Tenth Poverty Environment
Partnership Meeting Bulletin

Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)


Vol. 8 No. 1
Sunday, 4 February 2007



The 10th meeting of the Poverty Environment Partnership (PEP-10) took place from 30 January to 1 February 2007, at the UN Office in Nairobi, Kenya, and was jointly hosted by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN Development Programme (UNDP).

The meeting, the first one of the PEP held in the southern hemisphere, was attended by approximately 90 participants, including representatives from bilateral donor organizations, UNDP, UNEP, the World Bank, the European Commission (EC), developing and industrialized country governments, international and national non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and research institutions.

The meeting, whose theme was “Country experiences in mainstreaming environment into national development processes,” had two main objectives: to learn from country experiences in mainstreaming environment into national development processes; and to advance harmonization and joint work among PEP member agencies in support of country-led environmental mainstreaming. For the first time government representatives from developing countries joined the PEP members for this meeting.

The meeting was opened by Olav Kjørven, Director, UNDP Environment and Energy Group, and closed by UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner. On Tuesday, participants heard introductory statements, presentations showcasing environmental mainstreaming by government representatives from Tanzania, Kenya and Rwanda, and held a panel discussion reflecting on the presentations and experiences of poverty environment (PE) mainstreaming in other countries and regions. On Wednesday, participants: undertook a participatory exercise to assess their experience of the meeting so far; heard presentations on the UNDP-UNEP Poverty Environment Initiative (PEI), poverty reduction and water management, budget support, and gender issues; held panel discussions on developing a “User Guide” for PE mainstreaming and on donor harmonization; and worked in break-out groups in the afternoon. On Thursday, participants heard feedback from the break-out groups and updates on PEP activities, as well as an address by UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner. Participants finished the meeting with a discussion of the road ahead to PEP-11 and left with a general sense of achievement and commitment to continuing discussions and actions on the theme of the meeting. In the afternoon, participants convened in a side event on Environmental Economics for Poverty Reduction.

The minutes and documents of the meeting can be found at http://www.povertyenvironment.net/pep/


The PEP is an informal network of development agencies, multilateral development banks, UN agencies and international NGOs seeking to tackle key PE issues “within the framework of international efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals” (MDGs). The MDGs, which were articulated by then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and based on the outcomes of the Millennium Summit in September 2000, set out a series of goals aimed at supporting development and combating poverty within set timeframes. The seventh goal (MDG 7) addresses the environmental context, calling for environmental sustainability.

Since its inception in 2001, the PEP has served as an informal forum for: exchanging experiences; undertaking conceptual and analytical work; coordinating support to partner countries; the development of indicators; and more effective monitoring of environmental performance. Each PEP meeting is hosted by one or more organizations.

The partnership stresses its informal approach, which aims to complement the more formal Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Development Cooperation Directorate (OECD-DAC) ENVIRONET to which many PEP members also belong. The objectives of the PEP are to build a consensus on the critical links between poverty and the environment, particularly the fact that better environmental management is essential to lasting poverty reduction, and to review the activities of development agencies to build on common themes and address gaps in knowledge. The PEP focuses on three broad areas of collaboration: knowledge management and exchange of expertise and information on mainstreaming environment among participating organizations; conceptual and analytical work on the links between poverty and environment including work on indicators, monitoring and evaluation; and wider communication, advocacy, policy dialogue and alliances in order to influence discussion and political decision-making.

The first PEP meeting took place in London, the UK on 6-7 September 2001, with eight additional meetings following. In September 2005, the PEP launched a website hosted by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) which can be found at http://www.povertyenvironment.net. The next PEP meetings are scheduled for June 2007 in Denmark, hosted by the Danish International Development Agency, and in November 2007 in Asia, hosted by ADB.

This brief history contains an outline of the PEP meetings held from 2005 to date.

PEP-7: The 7th meeting of the PEP (PEP-7) took place in Stockholm, Sweden on 15-16 March 2005, and was hosted by the Swedish International Development Agency. It focused on: integration of environmental concerns in the implementation and review of the MDGs; greening Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSs); vulnerability to environment-related disasters; tools, practices and examples to integrate environment in the work of agencies; finalization of a joint agency paper on poverty reduction and water management; and PEP-related topics such as PEP’s homepage.

HIGH-LEVEL POLICY DIALOGUE: The PEP organized a High-level Policy Dialogue and Heads of State Dinner in preparation for the Millennium Review Summit, which took place on 14 September 2005, in New York, the US. Several hundred participants attended the meeting, including Kofi Annan, then UN Secretary-General, senior politicians, government officials, and representatives of civil society and intergovernmental organizations. In addition, a large number of people from around the world observed the proceedings and asked questions via a live link on the internet. The event consisted of sessions on: examining the case for investing in the environment to reduce poverty; future priorities and “building on what works”; and the implications for the 2005 World Summit and beyond.

PEP-8: PEP-8, which took place in Ottawa, Canada on 13-14 October 2005, was hosted by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). Pre-meetings took place on Strategic Environmental Assessment and pro-poor growth and natural resources. The PEP was attended by multilateral and bilateral organizations, NGOs, and research institutes. During the meeting, participants discussed: the environment events at the Millennium Review Summit; environment in donor financing; on-going PEP work on environmental fiscal reform; health and the environment; water and poverty; pro-poor growth; and governance and the environment.

PEP-9: Hosted by the World Bank, the most recent meeting of the PEP (PEP-9) took place in Washington DC, from 13-15 June 2006, and was attended by more than 200 participants from donor countries, multilateral agencies, UNDP, UNEP, the World Health Organization, the World Bank, NGOs and research institutes. PEP-9’s principal objective was to share information and best practice on pro-poor growth and the environment, environmental health and on-going PEP work. The first two themes were pursued through a review of inter-agency work.



On Tuesday morning, Peter Hazlewood, PEI Global Coordinator, UNDP, welcomed participants to the meeting. He recalled that the PEP process aims to promote informal discussions among international agencies about cooperating more effectively with country partners in addressing PE issues and that PEP currently comprises over 30 bilateral and UN agencies, multilateral financing institutions and NGOs. He said the two objectives of the current PEP meeting are to learn from on-the-ground experiences in mainstreaming environment in national development processes, and to advance harmonization and joint work among PEP member agencies in support of country-led environmental mainstreaming.

David Smith, PEI Team Leader, UNEP, said the first day’s focus would be on country-level experiences from Tanzania, Kenya and Rwanda, and highlighted the work of the Regional and International Networking Group (RING).

Participants watched a video message from Olav Kjørven, Director, UNDP Environment and Energy Group. Stressing the need to embed environmental sustainability firmly in international policy and national development planning, Kjørven highlighted increasing cooperation between UNDP and UNEP. He acknowledged the importance of the PEP and the need for incentives for private sector investments in environmental projects. Among success criteria of the PEP’s work, he named: effective environmental investments; greater access to environmental research and services; and enhanced environmental awareness and decision making at the country level.


