International Environment: Information on Global Environment Facility's
Funding and Projects (Letter Report, 06/15/1999, GAO/RCED-99-149).
The Global Environment Facility was established in 1991 to help address
climate change, threats to biodiversity, and other environmental
problems. The facility is funded by the United States and other
countries and provides funds for projects in developing nations to help
protect the global environment. This report provides information on the
facility's funding and activities.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-99-149
TITLE: International Environment: Information on Global
Environment Facility's Funding and Projects
DATE: 06/15/1999
SUBJECT: Environmental monitoring
Developing countries
Foreign aid programs
Foreign governments
International organizations
Grant administration
Environmental policies
International relations
Program evaluation
IDENTIFIER: Japan
Germany
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UN Development Program
UN Conference on Environment and Development
China
Brazil
India
Indonesia
Convention on Biological Diversity
Global Environment Facility Trust Fund
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. This text was extracted from a PDF file. **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into **
** body text in the adjacent column. Graphic images have **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included. **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been **
** preserved. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
United States General Accounting Office GAO Report
to the Honorable Larry E. Craig, U.S. Senate June 1999
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT Information on Global Environment
Facility's Funding and Projects GAO/RCED-99-149 GAO
United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548
Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-282452
June 15, 1999 The Honorable Larry E. Craig United States Senate
Dear Senator Craig: In recent years, an increasing recognition of
the global nature of environmental problems has led to a greater
emphasis on international efforts to address them. In 1991, the
Global Environment Facility was established to help address
climate change; threats to biodiversity, such as the impact of
development on fragile ecosystems; and other environmental
problems. The Facility is funded by the United States and other
countries and provides funds for projects in developing nations to
help protect the global environment. Because of your interest in
the Facility, you asked that we provide information on its funding
and activities. Specifically, you asked that we determine (1) the
amount and the sources of its funding commitments for fiscal years
1995 through 1998; (2) how it selected projects for funding; (3)
how it allocated funds among major priorities and how funds for
climate-change projects were allocated by purpose and country for
fiscal years 1995 through 1998; and (4) what oversight and
evaluation mechanisms it has established, and what, if any,
findings have resulted from its evaluations and reviews. Results
in Brief From fiscal years 1995 through 1998, 35 nations
committed to contribute, or pledged, a total of about $2 billion
to the Global Environment Facility trust fund. The United States
and two other nations accounted for the majority of these pledges.
Specifically, the Unites States pledged $430 million (21 percent);
followed by Japan, which pledged $415 million (20 percent); and
Germany, which pledged $240 million (12 percent). In 1998, the
United States pledged to contribute an additional $430 million for
fiscal years 1999 through 2002. Projects are selected through a
multistage review and approval process, which includes technical,
environmental, and other considerations. Nations and other
applicants submit project concepts, which are developed into
detailed project proposals if they meet the Facility's eligibility
criteria. These criteria require, among other things, that a
project be from a developing country and that funds from the
Facility be used only for new activities. The project proposals
are then reviewed for technical appropriateness, financial
feasibility, environmental benefits, and other Page 1
GAO/RCED-99-149 International Environment B-282452 considerations
that reflect the Facility's policy goals. During these reviews,
representatives of contributing nations and Facility-appointed
scientific and technical specialists review and comment on the
proposals. According to U.S. Treasury officials, the Facility
ultimately selects projects through negotiations and consensus.
The Facility allocated a total of $1.2 billion to projects for
fiscal years 1995 through 1998. These funds went to projects in
its four priority areas: * $488 million (41 percent) to climate-
change projects, * $435 million (36 percent) to biodiversity
projects, * $116 million (10 percent) to international waters
projects, and * $109 million (9 percent) to ozone depletion
projects. The remaining $44 million (4 percent) went to projects
addressing two or more of these priority areas. The majority of
the funds for climate-change projects were aimed at removing
barriers to energy conservation and efficiency or to removing
barriers to adopting renewable energy. Four countries-China,
Brazil, India, and Indonesia-received 69 percent of the funds for
climate-change projects. In coordination with the three
international agencies that help implement its projects, the
Facility has established an approach for project oversight and
evaluation. This approach includes both strategic-level reviews,
which examine such issues as the Facility's effectiveness in
providing resources to address global environmental problems and
the Facility's relationship with recipient nations, and project-
level reviews, which examine the implementation and the results of
individual projects in greater detail. These reviews have found
both strengths and weaknesses. In some cases, the Facility's
projects have encouraged the broader adoption of environmentally
sound technologies by recipient countries. However, some projects
appear dependent on funds from the Facility and might not meet the
expectation that they be self-sustaining after that funding ends.
