Critical evaluation of the SGF

"People and Wetlands: The Vital Link"
7^th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties
to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971),
San José, Costa Rica, 10-18 May 1999

Critical evaluation of the Ramsar Small Grants Fund for Wetlands Conservation and Wise Use (SGF) and its future operations

Action 8.4.2 of the Strategic Plan 1997-2002 directed that for COP7 the performance of the Ramsar Small Grants Fund (SGF) should undergo a critical evaluation, and that this was to be prepared by the Bureau, reviewed by the Standing Committee at its 21st meeting in 1998, and transmitted to the 7th meeting of the Conference of the Parties.  The following document was provided to COP7 as an annex to Document 15.5, now Resolution VII.5.

Critical evaluation of the Ramsar Small Grant Fund for Wetlands Conservation and Wise Use (SGF) undertaken by the Ramsar Bureau

September 1998 (updated at 30 November 1998)

1. Action 8.4.2 of the Strategic Plan 1997-2002 states; "Evaluate critically, at the 7^th COP (1999), the performance of the Small Grants Fund". Accordingly, the Convention Bureau prepared an evaluation document which was reviewed by the Standing Committee at its 21^st meeting in October 1998 and endorsed for submission to COP7 with some minor modifications, together with a proposal for a draft resolution reflecting the major conclusions of the critical review.

2. The Wetland Conservation Fund was established at COP4 in 1990 (Resolution 4.3) with a view to providing assistance for wetland conservation and wise use in developing countries. Its continuation was strongly supported through Resolution 5.8 of COP5 in 1993. COP6, in 1996, adopted Resolution VI.6, renaming the Fund the Ramsar Small Grants Fund for Wetland Conservation and Wise Use (Ramsar SGF).

3. In the same Resolution, COP6 decided that "all countries on the List of Aid Recipients established by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shall be eligible for receiving assistance from the Ramsar SGF", which in practical terms meant that the countries with economies in transition would also have access to the Fund.

4. The Standing Committee has adopted Operational Guidelines for the functioning of the SGF. The current Guidelines establish that "as a matter of priority, the SGF shall be open to eligible Contracting Parties for activities which contribute to the implementation of the Ramsar Strategic Plan 1997-2002." The Guidelines also establish that "the maximum amount for each project should normally not exceed SFR. 40,000".

5. The Standing Committee has also adopted a clear procedure for the evaluation of the project proposals submitted to the SGF. The final decision for project funding is taken by the Standing Committee at its regular annual meeting, drawing upon the recommendations presented by the Bureau.

6. The annual cycle of the Small Grants Fund can be summarised as follows:

7. The following tables summarise the operation of the SGF in its nine years of existence.

Table 1: SUMMARY OF PROJECTS FUNDED, 1991-1998

See country by country list of projects in Annex 1.

Table 2: SUITABLE PROJECTS NOT FUNDED BECAUSE OF LACK OF RESOURCES IN THE SGF, 1991-1998

THE RESULTS

8. According to the SGF Operational Guidelines, projects should, in general, be implemented within a one-year period, and a final report should be presented in the six months after completion of the project. Since 1995, all projects receive an initial payment of 80% of the full project grant at the time of signing of the contract. The 20% balance of the funds is retained pending the submission of an acceptable final report, which should include a statement of expenditure for the funds provided.

9. The Convention has standard forms for both the Progress and Final Reports. A new Project Evaluation Form will be introduced in 1999 in order to better evaluate achievements against project objective(s) and overall project outcomes, and to monitor the use of funds.

10. The Progress and Final Reports received by the Bureau have demonstrated that the SGF has supported many valuable small-scale projects reflecting a wide variety of wetland conservation and wise use activities.

11. In supporting such work, the SGF has provided assistance to a number of developing countries and more recently to countries in transition, and has also enhanced the image and effectiveness of the Convention in many parts of the world.

12. The following table indicates the number of progress and final reports received and reports still due for projects funded under the SGF:

Table 3: SGF PROJECTS REPORTING

THE POSITIVE FEATURES

13. In preparing this review of the SGF, the Bureau has looked closely at:

a) the number and quality of project proposals received over the years;

b) the significance of the projects which have been funded;

c) the procedures used to fund projects;

d) the reporting and follow-up for those projects funded; and

e) the level of resources that have been put at the disposal of the SGF.

14. In relation to the number and quality of project proposals received, the number has increased over the years, from 17 in 1991 to 67 in 1998, with a peak in 1997 (83 proposals). Quality has also increased, overall, possibly due to the advice provided to project proponents by the Bureau’s Regional Coordinators and the Convention’s NGO partners. A proportion of proposals have required further work, but only a few have been discarded as not recoverable or not pertinent.