On Tuesday morning, in a session chaired by David Smith, PEI Team Leader, UNEP, participants heard presentations on case studies of environment mainstreaming initiatives from government representatives from Tanzania and Kenya.

Ruzika Muheto, PEI Tanzania, National Environment Management Council, Tanzania, presented the study “Environment at the heart of Tanzania’s development: Lessons from Tanzania’s National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty - MKUKUTA” and noted the study reflects a consensus on lessons learned, points out future challenges and provides inspiration to other countries through experience sharing. Muheto said MKUKUTA is a home-grown strategy informed by the Tanzania Development Vision 2025 (national policy framework for poverty eradication) with a commitment to achieving the MDGs and comprising awareness, planning and aid transition phases. He highlighted increased media interest in environmental impacts and integration of policy and planning processes during the first two phases of the PEI Tanzania. Outlining achievements, he noted, inter alia: a shift in debate towards recognition of the environment as a driver for poverty reduction and as a political and economic rather than technical issue; and the bridging of the planning gap between poverty and the environment.

On the problems encountered, Muheto cited inadequate: feedback to those consulted; rethinking of the development paradigm; contributions by the poor; attention to distributional problems; private sector engagement; and project monitoring. He said current challenges include: bridging the implementation gap; strengthening policy coherence between MKUKUTA and the Environment Management Act; and developing new financing instruments. He emphasized the importance of: national leadership; integrating environment with poverty reduction; incorporating the voices of the poor; and involving the private sector.

Participants discussed the role of the Ministry of Finance, as well as ways of addressing the implementation gap, environment targets within MKUKUTA, including prioritization mechanisms, and insufficient private sector involvement. One participant noted that mainstreaming environment would not result from a single process and underscored the importance of awareness raising and adopting an outcome-based approach. Another urged equitable outcomes at the local level to guard against pursuit of the national good at the expense of local people. Identifying the implementation of the Environment Management Act as a milestone, Muheto indicated that the Ministry of Finance has been involved in the process from the outset and that national budgeting guidelines facilitate cooperation between the Ministries of Finance and Environment. He stressed that the Environment Management Act provides for environmental mainstreaming into the national regulatory and legal frameworks.

 Participants also discussed: using spatial planning as a strategic window for environmental mainstreaming; using incentives, while removing perverse incentives, to engage people at the local level; ensuring that environmental mainstreaming is combined with poverty reduction; ensuring that socially excluded groups benefit from the PEP; and reducing negative impacts of prioritization.

John Nyangena, PEI Kenya, Ministry of Planning and National Development, Kenya, presented on the Kenya PEI, noting it is a partnership between the Government of Kenya, UNEP and UNDP with support from the UK Department for International Development (DFID) and the Government of Luxembourg. Noting the economic importance of natural resources in Kenya, and highlighting tourism, agriculture and rural community livelihoods, he said that the overall objective of PEI Kenya is to mainstream PE into national and subnational policy, planning and budget processes.

Nyangena outlined key outputs and activities, including: improved understanding of linkages, economic assessment of Kenya’s natural resources and their contribution to economic growth; government capacity building; the development of PE indicators for the integration of these issues into development planning and budgeting processes; and increased participation of stakeholders. He described the involvement of government ministries and highlighted district-level planning and the lack of representation of environment issues at this vital level.

On progress to date, he drew attention to, inter alia: the development of District Environment Action Plans in three Kenyan districts which were intended to inform District Development Plans and assist the formulation of a national development policy; a lesson-learning mission to Tanzania in September 2006; the development of PE indicators to be incorporated by the Ministry of Planning and National Development in monitoring practices; and the appointment of an environmental focal point in the ministry.

Alex Forbes, PEI Kenya, UNDP, outlined problems and challenges faced by the PEI, including: maintaining interest of key government partners and staff; limited professional capacity within ministries; insufficient proactive communication; the low profile of environment in government; and donor coordination. He said that a key lesson learned is the need to involve key partners in the development, design and planning of the programme, and outlined the next steps for PEI Kenya.

In ensuing discussions, participants debated addressing cross-sectoral issues, with Forbes explaining that the intention is to carry out an economic assessment exercise to identify key factors currently influencing policy and from there to consider how to establish an overarching policy to address all sectors..

Samson Wasao, PEI Kenya, UNDP, spoke of the regulatory and structural characteristics that enable coordination and improvement of linkages between sectoral issues such as water, agriculture and forests. Participants also addressed: involving a wide range of stakeholders, particularly the private sector and civil society; achieving actual budget allocations to the environmental sector; prioritizing sustainability targets; and using strategic environmental assessments linked to budget allocations and performance indicators.

Participants also debated how the legislative process can address mainstreaming environment in development and poverty reduction as well as contribute to bringing local experiences to the national level. They also considered: district environmental action plans as a tool for district development planning; the need to search for funds for project implementation and evaluation; risks and factors impeding implementation, and how to use the PEP to address these; gender as a cross-cutting issue; the importance of environmental awareness; and performance contracts and assessments to support project delivery.

In the afternoon session chaired by Phil Dobie, Director, UNDP Drylands Development Centre, participants heard a presentation on environment mainstreaming experiences in Rwanda.

Alex Mulisa, Rwanda Environment Management Authority, presented on Rwanda PEI activities and stressed the impact of the Rwandan civil war on the environment. Noting that PEI work started in 2005 with the development of a taskforce, Mulisa said PEI partners included various ministries, with coordination and implementation led by his agency. He added that PEI objectives are the promotion of sound environment management, including as outlined in the Rwandan Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy (EDPRS), increased national budget allocations to the environment, and building longer-term government capacity to mainstream environment in development.

Mulisa outlined the PEI’s main activities, including: a media strategy; support to the EDPRS in developing environmental mainstreaming guidelines; monitoring and evaluation tools; and Phase II preparation activities comprising an implementation phase and capacity building of decentralized units. He said the PEI’s anticipated results are: evidence-based, policy-driven advocacy tools; an enhanced knowledge base on environmental issues; consideration of environmental sustainability as a key component of national development; and significant, sustainable increases in the environment and natural resources national budget. On progress, he noted successful advocacy for environmental sustainability, appreciation of the environment as a cross-cutting issue, incorporation of the environmental sector in the EDPRS drafting team, and increasing donor support for environmental issues.

He concluded that the challenges and problems faced by the project include: inadequate district-level participation in the EDPRS; the absence of an appropriate model for valuing the environment sector; the ambitious nature of the EDPRS road map; and capacity limitations in both the government of Rwanda and the UNDP country office, given high staff turnover and demand for human capacity to work across sectors on mainstreaming.

