Evaluation of Programmatic Approaches in the GEF of Programmatic Approaches in the GEF Volume 2:...
Transcript of Evaluation of Programmatic Approaches in the GEF of Programmatic Approaches in the GEF Volume 2:...
Evaluation of Programmatic Approaches in the GEF
JANUARY 2018V O L U M E 2 : T E C H N I C A L D O C U M E N T S
1
ContentsAcronyms.....................................................................................................................................................2TechnicalDocument1:GEFProgramsandBeyond:AComparativeAnalysis..............................................4
1.1Introduction........................................................................................................................................51.2HistoryandEvolutionofPrograms.....................................................................................................51.3EvolutionofGEFPrograms.................................................................................................................81.4AnalysisandResults...........................................................................................................................9
TechnicalDocument2:GeospatialImpactAnalysisofProgrammaticProjectImplementationsintheGEF...................................................................................................................................................19
2.1BackgroundandObjective...............................................................................................................202.2SummaryofFindings........................................................................................................................202.3OverviewofHypotheses..................................................................................................................26Appendix2A:DefinitionsandFrameofAnalysis....................................................................................31Appendix2B:Methods...........................................................................................................................35Appendix2C:GeocodingInternationalAid............................................................................................39
TechnicalDocument3:GlobalOnlineSurvey............................................................................................403.1Introduction......................................................................................................................................413.2ClassificationofSurveyRespondents...............................................................................................413.3.InvolvementinGEFProgrammaticApproaches..............................................................................423.4MainIncentivesandDisincentivestoBePartofaProgram.............................................................443.5ProgramDesignandApproval..........................................................................................................463.6Program-ProjectAlignment..............................................................................................................463.7Coordination.....................................................................................................................................473.8ProgramFinancing............................................................................................................................493.9KnowledgeSharingandM&E...........................................................................................................493.10Program-LevelResults....................................................................................................................513.11FinalThoughtsfromSurveyRespondentsonGEFPrograms.........................................................52
TechnicalDocument4:ProgramCaseStudies...........................................................................................534.1CaseStudy:PRC-GEFPartnershiponLandDegradationinDrylandEcosystems,China..................54Appendix4.1A:Dataandindicatorscollectedduringthefieldmission.................................................694.2CaseStudy:IndiaGEFCoastalandMarineProgram........................................................................704.3CaseStudy:MENA-DesertEcosystemsandLivelihoodsProgram....................................................894.4.CaseStudy:RapidImpactEvaluation—ReducingIndustry’sCarbonFootprintinSoutheastAsiaProgram.......................................................................................................................106Appendix4.4A:RapidImpactEvaluation.............................................................................................117Appendix4.4B:ExpertPanelComposition...........................................................................................118Appendix4.4C:ProgramExpertPanelAssessments–Disaggregated.................................................120
References................................................................................................................................................121
2
Acronyms
ADB AsianDevelopmentBankASIMA Solidarity-basedIntegratedAgricultureinMoroccoBELP BadiaEcosystemandLivelihoodProjectCBD ConventiononBiologicalDiversityCEO ChiefExecutiveOfficerCPF CountryProgrammingFrameworkCPMO CentralProgramManagementOfficeDELP DesertEcosystemsandLivelihoodsProgramEGREE EastGodavariRiverEstuarineEcosystemEnMS EnergyManagementSystemsESP EnvironmentSupportProgramFAO FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNationsGEF GlobalEnvironmentFacilityGEB GlobalEnvironmentalBenefitGoMBR GulfofMannarBiosphereReserveGHG greenhousegasICR implementationcompletionreportIGCMP IndiaBiodiversity:GEFCoastalandMarineProgramIEM integratedenvironmentalmanagementIFAD InternationalFundforAgriculturalDevelopmentM&E monitoringandevaluationMODIS ModerateResolutionImagingSpectroradiometerMoF MinistryofFinanceMPP multiprojectprogramMTR midtermreviewNDVI NormalizedDifferenceVegetationIndexNGO nongovernmentalorganizationNNR NationalNatureReservesNPSC NationalProgramSteeringCommitteeNSC NationalSteeringCommitteeOECD OrganizationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopmentOSS ObservatoireduSaharaetduSahelPBA program-basedapproachPFD programframeworkdocumentPIR projectimplementationreviewPMU ProgramManagementUnitPPCR PilotProgramonClimateResiliencePRC ThePeople’sRepublicofChinaPSRP PovertyReductionStrategyPaperRBM results-basedmanagement
3
RIE rapidimpactevaluationRSCN RoyalSocietyfortheConservationofNatureSFA StateForestryAdministrationSPSC StateProjectSteeringCommitteeSIF strategicinvestmentfundSIP sectorinvestmentprogramSLM sustainablelandmanagementSTAR SystemforTransparentAllocationofResourcesSWAp sector-wideapproachTTL taskteamleaderUNCCD UnitedNationsConventiontoCombatDesertificationUNDP UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme Notes GEFreplenishmentperiods
GEF-1 1995–1998GEF-2 1999–2002GEF-3 2003–2006GEF-4 2006–2010 GEF-5 2010–2014GEF-6 2014–2018 AllmonetaryamountsareUS$unlessotherwiseindicated.
4
TechnicalDocument1:GEFProgramsandBeyond:AComparativeAnalysis
1.1Introduction........................................................................................................................................51.2HistoryandEvolutionofPrograms.....................................................................................................51.3EvolutionofGEFPrograms.................................................................................................................81.4AnalysisandResults...........................................................................................................................9
5
1.1Introduction
Thepurposeofthisstudyistodiscussthedifferentconceptualnotionsrelatedto“programmaticapproaches.”Asnotedbystakeholdersduringthedevelopmentoftheapproachpaperforthe“EvaluationofProgrammaticApproachesintheGEF,”theconceptualframeworkforprogramsintheGlobalEnvironmentFacility(GEF)appearsunique.Inparticular,itwasnotedthattheusualOrganizationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment(OECD)definitionof“program”maynotbeapplicabletotheworkofGEF,suggestingitwouldbeappropriatetocomparethedifferencesbetweenconceptualframeworksandpractices.
AninitialsurveyofthedifferentapproachestoprogramswasundertakenduringtheinternalReviewofProgrammaticApproachesconductedbytheGEFSecretariatin2012(GEFSecretariat2012).Therefore,thepurposeofthisstudyistodelvedeeperintothedifferentwaysinwhichprogramsareconceived,designed,andimplementedintheGEFaswellasinthebroaderdevelopmentcontext,inordertodrawlessonsthatmaybeapplicabletotheGEFinfutureyears.ThiswillhelpunderstandhowdifferentaspectsandmodalitiesofprogramsbeingimplementedinthebroaderdevelopmentcontextmayhelpachieveahigherimpactwithinthescopeofworkofGEF.
ThestudyreviewedtheavailabledocumentationonprogramsbothfromtheGEFandfromthebroaderdevelopmentcooperationsector.Theanalysiswasconductedbycomparingthedifferentprogrammaticapproaches(inthisstudy,thetermprogram,programmaticapproach,andprogram-basedapproachareusedinterchangeably)accordingtoabroadsetofcharacteristics,suchas:
• Objectivesandpurpose• Processesandgovernance• Finance• Countryownershipandleadership• Costs/benefits
ThecomparativeanalysisaimsatsettingGEFprogramssidebysidewithothertypesofprogrammaticapproaches.Someofthesehavebeenusedintheenvironmentsector:
• Sectorinvestmentprograms(SIP)originallysetupbytheWorldBank• Sector-wideapproaches(SWAps),implementedbyvariousdonors• Program-basedapproaches(PBAs),implementedbybilateralandmultilateralagencies• Multiprojectprograms(MPPs)• Strategicinvestmentfunds(SIFs),alsospearheadedbytheWorldBank,particularlyon
environmentalandclimatechangeissues.
1.2HistoryandEvolutionofPrograms
Theideaof“programs”orprogrammaticapproachesinthedevelopment-cooperationcontextemergedinthelate1980s,inresponsetotheslowprogressinachievingtangibleimpactsindevelopingcountriesthroughtheproject-supportmodality.Inparticular,therewasconcernamongthedonorcommunitythattheproject-basedapproachwasunsustainableandinefficientincreating“economicgrowthandself-reliance.”Oneofthefactorspin-pointedasarootcauseofthelackofsustainedresultswasthelackofownershipofthedevelopmentprocessbytherecipientcountries,whileothersnotedthedispersionofeffortsintomanydiscreteprojectsthatwereneitherrelatedtonorcoordinatedwithoneanotherorwithnationalpolicies(UNDP1998).
6
TheseconcernswereinitiallyformalizedwiththeintroductionoftheconceptoftheprogramapproachinUnitedNationsresolution44/211of22December1989,whichcalledfor“…moreintegratedandcoordinatedprogramming(…)inwhichprogrammingprocesseswouldbebasedonanoverallnationalprogramframework(…)tobepreparedbytherecipientGovernment(…)whichwouldenablethesystemtosupportmoreeffectivelythedevelopmentprioritiesofdevelopingcountriesandtobemorecountry-focusedandwouldfacilitatethedevelopmentofaprogramapproach”(UnitedNations1989).
Followingthisrequest,in1993,adefinitionoftheprogramapproachtodevelopmentwasagreedtobyallUnitedNationsagencies(UNDP1998).Accordingtothisdefinition,aprogram"...isacoherentsetofpolicies,strategies,activitiesandinvestmentsdesignedtoachieveaspecifictimeboundnationaldevelopmentobjectiveorsetofobjectivesandtheprogramapproachreferstothe"...pursuitofnationaldevelopmentgoalsthroughcohesivenationalprograms”(UNDP1998).
Duringthe1990s,variousnewaid-deliverymechanismsemergedinlinewiththeprogramapproach,forexampleSWAps,whoseoriginscanbetracedtoa1995WorldBankpaperentitled“TheBroadSectorApproachtoInvestmentLending,”whichintroducedthenotionofsector-widescopeinWorldBank‒fundedSIPs(ODI2008).UndertheSWAp,fundscontributedirectlytoacountry-definedsectorpolicy.In2000,theEuropeanCommissionanditsmembersadoptedapolicyorientationinfavorofthesectorapproachandsectorbudgetsupport.The“EuropeanConsensusonDevelopment,”adoptedinDecember2005,alsoconfirmscommitmenttowardaideffectivenessprinciples(EC2007).Itnotesthat:“wherecircumstancespermit,theuseofgeneralorsectorbudgetsupportshouldincreaseasameanstostrengthenownership,tosupportpartners’nationalaccountabilityandprocedures,tofinancenationalpovertyreductionstrategies(PRS)(includingoperatingcostsofhealthandeducationbudgets)andtopromotesoundandtransparentmanagementofpublicfinances”(EC2007). Manybilateraldonorsalsofollowedsuitduringthe2000s,withtheirowndefinitionsandguidelinesontheimplementationofSWAps,program-basedfunding,andbudgetsupport(EC2008).
Thepressurestoincreasecoordination,maximizeimpact,andreducetransactioncosts,whileincreasingnationalownershipofdevelopmentprocesses,continuedtoincreaseduringthe1990sand2000s.Thisledtoaseriesofmajorpolicyresponses,includingthe2000MillenniumDevelopmentGoals,theMonterreyConsensusof2002,andthe2003RomeDeclarationonharmonization(DANIDA2010),amongothers.
In2005,theParisDeclarationonAidEffectivenessenshrinedtheprinciplesthatgovernprogramsandprogrammaticapproaches,including(OECD2006):
• Strengtheningpartnercountries’nationaldevelopmentstrategiesandassociatedoperationalframeworks(e.g.,planning,budget,andperformanceassessmentframeworks).
• Increasingalignmentofaidwiththepriorities,systems,andproceduresofpartnercountriesandhelpingtostrengthentheircapacities.
• Enhancingtheaccountabilityofdonorsandpartnercountriestotheirrespectivecitizensandparliamentsfortheirdevelopmentpolicies,strategies,andperformance.
• Eliminatingtheduplicationofeffortsandrationalizingdonoractivitiestomakethemascost-effectiveaspossible.
• Reformingandsimplifyingdonorpoliciesandprocedurestoencouragecollaborativebehaviorandprogressivealignmentwithpriorities,systems,andproceduresofpartnercountries.
• Definingmeasuresandstandardsofperformanceandaccountabilityofpartnercountrysystemsinpublicfinancialmanagement,procurement,fiduciarysafeguards,and
7
environmentalassessments,inlinewithbroadlyacceptedgoodpracticesandtheirquickandwidespreadapplication.
SincetheParisDeclaration,effortshavecontinuedtodelivermorecoordinateddevelopmentsupport,toincreasenationalownership,andtostreamlinedevelopmentcooperationeffortsforincreasedimpacts.TheemergenceofPovertyReductionStrategyPapers(PSRPs)askeyrequirementsfordebtcancelation,aswellasmedium-termexpenditureframeworks,havealsocontributedtomore“program-based”developmentcooperation,inwhichdonorscancoalescearoundasetofbroadpolicyprioritiesandcontributeassistancethroughtherecipientgovernment’sinstitutionsandprocesses.
PRSPs,inparticular,haveseentheirconsecrationasthehigherlevelofdevelopmentprogramtowhichdevelopmentaidshouldcontribute.DeliverymechanismsinsupportofPRSPobjectivesincludebudgetsupport,sectorbudgetsupport,projectsupport,pooledarrangements,andtrustfunds.
Basedonworkconductedwithinbilateralagencies,aswellasthroughcollaborativeforumssuchastheOECD‒DevelopmentAssistanceCommittee,adefinitionofprogram-basedcooperationwasalsoformalizedbytheOECDin2004,asseeninbox1.1(OECD2006):
However,itshouldbenotedthatinsomedevelopmentcooperationcontexts,programsarestilldefined,designed,andimplementedasaclusterorgroupofprojectssharingacommongoal,orasaseriesofsequentialinitiatives(phasedprojects),withoutnecessarilyreferringtothenationalownershiporthenationalpolicybasis.Itisstillpossibletodaytoencounterdevelopmentcooperationinitiativesthatareprogramsbutdonotexhibitthebasicrequirementsofaprogram-basedapproachasdefinedabove,demonstratingthatdespitemuchprogressindefiningprogrammaticapproaches,theconcepthasremainedlimitedtoafewkeyapplications,donors,orsectors.
Inparalleltotheevolutionofprogrammaticapproachesasoperationalmechanisms,andinlinewiththeneedtoincreasinglydemonstrateandaccountforresults,approachestoknowledgemanagement,monitoring,andevaluationalsoevolved.Theapplicationofknowledgemanagement,monitoring,andevaluationsystemstoprogrammaticapproaches,however,isnotyetstandardized,andmonitoringandevaluation(M&E)systemsaredesigneddifferentlydependingonahostoffactors,includingdonorpracticesandrequirements,projectdesignpractices,programmaticlimitations,andexpectedresults.Whileresultsforindividualprogramsorprogram-basedapproachesareoftenwelldocumentedand
Box1.1
Program-basedapproachesareawayofengagingindevelopmentcooperationbasedontheprinciplesofcoordinatedsupportforalocallyownedprogramofdevelopment,suchasanationaldevelopmentstrategy,asectorprogram,athematicprogramoraprogramofaspecificorganization.Program-basedapproachessharethefollowingfeatures:
Leadershipbythehostcountryororganization
Asinglecomprehensiveprogramandbudgetframework
Aformalizedprocessfordonorcoordinationandharmonizationofdonorproceduresforreporting,budgeting,financialmanagement,andprocurement
Effortstoincreasetheuseoflocalsystemsforprogramdesignandimplementation,financialmanagement,monitoringandevaluation
8
communicated,thequestionofwhetherprogrammaticapproachesasawholeareefficaciousmeanstodeliverdevelopmentorenvironmentalbenefits,remains.Asanaside,ithasbeendifficulttoidentify,forthisstudy,documentsthatprovidedhigh-levelanalyticalinformationaboutprogramsasprograms,oraboutprogrammaticapproachesinandofthemselves.Beyondinitialoperationalguidelinesprovidedbysomedonors,thereseemstohavebeenlittleefforttodocumenttheactualefficiencyandeffectivenessofPBAsasawhole.
1.3EvolutionofGEFPrograms
ProgramsintheGEFhaveevolveddifferentlythanthoseinthebroaderdevelopmentcontext,withtheirowndefinitionsandsetofprocedures.Atthe14thGEFCouncilmeetinginDecember1999,theCouncilsupportedtheevolutionofGEFsupporttorecipientcountriesthroughamoreprogrammaticapproach.ThefirstGEFprogramwastheDanube/BlackSeaBasinStrategicPartnership,whichwaslaunchedin2001withthecoordinatedsupportofmultipledonorsandlong-termfinancialengagement.Thisinitiativewasintendedasaphasedapproachtoaddressaspecificenvironmentalproblem,aroundagivensharedecosystem.
Later,theGEFclarifiedthattheoverallaimofGEFprogramsshouldbe“tosecurelargerandsustainedimpactontheglobalenvironmentthroughintegratingandmainstreamingglobalenvironmentalobjectivesintoacountry’snationalstrategiesandplansthroughpartnershipwiththecountry”(GEF2001).InMay2008,theGEFCouncilapprovedasetofobjectivesandbasicprinciplesforprogrammaticapproaches(GEF2008a),alongwithdetailedoperationalguidelines.
WhiletheGEFpolicydocumentsdomakereferencetothesameprinciplesasthoseinvokedinthevariousprogram-basedapproacheshighlightedabove(e.g.,countryownership,donorcoordination),notalloftheprinciplesputforwardbytheOECDandotherdonorsseemtohaveappliedtotheGEFprograms.GEFprograms,throughoutitshistory,havepresenteddifferentcharacteristics,whichhavealsoevolvedovertime.Forexample,therehavebeenGEFprogramsthatwerecollectionsofindividualprojects(country-basedorotherwise),programsthatrepresentedlong-termstrategicsectoralengagement,multicountryprojects,andsequencedinterventions,etc.Anearlytypologyofferedintheinternalreviewofprogrammaticapproaches(GEFSecretariat2012)proposedthefollowingtypesofprojects:
1. Countryprograms,alsoknownascountryprogrampartnerships,whichwereintendedtoprovidelong-termandlarge-scalefocusonasetofspecificissueswithinasinglecountry.Forexample,ThePeople’sRepublicofChina(PRC)‒GEFPartnershiponLandDegradationinDrylandEcosystemsProgram,orthecountrypilotpartnershipsinNamibiaandBurkinaFaso.Mostcountryprogramswerethematicallybased,andfocusedonasingleFocalArea.
2. Regionalprograms,wherecountriesofasameregionorsubregionworkedtoachieveasharedgoal,usuallyinasharedortrans-boundaryecosystem,andwherethepartsoftheprogram,andthecountry-basedinitiatives,werehighlyinterdependent.Inthistypology,regionalprogramsareconstitutedwhenagroupofcountriesworktogethertoachieveenvironmentalimpactinagivensharedgeographicunit.ExamplesofthistypeofprogramsarefoundthroughallGEFreplenishments,forexampletheDanube/BlackSeaBasinStrategicPartnershiponNutrientReduction(GEF-2),ortheLakeChadBasinRegionalProgramfortheConservationandSustainableUseofNaturalResourcesandEnergyEfficiency.
3. Multicountryprogramsoccurwhereagroupofcountries,co-locatedornot,workseparatelyto
9
achievesimilarobjectives,sometimesusingsimilarapproaches,underacommonoverarchinggoal.Inthecaseofmulticountryprograms,thereislowerinterdependencybetweenthepartsoftheprogramthaninregionalprograms.AnexamplewouldbethePacificIslandRidge-to-Reefprogramthatincludesdifferentprojectsin16countriesallaccordingtothesameconceptualapproach,withknowledgesharingamongall,butwheretheoutcomeofeachindividualprojectdoesnotimpactontheothers.AmorerecentexamplewouldbetheIntegratedApproachPilotonFoodSecurity,whichwasdevelopedinGEF-6asamodelforfutureintegratedprogramming,butinwhichthereismoreemphasisoncross-fertilizationamongprogramcountries,embodiedthrougha“regionalhubsubproject.”
4. Portfolioprogramsareprogramscomprisinganynumberofcountries,whereallcountriesareimplementingmoreorlessthesameproject(s),andwhoseprimaryobjectiveistocreateaportfolioofprojectsaddressingagivenglobalenvironmentalissue.Portfolioprograms,oftenreferredtoas“umbrellaprograms,”includechild-projectsthataresimilarinintention,innature,orinscope,inwhichthescopeofintendedresultsisnational.TheseincludeforexampletheGEF-4BiosafetyProgramwhereanumberofcountriesimplementsimilaractivitiesinordertoadvancetheirbiosafetyagendaatnationallevel.Portfolioprogramsaremoreakintorapiddeliverymechanismsthantrueprogram-basedapproaches.
5. Public-privatepartnershipprogramswereaddedtotheprogrammaticportfolioinGEF-5,wherebyanAgencyusesaprogrammaticapproachtosetupinvestmentfundsthataredisbursedaccordingtospecificobjectivesandrulesinoneormorecountries,towardasetobjective.Public-privatepartnershipplatformsresemblesectorinvestmentfundsinthatthedesign,approval,anddisbursementofchild-projectsandspecificinvestmentsismoreorlessdelegatedtotheAgencyincharge,andwheretheinvestmentsthemselvesarebasedondemand.Public-privatepartnershipscreateafundingenvelopefromwhichtheprivatesectorproponentscandraw.Thepublic-privatepartnershipsweredesignedtoincreaseaccesstospecifictechnologies,opennewmarkets,andprovidededicatedaccesstotheprivatesector.Anexampleofthiswouldbethepublic-privatepartnershipprogramoftheInteramericanDevelopmentBank’sMultilateralInvestmentFund.
AsnotedintheApproachPapertothisevaluation(GEFIEO2016),untilGEF-5,Councildiscussionsaboutprogramscenteredmoreonoperational,financial,andadministrativemattersandasaresult,theapprovedprogrammodalitieswerealsobasedonsuchcharacteristics.However,atitsmeetinginOctober2014,theGEFCouncilclassifiedprogramsintotwomaintypes,thematicandgeographic,andinGEF-6,theGEFintroducedtheintegratedapproachpilotsinwhichthefocusismoreonthetransformationalresultthanonthedeliverymodality.Thisreflectstheongoingdebateontheusefulnessandeffectivenessofprogrammaticapproachesasaid-deliverymechanisms,andonwhetherprogramsaresufficientinandofthemselvestoachievestrongerdevelopmentimpact(BoesenandDietvorst2007).
TheseevolvingdefinitionsanddelineationsofprogrammaticapproacheswithintheGEFCouncildocumentsalsoreflectanongoingconcernwiththeeffectivenessandefficiencyoftheapproachitself,whichhasledtothecurrentformalevaluationofprogrammaticapproaches.
1.4AnalysisandResults
Thebelowanalysisprovidesanoverviewofthemaincharacteristicsofthedifferenttypesofprograms,andcomparestheirmainfeaturestotheotherprogramsandtothosethathavebeenimplementedwithGEFsupporttodate.Thecategoriesbelowdonotintendtobeexhaustive,noraretheynecessarily
10
mutuallyexclusive.Typically,someofthesewillpresentsimilarfeatures,andtherewillbehybridformsoftheseinstruments.
SIPsrepresentatooltochannellarge-scale,long-terminvestmentintospecificeconomicsectors,whereasstrategicinvestmentfunds—whilepresentingsimilarcharacteristicsfromanoperationalperspective—targetthemesandtopicsthatgobeyondtraditionaleconomic“sector”definitions.SIPsweremorewidelyusedduringthe1990s,andgraduallyevolvedtowardSIFs,representingtoday’spracticeintermsofintegratedapproachestodevelopmentassistance.Intheenvironmentsector,theWorldBankspearheadedforexampletheStrategicInvestmentProgramonSustainableLandManagement(throughTerrAfrica),andmorerecentlytheStrategicInvestmentFundsonForestsorClimateChange.TheTerrAfricaplatformisaninterestingcase,inthatitbeganasaprogram—andindeedtheGEFparticipatedinitsearlyinception—butitevolvedintoaplatformorapartnership,towhichdonorsandexecutingagenciescontributeddifferently.TheSIPthenbecametheoperationaltoolthroughwhichTerrAfricasubprojects(investmentprojects)wereimplemented.TheTerrAfricaplatformwasfundedbydonorssuchasFrance,Norway,theNetherlands,andtheEuropeanUnion,andimplementedatnationallevelbyagenciessuchastheWorldBank,UnitedNationsFoodandAgricultureOrganization(FAO),theInternationalFundforAgriculturalDevelopment(IFAD),orUnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP).GEFfundingcontributedtotheTerrAfricaplatform,throughindividualprojectsamountedto$150million,andcofinancingrepresentedover$800million(FAO2016).WhiletheTerrAfricaSIPinitselfconsistedinaprogrammaticapproach,theGEF’scontributiontoitwasstilloperationalizedthroughindividualprojects.CoordinationamongthedifferentprojectsdidnotoccurattheleveloftheGEF,althoughitdidbenefitfromGEFfunding(throughUnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme).
SIPsweredesignedasaninvestmentmechanismtochannelfundingtowardcoveringexpendituresofagivensector.Theywereintendedtocoverallrelevantpublicexpenditure(bothcurrentandcapital)andpoliciesofthetargetedsectors.UndertheSIPmechanism,thegovernment—whooftenisthedirectbeneficiaryofassistance—orprivatesector,hadtobedirectlyinchargeofmanagingandadministeringexpenditures.Implementationarrangementswereintendedtobecommontoallfinanciers,andtheuseoflocalcapacity,ratherthanlong-termtechnicalassistance,waspromoted(WorldBank2000).Mostimportantly,SIPsweretobebasedonaclearlyenunciatedandnationallydevelopedstrategyandpolicyframework.ThisallowedforSIPstosupportmultidonorapproaches,wheremultiplesourcesoffinancingwouldbetappedtosupportacoherentsetofnationally-driveninvestmentsinaspecificsector.ThefundamentalobjectiveoftheSIPwastoachievehigher-levelimpactacrossasector,andtofulfilabroaderscopeofneedsthancouldbeaddressedbyasingleprojectapproach.ThemultidonorandmultistakeholderapproachwasstronglyencouragedatthestartoftheSIPdevelopmentprocess,butlaterevaluationsfoundthatthiswasthehardestelementtoachieve(WorldBank1996).Inmanyregards,itwasthoughtthatSIPswouldonlybesuccessfulifalldonorssignedontothesameframework,usingcommonproceduresforprocurement,training,andreporting.ThesuccessofSIPswastobemeasuredthroughsharedhigh-levelsector-wideindicators,correspondingtotheobjectivesofthenationalpolicy(TerrAfrica,n.d.).
SIPswereintendedtofinanceasetofgoodsandservices(throughlendinginthecaseoftheWorldBank),asoutlinedinthesectorinvestmentplansthataccompanyasectorpolicyorstrategy.TheSIPsdidawaywiththetraditionaldistinctionbetweenrecurrentandcapitalexpenditures,focusingontheoverallexpenditureneedsofthesector.Intermsofcost-effectiveness,theWorldBanknotedinitsinitialresearchonSIPsthatwhiletheearlypreparationcostsforSIPswouldbehigh,thesewereintendedtoreplacethecostofdevelopingmultipleindividualprojects.Savingwouldthereforeberealizedduringimplementationaswellasforthebroadersectorpartnersinthelongerterm(TerrAfrica,n.d.).
11
NoSIPsweredevelopedorimplementedfortheenvironmentsector.Thisisattributedtomultiplereasons:theenvironmentisnotconsideredatraditionalsector,withadistinctsetofinvestmentprioritiesandinstitutions,environmentministrieswererelativelyweakduringtheperiodwhereSIPswerebeingimplemented,andenvironmentfundinghastraditionallyusedgrantsratherthanlendinginstruments.Environment-relatedinvestmentprogramsonlyemergedduringthelate2000s,withprogramssuchastheStrategicInvestmentProgramforSustainableLandManagement,whichwascofinancedbytheGEF,andismoreakintoaprogram-basedapproachoramultiprojectprogram(seebelow)thanasector-basedapproach.GEFSIPsalsoexhibitedotherdifferenceswithmainstreamSIPs:GEFSIPswereconceivedasmulticountryinitiatives,andtheGEFfundingcameintopartiallycofinancethemainstreaminitiative.Infact,GEFfundingtypicallydoesnotcover“investment”relatedcosts(usuallyfinancedthroughloans),butincrementalenvironmentalcoststhatwereidentifiedasanadd-onandfinancedthroughgrants;therefore,whereasGEFcanparticipateinaSIPasoneamongmanydonors,itcannot,byvirtueoftheIncrementalCostPrinciple,supportanentiresectorinvestmentprogram.
SWApspresentsimilarcharacteristicsandintentsasSIPsabove,fromwhichtheyarederived.UndertheSWAp,fundscontributedirectlytoasector-specificumbrellaandaretiedtoadefinedsectorpolicyunderagovernmentauthority.Theyaredefinedasinitiativesinwhich“allsignificantfundingforthesectorsupportsasinglesectorpolicyandexpenditureprogram,undergovernmentleadership,adoptingcommonapproachesacrossthesector,andprogressingtowardrelyingongovernmentprocedurestodisburseandaccountforallfunds”(ODI2008).
WheretheSWApsalsoencouragemultidonorcontributionstoasharedpolicyframework,onekeydifferencebetweenaSWApandaSIPmightbethatSWApspromotemorestronglytheuseofnationalsystemsforexpendituresandmonitoring—whereasSIPscoulddesigntheirownsystemsinthisregard(DFID2001).Inaddition,whereSIPsweremechanismstochannelinvestmentfunding,mostoftenloan-based,SWApscoordinatedmultiplesourcesandtypesoffinancingundertheumbrellaofasectorpolicyorplan,anddidnotnecessarilyfocusoninvestment-relatedcostswithinthesector.Furthermore,itwasnotedthatwhereaSIPisan“instrument”oranaidmodality,aSWApis“…aframeworksettingadirectionofchange—towardbettercoordinatedandmoreeffectiveaidmanagement”(ODI2008),“apolicyplanningandmanagementapproachwhichcaninrealitybefundedbyavarietyoffinancialaidinstruments”(GDPRD2007).
Asnotedin“Sector-WideApproachesforHealthDevelopment”(WHO1999),thetermsSIPsandSWApsareactuallydonorterms,andreflecttheapproachtochannelingassistance,morethanthecountry-ownedpoliciesthattheyaredesignedtosupport.Countryownership,whichisthekeyprincipleattheoriginofprogrammaticapproaches,canbeseeninvaryingdegreesinthesetupandimplementationofvariousSWAps:thiscanrangefromheadofstate’simpulseforaparticularsectoralpolicyobjective(e.g.,achieveuniversalschoolenrolment),tocaseswheredonorleadershipismoreevident,particularlyindevelopingthepoliciesandframeworksthatistheobjectoftheirlatersupport.
MostevaluationshavefoundthatSWApsgenerallycontributedtoamorestreamlineddialoguebetweenthedonorcommunityandgovernment,strengtheninggovernmentleadershipandcoordinationbetweendonors.However,itwasalsofoundthatthisoftentookplaceatthecostofacentralizationofpolicy-makingandexcessiveattentionontheworkingsoftheSWApratherthanonthepolicyobjectives(GDPRD2007;ODI2008).
TherealsoappearstobelimitedevidencethatSWApshaveactuallyledtoareductionintransactioncosts—infact,heavymanagementstructureshaveoftenbeencreatedtosupportthedesign,
12
implementation,andmonitoringoftheSWAp.Also,anddespitetheoriginalintent,SWApshaveendedupconcentratingalmostexclusivelyonthewayresourcesarechanneledtothebeneficiarysectoralministry,doinglittletostimulatelinkagesacrossgovernmentandwithnon-stateactors.Finally,asnotedabove,thereislimitedevidence—atleastto-date—thatSWApshaveactuallycontributedtoamoreefficientuseofpublicresourcesandbetterservicedelivery.
SWApsinitiallytargetedsocialsectorsinhighlyaid-dependentandlow-incomecountries,insectorswithalargenumberofdonorswhereaidfragmentationwasasignificantproblem.Inpractice,someSWApswerefundedbyasingledonor,andsomeothersfocusedonsubsectoralandmultisectoralissues.Thislatterpointhasallowedfortheemergenceofenvironment-relatedSWAps,orruraldevelopmentSWAps,suchasforexampletheNetherlands-supportedEnvironmentalSWApinColombia(2007‒2010),whichwasfundedtothetuneof€16million.KeycharacteristicsofthisSWApincludedfundingthatwaschanneledtothenationallevel,inresponsetoastrongpolicystatementandaccompanyingexpenditureframework,usingbothbudgetsupportandproject-basedaid.However,thisSWApdidnotsucceedinleveragingotherdonorsupport,asmostprogrammaticapproachesintendtodo.
TheuseofSWApsintheenvironmentsectorhasalsobeenlimited,buthasyieldedsomeinterestinglessons.Ina2010report,theDenmarkAgencyforInternationalDevelopmentAgencyalsoevaluatedtheeffectivenessandimpactsofthesector-basedorprogrammaticapproachintheenvironmentsector,whichtheytermed“EnvironmentSupportPrograms(ESPs)”(DANIDA2010),whichtheyhadbegunimplementingsincethelate1990s.Theevaluationfoundthattheapproachwasnotentirelysuccessfulforvariousreasons.Forexample,“ESPssoughttobuildnationalframeworksorsystemsthatwouldbenefitmoreofthepoor—becauseoftheirlinkagestonationalpovertyreductionplans—butinordertodosowouldrequirelong-termengagementandstrongnationalownership.Thus,whiletheseESPswerebetteralignedtoandprovidedsupportfornationalstrategiesandlegislation,theyneverthelessfacedchallengesintermsofinsufficientnationalleadershipandinbeinganchoredtoinstitutionswithweakerpoliticalinfluenceandcapacity”(DANIDA2010).ItwasalsofoundthatfewoftheESPsactuallylastedfortheintendeddurationof10‒20years.Furthermore,aswiththeColombiaexampleabove,ortheCanadianInternationalDevelopmentAgency‒GermanAgencyforTechnicalCooperationledForestandEnvironmentSupportPrograminCameroon,donorfragmentationremainedanissue,asfewotherdonorsjoinedtheESPswithmorethansmall-scale,adhocsupport.ThislatterexamplewasonewheretheGEFwasalsoabletoprovideadditionalfunding,butwhereitwasnotengagedinthetotalityoftheprogram—neitherinscopenorinduration.
ThismitigatedsuccessintheenvironmentandnaturalresourcessectorhasalsobeenattributedtothefactthatSWApsandPBAswereconceivedfromthesupply-sideasaid-deliverymechanismsthatdidnotnecessarilytakeintoconsiderationthepoliticalrealitiesofagivensectorintherecipientcountry
(BoesenandDietvorst2007).Inaddition,inherentcomplexitiesinsectorssuchasagriculture,forestry,andruraldevelopmentmeantthatapure“single-sector-based”approachwasnotaseasilyforthcoming(EC2008;GlobalDonorPlatformforRuralDevelopment,n.d.).ThisappliesespeciallytotheGEF,wheresingle-actorsectorsareusuallynoteasilyfound,exceptperhapsintheenergyandwatersectors—andwhereinmostcases,theprimaryinterlocutorsareenvironmentministries,whoselimitedoperationalpowersinmanydevelopingcountriesdonotalwaysallowfortheeffectiveimplementationofsector-wideapproaches.
AswiththecaseofSIPsabove,theGEF’sparticipationinaSWApdependedonwhetherincrementalcostscouldbeeasilyidentifiedand“carved-off”forgrantfunding.Inmostcases,theGEF’sparticipationinanenvironmentSWApwasactuallyoperationalizedasaprojectwithintheGEF(seeforexampleMadagascar“ThirdEnvironmentProgram”).AswiththecaseofSIPs,wheretheGEFcouldparticipateas
13
afundingpartnerinaSWAp,innocasecouldtheGEFbetheleadagencyorinitiatorofaSWAp,evenifsaidprogramwasfocusedonenvironmentalornaturalresourcesissues.ThiswasmostlikelycausedbytheneedtolimitfundingtotheincrementalcostsofachievingGlobalEnvironmentalBenefits(GEBs)andtoavoidusingGEFfundstocoverrecurringcostsofanygivensectorprogram.
PBAsareanotherextensionoftheSWAp.Thetermreferstoagenericapproachbasedoncomprehensiveandcoordinatedplanninginagivensector,thematicarea,orundertheaegisofanationalpovertyreductionstrategy(PRS).AccordingtoCIDA’sprimeronPBAs:“PBAsareintendedtosupportlocallyownedprogramsofdevelopment,sotheword‘program’intheexpressionreferstotheprogramofadevelopingcountryorinstitution,whichoneormoredonorshaveagreedtosupport…theprogrammaybeaPRS,asectorprogramorathematicprogramortheprogramofaspecificorganisationsuchasanon-governmentalorganisation”(CIDA2003).TosomeextenttheconceptofPBAoffersahigherdegreeofinstitutionalflexibilitybyfocusingonapolicyprogramandobjectives—whichcanbemultisectoral,sectoral,orsubsectoral—ratherthanabureaucraticinstitutionalstructure,i.e.,thesector”(GDPRD2007).Intheory,thisapproachcanapplymorereadilytoenvironmentalissues,manyofwhicharecross-sectoralandmultistakeholderinnature.Inpractice,therehavebeenveryfewPBAsintheenvironmentalarea,owingperhapstotheabsenceofasingle,integrating,andrallyingenvironmentalpolicyandprogramstatementinmostcountries,andtodifferingideasofwhatgovernmentsshoulddoaboutenvironmentaldegradation.
Incontrasttotheaboveapproaches,MPPsmakenoassumptionsaboutthedegreeofdonorcoordinationorcountryownership.MPPscanbeconsideredasstraightforwardaid-deliveryinstrumentscomprisingasetofinterlinkedprojectsorinitiatives.MPPslendthemselveswelltoenvironmentalissuesbecausetheycancoordinatemultiplestakeholdersandimplementingentitiesaroundmultipletime-boundinitiatives,whileencouragingthedevelopmentofsharedframeworks,procedures,andmonitoring.Itisnosurprise,therefore,thatthesetypesofprogramsaretheonesfoundmostfrequentlywithintheGEF’sportfolio,andtheonesthatcanmostreadilybeoperationalizedthroughtheGEF’sownproceduralrequirements.ThatisnottosaythatMPPsdoawaywiththerequirementofcountryownership,butthewayinwhichthisownershipismanifestedismoreflexiblethaninotherprogrammaticapproaches,whereasinglepolicydocumentformedthebasisofdonorengagement.MPPsalsoallowformultidonorcoordinationaswellasthecoordinationofmultipletypesoffinancialinstruments.ThemaincharacteristicofMPPsisthattheprojectsthatcomprisethemhavetobelinkedamongthembysomekindofunifyingprinciple.Thisprinciplecouldberegionalunity,aspecificthemeorissue,acommonmethodology,orahigher-levelobjective.
MPPshaveadvantagesanddisadvantages;forexample,theymaypromotelearningandsustainability,buttheycanalsocreatemultiplestructurallayersdependingonthenumberofpartners,sometimescreatingissueswithaccountabilityanddelaysorinequalitiesamongthedifferentstakeholders.AnotherpotentialdrawbackisthatMPPstendtobecomeorganizationsinthemselves,andthelongertheylast,thehardertheymaybetodisband,eveniftheoriginalobjectiveshavebeenachieved.Workingacrossmultiplecountries,sectors,oradministrative,legal,andcurrencysystemsmayalsoincreasetransactioncosts(BuffardiandHearn2015).However,despitethesepotentialshortcomings,MPPsareamongthemostwidelyusedtypesofprogrammaticapproachesinallsectorsbecausetheyofferthemostflexibilityandallowforhigher-levelimpactmonitoring.Theyalsoprovidethepossibilityfordonorstochannellargeramountsoffinancialassistanceinasmallernumberoftransactions(althoughthetransactioncostsmaysimplybedisplacedfromthedonortotherecipients,insomecases).
ExamplesoftheseprogramsaboundintheGEF,includingthe“StrengtheningClimateEarlyWarningSystems”program(whichcomprises10separatenationalprojectswithoutanintegrativeumbrella);the
14
“IntegratedApproachPilotonFoodSecurity,”whichincludes11childprojectsandoneintegrativeregionalproject;orthe“RidgetoReef”initiative,whichisimplementedacrossregionsusingasimilarmethodology.IncontrasttotheSWApsandSIPs,MPPscan,andoftenare,initiatedbyGEForGEFAgencies,andareoftenfocusedaroundGEF-channeledgrantfunds,whichareaddedontothedevelopmentbaselinefundinginthecountry(asopposedtodonor-channeledloans).MPPsalsolendthemselvesmoreeasilytobeingexclusivelygrantfinanced,andareusuallycompletedwithinarelativelyshorttime-frame,whichallowstheGEFtoplayamorecentralroleintheirconception,ifnottheiroperationalization.Itshouldbenotedthattheintegratedapproachpilots,ofwhichtherearethreeunderimplementationunderGEF-6,aredesignedtopavethewayinwhichtheGEFintendstooperateinGEF-7andbeyond.
Finally,oneofthemostrecentinstrumentsthatembodyaprogrammaticapproachistheSIF,whichisimplementedbytheWorldBank.Inthattheychannelinvestmentfunding,SIFsarethenextgenerationofSIPs—meaningthattheycoveracertaintypeofexpenditure,butbyfocusingoncross-sectoralissuesandwithastrongaccentonaccessbynongovernmentalpartners,mainlytheprivatesector.SIFsalsoprovideavenuewheredonorcoordinationandharmonizationcanbepursuedaroundjointobjectives,sharedmethodologiesandapproaches,andcommonevaluationframeworks.ThismodalityhasbeenusedbytheWorldBanktosupportlarge-scaleenvironmentalsectorprogramming,forexamplethroughtheClimateInvestmentFunds,whichincludethePilotProgramonClimateResilience(PPCR),theCleanTechnologyFund,theForestInvestmentProgram,andtheScaling-UpRenewableEnergyProgram.
ThePPCR,ForestInvestmentProgram,andindeedmostSIFs,combineprogrammaticandproject-basedapproaches.Forexample,theyarestilldeliveredtosomeextentthroughcountryprojects,butprojectsarearticulatedtogetherthroughacommonframework.“ThePPCRprogrammaticapproachentailsalong-term,strategicarrangementoflinkedinvestmentprojectsandactivitiestoachievelarge-scale,systematicimpactsandtakeadvantageofsynergiesandco-financingopportunities.”1FundsforthePPCRaregrantscontributedbyvariousdonors.Someoftheseprograms,ortheirsubprojects,havebeencofinancedbytheGEF,forexampletheTajikistanEnvironmentalLandManagementandRuralLivelihoodsProject,financedthrougha$9.45milliongrantfromthePPCRanda$5.4milliongrantfromtheGEF.
LikeMPPs,theSIFsinvolvemultiplestakeholdersandlargerinstitutionalsetupsandinstitutionallayers,butprovideflexibilityforchannelinginvestmentfundingtowardwell-establishedpolicyprioritiesincountries.Bygroupingindividualcountryinitiativestogetherinanumbrellaprogram,theSIFsalsoallowforknowledgesharing,andsomereductionoftransactioncostsatthedonorlevel.Commonreportingframeworksareestablished,whileprovidingflexibilityforcountry-ownedobjectivesandreportingmechanisms.
