PROJECT IDENTIFICATION FORM (PIF)
PROJECT TYPE: FULL-SIZED
THE GEF TRUST FUND
S
Submission Date: 11 September 2008
Re-submission Date: 25 November 2008
Re-submission Date: 24 February 2009
PART I: PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
GEFSEC PROJECT ID:
GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: PIMS 3277
COUNTRY(IES): South Africa
PROJECT TITLE: Market Transformation through Energy
Efficiency Standards & Labelling of Appliances in South Africa
GEF AGENCY(IES): UNDP
OTHER EXECUTING PARTNERS: Dept. of Mines and Energy
GEF FOCAL AREAS: Climate change
GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAM(S): CC-SP1
INDICATIVE CALENDAR
Milestones
Expected
Dates
Work Program (for FSP)
June 2009
CEO Endorsement/Approval
July 2009
GEF Agency Approval
Implementation Start
Mid-term Review
Implementation Completion
Aug 2010
Oct 2010
June 2015
Oct 2015
A. PROJECT FRAMEWORK
Project Objective: To reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) from the energy consumption by achieving a market
transformation towards high-efficiency appliances through the introduction of energy labels and minimum energy
performance standards.
Project
Components
(UNDP outcome)
1. Energy labelling
Indicate
whether
Invest,
TA, or
STA**
TA
Expected
Outcomes
Increased
awareness and
introduced
energy labels
2. Policy and
regulatory
framework for
labels and
standards
3.Capacity
strengthening
TA
Conducive
policy & policy
instruments on
energy efficiency
TA
Strengthened
capacity of main
stakeholders
4. MEPS
TA
5.Evaluation &
dissemination
TA
Minimum energy
performance
standards
(MEPS) adopted
Monitoring,
feedback,
evaluation
6. Project management
PIF Template, August 28, 2007
Expected
Outputs
1) Specification and
launching of energy
labels for domestic
appliances (voluntary)
2) Awareness creation
and info campaigns for
consumers and other
stakeholders
1) Market and
engineering studies
2) Regulation and
legislation (mandatory)
3) Financial incentives
1) Testing capability
enhanced
2) Enforcement of
standards and labels
3) Strengthened
institutional capacity
Minimum energy
performance standards
(MEPS) adopted for
electric appliances
1) Regular M&E
2) Best practices and
recommendations
Indicative GEF
Financing*
(‘000 $)
%
Indicative Cofinancing*
($)
%
Total ($)
900
15
4,750
35
5,650
1,800
30
3,800
28
5,600
1,800
30
1,450
11
3,250
900
15
2,800
21
3,700
300
5
100
1
400
300
5
600
4
1,000
1
6,000
13,500
19,500
Total project costs
*
List the dollar amount by project components/activities. ** STA = Scientific & technical analysis.
B. INDICATIVE FINANCING PLAN SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT ($)
GEF Grant
Co-financing
Total
Project Preparation
95,000
135,000
230,000
Project
6,000,000
13,500,000
19,500,000
Agency Fee
609,500
Total
6,704,500
13,635,000
20,339,500
609,500
C. INDICATIVE CO-FINANCING FOR THE PROJECT BY SOURCE ($), IF AVAILABLE
Co-financing Source
Government Contribution
Utility (DSM)2
Private Sector3
Total co-financing
1
2
3
Cash
4,500,0001
4,000,000
2,500,000
11,000,000
In-kind
1,000,000
1,000,000
500,000
2,500,000
Total
6,000,000
4,500,000
3,000,000
13,500,000
This includes the standard and labelling program that DME is currently initiating with the SABS (Bureau of Standards) as
well as budget for energy efficiency promotion
This includes related financing planned under ESKOM’s Accererated Energy Efficiency Plan, which includes national
awareness creation, promoting appropriate legislation preventing the importation and use of inefficient equipment,
collaboration between stakeholders
Including contribution from manufacturers/suppliers for marketing campaigns of energy-efficient appliances and piloting of
consumer credit schemes by retailers.