As main challenges, Mulisa cited increasing the amount of data on the environment and natural resources and securing high-quality consultancy outcomes. Addressing donor involvement and coordination, he highlighted an environment sector working group that includes DFID, World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization, donor institutions and NGOs. Among lessons learned, he stressed the need for: strong national involvement in the planning phase; on-site capacity building; flexibility in providing technical support to the PEI process; and data from field-based studies as an advocacy tool for sustainability. He identified next steps, including: on-going technical support to the EDPRS formulation process; more detailed economic analysis; development of PE indicators and monitoring and evaluation systems; support for post-conflict environmental assessment; production of detailed reports on lessons learned; and development of PEI Phase II, which includes capacity building, implementation of the EDPRS, and sector and district support.

Participants discussed: defining “environment”; environment as a sector versus mainstreaming environment in other sectors; and coordinated national development as opposed to sector competition. One participant mentioned challenges and objectives with regard to decentralized planning, while another suggested using a checklist of key indicators showing the links between environment and other sectors. Others stressed the importance of: strategic communication, including through media contacts; a participatory approach and awareness raising; an evidence-based approach to linking poverty and the environment; climate change mitigation measures in relation to environmental mainstreaming and poverty; and well-planned post-conflict environmental assessment and rehabilitation.


On Tuesday afternoon, Phil Dobie, Director, UNDP Drylands Development Centre, chaired a panel on sharing environmental mainstreaming experiences from RING Alliance members. George Varughese, Development Alternatives, India, presented on the role of external agencies in environmental mainstreaming. He distinguished two categories of the Indian population: 700-800 million “common people” who “live the reality” of poverty but do not necessarily understand the separate debate on PE; and another 200-300 million involved in NGOs, government, media, and industry who wield policy influence. Varughese stressed the role of the external agencies in fostering institutional partnerships, and suggested that external agencies are justified in exercising three types of power: intellectual and credibility power; financial power; and administrative power.

Presenting on the Latin American situation, Hernán Blanco, Research and Resources for Sustainable Development (RIDES), Chile, elaborated on the multi-faceted relationship between poverty and environment. He identified similarities between the African and Latin American environmental realities, including: a dominating growth paradigm; poor private-sector engagement; a low profile of environmental issues within government; and lack of environmental data and information. Blanco said poverty and environmental problems are probably less severe in Latin America than in Africa, while affluence is seen as a driver of environmental problems. Stressing the need for capacity building and the right incentives, he called for policies that are tailored to the problem and targeted at decision makers.

Judi Wakhungu, African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), posed questions, including where responsibility for overall coordination lies, and how to: adequately define training requirements and potential solutions; design national development and donor infrastructure to adequately address national development issues; promote effective partnerships between government, donors and NGOs; and encourage reliable and high-quality data generation.

Outlining ACTS’ projects addressing some of these questions, she highlighted: work on mapping climate vulnerability and poverty in Africa in partnership with the International Livestock Research Institute; conducting an information needs assessment in Africa; and a collaboration with UNEP and the Global Environment Facility on integrating vulnerability and adaptation to climate change into sustainable development policy planning and implementation.

During discussion, Session Chair Dobie highlighted that the gathering of adequate and reliable data was a possible area for intervention by the PEP. Participants underscored the challenge of integrated planning at all levels, decried the lack of reference to PE performance indicators in the country presentations, and suggested consideration of means of presenting data in a usable format.

Steve Bass, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), addressed challenges and next steps in environmental mainstreaming. He noted a shift towards vocal participation of recipient parties, which he identified as the central players in environmental mainstreaming. Stating that mainstreaming should be driven by a desire to make environment a driver of development, he said the “can-do approach” as reflected in policy studies often contrasts with the restrictive nature of legislation and policy. Calling for increased information and monitoring to allow improvements, as well as for well-informed, devoted civil society groups to demand change, he challenged donors to support long-term political change and partnerships and address the underlying causes of the disconnect between environment and poverty.


On Wednesday morning, in a session chaired by Anne Marie Sloth Carlsen, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark, participants addressed scaling up the UNDP-UNEP PEI, and the UNDP MDG Support Initiative.

Peter Hazlewood, PEI Global Coordinator, UNDP, presented on the history of the PEI, noting its development was characterized by a partnership-based approach and close cooperation between UNDP, UNEP, the EC, DFID and the World Bank. He said the PEI as a programme and the PEP as a global network have evolved in parallel.

Among achievements to date, he highlighted: enhanced country-led PE mainstreaming processes; a growing body of operational and replicable country-level experience; significant improvement in UNDP-UNEP operational cooperation at global and country levels; and the PEI as a model for UN reform.

Summarizing key lessons learned, Hazlewood stressed the need for: adequate time and flexibility; a programmatic and operational approach to mainstreaming; thorough assessment of country situations; country-specific evidence of links between poverty, environment and pro-poor growth; in-country donor coordination and harmonization; PE mainstreaming into budget processes and sector programmes; and capacity development for implementation.

Identifying areas for improvement, he highlighted: balance between top-down and bottom-up processes; engagement with parliaments, legislative bodies and political processes; increased focus on gender issues; a shift from mainstreaming to implementation; private sector engagement; and improved support for learning processes and for knowledge management and sharing.

David Smith, PEI Team Leader, UNEP, presented a proposal to significantly scale up the PEI, which is envisioned to fit within the context of: MDG 7 (environmental sustainability) and the need to integrate environment and energy issues across all MDGs; UNDP and UNEP strategic mainstreaming priorities; and UN reform.

Addressing the need to apply a programmatic approach, he called for: “regionalizing” PEI implementation through UNEP and UNDP regional mechanisms; supporting regional experience exchange and learning; and expanding partnerships among PEP members.

Regarding the need for an implementation approach, he stressed country programme preparation and two-phase implementation. He said the first phase comprises analytical and diagnostic work, dialogue and advocacy, and mainstreaming in planning and policy processes, while the second encompasses: sectoral planning; working at decentralized levels; capacity development; moving from budget to investments to ensure sustainable finance; donor coordination and harmonization; and monitoring PE outcomes.

Among specific targets for the period 2007-2011, he named the integration of environment in national development processes in up to 25 countries, and strengthened institutional capacity in ten to 25 countries. He said a joint UNDP-UNEP PEP Facility is to be established in Nairobi to, inter alia, mobilize UNDP and UNEP resources and networks, and compile and share lessons learned. He highlighted current momentum for scaling up the PEI, including UN reform, UNDP-UNEP regional cooperation and the UNDP MDG Support Initiative.

