Global Environment Facility
GEF/IS/2
July 9, 1997

The Council reviewed the proposed work program sent to Council Members by mail on July 9, 1997, and approves it subject to the technical comments submitted to the Secretariat within the review period.

CONTENTS:

SECRETARIAT COVER NOTE ON THE PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM

PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM

Technical Note:
Please note that the following proposals can be viewed online with the Adobe Reader or the files can be downloaded to your pc directly by choosing the download option. Some of the annexes to these proposals (letters of government endorsements, etc) are not available electronically. Copies of these are available on request from the GEF Secretariat.

A. Biodiversity

1. Ghana: Natural Resources Management (World Bank) - $8.90 million (Download / View)

2. Mongolia: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Livelihood Options in the Grasslands of Eastern Mongolia (UNDP) - $5.16 million (Download / View)

3. Pakistan: Protected Areas Management Project (World Bank) - $11.14 million (Download / View)

4. Regional: Conservation and Sustainable Use of Dryland Agro-Biodiversity of the Fertile Crescent (UNDP) - $8.18 million (Download / View)

B. Climate Change

5. Brazil: Energy Efficiency Project (World Bank) - $20.00 million (Download / View)

6. India: Coal Bed Methane Recovery and Commercial Utilization (UNDP) - $9.19 million (Download / View)

7. Vietnam: Demand-Side Management (World Bank) - $3.60 million (Download / View)

C. Ozone Depletion

8. Latvia: Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances (UNDP/UNEP) - $1.47 million (Download / View)

9. Lithuania: Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances (UNDP/UNEP) $4.65 million (Download / View)

Contents:

Composition of the Proposed Work Program
Programming of Resources
Enabling Activities
Progress on Revisions to Format of Project Briefs
Programmatic Context
Summary of Proposed Projects
Annex A Composition of Work Program
Annex B Cumulative Work Program by Focal Area
Annex C Enabling Activities

COMPOSITION OF THE PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM

1. At its meeting in April, 1997, the Council approved continuation of procedures for the review and approval of work programs by mail. This cover note addresses the programmatic issues illustrated by the work program proposed for approval by mail.

2. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO/Chairman), after reviewing the conclusions and recommendations of the review meetings with the Implementing Agencies and the GEF Operations Committee (GEFOP) meeting, recommends to the Council, for its consideration and approval, the proposed work program presented in this document. It contains nine projects with a total of $72.29 million in GEF financing and $660.65 million in total project costs. Of the total project costs, $522.50 million are associated with two proposed climate change projects (Brazil and Vietnam). The composition of the proposed work program, according to focal areas, is as follows:

(a) Biodiversity: $33.96m (4 projects)

(b) Climate Change: $32.79m (3 projects)

(c) Ozone Depletion $ 6.12m (2 projects)

3. The proposed work program presented herein does not include any project proposal that raises new or significant policy issues.

PROGRAMMING OF RESOURCES

4. Annex A provides summary information on the proposed work program and requested level of financing. Annex B presents a cumulative account of GEF financing requested in the work programs presented to Council to date. Annex C sets out the status, as of June, 1997, of the enabling activities approved by the CEO under the expedited procedures approved by Council.

5. The Implementing Agencies developed and presented nine project proposals for inclusion in the proposed work program. All were recommended for further development as part of this work program.

6. If the Council approves this proposed work program, the GEF will have allocated approximately $917.48 million since the restructuring and replenishment of the GEF in March 1994. This would bring the total GEF allocation (including the pilot phase) to about $1.65 billion, of which $427.00 million has currently been disbursed. Through the Project Preparation and Development Facility (PDF) and other financing sources, a pipeline of project proposals estimated to require about $534.00 million in GEF financing is under development by Implementing Agencies.

