and, increasingly, gold. Agriculturalproduction fluctuates with variations in rainfallwhile the unstable political situation inneighbouring Ivory Coast has forced more than350,000 Burkinabè migrant workers to returnhome in recent years. Poverty levels, estimated at41 percent in 2006, have diminished little inrecent years. The socio-economic group mostaffected by poverty is subsistence farmers,who account for close to 75 percent of BurkinaFaso’s poor.

Burkina Faso’s development is closely linked withmanagement of its natural resources. Agricultureis Burkina Faso’s key economic sector, and it ischallenged by water shortages, soil and winderosion, deforestation and overgrazing. Since2004 the country’s national poverty reductionstrategy has included several environmentalmanagement targets. This national strategyrecognizes that sound natural resource managementis necessary for national economic performancebut does not assign an important strategic role toenvironmental issues. In general, governmentinterest in environmental management challengeshas declined precipitously over the past ten years,as the combined threats of drought and desertifi-cation have diminished.

UNDP’S ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY PROGRAMME

‘Environment and energy’ was identified as oneof five priority areas in UN’s Common CountryAssessment (CCA) in 2000. In the CCA of 2004the environment was assigned a more marginalrole. In the UNDAF for 2006–2010, environmentalconcerns appear as a dimension of one of the fivepriorities areas for the UN team—‘addressingthe vulnerability of the rural economy, foodinsecurity issues and the sustainable managementof the natural resources’.

UNDP’s core funding for environment andenergy in Burkina Faso has been limited,averaging around $900,000 per year during thesecond MYFF, 2004–2006. This is roughly theamount that might be disbursed in Burkina Fasoannually by a mid-sized international NGO.According to country office estimates, the maindonor contributions to environment and energyin 2007 came from the African DevelopmentBank (more than €10 million), the EuropeanCommunity, Italy and Sweden (each withbetween €1 and €5 million) and the World Bank,Belgium, France and Luxembourg (eachcontributing under €1 million).

UNEP and UNDP have begun collaboration inBurkina Faso on their shared multi-countryPoverty-Environment Initiative though theresults have not been significant to date. In thepast, UNDP helped UNEP deliver theBurkinabè component, a regional programme forthe development of environmental legislation.

The country office contributed to the RegionalBureau of Africa’s regional strategy on povertyreduction and management of natural resources.This in turn helped shape UNDP’s countryprogramme in Burkina Faso. On the other hand,

Annex 5

COUNTRY CASE STUDY SUMMARIES

A N N E X 5 . C O U N T R Y C A S E S T U D Y S U M M A R I E S1 0 2

the country office found that headquarters oftendidn’t listen to their views or try to learn from thecountry office’s experience. The country officecomplained that headquarters ‘dumped’ newadministrative and financial systems upon themwithout proper consulting. The country officefound the advice provided by the Dakar RegionalCentre to be of uneven quality and utility.

UNDP’s enhanced interest in environment andenergy issues in the past several years is apparentlythe result of decisions by the management teamin the country office. The growing importance ofthe environment and energy practice area withinUNDP’s Burkina Faso programme is reflected inthe growth of their environmental team, fromone environmental officer in 2003 to six officerstoday. Some major bilateral donors havewithdrawn from the sector over the same period,leaving UNDP to play a more prominent role.

Core environment and energy resources providedhave been widely dispersed thematically andgeographically and devoted to a large number ofsmall projects. The Environmental Team in thecountry office is reshaping its portfolio to focuson fewer, larger projects and programmes, such as theProgramme to Improve Incomes and Food Security(ARSA) and the Programme for SustainableManagement of Natural Resources (PGDRN).

The ‘Multifunctional Platform’ project, a keycomponent of the ARSA Programme, wasoriginally developed by UNIDO. Primarilyintended to address local communities’ demandfor affordable energy, the project employs a simplediesel motor to produce a variety of village-levelservices. The motors provide surroundingcommunities with electricity that they can use,for example, to recharge batteries, to make TV orvideo presentations, to pump water for drinkingor small-scale irrigation or to power localartisans’ electrical tools. Indirect environmentalbenefits are likely as a result of communities’enhanced capacities to invest in improved landmanagement.

The platforms primarily support local women,

helping them with arduous and time-consumingtasks such as husking and hulling grains, grindingand milling grain or shea nuts and so on. Womenrelieved from the most tiring physical tasks havemore time to attend literacy classes, participate morevigorously in public life or generate surpluses to invest in small businesses. Local women’sassociations play a lead role in running the multi-functional platforms; this is aimed at strengtheninggender balance in local communities.

At the time of the evaluation visit, some 220multifunctional platforms had been installed inBurkina Faso, with double this number expectedby the end of 2008. The longer termed ambitionis establish a ‘platform’ in each of the country’s8,000 villages. For this to happen their longerterm financial and institutional sustainabilitywithin the communities will need to be ensured.The first generation of multifunctional platformswas 90 percent subsidized by funds from outsidethe communities where they were installed.These communities’ capacities to sustain theoperations of the multifunctional platforms overthe longer term—particularly to cover the costsof operation, maintenance and eventual newcapital investments—are still uncertain.

GEF funding has played a modest but significantrole in UNDP’s environment and energyprogramming to date. On the one hand, GEFmoney has enabled the country office to providesupport related to international conventions,notably those on biodiversity and desertification.On the other hand, and much more significantly,the GEF Small Grants Programme has providedthe country office with valuable lessons inworking on participatory local community-basedprojects. These are reflected in the countryoffice’s two largest current projects, the ARSAand the PGDRN.

ASSESSMENT OF UNDP’S CONTRIBUTION

An earlier generation of UNDP projects in the1990s included support for natural forestmanagement that appears to have been highlyrelevant and appropriate to Burkinabè needs.This project was funded for more than fifteen

A N N E X 5 . C O U N T R Y C A S E S T U D Y S U M M A R I E S 1 0 3

years and has provided a basis for much ofUNDP’s subsequent efforts in the sector. A morerecent GEF-funded project in support of wildliferanching had only modest results and was notsuccessful in developing sustainable approaches towildlife management involving local communities.

The current generation of environment andenergy projects is largely focused on sustainablelivelihoods approaches and appears well adaptedto Burkinabè needs, though it is too early topredict how much they will contribute to positivelasting change. The high-profile multifunctionalplatforms discussed above, for example, clearlystill need to address issues of longer termfinancial sustainability.

On another level, the Burbinabè governmentappreciates UNDP support, which has enabledthem to draft national environmental plans andstrategies and to deal with a growing number ofinternational environmental conventions, frame-works and protocols.

Yet, as in many countries, there is concern thatthe considerable body of Burkinabè plans andstrategies related to different global environmentalchallenges that have been underwritten byUNDP-GEF over the past decade have not ledto commensurate levels of activities to implementthese strategies. The task of implementing thesestrategies remains overwhelmingly dependent on the availability of ongoing GEF financing,which in the case of Burkina Faso looks likely to be modest.

Most partners in international organizations,national and regional NGOs and the GEF SmallGrants Programme expressed a high level ofsatisfaction with their collaboration with UNDP.They appreciated the leadership UNDP providesto the international community and its supportfor the environment and energy sector in general.

Overall, UNDP’s environment and energyprogramme is relevant to Burkina Faso’s environ-ment and energy needs and is being implementedwith considerable effectiveness and efficiency.

Recent moves towards focusing UNDP supporton fewer, larger projects and programmes arelikely to enhance the sustainability of results.

Where higher level outcomes of UNDP supportcan been identified, these tend to be more of aprocess nature. For instance, UNDP support wasinstrumental in retrofitting Burkina Faso’snational poverty reduction strategy in 2004 tobetter reflect environmental management issues.In general, however, there is a dearth of monitoringand evaluation information and particularly ofhigh-quality information related to the quality of performance or progress towards higher level results.

CONCLUSIONS

Commitment to environmental sustainability isnow part of the country’s political discourse.There are environment offices within keyministries responsible for energy, agriculture,livestock and infrastructure and requirements forsystematic environmental impact assessment ofgovernment initiatives in these sectors. On theother hand, there is considerable concern that Burkina Faso may be moving away fromenvironmental mainstreaming de facto. As thecombined threats of drought and desertificationrecede from public consciousness, the politicaland development agendas focus more exclusivelyon maximizing short-term economic growth.Similarly, the UNDP country office is notmainstreaming environmental concerns in itsown governance programme.

UNDP’s greatest strength in Burkina Faso is itshuman resources, in particular a senior Burkinabèofficer who is well known and experienced, witha relevant professional background and respectedamong his peers. A stable, knowledgeable,long-term presence in the sector gives UNDP a voice that most international partners—especially those with resources as modest as thoseof UNDP—do not have.

UNDP’s biggest weaknesses are first, the modestand sometimes hard-to-predict nature of thefinancial support it has to offer and second, the

A N N E X 5 . C O U N T R Y C A S E S T U D Y S U M M A R I E S1 0 4

cumbersome financial management proceduresassociated with the ‘direct procurement’ approachcurrently used. For example, the country office iscounting on support from the GEF-financedCountry Partnership Programme to help themlobby for the systematic integration of sustainableresource management practices into BurkinaFaso’s rural development policies and programmes.Yet they worry that by the time this support isavailable in the country, the whole approach mayneed to be redesigned to reflect the steadilyevolving situation.

CHINA

COUNTRY CONTEXT

China is immensely important for the globalcommunity and the global environment. China’s1.3 billion people constitute over 20 percent ofthe global population, and its rapidly growingeconomic and political role in the world make thecountry’s sustainable development choices andstrategies particularly important for the globalcommunity. Since the country began opening its economy in the 1980s, China has seenextraordinary economic growth, sustained atclose to 10 percent annually for most of the pastquarter century. In late 2007, China overtookGermany as the world’s third largest economyand is expected to become the world’s largesteconomy by 2020. Yet hundreds of millions ofChinese citizens are still faced with chronichardship. Despite the country’s unprecedentedgrowth in recent decades, the HumanDevelopment Report 2007/2008 ranked Chinaonly 81 of 177 countries, with a ‘medium’ HumanDevelopment Index of 0.78.

China’s sustained rapid economic developmenthas had numerous negative consequences for theenvironment at local, national and global levels.Crucial natural resources, such as water, land andclear air are becoming scarce, especially in thecoastal provinces and rapidly expanding urbanareas. China is an increasingly prolific consumerof energy, contributing to severe air, water andsoil pollution and rapidly rising greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change is recognized

as a major threat to China’s future economicdevelopment due to its likely effects on waterresources, agricultural land productivity andcoastal zones. These issues in turn are linkedexplicitly to poverty, especially in rural areaswhere livelihoods remain highly dependent onnatural resources and people lack the capacitiesneeded to adapt to a changing climate. Rapidgrowth of China’s agriculture and industry alsothreatens biodiversity in this mega-diverse country.

Minimizing the environmental impacts ofeconomic development—particularly in theenergy, water and transport sectors, in both urbanand rural areas—will be one of China’s keyenvironmental management challenges for thefuture. Urban environmental management problems(including air pollution and water pollution,collection and treatment disposal, includingrecycling and reusing wastes) will be especiallydaunting. Of the 20 most polluted cities in theworld, 16 are located in China. Experts believethe declining availability of water for domestic,agricultural and industrial consumption— Chinahas just 8 percent of the world’s fresh water—could well become a major environmental crisisfor 21st century China.

UNDP’S ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY PROGRAMME

UNDP’s environment and energy strategy inChina is focused on helping the country achievethe goals of its 11th Five-Year Plan while also improving compliance with MultilateralEnvironmental Agreements such as those relatedto climate change, biological diversity, persistentorganic pollutants and the protection of theozone layer. China’s 11th Five-Year Plan(2006–2010) sets ambitious targets for achievingenergy security and reducing greenhouse gasemissions. It focuses on improving industrialenergy efficiency, expanding use of renewableenergy for power generation and povertyreduction, increasing China’s share of the globalcarbon market and enhancing the availability ofcommercial finance for locally made renewableand alternative technologies. The plan furtheremphasizes the mainstreaming of biodiversityconservation into poverty reduction, in particular

A N N E X 5 . C O U N T R Y C A S E S T U D Y S U M M A R I E S 1 0 5

in production landscapes for livelihoods and rural development. Reflecting rising concernsabout environmental health hazards, the planalso calls for better management of hazardouschemicals. Overall, it emphasizes the importanceof environmental governance, including policyand legal measures, enhanced citizen awarenessand participation in decision making andimproved capacities.

UNDP’s programme in China responds to thepriority areas identified in China’s latest 5-yearplan. The obvious overlap with the GEF focalareas, notably climate change, biodiversity andchemicals, allows UNDP to tap into GEFfinancial resources. The current programme isorganized into the following areas: (i) ClimateChange and Sustainable Energy, (ii) Biodiversityand Ecosystem Services, (iii) EnvironmentalGovernance and (iv) Toxic Chemical Management.Issues related to water and natural resourcesmanagement, mining and disaster reduction areof growing interest for UNDP in China.

ASSESSMENT OF UNDP’S CONTRIBUTION

Since the 1990s UNDP has been playing asignificant role in building capacity andproviding technical assistance on environmentalmanagement and sustainable development inChina. UNDP has mobilized $467 million forthe environment and energy sector, much ofthese funds channeled from the GEF and MPF.Though UNDP’s TRAC funds in China havebeen limited, the organization has been able tomake a significant contribution in China’sachievement of its environment and energy goals,including its national energy policy.

From the point of view of the global environmentand sustainable development, China is arguablythe most important country in the world. Inresponse, UNDP’s own environment and energyprogramme in China is its largest worldwide.The GEF as well has allocated more resources tomitigating climate change in China thananywhere else, much of this passing through theUNDP country office. In recent years, UNDPhas also invested considerable human resources

in China, more than doubling the size of itscountry office environment and energy teambetween 2005 and 2007.

UNDP’s role in China is well defined and theprogramme is nationally driven, reflecting theGovernment of China’s priorities. UNDP’sstrategic positioning in China cannot be judgedon the same terms as in other countries. In thisgiant, centrally planned country, the governmenthas a high degree of control over its developmentpriorities and how environmental and energypolicies relate to these. Programmes and prioritiesof international organizations do not driveChinese policy; international projects do nothave direct policy impacts. The role of suchprojects is rather to introduce new concepts,such as energy efficiency or market-basedmechanisms, which can be piloted and tested.Those deemed promising may be replicated bythe government, and the successful ones maycontribute to policy development. Policydevelopment in itself is the government’s role.UNDP does not provide direct inputs to Chinesenational policy formulation, but UNDP serves asan important channel of information andknowledge about internationally availableconcepts, ideas and technologies that are relevantto China’s policy development.

This is not to say that UNDP cannot have animpact on environment and energy issues inChina. In consultation with the Government ofChina, UNDP can select areas where it cancontribute by bringing in international experienceand approaches and testing their application inthe Chinese context. Examples include the ‘EnergyEfficient Refrigerators’ project and the ‘EnergyConservation and Greenhouse Gas EmissionsReduction in Chinese Township and VillageEnterprises’ project. UNDP’s global knowledgenetworks are a critical asset in these undertakings.