Ingeneral,theSIFmodalitygoesbeyondwhattheGEFhasbeenabletooperationalizetodate.ThiscouldbebecausetheleveloffinancingavailableinSIFsishigherthanwhatisusuallyprovidedinagivenreplenishment,andbecauseitdoesnothavetobeseparatedintocountryallocationsorbeconcernedwithissuesofequityofaccess(asinthecaseofLeastDevelopedCountriesFund,forexample).ItcouldalsobebecauseSIFfinancingismostoftenconcentratedinsectorsorsubsectorswithstrongprivatesectorinterestandthepossibilityforhigherratesofreturn,whereasGEFfundingislimitedinscope,purpose,andnature.ThisopensupthepossibilityofinnovativesourcesoffinancingforSIFs,whereasGEFcontinuestorelyonvoluntarycontributionsfromitsmembers,withthepolicyrequirementsinherenttoanegotiatedaid-deliverymechanism.Intheory,iftheGEFcouldparticipatethrougha
1ClimateInvestmentFunds,https://www-cif.climateinvestmentfunds.org/fund/pilot-program-climate-resilience
15
project,inaSIFsubproject,itcouldnotparticipateintheSIFatthehighestlevelbecauseoftheneedtodemonstrateclearandmeasurable,localizedGEBs.
Infact,thisneedtodemonstrateclearandmeasurableGEBsisalsoattherootofakeyemergingfeatureofGEFprograms,whichistheconcernwithknowledgemanagementandlessonlearning.Mostotherprogrammaticapproachesareconcernedwithdemonstratingprogressalongthedevelopmentspectrum,andwilluseasindicatorsthecountry’sowndevelopmentprioritiesandtargets.Ultimately,contributionsthroughaSWAporaPBAwouldthereforebemeasuredforsuccessagainstthecountry’sabilitytomeetitssectoraltargets.ASWAporaPBAshouldnot,intheory,haveitsownresultsframework.Inpractice,aswasnotedduringthisstudy,thishasmeantthatbestpracticesandknowledgemighthavefocusedmoreontheoperationalaspectsofconductingaprogrammaticapproach,ratherthanontheresultsithasgeneratedontheground.
InthecaseofGEFprogrammaticapproaches,monitoring,evaluation,andknowledgemanagementhavealwaysbeenaconcern.InalmostalltypesofGEFprograms,effortshavebeenmadetotieallchildprojectstogetherthroughsomeformofknowledgeexchange.Earlyprogramsdemonstratedsucheffortsthrough“coordinationchildprojects,”or“regionalprojects,”andlaterthroughtheprogramcoordinationbudgets.Themostrecentexampleofthiseffortwouldbethethreeintegratedapproachpilotprograms,whichhaveadedicatedchildprojectdesignedtoidentify,gather,anddisseminatebestpracticesandlessonsarisingfromotherchildprojectsandtoassistincoordinationamongchildprojects.Inmanyregards,thisfeatureofGEFprogramshascontributedtocreatingthe“glue”thatbindscollectionsofindividualprojectstogether.Duringtheinternalreviewofprogrammaticapproaches,thisfeaturewashighlightedasakeyaspectthatshouldbestrengthenedinfutureprograms,andindeedthethreeintegratedapproachpilotshaveintegratedthislesson,asamodelforfutureGEFprogramming.TheupcomingFAO-ledprogram“TheRestorationInitiative”alsointegratesthisfeaturethroughadedicatedcoordinatingfunction.
Table1.1:ComparativeSummary
Program KeyCharacteristics ComparisonwithGEFprograms
Sectorinvestmentprograms(SIPs)
• Channellarge-scale,long-terminvestmentintospecificeconomicsectorsbytargetingthemesandtopicsthatgobeyondtraditionaleconomicsector;
• Amechanismtodirectfundingtocoverallexpendituresofagivensector;
• SIPsmustbebasedinnationalstrategyandPolicyFramework;
• Thegovernmentorprivatesectormustmanageandadministratetheexpenditureandpolicies;
• Implementationarrangementsanduseoflocalcapacityarepromoted;
• Useofmultidonorandmultistakeholderapproach;
• SIPsareusuallyatleastpartiallyloan-financed.
• SimilaritieswithsomeoftheearlierGEFsequencedprograms,allowingforchannelinglong-termfunding(internationalwaters);
• GEFagenciescouldparticipateascofinanciersintoaSIP,butwouldlikelyhavetosubmitaprojectthroughGEFCouncilforoperationalization,highlightingincrementalcostscovered;
• GEFgrantscannotcoverrecurringor“investment”costs.
Sector-wideapproaches
• Fundsareusedforasector-specific • Environmentsector-based
16
Program KeyCharacteristics ComparisonwithGEFprograms(SWAps) umbrellaanddefinedsectorpolicy
underthegovernmentleadership;• SWApsareaframeworksettingadirectionofchange;
• Coordinatemultiplesourcesandtypesoffinancingundertheumbrellaofasectorpolicyorplan;
• Useofmultidonorandmultistakeholderapproach;
• Useofnationalsystemsforexpendituresandmonitoring;
• Targetsocialsectorsinhighlydependentandlowincomecountries;
• SWApscontributetofacilitatethedialoguebetweendonorsandgovernmentandsostrengthenthegovernmentleadershipandcoordination;
• Resourcesareconcentratedexclusivelyintothebeneficiarysector.
SWApsexistbuthaveexperiencedmitigatedsuccess.TheGEFhasbeeninvolvedinafewasafundingpartner;
• TheGEFcannotinitiateorleadaSWAP,evenintheenvironmentandnaturalresourcessector;itdependsoncertaintypesofcostsbeingfinancedfromothersources;
• TheweaknessofenvironmentalministriesmakesenvironmentalSWApsdifficulttooperationalize,andthecross-sectoralnatureofsomeenvironmentalissuesdoesnotlenditselfwelltoSWAP-likearrangements.
Program-basedapproaches(PBAs)
• PBAsareagenericapproachbasedoncomprehensiveandcoordinatedplanninginagivensector,thematicarea,orundertheaegisofanationalpovertyreductionstrategy(PRS).
• Theyfocusmoreonthepolicyprogramandobjectives(multisectoral,sectoral,orsubsectoral)andsupportlocallyownedprogramofdevelopment;
• Highdegreeofinstitutionalflexibility;• Moreadaptedtoenvironmentalissues.
• Intheoryatleast,allGEFprojectsandprogramsareintendedtobebasedonanationalpolicypriority;
• TherearefewPBAsintheenvironmentalarea,owingperhapstotheabsenceofasingle,integratingandrallyingenvironmentalpolicyandprogramstatementinmostcountries,andtodifferingideasofwhatgovernmentsshoulddoaboutenvironmentaldegradation;
• GEFplanninghorizonsandtimelimitsonfundavailabilitymeanthatlong-termrecurringcostsofPBAsareexcludedfromGEFprocesses.
Multiprojectprograms(MPPs)
• Mostwidelyusetypeofprogrammaticapproach;
• Makenoassumptionsaboutthedegreeofdonorcoordinationorcountryownership;
• Useofmultidonorandmultistakeholderapproachandmultitypeoffinancing;
• ThemaincharacteristicofMPPsisthattheprojectsthatcomprisethemhavetobelinkedamongthembysomekindofunifyingprinciple;
• MPPsofferthemostflexibilityandallowforhigher-levelimpactmonitoring,andprovidethepossibilityfordonorsto
• FrequentlyfoundinGEFprogramming;• LendthemselveswelltoGEFcofinancingastheyencouragemultidonorapproaches,withblendedtypesoffinancing;
• GEFmultiprojectprogramshavesoughttocreateinternalcoherenceandconsistencythroughvariousmeans(integrativeprojects,sharedmethodologiesandapproaches);
• ReflectstheintentionofprogrammaticapproachesintheGEF(moreeffectivemeansofchannelingfunds,higher-level
17
Program KeyCharacteristics ComparisonwithGEFprogramschannellargeramountoffinancialassistanceinasmallernumberoftransactions.
impacts,smallernumberoftransactions);
• GEFAgenciescaninitiateandoperationalizeMPPswithoutmuchneedforoutsidepartnershipsandfunding.
Strategicinvestmentfund(SIF)
• Involvemultiplestakeholders,largerinstitutionalsetupsandinstitutionallayers,butalsoprovidecoordinationaroundjointobjectives,sharedmethodologies,andapproaches;
• Usedtosupportlarge-scaleenvironmentalsectorprogramming;
• SIFsalsoallowforknowledgesharing,andsomereductionoftransactioncostsatthedonorlevel.
• GEF can participate in SIFs as acofinancier,focusingitsgrantfundsonthe generation of specific GEBs,throughtheprojectmodality;
• SIFfundingdiffersfromGEFinscope,purposeandnature.
1.5ConcludingRemarks
ThisbriefcomparativeoverviewofdifferenttypesofprogrammaticapproachesprovidessomeinsightsintotheevolutionoftheGEF’sownprograms.AsnotedbystakeholdersduringthediscussionsontheApproachPaperfortheEvaluationofProgrammaticApproaches,theOECDdefinitionisnotfoundtobeentirelyapplicabletotheGEF’sprograms,despitethefactthatGEFprogramsalsoclaimtofollowthesameprinciplesofdonorcoordination,harmonization,countryownership,andeffectiveness.
Itappearsthatwhilealltheaboveapproachesseektoapplythesameprinciples,theydiffermainlyintermsofthedegreeofflexibilitytheyallowintheiroperationalization.Forexample,inthecaseofSWAps,asinglesectorpolicywasneededtobringtogetherdonorsandtooperationalizeassistance;inthecaseofMPPs,acommonobjective—supportedbyparticipatingpartners—issufficientasaconvergenceprinciple.GEFprogramsfallinthecategoryofMPPs,mostlybecausethemainoperationaltoolforchannelingGEFresourcesremainstheproject.EventhemostrecentgroupofprogramsfundedbytheGEFcontinuestobeoperationalizedthroughindividualprojectswithcleartimeandresourcelimits,andstrongattentionplacedonindividualprojectresults.ThisisthecasewhereGEF“initiates”theideaofaprogram,forexampleGEF-specificprogramssuchastheDanubeProgram.Infact,GEFprogramsbefore2008wereoperationalizedasindividualprojects,withtheclearexceptionthattheintentoflong-termprogrammaticengagementwasclearlymentioned.
Intheory,itwouldbepossibletoseecaseswheretheGEFactsasoneamongmanydonorssupportingagivencountrypolicyorprogram,i.e.,whereleadershiponprogrammaticapproachescomesfromtheoutside,inparticularfromrecipientcountries.Whilethiswasattemptedinthecaseoftheearlysustainablelandmanagementcountrypartnerships,itwasachievedwithlimitedsuccessandhasrarelybeenseensincethen.
ThiscouldbebecauseGEFfundingisbasedontheIncrementalCostPrinciple,whichreducesthescopeofthetypesofcostsitmaycover—whereasothersector-basedapproachesareintendedtocoverthefullscopeofexpenditures.PerhapstheIncrementalCostPrinciplelendsitselflesstosector-basedapproaches,SWAps,andPBAsbecauseoftheneedtoreportonspecificenvironmentalresults(even
18
thoughthesemaycontributetooverallsectoralperformance).ThishighlightsakeydifferencebetweentheGEFandotherdevelopmentcooperationpartnersthatcouldbereferredtoasthe“powerofagency”:whereasdevelopmentcooperationinstitutionshavetheabilitytoself-directvarioussortsoffundingtowarddifferenttypesofpolicypriorities,theGEFwascreatedasameanstochannelfunds,anditcanonlychannelonetypeoffundingtowardclearlymeasurableglobalenvironmentalbenefits.
Almostbydefinition,grantfundsarenotintendedtobeprovidedonalong-termbasis,butrathertobefocusedonaclearsetoftime-boundtargets,andareusuallynotusedtosupportbaselineinvestments,profit-seekingventures,orrecurringcosts.ThislimitstheabilityoftheGEFtoinfluencelong-termresultsortoengageinstrategic-levelpolicymaking,eventhroughprogrammaticapproaches.ThefactthatfundsarealsoreplenishedonavoluntarybasiseveryfouryearsalsolimitstheGEF’sabilitytoengageinlong-termpartnerships.Therefore,programmaticapproachesintheGEFareboundtobenarrowerinscopethanthoseimplementedbydevelopmentcooperationagencies,betheybilateralormultilateral.MPPshavesofarprovidedthemostappropriateprogramapproachthroughwhichtheGEFcanstrivetochannelmorestrategicandprogrammaticassistancetocountriesforenvironmentalissues,whichfitwiththeoperationalrequirementsofperiodicalreplenishmentsandtheprinciplesofincrementalfinancing.
19
TechnicalDocument2:GeospatialImpactAnalysisofProgrammaticProjectImplementationsintheGEF2.1BackgroundandObjective...............................................................................................................202.2SummaryofFindings........................................................................................................................202.3OverviewofHypotheses..................................................................................................................26Appendix2A:DefinitionsandFrameofAnalysis....................................................................................31Appendix2B:Methods...........................................................................................................................35Appendix2C:GeocodingInternationalAid............................................................................................39
20
2.1BackgroundandObjective
InitsroleasafinancerofMultilateralEnvironmentalConventions,theGEFfacesauniqueglobalcontextdrivenbyrecentpolicymovesbytheglobalcommunity(includingtheSustainableDevelopmentGoalsandParisClimateNegotiations[GEF2016b]).Againstthisbackground,theGEFisenteringintoasixthcomprehensiveevaluation“toprovidesolidevaluativeevidencetoinformthenegotiationsfortheseventhreplenishmentoftheGEF”[GEF2016b].ThisreportprovidestechnicalinformationonthemethodologyandasynopsisoftheresultsfromageospatialimpactanalysisperformedasapartofacollaborationbetweentheGEFIndependentEvaluationOffice(IEO)andAidData,aresearchlabatWilliam&Mary,assessinghowGEFsupportdeliveredunderprogrammaticapproachmodalitieshavecontrastedtootherapproaches(pursuanttoGEF/ME/C.48/01[GEF2015]).Itextendsrecentwork(GEF2016c),integratingsatelliteandothersourcesofspatialdatatoanswertwokeyquestions:
• WhatistheimpactofGEFprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproaches?
• InwhatcontextshaveGEFprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproachesdeliveredbroader-andlonger-termenvironmentaloutcomescomparedwithnonprogrammaticimplementations?
Containedinthisreport—andmadeavailableforfutureanalysis—aredataonthegeographiclocations(i.e.,longitudeandlatitude)ofGEFprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproaches,aswellasrelatedmeasurementsfollowingtheindicatorssuggestedbytheUnitedNationsConventiontoCombatDesertification(UNCCD)(GEFIEO2017;UNCCD2015)andConventiononBiologicalDiversity(CBD2016).Thesedata,alongsiderelatedinformationonthegeographiccontextandprojectcharacteristicsofGEFprojects,areusedinamatching-basedquasi-observationalstudydesigntotestavarietyofhypothesesrelatedtotheeffectivenessofGEFprojectsalongtwoprimarydimensions:ForestCoverandVegetativeDensity.2
2.2SummaryofFindings
Thisreportleveragesamultiple-stagemodelingapproachinordertoattributeimpacttoGEFprogrammaticprojects.First,locationsatwhichGEFprogrammaticprojectswereimplementedarepairedwithareasatwhichnoGEFprojectexisted,butallothergeographiccharacteristicsweresimilar.Second,acausaltreeisfittothesematches—amachine-learningtechniquethathelpstoidentifyheterogeneityinimpacteffects.Third,atraditionallineareconometricmodelisfitwithrelevantinteractiontermstotestmodelsignificance.Bothofthesemodels—thecausaltreeandlinearmodel—aretheninterpretedtodetermineanoveralllevelofconfidence(seeappendix2Bformoreinformation).Finally,thisprocessisrepeatedtoanswerthekeyquestionposedinthisimpactevaluation,contrastingGEFprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproachestoGEFnonprogrammaticprojectsinordertomeasurethemarginalgains(orlosses)attributabletoGEFprogrammaticimplementations.
Weconsiderthreelevelsofconfidenceinthisstudy;theselevelsarereflectedinthediscussionbelow.Findingsinwhichweindicatehighconfidencehaveevidenceaboveandbeyondtraditionalparametric
2Anadditionalanalysiswasconductedbasedonin-situestimatesofthestateofbiodiversity;however,becauseofalackofspatialoverlapbetweenprogrammaticallyimplementedprojectsandprotectedareasatwhichmeasurementswerecollected,weintentionallyomittheseresults.Moredetailed,in-situspatialinformationonthestateofbiodiversitycouldenablefutureanalyses.
21
confidenceassociatedwiththem:notonlyistheirsignificanceinthelinearstatisticalmodelingefforts,butalsoevidenceofimportanceinthemachine-learningmodels.Furthermore,inthecaseofhighconfidence,thesemodelsagreeintheirfindings.Standardconfidenceisakintotraditionalsignificancetesting:thisdescriptorisusedifeitherthetraditional,linearparametricmodelorthecausaltreeindicatessignificanceorrobustness(respectively),andthemodelsagreeinfinding.Finally,lowerconfidenceisflaggedascaseswherethemodelsagreeinfindings,butneithermodelascribesclearsignificanceorrobustness.Theselevelsofconfidencearesummarizedinfigure2.1.
Inadditiontotheselevelsofconfidence,foreachfindingwehighlightifitisdirectlyattributabletoGEFprogrammaticapproaches,orifthefindingisdescriptiveofthecontextsinwhichGEFprogrammaticapproacheshavebeensuccessful.Asanillustrativeexample,figure2.6summarizestheattributableimpactofGEFprogrammaticprojectsrelativetosinglefocalprojectsalongthedimensionofmonetaryscale.WhilethemodelsemployedinthisanalysisenableustodirectlyascribeimpacttoGEFprojectsascontrastedtosinglefocalprojects,wedidnotcontrastlarge-scaleGEFprojectsdirectlytosmall-scaleGEFprojects(acontrastthatwouldbeconfoundedbymanyfactors).Thus,thisfigurecanonlybeinterpretedasdescriptive:wedonotprovideevidencethatGEFprogrammaticinterventionsatthe20th
percentileoffinancingarethemosteffectiveduetofinancing;rather,wedescribethat—ofalltheprojectstowhichweattributedimpact—thoseatthe20thpercentileoffinancingtendtoprovidethemostbangforthebuckrelativetosinglefocalprojects.Inthisparticularexample,wecannotdirectlyattributethiscausetomonetaryscale,buthighlightthefindingasapotentiallyimportantelementforprogramimplementerstoconsider.Throughoutthissummary,eachfindingisflaggedaseitherattributableordescriptivetohighlightthisdistinction.
Ataglobalscale,thereishighconfidencethatGEFprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproacheshaveresultedinattributableimprovementinlocalenvironmentalconditions,althoughsomeheterogeneityintheeffectivenessoftheseprojectsishighlightedinthedetailedfindingsbelow.Whencontrastedtononprogrammaticprojects,GEFprogrammaticimplementationswerefoundtobemoresuccessfulonlyundersomeconditions;nonprogrammaticprojectimplementationsstillremainastrongoptionfortheGEFunderotherconditions.
• Onaverage,themodelsprovidedstandardconfidencethatimprovedenvironmentaloutcomesareattributabletoGEFprogrammaticprojectsincontrasttononprogrammaticprojectsinthecaseofsinglefocalbiodiversityprojects.However,nosuchevidenceexistedformultifocalprojectswithbiodiversitycomponents.
• GEFprogrammaticmultifocalareaprojectswithlanddegradationcomponentshadmixedresultsincontrasttononprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithlanddegradationcomponents.Undermanygeographicandprojectcontexts,programmaticimplementationsresultedinanattributableimprovementinsatellite-sensedvegetationdensity;however,universallyGEFprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithlanddegradationcomponentsunderperformednonprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithlanddegradationcomponentsintermsofimprovementsofforestcover.Becauseofaninsufficientsampleofprogrammatic
22
projectsthatweresinglefocalland-degradationprojects,thisresultisonlybasedonthebest-matchedmultifocalstand-aloneprojectwithapreponderantlanddegradationcomponent.
Figures2.2and2.3descriptivelysummarizeallfindingsonheterogeneityacrossallmodelsforGEF-4andGEF-5projects,ineachcasechoosingthebestavailablecounterfactualset(i.e.,GEFprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithlanddegradationcomponentsarecontrastedtoGEFnonprogrammaticprojectswithlanddegradationcomponentsthathadsimilarmultifocalcomponents).Asthesefiguresillustrate,forprojectsinGEF-4andGEF-5therewasconsiderableheterogeneityintheconditionsunderwhichprogrammaticprojectsledtoimprovedbenefitsrelativetononprogrammaticprojects.Inparticular,projectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproachesinGEF-5hadstrongeroutcomesthanthoseinGEF-4,incontrasttononprogrammaticimplementations.Figure2.2.DescriptiveheterogeneityinfindingsforNormalizedDifferenceVegetationIndex(NDVI)outcomesforbiodiversityprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproaches.Theredareasinthefigureindicatethoseaspectsinwhichprogrammaticprojectsunderperformedcomparedwithstand-aloneones,whilegreenareasindicatethecontrary.
23
Figure2.3.DescriptiveheterogeneityinfindingsforNormalizedDifferenceVegetationIndex(NDVI)outcomesforland-degradationprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproaches.Theredareasinthefigureindicatethoseaspectsinwhichprogrammaticprojectsunderperformedcomparedwithstand-aloneones,whilegreenareasindicatethecontrary.
24
Figure2.4.Descriptiveheterogeneityinfindingsforforest-coveroutcomesforland-degradationprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproaches.Theredareasinthefigureindicatethoseaspectsinwhichprogrammaticprojectsunderperformedcomparedwithstand-aloneones,whilegreenareasindicatethecontrary.
25
Figure2.5.Descriptiveheterogeneityinfindingsforforest-coveroutcomesforbiodiversityprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproaches.Theredareasinthefigureindicatethoseaspectsinwhichprogrammaticprojectsunderperformedcomparedwithstand-aloneones,whilegreenareasindicatethecontrary.
Figures2.4and2.5providedescriptivesummariesoftheimpactofland-degradationandbiodiversityprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproachesincontrasttothosenotimplementedunderprogrammaticapproaches.Thisdescriptiveevidencesuggeststhatprogrammaticapproachesweremoresuccessfulincaseswithapoorinitialconditionandinareaswithlittleinfrastructure;however,evidenceexiststhatsinglefocalprojectsaremoreeffectiveinareaswithabetterinitialstate.
Figure2.6providesdescriptiveinformationonheterogeneityasprojectscaleincreases,asapproximatedbyincreasingdollarvalues.Inthisfigure,theX-axisrepresentsthepercentileofprojectdollarvalue,andtheY-axisrepresentsestimatedimpact.Eachcaseisscaledforcomparisonaccordingtopercentilesduetovaryinglevelsoffunding:includingmultifocalcases,programmaticbiodiversityprojectsrangefrom$2to$508million,whileprogrammaticlanddegradationprojectsrangefrom$1.5to$181million.Twopoints(pointsAandB)arehighlightedforthesakeofexample.PointArepresentsprojectscalesatwhichbothbiodiversityandlanddegradationreceivehighbangforthebuck,aslargeaverageattributableimpactsareobservedatthe40thpercentileofprojectcosts.PointBrepresentsadivergence,
26
inwhichland-degradationprojectstendtoreceivelargebangforthebuck,whilebiodiversityprojectstendtoreceivelessthanotherfundingscales.Figure2.6.Descriptionoftheattributableimpactofbiodiversityandland-degradationprojectsonNormalizedDifferenceVegetationIndex(NDVI)asthetotaldollarvalueofprogrammaticprojectincreases.
2.3OverviewofHypotheses
Allhypotheses,thekeyresultsandoutcomevariables,counterfactualgroups,andtotalunitsofobservationaresummarizedintable2.1.Thehypothesesseektodirectlyanswerthetwoprimaryquestionsbeingposedinthisreport:
• Research question 1: What is the impact of GEF projects implemented underprogrammaticapproaches?(H1)
• Research question 2: In what contexts have GEF projects implemented underprogrammaticapproachesdelivered improvedenvironmentaloutcomescomparedwithnonprogrammaticimplementations?(H2,H3)
27
Table2.1.Hypothesestestedinthisanalysis.
HypothesisandMeasurement
Contrast
KeyResults/OutcomeVariables
N(Locations) N(Projects)
T C T C
H1.GEFprogrammaticprojectsprovidepositiveenvironmentalbenefitsrelativetoareaswithnoprojectsimplemented.
(M1)Programmaticw/landdegradationcomponents;NullCaseComparisons
VegetativeDensity(NDVI)ForestCover
259 4980 30
(M2)Programmaticw/biodiversitycomponents;NullCaseComparisons
VegetativeDensity(NDVI)ForestCover
477 4980 71
H2.GEFprogrammaticland-degradationprojectsprovidegreaterpositiveenvironmentalbenefitsrelativetoGEFnonprogrammaticland-degradationprojects*
(M3)Programmaticmultifocal
projectswithasignificant**land-
degradationcomponent;
nonprogrammaticmultifocal
projectswithasignificant**land-
degradationcomponent*
VegetativeDensity(NDVI)
ForestCover
212 137 20 13
H3.GEFprogrammaticbiodiversityprojectsprovidegreaterpositiveenvironmentalbenefitsrelativetoGEFnonprogrammaticbiodiversityprojects.
(M4)Programmaticmultifocal
projectswithasignificant**
biodiversitycomponent;
nonprogrammaticmultifocal
projectswithasignificant**
biodiversitycomponent.
VegetativeDensity(NDVI)
ForestCover
86 87 14 12
(M5)Programmaticsinglefocal
biodiversityprojects;
nonprogrammaticsinglefocal
biodiversityprojects.
VegetativeDensity(NDVI)
ForestCover
202 804 38 103
*Onlymultifocalland-degradationprojectsarecontrastedinthisstudy,asaverylimitednumberofsingle-focalprogrammaticland-degradationprojectsareavailableforcomparison.**Basedonpercentageoftotalfundingwhichwenttoaspecifiedcomponentrelativetothenumberofcomponentswhichwerefunded.
ResearchQuestion1:WhatistheimpactofGEFprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproaches?
Toanswerthisquestion,wetesthypothesis1:GEFprogrammaticprojectsprovidepositiveenvironmentalbenefitsrelativetoareaswithnoprojectsimplemented.Fourtotalmodelsarefittoexaminethishypothesis,examiningtheimpactofprogrammaticprojectswitheitherland-degradationorbiodiversitycomponentsonvegetativedensityandforestcover.Thefindingsfromtheseanalysesarebrieflysummarizedintable2.2,andfullinformationontherelevantmodelingstrategies,datasources,covariatecontrols,andstudypopulationareprovidedintheappendixes.
28
Table2.2.FindingsformodelscontrastingGEFprogrammaticprojects(landdegradationandbiodiversitycases)tonullcases.
Contrast
Outcomevariables
Summaryfindings
Interpretation Detailedresults
(M1)Programmaticw/landdegradationobjectives;NullCaseComparisons
VegetativeDensity(NDVI)
EvidencesuggeststhatGEFprogrammaticprojectswithaland-degradationcomponenthavehadapositiveimpactonvegetativedensity.EstimatessuggestprojectsinChina,aswellasthoseinprotectedareas,hadthelargestpositiveimpacts;undernarrowgeographiccriteriaprojectswithlessthan1.5yearssinceimplementationhavenotyetshownpositiveresults.
FullResultsModelMatchesGlobalEstimateLocalEstimatesMappedEstimates
ForestCover
EvidencesuggeststhatGEFprogrammaticprojectswithaland-degradationcomponenthaveslowedtherateofforestlossattheglobalscale.Areaswithpoorinitialconditions(forestcoverlessthanapproximately50%)sawlargerimprovements.
FullResultsModelMatchesGlobalEstimateLocalEstimatesMappedEstimates
(M2)Programmaticw/biodiversityobjectives;NullCaseComparisons
VegetativeDensity(NDVI)
Evidencesuggeststhatglobally,GEFprogrammaticprojectswithabiodiversitycomponenthavenotpositivelyimpactedvegetativedensity.However,locallypositiveimpactsareidentifiedinareaswithpoorinitialconditions.SatelliteevidencesuggeststhebestperformingprojectsareincentralAfricaandnortheasternChina.
FullResultsModelMatchesGlobalEstimateLocalEstimatesMappedEstimates
ForestCover Evidencesuggeststhatglobally,GEFprogrammaticprojectswithabiodiversitycomponenthaveslowedtherateofforestloss.Programmaticimplementationsweremostsuccessfulinareaswithlimitedaccesstoroadways.EstimatesaremoreuncertainincentralAfricathanotherregions.
FullResultsModelMatchesGlobalEstimatesLocalEstimatesMappedEstimates
Attheglobalscale,findingsindicatethatbothGEFprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproacheshavehadpositiveenvironmentalbenefits,irrespectiveoftheirfocus(biodiversityorlanddegradation).Themeasurementsusedhere—examiningvegetativedensityandforestcover—arefoundtobemorepositivelyimpactedbyprojectsthatcontainafocusonlanddegradation.
Locally,considerableheterogeneityemergedinwhere—andunderwhatconditions—GEFprogrammaticprojectshadthegreatestbenefit.Aftercontrollingfornaturalconfounds(suchasrainfall,temperature,andotherfactors),projectslocatedinnortheasternChinatendedtohavealargerpositiveimpactonvegetationdensity—inprojectswitheitherlanddegradationorbiodiversitycomponents.Furthermore,evidencesuggeststhatprogrammaticprojectsaremosteffectiveinareasthathavepoorinitialconditions.OfnoteisthatconsiderableuncertaintyinfindingsexistedthroughoutCentralAfrica,soresultsinthatregionareoflesscertaintythanothers.
ResearchQuestion2:InwhatcontextshaveGEFprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproachesdeliveredimprovedenvironmentaloutcomescomparedwithnonprogrammaticimplementations?
Toanswerthisquestion,wetesthypotheses2and3,consideringwhetherGEFprogrammaticprojectsprovidegreaterpositiveenvironmentalbenefitsrelativetoGEFstand-aloneprojects.Sixtotalmodelsarefittoexaminethesehypotheses.Forhypothesis2,weexaminetheimpactofprogrammaticprojectswithaland-degradationcomponentonvegetativedensityandforestcover,respectively;thisisdone
29
onlyforthemultifocalcaseduetoarelativelyrareimplementationoflanddegradationinthesinglefocalprogrammaticcontext.Hypothesis3teststherelativeeffectivenessofbiodiversityprojectsthatwereprogrammatic,underbothsingleandmultifocalcontexts.Thefindingsfromtheseanalysesarebrieflysummarizedintable2.3,andfullinformationontherelevantmodelingstrategies,datasources,covariatecontrols,andstudypopulationareprovidedintheappendixes.
Table2.3.FindingsformodelscontrastingGEFprogrammaticprojectstoGEFnonprogrammaticprojects(forbothlanddegradationandbiodiversitycases).
Contrast OutcomevariablesSummaryfindings
Interpretation E-Appendices
(M3)Programmaticmultifocal
projectswithasignificant**land
degradationcomponent;
nonprogrammaticmultifocal
projectswithasignificant**
landdegradationcomponent*
Vegetative
Density
(NDVI)
Evidencesuggeststhat—onaverage—implementationofprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithaland-degradationcomponentoutperformimplementationsofnonprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithaland-degradationcomponent.However,thereisastarkgeographicdivideinthisfinding:areasincentralandwesternAfricatendedtohavemorepositiveimpacts;areasinIndiaandChinatendedtohavelesspositiveimpactsfromprogrammaticimplementations.
FullResultsModelMatchesGlobalEstimateLocalEstimatesMappedEstimates
ForestCover Nosignificantdifferencesbetweenprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithaland-degradationcomponentandnonprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithaland-degradationcomponentwerefoundintermsoftheirimpactonforestcover.Thisfindingwasrelativelyhomogeneousacrosstheglobe.
FullResultsModelMatchesGlobalEstimateLocalEstimatesMappedEstimates
(M4)Programmaticmultifocal
projectswithasignificant**
biodiversitycomponent;
nonprogrammaticmultifocal
projectswithasignificant**
biodiversitycomponent.
Vegetative
Density
(NDVI)
Globally,nosignificantdifferencesbetweenprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithabiodiversitycomponentandnonprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithabiodiversitycomponentwerefound.LimitedevidencesuggestsareasinSoutheastAsiamayhaveexperiencedimprovedoutcomesduetoprogrammaticimplementations.
FullResultsModelMatchesGlobalEstimateLocalEstimatesMappedEstimates
ForestCover Globally,nosignificantdifferencesbetweenprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithabiodiversitycomponentandnonprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithabiodiversitycomponentwerefound.However,limitedevidencesuggeststhatprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithabiodiversitycomponenttendedtohaveimprovedoutcomesinareaswithrelativelylowpopulationdensities.
FullResultsModelMatchesGlobalEstimateLocalEstimatesMappedEstimates
(M5)Programmaticsingle
focalbiodiversityprojects;
nonprogrammaticsinglefocal
biodiversityprojects.
Vegetative
Density
(NDVI)
Evidence suggests that—on average—programmatic singlefocal biodiversity projects had improved outcomes ascontrasted to nonprogrammatic single focal biodiversityprojects.Considerableheterogeneityexistedinthisfinding,whichismoreexplicitlysummarizedinthefullresultsaccessibleinthee-annextothisanalysis(seecolumntoright).
FullResultsModelMatchesGlobalEstimateLocalEstimatesMappedEstimates
ForestCover Evidencesuggeststhat—onaverage—programmaticsinglefocalbiodiversityprojectshadimprovedoutcomesascontrastedtononprogrammaticsinglefocalbiodiversityprojects.ThelargestimprovementsattributabletoprogrammaticimplementationswerelargelyfoundinsoutheastAsia.
FullResultsModelMatchesGlobalEstimateLocalEstimatesMappedEstimates
Attheglobalscale,wefindthatconsiderablecomplexityexistswhenseekingtoidentifywhereprogrammaticimplementationsmaybefavorableincontrasttononprogrammaticimplementations.
30
Astables2.2and2.3illustrate,thetypeofsubprojectimplementations(multifocalincontrasttosinglefocal),geographiclocation,monetarysizeofthechildprojects,andtargetedoutcomeofinterestallcontributetotherelativevalue-addofprogrammaticapproaches.Ingeneral,lessclearlyidentifiableeffectswereattributabletomultifocalprojectsinprogrammaticapproachesincontrasttomultifocalprojectsoutsideofprogrammaticapproaches;singlefocalbiodiversityprojectstendedtobenefitmorefromprogrammaticimplementations.
31
Appendix2A:DefinitionsandFrameofAnalysis
Theevaluationinthisreportexaminestheimpactofallprogramsdesignedandimplementedsincetheformalintroductionoftheprogrammatic-approachessupportmodalityintheGEF,approvedbytheCouncilinMay2008,markingtheintroductionoftherequirementtodesignaprogramframeworkdocument(PFD)foreachprogramsubmittedtoCouncil.Thisportfolioamountsto38programs,composedof301childprojects.
Theselectionofprogramsforthisanalysisisbasedonmaturityintermsoftheimplementationstatusofchildprojects.Wedefinedprogramsasmaturethateitherhavehadmorethan60%oftheirchildprojectsunderimplementationformorethan2years(i.e.,havingbeenunderimplementationbeforeApril1st,2014),arecompleted,orboth.Theapplicationofthismaturitycriterionresultedin23ofthe38beingeligibleforevaluation.Fromthese,weexcludedfourglobalprogramsknowntobeadministrativearrangementsdesignedwiththemainpurposetoachievecost-efficienciesratherthanlarger-scaleandlonger-termresults.Wealsoexcludedclimatechange,persistentorganicpollutants,andinternationalwatersprogramsbecauseofthelackofglobal-scopeoutcomedataonthesetopics(i.e.,satelliteinformationorotherglobalsourcesarenotatthistimereadilyavailablefortheseoutcomes).Theapplicationoftheabove-mentionedcriteriaresultedinafinalstudysetof13programswith105childprojects.Table2A.1showstheselectedprogramsstratifiedalongrelevantdimensions.
Table2A.1.ProgramsoftheGEFevaluatedinthisreport.
GEFprogramID
Singleagency
Multiagency
Singlecountry
Multicountry
Singlefocalarea
Multifocalarea
3268 X X X
3420 X X X
3423 X X X
3482 X X X
3647 X X X
3661 X X Biodiversity
3782 X X X
3785 X X Biodiversity
3926 X X Biodiversity
4511 X X X
4620 X X X
4635 X X X
4646 X X Biodiversity
Foreachofthe105childprojectsunderthese13programs,impactsareexaminedalongmultipleindicatorstocapturefluctuationsinnaturalcapital,followingtheindicatorssuggestedinthemonitoringframeworkoftheUNCCDformeasuringlanddegradation(UNCCD2015),andtheCBD(ConferenceofthePartiesdecisionVIII/15)foridentifyingtrendsinbiodiversity.Thefirstindicator,forestcoverchange,isidentifiedundertheUNCCDasatier1metric,andconsideredreadyforimmediateusebytheCBD.Thesecondindicator,vegetativeproductivity,isclassifiedasaUNCCDtier2metric,andalsoconsidered
32
readyforimmediateusebytheCBD.EachofthesemeasurementsisdefinedfollowingthebelowproceduresforeachGEFprojectlocation:
1. Vegetationproductivity—TheyearlymaximumproductivityforeachGEFprojectiscalculatedonanannualbasisfrom1985to2015usingtheLong-TermDataRecordNormalizedDifferenceVegetationIndex(NDVI)product.
2. Forestcoverchange—TheTreeCoverproductfromtheGlobalLandCoverFacilityisemployedtodetectland-coverchange.Theseproductsareavailableat30-meterresolutionforcirca1980,1990,and2000,andonayearlybasisforyears2001to2015.Thetreecoverisexpressedaspercentcoverperpixel.Theabsoluteannualchangeintreecoveriscalculatedpost-2000,whileabaselineiscalculatedusingthedatafromyearspriorto2000.
Followingthesedefinitions,foreachGEFprojectlocationoutcomemetricsarecalculatedbasedonthegeographiclocationsidentifiedthroughageocodingmethodologyimplementedbyAidData(seeappendix2Bformoreinformationonthegeocodingproceduresfollowed).Baselinetrendsandlevelsforeachofthesemetricsarecalculatedbyidentifyingthepre-interventiontimeperiodforeachGEFprojectlocation.Thesevalues,alongwithkeycovariatesidentifiedintable2A.2andGEFprojectcharacteristics,areusedtocontrastprojectstosimilar,matchedcomparisonareastoidentifytheimpactofGEFprojectsunderavarietyofhypotheses.
Table2A.2.Keycovariatedata.
Domain
Source
Topic
#ofObs.Currentcoverage
Spatialres.Temporal SpatialHumanDevelopment
DMSP-OLSVIIRS Nighttimelights N/A3 1992-2016 Global Gridcell
(1km;250m)gROADS Roadnetworks N/A 1980-2010 Global Gridcell
(~1km)Political WDPA WDPA
Environmentalprotectionareas
220,453 2015 Global Variable
Demography GPW Population N/A 1990-2020every5years
Global Gridcell(5km/1km)
EnvironmentandNaturalResources
HydroSHEDS RiverNetworks N/A 1995-2005 Global Gridcell(~1km)
SRTM Elevation/Slope N/A 2000 Global Gridcell(500m)
UDel Airtemperature N/A 1900-2014 Global Gridcell(50km)
Precipitation N/A 1900-2014 Global Gridcell(50km)
DefiningVegetationProductivity
Therearemanydifferentapproachestoapproximatingvegetationonaglobalscale,andsatelliteshavebeentakingimagerythatcanbeusedforthispurposeforoverthreedecades.Oftheseapproaches,themostfrequentlyused—andappliedinthisstudy—istheNDVI.TheNDVIisametricthathasbeenusedsincetheearly1970s,andisoneofthesimplestandmostfrequentlyusedapproachtoapproximating
3Forrasterdatasets,seespatialresolutionforamoreaccuratedepictionofmeasurementdensity.
33
vegetativebiomass;furthermore,itisrecommendedasanindicatorbytheGEFScientificandTechnicalAdvisoryPanel(Yengohetal.2014).NDVImeasurestherelativeabsorptionandreflectanceofredandnear-infraredlightfromplantstoquantifyvegetationonascaleof-1to1,withvegetatedareasfallingbetween~0.2and1.Thereflectancebychlorophylliscorrelatedwithplanthealth,andmultiplestudieshaveillustratedthatitisgenerallyalsocorrelatedwithplantbiomass.Inotherwords,healthyvegetationandhighplantbiomasstendtoresultinhighNDVIvalues(Dunbar,2009).UsingNDVIasanoutcomemeasurehasanumberofotherbenefits,includingthelongandconsistenttimeperiodsforwhichithasbeencalculated.WhiletheNDVIdoeshaveanumberofchallenges—includingapropensitytosaturateoverdenselyvegetatedregions,thepotentialforatmosphericnoise(includingclouds)toincorrectlyoffsetvalues,andreflectancefrombrightsoilsprovidingmisleadingestimates—thepopularityofthismeasurementhasledtoanumberofimprovementsovertimetooffsetmanyoftheseerrors.Thisisespeciallytrueofmeasurementsfromlonger-termsatelliterecords,suchasthoseproducedfromtheModerateResolutionImagingSpectroradiometerandAdvancedVeryHighResolutionRadiometerofNASA(NationalAeronauticsandSpaceAdministration).4
DefiningLand-CoverChange
Understandingtherelationshipsbetween“processandpattern”—i.e.,thelinksbetweendriversandobservationsofland-coverchange—haslongbeenafocusofpractitioners(Lambinetal.2001;Liverman1998;MeyerandTurner1996;Nagendraetal.2004;Turneretal.2003).Land-coverchangehasmajorimplicationsforabroadrangeofphenomena,includingthesustainabilityofhumandevelopment,biogeochemicalcycling,andlevelsofgreenhousegases(Turneretal.1995;UN-REDD2010).Investigatingthemanyfactorsthatinfluencelandcoveranduseprovidesanavenuethroughwhichthehuman-environmentinterfacecanbebetterunderstood,butrecentresearchhasemphasizedthelackofunderstandingofhowanthropogenicprocessesinfluencelandchange(Nagendraetal.2004).Theimpactsoflanduseandland-coverchangeonthevulnerabilityandsustainabilityofhuman-dominatedlandscapesarejustbeginningtobeanalyzed,andimprovingthisunderstandingisamajorgoalofpartiesinterestedinunderstandingtheconsequencesofland-usechange(Foleyetal.2005).5
Boththegeographicanddevelopmenteconomicscommunitieshavesoughttounderstandlinkagesbetweeninternationaldevelopmentandland-coverchange,buttheyoftenusedifferentapproachesandvocabulary.Withinthegeographiccommunity,limitedattentionhasbeengiventocausalmethodologies(includingmatchinganddifference-in-differencemodels),butratherthefocushasbeenonthe(1)abilitytoaccuratelymeasureland-coverchangeusingsatelliteimagery(i.e.,Boraketal.2000;Strahleretal.n.d.;Christmanetal.2015;Roganetal.2003;Schwertetal.2013),(2)impactsofspatialautocorrelationonmodelestimates(Milleretal.2012;Waldronetal.2013),and(3)themethodsforpredictingtheimpact(s)(andrelateduncertainties)ofinternationalaidonlandchange(Lauranceetal.2002;RunfolaandPontius2013;vanAsselenandVerburg2013).Conversely,thedevelopmenteconomicscommunityhasfocusedontheapplicationofmatching(NelsonandChomitz2011)anddifference-in-difference(Pfaff1999;Alix-Garciaetal.techniquestoestablishevidenceofcausalrelationshipsbetweeninternationalaidandland-coverchange—methodsthatfollowsimilarapproachestoclinicaltrialswithtreatmentandcontrolgroups.
