project implementation review 1996
DESCRIPTION
The annual Project Implementation Review (PIR) of the GEF portfolio has become a valuable component ,:f the extensive monitoring and evaluation procedures required by the United Nations Development Programme for all projects under its purview In addition to these formal exercises, GEF project development and implementation is monitored continuously through communications among project participants, government officials. UNDP country offices, and L'NDP-GEF headquarters. For the 1996 PIR. detailed reports were submitted by the managers of 70 projects under implementation for more than one year as of June 30. 1996.TRANSCRIPT
United Nations Development Programme
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF)
1\
Project Implementation Review
1996
Street Address: 304 East 45th Street, 10th Floor
MailAddress: One United Nations Plaza, Room FF-1094, New York, N.Y. 10017
Table of Contents
1. Summary
2. Table of PIR Projects
3. Table of PIR Project Disbursements
PIR Reporting Formats
4. Africa
5. Arab States
6. Asia Pacific
7. Europe & the C.I.S
8. Latin America & the Caribbean
9. Global
10. Small Grants Programme
Draft
I nitcd Nations Dexelopment Programme
Ciloba! F.nvironinent J-'acilits'
Project Implementation Review
i 0%
/. Overview
The annual Project Implementation Review (PIR) of the GEF portfolio has become a valuable
component ,:f the extensive monitoring and evaluation procedures required by the United Nations
Development Programme for all projects under its purview In addition to these formal exercises,
GEF project development and implementation is monitored continuously through communications
among project participants, government officials. UNDP country offices, and L'NDP-GEF
headquarters. For the 1996 PIR. detailed reports were submitted by the managers of 70 projects
under implementation for more than one year as of June 30. 1996.
This year's PIR report builds upon the first one issued in 1995. Although the points brought out
in last year's report remain valid, in order to uncover new lessons learned they are not reiterated
here Several new- challenges specific to achieving GEF objectives have been illuminated this year
because it marks the first time that projects can be observed in all stager, of development from
inception to the transition interval after conclusion While the process of sharing lessons learned
among L'NDP-GEF projects has been ongoing. 1996 will see the beginning of a major initiative to
disseminate this information among all operational staff in Regional Bureaux and Country' Offices
so that it may be shared with potential project proposers at the earliest possible stage in project
development. Despite the operational differences among the implementing agencies, many of the
lessons elaborated in this report may be useful to the GEF operations of LNEP and the World
Bank
2. Portfolio Status
Annex 1 gives a summary- of the L'NDP/GEF Portfolio, excluding Project Development Facility A
(PDF A), and Small Grants Programme projects. Statistics on The Small Grants Programme can
be found in section 5 in the main body of the text
Annex lhas three sections.
Section I shows both the distribution of projects, in the L'NDP/GEF portfolio as of 30 June 1996.
by project type and focal area.
Section 2 breaks down the portfolio, showing the distribution of projects that have been under
implementation for over one year and are the subject of this PIR. and projects that have been
under implementation for less than one year, and
- . .._- Draft
Section 3 shows further detail of the distribution of those projects that are the subject of the 1990
P1R
.?. Portfolio Performance'
Task managers were asked to rate the degree to which their projects had achieved the objectives
stated in the project document. They were also required to write descriptions of the problems
encountered and what measures were taken to resolve them Overall, the major issue brought out
by this PIR is that education, institutional strengthening, capacity building and training are
becoming increasingly crucial to the incorporation of global environmental challenges into
national development strategies. However, achieving these objectives is very time-intensive, and
the results of UNDP-GEF projects targeting the development of these capacities are only now
becoming clear In order to accurately evaluate the success of such projects, there is an urgent
need to develop indicators tor measuring human and institutional capacities " """"""" *
Table 3 below shows that disbursements for UNDP/GEF projects are on schedule
Table 3: Disbursement Status of Projects Under Implementation For Over One Year as of 30
June 1996
Region Total Approved
Project Budget1
(S IS Millions)
Cumulative
Expenditure as of
June 1996
(S US Millions)
Cumulative
Expenditure as a %
of the Total Project
Budget
Global 20.46 ! 1701 53° o
Africa 48 39 21.30 44%
Asia & Pacific 81.14 38 06 47%
Arab States 15 90 i 51°-o
Latin America &
the Caribbean
59 43 36 83
Europe & the CIS 18 53 i 98%
Total 243.85 139.45 57%
includes project GEF Allocation & Co-financint;
■)•■'_-; '-Z~ Draft
I. Biodiversity
Reports from the Country Offices indicate thai the PRIFS have been remarkably successtul in
generating follow-up projects The bulk of the biodiversity projects in the portfolio are still at the
early to medium sta»e of implementation, and consequently the full impact of the interventions arc
yet to the obtained Oftlie prqjectsjfinishjng. somej_such_asjhojje_inJujz£m mjjind_Jordanj_are
demonstrabjy^ccessfu^in protecting unique_biodiversity cleariyjdjmj^abJejjTjhe ^eici ln otner
cases, where national or regionalcapacitv building efforts have been made over large and very
diverse geographical areas, (such as in Vietnam. Nepa]._Ama^nj^VIonuolia. and East Africa),
achievements have been made in terms of raising the capacity to protect biodiversity, although
spe~cific~impacts~are harder to measure than in the projects where the geographic scope is more
very limited In Colombia, the UNDP-GEF project team was able to participate in the generation
of regulations and national legislation to protect the globally significant Chocojbipja- These
projects point out the need to develop a new set of indicators that measure the increased
cap_acitjes2dncludjrigjhiuman. institutional, and leui_sJjnive^-brqugJTt_about by projects that_educate
and build capacities for biodiversity
UNDP-GEF projects have made great efforts to coordinate ample stakeholder consultations and
to fully incorporate those consultations into project activities. In many case?! however, global
biodiversity benefits are being achieved at a slower r^e than expected due in part to the
complexity of achieving consensus over land uses among diverse and often contentious
stakeholders (as for example in Panama and Colombia). The need t
uses and obtain consensus_ojTj]Tanagernent plans for the Uruguay project means that the
optimistically rapid rate of implementing biodiversity protection that was originally envisioned will
have to be scaled back Insufficient implementation capacity within governmental agencies and
other project executors is another reason that some project Timetables are taking longer than
expected. This bottleneck should decrease as in-country experience with GEF projects increase
On the other hand, the Argentina and Jordan projects are examples of projects that are successful
because technically competent CTAs and NGOs existed in those countries
Some current GEF projects clearly need to engage in more taraeted research because biodiversity
protection is intensivejnj]iejiej:djforj^^ in relation people^s_attjtudes
regarding.jLh.e_distl.ibutio.nv.abundance,-and behaviors, of biota subject to various types_of
To be successful, these projects need the time, more technically competent people.
targeted research, and financial resources to carefully assess what land use options contribujg.
most to consejAlnuJsiodjv^raty on a socially and economically sustainable basis over the long
term
II. Climate Change
22 UNDP-GEF projects under the climate change focal area were subject to the 1996 PIR. In the
area of enabling activities, over 20 countries are benefiting from significant support for
Convention communications preparation under those projects that were developed during the
pilot phase. Most enabling activity projects experienced initial delays, due mainly to the need to
- ,;-- Draft
establish National Climate Change Countryj^ommittee Once this committee is in place, the
climate chan»e work proceeds smoothly UNDP's PRIFs ha\e successfully come to matuntv.