ENABLING ACTIVITIES

7. The GEF's support for enabling activities has continued in both the biodiversity and climate change focal areas. Efforts have been made to encourage all eligible countries to avail themselves of the assistance the GEF provides. In April and May, 1997, special sessions were organized during two workshops for francophone Africa to familiarize participants with procedures to access GEF funds for enabling activities. The first quarterly review of climate change enabling activities was carried out in April, 1997 and a series of actions was launched to accelerate the preparation of national communications to the Climate Change Convention. A similar review for biodiversity was undertaken in June, 1997. Technical support programs for both biodiversity and climate change are being developed.

8. The Operational Guidelines for Expedited Processing of Climate Change Enabling Activities was revised in February, 1997 to incorporate guidance received from the Conference of Parties to the Climate Change Convention. Revisions for the biodiversity area have been carried out very recently.

9. Since the last summary prepared for the April 1997 work program, 10 new enabling activity projects in the climate change focal area and 15 in the biodiversity focal area have been approved (Annex C) for a commitment of US$5.35 million. With these, the total number of enabling activity projects approved using expedited procedures is 30 for climate change and 78 for biodiversity, accounting for a total commitment of US$22.55 million.

PROGRESS ON REVISIONS TO FORMAT OF PROJECT BRIEFS

10. The Council at earlier meetings emphasized the need to streamline the presentation of project proposals. The operational strategy provides that in preparing operational programs, a project framework approach will be adopted that will allow the GEF to monitor and track progress in fulfilling its mission. The Secretariat and the Implementing Agencies have continued to reexamine the project proposal formats to be considered by the Council. It is expected that these formats will follow a logical framework and will result in comparable project proposals from all three Implementing Agencies similar in terms of length and project information.

11. Following the April Council Meeting, the Secretariat circulated to the Implementing Agencies for review and comment a revised project brief format building on the logical framework and earlier GEF discussions. A meeting was subsequently held with the Executive Coordinators of the Implementing Agencies to discuss their comments on length and harmonization of the content of the project briefs, and a final draft will shortly be circulated for final consideration by the Implementing Agencies.

12. While the Secretariat hopes that the streamlined project brief format will be followed for the work program proposed for the November Council meeting, Implementing Agencies advise that a transition period will be needed. The proposals in this work program are still very lengthy, but Implementing Agencies believe they are appropriate for this transition period. A new feature of the cover note to each project brief includes a listing of outputs for each project proposal under the summary section. This was requested by Members at the last Council Meeting.

PROGRAMMATIC CONTEXT

13. The projects in this work program are country-driven and respond to national priorities. Increased commitment to projects within countries is evidenced by the large government counterpart funding. More projects seek to adopt decentralized management approaches involving community-based groups and the private sector. In addition, there is significant co-financing from various bilateral and multilateral sources. GEF funding for the Brazil energy and Ghana biodiversity projects, for example, represents only 10% and 25%, respectively, of the total project costs.

Biodiversity

14. There are some innovative approaches to project management in the work program. Village-based management committees have been organized in the Mongolia, Pakistan and Ghana projects where the views of local villagers are incorporated into the project's design. Significant portions of the projects' budgets will be spent for social studies, outreach, and public awareness activities. The involvement of two of the largest national environmental NGOs in the Pakistan project will contribute to the decentralization of project management. This project also has a unique feature worthy of note. The World Bank in their proposal and UNDP in a proposal still under preparation, are establishing a programmatic approach to biodiversity protection in the mountain ecosystems of Pakistan. This will ensure complementarity between the two GEF initiatives -- one focused on protected areas management and the other on rural community development.

15. The sustainable use approach in biodiversity is highlighted through support for alternative livelihood programs that are closely linked to on-site conservation management. The Ghana project addresses the key issues of accelerating biodiversity protection within the context of sustainable production forest management. Such a landscape approach to biodiversity protection, which is demonstrated in the Pakistan and Mongolia projects, provides an added dimension to the protected areas and conservation center approaches in the operational programs on forest (OP #3), arid and semi-arid (OP #1), and mountain ecosystems (OP #4). The regional project augments the work on agrobiodiversity and in-situ conservation, and expands the portfolio by looking at the pressing issues of genetic biodiversity in the world's ten dominant domesticated foodcrops.

