TumenNET | Publications : SGP Evaluation Report, Tranche I (Nov 2001)

Section	Page

ABBREVIATIONS	2

PREFACE	3

1. Introduction	4
1.1. Background of the SGP	4
2. Evaluation objectives and methodology	5
2.1 Objectives 2 Methodology	5 5
3. Small Project Performance	6
4. Conclusions and Recommendations	8
4.1 Conclusions 8 4.2 Recommendations 8	8 8

Abbreviations

EIC	Education, Information and Communication
NGO	Non Governmental Organisation
PCU	Project Coordination Unit
PD	Project Document
PI	Partner Institution
ROK	Republic of Korea
SGP	Small Grant Programme
TOR	Terms of Reference

The evaluation was conducted by an independent team of two persons: M. Badarch, director of Mongolian Nature and Environment Consortium, Ying Zhou-Tala, EIC manager of Project Coordination Unit (PCU), TumenNET project. The evaluation started on 24 October 2001 and completed on 9 November 2001.

The evaluation team would like to thank Mr. D. Druzhin, Deputy Governor of Hasanskii district of Primorsky Krai, Russia, Mr. A. Dashnyam, Aide-de-camp to the Governor of Kentii Province, Mongolia, Ms. Yang Shuhua, Deputy Director of Publicity and Education Centre of Environmental Protection of Jilin Province, Mr. Li Yuan Xie, Vice director of Environment Protection Bureau of Hunchun city and Mr. Chai Jingchun, Deputy director of Environment Agency of Yanji city, Ms. Park Eun-Kyung, director of Institute of Environment and Culture of Korea for their assistance to carry out this evaluation.

Our special thanks and gratitude also goes Mr. Gunther Mau, Chief Technical Adviser of Project Coordination Unit, TumenNET project and Mr. Alexander Tkalin, Programme Officer, PCU for their substantial guidelines for preparation and arrangement of this evaluation.

The evaluation team also thanks to Ms Dolgorsuren, Environment Agency of Khentii province, Mr. Vladimir Karakin, Russian Far East Branch of WWF, Ms. Li Li, Jilin Provincial Publicity and Education Centre of Environment Protection and their staff gave generously of their time to support the mission's work.

The SGP is implementing since August 2001 as part of the Tumen River Strategic Action Programme (TumenNET) which is funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and implemented by the China, Russia, Mongolia and ROK.

According to the Project Document (PD) the TumenNET development objective was stated as "to protect the transboundary biodiversity and international water protection in Northeast Asian countries and to ensure sustainable development through taking environmental considerations into account while exploiting the natural resource production base of the country".

The SGP was established as a grants program, targeted at local communities around project areas, with the following specific objectives:

The project's of the Small Grants Programme (SGP) is targeted at the immediate grassroots in the project areas and aims to provide support for village-level initiatives that showcase examples of hands-on and practical village self-help projects - projects that reduce environmental pollution while at the same time contribute to raising living standards. Preference will be given to projects that can demonstrate positive impacts on biodiversity and water pollution and that involve cross-border partners.

Each SGP grant does not exceed $5,000 and involve substantial in kind contributions by the applicant(s). The SGP is targeted at local villages and local communities in the immediate proximity to the project areas.

Up to the present time, the Program has provided financial resources, on a grant basis, between US$2000 and US$5000 per project aimed at addressing social and economic issues such as increasing health and education, income generation, and development of basic infrastructure. Support has also been provided to projects more related to environmental conservation.

According to the Project document, at the end of a two-year period (June 2002) at least 50 Small project proposals would have been funded in 5 countries.

At this point, a total of 29 projects are being implemented in key Project Targeted areas of China, Russia, Mongolia and Republic of Korea. Annex 1 presents a summary of all the projects.

The management, control and monitoring of the projects are handed by Partner institutes in each participating country.

2. Evaluation objectives and methodology

This report represents an internal evaluation of the Small Projects implemented under the Tumen River Strategic Action Programme (TumenNET). According to the TOR (Annex 2) of evaluation which was developed by the Project Coordination Unit (PCU) the main objectives of the evaluation were:

The evaluation methodology defined and provided by the PCU, emphasized special attention to the following review/analysis criteria: Project Suitability, Effectiveness and Sustainability. The evaluation involved two stages: the provision and revision of background information and the analysis of this information and preparation of the evaluation report.

The evaluation was focused on 14 projects selected randomly. The evaluation team conducted questionnaires (annex 3), targeted at the organizations implementing the projects and the target group/beneficiaries, aimed at collecting information on the results and impacts of the small projects.

The projects were visited and the questionnaires were carried out at the site of the projects where the SGP leaders were interviewed, as well as the project beneficiaries.

The evaluation team had meeting with 35 individuals including project managers, representatives of local Government and local communities and project beneficiaries.

Extensive project background references and individual project related documents were provided by the partner institutions. Consultations with project staff and members of the Project selection panel were also conducted.

The evaluation team aims to provide both a critical analysis of past and on-going project activities and a basis for using this experience to improve the implementation of the on-going projects.

The evaluation team prepared a draft work plan one month prior to the start of the mission.

A TOR of evaluation together with an outline timetable mission was circulated to Partner institutes in mid-June 2001.

The Initial TOR of evaluation and timetable mission was amended in the light of comments received during second Awareness Meeting, which was held in Khentii town, Mongolia.

Twenty-nine small projects within the SGP were funded from August 2001 in project-targeted areas of Mongolia, China, Russia and Republic of Korea.

The majority of the projects focused in environmental awareness, education, health and environment conservation in TumenNET areas.

The evaluation team visited 14 project sites where had meeting with 45 individuals including project staff and the officials of the local Government.

Consultations with some members of SAP PU (in Russia and China) and some members of the SGP selection panel (in Mongolia) were also conducted.

In terms of the content, most of projects included well-detailed realistic and important information such as expected results, required resources and activities to carry out.

During the project evaluation we had highlighted to estimate the current and future sustainability of the projects.

Local communities are the target areas of the projects. Therefore, the sustainability of the projects is heavily dependent upon the local economic and social conditions characterized mainly by poverty, which is closely related to unsustainable practices of resource use.

The long-term sustainability of these projects will also depend on the local communities or beneficiaries' capacity to contribute to the maintenance and operation of projects.

The evaluation was focused on 14 projects listed in annex 4. Up to the present time, the Program has provided financial resources, on a grant basis, between US$2000 and US$5000 per project aimed at addressing transboundary biodiversity and international water protection and social and economic issues such as increasing health and education, income generation, and development of basic infrastructure. Support has also been provided to projects more related to environmental conservation

· Insufficient transparency for announcement and selection of Project. (Project 5, Russia, Project 1, Mongolia)

· Lack of or poor analysis/definition of the issues to be addressed. Some projects jumped from the identification of the products to be produced or services to be provided to project activities without further analysis and without taking into account all of the potential problems that could interfere with their success (Project 2, Mongolia and project 4 Russia)
· The lack of site visits by the members of PI and SAP PU in order to validate and enhance key information provided in the proposals (most of evaluated projects).
· Poor budget planning characterized by underestimation of costs and lack of planning for important items. For instance, some activities cannot be executed due to shortage of project budget (Project 4, Russia, Project 1, Mongolia and Project 14, Korea).
· Lack of incorporation of environmental concerns or reference to environmental considerations within the process of project identification and design project proposals at local level (e.g. Project 8 and 11, China).

The evaluation team made the following conclusions:
· The mechanism set up for the implementation of the SGP is simple, practical and follows a bottom up approach.
· The Criteria used for the approval of the projects were very relevant and appropriate. In general, the SGPs have been selected adhered to those Criteria.
· The SGPs met genuine basic needs of the communities such as health care, education, ecotourism, village development, improving the drinking water quality and prevention flood disaster benefiting communities directly. An average of 5000 local people have benefited from the SGP.
· Most of the projects adhered to the work plan detailed in the original project proposal in terms of the activities carried out, good products and services provided. In terms of the proposed schedule, most of the projects had delays due to different factors.
· The 95 percent of evaluated SGP were cost-effective.
· Women and poor households have been the main beneficiaries of the SGP.
· Projects supported the promotion of income generation and environment conservation funds at the local levels.
· People of village communities had benefited from the upgrading of training at project sites.
· The SGP has promoted the involvement of NGO's through training their staff.
· The SGP has supported other poverty related activities at national and local levels.
· The sustainable impacts of the SGP on poverty were: the increased income and self-confidence of the households who go on to implement successful SGP.

· Local administrations, all NGOs implementing projects as well as the local communities of the key areas of TumenNET have the same options to continue supporting the SGP. It is recommended to implement second Tranche of the SGP for conservation of Transboundary biodiversity and international water protection activities in targeted areas.

