evaluation of the role and contribution of undp in environment and energy-annexes

ANNEXES

A N N E X 1 . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E 8 1

BACKGROUND

Managing environment and energy for sustainabledevelopment is one of the five practice areas ofUNDP under the current multi-year fundingframework (MYFF 2004-07). UNDP has for a long time been involved in the area in differentways but its role and contribution has never been evaluated.

The normative underpinnings place managingenvironment and energy firmly within theconcept of sustainable human development inUNDP. The 1992 Human Development Report1

emphasized the interconnections betweenpoverty, environment and human development.It stated that “one of the greatest threats tosustainable human and economic developmentcomes from the downward spiral of poverty andenvironmental degradation that threatens currentand future generations.” The report furtherrecognized that “the poor are disproportionatelythreatened by the environmental hazards andhealth risks posed by pollution, inadequatehousing, poor sanitation, polluted water and alack of other basic services. Many of these alreadydeprived people also live in the most ecologicallyvulnerable areas.” Outlining the justification forUNDP, a development agency, in the fieldconcluded that:

“…sustainable development implies a newconcept of economic growth – one thatprovides fairness and opportunity for all theworld’s people, not just the privileged few,without further destroying the world’s finitenatural resources and without compromisingthe world’s carrying capacity.” (p. 17)

The concept of intergenerational equity wascentral to the United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development (UNCED), orEarth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.UNDP played an important role in the Summitand was also designated as one of the threeimplementing agencies of the newly createdGlobal Environment Facility (GEF). The purposeof this move was to explicitly mainstream environ-mental concerns into the development policiespursued by UNDP.

The 2004-07 MYFF defines Energy andEnvironment for Sustainable Development2 asthe third Goal for UNDP. The area consists of sixService Lines:

3.1 Frameworks and strategies for sustainabledevelopment – UNDP seeks to develop countrycapacity to manage the environment andnatural resources; integrate environmental andenergy dimensions into poverty reductionstrategies and national development frameworks;and strengthen the role of communities and ofwomen in promoting sustainable development.

3.2 Effective water governance – Supports thesustainable use of marine, coastal andfreshwater resources and improved access towater supply and sanitation services. Thisrequires the appropriate local, national andregional water governance frameworks, andapplication of integrated water resourcesmanagement approaches. This service linealso promotes cooperation in transboundarywaters management.

3.3 Access to sustainable energy services –UNDP supports energy activities to reduce

Annex 1

TERMS OF REFERENCE

1. Human Development Report 1992. Global Dimensions of Human Development, UNDP 1992.2. Second Multi-year Funding Framework, 2004-2007, UNDP.

A N N E X 1 . T E R M S O F R E F E R E N C E8 2

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

3.4 Sustainable land management to combatdesertification and land degradation – Landdegradation is one of the major causes ofrural poverty, as well as one of its effects.UNDP works to break this cycle and reducepoverty through sustainable land managementand by maintaining land-based ecosystemintegrity, particularly in drylands where thepoorest, most vulnerable and marginalizedpeople live. UNDP assists countries andcommunities in land governance, droughtpreparedness, reform of land tenure andpromotion of innovative and alternativesustainable land practices and livelihoods.Special emphasis is given here to thesituation of rural women. UNDP supportsinstitutional and systemic capacity building toaddress desertification and land degradationfor rural poverty reduction, through local,national and global multi-stakeholderdialogue and action. UNDP promotes themainstreaming and integration of majorenvironmental conventions to reduce landdegradation, help land users adapt to climatechange, and maintain services throughecosystem integrity.

3.5 Conservation and sustainable use ofbiodiversity – Through a close integration ofGEF and core activities, UNDP helpscountries and communities maintain andbenefit from the biodiversity and ecosystemservices that underpin human welfare andeconomic development, and provide the poor

with food security, fuel, shelter, medicinesand livelihoods – as well as clean water,disease control, and reduced vulnerability tonatural disasters. UNDP supports thesustainable management of agriculture,fisheries, forests and energy, and a pro-poorapproach to conservation and protectedareas, biotechnology and the development ofviable, new markets for ecosystem services.

3.6 National/sectoral policy and planning to controlemissions of ozone-depleting substances andpersistent organic pollutants – The MontrealProtocol and GEF programmes of UNDPsupport governments as they develop andstrengthen national and sectoral strategies forthe sustained reduction and elimination ofozone-depleting substances (ODS) andpersistent organic pollutants (POPs).Enterprises are assisted in maintaining theireconomic competitiveness through provisionof best available alternative technologies andopportunities for capacity development.

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION

The overall objective of the evaluation is to assessUNDP’s positioning and contributions tomanaging environment and energy for sustainabledevelopment. The evaluation will be bothretrospective and prospective, i.e. taking stock ofthe past while looking into the future withrespect to UNDP’s role in the field, especiallywith regard to the UN reform process. Whiletaking a longer term perspective on the issue, theevaluation will focus on the period of the past fiveyears since 2002.

The results of the evaluation will be reported tothe UNDP Executive Board, both to ensureUNDP’s accountability for achieving its intendedresults, as well as to guide decision-makingregarding its future niche and strategies in thearea. The evaluation will provide recommendationsfor enhancing UNDP’s performance andstrategic positioning, in particular with regard toits role within the UN system.


This evaluation will not study or attempt toconclude on the impact of UNDP’s myriad ofindividual projects, programmes, advocacy andpolicy initiatives in environment and energy, norwill it analyze in depth each major technical areaof environment and energy that UNDP is activein. The emphasis, rather, will be on the overalleffort by the organization to optimize its contri-bution in environment and energy within thecontext of sustainable development.

KEY EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS

The essential criteria included under objectives-based evaluations will be addressed, i.e., relevance,effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability:

n Relevance – The rationale for UNDP’sinvolvement in the field viz. other actors andits own mandate.

n Effectiveness – Positioning of UNDP’sprogrammes and whether they have beeneffective in achieving their results.

n Efficiency – Use of approaches, partnerships,resources.

n Sustainability – Whether the results ofUNDP’s work have contributed to sustainablehuman development and whether they havecontributed to lasting change.

METHODOLOGY

APPROACH

This will be an objectives-based evaluation,focusing on whether the programme’s actualoutcomes are likely to achieve its statedobjectives. The evaluation will take into accountthe changing global environmental debate as wellas evolving international concerns and priorities.

DATA COLLECTION

Primary data collection methods will consist of:(a) reviews of key documents and financial

information, (b) country case studies, (c) regionalconsultations, (d) global consultations, and (e) a survey questionnaire. All of these approacheswill focus on the questions listed in the sectionabove. Studies on specific themes of importancewill also be carried out.

DOCUMENT REVIEWS

UNDP’s goals and objectives are elaborated inthe multi-year funding frameworks (MYFFs) for2000-3 and 2004-7,3 the first of which coincidedwith the introduction of results-based managementat UNDP. The two MYFFs, together with theassociated reports on progress and performance,provide the defining overview of objectives,priorities and achievements from UNDPmanagement’s perspective. These will form astarting point for the evaluation.

A variety of other relevant guidance material,practice notes, performance assessments andevaluations on environment and energy havebeen produced by UNDP and will be reviewed.Similarly, applicable evaluations carried out bythe GEF Evaluation Unit will also be reviewed.

Available financial data on UNDP’s environmentand energy programmes will be summarized and analyzed.

COUNTRY CASE STUDIES

A representative sample of countries will beselected based on transparent criteria for either adetailed study involving a country study or for athorough desk study based on a review ofdocuments and evaluations and interviews with keyclaimholders. The main criteria for the selectionof countries will be to achieve (a) a regionalbalance (with emphasis on sub-Saharan Africa),(b) a mix of country typologies (e.g., largecountries, least-developed countries and SmallIsland Developing States) and (c) an overall mixof core UNDP versus GEF funding. Moreweighting will be given to countries that have

3. Environment and Natural Resources was one of six ‘critical areas’ in MYFF 1 and Energy and Environment for SustainableDevelopment was one of five ‘strategic goals’ in MYFF 2.


had a significant UNDP environment and energyportfolio during the second MYFF phase,i.e., since 2004 (the reason why some UNDPcountry programmes have had smaller environmentand energy portfolios will be explored throughother inquiries).

In the full country studies, both qualitative andquantitative approaches will be used. Evaluationmethods will include interviews, focus groupdiscussions, key informant interviews, andreviews of key documents, including outcomeand project evaluations, progress reports andother relevant documents. Each country studywill produce a country report which will alsoundergo stakeholder validation.

A pilot country visit will be carried out to test andprovide an opportunity for the evaluation team toreflect on the approach and key questions.

REGIONAL CONSULTATIONS

Selected regional centres will be visited by theevaluation team to interview UNDP staff and toconsult with partner organizations operating atregional levels.

GLOBAL CONSULTATIONS

Global consultations will focus on UNDPheadquarters staff and management, and organi-zations with overlapping interests and goals withUNDP. These will explore past, present andfuture collaboration with key partners as well asUNDP’s future positioning on environment andenergy within the UN system.

Special attention will be given to UNEP,including the experience to date and future plans forthe joint UNDP and UNEP Poverty-EnvironmentInitiative. Other global consultations shall includeinterviews with selected staff of internationalorganizations, government agencies, the privatesector, national and international NGOs withoverlapping interests, priorities and concerns.These will include the GEF Secretariat, the GEFEvaluation Office, the World Bank, IUCN, theInternational Institute for Environment and

Development (IIED) and World ResourcesInstitute (WRI).

QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

The main purpose of the questionnaire surveywill be to give a range of UNDP staff working onenvironment and energy as well as the residentrepresentatives and country directors an opportunityto provided structured inputs to the evaluationprocess.The survey is expected to capture informa-tion on UNDP’s staff views on UNDP’s role andpositioning for environment and energy fromdifferent perspectives within the organization.

THEMATIC STUDIES

Specific studies will be undertaken on themes ofrelevance to the topic of the evaluation. Thesewill be specified during the inception phase ofthe evaluation and may focus on topics such asenvironmental mainstreaming; country officethematic priorities; the role of GEF in determiningthe direction of UNDP’s work in EE; and/orselected themes in UNDP’s EE work.

EXPECTED OUTPUTS AND TIMEFRAME

The main output will be a final evaluation report,not exceeding 50 pages, excluding annexes. Thefinal evaluation report will synthesize theevidence from all three components of thisevaluation. The findings, conclusions andrecommendations of the evaluation will besummarized in an Executive Summary.

There will also be reports from the countrystudies that will not exceed 30 pages each, notincluding annexes. The country reports will besummarized in an annex to the main report.

The main evaluation report is to be submitted tothe Evaluation Office by the Evaluation TeamLeader no later than 31 March 2008. The finalreport will be approved by the Evaluation Officeand the findings will be presented to UNDP’sExecutive Board in June 2008. The report willalso be circulated to the participating UNDPunits and country offices, partner organizationsand other key stakeholders.


EVALUATION TEAM

The core evaluation team will comprise threeinternational consultants. One of the internationalconsultants will be designated as the Team Leader,the other two will be designated as PrincipalConsultants. In addition, and depending on theevaluation methodology developed by this coreteam, other consultants (international and national)and advisers may be engaged to contribute to theevaluation process. The Evaluation Office TaskManager will take part in the evaluation as amember of the core team. The team will besupported by one research assistant in theEvaluation Office in New York.

The composition of the team shall reflect theindependence and substantive results focus of theevaluation. The Team Leader and all othermembers of the evaluation team will be selectedby the Evaluation Office taking into account thetechnical qualifications of the consultants in thesubject matter as well as in evaluation.

Each of the core team members will conduct theevaluation in at least two of the selected casestudy countries. The country studies will besupported by the UNDP country offices, whichwill designate a focal point to provide suchsupport in connection with the respectivecountry missions.

ADVISORY PANEL

As part of the consultative process in undertakingthe evaluation, an external Advisory Panelcomprising three individuals from differentcountries, including representatives of interna-tional agencies, will be set up by the EvaluationOffice. The members will be selected on the basisof their recognized stature in the fields ofenvironment, energy, international developmentand evaluation. The Advisory Panel will ensurequality control of the evaluation. It will reviewand provide comments on the draft evaluationreport before submission to the EvaluationOffice. The Evaluation Office will form part ofthe extended Advisory Panel, which will remain

in existence until the completion, disseminationand final review of the evaluation. The inputs andcomments of the Advisory Panel are expected toenrich the process and enhance understanding ofthe issues among a wide audience.

MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

The Evaluation Office will manage the evaluationprocess. It will provide backstopping support and ensure coordination and liaison with allconcerned UNDP units and other key agencies.The Evaluation Office Task Manager willprovide overall guidance, ensure substantivesupervision of all research, and determine theevaluation team composition.

In the case study countries and regions, thecountry offices and regional centres will supportthe evaluation team in liaising with key partnersand in discussions with the team, and makeavailable to the team all relevant evaluativematerial. They will also provide support onlogistical issues and planning for the countryvisits by the evaluation team. In addition, eachcountry office and regional centre will appoint afocal point for the evaluation who will assist inpreparing relevant documents, hiring nationalconsultants, and setting up meetings with allrelevant stakeholders.

The evaluation team will be responsible for thedevelopment, research, drafting and finalizationof the evaluation, in close consultation with theEvaluation Office and other relevant units of UNDP,notably the Bureau for Development Policy.

The Evaluation Office will meet all costs related toconducting the evaluation. It will be responsiblefor the production of the Evaluation Report andpresentation of the same to the Executive Board.

FOLLOW-UP AND LEARNING

This corporate evaluation is expected to helpUNDP identify key lessons on strategic positioningand results that can provide a useful basis forstrengthening UNDP’s role in managing


environment and energy for sustainable develop-ment. It will present good practices from countrycase studies and also draw lessons fromunintended results. The country offices will beable to use the evaluation to strengthen theirstrategic position and vision vis-à-vis partners, whilethe UNDP headquarters and regional centres areexpected to use the evaluation as a tool foradvocacy, learning and buy-in among stakeholders.

The evaluation report and recommendations willbe shared within the organization through avariety of means. The evaluation will bepresented to the UNDP management who willbe responsible for preparing a managementresponse to the findings and recommendations ofthe evaluation. Innovative ways of disseminatingthe evaluation findings will be sought to reach aswide a range of stakeholders as possible.

A N N E X 2 . U N D P P R I O R I T Y S E T T I N G A N D P E R F O R M A N C E R E P O R T I N G 8 7

UNDP’s goals and objectives for the evaluationperiod are identified in two Multi-Year FundingFrameworks for 2000-2003 (MYFF-1) and2004-2007 (MYFF-2). The MYFF approachwas recently succeeded by the strategic plan,2008-11, adopted in late 2007. ‘Environment andNatural Resources’ was one of six strategic resultsframeworks (i.e., priorities) in MYFF-1, and‘Managing Energy and Environment forSustainable Development’ was identified as oneof five core goals in MYFF-2 (hence the title ofthis evaluation). Subsequent achievements inenvironment and natural resources were includedin the Administrators’ reports to the ExecutiveBoard on MYFF-1 and MYFF-2.

MYFF-1

At its introduction, MYFF-1 was described as akey building block in the application of results-based management: “it is against this frameworkof specific organizational goals and intendedresults, reinforced by the business plan, that theresults-oriented annual reports (ROARs) willreview our progress in future.”4

Environment and Natural Resources was one ofsix ‘strategic results frameworks’ (i.e., priorities)in MYFF-1. Related goals and objectives wereintended to “build on the organization’s experi-ence in environmental matters particularly instrengthening national capacity for naturalresources management, and integrating the goalsof global international agreements, conventionsand action plans.”

The main goal was spelled out as “To protect andregenerate the global environment and naturalresources asset base for sustainable humandevelopment,” and three sub-goals were identi-fied: (i) to promote the integration of soundenvironmental management with nationaldevelopment policies and programmes, (ii) tocontribute to the protection and regeneration ofthe environment and to promote access to naturalresources assets on which poor people dependand (iii) to promote equity and burden-sharing ininternational cooperation to protect and enhancethe global and regional environment.

These goals were to be met by “focusing on specificaspects of capacity building,” such as: (i) ratificationof, and national follow-up to, international conven-tions, (ii) legal/regulatory framework and policyimplementation, (iii) national/local programmesfor sustainable environmental management, (iv)management capacity of national environmentalagencies and (v) capacity for local participation inprogramme design/implementation.

MYFF-2

Consistent with its predecessor, MYFF-2 was“designed to be a key instrument for the strategicmanagement, monitoring and accountability ofUNDP.” This MYFF again drew on countryprogrammes’ identification of priority areas, thistime supplemented by three other considera-tions—the MDGs, the Secretary General’sreform programme and the “transformation ofUNDP in terms of operational effectiveness”launched with MYFF-1.5

Annex 2

UNDP PRIORITY SETTING ANDPERFORMANCE REPORTING

4. DP/1999/30.5. DP/2003/32.

A N N E X 2 . U N D P P R I O R I T Y S E T T I N G A N D P E R F O R M A N C E R E P O R T I N G8 8

Enhancing development effectiveness was “at thecore” of MYFF-2, to be achieved by focusing on five “drivers of development effectiveness”:(i) building national capacities, (ii) promotingnational ownership, (iii) advocating and fostering anenabling policy environment, (iv) promoting genderequity and (v) forging strategic partnerships.

‘Managing energy and environment for sustainabledevelopment’ was identified as one of five coregoals in MYFF-2 (hence the title of this evaluation).The others were: achieving the MDGs andreducing poverty, fostering democratic governance,supporting crisis prevention and recovery andresponding to HIV/AIDS. In an effort tosimplify the Strategic Results Framework, whichin the previous MYFF had “comprised six goals,14 sub-goals and 45 strategic areas of support,”the second MYFF had the five goals mentionedabove, but made a reduction in the number ofsub-goals, now termed ‘service lines’, to 30.

The following service lines were identified for energy and environment: (i) frameworks andstrategies for sustainable development, (ii) effectivewater governance, (iii) access to sustainable energyservices, (iv) sustainable land management tocombat desertification and land degradation,(v) conservation and sustainable use of biodiversityand (vi) national/sectoral policy and planning tocontrol emissions of ozone-depleting substancesand persistent organic pollutants.

The Administrator’s 2007 Report to theExecutive Board on MYFF-2 adopted moreassertive language than its predecessor, reportingfor environment the emergence of a “clear role forUNDP.” The report goes on to give an impres-sion of considerable progress in identifyingindicators, targeting, benchmarking and provingimpact of activities, and generally “improvingorganizational effectiveness.” Considerableprogress is noted in contrast to MYFF-1, with its three-tier structure of goals, sub-goals, and 45 strategic areas of support, UNDP was nowengaged in only 30 service lines and supporting90 types of outcome.

RESULTS-ORIENTED ANNUAL REPORT

The ROAR “is UNDP’s principal instrument forreporting on the entire range of activitiesimplemented by operational units. It provides themost comprehensive analysis of the performanceof UNDP and is a key element in meetingUNDP’s commitment to manage for results.” AROAR was required each year from everycountry office during the two MYFF phases. TheROARs related to environment and energyprogrammes should therefore be expected toprovide useful insights on UNDP’s performance.

The first reaction on looking at a country officeROAR for a particular year is that an impressiveamount of performance-related informationappears to have been assembled. There is nodoubt that a considerable level of staff time andeffort has been invested in preparing andupdating these reports. A closer look, however,highlights a number of issues that limit the utilityof this tool in assessing performance:

n Although the ROARs apparently intend todocument the eventual outcome of activities,they are often more focused on immediateoutputs and activities. As a result, they givelittle idea of whether, or to what degree, aparticular outcome has been achieved, andthey are not helpful in identifying longerterm impacts.

n Difficulties also arise from the use ofterminology and a tendency to assume thatthe concepts used are universally clear. Forexample, ‘drivers’ are a key element of theROAR structure although the term does not seem to be used consistently. There isconsiderable vagueness in the use of thefollowing drivers: ‘developing nationalcapacities’, ‘enhancing national ownership’ and‘creating an enabling policy environment’. It isnot clear exactly what these terms mean inoperational terms, how progress might beassessed or what success might look like.The looseness of the terms would be lessproblematic if appropriate indicators ofexpected achievements had been formulated,but this is rarely the case.