Hazlewood elaborated on the UNDP MDG Support Initiative, which aims to fully integrate the MDGs into national planning while encouraging donors to increase and harmonize support. He said the Government of Spain had recently provided the Initiative with a major boost by establishing the UNDP-Spain MDG Achievement Fund, aimed at supporting countries in planning and implementation.

During the ensuing discussion, participants addressed: the practical challenge of initializing country processes; broadening collaboration beyond UN agencies; the PEI as an operational extension of the PEP; increasing PEI and PEP responsiveness; addressing underlying requirements for funding and institutional reforms; and selecting countries for priority action.

One participant expressed concern with operationalizing sustainable financing mechanisms, pointing out the difficulty of generating profit from the environment. Another advocated making funding available to national organizations to facilitate country-driven processes. Several stressed the potential role of civil society in this regard.

Participants also discussed the need for: formal external evaluation of PEI phase I; capacity development for PE mainstreaming; initial assessment of country situations to identify political drivers and institutional contexts; and reference in the proposal to the impacts of climate change and potential responses. Paul Steele, UNDP, emphasized the role of PEI in Asia and referred to the developing UNDP-UNEP cooperation on PE mainstreaming in the Asia-Pacific.

Hazlewood highlighted the envisioned establishment of an advisory group to actively engage with the PEP Facility, and recalled the recent announcement of a new UNDP-UNEP partnership on climate change. He stressed the PEI aims to foster regional networking and exchange of experiences among countries and to strengthen connections with regional institutions such as the UN Economic Commissions for Africa and Asia. Noting the launch of the joint PEP Facility at a side event of the upcoming UNEP Governing Council meeting, he invited written feedback on the presented proposal over the next three weeks.


On Wednesday morning, in a session chaired by Anne Marie Sloth Carlsen, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark, participants heard a presentation from Steve Bass, IIED, on two IIED initiatives. Bass introduced the initiatives as: a collaborative initiative with Irish Aid, DFID, and the Dutch Government, aimed at developing a “User Guide” on PE tools; and a guide to environmental mainstreaming by local organizations. Both were based on earlier discussions at PEP-9 and subsequent discussions with a range of developing country stakeholders and PEP members and Bass called for further collaboration and inputs.

Outlining the rationale behind the initiatives, he noted their relevance to the PEP’s commitment to developing demand-driven approaches and emphasized that the decision to focus on institutional change in developing countries is based on the fact that, despite initiatives such as the PEP, environment and development are still being addressed separately. Bass noted that local organizations have direct experience in making critical trade-offs at the local level and urged creation of a developing country PEP equivalent network.

On the User Guide, he explained that the Guide will focus on environmental mainstreaming and cover both generic and technical environment-specific tools linking environment and development. He said the User Guide will consist of a two-sided sheet for each development tool, with one side outlining details of practical use of these tools and the second containing the results of a review of user needs and perspectives by an independent “International Stakeholders Panel on Mainstreaming Environment in Development.” Explaining that the initial process would consist of an assessment in ten countries, possibly PEP and RING partners, he announced a scoping meeting in March 2007and emphasized the potential for broader uses such as encouraging a stronger voice from the South.

On the Learning from Local Organizations Initiative, Bass explained that this involves a self-profiling exercise of local organizations, ranging from formal to informal groups, on aspects including: assessment of their integration of environment and development; their tactics in influencing policy; their accountability to the poor; and their business models. He announced a peer-review workshop in London in 2007 and urged PEP members to suggest local groups to be included in the initiative. He noted that the next phase of the self-profiling exercise would target external and larger-level groups, such as BirdLife International, that have been effective in helping local groups form. He hoped that the initiative would draw out lessons from the South on effective business models and enable understanding of mainstreaming.

In ensuing discussion, many participants welcomed the initiatives. On the User Guide, suggestions included adding information on the value of local organizations to government institutions and drawing from existing tool kits and other initiatives such as the ADB PE programme and case studies. Bass emphasized that the User Guide was not “another” tool kit but rather an evaluation of existing tools that successfully link environment to development. One participant stressed evaluating what is valuable rather than what is popular, and, in response to a question from another, Bass confirmed that User Guide would be “live” and web-based. Bass welcomed advice and noted that these modalities will be discussed at the scoping workshop.

On the Local Organizations Initiative, several participants suggested the scope of the initiative was ambitious, while others offered assistance. One participant noted a complementary initiative called the International Community Knowledge Service being developed by the UNDP Equator Initiative and Ecoagriculture Partners to be presented at the Eighth Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity in June 2008. Bass emphasized that the initiative begins with learning from the local organizations and welcomed the suggestions and offers of collaboration from participants including UNDP-UNEP PEI, Ecoagriculture Partners and the UNDP Equator Initiative.


Anne Marie Sloth Carlsen, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark, chaired a session on poverty reduction and water management on Wednesday morning.

Joakim Harlin, UNDP, presented on a concept paper on “Poverty, Wealth and Water: Integrating Water in National Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategies,” which builds on the PEP paper “Linking Poverty Reduction and Water Management” launched at the World Water Forum in March 2006. He noted that the initiative seeks to explore mechanisms for national-level implementation and has the overall goal of increasing water’s contribution to economic development and poverty reduction through increased and pro-poor investments. He cited emerging issues, including low levels of investment in water in spite of its centrality to poverty reduction and the need for a partnership response to advocate for investments in water.

Harlin said the programme objectives are to: provide evidence of the economic importance of water; identify policy and investment options; develop robust methodologies; and inform and influence the policy agenda through country case studies. He added that the programme would have four components, namely: mainstreaming water in national Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategies (PRGSs); global modeling of water and growth linkages; climate adaptation and water management in national PRGSs and analytical methodologies, criteria and tools. Harlin encouraged PEP members to contribute funds to the initiative.

Questions raised in discussion: sought clarification on the linkages between this initiative and other global processes such as the Global Water Partnership; acknowledged existing work in this area such as the UN Statistics Division’s analysis on water’s contribution to economic growth; urged development of synergies; and raised concern over the proposed budget, questioning whether any additional knowledge generation was being proposed.

One comment emphasized the need for factual evidence to provide rationale for developing countries to improve existing investments in water, and added that this type of work could benefit from broader partnerships as a way to deal with likely resistance. One comment lamented counterfactual assumptions in Africa, asked whether the study could provide a rationale to address this, and added that this type of work could benefit from broader partnerships as a way to deal with likely resistance. Discussion emphasized the programme’s aim to guide developing country governments in choosing mechanisms for improving existing investments in water; decried the lack of action in spite of the evidence that it is worthwhile to invest in water; and suggested greater focus on institutional concerns such as governance rather than pumps, pipes and technology per se.


Jan Bojo, World Bank, chaired a session on budget support on Wednesday afternoon.