· The second Tranche of the SGP should be focused on supporting community initiatives more directly related to transboundary biodiversity conservation activities in Tumen River, Mongolian plateau, Daurian Steppe zones as well as Supra regional zone or at least in supporting more integrated approach to address the social, economic and environmental needs of the areas providing alternatives to proper use of natural resources which are located in targeted areas. It is recommended to identify and financially support at least two regional community-based initiatives in the above zones. Such initiatives should include rural development and environmental conservation components; consequently, its cost might be higher than the current projects.

· The capacity building and organizational development of NGOs in targeted areas of TumenNET are important in successful implementation of SGP. It is suggested to organize training of NGO staff, which will implement SGP in targeted areas.

· Different mechanisms should be identified and utilized to involve local people from the very early stages of the process of project implementation. The SGP should be seen as a complementary mechanism and not the main one. In most of the targeted areas, local people, especially herders/ farmers/ hunters, are still associating the local administration with conflicts on use of natural resources. Therefore, effective educational/awareness activities need to be carried out by the local communities in order to promote better understanding of the existence of the transboundary biodiversity conservation. It is recommended to establish effective linkages activities of the SGP and environment public awareness programme at local level in order to benefit from the extensive experiences gained by this initiative in environmental public awareness, and to promote their support on more integrated awareness approaches.

· It is recommended to prepare case studies of successful project experience as well as to prepare brochures and other awareness materials as a basis to disseminate information on the implementation of the SGP.

· In order to promote transparency of project identification, selection process and enhance the views of selection panel, the NGOs, the private sector, and local people should participate in the selection panel and in the decision making process. The role of the SAP PU should also be enhanced. It is recommended to consider a more balanced work within both PIs and SAP PU in each country in order to promote transparency of project selection. There is needed to include the NGOs, the private sector, and local people should participate in the composition of the selection panel and in the decision making process.

· Considering the key role in implementation of the SGP by the local communities in terms of the project development and implementation, its experience, capabilities are important. Efforts should be made towards further enhancement of the local community's capacities in project development, monitoring and evaluation.

· In terms of the capacity at local level, it is important to highlight the existence of other initiatives such as local Poverty Alleviation, local Agenda 21. Though projects differ in some areas, in practice, some of their objectives, frame of activities, target areas, have similarities especially in the cases of projects towards economic and social development and sustainable use of transboundary biodiversity and international water in specific cases. It is recommended to improve the linkage of SGP and local programs such as Poverty Alleviation, local Agenda 21

· In order to make the Criteria for the SGP relevant and appropriate as compared with the purpose and objectives of the TumenNET Project and to make them self-explanatory and comprehensive facilitating its application there is a need for improvement in terms of the content and format of the current Criteria.

· It is recommended appropriate and relevant SGP criteria by reviewing, improving and enhancing the content and format of the current Criteria. With regards to the applying organizations, it is also recommended to define within the criteria the organizations eligible for support.

· Emphasis should be placed on practical training that brings knowledge/awareness to the implementing groups in project implementation stage. By building relevant skills and knowledge and encouraging the practice of trans boundary biodiversity and international water protection activities at the local level, especially when local communities are part of the initiative. Special training should be designed for PIs to enhance their capacities and skill in their roles as facilitator in the small projects.

· Better priority needs to be assigned to monitoring and evaluation of the projects at the local level. Monitoring of the projects especially by the PIs and SAP PU need to be strengthened. The establishment of a monitoring guidelines and participatory program evaluation are recommended.

· It is suggested to develop a coherent and practical monitoring and evaluation system for the projects incorporating different levels, from the LA/PIU to the project groups. It is recommended that PIs develop a simple format to be used by the project managers for the preparation of project final reports in order to obtain the relevant information needed about the implementation of each project.

· In order to draw out and communicate lessons learned from this exercise, it is recommended to prepare case studies on successful projects and disseminate the information through different approaches among the implementers of SGP.

· It is recommended to identify the priority project options for second Tranche of the SGP by the PCU with collaboration Lead Agent in line of decision of second TumenNET Council meeting.

· It is recommended the Partners Institutes should build strong communication channels with grantees, provide grantees full information of TumenNET which is the source of the fund, therefor indication of TumenNET including logo and full tile should appear on any promotion materials which utilised the SGP fund.

· It is recommended to develop and implement the following projects in future in TumenNET areas:

1. Establish clear mechanisms for transboundary Conservation of the Mongolian Plateau, Daurian Steppe Zone and Tumen River Zone.

These mechanisms could be covered legal status for transboundary areas, institutional frameworks for transboundary protected area management, and resolution for park/people conflicts through local participation and development of economic alternatives.

The environment sound economic benefits from community based ecotourism serve as incentives for local people to initiate conservation measures, such as using renewable energy to reduce fuel woods consumption, improved waste management, support for restoration of cultural sites, and an appreciation for protecting wildlife as attraction to resources. For this reason, future TumenNET project could arrange community based ecotourism activities that will be component of all its biodiversity conservation programs.

3. Support to local community participation in Transboundary Biodiversity Conservation.

As we know, there are transboundary problems such as illegal hunting, harvesting, logging, grazing and wildlife trade. These conflicts could be solved though community participation is one of the most critical issues for transboundary conservation. Consultation with local communities increases the potential for environment sound management in border areas.

Please visit our website for summary of SGP projects: http://www.tumennet.org/project/proj_index.htm

The Tumen River Strategic Action Program, or TumenNET in short, is a 2-year and US $6.8 million initiative to protect transboundary biodiversity and international water resources in Northeast Asia, and attract green investment. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) contributes US $5 million to the project and the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) has been contracted to facilitate international inputs and overall coordination. The project is implemented and managed by the Governments of participating countries through a network of regional lead agents and national partner institutions (http://www.TumenNET.org). Five countries participate in the project at present. They are the People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (pending full participation), Mongolia, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea. Japan recently joined the TumenNET Council as observer.

The project area is characterized by its unique and rich biological diversity (eg the Amur tiger, the Mongolian gazelle, and several crane species) and boasts internationally significant waters such as the Tumen River with its tributaries and Peter-the-Great Bay. The region is abundant with natural resources, has a vast human resource potential and is strategically located at the nexus of consumer markets in Asia, the Americas and Europe. An accelerating pace of economic development and associated urbanisation will put pressure on natural resources and can pose significant threats to the environment, if managed unsustainably. This can result in irreversible damage to national as well as global environmental resources.

TumenNET relies on a strong participatory and community focussed approach to ensure that the Strategic Action Program (SAP) is action-oriented, financially feasible and responsive. Local ownership is a key ingredient in that process and a series of consultative meetings are being held at the local government and grassroots levels to identify environmental priorities, generate and validate information, and ensure community relevance of interventions proposed in the SAP. A complementary Awareness-Raising Program (ARP) and Small Grants Program (SGP) under the project aim to raise environmental awareness among affected communities and provide resources to grassroots areas. SGP funds will be dispersed in two Tranche, one in May 2001 and, following an independent evaluation of its effectiveness, a second Tranche in early 2002. These TORs are for the evaluation of Tranche I of the SGP.

The overall objective of the evaluation is an assessment of the operational effectiveness and efficiency of the Small Grants Program, including its administration at national and regional level, the system adopted for the submission and selection of grant proposals, and national and regional monitoring of its implementation. The evaluation is forward looking in its approach and will recommend realistic and achievable ways to improve the delivery and impact of the Small Grants Scheme within the constraints under which the TumenNET project operates.

· Assess the community relevance of the SGP and discuss in how far it contributes to the TumenNET participatory approach at both national and regional levels.
· Appraise the effectiveness of national selection processes, including advertising the program, the use of national/local languages, its access by grassroots communities in the target areas, comprehension of local language guidelines, establishment of selection panels, transparency and fairness of selection process and timing. Make recommendations for improvements where required.
· Appraise the efficiency of the awarding of a grant, including effective management of agreements with UNOPS, translations, fund transfer, etc and make recommendations for improvements where required.
· Assess the suitability of selected grant proposals against the SGP guidelines and make recommendations for improvements in the selection process if and when required.
· Evaluate the appropriateness and likely impact of monitoring arrangements set up by the national managers of the SGP program and make recommendations for improvements where required. Discuss cost effective methods for regional monitoring by the AWARE Lead Agent.
· Assess, if possible at such an early stage, the likely benefits of the Tranche I grant to recipient communities and their short to medium to long-term impact.
· Discuss and assess the commitment by local communities towards the program and the effectiveness of any support structure by local government. Assess the political willingness of local Government to support the program and identify areas for improvements.
· Discuss with stakeholders, and make recommendations on, the type of grant projects that could be best pursued in each country.
· Assess the level of gender equity and involvement of disadvantaged groups in all project design and implementation activities.
· Assess the degree (initial perhaps) of networking among SGP managers in the different member countries and evaluate the successes and shortcomings of these networks. Identify opportunities for future networking.

