Evaluation of Programmatic Approaches in the GEF of Programmatic Approaches in the GEF Volume 2: Technical Documents January 2018 1 Contents Acronyms ..... 2 1.1 1.2 History and Evolution

Evaluation of Programmatic Approaches in the GEF

JANUARY 2018V O L U M E 2 : T E C H N I C A L D O C U M E N T S

Evaluation of Programmatic Approaches in the GEF

Volume 2: Technical Documents

January2018

1

ContentsAcronyms.....................................................................................................................................................2TechnicalDocument1:GEFProgramsandBeyond:AComparativeAnalysis..............................................4

1.1Introduction........................................................................................................................................51.2HistoryandEvolutionofPrograms.....................................................................................................51.3EvolutionofGEFPrograms.................................................................................................................81.4AnalysisandResults...........................................................................................................................9

TechnicalDocument2:GeospatialImpactAnalysisofProgrammaticProjectImplementationsintheGEF...................................................................................................................................................19

2.1BackgroundandObjective...............................................................................................................202.2SummaryofFindings........................................................................................................................202.3OverviewofHypotheses..................................................................................................................26Appendix2A:DefinitionsandFrameofAnalysis....................................................................................31Appendix2B:Methods...........................................................................................................................35Appendix2C:GeocodingInternationalAid............................................................................................39

TechnicalDocument3:GlobalOnlineSurvey............................................................................................403.1Introduction......................................................................................................................................413.2ClassificationofSurveyRespondents...............................................................................................413.3.InvolvementinGEFProgrammaticApproaches..............................................................................423.4MainIncentivesandDisincentivestoBePartofaProgram.............................................................443.5ProgramDesignandApproval..........................................................................................................463.6Program-ProjectAlignment..............................................................................................................463.7Coordination.....................................................................................................................................473.8ProgramFinancing............................................................................................................................493.9KnowledgeSharingandM&E...........................................................................................................493.10Program-LevelResults....................................................................................................................513.11FinalThoughtsfromSurveyRespondentsonGEFPrograms.........................................................52

TechnicalDocument4:ProgramCaseStudies...........................................................................................534.1CaseStudy:PRC-GEFPartnershiponLandDegradationinDrylandEcosystems,China..................54Appendix4.1A:Dataandindicatorscollectedduringthefieldmission.................................................694.2CaseStudy:IndiaGEFCoastalandMarineProgram........................................................................704.3CaseStudy:MENA-DesertEcosystemsandLivelihoodsProgram....................................................894.4.CaseStudy:RapidImpactEvaluation—ReducingIndustry’sCarbonFootprintinSoutheastAsiaProgram.......................................................................................................................106Appendix4.4A:RapidImpactEvaluation.............................................................................................117Appendix4.4B:ExpertPanelComposition...........................................................................................118Appendix4.4C:ProgramExpertPanelAssessments–Disaggregated.................................................120

References................................................................................................................................................121

2

Acronyms

ADB AsianDevelopmentBankASIMA Solidarity-basedIntegratedAgricultureinMoroccoBELP BadiaEcosystemandLivelihoodProjectCBD ConventiononBiologicalDiversityCEO ChiefExecutiveOfficerCPF CountryProgrammingFrameworkCPMO CentralProgramManagementOfficeDELP DesertEcosystemsandLivelihoodsProgramEGREE EastGodavariRiverEstuarineEcosystemEnMS EnergyManagementSystemsESP EnvironmentSupportProgramFAO FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNationsGEF GlobalEnvironmentFacilityGEB GlobalEnvironmentalBenefitGoMBR GulfofMannarBiosphereReserveGHG greenhousegasICR implementationcompletionreportIGCMP IndiaBiodiversity:GEFCoastalandMarineProgramIEM integratedenvironmentalmanagementIFAD InternationalFundforAgriculturalDevelopmentM&E monitoringandevaluationMODIS ModerateResolutionImagingSpectroradiometerMoF MinistryofFinanceMPP multiprojectprogramMTR midtermreviewNDVI NormalizedDifferenceVegetationIndexNGO nongovernmentalorganizationNNR NationalNatureReservesNPSC NationalProgramSteeringCommitteeNSC NationalSteeringCommitteeOECD OrganizationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopmentOSS ObservatoireduSaharaetduSahelPBA program-basedapproachPFD programframeworkdocumentPIR projectimplementationreviewPMU ProgramManagementUnitPPCR PilotProgramonClimateResiliencePRC ThePeople’sRepublicofChinaPSRP PovertyReductionStrategyPaperRBM results-basedmanagement

3

RIE rapidimpactevaluationRSCN RoyalSocietyfortheConservationofNatureSFA StateForestryAdministrationSPSC StateProjectSteeringCommitteeSIF strategicinvestmentfundSIP sectorinvestmentprogramSLM sustainablelandmanagementSTAR SystemforTransparentAllocationofResourcesSWAp sector-wideapproachTTL taskteamleaderUNCCD UnitedNationsConventiontoCombatDesertificationUNDP UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme Notes GEFreplenishmentperiods

GEF-1 1995–1998GEF-2 1999–2002GEF-3 2003–2006GEF-4 2006–2010 GEF-5 2010–2014GEF-6 2014–2018 AllmonetaryamountsareUS$unlessotherwiseindicated.

4

TechnicalDocument1:GEFProgramsandBeyond:AComparativeAnalysis

1.1Introduction........................................................................................................................................51.2HistoryandEvolutionofPrograms.....................................................................................................51.3EvolutionofGEFPrograms.................................................................................................................81.4AnalysisandResults...........................................................................................................................9

5

1.1Introduction

Thepurposeofthisstudyistodiscussthedifferentconceptualnotionsrelatedto“programmaticapproaches.”Asnotedbystakeholdersduringthedevelopmentoftheapproachpaperforthe“EvaluationofProgrammaticApproachesintheGEF,”theconceptualframeworkforprogramsintheGlobalEnvironmentFacility(GEF)appearsunique.Inparticular,itwasnotedthattheusualOrganizationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment(OECD)definitionof“program”maynotbeapplicabletotheworkofGEF,suggestingitwouldbeappropriatetocomparethedifferencesbetweenconceptualframeworksandpractices.

AninitialsurveyofthedifferentapproachestoprogramswasundertakenduringtheinternalReviewofProgrammaticApproachesconductedbytheGEFSecretariatin2012(GEFSecretariat2012).Therefore,thepurposeofthisstudyistodelvedeeperintothedifferentwaysinwhichprogramsareconceived,designed,andimplementedintheGEFaswellasinthebroaderdevelopmentcontext,inordertodrawlessonsthatmaybeapplicabletotheGEFinfutureyears.ThiswillhelpunderstandhowdifferentaspectsandmodalitiesofprogramsbeingimplementedinthebroaderdevelopmentcontextmayhelpachieveahigherimpactwithinthescopeofworkofGEF.

ThestudyreviewedtheavailabledocumentationonprogramsbothfromtheGEFandfromthebroaderdevelopmentcooperationsector.Theanalysiswasconductedbycomparingthedifferentprogrammaticapproaches(inthisstudy,thetermprogram,programmaticapproach,andprogram-basedapproachareusedinterchangeably)accordingtoabroadsetofcharacteristics,suchas:

• Objectivesandpurpose• Processesandgovernance• Finance• Countryownershipandleadership• Costs/benefits

ThecomparativeanalysisaimsatsettingGEFprogramssidebysidewithothertypesofprogrammaticapproaches.Someofthesehavebeenusedintheenvironmentsector:

• Sectorinvestmentprograms(SIP)originallysetupbytheWorldBank• Sector-wideapproaches(SWAps),implementedbyvariousdonors• Program-basedapproaches(PBAs),implementedbybilateralandmultilateralagencies• Multiprojectprograms(MPPs)• Strategicinvestmentfunds(SIFs),alsospearheadedbytheWorldBank,particularlyon

environmentalandclimatechangeissues.

1.2HistoryandEvolutionofPrograms

Theideaof“programs”orprogrammaticapproachesinthedevelopment-cooperationcontextemergedinthelate1980s,inresponsetotheslowprogressinachievingtangibleimpactsindevelopingcountriesthroughtheproject-supportmodality.Inparticular,therewasconcernamongthedonorcommunitythattheproject-basedapproachwasunsustainableandinefficientincreating“economicgrowthandself-reliance.”Oneofthefactorspin-pointedasarootcauseofthelackofsustainedresultswasthelackofownershipofthedevelopmentprocessbytherecipientcountries,whileothersnotedthedispersionofeffortsintomanydiscreteprojectsthatwereneitherrelatedtonorcoordinatedwithoneanotherorwithnationalpolicies(UNDP1998).

6

TheseconcernswereinitiallyformalizedwiththeintroductionoftheconceptoftheprogramapproachinUnitedNationsresolution44/211of22December1989,whichcalledfor“…moreintegratedandcoordinatedprogramming(…)inwhichprogrammingprocesseswouldbebasedonanoverallnationalprogramframework(…)tobepreparedbytherecipientGovernment(…)whichwouldenablethesystemtosupportmoreeffectivelythedevelopmentprioritiesofdevelopingcountriesandtobemorecountry-focusedandwouldfacilitatethedevelopmentofaprogramapproach”(UnitedNations1989).

Followingthisrequest,in1993,adefinitionoftheprogramapproachtodevelopmentwasagreedtobyallUnitedNationsagencies(UNDP1998).Accordingtothisdefinition,aprogram"...isacoherentsetofpolicies,strategies,activitiesandinvestmentsdesignedtoachieveaspecifictimeboundnationaldevelopmentobjectiveorsetofobjectivesandtheprogramapproachreferstothe"...pursuitofnationaldevelopmentgoalsthroughcohesivenationalprograms”(UNDP1998).

Duringthe1990s,variousnewaid-deliverymechanismsemergedinlinewiththeprogramapproach,forexampleSWAps,whoseoriginscanbetracedtoa1995WorldBankpaperentitled“TheBroadSectorApproachtoInvestmentLending,”whichintroducedthenotionofsector-widescopeinWorldBank‒fundedSIPs(ODI2008).UndertheSWAp,fundscontributedirectlytoacountry-definedsectorpolicy.In2000,theEuropeanCommissionanditsmembersadoptedapolicyorientationinfavorofthesectorapproachandsectorbudgetsupport.The“EuropeanConsensusonDevelopment,”adoptedinDecember2005,alsoconfirmscommitmenttowardaideffectivenessprinciples(EC2007).Itnotesthat:“wherecircumstancespermit,theuseofgeneralorsectorbudgetsupportshouldincreaseasameanstostrengthenownership,tosupportpartners’nationalaccountabilityandprocedures,tofinancenationalpovertyreductionstrategies(PRS)(includingoperatingcostsofhealthandeducationbudgets)andtopromotesoundandtransparentmanagementofpublicfinances”(EC2007). Manybilateraldonorsalsofollowedsuitduringthe2000s,withtheirowndefinitionsandguidelinesontheimplementationofSWAps,program-basedfunding,andbudgetsupport(EC2008).

Thepressurestoincreasecoordination,maximizeimpact,andreducetransactioncosts,whileincreasingnationalownershipofdevelopmentprocesses,continuedtoincreaseduringthe1990sand2000s.Thisledtoaseriesofmajorpolicyresponses,includingthe2000MillenniumDevelopmentGoals,theMonterreyConsensusof2002,andthe2003RomeDeclarationonharmonization(DANIDA2010),amongothers.

In2005,theParisDeclarationonAidEffectivenessenshrinedtheprinciplesthatgovernprogramsandprogrammaticapproaches,including(OECD2006):

• Strengtheningpartnercountries’nationaldevelopmentstrategiesandassociatedoperationalframeworks(e.g.,planning,budget,andperformanceassessmentframeworks).

• Increasingalignmentofaidwiththepriorities,systems,andproceduresofpartnercountriesandhelpingtostrengthentheircapacities.

• Enhancingtheaccountabilityofdonorsandpartnercountriestotheirrespectivecitizensandparliamentsfortheirdevelopmentpolicies,strategies,andperformance.

• Eliminatingtheduplicationofeffortsandrationalizingdonoractivitiestomakethemascost-effectiveaspossible.

• Reformingandsimplifyingdonorpoliciesandprocedurestoencouragecollaborativebehaviorandprogressivealignmentwithpriorities,systems,andproceduresofpartnercountries.

• Definingmeasuresandstandardsofperformanceandaccountabilityofpartnercountrysystemsinpublicfinancialmanagement,procurement,fiduciarysafeguards,and

7

environmentalassessments,inlinewithbroadlyacceptedgoodpracticesandtheirquickandwidespreadapplication.

SincetheParisDeclaration,effortshavecontinuedtodelivermorecoordinateddevelopmentsupport,toincreasenationalownership,andtostreamlinedevelopmentcooperationeffortsforincreasedimpacts.TheemergenceofPovertyReductionStrategyPapers(PSRPs)askeyrequirementsfordebtcancelation,aswellasmedium-termexpenditureframeworks,havealsocontributedtomore“program-based”developmentcooperation,inwhichdonorscancoalescearoundasetofbroadpolicyprioritiesandcontributeassistancethroughtherecipientgovernment’sinstitutionsandprocesses.

PRSPs,inparticular,haveseentheirconsecrationasthehigherlevelofdevelopmentprogramtowhichdevelopmentaidshouldcontribute.DeliverymechanismsinsupportofPRSPobjectivesincludebudgetsupport,sectorbudgetsupport,projectsupport,pooledarrangements,andtrustfunds.

Basedonworkconductedwithinbilateralagencies,aswellasthroughcollaborativeforumssuchastheOECD‒DevelopmentAssistanceCommittee,adefinitionofprogram-basedcooperationwasalsoformalizedbytheOECDin2004,asseeninbox1.1(OECD2006):

However,itshouldbenotedthatinsomedevelopmentcooperationcontexts,programsarestilldefined,designed,andimplementedasaclusterorgroupofprojectssharingacommongoal,orasaseriesofsequentialinitiatives(phasedprojects),withoutnecessarilyreferringtothenationalownershiporthenationalpolicybasis.Itisstillpossibletodaytoencounterdevelopmentcooperationinitiativesthatareprogramsbutdonotexhibitthebasicrequirementsofaprogram-basedapproachasdefinedabove,demonstratingthatdespitemuchprogressindefiningprogrammaticapproaches,theconcepthasremainedlimitedtoafewkeyapplications,donors,orsectors.

Inparalleltotheevolutionofprogrammaticapproachesasoperationalmechanisms,andinlinewiththeneedtoincreasinglydemonstrateandaccountforresults,approachestoknowledgemanagement,monitoring,andevaluationalsoevolved.Theapplicationofknowledgemanagement,monitoring,andevaluationsystemstoprogrammaticapproaches,however,isnotyetstandardized,andmonitoringandevaluation(M&E)systemsaredesigneddifferentlydependingonahostoffactors,includingdonorpracticesandrequirements,projectdesignpractices,programmaticlimitations,andexpectedresults.Whileresultsforindividualprogramsorprogram-basedapproachesareoftenwelldocumentedand

Box1.1

Program-basedapproachesareawayofengagingindevelopmentcooperationbasedontheprinciplesofcoordinatedsupportforalocallyownedprogramofdevelopment,suchasanationaldevelopmentstrategy,asectorprogram,athematicprogramoraprogramofaspecificorganization.Program-basedapproachessharethefollowingfeatures:

Leadershipbythehostcountryororganization

Asinglecomprehensiveprogramandbudgetframework

Aformalizedprocessfordonorcoordinationandharmonizationofdonorproceduresforreporting,budgeting,financialmanagement,andprocurement

Effortstoincreasetheuseoflocalsystemsforprogramdesignandimplementation,financialmanagement,monitoringandevaluation

8

communicated,thequestionofwhetherprogrammaticapproachesasawholeareefficaciousmeanstodeliverdevelopmentorenvironmentalbenefits,remains.Asanaside,ithasbeendifficulttoidentify,forthisstudy,documentsthatprovidedhigh-levelanalyticalinformationaboutprogramsasprograms,oraboutprogrammaticapproachesinandofthemselves.Beyondinitialoperationalguidelinesprovidedbysomedonors,thereseemstohavebeenlittleefforttodocumenttheactualefficiencyandeffectivenessofPBAsasawhole.

1.3EvolutionofGEFPrograms

ProgramsintheGEFhaveevolveddifferentlythanthoseinthebroaderdevelopmentcontext,withtheirowndefinitionsandsetofprocedures.Atthe14thGEFCouncilmeetinginDecember1999,theCouncilsupportedtheevolutionofGEFsupporttorecipientcountriesthroughamoreprogrammaticapproach.ThefirstGEFprogramwastheDanube/BlackSeaBasinStrategicPartnership,whichwaslaunchedin2001withthecoordinatedsupportofmultipledonorsandlong-termfinancialengagement.Thisinitiativewasintendedasaphasedapproachtoaddressaspecificenvironmentalproblem,aroundagivensharedecosystem.

Later,theGEFclarifiedthattheoverallaimofGEFprogramsshouldbe“tosecurelargerandsustainedimpactontheglobalenvironmentthroughintegratingandmainstreamingglobalenvironmentalobjectivesintoacountry’snationalstrategiesandplansthroughpartnershipwiththecountry”(GEF2001).InMay2008,theGEFCouncilapprovedasetofobjectivesandbasicprinciplesforprogrammaticapproaches(GEF2008a),alongwithdetailedoperationalguidelines.

WhiletheGEFpolicydocumentsdomakereferencetothesameprinciplesasthoseinvokedinthevariousprogram-basedapproacheshighlightedabove(e.g.,countryownership,donorcoordination),notalloftheprinciplesputforwardbytheOECDandotherdonorsseemtohaveappliedtotheGEFprograms.GEFprograms,throughoutitshistory,havepresenteddifferentcharacteristics,whichhavealsoevolvedovertime.Forexample,therehavebeenGEFprogramsthatwerecollectionsofindividualprojects(country-basedorotherwise),programsthatrepresentedlong-termstrategicsectoralengagement,multicountryprojects,andsequencedinterventions,etc.Anearlytypologyofferedintheinternalreviewofprogrammaticapproaches(GEFSecretariat2012)proposedthefollowingtypesofprojects:

1. Countryprograms,alsoknownascountryprogrampartnerships,whichwereintendedtoprovidelong-termandlarge-scalefocusonasetofspecificissueswithinasinglecountry.Forexample,ThePeople’sRepublicofChina(PRC)‒GEFPartnershiponLandDegradationinDrylandEcosystemsProgram,orthecountrypilotpartnershipsinNamibiaandBurkinaFaso.Mostcountryprogramswerethematicallybased,andfocusedonasingleFocalArea.

2. Regionalprograms,wherecountriesofasameregionorsubregionworkedtoachieveasharedgoal,usuallyinasharedortrans-boundaryecosystem,andwherethepartsoftheprogram,andthecountry-basedinitiatives,werehighlyinterdependent.Inthistypology,regionalprogramsareconstitutedwhenagroupofcountriesworktogethertoachieveenvironmentalimpactinagivensharedgeographicunit.ExamplesofthistypeofprogramsarefoundthroughallGEFreplenishments,forexampletheDanube/BlackSeaBasinStrategicPartnershiponNutrientReduction(GEF-2),ortheLakeChadBasinRegionalProgramfortheConservationandSustainableUseofNaturalResourcesandEnergyEfficiency.

3. Multicountryprogramsoccurwhereagroupofcountries,co-locatedornot,workseparatelyto

9

achievesimilarobjectives,sometimesusingsimilarapproaches,underacommonoverarchinggoal.Inthecaseofmulticountryprograms,thereislowerinterdependencybetweenthepartsoftheprogramthaninregionalprograms.AnexamplewouldbethePacificIslandRidge-to-Reefprogramthatincludesdifferentprojectsin16countriesallaccordingtothesameconceptualapproach,withknowledgesharingamongall,butwheretheoutcomeofeachindividualprojectdoesnotimpactontheothers.AmorerecentexamplewouldbetheIntegratedApproachPilotonFoodSecurity,whichwasdevelopedinGEF-6asamodelforfutureintegratedprogramming,butinwhichthereismoreemphasisoncross-fertilizationamongprogramcountries,embodiedthrougha“regionalhubsubproject.”

4. Portfolioprogramsareprogramscomprisinganynumberofcountries,whereallcountriesareimplementingmoreorlessthesameproject(s),andwhoseprimaryobjectiveistocreateaportfolioofprojectsaddressingagivenglobalenvironmentalissue.Portfolioprograms,oftenreferredtoas“umbrellaprograms,”includechild-projectsthataresimilarinintention,innature,orinscope,inwhichthescopeofintendedresultsisnational.TheseincludeforexampletheGEF-4BiosafetyProgramwhereanumberofcountriesimplementsimilaractivitiesinordertoadvancetheirbiosafetyagendaatnationallevel.Portfolioprogramsaremoreakintorapiddeliverymechanismsthantrueprogram-basedapproaches.

5. Public-privatepartnershipprogramswereaddedtotheprogrammaticportfolioinGEF-5,wherebyanAgencyusesaprogrammaticapproachtosetupinvestmentfundsthataredisbursedaccordingtospecificobjectivesandrulesinoneormorecountries,towardasetobjective.Public-privatepartnershipplatformsresemblesectorinvestmentfundsinthatthedesign,approval,anddisbursementofchild-projectsandspecificinvestmentsismoreorlessdelegatedtotheAgencyincharge,andwheretheinvestmentsthemselvesarebasedondemand.Public-privatepartnershipscreateafundingenvelopefromwhichtheprivatesectorproponentscandraw.Thepublic-privatepartnershipsweredesignedtoincreaseaccesstospecifictechnologies,opennewmarkets,andprovidededicatedaccesstotheprivatesector.Anexampleofthiswouldbethepublic-privatepartnershipprogramoftheInteramericanDevelopmentBank’sMultilateralInvestmentFund.

AsnotedintheApproachPapertothisevaluation(GEFIEO2016),untilGEF-5,Councildiscussionsaboutprogramscenteredmoreonoperational,financial,andadministrativemattersandasaresult,theapprovedprogrammodalitieswerealsobasedonsuchcharacteristics.However,atitsmeetinginOctober2014,theGEFCouncilclassifiedprogramsintotwomaintypes,thematicandgeographic,andinGEF-6,theGEFintroducedtheintegratedapproachpilotsinwhichthefocusismoreonthetransformationalresultthanonthedeliverymodality.Thisreflectstheongoingdebateontheusefulnessandeffectivenessofprogrammaticapproachesasaid-deliverymechanisms,andonwhetherprogramsaresufficientinandofthemselvestoachievestrongerdevelopmentimpact(BoesenandDietvorst2007).

TheseevolvingdefinitionsanddelineationsofprogrammaticapproacheswithintheGEFCouncildocumentsalsoreflectanongoingconcernwiththeeffectivenessandefficiencyoftheapproachitself,whichhasledtothecurrentformalevaluationofprogrammaticapproaches.

1.4AnalysisandResults

Thebelowanalysisprovidesanoverviewofthemaincharacteristicsofthedifferenttypesofprograms,andcomparestheirmainfeaturestotheotherprogramsandtothosethathavebeenimplementedwithGEFsupporttodate.Thecategoriesbelowdonotintendtobeexhaustive,noraretheynecessarily

10

mutuallyexclusive.Typically,someofthesewillpresentsimilarfeatures,andtherewillbehybridformsoftheseinstruments.

SIPsrepresentatooltochannellarge-scale,long-terminvestmentintospecificeconomicsectors,whereasstrategicinvestmentfunds—whilepresentingsimilarcharacteristicsfromanoperationalperspective—targetthemesandtopicsthatgobeyondtraditionaleconomic“sector”definitions.SIPsweremorewidelyusedduringthe1990s,andgraduallyevolvedtowardSIFs,representingtoday’spracticeintermsofintegratedapproachestodevelopmentassistance.Intheenvironmentsector,theWorldBankspearheadedforexampletheStrategicInvestmentProgramonSustainableLandManagement(throughTerrAfrica),andmorerecentlytheStrategicInvestmentFundsonForestsorClimateChange.TheTerrAfricaplatformisaninterestingcase,inthatitbeganasaprogram—andindeedtheGEFparticipatedinitsearlyinception—butitevolvedintoaplatformorapartnership,towhichdonorsandexecutingagenciescontributeddifferently.TheSIPthenbecametheoperationaltoolthroughwhichTerrAfricasubprojects(investmentprojects)wereimplemented.TheTerrAfricaplatformwasfundedbydonorssuchasFrance,Norway,theNetherlands,andtheEuropeanUnion,andimplementedatnationallevelbyagenciessuchastheWorldBank,UnitedNationsFoodandAgricultureOrganization(FAO),theInternationalFundforAgriculturalDevelopment(IFAD),orUnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP).GEFfundingcontributedtotheTerrAfricaplatform,throughindividualprojectsamountedto$150million,andcofinancingrepresentedover$800million(FAO2016).WhiletheTerrAfricaSIPinitselfconsistedinaprogrammaticapproach,theGEF’scontributiontoitwasstilloperationalizedthroughindividualprojects.CoordinationamongthedifferentprojectsdidnotoccurattheleveloftheGEF,althoughitdidbenefitfromGEFfunding(throughUnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme).

SIPsweredesignedasaninvestmentmechanismtochannelfundingtowardcoveringexpendituresofagivensector.Theywereintendedtocoverallrelevantpublicexpenditure(bothcurrentandcapital)andpoliciesofthetargetedsectors.UndertheSIPmechanism,thegovernment—whooftenisthedirectbeneficiaryofassistance—orprivatesector,hadtobedirectlyinchargeofmanagingandadministeringexpenditures.Implementationarrangementswereintendedtobecommontoallfinanciers,andtheuseoflocalcapacity,ratherthanlong-termtechnicalassistance,waspromoted(WorldBank2000).Mostimportantly,SIPsweretobebasedonaclearlyenunciatedandnationallydevelopedstrategyandpolicyframework.ThisallowedforSIPstosupportmultidonorapproaches,wheremultiplesourcesoffinancingwouldbetappedtosupportacoherentsetofnationally-driveninvestmentsinaspecificsector.ThefundamentalobjectiveoftheSIPwastoachievehigher-levelimpactacrossasector,andtofulfilabroaderscopeofneedsthancouldbeaddressedbyasingleprojectapproach.ThemultidonorandmultistakeholderapproachwasstronglyencouragedatthestartoftheSIPdevelopmentprocess,butlaterevaluationsfoundthatthiswasthehardestelementtoachieve(WorldBank1996).Inmanyregards,itwasthoughtthatSIPswouldonlybesuccessfulifalldonorssignedontothesameframework,usingcommonproceduresforprocurement,training,andreporting.ThesuccessofSIPswastobemeasuredthroughsharedhigh-levelsector-wideindicators,correspondingtotheobjectivesofthenationalpolicy(TerrAfrica,n.d.).

SIPswereintendedtofinanceasetofgoodsandservices(throughlendinginthecaseoftheWorldBank),asoutlinedinthesectorinvestmentplansthataccompanyasectorpolicyorstrategy.TheSIPsdidawaywiththetraditionaldistinctionbetweenrecurrentandcapitalexpenditures,focusingontheoverallexpenditureneedsofthesector.Intermsofcost-effectiveness,theWorldBanknotedinitsinitialresearchonSIPsthatwhiletheearlypreparationcostsforSIPswouldbehigh,thesewereintendedtoreplacethecostofdevelopingmultipleindividualprojects.Savingwouldthereforeberealizedduringimplementationaswellasforthebroadersectorpartnersinthelongerterm(TerrAfrica,n.d.).

11

NoSIPsweredevelopedorimplementedfortheenvironmentsector.Thisisattributedtomultiplereasons:theenvironmentisnotconsideredatraditionalsector,withadistinctsetofinvestmentprioritiesandinstitutions,environmentministrieswererelativelyweakduringtheperiodwhereSIPswerebeingimplemented,andenvironmentfundinghastraditionallyusedgrantsratherthanlendinginstruments.Environment-relatedinvestmentprogramsonlyemergedduringthelate2000s,withprogramssuchastheStrategicInvestmentProgramforSustainableLandManagement,whichwascofinancedbytheGEF,andismoreakintoaprogram-basedapproachoramultiprojectprogram(seebelow)thanasector-basedapproach.GEFSIPsalsoexhibitedotherdifferenceswithmainstreamSIPs:GEFSIPswereconceivedasmulticountryinitiatives,andtheGEFfundingcameintopartiallycofinancethemainstreaminitiative.Infact,GEFfundingtypicallydoesnotcover“investment”relatedcosts(usuallyfinancedthroughloans),butincrementalenvironmentalcoststhatwereidentifiedasanadd-onandfinancedthroughgrants;therefore,whereasGEFcanparticipateinaSIPasoneamongmanydonors,itcannot,byvirtueoftheIncrementalCostPrinciple,supportanentiresectorinvestmentprogram.

SWApspresentsimilarcharacteristicsandintentsasSIPsabove,fromwhichtheyarederived.UndertheSWAp,fundscontributedirectlytoasector-specificumbrellaandaretiedtoadefinedsectorpolicyunderagovernmentauthority.Theyaredefinedasinitiativesinwhich“allsignificantfundingforthesectorsupportsasinglesectorpolicyandexpenditureprogram,undergovernmentleadership,adoptingcommonapproachesacrossthesector,andprogressingtowardrelyingongovernmentprocedurestodisburseandaccountforallfunds”(ODI2008).

WheretheSWApsalsoencouragemultidonorcontributionstoasharedpolicyframework,onekeydifferencebetweenaSWApandaSIPmightbethatSWApspromotemorestronglytheuseofnationalsystemsforexpendituresandmonitoring—whereasSIPscoulddesigntheirownsystemsinthisregard(DFID2001).Inaddition,whereSIPsweremechanismstochannelinvestmentfunding,mostoftenloan-based,SWApscoordinatedmultiplesourcesandtypesoffinancingundertheumbrellaofasectorpolicyorplan,anddidnotnecessarilyfocusoninvestment-relatedcostswithinthesector.Furthermore,itwasnotedthatwhereaSIPisan“instrument”oranaidmodality,aSWApis“…aframeworksettingadirectionofchange—towardbettercoordinatedandmoreeffectiveaidmanagement”(ODI2008),“apolicyplanningandmanagementapproachwhichcaninrealitybefundedbyavarietyoffinancialaidinstruments”(GDPRD2007).

Asnotedin“Sector-WideApproachesforHealthDevelopment”(WHO1999),thetermsSIPsandSWApsareactuallydonorterms,andreflecttheapproachtochannelingassistance,morethanthecountry-ownedpoliciesthattheyaredesignedtosupport.Countryownership,whichisthekeyprincipleattheoriginofprogrammaticapproaches,canbeseeninvaryingdegreesinthesetupandimplementationofvariousSWAps:thiscanrangefromheadofstate’simpulseforaparticularsectoralpolicyobjective(e.g.,achieveuniversalschoolenrolment),tocaseswheredonorleadershipismoreevident,particularlyindevelopingthepoliciesandframeworksthatistheobjectoftheirlatersupport.

MostevaluationshavefoundthatSWApsgenerallycontributedtoamorestreamlineddialoguebetweenthedonorcommunityandgovernment,strengtheninggovernmentleadershipandcoordinationbetweendonors.However,itwasalsofoundthatthisoftentookplaceatthecostofacentralizationofpolicy-makingandexcessiveattentionontheworkingsoftheSWApratherthanonthepolicyobjectives(GDPRD2007;ODI2008).

TherealsoappearstobelimitedevidencethatSWApshaveactuallyledtoareductionintransactioncosts—infact,heavymanagementstructureshaveoftenbeencreatedtosupportthedesign,

12

implementation,andmonitoringoftheSWAp.Also,anddespitetheoriginalintent,SWApshaveendedupconcentratingalmostexclusivelyonthewayresourcesarechanneledtothebeneficiarysectoralministry,doinglittletostimulatelinkagesacrossgovernmentandwithnon-stateactors.Finally,asnotedabove,thereislimitedevidence—atleastto-date—thatSWApshaveactuallycontributedtoamoreefficientuseofpublicresourcesandbetterservicedelivery.

SWApsinitiallytargetedsocialsectorsinhighlyaid-dependentandlow-incomecountries,insectorswithalargenumberofdonorswhereaidfragmentationwasasignificantproblem.Inpractice,someSWApswerefundedbyasingledonor,andsomeothersfocusedonsubsectoralandmultisectoralissues.Thislatterpointhasallowedfortheemergenceofenvironment-relatedSWAps,orruraldevelopmentSWAps,suchasforexampletheNetherlands-supportedEnvironmentalSWApinColombia(2007‒2010),whichwasfundedtothetuneof€16million.KeycharacteristicsofthisSWApincludedfundingthatwaschanneledtothenationallevel,inresponsetoastrongpolicystatementandaccompanyingexpenditureframework,usingbothbudgetsupportandproject-basedaid.However,thisSWApdidnotsucceedinleveragingotherdonorsupport,asmostprogrammaticapproachesintendtodo.

TheuseofSWApsintheenvironmentsectorhasalsobeenlimited,buthasyieldedsomeinterestinglessons.Ina2010report,theDenmarkAgencyforInternationalDevelopmentAgencyalsoevaluatedtheeffectivenessandimpactsofthesector-basedorprogrammaticapproachintheenvironmentsector,whichtheytermed“EnvironmentSupportPrograms(ESPs)”(DANIDA2010),whichtheyhadbegunimplementingsincethelate1990s.Theevaluationfoundthattheapproachwasnotentirelysuccessfulforvariousreasons.Forexample,“ESPssoughttobuildnationalframeworksorsystemsthatwouldbenefitmoreofthepoor—becauseoftheirlinkagestonationalpovertyreductionplans—butinordertodosowouldrequirelong-termengagementandstrongnationalownership.Thus,whiletheseESPswerebetteralignedtoandprovidedsupportfornationalstrategiesandlegislation,theyneverthelessfacedchallengesintermsofinsufficientnationalleadershipandinbeinganchoredtoinstitutionswithweakerpoliticalinfluenceandcapacity”(DANIDA2010).ItwasalsofoundthatfewoftheESPsactuallylastedfortheintendeddurationof10‒20years.Furthermore,aswiththeColombiaexampleabove,ortheCanadianInternationalDevelopmentAgency‒GermanAgencyforTechnicalCooperationledForestandEnvironmentSupportPrograminCameroon,donorfragmentationremainedanissue,asfewotherdonorsjoinedtheESPswithmorethansmall-scale,adhocsupport.ThislatterexamplewasonewheretheGEFwasalsoabletoprovideadditionalfunding,butwhereitwasnotengagedinthetotalityoftheprogram—neitherinscopenorinduration.

ThismitigatedsuccessintheenvironmentandnaturalresourcessectorhasalsobeenattributedtothefactthatSWApsandPBAswereconceivedfromthesupply-sideasaid-deliverymechanismsthatdidnotnecessarilytakeintoconsiderationthepoliticalrealitiesofagivensectorintherecipientcountry

(BoesenandDietvorst2007).Inaddition,inherentcomplexitiesinsectorssuchasagriculture,forestry,andruraldevelopmentmeantthatapure“single-sector-based”approachwasnotaseasilyforthcoming(EC2008;GlobalDonorPlatformforRuralDevelopment,n.d.).ThisappliesespeciallytotheGEF,wheresingle-actorsectorsareusuallynoteasilyfound,exceptperhapsintheenergyandwatersectors—andwhereinmostcases,theprimaryinterlocutorsareenvironmentministries,whoselimitedoperationalpowersinmanydevelopingcountriesdonotalwaysallowfortheeffectiveimplementationofsector-wideapproaches.

AswiththecaseofSIPsabove,theGEF’sparticipationinaSWApdependedonwhetherincrementalcostscouldbeeasilyidentifiedand“carved-off”forgrantfunding.Inmostcases,theGEF’sparticipationinanenvironmentSWApwasactuallyoperationalizedasaprojectwithintheGEF(seeforexampleMadagascar“ThirdEnvironmentProgram”).AswiththecaseofSIPs,wheretheGEFcouldparticipateas

13

afundingpartnerinaSWAp,innocasecouldtheGEFbetheleadagencyorinitiatorofaSWAp,evenifsaidprogramwasfocusedonenvironmentalornaturalresourcesissues.ThiswasmostlikelycausedbytheneedtolimitfundingtotheincrementalcostsofachievingGlobalEnvironmentalBenefits(GEBs)andtoavoidusingGEFfundstocoverrecurringcostsofanygivensectorprogram.

PBAsareanotherextensionoftheSWAp.Thetermreferstoagenericapproachbasedoncomprehensiveandcoordinatedplanninginagivensector,thematicarea,orundertheaegisofanationalpovertyreductionstrategy(PRS).AccordingtoCIDA’sprimeronPBAs:“PBAsareintendedtosupportlocallyownedprogramsofdevelopment,sotheword‘program’intheexpressionreferstotheprogramofadevelopingcountryorinstitution,whichoneormoredonorshaveagreedtosupport…theprogrammaybeaPRS,asectorprogramorathematicprogramortheprogramofaspecificorganisationsuchasanon-governmentalorganisation”(CIDA2003).TosomeextenttheconceptofPBAoffersahigherdegreeofinstitutionalflexibilitybyfocusingonapolicyprogramandobjectives—whichcanbemultisectoral,sectoral,orsubsectoral—ratherthanabureaucraticinstitutionalstructure,i.e.,thesector”(GDPRD2007).Intheory,thisapproachcanapplymorereadilytoenvironmentalissues,manyofwhicharecross-sectoralandmultistakeholderinnature.Inpractice,therehavebeenveryfewPBAsintheenvironmentalarea,owingperhapstotheabsenceofasingle,integrating,andrallyingenvironmentalpolicyandprogramstatementinmostcountries,andtodifferingideasofwhatgovernmentsshoulddoaboutenvironmentaldegradation.

Incontrasttotheaboveapproaches,MPPsmakenoassumptionsaboutthedegreeofdonorcoordinationorcountryownership.MPPscanbeconsideredasstraightforwardaid-deliveryinstrumentscomprisingasetofinterlinkedprojectsorinitiatives.MPPslendthemselveswelltoenvironmentalissuesbecausetheycancoordinatemultiplestakeholdersandimplementingentitiesaroundmultipletime-boundinitiatives,whileencouragingthedevelopmentofsharedframeworks,procedures,andmonitoring.Itisnosurprise,therefore,thatthesetypesofprogramsaretheonesfoundmostfrequentlywithintheGEF’sportfolio,andtheonesthatcanmostreadilybeoperationalizedthroughtheGEF’sownproceduralrequirements.ThatisnottosaythatMPPsdoawaywiththerequirementofcountryownership,butthewayinwhichthisownershipismanifestedismoreflexiblethaninotherprogrammaticapproaches,whereasinglepolicydocumentformedthebasisofdonorengagement.MPPsalsoallowformultidonorcoordinationaswellasthecoordinationofmultipletypesoffinancialinstruments.ThemaincharacteristicofMPPsisthattheprojectsthatcomprisethemhavetobelinkedamongthembysomekindofunifyingprinciple.Thisprinciplecouldberegionalunity,aspecificthemeorissue,acommonmethodology,orahigher-levelobjective.

MPPshaveadvantagesanddisadvantages;forexample,theymaypromotelearningandsustainability,buttheycanalsocreatemultiplestructurallayersdependingonthenumberofpartners,sometimescreatingissueswithaccountabilityanddelaysorinequalitiesamongthedifferentstakeholders.AnotherpotentialdrawbackisthatMPPstendtobecomeorganizationsinthemselves,andthelongertheylast,thehardertheymaybetodisband,eveniftheoriginalobjectiveshavebeenachieved.Workingacrossmultiplecountries,sectors,oradministrative,legal,andcurrencysystemsmayalsoincreasetransactioncosts(BuffardiandHearn2015).However,despitethesepotentialshortcomings,MPPsareamongthemostwidelyusedtypesofprogrammaticapproachesinallsectorsbecausetheyofferthemostflexibilityandallowforhigher-levelimpactmonitoring.Theyalsoprovidethepossibilityfordonorstochannellargeramountsoffinancialassistanceinasmallernumberoftransactions(althoughthetransactioncostsmaysimplybedisplacedfromthedonortotherecipients,insomecases).

ExamplesoftheseprogramsaboundintheGEF,includingthe“StrengtheningClimateEarlyWarningSystems”program(whichcomprises10separatenationalprojectswithoutanintegrativeumbrella);the

14

“IntegratedApproachPilotonFoodSecurity,”whichincludes11childprojectsandoneintegrativeregionalproject;orthe“RidgetoReef”initiative,whichisimplementedacrossregionsusingasimilarmethodology.IncontrasttotheSWApsandSIPs,MPPscan,andoftenare,initiatedbyGEForGEFAgencies,andareoftenfocusedaroundGEF-channeledgrantfunds,whichareaddedontothedevelopmentbaselinefundinginthecountry(asopposedtodonor-channeledloans).MPPsalsolendthemselvesmoreeasilytobeingexclusivelygrantfinanced,andareusuallycompletedwithinarelativelyshorttime-frame,whichallowstheGEFtoplayamorecentralroleintheirconception,ifnottheiroperationalization.Itshouldbenotedthattheintegratedapproachpilots,ofwhichtherearethreeunderimplementationunderGEF-6,aredesignedtopavethewayinwhichtheGEFintendstooperateinGEF-7andbeyond.

Finally,oneofthemostrecentinstrumentsthatembodyaprogrammaticapproachistheSIF,whichisimplementedbytheWorldBank.Inthattheychannelinvestmentfunding,SIFsarethenextgenerationofSIPs—meaningthattheycoveracertaintypeofexpenditure,butbyfocusingoncross-sectoralissuesandwithastrongaccentonaccessbynongovernmentalpartners,mainlytheprivatesector.SIFsalsoprovideavenuewheredonorcoordinationandharmonizationcanbepursuedaroundjointobjectives,sharedmethodologiesandapproaches,andcommonevaluationframeworks.ThismodalityhasbeenusedbytheWorldBanktosupportlarge-scaleenvironmentalsectorprogramming,forexamplethroughtheClimateInvestmentFunds,whichincludethePilotProgramonClimateResilience(PPCR),theCleanTechnologyFund,theForestInvestmentProgram,andtheScaling-UpRenewableEnergyProgram.

ThePPCR,ForestInvestmentProgram,andindeedmostSIFs,combineprogrammaticandproject-basedapproaches.Forexample,theyarestilldeliveredtosomeextentthroughcountryprojects,butprojectsarearticulatedtogetherthroughacommonframework.“ThePPCRprogrammaticapproachentailsalong-term,strategicarrangementoflinkedinvestmentprojectsandactivitiestoachievelarge-scale,systematicimpactsandtakeadvantageofsynergiesandco-financingopportunities.”1FundsforthePPCRaregrantscontributedbyvariousdonors.Someoftheseprograms,ortheirsubprojects,havebeencofinancedbytheGEF,forexampletheTajikistanEnvironmentalLandManagementandRuralLivelihoodsProject,financedthrougha$9.45milliongrantfromthePPCRanda$5.4milliongrantfromtheGEF.