Gareth Martin, DFID, UK, presented on the results of an Overseas Development Institute study on “How can donor aid mechanisms help improve environmental management for poverty reduction?” funded by DFID and other donors. Explaining that the study’s context is aligned with the commitment made under the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness to increase the use of “programmatic aid” based on a partnership approach, Martin said it contains a review of: experience to date of general programmatic aid support; budget support and policy influence; the role of other support being provided; and opportunities and challenges for donor assistance. On the report’s findings, he highlighted that: external finance functions most effectively through government systems, a partnership-based focus on policy processes and use of complementary aid instruments; donor funding cannot be used for transforming policy; and conditionality is not effective without political will. He suggested using other instruments alongside budget support to create willingness and increase capacity. While querying whether budget support provides opportunities for the environment in practice, he noted that the report proposes that budget support increases ownership, encourages dialogue, improves donor coherence, and enables more transparent environmental decision making.

Martin noted that challenges identified by the report regarding budget support for PE issues include: fitting budget support within existing policy structures and political interests; maintaining environment on the donor-partner agenda; ensuring sector assistance for policy change; and carrying out environmental due diligence. He proposed using complementary aid instruments such as common pooled funding.

Calling for collaboration, he outlined proposed follow-up activities, including: research into country experience, possibly in Ghana, Tanzania, Mozambique, and Mali or Niger, to develop good practice guidance and focus on the budgeting processes; carrying out environmental due diligence; reviewing existing budget support guidance and tools; and developing good practice guidance.

In discussions, sharing the experience of Viet Nam, one participant underscored that budget support requires building of capacities and systems and cautioned on the disconnect between intent and reality. Stating that budget support is implemented in the context of the macro-economic framework, one participant asked if the International Monetary Fund was involved, calling for an awareness of the system within which the new aid modalities would be introduced. In particular, he noted that substantial infrastructure project financing demonstrates the need for assessment of the environmental impact of such projects.

Participants also questioned whether the study: drew on studies on gender mainstreaming in the context of budget support; addressed aid effectiveness and corruption linkages; and considered governance issues as related to budget support. Giving the example of support to political reforms outside of budget support as a means of budget-related risk management, one participant proposed a similar approach could be taken for the environment. Another contribution underscored that budget support requires effective sector dialogue and suggested that the level and quality of dialogue between government and partners could determine how to influence policy.


On Wednesday afternoon, in a session chaired by Jan Bojo, World Bank, participants heard a presentation from Ian Myles, CIDA, Canada. Addressing environmental integration into programme-based approaches, Myles presented recommendations based on lessons from gender equality specialists, noting the striking similarities between the challenges in mainstreaming environment and gender.

On planning and design, he recommended: ensuring environmental analysis is conducted and integrated into sector analysis; integrating environmental results and indicators into programme-based approach frameworks; participating in environment sector working groups, and increasing policy dialogue and joint support for environment initiatives.

On implementation, he recommended: recruitment of donor specialists; technical assistance for stakeholders; and policy dialogue opportunities to reinforce environmental messages.

On monitoring and reporting, he recommended ensuring that: environmental indicator monitoring is in place; progress reports provide information on environmental results and indicators; and terms of reference for monitoring and reporting include reference to specific expertise and responsibility for monitoring the environment.

On necessary on-going activities, he recommended: ensuring that technical or sector working groups have access to environmental expertise; promoting involvement of environment stakeholders in planning, implementation and monitoring; supporting leadership and capacity development in environment for governments and civil society; and capacity building of institutions responsible for environmental analysis so that they can better influence national planning processes.

Participants echoed the parallels between environment and gender, although one cautioned against the risk associated with this approach, noting that while gender is a cross-cutting issue, environment is multi-sectoral. Another participant noted that in order to generate public pressure and demand for action, increased public environmental awareness is needed.


On Wednesday afternoon, Jan Bojo, World Bank, facilitated the panel on donor harmonization on PE issues in Africa.

Simon Le Grand, the EC, stressed the importance of country environmental profiles in specifying the responsibilities of all parties involved. Noting that several profiles have been prepared by the EC, to be shared broadly, he said European Union joint programming has started in a number of African countries. Regarding joint assistance strategies (JAS), he said the EC is keenly interested in strategic environmental assessment, and that several joint efforts are on-going, including in Benin and Mali.

Tamene Tiruneh, CIDA, Ethiopia, gave a field perspective on harmonization architecture in Ethiopia. He highlighted a recently initiated five-year programme, led by the World Bank, which is supported by a joint coordination committee, joint review missions and a joint donor framework. He said promoting ownership and avoiding duplication are advantages of this architecture, while time-consuming government consultations and insufficient government capacities are disadvantages. Identifying success factors, he named: strong political leadership; good governance; development partners’ commitment to harmonization; transparency; and accountability. Among risk factors, he highlighted donors’ failure to honor their commitments and partners’ lack of capacity to coordinate and deliver programmes. He lamented the fact that donor interest in environmental issues in Ethiopia is low.

Seán Doolan, DFID, the UK, stressed strengthening national capacities and institutions, noting that aid architecture and dialogue mechanisms should reflect national realities. Underscoring the need for involvement of ministries of finance, he suggested emphasizing the cost of environmental degradation. Doolan said the challenge lies in: deploying the technical resources of the PEP to link in with country and regional programmes; providing outside inputs and experiences to in-country networks and technical working groups; and convincing economists of the relevance of sound environmental management.

Merete Villum Pedersen, Danish International Development Agency, elaborated on the agency’s role in donor coordination in Tanzania and its actions to promote Tanzania’s environmental and natural resources agenda. Noting a sectoral approach, as well as a focus on mainstreaming and cross-cutting issues, she stressed the importance of mapping roles and responsibilities and categorizing partners. Stating that common principles include accountability and transparency, she highlighted outreach efforts, cooperation at the crossroads of different sectors and improved engagement with governments. She emphasized that donors outside of the environment sector also benefit from these measures, and that political will and successes have to be generated locally.

Daniele Ponzi, African Development Bank (AfDB), discussed on-going strategic environmental assessments in Africa, noting a focus on agriculture, water management and food security. He highlighted several efforts in bilateral and multilateral coordination, including initiatives on rural water supply and sanitation, climate change adaptation and climate risk management. Noting that harmonization entails both costs and benefits, he stressed the importance of managing safeguards, ensuring compliance, and allocating resources and time to harmonization. He said this would benefit not only the countries involved but also the institutions. He encouraged broader acceptance of strategic environmental assessments as a tool for achieving sustainable development.

In ensuing discussions, one participant urged considering how to collaborate with regional political processes such as the Central Africa Forests Commission (COMIFAC), and the PROFISH global programme for sustainable fishing. Highlighting the upcoming German chair of the Congo Basin Forest Project, Doolan urged engaging with regional institutions and encouraging demand-based action.