The consultant will report to the Project Coordination Unit in Beijing. While in country, the consultant will work with, and through, the AWARE Lead Agent and Partner Institutions.

Payment of contracted services will be linked to achievements of agreed milestones and is subject to acceptance by the Project Coordination Unit of the quality of the contracted services.

1) Draft evaluation report within 3 weeks of return to home base.
2) Final report, incorporating any comments from the PCU, within 1 week of receipt of these comments.

All reports are to be submitted by email in a WORD compatible format to the CTA, Mr Gunther Mau, at gmau

1) Execution of contract 15% of contract value
2) Acceptance of draft report 40% of contract value
3) Acceptance of final report 45% of contract value

The evaluation team will comprise an independent consultant from Wetlands International, a representative of the Lead Agent of the AWARE component and a representative of the Project Coordination Unit. The evaluation is scheduled to begin in October 2001 commencing with a briefing in Beijing. The evaluation will be undertaken over a period of approximately 30 days, not necessarily consecutively, with 20 person days estimated for the field mission, and 10 person days at home base for finalizing of the evaluation report. Preparation and finalising of the report is the responsibility of the independent consultant. Sites to be visited:

China Mongolia
Beijing (Project Coordination Unit); Ulaanbaatar (capital) and selected
Changchun (capital of Jilin Province) and location(s) in Eastern Mongolia
selected location(s) in Yanbian Prefecture

Russian Federation Republic of Korea
Vladivostok (capital of Far East Region) Seoul (capital) and selected
and selected location(s) in Primorsky Krai location(s) in its vicinity
____________________

1. Organization: Korean Federation for Environmental Movement (KFEM)
2. Address: 251, Nuha-dong, Jongro-Gu, Seoul, Korea
Tel: Fax
3. Project name and purpose: Crane Monitoring by locals
4. Name of project leader and members
Project leader: Kim Choony (Ms.) kimchy

(* indicates participants to visit on site of the Tumen River from Oct 21
to Oct 28. Therefore 7 of 10 visited to Tumen River on site with their own money)

*1. Mr. Park, Jong Hak, Volunteer activist as a photographer at Citizens Information Center for Environment that is one of the affiliated organizations to KFEM
*2. Mr. Choi, Jin Ha, Director of ChungNam Province local agenda 21
3. Mr. Kim, Jeong Soo, Senior Researcher, Citizens Institute for Environmental Studies that is one of the affiliated organizations to KFEM
*4. Ms. Kim, Choony. Chief of International Affairs, KFEM -- Project leader
*5. Ms. Lee Hye Kyung, Secretary General, Incheon KFEM
*6. Mr. Bok, Jin Ho, Volunteer PD of Public relations, KFEM
*7. Mr. Kim, Kyung won, Director, Korean Wetlands Alliance (KWA)
*8. Ms. Jang, Ji Young. Chief of Wetlands and Tidal Flat Team, KFEM
9.Ms. Oh He Won, International Coordinator, KFEM
10. Dr. Glen Harrison, Volunteer of International Affairs of KFEM,
Senior Researcher, Oak Ridge National Lab.(Tennessee, USA) - He suggested KFEM make a contact to Yanbian University to implement KFEM's SGP project through Seoul National University and edit English for this project. He made this wonderful project as a match-maker between KFEM and Yanbian University.

(4 of 5 professors visited to Tumen River to educate the local people and implement SGP project.)

*1. Prof. Jang, Sam Hwan
2. Prof. Nan, Ying (In Seoul National University from Yanbian University) - He introduced Prof. Ju Wei Hong (Seoul Natioinal University from Yanbian University) who is expert on this issue and Professors' from Yanbian University.
*3. Prof. Lee, Qwang --- Project leader
*4. Prof . Jeon, Kyung Mu
*5. Prof. Zhu Wei Hong (In Seoul National University from Yanbian University) - She had a major role as a member of working group of this project between Yanbian Univ. and KFEM.

Mr. Jim Harrison, Vice Secretary General, International Crane Foundation - He provided all the material such as posters, post cards with KFEM and we provided them with local people along the Tumen River area such as Hunchun, Kyungsin and Bangcheon area.

Ms. Lani Alo, Program Associate, Goldman Environmental Foundation
Ms. Amy Morris, Program Assistant, Goldman Environmental Foundation

KFEM submitted SGP project to Global GreenGrants Fund through the Goldman Environmental Prize. Both of them contacted Global GreenGrants Fund to implement this project.

Global Green Grants Fund and Tides Foundation

Ms. Beatrice Szadokierski, Director of Administration & Finance, Global Greengrants Fund . She tried to send money to KFEM before implementing date and we successfully received money before our departure.

Mr. Choi, Chung gil : Chief Director, Korean -Chinese Children's nationwide newspaper of China. He will cover KFEM's SGP program to his newspaper.

· Solving social problems: Frankly speaking they do not have any social problems but political problem that is Reunification of Korean Peninsular. We have had deep discussion on it, and we concluded South and North Korea is needed to reunify as soon as possible because senior citizenship along the Tumen river are getting older. They really want to see Unified Korean peninsular.

· Increasing the standard of living: Highly Yes. We selected 24 local people from Hunchun, Kyungsin and Bangcheon area who have lived along the Tumen ?iver side and paid for 50,000 won per person as a labor fee that 50,000 won accounts for 8,300Yuan(currency 1Yuan:166Won) and 42 USD
(Currency 1200 Won: 1 USD). They will monitor 5 times in Autumn, 2001.

1) For KFEM side, we learned a lot the historical, geographical and environmental backgrounds as well as tourism sector from the local peoples and Professors from Yanbian University. We understood what is real border area and border area management. For Koreans, we do not have border concept because we cannot access to border area between North and South Korea, and we do not have land border between Korea and Japan.

2) For local people side, we have seen many local peoples' awareness.
One Chinese who live in Kyungsin area who was not a member of selected 24 locals accessed to us and explained that he have seen Crane. And when we met 24 locals, all of them told us they do not know how important Crane is before Yanbain
University explained our SGP program. But after the first visit of Yanbian University, they could sincerely understand why Crane lives at their region.

3) When we provided money with local people, they strongly do not want to take their labor fee. They said to protect ecosystem and Carne along Tumen River is their duty without money. They want to monitor Crane without money. We made hard effort to persuade them.

4) We would like to say one of the evidence more on community awareness. Mr. Shin, is a bus driver of our transportation Even though his job is bus driver but his awareness on Crane marvelously increased. Whenever he talked, they mentioned Crane.

Lastly, all about this was great opportunity and unbelievable experience for us. And under the circumstances, we would like to recommend one of the local people to the "Excellence Awards".

· Protecting environment and natural resources: As we mentioned already, local people have seen Crane many times. But whenever they see Crane, they understood it is one of the nature but they do not know critically Crane is one of the protected species. Through this SGP, they have known they should protect Carne and river mouth of Tumen River from the development. And because Crane and Tumen River are connected each other. Also they have known why 5 countries and United Nations make the efforts to protect international waters and trans-boundary bio diversity.
So the SGP of KFEM contributed to protect nature and environment along the Tumen River side.

· Providing employment: We hired 1 bus driver for our site visit which is 3 times to implement our SGP. It will be continued by 11. Nov. 2001.

300 copies; Educational Material on Crane by KFEM
500 copies; Record card for Monitor purpose by KFEM
1 Placard by KFEM
3 pieces of Crane Digital Dying (Hooded Crane, Red-Crowned Crane, White-nape Crane) by KFEM

70 post cards ; International Crane Foundation
40 posters on Crane: International Crane Foundation
4 sets educational material for Kids ; International Crane Foundation

And we have had another ideas and project items along the river mouth of Tumen River

7. Who benefited most from your project?
· Local people: Strongly Yes.
· Local authorities:
· Group implementing the project: Secondarily Yes.
· School age children: We distributed postcards to local people and let them give postcards to their children and kids.
· Students: When Professors from Yanbian University make a lecture to the students on Crane and ecosystem of Tumen river, it will be another great opportunity

8. Project serves mostly for (specify), which is % of the population.
· Local community: 100 %
· Women: 17% of 100 %
· Children: 15 % of 100 %
· Herders:
· Others:

9. How did your project get to know about the possibility to apply for funding from SGP? We got to know from (specify)
· Radio:------------------------------------
· Newspaper: -------------------------------------------
· Internet, e-mail networks: ---------------------------
· Word of mouth:-----------------------------------
· I was invited to submit the proposal: to United Nations and Global GreenGrants Fund in collaboration with Goldman Environmental Foundation
· Other:

10. Who helped you to develop project proposal?
· National SGP manager: ----------------------------------------------------------
· People who have been involved in small projects before: -------------------
· Relatives and friends: -------------------------------------------------------------
· Other
Dr. Glen Harrison who is a Senior Researcher at Oak Ridge National Lab based in Tennessee, USA and a volunteer at the International affairs at KFEM helped me to find out right contact point in Yanbian Prefecture when I made a question how to implement this project. He introduced Geographical Department of Seoul National University to me since he knows there are professors from Yanbian University.