UNDP can and does enhance the impact of itswork through carefully selecting which partnersto work with. For example, well-positionednational organizations such as the NationalDevelopment and Reform Commission (NDRC)

A N N E X 5 . C O U N T R Y C A S E S T U D Y S U M M A R I E S1 0 6

and State Environmental Protection Administrationcan ensure that lessons from projects are fed into policy-making processes. A key example isthe End-Use Energy Efficiency Programme with NDRC.

Another role for UNDP is more symbolic.Cooperating with authorities, especially at locallevels, can provide an added level of legitimacy toits projects and thus help UNDP to attractadditional funding, partnerships and attention.Similarly, it can promote alternative ways ofdesigning and implementing projects andinvolving partners, including NGOs or theprivate sector, which can eventually demonstratetheir added value to Chinese policy makers.Examples of this approach include the ‘ChinaGreen Lights’ programme and the ‘CapacityBuilding for Rapid Commercialization ofRenewable Energy’ project. Both of thesesuccessfully introduced market-based instrumentsinto the planning and implementation processesby exposing participants to international experiences and providing training to nationaland local officials.

UNDP’s Environment and Energy programmehas been effective, particularly in helping establishan energy policy coordination mechanism as wellas pilot renewable energy technologies. UNDPplayed a unique role in developing capacitiesamong local entrepreneurs, bringing interna-tional experiences and an understanding of globalconcerns for environment and energy.

The efficiency of UNDP-funded projects issometimes adversely affected by a lack of therequired level of technical capacities withinUNDP’s counterpart agency, the ChineseInternational Centre for Economic and TechnicalExchanges (CICETE).

UNDP’s environment and energy programmesare sustainable wherever they are closely alignedwith national priorities and policies. For example,the energy efficiency programmes are closelyaligned with the country’s mainstream energypolicy and priorities and were highly sustainable

as a result. The wetlands biodiversity programme,on the other hand, was not.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial contributions from UNDP’s corefunding to environment and energy activities inChina have been low. It would be desirable forUNDP to provide more TRAC funding as ademonstration of its corporate commitment toenvironmental sustainability. Nevertheless,overall funding mobilized by UNDP Chinathrough the GEF, Montreal Protocol, the privatesector and, most importantly, governmentcounterpart contributions has enabled thedevelopment and implementation of a number ofsuccessful projects. UNDP has established aniche for itself and the necessary funding andleverage to play a lead role in coordinatingenvironment and energy activities within the UNsystem in China. What has been missing is thedeployment of truly high-level expertise in theUNDP country office to enable UNDP toeffectively engage in policy dialogue with theChinese government and other internationalpartners on key environment and energy issues.The absence of this capacity in the country office is recognized as a weakness by both thegovernment and UNDP.

From a corporate point of view, UNDP Chinashould document Chinese experiences and transferits successful practices to other programmecountries through the UNDP developmentnetwork. Again, to effectively support this kindof function, the country office will need tofurther develop its analytic capacities.

ECUADOR

CONTEXT

Ecuador is a middle-income country on thePacific coast of South America characterized byhigh levels of ecological and ethnic diversity.Economic growth in recent years has been rapidbut significant inequalities in income distributionand living standards remain between rich and poor,urban and rural, and different ethnic groups.

A N N E X 5 . C O U N T R Y C A S E S T U D Y S U M M A R I E S 1 0 7

The country has gone through several bouts ofpolitical instability over the past decade. Thesehave weakened the institutional capacities of thecentral government, affecting its performanceand coordination.

The expansion of the agricultural frontier intoeastern Ecuador’s tropical forest regions withhigh biodiversity values, the intensive bananacultivation in the western coastal plains and thegrowth of the petroleum extraction industry haveall had significant environmental impacts inrecent decades. The National Development Planfor 2007-2010 is Ecuador’s first national plan inten years. Its objectives include a healthy andsustainable environment, and it guaranteescitizens’ access to safe water, air and soil. The newplan highlights the following environmentalmanagement priorities: (i) conservation andsustainable use of biodiversity; (ii) integrated forestmanagement; (iii) integrated watershed planning;(iv) development of a response to climate change;(v) sustainable and renewable energy development;(vi) a consolidated institutional framework forenvironmental management and promotingsustainability policies; (vii) pollution preventionand control; (viii) improved state management ofsocio-environmental conflict and (iv) reducedpublic risk and vulnerability to natural disasters.

UNDP’S ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY PROGRAMME

UNDP’s 2004-2008 Country Programme ActionPlan (CPAP) targets three related areas:

n Incorporating sustainable developmentprinciples into national/local policies andprogrammes,

n Improving the availability and access ofenvironmental goods and services, and

n Supporting the prevention and managementof natural disasters.

These areas are aligned to the core goal of ‘Energyand Environment for Sustainable Development’set forth under UNDP’s 2004-2007 Multi-yearFunding Framework, where the following outcomes

are also foreseen:

n Improved capacity of national/sector author-ities to plan and implement integratedapproaches to environmental managementand energy development that respond to theneeds of the poor;

n Improved capacity of local authorities,community-based groups and the privatesector in sustainable energy development; and

n Improved capacity of local authorities,community-based groups and the privatesector in natural resources and environmentalmanagement.

An environment working group, one of severalinter-institutional technical groups created byUNDP Ecuador, is chaired by the country office’ssustainable development programme manager.This arrangement has created opportunities forinter-agency collaboration among several UNagencies and the GEF Small Grants Programmein the recently approved Yasuní Reserve project.An environmental ‘Response Fund’ managed byUNDP’s Sustainable Development Unit and theGEF-SGP has been incorporated into UNDP’sextensive Northern Border Peace and DevelopmentProgramme. UNDP is also producing a method-ological guide on gender that is based on oneused by GEF Small Grants Programme. All thesedevelopments reflect the gradual shift towards the‘one UN’ approach that is expected to continue inthe next programme cycle.The government’s decisionto cease channelling public funds throughUNDP—combined with a gradual decline indonor resources due to Ecuador’s status as an oil-exporting, middle-income country—mayencourage further collaboration among UNagencies to rationalize available resources.

UNDP is gradually reducing its focus on theGalapagos Archipelago and will be focusing moreresources on the mainland during the nextcountry programme cycle. This shift is alreadyvisible with new projects like ‘Adaptation toClimate Change through Effective WaterManagement’ and ‘Creation of the Yasuní

A N N E X 5 . C O U N T R Y C A S E S T U D Y S U M M A R I E S1 0 8

Reserve’, which enhance the relevance ofUNDP’s environment and energy programme tomainland Ecuador while strengthening UNDP’salready good relations with the Ministry ofEnvironment. This shift towards more projectson the mainland will also expand opportunitiesfor inter-agency collaboration.

UNDP core resources represented less than 3 percentof total UNDP expenditures in their environmentand energy (sustainable development) programmebetween 2004 and 2006. These ‘non-core’resources for environment and energy activitieswere important for the overall UNDP Ecuadorprogramme as well, representing 93 percent of allthe non-core and non-government resourcesavailable to the country office. Of this, some 80percent came from the GEF.

ASSESSMENT OF UNDP’S CONTRIBUTIONS

Two-thirds of the current environment andenergy budget commitments are focused on theGalapagos Islands. This reflects a long-standingUNDP recognition of the archipelago’s global

importance as a biodiversity site. GEF-fundedprojects support biodiversity conservation andthe development of renewable energy sources,while UNDP’s core projects there help close thegap between conservation and development, withsupport for institutional coordination andintegrated regional planning.

The most important outcome achieved to date inUNDP’s environment and energy programmehas been in the area of controlling invasivespecies in the Galapagos. Other significantimpacts foreseen are related to renewable energygeneration and sustainable financing for invasivespecies control. At the central government level, UNDP’s support to the Ministry ofEnvironment on strategic planning, projectdevelopment and stakeholder consultations ismuch appreciated by the government.

The links between the sample environment andenergy projects reviewed by the evaluation andEcuador’s National Development Plan policypriorities are summarised in Table A1.

Table A1. Ecuador’s National Development Plan Policy Priorities

National EE Policy Priority

Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity

Integrated forest management

Integrated management of water resourcesthrough watershed-based planning

Prevention and mitigation of the effects of climate change

Renewable energy development and efficiency

Articulating environment with social and economic policies

Improving state management in areas of social and environmental conflict caused by extractiveactivities

Effective risk management and reduced vulnerability to natural disasters

Relevant UNDP Projects

n Control of Invasive Species in Galapagos n GEF Small Grants Programme

n Yasuní Reserve n GEF Small Grants Programme

n Adaptation to Climate Change through Effective Water Management

n Adaptation to Climate Change through Effective Water Management

n Second National Communication for Climate Change

n Renewable Energy for Galapagos – ERGAL

n Galapagos 20/20n PROINGALA

n Yasuní Reserven Environmental Strategy for

Sustainable Development

n Galapagos Oil Spilln Adaptation to Climate Change through Effective

Water Management

A N N E X 5 . C O U N T R Y C A S E S T U D Y S U M M A R I E S 1 0 9

CONCLUSIONS

UNDP’s environment and energy projects arerelevant to Ecuador’s national environment andenergy priorities—particularly those related tobiodiversity conservation and renewableenergy—as defined in their 2007-2010 NationalDevelopment Plan and other policy documents.

The effectiveness and sustainability of UNDPEcuador’s environment and energy projects andprogrammes varies. They are influenced by lowinstitutional capacity, inadequate coordination,past periods of political instability and systemicefficiency constraints within UNDP. Environmentand energy projects, particularly in Galapagos,have been vulnerable to administrative delaysthat in some cases have led to increased costs andaffected performance.

Improvements in the effectiveness, efficiency andsustainability of UNDP’s environment andenergy programmes in Ecuador will require (i) more attention to developing capacities ofnational partners, (ii) a shift from short andmedium-term projects towards support for longerterm processes, (iii) streamlined administrativeprocedures and quicker response times and (iv) greaterenvironment and energy staff involvement inprogramme management, strategic planning,field monitoring and knowledge management.

KENYA

COUNTRY CONTEXT

Kenya is endowed with a diversity of landscapes,ranging from mountains to savannah grasslands,arid and semi-arid lands and a coastlinebordering the Indian Ocean. The Great RiftValley runs the length of the country, withmountain ranges on the western and easternfringes and lakes on the valley floor. Kenya’spopulation of 32 million is unevenly distributed,ranging from about 300 people per km2 in theareas with high agricultural potential to as low as3 people per km2 in the arid and semi-arid lands.Less than 20 percent of the country is classifiedas having high agricultural potential while aridand semi-arid lands and lakes account for the rest.

Half of Kenya’s population lived below thepoverty line in 2005. The majority of Kenyans arehighly dependent on natural resources for theirlivelihoods. The government’s ‘Economic Strategyfor Growth and Wealth Creation in 2003-2007’set out its poverty reduction strategies, and anational ‘Vision 2030’ lays out an ambitiouseconomic development plan based on compre-hensive industrialization.

Over the past decade Kenya has felt the impactsof natural resource mismanagement in the formof diminished hydro-electrical generationpotential. This has been the result of forestdestruction in the watersheds of major dams,especially around Mount Kenya. Water suppliesto the cities have also been disrupted. Droughtshave become more prolonged and severe, withensuing rains coming more often in the form ofdestructive flash floods. Growing pollution ofLake Victoria has contributed to the proliferationof invasive water hyacinth that threatens thefishing industry and water transportationnetworks. This pollution has also resulted in fishproducts from Africa’s largest lake being bannedin the European Union, with a predictablynegative impact on the newly emerged fishexport industry.

Kenya has formulated a series of policies and lawsto improve its natural resource management inrecent years. These followed a period of unprece-dented environmental degradation in the 1990s.Policies and laws on wildlife, arid and semi-aridlands and land use are currently being reviewed.The government has ratified the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD), the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC), the United Nations Convention toCombat Desertification (UNCCD) and theConvention on Persistent Organic Pollutants(POPs). National priorities and plans forimplementing these conventions have beendeveloped through GEF enabling activities,mainly with UNDP as the implementing agency.

UNDP’S ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY PROGRAMME

The UNDP country office environment and energyunit was set up in 1999 as a single programme

A N N E X 5 . C O U N T R Y C A S E S T U D Y S U M M A R I E S1 1 0

officer supported by junior professional officersand interns. A further programme officer and anassistant joined in 2002, and there have usuallybeen at least two local UN Volunteers as well. Aselsewhere, the Small Grants Programme (SGP) isrun separately by a national coordinator supportedby several support staff.

The office has seen 49 projects approved since1999 with a total budget of $32 million, consistingof $4 million from TRAC funds, $12 millionfrom GEF and $16 million in co-financing. Fivefull-sized GEF projects account for $20 million,or over 60 percent of the total budget. Theremaining $12 million in the portfolio finances alarge number of small projects, including variousGEF enabling activities and support for NGOs.An explicit shift was made during the implemen-tation of the 2004–2008 Country Programme.The country office now aims to work more withNGOs to generate faster results and to moreeffectively reach communities. Several UNDPprojects have demonstrated both the feasibilityand the importance of NGO-government collaboration. For example, support for theKenya Forest Working Group helped this activistorganization play a key role in forest protectionin a region where degradation was reachingcritical proportions.

Project management has proven very time-consuming for the environment and energy team,who have consequently had less opportunity tofocus on more strategic or policy-related issues.Inefficient administrative systems within UNDPhave led to significant delays in processingtransactions and transferring funds, causingconsiderable frustrations among project partnersand stakeholders. The country office team hasbeen obliged to focus more on project proceduresand mechanisms than on working closely withgrantees and executing agencies to enhanceimpacts and results.

The scattered nature of the many small projectsalso seem to lead to a risk of overlap with otherdonor initiatives or situations where UNDP’srole is reduced to that of a subcontractor to larger

projects or programmes, which may hamperUNDP’s ambitions of being the UN organizationfrom which the government seeks advice onenvironmental issues. This is not a clear-cut case,however, as some of the smaller projects wereinfluential, helping build capacity outsidegovernment, and UNDP (as an institution, notjust the country office) needs to learn how tomanage these more efficiently. It would beunfortunate if UNDP was to move away fromNGO support when government capacity andcommitment seems insufficient to delivereffective larger projects.

ASSESSMENT OF UNDP’S CONTRIBUTION

The overall quality of UNDP projects in Kenya isdifficult to measure or assess. The office deservescredit for establishing an elaborate system formonitoring project progress. The office isstruggling to demonstrate outcomes or impacts;however its reports focused mostly on activitiesand outputs. The overall portfolio, while itcontains some worthwhile projects, lackscoherence and is clearly driven largely by theavailability of GEF funding.

There are high levels of dissatisfaction amongpartners due to (i) frequent funding delays that jeopardize communities’ trust and UNDP’scredibility, (ii) frequent and sudden shifts and turns,for example, in budgets and reporting require-ments, (iii) a lack of sustained technical input and(iv) poor communications. These challengesundermine the trust needed for solid partnerships,such as little or no feedback on progress, no discus-sion or information on budget cuts, no informationon significant events taking place in the countryoffice, or frequent summons to meetings that areperceived by partners as sudden ‘ambushes’.