with one PRIF alone (RER.94 G4 1 ) having spawned three different energy efficiency projects
Two shorMerm projects focusing on carbon sequestration and improved rangeland management
(BE N/93/G3 1 E and SUD/93 G3 1 ETarFobtaming good community participation and could
provide useful insmhts for designing a future GEF Programme in carbon sequestration
The more advanced projects, (under Operational Programme 6 Promoting Renewable Energy),
are making excellent progress while yielding important lessons that are transferablej££the,L
projects. One example is the ZmibaJswjJ^jwolt^^ which required
the intervention of UNDP-GEF~officers from headquarters and the country office in a major effon
to bring all parties to agreement on operational arrangements. Since rectifying these difficulties,
the project has gone on to oversee the successful installation of4000 PV systems: to establish a
well-manaued revolving fund, and to facilitate the adoption of national standards for solar home
systems and industry' codes of conduct. Six projects that fund either tjin£e^jnesearchjO£
strengthened GHG monito/ing_ca^bj[itiej^yejrj^^ Two project reports
from Uatm America, (under Operational Programme 5 Removing Barriers to Energy Efficiency),
led to substantial strengthening in the human resource base capable of evaluating and analyzing
energy efficiency needs. Another project in Latin America, the Brazil BIG/GT project
(BRA/92/G31/E), points out the challenge presented by fluctuating natural resource prices. After
making good progress with the development of a complex, and promising technology, the project
must now overcome difficulties in securing a contract for provision of the requisite feedstock, prior
to completing negotiations with the World Bank for the pilot phase 30 VIW plant.
III. International Waters
Four oi' the seven UNDP-GEF projects in the international waters focal area have received
cofinancing worth a total of S13 81 million 44% (S20.79 million) of the total GEF allocation of
S46 9 million has been disbursed All the projects are on schedule with minimal or_jTo^cost
overruns. Several instances of enhanced capacities which will produce global environmental
Toenefits'were identified, including: develojgrm^nt_ofJn^^ ^a>'si.
modernization and upgradinu_of_scientific facilities; establishment of^j^e_gj£nal_mo_mt_orij}g_and
information jrietwprks; and the introduction o_f_n£w_t.echj}o_bgies. Stakeholder consultations,
particularly" among NGOS, have been particularly strong. All UNDP-GEF international watersprojects are pursuing strategies toward ensuring long-term financial sustainability, including:
holding donor meetings; "examining the use of economic instruments to support trust funds;
developing mechanisms to include public and private financing; and securing country responsibility
for monitoring activities.
4. Project Design — Lessons Learned
There are certain crucial issues to be taken into account during the project design stage to ensure
effective project implementation
U:;:?.'GSF Draft"
Target limited numbers of mum objectives. These objectives must be realistically achievable
within the project timetable and budget, and they must be readily quantifiable for purposes of
monitoring and evaluation.
Do not underestimate time or expenses required. Certain project activities, especially recruitment,
procurement, and the establishment of legal frameworks often require more time than has been
budgeted in past projects Capacity building and ensuring full participation are very time
consuming endeavors—several projects have identified 4 years as the minimum project time frame
for broad participation and sustainable capacity building.
Allocate adequate resources: to expand income gei-eration options for local communities, develop
non-donor financing mechanisms based on market surveys, and consider how project objectives
will be sustained 5-10 years after a project ends.
Identify and secure realistic counterpart contributions. Some projects have been hampered by the
failure to receive timely counterpart contributions foreseen in the project document Realistic
assessment of contributions and timetables for the delivery of contributions must be included in the
project document. Documented political commitments can ir^ke up for lack of ability to offer
counterpart support
Identify opportunities to leverage co-financing and complement other projects. Project developers
should expend more effort researching potential project cofinanciers. Project design should be kept
open and flexible to permit the participation of other donors
Establish clear responsibilities for pro/eel execution ana project implementation. These
responsibilities and procedures can be arrived at through a pre-implementation meeting among
project participants
Identify several potential procurement channels and subcontractors. Several project PIRs noted
that delays were due to difficulties in the procurement and delivery of equipment and services.
Plan the smooth transfer ofproject management responsibility to government and civil society at
end ofproject. The transition period at the end of a project has proven to be crucial to long-term
sustainability of efforts to realize project objectives. Although many alterations in project activities
will occur during the life of a project, it is possible to design specific mechanisms for the efficient
transfer of project management
5. Project Implementation — Lessons Learned
Train project staff in I'NDP operational procedures at earliest stage in project implementation:
some delays were cited due to a lack of understanding amongst project personnel regarding
implementing agency procedures
Draft
Hold a pre-impiementation workshop during which all parties involved in project management can
clarify and auree on their rospecti\ e roles'and responsibilities in decision-making structures and
project implementation
Hold numerous introductory n orkshnps for the local population. Projects must be designed with
the participation of local populations, and a major effort must stili be made to thoroughly inform all
affected populations at the outset of project activities.
Compile a directory of relevant XGOs and experts. The project should be sure that contact is
established and maintained with all relevant NGOs and leading local and national experts in the
project's area of focus.
Gain the government's commitment on addressing the project'sfocal area. As project
implementation proceeds, a governmental commitment on the project focal area will deepen the
project's impact and help make it more sustainable The projects can provide support to
governments in developing related policies
Build in contingency plans for the consequences of instability u ithin governmental institutions.
Governments should appoint key contact persons to ensure timely and effective interaction with the
project, and projects should maintain sufficient flexibility to weather changes in governments that
cause personnel replacements and an alteration in the policy environment
Conned project to the Global Community. Site visits, out-of-country training, and the linking of
institutions through the Internet and regional information systems can enhance project effectiveness
throuyh better information sources, and spread the benefits of knowledge gained through project
activities
6. The Small Grants Programme
I. Overview
Through 30 June 1996, the Small Grants Programme (SGP) has funded a total of 720 projects in
33 countries Out of this total, the breakdown of projects by GEF focal area is: 472 projects in
biodiversity (65 %); 172 projects in climate change (24%); 26 projects in international waters
(4%); 8 projects in ozone depletion (1%); and 42 projects which cut across the GEF focal areas,
primarily in capacity building (6%). It should be noted that a number of projects in coastal and
marine areas are included under biodiversity.
Given the community-level focus of SGP projects, the relatively high percentage of biodiversity
projects in the Pilot Phase reflects the closer links of this area with local needs and priorities. The
relatively low share of climate change projects reflects the much smaller number of NGOs and
community-based groups involved in climate change (re: renewable energy and energy efficiency).
issues. In the next phase of the programme, the breakdown by GEF focal area is projected to be
13/14/rc
:'.'.' '- ' 'r.i_: Draft
biodiversity (50°o). climate change (30°o). international waters ( 10°o). and cross-canine activities
in land degradation i K>%)
The breakdown of projects by region is shown b\ K-ible 4 below
Table 4: Regional Distribution of the Projects in the Small Grants Programme
| Region
Africa (10 countries)
Arab States (3 countries)
Asia/Pacific (8 countries)
! Number of Projects
Europe (2 countries)
Latin America/Caribbean :
(10 countries) |
Total
152
47
21 1
60
250
720
] —
Percentage of the Total
Number of Projects
21°o
6% .
20° o '
8°o ;
35°o :
i
100%
Table 5 below shows the Portfolio's Performance in terms of financial disbursements.
Table 5. Disbursements of Funds to All L'NDP/GEF Small Grants Proiects as of 30 June 1096
Region Total Approved
Project Budget2
(S IS Millions)
| Cumulative
I Expenditure as of
! June 1996
i (S IS Millions)
j Cumulative \
! Expenditure as a % i
of the Total Project j
Budget
i Small Grants
Programme
2 Lessons Learned -- Project Design & Implementation
The main issues and recommendations for project implementation and design of the Small Grants
Programme that have arisen from the PIR excercise are:
• establish an overall strategic framework for the GEF/SGP that is clearly linked to the GEF
Operational Strategy, and revise country programme strategies to ensure consistency with the
ulobal framework.
includes project GEF Allocation <fc Co-fin;incim>
..,.._-. _z_ Draft
• establish a programme-wide framework for monitoring and evaluation, including with respect
to assessing impact.