LikeMPPs,theSIFsinvolvemultiplestakeholdersandlargerinstitutionalsetupsandinstitutionallayers,butprovideflexibilityforchannelinginvestmentfundingtowardwell-establishedpolicyprioritiesincountries.Bygroupingindividualcountryinitiativestogetherinanumbrellaprogram,theSIFsalsoallowforknowledgesharing,andsomereductionoftransactioncostsatthedonorlevel.Commonreportingframeworksareestablished,whileprovidingflexibilityforcountry-ownedobjectivesandreportingmechanisms.

Ingeneral,theSIFmodalitygoesbeyondwhattheGEFhasbeenabletooperationalizetodate.ThiscouldbebecausetheleveloffinancingavailableinSIFsishigherthanwhatisusuallyprovidedinagivenreplenishment,andbecauseitdoesnothavetobeseparatedintocountryallocationsorbeconcernedwithissuesofequityofaccess(asinthecaseofLeastDevelopedCountriesFund,forexample).ItcouldalsobebecauseSIFfinancingismostoftenconcentratedinsectorsorsubsectorswithstrongprivatesectorinterestandthepossibilityforhigherratesofreturn,whereasGEFfundingislimitedinscope,purpose,andnature.ThisopensupthepossibilityofinnovativesourcesoffinancingforSIFs,whereasGEFcontinuestorelyonvoluntarycontributionsfromitsmembers,withthepolicyrequirementsinherenttoanegotiatedaid-deliverymechanism.Intheory,iftheGEFcouldparticipatethrougha

1ClimateInvestmentFunds,https://www-cif.climateinvestmentfunds.org/fund/pilot-program-climate-resilience

15

project,inaSIFsubproject,itcouldnotparticipateintheSIFatthehighestlevelbecauseoftheneedtodemonstrateclearandmeasurable,localizedGEBs.

Infact,thisneedtodemonstrateclearandmeasurableGEBsisalsoattherootofakeyemergingfeatureofGEFprograms,whichistheconcernwithknowledgemanagementandlessonlearning.Mostotherprogrammaticapproachesareconcernedwithdemonstratingprogressalongthedevelopmentspectrum,andwilluseasindicatorsthecountry’sowndevelopmentprioritiesandtargets.Ultimately,contributionsthroughaSWAporaPBAwouldthereforebemeasuredforsuccessagainstthecountry’sabilitytomeetitssectoraltargets.ASWAporaPBAshouldnot,intheory,haveitsownresultsframework.Inpractice,aswasnotedduringthisstudy,thishasmeantthatbestpracticesandknowledgemighthavefocusedmoreontheoperationalaspectsofconductingaprogrammaticapproach,ratherthanontheresultsithasgeneratedontheground.

InthecaseofGEFprogrammaticapproaches,monitoring,evaluation,andknowledgemanagementhavealwaysbeenaconcern.InalmostalltypesofGEFprograms,effortshavebeenmadetotieallchildprojectstogetherthroughsomeformofknowledgeexchange.Earlyprogramsdemonstratedsucheffortsthrough“coordinationchildprojects,”or“regionalprojects,”andlaterthroughtheprogramcoordinationbudgets.Themostrecentexampleofthiseffortwouldbethethreeintegratedapproachpilotprograms,whichhaveadedicatedchildprojectdesignedtoidentify,gather,anddisseminatebestpracticesandlessonsarisingfromotherchildprojectsandtoassistincoordinationamongchildprojects.Inmanyregards,thisfeatureofGEFprogramshascontributedtocreatingthe“glue”thatbindscollectionsofindividualprojectstogether.Duringtheinternalreviewofprogrammaticapproaches,thisfeaturewashighlightedasakeyaspectthatshouldbestrengthenedinfutureprograms,andindeedthethreeintegratedapproachpilotshaveintegratedthislesson,asamodelforfutureGEFprogramming.TheupcomingFAO-ledprogram“TheRestorationInitiative”alsointegratesthisfeaturethroughadedicatedcoordinatingfunction.

Table1.1:ComparativeSummary

Program KeyCharacteristics ComparisonwithGEFprograms

Sectorinvestmentprograms(SIPs)

• Channellarge-scale,long-terminvestmentintospecificeconomicsectorsbytargetingthemesandtopicsthatgobeyondtraditionaleconomicsector;

• Amechanismtodirectfundingtocoverallexpendituresofagivensector;

• SIPsmustbebasedinnationalstrategyandPolicyFramework;

• Thegovernmentorprivatesectormustmanageandadministratetheexpenditureandpolicies;

• Implementationarrangementsanduseoflocalcapacityarepromoted;

• Useofmultidonorandmultistakeholderapproach;

• SIPsareusuallyatleastpartiallyloan-financed.

• SimilaritieswithsomeoftheearlierGEFsequencedprograms,allowingforchannelinglong-termfunding(internationalwaters);

• GEFagenciescouldparticipateascofinanciersintoaSIP,butwouldlikelyhavetosubmitaprojectthroughGEFCouncilforoperationalization,highlightingincrementalcostscovered;

• GEFgrantscannotcoverrecurringor“investment”costs.

Sector-wideapproaches

• Fundsareusedforasector-specific • Environmentsector-based

16

Program KeyCharacteristics ComparisonwithGEFprograms(SWAps) umbrellaanddefinedsectorpolicy

underthegovernmentleadership;• SWApsareaframeworksettingadirectionofchange;

• Coordinatemultiplesourcesandtypesoffinancingundertheumbrellaofasectorpolicyorplan;

• Useofmultidonorandmultistakeholderapproach;

• Useofnationalsystemsforexpendituresandmonitoring;

• Targetsocialsectorsinhighlydependentandlowincomecountries;

• SWApscontributetofacilitatethedialoguebetweendonorsandgovernmentandsostrengthenthegovernmentleadershipandcoordination;

• Resourcesareconcentratedexclusivelyintothebeneficiarysector.

SWApsexistbuthaveexperiencedmitigatedsuccess.TheGEFhasbeeninvolvedinafewasafundingpartner;

• TheGEFcannotinitiateorleadaSWAP,evenintheenvironmentandnaturalresourcessector;itdependsoncertaintypesofcostsbeingfinancedfromothersources;

• TheweaknessofenvironmentalministriesmakesenvironmentalSWApsdifficulttooperationalize,andthecross-sectoralnatureofsomeenvironmentalissuesdoesnotlenditselfwelltoSWAP-likearrangements.

Program-basedapproaches(PBAs)

• PBAsareagenericapproachbasedoncomprehensiveandcoordinatedplanninginagivensector,thematicarea,orundertheaegisofanationalpovertyreductionstrategy(PRS).

• Theyfocusmoreonthepolicyprogramandobjectives(multisectoral,sectoral,orsubsectoral)andsupportlocallyownedprogramofdevelopment;

• Highdegreeofinstitutionalflexibility;• Moreadaptedtoenvironmentalissues.

• Intheoryatleast,allGEFprojectsandprogramsareintendedtobebasedonanationalpolicypriority;

• TherearefewPBAsintheenvironmentalarea,owingperhapstotheabsenceofasingle,integratingandrallyingenvironmentalpolicyandprogramstatementinmostcountries,andtodifferingideasofwhatgovernmentsshoulddoaboutenvironmentaldegradation;

• GEFplanninghorizonsandtimelimitsonfundavailabilitymeanthatlong-termrecurringcostsofPBAsareexcludedfromGEFprocesses.

Multiprojectprograms(MPPs)

• Mostwidelyusetypeofprogrammaticapproach;

• Makenoassumptionsaboutthedegreeofdonorcoordinationorcountryownership;

• Useofmultidonorandmultistakeholderapproachandmultitypeoffinancing;

• ThemaincharacteristicofMPPsisthattheprojectsthatcomprisethemhavetobelinkedamongthembysomekindofunifyingprinciple;

• MPPsofferthemostflexibilityandallowforhigher-levelimpactmonitoring,andprovidethepossibilityfordonorsto

• FrequentlyfoundinGEFprogramming;• LendthemselveswelltoGEFcofinancingastheyencouragemultidonorapproaches,withblendedtypesoffinancing;

• GEFmultiprojectprogramshavesoughttocreateinternalcoherenceandconsistencythroughvariousmeans(integrativeprojects,sharedmethodologiesandapproaches);

• ReflectstheintentionofprogrammaticapproachesintheGEF(moreeffectivemeansofchannelingfunds,higher-level

17

Program KeyCharacteristics ComparisonwithGEFprogramschannellargeramountoffinancialassistanceinasmallernumberoftransactions.

impacts,smallernumberoftransactions);

• GEFAgenciescaninitiateandoperationalizeMPPswithoutmuchneedforoutsidepartnershipsandfunding.

Strategicinvestmentfund(SIF)

• Involvemultiplestakeholders,largerinstitutionalsetupsandinstitutionallayers,butalsoprovidecoordinationaroundjointobjectives,sharedmethodologies,andapproaches;

• Usedtosupportlarge-scaleenvironmentalsectorprogramming;

• SIFsalsoallowforknowledgesharing,andsomereductionoftransactioncostsatthedonorlevel.

• GEF can participate in SIFs as acofinancier,focusingitsgrantfundsonthe generation of specific GEBs,throughtheprojectmodality;

• SIFfundingdiffersfromGEFinscope,purposeandnature.

1.5ConcludingRemarks

ThisbriefcomparativeoverviewofdifferenttypesofprogrammaticapproachesprovidessomeinsightsintotheevolutionoftheGEF’sownprograms.AsnotedbystakeholdersduringthediscussionsontheApproachPaperfortheEvaluationofProgrammaticApproaches,theOECDdefinitionisnotfoundtobeentirelyapplicabletotheGEF’sprograms,despitethefactthatGEFprogramsalsoclaimtofollowthesameprinciplesofdonorcoordination,harmonization,countryownership,andeffectiveness.

Itappearsthatwhilealltheaboveapproachesseektoapplythesameprinciples,theydiffermainlyintermsofthedegreeofflexibilitytheyallowintheiroperationalization.Forexample,inthecaseofSWAps,asinglesectorpolicywasneededtobringtogetherdonorsandtooperationalizeassistance;inthecaseofMPPs,acommonobjective—supportedbyparticipatingpartners—issufficientasaconvergenceprinciple.GEFprogramsfallinthecategoryofMPPs,mostlybecausethemainoperationaltoolforchannelingGEFresourcesremainstheproject.EventhemostrecentgroupofprogramsfundedbytheGEFcontinuestobeoperationalizedthroughindividualprojectswithcleartimeandresourcelimits,andstrongattentionplacedonindividualprojectresults.ThisisthecasewhereGEF“initiates”theideaofaprogram,forexampleGEF-specificprogramssuchastheDanubeProgram.Infact,GEFprogramsbefore2008wereoperationalizedasindividualprojects,withtheclearexceptionthattheintentoflong-termprogrammaticengagementwasclearlymentioned.

Intheory,itwouldbepossibletoseecaseswheretheGEFactsasoneamongmanydonorssupportingagivencountrypolicyorprogram,i.e.,whereleadershiponprogrammaticapproachescomesfromtheoutside,inparticularfromrecipientcountries.Whilethiswasattemptedinthecaseoftheearlysustainablelandmanagementcountrypartnerships,itwasachievedwithlimitedsuccessandhasrarelybeenseensincethen.

ThiscouldbebecauseGEFfundingisbasedontheIncrementalCostPrinciple,whichreducesthescopeofthetypesofcostsitmaycover—whereasothersector-basedapproachesareintendedtocoverthefullscopeofexpenditures.PerhapstheIncrementalCostPrinciplelendsitselflesstosector-basedapproaches,SWAps,andPBAsbecauseoftheneedtoreportonspecificenvironmentalresults(even

18

thoughthesemaycontributetooverallsectoralperformance).ThishighlightsakeydifferencebetweentheGEFandotherdevelopmentcooperationpartnersthatcouldbereferredtoasthe“powerofagency”:whereasdevelopmentcooperationinstitutionshavetheabilitytoself-directvarioussortsoffundingtowarddifferenttypesofpolicypriorities,theGEFwascreatedasameanstochannelfunds,anditcanonlychannelonetypeoffundingtowardclearlymeasurableglobalenvironmentalbenefits.

Almostbydefinition,grantfundsarenotintendedtobeprovidedonalong-termbasis,butrathertobefocusedonaclearsetoftime-boundtargets,andareusuallynotusedtosupportbaselineinvestments,profit-seekingventures,orrecurringcosts.ThislimitstheabilityoftheGEFtoinfluencelong-termresultsortoengageinstrategic-levelpolicymaking,eventhroughprogrammaticapproaches.ThefactthatfundsarealsoreplenishedonavoluntarybasiseveryfouryearsalsolimitstheGEF’sabilitytoengageinlong-termpartnerships.Therefore,programmaticapproachesintheGEFareboundtobenarrowerinscopethanthoseimplementedbydevelopmentcooperationagencies,betheybilateralormultilateral.MPPshavesofarprovidedthemostappropriateprogramapproachthroughwhichtheGEFcanstrivetochannelmorestrategicandprogrammaticassistancetocountriesforenvironmentalissues,whichfitwiththeoperationalrequirementsofperiodicalreplenishmentsandtheprinciplesofincrementalfinancing.

19

TechnicalDocument2:GeospatialImpactAnalysisofProgrammaticProjectImplementationsintheGEF2.1BackgroundandObjective...............................................................................................................202.2SummaryofFindings........................................................................................................................202.3OverviewofHypotheses..................................................................................................................26Appendix2A:DefinitionsandFrameofAnalysis....................................................................................31Appendix2B:Methods...........................................................................................................................35Appendix2C:GeocodingInternationalAid............................................................................................39

20

2.1BackgroundandObjective

InitsroleasafinancerofMultilateralEnvironmentalConventions,theGEFfacesauniqueglobalcontextdrivenbyrecentpolicymovesbytheglobalcommunity(includingtheSustainableDevelopmentGoalsandParisClimateNegotiations[GEF2016b]).Againstthisbackground,theGEFisenteringintoasixthcomprehensiveevaluation“toprovidesolidevaluativeevidencetoinformthenegotiationsfortheseventhreplenishmentoftheGEF”[GEF2016b].ThisreportprovidestechnicalinformationonthemethodologyandasynopsisoftheresultsfromageospatialimpactanalysisperformedasapartofacollaborationbetweentheGEFIndependentEvaluationOffice(IEO)andAidData,aresearchlabatWilliam&Mary,assessinghowGEFsupportdeliveredunderprogrammaticapproachmodalitieshavecontrastedtootherapproaches(pursuanttoGEF/ME/C.48/01[GEF2015]).Itextendsrecentwork(GEF2016c),integratingsatelliteandothersourcesofspatialdatatoanswertwokeyquestions:

• WhatistheimpactofGEFprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproaches?

• InwhatcontextshaveGEFprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproachesdeliveredbroader-andlonger-termenvironmentaloutcomescomparedwithnonprogrammaticimplementations?

Containedinthisreport—andmadeavailableforfutureanalysis—aredataonthegeographiclocations(i.e.,longitudeandlatitude)ofGEFprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproaches,aswellasrelatedmeasurementsfollowingtheindicatorssuggestedbytheUnitedNationsConventiontoCombatDesertification(UNCCD)(GEFIEO2017;UNCCD2015)andConventiononBiologicalDiversity(CBD2016).Thesedata,alongsiderelatedinformationonthegeographiccontextandprojectcharacteristicsofGEFprojects,areusedinamatching-basedquasi-observationalstudydesigntotestavarietyofhypothesesrelatedtotheeffectivenessofGEFprojectsalongtwoprimarydimensions:ForestCoverandVegetativeDensity.2

2.2SummaryofFindings

Thisreportleveragesamultiple-stagemodelingapproachinordertoattributeimpacttoGEFprogrammaticprojects.First,locationsatwhichGEFprogrammaticprojectswereimplementedarepairedwithareasatwhichnoGEFprojectexisted,butallothergeographiccharacteristicsweresimilar.Second,acausaltreeisfittothesematches—amachine-learningtechniquethathelpstoidentifyheterogeneityinimpacteffects.Third,atraditionallineareconometricmodelisfitwithrelevantinteractiontermstotestmodelsignificance.Bothofthesemodels—thecausaltreeandlinearmodel—aretheninterpretedtodetermineanoveralllevelofconfidence(seeappendix2Bformoreinformation).Finally,thisprocessisrepeatedtoanswerthekeyquestionposedinthisimpactevaluation,contrastingGEFprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproachestoGEFnonprogrammaticprojectsinordertomeasurethemarginalgains(orlosses)attributabletoGEFprogrammaticimplementations.

Weconsiderthreelevelsofconfidenceinthisstudy;theselevelsarereflectedinthediscussionbelow.Findingsinwhichweindicatehighconfidencehaveevidenceaboveandbeyondtraditionalparametric

2Anadditionalanalysiswasconductedbasedonin-situestimatesofthestateofbiodiversity;however,becauseofalackofspatialoverlapbetweenprogrammaticallyimplementedprojectsandprotectedareasatwhichmeasurementswerecollected,weintentionallyomittheseresults.Moredetailed,in-situspatialinformationonthestateofbiodiversitycouldenablefutureanalyses.

21

confidenceassociatedwiththem:notonlyistheirsignificanceinthelinearstatisticalmodelingefforts,butalsoevidenceofimportanceinthemachine-learningmodels.Furthermore,inthecaseofhighconfidence,thesemodelsagreeintheirfindings.Standardconfidenceisakintotraditionalsignificancetesting:thisdescriptorisusedifeitherthetraditional,linearparametricmodelorthecausaltreeindicatessignificanceorrobustness(respectively),andthemodelsagreeinfinding.Finally,lowerconfidenceisflaggedascaseswherethemodelsagreeinfindings,butneithermodelascribesclearsignificanceorrobustness.Theselevelsofconfidencearesummarizedinfigure2.1.

Inadditiontotheselevelsofconfidence,foreachfindingwehighlightifitisdirectlyattributabletoGEFprogrammaticapproaches,orifthefindingisdescriptiveofthecontextsinwhichGEFprogrammaticapproacheshavebeensuccessful.Asanillustrativeexample,figure2.6summarizestheattributableimpactofGEFprogrammaticprojectsrelativetosinglefocalprojectsalongthedimensionofmonetaryscale.WhilethemodelsemployedinthisanalysisenableustodirectlyascribeimpacttoGEFprojectsascontrastedtosinglefocalprojects,wedidnotcontrastlarge-scaleGEFprojectsdirectlytosmall-scaleGEFprojects(acontrastthatwouldbeconfoundedbymanyfactors).Thus,thisfigurecanonlybeinterpretedasdescriptive:wedonotprovideevidencethatGEFprogrammaticinterventionsatthe20th

percentileoffinancingarethemosteffectiveduetofinancing;rather,wedescribethat—ofalltheprojectstowhichweattributedimpact—thoseatthe20thpercentileoffinancingtendtoprovidethemostbangforthebuckrelativetosinglefocalprojects.Inthisparticularexample,wecannotdirectlyattributethiscausetomonetaryscale,buthighlightthefindingasapotentiallyimportantelementforprogramimplementerstoconsider.Throughoutthissummary,eachfindingisflaggedaseitherattributableordescriptivetohighlightthisdistinction.

Ataglobalscale,thereishighconfidencethatGEFprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproacheshaveresultedinattributableimprovementinlocalenvironmentalconditions,althoughsomeheterogeneityintheeffectivenessoftheseprojectsishighlightedinthedetailedfindingsbelow.Whencontrastedtononprogrammaticprojects,GEFprogrammaticimplementationswerefoundtobemoresuccessfulonlyundersomeconditions;nonprogrammaticprojectimplementationsstillremainastrongoptionfortheGEFunderotherconditions.

• Onaverage,themodelsprovidedstandardconfidencethatimprovedenvironmentaloutcomesareattributabletoGEFprogrammaticprojectsincontrasttononprogrammaticprojectsinthecaseofsinglefocalbiodiversityprojects.However,nosuchevidenceexistedformultifocalprojectswithbiodiversitycomponents.

• GEFprogrammaticmultifocalareaprojectswithlanddegradationcomponentshadmixedresultsincontrasttononprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithlanddegradationcomponents.Undermanygeographicandprojectcontexts,programmaticimplementationsresultedinanattributableimprovementinsatellite-sensedvegetationdensity;however,universallyGEFprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithlanddegradationcomponentsunderperformednonprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithlanddegradationcomponentsintermsofimprovementsofforestcover.Becauseofaninsufficientsampleofprogrammatic

22

projectsthatweresinglefocalland-degradationprojects,thisresultisonlybasedonthebest-matchedmultifocalstand-aloneprojectwithapreponderantlanddegradationcomponent.

Figures2.2and2.3descriptivelysummarizeallfindingsonheterogeneityacrossallmodelsforGEF-4andGEF-5projects,ineachcasechoosingthebestavailablecounterfactualset(i.e.,GEFprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithlanddegradationcomponentsarecontrastedtoGEFnonprogrammaticprojectswithlanddegradationcomponentsthathadsimilarmultifocalcomponents).Asthesefiguresillustrate,forprojectsinGEF-4andGEF-5therewasconsiderableheterogeneityintheconditionsunderwhichprogrammaticprojectsledtoimprovedbenefitsrelativetononprogrammaticprojects.Inparticular,projectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproachesinGEF-5hadstrongeroutcomesthanthoseinGEF-4,incontrasttononprogrammaticimplementations.Figure2.2.DescriptiveheterogeneityinfindingsforNormalizedDifferenceVegetationIndex(NDVI)outcomesforbiodiversityprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproaches.Theredareasinthefigureindicatethoseaspectsinwhichprogrammaticprojectsunderperformedcomparedwithstand-aloneones,whilegreenareasindicatethecontrary.

23

Figure2.3.DescriptiveheterogeneityinfindingsforNormalizedDifferenceVegetationIndex(NDVI)outcomesforland-degradationprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproaches.Theredareasinthefigureindicatethoseaspectsinwhichprogrammaticprojectsunderperformedcomparedwithstand-aloneones,whilegreenareasindicatethecontrary.

24

Figure2.4.Descriptiveheterogeneityinfindingsforforest-coveroutcomesforland-degradationprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproaches.Theredareasinthefigureindicatethoseaspectsinwhichprogrammaticprojectsunderperformedcomparedwithstand-aloneones,whilegreenareasindicatethecontrary.

25

Figure2.5.Descriptiveheterogeneityinfindingsforforest-coveroutcomesforbiodiversityprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproaches.Theredareasinthefigureindicatethoseaspectsinwhichprogrammaticprojectsunderperformedcomparedwithstand-aloneones,whilegreenareasindicatethecontrary.

Figures2.4and2.5providedescriptivesummariesoftheimpactofland-degradationandbiodiversityprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproachesincontrasttothosenotimplementedunderprogrammaticapproaches.Thisdescriptiveevidencesuggeststhatprogrammaticapproachesweremoresuccessfulincaseswithapoorinitialconditionandinareaswithlittleinfrastructure;however,evidenceexiststhatsinglefocalprojectsaremoreeffectiveinareaswithabetterinitialstate.

Figure2.6providesdescriptiveinformationonheterogeneityasprojectscaleincreases,asapproximatedbyincreasingdollarvalues.Inthisfigure,theX-axisrepresentsthepercentileofprojectdollarvalue,andtheY-axisrepresentsestimatedimpact.Eachcaseisscaledforcomparisonaccordingtopercentilesduetovaryinglevelsoffunding:includingmultifocalcases,programmaticbiodiversityprojectsrangefrom$2to$508million,whileprogrammaticlanddegradationprojectsrangefrom$1.5to$181million.Twopoints(pointsAandB)arehighlightedforthesakeofexample.PointArepresentsprojectscalesatwhichbothbiodiversityandlanddegradationreceivehighbangforthebuck,aslargeaverageattributableimpactsareobservedatthe40thpercentileofprojectcosts.PointBrepresentsadivergence,

26

inwhichland-degradationprojectstendtoreceivelargebangforthebuck,whilebiodiversityprojectstendtoreceivelessthanotherfundingscales.Figure2.6.Descriptionoftheattributableimpactofbiodiversityandland-degradationprojectsonNormalizedDifferenceVegetationIndex(NDVI)asthetotaldollarvalueofprogrammaticprojectincreases.

2.3OverviewofHypotheses

Allhypotheses,thekeyresultsandoutcomevariables,counterfactualgroups,andtotalunitsofobservationaresummarizedintable2.1.Thehypothesesseektodirectlyanswerthetwoprimaryquestionsbeingposedinthisreport:

• Research question 1: What is the impact of GEF projects implemented underprogrammaticapproaches?(H1)

• Research question 2: In what contexts have GEF projects implemented underprogrammaticapproachesdelivered improvedenvironmentaloutcomescomparedwithnonprogrammaticimplementations?(H2,H3)

27

Table2.1.Hypothesestestedinthisanalysis.

HypothesisandMeasurement

Contrast

KeyResults/OutcomeVariables

N(Locations) N(Projects)

T C T C

H1.GEFprogrammaticprojectsprovidepositiveenvironmentalbenefitsrelativetoareaswithnoprojectsimplemented.

(M1)Programmaticw/landdegradationcomponents;NullCaseComparisons

VegetativeDensity(NDVI)ForestCover

259 4980 30

(M2)Programmaticw/biodiversitycomponents;NullCaseComparisons

VegetativeDensity(NDVI)ForestCover

477 4980 71

H2.GEFprogrammaticland-degradationprojectsprovidegreaterpositiveenvironmentalbenefitsrelativetoGEFnonprogrammaticland-degradationprojects*

(M3)Programmaticmultifocal

projectswithasignificant**land-

degradationcomponent;

nonprogrammaticmultifocal

projectswithasignificant**land-

degradationcomponent*

VegetativeDensity(NDVI)

ForestCover

212 137 20 13

H3.GEFprogrammaticbiodiversityprojectsprovidegreaterpositiveenvironmentalbenefitsrelativetoGEFnonprogrammaticbiodiversityprojects.


projectswithasignificant**

biodiversitycomponent;



biodiversitycomponent.


ForestCover

86 87 14 12

(M5)Programmaticsinglefocal

biodiversityprojects;

nonprogrammaticsinglefocal

biodiversityprojects.


ForestCover

202 804 38 103

*Onlymultifocalland-degradationprojectsarecontrastedinthisstudy,asaverylimitednumberofsingle-focalprogrammaticland-degradationprojectsareavailableforcomparison.**Basedonpercentageoftotalfundingwhichwenttoaspecifiedcomponentrelativetothenumberofcomponentswhichwerefunded.

ResearchQuestion1:WhatistheimpactofGEFprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproaches?

Toanswerthisquestion,wetesthypothesis1:GEFprogrammaticprojectsprovidepositiveenvironmentalbenefitsrelativetoareaswithnoprojectsimplemented.Fourtotalmodelsarefittoexaminethishypothesis,examiningtheimpactofprogrammaticprojectswitheitherland-degradationorbiodiversitycomponentsonvegetativedensityandforestcover.Thefindingsfromtheseanalysesarebrieflysummarizedintable2.2,andfullinformationontherelevantmodelingstrategies,datasources,covariatecontrols,andstudypopulationareprovidedintheappendixes.

28

Table2.2.FindingsformodelscontrastingGEFprogrammaticprojects(landdegradationandbiodiversitycases)tonullcases.

Contrast

Outcomevariables

Summaryfindings

Interpretation Detailedresults

(M1)Programmaticw/landdegradationobjectives;NullCaseComparisons


EvidencesuggeststhatGEFprogrammaticprojectswithaland-degradationcomponenthavehadapositiveimpactonvegetativedensity.EstimatessuggestprojectsinChina,aswellasthoseinprotectedareas,hadthelargestpositiveimpacts;undernarrowgeographiccriteriaprojectswithlessthan1.5yearssinceimplementationhavenotyetshownpositiveresults.

FullResultsModelMatchesGlobalEstimateLocalEstimatesMappedEstimates

ForestCover

EvidencesuggeststhatGEFprogrammaticprojectswithaland-degradationcomponenthaveslowedtherateofforestlossattheglobalscale.Areaswithpoorinitialconditions(forestcoverlessthanapproximately50%)sawlargerimprovements.


(M2)Programmaticw/biodiversityobjectives;NullCaseComparisons


Evidencesuggeststhatglobally,GEFprogrammaticprojectswithabiodiversitycomponenthavenotpositivelyimpactedvegetativedensity.However,locallypositiveimpactsareidentifiedinareaswithpoorinitialconditions.SatelliteevidencesuggeststhebestperformingprojectsareincentralAfricaandnortheasternChina.


ForestCover Evidencesuggeststhatglobally,GEFprogrammaticprojectswithabiodiversitycomponenthaveslowedtherateofforestloss.Programmaticimplementationsweremostsuccessfulinareaswithlimitedaccesstoroadways.EstimatesaremoreuncertainincentralAfricathanotherregions.

FullResultsModelMatchesGlobalEstimatesLocalEstimatesMappedEstimates

Attheglobalscale,findingsindicatethatbothGEFprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproacheshavehadpositiveenvironmentalbenefits,irrespectiveoftheirfocus(biodiversityorlanddegradation).Themeasurementsusedhere—examiningvegetativedensityandforestcover—arefoundtobemorepositivelyimpactedbyprojectsthatcontainafocusonlanddegradation.

Locally,considerableheterogeneityemergedinwhere—andunderwhatconditions—GEFprogrammaticprojectshadthegreatestbenefit.Aftercontrollingfornaturalconfounds(suchasrainfall,temperature,andotherfactors),projectslocatedinnortheasternChinatendedtohavealargerpositiveimpactonvegetationdensity—inprojectswitheitherlanddegradationorbiodiversitycomponents.Furthermore,evidencesuggeststhatprogrammaticprojectsaremosteffectiveinareasthathavepoorinitialconditions.OfnoteisthatconsiderableuncertaintyinfindingsexistedthroughoutCentralAfrica,soresultsinthatregionareoflesscertaintythanothers.

ResearchQuestion2:InwhatcontextshaveGEFprojectsimplementedunderprogrammaticapproachesdeliveredimprovedenvironmentaloutcomescomparedwithnonprogrammaticimplementations?

Toanswerthisquestion,wetesthypotheses2and3,consideringwhetherGEFprogrammaticprojectsprovidegreaterpositiveenvironmentalbenefitsrelativetoGEFstand-aloneprojects.Sixtotalmodelsarefittoexaminethesehypotheses.Forhypothesis2,weexaminetheimpactofprogrammaticprojectswithaland-degradationcomponentonvegetativedensityandforestcover,respectively;thisisdone

29

onlyforthemultifocalcaseduetoarelativelyrareimplementationoflanddegradationinthesinglefocalprogrammaticcontext.Hypothesis3teststherelativeeffectivenessofbiodiversityprojectsthatwereprogrammatic,underbothsingleandmultifocalcontexts.Thefindingsfromtheseanalysesarebrieflysummarizedintable2.3,andfullinformationontherelevantmodelingstrategies,datasources,covariatecontrols,andstudypopulationareprovidedintheappendixes.

Table2.3.FindingsformodelscontrastingGEFprogrammaticprojectstoGEFnonprogrammaticprojects(forbothlanddegradationandbiodiversitycases).

Contrast OutcomevariablesSummaryfindings

Interpretation E-Appendices


projectswithasignificant**land

degradationcomponent;



landdegradationcomponent*

Vegetative

Density

(NDVI)

Evidencesuggeststhat—onaverage—implementationofprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithaland-degradationcomponentoutperformimplementationsofnonprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithaland-degradationcomponent.However,thereisastarkgeographicdivideinthisfinding:areasincentralandwesternAfricatendedtohavemorepositiveimpacts;areasinIndiaandChinatendedtohavelesspositiveimpactsfromprogrammaticimplementations.


ForestCover Nosignificantdifferencesbetweenprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithaland-degradationcomponentandnonprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithaland-degradationcomponentwerefoundintermsoftheirimpactonforestcover.Thisfindingwasrelativelyhomogeneousacrosstheglobe.




biodiversitycomponent;



biodiversitycomponent.

Vegetative

Density

(NDVI)

Globally,nosignificantdifferencesbetweenprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithabiodiversitycomponentandnonprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithabiodiversitycomponentwerefound.LimitedevidencesuggestsareasinSoutheastAsiamayhaveexperiencedimprovedoutcomesduetoprogrammaticimplementations.


ForestCover Globally,nosignificantdifferencesbetweenprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithabiodiversitycomponentandnonprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithabiodiversitycomponentwerefound.However,limitedevidencesuggeststhatprogrammaticmultifocalprojectswithabiodiversitycomponenttendedtohaveimprovedoutcomesinareaswithrelativelylowpopulationdensities.


(M5)Programmaticsingle

focalbiodiversityprojects;

nonprogrammaticsinglefocal

biodiversityprojects.

Vegetative

Density

(NDVI)

Evidence suggests that—on average—programmatic singlefocal biodiversity projects had improved outcomes ascontrasted to nonprogrammatic single focal biodiversityprojects.Considerableheterogeneityexistedinthisfinding,whichismoreexplicitlysummarizedinthefullresultsaccessibleinthee-annextothisanalysis(seecolumntoright).


ForestCover Evidencesuggeststhat—onaverage—programmaticsinglefocalbiodiversityprojectshadimprovedoutcomesascontrastedtononprogrammaticsinglefocalbiodiversityprojects.ThelargestimprovementsattributabletoprogrammaticimplementationswerelargelyfoundinsoutheastAsia.


Attheglobalscale,wefindthatconsiderablecomplexityexistswhenseekingtoidentifywhereprogrammaticimplementationsmaybefavorableincontrasttononprogrammaticimplementations.

30

Astables2.2and2.3illustrate,thetypeofsubprojectimplementations(multifocalincontrasttosinglefocal),geographiclocation,monetarysizeofthechildprojects,andtargetedoutcomeofinterestallcontributetotherelativevalue-addofprogrammaticapproaches.Ingeneral,lessclearlyidentifiableeffectswereattributabletomultifocalprojectsinprogrammaticapproachesincontrasttomultifocalprojectsoutsideofprogrammaticapproaches;singlefocalbiodiversityprojectstendedtobenefitmorefromprogrammaticimplementations.

31

Appendix2A:DefinitionsandFrameofAnalysis

Theevaluationinthisreportexaminestheimpactofallprogramsdesignedandimplementedsincetheformalintroductionoftheprogrammatic-approachessupportmodalityintheGEF,approvedbytheCouncilinMay2008,markingtheintroductionoftherequirementtodesignaprogramframeworkdocument(PFD)foreachprogramsubmittedtoCouncil.Thisportfolioamountsto38programs,composedof301childprojects.

Theselectionofprogramsforthisanalysisisbasedonmaturityintermsoftheimplementationstatusofchildprojects.Wedefinedprogramsasmaturethateitherhavehadmorethan60%oftheirchildprojectsunderimplementationformorethan2years(i.e.,havingbeenunderimplementationbeforeApril1st,2014),arecompleted,orboth.Theapplicationofthismaturitycriterionresultedin23ofthe38beingeligibleforevaluation.Fromthese,weexcludedfourglobalprogramsknowntobeadministrativearrangementsdesignedwiththemainpurposetoachievecost-efficienciesratherthanlarger-scaleandlonger-termresults.Wealsoexcludedclimatechange,persistentorganicpollutants,andinternationalwatersprogramsbecauseofthelackofglobal-scopeoutcomedataonthesetopics(i.e.,satelliteinformationorotherglobalsourcesarenotatthistimereadilyavailablefortheseoutcomes).Theapplicationoftheabove-mentionedcriteriaresultedinafinalstudysetof13programswith105childprojects.Table2A.1showstheselectedprogramsstratifiedalongrelevantdimensions.

Table2A.1.ProgramsoftheGEFevaluatedinthisreport.

GEFprogramID

Singleagency

Multiagency

Singlecountry

Multicountry

Singlefocalarea

Multifocalarea

3268 X X X

3420 X X X

3423 X X X

3482 X X X

3647 X X X

3661 X X Biodiversity

3782 X X X



4511 X X X

4620 X X X

4635 X X X


Foreachofthe105childprojectsunderthese13programs,impactsareexaminedalongmultipleindicatorstocapturefluctuationsinnaturalcapital,followingtheindicatorssuggestedinthemonitoringframeworkoftheUNCCDformeasuringlanddegradation(UNCCD2015),andtheCBD(ConferenceofthePartiesdecisionVIII/15)foridentifyingtrendsinbiodiversity.Thefirstindicator,forestcoverchange,isidentifiedundertheUNCCDasatier1metric,andconsideredreadyforimmediateusebytheCBD.Thesecondindicator,vegetativeproductivity,isclassifiedasaUNCCDtier2metric,andalsoconsidered

32

readyforimmediateusebytheCBD.EachofthesemeasurementsisdefinedfollowingthebelowproceduresforeachGEFprojectlocation:

1. Vegetationproductivity—TheyearlymaximumproductivityforeachGEFprojectiscalculatedonanannualbasisfrom1985to2015usingtheLong-TermDataRecordNormalizedDifferenceVegetationIndex(NDVI)product.

2. Forestcoverchange—TheTreeCoverproductfromtheGlobalLandCoverFacilityisemployedtodetectland-coverchange.Theseproductsareavailableat30-meterresolutionforcirca1980,1990,and2000,andonayearlybasisforyears2001to2015.Thetreecoverisexpressedaspercentcoverperpixel.Theabsoluteannualchangeintreecoveriscalculatedpost-2000,whileabaselineiscalculatedusingthedatafromyearspriorto2000.

Followingthesedefinitions,foreachGEFprojectlocationoutcomemetricsarecalculatedbasedonthegeographiclocationsidentifiedthroughageocodingmethodologyimplementedbyAidData(seeappendix2Bformoreinformationonthegeocodingproceduresfollowed).Baselinetrendsandlevelsforeachofthesemetricsarecalculatedbyidentifyingthepre-interventiontimeperiodforeachGEFprojectlocation.Thesevalues,alongwithkeycovariatesidentifiedintable2A.2andGEFprojectcharacteristics,areusedtocontrastprojectstosimilar,matchedcomparisonareastoidentifytheimpactofGEFprojectsunderavarietyofhypotheses.

Table2A.2.Keycovariatedata.

Domain

Source

Topic

#ofObs.Currentcoverage

Spatialres.Temporal SpatialHumanDevelopment

DMSP-OLSVIIRS Nighttimelights N/A3 1992-2016 Global Gridcell

(1km;250m)gROADS Roadnetworks N/A 1980-2010 Global Gridcell

(~1km)Political WDPA WDPA

Environmentalprotectionareas

220,453 2015 Global Variable

Demography GPW Population N/A 1990-2020every5years

Global Gridcell(5km/1km)

EnvironmentandNaturalResources

HydroSHEDS RiverNetworks N/A 1995-2005 Global Gridcell(~1km)

SRTM Elevation/Slope N/A 2000 Global Gridcell(500m)

UDel Airtemperature N/A 1900-2014 Global Gridcell(50km)

Precipitation N/A 1900-2014 Global Gridcell(50km)

DefiningVegetationProductivity

Therearemanydifferentapproachestoapproximatingvegetationonaglobalscale,andsatelliteshavebeentakingimagerythatcanbeusedforthispurposeforoverthreedecades.Oftheseapproaches,themostfrequentlyused—andappliedinthisstudy—istheNDVI.TheNDVIisametricthathasbeenusedsincetheearly1970s,andisoneofthesimplestandmostfrequentlyusedapproachtoapproximating

3Forrasterdatasets,seespatialresolutionforamoreaccuratedepictionofmeasurementdensity.

33

vegetativebiomass;furthermore,itisrecommendedasanindicatorbytheGEFScientificandTechnicalAdvisoryPanel(Yengohetal.2014).NDVImeasurestherelativeabsorptionandreflectanceofredandnear-infraredlightfromplantstoquantifyvegetationonascaleof-1to1,withvegetatedareasfallingbetween~0.2and1.Thereflectancebychlorophylliscorrelatedwithplanthealth,andmultiplestudieshaveillustratedthatitisgenerallyalsocorrelatedwithplantbiomass.Inotherwords,healthyvegetationandhighplantbiomasstendtoresultinhighNDVIvalues(Dunbar,2009).UsingNDVIasanoutcomemeasurehasanumberofotherbenefits,includingthelongandconsistenttimeperiodsforwhichithasbeencalculated.WhiletheNDVIdoeshaveanumberofchallenges—includingapropensitytosaturateoverdenselyvegetatedregions,thepotentialforatmosphericnoise(includingclouds)toincorrectlyoffsetvalues,andreflectancefrombrightsoilsprovidingmisleadingestimates—thepopularityofthismeasurementhasledtoanumberofimprovementsovertimetooffsetmanyoftheseerrors.Thisisespeciallytrueofmeasurementsfromlonger-termsatelliterecords,suchasthoseproducedfromtheModerateResolutionImagingSpectroradiometerandAdvancedVeryHighResolutionRadiometerofNASA(NationalAeronauticsandSpaceAdministration).4

DefiningLand-CoverChange

Understandingtherelationshipsbetween“processandpattern”—i.e.,thelinksbetweendriversandobservationsofland-coverchange—haslongbeenafocusofpractitioners(Lambinetal.2001;Liverman1998;MeyerandTurner1996;Nagendraetal.2004;Turneretal.2003).Land-coverchangehasmajorimplicationsforabroadrangeofphenomena,includingthesustainabilityofhumandevelopment,biogeochemicalcycling,andlevelsofgreenhousegases(Turneretal.1995;UN-REDD2010).Investigatingthemanyfactorsthatinfluencelandcoveranduseprovidesanavenuethroughwhichthehuman-environmentinterfacecanbebetterunderstood,butrecentresearchhasemphasizedthelackofunderstandingofhowanthropogenicprocessesinfluencelandchange(Nagendraetal.2004).Theimpactsoflanduseandland-coverchangeonthevulnerabilityandsustainabilityofhuman-dominatedlandscapesarejustbeginningtobeanalyzed,andimprovingthisunderstandingisamajorgoalofpartiesinterestedinunderstandingtheconsequencesofland-usechange(Foleyetal.2005).5

Boththegeographicanddevelopmenteconomicscommunitieshavesoughttounderstandlinkagesbetweeninternationaldevelopmentandland-coverchange,buttheyoftenusedifferentapproachesandvocabulary.Withinthegeographiccommunity,limitedattentionhasbeengiventocausalmethodologies(includingmatchinganddifference-in-differencemodels),butratherthefocushasbeenonthe(1)abilitytoaccuratelymeasureland-coverchangeusingsatelliteimagery(i.e.,Boraketal.2000;Strahleretal.n.d.;Christmanetal.2015;Roganetal.2003;Schwertetal.2013),(2)impactsofspatialautocorrelationonmodelestimates(Milleretal.2012;Waldronetal.2013),and(3)themethodsforpredictingtheimpact(s)(andrelateduncertainties)ofinternationalaidonlandchange(Lauranceetal.2002;RunfolaandPontius2013;vanAsselenandVerburg2013).Conversely,thedevelopmenteconomicscommunityhasfocusedontheapplicationofmatching(NelsonandChomitz2011)anddifference-in-difference(Pfaff1999;Alix-Garciaetal.techniquestoestablishevidenceofcausalrelationshipsbetweeninternationalaidandland-coverchange—methodsthatfollowsimilarapproachestoclinicaltrialswithtreatmentandcontrolgroups.

