Transcript Document

Update on GEF Policies
and New Developments
Sub-regional Workshop for GEF Focal Points in the Pacific
Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea
February 3-4, 2010
General issues
 Reforms in GEF-4:
• Design and implementation of Resource Allocation Framework (RAF)
• Development of Programmatic Approach to improve national, regional,
and global coordination
• Project cycle – streamlined and shortened for efficiency and
effectiveness
• Design of results based management strategy
• Development of new incremental cost methodology
• Establishment of level playing field among GEF Agencies
• Launch of Earth Fund to engage with Private sector
• Establishment of minimum fiduciary standards
General issues (con’t.)
 GEF resources total more than $9 billion over 15 years (pilot
phase and four replenishments)
 But demand for resources to tackle global environmental
problems is estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars
• For example: UNFCCC says that $200 billion per year required by 2030
as additional investment, half in developing countries, for new lowemission technologies, if emissions are to be reduced by 25 percent of
1990 levels
• Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT) interim report on funding
for new technologies estimates an additional $300 billion to $1 trillion a
year
• To reverse rapid degradation of natural resources and to preserve
ecosystem services, estimates from intergovernmental and major
international processes run as high as $50 billion per year
General issues (con’t.)
 Therefore, important that GEF-5 replenishment amount be
significant enough to respond to funding needs
 Programming targets must be achievable for GEF partnership in
GEF 5 while setting the stage for increasingly more robust
replenishments subsequently
 Three scenarios for GEF 5 - $4.5 billion, $5.5 billion, and $6.5
billion - are proposed
GEF’s Strategic Goals

Four strategic goals cover all activities under GEF mandate:
• Strategic Goal 1 – conserve, sustainably use and manage biodiversity,
ecosystems and natural resources globally, taking into account anticipated
impacts of climate change
• Strategic Goal 2 – reduce global climate change risks by (1) stabilizing
atmospheric GHG concentrations through emission reduction actions; and (2)
assisting countries to adapt to climate change, including variability
• Strategic Goal 3 – promote the sound management of chemicals through their
life-cycle to minimize the effect on human health and global environment
• Strategic Goal 4 – build national and regional capacities and enabling
conditions for global environmental protection and sustainable development


Focal area strategies are: (i) biodiversity; (ii) climate change mitigation; (iii)
international waters; (iv) land degradation; and (v) chemicals, including POPs and
ODS
Cross-cutting theme: Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)
Biodiversity
 Goal is conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and
maintenance of ecosystem goods and services
 To achieve this goal, strategy has five objectives:
• improve sustainability of protected area systems
• mainstream biodiversity conservation and sustainable use into
production landscapes/seascapes and sectors
• build capacity to implement Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
• build capacity on access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing
• integrate CBD obligations into national planning processes through
enabling activities
Climate Change
 Goal is to support developing countries and economies in
transition toward a low-carbon development path
 To achieve this goal, strategy has six objectives :
• Promote demonstration, deployment, and transfer of advanced low-carbon
technologies
• Promote market transformation for energy efficiency in industry and
buildings
• Promote investment in renewable energy technologies
• Promote energy efficient, low-carbon transport and urban systems
• Conserve and enhance carbon stocks through sustainable management of
land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF)
• Continue to support enabling activities and capacity building
Climate Change -Adaptation
 LDCF and SCCF Adaptation Strategy: Objectives
1.
Reduce vulnerability to the adverse impacts of climate change –
e.g. reduced risks to economic losses through implementation of
adaptation measures
2.
Increase adaptive capacity to respond to the impacts of climate
change – e.g. within relevant development sectors and natural
resources; diversified and strengthened livelihoods and sources of
income
3.