• revise and. as necessary, develop new programme operational guidelines.
• as appropriate, ensure that NSCs have adequate technical expeni.se in the climate change
(renewable energy) and international waters focal areas.
• expand local access to information and expertise in the climate change (renewable energy) and
international waters focal areas.
• while maintaining the focus on -demonstration" activities, expand the use of grant funds in the
areas of capacity building, analysis, documei.tation and dissemination of experience, and in
networking and policy dialogue.
• as appropriate, taruet GEF SGP programming to complement and or directly contribute to
regular GEF projects.
• develop sieneric GEF/SGP training modules with respect to community-level action in the
GEF focal areas and and key areas of implementation, such as monitoring and evaluation.
• expand efforts globally and at country level to mobilize non-GEF sources of funding, and
identify and implement measures to ensure t'-e sustainability of the country programmes
Drar t
Annex 1. Statistical Summary of the l'\'DP GEF Portfolio
I. LNDP GEF Work Program on 30 June I 0% (excluding PDF Ai
Figure a The Distribution of the Number of Projects in The I.'NDP GEF Portfolio b\ Project
Type
Project Development
l'roiec! Development iaulilx C
l-aulit\ H ,„
Prc- nr-estmen:
l-'.niiiilini: Aeln ill
I >;•-' n
Figure b The L'NDP/GEF Portfolio by Project Type. Showing the Distribution of GEF
Allocation (S)
l'ull Project
Project !)e\elopnieiii
Facility 1! l're-In\e<lmenl lacilil\
- W'.>
\eti\it\
Project De\elopment
Facility C
I)",,
Draft
Figure c. The L'NDP GEF Portfolio by Focal Area. Showing -.'c Distribution of GEF
Allocation < S)
Mtil'.i-l-'neai Area international Water*
iie Depletion
Biodiversity
International Wa
II. Implementation Status of Projects in L'NDP/GEF Work Program on 30 June 1996 (excludirm
PDF A).
Figure d. The L'NDP/GEF Portfolio State of Implementation. Showing the Percentage by
Number of Projects Under Implementation Less Than One Year and the Number of
Projects Under Implementation More Than One Year
43%
57%
QNn ol'l'roKVt.-. AiTlivi: I.t'ss 'ITian Oik1
Vi:ar
B No ol'l'roitvts I 'ndcr lmpciiK'ntalion
for Over One \'v.'ar
'■■'■'■-'- ?-- Draft
Figure e The UNDP'GEF Portfolio State of Implementation. Showing Projects under
implementation less than one year and projects under implementation more than one
vear b\ the Distribution of their CiEF Allocation (S)
0CJKI-'
I .ess
HCKI-
(her
,\l
Tii
Ml
(>ii
ocalinn
111 ( hie
ocalmn
e Year
ol
n! \'n
U'cls 1 ndcr
ietl> i ndjr
Inipieniem
impemenia
ilinn
1; ill \nr
Table 1. The UXDP/GEF Portfolio State of Implementation Showing the Distribution of
Projects by GEF Allocation (S US Millions;
Project Status
GEF Allocation
of Projects
Lndcr
Implementation
Less Than One-
Year
GEF Allocation
of Projects
Under
Impcmentation
for Over One
Year
Total GEF
Allocation of
Projects in
Work Pro«ram
Enahlin"
Activities
16 97
j
0
Full
Projects
55 09
238.16
j
Projects
Development
Facility B
5 S3
Projects
Development
Facility C
0.25
0
I !I i
I
16.97 293.25 5.83
i
0
0.25
Prc-
Invesiment
Facility
3 44
17.36
2(1.8
Total
98.94
238.16
337.11)
Draft
.III. UNDP GEF Proiects I'nder Implementation lor Over One Year at >■ June !°% (excluding
PDF A)
Table 2. Number of Projects. Project Type by Region
Project
Type
I Global I Africa Asia &
! Pacific
i Arab States \ Europe & j Latin Total
i i the CIS I America & |!thc !Caribbean j
! Full
| Projects
ID! 4!
P re-
Investment
Facility
20i
Total 13 21; 17; 701
1C/14/??.
UNDP/GEFWORKPROGRAM
(atJune30
1996
);Pr
ojec
tsOperationallyActiveMoreThanOne
Year(exPDFA)
sortedbyRegion
Region
projcct
project
Foca
lAr
eaPr
ojec
tProjectName
Entr
yProDoc
GEF
Fini
shed
,■Phase
line
Numher
in»A\vp
<:;„„.#..™
au^^h^
i*\
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
Global
RBA
RBA
Pilo
tPhase
Pilo
tPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
FP
FP
FP
FP
FP
FP
PRJF
FP
FP
Climate
Change
Climate
Change
International
Waters
Climate
Change
Climate
Change
Climate
Change
Biodiversity
Climate
Change
Biodiversity
GLO/91/G3I
GLO/91/G32
GLO/91/G33
GLO/92/G31
GLO/93/G31
GLO/93/G32
GLO/94/G41
BEN/93/G31
BKF/94/G31
ResearchProgrammeonMethane
EmissionsfromRiceFields
MonitoringofGHG
IncludingOzone
Support
forRegionalOceansTraining
Programmes
GlobalChangeSystem
forAnalysis,
Research&
Training(START)
ClimateChangeCapacityBuilding(CC:
TRAIN
-Phase
I)
Alternativesto
SlashandBurn
PopulationLandManagementand
EnvironmentalChange
Village-BasedManagementofWoody
SavannaandtheEstablishmentof
Woodlots
forCarbonSequestration
OptimizingBiologicalDiversityWithin
WildlifeRanchingSystems:A
Pilot
Demonstrationin
aSemi-aridZone
5/1/91
5/1/91
12/1/91
5/1/92
5/1/93
2/1/92
7/1/94
12/1/92
12/1/92
7/1/92
1/14/93
7/16/93
5/18/93
1/31/94
3/15/94
8/30/94
1/14/94
6/22/95
$5,000
$4,800
$2,600
$4,100
$0,900
$3,000
$0,100
$2,500
$2,500
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Region
RBA
RBA
RBA
RBA
RBA
RBA
RBA
RBA
RBA
RBA
Project
Pha«<>
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
Pil
otPhase
Pil
otPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
Project
Tvnp
PRIF
FP
FP
PRIF
FP
FP
FP
FP
PRIF
FP
FocalArea
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Climate
Change
Biodiversity
International
Waters
International
Waters
Biodiversity
Climate
Change
Project
Number
ERI/94/G42
ETH/93/G31
GAB/92/G31
MAG/94/G41
MAU/93/G32
RAF/92/G31
RAF/92/G32
RAF/92/G34
UGA/92/G41
URT/93/G31
ProjectName
ConservingCoralReefsin
theRedSea
ADynamicFarmer-basedApproach
tothe
ConservationofAfricanPlantGenetic
Resources
ConservationofBiodiversitythrough
EffectiveManagementofWildlifeTrade
BiodiversityConservation
DecentralizedWind
Electric
Power
for
SocialandEconomicDevelopment
InstitutionalSupport
toProtectEast
AfricanBiodiversity
PollutionControlandOtherMeasures
to
ProtectBiodiversityin
LakeTanganyika
IndustrialWaterPollutionControl
inthe
GulfofGuineaLargeMarineEcosystem
ForestConservation
Electricity,
Fueland
Fertilizer
from
Municipaland
Industrial
OrganicWaste
in
Tanzania:A
DemonstrationofBiogas
Entry
IntoVVP
6/1/95
12/1/92
5/1/91
1/1/95
12/1/92
5/1/91
12/1/91
12/1/91
8/1/92
5/1/93
ProDoc
Signature
6/1/95
9/2/94
7/18/94
1/19/95
9/7/94
9/10/92
2/14/95
10/31/94
7/23/92
3/18/94
GEF
Allocution
$0,400
$2,500
$1,000
$0,500
$2,000
$10,000
$10,000
$6,000
$0,200
$2,500
Finished
(npprat.)