Tocaptureland-coverchangeinthisanalysis,weleverageananalysisperformedbyHansenetal.(2013),inwhichLandSatimagerywasfusedwithanumberofothersourcestocaptureyearly,30-meter

4https://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov.5AlsoseetheGlobalLandProgrammewebsite,https://glp.earth.

34

resolutionestimatesoftreecoverloss.Thisland-coverchangeanalysisiswidelyleveragedtocapturetrendsindeforestation,andrepresentsoneofthehighest-resolutioneffortsforsuchmeasurementseverconducted.Furthermore,asaglobalanalysis,thisproductenablesaprecisecalculationofboth(1)treecoverintheyear2000,and(2)treecoverlossfrom2000‒2013foreveryGEFprojectlocation.

35

Appendix2B:Methods

Eachhypothesisistestedusingamultiple-stagepropensity-scoremodelingapproachtailoredforglobal-scopeanalyses.First,foreachhypothesisacounterfactualgroupisconstructedtoenablecomparison—i.e.,stand-alonemultifocalprojects,or“nullcase”contrastswhereitisknownnointerventionoccurred.Thesegroupsareusedtodefinetreatments(inthiscase,programmaticprojectlocations)andcontrols(theconstructedcounterfactualgroup).Usinganearest-neighborcaliper(~0.25)matchingapproach,thesampleofcontrolandtreatedunitsistrimmedtoincludebest-matchesfollowingaone-to-onematchingstrategy(i.e.,everytreatedcaseismatchedtothemostsimilarcontrol,andtreatedcaseswithnostrongmatchesareremovedfromthesample).

Usingeachcontrolandtreatmentset,acausaltreeisusedtoexaminethedimensionsalongwhichimpactheterogeneitycanbedetected,aswellastoestimateimpacts.Recentworkhasillustratedthat—withkeyadjustments—tree-basedapproachescanbeusedtoidentifyhowthecausaleffectsofanintervention(i.e.,internationalaid,oramedicaltreatment)varyacrosskeyparameters(suchasgeographicspace;seeAtheyandImbens2015;Staff2014;Shenetal.2016).Thisiskeyfortop-down,orglobal-scopeanalyses,asitisunlikelythataidprojectswillhavethesameeffectacrosshighlyvariablegeographiccontexts,andthedriversofsuchvariationmaynotbeknown.Adetailedexplanationofthisapproachisincludedinappendix2C,whilefigure2B.1showsanexampledrawnfromexploratoryresearchinwhichacausaltreeisappliedtoalimitedsubsetofinternationalaid,examiningtheimpactofaidonamaximumobservedNDVIvalue.

FIGURE2B.1.Illustrativeexampleofacausaltree.

Figure2B.1servesasanillustrativeexampleoftheoutputsofcausaltree‒basedapproachestoidentifyinghowimpacteffectsmaydifferacrossadataset.WithineachterminalnodeinfigureB1,thedifferencebetweenaweightedoutcomeofalltreatedcases(areasthatreceivedaid)iscontrastedtocontrolcases(areasthatdidnotreceiveaid),andthevaluedisplayedcanbedirectlyinterpretedasthecausalimpactofthetreatment(inthisexample,thepresenceofaid)onthemetricofinterest(i.e.,

36

NDVI).Ateachstepofthetree,astatement(i.e.,“MaximumPrecipitation<93mm”)istestedastrueorfalseforeachobservation,andtheimpactofagivenobservationcanbedeterminedbyidentifyingwhereitfallsinthetree.Asasimpleexample,thetreeinfigureB1wouldprovideevidencethatinternationalaidprojectslocatedinareaswithamaximumyearlyprecipitationgreaterthan93mm,thatprovidelessthan$1.4millionofaid,andaremorethanapproximatelyakilometer(635meters)awayfromanurbanareatendtoincreaseNDVIby0.089.Thisapproachisusedtoestimatetheimpactofprojectsonalloutcomevariablestestedinthisanalysis.Accompanyingthecausaltreeisametricofuncertainty,generatedfollowingarandomforestapproach.Thecausaltree‒randomforestiterativelysubsetsthedata,constructinguniquetreesuntilmodelconvergenceisachieved.6Foreachhypothesis,thecausaltree‒randomforestisusedtoillustratethepotentialdistributionofthedirectionalityandmagnitudeofestimatedimpactswhenuncertaintyisaccountedfor.

Finally,afterthetreeisconstructed,alinearmodelthatincludesallcovariatesaswellasinteractionsbetweenthetreatmenttermandvariablesidentifiedinthetreeisestimated.Whilethismodelisnotasvaluablefortheestimationoftreatmentimpacts,itprovidestheabilitytoexamineglobal,lineareffectsthatmayexistinthesystem.

DataIntegration

Manyofthedatasetsusedinthisanalysisarecollectedatdifferentspatialscales,necessitatinganadditionalstepofintegrationsothatallobservationscanbeanalyzedatthescaleofGEFprojects(inthiscase,examininga10kmx10kmregionaroundeachproject).Toconductthisintegration,weusethepiecewiseapproximationproceduredetailedinGoodchildetal.(1993):

eq.1

wheretisanindexforthezoneoneisaggregatingto(theGEFprojectareaofinterest),sisanindexforthesetofzonesoneisaggregatingfrom(i.e.,asatellitepixelsmeasuringNDVI),Sisthemaximumindexforallzoness, representsthevalueofinterestatsourcezones, istheareaofoverlapbetweenthetwozones, istheareaofthezoneoneisaggregatingfrom,and istheestimatedvalueforthetargetzone.Inourapplication,thisprocedureweightseachpixelofeachdatasetaccordingtoitsoverlapwitheachGEFproject.

CausalModel

Classificationandregressiontreeapproacheshavebeencommonlyemployedoverthelasttwodecadestoaidintheclassificationofremotelysensedimagery(FriedlandBrodley1997;McIverandFriedl2002;GambaandHerold2009).Here,weemploycausaltrees—anovelversionofaClassificationandRegressionTreesthatenablescausalinferentialanalyses.Causaltreesareimplementedinamultiplestepprocess,detailedbelowbutsimplysummarizedas(1)derivingametricthatindicatessimilaritybetweentreatmentandcontrolgroups;(2)usingthismetrictomatchpairsoftreatmentandcontrolunitsviaatree;and(3)contrastingtheoutcomeoftreatedunitstocontrolunitswithineveryterminal

6Becauseuncertaintycanmanifestalonganumberofdimensions—includingspatialuncertainties,attributionaluncertainties,andmodeluncertainties—alargebutvaryingsubsetofmodelsisneededtoensuremodelconvergence.Thenumberofrequirediterationscanrangefromtenstohundredsofthousands.

37

nodeofthetree.FigureB1showsanexampledrawnfromexploratoryresearchinwhichacausaltreeisappliedtoalimitedsubsetofinternationalaid,examiningtheimpactofaidonamaximumobservedNDVIvalue.Thisfigureservesasanillustrativeexampleoftheoutputsofcausaltree‒basedapproachestoidentifyinghowimpacteffectsmaydifferacrossadataset.Unliketraditionaleconometricapproachesinwhichinteractiontermsmustbeprespecifiedtoestimatedifferentialimpacteffects,hereclustersofsimilartreatmentandcontrolunitsareidentifieddynamically.Furthermore,byincludinggeographicfactorsinthesetrees(i.e.,latitudeandlongitude),manyunobservedgeographiccharacteristicscanbecaptured.Asinatraditionaleconometricanalysisinwhichvariablescanbeidentifiedasstatisticallysignificant,herevariablesthataresignificant(definedasthevariablesthatdescribethemostvarianceinthedata)arerepresentedinthetree.Allvariablesarecontrolledforthroughthepropensityadjustmentoftheoutcome.

Theprimarydistinctionbetweencausaltreesandmoretraditionaltree-basedclassifiersliesinthecriterionalongwhichsplitsinthetreeareselected.Consideradatasetwithnindependentlyandidenticallydistributedunitswith ,andforeachunitavectorofrelevantcovariatesaremeasured.Inasimplifiedcasewhereallthingsotherthantreatmentarebeingconstant,toestimateacausaleffectforeachgeographiclocationiwecanusetheRubincausalmodel(Rubin,1997)andconsiderthetreatmenteffectasbeingequaltothefollowing:

eq.2

where isanindicatorofwhetheraunitofobservationireceivedaid(1)ordidnot(0).Followingthissimplifiedmodel,wedefinetheexpectedheterogeneouscausaleffectforanysetofunitsasfollows(AtheyandImbens2015):

eq.3

AtheyandImbensshowthatonecanestimatethecausaleffectas wherethetransformedoutcome isdefinedasfollows:

eq.4

andthepropensityscorefunction isdefinedas .Severalapproachestoestimatethepropensityscorecanbeselected(RosenbaumandRubin1983;PanandBai2015)—here,weestimate usinglogisticregression.Oncethepropensityscoreand havebeenestimated,manyauthors(Suetal.2009;AtheyandImbens2015;WagerandAthey2017;Deniletal.2014;Meinhausen2016;Biau2012)haveillustratedthatclassificationandregressiontreescanbeusedtoisolatetreatmenteffectswithinsetsofsimilarunits.Thesetreesseektoclassifyunitsofobservationintoclustersthataresimilaralongcovariateaxes,followingdifferentsplittingandoptimizationrules.

Usingthepropensityscore,causaltreeapproachesderiveatransformedoutcomevariable,Y*,andusethistogeneratetreesplitsinsteadof(thetraditionallyused)Y.Thistransformedoutcomeiscalculatedfollowingeq.5.Thecausaltreereplacesthetraditionalmeansquarederroroptimizationcriterionintreesbyseekingtominimizethesumof ineachterminalnode,where representstheestimatedaveragetreatmentimpactwithinagivennode,i.e.:

38

eq.5

Thisnewerrortermisthenusedtosplitthetreeinawayidenticaltotraditionalregressiontrees,andprovidesatreethatincreasesthesimilarityofcontrolandtreatedunitswithineachnode,aswellasnode-specificestimatesofimpacts.

39

Appendix2C:GeocodingInternationalAid

ThisprojectleveragedtheAidDatadevelopmentfinanceandinternationalaidgeocodingmethodology.In2010,AidDatadevelopedamethodologyforgeo-referencingdevelopmentprojectsthattheInternationalAidTransparencyInitiativelaterrevisedandadoptedasitsglobalreportingstandard.Leveragingateamoftrainedgeocoders,thegeocodingmethodologyandonlinetoolkitreliesonadouble-blindcodingsystem,wheretwoexpertsemployadefinedhierarchyofgeographictermsandindependentlyassignuniformlatitudeandlongitudecoordinates,precisioncodes,andstandardizedplacenamestoeachgeographicfeature.Ifthetwocoderoundsdisagree,theprojectismovedintoanarbitrationroundwhereageocodingprojectmanagerreconcilesthecodestoassignamastersetofgeocodesforallofthelocationsdescribedintheavailableprojectdocumentation.Thisapproachalsocapturesgeographicinformationatseverallevels—coordinate,city,andadministrativedivisions—foreachlocation,therebyallowingthedatatobevisualizedandanalyzedindifferentwaysdependinguponthegeographicunitofinterest.Oncegeographicfeaturesareassignedcoordinates,codersspecifyalocationclassrangingfrom1to4forcategoriesincludingadministrativeregionsortopographicalfeaturesalongwithalocationtypespecifyingtheexactfeature(e.g.,airport,secondorderadministrativezone,etc.).Codersthendeterminethelocation’sgeographicexactnessvalueofeither1(exact)or2(approximate).

AidDataperformsmanyprocedurestoensuredataquality,including:de-duplicationofprojectsandlocations,correctinglogicalinconsistencies(e.g.,makingsureprojectstartandenddatesareinproperorder),findingandcorrectingfieldanddatatypemismatches,correctingandaligninggeocodesandprojectlocationswithincountryandadministrativeboundaries,validatingplacenamesandcorrectinggazetteerinconsistencies,deflatingfinancialvaluestoconstantdollarsacrossprojectsandyears(whereappropriate),strictversioncontrolofintermediateanddraftdataproducts,semanticversioningtodelineatemajorandminorversionsofvariousgeocodeddatasets,andfinalreviewbyamultidisciplinaryworkinggroup.

40

TechnicalDocument3:GlobalOnlineSurvey

3.1Introduction......................................................................................................................................413.2ClassificationofSurveyRespondents...............................................................................................413.3.InvolvementinGEFProgrammaticApproaches..............................................................................423.4MainIncentivesandDisincentivestoBePartofaProgram.............................................................443.5ProgramDesignandApproval..........................................................................................................463.6Program-ProjectAlignment..............................................................................................................463.7Coordination.....................................................................................................................................473.8ProgramFinancing............................................................................................................................493.9KnowledgeSharingandM&E...........................................................................................................493.10Program-LevelResults....................................................................................................................513.11FinalThoughtsfromSurveyRespondentsonGEFPrograms.........................................................52

41

3.1Introduction

Aglobalonlinesurveywasconductedtogatherperceptionsfromawiderangeofcountry-levelstakeholdershavingbeenorbeinginvolvedintheGEFprogramsunderanalysis.TheGEFAgenciesinvolvedinthoseprogramsprovidedtheIEOwithdetailedlistsofprogramandchild-projectstakeholders’contactsforall38programmaticapproaches.Additionalstakeholderswereidentifiedthroughfieldvisitsforthefourprogramcasestudiesconductedforthisevaluation.

Anemailwithalinktothesurveyquestionnairewassenttothe684programand/orchild-projectstakeholders.Thesurveyreceived353responses,183ofwhichwereviable.Thoseresponseswereusedinthisanalysis.Theresponserateforthissurveyis27percent.

Eighty-fivepercentofrespondentsindicatedthattheyhavebeeninvolvedinaGEFprogram.Consideringthatthissurveywasadministeredtoprogramandchild-projectstakeholders,thisindicatesthatabout15percentofstakeholdersareunawarethattheirprojectsarepartoflargerprogrammaticapproaches;theyareengagedonlyatthechild-projectlevel.Forthem,thesurveyendshere,therebyreducingthetotalofrespondentsto155.

3.2ClassificationofSurveyRespondents

Over72percentofthetotalofrespondentstothesurveywaseitherfromgovernment(49%)orGEFAgency(23%).Thesetwogroupsarealsothelargestintheprogram/child-projectsdatabasecoveredinthisevaluation.Respondentsself-identifiedthemselvesasfollows:

• Forty-ninepercentindicatedthattheybelongtogovernmentorganizations,themajorityofwhichareprogram-executingpartnersorUnitedNations‒conventionfocalpoints.

• Twenty-threepercentindicatedthattheybelongtoGEFAgencies;themajoritybeingtechnicalstaff,countryofficestaff,orprogramstaffhiredspecificallyfortheprogram.

• Themajorityofallotherstakeholdersarefromcivilsocietyorganizations,eitherfromnongovernmentalorganizations(NGOs),theprivatesector,and/orintergovernmentalorganizations.

42

3.3.InvolvementinGEFProgrammaticApproaches

Overall,49percentofsurveyrespondentsareinvolvedinprogramcoordinationormanagementand40percentarepartoftheprogramsteeringcommittee;30percentareintheprojectmanagementunitand21percentintheprojectsteeringcommittee.

Community-basedorganization,2%

ChildProjectStaff,2%

Agencyregionalofficestaff,1%

43

Figure3.3showsabreakdownofstakeholders’involvementinprogramsand/orchildprojects:

• ThemajorityofindividualsintheserolesarefromgovernmentorGEFAgency.

• NGOsorotherstakeholdersareinvolvedasbeneficiariesorconsultants.

• Fifty-ninepercentofprogrammanagementunitsand34percentofchild-projectmanagementunitsarecomposedofgovernmentorGEFAgencyrepresentatives.

• Forty-sevenpercentofprogramsteeringcommitteesarecomposedofgovernmentorGEFAgencyrepresentatives.

44

3.4MainIncentivesandDisincentivestoBePartofaProgram

StakeholdersidentifiedthemainperceivedincentivesanddisincentivestojoinaGEFprogrambyselectingfromamultiple-choicelistofresponses.Themainincentivestobepartofaprogramwere“improvedknowledgesharing”(52%)and“increasedsynergieswithotherGEFprojects”(49%).Forty-fivepercentofstakeholdersagreethatoneofthemainincentivestobepartofaprogramisthe“potentialforleveragingdonorfunding.”Themaindisincentivesarea“morecumbersomemanagementarrangement”(62%),a“morecumbersomeaccesstoGEFfundingfromGEFset-asides”(54%,)and“morecumbersomeaccesstoGEFfundingfromcountrySTARallocations”(48%).

AdetailedlookatincentivestojoinaGEFprogramshowsthatallstakeholderssee“improvedknowledgesharing”asoneofthethreemainincentives.Governmentstakeholdersindicatedthat“increasedsynergieswithotherGEFprojects”and“easieraccessfromcountrySTARallocations”arealsoimportantincentivestoparticipateinaGEFprogram.WhileGEFAgencystakeholdersindicatethat“increasedsynergieswithotherGEFprojects”isastrongincentive,theybelievethat“longer-termperspective”ismoreofanincentivethan“accesstoGEFfunding.”

45

AdetailedlookatdisincentivestojoinaGEFprogramshowsthatallstakeholderssee“morecumbersomemanagementarrangements”asoneofthemaindisincentives.Governmentstakeholdersindicatedthat“morecumbersomemanagementarrangements”and“morecumbersomeaccesstoGEFfundingfromGEFset-asides”arealsoamongthemostimportantdisincentivestoparticipateinaGEFprogram.Agencystakeholdersindicatethat“morecumbersomemanagementarrangements”and“morecumbersomeaccesstoGEFfundingfromGEFset-asides”arethemostimportantdisincentivestoparticipateinaGEFprogram,followedby“highertransactioncosts.”

FurtheranalysisonincentivesanddisincentivesofGEFAgenciesandgovernmentsinvolvedinGEFprogramsshowedthat61percentofagencystakeholdersaredisincentivizedbyhighertransactioncostsassociatedwithprogramsand75percentaredisincentivizedbythemorecumbersomemanagementarrangements.Tonote,61percentofGEFAgenciesareincentivizedbythelong-termperspectiveofGEFprograms.

46

3.5ProgramDesignandApproval

Moststakeholdersagreethatcomparedwithstand-aloneprojects,programshaveamoredifficultandlongerapprovalprocess,whichrequiresmorecomplexdocumentation.

3.6Program-ProjectAlignment

Seventypercentofstakeholdersagreethatthechildprojects’expectedresultsareinlinewithprogramresultsand68percentagreethatprojectresultshelptoachieveprogramresults.

47

3.7Coordination

Throughtheirexperience,32percentofstakeholdersbelievethatprogramsaremostsuccessfullycoordinatedbyanexistingnational/regionalorganization;atthesametimenationalorganizations(specificallygovernment)enduphavingasignificantroleinprogramcoordinationfor65percentofprojects/programs;24percentofstakeholderbelieveitmostsuccessfulwhencoordinationisembeddedaspartoftheprogram,yetonlythreepercentofprogramshavecoordinationarrangementembeddedintheprogram;and18percentbelieveitmostsuccessfulwhenaGEFimplementingagencytakesonthecoordinationrole.Inreality,themajorityofprogramsarecoordinatedbytheleadimplementingagencies(50percent).

48

Stakeholdersalsoperceiveprogramsasabletoestablisheffectivecoordinationwithchildprojects;however,theyequallyagreeanddisagreethattheleveloffundingforcoordinationissufficient.

49

3.8ProgramFinancing

Over50percentofthestakeholdersingovernment,international,andmultilateralorganizationsbelievethatprogramstendtoleveragethesameorhigheramountsofcofinancingthanGEFstand-aloneprojects.However,stakeholdersinprivatesectororganizations,civilsocietyorganizations,andacademicinstitutionsbelievethatprogramsleveragelowercofinancingthanstand-aloneprojects.

3.9KnowledgeSharingandM&E

Themajorityofstakeholders(over55percent)believethatbothprogramsandchildprojectshavecleardatasharinganddisseminationplans,and49percentbelievethatchildprojectswiththesameprogramhavecleardatasharinganddisseminationplans.

50

Themajorityofstakeholdersbelievethatwhendisseminationoccurs,mostoftheinformation(over70%)flowsthroughtrainings,workshops,andpublications.Approximately40percentofinformationissharedthroughparentorchild-projectwebsitesandonly34percentthroughspecializedwebsites.

Note:IW=internationalwaters

Seventy-sevenpercentofstakeholdersbelievethatprogramsindicatehowindividualprojectM&EscontributetotheoverallprogramM&Estrategy,and63percentbelievethatprogramsindicatehowindividualprojectresults-basedmanagement(RBM)frameworkscontributestotheoverallprogramRBMframework.

51

Over60percentofstakeholdersbelievethatprogram-levelM&EstrategyandRBMframeworkshavebeenusedindevelopingchild-projectM&EstrategyandRBMframeworks.Additionally,stakeholdersbelievethatM&EandRBMallowedforbetterreportingonprogramresults.

3.10Program-LevelResults

Sixty-sevenpercentofstakeholdersbelievethatprogramsachievebetterandbroaderadoption,and63percentachievemoresustainableresultsascomparedwithstand-aloneprojects.Seventy-sixpercentofstakeholdersagreethatchild-projectresultscontributedtooverallprogramresults,and69percentofstakeholdersagreethatchild-projectsustainabilitycontributedtooverallprogramsustainability.

52

3.11FinalThoughtsfromSurveyRespondentsonGEFPrograms

Eighty-fourpercentofstakeholdersbelievethattheGEFshouldcontinuewiththeprogrammaticapproachmodality.Eighty-sevenpercentofstakeholderswouldbeinvolvedinaGEFprogramagainand88percentwouldrecommendinvolvementinGEFprogramstoothereligibleparties.

Themostrecurrentopen-endedstatementswereon:

• Coordination:Programsshouldhaveadedicatedcoordinationmechanismanddedicatedadministrativestaff.

• Knowledgesharing:Programsare“usefulintermsofknowledgesharing,increasedsustainability,andcreationofpartnerships”and“benefitfromknowledgesharingandcross-fertilizationacrossexecutingagenciesandcountries.”

53

TechnicalDocument4:ProgramCaseStudies

4.1CaseStudy:PRC-GEFPartnershiponLandDegradationinDrylandEcosystems,China..................54Appendix4.1A:Dataandindicatorscollectedduringthefieldmission.................................................694.2CaseStudy:IndiaGEFCoastalandMarineProgram........................................................................704.3CaseStudy:MENA-DesertEcosystemsandLivelihoodsProgram....................................................894.4.CaseStudy:RapidImpactEvaluation—ReducingIndustry’sCarbonFootprintinSoutheastAsiaProgram.......................................................................................................................106Appendix4.4A:RapidImpactEvaluation.............................................................................................117Appendix4.4B:ExpertPanelComposition...........................................................................................118Appendix4.4C:ProgramExpertPanelAssessments–Disaggregated.................................................120

54

4.1CaseStudy:PRC-GEFPartnershiponLandDegradationinDrylandEcosystems,China

4.1.1IntroductiontothePRC-GEFPartnership

ThePRCandtheGEFsetupin2003thePRC-GEFPartnershiponLandDegradationinDrylandEcosystemsProgram(“thePartnership”),initiallyintheformofaCountryProgrammingFramework(CPF)forlanddegradation.Itwascomposedbyonlyoneproject,theCapacityBuildingtoCombatLandDegradation(GEFID:956),undertheGEFOperationalProgram12.7TheCPFwasmeanttosupportasequencedsetofhighpriorityactivitiesmutuallyagreedbyPRCandGEFtostrengthentheenablingenvironmentandbuildinstitutionalcapacityforintegratedapproachestocombatlanddegradation,andtodemonstrateviableintegratedecosystemmanagementmodelsforwidespreadreplication(ADB2010).

InthisfirstphaseofthePartnership,GEFsupportfocusedonsevenkeybarriers,namely:(1)thelackofacomprehensivelegislativeframework,(2)afragmentedinstitutionalandpolicyagenda,(3)thelackofapplicationoflessonslearnedfrompreviousexperience,(4)lackofparticipatoryapproachestoaddresstherootcausesoflanddegradation,(5)absenceoflocality-specificland-useplanning;(6)perverseincentives;and(7)inadequatefinancialarrangementsandincentivestoaddresslanddegradationintheWesternregion.Theapplicationofalong-termprogrammaticapproachwasmeanttoprovideforcoherentplanningandpredictablefinancialsupportthatwasnotpossibleunderthepreviousadhocproject-by-projectapproachtointernationalassistanceforcombatinglanddegradation.Anambitioussetofgovernment,developmentpartner,andGEFfinancialcommitmentsovertheperiodof2003‒2012andimplementedthroughtheendofthe12thFiveYearPlan(2011‒2015)wasenvisioned.

In2008,thePartnershipevolvedintoafullprogram.APFDwasapprovedinMay2008,atthesameGEFCouncilmeetingthatformallyapprovedtheintroductionofProgrammaticApproachesintheGEF.TheoverarchinggoalstatedinthePFDistoreducelanddegradationandrestoredrylandecosystemsinWesternChina,furtheringthroughthisthegoalsofprotectingdrylandecosystembiodiversity.Thespecificpurposeistosupporttheestablishmentofaneffectivesystemofintegratedenvironmentalmanagement(IEM)appliedincontinuingprogramsandpoliciesinfluencinglandandecosystemqualityinWesternChina,andtomaximizetheecosystembenefitsofinvestmentprojectsintheprogramregion.

ThePFDiscomposedofsixchildprojectstobeimplementedbythreeGEFAgencies,namelytheAsianDevelopmentBank(ADB)astheleadagency,theIFAD,andtheWorldBank.CofinancingwasforeseenmainlyfromChinaandfromconcessionalloansprovidedbythethreeGEFAgenciesconcerned.Tonote,thePFDincludestheCapacityBuildingtoCombatLandDegradationProject(GEFID:956)implementedundertheCPF,i.e.,beforetheapprovalofthePFD.Furthermore,thePFDmentionsthatademonstrationinvestmentprojecthadalreadybeenendorsedbytheGEFChiefExecutiveOfficer(CEO),specificallyreferringtotheXinjiangandGansuPastoralDevelopment Project (GEFID: 1621). In reality,thatprojectwas already under implementation.8ThePastoralProjectobjectivewastopromotesustainablenaturalresourcesmanagementbyestablishingimprovedlivestockproductionandmarketingsystemsthatwouldincreasetheincomeofherdersandfarmersintheprojectarea.TheprojectwasimplementedfromSeptember2004toJune2010,executedbytheForeignEconomicCooperationCenteroftheMinistryofAgricultureunderWorldBanksupervision.

7ThiswasthefirstCPFsupportedbytheGEFinthelanddegradationfocalarea.8ThePastoralProjecteffectivenessdatereportedintheprojectImplementationCompletionReport(ICR)—bothoftheWorldBankloanandtherelatedGEFgrant—is27January2004(WorldBank2011).

55

ThePFDalsomentionsthatanotherdemonstrationinvestmentproject,theNingxiaIntegratedEcosystemandAgriculturalDevelopmentProject(GEFID:2788),wasCouncil-approvedandpendingGEFCEOendorsement.ItisnotsurprisingthereforethatPRC,throughtheCentralProgramCoordinationOfficeintheMinistryofFinance(MoF)andtheCentralProgramManagementOffice(CPMO)intheDepartmentofScienceandTechnologyoftheStateForestryAdministration(SFA),considerthesixchildprojectsincludedinthePFD,theWorldBankPastoralProject,andtheADBNingxiaProject,beingallunderthePartnership(ZhouandShuifa,2013).In2009,theGEFincludedtheNingxiaProjectinanotherpartnershipprogram,theChinaBiodiversityPartnershipandFrameworkforAction(GEFID:3926),whilePRCcontinuedtoconsideritaswithintheDrylandsPartnership.

Table4.1.PRC-GEFpartnership—childprojectstatusandfunding

GEF ID Agency Focal

Area Title Status GEF grant at

CEO endorsement

Cofinance at CEO

endorsement 3482 ADB, IFAD,

World Bank MFA PRC-GEF Partnership on Land Degradation in

Dryland Ecosystems Program 27,333,001 379,286,700

956 ADB MFA Project I-Capacity Building to Combat Land Degradation Completed 7,700,000 7,300,000

2369 IFAD MFA An IEM Approach to the Conservation of Biodiversity in Dryland Ecosystems Completed 4,545,000 25,023,700

3483 ADB MFA Forestry and Ecological Restoration in Three Northwest Provinces (formerly Silk Road Ecosystem Restoration Project)

Ongoing 5,119,546 176,660,000

3484 ADB LD Capacity and Management Support for Combating Land Degradation in Dryland Ecosystems

Completed 2,727,455 6,200,000

3608 World Bank MFA Sustainable Development in Poor Rural Areas Completed 4,265,000 154,900,000 3611 World Bank MFA Mainstreaming Biodiversity Protection within the

Production Landscapes and Protected Areas of the Lake Aibi Basin

Completed 2,976,000 9,203,000

Note:LD=LandDegradation.MFA=multifocalareaproject.

WhilethePartnershiphasprimarilybeenseenasonebetweenPRCandtheGEF,andbetweenPRC-GEFandthethreeGEFAgenciesinvolved,itcanalsobeinterpretedmorewidelyasapartnershipbetweensectorswithinChina.ThePartnershipintroducedanewworkingstyleforChina,wherebydifferentministriesarecalledtocollaborateunderacommonlysharedintegratedapproach,IEM.TheGEFalsoconsidersthePartnershipapioneerprogrammaticapproachinlanddegradation,asittooembracesclimatechangeandbiodiversity.ThemainPartnershipfeatureisitsuseoftheIEMapproach,encompassingSLMtechniquestargetedatachievingmultiplelocalandglobalenvironmentalbenefits,aswellaslivelihoods.

CapacityBuildingtoCombatLand-DegradationProject

TheADBCapacityBuildingProjectwaslaunchedinJuly2004andwascompletedinDecember2009.TheprojectwasmanagedbytheSFA’sDepartmentofScienceandTechnology.Ninedepartmentsofthe

56

ChineseGovernmentwereinvolved,includingtheLegislativeAffairsCommissionoftheStandingCommitteeoftheNationalPeople'sCongress,theNationalDevelopmentandReformCommission,theMinistryofScienceandTechnology,MoF,theMinistryofLandandResources,theMinistryofWaterResources,theMinistryofAgriculture,theMinistryofEnvironmentalProtection,andSFA.

ManagementandPolicySupporttoCombatLand-DegradationProject

InOctober2009,theGEFCouncilapprovedtheManagementandPolicySupporttoCombatLandDegradationProject(theManagementProject),whichrepresentedacontinuationofADBsupporttoSFAinmanyofthecoordination,knowledgesharing,andM&EtasksaftertheclosureoftheCapacityBuildingProject.ThisprojectwaslaunchedinMay2010andendedinJune2013.

ForestryandEcologicalRestorationProjectinThreeNorthwestProvinces

TheADBForestryProject(alsocalledSilkRoadProject)aimedatimprovingtheruralpoor’scommunityenvironmentinNorthwesternChina,enhancingtheircapacitytoadapttoclimatechange,andraisingawarenessonthesustainableuseoflandresources.Theoriginalprojectdurationwas2010‒2015,butactivitieswerestillongoingatthetimeofthemission,inJune2016.

SustainableDevelopmentinPoorRuralAreas

TheWorldBankPovertyProjectobjectivewastoexploreandpilotmoreeffectiveandinnovativewaysofsupportingthepoorestcommunitiesandhouseholdsinHenanProvince,ShaanxiProvince,andChongqingMunicipalitythroughcommunity-drivendevelopmentandparticipatoryapproaches.Theprojectdurationwas2010‒2015.TheprojectwasmanagedbytheStateCouncilLeadingGroupOfficeofPovertyAlleviationandDevelopment.

AnIEMApproachtotheConservationofBiodiversityinDrylandEcosystems

TheIFADProjectobjectivewastopromotethegrowthofagriculturalandnonagriculturalproductivityintheprojectarea,reducethelossofbiodiversityintheprojectarea,restoretheintegrityoftheecosystem,applysuitablerenewableenergytechnology,andreducehumanpressureontheecosystem.Theofficialprojectdurationwas2009‒2014,buttheprojectwasclosedinApril2016(IFAD2016).TheprojectwasmanagedbyMoF.

SustainableManagementandBiodiversityConservationoftheLakeAibiBasinTheLakeAibiProjectobjectivewastopromotethecomprehensivecontrolandmitigationoflanddegradationwithintheLakeAibiBasin,enhancethepolicysupportandmanagementcapacitytooptimizewaterallocation,reducethenegativeimpactoflanddegradationontheecosystem,integratethebiodiversityconservationintothenaturalresourcesmanagement,andconserveandprotectthesignificantandendangeredspecies,ecosystems,andbiodiversity.Theprojectdurationwas2011‒2015.TheprojectwasmanagedbySFA,thegovernmentofXinjiangUygurAutonomousRegion,andwassupervisedbytheWorldBank.

57

Table4.2.PRC-GEFPartnership–components,approach,activities,andlocations

Thiscasestudyisbasedoninformation(dataanddocuments)collected,andfieldobservationsmade,duringatwo-weekmissiontoChinaconductedinJune2016,aswellasevidenceextractedfromavailableprogramandchildprojectsdesign,monitoring,completion,andevaluationreports.OnlythesixprojectscoveredunderthePFDareconsideredinthecasestudy,asthisiswhattheGEFconsidersasthePRC-GEFDrylandsPartnershipasaprogrammaticapproach.Findingsarereportedaccordingtothesixmainkeyevaluationquestionsinvestigatedthroughthecasestudiesfortheprogrammaticapproachesevaluation.

4.1.2Findings

Question1:Towhatextenthasthechildproject’sparticipationintheprogramdeliveredbroader-scaleandlonger-termenvironmentaloutcomesandimpactscomparedwithitspotentialresultsasastand-aloneproject?

58

ThesecondphaseofthePartnershipisalmostcompleted.OutofthesixchildprojectsincludedinthePFD,onlytheADBSilkRoadProjectisstillongoing.InApril2013,ADBcommissionedaquiteinformativeindependentreviewofthePartnership(Critchley2013).Parallelto—andpartlyinsynergywith—thatexercise,SFAcommissioneditsownassessmentreport(ZhouandShuifa2013).Thetworeportswereissuedalmostsimultaneously,inApril‒May2013.Terminalevaluationsand/orcompletionreportshavebeenconductedforallbuttheSilkRoadProject.Furthermore,anarticleonthePartnershipexperience,coauthoredbyexpertsfromtheUniversityofGothenburg,ADB,andChinaNationalCenteronCombatingLandDegradation,hasbeenpublishedinthepeer-reviewedjournalLandDegradationandDevelopment.Thearticleishereafterreferredtousingtheleadauthor’slastname(Tengbergetal.2014).In2012,theGEFSecretariatconductedalearningmissiontogatheranddisseminateknowledgeonthePartnershipexperience(WorldBank2012).

Attheprogramlevel,bothCritchleyandTengberg,andtheGEFlearningmission,agreethatthepartnershiphasachievedsignificantresultsintermsofGEBsinthepilotsites.ADB’sManagementProjectcompletionreportcallsfortheneedforupscalingtheresultsachievedtoencouragewideradoptionbeyondthepilotsites(ADB2014).Critchley’sfinalevaluativeassessmentisthatthePartnershiphasanimpressiverecordofhelpingtoreducelanddegradationandimprovelivelihoods,testifiedtobyvarioussources,mostnotablySFA’sassessmentreport,whichcontainsadetailedaccountofthequantitativeandqualitativeresultsachieved.TengbergconcludesthatmainstreamingofIEMintorelevantpolicyanddevelopmentframeworkshasbeenthemosteffectivewayofmobilizingfundingforthescalingupofSLM.Asforthescalingup,sherecommendsthatSLMbestpracticesneedtobecombinedwitheconomicincentivesforlandusers,andpilotdemonstrationsofSLMneedtobeintegratedintolargerinvestmentprogramstoachieveimpactsandeconomiesofscale.

Importantly,nationaldatashowasteadyreductionindesertificationoverthelast10‒15-yearperiod,asaresultoftheimportantinjectionoffundingbyPRCthroughlargenationalprograms,includingtheNaturalForestProtectionProgram,theSlopingLandConversionProgram,andtheThreeNorth’sShelterbeltProgram,amongothers.By2009,theNaturalForestProtectionProgramandSlopingLandConversionProgramaloneaccountforatotalinvestmentofover$50billion.9TheextenttowhichthePartnershiphascontributedtotheseresultsisnotyetwellquantified,especiallywithrespecttoGEBs.Critchley’smainmessageistosetupaPartnershipdatabaseforquantifyingimpact,basedoncollectedorcollatedbasicinformationfromtheinitiativesunderwayunderthechildprojectsthatconstitutetheimplementationengineofthePartnership.ThedataavailablefromallsourcesareinadequatetoassesstheextentthatthePartnershiphasmetitstargets,orwhetherithascontributedtoreduceddesertificationinthePRC.

Critchley,ZhouandShuifa,orTengbergdonotdealwiththequestionofwhetherdeliveringIEMthroughmainstreamingofpoliciespluspilotsandthenupscalingthroughthepartnershipwouldhaveachievedthesameresultsifdeliveredthroughaseriesofunconnectedstand-aloneprojectsinstead.Adifferencecouldpertaintotheamountoffundinginjected.Tengberg’sanalysisshowsthesignificantinjectionoffundingprovidedfromnationalandprovincialbudgets,asaresultofthepartnershipmainstreamingefforts.10

9Foranaccountoftotalfunding,seeTable2in:“PaymentforEcosystemServicesinChina:AnOverview,”L.ZhenH.Zhang(2011),availableon:http://lrlr.landscapeonline.de/Articles/lrlr-2011-2/articlese4.html10QuotesfromTengbergarticle:“…Atotalof54lawsandregulationshavebeenformulatedand17revisedatprovincial/regionallevelinsupportofIEM…TotalfundingmobilizedthroughmainstreamingofIEMplansintothe11thand12th

5-yearplansofthePRCamountsto$26·80billioncomparedwith$840·05millionofprojectfundingtothePRC-GEFPartnership.”

59

ThePastoralProjectcouldbeconsideredasaproxystand-aloneprojectcomparisontothePartnership.TheGEFAgencyandWorldBankconsidereditasastand-aloneproject.Theprojectimplementationcompletionreport(ICR)doesnotmakeanyspecificreferenceeithertotheparallelADBCapacityBuildingProject,consideredthefirstPartnershipphase,ortothePartnershipPhase2thatstartedin2008,whenthePastoralProjectwasstillbeingimplemented.TheprojectoperatedinXinjiangandGansu,twoofthesixPartnership’sprovinces,from2004to2010.Itadoptedsustainablenaturalresourcemanagementfocusingondrylandpastureareas,establishingimprovedlivestockproductionandmarketingsystemsthatincreasedtheincomesofherdersandfarmers,andappliedabottom-upnaturalresourceplanningandmanagementapproach.Landdegradationmitigation,conservationofgloballyimportantbiodiversity(includingtheTianzhuWhiteYak,theAltayandBaiyinbulukSheep,andtheXinjiangBrownCattle),andenhancedcarbonsequestrationthroughpromotionofIEMweretheGEBstargetedbytheproject.Thelargesteffortwasdedicatedtothegrasslandmanagementcomponent.

AccordingtothePastoralProjectICR,projectdesignwasholisticandforwardlooking,butambitiousinitswidegeographicspread,andcomplex.Intermsofcomplexity,with26subcomponentsencompassing45activities,thePastoralProjectwascomparabletothePartnership.Thedegreeofcomplexitywasverychallengingfortheprovincialteams,especiallyforM&E.AsfortheGEBs,almost22,000haofgrasslandhavebeenbroughtunderintegratedgrasslandmanagement,thedoubleofwhatwasinitiallyplanned.Morethanhalfwasfencedandsomereseeded.DemonstrationsitessupportedbytheGEFfundingcomponentinGansuincluded20haofbannedgrazing,5,577haofdeferredorrestgrazing,and6,760haofrotationalgrazing.Xinjianggrazingbanscovered5,333hain21sitesand4,000hain12rotationalsystems.Thetotalareaestablishedforforagecropsincludingalfalfa,sanfoin,foragemaize,andChinesemilkvetchwasmorethan75,000ha.NoaggregatedatatocomparewiththesefiguresareavailableatprogramlevelfromthePartnershipevaluations.11However,noevidenceisavailabletosuggestthattheGEBsachievedbythePastoralProjectwouldhavebeendifferent,eitherincaseitwasimplementedinsynergywiththeparallelCapacityBuildingProject,orafter,underthePartnership.Accordingtothedataanddocumentscollectedandthefield-levelinterviewsconductedduringthemission,sizeableenvironmentalchangeoccurredatsitelevels(appendix4.2Aandbox4.1).

11SFA’sAssessmentReportsummarizestheresultsoftheCapacityBuilding,theManagementProjectandthePastoralProject,astheotherprojectswereimplementedforlessthantwoyearsatthetimeofwritingthatreport.

Box 4.1: Field observations

In Hezheng County, farmers switched from grazing to planting maize to feed their cows, contributing to reducing the grazing pressure on mountains. The organic fertilizer produced is used in greenhouses to grow fruits and vegetables, as well as in crop fields to fertilize the maize. An interviewed beneficiary said that he was grazing since childhood, but never earned much. Maize and indigenous fruits provide a much higher income now, which is why everybody in the village has switched from grazing to growing maize.

An interviewed village leader said that farmers used to hunt illegally and cut trees in the Taizishan NNR, taking advantage of weak enforcement of protected areas laws. Now they protect the forest to conserve headwaters. Ten years ago, all the land around the NNR was barren, now all is green with trees and crops. Water is cleaner too. However, according to a NNR staff, forest cover would have increased even without GEF. GEF support was mostly normative.

In Longxian County, mulching helps farmers adapt to drought in spring. Before, it took six months to cultivate and then six months to harvest even when the soil was frozen. Now, noncultivated land has become forest or grassland again. Erosion is reduced when it rains. A walnut farmer said that mulching using maize stalks maintains the temperature and results in bigger walnuts. Terracing has allowed use of tricycle motorbikes. The biggest contribution of the project for them are the solar lamps, which now allow them to walk in the neighborhood at night to visit or work late.

Houzhenzi Forest Farm staffs stated that GEF introduced a model for intersectoral working style, leading to synergies. The Forest Experience Centers introduced by the GEF did not exist before. GEF project contributed to awareness raising, cross-sector collaboration, and the forest health center.

