Global Environment Facility Projects Research Articles

From Theory to Practice: The Student Experience Evaluating Development Projects Focused on Nature-Based Solutions

Graduate students often seek hands-on experiences in the international development field. Given that Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) provide hundreds of billions of dollars in aid each year, we expected that reviewing the design, implementation, and outcomes of their environmental projects would provide valuable learning outcomes for students. This novel study on Nature-based Solutions (NbS) in the Global Environment Facility (GEF) gave students the opportunity to engage directly with practitioners in the review of 50 environmental projects across 45 countries. A team of professionals from the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) of the GEF and eight students from the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability and the University of Maryland School of Public Policy developed lessons learned from reviewing the GEF portfolio over a twenty-year time span. When screening projects for enabling conditions including theory of change, climate risk screening, multi-stakeholder engagement, and adaptive management, most had stronger explanations of the environmental than the social outcomes sought, and only more recent ones incorporated climate risk screening. The process and findings associated with this educational experience contributed to students’ climate change leadership development; for example, by learning about the tradeoffs and possible co-benefits of improving both environmental conditions and livelihoods in less developed countries. Our research led to practice advice for the design of future GEF projects, as well as ideas for future coursework to further bridge the gap between theory and practice in academia, which we believe to be essential to preparing the next generation of climate leaders.

From South Asia to the world: embracing the challenge of global sustainable nitrogen management

From South Asia to the world: embracing the challenge of global sustainable nitrogen management

Exploring the Socioeconomic Co-benefits of Global Environment Facility Projects in Uganda Using a Quasi-Experimental Geospatial Interpolation (QGI) Approach

Since 1992, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) has mobilized over $131 billion in funds to enable developing and transitioning countries to meet the objectives of international environmental conventions and agreements. While multiple studies and reports have sought to examine the environmental impact of these funds, relatively little work has examined the potential for socioeconomic co-benefits. Leveraging a novel database on the geographic location of GEF project interventions in Uganda, this paper explores the impact of GEF projects on household assets in Uganda. It employs a new methodological approach, Quasi-experimental Geospatial Interpolation (QGI), which seeks to overcome many of the core biases and limitations of previous implementations of causal matching studies leveraging geospatial information. Findings suggest that Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) GEF projects with initial implementation dates prior to 2009 in Uganda had a positive, statistically significant impact of approximately $184.81 on the change in total household assets between 2009 and 2011. Leveraging QGI, we identify that (1) this effect was statistically significant at distances between 2 and 7 km away from GEF projects, (2) the effect was positive but not statistically significant at distances less than 2 km, and (3) there was insufficient evidence to establish the impact of projects beyond a distance of approximately 7 km.

Project design decisions of egalitarian and non-egalitarian international organizations: Evidence from the Global Environment Facility and the World Bank

Foreign aid flows result from agreements reached between states that need resources and other states or international organizations that can provide those resources. Recent literature has argued that different international development organizations bargain with aid-receiving states in particular ways. Specifically, some authors argue that non-egalitarian international development organizations seek to secure more gains when bargaining with economically weak states. Global Environment Facility projects are negotiated by the international agency that will implement the project, allowing us to examine this claim in the context of a set of similar development projects. Correcting and reanalyzing an existing dataset describing the composition of financing in GEF projects, we find no evidence that the financing terms provided by different GEF implementing agencies varies by the type of organization. Both egalitarian and non-egalitarian agencies provide more external funding to poorer countries. We replicate this result using data from development projects financed by the World Bank, the archetypal non-egalitarian international organization. We discuss how our results are consistent with organizational behavior that originates in the interests of an international bureaucracy oriented toward poverty alleviation.

Mitigating Climate Change in Africa: Barriers to Financing Low-Carbon Development

Summary Meeting global climate change mitigation goals requires the participation of developing countries in abatement programs to encourage low-carbon development pathways. Incentivizing developing countries to participate in climate change mitigation often requires a mechanism for developed countries to finance projects in poorer countries. While several funding institutions have been established, African country participation has been low. In this analysis, we conduct interviews with climate change policy stakeholders from across the continent and find a general consensus that a lack of institutional capacity has limited the participation of African countries in existing climate change mitigation programs. To confirm this qualitative observation, we use data from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the World Bank to examine the correlation between country-year measures of institutional capacity and the number of projects implemented by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and find that better institutional quality is associated with more GEF projects implemented in a country-year. We propose to address the lack of institutional capacity with the creation of regional institution, or Climate Change Mitigation Institution (CCMI), that specializes in building local capacity by leveraging external capacity as well as facilitates the integration of African countries into global climate change mitigation efforts by improving capacity, strengthening research and development, forming partnerships, and coordinating the disbursement of financing.