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Region
RBA
RBAP
RBAP
RBAP
RBAP
RBAP
RBAP
RBAP
RBAP
RBAP
Proj
ect
Proj
ect
Foca
lArea
Proj
ect
Proj
ectName
Entry
ProDoc
GEF
Finishcd
iPhasc
.Type..-,
Niimhpr
t--™™
c:—*.._.
*.,
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
Pilo
tPhase
Pilo
tPhase
Pilo
tPhase
Pilo
tPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
Pilo
tPhase
FP
FP
PRIF
PRIF
FP
FP
FP
PRIF
PRIF
FP
Climate
Change
Climate
Change
Biodiversity
Climate
Change
Climate
Change
Climate
Change
Climate
Change
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
ZIM/95/G31
CPR/91/G32
CPR/91/G41
CPR/91/G42
CPR/92/G31
IND/92/G31
IND/92/G32
IND/92/G41
INS/92/G4I
MON/93/G31
Photovoltaicsfo
rHouseholdand
CommunityUse
Issu
esandOptions
inGHG
Emissions
Control
Biodiversity
Pre-Investment
SichuanGasTransmission
DevelopmentofCoal-BedMethane
Resources
inChina
OptimizingDevelopmentof
SmallHydel
Resources
intheHi
llyRegions
DevelopmentofHighRate
BioMethanationPr
oces
sesas
Meansof
ReducingGreenhouseGasEmissions
Eco-development
BiodiversityConservation
Stre
ngth
enin
gCo
nser
vati
onCa
paci
ty-
Developmentand
Institutionof
aNa
tion
al
Biodiversity
ConservationPlan
5/1/91
5/1/91
3/1/92
6/1/92
5/1/91
12/1/91
5/1/92
3/1/93
6/1/92
5/1/93
9/25/92
3/6/92
3/6/92
6/5/92
6/5/92
3/15/94
3/15/94
3/16/93
6/18/92
3/7/94
$7,000
$2,000
$1,700
$1,400
$10,000
$7,500
$5,500
$0,200
$1,600
$1,500
III|U-|HI
1
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Region
RBAP
RBAP
RBAP
RBAP
RBAP
RBAP
RBAP
RBAP
RBAP
RBAP
Project
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
Pilo
tPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
Project
PRIF
FP
PRIF
FP
FP
FP
FP
FP
FP
PRIF
FocalArea
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Climate
Change
International
Waters
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Climate
Change
Project
Niimhnr
MON/93/G41
NEP/92/G31
PAK/93/G41
PNG/93/G31
RAS/91/G31
RAS/92/G33
RAS/92/G34
RAS/94/G32
SRL/92/G31
THA/92/G41
ProjectName
BiodiversityConservation
BiodiversityConservation
inNepal
MaintainingBiodiversitywithRural
CommunityDevelopment
BiodiversityConservationandResource
Management
South
PacificBiodiversityConservation
Programme
AsiaLeast-CostGHG
Abatement
Strategy
(ALGAS)
Project
PreventionandManagementofMarine
Pollutionin
theEastAsianSeas
Conservation
Stra
tegi
esforRhinos
in
SoutheastAsia
WildlifeConsen'ationandProtectedAreas
Management
EnergyEfficiency
Entry
IntnWP 7/1/94
12/1/91
6/1/94
12/1/91
5/1/91
12/1/91
12/1/91
5/1/93
12/1/91
7/1/92
ProDoc
Signature
7/4/94
9/16/93
6/2/94
3/30/93
4/23/93
8/18/94
11/13/93
12/9/94
5/27/92
7/9/92
GEF
Allnrntinn
$1,000
$3,800
$2,500
$5,000
$8,200
$9,500
$8,000
$2,000
$4,100
$0,600
Finished
(npprat.)
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Kegion
Projcct
Project
Foca,Arca
project
projcctNamc
£ntry
ProDoc
GEp
Finishcd
IPhase
Txn£
Numher
!„♦„wro
e:*.—
ah___,.:__
,^
RBAP
RBAP
RBAS
RBAS
RBAS
RBAS
RBAS
RBAS
RBAS
RBAS
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
Pilo
tPhase
Pilo
tPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PRIF
FP
PRIF
FP
PRIF
FP
PRIF
FP
PRIF
FP
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Climate
Change
Climate
Change
Biodiversity
Climate
Change
Climate
Change
International
Waters
THA/92/G42
VIE/91/G31
EGY/92/G41
JOR/92/G31
JOR/93/G41
RAB/94/G31
RAB/94/G41
SUD/93/G31
SYR/93/G41
YEM/92/G31
Biodiversity
ConservationTrainingandBiodiversity
ActionPlan
NileWetlands
ConservationoftheDana&
Azraq
ProtectedAreas
MethaneReduction
BuildingCapacityin
theMaghreb
to
Respond
totheChallengesand
OpportunitiesCreatedbyNational
PlantgeneticResources
intheMaghreb
Region
CommunityBasedRangeland
Rehabilitation
forCarbonSequestration
andBiodiversity
Elec
tric
ityDemand
SideManagement
Protection
ofMarineEcosystemsofthe
RedSeaCoast
11/1/92
5/1/91
12/1/92
5/1/92
5/1/93
5/1/93
5/1/95
12/1/92
7/1/93
5/1/92
11/16/92
7/31/92
12/31/92
10/20/93
5/4/93
12/26/94
5/30/95
10/3/94
7/22/93
6/22/93
$0,700
$3,000
$0,800
$6,300
$0,200
$2,500
$0,300
$1,500
$0,500
$2,800
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Region
proj
cct
Proj
ect
Foca
lArea
Proj
ect
Proj
ectName
Entry
ProDoc
GEF
Finished
Ph-«.
Tvni.