60

GEFAgencies’staffsinterviewedinBeijingconfirmedthemainPartnershipachievementsinmainstreamingofIEMinprovincial-levelpoliciesandplans.AftertheIFADprojectended,IEMwasintegratedin26morecountiesinGansu,and6moreNationalNatureReserves(NNR)inotherprovinces.ADBnotedthatthroughthePartnership,forthefirsttimeanintegratedecosystemapproachwasintroducedinChina,pointingattheIEMpeculiarityofinvolvingtechnicalandfinancialresourcesfromdifferentsectorsandgovernmentministriesanddepartmentsatnationalandlocallevel.UnderIEM,asetofprincipleswasdevelopedtoinvolvelocalstakeholders(localgovernments,localresearchinstitution,anduniversities)tobuildcapacitytocombatlanddegradationthroughabottom-upapproach.IEMwasmainstreamedintothefive-yearplansin4outofthe6provincesinvolvedinADBprojects.TheWorldBankconfirmedthatparticipatorynatural-resourceplanningandmanagementwasintroducedandadoptedinotherprojects.

GEFAgenciesexpresseddoubtsonwhetherresultswouldhavebeendifferentifthesamefundingwasexecutedthroughstand-aloneprojects.However,theyrecognizethatanimportantvalueadditionbroughtinbythePartnershipisknowledgeexchange.WhiletheonlyinformationexchangebetweenGEFAgencieshappensatdesignstageandconcernsfundingandgeographictargeting,theactualknowledgeexchangeonlessonslearnedhappenedatlocallevel,betweencounties.

OnthePRCside,SFAconfirmedthatGEFintroducedIEMintoChina.In2002,withGEFsupport,thePartnershipstartedinitiallywitheightdepartments.Nowtheyarethirteen.Thefirstproject,CapacityBuilding,wasmultifocaltoincreasefundingopportunities,indicatingaprogrammaticthinkingsincethatearlystage.Interestingly,whileSFAagreeswithGEFAgenciesthatknowledgesharinghappensattheprojectsites/provincelevel,itislimited.SFAasthenationalleadagency,experienceddifficultiesincoordinatingbetweendifferentsectorsinthegovernmenttohavethemworktogetherunderIEM,inawaytofosterknowledgesharingamongchildprojectsandnationalexecutingagencies.Duringhisreview,Critchleyfoundnoevidenceofinteractionorcross-learningbetweeneitherthechildprojectsunderthePartnershiporbetweentheGEFAgenciesthatsupportthoseprojects.

TheForeignEconomicCooperationOfficeoftheMinistryofEnvironmentalProtectionisconvincedthatthePartnershipmadeadifferencecomparedwithwhatwouldhavebeenthecasewithastand-aloneproject-by-projectorsector-by-sectorapproach.ThePartnershipstimulatedachangetowardintegrationinasituationwhereMoFneedstobalancecompetingdemandsfromdifferentsectors.Conflictsareoftencausedbyuncleardivisionofresponsibilitiesandcompetenciesbetweensectors.Andthereiscompetitionforfunding:onGEFfunds,MoFhastoshareitequallybetweenmanydemands.TheForeignEconomicCooperationOfficeagreesthatknowledgesharingoccurredamongchildprojects.Thiswouldnothavebeenpossiblewithouttheprogramsupport,asthereisnoformalmechanismtoshareexperiencebetweengovernmentsectors.

Remotesensinganalysiswasconductedfortheselectsitestoexaminethelong-termspatialandtemporalpatternsofvegetationtoassesswhetherprojectactivitieshadanyimpactontheincreaseinglobalenvironmentalbenefitsintermsoflandproductivitymeasuredasvegetationproductivity.Tounderstandthevegetationtrendbetween2000and2015,theinterannualvariationinvegetationproductivitywasmeasuredbytheNDVI,derivedfromdailyModerateResolutionImagingSpectroradiometer(MODIS)satelliteobservationsat250mresolution.Theresultsforthevariousprojectsitesaresummarizedherebelow,perlocation.

Thevegetationtrendfortheproject“PRC-GEF:AnIEMApproachtotheConservationofBiodiversityinDrylandEcosystems–GEFID:2369”atthetwoprojectlocationsshowsaconsistentincreaseinvegetationproductivityovertheperiod2000-2015(figure4.1).

61

Figure4.1.IncreasingtrendofNDVIhavebeenobservedatallthethreesitessince2000.

Thegeospatialanalysisforthetwoprojectsitesfor“PRC-GEFPartnership:SustainableDevelopmentinPoorRuralAreas—GEFID:3608”alsoshowsimprovedvegetationproductivityovertheperiodof2000‒2015(figure4.2).BothsitesshowstrongincreaseinNDVIfrom2000to2015,suggestingimprovingvegetationconditions.

62

Figure4.2.LocationandtimeseriesofNDVIextractedfortwoPRC-GEFPartnership:SustainableDevelopmentinPoorRuralAreassites.

Adensetimeseriesvegetationproductivityanalysisofthetwositesofthe“ForestryandEcologicalRestorationprojectinthreeNorth-Westprovinces—GEFID:3483”showsonlyaslightlyincreasingtrendoverthelastdecade(figure4.3).

LaozhuangVillage,YimaTown,QingchengCounty,Gansuprovince

Figure4.3.LocationandtimeseriesofNDVIextractedfortwositesinQingyang,GansuProvince.

63

Question2:TowhatextenthastheprogramhelpedthechildprojectstoaddressthemaindriversofenvironmentaldegradationinChina?

TheGEFrecognizesfourbroadhumanactivityareas,whichcontributetowardenvironmentaldegradation:foodproduction/consumption,transportation,constructionandbuildings,andenergyproduction/consumption.ThePRC-GEFDrylandsPartnershipisprimarilyconcernedwitheffectsfromfoodproductionactivities,notablybiodiversitylossandlanddegradation.ThePFDclearlyindicatesthePartnershipfocusonmitigatingthecausesandnegativeimpactsoflanddegradationonthestructureandhealthofthedrylandecosystemsofWesternPRCthroughthepromotionofinnovativesustainableland-managementpracticesforimprovedagriculture,rangeland,andforestmanagement.Thisfocusretroactivelyreferstosustainablefoodproductionaswellasfuelwoodenergyproductioninfragileecosystems,i.e.,addressingthetwomaindriversofenvironmentaldegradationinWesternChina.

RecentresearchseemstoconfirmtherelevanceofthePartnership’schoiceofusingtheIEMandSLMapproaches,focusingspecificallyonthesocioeconomicdriversofdesertificationinWesternChinatoachieveGEBsinlanddegradation,climatechange,andbiodiversity.Inresponsetoecosystemdegradationfromrapideconomicdevelopment,Chinabeganinvestingheavilyinprotectingandrestoringnaturalcapitalstartingin2000.Ouyangetal.’s(2016)reportonChina’sfirstnationalecosystemassessment(2000–2010),designedtoquantifyandhelpmanagechangeinecosystemservices,includingfoodproduction,carbonsequestration,soilretention,sandstormprevention,waterretention,floodmitigation,andprovisionofhabitatforbiodiversity.Accordingtothoseauthors,overall,ecosystemservicesimprovedfrom2000to2010,apartfromhabitatprovisionforbiodiversity.

AnotherrecentlypublishedresearcharticleonChina’sdesertifiedareasproducedaquantitativeassessmentoftheinteractionbetweenthemeteorologicalfactorsassociatedwithclimatechangeandthehumanfactorsassociatedwithhumanactivities,combinedwithlong-termmonitoring(1983-2012)onvegetationcoverusingtheNDVI,whichdecreaseswithincreasingdesertification.ThisanalysisfoundsimilareffectmagnitudesforsocioeconomicandenvironmentalfactorsforNDVI,butdifferentresultsfordesertification:socioeconomicfactorswerethedominantfactorthataffecteddesertification,accountingfor79.3%oftheeffects.Climatechangeaccountedfor46.6and20.6%oftheeffectsonNDVIanddesertification,respectively(Fengetal.2015).

Question3:WhatfactorshaveinfluencedChina’sownershipoftheprogram,andhasthedegreeofownershipaffectedtherelevanceoftheprogramtoChina’senvironmentanddevelopmentneedsandpriorities?

AccordingtoCritchley,thewidespreadparticipationofbeneficiariesindecisionmakingthroughParticipatoryRuralAppraisalisamajorachievementinthatithasinstilledalocalsenseofownership.Themissionobservedthatprovincialteamsfeelproudownershipoftheirprojects;theirenthusiasticpresentationsandeagernesstoshareanddiscusstestifytothis.InBeijing,central-levelstakeholdersaresomehowdistancedfromthemainPartnershipactivities,althoughundoubtedlythereisasenseofsatisfactioninwhathasbeenachieved.Overall,basedonperceptionsgatheredduringthevariousinterviews,meetings,andfieldvisits,PRCfeelsstrongownershipofthePartnershipanditschildprojects.TheGEFlearningmissionof2012concurswiththesefindings,agreeingthatthereisstrongownershipatalllevels.InGansu,theProvincialProjectManagementOfficestatedthattheIFADprojectsiteswerechosenbasedonthosethathadanunderstandingandinterestinanintegratedecosystemapproach,notjustaneconomicbenefit.Allstagesoftheprojectweredesignedandexecutedinaparticipatoryway,toinstillgreaterownership.

64

TheGEFOperationalFocalPointindicatedthatGEFstrategiesarestronglyalignedwithChina’sstrategies.Environmentprotectionisincludedinthe13thPRCFive-YearPlan.SinceGEFOperationalProgram12,theIEMconcepthasbeenintegratedintopoliciesandlawsatdifferentlevels,fromprovincialtonational.Duringtheinterview,theOperationalFocalPointwasparticularlyappreciativeofthefactthatGEFmakesdifferentnationalagenciesworktogether.ThisisnotlimitedtothePartnership.ArecentexampleisthecollaborationbetweentheMinistryofAgriculture,SFA,andtheInternationalCommercedepartmentsonthealienspeciesquarantineGEF-6projects.

ThestrongrelevancetothenationalpoliciesandplansforcombatingdesertificationinWesternChinacontributestostrongownershipofthePartnership.TheshifttowardChina’sheightenedinterestinenvironmentalprojectsstartedasaconsequenceofthe1998long-termfloodintheYangtzeRiver,whichaffectedmillionsofpeople.In1999,apolicywasimplementedtoreturnconvertedcroplandstograsslandsandforests.In2005,chemicalpollutionintheriverpromptedaRegionalEnvironmentalAssessment.Today,Chinafocusesonair,soil,andwaterquality,whichrequiresdifferentsectorstoworktogether.ThePartnershipoperatedinstrongalignmentwithanenablingnationalpolicycontext.

Critchley’sassessmentofthestrongrelevancebothtotheGEFaswellastoChina,andthestrongdegreeofownershipChinahasdemonstratedatprovincialaswellasnationallevel,isconfirmedinallthechild-projectterminalevaluations,completionreports,andICRsreviewedforthiscasestudy.Notably,theIFADProjectterminalevaluationrootsthestrongnationalrelevanceandownershipoftheprojecttothefactthatitwasdesignedundertheauspicesofthePRC-GEFPartnership,whichalsoincludedasuiteofGEF-fundedprojectslinkedwithADB,IFAD,andtheWorldBank(IFAD2016).ThePartnershipconceptwasownedbecauseitwasinlinewiththechangefromthe1990stop-downlanddegradationcontrolplansandprograms,characterizedbyuncoordinatedeffortsintacklingcross-cuttingsectoralissues,tothebottom-upapproachthatintegratedIEMconceptsandprinciplesinruraldevelopmentandenvironmentalprotection,aconceptthatemergedinthegovernmentenvironmentalstrategiesoftheearly2000s.Thecountrycommitmentandownershipisalsodemonstratedbythesignificantlevelofcofinancingandintegrationofplanningtoolswithothernationalandprovincialprograms(asalsoreportedinTengbergetal.,2014).

SFAhasstrongownershipofthePartnership.However,bothADBandCritchley’sreviewquestionwhetherSFAisthemostappropriatenationalleadagency.ThePartnershipisquiteintegratedandmultisectoral,whileSFAfocusesonforestsandlanddegradation.Furthermore,thevoiceofSFAisnotasstrongastheoneoftheNationalDevelopmentReformCommission,ortheWaterResourcesDepartment,intermsofinfluenceonthegovernment.ForaneventualPartnershipfollow-upphase,CritchleyrecommendsanyfutureCPMOtofunctionmoreclearlyasacoordinatingnexus,besmaller,andcomprisehigherqualifiedstaff.

Question4:Towhatextenthavechildprojectobjectivesbeencoherentwithandintegratedintotheprogram’sobjectives?

ThePFDclearlystatesthePartnership’soverarchinggoalofreducinglanddegradationandrestoringdrylandecosystemsinthewesternregionofthePRC,andthroughthistofurtherthegoalsofprotectingdrylandsecosystembiodiversity.ThespecificpurposeistointroduceIEMandmainstreamitintopoliciesandprogramsinordertomaximizetheecosystembenefitsinvestmentsinthePartnershipregion.Child-projectobjectivesandcomponents,summarizedinatableannexedtothePFDandintable4.2inthisreport,broadlyalignwiththeseoverarchingobjectives,eachofthemcontributingindifferentyetinterconnectedways.ThePFDintegratesintoitsoverallstrategytheobjectivesofbothGEF-3ongoing

65

projects(theCapacityBuildingandthePastoralProject)andthesixproposedchildprojectstobefundedinGEF-4.ThiswasjustifiedbythefactthatthePartnershipwasdesignedasacontinuation/expansionofaprogrammaticinvestmentthatwasalreadyestablishedandpilotedthroughtheCPFin2003.

InterviewswithGEFAgenciesinBeijingbroadlyconfirmedthealignmentandcoherencebetweenthePFDanditschildprojects,explainingthatitwasaspecificrequirementatthedesignstage.ADB,IFAD,andtheWorldBankagreedthatthePFDisanadditionalsteprequiredifonewantstoaccessGEFprogrammaticfunding.Additionaleffortsareneededintermsofstaffandfundingtoprocessprogramscomparedwithstand-aloneprojects.IndescribinghowtheideaofthePartnershipcameaboutin2002,ADBnotesthattheprogrammaticconceptisverymuchembeddedatthedesignstage.However,afterseveralyearsofimplementation,projectswereimplementedasstand-alone.CollaborationamongGEFAgenciesinvolvedinthePartnershipisnotstrong,notprogrammatic,andislimitedtorareround-tablemeetings.

WhileWorldBankintervieweesconfirmedthatchildprojectsarealignedbydesignwiththepartnershipPFD,thePovertyProjectICRdoesnotmakeanymentionofthepartnership,orwhattheprojectcontributedtoitintermsofGEBs.TheICRdoesnotmentionIEMeither,andreferstotheGEFonlytoreportonuseofitsfundstoimplementtheSustainableLandManagementAssessmentcomponent,asameanstoachieveclimatechangeadaptationandpovertyreductionobjectives(WorldBank2016).AlthoughitcanbesaidthattheprojectSustainableLandManagementAssessmentcomponentobjectivesarealignedwiththePartnershipclimate-changeaims,itisclearthattheWorldBankhasnotconsideredthePovertyProjectaspartofthePartnershipasstronglyasADBandIFAD.Hence,itcanbeassumedthatithasnotcontributedtosynergy,coordination,andM&Eatprogramlevel.

Question5:Towhatextenthavetheprogramgovernance,management,andcoordinationinfluenceditsperformance?

ThePFDdescribesthePartnershipcoordinationstructureasonehavingbeensetsincetheCPFtime.Thiscoordinationstructurehasbeenbuiltupatboththecentralandprovinciallevels.Atthecentrallevel,asteeringcommitteeinitiallycomprisedrepresentativesfromtenministries/agenciesfromboththenationallegislativeandexecutivebranches.12TheCentralProgramCoordinationOfficeishousedinMoF,whiletheCPMOishostedbySFA.HeadedbytheViceGovernor/Chairmaninchargeoftheagriculturalsector,ProvincialProjectCoordinationOfficesandProvincialProjectManagementOfficeshavebeensetupineachofthesixparticipatingprovincesand/orautonomousregions.Inaddition,specifictaskforceshavebeenestablishedbytheprovincestoundertakeprojectactivitiesunderthePartnership/CPF.ThePFDfurtherdescribesthecoordinationstructure,whichreflectsthemultidisciplinaryandmultisectoralfeaturesofthePartnership,byintroducingtheexpertgroups,establishedtoguideandadvisethePartnership’simplementationonspecificthemes.Thesegroupsare:(1)theLegalandPolicyExpertAdvisoryGroup;(2)theInstitutionsandPlanningExpertGroup;(3)theLandDegradationMonitoringandEvaluationExpertGroup;andthe(4)theIEMExpertGroup.

CoordinationofthePartnershipatthenationallevelisstillkeptactivebySFA.ThePartnershipwebsiteisstillactiveandreportsoninternationalmissionsaswellasparticipationinconferencesandsymposia.13

SFAprovidedthemissionwithanexampleofsteeringcommitteemeetingminutes.14Atthatmeeting,it

12ThemissionwasgivenanexampleofSteeringCommitteemeetingminutesdatedNovember5,2014,whichenliststhirteenagencies.13http://www.gefop12.cn/index.php?styleid=2,accessedonJanuary4,2017.14Ibid.

66

wasacknowledgedthatmostchildprojectsunderthePRC-GEFPartnershiphavebeencompletedsuccessfully(from2003to2012).Openingthemeeting,thesteeringcommitteedeputychairmanintroducedthe“SustainableandClimateResilientLandManagementinWesternPRC”project,symbolizingthestartofthefollow-upphaseofthepartnership(2014‒2023).Thatproject(GEFID:5142)wassubmittedasafull-sizeprojectbyADBtotheGEFin2014,andisshowingasGEFCEOEndorsedintheGEFProjectManagementInformationSystem(PMIS).Thetotalprojectbudgetis$23million,ofwhich$5.2millionconsistsofaGEFgrant.ADBcofinancesonlyupto$0.4millionandPRCnationalandprovincialgovernmentsprovidethebulkofcofinancing,$18.4million,afurtherconfirmationofcontinuingPRCcommitmenttoIEMdespiteoveralldownscalingofexternalfundingtothepartnership.Tonote,ADBconfirmedduringinterviewsthatnofurtherprojectsbeyondGEFID:5142willbesubmittedinChinaforGEF-6becausetheprocessistoodifficult,andADBhastospendextraresourcesjusttogetprojectsapproved.CPMO’sDeputyDirectorpresentedthe“IntegratedStrategyforSustainableLandManagementinWesternChina(2014‒2023)”tosteeringcommitteemembers.Thisstrategydocument—approvedbythesteeringcommittee—includestheprojectsubmittedtotheGEF,theongoingIFADandADBSilkRoadProjects,anongoingADBproject,the“ShaanxiWeinanLayangIntegratedSalineandAlkalineManagementProgramme”(GEFID:4633),plustheQinghaiIntegratedLandResourceManagementProject(GEFID:6950),thelattershowingas“dropped”inPMIS.ThePartnershipPhase2Strategyalsoincludesfour100%governmentfundedprojectstotalingUSD9,358million.Todate,besidesongoingprojects,theonlyGEF-fundedprojectinWesternPRCshowinginPMISistheabove-mentioned“SustainableandClimateResilientLandManagementinWesternPRC”(GEFID:5142).

WhileacknowledgingthatcoordinationinthePartnershipisnosimpletask,Critchley’sreportissomehowcriticalonthePartnershipinstitutionalsetup.Accordingtohim,CPMOinSFAhasbeenunabletoestablishacomprehensivedatabaseortomanageadequatecross-learningbetweenprojects.Asmentionedearlier,CritchleysuggestsastrongercoordinatingroleforCPMO,whichasseenearliershouldbesmallerandcomprisehigherqualifiedstaff.TheCPMOcouldbeledbyanM&Eexpert,andmakeuseofmoreinputfromshort-termconsultantsandrepresentativesfromtheProvincialProjectManagementOffices.AnotherimportantissueraisedinCritchley’sreportconcernscross-learningbetweenchildprojects,whichneedsastrongercoordinationrolebyCPMO.Thiswasnotnew.ThecompletionreportoftheCapacityBuildingProjectmentionsweaknessesincoordinationamongpartnersinvolved.ThesemeetingsweretoofewandtoowidelydispersedtobeabletoeffectivelyprovideinformationoncurrentopportunitiestosupportmainstreamingofIEMandSLMthroughthePRC-GEFPartnership(ADB2010).DuringthemissiontheteamobservedthatcoordinationandknowledgesharinghappenednaturallyandwerequitecommonwithinaprovincebetweenchildprojectsledbydifferentAgencies.Cross-provincecoordinationbetweenchildprojectswaslessfrequentandeffective.

GEFAgenciesconcuronthefactthatprogramcoordinationisheavy.IFADgoesfurtherandindicatesthatthePartnershipwasdesignedmoretosharetheavailablefinancialenvelope,ratherthantocoordinateprojects.SFAwasquiteactiveincoordinatingwithothergovernmentministriesanddepartmentstheprojectsfallingunderitsresponsibility.Forotherprojects,MoFwasmoreactive.AsforthePartnershipasawhole,therewasnoformalarrangementofcoordination,butafewmeetingshavebeenorganizedbythegovernment.ADBconfirmedthatthePartnershiphadnofundsspecificallyearmarkedforcoordination.

InterviewsandfieldobservationsinGansuandNingxiaconfirmedwhatthemissionfoundandheardinBeijingonstrongercoordinationandknowledgeexchangeatprovincelevel.TheIFADnationalcoordinatorinGansustatedthatIEMmeanscoordinationbetweensectors,topics,andtightcooperationbetweenthem.InNingxia,themissionwasinformedaboutsynergies/knowledgesharingthatoccurredbetweenADBandIFADprojectteams.ExpertsfromADBcontributedtotheIFADproject.

67

Question6:WhatrolehasM&Eplayedintheprogram’sadaptivemanagementfortheattainmentofitsexpectedoutcomesandimpacts?

ThePFDdoesnotexplicitlydescribethePartnershipM&Esystem,andlimitsitselftomention,asseenearlier,theestablishmentoftheMonitoringandEvaluationExpertGroup.Alittlemoreinformationonprogram-levelM&Eisfoundinannex1tothePFD,describingthesettingupofadatacollectionandsharingsystemonlanddegradation.ThiswastobemanagedthroughanetworkofprovincialIEMInformationCentersundertheguidanceandadviceofthesixprovincialMonitoringandEvaluationExpertGroups.Atthattime,in2008,thesystemwasbeingsetup.Annex1indicatesthattheprovincialIEMInformationCentersweresoontobeinaugurated.HostagenciesforeachoftheIEMInformationCentershadbeenidentifiedalongwiththeirstaffing,hardware,andsoftwarerequirements.Land-degradationdatabanksineachprovincewereunderconstruction,andnecessaryprocurementfortheIEMInformationCenterswasunderway.

ThePartnershiphasbeenevaluatedbothattheprogram(byADBandSFA)andatthechild-projectlevel(byADB,IFAD,andtheWorldBank).However,asseenearlier,noprogram-levelaggregationofchild-projectM&EdatawasdoneexceptfortheSFAAssessmentReport.Atthechild-projectlevel,severalcompletionreports,ICRs,andevaluationspointattheweaknessesinland-degradationmonitoringandassessment.ThecompletionreportoftheCapacityBuildingProjectnotestheneedtostreamlinethemonitoringandfinancingmechanismsformoreeffectivemonitoringoflanddegradation(ADB,2010).EfficiencyofprojectM&EcouldhavebeenimprovedhadtherebeenaclearerdelineationofresponsibilitiesinmonitoringarrangementsbetweenCPMOandProvincialProjectManagementOffices.TheCapacityBuildingcompletionreportalsoindicatesaneedforstrengtheningandimprovingcoordinationandcooperationwithotherongoingprogramsandagenciesformonitoringoflanddegradation,highlightingthatthisisoneofthepriorityissuesthataretobeaddressedbythefollow-upManagementProject.ThecompletionreportofADBManagementProjectratedthe“comprehensiveland-degradationmonitoringandassessment”componentasmoderatelysatisfactory,basedontheinsufficientknowledgeon:(1)landdegradationmonitoringandassessment;(2)theconceptsofGEBs;and(3)thewaysandmeansofhowbesttoupscaleinitiatives.Althoughaland-degradationM&Eindicatorsystemhasbeenproducedwithsupportofthisproject,andthesixprovinces/autonomousregionshaveestablishedcorrespondingmultiscaleandcross-sectorland-degradationM&Eindicatorsystemsinvolvingagriculture,forestry,water,andgrasslandsectors,thesesystemshaveyettobeimplemented(ADB2014).TheIEMInformationCentersandtheMonitoringandEvaluationExpertGroupshavenotfunctionedasexpected.Interestingly,thatsamecompletionreportreferstotheinadequatecalculationsintheSFAAssessmentReportconcerningcarbonsequesteredthroughafforestationandgrasslandmanagement,andimprovedstoves,becausetheyomitthecarbonsequesteredthroughlandbroughtunderSLMpractices.

Asseenearlier,Critchley’smainrecommendationcallsuponmoreeffortsindocumentingthePartnershipimpact,throughsystematiccollectionofharddataandparticipatoryimpactassessmenttools,anduseofspecializedtechnicalinputs.HisreviewhighlightsthattheSFAAssessmentReportisthefirstconcreteattempttoprovidesuchdata.However,data-consistencyproblemsarefoundinthatreporttoo,which,accordingtoCritchley,is“isstillunclearinseveralaspects,andincompleteinothers.”ThemissionwasgivenanupdatedversionofthesameExceltable—thePartnershipdatabase—thatwasprovidedtoCritchleyatthetimeofitsreview.Thistableprovidesquantifiedactivitiesandoutputs,includingextentofareaputunderSLMaswellasareawithprotectedbiodiversity.ItalsohasacolumnfortonsofcarbonsequesteredthroughSLMactivities,whichisempty.

68

IntheterminalevaluationoftheIFADproject,M&EdesignandM&Eimplementationwereratedasmoderatelysatisfactory,andM&Efinancingassatisfactory(IFAD2016).Theterminalevaluationteamspentmanyhoursreviewinganddiscussingtheindicatorsandfoundthat,inseveralinstances,indicatorshadbeeninterpreteddifferentlyfromwhatwasintended.Additionally,someindicatorsseemedtooeasy,andotherstoochallenging.Therealsoseemedtobesomerepetitionofindicatorsindifferentpartsoftheframework.ThatevaluationdoesnotmakereferencetoproductionofindicatorsandM&EdatatobeprovidedtoSFAforPartnership-levelM&E.

TheinterviewedIFADcountryofficestafftoldthemissionthatCPMOinSFAusedtoaskchildprojectstoprovidedata/indicatorsforaggregationattheprogramlevel,butthesearenotsharedbackwithIFAD.AccordingtoADB,thereisnoclearlinkagebetweenprojectimplementationreviews(PIRs),GEFtrackingtools,andtheprojectresultsframeworks.ADBperiodicallyasksSFAtofillinthePartnershipExceltable,butSFAfaceschallenges,especiallyincollectingdataandinformationfromothergovernmentinstitutions.

Whileobviouslytherehasnotbeenprogram-leveladaptivemanagement,severalexamplesofchild-projectleveladaptivemanagementhavebeenmentionedduringthefieldvisitstoGansuandShaanxi.Thesewouldmostprobablyhaveoccurredweretheprojectsexecutedasstand-aloneones.InGansu,theADBSilkRoadProjectmidtermreviewrecommendedrevisingtheinitialdesign,changingthecropfrompeppertowalnutsduetothecomplicatedlaboreffortsandincreasedlaborcosts.InShaanxiafterthemidtermreviewconductedin2015,theADBForestryprojectadjustedafewtargets,i.e.,theeconomicplantationat19,600ha,orthe4fruitstorages.IntheHeiheNationalForestParksite,becauseofadelayinimplementation,themidtermreviewassessedthatthecarbonmarketwasnotasviableasinitiallythought.Moreadvancedtechnologiesthantheonesoriginallyproposedbecameavailable.ThisledtofundsbeingshiftedtotheEducationCenter,theForestExperienceCenterandtheForestHealthCenter.

69

Appendix4.1A:DataandindicatorscollectedduringthefieldmissionGEFID Projecttitle Province Project

Sites EnvironmentalMonitoringIndicators SocioeconomicMonitoringIndicators DataSource

2369 IFAD–AnIEMapproachtotheconservationofbiodiversityindrylandecosystems

Gansu TaizishanNationalNatureReserve(NNR),Guanghecounty,Hezhengcounty

Environment indicators: 1. more than 50% of tree species in project area are endemic species; 2.incidenceofillegalharvestingoffirewood,grazing,andherbalmedicinecapturingdecreaseto25%;3.scorecardofPAincrease20%;4.nolossofkeyPAspeciespopulation.EstimatedBenefits:1.ForestsofTaizishanNNRcanhelppreventabout900,000tonsofsoil loss.ThevalueofsoilconservationamountstoRMB10.8millionperyearbasedontheestimationofnutrientsrestoredinsoil.2.Itismeasuredthataforestwithhighcanopydensitywillrelease2.025tonsofoxygenandwillabsorb2.805tonsofcarbondioxideand9.75tonsofdustperhectareperyear.Withthisbeingconsidered,oxygenreleasedbytheforestsofTaizishanNNRisworthmorethanRMB23millionperyear.3.Accordingtotheagricultureandforestrylawenforcementagencies,illegallogging,grazing,andherbalmedicinecapturinghavebeensignificantlyreducedfrom34%inbaselinesurveyto4%bythetimeofprojectcompletion.Amongthem,illegalloggingandherbalmedicinecapturinghavebeencompletelyeliminated.Grazingwithoutpermissionhappensoccasionally.4.Accordingtothecalculationofthescorecardsusedinthereserve,themanagementefficiencyoftheNNRareahasincreased30%inthepastfiveyears.Accordingtothebureauofagricultureandanimalhusbandryinthecounty,grasslanddegradationhassloweddownfrom28%to22%inthepastfiveyears.

Populationofvillagersparticipatinginenvironmentpublicityactivitiesincreaseby50%.AsofMarch31,2016,atotalof161,020peoplebenefitedfromtheproject,amongwhich40,255(25%)aredirectbeneficiaries,and120,765(75%)areindirectbeneficiaries.Atotalof20281womendirectlybenefitedfromtheproject,accountingfor50%ofthetotaldirectbeneficiaries.Thenumberofvillagersinvolvedinenvironmentalcampaignsintheprojectareahasincreasedby55%.Varioustrainingprogramsforruralhouseholdhaveraisedtheenvironmentalawarenessoffarmers.

Hand-outs fromproject briefingmeeting

Ningxia HabalakeNNR,Yanchicounty

Environmentbenefits:vegetationcoverinprojectareaincreased8.83%from2010to2014;wildbirdspeciesincreasedfrom92in2011to120in2015;wildplantsinHabalakeNNRincreasedfrom368(beforeprojectstarted)to371;166newlyfoundinsectspecies;16newlyfoundZooplanktonand34newlyfoundPhytoplankton.DesertificationlandinYanchicountydecreased28,300hectaresfrom2009to2014,withanannualdecreaseof5,700hectares.DesertificationlandinHabalakeNNRdecreasedby8,359hectares."Bestpractices"ofIEMwasadoptedin3NRsinNingxiaprovince,andwasreplicatedintwootherIFADprojects(oneinQinghaiprovince,oneinJiangxiprovince).Awarenessraised:in2015,10,061villagersparticipatedinenvironmentalevents,increasing224%comparedwith3,106villagersin2012.

PovertypopulationinYanchicountydecreasedfrom40,580in2012to34,046in2015.PercapitaincomeinYanchicountyincreased60.1%,from4,793in2012to7,674in2015,annualincreaseisabout12%(afteradjustingforpriceinflation).Animalhusbandryhasdecreasedwhileplanting(i.e.,licorice)hasincreased.

Hand-outsfromprojectbriefingmeeting;ChineseversionTE(onlyforNingxiaprojectsites)

3483 ADB–ForestryandecologicalrestorationprojectinthreeNorthwestprovinces

Gansu Fangzhaivillage,Ningcounty.Laozhuangvillage,Yimatown,Qingchengcounty.Shuantongvillage,Xifengdistrict

1.InQingyang,ecologicallysensitiveecosystemprotectedareaincreased51,720hectaresbyDec2015.Thetargetistoincrease130,000by2020.2.9,000hectaresofdegradedlandisrecoveredinQingchengcounty,53,900hectaresrecoveredinNingcounty,7,000recoveredinXifengdistrict.Thetargetistoreducethedegradedlandby10%from3.5to3.15millionhectaresby2020.3.From2010to2015,treeplantinginQingyangincreased4970hectaresintotal,including1,095inQingchengcounty,1,089inNingcounty,1,187.5inXifengdistrict.4.CarbonSinkfromeconomicplantations(targetistostore368,600tonsin3provincesby2016):677tonsinQingchengcounty,735tonsinNingcounty,630inXifengcounty.6.Ecologicalplantationonsteepslopes:inGansuprovince,from2010to2015,Qingyangcityfinishedecologicalplantationof215hectares,including60hectaresinQingchengcounty,75hectaresinNingcounty,and80hectaresinXifengcounty.80%survivalrate.

InQingyangcity,onaverage,percapitaincomeofparticipantsincreased36.69%(fromRMB3004in2010toRMB4114.2in2015).Specifically,Ningcountyachievedincreaseof76.6%,Qingchengcounty18.1%,Xifengdistrict21.4%.766jobshavebeencreatedfrom2010to2015,including200inQingchengcounty,170inNingcounty,180inXifengcounty.

ForprojectsitesinGansu,datasourceusedtofilloutthissheetincludeshand-outsfromprojectbriefingandfieldvisits;monitoringdataspreadsheetssharedbyADBGansuPMO.

KongtongdistrictofPingliangcity

1.InKongtongdistrict,ecologicallysensitiveecosystemprotectedareaincreasedfrom3,418hectaresto20,200hectares(Jan2016).2.Forestcover:forestareaincreasedfrom30,120hectaresin2010to314,500hectaresinJan2016,forestcoverrateincreasedfrom17.5%in2010to21.83%inJan2016.3.Economicplantationincreasedby955hectares.4.Ecologicalplantationonsteepslopesincreased480hectares.

1.Income:inKongtongdistrict,percapitaincomehasincreased67.2%fromRMB4,029in2010toRMB5,990inJan.2016.2.Numberofjobscreated:8,200jobscreatedinKongtongdistricebyJan.2016.

Dapingvillage,ShifoTownship,MaijiDistrict,Tianshuicity

Establishedeconomicforestfor17,977.5ha(apple,walnut,apricot,cherry,gingko),whichhas85%survival of 19k ha, 8 fruit storage and one processing plant (loan and cofinancing). Forest coverincreased0.5%

Increasedincome20‒30%.

Shaanxi Heihenationalforestpark

Establishing 23 economic plantation farms covering 15,048 hectares; Improving the facilities andinfrastructure of national forest farm; institutional capacity building. GEF supported Carbon sinkresearch,forestexperienceandeducationcenter,capacitybuilding.

Projectbriefingmaterial

3608 WorldBank–Sustainabledevelopmentinpoorruralareas

Shaanxi Longxiancounty.Chencangdistric.Ansaicounty.Wuqicounty.Yichuancounty.Jiaxiancounty.Wubucounty.Dingbiancounty

1.Landmanagement:anti-slopeterrace(7ha);98,000sumpsconstructedonslopeof25degreeandabove,24haofhorizontalbandconstructedonslopebelow25degrees;increasedvegetationcover.2.Strawmulchinginwalnutorchard(3ha);plasticfilmcoveringinappleorchard(39.4ha);mulchingincornfield(81ha).3.Protectiveforestsforroadbedprotection:planted31,800seedlings.4.Greenenergy:20solarInsecticidallightsinappleorchard;50solarstreetlamps;20solarwaterheaters;229solarstoves;31biogasdigesters.Alloftheseactivitiescontributetocarbonemissionreduction(nospecificdataavailable).TheapplicationofsolarInsecticidallightsgotreplicatedinnon-projectvillages.5.Economicplantations:newwalnutvariety(48ha);Chinesehoneysuckle(10ha);newpotatovariety(7.3ha),appletrees(4.9ha).

1. Increasedincomefromeconomicplantationsin11villages(6,084beneficiaries):walnuts(anincreaseofRMB565,500peryear);Chinesehoneysuckle(anincreaseofRMB750,000peryear);potatoes(anincreaseofRMB26,400peryear),appletrees(anincreaseofRMB55,500peryear).2. 4,600villagersbenefitedfromlandmanagementactivities,whichcontributedtoincomeincreaseofRMB1.4millionintotal.3.Economicbenefitsfromdisaster(hail,frost)preventioninterventions:preventedeconomiclossofRMB48,000peryearinappleorchards.4.Solarenergyactivitiessavedexpensesonfuelandpesticides:solarinsecticidallightscansaveRMB72,000pesticideexpenseperyear;solarstreetlampscansaveRMB18,000fuelexpenseperyear;solarwaterheaterscansaveRMB16,000fuelexpenseperyear;solarstovecansaveRMB13,740fuelexpenseperyears;biogasdigestercansaveRMB18,600fuelexpenseperyear.5.StrawmulchinginwalnutorchardprovidesannualincomeincreaseofRMB20,000;mulchingincornfieldscontributedtoannualincomeincreaseofRMB437,800.

Thirdpartyevaluationreportdonebylocaluniversity

Note:PA=protectedarea.RMB=CNY(ChinaYuanRenminbi).TE=terminalevaluation.

70

4.2CaseStudy:

IndiaGEFCoastalandMarineProgram

4.2.1IntroductiontotheIGCMP

AspresentedinitsPFD,theIndiaBiodiversity:GEFCoastalandMarineProgram(IGCMP,GEFID:

3661),iscomposedofthefollowingchildprojects:

• IND-BD Mainstreaming Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation into production

sectorsintheGodavariRiverEstuaryinAndhraPradeshState(GEFID:3936)

• IND-BD Mainstreaming Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation into production

sectorsintheMalvanCoast,MaharashtraState(GEFID:3941).

Theoverallfinancingallocatedtotheprogramisasshownbelow:

TotalProgramTotalProjectAmount+PPGincludedintheworkprogram

AgencyFee

GEF 10,476,000 9,523,636 952,364

Cofinancing 27,900,000 27,900,000

Total 38,376,000 37,426,000 950,000

Theprogramcommencedin2009andwasscheduledforcompletionin2014buthasbeenextended

followingmidtermreviewsofthetwoprojects.Themainobjectiveofthe(originally)4-yearprogram

istodemonstratemultisectoralapproachestomainstreamingbiodiversityconservationobjectives

intoeconomicactivitiesintwomarineecoregionsofthecountry.Bypilotingthemainstreamingof

biodiversityconservationobjectivesintoproductionsectorsofthecoastalzonethroughtwo

projects,itisenvisagedthattheprogramwillprovideabroadersetofexperiencesthancanbe

obtainedfromindividualprojectsforfurtherreplicationbythegovernment.

Theprogram’sstrategyformainstreamingconsistsofthreecomponents,asfollows:

1. At the systems level, to promote mainstreaming of coastal and marine biodiversity

conservation into sectoral policies and a knowledgemanagement system through the

identificationand/ordevelopmentofthenecessaryinformation,tools,andmechanisms

to promotemultisectoral coordinationandensuretheintegrationofbiodiversityvalues

into land-use planning anddecision- making in relation to India’s coastal and marine

ecosystems.

2. Attheinstitutionallevel,topromoteinstitutionalcapacitydevelopmentbystrengthening

humanresourcecapacities(skills,knowledge)ofindividualgovernmentdepartmentsand

privatesectorcompaniesforintegratedplanningandmanagementofeconomicactivities

tominimizeadverseenvironmentalimpactsoncoastalandmarineecosystems.

3. At the community level, to promote sustainable community livelihoods and natural

resource use in the buffer zones of marine protected areas and other areas of high

biodiversityvaluebydevelopingappropriateincentivestructuresandlocalcapacity.

Thetestingofdifferentmainstreamingapproachesateachoftheselectedsitesispursuedas

subprojectsunderthisprogram,witheachsubprojectsharingthesame3components.Each

subprojectisbasedonthespecificnatureofthreatstobiodiversityandbarrierstomainstreaming.

Thisapproachaimstodemonstratehowchangesinproductionactivitiesnearecologicallyimportant

71

areascanbenefitbiodiversityconservation,thusprovidingadiversesetofexperienceswith

mainstreamingforfurtherreplicationinothercriticalareasalongthecoast.Areplicationstrategy

willbeembeddedintheprogramandsubprojects.

ANationalSteeringCommittee(NSC)wasestablishedastheexecutivebodywithoverallresponsibility

formeetingtheprogramoutcomes.TheNSCischairedbytheAdditionalSecretary,Ministryof

EnvironmentandForests,withrepresentativesfromthetwoprojectstates(MaharashtraandAndhra

Pradesh),UNDP,atechnical/scientificadvisor,andasocialscientist/policyadvisor.Representatives

fromrelevantdepartments,agencies,andproductionsectorsmayalsobeinvitedtotheNSC

meetings.OneofthemainresponsibilitiesoftheMoEFistofacilitateintersectoralcoordinationwith

otherrelevantministriesanddepartmentsatalllevels.TheNSCissupportedbyaProgram

ManagementUnit(PMU),whichistheadministrativehubfortheprogram.ThePMUisbasedinDelhi

andheadedbyaprojectmanagerwhohasday-to-dayresponsibilityforprojectimplementationand

management.

Twostate-levelprojectsteeringcommitteesareconstitutedinAndhraPradeshandMaharashtrato

overseeprojectimplementationandmanagementatthestatelevels.TheStateProjectSteering

Committees(SPSCs)aresupportedbythestate-levelPMUsbasedinAndhraPradeshand

Maharashtra.

Inordertosupportcoordinationacrossthetwoprojectsundertheprogram,someresources

(approximately$0.45million)havebeendedicatedtocoordinationoftheoverallprogramand

knowledgemanagement.TheseresourcesareincludedunderComponent1(Systems1)ofthelarger

ofthetwoprojects(GodavariRiverEstuary)andincludeactivitiessuchasestablishingajoint

database,anM&Esystem,aswellasjointoutreachandcommunicationactivities.Thisisintendedto

facilitatesharinganddisseminationofexperiencesfromboththeGodavariRiverEstuaryandMalvan

Coastforeventualreplicationofsuccessfulstrategiesinothercoastalareasfacingsimilarchallenges.

Specificknowledgeproductsandtoolsaretobedevelopedforgovernmentandprivate-sector

decisionmakerstodemonstratetheeconomicvalueofmainstreamingbiodiversityconservation

principlesintosectorgrowthstrategies.