The SGP is highly regarded by stakeholders inKenya. Established in 1993, by the end of 2006 ithad supported over 200 projects through NGOsand community-based organizations, with grantsfrom $20,000-30,000. As elsewhere, the SGP inKenya is often seen as the visible face of not justUNDP but the GEF in the environment field,since the larger projects tend not to be as visible

A N N E X 5 . C O U N T R Y C A S E S T U D Y S U M M A R I E S 1 1 1

at local levels. Increasing media interest inenvironmental issues has resulted in significantcoverage of Kenya’s SGP projects in the national,regional and international media. Two GEFmedium-sized projects have been developed by scaling up earlier SGP grants: ‘MarketTransformation for Efficient Biomass Stoves forInstitutions and Small and Medium-ScaleEnterprises’ and ‘Developing Incentives forCommunity Participation in Forest Conservationthrough the Use of Commercial Insects inKenya’. Notwithstanding these examples, SGPusually operates independently from the countryoffice, making their relationship difficult andimpeding their ability to pursue opportunities forsynergies. SGP’s experience working with localcommunities could provide useful inputs to otherUNDP programmes, not just in the environmentfield but also in poverty and livelihoods.Furthermore, Kenya is one of the SGPprogrammes faced with the prospect of gradua-tion—a polite term for a discontinuation of GEFfunding—and there is a risk that this valuableprogramme could be lost if the country officedoes not begin to play a more proactive andsupportive role.

Institutionally, UNDP has played a role in theestablishment of the National EnvironmentalManagement Authority and, more recently, theKenya Forest Service. Cooperation with UNDP’sDrylands Development Centre has contributedto the development of strategies for coping with drought. A National Cleaner ProductionCentre was established in 2003 in collaborationwith UNIDO.

UNDP support has contributed to new legislationand policy shifts in the environment sector,notably the 1999 Environmental ManagementCoordination Act, which provided the initialnational framework for environmental management,even though it has not been effectivelyimplemented. More recently UNDP hascontributed to the preparation of nationalforestry and energy acts. An inaugural nationalState of the Environment report was supportedin 2003. It is hard to accurately assess howimportant UNDP’s role was in these interventions.

Kenya has been host to one of three pilots for theUNDP-UNEP Poverty-Environment Initiative(PEI) that aims to mainstream environmentalconsiderations into the development programmesin all sectors. The PEI is emerging as a criticaltest case for the UNDP-UNEP partnership.Despite strong support from the top leadershipof both agencies, coordination between UNDPand UNEP is proving to be a practical challengethat is hampered by system and procedureincompatibilities as well as staff reluctance inboth agencies.

UNDP also helped establish and has chaired theGovernment of Kenya’s joint consultative meetingson environment. But UNDP Kenya does not seemconvincingly integrated with donor harmonizationefforts or efforts to establish Joint AssistanceStrategies, and it does not seem actively involvedin the mainstream development discourse. Forthe most part UNDP is perceived by the otherdonors more as an implementing agency than apolicy influence.The perpetual demands of projectmanagement make it hard for UNDP to consis-tently and significantly influence government.Other donors and government stakeholderswould like to see UNDP focus its efforts more onthe policy dialogue and capacity building, ratherthan managing large portfolios of small projectswhich, apart from SGP, does not seem to beUNDP’s comparative advantage.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, UNDP is a valued development partnerfor both government agencies and NGOs inKenya. UNDP is appreciated by its partners inKenya as an effective mobilizer of funds, a neutralbroker and, in a few cases, a source of technicalsupport and policy influence. NGOs in particularare more positive than government partners,citing several examples of project replication orscaling up, effective organizational capacitybuilding and strong outreach achieved throughUNDP support. UNDP staff are generallyrecognized as competent, but overwhelmed byproject implementation demands.

A N N E X 5 . C O U N T R Y C A S E S T U D Y S U M M A R I E S1 1 2

FYR MACEDONIA

CONTEXT

The Former Yugoslav Republic (FYR) ofMacedonia is a relatively small country coveringroughly 25,000 square kilometres with a populationof just over two million. It is a young countrywith a long history in a turbulent region. Like its western Balkan neighbours, FYR Macedonia’soverarching goals today are EU accession andregional security. The many challenges of EUaccession include the need to greatly enhancelocal environmental management capacities.

The current priorities of FYR Macedonia’sMinistry of Environment are solid wastemanagement, water and waste management andclimate change. UNDP helps them face theseissues as well as helping them address short-termenvironmental crises and the longer termchallenge of developing decentralized capacities.

UNDP’S ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY PROGRAMME

Environment has been a focus of UNDP supportsince their first Country Cooperation Frameworkin 1999-2001. Not long after UNDP opened itsoffice in FYR Macedonia it launched the innova-tive ‘Municipal Employment AssistanceProgramme—Clean and Green Macedonia’project. With cost-sharing support from Norwayand Sweden, the project started in the two majortowns of Skopje and Tetovo. By 2001 the projecthad expanded to include FYR Macedonia’s 80largest municipalities. The project providedemergency employment by recruiting unskilledworkers to clean up illegal dump sites, streambeds and river banks, to properly dispose of solidwastes and to rehabilitate urban parks and othergreen spaces. These activities reflected the priori-ties of the country’s first National EnvironmentalAction Plan, which had identified solid wastemanagement as the country’s top environmentalpriority. Not incidentally the project also createdsome 7,400 months of temporary employment ata time of severe economic downturn.

In the subsequent period of 2002–2007 UNDPhelped FYR Macedonia to:

n Introduce integrated watershed managementin the Prespa Lakes watershed;

n Mitigate and prevent pollution at industrialpollution ‘hotspots’;

n Meet its obligations under multilateralenvironmental agreements;

n Develop its capacities to respond to naturaland man-made disasters;

n Develop its capacities for crisis management;

n Develop national and local environmentalmanagement capacities;

n Develop a national sustainable tourismstrategy; and

n Launch an environmental small grantsprogramme that helps communities to addresslocal environment and development challenges.

UNDP’s core resources in FYR Macedonia aremodest in comparison with larger internationalpartners. UNDP TRAC funds spent or availablefor environment and energy programmes in theperiod 2002–2010 amounted to $950,000 by late 2007, or less than 15 percent of the totalenvironment and energy funding for this period.Relatively abundant GEF funding—accountingfor around 60 percent of funds spent or availablein the same period—has had a considerable effect on the character of the overall UNDPprogramme. Much of this programme is concen-trated around an international waters projectfinanced by GEF in the Prespa Lakes region.

The integrated watershed management programmearound the Prespa Lakes accounts for the lion’sshare of the current UNDP environment andenergy budget in FYR Macedonia. Of a budgetof approximately $6.7 million spent andprojected for the period 2002–2010, approxi-mately $4.7 million or 70 percent is committedto the Prespa Lakes region. Of this $4.7 million,$3.5 million are GEF funds and the remaining$1.2 million are from the Swiss government.

A N N E X 5 . C O U N T R Y C A S E S T U D Y S U M M A R I E S 1 1 3

The GEF-financed project serves as a hub for anumber of complementary projects in the PrespaLakes region of FYR Macedonia, Albania andGreece. Home to a unique flora and fauna,surrounded by wetlands rich in endemic speciesand an important breeding and feeding site forvulnerable bird species, the region is also threat-ened by unsustainable natural resource manage-ment and land use practices. The UNDP-GEFproject aims to ensure a well-coordinated andintegrated regional approach to ecosystemmanagement. The goal is to conserve globallysignificant biodiversity by reducing the pollutionof these transboundary lakes from all threeneighbouring countries.

In FYR Macedonia, the GEF project is comple-mented by three other UNDP projects. The firstone is helping restore the Golema River, themain Macedonian tributary feeding the PrespaLakes. A second project helps reduce theenvironmental impacts of agriculture bystrengthening capacities among the region’s treefarmers to optimize and reduce their use ofagrochemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) andirrigation water. The third project supportsimproved solid waste management services andwaste minimization in the communities of thewatershed. These complementary contributionsall help enhance the local relevance of the GEF-financed project.

ASSESSMENT OF UNDP’S CONTRIBUTIONS

UNDP is a relatively small player compared withlarger, mostly European donors who provideassistance for Macedonian infrastructureprojects, legislative reform and reforms in theenergy and agriculture sectors. UNDP aims tocomplement these bigger interventions and toprovide support in areas where others don’t, suchas helping FYR Macedonia meet its obligationsunder multilateral environmental agreements.

Theoretically the roles of UNDP and other UNagencies active in FYR Macedonia are comple-mentary. In reality, sometimes these agencieswork well together and sometimes they don’t.UNDP has worked effectively with the UN’s

World Tourism Organization to supportdevelopment of the national sustainable tourismstrategy and with UNESCO, which is working toestablish a Biosphere Reserve in the Ohrid andPrespa Lakes region. UNEP and UNDP playeda valuable joint role in responding to FYRMacedonia’s forest fire emergency of mid-2007;but UNDP’s overall relations with UNEP inFYR Macedonia, as with UNIDO, needimprovement if the agencies are to work togetheras parts of a coherent single UN programme inFYR Macedonia. These agencies still operatequite independently in the country much of the time.

UNDP Macedonia has made good use of supportfrom the Bureau for Crisis Prevention andRecovery at UNDP headquarters and, especially,support from the UNDP Regional Centre inBratislava. The Bratislava centre has helped FYRMacedonia develop its portfolio of projectsrelated to climate change as well as an initiative toreduce agriculture input consumption.

The country office has not documented itsachievements very effectively to date, thoughproject evaluations in 2001 and 2003 reportedimpressive results, including the development ofsubstantial technical capacities among localadministrations, industrial firms and NGOs aswell as increased public awareness of localenvironmental challenges and the options fordealing with them. By 2003, according to theseevaluations, there had been ‘significant improve-ment’ in several industrial enterprises’ responsesto environmental problems, including greaterrecycling of waste materials that producedconsiderable savings for the firms and wastewaterrecycling that eliminated local effluent streamsinto the main river. Substantial training capacitywas developed in a local NGO-run ‘RegionalCentre for Cleaner Production’ while environ-mental monitoring equipment allowed the localpublic health institute to compile data onmunicipal pollution levels.

Outcomes are beginning to emerge as well forthe more recent Prespa Lakes projects wherelocal government and NGO partners perceive

A N N E X 5 . C O U N T R Y C A S E S T U D Y S U M M A R I E S1 1 4

UNDP as having been very successful. WithUNDP support, effective solid waste collectionand disposal systems have been developed intwenty settlements, generating revenues fromusers’ payments to local service providers.Support to local orchardists allows them toreduce their costs for pesticides, fertilizers andirrigation water while also reducing their ecologicalimpacts. These environmental activities have alsocontributed to achieving local governments’primary goal of stimulating economic growth inthis relatively depressed region.

UNDP Macedonia does not mainstreamenvironmental concerns effectively in their ownoffice. Yet they do appear to be helping theirpartners to mainstream environmental concernsin a number of modest but significant ways, suchas helping the national crisis management centreto improve protection of forests and soils andsupporting development of a national sustainabletourism strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

On one hand, the country office’s environmentand energy team works effectively and productivelywith a wide range of government, civil societyand international partners who clearly appreciatethe country office’s openness and professionalism.On the other hand, larger scale UNDP interven-tions are plagued by cumbersome administrativeprocedures dictated by global headquarters andbeyond the control of UNDP Macedonia.

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’skey future environmental management challengeswill be to develop decentralized environmentalmanagement capacities, to ‘approximate’ EUenvironmental standards and practices and tomove quickly towards more preventive ratherthan curative approaches to environmentalmanagement. The country office recognizes thatthese challenges represent emerging opportuni-ties for UNDP in FYR Macedonia but itscapacity to respond to them will be constrainedby limited human resources and especially themodest TRAC funds available to them.

MALAWI

COUNTRY CONTEXT

Malawi is a land-locked least developed country insoutheastern Africa bordered by Mozambique,Tanzania and Zambia. With a high populationdensity and per capita annual income of US$667,Malawi faces significant development andenvironmental challenges. Approximately 65percent of Malawi’s 13 million people live belowthe poverty line, and average life expectancy isjust 46 years. The Human Development Index(HDI) ranked Malawi 164 out of 177 countries.Despite the fact that Lake Malawi is the thirdlargest body of freshwater in Africa, one-third ofthe country’s population lacks access to safedrinking water, and child mortality is precariouslyhigh, at 133 per 1,000 deaths before age 5. Theprevalence of HIV/AIDS among residents 15-49years of age is 14 percent. Malawi’s economy ishighly dependent on agriculture, which accountsfor 90 percent of export earnings and three-quarters of total employment. The country ishighly vulnerable to climatic variations; droughtsin recent years have led to widespread foodshortages and famine. With 40 percent ofMalawi’s annual development budget supportedby donor assistance, the country is heavilydependent on external financing.

During the period 1994–2003, the governmentset out its development and environment goals ina series of documents including a NationalEnvironment Action Plan (NEAP), Vision 2020,the State of the Environment (SOE) report andthe Malawi Growth and Development Strategy(MGDS). The government has signed theCartagena Protocol on Biosafety and ratified theUN Framework Convention on ClimateChange, the Kyoto Protocol and the Conventionon Biological Diversity. Despite such steps, littlehas been done to address the country’s environ-mental challenges through comprehensive policy,due to the lack of a concrete action plans,overlapping priorities and, most significantly, ashortage of financial resources.

Environment as a specific area of focus islanguishing in Malawi; there is limited interest,and few resources are being invested by the

A N N E X 5 . C O U N T R Y C A S E S T U D Y S U M M A R I E S 1 1 5

government or donors. Government budgets forenvironment and forestry are declining. Thoughdecentralization is a policy priority for thegovernment, environmental managementcapacity at district levels is almost non-existent, asituation exacerbated by losses of district-levelstaff due to HIV/AIDS.

Only limited data are available on the state of theenvironment, including deforestation rates andthe MDG7 target of improved access to cleanwater (one partial baseline survey was conductedin 2002). UNDP was designated to lead an initialdonor coordination effort on environment butthis did not go well, apparently due to insufficientUNDP capacity and limited government interest.There is little sign of genuine harmonizationamong the donors.

UNDP’S ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY PROGRAMME

The UNDP Malawi Country Office had onlyhad one energy and environment staff memberduring the evaluation period. To date, the totalbudget allocated to the environment and energyprogramme has been $15 million, consisting of$5 million in UNDP core funding, $4.9 millionfrom GEF, $3 million from MPF, and $2.1 millionfrom bilateral donors (primarily from DANIDA).

Environment was identified as an explicit goal inthe UNDP’s First Country CooperationFramework (CCF, 1997–2001) in Malawi and asa cross-cutting issue (under poverty reduction) inthe Second CCF (2002–2006). In addition, theadoption of community-level technologies forimproved environmental protection is identifiedas one of the key expected results under thePoverty Reduction Strategy Support Programme.The country office did not allocate TRAC funds toenvironment and energy because they anticipatedfunds would be mobilized through the GEF andMontreal Protocol Fund. GEF resources did notmaterialize on the scale anticipated. DANIDA’swithdrawal from Malawi further reduced theavailability of funds, and Malawi is now almostentirely reliant on lower-than-expected GEFfinancing for its environment and energy work.