Experiences with systematic triangulation at the Global Environment Facility

Systematic triangulation may address common challenges in evaluation, such as the scarcity or unreliability of data, or the complexities of comparing and cross-checking evidence from diverse disciplines. Used to identify key evaluation findings, its application has proven to be effective in addressing the limitations encountered in country-level evaluation analysis conducted by the Independent Evaluation Office of the Global Environment Facility (GEF). These include the scarcity or unreliability of national statistics on environmental indicators and data series, especially in Least Developed Countries; challenges in evaluating the impacts of GEF projects; and inherent difficulties in defining the GEF portfolio of projects prior to the undertaking of the evaluation. In addition to responding to the need for further developing triangulation protocols, procedures and/or methodologies advocated by some authors, the approach offers a contribution to evaluation practice. This applies particularly to those evaluation units tasked with country-level evaluations in international organizations, facing similar constraints.

Impact of intervention on healthcare waste management practices in a tertiary care governmental hospital of Nepal.

BackgroundHealthcare waste is produced from various therapeutic procedures performed in hospitals, such as chemotherapy, dialysis, surgery, delivery, resection of gangrenous organs, autopsy, biopsy, injections, etc. These result in the production of non-hazardous waste (75–95%) and hazardous waste (10–25%), such as sharps, infectious, chemical, pharmaceutical, radioactive waste, and pressurized containers (e.g., inhaler cans). Improper healthcare waste management may lead to the transmission of hepatitis B, Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.MethodsThis evaluation of waste management practices was carried out at gynaecology, obstetrics, paediatrics, medicine and orthopaedics wards at Government of Nepal Civil Service Hospital, Kathmandu from February 12 to October 15, 2013, with the permission from healthcare waste management committee at the hospital. The Individualized Rapid Assessment tool (IRAT), developed by the United Nations Development Program Global Environment Facility project, was used to collect pre-interventional and post-interventional performance scores concerning waste management. The healthcare waste management committee was formed of representing various departments. The study included responses from focal nurses and physicians from the gynaecology, obstetrics, paediatrics, medicine and orthopaedics wards, and waste handlers during the study period. Data included average scores from 40 responders. Scores were based on compliance with the IRAT.ResultsThe waste management policy and standard operating procedure were developed after interventions, and they were consistent with the national and international laws and regulations. The committee developed a plan for recycling or waste minimization. Health professionals, such as doctors, nurses and waste handlers, were trained on waste management practices. The programs included segregation, collection, handling, transportation, treatment and disposal of waste, as well as occupational health and safety issues. The committee developed a plan for treatment and disposal of chemical and pharmaceutical waste. Pretest and posttest evaluation scores were 26% and 86% respectively.ConclusionsDuring the pre-intervention period, the hospital had no HCWM Committee, policy, standard operating procedure or proper color coding system for waste segregation, collection, transportation and storage and the specific well-trained waste handlers. Doctors, nurses and waste handlers were trained on HCWM practices, after interventions. Significant improvements were observed between the pre- and post-intervention periods.

A typology of adaptation actions: A global look at climate adaptation actions financed through the Global Environment Facility

Climate change impacts threaten existing development efforts and achieving future sustainability goals. To build resilience and societal preparedness towards climate change, integration of adaptation into development is being increasingly emphasized. To date, much of the adaptation literature has been theoretical, reflecting the absence of empirical data from activities on the ground. However, the Funds established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and managed by the Global Environment Facility, the Least Developed Countries Fund, the Special Climate Change Fund and the Strategic Priority for Adaptation, have approved financing for 133 adaptation projects in 70 countries with sufficient documented experience to allow for initial categorization and evaluation. This article provides the first substantial compendium of adaptation actions identified through the allocation and disbursement of these Funds and organizes these actions into a generalized typology of adaptation activities. The information obtained sheds new insight into what adaptation is, in practice, and suggests some next steps to strengthen the empirical database. Ten types of overarching adaptation activities were identified through an analysis of 92 projects financed through these Funds. This paper analyzes these adaptation activities and compares them with theoretical constructs of adaptation typologies. We find that many of the early ideas and concepts advanced by theoreticians are consistent with results from the field. The adaptation categories that recur the most in Global Environment Facility projects are enabling and relatively inexpensive measures, such as those related to capacity building, policy reform, and planning and management. However, a rich panoply of technical actions ranging from information and communications technology, to early warning systems, to new or improved infrastructure, are also identified as common project goals. Future refinements of the costs of various adaptation actions, the mixture of technical and management options, and evaluating the efficacy of actions implemented, will be key to informing the future global adaptation agenda.