TheCounterfactualProject:GoMBR

Aspartofthiscasestudy,acompletedstand-aloneprojectwasincludedasacounterfactualtothe

IGCMP.Thiswasthe“ConservationandSustainableUseoftheGulfofMannarBiosphereReserve's

CoastalBiodiversity”(GEFID:634)inTamilNaduState.Thisprojectwasselectedasacounterfactual

becauseithadsimilarobjectivestothelaterprogram,implementedbythesameagencyand

operatedinasimilarlysignificantareaofcoastalbiodiversityforIndia.ItsGlobalEnvironmental

Objectivewas“toconservetheGulfofMannarBiosphereReserve’s(GoMBR)globallysignificant

assemblageofcoastalBiodiversityandtodemonstrate,inalargebiospherereservewithvarious

multipleuses,howtointegrateBiodiversityconservationandsustainablecoastalzonemanagement

andlivelihooddevelopment.”Itaimedtooperateatseverallevels,includingthroughstate

government,throughdevelopmentofatrustwithaccesstolong-termfunding,andthroughraised

village-levelinstitutionalcapacitiestomanagelivelihoodsinamannerthatconservedbiodiversity

resources.Therefore,itanticipatedseveralofthekeyapproachesoftheCoastalandMarine

Program.Sincetheprojectwascompletedin2012,itgavetheopportunitytoassesstheextentto

whichinitialresultshadbeensustainedand/orscaledup,to provideavaluablecomparisonwiththe

objectives,design,andprogressofthechildprojectsunderthelaterprogram.Aswiththechild

projects,thecounterfactualwasassessedthroughdocumentaryreview,fieldvisits,andinterviews

withkeystakeholders.

72

4.2.2 ActivitiesoftheChildProjectsandtheCounterfactualProject

IGCMPhastwochildprojects,describedinthefollowingsectionstogetherwiththecounterfactual

project.

MainstreamingCoastalandMarineBiodiversityConservationintoProductionSectorsintheEast

GodavariRiverEstuary,AndhraPradesh(HereafterReferredtoastheEGREEProject)

Habitatdestruction,pollution,andoverexploitationofcoastalandmarineresourcesposemajor

threatstothebiologicallyandeconomicallyimportantEastGodavariRiverEstuarineEcosystem

(EGREE).EGREEincludestheCoringaWildlifeSanctuary,thesecondlargestextensionofmangroves

ontheIndiancoastoftheBayofBengal;aswellasafast-growingdevelopmenthub,including

numerousmanufacturersfromdifferentsectors;andoffshoreoilandgasexplorationventures,

centeredonthecityofKakinada,intheimmediatevicinityofthemangrovearea.

EGREEecosystemservicesdirectlyprovidelivelihoodstoaround100,000people,whoinhabit44

villagessurroundingtheCoringaSanctuary.Majoractivitiesincludefisheries,aquaculture,and

agriculture.Thetotalpopulationoftheprojectareaisoftheorderof1millionpeople,whichincludes

thecityofKakinada.

ThegoaloftheEGREEProjectistopromoteandenableagovernanceenvironmentthatprevents

furtherdegradationofcoastalandmarineecosystems,allowingthecontinuousflowofecosystem

goodsandservices,suchascoastalprotectionandfisheries,aswellaspreservinganecosystemof

uniquebiologicalvalue.Thisistobeachievedthroughfacilitatingthemainstreamingofbiodiversity

intosectorplansofkeypublicandprivateorganizations,aswellasdevelopingcross-sector

institutionalmechanismstoharmonizedevelopmentandconservationofbiodiversity.

TheGEF-funded,UNDP-supportedfull-sizeprojecthasareportedtotalcostof$24,023,636.This

includesaGEFtrustfundgrantamountingto$6,023,636(differingslightlyfromtheoriginalPFD

allocation)andcofinancingbythegovernmentofAndhraPradeshandthegovernmentofIndia

valuedat$18,000,000.

Mainstreaming Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Conservation into Production Sectors in the

MalvanCoast,MaharashtraState(HereafterReferredtoastheMalvalCoastProject)

TheSindhudurgCoastalandMarineEcosystem,locatedonthewestcoastofIndia(Maharashtra)is

oneofthe11ecologicallyandeconomicallycriticalhabitatsidentifiedalongtheIndiancoast.Because

ofitshighecologicalimportance,29.12sq.kmwithintheSindhudurgCoastalandMarineEcosystem

wasdesignatedastheMalvanMarineSanctuaryin1987andisoneofsevenmarineprotectedareas

inIndia.TheSindhudurgCoastalandMarineEcosystemalsohasenormouseconomicsignificanceas

oneofthemajorfish-landingcentersandasarapidlyemergingtourismdestination.

Fisheriesandassociatedactivitiesaretheprincipaleconomicresourceofcommunitiesalongthe

Sindhudurgcoast.Althoughmostthefishcatchistakenbymechanizedfishingvessels,

nonmechanized(usingbothmotorizedvesselsandtraditionalpractices)fishingcontinuestoplayan

importantrole,particularlyforthepoorercommunities.Fishingisprimarilyundertakenbymen,

whilealmostallpost-catchworkisundertakenbywomen,givingwomenakeyroleinfishery-related

decisionmakingandinsocialorganization.

TourismisconsideredahighpotentialeconomicactivityandSindhudurgwasdeclareda“tourism

district”in1997.Forexample,therecordednumberofvisitorstotheSindhudurgfortgrewfrom

100,000to700,000between2006and2010.Furtherinlandbeyondthecoastalarea,agriculture

73

(includingforestryandhorticulture)istheprincipaleconomicsubsector.Therearealsominormining

andindustrialactivities.

Theimmediateobjectiveoftheprojectistomainstreambiodiversityconservationconsiderations

intoproductionsectorsthatimpactthecoastalandmarineecosystemsoftheSindhudurgCoastof

Maharashtra.

Hence,theprojectstrategywastoimpactandinfluencetheproductionsectorsinandneartothe

Sindhudurgcoastsothattheywouldimpactbiodiversityinalessnegative,ormorepositive,way.The

keyproductionsectorstargetedwerefisheriesandtourism.Theapproachsetoutintheproject

documentconsistedofdatacollection,analysis,scientificstudies,planning(involvingconsultation

andparticipation),followedbytrainingandon-the-groundaction.Theactionsidentifiedincluded

regulatorymeasuresaswellasthemodificationofproductionprocess.

CounterfactualProject:ConservationandSustainableUseoftheGulfofMannarBiosphere

Reserve'sCoastalBiodiversity—TamilNadu(hereafterreferredtoastheGulfofMannarProject)

ThisprojectwascompletedintheGulfofMannarinTamilNadu,whichiswithintheEasternIndia

marineecoregion.ApprovedbytheGEFin2001thisproject,whichwasimplementedthroughUNDP,

aimedtodemonstrateinalargebiospherereservewithvariousmultipleuses,howtointegrate

biodiversityconservation,sustainablecoastalzonemanagement,andlivelihooddevelopment.The

designandinitiationofthisprojectpredatedtheprogrammaticapproachunderreview,andefforts

weremadetointegrateitslessonswithinthenationalprogrammaticframeworkforcoastaland

marinebiodiversityconservation.

AmidtermreviewoftheGulfofMannarProjectwasundertakeninthefirstquarterof2008andits

resultswereconsideredinthedesignofthecurrentIGCMPandtheconstituentprojects.Financingof

thisprojectwasasfollows:

• GEFfunding(includingPPG):$7.65million

• UNDP:$1.05million

• Government:$10.6million(asagainst$16.98millionproposedatendorsement)

4.2.3Findings

Question1:TowhatextenthasthedifferenttypologiesofGEFprogramsdeliveredtheintendedresults in terms of broader-scale and longer-term environmental outcomes and impactscomparedwithstand-aloneprojects?

EGREEProject

Theprojecthasmadeveryimportantadvancesintermsofsupportforconservationand

developmentofcapacities.Ithassetthestagefortheestablishmentandconsolidationof

multisectoralmainstreamingofbiodiversityconservationinacriticalindustrialandbiodiversityarea

bycreatingtheEGREEFoundation,aninstitutionwithamultistakeholdergoverningboard.

Thebiologicalmonitoringactivitiessupportedbytheprojectreportcurrentstabilityofpopulations

ofcriticalspecies(includingmarineturtles,smooth-coatedotters,andfishingcats),whichindicates

thestrengthenedprotectionoftheCoringaWildlifeSanctuaryandadjacentareas,towhichthe

projecthascontributed.

74

Theprojecthasdemonstratedthatcoastalandmarineprotectedareaconservationrequiresa

multisectoralapproach.Terrestrialandcoastalprotectedareasareverydifferent,withvaryinglaw

enforcementchallengesbetweenterrestrial(fenced,boundary)andmarineprotectedareas(not

clearly-definedcompartments).Thelatterheavilydependoncommunity-levelinterventionsand

multistakeholderapproaches.

Althoughprogresstowardtheprojectobjectivehasbeenmade,fullmainstreamingofbiodiversityin

theproductionsectorintheEGREEregionwouldneedtheadoptionbyabroadlyrepresentative

body(e.g.,EGREEFoundation)ofalandscapemanagementplanthataccountsforallsignificant

impactsonbiodiversityfromproductionsectors.Thishasnotyetbeenachieved.

TheGodavariexperiencesuggeststhatpolicy-levelescalationcanhappenmoreefficientlythrougha

programmaticapproachratherthanthroughisolatedproject/site-levelinterventions.Forexample,

duringprojectimplementation,theteambecameawarethatthenationalWildlifeActionPlanhad

nochapteroncoastalandmarineprotectedareaconservation.Theprojectbroughtthistonoticeat

thenationallevel,arguingfortheinclusionofachapteroncoastalandmarineprotectedarea

conservationintheWildlifeActionPlan2016‒2030.Thiswaspossiblebecauseoftheprogram’s

national-levelconnectionsthroughtheinterconnectedstateandnationalsteeringcommittees,

whichgiveaccesstohigh-levelpolicymakers.

Remote-sensinganalysiswasconductedtoexaminethelong-termspatialandtemporalpatternsof

vegetationtoassesswhethertheEGREE-ProjectactivitiesintheGodavariestuaryhadanyimpacton

thelocalecosystem(figure4.4).Tounderstandthevegetationtrendbetween2000and2015,the

interannualvariationinvegetationproductivitywasmeasuredbytheNDVI,derivedfromdaily

MODISsatelliteobservationsat250mresolution.Theresultssuggestthatthevegetationinthe

projectareareachedahigherlevel(+0.04)fortheprojectperiod2011‒2015whencomparedwith

thepreprojectperiod2007–2009.Figure4.4showsthespatialdistributionofvegetationindex

aroundtheprojectarea.Comparedwith2009,thevegetationconditionfor2015shows

improvementlikelyduetodenservegetationinsidetheprojectsite(Figure4.5).

Figure4.4.DecomposedinterannualvegetationindexfromtheMODISobservedNDVIfrom2000to2015,GodavariEstuary.

75

Figure4.5.SatelliteimageandNDVIfortheGodavariEstuary,2015.

MalvanCoastProject

Theprojecthasundertakenmuchsite-levelmainstreamingofbiodiversityintoproductionsectorsand

hastherebydemonstratedhowthiscanbeachieved,particularlyinthefisheriesandtourism

sectors.Forexample,oysterfarminghasintroducedbiodiversityconsiderationsintolocalrural

development,whiletrainingforfishermenanddemonstrationofby-catchreductiondeviceshas

introducedthemintolocalfishingactivities,whilesnorkelingtraininghashelpedtopromote

biodiversityintourismactivities.ThePIR2015reportedthatatotalof1600localpeoplehave

receivedtrainingandotherbenefits.Newtechnologieshavebeensuccessfullydemonstratedanda

gooddialoguewithlocalcommunitieshasbeenestablished.

Lessprogresshasbeenmadeatthesectororinstitutionallevel—hereusedtomeanallactivitiesin

theconcernedsectoracrosstheentiredistrictcoast.Toachievesuchmainstreaming,theproject

wouldneedtostrengtheninstitutions,orreviseplans,legislation,orregulation(withenforcement),

ortoreplicatesite-levelsuccessatabroaderscale.Inmanycases,giventheadministrativestructure

andtheimportanceofstate-levelinstitutions,manyoftheseactivitieswouldhavetobeatthestate-

levelorwithstate-levelactors.

LittlehasbeendonedirectlytostrengthenmanagementeffectivenessoftheMalvanMarine

Sanctuary.Muchofthedatacollectedunderotheractivitieswillhelpwhenattemptsaremadeto

strengthenMalvanMarineSanctuarymanagement.Manylocalactivitieshavestartedbuildingtrust

andtheseactivitieshavesomewhatchangedattitudesoflocalpeopletowardconservation.

However,theremainingoppositiontotheSanctuarymeansthatthisactivitymustbeundertaken

verycautiously.

76

Coast-widesustainabilityrequiresalong-termvision,supportivestakeholderswhoarewillingto

investthenecessaryresources,andcoast-wideinstitutionsthatcanoperationalizethestepstoward

thevision.Theprojecthasalreadyestablishedpartsoftheserequirements.Forexample,thereis

high-levelsupportinstate-levelgovernmentagenciesandthedistrictgovernmenthasexpressedits

willingnesstosupporttheproject.Theprojectissupportingdevelopmentstowardother

components:notablythelocalstakeholderCross-SectoralCommitteeandtheCoastalandMarine

BiodiversityConservationFoundation.However,allthetoolsandmechanismsrequiredforthis

coast-widesustainabilityarenotyetpresent.

TheexperienceinSindhudurgsuggeststhatprogramsprovidemoresynergiesthandisconnected

projects.Forexample,theGodavarichildprojectstartedearlierandtheSindhudurgteamcould

exchangeideasandshareexperienceswiththemtohelpdealwithsomesimilarchallenges.Italso

demonstratesthatbeingpartofaprogramhelpsinnovateandreachouttoabiggeraudienceandto

gathermoresupport.Furthermore,itiseasiertogetheardatthenationalgovernmentlevel,and

therearethereforemorechancesofaffectingnational-levelpolicy.Forexample,theMarine

ProtectedAreaLawhasbeenchangedpartlyduetothisproject,aidedbyitsbroadercontactsand

connectionsthroughtheprogram.

InthecaseoftheMalvanCoastProject,thedecomposedinterannualvegetationindexattheproject

siteinSindhudurgshowsrelativestablevegetationconditionsbefore2011andasuccessive

improvementinvegetationconditionsince2012(figure4.6).

Figure4.6.TimeseriesdecompositionofinterannualtrendofdailyNDVIshowingtheoverallvegetationtrend,2000–2015,Sindhudurg.

Counterfactual:GulfofMannarProject

TheimmediateobjectivewastheestablishmentandeffectiveparticipatorymanagementoftheGulf

ofMannarBiosphereReserve(GoMBR)throughtheapplicationofstrengthenedconservation

programsintheParkcoreareaandenabledsustainablelivelihooddevelopmentintheReserveasa

whole.

Toreachthisobjective,specificgovernment-andvillage-levelinstitutionalcapacitiesweretobe

strengthened,stakeholderswouldapplysustainablelivelihoodapproaches,andanindependent

77

statutorytrustwouldensureeffectiveintersectoralcooperationinthesustainableconservationand

utilizationoftheGoMBR’sbiodiversityresources.

Thefirstmeetingin2002oftheGoMBRBoardofTrusteeschangedtheproject’simplementation

strategytoconcentrateonawarenessraisingandlivelihoodsdevelopmentforthecoastalvillage

communities.However,theydidnotchangethelogframe,budget,ortimetable.

Thisledtoanunbalancedprojectstrategy,withconservationmanagementactionsignoredinfavor

ofconcentratingonthemoreeasilyimplementedactionsrelatingtoenforcementandlivelihoods.

TheresultingapproachtoconservationoftheBiosphereReservewasnotcohesiveand

comprehensive.TheGoMBRTrustwasformed,butbecauseofthischangeinstrategyitdidnot

becomeasstrongadecision-makingbodyasinitiallyplanned.Itwaslimitedtoawarenessraising

andresearchfunctionsinsteadofbeingaconservationbody.Itsindependentlong-termfinancing

wasnotcapitalized,eventhoughthegovernmentagreedtofunditafterprojectcompletion.This

changeinstrategyalsohadanimpactonpolicyandinstitutionalreformsthatwerelargelyignored.A

managementplanwasdevelopedforthereserve,butitwasweakonprescriptionand

recommendations.Moreover,itwashardlyusedforday-to-daymanagement.

The“socioeconomic”actionsweresuccessful.TheprotectionoftheBiosphereReservewas

strengthenedbythecreationofaWildlifeCrimeControlBureauoffice.Awarenessprogramswere

veryuseful;coastalfishersarenowawareoftheneedforconservation,sustainableutilizationof

marineresources,operationofecofriendlyfishinggears,banningdestructivefishingpractices,and

villageconservationmeasures.AVillageMarineConservationandEco-DevelopmentCouncilwas

developedineachofthe248villages.Microcreditprogramsresultedinteamworkamong

communities,andthemembersearnadecentpayandareabletoeducatetheirchildren.An

interpretationcenterhasbeensetuptoportraythediversityinthegulf,theroleofthetrustandits

activities,achievements,pollutionhazards,andtheneedforconservation.

Theterminalevaluationassessedinstitutionalsustainabilityasmoderatelyunlikely.Themain

concernintermsofsustainabilitywasseenastheinstitutionalframeworkandgovernance.The

GoMBRTrusthadbeenestablishedwithsupportfromthestategovernment.However,weaknesses

wereidentifiedinitsfunctioning.Ithadnospecifichome.Withinthegovernment,itwasseenasan

independentbody,whileintheNGO/communityitwasseenaspartofthegovernment.Moreover,

itscoordinationcommitteedidnotmeetfrequentlyandtherewerequestionsaboutits

effectiveness.Finally,itsscopeofactionwasreducedfromtheoriginalintentionsandrelatedonlyto

conservationawareness-raising.Theseweaknesseswereidentifiedassignificantriskstothelong-

termsustainabilityofthetrust.

Byclosure,therehadbeennoreplicationorscaling-upofanyaspectoftheproject,andnovisible

attempttodosoateithernationalorstatelevel,althoughtheUNDP-CountryOfficenotesthatthe

projecthas“contributedtothelargerpolicyprocessesinthecountry,includingtheCoastal

RegulationZoneNotificationthattriestobalanceconservationanddevelopmentinthecoastal

region”(UNDP2013,p.63).Themaincatalyticrolewasatthedemonstrationlevel,wherearangeof

innovativeapproacheswerepilotedsuccessfullyandmightprovereplicable,althoughinmanycases

theythemselveswerereplicationsofmodelsusedwidelywithintheGEFportfolio.

Overall,stateownershiporiginallymisdirectedtheprojecttofocusalmostentirelyoncommunity

socialandeconomicdevelopment.Afterexternalfundswerephasedout,therewaslittleownership

leftandonlydisconnectedactivitieswerecontinued,withlimitedfundingandhumanresources.The

absenceofconnectionstonational-levelprograms,networks,andresourcesprovedastrong

disincentivetosustainability.

78

FortheGoMBRProject,thedecomposedinterannualvegetationindexshowsvariationinthe

vegetationconditioninRamnad,butnosignificanttrendobservedsince2005(figure4.7).Thetime

seriesanalysis,therefore,showsthattherewasnosignificantimprovementinthevegetation

productivityduringtheprojectperiod.

Figure 4.7. Time series decomposition of interannual trend of daily NDVI showing the overallvegetationtrend,2000to2015,Ramnad.

Question2: Towhat extenthaveGEFprogramsaddressed themaindriversof environmentaldegradation?

EGREEProject

TheprojectcatalyzedthecreationoftheEGREEFoundation,whichisworkinginseveralmajor

productionsectors,whichcontributetomajordriversofenvironmentaldegradation.Workwith

GMRintheenergyproductionsectorhasbeendiscussedfromaresultsperspectiveabove.The

CoromandelChemicalscompanyhasalsoupgradeditsenvironmentalresponsetoreduceits

potentialcontributiontoenvironmentaldegradation,throughsuchmeasuresasthecreationof

greenbeltsarounditsgypsumplant.

MalvanCoastProject

Forstate-levellinedepartmentsandthedistrictadministration,environmentalsustainabilityis

important,buttheyinformedthemissionthatpeoplearenotinterestedinchangingtheirtraditional

practices.Itisonlywhenlivelihoodimprovementscanbeshownthatmeasurestoaddress

environmentaldegradationcanbewidelyadopted,asinthecaseoftheSystemofRice

Intensification.Similarly,thechangetoimprovedfishingnetsshowedareductioninthenumberof

youngfishcaught,whichinturnledtoincreasedfishprevalenceinlateryears,withnoreductionin

usablecatch.Thiswasrecognizedbyfishermen,whosoonbegantorequestthenewnets,thereby

reducingdegradationcausedbypoorfishingpractices.Tourismispotentiallyanotherdriverof

79

environmentaldegradation,butthedistrictalternativetouristdestinationprojectisseekingto

reduceadverseeffectsbypromotingecofriendlytourismandraisinglocalcapacitytodeliverthis.


TheGulfofMannarProjectattemptedtointegratebiodiversityconservationandsustainablecoastal

zonemanagementwithlivelihoodsdevelopment.Communitieswerelecturedonpollution,but

respondedthatbigbusinessisthesourceofpollution,throughpowerstations,factories,etc.These

bigpollutersareleftuntroubled,whilepoorcommunitiesaretoldtostoptheiractivities.Fromthis

perspective,althoughtheprojecttargetedsourcesofenvironmentaldegradationincludingfoodand

energyproduction,itdidthisatthewronglevel.

Question3:Whatfactorshaveinfluencedprogramownershipbyparticipatingcountriesandinturn the relevance of those programs to national environment and development needs andpriorities?

EGREEProject

Theprojecthasrealizedseveralimportantgainsfrombeingpartofanationalprogram.TheNational

ProgramSteeringCommittee(NPSC)haskeynationalfiguresonit,whofeeditsexperiencesinto

high-levelpolicydiscussions.ThesehaveevencoveredIndia’sinternationalobligations,forexample

withregardtotheConventiononInternationalTradeinEndangeredSpeciesofWildFaunaand

Flora.TheGEFOperationalFocalPointheadsthePollutionControlBoardofIndiaandcanfeedlessons

fromtheprogramintothisforum.So,throughtheprogram,localactionsfeedintonationalpolicies

andthenevenintointernationalforums.Forexample,theprogram’seffectsonsharkpopulations

arereportedontotheCBDconferenceoftheparties.TheEGREEFoundationistakingtheleadon

severalkeyinternationalobligationsandhasbecomeanimportantchannelforfundingforthe

environment.

Also,theprojecthasdemonstratedcapacitytogeneratesynergiesandstrategicallianceswitha

numberofactors,bothdirectstakeholdersandexternaltotheproject,whichhassucceededin

mobilizingasignificantamountofadditionalfunding,amountingtonearly$0.3million.TheEGREE

Foundationhadstart-upfundsfromtheproject,matchedbythestategovernment,butbythetime

oftheprogramevaluationmissionithadalreadyraisedRs8croresfromtheprivatesector.Itsfunds

arealreadysufficienttopaysalariesfromtheinterest.Thisisseenasverydifferentfromthe

situationinMalvan,wheretheMangroveCellisbyfarthemajorfunder.TheEGREEFoundation

alreadyhasstrongsustainability.

Nationalownershipneedstobestrongatalllevels.Inaprojectwhichispartofamajornational

program,feedinguptoDelhiisastrongincentivetocooperationforthedistrictcollector,whoisan

essentialstakeholdertoensureprogressatthefieldlevel.Atthestatelevel,thespecialchief

assistantsecretaryisheadofthesteeringcommitteeandthegovernorhaspickeduponsomeofthe

projectelements,suchastreeplanting.

MalvanCoastProject

Theprojecthasdemonstratedgoodnationalownership,sincethenational,state,andlocal

governmentsareallinvolved.Theprojectdesignisinlinewithnationalpriorities,notablyaddressing

oneofthefivemostimportantmarineandcoastalareasinthecountry.TheminutesoftheNPSC

andSPSCclearlydemonstratethattheprojectisnationallyownedandinlinewithnationalandlocal

priorities.Theprojectdesignisalsofocusedonimprovingthelivelihoodsoftheruralpoorin

80

Maharashtra,inlinewithnationalpriorities.Finally,theprojectincludesspecificactivitiesto

implementCBDinIndia,throughitssupporttotheStateBiodiversityManagementBoardandtothe

establishmentandoperationsofbiodiversitymanagementcommitteesinover50villages.

Theprojecthasattemptedtodeveloptrustandacommonunderstandingandabasisforreducing

communityoppositiontoitsobjectives.Theslowprojectstart-upandoppositionbylocal

communitiestothesanctuarywerethemainreasonswhytherewaslittleon-the-groundactivityin

thefirst18months.Afterthisperiod,thelevelofactivitiesandextentofdeliverywashigher.

Thepilotprojectshaveraisedconfidenceinthenewapproachesadoptedandhaveevenattracted

privatesectorinterest.InthecaseoftheSystemforRiceIntensification,thereisalreadynational

governmentfundingavailable,buttheapproachadoptedbytheprojectinthisdistrictismuchmore

environmentallyfriendlyandhasbeenadoptedwidely.Theprojecthopesthatitstraineesmayget

preferentialtreatmentforstategovernmentsupport,whichwouldbringstateownershipofthe

environmentalpracticesintroduced.Already,somenewstategovernmentprogramshavefollowed

upontheGEFprojectapproaches—forexample,itmadesquare-meshnetsapriorityintervention

andthiswasfunded.TheStateFisheriesDepartmenthasalsoadoptedthesenetsasthestandard.

ManyoftheideaspromotedbytheGEFprojecthavenotbeennew,buttheadditionalfundshave

enabledthemtobemoreconsistentlypromoted.Neitherthestatenorthenationalgovernmenthas

majorenvironmentalprotectionprogramsandnationalfundsarefarlessflexiblethantheGEF(or

otherinternationalfunders).


Theprojectinvolvedseveralorganizationsandmanycommunities,whichbroughtastronglevelof

ownershipfromthestakeholders.However,thegovernmentofTamilNadualteredtheproject’s

focustofititsownideasofwhatwasneeded.Theterminalevaluationsuggeststhatthiswasdueto

alackofconsultationwiththegovernmentatthetimeofprojectdesign.Asstatedintheterminal

evaluation,duringimplementation,thegovernmentofTamilNadudecidedtoemphasize“the

livelihoodandprotectionaspectsattheexpenseofthehigher-levelpolicyandinstitutionalchanges

thatwerenecessaryandexpected,andthemanagementactionsthatcouldhaveencouragedthe

sustaineduseofmarineresourceshavebeenlargelyoverlooked.”(UNDP2013,P.64)

Afterprojectclosure,thegovernmentofTamilNaduprovidedcontinuationfundingofabout$0.5

millionperannumplussomestaffcosts.Therewasnoplanforactivitiesofthedirectorateand,

althoughsomefundingproposalsweremadetothestategovernment,littleattempthasbeenmade

toattractnationalgovernmentfunds.Thereareminimalcontinuingcontactswitheithernational

governmentorUNDP.Someresearchactivitiesarecontinuing,theboardisoccasionallymeetingand

limitedcommunityactivitiescontinueatdistrictlevel.Afewfieldstaffmembersarecontinuing

monitoringactivitiesandsomezonalandsubzonalofficersremain.Somejointpatrolsbycustoms

andforestrytakeplace,butarenotintegratedintosystematicenvironmentalmanagementactivities.

Thereisaninterpretationcentreonthecoast,butitisstrugglingtocontinuewithoutgovernment

fundingandmanpower,withanNGOtryingtokeepitfunctioning.TheMarineNationalParknow

receivesonlyRs0.7croreofitsintendedRs2.5croreannualfunding,solittlecanbeachieved.The

communityworkers,intendedtomaintainconnectionsbetweenthetrustandthecommunities,

havelittlefunding,andvocationaltrainingisalsogreatlyreduced.Themicrocreditfundshave

increasedinscaleandcontinuetofunctionalthoughthebusinessessupportedarenotnecessarily

linkedtoenvironmentalmanagement.Afterstategovernmenttookoverfromtheproject,there

weredrasticstaffreductions.Asstaffmemberswerepromotedormoved,theywerenotreplaced,

sothattheoverallcomplementislessthan50%ofthatintendedtofollowupontheproject.

81

Mostoftheissuesthattheprojectwasintendedtoaddressremain;theseincludepollution,

overexploitationofthehabitat,andoverdependenceonmarineresources.Thetime-scaleofthe

projectwasinsufficienttoallowforanyrealcommunityownershiptobegenerated.Neitherthe

fundsnorthedegreeofcross-departmentalcoordinationachievedwassufficienttocontinuethe

workeffectively.

Question4:Towhatextenthavechildproject‒levelobjectivesbeencoherentwithandintegratedintheprogram-levelones?

EGREEProject

Theprojectobjective,“tomainstreamcoastalandmarinebiodiversityconservationintoproduction

sectorsintheEastGodavariRiverEstuarineEcosystem,”istobeachievedthroughtheformationofa

governingstructurewithmultisectorparticipation(EGREEFoundation).Thisshoulddirectacross-

sectoranalysisofbiodiversityimpactsandmitigationmeasures(i.e.,mainstreamingbiodiversity)and

itsimplementationthroughalandscape-wideplanfortheprojectarea(CoringaWildlifeSanctuary,

KakinadaBay,andadjacentarea)andsectorplans.Thisobjectivedirectlyreflectstheprogram

objective.

MalvanCoastProject

Theultimateproblemtobeaddressedbytheprojectwastheongoingdepletionofthecoastaland

marineresourcesalongtheSindhudurgcoastandtheassociatedlossofgloballysignificantbiological

diversity.Theprojectobjectivewastobeachievedthroughthreeoutcomes:

• Cross-sectoralplanningframeworkthatmainstreamsbiodiversityconservation

considerations

• Enhancedcapacityofsectorinstitutionsforimplementingbiodiversity-friendlyfisheries

managementplan,ecotourismmanagementplan,andMalvanMarineSanctuary

managementplan

• SustainablecommunitylivelihoodsandnaturalresourceuseintheSindhudurgcoastand

marineecosystem.

Theprojectobjectiveandoutcomesarethereforecoherentwiththoseoftheoverallprogram.


SincetheGulfofMannarwasastand-aloneproject,thecoherencequestiondoesnotapplyliterally.

However,accordingtotheoriginalprojectconcept,itdidintendtoprovidelessonsforscalingup

andsustainabilityofenvironmentalresults,aswellastoinfluencegovernment,particularlyatstate

level.ThestatedGEFprioritywasthecreationofanindependentstatutorytrustwithmanagement

powersandsustainablefundingtoensureintersectoralcooperation.Sustainablelivelihood

developmentforlocalstakeholderswasseenasakeyapproachnecessarytogeneratesupportfor

strengthenedenvironmentalmanagement.Itcanthereforebestatedthattheprojectobjectivesare

consistentwiththoseofthelaterprogram. Indeed,theprogramdocumentconfirmsthattheGulfof

Mannarexperiencewasreviewedandprovidedinputsintotheprogramformulationanddesign.

82

Question5:Towhatextenthavethegovernance,managementarrangements,andcoordinationinfluencedtheperformanceofGEFprograms?

EGREEProject

TheprojectisbeingimplementedunderthenationalimplementationmodalityoftheUNDP.Under

nationalimplementationmodality,theprojectispartofaprogramimplementedbytheMinistryof

Environment,Forest,andClimateChange,(theexecutingagencyinGEFterms)ofthegovernmentof

India,andexecutedatfieldlevelbyaresponsibleagency,namelythegovernmentofAndhra

Pradesh.

Theexecuting(MinistryofEnvironment,ForestandClimateChangeandgovernmentofAndhra

Pradesh)andimplementingagencies(UNDP)haveprovidedadequatesupporttoproject

implementationbothinadministrativeandtechnicalterms.

Thesteeringcommitteesatnational(program)andstate(project)levelsincluderepresentationof

relevantstakeholders,particularlyatthelevelofgovernmentorganizations,andhavebeen

providingadequateandtimelyresponsetoimplementationchallenges.TheNationalSteering

Committeeoftheprogramwasveryimportantduringpreparationofthischildproject,butduring

implementationthestatehasgraduallytakenover.Itsoversightoffinanceshasbeenveryimportant.

TheEGREEFoundationisnowseenasworkingeffectivelyandhassufficientoperatingfunds.Itis

engagedinlong-termplansfordifferentsectorsassociatedwiththeenvironmentandis

collaboratingwiththeprivatesectorinthiswork.Atthecommencementoftheprojectbusiness

leadersrefusedtoeventalktothefoundation,buttheyarenowbeginningtobesubstantially

involved,followingtheexampleoftheearlyadopters,suchasGMRandCoromandel.

Thefoundationhasestablishedstrongworkingrelationswithsomeprivatesectorbodies,suchas

theGMRFoundationintheenergysector,whichareconductingtradesandskilltrainingincoastal

communities.Ithasalsobroughttogetherseveralmajorprivateindustrialstakeholdersintoa

confederation,whichhasraiseditsprofileandinfluenceamongenvironmentalstakeholders,

includingtheimportantprivatesector.

MalvanCoastProject

GiventhefederalizednatureofIndiaitseemsappropriatethat,aspartofanationalprogram,the

projecthasimportantmanagementfunctionsatbothnationalandstatelevel,aswellassome

functionsattheleveloftheprojectintervention(i.e.,thelandscapelevel).Themanagement

arrangementsintheprojectdocumentthereforeappearappropriate.

Theinitialperiodsoftheprojectweredifficult.TheoppositionoflocalpeopletotheSanctuary,and

thereforetotheprojectobjectives,rapidlybecameevident;tosuchanextentthattheprojectcould

notbeimplementedasplannedwithanyformoflocalownership.TheMaharashtraStateForest

Departmentlackedtheconfidenceandskillstoengagewiththestakeholdersandtooktimeto

establishtheprojectimplementationframework.Asaresult,veryfewground-levelactivitiestook

placeduringthefirst18months.

Despitethesedifficulties,duringthisinitialperiodmostprogramandproject-relatedinstitutional

mechanismsbecomeoperationalandthefollowingkeymanagementactionsweretaken:

83

• The Maharashtra State Forest Department established the “Mangrove Cell,” housed in

Mumbai, andgave itdirectoperational responsibilities for theproject.Although formally

established in early 2012, the cell tookmore than one year to become staffed and fully

operational.

• TheNPSCandSPSCwereestablishedinAprilandJuly2012,respectively.Twomeetingsofthe

NPSCwereheld(May2012andJanuary2013)andthreemeetingsoftheSPSC(August2012,

April2013andNovember2013).

• TheheadoftheMangroveCellbecamethenodalofficerfortheprojectwithdelegated

powers.

• Theproject’slandscape-levelPMUwasestablished,withstaffinMumbaiandinMalvan.

Theprojectalsotookstepstocreatetwonewinstitutionsintendedtosupportthecross-sectoral,

conservation,anddevelopmentoftheSindhudurgcoastoverthelongterm.First,ithasestablisheda

localcross-sectoralStakeholderCommittee,whichhasmetthreetimes.Althoughcurrentlydrivenby

theMangroveCellandtheproject,thiscommitteehasthepotentialtoanchortheproject’sultimate

objectivewithinlocalpeople,localdecisionmakers,andlocalforces.Second,theprojecthastaken

stepstoestablishthe“CoastalandMarineBiodiversityConservationFoundationofMaharashtra”

(henceforthreferredtoassimplythe“Foundation”).Theprojecthassecuredhigh-levelstatesupport

forthisFoundationandhasinitiatedtheprocesstoitsformalestablishment.ThisFoundation,if

well-conceivedandfunded,couldprovidecross-sectoralsupporttobiodiversityconservationalong

theMaharashtracoasts,includingSindhudurg.

Finally,theprojecthasalsotakenstepstoamendrelevantstateandnationalregulationsand

legislation.TheprojectidentifiedgapsintheWildlife(Protection)Actpertinenttoconservingthe

SindhudurgCoastalandMarineEcosystemandproposedamendments,whicharenowunderofficial

review.Thesearetoensurethattheactadequatelycoversmarineandcoastalwildlifeandthatit

canallowfortheestablishmentofprotectedareasbeyondthe12-nauticalmilelimitforterritorial

waters.TheprojecthasalsoproposedmodificationstotheMaharashtraMarineFisheryRegulation

Actandisfacilitatingtheiradoption.ThisistoensurethattheMaharashtraMarineFishery

RegulationActincorporatesbiodiversityconcerns,andincorporatesthebestpracticesidentified

undertheprojectrelatedtonetmeshesandjuvenileexclusion.

Thedistrictgovernmentseesthekeyroleoftheprojectasdemonstratingthatenvironmental

sustainabilitycanbeeffectivelymainstreamedintolivelihoodimprovementstrategies.Thismustbe

linkedwithstategovernmentpolicies,toensurebetterapproachesinfuture.Theprojecthadno

stringsattachedtothefundingandallowedexperimentationatthedistrictlevel.Accordingto

governmentofficialsinterviewed,Indiaalreadyhasthepoliciesandexpertise,butnotthe

willingnesstotryinnovation.TheGEFprojectbenefitedfromnothavingtostaywithinexisting

governmentapproaches.Thedistrictwouldliketobuildonthistoenableallstakeholdersinterested

inthenewapproachestobeabletoobtainfunding,sothattheleveloflocalcommunityknowledge

willreachalevelwherepeoplecansustainbetterpracticesontheirown.However,fundingismuch

moreavailableforlivelihoodsactivitiesthanfortheintroductionofscientificknowledgeand

practices.


Asastand-aloneactivity,theGulfofMannarProjectlackedanyhigher-levelmanagementand

coordinationstructure.Thismeantthatitschallengeswerenotroutinelyraisedandaddressed.Only

atspecificmoments,suchasthemidtermreview(MTR),weretheyraised,butwithoutsignificant

effectonprojectprocessesandprogress.

84

AmajorissuewithUNDP-CountryOfficeimplementationraisedbytheterminalevaluationisthat

theGEFmoneywasprovidedforconservationactionsto“catalyzethesustainabilityofprotected

areas”andnotundertakeasocialdevelopmentproject. Theterminalevaluationstatesthat“the

UNDP-CountryOfficeshouldhaveremindedthestategovernmentthatitsignedacontractwithGEF

tothateffectandtakenstepstoreorienttheprojectbacktoitsoriginalconceptatamuchearlier

stage.”

Throughoutitstenyearsofimplementation,theprojectlackedaproperlogframe.Overall,the

qualityofexecutionwasmixed. Themanagementteamproducedgoodresultsonthegroundwhere

itwasenabledtowork,butatthestatelevel,thegovernmentchangedtheproject’semphasisto

fititsownideasofwhatwasneeded,and,therefore,environmentalresultswereinadequate.The

projectintentionwastoestablishasingularcoordinatingstructurefortheBiosphereReservealong

withasustainablefundingmechanismtoenableittoundertakeconservationactivities.However,

theprojectconcentratedonthelivelihoodandprotectionaspectsattheexpenseofthehigher-level

policyandinstitutionalchangesthataccordingtotheterminalevaluation“werenecessaryand

expected,andthemanagementactionsthatcouldhaveencouragedthesustaineduseofmarine

resourceshavebeenlargelyoverlooked”(terminalevaluation,P.64).

Projectoversightwasconfusedandgenerallypoor.Therisk-aversestrategynegativelyimpactedthe

project,bynottakinginnovativestepsoninstitutionalandpolicyreform,goinginsteadformore

easilyimplementedactivitiesonprotectionandsocioeconomicdevelopment.

Overall,governanceandmanagementstructuresandsystemshavenotsurvivedthetransitionfrom

projecttonational,state,anddistrictownershipandtheevaluationmissiondidnotseeevidenceof

coherentcontinuationofworktowardtheproject’sobjectives.

Question6:WhatroledidM&Eplayinprograms’adaptivemanagementfortheattainmentofexpectedoutcomesandimpacts?

EGREEProject

Monitoringisbeingconductedbyeachofthethreespecialistsoftheprojectimplementationunit,

andconsolidatedandreportedinacomprehensivemannerbytheprojectcoordinator.Additionally,

theprojectdocumentsprovideagreatvarietyofrelevantdata,includingbiophysicalparametersof

theareaandsocioeconomicdatarelevanttocommunitiesandtheprivatesector.

Whereasanindividualprojectcaneasilygoofftrack,(forexample,underpressurefromthestate

governmentorthedistrictcollector’soffice)theNSChastheauthoritytoensurethatprogram

componentsmeettheirobjectives.AnAgencysuchasUNDPdoesnothavethenetworktoensure

performance,onlyhigh-levelcontactswithcentralgovernmentcandothis.TheNSCisthemain

bodythatensuresthatthereisregularmonitoringandthattheprojectsareopentoeffective

scrutiny.

MalvanCoastProject

TheMTRobservesmanygoodexamplesofadaptivemanagement.Thefirst,andmostsignificant,

relatestotheoverallprojectstrategy.Theprojectdocumentdescribesaclassicimplementation

strategyofdatacollection,studies,planning,andtrainingfollowedbytheimplementationofsite-

levelactionsandmultilevelcapacitybuilding.UndertheguidanceoftheMangroveCell,theproject

adoptedadifferentstrategy.Becauseofoppositionfromlocalpeople,itwasfeltthattheproject

shouldfirstfocusonestablishingandfosteringadialoguewithcommunitiesandbuildingcommunity

trust.Hence,thefocushasbeenmoreonsite-levellivelihoodandconservationinterventions,witha

85

strategyofbuildingdialoguearoundthese.Onlyafterthesestepsareachieveddoesitmakesenseto

undertakestrategicplanningandinstitutionalcapacitybuilding.Thiswasamajorchangeinproject

strategyandagoodexampleofadaptivemanagement.However,itisnotdocumentedinthe

recordsofmanagementmeetings.

Overall,thereislittleevidenceoftheprojectlogicalframeworkbeingusedasamanagementtool.

Activitiesweremostlyidentifiedfromthebottomupandthendiscussed,appraised,andapproved

onaone-by-onebasisbytheEuropeanCommission,theSPSC,andtheNPSC.Theminutesofthe

EuropeanCommission,SPSC,andtheNPSCshowthatthemeritsofeachactivitywerethoroughly

discussed,buttheiralignmenttotheoutcomes,outputs,andindicatorsintheprojectlogical

frameworkisnotmentioned,northeiralignmenttotheannualworkplan.Bycontrast,theannual

workplansarebasedalmostentirelyonthelogicalframeworkintheprojectdocument.Thetwosets

ofprioritiesareverydifferent.Theannualworkplanprioritiesarecloselylinkedtotheresults

frameworkoftheprojectdocument,whereastheSPSCprioritiesareclearlylinkedtosite-levelneeds

andopportunities.

AlthoughprogressreportsprovidealistofachievementsandPIRstotheGEF,thereislittleevidence

ofdetailedmonitoringattheprojectoutcomelevel.Adaptivemanagementhasbeengood,but

planninghasbeendrivenmorebygroundrealitiesthantheprojectdocument.Theformal

documentingofmanagementdiscussionsanddecisionsisincomplete.

Coordinationofthetwoprojectsisintendedtobeundertakenbyusingabudgetof$0.45million

undertheGodavariproject.Sincethisbudgetisintendedtocoverabroadrangeofactivities,suchas

establishingajointdatabase,M&Esystem,outreach,andcommunicationactivities,itisclearthat

theseareasareunlikelytobeverysubstantial.Theydonotappearatallinthemidtermreviewofthe

Godavariproject,althoughtheyarefundedfromthissource,andthereisnoMTRoftheprogramas

awhole.

