Public Health

Taxonomy Term List

Building Resilience of Health Systems in Pacific Island LDCs to Climate Change

The Pacific Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are among the countries most vulnerable to climate variability and change.  A common problem is the triple burden of communicable diseases, non-communicable diseases, exacerbated by health impacts of climate change that causes high rates of morbidity and mortality.  

Working in Kiribati, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu, the project, Building Resilience of Health Systems in Pacific Island LDCs to Climate Change, this UNDP and World Health Organization supported project will provide overall adaptation benefits through adjusting health systems and associated capacities of health professionals to incorporate climate risks and resilience into health practices. Coupled with enhancing the operation of information and early warning services, and the effectiveness of disease control practices, these efforts will serve to reduce climate-induced disruptions in the function of primary health care facilities. It is expected that these in turn will reduce the occurrence and intensity of climate-sensitive disease outbreaks and their associated effects on communities and individuals. 

The revision of health strategies will not only help to build national capacities for analyzing climate-induced risks to health and identifying adaptive preventive and curative measures, but it will also support review of operational aspects, such as institutional structures and capacities,  financial and budgetary planning processes for their implementation. The programmatic approach to address barriers of tackling burdens of communicable and non-communicable diseases, will build climate resilience in vulnerable populations and communities, and in the health systems in LDCs, to better manage the health risks of climate variability and change.

 

Photos: 
Region/Country: 
Level of Intervention: 
Key Collaborators: 
Thematic Area: 
Coordinates: 
POINT (159.25781246428 -8.2223638578622)
Primary Beneficiaries: 
Communities living in Kiribati, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Solomon Islands.
Funding Source: 
Financing Amount: 
US$17.2 million (GEF LDCF grant)
Co-Financing Total: 
US$76 million (co-financing)
Project Details: 


Expected Key Results and Outputs: 

Expected Outcomes:

  • 1. Governance of health system and institutional capacities strengthened by mainstreaming climate-related risk and resilience aspects into health policy frameworks
  • 2. Capacities of health system institutions and personnel strengthened in managing health information and weather/climate early warning systems
  • 3. Improved coverage and quality of health services addressing climate-related diseases, and reduced climate-induced disruptions in the function of health care facilities
  • 4. Enhanced south-south cooperation fostering knowledge exchange, the provision of technical assistance and scientific advisory, and the integration of national health policy frames and related adaptation plans with ongoing NAP-related processes
Monitoring & Evaluation: 


Contacts: 
UNDP
Reis Lopez Rello
Regional Technical Advisor
Climate-Related Hazards Addressed: 
Location: 
Project Status: 
Programme Meetings and Workshops: 


News and Updates: 


Information in French / Informations en français: 


Display Photo: 
Expected Key Results and Outputs (Summary): 

Outcome 1. Governance of health system and institutional capacities strengthened by mainstreaming climate-related risk and resilience aspects into health policy frameworks

Outcome 2. Capacities of health system institutions and personnel strengthened in managing health information and weather/climate early warning systems

Outcome 3. Improved coverage and quality of health services addressing climate-related diseases, and reduced climate-induced disruptions in the function of health care facilities

Outcome 4. Enhanced south-south cooperation fostering knowledge exchange, the provision of technical assistance and scientific advisory, and the integration of national health policy frames and related adaptation plans with ongoing NAP-related processes

Civil Society Engagement: 


Building Resilience of Health Systems in Asian Least Developed Countries to Climate Change

Climate change brings with it serious risks to public health, particularly in Asia.  While heat waves are expected to increase morbidity and mortality in vulnerable groups, altered rain patterns and water flows will impact crop production and thus increase malnutrition.  At the same time, changes in air and water temperatures, as well as increased incidence of extreme events, will affect transmission of infections diseases.  Those in low-lying coastal zones and flood plains are particularly at risk. 

The problems are exacerbated in Least Developed Countries (LDCs), where adaptive capacity and economic vulnerability limit adequate preparation for the impacts of climate change on health. 

The Building Resilience of Health Systems in Asian Least Developed Countries to Climate Change project will support Bangladesh, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Nepal and Timor-Leste by:

  • strengthening institutional capacity to integrate climate risks and adaptation into health sector planning
  • improving surveillance and/or early warning systems for effective decision-making
  • enhancing health sector service delivery
  • supporting regional cooperation and knowledge sharing to promote up-scaling and replication of best practices
  • and integrating health into the National Adaptation Plan process

This project will be implemented in partnership with the World Health Organization and is funded by the Least Developed Countries Fund.

Level of Intervention: 
Thematic Area: 
Funding Source: 
Project Details: 

The long term solution for the governments of Bangladesh, Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Nepal and Timor-Leste is to have enhanced national health systems and institutions, which are able to respond effectively to climate change impacts on health. 

While the impacts of climate change on health vary across countries, what is required to build the resilience of their respective health systems are similar.  Each of the governments requested support to:

  • strengthen institutional capacity to integrate climate risks and adaptation into health sector planning
  • improve surveillance and/or early warning systems for effective decision-making
  • enhance health sector service delivery
  • support regional cooperation and knowledge sharing to promote up-scaling and replication of best practices
  • and to integrate health into the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process

These complementary areas frame the Building Resilience of Health Systems in Asian Least Developed Countries to Climate Change project.  The project is currently at the concept stage, with stakeholder consultations and assessments ongoing.  These will inform further development of the project toward detailed activities with measurable indicators to track results.  Project development activities are expected to be completed by end-2016, followed by implementation starting in 2017.

The two-year project has an estimate budget of $9 million.

 

 

 

 

 

Contacts: 
UNDP
Ms. Mariana Simoes
Regional Technical Advisor, Climate Adaptation
Climate-Related Hazards Addressed: 
Location: 
Project Status: 
Display Photo: 
Project Dates: 
2016 to 2019

Africa Adaptation Programme

The Africa Adaptation Programme was launched in 2008 by the United Nations Development Programme in partnership with the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the World Food Programme (WFP) and with US$92.1 million support from the Government of Japan. The AAP was established under the Japan-UNDP Joint Framework for Building Partnership to Address Climate Change in Africa, which was founded at the Fourth Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) in May 2008.

Over a 3 year period, concluding at the end of 2012, AAP instituted transformational changes in the 20 African countries in the areas of 1) long-term planning; 2) leadership and institutional capacity; 3) climate-resilient policies and measures; 4) innovative finance; and 5) knowledge generation and sharing.  AAP’s support helped enhance the adaptive capacity of the AAP countries, promote early adaptation action and lay the foundation for long-term investment to increase resilience to climate change across the African continent.

The 20 AAP countries were: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Congo, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Morocco, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome Principe, Senegal, Tanzania, and Tunisia.

Level of Intervention: 
Coordinates: 
POINT (-17.2265625065 14.8173706265)
Funding Source: 
Financing Amount: 
$92,100,000
Project Details: 

Africa is particularly vulnerable to climate change. It will exacerbate the economic, political and humanitarian stresses that countries in the region already face, and greatly reduce their capacity to eradicate extreme poverty. The poorest segments of society will be the most severely affected because they are also the least able to adapt. Responding to the threat of climate change will require concerted action on an unprecedented scale. Systematic action will be required across all levels of development planning and implementation (regional, national, sub-national, and local) if development in a number of countries is not to be reversed.

Some African countries have identified key vulnerabilities and priority adaptation measures, and others have initiated demonstration adaptation projects. However, countries continue to face a number of challenges including the following: (i) adaptation initiatives are limited in scope and scale, and their impacts are neither cohesive nor sustainable; (ii) institutional capacities, relationships, policies and practices to assess and manage climate change risks are not developed sufficiently to create an enabling environment, with corresponding political and social champions to support the formulation and implementation of efficient solutions to a problem that has complex multi-sectoral effects; (iii) limited knowledge of the most appropriate adaptation policies and measures hinders countries from preparing themselves with the necessary institutional capacities to support climate risk management; (iv) limited financing options to sustain scaled-up adaptation remains a constraint; and (v) it is difficult for countries to learn from each other about their experiences with different approaches to adaptation.

Expected Key Results and Outputs: 

During the three years of its implementation (2010-2012), AAP laid the groundwork for an ongoing, dynamic adaptation process in harmony with each country’s social, environmental and economic priorities. In all 20 countries, AAP has nourished an environment in which decisions and activities in support of adaptation can be evidence-based, strategic and appropriate to the goals of sustainable development, resulting in long-term investment to increase resilience to climate change.

Strengthening Long-Term Planning Mechanisms

AAP’s Data and Information Management Component (DIMC) assisted countries to develop the infrastructure and capabilities needed to access, analyse and apply climate data and information for decision-making. Overall, over 10,000 people were trained in climate data analysis under AAP’s DIMC.  AAP’s support under DIMC helped increase countries’ capacity to support vulnerability and risk assessments and use climate data and information to integrate adaptation into national development planning.

Building Institutional and Leadership Capacity

AAP assisted in enhancing professional leadership capacity and institutional effectiveness in countries by increasing awareness of climate change issues, developing multi-stakeholder approaches and implementing national adaptation strategies that address the needs of men and women equally.   For example, under AAP, Kenya established a National Climate Change Secretariat to coordinate the different climate change focal points in key government ministries. Through this multi-ministerial coordination, Kenya has facilitated the National Climate Change Response Strategy and ensured adaptation interventions take a multi-sectoral approach.

Implementing Climate-Resilient Policies and Measures

AAP provided assistance to countries to implement policy measures that protect climate sensitive sectors and encourage private sector investment in adaptation, such as adaptation pilot projects and national climate change strategies.  For example, Nigeria, with the support of AAP, adopted a National Policy on Climate Change and Response Strategy, which will ensure a coordinated approach to addressing climate change.

Innovative Finance

Under AAP, innovative financing options to meet national adaptation costs were expanded at the local, national, sub-regional and regional levels. For example, AAP supported Morocco to expand public-private partnerships to mobilise funds for future climate change projects in local communities.  Through a public-private partnership developed through AAP, a solar lighting project was completed in a rural community.  Additionally, AAP trained stakeholders to undertake cost-benefit analyses of adaptation options.

Generating and Sharing Knowledge

Through AAP, knowledge on adjusting national development processes to fully incorporate climate change risks and opportunity was generated and shared across all levels across all 20 countries. For example, the production and broadcast of television and radio segments (e.g. Burkina Faso, Mauritius, Namibia, and Tunisia) and documentaries (e.g. Cameroon, Kenya, Morocco, Rwanda, Senegal and Tanzania) effectively shared information and concerns on climate change adaptation.