Mr. Kim, Kyung won who is a director of Korean Wetlands Alliance gave me idea when I invited to discuss which items will be reasonable to give economic benefit to local people and raise awareness on environmental protection

Prof. Nan, Ying and Prof. Zhu, Wei hong : I contacted them after Glen Harrison helped me out. They have worked and contacted between KFEM and Yanbian Univeristy.

We could implement the SGP owing to their well arrangement between KFEM and Yanbian University.

Replace: (((11. What is your opinion on SGP project selection procedure?
Selection is fair on competitive basis: Surely Yes.
Selection is not satisfactory:
Do not know about their selection procedure:

11. Do you think the selection process is fair & equitable?
Please explain if not
Did you get clear guidance to writing a proposal? Please suggest improvements:
Yes.

12. Have you had any problems to get approval for your project?
Yes:
No: *
If yes, with what did you have difficulties?
SGP Selection Panel: ---------------------------------
Local Government: ------------------------------------
National SGP manager: -------------------------------

Please explain the nature of our difficulties: No participation from North Korean side, and Tumen River is not adjacent area to South Korea.

13. Have you had any unexpected difficulties during the project implementation? No

14. Reasons for above-mentioned difficulties?
· Conditions for project implementation were not foreseen properly ------------
· Inappropriate guidelines of SGP --------------------------------------------------------
· Inadequate contact with national SGP manager------------------------------------

15. What is your opinion about your project budget?
· Just right ---------
· Too much --------
· Too small ; I got a matching fund but it was small. Allocated money for SGP to Korean NGOs was something small.

16. How would you evaluate your project implementation?
· Very good : Surely Yes. Because we made stakeholders widened from domestic to international society such as Fund Sources that are Goldman Environmental Prize and Global GreenGrants Fund(Tides Foundation) which is and educational material provider which is International Crane Foundation. We met local people and gave money to them, saw their sincere attitude, and witnessed marvellous and untouched river mouth of the Tumen River. In addition to, many activists from Korea who works for wetlands and migratory birds conservation travelled to Tumen River and impressed a lot. In order to allocate most money by UNDP and Global GreenGrants Fund to project, participants from ROK contributed their own money to trip from Korea to China. And finally we have many ideas to implement on this area. Lastly much more important reason to evaluate 'excellence' on this project is we do not have any language barrier between Yanbian University and KFEM, and local people and KFEM even though our SGP site was in China not in Korea. All of us fully understood what we said among us.

Not to mention, it was great job. We appreciate all of stakeholders and supporters to this project.

· Good --------------------
· Satisfactory ------------
· Bad ----------------------

17. Give a short statement about your project outputs and future objectives for the project?

There was no natural river mouth, flood plain, sand hill, and dike in Korea since every river has been developed and straightened by cement and concrete. It was great for us to see natural area along the Tumen River. We will try to protect natural shape that we mentioned already in collaboration with Yanbian University and International Society. And also we would like to expand our concept not only ecosystem protection but also alternative energy system in the border area. We would like to implement alternative energy system after the feasibility studies. All of these will be helpful to local people.
It will be come true, local people use electricity without giving any harm to environment. And we will develop the educational programs for local people as well as kids. Their current understanding on nature and environment is not educational but natural. If we will implement educational program for them, they will be much more concerned about it.

18. Please list priority project type for future SGP that require urgent attention in your area. Try to prioritize these!

These will be collaborated with Yanbian University and implemented, if money is applicable and SGP will be continued by UNDP and GEF..

Project on implementing wind energy facilities at the border area
Project on Crane Monitoring by locals in the HeirungJang Province
Project on environmental education on Desertification to the local people
Project on Inviting school children of Yanbian Prefecture to Korea to take part in the School Children's environmental education program organized by KFEM.

2. Address : 692707, Andreevka, Naberezhnaya St., 2, Khasanskii district, Primorskii krai

4. Name of project leader and members
Project Leader - Naumov Vitalii

5. In what area the SGP requirements were met by your project?
· Solving social problems: V
· Increasing the standard of living:
· Strengthening community awareness: V
· Protecting environment and natural resources: V
· Providing employment:

6. What kinds of products does the project produce?
The quality of environment has improved

7. Who benefited most from your project?
· Local people: V----------------------------
· Local authorities: ------------------------
· Group implementing the project: V------
· School age children: V--------------------
· Students: ---------------------------------

8. Project serves mostly for (specify), which is ....... % of the population.
· Local community: V
· Women:V
· Children:V
· Herders
· Others: Tourists

9. How did your project get to know about the possibility to apply for funding from SGP? We got to know from (specify)
· Radio:------------------------------------
· Newspaper: -------------------------------------------
· Internet, e-mail networks: ---------------------------
· Word of mouth:-----------------------------------
· I was invited to submit the proposal: ----------------------------
· Other: Mass-media ---------------------------------------------------

10. Who helped you to develop project proposal?
· National SGP manager: V----------------------------------------------------------
· People who have been involved in small projects before: -------------------
· Relatives and friends: -------------------------------------------------------------
· Other: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. Do you think the selection process is fair & equitable?
Please explain if not
yes ------------------------------------------------------------
Did you get clear guidance to writing a proposal? Please suggest improvements:
yes

12. Have you had any problems to get approval for your project?
Yes: -------------
No: V--------------
If yes, with what did you have difficulties?
SGP Selection Panel: ---------------------------------
Local Government: ------------------------------------
National SGP manager: -------------------------------
Please explain the nature of our difficulties:-------------------------

13. Have you had any unexpected difficulties during the project implementation? The problem of creation the legal dumps turned out to be more complicated than it seemed in the beginning. This is de to very strict federal restrictions and legislation.

14. Reasons for above-mentioned difficulties?
· Conditions for project implementation were not foreseen properly -V
· Inappropriate guidelines of SGP
· Inadequate contact with national SGP manager

15. What is your opinion about your project budget?
· Just right Enough---------
· Too much --------
· Too small --------

16. How would you evaluate your project implementation?
· Very good --------------
· Good V--------------------
· Satisfactory ------------
· Bad ----------------------

17. Give a short statement about your project outputs and future objectives for the project? The main project output is control over solid waste pollution in the given area, which contributes to sustainable development of the territory of Gamov peninsula. The activities under the project significantly reduce contamination of the coastal waters and the adjacent territories of the Troitsa Bay. Creation of the solid waste disposal grounds adds noticeably to conservation of the unique natural complexes. The future objective is to keep maintaining as well as better equipping the grounds for solid wastes. Also, the important issue in the future is to cooperate with the local government in order to find more favourable legislative grounds for such a valuable (from the conservation point of view) object operation in the future

18. Please list priority project type for future SGP that require urgent attention in your area. Try to prioritize these!

1. Support creation of NGOs on the basis of local community.
2. Biodiversity conservation in the coastal area.
3. Financial aid and support of the nature protected areas ( in this particular area - Far Eastern State Marine Reserve, Nature Park Khasanskii, Barsovyi Refuge).