Lessons learned from The Guarani Aquifer System Project Adopted In The La Plata Basin Framework Program

La Plata Basin (LPB) is situated in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, is one of the largest catchment in South America, extending over 3.1millionkm2, has enormous economic and social importance for the region. The Guarani Aquifer System (GAS) is located in the eastern and midsouthern South America and underlies in some areas of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, with an estimated total surface about 1,090,000km2. Most of the GAS area is located in the LPB. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) has supported several programs in the LPB region. Among them, the Framework Program for the Sustainable Management of the Water Resources of the La Plata Basin with respect to the Effects of Climate Variability and Change (LPB Project) and the Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development of the Guarani Aquifer System Project (GAP). Experiences gained during the development of the GAP have provided learning opportunities that could be useful in the implementation of new GEF projects, particularly the LPB Project. This paper draws primarily upon lessons learned from the GAP that are currently being considered in the LPB Project.

Lessons learned from investing in marine and coastal management initiatives in the East Asian Seas

Abstract The concept that underlies the interventions of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) International Waters Program is adaptive management at the Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) scale across the sequence of interventions from assessment and analysis to development of regional strategic action programs and national implementation of action plans to address transboundary environmental concerns. The GEF has provided grants to recipient countries in the East Asian Seas region covering five LMEs since the early 1990s and amounting to about US$200 million. This paper analyses GEF support to the Seas of the East Asian Region to draw lessons for future investments in LME management. To identify investment gaps and the overarching drivers of environmental degradation across scales, transboundary diagnostic analysis of LMEs need to be linked to analysis of existing investment flows. Most funding for implementation of strategic action programs should be targeted at the national level, as interventions at this level are on average leveraging much more co-financing to GEF projects than regional interventions. Better coordination and agreed procedures and methodologies among different regional entities, programs and projects are necessary in regions, such as the EAS, with multiple regional initiatives at different scales. Better coordination of financial support to programs and projects operating at different scales would also strengthen the extent to which ecosystem-based management could be applied through better harmonization of management frameworks and tools for marine and coastal management from local to national to regional levels. Strategies towards achieving sustainable financing should be encouraged and implemented to ensure adaptive management and achievement of goals and targets under SAPs.

4. Global Environment Facility (GEF)

The GEF held two Council meetings during 2012, with the aim of approving new projects to be funded by the GEF Trust Fund and providing policy guidance to the GEF Secretariat on the management of the fund. The forty-second GEF Council meeting was held on 5–7 June, and the forty-third Council meeting was held on 13–15 November, both in Washington, DC. During its biannual meetings, the Council approved funding for GEF projects amounting to US $841.26 million. The GEF Council meetings were held in conjunction with the meetings of the Council of the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) and Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), both of which share the same governance structure as the GEF. The GEF’s 178 member countries manage a trust fund under the aegis of the World Bank governed by a Council of thirty-two members, each representing a constituency (that is, a group of countries including both...

International advocacy against DDT and other public health insecticides for malaria control.

A new international effort to control/eradicate malaria is accompanied by suggestions that malaria can be controlled without the use of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) and other insecticides. We review the underlying science of claims publicized by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the United Nations Environment Programme, and the Stockholm Convention Secretariat (the Secretariat). Their claims stem from a $14 million GEF project that was conducted from 2003 to 2008 in Mexico and seven countries of Central America. Objectives, experimental design, analyses, and project accomplishments are described. So-called environmentally sound interventions (GEF interventions) that excluded insecticides were implemented in demonstration areas in eight countries. Efficacy of interventions was evaluated by comparing malaria rates in demonstration areas (n = 202) with those in control areas (n = 51), all in high malaria risk areas. There were no statistically significant reductions in malaria rates in demonstration areas compared with controls. This was true across all eight countries. Broad use of antimalarial drugs was the primary method of malaria suppression in the eight countries, but this method was not a GEF intervention. Ultimately statistics favoring efficacy of "environmentally sound" methods of malaria control were obtained by comparing malaria cases in demonstration areas for 2004 with cases in 2007, and we explain why these comparisons are not valid. In conclusion, claims that GEF interventions effectively reduced malaria in Mexico and seven countries of Central America are not supported by existing data or the results of epidemiological analyses. The claims are being used to justify the Secretariat's plan to eliminate DDT production by 2017. DDT is still needed for effective control of malaria, and its elimination could have significant consequences for people in malaria endemic countries.