Asnotedabove,theNationalProgramCommitteehasrespondedtoprogressandchallengesofthe

twoprojectsonthebasisofreportspresentedtoitdirectly,ratherthanbyanysystematicuseof

M&Edata.Thereisnoevidencefromdocumentarysourcesorproject-levelinterviewsthatthe

intendedprogramM&Esystemisfunctional,and,certainly,ithasnotbeenusedeithernationallyor

bytheUNDP.


Overall,M&Eimplementationwasmoderatelyunsatisfactory.Goodprogresswasmadeon

monitoring,includingstronginternalactivitymonitoring,butthishadlimitedimpactonproject

implementation,andtherewereconsiderableissueswiththelogframeandadaptivemanagement.

Althoughtheprojectwasapprovedin1999,itonlystartedin2002.Despitethisgap,therewasno

inceptionworkshop,and,therefore,thelogframewasnotrevised.Duringthefirstmeetingofthe

ProjectBoardofTrusteesin2002,theimplementationstrategywasfundamentallychangedto

concentrateonlyonawarenessraisingandlivelihoodsdevelopmentforthecoastalvillage

communities,butthelogicalframework,budget,andtimetablewerenotchanged.Evenbythetime

ofthemidtermreviewin2008,thismajorchangehadnotbeenformallyapproved.Althoughthelog

framewasrevisedin2006,noneofthechangeswereeverformallyendorsedformanagement

purposes.

TheMTEmadeitclearthattheprojectwassubstantiallyoff-track,inthatitwasnotconnectingits

community-basedsocioeconomicsupportactivitieswiththeintendedincreaseinlocal

environmentalprotectioncommitment.However,thismessagewasignoredandthesamejudgement

86

wasmadestronglyintheterminalevaluation.ItcanthereforebesaidthattheM&Esystemhadlittle

ornoeffectontheproject’sadaptivemanagement.

4.2.4 OverviewofDifferencesBetweenProgrammaticandStand-AloneProjects

AsummaryofthemaindifferencesthatemergedbycomparingtheEGREEandMalvalCoast

programmaticprojectswiththeTamilNaducounterfactualprojectisprovidedhere.

1. Theobjectiveoftheprogrammaticapproachpromotedchildprojects,whichhadasimilardesign

tothemuchearliercounterfactualproject.Allprojectsrecognizetheneedtoaddress

institutional,systems,andcommunity-leveldimensionsofenvironmentalmanagement.The

mainobjectiveofthe4-yearprogramistodemonstratemultisectoralapproachesto

mainstreamingbiodiversityconservationobjectivesintoeconomicactivitiesintwomarine

ecoregionsofthecountry.

Bypilotingthemainstreamingofbiodiversityconservationobjectivesintoproductionsectorsofthe

coastalzonethroughtwoprojects,itisenvisagedthattheprogramwillprovideabroadersetof

experiencesthancanbeobtainedfromindividualprojectsforfurtherreplicationbythegovernment.

Theprogram’sstrategyformainstreamingconsistsofthreecomponents,asfollows:

• Atthesystemslevel,topromotemainstreamingofcoastalandmarinebiodiversity

conservationintosectoralpoliciesandaknowledgemanagementsystem.

• Attheinstitutionallevel,topromoteinstitutionalcapacitydevelopmentbystrengthening

humanresourcecapacities.

• Atthecommunitylevel,topromotesustainablecommunitylivelihoodsandnatural

resourceuseinthebufferzonesofmarineprotectedareasandotherareasofhigh

biodiversityvalue.

TheseprogramobjectivesandstrategiesaresimilartothoseofthemuchearlierGulfofMannar

CounterfactualProject,buthavegreateremphasisonthesystemsandinstitutionallevels.

2. Themanagementstructureoftheprogram,withbothnationalandstatesteeringcommittees,

gaveitsprojectssupervisionandsupporttokeepthemontracktomeettheirenvironmental

objectives,despitelocal-levelpressuretofocusonlivelihoodimprovementasanobjectivein

itself.Thecounterfactualprojectvirtuallyabandoneditsenvironmentalobjectivefromanearly

stageunderguidanceofitsstatesteeringcommitteeandbecameasocioeconomicdevelopment

projectwithminimalenvironmentalinterests.Theabsenceofnational-levelsupervisionand

guidanceofferedbyaprogramstructurewasadecisivedimensiontheproject’sfailuretomeet

itsoriginalobjectives.

3. Intermsofdeliveringbroader-scaleandlonger-termenvironmentaloutcomescomparedwith

stand-aloneprojects,bothchildprojectshavemadeprogresstowardstrongerinstitutionaland

systemicframeworksforenvironmentalmanagement,whereasthestand-aloneprojectdidnot.

InGodavari,theEGREEFoundationhashadsubstantialsuccessinbringingprivatesectorbodies

intotheenvironmentalprotectionarena,whiletheCoastalandMarineBiodiversityFoundation

ofMaharashtraislessadvanced,butexpectstotargetsimilarstakeholders.Inthecounterfactual

projectarea,theGulfofMannarBiosphereReserveTrustwasestablished,butithasnotplayeda

strongroleinenvironmentalmanagementandhasbeenineffectivesinceprojectclosure.Both

87

thechildandstand-aloneprojectshavedevotedmuchoftheirattentiontostrengthening

community-levellivelihoods,butthecounterfactualprojecthasnotgonefarbeyondthiswhile

bothchildprojectshavefocusedonabroaderrangeofstakeholdersintheproductionlandscape.

4. Bothprogrammaticchildprojectshaveinformednationalpolicyactions.TheGodavariproject

promotedtheinclusionofaChapteronCoastalandMarineProtectedAreaConservationinthe

nationalWildlifeActionPlan(2016‒2030),whiletheMalvanprojectinfluencedchangesinthe

MarineProtectedAreaLaw.Thisabilitytoinfluencenational-levelinstrumentsisattributedto

theabilitytoescalateknowledgeofprojectapproachesandresultsthroughinfluentialmembers

oftheNationalSteeringCommittee.UNDP-CountryOfficeclaimedthatthecounterfactual

project“contributedtolargerpolicyprocesses,”butisnotspecificastohoworinwhatmanner.

5. Thechildprojectsbothtargetedkeydriversofenvironmentaldegradationdirectly.Godavarihad

aparticularfocusontheprivatesectorindustry(energyandagriculturerelated),whileMalvan

targetedagriculture,fisheries,andtourism.Thecounterfactualprojecttargetedcommunity-

levelfoodandenergyproductionactivities,butdidnotinteractwiththeimportantindustrial-

levelstakeholdersinthesesectors.

6. Thenationalsteeringcommitteesfortheprogramchildprojectshavenotonlylinkedthemupto

national-levelinstitutionsandpolicies,buthavealsogivengreatvisibilityatthedistrictlevel,

whichhasbeeninstrumentalingeneratingsupportfromkeyofficials,suchasdistrictcollectors.

Ownershiphasthereforebeenstrongatseveralkeylevels. Forthecounterfactual,thestate

governmentestablishedownership,butdidsobyfocusingonlivelihoodbenefitstothevirtual

exclusionoftheproject’senvironmentalobjective.

7. Bothoftheprogram’schildprojectshadobjectiveswhichwerecoherentwiththeoverall

programdirection.Theearliercounterfactualprojecthadsimilarobjectivesandprovidedsome

inputsrelevanttothelaterprogramdesign.

8. Governanceandmanagementofthechildprojectshavebeenoverseenbythenationalsteering

committees,whichhavehelpedtoensurethattheycontinuetofocusontheirenvironmental

objectivesandthattheyfeedintobroadernationalprocesses.Thisstrongsupporthaspromoted

district-levelparticipationingovernance,whichhasbeenparticularlyimportantforfield-level

delivery.Thecounterfactualprojectlackedanoverarchinghigher-levelmanagementand

coordinationstructureanddidnotaddressthechallengesraised,forexamplebyitsmidterm

review,leadingtoitsoverallpoorperformanceintermsoftheoriginalenvironmentobjectives,

whichattractedGEFfunding.

9. Forthechildprojects,monitoringandevaluationinformationisreportedtothenational

steeringcommittees,whichhaveplayedanimportantroleinkeepingthemontrack.Itappears

thatprogressandresultsofactivitiesareconsideredintermsoftheircontributiontowardbroad

projectobjectives,ratherthanthroughconsistentuseoftheprojectlogframesordocuments.The

counterfactualprojectwasgovernedatstatelevelthroughaprojectboard,whichpaidlittle

attentiontoeithertheoriginalprojectdocumentortothemidtermreview.Asaresult,the

projectdeviatedsubstantiallyfromitsoriginalintentionsanddidnotdeliveritsenvironmental

objectives.

10. Overall,childprojectsundertheIndiaGEFCoastalandMarineProgramhaveperformed

88

substantiallybetterintermsofmeetingtheirenvironmentalobjectivesthandidthe

counterfactualproject.Themostimportantfactorinthishasbeentheattentionofhigh-level

nationalsteeringcommittees,whichhavehelpedtheprojectstostayontrackandhavelinked

theirsuccessestonational-levelarenas,includingpolicyandstrategyformulation.In

comparison,thecounterfactualprojectwastakenoverbystategovernmentandwaseffectively

reorientedtobecomealivelihoodsprojectwithminimalenvironmentallinkagesorresults.It

canalsobeobservedthatthepresenceofthesenationalcommitteeshasraisedtheimportance

oftheprojectswiththeGEFAgency,ascomparedwiththecounterfactualprojectthat

(accordingtoitsterminalevaluation)receivedinadequateAgencysupervision,whichallowedit

todivertawayfromitsGEFobjectiveandoutcomes.

89

4.3CaseStudy:

MENA-DesertEcosystemsandLivelihoodsProgram

4.3.1 IntroductiontotheMENA-DELP

AccordingtothePFD,thegoaloftheMiddleEastandNorthAfrica‒DesertEcosystemsand

LivelihoodsProgram(MENA-DELP)istocontributetotheenhancementoflivelihoodsindesert

ecosystemsbyharnessingtheirvalueinanenvironmentallyandsociallysustainablemannersothat

theflowofdesertgoodsandservicescanbeoptimized.Accordingtotheprojectappraisal

document,“GEFfinancingleveragedthroughtheMENA-DELPwillenableinterestedcountriesinthe

regiontooperationalizetheirexistingorplannedinvestmentsindesertecosystems.”

Theprogramoriginallyconsistedoffiveprojects,asshowninfigure4.8.TheMENA-DELP

programmaticapproachincludedthethemesofthefourparticipatingcountryprojectsandofa

regionalproject.

MENA-DELPObjectives:

1. Toenhancedesertlivelihoods2. Toimprovemanagementofproductionsystems

3. Toconservedesertbiodiversity4. Tobuildanenablingenvironment

Figure4.8.MENA-DELPprogrammaticapproach.

Theprogramismulticountryandmultifocal,withanoriginaltotalof$20,191,360ofGEFfunding,

whichwasmainlybasedonactivitiesintendedtotakeplaceinAlgeriaandEgypt.Itwasintendedto

bethepilotphaseofalargerprogram,withanestimatedten-yearduration.TheWorldBankisits

implementingagency.Aregionalumbrellaproject,designedwithabudgetof$1million(atthe

recommendationoftheSecretariatoftheGEF),isintendedtoenhanceknowledgeandexperience

sharingonopportunitiesforenhancingdesertlivelihoodsamongtheparticipatingpilotcountries.

Thiswillincludedisseminationoflessonslearnedfromselectpilotsineachcountry,the

developmentofavisitingprofessorsprogram,andtheorganizationofworkshopstobringtogether

desertinstitutes,government,andotherkeystakeholdersfromtheparticipatingcountriesto

Algeria

-Agro-biodiversity

Egypt

-Agro-biodiversity

Jordan Morocco

-Agro-biodiversity

agro-foodchain

90

facilitatethedevelopmentofrelatedpolicyguidanceonintegratingbiodiversitymanagementand

solidandliquidwastemanagementdimensionsintorespectiveproductionsectors.

TheMENA-DELPwasnotimplementedasdesigned,sinceAlgeria,whichplayedaleadingroleinits

designprocess,droppedoutoftheprogrambeforeitstarted.Anotheroftheintendedparticipants,

Egypt,alsodidnottakepart.Toretaintheregionalnatureoftheprogram,theWorldBankintroduced

twoprojectsinTunisia,whichwerenotincludedintheoriginalPFD.SincethegoalofMENA-DELPis

verybroad,itdidnotprovedifficulttoincorporatethesenewactivities.

4.3.2ActivitiesintheMainParticipatingCountries

Jordan—BadiaEcosystemandLivelihoodProject

TheprojectisfinancedthroughaGEFgranttotaling$3,330,555.Cofinancingistobeprovidedbythe

governmentandotherbodiesuptoanexpectedtotalamountof$11.348million.

TheJordanBadiacomprises80percentofthecountry’sterritoryandisdividedintonorthern,middle,

andsouthernregions.ThesouthernandnorthernBadia,whichareincludedintheproject,provide

themainsourceoflivelihoodforabout240,000people,15includingnomadic,seminomadic,and

settledcommunitieswholargelydependonraisinglivestockforaliving.

Theprojectdevelopmentobjectiveistosupportsustainablelivelihoodsandenhanceecosystem

servicesthroughparticipatoryapproachesinselectedareasoftheJordanBadia.Theapproaches

adoptedaresubstantiallydifferentbetweenthenorthernandsouthernBadiaareascovered.

ThethreeGEF-supportedcomponentsoftheBadiaEcosystemandLivelihoodProject(BELP)areas

follows:

• AdaptiveRangelandManagementandAlternativeLivelihoodsSupportintheSouthern

Badia$1.43million

• Community-CenteredEcotourismintheNorthernBadia$1.47million

• ProjectManagementandMonitoringandEvaluation$0.43million

TheintendedrelationshipbetweenBELPandtheMENA-DELPisnotveryexplicitintheproject

appraisaldocument,whichstatesthat“theprojecttaskteamwillcollaboratewiththeothertask

teamstomaximizethesynergiesbetweentheprojectandtheoverallprogram.”

Solidarity-BasedIntegratedAgricultureinMorocco

GEFfinancingof$7millionwascommittedtotheprojectasfollows:

• Landdegradationfocalarea:$3.7million

• Biodiversityfocalarea:$3.3million

Theprojectdevelopmentobjectiveistoincreasetheimplementationoflandandbiodiversity

conservationmeasuresinselectedprojectsdirectedtosmallfarmerslocatedintargetedmarginal

areas.TheprojectobjectiveistopromotethemainstreaminginthePlanMarocVertofanapproach

15HashemiteFundfortheDevelopmentoftheJordanBadiaand2007Census.

91

basedonsolidarityamongsmallfarmersandhorizontalintegrationamongagro-foodchains,in

marginalaridandsemi-aridregionsofMorocco.

Regardingtheoliveagro-foodchain,theSolidarity-basedIntegratedAgricultureinMorocco(ASIMA)

willfinancetheconstructionofstate-of-the-artdryingpitstoavoidlossofwetpomace(residues)in

thewaterbodies.Inthespiritofhorizontalintegrationamongagro-foodchains,thepomaces,once

driedandtreated,couldbeusedasfertilizer,animalfeed,andcombustion.TheASIMAwillcoverthe

incrementalcostsfortheconstructionofthetransformationunits,aswellasforthecapacity

developmentofadequatetechnicalknow-howatalocallevel.Inaddition,topromotethe

conservationofthescarcewaterresourcesinthearidandsemi-aridregions,theASIMAwillfinance

water-savingtechnologieslikedeficitirrigationandrainwaterharvesting.

Concerningthecactusagro-foodchain,theASIMAwillfinancetheconstructionoftransformation

unitsfortheuseoftheplantbeyondthetraditionalfruitproduction.Thecactusplantcanbeusedto

produceanimalfeed,cosmeticproducts,andcombustion.

Forthesheepagro-foodchain,theASIMAwillfinancetheproductionofhighlynutritious,locally

producedanimalfeedtakingadvantageofthehorizontalintegrationwitholiveandcactusagro-food

chains.Withinasustainablegrazingandrangelandmanagementframework,thiswillreducethe

grazingpressure,theriskoferosion,anddesertification.

Regardingthearomaticandmedicinalplantsagro-foodchain,theASIMAwillfinancethecultivation

andthetransformationunitsforlocaltypicalplants.Thetransformationunits(i.e.,dryingunits)

couldtakeadvantageoftheuseofcogenerationopportunitiesresultingfromtheoliveandcactus

agro-foodchains.Thereducedgrazingpressureresultingfromtheuseofby-productsforthefeeding

oftheanimalscanalleviatethepressureonnaturalbiodiversity.Thedevelopmentofanagro-food

chainthattypicallyinvolveswomencansupportamoresocialintegration.

ProjectsinTunisia

TheoriginalPFDdidnotproposeanyprojectsforTunisia.However,withthewithdrawalofEgypt

andAlgeriafromtheprogramandthelocationoftheregionalprojectinTunisia,theopportunitywas

takentoincludetwoactivities.

Thetwoprojects,whicharenowpartoftheMENA-DELPprogram,aretheConservationofOases

ProjectandtheEcotourisminProtectedAreasProject.

TheConservationofOasesProjectreceived$5.7millionfromGEF.Itpromotesthesustainableuseof

naturalresourcesandimprovementoflivelihoodsinallfourregionsofthecountry,throughone

pilotoasisineach(exceptthatoneregionhasthreepilots,sincetherearethreeoasesinone

ecosystem).GEFfinancingisasfollows:

Componentname Cost($million)

Strengtheningcapacitiesforsustainablemanagementof

oasisecosystems

1

,

3

0

6

,

8

3

0

Supporttheimplementationofoasisparticipatory

developmentplans

4

,

6

7

4

,

0

0

0

ProjectCoordinationandManagement 3

5

7

,

9

0

0

ThesecondprojectistheEcotourismandConservationofDesertBiodiversityProject.Thishasatotal

GEFfundingof$4,270,000,forthefollowingcomponents:

92

• Promotingenablingconditionsforprotectedareamanagement,SLMscaleup,and

ecotourismdevelopment:(cost$1.56million)

• SupportingtheimplementationofINRMintargetedNPsandtheiradjacentareas:(cost

$2.51million)

• Projectmanagement:(cost:$0.20million)

TheprojectappraisaldocumentplacesitinthecontextoftheearlierGEF‒WorldBankMENARID

(IntegratedNatureResourcesManagementintheMiddleEastandNorthAfricaRegion)Program;

whilementioning“linkagesto”MENA-DELP,mainlyintermsofknowledgesharing.WorldBankPIRs

donotfocusatallontheproject’srelationshiptoMENA-DELP.

TheevaluationmissionwasinformedthattheOasisProjecthasmademoresubstantialprogressthan

theEcotourisminterventionanditsdiscussionsthereforefocusedonthemoreactiveproject,to

understanditsrelationshipwiththeMENA-DELP.

RegionalProject:MENA-DesertEcosystemsandLivelihoodsKnowledgeSharingandCoordination

Project

Theproposedregionalprojectobjectivesaretwo-fold:

1. toensureprogram-levelcoordination,includingtrackingthedeliveryofmeasurableproject

andprogramoutcomesandresults;and

2. topromoteknowledgeandexperienceexchangesthroughorganizedworkshopsbetween

differentprojectsundertheprogram.

Theumbrellaproject,designedforabudgetof$1million(attherecommendationoftheSecretariat

oftheGEFanddrawnfromalanddegradationset-aside),aimstoenhanceknowledgeandexperience

sharingonopportunitiesforenhancingdesertlivelihoodsamongthefourparticipatingpilot

countries.Thiswillincludedisseminationoflessonslearnedfromselectpilotsineachcountry,the

developmentofavisitingprofessorsprogram,andtheorganizationofworkshopstobringtogether

desertinstitutes,government,andotherkeystakeholdersfromtheparticipatingcountriesto

facilitatethedevelopmentofrelatedpolicyguidanceonintegratingbiodiversitymanagementand

solidandliquidwastemanagementdimensionsintorespectiveproductionsectors.Thisregional

projectwouldalsobuildthecapacityofoneinstitutetotakealeadershiproleonprogram-level

informationflow(includingM&E),sothatthereplicationpotentialofgoodpracticesisenhanced.At

thetimeofthePFD,thisinstitutionhadnotbeenselected.

4.3.3 FindingsQuestion1:TowhatextenthasthedifferenttypologiesofGEFprogramsdeliveredtheintendedresultsintermsofbroader-scaleandlonger-termenvironmentaloutcomesandimpactscomparedwithstand-aloneprojects?

Program

Theoriginalprogramconceptdidnothavespecificfocuses,forwhicharegion-wideapproachwasto

beadoptedandmonitored.Rather,JordanandMoroccofedintotheMENA-DELPprojects,whichhad

alreadybeendesignedaspartoftheirnationalenvironmentalactivities.Tunisia,whichwasnot

specifiedintheoriginalprogramdesign,waschosentocoordinatetheregionalprogramthrougha

regionalumbrellaproject.WithassistancefromtheWorldBank,thecountrydevisedtwonational

93

projectstobeincludedaspartofMENA-DELP.Thesewerenotintheoriginalprogramandarenot

recordedintheGEFdatabaseaspartoftheMENA-DELP.

Overall,theMENA-DELPisacollectionofindividualnationalprojects,looselyrelatedtoeachother

througharegionalumbrellaproject.Theircoherenceintheprogramintermsofenvironmental

objectivesisverygeneric—theyareallattemptingtoharnessanaridorsemi-aridlandscapefor

environmentallysustainabledevelopment.Thereisnoevidencethatthereareanymultiplicative

benefitsfromtheirparticipationintheregionalprogram.Theoutcomesandpotentialimpactsof

MENA-DELParethereforenotdifferentfromthoseofthenationalprojects,apartfromsome

aggregateM&Edataandexperiencesharingandlessonlearningamongtheprogramparticipants,

oftenincludingthetwocountrieswhichdroppedoutofimplementationbeforetheprogramstarted.

Overall,theresultsofMENA-DELParenotdemonstrablybroaderscaleorlongertermthanthey

wouldhavebeenthroughtheimplementationofasetofstand-aloneprojects.

BELP

TheMTRfortheJordanBadiaprojectassessesthatsustainabilityofitsresultsislikelyattributableto

theinstitutionalmeasuresthathavebeenputinplace.Specifically,theRoyalSocietyforthe

ConservationofNature(RSCN),whichisimplementationecotourisminNorthernBadia,isa

recognizednationalandregionalleaderinecotourism,andinaccordancewithitsmandate,itis

expectedthatitwillsuccessfullyoperatetheAzraq-Burqucorridorfortheforeseeablefuture,inthe

samewayasitcurrentlyoperatesotherecotourisminterventionsthatithasestablishedacrossthe

country.

TheRSCNhasahistoryofcollaborationwithGEFthroughstand-aloneprojects,whichhaveplayed

animportantroleinhelpingittoscaleupitsconservationapproachesandmakethemsustainable.

RSCNhasaprojectmanagerrunningitsBELPcomponent,whichisintegratedwithitsbroaderworkin

thecountry.TheonlysignificantdifferencefromitsotheractivitiesisthatitmustuseWorldBank

financialandreportingprocedures.AlthoughBELPisasubprojectofDELP,RSCNtreatsitsBELP

componentasastand-aloneproject,forwhichitisresponsible.Furthermore,RSCNregardsthe

NorthernBadiaactivityitisimplementingascompletelydifferentfromtherangelandmanagement

andhafirs(reservoirs)workunderBELPintheSouthernBadia.Therefore,itdoesnotconsiderthe

BELPasacoherentpackage—eventhetypesofcommunitiesinvolvedinitstworegionsare

completelydifferent.

IntheSouthBadiaprojectcomponent,ownershipandresponsibilitiesforthehafirsandrange

reserveshavebeendefinedandframedinwateruseandgrazingagreementssignedbythe

communities.Theaccompanyingmanagementplansfortheseagreementswilldefineinmoredetail

themodalitiesforthemanagementandmaintenanceoftheseassets.Therefore,theWorldBank

MTRanticipatesthatthispartoftheBadiaprojectwillalsogeneratesustainablebenefits.

Overall,governmentregardsGEFassupportingthenationalcommitmenttoenvironmental

managementbyactingasafunderofnewideas,whichcanbetestedbeforeotherdonorscomein

oncetheyseethattherearegoodresults.Aregionalapproachneedsverydifferentthinkinganda

newperspective,butfromthegovernment’sperspective,DELPseemstobeasetofrepiloting

activitiesofsinglecountries,whichhavealreadybeendone.

Toassesstheenvironmentalchangeresultingfromprojectactivitiesonthelocalecosystem,a

geospatialanalysiswasconductedforthreeofthefourBadiaprojectsites,investigatingspatial-

temporalpatternsofvegetation.TheresultsfortheBayerReserve,theAlHashemiahReserveand

theAlHuseiniehReserveshowasignificantincreaseinvegetationcoversince2013(figure4.9).

94

Figure4.9.DailyNDVIoftheBayer,AlHashemiah,andAlHuseiniehreservesfrom2000to2016.

Figure4.10presentstheinterannualvegetationtrendNDVIdecomposedfromdailyMODISsatellite

measurementsat250mresolutionobservedfortheAlHashemiahReserve.Theaveragesummer

vegetationindexin2015increasedabout0.01since2012forthethreereservesaltogether.

Figure4.10.Timeseriesdecompositionof the interannual trendofdailyNDVIshowingtheoverallvegetationtrendforthethreereserves.

BayerResreve

AlHashemiahReserve

AlHuseiniehReserve

95

Becauseofalackofcounterfactualsites,thevegetationproductivityinsidethethreereserveswas

comparedwiththeadjacentareasoutsideofthereserveboundary,andresultsshowthatvegetation

significantlyimprovedinsidetherangereserve.Figure4.11showsthechangethatoccurredintheAl

HasemiahReserve.

Figure4.11.ComparingtheaverageMay-AugNDVIfortheAlHashemiahReservebetween2013and2015.

PositiveenvironmentalchangesareattributabletotheBELPproject.However,withoutasuitable

counterfactualitisnotpossibletoassesswhethertheBELPwouldhaveachievedthesameorlower

resultsifitwouldhavebeenimplementedasastand-aloneproject.Asamatteroffact,basedonthe

experiencetodate,theevaluationfindsthatBELP’sparticipationinMENA-DELPhasmadeatbesta

marginalcontributiontodeliveringlonger-termandbroader-scaleenvironmentaloutcomesand

impactsthanthosethatwouldhavebeengeneratedfromastand-aloneproject.Thescalingup

intentionsarealreadybuiltintoexistinggovernmentapproaches,aswellasthoseofitsnational

implementingpartners,inabroadrangeofnationally-sponsoredactivities,someofwhichare

substantiallylargerthanMENA-DELPinthecountry.

ASIMA

TheASIMAProjecthasfacedmanyconstraints.Inparticular,delaysinthereleaseofthebudgetby

thegovernmentmadeitdifficulttogetstarted.ASIMAhaseightsubprojects,mainlyinregionswith

scarcelandavailabilityandmanypoorpeople.Theconstructionofproduct-processingunitswas

oftenheldupbecausenolandwasavailableand,inanycase,theprojecthadnobudgettopurchase

land.Thereweremajorissuesaroundlandacquisitionandprocurementforconstruction;therefore,

theearlyfocuswasverymuchonawarenessraising.Thishasbecomeabigstrength.

96

Nationalagenciesimplementingtheprojecthadweakcapacity,particularlyinprocurement,which

causedlongdelays.TheWorldBankhadfrequentcontactwiththeseagenciesandthefiduciary

teambasedinRabatconductedmuchtraininginMorocco.Projectimplementationunitsneeded

supportandfollowupfromthegovernment.Themidtermreviewledtothedevelopmentofa

comprehensiveactionplan.

SinceDecember2017isthescheduledclosure,manyoliveandcactusprocessingunitswillhave

beenoperationalforonlyoneyearbythen,andresultsmaynotbeashighasexpected.However,

outputsintheoliveindustrycouldbescaledupthroughoutMorocco.

AccordingtothenationalAgricultureDevelopmentAgency,MENA-DELPhasenabledthesharingof

experienceonhowtomanagedesertareas.TheprojectshavedifferentapproachestoM&E,butthe

programshouldbeabletousetheknowledgegatheredoveralltopromotebetterownershipbycivil

societyandbeneficiaries,whichcouldinturngeneratebiggerresults.

Thenationalimplementingbodyseesthemaindifferencebetweenaprogramandaprojectasthe

possibilitytoavoidmistakesothershavemade,byknowledgesharingandlessonlearning.

TheASIMAProjectinMoroccoispartofthehugePlanMarocVertanditsmainimplementingand

reportingresponsibilitiesarewithinthecontextoftheplan.Thereisnoevidenceofamajorimpetus

toresultsfromparticipationinMENA-DELP.

TunisiaProjects

TunisiadevelopedtwoprojectstofillthegapcreatedbytheabsenceofAlgeriaandEgypt,whichhad

bothplayedamajorroleintheMENA-DELPdesign.Theprojectsarebothself-containedanddonot

appeartohavederivedsignificantbenefitsfromparticipatingintheprogram,whichmighthelp

generatemoresubstantialordurableresults.ThemissionfocusedontheOasesProject,whichhas

mademoreprogressthantheEcotourismProject.

TheOasesProjectisfocusedonsustainabledevelopmentofoasesinTunisia.Itorganizedworkshops

withresidentsofoasesandhelpedbuildanationalstrategyfromthecommunitiesup.Thiswas

validatedbyathree-dayworkshop.Sixoasesareservingaspilots.Thenationalimplementingagency

isnotleadingimplementation,whichisbeingmanagedbyNGOs,incollaborationwiththelocal

administration.LocalMinistryofAgricultureunitscollaboratedandoversawwhatthelocal

populationchosetoimplement.Underthisapproach,NGOs,communities,andlocalunitsof

ministriesworktogetheratadecentralizedlevel,withdecentralizedprocurement.Nowthenational

ministrywantstodevelopanationaloasisprojectbasedontheWorldBankdecentralizedmodel.

TheTunisia5-YearActionPlannowincludesanOasisProgramthatbuildsontheMENA-DELPProject,

whichhasrebuilttrustbetweenlocalcommunitiesandtheministry.Thisdoesnotadoptanincome-

generatingactivityapproach,butavaluechainone.Itisnotenoughjusttoraiseskills—thereisa

needtoidentifythemarketfirstandthenraisethecapacityoffarmerstomeetwhatitneeds.The

privatesectorhasbeenengagedinadvisingoninitiativesandasacofinancier.

Theapproachofnationalprojectsplusanumbrellaprojectbringssomeadvantages,including

improvedM&E,communications,experienceexchange,andbackstopping.

ManyMENA-DELPactivitieshavebeeneffectiveandcouldbeusedtoprovidebestpracticesforusein

thedesignofanyfutureMENA-DELPphase.Theregionaldimensionisimportant,becauseitprovides

thepossibilityofmakingchangesbasedonexperience.However,inthecaseofMENA-DELPthiswas

notwell-realized,becausetheprojectsweremainlydissimilarfromeachother—somefocusedon

climatechangeadaptation,othersonecotourism,andsoforth.Overall,therehasnotbeenmuch

opportunityfordirectlearningfromexperience.Furthermore,thetimingofprogramshasvaried—

97

somewerefinished,whileothershavejustbegun,andsomewerenotimplementedatall.Thiswas

anothernegative.IftherewereanotherMENA-DELP,participantsfeelthatitshouldfocusona

commonarea,suchaswaterresourcemanagement,sothattherecouldbemoredirectsharingof

experienceandlessons.

Question2:TowhatextenthaveGEFprogramsaddressedthemaindriversofenvironmentaldegradation?

Program

ThemaindriversrecognizedbytheGEFarefoodproduction,building,transportation,andenergy

sectors.InsofarastheMENA-DELPaddressesthese,onlythefoodproductionsectorisamajorfocus.

InMorocco,olivesandcactusesareaddressedthroughavaluechainapproachintheASIMAProject.

Tunisiahassomefocusonfoodproductionandby-productsthroughtheOasisproject,whilethe

JordanBadiaprojecttargetsbenefitsforthelivestocksectorthroughbetterwatermanagement.

BothJordanandTunisiahaveanecotourismfocus,althoughitisnotclearwherethisfitsintheGEF

classificationofdrivers.

Intermsofchildprojectdesign,thedriversaddressedarethoserecognizedasmosturgentineach

countryand/orthosewhichareregardedasinadequatelyaddressedtodate.

BELP

Inthecontextofdriversofenvironmentaldegradation,JordanwouldliketouseitsGEFfundsto

seekanintegratedsolutiontothemanagementofaridlandscapes,combiningwaterharvestingand

rangelandprotection.AlthoughthepracticeofprotectingrangelandareasiscommoninJordan,the

BELPhasbroughtlargerareasundersuchmanagement.

Climatechange,whichisamajorexternaldriveroflanddegradation,isnotdirectlyaprojectfocus;

buttheissuesthattheprojectaddresses,suchaswatershortageandheatwaves,resulttoalarge

extentfromclimatechange.

AlthoughBELPisconsistentwiththeoutcomesexpectedofMENA-DELP,itwouldnotbeaccurateto

saythattheprogramhasplayedamajorroleinshapingtheBELPapproach.Rather,thisapproach

reflectscontinuingnationaldevelopmentpriorities,towhicharangeofinternalandexternal

stakeholdershavecontributed.ThehistoricalGEFactivitiesinJordanhavebeensupportiveofthis

processandhavecontributedtowardit,butthereisnoevidencethatMENA-DELPhasplayeda

majorrole.

ASIMA

Thecountry’sPlanMarocVertsetstargetsforproductionbycommercialandsmall-scalefarmers.

However,itdoesnotdeeplyaddressenvironmentalissues,especially,forexample,thoseassociated

withwastefromoliveproduction.TheWorldBankcountryteamnoticedweaknessesinthe

environmentalapproachandthatthevaluechainsdidnotdealwiththewastemanagementaspects

ofbusinessesthatwerepromoted.Whentheypointedthisouttothegovernment,therewasgreat

interest,whichsupportedthedevelopmentoftheASIMAProject.

98

TunisiaProjects

Tunisianstakeholdersreportedthatexperiencehasbeensharedfromthevariousstudytoursand

workshopsofMENA-DELPandotherregionalprograms.Thus,ithasbecomeclearthatcountriesare

facingsimilarproblems,whichneedlocalactioninformedbybroaderandmorecoherentregional

approaches.However,thegenerationofanapproachtoaddressingtheenvironmentaldegradation

associatedwithfarmingcamefromin-countrydiscussions,withlittleinputfromtheMENA-DELP

concept.

Question3:Whatfactorshaveinfluencedprogramownershipbyparticipatingcountriesandinturntherelevanceofthoseprogramstonationalenvironmentanddevelopmentneedsandpriorities?

Program

MENA-DELPparticipatingcountrieshaveamodestdegreeofownershipoftheprogram,claiming

benefitsfromparticipatingininternationalworkshops(particularlyonM&E,trackingtoolsofthe

GEFsystem,andincome-generatingapproachesinparticipantcountries)andfromshared

experiencesgeneratedbystudytours.Althoughtheprogramsarerelevanttonationalneeds,this

derivesfromtheiroriginaldesignprocessesasnationalprojects,ratherthanfromanydirection

generatedbytheprogram.InthecaseofJordan,forexample,theBadiaprojectwasalreadydesigned

aspartofamuchlargergovernmentprogramandwaslaterfittedintotheMENA-DELPonrequestof

theWorldBank.

BELP

TheBadiaProjectMTRconcludesthattheproject’sdevelopmentobjectiveremainsrelevantand

achievable.Theprogrammaticapproachsoughttoestablishindetailthelevelofownershipand

relevanceoftheMENA-DELPinJordan.Inrelationtothis,thecountrymissionwasinformedthatthe

focalpoint’sofficetriedtoreceivefundingfortheBELPasastand-aloneprojectbutwasadvised“by

GEF”thatitshouldbeincludedinaregionalprogram.Accordingly,theWorldBankdevisedaregional

program,andthegovernment of Jordan had to findways to implement its project in such away

that itmet nationalprioritieswhileconformingtotheprogram.Thegovernmentthereforetailored

someelementsofitsoriginalnationalprojectdesigntofitwiththeprogramstructure.Theprogram

elementhasnotbeenimportantfromtheperspectiveoftheOfficeoftheOperationalFocalPoint

andthisofficedoesnothavesubstantialinteractionwithMENA-DELPactivitiesorprocesses.

AlthoughtheJordanOperationalFocalPointisChairoftheSteeringCommitteeofBELP,the

governmentdoesnotfeelthattheprojecthasastrongemphasisonregionalinteraction.There

wouldneedtobemuchmorefocusonregionalelementsandcooperationifBELPwereintendedto

befullyintegratedintoaprogrammaticapproach.

FromtheperspectiveoftheRoyalSocietyfortheConservationofNature,amajornational

implementingpartner,therewasconsiderableconfusionoverhowitsengagementwouldwork.It

initiallybelievedthatitwouldhaveadirectfundinglinktotheWorldBanktoimplementthe

activitiesoutlinedinitsproposaltoparticipate.Itwaslatertoldthatitsproposalwasincludedinthe

BELP,aspartofMENA-DELP.RSCNplannedafour-yearprojectinput,butthisinitiallylostoneyear

duetoWorldBankstartupprocessesanditwastoldthattherecouldbenoextensiontoallowthis

timetobereplaced.

99

RSCNismandatedtoprotectbiodiversityandhasplanstofulfilthisrole,whichareindependentof

BELPandstillmoresoofDELP.BELPhadtobeshapedtofitnationalprioritiesandnottheotherway

around.ThesustainabilityofBELPresultsinnorthernBadiawillcomefromtheextenttowhichthey

fitinwithRSCN’slong-termplans.Tosomeextent,theWorldBankprojectdesignteamtookaccount

ofthelong-termplansoftheJordanpartnersinputtingBELPtogether.Althoughtherewasa

notionalconnectionbetweenBELPandMENA-DELPatthepreparationstage,RSCNregardsthisas

completelylostduringimplementation.RSCNappointedafocalpointtoworkwithDELP,butit

reportsthattherehasbeenvirtuallynoconnectionwithit.TheonlyconnectionrecalledisthatRSCN

madeapresentationtovisitorsfromTunisiaandMoroccoaspartofaDELPworkshop.RSCNwas

justemailedtomakethepresentation,butreceivednofeedbackwhatsoeverfromDELPafterward.

Duringtheprogramdesignphase,RSCNhadunderstoodthattheprogramwoulddevelopasupport

networkforimplementers,butthishasnotappearedatall.RSCNsubmitsdatatotheBELPPMU,as

partofitsobligationtoDELP,butithasnoideawhatthedataareusedforandreceivesnofeedback.

ThecasestudythereforefindsthatthereislittlenationalownershipinJordanoftheMENA-DELP.

ThisisbecausetheoutlinesoftheBELPprojectwerelargelyalreadydesignedbeforeitbecamepart

oftheMENA-DELPandtheprogramdidnotintroduceanysignificantchangestotheproject.The

programisrelevanttotheBELP,butonlyinthesensethattheintendedoutcomesofthetwoentities

areconsistent.ImplementationdelaysandcomplexitiesintroducedbyparticipationintheMENA-

DELPhave,ifanything,reducedthepossibilityofnationalownershipoftheprogramandhave

encouragedcomponentsoftheBELPprojecttoproceedindependently,tomaximizetheir

possibilitiesofdeliveringasintended.

ASIMA

ThemultifocalnatureoftheASIMAProjecthasmadeitrelevant,becausebothbiodiversityandland

degradationpresentmajorchallengestothecountry.TheWorldBankcountryteamnoticed

weaknessesinthegovernment’sapproachtoenvironmentalmanagementandthatthevaluechains

didnotdealwiththewastemanagementaspectsofthebusinessesthatwerepromoted.Whenthe

Bankpointedthisouttothegovernment,itbecameveryinterested.SinceMoroccoishostingthe

ConferenceoftheParties22,environmenthasnowreceivedhighpriority.TheASIMA’sintentionto

actasapilotfornewapproacheshasenabledittofocusondifferentchallengestoagricultureandthe

environmentinthecountry. Ithasthereforeattractedgoodnationalownershipandthegovernment

hasalreadyrequestedtheWorldBanktoconsiderpotentialGEFfollow-upprojects.Therelevanceof

theprojectisverylooselyrelatedtotheoverallprogram,sincethisbasicallyprovidesaverybroad

framework,intowhichalmostanyenvironmentalactivitiescouldbefitted.

TunisiaProjects

SincethenationalprojectsuseSystemforTransparentAllocationofResources(STAR)funds,they

mustbeanationalpriority.Ontheotherhand,theregionalprojectisonly$1million.Itwas

intendedtobe$12million,butkeptgettingcut.Thereisnotenoughmoneytodoanything

substantialwiththeregionalproject. Althoughthecountryseesthattherecouldbeadvantagesfrom

aregionalprogram,theystillworkbasedonnationalpriorities.Regionalactivitiesmustuseother

funds,inwhichcasethecountrygetstheadvantagesofaproject,plussomeprogramsynergies.

However,sincetheregionalprogramhasnoseparatefunds,itisnotlikelytohaveamajorrolein

nationalcommitment.

TherewereproblemswhenthenationalprojectsinAlgeriaandEgyptweredropped.Theprogram

hadtoadaptandaddedintwoprojectsinTunisia—EcotourismandanOasisproject.Moroccoand

Jordanstayedin.GEFinsistedthatthereshouldbefiveprojectsintheprogram.

100

Regardingtheexperienceandlesson-learningactivitiesorganizedundertheregionalproject,itisthe

nationalimplementingagenciesthatareresponsibleforcontactingandinvitingkeynational

stakeholdersrelevanttotheworkshopthemes,suchasM&Eordesertification.Thisisnotworking

well.ForEgyptandJordan,thesamepersonhascometoallthemeetings,evenwhentheyarenot

involvedwiththetopic.Furthermore,theparticipantsdonotsharetheknowledgegainedwithkey

peopleintheircountries.

TheObservatoireduSaharaetduSahel(OSS),whichimplementstheregionalproject,invitesthe

executingagenciesinparticipatingcountriestoproposetheworkshoptopicforeachcomingyear,

butitgetsfewresponses.Thetopicsarenotalwayswellchosen.Forexample,thisyear’sworkshop

onremotesensingseemsunnecessary,becausefewcountrieswillneedahighlevelofexpertisein

thisarea.TheWorldBanktaskteamleader(TTL)wouldpreferiftheprojectheldworkshopson

themesthataredirectlyrelevanttotheprogram;suchasthespecificdesertificationchallenges

facingparticipatingcountriesandonexploringarangeofconcretesuggestions,whichcouldaddress

themainchallenges.