A N N E X 2 . U N D P P R I O R I T Y S E T T I N G A N D P E R F O R M A N C E R E P O R T I N G 8 9

n Many other terms included in goals andtargets lack the precision necessary to beuseful in performance assessment, includingfrequent plans to ‘support capacities fordialogue’, to ‘lobby’, to ‘influence’, to‘effectively deliver’, to ‘coordinate’, to‘simplify’, to ‘harmonize’, to ‘promoteeffective and innovative approaches’, to‘empower’, to ‘facilitate’ and so on. Giventhese limitations in defining planned resultsand outcomes, it obviously becomes veryhard to report progress. For example, howshould a respondent answer this: “Did effortsin this area help improve capacities toidentify and coordinate a comprehensiveagenda of specific actions to attain interna-tional, national and local development goalsand targets”? The actual answer given was“yes.” But is this a ‘yes’ to help, improve,identify, coordinate or attain, and at whatlevels? All of this, or just some? And here’sanother example: “Did efforts in this areasupport or allow domestic stakeholdersassume a coordinating role in the formulationand implementation of national, sectoral andlocal development plans and strategies?”.Again, the response is “yes,” but ‘yes’ to what?

n Some activities that may well have beenworthwhile undertakings are sometimesincluded under headings that grosslymischaracterize their scale and potentialinfluence. For example, and this is by nomeans an untypical case, we encountered theoutcome ‘integration of the environment andpoverty into national policies and strategies’with a twofold 2006 target: (i) produce areport on the ‘state of the environment’ and(ii) produce advocacy material ‘for sustainablepastoralism at global levels and commemorationof WCSD nationally’. In fact, this state ofthe environment report was simply the latestin a sequence of similar efforts producedperiodically, while the second seems a tall order,and its value is unclear from the documentation.

How significant a contribution are these tointegrating the environment and poverty intonational policies and strategies? This seemsmore to be a convenient way of categorizingsome modest activities for which fundingwas available.

n Some of these limitations were recognized bythe ROAR compilers and some smallimprovements over time are evident. Forexample, the concise ‘yes’ answers referred toin the previous point were sometimesreplaced in future years by slightly moreinformative responses such as ‘substantialongoing effort’ or ‘some effort’, althoughnotably the language has reverted back tothat of inputs and gives little information onany impacts achieved.

n There is a lack of clear indicators and targetsfor each ‘driver’, with the indicators in useneeding to be much more specific in relationto separate and clearly defined activities,outputs and outcomes. Even applying theseindicators would be hard in many cases due toan almost total lack of baseline information,meaning that any activity and output is likelyto be categorized as an improvement or an ‘outcome’.

n Most activities are undertaken in partnershipwith stakeholders and/or donors, leading todrivers such as ‘forging partnerships forresults’. This naturally makes it hard toisolate and attribute the influence of UNDPor any of the other individual partners, whichof course is a key rationale for partnerships inthe first place. Identifying the actual UNDPimpact on such components as continuingprocesses, dialogue meetings, workshops,formulation of strategies and plans is notoriouslyhard. Yet it raises the key question: Whatwould the situation be if UNDP had nottaken part? Would comparable results oroutcomes still have been achieved due to theactions of the other active partners?

A N N E X 3 . C A S E S T U D Y C O U N T R Y D A T A 9 1

Annex 3

CASE STUDY COUNTRY DATA

Basic Data on the Case Study Countries

Country Population GDP Human Environmental Electricity CO2 Protected(2004) per capita Development Performance Consumption Emissions Areas (as

(PPP US$) Index (2005) Index (2008)* per Capita per Capita % of Total(2005)

Index Rank Score Rank

(kilowatt- (metric tons) Land Area)

of 177 of 149

hours) (2004) (2000) (2004)**

Burkina Faso 13,933,000 1,213 0.370 176 44.3 144 31 0.1 11.5

China 1,312,979,000 6,757 0.777 81 65.1 105 1,684 2.7 11.3

Ecuador 13,061,000 4,341 0.772 89 84.4 22 1,092 1.7 9.3

Kenya 35,599,000 1,240 0.521 148 69.0 96 169 0.3 6.0

Macedonia FYR 2,034,000 7,200 0.801 69 75.1 74 3,863 4.4 7.1

Malawi 13,226,000 667 0.437 164 59.9 121 100 0.1 8.9

Fiji 828,000 6,049 0.762 92 69.7 92 926 0.9 9.9

Samoa 184,000 6,170 0.785 77 - - 619 - -

Sources: UNDP Human Development Report 2007/2008: Population 2004, GDP per Capita 2005, Human Development Index 2005,Electricity Consumption Per Capita 2004. Yale University, Columbia University 2008: Environmental Performance Index 2008. UnitedNations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, The World Bank, World Resources Institute 2005, WorldResources 2005, The Wealth of the Poor: Managing ecosystems to fight poverty: CO2 Emissions Per Capita 2000, Protected Areas 2004

*Note:The EPI focuses on two overarching environmental objectives: 1) reducing environmental stresses to human health and 2) promoting ecosystem vitality and sound natural resource management. These broad goals also reflect the policy priorities of environmental authorities around the world and the international community’s intent in adopting Goal 7 of the MillenniumDevelopment Goals, to “ensure environmental sustainability.”The two overarching objectives are gauged using 25 performance indicators tracked in six well-established policy categories, which are then combined to create a final score. The 2008 EPI deploys aproximity-to-target methodology, which quantitatively tracks national performance on a core set of environmental policy goals forwhich every government can be—and should be—held accountable. By identifying specific targets and measuring the distancebetween the target and current national achievement, the EPI provides both an empirical foundation for policy analysis and a context for evaluating performance. Source: The Environmental Performance Index Executive Summary(http://epi.yale.edu/ExecutiveSummary).

**Note: All areas under IUCN management categories I-V, 2004. Extent of protected areas may include marine components that artificially inflate the percentage of land area protected.

A N N E X 4 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N T H E U N D P C C F 9 3

Annex 4

ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY IN THE UNDP COUNTRY COOPERATION FRAMEWORKS

Focus Areas, Programme Components and Outcomes/Outputs by Country

Country

Burkina Faso

China

Strategic Focus Areas

CPD 2006-2010

n Élargir les opportunitésd’emplois et d’activitésgénératrices derevenus

n Réduire la vulnérabilitéde l’économie rurale etl’insécurité alimentairepour les groupesvulnérables etpromouvoir unegestion durable del’environnement

n Stabiliser/inverser latendance du VIH/SIDA

n Promouvoir la bonnegouvernance

CCF 2001-2005

n Deepening reformsand governance

n Poverty reduction

n HIV/AIDS and development

n Sustainable environment andenergy development

Environment and EnergyProgramme Components

n La gestion durable des res-sources naturelles (eau, sols,forêts) est renforcée au profitdes groupes défavorisés telsque les femmes et les jeunes

n Accroissement de superficiesforestières et de terres aménagées

n Taux de croissance des revenus par an dans les zones rurales

n Environmental governancethat emphasizes buildingnational capacity inimplementing policy, legal andregulatory measures

Planned Outcomes/Outputs

n Les politiques, la réglementa-tion des ressources naturellessont revues

n Les rendements d’uneexploitation rentable durablesdes ressources sont accrus

n Incorporation into micro-economic and sector policiesof approaches to new andrenewable energy sources andend-use energy efficiency thathave been pilot tested andshown to be effective

n Acceptance and use of market-based instruments forsustainable environmentalmanagement, notably in thewestern region

n Strengthened national capacity and empowerment of local stakeholders inenvironmental managementand in promoting biodiversityand conservation

Réduire la vulnérabilité de l’économie rurale et l’insécurité alimentairepour les groupes vulnérables et promouvoir une gestion durable de l’environnement

Sustainable environment and energy development

A N N E X 4 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N T H E U N D P C C F9 4


Country Strategic Focus Areas



China cont’d CCF 2001-2005 cont’d

CCF 2006-2010

n Achieving the MDGs and reducinghuman poverty

n Environment andenergy for sustainablehuman development

n Responding toHIV/AIDS and othercommunicablediseases

n Capacity development tonegotiate and implementglobal environmental commitments

n Support improved end-useenergy efficiency in manufacturing industries andbuildings, and enhancedapplication of new andrenewable technologies

n Mainstream biodiversityconservation concerns andactions into the socio-economic sectors and thedevelopment vision

n Strengthen disaster manage-ment efforts for natural andindustrial, particularly miningsector-related, disasters.

n Increased national capacity to address climate change

n Successful phase out of ozone-depleting substances beingused by several enterprises inthe manufacture of solvents

n Voluntary agreements toimprove energy efficiency andreduce CO2 emissions imple-mented by pilot enterprises

n Regulations, codes, guidelines,standards and labels for energy efficiency and conser-vation designed and applied to selected buildings andequipment

n Capacities increased of energyconservation centres to provideenergy efficiency services

n Implementation of the EnergyConservation Law supported

n Commercialization of new andrenewable energy technologiessupported through demonstra-tion and development ofstrategies, guidelines,standards and regulations

n A coordination mechanismamong national/internationalpartners for the effectivemanagement of biodiversitystrengthened in the followingareas: biodiversity conservationand mainstreaming bio-diversity into planning andinvestment processes

n Coordination mechanismamong national partnersstrengthened

n Capacity to analyze and assess risk improved

n Integrated risk management atthe national and communitylevel enhanced

n Existing policies and riskscenarios reviewed

n Local risk reduction plansformulated

Environment and energy for sustainable human development






Ecuador CCF 1999-2003

n Sustainable development

n Governance

n Poverty eradication

CP 2004-2008

n Combat poverty and create opportunities for all

n Democraticgovernance andtransparency

n Sustainable develop-ment: capacities forthe future

n Establish regulations in thepublic and private sectors toachieve sustainable develop-ment of production potentialand of the country’s naturaland environmental resources

n Provide support to the localand national governmentsthrough the introduction ofnon-polluting technologies,emissions controls andmonitoring of compliancewith environmental standards

n Planning and implementationof environmental manage-ment projects

n Strengthen protected areasand support the developmentof strategies to protect areaswhich are of global importancewith respect to biodiversityand climate change

n Reconstruction of the la Costaregion after El Niño, includingland use planning, develop-ment of catchment basins and reforestation

n Take part in conservationprogrammes in the GalapagosIslands which provide for theneeds of the islands’populationand establish a sustainabledevelopment model

n Continue to promote the rightsof indigenous peoples andtheir active participation in the life of the nation, as in theprinciples of the Indigenousand Tribal Peoples’ Convention(ILO Convention No. 169)

n Strategic areas of support tonational policy, legal andregulatory framework forenvironmentally sustainabledevelopment

n A comprehensive approach to environmentally sustainabledevelopment integrated into national developmentplanning and linked to poverty reduction, includingsustainable energy and majorbasic environmental needs

Sustainable development

Sustainable development: capacities for the future






Ecuador cont’d

Kenya

CP 2004-2008 cont’d

CPAP 2004-2008

n Opportunities

n Empowerment

n Security

n Sustainability

n Institutional framework forsustainable environmentalmanagement and energydevelopment

n Regional cooperation andcoordination in naturalresource management and sustainable energydevelopment

Sustainability

n Integration of the environmentand poverty into nationalpolicies and strategies

n Improve community level of environment and naturalresource governance and useto build capacity and achievelocal and national benefits inbiodiversity and land manage-ment, to support alternativelivelihoods and sustainableincome-generating activities

n Improved capacity of national/sectoral authorities to plan and implement integratedapproaches to environmentalmanagement and energydevelopment that respond tothe needs of the poor

n Improved capacity of localauthorities, community-basedgroups and private sector inenvironmental managementand sustainable energydevelopment

n Improved regional capacity to coordinate and harmonisenational policies andprogrammes for managementof shared natural resources and sustainable energydevelopment

n Policies, thematic action andstrategic plans developed,reviewed, and approved;national plans reviewedthrough the poverty environ-ment initiative and betterdonor coordination achieved

n Overall national policyframework and principles, andspecific framework for forestryand wildlife sectors developed

n Environment managementinformation system, tools forintegration of environmentinto MTEF and PER guidelinesand state of environmentreports developed

n Action plans prepared bycommunities for site-specificprojects on equity, access,sustainable use for generatingbenefits

n Community experiences andexpertise scaled up to supportlocally relevant policy formula-tion in the areas of agriculture,water, biodiversity and solidwaste management






Kenya cont’d CPAP 2004-2008 cont’d

n Development and distributionof sustainable energy servicesto meet household needs, tooffer income-generating andemployment opportunitiesand to service all sectors of the economy

n Domestification of globalconventions through projectdevelopment to build capacityof institutions at all levels andto support the country toachieve its commitmentstowards global agreements on environment

n Evaluation of land tenuresystems to increase individualand/or joint ownership of landin targeted areas for betterland management

n Improvement of rural liveli-hoods involving diffusion ofappropriate land managementinnovations and techniquesthrough local environmentcommunities and farmer field schools

n Improvement of local resourceuse in arid and semi-arid districtsto combat land degradationand desertification

n Increased sanitation levels and improved livelihoodsthrough sustainable solidmunicipal waste managementacitivites in the urban area,with particular emphasis onthe informal settlements

n Sustainable energy strategies,action plans and pilots thatsupport broader developmentgoals and objectives,including information toolsand development ofstandards and regulations

n Capacity built for investmentand resource mobilization forsustainable energy options

n Intervention projects onclimate change and reductionof greenhouse gasesemissions

n Management of internationalwaters and other water bodiesprojects realized

n Phasing out ozone-depletingsubstances projectoperationalized

n Intervention projects onsustainable management ofbiodiversity and landdegradation realized






Macedonia FYR

CCF 2001-2003

n Local governance and municipaldevelopment

n Environmentalgovernance andsustainable development

CP 2005-2009

n Capacity-building forgood governance andrule of law

n Promoting anenabling economicenvironment forpoverty reduction

n Sustainable develop-ment, environmentalprotection andmanagement ofnatural resources

n Strengthen the policyframework for environmentalmanagement and sustainabledevelopment

n Support the implementationof priority policy goals at thelocal level

n Support government inmaking operational basicenvironmental laws in order toachieve good environmentalgovernance on local andnational level

n Improve the state of environ-ment and livelihoods inwatersheds; put in placeintegrated watershed management and trans-boundary cooperation

n Finalize preparations for anational strategy for sustain-able development to establishand make operational theNational Council forSustainable Development

n Assist government in effortsto meet its commitments tointernational conventions

n Support operational activitiesthat strengthen the capacitiesof local stakeholders, in particular local governments,to promote environmentalprotection and sustainabledevelopment

n Test and develop mechanismsfor local implementation ofpolicy goals

n The four priority areas willsupport: (a) mainstreaming of the national strategy forsustainable development intothe activities of the MunicipalDevelopment Programme;(b) implementation of the solid waste management planin selected municipalities;(c) conservation of biodiversityby reinforcing managementcapacities in protected areasin selected ecosystems and (d) sustainable managementof international waters.

n Policy, institutional, regulatory/financial capacities forenvironment management,energy efficiency in place

n Improved ability to monitorstate of the environment

n Capacities for transboundarycooperation strengthened

n Mechanisms on watershedmanagement supported

Environmental governance and sustainable development

Sustainable development, environmental protection and management of natural resources






FYR Macedonia cont’d

Malawi

CP 2005-2009 cont’d

CCF 2002-2006

n Poverty ReductionStrategy SupportProgramme

n Poverty reductionthrough goodgovernance

n HIV/AIDS management

CPD 2008-2011

n Environment andenergy for sustainableeconomic development

n Disaster risk reductionand emergencymanagement

n Mainstreaming HIV/AIDS in the nationaland sub-nationaldevelopment agenda

n Responsive governance,human rights and therule of law

n Assist the country in meetingits obligations under environ-ment conventions such as theUnited Nations FrameworkConvention for Climate Change,United Nations Convention onBiological Diversity, UnitedNations Convention toCombat Desertification

n Poverty policy analysis,programming and monitoring:includes environmentalresearch, impact assessmentand monitoring

n Promotion of sustainablesocial and economicempowerment: includes thepromotion of an integratedapproach for improvedenvironmental management,and development of community-level technologies to improvethe living standards of vulnerable groups

n Assist in addressing climatechange and balancing economicgrowth with utilization ofenvironmental assets

n Develop national capacity tomainstream environmentalsustainability concerns andsustainable use of naturalresources in socio-economicsectors and the overalldevelopment strategy

n Community outreachprogrammes developed and implemented

n Capacities to implement theratified multilateral environ-mental agreements/ protocols improved

n The adoption by governmentand endorsement by civilsociety by 2003 of a holisticpoverty reduction programmewith monitorable targets andagreed benchmarks, coveringincome and other identifieddimensions of poverty

n Adoption of community-leveltechnologies for improvedenvironmental protection

n Promotion of sustainable andaffordable energy services

n Enhanced application of newand renewable technologies

n Assistance with multilateralenvironmental reportingrequirements

Poverty Reduction Strategy Support Programme

Energy and environment for sustainable development

A N N E X 4 . E N V I R O N M E N T A N D E N E R G Y I N T H E U N D P C C F1 0 0





Pacific Islandstates:FederatedStates ofMicronesia,Fiji, Kiribati,MarshallIslands,Nauru, Palau,SolomonIslands,Tonga, Tuvaluand Vanuatu

Pacific Islandstates: CookIslands, Niue,Samoa andTokelau

n Poverty reduction and the MillenniumDevelopment Goals

n Good governance and human rights

n Crisis prevention andrecovery

n Environment and sustainablemanagement

n Equitable economicgrowth and povertyreduction

n Good governance and human rights

n Crisis prevention and recovery

n Sustainable environ-mental management

n Mainstream environmentalsustainability into regional and national policies andplanning frameworks

n Support Pacific communitiesto effectively manage andsustainably use their environ-ment and natural resources

n The environment-economic-governance nexus demonstratedthrough community-basednatural resource managementand use that supports imple-mentation of gender-sensitivenational policies as well as the mainstreaming of environ-ment into national plans

n National capacity to developand implement environmentalpolicies, legislative and manage-ment frameworks developedand mainstreamed throughnational policies and budgets

n Strengthened capacities forimproved access and manage-ment of multilateral environ-mental agreements

n Sustainable livelihoods ofvulnerable groups, includingwomen and youth,strengthenedthrough institutional supportand leveraging indigenousgovernance systems, tocontribute to sustainableenvironmental management

n An engendered ‘environmenthub’ of international, regionaland Samoa-based expertssupported to provide coordi-nated and gender-sensitivepolicy and technical advice onserious environmentalchallenges facing the Pacific

n Community-based environ-mental management activitiesscaled up in the Cook Islands,Niue, Samoa and Tokelau

n Engendered MDG-basedvillage and local-level plansdeveloped by communities

n Gender-sensitized environmen-tal sector plans mainstreamedinto NDPs/ SDPs in the CookIslands,Niue,Samoa and Tokelau

n Gender analysis conducted onthe differential impacts on menand women of environmentaldegradation and natural disasters

n Energy efficiency improved andrenewable energy use promoted

n Best practices and lessonslearned documented and disseminated

n South-South cooperationenhanced

Sustainable environmental management

Environment and sustainable management

Multi-Country CPD 2008-2012

Multi-Country CPD 2008-2012

A N N E X 5 . C O U N T R Y C A S E S T U D Y S U M M A R I E S 1 0 1

BURKINA FASO

CONTEXT

Burkina Faso is a landlocked country in the Sahelregion of West Africa with a population of 13.7 million (2006) and a GDP per capita of$376 (2004). The country has experiencedeconomic growth averaging 5.5 percent duringthe period 1995–2002 (a real per capita growth of around 2 percent). The economy remainsvulnerable to external shocks and highlydependent on export earnings from cotton,livestock and, increasingly, gold. Agriculturalproduction fluctuates with variations in rainfallwhile the unstable political situation inneighbouring Ivory Coast has forced more than350,000 Burkinabè migrant workers to returnhome in recent years. Poverty levels, estimated at41 percent in 2006, have diminished little inrecent years. The socio-economic group mostaffected by poverty is subsistence farmers,who account for close to 75 percent of BurkinaFaso’s poor.