Contacts: 
UNDP
Jen Stephens
Climate Specialist
Climate-Related Hazards Addressed: 
Project Status: 
Programme Meetings and Workshops: 


 

Mainstreaming Multilateral Environmental Agreements into Environmental Legislation in Nicaragua

Under the auspices of the GEF intervention, the proposed Project will strengthen the national judicial system and adjust it to present-day changes and conditions in the country’s reality, as well as needs to protect the natural environment. MARENA, the agency in charge of national environmental management, will build up its technical and financial capacities to efficiently promote a better application of legal instruments and elevate its level of compliance.

The project’s overall goal is to increase local and national capacities to enforce environmental legislation, in particular the Special Law on Crimes against the environment and natural Resources in support of the Rio Conventions.

Photos: 
Region/Country: 
Level of Intervention: 
Coordinates: 
POINT (-86.2792790434 12.1574650624)
Primary Beneficiaries: 
Through improved identification of national circumstances, government agencies and other actors will increase their abilities to insulate at risk urban and rural populations from the adverse effects of climate change.
Funding Source: 
Financing Amount: 
470,000
Co-Financing Total: 
130,000
Project Details: 

Nicaragua is the second poorest country in Latin America with half of its 5 million inhabitants living in poverty.  It is also the largest country in Central America with over 130,000 km2, and with a rich biological endowment.

Despite past and ongoing efforts, there remains much to be done to effectively implement the Rio Conventions at the national level and mainstream environment into local and national policies.

Under the auspices of the GEF intervention, the proposed Project will strengthen the national judicial system and adjust it to present-day changes and conditions in the country’s reality, as well as needs to protect the natural environment. MARENA, the agency in charge of national environmental management, will build up its technical and financial capacities to efficiently promote a better application of legal instruments and elevate its level of compliance.

Likewise, the judiciary will gain the necessary technical knowledge for the correct interpretation and application of the recently approved “Crimes against Natural Resources and the Environment Act”. Thereby, officials will be able to identify non-fulfillment of regulations, assess damages with the necessary technical expertise and sanction according to the just and applicable penalties. This will only be possible through a constant training process within these authorities, providing them with teaching materials and transmitting expert knowledge on matters of environment and natural resources. These tools will constitute the two main pillars for improved compliance with national environmental legislation and consequently international norms, particularly the Rio Conventions.

Following the obstacles and structural causes identified in the NCSA, the purpose of the Project is to carry out a series of interventions aimed at removing, as far as possible, these obstacles in order to be able to achieve a more effective compliance with environmental MEAs.

The project’s overall goal is to increase local and national capacities to enforce environmental legislation, in particular the Special Law on Crimes against the environment and natural Resources in support of the Rio Conventions. To this end, three main outcomes have been defined:

  • Outcome 1: The administrative and legal system, as well as other observance institutions at central and local levels, effectively enforce the environmental legislation related to MEA, with emphasis on the recently passed Special Crimes against the Environment and Natural Resources Act.
  • Outcome 2: Organizational development and inter-institutional strengthening on environmental mainstreaming in line with the MEAs and other environmental agreements, in an institutionally sustainable manner.
  • Outcome 3: MARENA has acquired the technical and methodological capacities to monitor the impact of a more effective enforcement of the environmental legislation, and the way it contributes to act in accordance to compliance with MEAs.

To fulfill this task, the Project will involve directly and permanently, members of NGOs, local governments and municipalities, government and academic institutions. Support and participation of municipalities is of key importance, especially because they are intimately in touch with local environmental problems in the management and enforcement of the national environmental legislation.

The Project will have a direct impact on two specific pilot areas in the departments of Granada-Rivas and Matagalpa–Estelí. These areas are characterized by a high representation of the target structures for the strengthening intervention through the project (judiciary and executive power) and a high population density.

A decisive selection criterion for these two pilot areas is the presence of wide-range projects aimed at achieving goals in common with the project, such as biodiversity preservation, fight against desertification and drought, and mitigation of climate change. Another key element for the selection of these regions is the participation of civil society in all activities carried out by the NCSA.

The project aims to provide a short-term support for a sustainable long-term capacity increase in the areas mentioned above, that would otherwise be unattainable.

Expected Key Results and Outputs: 

Outcome 1: The administrative and judicial system, as well as other observance institutions at central and local levels, effectively enforce environmental legislation related to MEA, with emphasis on the recently passed Special Law on Crimes against the Environment and Natural Resources.       

  • Output 1.1: The following local judicial entities and municipal authorities in previously selected pilot areas are adequately trained and enabled to enforce the law:
  • Output 1.2: Exact definition and demarcation of the project’s pilot areas, including the definition of target groups and necessary institutional arrangements with local actors, fine-tuning of criteria for priorization and final selection of pilot areas, on the basis of current conditions, identification of target groups and definition of training strategies, and the signing of coordination agreements with local authorities.
    • Magistrates, judges, court clerks, regional prosecutors and other key law enforcement  officials.
    • Inspectors and technicians of MARENA and National Forestry Institute (INAFOR) territorial delegations.
    • Officials at the municipal environmental units.
  • Output 1.3: Motivational and capacity building activities for key actors at central and national levels are carried out and institutionalization of the same with special emphasis on the following stakeholders:
  • Output 1.4: A managerial and financial plan for sustained training and capacity building is developed and responsibilities appropriately distributed.
    • Police-judicial assistance authorities
    • Environmental law enforcement staff, such as the inspectors and technicians at the MARENA and INAFOR territorial delegations.
    • Environmental ombudspersons.
    • Legal advisors to government agencies

Outcome 2: Organizational development and inter-institutional strengthening on environmental mainstreaming in line with the MEAs and EAs, in an institutionally sustainable manner.

  • Output 2.1: Preparation of a proposal for the structure and functioning of MEA focal points.
  • Output 2.2: Training and equipping of EA focal points at MARENA.
  • Output 2.3: Capacity strengthening at the MINREX to meet the objectives of this project.
  • Output 2.4: Implementation of institutional arrangements with other agencies and co-operation agents to establish sustainable mechanisms to finance the capacities needed by the project.
  • Output 2.5: Raising of environmental political awareness as a crucial factor for sustainable development and the fight against poverty     

Outcome 3: MARENA has acquired the technical and methodological capacities to monitor the impact of a more effective enforcement of the environmental legislation and the way it contributes to act  in compliance with MEAs.

  • Output 3.1: Design of a monitoring methodology, including the inter-institutional construction of synergic or multi-purpose indicators (to be used by several MEAs); pilot phase for compliance of monitoring procedures carried out.
  • Output 3.2: Establishment of an on-line information node for monitoring the compliance with MEAs in MARENA’s National Environmental Information System.
  • Output 3.3: Design and implementation of a methodology and indicators, through a first impact assessment or monitoring exercise of the strengthened enforcement of national environmental legislation in support of MEAs.
  • Output 3.4: Preparation and publication of a first national report on compliance with EAs, as an input to the National State of the Environment Report, published annually by MARENA.
Monitoring & Evaluation: 

Project Start:

Project Inception Workshop: will be held within the first 2 months of project start with those with assigned roles in the project organization structure, UNDP country office and where appropriate/feasible regional technical policy and programme advisors as well as other stakeholders.  The Inception Workshop is crucial to building ownership for the project results and to plan the first year annual work plan. 

Daily:

Day to day monitoring of implementation progress: will be the responsibility of the Project Manager, based on the project's Annual Work Plan and its indicators, with overall guidance from the Project Director. The Project Team will inform the UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion.

Quarterly:

Project Progress Reports (PPR): quarterly reports will be assembled based on the information recorded and monitored in the UNDP Enhanced Results Based Management Platform. Risk analysis will be logged and regularly updated in ATLAS.

Annually:

Annual Project Review/Project Implementation Reports (APR/PIR): This key report is prepared to monitor progress made since project start and in particular for the previous reporting period (30 June to 1 July).  The APR/PIR combines both UNDP and GEF reporting requirements.  

Periodic Monitoring through Site Visits:

UNDP CO and the UNDP RCU will conduct visits to project sites based on the agreed schedule in the project's Inception Report/Annual Work Plan to assess first hand project progress.  Other members of the Project Board may also join these visits.  A Field Visit Report/BTOR will be prepared by the CO and UNDP RCU and will be circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team and Project Board members.

Mid-Term of Project Cycle:

Mid-Term Evaluation: will determine progress being made toward the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed.  It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management.  Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term.  

End of Project:

Final Evaluation: will take place three months prior to the final Project Board meeting and will be undertaken in accordance with UNDP and GEF guidance.  The final evaluation will focus on the delivery of the project’s results as initially planned (and as corrected after the mid-term evaluation, if any such correction took place).  The final evaluation will look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental benefits/goals.  The Terminal Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities.

Project Terminal Report: This comprehensive report will summarize the results achieved (objectives, outcomes, outputs), lessons learned, problems met and areas where results may not have been achieved.  It will also lie out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the project’s results.

Learning and Knowledge Sharing:

Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through existing information sharing networks and forums. 

The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects.

Finally, there will be a two-way flow of information between this project and other projects of a similar focus. 

Contacts: 
UNDP
Tom Twining-Ward
Regional Technical Advisor
UNDP
Maria Fernanda Sanchez
Country Officer
Government of Nicaragua
Erica Avilés Hudiel
Project Coordinator
Climate-Related Hazards Addressed: 
Location: 
Project Status: 

Improving Capacity towards Conventions Implementation through Institutional Strengthening & Development in Uzbekistan

The project aims at assisting Uzbekistan to improve its national environment governance system, by creating adequate national capacity to accommodate global environmental concerns into the national development and environmental management plans. The project’s goal is to effectively mainstream global environmental priorities into national development planning and management processes of Uzbekistan. The overall objective of the project is to build national capacity for more effective environmental management in Uzbekistan, by improved national environmental policy planning and financing.

The project plans to attain its objective through the accomplishment of two major activities. These are: (i) Improvement of environmental planning and management to accommodate global environmental objectives; (ii) Improvement of financial management capacity of the National Environmental Fund for increased global environmental financing. 