Another participant urged a country system focus, in line with the Paris Declaration, and suggested discussion continue at PEP-11. Ponzi highlighted AfDP harmonization work on country systems for procurement, and, stressing the Danish International Development Agency’s focus on capacity building within country systems, Pedersen outlined activities in establishing country frameworks, including establishing ten PE indicators for use by MKUKUTA and funding strategic civil society initiatives on advocacy.

Others issues debated included: the vital role for the PEP in making harmonization cheaper and easier through continued collective action; ensuring environment is not excluded from JASs; joint assessment work on basic knowledge about institutional set up and capacity; continued engagement within the PEP with country processes and assessment of in-country activities; and addressing environment in budget support.


On Wednesday afternoon, participants convened in three break-out groups under the themes of: local-level implementation; donor harmonization; and connecting with ministries of finance.

On Thursday, in a session chaired by Piet Klop, Directorate-General for International cooperation (DGIS), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Netherlands, participants heard feedback from the previous days’ break-out groups. Tara Shine, Irish Aid, outlined the results of the break-out group on local-level implementation, noting that the group had highlighted that there is currently a focus on national planning which does not “trickle down” to the local level. She listed the group’s recommendations as:

  • carrying out analytical work on: connecting informal and formal organizations; identifying policies that provide incentives for communities to invest in their natural resources; and assessing distribution of resources to local communities by civil society organizations;

  • learning from local communities by: identifying and documenting good examples of PE local-level action and communicating this effectively; contributing to the IIED Local Learning Initiative; engaging in the IUCN Communities of Learning;

  • reflecting on what is meant by “local”; focusing on local capacity needs at PEP-11; and holding a “PEP Local Year” where meetings are held in local communities and the emphasis is on learning from community initiatives.

In ensuing discussion, Peter Hazlewood, PEI Global Coordinator, UNDP, drew attention to substantial work in UNDP on learning from community action and suggested compiling an inventory on learning from local communities. One participant underscored problems in accessing meaningful information and identifying change agents. Another highlighted that in PEP-10 the need had emerged to learn from the local and landscape levels to inform rigid bureaucracies. Session Chair Klop proposed that the group develop a concept note.

Louise Vallières, CIDA, Canada, presented the outcomes of the break-out group on donor harmonization, noting that the group had focused on the themes of government-donor working groups, budget support, and country environmental analysis. On government-donor working groups, the group identified the need to share terms of reference, and the importance of: leadership; best practice and workshops; and simple reporting tools such as matrices. On budget support, the group underscored, inter alia: the development by PEP-11 of a coherent approach on national plan support; use of country working groups results and indicators in the Performance Assessment Framework process; and a coherent approach on support to national plans. She also noted support for the Irish Aid call for analytical work on JAS. On country environmental analysis, the group urged development of easy channels to access information such as resource directories, networks and peer or joint analysis, and noted their intention to hold a conference call on this by the end of February 2007.

Participants urged continued discussion at PEP-11 on this issue, noted the upcoming meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment and the OECD-DAC in Helsinki in March 2007 on Strategic Environmental Assessment, highlighted the need for country environmental analyses, and urged use of the PEP network in a spontaneous way on country-specific issues.

Ben Cropper, DFID, UK, outlined the outcomes of the break-out group on connecting with the ministries of finance. He said the group emphasized the need to make both a “convincing” and “compelling” case for growth to engage ministries of finance by highlighting revenue growth, economic risks brought on by environmental issues and multiplier effects. Cropper emphasized contemporaneously “convincing” through data gathering and “compelling” through efforts on the political level, and urged PEP members to undertake coordinated country-level projects, for example in Ghana or Viet Nam.

One participant urged considering how to equip the environment and natural resource ministries to “break out of” project-based discourses into broader policy discourses. Others emphasized investment in capacity building at the local level, in particular given negative popular perceptions of resource allocation governance, and suggested the PEP develop model terms of reference for national-level analyses and case studies as well as a roster of expertise. Noting divergent institutional structures at the donor and local levels, one participant asserted that the donor sector tends to build up their own harmonized systems that inhibit interaction with the more amorphous, heterogeneous, and scattered civil society organizations.


On Thursday morning, in a session chaired by Piet Klop, DGIS, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Netherlands, participants heard brief presentations on various PEP activities and upcoming meetings.

Henning Nøhr, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark, announced that the next PEP meeting will be held from 18-20 June 2007 in Copenhagen, Denmark. He said agenda items could include: climate action plans; the preparation of a paper on environmental health; international experiences with payments for environmental services; and lessons learned with respect to capacity development.

Jan Bojo, World Bank, then presented on the African Conference on Growth, Poverty and Enviroment scheduled for 4-6 September 2007, in Nairobi, Kenya, hosted by UNEP, and organized by the World Bank, IUCN, and several donor governments. He also emphasized efforts to involve African governments and regional political institutions such as the UN Economic Commission for Africa and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). He said the conference aims to facilitate dialogue between the mainstream development sector and the technical environment sector, noting the intention to involve decision makers in finance and environment and technical experts. Outlining the currently envisaged three-day programme, Bojo said the hope was to generate momentum for existing processes and to generate outputs including: targeted background documents; a statement on PE mainstreaming; a website; and significant press coverage.

Peter Hazlewood, PEI Global Coordinator, UNDP, said he had just received confirmation that the UN Economic Commission for Africa was interested in co-sponsoring the conference and participants urged ensuring African political buy-in and representing local voices. One participant underscored the need to demonstrate how growth and environment can work together.

Harald Lossack, German Technical Cooperation, provided an update on joint OECD-DAC/PEP work on environmental fiscal reform. He outlined the completion of three policy papers: an OECD-DAC reference paper; a joint agency paper; and proceedings of a 2003 workshop. Noting the intention to build on these publications, he informed participants of the decision to hold a joint conference on EFR in conjunction with the Eighth Annual Global Conference on Environmental Taxation already scheduled for 18-20 October 2007 in Munich, Germany. Lossack hoped this joint conference would: create synergies between scientific work and contributions of environmental fiscal reform practitioners; enhance visibility through participation of high-ranking decision makers; and enable mutual exchange of approaches, concepts and implementation experiences. He noted the deadline for papers as 1 March 2007.

Piet Klop presented on on-going activities under the umbrella of OECD-DAC ENVIRONET, noting the significant progress made on a paper on natural resources and pro-poor growth, revenues and employment. He said the paper will facilitate both integrating natural resources management into development policies and plans and linking sustainable environmental management to growth, revenues and employment. He highlighted on-going OECD work on: governance and natural resources; climate change adaptation; and environmental institution capacity strengthening. He said OECD is also preparing a matrix of actors, on-going work and plans in the field of sustainability and growth, as related to the greening of PRSs, climate change adaptation and other initiatives under the Paris Declaration.