Burkina Faso’s development is closely linked withmanagement of its natural resources. Agricultureis Burkina Faso’s key economic sector, and it ischallenged by water shortages, soil and winderosion, deforestation and overgrazing. Since2004 the country’s national poverty reductionstrategy has included several environmentalmanagement targets. This national strategyrecognizes that sound natural resource managementis necessary for national economic performancebut does not assign an important strategic role toenvironmental issues. In general, governmentinterest in environmental management challengeshas declined precipitously over the past ten years,as the combined threats of drought and desertifi-cation have diminished.

UNDP’S ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY PROGRAMME

‘Environment and energy’ was identified as oneof five priority areas in UN’s Common CountryAssessment (CCA) in 2000. In the CCA of 2004the environment was assigned a more marginalrole. In the UNDAF for 2006–2010, environmentalconcerns appear as a dimension of one of the fivepriorities areas for the UN team—‘addressingthe vulnerability of the rural economy, foodinsecurity issues and the sustainable managementof the natural resources’.

UNDP’s core funding for environment andenergy in Burkina Faso has been limited,averaging around $900,000 per year during thesecond MYFF, 2004–2006. This is roughly theamount that might be disbursed in Burkina Fasoannually by a mid-sized international NGO.According to country office estimates, the maindonor contributions to environment and energyin 2007 came from the African DevelopmentBank (more than €10 million), the EuropeanCommunity, Italy and Sweden (each withbetween €1 and €5 million) and the World Bank,Belgium, France and Luxembourg (eachcontributing under €1 million).

UNEP and UNDP have begun collaboration inBurkina Faso on their shared multi-countryPoverty-Environment Initiative though theresults have not been significant to date. In thepast, UNDP helped UNEP deliver theBurkinabè component, a regional programme forthe development of environmental legislation.

The country office contributed to the RegionalBureau of Africa’s regional strategy on povertyreduction and management of natural resources.This in turn helped shape UNDP’s countryprogramme in Burkina Faso. On the other hand,

Annex 5

COUNTRY CASE STUDY SUMMARIES

A N N E X 5 . C O U N T R Y C A S E S T U D Y S U M M A R I E S1 0 2

the country office found that headquarters oftendidn’t listen to their views or try to learn from thecountry office’s experience. The country officecomplained that headquarters ‘dumped’ newadministrative and financial systems upon themwithout proper consulting. The country officefound the advice provided by the Dakar RegionalCentre to be of uneven quality and utility.

UNDP’s enhanced interest in environment andenergy issues in the past several years is apparentlythe result of decisions by the management teamin the country office. The growing importance ofthe environment and energy practice area withinUNDP’s Burkina Faso programme is reflected inthe growth of their environmental team, fromone environmental officer in 2003 to six officerstoday. Some major bilateral donors havewithdrawn from the sector over the same period,leaving UNDP to play a more prominent role.

Core environment and energy resources providedhave been widely dispersed thematically andgeographically and devoted to a large number ofsmall projects. The Environmental Team in thecountry office is reshaping its portfolio to focuson fewer, larger projects and programmes, such as theProgramme to Improve Incomes and Food Security(ARSA) and the Programme for SustainableManagement of Natural Resources (PGDRN).

The ‘Multifunctional Platform’ project, a keycomponent of the ARSA Programme, wasoriginally developed by UNIDO. Primarilyintended to address local communities’ demandfor affordable energy, the project employs a simplediesel motor to produce a variety of village-levelservices. The motors provide surroundingcommunities with electricity that they can use,for example, to recharge batteries, to make TV orvideo presentations, to pump water for drinkingor small-scale irrigation or to power localartisans’ electrical tools. Indirect environmentalbenefits are likely as a result of communities’enhanced capacities to invest in improved landmanagement.

The platforms primarily support local women,

helping them with arduous and time-consumingtasks such as husking and hulling grains, grindingand milling grain or shea nuts and so on. Womenrelieved from the most tiring physical tasks havemore time to attend literacy classes, participate morevigorously in public life or generate surpluses to invest in small businesses. Local women’sassociations play a lead role in running the multi-functional platforms; this is aimed at strengtheninggender balance in local communities.

At the time of the evaluation visit, some 220multifunctional platforms had been installed inBurkina Faso, with double this number expectedby the end of 2008. The longer termed ambitionis establish a ‘platform’ in each of the country’s8,000 villages. For this to happen their longerterm financial and institutional sustainabilitywithin the communities will need to be ensured.The first generation of multifunctional platformswas 90 percent subsidized by funds from outsidethe communities where they were installed.These communities’ capacities to sustain theoperations of the multifunctional platforms overthe longer term—particularly to cover the costsof operation, maintenance and eventual newcapital investments—are still uncertain.

GEF funding has played a modest but significantrole in UNDP’s environment and energyprogramming to date. On the one hand, GEFmoney has enabled the country office to providesupport related to international conventions,notably those on biodiversity and desertification.On the other hand, and much more significantly,the GEF Small Grants Programme has providedthe country office with valuable lessons inworking on participatory local community-basedprojects. These are reflected in the countryoffice’s two largest current projects, the ARSAand the PGDRN.

ASSESSMENT OF UNDP’S CONTRIBUTION

An earlier generation of UNDP projects in the1990s included support for natural forestmanagement that appears to have been highlyrelevant and appropriate to Burkinabè needs.This project was funded for more than fifteen


years and has provided a basis for much ofUNDP’s subsequent efforts in the sector. A morerecent GEF-funded project in support of wildliferanching had only modest results and was notsuccessful in developing sustainable approaches towildlife management involving local communities.

The current generation of environment andenergy projects is largely focused on sustainablelivelihoods approaches and appears well adaptedto Burkinabè needs, though it is too early topredict how much they will contribute to positivelasting change. The high-profile multifunctionalplatforms discussed above, for example, clearlystill need to address issues of longer termfinancial sustainability.

On another level, the Burbinabè governmentappreciates UNDP support, which has enabledthem to draft national environmental plans andstrategies and to deal with a growing number ofinternational environmental conventions, frame-works and protocols.

Yet, as in many countries, there is concern thatthe considerable body of Burkinabè plans andstrategies related to different global environmentalchallenges that have been underwritten byUNDP-GEF over the past decade have not ledto commensurate levels of activities to implementthese strategies. The task of implementing thesestrategies remains overwhelmingly dependent on the availability of ongoing GEF financing,which in the case of Burkina Faso looks likely to be modest.

Most partners in international organizations,national and regional NGOs and the GEF SmallGrants Programme expressed a high level ofsatisfaction with their collaboration with UNDP.They appreciated the leadership UNDP providesto the international community and its supportfor the environment and energy sector in general.

Overall, UNDP’s environment and energyprogramme is relevant to Burkina Faso’s environ-ment and energy needs and is being implementedwith considerable effectiveness and efficiency.

Recent moves towards focusing UNDP supporton fewer, larger projects and programmes arelikely to enhance the sustainability of results.

Where higher level outcomes of UNDP supportcan been identified, these tend to be more of aprocess nature. For instance, UNDP support wasinstrumental in retrofitting Burkina Faso’snational poverty reduction strategy in 2004 tobetter reflect environmental management issues.In general, however, there is a dearth of monitoringand evaluation information and particularly ofhigh-quality information related to the quality of performance or progress towards higher level results.

CONCLUSIONS

Commitment to environmental sustainability isnow part of the country’s political discourse.There are environment offices within keyministries responsible for energy, agriculture,livestock and infrastructure and requirements forsystematic environmental impact assessment ofgovernment initiatives in these sectors. On theother hand, there is considerable concern that Burkina Faso may be moving away fromenvironmental mainstreaming de facto. As thecombined threats of drought and desertificationrecede from public consciousness, the politicaland development agendas focus more exclusivelyon maximizing short-term economic growth.Similarly, the UNDP country office is notmainstreaming environmental concerns in itsown governance programme.

UNDP’s greatest strength in Burkina Faso is itshuman resources, in particular a senior Burkinabèofficer who is well known and experienced, witha relevant professional background and respectedamong his peers. A stable, knowledgeable,long-term presence in the sector gives UNDP a voice that most international partners—especially those with resources as modest as thoseof UNDP—do not have.

UNDP’s biggest weaknesses are first, the modestand sometimes hard-to-predict nature of thefinancial support it has to offer and second, the


cumbersome financial management proceduresassociated with the ‘direct procurement’ approachcurrently used. For example, the country office iscounting on support from the GEF-financedCountry Partnership Programme to help themlobby for the systematic integration of sustainableresource management practices into BurkinaFaso’s rural development policies and programmes.Yet they worry that by the time this support isavailable in the country, the whole approach mayneed to be redesigned to reflect the steadilyevolving situation.

CHINA

COUNTRY CONTEXT

China is immensely important for the globalcommunity and the global environment. China’s1.3 billion people constitute over 20 percent ofthe global population, and its rapidly growingeconomic and political role in the world make thecountry’s sustainable development choices andstrategies particularly important for the globalcommunity. Since the country began opening its economy in the 1980s, China has seenextraordinary economic growth, sustained atclose to 10 percent annually for most of the pastquarter century. In late 2007, China overtookGermany as the world’s third largest economyand is expected to become the world’s largesteconomy by 2020. Yet hundreds of millions ofChinese citizens are still faced with chronichardship. Despite the country’s unprecedentedgrowth in recent decades, the HumanDevelopment Report 2007/2008 ranked Chinaonly 81 of 177 countries, with a ‘medium’ HumanDevelopment Index of 0.78.

China’s sustained rapid economic developmenthas had numerous negative consequences for theenvironment at local, national and global levels.Crucial natural resources, such as water, land andclear air are becoming scarce, especially in thecoastal provinces and rapidly expanding urbanareas. China is an increasingly prolific consumerof energy, contributing to severe air, water andsoil pollution and rapidly rising greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change is recognized

as a major threat to China’s future economicdevelopment due to its likely effects on waterresources, agricultural land productivity andcoastal zones. These issues in turn are linkedexplicitly to poverty, especially in rural areaswhere livelihoods remain highly dependent onnatural resources and people lack the capacitiesneeded to adapt to a changing climate. Rapidgrowth of China’s agriculture and industry alsothreatens biodiversity in this mega-diverse country.

Minimizing the environmental impacts ofeconomic development—particularly in theenergy, water and transport sectors, in both urbanand rural areas—will be one of China’s keyenvironmental management challenges for thefuture. Urban environmental management problems(including air pollution and water pollution,collection and treatment disposal, includingrecycling and reusing wastes) will be especiallydaunting. Of the 20 most polluted cities in theworld, 16 are located in China. Experts believethe declining availability of water for domestic,agricultural and industrial consumption— Chinahas just 8 percent of the world’s fresh water—could well become a major environmental crisisfor 21st century China.


UNDP’s environment and energy strategy inChina is focused on helping the country achievethe goals of its 11th Five-Year Plan while also improving compliance with MultilateralEnvironmental Agreements such as those relatedto climate change, biological diversity, persistentorganic pollutants and the protection of theozone layer. China’s 11th Five-Year Plan(2006–2010) sets ambitious targets for achievingenergy security and reducing greenhouse gasemissions. It focuses on improving industrialenergy efficiency, expanding use of renewableenergy for power generation and povertyreduction, increasing China’s share of the globalcarbon market and enhancing the availability ofcommercial finance for locally made renewableand alternative technologies. The plan furtheremphasizes the mainstreaming of biodiversityconservation into poverty reduction, in particular


in production landscapes for livelihoods and rural development. Reflecting rising concernsabout environmental health hazards, the planalso calls for better management of hazardouschemicals. Overall, it emphasizes the importanceof environmental governance, including policyand legal measures, enhanced citizen awarenessand participation in decision making andimproved capacities.

UNDP’s programme in China responds to thepriority areas identified in China’s latest 5-yearplan. The obvious overlap with the GEF focalareas, notably climate change, biodiversity andchemicals, allows UNDP to tap into GEFfinancial resources. The current programme isorganized into the following areas: (i) ClimateChange and Sustainable Energy, (ii) Biodiversityand Ecosystem Services, (iii) EnvironmentalGovernance and (iv) Toxic Chemical Management.Issues related to water and natural resourcesmanagement, mining and disaster reduction areof growing interest for UNDP in China.


Since the 1990s UNDP has been playing asignificant role in building capacity andproviding technical assistance on environmentalmanagement and sustainable development inChina. UNDP has mobilized $467 million forthe environment and energy sector, much ofthese funds channeled from the GEF and MPF.Though UNDP’s TRAC funds in China havebeen limited, the organization has been able tomake a significant contribution in China’sachievement of its environment and energy goals,including its national energy policy.

From the point of view of the global environmentand sustainable development, China is arguablythe most important country in the world. Inresponse, UNDP’s own environment and energyprogramme in China is its largest worldwide.The GEF as well has allocated more resources tomitigating climate change in China thananywhere else, much of this passing through theUNDP country office. In recent years, UNDPhas also invested considerable human resources

in China, more than doubling the size of itscountry office environment and energy teambetween 2005 and 2007.

UNDP’s role in China is well defined and theprogramme is nationally driven, reflecting theGovernment of China’s priorities. UNDP’sstrategic positioning in China cannot be judgedon the same terms as in other countries. In thisgiant, centrally planned country, the governmenthas a high degree of control over its developmentpriorities and how environmental and energypolicies relate to these. Programmes and prioritiesof international organizations do not driveChinese policy; international projects do nothave direct policy impacts. The role of suchprojects is rather to introduce new concepts,such as energy efficiency or market-basedmechanisms, which can be piloted and tested.Those deemed promising may be replicated bythe government, and the successful ones maycontribute to policy development. Policydevelopment in itself is the government’s role.UNDP does not provide direct inputs to Chinesenational policy formulation, but UNDP serves asan important channel of information andknowledge about internationally availableconcepts, ideas and technologies that are relevantto China’s policy development.

This is not to say that UNDP cannot have animpact on environment and energy issues inChina. In consultation with the Government ofChina, UNDP can select areas where it cancontribute by bringing in international experienceand approaches and testing their application inthe Chinese context. Examples include the ‘EnergyEfficient Refrigerators’ project and the ‘EnergyConservation and Greenhouse Gas EmissionsReduction in Chinese Township and VillageEnterprises’ project. UNDP’s global knowledgenetworks are a critical asset in these undertakings.

UNDP can and does enhance the impact of itswork through carefully selecting which partnersto work with. For example, well-positionednational organizations such as the NationalDevelopment and Reform Commission (NDRC)


and State Environmental Protection Administrationcan ensure that lessons from projects are fed into policy-making processes. A key example isthe End-Use Energy Efficiency Programme with NDRC.

Another role for UNDP is more symbolic.Cooperating with authorities, especially at locallevels, can provide an added level of legitimacy toits projects and thus help UNDP to attractadditional funding, partnerships and attention.Similarly, it can promote alternative ways ofdesigning and implementing projects andinvolving partners, including NGOs or theprivate sector, which can eventually demonstratetheir added value to Chinese policy makers.Examples of this approach include the ‘ChinaGreen Lights’ programme and the ‘CapacityBuilding for Rapid Commercialization ofRenewable Energy’ project. Both of thesesuccessfully introduced market-based instrumentsinto the planning and implementation processesby exposing participants to international experiences and providing training to nationaland local officials.

UNDP’s Environment and Energy programmehas been effective, particularly in helping establishan energy policy coordination mechanism as wellas pilot renewable energy technologies. UNDPplayed a unique role in developing capacitiesamong local entrepreneurs, bringing interna-tional experiences and an understanding of globalconcerns for environment and energy.

The efficiency of UNDP-funded projects issometimes adversely affected by a lack of therequired level of technical capacities withinUNDP’s counterpart agency, the ChineseInternational Centre for Economic and TechnicalExchanges (CICETE).

UNDP’s environment and energy programmesare sustainable wherever they are closely alignedwith national priorities and policies. For example,the energy efficiency programmes are closelyaligned with the country’s mainstream energypolicy and priorities and were highly sustainable

as a result. The wetlands biodiversity programme,on the other hand, was not.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial contributions from UNDP’s corefunding to environment and energy activities inChina have been low. It would be desirable forUNDP to provide more TRAC funding as ademonstration of its corporate commitment toenvironmental sustainability. Nevertheless,overall funding mobilized by UNDP Chinathrough the GEF, Montreal Protocol, the privatesector and, most importantly, governmentcounterpart contributions has enabled thedevelopment and implementation of a number ofsuccessful projects. UNDP has established aniche for itself and the necessary funding andleverage to play a lead role in coordinatingenvironment and energy activities within the UNsystem in China. What has been missing is thedeployment of truly high-level expertise in theUNDP country office to enable UNDP toeffectively engage in policy dialogue with theChinese government and other internationalpartners on key environment and energy issues.The absence of this capacity in the country office is recognized as a weakness by both thegovernment and UNDP.

From a corporate point of view, UNDP Chinashould document Chinese experiences and transferits successful practices to other programmecountries through the UNDP developmentnetwork. Again, to effectively support this kindof function, the country office will need tofurther develop its analytic capacities.

ECUADOR

CONTEXT

Ecuador is a middle-income country on thePacific coast of South America characterized byhigh levels of ecological and ethnic diversity.Economic growth in recent years has been rapidbut significant inequalities in income distributionand living standards remain between rich and poor,urban and rural, and different ethnic groups.


The country has gone through several bouts ofpolitical instability over the past decade. Thesehave weakened the institutional capacities of thecentral government, affecting its performanceand coordination.

The expansion of the agricultural frontier intoeastern Ecuador’s tropical forest regions withhigh biodiversity values, the intensive bananacultivation in the western coastal plains and thegrowth of the petroleum extraction industry haveall had significant environmental impacts inrecent decades. The National Development Planfor 2007-2010 is Ecuador’s first national plan inten years. Its objectives include a healthy andsustainable environment, and it guaranteescitizens’ access to safe water, air and soil. The newplan highlights the following environmentalmanagement priorities: (i) conservation andsustainable use of biodiversity; (ii) integrated forestmanagement; (iii) integrated watershed planning;(iv) development of a response to climate change;(v) sustainable and renewable energy development;(vi) a consolidated institutional framework forenvironmental management and promotingsustainability policies; (vii) pollution preventionand control; (viii) improved state management ofsocio-environmental conflict and (iv) reducedpublic risk and vulnerability to natural disasters.


UNDP’s 2004-2008 Country Programme ActionPlan (CPAP) targets three related areas:

n Incorporating sustainable developmentprinciples into national/local policies andprogrammes,

n Improving the availability and access ofenvironmental goods and services, and

n Supporting the prevention and managementof natural disasters.

These areas are aligned to the core goal of ‘Energyand Environment for Sustainable Development’set forth under UNDP’s 2004-2007 Multi-yearFunding Framework, where the following outcomes

are also foreseen:

n Improved capacity of national/sector author-ities to plan and implement integratedapproaches to environmental managementand energy development that respond to theneeds of the poor;

n Improved capacity of local authorities,community-based groups and the privatesector in sustainable energy development; and

n Improved capacity of local authorities,community-based groups and the privatesector in natural resources and environmentalmanagement.