Climate Change

16. Two of the climate change projects (Brazil and Vietnam) expand the current portfolio on barrier removal. The emphasis on demand side management is evident, primarily because such an approach appears to be one of the more efficient ways to enable greenhouse gas (GHG) abatement since it provides greater opportunities for reducing energy consumption. These projects have also been integrated into national energy sector reforms and liberalization programs, resulting in higher leverage and impact. There is substantial government commitment and co-financing, especially from the private sector in the Brazil project.

17. Additionally, the growing number of barrier removal projects (OP#5) enables comparisons of incremental costs across projects. The Secretariat will work jointly with the Implementing Agencies through the climate change task force to consider developing a reference framework for market-based cost comparisons as a basis for future guidelines in promoting more efficient programming of GEF resources.

Ozone Depletion

18. Although most eligible countries with high consumption of ozone depleting substances (ODS) have received funding from GEF and other sources, the remaining small number of countries, such as Latvia and Lithuania, still need urgent support. Five other ODS projects are under preparation for possible GEF funding.

Public Involvement and Social Issues

19. The requirements for public involvement during the preparation phase were met through the conduct of public hearings, stakeholder meetings, and focus group consultations, such as village meetings conducted by the project team in the Pakistan and Mongolia biodiversity projects. The private sector was actively consulted in the climate change and ozone depletion projects.

20. Beneficiaries of projects are extensive and broad-based. The energy projects in Brazil, India, and Vietnam will affect significant numbers of poor rural households who are expected to benefit from investments in and around the pilot energy sites. The biodiversity projects in Mongolia, Pakistan and Ghana are in areas presently occupied by indigenous communities. The projects also affect significant populations occupying adjacent villages within the buffers of protected areas. The regional agrobiodiversity project in the Fertile Crescent will benefit, and engage the services of, numerous poor farmers within identified demonstration sites.

21. Implementation arrangements in the biodiversity projects include community decision making through local advisory committees (e.g., Ghana), conservation and enterprise (e.g., Pakistan) and protected area management (e.g. Mongolia) at the provincial and sub-provincial levels. In addition to stakeholder participation in workshops, these decentralized structures provide feedback mechanisms for incorporating the needs of local users.

22. Gender concerns are addressed in the biodiversity projects through allocations for training and outreach to women and women's groups. Issues of property rights, including common property management, will be evaluated in three biodiversity projects as part of the studies on social issues (e.g., participatory rural appraisals). The Mongolia and Ghana projects will look at the dominant role of women in fuelwood collection and domestication of animals. Local authorities will be involved in the management of the Ghana project (e.g., village chieftains). Representatives of indigenous communities will be involved in the local management committees of the Ghana, Pakistan, and Mongolia projects.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS

A. Biological Diversity

Ghana: Natural Resource Management (World Bank)

$8.90m (GEF) $53.60m (Total Project Cost)

23. This project addresses OP#3, Forest Ecosystems by adopting a full array of forest conservation and sustainable use approaches. These approaches include full protection of national parks and special biological protection areas which have been delineated through a larger Bank-funded natural resource and forest sector country program. Low impact extractive activities in provenance reserves, hill sanctuaries, and southern dry forests will be monitored through improved on-site management, surveillance, and monitoring of globally significant resources. Supporting activities include sustainable forest harvesting compatible with biodiversity protection, reforestation in degraded areas in and around reserves, and several innovative schemes for sustainable management of forests through community participation and set-up of a fund for alternative livelihoods. Written contracts between villagers and the government will be used for such activities as revenue distribution from project-supported plantation schemes. A local NGO, the Wildlife Society of Ghana, has been contracted to engage in public awareness of community outreach.

Expected outputs cover a wide range: from reorganization of the public forest management programs, modernization of the forest tracking system, and monitoring of stumpage fee collection at the national and forest sector levels, to community based wildlife and forest management, private sector plantations, and increased local value-added processing of timber.

Mongolia: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Livelihood Options in the Grasslands of Eastern Mongolia (UNDP); $5.16M (GEF); $9.57M (Total Project Cost).