15. The SGF constitutes a practical mechanism for the implementation of the Convention, even though, as its names indicates, it is only suitable for small-scale projects and does not replace the need for most countries to have access to much more substantial levels of funding in order to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of their wetlands.

16. In its promotional leaflet for the SGF, produced in 1998, the Bureau described the programme as "filling the gap". Compared to most other funding programmes operating in this field, the SGF offers smaller scale funding (maximum of SFR 40,000) and is intended to be catalytic in its approach. The SGF does have a niche as a funding programme which can allow countries to address relatively small-scale projects or use SGF funds to seek complementary funding from other sources for larger scale activities.

17. It is the Bureau’s assessment that the SGF is highly cost effective at the project scale. For relatively small investments from the SGF and staff time at the Bureau, the results obtained are generally worthy of much larger budgets, indicating that SGF funds are generating an excellent leverage effect. While this leverage effect is difficult to quantify, it is evident that all projects benefit from significant in-kind contributions (in terms of human resources, etc.) and in some cases direct financial support from other sources.

18. The project titles that appear in Annex 1 provide an indication of the range of projects that the SGF has funded since 1991. This is another success of the SGF, as it shows the variety and complexity of wetland management issues in different countries and regions of the world, and that through the SGF the Convention is able to respond to these. Such flexibility is a considerable strength of the SGF.

19. Another strength of the SGF is that its application procedures are relatively simple. The SGF application form, while seeking clear information on project goals, methods and budgets, is not overly bureaucratic. In addition, applicants can seek prior advice from the Bureau as to the merits of their projects and how best to present them in the applications. This service has assisted many countries to improve the quality of their project applications and thus secure funds from the SGF.

20. The overall conclusion is that the SGF constitutes a highly successful mechanism. However, despite this success, there do remain challenges in terms of the continuing operation of the SGF.

CHALLENGES FOR THE SGF IN THE FUTURE

21. In the period from 1991 to 1998, a total of SFR 3,815,821 has been allocated through the SGF to a total of 113 projects (see Table 1 and Annex 1). In that same period, a further 122 projects were assessed as being of high priority and worthy of funding from the SGF but could not be approved due to lack of available funds.

22. Annex 2 shows the contributions received for the SGF since its inception in 1990. While the Convention should be most grateful to the many generous donors that have contributed, the fact remains that had the resources been available the SGF could have reasonably expected to have allocated a further SFR 4 million to these 122 projects, making its contribution to furthering the implementation of the Convention much more significant.

23. As shown in Annex 2, contributions to the SGF have come mainly from the agencies that are the Ramsar Administrative Authorities in donor countries, but the largest amounts were contributed by three bilateral development assistance agencies. This may indicate that any continued and significant funding for the SGF in the future should be sought from the development assistance community. NGOs have provided part of the funding, but more could be done to generate contributions from the non-governmental sector as well as from the private sector.

24. Apart from securing a higher level of funds in order to support more projects each year, another challenge is to gain some assurance that the annual amount available for allocation does not vary as greatly as it has in the first eight years of the SGF. In 1997, when just over SFR 1 million was available, a record number of applications were received and projects funded. In 1998 the level of funding dropped by almost 40%, and it was necessary to discourage countries from submitting more than one project each. In 1999 it is impossible to predict what the funding level will be, and this uncertainty does not assist either the potential project proponents or the Bureau with their forward planning.

25. From this it is apparent that the 7^th Conference of the Contracting Parties should give serious consideration to ways to secure both a higher level of funding for the SGF and a guarantee of some suitable minimum level of funds available each year.

26. Resolution VI.6 of COP6 in 1996 reiterated "its conviction expressed in Resolution 5.8 that the level of resources available to the Ramsar SGF should be increased to at least US$ 1 million [SFR 1.4 million] annually". But the Resolution fell short of establishing some sort of mechanism for generating that level of funding. As a consequence, that level has never been secured.

27. At present the triennial budget of the Convention allocates SFR 100,000 per year to the SGF. But in the budget that the Standing Committee is recommending for the 2000-2002 triennium, the allocation has been decreased to SFR 50,000; 51,000; and 52,000 respectively (see Ramsar COP7 DOC. 14).

28. The Bureau further urges that all developed country Contracting Parties, and other organizations able to do so, be asked to consider making longer term commitments (3 years minimum) to the SGF to allow forward projections to be given with confidence. This will help to establish at least the level of funding proposed in Resolution 5.8 and reiterated in Resolution VI.6.