An environment working group, one of severalinter-institutional technical groups created byUNDP Ecuador, is chaired by the country office’ssustainable development programme manager.This arrangement has created opportunities forinter-agency collaboration among several UNagencies and the GEF Small Grants Programmein the recently approved Yasuní Reserve project.An environmental ‘Response Fund’ managed byUNDP’s Sustainable Development Unit and theGEF-SGP has been incorporated into UNDP’sextensive Northern Border Peace and DevelopmentProgramme. UNDP is also producing a method-ological guide on gender that is based on oneused by GEF Small Grants Programme. All thesedevelopments reflect the gradual shift towards the‘one UN’ approach that is expected to continue inthe next programme cycle.The government’s decisionto cease channelling public funds throughUNDP—combined with a gradual decline indonor resources due to Ecuador’s status as an oil-exporting, middle-income country—mayencourage further collaboration among UNagencies to rationalize available resources.

UNDP is gradually reducing its focus on theGalapagos Archipelago and will be focusing moreresources on the mainland during the nextcountry programme cycle. This shift is alreadyvisible with new projects like ‘Adaptation toClimate Change through Effective WaterManagement’ and ‘Creation of the Yasuní


Reserve’, which enhance the relevance ofUNDP’s environment and energy programme tomainland Ecuador while strengthening UNDP’salready good relations with the Ministry ofEnvironment. This shift towards more projectson the mainland will also expand opportunitiesfor inter-agency collaboration.

UNDP core resources represented less than 3 percentof total UNDP expenditures in their environmentand energy (sustainable development) programmebetween 2004 and 2006. These ‘non-core’resources for environment and energy activitieswere important for the overall UNDP Ecuadorprogramme as well, representing 93 percent of allthe non-core and non-government resourcesavailable to the country office. Of this, some 80percent came from the GEF.

ASSESSMENT OF UNDP’S CONTRIBUTIONS

Two-thirds of the current environment andenergy budget commitments are focused on theGalapagos Islands. This reflects a long-standingUNDP recognition of the archipelago’s global

importance as a biodiversity site. GEF-fundedprojects support biodiversity conservation andthe development of renewable energy sources,while UNDP’s core projects there help close thegap between conservation and development, withsupport for institutional coordination andintegrated regional planning.

The most important outcome achieved to date inUNDP’s environment and energy programmehas been in the area of controlling invasivespecies in the Galapagos. Other significantimpacts foreseen are related to renewable energygeneration and sustainable financing for invasivespecies control. At the central government level, UNDP’s support to the Ministry ofEnvironment on strategic planning, projectdevelopment and stakeholder consultations ismuch appreciated by the government.

The links between the sample environment andenergy projects reviewed by the evaluation andEcuador’s National Development Plan policypriorities are summarised in Table A1.

Table A1. Ecuador’s National Development Plan Policy Priorities

National EE Policy Priority

Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity

Integrated forest management

Integrated management of water resourcesthrough watershed-based planning

Prevention and mitigation of the effects of climate change

Renewable energy development and efficiency

Articulating environment with social and economic policies

Improving state management in areas of social and environmental conflict caused by extractiveactivities

Effective risk management and reduced vulnerability to natural disasters

Relevant UNDP Projects

n Control of Invasive Species in Galapagos n GEF Small Grants Programme

n Yasuní Reserve n GEF Small Grants Programme

n Adaptation to Climate Change through Effective Water Management

n Adaptation to Climate Change through Effective Water Management

n Second National Communication for Climate Change

n Renewable Energy for Galapagos – ERGAL

n Galapagos 20/20n PROINGALA

n Yasuní Reserven Environmental Strategy for

Sustainable Development

n Galapagos Oil Spilln Adaptation to Climate Change through Effective

Water Management


CONCLUSIONS

UNDP’s environment and energy projects arerelevant to Ecuador’s national environment andenergy priorities—particularly those related tobiodiversity conservation and renewableenergy—as defined in their 2007-2010 NationalDevelopment Plan and other policy documents.

The effectiveness and sustainability of UNDPEcuador’s environment and energy projects andprogrammes varies. They are influenced by lowinstitutional capacity, inadequate coordination,past periods of political instability and systemicefficiency constraints within UNDP. Environmentand energy projects, particularly in Galapagos,have been vulnerable to administrative delaysthat in some cases have led to increased costs andaffected performance.

Improvements in the effectiveness, efficiency andsustainability of UNDP’s environment andenergy programmes in Ecuador will require (i) more attention to developing capacities ofnational partners, (ii) a shift from short andmedium-term projects towards support for longerterm processes, (iii) streamlined administrativeprocedures and quicker response times and (iv) greaterenvironment and energy staff involvement inprogramme management, strategic planning,field monitoring and knowledge management.

KENYA

COUNTRY CONTEXT

Kenya is endowed with a diversity of landscapes,ranging from mountains to savannah grasslands,arid and semi-arid lands and a coastlinebordering the Indian Ocean. The Great RiftValley runs the length of the country, withmountain ranges on the western and easternfringes and lakes on the valley floor. Kenya’spopulation of 32 million is unevenly distributed,ranging from about 300 people per km2 in theareas with high agricultural potential to as low as3 people per km2 in the arid and semi-arid lands.Less than 20 percent of the country is classifiedas having high agricultural potential while aridand semi-arid lands and lakes account for the rest.

Half of Kenya’s population lived below thepoverty line in 2005. The majority of Kenyans arehighly dependent on natural resources for theirlivelihoods. The government’s ‘Economic Strategyfor Growth and Wealth Creation in 2003-2007’set out its poverty reduction strategies, and anational ‘Vision 2030’ lays out an ambitiouseconomic development plan based on compre-hensive industrialization.

Over the past decade Kenya has felt the impactsof natural resource mismanagement in the formof diminished hydro-electrical generationpotential. This has been the result of forestdestruction in the watersheds of major dams,especially around Mount Kenya. Water suppliesto the cities have also been disrupted. Droughtshave become more prolonged and severe, withensuing rains coming more often in the form ofdestructive flash floods. Growing pollution ofLake Victoria has contributed to the proliferationof invasive water hyacinth that threatens thefishing industry and water transportationnetworks. This pollution has also resulted in fishproducts from Africa’s largest lake being bannedin the European Union, with a predictablynegative impact on the newly emerged fishexport industry.

Kenya has formulated a series of policies and lawsto improve its natural resource management inrecent years. These followed a period of unprece-dented environmental degradation in the 1990s.Policies and laws on wildlife, arid and semi-aridlands and land use are currently being reviewed.The government has ratified the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD), the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC), the United Nations Convention toCombat Desertification (UNCCD) and theConvention on Persistent Organic Pollutants(POPs). National priorities and plans forimplementing these conventions have beendeveloped through GEF enabling activities,mainly with UNDP as the implementing agency.


The UNDP country office environment and energyunit was set up in 1999 as a single programme


officer supported by junior professional officersand interns. A further programme officer and anassistant joined in 2002, and there have usuallybeen at least two local UN Volunteers as well. Aselsewhere, the Small Grants Programme (SGP) isrun separately by a national coordinator supportedby several support staff.

The office has seen 49 projects approved since1999 with a total budget of $32 million, consistingof $4 million from TRAC funds, $12 millionfrom GEF and $16 million in co-financing. Fivefull-sized GEF projects account for $20 million,or over 60 percent of the total budget. Theremaining $12 million in the portfolio finances alarge number of small projects, including variousGEF enabling activities and support for NGOs.An explicit shift was made during the implemen-tation of the 2004–2008 Country Programme.The country office now aims to work more withNGOs to generate faster results and to moreeffectively reach communities. Several UNDPprojects have demonstrated both the feasibilityand the importance of NGO-government collaboration. For example, support for theKenya Forest Working Group helped this activistorganization play a key role in forest protectionin a region where degradation was reachingcritical proportions.

Project management has proven very time-consuming for the environment and energy team,who have consequently had less opportunity tofocus on more strategic or policy-related issues.Inefficient administrative systems within UNDPhave led to significant delays in processingtransactions and transferring funds, causingconsiderable frustrations among project partnersand stakeholders. The country office team hasbeen obliged to focus more on project proceduresand mechanisms than on working closely withgrantees and executing agencies to enhanceimpacts and results.

The scattered nature of the many small projectsalso seem to lead to a risk of overlap with otherdonor initiatives or situations where UNDP’srole is reduced to that of a subcontractor to larger

projects or programmes, which may hamperUNDP’s ambitions of being the UN organizationfrom which the government seeks advice onenvironmental issues. This is not a clear-cut case,however, as some of the smaller projects wereinfluential, helping build capacity outsidegovernment, and UNDP (as an institution, notjust the country office) needs to learn how tomanage these more efficiently. It would beunfortunate if UNDP was to move away fromNGO support when government capacity andcommitment seems insufficient to delivereffective larger projects.


The overall quality of UNDP projects in Kenya isdifficult to measure or assess. The office deservescredit for establishing an elaborate system formonitoring project progress. The office isstruggling to demonstrate outcomes or impacts;however its reports focused mostly on activitiesand outputs. The overall portfolio, while itcontains some worthwhile projects, lackscoherence and is clearly driven largely by theavailability of GEF funding.

There are high levels of dissatisfaction amongpartners due to (i) frequent funding delays that jeopardize communities’ trust and UNDP’scredibility, (ii) frequent and sudden shifts and turns,for example, in budgets and reporting require-ments, (iii) a lack of sustained technical input and(iv) poor communications. These challengesundermine the trust needed for solid partnerships,such as little or no feedback on progress, no discus-sion or information on budget cuts, no informationon significant events taking place in the countryoffice, or frequent summons to meetings that areperceived by partners as sudden ‘ambushes’.

The SGP is highly regarded by stakeholders inKenya. Established in 1993, by the end of 2006 ithad supported over 200 projects through NGOsand community-based organizations, with grantsfrom $20,000-30,000. As elsewhere, the SGP inKenya is often seen as the visible face of not justUNDP but the GEF in the environment field,since the larger projects tend not to be as visible


at local levels. Increasing media interest inenvironmental issues has resulted in significantcoverage of Kenya’s SGP projects in the national,regional and international media. Two GEFmedium-sized projects have been developed by scaling up earlier SGP grants: ‘MarketTransformation for Efficient Biomass Stoves forInstitutions and Small and Medium-ScaleEnterprises’ and ‘Developing Incentives forCommunity Participation in Forest Conservationthrough the Use of Commercial Insects inKenya’. Notwithstanding these examples, SGPusually operates independently from the countryoffice, making their relationship difficult andimpeding their ability to pursue opportunities forsynergies. SGP’s experience working with localcommunities could provide useful inputs to otherUNDP programmes, not just in the environmentfield but also in poverty and livelihoods.Furthermore, Kenya is one of the SGPprogrammes faced with the prospect of gradua-tion—a polite term for a discontinuation of GEFfunding—and there is a risk that this valuableprogramme could be lost if the country officedoes not begin to play a more proactive andsupportive role.

Institutionally, UNDP has played a role in theestablishment of the National EnvironmentalManagement Authority and, more recently, theKenya Forest Service. Cooperation with UNDP’sDrylands Development Centre has contributedto the development of strategies for coping with drought. A National Cleaner ProductionCentre was established in 2003 in collaborationwith UNIDO.

UNDP support has contributed to new legislationand policy shifts in the environment sector,notably the 1999 Environmental ManagementCoordination Act, which provided the initialnational framework for environmental management,even though it has not been effectivelyimplemented. More recently UNDP hascontributed to the preparation of nationalforestry and energy acts. An inaugural nationalState of the Environment report was supportedin 2003. It is hard to accurately assess howimportant UNDP’s role was in these interventions.

Kenya has been host to one of three pilots for theUNDP-UNEP Poverty-Environment Initiative(PEI) that aims to mainstream environmentalconsiderations into the development programmesin all sectors. The PEI is emerging as a criticaltest case for the UNDP-UNEP partnership.Despite strong support from the top leadershipof both agencies, coordination between UNDPand UNEP is proving to be a practical challengethat is hampered by system and procedureincompatibilities as well as staff reluctance inboth agencies.

UNDP also helped establish and has chaired theGovernment of Kenya’s joint consultative meetingson environment. But UNDP Kenya does not seemconvincingly integrated with donor harmonizationefforts or efforts to establish Joint AssistanceStrategies, and it does not seem actively involvedin the mainstream development discourse. Forthe most part UNDP is perceived by the otherdonors more as an implementing agency than apolicy influence.The perpetual demands of projectmanagement make it hard for UNDP to consis-tently and significantly influence government.Other donors and government stakeholderswould like to see UNDP focus its efforts more onthe policy dialogue and capacity building, ratherthan managing large portfolios of small projectswhich, apart from SGP, does not seem to beUNDP’s comparative advantage.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, UNDP is a valued development partnerfor both government agencies and NGOs inKenya. UNDP is appreciated by its partners inKenya as an effective mobilizer of funds, a neutralbroker and, in a few cases, a source of technicalsupport and policy influence. NGOs in particularare more positive than government partners,citing several examples of project replication orscaling up, effective organizational capacitybuilding and strong outreach achieved throughUNDP support. UNDP staff are generallyrecognized as competent, but overwhelmed byproject implementation demands.


FYR MACEDONIA

CONTEXT

The Former Yugoslav Republic (FYR) ofMacedonia is a relatively small country coveringroughly 25,000 square kilometres with a populationof just over two million. It is a young countrywith a long history in a turbulent region. Like its western Balkan neighbours, FYR Macedonia’soverarching goals today are EU accession andregional security. The many challenges of EUaccession include the need to greatly enhancelocal environmental management capacities.

The current priorities of FYR Macedonia’sMinistry of Environment are solid wastemanagement, water and waste management andclimate change. UNDP helps them face theseissues as well as helping them address short-termenvironmental crises and the longer termchallenge of developing decentralized capacities.


Environment has been a focus of UNDP supportsince their first Country Cooperation Frameworkin 1999-2001. Not long after UNDP opened itsoffice in FYR Macedonia it launched the innova-tive ‘Municipal Employment AssistanceProgramme—Clean and Green Macedonia’project. With cost-sharing support from Norwayand Sweden, the project started in the two majortowns of Skopje and Tetovo. By 2001 the projecthad expanded to include FYR Macedonia’s 80largest municipalities. The project providedemergency employment by recruiting unskilledworkers to clean up illegal dump sites, streambeds and river banks, to properly dispose of solidwastes and to rehabilitate urban parks and othergreen spaces. These activities reflected the priori-ties of the country’s first National EnvironmentalAction Plan, which had identified solid wastemanagement as the country’s top environmentalpriority. Not incidentally the project also createdsome 7,400 months of temporary employment ata time of severe economic downturn.

In the subsequent period of 2002–2007 UNDPhelped FYR Macedonia to:

n Introduce integrated watershed managementin the Prespa Lakes watershed;

n Mitigate and prevent pollution at industrialpollution ‘hotspots’;

n Meet its obligations under multilateralenvironmental agreements;

n Develop its capacities to respond to naturaland man-made disasters;

n Develop its capacities for crisis management;

n Develop national and local environmentalmanagement capacities;

n Develop a national sustainable tourismstrategy; and

n Launch an environmental small grantsprogramme that helps communities to addresslocal environment and development challenges.

UNDP’s core resources in FYR Macedonia aremodest in comparison with larger internationalpartners. UNDP TRAC funds spent or availablefor environment and energy programmes in theperiod 2002–2010 amounted to $950,000 by late 2007, or less than 15 percent of the totalenvironment and energy funding for this period.Relatively abundant GEF funding—accountingfor around 60 percent of funds spent or availablein the same period—has had a considerable effect on the character of the overall UNDPprogramme. Much of this programme is concen-trated around an international waters projectfinanced by GEF in the Prespa Lakes region.

The integrated watershed management programmearound the Prespa Lakes accounts for the lion’sshare of the current UNDP environment andenergy budget in FYR Macedonia. Of a budgetof approximately $6.7 million spent andprojected for the period 2002–2010, approxi-mately $4.7 million or 70 percent is committedto the Prespa Lakes region. Of this $4.7 million,$3.5 million are GEF funds and the remaining$1.2 million are from the Swiss government.


The GEF-financed project serves as a hub for anumber of complementary projects in the PrespaLakes region of FYR Macedonia, Albania andGreece. Home to a unique flora and fauna,surrounded by wetlands rich in endemic speciesand an important breeding and feeding site forvulnerable bird species, the region is also threat-ened by unsustainable natural resource manage-ment and land use practices. The UNDP-GEFproject aims to ensure a well-coordinated andintegrated regional approach to ecosystemmanagement. The goal is to conserve globallysignificant biodiversity by reducing the pollutionof these transboundary lakes from all threeneighbouring countries.

In FYR Macedonia, the GEF project is comple-mented by three other UNDP projects. The firstone is helping restore the Golema River, themain Macedonian tributary feeding the PrespaLakes. A second project helps reduce theenvironmental impacts of agriculture bystrengthening capacities among the region’s treefarmers to optimize and reduce their use ofagrochemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) andirrigation water. The third project supportsimproved solid waste management services andwaste minimization in the communities of thewatershed. These complementary contributionsall help enhance the local relevance of the GEF-financed project.

ASSESSMENT OF UNDP’S CONTRIBUTIONS

UNDP is a relatively small player compared withlarger, mostly European donors who provideassistance for Macedonian infrastructureprojects, legislative reform and reforms in theenergy and agriculture sectors. UNDP aims tocomplement these bigger interventions and toprovide support in areas where others don’t, suchas helping FYR Macedonia meet its obligationsunder multilateral environmental agreements.

Theoretically the roles of UNDP and other UNagencies active in FYR Macedonia are comple-mentary. In reality, sometimes these agencieswork well together and sometimes they don’t.UNDP has worked effectively with the UN’s

World Tourism Organization to supportdevelopment of the national sustainable tourismstrategy and with UNESCO, which is working toestablish a Biosphere Reserve in the Ohrid andPrespa Lakes region. UNEP and UNDP playeda valuable joint role in responding to FYRMacedonia’s forest fire emergency of mid-2007;but UNDP’s overall relations with UNEP inFYR Macedonia, as with UNIDO, needimprovement if the agencies are to work togetheras parts of a coherent single UN programme inFYR Macedonia. These agencies still operatequite independently in the country much of the time.

UNDP Macedonia has made good use of supportfrom the Bureau for Crisis Prevention andRecovery at UNDP headquarters and, especially,support from the UNDP Regional Centre inBratislava. The Bratislava centre has helped FYRMacedonia develop its portfolio of projectsrelated to climate change as well as an initiative toreduce agriculture input consumption.

The country office has not documented itsachievements very effectively to date, thoughproject evaluations in 2001 and 2003 reportedimpressive results, including the development ofsubstantial technical capacities among localadministrations, industrial firms and NGOs aswell as increased public awareness of localenvironmental challenges and the options fordealing with them. By 2003, according to theseevaluations, there had been ‘significant improve-ment’ in several industrial enterprises’ responsesto environmental problems, including greaterrecycling of waste materials that producedconsiderable savings for the firms and wastewaterrecycling that eliminated local effluent streamsinto the main river. Substantial training capacitywas developed in a local NGO-run ‘RegionalCentre for Cleaner Production’ while environ-mental monitoring equipment allowed the localpublic health institute to compile data onmunicipal pollution levels.

Outcomes are beginning to emerge as well forthe more recent Prespa Lakes projects wherelocal government and NGO partners perceive


UNDP as having been very successful. WithUNDP support, effective solid waste collectionand disposal systems have been developed intwenty settlements, generating revenues fromusers’ payments to local service providers.Support to local orchardists allows them toreduce their costs for pesticides, fertilizers andirrigation water while also reducing their ecologicalimpacts. These environmental activities have alsocontributed to achieving local governments’primary goal of stimulating economic growth inthis relatively depressed region.