Background Established in 1991, the Global Environment
Facility (GEF) is an international funding organization that
provides grants to developing nations for projects that help
protect the global environment. GEF provides funds for projects in
four priority areas: (1) biodiversity, which includes preserving
species by protecting ecosystems; (2) climate change, which
promotes ways to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases; (3)
international waters, which focuses on the effects of land-based
pollution or the Page 2 GAO/RCED-
99-149 International Environment B-282452 overuse of marine
resources; and (4) the depletion of the ozone layer. The United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention
on Biological Diversity,1 to both of which the United States is a
signatory, have designated GEF as their primary funding mechanism.
The pilot phase of GEF lasted from 1991 through 1994, when the
facility was restructured with the goal of providing universal
membership and greater openness in managing its affairs. GEF's
governing structure consists of an Assembly, a Council, and a
Secretariat. The Assembly has representatives from over 160 member
nations and meets once every 3 years to review GEF's general
policies. The Council-the main governing body-has representatives
of both donor and recipient countries. Officials of the U.S.
Department of the Treasury told us that Treasury officials serve
as representatives to the Council. The Department's Office of
Multilateral Development Banks is the primary contact point
between the U.S. government and GEF. The Council meets every 6
months to develop and evaluate GEF's operational policies and
programs and to review project proposals. Finally, the GEF
Secretariat helps ensure implementation of the decisions of the
Assembly and the Council. GEF-funded projects are implemented and
overseen by the United Nations Development Program, the United
Nations Environment Program, and the World Bank. Known as the
implementing agencies, they serve as the primary conduits between
GEF and the recipient nations. Three Nations From fiscal
years 1995 through 1998, 35 countries pledged to contribute a
Pledged Most of total of about $2 billion to GEF's trust fund.
As figure 1 shows, three countries accounted for $1.1 billion, or
54 percent of the total amount GEF's Funds pledged: the
United States ($430 million), Japan ($415 million), and Germany
($240 million). Another four countries pledged $480 million, or 24
percent of the total: France, the United Kingdom, Italy, and
Canada. Finally, 28 other countries pledged a total of about $460
million, or 23 percent of the total.2 The average contribution of
these 28 countries was $16.5 million. The United States also has
pledged a total of $430 million for fiscal years 1999 through
2002. The U.S. share of funding to GEF is comparable to its
contributions to other international agencies. 1Under the
Framework Convention, which was signed by the United States in
1992, the signatory nations agreed to adopt policies and measures
aimed at reducing their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by
the year 2000. The Convention on Biological Diversity, which
entered into force in December 1993, is designed to help ensure
biological diversity by preserving species and ecosystems.
2Numbers do not add to 100 percent due to rounding. Page 3
GAO/RCED-99-149 International Environment B-282452 Figure 1:
Countries Making the Largest Pledges to GEF, Fiscal Years 1995
Dollars in millions Through 1998 500 $430 $415 400 300 $240 200
$143 $135 $115 100
$87 0 U.S. Japan Germany France U.K. Italy Canada
Source: GAO's analysis of GEF's data. To meet the U.S. pledge of
$430 million, the Congress appropriated between $30 million and
$90 million each year from fiscal years 1994 through 1998 (see
fig. 2). The total appropriation over these 5 years was $237.5
million, $192.5 million short of the amount pledged. To cover this
shortfall, the Congress appropriated $192.5 million to GEF for
1999. Page 4 GAO/RCED-99-
149 International Environment B-282452 Figure 2: U.S.
Appropriations to GEF, Fiscal Years 1994 Through 1999
Dollars in millions 200
$192.5 150
$143.3 100 $90 50
$47.5 $30 $35 $35 0 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 Proposed Fiscal year Source:
GAO. In 1998, member nations renewed their financial commitment to
GEF for fiscal years 1999 through 2002. They agreed to contribute
the same proportional share that they had contributed during the
previous 4-year period. As a result, the United States pledged
another $430 million for this period. Because no funds were
appropriated in 1999 toward this pledge, Page 5
GAO/RCED-99-149 International Environment B-282452 the United
States would need to appropriate an average of $143.3 million per
year from fiscal years 2000 through 2002 to meet its obligation to
GEF in a timely manner. Accordingly, the administration requested
$143.3 million for GEF for fiscal year 2000. According to Treasury
officials, the U.S. share of funding for GEF is consistent with
its contributions to other international agencies. They said that
a nation's contributions to international agencies are generally
intended to reflect its relative ability to pay. Among the factors
that may be considered are a nation's national income, debt, and
per capita income. The U.S. share for GEF (about 21 percent for
both 4-year periods) is the same as its share for the
International Monetary Fund, while its share for the United
Nations is 25 percent. GEF's Project Review GEF has
established a project review and approval process during which its
and Approval Process staff, implementing agencies, member
nations, scientific and technical specialists, and others can
review and comment on proposed projects. Includes Many
Participants in the review process consider GEF's policy
objectives and its Participants That technical and
environmental criteria. Treasury officials said that the final
selection of projects emphasizes negotiations and consensus. Apply
Various Criteria and Considerations The review and approval
process includes four broad phases. First, an applicant, such as a
country's government, submits an initial project concept to one of
the three implementing agencies-the United Nations Environment
Program, the United Nations Development Program, or the World
Bank. If the project is deemed eligible and worthwhile, the
applicant and the implementing agency then develop a project
proposal, outlines for engineering and design work, and
environmental impact projections. Second, GEF's Scientific and
Technical Advisory Panel, which includes experts in GEF's four
priority areas, assesses the project for technical
appropriateness. The GEF Secretariat and Operations Committee
assess how well the project proposal meets GEF's eligibility
criteria and more detailed policy objectives. Third, successful
project proposals are placed in a work program-a compilation of
project proposals that is developed and reviewed four times
annually-for review and comment by the GEF Council, which includes
representatives of GEF's member countries. During this phase,
representatives of the United States and other member countries
have the opportunity to review and suggest modifications to
proposed projects. Fourth, the final project documents are
prepared and reviewed. If approved, the project is then
implemented. Page 6 GAO/RCED-99-
149 International Environment B-282452 To be eligible, a project
must, among other things, (1) be from an eligible country, one
that is eligible to borrow from the World Bank and is a signatory
to the relevant international convention; (2) use funds from GEF
only for new activities; and (3) use funds from GEF only for the
incremental costs pertaining to global environmental benefits.
Incremental costs are the additional costs incurred when a
development project also has global environmental benefits. For
example, if a country or firm proposes to build an electrical
generating plant fueled by advanced solar-energy technology
instead of a less expensive coal-fired plant, funds from GEF may
be used only to fund those costs of the solar-energy technology
that would exceed those of the coal plant. Throughout the review
and approval process, the various GEF representatives also assess
project proposals in light of considerations that reflect GEF's
policy objectives, in addition to its eligibility criteria. For
example, GEF's policy objectives stress that communities
potentially affected by a project should be included in that
project's development and that their needs should be reflected in
its design. According to GEF, effective public involvement can
facilitate the local population's acceptance of biodiversity
projects, which can limit hunting and grazing in sensitive areas,
and can help develop alternatives to replace the activities that
would be limited. Also, a project is supposed to be sustainable
after funding from GEF ends. For example, a climate-change project
that funds energy-efficient lighting technology is likely to
continue after funding from GEF ends and could encourage the
adoption of similar designs elsewhere. According to Treasury
officials, this technical and policy review process rejects the
majority of project proposals before they would reach the Council.