The UNDP Malawi’s environment and energyportfolio contains three major projects: (i)

‘Phase-out of Methyl Bromide in the TobaccoSector in Malawi’, a $3-million project financedby the Montreal Protocol Unit; (ii) ‘BarrierRemoval to Renewable Energy (BARREM)’, a$3-million GEF-financed project that promotesthe use of solar power for homes outside the ruralelectrification grid and (iii) the ‘SustainableSocio-Economic Empowerment Project forPoverty Reduction’, a participatory developmentproject built upon earlier UNDP work oncommunity-based capacity development andbenefiting from strong collaboration with severalNGOs. This project has had positive impacts andthe use of African UN Volunteers at thecommunity level appears sustainable, though theproposed implementation period seems too shortto hope for structural change.

Other environment and energy activities largelyconsist of GEF-financed enabling activities,communications for international environmentalagreements and biodiversity projects. The GEF-funded Sustainable Land Management in theShire River Basin, part of a larger World Bank/GEF TerrAfrica programme, is under prepara-tion.

UNDP led the process of preparing an UNDAFfor 2008–2011, consistent with the government’sexpressed priorities of economic growth, agri-cultural development and food security. UNDP’sown CPD shows little connection to UNDP’sglobal strategies; it has apparently been moreinfluenced by the Strategic Plan of the UNDP’sAfrica Bureau.

ASSESSMENT OF UNDP’S CONTRIBUTION

The government’s view of UNDP’s support forenvironmental programming is neutral. UNDP isnot regarded as having any particular comparativeadvantage in this sector. UNDP Malawi’s staff isrespected but both government and donorscomplained of slow disbursements and financialreporting. Some government departmentsappreciated UNDP’s local presence as well as theease of access to technical experts in the regionalcentres and at headquarters (e.g., for work onmethyl bromide and renewable energy).

The country office works mainly with Malawi’sDepartment of Environmental Affairs, which

A N N E X 5 . C O U N T R Y C A S E S T U D Y S U M M A R I E S1 1 6

handles most of the GEF funding and is responsiblefor international environmental obligations.However, the country’s most pressing environmentalmanagement challenges are not ‘GEF-able’issues; rather the primary issues are in agricultureand other key sectors aiming to enhance sustainablelivelihoods and lower poverty levels.

Currently, UNDP appears to have limitedcredibility with the Ministry of Agriculture andFood Security and the Department of LandConservation, though these are the governmentagencies that UNDP needs to influence andsupport with policy and technical advice if it is to have a strategic impact on high-priorityenvironmental management issues in Malawi.This issue came up repeatedly in discussions with various government departments, NGOsand donor agencies. The forthcoming launch of aPoverty-Environment Initiative in Malawi mayprovide an opportunity to address these issues,with the Ministry of Lands and NaturalResources being the focal point for this initiative.

Malawi’s NGO sector appears relatively strong insustainable land management, water, food security,famine relief and community-based development,although the government has not takenadvantage of this capacity. UNDP is providingsome support to the sector, and the SustainableSocio-Economic Empowerment Project forPoverty Reduction involves several NGOs.

UNDP Malawi lacks in-house capacities andresources and its strategic impacts in environmentand energy have been limited, despite whatappear to be at least two relatively large andeffective projects. The country office is about toincrease its capacity significantly with a newGEF Small Grants Programme, PEI (togetherwith UNEP), a climate change adaptationprogramme under a new disaster risk/recoveryadvisor and additional consultants.

CONCLUSIONS

UNDP’s role in managing the environment andenergy programme in Malawi has generally beenrelevant and effective. Removing barriers to theprovision of energy services is a good example ofsuccessful project activities. Another is the

phasing out of methyl bromide use in the tobaccosector. UNDP’s interventions in Malawi havestrengthened government capacities to deal withenvironment and energy issues. UNDP has alsoachieved positive results at the policy level,helping the government comply with interna-tional treaties on climate change and biodiversityconservation. Yet neither UNDP nor its non-GEF partners show much interest in makinglong-term commitments to support environmentand energy programming in Malawi. As GEFfunds diminish, environment and energy willdecline commensurately.

The government and UNDP country office aremostly focused on food security, povertyreduction and human health concerns—for veryvalid reasons. For the environment and energyprogramme to be more sustainable over thelonger term in Malawi, two things must happen.First, UNDP needs to allocate a significantportion of its own resources and tap other,non-GEF resources for environment and energyprogramming. Second, the environment and energyprogramme must find entry points related toeconomic growth, poverty reduction and foodsecurity. UNDP will need to be more proactive in strengthening partnerships with such organi-zations as UNEP, FAO and WFP.

PACIFIC ISLAND COUNTRIES

CONTEXT

The Pacific Island Countries (PICs) are charac-terized by small populations (all have less than0.9 million inhabitants and most have far fewer),remoteness, vulnerable economies, very hightransaction costs for almost any investmentinitiative, very small cadres of skilled people, highpopulation mobility with exceptionally high ratesof overseas emigration rates, extreme dependenceon imported petroleum fuels for energy needsand fragile ecosystems. These countries aretypically very vulnerable to externally generatedeconomic and environmental change such asclimate change.

Government departments dealing with environ-mental and energy matters are very small, poorlyresourced and generally do not exert muchinfluence on key policy decisions. Many Small

A N N E X 5 . C O U N T R Y C A S E S T U D Y S U M M A R I E S 1 1 7

Island Developing States (SIDS) share thesecharacteristics, although in the Pacific thedistances within and between countries and theextent of isolation are extreme. Furthermore, percapita economic growth in the Pacific has beenvery low for a decade.

Several PICs (Fiji, Tonga and Solomon Islands)have suffered from political instability.Significant levels of inequality and povertyremain in a number of PICs, particularly inMelanesia. In many, depletion of land and marineresources continues apace. For the atoll countries,rapid urbanization has led to serious overcrowd-ing on main islands along with growing sanita-tion and waste management issues.

UNDP’S ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY PROGRAMME

UNDP has multi-country offices (MCOs) in Fijiand Samoa, managing programmes in ten andfour countries, respectively. There is also anational UNDP office in Papua New Guinea,which is not covered by this case study, althoughmany of the sub-regional programmes handledby the two MCOs also include Papua NewGuinea. There are environmental teams in bothMCOs. UNDP is viewed by the PICs as aneutral and solid partner, with a long history inthe region and a good understanding of how toaccess GEF resources.

GEF has historically been the most importantfunding source for regional/multi-countryenvironment and energy activities in the Pacificsub-region,6 with over 90 percent of all GEFprojects implemented by UNDP. No other GEFimplementing agency has offices within theregion, although UNEP has a small presence in Samoa, and the World Bank provides somesub-regional services to the PICs from Sydney,Australia, which is about 3,200 km from Fiji and4,300 km from Samoa. The use of UNDP corefunds for environment and energy work has beenextremely limited, few other donors have had aconsistent presence and government budgets are

minimal. GEF projects implemented by UNDPhave thus constituted the bulk of sub-regionalenvironment and energy programmes in recentyears, although the European Community has asizeable and growing presence.

Genuine links to the MDGs, poverty reduction,governance and sustainable livelihoods—or anyother signs of mainstreaming—are hard to detectwithin the governments and are almost nonexistentwithin the UNDP MCOs. Although UNDP isviewed positively by the PICs, its influence appearsto be waning, and it is seen as an organizationlacking any clear environment and energy nicheor expertise, weak in technical skills, inconsistentin project design quality and perhaps less flexiblethan some other potential implementingagencies. There is little perception among keydonors that UNDP is a source of real environ-mental or energy expertise in the region. UNDPhas been complacent and could easily lose itspreeminent GEF role.

ASSESSMENT OF UNDP’S CONTRIBUTION

GEF funding in the PICs has been short termand project based. Considerable resources havebeen provided for enabling activities that have ledto a variety of plans, strategies and communicationsrelated to MEAs, few of which appear to beclearly connected to genuine national priorities.On the other hand much valuable informationfrom these initiatives has been synthesized invarious studies and forms a potentially valuablebasis for decision making and future projectdevelopment. A number of more recent, largerprojects appear to be increasingly relevant to suchnational and regional concerns as protection of fish stocks, water resources management,adaptation to climate change and renewableenergy. Largely through UNDP-GEF assistance,the PICs as a group have been very active inglobal environmental forums and have workedeffectively with other SIDS to help focus globalattention on their shared concerns.

Another clear result in these small countries,however, has been a series of distortions:

6. GEF is the most important funding source for regional TA studies in energy and environment for the PICs. It is not sofor investment, where ADB has invested a lot into energy systems, as have bilateral agencies from Australia, NewZealand, Japan and China.

A N N E X 5 . C O U N T R Y C A S E S T U D Y S U M M A R I E S1 1 8

Governments suffer reduced capacities to addressother energy and environment needs outside thescope of these mostly GEF-financed projects.Staffing patterns are distorted because themajority of staff is project funded. Staff retentionpatterns are disrupted because local bureaucraciescannot absorb staff financed by projects, onceproject funding ceases. There is also distortion inthe type of skills developed; these projects havenurtured primarily skills in analysis and reportingrather than more action-oriented capacities. Yet,because other potential sources of financialsupport are limited, the governments considerthat they have little choice but to continue toseek GEF funding. There is little evidence thatmost of the 14 governments consider environ-mental protection or sustainable resourcemanagement as areas in which it is worthinvesting much of their own resources.

Most UNDP-GEF projects take the form ofPacific sub-regional programmes, seekingeconomies of scale by sharing services, skills andexperiences among the countries. The perceptionamong governments, NGOs and others in theregion however is that regional organizationsoften benefit more from these initiatives than dothe individual countries. Although regionalorganizations compete fiercely for funds, mosthave not convinced many stakeholders they candeliver practical services at national levels. Thisleads to increased pressure from governments formore national-level projects, even though manyPICs have not effectively implemented nationalcomponents of sub-regional activities and thetransaction costs of single-country projects inthis region can be excessive.

Although operational costs are extraordinarilyhigh in the sub-region, the MCOs do not receiveadditional financial resources to offset thesecosts. As a result, according to one UNDP staffmember: “…we are stuck in a situation where it isvery expensive to operate so we provide lousy servicesand therefore get even less to spend.”

CONCLUSIONS

The PICs have often felt pressured to sign andratify environmental agreements that are ofcurrent concern to the global community. These

are not necessarily high priorities locally, relevantto the island states or even necessarily in theirinterests. Reporting requirements can easilydistort the work plans and priorities of smallnational agencies. A commonly expressed viewwithin the region is a perceived donor tendencytoward new emphases every few years, little long-term continuity in their programming, a lack ofwillingness to support specific national efforts forthe period of time needed to make much impact,sudden switches to new programming prioritiesand progressively shorter project cycles.

Despite significant GEF funding, and capacity-building elements in nearly all projects, thesehave seldom built long-term government capacities.The capacity of the PIC governments to manageenvironment and energy has not notably improvedin the last one to two decades, with the arguableexception of Samoa. The Pacific sub-region has,nonetheless, developed a sizeable cadre of skilledenvironmental—and to a lesser extent energy—professionals working for regional organizations,numerous environmental NGOs and a few smallconsulting companies. The overwhelming bulk ofthis capacity is concentrated in Fiji and Samoa.UNDP projects have played a significant role indeveloping this capacity. The donor communitydraws upon it regularly. Governments of theregion, on the other hand, seldom use thiscapacity directly. UNDP could play a valuablerole by helping these countries more effectivelydraw upon this capacity within the region, usingit to better access environmental funds and todesign and implement projects well adapted tothe needs, constraints and capacities of the PICs.

UNDP has not sustained its previously goodrelationships with donors active in energy andenvironment in the region, nor developedeffective relationships with prospective newpartners. In principle there have been significantrecent opportunities for UNDP to leverage itsimpact through coordination and cooperationwith a number of bilateral and multilateral initia-tives in both environment and energy, to themutual benefit of the region, UNDP and theother organizations. These opportunities havenot been seized; insufficient efforts have beenmade to retain and cultivate relationships.

A N N E X 6 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D 1 1 9

NEW YORK

UNDP

Alers, Marcel, Climate Change Manager, GEF,EEG, BDP

Carvalho, Suely, Chief, MPU and PrincipalTechnical Adviser, POPs, GEF, EEG, BDP

Clairs, Tim, Acting Principal Technical Adviser,Land Degradation, and Regional TechnicalAdviser, Biodiversity and InternationalWaters, Arab States, GEF, EEG, BDP

Dobie, Philip, Officer-in-Charge (during mainpart of evaluation) and Director, DDC,EEG, BDP

Ghanime, Linda, Adviser, Frameworks andStrategies for Sustainable Development,EEG, BDP

Gjuzi, Albana, Programme Specialist, WesternBalkans, RBEC

Glemarec, Yannick, Executive Coordinator,GEF, EEG, BDP

Gold, Stephen, Global Programme Manager,GEF National Dialogue Initiative, EEG, BDP

Harlin, Joakim, Technical Adviser, Water,EEG, BDP

Hazlewood, Peter, Coordinator, PEI, EEG, BDPHerrera, Raquel, Programme Officer, RBLACHough, John, Deputy Executive Coordinator,

a.i. and Principal Technical Adviser,Biodiversity, GEF, EEG, BDP

Hudson, Andrew, Team Leader, Water andPrincipal Technical Adviser, InternationalWaters, GEF, EEG, BDP

Huseby, Mari, Programme Analyst, North EastAsia and Mekong Division, RBAP

Johnson, Gordon, Practice Manager, EEG, BDPJones, Terence, Deputy Director a.i.,

Directorate, BDPKayser, Dominique, Programme Coordinator,

POPs, EEG, BDPKhilji, Taimur, Consultant, Directorate, RBAP

Kjørven, Olav, Assistant Administrator andDirector, Directorate, BDP

Kwan, William, Deputy Chief, MPU andProgramme Coordinator, POPs, GEF,EEG, BDP

Leshchenko, Oksana, Programme Specialist andChernobyl Coordinator, Western CIS andCaucasus, RBEC

Lim, Bo, Principal Technical Adviser, CapacityDevelopment and Adaptation Cluster, andChief, National Communications SupportProgramme, GEF, EEG, BDP

Lockwood, David, Deputy AssistantAdministrator and Deputy RegionalDirector, RBAP

Makhetha, Metsi, Programme Adviser, Strategicand Regional Initiatives Unit, RBA

McDade, Susan, Resident Coordinator,UNDP Cuba

McNeill, Charles, Senior Technical Adviser,Biodiversity, EEG, BDP

Niamir-Fuller, Maryam, Principal TechnicalAdviser, Land Degradation andDeforestation, GEF, EEG, BDP

Remple, Nick, Deputy Global Manager, GEFSmall Grants Programme, EEG, BDP

Reza, Rini, Programme Adviser, South EastAsia and Pacific Division, RBAP

Sekhran, Nik, Acting Principal TechnicalAdviser, Biodiversity, GEF, EEG, BDP

Suokko, Maria, Programme Specialist, Southand West Asia Division, RBAP

Takada, Minoru, Acting Manager, SustainableEnergy Programme, EEG, BDP

Torres, Emma, Consultant, RBLACUdovi_ki, Kori, Assistant Administrator and

Director, RBEC Van der Vaeren, Claire, Chief, South East Asia

and Pacific Division, RBAPVandeweerd, Veerle, Director, EEG, BDP

Annex 6

LIST OF PEOPLE CONSULTED

A N N E X 6 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D1 2 0

WASHINGTON DC

UN ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERMULTILATERAL DONORS

Andersen, Inger, Sector Director, Water,Environment, Social and RuralDevelopment Department, Middle East andNorth Africa Region, The World Bank