D. GEF RESOURCES REQUESTED BY FOCAL AREA(S), AGENCY (IES) SHARE AND COUNTRY(IES)*
N/A
PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
A. STATE THE ISSUE, HOW THE PROJECT SEEKS TO SOLVE IT, AND THE EXPECTED GLOBAL
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS TO BE DELIVERED:
The average efficiency of electrical domestic appliances currently sold in South Africa is significantly
below that of the best products on the market, largely because of customers’ and marketers’ strong
emphasis on first cost at the expense of life-cycle cost considerations, but also because of other policy,
informational and market barriers. The strategy of the proposed project is to address these barriers that
hamper the introduction of standards and labelin. Five outcomes are proposed to help overcome these
barriers
Identified barrier
Project activities planned
Awareness barriers
o Lack of knowledge and understanding
amongst consumers of energy efficiency
improvement opportunities of appliances,
o Uncertainty about market demand of highefficiency models, making manufacturers
reluctant to tie up financial resources
dealer/retailer reluctant to stock energyefficient models.
Information and policy barriers
Raise awareness among manufacturers and policy
decision makers on the benefits of introduction of
S&L programs and in cooperation with these
stakeholders and local utilities (ESKOM) outreach the
importance of energy-efficient (EE) appliances
(Outcome 1) and propose energy labels for selected
appliances (Outcome 1)
PIF Template, August 28, 2007
Detailed market analysis and energy savings potential
2
o Difficulty to take informed decisions and make
appropriate regulation, due to insufficiency of
market data (on supply and energy
consumption of most appliances and on the
potential for improving the energy efficiency);
o Lack of appropriate regulation (allowing
production and import of highly inefficient
appliance); lack of legislation for introduction
of S&L
Capacity barrier
o Insufficient capacity to design and introduce
S&L
o Lack of procedures for compliance checking
of the selected appliances to allow selection of S&L to
be designed and introduced, so that the schemes
proposed will have a high market transformation
aspect (Outcome 2) and formulate a legislative
framework for the introduction of labels (Outcome 2)
and adoption of minimum energy performance
standards (Outcome 4)
Enhance testing capacity of laboratories and
institutional capacity for the effective design of S&L
schemes, consumer, manufacturer and outreach
programs, incentive schemes and for monitoring and
evaluation (Outcome 3 and Outcome 5) and propose
compliance checking and testing procedures
Cost barrier:
Provide adequate information on cost and benefits and
o The low unit price of coal and electricity in design and implement incentives for consumers to
South Africa influences the mind-set of purchase S&L schemes (Outcome 2)
consumers and companies with the argument
that the higher initial investment cost cannot
be justified due to lengthy payback times;
o Low purchasing power of the majority of
South African households
The project is designed around the following five outcomes:

Outcome 1: Awareness creation and introduction of energy labels for electric appliances
- Output 1.1: Specification and launching of energy labels for domestic appliances1
(In 2004 DME decided to introduce the European labelling system. The first group
of appliances include refrigerators, washing machines and cloth dryers, dishwaters,
air conditioners, space heaters and stoves. Progress in implementation has been slow
related to the barriers mentioned above2. Labels will be introduced first on a
voluntary basis to get the general public manufacturers and retailers involved,
starting with refrigerators/freezers and cloth washers in 2005)3.
- Output 1.2: Awareness creation and information campaigns
1
2
3
Current labels may display the energy used as required by the existing South African National Standards (SANS), IEC and ISO
(respectively International Electro-technical Commission and International Standard Organisation) specifications. This is usually
displayed on the model and serial number tag at the back of the appliance and not visibly from the front of the appliance. The marking
does not carry a norm or “bench marked” figure. Therefore, the customer cannot compare the energy efficiency of one make to
another or to a norm for that type of appliance
The norm for labels for refrigerators is now implemented on a voluntary basis in 2004. Other norms for labels (washing machines,
tumble driers and dishwashers) have been postponed for some time and are now planned for 2009-2010. The standard for CFLs is
completed and published; standards for industrial AC motors and Set-Top boxes (for digital TV) are in the later stages for finalization.
The procedure of launching the label will encompass the following steps: (1) Energy data are collected to create a database and a norm
for the label; (2) Consensus to be built among stakeholders in drafting technical parameters; (3) SABS/SANS (SABS has officially
changed name to SANS) safety standards and performance specifications are amended to include the energy label; (4) Design of the
visual format of the label (following the European energy labelling system); (5) Define compliance deadlines (adaptation times, line
changeover schedules, inventory clearing and product availability, based on product development cycles and production). The market
and engineering analysis of output 2.1 will feed into this process.
