Evaluation of the Role and Contribution of UNDP in ...web.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/documents/thematic/ee/Annexes-EE.pdf · a long time been involved in the area in different

ANNEXES

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

BACKGROUND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annex 1

TERMS OF REFERENCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION

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

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


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

KEY EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS

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

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

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

n Efficiency – Use of approaches, partnerships,resources.

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

METHODOLOGY

APPROACH

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

DATA COLLECTION

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

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

DOCUMENT REVIEWS

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

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

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

COUNTRY CASE STUDIES

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

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


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

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

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

REGIONAL CONSULTATIONS

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

GLOBAL CONSULTATIONS

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

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

Development (IIED) and World ResourcesInstitute (WRI).

QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

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

THEMATIC STUDIES

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

EXPECTED OUTPUTS AND TIMEFRAME

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

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

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


EVALUATION TEAM

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

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

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

ADVISORY PANEL

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

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

MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

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

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

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

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

FOLLOW-UP AND LEARNING

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


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

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

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

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

MYFF-1

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

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

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

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

MYFF-2

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

Annex 2

UNDP PRIORITY SETTING ANDPERFORMANCE REPORTING

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESULTS-ORIENTED ANNUAL REPORT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annex 3

CASE STUDY COUNTRY DATA

Basic Data on the Case Study Countries

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

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

Index Rank Score Rank

(kilowatt- (metric tons) Land Area)

of 177 of 149

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annex 4

ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY IN THE UNDP COUNTRY COOPERATION FRAMEWORKS

Focus Areas, Programme Components and Outcomes/Outputs by Country

Country

Burkina Faso

China

Strategic Focus Areas

CPD 2006-2010

n Élargir les opportunitésd’emplois et d’activitésgénératrices derevenus

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

n Stabiliser/inverser latendance du VIH/SIDA

n Promouvoir la bonnegouvernance

CCF 2001-2005

n Deepening reformsand governance

n Poverty reduction

n HIV/AIDS and development

n Sustainable environment andenergy development

Environment and EnergyProgramme Components

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

n Accroissement de superficiesforestières et de terres aménagées

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

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

Planned Outcomes/Outputs

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

n Les rendements d’uneexploitation rentable durablesdes ressources sont accrus

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

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

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

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

Sustainable environment and energy development

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


Country Strategic Focus Areas



China cont’d CCF 2001-2005 cont’d

CCF 2006-2010

n Achieving the MDGs and reducinghuman poverty

n Environment andenergy for sustainablehuman development

n Responding toHIV/AIDS and othercommunicablediseases

n Capacity development tonegotiate and implementglobal environmental commitments

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

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

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

n Increased national capacity to address climate change

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

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

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

n Capacities increased of energyconservation centres to provideenergy efficiency services

n Implementation of the EnergyConservation Law supported

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

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

n Coordination mechanismamong national partnersstrengthened

n Capacity to analyze and assess risk improved

n Integrated risk management atthe national and communitylevel enhanced

n Existing policies and riskscenarios reviewed

n Local risk reduction plansformulated

Environment and energy for sustainable human development






Ecuador CCF 1999-2003

n Sustainable development

n Governance

n Poverty eradication

CP 2004-2008

n Combat poverty and create opportunities for all

n Democraticgovernance andtransparency

n Sustainable develop-ment: capacities forthe future

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

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

n Planning and implementationof environmental manage-ment projects

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sustainable development

Sustainable development: capacities for the future






Ecuador cont’d

Kenya

CP 2004-2008 cont’d

CPAP 2004-2008

n Opportunities

n Empowerment

n Security

n Sustainability

n Institutional framework forsustainable environmentalmanagement and energydevelopment

n Regional cooperation andcoordination in naturalresource management and sustainable energydevelopment

Sustainability

n Integration of the environmentand poverty into nationalpolicies and strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






Kenya cont’d CPAP 2004-2008 cont’d

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

n Capacity built for investmentand resource mobilization forsustainable energy options

n Intervention projects onclimate change and reductionof greenhouse gasesemissions

n Management of internationalwaters and other water bodiesprojects realized

n Phasing out ozone-depletingsubstances projectoperationalized

n Intervention projects onsustainable management ofbiodiversity and landdegradation realized






