GEF – SGP LATIN AMERICAN & GEF – SGP LATIN AMERICAN & CARIBBEAN REGIONAL WORKSHOPCARIBBEAN REGIONAL WORKSHOP

1111THTH-15-15THTH February, 2009 February, 2009PanamaPanama

Please note: This presentation was put together in collaboration with resources and slides from Mr. Delfin Ganapin and Ms. Fumiko Fukuoka (CMPT).

Contents

•Purpose•Workshop agenda•Graduation & Execution

Options•Outcomes & Challenges•GEF-SGP Trinidad and Tobago

Purpose

• To collectively discuss and consider a number of strategically important issues and the implications of SGP in GEF-4 and towards GEF-5.

Workshop agenda

• Review of workplan, targets and strategic directions of GEF-4

• Follow-up to the Joint Evaluation, strengthening of M&E

• Financial sustainability and graduation policy

• Programmatic and administrative matters• Initial assessment of the challenges and

opportunities SGP will face in GEF-5

Workshop target

• To agree on a series of measures to address various strategic and programmatic matters of SGP to generate greater impacts and enhance effectiveness.

Participating Countries

• 22 22 countries and 1 sub-regioncountries and 1 sub-region

• Argentina (2005)• Barbados & OECS: (1994) including

– The British Virgin Islands, – The Leewards and Windward Islands

• Belize (1993)• Bolivia (1992)• Brazil (1994)• Chile (1992)• Costa Rica (1993)• Cuba (2004)• Dominica (1994)• Dominican Republic (1993)• Ecuador (1994)• El Salvador (2001)• Guatemala (1996)

• Haiti (2005)• Honduras (2001)• Jamaica (2003)• Mexico (1994)• Nicaragua (2003)• Panama (2005)• Peru (1996)• Suriname (1995)• Trinidad & Tobago

(1995)• Uruguay (2005)

New Countries to join in New Countries to join in GEF-4:GEF-4:

• Paraguay (mission June08)

• Venezuela (mission Oct08)

• Colombia

‘Graduation’

• NOT an exclusion from GEF• Graduation = Upgrading of mature country

programmes• Reform process to begin in GEF-5• Process should lead to an SGP that is

equitable, fair and independent• Improved cost-effectiveness, strengthened

co-financing and links to larger GEF projects for an even more proactive SGP should be pursued

Categorization

Country programmes to be categorized on 2 themes: -

1)Funding access criteria of different categories

2) Technical and substantive roles and responsibilities of different categories

Categories

Category 1 - All SIDS, LCDs and those less than 5

years

Category 2 - Those of 5-15 years

Category 3 - Those more than 15 years

Upgrading Options

• Upgraded country programmes would function in a more independent manner

• Require Council approval and further development

• 4 Options are being evaluated for upgrading

Option 1: Improved UNOPS Execution

• Structure the same for core countries; consultations to discuss change for that of graduating countries

• Increased efficiencies through ATLAS• Revised Risk Assessment System for

prioritization of audits• Management of co-financing and other

funds

Option 1: Pros and Cons

• Pros: - modality has been successful- few changes thus few risks- no transition costs

• Cons: - need for necessary change may not be met if potential for improvements and increasing efficiency is not done.

Option 2: NGO Execution

• NGO or consortium of NGOs, after competitive bidding, with centrally negotiated contract with UNDP takes over global functions of UNOPS

• NGO will establish a CPMT and management/technical support structures in each SGP country

• Bidding criteria: detailed cost/benefit, due diligence review of legal status and accountability

Option 2: Pros and Cons

• Pros:- reputable NGO could provide new ideas and new forms of technical support- NGO could have strong resource mobilization Capacity- may open door to new partnerships

• Cons:- NGO may have difficulty meeting criteria: fiduciary, global reach, and local neutrality- loss of UN “hat” may limit impact and influence- large change means high risks

Option 3: Country specific modalities

• UNDP to oversee competitive process in each country to determine the most appropriate country-specific execution modality (National NGO, Env. Fund, International Executing Agency, Government Agency, Private Sector, UNDP CO)

• Each country would be a separate project and would report separately to UNDP

• UNDP to monitor execution in all countries (CPMT to be incorporated into UNDP structure)

Option 3: Pros and Cons

• Pros:- adaptation to local conditions, hence local optimization and use of local opportunities- country ownership and drivenness would be raised

• Cons:- weak capacity in some countries would lead to delays and reduced performance- lack of global coherence- large change means high risks

Option 4: Mixed global and country specific execution

• Mixing option 1 or 2 with option 3• Potential execution agencies the same as in

option 3 for “high capacity” and for graduating countries; competitive process to be overseen by UNDP; SGP in each country to be managed as a separate project

• Global execution either through Option 1 or 2 would be for those countries that do not have capacity or experience to establish execution arrangements

Option 4: Pros and Cons

• Pros:- optimizes country drivenness and country adaptation where possible while lowering risks in lower capacity countries- allows for evolution – as countries evolve, the execution modality can evolve

• Cons:- there could be lack of global coherence

- less risky than options 2 and 3, but there are still risks

Criteria to analyze options

• Country-driven/ owned decision-making• Impacts must be sustainable• Fiduciary standards met• Participative implementation• Global environmental benefits delivered • Overall programme cost-effective• Resource mobilization/ co-financing met• Deliver to local communities and credible with civil

society• Global reach, coherence and country presence• Equitable and reach poorest and marginal

communities• Grantee selection neutral and independent

Other Considerations

• Corporate nature of SGP and linkages with FSPs/MSPs: SGP to expand its national participation in national GEF governance and planning structures; this includes SGP as delivery mechanism for or operator of FSPs/MSPs as well as path to access other funds

• Transition management

• Country context

Money will increase as capacity of the Operational Phase increases

Follow-up actions

• Paper to be presented to Council in June 2009

• UNDP to procure and manage the consultants who will work with CPMT; draft paper to be commented on by SGP Steering Committee

• Consultative process to be initiated with major stakeholders at both global and national levels

Challenges

• Strategic challenge of efficiency measures – with budget cuts

• Knowledge management – networking with national policy- making groups/ govt.

• Meeting co-financing targets• T&T’s capacity to absorb more funds

in the next Operational Phase

GEF SGP Trinidad & Tobago

• Increase ratio of co-financing to GEF/SGP funds (half in cash, half in-kind)

• Improve knowledge sharing & knowledge management

• Greater public awareness• Communications strategies• Encourage corporate and private sectors to

act socially responsible at this critical time• Capacity building and strengthening

governance

Actions for SGP T&T

• Set achievable goals• Regular site visits, accurate reporting

& recording• Participation in events and ongoing

knowledge management• Publications, regular website updates• Incorporate greater gender fairness

& equal opportunity

Actions Con’t…

• Knowledge Fair• Innovative fundraising• Look outside SGP-family for a market place

- Building networks & establishing linkages between countries.

• Making stronger links amongst the projects themselves, better use of resources

• Think outside the box – be bold & take risks

Upcoming projects…

•The Green Wave•The Flip Cam Project

The Green Wave

http://greenwave.cbd.int/

• Global Biodiversity Campaign• 22nd May, 2009 at 10.00am• Convention on Biodiversity• International scope• All GEF SGP Country Programmes to

participate• Empowering youth; facilitating action;

Networking for biodiversity and for a better future

Planning for the Green Wave

• Newspaper ads• Important & suitable species• Training - tree planting skills &

conservation• Interaction with other schools

globally

Flip Cam Project

• UNDP international pilot project to show successful stories in the field

• Flip Cam – easy to use video camera with high quality results

• 20 countries participating• Broadcast on UNDP’s YouTube site & other

international broadcasting companies• Improve M & E; Resource Mobilization tool• Promotion; Motivation for new Grantee

Partners

THANK YOU

Participants GEF SGP LAC Regional Workshop Panama