Promote transfer and adoption of adaptation technologies – e.g.
successful demonstration, deployment and transfer of relevant
adaptation technologies as defined under the Climate Convention
SIDS to have priority access to funding from LDCF and SCCF
Climate Change Adaptation
Financing Needs: SCCF-Increasing gap between
demand and supply
Resources (Adaptation)
Pledged: $100 M
Actual Contributions: $75 M
Committed: $72 M
Available: $3 M-$6M




Yearly demand of at least $125 M
Project waiting list $240 M
Demand expected to be much higher
Need for predictability
9
Climate Change Adaptation
Financing Needs: SCCF-Increasing gap between
demand and supply
Resources
Pledged and finalized:
$180 M
Approved projects: $128 M
Available: $27 M
$800 million–$1.5 billion NAPA implementation
estimated financial needs

Need for predictability!
10
Climate Change Adaptation-$1 billion LDCF and
SCCF Replenishment: Projected Sectoral
Distribution of Funding
LDCF & SCCF
Agriculture/Food security
$275 M
28%
Water Resources Management
$250 M
25%
Disaster Preparedness and Risk Management
$100 M
10%
Natural Resources Management and Fragile
Ecosystems
$100M
10%
Climate Resilient Infrastructure
$75M
8%
Community Based Adaptation
$75 M
8%
Coastal Zone Management
$50 M
5%
Health
$50 M
5%
Cross Cutting Issues
$25 M
3%
Total
$1 Billion
100%
11
International Waters
 Goal is to promote collective management of
transboundary water systems and to implement policy,
legal, and institutional reforms and investments
contributing to sustainable use and maintenance of
ecosystem services
 To achieve this goal, strategy has five objectives:
• Catalyze multi-state cooperation to balance
conflicting water uses in transboundary surface and
groundwater basins while considering climatic
variability and change
International Waters (con’t.)
• Catalyze multi-state cooperation to rebuild marine fisheries and
reduce pollution of coasts and Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs)
while considering climatic variability and change
• Support capacity building, portfolio learning, and targeted research
needs for joint, ecosystem based management of transboundary
water systems
• Promote effective management of Marine Areas Beyond National
Jurisdiction (ABNJ) directed at preventing fisheries depletion - joint
with Biodiversity
• Undertake pilot-scale demonstrations of pollution reduction from
Persistent Toxic Substances (PTS) , especially endocrine disruptors
- joint with Chemicals
Land Degradation
 Goal is to contribute to arresting and reversing current global
trends in land degradation, specifically desertification and
deforestation
 To achieve this goal, strategy has four objectives:
• maintain or improve flow of agro-ecosystem services to sustain livelihoods
of local communities
• generate sustainable flows of forest ecosystem services in arid, semi-arid
and sub-humid zones, including sustaining livelihoods of forest-dependent
people
• reduce pressures on natural resources from competing land uses in wider
landscape;
• increase capacity to apply adaptive management tools in sustainable land
management
Chemicals
 Goal is to promote sound management of chemicals
throughout their life-cycle in ways that lead to minimization of
significant adverse effects on human health and global
environment
 To achieve this goal, strategy has three objectives:
• Phase out POPs (persistent organic pollutants) and reduce POPs
releases
• Phase out ODS (ozone-depleting substances) and reduce ODS
releases
• Pilot sound chemicals management and mercury reduction
Sustainable Forest Management
 Goal is to achieve multiple environmental benefits from improved
management of all types of forests
 To achieve this goal, strategy has two objectives:
• Reduce pressures on forest resources and generate sustainable flows of
forest ecosystem services;
• Strengthen enabling environment to reduce GHG emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation and enhance carbon sinks from
LULUCF activities
 Countries which present projects that combine resources and
objectives in more than one GEF focal area for a transformative
impact in Sustainable Forest Management should receive
additional resources as incentive, in addition to indicative
resources allocated to them
GEF Corporate Programs /
General Issues
 Corporate activities are cross-cutting and respond to needs of
countries and civil society organizations to develop their capacity
to generate global environmental benefits
 The GEF-5 strategic approach to corporate programs closely