UNDP Macedonia does not mainstreamenvironmental concerns effectively in their ownoffice. Yet they do appear to be helping theirpartners to mainstream environmental concernsin a number of modest but significant ways, suchas helping the national crisis management centreto improve protection of forests and soils andsupporting development of a national sustainabletourism strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

On one hand, the country office’s environmentand energy team works effectively and productivelywith a wide range of government, civil societyand international partners who clearly appreciatethe country office’s openness and professionalism.On the other hand, larger scale UNDP interven-tions are plagued by cumbersome administrativeprocedures dictated by global headquarters andbeyond the control of UNDP Macedonia.

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’skey future environmental management challengeswill be to develop decentralized environmentalmanagement capacities, to ‘approximate’ EUenvironmental standards and practices and tomove quickly towards more preventive ratherthan curative approaches to environmentalmanagement. The country office recognizes thatthese challenges represent emerging opportuni-ties for UNDP in FYR Macedonia but itscapacity to respond to them will be constrainedby limited human resources and especially themodest TRAC funds available to them.

MALAWI

COUNTRY CONTEXT

Malawi is a land-locked least developed country insoutheastern Africa bordered by Mozambique,Tanzania and Zambia. With a high populationdensity and per capita annual income of US$667,Malawi faces significant development andenvironmental challenges. Approximately 65percent of Malawi’s 13 million people live belowthe poverty line, and average life expectancy isjust 46 years. The Human Development Index(HDI) ranked Malawi 164 out of 177 countries.Despite the fact that Lake Malawi is the thirdlargest body of freshwater in Africa, one-third ofthe country’s population lacks access to safedrinking water, and child mortality is precariouslyhigh, at 133 per 1,000 deaths before age 5. Theprevalence of HIV/AIDS among residents 15-49years of age is 14 percent. Malawi’s economy ishighly dependent on agriculture, which accountsfor 90 percent of export earnings and three-quarters of total employment. The country ishighly vulnerable to climatic variations; droughtsin recent years have led to widespread foodshortages and famine. With 40 percent ofMalawi’s annual development budget supportedby donor assistance, the country is heavilydependent on external financing.

During the period 1994–2003, the governmentset out its development and environment goals ina series of documents including a NationalEnvironment Action Plan (NEAP), Vision 2020,the State of the Environment (SOE) report andthe Malawi Growth and Development Strategy(MGDS). The government has signed theCartagena Protocol on Biosafety and ratified theUN Framework Convention on ClimateChange, the Kyoto Protocol and the Conventionon Biological Diversity. Despite such steps, littlehas been done to address the country’s environ-mental challenges through comprehensive policy,due to the lack of a concrete action plans,overlapping priorities and, most significantly, ashortage of financial resources.

Environment as a specific area of focus islanguishing in Malawi; there is limited interest,and few resources are being invested by the


government or donors. Government budgets forenvironment and forestry are declining. Thoughdecentralization is a policy priority for thegovernment, environmental managementcapacity at district levels is almost non-existent, asituation exacerbated by losses of district-levelstaff due to HIV/AIDS.

Only limited data are available on the state of theenvironment, including deforestation rates andthe MDG7 target of improved access to cleanwater (one partial baseline survey was conductedin 2002). UNDP was designated to lead an initialdonor coordination effort on environment butthis did not go well, apparently due to insufficientUNDP capacity and limited government interest.There is little sign of genuine harmonizationamong the donors.


The UNDP Malawi Country Office had onlyhad one energy and environment staff memberduring the evaluation period. To date, the totalbudget allocated to the environment and energyprogramme has been $15 million, consisting of$5 million in UNDP core funding, $4.9 millionfrom GEF, $3 million from MPF, and $2.1 millionfrom bilateral donors (primarily from DANIDA).

Environment was identified as an explicit goal inthe UNDP’s First Country CooperationFramework (CCF, 1997–2001) in Malawi and asa cross-cutting issue (under poverty reduction) inthe Second CCF (2002–2006). In addition, theadoption of community-level technologies forimproved environmental protection is identifiedas one of the key expected results under thePoverty Reduction Strategy Support Programme.The country office did not allocate TRAC funds toenvironment and energy because they anticipatedfunds would be mobilized through the GEF andMontreal Protocol Fund. GEF resources did notmaterialize on the scale anticipated. DANIDA’swithdrawal from Malawi further reduced theavailability of funds, and Malawi is now almostentirely reliant on lower-than-expected GEFfinancing for its environment and energy work.

The UNDP Malawi’s environment and energyportfolio contains three major projects: (i)

‘Phase-out of Methyl Bromide in the TobaccoSector in Malawi’, a $3-million project financedby the Montreal Protocol Unit; (ii) ‘BarrierRemoval to Renewable Energy (BARREM)’, a$3-million GEF-financed project that promotesthe use of solar power for homes outside the ruralelectrification grid and (iii) the ‘SustainableSocio-Economic Empowerment Project forPoverty Reduction’, a participatory developmentproject built upon earlier UNDP work oncommunity-based capacity development andbenefiting from strong collaboration with severalNGOs. This project has had positive impacts andthe use of African UN Volunteers at thecommunity level appears sustainable, though theproposed implementation period seems too shortto hope for structural change.

Other environment and energy activities largelyconsist of GEF-financed enabling activities,communications for international environmentalagreements and biodiversity projects. The GEF-funded Sustainable Land Management in theShire River Basin, part of a larger World Bank/GEF TerrAfrica programme, is under prepara-tion.

UNDP led the process of preparing an UNDAFfor 2008–2011, consistent with the government’sexpressed priorities of economic growth, agri-cultural development and food security. UNDP’sown CPD shows little connection to UNDP’sglobal strategies; it has apparently been moreinfluenced by the Strategic Plan of the UNDP’sAfrica Bureau.


The government’s view of UNDP’s support forenvironmental programming is neutral. UNDP isnot regarded as having any particular comparativeadvantage in this sector. UNDP Malawi’s staff isrespected but both government and donorscomplained of slow disbursements and financialreporting. Some government departmentsappreciated UNDP’s local presence as well as theease of access to technical experts in the regionalcentres and at headquarters (e.g., for work onmethyl bromide and renewable energy).

The country office works mainly with Malawi’sDepartment of Environmental Affairs, which


handles most of the GEF funding and is responsiblefor international environmental obligations.However, the country’s most pressing environmentalmanagement challenges are not ‘GEF-able’issues; rather the primary issues are in agricultureand other key sectors aiming to enhance sustainablelivelihoods and lower poverty levels.

Currently, UNDP appears to have limitedcredibility with the Ministry of Agriculture andFood Security and the Department of LandConservation, though these are the governmentagencies that UNDP needs to influence andsupport with policy and technical advice if it is to have a strategic impact on high-priorityenvironmental management issues in Malawi.This issue came up repeatedly in discussions with various government departments, NGOsand donor agencies. The forthcoming launch of aPoverty-Environment Initiative in Malawi mayprovide an opportunity to address these issues,with the Ministry of Lands and NaturalResources being the focal point for this initiative.

Malawi’s NGO sector appears relatively strong insustainable land management, water, food security,famine relief and community-based development,although the government has not takenadvantage of this capacity. UNDP is providingsome support to the sector, and the SustainableSocio-Economic Empowerment Project forPoverty Reduction involves several NGOs.

UNDP Malawi lacks in-house capacities andresources and its strategic impacts in environmentand energy have been limited, despite whatappear to be at least two relatively large andeffective projects. The country office is about toincrease its capacity significantly with a newGEF Small Grants Programme, PEI (togetherwith UNEP), a climate change adaptationprogramme under a new disaster risk/recoveryadvisor and additional consultants.

CONCLUSIONS

UNDP’s role in managing the environment andenergy programme in Malawi has generally beenrelevant and effective. Removing barriers to theprovision of energy services is a good example ofsuccessful project activities. Another is the

phasing out of methyl bromide use in the tobaccosector. UNDP’s interventions in Malawi havestrengthened government capacities to deal withenvironment and energy issues. UNDP has alsoachieved positive results at the policy level,helping the government comply with interna-tional treaties on climate change and biodiversityconservation. Yet neither UNDP nor its non-GEF partners show much interest in makinglong-term commitments to support environmentand energy programming in Malawi. As GEFfunds diminish, environment and energy willdecline commensurately.

The government and UNDP country office aremostly focused on food security, povertyreduction and human health concerns—for veryvalid reasons. For the environment and energyprogramme to be more sustainable over thelonger term in Malawi, two things must happen.First, UNDP needs to allocate a significantportion of its own resources and tap other,non-GEF resources for environment and energyprogramming. Second, the environment and energyprogramme must find entry points related toeconomic growth, poverty reduction and foodsecurity. UNDP will need to be more proactive in strengthening partnerships with such organi-zations as UNEP, FAO and WFP.

PACIFIC ISLAND COUNTRIES

CONTEXT

The Pacific Island Countries (PICs) are charac-terized by small populations (all have less than0.9 million inhabitants and most have far fewer),remoteness, vulnerable economies, very hightransaction costs for almost any investmentinitiative, very small cadres of skilled people, highpopulation mobility with exceptionally high ratesof overseas emigration rates, extreme dependenceon imported petroleum fuels for energy needsand fragile ecosystems. These countries aretypically very vulnerable to externally generatedeconomic and environmental change such asclimate change.

Government departments dealing with environ-mental and energy matters are very small, poorlyresourced and generally do not exert muchinfluence on key policy decisions. Many Small


Island Developing States (SIDS) share thesecharacteristics, although in the Pacific thedistances within and between countries and theextent of isolation are extreme. Furthermore, percapita economic growth in the Pacific has beenvery low for a decade.

Several PICs (Fiji, Tonga and Solomon Islands)have suffered from political instability.Significant levels of inequality and povertyremain in a number of PICs, particularly inMelanesia. In many, depletion of land and marineresources continues apace. For the atoll countries,rapid urbanization has led to serious overcrowd-ing on main islands along with growing sanita-tion and waste management issues.


UNDP has multi-country offices (MCOs) in Fijiand Samoa, managing programmes in ten andfour countries, respectively. There is also anational UNDP office in Papua New Guinea,which is not covered by this case study, althoughmany of the sub-regional programmes handledby the two MCOs also include Papua NewGuinea. There are environmental teams in bothMCOs. UNDP is viewed by the PICs as aneutral and solid partner, with a long history inthe region and a good understanding of how toaccess GEF resources.

GEF has historically been the most importantfunding source for regional/multi-countryenvironment and energy activities in the Pacificsub-region,6 with over 90 percent of all GEFprojects implemented by UNDP. No other GEFimplementing agency has offices within theregion, although UNEP has a small presence in Samoa, and the World Bank provides somesub-regional services to the PICs from Sydney,Australia, which is about 3,200 km from Fiji and4,300 km from Samoa. The use of UNDP corefunds for environment and energy work has beenextremely limited, few other donors have had aconsistent presence and government budgets are

minimal. GEF projects implemented by UNDPhave thus constituted the bulk of sub-regionalenvironment and energy programmes in recentyears, although the European Community has asizeable and growing presence.

Genuine links to the MDGs, poverty reduction,governance and sustainable livelihoods—or anyother signs of mainstreaming—are hard to detectwithin the governments and are almost nonexistentwithin the UNDP MCOs. Although UNDP isviewed positively by the PICs, its influence appearsto be waning, and it is seen as an organizationlacking any clear environment and energy nicheor expertise, weak in technical skills, inconsistentin project design quality and perhaps less flexiblethan some other potential implementingagencies. There is little perception among keydonors that UNDP is a source of real environ-mental or energy expertise in the region. UNDPhas been complacent and could easily lose itspreeminent GEF role.


GEF funding in the PICs has been short termand project based. Considerable resources havebeen provided for enabling activities that have ledto a variety of plans, strategies and communicationsrelated to MEAs, few of which appear to beclearly connected to genuine national priorities.On the other hand much valuable informationfrom these initiatives has been synthesized invarious studies and forms a potentially valuablebasis for decision making and future projectdevelopment. A number of more recent, largerprojects appear to be increasingly relevant to suchnational and regional concerns as protection of fish stocks, water resources management,adaptation to climate change and renewableenergy. Largely through UNDP-GEF assistance,the PICs as a group have been very active inglobal environmental forums and have workedeffectively with other SIDS to help focus globalattention on their shared concerns.

Another clear result in these small countries,however, has been a series of distortions:

6. GEF is the most important funding source for regional TA studies in energy and environment for the PICs. It is not sofor investment, where ADB has invested a lot into energy systems, as have bilateral agencies from Australia, NewZealand, Japan and China.


Governments suffer reduced capacities to addressother energy and environment needs outside thescope of these mostly GEF-financed projects.Staffing patterns are distorted because themajority of staff is project funded. Staff retentionpatterns are disrupted because local bureaucraciescannot absorb staff financed by projects, onceproject funding ceases. There is also distortion inthe type of skills developed; these projects havenurtured primarily skills in analysis and reportingrather than more action-oriented capacities. Yet,because other potential sources of financialsupport are limited, the governments considerthat they have little choice but to continue toseek GEF funding. There is little evidence thatmost of the 14 governments consider environ-mental protection or sustainable resourcemanagement as areas in which it is worthinvesting much of their own resources.

Most UNDP-GEF projects take the form ofPacific sub-regional programmes, seekingeconomies of scale by sharing services, skills andexperiences among the countries. The perceptionamong governments, NGOs and others in theregion however is that regional organizationsoften benefit more from these initiatives than dothe individual countries. Although regionalorganizations compete fiercely for funds, mosthave not convinced many stakeholders they candeliver practical services at national levels. Thisleads to increased pressure from governments formore national-level projects, even though manyPICs have not effectively implemented nationalcomponents of sub-regional activities and thetransaction costs of single-country projects inthis region can be excessive.

Although operational costs are extraordinarilyhigh in the sub-region, the MCOs do not receiveadditional financial resources to offset thesecosts. As a result, according to one UNDP staffmember: “…we are stuck in a situation where it isvery expensive to operate so we provide lousy servicesand therefore get even less to spend.”

CONCLUSIONS

The PICs have often felt pressured to sign andratify environmental agreements that are ofcurrent concern to the global community. These

are not necessarily high priorities locally, relevantto the island states or even necessarily in theirinterests. Reporting requirements can easilydistort the work plans and priorities of smallnational agencies. A commonly expressed viewwithin the region is a perceived donor tendencytoward new emphases every few years, little long-term continuity in their programming, a lack ofwillingness to support specific national efforts forthe period of time needed to make much impact,sudden switches to new programming prioritiesand progressively shorter project cycles.

Despite significant GEF funding, and capacity-building elements in nearly all projects, thesehave seldom built long-term government capacities.The capacity of the PIC governments to manageenvironment and energy has not notably improvedin the last one to two decades, with the arguableexception of Samoa. The Pacific sub-region has,nonetheless, developed a sizeable cadre of skilledenvironmental—and to a lesser extent energy—professionals working for regional organizations,numerous environmental NGOs and a few smallconsulting companies. The overwhelming bulk ofthis capacity is concentrated in Fiji and Samoa.UNDP projects have played a significant role indeveloping this capacity. The donor communitydraws upon it regularly. Governments of theregion, on the other hand, seldom use thiscapacity directly. UNDP could play a valuablerole by helping these countries more effectivelydraw upon this capacity within the region, usingit to better access environmental funds and todesign and implement projects well adapted tothe needs, constraints and capacities of the PICs.

UNDP has not sustained its previously goodrelationships with donors active in energy andenvironment in the region, nor developedeffective relationships with prospective newpartners. In principle there have been significantrecent opportunities for UNDP to leverage itsimpact through coordination and cooperationwith a number of bilateral and multilateral initia-tives in both environment and energy, to themutual benefit of the region, UNDP and theother organizations. These opportunities havenot been seized; insufficient efforts have beenmade to retain and cultivate relationships.

A N N E X 6 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D 1 1 9

NEW YORK

UNDP

Alers, Marcel, Climate Change Manager, GEF,EEG, BDP

Carvalho, Suely, Chief, MPU and PrincipalTechnical Adviser, POPs, GEF, EEG, BDP

Clairs, Tim, Acting Principal Technical Adviser,Land Degradation, and Regional TechnicalAdviser, Biodiversity and InternationalWaters, Arab States, GEF, EEG, BDP

Dobie, Philip, Officer-in-Charge (during mainpart of evaluation) and Director, DDC,EEG, BDP

Ghanime, Linda, Adviser, Frameworks andStrategies for Sustainable Development,EEG, BDP

Gjuzi, Albana, Programme Specialist, WesternBalkans, RBEC

Glemarec, Yannick, Executive Coordinator,GEF, EEG, BDP

Gold, Stephen, Global Programme Manager,GEF National Dialogue Initiative, EEG, BDP

Harlin, Joakim, Technical Adviser, Water,EEG, BDP

Hazlewood, Peter, Coordinator, PEI, EEG, BDPHerrera, Raquel, Programme Officer, RBLACHough, John, Deputy Executive Coordinator,

a.i. and Principal Technical Adviser,Biodiversity, GEF, EEG, BDP

Hudson, Andrew, Team Leader, Water andPrincipal Technical Adviser, InternationalWaters, GEF, EEG, BDP

Huseby, Mari, Programme Analyst, North EastAsia and Mekong Division, RBAP

Johnson, Gordon, Practice Manager, EEG, BDPJones, Terence, Deputy Director a.i.,

Directorate, BDPKayser, Dominique, Programme Coordinator,

POPs, EEG, BDPKhilji, Taimur, Consultant, Directorate, RBAP

Kjørven, Olav, Assistant Administrator andDirector, Directorate, BDP

Kwan, William, Deputy Chief, MPU andProgramme Coordinator, POPs, GEF,EEG, BDP

Leshchenko, Oksana, Programme Specialist andChernobyl Coordinator, Western CIS andCaucasus, RBEC

Lim, Bo, Principal Technical Adviser, CapacityDevelopment and Adaptation Cluster, andChief, National Communications SupportProgramme, GEF, EEG, BDP

Lockwood, David, Deputy AssistantAdministrator and Deputy RegionalDirector, RBAP

Makhetha, Metsi, Programme Adviser, Strategicand Regional Initiatives Unit, RBA

McDade, Susan, Resident Coordinator,UNDP Cuba

McNeill, Charles, Senior Technical Adviser,Biodiversity, EEG, BDP

Niamir-Fuller, Maryam, Principal TechnicalAdviser, Land Degradation andDeforestation, GEF, EEG, BDP

Remple, Nick, Deputy Global Manager, GEFSmall Grants Programme, EEG, BDP

Reza, Rini, Programme Adviser, South EastAsia and Pacific Division, RBAP

Sekhran, Nik, Acting Principal TechnicalAdviser, Biodiversity, GEF, EEG, BDP

Suokko, Maria, Programme Specialist, Southand West Asia Division, RBAP

Takada, Minoru, Acting Manager, SustainableEnergy Programme, EEG, BDP

Torres, Emma, Consultant, RBLACUdovi_ki, Kori, Assistant Administrator and

Director, RBEC Van der Vaeren, Claire, Chief, South East Asia

and Pacific Division, RBAPVandeweerd, Veerle, Director, EEG, BDP

Annex 6

LIST OF PEOPLE CONSULTED

A N N E X 6 . L I S T O F P E O P L E C O N S U L T E D1 2 0

WASHINGTON DC

UN ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERMULTILATERAL DONORS

Andersen, Inger, Sector Director, Water,Environment, Social and RuralDevelopment Department, Middle East andNorth Africa Region, The World Bank

Bosi, Martina, Fund Manager, Carbon FinanceUnit, Environment Department, The World Bank

El-Ashry, Mohamed, Senior Fellow, UnitedNations Foundation

Feinstein, Charles, Sector Manager, Energy inSustainable Development, Europe andCentral Asia Region, The World Bank