Tocaptureland-coverchangeinthisanalysis,weleverageananalysisperformedbyHansenetal.(2013),inwhichLandSatimagerywasfusedwithanumberofothersourcestocaptureyearly,30-meter
4https://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov.5AlsoseetheGlobalLandProgrammewebsite,https://glp.earth.
34
resolutionestimatesoftreecoverloss.Thisland-coverchangeanalysisiswidelyleveragedtocapturetrendsindeforestation,andrepresentsoneofthehighest-resolutioneffortsforsuchmeasurementseverconducted.Furthermore,asaglobalanalysis,thisproductenablesaprecisecalculationofboth(1)treecoverintheyear2000,and(2)treecoverlossfrom2000‒2013foreveryGEFprojectlocation.
35
Appendix2B:Methods
Eachhypothesisistestedusingamultiple-stagepropensity-scoremodelingapproachtailoredforglobal-scopeanalyses.First,foreachhypothesisacounterfactualgroupisconstructedtoenablecomparison—i.e.,stand-alonemultifocalprojects,or“nullcase”contrastswhereitisknownnointerventionoccurred.Thesegroupsareusedtodefinetreatments(inthiscase,programmaticprojectlocations)andcontrols(theconstructedcounterfactualgroup).Usinganearest-neighborcaliper(~0.25)matchingapproach,thesampleofcontrolandtreatedunitsistrimmedtoincludebest-matchesfollowingaone-to-onematchingstrategy(i.e.,everytreatedcaseismatchedtothemostsimilarcontrol,andtreatedcaseswithnostrongmatchesareremovedfromthesample).
Usingeachcontrolandtreatmentset,acausaltreeisusedtoexaminethedimensionsalongwhichimpactheterogeneitycanbedetected,aswellastoestimateimpacts.Recentworkhasillustratedthat—withkeyadjustments—tree-basedapproachescanbeusedtoidentifyhowthecausaleffectsofanintervention(i.e.,internationalaid,oramedicaltreatment)varyacrosskeyparameters(suchasgeographicspace;seeAtheyandImbens2015;Staff2014;Shenetal.2016).Thisiskeyfortop-down,orglobal-scopeanalyses,asitisunlikelythataidprojectswillhavethesameeffectacrosshighlyvariablegeographiccontexts,andthedriversofsuchvariationmaynotbeknown.Adetailedexplanationofthisapproachisincludedinappendix2C,whilefigure2B.1showsanexampledrawnfromexploratoryresearchinwhichacausaltreeisappliedtoalimitedsubsetofinternationalaid,examiningtheimpactofaidonamaximumobservedNDVIvalue.
FIGURE2B.1.Illustrativeexampleofacausaltree.
Figure2B.1servesasanillustrativeexampleoftheoutputsofcausaltree‒basedapproachestoidentifyinghowimpacteffectsmaydifferacrossadataset.WithineachterminalnodeinfigureB1,thedifferencebetweenaweightedoutcomeofalltreatedcases(areasthatreceivedaid)iscontrastedtocontrolcases(areasthatdidnotreceiveaid),andthevaluedisplayedcanbedirectlyinterpretedasthecausalimpactofthetreatment(inthisexample,thepresenceofaid)onthemetricofinterest(i.e.,
36
NDVI).Ateachstepofthetree,astatement(i.e.,“MaximumPrecipitation<93mm”)istestedastrueorfalseforeachobservation,andtheimpactofagivenobservationcanbedeterminedbyidentifyingwhereitfallsinthetree.Asasimpleexample,thetreeinfigureB1wouldprovideevidencethatinternationalaidprojectslocatedinareaswithamaximumyearlyprecipitationgreaterthan93mm,thatprovidelessthan$1.4millionofaid,andaremorethanapproximatelyakilometer(635meters)awayfromanurbanareatendtoincreaseNDVIby0.089.Thisapproachisusedtoestimatetheimpactofprojectsonalloutcomevariablestestedinthisanalysis.Accompanyingthecausaltreeisametricofuncertainty,generatedfollowingarandomforestapproach.Thecausaltree‒randomforestiterativelysubsetsthedata,constructinguniquetreesuntilmodelconvergenceisachieved.6Foreachhypothesis,thecausaltree‒randomforestisusedtoillustratethepotentialdistributionofthedirectionalityandmagnitudeofestimatedimpactswhenuncertaintyisaccountedfor.
Finally,afterthetreeisconstructed,alinearmodelthatincludesallcovariatesaswellasinteractionsbetweenthetreatmenttermandvariablesidentifiedinthetreeisestimated.Whilethismodelisnotasvaluablefortheestimationoftreatmentimpacts,itprovidestheabilitytoexamineglobal,lineareffectsthatmayexistinthesystem.
DataIntegration
Manyofthedatasetsusedinthisanalysisarecollectedatdifferentspatialscales,necessitatinganadditionalstepofintegrationsothatallobservationscanbeanalyzedatthescaleofGEFprojects(inthiscase,examininga10kmx10kmregionaroundeachproject).Toconductthisintegration,weusethepiecewiseapproximationproceduredetailedinGoodchildetal.(1993):
eq.1
wheretisanindexforthezoneoneisaggregatingto(theGEFprojectareaofinterest),sisanindexforthesetofzonesoneisaggregatingfrom(i.e.,asatellitepixelsmeasuringNDVI),Sisthemaximumindexforallzoness, representsthevalueofinterestatsourcezones, istheareaofoverlapbetweenthetwozones, istheareaofthezoneoneisaggregatingfrom,and istheestimatedvalueforthetargetzone.Inourapplication,thisprocedureweightseachpixelofeachdatasetaccordingtoitsoverlapwitheachGEFproject.
CausalModel
Classificationandregressiontreeapproacheshavebeencommonlyemployedoverthelasttwodecadestoaidintheclassificationofremotelysensedimagery(FriedlandBrodley1997;McIverandFriedl2002;GambaandHerold2009).Here,weemploycausaltrees—anovelversionofaClassificationandRegressionTreesthatenablescausalinferentialanalyses.Causaltreesareimplementedinamultiplestepprocess,detailedbelowbutsimplysummarizedas(1)derivingametricthatindicatessimilaritybetweentreatmentandcontrolgroups;(2)usingthismetrictomatchpairsoftreatmentandcontrolunitsviaatree;and(3)contrastingtheoutcomeoftreatedunitstocontrolunitswithineveryterminal
6Becauseuncertaintycanmanifestalonganumberofdimensions—includingspatialuncertainties,attributionaluncertainties,andmodeluncertainties—alargebutvaryingsubsetofmodelsisneededtoensuremodelconvergence.Thenumberofrequirediterationscanrangefromtenstohundredsofthousands.
37
nodeofthetree.FigureB1showsanexampledrawnfromexploratoryresearchinwhichacausaltreeisappliedtoalimitedsubsetofinternationalaid,examiningtheimpactofaidonamaximumobservedNDVIvalue.Thisfigureservesasanillustrativeexampleoftheoutputsofcausaltree‒basedapproachestoidentifyinghowimpacteffectsmaydifferacrossadataset.Unliketraditionaleconometricapproachesinwhichinteractiontermsmustbeprespecifiedtoestimatedifferentialimpacteffects,hereclustersofsimilartreatmentandcontrolunitsareidentifieddynamically.Furthermore,byincludinggeographicfactorsinthesetrees(i.e.,latitudeandlongitude),manyunobservedgeographiccharacteristicscanbecaptured.Asinatraditionaleconometricanalysisinwhichvariablescanbeidentifiedasstatisticallysignificant,herevariablesthataresignificant(definedasthevariablesthatdescribethemostvarianceinthedata)arerepresentedinthetree.Allvariablesarecontrolledforthroughthepropensityadjustmentoftheoutcome.
Theprimarydistinctionbetweencausaltreesandmoretraditionaltree-basedclassifiersliesinthecriterionalongwhichsplitsinthetreeareselected.Consideradatasetwithnindependentlyandidenticallydistributedunitswith ,andforeachunitavectorofrelevantcovariatesaremeasured.Inasimplifiedcasewhereallthingsotherthantreatmentarebeingconstant,toestimateacausaleffectforeachgeographiclocationiwecanusetheRubincausalmodel(Rubin,1997)andconsiderthetreatmenteffectasbeingequaltothefollowing:
eq.2
where isanindicatorofwhetheraunitofobservationireceivedaid(1)ordidnot(0).Followingthissimplifiedmodel,wedefinetheexpectedheterogeneouscausaleffectforanysetofunitsasfollows(AtheyandImbens2015):
eq.3
AtheyandImbensshowthatonecanestimatethecausaleffectas wherethetransformedoutcome isdefinedasfollows:
eq.4
andthepropensityscorefunction isdefinedas .Severalapproachestoestimatethepropensityscorecanbeselected(RosenbaumandRubin1983;PanandBai2015)—here,weestimate usinglogisticregression.Oncethepropensityscoreand havebeenestimated,manyauthors(Suetal.2009;AtheyandImbens2015;WagerandAthey2017;Deniletal.2014;Meinhausen2016;Biau2012)haveillustratedthatclassificationandregressiontreescanbeusedtoisolatetreatmenteffectswithinsetsofsimilarunits.Thesetreesseektoclassifyunitsofobservationintoclustersthataresimilaralongcovariateaxes,followingdifferentsplittingandoptimizationrules.
Usingthepropensityscore,causaltreeapproachesderiveatransformedoutcomevariable,Y*,andusethistogeneratetreesplitsinsteadof(thetraditionallyused)Y.Thistransformedoutcomeiscalculatedfollowingeq.5.Thecausaltreereplacesthetraditionalmeansquarederroroptimizationcriterionintreesbyseekingtominimizethesumof ineachterminalnode,where representstheestimatedaveragetreatmentimpactwithinagivennode,i.e.:
38
eq.5
Thisnewerrortermisthenusedtosplitthetreeinawayidenticaltotraditionalregressiontrees,andprovidesatreethatincreasesthesimilarityofcontrolandtreatedunitswithineachnode,aswellasnode-specificestimatesofimpacts.
39
Appendix2C:GeocodingInternationalAid
ThisprojectleveragedtheAidDatadevelopmentfinanceandinternationalaidgeocodingmethodology.In2010,AidDatadevelopedamethodologyforgeo-referencingdevelopmentprojectsthattheInternationalAidTransparencyInitiativelaterrevisedandadoptedasitsglobalreportingstandard.Leveragingateamoftrainedgeocoders,thegeocodingmethodologyandonlinetoolkitreliesonadouble-blindcodingsystem,wheretwoexpertsemployadefinedhierarchyofgeographictermsandindependentlyassignuniformlatitudeandlongitudecoordinates,precisioncodes,andstandardizedplacenamestoeachgeographicfeature.Ifthetwocoderoundsdisagree,theprojectismovedintoanarbitrationroundwhereageocodingprojectmanagerreconcilesthecodestoassignamastersetofgeocodesforallofthelocationsdescribedintheavailableprojectdocumentation.Thisapproachalsocapturesgeographicinformationatseverallevels—coordinate,city,andadministrativedivisions—foreachlocation,therebyallowingthedatatobevisualizedandanalyzedindifferentwaysdependinguponthegeographicunitofinterest.Oncegeographicfeaturesareassignedcoordinates,codersspecifyalocationclassrangingfrom1to4forcategoriesincludingadministrativeregionsortopographicalfeaturesalongwithalocationtypespecifyingtheexactfeature(e.g.,airport,secondorderadministrativezone,etc.).Codersthendeterminethelocation’sgeographicexactnessvalueofeither1(exact)or2(approximate).
AidDataperformsmanyprocedurestoensuredataquality,including:de-duplicationofprojectsandlocations,correctinglogicalinconsistencies(e.g.,makingsureprojectstartandenddatesareinproperorder),findingandcorrectingfieldanddatatypemismatches,correctingandaligninggeocodesandprojectlocationswithincountryandadministrativeboundaries,validatingplacenamesandcorrectinggazetteerinconsistencies,deflatingfinancialvaluestoconstantdollarsacrossprojectsandyears(whereappropriate),strictversioncontrolofintermediateanddraftdataproducts,semanticversioningtodelineatemajorandminorversionsofvariousgeocodeddatasets,andfinalreviewbyamultidisciplinaryworkinggroup.
40
TechnicalDocument3:GlobalOnlineSurvey
3.1Introduction......................................................................................................................................413.2ClassificationofSurveyRespondents...............................................................................................413.3.InvolvementinGEFProgrammaticApproaches..............................................................................423.4MainIncentivesandDisincentivestoBePartofaProgram.............................................................443.5ProgramDesignandApproval..........................................................................................................463.6Program-ProjectAlignment..............................................................................................................463.7Coordination.....................................................................................................................................473.8ProgramFinancing............................................................................................................................493.9KnowledgeSharingandM&E...........................................................................................................493.10Program-LevelResults....................................................................................................................513.11FinalThoughtsfromSurveyRespondentsonGEFPrograms.........................................................52
41
3.1Introduction
Aglobalonlinesurveywasconductedtogatherperceptionsfromawiderangeofcountry-levelstakeholdershavingbeenorbeinginvolvedintheGEFprogramsunderanalysis.TheGEFAgenciesinvolvedinthoseprogramsprovidedtheIEOwithdetailedlistsofprogramandchild-projectstakeholders’contactsforall38programmaticapproaches.Additionalstakeholderswereidentifiedthroughfieldvisitsforthefourprogramcasestudiesconductedforthisevaluation.
Anemailwithalinktothesurveyquestionnairewassenttothe684programand/orchild-projectstakeholders.Thesurveyreceived353responses,183ofwhichwereviable.Thoseresponseswereusedinthisanalysis.Theresponserateforthissurveyis27percent.
Eighty-fivepercentofrespondentsindicatedthattheyhavebeeninvolvedinaGEFprogram.Consideringthatthissurveywasadministeredtoprogramandchild-projectstakeholders,thisindicatesthatabout15percentofstakeholdersareunawarethattheirprojectsarepartoflargerprogrammaticapproaches;theyareengagedonlyatthechild-projectlevel.Forthem,thesurveyendshere,therebyreducingthetotalofrespondentsto155.
3.2ClassificationofSurveyRespondents
Over72percentofthetotalofrespondentstothesurveywaseitherfromgovernment(49%)orGEFAgency(23%).Thesetwogroupsarealsothelargestintheprogram/child-projectsdatabasecoveredinthisevaluation.Respondentsself-identifiedthemselvesasfollows:
• Forty-ninepercentindicatedthattheybelongtogovernmentorganizations,themajorityofwhichareprogram-executingpartnersorUnitedNations‒conventionfocalpoints.
• Twenty-threepercentindicatedthattheybelongtoGEFAgencies;themajoritybeingtechnicalstaff,countryofficestaff,orprogramstaffhiredspecificallyfortheprogram.
• Themajorityofallotherstakeholdersarefromcivilsocietyorganizations,eitherfromnongovernmentalorganizations(NGOs),theprivatesector,and/orintergovernmentalorganizations.
42
3.3.InvolvementinGEFProgrammaticApproaches
Overall,49percentofsurveyrespondentsareinvolvedinprogramcoordinationormanagementand40percentarepartoftheprogramsteeringcommittee;30percentareintheprojectmanagementunitand21percentintheprojectsteeringcommittee.
Community-basedorganization,2%
ChildProjectStaff,2%
Agencyregionalofficestaff,1%
43
Figure3.3showsabreakdownofstakeholders’involvementinprogramsand/orchildprojects:
• ThemajorityofindividualsintheserolesarefromgovernmentorGEFAgency.
• NGOsorotherstakeholdersareinvolvedasbeneficiariesorconsultants.
• Fifty-ninepercentofprogrammanagementunitsand34percentofchild-projectmanagementunitsarecomposedofgovernmentorGEFAgencyrepresentatives.
• Forty-sevenpercentofprogramsteeringcommitteesarecomposedofgovernmentorGEFAgencyrepresentatives.
44
3.4MainIncentivesandDisincentivestoBePartofaProgram
StakeholdersidentifiedthemainperceivedincentivesanddisincentivestojoinaGEFprogrambyselectingfromamultiple-choicelistofresponses.Themainincentivestobepartofaprogramwere“improvedknowledgesharing”(52%)and“increasedsynergieswithotherGEFprojects”(49%).Forty-fivepercentofstakeholdersagreethatoneofthemainincentivestobepartofaprogramisthe“potentialforleveragingdonorfunding.”Themaindisincentivesarea“morecumbersomemanagementarrangement”(62%),a“morecumbersomeaccesstoGEFfundingfromGEFset-asides”(54%,)and“morecumbersomeaccesstoGEFfundingfromcountrySTARallocations”(48%).
AdetailedlookatincentivestojoinaGEFprogramshowsthatallstakeholderssee“improvedknowledgesharing”asoneofthethreemainincentives.Governmentstakeholdersindicatedthat“increasedsynergieswithotherGEFprojects”and“easieraccessfromcountrySTARallocations”arealsoimportantincentivestoparticipateinaGEFprogram.WhileGEFAgencystakeholdersindicatethat“increasedsynergieswithotherGEFprojects”isastrongincentive,theybelievethat“longer-termperspective”ismoreofanincentivethan“accesstoGEFfunding.”
45
AdetailedlookatdisincentivestojoinaGEFprogramshowsthatallstakeholderssee“morecumbersomemanagementarrangements”asoneofthemaindisincentives.Governmentstakeholdersindicatedthat“morecumbersomemanagementarrangements”and“morecumbersomeaccesstoGEFfundingfromGEFset-asides”arealsoamongthemostimportantdisincentivestoparticipateinaGEFprogram.Agencystakeholdersindicatethat“morecumbersomemanagementarrangements”and“morecumbersomeaccesstoGEFfundingfromGEFset-asides”arethemostimportantdisincentivestoparticipateinaGEFprogram,followedby“highertransactioncosts.”
FurtheranalysisonincentivesanddisincentivesofGEFAgenciesandgovernmentsinvolvedinGEFprogramsshowedthat61percentofagencystakeholdersaredisincentivizedbyhighertransactioncostsassociatedwithprogramsand75percentaredisincentivizedbythemorecumbersomemanagementarrangements.Tonote,61percentofGEFAgenciesareincentivizedbythelong-termperspectiveofGEFprograms.
46
3.5ProgramDesignandApproval
Moststakeholdersagreethatcomparedwithstand-aloneprojects,programshaveamoredifficultandlongerapprovalprocess,whichrequiresmorecomplexdocumentation.
3.6Program-ProjectAlignment
Seventypercentofstakeholdersagreethatthechildprojects’expectedresultsareinlinewithprogramresultsand68percentagreethatprojectresultshelptoachieveprogramresults.
47
3.7Coordination
Throughtheirexperience,32percentofstakeholdersbelievethatprogramsaremostsuccessfullycoordinatedbyanexistingnational/regionalorganization;atthesametimenationalorganizations(specificallygovernment)enduphavingasignificantroleinprogramcoordinationfor65percentofprojects/programs;24percentofstakeholderbelieveitmostsuccessfulwhencoordinationisembeddedaspartoftheprogram,yetonlythreepercentofprogramshavecoordinationarrangementembeddedintheprogram;and18percentbelieveitmostsuccessfulwhenaGEFimplementingagencytakesonthecoordinationrole.Inreality,themajorityofprogramsarecoordinatedbytheleadimplementingagencies(50percent).
48
Stakeholdersalsoperceiveprogramsasabletoestablisheffectivecoordinationwithchildprojects;however,theyequallyagreeanddisagreethattheleveloffundingforcoordinationissufficient.
49
3.8ProgramFinancing
Over50percentofthestakeholdersingovernment,international,andmultilateralorganizationsbelievethatprogramstendtoleveragethesameorhigheramountsofcofinancingthanGEFstand-aloneprojects.However,stakeholdersinprivatesectororganizations,civilsocietyorganizations,andacademicinstitutionsbelievethatprogramsleveragelowercofinancingthanstand-aloneprojects.
3.9KnowledgeSharingandM&E
Themajorityofstakeholders(over55percent)believethatbothprogramsandchildprojectshavecleardatasharinganddisseminationplans,and49percentbelievethatchildprojectswiththesameprogramhavecleardatasharinganddisseminationplans.
50
Themajorityofstakeholdersbelievethatwhendisseminationoccurs,mostoftheinformation(over70%)flowsthroughtrainings,workshops,andpublications.Approximately40percentofinformationissharedthroughparentorchild-projectwebsitesandonly34percentthroughspecializedwebsites.
Note:IW=internationalwaters
Seventy-sevenpercentofstakeholdersbelievethatprogramsindicatehowindividualprojectM&EscontributetotheoverallprogramM&Estrategy,and63percentbelievethatprogramsindicatehowindividualprojectresults-basedmanagement(RBM)frameworkscontributestotheoverallprogramRBMframework.
51
Over60percentofstakeholdersbelievethatprogram-levelM&EstrategyandRBMframeworkshavebeenusedindevelopingchild-projectM&EstrategyandRBMframeworks.Additionally,stakeholdersbelievethatM&EandRBMallowedforbetterreportingonprogramresults.
3.10Program-LevelResults
Sixty-sevenpercentofstakeholdersbelievethatprogramsachievebetterandbroaderadoption,and63percentachievemoresustainableresultsascomparedwithstand-aloneprojects.Seventy-sixpercentofstakeholdersagreethatchild-projectresultscontributedtooverallprogramresults,and69percentofstakeholdersagreethatchild-projectsustainabilitycontributedtooverallprogramsustainability.
52
3.11FinalThoughtsfromSurveyRespondentsonGEFPrograms
Eighty-fourpercentofstakeholdersbelievethattheGEFshouldcontinuewiththeprogrammaticapproachmodality.Eighty-sevenpercentofstakeholderswouldbeinvolvedinaGEFprogramagainand88percentwouldrecommendinvolvementinGEFprogramstoothereligibleparties.
Themostrecurrentopen-endedstatementswereon:
• Coordination:Programsshouldhaveadedicatedcoordinationmechanismanddedicatedadministrativestaff.
• Knowledgesharing:Programsare“usefulintermsofknowledgesharing,increasedsustainability,andcreationofpartnerships”and“benefitfromknowledgesharingandcross-fertilizationacrossexecutingagenciesandcountries.”
53
TechnicalDocument4:ProgramCaseStudies
4.1CaseStudy:PRC-GEFPartnershiponLandDegradationinDrylandEcosystems,China..................54Appendix4.1A:Dataandindicatorscollectedduringthefieldmission.................................................694.2CaseStudy:IndiaGEFCoastalandMarineProgram........................................................................704.3CaseStudy:MENA-DesertEcosystemsandLivelihoodsProgram....................................................894.4.CaseStudy:RapidImpactEvaluation—ReducingIndustry’sCarbonFootprintinSoutheastAsiaProgram.......................................................................................................................106Appendix4.4A:RapidImpactEvaluation.............................................................................................117Appendix4.4B:ExpertPanelComposition...........................................................................................118Appendix4.4C:ProgramExpertPanelAssessments–Disaggregated.................................................120
54
4.1CaseStudy:PRC-GEFPartnershiponLandDegradationinDrylandEcosystems,China
4.1.1IntroductiontothePRC-GEFPartnership
ThePRCandtheGEFsetupin2003thePRC-GEFPartnershiponLandDegradationinDrylandEcosystemsProgram(“thePartnership”),initiallyintheformofaCountryProgrammingFramework(CPF)forlanddegradation.Itwascomposedbyonlyoneproject,theCapacityBuildingtoCombatLandDegradation(GEFID:956),undertheGEFOperationalProgram12.7TheCPFwasmeanttosupportasequencedsetofhighpriorityactivitiesmutuallyagreedbyPRCandGEFtostrengthentheenablingenvironmentandbuildinstitutionalcapacityforintegratedapproachestocombatlanddegradation,andtodemonstrateviableintegratedecosystemmanagementmodelsforwidespreadreplication(ADB2010).
InthisfirstphaseofthePartnership,GEFsupportfocusedonsevenkeybarriers,namely:(1)thelackofacomprehensivelegislativeframework,(2)afragmentedinstitutionalandpolicyagenda,(3)thelackofapplicationoflessonslearnedfrompreviousexperience,(4)lackofparticipatoryapproachestoaddresstherootcausesoflanddegradation,(5)absenceoflocality-specificland-useplanning;(6)perverseincentives;and(7)inadequatefinancialarrangementsandincentivestoaddresslanddegradationintheWesternregion.Theapplicationofalong-termprogrammaticapproachwasmeanttoprovideforcoherentplanningandpredictablefinancialsupportthatwasnotpossibleunderthepreviousadhocproject-by-projectapproachtointernationalassistanceforcombatinglanddegradation.Anambitioussetofgovernment,developmentpartner,andGEFfinancialcommitmentsovertheperiodof2003‒2012andimplementedthroughtheendofthe12thFiveYearPlan(2011‒2015)wasenvisioned.
In2008,thePartnershipevolvedintoafullprogram.APFDwasapprovedinMay2008,atthesameGEFCouncilmeetingthatformallyapprovedtheintroductionofProgrammaticApproachesintheGEF.TheoverarchinggoalstatedinthePFDistoreducelanddegradationandrestoredrylandecosystemsinWesternChina,furtheringthroughthisthegoalsofprotectingdrylandecosystembiodiversity.Thespecificpurposeistosupporttheestablishmentofaneffectivesystemofintegratedenvironmentalmanagement(IEM)appliedincontinuingprogramsandpoliciesinfluencinglandandecosystemqualityinWesternChina,andtomaximizetheecosystembenefitsofinvestmentprojectsintheprogramregion.
ThePFDiscomposedofsixchildprojectstobeimplementedbythreeGEFAgencies,namelytheAsianDevelopmentBank(ADB)astheleadagency,theIFAD,andtheWorldBank.CofinancingwasforeseenmainlyfromChinaandfromconcessionalloansprovidedbythethreeGEFAgenciesconcerned.Tonote,thePFDincludestheCapacityBuildingtoCombatLandDegradationProject(GEFID:956)implementedundertheCPF,i.e.,beforetheapprovalofthePFD.Furthermore,thePFDmentionsthatademonstrationinvestmentprojecthadalreadybeenendorsedbytheGEFChiefExecutiveOfficer(CEO),specificallyreferringtotheXinjiangandGansuPastoralDevelopment Project (GEFID: 1621). In reality,thatprojectwas already under implementation.8ThePastoralProjectobjectivewastopromotesustainablenaturalresourcesmanagementbyestablishingimprovedlivestockproductionandmarketingsystemsthatwouldincreasetheincomeofherdersandfarmersintheprojectarea.TheprojectwasimplementedfromSeptember2004toJune2010,executedbytheForeignEconomicCooperationCenteroftheMinistryofAgricultureunderWorldBanksupervision.
7ThiswasthefirstCPFsupportedbytheGEFinthelanddegradationfocalarea.8ThePastoralProjecteffectivenessdatereportedintheprojectImplementationCompletionReport(ICR)—bothoftheWorldBankloanandtherelatedGEFgrant—is27January2004(WorldBank2011).
55
ThePFDalsomentionsthatanotherdemonstrationinvestmentproject,theNingxiaIntegratedEcosystemandAgriculturalDevelopmentProject(GEFID:2788),wasCouncil-approvedandpendingGEFCEOendorsement.ItisnotsurprisingthereforethatPRC,throughtheCentralProgramCoordinationOfficeintheMinistryofFinance(MoF)andtheCentralProgramManagementOffice(CPMO)intheDepartmentofScienceandTechnologyoftheStateForestryAdministration(SFA),considerthesixchildprojectsincludedinthePFD,theWorldBankPastoralProject,andtheADBNingxiaProject,beingallunderthePartnership(ZhouandShuifa,2013).In2009,theGEFincludedtheNingxiaProjectinanotherpartnershipprogram,theChinaBiodiversityPartnershipandFrameworkforAction(GEFID:3926),whilePRCcontinuedtoconsideritaswithintheDrylandsPartnership.
Table4.1.PRC-GEFpartnership—childprojectstatusandfunding
GEF ID Agency Focal
Area Title Status GEF grant at
CEO endorsement
Cofinance at CEO
endorsement 3482 ADB, IFAD,
World Bank MFA PRC-GEF Partnership on Land Degradation in
Dryland Ecosystems Program 27,333,001 379,286,700
956 ADB MFA Project I-Capacity Building to Combat Land Degradation Completed 7,700,000 7,300,000
2369 IFAD MFA An IEM Approach to the Conservation of Biodiversity in Dryland Ecosystems Completed 4,545,000 25,023,700
3483 ADB MFA Forestry and Ecological Restoration in Three Northwest Provinces (formerly Silk Road Ecosystem Restoration Project)
Ongoing 5,119,546 176,660,000
3484 ADB LD Capacity and Management Support for Combating Land Degradation in Dryland Ecosystems
Completed 2,727,455 6,200,000
3608 World Bank MFA Sustainable Development in Poor Rural Areas Completed 4,265,000 154,900,000 3611 World Bank MFA Mainstreaming Biodiversity Protection within the
Production Landscapes and Protected Areas of the Lake Aibi Basin
Completed 2,976,000 9,203,000
Note:LD=LandDegradation.MFA=multifocalareaproject.
WhilethePartnershiphasprimarilybeenseenasonebetweenPRCandtheGEF,andbetweenPRC-GEFandthethreeGEFAgenciesinvolved,itcanalsobeinterpretedmorewidelyasapartnershipbetweensectorswithinChina.ThePartnershipintroducedanewworkingstyleforChina,wherebydifferentministriesarecalledtocollaborateunderacommonlysharedintegratedapproach,IEM.TheGEFalsoconsidersthePartnershipapioneerprogrammaticapproachinlanddegradation,asittooembracesclimatechangeandbiodiversity.ThemainPartnershipfeatureisitsuseoftheIEMapproach,encompassingSLMtechniquestargetedatachievingmultiplelocalandglobalenvironmentalbenefits,aswellaslivelihoods.
CapacityBuildingtoCombatLand-DegradationProject
TheADBCapacityBuildingProjectwaslaunchedinJuly2004andwascompletedinDecember2009.TheprojectwasmanagedbytheSFA’sDepartmentofScienceandTechnology.Ninedepartmentsofthe
56
ChineseGovernmentwereinvolved,includingtheLegislativeAffairsCommissionoftheStandingCommitteeoftheNationalPeople'sCongress,theNationalDevelopmentandReformCommission,theMinistryofScienceandTechnology,MoF,theMinistryofLandandResources,theMinistryofWaterResources,theMinistryofAgriculture,theMinistryofEnvironmentalProtection,andSFA.
ManagementandPolicySupporttoCombatLand-DegradationProject
InOctober2009,theGEFCouncilapprovedtheManagementandPolicySupporttoCombatLandDegradationProject(theManagementProject),whichrepresentedacontinuationofADBsupporttoSFAinmanyofthecoordination,knowledgesharing,andM&EtasksaftertheclosureoftheCapacityBuildingProject.ThisprojectwaslaunchedinMay2010andendedinJune2013.
ForestryandEcologicalRestorationProjectinThreeNorthwestProvinces
TheADBForestryProject(alsocalledSilkRoadProject)aimedatimprovingtheruralpoor’scommunityenvironmentinNorthwesternChina,enhancingtheircapacitytoadapttoclimatechange,andraisingawarenessonthesustainableuseoflandresources.Theoriginalprojectdurationwas2010‒2015,butactivitieswerestillongoingatthetimeofthemission,inJune2016.
SustainableDevelopmentinPoorRuralAreas
TheWorldBankPovertyProjectobjectivewastoexploreandpilotmoreeffectiveandinnovativewaysofsupportingthepoorestcommunitiesandhouseholdsinHenanProvince,ShaanxiProvince,andChongqingMunicipalitythroughcommunity-drivendevelopmentandparticipatoryapproaches.Theprojectdurationwas2010‒2015.TheprojectwasmanagedbytheStateCouncilLeadingGroupOfficeofPovertyAlleviationandDevelopment.
AnIEMApproachtotheConservationofBiodiversityinDrylandEcosystems
TheIFADProjectobjectivewastopromotethegrowthofagriculturalandnonagriculturalproductivityintheprojectarea,reducethelossofbiodiversityintheprojectarea,restoretheintegrityoftheecosystem,applysuitablerenewableenergytechnology,andreducehumanpressureontheecosystem.Theofficialprojectdurationwas2009‒2014,buttheprojectwasclosedinApril2016(IFAD2016).TheprojectwasmanagedbyMoF.
SustainableManagementandBiodiversityConservationoftheLakeAibiBasinTheLakeAibiProjectobjectivewastopromotethecomprehensivecontrolandmitigationoflanddegradationwithintheLakeAibiBasin,enhancethepolicysupportandmanagementcapacitytooptimizewaterallocation,reducethenegativeimpactoflanddegradationontheecosystem,integratethebiodiversityconservationintothenaturalresourcesmanagement,andconserveandprotectthesignificantandendangeredspecies,ecosystems,andbiodiversity.Theprojectdurationwas2011‒2015.TheprojectwasmanagedbySFA,thegovernmentofXinjiangUygurAutonomousRegion,andwassupervisedbytheWorldBank.
57
Table4.2.PRC-GEFPartnership–components,approach,activities,andlocations
Thiscasestudyisbasedoninformation(dataanddocuments)collected,andfieldobservationsmade,duringatwo-weekmissiontoChinaconductedinJune2016,aswellasevidenceextractedfromavailableprogramandchildprojectsdesign,monitoring,completion,andevaluationreports.OnlythesixprojectscoveredunderthePFDareconsideredinthecasestudy,asthisiswhattheGEFconsidersasthePRC-GEFDrylandsPartnershipasaprogrammaticapproach.Findingsarereportedaccordingtothesixmainkeyevaluationquestionsinvestigatedthroughthecasestudiesfortheprogrammaticapproachesevaluation.
4.1.2Findings
Question1:Towhatextenthasthechildproject’sparticipationintheprogramdeliveredbroader-scaleandlonger-termenvironmentaloutcomesandimpactscomparedwithitspotentialresultsasastand-aloneproject?
58
ThesecondphaseofthePartnershipisalmostcompleted.OutofthesixchildprojectsincludedinthePFD,onlytheADBSilkRoadProjectisstillongoing.InApril2013,ADBcommissionedaquiteinformativeindependentreviewofthePartnership(Critchley2013).Parallelto—andpartlyinsynergywith—thatexercise,SFAcommissioneditsownassessmentreport(ZhouandShuifa2013).Thetworeportswereissuedalmostsimultaneously,inApril‒May2013.Terminalevaluationsand/orcompletionreportshavebeenconductedforallbuttheSilkRoadProject.Furthermore,anarticleonthePartnershipexperience,coauthoredbyexpertsfromtheUniversityofGothenburg,ADB,andChinaNationalCenteronCombatingLandDegradation,hasbeenpublishedinthepeer-reviewedjournalLandDegradationandDevelopment.Thearticleishereafterreferredtousingtheleadauthor’slastname(Tengbergetal.2014).In2012,theGEFSecretariatconductedalearningmissiontogatheranddisseminateknowledgeonthePartnershipexperience(WorldBank2012).
Attheprogramlevel,bothCritchleyandTengberg,andtheGEFlearningmission,agreethatthepartnershiphasachievedsignificantresultsintermsofGEBsinthepilotsites.ADB’sManagementProjectcompletionreportcallsfortheneedforupscalingtheresultsachievedtoencouragewideradoptionbeyondthepilotsites(ADB2014).Critchley’sfinalevaluativeassessmentisthatthePartnershiphasanimpressiverecordofhelpingtoreducelanddegradationandimprovelivelihoods,testifiedtobyvarioussources,mostnotablySFA’sassessmentreport,whichcontainsadetailedaccountofthequantitativeandqualitativeresultsachieved.TengbergconcludesthatmainstreamingofIEMintorelevantpolicyanddevelopmentframeworkshasbeenthemosteffectivewayofmobilizingfundingforthescalingupofSLM.Asforthescalingup,sherecommendsthatSLMbestpracticesneedtobecombinedwitheconomicincentivesforlandusers,andpilotdemonstrationsofSLMneedtobeintegratedintolargerinvestmentprogramstoachieveimpactsandeconomiesofscale.
Importantly,nationaldatashowasteadyreductionindesertificationoverthelast10‒15-yearperiod,asaresultoftheimportantinjectionoffundingbyPRCthroughlargenationalprograms,includingtheNaturalForestProtectionProgram,theSlopingLandConversionProgram,andtheThreeNorth’sShelterbeltProgram,amongothers.By2009,theNaturalForestProtectionProgramandSlopingLandConversionProgramaloneaccountforatotalinvestmentofover$50billion.9TheextenttowhichthePartnershiphascontributedtotheseresultsisnotyetwellquantified,especiallywithrespecttoGEBs.Critchley’smainmessageistosetupaPartnershipdatabaseforquantifyingimpact,basedoncollectedorcollatedbasicinformationfromtheinitiativesunderwayunderthechildprojectsthatconstitutetheimplementationengineofthePartnership.ThedataavailablefromallsourcesareinadequatetoassesstheextentthatthePartnershiphasmetitstargets,orwhetherithascontributedtoreduceddesertificationinthePRC.
Critchley,ZhouandShuifa,orTengbergdonotdealwiththequestionofwhetherdeliveringIEMthroughmainstreamingofpoliciespluspilotsandthenupscalingthroughthepartnershipwouldhaveachievedthesameresultsifdeliveredthroughaseriesofunconnectedstand-aloneprojectsinstead.Adifferencecouldpertaintotheamountoffundinginjected.Tengberg’sanalysisshowsthesignificantinjectionoffundingprovidedfromnationalandprovincialbudgets,asaresultofthepartnershipmainstreamingefforts.10
9Foranaccountoftotalfunding,seeTable2in:“PaymentforEcosystemServicesinChina:AnOverview,”L.ZhenH.Zhang(2011),availableon:http://lrlr.landscapeonline.de/Articles/lrlr-2011-2/articlese4.html10QuotesfromTengbergarticle:“…Atotalof54lawsandregulationshavebeenformulatedand17revisedatprovincial/regionallevelinsupportofIEM…TotalfundingmobilizedthroughmainstreamingofIEMplansintothe11thand12th
5-yearplansofthePRCamountsto$26·80billioncomparedwith$840·05millionofprojectfundingtothePRC-GEFPartnership.”
59
ThePastoralProjectcouldbeconsideredasaproxystand-aloneprojectcomparisontothePartnership.TheGEFAgencyandWorldBankconsidereditasastand-aloneproject.Theprojectimplementationcompletionreport(ICR)doesnotmakeanyspecificreferenceeithertotheparallelADBCapacityBuildingProject,consideredthefirstPartnershipphase,ortothePartnershipPhase2thatstartedin2008,whenthePastoralProjectwasstillbeingimplemented.TheprojectoperatedinXinjiangandGansu,twoofthesixPartnership’sprovinces,from2004to2010.Itadoptedsustainablenaturalresourcemanagementfocusingondrylandpastureareas,establishingimprovedlivestockproductionandmarketingsystemsthatincreasedtheincomesofherdersandfarmers,andappliedabottom-upnaturalresourceplanningandmanagementapproach.Landdegradationmitigation,conservationofgloballyimportantbiodiversity(includingtheTianzhuWhiteYak,theAltayandBaiyinbulukSheep,andtheXinjiangBrownCattle),andenhancedcarbonsequestrationthroughpromotionofIEMweretheGEBstargetedbytheproject.Thelargesteffortwasdedicatedtothegrasslandmanagementcomponent.
AccordingtothePastoralProjectICR,projectdesignwasholisticandforwardlooking,butambitiousinitswidegeographicspread,andcomplex.Intermsofcomplexity,with26subcomponentsencompassing45activities,thePastoralProjectwascomparabletothePartnership.Thedegreeofcomplexitywasverychallengingfortheprovincialteams,especiallyforM&E.AsfortheGEBs,almost22,000haofgrasslandhavebeenbroughtunderintegratedgrasslandmanagement,thedoubleofwhatwasinitiallyplanned.Morethanhalfwasfencedandsomereseeded.DemonstrationsitessupportedbytheGEFfundingcomponentinGansuincluded20haofbannedgrazing,5,577haofdeferredorrestgrazing,and6,760haofrotationalgrazing.Xinjianggrazingbanscovered5,333hain21sitesand4,000hain12rotationalsystems.Thetotalareaestablishedforforagecropsincludingalfalfa,sanfoin,foragemaize,andChinesemilkvetchwasmorethan75,000ha.NoaggregatedatatocomparewiththesefiguresareavailableatprogramlevelfromthePartnershipevaluations.11However,noevidenceisavailabletosuggestthattheGEBsachievedbythePastoralProjectwouldhavebeendifferent,eitherincaseitwasimplementedinsynergywiththeparallelCapacityBuildingProject,orafter,underthePartnership.Accordingtothedataanddocumentscollectedandthefield-levelinterviewsconductedduringthemission,sizeableenvironmentalchangeoccurredatsitelevels(appendix4.2Aandbox4.1).
11SFA’sAssessmentReportsummarizestheresultsoftheCapacityBuilding,theManagementProjectandthePastoralProject,astheotherprojectswereimplementedforlessthantwoyearsatthetimeofwritingthatreport.
Box 4.1: Field observations
In Hezheng County, farmers switched from grazing to planting maize to feed their cows, contributing to reducing the grazing pressure on mountains. The organic fertilizer produced is used in greenhouses to grow fruits and vegetables, as well as in crop fields to fertilize the maize. An interviewed beneficiary said that he was grazing since childhood, but never earned much. Maize and indigenous fruits provide a much higher income now, which is why everybody in the village has switched from grazing to growing maize.
An interviewed village leader said that farmers used to hunt illegally and cut trees in the Taizishan NNR, taking advantage of weak enforcement of protected areas laws. Now they protect the forest to conserve headwaters. Ten years ago, all the land around the NNR was barren, now all is green with trees and crops. Water is cleaner too. However, according to a NNR staff, forest cover would have increased even without GEF. GEF support was mostly normative.
In Longxian County, mulching helps farmers adapt to drought in spring. Before, it took six months to cultivate and then six months to harvest even when the soil was frozen. Now, noncultivated land has become forest or grassland again. Erosion is reduced when it rains. A walnut farmer said that mulching using maize stalks maintains the temperature and results in bigger walnuts. Terracing has allowed use of tricycle motorbikes. The biggest contribution of the project for them are the solar lamps, which now allow them to walk in the neighborhood at night to visit or work late.