One participant announced an OECD-DAC workshop to be held in Ireland in April 2007 on applying the Paris Declaration to advance the cross-cutting issues of gender, environment and human rights.

Paul Steele, PEP Facilitator, UNDP, on behalf of the ADB, elaborated on the ADB-hosted PEP website. He said it provides links to a large amount of relevant papers on PE issues in different regions, as well as the minutes and outcomes of past PEP meetings. He noted that the website received over 32,000 visits in 2006, showing a five-fold increase in usage over the past year. Noting that the ADB will be funding the website until 2008, he invited participants to: place links to the PEP website on their organization’s website; submit relevant materials to be posted; use the site and publicize it to others; and consider supporting the website in 2008 and beyond.

Dan Tunstall, World Resources Institute, presented on his organization’s project aimed at mapping poverty and ecosystems in East Africa. He said effective environmental governance requires knowledge of where the poor are and what their opportunities are in terms of ecosystem services. He said mapping activities in Kenya, undertaken in collaboration with the International Livestock Research Institute, Kenya’s Central Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing, resulted in the publication of an atlas displaying poverty and trade-offs in recent decades and raised the issue of future trade-offs. He also described efforts in Uganda, undertaken in collaboration with local teams, to assess poverty and ecosystem services and prepare policy briefs. In conclusion, Tunstall said a remarkable amount of well-developed environmental information exists in Kenya and that there is much political support for monitoring but that: data is not always accessible, particularly regarding water resources; governments’ capacity to address PE issues is often insufficient; and urgent improvement of water governance is needed to enable the region’s envisioned development.

Participants drew attention to on-going mapping projects in Africa and India that serve as pilot projects and are already used in policy and planning. One underscored the need to use mapping data to inform policy and achieve actual change on the ground.

Simon Le Grand, the EC, provided an update on EC and EU member States’ activities with regard to environmental integration, noting that several country support strategies are in place, some of which are joint strategies. He said the EC has developed a comprehensive Environmental Integration Manual to assist staff and partner countries in mainstreaming environment, and that the EC is updating and revising its own environmental integration strategy.


Piet Klop, DGIS, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Netherlands, chaired the closing session of the meeting. He invited country representatives from Ethiopia, Tanzania, Kenya and Rwanda to give feedback on the meeting, including an assessment of the PEP’s country-level work.

Representatives from Ethiopia said the meeting had been useful in providing ideas for environment mainstreaming and for sharing of experiences. Several suggestions were made including: to convene one of the biannual PEP meetings in developing countries; to increase the participation of developing country governments; and for development partners to infuse the insights drawn from meetings into the policy dialogues with developing country governments.

Suggestions from Kenya included: using the PEP to leverage financing of environment issues by multilateral agencies, given the PEP’s expertise and experience on environment issues; strengthening action on the environment agenda; increasing community participation; and profiling the environment and the PEP network. One contribution proposed the PEP formalize the partnership and another questioned whether the PEI can take on board all the issues and concerns discussed in the meeting, given the PEI’s capacity.

Session Chair Klop clarified that the PEI is an “on-the-ground” partnership of programme assistance and a form of technical assistance whereas the PEP is a marketplace of ideas. He asked for feedback from the country representatives on the utility of the two organs, specifically their roles, products and tools.

 A representative from Tanzania confirmed the meeting had fostered learning on the PEP and proposed country-focused meetings as a way to ensure linkages and better understanding of country-specific issues, and guard against making generalizations. He also called for dialogue with the poor. Adding that the meeting had enlightened understanding on various dimensions of poverty, he echoed the need for increased donor support. In their feedback, the representatives from Tanzania acknowledged that the discussions on donor harmonization and programming had been useful for those working on implementation, and stressed the importance of integrating gender equality in environment and poverty.

Commenting on the initial nature of the PEP as a market place for development partners, and later incorporating international NGOs, one participant lauded the step to include developing country government representatives and expressed concern that donors dominated the hosting of PEP meetings. He suggested co-hosting meetings with developing country governments.

Paul Steele, PEI Facilitator, UNDP, reiterated the value of the informal and organic process around the PEP, adding that the fact that it had so far functioned well seemed to justify maintaining the flexibility.

Representatives from Rwanda expressed appreciation for the support received from the development partners and the principle of dialogue, stressing the value of working jointly. Informing the meeting on the newly instituted decentralization process in Rwanda, one contributor invited PEP support for the implementation process and stressed broader and more inclusive dialogue that involves other national actors. Another representative pointed out that it was not clear if the PEP was a partnership between donors and beneficiaries or between donors, and suggested clarification on the roles within the partnership and movement from theory to action.

One RING Alliance member stressed the importance of engaging with businesses, ranging from formal large-scale companies to informal enterprises. Stressing the need for the PEP to focus more on broad participation in its meetings, he supported the call to involve ministries of finance and “bring money-making opportunities into poverty eradication and environmental management.” He highlighted a RING resource platform in central India that showcases examples of public-private sector linkages but also displays cases where PE planning has failed. Another suggested the PEP look into what mainstreaming means at the general and strategic levels for different countries and called for a comparative analysis or review of different mainstreaming initiatives.

Regarding preparation for future PEP meetings, one participant suggested using a concept note or strategy paper on how to engage the business community in PE discussion. Several suggested using different formats or models for PEP meetings to promote real participation, learning and dialogue. One participant reflected on the large disconnect between the PEI architecture and local realities, noting that “if we do not make that connect, the PEI will eventually fail.” Others: stressed that informality is critically important and needs to be maintained; called for national PEP meetings; cautioned against the loss of a sense of urgency; suggested holding PEP meetings not in capitals but in communities where the PEI is implemented; and encouraged more inter-sessional dialogue, in the agenda-setting stage, in order to achieve a balanced selection of initiatives discussed. Discussion ended in a positive atmosphere with delegates agreeing on the productive outcomes of the meeting, commending PEP achievements to date, and looking forward to future cooperation.

UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner joined the meeting for a final reflection. He stressed the importance of the PEP in the work of UNEP, calling the PEP “the core around which many institutions move from the periphery to the center of environment and development cooperation.” Lauding the PEP’s accomplishments, as well as its “sustainability and stubbornness,” he said its spirit has provided conceptual inputs into discussions and brought together civil society and think-tank institutions with bilateral and multilateral organizations. Stressing the inclusive nature of the PEP, he expressed hope that its scope will continue to expand, and confidence that additional successes and interesting developments, including continued cooperation with UNEP, will emerge in the near future.

The meeting closed at 12:56 pm.