TheMENA-DELPwasapprovedbeforethechildprojects,whicharenowinit.Butitwasnotclearhow

theprogramwouldwork,andchangesinWorldBankstaffdealingwithMENAledtodelays.Inthe

meantime,Jordanwentaheadanddesigneditsprojectunilaterally.Therewasnotastrongly

designedprogrammaticapproach—itismainlyjustanexchangeofexperiences.Sofar,the

experiencesharedbyMoroccohasbeenimportanttosomeotherprojects.Theprogramis

vulnerable,sinceitislargelydependentontheparticipationofnationalprojects,whicharemanaged

bynationalbodiesthathavemanyotheractivities.Thus,thereisadangerthatsomenationalinputs

willnotbestrong.Thereisnotmuchpossibilitytodevelopstrongrelationshipsbetweenthe

programandprojects,becauseitismainlythesametopmanagerswhogotoallthemeetings.

Aprogramshouldpromoteactivecollaborationbetweenthenationalprojects,butitislargelya

travelagencyforseniormanagers.TheOSSrunsanotherGEFregionalproject(BRICKS[Building

ResiliencethroughInnovationandKnowledgeServices]),whichhasworkedoutthesameway.The

programhasnoopportunitytoimpactnationalprojectsandcanonlytrytoinfluencethemthrough

knowledgesharing.Ontheotherhand,therewasalsonoconceptofhownationalprojectscould

shapeagenuinelyregionalprogram.

WorldBankMENAmanagementisnothappywithhowtheGEFworksintheregion.A$200million

WorldBankloanforforestryinMoroccohasthesamepreparationrequirementsasasmallGEF

projectwithinaprogram.Also,thereisnocoordinationwithbiggerWorldBankefforts.Forexample,

inTunisiatheOperationalFocalPointhasusedGEFmoneyforaUNDP$6millionforestproject,

whentheWorldBankispreparinga$200millionprojectinforests.Whatisthevalueofthesesmall

stand-aloneprojects?TheMinistryofAgricultureisthemainplayerinforestryinthecountry,sothe

MinistryofEnvironmentisnotcentrallyengagedinthesector.ItseemsthattheMinistryof

Environmentwantsthesmallprojectbecauseithaslittlefundingandthisisoneofthefewchancesit

hastoimplementanactivity.

MENA-DELPhasoperatedinaflexiblemanneranditsprojectsdonotneedtohaveastrong

implementationrelationshipwitheachother.Itimposesnomajorobligationsbutplaysausefulrole

intermsofmakingexperienceandadviceavailable.ButevenwithinTunisia,therelationships

betweenthetwoMENA-DELPprojectsarenotcloseandtheirteamsdonotroutinelymeet.Even

thoughtheyarewithinthesameministry,theydonotregularlycollaborateandoftenhavetobe

pushedtomeetbytheprogrammanagerintheWorldBank.

101

Question4:Towhatextenthavechildproject-levelobjectivesbeencoherentwithandintegratedintheprogram-levelones?

Program

TheMENA-DELPoutcome-levelobjectivesarebroadandcomprehensive,includingthefollowing:

• Improvedagriculturalmanagement

• Sustainedflowofservicesinagro-ecosystems

• IncreasedinvestmentsinSLM

• Increaseinsustainablymanagedlandscapesandseascapesthatintegrate

biodiversityconservation

• Promoteinvestmentinrenewableenergytechnologies

• Reducedvulnerabilitytoclimatechangeindevelopmentsectors

Ithasthereforebeenpossibletointegrateobjectivesofthechildprojectsintothoseoftheprogram

inacoherentmanner.

BELP

Theregionalprojectseekstostrengthennetworksandcommunitiesofpracticebysharingexperience

andknowledgeonkeydesertecosystemmanagementissues.However,theBELPProjectManager

hasnoimportantroutineinteractionwiththeDELP,and,consequently,itisdifficulttoseeanyvalue

addedbyDELPtotheBELPprojectasimplemented.FromtheBELPmanagementperspective,

therefore,iftherewasausefulideaintheprogramapproach,ithasnotbeendelivered.

Althoughideasfromotherprojectsmayinprinciplebeuseful,itclearthatthecountryprojectsare

quitedifferentfromeachother,sothattheextentofcross-fertilizationissmall.Theevaluation

foundnoevidencethattheBELPobjectiveswouldhavebeendifferentifitwerenotintheDELP

program.

ASIMA

ASIMA’sprojectobjectivesfitwithinthecountry’smajorPlanMarocVertinitiative,ofwhichitforms

asmallpart.WorldBankinputshelpedshapethespecificformoftheproject,withafocusonvalue-

chainsforkeyagriculturalproducts,butthisfocusisnotspecificallyderivedfromMENA-DELP

objectives.Theprojectisthereforecoherentwithprogram-levelobjectives,whichthemselvesare

onlylooselyintegratedinternallyorwiththecountry-levelprojects.

TunisiaProjects

TheTunisiaOasisProjectisjustlikeanyothernationalprojectundertheGEFcountryprogram,but

hasbeenplacedundertheMENA-DELPumbrella.Itdealswithnationalprioritiesandwasselectedas

aprioritybothforuseofGEFfundsandtheWorldBank.Itwasnotoriginallyconceivedaspartofa

regionalprogram,butsinceitsobjectivesfitwellwiththeMENA-DELPprogram,itbecameastrong

candidateforinclusionwithinit.Theprojectappraisaldocumentplacesitinthecontextoftheearlier

GEF‒WorldBankMENARIDProgram;mentioning“linkagesto”MENA-DELP,mainlyintermsof

knowledgesharing.WorldBankPIRsdonotfocusatallontheproject’scoherencewithMENA-DELP.

102

Question5:Towhatextenthavethegovernance,managementarrangements,andcoordinationinfluencedtheperformanceofGEFprograms?

Program

Theprogramhasasteeringcommitteewithrepresentativesfromeachofthenationalimplementing

institutions.Thereisrelativelylittleneedforoperationalcoordination,sincethechildprojectsare

nationallymanagedandhavenospecificrelationshiptoeachother.Furthermore,thereareno

regionalprogramfunds,whichmightneedcoordinatedmanagement.

Theprogramisalmostentirelyacollectionofverylooselyrelatednationalprojects,and

performanceisthereforemanagedatcountrylevel.Intermsofperformancedelivery,thereislittle

roleformanagementatprogramlevel,whileroutinemanagementisensuredthroughtheWorld

Bankprojectmanagementsystem.

BELP

TheDELPsufferedfromwhatthefocalpoint’sofficeseesasafundamentalchallengewithregional

programs;namelythatittookalongtimeforcountriestoendorseit.Infact,thisandother

institutionalissuescausednearlyayear’sdelayinthestart-upoftheBELPandtheprojectwas

informedbytheWorldBankthattherecouldbenoextensionbeyond2017tocompensateforthe

timelostduetothecomplexprogramstructure.

Contrarytotheintentionsoftheprogram,theBELPProjectManagementteamdoesnotfeel

adequatelyengagedinMENA-DELPactivities.Itreportedthatitsmembersarenotroutinelyinvited

toorinformedaboutDELPmeetingsintheregion.TheBELPteamdoesnotreceivesignificantlevels

ofinformationthroughDELPknowledgesharinganddoesnotperceivethatDELPsupportstheBELP

projectinanysignificantway.

TheBELPProjectManager(inNationalCenterforAgriculturalResearchandExtension)receives

technicalreportsfromimplementingteammembersandcollatestheseintoareportfortheWorld

Bank.However,itisnotclearwhetherthismaterialissenttoDELPandtheBELPProjectManageris

unawareofanyeffortsbyDELPtoaggregatedatafromdifferentprojects.TheBELPProject

ManagementUnithasnotbeeninvolvedinregionalmeetingsorknowledgesharing.Thismeans

that,althoughtheprojecthasoutputsthatwouldbeofinteresttoothercountriesintheregion,itis

notsubstantivelyengagedintheknowledgesharingprocess.

Theevaluationhasfoundthatgovernance,management,andcoordinationhavebeenmajorareasof

activitywithintheBELP,whichhasarelativelycomplexinstitutionalstructure,withseveral

implementingpartners.However,theseaspectsoftheparallelDELPstructurehavehadlittleeffect

ontheBELP,whichislargelyindependentoftheprogramandwouldbelittledifferentwithoutit.

FromtheperspectivesgatheredinJordan,thepurposeoftheDELPisnotveryclear.Indeed,itseems

tohavebeenaddedontoconvertapotentiallyself-containedprojectintopartofalargerentityto

conformtoperceivedGEFfundingpreferences.Ithasnoteffectivelydelivereda“glue”function

betweentheprojects,sincetheseareatbestlooselyrelated,and,fromtheperspectiveoftheBELP,

itsperformanceisnotaffectedbyanyinformationreceivedfromorsharedwiththeprogram.

103

ASIMA

MoroccoandWorldBankprocurementprocedurescouldnotbeeasilyreconciled,leadingtomajor

delays.TheASIMAmidtermreviewrecommendedsomerestructuringoftheproject;particularlyof

itsResultsFrameworkthatoriginallyincludedallthebenefitsofPlanMoroccoVert,whichisa$35millionproject,whileASIMAisonly$6million.

Thenationalbodiesinvolvedinimplementingtheprojectcouldhavesharedtheirexperienceswith

otherprogramsintheregiontacklingsimilarissues.Inaddition,therehavebeensomeMENA-DELP

updatesfromtheregionalproject.Overall,however,theprojecthasnotbeengreatlyinfluencedby

anybroadergovernanceormanagementaspectsoftheprogram.

TunisiaProjects

Theregionalprojectisonly$1million.Itwasintendedtobe$12million,butkeptgettingcut.Thereis

notenoughmoneyforanymajoractivitiesandthenationalprojectsdonotrelatecloselytoit.

GEFmoneyisusedforregionalactivities,withSTARallocationskeptfornationalprojects.Fund

disbursementforthenationalprojectsisnotstreamlinedbecauseofitsparticipationinaprogram.

Forprocurement,thenationalcommitteemustapprove,eveniftheWorldBankhasalreadycleared

it.Ministrieswillnotriskcuttingoutthenationalcommitteeonprocurement.So,thisaddsthreeto

sixmonthstoeveryconsultantappointed,leadingtosubstantialdelays.

AmongtheWorldBankMENAcountries,theWorldBankcountryprojectTTLsdonotorganize

meetingsorseekprogramfundingsupportforanycoordinationefforts.Whentheregionalproject

institutionOSSsendsemailsaboutMENA-DELP,allWorldBankTTLsofindividualprojectsarecopied

in,buttheregionalTTLrarelygetsanyresponsefromthem.Theyareallworkingontheirown

projectsandthereisnoawarenessoftheadditionalityoftheprogram.Furthermore,theWorldBank

TTLforMENA-DELPisnotexpectingthatwillbeevaluatedasaprogram.Thechildprojects,including

theregionalproject,willbeassessedindividually.

TheWorldBankdoesnothaveanyconcretecommitmenttodeliverspecificregionalprogram

results.Itwastheregionalprojectthatdevelopedaresultsframework,nottheregionalprogram.To

haveprogramresultswouldmeanchangingthepreexistingindividualprojectresultsframeworks.

Thus,circumstancesdonotallowforastrongprogrammaticapproachandresultsframework.OSS

hastwologframes,onefortheprogramandonefortheproject,butitisdifficulttopersuadethe

childprojectstokeepthemonitoringinformationup-to-date.

Thereisnationalownershipbutnonationalcommitmentastowhomustdowhat—itdoesnot

permeatethenationalinstitutions.Programsneedtobemuchmorespecificonnational

commitmentinpracticalterms.TheDirectorsofthenationalinstitutionshavenoownershipofthe

regionaldimension—theyarejusttreatingit“likeatravelagency,”accordingtoregional

program/projectmanagers.

NoonecontributesfromtheprojectstotheMENA-DELPwebsite.TheWorldBanknationalTTLsdonot

contribute,stilllessthenationalinstitutions.TheOperationalManualspecifiesthatmeeting

participantsshouldcommunicatewhatwaslearnedfromworkshops—butnoonedoesthisnow.

TheOSSdoesnothaveanyroleinmakingsystem-wideobservationsandfeedingthisbacktoMENA-

DELPortotheBRICKSprogram,whichshouldbemorecloselyrelated.EventhoughOSSisnow

gatheringdata,itdoesnotsendoutanyperiodicreportsoranalysisofwhatisobserved.Itisacting

asabureauforseparatenationalstudiesratherthanfulfillingitsintendedregionalobservatory

functionthatcouldenableittoinfluenceregionalpolicies,etc.,basedoninformationgathered.This

104

fragmentationmeansthattherealvalueoftheregionalprogramisnotachievedoravailabletothe

GEFandWorldBank.Theobservatoryfunctionofcollectingsatellitedataandmakingbroadbrush

interpretationisnotbeingdelivered.Itismoreassociatedwithindividualprojects.Trustfundscould

beusedtofinancebroadregionaldataanalysis,butthesestrategicfunctionsaremissing.

Regionalprogramsdoraiseawarenessofresultsathigherlevelsofnationalgovernments,which

cannotbegeneratedbyindividualprojects.Theprogramenablescontactswithmanypeopleata

lowcost,whichwillbeespeciallytrueattheMarrakechconferenceoftheparties,atwhichMENA-

DELPwillhaveasideevent.

TheRegionalProjectSteeringCommitteehasmetregularly,althoughfrequentsubstitutionsof

membershavecausedproblems.Butthissteeringcommitteedoesnotmeetwiththeindividual

projectSCs.ThecoordinatorsofnationalprojectsareinprinciplemembersoftheRegionalProgram

SteeringCommittee,butitdoesnotworktheotherwayaround,andtheRegionalProjectisnot

representedatthenationalcommittees.

Question6:WhatroledidM&Eplayinprograms’adaptivemanagementfortheattainmentofexpectedoutcomesandimpacts?

Program

ThereisnoevidenceofsystematicuseofM&Eformanagementpurposesattheprogramlevel.

ProjectM&EsystemsarefocusedonreportingtonationalsystemsandtotheWorldBank/GEFas

individualprojects.TheregionalprojecthasdevisedaprogramM&Esystemtowhichtheindividual

projectsshouldcontribute.Todate,therehasbeenlittleenthusiasmfromprojectstoregularlyinput

dataintothissystem,anditisnotclearhowaggregationofdatafromalimitedsetofsmallprojects

aroundavastregionwillgenerateinformation,whichcouldbeusefulformanagementpurposes.

ProjectsaresubjecttoregularWorldBankmanagementmissionsandreporting,includingmidterm

reviewsandeventuallyGEFfinalevaluations.However,thereviewofdocumentstodateshowsthat

eachprojectisassessedasanindividualentityandthatthereisnomonitoringorreportingonhowit

hascontributedtotheprogramorviceversa.Thereappearstobenoprovisioninthestandard

WorldBankprogressreportingtermsofreferencetoassesstheroleofprojectsinprograms.

BELP

TheBELPM&Eofficerattendedaworkshopontrackingtools,whereparticipantsemphasizedthe

needtoensurethatbiodiversityindicatorswereincluded.TheBELPM&Eofficerhasprovided

monitoringdatatoDELP,butBELPmanagementisnotinformedastohowthisisusedbyDELPand

claimstohavereceivednofeedbackonit.

Thenumberofparticipantsatworkshopshasnotreflectedthecountriesthatareactively

implementingtheprogram.AsMENA-DELPhasbeenimplemented,theJordanianteamreportsthat

availableprogramfundinghassteadilyreduced,leadingtodecliningregularityofSteering

Committeemeetings,M&Eevents,andworkshopsinwhichtoshareexperiences.

MonitoringandevaluationhaslargelybeengeneratedandusedbyBELPforitsownpurposesand

shareddirectlywithWorldBankprojectmanagement.Althoughdatahavealsobeensenttothe

DELP,itisnotcleartotheBELPwhetherorhowthesehavebeenusedandtherehasbeennouseful

feedbackfromthem.Thus,fromtheperspectiveofJordanBELPparticipants,itisnotclearthatthe

105

MENA-DELPhasmadeanyuseofM&Etoadapttheprogramtobetterachieveitsoutcomesand

impacts.Indeed,itisnotclearthatthereareanytangibleprogram-leveloutcomesabovethose

generatedbytheindividualprojects.

ASIMA

Themidtermreviewrecommendedsomerestructuring(oftheproject):particularly,theResults

FrameworkthatoriginallyincludedallthebenefitsofMoroccoVert,whichisahuge$35million

project,whileASIMAisonly$6million.So,itwasnotplausiblethatithadthesamenumberof

beneficiaries.Undertherestructuring,beneficiariesweredecreasedfrom12,000to8,500.Thereis

noevidenceofanyeffectsofprogram-levelM&EaffectingtheASIMAProject.

TunisiaProjects

Theregionalprojecthas$800,000forknowledgesharing,$100,000forM&E,and$100,000for

management.TheregionalprogramM&Etoolhasprovidedanapproach,whichtheindividual

projectsaretosomeextentusingasamodel.OSShasprovidedsubstantialtrainingonthisaspect:

e.g.,fortheTunisiaOasispProject.ProjectM&EOfficersacrossthecountrieshavewidelyvarying

capacityandOSStraininghashelpedbringthemalltowardthesamelevel.

BecausetheoverallMENA-DELPprogramcoversabroadrangeofissues,theOSSproducedamatrix

ofkeydomainsforM&Eandlistedindicatorsthatcouldbeusedbyeachprojectunderthekey

headings.Thiseventuallyledtoanagreedsetofkeyindicatorsforeachspecificdomain.The

regionalprogramsystemhasnationalprojectsections,intowhichtheindividualcountriescanenter.

Oftentheyaretoobusytodothisandtheregionalprojecthashadtoissuequarterlywarningsto

encourageparticipation.Thenationalprojectsalreadyhavetheirowndetaileddatasetsanddonot

findtheregionaloverviewsystemveryuseful,sotheyarereluctanttoparticipate.However,the

intentionisthattheMENA-DELPoverviewsystemanddatashouldbeavailabletocountries,notjust

totheprojects.

OSSbelievestheregionalprojectaddsvaluebyenablingpeoplefromdifferentprojectstoshare

experiencesandskills.Thisenablesthemtosavetimeandmoneybydrawingonwhatisalready

workinginothercountries.Also,comparisonbetweencountriesraisesprideandstandardsacross

thecountries.However,thereislittleevidencethatthenationalprojectsfeelthesebenefitstobe

substantialorimportant.

TheOasesProjectisputtingintoplaceitsdetailedM&Esystem.Priortothis,theprojectexchanged

informationwiththeMENA-DELPM&Emanagertotrytoharmonizeitsdatawiththeprogram

system.

106

4.4.CaseStudy:

RapidImpactEvaluation—ReducingIndustry’sCarbonFootprintinSoutheastAsia

Program

4.4.1IntroductiontotheProgram

TheoverallaimoftheReducingIndustry’sCarbonFootprintinSoutheastAsiaProgram(GEFID:

3756)istoassistcountriestoimproveenergyefficiencyintargetedindustrialsectors.Program

componentshavebeenpreviouslyappliedandadaptedthroughconsiderableUNIDOexperience

withsimilarprogrammaticinterventions.Reviewsoftheprogramattheproposalstagepointedto

theknowledgeoftheIPCC(2007)reportcoveringsectoraltargeting,barriers,andincentives(STAP

2008).

TheGEF/UNIDOprogramisimplementedthroughfivechildprojectsinthefollowingSoutheastAsian

countries:Indonesia,Thailand,Vietnam,Philippines,andMalaysia,andithasfourmaincomponents:

• AregulatoryframeworkincludingnationalpolicyaddressingISO50,000standards

andimplementationmechanismsforthepolicy(regulations,incentives,etc.)

• ToolsandtrainingonEnergyManagementSystems(EnMS)andonenergyefficiency

inspecificsystemcomponentssuchascompressedairorchillers;andreferredtoas

genericallyindustrialsystemoptimization

• Financial infrastructuresupportingenergyefficiencyprojects in industry including

buildingcapacitiesofgovernment,financialinstitutions,andenterprisesforenergy

efficiencylendingandsupports

• Pilotandmainstreamenergyefficiencyprojectswithnationalcommitmentstothe

number of enterprises adopting energy efficiency (250‒500) and pilot

demonstrationprojectsmainlyofsystemoptimizationandenterpriseassessment

Theprogramishomogeneous,i.e.,thefourcomponentsarepresentinallofthefiveprojectswith

modestvariationandahighleveloffidelitytotheprogram.Bothcountrieswithchildprojects

selectedforthiscasestudy—VietnamandIndonesia—hadenactedlegislationandregulations

requiringhighenergyconsumingenterprisestoundertakeenergyauditseverytwoorthreeyears

respectively,andprovidedocumentationofimprovedenergyefficiency.Bothcountrieshadalso

enactedISO50,001andprovidedtheinfrastructureforthenecessarytrainingandsupport.

TheVietnamprojecttargetedfoursectors:textiles,paper,foodprocessing,andrubber;Indonesia

targetedchemicals,foodandbeverages,pulp,andpaperandtextiles.Botharefive-yearprojects;

Vietnamstartedin2011,Indonesiain2012. Fromthetargetsectors,159enterprisesparticipatedin

thetraininginVietnam,238inIndonesia.

ProgramTheoryofChange

Atheoryofchangewasestablishedthroughseveraliterations,startingwithareviewofprogram

documentsandbriefingsfromUNIDOstaffinVienna,whohelpedtheevaluationteamrecalibrate

theirinitialunderstanding,fieldinterviews,andthecountryandglobalexpertpanel.Figure4.12

presentsthetheoryofchangethatwasappliedintherapidimpactevaluation(RIE)exercise.

107

Note:EE=energyefficiency.SO=systemoptimization.

ThelogicoftheoutcomesassessedusingRIEfollowsthissequence:(outcomeA)enterprise

managers(orotherseniordecisionmakers)whoparticipateinthefirsthalf-daytrainingfor

managerswillacceptthebusinesscaseforEnMS;withadditionaltrainingprovidedtoenterprise

energymanagersandstaff(outcomeB),managerswillagreetosupportchangebyinvestinginanEnMS;fromthisflows(outcomeC)institutionalizationofEnMSintheenterprise,forexample,by

adaptingtheorganizationalstructure,staffingthenecessarypositions,andadjustingperformance

expectationstoincludeenergyefficiency.WiththeEnMSinstitutionalizedtheenterprisecanbe

expectedto(outcomeD)investtoimproveenergyefficiency.Atthispointthedesiredeffectsstart

toflow,includingreducingenergyconsumptionandtherebyalsoreducinggreenhousegas(GHG)

emissions,reducingpoweroutages,andsoon.Traininginsystemoptimizationisalsoprovidedas

partoftheUNIDOprogram,forexampleforsystemswithcompressedairorsteam.Thesesystem

optimizationdecisionscanbeseparatefromorpartofanEnMS.TheRIEestimatesthatfollowfocus

onEnMSandincludesystemoptimizationdecisionsonlyaspartofanEnMSprocess(e.g.,replacinga

boilerasindicatedbyapplicationofEnMS).Thissequenceofoutcomesappliestoenterprises

participatingintheUNIDOtraining.TheprogramincludesdemonstrationsofthebenefitsofEnMS

throughpilotsandcasestudies.Asmallcadreofenergyefficiencyexpertswastrainedastrainersin

eachcountry,andtrainingmaterialsrelevanttothecountryweredeveloped.Theprogramalso

providedtrainingtodevelopacadreofEnMSexpertswhowillseektoprovideenergyefficiency

servicestoindustry.Theseinterventionsareintended(outcomeE)toreplicateenergyefficiencytoenterprisesthatdidnotengageinthetrainingorprogressbeyondoutcomeAandwillprovide

additionalenergyreductioneffectsontopofthosefromdirectparticipants.

Figure4.12.Reconstructedtheoryofchangeforthereducingindustry’scarbonfootprintinSoutheastAsia.

Project

Experts.consultants,

suppliersmarket&

provideservicesto

enterprises

ISO50001

operational

Keycontext

/assumptions

Driverofchange

Projectprovided

training(national

experts,consultants,

suppliers)

Projectprovided

training(EE

managers/staff)

Projectprovided

training

(managers)

Enterprises

recruited to

participate

108

Theprogramisoneofseveralinfluencesonenergydecisionsofenterprises.Othersincludethe

nationallegislationandcompliance;energypricesandsubsidylevels;behaviorofotherenterprises;

sensitivityoftheenterprisetomarketforcesrewardingorrequiringsustainability,suchasthrough

foreigninvestmentorownership,exportingtomarketssensitivetothesefactors;thenatureof

ownership;andintroductionofISO50000,amongothers.Allthesefactorspotentiallyinfluence

enterprisedecisionsonwhetherornottopursueenergyefficiency,includingdecisionsonwhether

toengagewiththeintervention,andforthosethatdoso,progressalongthepathwaydescribedin

figure4.12.

Informationaboutenterprise-levelenergyefficiencyimprovementscanbeobtainedovertime

throughreportingfromthelegislativelyrequiredaudits,fromenterprisesurveyssuchasthose

undertakenbyUNIDO,fromEnMSsoftware,andothersources.Thesecanprovideanindicationof

energyconsumptionandchangesinconsumptionatmacroandenterpriselevels,andwillnodoubt

provevaluableinassessingpolicyandprogramoptions.However,thisinformationdoesnotenable

toseparatethecontributionsoftheprogramfromtheseveralotherimportantforcesaffecting

enterprisedecisionsrelatingtoenergyefficiency,suchasthosedescribedabove.

RapidImpactEvaluation

RIEisanevaluationapproachforuseinsettingswhereitischallengingtoassessimpacts.RIEcanbe

usedtoforecastexpectedimpact,aswellastoevaluateimpactafterimplementation(seeappendix

4.4AforadescriptionofRIE).RIEutilizesthescenario-basedcounterfactual,anewapproachfor

comparingtheinterventiontoanalternative.ForthisapplicationofRIE,thealternativewas

business-as-usual,wheretheexistingnationallegislation,ISO50,001,andotherconditionsall

continuedtoapplybuttheUNIDOprogramwasnotoffered.Thescenario-basedcounterfactualsfor

VietnamandIndonesiawereverysimilarandareprovidedbelowintable4.3.

TwogroupsofexpertshavebeenaskedtoprovidetheirassessmentofimpactsusingRIEmetrics;the

firstgroupconsistsofprogramexpertsandincludesrepresentativesofallinterestsinvolvedin

and/oraffectedbytheintervention;thesecondgroupconsistsofexpertsinthesubjectmatterof

thescienceorknowledgeunderlyingtheintervention.Aweb-basedsurveywasusedtogaininputs

fromtheprogramexperts,afacilitatedworkshopforthesubjectmatterexperts.Theimpactmetrics

werealsoassessedbyoneormoretechnicaladvisorstotheevaluation,whoarethemselvesexperts

inoneormoreofthesubjectdomainsandwhohavegainedconsiderableknowledgeaboutthe

interventionthroughtheirinvolvementwiththeevaluation.

109

TABLE4.3.CounterfactualsforVietnamandIndonesiaVietnamcounterfactual IndonesiacounterfactualHighenergyconsumingenterprisesarecompelled

bylawtohaveanenergyauditeverytwoyears,

submitanenergyreport,andreducetheirenergy

consumption.Theycancontractproject-trained

andotherenergyserviceprovidersandhave

accesstothecasestudiesanddemonstrations

producedbytheproject.

Supporttoindustrycontinuestobeprovidedby

theMoITviathefourthcomponentoftheNational

EnergyEfficiencyProgram(VNEEP).Support

includestrainingforMoITandenterpriseleaders,

energymanagementmodelsfordesignated

enterprises,andsupporttoenergyauditsin

selectedenterprisesaccompaniedbyfurther

supporttodevelopandimplementenergy

efficiencyprojects.

ISO50,001wouldhavebeenimplementedas

wouldtheexistingcapacityofSTAMEQ,thelocal

certificationinstitution.

Thecostsandsupplyofenergywouldremain

unchangedforthepurposesofconsideringthis

alternative.

Without the project, since 2012 UNIDO training

would not have been provided to enterprise

managersandtechnicalstaffandtoenergyservice

providers.

Highenergyconsumingenterprisesarecompelled

bylawtohaveanenergyauditeverythreeyears,

submitanenergyreport,andreducetheirenergy

consumption.Currentconditionsapply(e.g.,

currentlevelsofcomplianceandquality).

ISO50,001isinplaceandavailabletoqualifying

enterprises.EnMScertificationunderAEMAS

programalsocontinues.

Thecostsandsupplyofenergywouldremain

unchangedforthepurposesofconsideringthis

alternative.

Note:AMEAS=ASEANEnergyManagementScheme.See:https://www.scribd.com/document/98962092/Project-

Brochure-AEMAS-Pierre-v1-97-2003.MoIT=MinistryofIndustryandTrade.

4.4.2Results

TheRIEprovidesestimatesofoutcomesAthroughDattributabletotheintervention(figure4.12).

Replication(outcomeE)isalsoaddressedusingRIEmetricsandcomplimentedbyinputsfroma

panelofglobalexpertsinenergyefficiency.

ContributionstoEnterpriseUseofEnMS

RIEobtainsjudgmentsfromthekeyinterestsinvolvedintheprogram;eachinterestbringstheirown

knowledgeandaspirations,leadingtovariationintheirjudgements.Foranysetting,itisnotknown

ifoneinterestismorelikelytoberight,oriftheassessmentsmadebyindividualinterestswillmirror

assessmentsoftheotherinterests.Rather,bycombiningthejudgmentsofparticipantinterests

involved(e.g.,enterprises,experts,government),thebiasofparticularinterestsisoffset.The

combinedall-sectorjudgmentistakentorepresentthejudgmentofparticipantsintheUNIDO

program.Thestudycombinedtheexpertpaneljudgmentsafternotingthatthestandarddeviations

forthepanelwerequitelow.AstypicallyhappenswithRIE,participantsaremoreoptimisticthanthe

expertpanel,andtechnicaladvisorswiththeexpertpanelarethemostpessimistic(Vietnam);

however,theIndonesiantechnicaladvisorwassomewhatmoreoptimisticthantheprogram

participantgroup.16Theresultsaredisaggregatedbyinterestinappendix4.4C.

16Fromemail1-8-17fromtechnicaladvisorIndonesia:Thesurveyisforhighenergyconsumptionenterprises.The

costeffectiveisoneofthemajoragendasofallhigh-energyconsumptionenterprisesthatIknow.Alloftheiremployeeshavebeenchallengedtofindoutanythingforcosteffective,includingintheenergysaving.Thepaybackperiodbelow3yearsisanacceptinglevelbyalmosthighenergyconsumptionenterprises…Theestablishmentofenergymanagementsystemshowstheseriousnessoftheenterprisesintheenergysaving.

110

Onlyenterpriseswhosemanagersparticipateinthefirsttrainingembarkonthetheoryofchangeat

outcomeA,andthereaftertherewillbeattritionthroughtooutcomeD.Thisisreflectedinthe

downwardslopeforbothVietnamandIndonesiainfigure4.13.

Figure4.13:Triangulatedjudgmentsofthenetincrementalcontributionsoftheprogram

Source:DerivedfromRIEsurveyandworkshopdata

Themainoutcomeofinterestis(D).EnterprisesinvestinEnMSprojects,whereprogramparticipants

(allsectors)expectthatabout30%ofenterpriseswillachievethisoutcomecomparedwiththeless

optimisticexpertpanels(judgmentsrangedfrom10‒18%)andthetechnicaladvisors(10%and30%).

Forthepurposesoftheseestimates,weassumeapproximately25%oftheVietnam17and

approximately30%oftheIndonesianenterpriseswillinvesttoimplementEnMSprojectsasaresult

oftheproject.

InadditiontotheRIEestimatethatapproximately25%or30%oftheenterprisesembarkingonthe

UNIDOtrainingwillmakeEnMSinvestmentsthatareattributabletotheintervention,other

enterpriseswillalsomakeEnMSinvestments.TheseotherEnMS-investingenterprisesareinfluenced

bytheotherenergyefficiencyinitiativesandwouldlikelyhaveoccurredwithouttheproject;for

example,theyareinfluencedbynationallegislation,ISO50,001(towhichtheprojectcontributed),

enterprisepriorities(suchassocialandenvironmentalresponsibility,marketstrategies,orforeign

investment/ownership),energypricesandsupply,andotherfactors.

ChangeinEnergyConsumptionAttributabletotheIntervention—Vietnam

Anumberoffactorsaffectenergyconsumptionofanenterprise.Theestimationproceduresfor

Vietnamincluded:

1. Settinganempiricalbaselineforconsumptionbyhighenergyconsumingenterprises

inthetargetedsectors

2. Forecastingeffectofcontinuedeconomicandsectoralgrowthonenergy

consumptioninthesesectors

3. ForecastingthelevelofenergyconsumptionreducedbyapplicationofEnMS

4. Estimating,usingRIE,theportionofenterprisesthatwilladoptanEnMSasaresult

oftheintervention

5. Applyassumptionsaboutchangesinefficiencyofenergygenerationand

transmissiontotheforecastedchangesinenergyconsumption.

17eddHOME(2014)ImpactsandResultsoftheProjectTrainingProgramfoundthat77of176(44%)participating

enterprisesinVietnam“adoptedEnMSplansandimplementedoperationalimprovementprojects.”Thisisatotal

measureanddoesnotidentifytheportionattributabletoRIE.AsimilarestimateismadeusingRIEandtheestimates

providedintheRIEenterprisesurveyat40-54%isveryconsistentwiththefindingsofeddHOMEintheirevaluation.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Managersacceptbusinesscase

Managerssupportchange

Enterprisesinstitutionalise

EnMS

EnterprisesinvestinEnMSprojectsEf

fectsa

ttrib

utab

leto

UNIDOprogram

Outcome

VietNam

Allsectors Expertpanel Technicaladvisor

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Managersacceptbusinesscase

Managerssupportchange

Enterprisesinstitutionalise

EnMS

EnterprisesinvestinEnMSprojectsEf

fectsa

ttrib

utab

leto

UNIDO

program

Outcome

Indonesia


111

Table4.4(i,ii)appliesthisapproachtoestimatetotalenergysavinginthefoursectorsand

attributabletotheUNIDOprojectinVietnam.Thenumbersintheleftcolumnoftable4.4referto

thesequenceintheestimationprocesslistedimmediatelyabove.Thetwopartstotable4.4provide

estimatesfirstfor2011‒2015andthen2016‒2020.

Thegreenshadedrowsprovidethesumoffiveyears’energysavedandGHGemissionreductionsin

Vietnamattributabletotheprojectfor2011‒2015and2016‒2020.Theprojectisestimatedtohave

savedapproximately340,000tonsofoilequivalent18forthefirstfiveyearsandisforecastedtosave

approximately530,000TOEforthesubsequentfiveyears(2016‒2020).Thisforecastfocuseson

EnMS,whichisthemaingoaloftheintervention.Thesesavingsinenergyconsumptionwillreduce

GHGemissionsinVietnamby1.783millionmetrictonsofCO2during2011-2015and3.148million

metrictonsofCO2during2016‒2020.

Tounderstandthesignificanceofthisestimate,the2011‒2015savingsaretheequivalentof

removing376,629vehiclesfromU.S.roadsforayearorfromburning1.9billionpoundsofcoal.The

savingsforecastforthe2016‒2020periodaretheequivalentofremoving664,963U.S.carsfora

yearorfromburning3.4billionpoundsofcoal.19

Furthergainsattributabletotheprojectwillbeobtainedfromprojectenterprisesthatdidnotadopt

EnMSbutthatarestillimplementingsystemsoptimizationsuchasreplacingaboiler.

Table4.4i.EstimatedenergysavingfromtheinterventioninVietnam—2011‒2015.

StepMeasure Year(s) Units Rubber PaperFood

processing TextilesTargetedsectors

Highenergyconsumingenterprises 2011 15 32 48 64 159

PotentialEnergySaving2011‒2015

1 Baselineconsumption 2011 TOE 64,715 188,494 196,854 321,962 772,025

2 Growthrate(average2011‒2015) 2011-15 rate 1.27 2.65 1.65 1.43

2 Forecastannualconsumption 2015 TOE 82,002 500,369 324,910 461,4371,368,718

3 PotentialenergysavingsfromEnMS annual % 4.00% 13% 20% 30%

3 ForecastenergysavingsfromEnMS annual TOE 3,280 66,549 64,982 138,431 273,242

4 EnergysavingattributabletoUNIDOproject annual 25% 820 16,637 16,245 34,608 68,311

4 TotalenergysavingattributabletoUNIDOproject 2011-15 TOE 4,100 83,186 81,227 173,039 341,553

5 ConvertTOEtoterrawatthours TKWh 0.05 0.97 0.94 2.01 4.0

5 Emissionintensity(basedonelectricityemission) constant MtCO2e/TWh 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45

5 CO2savings 2011-15 MtCO2 0.021 0.434 0.424 0.903 1.783

Source:DerivedfromapproachdevelopedbyVietnamTechnicalAdvisor

18Thetonofoilequivalent(toe)isaunitofenergydefinedastheamountofenergyreleasedbyburningonetonofcrude

oil.19EstimatedusingtheUSEPAGHGequivalenciescalculatorfoundathttps://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-

gas-equivalencies-calculator

112

Table4.4ii.EstimatedenergysavingfromtheinterventioninVietnam—2016‒2020.

StepMeasure Year(s) Units Rubber PaperFood

processing TextilesTargetedsectors

Highenergyconsumingenterprises 2011 15 32 48 64 159

PotentialEnergySaving2016‒2020

1 Baselineconsumption 2015 82,002 500,369 324,910 461,437 1,368,718

2 Growthrate(average2015‒2020) 2016-20 rate 1.28 1.87 1.49 1.44

2 Forecastannualconsumption 2020 TOE 105,145 933,372 484,337 665,652 2,188,505

3 PotentialenergysavingsfromEnMS annual % 4.00% 13% 20% 30%

3 ForecastenergysavingsfromEnMS annual TOE 4,206 124,138 96,867 199,696 424,907

4 EnergysavingattributabletoUNIDOproject annual 25% 1,051 31,035 24,217 49,924 106,227

4 TotalenergysavingattributabletoUNIDOproject 2016-20 TOE 5,257 155,173 121,084 249,619 531,134

5 ConvertTOEtoterrawatthours TKWh 0.06 1.80 1.41 2.90 6.2

5 Emissionintensity(basedonelectricityemission) constant MtCO2e/TWh 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51

5 CO2savings 2016-20 MtCO2 0.031 0.920 0.718 1.480 3.148

Source:DerivedfromapproachdevelopedbyVietnamTechnicalAdvisor

Note:TOE=tonofoilequivalent.

ChangeinEnergyConsumptionAttributabletotheIntervention—Indonesia

IntheabsenceofdatathataresimilartothoseavailableinVietnam,theestimationextrapolated

fromactualmeasurementofenergyconsumptionfor19pilotprojectenterprisesinIndonesia.From

thesedataitwaspossibletogenerateanestimateoftheaverageCO2reductionforpilotenterprises

ineachofthesectorsandthenextrapolatethisestimatetotheentirepopulationofenterprises

participatingintheUNIDOtraining.Theportionofthechangeattributabletotheinterventionis

thenestimatedusingthefactorof0.3establishedintheRIEprocess.Theestimatedannual

reductioninCO2emissionsis0.313MtCO2,1.57over5years,3.13over10years,bothverysimilarto

theestimatedlevelsforVietnam.Estimationsarepresentedintable4.5.

113

Table4.5.EstimatingGHGemissionreductionsattributabletotheintervention—Indonesia. EstimateaverageCO2emissionreductions

Batch1

Batch2

Batch1

Batch2

Batch1

Batch2

Bothbatches

combined

Reduction

inCO2

(tCO2/y)

Reduction

inCO2

(tCO2/y)

Pilot

enterprises

Pilot

enterprises

Average

Average

Average

Textiles 21,187 18,029 5 3 4237.4 6009.7 4902

Pulp&paper 10,680 2 5340.0 5340

Food&beverages 956 3 318.7 319

Chemicals 845 60,575 1 5 845.0 12115.0 10237

11 8

EstimatetotalCO2emissionreductionsattributabletoUNIDOintervention

Total

enterprises

takingtraining

Average

reductionin

CO2

(tCO2/y)

MtCO2

reductionper

year(tCO2/y)

UNIDO

shareannual

CO2

reduction

(tCO2/y)

UNIDO

shareannual

CO2

reduction

(MtCO2/y)

Textiles 41 4902 200,982.00 60,295

Pulp&paper 33 5340 176,220.00 52,866

Food&beverages 102 319 32,504.00 9,751

Chemicals 62 10237 634,673 190,402

Total 238 1,044,379 313,314 0.31

3

1.57 Source:DerivedfromdatafilesprovidedbyIndonesiaUNIDOprogram3.3CO2ReductionEnMSVer0_updated-Oct2015AINDes22-Rev-Aprie_Summary,2.1Summary_TrainingParticipants_EnMS_All_Updated-April2016_April

Twocaveatsneedtobementioned.First,theIndonesiaestimatedoesnotincludeprovisionfor

growthinenergyconsumptionduetoeconomicandenterprisegrowthaswasdoneforVietnam.

Second,thepilotcompaniesfromwhichthemeasurementswereobtainedreceivedenriched

supportfromtheprogram,andthus,arelikelytohavebeenbetterperforming.Eachofthesefactors

wouldhaveledtoanoverestimationofemissionreductionsinIndonesia.Thelevelof

overestimationcannotbedetermined.

SummaryofEstimatesofEnergySavings

Theestimatedsavingsinenergyandreductioningreenhousegasemissionlevelsaresummarizedin

table4.6.Theprogramoperatesinfivecountries.Table4.6onlyprovidesestimatesforthetwo

addressedinthecasestudy.

114

Table4.6.EnergysavingandGHGemissionreductionbyenterprisesparticipatingintheprogramintwoofthefivecountries—VietnamandIndonesia. Vietnam Indonesia Combined

Five-yearenergysaving(TOE) 341,553

Ten-yearenergysaving(TOE) 531,134

FiveyearGHGemissionreduction(MtCO2) 1.78 1.57 3.35

TenyearGHDemissionreduction(MtCO2) 3.14 3.13 6.27

FiveyearGHGemissionreductionequivalentto

removingthisnumberofUSvehiclesforayear376,629 331,637 708,266

TenyearGHGemissionreductionequivalentto

removingthisnumberofUSvehiclesforayear664,963 661,161 1,326,124

Source:Extractedfromotherfigures

TheVietnamandIndonesiaprojectsareofsimilardesignandimplementation.Whiletheapproach

toestimatingGHGemissionreductionwasdifferentforthetwocountries,theresultsforthetwo

countriesarestrikinglyconsistent.

Long-TermProjectResults

Themainavenuesfortheprojectstohavelargerandlonger-termbenefitsare:(1)through

continuedapplicationbeyond2020ofEnMSbytheparticipatingenterprisesand(2)through

replicationoftheactivitiesintroducedbytheprojects.Severalavenuesofferprospectsfor

replicationsuchasUNIDO-trainednationalexpertsprovidingtraining,throughtheserviceprovision

effortsofotherproject-trainedenergyefficiencyexperts,andmarketdevelopmenteffortsof

project-trainedsuppliers.