Houzhenzi Forest Farm staffs stated that GEF introduced a model for intersectoral working style, leading to synergies. The Forest Experience Centers introduced by the GEF did not exist before. GEF project contributed to awareness raising, cross-sector collaboration, and the forest health center.
60
GEFAgencies’staffsinterviewedinBeijingconfirmedthemainPartnershipachievementsinmainstreamingofIEMinprovincial-levelpoliciesandplans.AftertheIFADprojectended,IEMwasintegratedin26morecountiesinGansu,and6moreNationalNatureReserves(NNR)inotherprovinces.ADBnotedthatthroughthePartnership,forthefirsttimeanintegratedecosystemapproachwasintroducedinChina,pointingattheIEMpeculiarityofinvolvingtechnicalandfinancialresourcesfromdifferentsectorsandgovernmentministriesanddepartmentsatnationalandlocallevel.UnderIEM,asetofprincipleswasdevelopedtoinvolvelocalstakeholders(localgovernments,localresearchinstitution,anduniversities)tobuildcapacitytocombatlanddegradationthroughabottom-upapproach.IEMwasmainstreamedintothefive-yearplansin4outofthe6provincesinvolvedinADBprojects.TheWorldBankconfirmedthatparticipatorynatural-resourceplanningandmanagementwasintroducedandadoptedinotherprojects.
GEFAgenciesexpresseddoubtsonwhetherresultswouldhavebeendifferentifthesamefundingwasexecutedthroughstand-aloneprojects.However,theyrecognizethatanimportantvalueadditionbroughtinbythePartnershipisknowledgeexchange.WhiletheonlyinformationexchangebetweenGEFAgencieshappensatdesignstageandconcernsfundingandgeographictargeting,theactualknowledgeexchangeonlessonslearnedhappenedatlocallevel,betweencounties.
OnthePRCside,SFAconfirmedthatGEFintroducedIEMintoChina.In2002,withGEFsupport,thePartnershipstartedinitiallywitheightdepartments.Nowtheyarethirteen.Thefirstproject,CapacityBuilding,wasmultifocaltoincreasefundingopportunities,indicatingaprogrammaticthinkingsincethatearlystage.Interestingly,whileSFAagreeswithGEFAgenciesthatknowledgesharinghappensattheprojectsites/provincelevel,itislimited.SFAasthenationalleadagency,experienceddifficultiesincoordinatingbetweendifferentsectorsinthegovernmenttohavethemworktogetherunderIEM,inawaytofosterknowledgesharingamongchildprojectsandnationalexecutingagencies.Duringhisreview,Critchleyfoundnoevidenceofinteractionorcross-learningbetweeneitherthechildprojectsunderthePartnershiporbetweentheGEFAgenciesthatsupportthoseprojects.
TheForeignEconomicCooperationOfficeoftheMinistryofEnvironmentalProtectionisconvincedthatthePartnershipmadeadifferencecomparedwithwhatwouldhavebeenthecasewithastand-aloneproject-by-projectorsector-by-sectorapproach.ThePartnershipstimulatedachangetowardintegrationinasituationwhereMoFneedstobalancecompetingdemandsfromdifferentsectors.Conflictsareoftencausedbyuncleardivisionofresponsibilitiesandcompetenciesbetweensectors.Andthereiscompetitionforfunding:onGEFfunds,MoFhastoshareitequallybetweenmanydemands.TheForeignEconomicCooperationOfficeagreesthatknowledgesharingoccurredamongchildprojects.Thiswouldnothavebeenpossiblewithouttheprogramsupport,asthereisnoformalmechanismtoshareexperiencebetweengovernmentsectors.
Remotesensinganalysiswasconductedfortheselectsitestoexaminethelong-termspatialandtemporalpatternsofvegetationtoassesswhetherprojectactivitieshadanyimpactontheincreaseinglobalenvironmentalbenefitsintermsoflandproductivitymeasuredasvegetationproductivity.Tounderstandthevegetationtrendbetween2000and2015,theinterannualvariationinvegetationproductivitywasmeasuredbytheNDVI,derivedfromdailyModerateResolutionImagingSpectroradiometer(MODIS)satelliteobservationsat250mresolution.Theresultsforthevariousprojectsitesaresummarizedherebelow,perlocation.
Thevegetationtrendfortheproject“PRC-GEF:AnIEMApproachtotheConservationofBiodiversityinDrylandEcosystems–GEFID:2369”atthetwoprojectlocationsshowsaconsistentincreaseinvegetationproductivityovertheperiod2000-2015(figure4.1).
61
Figure4.1.IncreasingtrendofNDVIhavebeenobservedatallthethreesitessince2000.
Thegeospatialanalysisforthetwoprojectsitesfor“PRC-GEFPartnership:SustainableDevelopmentinPoorRuralAreas—GEFID:3608”alsoshowsimprovedvegetationproductivityovertheperiodof2000‒2015(figure4.2).BothsitesshowstrongincreaseinNDVIfrom2000to2015,suggestingimprovingvegetationconditions.
62
Figure4.2.LocationandtimeseriesofNDVIextractedfortwoPRC-GEFPartnership:SustainableDevelopmentinPoorRuralAreassites.
Adensetimeseriesvegetationproductivityanalysisofthetwositesofthe“ForestryandEcologicalRestorationprojectinthreeNorth-Westprovinces—GEFID:3483”showsonlyaslightlyincreasingtrendoverthelastdecade(figure4.3).
LaozhuangVillage,YimaTown,QingchengCounty,Gansuprovince
Figure4.3.LocationandtimeseriesofNDVIextractedfortwositesinQingyang,GansuProvince.
63
Question2:TowhatextenthastheprogramhelpedthechildprojectstoaddressthemaindriversofenvironmentaldegradationinChina?
TheGEFrecognizesfourbroadhumanactivityareas,whichcontributetowardenvironmentaldegradation:foodproduction/consumption,transportation,constructionandbuildings,andenergyproduction/consumption.ThePRC-GEFDrylandsPartnershipisprimarilyconcernedwitheffectsfromfoodproductionactivities,notablybiodiversitylossandlanddegradation.ThePFDclearlyindicatesthePartnershipfocusonmitigatingthecausesandnegativeimpactsoflanddegradationonthestructureandhealthofthedrylandecosystemsofWesternPRCthroughthepromotionofinnovativesustainableland-managementpracticesforimprovedagriculture,rangeland,andforestmanagement.Thisfocusretroactivelyreferstosustainablefoodproductionaswellasfuelwoodenergyproductioninfragileecosystems,i.e.,addressingthetwomaindriversofenvironmentaldegradationinWesternChina.
RecentresearchseemstoconfirmtherelevanceofthePartnership’schoiceofusingtheIEMandSLMapproaches,focusingspecificallyonthesocioeconomicdriversofdesertificationinWesternChinatoachieveGEBsinlanddegradation,climatechange,andbiodiversity.Inresponsetoecosystemdegradationfromrapideconomicdevelopment,Chinabeganinvestingheavilyinprotectingandrestoringnaturalcapitalstartingin2000.Ouyangetal.’s(2016)reportonChina’sfirstnationalecosystemassessment(2000–2010),designedtoquantifyandhelpmanagechangeinecosystemservices,includingfoodproduction,carbonsequestration,soilretention,sandstormprevention,waterretention,floodmitigation,andprovisionofhabitatforbiodiversity.Accordingtothoseauthors,overall,ecosystemservicesimprovedfrom2000to2010,apartfromhabitatprovisionforbiodiversity.
AnotherrecentlypublishedresearcharticleonChina’sdesertifiedareasproducedaquantitativeassessmentoftheinteractionbetweenthemeteorologicalfactorsassociatedwithclimatechangeandthehumanfactorsassociatedwithhumanactivities,combinedwithlong-termmonitoring(1983-2012)onvegetationcoverusingtheNDVI,whichdecreaseswithincreasingdesertification.ThisanalysisfoundsimilareffectmagnitudesforsocioeconomicandenvironmentalfactorsforNDVI,butdifferentresultsfordesertification:socioeconomicfactorswerethedominantfactorthataffecteddesertification,accountingfor79.3%oftheeffects.Climatechangeaccountedfor46.6and20.6%oftheeffectsonNDVIanddesertification,respectively(Fengetal.2015).
Question3:WhatfactorshaveinfluencedChina’sownershipoftheprogram,andhasthedegreeofownershipaffectedtherelevanceoftheprogramtoChina’senvironmentanddevelopmentneedsandpriorities?
AccordingtoCritchley,thewidespreadparticipationofbeneficiariesindecisionmakingthroughParticipatoryRuralAppraisalisamajorachievementinthatithasinstilledalocalsenseofownership.Themissionobservedthatprovincialteamsfeelproudownershipoftheirprojects;theirenthusiasticpresentationsandeagernesstoshareanddiscusstestifytothis.InBeijing,central-levelstakeholdersaresomehowdistancedfromthemainPartnershipactivities,althoughundoubtedlythereisasenseofsatisfactioninwhathasbeenachieved.Overall,basedonperceptionsgatheredduringthevariousinterviews,meetings,andfieldvisits,PRCfeelsstrongownershipofthePartnershipanditschildprojects.TheGEFlearningmissionof2012concurswiththesefindings,agreeingthatthereisstrongownershipatalllevels.InGansu,theProvincialProjectManagementOfficestatedthattheIFADprojectsiteswerechosenbasedonthosethathadanunderstandingandinterestinanintegratedecosystemapproach,notjustaneconomicbenefit.Allstagesoftheprojectweredesignedandexecutedinaparticipatoryway,toinstillgreaterownership.
64
TheGEFOperationalFocalPointindicatedthatGEFstrategiesarestronglyalignedwithChina’sstrategies.Environmentprotectionisincludedinthe13thPRCFive-YearPlan.SinceGEFOperationalProgram12,theIEMconcepthasbeenintegratedintopoliciesandlawsatdifferentlevels,fromprovincialtonational.Duringtheinterview,theOperationalFocalPointwasparticularlyappreciativeofthefactthatGEFmakesdifferentnationalagenciesworktogether.ThisisnotlimitedtothePartnership.ArecentexampleisthecollaborationbetweentheMinistryofAgriculture,SFA,andtheInternationalCommercedepartmentsonthealienspeciesquarantineGEF-6projects.
ThestrongrelevancetothenationalpoliciesandplansforcombatingdesertificationinWesternChinacontributestostrongownershipofthePartnership.TheshifttowardChina’sheightenedinterestinenvironmentalprojectsstartedasaconsequenceofthe1998long-termfloodintheYangtzeRiver,whichaffectedmillionsofpeople.In1999,apolicywasimplementedtoreturnconvertedcroplandstograsslandsandforests.In2005,chemicalpollutionintheriverpromptedaRegionalEnvironmentalAssessment.Today,Chinafocusesonair,soil,andwaterquality,whichrequiresdifferentsectorstoworktogether.ThePartnershipoperatedinstrongalignmentwithanenablingnationalpolicycontext.
Critchley’sassessmentofthestrongrelevancebothtotheGEFaswellastoChina,andthestrongdegreeofownershipChinahasdemonstratedatprovincialaswellasnationallevel,isconfirmedinallthechild-projectterminalevaluations,completionreports,andICRsreviewedforthiscasestudy.Notably,theIFADProjectterminalevaluationrootsthestrongnationalrelevanceandownershipoftheprojecttothefactthatitwasdesignedundertheauspicesofthePRC-GEFPartnership,whichalsoincludedasuiteofGEF-fundedprojectslinkedwithADB,IFAD,andtheWorldBank(IFAD2016).ThePartnershipconceptwasownedbecauseitwasinlinewiththechangefromthe1990stop-downlanddegradationcontrolplansandprograms,characterizedbyuncoordinatedeffortsintacklingcross-cuttingsectoralissues,tothebottom-upapproachthatintegratedIEMconceptsandprinciplesinruraldevelopmentandenvironmentalprotection,aconceptthatemergedinthegovernmentenvironmentalstrategiesoftheearly2000s.Thecountrycommitmentandownershipisalsodemonstratedbythesignificantlevelofcofinancingandintegrationofplanningtoolswithothernationalandprovincialprograms(asalsoreportedinTengbergetal.,2014).
SFAhasstrongownershipofthePartnership.However,bothADBandCritchley’sreviewquestionwhetherSFAisthemostappropriatenationalleadagency.ThePartnershipisquiteintegratedandmultisectoral,whileSFAfocusesonforestsandlanddegradation.Furthermore,thevoiceofSFAisnotasstrongastheoneoftheNationalDevelopmentReformCommission,ortheWaterResourcesDepartment,intermsofinfluenceonthegovernment.ForaneventualPartnershipfollow-upphase,CritchleyrecommendsanyfutureCPMOtofunctionmoreclearlyasacoordinatingnexus,besmaller,andcomprisehigherqualifiedstaff.
Question4:Towhatextenthavechildprojectobjectivesbeencoherentwithandintegratedintotheprogram’sobjectives?
ThePFDclearlystatesthePartnership’soverarchinggoalofreducinglanddegradationandrestoringdrylandecosystemsinthewesternregionofthePRC,andthroughthistofurtherthegoalsofprotectingdrylandsecosystembiodiversity.ThespecificpurposeistointroduceIEMandmainstreamitintopoliciesandprogramsinordertomaximizetheecosystembenefitsinvestmentsinthePartnershipregion.Child-projectobjectivesandcomponents,summarizedinatableannexedtothePFDandintable4.2inthisreport,broadlyalignwiththeseoverarchingobjectives,eachofthemcontributingindifferentyetinterconnectedways.ThePFDintegratesintoitsoverallstrategytheobjectivesofbothGEF-3ongoing
65
projects(theCapacityBuildingandthePastoralProject)andthesixproposedchildprojectstobefundedinGEF-4.ThiswasjustifiedbythefactthatthePartnershipwasdesignedasacontinuation/expansionofaprogrammaticinvestmentthatwasalreadyestablishedandpilotedthroughtheCPFin2003.
InterviewswithGEFAgenciesinBeijingbroadlyconfirmedthealignmentandcoherencebetweenthePFDanditschildprojects,explainingthatitwasaspecificrequirementatthedesignstage.ADB,IFAD,andtheWorldBankagreedthatthePFDisanadditionalsteprequiredifonewantstoaccessGEFprogrammaticfunding.Additionaleffortsareneededintermsofstaffandfundingtoprocessprogramscomparedwithstand-aloneprojects.IndescribinghowtheideaofthePartnershipcameaboutin2002,ADBnotesthattheprogrammaticconceptisverymuchembeddedatthedesignstage.However,afterseveralyearsofimplementation,projectswereimplementedasstand-alone.CollaborationamongGEFAgenciesinvolvedinthePartnershipisnotstrong,notprogrammatic,andislimitedtorareround-tablemeetings.
WhileWorldBankintervieweesconfirmedthatchildprojectsarealignedbydesignwiththepartnershipPFD,thePovertyProjectICRdoesnotmakeanymentionofthepartnership,orwhattheprojectcontributedtoitintermsofGEBs.TheICRdoesnotmentionIEMeither,andreferstotheGEFonlytoreportonuseofitsfundstoimplementtheSustainableLandManagementAssessmentcomponent,asameanstoachieveclimatechangeadaptationandpovertyreductionobjectives(WorldBank2016).AlthoughitcanbesaidthattheprojectSustainableLandManagementAssessmentcomponentobjectivesarealignedwiththePartnershipclimate-changeaims,itisclearthattheWorldBankhasnotconsideredthePovertyProjectaspartofthePartnershipasstronglyasADBandIFAD.Hence,itcanbeassumedthatithasnotcontributedtosynergy,coordination,andM&Eatprogramlevel.
Question5:Towhatextenthavetheprogramgovernance,management,andcoordinationinfluenceditsperformance?
ThePFDdescribesthePartnershipcoordinationstructureasonehavingbeensetsincetheCPFtime.Thiscoordinationstructurehasbeenbuiltupatboththecentralandprovinciallevels.Atthecentrallevel,asteeringcommitteeinitiallycomprisedrepresentativesfromtenministries/agenciesfromboththenationallegislativeandexecutivebranches.12TheCentralProgramCoordinationOfficeishousedinMoF,whiletheCPMOishostedbySFA.HeadedbytheViceGovernor/Chairmaninchargeoftheagriculturalsector,ProvincialProjectCoordinationOfficesandProvincialProjectManagementOfficeshavebeensetupineachofthesixparticipatingprovincesand/orautonomousregions.Inaddition,specifictaskforceshavebeenestablishedbytheprovincestoundertakeprojectactivitiesunderthePartnership/CPF.ThePFDfurtherdescribesthecoordinationstructure,whichreflectsthemultidisciplinaryandmultisectoralfeaturesofthePartnership,byintroducingtheexpertgroups,establishedtoguideandadvisethePartnership’simplementationonspecificthemes.Thesegroupsare:(1)theLegalandPolicyExpertAdvisoryGroup;(2)theInstitutionsandPlanningExpertGroup;(3)theLandDegradationMonitoringandEvaluationExpertGroup;andthe(4)theIEMExpertGroup.
CoordinationofthePartnershipatthenationallevelisstillkeptactivebySFA.ThePartnershipwebsiteisstillactiveandreportsoninternationalmissionsaswellasparticipationinconferencesandsymposia.13
SFAprovidedthemissionwithanexampleofsteeringcommitteemeetingminutes.14Atthatmeeting,it
12ThemissionwasgivenanexampleofSteeringCommitteemeetingminutesdatedNovember5,2014,whichenliststhirteenagencies.13http://www.gefop12.cn/index.php?styleid=2,accessedonJanuary4,2017.14Ibid.
66
wasacknowledgedthatmostchildprojectsunderthePRC-GEFPartnershiphavebeencompletedsuccessfully(from2003to2012).Openingthemeeting,thesteeringcommitteedeputychairmanintroducedthe“SustainableandClimateResilientLandManagementinWesternPRC”project,symbolizingthestartofthefollow-upphaseofthepartnership(2014‒2023).Thatproject(GEFID:5142)wassubmittedasafull-sizeprojectbyADBtotheGEFin2014,andisshowingasGEFCEOEndorsedintheGEFProjectManagementInformationSystem(PMIS).Thetotalprojectbudgetis$23million,ofwhich$5.2millionconsistsofaGEFgrant.ADBcofinancesonlyupto$0.4millionandPRCnationalandprovincialgovernmentsprovidethebulkofcofinancing,$18.4million,afurtherconfirmationofcontinuingPRCcommitmenttoIEMdespiteoveralldownscalingofexternalfundingtothepartnership.Tonote,ADBconfirmedduringinterviewsthatnofurtherprojectsbeyondGEFID:5142willbesubmittedinChinaforGEF-6becausetheprocessistoodifficult,andADBhastospendextraresourcesjusttogetprojectsapproved.CPMO’sDeputyDirectorpresentedthe“IntegratedStrategyforSustainableLandManagementinWesternChina(2014‒2023)”tosteeringcommitteemembers.Thisstrategydocument—approvedbythesteeringcommittee—includestheprojectsubmittedtotheGEF,theongoingIFADandADBSilkRoadProjects,anongoingADBproject,the“ShaanxiWeinanLayangIntegratedSalineandAlkalineManagementProgramme”(GEFID:4633),plustheQinghaiIntegratedLandResourceManagementProject(GEFID:6950),thelattershowingas“dropped”inPMIS.ThePartnershipPhase2Strategyalsoincludesfour100%governmentfundedprojectstotalingUSD9,358million.Todate,besidesongoingprojects,theonlyGEF-fundedprojectinWesternPRCshowinginPMISistheabove-mentioned“SustainableandClimateResilientLandManagementinWesternPRC”(GEFID:5142).
WhileacknowledgingthatcoordinationinthePartnershipisnosimpletask,Critchley’sreportissomehowcriticalonthePartnershipinstitutionalsetup.Accordingtohim,CPMOinSFAhasbeenunabletoestablishacomprehensivedatabaseortomanageadequatecross-learningbetweenprojects.Asmentionedearlier,CritchleysuggestsastrongercoordinatingroleforCPMO,whichasseenearliershouldbesmallerandcomprisehigherqualifiedstaff.TheCPMOcouldbeledbyanM&Eexpert,andmakeuseofmoreinputfromshort-termconsultantsandrepresentativesfromtheProvincialProjectManagementOffices.AnotherimportantissueraisedinCritchley’sreportconcernscross-learningbetweenchildprojects,whichneedsastrongercoordinationrolebyCPMO.Thiswasnotnew.ThecompletionreportoftheCapacityBuildingProjectmentionsweaknessesincoordinationamongpartnersinvolved.ThesemeetingsweretoofewandtoowidelydispersedtobeabletoeffectivelyprovideinformationoncurrentopportunitiestosupportmainstreamingofIEMandSLMthroughthePRC-GEFPartnership(ADB2010).DuringthemissiontheteamobservedthatcoordinationandknowledgesharinghappenednaturallyandwerequitecommonwithinaprovincebetweenchildprojectsledbydifferentAgencies.Cross-provincecoordinationbetweenchildprojectswaslessfrequentandeffective.
GEFAgenciesconcuronthefactthatprogramcoordinationisheavy.IFADgoesfurtherandindicatesthatthePartnershipwasdesignedmoretosharetheavailablefinancialenvelope,ratherthantocoordinateprojects.SFAwasquiteactiveincoordinatingwithothergovernmentministriesanddepartmentstheprojectsfallingunderitsresponsibility.Forotherprojects,MoFwasmoreactive.AsforthePartnershipasawhole,therewasnoformalarrangementofcoordination,butafewmeetingshavebeenorganizedbythegovernment.ADBconfirmedthatthePartnershiphadnofundsspecificallyearmarkedforcoordination.
InterviewsandfieldobservationsinGansuandNingxiaconfirmedwhatthemissionfoundandheardinBeijingonstrongercoordinationandknowledgeexchangeatprovincelevel.TheIFADnationalcoordinatorinGansustatedthatIEMmeanscoordinationbetweensectors,topics,andtightcooperationbetweenthem.InNingxia,themissionwasinformedaboutsynergies/knowledgesharingthatoccurredbetweenADBandIFADprojectteams.ExpertsfromADBcontributedtotheIFADproject.
67
Question6:WhatrolehasM&Eplayedintheprogram’sadaptivemanagementfortheattainmentofitsexpectedoutcomesandimpacts?
ThePFDdoesnotexplicitlydescribethePartnershipM&Esystem,andlimitsitselftomention,asseenearlier,theestablishmentoftheMonitoringandEvaluationExpertGroup.Alittlemoreinformationonprogram-levelM&Eisfoundinannex1tothePFD,describingthesettingupofadatacollectionandsharingsystemonlanddegradation.ThiswastobemanagedthroughanetworkofprovincialIEMInformationCentersundertheguidanceandadviceofthesixprovincialMonitoringandEvaluationExpertGroups.Atthattime,in2008,thesystemwasbeingsetup.Annex1indicatesthattheprovincialIEMInformationCentersweresoontobeinaugurated.HostagenciesforeachoftheIEMInformationCentershadbeenidentifiedalongwiththeirstaffing,hardware,andsoftwarerequirements.Land-degradationdatabanksineachprovincewereunderconstruction,andnecessaryprocurementfortheIEMInformationCenterswasunderway.
ThePartnershiphasbeenevaluatedbothattheprogram(byADBandSFA)andatthechild-projectlevel(byADB,IFAD,andtheWorldBank).However,asseenearlier,noprogram-levelaggregationofchild-projectM&EdatawasdoneexceptfortheSFAAssessmentReport.Atthechild-projectlevel,severalcompletionreports,ICRs,andevaluationspointattheweaknessesinland-degradationmonitoringandassessment.ThecompletionreportoftheCapacityBuildingProjectnotestheneedtostreamlinethemonitoringandfinancingmechanismsformoreeffectivemonitoringoflanddegradation(ADB,2010).EfficiencyofprojectM&EcouldhavebeenimprovedhadtherebeenaclearerdelineationofresponsibilitiesinmonitoringarrangementsbetweenCPMOandProvincialProjectManagementOffices.TheCapacityBuildingcompletionreportalsoindicatesaneedforstrengtheningandimprovingcoordinationandcooperationwithotherongoingprogramsandagenciesformonitoringoflanddegradation,highlightingthatthisisoneofthepriorityissuesthataretobeaddressedbythefollow-upManagementProject.ThecompletionreportofADBManagementProjectratedthe“comprehensiveland-degradationmonitoringandassessment”componentasmoderatelysatisfactory,basedontheinsufficientknowledgeon:(1)landdegradationmonitoringandassessment;(2)theconceptsofGEBs;and(3)thewaysandmeansofhowbesttoupscaleinitiatives.Althoughaland-degradationM&Eindicatorsystemhasbeenproducedwithsupportofthisproject,andthesixprovinces/autonomousregionshaveestablishedcorrespondingmultiscaleandcross-sectorland-degradationM&Eindicatorsystemsinvolvingagriculture,forestry,water,andgrasslandsectors,thesesystemshaveyettobeimplemented(ADB2014).TheIEMInformationCentersandtheMonitoringandEvaluationExpertGroupshavenotfunctionedasexpected.Interestingly,thatsamecompletionreportreferstotheinadequatecalculationsintheSFAAssessmentReportconcerningcarbonsequesteredthroughafforestationandgrasslandmanagement,andimprovedstoves,becausetheyomitthecarbonsequesteredthroughlandbroughtunderSLMpractices.
Asseenearlier,Critchley’smainrecommendationcallsuponmoreeffortsindocumentingthePartnershipimpact,throughsystematiccollectionofharddataandparticipatoryimpactassessmenttools,anduseofspecializedtechnicalinputs.HisreviewhighlightsthattheSFAAssessmentReportisthefirstconcreteattempttoprovidesuchdata.However,data-consistencyproblemsarefoundinthatreporttoo,which,accordingtoCritchley,is“isstillunclearinseveralaspects,andincompleteinothers.”ThemissionwasgivenanupdatedversionofthesameExceltable—thePartnershipdatabase—thatwasprovidedtoCritchleyatthetimeofitsreview.Thistableprovidesquantifiedactivitiesandoutputs,includingextentofareaputunderSLMaswellasareawithprotectedbiodiversity.ItalsohasacolumnfortonsofcarbonsequesteredthroughSLMactivities,whichisempty.
68
IntheterminalevaluationoftheIFADproject,M&EdesignandM&Eimplementationwereratedasmoderatelysatisfactory,andM&Efinancingassatisfactory(IFAD2016).Theterminalevaluationteamspentmanyhoursreviewinganddiscussingtheindicatorsandfoundthat,inseveralinstances,indicatorshadbeeninterpreteddifferentlyfromwhatwasintended.Additionally,someindicatorsseemedtooeasy,andotherstoochallenging.Therealsoseemedtobesomerepetitionofindicatorsindifferentpartsoftheframework.ThatevaluationdoesnotmakereferencetoproductionofindicatorsandM&EdatatobeprovidedtoSFAforPartnership-levelM&E.
TheinterviewedIFADcountryofficestafftoldthemissionthatCPMOinSFAusedtoaskchildprojectstoprovidedata/indicatorsforaggregationattheprogramlevel,butthesearenotsharedbackwithIFAD.AccordingtoADB,thereisnoclearlinkagebetweenprojectimplementationreviews(PIRs),GEFtrackingtools,andtheprojectresultsframeworks.ADBperiodicallyasksSFAtofillinthePartnershipExceltable,butSFAfaceschallenges,especiallyincollectingdataandinformationfromothergovernmentinstitutions.
Whileobviouslytherehasnotbeenprogram-leveladaptivemanagement,severalexamplesofchild-projectleveladaptivemanagementhavebeenmentionedduringthefieldvisitstoGansuandShaanxi.Thesewouldmostprobablyhaveoccurredweretheprojectsexecutedasstand-aloneones.InGansu,theADBSilkRoadProjectmidtermreviewrecommendedrevisingtheinitialdesign,changingthecropfrompeppertowalnutsduetothecomplicatedlaboreffortsandincreasedlaborcosts.InShaanxiafterthemidtermreviewconductedin2015,theADBForestryprojectadjustedafewtargets,i.e.,theeconomicplantationat19,600ha,orthe4fruitstorages.IntheHeiheNationalForestParksite,becauseofadelayinimplementation,themidtermreviewassessedthatthecarbonmarketwasnotasviableasinitiallythought.Moreadvancedtechnologiesthantheonesoriginallyproposedbecameavailable.ThisledtofundsbeingshiftedtotheEducationCenter,theForestExperienceCenterandtheForestHealthCenter.
69
Appendix4.1A:DataandindicatorscollectedduringthefieldmissionGEFID Projecttitle Province Project
Sites EnvironmentalMonitoringIndicators SocioeconomicMonitoringIndicators DataSource
2369 IFAD–AnIEMapproachtotheconservationofbiodiversityindrylandecosystems
Gansu TaizishanNationalNatureReserve(NNR),Guanghecounty,Hezhengcounty
Environment indicators: 1. more than 50% of tree species in project area are endemic species; 2.incidenceofillegalharvestingoffirewood,grazing,andherbalmedicinecapturingdecreaseto25%;3.scorecardofPAincrease20%;4.nolossofkeyPAspeciespopulation.EstimatedBenefits:1.ForestsofTaizishanNNRcanhelppreventabout900,000tonsofsoil loss.ThevalueofsoilconservationamountstoRMB10.8millionperyearbasedontheestimationofnutrientsrestoredinsoil.2.Itismeasuredthataforestwithhighcanopydensitywillrelease2.025tonsofoxygenandwillabsorb2.805tonsofcarbondioxideand9.75tonsofdustperhectareperyear.Withthisbeingconsidered,oxygenreleasedbytheforestsofTaizishanNNRisworthmorethanRMB23millionperyear.3.Accordingtotheagricultureandforestrylawenforcementagencies,illegallogging,grazing,andherbalmedicinecapturinghavebeensignificantlyreducedfrom34%inbaselinesurveyto4%bythetimeofprojectcompletion.Amongthem,illegalloggingandherbalmedicinecapturinghavebeencompletelyeliminated.Grazingwithoutpermissionhappensoccasionally.4.Accordingtothecalculationofthescorecardsusedinthereserve,themanagementefficiencyoftheNNRareahasincreased30%inthepastfiveyears.Accordingtothebureauofagricultureandanimalhusbandryinthecounty,grasslanddegradationhassloweddownfrom28%to22%inthepastfiveyears.
Populationofvillagersparticipatinginenvironmentpublicityactivitiesincreaseby50%.AsofMarch31,2016,atotalof161,020peoplebenefitedfromtheproject,amongwhich40,255(25%)aredirectbeneficiaries,and120,765(75%)areindirectbeneficiaries.Atotalof20281womendirectlybenefitedfromtheproject,accountingfor50%ofthetotaldirectbeneficiaries.Thenumberofvillagersinvolvedinenvironmentalcampaignsintheprojectareahasincreasedby55%.Varioustrainingprogramsforruralhouseholdhaveraisedtheenvironmentalawarenessoffarmers.
Hand-outs fromproject briefingmeeting
Ningxia HabalakeNNR,Yanchicounty
Environmentbenefits:vegetationcoverinprojectareaincreased8.83%from2010to2014;wildbirdspeciesincreasedfrom92in2011to120in2015;wildplantsinHabalakeNNRincreasedfrom368(beforeprojectstarted)to371;166newlyfoundinsectspecies;16newlyfoundZooplanktonand34newlyfoundPhytoplankton.DesertificationlandinYanchicountydecreased28,300hectaresfrom2009to2014,withanannualdecreaseof5,700hectares.DesertificationlandinHabalakeNNRdecreasedby8,359hectares."Bestpractices"ofIEMwasadoptedin3NRsinNingxiaprovince,andwasreplicatedintwootherIFADprojects(oneinQinghaiprovince,oneinJiangxiprovince).Awarenessraised:in2015,10,061villagersparticipatedinenvironmentalevents,increasing224%comparedwith3,106villagersin2012.
PovertypopulationinYanchicountydecreasedfrom40,580in2012to34,046in2015.PercapitaincomeinYanchicountyincreased60.1%,from4,793in2012to7,674in2015,annualincreaseisabout12%(afteradjustingforpriceinflation).Animalhusbandryhasdecreasedwhileplanting(i.e.,licorice)hasincreased.
Hand-outsfromprojectbriefingmeeting;ChineseversionTE(onlyforNingxiaprojectsites)
3483 ADB–ForestryandecologicalrestorationprojectinthreeNorthwestprovinces
Gansu Fangzhaivillage,Ningcounty.Laozhuangvillage,Yimatown,Qingchengcounty.Shuantongvillage,Xifengdistrict
1.InQingyang,ecologicallysensitiveecosystemprotectedareaincreased51,720hectaresbyDec2015.Thetargetistoincrease130,000by2020.2.9,000hectaresofdegradedlandisrecoveredinQingchengcounty,53,900hectaresrecoveredinNingcounty,7,000recoveredinXifengdistrict.Thetargetistoreducethedegradedlandby10%from3.5to3.15millionhectaresby2020.3.From2010to2015,treeplantinginQingyangincreased4970hectaresintotal,including1,095inQingchengcounty,1,089inNingcounty,1,187.5inXifengdistrict.4.CarbonSinkfromeconomicplantations(targetistostore368,600tonsin3provincesby2016):677tonsinQingchengcounty,735tonsinNingcounty,630inXifengcounty.6.Ecologicalplantationonsteepslopes:inGansuprovince,from2010to2015,Qingyangcityfinishedecologicalplantationof215hectares,including60hectaresinQingchengcounty,75hectaresinNingcounty,and80hectaresinXifengcounty.80%survivalrate.
InQingyangcity,onaverage,percapitaincomeofparticipantsincreased36.69%(fromRMB3004in2010toRMB4114.2in2015).Specifically,Ningcountyachievedincreaseof76.6%,Qingchengcounty18.1%,Xifengdistrict21.4%.766jobshavebeencreatedfrom2010to2015,including200inQingchengcounty,170inNingcounty,180inXifengcounty.
ForprojectsitesinGansu,datasourceusedtofilloutthissheetincludeshand-outsfromprojectbriefingandfieldvisits;monitoringdataspreadsheetssharedbyADBGansuPMO.
KongtongdistrictofPingliangcity
1.InKongtongdistrict,ecologicallysensitiveecosystemprotectedareaincreasedfrom3,418hectaresto20,200hectares(Jan2016).2.Forestcover:forestareaincreasedfrom30,120hectaresin2010to314,500hectaresinJan2016,forestcoverrateincreasedfrom17.5%in2010to21.83%inJan2016.3.Economicplantationincreasedby955hectares.4.Ecologicalplantationonsteepslopesincreased480hectares.
1.Income:inKongtongdistrict,percapitaincomehasincreased67.2%fromRMB4,029in2010toRMB5,990inJan.2016.2.Numberofjobscreated:8,200jobscreatedinKongtongdistricebyJan.2016.
Dapingvillage,ShifoTownship,MaijiDistrict,Tianshuicity
Establishedeconomicforestfor17,977.5ha(apple,walnut,apricot,cherry,gingko),whichhas85%survival of 19k ha, 8 fruit storage and one processing plant (loan and cofinancing). Forest coverincreased0.5%
Increasedincome20‒30%.
Shaanxi Heihenationalforestpark
Establishing 23 economic plantation farms covering 15,048 hectares; Improving the facilities andinfrastructure of national forest farm; institutional capacity building. GEF supported Carbon sinkresearch,forestexperienceandeducationcenter,capacitybuilding.
Projectbriefingmaterial
3608 WorldBank–Sustainabledevelopmentinpoorruralareas
Shaanxi Longxiancounty.Chencangdistric.Ansaicounty.Wuqicounty.Yichuancounty.Jiaxiancounty.Wubucounty.Dingbiancounty
1.Landmanagement:anti-slopeterrace(7ha);98,000sumpsconstructedonslopeof25degreeandabove,24haofhorizontalbandconstructedonslopebelow25degrees;increasedvegetationcover.2.Strawmulchinginwalnutorchard(3ha);plasticfilmcoveringinappleorchard(39.4ha);mulchingincornfield(81ha).3.Protectiveforestsforroadbedprotection:planted31,800seedlings.4.Greenenergy:20solarInsecticidallightsinappleorchard;50solarstreetlamps;20solarwaterheaters;229solarstoves;31biogasdigesters.Alloftheseactivitiescontributetocarbonemissionreduction(nospecificdataavailable).TheapplicationofsolarInsecticidallightsgotreplicatedinnon-projectvillages.5.Economicplantations:newwalnutvariety(48ha);Chinesehoneysuckle(10ha);newpotatovariety(7.3ha),appletrees(4.9ha).
1. Increasedincomefromeconomicplantationsin11villages(6,084beneficiaries):walnuts(anincreaseofRMB565,500peryear);Chinesehoneysuckle(anincreaseofRMB750,000peryear);potatoes(anincreaseofRMB26,400peryear),appletrees(anincreaseofRMB55,500peryear).2. 4,600villagersbenefitedfromlandmanagementactivities,whichcontributedtoincomeincreaseofRMB1.4millionintotal.3.Economicbenefitsfromdisaster(hail,frost)preventioninterventions:preventedeconomiclossofRMB48,000peryearinappleorchards.4.Solarenergyactivitiessavedexpensesonfuelandpesticides:solarinsecticidallightscansaveRMB72,000pesticideexpenseperyear;solarstreetlampscansaveRMB18,000fuelexpenseperyear;solarwaterheaterscansaveRMB16,000fuelexpenseperyear;solarstovecansaveRMB13,740fuelexpenseperyears;biogasdigestercansaveRMB18,600fuelexpenseperyear.5.StrawmulchinginwalnutorchardprovidesannualincomeincreaseofRMB20,000;mulchingincornfieldscontributedtoannualincomeincreaseofRMB437,800.
Thirdpartyevaluationreportdonebylocaluniversity
Note:PA=protectedarea.RMB=CNY(ChinaYuanRenminbi).TE=terminalevaluation.
70
4.2CaseStudy:
IndiaGEFCoastalandMarineProgram
4.2.1IntroductiontotheIGCMP
AspresentedinitsPFD,theIndiaBiodiversity:GEFCoastalandMarineProgram(IGCMP,GEFID:
3661),iscomposedofthefollowingchildprojects:
• IND-BD Mainstreaming Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation into production
sectorsintheGodavariRiverEstuaryinAndhraPradeshState(GEFID:3936)
• IND-BD Mainstreaming Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation into production
sectorsintheMalvanCoast,MaharashtraState(GEFID:3941).
Theoverallfinancingallocatedtotheprogramisasshownbelow:
TotalProgramTotalProjectAmount+PPGincludedintheworkprogram
AgencyFee
GEF 10,476,000 9,523,636 952,364
Cofinancing 27,900,000 27,900,000
Total 38,376,000 37,426,000 950,000
Theprogramcommencedin2009andwasscheduledforcompletionin2014buthasbeenextended
followingmidtermreviewsofthetwoprojects.Themainobjectiveofthe(originally)4-yearprogram
istodemonstratemultisectoralapproachestomainstreamingbiodiversityconservationobjectives
intoeconomicactivitiesintwomarineecoregionsofthecountry.Bypilotingthemainstreamingof
biodiversityconservationobjectivesintoproductionsectorsofthecoastalzonethroughtwo
projects,itisenvisagedthattheprogramwillprovideabroadersetofexperiencesthancanbe
obtainedfromindividualprojectsforfurtherreplicationbythegovernment.
Theprogram’sstrategyformainstreamingconsistsofthreecomponents,asfollows:
1. At the systems level, to promote mainstreaming of coastal and marine biodiversity
conservation into sectoral policies and a knowledgemanagement system through the
identificationand/ordevelopmentofthenecessaryinformation,tools,andmechanisms
to promotemultisectoral coordinationandensuretheintegrationofbiodiversityvalues
into land-use planning anddecision- making in relation to India’s coastal and marine
ecosystems.
2. Attheinstitutionallevel,topromoteinstitutionalcapacitydevelopmentbystrengthening
humanresourcecapacities(skills,knowledge)ofindividualgovernmentdepartmentsand
privatesectorcompaniesforintegratedplanningandmanagementofeconomicactivities
tominimizeadverseenvironmentalimpactsoncoastalandmarineecosystems.
3. At the community level, to promote sustainable community livelihoods and natural
resource use in the buffer zones of marine protected areas and other areas of high
biodiversityvaluebydevelopingappropriateincentivestructuresandlocalcapacity.
Thetestingofdifferentmainstreamingapproachesateachoftheselectedsitesispursuedas
subprojectsunderthisprogram,witheachsubprojectsharingthesame3components.Each
subprojectisbasedonthespecificnatureofthreatstobiodiversityandbarrierstomainstreaming.
Thisapproachaimstodemonstratehowchangesinproductionactivitiesnearecologicallyimportant
71
areascanbenefitbiodiversityconservation,thusprovidingadiversesetofexperienceswith
mainstreamingforfurtherreplicationinothercriticalareasalongthecoast.Areplicationstrategy
willbeembeddedintheprogramandsubprojects.
ANationalSteeringCommittee(NSC)wasestablishedastheexecutivebodywithoverallresponsibility
formeetingtheprogramoutcomes.TheNSCischairedbytheAdditionalSecretary,Ministryof
EnvironmentandForests,withrepresentativesfromthetwoprojectstates(MaharashtraandAndhra
Pradesh),UNDP,atechnical/scientificadvisor,andasocialscientist/policyadvisor.Representatives
fromrelevantdepartments,agencies,andproductionsectorsmayalsobeinvitedtotheNSC
meetings.OneofthemainresponsibilitiesoftheMoEFistofacilitateintersectoralcoordinationwith
otherrelevantministriesanddepartmentsatalllevels.TheNSCissupportedbyaProgram
ManagementUnit(PMU),whichistheadministrativehubfortheprogram.ThePMUisbasedinDelhi
andheadedbyaprojectmanagerwhohasday-to-dayresponsibilityforprojectimplementationand
management.
Twostate-levelprojectsteeringcommitteesareconstitutedinAndhraPradeshandMaharashtrato
overseeprojectimplementationandmanagementatthestatelevels.TheStateProjectSteering
Committees(SPSCs)aresupportedbythestate-levelPMUsbasedinAndhraPradeshand
Maharashtra.
Inordertosupportcoordinationacrossthetwoprojectsundertheprogram,someresources
(approximately$0.45million)havebeendedicatedtocoordinationoftheoverallprogramand
knowledgemanagement.TheseresourcesareincludedunderComponent1(Systems1)ofthelarger
ofthetwoprojects(GodavariRiverEstuary)andincludeactivitiessuchasestablishingajoint
database,anM&Esystem,aswellasjointoutreachandcommunicationactivities.Thisisintendedto
facilitatesharinganddisseminationofexperiencesfromboththeGodavariRiverEstuaryandMalvan
Coastforeventualreplicationofsuccessfulstrategiesinothercoastalareasfacingsimilarchallenges.
Specificknowledgeproductsandtoolsaretobedevelopedforgovernmentandprivate-sector
decisionmakerstodemonstratetheeconomicvalueofmainstreamingbiodiversityconservation
principlesintosectorgrowthstrategies.