Photos: 
Region/Country: 
Level of Intervention: 
Coordinates: 
POINT (69.2794688008 41.311591481)
Primary Beneficiaries: 
Through improved identification of national circumstances, government agencies and other actors will increase their abilities to insulate at risk urban and rural populations from the adverse effects of climate change.
Funding Source: 
Financing Amount: 
480,000
Co-Financing Total: 
170,000
Project Details: 

Based on the results of the National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) process and subsequent analysis of the existing opportunities during the preparatory process (PDF-A), it became evident that the national system of environmental management should be further improved for better accommodation of global environmental priorities. The environmental concerns in Uzbekistan can only be addressed when all involved stakeholders at the national level have a common strategic vision on outstanding environmental issues and attempt to solve the problems jointly, and in a cost- effective way.

This can be done through a number of instruments that will strengthen coordination and cooperation efforts of the stakeholders. At present, governmental agencies that are involved in the process of natural resources and environment management do not have a joint mechanism that enables them to coordinate activities for more effective implementation of sound environmental practices. This leads to a situation when not only every sector of the national economy, but also institutions directly engaged in environment management, develop their own departmental action plans, which do not take any account of plans from other sectors, and thus do not bring any additional value to activities. In these conditions, improvement of coordination and cooperation mechanisms becomes vital.

This dissociation is further exacerbated by low levels of understanding among personnel of involved sectoral and environmental ministries regarding real values of environmental products and services, and their significance for sustainable development of the country.

The NCSA and the preparatory analysis have demonstrated that deficiencies in environmental management planning and management processes as well as in environmental professional education, indeed exist and should be regarded as priorities for Uzbekistan. These deficiencies cause constant omission of environmental concerns, while composing national development plans, and must thus be addressed immediately.

Strategy

The analysis undertaken during the NCSA process identified key weaknesses in national environmental management capacities that seriously impede more synergistic and cost-effective implementation of the global convention requirements. The PDF-A confirmed the recommendations of the NCSA and determined that such key barriers as ineffective financial management capacities, weak coordination of efforts between focal environmental areas’ responsible entities, low level of environmental understanding among decision makers seriously affect implementation of global and national environmental agenda, and addressing of the most outstanding environmental priorities.

The proposed project will build upon the findings of the NCSA process, and use the momentum available after NCSA completion. The following features favors implementation of the current project at this point in time:

  • This is a good timing for follow-up interventions, as the NCSA process has initiated and kept alive a profound discussion of the capacity needs in the area of environmental management, major stakeholders involved in the process of NCSA assessment have fresh memories of discussions and are eager to continue the process as the findings of the NCSA were the result of their direct contribution
  • The government understand the need to improve its environmental management capacities and open to modernization of environmental management processes
  • The Government has taken up the recommendations of the NCSA, by including its capacity development Strategy and Action Plan in the State Programme for Environment Protection 2006-2010, thus putting capacity development needs among the Government’s priorities in environmental management

The GEF project will take this process further, by assisting the government in improving planning and implementation mechanisms for the five year State Programme for Environmental Protection, introducing the participatory planning model with a detailed set of procedures, timelines and accountability system for monitoring and evaluation. The project will coherently link the SPEP planning process and with other planning exercises under the global conventions and various related sectors; it will also more rigorously tie the SPEP with the funding framework set by the Environmental Fund.

The project will increase effectiveness of EF operations in support to global environmental objectives, by introducing the appropriate eligibility criteria, as well as quality management system to the Fund’s operations. In so doing, the project will look into the good practices and lessons learned from the other countries of Eastern and Central Europe and CIS. Environmental fund management practices from Bulgaria’s National Trust Ecofund, the Czech State Environmental Fund and others will be reviewed and lessons learned considered, based on existing analysis and performance reviews.

Particular focus will be placed on the following key elements of EF management and operations: (i) roles and objectives of funds; (ii) legal foundations and institutional structures; (iii) revenues; (iv) spending strategies and expenditures; (v) project appraisal and selection (“project cycle management”); (vi) monitoring, evaluation and reporting.

The proposed project aims at assisting Uzbekistan’s administrative and environment governance system to enhance effectiveness of environmental management, by creating adequate capacities of involved stakeholders in financial management of the environmental expenditures, strengthening professional capacities of the environmental institutions’ personnel and developing suitable level of environmental education among sectoral decision makers for more effective planning and implementation of the environmental programme.

The approach of developing capacities within both environment and non-environment Ministries to promote global environmental issues, is seen as an essential complement to other GEF supported interventions in Uzbekistan, inasmuch as it will provide a conducive environment for these interventions, as they seek a dialogue with national and regional environmental planning authorities in the context of realizing their site-specific, or focal area specific objectives. These cross-cutting capacities are of critical importance for realizing the objectives of multiple GEF focal areas.

To implement the project strategy, it will be essential to involve and build ownership of the project among other key stakeholder groups as well – regional and local authorities, environmental institutions, academia, local NGOs and makhallyas (lowest level municipalities), and private enterprises/companies. All these groups are essential to influencing and changing the current practice in terms of how national, regional and local planning documents and environmental expenditures plans are formulated and implemented.

The main imperative should lie in stressing the importance of joint measures that will improve efficiency of the national activities to fulfill the general commitments related to the Rio Conventions and increase coordination of the inter-sectoral activities and interaction among all involved participants at all levels.

The overall objective of the project is to build national capacity for more effective environmental management in Uzbekistan, by improved national environmental policy planning and implementation.

Expected Key Results and Outputs: 
  • Outcome 1: Improvement of environmental planning and management to accommodate global environmental objectives
    • Output 1.1: Introduction of a new mechanism for coordinated environmental planning and management for SPEP and programming from environmental funds
    • Output 1.2: Improvement of professional capacity of the environmental institutions to develop, formulate and evaluate effectiveness of the environmental programmes and environmental plans
  • Outcome 2: Improvement of financial management capacity of the National Environmental Fund for increase
    • Output 2.1: Introduction of fund management tools for improved operations of the EFs
    • Output 2.2: Improvement of skills and knowledge of the EF personnel to effectively manage EF
Monitoring & Evaluation: 

Project Start:

Project Inception Workshop: will be held within the first 2 months of project start with those with assigned roles in the project organization structure, UNDP country office and where appropriate/feasible regional technical policy and programme advisors as well as other stakeholders.  The Inception Workshop is crucial to building ownership for the project results and to plan the first year annual work plan. 

Daily:

Day to day monitoring of implementation progress: will be the responsibility of the Project Manager, based on the project's Annual Work Plan and its indicators, with overall guidance from the Project Director. The Project Team will inform the UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion.

Quarterly:

Project Progress Reports (PPR): quarterly reports will be assembled based on the information recorded and monitored in the UNDP Enhanced Results Based Management Platform. Risk analysis will be logged and regularly updated in ATLAS.

Annually:

Annual Project Review/Project Implementation Reports (APR/PIR): This key report is prepared to monitor progress made since project start and in particular for the previous reporting period (30 June to 1 July).  The APR/PIR combines both UNDP and GEF reporting requirements.  

Periodic Monitoring through Site Visits:

UNDP CO and the UNDP RCU will conduct visits to project sites based on the agreed schedule in the project's Inception Report/Annual Work Plan to assess first hand project progress.  Other members of the Project Board may also join these visits.  A Field Visit Report/BTOR will be prepared by the CO and UNDP RCU and will be circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team and Project Board members.

Mid-Term of Project Cycle:

Mid-Term Evaluation: will determine progress being made toward the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed.  It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management.  Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term.  

End of Project:

Final Evaluation: will take place three months prior to the final Project Board meeting and will be undertaken in accordance with UNDP and GEF guidance.  The final evaluation will focus on the delivery of the project’s results as initially planned (and as corrected after the mid-term evaluation, if any such correction took place).  The final evaluation will look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental benefits/goals.  The Terminal Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities.

Project Terminal Report: This comprehensive report will summarize the results achieved (objectives, outcomes, outputs), lessons learned, problems met and areas where results may not have been achieved.  It will also lie out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the project’s results.

Learning and Knowledge Sharing:

Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through existing information sharing networks and forums. 

The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects.

Finally, there will be a two-way flow of information between this project and other projects of a similar focus. 

Contacts: 
UNDP
Tom Twining-Ward
Regional Technical Advisor
UNDP
Darkhon Abutalipov
Country Officer
UNDP
Fayzulla Salakhuddinov
Project Coordinator
Climate-Related Hazards Addressed: 
Location: 
Project Status: 

Community Learning & Capacity Building for Global Environmental Management & Poverty Reduction in Tajikistan

The project aims to expand Tajikistan’s capacity to generate global environmental benefits through educating and involving diverse stakeholders in addressing Rio Convention themes at national and local levels. The project will build capacity to use two key environmental management tools to implement the Rio Conventions and to reduce poverty. The first is “environmental learning” (EL) which, according to the Tajik Government’s approach, includes both formal environmental education (EE) in schools and informal environmental learning (EL) for all sectors of society. The second is “stakeholder involvement” (SI) which includes public awareness, consultation and participation.

The project strategy has three components: (1) Enhance the enabling environment for using EE/EL and SI through modifying legal, policy, institutional and strategic frameworks; (2) Improve organisational and individual capacity to implement EE/EL and SI programmes and to integrate environmental learning and involvement activities into other programmes and projects; and (3) Enhance local capacity to link local and global issues, and natural resources management (NRM) and poverty reduction, through action projects based on a model and techniques for “Community Environmental Learning” (CEL). 

Photos: 
Region/Country: 
Level of Intervention: 
Coordinates: 
POINT (68.7813037995 38.5352699604)
Primary Beneficiaries: 
Through improved identification of national circumstances, government agencies and other actors will increase their abilities to insulate at risk urban and rural populations from the adverse effects of climate change.
Funding Source: 
Financing Amount: 
470,000
Co-Financing Total: 
470,000
Project Details: 

Tajikistan is a landlocked country in South-East Central Asia, with mountain systems covering about 93% of the land area and almost half the country above 3,000 m. Because of the varied topography and climatic regimes, the country has diverse natural environments and rich biodiversity, including 25 types of terrestrial and inland waters ecosystems and many unique local biotopes.

The country has a population of 6,438,000, with 40% under the age of 14 and over 70% of the population still rural. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and independence in 1991, the country experienced civil war through to 1996. The war, economic contraction, and the loss of social services led to a dramatic deterioration in living conditions, especially in rural areas. The country began recovery after a peace agreement in 1998 and has achieved considerable economic success. GDP growth has been steady over the last seven years, with an average rate of 10 percent for the past four years. Despite this, the country remains among the poorest and most fragile of the CIS1 countries.