Niimhpr
TntnWP
Sianatnrp
Allocation
fonerat^
RBAS
RBEC
RBEC
RBEC
RBLAC
RBLAC
RBLAC
RBLAC
RBLAC
RBLAC
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PRIF
FP
FP
PRIF
FP
FP
FP
FP
FP
FP
Climate
Change
International
Waters
International
Waters
Climate
Change
Biodiversity
Climate
Change
Biodiversity
Climate
Change
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
YEM/93/G41
RER/91/G31
RER/93/G31
RER/94/G41
ARG/92/G31
BRA/92/G31
BZE/92/G31
CHI/93/G31
COL/92/G31
COS/92/G31
LPG
SubstitutionProgramme
EnvironmentalManagement
inthe
DanubeRiverBasin
EnvironmentalManagement&
Protection
oftheBlackSea
EnergyEfficiencyStrategies
PatagonianCoastalZoneManagement
Plan
Biomass
IntegratedGasification/Gas
TurbineProject
SustainableDevelopmentand
ManagementofBiologicallyDiverse
CoastalResources
ReductionofGreenhouseGasEmissions
BiodiversityConservation
intheChoco
Region
ConservationofBiodiversityand
SustainableDevelopment
inLaAmistad
andLaOsaConservationAreas
9/1/93
5/1/91
5/1/92
2/1/95
12/1/91
12/2/91
12/1/91
12/1/92
5/1/91
12/1/91
9/12/93
9/21/92
10/17/94
8/16/94
12/9/93
9/23/92
3/31/93
6/12/95
9/29/92
5/28/93
$0,800
$8,500
$9,300
$0,400
$2,800
$7,700
$3,000
$1,700
$6,000
$8,000
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Region
proj
ect
Proj
ect
Foca
lArea
Proj
ect
Proj
ectName
Entry
ProD
ocGEF
Fini
shed
r-
Pha.SP
TvnC
Nllltlhl-r
TntnWP
(tionoturp
Alln<">tinn
rnnoroM
RBLAC
RBLAC
RBLAC
RBLAC
RBLAC
RBLAC
RBLAC
RBLAC
RBLAC
RBLAC
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
PilotPhase
Pillot
Phase
PilotPhase
FP
FP
FP
FP
FP
FP
FP
FP
PRIF
FP
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Climate
Change
Biodiversity
Climate
Change
Ozone
Depletion
International
Waters
Biodiversity
CUB/92/G31
DOM/92/G31
GUY/92/G31
PAN/94/G31
PER/92/G31
RLA/92/G31/
G32/G33
RLA/92/G34
RLA/93/G31
RLA/93/G41
URU/92/G31
ProtectingBiodiversityandEstablishing
SustainableDevelopment
intheSabana-
CamagueyRegion
ConservationandManagement
inthe
CoastalZoneoftheDominicanRepublic
Programme
forSustainableForestry
(IwokramaRainForest)
BiodiversityConservation
intheDarien
TechnicalAssistance
totheCentre
for
EnergyConservation
Regional
StrategiesfortheConservation
and
SustainableManagementofNatural
Resources
intheAmazon
RegionalCooperativeActivitiesin
SupportofGlobalChangeResearch
inthe
IAICountries
MonitoringandResearchNetwork
for
OzoneandGHG
intheSouthernCone
ContaminatedBaysandCoasts
in
Caribbean
ConservationofBiodiversityin
the
EasternWetlands
12/1/91
5/1/92
5/1/91
5/1/91
12/1/91
5/1/91
5/1/92
5/1/93
8/1/94
5/1/92
12/15/93
5/2/94
2/10/93
3/8/94
2/17/93
3/26/93
1/17/94
10/19/94
8/24/93
4/19/93
$2,000
$3,000
$3,000
$3,000
$0,900
$4,500
$2,900
$1,900
$2,500
$3,000
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Region
proj
cct
Project
Foca
lArea
Proj
ect
Proj
ectName
Niimh
Entry
IntnWP
ProDoc
GEF
Allnratinn
Finished
(npprat.)
RBLAC
PilotPhase
PRIF
Climate
Change
VEN/93/G41
MethaneLeaks
inMaracaiboNetwork
10/1/94
10/19/94
$1,000
No
10Oct96
1996PROJEC
SUMMARY
SmallGrantsProgramme
TotalGlobal
TotalAfrica
TotalAsiaand
Pacific
TotalArabStates
Total
LatinAmerica&Caribbean
TotalEuropeandCIS
TotalUNDP/GEF
Projects
TIMPLEME
GEFAuthonzPd
Allocation
17,943.2
20,500.0
47,100.0
79,800.0
15,700.0
56,900.0
18,200.0
256,143.2
STATION
Jan-Dec
91
ActualExp
(£000)
0.0
38.8
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.6
REVIEW
-F
JanDec92
ActualExp
($■000)
jlli
."!™
iplf
*"l!
iYi|
F3!|
!S11
182.3
193.9
1,203.2
3,276.0
676.4
145.6
845.8
6,523.2
INANCIAL
Jan-Dec93
ActualExp
3,654.4
4,872.9
4,023.0
10,174.8
703.6
5,533.9
2,829.1
31,791.7
STATUSO
JanDec94
ActualExp
($'000)
5,212.9
7,403.8
4,648.8
9,672.4
2,292.8
10,186.6
6,502.2
45,919.5
FUNDP/GI
JanDec95
ActualExp
6,865.0
2,370.0
5,433.3
10,399.0
2,822.9
14,836.5
3,661.9
46,388.6
:fprojec
Jan-Jun96
ActualExp
1,811.2
2,132.3
5,995.4
4,540.1
1,631.5
5,721.8
4,281.0
26,113.3
TS
Cumulativeexp.
asofJune96
($■000)
17,725.8
17,011.7
21,303.7
38,064.1
8,127.2
36,838.8
18,120.0
157,191.3
TotalApproved
ProjectBudget
^^($•000)
20,943.2
20,459.0
48,385.1
81,137.2
15,898.8
59,433.4
18,535.5
264,792.2
Page
1of
8
Cumul.
exp.
as
%of
approved
UNDP
budget
85%
83%
44%
47%
51%
62%
98%
59%
10Oct96
1996PROJECTIMPLEMENTATIONREVIEW-FINANCIALSTATUSOF
UNDP/GEFPROJECTS
SMALLGRANTSPROGRAMME
PROJECT
NUMBER
QSE
INT/92/G31/J/1
INT/94/G51/C/1
TOTAL
PROJECTTITLE
SmallGrantsProgramme
SmallGrantsProg.(USAID)
GEF
Authorized
Allocation
a/
17,943.2
17,943.2
Jan-Dec91
ActualExp
($'000)
a/Excludes$3
mill
ionfromUSAID
para
llel
-fin
anci
ngarrangement.
1996PROJECTIMPLEMENTATIONREVIEW-FINANCIALSTATUSOF
UNDP/GEFPROJECTS
GLOBAL
PROJECT
NUMBER
GLO/91/G31/E/
GLO/9UG32/F/
GLO/91/G33/I/1
GLO/92/G31/F/
GLO/93/G32/C/
GUO/93/G31/F/
GLO/94/G41/A
TOTAL
PROJECTTITLE
SETS:^fi-J
>Hgasfrom
rice
fiel
ds
MonitoringGH
gas
Reg'loceans
trainingprog.
START
globalchange
Slash&
burnresearch
init
iati
ves
Climatechange
capacitybldg.
ResearchonPLEC
GEF
Authorized
Allocation
Jan-Dec91
ActualExp
($'000)
5,000.0
4,800.0
2,600.0
4,100.0
3,000.0
900.0
100.0
20,500.0
38.8
38.8
Jan-
bec92
ActualExp
0.0
(7.5:
116.6
84.8
Jan-Dec93
ActualExp
193.9
1,835.2
2,049.6
362.8
511.4
113.9
4,872.9
Jan-Dec94
ActualExp
($'000) 572.5
923.6
1,330.1
980.8
2,997.0
599.8
0.0
7,403.8
Jan-Dec95
ActualExp
($■000) 617.4
641.6
43.0
795.0
4.6
168.4
100.0
2,370.0
Jan-Jun96
ActualExp
Cumulativeexp.
asofJune96
821.0
291.6
664.6
346.1
0.0
9.0
0.0
2,132.3
3,846.1
3,937.7
2,517.1
2,718.1
3,001.6
891.1
100.0
17,011.7
otal
Approved
'rej
ectBudget
4,982.0
4,800.0
2,583.3
4,093.7
3,000.0
900.0
100.0
20,459.0
Cumul.exp.as
%ofapproved
UNDP
budget
77%
82%
97%
66%
100%
99%
100%
83%
10Oct96
1996PROJECTIMPLEMENTATION
AFRICA
■lillSSiiilll'liliiliii'SBiSIJl"1
PROJECT
NUMBER
■i!IIlli
l9II
illl
ii!!!!B
RAF/92/G31/F/
GAB/92/G31/D/
RAF/92/G32/F/
RAF/92/G34/H/
ZIM/95/G31/C/1
BEN/93/G31/E/
BKF/94/G31/B/
ETH/93/G31/C/
MAU/93/G32/B/
URT/93/G31/C/
UGA/92/G41/B/
MAG/94/G41/B/
ERI/94/G42/C/1
TOTAL
P:
,IBSW'!'
