Click to edit Master title style

Click to edit Master subtitle style

Overview of Policies & Procedures in GEF 4

Sub-regional Workshop for GEF Focal Pointsin the CaribbeanNassau, Bahamas, 9-11 October 2007

Structure of this Presentation

I. GEF History and Structure

II. CEO’s Reform Agenda in GEF 4

III. Update on GEF Policies and Procedures

I. Resource Allocation Framework

II. Comparative Advantage of Agencies

III. Project Cycle

I. GEF History and Structure

Origin of the GEF

Mechanism for financing “incremental costs” of new “global environment” actions by developing countries

Linked to negotiation process and based on philosophy of Convention on Biological Diversity and U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change

Initially focused on biodiversity, climate change and shared (“international”) water bodies

Extended in 2002 to land degradation and POPs

Financial History of the GEF

GEF Pilot Phase• 1991-1994 -- $1 Billion US Dollars

Replenishments• 1995-1998 – $2.2 Billion US Dollars• 1999-2001 – $2.8 Billion US Dollars• 2002-2005 – $2.9 Billion US Dollars• 2006-2010 – $3.1 Billion US Dollars

World Bank is the Trustee of the GEF Trust Fund

GEF Portfolio as of June 2007, in US$ millions

$2,393.62

$2,350.21

$879.94

$212.22$621.18

$182.73$188.80 BIODIVERSITY

CLIMATE CHANGE

INTERNATIONALWATERS

LAND DEGRADATION

MULTI- FOCAL AREAS

OZONE DEPLETION

PERSISTENT ORGANICPOLLUTANTS (POPs)

TOTAL GEF GRANTS: $ 6,828.74

TOTAL CO-FINANCING: $25,081.32

TOTAL $31,165.63

GEF Governance Framework

STAPGEF

Assembly

Countries: Political FPs

GEF Secretariat

GEF Agencies

•UNDP

•UNEP

•World Bank

ADB

•AFDB

•EBRD

•FAO

•IADB

•IFAD

•UNIDO

Projects

Countries: Operational

FPs, Convention

FPs, other gov’t agencies, civil

society

Evaluation Office

Conventions

Countries: Convention FPs

GEF Council

Countries: Council

Members/ Constituencies

StrategicGuidance

Operations Action

GEF Implementing and Executing Agencies

Implementing Agencies:• UNDP• UNEP• World Bank

broad primary roles identified in the GEF Instrument

Executing Agencies:• FAO• UNIDO• IFAD• ADB• AFDB• EBRD• IDB

granted access to GEF resources and assigned more definite roles based on specific business needs of the GEF

II. CEO’s Reform Agenda

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 submitted revised strategies for review and approval at 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

III. Update on GEF Policies and Procedures

Resource Allocation Framework

Comparative Advantages of Agencies

Project Cycle

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 GEF4

Allocations under the RAF

In the Biodiversity and Climate Change focal areas:

Countries receive Individual Allocations

OR

Countries have joint access to Group resources

Allocations under the RAF

Initial Allocations are for the duration of GEF4 (2006-2010)

Only 50% of Allocation can be approved in first 2 years (2006-2008)

Allocations will be adjusted after July 2008

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

Comparative Advantages of GEF Agencies

Implementing Agencies (UNDP, UNEP and World Bank) • broad primary roles identified in the GEF

Instrument

Executing Agencies (ADB, AfDB, EBRD, IADB, FAO, IFAD and UNIDO) • granted access to GEF resources and assigned

more definite roles based on specific business needs of the GEF

Comparative Advantages: 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

Comparative Advantages: 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 co-financing for its projects

Comparative Advantages: Assessment

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 • medium-term strategic plan • portfolio of completed and ongoing projects• country presence

Comparative Advantage of GEF Agencies

GEF agencies are requested to focus their involvement in GEF project activities within their respective comparative advantages

Secretariat, in agreement with country, assesses comparative advantage of GEF agency proposed to manage a project during the PIF review.

Partnerships encouraged for integrated projects with components where the expertise and experience of a GEF agency is lacking or weak.

– clear complementary roles to be established

Criteria and description of comparative advantages to be regularly reviewed by Council

– analysis of additional information and assessments of agency and project performance

– Take into account changes in an agency’s mandate or the conclusions of the UN reform process.

Revised GEF Project Cycle: Objectives

Objectives of revised new project cycle:

Reduction of processing time of project proposals from identification to start of implementation to 22 months

Greater upstream strategic programming of GEF resources

Simplified GEF process and transparency in decision making

Enhanced monitoring for results

Simplified GEF Project Approval Process

Main Features:

Consolidation of steps in project cycle Reduction in documentation

requirements

GEF Project Cycle: Stages

National Operational Focal Point endorses project idea

GEF Agencies and Countries work together on three major phases:

1.Project preparation

2.Project approval and implementation

3.Project closing and evaluation

Develop concept

Project Identification Form

(PIF)

Prepare project proposal

Option to request Project

Preparation Grant (PPG)

CEO Clearance of PIF (and PPG)

‘Work Program’ Inclusion -

Council reviews overall pipeline

coherenceCEO Endorsement

4 Week Council Review of

Project Document

Implement, monitor and

evaluate project

Final evaluation

Project impacts continue after completion of GEF funding

Project Cycle: Full Size Projects

Approval of Full Size Projects

PIFs cleared by CEO

Cleared PIFs included in work program for approval by Council

Fully prepared project documents circulated to Council for a 4 week review period prior to CEO endorsement

Develop concept

Project Identification Form

(PIF)

Prepare project proposal

Option to request Project

Preparation Grant (PPG)

CEO Approval of PIF (and PPG)

CEO Endorsement

2 Week Council review of

Project Document

Implement, monitor and

evaluate Project

Final evaluation

Project impacts continue after completion of GEF funding

Project Cycle: Medium Size Projects

Approval of Medium Size Projects and Enabling Activities

Medium Size Projects PIFs approved by CEO for further preparation

Fully prepared project documents circulated to Council for 2 week comment period prior to CEO endorsement.

Enabling Activities PIFs approved by CEO for further preparation

Fully prepared projects documents endorsed by CEO and documents posted on the web site.

GEF Project Cycle: Project Identification & Preparation

Project Identification Form (PIF)• Provides key information on project idea and best

estimate of project cost• Submitted on a rolling basis• Accompanied by Focal Point endorsement

Project Preparation Grant (PPG)• Available to Approved PIFs• Grant amount based on estimate of project

preparation costs and deducted from total project cost

• Approved on a rolling basis

PIF and PPG can be submitted together

GEF Project Cycle

There are two GEF review points in the project cycle:

1. Project Concept Review and Work Program Inclusion:

• Project Identification Form (PIF) for concept review and approval by CEO

• Work Program Document describes overall programmatic coherence of GEF pipeline - focuses on overall policy and strategic issues

2. CEO endorsement: Fully prepared projects submitted for CEO endorsement before approval by Agencies

Project Review Criteria

Criteria for Project Concept Review:• Country eligibility• GEF operational focal point endorsement• Consistency with GEF strategic objectives/programs• Comparative advantage of GEF agency submitting

project• Consistency of GEF grant amount with resources

available in the focal area, strategic objectives strategic program, and Resource Allocation Framework

• Estimated cost of the project• Milestones for further project processing

Project Review Criteria continued

Criteria for CEO Endorsement of Projects:

Final cost tables for project components, project management, consultants, and co-financing

GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy provisions

Explanation for any changes in expected global environmental benefits, consistency with focal area strategy, GEF grant amount and co-financing since PIF approval

Project preparation grant status report

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

Role of Countries

Countries are advised to:

• Identify national priorities for GEF funding

• Develop comprehensive and coherent GEF strategy in consultation with key stakeholders

• Integrate GEF priorities within broader national environment and sustainable development frameworks

Role of Countries (continued)

• Dialogue with GEF Secretariat to discuss proposed project concepts and approach

• OFP endorses projects for GEF funding after proper consultation process

• Begin project development and implementation in partnership with appropriate GEF Agencies