29. As previously indicated, the quality of projects submitted to the SGF has generally been high, as evidenced by the fact that around 80% of the proposals have been judged to be suitable for funding. Over the eight-year period of this evaluation, as the administrative procedures and SGF requirements have been refined, there has also been a noticeable increase in both the number and quality of projects submitted.

30. It is the Bureau’s assessment that once countries are successful in gaining SGF funds they will continue to seek more for other projects, and through their previous experience in gaining support they are better placed for future success. This trend may pose the risk that over time the SGF funds will go more and more to those countries which have the capacity to prepare the best project applications. It is for this reason that the Bureau has encouraged the Standing Committee to give a level of priority within the suitable projects submitted for their consideration to those from countries which have never gained SGF support previously. The hope is that through this action a larger number of countries will benefit from SGF support and also gain experience in preparing project submissions.

31. The Bureau urges that this practice should continue in future years and also that a new advisory service be offered to help further improve the quality of project applications, especially from those countries with less experience or capacity to prepare them. It is therefore being proposed to advertise, as of the 1999 call for proposals, an advisory service facility by the Bureau. In a typical year the call for proposals is sent out in November, and applications close on 31 March. The Bureau will offer to provide comments and advice on draft project proposals received until 31 January. This will allow those who wish to take advantage of this service several weeks to finalise their proposals before submission at the end of March.

32. One area of SGF operations where the Bureau (and the Standing Committee) recognised that there remains a need for improvement is that of progress and final reporting. The decision taken in 1995 to withhold 20% of the SGF grant pending receipt of an acceptable final report has helped to some degree. However, while the majority of project proponents have been diligent in meeting their reporting obligations, there are a number of cases where reports have not been submitted. It is also true that in far too many cases several reminders are required in order to elicit such reports, which consumes valuable human resources within the Bureau.

33. The Bureau also recognised that it would be advantageous to standardise the format for Progress and Final Reports under the SGF to avoid any uncertainty on the part of the project proponents as to what was expected. With assistance from the Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP), these standard formats were prepared and approved by the 21^st meeting of the Standing Committee for immediate introduction.

34. In responding to the challenges in this area, the Bureau is proposing that in future years the Standing Committee should make funding for new projects in recipient countries conditional upon satisfactory compliance with reporting requirements for previous grants to that country. At its 21^st meeting, the Standing Committee supported this proposal strongly.

35. Another area where it is considered that performance could be improved is that of project monitoring and evaluation. In responding to this challenge, the Bureau developed a standardised format for Project Evaluation which was approved by the 21^st meeting of the Standing Committee for immediate introduction.

36. In only a few cases has it been possible for the Bureau to visit project sites to discuss progress or outcomes of SGF-funded activities. This is an area which the Bureau proposes should gain higher priority when Bureau staff are visiting countries that have received funding. The Partner NGOs should also be encouraged to assist more actively in this area.

37. It is also suggested that there is a role for the Administrative Authorities within these countries (in cases in which the projects are being implemented by others) to monitor progress and evaluate final reports under the SGF. In its proposal concerning the modus operandi of the STRP, the Standing Committee is recommending the introduction of National Focal Points for STRP matters in each Contracting Party (see Ramsar COP7 DOC. 15.2). It may be appropriate for these National Focal Points also to take a role in SGF project monitoring and evaluation, on behalf of, or in cooperation with, the Administrative Authority.

38. The Bureau has prepared for each year of the SGF an Allocations Report which is provided to donors and made available through the Convention’s Web site. However, the provision of summaries of outcomes following completion of the projects has not been done regularly in a formal way. The Bureau has sought to rectify this with the move to standardised reporting formats for progress and final reports as indicated above. These include short summary statements prepared by the project proponents that are intended for use in reporting back to donors and general promotion of the SGF. Proponents are also asked to provide photographs of key aspects of their work, but in the past the response to this has been disappointing.

39. In addition, the Bureau plans to increase its efforts to provide more detailed and more regular feedback to donors, relying in large part on the project evaluations as they are submitted. Further, it is proposed that the Bureau establish a dedicated area on the Convention’s Web site for SGF matters and to use this to display project summaries with photographs (where possible) as they are received.

ANNEX 1

PROJECTS FUNDED FROM 1991 TO 1998

EMERGENCY PROJECTS FUNDED FROM 1991 TO 1998 

ANNEX 2

CONTRIBUTIONS PROVIDED OVER THE PERIOD 1991-1998

(at 30 November 1998)