Transcript UNEP Lessons Learned

Financing for National
Communications
UNFCCC Workshop, Manila
Ravi Sharma
United Nations Environment Programme –
Global Environment Facility
The Second Round
– What can we do better

What have we learned from implementing the
first national communications completed by
majority of NA1 Parties

How will the GEF Implementing Agencies
respond to NA1 Parties preparing the national
communications based on revised COP
Guidelines?
What are the operational issues

Availability of Technical Support





Technical backstopping
Desk reviews of sectoral drafts through roster of
experts
Methods and tools inventory
Regional workshops
Involvement of regional/international experts
and institutions
National Level




Improve project management and
coordination at the national level
Need for more transparent and
participatory management practices at
national level
Need to involve more stakeholders such as
NGOs, scientists and decision makers
Budget flexibility
Data Management




Lack of appropriate/quality data is a
recurrent problem
Need to establish database that will allow
easy updating of information on a regular
basis
Better access to data and other information
More precision
Sustaining Capacity




Strengthen capacity that is already built.
Capacity-building and training should be
maintained for all stakeholders
Urgent need for capacity-building and
sustaining of relevant institutions
Support for follow-on projects
Weak Public and Policy Support




Institutional and public awareness of
climate change issues low.
More awareness raising campaigns for
policy makers needed.
Need to increase awareness of climate
change impact through public awareness
Ensuring country drivenness and ownership

Retaining interest of other Deapartment

Synergy
Lessons Learnt for IAs



Reporting - Improved M&E
Capture of best practices
Linkages/synergies to other projects, e.g.
NCSA, NAPAs, mitigation, MEAs
From COP Guidance to Operationalization
Findings
Recommendations
Preparation of Operational Guidelines did
not involve countries.
GEF establish a better consultative
process for formulation of next
guidelines.
Recipient countries did not always
interpret the GEF guidelines and the COP
guidance along the same lines as the
GEF.
Greater precision in COP guidance and
GEF guidelines. Guidelines be more
flexible in future with respect to cost
norms and activity matrix.
Strong presumption regarding success of
previously undertaken climate change
related activities.
Fuller assessment of quality of previously
undertaken climate change related
activities.
Narrow interpretation of country
drivenness.
Appropriate stakeholder consultation and
participation be part of “country
drivenness” of proposals.
Project processing time of 188 days not
expedited.
Remove bottlenecks at the two last
milestones.
Implementation Issues
Findings
Recommendations
Project implementation periods were
too short.
Extend duration to 2.5 years to 3-3.5
years.
Resources insufficient for sustainability
of capacity building.
Provide opportunities for exchanges
through international seminars and
workshops.
Budgetary resources for IAs
inadequate.
New fee-based system to handle the
issue.
Demand on IAs for technical support
higher than anticipated.
UNDP to provide country offices with
greater technical expertise. UNEP to
strengthen the use of quarterly report
and develop a system of regular visits
to countries.
Countries reported frustration at lack of GEF and IAs to explore various
materials and software.
possibilities for countries to access
software.
NCSP highly valued by countries.
Merit in continuation of NCSP.
Project Results
Findings
Recommendations
Project steering committees
often functioned in an isolated
manner.
Secure strong involvement at the highest political
level; emphasize public awareness activities;
encourage establishment or enhancement of
national climate change committees; improve
participation of NGOs and private sector.
Conflict between
regional/global and national
projects.
Differentiate roles and objectives:
Regional/global projects to focus on information
exchange and network support, training,
development of methodologies; national projects
to focus on preparation of reports to UNFCCC.
Sustainability of capacity
created is in question.
A more strategic and long-term approach to
enabling activities should be established.
Data reliability needs to be
improved
Projects provide for a well established framework
with appropriate tools and incentives towards
creation and maintenance of national data bases.
Findings & Recommendations from OPS2
Findings
Recommendations
GEF has difficulty
translating broad
convention guidance
into practical
operational activities.
In its dialogue with each convention that it supports, the
GEF should regularly seek to update and clarify existing
priorities and commitments in light of each new round of
guidance it receives.
Need to ensure that
priority country
needs are met and
convention guidance
is reflected
effectively.
The GEF should adopt a cautious approach to funding any
new rounds of enabling activities to the same convention.
All such activities must be assessed for their effectiveness
in responding to convention guidance and to country
needs. It is important to assess the use of national
reports, national communications, and national action
programs within the strategic frameworks for a country’s
national sustainable development program and for GEF’s
programming and project preparation activities. In this
context, OPS2 also recommends that the GEF Council
explore the feasibility of each country reporting directly to
the appropriate convention on the effectiveness and
results of GEF’s country-relevant support for both enabling
activities and projects.
Sequence






Process leading to development
Eligibility of countries for support
Stocktaking and Stakeholder Consultations
Good Practices in Project Preparation
Indicative Budget
Transmittal of Outputs