3. Project name and purpose: "You should know, love and protect the place you live in" 3 TV programs will be made and broadcasted on local TV

Project Leader - Galieva Svetlana - Project coordinator
Rupinets Elena - Executor
Statsenko Anatolyi - Executor

· Solving social problems:
· Increasing the standard of living:
· Strengthening community awareness: V
· Protecting environment and natural resources: V
· Providing employment:

6. What kinds of products does the project produce?
The quality of environment has improved 3 video films and video plots on environmental problems in the Tumen River basin; TV programs will be copied and distributed among educational departments, libraries and schools-

7. Who benefited most from your project?
· Local people: V----------------------------
· Local authorities: ------------------------
· Group implementing the project: -----
· School age children: V--------------------
· Students:V ---------------------------------

8. Project serves mostly for (specify), which is ....... % of the population.
· Local community: -80%
· Women:
· Children:
· Herders
· Others: -20%

9. How did your project get to know about the possibility to apply for funding from SGP? We got to know from (specify)
· Radio:------------------------------------
· Newspaper: -------------------------------------------
· Internet, e-mail networks: ---------------------------
· Word of mouth:V-----------------------------------
· I was invited to submit the proposal: ----------------------------
· Other ---------------------------------------------------

13. Have you had any unexpected difficulties during the project implementation? Lack of fuel in the remote places, not sufficient funding of the organization

14. Reasons for above-mentioned difficulties?
· Conditions for project implementation were not foreseen properly -V
· Inappropriate guidelines of SGP
· Inadequate contact with national SGP manager

15. What is your opinion about your project budget?
· Just right ---------
· Too much --------
· Too small V--------

16. How would you evaluate your project implementation?
· Very good --------------
· Good --------------------
· Satisfactory V ------------
· Bad ----------------------

17. Give a short statement about your project outputs and future objectives for the project? Trips to Khasanskii district were conducted. Scripts for the future video programs were prepared. 4 informational environmental video plots were broadcasted on Educational TV channel

18. Please list priority project type for future SGP that require urgent attention in your area. Try to prioritize these!
1. Environmental education of the local young people.

2. Address: 690090, Oktyabrskaya St., 27, room 417,Vladivostok, Primorskii krai, Russia

3. Project name and purpose: Development of youth movement on nature protection in south-western part of Primorye - Improvement of the qualification of the members of the youth ecological movement.

Project Leader - Golobokova Elene - Project coordinator
Korolev Sergei - executor
Skripova Kira - executor

· Solving social problems:
· Increasing the standard of living:
· Strengthening community awareness: V
· Protecting environment and natural resources: V
· Providing employment:

6. What kinds of products does the project produce?
Qualification of the young inspectors have been improved, level of poaching has reduced in the region

7. Who benefited most from your project?
· Local people: V----------------------------
· Local authorities: ------------------------
· Group implementing the project: ------
· School age children: --------------------
· Students:V ---------------------------------

8. Project serves mostly for (specify), which is ....... % of the population.
· Local community: V
· Women:
· Children:
· Herders
· Others:

9. How did your project get to know about the possibility to apply for funding from SGP? We got to know from (specify)
· Radio:V-----------------------------------
· Newspaper: V------------------------------------------
· Internet, e-mail networks: ---------------------------
· Word of mouth:-----------------------------------
· I was invited to submit the proposal: ----------------------------
· Other: ---------------------------------------------------

11. Do you think the selection process is fair & equitable?
Please explain if not:-----------------------------------
yes ------------------------------------------------------------
Did you get clear guidance to writing a proposal? Please suggest improvements:
yes

13. Have you had any unexpected difficulties during the project implementation? Yes

14. Reasons for above-mentioned difficulties?
· Conditions for project implementation were not foreseen properly -V
· Inappropriate guidelines of SGP
· Inadequate contact with national SGP manager

15. What is your opinion about your project budget?
· Just right
· Too much --------
· Too small Additional funding was required --------

16. How would you evaluate your project implementation?
· Very good --------------
· Good V--------------------
· Satisfactory ------------
· Bad ----------------------

17. Give a short statement about your project outputs and future objectives for the project? At the first stage of the project conditions for work of youth environmental non-governmental organization were created: Young members of the organization were educated. Cooperation with governmental environmental structures of the Khasanskii district was established

18. Please list priority project type for future SGP that require urgent attention in your area. Try to prioritize these!

4. Environmental education of local community
5. Sustainable development of the Khasanskii district (Development of ecological tourism)
6. Anti - poaching activities
Development of non-governmental organizations in the region

4. Name of project leader and members
l Project leader : Han, Jihyun (Korea)
l Camp Counselor : Sa, Jinwon (Russia)
Moon, Youngsik (China)
Jang, Kumhee (Korea)
Jeong, Jiyeon (Korea)
Park, Jieun (Korea)
l Guide : Kim, Jungsong (China)
Chang, Yong (China)
Kim, Haksoo (China)
l Volunteers : Jun, Wongu (medical service)
Kim, Kwonjae (video recording)
Park, Kyungsuk (water pollution test)
Kwon, Sookkyung (drawing contest)
l Participants : Choi, Hyunchul (China)
Ahn, Joonryung (China)
Lee, Miyung (China)
Cho, Moonah (China)
Moon, Yojin (China)
Yang, Hong (China)
Lee, Kwang (China)
Kim, Dongmae (China)
Cho, Keumdan (China)
Park, Hak-keun (China)
Choi, Misun (China)
Bang, Jun-ui (China)
Bang, Hyangran (China)
Kim, Ryomoon (China)
Choi, Enbyul (China)
Kim, Jiwon (Korea)
Lee, Youhyun (Korea)
Han, Jiwon (Korea)
Sa, Mijoo (Korea)
Kim, Saerom (Korea)
Kim, Wooram (Korea)
Park, Dukjun (Korea)
5. In what area the SGP requirements were met by your project?

· Solving social problems:
· Increasing the standard of living:
· Strengthening community awareness: V
· Protecting environment and natural resources: V
· Providing employment:

6. What kinds of products does the project produce?
(1) Video recording tape
(2) Children's pictures (from drawing contest)
(3) Web community for participants' solidarity (under constructing)
7. Who benefited most from your project?
· Local people: ------------V----------------
· Local authorities: ------------------------
· Group implementing the project: ------
· School age children: ----------V----------
· Students: --------------V-------------------

8. Project serves mostly for (specify), which is ....... % of the population.
· Local community: 57%
· Women: 63%
· Children: 63%
· Herders (Camp Counselor & Local guide): 23%
· Others(Volunteers): 14%

9. How did your project get to know about the possibility to apply for funding from SGP? We got to know from (specify)
· Radio:------------------------------------
· Newspaper: -------------------------------------------
· Internet, e-mail networks: ---------------------------
· Word of mouth:-----------------------------------
· I was invited to submit the proposal: ---------V-------------------
· Other: ---------------------------------------------------

10. Who helped you to develop project proposal?
· National SGP manager: -------------V---------------------------------------------
· People who have been involved in small projects before: -------------------
· Relatives and friends: -------------------------------------------------------------
· Other: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Replace: (((11. What is your opinion on SGP project selection procedure?
Selection is fair on competitive basis: ----------------------------
Selection is not satisfactory: ---------------------------------------
Do not know about their selection procedure: -------------------)))

11. Do you think the selection process is fair & equitable? Yes
Please explain if not
Did you get clear guidance to writing a proposal?
Yes, we were given some good guidelines for writing this proposal and there have also been explanations by national SGP manager.

12. Have you had any problems to get approval for your project?
Yes: -------------
No: ------V--------
If yes, with what did you have difficulties?
SGP Selection Panel: ---------------------------------
Local Government: ------------------------------------
National SGP manager: -------------------------------
Please explain the nature of our difficulties:-------------------------

13. Have you had any unexpected difficulties during the project implementation?
1) There was not enough cooperation by local authorities. We were going to invite Russian children for this camp but they couldn't come. The Chinese Consulate in Khabarovsk refused to issue these children's visa for fear of trafficking. We have explained several times and sent an official document identifying this was a part of UN project, which turned to be fruitless. We were sorry for the lacking of official interest not for the lacking of public awareness.
2) The project could have been implemented more efficiently if the payment process had been simple. We were informed that the fund would be granted over three times - $3,000 before the project, $1,500 after the project and $500 after the report. But we came to know that this process is a little rigid to face the dynamic situation. Moreover, we received $3,000, which was supposed to grant before the project, on August 18th, 20 days after the project completion. We have not received the rest yet. It disheartens the project team spiritually and inflicts an economical loss due to the gap of foreign exchange rate.

14. Reasons for above-mentioned difficulties?
· Conditions for project implementation were not foreseen properly
· Inappropriate guidelines of SGP
· Inadequate contact with national SGP manager

15. What is your opinion about your project budget?
· Just right ----V-----
· Too much --------
· Too small --------

16. How would you evaluate your project implementation?
· Very good --------------
· Good ----------V----------
· Satisfactory ------------
· Bad ----------------------

17. Give a short statement about your project outputs and future objectives for the project?
We made a 10-minute videotape with the recordings of project activities. This is a very brief material but we intend to launch an environmental education program with this videotape as the foundation.
We have almost 40 pictures that children drew in the contest. Three prize pictures are supposed to be sent to Beijing for making 2002 calendar of Tumen project. Children also made some writings about their experiences and impressions after this project. We carry these writings in WBWA's monthly newsletter and two of them were also reported in a weekly newspaper.
We are building a web community for continuing communication among participants and publicizing our program to increase public awareness.
We hope to establish annual (or regular) children's environmental summer camp at Tumen river area rather than a one-time event through all these efforts.