TheCounterfactualProject:GoMBR
Aspartofthiscasestudy,acompletedstand-aloneprojectwasincludedasacounterfactualtothe
IGCMP.Thiswasthe“ConservationandSustainableUseoftheGulfofMannarBiosphereReserve's
CoastalBiodiversity”(GEFID:634)inTamilNaduState.Thisprojectwasselectedasacounterfactual
becauseithadsimilarobjectivestothelaterprogram,implementedbythesameagencyand
operatedinasimilarlysignificantareaofcoastalbiodiversityforIndia.ItsGlobalEnvironmental
Objectivewas“toconservetheGulfofMannarBiosphereReserve’s(GoMBR)globallysignificant
assemblageofcoastalBiodiversityandtodemonstrate,inalargebiospherereservewithvarious
multipleuses,howtointegrateBiodiversityconservationandsustainablecoastalzonemanagement
andlivelihooddevelopment.”Itaimedtooperateatseverallevels,includingthroughstate
government,throughdevelopmentofatrustwithaccesstolong-termfunding,andthroughraised
village-levelinstitutionalcapacitiestomanagelivelihoodsinamannerthatconservedbiodiversity
resources.Therefore,itanticipatedseveralofthekeyapproachesoftheCoastalandMarine
Program.Sincetheprojectwascompletedin2012,itgavetheopportunitytoassesstheextentto
whichinitialresultshadbeensustainedand/orscaledup,to provideavaluablecomparisonwiththe
objectives,design,andprogressofthechildprojectsunderthelaterprogram.Aswiththechild
projects,thecounterfactualwasassessedthroughdocumentaryreview,fieldvisits,andinterviews
withkeystakeholders.
72
4.2.2 ActivitiesoftheChildProjectsandtheCounterfactualProject
IGCMPhastwochildprojects,describedinthefollowingsectionstogetherwiththecounterfactual
project.
MainstreamingCoastalandMarineBiodiversityConservationintoProductionSectorsintheEast
GodavariRiverEstuary,AndhraPradesh(HereafterReferredtoastheEGREEProject)
Habitatdestruction,pollution,andoverexploitationofcoastalandmarineresourcesposemajor
threatstothebiologicallyandeconomicallyimportantEastGodavariRiverEstuarineEcosystem
(EGREE).EGREEincludestheCoringaWildlifeSanctuary,thesecondlargestextensionofmangroves
ontheIndiancoastoftheBayofBengal;aswellasafast-growingdevelopmenthub,including
numerousmanufacturersfromdifferentsectors;andoffshoreoilandgasexplorationventures,
centeredonthecityofKakinada,intheimmediatevicinityofthemangrovearea.
EGREEecosystemservicesdirectlyprovidelivelihoodstoaround100,000people,whoinhabit44
villagessurroundingtheCoringaSanctuary.Majoractivitiesincludefisheries,aquaculture,and
agriculture.Thetotalpopulationoftheprojectareaisoftheorderof1millionpeople,whichincludes
thecityofKakinada.
ThegoaloftheEGREEProjectistopromoteandenableagovernanceenvironmentthatprevents
furtherdegradationofcoastalandmarineecosystems,allowingthecontinuousflowofecosystem
goodsandservices,suchascoastalprotectionandfisheries,aswellaspreservinganecosystemof
uniquebiologicalvalue.Thisistobeachievedthroughfacilitatingthemainstreamingofbiodiversity
intosectorplansofkeypublicandprivateorganizations,aswellasdevelopingcross-sector
institutionalmechanismstoharmonizedevelopmentandconservationofbiodiversity.
TheGEF-funded,UNDP-supportedfull-sizeprojecthasareportedtotalcostof$24,023,636.This
includesaGEFtrustfundgrantamountingto$6,023,636(differingslightlyfromtheoriginalPFD
allocation)andcofinancingbythegovernmentofAndhraPradeshandthegovernmentofIndia
valuedat$18,000,000.
Mainstreaming Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation into Production Sectors in the
MalvanCoast,MaharashtraState(HereafterReferredtoastheMalvalCoastProject)
TheSindhudurgCoastalandMarineEcosystem,locatedonthewestcoastofIndia(Maharashtra)is
oneofthe11ecologicallyandeconomicallycriticalhabitatsidentifiedalongtheIndiancoast.Because
ofitshighecologicalimportance,29.12sq.kmwithintheSindhudurgCoastalandMarineEcosystem
wasdesignatedastheMalvanMarineSanctuaryin1987andisoneofsevenmarineprotectedareas
inIndia.TheSindhudurgCoastalandMarineEcosystemalsohasenormouseconomicsignificanceas
oneofthemajorfish-landingcentersandasarapidlyemergingtourismdestination.
Fisheriesandassociatedactivitiesaretheprincipaleconomicresourceofcommunitiesalongthe
Sindhudurgcoast.Althoughmostthefishcatchistakenbymechanizedfishingvessels,
nonmechanized(usingbothmotorizedvesselsandtraditionalpractices)fishingcontinuestoplayan
importantrole,particularlyforthepoorercommunities.Fishingisprimarilyundertakenbymen,
whilealmostallpost-catchworkisundertakenbywomen,givingwomenakeyroleinfishery-related
decisionmakingandinsocialorganization.
TourismisconsideredahighpotentialeconomicactivityandSindhudurgwasdeclareda“tourism
district”in1997.Forexample,therecordednumberofvisitorstotheSindhudurgfortgrewfrom
100,000to700,000between2006and2010.Furtherinlandbeyondthecoastalarea,agriculture
73
(includingforestryandhorticulture)istheprincipaleconomicsubsector.Therearealsominormining
andindustrialactivities.
Theimmediateobjectiveoftheprojectistomainstreambiodiversityconservationconsiderations
intoproductionsectorsthatimpactthecoastalandmarineecosystemsoftheSindhudurgCoastof
Maharashtra.
Hence,theprojectstrategywastoimpactandinfluencetheproductionsectorsinandneartothe
Sindhudurgcoastsothattheywouldimpactbiodiversityinalessnegative,ormorepositive,way.The
keyproductionsectorstargetedwerefisheriesandtourism.Theapproachsetoutintheproject
documentconsistedofdatacollection,analysis,scientificstudies,planning(involvingconsultation
andparticipation),followedbytrainingandon-the-groundaction.Theactionsidentifiedincluded
regulatorymeasuresaswellasthemodificationofproductionprocess.
CounterfactualProject:ConservationandSustainableUseoftheGulfofMannarBiosphere
Reserve'sCoastalBiodiversity—TamilNadu(hereafterreferredtoastheGulfofMannarProject)
ThisprojectwascompletedintheGulfofMannarinTamilNadu,whichiswithintheEasternIndia
marineecoregion.ApprovedbytheGEFin2001thisproject,whichwasimplementedthroughUNDP,
aimedtodemonstrateinalargebiospherereservewithvariousmultipleuses,howtointegrate
biodiversityconservation,sustainablecoastalzonemanagement,andlivelihooddevelopment.The
designandinitiationofthisprojectpredatedtheprogrammaticapproachunderreview,andefforts
weremadetointegrateitslessonswithinthenationalprogrammaticframeworkforcoastaland
marinebiodiversityconservation.
AmidtermreviewoftheGulfofMannarProjectwasundertakeninthefirstquarterof2008andits
resultswereconsideredinthedesignofthecurrentIGCMPandtheconstituentprojects.Financingof
thisprojectwasasfollows:
• GEFfunding(includingPPG):$7.65million
• UNDP:$1.05million
• Government:$10.6million(asagainst$16.98millionproposedatendorsement)
4.2.3Findings
Question1:TowhatextenthasthedifferenttypologiesofGEFprogramsdeliveredtheintendedresults in terms of broader-scale and longer-term environmental outcomes and impactscomparedwithstand-aloneprojects?
EGREEProject
Theprojecthasmadeveryimportantadvancesintermsofsupportforconservationand
developmentofcapacities.Ithassetthestagefortheestablishmentandconsolidationof
multisectoralmainstreamingofbiodiversityconservationinacriticalindustrialandbiodiversityarea
bycreatingtheEGREEFoundation,aninstitutionwithamultistakeholdergoverningboard.
Thebiologicalmonitoringactivitiessupportedbytheprojectreportcurrentstabilityofpopulations
ofcriticalspecies(includingmarineturtles,smooth-coatedotters,andfishingcats),whichindicates
thestrengthenedprotectionoftheCoringaWildlifeSanctuaryandadjacentareas,towhichthe
projecthascontributed.
74
Theprojecthasdemonstratedthatcoastalandmarineprotectedareaconservationrequiresa
multisectoralapproach.Terrestrialandcoastalprotectedareasareverydifferent,withvaryinglaw
enforcementchallengesbetweenterrestrial(fenced,boundary)andmarineprotectedareas(not
clearly-definedcompartments).Thelatterheavilydependoncommunity-levelinterventionsand
multistakeholderapproaches.
Althoughprogresstowardtheprojectobjectivehasbeenmade,fullmainstreamingofbiodiversityin
theproductionsectorintheEGREEregionwouldneedtheadoptionbyabroadlyrepresentative
body(e.g.,EGREEFoundation)ofalandscapemanagementplanthataccountsforallsignificant
impactsonbiodiversityfromproductionsectors.Thishasnotyetbeenachieved.
TheGodavariexperiencesuggeststhatpolicy-levelescalationcanhappenmoreefficientlythrougha
programmaticapproachratherthanthroughisolatedproject/site-levelinterventions.Forexample,
duringprojectimplementation,theteambecameawarethatthenationalWildlifeActionPlanhad
nochapteroncoastalandmarineprotectedareaconservation.Theprojectbroughtthistonoticeat
thenationallevel,arguingfortheinclusionofachapteroncoastalandmarineprotectedarea
conservationintheWildlifeActionPlan2016‒2030.Thiswaspossiblebecauseoftheprogram’s
national-levelconnectionsthroughtheinterconnectedstateandnationalsteeringcommittees,
whichgiveaccesstohigh-levelpolicymakers.
Remote-sensinganalysiswasconductedtoexaminethelong-termspatialandtemporalpatternsof
vegetationtoassesswhethertheEGREE-ProjectactivitiesintheGodavariestuaryhadanyimpacton
thelocalecosystem(figure4.4).Tounderstandthevegetationtrendbetween2000and2015,the
interannualvariationinvegetationproductivitywasmeasuredbytheNDVI,derivedfromdaily
MODISsatelliteobservationsat250mresolution.Theresultssuggestthatthevegetationinthe
projectareareachedahigherlevel(+0.04)fortheprojectperiod2011‒2015whencomparedwith
thepreprojectperiod2007–2009.Figure4.4showsthespatialdistributionofvegetationindex
aroundtheprojectarea.Comparedwith2009,thevegetationconditionfor2015shows
improvementlikelyduetodenservegetationinsidetheprojectsite(Figure4.5).
Figure4.4.DecomposedinterannualvegetationindexfromtheMODISobservedNDVIfrom2000to2015,GodavariEstuary.
75
Figure4.5.SatelliteimageandNDVIfortheGodavariEstuary,2015.
MalvanCoastProject
Theprojecthasundertakenmuchsite-levelmainstreamingofbiodiversityintoproductionsectorsand
hastherebydemonstratedhowthiscanbeachieved,particularlyinthefisheriesandtourism
sectors.Forexample,oysterfarminghasintroducedbiodiversityconsiderationsintolocalrural
development,whiletrainingforfishermenanddemonstrationofby-catchreductiondeviceshas
introducedthemintolocalfishingactivities,whilesnorkelingtraininghashelpedtopromote
biodiversityintourismactivities.ThePIR2015reportedthatatotalof1600localpeoplehave
receivedtrainingandotherbenefits.Newtechnologieshavebeensuccessfullydemonstratedanda
gooddialoguewithlocalcommunitieshasbeenestablished.
Lessprogresshasbeenmadeatthesectororinstitutionallevel—hereusedtomeanallactivitiesin
theconcernedsectoracrosstheentiredistrictcoast.Toachievesuchmainstreaming,theproject
wouldneedtostrengtheninstitutions,orreviseplans,legislation,orregulation(withenforcement),
ortoreplicatesite-levelsuccessatabroaderscale.Inmanycases,giventheadministrativestructure
andtheimportanceofstate-levelinstitutions,manyoftheseactivitieswouldhavetobeatthestate-
levelorwithstate-levelactors.
LittlehasbeendonedirectlytostrengthenmanagementeffectivenessoftheMalvanMarine
Sanctuary.Muchofthedatacollectedunderotheractivitieswillhelpwhenattemptsaremadeto
strengthenMalvanMarineSanctuarymanagement.Manylocalactivitieshavestartedbuildingtrust
andtheseactivitieshavesomewhatchangedattitudesoflocalpeopletowardconservation.
However,theremainingoppositiontotheSanctuarymeansthatthisactivitymustbeundertaken
verycautiously.
76
Coast-widesustainabilityrequiresalong-termvision,supportivestakeholderswhoarewillingto
investthenecessaryresources,andcoast-wideinstitutionsthatcanoperationalizethestepstoward
thevision.Theprojecthasalreadyestablishedpartsoftheserequirements.Forexample,thereis
high-levelsupportinstate-levelgovernmentagenciesandthedistrictgovernmenthasexpressedits
willingnesstosupporttheproject.Theprojectissupportingdevelopmentstowardother
components:notablythelocalstakeholderCross-SectoralCommitteeandtheCoastalandMarine
BiodiversityConservationFoundation.However,allthetoolsandmechanismsrequiredforthis
coast-widesustainabilityarenotyetpresent.
TheexperienceinSindhudurgsuggeststhatprogramsprovidemoresynergiesthandisconnected
projects.Forexample,theGodavarichildprojectstartedearlierandtheSindhudurgteamcould
exchangeideasandshareexperienceswiththemtohelpdealwithsomesimilarchallenges.Italso
demonstratesthatbeingpartofaprogramhelpsinnovateandreachouttoabiggeraudienceandto
gathermoresupport.Furthermore,itiseasiertogetheardatthenationalgovernmentlevel,and
therearethereforemorechancesofaffectingnational-levelpolicy.Forexample,theMarine
ProtectedAreaLawhasbeenchangedpartlyduetothisproject,aidedbyitsbroadercontactsand
connectionsthroughtheprogram.
InthecaseoftheMalvanCoastProject,thedecomposedinterannualvegetationindexattheproject
siteinSindhudurgshowsrelativestablevegetationconditionsbefore2011andasuccessive
improvementinvegetationconditionsince2012(figure4.6).
Figure4.6.TimeseriesdecompositionofinterannualtrendofdailyNDVIshowingtheoverallvegetationtrend,2000–2015,Sindhudurg.
Counterfactual:GulfofMannarProject
TheimmediateobjectivewastheestablishmentandeffectiveparticipatorymanagementoftheGulf
ofMannarBiosphereReserve(GoMBR)throughtheapplicationofstrengthenedconservation
programsintheParkcoreareaandenabledsustainablelivelihooddevelopmentintheReserveasa
whole.
Toreachthisobjective,specificgovernment-andvillage-levelinstitutionalcapacitiesweretobe
strengthened,stakeholderswouldapplysustainablelivelihoodapproaches,andanindependent
77
statutorytrustwouldensureeffectiveintersectoralcooperationinthesustainableconservationand
utilizationoftheGoMBR’sbiodiversityresources.
Thefirstmeetingin2002oftheGoMBRBoardofTrusteeschangedtheproject’simplementation
strategytoconcentrateonawarenessraisingandlivelihoodsdevelopmentforthecoastalvillage
communities.However,theydidnotchangethelogframe,budget,ortimetable.
Thisledtoanunbalancedprojectstrategy,withconservationmanagementactionsignoredinfavor
ofconcentratingonthemoreeasilyimplementedactionsrelatingtoenforcementandlivelihoods.
TheresultingapproachtoconservationoftheBiosphereReservewasnotcohesiveand
comprehensive.TheGoMBRTrustwasformed,butbecauseofthischangeinstrategyitdidnot
becomeasstrongadecision-makingbodyasinitiallyplanned.Itwaslimitedtoawarenessraising
andresearchfunctionsinsteadofbeingaconservationbody.Itsindependentlong-termfinancing
wasnotcapitalized,eventhoughthegovernmentagreedtofunditafterprojectcompletion.This
changeinstrategyalsohadanimpactonpolicyandinstitutionalreformsthatwerelargelyignored.A
managementplanwasdevelopedforthereserve,butitwasweakonprescriptionand
recommendations.Moreover,itwashardlyusedforday-to-daymanagement.
The“socioeconomic”actionsweresuccessful.TheprotectionoftheBiosphereReservewas
strengthenedbythecreationofaWildlifeCrimeControlBureauoffice.Awarenessprogramswere
veryuseful;coastalfishersarenowawareoftheneedforconservation,sustainableutilizationof
marineresources,operationofecofriendlyfishinggears,banningdestructivefishingpractices,and
villageconservationmeasures.AVillageMarineConservationandEco-DevelopmentCouncilwas
developedineachofthe248villages.Microcreditprogramsresultedinteamworkamong
communities,andthemembersearnadecentpayandareabletoeducatetheirchildren.An
interpretationcenterhasbeensetuptoportraythediversityinthegulf,theroleofthetrustandits
activities,achievements,pollutionhazards,andtheneedforconservation.
Theterminalevaluationassessedinstitutionalsustainabilityasmoderatelyunlikely.Themain
concernintermsofsustainabilitywasseenastheinstitutionalframeworkandgovernance.The
GoMBRTrusthadbeenestablishedwithsupportfromthestategovernment.However,weaknesses
wereidentifiedinitsfunctioning.Ithadnospecifichome.Withinthegovernment,itwasseenasan
independentbody,whileintheNGO/communityitwasseenaspartofthegovernment.Moreover,
itscoordinationcommitteedidnotmeetfrequentlyandtherewerequestionsaboutits
effectiveness.Finally,itsscopeofactionwasreducedfromtheoriginalintentionsandrelatedonlyto
conservationawareness-raising.Theseweaknesseswereidentifiedassignificantriskstothelong-
termsustainabilityofthetrust.
Byclosure,therehadbeennoreplicationorscaling-upofanyaspectoftheproject,andnovisible
attempttodosoateithernationalorstatelevel,althoughtheUNDP-CountryOfficenotesthatthe
projecthas“contributedtothelargerpolicyprocessesinthecountry,includingtheCoastal
RegulationZoneNotificationthattriestobalanceconservationanddevelopmentinthecoastal
region”(UNDP2013,p.63).Themaincatalyticrolewasatthedemonstrationlevel,wherearangeof
innovativeapproacheswerepilotedsuccessfullyandmightprovereplicable,althoughinmanycases
theythemselveswerereplicationsofmodelsusedwidelywithintheGEFportfolio.
Overall,stateownershiporiginallymisdirectedtheprojecttofocusalmostentirelyoncommunity
socialandeconomicdevelopment.Afterexternalfundswerephasedout,therewaslittleownership
leftandonlydisconnectedactivitieswerecontinued,withlimitedfundingandhumanresources.The
absenceofconnectionstonational-levelprograms,networks,andresourcesprovedastrong
disincentivetosustainability.
78
FortheGoMBRProject,thedecomposedinterannualvegetationindexshowsvariationinthe
vegetationconditioninRamnad,butnosignificanttrendobservedsince2005(figure4.7).Thetime
seriesanalysis,therefore,showsthattherewasnosignificantimprovementinthevegetation
productivityduringtheprojectperiod.
Figure 4.7. Time series decomposition of interannual trend of daily NDVI showing the overallvegetationtrend,2000to2015,Ramnad.
Question2: Towhat extenthaveGEFprogramsaddressed themaindriversof environmentaldegradation?
EGREEProject
TheprojectcatalyzedthecreationoftheEGREEFoundation,whichisworkinginseveralmajor
productionsectors,whichcontributetomajordriversofenvironmentaldegradation.Workwith
GMRintheenergyproductionsectorhasbeendiscussedfromaresultsperspectiveabove.The
CoromandelChemicalscompanyhasalsoupgradeditsenvironmentalresponsetoreduceits
potentialcontributiontoenvironmentaldegradation,throughsuchmeasuresasthecreationof
greenbeltsarounditsgypsumplant.
MalvanCoastProject
Forstate-levellinedepartmentsandthedistrictadministration,environmentalsustainabilityis
important,buttheyinformedthemissionthatpeoplearenotinterestedinchangingtheirtraditional
practices.Itisonlywhenlivelihoodimprovementscanbeshownthatmeasurestoaddress
environmentaldegradationcanbewidelyadopted,asinthecaseoftheSystemofRice
Intensification.Similarly,thechangetoimprovedfishingnetsshowedareductioninthenumberof
youngfishcaught,whichinturnledtoincreasedfishprevalenceinlateryears,withnoreductionin
usablecatch.Thiswasrecognizedbyfishermen,whosoonbegantorequestthenewnets,thereby
reducingdegradationcausedbypoorfishingpractices.Tourismispotentiallyanotherdriverof
79
environmentaldegradation,butthedistrictalternativetouristdestinationprojectisseekingto
reduceadverseeffectsbypromotingecofriendlytourismandraisinglocalcapacitytodeliverthis.
Counterfactual:GulfofMannarProject
TheGulfofMannarProjectattemptedtointegratebiodiversityconservationandsustainablecoastal
zonemanagementwithlivelihoodsdevelopment.Communitieswerelecturedonpollution,but
respondedthatbigbusinessisthesourceofpollution,throughpowerstations,factories,etc.These
bigpollutersareleftuntroubled,whilepoorcommunitiesaretoldtostoptheiractivities.Fromthis
perspective,althoughtheprojecttargetedsourcesofenvironmentaldegradationincludingfoodand
energyproduction,itdidthisatthewronglevel.
Question3:Whatfactorshaveinfluencedprogramownershipbyparticipatingcountriesandinturn the relevance of those programs to national environment and development needs andpriorities?
EGREEProject
Theprojecthasrealizedseveralimportantgainsfrombeingpartofanationalprogram.TheNational
ProgramSteeringCommittee(NPSC)haskeynationalfiguresonit,whofeeditsexperiencesinto
high-levelpolicydiscussions.ThesehaveevencoveredIndia’sinternationalobligations,forexample
withregardtotheConventiononInternationalTradeinEndangeredSpeciesofWildFaunaand
Flora.TheGEFOperationalFocalPointheadsthePollutionControlBoardofIndiaandcanfeedlessons
fromtheprogramintothisforum.So,throughtheprogram,localactionsfeedintonationalpolicies
andthenevenintointernationalforums.Forexample,theprogram’seffectsonsharkpopulations
arereportedontotheCBDconferenceoftheparties.TheEGREEFoundationistakingtheleadon
severalkeyinternationalobligationsandhasbecomeanimportantchannelforfundingforthe
environment.
Also,theprojecthasdemonstratedcapacitytogeneratesynergiesandstrategicallianceswitha
numberofactors,bothdirectstakeholdersandexternaltotheproject,whichhassucceededin
mobilizingasignificantamountofadditionalfunding,amountingtonearly$0.3million.TheEGREE
Foundationhadstart-upfundsfromtheproject,matchedbythestategovernment,butbythetime
oftheprogramevaluationmissionithadalreadyraisedRs8croresfromtheprivatesector.Itsfunds
arealreadysufficienttopaysalariesfromtheinterest.Thisisseenasverydifferentfromthe
situationinMalvan,wheretheMangroveCellisbyfarthemajorfunder.TheEGREEFoundation
alreadyhasstrongsustainability.
Nationalownershipneedstobestrongatalllevels.Inaprojectwhichispartofamajornational
program,feedinguptoDelhiisastrongincentivetocooperationforthedistrictcollector,whoisan
essentialstakeholdertoensureprogressatthefieldlevel.Atthestatelevel,thespecialchief
assistantsecretaryisheadofthesteeringcommitteeandthegovernorhaspickeduponsomeofthe
projectelements,suchastreeplanting.
MalvanCoastProject
Theprojecthasdemonstratedgoodnationalownership,sincethenational,state,andlocal
governmentsareallinvolved.Theprojectdesignisinlinewithnationalpriorities,notablyaddressing
oneofthefivemostimportantmarineandcoastalareasinthecountry.TheminutesoftheNPSC
andSPSCclearlydemonstratethattheprojectisnationallyownedandinlinewithnationalandlocal
priorities.Theprojectdesignisalsofocusedonimprovingthelivelihoodsoftheruralpoorin
80
Maharashtra,inlinewithnationalpriorities.Finally,theprojectincludesspecificactivitiesto
implementCBDinIndia,throughitssupporttotheStateBiodiversityManagementBoardandtothe
establishmentandoperationsofbiodiversitymanagementcommitteesinover50villages.
Theprojecthasattemptedtodeveloptrustandacommonunderstandingandabasisforreducing
communityoppositiontoitsobjectives.Theslowprojectstart-upandoppositionbylocal
communitiestothesanctuarywerethemainreasonswhytherewaslittleon-the-groundactivityin
thefirst18months.Afterthisperiod,thelevelofactivitiesandextentofdeliverywashigher.
Thepilotprojectshaveraisedconfidenceinthenewapproachesadoptedandhaveevenattracted
privatesectorinterest.InthecaseoftheSystemforRiceIntensification,thereisalreadynational
governmentfundingavailable,buttheapproachadoptedbytheprojectinthisdistrictismuchmore
environmentallyfriendlyandhasbeenadoptedwidely.Theprojecthopesthatitstraineesmayget
preferentialtreatmentforstategovernmentsupport,whichwouldbringstateownershipofthe
environmentalpracticesintroduced.Already,somenewstategovernmentprogramshavefollowed
upontheGEFprojectapproaches—forexample,itmadesquare-meshnetsapriorityintervention
andthiswasfunded.TheStateFisheriesDepartmenthasalsoadoptedthesenetsasthestandard.
ManyoftheideaspromotedbytheGEFprojecthavenotbeennew,buttheadditionalfundshave
enabledthemtobemoreconsistentlypromoted.Neitherthestatenorthenationalgovernmenthas
majorenvironmentalprotectionprogramsandnationalfundsarefarlessflexiblethantheGEF(or
otherinternationalfunders).
Counterfactual:GulfofMannarProject
Theprojectinvolvedseveralorganizationsandmanycommunities,whichbroughtastronglevelof
ownershipfromthestakeholders.However,thegovernmentofTamilNadualteredtheproject’s
focustofititsownideasofwhatwasneeded.Theterminalevaluationsuggeststhatthiswasdueto
alackofconsultationwiththegovernmentatthetimeofprojectdesign.Asstatedintheterminal
evaluation,duringimplementation,thegovernmentofTamilNadudecidedtoemphasize“the
livelihoodandprotectionaspectsattheexpenseofthehigher-levelpolicyandinstitutionalchanges
thatwerenecessaryandexpected,andthemanagementactionsthatcouldhaveencouragedthe
sustaineduseofmarineresourceshavebeenlargelyoverlooked.”(UNDP2013,P.64)
Afterprojectclosure,thegovernmentofTamilNaduprovidedcontinuationfundingofabout$0.5
millionperannumplussomestaffcosts.Therewasnoplanforactivitiesofthedirectorateand,
althoughsomefundingproposalsweremadetothestategovernment,littleattempthasbeenmade
toattractnationalgovernmentfunds.Thereareminimalcontinuingcontactswitheithernational
governmentorUNDP.Someresearchactivitiesarecontinuing,theboardisoccasionallymeetingand
limitedcommunityactivitiescontinueatdistrictlevel.Afewfieldstaffmembersarecontinuing
monitoringactivitiesandsomezonalandsubzonalofficersremain.Somejointpatrolsbycustoms
andforestrytakeplace,butarenotintegratedintosystematicenvironmentalmanagementactivities.
Thereisaninterpretationcentreonthecoast,butitisstrugglingtocontinuewithoutgovernment
fundingandmanpower,withanNGOtryingtokeepitfunctioning.TheMarineNationalParknow
receivesonlyRs0.7croreofitsintendedRs2.5croreannualfunding,solittlecanbeachieved.The
communityworkers,intendedtomaintainconnectionsbetweenthetrustandthecommunities,
havelittlefunding,andvocationaltrainingisalsogreatlyreduced.Themicrocreditfundshave
increasedinscaleandcontinuetofunctionalthoughthebusinessessupportedarenotnecessarily
linkedtoenvironmentalmanagement.Afterstategovernmenttookoverfromtheproject,there
weredrasticstaffreductions.Asstaffmemberswerepromotedormoved,theywerenotreplaced,
sothattheoverallcomplementislessthan50%ofthatintendedtofollowupontheproject.
81
Mostoftheissuesthattheprojectwasintendedtoaddressremain;theseincludepollution,
overexploitationofthehabitat,andoverdependenceonmarineresources.Thetime-scaleofthe
projectwasinsufficienttoallowforanyrealcommunityownershiptobegenerated.Neitherthe
fundsnorthedegreeofcross-departmentalcoordinationachievedwassufficienttocontinuethe
workeffectively.
Question4:Towhatextenthavechildproject‒levelobjectivesbeencoherentwithandintegratedintheprogram-levelones?
EGREEProject
Theprojectobjective,“tomainstreamcoastalandmarinebiodiversityconservationintoproduction
sectorsintheEastGodavariRiverEstuarineEcosystem,”istobeachievedthroughtheformationofa
governingstructurewithmultisectorparticipation(EGREEFoundation).Thisshoulddirectacross-
sectoranalysisofbiodiversityimpactsandmitigationmeasures(i.e.,mainstreamingbiodiversity)and
itsimplementationthroughalandscape-wideplanfortheprojectarea(CoringaWildlifeSanctuary,
KakinadaBay,andadjacentarea)andsectorplans.Thisobjectivedirectlyreflectstheprogram
objective.
MalvanCoastProject
Theultimateproblemtobeaddressedbytheprojectwastheongoingdepletionofthecoastaland
marineresourcesalongtheSindhudurgcoastandtheassociatedlossofgloballysignificantbiological
diversity.Theprojectobjectivewastobeachievedthroughthreeoutcomes:
• Cross-sectoralplanningframeworkthatmainstreamsbiodiversityconservation
considerations
• Enhancedcapacityofsectorinstitutionsforimplementingbiodiversity-friendlyfisheries
managementplan,ecotourismmanagementplan,andMalvanMarineSanctuary
managementplan
• SustainablecommunitylivelihoodsandnaturalresourceuseintheSindhudurgcoastand
marineecosystem.
Theprojectobjectiveandoutcomesarethereforecoherentwiththoseoftheoverallprogram.
Counterfactual:GulfofMannarProject
SincetheGulfofMannarwasastand-aloneproject,thecoherencequestiondoesnotapplyliterally.
However,accordingtotheoriginalprojectconcept,itdidintendtoprovidelessonsforscalingup
andsustainabilityofenvironmentalresults,aswellastoinfluencegovernment,particularlyatstate
level.ThestatedGEFprioritywasthecreationofanindependentstatutorytrustwithmanagement
powersandsustainablefundingtoensureintersectoralcooperation.Sustainablelivelihood
developmentforlocalstakeholderswasseenasakeyapproachnecessarytogeneratesupportfor
strengthenedenvironmentalmanagement.Itcanthereforebestatedthattheprojectobjectivesare
consistentwiththoseofthelaterprogram. Indeed,theprogramdocumentconfirmsthattheGulfof
Mannarexperiencewasreviewedandprovidedinputsintotheprogramformulationanddesign.
82
Question5:Towhatextenthavethegovernance,managementarrangements,andcoordinationinfluencedtheperformanceofGEFprograms?
EGREEProject
TheprojectisbeingimplementedunderthenationalimplementationmodalityoftheUNDP.Under
nationalimplementationmodality,theprojectispartofaprogramimplementedbytheMinistryof
Environment,Forest,andClimateChange,(theexecutingagencyinGEFterms)ofthegovernmentof
India,andexecutedatfieldlevelbyaresponsibleagency,namelythegovernmentofAndhra
Pradesh.
Theexecuting(MinistryofEnvironment,ForestandClimateChangeandgovernmentofAndhra
Pradesh)andimplementingagencies(UNDP)haveprovidedadequatesupporttoproject
implementationbothinadministrativeandtechnicalterms.
Thesteeringcommitteesatnational(program)andstate(project)levelsincluderepresentationof
relevantstakeholders,particularlyatthelevelofgovernmentorganizations,andhavebeen
providingadequateandtimelyresponsetoimplementationchallenges.TheNationalSteering
Committeeoftheprogramwasveryimportantduringpreparationofthischildproject,butduring
implementationthestatehasgraduallytakenover.Itsoversightoffinanceshasbeenveryimportant.
TheEGREEFoundationisnowseenasworkingeffectivelyandhassufficientoperatingfunds.Itis
engagedinlong-termplansfordifferentsectorsassociatedwiththeenvironmentandis
collaboratingwiththeprivatesectorinthiswork.Atthecommencementoftheprojectbusiness
leadersrefusedtoeventalktothefoundation,buttheyarenowbeginningtobesubstantially
involved,followingtheexampleoftheearlyadopters,suchasGMRandCoromandel.
Thefoundationhasestablishedstrongworkingrelationswithsomeprivatesectorbodies,suchas
theGMRFoundationintheenergysector,whichareconductingtradesandskilltrainingincoastal
communities.Ithasalsobroughttogetherseveralmajorprivateindustrialstakeholdersintoa
confederation,whichhasraiseditsprofileandinfluenceamongenvironmentalstakeholders,
includingtheimportantprivatesector.
MalvanCoastProject
GiventhefederalizednatureofIndiaitseemsappropriatethat,aspartofanationalprogram,the
projecthasimportantmanagementfunctionsatbothnationalandstatelevel,aswellassome
functionsattheleveloftheprojectintervention(i.e.,thelandscapelevel).Themanagement
arrangementsintheprojectdocumentthereforeappearappropriate.
Theinitialperiodsoftheprojectweredifficult.TheoppositionoflocalpeopletotheSanctuary,and
thereforetotheprojectobjectives,rapidlybecameevident;tosuchanextentthattheprojectcould
notbeimplementedasplannedwithanyformoflocalownership.TheMaharashtraStateForest
Departmentlackedtheconfidenceandskillstoengagewiththestakeholdersandtooktimeto
establishtheprojectimplementationframework.Asaresult,veryfewground-levelactivitiestook
placeduringthefirst18months.
Despitethesedifficulties,duringthisinitialperiodmostprogramandproject-relatedinstitutional
mechanismsbecomeoperationalandthefollowingkeymanagementactionsweretaken:
83
• The Maharashtra State Forest Department established the “Mangrove Cell,” housed in
Mumbai, andgave itdirectoperational responsibilities for theproject.Although formally
established in early 2012, the cell tookmore than one year to become staffed and fully
operational.
• TheNPSCandSPSCwereestablishedinAprilandJuly2012,respectively.Twomeetingsofthe
NPSCwereheld(May2012andJanuary2013)andthreemeetingsoftheSPSC(August2012,
April2013andNovember2013).
• TheheadoftheMangroveCellbecamethenodalofficerfortheprojectwithdelegated
powers.
• Theproject’slandscape-levelPMUwasestablished,withstaffinMumbaiandinMalvan.
Theprojectalsotookstepstocreatetwonewinstitutionsintendedtosupportthecross-sectoral,
conservation,anddevelopmentoftheSindhudurgcoastoverthelongterm.First,ithasestablisheda
localcross-sectoralStakeholderCommittee,whichhasmetthreetimes.Althoughcurrentlydrivenby
theMangroveCellandtheproject,thiscommitteehasthepotentialtoanchortheproject’sultimate
objectivewithinlocalpeople,localdecisionmakers,andlocalforces.Second,theprojecthastaken
stepstoestablishthe“CoastalandMarineBiodiversityConservationFoundationofMaharashtra”
(henceforthreferredtoassimplythe“Foundation”).Theprojecthassecuredhigh-levelstatesupport
forthisFoundationandhasinitiatedtheprocesstoitsformalestablishment.ThisFoundation,if
well-conceivedandfunded,couldprovidecross-sectoralsupporttobiodiversityconservationalong
theMaharashtracoasts,includingSindhudurg.
Finally,theprojecthasalsotakenstepstoamendrelevantstateandnationalregulationsand
legislation.TheprojectidentifiedgapsintheWildlife(Protection)Actpertinenttoconservingthe
SindhudurgCoastalandMarineEcosystemandproposedamendments,whicharenowunderofficial
review.Thesearetoensurethattheactadequatelycoversmarineandcoastalwildlifeandthatit
canallowfortheestablishmentofprotectedareasbeyondthe12-nauticalmilelimitforterritorial
waters.TheprojecthasalsoproposedmodificationstotheMaharashtraMarineFisheryRegulation
Actandisfacilitatingtheiradoption.ThisistoensurethattheMaharashtraMarineFishery
RegulationActincorporatesbiodiversityconcerns,andincorporatesthebestpracticesidentified
undertheprojectrelatedtonetmeshesandjuvenileexclusion.
Thedistrictgovernmentseesthekeyroleoftheprojectasdemonstratingthatenvironmental
sustainabilitycanbeeffectivelymainstreamedintolivelihoodimprovementstrategies.Thismustbe
linkedwithstategovernmentpolicies,toensurebetterapproachesinfuture.Theprojecthadno
stringsattachedtothefundingandallowedexperimentationatthedistrictlevel.Accordingto
governmentofficialsinterviewed,Indiaalreadyhasthepoliciesandexpertise,butnotthe
willingnesstotryinnovation.TheGEFprojectbenefitedfromnothavingtostaywithinexisting
governmentapproaches.Thedistrictwouldliketobuildonthistoenableallstakeholdersinterested
inthenewapproachestobeabletoobtainfunding,sothattheleveloflocalcommunityknowledge
willreachalevelwherepeoplecansustainbetterpracticesontheirown.However,fundingismuch
moreavailableforlivelihoodsactivitiesthanfortheintroductionofscientificknowledgeand
practices.
Counterfactual:GulfofMannarProject
Asastand-aloneactivity,theGulfofMannarProjectlackedanyhigher-levelmanagementand
coordinationstructure.Thismeantthatitschallengeswerenotroutinelyraisedandaddressed.Only
atspecificmoments,suchasthemidtermreview(MTR),weretheyraised,butwithoutsignificant
effectonprojectprocessesandprogress.
84
AmajorissuewithUNDP-CountryOfficeimplementationraisedbytheterminalevaluationisthat
theGEFmoneywasprovidedforconservationactionsto“catalyzethesustainabilityofprotected
areas”andnotundertakeasocialdevelopmentproject. Theterminalevaluationstatesthat“the
UNDP-CountryOfficeshouldhaveremindedthestategovernmentthatitsignedacontractwithGEF
tothateffectandtakenstepstoreorienttheprojectbacktoitsoriginalconceptatamuchearlier
stage.”
Throughoutitstenyearsofimplementation,theprojectlackedaproperlogframe.Overall,the
qualityofexecutionwasmixed. Themanagementteamproducedgoodresultsonthegroundwhere
itwasenabledtowork,butatthestatelevel,thegovernmentchangedtheproject’semphasisto
fititsownideasofwhatwasneeded,and,therefore,environmentalresultswereinadequate.The
projectintentionwastoestablishasingularcoordinatingstructurefortheBiosphereReservealong
withasustainablefundingmechanismtoenableittoundertakeconservationactivities.However,
theprojectconcentratedonthelivelihoodandprotectionaspectsattheexpenseofthehigher-level
policyandinstitutionalchangesthataccordingtotheterminalevaluation“werenecessaryand
expected,andthemanagementactionsthatcouldhaveencouragedthesustaineduseofmarine
resourceshavebeenlargelyoverlooked”(terminalevaluation,P.64).
Projectoversightwasconfusedandgenerallypoor.Therisk-aversestrategynegativelyimpactedthe
project,bynottakinginnovativestepsoninstitutionalandpolicyreform,goinginsteadformore
easilyimplementedactivitiesonprotectionandsocioeconomicdevelopment.
Overall,governanceandmanagementstructuresandsystemshavenotsurvivedthetransitionfrom
projecttonational,state,anddistrictownershipandtheevaluationmissiondidnotseeevidenceof
coherentcontinuationofworktowardtheproject’sobjectives.
Question6:WhatroledidM&Eplayinprograms’adaptivemanagementfortheattainmentofexpectedoutcomesandimpacts?
EGREEProject
Monitoringisbeingconductedbyeachofthethreespecialistsoftheprojectimplementationunit,
andconsolidatedandreportedinacomprehensivemannerbytheprojectcoordinator.Additionally,
theprojectdocumentsprovideagreatvarietyofrelevantdata,includingbiophysicalparametersof
theareaandsocioeconomicdatarelevanttocommunitiesandtheprivatesector.
Whereasanindividualprojectcaneasilygoofftrack,(forexample,underpressurefromthestate
governmentorthedistrictcollector’soffice)theNSChastheauthoritytoensurethatprogram
componentsmeettheirobjectives.AnAgencysuchasUNDPdoesnothavethenetworktoensure
performance,onlyhigh-levelcontactswithcentralgovernmentcandothis.TheNSCisthemain
bodythatensuresthatthereisregularmonitoringandthattheprojectsareopentoeffective
scrutiny.
MalvanCoastProject
TheMTRobservesmanygoodexamplesofadaptivemanagement.Thefirst,andmostsignificant,
relatestotheoverallprojectstrategy.Theprojectdocumentdescribesaclassicimplementation
strategyofdatacollection,studies,planning,andtrainingfollowedbytheimplementationofsite-
levelactionsandmultilevelcapacitybuilding.UndertheguidanceoftheMangroveCell,theproject
adoptedadifferentstrategy.Becauseofoppositionfromlocalpeople,itwasfeltthattheproject
shouldfirstfocusonestablishingandfosteringadialoguewithcommunitiesandbuildingcommunity
trust.Hence,thefocushasbeenmoreonsite-levellivelihoodandconservationinterventions,witha
85
strategyofbuildingdialoguearoundthese.Onlyafterthesestepsareachieveddoesitmakesenseto
undertakestrategicplanningandinstitutionalcapacitybuilding.Thiswasamajorchangeinproject
strategyandagoodexampleofadaptivemanagement.However,itisnotdocumentedinthe
recordsofmanagementmeetings.
Overall,thereislittleevidenceoftheprojectlogicalframeworkbeingusedasamanagementtool.
Activitiesweremostlyidentifiedfromthebottomupandthendiscussed,appraised,andapproved
onaone-by-onebasisbytheEuropeanCommission,theSPSC,andtheNPSC.Theminutesofthe
EuropeanCommission,SPSC,andtheNPSCshowthatthemeritsofeachactivitywerethoroughly
discussed,buttheiralignmenttotheoutcomes,outputs,andindicatorsintheprojectlogical
frameworkisnotmentioned,northeiralignmenttotheannualworkplan.Bycontrast,theannual
workplansarebasedalmostentirelyonthelogicalframeworkintheprojectdocument.Thetwosets
ofprioritiesareverydifferent.Theannualworkplanprioritiesarecloselylinkedtotheresults
frameworkoftheprojectdocument,whereastheSPSCprioritiesareclearlylinkedtosite-levelneeds
andopportunities.
AlthoughprogressreportsprovidealistofachievementsandPIRstotheGEF,thereislittleevidence
ofdetailedmonitoringattheprojectoutcomelevel.Adaptivemanagementhasbeengood,but
planninghasbeendrivenmorebygroundrealitiesthantheprojectdocument.Theformal
documentingofmanagementdiscussionsanddecisionsisincomplete.