Tajikistan was one of the poorest of the Soviet republics and is still considered “low-income”, with widespread poverty, especially in rural areas. It ranks 103rd among 174 states, using the UN Human Development Index. Gross national income per person is US$280, the lowest in Eastern Europe and the CIS and one of the lowest globally. An increase in natural disasters, often exacerbated by human factors (deforestation, poor land management, building on slopes), has further impaired the country's infrastructure and productive capacity. Local people are highly dependent on natural resources for food, fuel and construction, imposing increasing pressure on forests, land, water and biological diversity for their livelihoods.

The project strategy is three-fold:

  • Improve the enabling environment to support the use of environmental learning and stakeholder involvement as tools to improve environmental and natural resource management: Any well-designed capacity development should aim to strengthen the “weak links” in this system that are creating barriers to a fully functioning system. This intervention involves strengthening the national legislative, policy, institutional and strategic frameworks to promote the use of EE/EL and SI as tools for convention implementation, the linking of global and local issues, and the integration of natural resource management and poverty issues. This will enable government, academia and non- government organisations to more effectively implement the numerous existing commitments and programmes on EE/EL and SI, which have been only weakly operationalised until now. 
  • Enhance the capacity of diverse government and non-government organisations to integrate state- of-the-art environmental learning and involvement programs into environmental and natural resource initiatives: Tajikistan is still in a transition period when the heavily subsidized Soviet system of education is no longer functioning and the new system is still being developed. This strategy involves diversifying the delivery mechanisms for EE/EL and SI in different sectors and involving multiple stakeholders in this delivery. This intervention will strengthen the institutional and individual capacity of national and local government agencies, academia, the media and civil society (NGOs, CBOs, local communities) to design and deliver EE/EL and SI. ENGOs, with their commitment and experience in the EE/EL field, will play an important role, while CBOs, including Jamoat Resource Centers, youth and women’s organizations, with their local knowledge and networks, will also be involved. There will be a small component to build capacity of secondary school teachers to implement EE/EL programmes which will complement the Community Environmental Learning activities under Outcome 3. Global- local linkages will be integrated into all activities in order to broaden the base of support for Rio Convention implementation in the Tajik context.
  • Enhance the capacity of local communities to improve environmental and natural resource management practices as part of sustainable development, for both global and local benefits: In recent years, there has been considerable activity in the Tajikistan related to the Rio Convention themes of biodiversity conservation, land degradation and climate change, including public education and involvement components. However, much of this has taken place in the capital of Dushanbe, involved the central government bodies and city-based NGOs. This strategy will bring convention implementation activities to the local community level, which is crucial in a country where 70% of the people live in rural areas, most in very small settlements. Institutional and policy arrangements will be reformed, as needed to enable greater community involvement in environmental and natural resources management. Materials and training/learning activities community-based natural resource management will be designed based on a model of “Community Environmental Learning”.

The project strategy will also draw on lessons learned in a review of the effectiveness of capacity-building activities done under the UNFCC (Note by the Secretariat, UNFCC Subsidiary Body for Implementation, 2004. FCCC/SBI/2004/9), as follows:

  • Long-term learning by doing approaches that favour the development of partnership and networks and that integrate capacity building into wider sustainable development efforts have more chances of success.
  • Ensuring national ownership and leadership as well as multi-stakeholder consultations at all stages of implementation creates a favourable environment for achieving results.
  • The practice of adaptive management2 and consideration of the dynamic nature of capacity- building considerably increases the likelihood of an initiative achieving its intended results.

During the project preparation it was also identified that there is a need to build capacity in “raising public awareness, incorporating climate change into national education systems” and the need to build the capacity of a wide range of stakeholders from government, NGOs, private sector, academia and local communities.

Expected Key Results and Outputs: 

 

Goal: To expand Tajikistan’s capacity to generate global environmental benefits through educating and involving diverse national and local stakeholders in addressing Rio Convention themes

Objective: To strengthen capacity to use environmental learning5 and stakeholder involvement as tools to address natural resource management issues as part of poverty reduction

  • Outcome 1: Enhanced legal, policy, institutional and strategic frameworks to strengthen environmental education/learning and stakeholder involvement as natural resource management tools
    • Output 1.1: The State Programme for Environmental Education and Learning 2000-2010 in all sectors is updated and extended, integrating Rio Conventions themes, and an Implementation and Evaluation Plan is prepared
    • Output 1.2: Legal, policy, institutional and strategic frameworks are established to implement the State Programmes on (1) Environmental Education and Learning and (2) Ecology
    • Output 1.3: Legal, policy, institutional and strategic frameworks are established to implement commitments to stakeholder involvement and access to information, as outlined in the Rio and Aarhus Conventions
  • Outcome 2: Improved capacity of government and civil society to integrate environmental learning and stakeholder involvement into programmes and projects
    • Output 2.1: Enhanced technical and managerial capacity of key Ministries and State Committees7 to implement the State Programmes on (1) Environmental Education and Learning and (2) Ecology and to conduct stakeholder involvement
    • Output 2.2: Models, guidelines, codes of good practice and checklists for environmental learning and stakeholder involvement are developed and disseminated through train-the-trainer, training and peer learning programmes
    • Output 2.3: Training and materials on environmental learning and stakeholder involvement are integrated into civil service training and refresher courses
    • Output 2.4: Training and materials on environmental education are integrated into teacher training and refresher courses for secondary school teachers
  • Outcome 3: Enhanced capacity of local government and community organisations to use community environmental learning and involvement as tools for natural resource management and poverty reduction
    • Output 3.1: Enhanced institutional arrangements and strategies for community environmental learning and involvement in natural resource management at the Jamoat (sub-district) level
    • Output 3.2: Training/learning activities on community environmental learning and involvement are delivered to local government and community organisations, with follow-up support
    • Output 3.3: A Community Environmental Learning Action Kit8, with thematic modules linking global and local issues, is designed, tested in six pilot sub-districts (Jamoats) and disseminated to other communities
    • Output 3.4: The network of Jamoat Resource and Advocacy Centres integrates community environmental learning and involvement into on-going community capacity-building, offering resources, training, peer learning and networking with partner organizations
  • Outcome 4: Effective, efficient, and adaptive project management, monitoring and evaluation
    • Output 4.1: The project office is established and staff are hired
    • Output 4.2: Project management processes are established and progress, evaluation and monitoring reports are produced according to GEF and UNDP standards
    • Output 4.3: Lessons learned from the project are documented and disseminated within the country and region (Central Asia and CEE)
Monitoring & Evaluation: 

Project Start:

Project Inception Workshop: will be held within the first 2 months of project start with those with assigned roles in the project organization structure, UNDP country office and where appropriate/feasible regional technical policy and programme advisors as well as other stakeholders.  The Inception Workshop is crucial to building ownership for the project results and to plan the first year annual work plan. 

Daily:

Day to day monitoring of implementation progress: will be the responsibility of the Project Manager, based on the project's Annual Work Plan and its indicators, with overall guidance from the Project Director. The Project Team will inform the UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion.

Quarterly:

Project Progress Reports (PPR): quarterly reports will be assembled based on the information recorded and monitored in the UNDP Enhanced Results Based Management Platform. Risk analysis will be logged and regularly updated in ATLAS.

Annually:

Annual Project Review/Project Implementation Reports (APR/PIR): This key report is prepared to monitor progress made since project start and in particular for the previous reporting period (30 June to 1 July).  The APR/PIR combines both UNDP and GEF reporting requirements.  

Periodic Monitoring through Site Visits:

UNDP CO and the UNDP RCU will conduct visits to project sites based on the agreed schedule in the project's Inception Report/Annual Work Plan to assess first hand project progress.  Other members of the Project Board may also join these visits.  A Field Visit Report/BTOR will be prepared by the CO and UNDP RCU and will be circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team and Project Board members.

Mid-Term of Project Cycle:

Mid-Term Evaluation: will determine progress being made toward the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed.  It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management.  Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term.  

End of Project:

Final Evaluation: will take place three months prior to the final Project Board meeting and will be undertaken in accordance with UNDP and GEF guidance.  The final evaluation will focus on the delivery of the project’s results as initially planned (and as corrected after the mid-term evaluation, if any such correction took place).  The final evaluation will look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental benefits/goals.  The Terminal Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities.

Project Terminal Report: This comprehensive report will summarize the results achieved (objectives, outcomes, outputs), lessons learned, problems met and areas where results may not have been achieved.  It will also lie out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the project’s results.

Learning and Knowledge Sharing:

Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through existing information sharing networks and forums. 

The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects.

Finally, there will be a two-way flow of information between this project and other projects of a similar focus. 

Contacts: 
UNDP
Tom Twining-Ward
Regional Technical Advisor
UNDP
Sukhrob Khoshmukhamedov
Country Officer
UNDP
Kiomidin Davlatov
Project Coordinator
Climate-Related Hazards Addressed: 
Location: 
Project Status: 

Strengthening Coordination for Effective Environmental Management (STREEM) in the Philippines

The STREEM Project aims to generate global environmental benefits through improved coordination in the implementation of the three Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA), also referred to as the Rio Conventions, in the Philippines.

Specifically the project intends to establish/strengthen cross-sectoral/convention institutional and coordination structures and mechanism at the local and national levels. The project is designed to comply with the country's commitments under the MEAs and ensure mainstreaming of MEA activities in the work plan of the concerned national government agencies while at the same time enhancing synergies, collaboration, coordination and complementation of activities and tasks among relevant actors.

Photos: 
Region/Country: 
Level of Intervention: 
Coordinates: 
POINT (120.980092883 14.5902266849)
Primary Beneficiaries: 
Through improved identification of national circumstances, government agencies and other actors will increase their abilities to insulate at risk urban and rural populations from the adverse effects of climate change.
Funding Source: 
Financing Amount: 
480,000
Co-Financing Total: 
520,000
Project Details: 

The Philippines is a South East Asian archipelagic country of approximately 300,000 km2 distributed over approximately 7,000 islands and maintains a population of approximately 82 million. It has a Human Development Index of 0.753, placing it 83rd amongst 177 countries, and a GDP per capita of US$1,026. This figure, however translates to great wealth disparities and high levels of poverty in remote areas and amongst indigenous peoples. Despite recent improvements, poverty remains the main development challenge. Economic growth and poverty alleviation are heavily dependent on the primary productive sectors (agriculture, fisheries and forestry) which, in turn, are dependent on a reliable supply of environmental and natural resources services and goods.