18. Please list priority project type for future SGP that require urgent attention in your area. Try to prioritize these!

1. Organization: Chongshan Town Government
2. Address: Chongshan Town, Longjing City, Jilin Province, China
3. Project name and purpose: Protection of drinking water source in the upper reaches of Tumen river of Chongshan town Longjing city
4. Name of project leader and members: Yin Xiangji
5. In what area the SGP requirements were met by your project?
oSolving social problems:
oIncreasing the standard of living:
oStrengthening community awareness:
oProtecting environment and natural resources:v
oProviding employment:
6. What kinds of products does the project produce? The activities of protection Korean pine.
7.Who benefited most from your project?
oLocal people:v
oLocal authorities:
oGroup implementing the project:
oSchool age children:
oStudents;
8.Project serves mostly for (specify), which is 100% of the population.
oLocal community:
oWomen:v
oChildren:v
oHerders:v
oOthers:
9.How did your project get to know about the possibility to apply for funding from SGP?
We got to know from (specify)
oRadio:
ooNewspaper:
oInternet, e-mail networks:
oWord of mouth:v
oI was invited to submit the proposal:
oOther:
10.Who helped you to develop project proposal?
oNational SGP manager:
oPeople who have been involved in small projects before:v
oRelatives and friends:
oOther:
11.Do you think the selection process is fair & equitable? Yes. There is a clear guideline.
Please explain if not:
Did you get clear guidance to writing a proposal? Please suggest improvements:
12.Have you had any problems to get approval for your project?
Yes:
No:v
If yes, with what did you have difficulties?
SGP Selection Panel:…………………………….
Local Government:………………………………
National SGP manager:………………………….
Please explain the nature of our difficulties:………………………………………………..
13.Have you had any unexpected difficulties during the project implementation? Yes.
14.Reasons for above-mentioned difficulties? Fund.
oConditions for project implementation were not foreseen properly…………………………….
oInappropriate guidelines of SGP………………………………………………………………….
oInadequate contact with national SGP manager…………………………………
15.What is your opinion about your project budget?
oJust rightv………..
oToo much…………..
oToo small …………
16.How would you evaluate your project implementation?
oVery good…v………………………….
oGood
oSatisfactory……………………………..
oBad………………………………………
17.Give a short statement about your project outputs and future objectives for the project
We finished works by plan.
Future objectives:
Pilot people to rid the unhealthy habit of littering at the riverside and guarantree the water quality through environmental publicity and education and setting up garbage treatment facilities.
18.Protect water source of Tumen river region and prevent international tour resources.
Organizations Questionnaire

1. Organization: Correspondence Association Environmental Protection of Yanbian Prefecture
2. Address: 136 Renmin Road, Yanji City, Jilin Province, China
3. Project name and purpose: Exemplary propaganda and education among rural masses in Tumen region
4. Name of project leader and members: Jin Songzi
5. In what area the SGP requirements were met by your project?
oSolving social problems:
oIncreasing the standard of living:
oStrengthening community awareness:v
oProtecting environment and natural resources:
oProviding employment:
6. What kinds of products does the project produce?
7.Who benefited most from your project?
oLocal people:v
oLocal authorities:
oGroup implementing the project:
oSchool age children:
oStudents;
8.Project serves mostly for (specify), which is 100 % of the population.
oLocal community:
oWomen:v
oChildren:v
oHerders:v
oOthers:
9.How did your project get to know about the possibility to apply for funding from SGP?
We got to know from (specify)
oRadio:v
ooNewspaper:v
oInternet, e-mail networks:v
oWord of mouth:v
oI was invited to submit the proposal:
oOther:
10.Who helped you to develop project proposal?
oNational SGP manager:
oPeople who have been involved in small projects before:v
oRelatives and friends:
oOther:
11.Do you think the selection process is fair & equitable? Yes. There is a clear guideline.
Please explain if not:
Did you get clear guidance to writing a proposal? Please suggest improvements:
12.Have you had any problems to get approval for your project?
Yes:
No:v
If yes, with what did you have difficulties?
SGP Selection Panel:…………………………….
Local Government:………………………………
National SGP manager:………………………….
Please explain the nature of our difficulties:………………………………………………..
13.Have you had any unexpected difficulties during the project implementation? No.
14.Reasons for above-mentioned difficulties?
oConditions for project implementation were not foreseen properly…………………………….
oInappropriate guidelines of SGP………………………………………………………………….
oInadequate contact with national SGP managerv…………………………………
15.What is your opinion about your project budget?
oJust right………..
oToo much…………..
oToo small v…………
16.How would you evaluate your project implementation?
oVery good…………………………….
oGood v
oSatisfactory……………………………..
oBad………………………………………
17.Give a short statement about your project outputs and future objectives for the project?
Constructing toilets and making exhibits.
Future objectives:
Make bulletins of environmental protection education, workshop and distribute propaganda materials for women.
18.(1) Protect wood frog.
(2)Protect Korean pine.
(3)Ecological tour publicity of environmental protection.
(4)Protect endangered species

1. Organization: Society of Environmental Protection Science of Yanbian Prefecture
2. Address: 136 Renmin Road, Yanji City, Jilin Province, China
3. Project name and purpose: Exemplary conservation of natural forest in Tumen region
4. Name of project leader and members: Ren Huanying
5. In what area the SGP requirements were met by your project?
oSolving social problems:
oIncreasing the standard of living:
oStrengthening community awareness:
oProtecting environment and natural resources:v
oProviding employment:
6. What kinds of products does the project produce?
7.Who benefited most from your project?
oLocal people:v
oLocal authorities:
oGroup implementing the project:
oSchool age children:
oStudents;
8.Project serves mostly for (specify), which is 100 % of the population.
oLocal community:
oWomen:v
oChildren:v
oHerders:
oOthers:v
9.How did your project get to know about the possibility to apply for funding from SGP?
We got to know from (specify)
oRadio:
ooNewspaper:
oInternet, e-mail networks:
oWord of mouth:
oI was invited to submit the proposal:v
oOther:
10.Who helped you to develop project proposal?
oNational SGP manager:v
oPeople who have been involved in small projects before:
oRelatives and friends:
oOther:
11.Do you think the selection process is fair & equitable? Yes. There is a clear guideline.
Please explain if not:
Did you get clear guidance to writing a proposal? Please suggest improvements:
12.Have you had any problems to get approval for your project?
Yes:vWe think there are many project, but the SGP is lot.
No:
If yes, with what did you have difficulties?
SGP Selection Panel:…………………………….
Local Government:………………………………
National SGP manager:………………………….
Please explain the nature of our difficulties:………………………………………………..
13.Have you had any unexpected difficulties during the project implementation? No.
14.Reasons for above-mentioned difficulties?
oConditions for project implementation were not foreseen properly…………………………….
oInappropriate guidelines of SGP………………………………………………………………….
oInadequate contact with national SGP managerv…………………………………
15.What is your opinion about your project budget?
oJust right………..
oToo much…………..
oToo small v…………
16.How would you evaluate your project implementation?
oVery good…………………………….
oGood v
oSatisfactory……………………………..
oBad………………………………………
17.Give a short statement about your project outputs and future objectives for the project?
(1) Held up workshop.
(2) Held up a course of lectures.
(3) There are 2 publicity tablets.
Future objectives:
Plant ecology trees.
18.(1) Build organic food and green food base.
(2)Build national level 'Beautiful environmental town'.