SPECIAL EVENT AT THE 24th UNEP GOVERNING COUNCIL meeting (UNEP-GC): A special event on “UNDP-UNEP cooperation: The Way Forward” will be held on 6 February 2007, during the UNEP-GC at UNEP Headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. For more information, contact: Miia Toikka, UNEP, e-mail: Miia.Toikka@unep.org; tel: +254 20 7625170; internet: http://www.unep.org/gc/gc24/sideevents.asp

TIME TO ADAPT: CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE EUROPEAN WATER DIMENSION CONFERENCE: This conference will be held from 12-14 February 2007, in Berlin, Germany. For more information contact: Carolin Wolf; e-mail: info@climate-water-adaptation-berlin2007.org; internet: http://www.climate-water-adaptation-berlin2007.org/index.htm

SIXTH INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE: DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF WATER AND ENERGY RESOURCES - NEEDS AND CHALLENGES: This conference, which will be held on 13-16 February 2007, in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India, provides a forum for exchanging information on new technologies and strategies for sustainable water and energy development and exploring how new situations are being tackled in other parts of the world. For more information contact: G. N. Mathur; e-mail: uday@cbip.org; Internet: http://www.cbip.org/image/File137.pdf

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PREPARATORY MEETING FOR THE FIFTEENTH SESSION OF THE UN COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: This meeting will be held from 26 February - 2 March 2007, in New York, the US. The Intergovernmental Preparatory Meeting will prepare for the 15th session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-15), which is scheduled to meet from 30 April – 11 May 2007, in New York. For more information contact: UN Division for Sustainable Development; tel: +1-212-963-8102; fax: +1-212-963-4260; e-mail: dsd@un.org; internet: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/policy.htm

INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON WATER ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE IN ASIA: This forum will be held on 14-15 March 2007, in Bangkok, Thailand. For more information contact: Secretariat of Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA) c/o Freshwater Resources Management; e-mail: contact@wepa-db.net; Internet: http://www.iges.or.jp/en/fw/0703wepa_sympo.html

THE OSLO CONFERENCE ON GOOD GOVERNANCE, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITYY This conference, which will be held from 28-30 March 2007, in Oslo, Norway, aims to extend the on-going debate on business and sustainability beyond Corporate Social Responsibility and provide a platform for an integrated approach that includes key players from government, business, academia, trade-unions and NGOs. The conference is hosted by the Norwegian Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Environment, in cooperation with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, UNEP, the Global Reporting Initiative and the City of Oslo. For more information contact: internet: http://www.csr-oslo.org/

OECD-DAC WORKSHOP ON DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS IN PRACTICE – APPLYING THE PARIS DECLARATION TO ADVANCING GENDER EQUALITY, ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS: This meeting will take place on 26-27 April 2007 in Dublin, Ireland. For more information, contact: Tara Shine, Irish Aid; tel: +353 1 408 2917/477 0434; fax: +353 1 408 2884; e-mail: tarashine@eircom.net.

CSD-155: CSD-15 will be held from 30 April - 11 May 2007, in New York, the US. CSD-15 will build on the “review year” discussions at CSD-14, and focus on “policy” options for energy for sustainable development, industrial development, air pollution/atmosphere, and climate change. dsd@un.org; Internet: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/policy.htm

NINTH CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (CBD COP-9): CBD COP-9 will be held from 19-30 May 2008, in Bonn, Germany. For more information contact: CBD Secretariat; tel: +1-514-288-2220; fax: +1-514-288-6588; e-mail: secretariat@biodiv.org; internet: http://www.biodiv.org/meetings/default.shtml

ANNUAL PEI WORKSHOP: The annual UNDP-UNEP Poverty Environment Initiative (PEI) workshop for seven pilot country projects will be held in May 2007, at UNEP Headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, on a date to be confirmed. For further information contact: David Smith; tel: +254-20-7624059; e-mail: david.smith@unep.org; internet: http://www.unep.org/povertyenvironment

PEP-11:: The 11th meeting of the Poverty Environment Partnership (PEP-11) will be held from 18-20 June 2007, in Copenhagen, Denmark. For further details contact: Henning Nøhr, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark; tel: +45-33 920000; e-mail: hennoh@um.dk  

EAST AFRICAN PARLIAMENTARY TOUR OF PANGANI BASIN: IUCN and the East African Community will facilitate an East African Parliamentary tour of Pangani Basin, Tanzania during the first half of 2007. For further information contact: Edmund Barrow, IUCN; tel: +254-20-890605; e-mail: edmund.barrow@iucn.org; internet: http://www.iucn.org/places/earo

REGIONAL MEETING ON ENVIRONMENT AND POVERTY REDUCTION: IUCN and the East African Community will facilitate a regional meeting to share experiences on the importance of the environment in poverty reduction during the last half of 2007. For further information contact: Edmund Barrow, IUCN; tel: 254-20-890605 e-mail: edmund.barrow@iucn.org; internet: http://www.iucn.org/places/earo

THE 8TH ANNUAL GLOBAL CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL TAXATION: This meeting will take place from 18-20 October 2007 in Munich, Germany, organized by the Association for Ecological Tax Reform and Green Budget Germany. The meeting will be co-hosted by German Technical Cooperation ((GTZ) and the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and include consideration of environmental fiscal reforms. Harald.lossack@gtz.de; internet: http://www.worldecotax.org
























African Centre for Technology Studies

Asian Development Bank

African Development Bank

Canadian International Development Agency

Department for International Development, the UK

Directorate-General for International Cooperation, the Netherlands

European Commission

Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy, Rwanda

International Institute for Environment and Development

Joint Assistance Strategy

Millennium Development Goals

Non-governmental Organizations

Organization for Economic Development

Organization for Economic Development, Development Cooperation Directorate

Poverty Environment

Poverty Environment Initiative

Poverty Environment Partnership

Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy

Poverty Reduction Strategy

Regional and International Networking Group

UN Development Programme

United Nations Environment Programme

The Tenth Poverty Environment Partnership Meeting Bulletin is a publication of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) <info@iisd.ca>, publishers of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin � <enb@iisd.org>. This issue was written and edited by Nienke Beintema, Leonie Gordon and Atieno Ndomo. The Digital Editor is Joe Nyangon. The Editor is Laurel Neme, Ph.D. <laurel@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James �Kimo� Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. The Programme Manager of the African Regional Coverage Project is Richard Sherman <rsherman@iisd.org>. Funding for coverage of this meeting has been provided by South Africa�s Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism through the IISD/DEAT/UNEP ROA project for IISD Reporting Service coverage of African regional meetings. IISD can be contacted at 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada; tel: +1-204-958-7700; fax: +1-204-958-7710. The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in other publications with appropriate academic citation. Electronic versions of the Bulletin are sent to e-mail distribution lists (HTML and PDF format) and can be found on the Linkages WWW-server at <http://enb.iisd.org/>. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 212 East 47th St. #21F, New York, NY 10017, USA.