As a result of poor management, over the last 50 years, severe natural resources degradation has a taken a toll. The country now has one of the lowest forest covers per capita in Asia in the tropics and many coastal and marine ecosystems have collapse. For example, 45% of arable land has been moderately or severely eroded. Also, as an example, landslides (resulting from a complex combination of natural circumstances, climate change and poor land management) led to the loss of at least 18,339 lives in the years 2000, as well as causing untold socio-economic damage.

The government has taken steps to reverse these negative environmental trends, introducing innovative institutional and legal reforms for sustainable natural resources management. These include the strengthening of the natural resources function in government agencies, and a comprehensive decentralization process. Importantly, the Philippines also quickly moved to ratify the Rio Conventions and establish an implementation framework.

A recent comprehensive and fully participatory assessment of capacity to implement the Rio Conventions identified five priority capacity areas for implementation. The STREEM projects responds to one of these, i.e. ‘cross-sectoral policymaking’. In short, the Assessment determined that many committed stakeholders at all levels are undertaking various tasks related to the Conventions, but a lack of coordination is leading to wastages, loss of synergy, loss of economies of scale, and duplication.

The STREEM project will address these issues through an interconnected package of activities at national and local levels. At the national level, the project will first establish an inter-Convention coordination mechanism and the related infrastructure. It will then develop a series of tools designed to pragmatically support coordination at the local levels and in the implementation of activities. These tools will include an incentive system for local stakeholders. The project will then pilot these tools at the pilot site in Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park and surrounding areas, and will simultaneously develop local capacity for coordination. Finally, based on the lessons learnt and experience acquired from the pilot site, the project will refine the tools and replicate their use through national, international and local partners.

The Project’s main goal is to generate global environmental benefits through improved coordination with respect to the implementation of cross-cutting issues within Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) in the country.

Specifically the project aims to:

  • establish/strengthen cross convention institutional and coordination structures and mechanisms at the local and national levels
  • finalized the tools generated from experience and lessons learned and replicate them across the country

The Government of the Philippines, through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) received a grant from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to implement the project “Strengthening Coordination for Effective Environmental Management (STREEM)”. The project aims to generate global environmental benefits through improved coordination with respect to the implementation of cross-cutting issues within Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) in the country.

Specifically, the project will look into the issues and concerns that restrain effective implementation of the three Rio Conventions namely United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD), United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)).

The project STREEM will address the issues through a series of consultation and coordination activities at the national down to the local level. At the national level, the project will utilize existing mechanism for effective coordination among three Focal Point Agencies (FPAs) (i.e. DENR-PAWB, DENR- EMB & DA-BSWM) and consequently develop a series of tools and incentive systems designed to pragmatically support coordination and implementation of MEA activities at the local level. The Project will pilot these tools in Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National Park (PPSRNP) and the surrounding areas aimed at strengthening local capacity for coordination. The final step would be to finalize these tools generated from experience and lessons learned and to replicate them across the country.

Expected Key Results and Outputs: 
  • Outcome 1: National Rio Convention stakeholders are effectively coordinating the preparation and implementation of related policies, programmes, projects and activities.
    • Output 1.1: Establish a National Technical Coordination Committee and Office
    • Output 1.2: Establish a Business Plan for the Committee and Office in order to develop a coherent approach to the nine cross-cutting thematic areas
    • Output 1.3: Establish an Initial Incentive System in line with the Business Plan and through the Committee. The project will support national stakeholders in the design of the national system of incentives for coordinated implementation of the Conventions.
    • Output 1.4: Develop a series of tools to promote coordination at the local level in line with the Business Plan and through the Committee in line with the priorities established under the nine cross-cutting thematic areas
  • Outcome 2: Local and national stakeholders are addressing key global environmental issues in and around PPSRNP in a coordinated manner.
    • Output 2.1: Define a clear set of priorities and sequences
    • Output 2.2: Increased coordination and substantive outputs as a result of piloting the tools.
    • Output 2.3: Increased understanding of the Incentive System and the potential tools
  • Outcome 3: International, national and local partners have adopted the Tools prepared under the project.
    • Output 3.1: Finalized tools for promoting local level coordination
    • Output 3.2: Institutionalize the incentive system
    • Output 3.3:  Tools, Incentive System, and all Project outputs disseminated to local, national and international partners.
Monitoring & Evaluation: 

Project Start:

Project Inception Workshop: will be held within the first 2 months of project start with those with assigned roles in the project organization structure, UNDP country office and where appropriate/feasible regional technical policy and programme advisors as well as other stakeholders.  The Inception Workshop is crucial to building ownership for the project results and to plan the first year annual work plan. 

Daily:

Day to day monitoring of implementation progress: will be the responsibility of the Project Manager, based on the project's Annual Work Plan and its indicators, with overall guidance from the Project Director. The Project Team will inform the UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion.

Quarterly:

Project Progress Reports (PPR): quarterly reports will be assembled based on the information recorded and monitored in the UNDP Enhanced Results Based Management Platform. Risk analysis will be logged and regularly updated in ATLAS.

Annually:

Annual Project Review/Project Implementation Reports (APR/PIR): This key report is prepared to monitor progress made since project start and in particular for the previous reporting period (30 June to 1 July).  The APR/PIR combines both UNDP and GEF reporting requirements.  

Periodic Monitoring through Site Visits:

UNDP CO and the UNDP RCU will conduct visits to project sites based on the agreed schedule in the project's Inception Report/Annual Work Plan to assess first hand project progress.  Other members of the Project Board may also join these visits.  A Field Visit Report/BTOR will be prepared by the CO and UNDP RCU and will be circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team and Project Board members.

Mid-Term of Project Cycle:

Mid-Term Evaluation: will determine progress being made toward the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed.  It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management.  Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term.  

End of Project:

Final Evaluation: will take place three months prior to the final Project Board meeting and will be undertaken in accordance with UNDP and GEF guidance.  The final evaluation will focus on the delivery of the project’s results as initially planned (and as corrected after the mid-term evaluation, if any such correction took place).  The final evaluation will look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental benefits/goals.  The Terminal Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities.

Project Terminal Report: This comprehensive report will summarize the results achieved (objectives, outcomes, outputs), lessons learned, problems met and areas where results may not have been achieved.  It will also lie out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the project’s results.

Learning and Knowledge Sharing:

Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through existing information sharing networks and forums. 

The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects.

Finally, there will be a two-way flow of information between this project and other projects of a similar focus. 

Contacts: 
UNDP
Tom Twining-Ward
Regional Technical Advisor
UNDP
Imee Manal
Country Officer
Government of the Philippines
Cristina Regunay
Project Coordinator
Climate-Related Hazards Addressed: 
Location: 
Project Status: 

Mainstreaming GE Aspects in the Planning and Monitoring processes of the NHDI in Morocco

This issue of direct and indirect poverty and environment nexus has been recognized by the government in the context of currently launched National Human Development Initiative that aims at addressing poverty issues by introducing effective decentralized system of governance and natural resource management. This process has been informed by NCSA that highlighted importance of capacity development for achievement of mutually reinforcing goals of NHDI and global environmental objectives as stemmed from the “Rio Conventions”.

The cross-cutting capacity building project is designed in closed partnership with NHDI process and will reinforce its effectiveness by a full-fledge global environmental mainstreaming into the process of local development. Benefits of global environmental management through improved land and water management, reversing habitat loss, climate risk management and low carbon development trajectories will be brought into the local development agenda. Local development, supported by the flagship NHDI process, is inherently a cross-sectorial process, whereby all sectoral objectives are brought together in the context of territorial planning and socio-economic development at sub-national level. Therefore, integrating global environmental management targets synergistically into the context of local development offers the way of effective and efficient implementation of Morocco’s obligations to the Rio Conventions.

Photos: 
Region/Country: 
Level of Intervention: 
Coordinates: 
POINT (-6.85224049038 33.9875858922)
Primary Beneficiaries: 
Through improved identification of national circumstances, government agencies and other actors will increase their abilities to insulate at risk urban and rural populations from the adverse effects of climate change.
Funding Source: 
Financing Amount: 
460,000
Co-Financing Total: 
100,000
Project Details: 

Project Summary

During the last 30 years, Morocco has embarked on a gradual, but solid program of human development and political liberalization. Since the 1970s, gross national income per person has more than tripled from $550 to $1750. The average life expectancy has increased from 55 in 1970 to 71 in 2005. One of the key development challenges is Morocco’s high incidence of poverty. Although poverty has declined from 19 to an estimated 15 percent over the period from 1999 to 2004, this rate remains high. Poverty continues to be typically a rural phenomenon, with more than 25 percent of the rural population living below the poverty line, compared to just 12 percent of the urban population. The depth and severity of poverty is also much higher in rural areas, and has increased significantly since 1991. Apart from macro economic, governance and rule of law and socio-economic causes high incidents of poverty largely relate to agriculture and food production systems, chronic water scarcity that in prolonged drought situations often aggravate shortages. Clearly poverty is subject to deterioration in the event of repeated drought and the ensuing low growth rates.

This issue of direct and indirect poverty and environment nexus has been recognized by the government in the context of currently launched National Human Development Initiative that aims at addressing poverty issues by introducing effective decentralized system of governance and natural resource management. This process has been informed by NCSA that highlighted importance of capacity development for achievement of mutually reinforcing goals of NHDI and global environmental objectives as stemmed from the “Rio Conventions”.

The cross-cutting capacity building project is designed in closed partnership with NHDI process and will reinforce its effectiveness by a full-fledge global environmental mainstreaming into the process of local development. Benefits of global environmental management through improved land and water management, reversing habitat loss, climate risk management and low carbon development trajectories will be brought into the local development agenda. Local development, supported by the flagship NHDI process, is inherently a cross-sectorial process, whereby all sectoral objectives are brought together in the context of territorial planning and socio-economic development at sub-national level. Therefore, integrating global environmental management targets synergistically into the context of local development offers the way of effective and efficient implementation of Morocco’s obligations to “Rio Conventions”.

The Commitment of Morocco to the Rio Conventions

Morocco has ratified the Rio Conventions in order to subscribe to the international framework of global environmental management and has, likewise, met its commitments through the adoption of strategies and reports to the conventions.