Coordinationofthetwoprojectsisintendedtobeundertakenbyusingabudgetof$0.45million
undertheGodavariproject.Sincethisbudgetisintendedtocoverabroadrangeofactivities,suchas
establishingajointdatabase,M&Esystem,outreach,andcommunicationactivities,itisclearthat
theseareasareunlikelytobeverysubstantial.Theydonotappearatallinthemidtermreviewofthe
Godavariproject,althoughtheyarefundedfromthissource,andthereisnoMTRoftheprogramas
awhole.
Asnotedabove,theNationalProgramCommitteehasrespondedtoprogressandchallengesofthe
twoprojectsonthebasisofreportspresentedtoitdirectly,ratherthanbyanysystematicuseof
M&Edata.Thereisnoevidencefromdocumentarysourcesorproject-levelinterviewsthatthe
intendedprogramM&Esystemisfunctional,and,certainly,ithasnotbeenusedeithernationallyor
bytheUNDP.
Counterfactual:GulfofMannarProject
Overall,M&Eimplementationwasmoderatelyunsatisfactory.Goodprogresswasmadeon
monitoring,includingstronginternalactivitymonitoring,butthishadlimitedimpactonproject
implementation,andtherewereconsiderableissueswiththelogframeandadaptivemanagement.
Althoughtheprojectwasapprovedin1999,itonlystartedin2002.Despitethisgap,therewasno
inceptionworkshop,and,therefore,thelogframewasnotrevised.Duringthefirstmeetingofthe
ProjectBoardofTrusteesin2002,theimplementationstrategywasfundamentallychangedto
concentrateonlyonawarenessraisingandlivelihoodsdevelopmentforthecoastalvillage
communities,butthelogicalframework,budget,andtimetablewerenotchanged.Evenbythetime
ofthemidtermreviewin2008,thismajorchangehadnotbeenformallyapproved.Althoughthelog
framewasrevisedin2006,noneofthechangeswereeverformallyendorsedformanagement
purposes.
TheMTEmadeitclearthattheprojectwassubstantiallyoff-track,inthatitwasnotconnectingits
community-basedsocioeconomicsupportactivitieswiththeintendedincreaseinlocal
environmentalprotectioncommitment.However,thismessagewasignoredandthesamejudgement
86
wasmadestronglyintheterminalevaluation.ItcanthereforebesaidthattheM&Esystemhadlittle
ornoeffectontheproject’sadaptivemanagement.
4.2.4 OverviewofDifferencesBetweenProgrammaticandStand-AloneProjects
AsummaryofthemaindifferencesthatemergedbycomparingtheEGREEandMalvalCoast
programmaticprojectswiththeTamilNaducounterfactualprojectisprovidedhere.
1. Theobjectiveoftheprogrammaticapproachpromotedchildprojects,whichhadasimilardesign
tothemuchearliercounterfactualproject.Allprojectsrecognizetheneedtoaddress
institutional,systems,andcommunity-leveldimensionsofenvironmentalmanagement.The
mainobjectiveofthe4-yearprogramistodemonstratemultisectoralapproachesto
mainstreamingbiodiversityconservationobjectivesintoeconomicactivitiesintwomarine
ecoregionsofthecountry.
Bypilotingthemainstreamingofbiodiversityconservationobjectivesintoproductionsectorsofthe
coastalzonethroughtwoprojects,itisenvisagedthattheprogramwillprovideabroadersetof
experiencesthancanbeobtainedfromindividualprojectsforfurtherreplicationbythegovernment.
Theprogram’sstrategyformainstreamingconsistsofthreecomponents,asfollows:
• Atthesystemslevel,topromotemainstreamingofcoastalandmarinebiodiversity
conservationintosectoralpoliciesandaknowledgemanagementsystem.
• Attheinstitutionallevel,topromoteinstitutionalcapacitydevelopmentbystrengthening
humanresourcecapacities.
• Atthecommunitylevel,topromotesustainablecommunitylivelihoodsandnatural
resourceuseinthebufferzonesofmarineprotectedareasandotherareasofhigh
biodiversityvalue.
TheseprogramobjectivesandstrategiesaresimilartothoseofthemuchearlierGulfofMannar
CounterfactualProject,buthavegreateremphasisonthesystemsandinstitutionallevels.
2. Themanagementstructureoftheprogram,withbothnationalandstatesteeringcommittees,
gaveitsprojectssupervisionandsupporttokeepthemontracktomeettheirenvironmental
objectives,despitelocal-levelpressuretofocusonlivelihoodimprovementasanobjectivein
itself.Thecounterfactualprojectvirtuallyabandoneditsenvironmentalobjectivefromanearly
stageunderguidanceofitsstatesteeringcommitteeandbecameasocioeconomicdevelopment
projectwithminimalenvironmentalinterests.Theabsenceofnational-levelsupervisionand
guidanceofferedbyaprogramstructurewasadecisivedimensiontheproject’sfailuretomeet
itsoriginalobjectives.
3. Intermsofdeliveringbroader-scaleandlonger-termenvironmentaloutcomescomparedwith
stand-aloneprojects,bothchildprojectshavemadeprogresstowardstrongerinstitutionaland
systemicframeworksforenvironmentalmanagement,whereasthestand-aloneprojectdidnot.
InGodavari,theEGREEFoundationhashadsubstantialsuccessinbringingprivatesectorbodies
intotheenvironmentalprotectionarena,whiletheCoastalandMarineBiodiversityFoundation
ofMaharashtraislessadvanced,butexpectstotargetsimilarstakeholders.Inthecounterfactual
projectarea,theGulfofMannarBiosphereReserveTrustwasestablished,butithasnotplayeda
strongroleinenvironmentalmanagementandhasbeenineffectivesinceprojectclosure.Both
87
thechildandstand-aloneprojectshavedevotedmuchoftheirattentiontostrengthening
community-levellivelihoods,butthecounterfactualprojecthasnotgonefarbeyondthiswhile
bothchildprojectshavefocusedonabroaderrangeofstakeholdersintheproductionlandscape.
4. Bothprogrammaticchildprojectshaveinformednationalpolicyactions.TheGodavariproject
promotedtheinclusionofaChapteronCoastalandMarineProtectedAreaConservationinthe
nationalWildlifeActionPlan(2016‒2030),whiletheMalvanprojectinfluencedchangesinthe
MarineProtectedAreaLaw.Thisabilitytoinfluencenational-levelinstrumentsisattributedto
theabilitytoescalateknowledgeofprojectapproachesandresultsthroughinfluentialmembers
oftheNationalSteeringCommittee.UNDP-CountryOfficeclaimedthatthecounterfactual
project“contributedtolargerpolicyprocesses,”butisnotspecificastohoworinwhatmanner.
5. Thechildprojectsbothtargetedkeydriversofenvironmentaldegradationdirectly.Godavarihad
aparticularfocusontheprivatesectorindustry(energyandagriculturerelated),whileMalvan
targetedagriculture,fisheries,andtourism.Thecounterfactualprojecttargetedcommunity-
levelfoodandenergyproductionactivities,butdidnotinteractwiththeimportantindustrial-
levelstakeholdersinthesesectors.
6. Thenationalsteeringcommitteesfortheprogramchildprojectshavenotonlylinkedthemupto
national-levelinstitutionsandpolicies,buthavealsogivengreatvisibilityatthedistrictlevel,
whichhasbeeninstrumentalingeneratingsupportfromkeyofficials,suchasdistrictcollectors.
Ownershiphasthereforebeenstrongatseveralkeylevels. Forthecounterfactual,thestate
governmentestablishedownership,butdidsobyfocusingonlivelihoodbenefitstothevirtual
exclusionoftheproject’senvironmentalobjective.
7. Bothoftheprogram’schildprojectshadobjectiveswhichwerecoherentwiththeoverall
programdirection.Theearliercounterfactualprojecthadsimilarobjectivesandprovidedsome
inputsrelevanttothelaterprogramdesign.
8. Governanceandmanagementofthechildprojectshavebeenoverseenbythenationalsteering
committees,whichhavehelpedtoensurethattheycontinuetofocusontheirenvironmental
objectivesandthattheyfeedintobroadernationalprocesses.Thisstrongsupporthaspromoted
district-levelparticipationingovernance,whichhasbeenparticularlyimportantforfield-level
delivery.Thecounterfactualprojectlackedanoverarchinghigher-levelmanagementand
coordinationstructureanddidnotaddressthechallengesraised,forexamplebyitsmidterm
review,leadingtoitsoverallpoorperformanceintermsoftheoriginalenvironmentobjectives,
whichattractedGEFfunding.
9. Forthechildprojects,monitoringandevaluationinformationisreportedtothenational
steeringcommittees,whichhaveplayedanimportantroleinkeepingthemontrack.Itappears
thatprogressandresultsofactivitiesareconsideredintermsoftheircontributiontowardbroad
projectobjectives,ratherthanthroughconsistentuseoftheprojectlogframesordocuments.The
counterfactualprojectwasgovernedatstatelevelthroughaprojectboard,whichpaidlittle
attentiontoeithertheoriginalprojectdocumentortothemidtermreview.Asaresult,the
projectdeviatedsubstantiallyfromitsoriginalintentionsanddidnotdeliveritsenvironmental
objectives.
10. Overall,childprojectsundertheIndiaGEFCoastalandMarineProgramhaveperformed
88
substantiallybetterintermsofmeetingtheirenvironmentalobjectivesthandidthe
counterfactualproject.Themostimportantfactorinthishasbeentheattentionofhigh-level
nationalsteeringcommittees,whichhavehelpedtheprojectstostayontrackandhavelinked
theirsuccessestonational-levelarenas,includingpolicyandstrategyformulation.In
comparison,thecounterfactualprojectwastakenoverbystategovernmentandwaseffectively
reorientedtobecomealivelihoodsprojectwithminimalenvironmentallinkagesorresults.It
canalsobeobservedthatthepresenceofthesenationalcommitteeshasraisedtheimportance
oftheprojectswiththeGEFAgency,ascomparedwiththecounterfactualprojectthat
(accordingtoitsterminalevaluation)receivedinadequateAgencysupervision,whichallowedit
todivertawayfromitsGEFobjectiveandoutcomes.
89
4.3CaseStudy:
MENA-DesertEcosystemsandLivelihoodsProgram
4.3.1 IntroductiontotheMENA-DELP
AccordingtothePFD,thegoaloftheMiddleEastandNorthAfrica‒DesertEcosystemsand
LivelihoodsProgram(MENA-DELP)istocontributetotheenhancementoflivelihoodsindesert
ecosystemsbyharnessingtheirvalueinanenvironmentallyandsociallysustainablemannersothat
theflowofdesertgoodsandservicescanbeoptimized.Accordingtotheprojectappraisal
document,“GEFfinancingleveragedthroughtheMENA-DELPwillenableinterestedcountriesinthe
regiontooperationalizetheirexistingorplannedinvestmentsindesertecosystems.”
Theprogramoriginallyconsistedoffiveprojects,asshowninfigure4.8.TheMENA-DELP
programmaticapproachincludedthethemesofthefourparticipatingcountryprojectsandofa
regionalproject.
MENA-DELPObjectives:
1. Toenhancedesertlivelihoods2. Toimprovemanagementofproductionsystems
3. Toconservedesertbiodiversity4. Tobuildanenablingenvironment
Figure4.8.MENA-DELPprogrammaticapproach.
Theprogramismulticountryandmultifocal,withanoriginaltotalof$20,191,360ofGEFfunding,
whichwasmainlybasedonactivitiesintendedtotakeplaceinAlgeriaandEgypt.Itwasintendedto
bethepilotphaseofalargerprogram,withanestimatedten-yearduration.TheWorldBankisits
implementingagency.Aregionalumbrellaproject,designedwithabudgetof$1million(atthe
recommendationoftheSecretariatoftheGEF),isintendedtoenhanceknowledgeandexperience
sharingonopportunitiesforenhancingdesertlivelihoodsamongtheparticipatingpilotcountries.
Thiswillincludedisseminationoflessonslearnedfromselectpilotsineachcountry,the
developmentofavisitingprofessorsprogram,andtheorganizationofworkshopstobringtogether
desertinstitutes,government,andotherkeystakeholdersfromtheparticipatingcountriesto
Algeria
-Agro-biodiversity
Egypt
-Agro-biodiversity
Jordan Morocco
-Agro-biodiversity
agro-foodchain
90
facilitatethedevelopmentofrelatedpolicyguidanceonintegratingbiodiversitymanagementand
solidandliquidwastemanagementdimensionsintorespectiveproductionsectors.
TheMENA-DELPwasnotimplementedasdesigned,sinceAlgeria,whichplayedaleadingroleinits
designprocess,droppedoutoftheprogrambeforeitstarted.Anotheroftheintendedparticipants,
Egypt,alsodidnottakepart.Toretaintheregionalnatureoftheprogram,theWorldBankintroduced
twoprojectsinTunisia,whichwerenotincludedintheoriginalPFD.SincethegoalofMENA-DELPis
verybroad,itdidnotprovedifficulttoincorporatethesenewactivities.
4.3.2ActivitiesintheMainParticipatingCountries
Jordan—BadiaEcosystemandLivelihoodProject
TheprojectisfinancedthroughaGEFgranttotaling$3,330,555.Cofinancingistobeprovidedbythe
governmentandotherbodiesuptoanexpectedtotalamountof$11.348million.
TheJordanBadiacomprises80percentofthecountry’sterritoryandisdividedintonorthern,middle,
andsouthernregions.ThesouthernandnorthernBadia,whichareincludedintheproject,provide
themainsourceoflivelihoodforabout240,000people,15includingnomadic,seminomadic,and
settledcommunitieswholargelydependonraisinglivestockforaliving.
Theprojectdevelopmentobjectiveistosupportsustainablelivelihoodsandenhanceecosystem
servicesthroughparticipatoryapproachesinselectedareasoftheJordanBadia.Theapproaches
adoptedaresubstantiallydifferentbetweenthenorthernandsouthernBadiaareascovered.
ThethreeGEF-supportedcomponentsoftheBadiaEcosystemandLivelihoodProject(BELP)areas
follows:
• AdaptiveRangelandManagementandAlternativeLivelihoodsSupportintheSouthern
Badia$1.43million
• Community-CenteredEcotourismintheNorthernBadia$1.47million
• ProjectManagementandMonitoringandEvaluation$0.43million
TheintendedrelationshipbetweenBELPandtheMENA-DELPisnotveryexplicitintheproject
appraisaldocument,whichstatesthat“theprojecttaskteamwillcollaboratewiththeothertask
teamstomaximizethesynergiesbetweentheprojectandtheoverallprogram.”
Solidarity-BasedIntegratedAgricultureinMorocco
GEFfinancingof$7millionwascommittedtotheprojectasfollows:
• Landdegradationfocalarea:$3.7million
• Biodiversityfocalarea:$3.3million
Theprojectdevelopmentobjectiveistoincreasetheimplementationoflandandbiodiversity
conservationmeasuresinselectedprojectsdirectedtosmallfarmerslocatedintargetedmarginal
areas.TheprojectobjectiveistopromotethemainstreaminginthePlanMarocVertofanapproach
15HashemiteFundfortheDevelopmentoftheJordanBadiaand2007Census.
91
basedonsolidarityamongsmallfarmersandhorizontalintegrationamongagro-foodchains,in
marginalaridandsemi-aridregionsofMorocco.
Regardingtheoliveagro-foodchain,theSolidarity-basedIntegratedAgricultureinMorocco(ASIMA)
willfinancetheconstructionofstate-of-the-artdryingpitstoavoidlossofwetpomace(residues)in
thewaterbodies.Inthespiritofhorizontalintegrationamongagro-foodchains,thepomaces,once
driedandtreated,couldbeusedasfertilizer,animalfeed,andcombustion.TheASIMAwillcoverthe
incrementalcostsfortheconstructionofthetransformationunits,aswellasforthecapacity
developmentofadequatetechnicalknow-howatalocallevel.Inaddition,topromotethe
conservationofthescarcewaterresourcesinthearidandsemi-aridregions,theASIMAwillfinance
water-savingtechnologieslikedeficitirrigationandrainwaterharvesting.
Concerningthecactusagro-foodchain,theASIMAwillfinancetheconstructionoftransformation
unitsfortheuseoftheplantbeyondthetraditionalfruitproduction.Thecactusplantcanbeusedto
produceanimalfeed,cosmeticproducts,andcombustion.
Forthesheepagro-foodchain,theASIMAwillfinancetheproductionofhighlynutritious,locally
producedanimalfeedtakingadvantageofthehorizontalintegrationwitholiveandcactusagro-food
chains.Withinasustainablegrazingandrangelandmanagementframework,thiswillreducethe
grazingpressure,theriskoferosion,anddesertification.
Regardingthearomaticandmedicinalplantsagro-foodchain,theASIMAwillfinancethecultivation
andthetransformationunitsforlocaltypicalplants.Thetransformationunits(i.e.,dryingunits)
couldtakeadvantageoftheuseofcogenerationopportunitiesresultingfromtheoliveandcactus
agro-foodchains.Thereducedgrazingpressureresultingfromtheuseofby-productsforthefeeding
oftheanimalscanalleviatethepressureonnaturalbiodiversity.Thedevelopmentofanagro-food
chainthattypicallyinvolveswomencansupportamoresocialintegration.
ProjectsinTunisia
TheoriginalPFDdidnotproposeanyprojectsforTunisia.However,withthewithdrawalofEgypt
andAlgeriafromtheprogramandthelocationoftheregionalprojectinTunisia,theopportunitywas
takentoincludetwoactivities.
Thetwoprojects,whicharenowpartoftheMENA-DELPprogram,aretheConservationofOases
ProjectandtheEcotourisminProtectedAreasProject.
TheConservationofOasesProjectreceived$5.7millionfromGEF.Itpromotesthesustainableuseof
naturalresourcesandimprovementoflivelihoodsinallfourregionsofthecountry,throughone
pilotoasisineach(exceptthatoneregionhasthreepilots,sincetherearethreeoasesinone
ecosystem).GEFfinancingisasfollows:
Componentname Cost($million)
Strengtheningcapacitiesforsustainablemanagementof
oasisecosystems
1
,
3
0
6
,
8
3
0
Supporttheimplementationofoasisparticipatory
developmentplans
4
,
6
7
4
,
0
0
0
ProjectCoordinationandManagement 3
5
7
,
9
0
0
ThesecondprojectistheEcotourismandConservationofDesertBiodiversityProject.Thishasatotal
GEFfundingof$4,270,000,forthefollowingcomponents:
92
• Promotingenablingconditionsforprotectedareamanagement,SLMscaleup,and
ecotourismdevelopment:(cost$1.56million)
• SupportingtheimplementationofINRMintargetedNPsandtheiradjacentareas:(cost
$2.51million)
• Projectmanagement:(cost:$0.20million)
TheprojectappraisaldocumentplacesitinthecontextoftheearlierGEF‒WorldBankMENARID
(IntegratedNatureResourcesManagementintheMiddleEastandNorthAfricaRegion)Program;
whilementioning“linkagesto”MENA-DELP,mainlyintermsofknowledgesharing.WorldBankPIRs
donotfocusatallontheproject’srelationshiptoMENA-DELP.
TheevaluationmissionwasinformedthattheOasisProjecthasmademoresubstantialprogressthan
theEcotourisminterventionanditsdiscussionsthereforefocusedonthemoreactiveproject,to
understanditsrelationshipwiththeMENA-DELP.
RegionalProject:MENA-DesertEcosystemsandLivelihoodsKnowledgeSharingandCoordination
Project
Theproposedregionalprojectobjectivesaretwo-fold:
1. toensureprogram-levelcoordination,includingtrackingthedeliveryofmeasurableproject
andprogramoutcomesandresults;and
2. topromoteknowledgeandexperienceexchangesthroughorganizedworkshopsbetween
differentprojectsundertheprogram.
Theumbrellaproject,designedforabudgetof$1million(attherecommendationoftheSecretariat
oftheGEFanddrawnfromalanddegradationset-aside),aimstoenhanceknowledgeandexperience
sharingonopportunitiesforenhancingdesertlivelihoodsamongthefourparticipatingpilot
countries.Thiswillincludedisseminationoflessonslearnedfromselectpilotsineachcountry,the
developmentofavisitingprofessorsprogram,andtheorganizationofworkshopstobringtogether
desertinstitutes,government,andotherkeystakeholdersfromtheparticipatingcountriesto
facilitatethedevelopmentofrelatedpolicyguidanceonintegratingbiodiversitymanagementand
solidandliquidwastemanagementdimensionsintorespectiveproductionsectors.Thisregional
projectwouldalsobuildthecapacityofoneinstitutetotakealeadershiproleonprogram-level
informationflow(includingM&E),sothatthereplicationpotentialofgoodpracticesisenhanced.At
thetimeofthePFD,thisinstitutionhadnotbeenselected.
4.3.3 FindingsQuestion1:TowhatextenthasthedifferenttypologiesofGEFprogramsdeliveredtheintendedresultsintermsofbroader-scaleandlonger-termenvironmentaloutcomesandimpactscomparedwithstand-aloneprojects?
Program
Theoriginalprogramconceptdidnothavespecificfocuses,forwhicharegion-wideapproachwasto
beadoptedandmonitored.Rather,JordanandMoroccofedintotheMENA-DELPprojects,whichhad
alreadybeendesignedaspartoftheirnationalenvironmentalactivities.Tunisia,whichwasnot
specifiedintheoriginalprogramdesign,waschosentocoordinatetheregionalprogramthrougha
regionalumbrellaproject.WithassistancefromtheWorldBank,thecountrydevisedtwonational
93
projectstobeincludedaspartofMENA-DELP.Thesewerenotintheoriginalprogramandarenot
recordedintheGEFdatabaseaspartoftheMENA-DELP.
Overall,theMENA-DELPisacollectionofindividualnationalprojects,looselyrelatedtoeachother
througharegionalumbrellaproject.Theircoherenceintheprogramintermsofenvironmental
objectivesisverygeneric—theyareallattemptingtoharnessanaridorsemi-aridlandscapefor
environmentallysustainabledevelopment.Thereisnoevidencethatthereareanymultiplicative
benefitsfromtheirparticipationintheregionalprogram.Theoutcomesandpotentialimpactsof
MENA-DELParethereforenotdifferentfromthoseofthenationalprojects,apartfromsome
aggregateM&Edataandexperiencesharingandlessonlearningamongtheprogramparticipants,
oftenincludingthetwocountrieswhichdroppedoutofimplementationbeforetheprogramstarted.
Overall,theresultsofMENA-DELParenotdemonstrablybroaderscaleorlongertermthanthey
wouldhavebeenthroughtheimplementationofasetofstand-aloneprojects.
BELP
TheMTRfortheJordanBadiaprojectassessesthatsustainabilityofitsresultsislikelyattributableto
theinstitutionalmeasuresthathavebeenputinplace.Specifically,theRoyalSocietyforthe
ConservationofNature(RSCN),whichisimplementationecotourisminNorthernBadia,isa
recognizednationalandregionalleaderinecotourism,andinaccordancewithitsmandate,itis
expectedthatitwillsuccessfullyoperatetheAzraq-Burqucorridorfortheforeseeablefuture,inthe
samewayasitcurrentlyoperatesotherecotourisminterventionsthatithasestablishedacrossthe
country.
TheRSCNhasahistoryofcollaborationwithGEFthroughstand-aloneprojects,whichhaveplayed
animportantroleinhelpingittoscaleupitsconservationapproachesandmakethemsustainable.
RSCNhasaprojectmanagerrunningitsBELPcomponent,whichisintegratedwithitsbroaderworkin
thecountry.TheonlysignificantdifferencefromitsotheractivitiesisthatitmustuseWorldBank
financialandreportingprocedures.AlthoughBELPisasubprojectofDELP,RSCNtreatsitsBELP
componentasastand-aloneproject,forwhichitisresponsible.Furthermore,RSCNregardsthe
NorthernBadiaactivityitisimplementingascompletelydifferentfromtherangelandmanagement
andhafirs(reservoirs)workunderBELPintheSouthernBadia.Therefore,itdoesnotconsiderthe
BELPasacoherentpackage—eventhetypesofcommunitiesinvolvedinitstworegionsare
completelydifferent.
IntheSouthBadiaprojectcomponent,ownershipandresponsibilitiesforthehafirsandrange
reserveshavebeendefinedandframedinwateruseandgrazingagreementssignedbythe
communities.Theaccompanyingmanagementplansfortheseagreementswilldefineinmoredetail
themodalitiesforthemanagementandmaintenanceoftheseassets.Therefore,theWorldBank
MTRanticipatesthatthispartoftheBadiaprojectwillalsogeneratesustainablebenefits.
Overall,governmentregardsGEFassupportingthenationalcommitmenttoenvironmental
managementbyactingasafunderofnewideas,whichcanbetestedbeforeotherdonorscomein
oncetheyseethattherearegoodresults.Aregionalapproachneedsverydifferentthinkinganda
newperspective,butfromthegovernment’sperspective,DELPseemstobeasetofrepiloting
activitiesofsinglecountries,whichhavealreadybeendone.
Toassesstheenvironmentalchangeresultingfromprojectactivitiesonthelocalecosystem,a
geospatialanalysiswasconductedforthreeofthefourBadiaprojectsites,investigatingspatial-
temporalpatternsofvegetation.TheresultsfortheBayerReserve,theAlHashemiahReserveand
theAlHuseiniehReserveshowasignificantincreaseinvegetationcoversince2013(figure4.9).
94
Figure4.9.DailyNDVIoftheBayer,AlHashemiah,andAlHuseiniehreservesfrom2000to2016.
Figure4.10presentstheinterannualvegetationtrendNDVIdecomposedfromdailyMODISsatellite
measurementsat250mresolutionobservedfortheAlHashemiahReserve.Theaveragesummer
vegetationindexin2015increasedabout0.01since2012forthethreereservesaltogether.
Figure4.10.Timeseriesdecompositionof the interannual trendofdailyNDVIshowingtheoverallvegetationtrendforthethreereserves.
BayerResreve
AlHashemiahReserve
AlHuseiniehReserve
95
Becauseofalackofcounterfactualsites,thevegetationproductivityinsidethethreereserveswas
comparedwiththeadjacentareasoutsideofthereserveboundary,andresultsshowthatvegetation
significantlyimprovedinsidetherangereserve.Figure4.11showsthechangethatoccurredintheAl
HasemiahReserve.
Figure4.11.ComparingtheaverageMay-AugNDVIfortheAlHashemiahReservebetween2013and2015.
PositiveenvironmentalchangesareattributabletotheBELPproject.However,withoutasuitable
counterfactualitisnotpossibletoassesswhethertheBELPwouldhaveachievedthesameorlower
resultsifitwouldhavebeenimplementedasastand-aloneproject.Asamatteroffact,basedonthe
experiencetodate,theevaluationfindsthatBELP’sparticipationinMENA-DELPhasmadeatbesta
marginalcontributiontodeliveringlonger-termandbroader-scaleenvironmentaloutcomesand
impactsthanthosethatwouldhavebeengeneratedfromastand-aloneproject.Thescalingup
intentionsarealreadybuiltintoexistinggovernmentapproaches,aswellasthoseofitsnational
implementingpartners,inabroadrangeofnationally-sponsoredactivities,someofwhichare
substantiallylargerthanMENA-DELPinthecountry.
ASIMA
TheASIMAProjecthasfacedmanyconstraints.Inparticular,delaysinthereleaseofthebudgetby
thegovernmentmadeitdifficulttogetstarted.ASIMAhaseightsubprojects,mainlyinregionswith
scarcelandavailabilityandmanypoorpeople.Theconstructionofproduct-processingunitswas
oftenheldupbecausenolandwasavailableand,inanycase,theprojecthadnobudgettopurchase
land.Thereweremajorissuesaroundlandacquisitionandprocurementforconstruction;therefore,
theearlyfocuswasverymuchonawarenessraising.Thishasbecomeabigstrength.
96
Nationalagenciesimplementingtheprojecthadweakcapacity,particularlyinprocurement,which
causedlongdelays.TheWorldBankhadfrequentcontactwiththeseagenciesandthefiduciary
teambasedinRabatconductedmuchtraininginMorocco.Projectimplementationunitsneeded
supportandfollowupfromthegovernment.Themidtermreviewledtothedevelopmentofa
comprehensiveactionplan.
SinceDecember2017isthescheduledclosure,manyoliveandcactusprocessingunitswillhave
beenoperationalforonlyoneyearbythen,andresultsmaynotbeashighasexpected.However,
outputsintheoliveindustrycouldbescaledupthroughoutMorocco.
AccordingtothenationalAgricultureDevelopmentAgency,MENA-DELPhasenabledthesharingof
experienceonhowtomanagedesertareas.TheprojectshavedifferentapproachestoM&E,butthe
programshouldbeabletousetheknowledgegatheredoveralltopromotebetterownershipbycivil
societyandbeneficiaries,whichcouldinturngeneratebiggerresults.
Thenationalimplementingbodyseesthemaindifferencebetweenaprogramandaprojectasthe
possibilitytoavoidmistakesothershavemade,byknowledgesharingandlessonlearning.
TheASIMAProjectinMoroccoispartofthehugePlanMarocVertanditsmainimplementingand
reportingresponsibilitiesarewithinthecontextoftheplan.Thereisnoevidenceofamajorimpetus
toresultsfromparticipationinMENA-DELP.
TunisiaProjects
TunisiadevelopedtwoprojectstofillthegapcreatedbytheabsenceofAlgeriaandEgypt,whichhad
bothplayedamajorroleintheMENA-DELPdesign.Theprojectsarebothself-containedanddonot
appeartohavederivedsignificantbenefitsfromparticipatingintheprogram,whichmighthelp
generatemoresubstantialordurableresults.ThemissionfocusedontheOasesProject,whichhas
mademoreprogressthantheEcotourismProject.
TheOasesProjectisfocusedonsustainabledevelopmentofoasesinTunisia.Itorganizedworkshops
withresidentsofoasesandhelpedbuildanationalstrategyfromthecommunitiesup.Thiswas
validatedbyathree-dayworkshop.Sixoasesareservingaspilots.Thenationalimplementingagency
isnotleadingimplementation,whichisbeingmanagedbyNGOs,incollaborationwiththelocal
administration.LocalMinistryofAgricultureunitscollaboratedandoversawwhatthelocal
populationchosetoimplement.Underthisapproach,NGOs,communities,andlocalunitsof
ministriesworktogetheratadecentralizedlevel,withdecentralizedprocurement.Nowthenational
ministrywantstodevelopanationaloasisprojectbasedontheWorldBankdecentralizedmodel.
TheTunisia5-YearActionPlannowincludesanOasisProgramthatbuildsontheMENA-DELPProject,
whichhasrebuilttrustbetweenlocalcommunitiesandtheministry.Thisdoesnotadoptanincome-
generatingactivityapproach,butavaluechainone.Itisnotenoughjusttoraiseskills—thereisa
needtoidentifythemarketfirstandthenraisethecapacityoffarmerstomeetwhatitneeds.The
privatesectorhasbeenengagedinadvisingoninitiativesandasacofinancier.
Theapproachofnationalprojectsplusanumbrellaprojectbringssomeadvantages,including
improvedM&E,communications,experienceexchange,andbackstopping.
ManyMENA-DELPactivitieshavebeeneffectiveandcouldbeusedtoprovidebestpracticesforusein
thedesignofanyfutureMENA-DELPphase.Theregionaldimensionisimportant,becauseitprovides
thepossibilityofmakingchangesbasedonexperience.However,inthecaseofMENA-DELPthiswas
notwell-realized,becausetheprojectsweremainlydissimilarfromeachother—somefocusedon
climatechangeadaptation,othersonecotourism,andsoforth.Overall,therehasnotbeenmuch
opportunityfordirectlearningfromexperience.Furthermore,thetimingofprogramshasvaried—
97
somewerefinished,whileothershavejustbegun,andsomewerenotimplementedatall.Thiswas
anothernegative.IftherewereanotherMENA-DELP,participantsfeelthatitshouldfocusona
commonarea,suchaswaterresourcemanagement,sothattherecouldbemoredirectsharingof
experienceandlessons.
Question2:TowhatextenthaveGEFprogramsaddressedthemaindriversofenvironmentaldegradation?
Program
ThemaindriversrecognizedbytheGEFarefoodproduction,building,transportation,andenergy
sectors.InsofarastheMENA-DELPaddressesthese,onlythefoodproductionsectorisamajorfocus.
InMorocco,olivesandcactusesareaddressedthroughavaluechainapproachintheASIMAProject.
Tunisiahassomefocusonfoodproductionandby-productsthroughtheOasisproject,whilethe
JordanBadiaprojecttargetsbenefitsforthelivestocksectorthroughbetterwatermanagement.
BothJordanandTunisiahaveanecotourismfocus,althoughitisnotclearwherethisfitsintheGEF
classificationofdrivers.
Intermsofchildprojectdesign,thedriversaddressedarethoserecognizedasmosturgentineach
countryand/orthosewhichareregardedasinadequatelyaddressedtodate.
BELP
Inthecontextofdriversofenvironmentaldegradation,JordanwouldliketouseitsGEFfundsto
seekanintegratedsolutiontothemanagementofaridlandscapes,combiningwaterharvestingand
rangelandprotection.AlthoughthepracticeofprotectingrangelandareasiscommoninJordan,the
BELPhasbroughtlargerareasundersuchmanagement.
Climatechange,whichisamajorexternaldriveroflanddegradation,isnotdirectlyaprojectfocus;
buttheissuesthattheprojectaddresses,suchaswatershortageandheatwaves,resulttoalarge
extentfromclimatechange.
AlthoughBELPisconsistentwiththeoutcomesexpectedofMENA-DELP,itwouldnotbeaccurateto
saythattheprogramhasplayedamajorroleinshapingtheBELPapproach.Rather,thisapproach
reflectscontinuingnationaldevelopmentpriorities,towhicharangeofinternalandexternal
stakeholdershavecontributed.ThehistoricalGEFactivitiesinJordanhavebeensupportiveofthis
processandhavecontributedtowardit,butthereisnoevidencethatMENA-DELPhasplayeda
majorrole.
ASIMA
Thecountry’sPlanMarocVertsetstargetsforproductionbycommercialandsmall-scalefarmers.
However,itdoesnotdeeplyaddressenvironmentalissues,especially,forexample,thoseassociated
withwastefromoliveproduction.TheWorldBankcountryteamnoticedweaknessesinthe
environmentalapproachandthatthevaluechainsdidnotdealwiththewastemanagementaspects
ofbusinessesthatwerepromoted.Whentheypointedthisouttothegovernment,therewasgreat
interest,whichsupportedthedevelopmentoftheASIMAProject.
98
TunisiaProjects
Tunisianstakeholdersreportedthatexperiencehasbeensharedfromthevariousstudytoursand
workshopsofMENA-DELPandotherregionalprograms.Thus,ithasbecomeclearthatcountriesare
facingsimilarproblems,whichneedlocalactioninformedbybroaderandmorecoherentregional
approaches.However,thegenerationofanapproachtoaddressingtheenvironmentaldegradation
associatedwithfarmingcamefromin-countrydiscussions,withlittleinputfromtheMENA-DELP
concept.
Question3:Whatfactorshaveinfluencedprogramownershipbyparticipatingcountriesandinturntherelevanceofthoseprogramstonationalenvironmentanddevelopmentneedsandpriorities?
Program
MENA-DELPparticipatingcountrieshaveamodestdegreeofownershipoftheprogram,claiming
benefitsfromparticipatingininternationalworkshops(particularlyonM&E,trackingtoolsofthe
GEFsystem,andincome-generatingapproachesinparticipantcountries)andfromshared
experiencesgeneratedbystudytours.Althoughtheprogramsarerelevanttonationalneeds,this
derivesfromtheiroriginaldesignprocessesasnationalprojects,ratherthanfromanydirection
generatedbytheprogram.InthecaseofJordan,forexample,theBadiaprojectwasalreadydesigned
aspartofamuchlargergovernmentprogramandwaslaterfittedintotheMENA-DELPonrequestof
theWorldBank.
BELP
TheBadiaProjectMTRconcludesthattheproject’sdevelopmentobjectiveremainsrelevantand
achievable.Theprogrammaticapproachsoughttoestablishindetailthelevelofownershipand
relevanceoftheMENA-DELPinJordan.Inrelationtothis,thecountrymissionwasinformedthatthe
focalpoint’sofficetriedtoreceivefundingfortheBELPasastand-aloneprojectbutwasadvised“by
GEF”thatitshouldbeincludedinaregionalprogram.Accordingly,theWorldBankdevisedaregional
program,andthegovernment of Jordan had to findways to implement its project in such away
that itmet nationalprioritieswhileconformingtotheprogram.Thegovernmentthereforetailored
someelementsofitsoriginalnationalprojectdesigntofitwiththeprogramstructure.Theprogram
elementhasnotbeenimportantfromtheperspectiveoftheOfficeoftheOperationalFocalPoint
andthisofficedoesnothavesubstantialinteractionwithMENA-DELPactivitiesorprocesses.
AlthoughtheJordanOperationalFocalPointisChairoftheSteeringCommitteeofBELP,the
governmentdoesnotfeelthattheprojecthasastrongemphasisonregionalinteraction.There
wouldneedtobemuchmorefocusonregionalelementsandcooperationifBELPwereintendedto
befullyintegratedintoaprogrammaticapproach.
FromtheperspectiveoftheRoyalSocietyfortheConservationofNature,amajornational
implementingpartner,therewasconsiderableconfusionoverhowitsengagementwouldwork.It
initiallybelievedthatitwouldhaveadirectfundinglinktotheWorldBanktoimplementthe
activitiesoutlinedinitsproposaltoparticipate.Itwaslatertoldthatitsproposalwasincludedinthe
BELP,aspartofMENA-DELP.RSCNplannedafour-yearprojectinput,butthisinitiallylostoneyear
duetoWorldBankstartupprocessesanditwastoldthattherecouldbenoextensiontoallowthis
timetobereplaced.
99
RSCNismandatedtoprotectbiodiversityandhasplanstofulfilthisrole,whichareindependentof
BELPandstillmoresoofDELP.BELPhadtobeshapedtofitnationalprioritiesandnottheotherway
around.ThesustainabilityofBELPresultsinnorthernBadiawillcomefromtheextenttowhichthey
fitinwithRSCN’slong-termplans.Tosomeextent,theWorldBankprojectdesignteamtookaccount
ofthelong-termplansoftheJordanpartnersinputtingBELPtogether.Althoughtherewasa
notionalconnectionbetweenBELPandMENA-DELPatthepreparationstage,RSCNregardsthisas
completelylostduringimplementation.RSCNappointedafocalpointtoworkwithDELP,butit
reportsthattherehasbeenvirtuallynoconnectionwithit.TheonlyconnectionrecalledisthatRSCN
madeapresentationtovisitorsfromTunisiaandMoroccoaspartofaDELPworkshop.RSCNwas
justemailedtomakethepresentation,butreceivednofeedbackwhatsoeverfromDELPafterward.
Duringtheprogramdesignphase,RSCNhadunderstoodthattheprogramwoulddevelopasupport
networkforimplementers,butthishasnotappearedatall.RSCNsubmitsdatatotheBELPPMU,as
partofitsobligationtoDELP,butithasnoideawhatthedataareusedforandreceivesnofeedback.
ThecasestudythereforefindsthatthereislittlenationalownershipinJordanoftheMENA-DELP.
ThisisbecausetheoutlinesoftheBELPprojectwerelargelyalreadydesignedbeforeitbecamepart
oftheMENA-DELPandtheprogramdidnotintroduceanysignificantchangestotheproject.The
programisrelevanttotheBELP,butonlyinthesensethattheintendedoutcomesofthetwoentities
areconsistent.ImplementationdelaysandcomplexitiesintroducedbyparticipationintheMENA-
DELPhave,ifanything,reducedthepossibilityofnationalownershipoftheprogramandhave
encouragedcomponentsoftheBELPprojecttoproceedindependently,tomaximizetheir
possibilitiesofdeliveringasintended.
ASIMA
ThemultifocalnatureoftheASIMAProjecthasmadeitrelevant,becausebothbiodiversityandland
degradationpresentmajorchallengestothecountry.TheWorldBankcountryteamnoticed
weaknessesinthegovernment’sapproachtoenvironmentalmanagementandthatthevaluechains
didnotdealwiththewastemanagementaspectsofthebusinessesthatwerepromoted.Whenthe
Bankpointedthisouttothegovernment,itbecameveryinterested.SinceMoroccoishostingthe
ConferenceoftheParties22,environmenthasnowreceivedhighpriority.TheASIMA’sintentionto
actasapilotfornewapproacheshasenabledittofocusondifferentchallengestoagricultureandthe
environmentinthecountry. Ithasthereforeattractedgoodnationalownershipandthegovernment
hasalreadyrequestedtheWorldBanktoconsiderpotentialGEFfollow-upprojects.Therelevanceof
theprojectisverylooselyrelatedtotheoverallprogram,sincethisbasicallyprovidesaverybroad
framework,intowhichalmostanyenvironmentalactivitiescouldbefitted.
TunisiaProjects
SincethenationalprojectsuseSystemforTransparentAllocationofResources(STAR)funds,they
mustbeanationalpriority.Ontheotherhand,theregionalprojectisonly$1million.Itwas
intendedtobe$12million,butkeptgettingcut.Thereisnotenoughmoneytodoanything
substantialwiththeregionalproject. Althoughthecountryseesthattherecouldbeadvantagesfrom
aregionalprogram,theystillworkbasedonnationalpriorities.Regionalactivitiesmustuseother
funds,inwhichcasethecountrygetstheadvantagesofaproject,plussomeprogramsynergies.
However,sincetheregionalprogramhasnoseparatefunds,itisnotlikelytohaveamajorrolein
nationalcommitment.
TherewereproblemswhenthenationalprojectsinAlgeriaandEgyptweredropped.Theprogram
hadtoadaptandaddedintwoprojectsinTunisia—EcotourismandanOasisproject.Moroccoand
Jordanstayedin.GEFinsistedthatthereshouldbefiveprojectsintheprogram.
100
Regardingtheexperienceandlesson-learningactivitiesorganizedundertheregionalproject,itisthe
nationalimplementingagenciesthatareresponsibleforcontactingandinvitingkeynational
stakeholdersrelevanttotheworkshopthemes,suchasM&Eordesertification.Thisisnotworking
well.ForEgyptandJordan,thesamepersonhascometoallthemeetings,evenwhentheyarenot
involvedwiththetopic.Furthermore,theparticipantsdonotsharetheknowledgegainedwithkey
peopleintheircountries.
TheObservatoireduSaharaetduSahel(OSS),whichimplementstheregionalproject,invitesthe
executingagenciesinparticipatingcountriestoproposetheworkshoptopicforeachcomingyear,
butitgetsfewresponses.Thetopicsarenotalwayswellchosen.Forexample,thisyear’sworkshop
onremotesensingseemsunnecessary,becausefewcountrieswillneedahighlevelofexpertisein
thisarea.TheWorldBanktaskteamleader(TTL)wouldpreferiftheprojectheldworkshopson
themesthataredirectlyrelevanttotheprogram;suchasthespecificdesertificationchallenges
facingparticipatingcountriesandonexploringarangeofconcretesuggestions,whichcouldaddress
themainchallenges.