A member country's influence on project selection is generally
exerted in negotiations in the GEF Council. GEF does not have a
formal process of scoring and ranking projects that are competing
for limited resources, and neither individual projects nor work
programs typically come to a vote before the GEF Council. Instead,
the GEF Council and other participants in the review and approval
process have an opportunity to comment on and improve proposals.
Projects that do not meet GEF's eligibility criteria and other
considerations are usually removed from consideration by the
implementing agency or the GEF Secretariat. If Council members
agree that a proposal has significant weaknesses, it is either
rejected or its approval is conditioned on specific improvements.
When projects are rejected, the implementing agencies may choose
to revise and resubmit them to the Council. Page 7
GAO/RCED-99-149 International Environment B-282452 Climate Change
and From fiscal years 1995 through 1998, GEF
allocated a total of $1.1 billion to Biodiversity Projects
projects in four priority areas. Over threefourths of GEF's
allocations went to climate change ($488 million or 41 percent)
and biodiversity Received About ($435
million or 36 percent) (see fig. 3). According to U.S. officials,
these Three-Fourths of two priority areas
received the majority of funds in part because GEF is the primary
source of funds to support the Framework Convention on Climate
GEF's Funds Change and the Convention
on Biological Diversity. Smaller amounts went to international
waters ($116 million or 10 percent) and ozone depletion ($109
million or 9 percent).3 GEF allocated an additional $44 million to
projects that addressed multiple priority areas. Figure 3: GEF
Allocations by Priority Areas, Fiscal Years 1995 Through 1998
Climate change 4% Multiple focal areas * *
9% Ozone depletion 10% *41% * 36% *
International waters Biodiversity Source: GAO's analysis of GEF's
data. 3For more information on funding to address ozone depletion,
see International Environment: Operations of the Montreal Protocol
Multilateral Fund (GAO/T-RCED-97-218, July 30, 1997). Page 8
GAO/RCED-99-149 International Environment B-282452 The $488
million allocated to climate-change projects was apportioned among
five categories and 138 projects. Over half of the funds for
climate-change projects went to two of these categories-renewable
energy ($174 million or 36 percent) and energy efficiency and
conservation ($137 million or 28 percent) (see fig. 4). The
countries receiving the largest amounts of funds for climate-
change projects were China, Brazil, India, and Indonesia, and
these allocations were largely for projects intended to advance
renewable energy and energy efficiency and conservation. The 19
projects in the renewable energy category are intended to remove
barriers to and lower the costs of technologies, such as windmills
to pump agricultural water and solar technology to convert solar
energy into electricity. For example, a project in Peru-to which
GEF allocated $4 million-focuses on improving data, technical
standards, and training to promote the use of photovoltaic systems
to generate electricity for rural areas. According to an estimate
provided in the project's proposal, carbon dioxide emissions could
be reduced by 77,000 tons over the 20-year life of the project.