24. This project responds to priorities in OP#1 (Arid and Semi-Arid Lands). It is an extension of the pilot phase project that resulted in the formulation of a National Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan. As suggested in the pilot phase review, the follow-up project will address the country's biodiversity priorities in a region of critical importance, the last remnants of temperate grassland habitat in the Eastern Steppes, which contain one of the region's richest biodiversity. The proposed activities will cover 11 of the 17 programs identified in the plan over a period of seven years. In-situ conservation and sustainable use will be implemented in seven protected areas in the Eastern Steppes. Overall project management will be decentralized and design of site-specific programs will be done sub-nationally (e.g., sum and aimag levels). Substantial involvement of local communities will occur through formation of buffer zone committees, contracts to NGOs for public awareness and research, hiring of local people in fire management and afforestation, and incorporation of biodiversity concerns into the provincial and local development plans. A trust fund has been set up to ensure continuity of conservation programs at the local level. Capitalization of the fund is substantial from non-GEF sources, such as the government, UNDP, and other multilateral agencies. As described in the project's stakeholder participation plan, there will be several stakeholders who are expected to benefit from the fund, including local NGOs and district governments.

Expected outputs include: finalization and implementation of management plans in protected areas; equipped and trained staff; capacity built for conservation and sustainable management of buffer zones; public awareness campaigns; reforestation and soil conservation implemented in six population centers; incorporation of biodiversity consideration into development plans; national workshops; and seed capitalization of a trust fund.

Pakistan: Protected Areas Management (World Bank); $11.14m (GEF); $26.84m (Total Project Cost)

25. This project covers three protected areas in mountain, arid rangeland, estuarine, and marine ecosystems, but most of the activities correspond to OP#4, Mountains. Over a period of five years, the project expects to enrich biodiversity in sites forming the western flank of the Great Himalayan Range and its foothills, which harbor the country's most productive and diverse species. A participatory approach will be used in managing so-called custodian communities in and around the protected areas. The approach consists of: (a) integrating local communities in site planning; (b) strengthening habitat and ecosystem management by involving local villages in surveillance, research, and monitoring; (c) engaging NGOs in environmental awareness and extension programs; and (d) providing opportunities for capacity building. Alternative income generation activities will be supported and sustained by a fund. Written contracts between local governments and participating communities will ensure compatibility of livelihood related extractive activities with biodiversity and forest protection. There will be inter-agency collaboration between UNDP and the Bank in the Chitral District site, where the Bank will engage in strengthening management of the protected area and UNDP will support community conservation programs.

Among project outputs are: protection and rehabilitation of habitats, maintenance of animal populations, security of wildlife and development of income opportunities reliant upon sustained preservation of protected areas.

Regional: Conservation and Sustainable Use of Dryland Agro-biodiversity of the Fertile Crescent (UNDP); $8.18m (GEF); $18.78m (Total Project Cost)

26. This project falls under OP#1 (Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystems) as it addresses sustainable production and use of natural resources, including wild relatives of domesticated species and agrobiodiversity, and prevention of land degradation. The objective is to conserve biodiversity within agricultural systems by focusing on ten globally important domesticated foodcrops. Activities include development of in-situ and on-farm collection and inventories of crop-related gene pools and the social, economic, land use, and agricultural policies and practices that affect the production and distribution of these plant species. The species and wild progenitors and wild relatives of the ten foodcrops will be selected in terms of their global significance, high genetic diversity, rare or endangered population, availability of traditional germplasms, and links with ongoing and nationally executed agricultural development programs. Local farmers and some NGOs will be contracted to document and learn from the indigenous knowledge of farmers' traditional practices, including support for training and capacity building by the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), which is the project's co-executing agency. These activities will be implemented in eight sites in four countries over a period of five years.

Outputs include: documentation of genetic diversity of crops; on-farm conservation of the genetic stock; establishment of databases and GIS; safeguarding of wild "progenitors" of wheat, barley, lentils; improved habitat management; formulation/adaptation of national policies for agro-biodiversity conservation; strengthened institutional capacity; and increased public awareness.

