GEF Policies and Processes in GEF 4 Subregional

GEF Policies and Processes in GEF 4 Sub-regional Workshop for GEF Focal Points East and Southeast Asia Bangkok, 2 -3 April

Introduction I. New Vision for the GEF II. Evolving Policies and Processes III. Role of Countries IV. Adaptation to Climate Change V. Comparative Advantages of GEF Agencies

I. New Vision for the GEF § § § Strategic Innovative Equitable Accessible Focused

GEF will be Strategic § Set clear priorities for the global environment • Refocus Focal Area Strategies > Biodiversity > Climate Change (mitigation and adaptation) > International Waters > Ozone Depletion > Land Degradation > Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS) • Build synergies for cross-cutting issues > Sustainable forest management > Sound chemicals management GEF Sec will submit revised strategies for review and approval by June 2007 Council

GEF will be Strategic (continued) § Promote programmatic approach • Move away from project driven approach § Develop and apply indicators of outcomes and impacts

GEF will be Innovative § Finance cutting edge and entrepreneurial efforts to establish sustainable technologies § Leverage global capital on sustainable development § Reach out to private sector at the country level

GEF will be Equitable • Create special mechanisms by which more vulnerable countries can have easier access GEF resources - Special focus on SIDS • Ensure that a minimum level of resources are available to all countries under the RAF

GEF will be Accessible § Engage in direct and transparent dialogue with countries to ensure that new policies and procedures are understood § Enhance GEF’s corporate image and public communications § Improve data management system and website

GEF will be Focused § Equalize playing field among Agencies • Ensure all Agencies have direct access to GEF resources • Engage with Agencies based on comparative advantage § Simplify GEF project development process • Redesign project cycle • Reduce and better manage pipeline § Target resources towards countries with greater potential to generate global environmental benefits and country performance

II. Evolving Policies and Processes § Resource Allocation Framework § Project Cycle § Focal Area Strategies § Small Grants Programme

Resource Allocation Framework § New system to allocate scarce GEF resources to all eligible countries § Allocations are based on: • Global Environmental Benefits • Country level Performance

Resource Allocation Framework (continued) § Provides predictability and transparency to countries § Applies to Biodiversity and Climate Change focal areas in GEF 4

Allocations under the RAF § Countries receive Individual Allocations in the Biodiversity and Climate Change focal areas OR § Countries have access to Group resources in the Biodiversity and Climate Change focal areas

Allocations under the RAF (continued) § Initial Allocations are for the 4 -year period of GEF 4 § Only 50% of Allocation can be used for approvals in first 2 years of GEF 4 § Allocations will be adjusted after 2 years if country performance and global benefits change

Group Allocations § Countries in Group collectively access group allocation § Average GEF 4 allocation for countries in Group • Biodiversity $1. 6 million • Climate Change $1. 3 million

Group Allocations (continued) § To ensure equity and predictability to all countries in the Group the following provisions apply: • One proposal up to $1 million to be reviewed expeditiously within national context • Additional proposals to be reviewed in comparison with projects from all countries in the Group • Group resources cannot be channeled to Small Grants Programme or Cross-cutting Capacity Building

Programming Resources under the RAF § GEF Secretariat engages in direct dialogues with countries § Countries determine national priorities and projects for GEF funding based on GEF guidance § Countries discuss identified priority concepts/projects with appropriate GEF Agency for further development

Managing Pipeline of Projects Under Preparation § GEF’s Goal: Balance resources availability with demand in predictable and transparent manner § Projects to be entered into pipeline based on • Fit with GEF Focal Area Strategy • National priority based on country endorsement • Realistic project preparation timeframe • Measurable results and global impacts

Managing Pipeline of Projects Under Preparation (continued) § Near term focus on Pipeline 2007 • Identified project priorities for preparation and approval in 2007 § Projects to be considered for next Pipeline after June 2008

Focal Area (FA) Strategies § FA strategies presented to Dec 2006 Council considered as interim or working drafts § Based on Council guidance, CEO to revise strategies while ensuring consultative process, has established: • 5 Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs); in each of the focal areas (POPs and Ozone combined). • Coordinating Strategy Advisory Group (SAG) § Purpose of revising FA Strategies: to sharpen their focus and harmonize/integrate approaches in different FAs § Revised FA Strategies will be presented to June 2007 Council for review and approval.

Focal Area (FA) Strategies (continued) § Interim strategies formed basis for 2007 pipeline, whereas revised strategies will provide basis for 20082010 pipelines § Focal Points can follow progress of this undertaking by visiting GEFSEC website: • http: //thegef. org/Operational_Policies/Operational_St rategy/GEFFocal. Area. Strategies. html § Focal Points welcome to provide feedback to on-going work channeled through the Council Member in their respective constituencies

Proposed GEF Project Cycle Objectives of the proposed new project cycle: § Greater upstream strategic programming of GEF resources; § Reduction of project preparation time from 66 to 22 months on average; and § Simplified GEF process and transparency in decision making.

Proposed GEF Project Cycle Progression from one phase to the next is through two discrete GEF review points: 1. Project Concept Agreement Review using Project Identification Form (PIF) and Project Preparation Grant (PPG); 2. Work Program Inclusion/CEO endorsement for FSP; CEO approval for MSP and EAs.

Proposed GEF Project Cycle GEF Agencies are responsible for three major phases: 1. Project preparation 2. Project approval and implementation supervision 3. Project closing and evaluation

GEF Pipeline Management § All approved PIFs go into GEF pipeline; § Proposals in the pipeline will be processed with time-bound milestones; § Proposals not meeting the milestones are subject to cancellation policies approved by the Council.

Monitoring and Evaluation Policy (2006) § Purpose of M&E in the GEF: • Promote accountability: results, effectiveness, processes and performance • Promote learning, feedback and knowledge sharing as basis for decision making on all levels § Clarifies roles and responsibilities § Includes minimum standards for project M&E § Available on: www. thegef. org, under Evaluation Office, under Policies and Procedures

Role of GEF Focal Point in M&E § No prescribed role: depends on country and circumstances § Portfolio or Project Monitoring: depends on each country and project, as discussed during project M&E design § Involvement in evaluations on GEF matters; depends on country and circumstances § Assist Evaluation Office in identifying major relevant stakeholders, coordinate meetings and assist with agendas § Particular responsibility for use of evaluation recommendations and to integrate lessons into project proposals § Key role in keeping stakeholders consulted and involved about the plans, implementation and results of country GEF M&E activities § Comment on TORs of Country Reviews and coordinate country responses (for select countries only) § Other?

Project Review Criteria 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Country ownership Program and Policy Conformity Financing Institutional Coordination and Support Responsiveness to Reviews

Country Endorsement (by Country National Operational Focal Point) Endorsement is required the first time funding is requested from the GEF Projects in the biodiversity and climate change focal areas should follow the endorsement rules of RAF (all resources requested are out of country/group allocations).

Project Identification Form (PIF) § Submission of a PIF for CEO approval is on a rolling basis. § PIF template includes key information on project idea and best estimate of project cost.

Project Preparation Grant (PPG) § Available only for • Approved PIFs • After receipt of Focal Point endorsement letter § Grant amount based on estimate of project preparation costs and deducted from total project cost § Approved on a rolling basis

Country Endorsement (by Country National Operational Focal Point) § Endorsement required: - when Funding is first requested from the GEF - for Work Program inclusion. § PIFs for Biodiversity and Climate Change projects need to be in line with the agreements reached with a country during the direct dialogues with GEFSEC.

New Guidelines for SGP § Balancing the demands of Small Grants Programme (SGP) with available resources § New guidelines developed by SGP Steering Committee • Expansion of SGP to 21 additional countries • SGP Graduation policy § Determination of amount countries can allocate to Small Grants Programme

III. Role of Countries § Countries should rethink their approach to GEF • Develop comprehensive and coherent GEF strategy in consultation with key stakeholders • Integrate GEF priorities with broader national environment and sustainable development frameworks • Identify national priorities for GEF funding

Role of Countries (continued) • Dialogue with GEF Secretariat to discuss proposed project concepts and approach • Endorse project concepts after proper consultation process • Begin project development and implementation in partnership with appropriate Implementing Agencies

IV. Adaptation to Climate Change § Funds for Adaptation - $230 M (currently available for adaptation/pledges) § Features of Funds • Strategic Priority on Adaptation (SPA) Trust Fund • LDC Fund (UNFCCC) • SCCF Fund (UNFCCC) • Adaptation Fund under discussion (Kyoto Protocol)

Different features GEF TRUST FUND New FUNDS § § § § § Incremental cost Global benefits RAF Co-financing Additional cost Sliding scale (optional) NO RAF NO Global benefits Different approach to co -financing

“Piloting an Operational Approach to Adaptation” (SPA) Projects will: “Show adaptation planning and assessment can be practically translated into projects that will provide real benefits” • $50 million allocation => after an evaluation of the pilot the program will evolve • Policy guidelines – GEF Assistance to Address Adaptation • SPA operational guidelines

Climate Change New funds LDCF and SCCF: focus on development § Least Developed Countries Fund implementation of NAPAs (urgent and immediate needs) § Special Climate Change Fund (a) top priority: adaptation Areas: Water, land management, agriculture, health, infrastructure development, fragile ecosystems, integrated coastal zone management, disaster risk management and prevention => Complementarity of the funds

Status of the new funds LDCF • Existing resources, including pledges: $115 million • The LDCF has supported the preparation of NAPAs in 44 LDCs and will support NAPA implementation SCCF - Total resources, including pledges: $60 million - $34 million already programmed in projects on the ground => About $90 million mobilized in the last 12 months

V. Comparative Advantages of GEF Agencies § Implementing Agencies (UNDP, UNEP and World Bank) • broad primary roles identified in the GEF Instrument § Executing Agencies (ADB, Af. DB, EBRD, IADB, FAO, IFAD and UNIDO) • granted access to GEF resources and assigned more definite roles based on specific business needs of the GEF

Level Playing Field § Move towards a more level playing field among the GEF agencies. • Executing Agencies have direct access to GEF funding based on their comparative advantages. • Comparative advantage assessed by GEF Secretariat, in consultation with the country, during the Project Concept Review.

Guiding criteria • Increasing capacity of GEF to address new and emerging areas, and respond to country driven priorities and the requirements of the conventions; • Increasing the diversity of experience from which the GEF can draw on for innovative interventions • Leveraging additional resources > expanding the GEF’s capacity to mobilize financial and technical resources and cofinancing for its projects. ”

Assessment of Comparative Advantage § Comparative advantages assessed based on • Institutional role and core functions as described in > official mandate > mission statement > policies approved by its governing body; § The agency’s actual capacity, expertise and experience • business plan • portfolio of completed and ongoing projects; § Country Presence

Process • Preliminary description of each agency’s comparative advantage with agency input • Description of the role of each GEF agency within each of the GEF focal areas • Agency comments by April 20 and paper available on web by May 11.

Thank you