The 15 energy efficiency and conservation projects are intended to
support selected market applications, such as more energy-
efficient industrial processes and more efficient heating and
cooling of buildings. For example, a project in China-to which GEF
allocated $33 million-will promote the adoption of efficiency
improvements to coal-fired industrial boilers, which are the
largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions associated with
energy use in China. Over the 20-year life of the project, GEF
estimates that the efficiency improvements will reduce carbon
dioxide emissions by 175 million tons. The remaining 104 projects
tend to be much smaller in dollar terms. Of these, 94 address the
need for planning and capacity-building in developing nations; 7
provide short-term measures to reduce greenhouse emissions, such
as switching from coal to other carbon-based fuels to generate
power; and 3 are designed to reduce the long-term costs of low
greenhouse gas-emitting technologies. Page 9
GAO/RCED-99-149 International Environment B-282452 Figure 4: GEF
Allocations to Climate-Change Projects by Type, Fiscal Years 1995
Through 1998
Renewable energy * 8% Short-term measures * *36%
19% * 28% * 9% Planning and capacity building Low greenhouse gas-
emitting technology Energy efficiency and conservation Source:
GAO's analysis of GEF's data. Of the 138 climate-change projects,
127 are located in 97 developing nations. The remaining 11
projects have a regional or global focus and generally are located
in two or more countries. Of the 127 projects, the largest number,
7, are located in China. Brazil and Indonesia each received
funding for four projects. Three countries received funding for
three climate-change projects each and twelve others received
funding for two projects each. The remaining 79 nations received
funding for one project each. Page 10
GAO/RCED-99-149 International Environment B-282452 GEF allocated
$400 million to the 97 nations for climate-change projects, with
another $88 million allocated to 11 global and regional ones. Of
the $400 million, four nations received $276 million (69 percent
of the total funding): China (29 percent), Brazil (16 percent),
India (16 percent), and Indonesia (8 percent). The remaining 93
nations received $124 million (31 percent) of the funds GEF
dedicated to climate-change projects, an average of about $1.3
million per country (see fig. 5). Figure 5: GEF's Allocations to
Climate-Change Projects by Country,
China Fiscal Years 1995 Through 1998 *29% 31% *
93 other recipients * 8% 16% *
Indonesia 16% * India Brazil Source: GAO's analysis
of GEF's data. Projects receiving funds from GEF often receive
funds from other sources as well. Funds from GEF are intended to
fund only the incremental cost-the difference between the cost of
a project with global environmental benefits and the cost of that
project if it were pursued without those benefits. For example,
for a project that would promote the use of solar energy
technology over the use of a less costly coal-fired power
generator, GEF would pay the incremental difference in cost
between the two projects. Consequently, the other costs of the
project must be met by other sources, such as the implementing
agencies, private Page 11
GAO/RCED-99-149 International Environment B-282452 companies, or
host governments. For example, a renewable energy project in
China, which will install wind and solar systems to produce
electricity and lower the long-term costs of commercializing those
systems, has a total cost of $408 million. Funding sources include
the private companies ($293 million), the implementing agencies
($65 million), GEF ($35 million), and the government of China ($15
million). GEF's Oversight and GEF's framework for oversight and
evaluation includes reviews at both the Evaluation Efforts
strategic level and the project level. The strategic level
includes reviews of GEF's overall performance, which cover such
topics as GEF's effectiveness Noted Mixed Results in providing
resources to address global environmental problems and its
relationship with recipient nations. Project-level reviews focus
on the prospects for meeting environmental objectives and other
issues at the project level. GEF's 1997 review of its overall
performance found that some projects did not comply fully with
project-selection criteria and considerations. According to a
Treasury official, these findings led to reform proposals by the
United States. GEF and the implementing agencies engage in several
types of strategic oversight. For example, GEF conducts broad
assessments of overall performance to examine such issues as how
effectively GEF provides resources for global environmental
projects and how well the various organizations work together to
select, implement, and oversee GEF's projects. Two of these
reviews have been done to date, one in 1994 and another in 1997,
both in preparation for negotiations on replenishing funding for
GEF. These reviews are performed by an external team nominated by
the GEF Council, including individuals with experience in
environmental science and managing global projects. GEF also
performs about three to six crosscutting reviews per year. These
reviews are theme-oriented, focusing on such issues as the role of
agriculture in preserving biological diversity or the importance
of building technical capacity in countries needing to address
climate-change issues. These reviews are documented in periodic
"lessons learned" documents to share best practices and
experiences with other GEF project managers. At the request of
individual countries, GEF also conducts country reviews, which can
examine the potential or the actual environmental impact of GEF's
operations in a country. GEF has also established an approach to
evaluate the effectiveness of individual projects. For example,
each GEF project that exceeds 3 years in length-as the majority
does-undergoes a midterm review by the Page 12
GAO/RCED-99-149 International Environment B-282452 implementing
agency or outside consultants. These reviews focus on a project's
progress toward its objectives and may result in suggestions to
modify its design. In addition, when a project has been completed,
the implementing agency is responsible for preparing a report that
assesses the achievement of the project's objectives, the factors
that facilitated or hindered achieving them, and the lessons
learned. GEF's oversight and evaluation efforts have found both
strengths and weaknesses. For example, the 1997 study of overall
performance found that some projects significantly affected a
country's policies beyond the their immediate objectives. For
example, a project in India that used biomethane as a fuel source
led to a $60 million investment by the Indian government to
generate energy from waste. However, the study also found that
project implementation did not always meet GEF's expectations. For
example, projects that receive funds from GEF are supposed to be
financially sustainable when that funding ends, but a review of 17
project submissions in 10 countries found that financial
sustainability was specifically addressed in just 7 cases.