Bosi, Martina, Fund Manager, Carbon FinanceUnit, Environment Department, The World Bank

El-Ashry, Mohamed, Senior Fellow, UnitedNations Foundation

Feinstein, Charles, Sector Manager, Energy inSustainable Development, Europe andCentral Asia Region, The World Bank

Hosier, Richard, Team Leader, Climate andChemicals, Secretariat, GEF

Lintner, Stephen, Senior Adviser, QualityAssurance and Compliance Unit,The World Bank

Ramankutty, Ramesh, Head, Operations andBusiness Strategy, Secretariat, GEF

Tokle, Siv, Senior Evaluation Officer,Evaluation Office, GEF

Volonte, Claudio, Chief Evaluation Officer,Evaluation Office, GEF

Wedderburn, Sam, GEF Coordination Team,Environment Department, The World Bank

CIVIL SOCIETY

Tunstall, Dan, Director, InternationalCooperation, World Resources Institute

BURKINA FASO

UNDP

Compaore, Noël, Assistant de Programme,Programme Fonds pour EnvironnementMondial aux ONG de micro financements(FEM/ONG), Burkina Faso Country Office

Congo, Rosalie, Coordinatrice Nationale,Programme FEM/ONG, Burkina FasoCountry Office

Coulibaly, Clarisse, Chargée de Programme,Environnement et Energie, Burkina FasoCountry Office

Kogachi, Aki, Chargée de Programme,Environnement et Energie, Burkina FasoCountry Office

Ouedraogo, Sylvestre B., Chef d’Equipe,Environnement et Energie, Burkina FasoCountry Office

Pangah, Mariam, Représentant RésidentAdjoint, Burkina Faso Country Office

Rojon, Ruby Sandhu, Directrice de Pays,Représentant Résident a.i., Burkina FasoCountry Office

Seyedi, Bahareh, Chargée de Programme,Environnement et Energie, Burkina FasoCountry Office

Tapsoba, Isabelle, Coordinatrice, Programmenational plates-formes multifonctionnellespour la lutte contre la pauvreté (PN-PTF/LCP), Burkina Faso Country Office

BILATERAL/MULTILATERAL DONORS

Cheik, Assane Moctar Gansonre, Assistant de Programme, JICA

Compaore, Albert, Chargé de ProgrammeNational ressources naturelles et recherchescientifique, Agence Suedoise deCoopération Internationale/Ambassade de Suède

Doi, Hideo, Chargé de Programme, JICAHoriuchi, Yoshio, Représentant Résident, JICANakayama, Yusuké, Conseiller Technique en

Foresterie, JICANikiema, Emmanuel Y., Spécialiste Gestion des

Ressources Naturelles, Banque Mondiale,Bureau de Ouagadougou

Reiland, Rol, Chef du Bureau, Bureau Régionalde la Coopération au Développement,Luxembourg

Usui, Yukichi, Adjoint au ReprésentantRésident, JICA

V.d. Loo, Antony, Conseiller de coopérationsecteur agricole, Ambassade Royale de Danemark

GOVERNMENT

Golane, Pierre, Membre Comité National deSélection de Projets (CNSP), ProgrammeFEM/ONG, Direction générale de laconservation de la nature (DGCN),Ministère de l’Environnement et du Cadre de Vie

A N N E X 6 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D 1 2 1

Kone, Noëlie Victoire, Chef de Section, PNUD,Direction Générale de la Coopération(DGCOP), Ministère de l’Economie et des Finances

Nikiema, Mariam Ould, Secrétaire Permanent,Conseil National pour l’Environnement etle Développement Durable (SP/CONEDD),Ministère de l’Environnement et du Cadre de Vie

Ouedraogo, Delphine, Chef de Département,Secrétariat Permanent du CONEDD,Ministère de l’Environnement et du Cadre de Vie

Sedogo, Laurent, Ministre de l’Environnementet du Cadre de Vie

Traore, Alain Edouard, Secrétaire Général,Ministère de l’Environnement et du Cadre de Vie

Traore, Daouda, Représentant le Coordinateur,Programme d’Amélioration des Revenus etde Sécurité Alimentaire (ARSA)/ProduitsSecondaires Non Ligneux (PSNL),Ministère de l’Environnement et du Cadre de Vie, Direction des Forêts

Yaro, Maïmouna, Membre CNSP, ProgrammeFEM/ONG, Programme de Partenariatpour l’Amélioration de la Gestion desEcosystèmes Naturels (PAGEN), Ministèrede l’Environnement et du Cadre de Vie

Zangre, Adolphe, Coordinateur, ProgrammeARSA/petite irrigation, Ministère del’Agriculture, de l’Hydraulique et desRessources Halieutiques

Zangre, Sidnoma Sam, Chef de Cabinet duMinistre, Ministère de l’Environnement et du Cadre de Vie

Zongo, Dominique, Membre CNSP,Programme FEM/ONG, Deuxième projetnational de gestion des terroirs (PNGT II),Ministère de l’Agriculture de l’Hydrauliqueet des Ressources Halieutiques

CIVIL SOCIETY

Kabore, Kardiatou, Présidente, Amicale desForestières du Burkina (AMIFOB)

Kafando, Pierre, Coordonnateur Projet, ParcNational Kaboré Tambi (PNKT), Fondationdes Amis de la Nature (NATURAMA)

Konditamde, Ludovic, Responsable UnitéGestion des Ressources Naturelles, Tree Aid

Nana, Adama, Directeur des Etudes etPrestations, NATURAMA

Nianogo, Aimé, Country Representative,Union Mondiale pour la Nature (UICN)Burkina Faso

Ouedraogo, Yacouba, West African ProgrammeCoordinator, Tree Aid

OTHER

Batiga, Dorothée, Membre CNSP, ProgrammeFEM/ONG, Réseau de Communication,d’Information et de Formation des Femmesdans les ONG (RECIF-ONG)

Botoni, Edwige, Membre CNSP, ProgrammeFEM/ONG, Comité Permanent Inter-Etatsde Lutte Contre la Sècheresse (CILSS)

Bouda, Elena, Membre CNSP, ProgrammeFEM/ONG, Société TAN-ALIZ

Ouedraogo, Benoît, Membre CNSP, ProgrammeFEM/ONG, Association Burkinabé deRecherche Action et d’Autoformation pourle Développement (ABRAAD)

Ouedraogo, Bruno, Membre CNSP, ProgrammeFEM/ONG, Secrétariat Permanent desONG (SPONG)

CHINA

UNDP

Khoday, Kishan, Assistant Country Directorand Team Leader, Energy andEnvironment, China Country Office

Nandy, Subinay, Country Director, ChinaCountry Office

Soriano, Manuel, Regional Technical Adviser,Climate Change, Regional Centre inBangkok, UNDP/GEF

Tisot, Alessandra, Deputy Country Director,China Country Office

OTHER UN ORGANIZATIONS

Shao, Xuemin, Former Representative, UNEPCountry Office and Senior Adviser,UNDP-UNEP, UNEP

OTHER BILATERAL/MULTILATERAL DONORS

Mau, Gunther, Programme Manager,Australia China Environment DevelopmentProgramme (ACEDP)

A N N E X 6 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D1 2 2

Niu, Zhiming, Senior Programme Officer, PRCResident Mission, ADB

Shibuichi, Toru, Country Director, PRCResident Mission, ADB

GOVERNMENT

Gao, Wei, Programme Officer, EU-ChinaBiodiversity Project (ECBP)/ProjectManagement Office (PMO)

Gao, Xinquan, Programme Officer, Division ofGlobal Environment, PMO of CarbonFinance for Achieving MDGs in China,The Administrative Centre for China’sAgenda 21 (ACCA21), Ministry of Scienceand Technology (MOST)

Guo, Coordination Officer, PMO of EnergyConservation and GHG EmissionsReduction in Chinese TVEs – Phase II,Ministry of Agriculture (MOA)

Guo, Jing, Director, China Council forInternational Cooperation on Environmentand Development (CCICED), The State Environmental ProtectionAdministration (SEPA)

Li, Gao, Acting Director, Division of GlobalEnvironment, PMO of Carbon Finance for Achieving MDGs in China,ACCA21, MOST

Liu, Yuan, Deputy Division Chief, ProjectManagement Division IV, PMOs of EnergyEfficient Refrigerators Project, EERP

Ma, Jinjin, Project Assistant, PMO of ChinaEnd Use Energy Efficiency Programme,Energy Research Institute (ERI),National Development and ReformCommission (NDRC)

Pan, Zhiming, Project Manager, BuildingComponent, PMO of China End UseEnergy Efficiency Programme, ERI, NDRC

Song, Dongfeng, Contract Officer, PMO ofEnergy Conservation and GHG EmissionsReduction in Chinese TVEs – Phase II, MOA

Song, Xiaozhi, Deputy Director-General ofForeign Economic Cooperation Office(FECO), Deputy National ProgrammeDirector (NPD), ECBP

Sun, Xue Feng, Division Chief, ProjectManagement Division IV, GEF

Tang, Yan Dong, Senior Programme Officer,Project Management Division III, MPSolvent Sector Plan Project

Wang, Chunli, Project Manager, Cross-cuttingComponent, PMO of China End UseEnergy Efficiency Programme, ERI, NDRC

Wang, Haibin, National Programme Manager(NPM), ECBP/PMO

Wang, Xiwu, Senior Administrator, PMO ofEnergy Conservation and GHG EmissionsReduction in Chinese TVEs – Phase II, MOA

Wu, Jinkang, Deputy Director General,International Department and GEF FocalPoint, Ministry of Finance (MOF)

Xia, Kunbao, Committee Member and Memberof the Board of Directors, All-ChinaEnvironment Federation, TechnologyCommittee of SEPA

Xin, Sheng, Project Manager, IndustrialComponent, PMO of China End UseEnergy Efficiency Programme, ERI, NDRC

Yang, Lirong, Deputy Division Chief, ProjectManagement Division III, MP SolventSector Plan Project

Yu, Cong, Director, Energy Efficiency Centre,PMO of China End Use Energy EfficiencyProgramme, ERI, NDRC

Zhang, Ou, Programme Officer, CCICED, SEPAZhou, Qiangwu, Director, International

Financial Institution Division IV,International Department, MOF

Zhu, Duanni, Director, Division II, ChinaInternational Centre for Economic andTechnical Exchanges (CICETE), TheMinistry of Commerce (MofCOM)

CIVIL SOCIETY

Deng, Haifeng, Lecturer, Centre forEnvironmental, Natural Resources andEnergy Law (CEREL), Tsinghua University

Shi, Wenyu, Graduate Student, Centre forEnvironmental, CEREL, Tsinghua University

Sun, Shan, Conservation Director,China Beijing Office, ConservationInternational and Shanshui

Wang, Mingyuan, Executive Director and Associate Professor, CEREL,Tsinghua University

Yao, Bin, Graduate Student, CEREL,Tsinghua University

A N N E X 6 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D 1 2 3

ECUADOR

UNDP

Falconí, Cecilia, Sustainable DevelopmentProgramme Officer, Ecuador Country Office

Proaño, María Mercedes, SustainableDevelopment Programme Assistant,Ecuador Country Office

Troya, José Vicente, Sustainable DevelopmentProgramme Manager, Ecuador Country Office

Valdés, Mauricio, Resident Representative,Ecuador Country Office

Varea, Ana María, Coordinator, Small GrantsProgramme, UNDP-GEF

PROJECT STAFF

Jácome, Carlos, Assistant Coordinator for‘Electrification of Galapagos withRenewable Energy/ERGAL’ project

Neira, David, Coordinator for ‘Adaptation toClimate Change through Effective WaterManagement’ project, GEF

Sancho, Ana, Coordinator for ‘Control ofInvasive Species in the GalapagosArchipelago’ project (telephone interview)

Sandóval, Carlos, Monitoring Officer for theGalapagos-based UNDP/GEF projects

GOVERNMENT

Albán, Ana, Minister of EnvironmentCarrión, Victor, Coordinator for Species

Eradication, Galapagos National ParkCruz, Marilyn, Coordinator for Galapagos

National Park LaboratoryEspinoza, Eduardo, Coordinator for Marine

Resources, Galapagos National ParkNaula, Edwin, Coordinator for Public Use

of Conservation Areas, Galapagos National Park

Ramos, Washington, Director for Educationand Culture, Santa Cruz Municipality(Galapagos)

Tapia, Washington, Undersecretary for Environment

Zapata, Fabián, Director of the NationalGalapagos Institute (INGALA)

OTHER BILATERAL/MULTILATERAL DONORS

Aznar, Victor, Programme Officer, AgenciaEspañola de Cooperación Internacional parael Desarrollo (AECID)

Maekawa, Yukihiro, Ambassador of JapanTello, Eudoxia, Representative, Kreditanstalt für

Wiederaufbau (KfW) Tique, Alfonso, Deputy Representative, IDB

CIVIL SOCIETY

Cruz, Felipe, Assistant Technical Director,Charles Darwin Foundation

Hofstede, Robert, Interim Regional Director forIUCN – Latin America

Milstead, Brian, Chief of VertebratesDepartment, Charles Darwin Foundation

Ortiz, Fernando, Coordinator of GalapagosProgramme, Conservation International

Zapata, Carlos, Director of FUNDAR, Galapagos

OTHERS

Albán, Jorge, Former Vice Minister, Energy and Mines

Bustamante, Teodoro, Environmental Analyst

KENYA

UNDP

Bekele-Thomas, Nardos, Deputy ResidentRepresentative, Kenya Country Office

Chege, Nancy, National Coordinator,GEF/SGP, Kenya Country Office

Dobie, Philip, Director, DDC Forbes, Alex, Programme Adviser, PEI, Kenya

Country OfficeGakahu, Chris G., Assistant Resident

Representative, Kenya Country OfficeGoumandakoye, Mounkaila, Policy Adviser, DDC Harding, Brian, Programme Officer,

Sustainability, Kenya Country OfficeKwena, Foulata T., Programme Officer,

Sustainability, Kenya Country OfficeLwanga, Elizabeth, Resident Representative,

Kenya Country Office

A N N E X 6 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D1 2 4

Nyandiga, Charles, Programme Analyst, KenyaCountry Office

Wasao, Samson W., National ProgrammeManager, PEI and Capacity 2015, KenyaCountry Office

OTHER UN ORGANIZATIONS

Ambala, Chris, Associate Programme Officer, Division of Early Warning andAssessment, UNEP

Bankobeza, Sylvia, Legal Officer, Division ofEnvironmental Law and Conventions, UNEP

Battaglino, Cristina, Evaluation Officer,Evaluation Office, UNEP

Chenje, Jacquie, Capacity BuildingSection–Programme Officer, Division ofEarly Warning and Assessment, UNEP

Duraiappah, Anantha Kumar, Senior ProgrammeManager, Division of Environmental Policyand Implementation, UNEP

Gilruth, Peter, Director, Division of EarlyWarning and Assessment, UNEP

Henningsen, Kamilla, Associate ProgrammeOfficer, PEI, UNEP

Kasten, Tim, Chief, Natural Resources Branch,Division of Environmental Policy andImplementation, UNEP