B. Climate Change

Brazil: Energy Efficiency (World Bank); $20.00m (GEF); $200.00m (Total project Cost)

27. This project is an integral part of a larger program of the Brazilian government to improve efficiency in the supply and use of energy. The activities correspond to OP#5, Removing Barriers to Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency specifically, overcoming the information barriers to cost-effective energy measures, and more generally, improving energy management and information at the consumer level. The project will involve reforms in the dissemination, management, and financial structure, including some guidelines for energy efficiency measures. There is substantial counterpart funding, both from the Bank ($80.00m) and up to approximately $100.00m from in-country sources and multilateral agencies. The project brief's logical framework is well constructed and identifies the performance indicators for evaluating the project's outputs with regard to establishment of a market-based energy efficiency industry in the country. Local people in the pilot demonstration sites will be consulted and will avail of employment opportunities as new energy service companies are formed.

Outputs include: pilot and demonstration projects; market transformation programs; capacity building programs.

India: Coal Bed Methane Recovery and Commercial Utilization (UNDP); $9.19m (GEF); $19.23m (Total project Cost)

28 As a short term response measure to address the broad range of cost efficient opportunities to reduce GHG emissions, GEF funding will be used in the purchase and maintenance of equipment where its use is expected to provide a stream of revenues. Since the expected economic lifetime of the equipment is anticipated to last beyond the project's lifetime, there will be provisions for monitoring ex-post revenue generation. Operational profits in excess of those reflected in the calculated revenue will also reduce the final incremental costs. Appropriate provisions to enable ex-post financial monitoring, and to ensure that increased profits are rechannelled into similar projects, will be integrated in the project, and specifically identified in agreements with the Indian government. The project will also look at potential health and social issues, and engage in consultations with various stakeholder groups.

Outputs: strengthened capacity, information and database system, gas production and use in fleet vehicles from demonstration sites, coalbed methane clearinghouse, and a plan for replication of demonstrations.

Vietnam: Demand Side Management (World Bank); $3:60m (GEF). $322.50m (Total Project Cost)

29. This project falls under OP#5 Removing Barriers to Energy Efficiency. Although the energy market in Vietnam is much less developed compared to its neighboring countries in the region, there is potential for improving energy efficiency and strengthening the government's capacity. The project activities include: a pilot load management program; pilot public lighting schemes at the municipal level; and support for equipment and building efficiency standards through technical assistance. The project will engage in partnerships with Asian energy companies in developing energy standards and public awareness and dissemination. Participating subsidiary power companies and municipal governments will be actively involved in the development and delivery of approximately 600 high efficiency public lights. There were consultations with the private sector and representatives of consumer groups throughout the design of the project.

Project outputs include: development of Demand-Side Management (DSM) capability in the executing agency and government agencies; introduction of DSM policy framework and regulatory mechanism; demonstration of load management and DSM; demonstration of efficiency standards; and demonstration of industrial energy audits.

C. Ozone Depletion

Latvia: Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances (UNDP/UNEP); $1.47m (GEF); $2.01m (Total Project Cost)

Lithuania: Phase-out of Ozone Depleting Substances (UNDP/UNEP); $4.65M (GEF); $8.12M (Total Project Cost)

30. The projects in Latvia and Lithuania are expected to reduce the annual consumption of 590 weighted metric tons of ozone depleting substances (ODS) in the region. Project activities are based upon the respective national ODS country programs. The sub-projects on methylbromide and customs' training will be implemented regionally to reduce administrative overhead costs and to enhance the project's cost effectiveness. Project design responds to recommendations of the 18th meeting of the Montreal Protocol Implementation Committee. These projects will not be finalized until the deposit of the instruments of ratification for the London Amendment to the Protocol by the two countries. The governments of both countries have been requested to verify the deposit, through UNDP, prior to the endorsement of the final project document.

Output include: training programs for customs officials, subprojects for phase-out of foams/aerosols as well as for recovery recycling refrigerants; technical assistance for transition to MN-ODS materials; and acceleration of both countries meeting phase-out obligations.