!:Hv
'8!'
:;*™
ft;'"i
ii■■""
"'■'■'T"
t
PROJECTTITLE
EastAfricabiod'y
CentralAfricabiod'y
LakeTanganyika
GulfofGuinea
Photovoltaics
Mgt
ofwoodysavanna
Wildliferanchingsystem
Conser"n
ofplantgenetics
Wind
elec
tric
power
Electricity&
fuel
biogas
plant
Forestconservation
Biodiversityconservation
Coralreefs
inRedSea
GEF
Authorized
Allocation
($'000)
10,000.0
1,000.0
10,000.0
6,000.0
7,000.0
2,500.0
2,500.0
2,500.0
2,000.0
2,500.0
200.0
500.0
400.0
47,100.0
Jan-Dec
91
ActualExp
($'000) 0.0
REVIEW
-FINANCIALSTATUSOF
UNDP/GEFPROJECTS
Jan-Dec92
ActualExp
($'000) 834.9
149.3
61.0
158.0
1,203.2
Jan-Dec93
ActualExp
($'000)
!>lt!'
i!?|il
!uiMiJ
i:!i»J
iili'!
jMi!Il
!;i;
2,634.4
11.0
51.6
1,214.5
124.8
(13.3;
4,023.0
Jan-Dec94
ActualExp
($'000)
2,690.2
0.0
34.3
5.1
1,088.5
346.7
30.3
3.9
168.8
254.6
3.8
0.0
22.6
4,648.8
Jan-Dec95
ActualExp
($■000)
2,471.0
232.2
865.4
444.6
65.2
417.4
2.6
56.3
114.0
163.1
0.0
538.8
62.7
5,433.3
Jan-Jun96
ActualExp
'ffl
illT
flli
lWi'
lI'i
Milj
'iiP
I^ji
1'
963.9
248.4
2,764.3
886.3
572.8
155.1
6.2
103.2
68.3
231.0
0.0
(95)
5.4
5,995.4
Cumulativeexp.
asofJune96
($'0O0)
1;!I!!H!t|[|jtJiiji'Wii1»!|]i'|i>T^t|i;™n;!;!'
9,594.4
480.6
3,675.0
1,536.9
3,002.0
1,044.0
39.1
163.4
351.1
648.7
148.5
529.3
90.7
21,303.7
Total
Approved
ProjectBudget
($'000)
iltj
l^Sl
'!!!
Ii!f
illt
'!!j
ilf'
Niii
!!W'
'!j|
t
10,000.0
1,000.0
10,000.0
5,993.4
7,000.0
2,500.0
2,500.0
2,476.8
2,000.0
3,864.8
151.0
b/
499.1
400.0
48,385.1
Page3of
8
Cumul.
exp.as
%ofapproved
UNDP
budget
96%
48%
37%
26%
43%
42%
2%
7%
18%
a/
17%
98%
106%
23%
44%
a/Includes$1,364.8co-financingfromDenmark(DANIDA).
b/Tobeadjusteddownwardby$41.4,hencecumulativeexpenditure
willbe$497.4.
10oct96
1996PROJECTIMPLEMENTATIONREVIEW
-FINANCIAL
ASIAANDTHEPACIFIC
■
PROJECT
NUMBER
^sffifiSfeSSs:
RAS/91/G31/H/
CPR/91/G32/E/
VIE/91/G31/G/1
CPR/92/G31/E/
RAS/92/G33/B/
RAS/92/G34/D/
IND/92/G31/C/1
NEP/92/G31/E/
PNG/93/G31/E/
SRL/92/G31/H/
IND/92/G32/C/1
MON/93/G31/D
RAS/94/G32/A/
PROJECTTITLE
South
PacificBiod'y
LimitingGH
gases
Wildlifeconservation
Coalbedmethane
Asia
leastcostGHG
SEAsianseas
HillyHidelresource
Nationalbiod'y
ConserVn&
resourcemgt
Wildlifeconservation
Dev.ofbiomethanationprocess
Biod'yconservation
SEAsian
rhinoconservation
GEF
Authorized
Allocation
($'000)
8,200.0
2,000.0
3,000.0
10,000.0
9,500.0
8,000.0
7,500.0
3,800.0
5,000.0
4,100.0
5,500.0
1,500.0
2,000.0
''
'"
Jan-Dec91
ActualExp
^JSJOOO^
1.8
Jan-Dec92
ActualExp
($'000) 413.3
610.8
425.7
199.8
109.2
77.9
5.0
Jan-Dec93
ActualExp
^(1000)^
195.8
1,013.4
1,333.7
2,548.0
35.9
310.6
367.1
819.0
STATUSOFUNDP/GEFPROJECTS
Jan-Dec94
ActualExp
($'000)
775.1
305.2
670.5
4,694.3
57.3
352.1
1.7
314.5
988.6
75.7
18.5
219.0
88.5
Jan-Dec95
ActualExp
^JIOOO^
978.4
70.2
337.9
1,367.4
1,751.6
889.8
459.6
556.6
1,442.7
678.8
201.6
855.9
527.1
Jan-Jun96
ActualExp
($'000)
n"u»n^,^1jpEi-r*;v'l|w!!u-||'i
551.4
15.0
4.7
63.2
652.0
868.3
143.0
175.6
756.0
286.7
91.7
241.6
397.8
Cumulativeexp
asofJune96
2,915.8 b/
2,014.6
2,772.5
8,872.7
2,606.0
2,498.7
604.3
1,046.7
3,554.4
1,865.2
311.8
1,316.5
1,013.4
Total
Approved
ProjectBudget
(S'OOO)
a/
10,067.1
2,000.0
3,000.0
10,000.0
9,500.0
8,000.0
7,500.0
3,800.0
4,999.8
4,087.1
5,500.0
1,500.0
2,000.0
Page4of
8
,...
r
Cumul
exp
as
%ofapproved
UNDP
budget
l]|'!fl!T1!ll{
jp1j
ffl'i|Hlt|!ll!la!,>|ij
i|N1B[i!;
29%
101%
92%
89%
27%
31%
8%
28%
71%
46%
6%
88%
51%
a/Includesco-financing
of$1.8
mill
ionfrom
Australia(AIDAB).
b/Tobeadjusteddownwardby$1
5.0,
hencecu
mula
tive
expe
ndit
ure
willbe$1
,999
.6.