Kithakye, David I., Senior Human SettlementsOfficer Regional Office for Africa and theArab States, UN-Habitat

Muchai, Annie, Associate Programme Officer,Division of Environmental Policy andImplementation, UNEP

Ndede, Henry O., Programme Officer, Water,Regional Office for Africa, UNEP

Norgbey, Segbedzi, Chief, Evaluation andOversight Unit, Evaluation Office, UNEP

Rahman, Anisur, Programme Officer, CapacityBuilding, Division of Environmental Policyand Implementation, UNEP

Spilsbury, Michael, GEF Evaluation Officer,Evaluation Office, UNEP

Thiaw, Ibrahim, Director, Division of Environ-mental Policy and Implementation, UNEP

Toikka, Miia, Associate Programme Officer,PEI, UNEP

Ugolo, John, Legal Officer, Division of Environ-mental Law and Conventions, UNEP

Varghese, Alexander, Representative for Kenyaand Eritrea, UNIDO

Wabunoha, Robert, Legal Officer, Division ofEnvironmental Law and Conventions, UNEP

BILATERAL/MULTILATERAL DONORS

Alander, Jukka, Counselor and Energy Adviser,Embassy of Finland

Eid, Thomas, Deputy PermanentRepresentative, Embassy of Norway

Just, Charlotte, First Secretary–Environment,Royal Danish Embassy

Kurauchi, Yuko, Consultant, The World BankVibe, Sara, Environment Intern,

Royal Danish Embassy

GOVERNMENT

Kafumo, Joseph M., Senior Economist,Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources

Mbagua, David K., Director, Kenya Forest ServiceM’mella, Timothy U.K., Deputy Secretary,

Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources

Muinde, Julius, Senior Coordinator,Environment Coordinating Unit, Ministryof Environment and Natural Resources

Mukui, Joseph, Director, Rural PlanningDirectorate, PEI Technical Committee,Ministry of Planning and National Development

Mwangi, Godfrey N., Senior EnvironmentalPlanning Officer, National EnvironmentManagement Authority

Nyangena, John, Senior Economist, Ministry of Planning and National Development

Ondiniu, Kennedy I., Director of Planning and Research, National EnvironmentManagement Authority

CIVIL SOCIETY

Ikiara, Moses M., Executive Director,Kenya Institute for Public Policy Researchand Analysis

Kepher-Gona, Judy, Executive Officer,Ecotourism Kenya

Khisa, Kelvin, Deputy Director, Kenya NationalCleaner Production Centre

A N N E X 6 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D 1 2 5

Kiio, Maria, Research Officer, Kenya Marineand Fisheries Research Institute, Nairobi

Kituyi, Evans, Director, Renewable EnergyTechnology Enterprises

Makhanu, Rudolf, Programme Officer, KenyaForest Working Group

Matiku, Paul, Executive Director, Nature KenyaMuchiri, Lydia, Project Officer, Practical Action

Eastern AfricaMuchiri, Wangui, CEO, Nairobi Central

Business District AssociationMusangi, James, Senior Technical and

Administration Assistant, World Wildlife Fund

Mutimba, Stephen, Programme Officer, Energyfor Sustainable Development in Africa Ltd.

Nangami, Patricia, Project Officer, NairobiCentral Business District Association

Ogada, Tom P.M., Director, Kenya IndustrialResearch and Development Institute

Ongamba, Harrison, Senior Research Officer,Kenya Marine and Fisheries ResearchInstitute, Mombasa

Salehe, John, Eastern Africa CoastalProgramme Officer, World Wildlife Fund

Wamunga, Paul, Project Manager, KenyaDisaster Concern

FYR MACEDONIA

UNDP

Adzievska, Maja, Project Manager, UNDPClimate Change Office

Blazevski, Aleksandar, Project Assistant, UNDPProject Office, Resen

Cvetkovska, Gordana, Project Assistant, UNDPProject Office, Resen

Dzurovski, Anastas, Project Assistant, UNDPProject Office, Resen

Kodzoman, Anita, Environment PracticeCoordinator, Head of Energy andEnvironment Cluster, Macedonia FYRCountry Office

Kono, Akihito, Programme Officer-Energy and Environment, Macedonia FYRCountry Office

Lopez, Alvin, International TransboundaryAdviser, UNDP Project Office, Resen

Memedov, Samir, Programme Associate,Environment Practice Area, MacedoniaFYR Country Office

Rajcanovski, Dejan, Project Manager, UNDPProject Preparation of National TourismDevelopment Strategy

Samardziev, Zlatko, National Coordinator ofthe GEF Small Grants Programme, GEF,Small Grants Programme Office, Skopje

Sekovski, Dimitar, Project Manager, GolemaRiver project, UNDP Project Office, Resen

Shimomura, Norimasa, Deputy ResidentRepresentative, Macedonia FYR Country Office

Stojanovski, Ljupco, National Project Manager,Prespa project, UNDP Project Office, Resen

Zdraveva, Pavlina, Project Assistant, UNDPClimate Change Office

OTHER BILATERAL/MULTILATERAL DONORS

Dodeva, Stanislava, National ProgrammeOfficer, Embassy of Switzerland, SwissCooperation Office Macedonia FYR

Gjorgjiev, Petar, Director, KfW, KfW Office, Skopje

Radovanovic, Natasha, Project Coordinator,KfW, KfW Office, Skopje

Sarlamanov, Robert, Programme Officer,Austrian Embassy Technical Cooperation,Austrian Development Agency

Temporal, Claire-Lise, Deputy CountryDirector, Embassy of Switzerland, SwissCooperation Office Macedonia FYR

Visser, Govert W., Deputy Head of Mission,Embassy of the Kingdom of theNetherlands, Skopje

GOVERNMENT

Buzlevski, Dimitar, Mayor, Municipality of ResenJakimovski, Mile, Director of the Environmental

Administration Unit, Ministry ofEnvironment and Physical Planning

Jantinska, Darinka, Head of Division of Bilateral Cooperation, NationalCoordinator for Prespa Project, Member ofthe Prespa Park Coordination Committee(PPCC), Ministry of Environment andPhysical Planning

A N N E X 6 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D1 2 6

Kozuharova, Gordana, Head of Department forCooperation and Project Coordination,GEF Operational Focal Point, Ministry ofEnvironment and Physical Planning

Manevski, Zoran, State Secretary, Ministry ofEconomy

Murati, Muzafer, Director, Communal Utility“Proleter”–Resen, Water Supply, Sewageand Waste Management Utility

Naumovska, Gordana, Head of Section forInternational Coordination, MacedoniaFYR Crisis Management Centre

Nikolovski, Zoran, Tourism Department,Ministry of Economy

Obradovic, Grncarovska, Assistant Head ofSustainable Development DepartmentClimate Change and Kyoto Protocol FocalPoint, Ministry of Environment andPhysical Planning

Panovski, Dejan, State Secretary, UNDP ProjectDirector, Ministry of Environment andPhysical Planning

Sukova, Kaja, Head of Sustainable DevelopmentDepartment, Ministry of Environment andPhysical Planning

Tarcugovski, Dragi, Head of Section forOperations-OPCEN, Macedonia FYRCrisis Management Centre

Trajkovski, Kosta, Head of Division for ProjectPreparation, National Coordinator,Environment and Security Initiative,Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning

Zrmanovski, Dejan, Energy Department, Headof Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy Unit, Ministry of Economy

CIVIL SOCIETY

Dragoljub, Matovski, Manager, ProjectProponent for MDG Carbon Fund,Bioreaktor M

Ivanova, Marijana, Project Manager,Journalists’ Legal Environmental Centre(ERINA), Member of the SGP NationalSteering Committee

Karchicki, Vladimir, President, Proaktiva,Member of the SGP National Steering Committee

Petrovska, Ana, Project Manager, RegionalEnvironmental Centre for Central andEastern Europe-Country Office

Radovanovic, Kornelija, Project Manager,Regional Environmental Centre for Centraland Eastern Europe-Country Office

Sazdovski, Ilija, Project Manager, ProaktivaSlavkovski, Igor, Project Manager,

Milieukontakt International, Member of theSGP, National Steering Committee

Toskovski, Naume, NGO Director, Union ofAgriculture Producers

MALAWI

UNDP

Bahamdoun, Maha, Deputy ResidentRepresentative (Programme), MalawiCountry Office

Bobfe, Augustine, Economist, Malawi Country Office

Chimbiri, Agnes, Assistant ResidentRepresentative, MDG Cluster, MalawiCountry Office

Constable, Michael, Consultant, MalawiCountry Office

Keating, Michael, Resident Representative and UN Resident Coordinator, MalawiCountry Office

M’mangisa, Etta, Programme Analyst, MDGCluster and Environment Focal Point,Malawi Country Office

Nijholt, Alwin, Trust Fund Manager, MalawiCountry Office

Standon, Howard, Adviser, Disaster Reduction,Malawi Country Office

OTHER BILATERAL/MULTILATERAL DONORS

Rohrbach, David, Senior AgriculturalEconomist, The World Bank

Sauvik, Leif B., Counsellor and Deputy Head of Mission, Royal Norwegian Embassy

Tembo, Autman, NRM Specialist, MissionEnvironmental Officer (MEO), USAID

Woolnough, David, Infrastructure and GrowthAdviser, UK Department for InternationalDevelopment (DFID)

GOVERNMENT

Chirambo, Kasiso, Principal Forestry Officer,Department of Forestry, Ministry of Energy and Mines

A N N E X 6 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D 1 2 7

Kabambe, Patrick, Principal Secretary, Ministryof Agriculture and Food Security

Kafumba, Charles, Director, Department ofEnergy, Ministry of Energy and Mines

Kamperewera, A.M., Deputy Director,Department of Environmental Affairs,Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources

Kamoto, Teddie, Principal Forestry Officer,Department of Forestry, Ministry of Energyand Mines

Kavalo, Mutemwe, Principal Forestry Officer,Department of Forestry, Ministry of Energyand Mines

Mainala, Sydney M., Director of WaterResources, Ministry of Irrigation and WaterDevelopment

Maweru, Sandram, Director of Irrigation,Ministry of Irrigation and WaterDevelopment

McCarter, Peter S., Senior Forest GovernanceSpecialist and Technical Assistance TeamLeader, EU-Supported ImprovedManagement for Sustainable LivelihoodsProgramme, Department of Forestry,Ministry of Energy and Mines

Mchiela, Andrina F., Principal Secretary,Ministry of Irrigation and WaterDevelopment

Mhango, Lewis B., Chief Energy Officer,Department of Energy, Ministry of Energy and Mines

Mitembe, William, Principal Forestry Officer,Department of Forestry, Ministry of Energyand Mines

Nakanga, Rodson W. Mkwepu, Director ofAdministration and Finance, Ministry ofIrrigation and Water Development

Ngalambe, John, Deputy Director, Departmentof Forestry, Ministry of Energy and Mines

Ngwira, Naomi, Director, Debt and AidDivision and GEF Political Focal Point,Ministry of Finance

Njewa, Evans, Environmental Officer,Department of Environmental Affairs,Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources

Nkosi, Venge, Project Manager, BarrierRemoval for Renewable Energy(BARREM), Department of Energy,Ministry of Energy and Mines

Nyirenda, Custom, Forestry Officer,Department of Forestry, Ministry of Energyand Mines

Nyuma, Mughogho, Assistant Head of ForestryExtension Services, Department of Forestry,Ministry of Energy and Mines

Simwela, Director, a.i., Department of Forestry,Ministry of Energy and Mines

Theka, Caroline, Environmental Officer,Department of Environmental Affairs,Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources

Tikiwa, C.M., Environmental Officer,Department of Environmental Affairs,Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources

Zenengeya, Fletcher E.Y., Principal Secretary,Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources

CIVIL SOCIETY

Banda, Dezio, Monitoring and EvaluationManager, World Vision International(Malawi Office)

Changaya, Albert, Chief Estate ExtensionOfficer, Agricultural Research andExtension Trust (ARET)

Chipezaani, Benson, Operations Director,Malawi Environmental Endowment Trust (MEET)

Chisale, Caleb, Programme Manager, TargetNational Relief and Development (TANARD)

Chisale, Ellen, Programme Officer, SustainableSocio-Economic Empowerment for PovertyReduction Project (SSEEP), Kasungu

Domoya, Emmanuel, Executive Director,TANARD

Dzimadzi, Chris, Project Manager, NationalAdult Literacy Centre, SSEEP

Foday, Augustine, Programme Adviser, UNV,SSEEP, Kasungu

Guta, Christopher W., Director General,Malawi Industrial Research andDevelopment Centre

Kaipa, John, Agricultural Engineer, ARETKamanga, Khumbo, Capacity Development

Officer, Coordination Unit forRehabilitation of Environment

Kulemeka, Peter, Country Director (ex-UNDPARR until 2006), Clinton-HunterDevelopment Initiative (CHDI)

A N N E X 6 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D1 2 8

Lefu, Hyton, Programme Manager,SSEEP, Kasungu

Mang’anya, Manuel, Monitoring andEvaluation Officer, National Adult LiteracyCentre, SSEEP

Matupa, Khama, Natural ResourcesCoordinator, COOPI/MALEZA Malawi

Misomali, Ernest, Country Director, Self HelpDevelopment International

Munthali, Flora, Chief Agronomist, ARETNgwala, K.L., District Community

Development Officer, SSEEP, Kasungu Nkhuzenfe, Hetherwick, Programme Manager,

Concern UniversalPhiri, Ibrahim, Deputy Director, ARETSanneh, Pa-Ansu, Community Extension

Worker, UNV, SSEEP, Kasungu

FIJI

UNDP

Atalifo, Katarina, Fiji National Coordinator,GEF Small Grants Programme

Dictus, Richard, Resident Representative, UNResident Coordinator, Fiji Multi-CountryOffice

Liew, Geoff, Pacific Regional SustainableLivelihoods Specialist, Pacific Centre

Muller, Peter, Pacific Regional Crisis Preventionand Recovery Adviser, Pacific Centre

Ravuvu, Asenaca, Team Leader, EnvironmentUnit, Environment and Energy Team, FijiMulti-Country Office

Wiseman, Garry, Manager, Pacific Centre

OTHER BILATERAL/MULTILATERAL DONORS

Bower, Rhonda, Project Adviser, IWRM, SOPACIntegrated Water Resources Management

Chang, Gordon, Deputy Executive Director,Pacific Power Association

Cloin, Jan, Renewable Energy Adviser, SOPACEnergy

Dalton, James, Project Adviser, IWRM, SOPACIntegrated Water Resources Management

Fairbairn, Paul, Manager, SOPAC Community Lifelines

Fung, Christine, Participatory Land UsePlanning and Moderation Specialist, SPC/GTZ Regional Forest and Trees Project

Holland, Paula, Senior Adviser, NaturalResources Governance, SOPACEnvironment Mario, Rupeni, EnergyAdviser, SOPAC Energy

Morris, Jared, Import Management Adviser,Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat

Narsey, Padma Lal, Sustainable DevelopmentAdviser, Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat

Neil, Tony, Executive Director, Pacific PowerAssociation

Pilger, Horst, First Secretary, Infrastructure,Delegation of the EC for the Pacific

Ratukalou, Inoke, Land Use and ResourcePolicy Adviser, Secretariat of the PacificCommunity Land Resources Division