tied to needs of recipient countries, based on feedback from
national GEF Focal Points:
• need for greater coordination among national officers responsible for GEFrelated matters, e.g., GEF Focal Points, convention focal points, ministries
of finance, civil society organizations (CSOs)
• need for greater visibility and recognition of GEF support to countries
• need to re-focus Country Support Programme to help countries undertake
new and/or redesigned GEF activities
Corporate Programs / Portfolio Identification
Exercises
 Through much of GEF’s history, country programming was
mediated by GEF Agencies
 Under RAF, direct communications between GEF Secretariat
and countries facilitated programming
 To further strengthen GEF’s strategic engagement at countrylevel, it is proposed that each recipient country undertake, with
GEF financial support, a Voluntary Portfolio Identification
Exercise. This not a prerequisite for GEF Funding
 These exercises will cover all relevant focal areas and should
describe how GEF allocations will be programmed with national
and regional projects to benefit global environment
Corporate Programs /Portfolio Identification
Exercises
 Preparation of plans should be consultative and participatory,
with guidance from GEF National Steering Committees and
coordinated by GEF Operational Focal Points
 Portfloio identification exercise is not a requirement to access
GEF support for projects
 Countries which decide to prepare plans will be granted up to
$30,000 from corporate programs budget
 Outputs from the voluntary portfolio identification exercises will
be shared with respective conventions for public disclosure and
on GEF website
Corporate Programs /
National Steering Committees
 National GEF Political and Operational Focal Points with clear
roles and responsibilities were intended to align GEF
interventions with national priorities
 To strengthen this system and ensure internal coordination, it is
suggested that in GEF-5 each recipient country that does not
already have one consider setting up a GEF National Steering
Committee
 Committee could be chaired by Operational Focal Point, and
should include, among others, ministries of environment,
agriculture, industry, energy, planning and finance, convention
focal points, GEF Agencies, SGP national coordinator and CSO
representatives
Corporate Programs /
National Steering Committees (con’t.)
 Each country may adapt Committee membership to national
circumstances, but with transparency and broad participation of
stakeholders
 Main responsibilities of Committee could be to finalize National
GEF Business Plans, and review and clear all projects/programs
submitted to GEF
 Thus, programming of GEF resources in each country will benefit
from internal consultation with all relevant stakeholders
 Endorsement letter from Operational Focal Point for PIFs/project
documents may state that Steering Committee has considered
and approved document for submission to GEF
Corporate Programs /
National Dialogue Initiative (NDI)
 National Dialogue Initiative (NDI) currently facilitates a series of
country-level multi-stakeholder dialogues on GEF-related issues
 NDI currently implemented by UNDP with strategic guidance from
inter-agency Steering Committee, chaired by GEF CEO
 To integrate these dialogues into GEF Secretariat corporate
activities and to have dialogues support work of GEF National
Steering Committees, it is proposed that in GEF-5 these
dialogues become an individual component of Country Support
Programme
Corporate Programs /
Country Support Programme (CSP)
 CSP main objective is to strengthen capacity of GEF Focal Points
to effectively carry out their mandates for supporting global
environmental programs in their countries and constituencies
 Given its importance in conveying GEF strategies, policies and
programs to countries, and to ensure that GEF identity is linked to
results of GEF-financed activities, it is proposed that CSP in GEF
5 be managed by GEF Secretariat, with these elements:
• Broad, multi-stakeholder Dialogues: these will be organized as in current
NDI, by request from GEF National Steering Committee
• Constituency Workshops: Current sub-regional meetings (1 per year) may be
transformed into one GEF constituency-level workshop a year, to inform
GEF Focal Points, convention focal points, other key stakeholders, including
civil society, about GEF strategies, policies and procedures and to
encourage coordination.
Corporate Programs /
Country Support Program (con’t.)