TheMENA-DELPwasapprovedbeforethechildprojects,whicharenowinit.Butitwasnotclearhow
theprogramwouldwork,andchangesinWorldBankstaffdealingwithMENAledtodelays.Inthe
meantime,Jordanwentaheadanddesigneditsprojectunilaterally.Therewasnotastrongly
designedprogrammaticapproach—itismainlyjustanexchangeofexperiences.Sofar,the
experiencesharedbyMoroccohasbeenimportanttosomeotherprojects.Theprogramis
vulnerable,sinceitislargelydependentontheparticipationofnationalprojects,whicharemanaged
bynationalbodiesthathavemanyotheractivities.Thus,thereisadangerthatsomenationalinputs
willnotbestrong.Thereisnotmuchpossibilitytodevelopstrongrelationshipsbetweenthe
programandprojects,becauseitismainlythesametopmanagerswhogotoallthemeetings.
Aprogramshouldpromoteactivecollaborationbetweenthenationalprojects,butitislargelya
travelagencyforseniormanagers.TheOSSrunsanotherGEFregionalproject(BRICKS[Building
ResiliencethroughInnovationandKnowledgeServices]),whichhasworkedoutthesameway.The
programhasnoopportunitytoimpactnationalprojectsandcanonlytrytoinfluencethemthrough
knowledgesharing.Ontheotherhand,therewasalsonoconceptofhownationalprojectscould
shapeagenuinelyregionalprogram.
WorldBankMENAmanagementisnothappywithhowtheGEFworksintheregion.A$200million
WorldBankloanforforestryinMoroccohasthesamepreparationrequirementsasasmallGEF
projectwithinaprogram.Also,thereisnocoordinationwithbiggerWorldBankefforts.Forexample,
inTunisiatheOperationalFocalPointhasusedGEFmoneyforaUNDP$6millionforestproject,
whentheWorldBankispreparinga$200millionprojectinforests.Whatisthevalueofthesesmall
stand-aloneprojects?TheMinistryofAgricultureisthemainplayerinforestryinthecountry,sothe
MinistryofEnvironmentisnotcentrallyengagedinthesector.ItseemsthattheMinistryof
Environmentwantsthesmallprojectbecauseithaslittlefundingandthisisoneofthefewchancesit
hastoimplementanactivity.
MENA-DELPhasoperatedinaflexiblemanneranditsprojectsdonotneedtohaveastrong
implementationrelationshipwitheachother.Itimposesnomajorobligationsbutplaysausefulrole
intermsofmakingexperienceandadviceavailable.ButevenwithinTunisia,therelationships
betweenthetwoMENA-DELPprojectsarenotcloseandtheirteamsdonotroutinelymeet.Even
thoughtheyarewithinthesameministry,theydonotregularlycollaborateandoftenhavetobe
pushedtomeetbytheprogrammanagerintheWorldBank.
101
Question4:Towhatextenthavechildproject-levelobjectivesbeencoherentwithandintegratedintheprogram-levelones?
Program
TheMENA-DELPoutcome-levelobjectivesarebroadandcomprehensive,includingthefollowing:
• Improvedagriculturalmanagement
• Sustainedflowofservicesinagro-ecosystems
• IncreasedinvestmentsinSLM
• Increaseinsustainablymanagedlandscapesandseascapesthatintegrate
biodiversityconservation
• Promoteinvestmentinrenewableenergytechnologies
• Reducedvulnerabilitytoclimatechangeindevelopmentsectors
Ithasthereforebeenpossibletointegrateobjectivesofthechildprojectsintothoseoftheprogram
inacoherentmanner.
BELP
Theregionalprojectseekstostrengthennetworksandcommunitiesofpracticebysharingexperience
andknowledgeonkeydesertecosystemmanagementissues.However,theBELPProjectManager
hasnoimportantroutineinteractionwiththeDELP,and,consequently,itisdifficulttoseeanyvalue
addedbyDELPtotheBELPprojectasimplemented.FromtheBELPmanagementperspective,
therefore,iftherewasausefulideaintheprogramapproach,ithasnotbeendelivered.
Althoughideasfromotherprojectsmayinprinciplebeuseful,itclearthatthecountryprojectsare
quitedifferentfromeachother,sothattheextentofcross-fertilizationissmall.Theevaluation
foundnoevidencethattheBELPobjectiveswouldhavebeendifferentifitwerenotintheDELP
program.
ASIMA
ASIMA’sprojectobjectivesfitwithinthecountry’smajorPlanMarocVertinitiative,ofwhichitforms
asmallpart.WorldBankinputshelpedshapethespecificformoftheproject,withafocusonvalue-
chainsforkeyagriculturalproducts,butthisfocusisnotspecificallyderivedfromMENA-DELP
objectives.Theprojectisthereforecoherentwithprogram-levelobjectives,whichthemselvesare
onlylooselyintegratedinternallyorwiththecountry-levelprojects.
TunisiaProjects
TheTunisiaOasisProjectisjustlikeanyothernationalprojectundertheGEFcountryprogram,but
hasbeenplacedundertheMENA-DELPumbrella.Itdealswithnationalprioritiesandwasselectedas
aprioritybothforuseofGEFfundsandtheWorldBank.Itwasnotoriginallyconceivedaspartofa
regionalprogram,butsinceitsobjectivesfitwellwiththeMENA-DELPprogram,itbecameastrong
candidateforinclusionwithinit.Theprojectappraisaldocumentplacesitinthecontextoftheearlier
GEF‒WorldBankMENARIDProgram;mentioning“linkagesto”MENA-DELP,mainlyintermsof
knowledgesharing.WorldBankPIRsdonotfocusatallontheproject’scoherencewithMENA-DELP.
102
Question5:Towhatextenthavethegovernance,managementarrangements,andcoordinationinfluencedtheperformanceofGEFprograms?
Program
Theprogramhasasteeringcommitteewithrepresentativesfromeachofthenationalimplementing
institutions.Thereisrelativelylittleneedforoperationalcoordination,sincethechildprojectsare
nationallymanagedandhavenospecificrelationshiptoeachother.Furthermore,thereareno
regionalprogramfunds,whichmightneedcoordinatedmanagement.
Theprogramisalmostentirelyacollectionofverylooselyrelatednationalprojects,and
performanceisthereforemanagedatcountrylevel.Intermsofperformancedelivery,thereislittle
roleformanagementatprogramlevel,whileroutinemanagementisensuredthroughtheWorld
Bankprojectmanagementsystem.
BELP
TheDELPsufferedfromwhatthefocalpoint’sofficeseesasafundamentalchallengewithregional
programs;namelythatittookalongtimeforcountriestoendorseit.Infact,thisandother
institutionalissuescausednearlyayear’sdelayinthestart-upoftheBELPandtheprojectwas
informedbytheWorldBankthattherecouldbenoextensionbeyond2017tocompensateforthe
timelostduetothecomplexprogramstructure.
Contrarytotheintentionsoftheprogram,theBELPProjectManagementteamdoesnotfeel
adequatelyengagedinMENA-DELPactivities.Itreportedthatitsmembersarenotroutinelyinvited
toorinformedaboutDELPmeetingsintheregion.TheBELPteamdoesnotreceivesignificantlevels
ofinformationthroughDELPknowledgesharinganddoesnotperceivethatDELPsupportstheBELP
projectinanysignificantway.
TheBELPProjectManager(inNationalCenterforAgriculturalResearchandExtension)receives
technicalreportsfromimplementingteammembersandcollatestheseintoareportfortheWorld
Bank.However,itisnotclearwhetherthismaterialissenttoDELPandtheBELPProjectManageris
unawareofanyeffortsbyDELPtoaggregatedatafromdifferentprojects.TheBELPProject
ManagementUnithasnotbeeninvolvedinregionalmeetingsorknowledgesharing.Thismeans
that,althoughtheprojecthasoutputsthatwouldbeofinteresttoothercountriesintheregion,itis
notsubstantivelyengagedintheknowledgesharingprocess.
Theevaluationhasfoundthatgovernance,management,andcoordinationhavebeenmajorareasof
activitywithintheBELP,whichhasarelativelycomplexinstitutionalstructure,withseveral
implementingpartners.However,theseaspectsoftheparallelDELPstructurehavehadlittleeffect
ontheBELP,whichislargelyindependentoftheprogramandwouldbelittledifferentwithoutit.
FromtheperspectivesgatheredinJordan,thepurposeoftheDELPisnotveryclear.Indeed,itseems
tohavebeenaddedontoconvertapotentiallyself-containedprojectintopartofalargerentityto
conformtoperceivedGEFfundingpreferences.Ithasnoteffectivelydelivereda“glue”function
betweentheprojects,sincetheseareatbestlooselyrelated,and,fromtheperspectiveoftheBELP,
itsperformanceisnotaffectedbyanyinformationreceivedfromorsharedwiththeprogram.
103
ASIMA
MoroccoandWorldBankprocurementprocedurescouldnotbeeasilyreconciled,leadingtomajor
delays.TheASIMAmidtermreviewrecommendedsomerestructuringoftheproject;particularlyof
itsResultsFrameworkthatoriginallyincludedallthebenefitsofPlanMoroccoVert,whichisa$35millionproject,whileASIMAisonly$6million.
Thenationalbodiesinvolvedinimplementingtheprojectcouldhavesharedtheirexperienceswith
otherprogramsintheregiontacklingsimilarissues.Inaddition,therehavebeensomeMENA-DELP
updatesfromtheregionalproject.Overall,however,theprojecthasnotbeengreatlyinfluencedby
anybroadergovernanceormanagementaspectsoftheprogram.
TunisiaProjects
Theregionalprojectisonly$1million.Itwasintendedtobe$12million,butkeptgettingcut.Thereis
notenoughmoneyforanymajoractivitiesandthenationalprojectsdonotrelatecloselytoit.
GEFmoneyisusedforregionalactivities,withSTARallocationskeptfornationalprojects.Fund
disbursementforthenationalprojectsisnotstreamlinedbecauseofitsparticipationinaprogram.
Forprocurement,thenationalcommitteemustapprove,eveniftheWorldBankhasalreadycleared
it.Ministrieswillnotriskcuttingoutthenationalcommitteeonprocurement.So,thisaddsthreeto
sixmonthstoeveryconsultantappointed,leadingtosubstantialdelays.
AmongtheWorldBankMENAcountries,theWorldBankcountryprojectTTLsdonotorganize
meetingsorseekprogramfundingsupportforanycoordinationefforts.Whentheregionalproject
institutionOSSsendsemailsaboutMENA-DELP,allWorldBankTTLsofindividualprojectsarecopied
in,buttheregionalTTLrarelygetsanyresponsefromthem.Theyareallworkingontheirown
projectsandthereisnoawarenessoftheadditionalityoftheprogram.Furthermore,theWorldBank
TTLforMENA-DELPisnotexpectingthatwillbeevaluatedasaprogram.Thechildprojects,including
theregionalproject,willbeassessedindividually.
TheWorldBankdoesnothaveanyconcretecommitmenttodeliverspecificregionalprogram
results.Itwastheregionalprojectthatdevelopedaresultsframework,nottheregionalprogram.To
haveprogramresultswouldmeanchangingthepreexistingindividualprojectresultsframeworks.
Thus,circumstancesdonotallowforastrongprogrammaticapproachandresultsframework.OSS
hastwologframes,onefortheprogramandonefortheproject,butitisdifficulttopersuadethe
childprojectstokeepthemonitoringinformationup-to-date.
Thereisnationalownershipbutnonationalcommitmentastowhomustdowhat—itdoesnot
permeatethenationalinstitutions.Programsneedtobemuchmorespecificonnational
commitmentinpracticalterms.TheDirectorsofthenationalinstitutionshavenoownershipofthe
regionaldimension—theyarejusttreatingit“likeatravelagency,”accordingtoregional
program/projectmanagers.
NoonecontributesfromtheprojectstotheMENA-DELPwebsite.TheWorldBanknationalTTLsdonot
contribute,stilllessthenationalinstitutions.TheOperationalManualspecifiesthatmeeting
participantsshouldcommunicatewhatwaslearnedfromworkshops—butnoonedoesthisnow.
TheOSSdoesnothaveanyroleinmakingsystem-wideobservationsandfeedingthisbacktoMENA-
DELPortotheBRICKSprogram,whichshouldbemorecloselyrelated.EventhoughOSSisnow
gatheringdata,itdoesnotsendoutanyperiodicreportsoranalysisofwhatisobserved.Itisacting
asabureauforseparatenationalstudiesratherthanfulfillingitsintendedregionalobservatory
functionthatcouldenableittoinfluenceregionalpolicies,etc.,basedoninformationgathered.This
104
fragmentationmeansthattherealvalueoftheregionalprogramisnotachievedoravailabletothe
GEFandWorldBank.Theobservatoryfunctionofcollectingsatellitedataandmakingbroadbrush
interpretationisnotbeingdelivered.Itismoreassociatedwithindividualprojects.Trustfundscould
beusedtofinancebroadregionaldataanalysis,butthesestrategicfunctionsaremissing.
Regionalprogramsdoraiseawarenessofresultsathigherlevelsofnationalgovernments,which
cannotbegeneratedbyindividualprojects.Theprogramenablescontactswithmanypeopleata
lowcost,whichwillbeespeciallytrueattheMarrakechconferenceoftheparties,atwhichMENA-
DELPwillhaveasideevent.
TheRegionalProjectSteeringCommitteehasmetregularly,althoughfrequentsubstitutionsof
membershavecausedproblems.Butthissteeringcommitteedoesnotmeetwiththeindividual
projectSCs.ThecoordinatorsofnationalprojectsareinprinciplemembersoftheRegionalProgram
SteeringCommittee,butitdoesnotworktheotherwayaround,andtheRegionalProjectisnot
representedatthenationalcommittees.
Question6:WhatroledidM&Eplayinprograms’adaptivemanagementfortheattainmentofexpectedoutcomesandimpacts?
Program
ThereisnoevidenceofsystematicuseofM&Eformanagementpurposesattheprogramlevel.
ProjectM&EsystemsarefocusedonreportingtonationalsystemsandtotheWorldBank/GEFas
individualprojects.TheregionalprojecthasdevisedaprogramM&Esystemtowhichtheindividual
projectsshouldcontribute.Todate,therehasbeenlittleenthusiasmfromprojectstoregularlyinput
dataintothissystem,anditisnotclearhowaggregationofdatafromalimitedsetofsmallprojects
aroundavastregionwillgenerateinformation,whichcouldbeusefulformanagementpurposes.
ProjectsaresubjecttoregularWorldBankmanagementmissionsandreporting,includingmidterm
reviewsandeventuallyGEFfinalevaluations.However,thereviewofdocumentstodateshowsthat
eachprojectisassessedasanindividualentityandthatthereisnomonitoringorreportingonhowit
hascontributedtotheprogramorviceversa.Thereappearstobenoprovisioninthestandard
WorldBankprogressreportingtermsofreferencetoassesstheroleofprojectsinprograms.
BELP
TheBELPM&Eofficerattendedaworkshopontrackingtools,whereparticipantsemphasizedthe
needtoensurethatbiodiversityindicatorswereincluded.TheBELPM&Eofficerhasprovided
monitoringdatatoDELP,butBELPmanagementisnotinformedastohowthisisusedbyDELPand
claimstohavereceivednofeedbackonit.
Thenumberofparticipantsatworkshopshasnotreflectedthecountriesthatareactively
implementingtheprogram.AsMENA-DELPhasbeenimplemented,theJordanianteamreportsthat
availableprogramfundinghassteadilyreduced,leadingtodecliningregularityofSteering
Committeemeetings,M&Eevents,andworkshopsinwhichtoshareexperiences.
MonitoringandevaluationhaslargelybeengeneratedandusedbyBELPforitsownpurposesand
shareddirectlywithWorldBankprojectmanagement.Althoughdatahavealsobeensenttothe
DELP,itisnotcleartotheBELPwhetherorhowthesehavebeenusedandtherehasbeennouseful
feedbackfromthem.Thus,fromtheperspectiveofJordanBELPparticipants,itisnotclearthatthe
105
MENA-DELPhasmadeanyuseofM&Etoadapttheprogramtobetterachieveitsoutcomesand
impacts.Indeed,itisnotclearthatthereareanytangibleprogram-leveloutcomesabovethose
generatedbytheindividualprojects.
ASIMA
Themidtermreviewrecommendedsomerestructuring(oftheproject):particularly,theResults
FrameworkthatoriginallyincludedallthebenefitsofMoroccoVert,whichisahuge$35million
project,whileASIMAisonly$6million.So,itwasnotplausiblethatithadthesamenumberof
beneficiaries.Undertherestructuring,beneficiariesweredecreasedfrom12,000to8,500.Thereis
noevidenceofanyeffectsofprogram-levelM&EaffectingtheASIMAProject.
TunisiaProjects
Theregionalprojecthas$800,000forknowledgesharing,$100,000forM&E,and$100,000for
management.TheregionalprogramM&Etoolhasprovidedanapproach,whichtheindividual
projectsaretosomeextentusingasamodel.OSShasprovidedsubstantialtrainingonthisaspect:
e.g.,fortheTunisiaOasispProject.ProjectM&EOfficersacrossthecountrieshavewidelyvarying
capacityandOSStraininghashelpedbringthemalltowardthesamelevel.
BecausetheoverallMENA-DELPprogramcoversabroadrangeofissues,theOSSproducedamatrix
ofkeydomainsforM&Eandlistedindicatorsthatcouldbeusedbyeachprojectunderthekey
headings.Thiseventuallyledtoanagreedsetofkeyindicatorsforeachspecificdomain.The
regionalprogramsystemhasnationalprojectsections,intowhichtheindividualcountriescanenter.
Oftentheyaretoobusytodothisandtheregionalprojecthashadtoissuequarterlywarningsto
encourageparticipation.Thenationalprojectsalreadyhavetheirowndetaileddatasetsanddonot
findtheregionaloverviewsystemveryuseful,sotheyarereluctanttoparticipate.However,the
intentionisthattheMENA-DELPoverviewsystemanddatashouldbeavailabletocountries,notjust
totheprojects.
OSSbelievestheregionalprojectaddsvaluebyenablingpeoplefromdifferentprojectstoshare
experiencesandskills.Thisenablesthemtosavetimeandmoneybydrawingonwhatisalready
workinginothercountries.Also,comparisonbetweencountriesraisesprideandstandardsacross
thecountries.However,thereislittleevidencethatthenationalprojectsfeelthesebenefitstobe
substantialorimportant.
TheOasesProjectisputtingintoplaceitsdetailedM&Esystem.Priortothis,theprojectexchanged
informationwiththeMENA-DELPM&Emanagertotrytoharmonizeitsdatawiththeprogram
system.
106
4.4.CaseStudy:
RapidImpactEvaluation—ReducingIndustry’sCarbonFootprintinSoutheastAsia
Program
4.4.1IntroductiontotheProgram
TheoverallaimoftheReducingIndustry’sCarbonFootprintinSoutheastAsiaProgram(GEFID:
3756)istoassistcountriestoimproveenergyefficiencyintargetedindustrialsectors.Program
componentshavebeenpreviouslyappliedandadaptedthroughconsiderableUNIDOexperience
withsimilarprogrammaticinterventions.Reviewsoftheprogramattheproposalstagepointedto
theknowledgeoftheIPCC(2007)reportcoveringsectoraltargeting,barriers,andincentives(STAP
2008).
TheGEF/UNIDOprogramisimplementedthroughfivechildprojectsinthefollowingSoutheastAsian
countries:Indonesia,Thailand,Vietnam,Philippines,andMalaysia,andithasfourmaincomponents:
• AregulatoryframeworkincludingnationalpolicyaddressingISO50,000standards
andimplementationmechanismsforthepolicy(regulations,incentives,etc.)
• ToolsandtrainingonEnergyManagementSystems(EnMS)andonenergyefficiency
inspecificsystemcomponentssuchascompressedairorchillers;andreferredtoas
genericallyindustrialsystemoptimization
• Financial infrastructuresupportingenergyefficiencyprojects in industry including
buildingcapacitiesofgovernment,financialinstitutions,andenterprisesforenergy
efficiencylendingandsupports
• Pilotandmainstreamenergyefficiencyprojectswithnationalcommitmentstothe
number of enterprises adopting energy efficiency (250‒500) and pilot
demonstrationprojectsmainlyofsystemoptimizationandenterpriseassessment
Theprogramishomogeneous,i.e.,thefourcomponentsarepresentinallofthefiveprojectswith
modestvariationandahighleveloffidelitytotheprogram.Bothcountrieswithchildprojects
selectedforthiscasestudy—VietnamandIndonesia—hadenactedlegislationandregulations
requiringhighenergyconsumingenterprisestoundertakeenergyauditseverytwoorthreeyears
respectively,andprovidedocumentationofimprovedenergyefficiency.Bothcountrieshadalso
enactedISO50,001andprovidedtheinfrastructureforthenecessarytrainingandsupport.
TheVietnamprojecttargetedfoursectors:textiles,paper,foodprocessing,andrubber;Indonesia
targetedchemicals,foodandbeverages,pulp,andpaperandtextiles.Botharefive-yearprojects;
Vietnamstartedin2011,Indonesiain2012. Fromthetargetsectors,159enterprisesparticipatedin
thetraininginVietnam,238inIndonesia.
ProgramTheoryofChange
Atheoryofchangewasestablishedthroughseveraliterations,startingwithareviewofprogram
documentsandbriefingsfromUNIDOstaffinVienna,whohelpedtheevaluationteamrecalibrate
theirinitialunderstanding,fieldinterviews,andthecountryandglobalexpertpanel.Figure4.12
presentsthetheoryofchangethatwasappliedintherapidimpactevaluation(RIE)exercise.
107
Note:EE=energyefficiency.SO=systemoptimization.
ThelogicoftheoutcomesassessedusingRIEfollowsthissequence:(outcomeA)enterprise
managers(orotherseniordecisionmakers)whoparticipateinthefirsthalf-daytrainingfor
managerswillacceptthebusinesscaseforEnMS;withadditionaltrainingprovidedtoenterprise
energymanagersandstaff(outcomeB),managerswillagreetosupportchangebyinvestinginanEnMS;fromthisflows(outcomeC)institutionalizationofEnMSintheenterprise,forexample,by
adaptingtheorganizationalstructure,staffingthenecessarypositions,andadjustingperformance
expectationstoincludeenergyefficiency.WiththeEnMSinstitutionalizedtheenterprisecanbe
expectedto(outcomeD)investtoimproveenergyefficiency.Atthispointthedesiredeffectsstart
toflow,includingreducingenergyconsumptionandtherebyalsoreducinggreenhousegas(GHG)
emissions,reducingpoweroutages,andsoon.Traininginsystemoptimizationisalsoprovidedas
partoftheUNIDOprogram,forexampleforsystemswithcompressedairorsteam.Thesesystem
optimizationdecisionscanbeseparatefromorpartofanEnMS.TheRIEestimatesthatfollowfocus
onEnMSandincludesystemoptimizationdecisionsonlyaspartofanEnMSprocess(e.g.,replacinga
boilerasindicatedbyapplicationofEnMS).Thissequenceofoutcomesappliestoenterprises
participatingintheUNIDOtraining.TheprogramincludesdemonstrationsofthebenefitsofEnMS
throughpilotsandcasestudies.Asmallcadreofenergyefficiencyexpertswastrainedastrainersin
eachcountry,andtrainingmaterialsrelevanttothecountryweredeveloped.Theprogramalso
providedtrainingtodevelopacadreofEnMSexpertswhowillseektoprovideenergyefficiency
servicestoindustry.Theseinterventionsareintended(outcomeE)toreplicateenergyefficiencytoenterprisesthatdidnotengageinthetrainingorprogressbeyondoutcomeAandwillprovide
additionalenergyreductioneffectsontopofthosefromdirectparticipants.
Figure4.12.Reconstructedtheoryofchangeforthereducingindustry’scarbonfootprintinSoutheastAsia.
Project
Experts.consultants,
suppliersmarket&
provideservicesto
enterprises
ISO50001
operational
Keycontext
/assumptions
Driverofchange
Projectprovided
training(national
experts,consultants,
suppliers)
Projectprovided
training(EE
managers/staff)
Projectprovided
training
(managers)
Enterprises
recruited to
participate
108
Theprogramisoneofseveralinfluencesonenergydecisionsofenterprises.Othersincludethe
nationallegislationandcompliance;energypricesandsubsidylevels;behaviorofotherenterprises;
sensitivityoftheenterprisetomarketforcesrewardingorrequiringsustainability,suchasthrough
foreigninvestmentorownership,exportingtomarketssensitivetothesefactors;thenatureof
ownership;andintroductionofISO50000,amongothers.Allthesefactorspotentiallyinfluence
enterprisedecisionsonwhetherornottopursueenergyefficiency,includingdecisionsonwhether
toengagewiththeintervention,andforthosethatdoso,progressalongthepathwaydescribedin
figure4.12.
Informationaboutenterprise-levelenergyefficiencyimprovementscanbeobtainedovertime
throughreportingfromthelegislativelyrequiredaudits,fromenterprisesurveyssuchasthose
undertakenbyUNIDO,fromEnMSsoftware,andothersources.Thesecanprovideanindicationof
energyconsumptionandchangesinconsumptionatmacroandenterpriselevels,andwillnodoubt
provevaluableinassessingpolicyandprogramoptions.However,thisinformationdoesnotenable
toseparatethecontributionsoftheprogramfromtheseveralotherimportantforcesaffecting
enterprisedecisionsrelatingtoenergyefficiency,suchasthosedescribedabove.
RapidImpactEvaluation
RIEisanevaluationapproachforuseinsettingswhereitischallengingtoassessimpacts.RIEcanbe
usedtoforecastexpectedimpact,aswellastoevaluateimpactafterimplementation(seeappendix
4.4AforadescriptionofRIE).RIEutilizesthescenario-basedcounterfactual,anewapproachfor
comparingtheinterventiontoanalternative.ForthisapplicationofRIE,thealternativewas
business-as-usual,wheretheexistingnationallegislation,ISO50,001,andotherconditionsall
continuedtoapplybuttheUNIDOprogramwasnotoffered.Thescenario-basedcounterfactualsfor
VietnamandIndonesiawereverysimilarandareprovidedbelowintable4.3.
TwogroupsofexpertshavebeenaskedtoprovidetheirassessmentofimpactsusingRIEmetrics;the
firstgroupconsistsofprogramexpertsandincludesrepresentativesofallinterestsinvolvedin
and/oraffectedbytheintervention;thesecondgroupconsistsofexpertsinthesubjectmatterof
thescienceorknowledgeunderlyingtheintervention.Aweb-basedsurveywasusedtogaininputs
fromtheprogramexperts,afacilitatedworkshopforthesubjectmatterexperts.Theimpactmetrics
werealsoassessedbyoneormoretechnicaladvisorstotheevaluation,whoarethemselvesexperts
inoneormoreofthesubjectdomainsandwhohavegainedconsiderableknowledgeaboutthe
interventionthroughtheirinvolvementwiththeevaluation.
109
TABLE4.3.CounterfactualsforVietnamandIndonesiaVietnamcounterfactual IndonesiacounterfactualHighenergyconsumingenterprisesarecompelled
bylawtohaveanenergyauditeverytwoyears,
submitanenergyreport,andreducetheirenergy
consumption.Theycancontractproject-trained
andotherenergyserviceprovidersandhave
accesstothecasestudiesanddemonstrations
producedbytheproject.
Supporttoindustrycontinuestobeprovidedby
theMoITviathefourthcomponentoftheNational
EnergyEfficiencyProgram(VNEEP).Support
includestrainingforMoITandenterpriseleaders,
energymanagementmodelsfordesignated
enterprises,andsupporttoenergyauditsin
selectedenterprisesaccompaniedbyfurther
supporttodevelopandimplementenergy
efficiencyprojects.
ISO50,001wouldhavebeenimplementedas
wouldtheexistingcapacityofSTAMEQ,thelocal
certificationinstitution.
Thecostsandsupplyofenergywouldremain
unchangedforthepurposesofconsideringthis
alternative.
Without the project, since 2012 UNIDO training
would not have been provided to enterprise
managersandtechnicalstaffandtoenergyservice
providers.
Highenergyconsumingenterprisesarecompelled
bylawtohaveanenergyauditeverythreeyears,
submitanenergyreport,andreducetheirenergy
consumption.Currentconditionsapply(e.g.,
currentlevelsofcomplianceandquality).
ISO50,001isinplaceandavailabletoqualifying
enterprises.EnMScertificationunderAEMAS
programalsocontinues.
Thecostsandsupplyofenergywouldremain
unchangedforthepurposesofconsideringthis
alternative.
Note:AMEAS=ASEANEnergyManagementScheme.See:https://www.scribd.com/document/98962092/Project-
Brochure-AEMAS-Pierre-v1-97-2003.MoIT=MinistryofIndustryandTrade.
4.4.2Results
TheRIEprovidesestimatesofoutcomesAthroughDattributabletotheintervention(figure4.12).
Replication(outcomeE)isalsoaddressedusingRIEmetricsandcomplimentedbyinputsfroma
panelofglobalexpertsinenergyefficiency.
ContributionstoEnterpriseUseofEnMS
RIEobtainsjudgmentsfromthekeyinterestsinvolvedintheprogram;eachinterestbringstheirown
knowledgeandaspirations,leadingtovariationintheirjudgements.Foranysetting,itisnotknown
ifoneinterestismorelikelytoberight,oriftheassessmentsmadebyindividualinterestswillmirror
assessmentsoftheotherinterests.Rather,bycombiningthejudgmentsofparticipantinterests
involved(e.g.,enterprises,experts,government),thebiasofparticularinterestsisoffset.The
combinedall-sectorjudgmentistakentorepresentthejudgmentofparticipantsintheUNIDO
program.Thestudycombinedtheexpertpaneljudgmentsafternotingthatthestandarddeviations
forthepanelwerequitelow.AstypicallyhappenswithRIE,participantsaremoreoptimisticthanthe
expertpanel,andtechnicaladvisorswiththeexpertpanelarethemostpessimistic(Vietnam);
however,theIndonesiantechnicaladvisorwassomewhatmoreoptimisticthantheprogram
participantgroup.16Theresultsaredisaggregatedbyinterestinappendix4.4C.
16Fromemail1-8-17fromtechnicaladvisorIndonesia:Thesurveyisforhighenergyconsumptionenterprises.The
costeffectiveisoneofthemajoragendasofallhigh-energyconsumptionenterprisesthatIknow.Alloftheiremployeeshavebeenchallengedtofindoutanythingforcosteffective,includingintheenergysaving.Thepaybackperiodbelow3yearsisanacceptinglevelbyalmosthighenergyconsumptionenterprises…Theestablishmentofenergymanagementsystemshowstheseriousnessoftheenterprisesintheenergysaving.
110
Onlyenterpriseswhosemanagersparticipateinthefirsttrainingembarkonthetheoryofchangeat
outcomeA,andthereaftertherewillbeattritionthroughtooutcomeD.Thisisreflectedinthe
downwardslopeforbothVietnamandIndonesiainfigure4.13.
Figure4.13:Triangulatedjudgmentsofthenetincrementalcontributionsoftheprogram
Source:DerivedfromRIEsurveyandworkshopdata
Themainoutcomeofinterestis(D).EnterprisesinvestinEnMSprojects,whereprogramparticipants
(allsectors)expectthatabout30%ofenterpriseswillachievethisoutcomecomparedwiththeless
optimisticexpertpanels(judgmentsrangedfrom10‒18%)andthetechnicaladvisors(10%and30%).
Forthepurposesoftheseestimates,weassumeapproximately25%oftheVietnam17and
approximately30%oftheIndonesianenterpriseswillinvesttoimplementEnMSprojectsasaresult
oftheproject.
InadditiontotheRIEestimatethatapproximately25%or30%oftheenterprisesembarkingonthe
UNIDOtrainingwillmakeEnMSinvestmentsthatareattributabletotheintervention,other
enterpriseswillalsomakeEnMSinvestments.TheseotherEnMS-investingenterprisesareinfluenced
bytheotherenergyefficiencyinitiativesandwouldlikelyhaveoccurredwithouttheproject;for
example,theyareinfluencedbynationallegislation,ISO50,001(towhichtheprojectcontributed),
enterprisepriorities(suchassocialandenvironmentalresponsibility,marketstrategies,orforeign
investment/ownership),energypricesandsupply,andotherfactors.
ChangeinEnergyConsumptionAttributabletotheIntervention—Vietnam
Anumberoffactorsaffectenergyconsumptionofanenterprise.Theestimationproceduresfor
Vietnamincluded:
1. Settinganempiricalbaselineforconsumptionbyhighenergyconsumingenterprises
inthetargetedsectors
2. Forecastingeffectofcontinuedeconomicandsectoralgrowthonenergy
consumptioninthesesectors
3. ForecastingthelevelofenergyconsumptionreducedbyapplicationofEnMS
4. Estimating,usingRIE,theportionofenterprisesthatwilladoptanEnMSasaresult
oftheintervention
5. Applyassumptionsaboutchangesinefficiencyofenergygenerationand
transmissiontotheforecastedchangesinenergyconsumption.
17eddHOME(2014)ImpactsandResultsoftheProjectTrainingProgramfoundthat77of176(44%)participating
enterprisesinVietnam“adoptedEnMSplansandimplementedoperationalimprovementprojects.”Thisisatotal
measureanddoesnotidentifytheportionattributabletoRIE.AsimilarestimateismadeusingRIEandtheestimates
providedintheRIEenterprisesurveyat40-54%isveryconsistentwiththefindingsofeddHOMEintheirevaluation.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Managersacceptbusinesscase
Managerssupportchange
Enterprisesinstitutionalise
EnMS
EnterprisesinvestinEnMSprojectsEf
fectsa
ttrib
utab
leto
UNIDOprogram
Outcome
VietNam
Allsectors Expertpanel Technicaladvisor
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Managersacceptbusinesscase
Managerssupportchange
Enterprisesinstitutionalise
EnMS
EnterprisesinvestinEnMSprojectsEf
fectsa
ttrib
utab
leto
UNIDO
program
Outcome
Indonesia
Allsectors Expertpanel Technicaladvisor
111
Table4.4(i,ii)appliesthisapproachtoestimatetotalenergysavinginthefoursectorsand
attributabletotheUNIDOprojectinVietnam.Thenumbersintheleftcolumnoftable4.4referto
thesequenceintheestimationprocesslistedimmediatelyabove.Thetwopartstotable4.4provide
estimatesfirstfor2011‒2015andthen2016‒2020.
Thegreenshadedrowsprovidethesumoffiveyears’energysavedandGHGemissionreductionsin
Vietnamattributabletotheprojectfor2011‒2015and2016‒2020.Theprojectisestimatedtohave
savedapproximately340,000tonsofoilequivalent18forthefirstfiveyearsandisforecastedtosave
approximately530,000TOEforthesubsequentfiveyears(2016‒2020).Thisforecastfocuseson
EnMS,whichisthemaingoaloftheintervention.Thesesavingsinenergyconsumptionwillreduce
GHGemissionsinVietnamby1.783millionmetrictonsofCO2during2011-2015and3.148million
metrictonsofCO2during2016‒2020.
Tounderstandthesignificanceofthisestimate,the2011‒2015savingsaretheequivalentof
removing376,629vehiclesfromU.S.roadsforayearorfromburning1.9billionpoundsofcoal.The
savingsforecastforthe2016‒2020periodaretheequivalentofremoving664,963U.S.carsfora
yearorfromburning3.4billionpoundsofcoal.19
Furthergainsattributabletotheprojectwillbeobtainedfromprojectenterprisesthatdidnotadopt
EnMSbutthatarestillimplementingsystemsoptimizationsuchasreplacingaboiler.
Table4.4i.EstimatedenergysavingfromtheinterventioninVietnam—2011‒2015.
StepMeasure Year(s) Units Rubber PaperFood
processing TextilesTargetedsectors
Highenergyconsumingenterprises 2011 15 32 48 64 159
PotentialEnergySaving2011‒2015
1 Baselineconsumption 2011 TOE 64,715 188,494 196,854 321,962 772,025
2 Growthrate(average2011‒2015) 2011-15 rate 1.27 2.65 1.65 1.43
2 Forecastannualconsumption 2015 TOE 82,002 500,369 324,910 461,4371,368,718
3 PotentialenergysavingsfromEnMS annual % 4.00% 13% 20% 30%
3 ForecastenergysavingsfromEnMS annual TOE 3,280 66,549 64,982 138,431 273,242
4 EnergysavingattributabletoUNIDOproject annual 25% 820 16,637 16,245 34,608 68,311
4 TotalenergysavingattributabletoUNIDOproject 2011-15 TOE 4,100 83,186 81,227 173,039 341,553
5 ConvertTOEtoterrawatthours TKWh 0.05 0.97 0.94 2.01 4.0
5 Emissionintensity(basedonelectricityemission) constant MtCO2e/TWh 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
5 CO2savings 2011-15 MtCO2 0.021 0.434 0.424 0.903 1.783
Source:DerivedfromapproachdevelopedbyVietnamTechnicalAdvisor
18Thetonofoilequivalent(toe)isaunitofenergydefinedastheamountofenergyreleasedbyburningonetonofcrude
oil.19EstimatedusingtheUSEPAGHGequivalenciescalculatorfoundathttps://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-
gas-equivalencies-calculator
112
Table4.4ii.EstimatedenergysavingfromtheinterventioninVietnam—2016‒2020.
StepMeasure Year(s) Units Rubber PaperFood
processing TextilesTargetedsectors
Highenergyconsumingenterprises 2011 15 32 48 64 159
PotentialEnergySaving2016‒2020
1 Baselineconsumption 2015 82,002 500,369 324,910 461,437 1,368,718
2 Growthrate(average2015‒2020) 2016-20 rate 1.28 1.87 1.49 1.44
2 Forecastannualconsumption 2020 TOE 105,145 933,372 484,337 665,652 2,188,505
3 PotentialenergysavingsfromEnMS annual % 4.00% 13% 20% 30%
3 ForecastenergysavingsfromEnMS annual TOE 4,206 124,138 96,867 199,696 424,907
4 EnergysavingattributabletoUNIDOproject annual 25% 1,051 31,035 24,217 49,924 106,227
4 TotalenergysavingattributabletoUNIDOproject 2016-20 TOE 5,257 155,173 121,084 249,619 531,134
5 ConvertTOEtoterrawatthours TKWh 0.06 1.80 1.41 2.90 6.2
5 Emissionintensity(basedonelectricityemission) constant MtCO2e/TWh 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51
5 CO2savings 2016-20 MtCO2 0.031 0.920 0.718 1.480 3.148
Source:DerivedfromapproachdevelopedbyVietnamTechnicalAdvisor
Note:TOE=tonofoilequivalent.
ChangeinEnergyConsumptionAttributabletotheIntervention—Indonesia
IntheabsenceofdatathataresimilartothoseavailableinVietnam,theestimationextrapolated
fromactualmeasurementofenergyconsumptionfor19pilotprojectenterprisesinIndonesia.From
thesedataitwaspossibletogenerateanestimateoftheaverageCO2reductionforpilotenterprises
ineachofthesectorsandthenextrapolatethisestimatetotheentirepopulationofenterprises
participatingintheUNIDOtraining.Theportionofthechangeattributabletotheinterventionis
thenestimatedusingthefactorof0.3establishedintheRIEprocess.Theestimatedannual
reductioninCO2emissionsis0.313MtCO2,1.57over5years,3.13over10years,bothverysimilarto
theestimatedlevelsforVietnam.Estimationsarepresentedintable4.5.
113
Table4.5.EstimatingGHGemissionreductionsattributabletotheintervention—Indonesia. EstimateaverageCO2emissionreductions
Batch1
Batch2
Batch1
Batch2
Batch1
Batch2
Bothbatches
combined
Reduction
inCO2
(tCO2/y)
Reduction
inCO2
(tCO2/y)
Pilot
enterprises
Pilot
enterprises
Average
Average
Average
Textiles 21,187 18,029 5 3 4237.4 6009.7 4902
Pulp&paper 10,680 2 5340.0 5340
Food&beverages 956 3 318.7 319
Chemicals 845 60,575 1 5 845.0 12115.0 10237
11 8
EstimatetotalCO2emissionreductionsattributabletoUNIDOintervention
Total
enterprises
takingtraining
Average
reductionin
CO2
(tCO2/y)
MtCO2
reductionper
year(tCO2/y)
UNIDO
shareannual
CO2
reduction
(tCO2/y)
UNIDO
shareannual
CO2
reduction
(MtCO2/y)
Textiles 41 4902 200,982.00 60,295
Pulp&paper 33 5340 176,220.00 52,866
Food&beverages 102 319 32,504.00 9,751
Chemicals 62 10237 634,673 190,402
Total 238 1,044,379 313,314 0.31
3
1.57 Source:DerivedfromdatafilesprovidedbyIndonesiaUNIDOprogram3.3CO2ReductionEnMSVer0_updated-Oct2015AINDes22-Rev-Aprie_Summary,2.1Summary_TrainingParticipants_EnMS_All_Updated-April2016_April
Twocaveatsneedtobementioned.First,theIndonesiaestimatedoesnotincludeprovisionfor
growthinenergyconsumptionduetoeconomicandenterprisegrowthaswasdoneforVietnam.
Second,thepilotcompaniesfromwhichthemeasurementswereobtainedreceivedenriched
supportfromtheprogram,andthus,arelikelytohavebeenbetterperforming.Eachofthesefactors
wouldhaveledtoanoverestimationofemissionreductionsinIndonesia.Thelevelof
overestimationcannotbedetermined.
SummaryofEstimatesofEnergySavings
Theestimatedsavingsinenergyandreductioningreenhousegasemissionlevelsaresummarizedin
table4.6.Theprogramoperatesinfivecountries.Table4.6onlyprovidesestimatesforthetwo
addressedinthecasestudy.
114
Table4.6.EnergysavingandGHGemissionreductionbyenterprisesparticipatingintheprogramintwoofthefivecountries—VietnamandIndonesia. Vietnam Indonesia Combined
Five-yearenergysaving(TOE) 341,553
Ten-yearenergysaving(TOE) 531,134
FiveyearGHGemissionreduction(MtCO2) 1.78 1.57 3.35
TenyearGHDemissionreduction(MtCO2) 3.14 3.13 6.27
FiveyearGHGemissionreductionequivalentto
removingthisnumberofUSvehiclesforayear376,629 331,637 708,266
TenyearGHGemissionreductionequivalentto
removingthisnumberofUSvehiclesforayear664,963 661,161 1,326,124
Source:Extractedfromotherfigures
TheVietnamandIndonesiaprojectsareofsimilardesignandimplementation.Whiletheapproach
toestimatingGHGemissionreductionwasdifferentforthetwocountries,theresultsforthetwo
countriesarestrikinglyconsistent.
Long-TermProjectResults
Themainavenuesfortheprojectstohavelargerandlonger-termbenefitsare:(1)through
continuedapplicationbeyond2020ofEnMSbytheparticipatingenterprisesand(2)through
replicationoftheactivitiesintroducedbytheprojects.Severalavenuesofferprospectsfor
replicationsuchasUNIDO-trainednationalexpertsprovidingtraining,throughtheserviceprovision
effortsofotherproject-trainedenergyefficiencyexperts,andmarketdevelopmenteffortsof
project-trainedsuppliers.
