GEF 5 Policy Recommendations SubRegional Workshop for GEF

GEF -5 Policy Recommendations Sub-Regional Workshop for GEF Focal Points in Europe and the CIS Istanbul, Turkey 14 -15 April 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

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)

Policy recommendations for GEF-5 § To enhance the key role played by the GEF as a multi-lateral and multi-convention financing mechanism, the policy recommendations proposed for GEF -5 have been developed based on two pillars: • Enhancing country ownership: (i) reform of corporate programs; (ii) direct funding of national communications; (iii) developing a flexible resource allocation system; and (iv) broadening the GEF partnership. • Improving effectiveness and efficiency of the GEF: (i) enhancing accountability to the conventions; (ii) streamlining the project cycle and refining the programmatic approach; (ii) enhancing engagement with the private sector; (iii) implementing the results-based management framework; (iv) clarifying roles and responsibilities of GEF entities, including sharing responsibilities for the mobilization of resources; and (vi) enhancing engagement with civil society organizations.

Reform of 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 GEF-related matters, e. g. , GEF Focal Points, convention focal points, ministries of finance, civil society organizations (CSOs)

Reform of Corporate Programs / Voluntary National GEF 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 improved country ownership § To further strengthen GEF’s strategic engagement at countrylevel, it is proposed that recipient countries could undertake, with GEF financial support, a Voluntary National GEF Portfolio Identification Exercise. This is not a prerequisite for GEF Funding § These exercises may cover all relevant focal areas and should describe how GEF allocations will be programmed with national and regional projects to benefit global environment

Reform of Corporate Programs / Voluntary National GEF Portfolio Identification Exercises (con’t) § Preparation of exercises should be consultative and participatory, with guidance from GEF National Steering Committees and coordinated by GEF Operational Focal Points § At the request of a country, the portfolio identification exercises will be facilitated by the Secretariat. § Countries which decide to conduct portfolio exercises will receive financial support from corporate programs budget, based on procedures to be approved by the Council in June 2010 § Outputs from the voluntary portfolio identification exercises will be shared with respective conventions for public disclosure on the GEF website

Reform of 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 proposed 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 could include, among others, ministries of environment, agriculture, industry, energy, planning and finance, convention focal points, GEF Agencies, SGP national coordinator and CSO representatives

Reform of Corporate Programs / National Steering Committees (con’t. ) § Each country may adapt Committee membership to national circumstances, seeking transparency and broad participation of stakeholders § Main responsibilities of Committee could be to finalize Voluntary National GEF Portfolio Identification Exercise, 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

Reform of 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 is currently implemented by UNDP through a GEF project 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.

Reform of 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: • 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.

Reform of 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 is approved, there will be only one constituency meeting. So it is proposed that the Council Member Support will be reduced to 1 constituency meeting per year. Budget assistance will be increased form $2, 000 to $3, 000 per meeting. • 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 $9, 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

Direct funding of National Communications to Conventions § The funding of national communications/reports to the conventions is a fundamental obligation of the GEF as the financial mechanism of various conventions § Countries may apply directly to the GEF for resources and technical support to prepare National Communications. § Countries will also have the option to continue to receive resources and technical support for national communications through GEF Agencies as is the current practice. § Detailed procedures shall be prepared by the GEF Secretariat for Council review in June 2010 for direct funding on the preparation of national communications/reports to the conventions

Broadening the GEF Partnership § The GEF Instrument notes that “the Secretariat and the Implementing Agencies under the guidance of the Council shall cooperate with other international organizations to promote achievement of the purposes of the GEF”. § There might be benefits from having more entities cooperate with the GEF partnership, including direct collaboration with the Secretariat and Trustee. § Such entities could collaborate with the GEF only if: • the proposal is endorsed by the country’s GEF operational focal point; • if the entity meets the GEF minimum fiduciary standards, and the cost of such an assessment is borne by the entity; • the entity demonstrates a clear comparative advantage.

Broadening the GEF Partnership (con’t) § Such entities will receive a fee only for project cycle management and not for participation in corporate activities § The Secretariat, in collaboration with the GEF Trustee, will prepare a proposal for Council review in June 2010 on procedures to incorporate additional agencies

Enhancing Accountability to the Conventions § The GEF operates as the financial mechanism of four international environmental conventions, so it functions under the guidance of, and is accountable to, the Conferences of the Parties of these conventions. § Convention secretariats would be invited to participate in Council discussions related to focal area strategies and programming § In addition, the GEF is encouraged to work with the convention secretariats to explore:

Enhancing Accountability to the Conventions (con’t) • Periodic and increased consultations between the GEF and the convention secretariats, including more engagement during the replenishment process; • Systematic involvement of the convention focal points at the country-level in the voluntary national GEF portfolio identification exercise; • Involvement of the convention secretariats in GEF national dialogues and other sub-regional meetings; • Participation by the GEF, to the extent possible, in the various awareness raising, scientific and technical workshops organized by the conventions; • Refinement of the GEF reporting process to the conventions; • Sharing of the outcomes of the national GEF portfolio identification exercises with the conventions. § Detailed proposal for Council review will be presented in November 2010

Streamlining the Project Cycle § Efforts have been made over the last years by the Secretariat and the Agencies to streamline the GEF project cycle. § Nevertheless, there is need to continue exploring options to further streamline policies, procedures and criteria associated with the project cycle for stand-alone projects. § To further enhance the efficiency of the GEF project cycle and recommend that the Council consider modifications to the two-step Council project approval process for FSPs § Detailed proposal for Council review will be presented in June 2010

Streamlining the Project Cycle (con’t) § Regarding the project cycle: An alternative approach is being analyzed: projects implemented by Agencies with Executive Boards skip the CEO endorsement stage and would be approved by the Agencies following the Agency’s own processes, while projects implemented by Agencies without Executive Boards would be reviewed and endorsed by the CEO prior to approval by the Agencies following Agency’s own processes. § Detailed proposal for Council review will be presented in June 2010

Enhancing Engagement with the Private Sector § The Earth Fund was established by the Council in May 2008, with the purpose of demonstrating ways to more systematically engage with the private sector. § An evaluation of the structure and operation of the Earth Fund has to be undertaken, following which the Council should consider the proposal to further capitalize the Earth Fund with an infusion of additional resources during GEF-5. § Detailed proposal for Council review will be presented in November 2010

Implementing the Results-based Management Framework § Results Based Management (RBM) has been on the GEF agenda for several years § A number of challenges still remain in order to consistently report outcome level results, such as: • Paying more attention to employing information for management; • Tracking the contribution of GEF funding to results more consistently; • Focusing more on immediate outcomes, outputs and other measures of performance that are good proxies or progress for achieving higher-level results. § RBM has been given a central place in GEF-5 strategy development, and all focal area (and corporate program) strategies have been developed with results-frameworks that are integrated within the overall corporate results framework. § A work-plan for the implementation of activities associated with RBM for Council review in November 2010