The National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) as the basis of the Project

The NCSA Project, which was launched in 2004 and operationally completed in 2006, sought to identify national priorities and requirements in terms of capacity enhancement in the area of global environmental management, notably in what concerns Biodiversity, Climate Change, and Desertification. The aim was to catalyze sustained actions both at the national and local levels. The NCSA undertook eight consultations which fall within its agenda, notably in what concerns the inventory of Conventions: identification of capacities which warrant enhancement; and developing capacity-building strategy.

Among the essential priorities identified and recommended by the NCSA, enhancement of capacities of local actors (communities and authorities) so that they may better translate national commitments to the three conventions into concrete local actions is among the top priorities. Current process of decentralisation dictates a greater emphasis on local capacities to enable more effective local decision-making and action. This has been identified as strong recommendation of NCSA in Morocco which constitutes the basis of the present project.

Project Conformity with GEF Guidelines

The proposed project addresses the objectives of the three GEF focal areas (biodiversity, climate change, and sustainable land management), and specifically fits under the strategic priority related to Cross-cutting Capacity-Building (CB-2). The project is also fully in line with the Interim Guidelines for Cross-cutting Capacity Building Projects. The project is specifically in line with the CB-2 programming framework related to: “Mainstreaming Global Environmental Priorities into National Policies and Programs,” whereby the CB-2 projects would focus on developing capacities for countries to improve their ability to meet their obligations under the three Rio Conventions by integrating global environmental priorities into national policies, plans and programs, particularly macro-economic and poverty-reduction programs/strategies.

The Context of Sustainable Development

Morocco has developed a whole set of plans, strategies, and programs covering land-use planning, rural development, natural resources management, and, more recently, human development. Some of these plans, strategies, and programs are manifestly sector-based in scope. Others are cross-cutting in their scope and aim at shoring up sustainable development by addressing poverty-reduction and environmental degradation. Below are some of the strategies and programs which are directly linked with the present project:

  • The National Strategy for the Protection of the Environment and Sustainable Development, and its National Action Plan;
  • Agricultural and Rural Development Strategies;
  • The National Tourism Strategy;
  • The National Energy Strategy;
  • Hydraulic Resources Management Strategies.

Morocco has also developed significant legal mechanisms relating to sustainable development and environmental management. Nevertheless, the updating of the legal framework now proves to be necessary and urgent. The current framework needs to be supported by robust environmental data and strategic directions to address the various threats country’s natural resources. Improvement of legal framework and a decision-making set up are necessary for the implementation of the Rio Conventions. This will also contribute to the consolidation of the rule of law and will foster progress and sustainable human development.

At the local level, the main tool of local planning is the Plan for Economic and Social Development (PESD), which is established annually by the Communal Council and transmitted to the Provincial entities for budgetary allocation. The development process of the PESD doesn't integrate such mechanisms as consultations with local communities, nor does it make use of any clear and transparent method for determining and organizing local needs. The basis of this project is to contribute to the consolidation of this PESD development process and integrating the global environmental objectives in this process.

The institutional Context relating to the Global Environment

Several public and non-public institutions in Morocco are closely involved in the implementation of policies and programs pertaining sustainable development and the global environmental management. The key governmental institutions will be directly engaged into this project. The project is based on partnership with local authorities at the communal, provincial, and regional levels. The partnership will materialise through a set-up of consultation mechanisms between various elected councils (regional, provincial, and communal) and their chairpersons and the representatives of local authorities –namely the Wali (of the region); the Governor (of the province), and the Caid (of the community). The project will also ensure the involvement of local and national NGOs, as well as local and village organizations and associations (Cooperatives, Women’s Associations, Village Associations).

The NHDI and its linkages with the GE issues

It is essentially this inadequacy in the development of the PESD which the NHDI attempts to address at the level of 403 rural communes and 250 urban communes which have been declared as being priority areas for intervention. The NHDI has opted for a participatory and consultation-based process for the devising of a local development plan which will be developed by 2010 and culminate in the drawing up of PESDs for all the country’s communes. Contributing to this process. The integration of the environmental component constitutes the basis of the present project.

All three conventions recognise the linkages between the global environmental management issues and efforts for poverty reduction. The NHDI process drives the poverty reduction agenda in Morocco, whereby global environmental management issues, such as desertification and drought, biodiversity loss and climate change will be brought into the mainstay of this local development process. The OECD guidelines about the integration of Rio conventions into the development underline importance of global environment mainstreaming into the poverty reduction strategies and other national or local planning processes.

The proposed project will follow the key principles and recommendations outlined into the OECD/DAC guidelines and in so doing, avoid creating specific capacities tailored to1 the demands of the Conventions, but isolated from the national policy and planning process . The project will also apply OECD’s good practice guidance on environmental mainstreaming by applying Strategic Environmental Assessment methodology2. The project is already conceived in a way that allows SEA tools and methods to be employed. By targeting a nation-wide, local development planning process (NHDI) the integration of global environmental issues will take place in a comprehensive way, encompassing priority setting, budgeting as well as indicator framework for monitoring and evaluation, constituting the entire cycle. This methodology will help ensure a full-fledge integration.

Besides the considerable funds (10 billion Dirhams to be invested between 2006 and 2010) that have been earmarked for its programs, the magnitude of NHDI may also be appreciated by way of its overall approach, which takes into account decentralization and increasing de- centralization of State structures. The NHDI thus provides an important basis for conception and implementation of the project.

Other Key Initiatives relating to the Project:

  • The National Master plan for Land-Use Planning (NMLUP) and the Regional Master plan for Land Use Planning (RMLUP);
  • The Master-plan for Training of Local Authorities
  • Project's strategy in the Integration of GE in the Planning and Monitoring Processes of the NHDI and local strategic planning

All the actors operating in the area of development have agreed that the inadequate capacities of local actors constitute a major obstacle to any successful establishment of a perennial dynamics of local development. The same observation has been made by the NCSA: these insufficiencies thwart the creation of synergies conducive to the implementation of the three Conventions and their effective incorporation into the reality of local communities.

The project has identified a strong demand for the integration of GE aspects in the existing consultation and planning tools. There is not a real need for re-inventing new tools, for many programs, notably the NHDI and the current local strategic planning process, have efficient tools. The problem has to do with the fact that the environmental aspect is not sufficiently addressed, especially country’s global environmental objectives as per conventions’ requirements. Notwithstanding the multiplicity of planning tools, the NHDI and the local strategic planning process, stand out as being the most complete and is thus poised to be extended to all the country’s communes. For the time being, the NHDI covers 403 rural communes and 250 urban communes and the local strategic development Plan covers remaining rural communes. But the process will steadily be adopted by the other communes.

Moreover, besides the considerable funds that they allocate to a whole range of projects on the basis of a participatory approach, the NHDI and the local strategic planning process are to be appreciated for the overall approach which takes into account the de-centralization of State structures. For all these reasons, and thanks to a close partnership with the key champions of the process, the 2 initiatives have been selected as a powerful vector for this project. NCSA has likewise identified the main constraints at the systemic, institutional, and individual levels that will be addressed by the project

The project has thus been elaborated taking into account the above stakes and the long-term goal of fulfilling country commitments to the global environmental management in the context of fiscal and governance decentralization process currently underway. The project specific objective is to integrate global environmental objectives of Morocco into the NHDI and local strategic development planning, budgeting and monitoring processes. 

Source: Morocco's Request for Funding Under the GEF Trust Fund (April, 2009)

Expected Key Results and Outputs: 
  • Outcome 1: The institutional framework for the integration of GE management in the NHDI and local strategic development planning and monitoring is developed.
    • Output 1.1: Methodological approaches and tools for integrating global environmental commitments into the development planning at local level are consolidated and introduced.
    • Output 1.2: The institutional mandates and procedures for environmental mainstreaming at the provincial, regional and national levels are clarified.
    • Output 1.3: A set of global environmental indicators to be part of the monitoring system of the NHDI and strategic local plans is introduced.
  • Outcome 2: The capacities for systematic mainstreaming of the global environmental targets into the local planning are developed
    • Output 2.1: Priority global environmental targets to be addressed by the project are identified and agreed upon by all project partners as part of the NHDI and strategic local planning activities.
    • Output 2.2: The capacities of concerned stakeholders to integrate priority GE issues into local development planning are strengthened by targeted training, procedural and institutional arrangements.
    • Output 2.3: Testing a new planning approach with global environmental targets and indicators at local and regional level in the framework of NHDI and strategic local planning process for methodological validation and procedural approval.
  • Outcome 3: A system of project’s adaptive management and lessons learned established
    • Output 3.1: Project management infrastructure in place.
    • Output 3.2: Communication and knowledge management mechanisms established and operational to identify lessons and good practices for global environmental mainstreaming into the development planning.
Monitoring & Evaluation: 

Project Start:

Project Inception Workshop: will be held within the first 2 months of project start with those with assigned roles in the project organization structure, UNDP country office and where appropriate/feasible regional technical policy and programme advisors as well as other stakeholders.  The Inception Workshop is crucial to building ownership for the project results and to plan the first year annual work plan. 

Daily:

Day to day monitoring of implementation progress: will be the responsibility of the Project Manager, based on the project's Annual Work Plan and its indicators, with overall guidance from the Project Director. The Project Team will inform the UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion.

Quarterly:

Project Progress Reports (PPR): quarterly reports will be assembled based on the information recorded and monitored in the UNDP Enhanced Results Based Management Platform. Risk analysis will be logged and regularly updated in ATLAS.

Annually:

Annual Project Review/Project Implementation Reports (APR/PIR): This key report is prepared to monitor progress made since project start and in particular for the previous reporting period (30 June to 1 July).  The APR/PIR combines both UNDP and GEF reporting requirements.  

Periodic Monitoring through Site Visits:

UNDP CO and the UNDP RCU will conduct visits to project sites based on the agreed schedule in the project's Inception Report/Annual Work Plan to assess first hand project progress.  Other members of the Project Board may also join these visits.  A Field Visit Report/BTOR will be prepared by the CO and UNDP RCU and will be circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team and Project Board members.

Mid-Term of Project Cycle:

Mid-Term Evaluation: will determine progress being made toward the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed.  It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management.  Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term.  

End of Project:

Final Evaluation: will take place three months prior to the final Project Board meeting and will be undertaken in accordance with UNDP and GEF guidance.  The final evaluation will focus on the delivery of the project’s results as initially planned (and as corrected after the mid-term evaluation, if any such correction took place).  The final evaluation will look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental benefits/goals.  The Terminal Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities.