1. Organization: Industrial Association of Environmental Protection Science of Yanbian Prefecture
2. Address: 136 Renmin Road, Yanji City, Jilin Province, China
3. Project name and purpose: Prevention and control of soil erosion of Mopan village and villagers' awareness raising of environmental protection
4. Name of project leader and members: Shi Yanming
5. In what area the SGP requirements were met by your project?
oSolving social problems:v
oIncreasing the standard of living:
oStrengthening community awareness:v
oProtecting environment and natural resources:v
oProviding employment:
6. What kinds of products does the project produce?
7.Who benefited most from your project?
oLocal people:v
oLocal authorities:
oGroup implementing the project:
oSchool age children:
oStudents;
8.Project serves mostly for (specify), which is % of the population.
oLocal community:
oWomen:
oChildren:
oHerders:v
oOthers:
9.How did your project get to know about the possibility to apply for funding from SGP?
We got to know from (specify)
oRadio:v
ooNewspaper:v
oInternet, e-mail networks:v
oWord of mouth:
oI was invited to submit the proposal:
oOther:
10.Who helped you to develop project proposal?
oNational SGP manager:v
oPeople who have been involved in small projects before:
oRelatives and friends:
oOther:
11.Do you think the selection process is fair & equitable? Yes. There is a clear guideline.
Please explain if not:
Did you get clear guidance to writing a proposal? Please suggest improvements:
12.Have you had any problems to get approval for your project?
Yes:
No:v
If yes, with what did you have difficulties?
SGP Selection Panel:…………………………….
Local Government:………………………………
National SGP manager:………………………….
Please explain the nature of our difficulties:………………………………………………..
13.Have you had any unexpected difficulties during the project implementation? No.
14.Reasons for above-mentioned difficulties?
oConditions for project implementation were not foreseen properly…………………………….
oInappropriate guidelines of SGP………………………………………………………………….
oInadequate contact with national SGP managerv…………………………………
15.What is your opinion about your project budget?
oJust right………..
oToo much…………..
oToo small v…………
16.How would you evaluate your project implementation?
oVery good…………………………….
oGood v
oSatisfactory……………………………..
oBad………………………………………
17.Give a short statement about your project outputs and future objectives for the project?
We finished some works by the plan.

1. Organization: Number Two Primary School Attached to Baihe Forestry Bureau Antu County
2. Address: Baihe Forestry Bureau, Antu County, Jilin Province, China
3. Project name and purpose: Construction of national green school and local awareness raising of biodiversity protection
4. Name of project leader and members: Wang Guijun
5. In what area the SGP requirements were met by your project?
oSolving social problems:
oIncreasing the standard of living:
oStrengthening community awareness:v
oProtecting environment and natural resources:
oProviding employment:
6. What kinds of products does the project produce?
7.Who benefited most from your project?
oLocal people:v
oLocal authorities:
oGroup implementing the project:
oSchool age children:v
oStudents;
8.Project serves mostly for (specify), which is % of the population.
oLocal community:
oWomen:
oChildren:v
oHerders:
oOthers:
9.How did your project get to know about the possibility to apply for funding from SGP?
We got to know from (specify)
oRadio:
ooNewspaper:v
oInternet, e-mail networks:
oWord of mouth:
oI was invited to submit the proposal:
oOther:
10.Who helped you to develop project proposal?
oNational SGP manager:
oPeople who have been involved in small projects before:v
oRelatives and friends:
oOther:
11.Do you think the selection process is fair & equitable? Yes. There is a clear guideline.
Please explain if not:
Did you get clear guidance to writing a proposal? Please suggest improvements:
12.Have you had any problems to get approval for your project?
Yes:
No:v
If yes, with what did you have difficulties?
SGP Selection Panel:…………………………….
Local Government:………………………………
National SGP manager:………………………….
Please explain the nature of our difficulties:………………………………………………..
13.Have you had any unexpected difficulties during the project implementation? No.
14.Reasons for above-mentioned difficulties?
oConditions for project implementation were not foreseen properly…………………………….
oInappropriate guidelines of SGP………………………………………………………………….
oInadequate contact with national SGP manager…………………………………………………….
15.What is your opinion about your project budget?
oJust right…………..
oToo much…………..
oToo small v…………
16.How would you evaluate your project implementation?
oVery good…………………………….
oGood v
oSatisfactory……………………………..
oBad………………………………………
17 .Give a short statement about your project outputs and future objectives for the project?
Broaden the environmental knowledge of natural resources and biodiversity of local mass through students propagating. Raise students' awareness of environmental protection, induce them to attach importance to the issue of environmental protection policy, environmental resources, environmental morality.
Future objectives:
Raise the local mass' awareness of environmental protection.

1. Organization: Water Conservancy Station of Xiaoshahe Town Antu County
2. Address: Xiaoshahe Town, Antu County, Jilin Province, China
3. Project name and purpose: Raising villagers' environmental awareness and promoting better life style in Xinpingling village
4. Name of project leader and members: Wang Qingshui
5. In what area the SGP requirements were met by your project?
oSolving social problems:
oIncreasing the standard of living:vv
oStrengthening community awareness:v
oProtecting environment and natural resources:v
oProviding employment:
6. What kinds of products does the project produce?
7.Who benefited most from your project?
oLocal people:v
oLocal authorities:
oGroup implementing the project:
oSchool age children:v
oStudents;
8.Project serves mostly for (specify), which is % of the population.
oLocal community:
oWomen:v
oChildren:v
oHerders:v
oOthers:v
9.How did your project get to know about the possibility to apply for funding from SGP?
We got to know from (specify)
oRadio:v
ooNewspaper:v
oInternet, e-mail networks:
oWord of mouth:
oI was invited to submit the proposal:
oOther:v
10.Who helped you to develop project proposal?
oNational SGP manager:
oPeople who have been involved in small projects before:
oRelatives and friends:
oOther:v
11.Do you think the selection process is fair & equitable? Yes. There is a clear guideline.
Please explain if not:
Did you get clear guidance to writing a proposal? Please suggest improvements:
12.Have you had any problems to get approval for your project?
Yes:v
No:
If yes, with what did you have difficulties?
SGP Selection Panel:…………………………….
Local Government:………………………………
National SGP manager:………………………….
Please explain the nature of our difficulties:………………………………………………..
13.Have you had any unexpected difficulties during the project implementation? Yes.
14.Reasons for above-mentioned difficulties?
oConditions for project implementation were not foreseen properly…………………………….
oInappropriate guidelines of SGP………………………………………………………………….
oInadequate contact with national SGP managerv
15.What is your opinion about your project budget?
oJust right…………..
oToo much…………..
oToo small v…………
16.How would you evaluate your project implementation?
oVery good v
oGood
oSatisfactory……………………………..
oBad………………………………………
17.Give a short statement about your project outputs and future objectives for the project?
We satisfied with the project.
Future objectives:
Raising the public awareness of protection waterhead.

1. Organization: Traditional Medical Center of Khentii province
2. Address: Kherlen soum, Khentii province, Undurkhaan town
3. Project name and purpose: Healthy environment
4. Name of project leader and members:
R. Baigalmaa - project leader
R. Khishgee - member
D. Davaasuren - member
Ts. Valyasuren - member
S. Altantsetseg - member
N. Bayart-Od - member

· Solving social problems:
· Increasing the standard of living:
· Strengthening community awareness: +
· Protecting environment and natural resources: +
· Providing employment: +

6. What kinds of products does the project produce? We planted endurable medical plants such as cranberry, caragana, dasiphora, barberry, and hippophae in 3 ha areas.

7. Who benefited most from your project?
· Local people: + (especially women and elder people)
· Local authorities:
· Group implementing the project:
· School age children: +
· Students:

8. Project serves mostly for (specify), which is ....... % of the population.
· Local community: +
· Women: +
· Children: +
· Herders or farmers
· Others:

9. How did your project get to know about the possibility to apply for funding from SGP? We got to know from (specify)
· Radio:
· Newspaper:
· Internet, e-mail networks:
· Word of mouth: +
· I was invited to submit the proposal:
· Other:

10. Who helped you to develop project proposal?
· National SGP manager: +
· People who have been involved in small projects before: +
· Relatives and friends:
· Other:

11. What is your opinion on SGP project selection procedure?
Selection is fair on competitive basis: +
Selection is not satisfactory:
Do not know about their selection procedure:

12. Do you think the selection process is fair & equitable?
Yes: +
No:
Please explain if not:
Did you get clear guidance to writing a proposal? Please suggest improvements:
Yes, we did.

13. Have you had any problems to get approval for your project?
Yes:
No: +
If yes, with what did you have difficulties?
SGP Selection Panel:
Local Government:
National SGP manager:
Please explain the nature of our difficulties:

14. Have you had any unexpected difficulties during the project implementation? Yes, we had some unexpected difficulties. For example: We had to do the cultivation of a soil 2 times. Also we had to exterminate rodents. The fund is not sufficient to carry out these activities.

15. Reasons for above-mentioned difficulties?
· Conditions for project implementation were not foreseen properly +
· Inappropriate guidelines of SGP
· Inadequate contact with national SGP manager

16. What is your opinion about your project budget?
· Just right
· Too much
· Too small +

17. How would you evaluate your project implementation?
· Very good
· Good +
· Satisfactory
· Bad

18. Give a short statement about your project outputs and future objectives for the project?
This project gave us a good opportunity to plant medical plants by ourselves. We planted medical plants around the Traditional Medical Center and Children's camp in 3 ha areas. Our center will regularly use flowers, leaves and stems of the herbs for medical treatment. Also it will reduce the expenditure for medicine. While planting herbs, we are conducting trainings on planting and usage of medical plants among children and local people. In the future we will extend the plantation area.

