1 / 15

The UNDP GEF Small Grants Programme in Kyrgyzstan

The UNDP GEF Small Grants Programme in Kyrgyzstan Muratbek Koshoev , Kyrgyzstan GEF/SGP National Coordinator. Ultimate GEF/SGP goal: through local communities initiatives ensure global environment benefits in 5 GEF focal areas: Biodiversity Conservation Mitigation of Climate Changes

clinton-pierce
Download Presentation

The UNDP GEF Small Grants Programme in Kyrgyzstan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The UNDP GEF Small Grants Programme in Kyrgyzstan MuratbekKoshoev, Kyrgyzstan GEF/SGP National Coordinator

  2. Ultimate GEF/SGP goal: through local communities initiatives ensure global environment benefits in 5 GEF focal areas: • Biodiversity Conservation • Mitigation of Climate Changes • Quality of International Waters • POPs • Land Degradation • Plus: poverty reduction, community empowerment, capacity building

  3. Environmental indicators of GEF/SGP supported projects results by focal areas: Biodiversity (number of species having global importance, protected or increased; number of hectares of their habitats protected) Climate Changes (reduction of CO2 emission or volume of CO2 sequestration or accumulation (tons) International Waters (quantity of nitrates, sediments in tons or kg per hectares; POPs (reduction of POPs releases or their elimination, kg) Land Degradation (number of hectares used by sustainable way with measurable impact to other GEF focal areas

  4. NGO/CBO driven POPs projects implementation general scheme: Policy changes Public pressure on a government or self governance/municipality body Awareness Researches

  5. Policy changes indicators GEF/SGP projects results indicators

  6. Research/awareness/pressure is not enough, we need measurable policy changes!

  7. GEF/SGP Kyrgyzstan Country Program Strategy: • 2001 (first) • 2006 • 2008 (amendment to the 2006 Strategy) • GEF/SGP Kyrgyzstan CPS focuses GEF/SGP intervention on 8 priority geographical areas. It means, that 80% of total grant allocation should be channeled to these areas and 20% to the rest of the country territory. • The CPS for GEF OP5 has not been started yet, because of some uncertainness regards to position of national GEF OFP and UNDP CO environment unit in STAR process and changes in NSC composition

  8. Examples of POPs projects supported by GEF/SGP Kyrgyzstan: • Project number: KYR/OP3/Y2/06/04 • Title: “Increasing public awareness about POPs among local population by example of chemical-waste disposal placed in Suzak district, Kyrzyltuu Aiyl Okmotu, Boston village • Implementing institution: CBO “Husanbay Ajy” • Project number: KYR/OP4/ CORE/07/18 • Title: “Reducing the damage to biodiversity of natural walnut forests by replacing of chemical protection substances by traditional natural protection substances in the territory of Shaidan Aiyl Okmotu” • Implementing institution: CBO “Umut” • Project number: KYR/OP4/ CORE/07/20 • Title: “Elimination of POPs threat by isolation, fencing and increasing awareness of local population in some districts of Southern Kyrgyzstan” • Implementing institution: NGO “GENOM-2”

  9. Project number: KYR/OP3/Y2/06/04 • Implementing institution: CBO “Husanbay Ajy”

  10. Project number: KYR/OP3/Y2/06/04 • Implementing institution: CBO “Husanbay Ajy”

  11. Project number: KYR/OP3/Y2/06/04 • Implementing institution: “Husanbay Ajy” • Main challenges and unsolved issues: • Despite of research results, awareness campaign, pressure on the government (letters on behalf of Kyzyl-Tuu self governance body, publications in national wide newspapers and broadcasting on national TV) total rehabilitation of the disposal has not been started yet. • Implementing CBO did everything under the MOA with GEF/SGP, but the Agency on Environment Protection and its regional branch did not perform their obligations described in the commitment letter to GEF/SGP National Steering Committee • Risk of pollution increases because of plugging of surrounding territory. Before plugging was prohibited.

  12. Project number: KYR/OP4/ CORE/07/18 • Implementing institution: CBO “Umut”

  13. Project number: KYR/OP4/ CORE/07/18 • Implementing institution: CBO “Umut” • Main challenges and unsolved issues: • Chemicals are more effective by time and labor needed to work up the same area of forests or gardens in comparison with natural ones. • Long term positive changes of using natural protection substances lose in comparison with short time effects. • Nobody believes to direct links between usage of chemicals and health problems and livestock deceases. One of the main arguments: people and livestock die and ill at the same rate before Soviet period when chemicals started to use. • Promotion of natural substances, creation micro nurseries for natural entomophages are can not be done without incentives

  14. Project number: KYR/OP4/ CORE/07/20 • Implementing institution: NGO “GENOM-2”

  15. Project number: : KYR/OP4/ CORE/07/20 • Implementing institution: NGO “GENOM-2” • Main challenges and unsolved issues: • Project supplemented collection and isolation activities done under Dutch NGO “Millie Contact” project. Dutch NGO was not legally registered in Kyrgyzstan. • National legislation and regulations have no clear instructions guiding maintenance of waste disposals in the territory of self governance bodies • Due to extreme lack of irrigated plots, even fenced disposal are used for agriculture needs (growing of vegetables, planting trees, hay and etc.) • People aware about risks but the way how they mitigate it is very dangerous: we grow these vegetable for market, not for domestic use.

More Related