10Oct96
1996PROJECTIMPLEMENTATION
1
ASIAANDTHEPACIFIC
PROJECT
NUMBER
CPR/91/G41/G/
CPR/91/G42/D/
IND/92/G41/D/1
INS/92/G41/F/1
THA/92/G41
THA/92/G42/F/
MON/93/G41/E
PAK/93/G41/B/
TOTAL
PROJECTTITLE
3iodiversity
Sichuangastransmission
Eco-development
3iodiversity
Energy
Efficiency
Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Biod'y
inruralcommunity
GEF
Authorized
Allocation
($•000)
1,700.0
1,400.0
200.0
1,600.0
600.0
700.0
1,000.0
2,500.0
79,800.0
Jan-Dec
91
ActualExp 1.8
REVIEW
-FINANCIAL
Jan-Dec92
ActualExp
($'000)
TfiF-'-'illi'llTlWI"
369.8
25.0
444.5
595.0
3,276.0
Jan-Dec93
ActualExp 758.8
1,076.0
19.0
522.5
0.0
690.0
485.0
10,174.8
STATUSOF
UNDP/GEFPROJECTS
Jan-Dec94
ActualExp
($'000) (25.9;
273.6
0.0
217.6
0.0
0.0
646.1
9,672.4
Jan-Dec95
ActualExp
78.5
6.3
180.0
99.9
0.0
0.0
(118.1
34.8
10,399.0
Jan-Jun96
ActualExp
($'000)
6.5
0.0
0.0
80.0
0.0
0.0
(10.2
216.8
4,540.1
Cumulativeexp.
asofJune96
($'000)
1,187.7
1,380.9
199.0
1,364.5
595.0
690.0
1,002.8
251.6
38,064.1
Total
Approved
ProjectBudget
($'000)
1,222.7
1,400.0
213.0
1,562.5
595.0
690.0
1,000.0
2,500.0
81,137.2
Page5of8
'
Cumul.
exp.as
%ofapproved
UNDP
budget
97%
99%
93%
87%
100%
100%
100%
10%
47%
10Oct96
1996PROJECTIMPLEMENTATION
11
ARABSTATl
3i!!i!IBI!iIilIi!!I!l'
PROJECT
NUMBER
JOR/92/G31/G/
YEM/92/G31/D/
SUD/93/G31/E/
RAB/94/G31/C/
EGY/92/G41/E/
JOR/93/G41/E/
SYR/93/G41/D/
YEM/93/G41/F/
RAB/94/G41/B/
TOTAL
55
ssras1wiw
e;;™
!:?■"'
'sps:;;~<?
""'"w
PROJECTTITLE
Dana/Azraqprotectedareas
Ecosystems
-RedSeacoast
Carbonsequestration
BIdg.capacity
inMaghrebregion
Nilewetlands
Methanereduction
Electricitydemand
LPG
substitutionprog.
Plantgenetic
res.
inMaghreb
GEF
Authorized
Allocation
($'000)
6,300.0
2,800.0
1,500.0
2,500.0
800.0
200.0
500.0
800.0
300.0
15,700.0
Jan-Dec91
ActualExp
($'000)
•iqpjmV'KHt'('-"i!
-"IIS'""
0.0
REVIEW
-FINANCIALSTATUSOFUNDP/GEFPROJECTS
Jan-Dec92
ActualExp
($•000)
5.6
670.8
676.4
Jan-Dec93
ActualExp
($'000) 212.1
16.0
56.7
102.0
56.4
215.6
21.8
23.0
703.6
Jan-Dec94
ActualExp
($'000J
■iirw
ii'lp'Piifl^'JHi^Hj-:
1,447.7
297.9
(18.9]
11.0
22.1
0.1
344.9
188.0
0.0
2,292.8
Jan-Dec95
ActualExp
($■000^^
1,738.7
738.9
78.9
35.3
0.4
0.0
47.0
26.6
157.1
2,822.9
f1r',
V'i"'
J"'f.
'i',''
■''"'
'",''■
Jan-Jun96
ActualExp
($'000)
662.0
310.3
141.1
83.1
0.0
37.5
3.9
279.7
113.9
1,631.5
Cumulativeexp.
asofJune96
($'000}
4,066.1
1,363.1
257.8
231.4
749.7
253.2
417.6
517.3
271.0
8,127.2
Total
Approved
ProjectBudget
($'000)
6,300.0
2,940.0
1,500.0
2,500.0
760.0
a/
236.0
540.6
822.2
300.0
15,898.8
Page6of
8
Cumul.
exp.as
%ofapproved
UNDP
budget
l"H"
|[j»
J_-»
jl*!l|l"!
"JH|j'
'jj71j"t"l"^!If
EltiilfiiiSuqi,!:..1;h,
"liiiii=i
iik'
lull
!■
65%
46%
17%
9%
99%
107%
77%
63%
90%
51%
a/Tobeadjusteddownwardby$17.2,hencecumulativeexpenditure
willbe$236.0.
10Oct96
1996PROJECTIMPLEMENTATIONREVIEW
-FINANCIAL
LATINAMERICA&CARIBBEAN
.|fill
innin
imilmilmil
IIIMIMH
lmini
11v.il
tlin
in•
Imilmi
11in
iii>iinm
11m
h"i
:ii<
111;twi
I<<m<m
mii■
ihi;
;;;
iiinm«n»
nir'>
nin«"i'n«m<
■ 91
BlillEIIIS
illU
IIII
IISi
lilU
illl
llll
llil
iill
lli
PROJECT
NUMBER
IIIIIIIIBIS
RLA/92/G31/F/1
COL/92/G31/L/
PAN/94/G31/B/
GUY/92/G31/F/
ARG/92/G31/G/
BRA/92/G31/E/
BZE/92/G31/F/1
COS/92/G31/D/
CUB/92/G31/C/
PER/92/G31/E/
DOM/94/G31/D/
URU/92/G31/F/
RLA/92/G34/B/
CHI/93/G31/B/1
RLA/93/G31/C/
RLA/93/G41/D/
VEN/93/G41/D/
TOTAL
PROJECTTITLE
Amazon
Strategies
Biod'y
inChoco
region
Biod'y
inDarienregion
Sustainabletropicalforest
Patagoniancoastalzone
Biomass
gasification
Sustdevel
incoastalresources
Conser"nLaAmistad,LaOsa
Sust.dev.Sabana-Camaguey
Centre
forenergyconservation
Biod'yconservation
Biod'yeasternwetlands
START
globalchange
(sub-proj)
Reduction
ofGH
gases
Southernconemonitoring
ContaminatedCaribbeanbays
Methane
leaks
inMaracaibosys
BSii
SBKl
liBi
i1!?
GEF
Authorized
Allocation
4,500.0
6,000.0
3,000.0
3,000.0
2,800.0
7,700.0
3,000.0
8,000.0
2,000.0
900.0
3,000.0
3,000.0
2,900.0
1,700.0
1,900.0
2,500.0
1,000.0
56,900.0
Jan-Dec
91
ActualExp
($•000)
WWOT!
0.0
Jan-Dec92
ActualExp
($'000) 21.2
29.5
65.0
29.9
145.6
Jan-Dec93
ActualExp
($'000)
nmpn
311.5
585.4
101.7
708.0
2,542.4
134.6
96.5
27.5
423.6
12.4
422.4
0.4
18.5
149.0
5,533.9
STATUSOFUNDP/GEFPROJECTS
Jan-Dec94
ActualExp
JJSgjL,,
1,274.7
1,016.0
109.8
510.4
593.4
2,786.0
436.0
1,478.8
300.0
388.7
122.1
814.1
34.4
0.0
319.9
2.3
0.0
10,186.6
I1"'
!!'"
!"'™
"'"'
'1""
!"!'
Ti"~:i1
Jan-Dec95
ActualExp
894.0
2,015.6
158.0
437.2
961.6
2,065.5
715.5
1,996.7
843.9
69.4
810.6
1,501.9
756.3
0.0
796.8
96.9
716.6
14,836.5
I'I
i"■'"""!
<"'nl'
I"""n"
Jan-Jun96
ActualExp
(T000)
!lJ!ii
SISI!!
'«l!:!
i!.
961.1
952.5
109.6
491.5
382.9
220.2
518.0
181.1
82.1
0.0
369.6
213.4
257.5
91.8
436.3
454.2
0.0
5,721.8
Cumulativeexp.
asofJune96
ISl|
ll||
lS||
S!B!
:'l!
!!!
