Download Free Environmental Considerations In Foreign Donor Supported Projects Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Environmental Considerations In Foreign Donor Supported Projects and write the review.

Evaluation is a key tool in improving the quality and effectiveness of development co-operation. The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Working Party in Aid Evaluation is the only international forum where bilateral and multilateral evaluation ...
Every year, billions of dollars of environmental aid flow from the rich governments of the North to the poor governments of the South. Why do donors provide this aid? What do they seek to achieve? How effective is the aid given? And does it always go to the places of greatest environmental need? From the first Earth Summit in Stockholm in 1972 to the G8 Gleneagles meeting in 2005, the issue of the impact of aid on the global environment has been the subject of vigorous protest and debate. How much progress has there been in improving environmental protection and clean-up in the developing world? What explains the patterns of environmental aid spending and distribution - is it designed to address real problems, achieve geopolitical or commercial gains abroad, or buy political mileage at home? And what are the consequences for the estimated 4 million people that die each year from air pollution, unsafe drinking water, and lack of sanitation? All of these questions and many more are addressed in this groundbreaking text, which is based on the authors' work compiling the most comprehensive dataset of foreign aid ever assembled. By evaluating the likely environment impact of over 400,000 development projects by more than 50 donors to over 170 recipient nations between 1970 and 2001, Greening Aid represents a unique, state of the art picture of what is happening in foreign assistance, and its impact on the environment. Greening Aid explains major trends and shifts over the last three decades, ranks donors according to their performance, and offers case studies which compare and contrast donors and types of environmental aid.
Contemporary international aid consists of a wide range of various support programs, where the end-result in many cases not only reflects the needs of the recipient country, but also the interests of the donor country. In Science and Politics of Foreign Aid - Swedish Environmental Support to the Baltic States it is shown that this particular support has been directed primarily towards areas of joint concern, such as air pollution and effluents to the Baltic Sea. Environmental problems with primarily local effects have, to a large extent, been neglected in the Swedish support program. The requirement on the Baltic recipient countries to finance a specific fraction of each joint program with local resources has furthermore drained the local national environmental budgets from resources, making it very difficult for these countries to mitigate various local environmental hazards by themselves. In contrast to many previous foreign aid studies where various donor country biases often are suggested but not empirically validated, this book gives an in-depth view of how a particular support program is influenced by specific and self-interested considerations.
In Giving Aid Effectively, Mark T. Buntaine argues that countries that are members of international organizations have prompted multilateral development banks to give development and environmental aid more effectively by generating better information about performance. To reach this conclusion, he employs a systematic analysis of responses to evaluations and in-depth case studies about the use of information at multilateral development banks.
A review of Canada-Indonesia trade, aid and investment relations during the New Order era, 1967-83. It is a case study of how two middle-ranking powers have sought to define a meaningful economic relationship that recognizes similarities and complementarities, and the problems which they face in seeking to industrialize and find an expanding role in the rapidly changing and increasingly competitive Pacific basin economy. The twists and turns of Canadian foreign policy and the shifting requirements of Indonesia as a host country to foreign enterprise are outlined and analysed, and a prognosis is offered of how Indonesia might reconcile its dilemmas of development and what this might imply for its would-be partners in development such as Canada. An extensive bibliography of related writings is included as an appendix.
The United States contributes funding to various international financial institutions to assist developing countries to address global climate change and other environmental concerns. Congress is responsible for several activities in this regard, including (1) authorizing periodic appropriations for U.S. financial contributions to the institutions, and (2) overseeing U.S. involvement in the programs. Issues of congressional interest include the overall development assistance strategy of the United States, U.S. leadership in global environmental and economic affairs, and U.S. commercial interests in trade and investment. This report provides an overview of one of the oldest international financial institutions for the environment—the Global Environment Facility (GEF)—and analyzes its structure, funding, and objectives in light of the many challenges within the contemporary landscape of global environmental finance. GEF is an independent and international financial organization that provides grants, promotes cooperation, and fosters actions in developing countries to protect the global environment. Established in 1991, it unites 182 member governments and partners with international institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to assist developing countries with environmental projects related to six areas: biodiversity, climate change, international waters, the ozone layer, land degradation, and persistent organic pollutants. GEF receives funding from multiple donor countries—including the United States—and provides grants to cover the additional or “incremental” costs associated with transforming a project with national benefits into one with global environmental benefits. In this way, GEF funding is structured to “supplement” base project funding and provide for the environmental components in national development agendas. GEF partners with several international agencies, including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), among others, and is the primary fund administrator for four Rio (Earth Summit) Conventions, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). GEF also establishes operational guidance for international waters and ozone activities, the latter consistent with the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and its amendments. Since its inception, GEF has allocated $11.5 billion—supplemented by more than $57 billion in cofinancing—for more than 3,200 projects in over 165 countries. GEF is one mechanism in a larger network of international programs designed to address the global environment. Accordingly, its effectiveness depends on how the fund addresses programmatic issues, builds upon national investment plans, reacts to recent developments in the financial landscape, and responds to emerging opportunities. Critics contend that the existing system has had limited impact in addressing major environmental concerns—specifically climate change and tropical deforestation—and has been unsuccessful in delivering global transformational change. A desire to achieve more immediate impacts has led to a restructuring of the Multilateral Development Banks' (MDBs') role in environmental finance and the introduction of many new bilateral and multilateral funding initiatives. The future of GEF remains in the hands of the donor countries, including the United States, which can choose to broaden the mandate and/or strengthen its institutional arrangements or reduce and replace it by other bilateral or multilateral funding mechanisms.