Hosier, Richard, Team Leader, Climate andChemicals, Secretariat, GEF

Lintner, Stephen, Senior Adviser, QualityAssurance and Compliance Unit,The World Bank

Ramankutty, Ramesh, Head, Operations andBusiness Strategy, Secretariat, GEF

Tokle, Siv, Senior Evaluation Officer,Evaluation Office, GEF

Volonte, Claudio, Chief Evaluation Officer,Evaluation Office, GEF

Wedderburn, Sam, GEF Coordination Team,Environment Department, The World Bank

CIVIL SOCIETY

Tunstall, Dan, Director, InternationalCooperation, World Resources Institute

BURKINA FASO

UNDP

Compaore, Noël, Assistant de Programme,Programme Fonds pour EnvironnementMondial aux ONG de micro financements(FEM/ONG), Burkina Faso Country Office

Congo, Rosalie, Coordinatrice Nationale,Programme FEM/ONG, Burkina FasoCountry Office

Coulibaly, Clarisse, Chargée de Programme,Environnement et Energie, Burkina FasoCountry Office

Kogachi, Aki, Chargée de Programme,Environnement et Energie, Burkina FasoCountry Office

Ouedraogo, Sylvestre B., Chef d’Equipe,Environnement et Energie, Burkina FasoCountry Office

Pangah, Mariam, Représentant RésidentAdjoint, Burkina Faso Country Office

Rojon, Ruby Sandhu, Directrice de Pays,Représentant Résident a.i., Burkina FasoCountry Office

Seyedi, Bahareh, Chargée de Programme,Environnement et Energie, Burkina FasoCountry Office

Tapsoba, Isabelle, Coordinatrice, Programmenational plates-formes multifonctionnellespour la lutte contre la pauvreté (PN-PTF/LCP), Burkina Faso Country Office

BILATERAL/MULTILATERAL DONORS

Cheik, Assane Moctar Gansonre, Assistant de Programme, JICA

Compaore, Albert, Chargé de ProgrammeNational ressources naturelles et recherchescientifique, Agence Suedoise deCoopération Internationale/Ambassade de Suède

Doi, Hideo, Chargé de Programme, JICAHoriuchi, Yoshio, Représentant Résident, JICANakayama, Yusuké, Conseiller Technique en

Foresterie, JICANikiema, Emmanuel Y., Spécialiste Gestion des

Ressources Naturelles, Banque Mondiale,Bureau de Ouagadougou

Reiland, Rol, Chef du Bureau, Bureau Régionalde la Coopération au Développement,Luxembourg

Usui, Yukichi, Adjoint au ReprésentantRésident, JICA

V.d. Loo, Antony, Conseiller de coopérationsecteur agricole, Ambassade Royale de Danemark

GOVERNMENT

Golane, Pierre, Membre Comité National deSélection de Projets (CNSP), ProgrammeFEM/ONG, Direction générale de laconservation de la nature (DGCN),Ministère de l’Environnement et du Cadre de Vie


Kone, Noëlie Victoire, Chef de Section, PNUD,Direction Générale de la Coopération(DGCOP), Ministère de l’Economie et des Finances

Nikiema, Mariam Ould, Secrétaire Permanent,Conseil National pour l’Environnement etle Développement Durable (SP/CONEDD),Ministère de l’Environnement et du Cadre de Vie

Ouedraogo, Delphine, Chef de Département,Secrétariat Permanent du CONEDD,Ministère de l’Environnement et du Cadre de Vie

Sedogo, Laurent, Ministre de l’Environnementet du Cadre de Vie

Traore, Alain Edouard, Secrétaire Général,Ministère de l’Environnement et du Cadre de Vie

Traore, Daouda, Représentant le Coordinateur,Programme d’Amélioration des Revenus etde Sécurité Alimentaire (ARSA)/ProduitsSecondaires Non Ligneux (PSNL),Ministère de l’Environnement et du Cadre de Vie, Direction des Forêts

Yaro, Maïmouna, Membre CNSP, ProgrammeFEM/ONG, Programme de Partenariatpour l’Amélioration de la Gestion desEcosystèmes Naturels (PAGEN), Ministèrede l’Environnement et du Cadre de Vie

Zangre, Adolphe, Coordinateur, ProgrammeARSA/petite irrigation, Ministère del’Agriculture, de l’Hydraulique et desRessources Halieutiques

Zangre, Sidnoma Sam, Chef de Cabinet duMinistre, Ministère de l’Environnement et du Cadre de Vie

Zongo, Dominique, Membre CNSP,Programme FEM/ONG, Deuxième projetnational de gestion des terroirs (PNGT II),Ministère de l’Agriculture de l’Hydrauliqueet des Ressources Halieutiques

CIVIL SOCIETY

Kabore, Kardiatou, Présidente, Amicale desForestières du Burkina (AMIFOB)

Kafando, Pierre, Coordonnateur Projet, ParcNational Kaboré Tambi (PNKT), Fondationdes Amis de la Nature (NATURAMA)

Konditamde, Ludovic, Responsable UnitéGestion des Ressources Naturelles, Tree Aid

Nana, Adama, Directeur des Etudes etPrestations, NATURAMA

Nianogo, Aimé, Country Representative,Union Mondiale pour la Nature (UICN)Burkina Faso

Ouedraogo, Yacouba, West African ProgrammeCoordinator, Tree Aid

OTHER

Batiga, Dorothée, Membre CNSP, ProgrammeFEM/ONG, Réseau de Communication,d’Information et de Formation des Femmesdans les ONG (RECIF-ONG)

Botoni, Edwige, Membre CNSP, ProgrammeFEM/ONG, Comité Permanent Inter-Etatsde Lutte Contre la Sècheresse (CILSS)

Bouda, Elena, Membre CNSP, ProgrammeFEM/ONG, Société TAN-ALIZ

Ouedraogo, Benoît, Membre CNSP, ProgrammeFEM/ONG, Association Burkinabé deRecherche Action et d’Autoformation pourle Développement (ABRAAD)

Ouedraogo, Bruno, Membre CNSP, ProgrammeFEM/ONG, Secrétariat Permanent desONG (SPONG)

CHINA

UNDP

Khoday, Kishan, Assistant Country Directorand Team Leader, Energy andEnvironment, China Country Office

Nandy, Subinay, Country Director, ChinaCountry Office

Soriano, Manuel, Regional Technical Adviser,Climate Change, Regional Centre inBangkok, UNDP/GEF

Tisot, Alessandra, Deputy Country Director,China Country Office

OTHER UN ORGANIZATIONS

Shao, Xuemin, Former Representative, UNEPCountry Office and Senior Adviser,UNDP-UNEP, UNEP

OTHER BILATERAL/MULTILATERAL DONORS

Mau, Gunther, Programme Manager,Australia China Environment DevelopmentProgramme (ACEDP)


Niu, Zhiming, Senior Programme Officer, PRCResident Mission, ADB

Shibuichi, Toru, Country Director, PRCResident Mission, ADB

GOVERNMENT

Gao, Wei, Programme Officer, EU-ChinaBiodiversity Project (ECBP)/ProjectManagement Office (PMO)

Gao, Xinquan, Programme Officer, Division ofGlobal Environment, PMO of CarbonFinance for Achieving MDGs in China,The Administrative Centre for China’sAgenda 21 (ACCA21), Ministry of Scienceand Technology (MOST)

Guo, Coordination Officer, PMO of EnergyConservation and GHG EmissionsReduction in Chinese TVEs – Phase II,Ministry of Agriculture (MOA)

Guo, Jing, Director, China Council forInternational Cooperation on Environmentand Development (CCICED), The State Environmental ProtectionAdministration (SEPA)

Li, Gao, Acting Director, Division of GlobalEnvironment, PMO of Carbon Finance for Achieving MDGs in China,ACCA21, MOST

Liu, Yuan, Deputy Division Chief, ProjectManagement Division IV, PMOs of EnergyEfficient Refrigerators Project, EERP

Ma, Jinjin, Project Assistant, PMO of ChinaEnd Use Energy Efficiency Programme,Energy Research Institute (ERI),National Development and ReformCommission (NDRC)

Pan, Zhiming, Project Manager, BuildingComponent, PMO of China End UseEnergy Efficiency Programme, ERI, NDRC

Song, Dongfeng, Contract Officer, PMO ofEnergy Conservation and GHG EmissionsReduction in Chinese TVEs – Phase II, MOA

Song, Xiaozhi, Deputy Director-General ofForeign Economic Cooperation Office(FECO), Deputy National ProgrammeDirector (NPD), ECBP

Sun, Xue Feng, Division Chief, ProjectManagement Division IV, GEF

Tang, Yan Dong, Senior Programme Officer,Project Management Division III, MPSolvent Sector Plan Project

Wang, Chunli, Project Manager, Cross-cuttingComponent, PMO of China End UseEnergy Efficiency Programme, ERI, NDRC

Wang, Haibin, National Programme Manager(NPM), ECBP/PMO

Wang, Xiwu, Senior Administrator, PMO ofEnergy Conservation and GHG EmissionsReduction in Chinese TVEs – Phase II, MOA

Wu, Jinkang, Deputy Director General,International Department and GEF FocalPoint, Ministry of Finance (MOF)

Xia, Kunbao, Committee Member and Memberof the Board of Directors, All-ChinaEnvironment Federation, TechnologyCommittee of SEPA

Xin, Sheng, Project Manager, IndustrialComponent, PMO of China End UseEnergy Efficiency Programme, ERI, NDRC

Yang, Lirong, Deputy Division Chief, ProjectManagement Division III, MP SolventSector Plan Project

Yu, Cong, Director, Energy Efficiency Centre,PMO of China End Use Energy EfficiencyProgramme, ERI, NDRC

Zhang, Ou, Programme Officer, CCICED, SEPAZhou, Qiangwu, Director, International

Financial Institution Division IV,International Department, MOF

Zhu, Duanni, Director, Division II, ChinaInternational Centre for Economic andTechnical Exchanges (CICETE), TheMinistry of Commerce (MofCOM)

CIVIL SOCIETY

Deng, Haifeng, Lecturer, Centre forEnvironmental, Natural Resources andEnergy Law (CEREL), Tsinghua University

Shi, Wenyu, Graduate Student, Centre forEnvironmental, CEREL, Tsinghua University

Sun, Shan, Conservation Director,China Beijing Office, ConservationInternational and Shanshui

Wang, Mingyuan, Executive Director and Associate Professor, CEREL,Tsinghua University

Yao, Bin, Graduate Student, CEREL,Tsinghua University


ECUADOR

UNDP

Falconí, Cecilia, Sustainable DevelopmentProgramme Officer, Ecuador Country Office

Proaño, María Mercedes, SustainableDevelopment Programme Assistant,Ecuador Country Office

Troya, José Vicente, Sustainable DevelopmentProgramme Manager, Ecuador Country Office

Valdés, Mauricio, Resident Representative,Ecuador Country Office

Varea, Ana María, Coordinator, Small GrantsProgramme, UNDP-GEF

PROJECT STAFF

Jácome, Carlos, Assistant Coordinator for‘Electrification of Galapagos withRenewable Energy/ERGAL’ project

Neira, David, Coordinator for ‘Adaptation toClimate Change through Effective WaterManagement’ project, GEF

Sancho, Ana, Coordinator for ‘Control ofInvasive Species in the GalapagosArchipelago’ project (telephone interview)

Sandóval, Carlos, Monitoring Officer for theGalapagos-based UNDP/GEF projects

GOVERNMENT

Albán, Ana, Minister of EnvironmentCarrión, Victor, Coordinator for Species

Eradication, Galapagos National ParkCruz, Marilyn, Coordinator for Galapagos

National Park LaboratoryEspinoza, Eduardo, Coordinator for Marine

Resources, Galapagos National ParkNaula, Edwin, Coordinator for Public Use

of Conservation Areas, Galapagos National Park

Ramos, Washington, Director for Educationand Culture, Santa Cruz Municipality(Galapagos)

Tapia, Washington, Undersecretary for Environment

Zapata, Fabián, Director of the NationalGalapagos Institute (INGALA)


Aznar, Victor, Programme Officer, AgenciaEspañola de Cooperación Internacional parael Desarrollo (AECID)

Maekawa, Yukihiro, Ambassador of JapanTello, Eudoxia, Representative, Kreditanstalt für

Wiederaufbau (KfW) Tique, Alfonso, Deputy Representative, IDB

CIVIL SOCIETY

Cruz, Felipe, Assistant Technical Director,Charles Darwin Foundation

Hofstede, Robert, Interim Regional Director forIUCN – Latin America

Milstead, Brian, Chief of VertebratesDepartment, Charles Darwin Foundation

Ortiz, Fernando, Coordinator of GalapagosProgramme, Conservation International

Zapata, Carlos, Director of FUNDAR, Galapagos

OTHERS

Albán, Jorge, Former Vice Minister, Energy and Mines

Bustamante, Teodoro, Environmental Analyst

KENYA

UNDP

Bekele-Thomas, Nardos, Deputy ResidentRepresentative, Kenya Country Office

Chege, Nancy, National Coordinator,GEF/SGP, Kenya Country Office

Dobie, Philip, Director, DDC Forbes, Alex, Programme Adviser, PEI, Kenya

Country OfficeGakahu, Chris G., Assistant Resident

Representative, Kenya Country OfficeGoumandakoye, Mounkaila, Policy Adviser, DDC Harding, Brian, Programme Officer,

Sustainability, Kenya Country OfficeKwena, Foulata T., Programme Officer,

Sustainability, Kenya Country OfficeLwanga, Elizabeth, Resident Representative,

Kenya Country Office


Nyandiga, Charles, Programme Analyst, KenyaCountry Office

Wasao, Samson W., National ProgrammeManager, PEI and Capacity 2015, KenyaCountry Office


Ambala, Chris, Associate Programme Officer, Division of Early Warning andAssessment, UNEP

Bankobeza, Sylvia, Legal Officer, Division ofEnvironmental Law and Conventions, UNEP

Battaglino, Cristina, Evaluation Officer,Evaluation Office, UNEP

Chenje, Jacquie, Capacity BuildingSection–Programme Officer, Division ofEarly Warning and Assessment, UNEP

Duraiappah, Anantha Kumar, Senior ProgrammeManager, Division of Environmental Policyand Implementation, UNEP

Gilruth, Peter, Director, Division of EarlyWarning and Assessment, UNEP

Henningsen, Kamilla, Associate ProgrammeOfficer, PEI, UNEP

Kasten, Tim, Chief, Natural Resources Branch,Division of Environmental Policy andImplementation, UNEP

Kithakye, David I., Senior Human SettlementsOfficer Regional Office for Africa and theArab States, UN-Habitat

Muchai, Annie, Associate Programme Officer,Division of Environmental Policy andImplementation, UNEP

Ndede, Henry O., Programme Officer, Water,Regional Office for Africa, UNEP

Norgbey, Segbedzi, Chief, Evaluation andOversight Unit, Evaluation Office, UNEP

Rahman, Anisur, Programme Officer, CapacityBuilding, Division of Environmental Policyand Implementation, UNEP

Spilsbury, Michael, GEF Evaluation Officer,Evaluation Office, UNEP

Thiaw, Ibrahim, Director, Division of Environ-mental Policy and Implementation, UNEP

Toikka, Miia, Associate Programme Officer,PEI, UNEP

Ugolo, John, Legal Officer, Division of Environ-mental Law and Conventions, UNEP

Varghese, Alexander, Representative for Kenyaand Eritrea, UNIDO

Wabunoha, Robert, Legal Officer, Division ofEnvironmental Law and Conventions, UNEP


Alander, Jukka, Counselor and Energy Adviser,Embassy of Finland

Eid, Thomas, Deputy PermanentRepresentative, Embassy of Norway

Just, Charlotte, First Secretary–Environment,Royal Danish Embassy

Kurauchi, Yuko, Consultant, The World BankVibe, Sara, Environment Intern,

Royal Danish Embassy

GOVERNMENT

Kafumo, Joseph M., Senior Economist,Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources

Mbagua, David K., Director, Kenya Forest ServiceM’mella, Timothy U.K., Deputy Secretary,

Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources

Muinde, Julius, Senior Coordinator,Environment Coordinating Unit, Ministryof Environment and Natural Resources

Mukui, Joseph, Director, Rural PlanningDirectorate, PEI Technical Committee,Ministry of Planning and National Development

Mwangi, Godfrey N., Senior EnvironmentalPlanning Officer, National EnvironmentManagement Authority

Nyangena, John, Senior Economist, Ministry of Planning and National Development

Ondiniu, Kennedy I., Director of Planning and Research, National EnvironmentManagement Authority

CIVIL SOCIETY

Ikiara, Moses M., Executive Director,Kenya Institute for Public Policy Researchand Analysis

Kepher-Gona, Judy, Executive Officer,Ecotourism Kenya

Khisa, Kelvin, Deputy Director, Kenya NationalCleaner Production Centre


Kiio, Maria, Research Officer, Kenya Marineand Fisheries Research Institute, Nairobi

Kituyi, Evans, Director, Renewable EnergyTechnology Enterprises

Makhanu, Rudolf, Programme Officer, KenyaForest Working Group

Matiku, Paul, Executive Director, Nature KenyaMuchiri, Lydia, Project Officer, Practical Action

Eastern AfricaMuchiri, Wangui, CEO, Nairobi Central

Business District AssociationMusangi, James, Senior Technical and

Administration Assistant, World Wildlife Fund

Mutimba, Stephen, Programme Officer, Energyfor Sustainable Development in Africa Ltd.