PIF Template, August 28, 2007
3
(Appliance-specific consumer awareness campaign on labelling will be undertaken.
The campaign will inform the consumers about the label features, the importance
and potential impact of selecting efficient products for their household. In addition,
country-wide massive campaign promoting energy efficiency in general will be
launched, which launched through television, radio, magazine and newspaper
advertisements, which will be an on-going activity until the end of the project4

Outcome 2: Conducive policy and policy instruments regarding energy efficiency
- Output 2.1: Impact of voluntary label schemes (refrigerators/freezers, washing machines).
Market survey and engineering analysis of appliances (a., consumer preferences and
appliances market size, b. appliance energy use study and c. energy efficiency
improvement potential). This is an iterative process throughout the project. A first
analysis will provide the info needed for a voluntary label (air conditioners, stoves,
space heaters). A more detailed analysis will provide the info needed for a
mandatory labels (e.g., refrigerators, washing machines will move from voluntary to
mandatory labels) and eventually the necessary analysis to introduce minimum
energy performance standard (MEPS) for the before-mentioned appliances.
- Output 2.2: Mandatory labelling:
(The labelling scheme will first be introduced on a voluntary basis at first (see
output 1.1). The historically low unit price of energy, coupled with limited
awareness on energy savings potential, may result in only modest success arising
from voluntary measures5 and other non-legislative instruments. For this reason,
South Africa’s Energy Efficiency Strategy aims the voluntary labels go into
mandatory labelling of products (first starting with refrigertor/freezers and washing
machines). This requires that the product performance specification regarding
energy levels of consumption and labels is made compulsary by legislation.
- Output 2.3: Incentives and financial issues:
(The Government will not consider direct subsidies for efficient appliances
Nonetheless, over time some fiscal reforms will be considered (import duties, VAT).
Based on the study done in the PPG phase, pilot innovative mechanisms’ for
financing shall be implemented, such as the utilisation of customer credit schemes
(many customer by on credit at the retailer’s outlet) to equalise cost of poorer and
more efficient equipment (using funds from the Central Energy Fund, CEF) 6. Also,
links with ESKOM’s Demand Side Management (DSM) programme will be made

Outcome 3: Capacity strengthening of main stakeholders
- Output 3.1: Developing a testing capability:
(The process of creating energy testing capability must begin before a labelling of
standards programme is launched. The test procedure describes the method used to
4
5
6
Also, promotion and education are valuable aids to increase the effectiveness of an energy label, such as government promotion of the
program (e.g., annual efficiency awards), manufacturers campaigns (marketing of their energy-efficient products), training of retailers
(shop managers and sales persons), publication of lists of current models on the market (e.g., through easy-accessible brochures and an
Internet site) and educational programmes at schools.
For example, even if South African industry would voluntary adopt the energy efficiency label, importers may bring in goods without
the label at lower prices and poorer performance
To be financed by co-financing
PIF Template, August 28, 2007
4
measure the energy performance of a product and a testing norm that references the
appropriate testing procedures)7.
- Output 3.2: Enforcement of labels and standards
(The policing of the energy label scheme is critical in the implementation and
maintenance of a mandatory energy label system; options consist of self-certification,
in their own or third-party facilities or certification by an independent party; planning
of human and financial resources for verification and enforcement).
- Output 3.3: Capacity strengthening of stakeholders
(Strengthening of the government agency responsible for standards8, codes and
labelling and of the agency responsible for compliance monitoring; Training of
manufacturers, distributor and retailers)

Outcome 4:
Adoption of minimum energy performance standards for electric appliances
(Minimum energy performance standards, MEPS, are usually set to exclude the label
categories with the lowest energy efficiency from the market. Various methods exist
to determine the standards, e.g., statistical consideration, setting energy efficiency
target at the least life-cycle cost level, choosing the top runner model at the threshold
or adopt world’s best energy efficiency practice9. First candidates for which
standards will be introduced directly are refrigerators, geysers, boilers and fixed
stoves)10
 Outcome 5:
Monitoring, learning, adaptive feedback and evaluation
(The GEF project would support the: Monitoring of the market towards compliance
and progress towards targets; Regular evaluations of the progress; Programme
evaluation; Review of programme results and, if necessary, revise programme
elements)
B. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH NATIONAL PRIORITIES/PLANS
The project complements and contributes to the ongoing implementation of South African policy on
Energy Efficiency. The final draft of the South African Energy Efficiency Strategy sets a national target for
energy savings of at least 12% to be achieved by the year 2015. The draft strategy covers all economic
sectors, including public and commercial buildings, residential sector, transport, industry and
7
8
9
10
The testing procedure is the foundation for the energy standards and label of a product. Selection (adoption) of existing test procedures
is strongly preferable to inventing the wheel by designing new test protocols, e.g., the International Standards Organisation (ISO) and
International Electrical Commission (IEC) are two international entities responsible for formulating internationally recognised
appliance test procedures. In South Africa, various (commercial) independent testing facilities exist. SABS has a Test House; in
addition there are other test laboratories as well as the in-house test facilities of the manufacturers. One or several test houses should be
accredited under the South African National Accreditation System (SANAS) system to develop energy measurements, so that local
manufacturers can have their products tested and accepted for energy efficiency performance. Accreditation of EE testing procedures
will be sought with ISO and/or IEC
This means, strengthening the capacity of stakeholders other than the test labs. On the policy level, for example, by setting up a
‘Standards and Labelling Unit’ within the Directorate for Energy Efficiency of DME
GEF support is requested to ensure that stakeholder consultations and the necessary engineering and market analyses are carried out in
a systematic way in order to develop a strong standards programme, which could be as follows: (a) Expert and stakeholder
consultations; (b) Identification of product categories and key issues; (c) Engineering analysis to determine life-cycle cost and energy
performance of models;(d) Defining principle and methods for setting the standards (e.g., lowest life-cycle cost); (e) Analysis of
impacts (on manufacturers, consumers, competition, utilities, as well as economic and environmental impacts); (f) Public comments
and stakeholder negotiation; (g) Setting of final standards; (h) Introduction of relevant legislation.
The reason is that these artefacts usually come with the house a consumer buys or rents. For other appliances, such as air conditioners
the introduction of both labels and standards will be considered, while for some other appliance the introduction of labels may suffice
PIF Template, August 28, 2007
5
transportation. The Strategy further mentions that energy efficiency improvements are to be achieved
through a mix of instruments and interventions, including support mechanisms (such as labelling of
appliances; energy standards and building codes; energy audits), financial instruments (such as revisions of
the tax system and linkage with the utility ESKOM’s demand-side management programme) as well as
policy and regulatory instruments (preparation of appropriate legislation to implement the energy
efficiency strategy and implementation of regulatory means where necessary, of efficiency standards and
labels). The DME has introduced voluntary labelling schemes for refrigerators/freezers with the help of the
Bureau of Standards (SABS). Norms for labels for for washing machines tumble driers and dishwashers
were planned to be introduced by the year 2006. This has not happened so far. It is now planned for 20092010, so here the GEF support would be timely.
C. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GEF STRATEGIES AND FIT WITH
STRATEGIC PROGRAMS:
This project will directly relate to the GEF Focal Area of Climate Change and is addressing the Strategic
Priority on “Energy-Efficient Buildings and Appliances”.
D. OUTLINE THE COORDINATION WITH OTHER RELATED INITIATIVES
The project will work closely with existing programmes undertaken by means players:
 South Africa Bureau of Standards and South Africa National Accreditation System (certification and
accreditation, regulation, standards and norms)
 ESKOM and utilities (demand-side management programmes)
E. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL REASONING OF THE PROJECT
Business-as-usual
The average efficiency of electrical domestic appliances currently sold in South Africa is significantly
below that of the best products on the market, largely because of customers’ and marketers’ strong
emphasis on first cost at the expense of life-cycle cost considerations, but also because of the other barriers.
In the absence of the proposed GEF-supported Standards and Labelling project, the efficiency of new
energy consuming appliances, equipment and lighting products sold in the South Africa would likely
continue to increase slowly from existing levels. However, the average efficiency of products currently sold
is significantly below that of the best products on the market, largely because of customers’ and marketers’
strong emphasis on first cost at the expense of life-cycle cost considerations, but also because of the other
barriers to energy efficiency in today's marketplace, mentioned above. While the Energy Efficiency
Strategy foresees the introduction of a standards and labelling programme, the challenge for South Africa is
not only to overcome the barriers to the introduction of high-efficient appliances in general, but also to
overcome the barriers to the adoption and implementation of a labelling and standards programme in
particular, such as insufficient institutional capacity and lack of specific expertise for S&L programme
implementation and financing.
The project seeks to develop a full-size grant proposal for submission to GEF funding which will enable
South Africa to address the policy, financial, information and technological barriers that block the
widespread introduction of more energy efficient domestic appliances in general, as well as the introduction
of a standards and labelling programme in particular.
To be able to understand and analyse the barriers in detail, the DME proposes to use GEF funds to set up
comprehensive consumer awareness and information dissemination campaigns and to target retailers who
PIF Template, August 28, 2007
6
play a very important role in influencing the consumer’s purchase decision. Assistance will be provided to
manufacturers in the form of assessment of the technological upgrade and energy efficiency improvement
potential and marketing support. Also, relevant institutional capacity building will be identified and
strengthened by training and technical assistance to formulate standards and labelling policy, planning and
decision-making. Specific attention will be given to addressing financial barrier issues, while potential
funding sources for energy efficiency will be identified and evaluated. The project will support DME in
seeking implementation commitment from the main stakeholders to achieve an effective market
transformation by providing information that assists consumers in making rational decisions based on lifecycle cost rather than initial investment cost. As a complementary tool to appliance labelling, minimum
performance efficiency standards (MEPS) will bring about significant improvements by removing poor
efficiency appliances from the market.
F. INDICATE RISKS, INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS, THAT MIGHT PREVENT THE PROJECT
OBJECTIVE(S) FROM BEING ACHIEVED. OUTLINE THE RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES,
INCLUDING IMPROVING RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE, THAT THE PROJECT PROPOSES TO
UNDERTAKE:
Risk
Risk mitigation
South Africa may choose not to However, the country’s Energy Efficiency Strategy as well as the White
implement
or
delay
the Paper on Energy firmly states mandatory labelling and standards as an
introduction of energy labels and ultimate goal. In addition, the structure for the proposed GEF project is to
MEPS (mandatory minimum first identify and focus on barriers and barrier removal, then to develop a
efficiency standards) for end-use menu of options suited to the specific situation of South Africa and
equipment.
demonstrating these
Manufacturers object to the
implementation of efficiency
labels and standards, fearing that
the implementation of new
regulations resulting in additional
costs
Consumers do not understand
energy efficiency labelling and
avoid purchasing energy-efficient
models owing to higher first
costs.
The proposed project will take into account the financial situation of
manufacturers and is designed to assess this situation as part of any decision
to move forward on the development of labels and MEPS. Also, the project
will be to contribute in generating awareness around business opportunities
related to energy efficient labeling.
While the project cannot eliminate the potential higher first-costs of energy
efficient models to consumers, who have a preference to spend less money
for a less efficient model, label development will be accompanied by
substantial efforts in information dissemination, consumer education, retaildirected educational materials, and other activities to both raise awareness of
the label and to educate consumers
An important barrier to successful An update of the existing market survey will be performed during the PPG
implementation is the maturity of stage to make sure all related barriers are addressed in full implementation.
the market
The FSP design will also be done in consultation with all major stakeholders
to minimize this risk. Finally, the FSP will be monitored closely on the
aspect of market risk to be able to take management decisions early in the
project cycle.
G. DESCRIBE, IF POSSIBLE, THE EXPECTED COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROJECT
The potential for savings in South Africa through standards and labelling is high in terms of energy
consumption. The Appliance Labelling Study, report no. 2.3.4-05, CaBEERE project, Department of
Mineral and Energy (South Africa, 2003) has made projections of energy savings resulting from phasing in
PIF Template, August 28, 2007
7
energy labels and standards over a 5-year period. A compilation of these projections is presented in table
below. The data will be updated during the PPG phase.
Assuming an economically useful life of 15 years for each appliance (as is done in the CaBEERE study)
this implies direct emission reduction of 2.1 million tCO2. The total potential of savings was estimated at
about 188,000 tCO2, assuming that within 10 years after introduction all appliances would be the more
energy-efficient ones (as is summarised in the table below). Including this post-project impact, total direct
and indirect emission reduction is estimated at 2.8 million tCO2.
Estimated energy and CO2 emission reduction by the project
Estimate of actual energy demand reduction
Potential
energy
demand
reduction
(GWh/yr) Year 1
Refrigerators
- single door
- two door
- freezer
Washing machines
- front load
- top load
Tumble dryer
Dishwashers
Space heating
- air conditioners
- electric heaters
Stoves
- electric stoves
- electric hot plates
Annual carbon
reduction (tonnes
CO2)
@ .96 tCO2/MWh
Annual
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Total
7.6
26.8
8.6
0.4
1.3
0.4
0.8
2.7
0.9
1.1
4.0
1.3
1.5
5.4
1.7
1.9
6.7
2.1
5.7
20.1
6.4
3.4
1.5
8.1
2.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.5
0.2
1.2
0.3
0.7
0.3
1.6
0.4
0.9
0.4
2.0
0.5
2.6
1.2
6.0
1.5
4.7
10.9
0.2
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.7
1.6
0.9
2.2
1.2
2.7
3.5
8.1
89.3
32.7
4.5
1.6
8.9
3.3
13.4
4.9
17.9
6.5
22.3
8.2
67.0
24.5
5,472
19,296
6,144
2,496
1,152
5,760
1,440
3,360
7,776
64,320
23,520
-
195.7
9.7
19.7
29.2
39.1
48.9
146.6
140,736
Potential for energy savings and CO2 reduction
Annual savings
Refrigerators
- single door
- two door
- freezer
Washing machines
- front load
- top load
Cloth dryer
Dishwashers
Space heating
- air conditioners
- electric heaters
Stoves
- electric stoves
- electric hot plates
Annual carbon
Money ('000 reduction (tonnes
Rand)
CO2)
@ 0.3/kWh @ .96 tCO2/MWh
# of units
bought
annually
Assumed energy
consumption per
appliance (kWh)
Assumed
energy
reduction of
appliance
Energy
demand
(GWh/yr)
259,170
417,552
316,763
588
1,284
540
5%
5%
5%
7.6
26.8
8.6
2,286
8,042
2,566
244,772
158,382
187,178
71,992
281
192
864
300
5%
5%
5%
10%
3.4
1.5
8.1
2.2
1,032
456
2,426
648
51,834
483,784
1,800
450
5%
5%
4.7
10.9
1,400
3,266
532,738
259,170
3,353
2,520
5%
5%
89.3
32.7
26,794
9,797
7,315
25,735
8,210
0
3,301
1,460
7,763
2,073
0
4,478
10,450
0
85,741
31,349
TOTAL
195.7
58,711
187,875
The total requested GEF contribution is USD 6.04 million, leading to a cost-effectiveness of USD 2.14 per
tCO2 reduced.
PIF Template, August 28, 2007
8
H. JUSTIFY THE GEF AGENCY COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE
UNDP is mentioned as having a comparative advantage in ‘energy efficiency’ projects in Annex L of the
document GEF/C.31/5 rev.1 (GEF comparative advantage matrix).
PART III: APPROVAL/ENDORSEMENT BY GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINTS AND GEF
AGENCIES
A.
RECORD OF ENDORSEMENT OF GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT (S) ON BEHALF OF THE
GOVERNMENT(S): (Please attach the country endorsement letter(s) or regional endorsement letter(s)
with this template).
Ms. Pam Yako
Director General
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Date: (December 20, 2006
B. GEF AGENCY(IES) CERTIFICATION
This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF
criteria for project identification and preparation.
John Hough
Deputy Executive Coordinator
UNDP/GEF
Date: 24 February 2009
PIF Template, August 28, 2007
J.H.A. van den Akker
RTA a.i. climate change, Eastern & Southern Africa
Project Contact Person
Tel. and Email: +31 6 27424634 / 31 40 2019240
Email: johannes.vandenakker@undp.org
9
ANNEX A. ATTACHMENTS
PIF Template, August 28, 2007
10