GEF National CoordinationCountry Mechanisms, Processes, Experiences

Sub-regional Workshop for GEF Focal Pointsin Latin AmericaSao Paulo, Brazil, 15-16 October 2007

Overview

I. GEF Focal Points and their coordination roles

II. National coordination mechanisms

III. Elements of successful national GEF coordination mechanisms

IV. Common challenges to coordination

V. Benefits of national GEF coordination

VI. Country experiences with coordination

Why this presentation?

GEF Focal Points have consistently requested guidance on improving GEF coordination in their countries:

Through GEF National Dialogue process

During 2006 GEF Sub-regional consultations

In responses to GEF CSP questionnaire sent to Focal Points in late 2006

Sources for this Presentation

GEF National Dialogue Initiative and CSP study “GEF National Coordination - Lessons Learned” (2005)

Country presentations at Third GEF Assembly National Dialogue side-event on GEF coordination (2006)

Case studies prepared for CSP by national GEF Focal Points on GEF coordination (2007)

I. GEF Focal Points

Play critical coordination roles regarding GEF matters at different levels:

National

Regional

Global

GEF Focal Points (continued)

National coordination:

Sectoral coordination (inter-ministerial and inter-agency), including with convention focal points

Outreach to other national stakeholders (civil society organizations, academic/scientific institutions, private sector)

Liaison with GEF Implementing and Executing Agencies (IAs/EAs)

Linkages with other international cooperation agencies

FPs help inform, mobilize andEngage wide range of stakeholders

FPs facilitate coordinationwith sectoral agencies on

integrating global environmentinto development plans

FPs helpinfluence policy

by upscaling lessons

From policy makersto local groups

Across range ofsector activities /

environmental issues

GEF Focal Points (continued)

Regional coordination:

Participation in GEF constituency meetings and activities

Engagement with regional cooperation frameworks

Involvement in regional projects and initiatives

Global coordination:

Liaison with GEF Secretariat

Constituency representation on GEF Council (on a rotating basis)

II. National GEF Coordination Mechanisms

Support Focal Points’ coordination roles

Different models and compositions

National GEF Committee most common

May include: Government, civil society, private sector, IAs/EAs, other donors

Provide sectoral expertise

Provide institutional continuity given FP changes

III. Elements of successful national GEF coordination mechanisms

Leadership by committed, informed, dynamic individuals

Broad participation by national stakeholders, including civil society

Clearly defined roles for IAs/EAs (whether as regular members, observers, or resources persons)

Informed about global environmental issues and up-to-date on GEF policies and procedures

Elements of successful national GEF coordination mechanisms (continued)

Means to integrate GEF and national priorities and strategies

Effective links with convention focal points and activities

Monitoring role of national GEF projects and portfolio and application of lessons learned

Capable of growth and evolution

IV. Common challenges to coordination

Focal Point personnel changes hamper continuity

Resource constraints

GEF procedures frustrate national stakeholders

Broad stakeholder participation proving difficult to achieve

V. Benefits of national GEF coordination

Benefits specific to the GEF:

Facilitates endorsement of GEF project concepts by Focal Points

Increases awareness and appreciation of GEF and its mandates and activities

Encourages greater local, sectoral, and national involvement in GEF programs and projects

Promotes participation in monitoring of GEF projects

Fosters a shared commitment to goals of the GEF

Benefits of national GEF coordination (continued)

Benefits integrating the GEF:

Enables better integration of GEF in broader national environment and sustainable development frameworks

Reveals commonalities and synergies involving national GEF portfolios and related government and donor activities and projects

Improves flow of information among stakeholders and quality of decisions made on global environmental matters

Encourages and sustains involvement of national stakeholders in the global dialogue on the environment

VI. Country experiences with coordination

Following examples show how countries have managed coordination challenges and the good practices that have evolved in distinctive national contexts

Country experience: Bolivia

Broad participation of national stakeholders in GEF Committee Nearly equal representation of Government and civil society

members Five Vice-Ministries, including OFP and PFP Two national NGO networks Indigenous peoples’ organization Ecology institute Private sector organization

Potential benefits: Transparent and democratic decision-making facilitated Global environment goals and information widely

disseminated

Country experience: Cameroon

GEF National Consultative Committee Role Identify and Prioritize Project Concepts

Provide technical and financial advice to identify and validate project concepts that comply with GEF priorities and strategies and reflect national priorities and plans

Facilitate GEF Focal Point endorsement

Country experience: China

China GEF Office

Established by Ministry of Finance and State Environmental Protection Administration in 2000

Composed of director and four technical staff Objective “to better fulfill China’s roles and

responsibilities under the international conventions with improved management of GEF projects” by:Studying convention and GEF strategies and

policies to propose government responses

Country experience: China (continued)

Capturing new GEF developments for translation and dissemination to national stakeholders as needed

Supporting potential project proponents

Providing GEF training to existing and potential government partners

Training project management offices in financial budgeting and reporting

Promoting and facilitating information exchanges between projects

Preparing documents for GEF Council meetings

Disseminating information about GEF in China to national stakeholders and the international community

Country experience: Colombia

Coordination and Portfolio Monitoring

Small GEF Coordination Committee consisting of OFP (Ministry of Environment), Agency for International Cooperation, GEF IAs

Functions include:Regular reviews of project executionTracking portfolio synergies and results

Country experience: Costa Rica

GEF National Consultative Council

Composed of convention and thematic focal points and SGP National Coordinator

Meets monthly to Review project proposals and GEF pipeline Monitor projects Analyze GEF policies in terms of national needs

Is kept informed of GEF policies and procedures by Political Focal Point

Country experience: Egypt

Coordination and National Capacity Self Assessment (NCSA) process outcome

To help overcome capacity constraints and integrate environment into sectoral plans requires:

Establishment of coordination mechanism: GEF National Steering Committee

Strategic planningMonitoring and self assessment

Country experience: Federated States of Micronesia

National coordination and consultation challenges and SIDS

FSM geographic and demographic situation presents biggest challenge

Each of 4 FSM states is semi-autonomous

Islands relatively isolated over a vast area of ocean

Lack of human and financial resources to travel to cover isolated islands

Majority of consultations through internet and e-mail (if available)

Consultations to develop GEF strategies and priority settings benefit from and contribute to existing mechanisms and networks developed since the FSM gained independence in 1979

Country experience: Ivory Coast

Coordination mechanism and project review

Operational Focal Point is supported by a Technical Secretariat

Composed of representatives from Ministry of Environment, Water, and Forests National Bureau of Technical and Development Studies National Coordinator of OFP housed in the National

Investment Bank

Role is to review projects based on GEF criteria and national environmental policies

Country experience: Mauritius

Coordination at project level

Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (OFP and PFP) ensures projects designed according to national priorities

Project development team, led by relevant line ministries and including NGOs, private sector, academia, creates project ownership

GEF project National Steering Committees, composed of high level representatives of key stakeholders, meet 4-6 times annually to monitor overall project implementation

Country experience: Mauritius(continued)

Benefits of coordination mechanism:

Views of key stakeholders gathered and incorporated in project concepts and proposals

Duplication of work is avoided

National strategies, studies, priorities, and targets incorporated in project design

Cross-sectoral issues addressed

Project implementation workloads shared among various agencies

Country experience: Mexico

Coordination and the RAF National Coordination Committee (1999) designed to review and support

proposals for GEF financing and promote interagency cooperation Consensus on GEF interventions means: Broad stakeholder consultations Coordination mechanism

Ensure optimal use of limited and scarce resources Comply with national strategies Assess proposals, review stakeholder roles and avoid undesirable

practices (“first come first served,” portfolios dominated by agency interests, conflicts of interest)

Review and approval - Guidelines, criteria, and priorities for July 2006 - June 2010 , including a methodology to assess global benefits

Project portfolio approval and endorsement by Focal Points

Country experience: Philippines

GEF Coordination with Conventions

OFP developed coordination mechanism with Convention focal point agencies (FPAs)

FPAs organize multi-agency committees to oversee convention commitments including GEF projects

For RAF priority-setting

Biodiversity focal point convened core group of NGOs

Climate change focal point convened Interagency Committee for Climate Change

Country experience: Poland

National coordination and EU accession

Government activities and policy debates dominated by process of joining European Union

Poland to graduate from GEF funding after joining EU

Government of Poland decided to decline new GEF resources in 2006

National Steering Committee previously focused on country-driven projects, often co-financed by SGP and national environmental funds

Country experience: Poland (continued)

Committee will continue to monitor existing projects until completion

Committee plans to evaluate experience of cooperation with GEF

National Steering Committee includes representatives of:

• Ministries of Environment, Economy, and Finance

• Ozone Action Centre

• Institute of Environmental Protection

• EcoFund

• National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management

• Institute for Sustainable Development (NGO)

• SGP National Coordinator

Country experience: Sri Lanka

Coordination and National GEF Strategy

New coordination mechanisms needed to implement effectively National GEF Strategy

Support unit for OFP in Ministry of Environment

Sectoral Expert Committees (in GEF focal areas) to support OFP in project proposal review and evaluation

GEF coordinator network linking OFP and other GEF project implementing agencies

Country experience: Sri Lanka (continued)

GEF National Steering Committee to support OFP to:

• endorse projects for GEF funding• monitor and evaluate GEF funded projects in the country • review action/development plans and programmes at the

national/sectoral/provincial level and identify areas best suited for GEF interventions including strategic directions

• advise and assist NOFP to develop guidelines and coordination and dissemination mechanisms

• provide directions for the GEF Small Grant Programme

Country experience: Uganda

Coordination and Mainstreaming GEF and poverty reduction

All government-supported GEF activities must be consistent with and included in the relevant sector of the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP)

GEF Coordination Committee includes convention focal points

Each convention focal point heads thematic subcommittee responsible for submitting potential GEF project concepts to full committee

Convention focal points required to take account of PEAP national priorities in developing potential GEF projects

Country experience: Vietnam

Coordination and GEF National Strategy design process

Produce recommendations for effective collaboration and harmonization of GEF program for next five years by

Reviewing 10-year GEF portfolio

Reviewing coordination processes by different agencies for accessing GEF funding

Analyzing national priorities of key sectors to determine opportunities and priorities for GEF funding

Carrying out needs assessment for building capacity among key beneficiaries for implementing strategy

Establishing Steering Committee chaired by GEF Vietnam Chairman and including line Ministries to review and approve strategy