3,441.3
5,005.1
377.4
1,540.8
2,645.9
7,643.6
1,804.1
3,753.1
1,318.5
881.7
1,344.6
2,951.8
1,048.6
110.3
1,553.0
702.4
716.6
36,838.8
Total
Approved
ProjectBudget
4,500.0 a/
9,540.0
2,000.0
3,000.0
2,800.0
7,700.0
3,000.0
7,993.4
2,000.0
900.0
3,000.0
3,000.0
2,900.0
1,700.0
1,900.0
2,500.0
1,000.0
59,433.4
Page7
of8
Cumul.
exp.as
%of
approved
UNDP
budget
lliiiillllil
76%
52%
19%
51%
94%
99%
60%
47%
66%
98%
45%
98%
36%
6%
82%
28%
72%
62%
a/UNDP/GEPs
share
oftotalbudgetpluscost-sharing
of$3.54
mill
ionfromSwitzerland.
10Oct96
1996PROJECTIMPLEMENTATION
EUROPEAND
C.I.S.
EiWEISS'"
r»'h'
'PROJECT
NUMBER
■jlielfl^lll
llli
'uii
i'ii
l'i'
i^i^
MEti
i'
RER/91/G31/L/
RER/93/G31/H/
RER/94/G41/E/
TOTAL
■::
PROJECTTITLE
kiUMi&fei^M
^jia.:^;:.
Danube
riverbasin
BlackSeaenvironmentalmgt.
Energy
efficiencystrategies
GEF
Authorized
Allocation
($•000)
8,500.0
9,300.0
400.0
18,200.0
Jan-Dec91
ActualExp
($•000) 0.0
REVIEW
-FINANCIAL
Jan-Dec92
ActualExp
730.9
114.9
845.8
Jan-Dec93
ActualExp
($•000)
TEOKSSaR
2,050.6
778.5
2,829.1
STATUSOFUNDP/GEFPROJECTS
Jan-Dec94
ActualExp
($'000)
'JSl
'SiS
liif
flfc
iaWi
3,547.8
2,914.4
40.0
6,502.2
Jan-Dec95
ActualExp
($'000JLTP
711.8
2,690.3
259.8
3,661.9
Jan-Jun96
ActualExp
($'000)
1,672.1
2,465.4
143.5
4,281.0
1Cumulativeexp
asofJune96
8,713.2
8,963.5 c/
443.3
18,120.0
TotalApproved
ProjectBudget
a/
8,801.6
h/
9,333.9
400.0
18,535.5
Page8of
8
Cumul
exp
as
%of
approved
UNDP
budget
99%
96%
111%
98%
a/
Includescost-sharingof$301.6fromtheWorldBank.
b/
Includescost-sharingof$33.9fromFrance.
c/Tobeadjusteddownwardby$43.3,hencecumulativeexpenditure
willbe$400.0.
UNDP/GEF 1996 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW
1. PROJECT IDENTIFIERS:
Project number: BEN/93/G31
Project name: Village based Management of wooded savannah and establishment
of woodlots for carbon sequestration Region Africa Country Benin
Focal area Climate change
National implementing agency: Ministere du Developement rural, Direction des Forets et
des Ressources naturelles
Executing Agency: Government of Benin
Resident Representative a.i: Mr. Stanislaus Nkwain
Task Manager: Mr. Rene da Silva
Entry into work programme: 12/92
Prodoc signature date: 14/01/94
Amount: US $ 2 500 000
Cofinancing amount: 00
2: PROJECT DESIGN AND INDICATORS DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE:
To assure a significant absorption of carbon and consequently to contribute to the lessening of the
greenhouse effect by the management of natural forests, with the population participation as well
as reforesting activities, in the larger context of ameliorating the systems of production at the
village level.
Immediate objectives:
1) Reduce carbon by the restoration of identified forests in Goun, Sota and Gouroubi and by
reforestation in villages.
2) Restore 4 to 6 villages.
3. FINANCIAL STATUS DISBURSEMENT:
Disbursements (US $ Millions)
FY 1995 0.40
FY 1996 0.53
Cumulative expenditure upto 30 June 1996
1.04
Cumulative expenditure as a percentage of the total project budget
42%
4. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS RATING
Immediate objective 1: satisfactory
Immediate objective 2: highly satisfactory
Summary: The progressive adoption of controlled land clearing by farmers, the use of
improved cooking stoves at the household level, the control of early burning and
improved farming techniques are reducing the size of the farms and relieving the
pressure on natural vegetation. The growing number of peasants ( farmers and
herders) participating to perennial trees planting and taking really care of the trees
are altogether good signs of awareness of target population for a sustainable use of
natural resources. These new behaviours are also very favourable to carbon
sequestration.
Participation:
NGO -SNV Netherlands -PADEC KANDI -PADES COBLY -FOCOPS KANDI -GERED
-USAID (PEACE CORPS)
UNSO Technical follow up for GEF
UNOPS Assistance in equipment purchasing and international personnel recruitment
Village associations co-ordinating activities and preparing take-over at village level.
5. OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING:(Verbal assessment of project).
(Performance in achieving all objectives outlined in section 2)
Consensus is now widely reached with the population about the principles which should guide the
future use of the target forests. This has allowed significant progress in drawing the participatory
forest management plans. The consensus states that forests will be divided into management units
inside which we have the forests series (less disbursed vegetation cover), the agroforestry series (
where cropping annuals with perennial is allowed) and the silvopastoral series ( where controlled
grazing is tolerated). This approach which has resulted into breaking down the rhythm of land
cleaning besides enrichment plantations with the participation of the population in degraded areas
is going on. (More than 600 ha of degraded areas planted with about 60000 seedling of
indigenous species). On the other side, most target villages are to date endowed with their land
management plan. At village level, more than 600000 seedling have been planted from 1993 to
date with an average survival rate of 70%. This achievement is by far more the number of 165000
seedling planned to be planted for the total duration of the project at village level. But the most
interesting thing is the increasing consciousness (awareness) observed among the target
population and peasants availability to cooperate and to take over the on going activities from the
project.
6. FOCAL AREAS QUESTIONS:
In the long run, the project's objectives can really contribute to lessening climate change at the
local as well as at the global level. Since most of its activities ( present and future) tend to bring
about more carbon "sinks" than encouraging emissions (sources).
7. VERBAL SUMMARY OF CURRENT PROJECT STATUS, PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
OF IMPORTANCE FOR FURTHER IMPLEMENTATION:
The project status can be regarded as satisfactory. There was a time when the move toward a
consensus about the criteria for a sustainable management of the targets forests had slowed down
mainly with regard to the GOUN GOUN forest. But actually things are working hopefully thank
to a strong support from the Centre d'Action Regionale pour le Developpement Rural (CARDER)
in BORGOU and the political authorities. Problems arose mainly due to misunderstanding of the
project by the farmers who were skeptical about this new approach. It is also important to
underline that participatory approach is time consuming. To this point, it should be mentioned that
the duration of the actual project is very short. We can now assert based on our own experience
and that of Projet de Gestion des Resources Naturelles (PGRN) that 4 years is just enough to
draw a "participatory " forest management plan. There will be a real need to follow up and give
technical advice to the population for at least two years beyond the current project in order to
ensure a satisfying take over of the activities by the population
8. Follow up recommendations
As stated above from the experience, it appears that 4 years is not enough to assist the
populations in both drawing and implementing the participatory forest management plan. We
therefore recommend the project to pursue its activities ( essentially giving technical assistance to
peasants for a correct implementation) for at least 2 additional years from the date of adoption/
signature of the plans by the Government.
vg\c:\pir96\ben93g31 .pir