Seniloli, Tina, Head, Project Administration,ADB, South Pacific Regional Office (SPRO)

Syngellakis, Katerina, REP-5 Manager, REP-5/European Commission (EC)

Woodruff, Allison, Adviser, ResourceEconomist, SOPAC Environment

Zieroth, Gerhard, Team Leader, PIEPSAP,SOPAC Pacific Islands Energy Policy andStrategic Action Plan

GOVERNMENT

Gounder, Kamal, Economy Planning Officer(Infrastructure and Energy), Ministry of Finance and Planning National Planning Office

Khan, Intiyaz, Principal Energy Officer,Ministry of Transport, Works and Energy,Department of Energy

Koroisave, Luke, Principal Planning Officer,Ministry of Finance and Planning NationalPlanning Office

Kumar, Shakil, Scientific Officer, Ozone,Ministry of Tourism and Environment,Department of Environment

Nakavulevu, Peceli, Head, Rural ElectrificationUnit and Acting Director of Biofuels,Ministry of Transport, Works and Energy,Department of Energy

A N N E X 6 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D 1 2 9

Nasome, Epeli, Director, GEF OFP, Chair ofFiji GEF SGP Steering Committee,Ministry of Tourism and Environment,Department of Environment

Prasad, Krishna, Chief Planning Officer,Ministry of Finance and Planning,National Planning Office

Waqainabete, Sunia, Fisheries Research Officer,Research Division, Department of Fisheries,Ministry of Fisheries and Forestry

Zariff, Razia, Scientific Officer, POPs, Ministryof Tourism and Environment, Departmentof Environment

CIVIL SOCIETY

Aalbersberg, William, Director, Institute ofApplied Science (IAS), University of theSouth Pacific (Laucala Campus, Suva)

Erasito, Elizabeth, Executive Director, NationalTrust for Fiji

Horoi, Rex, Executive Director, FSPI RegionalSecretariat

Jenkins, Aaron, Programme Officer, WetlandsInternational

Kami, Taholo, Regional Director, IUCNRegional Office for Oceania

Koshy, Kanayathu, Professor, EnvironmentalScience, Pacific Centre for EnvironmentalManagement and Sustainable Development(PACE-SD), University of the SouthPacific (Laucala Campus, Suva)

Kumar, Mahendra, Professor, SustainableDevelopment, Centre for Energy,Environment and Sustainable Development,University of Fiji (Lautoka)

Mataki, Melchior, Programme Manager,PACE-SD, University of the South Pacific(Laucala Campus, Suva)

McFadzian, Diane, Coordinator, InternationalPolicy Initiatives, Asia/Pacific ClimateChange Programme, WWF South Pacificand Fiji Country Programme

Morley, Craig, Senior Lecturer, Biology,Department of Biology, University of theSouth Pacific (Laucala Campus, Suva)

Nawadra, Sefa, Officer-in-charge, Fiji,Conservation International

Sivo, Loraini, Research Officer,Conservation International

Tabunakawai, Kesaia, Director, WWF Fiji, WWFSouth Pacific and Fiji Country Programme

Thaman, Randy, Professor, Biogeography,Department of Geography, University of theSouth Pacific (Laucala Campus, Suva)

Tuqiri, Seremaia, Regional Fisheries Officer,WWF Pacific Fisheries, WWF SouthPacific and Fiji Country Programme

Watling, Dick, Environmental Consultant,NatureFiji/MareqetiViti

OTHER

Clay, Bruce, Consultant, Clay Engineering Kumar, Premila, Executive Director,

Consumer CouncilSiwatibau, Suliana, Environment and

Energy ConsultantTuqir, Mere, Media Consultant

SAMOA

UNDP

Jensen, Thomas, Energy Adviser, Samoa Multi-Country Office

Volentras, Laututu Andre, UNDP RegionalTechnical Adviser, GEF

OTHER UN ORGANIZATIONS

Raj, Suresh, Representative, UNEPFaulalo, Keneti, Regional Coordinator, UNEP-

GEF Biosafety Unit, UNEP

GOVERNMENT

Brown, Steve, GEF Adviser/Consultant,Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

Fifita, Solomone, Programme Manager,PIGGAREP, Secretariat of the South Pacific Regional EnvironmentProgramme (SPREP)

Kilepoa, Silia, Principal Energy Officer,Ministry of Finance, Government of Samoa

Lui, Vitolio, Acting Director, Secretariat, SPREPPereira, Benjamin, Assistant, CEO Planning

Division, Ministry of Finance,Government of Samoa

A N N E X 6 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D1 3 0

Rasmussen, Anne, Climate ChangeCoordinator, Ministry of Natural Resourcesand Environment

Shaw, Alan, Officer-in-charge, Office of theOngoing Government of Tokelau, Apia,Government of Tokelau

Simi, Noumea, Assistant, CEO AidManagement Division, Ministry of Finance,Government of Samoa

Stanley, Joe, GEF Adviser, Secretariat, SPREPTaulealo, Tuuu Ieti, CEO, Ministry of Natural

Resources and Environment

CIVIL SOCIETY

Faatauvaa-Vavatau, Roina, CEO, SamoaUmbrella NGO

Hunter, David, Acting Head, School ofAgriculture, University of the South Pacific(Alafua Campus)

Jackson, Vaasiliifiti Moelagi, Vice President,Samoa Umbrella NGO

Martel, Francois, Executive Director,Conservation International, Pacific Islands Programme

Reti, Muliagatele Joe, Partner, PacificEnvironmental Consultants Ltd

Sasega, Sam, Partner, Pacific EnvironmentalConsultants Ltd

Voight, Raymond, Vice President, SamoaUmbrella NGO

OTHER

Langham, Edward, Renewable Energy Adviser,Electric Power Corporation

Percival, Papalii Grant, President, SamoaManufacturer’s Association

Punivalu, Isikuki, General Manager, IPAEngineering and Management Consulting

BANGKOK

UNDP

D’Cruz, Joseph, Regional Technical Adviser,Biodiversity, Environment Finance Group

Dhungana, Bhava, Associate ProgrammeSpecialist, REP-PoR, Environment andEnergy Group

Feld, Sergio, Environment Practice TeamLeader and Policy Adviser, Environmentand Energy Group

Karki, Sameer, Regional Technical Adviser,Biodiversity, Environment Finance Group

Kran, Marcia V.J., Deputy Regional Managerand Head of Policy and Programmes,UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok

Krause, Martin, Regional Technical Adviser,Climate Change, GEF, EEG, BDP

Kreingsontikul, Wimonrat, ProgrammeAssociate, UNDP Country Office

Kulthanan, Sirisupa, Assistant ResidentRepresentative, Thailand Country Office

Laganda, Gernot, Regional Technical Adviser,Climate Adaptation, Environment Finance Group

Mek-aroonreung, Nittaya, ProgrammeManagement Associate (Evaluation FocalPoint), Thailand Country Office

Mongia, Nandita, Programme Coordinator,Regional Energy Programme for PovertyReduction (REP-PoR), Environment andEnergy Group

Tirangkura, Inthira, Thailand Country Office

Winichagoon, Phansiri, Manager, EnvironmentUnit, Thailand Country Office

OTHER UN ORGANIZATIONS

Ichimura, Masakazu, Chief, EnvironmentSection, UNESCAP

Low, Pak Sum, Regional Adviser, Environmentand Sustainable Development, UNESCAP

Nam, Sangmin, Environmental Affairs Office,Environment Section, UNESCAP

Pernetta, John, Project Director, ReversingEnvironmental Degradation Trends in theSouth China Sea and Gulf of Thailand, UNEP

Saha, Pranesh Chandra, Chief, EnergyResources Section, UNESCAP

Tsering, Dechen, Senior Programme Officer,Regional Office for Asia and Pacific, UNEP

Verbeek, Henk, Senior Administrative Officer,Regional Office for Asia and Pacific, UNEP

A N N E X 6 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D 1 3 1

BILATERAL/MULTILATERAL DONORS

Shah, Jitendra ( Jitu), Sector Coordinator,Environment and Social Development,South East Asia–Country ManagementUnit, The World Bank

Verbiest, Jean-Pierre A., Country Director,Thailand Resident Mission, ADB

GOVERNMENT

Chinnavaso, Kasemsun, Secretary-General,Office of Natural Resources andEnvironmental Policy and Planning(ONEP), Ministry of Natural Resourcesand Environment

Kheawsaad, Kingkan, Environmental Official,Office of International Cooperation,Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

Pintukanok, Ampan, Director, Office ofInternational Cooperation, Ministry ofNatural Resources and Environment

Tummakird, Aree Wattana, InternationalAffairs (Chief Negotiator to UNFramework Convention on ClimateChange), ONEP, Ministry of NaturalResources and Environment

CIVIL SOCIETY

Boonyabancha, Somsook, Director, CommunityOrganizations Development Institute (CODI)

Chalitanon, Natvipa, AdministrativeCoordinator, Asian Coalition for HousingRights (ACHR), CODI

De Silva, Janaka A., Coordinator Projects,Thailand Programme, IUCN

Kabraji, Aban Marker, Regional Director, IUCNKongpaen, Preeda, Director,

Chunchong FoundationMacintosh, Don, Coordinator, Mangroves for

the Future (MFF), IUCN Singh, Tejpal, Programme Coordinator,

Ecosystems and Livelihoods Group, IUCN Srikasikul, Nalinee, Chunchong Foundation

BRATISLAVA

Alhazishvili, Nato, Executive Office,Deputy Director, Programme Support and Policy Development Unit (PSPD)Development Directorate

Colville, Geordie, GEF Regional TechnicalAdviser for Climate Change and Energy,Climate Change Mitigation Sub-practice

Dinu, Adriana, GEF Technical Adviser forBiodiversity, Environment and Energy, andGEF Team Leader, Biodiversity and LandDegradation Sub-practice

Gasparikova, Daniela, Country Support Team, Team Leader, Development (PSPD) Directorate

Javan, Jafar, Director, Policy Support and Programme

Kaplina, Anna, Programme Associate, ClimateChange Mitigation Sub-practice

Mamaev, Vladimir, GEF Regional TechnicalAdviser for Land Management and International Waters, WaterGovernance Sub-practice

Martonakova, Henrieta, Regional ProjectManager, Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment, Integrated EnvironmentalPolicies/SEA/ENVSEC Sub-practice

Olshanskaya, Marina, Regional Carbon Finance Specialist, Climate ChangeMitigation Sub-practice

Reimov, Ajiniyaz, Programme Officer,Environment and Security, IntegratedEnvironmental Policies/SEA/ENVSECSub-practice Development (PSPD) Directorate

Sladkova, Milada, Programme Associate,Integrated Environmental Policies/SEA/ENVSEC Sub-practice

Staudenmann, Juerg, Regional WaterGovernance Policy Adviser, WaterGovernance Sub-practice

Tothova, Klara, Country Support Team CSTEnvironmental Officer, Development(PSPD) Directorate

A N N E X 7 . S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G R A P H Y 1 3 3

MAIN REPORT REFERENCES

Collaborative Labeling and ApplianceStandards Program (CLASP). Energy-Efficiency Labels and Standards: A Guidebookfor Appliances, Equipment and Lighting. 2ndEdition. Washington, DC. 2005.

Dalberg. ‘Harmonization of UNEP and UNDPOperational Procedures for JointProgramming’. Dalberg Final Report.October 2006.

Glemarec, Yannick. ‘UNDP MDG CarbonFacility: Leveraging Carbon Finance forSustainable Development’. MEA Bulletin.December 2007.

Krause, Martin and Sara Nordstrom (eds.).‘Solar Photovoltaics in Africa: Experienceswith Financing and Delivery Modes’.UNDP Monitoring and Evaluation ReportSeries 2. 2004.

ISIS. ‘Is Biodiversity a Material Risk forCompanies? An Assessment of theExposure of FTSE Sectors to BiodiversityRisk’. 2004.

Johansson, Thomas B. and José Goldemberg(eds.). World Energy Assessment Overview:2004 Update. UNDP, UN-DESA andWorld Energy Council. 2004.

Modi, Vijay, Susan McDade, DominiqueLallement and Jamal Saghir. Energy Servicesfor the Millennium Development Goals:Achieving the Millennium Development Goals.World Bank and UNDP. 2005.

Swart, Lydia and Estelle Perry (eds.). GlobalEnvironmental Governance: Perspectives onthe Current Debate. Center for UN ReformEducation. New York. 2007.

Takada, Minoru and Ndika Akong Charles(lead authors). Energizing Poverty Reduction:A Review of the Energy-Poverty Nexus inPoverty Reduction Strategy Papers. UNDP.March 2007.

United Nations. ‘Secretary-General’s High-levelPanel on UN System-wide Coherence inthe Areas of Development, HumanitarianAssistance and the Environment’. 2006.

UNDP. Human Development Report 1992. GlobalDimensions of Human Development. OxfordUniveristy Press, New York 1992.

UNDP. ‘Sustainable Development, Energy andthe Environment: UNDP’s Climate ChangeInitiatives’. 2001.

UNDP. ‘Equator Initiative 2002 Report’. 2003.UNDP. ‘The Sustainable Difference:

Energy and Environment to Achieve the MDGs’. 2004.

UNDP. ‘UNDP and Energy for SustainableDevelopment’. Bureau for DevelopmentPolicy (BDP) Energy and EnvironmentGroup. 2004.

UNDP. ‘Equator Initiative Annual NarrativeReport’. 2004.

UNDP. ‘Equator Prize 2004. A Partnership for Sustainable Communities in theTropics’. 2004.

UNDP. Energizing the Millennium DevelopmentGoals: A Guide to Energy’s Role in ReducingPoverty. BDP Energy and EnvironmentGroup. 2005.

UNDP. ‘Thematic Trust Fund: Energy andEnvironment for Sustainable Development’.BDP Environment and Energy Group. 2005.

UNDP. Human Development Report 2006.Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and theGlobal Water Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan,New York 2006.

UNDP. ‘How-to Guide: National InstitutionalFrameworks for the Kyoto Protocol FlexibleMechanisms in Eastern Europe and theCommonwealth of Independent States’. 2006.

UNDP. Making Progress on EnvironmentalSustainability: Lessons and Recommendationsfrom a Review of Over 150 MDG CountryExperiences. BDP Environment and Energy

Annex 7

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

A N N E X 7 . S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G R A P H Y1 3 4

Group. October 2006.UNDP. ‘Global Programme 2006 Annual

Report’. BDP. 2007.UNDP. ‘Consolidated Workplan. Regional

Centres in Bangkok and Colombo’. 2007.UNDP. ‘Regional Business Plan for 2007. Asia-

Pacific Region’. Environment FinanceGroup. 2007.

UNDP. ‘Thematic Trust Fund on Environmentand Energy: 2006 Interim Report’. BDPEnergy and Environment Group. May 2007.

UNDP. Fuel to Change—OvercomingVulnerability to Rising Oil Prices: Options forAsia and the Pacific. UNDP Regional Centrein Bangkok. 2007.

UNDP. ‘Millennium Development GoalsReport quoted in UNDP-GEF BiodiversityPortfolio Performance Report’. 2007.

UNDP. Fighting Climate Change: HumanSolidarity in a Divided World. HumanDevelopment Report 2007/2008. PalgraveMacmillan. 2007.