Replicationcanoccurinseverallocations.Thoseenterprisesthatparticipatedintheinitialtraining
providedbytheprojectmightbecomepersuadedofthevirtuesofEnMSastheycomplywiththe
energyauditrequirementsofnationallegislationorthroughobservingenergyefficiencyeffortsby
theirpeers,aswellastheUNIDOpilotsandcasestudieseffectsofcontributionstootherenterprises
insideandoutsidethefourtargetedsectors.Replicationcanalsooccurtohighenergyconsuming
enterprisesoutsidethefoursectorstargetedbytheprojectsandtootherenterprisesnotcurrently
classedashighenergyconsumingwithinthefourtargetedsectors.Factorsbeyondtheprojectssuch
asnationallegislationandISO50,001arealsoveryimportantdriversofincreasedlong-termenergy
saving.
WiththeRIEestimatesthat25‒30%ofenterprisesenteringtheprogramwilladoptEnMS,the
remainingnot-yet-energyefficiententerprisesoffersignificantreplicationpotentialforadditional
benefitsiftheyweretoimplementEnMS.Theprojectsincludeoutputsintendedtoencourageand
facilitatethis.TheunderlyingassumptionisthattheforcesinfavorofenergyefficiencyandEnMS
willcontinueandpotentiallygrow.Amongthesearethenationallegislationandothernationaland
internationaleffortstopromoteenergyefficiency,andthelikelihoodthatenergypriceswillincrease
aswillmarketdemandsforsustainableproduction.Theseforceswillencourageenterprisemanagers
tolooktoreducingenergyconsumptionandcosts.Theprojectsanticipatethisbytrainingnational
energyefficientexpertsresourcedwithnationally-relevanttrainingmaterialstoprovideongoing
trainingpertheUNIDOapproachthoughcommercialandinstitutionalsettings.Importantly,UNIDO
hasdevelopedacadreofenergyefficiencyconsultantsineachcountryandsupportedformationof
professionalnetworksonthepremisethattheywillberequired,asotherhighenergyconsuming
enterprisesrecognizetheneedforenergyefficiencycomplementedbytheseconsultantsmarketing
theirservices.Theprojectshavealsoaddressedinstitutionalcapacitiesingovernmentandthe
financesectortoreducefrictionalbarrierstoenterprisesadoptingmoreenergyefficientproduction
115
(outcomeE).Additionalgainscouldbehadwithextendingenergysavingtosmallandmedium
enterprisesthroughEnMSandthroughsystemsoptimization;forexample,whenreplacing
equipmentsuchasaboiler.
ThesurveysandexpertworkshopsinVietnamandIndonesiaonlyaddressedreplicationofthe
UNIDOinterventioninthecontextofalloftheotherforcesalsoencouragingenergyefficiency,and
didnotconsiderthecounterfactualwithouttheUNIDOintervention.Replicationoperatesinavery
complicatedanddynamicenvironmentwhereitwouldbetoochallengingforparticipantstoprovide
estimatesunderthecounterfactualandthroughthatcomparisonobtainanestimateofUNIDO’s
contributiontoreplication.Figure4.14presentstheviewsofprojectparticipants,theexpertpanel,
andthetechnicaladvisorforIndonesiaonreplicationaddressingthequestion:Howlikelyisitthat
thesehighenergyconsumingenterprisesthatwerenotpartoftheprojectbutlearningofthe
benefitsofenergymanagementsystemsfromnationalexpertsorthedemonstrationsandcase
studieswillimplementanenergymanagementsystem?Theresultspresentedinfigure4.14suggestgoodprospectsforreplicationtooverathirdoftheremaininghighenergyconsumingenterprisesin
thetargetedsectorsthatarenotyetenergyefficient.Thiswouldhaveasignificantknock-oneffect,
potentiallyreducingGHGgasemissionsbyaboutthesameamountastheUNIDOcontributions
estimatedintheprevioussection.Theattributionwouldbetotheentireconstellationofenergy
efficiencyefforts,includingthosesupportedbyGEF/UNIDO.
Figure4.14.AssessmentofreplicationfromUNIDOandotherforces 1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Allsectors Expertpanel Technicaladvisor
VietNam Indonesia
Source:DerivedfromRIEsurveyandworkshopdata
Longer-termeffectsattributabletotheinterventionareimportantlycontingentonsustainingthe
effectsoftheprojects.Apanelofleadingglobalexpertsinenergyefficiencywasaskedtoconsider
prospectsforsuccessonthisbyaddressingthequestionoftheportionoftheknock-oneffectsthat
UNIDOinterventionscouldbecreditedwithachieving.Theattributionwouldbestrongerif
prospectsarestrongforsustainingtheprojectgains(ashelflifequestion)andprospectsforthe
trainedserviceproviderstoreplicateorupscalebeyondthefirstroundofadoptingenterprises.The
globalpanelwasalsoaskedtoassessthepotentialforreplicationinothercountries.Thespecific
outcomesassessedbytheglobalpanelwere:
• TheknowledgeandcapacitybuiltthroughtheUNIDOtrainingislikelytobeapplied
overalonger-timeperiod,andhavegoodprospectsofbecomingself-sustainingin
eachparticipatingcountry
• NationalexpertsandotherscompletingtheEnMStrainingareabletoadapttheir
116
newlyacquiredknowledgeandthetrainingtheyprovidetochangingaudiencesin
the5participatingcountries
• There is potential to foster adoptionof EnMS in SoutheastAsia industriesbeyond
participatingcountries,sincethescaleofawarenessandeffort is largerandhigher
profile
Theassessmentsoftheindividualpanelmembers(figure4.15)werethattheshelflifeofthe
GEF/UNIDO-supportedeffortstobuildacontinuinginfrastructuretosupportenergyefficiencyare
likelytoprovesomewhat-to-moderatelypositiveforthefirstoutcomeonthelikelihoodthatthe
UNIDOtrainingwouldbecomeself-sustainingineachcountry.Theglobalpanelisquitepessimistic
abouttheadaptivecapacityofthosereceivingUNIDOtrainingandthattheexistingGEF/UNIDO
programcouldexpandbeyondthecurrentfivecountries.
Figure4.15.Globalexperts’assessments-likelihoodofsustainabilityandreplication
Source:Datafromglobalexpertworkshop
Thissuggeststhattheglobalexpertsregardreplicationtootherhighenergy-consumingenterprises
inthetargetedsectorsinprogramcountriesasaplausiblepathwayforreplication.However,their
capacitytoadaptontheirownisunlikelytoprovesufficientshouldsignificantchangesoccur(e.g.,in
technology).Prospectsforexpansionbeyondthefiveprogramcountriesarealsoregardedasdimin
theabsenceoftargetedeffortssuchastheGEF/UNIDOprogram.Together,thissuggeststhatthe
approachestoreplicationbuiltintotheGEF/UNIDOprogramdeservereview.Importantly,the
GEF/UNIDOeffortsarepartofawiderconstellationofenergyefficiencyeffortscontributingto
improvingenergyefficiencyandsustainableconsumptionandproductioninSoutheastAsia.
4.4.3OverallRIEResults
TheGEF/UNIDOprogramisleadingtoquitesignificantenergysavinggainsinbothcountries.These
gainsareattributabletotheprogramsetinthecontextofnationallegislation,ISO50000,andother
factors.TotalGHGemissionsofapproximately1.75milliontonsofCO2overthefirstfiveyearsin
VietnamandinIndonesiacanbeattributedtothechildprojects;andforthefollowingfive-year
periodafurtherreductionof3.1milliontonsofCO2inVietnamandinIndonesiacanbeattributed
totheprogram.Itisplausiblethatanimportantportionofenterprisesthatdidnotengageinthe
initialinterventionwilladditionallyundertakeEnMS,therebyprovidingfurthersignificantGHG
savingsattributabletotheeffortsoftheprogram.
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Prospectsforbecomingself-sustaining
Prospectsforadaptingtochange
ProspectsforadoptioninotherSEAsiancountries
Expert1 Expert2 Expert3
Expert4 Mean
Certain
Likely
Moderatelylikely
Somewhatlikely
Willnotoccur
117
Appendix4.4A:RapidImpactEvaluation
RIEisanevaluationapproachdevelopedtoprovideestimatesofthetargetimpactsattributableto
aninterventionwhereforvariousreasonsotherexistingapproachesarenotfeasible,ethical,or
plausible.RIEisrelativelylowcost,flexibleandcanbeappliedwithlimitedlevelsofprogramand
resultsdata.Itsystematicallytriangulatesjudgmentsofdistinctgroupswithexpertiseinthedesign
andimplementationoftheinitiativeandintheunderlyingsciences.Itrestsonnewdevelopmentsin
theconceptanduseofcounterfactuals,ongreatlysimplifiedimpactmetricsandoninterest-based
evaluation.TheseRIEmethodscanbeappliedaspartofanyormostmixedmethodevaluations,or
theycanbeappliedtogetherasthefullRIEapproach.Thatapproachrestsonandappliesgood
contemporaryknowledgeaboutfactorsthatinfluenceuseofevaluationandscienceknowledge.
RIEutilizesthescenario-basedcounterfactual,anewapproachforcomparingtheinterventiontoan
alternative.Theusualcomparisoniswithandwithouttheintervention;thescenario-basedcounterfactualisawaytocomparetheinterventiontoaplausible,feasible,ethicalandfeasible
alternative.Normallythiswillprovetobeapproachesappliedelsewhereand/orseriouslyconsidered
asanalternativeforthissetting.Forthisapplication,thealternativewasbusiness-as-usualwhere
theexistingnationallegislation,ISO50,001andotherconditionsallcontinuedtoapplybutthe
UNIDOprogramwasnotoffered.ForRIEapplicationsthisisarareinstancewherethescenario-
basedcounterfactualwaswithandwithouttheintervention.TheresearchandpracticebaseofenergyefficiencyforenterprisessofirmlypointedtoUNIDO-typeapproachesthatselectingan
alternativeapproachwouldbequiteartificial.Thescenario-basedcounterfactualsforVietnamand
Indonesiawereverysimilar.
RIEhasthreedistinctphases.Thefirstphase—analogoustoacollaborativeevaluationdesign—is
criticallyimportantwherethenecessaryelementsfortheimpactassessmentareidentifiedand
specified,andthereisconsensusthattheseprovideareasonabledescriptionoftheintervention
amongallofthekeyinterestsinvolvedintheintervention.Structuredinformationgathering
includingapplicationoftheRIEimpactmetricsisundertakeninthesecondphase.Twogroupsof
expertsareaskedtoprovidetheirassessmentontheimpactmetrics;thefirstgroupconsistsof
programexpertsandincludesrepresentativesofallinterestsinvolvedinand/oraffectedbythe
intervention,thesecondgroupofexpertsinthesubjectmatterofthescienceorknowledge
underlyingtheintervention.Aweb-basedsurveyisusedtogaininputsfromtheprogramexperts,a
facilitatedworkshopforthesubjectmatterexperts.Theimpactmetricsarealsoassessedbyoneor
moretechnicaladvisorstotheevaluationwhoarethemselvesexpertsinoneormoreofthesubject
domainsandwhohavegainedconsiderableknowledgeabouttheinterventionthroughtheir
involvementwiththeevaluation.Thethirdphaseincludesanalysis,communications,andreporting
andqualityassurance.
118
Appendix4.4B:ExpertPanelComposition
VietnamPanelHaDangSon IndependentConsultant.HaDangSonhasbeeninvolvedinvariousconsultingand
policyadvisoryactivitiesrelatedtoenergyandclimatechange.Recently,Mr.Son
actedasacertifiedtraineroftheAEMASprogram—aregionalinitiativeonpromoting
energymanagementstandardintheAssociationofSoutheastAsianNations(ASEAN)
region;andinchargeastechnicaladvisorfortheCleanProductionandEnergy
EfficiencyprojectinVietnam.Mr.SonalsoledateamtosupporttheMinistryof
ConstructioninVietnamondevelopingtheLowCarbonDevelopmentActionPlanfor
thecementsector.Currently,MrSonisinvolvedintheVietnamLowEmissionEnergy
ProgramfundedbyUSAIDtosupporttheMinistryofIndustryandTradeofVietnam
withafocusonRenewableEnergyandEnergyEfficiency.
MaiVanHuyen IndependentConsultant.MaiVanHuyen,aMSc.GraduateoftheInstituteof
SociologyofVietnamNationalUniversityinHanoi,hasspentsevenyearsworkingas
CommunicationandAwarenessRaisingCoordinatorfortheMinistryofScienceand
Technology,supportingtheindustrialenergyefficiencyeffortsinVietnam.From2013
todate,Mr.HuyenhasservedasChiefRepresentativeinHanoifortheEnergy
ConservationCenter(ECCHCMC)andasamemberoftheVietnamEnergy
ConservationandEfficiencyAssociation.
PhamThiHanh
Nhan
IndependentConsultant.PhamThiHanhNhanworkedaseconomicconsultantfor
PECSMEproject.Atpresent,sheisworkingasProjectCoordinatorforLowCarbon
EnergyEfficiency(LCEE)Program.Ms.HanhNhanhasbeenlecturingEconomicsand
DevelopmentIssuesforthelast26years,supervisingbachelorstudentsintheirfinal
thesis,andconductingresearchoneconomicandfinancialtopics.Herexpertiseison
financialmechanismandpolicyrelatedtoenergyefficiency.Ms.HanhNhanholdsa
MasterDegreeonDevelopmentEconomicsfromtheLondonUniversity.
TangThiHong
Loan
ViceDirectorofEPRO(sheattendedcompressedairsystemoptimizationtraining
course).TangThiHongLoanobtainedaMasterDegreeinEnvironmentalEngineering
andBachelorDegreeinFoodProcessingatHanoiUniversityofTechnology.Ms.Loan
isafounderofEPRO.Shehasadeepexperienceincleanerproduction,information,
qualitycontrol,monitoring,andevaluation.BeforejoiningEPRO,Ms.Loanworkedat
theVietnamCleanerProductionCentreanditshostorganization,theInstitutefor
EnvironmentalScienceandTechnology,ofHanoiUniversityofTechnology.
NguyenXuan
Quang
LectureratHanoiUniversityofTechnology(heattendedEnMS/compressedair
systemoptimization/steamsystemoptimizationtrainingcourse).NguyenXuan
QuangobtainedhisPh.DinChemicaltechnicatTechnischeUniversitätWien,Austria
andhisMasterdegreeonEnergyTechnicatAIT.Dr.Quangwasinvolvedin
consultationworkrelatedtoenergyefficiency.HisinterestresearchisonBoiler,
EnergyEfficiency(energymanagementmodels,energysavingsolutions,among
others),BiomassGasification,Technologybrickkilns,Optimizationofsystem
furnaces,andindustrialdryers.
IndonesiaPanelChipRinaldi
SabirinUniversityofIndonesiaandcofounderofWestonSolarEnergy
FabbyTumiwa ExecutiveDirectorofInstituteforEssentialServicesReform(IESR),inJakarta.IESR
undertakespublicpolicyanalysisandpolicyadvocacyontheissuesofenergy,
extractiveindustriesandclimatechange
Parlindungan
Marpaung
DirectorofCertificationBodyforProfessionalEngineer(EnergyManagerandEnergy
Auditor)
119
Herlin
Herlianika
HerlinHerliankaisthemanagerofNationalRefrigerationandAirConditioning
Contractor,afirmthatoffersmaintenanceandinstallationonchillers,centralair
conditioningsystems,andcoldstorageinindustrialapplications.Shehasmorethan
12yearsofexperienceaslecturerinthemajorofrefrigerationandairconditioning
subjectsatBandungStateofPolytechnicinBandung,Indonesia,andheld
assignmentswithinternationalinstitutionssuchasADBandUnilever.
Triyono
Adiputra
TriyonoAdiputramanagesaconsultancycompanyfocusingongreenbuilding
certification,energyauditing,andtrainingforenergymanagementsystem.Healso
intermittentlyworksintheenergyefficiency,renewableenergy,andconstruction
sectors.
GlobalPanelNealElliott NealElliottcoordinatesACEEE'soverallresearcheffortsandleadstheAgricultural
program.Heisaninternationallyrecognizedexpertandauthoronenergyefficiency,
energyefficiencyprogramsandpolicies,electricmotorsystems,combinedheatand
power(CHP)andcleandistributedenergy,andanalysisofenergyefficiencyand
energymarkets,plusafrequentspeakeratdomesticandinternationalconferences.
HejoinedACEEEin1993.PriortojoiningACEEE,Mr.Elliottwasanadjunctassociate
professorofcivilandenvironmentalengineeringatDukeUniversityandsenior
engineeringprojectmanagerattheN.C.AlternativeEnergyCorp.(nowAdvanced
Energy)wherehewasfoundingdirectoroftheIndustrialEnergyLaboratory.
PaulScheihing PaulScheihingisatechnologymanagerwithintheEnergyDepartment’sAdvanced
ManufacturingOffice(AMO)andarecognizedexpertinindustrialenergy
management.In2013,theAmericanCouncilforanEnergy-EfficientEconomy
recognizedhimwithaChampionofEnergyEfficiencyinIndustryAwardfor
“leadershipinimplementationofindustrialenergyefficiency,andacareerof
advocatingforenergyefficiencywithingovernmentandindustry.
JigarShah JigarShahisthePresidentandCofounderofGenerateCapital.Mr.Shahfounded
SunEdison(NASDAQ:SUNE),whereheservedasitsfirstCEO,pioneeringthe“no
moneydownsolar”programandunlockingamultibillion-dollarsolarmarket,
creatingthelargestsolarservicescompanyworldwide.HeistheauthorofCreating
ClimateWealth:UnlockingtheImpactEconomy.AfterSunEdison,Mr.Shahservedas
thefoundingCEOoftheCarbonWarRoom,aglobalnonprofitfoundedbySirRichard
BransonandVirginUnitetohelpentrepreneursaddressclimatechange.
AmitBando AmitBandoworksoncorporatechangemanagementissuesinAsia,Europe,andthe
Americas;designing,financing,andimplementingmarket-based,cleanenergy,and
urbaninfrastructuredevelopmentprograms;inthepast5yearsalonehehas
programmedover$18billionworldwide.IntheU.S.,hehashelpeddesigntheSO2
emissionstradingprogramandthetradingframeworkfortheChicagoClimate
Exchange(CCX),whilealsopreparingpositionpapersonclimatechangemitigation.
InadditiontoservingastheExecutiveDirectoroftheInternationalPartnershipfor
EnergyEfficiencyCooperation(IPEEC),wherehecoordinatedsector-specificenergy
efficiencypolicies,regulations,andstandardstopromotefinancingofcleanenergy
initiativesinG-20membernations,Mr.BandohasservedasaSeniorPolicyScientist
attheU.S.DepartmentofEnergy.HehastaughtattheUniversitiesofParis,
Minnesota,Illinois,andChicagoaswellasatNewMexicoStateUniversity.
120
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
ManagersacceptManagerssupport
businesscase-
participants
change-
participants
Enterprises Enterprisesinvest
institutionalize inEnMSprojects-
EnMS-participants participants
Outcomes
EnMSpilotcompany
Industrialenterprisesreceivingtrainingsandsupportfromtheproject
Allsectors
Expertpanel
Technicaladvisor
Appendix4.4C:ProgramExpertPanelAssessments–Disaggregated
Indonesia
Vietnam
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Managers
acceptbusiness
case-
participants
Managers
supportchange-
participants
Enterprise
s
Enterprisesinvest
ininstitutionalize EnMSprojects
-EnMS-participants
participantOutcomes
Nationalexperts
Allsectors
Industrialenterprises
Expertpanel
Knowledgeexperts
Technicaladvisor
121
References
ADB(AsianDevelopmentBank).2010.“People’sRepublicofChina:CapacityBuildingtoCombatLand
DegradationProject—CompletionReport.”https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-
document/62142/36445-02-prc-pcr.pdf.
―2014.“ProjectCompletionReport:TA7439-PRC:ManagementandPolicySupporttoCombatLand
Degradation.”Internaldocument.
Alix-Garcia,J.M.,EN.Shapiro,andK.R.E.Sims.2012.“ForestConservationandSlippage:Evidence
fromMexico’sNationalPaymentsforEcosystemServicesProgram.”LandEconomics88(4):613–638.
Athey,Susan,andGuidoImbens.2015."RecursivePartitioningforHeterogeneousCausalEffects."
arXivpreprintarXiv:1504.01132.
Biau,G.2012.“AnalysisofaRandomForestsModel.”JournalofMachineLearningResearch13:1063‒1095.
Boesen,Nils,andDesireeDietvorst.2007.“SWApsinMotion—SectorWideApproaches:FromanAid
DeliverytoaSectorDevelopmentPerspective2006‒2007.”ReflectionsfromtheJointLearning
ProgrammeonSector-WideApproaches,January2006toApril2007.http://www.train4dev.net.
Borak,J.S.,E.F.Lambin,andA.H.Strahler.2000.“TheUseofTemporalMetricsforLandCoverChange
DetectionatCoarseSpatialScales.”InternationalJournalofRemoteSensing21(6-7):1415–1432.
Brown,Adrienne,MickFoster,AndyNorton,andFelixNaschold.2001.“TheStatusofSectorWide
Approaches,”OverseasDevelopmentInstitute,WorkingPaper142.ODI,London,UK.
Buffardi,AnneL.,andSimonHearn.2015.“Multi-ProjectPrograms.Functions,FormsandImplications
forEvaluationandLearning.”MethodsLab.
CARE.2008.“WhatisaProgramApproach?”AchievingtheProgrammaticOrganization.
http://www.care.org.
CBD(ConventiononBiologicalDiversity).2016.“FrameworkforMonitoringImplementationofthe
Achievementofthe2010TargetandIntegrationofTargetsintotheThematicProgrammesofWork.”
COP8DecisionVIII/15.https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=11029.
Christman, Zachary, Christman Zachary, Rogan John, J. Ronald Eastman, and B. L. Turner II. 2015.
“QuantifyingUncertaintyandConfusioninLandChangeAnalyses:ACaseStudyfromCentralMexico
UsingMODISData.”GIScienceandRemoteSensing1–28.
CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency). 2003. “CIDA Primer on Program-Based
Approaches.”
Critchley,Willliam.2013.“AReviewofthePRC-GlobalEnvironmentFacilityPartnershiponLand
DegradationinDrylandEcosystems.”ADB,internaldocument.
DANIDA(DenmarkAgencyforInternationalDevelopmentAgency).2010.“Evaluationof
ProgrammaticApproachestoSupportfortheEnvironmentinAfrica1996‒2009,”MinistryofForeign
AffairsofDenmark,Copenhagen,Denmark.
Denil,Misha,AlbanDemiraj,NalKalchbrenner,PhilBlunsom,andNandodeFreitas.2014."Modelling,
VisualisingandSummarisingDocumentswithaSingleConvolutionalNeuralNetwork."arXivpreprintarXiv:1406.3830.
DFID(DepartmentforInternationalDevelopment).2001.“SectorWideApproaches(SWAps).”PolicyandPlanningImplementation.
EC(EuropeanCommission).2007.“SupporttoSectorPrograms.Coveringthethreefinancing
modalities:SectorBudgetSupport,Poolfundingandprojectprocedures.”EU,Brussels,Belgium.
―2008.“SectorApproachesinAgricultureandRuraldevelopment.”EU,Brussels,Belgium.
FAO(FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations).2016“InformingFutureInterventions
forScalingUpSustainableLandManagement:LessonsLearnedforDecision-MakersfromaReviewof
ExperiencesoftheTerrAfricaStrategicInvestmentProgramonSLMinSub-SaharanAfrica(SIP)Under
122
theNEPAD-TerrafricaPartnershipFramework.”FAO,Rome,Italy.
http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/bb5da766-90c6-475e-8ea4-a66f6900f670.
Feng,Qi,HuaMa,XuemeiJiang,XinWang,andShixiongCao.2015.“WhatHasCausedDesertification
inChina?”ScientificReports5;15998.doi:10.1028/srep15998.http://www.nature.com/articles/srep15998.
Foley,J.A.,JonathanA.Foley,RuthDeFries,GregoryP.Asner,CarolBarford,GordonBonan,Stephen
R.Carpenter,F.StuartChapin,MichaelT.Coe,GretchenC.Daily,HollyK.Gibbs,JosephH.Helkowski,
TraceyHolloway,EricaA.Howard,ChristopherJ.Kucharik,ChadMonfreda,JonathanA.Patz,I.Colin
Prentice,NavinRamankutty,andPeterK.Snyder.2005.“GlobalConsequencesofLandUse.”Science309(5734):570‒574.doi:10.1126/science.1111772.
Friedl,M.A.,C.E.Brodley.1997.“DecisionTreeClassificationofLandCoverFromRemotelySensed
Data.”RemoteSens.Environ.
Friedl,M.A.,D.KMcIver,J.C.FHodges,X.YZhang,D.Muchoney,A.H.Strahler,C.E.Woodcock,S.
Gopal,A.Schneider,A.Cooper,A.Baccini,F.Gao,andC.Schaaf.2002.“GlobalLandCoverMapping
FromMODIS:AlgorithmsandEarlyResults”RemoteSensingofEnvironment83(1–2):287–302.doi:10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00078-0.
Gamba,P.(Ed.),M.Herold,andM.Ehlers.2010.GlobalMappingofHumanSettlement.BocaRaton,FL:CRCPress.
GEF(GlobalEnvironmentFacility).2001.“GEFProgrammaticApproach:CurrentUnderstandings.”
GEF/C.17/Inf.11.GEF,Washington,DC.
―2015.“FourYearWorkProgramandBudgetoftheGEFIndependentEvaluationOffice.”
GEF/ME/C.48/01.GEF,Washington,DC.
―2016a.“ProjectstoPrograms:ClarifyingtheProgrammaticApproachintheGEFPortfolio.”
GEF/C.33/6.GEF,Washington,DC.
―2016b.“SixthComprehensiveEvaluationoftheGEF(OPS6)ApproachPaper.”GEF/ME/C.50/07.
GEF,Washington,DC.
―2016c.“ValueforMoneyAnalysisfortheLandDegredationProjectsoftheGEF.”
GEF/ME/C.51/Inf.2.GEF,Washington,DC.
GEFSecretariat.2012.“InternalReviewofProgrammaticApproaches,”2012.GEF,Washington,DC.
GEFIEO(IndependentEvaluationOffice).2016.“EvaluationofProgrammaticApproaches:Approach
Paper.”GEF,Washington,DC.
―2017.“ValueforMoneyAnalysisforProgrammaticProjectsoftheGEF.”GEF,Washington,DC.
GDPRD(GlobalDonorPlatformforRuralDevelopment).2007.“FormulatingandImplementing
Sector-WideApproachesinAgricultureandRuralDevelopment,”SynthesisReport.ODI,London,UK.
https://www.gichd.org/fileadmin/pdf/LIMA/Formulating-and-implementing-Sector-Wide-
Approaches-in-agriculture-development.pdf.
Hansen,M.C.,P.V.Potapov,R.Moore,M.Hancher,S.A.Turubanova,A.Tyukavina,D.Thau,S.V.
Stehman,S.J.Goetz,T.R.Loveland,A.Kommareddy,A.Egorov,L.Chini,C.O.Justice,J.R.G.
Townshend.2013.“High-ResolutionGlobalMapsof21st-CenturyForestCoverChange.”Science342,850.doi:10.1126/science.1244693.
IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). 2016. “People’s Republic of China–An
Integrated Ecosystem Management Approach to the Conservation of Biodiversity in Dryland
Ecosystems–TerminalEvaluationReviewReport.”IFAD,Rome,Italy.
Lambin,EricF.,B.L.Turner,HelmutJ.Geist,SamuelB.Agbola,ArildAngelsen,JohnW.Bruce,Oliver
T.Coomes,RodolfoDirzo,GüntherFischer,CarlFolke,P.S.George,KatherineHomewood,Jacques
Imbernon,RikLeemans,XiubinLi,EmilioF.Moran,MichaelMortimore,P.S.Ramakrishnan,JohnF.
Richards,HelleSkånes,WillSteffen,GlennD.Stone,UnoSvedin,TomA.Veldkamp,ColeenVogel,and
JianchuXu.(2001).TheCausesofLand-UseandLand-CoverChange:MovingBeyondtheMyths.
GlobalEnvironmentalChange11(4):261‒269.doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(01)00007-3.
123
Liverman, D., E.F. Moran, R.R. Rindfuss, and P.C. Stern. 1998. “People and Pixels: Linking Remote
SensingandSocialScience.”NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,D.C.
Laurance,WilliamF.,AnaK.M.Albernaz,SchrothGotz,PhilipM.Fearnside,BergenScott,EduardoM.
Venticinque,andCarlosDaCosta.2002.“PredictorsofDeforestationintheBrazilianAmazon.”
JournalofBiogeography29(5-6):737–48.
Meinshausena,Nicolai,AlainHauser,JorisMooij,JonasPeters,PhilipVersteeg,andPeterBuehlmann.
2016.“MethodsforCausalInferenceFromGenePerturbationExperimentsandValidation.”
ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences113(27):7361–7368.
Meyer,WilliamB.,andB.L.TurnerII.1996.“Land-Use/Land-CoverChange:Challengesfor
Geographers.”GeoJournal39(3):237–240.doi:10.1007/BF00188373.
Miller, Daniel C., Agrawal Arun, and J. Timmons Roberts. 2012. “Biodiversity, Governance, and the
AllocationofInternationalAidforConservation.”ConservationLetters6(1):12–20.
Nagendra,H.,D.Munroe,andJ.Southworth.2004.“FromPatterntoProcess:LandscapeFragmentation
andtheAnalysisofLandUse/LandCoverChange.”Agriculture,EcosystemsandEnvironment101:111‒115.
Nelson,Andrew,andKennethM.Chomitz.2011. “EffectivenessofStrictvs.MultipleUseProtected
AreasinReducingTropicalForestFires:AGlobalAnalysisUsingMatchingMethods.”PloSOne6(8):e22722.
Nolte, Christoph, ArunAgrawal, KirstenM. Silvius, and Britaldo S. Soares-Filho. 2013. “Governance
Regime and Location Influence Avoided Deforestation Success of Protected Areas in the Brazilian
Amazon.”ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciencesoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica110(13):4956–61.
ODI(OverseasDevelopmentInstitute).2008.“EvaluationofSector-WideApproachinEnvironment.
ColumbiaCaseStudyReport.Characteristics,Opportunities,RisksandRecommendationsforTaking
theExperienceForward,”PolicyEvaluationDepartmentoftheDirectorate-GeneralforInternational
Cooperation(DGIS).ODI,London,UK.
OECD(OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment).2006.“HarmonisingDonor
PracticesforEffectiveAidDelivery,”DACGuidelinesandReferencesSeries,volume2.OECD,Paris,
France.
Ouyang,Zhiyun,HuaZheng,YiXiao,StephenPolasky,JianguoLiu,WeihuaXu,QiaoWang,LuZhang,
YangXiao,EnmingRao,LingJiang,FeiLu,XiaokeWang,GuangbinYang,ShihanGong,BingfangWu,
YuanZeng,WuYang,andGretchenC.Daily.2016.“ImprovementsinEcosystemServicesfrom
InvestmentsinNaturalCapital.”Science352(6292):1455‒1459.doi:10.1126/science.aaf2295.http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6292/1455.
Pfaff,AlexanderS.P.1999.“WhatDrivesDeforestationintheBrazilianAmazon?”JournalofEnvironmentalEconomicsandManagement37(1):26–43.
Rogan,John,RoganJohn,MillerJennifer,StowDoug,FranklinJanet,LevienLisa,andFischerChris.
2003.“Land-CoverChangeMonitoringwithClassificationTreesUsingLandsatTMandAncillaryData.”
PhotogrammetricEngineering&RemoteSensing69(7):793–804.
Runfola,D.M.,andR.G.PontiusJr.2013.“QuantifyingtheTemporalInstabilityofLandChange
Transitions.”InternationalJournalofGIS.
Schwert,B.,J.Rogan,N.M.Giner,Y.Ogneva-Himmelberger,S.D.Blanchard,andC.Woodcock.2013.
“AComparisonofSupportVectorMachinesandManualChangeDetectionforLand-CoverMap
UpdatinginMassachusetts,USA.”RemoteSensingLetters4(9):882–890.
Shen,Changyu,YangHu,XiaochunLi,YadongWang,Peng-ShengChen,andAlfredE.Buxton.2016.
“IdentificationofSubpopulationswithDistinctTreatmentBenefitRateUsingtheBayesianTree.”
BiometricalJournal.BiometrischeZeitschriftJune.doi:10.1002/bimj.201500180.
Staff,PLOSONE.2014“Correction:InferringTreeCausalModelsofCancerProgressionwith
ProbabilityRaising.”PLOSONE9(12):e115570.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115570.
STAP(ScientificandTechnicalAdvisoryPanel).2008.“ScientificandTechnicalScreeningofthe
124
ProgramFrameworkDocument.”Internaldocument.
Strahler,A.H.,A.Moody,andE.Lambin.n.d.“LandCoverandLand-CoverChangefromMODIS.”In
1995InternationalGeoscienceandRemoteSensingSymposium,IGARSS’95.QuantitativeRemote
SensingforScienceandApplications.doi:10.1109/igarss.1995.521802.
Su,X.,C.L.Tsai,H.Wang,D.M.Nickerson,andB.Li.2009.“SubgroupAnalysisviaRecursive
Partitioning.”JournalofMachineLearningResearch10(February):141‒158.
TerrAfrica.n.d.“InformingFutureEngagementforScalingupSustainableLandManagementin
Africa.”
Tengberg,Anna,FrankRadstake,KebinZhang,andBruceDunn.2014.“ScalingupofSustainableLand
ManagementintheWesternPeople’sRepublicofChina:Evaluationofa10-YearPartnership.”LandDegradation&Development27(2):134–144.doi:10.1002/ldr.2270.
TurnerII,B.L.,RogerE.Kasperson,PamelaA.Matson,etal.2003.“AFrameworkforVulnerability
AnalysisinSustainabilityScience.”ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciencesoftheUnitedStates100.14:8074–8079.
TurnerII,B.L.,D.Skole,S.Sanderson,G.Fischer,L.Fresco,andR.Leemans.1995.“Land-Useand
Land-CoverChange,Science/ResearchPlan.”IGBPReportNo.35/HDPReportNo.7.Stockholm,
Sweden,andGeneva,Switzerland.
UNCCD(UnitedNationsConventiontoCombatDesertification).2015.“AchievingLandDegradation
Neutrality,HowDoWeDoIt?”TheLandDegradationNeutralityProject,Cancun,Mexico.
http://www.unccd.int/en/Stakeholders/private_sector/Documents/Land%20Degradation%20Neutrali
ty.pdf.
UNDP(UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme).1998.“TheProgramApproach:Ownership,
PartnershipandCoordination.”EvaluationOffice.http://web.undp.org/evaluation/documents/progapp.htm
―2013.“ConservationandSustainableUseofGulfofMannar’sBiosphereReserve’sCoastal
Biodiversity.”DraftReportoftheTerminalEvaluationMission.ATLASID13013PIMS0568.
UnitedNations.1989.GeneralAssemblyResolution.A/RES/44/211.UN,NewYork,NY.
UN-REDD(UnitedNationsCollaborativeProgrammeonReducingEmissionsfromDeforestationand
ForestDegradationinDevelopingCountries).2010.UN-REDD2010YearinReview.http://www.forestcarbonportal.com/resource/un-redd-2010-year-review
vanAsselen,Sanneke,andPeterH.Verburg.2013.“LandCoverChangeorLand-UseIntensification:
SimulatingLandSystemChangewithaGlobal-ScaleLandChangeModel.”GlobalChangeBiology19(12):3648–3667.
Wager,Stefan,andSusanAthey.2017."EstimationandInferenceofHeterogeneousTreatment
EffectsUsingRandomForests."JournaloftheAmericanStatisticalAssociation.
Waldron,Anthony,ArneO.Mooers,DanielC.Miller,NateNibbelink,DavidRedding,TylerS.Kuhn,J.
TimmonsRoberts,andJohnL.Gittleman.2013.“TargetingGlobalConservationFundingtoLimit
ImmediateBiodiversityDeclines.”ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciencesoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica110(29):12144–12148.
WHO(WorldHealthOrganization).1999.Sector-WideApproachesforHealthDevelopment.WHO,
Geneva,Switzerland.https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-
files/4533.pdf
WorldBank.1996.“BestPracticeinSectorInvestmentPrograms,”FindingsAfricaRegionNumber11.
WB,WashingtonDC.
―2000.“MovingfromProjectstoProgrammaticAid,”OEDWorkingPaperSeriesNo.5.WB,
WashingtonDC.
―2011.“ProjectInformationDocument(PID)AppraisalStage.”ReportNo.:64848.WB,Washington
DC.
125
―2012.“China-PRC-GEFPartnershiptoCombatLandDegradationinDrylands.Knowledgefromthe
Field.”WB,WashingtonDC.
―2016.“OnaLoanintheAmountofUS$100MillionandaGrantfromtheGlobalEnvironment
Facility(GEF)TrustFundintheAmountofUS$4.265MilliontothePeople’sRepublicofChinaforthe
SustainableDevelopmentinPoorRuralAreasProject.”ImplementationCompletionandResults
Report(IBRD-79100).WB,WashingtonDC.
―n.d.“Investmentfundsfordevelopmentprogram.”ProgrammaticApproach,BackgroundConcept
Note.WB,WashingtonDC.
Yengoh,GenesisT.,DavidDent,LennartOlsson,AnnaE.Tengberg,andComptonJ.TuckerIII.2014.
“UseoftheNormalizedDifferenceVegetationIndex(NDVI)toAssessLandDegradationatMultiple
Scales:CurrentStatus,FutureTrends,andPracticalConsiderations.”STAP(ScientificandTechnical
AdvisoryPanel).http://www.stapgef.org/use-normalized-difference-vegetation-index-ndvi-assess-
land-degradation-multiple-scales-current.
Zhen,Lin,andHuiyuanZhang.2011.“PaymentforEcosystemServicesinChina:AnOverview."LivingReviewsinLandscapeResearch2,doi:10.12942/lrlr-2011-2.http://lrlr.landscapeonline.de/Articles/lrlr-2011-2/articlese4.html.
ZhouL.,andK.Shuifa.2013.“PRC-GEFPartnershiponLandDegradationinDrylandEcosystems‒
AssessmentReport.”AssessmentReport.RuralDevelopmentInstitue,ChineseAcademyofSocial
Sciences.Beijing,China.
Bibliography
Boeve,M.N.,andG.M.BroekVanDen.2012.“TheProgrammaticApproach;aFlexibleandComplex
TooltoAchieveEnvironmentalQualityStandards,”UtrechtLawReview,Volume8,Issue3.Conseilde
l’UnionEuropéenne.2006.“Nouvellesstratégiedel’UEenfaveurdudéveloppementdurable,”Annexe,NoteduSecrétariatGénéralauxdélégations.
DepartmentofEcology,StatepfWashington.2013.“WhatIstheDifferenceBetweenaProgrammatic
and a Project-Level Environmental Impact Statement? Yakima Basin Integrated Water Resource
ManagementPlan,”ReclamationManagingWaterintheWest.
DPER-SESénegal.Undated.“PlandecommunicationetdevisibilitéUE.ProjetdeDéveloppement
DurableparlesEnergiesRenouvelabesauSud-EstduSénégal.”
EC(EuropeanCommission).2004.“AidDeliveryMethods,”ProjectCycleManagementGuidelines,
volume1.EU,Brussels,Belgium.
―2014.“ADecentLifeforAll:FromVisiontoCollectiveAction.”Annextothecommunicationfromthe
CommissiontotheEuropeanParliament,theCouncil,theEuropeanEconomicandSocialCommittee
andtheCommitteeoftheregion.EU,Brussels,Belgium.
―2010.“ToolkitforCapacityDevelopment.”ToolsandMethodsSeries,ReferenceDocumentNo6.
EU,Brussels,Belgium.
―2015a.“AfricanPeaceFacility.AnnualReport2014,”InternationalCooperationandDevelopment.
EU,Brussels,Belgium.
―2015b.“EvaluationofEUSupporttoGenderEqualityandWomen'sEmpowermentinPartner
Countries,”ExecutiveSummary,InternationalCooperationandDevelopment.EU,Brussels,Belgium.
―2015c.“OntheEuropeanUnion’sDevelopmentandExternalAssistancePoliciesandthe
Implementationin2014,”DevelopmentandCooperation,AnnualReport.EU,Brussels,Belgium.
―2015d.“ThematicEvaluationoftheEUSupporttoEnvironmentandClimateChangeinThird
Countries(2007‒2013),”DevelopmentandCooperationEuropeAid,volume1.EU,Brussels,Belgium.
―n.d.1. “The Busan Commitments. An analysis of EU Progress and Performance.” EU, Brussels,Belgium.
―n.d.2.“EvaluationWorkProgram2016‒2020StrategicEvaluations.”EU,Brussels,Belgium.
126
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2011. “Guidelines for UsingProgrammaticApproachesinAgriculture.”FAO,Rome,Italy.
Global Donor Platform for Rural Development. n.d. “Formulating and Implementing Sector-Wide
Approaches in Agriculture and Rural Development: A Synthesis Report.”
https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/3926.pdf.
Harold, Peter et al. 1995. “The Broad Sector Approach to Investment Lending, Sector Investment
Programs,”WorldBank,Washington,DC.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2003. “Harmonising Donor
PracticesforEffectiveAidDelivery,”DACGuidelinesandReferencesSeries.OECD,Paris,France.
―2005‒2008. “TheParisDeclarationofAidEffectivenessand theAccraAgenda forAction.”OECD,
Paris,France.
OECD/DAC(DevelopmentAssistanceCommittee).2010.“Inventoryofdonorapproachestocapacity
development:whatwearelearning,”CapacityDevelopmentTeam.OECD,Paris,France.
PSO. 2007. “Reflecting on key programmatic lessons: a tool to explore your own-organisations-
practice.”
Rumpala,Yannick.2011.“Del'objectifde«développementdurable»àlagouvernementalisationduchangement.Expressionseteffetsd'unepréoccupationinstitutionnellerenouveléeenFranceetdansl'Unioneuropéenne,”Politiqueeuropéenne2011/1(n°33),p.119‒153.doi:10.3917/poeu.033.0119.
Sida.2013.“EvaluationofSida’sSupporttoEnvironmentInfrastructureandReformsinCentraland
EasternEuropeandWesternBalkans1995‒2010.ADeskStudy.”Sida,Stockholm,Sweden.
http://www.sida.se/publications.
Sida.2008.“GuidanceonProgram-BasedApproaches,”DepartmentforMethodologiesand
Effectiveness.Sida,Stockholm,Sweden.http://www.sida.se/publications.
UNDP(UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme).2005.“TransactionCoastinAid:CaseStudiesofSectorWideApproachesinZambiaandSenegal.”HumanDevelopmentReport.
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2005_watt_patrick_26.pdf.
Independent Evaluation Office Global Environment Facility1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433, USAwww.gefieo.org /gefieo_tweets /gefieo