Replicationcanoccurinseverallocations.Thoseenterprisesthatparticipatedintheinitialtraining

providedbytheprojectmightbecomepersuadedofthevirtuesofEnMSastheycomplywiththe

energyauditrequirementsofnationallegislationorthroughobservingenergyefficiencyeffortsby

theirpeers,aswellastheUNIDOpilotsandcasestudieseffectsofcontributionstootherenterprises

insideandoutsidethefourtargetedsectors.Replicationcanalsooccurtohighenergyconsuming

enterprisesoutsidethefoursectorstargetedbytheprojectsandtootherenterprisesnotcurrently

classedashighenergyconsumingwithinthefourtargetedsectors.Factorsbeyondtheprojectssuch

asnationallegislationandISO50,001arealsoveryimportantdriversofincreasedlong-termenergy

saving.

WiththeRIEestimatesthat25‒30%ofenterprisesenteringtheprogramwilladoptEnMS,the

remainingnot-yet-energyefficiententerprisesoffersignificantreplicationpotentialforadditional

benefitsiftheyweretoimplementEnMS.Theprojectsincludeoutputsintendedtoencourageand

facilitatethis.TheunderlyingassumptionisthattheforcesinfavorofenergyefficiencyandEnMS

willcontinueandpotentiallygrow.Amongthesearethenationallegislationandothernationaland

internationaleffortstopromoteenergyefficiency,andthelikelihoodthatenergypriceswillincrease

aswillmarketdemandsforsustainableproduction.Theseforceswillencourageenterprisemanagers

tolooktoreducingenergyconsumptionandcosts.Theprojectsanticipatethisbytrainingnational

energyefficientexpertsresourcedwithnationally-relevanttrainingmaterialstoprovideongoing

trainingpertheUNIDOapproachthoughcommercialandinstitutionalsettings.Importantly,UNIDO

hasdevelopedacadreofenergyefficiencyconsultantsineachcountryandsupportedformationof

professionalnetworksonthepremisethattheywillberequired,asotherhighenergyconsuming

enterprisesrecognizetheneedforenergyefficiencycomplementedbytheseconsultantsmarketing

theirservices.Theprojectshavealsoaddressedinstitutionalcapacitiesingovernmentandthe

financesectortoreducefrictionalbarrierstoenterprisesadoptingmoreenergyefficientproduction

115

(outcomeE).Additionalgainscouldbehadwithextendingenergysavingtosmallandmedium

enterprisesthroughEnMSandthroughsystemsoptimization;forexample,whenreplacing

equipmentsuchasaboiler.

ThesurveysandexpertworkshopsinVietnamandIndonesiaonlyaddressedreplicationofthe

UNIDOinterventioninthecontextofalloftheotherforcesalsoencouragingenergyefficiency,and

didnotconsiderthecounterfactualwithouttheUNIDOintervention.Replicationoperatesinavery

complicatedanddynamicenvironmentwhereitwouldbetoochallengingforparticipantstoprovide

estimatesunderthecounterfactualandthroughthatcomparisonobtainanestimateofUNIDO’s

contributiontoreplication.Figure4.14presentstheviewsofprojectparticipants,theexpertpanel,

andthetechnicaladvisorforIndonesiaonreplicationaddressingthequestion:Howlikelyisitthat

thesehighenergyconsumingenterprisesthatwerenotpartoftheprojectbutlearningofthe

benefitsofenergymanagementsystemsfromnationalexpertsorthedemonstrationsandcase

studieswillimplementanenergymanagementsystem?Theresultspresentedinfigure4.14suggestgoodprospectsforreplicationtooverathirdoftheremaininghighenergyconsumingenterprisesin

thetargetedsectorsthatarenotyetenergyefficient.Thiswouldhaveasignificantknock-oneffect,

potentiallyreducingGHGgasemissionsbyaboutthesameamountastheUNIDOcontributions

estimatedintheprevioussection.Theattributionwouldbetotheentireconstellationofenergy

efficiencyefforts,includingthosesupportedbyGEF/UNIDO.

Figure4.14.AssessmentofreplicationfromUNIDOandotherforces 1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00


VietNam Indonesia

Source:DerivedfromRIEsurveyandworkshopdata

Longer-termeffectsattributabletotheinterventionareimportantlycontingentonsustainingthe

effectsoftheprojects.Apanelofleadingglobalexpertsinenergyefficiencywasaskedtoconsider

prospectsforsuccessonthisbyaddressingthequestionoftheportionoftheknock-oneffectsthat

UNIDOinterventionscouldbecreditedwithachieving.Theattributionwouldbestrongerif

prospectsarestrongforsustainingtheprojectgains(ashelflifequestion)andprospectsforthe

trainedserviceproviderstoreplicateorupscalebeyondthefirstroundofadoptingenterprises.The

globalpanelwasalsoaskedtoassessthepotentialforreplicationinothercountries.Thespecific

outcomesassessedbytheglobalpanelwere:

• TheknowledgeandcapacitybuiltthroughtheUNIDOtrainingislikelytobeapplied

overalonger-timeperiod,andhavegoodprospectsofbecomingself-sustainingin

eachparticipatingcountry

• NationalexpertsandotherscompletingtheEnMStrainingareabletoadapttheir

116

newlyacquiredknowledgeandthetrainingtheyprovidetochangingaudiencesin

the5participatingcountries

• There is potential to foster adoptionof EnMS in SoutheastAsia industriesbeyond

participatingcountries,sincethescaleofawarenessandeffort is largerandhigher

profile

Theassessmentsoftheindividualpanelmembers(figure4.15)werethattheshelflifeofthe

GEF/UNIDO-supportedeffortstobuildacontinuinginfrastructuretosupportenergyefficiencyare

likelytoprovesomewhat-to-moderatelypositiveforthefirstoutcomeonthelikelihoodthatthe

UNIDOtrainingwouldbecomeself-sustainingineachcountry.Theglobalpanelisquitepessimistic

abouttheadaptivecapacityofthosereceivingUNIDOtrainingandthattheexistingGEF/UNIDO

programcouldexpandbeyondthecurrentfivecountries.

Figure4.15.Globalexperts’assessments-likelihoodofsustainabilityandreplication

Source:Datafromglobalexpertworkshop

Thissuggeststhattheglobalexpertsregardreplicationtootherhighenergy-consumingenterprises

inthetargetedsectorsinprogramcountriesasaplausiblepathwayforreplication.However,their

capacitytoadaptontheirownisunlikelytoprovesufficientshouldsignificantchangesoccur(e.g.,in

technology).Prospectsforexpansionbeyondthefiveprogramcountriesarealsoregardedasdimin

theabsenceoftargetedeffortssuchastheGEF/UNIDOprogram.Together,thissuggeststhatthe

approachestoreplicationbuiltintotheGEF/UNIDOprogramdeservereview.Importantly,the

GEF/UNIDOeffortsarepartofawiderconstellationofenergyefficiencyeffortscontributingto

improvingenergyefficiencyandsustainableconsumptionandproductioninSoutheastAsia.

4.4.3OverallRIEResults

TheGEF/UNIDOprogramisleadingtoquitesignificantenergysavinggainsinbothcountries.These

gainsareattributabletotheprogramsetinthecontextofnationallegislation,ISO50000,andother

factors.TotalGHGemissionsofapproximately1.75milliontonsofCO2overthefirstfiveyearsin

VietnamandinIndonesiacanbeattributedtothechildprojects;andforthefollowingfive-year

periodafurtherreductionof3.1milliontonsofCO2inVietnamandinIndonesiacanbeattributed

totheprogram.Itisplausiblethatanimportantportionofenterprisesthatdidnotengageinthe

initialinterventionwilladditionallyundertakeEnMS,therebyprovidingfurthersignificantGHG

savingsattributabletotheeffortsoftheprogram.

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Prospectsforbecomingself-sustaining

Prospectsforadaptingtochange

ProspectsforadoptioninotherSEAsiancountries

Expert1 Expert2 Expert3

Expert4 Mean

Certain

Likely

Moderatelylikely

Somewhatlikely

Willnotoccur

117

Appendix4.4A:RapidImpactEvaluation

RIEisanevaluationapproachdevelopedtoprovideestimatesofthetargetimpactsattributableto

aninterventionwhereforvariousreasonsotherexistingapproachesarenotfeasible,ethical,or

plausible.RIEisrelativelylowcost,flexibleandcanbeappliedwithlimitedlevelsofprogramand

resultsdata.Itsystematicallytriangulatesjudgmentsofdistinctgroupswithexpertiseinthedesign

andimplementationoftheinitiativeandintheunderlyingsciences.Itrestsonnewdevelopmentsin

theconceptanduseofcounterfactuals,ongreatlysimplifiedimpactmetricsandoninterest-based

evaluation.TheseRIEmethodscanbeappliedaspartofanyormostmixedmethodevaluations,or

theycanbeappliedtogetherasthefullRIEapproach.Thatapproachrestsonandappliesgood

contemporaryknowledgeaboutfactorsthatinfluenceuseofevaluationandscienceknowledge.

RIEutilizesthescenario-basedcounterfactual,anewapproachforcomparingtheinterventiontoan

alternative.Theusualcomparisoniswithandwithouttheintervention;thescenario-basedcounterfactualisawaytocomparetheinterventiontoaplausible,feasible,ethicalandfeasible

alternative.Normallythiswillprovetobeapproachesappliedelsewhereand/orseriouslyconsidered

asanalternativeforthissetting.Forthisapplication,thealternativewasbusiness-as-usualwhere

theexistingnationallegislation,ISO50,001andotherconditionsallcontinuedtoapplybutthe

UNIDOprogramwasnotoffered.ForRIEapplicationsthisisarareinstancewherethescenario-

basedcounterfactualwaswithandwithouttheintervention.TheresearchandpracticebaseofenergyefficiencyforenterprisessofirmlypointedtoUNIDO-typeapproachesthatselectingan

alternativeapproachwouldbequiteartificial.Thescenario-basedcounterfactualsforVietnamand

Indonesiawereverysimilar.

RIEhasthreedistinctphases.Thefirstphase—analogoustoacollaborativeevaluationdesign—is

criticallyimportantwherethenecessaryelementsfortheimpactassessmentareidentifiedand

specified,andthereisconsensusthattheseprovideareasonabledescriptionoftheintervention

amongallofthekeyinterestsinvolvedintheintervention.Structuredinformationgathering

includingapplicationoftheRIEimpactmetricsisundertakeninthesecondphase.Twogroupsof

expertsareaskedtoprovidetheirassessmentontheimpactmetrics;thefirstgroupconsistsof

programexpertsandincludesrepresentativesofallinterestsinvolvedinand/oraffectedbythe

intervention,thesecondgroupofexpertsinthesubjectmatterofthescienceorknowledge

underlyingtheintervention.Aweb-basedsurveyisusedtogaininputsfromtheprogramexperts,a

facilitatedworkshopforthesubjectmatterexperts.Theimpactmetricsarealsoassessedbyoneor

moretechnicaladvisorstotheevaluationwhoarethemselvesexpertsinoneormoreofthesubject

domainsandwhohavegainedconsiderableknowledgeabouttheinterventionthroughtheir

involvementwiththeevaluation.Thethirdphaseincludesanalysis,communications,andreporting

andqualityassurance.

118

Appendix4.4B:ExpertPanelComposition

VietnamPanelHaDangSon IndependentConsultant.HaDangSonhasbeeninvolvedinvariousconsultingand

policyadvisoryactivitiesrelatedtoenergyandclimatechange.Recently,Mr.Son

actedasacertifiedtraineroftheAEMASprogram—aregionalinitiativeonpromoting

energymanagementstandardintheAssociationofSoutheastAsianNations(ASEAN)

region;andinchargeastechnicaladvisorfortheCleanProductionandEnergy

EfficiencyprojectinVietnam.Mr.SonalsoledateamtosupporttheMinistryof

ConstructioninVietnamondevelopingtheLowCarbonDevelopmentActionPlanfor

thecementsector.Currently,MrSonisinvolvedintheVietnamLowEmissionEnergy

ProgramfundedbyUSAIDtosupporttheMinistryofIndustryandTradeofVietnam

withafocusonRenewableEnergyandEnergyEfficiency.

MaiVanHuyen IndependentConsultant.MaiVanHuyen,aMSc.GraduateoftheInstituteof

SociologyofVietnamNationalUniversityinHanoi,hasspentsevenyearsworkingas

CommunicationandAwarenessRaisingCoordinatorfortheMinistryofScienceand

Technology,supportingtheindustrialenergyefficiencyeffortsinVietnam.From2013

todate,Mr.HuyenhasservedasChiefRepresentativeinHanoifortheEnergy

ConservationCenter(ECCHCMC)andasamemberoftheVietnamEnergy

ConservationandEfficiencyAssociation.

PhamThiHanh

Nhan

IndependentConsultant.PhamThiHanhNhanworkedaseconomicconsultantfor

PECSMEproject.Atpresent,sheisworkingasProjectCoordinatorforLowCarbon

EnergyEfficiency(LCEE)Program.Ms.HanhNhanhasbeenlecturingEconomicsand

DevelopmentIssuesforthelast26years,supervisingbachelorstudentsintheirfinal

thesis,andconductingresearchoneconomicandfinancialtopics.Herexpertiseison

financialmechanismandpolicyrelatedtoenergyefficiency.Ms.HanhNhanholdsa

MasterDegreeonDevelopmentEconomicsfromtheLondonUniversity.

TangThiHong

Loan

ViceDirectorofEPRO(sheattendedcompressedairsystemoptimizationtraining

course).TangThiHongLoanobtainedaMasterDegreeinEnvironmentalEngineering

andBachelorDegreeinFoodProcessingatHanoiUniversityofTechnology.Ms.Loan

isafounderofEPRO.Shehasadeepexperienceincleanerproduction,information,

qualitycontrol,monitoring,andevaluation.BeforejoiningEPRO,Ms.Loanworkedat

theVietnamCleanerProductionCentreanditshostorganization,theInstitutefor

EnvironmentalScienceandTechnology,ofHanoiUniversityofTechnology.

NguyenXuan

Quang

LectureratHanoiUniversityofTechnology(heattendedEnMS/compressedair

systemoptimization/steamsystemoptimizationtrainingcourse).NguyenXuan

QuangobtainedhisPh.DinChemicaltechnicatTechnischeUniversitätWien,Austria

andhisMasterdegreeonEnergyTechnicatAIT.Dr.Quangwasinvolvedin

consultationworkrelatedtoenergyefficiency.HisinterestresearchisonBoiler,

EnergyEfficiency(energymanagementmodels,energysavingsolutions,among

others),BiomassGasification,Technologybrickkilns,Optimizationofsystem

furnaces,andindustrialdryers.

IndonesiaPanelChipRinaldi

SabirinUniversityofIndonesiaandcofounderofWestonSolarEnergy

FabbyTumiwa ExecutiveDirectorofInstituteforEssentialServicesReform(IESR),inJakarta.IESR

undertakespublicpolicyanalysisandpolicyadvocacyontheissuesofenergy,

extractiveindustriesandclimatechange

Parlindungan

Marpaung

DirectorofCertificationBodyforProfessionalEngineer(EnergyManagerandEnergy

Auditor)

119

Herlin

Herlianika

HerlinHerliankaisthemanagerofNationalRefrigerationandAirConditioning

Contractor,afirmthatoffersmaintenanceandinstallationonchillers,centralair

conditioningsystems,andcoldstorageinindustrialapplications.Shehasmorethan

12yearsofexperienceaslecturerinthemajorofrefrigerationandairconditioning

subjectsatBandungStateofPolytechnicinBandung,Indonesia,andheld

assignmentswithinternationalinstitutionssuchasADBandUnilever.

Triyono

Adiputra

TriyonoAdiputramanagesaconsultancycompanyfocusingongreenbuilding

certification,energyauditing,andtrainingforenergymanagementsystem.Healso

intermittentlyworksintheenergyefficiency,renewableenergy,andconstruction

sectors.

GlobalPanelNealElliott NealElliottcoordinatesACEEE'soverallresearcheffortsandleadstheAgricultural

program.Heisaninternationallyrecognizedexpertandauthoronenergyefficiency,

energyefficiencyprogramsandpolicies,electricmotorsystems,combinedheatand

power(CHP)andcleandistributedenergy,andanalysisofenergyefficiencyand

energymarkets,plusafrequentspeakeratdomesticandinternationalconferences.

HejoinedACEEEin1993.PriortojoiningACEEE,Mr.Elliottwasanadjunctassociate

professorofcivilandenvironmentalengineeringatDukeUniversityandsenior

engineeringprojectmanagerattheN.C.AlternativeEnergyCorp.(nowAdvanced

Energy)wherehewasfoundingdirectoroftheIndustrialEnergyLaboratory.

PaulScheihing PaulScheihingisatechnologymanagerwithintheEnergyDepartment’sAdvanced

ManufacturingOffice(AMO)andarecognizedexpertinindustrialenergy

management.In2013,theAmericanCouncilforanEnergy-EfficientEconomy

recognizedhimwithaChampionofEnergyEfficiencyinIndustryAwardfor

“leadershipinimplementationofindustrialenergyefficiency,andacareerof

advocatingforenergyefficiencywithingovernmentandindustry.

JigarShah JigarShahisthePresidentandCofounderofGenerateCapital.Mr.Shahfounded

SunEdison(NASDAQ:SUNE),whereheservedasitsfirstCEO,pioneeringthe“no

moneydownsolar”programandunlockingamultibillion-dollarsolarmarket,

creatingthelargestsolarservicescompanyworldwide.HeistheauthorofCreating

ClimateWealth:UnlockingtheImpactEconomy.AfterSunEdison,Mr.Shahservedas

thefoundingCEOoftheCarbonWarRoom,aglobalnonprofitfoundedbySirRichard

BransonandVirginUnitetohelpentrepreneursaddressclimatechange.

AmitBando AmitBandoworksoncorporatechangemanagementissuesinAsia,Europe,andthe

Americas;designing,financing,andimplementingmarket-based,cleanenergy,and

urbaninfrastructuredevelopmentprograms;inthepast5yearsalonehehas

programmedover$18billionworldwide.IntheU.S.,hehashelpeddesigntheSO2

emissionstradingprogramandthetradingframeworkfortheChicagoClimate

Exchange(CCX),whilealsopreparingpositionpapersonclimatechangemitigation.

InadditiontoservingastheExecutiveDirectoroftheInternationalPartnershipfor

EnergyEfficiencyCooperation(IPEEC),wherehecoordinatedsector-specificenergy

efficiencypolicies,regulations,andstandardstopromotefinancingofcleanenergy

initiativesinG-20membernations,Mr.BandohasservedasaSeniorPolicyScientist

attheU.S.DepartmentofEnergy.HehastaughtattheUniversitiesofParis,

Minnesota,Illinois,andChicagoaswellasatNewMexicoStateUniversity.

120

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

ManagersacceptManagerssupport

businesscase-

participants

change-

participants

Enterprises Enterprisesinvest

institutionalize inEnMSprojects-

EnMS-participants participants

Outcomes

EnMSpilotcompany

Industrialenterprisesreceivingtrainingsandsupportfromtheproject

Allsectors

Expertpanel

Technicaladvisor

Appendix4.4C:ProgramExpertPanelAssessments–Disaggregated

Indonesia

Vietnam

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

Managers

acceptbusiness

case-

participants

Managers

supportchange-

participants

Enterprise

s

Enterprisesinvest

ininstitutionalize EnMSprojects

-EnMS-participants

participantOutcomes

Nationalexperts

Allsectors

Industrialenterprises

Expertpanel

Knowledgeexperts

Technicaladvisor

121

References

ADB(AsianDevelopmentBank).2010.“People’sRepublicofChina:CapacityBuildingtoCombatLand

DegradationProject—CompletionReport.”https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-

document/62142/36445-02-prc-pcr.pdf.

―2014.“ProjectCompletionReport:TA7439-PRC:ManagementandPolicySupporttoCombatLand

Degradation.”Internaldocument.

Alix-Garcia,J.M.,EN.Shapiro,andK.R.E.Sims.2012.“ForestConservationandSlippage:Evidence

fromMexico’sNationalPaymentsforEcosystemServicesProgram.”LandEconomics88(4):613–638.

Athey,Susan,andGuidoImbens.2015."RecursivePartitioningforHeterogeneousCausalEffects."

arXivpreprintarXiv:1504.01132.

Biau,G.2012.“AnalysisofaRandomForestsModel.”JournalofMachineLearningResearch13:1063‒1095.

Boesen,Nils,andDesireeDietvorst.2007.“SWApsinMotion—SectorWideApproaches:FromanAid

DeliverytoaSectorDevelopmentPerspective2006‒2007.”ReflectionsfromtheJointLearning

ProgrammeonSector-WideApproaches,January2006toApril2007.http://www.train4dev.net.

Borak,J.S.,E.F.Lambin,andA.H.Strahler.2000.“TheUseofTemporalMetricsforLandCoverChange

DetectionatCoarseSpatialScales.”InternationalJournalofRemoteSensing21(6-7):1415–1432.

Brown,Adrienne,MickFoster,AndyNorton,andFelixNaschold.2001.“TheStatusofSectorWide

Approaches,”OverseasDevelopmentInstitute,WorkingPaper142.ODI,London,UK.

Buffardi,AnneL.,andSimonHearn.2015.“Multi-ProjectPrograms.Functions,FormsandImplications

forEvaluationandLearning.”MethodsLab.

CARE.2008.“WhatisaProgramApproach?”AchievingtheProgrammaticOrganization.

http://www.care.org.

CBD(ConventiononBiologicalDiversity).2016.“FrameworkforMonitoringImplementationofthe

Achievementofthe2010TargetandIntegrationofTargetsintotheThematicProgrammesofWork.”

COP8DecisionVIII/15.https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=11029.

Christman, Zachary, Christman Zachary, Rogan John, J. Ronald Eastman, and B. L. Turner II. 2015.

“QuantifyingUncertaintyandConfusioninLandChangeAnalyses:ACaseStudyfromCentralMexico

UsingMODISData.”GIScienceandRemoteSensing1–28.

CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency). 2003. “CIDA Primer on Program-Based

Approaches.”

Critchley,Willliam.2013.“AReviewofthePRC-GlobalEnvironmentFacilityPartnershiponLand

DegradationinDrylandEcosystems.”ADB,internaldocument.

DANIDA(DenmarkAgencyforInternationalDevelopmentAgency).2010.“Evaluationof

ProgrammaticApproachestoSupportfortheEnvironmentinAfrica1996‒2009,”MinistryofForeign

AffairsofDenmark,Copenhagen,Denmark.

Denil,Misha,AlbanDemiraj,NalKalchbrenner,PhilBlunsom,andNandodeFreitas.2014."Modelling,

VisualisingandSummarisingDocumentswithaSingleConvolutionalNeuralNetwork."arXivpreprintarXiv:1406.3830.

DFID(DepartmentforInternationalDevelopment).2001.“SectorWideApproaches(SWAps).”PolicyandPlanningImplementation.

EC(EuropeanCommission).2007.“SupporttoSectorPrograms.Coveringthethreefinancing

modalities:SectorBudgetSupport,Poolfundingandprojectprocedures.”EU,Brussels,Belgium.

―2008.“SectorApproachesinAgricultureandRuraldevelopment.”EU,Brussels,Belgium.

FAO(FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations).2016“InformingFutureInterventions

forScalingUpSustainableLandManagement:LessonsLearnedforDecision-MakersfromaReviewof

ExperiencesoftheTerrAfricaStrategicInvestmentProgramonSLMinSub-SaharanAfrica(SIP)Under

122

theNEPAD-TerrafricaPartnershipFramework.”FAO,Rome,Italy.

http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/bb5da766-90c6-475e-8ea4-a66f6900f670.

Feng,Qi,HuaMa,XuemeiJiang,XinWang,andShixiongCao.2015.“WhatHasCausedDesertification

inChina?”ScientificReports5;15998.doi:10.1028/srep15998.http://www.nature.com/articles/srep15998.

Foley,J.A.,JonathanA.Foley,RuthDeFries,GregoryP.Asner,CarolBarford,GordonBonan,Stephen

R.Carpenter,F.StuartChapin,MichaelT.Coe,GretchenC.Daily,HollyK.Gibbs,JosephH.Helkowski,

TraceyHolloway,EricaA.Howard,ChristopherJ.Kucharik,ChadMonfreda,JonathanA.Patz,I.Colin

Prentice,NavinRamankutty,andPeterK.Snyder.2005.“GlobalConsequencesofLandUse.”Science309(5734):570‒574.doi:10.1126/science.1111772.

Friedl,M.A.,C.E.Brodley.1997.“DecisionTreeClassificationofLandCoverFromRemotelySensed

Data.”RemoteSens.Environ.

Friedl,M.A.,D.KMcIver,J.C.FHodges,X.YZhang,D.Muchoney,A.H.Strahler,C.E.Woodcock,S.

Gopal,A.Schneider,A.Cooper,A.Baccini,F.Gao,andC.Schaaf.2002.“GlobalLandCoverMapping

FromMODIS:AlgorithmsandEarlyResults”RemoteSensingofEnvironment83(1–2):287–302.doi:10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00078-0.

Gamba,P.(Ed.),M.Herold,andM.Ehlers.2010.GlobalMappingofHumanSettlement.BocaRaton,FL:CRCPress.

GEF(GlobalEnvironmentFacility).2001.“GEFProgrammaticApproach:CurrentUnderstandings.”

GEF/C.17/Inf.11.GEF,Washington,DC.

―2015.“FourYearWorkProgramandBudgetoftheGEFIndependentEvaluationOffice.”

GEF/ME/C.48/01.GEF,Washington,DC.

―2016a.“ProjectstoPrograms:ClarifyingtheProgrammaticApproachintheGEFPortfolio.”

GEF/C.33/6.GEF,Washington,DC.

―2016b.“SixthComprehensiveEvaluationoftheGEF(OPS6)ApproachPaper.”GEF/ME/C.50/07.

GEF,Washington,DC.

―2016c.“ValueforMoneyAnalysisfortheLandDegredationProjectsoftheGEF.”

GEF/ME/C.51/Inf.2.GEF,Washington,DC.

GEFSecretariat.2012.“InternalReviewofProgrammaticApproaches,”2012.GEF,Washington,DC.

GEFIEO(IndependentEvaluationOffice).2016.“EvaluationofProgrammaticApproaches:Approach

Paper.”GEF,Washington,DC.

―2017.“ValueforMoneyAnalysisforProgrammaticProjectsoftheGEF.”GEF,Washington,DC.

GDPRD(GlobalDonorPlatformforRuralDevelopment).2007.“FormulatingandImplementing

Sector-WideApproachesinAgricultureandRuralDevelopment,”SynthesisReport.ODI,London,UK.

https://www.gichd.org/fileadmin/pdf/LIMA/Formulating-and-implementing-Sector-Wide-

Approaches-in-agriculture-development.pdf.

Hansen,M.C.,P.V.Potapov,R.Moore,M.Hancher,S.A.Turubanova,A.Tyukavina,D.Thau,S.V.

Stehman,S.J.Goetz,T.R.Loveland,A.Kommareddy,A.Egorov,L.Chini,C.O.Justice,J.R.G.

Townshend.2013.“High-ResolutionGlobalMapsof21st-CenturyForestCoverChange.”Science342,850.doi:10.1126/science.1244693.

IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). 2016. “People’s Republic of China–An

Integrated Ecosystem Management Approach to the Conservation of Biodiversity in Dryland

Ecosystems–TerminalEvaluationReviewReport.”IFAD,Rome,Italy.

Lambin,EricF.,B.L.Turner,HelmutJ.Geist,SamuelB.Agbola,ArildAngelsen,JohnW.Bruce,Oliver

T.Coomes,RodolfoDirzo,GüntherFischer,CarlFolke,P.S.George,KatherineHomewood,Jacques

Imbernon,RikLeemans,XiubinLi,EmilioF.Moran,MichaelMortimore,P.S.Ramakrishnan,JohnF.

Richards,HelleSkånes,WillSteffen,GlennD.Stone,UnoSvedin,TomA.Veldkamp,ColeenVogel,and

JianchuXu.(2001).TheCausesofLand-UseandLand-CoverChange:MovingBeyondtheMyths.

GlobalEnvironmentalChange11(4):261‒269.doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(01)00007-3.

123

Liverman, D., E.F. Moran, R.R. Rindfuss, and P.C. Stern. 1998. “People and Pixels: Linking Remote

SensingandSocialScience.”NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,D.C.

Laurance,WilliamF.,AnaK.M.Albernaz,SchrothGotz,PhilipM.Fearnside,BergenScott,EduardoM.

Venticinque,andCarlosDaCosta.2002.“PredictorsofDeforestationintheBrazilianAmazon.”

JournalofBiogeography29(5-6):737–48.

Meinshausena,Nicolai,AlainHauser,JorisMooij,JonasPeters,PhilipVersteeg,andPeterBuehlmann.

2016.“MethodsforCausalInferenceFromGenePerturbationExperimentsandValidation.”

ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciences113(27):7361–7368.

Meyer,WilliamB.,andB.L.TurnerII.1996.“Land-Use/Land-CoverChange:Challengesfor

Geographers.”GeoJournal39(3):237–240.doi:10.1007/BF00188373.

Miller, Daniel C., Agrawal Arun, and J. Timmons Roberts. 2012. “Biodiversity, Governance, and the

AllocationofInternationalAidforConservation.”ConservationLetters6(1):12–20.

Nagendra,H.,D.Munroe,andJ.Southworth.2004.“FromPatterntoProcess:LandscapeFragmentation

andtheAnalysisofLandUse/LandCoverChange.”Agriculture,EcosystemsandEnvironment101:111‒115.

Nelson,Andrew,andKennethM.Chomitz.2011. “EffectivenessofStrictvs.MultipleUseProtected

AreasinReducingTropicalForestFires:AGlobalAnalysisUsingMatchingMethods.”PloSOne6(8):e22722.

Nolte, Christoph, ArunAgrawal, KirstenM. Silvius, and Britaldo S. Soares-Filho. 2013. “Governance

Regime and Location Influence Avoided Deforestation Success of Protected Areas in the Brazilian

Amazon.”ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciencesoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica110(13):4956–61.

ODI(OverseasDevelopmentInstitute).2008.“EvaluationofSector-WideApproachinEnvironment.

ColumbiaCaseStudyReport.Characteristics,Opportunities,RisksandRecommendationsforTaking

theExperienceForward,”PolicyEvaluationDepartmentoftheDirectorate-GeneralforInternational

Cooperation(DGIS).ODI,London,UK.

OECD(OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment).2006.“HarmonisingDonor

PracticesforEffectiveAidDelivery,”DACGuidelinesandReferencesSeries,volume2.OECD,Paris,

France.

Ouyang,Zhiyun,HuaZheng,YiXiao,StephenPolasky,JianguoLiu,WeihuaXu,QiaoWang,LuZhang,

YangXiao,EnmingRao,LingJiang,FeiLu,XiaokeWang,GuangbinYang,ShihanGong,BingfangWu,

YuanZeng,WuYang,andGretchenC.Daily.2016.“ImprovementsinEcosystemServicesfrom

InvestmentsinNaturalCapital.”Science352(6292):1455‒1459.doi:10.1126/science.aaf2295.http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6292/1455.

Pfaff,AlexanderS.P.1999.“WhatDrivesDeforestationintheBrazilianAmazon?”JournalofEnvironmentalEconomicsandManagement37(1):26–43.

Rogan,John,RoganJohn,MillerJennifer,StowDoug,FranklinJanet,LevienLisa,andFischerChris.

2003.“Land-CoverChangeMonitoringwithClassificationTreesUsingLandsatTMandAncillaryData.”

PhotogrammetricEngineering&RemoteSensing69(7):793–804.

Runfola,D.M.,andR.G.PontiusJr.2013.“QuantifyingtheTemporalInstabilityofLandChange

Transitions.”InternationalJournalofGIS.

Schwert,B.,J.Rogan,N.M.Giner,Y.Ogneva-Himmelberger,S.D.Blanchard,andC.Woodcock.2013.

“AComparisonofSupportVectorMachinesandManualChangeDetectionforLand-CoverMap

UpdatinginMassachusetts,USA.”RemoteSensingLetters4(9):882–890.

Shen,Changyu,YangHu,XiaochunLi,YadongWang,Peng-ShengChen,andAlfredE.Buxton.2016.

“IdentificationofSubpopulationswithDistinctTreatmentBenefitRateUsingtheBayesianTree.”

BiometricalJournal.BiometrischeZeitschriftJune.doi:10.1002/bimj.201500180.

Staff,PLOSONE.2014“Correction:InferringTreeCausalModelsofCancerProgressionwith

ProbabilityRaising.”PLOSONE9(12):e115570.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115570.

STAP(ScientificandTechnicalAdvisoryPanel).2008.“ScientificandTechnicalScreeningofthe

124

ProgramFrameworkDocument.”Internaldocument.

Strahler,A.H.,A.Moody,andE.Lambin.n.d.“LandCoverandLand-CoverChangefromMODIS.”In

1995InternationalGeoscienceandRemoteSensingSymposium,IGARSS’95.QuantitativeRemote

SensingforScienceandApplications.doi:10.1109/igarss.1995.521802.

Su,X.,C.L.Tsai,H.Wang,D.M.Nickerson,andB.Li.2009.“SubgroupAnalysisviaRecursive

Partitioning.”JournalofMachineLearningResearch10(February):141‒158.

TerrAfrica.n.d.“InformingFutureEngagementforScalingupSustainableLandManagementin

Africa.”

Tengberg,Anna,FrankRadstake,KebinZhang,andBruceDunn.2014.“ScalingupofSustainableLand

ManagementintheWesternPeople’sRepublicofChina:Evaluationofa10-YearPartnership.”LandDegradation&Development27(2):134–144.doi:10.1002/ldr.2270.

TurnerII,B.L.,RogerE.Kasperson,PamelaA.Matson,etal.2003.“AFrameworkforVulnerability

AnalysisinSustainabilityScience.”ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciencesoftheUnitedStates100.14:8074–8079.

TurnerII,B.L.,D.Skole,S.Sanderson,G.Fischer,L.Fresco,andR.Leemans.1995.“Land-Useand

Land-CoverChange,Science/ResearchPlan.”IGBPReportNo.35/HDPReportNo.7.Stockholm,

Sweden,andGeneva,Switzerland.

UNCCD(UnitedNationsConventiontoCombatDesertification).2015.“AchievingLandDegradation

Neutrality,HowDoWeDoIt?”TheLandDegradationNeutralityProject,Cancun,Mexico.

http://www.unccd.int/en/Stakeholders/private_sector/Documents/Land%20Degradation%20Neutrali

ty.pdf.

UNDP(UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme).1998.“TheProgramApproach:Ownership,

PartnershipandCoordination.”EvaluationOffice.http://web.undp.org/evaluation/documents/progapp.htm

―2013.“ConservationandSustainableUseofGulfofMannar’sBiosphereReserve’sCoastal

Biodiversity.”DraftReportoftheTerminalEvaluationMission.ATLASID13013PIMS0568.

UnitedNations.1989.GeneralAssemblyResolution.A/RES/44/211.UN,NewYork,NY.

UN-REDD(UnitedNationsCollaborativeProgrammeonReducingEmissionsfromDeforestationand

ForestDegradationinDevelopingCountries).2010.UN-REDD2010YearinReview.http://www.forestcarbonportal.com/resource/un-redd-2010-year-review

vanAsselen,Sanneke,andPeterH.Verburg.2013.“LandCoverChangeorLand-UseIntensification:

SimulatingLandSystemChangewithaGlobal-ScaleLandChangeModel.”GlobalChangeBiology19(12):3648–3667.

Wager,Stefan,andSusanAthey.2017."EstimationandInferenceofHeterogeneousTreatment

EffectsUsingRandomForests."JournaloftheAmericanStatisticalAssociation.

Waldron,Anthony,ArneO.Mooers,DanielC.Miller,NateNibbelink,DavidRedding,TylerS.Kuhn,J.

TimmonsRoberts,andJohnL.Gittleman.2013.“TargetingGlobalConservationFundingtoLimit

ImmediateBiodiversityDeclines.”ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciencesoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica110(29):12144–12148.

WHO(WorldHealthOrganization).1999.Sector-WideApproachesforHealthDevelopment.WHO,

Geneva,Switzerland.https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-

files/4533.pdf

WorldBank.1996.“BestPracticeinSectorInvestmentPrograms,”FindingsAfricaRegionNumber11.

WB,WashingtonDC.

―2000.“MovingfromProjectstoProgrammaticAid,”OEDWorkingPaperSeriesNo.5.WB,

WashingtonDC.

―2011.“ProjectInformationDocument(PID)AppraisalStage.”ReportNo.:64848.WB,Washington

DC.

125

―2012.“China-PRC-GEFPartnershiptoCombatLandDegradationinDrylands.Knowledgefromthe

Field.”WB,WashingtonDC.

―2016.“OnaLoanintheAmountofUS$100MillionandaGrantfromtheGlobalEnvironment

Facility(GEF)TrustFundintheAmountofUS$4.265MilliontothePeople’sRepublicofChinaforthe

SustainableDevelopmentinPoorRuralAreasProject.”ImplementationCompletionandResults

Report(IBRD-79100).WB,WashingtonDC.

―n.d.“Investmentfundsfordevelopmentprogram.”ProgrammaticApproach,BackgroundConcept

Note.WB,WashingtonDC.

Yengoh,GenesisT.,DavidDent,LennartOlsson,AnnaE.Tengberg,andComptonJ.TuckerIII.2014.

“UseoftheNormalizedDifferenceVegetationIndex(NDVI)toAssessLandDegradationatMultiple

Scales:CurrentStatus,FutureTrends,andPracticalConsiderations.”STAP(ScientificandTechnical

AdvisoryPanel).http://www.stapgef.org/use-normalized-difference-vegetation-index-ndvi-assess-

land-degradation-multiple-scales-current.

Zhen,Lin,andHuiyuanZhang.2011.“PaymentforEcosystemServicesinChina:AnOverview."LivingReviewsinLandscapeResearch2,doi:10.12942/lrlr-2011-2.http://lrlr.landscapeonline.de/Articles/lrlr-2011-2/articlese4.html.

ZhouL.,andK.Shuifa.2013.“PRC-GEFPartnershiponLandDegradationinDrylandEcosystems‒

AssessmentReport.”AssessmentReport.RuralDevelopmentInstitue,ChineseAcademyofSocial

Sciences.Beijing,China.

Bibliography

Boeve,M.N.,andG.M.BroekVanDen.2012.“TheProgrammaticApproach;aFlexibleandComplex

TooltoAchieveEnvironmentalQualityStandards,”UtrechtLawReview,Volume8,Issue3.Conseilde

l’UnionEuropéenne.2006.“Nouvellesstratégiedel’UEenfaveurdudéveloppementdurable,”Annexe,NoteduSecrétariatGénéralauxdélégations.

DepartmentofEcology,StatepfWashington.2013.“WhatIstheDifferenceBetweenaProgrammatic

and a Project-Level Environmental Impact Statement? Yakima Basin Integrated Water Resource

ManagementPlan,”ReclamationManagingWaterintheWest.

DPER-SESénegal.Undated.“PlandecommunicationetdevisibilitéUE.ProjetdeDéveloppement

DurableparlesEnergiesRenouvelabesauSud-EstduSénégal.”

EC(EuropeanCommission).2004.“AidDeliveryMethods,”ProjectCycleManagementGuidelines,

volume1.EU,Brussels,Belgium.

―2014.“ADecentLifeforAll:FromVisiontoCollectiveAction.”Annextothecommunicationfromthe

CommissiontotheEuropeanParliament,theCouncil,theEuropeanEconomicandSocialCommittee

andtheCommitteeoftheregion.EU,Brussels,Belgium.

―2010.“ToolkitforCapacityDevelopment.”ToolsandMethodsSeries,ReferenceDocumentNo6.

EU,Brussels,Belgium.

―2015a.“AfricanPeaceFacility.AnnualReport2014,”InternationalCooperationandDevelopment.

EU,Brussels,Belgium.

―2015b.“EvaluationofEUSupporttoGenderEqualityandWomen'sEmpowermentinPartner

Countries,”ExecutiveSummary,InternationalCooperationandDevelopment.EU,Brussels,Belgium.

―2015c.“OntheEuropeanUnion’sDevelopmentandExternalAssistancePoliciesandthe

Implementationin2014,”DevelopmentandCooperation,AnnualReport.EU,Brussels,Belgium.

―2015d.“ThematicEvaluationoftheEUSupporttoEnvironmentandClimateChangeinThird

Countries(2007‒2013),”DevelopmentandCooperationEuropeAid,volume1.EU,Brussels,Belgium.

―n.d.1. “The Busan Commitments. An analysis of EU Progress and Performance.” EU, Brussels,Belgium.

―n.d.2.“EvaluationWorkProgram2016‒2020StrategicEvaluations.”EU,Brussels,Belgium.

126

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2011. “Guidelines for UsingProgrammaticApproachesinAgriculture.”FAO,Rome,Italy.

Global Donor Platform for Rural Development. n.d. “Formulating and Implementing Sector-Wide

Approaches in Agriculture and Rural Development: A Synthesis Report.”

https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/3926.pdf.

Harold, Peter et al. 1995. “The Broad Sector Approach to Investment Lending, Sector Investment

Programs,”WorldBank,Washington,DC.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2003. “Harmonising Donor

PracticesforEffectiveAidDelivery,”DACGuidelinesandReferencesSeries.OECD,Paris,France.

―2005‒2008. “TheParisDeclarationofAidEffectivenessand theAccraAgenda forAction.”OECD,

Paris,France.

OECD/DAC(DevelopmentAssistanceCommittee).2010.“Inventoryofdonorapproachestocapacity

development:whatwearelearning,”CapacityDevelopmentTeam.OECD,Paris,France.

PSO. 2007. “Reflecting on key programmatic lessons: a tool to explore your own-organisations-

practice.”

Rumpala,Yannick.2011.“Del'objectifde«développementdurable»àlagouvernementalisationduchangement.Expressionseteffetsd'unepréoccupationinstitutionnellerenouveléeenFranceetdansl'Unioneuropéenne,”Politiqueeuropéenne2011/1(n°33),p.119‒153.doi:10.3917/poeu.033.0119.

Sida.2013.“EvaluationofSida’sSupporttoEnvironmentInfrastructureandReformsinCentraland

EasternEuropeandWesternBalkans1995‒2010.ADeskStudy.”Sida,Stockholm,Sweden.

http://www.sida.se/publications.

Sida.2008.“GuidanceonProgram-BasedApproaches,”DepartmentforMethodologiesand

Effectiveness.Sida,Stockholm,Sweden.http://www.sida.se/publications.

UNDP(UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme).2005.“TransactionCoastinAid:CaseStudiesofSectorWideApproachesinZambiaandSenegal.”HumanDevelopmentReport.

http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2005_watt_patrick_26.pdf.

Independent Evaluation Office Global Environment Facility1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433, USAwww.gefieo.org /gefieo_tweets /gefieo

http://www.gefieo.org