Evaluating the Global Environment Facility: A goodwill gesture or a serious attempt to deliver global benefits?

Over its 17 years, the UN's Global Environment Facility (GEF) has allocated US $7.5 billion intended to develop and implement scientifically and socially credible solutions to key global environmental problems such as climate change, biological diversity loss and degradation of transboundary aquatic systems. We studied 906 GEF projects to analyse the challenges that it is facing in delivering solutions that are likely to be sustainable in the long-term. The research included desk reviews of relevant documents and follow-up interviews with a wide range of stakeholders. Some of the challenges the GEF faces are deeply rooted in temporal and spatial mismatches of scale between human economies and their environmental consequences and the strongly sectoral way current society is managed. We conclude that the GEF obtained impressive results for tackling problems of limited complexity and easily quantified benefits but progress is slower on more complex and less tangible problems impeding sustainable development. Potentially, the GEF could enable adaptive management through a ‘learning by doing’ process, transforming it into an innovative mechanism for delivering global benefits. Continued emphasis on ‘easy wins’ would not allow it to achieve this goal.

Conservation and sustainable use of crop wild relatives

Conservation of crop wild relatives (CWRs) is a complex interdisciplinary process that is being addressed by various national and international initiatives, including two Global Environment Facility projects (‘ In situ Conservation of Crop Wild Relatives through Enhanced Information Management and Field Application’ and ‘Design, Testing and Evaluation of Best Practices for in situ Conservation of Economically Important Wild Species’), the European Community-funded project ‘European Crop Wild Relative Diversity Assessment and Conservation Forum (PGR Forum)’ and the European ‘ In situ and On Farm Network’. The key issues that have arisen are: (1) the definition of what constitutes a CWR, (2) the need for national and regional information systems and a global system, (3) development and application of priority-determining mechanisms, (4) the incorporation of the conservation of CWRs into existing national, regional and international PGR programmes, (5) assessment of the effectiveness of conservation actions, (6) awareness of the importance of CWRs in agricultural development at local, national and international levels both for the scientific and lay communities and (7) policy development and legal framework. The above issues are illustrated by work on the conservation of a group of legumes known as grasspea chicklings, vetchlings, and horticultural ornamental peas ( Lathyrus spp.) in their European and Mediterranean centre of diversity.

Targeting development assistance to meet WSSD goals for large marine ecosystems and small island developing states

Global commitments agreed in the last two years at Doha, Monterrey, and Johannesburg represent the potential for a political turning point in reversing the degradation of coastal and large marine ecosystems (LMEs). International finance institutions, bilateral donor agencies, international organizations, and governments of the North and South all align their policies and programs if progress is to be made. Since 1992, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) has supported countries to address Chapter 17 of Agenda 21, and in early 2003 GEF adjusted its strategic priorities to align with World Summit targets. This paper outlines GEF support in targeting development assistance for countries in the biodiversity and international waters focal areas related to oceans, coasts, and islands since 1992 with a focus on large marine ecosystems and small island developing states. Examples of GEF projects are provided that illustrate interventions at different scales for coastal and marine systems. Since 1991, GEF has approved 47 projects in its international waters focal area for $454 million GEF and $1.49 billion in total cost as well as 58 projects in the biodiversity area for $330 million from GEF and $1.22 billion in total cost for some 118 countries supporting coastal and marine ecosystem interventions described in the World Summit's Plan of Implementation. While GEF has become the top source of financial assistance for reversing degradation of oceans, coasts, and islands, the pilot scale activities it is able to fund need to be scaled up to meet global poverty reduction, economic security, and World Summit targets through partnerships for individual LMEs.

