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. ***