Moreover, the study found that serious financial planning for
sustainability of projects was not common and that few project
proposals discussed how recurring costs would be met. Finally,
some countries had difficulty establishing that funds from GEF
would be used only to cover the incremental costs of a project-
that is, the additional costs incurred when a development project
also targets global environmental benefits. According to a
Treasury official, the problems regarding financial sustainability
and incremental costs are more common among the biodiversity and
international waters projects than the climate-change projects.
GEF has not yet done a specific review focusing on climate-change
projects. However, the results of broader studies provide some
information on how well GEF is addressing the climate-change
issue. At a broader level, the 1997 study of GEF's overall
performance found that the current emphasis of removing barriers,
such as barriers to commercially viable energy conservation and
efficiency technologies, is appropriate for the climate-change
priority area. Furthermore, the study found that GEF had
appropriately allocated funds for climate-change projects to
recipient countries, given the need to provide sufficient
resources to the countries with the highest emissions and to
implement those projects in a variety of settings. At the project
level, the 1997 project implementation review found that about
three-fourths of GEF's projects ranked satisfactory or better in
either implementation progress or prospects for achieving
environmental objectives and that about one-quarter ranked below
Page 13 GAO/RCED-99-149
International Environment B-282452 satisfactory, generally for
implementation problems due to a lack of stakeholders'
involvement. Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report
to the Department of the Treasury for review and comment. In
response, Treasury said that the report provides a balanced,
informative presentation of the Global Environment Facility's
funding, project selection, and oversight processes. (Treasury's
letter appears in app. I.) Scope and To respond to this
request, we examined GEF documents and met with Methodolgy
officials of Treasury's Office of Multilateral Development Banks.
We limited our work on the amounts and the sources of funds and
how they were allocated for fiscal years 1995 through 1998 because
activities during the pilot phase might not be comparable to later
activities. We did not adjust dollar amounts for inflation, and we
did not independently verify the information provided by GEF and
by Treasury officials. We conducted our work from February through
May 1999 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. As arranged with your office, unless you publicly
announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of
this report until 10 days from its date. At that time, we will
send copies of this report to congressional committees with
jurisdiction over international environmental affairs; interested
Members of Congress; Mohamed T. El-Ashry, Chief Executive Officer,
Secretariat of the Global Environment Facility; the Honorable
Robert E. Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury; the Honorable Carol M.
Browner, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency; and other
interested parties. We will also make copies available to others
upon request. Page 14 GAO/RCED-99-
149 International Environment B-282452 Please call me at (202)
512-6111 if you or your staff have any questions. Major
contributors to this report were Michael Hartnett, Michael
Daulton, and David Marwick. Sincerely yours, David G. Wood
Associate Director, Environmental Protection Issues Page 15
GAO/RCED-99-149 International Environment Appendix I Comments From
the Department of the Treasury (160469) Page 16
GAO/RCED-99-149 International Environment Ordering Information The
first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional
copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following
address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the
Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard
credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to
be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders by
mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC
20013 or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts.
NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also
be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202)
512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of
newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile
copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please
call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will
provide information on how to obtain these lists. For information
on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send an e-mail
message with "info" in the body to: [email protected] or visit
GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at: http://www.gao.gov PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER United States General Accounting Office
Bulk Rate Washington, D.C. 20548-0001 Postage & Fees Paid GAO
Permit No. G100 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested
*** End of document. ***