Project Terminal Report: This comprehensive report will summarize the results achieved (objectives, outcomes, outputs), lessons learned, problems met and areas where results may not have been achieved.  It will also lie out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the project’s results.

Learning and Knowledge Sharing:

Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through existing information sharing networks and forums. 

The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects.

Finally, there will be a two-way flow of information between this project and other projects of a similar focus. 

Contacts: 
UNDP
Tom Twining-Ward
Regional Technical Advisor
UNDP
El Kebir Mdarhri Alaoui
Country Officer
Climate-Related Hazards Addressed: 
Location: 
Project Status: 

Capacity Building for Environmental Policy Institutions for Integration of Global Environment Commitments in Montenegro

Project component 1 focuses on developing national capacities for improved management and implementation of the three Rio Conventions by developing global environmental management indicators as part of the Montenegro's environmental governance regime. Component 2 of the project is a complementary capacity building set of activities, developing individual and institutional capacities to use global environmental management indicators as a monitoring tool to assess the intervention performance and institutional sustainability.

Montenegro's National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) identified a number of common weaknesses in the national implementation of the Rio Conventions. As a result, the NCSA Action Plan prioritized a suite of national cross-cutting capacity development actions. The top priority action identified was to harmonize the country's environmental legislative framework so that it becomes fully compliant with Rio Convention commitments. This project will be an important contribution to this objective by developing and piloting the application of global environmental management indicators that will help Montenegro assess the extent to which policy interventions are achieving global environmental benefits.

Photos: 
Region/Country: 
Level of Intervention: 
Coordinates: 
POINT (19.2736966782 42.426152143)
Primary Beneficiaries: 
Through improved identification of national circumstances, government agencies and other actors will increase their abilities to insulate at risk urban and rural populations from the adverse effects of climate change.
Funding Source: 
Financing Amount: 
500,000
Co-Financing Total: 
590,000
Project Details: 

As a priority objective of the three Rio Conventions, donors and the GEF, the strategic approach of capacity development is directed towards facilitating cross-sectoral and participatory approaches to natural resource management planning and implementation. Guided by the GEF “Strategic Approach to Enhance Capacity Building”, approved by the GEF Council in November 2003, this Multi-Focal Area project is guided by the principle of targeting capacity development activities across focal areas (cross-cutting) in order to create synergies.

Project component 1 focuses on developing national capacities for improved management and implementation of the three Rio Conventions by developing global environmental management indicators as part of the Montenegro's environmental governance regime. Component 2 of the project is a complementary capacity building set of activities, developing individual and institutional capacities to use global environmental management indicators as a monitoring tool to assess the intervention performance and institutional sustainability.

Montenegro's National Capacity Self- Assessment (NCSA) identified a number of common weaknesses in the national implementation of the Rio Conventions. As a result, the NCSA Action Plan prioritized a suite of national cross-cutting capacity development actions. The top priority action identified was to harmonize the country's environmental legislative framework so that it becomes fully compliant with Rio Convention commitments. This project will be an important contribution to this objective by developing and piloting the application of global environmental management indicators that will help Montenegro assess the extent to which policy interventions are achieving global environmental benefits.

Montenegro has approved a number of strategies and plans to address the causes and impacts of climate change, biodiversity and land degradation. Despite these positive developments there still exists a considerable fragmentation of mandates and responsibilities within and among many institutions in the field of environment. The Ministry for Sustainable Development and Tourism (MSDT) is not the only ministry responsible for aspects of environmental protection. The largest area of environmental policy that is not within the mandate of the Ministry of Spatial Planning and Environment (MSPE) is water, which instead falls under the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Foods (MAFF).

A number of other ministries are responsible for certain aspects of environmental protection, such as the Ministry of Health, which is responsible for the management and treatment of medical waste and the Ministry of Transport, Maritime Affairs and Telecommunications, which is responsible for addressing the causes and impacts of marine pollution. There are a number of other national administrative institutions that serve to implement and enforce environment-related provisions of national policies, programmes and plans, such as the Hydrometeorological Institute, the Seismological Institute and the Office of Public Works.

The Environmental Protection Agency was established in order to effectively perform professional activities related to environmental monitoring, collection and dissemination of data and coordination and management of the national information system of environmental protection.

The expected outcome of this project is that a systematic and sustainable approach to assessing global environmental achievements through the implementation of national policies, programmes and plans has been initiated. This project will also be an important contribution to the national experiences in developing and implementing tools and practices for measuring, reporting, and verifying the cost-effectiveness of official development assistance to implementing multilateral environmental agreements, in particular the Rio Conventions.

The project is targeting the use and mainstreaming of global environmental indicators within the construct of regional development and spatial planning with a view to meeting the objectives of global environmental conventions at the national, regional, district and municipal levels. The EMIS will also help the EPA to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of policies, programmes, and plans structured to meet environment and development objectives under the overall rubric of the NSSD.

A Data Flow System (with specific protocols regarding the collection, storage, analysis and dissemination of the data based on indicators) will be designed for EPA and Hydro-meteorological Institute, as well as other institutions concerned with CBD, CCD, and FCCC implementation. The project is reconciling these global environmental indicators with other target indicators that are being introduced to assess the implementation of the National Spatial Plan 2020 and Tourism Master Plan 2020 at the regional level, with special attention to assessing low-emission, climate resilient development strategies (LECRDS).

Source: Montenegro and the GEF (2011)

Expected Key Results and Outputs: 
  • Outcome 1: Environmental management information system and indicator framework for global environmental management developed and applied on a pilot basis
    • Output 1.1: Set of uniform indicators and guidance for application developed for measuring the contribution of regional development policy and spatial planning to meeting global environmental objectives
    • Output 1.2: Data Flow System (regulations / protocols) designed and introduced for institutions concerned with CBD, CCD, UNFCCC and issues
    • Output 1.3: A web-based advanced tools for environmental data / metadata storage for environmental policy formulation tested and adopted
    • Output 1.4: Application of indicator system for global environment integration piloted in relation to National Spatial Plan-2020 and Tourism Master Plan - 2020
  • Outcome 2: Institutional capacity of the Environmental Protection Agency strengthened to perform compliance monitoring in relation to global environmental conventions and a system of knowledge management established
    • Output 2.1: Institutional reforms (based on a functional analysis performed through a consultative process) undertaken to enable incorporation of global environment commitments into planning and monitoring processes
    • Output 2.2: Accredited training programme developed and delivered for the Environmental Protection Agency staff and other relevant organizations (on advanced planning tools, information systems for global and national environmental management, indicators and trend analysis methods)
    • Output 2.3: The “Environmental Sustainability Theme Manager Office” system for integration of global environmental objectives customized and introduced at the Environmental Protection Agency
    • Output 2.4: M&E and risk management system established
    • Output 2.5: A web-based environmental project database for improved coordination and output analysis established
  • Outcome 3: Knowledge sharing and project management
    • Output 3.1: Project communication strategy developed
    • Output 3.2: Lessons learned and knowledge products produced
    • Output 3.3: Project website for wider dissemination established
Monitoring & Evaluation: 

Project Start:

Project Inception Workshop: will be held within the first 2 months of project start with those with assigned roles in the project organization structure, UNDP country office and where appropriate/feasible regional technical policy and programme advisors as well as other stakeholders.  The Inception Workshop is crucial to building ownership for the project results and to plan the first year annual work plan. 

Daily:

Day to day monitoring of implementation progress: will be the responsibility of the Project Manager, based on the project's Annual Work Plan and its indicators, with overall guidance from the Project Director. The Project Team will inform the UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion.

Quarterly:

Project Progress Reports (PPR): quarterly reports will be assembled based on the information recorded and monitored in the UNDP Enhanced Results Based Management Platform. Risk analysis will be logged and regularly updated in ATLAS.

Annually:

Annual Project Review/Project Implementation Reports (APR/PIR): This key report is prepared to monitor progress made since project start and in particular for the previous reporting period (30 June to 1 July).  The APR/PIR combines both UNDP and GEF reporting requirements.  

Periodic Monitoring through Site Visits:

UNDP CO and the UNDP RCU will conduct visits to project sites based on the agreed schedule in the project's Inception Report/Annual Work Plan to assess first hand project progress.  Other members of the Project Board may also join these visits.  A Field Visit Report/BTOR will be prepared by the CO and UNDP RCU and will be circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team and Project Board members.

Mid-Term of Project Cycle:

Mid-Term Evaluation: will determine progress being made toward the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed.  It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management.  Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term.  

End of Project:

Final Evaluation: will take place three months prior to the final Project Board meeting and will be undertaken in accordance with UNDP and GEF guidance.  The final evaluation will focus on the delivery of the project’s results as initially planned (and as corrected after the mid-term evaluation, if any such correction took place).  The final evaluation will look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental benefits/goals.  The Terminal Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities.

Project Terminal Report: This comprehensive report will summarize the results achieved (objectives, outcomes, outputs), lessons learned, problems met and areas where results may not have been achieved.  It will also lie out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the project’s results.

Learning and Knowledge Sharing:

Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through existing information sharing networks and forums. 

The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects.

Finally, there will be a two-way flow of information between this project and other projects of a similar focus. 

 

Contacts: 
UNDP
Tom Twining-Ward
Regional Technical Advisor
UNDP
Milica Begovic
Country Officer
UNDP
Snezana Marstijepovic
Project Coordinator
Climate-Related Hazards Addressed: 
Location: 
Project Status: 

Strengthening Environmental Fiscal Reform for National and Global Environment Management in Moldova

The project targets Capacity Development Objective 4, which calls for the development of sustainable financial mechanisms to meet the shared objectives under the three Rio Conventions.  The project's objective of reforming the administration of fees, fines, charges, taxes, and subsidies as they affect environmental protection is a critical need to ensuring streamlined financing of national activities for Moldova to meet international environmental obligations.

By reducing or eliminate environmentally harmful subsidies and reforming existing environmental subsidies and developing innovative financing mechanisms and instruments, specifically in the agricultural sector, the project will contribute to reduced anthropogenic pressures on natural resources from competing land uses and improved sustainable flows of agro-ecosystem services to sustaining the livelihoods of local communities as envisaged under the GEF land degradation strategy.