• Council Member Support: currently two constituency meetings per year to
discuss issues and adopt positions before each Council meeting. If previous
point approved, there will be one constituency meeting as workshop. So it is
proposed in GEF 5 Council Member Support reduced to 1 constituency
meeting per year
• Direct Support to Operational Focal Points: Since OFP will have to organize
National Steering Committees, it is proposed to increase Direct Support from
$8,000 to $10,000 per year in GEF 5
• Knowledge Facility for GEF Focal Points: it is proposed KF be further
developed to reflect evolving needs of GEF focal points, and also to target
other relevant stakeholder groups, in particular convention focal points
• GEF Familiarization Seminars: it is proposed in GEF-5 Familiarization
Seminar be held once a year in Washington, D.C, to train new country focal
points and GEF Agency staff on GEF strategies, policies and procedures
Corporate Programs /
Small Grants Programme (SGP)
 GEF Small Grants Programme (SGP) covered 123 countries by
end of GEF 4
 10 more country requests to join SGP
 Proposed that mature SGP country programmes be upgraded in
GEF- 5 and would seek GEF funding through different
modalities, specifically programmatic approach with stand-alone
FSPs
 Other SGP country programmes continue to rely on core
programme funding, using resources both within and outside
resource allocation system
Corporate Programs / SGP (con’t.)
 Two main criteria considered for upgrading countries:
• SGP participation for 15 years
• Benefited from 6 million dollars of GEF funding
 Policy paper for next Council Meeting will cover additional criteria
and operational issues
 Upgraded country programmes will function more independently
and have broader responsibilities, accessing larger amounts of
funding from different sources (i. e., STAR allocations, GEF
projects, CBOs and NGOs), while remaining part of global SGP
for knowledge exchange and communications
Streamlining Project Cycle –
Full-sized Projects (FSP)
 Currently, Council reviews and approves full-sized projects in two
stages prior to CEO endorsement: 1) concept (based on Project
Identification Form) and 2) project fully prepared (based on final
project document)
 Proposed current two-step Council approval for FSPs become
one-step Council approval
 Proposed Council continue to approve work program comprised
of PIFs as currently done.
 Following Council approval, Agencies in partnership with
recipient countries will continue to undertake project development
Streamlining the Project Cycle –
Full-sized Projects (con’t.)
 Under present rules, Council reviews all final project documents
before endorsement during 4 week web-posting
 Council has not rejected any projects before endorsement
during past 5 years - eliminating this step would mean
significant time savings
 Once final project document is developed, appraised, and
agreed, CEO will endorse. All endorsed project documents will
be posted on GEF website for information. Agency will then
approve project and implementation can begin
 GEF Secretariat, with GEF Agencies and Evaluation Office, will
review efficacy and impact of 22-month and other standards
Streamlining the Project Cycle –
Medium-sized Projects and Enabling Activities
 CEO will continue to approve MSP PIFs
 Proposed Council delegate authority to CEO for approval of
MSP final project document, without prior circulation to the
Council for two-week comment period
 Even if MSP project cycle is streamlined, there are concerns
that proposals would be subjected to same degree of review
and documentation requirements as FSPs
 MSP review criteria for both PIFs and final project documents
will be re-considered to balance speeding up process and
receiving critical information necessary to achieve GEF
objectives
 CEO will continue to approval Enabling Activities and PPGs
under expedited procedures
Streamlining the Project Cycle –
Programmatic Approach
 Current programmatic approach policy obliges countries and
Agencies to go through project cycle for every project financed
under a program, even after program approval by Council
 Proposed for GEF-5:
• First step in agreement on programmatic approach is Council approval of
Program Framework Document (prepared by lead Agency) as part of
work program
• Following Council approval of Program Framework Document, project
preparation begins
• When program implemented by Agency with Executive Board or
Governing Body that approves full-sized projects, Council to delegate
authority to Agency for processing and approval of projects under
program - neither CEO nor Council will be involved in approval of
individual projects
• For other Agencies, Council to delegate authority to CEO for approval of
PIFs and endorsement of final projects under program.