Macedonia FYR

CCF 2001-2003

n Local governance and municipaldevelopment

n Environmentalgovernance andsustainable development

CP 2005-2009

n Capacity-building forgood governance andrule of law

n Promoting anenabling economicenvironment forpoverty reduction

n Sustainable develop-ment, environmentalprotection andmanagement ofnatural resources

n Strengthen the policyframework for environmentalmanagement and sustainabledevelopment

n Support the implementationof priority policy goals at thelocal level

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

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

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

n Assist government in effortsto meet its commitments tointernational conventions

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

n Test and develop mechanismsfor local implementation ofpolicy goals

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

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

n Improved ability to monitorstate of the environment

n Capacities for transboundarycooperation strengthened

n Mechanisms on watershedmanagement supported

Environmental governance and sustainable development

Sustainable development, environmental protection and management of natural resources






FYR Macedonia cont’d

Malawi

CP 2005-2009 cont’d

CCF 2002-2006

n Poverty ReductionStrategy SupportProgramme

n Poverty reductionthrough goodgovernance

n HIV/AIDS management

CPD 2008-2011

n Environment andenergy for sustainableeconomic development

n Disaster risk reductionand emergencymanagement

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

n Responsive governance,human rights and therule of law

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

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

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

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

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

n Community outreachprogrammes developed and implemented

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

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

n Adoption of community-leveltechnologies for improvedenvironmental protection

n Promotion of sustainable andaffordable energy services

n Enhanced application of newand renewable technologies

n Assistance with multilateralenvironmental reportingrequirements

Poverty Reduction Strategy Support Programme

Energy and environment for sustainable development

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





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

Pacific Islandstates: CookIslands, Niue,Samoa andTokelau

n Poverty reduction and the MillenniumDevelopment Goals

n Good governance and human rights

n Crisis prevention andrecovery

n Environment and sustainablemanagement

n Equitable economicgrowth and povertyreduction

n Good governance and human rights

n Crisis prevention and recovery

n Sustainable environ-mental management

n Mainstream environmentalsustainability into regional and national policies andplanning frameworks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

n Energy efficiency improved andrenewable energy use promoted

n Best practices and lessonslearned documented and disseminated

n South-South cooperationenhanced

Sustainable environmental management

Environment and sustainable management

Multi-Country CPD 2008-2012

Multi-Country CPD 2008-2012

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

BURKINA FASO

CONTEXT

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

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

UNDP’S ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY PROGRAMME

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

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

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

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

Annex 5

COUNTRY CASE STUDY SUMMARIES

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

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

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

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

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

The platforms primarily support local women,

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

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

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

ASSESSMENT OF UNDP’S CONTRIBUTION

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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


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

CHINA

COUNTRY CONTEXT

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

ASSESSMENT OF UNDP’S CONTRIBUTION

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

ECUADOR

CONTEXT

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


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

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


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

n Incorporating sustainable developmentprinciples into national/local policies andprogrammes,

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

n Supporting the prevention and managementof natural disasters.

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

are also foreseen:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

ASSESSMENT OF UNDP’S CONTRIBUTIONS

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

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

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

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

Table A1. Ecuador’s National Development Plan Policy Priorities

National EE Policy Priority

Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity

Integrated forest management

Integrated management of water resourcesthrough watershed-based planning

Prevention and mitigation of the effects of climate change

Renewable energy development and efficiency

Articulating environment with social and economic policies

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

Effective risk management and reduced vulnerability to natural disasters

Relevant UNDP Projects

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

n Yasuní Reserve n GEF Small Grants Programme

n Adaptation to Climate Change through Effective Water Management

n Adaptation to Climate Change through Effective Water Management

n Second National Communication for Climate Change

n Renewable Energy for Galapagos – ERGAL

n Galapagos 20/20n PROINGALA

n Yasuní Reserven Environmental Strategy for

Sustainable Development

n Galapagos Oil Spilln Adaptation to Climate Change through Effective

Water Management


CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

KENYA

COUNTRY CONTEXT

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

ASSESSMENT OF UNDP’S CONTRIBUTIO

Documents

Evaluation of the Role and Contribution of UNDP in ...web.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/documents/thematic/ee/Annexes-EE.pdf · a long time been involved in the area in different