19. Please list priority project type for future SGP that require urgent attention in your area. Try to prioritize these!

Project Leader - L. Chuluun
member - D. Batjargal
member - N. Tumurbaatar
member - G. Damdinjav

· Solving social problems:
· Increasing the standard of living:
· Strengthening community awareness: +
· Protecting environment and natural resources: +
· Providing employment: +

6. What kinds of products does the project produce?
We conducted training on cleaning up willow forest, preparation and plantation of willow grafts and production of willow products for 34 people of 15 households and employed 32 people. We prepared 500 willow grafts with collaboration of secondary school. We produced 500 baskets, 300 brooms and 10 willow forks for collecting dung.

7. Who benefited most from your project?
· Local people: +
· Local authorities:
· Group implementing the project:
· School age children:
· Students:

8. Project serves mostly for (specify), which is ....... % of the population.
· Local community: +
· Women:
· Children:
· Herders
· Others:

9. How did your project get to know about the possibility to apply for funding from SGP? We got to know from (specify)
· Radio: +
· Newspaper: +
· Internet, e-mail networks:
· Word of mouth:
· I was invited to submit the proposal:
· Other

10. Who helped you to develop project proposal?
· National SGP manager: +
· People who have been involved in small projects before:
· Relatives and friends:
· Other: related experts

11. Do you think the selection process is fair & equitable?
Yes
Please explain if not
Did you get clear guidance to writing a proposal? Please suggest improvements:
Yes

12. Have you had any problems to get approval for your project?
Yes:
No: +
If yes, with what did you have difficulties?
SGP Selection Panel:
Local Government:
National SGP manager:
Please explain the nature of our difficulties:

13. Have you had any unexpected difficulties during the project implementation? Yes, we had.

14. Reasons for above-mentioned difficulties?
· Conditions for project implementation were not foreseen properly: +
· Inappropriate guidelines of SGP:
· Inadequate contact with national SGP manager:

15. What is your opinion about your project budget?
· Just right +
· Too much
· Too small

16. How would you evaluate your project implementation?
· Very good
· Good
· Satisfactory +
· Bad

17. Give a short statement about your project outputs and future objectives for the project? The main objective of our project is to raise awareness of local people on protection and appropriate use of willow along the Kherlen river. The future objective is to exterminate willow fungus infections and to attract attention of local administration and related environmental organisations. As today 40% of willow around the Undurkhaan town is infected by the willow fungus.

18. Please list priority project type for future SGP that require urgent attention in your area. Try to prioritize these!

1. Organization: Ecotourism Association of Khentii province
2. Address: 4-33, Building C-79, Khentii province, Undurkhaan town
3. Project name and purpose: Ecotourism Development
4. Name of project leader and members:
B. Tumurbaatar - project leader
B. Tumur - member
D. Tumurbaatar - member
D. Lkhagvaa - member
L. Ganbaatar - member
G, Sarankhuu - member

· Solving social problems:
· Increasing the standard of living: +
· Strengthening community awareness: +
· Protecting environment and natural resources: +
· Providing employment: +

6. What kinds of products does the project produce?
a) We are producing national clothes, paintings, and woodcarvings related to history and culture of Khentii province.
b) We bought and made operational 3 gers to receive domestic visitors.
c) We took about 150 photos of historical and cultural monuments related to history of Great Chinggis Khaan and Khentii province for the creation of website.
d) We also produced video and photo album on the project implementation.

7. Who benefited most from your project?
· Local people: +
· Local authorities:
· Group implementing the project:
· School age children:
· Students:

8. Project serves mostly for (specify), which is ....... % of the population.
· Local community: +
· Women:
· Children:
· Herders or farmers +
· Others:

10. Who helped you to develop project proposal?
· National SGP manager: +
· People who have been involved in small projects before:
· Relatives and friends:
· Other:

11. What is your opinion on SGP project selection procedure?
Selection is fair on competitive basis: +
Selection is not satisfactory:
Do not know about their selection procedure:

12. Do you think the selection process is fair & equitable?
Yes: +
No:
Please explain if not:
Did you get clear guidance to writing a proposal? Please suggest improvements:
Yes, we did.

14. Have you had any unexpected difficulties during the project implementation? Yes.

15. Reasons for above-mentioned difficulties?
· Conditions for project implementation were not foreseen properly +
· Inappropriate guidelines of SGP
· Inadequate contact with national SGP manager

16. What is your opinion about your project budget?
· Just right
· Too much
· Too small +

17. How would you evaluate your project implementation?
· Very good
· Good +
· Satisfactory
· Bad

18. Give a short statement about your project outputs and future objectives for the project?
A) The first tourism camp will be founded by local people in the Khentii province. We established a ger camp, which has 10 beds, to receive local visitors. In the future we will develop the capacity of this ger camp and receive foreign visitors.
B) We will create website on natural and cultural resources of Khentii province.
C) We will produce historical and cultural photo albums.

Itinerary for the period 24 Oct - 9Nov, 2001
Date Time Activities Comments
Oct, 23

Preparation of Questions for meeting with staff of SGP in Russia, China and Korea.
Oct, 29 10.30 Travel to Harbin through Beijing and check into ...... Hotel in Harbin
Oct, 30 10:30- 19:30

Meeting with Galieva Svetlana, the coordinator of the project " You should know, love and protect the place you live in"

Meeting with Golosokova Elina, coordinator, of the project "Development of youth movement on nature protection in south -western primorye"

Oct, 31 09:
Meeting with Mr. ....deputy Governor of Hasanskii district,

Meeting with Saberlyak Tatyana, coordinator of the project "Environmental education"
Visit to the project site on "Organization of solid wastes dumping ground" and meeting with Naumov Vitalii, coordinator of the project.

Meeting Mr. Molchanov, Coordinator of Project on the "Liquidation of illegal dumping grounds in Khasan districts"
Nov, 1 09:00 - 17:00 Travel to Vladivostok and meeting with Oleg Sheiko and Alexander Cheredenko, SAP PU, Russia.

Nov, 2 09:00
17:00 Travel of Zhou Ying to Harbin,
Badarch was stay in Vladivostok for obtaining of Korean Visa.
Badarch met with Karakin, Ms. Fomenko and exchange opinions on further implementation of project.
Nov, 3 11: 00 Mr. M. Badarch Travel to Hunchun city by bus and check into Hunchun Hotel.

Nov, 4 Meeting with Li Yuan Xie, Vice director of environment protection Burean of Hunchun city.
Meeting with Ms. Jin Songzi, Chief of environment education center, Yanbian environment protection agent
Visit to the project on protection of rare wetland species in Tumen Region and Meeting with Mr. Tianlong Shen, Director of environment protection science of Hunchun city, Coordinator of the above project.

Visit to the project on the awareness raising of environmental protection in regional developing and Meeting with Ms. Wang Qinju, coordinator of the above project.

Travel to the Yanji city and check into Sung Bo hotel in Yanji city.
Nov, 5 09:40-17:00

Visit to the project site on exemplary propaganda and education among rural masses in tumen Region and meeting with Mr. Zhuang yujie, villeag leader and Ms. Dong Xiouzhen, women community leader

Visit to the project site on save mother river - Tumen River action of Green children and meeting with Jin He Zhu, Secretary general of Green federation of Yanbian Prefecture and Mr. Jin zheng song, survey leader

Visit to the project on prevention and control of soil erosion of Mopan village and villagers awareness raising of environmental protection and meeting with Mr. Shi Song Feng, director of Mopan village Committee
Nov, 6 9:30- 14:30

Meeting with Mr. Quan Qing Wu, Geo- institute, Yan Bian University, implementer of project of Crane Monitoring program by locals

Visit to the Project site of the drawing, photographic contest and art exhibition of the Tumen river, Korea

Nov, 8
9:30 - 17:30. Meeting with Ms. Park Eyunkyung, director of Institute of Environment and Culture, Korea

Visit to the following project sites:
· Crane Monitoring program by locals
· Korean Federation for Environmental Movement
· The Project on Children 's Green Steps for Tumen River, Korea
· Visit to the Korean Federation for Environmental Movement

Nov, 9 9:30 Departure to Beijing and Ulaanbaatar

TumenNET PROGRAM
EVALUATION OF THE SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMME (SGP) TRANCHE I

INTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT

Tumen River Strategic Action Programme (TumenNET)

Section

Page

Abbreviations

TumenNET PROGRAM EVALUATION OF THE SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMME (SGP) TRANCHE I

INTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT

Tumen River Strategic Action Programme (TumenNET)

Section

Page

Abbreviations

TumenNET PROGRAM
EVALUATION OF THE SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMME (SGP) TRANCHE I