Nangami, Patricia, Project Officer, NairobiCentral Business District Association

Ogada, Tom P.M., Director, Kenya IndustrialResearch and Development Institute

Ongamba, Harrison, Senior Research Officer,Kenya Marine and Fisheries ResearchInstitute, Mombasa

Salehe, John, Eastern Africa CoastalProgramme Officer, World Wildlife Fund

Wamunga, Paul, Project Manager, KenyaDisaster Concern

FYR MACEDONIA

UNDP

Adzievska, Maja, Project Manager, UNDPClimate Change Office

Blazevski, Aleksandar, Project Assistant, UNDPProject Office, Resen

Cvetkovska, Gordana, Project Assistant, UNDPProject Office, Resen

Dzurovski, Anastas, Project Assistant, UNDPProject Office, Resen

Kodzoman, Anita, Environment PracticeCoordinator, Head of Energy andEnvironment Cluster, Macedonia FYRCountry Office

Kono, Akihito, Programme Officer-Energy and Environment, Macedonia FYRCountry Office

Lopez, Alvin, International TransboundaryAdviser, UNDP Project Office, Resen

Memedov, Samir, Programme Associate,Environment Practice Area, MacedoniaFYR Country Office

Rajcanovski, Dejan, Project Manager, UNDPProject Preparation of National TourismDevelopment Strategy

Samardziev, Zlatko, National Coordinator ofthe GEF Small Grants Programme, GEF,Small Grants Programme Office, Skopje

Sekovski, Dimitar, Project Manager, GolemaRiver project, UNDP Project Office, Resen

Shimomura, Norimasa, Deputy ResidentRepresentative, Macedonia FYR Country Office

Stojanovski, Ljupco, National Project Manager,Prespa project, UNDP Project Office, Resen

Zdraveva, Pavlina, Project Assistant, UNDPClimate Change Office


Dodeva, Stanislava, National ProgrammeOfficer, Embassy of Switzerland, SwissCooperation Office Macedonia FYR

Gjorgjiev, Petar, Director, KfW, KfW Office, Skopje

Radovanovic, Natasha, Project Coordinator,KfW, KfW Office, Skopje

Sarlamanov, Robert, Programme Officer,Austrian Embassy Technical Cooperation,Austrian Development Agency

Temporal, Claire-Lise, Deputy CountryDirector, Embassy of Switzerland, SwissCooperation Office Macedonia FYR

Visser, Govert W., Deputy Head of Mission,Embassy of the Kingdom of theNetherlands, Skopje

GOVERNMENT

Buzlevski, Dimitar, Mayor, Municipality of ResenJakimovski, Mile, Director of the Environmental

Administration Unit, Ministry ofEnvironment and Physical Planning

Jantinska, Darinka, Head of Division of Bilateral Cooperation, NationalCoordinator for Prespa Project, Member ofthe Prespa Park Coordination Committee(PPCC), Ministry of Environment andPhysical Planning


Kozuharova, Gordana, Head of Department forCooperation and Project Coordination,GEF Operational Focal Point, Ministry ofEnvironment and Physical Planning

Manevski, Zoran, State Secretary, Ministry ofEconomy

Murati, Muzafer, Director, Communal Utility“Proleter”–Resen, Water Supply, Sewageand Waste Management Utility

Naumovska, Gordana, Head of Section forInternational Coordination, MacedoniaFYR Crisis Management Centre

Nikolovski, Zoran, Tourism Department,Ministry of Economy

Obradovic, Grncarovska, Assistant Head ofSustainable Development DepartmentClimate Change and Kyoto Protocol FocalPoint, Ministry of Environment andPhysical Planning

Panovski, Dejan, State Secretary, UNDP ProjectDirector, Ministry of Environment andPhysical Planning

Sukova, Kaja, Head of Sustainable DevelopmentDepartment, Ministry of Environment andPhysical Planning

Tarcugovski, Dragi, Head of Section forOperations-OPCEN, Macedonia FYRCrisis Management Centre

Trajkovski, Kosta, Head of Division for ProjectPreparation, National Coordinator,Environment and Security Initiative,Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning

Zrmanovski, Dejan, Energy Department, Headof Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy Unit, Ministry of Economy

CIVIL SOCIETY

Dragoljub, Matovski, Manager, ProjectProponent for MDG Carbon Fund,Bioreaktor M

Ivanova, Marijana, Project Manager,Journalists’ Legal Environmental Centre(ERINA), Member of the SGP NationalSteering Committee

Karchicki, Vladimir, President, Proaktiva,Member of the SGP National Steering Committee

Petrovska, Ana, Project Manager, RegionalEnvironmental Centre for Central andEastern Europe-Country Office

Radovanovic, Kornelija, Project Manager,Regional Environmental Centre for Centraland Eastern Europe-Country Office

Sazdovski, Ilija, Project Manager, ProaktivaSlavkovski, Igor, Project Manager,

Milieukontakt International, Member of theSGP, National Steering Committee

Toskovski, Naume, NGO Director, Union ofAgriculture Producers

MALAWI

UNDP

Bahamdoun, Maha, Deputy ResidentRepresentative (Programme), MalawiCountry Office

Bobfe, Augustine, Economist, Malawi Country Office

Chimbiri, Agnes, Assistant ResidentRepresentative, MDG Cluster, MalawiCountry Office

Constable, Michael, Consultant, MalawiCountry Office

Keating, Michael, Resident Representative and UN Resident Coordinator, MalawiCountry Office

M’mangisa, Etta, Programme Analyst, MDGCluster and Environment Focal Point,Malawi Country Office

Nijholt, Alwin, Trust Fund Manager, MalawiCountry Office

Standon, Howard, Adviser, Disaster Reduction,Malawi Country Office


Rohrbach, David, Senior AgriculturalEconomist, The World Bank

Sauvik, Leif B., Counsellor and Deputy Head of Mission, Royal Norwegian Embassy

Tembo, Autman, NRM Specialist, MissionEnvironmental Officer (MEO), USAID

Woolnough, David, Infrastructure and GrowthAdviser, UK Department for InternationalDevelopment (DFID)

GOVERNMENT

Chirambo, Kasiso, Principal Forestry Officer,Department of Forestry, Ministry of Energy and Mines


Kabambe, Patrick, Principal Secretary, Ministryof Agriculture and Food Security

Kafumba, Charles, Director, Department ofEnergy, Ministry of Energy and Mines

Kamperewera, A.M., Deputy Director,Department of Environmental Affairs,Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources

Kamoto, Teddie, Principal Forestry Officer,Department of Forestry, Ministry of Energyand Mines

Kavalo, Mutemwe, Principal Forestry Officer,Department of Forestry, Ministry of Energyand Mines

Mainala, Sydney M., Director of WaterResources, Ministry of Irrigation and WaterDevelopment

Maweru, Sandram, Director of Irrigation,Ministry of Irrigation and WaterDevelopment

McCarter, Peter S., Senior Forest GovernanceSpecialist and Technical Assistance TeamLeader, EU-Supported ImprovedManagement for Sustainable LivelihoodsProgramme, Department of Forestry,Ministry of Energy and Mines

Mchiela, Andrina F., Principal Secretary,Ministry of Irrigation and WaterDevelopment

Mhango, Lewis B., Chief Energy Officer,Department of Energy, Ministry of Energy and Mines

Mitembe, William, Principal Forestry Officer,Department of Forestry, Ministry of Energyand Mines

Nakanga, Rodson W. Mkwepu, Director ofAdministration and Finance, Ministry ofIrrigation and Water Development

Ngalambe, John, Deputy Director, Departmentof Forestry, Ministry of Energy and Mines

Ngwira, Naomi, Director, Debt and AidDivision and GEF Political Focal Point,Ministry of Finance

Njewa, Evans, Environmental Officer,Department of Environmental Affairs,Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources

Nkosi, Venge, Project Manager, BarrierRemoval for Renewable Energy(BARREM), Department of Energy,Ministry of Energy and Mines

Nyirenda, Custom, Forestry Officer,Department of Forestry, Ministry of Energyand Mines

Nyuma, Mughogho, Assistant Head of ForestryExtension Services, Department of Forestry,Ministry of Energy and Mines

Simwela, Director, a.i., Department of Forestry,Ministry of Energy and Mines

Theka, Caroline, Environmental Officer,Department of Environmental Affairs,Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources

Tikiwa, C.M., Environmental Officer,Department of Environmental Affairs,Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources

Zenengeya, Fletcher E.Y., Principal Secretary,Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources

CIVIL SOCIETY

Banda, Dezio, Monitoring and EvaluationManager, World Vision International(Malawi Office)

Changaya, Albert, Chief Estate ExtensionOfficer, Agricultural Research andExtension Trust (ARET)

Chipezaani, Benson, Operations Director,Malawi Environmental Endowment Trust (MEET)

Chisale, Caleb, Programme Manager, TargetNational Relief and Development (TANARD)

Chisale, Ellen, Programme Officer, SustainableSocio-Economic Empowerment for PovertyReduction Project (SSEEP), Kasungu

Domoya, Emmanuel, Executive Director,TANARD

Dzimadzi, Chris, Project Manager, NationalAdult Literacy Centre, SSEEP

Foday, Augustine, Programme Adviser, UNV,SSEEP, Kasungu

Guta, Christopher W., Director General,Malawi Industrial Research andDevelopment Centre

Kaipa, John, Agricultural Engineer, ARETKamanga, Khumbo, Capacity Development

Officer, Coordination Unit forRehabilitation of Environment

Kulemeka, Peter, Country Director (ex-UNDPARR until 2006), Clinton-HunterDevelopment Initiative (CHDI)


Lefu, Hyton, Programme Manager,SSEEP, Kasungu

Mang’anya, Manuel, Monitoring andEvaluation Officer, National Adult LiteracyCentre, SSEEP

Matupa, Khama, Natural ResourcesCoordinator, COOPI/MALEZA Malawi

Misomali, Ernest, Country Director, Self HelpDevelopment International

Munthali, Flora, Chief Agronomist, ARETNgwala, K.L., District Community

Development Officer, SSEEP, Kasungu Nkhuzenfe, Hetherwick, Programme Manager,

Concern UniversalPhiri, Ibrahim, Deputy Director, ARETSanneh, Pa-Ansu, Community Extension

Worker, UNV, SSEEP, Kasungu

FIJI

UNDP

Atalifo, Katarina, Fiji National Coordinator,GEF Small Grants Programme

Dictus, Richard, Resident Representative, UNResident Coordinator, Fiji Multi-CountryOffice

Liew, Geoff, Pacific Regional SustainableLivelihoods Specialist, Pacific Centre

Muller, Peter, Pacific Regional Crisis Preventionand Recovery Adviser, Pacific Centre

Ravuvu, Asenaca, Team Leader, EnvironmentUnit, Environment and Energy Team, FijiMulti-Country Office

Wiseman, Garry, Manager, Pacific Centre


Bower, Rhonda, Project Adviser, IWRM, SOPACIntegrated Water Resources Management

Chang, Gordon, Deputy Executive Director,Pacific Power Association

Cloin, Jan, Renewable Energy Adviser, SOPACEnergy

Dalton, James, Project Adviser, IWRM, SOPACIntegrated Water Resources Management

Fairbairn, Paul, Manager, SOPAC Community Lifelines

Fung, Christine, Participatory Land UsePlanning and Moderation Specialist, SPC/GTZ Regional Forest and Trees Project

Holland, Paula, Senior Adviser, NaturalResources Governance, SOPACEnvironment Mario, Rupeni, EnergyAdviser, SOPAC Energy

Morris, Jared, Import Management Adviser,Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat

Narsey, Padma Lal, Sustainable DevelopmentAdviser, Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat

Neil, Tony, Executive Director, Pacific PowerAssociation

Pilger, Horst, First Secretary, Infrastructure,Delegation of the EC for the Pacific

Ratukalou, Inoke, Land Use and ResourcePolicy Adviser, Secretariat of the PacificCommunity Land Resources Division

Seniloli, Tina, Head, Project Administration,ADB, South Pacific Regional Office (SPRO)

Syngellakis, Katerina, REP-5 Manager, REP-5/European Commission (EC)

Woodruff, Allison, Adviser, ResourceEconomist, SOPAC Environment

Zieroth, Gerhard, Team Leader, PIEPSAP,SOPAC Pacific Islands Energy Policy andStrategic Action Plan

GOVERNMENT

Gounder, Kamal, Economy Planning Officer(Infrastructure and Energy), Ministry of Finance and Planning National Planning Office

Khan, Intiyaz, Principal Energy Officer,Ministry of Transport, Works and Energy,Department of Energy

Koroisave, Luke, Principal Planning Officer,Ministry of Finance and Planning NationalPlanning Office

Kumar, Shakil, Scientific Officer, Ozone,Ministry of Tourism and Environment,Department of Environment

Nakavulevu, Peceli, Head, Rural ElectrificationUnit and Acting Director of Biofuels,Ministry of Transport, Works and Energy,Department of Energy


Nasome, Epeli, Director, GEF OFP, Chair ofFiji GEF SGP Steering Committee,Ministry of Tourism and Environment,Department of Environment

Prasad, Krishna, Chief Planning Officer,Ministry of Finance and Planning,National Planning Office

Waqainabete, Sunia, Fisheries Research Officer,Research Division, Department of Fisheries,Ministry of Fisheries and Forestry

Zariff, Razia, Scientific Officer, POPs, Ministryof Tourism and Environment, Departmentof Environment

CIVIL SOCIETY

Aalbersberg, William, Director, Institute ofApplied Science (IAS), University of theSouth Pacific (Laucala Campus, Suva)

Erasito, Elizabeth, Executive Director, NationalTrust for Fiji

Horoi, Rex, Executive Director, FSPI RegionalSecretariat

Jenkins, Aaron, Programme Officer, WetlandsInternational

Kami, Taholo, Regional Director, IUCNRegional Office for Oceania

Koshy, Kanayathu, Professor, EnvironmentalScience, Pacific Centre for EnvironmentalManagement and Sustainable Development(PACE-SD), University of the SouthPacific (Laucala Campus, Suva)

Kumar, Mahendra, Professor, SustainableDevelopment, Centre for Energy,Environment and Sustainable Development,University of Fiji (Lautoka)

Mataki, Melchior, Programme Manager,PACE-SD, University of the South Pacific(Laucala Campus, Suva)

McFadzian, Diane, Coordinator, InternationalPolicy Initiatives, Asia/Pacific ClimateChange Programme, WWF South Pacificand Fiji Country Programme

Morley, Craig, Senior Lecturer, Biology,Department of Biology, University of theSouth Pacific (Laucala Campus, Suva)

Nawadra, Sefa, Officer-in-charge, Fiji,Conservation International

Sivo, Loraini, Research Officer,Conservation International

Tabunakawai, Kesaia, Director, WWF Fiji, WWFSouth Pacific and Fiji Country Programme

Thaman, Randy, Professor, Biogeography,Department of Geography, University of theSouth Pacific (Laucala Campus, Suva)

Tuqiri, Seremaia, Regional Fisheries Officer,WWF Pacific Fisheries, WWF SouthPacific and Fiji Country Programme

Watling, Dick, Environmental Consultant,NatureFiji/MareqetiViti

OTHER

Clay, Bruce, Consultant, Clay Engineering Kumar, Premila, Executive Director,

Consumer CouncilSiwatibau, Suliana, Environment and

Energy ConsultantTuqir, Mere, Media Consultant

SAMOA

UNDP

Jensen, Thomas, Energy Adviser, Samoa Multi-Country Office

Volentras, Laututu Andre, UNDP RegionalTechnical Adviser, GEF


Raj, Suresh, Representative, UNEPFaulalo, Keneti, Regional Coordinator, UNEP-

GEF Biosafety Unit, UNEP

GOVERNMENT

Brown, Steve, GEF Adviser/Consultant,Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

Fifita, Solomone, Programme Manager,PIGGAREP, Secretariat of the South Pacific Regional EnvironmentProgramme (SPREP)

Kilepoa, Silia, Principal Energy Officer,Ministry of Finance, Government of Samoa

Lui, Vitolio, Acting Director, Secretariat, SPREPPereira, Benjamin, Assistant, CEO Planning

Division, Ministry of Finance,Government of Samoa


Rasmussen, Anne, Climate ChangeCoordinator, Ministry of Natural Resourcesand Environment

Shaw, Alan, Officer-in-charge, Office of theOngoing Government of Tokelau, Apia,Government of Tokelau

Simi, Noumea, Assistant, CEO AidManagement Division, Ministry of Finance,Government of Samoa

Stanley, Joe, GEF Adviser, Secretariat, SPREPTaulealo, Tuuu Ieti, CEO, Ministry of Natural

Resources and Environment

CIVIL SOCIETY

Faatauvaa-Vavatau, Roina, CEO, SamoaUmbrella NGO

Hunter, David, Acting Head, School ofAgriculture, University of the South Pacific(Alafua Campus)

Jackson, Vaasiliifiti Moelagi, Vice President,Samoa Umbrella NGO

Martel, Francois, Executive Director,Conservation International, Pacific Islands Programme

Reti, Muliagatele Joe, Partner, PacificEnvironmental Consultants Ltd

Sasega, Sam, Partner, Pacific EnvironmentalConsultants Ltd

Voight, Raymond, Vice President, SamoaUmbrella NGO

OTHER

Langham, Edward, Renewable Energy Adviser,Electric Power Corporation

Percival, Papalii Grant, President, SamoaManufacturer’s Association

Punivalu, Isikuki, General Manager, IPAEngineering and Management Consulting

BANGKOK

UNDP

D’Cruz, Joseph, Regional Technical Adviser,Biodiversity, Environment Finance Group

Dhungana, Bhava, Associate ProgrammeSpecialist, REP-PoR, Environment andEnergy Group

Feld, Sergio, Environment Practice TeamLeader and Policy Adviser, Environmentand Energy Group

Karki, Sameer, Regional Technical Adviser,Biodiversity, Environment Finance Group

Kran, Marcia V.J., Deputy Regional Managerand Head of Policy and Programmes,UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok

Krause, Martin, Regional Technical Adviser,Climate Change, GEF, EEG, BDP

Kreingsontikul, Wimonrat, ProgrammeAssociate, UNDP Country Office

Kulthanan, Sirisupa, Assistant ResidentRepresentative, Thailand Country Office

Laganda, Gernot, Regional Technical Adviser,Climate Adaptation, Environment Finance Group

Mek-aroonreung, Nittaya, ProgrammeManagement Associate (Evaluation FocalPoint), Thailand Country Office

Mongia, Nandita, Programme Coordinator,Regional Energy Programme for PovertyReduction (REP-PoR), Environment andEnergy Group

Tirangkura, Inthira, Thailand Country Office

Winichagoon, Phansiri, Manager, EnvironmentUnit, Thailand Country Office


Ichimura, Masakazu, Chief, EnvironmentSection, UNESCAP

Low, Pak Sum, Regional Adviser, Environmentand Sustainable Development, UNESCAP

Nam, Sangmin, Environmental Affairs Office,Environment Section, UNESCAP

Pernetta, John, Project Director, ReversingEnvironmental Degradation Trends in theSouth China Sea and Gulf of Thailand, UNEP

Saha, Pranesh Chandra, Chief, EnergyResources Section, UNESCAP

Tsering, Dechen, Senior Programme Officer,Regional Office for Asia and Pacific, UNEP

Verbeek, Henk, Senior Administrative Officer,Regional Office for Asia and Pacific, UNEP



Shah, Jitendra ( Jitu), Sector Coordinator,Environment and Social Development,South East Asia–Country ManagementUnit, The World Bank

Verbiest, Jean-Pierre A., Country Director,Thailand Resident Mission, ADB

GOVERNMENT

Chinnavaso, Kasemsun, Secretary-General,Office of Natural Resources andEnvironmental Policy and Planning(ONEP), Ministry of Natural Resourcesand Environment

Kheawsaad, Kingkan, Environmental Official,Office of International Cooperation,Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

Pintukanok, Ampan, Director, Office ofInternational Cooperation, Ministry ofNatural Resources and Environment

Tummakird, Aree Wattana, InternationalAffairs (Chief Negotiator to UNFramework Convention on ClimateChange), ONEP, Ministry of NaturalResources and Environment

CIVIL SOCIETY

Boonyabancha, Somsook, Director, CommunityOrganizations Development Institute (CODI)

Chalitanon, Natvipa, AdministrativeCoordinator, Asian Coalition for HousingRights (ACHR), CODI

De Silva, Janaka A., Coordinator Projects,Thailand Programme, IUCN

Kabraji, Aban Marker, Regional Director, IUCNKongpaen, Preeda, Director,

Chunchong FoundationMacintosh, Don, Coordinator, Mangroves for

the Future (MFF), IUCN Singh, Tejpal, Programme Coordinator,

Ecosystems and Livelihoods Group, IUCN Srikasikul, Nalinee, Chunchong Foundation

BRATISLAVA

Alhazishvili, Nato, Executive Office,Deputy Director, Programme Support and Policy Development Unit (PSPD)Development Directorate

Colville, Geordie, GEF Regional TechnicalAdviser for Climate Change and Energy,Climate Change Mitigation Sub-practice

Dinu, Adriana, GEF Technical Adviser forBiodiversity, Environment and Energy, andGEF Team Leader, Biodiversity and LandDegradation Sub-practice

Gasparikova, Daniela, Country Support Team, Team Leader, Development (PSPD) Directorate

Javan, Jafar, Director, Policy Support and Programme

Kaplina, Anna, Programme Associate, ClimateChange Mitigation Sub-practice

Mamaev, Vladimir, GEF Regional TechnicalAdviser for Land Management and International Waters, WaterGovernance Sub-practice

Martonakova, Henrieta, Regional ProjectManager, Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment, Integrated EnvironmentalPolicies/SEA/ENVSEC Sub-practice

Olshanskaya, Marina, Regional Carbon Finance Specialist, Climate ChangeMitigation Sub-practice

Reimov, Ajiniyaz, Programme Officer,Environment and Security, IntegratedEnvironmental Policies/SEA/ENVSECSub-practice Development (PSPD) Directorate

Sladkova, Milada, Programme Associate,Integrated Environmental Policies/SEA/ENVSEC Sub-practice

Staudenmann, Juerg, Regional WaterGovernance Policy Adviser, WaterGovernance Sub-practice

Tothova, Klara, Country Support Team CSTEnvironmental Officer, Development(PSPD) Directorate

A N N E X 7 . S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G R A P H Y 1 3 3

MAIN REPORT REFERENCES

Collaborative Labeling and ApplianceStandards Program (CLASP). Energy-Efficiency Labels and Standards: A Guidebookfor Appliances, Equipment and Lighting. 2ndEdition. Washington, DC. 2005.

Dalberg. ‘Harmonization of UNEP and UNDPOperational Procedures for JointProgramming’. Dalberg Final Report.October 2006.

Glemarec, Yannick. ‘UNDP MDG CarbonFacility: Leveraging Carbon Finance forSustainable Development’. MEA Bulletin.December 2007.

Krause, Martin and Sara Nordstrom (eds.).‘Solar Photovoltaics in Africa: Experienceswith Financing and Delivery Modes’.UNDP Monitoring and Evaluation ReportSeries 2. 2004.

ISIS. ‘Is Biodiversity a Material Risk forCompanies? An Assessment of theExposure of FTSE Sectors to BiodiversityRisk’. 2004.

Johansson, Thomas B. and José Goldemberg(eds.). World Energy Assessment Overview:2004 Update. UNDP, UN-DESA andWorld Energy Council. 2004.

Modi, Vijay, Susan McDade, DominiqueLallement and Jamal Saghir. Energy Servicesfor the Millennium Development Goals:Achieving the Millennium Development Goals.World Bank and UNDP. 2005.

Swart, Lydia and Estelle Perry (eds.). GlobalEnvironmental Governance: Perspectives onthe Current Debate. Center for UN ReformEducation. New York. 2007.

Takada, Minoru and Ndika Akong Charles(lead authors). Energizing Poverty Reduction:A Review of the Energy-Poverty Nexus inPoverty Reduction Strategy Papers. UNDP.March 2007.

United Nations. ‘Secretary-General’s High-levelPanel on UN System-wide Coherence inthe Areas of Development, HumanitarianAssistance and the Environment’. 2006.

UNDP. Human Development Report 1992. GlobalDimensions of Human Development. OxfordUniveristy Press, New York 1992.

UNDP. ‘Sustainable Development, Energy andthe Environment: UNDP’s Climate ChangeInitiatives’. 2001.

UNDP. ‘Equator Initiative 2002 Report’. 2003.UNDP. ‘The Sustainable Difference:

Energy and Environment to Achieve the MDGs’. 2004.

UNDP. ‘UNDP and Energy for SustainableDevelopment’. Bureau for DevelopmentPolicy (BDP) Energy and EnvironmentGroup. 2004.

UNDP. ‘Equator Initiative Annual NarrativeReport’. 2004.

UNDP. ‘Equator Prize 2004. A Partnership for Sustainable Communities in theTropics’. 2004.

UNDP. Energizing the Millennium DevelopmentGoals: A Guide to Energy’s Role in ReducingPoverty. BDP Energy and EnvironmentGroup. 2005.

UNDP. ‘Thematic Trust Fund: Energy andEnvironment for Sustainable Development’.BDP Environment and Energy Group. 2005.

UNDP. Human Development Report 2006.Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and theGlobal Water Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan,New York 2006.

UNDP. ‘How-to Guide: National InstitutionalFrameworks for the Kyoto Protocol FlexibleMechanisms in Eastern Europe and theCommonwealth of Independent States’. 2006.

UNDP. Making Progress on EnvironmentalSustainability: Lessons and Recommendationsfrom a Review of Over 150 MDG CountryExperiences. BDP Environment and Energy

Annex 7

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

A N N E X 7 . S E L E C T E D B I B L I O G R A P H Y1 3 4

Group. October 2006.UNDP. ‘Global Programme 2006 Annual

Report’. BDP. 2007.UNDP. ‘Consolidated Workplan. Regional

Centres in Bangkok and Colombo’. 2007.UNDP. ‘Regional Business Plan for 2007. Asia-

Pacific Region’. Environment FinanceGroup. 2007.

UNDP. ‘Thematic Trust Fund on Environmentand Energy: 2006 Interim Report’. BDPEnergy and Environment Group. May 2007.

UNDP. Fuel to Change—OvercomingVulnerability to Rising Oil Prices: Options forAsia and the Pacific. UNDP Regional Centrein Bangkok. 2007.

UNDP. ‘Millennium Development GoalsReport quoted in UNDP-GEF BiodiversityPortfolio Performance Report’. 2007.

UNDP. Fighting Climate Change: HumanSolidarity in a Divided World. HumanDevelopment Report 2007/2008. PalgraveMacmillan. 2007.

UNDP. ‘Equator Initiative Annual NarrativeReport’. 2007.

UNDP. ‘Gender Mainstreaming: A Key Driverof Development in Environment andEnergy’. Portfolio Review and Assessment.BDP Environment and Energy Group. 2007.

UNDP and UNEP. ‘Environment for theMDGs. Mainstreaming Environment inNational Development Processes to Achievethe MDGs: Scaling-up the UNDP/UNEPPoverty-Environment Initiative’. FinalDraft Proposal. Poverty-EnvironmentInitiative. 2007.

UNDP, UNEP, World Bank and WorldResources Institute. World Resources 2005.The Wealth of the Poor: Managing Ecosystemsto Fight Poverty. 2005.

UNDP, UNEP, IIED, IUCN and WRI.Poverty-Environment Partnership. AssessingEnvironment’s Contribution to PovertyReduction: Environment for the MDGs. 2005.

UNDP, UNEP, IIED, IUCN and WRI.‘Sustaining the Environment to FightPoverty and Achieve the MDGs: TheEconomic Case and Priorities for Action.Environment for the MDGs: A Message tothe 2005 World Summit’. 2005.

World Bank. ‘Carbon Finance for Sustainable

Development’. 2006.WRI. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis.Island Press. Washington, DC. 2005.

Yale University and Columbia University.‘Environmental Performance Index’. 2008.

UNDP PLANNING AND STRATEGIC DOCUMENTS

The Clean Development Mechanism:An Assessment of Progress. 2006.

Draft Strategic Plan 2008-2011: AcceleratingGlobal Progress on Human Development.Executive Board of the United NationsDevelopment Programme and of the United Nations Population Fund: AnnualSession. 2007.

Environment and Energy Contribution to theMulti-Year Funding Framework.Cumulative Report 2004-2006, Revision 2.5 March 2007.

Environment and Energy Global PracticeStrategic Planning Workshop. Goa, India,14–16 June 2006. Final Report. BDPEnvironment and Energy Group. 2006.

Executive Board of the United NationsDevelopment Programme and of the UnitedNations Population Fund. Draft RegionalProgramme Document for Africa 2008-2011: Second Regular Session. 2007.

MDG Carbon Facility: Mobilizing CarbonFinance for the Millennium DevelopmentGoals. 2005.

MDG Carbon Facility Booklet. 2007.Memorandum of Understanding Between the

United Nations Development Programmeand the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme. 24 November 2004.

Monitoring Country Progress Towards MDG7:Ensuring Environmental Sustainability(Practice Note). 2005.

Multi-Year Funding Framework 2000-2003.Executive Board of the United NationsDevelopment Programme and of the UnitedNations Population Fund: Third RegularSession. 1999.

Multi-Year Funding Framework CumulativeReport on UNDP Performance and Resultsfor 2004-2006. Executive Board of theUnited Nations Development Programme


and of the United Nations Population Fund:Annual Session. 2007.

Poverty-Environment Initiative JointProgramme Document: Scaling-up theUNDP-UNEP Poverty-EnvironmentInitiative. n.d.

Poverty-Environment Initiative—Phase 2Project Document. Energy and EnvironmentPractice Area, Environmentally SustainableDevelopment Group, Bureau forDevelopment Policy. 2003.

Regional Business Plan 2007. UNDPEnvironmental Finance Group. 2007.

Regional Strategy on Adaptation—Asia and the Pacific. 2007.

Regional Strategy on Adaptation—Europe andCIS. Regional Bureau for Europe and theCIS (RBEC). n.d.

Report on the Multi-Year Funding Framework2000-2003. Executive Board of the UnitedNations Development Programme and ofthe United Nations Population Fund:Annual Session. 2003.

Results-Oriented Annual Report 2001. 2002.Second Multi-Year Funding Framework 2004-

2007. Executive Board of the UnitedNations Development Programme and ofthe United Nations Population Fund:Second Regular Session. 2003.

UNDP Environmental Mainstreaming Strategy:A Strategy for Enhanced EnvironmentalSoundness and Sustainability in UNDPPolicies, Programmes and OperationalProcesses. 2004.

UNDP Global Programme: 2006 AnnualReport. Bureau for Development Policy(BDP). 2006.

Water Governance Facility. SIWI Self-Assessmentof the UNDP Water Governance Facility atthe Stockholm International Water Institute2005-2006. 2007.

UNDP-GEF PLANNING AND STRATEGIC DOCUMENTS

Arab States UNDP-GEF Biodiversity RegionalPPR Report 2006. 2006.

Asia and the Pacific UNDP-GEF BiodiversityRegional PPR Report 2006. 2006.

Climate Change at UNDP: Scaling Up to Meetthe Challenge. 2007.

Europe and the CIS UNDP-GEF BiodiversityPIR Report 2006 (Parts 1, 2 and 3). 2006.

Global UNDP-GEF Biodiversity PPR 2006. 2006.International Waters. 2005 Project Implementation

Review Focal Area Report. 2005.International Waters Programme—Delivering

Results. 2007.Latin America and the Caribbean UNDP-GEF

Biodiversity Regional PPR Report 2006(Part 1 and 2). 2006.

Legro, Susan and Grant Ballard-Tremeer. LoisJensen (ed.). Heating in Transition. UNDP-GEF. 2005.

Ministry of Environment and Tourism.Strengthening the System of NationalProtected Areas Project. Terms of Referencefor the Subcontract No.1 EconomicAnalysis and Feasibility Study for ParksFinancing. n.d.

Project Implementation Review: ClimateChange Focal Area Report 2006. 2006.

Schwarz, Virginie. Public Policies SupportingWind Energy: Examples and Results.UNDP. 2007.

UNDP-GEF Adaptation Guidebook. Section 2.User’s Guidebook. n.d.

UNDP. Fuel Cell Bus Programme: Update.GEF Council. 2006.

UNDP-GEF Fast Facts: Action on Water. n.d.UNDP Land Degradation Focal Area: Project

Implementation Review 2006 SummaryReport. 2006.

UNDP-GEF 2006 Business Plan for Europeand the CIS. UNDP-GEF Regional Team. 2006.

West and Central Africa UNDP-GEFBiodiversity Regional PPR Report 2006.UNDP-GEF Dakar Regional CoordinationUnit. 2006.

UNDP OUTCOME EVALUATIONS(OUTSIDE OF CASE STUDY COUNTRIES)

Mid-term Outcome Evaluation RegardingImproved National Capacity to Negotiateand Implement Global EnvironmentCommitment. Under the EnvironmentalProtection and Natural Resources


Management Project. Final Report.Zambia. 2005.

Outcome Evaluation: UNDP IndonesianEnvironmental Management

Programme. Strategic Results Framework 2001-2003 and 2004-2005. 2004.

UNDP Albania: Environment ProgrammeOutcome Evaluation. 2004.

UNDP Pakistan: Outcome Evaluation 1998-2004. 2005.

ASSESSMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTS

Assessment of Development Results for India.UNDP Evaluation Office. 2002.

Assessment of Development Results forBulgaria. UNDP Evaluation Office. 2003.

Assessment of Development Results forVietnam Volumes 1 and 2. UNDPEvaluation Office. 2003.

Assessment of Development Results for Egypt.UNDP Evaluation Office. 2004.

Assessment of Development Results forMozambique. UNDP Evaluation Office. 2004.

Assessment of Development Results for LaoPDR. UNDP Evaluation Office. 2007.

REGIONAL COOPERATIONFRAMEWORK EVALUATIONS

Evaluation of UNDP’s Regional CooperationFramework for the Arab States (2002–2005). UNDP Evaluation Office. 2005.

Evaluation of the Second Regional CooperationFramework in Africa (2002–2006). UNDPEvaluation Office. 2007.

Evaluation of the Second Regional CooperationFramework in Asia and the Pacific (2002–2006). UNDP Evaluation Office. 2007.

Evaluation of the Second Regional CooperationFramework in Latin America and theCaribbean (2002–2006). UNDP EvaluationOffice. 2007.

THEMATIC EVALUATIONS

Evaluation of the Second Global Cooperation

Framework of UNDP. UNDP EvaluationOffice. 2004.

Tsunami Evaluation Coalition (TEC). TsunamiEvaluation Coalition: Joint Evaluation ofthe International Response to the IndianOcean Tsunami—Synthesis Report. 2006.

Evaluation of Results-Based Management atUNDP. UNDP Evaluation Office. 2007.

EXTERNAL REPORTS AND EVALUATIONS

Damhaug, Marianne and Pernille Holtedahl.Norwegian Multilateral Support to theEnergy Sector in Developing Countries.Norad. 2006.

Scanteam. Analysis of Multilateral Funding ofRenewable Energy and Energy Efficiency:Final Report. Oslo. 2006.

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITYEVALUATIONS AND POLICY DOCUMENTS

Focal Area Strategies and Strategic Programmingfor GEF-4. GEF Council. 2007.

GEF. Climate Change Program Study. GEFOffice of Monitoring and Evaluation.Washington, DC. 2004.

GEF. GEF Annual Performance Report 2006.GEF Council (GEF/ME/G.31/1). GEFEvaluation Office. June 2007.

IW:LEARN . Executive Summary Report onthe 4th Biennial GEF International WatersConference 31 July–3 August 2007. CapeTown, South Africa. 2007.

COUNTRY STUDIES—ALL COUNTRIES

United Nations Development AssistanceFramework (UNDAF)

Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP) Country Cooperation Framework (CCA) Country Cooperation Framework (CCA) Country Programme Document (CPD)Results Report 2004 Results Report 2005 Results Report 2006 Resident Coordinator Annual Report 2003 Resident Coordinator Annual Report 2004


Resident Coordinator Annual Report 2005 Resident Coordinator Annual Report 2006 Assessment of Development ResultsProject Reports (GEF and Non-GEF Projects)Outcome EvaluationsMDG ReportsNational Human Development Reports

BURKINA FASO

International Food Policy Research Institute.‘Cooperation Collective Action and NaturalResources Management in Burkina Faso:From Conflict to Consensus’. CAPRiWorking Paper No. 27. 2002.

International Food Policy Research Institute.‘Managing Resources in ErraticEnvironments: An Analysis of PastoralistSystems in Ethiopia, Niger and BurkinaFaso’. Washington, DC. 2004.

International Food Policy Research Institute.‘The Emergence and Spreading of anImproved Traditional Soil and WaterConservation Practice in Burkina Faso’.EPTD Discussion Paper No. 114. 2004.

UNDP. ‘PNUD Burkina Faso: PortefeuilleEnvironnement-Energie’. 2007.

CHINA

Biodiversity Planning in Asia—China: WhatLessons Can Be Learned from China’sExperience of Implementing Its NationalAction Plan for Biodiversity?

EC PB Bulletins and Newsletters. ‘EU-ChinaBiodiversity Programme Joint NationalProgramme Office’. 2006–2007.

Khoday, Kishan. ‘UNDP China—Energy andEnvironment Strategy (2006–2010)’.UNDP. November 2006.

Pool, Frank and Wen Gang. ‘EnergyConservation and GHG EmissionsReduction in Chinese Township and VillageEnterprises—Phase II’. Project of theGovernment of the People’s Republic ofChina (Project Number: CPR/99/G31).Phase II Mid-Term Evaluation. UNDP andUNIDO. October 2005.

Pool, Frank and Wen Gang. ‘EnergyConservation and GHG Emissions

Reduction in Chinese Township and VillageEnterprises—Phase II’. Project of theGovernment of the People’s Republic ofChina (Project Number: CPR/99/G31).Final Independent Evaluation. UNDP andUNIDO. June 2007.

Porter, Gareth, Shi Han and Zhao Shidong.‘Energy and Environment OutcomeEvaluation’. UNDP China. May 2003.

SEPA. ‘Act Ozone Friendly, Stay Sun Safe.Achievements of the Ozone LayerProtection in China’. In honor of the 20thAnniversary of the Montreal Protocol. StateEnvironmental Protection Administration.People’s Republic of China. 2007.

KENYA

Ntiba, Micheni, Evans M. Mwangi andArandhati Inamdar-Willets. ‘Evaluation of the UNDP-GOK Environment andNatural Resources Programme’. TheGovernment of Kenya and UNDP.August 2003.

UNDP. ‘Kenya: Evaluation of CountryProgramme Action Plan Outcomes2004–2008’. Report prepared for UNDPand Ministry of Finance Department ofExternal Resources. n.d.

Wilkinson, Rona and Evans Kituyi. ‘FinalEvaluation of the UNDP-GEF ProjectRemoval of Barriers to Energy Efficiencyand Conservation in Small and MediumEnterprises in Kenya (KEN/98/G31,KEN/98/031)’. GEF-KAM IndustrialEnergy Efficiency Project. Eco. 10November 2006.

FYR MACEDONIA

UNDP. ‘Debt for Environment Swaps,Financing Options and MacroeconomicImplications’. Ministry of Environment andPhysical Planning. 2004.

MALAWI

Saka, V.W. and H. Tchale. ‘Evaluation of theMethyl Bromide Phase-out Project’. FinalReport. Environmental Affairs Department.


Ministry of Natural Resources andEnvironmental Affairs. August 2002.

BANGKOK REGIONAL CENTRE

MDG Carbon Facility: Leveraging CarbonFinance for Sustainable Development.UNDP. 2007.

UNCT. ‘Advancing Human Development: UNActivities and Achievements 2004–2005’.Report of the United Nations CountryTeam in Thailand, n.d.

UNDP. ‘Energy for Sustainable Development inthe Asia-Pacific Region: Challenges andLessons from UNDP Projects’. 2004.

UNDP. ‘Survivors of the Tsunami One YearLater: UNDP Assisting Communities toBuild Back Better’. 2005.

UNDP. ‘Serving Asia and the Pacific AnnualReport 2006’. UNDP Regional Centres inBangkok and Colombo. 2006.

UNDP. ‘Natural Resource ManagementCountry Studies: Regional Synthesis Paper.Regional Indigenous Peoples’ Programme.Regional Centre in Bangkok’. 2006.

UNDP. ‘Biodiversity Regional Portfolio

Performance Review (PPR): UNDP-GEFRCU for Asia and the Pacific’. 2007.

UNDP. ‘Overcoming Vulnerability to Rising OilPrices: Options for Asia and the Pacific’.Regional Energy Programme for PovertyReduction. UNDP Regional Centre inBangkok. 2007.

UNDP. Environmental Finance Group.‘Regional Business Plan for 2007—Asia andthe Pacific’. n.d.

UNDP and IUCN. ‘Mangroves for the Future:A Strategy for Promoting Investment inCoastal Ecosystem Conservation2007–2012’. UNDP Regional Centre inBangkok and IUCN. 2006.

BRATISLAVA REGIONAL CENTRE

UNDP. ‘Final Evaluation of the UNDP/GEFProject. RER/01/G32. Danube RegionalProject: Strengthening the ImplementationCapacities for Nutrient Reduction andTransboundary Cooperation in the DanubeRiver Basin’. Draft Final Report. 2007.

UNDP. ‘Capacity Development for the StrategicEnvironmental Assessment Application:

evaluation of the role and contribution of undp in environment and energy-annexes

Documents