Promoting energy-efficient products: GEF experience and lessons for market transformation in developing countries

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) has allocated more than $90 million over the past 10 years to eight projects promoting energy-efficient products in developing and transition countries. We review the early experience from these projects and suggest lessons relevant to market transformation programs. Based on GEF project designs, we also propose a menu of generic supply-side and demand-side interventions useful for designing and analyzing market transformation programs. Experience suggests that institutional and policy changes, leading to sustained price reductions and higher market volumes, are important outcomes for market transformation; that market impacts can appear early in programs due to increased expectations and awareness; and that projects can have a catalytic effect. We recommend eight principles for designers of future projects but caution that no single approach guarantees success.

Global Environment Facility Support for Sustainable Transport: Early Lessons from World Bank–Assisted Projects in Mexico City, Mexico; Santiago, Chile; and Lima, Peru

Global Environment Facility (GEF) support for World Bank sustainable transport activities is described. An overview is presented of current GEF strategy for sustainable transport, which reflects a shift beyond individual technology interventions toward broader objectives, including modal shift, demand management, and land use planning. Ongoing GEF projects that exemplify this shift are reviewed by examining projects in Latin America and Asia whose aim is improving public transport, nonmotorized programs, and institutional capacity related to sustainable transport. The major lessons that can be drawn from these projects, most of which are still at an early stage, is that local authorities are often enthusiastic about getting involved in programs that simultaneously address key transportation concerns in their cities (such as access, safety, congestion, local air quality) and result in less overall energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Much can be achieved as long as project communications and promotion are addressed and carefully targeted at decision makers and potential beneficiaries.

Management issues in the Lake Victoria watershed

AbstractLake Victoria is the largest lake in Africa (68 800 km2) and is the eighth largest lake in the world by volume. The three East African countries of Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya share Lake Victoria and its resources. The total annual catch of fish from the lake ranges between 400 × 106 kg and 500 × 106 kg, bringing these riparian countries a combined annual income of approximately US$250 000–500 000 from exports alone. Approximately 30 million people live in the riparian region and the catchment, with about 2 million of these depending directly or indirectly on fishing activities. Tragically, Lake Victoria’s extremely diverse fauna was decimated in only 30 years following the introduction of non‐native Nile perch in the early 1960s. An estimated 200 endemic cichlid species became extinct. Dramatic increases in overfishing, pollution from various sources, effects of noxious water weeds and other associated problems threaten the sustainability of the lake’s resources and the economies of the riparian governments and peoples. Regulations governing Lake Victoria’s resources are different in each country. The laws concerning treatment of effluents from point sources in the three countries are not harmonized, neither are implementation or enforcement provisions. The governments of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania have begun to put in place regional mechanisms to address the lake’s many problems including the creation of a permanent regional international institution through the establishment of the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization (LVFO). A strategic vision document and action plans have been developed. Efforts are being made at local, national and regional levels to control the water hyacinth, including manual pulling, mechanical harvesting and introduction of weevils that weaken hyacinth root systems. To address the problem of overfishing, fishermen committees at landing beaches have been put in place. Each country has committed to take all necessary measures including legislation to implement the decisions of the LVFO governing bodies. All three countries have agreed to adopt and enforce legislation and regulations prohibiting the introduction of non‐indigenous species to the lake and to enforce existing regulations regarding fisheries. A Global Environment Facility project which provides funding to the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization addresses land use management, catchment forestation, fisheries research and management, water hyacinth control, industrial effluent treatment and municipal waste treatment.

The Global Environment Facility and biodiversity conservation: lessons to date and suggestions for future action

The last five years in particular have seen increasing attention paid to biodiversity. This culminated at the Earth Summit last June with the completion of Agenda 21 and a major international Convention on Biological Diversity, a document signed by some 165 nations. Concurrent with the Convention negotiations was the development of a global fund for biodiversity conservation and other environmental priorities, the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The GEF is the largest fund to data put forward by the international community to address biodiversity loss, but, so far, it has failed to set adequate priorities for biodiversity conservation. It has also yet to recognize the full range of biodiversity values and uses and, in general, GEF projects have not taken advantage of existing non-governmental capacity for biodiversity conservation. 1993 is a critical year for the GEF, one in which the GEF can become a critical element of global efforts to conserve biodiversity or remain an important initialive that realized only a fraction of its potential.