Photos: 
Region/Country: 
Level of Intervention: 
Coordinates: 
POINT (28.8602662311 47.0124429502)
Primary Beneficiaries: 
Through improved identification of national circumstances, government agencies and other actors will increase their abilities to insulate at risk urban and rural populations from the adverse effects of climate change.
Funding Source: 
Financing Amount: 
480,000
Co-Financing Total: 
500,000
Project Details: 

Country Profile:

The Republic of Moldova is a landlocked country situated in south-eastern Europe, bordering Ukraine to the north, east and south; and Romania to the west. Proposed climate change adaptation measures include: the development and implementation of programs for repair and extension of forests; the reduction of water loss in irrigation and water consumption decrease in industry through the implementation of closed cycle water use; the implementation of agricultural systems adequate to the relief conditions that could reduce soil erosion; and the utilization of new plant species with higher resistance to elevated temperatures and insufficient humidity.

Due to its favorable climate and good farmland, Moldova’s economy depends heavily on agriculture, featuring fruits, vegetables, wine, and tobacco. Agriculture constitutes 22.3 percent of Moldova’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Consequently, changes in climate could adversely affect Moldova’s economy. Industry is another important component of Moldova’s economy, constituting 16.2 percent of GDP.

The Project:

This project was developed under the GEF's Strategic Approach to Enhance Capacity Building and priorities for targeted interventions under the GEF-5 Cross-Cutting Capacity Development Strategy.  To this end, the project targets Capacity Development Objective 4, which calls for the development of sustainable financial mechanisms to meet the shared objectives under the three Rio Conventions.  The project's objective of reforming the administration of fees, fines, charges, taxes, and subsidies as they affect environmental protection is a critical need to ensuring streamlined financing of national activities for Moldova to meet international environmental obligations.

This project will allow Moldova to meet other strategic focal area priorities under the GEF Operational Programmes.  This includes Objective 1 of the GEF Biodiversity focal area: Improve sustainability of protected area systems by improving the system of financial flows necessary to meet the recurrent costs of protected area management.  This project also responds to Objective 1 of the GEF Climate Change Mitigation focal area, which calls for demonstrating, deploying, and transferring innovative low-carbon technologies through policy reform that will be undertaken by the project at the level of the fiscal system in the energy sector.

By reducing or eliminate environmentally harmful subsidies and reforming existing environmental subsidies and developing innovative financing mechanisms and instruments, specifically in the agricultural sector, the project will contribute to reduced anthropogenic pressures on natural resources from competing land uses and improved sustainable flows of agro-ecosystem services to sustaining the livelihoods of local communities as envisaged under the GEF land degradation strategy.

The aim of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) strategy is to assess how the project contributes to the reform of Moldova's current environmental fiscal management system in a way that institutionalizes improved financing of policy interventions that meet global and national environmental obligations and priorities.  The M&E strategy and plan will follow UNDP/GEF M&E procedures, and undertaken by the Project Management Unit (PMU), the Project Steering Committee, which will evolve into the Moldovan Environmental Fiscal Reform Commission (EFRC) during project implementation, and the UNDP Country Office, with support from UNDP/GEF Regional Coordination Unit (UNDP/GEF RCU) in Bratislava.  Monitoring and evaluation will also involve the different donor agencies involved in the co-financing and those who might be potentially mobilized in future. 

The M&E strategy and its accompanying plan will be fully developed during the inception phase, in accordance with the Project Results Framework (Annex A), with an emphasis on participatory evaluation.  The strategy will dictate an adaptive collaborative management approach to M&E in order to: a)  improve project implementation; b) strengthen project cost-effectiveness to deliver expected results; and c) institutionalize environmental fiscal reforms to ensure their institutional sustainability.  The M&E plan also includes: (i) an Inception Report (IR); (ii) Annual Progress Reports (APR); (iii) quarterly operational reports;  (iv) mid-term and final evaluations; and (v) the Capacity Development Scorecard.  The mid-term evaluation will be undertaken by a national consultant.  The project’s M&E Plan will be presented and finalized at the Project’s Inception Workshop following a collective identification and verification of project outputs and a fine-tuning of indicators, means of verification, and the full definition of project staff M&E responsibilities.

The baseline study for the monitoring and evaluation strategy will be established at the outset of the project with the support of the experts recruited by the project.  During the inception phase, an implementation manual will be developed, along with a communication strategy that will define a coordinated reporting strategy for all partners, and validated during the inception workshop.  The Project Management Unit will be tasked with preparing annual work plans and budgets, as well as consolidated semi-annual progress reports.  These reports will include narrative descriptions of the project and progress to date, as well as expenditures by component and categories of costs and recommendations.  An additional set of 11 indicators specific to EFR were formulated, and will be assessed during the project inception phase.  At this time, project stakeholder representatives (n>100) will be surveyed to re-assess the baseline of environmental fiscal reform through the Capacity Development Scorecard. 

The project will be subject to an independent final evaluation, taking place six months prior to the end of the project and when 90% of project deliverables have been satisfied.  The final evaluation will focus on contributions towards meeting and achieving: a) global environmental priorities; b) national and local impacts for environmental sustainability; and c) making recommendations to ensure the resilience of environmental fiscal reforms and institutional sustainability of project outcomes.  The Capacity Development Scorecard will be rated during the mid-point of project implementation as part of a mid-term evaluation undertaken by a national consultant, as well as part of the final evaluation to assess the extent to which the project is making a contribution to institutionalizing the sustainability of EFR and associated project outcomes.

Several project activities planned through the project focus on monitoring and reporting will also feed into the M&E plan.  For example, a series of case studies, lessons learned workshops reports and various technical papers resulting from the implementation of different project activities will strengthen the M&E plan of the project and ensure continuous reporting towards meeting the project’s objectives.

Source: Moldova Request for CEO Approval Document (July, 2011)

Expected Key Results and Outputs: 
  • Outcome 1: Reform of environmentally harmful subsidies, as well as environmental charges with a focus on the agriculture and energy sectors
    • Output 1.1: Introduce policy reform in the area of environmentally harmful subsidies
      • Output 1.1.1: Assessment of reform of energy and  agricultural subsidies and adoption of  appropriate legal amendments
    • Output 1.2: Reform of environmental charges and facilitation of eco-technology investments
      • Output 1.2.1: Assessment of reform of environmental charges and facilitation of eco-technology investments and adoption of  appropriate legal amendments
    • Output 1.3: Improved regulations and operational management of the National and Local Ecological Funds (NEF/LEFs)
      • Output 1.3.1:  Implementation of good international practice in NEF/LEF management
  • Outcome 2: Capacity development to engage and build consensus among all stakeholders
    • Output 2.1: Capacity building for EFR
      • Output 2.1.1:  EFR training needs assessed
      • Output 2.1.2: Training for NEF/LEF staff on new operational procedures is provided
    • Output 2.2: Communication and awareness
      • Output 2.2.1: A comprehensive information campaign is designed and implemented, including a dedicated EFR website
      • Output 2.2.2: Lessons Learned and Case Studies on EFR for national and global environmental goals
    • Output 2.3: A political dialogue is established
      • Output 2.3.1: Moldovan EFR Commission established and active
      • Output 2.3.2: Conferences and workshops implemented
  • Outcome 3: Integration of EFR in local and central planning processes
    • Output 3.1: EFR instruments integrated in the decentralization process
      • Output 3.1.1: EFR is integrated in the activities of the Working Group Financial Decentralization of the Joint Integrated Local Development Programme (JILDP)
      • Output 3.1.2:  Identification of environmental management priorities and potential local eco-taxes in pilot towns
    • Output 3.2: EFR instruments integrated into governmental budgeting and MTEF process
      • Output 3.2.1: Training on green budgeting and planning in line with OECD guidelines and good practices to  integrate global environmental priorities in Moldova's Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF)
      • Output 3.2.2: Building upon capacities developed, support the MoE in elaborating their budgets and MTEF submissions and evaluate the extent to which the MoE's budgeting process uses EFRs to better meet targeted environmental objectives, with particular emphasis on meeting Rio Convention objectives
      • Output 3.2.3: Building upon EFR best practices, update existing assessments and financing strategies within the framework of the MTEF  to implement the Rio Conventions, including the identification of realistic sources of funds through EFRs
Monitoring & Evaluation: 

Project Start:

Project Inception Workshop: will be held within the first 2 months of project start with those with assigned roles in the project organization structure, UNDP country office and where appropriate/feasible regional technical policy and programme advisors as well as other stakeholders.  The Inception Workshop is crucial to building ownership for the project results and to plan the first year annual work plan. 

Daily:

Day to day monitoring of implementation progress: will be the responsibility of the Project Manager, based on the project's Annual Work Plan and its indicators, with overall guidance from the Project Director. The Project Team will inform the UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion.

Quarterly:

Project Progress Reports (PPR): quarterly reports will be assembled based on the information recorded and monitored in the UNDP Enhanced Results Based Management Platform. Risk analysis will be logged and regularly updated in ATLAS.

Annually:

Annual Project Review/Project Implementation Reports (APR/PIR): This key report is prepared to monitor progress made since project start and in particular for the previous reporting period (30 June to 1 July).  The APR/PIR combines both UNDP and GEF reporting requirements.  

Periodic Monitoring through Site Visits:

UNDP CO and the UNDP RCU will conduct visits to project sites based on the agreed schedule in the project's Inception Report/Annual Work Plan to assess first hand project progress.  Other members of the Project Board may also join these visits.  A Field Visit Report/BTOR will be prepared by the CO and UNDP RCU and will be circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team and Project Board members.

Mid-Term of Project Cycle:

Mid-Term Evaluation: will determine progress being made toward the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed.  It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management.  Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term.  

End of Project:

Final Evaluation: will take place three months prior to the final Project Board meeting and will be undertaken in accordance with UNDP and GEF guidance.  The final evaluation will focus on the delivery of the project’s results as initially planned (and as corrected after the mid-term evaluation, if any such correction took place).  The final evaluation will look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental benefits/goals.  The Terminal Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities.

Project Terminal Report: This comprehensive report will summarize the results achieved (objectives, outcomes, outputs), lessons learned, problems met and areas where results may not have been achieved.  It will also lie out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the project’s results.

Learning and Knowledge Sharing:

Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through existing information sharing networks and forums. 

The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects.

Finally, there will be a two-way flow of information between this project and other projects of a similar focus.

Contacts: 
UNDP
Tom Twining-Ward
Regional Technical Advisor
UNDP
Nadja Vetters
Country Officer
Climate-Related Hazards Addressed: 
Location: 
Project Status: