Denmark's environmental assistance to Eastern Europe 1991 -1996

2. Description and assessment of DESF projects

2.1. The distribution of support on recipient countries and sectors
2.2. The distribution of support on types of project contractors and patterns of cooperation
2.3. Financing and co-financing of projects
2.4. The implementation of projects
2.4.1. Assessment of implementation by project contractors
2.4.2. Assessment of the implementation of 47 selected projects
2.5. Environmental effects
2.6. Commercial effects

2.1. The distribution of support on recipient countries and sectors.

From 1991 to 1996 DESF made grants available for 1.160 billion DKK (equivalent to 150 million ECU) to a total of 496 projects.

Table 2.1: Distribution of projects on the consecutive years 1991-1996 and the total grants provided to projects in the recipient countries.

Table 2.1. shows the distribution of the number of projects and the financial support on the recipient countries. The financial support is expressed in grants; in many cases it was transferred in a later year and in a few cases not yet released at the time of the review due to DESF payment procedures (payment at time of delivery) or delay of projects.

The most important recipients of grants from DESF have been Poland and the three Baltic Republics, followed by Russia. This distribution reflects the priority accorded to the Baltic Sea region by DESF. The activities were especially marked in Poland in the first years of DESF operation, but declined in 1995 and 1996. Also the activities in the Czech Republic and Hungary have declined compared with the first years. Among the three Baltic republics, Lithuania stands out as the most significant beneficiary of DESF activities. In 1996, there were more projects initiated in Lithuania than in Poland. Table 2.1. shows that the annual number of projects in Russia has been fairly constant, but in fact the economic contributions have increased and made Russia one of the most important beneficiaries of DESF activities in 1996. In later years, activities have also increased significantly in Romania, Bulgaria and Ukraine, although the share of DESF funds accorded to these countries remain at a lower level than for the countries in the Baltic Sea region.

Table 2.2. shows the distribution of projects and grants on the main types of activities. 41 per cent of the projects and 48 per cent of the grants have been placed in the water sector. The second most important type of activity has been air pollution, where 22 per cent of the projects and 23 per cent of the grants have been placed.

The single most important type of activity has been support for waste water treatment plants, where 31 per cent of the grants have been provided. The activities consist mainly in upgrading and renovation of existing plants, although in some instances complete plants have been installed. Within air pollution, the emphasis has been on energy production and sustainable energy projects, e.g. geothermal energy, windmills and air pollution abatement equipment or end of pipe technologies in the energy and industry sectors.

Although only accorded a smaller share of the total grants, projects within nature protection and institutional strengtening make up for 19 per cent of the total number of projects. Unsurprisingly, projects within these fields are less costly than projects in the water and air pollution sectors.

Table 2.2. The distribution of projects and grants in main fields of activities.

Table 2.3. The distribution of projects and grants on main types of activities plus share of hard investments.

The projects have been classified according to their predominant character as either investment projects or technical assistance projects, cf. table 2.3.

Among the investment projects, the classification differentiates between three types of projects: 1) Disposition and project proposals are projects that serve as preparation for subsequent investment projects; 2) Construction and operation projects are direct investments in facilities, while 3) Equipment projects are projects that supply equipment as a contribution to or component of existing installations or larger co-financed projects.

Among the technical assistance projects the classification differentiates between four types of projects; 1) Analysis, studies and plans that comprise TA projects of a more general and long-term oriented nature such as plans for waste management or ODS phase-out, often at regional or national level; 2) Monitoring; 3) Investigations, which comprise feasibility studies, often at project level and 4) Training and education.

Table 2.3. shows the number of projects within each category as well as the share of the DESF grants provided. The investment projects comprise also a certain element of technical assistance in terms of man-hours spent on planning, installation and supervision of the delivery of hard equipment, and the last column shows for each project category the share of funds spent purely on 'hard' equipment.

It follows from table 2.3. that investment projects comprise 38 per cent of the total number of projects, but count for 62 per cent of the actual grants. Technical assistance projects make up 61 per cent of the total projects, but count for only 36 per cent of the grants. These figures show that DESF activities are predominantly investment-oriented, although a distinct element of technical assistance is also present.

The investment oriented character of DESF activities does not imply that grants are spent on hard equipment only. In the case of construction- and operation projects (category IN2) about 21 per cent of the funds are used for hard equipment, while the remaining is spent on mainly labour services (engineering, consulting, project supervision), travels and other items. In the case of equipment projects (category IN3) a higher share of funds are used for hard equipment (46 per cent) but a substantial share of the resources are used also for other purposes deemed necessary for the projects.

It follows from table 2.3. that while construction- and operation projects have been relatively rare (only 25 projects), supply of environmental equipment has been a main focus of DESF activities. 128 projects (26 per cent) and 44 per cent of the grants relate to this type of activity.

Among the technical assistance projects especially "Analysis, studies and plans" (TA1) as well as "Investigations" (TA3) dominate. Each category accounts for 15 per cent of the grants, but the latter category (TA3) tends to be slightly more costly per project.

Table 2.4. presents a break-down of grants and projects on each of the consecutive years from 1991 to 1996. Grants are indicated in million kroners (rounded figures) and in brackets are indicated the number of projects. Table 2.4. illustrates how DESF from 1993 has changed its orientation significantly from technical assistance to investment projects.

Table 2.4. Distribution of DESF grants on types of investment and technical assistance projects 1991-1996; indicated in million DKK (in brackets: number of projects) (N=496).

While in 1991 only 10 smaller investment projects were initiated, the years from 1993 to 1996 each featured about 40 new investment projects, at an increasing level of expenditure. Actual construction and operation projects, at an average expenditure level up to 7 million DKK, have remained limited in number, except in 1995. The focus has increasingly been on the supply of equipment in projects with an average expenditure level of 4-5 million DKK. In 1996 more than half of the DESF grants were committed for 36 such projects.

Technical assistance played a significant role in 1991 and 1992, the two first years of DESF operation. A sharp decline in technical assistance took place in 1993, reflecting not only that some of the projects were followed by investment projects, but also an increased scepticism in the recipient countries as well as in the programme administration as to the benefit of some of these projects. While 80 technical assistance projects were approved in 1992, only 27-28 were approved in each of the following years. With the increased DESF budget more technical assistance projects have been approved in 1995 and 1996. Although in 1996 about two thirds of the budget was spent on investment projects, more than 65 new technical assistance projects were initiated with a budget appropriation close to that of 1992.

Table 2.5. Share of DESF grant allocated to 'hardware' equipment; and in brackets share of total project financing allocated to 'hardware' equipment. 1991 to 1996. (N=342).

Table 2.5. presents a detailed specification of the relative share of the DESF grant which is used for hardware. The DESF grant is normally only one component of the project budgets, which often also includes self-financing and contributions from other sources. Hence table 2.5. also presents a specification (in brackets) of the relative share of the total project budgets which is used for hardware. This decomposition can only be presented for finalised projects.

It is not surprising that the DESF hardware share was rather low in 1991-1992, when DESF mainly applied its resources for technical assistance. From 1993-1995, the share spent on hard equipment, mainly transferred from Denmark to the countries in Eastern Europe, was from 29-36 per cent - highest in 1993-94. Within the group of investment projects the share is higher and in has average been 50 per cent.

In brackets are specified the relative share of hardware expenses from the total project budgets. In general the hardware share is higher, when also including the other financial sources. In average the overall hardware share has been 70 per cent. Within investment projects the hardware share has been at 82 per cent. The east european countries are responsible for the main part of the co-financing, and they prefer to focus on the purchase of hardware equipment. This tendency explains why the hardware share is higher when measured against the total project budgets, than when measured against the DESF grants per se.

2.2. The distribution of support on types of project contractors and patterns of cooperation.

DESF is a programme for bilateral assistance and relied from 1991-96 mainly on applications received from project contractors of Danish origin, although in 1996 about half of the project portfolio was developed on a tendering basis. Table 2.6. shows the distribution of projects and grants on different types of project contractors.

Professional consulting companies have been the dominating type of project contractors for DESF projects; about two thirds of the projects and grants have been channelled to projects in Eastern Europe through this type of project contractors. The remaining projects have been coordinated by a broad range of different actors, with research institutes and equipment suppliers as the most frequently occuring.

Table 2.6. Distribution of projects and grants on different type of project contractors.

156 different project contractors have been involved in the management of the 496 DESF projects. Two thirds of the grants have been provided to 20 companies often acting as project contractors. The five most frequently used have been: CowiConsult (48 projects), Kr¸ger A/S (37 projects), Ramb¯ll, (24 projects), Carl Bro A/S (21 projects) and Vandkvalitetsinstituttet (19 projects). These five companies have managed projects with grants equivalent to about 1/3 of the total DESF disbursements.

Table 2.7. Partners and recipients of project output in Eastern Europe (Source: PLS questionnaire; N=347).

Table 2.7. shows the partners and recipients of project output in Eastern Europe (Data on the partners involved was collected through a questionnaire to the project contractors, which obtained a reply rate of 70 per cent). Up to three partners could be indicated, but most projects included only one or two partners. Table 2.7. shows that the most important project partners have been local and regional authorities, followed by state authorities, consulting companies and public utilities. Local and regional authorities often stand as the beneficiaries of improvements in waste water treatment or water supply, as well as of waste management proposals. State authorities are more often involved in projects related to capacity building, strategic planning or legislative advice. Consulting companies often become involved in the recipient countries to facilitate cooperation with the recipients of the support, and increasingly projects are carried out in close cooperation between a Danish and a local consulting company. Besides the linguistic and financial advantages of including local consultants in the projects, there are examples that such collaboration improves the future capacity for environmental modernisation in the country. Public utilities are often involved both as partners and beneficiaries in the energy, water and waste sectors.

Table 2.7. also shows that industry has only rarely been involved as a partner in the projects. In 15 cases industry has been the most important partner and in only 4 cases has an industry or commercial enterprise been the beneficiary of a project. This seems to reflect the difficulties with involving industrial enterprises that have been or still are in the uncertain process of transition to a market economy. Also environmental NGOs have only in relatively few instances been included as project partners, mainly within nature and wildlife conservation as well as in a few capacity-building projects.

2.3 Financing and co-financing of projects.

Projects financed by DESF grants are often combined with financial contributions from other sources. This approach has been a deliberate policy from the DESF administration. By assuring a financial contribution also from a source in the recipient country, the DESF administration can be relatively confident that the project is also of substantial priority to the recipient. Apart from that, co-financing is normally a precondition for implementation of large investment projects, e.g. waste water treatment plants.

A second financial strategy which DESF has followed, has been to prepare for loans from international financial institutions (IFIs), such as EBRD, NEFCO or the World Bank. In addition to this strategy projects have also been matched with other bilateral donors. From 1991-96, DESF has engaged in IFI-projects with a total commitment of about 782 million ECU or about 3.6 billion DKK. In addition DESF was engaged in further 9 projects with other bilateral donors, with a total commitment of about 126 million ECU or about 970 million DKK. Donor- and IFI-coordination takes place inter alia through the PPC, the Project Preparation Committee.

Table 2.8. presents a breakdown of the financial sources, but the table does not contain information on loans from IFI's. The information in the table is based on information on finalised or reported projects, and does not fully reflect the financial pattern that has emerged in the wake of the more recent attempts towards donor matching.

On the Danish side, the contribution from DESF can be supplemented both by soft loans and by partner contributions and equities; the latter is often the case in projects where the Danish partner is involved also in the subsequent operation of the facility (e.g. in waste management). On the recipient side there is a broad range of possible sources, which differ considerably from country to country. It is only seldom the recipient per se which contributes. Normally, the financing consists of contributions from either environmental funds, the state budget or local budgets or combinations of these. In the case of projects within the water, energy and waste sectors, the relevant public utilities (waterboards, energy utilities etc.) have their own budgets, provided that user-payment has been introduced, and these can often be an important source of co-financing. Independent environmental funds, based on environmental charges or debt-for-environment-swaps play a significant role in some countries. Because of the diversity of financial arrangements, table 2.8. shows only the aggregate contribution from the recipients side. Donations and loans from other sources are the contributions from other donors, either the EU-programmes PHARE and TACIS or other bilateral donors.

Table 2.8. Financial sources of projects with DESF involvement (N=342).

The figures on the financial contributions to the DESF-supported projects, as presented in table 2.8., reflect the actual financing which it was possible to obtain for the finalised and reported projects. In case of projects that are still under implementation or which have not yet been reported, only expectations and plans regarding the financial contributions are available and these are not included.

Table 2.8. shows that DESF grants have been matched significantly with finances from other sources. While DESF grants in average have financed 29 per cent of the project portfolio, other Danish contributions have remained modest (soft loans 1 per cent and partner contributions 3 per cent), so that the total Danish contribution to the projects in average is about 33 per cent. Sources in the recipient country (i.e. environmental funds, state budget or budgets at local utilities or authorities) contribute 62 per cent. Other bilateral donors have provided 4 per cent.

The specification of the financial contributions at country level provides also revealing information as to the different financial opportunities and constraints in the various recipient countries.

It must be stressed, though, that the figures are average figures, and that there are considerable differences among different types of projects. Often the financing of a few 'mega-projects' offsets the financing pattern of many smaller projects, with solo DESF funding being more common among the smaller projects, and complicated financial packages being more typical for the large infra-structural projects related to, e.g., waste water treatment.

Poland and Slovakia stand out as the two countries with the strongest domestic financial capacity, having financed more than 70 per cent of the projects themselves. In Poland DESF funds have covered only 20 per cent of the project portfolio, but the explanation lies partly with some very large geothermal energy projects based on co-financing and domestic sources. The reason for the considerable financing capacity lies basically with the existence of the Polish environmental funds, mainly the National Fund, which collects environmental charges and taxes and utilise them for environmental investments and loans (se also section on Poland in chapter 3). Furthermore, many bilateral donors have been active in Poland, and cooperation seems reasonably well developed with an average contribution of 7 per cent to the DESF projects. The Czech Republic and Hungary have a lower, but still impressive, level of self-financing than the other two Visegrad-countries.

The Baltic Republics have in general a more limited financial capacity for environmental purposes. Self-financing has only been 10 per cent in Estonia. In Latvia, the share has been 32 per cent, while in Lithuania it is an impressive 62 per cent. Lithuania has also utilised Danish soft loans. On this background the DESF grants have covered from 27 to 83 per cent of the project costs in the Baltic states.

Russia seems to have a higher financial capacity than some of the Baltic Republics. 46 per cent of the project costs have been self-financed. The figure seems to contrast with the often more pessimistic perception of the financial opportunities in Russia, which has only weak environmental funds. The explanation seems to be that several DESF projects relate to water supply, sewer renovation and waste water treatment, where the Russian water boards have their own finances. The Saint Petersburg area is the first place in Russia where user-fees for water have been introduced, hence providing a limited but independent flow of financial resources.

The financial situation in the new programme countries Belarus, Ukraine and Romania seems to be more difficult - in particular in Ukraine and Romania which have not been able to contribute to any of the finalised DESF projects. However, projects are under implementation in Romania with more considerable co-financing. In Bulgaria, the situation looks better, with a share of 39 per cent.

Table 2.9. shows, in the main fields of activities, the role of different financing sources.

Table 2.9.
Link to table

The DESF share varies considerably between different fields of activities. DESF donations cover more than 70 per cent of the project costs within the fields ODS phaseout, water recipients, oil pollution, institutional strengthening, soil pollution and nuclear protection. At the opposite side of the spectrum lies energy projects, waste water projects and nature protection, with less than 30 per cent DESF contributions.

Correspondingly, the recipient countries contribute above their average share to energy supply projects and waste water projects, while small or no contributions have been afforded projects within ODS phaseout, industrial water pollution, oil pollution, waste management, institutional strengthening, soil pollution and nuclear protection.

Other donors have been involved mainly in sustainable energy and nature protection. Danish soft loans have been provided in the fields of municipal and industrial waste water treatment.

The general pattern, across the different countries, seems to be that the recipients are best prepared to contribute to projects which are investment oriented in conventional systems within the fields of energy and water. Partly, this is due to the existence of financial resources independent of the state budget in energy utilities and water boards, but may also reflect the priority of environmental funds. DESF hence has to offer a more comprehensive funding for projects which address issues without such financial backing in the recipient countries, e.g. soil pollution and recipient investigations.

Table 2.10. Share of self-financing of projects within waste water treatment and sustainable energy (N=342).

Table 2.10. shows the share of self-financing by the recipient countries within the two project categories with the largest DESF disbursements; waste water treatment and sustainable energy projects. The pattern is in some respects more clear; Poland, Slovakia and Lithuania have a relatively high degree of self-financing of waste water projects. Waste water projects depend especially on the availability of local funds e.g. from water boards. Within the project category sustainable energy self-financing relies more on national sources (state budget or environmnental funds). In this category it is mainly Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria which have high shares of self-financing, in all probability a reflection of the strength of environmental funds in these countries.

2.4. The implementation of projects.

2.4.1. Assessment of implementation by project contractors.

As part of the assessment, a questionnaire was mailed to the project contractors, in order to aquire their opinions and experiences regarding the implementation of the projects. The results of the questionnaire are fully reported in the PLS report, but some main findings are mentioned here. 70 per cent of the project contractors returned the questionnaire.

Table 2.11. The influence of various factors relating to the partners in Eastern Europe on cooperation. As assessed by the Danish project contractors (Source: PLS, 1998a: 23).

The project contractors have generally been satisfied with the cooperation with their partners in Eastern Europe. The most pronounced degree of satsifaction is found among those project contractors that cooperated with public authorities or utilities. About 90 per cent found the cooperation satisfactory or very satisfactory. Less satisfied were project contractors who cooperated with private firms in Eastern Europe, such as suppliers of equipment. Respectively 21 per cent and 14 per cent found the cooperation unsatisfactory or very unsatisfactory.

Linguistic and financial difficulties with the east European partners are the issues most frequently mentioned by the project contractors as having a negative influence on project implementation. Table 2.11. summarises the results regarding factors with positive and negative influence.

The project contractors were also asked to assess the degree of target fullfillment. 89 per cent of the contractors stated that the project had been fullfilled to a satisfactory or very satisfactory degree. 11 per cent of dissatisfied contractors had been involved in quite different types of projects, but waste management projects and projects in Poland were somewhat overrepresented.

The project contractors were also asked to give their opinion on the cooperation with the DESF administration. 80 per cent of the respondents found that the general organization of DESF is satisfactory or very satisfactory. There was also a pronounced degree of satisfaction among the respondents as regards information about DESF. However, 25 per cent of the respondents complained about a lack of transparency regarding DESF's considerations on project proposals. Many project contractors were missing a more explicit indication of focus areas and countries of priority to DESF funding.

The time used by DESF to consider project proposals is the issue that receives the most critical remarks by the project contractors. 32 per cent are not satisfied on this point. The professional competence of the DESF officers is regarded higher; only 10 per cent express some dissatisfaction. But there are many project contractors who miss a more active role and interest from DESF personnel during the implementation of the projects.

2.4.2. Assessment of the implementation of 47 selected projects.

A crucial component of the DESF assessment has been a review of 47 selected projects. The review comprised interviews with the project partners in eastern Europe and an on-site inspection of the equipment, when such equipment was part of the project.

The selection of projects matched the overall DESF project portfolio grant distribution on the different activity fields. Furthermore, two thirds were investment projects and one third were technical assistance projects. Six projects were projects after the tender model, while the remaining were projects that had been selected according to the application model.

Each of the 47 projects is described and assessed in a separate report (PLS, 1998b). Each project has been assigned a score on seven variables, that are deduced from the general principles for DESF operation. The variables reflect both project internal targets as well as programmatic targets for DESF activities. A project may thus receive a high score for target fullfillment but at the same time a lower one for programme consistency, if it is found to be somewhat out of scope with the DESF activities. Of course a project may also be well in scope with the DESF targets, but poorly implemented. Only a project that is both out of scope and poorly implemented will receive a very low score. On the other hand only projects that are in scope and well implemented will be assigned a high score.

At project level the following four parameters have been assessed:

1. Involvement and cooperation among the partners.
2. Degree of target achievement (according to the initial targets of the projects).
3. Degree of co-financing.
4. Communication of results.

At programme level the following three parameters have been assessed:

1. The contribution to limit pollution, in eastern Europe or regionally, or to support nature protection,
2. The contribution of the project towards a more sustainable development process.
3. The transfer of relevant technology and know-how.

On each parameter the project either received the score 'high' or 'low'. A more differentiated scale was not considered appropriate when seven different parameters were involved. Two parameters were seen as more significant than the other five, and were counted twice in the computation of the average; the target achievement and the pollution control effect. The maximum number of 'High' that a project could achieve was 9, which gave the following classification scale for the assessment of the projects:

0-1 H: Very dissatisfactory,

2-3 H: Dissatisfactory.

4-5 H: Less satisfactory.

6-7 H: Satisfactory.

8-9 H: Very satisfactory.

The assessment of the six tender projects did not follow this procedure, however. They were all six still under implementation and were assessed in more general terms.

An overview of the reviewed projects and the assigned scores is presented in table 2.12

Link to table 2.12

15 projects achieved the score 8 or 9 (very satisfactory). 16 projects achieved the score 6 or 7 (satisfactory). 7 projects achieved the score 4 or 5 (less satisfactory). 3 projects achieved the score 2 or 3 (dissatisfactory). The average score for these 41 projects was hence 6.6, implying that the average result at project level was satisfactory.

Of the six tender projects 2 were found to be very satisfactory, 2 were found to be satisfactory, 1 one was found to be less satisfactory and 1 was found to be dissatisfactory. Also among the tender projects the result was on average satisfactory.

2.5. Environmental effects.

The overall environmental effects of the DESF financed projects have been computed on basis of information provided by the project contractors. This information was provided both through the reporting of finalised projects to the DESF administration as well as through the questionnaire to the project contractors. The information on reported projects was updated in September 1998.

Table 2.13. Achieved and stipulated effects - air pollution (N=42).

Table 2.14. Achieved and stipulated effects - water and water pollution (N=65).

It is mainly investment projects which have or will result in direct environmental effects. Of the total project portfolio of 496 projects, 188 projects were investment projects, but they count for two thirds of the total DESF disbursement.

Of the 188 investment projects, 135 have reported achieved or stipulated environmental effects. 42 projects have reported air pollution reductions, 65 projects have reported effects related to water and water pollution, 4 have reported effects relating to oil pollution, 14 have reported effects with relation to waste management, 8 have reported effects with relation to soil pollution and 2 have reported nuclear protection effects.

Table 2.15. Achieved and stipulated effects - waste management (N=14).

The environmental effects within nature protection are difficult to quantify and can not be compared directly with the emission reductions above.

With regard to air pollution 5,197 tons of SO₂, 8,486 tons of NO_x and 332,862 tons of CO₂ have been reduced as a consequence of projects implemented with DESF support. Further reductions of about 30,000 tons SO₂ and 167,000 tons CO₂ are stipulated.

With regard to water pollution, a organic matter (BOD) equivalent to 407,945 inhabitant equivalents annually has been removed. A capacity for removal of further 1,866,000 inhabitant equivalents will be established or modernized as a result of the current DESF effort. Such modernization implies in many instances phosphorus and nitrogen removal at standards close to the Danish. Water savings of annually 1.6 million m³ has been achieved in industrial enterprises.

With regard to waste management, a hazardous waste capacity of annually 830,000 tons has been established. Landfill capacity of 341,000 tons has been achieved.

It was mainly with effect from 1993 that DESF initiated its more investment oriented support policy, and delays in project implementation have not been unusual for many of the large investment projects, that require co-financing and which need to pass lengthy approval and planning procedures. Some projects did not succeed to raise the expected co-financing and had to be closed. Many of the project grants from 1995 and 1996 were effectively still under implementation when the review was carried out. A delay in the internal reporting system of DESF can also affect the figures.

It is to be expected that the environmental effects represent somewhat optimistic estimates. The review team foresees that some of the stipulated project effects are likely to encounter implementation difficulties. The effects within waste water treatment are the most realistic, while figures for air pollution and waste management are more uncertain.

2.6. Commercial effects.

Information has also been collected on the derived export from DESF financed projects. Information relates to the equipment exported to Eastern Europe in connection with the projects.

Table 2.16. Export effects for Danish produced environmental equipment (N=142).

Through the questionnaire information on export effects has been supplied for 142 projects. The export effect is not surprisingly most significant for investment projects; close to 700 million DKK equipment has been exported. But there is also a surprisingly high export in connection with technical assistance projects; in particular of the category TA3. A closer analysis of the figures has revealed that two smaller projects are responsible for the major part of this additional export.

Of the total DESF-grants, worth 1,159,000 million DKK, 25 per cent or 290 million DKK, was spent on equipment. Of the total equipment export of 690 million, 400 million have hence been 'additional' purchases.

When the 400 million in additional export is assessed against the total DESF grants of 1,159,000 million DKK it shows that the DESF scheme has had a total return percentage of not less than 130 per cent. As information is lacking from about 1/3 of the investment projects (many still under implementation) this figure represents a conservative estimate. Exports have also been generated by the IFI financed projects, but data are not available.

4. PE is person equivalents (21.9 kg BOD).