UNDP. ‘Equator Initiative Annual NarrativeReport’. 2007.

UNDP. ‘Gender Mainstreaming: A Key Driverof Development in Environment andEnergy’. Portfolio Review and Assessment.BDP Environment and Energy Group. 2007.

UNDP and UNEP. ‘Environment for theMDGs. Mainstreaming Environment inNational Development Processes to Achievethe MDGs: Scaling-up the UNDP/UNEPPoverty-Environment Initiative’. FinalDraft Proposal. Poverty-EnvironmentInitiative. 2007.

UNDP, UNEP, World Bank and WorldResources Institute. World Resources 2005.The Wealth of the Poor: Managing Ecosystemsto Fight Poverty. 2005.

UNDP, UNEP, IIED, IUCN and WRI.Poverty-Environment Partnership. AssessingEnvironment’s Contribution to PovertyReduction: Environment for the MDGs. 2005.

UNDP, UNEP, IIED, IUCN and WRI.‘Sustaining the Environment to FightPoverty and Achieve the MDGs: TheEconomic Case and Priorities for Action.Environment for the MDGs: A Message tothe 2005 World Summit’. 2005.

World Bank. ‘Carbon Finance for Sustainable

Development’. 2006.WRI. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.Island Press. Washington, DC. 2005.

Yale University and Columbia University.‘Environmental Performance Index’. 2008.

UNDP PLANNING AND STRATEGIC DOCUMENTS

The Clean Development Mechanism:An Assessment of Progress. 2006.

Draft Strategic Plan 2008-2011: AcceleratingGlobal Progress on Human Development.Executive Board of the United NationsDevelopment Programme and of the United Nations Population Fund: AnnualSession. 2007.

Environment and Energy Contribution to theMulti-Year Funding Framework.Cumulative Report 2004-2006, Revision 2.5 March 2007.

Environment and Energy Global PracticeStrategic Planning Workshop. Goa, India,14–16 June 2006. Final Report. BDPEnvironment and Energy Group. 2006.

Executive Board of the United NationsDevelopment Programme and of the UnitedNations Population Fund. Draft RegionalProgramme Document for Africa 2008-2011: Second Regular Session. 2007.

MDG Carbon Facility: Mobilizing CarbonFinance for the Millennium DevelopmentGoals. 2005.

MDG Carbon Facility Booklet. 2007.Memorandum of Understanding Between the

United Nations Development Programmeand the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme. 24 November 2004.

Monitoring Country Progress Towards MDG7:Ensuring Environmental Sustainability(Practice Note). 2005.

Multi-Year Funding Framework 2000-2003.Executive Board of the United NationsDevelopment Programme and of the UnitedNations Population Fund: Third RegularSession. 1999.

Multi-Year Funding Framework CumulativeReport on UNDP Performance and Resultsfor 2004-2006. Executive Board of theUnited Nations Development Programme

A N N E X 7 . S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G R A P H Y 1 3 5

and of the United Nations Population Fund:Annual Session. 2007.

Poverty-Environment Initiative JointProgramme Document: Scaling-up theUNDP-UNEP Poverty-EnvironmentInitiative. n.d.

Poverty-Environment Initiative—Phase 2Project Document. Energy and EnvironmentPractice Area, Environmentally SustainableDevelopment Group, Bureau forDevelopment Policy. 2003.

Regional Business Plan 2007. UNDPEnvironmental Finance Group. 2007.

Regional Strategy on Adaptation—Asia and the Pacific. 2007.

Regional Strategy on Adaptation—Europe andCIS. Regional Bureau for Europe and theCIS (RBEC). n.d.

Report on the Multi-Year Funding Framework2000-2003. Executive Board of the UnitedNations Development Programme and ofthe United Nations Population Fund:Annual Session. 2003.

Results-Oriented Annual Report 2001. 2002.Second Multi-Year Funding Framework 2004-

2007. Executive Board of the UnitedNations Development Programme and ofthe United Nations Population Fund:Second Regular Session. 2003.

UNDP Environmental Mainstreaming Strategy:A Strategy for Enhanced EnvironmentalSoundness and Sustainability in UNDPPolicies, Programmes and OperationalProcesses. 2004.

UNDP Global Programme: 2006 AnnualReport. Bureau for Development Policy(BDP). 2006.

Water Governance Facility. SIWI Self-Assessmentof the UNDP Water Governance Facility atthe Stockholm International Water Institute2005-2006. 2007.

UNDP-GEF PLANNING AND STRATEGIC DOCUMENTS

Arab States UNDP-GEF Biodiversity RegionalPPR Report 2006. 2006.

Asia and the Pacific UNDP-GEF BiodiversityRegional PPR Report 2006. 2006.

Climate Change at UNDP: Scaling Up to Meetthe Challenge. 2007.

Europe and the CIS UNDP-GEF BiodiversityPIR Report 2006 (Parts 1, 2 and 3). 2006.

Global UNDP-GEF Biodiversity PPR 2006. 2006.International Waters. 2005 Project Implementation

Review Focal Area Report. 2005.International Waters Programme—Delivering

Results. 2007.Latin America and the Caribbean UNDP-GEF

Biodiversity Regional PPR Report 2006(Part 1 and 2). 2006.

Legro, Susan and Grant Ballard-Tremeer. LoisJensen (ed.). Heating in Transition. UNDP-GEF. 2005.

Ministry of Environment and Tourism.Strengthening the System of NationalProtected Areas Project. Terms of Referencefor the Subcontract No.1 EconomicAnalysis and Feasibility Study for ParksFinancing. n.d.

Project Implementation Review: ClimateChange Focal Area Report 2006. 2006.

Schwarz, Virginie. Public Policies SupportingWind Energy: Examples and Results.UNDP. 2007.

UNDP-GEF Adaptation Guidebook. Section 2.User’s Guidebook. n.d.

UNDP. Fuel Cell Bus Programme: Update.GEF Council. 2006.

UNDP-GEF Fast Facts: Action on Water. n.d.UNDP Land Degradation Focal Area: Project

Implementation Review 2006 SummaryReport. 2006.

UNDP-GEF 2006 Business Plan for Europeand the CIS. UNDP-GEF Regional Team. 2006.

West and Central Africa UNDP-GEFBiodiversity Regional PPR Report 2006.UNDP-GEF Dakar Regional CoordinationUnit. 2006.

UNDP OUTCOME EVALUATIONS(OUTSIDE OF CASE STUDY COUNTRIES)

Mid-term Outcome Evaluation RegardingImproved National Capacity to Negotiateand Implement Global EnvironmentCommitment. Under the EnvironmentalProtection and Natural Resources

A N N E X 7 . S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G R A P H Y1 3 6

Management Project. Final Report.Zambia. 2005.

Outcome Evaluation: UNDP IndonesianEnvironmental Management

Programme. Strategic Results Framework 2001-2003 and 2004-2005. 2004.

UNDP Albania: Environment ProgrammeOutcome Evaluation. 2004.

UNDP Pakistan: Outcome Evaluation 1998-2004. 2005.

ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

Assessment of Development Results for India.UNDP Evaluation Office. 2002.

Assessment of Development Results forBulgaria. UNDP Evaluation Office. 2003.

Assessment of Development Results forVietnam Volumes 1 and 2. UNDPEvaluation Office. 2003.

Assessment of Development Results for Egypt.UNDP Evaluation Office. 2004.

Assessment of Development Results forMozambique. UNDP Evaluation Office. 2004.

Assessment of Development Results for LaoPDR. UNDP Evaluation Office. 2007.

REGIONAL COOPERATIONFRAMEWORK EVALUATIONS

Evaluation of UNDP’s Regional CooperationFramework for the Arab States (2002–2005). UNDP Evaluation Office. 2005.

Evaluation of the Second Regional CooperationFramework in Africa (2002–2006). UNDPEvaluation Office. 2007.

Evaluation of the Second Regional CooperationFramework in Asia and the Pacific (2002–2006). UNDP Evaluation Office. 2007.

Evaluation of the Second Regional CooperationFramework in Latin America and theCaribbean (2002–2006). UNDP EvaluationOffice. 2007.

THEMATIC EVALUATIONS

Evaluation of the Second Global Cooperation

Framework of UNDP. UNDP EvaluationOffice. 2004.

Tsunami Evaluation Coalition (TEC). TsunamiEvaluation Coalition: Joint Evaluation ofthe International Response to the IndianOcean Tsunami—Synthesis Report. 2006.

Evaluation of Results-Based Management atUNDP. UNDP Evaluation Office. 2007.

EXTERNAL REPORTS AND EVALUATIONS

Damhaug, Marianne and Pernille Holtedahl.Norwegian Multilateral Support to theEnergy Sector in Developing Countries.Norad. 2006.

Scanteam. Analysis of Multilateral Funding ofRenewable Energy and Energy Efficiency:Final Report. Oslo. 2006.

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITYEVALUATIONS AND POLICY DOCUMENTS

Focal Area Strategies and Strategic Programmingfor GEF-4. GEF Council. 2007.

GEF. Climate Change Program Study. GEFOffice of Monitoring and Evaluation.Washington, DC. 2004.

GEF. GEF Annual Performance Report 2006.GEF Council (GEF/ME/G.31/1). GEFEvaluation Office. June 2007.

IW:LEARN . Executive Summary Report onthe 4th Biennial GEF International WatersConference 31 July–3 August 2007. CapeTown, South Africa. 2007.

COUNTRY STUDIES—ALL COUNTRIES

United Nations Development AssistanceFramework (UNDAF)

Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP) Country Cooperation Framework (CCA) Country Cooperation Framework (CCA) Country Programme Document (CPD)Results Report 2004 Results Report 2005 Results Report 2006 Resident Coordinator Annual Report 2003 Resident Coordinator Annual Report 2004

A N N E X 7 . S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G R A P H Y 1 3 7

Resident Coordinator Annual Report 2005 Resident Coordinator Annual Report 2006 Assessment of Development ResultsProject Reports (GEF and Non-GEF Projects)Outcome EvaluationsMDG ReportsNational Human Development Reports

BURKINA FASO

International Food Policy Research Institute.‘Cooperation Collective Action and NaturalResources Management in Burkina Faso:From Conflict to Consensus’. CAPRiWorking Paper No. 27. 2002.

International Food Policy Research Institute.‘Managing Resources in ErraticEnvironments: An Analysis of PastoralistSystems in Ethiopia, Niger and BurkinaFaso’. Washington, DC. 2004.

International Food Policy Research Institute.‘The Emergence and Spreading of anImproved Traditional Soil and WaterConservation Practice in Burkina Faso’.EPTD Discussion Paper No. 114. 2004.

UNDP. ‘PNUD Burkina Faso: PortefeuilleEnvironnement-Energie’. 2007.

CHINA

Biodiversity Planning in Asia—China: WhatLessons Can Be Learned from China’sExperience of Implementing Its NationalAction Plan for Biodiversity?

EC PB Bulletins and Newsletters. ‘EU-ChinaBiodiversity Programme Joint NationalProgramme Office’. 2006–2007.

Khoday, Kishan. ‘UNDP China—Energy andEnvironment Strategy (2006–2010)’.UNDP. November 2006.

Pool, Frank and Wen Gang. ‘EnergyConservation and GHG EmissionsReduction in Chinese Township and VillageEnterprises—Phase II’. Project of theGovernment of the People’s Republic ofChina (Project Number: CPR/99/G31).Phase II Mid-Term Evaluation. UNDP andUNIDO. October 2005.

Pool, Frank and Wen Gang. ‘EnergyConservation and GHG Emissions

Reduction in Chinese Township and VillageEnterprises—Phase II’. Project of theGovernment of the People’s Republic ofChina (Project Number: CPR/99/G31).Final Independent Evaluation. UNDP andUNIDO. June 2007.

Porter, Gareth, Shi Han and Zhao Shidong.‘Energy and Environment OutcomeEvaluation’. UNDP China. May 2003.

SEPA. ‘Act Ozone Friendly, Stay Sun Safe.Achievements of the Ozone LayerProtection in China’. In honor of the 20thAnniversary of the Montreal Protocol. StateEnvironmental Protection Administration.People’s Republic of China. 2007.

KENYA

Ntiba, Micheni, Evans M. Mwangi andArandhati Inamdar-Willets. ‘Evaluation of the UNDP-GOK Environment andNatural Resources Programme’. TheGovernment of Kenya and UNDP.August 2003.

UNDP. ‘Kenya: Evaluation of CountryProgramme Action Plan Outcomes2004–2008’. Report prepared for UNDPand Ministry of Finance Department ofExternal Resources. n.d.

Wilkinson, Rona and Evans Kituyi. ‘FinalEvaluation of the UNDP-GEF ProjectRemoval of Barriers to Energy Efficiencyand Conservation in Small and MediumEnterprises in Kenya (KEN/98/G31,KEN/98/031)’. GEF-KAM IndustrialEnergy Efficiency Project. Eco. 10November 2006.

FYR MACEDONIA

UNDP. ‘Debt for Environment Swaps,Financing Options and MacroeconomicImplications’. Ministry of Environment andPhysical Planning. 2004.

MALAWI

Saka, V.W. and H. Tchale. ‘Evaluation of theMethyl Bromide Phase-out Project’. FinalReport. Environmental Affairs Department.

A N N E X 7 . S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G R A P H Y1 3 8

Ministry of Natural Resources andEnvironmental Affairs. August 2002.

BANGKOK REGIONAL CENTRE

MDG Carbon Facility: Leveraging CarbonFinance for Sustainable Development.UNDP. 2007.

UNCT. ‘Advancing Human Development: UNActivities and Achievements 2004–2005’.Report of the United Nations CountryTeam in Thailand, n.d.

UNDP. ‘Energy for Sustainable Development inthe Asia-Pacific Region: Challenges andLessons from UNDP Projects’. 2004.

UNDP. ‘Survivors of the Tsunami One YearLater: UNDP Assisting Communities toBuild Back Better’. 2005.

UNDP. ‘Serving Asia and the Pacific AnnualReport 2006’. UNDP Regional Centres inBangkok and Colombo. 2006.

UNDP. ‘Natural Resource ManagementCountry Studies: Regional Synthesis Paper.Regional Indigenous Peoples’ Programme.Regional Centre in Bangkok’. 2006.

UNDP. ‘Biodiversity Regional Portfolio

Performance Review (PPR): UNDP-GEFRCU for Asia and the Pacific’. 2007.

UNDP. ‘Overcoming Vulnerability to Rising OilPrices: Options for Asia and the Pacific’.Regional Energy Programme for PovertyReduction. UNDP Regional Centre inBangkok. 2007.

UNDP. Environmental Finance Group.‘Regional Business Plan for 2007—Asia andthe Pacific’. n.d.

UNDP and IUCN. ‘Mangroves for the Future:A Strategy for Promoting Investment inCoastal Ecosystem Conservation2007–2012’. UNDP Regional Centre inBangkok and IUCN. 2006.

BRATISLAVA REGIONAL CENTRE

UNDP. ‘Final Evaluation of the UNDP/GEFProject. RER/01/G32. Danube RegionalProject: Strengthening the ImplementationCapacities for Nutrient Reduction andTransboundary Cooperation in the DanubeRiver Basin’. Draft Final Report. 2007.

UNDP. ‘Capacity Development for the StrategicEnvironmental Assessment Application: