national climate finance...
TRANSCRIPT
NATIONAL CLIMATE FINANCE INSTITUTIONS
Their challenges and how the “Fit
for the Funds” Programme can respond to them
NATIONAL CLIMATE FINANCE INSTITUTIONS
SUPPORT PROGRAMME
Direct access to
international climate
finance and associated
fiduciary standards
April 2014
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This case study has been prepared as part of the Frankfurt School - UNEP Collaborative Centre for
Climate & Sustainable Energy Finance project entitled the National Climate Finance Institutions
Support Programme (NCFISP). This project is funded by the German Federal Ministry for the
Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety in the framework of the International Climate
Initiative (ICI).
The programme assisted countries with national climate finance institutions in an early stage of
development, especially those in Least Developed Countries, with capacity building to develop technical
know-how and innovative financing approaches. The present report is part of a series of publications that
provide information related to the set up and management of national climate finance institutions.
The information presented was compiled through desk research as well as a review of available literature
and documentation. It should be noted that some information was unavailable since the NIE candidate
applications are not published. Moreover, as at the time of writing the research paper the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) had not yet made a decision regarding the accreditation applications and the
Green Climate Fund (GCF) is not yet fully operational.
We would like to thank Laura Susanne Shuford and Virginia Sonntag-O’Brien for their valuable comments
on the research paper.
AUTHORS
Laura Druce, Christine Grüning and Carola Menzel
Copyright © Frankfurt School of Finance & Management gGmbH 2013.
CITATION
Frankfurt School - UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate & Sustainable Energy Finance (2013), Direct access
to international climate finance and associated fiduciary standards, http://www.fs-unep-centre.org/.
This publication may not be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit
purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is
made. The Frankfurt School - UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate & Sustainable Energy Finance would
appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.
No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without
prior permission in writing from Frankfurt School of Finance & Management gGmbH.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This paper outlines the minimum fiduciary standards and
direct access requirements for the Adaptation Fund and
Global Environment Facility and presents details of the
required supporting documentation from two case studies.
ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................... iii
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1
2. DIRECT ACCESS AND THE APPLICATION PROCESSES .........................................................2
2.1. THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) ............................................................................ 3
2.2. THE ADAPTATION FUND (AF) ..................................................................................................... 6
2.3. KEY FEAUTRES AND EXPERIENCES OF INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE FUNDS BASED ON
ACCREDITATION APPLICATIONS ................................................................................................ 8
3. MINIMUM FIDUCIARY STANDARDS ..................................................................................10
3.1. FIDUCIARY STANDARDS IN MORE DETAIL ............................................................................... 11
3.2. AUDIT, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL FRAMEWORK ........................................ 12
3.2.1. PROJECT/ACTIVITY PROCESSES AND OVERSIGHT ................................................................... 13
3.2.2. INVESTIGATIVE STANDARDS ................................................................................................... 14
3.3. CASE STUDIES OF SUCCESSFUL ADAPTATION FUND NIE ACCREDITATION ............................ 15
3.3.1. PROTECTED AREAS CONSERVATION TRUST (PACT) BELIZE ................................................... 15
3.3.2. ACCREDITATION - PLANNING INSTITUTE OF JAMAICA (PIOJ) ............................................... 22
4. EXPERIENCES AND CONCLUDING REMARKS...............................................................29
ANNEX 1: ACCREDITED INSTITUTIONS UNDER THE AF AND GEF ...............................................31
ii
TABLES
TABLE 1: KEY FACTS ABOUT THE GEF ..................................................................................................... 3
TABLE 2: GEF AGENCY VS. PROJECT AGENCIES ...................................................................................... 4
TABLE 3: KEY FACTS ABOUT THE AF ....................................................................................................... 6
TABLE 4: PROJECT/ PROGRAMM APPLICATION ...................................................................................... 8
TABLE 5: MINIMUM FIDUCIARY STANDARDS FOR DIRECT ACCESS TO THE GEF AND AF .................. 10
TABLE 6: GEF RE-ORDERED FIDUCIARY STANDARDS ........................................................................... 11
TABLE 7: SNAPSHOT OF PROTECTED AREAS CONSERVATION TRUST (PACT) ..................................... 16
TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTATION PREPARED AND SUBMITTED TO AF BY
PACT .................................................................................................................................................. 17
TABLE 9: SNAPSHOT OF PLANNING INSTITUTE OF JAMAICA (PIOJ) .................................................... 24
TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTATION PREPARED & DELIVERED TO AF BY JAMAICA
.................................................................................................................................................. 25
TABLE 11: THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) AS OF NOVEMBER 2013 .............................. 31
TABLE 12: THE ADAPTATION FUND (AF) AS OF NOVEMBER 2013 ...................................................... 33
iii
ABBREVIATIONS
ADB Asian Development Bank
AF Adaptation Fund
AFB Adaptation Fund Board
AfDB African Development Bank
ANII Agencia Nacional de Investigación e Innovación (Uruguay)
CDB Caribbean Development Bank
CER Certified Emission Reductions
CIDA Canadian International Development Agency
COSO Committee for the Sponsoring Organisations of the Treadway Commission
DA Designated Authority
DFID Department for International Development (UK)
EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EE Executing Entity
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
GCF Green Climate Fund
GEF Global Environment Facility
GoB Government of Belize
GoJ Government of Jamaica
IADB Inter-American Development Bank
IAS International Accounting Standards
IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank)
IDB Inter-American Development Bank
IDPs International Development Partners
IEA International Energy Agency
IE Implementing Entity
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IFRS International Financial Reporting Standards
IPSAS International Public Sector Accounting Standards
ISA International Standards on Auditing
LDCs Least Developed Countries
LDCF Least Developed Countries Fund
MDB Multilateral Development Bank
MIE Multilateral Implementing Entity
NCFIs National Climate Finance Entities or Institutions
NCFISP National Climate Finance Institution Support Programme
NIE National Implementing Entity
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
ODI Overseas Development Institute
PA Protected Area
PACT Protected Areas Conservation Trust
PPCR Pilot Programme for Climate resilience
RIE Regional Implementing Entity
TORs Terms of Reference
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNFPA United Nations Population Fund
UNICEF United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund
UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organisation
UNRC United Nations Resident Coordinator
VTB VTB Bank – Russian Federation
1
1. INTRODUCTION
The scale of financing needed to combat climate change and its impacts is said to be in the hundreds of
billions of dollars.1 In response to these finance needs, a rather complex international climate finance
framework has evolved, with more than 60 different international funds available for developing countries
through bilateral, multilateral and private sources.2 It is a major challenge for developing countries to
access climate finance, because different requirements cause the duplication of efforts and the access
modalities and associated processes are not always easily understandable for applicants.
Traditionally, multilateral and bilateral financing intermediaries, such as the World Bank, UN Agencies, and
multilateral development banks (MDBs), have played an important role in distributing and channelling
climate finance to developing countries. However, international discussions have begun to focus on
national institutions directly accessing international funds to increase national ownership. This modality is
used by the Adaptation Fund (AF) and increasingly by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and is being
discussed for the new Green Climate Fund (GCF).3
A number of publications are available that address the direct access modalities of climate funds, but often
from the international fund’s perspective, or indicating the challenges applicants are facing. In contrast, this
paper outlines the minimum fiduciary standards and direct access requirements of the AF and
GEF and describes the details of their application processes. It shows potential accredited
institutions (Project Agencies; National, Regional and Multilateral Implementing Agencies) the minimum
requirements that must be fulfilled, and provides examples of demonstrating compliance with these
requirements in order to become accredited for direct access. Case studies of Belize and Jamaica provide
explanations and details of the supporting documentation submitted during the AF accreditation process.
1 The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that to control carbon emissions, USD 36 trillion is needed for low-carbon technologies until 2050, in addition to the USD 100 trillion needed for business as usual IEA, (2012), Energy
Technology Perspectives: Pathways to a Carbon Neutral Energy Future, Norden, IEA. Adaptation costs estimates for
developing countries vary between USD 4 and 109 billion per annum Parry, M. et al, (2009), Assessing the costs of
adaptation to climate change: A Review of the UNFCCC and other Recent Estimates, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). 2 Climate Finance Options, (2013), World Bank, UNDP, climatefinanceoptions.org. 3 ADAPT, 2012, Understanding the Green Climate Fund: Implications for the evolving architecture of direct access to climate finance, Discussion Paper.
2
2. DIRECT ACCESS AND THE APPLICATION PROCESSES
Direct access is the modality whereby the recipient country can access funds directly from the Fund without
going through a third-party intermediary. The principle of direct access to climate finance seeks to ensure
enhanced country ownership of activities by bringing developing countries to the forefront, ensuring
decentralised decision making at the national level. This aims to ensure that climate change measures are
aligned with national strategies, and that monitoring and evaluation takes place at the lowest possible
jurisdictional level.4
Direct access to funding means that national institutions themselves are responsible for project oversight
and management, rather than, for example, Multilateral Implementing Entities (MIEs). Direct access is not
only the transfer of financial ownership to developing countries, but also implies the transfer of
responsibility and capacity for the country to access, manage and be accountable for resources.5 It also
transfers the fiduciary risk and responsibility to the national level to ensure that specific fiduciary standards
of funds are met. However, even under direct access, decisions on specific activities to be funded remain
with the international governing bodies.
As indicated in Figure 1 the level of institutional capacity determines the degree of direct access to
international climate funds.6 In order to meaningfully implement a national climate change strategy, a
functioning chain of activities is needed; from the design of the national strategy and implementation plan
at the policy level; down to designing and implementing projects, as well as monitoring projects that reflect
the national strategies.
Some countries have integrated the main responsibilities and capacities into existing government
structures; for example, where one ministry coordinates all climate finance activities.7 Other countries have
established National Climate Finance Institutions (NCFIs)8 or have given a climate-finance mandate to
existing institutions.9 As demonstrated in Figure 1, the more capacities that are met by national institutions,
the more core functions they can fulfil and make funding decisions effectively.
Enhanced direct access introduces a greater devolution of decision-making where funding decisions and
management of funds take place at the national level on the behalf of the international fund. This requires
even more comprehensive institutional capacities of the national governing bodies (Figure 1). Enhanced
direct access is not currently applied by climate finance funds and modalities for it are not yet defined or
agreed. It is, however, being discussed in the Business Model Framework of the GCF.10
4 Müller, B., (2011), Enhanced Direct Access, Submission to the Transitional Committee on the Issue of Thematic Funding
Windows (Workstreams II & III), The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. 5 ODI, UNDP, (2011), Direct Access to Climate Finance: Experiences and Lessons Learned, Discussion Paper, Environment
and Energy. 6 There is currently no internationally agreed definition of ‘climate finance’. The general understanding is that climate finance is the flow of funds from developed to developing countries for climate-related activities and projects. Climate
finance comprises multiple financing sources (national budget, multilateral and bilateral finance), financing mechanisms
(grants, concessional loans, private sector investment, and carbon markets) as well as various finance entities that fund
national climate change projects/programmes. 7 For example, Jordan’s Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation, or Rwanda’s Ministry of Natural Resources,
which have been accredited as NIEs by the Adaptation Fund. 8 NCFIs are dedicated funds or institutions that coordinate and align international and national climate finance flows to
support national policies relating to climate change and finance at the national or sub-national level. They also evaluate and monitor climate change funding activities. For example, the Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund (ICCTF). 9 For instance, Benin’s Fonds National pour l’Environment, Rwanda: FONERWA (Environment and Climate Change Fund)
and Zambia’s Interim Environmental Fund. 10
GCF, 2013, Business Model Framework of the GCF, (GCF/B.01-13/11, 01 March 2013) and GCF (2014), Additional
Modalities That Further Enhance Firect Access, Including Through Funding Entities (GCF/B.06/15, 11 February 2014).
3
Figure 1: Schematic national climate finance framework for direct and enhanced direct access
Climate change projects/programmes
Implementing Entity
National Governing Bodies
Executing Entity
Allocation
of funds
Reporting of
activities / MRV
• Access and blend funding • Effective investment decisions • Project cycle management (e.g. approving
activities, channel grants and/or loans on national level
• Ability to access fundingand to make investment decisions at project level
• Project cycle management (e.g. monitoring & evaluation of activities)
• Sound fund management (e.g. fiduciary standards risk management/ mitigation)
• Effective application management
Functions Institutions
• Risk management / mitigation• Environmental and Social Safeguards• Fiduciary Standards
Allocation
of funds
Reporting
of activities / M&E
International Climate Funds
(AF, GEF, GCF)
Developing
national strategy
Allocate climate
finance (mandate)
Identify, prioritise,
coordinate & fund
(CC) activities
to implement the
national strategy
Design, manage
and execute
project/
programmes
Allocation
of funds
Reporting
of activities / M&E
Selection of the main capacities required
To gain direct access, the national institution applying must undergo the Fund’s accreditation process to
prove its capability to meet the required capacities. The next section presents the application process for
direct access under the GEF and AF, and section three presents in detail the major challenge posed by the
application process, namely, meeting the fiduciary standards.
2.1. THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF)
The GEF is the largest funding mechanism for global environment conservation initiatives;11 supporting 183
countries in partnership with international institutions, civil society organisations, and the private sector12
(see table 1).
Table 1: Key facts about the GEF
DESCRIPTION ADMINISTERING ORGANISATION
VOLUME COUNTRIES FUNDED DATES
The GEF addresses
global
environmental
issues while
supporting
national sustainable
development
initiatives.
The GEF has an
independent
secretariat. The
financial Trustee
of the GEF is the
World Bank.13
~USD 1.14
billion has been
pledged until
2012 (The GEF
Trust Fund is
replenished on a four-year
cycle)
The GEF has provided financing to
more than 2,700 projects in over
165 countries since 1991.
Approximately USD 634 million
has also been provided through
the small grants programme in more than 14,000 grants to civil
society organisations.14
THE GEF
has been
operation
al since
1991.
11 Adaptation Fund (2012), Adaptation Fund’s Pioneering Use of Direct Access Brings Benefits to Developing Countries. 12 The GEF, (2012), What is the GEF?. 13 Climate Funds Update, (2012), GEF Trust Fund – Climate Change focal area, Heinrich Böll Stiftung North America, ODI. 14 GEF, (2013) What is the GEF?, http://www.thegef.org/gef/whatisgef, accessed February 2013.
4
There are currently ten institutions accredited as GEF Agencies and ten institutions will be accredited as GEF
Project Agencies under the GEF-5 pilot15 accreditation process (with a contingent of up to five national
institutions).16 The GEF Agencies (and Project Agencies to be accredited) are responsible for developing
project proposals, implementing and managing projects by assisting eligible governments (and partly
NGOs).17 They differ only in their corporate activities, as indicated in Table 2.
Table 2: GEF Agency vs. Project Agencies
GEF AGENCY GEF PROJECT AGENCY
Project
Activities
There are no distinctions between the roles of GEF Agencies and GEF Project Agencies,
except to distinguish between the first Agencies accredited (GEF Agencies) and second
round accreditation (Project Agencies) (GEF/C.39/7/Rev.2; 12)
Corporate
Activities
(GEF/C.39/7/
Rev.2; 11)
Engagement with the GEF Secretariat
on corporate activities, particularly the
formulation of GEF-wide policies
through the GEF Focal Area Task
Forces, as well as the GEF Network
Meetings
Only the current 10 GEF Agencies will
be compensated for their corporate
activities (a 1% corporate activity fee
assessed on their GEF project grants).
Ineligible for corporate activity fees
Accredited
Institutions
Ten international institutions:
AfDB, ADB, EBRD, FAO, IADB, IFAD,
UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO and the World
Bank
On-going process according to the
accreditation procedure Document
GEF/C.39/8/Rev.2: Accreditation of up to 10
institutions as GEF Project Agencies.
National institutions were prioritised: until at
least 5 national institutions were approved,
applications from regional institutions and
NGOs were reviewed but not those from other
types of institutions. Only one national
institution will be accredited per country
(GEF/C.42/09/Rev.01; 5; 11; 17)
Accreditation process of the GEF
There are three stages to the application process to become an accredited GEF Project Agency (see Figure
2).18 Each applicant must be supported by a GEF Operational Focal Point,19 who guides the operational
aspects of activities, aligns projects with national strategies and facilitates the coordination and integration
of projects at the national level. All eligible countries for GEF funding have an Operational Focal Point,
while all GEF member countries have Political Focal Points.20
15 The GEF’s operations and activities are replenished every four years; in 2010 the GEF began its fifth replenishment
period. GEF, (2012), Accreditation of GEF Project Agencies. 16 Five institutions did not reach stage two of the GEF accreditation process. E.g. Agencia Nacional de Investigación e Innovación – Uruguay (ANII) – (see Global Environment Facility – “Secretariat Recommendations of Project Agencies for
Accreditation” GEF/C.42/09/Rev.01, May 8, 2012). See Annex 1. 17 GEF Agencies and GEF Project Agencies are referred to as GEF Partner Agencies, GEF/C.39/8/Rev.2. 18 According to GEF Council Meeting (2010), Broadening of the GEF Partnership Under Paragraph 28 of the GEF Instrument: Key Policy Issues, GEF/C.39/7/Rev.2, the accreditation of a GEF Project Agency make the agency eligible for
project funding from all three trust funds managed by the GEF – the GEF Trust Fund, the Special Climate Change Fund
(SCCF), and the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF). 19 The GEF Operational Focal Point list is available at: http://www.thegef.org/gef/focal_points_list. 20 The GEF currently has 183 member countries from across the world. Member countries are eligible to receive funding if
they meet the eligibility criteria, are eligible to borrow from the World Bank and to receive UNDP technical assistance
through country programming; and the project must be endorsed by the country in which it will be implemented. Source: GEF, (2013), Focal Points; and Climate Funds Update, GEF Trust Fund – Climate Change focal area.
5
Figure 2: Three stage application process to become an accredited GEF Project Agency
The accreditation of GEF Agencies
Many of the GEF Agencies were accredited in the early 2000’s (for example, ADB in 2002 and AfDB in 2003),
while the GEF’s minimum fiduciary standards (Table 5) were established in 2007 and reviewed and
amended by the GEF Council in 2011. After this review, the GEF reported in 2012 that of the 10 accredited
GEF Agencies, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) and United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) had not yet met all the GEF’s
minimum fiduciary standards, but that action plans were adopted to achieve compliance with the
outstanding actions. The FAO had until December 2013 to comply with the minimum fiduciary standards on
external financial audit, internal control framework and financial disclosure.21 UNEP is now working on
establishing International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) accounting principles to be in line
with the GEF minimum fiduciary standards. Also UNIDO needs to align its financial management and
control framework.
The accreditation of GEF Project Agencies
As of 2012, applications from 11 national and regional institutions had been received by the GEF for
consideration for GEF Project Agency status and have been approved to progress onto Stage II. Among
them are five national institutions applying for direct access.22 In Stage II, the GEF will try to accredit at least
one national institution from a LDC and one from a Middle Income Country (MIC). National institutions,
regional organisations, civil society organisations, NGOs, UN specialised agencies and programmes and
other international organisations were also eligible to apply for accreditation. Bilateral agencies were not
eligible for accreditation, although the GEF Council may consider bilateral agency involvement in the pilot
on accrediting new institutions in 2013.23
21 In order to achieve these, FAO’s action plan includes integrating the International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) and upgrading their internal systems and processes to be in line with external financial audit requirements. 22 Note, among the national institutions are four from developing countries and the VTB Bank – Russian Federation
(VTB). However, Russia is not a developing country in the context of climate issues. 23 The GEF, (2012), What is the GEF?, (http://www.thegef.org/gef/whatisgef, accessed January 2013).
Stage 1- Application
When the initial application is submitted, the GEF conducts a value-added review.
Council approval of application documents if institution will add value
to GEF portfolio and in line with GEF objectives.
Stage 2- Accreditation Panel Review
Applicant must submit a detailed application; including supporting documentation. Applicant pays a fee of USD25,000.
GEF examines whether the fiduciary standards are met, and whether they are effective.
GEF can request additional information/documents (45 days to supply).
Stage 3 - Conclusion by signing MoU and a FPA
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) commits the institution to fulfil and follow all
relevant GEF policies and procedures.
Financial Procedures Agreement (FPA) requires the use of funds in accordance with
GEF policies and procedures.
Decision forwarded to applicant
6
Stage I of this process was to assess to what extent the applicant will add value to a GEF partnership and
align strategically with the GEF objectives, including: relevance, demonstration of environmental or climate
adaptation, scale of engagement, capacity to leverage co-financing, institutional efficiency and networks
and contacts.24 The next stage, Stage II (ongoing), assesses the applicant’s compliance with the minimum
fiduciary standards and social and environmental safeguards.25 As of November 2013, two organisations
(World Wildlife Fund - WWF-US and Conservation International - CI) received the notice that they can move
from stage II to Stage III and finalise the accreditations process. Two other organisations (Development
Bank of Southern Africa - DBSA, Foreign Economic Cooperation Office - FECO) have received also this
notice, but with conditions. Five organisations (FUNBIO, CAF, IUCN, BOAD) were requested to undertake
“compliance related improvements”, while two others (National Environment Fund – Peru - FONAM,
International Federation of Red Cross - IFRC) were rejected.26 The rejections were based on deficient
fiduciary standards and lack of environmental and social safeguards.
2.2. THE ADAPTATION FUND (AF)
The Adaptation Fund (AF), which has been operational since 2009, supports adaptation projects and
programmes in developing countries that are parties to the Kyoto Protocol. Financing for the AF comes
primarily from sales of certified emission reductions (CERs) through a share of proceeds amounting to 2%
of CERs issued each year for Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM) projects. In addition, the AF receives
funding from governments, the private sector, and individuals (Table 3).
Table 3: Key facts about the AF
DESCRIPTION ADMINISTERING ORGANISATION
VOLUME COUNTRIES FUNDED DATE
The AF finances
concrete
adaptation
projects in
developing
countries
through 2% of
the proceeds of
the CDM and
voluntary
pledges.
The AF Board with
the World Bank as
interim Trustee.
~USD 185.3
million
(excluding
cash
transfers to
date; until
December
2012).27
2013: Argentina, Rwanda,
Guatemala,
2012: Argentina, Cambodia,
Colombia, Djibouti, Egypt, Jamaica,
Lebanon, Mauritania, Papua New
Guinea, Sri Lanka;
2011: Georgia, Tanzania, Cook
Islands, Uruguay, Samoa,
Madagascar, Mauritius, Mongolia,
Maldives, Turkmenistan, Ecuador,
Eritrea, Solomon Islands;
2010: Nicaragua, Pakistan, Senegal,
Honduras28
The AF was
established in
2001 and
operationalise
d in 2009.29
The AF was the first climate fund to provide concrete realisation of the principle of direct access and thus
has been cited as a “model for the future” in the international climate finance arena.30
24 GEF, (2011), Broadening the GEF Partnership Under Paragraph 28 of the GEF Instrument, GEF/C.40/09. 25 GEF, (2012), Secretariat Recommendations of Project Agencies for Accreditation, GEF/C.42/09/Rev.01. 26 GEF, 2013, Progress report on the pilot accreditation of GEF Project Agencies (GEF Council Meeting, 05-07.11.2013 27 Adaptation Fund Board, (2012), Trustee Presentation: Update on Status of Resources and CER Monetization 28 Adaptation Fund, (2014),
http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/C.42.Inf_.11_Fiduciary_Standard.pdf funded Projects,
https://www.adaptation-fund.org/funded_projects. "https://www.adaptation-fund.org/funded_projects" https://www.adaptation-fund.org/funded_projects. 29 Climate Funds Update, Adaptation Fund, Heinrich Böll Stiftung North America, ODI
www.climatefundsupdate.org/listing/adaptation-fund, accessed January 2013. 30 ECBI, (2010), Adaptation Fund under the KP: Mature for concrete implementation of projects and direct access.
7
Accreditation application process of the AF
To access the AF directly, recipient governments nominate an Implementing Entity (IE) through their
Designated Authority (DA), which then forwards an application for accreditation to the Adaptation Fund
Board (AFB) (see Figure ). The DA is a government official, appointed by the government, who endorses the
accreditation application for National Implementing Entities (NIEs) and Regional Implementing Entities
(RIEs), as well as proposals for adaptation projects, before they are sent to the AFB.31 The IE is a supervising
body which identifies, appraises, proposes and oversees projects and which is responsible for the funding
received and accountable to the AF. Executing entities (EEs) have experience with development and
adaptation activities and access fund resources through an IE, carry out the project activities and report to
the IE.32
Each eligible country can have only one NIE for the AF. It must be a legal entity and is likely to be a public
sector agency close to the Ministry of Finance or the Ministry of the Environment33 or a dedicated national
climate finance institution (NCFI). Among the current accredited NIEs are the Protected Areas Conservation
Trust of Belize (PACT) and the Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ).34
Figure 3: Application process for the AF
Alternatively to having an NIE accredited, countries may also submit proposals for projects to the AFB
through a Multilateral Implementing Entity (MIE). MIEs chosen by eligible parties to submit proposals to the
Board bear all financial, monitoring and reporting responsibilities.35 MIEs accredited by the AF include UN
Agencies (UNDP, UNEP) and development banks (ADB, IDB and the World Bank).36 Regardless of the use of
a NIE, RIE or MIE, the project/programme application process remains the same (see Table 4). These
institutions apply their own fiduciary standards, which are not necessarily the same as the minimum
fiduciary standards adopted by the AF and the GEF).
31 Adaptation Fund, (2011), Parties’ Designated Authorities. The DA for Jamaica is Mrs S. McGill, Director of
Meteorological Services.
A list of country DA’s can be found at: https://www.adaptation-fund.org/page/parties-designated-authorities. 32 Executing Entities (EEs), with have experience with development and adaptation activities, carry out project activities
on the ground; Brown, J., et al., (2010), Direct Access to the Adaptation Fund: realising the potential of National
Implementing Entities, Climate Finance Policy Brief No. 3, ODI, http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/docs/6351.pdf. 33 Adaptation Fund, (2009), Report on Fiduciary Standards for Implementing Entities, AFB/B.6/4, Sixth Meeting, http://adaptation-fund.org/system/files/AFB.B.6.4_Fiduciary_Standards.pdf. 34 See Annex 1 for a full list of IEs. 35 Adaptation Fund, Operational Policies and Guidelines for Parties to Access Resources from the Adaptation Fund. 36 See Annex 1 for a full list of accredited MIEs.
8
Table 4: Project/ Programme application
Accreditation as an NIE is a pre-condition to submit a project proposal directly to the AF. Project proposals
must be submitted to the Secretariat by the IE and may be submitted three times a year or as decided by
the AFB, depending on the number of requests and available resources.37 The process is different for small
and large-sized projects.
Small size projects (up to USD 1 million) have a one-step approval process by the AFB; a technical
proposal is submitted to the AFB, which is reviewed and submitted to the Projects and Programmes Review
Committee four weeks before the AFB Meeting. Rejected proposals may be resubmitted and approved
proposals will be posted on the AF website.
For large size projects (exceeding USD 1 million), there is either a one-step or two-step process,
reflecting the scale of the project. A brief concept is approved in the first step with a fully developed
project/document submitted in the second step. This minimises the risk that the institution spends time on
a project concept that may be rejected by the AFB.38
By June 2013, from 111 individual submissions, with 15 withdrawn before submission to the Project and
Programme Review Committee (PPCR), the Adaptation Fund are now implementing 28
projects/programmes.39 All proposals exceed USD 1 million (there were no small-size project/programme
submissions).40 For example, The Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ) project Enhancing the Resilience of
the Agricultural Sector and Costal Areas to Protect Livelihoods and Improve Food Security has a USD
9,965,000 total project budget approved with USD 3,451,897 transferred to date. Currently, the smallest
project in AF’s portfolio is Addressing Climate Change Risks to Farming Systems in Turkmenistan at
National and Community Level with a total project budget of USD 2,929,500 and USD 407,100 disbursed to
date.41
2.3. KEY FEAUTRES AND EXPERIENCES OF INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE
FUNDS BASED ON ACCREDITATION APPLICATIONS42
To date, fifteen NIEs have been accredited by the AFB, with approximately ten NIE applications in the
pipeline,43 while eight applicants are not accredited. Gradually, developing countries are becoming more
confident in tackling the accreditation process; demonstrating that it is complicated but manageable.44 It
remains to be seen how these institutions actually manage to access finance from these Funds and how
they manage to implement multi-million dollar projects. If it is decided during the 5 year accredited period
that the NIE no longer meets the required fiduciary standards, the Board may revoke accreditation until the
fiduciary criteria are again met.
Following the assessment of applications for accreditation, the AF concluded that the direct access modality
and the role of the fiduciary standards are not fully understood45 and the identification of the most
appropriate NIE within a country is not simple. Since the accreditation applicant is a result of a government
process, the choice of NIE or submission applicant can also be a politically sensitive issue in countries.
37 Adaptation Fund Board, Operational Policies and Guidelines for Parties to Access Resources from the Adaptation Fund. 38 Ibid. 39 For the latest figures, see Adaptation Fund Interactive Map, at https://adaptation-fund.org/funded_projects/interactive 40 The Adaptation Fund, (2012), Prioritization of Projects in the Pipeline: Submission Dates. 41 The Adaptation Fund, (2011), Funded Projects, https://www.adaptation-fund.org/funded_projects. 42 See The Adaptation Fund, (2012), The Adaptation Fund and Direct Access: Supporting developing countries in
undertaking concrete measures to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change. 43 Adaptation Fund, (2012), Report of the Tenth Meeting of the Accreditation Panel, Adaptation Fund Board Eighteenth
Meeting.
In case of the AF, up to September 2012 the Adaptation Fund received 39 applications for the accreditation as National
Implementing Entity (NIE). As of February 2013, the total number of accredited NIEs by the AF was 15, (see also Adaptation Fund Board decision, 2012, AFB/B.16/6/Rev.1, II 17). Applications e.g. from Bangladesh, Ghana, Zambia were
non-accredited. 44 Germanwatch, (2011), Briefing on the 15th Meeting of the Adaptation Fund Board, (by Kaloga, A., and Harmeling, S.). 45 Adaptation Fund, (2012), Accessing Resources from the Adaptation Fund.
9
Several institutions find that the accreditation requirements demand extensive supporting
documentation and it can be confusing to know which information is relevant.46
Countries sometimes do not feel properly guided or informed of the requirements to fulfil fiduciary
standards and may not deliver what is expected.
A number of countries face difficulties due to language barriers.
MIEs have their own fiduciary standards, which make them an attractive option for developing
countries to use their services to obtain access to funds rather than going through the lengthy
process of appointing and accrediting an NIE. However, national entities cannot build up a track
record with climate funds if they do not directly access them themselves. Moreover, MIEs take an
administrative fee, which is money that a NIE could use for the project.
In response to these lessons, the AFB agreed to issue additional support though an online toolkit and
manual to assist recipient governments in the accreditation process, which was launched on 15 June 2011.47
Furthermore, developing countries are now helping each other in the process; for example Senegal has
offered support to a Southeast Asian government in their bid for accreditation.48
The major challenge for applicants when applying for AF accreditation is to fulfil or demonstrate
compliance with fiduciary standards. The importance of a clear understanding of minimum fiduciary
standards is underlined by the GEF: “to be accredited as a GEF Project Agency, applicants will need to be
able to document to the GEF Accreditation Panel that they can fully meet all of the GEF Fiduciary
Standards without exception”.49
A direct comparison to the AF can be drawn from the GCF aim to provide simplified and improved access to
funding; recipient countries may designate a national authority, access funds through NIEs, RIEs or MIEs
accredited by the Board and the Board will develop and oversee an accreditation process for all
implementing entities based on fiduciary standards similar to the AF and GEF.50
The GCF Board decided that additional access modalities to enhance direct access including through
funding entities to enhance country ownership will be considered.51 It will also consider developing its own
access modalities including accreditation procedures and best-practice fiduciary principles and standards
and social and environmental safeguards at the Board’s meeting in September 2013 while considering the
process of transitioning from interim fiduciary principles and standards to the Fund’s own standards and
procedures at the Board’s second meeting in 2014.
In June 2013, the preparatory documents of the Business Framework Model of the GCF highlighted that the
“application of fiduciary management standards and principles is a core element of existing accreditation
processes, such as under the AF and GEF” and that while there is no uniform model of access modalities, the
standards applied by these Funds can be regarded as internationally agreed. Therefore, the following
chapter explores the minimum fiduciary standards of the GEF and the AF that institutions (Project Agencies,
NIEs, RIEs and MIEs) need to fulfil in order to become accredited. Particularly explanations of the
standards, documentation required and the lessons learned from successful applicants are
provided with the aim to guide future potential applicants.
46 See Frankfurt School – UNEP Collaborating Centre, (2011), Policy Brief: National Climate Finance Institutions: Their
challenges and how the “Fit for the Funds” Programme can respond to them, http://www.fs-unep-centre.org/. 47 During the 24th meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies of the UNFCCC; see IISD, (2011), Adaptation Fund Board Launches
Accreditation Toolkit, Climate Change Policy & Practice. 48 Adaptation Fund, (2012), The Adaptation Fund and Direct Access: Supporting developing countries in undertaking
concrete measures to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change. 49 The GEF, (2013), Accreditation of GEF Project Agencies, http://www.thegef.org/gef/agencies_accreditation, accessed
February 2013. 50 Green Climate Fund, (2013), Business Model Framework: Access Modalities, GCF/B.04/05. 51 Green Climate Fund, (2013), Decisions of the Board – Fourth Meeting of the Board, 26-28 June 2013, GCF/B.04/17.
10
3. MINIMUM FIDUCIARY STANDARDS
There is currently no one set of internationally agreed and accepted fiduciary standards and procedures
that must be in place by NCFIs. Nonetheless, there is a common understanding among those administering
climate finance that a minimum level of skills is required by potential recipient countries to
ensure accountability and transparency before they can access finance.52 In order to mobilise
international climate finance, developing countries need to demonstrate robust financial integrity and
effectiveness and accountability based on transparent rules and procedures. More specifically, a
set of minimum fiduciary standards need to be fulfilled and demonstrated by all potential funding
recipient governments/entities to ensure that the funds are transferred to recipient governments with a
proper framework in place.53
Fiduciary standards have been adopted by various international climate funds for internal, operational
procedures, but also to describe the capacities and responsibilities required for accrediting applicants for
direct access.
Table 5: Minimum fiduciary standards for direct access to the GEF and AF
FINANCIAL INTEGRITY (AUDIT, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL FRAMEWORK)
INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY (PROJECT/ACTIVITIY PROCESSES AND OVERSIGHT)
TRANSPARENCY AND SELF-INVESIGATIONS)
GEF External Financial Audit
Financial Management and
Control Frameworks
Financial Disclosure
Code of Ethics
Internal Audit
Project Appraisal Standards
Procurement Processes
Monitoring and Project-at-Risk
Systems
Evaluation Function
Investigation
Function
Hotline and
Whistleblower Protection
AF Accurately and regularly
record transactions and
balances in a manner that
adheres to broadly accepted
good practices, and are
audited periodically by an
independent firm or
organization
Managing and disbursing
funds efficiently and with
safeguards to recipients on a
timely basis
Produce forward-looking
financial plans and budgets
Legal status to contract with
the Adaptation Fund and third
parties
Procurement procedures which
provide for transparent
practices, including
competition
Capacity to undertake
monitoring and evaluation
Ability to identify, develop and
appraise project; including
environmental and social risks
Competency to manage or
oversee the execution of the
project/programme including
ability to manage sub-
recipients and to support
project /programme delivery
and implementation
Competence to
deal with
financial mis-
management
and other
forms of
malpractice
Sources: The GEF, (2007), Recommended Minimum Fiduciary Standards for GEF Implementing and Executing Agencies, The Adaptation Fund, (2009), Report of the seventh meeting of the Adaptation Fund Board, AFB/B.7/13/Rev.1 and
Adaptation Fund Board (2013), Bonn, June 14 to 16 September, 2009 and Adaptation Fund (2013), Operational policies
and guidelines for Parties to access resources from the Adaptation Fund, amended July 2013.
52 UNFCCC, (2011), Transitional Committee, Second Meeting, Workstream IV: Monitoring and Evaluation, TC-2/WSIV/3,
http://unfccc.int/files/cancun_agreements/green_climate_fund/application/pdf/tc2_ws4_3_290611.pdf, accessed Dec. 2012. 53 Adaptation Fund Board, 2010, Report of the Third Meeting of the Accreditation Panel, AF Board 11th Meeting, Bonn, September 16-17 2010, AFB/B.11/4. http://www.adaptation-
fund.org/system/files/AFB.B.11.4%20Report%20of%20the%20Accreditation%20Panel.pdf.
The Adaptation Fund, (2009), Report on Fiduciary Standards for Implementing Entities, Adaptation Fund Board, Sixth Meeting, https://adaptation-fund.org/system/files/AFB.B.6.4_Fiduciary_Standards.pdf.
11
The minimum fiduciary standards of the GEF and the AF are very similar, but are named differently, as is
shown in Table 5. While the GEF uses technical terms to explain the requirements, the AF’s explanations are
more descriptive, which leaves more room for interpretation. The only AF requirement the GEF does not
specifically ask for, and which falls under financial integrity, is that the applying entity must have legal
status to be able to contract with AF, and with third parties.54 The GEF applies environmental and social
safeguards at the accreditation stage and so does AF, but only since November 2013. Before that, AF
assessed safeguards during the project review only...55
For the GEF-5 pilot, the fiduciary standards were re-ordered through the separation Implementation and
Execution Functions that are to be assessed at GEF Partner Agencies – all fiduciary standards must be still
met in order to obtain accreditation for the GEF-5 pilot, but the project cycle (project activity processes and
oversight) gained more importance (Table 6) when compared with the minimum fiduciary standards (Table
5).
Table 6: GEF re-ordered fiduciary standards
I) PROJECT ACTIVITY PROCESSES AND OVERSGHT
II) FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK
Project appraisal standards
Procurement process
Monitoring and project-as-risk system
Evaluation function
External financial audit
Financial management and control frameworks
Financial disclosure
Code of ethics
Internal audit
Investigation function
Hotline and whistleblower protection
Source: The GEF; (2011), GEF Minimum Fiduciary Standards: Separation of Implementation and Execution Functions in
GEF Partner Agencies, GEF Council Meeting
The re-ordered fiduciary standards of the GEF now stipulate a clear separation of project implementation
and execution functions, particularly where these functions are carried out by the same GEF Partner Agency
in one GEF project.56 The preferred option for the GEF is that different Agencies undertake these duties, or
that different departments within the same Agency may undertake these roles provided there are clear
lines of responsibility, reporting and accountability.
In June 2009, the GEF Council agreed that the GEF would update its minimum fiduciary standards in
2013, and every four years thereafter. This is to ensure “strengthened accountability for GEF
implementing and executing entities”57. This periodic monitoring will also assess the application of
fiduciary standards across the accredited institutions again to ensure a minimum level of consistency.58
3.1. FIDUCIARY STANDARDS IN MORE DETAIL
This section offers a description and brief analysis of the AF and GEF minimum fiduciary standards (Table 5
Examples are provided of the recommendations and guidance provided by the AF and the GEF (Stage II) of
required supporting documentation in the application process. Additional guidance and recommendations
are also given, to show potential applicants a variety of documents that could also be presented to be fully
prepared during the accreditation process.
There is no one way to prepare for this process, and the following section does not include all the evidence
an applicant could potentially provide. The more extensive the documentation, the more capable an
institution will appear.
54 The Adaptation Fund, (2009), Report on Fiduciary Standards for Implementing Entities, AFB/B.6/4. 55 The Adaptation Fund, (2013), Environmental and Social Policy (approved in November 2013. 56 The GEF, (2011), GEF Minimum Fiduciary Standards: Separation of Implementation and Execution Functions in GEF
Partner Agencies, GEF/C.41/06/Rev.01. 57 The GEF, (2007), Recommended Minimum Fiduciary Standards for GEF Implementing and Executing Entities, GEF
Council Meeting, http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/C.31.6%20Fiduciary%20Standars.pdf. 58 GEF, 2007, Recommended Fiduciary Standards http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/documents/Recommended_Minimum_Fiduciary_Standard.pdf.
12
3.2. AUDIT, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL FRAMEWORK
Applicants to the AF must provide evidence of their legal status to be able to contract with the AF and
with third parties. This comprises information regarding the legal capacity and the ability to receive and
manage funds.
The AF requires documents that demonstrate the entity’s legal capacity to enter contracts with third
parties. The GEF does not require separate documents regarding legal status.
The audit, financial management, disclosure and control framework standards set by the AF pertain
to the financial management, including financial statements and audit requirements, and the preparation
of business plans and budgets. Financial statements should be prepared according to the International
Accounting Standards (IAS). There should be internal controls over financial statements which are either
controlled by the organisation’s management or the external auditor, and the GEF has noted uncertainty
among GEF Agencies about “whether or not testing controls, versus a comprehensive, formal assertion by
management, should be sufficient”59. Internal auditing allows the institution to evaluate and improve its
operational management, risk management processes, control and governance processes. The internal
audit process must adhere to ethical principles of integrity, objectivity, confidentiality and competency.
The AF requires a description of how the applicant is fulfilling the principles. Required evidence
includes audited financial statements and the terms of reference (ToR) for the internal audit unit,
and accompanying reports and manuals need to be enclosed. With regard to accounting practices,
the packages used by the applicant need to be named and explained.
The GEF requires more detailed supporting documentation, including a copy of the internal audit
report, along with the names of the internal auditors for the last three years, the procedures for
identifying and assessing internal controls and the names of employees and business management
units responsible, a full description of the process for monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of
the internal audit including identified weaknesses and instances where agency processes could be
improved.
The external audit standard ensures that the financial statements and internal controls of the fund are
independently reviewed and that the audit is compliant with International Standards on Auditing (ISA) or
similar standards.60
Applicants to the AF need to present how annual externally audited accounts align with recognised
ISA. The ToR for the external audit needs to be presented with samples of external audit reports.
The GEF requires the ToR for the external finance auditing and a copy of the Contract; the Audit
Committee policy or guidelines; a sample of the annual audit opinion on the financial statements for
all funds received from external donors; proof that the external auditor knew about the internal
auditor reports and full information about the external finance auditor; documentation from the
external auditor confirming the compliance with international accounting standards.
Applicants should have an internal control framework defined by internationally recognised frameworks
such as Committee for the Sponsoring Organisations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) who develop
comprehensive frameworks and guidance on “risk management, internal control and fraud deterrence”61.
Through this risk-based process, the following objectives will be achieved:62 1) effectiveness and efficiency
of operations; 2) reliability of financial reporting and financial management frameworks; and 3)
compliance with applicable policies and procedures.
59 GEF, (2009), Status of the GEF Agencies with Respect to Minimum Fiduciary Standards, GEF Council Meeting. 60 Similar standards may include International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS), International Financial
Reporting Standards (IFRS), International Public Sector Accounting Standards or Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) that are accepted in major capital markets for listed companies. Financial integrity can also be illustrated through
the installation of internationally recognised accounting packages (for example SAGE). 61 COSO, (1985-2012), About Us, http://www.coso.org/aboutus.htm. 62 GEF, (2009), Status of the GEF Agencies with Respect to Minimum Fiduciary Standards, GEF Council Meeting.
13
The AF needs payment/disbursement systems to be proven, including a description and
demonstration, and a control framework that is documented with clearly defined roles (e.g. a copy of
a policy/manual that outlines the control framework needs to be enclosed).
The GEF also require clear evidence that the implementing and executing functions are separate,
through manuals and guidelines, a chart of responsibilities, a copy of the Control Framework
documents, the procedures document, and practical examples.
Mandatory financial disclosures and possible conflicts of interest should be made clear in a manual or
policy. This process should be determined e.g. in a Code of Ethics and Staff Rules and Regulations. This will
reduce the risk of potential personal financial interest and will highlight employment policies, which are
required to adhere to the standards and a description of the types of conflicts of interest that may arise. In
fact, every applicant is expected to have a code of ethics in place, which lays out responsible governance
and ethical behaviour for employees. The code of ethics should include an outline of the discipline
procedure for violations. For GEF Agencies, consultants and independent experts should also adhere to the
code of ethics63.
The applicant to the AF needs to demonstrate (by enclosing copies of codes and manuals) and
describe how the applicant applies the code of ethics and how non-compliance is reported and how
conflicts are settled.
The GEF suggest the following supporting documentation: a schedule and contents of the most
recent activity and the names of at least two occupants in the office dealing with complaints.
The applicant must also disclose finances particularly through highlighting any potential conflicts of
interest and the financial disclosure policy.
3.2.1. PROJECT/ACTIVITY PROCESSES AND OVERSIGHT
Under project/activity processes and oversight, procurement, project preparation and approval,
planning, monitoring and evaluation are incorporated.
To ensure a project will meet its objectives and goals, a project appraisal framework establishes standards
and safeguards, which include social and environmental safeguards, to examine the project before the
funds are dispersed. This ensures that the Applicant’s development or environmental goals will be met
before funds are dispersed.
Applicants to the AF need to present project plan documents and detail how project approval
processes operate. Samples of project appraisals undertaken are needed. In addition,
policies/manuals are required that outline risk assessment procedures as well as completed project
appraisals with identified risks and associated mitigation plans.
Applicants to the GEF must also submit the guidelines or policies for assessments by technical advisers
and/or peer reviews, evidence that policies are in place at the project design stage, details of staff
involved and their training and development, details of financial and economic rates of return and
all supporting documentation demonstrating institutional capacity including recent technical studies,
cash flow statements, and if applicable, the results of pre-feasibility or pre-investment activities.
Minimum requirements necessitate that monitoring and evaluation (M&E) policies should be put in
place to discover project risks and to obtain management information to eliminate these risks. M&E also
facilitates the improvement of projects and the whole institution and its processes as it indicates how
practices need to be improved for future operations. It further allows internal and external accountability
and that completed projects and activities are assessed systematically for strategic decision making. Project
monitoring may be carried out by a dedicated evaluation team of the institution.
63 Ibid.
14
The AF applicant needs to demonstrate what kind of capacities are in place for monitoring and
independent evaluation; i.e. associated policies/manuals need to be enclosed and procedures
explained. Samples of M&E reports are expected, as well as the transcripts from the managerial
review of the monitoring reports and the qualifications of monitoring staff.
Documents prepared for GEF accreditation must be submitted which demonstrate the evaluation
process, including the end of project evaluation reports and documents/guidelines for the Evaluation
Function. The GEF also suggests proving the website, library, and/or documentation centre where the
Evaluation Reports are made available to the public.
Procurement processes: the process by which goods and services are procured should ensure best value
for money; fairness, integrity and transparency; effective competition; and the best interests of the
institution and the recipient64. The procurement processes need to be explained and demonstrated in great
detail:65
The AF applicant needs to provide a description of how procurement is processed, which standards
are used and who is involved66 in each stage of procurement. Evidence must be provided; for
example a copy of internal procurement policies, manuals/procedures and written standards.
Furthermore all procurement guidelines and procedures are made publicly available67 to
demonstrate fair, open and transparent procurement principles. The applicant needs to provide a
description on how procurement procedures are monitored, by who, and the monitoring system
used, for example the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) which monitors procurement
compliance under the Public Procurement Act, 2004 (PPA). Reports must provide data and analysis
regarding all activities and initiatives under the procurement process.
The GEF also stipulates providing a copy of the Model Tender Documents, recently signed Contracts
for providing works and services and documents demonstrating the training of key procurement
personnel.
3.2.2. INVESTIGATIVE STANDARDS
Investigative standards provide institutions a framework to handle financial mismanagement and other
unprofessional conduct. In cases of potential fraud and corruption, an independent investigation of all
allegations is fundamental from an independent investigation committee or body. Guidelines indicating the
procedures in place are also a useful tool in the case of potential fraud or corruption. If a staff member
makes an allegation against suspected violations, they may need protecting and provided anonymity,
through hotline and whistle-blower protection. Guidelines and procedures for individuals in this situation
are important for their protection and to ensure there is a procedure in place for them to come forward.
The AF applicant needs to demonstrate how they deal with (financial) mismanagement and other
forms of malpractice – which capacities and procedures are in place – how mismanagement is
reported – how whistle blowers are protected. A copy of associated policies or manuals is needed.
Furthermore, evidence is needed which refers to investigative functions for allegation of fraud and
corruption – documentation is needed that reflects cases of violation of code of conducts/frauds
reported in previous years. Examples could be provided of cases where whistle-blower protection was
successful, reviews of the processes in place and reports concerning whistle-blowers.
64 UNOPS, (2010), Procurement Manual, Procurement Practice Group, Revision 4. 65 GEF, 2007, Recommended Fiduciary Standards. 66 It needs to be explained and demonstrated which staff are responsible for providing and maintaining adequate
programme documentation, managing records and dealing with them in a timely and efficient manner and how staff
provide information regarding procurement requirements and terms and conditions, as well as any additional information and providing assistance in the procurement process. 67 Evidence is needed that show that the applicants deliver a fair, open and transparent procurement process (e.g. a list
of the contracts awarded must be made public, a specific webpage may be a means to publicise ongoing and closed procurement notices and their deadlines, as well as foreseen procurement procedures).
15
3.3. CASE STUDIES OF SUCCESSFUL ADAPTATION FUND NIE
ACCREDITATION
Considering the difficulties applicants have faced in going through the direct access accreditation process,
two examples of successful accreditation for the AF are presented below, including a set of detailed
information associated with their application processes. The first example is from Belize, who appointed
the Protected Areas Conservation Trust (PACT) as their NIE, and the second is from Jamaica, who appointed
the Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ).
3.3.1. PROTECTED AREAS CONSERVATION TRUST (PACT) BELIZE
Belize is a tropical country located in Central America with a 2011 GDP of USD 1,448 million and a GDP per
capita of USD 4,059 making it lower middle income.68 Tourism has become the largest contributor to GDP69
and agriculture continues to drive the economy. Belize’s economy has diversified over time with
aquaculture and manufacturing, as well as a small and lucrative petroleum industry.70
Climate change policy context of Belize
Belize signed up to UNFCCC in 1992 and ratified it in 1994. As a non-Annex I Party Belize is not obliged to
limit its emissions of greenhouse gases.71 The National Climate Change Committee assists the government
of Belize (GoB) in climate change matters including the implementation of the National Adaptation
Programmes of Action (NAPA). This encourages all government agencies who work in policies or sectors,
which may be affected by climate change, to explore the opportunities being created by the international
climate negotiation process including capacity building, new sources of funding, and technology transfer.72
Belize has a great natural heritage; tourism is a large contributor to the Belize economy. Belize began
protecting this natural heritage in the 1960s with the creation of the protected area system which provided
the foundation for the establishment of the Protected Areas Conservation Trust (PACT) in 1995 (see Table
7). This protected area system has made Belize one of the most environmentally advanced countries in the
world as extensive areas of national territory are protected.73 The Belize National Protected Areas Policy
and Systems Plan (2005) established a policy framework to maximise national development and poverty
alleviation as well as developing governance of the network and strengthening management and
monitoring procedures for capacity building, information sharing, and financing.74
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted effects of climate change in the
Caribbean region for 2050 include a 1.5-2% increase in temperature, a rainfall drop with a decreased
length of the rainy season, and increased length of dry season as well as increased erosion of coastlines, sea
level rise and general increase in extreme events including droughts and floods.75 Belize’s economy and
food security are highly dependent on agriculture and tourism and adverse effects related to climate
change are now a top priority. Belize decided to go through the accreditation process to receive
funding from the AF to carry out adaptation projects.
68 World Bank, (2012), Data: Belize, http://data.worldbank.org/, accessed February 2013. 69 Fuller, C., et al, (2011), Belize Second National Communication, UNFCCC. 70 Ibid. 71 Fuller, C., (2002), First National Communication to the Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/blznc1.pdf. 72 Belize Climate Change Adaptation Policy. 73 Protected Areas Conservation Trust, (2010), About PACT (PACT website accessed Feb 2013). 74 Fuller, C., et al, (2011), Belize Second National Communication, UNFCCC. 75 IPCC, (2007), IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: Projected climate change and its impacts.
16
Selection process of an NIE
In order to benefit from available AF funding, an entity in Belize needed to be appointed to serve as NIE.
The selection process of an NIE had been done before Belize had established a National Climate Change
Framework. Such a Framework determines the Institutions involved, their roles and functions to coordinate
efforts regarding climate finance, and links respective efforts with national development strategies.
Selecting PACT as Belize’s NIE candidate was a relatively straightforward process, because PACT already
enjoyed national credibility and was known for its good governance and its transparent and accountable
processes.76 The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE), PACT’s former parent Ministry,
approached the Belize Cabinet and DA (the Ministry of Finance), who endorsed PACT as the NIE candidate.
Table 7: Snapshot of Protected Areas Conservation Trust (PACT)
PACT, Belize’s National Trust established in 1995, is a statutory body providing funds for supporting
conservation and promoting environmentally sound management of the natural and cultural resources in
Belize that promote sustainable development77. PACT has an annual operational budget of USD 2.25
million78 and is primarily financed through: revenues from a conservation fee paid by tourists on leaving
Belize (of USD 3,75 paid by visitors), 2% of concession fees on concession arrangements within protected
areas, 2% of all recreation-related licence fees for protected areas, 20% cruise ship passengers fees,
income derived from the investment of funds by or on behalf of the Trust, money paid to the Trust as
annuity or to be applied as income (stipulated by donor), all other money not forming part of the
Endowment Fund.79 An Endowment Fund was established in conjunction with the Trust Fund; the
Endowment Fund received 5% of the total revenue of the Trust Fund each year and only the interest of
the Endowment Fund is expended, and only in emergencies and contingencies.
PACT also partners with various international organisations including: The Nature Conservancy (TNC),
UNDP, OAK Foundation, Mesoamerican Reef Fund (MARFUND) and SUMMIT Foundation.
Preparation process for the AF accreditation
In order to set up institutionally and to be prepared for the AF accreditation process, PACT initially formed
a team that reviewed the accreditation process and requirements of the AF. PACT undertook a senior and
middle management process review, including a deep organisational introspection to find and resolve
capacity gaps and prepare for the accreditation process to ensure its success. This internal process also
presented the Board of Directors an opportunity to express their support.
This rather detailed preparation and institutional approach (including senior management commitment)
turned out to be crucial to PACT’s success in becoming accredited, and in a very short time, albeit
conditionally (see below).
76 Belisle, K., and Young, C., (2011), Protected Areas Conservation Trust’s (PACT) Accreditation by the AF Board: Our
Experience, UNFCCC, http://unfccc.int/files/adaptation/application/pdf/pact_case_study.pdf, accessed Feb. 2013. 77 Protected Areas Conservation Trust, (2010), http://www.pactbelize.org/AboutPACT.aspx, accessed Feb. 2013. 78 Belisle, K., (2012), PACT: Accreditation to the AFB: The Process and Experience, Presentation. 79 PACT, (2003), Protected Areas Conservation Trust Act Chapter 218, Revised Edition, Law Revision Commissioner under the authority of the Law Revision Act, Chapter 3 of the Substantive Laws of Belize, Revised Edition 2000.
17
Table 8: Summary of evidence and documentation prepared and submitted to AF by PACT
REQURIED
DOCUMENTATION
PACT SUBMISSION
Legal status and
mandate
PACT Act: The Protected Areas Conservation Act sets out the mandate for PACT,
including: "The general functions of the Trust shall be to encourage and promote,
for the benefit and enjoyment of the present and future generations of the
people of Belize, the provision, protection, conservation and enhancement of the
natural and cultural resources of Belize."80
Governance
Structure
PACT ACT sections 11 and 16 states that the PACT is a statutory body with a
Board of Directors of 11 members81 and an Advisory Council82
Board of Directors manual (developed 2006)
Financial Control
Systems
External audits and management letter
Accounting manuals
Full documentation / separation of duties
Annual & midterm external audits
Conformity to IFRS / Quick books software
Foreign funds handled over last 2 years
Audited Financials
and Management
Letter and internal
control
In accordance with the provisions of the PACT Act, the Financial Statements for all
periods relevant to this assessment have been audited by professional chartered
accountants and have received unqualified opinions as to their fair presentation.83
Management letters were prepared and issued by the audit firm and did not
reveal any material weaknesses in the accounting system or the internal control
structure of the Trust.84
Accounting software The PACT Strategic Plan for 2011 – 2016 from 2010 highlights the introduction of a
Grant Management Software to monitor grantee progress and compliance with
PACT Act legal requirements.
Finance/Audit
Committee ToR
The PACT submitted the Finance Committee Charter which also reviewed the role
of the Committee and the development of an internal audit function.
Manuals
(accounting,
procurement,
grants, board)
Accounting and Procedures Manual (developed 2002).
PACT conducts its accounting operations in accordance with International
Accounting Standards through the adoption and implementation of authoritative
accounting pronouncements issued by the International Federation of Accountants
(IFAC) and generally accepted accounting principles in current use by the
accounting profession in Belize.85
Accounting manuals typically include detailed staff position descriptions and
duties and responsibilities to ensure internal controls are not violated. If this was
not present, a significant misstatement in the presentation of the Financial
Statements could be caused, leading to a “qualified” or even an “adverse” opinion
from the audit firm performing the annual audit.86
80 Jacobs, N., et al., (2010), Strategic Plan 2011 – 2016: The Protected Areas Conservation Trust (PACT). 81 As at 2003 the Board of Directors should have 11 members: 3 governmental, 1 NGO (BACONGO, 1 CBO, 1 BAS, 1 BTIA, 1
BNTOA, 1 finance expert, Financial Secretary (with voting rights) and an Executive Director (both ex-officio). 82 As at 2003 the Advisory Council should have 11 members: 3 government, one each from CZMAI, BFCA, BTB, ANDA,
tertiary institution, one finance expert, and 2 with science experts. 83 PACT, (2010), Institutional Assessment Report. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid. 86 PACT, (2010), Institutional Assessment Report.
18
REQURIED
DOCUMENTATION
PACT SUBMISSION
Budget Approved annual budgets are required under the PACT Act, including a quarterly
internal board subcommittee review and an annual external audit.
A review was conducted of the budget versus the actual performance of PACT as
well as a review of the budget process and features, budget management and
government adherence.
A quarterly internal board subcommittee review is carried out.
Annual external audits are completed.
There is legislative support from the PACT Act, the Ministry of Finance, etc.
Additional Control
Features
Independent external evaluations:
Institutional assessment, commissioned by the Prime Minister (every 5
years).
Grant evaluations (every 3 years). These will be carried out, as stipulated in
the Grant Agreement, by the Grants Department and key stakeholders
involved in protected areas projects and management.
A National Strategic PACT Plan (every 5 years). Belize PACT’s guiding
principle is to evolve over time in order to respond to the changes in the
operating environment.87
Project Appraisal PACT prepared its strategic plan 2011 – 2016 in 2010, which outlines six strategic
objectives:88
Develop and implement mechanisms to grow and sustain the Fund to
increase the impact of PACT.
To achieve enhance institutional capacity.
Improve the allocation, management and impact of PACT grants.
Improve the overall management of the fund.
Improve and consolidate inter-institutional linkages and stakeholder
confidence.
To improve the strategic leadership and overall governance of the board.
One of the important aspects of the strategic plan is the integration of a
Performance Monitoring Tool, allowing PACT a framework of assessing its
performance using specific indicators to identify effectiveness, efficiency, and
relevance. The Board and staff at PACT can evaluate their performance
continuously using ‘Institutional Report Cards’ to ensure the institution is achieving
its mandate and core purpose. This is an important evaluation and investigation
function, including hotline and whistle-blower protection under the investigation
processes section of the minimum fiduciary standards.
The strategic plan objective six also proposed an action to strategically position
PACT to serve as the fiduciary manager of the emerging National Protected Areas
Authority through enhanced institutional and management capacity89 and to assist
other funding agencies and the GoB in fiduciary management,90 demonstrating
their strength in meeting the fiduciary standards.
87 Protected Areas Conservation Trust, (2013), Strategic Focus. 88 Jacobs, N., et al., (2010), Strategic Plan 2011 – 2016: The Protected Areas Conservation Trust (PACT). 89 Jacobs, N., et al., (2010), Strategic Plan 2011 – 2016: The Protected Areas Conservation Trust (PACT). 90 Belisle, K., and Young, C., (2011), Protected Areas Conservation Trust’s (PACT) Accreditation by the Adaptation Fund Board: Our Experience, UNFCCC.
19
REQURIED
DOCUMENTATION
PACT SUBMISSION
Procurement and
Risk Mitigation
A procurement report is submitted to PACT’s Grants Department by grantees
which include all goods and services procured.
PACT’s procurement process for project grant proposals must include a public
call for proposals and three layers of review: the Grants Department screens
each application, with further review (of complete applications) by the
Internal Screening Committee (ISC). The Advisory Council then provides
technical evaluation and the Board of Directors has final evaluation before a
Grant Agreement is signed.91 This procedure is outlined in PACT’s Grant
Application and Management Guide.
PACT organises the public disbursement of funds: there must be transparency
in the procurement procedure, including publishing the results of successful
applications.
Phased fund disbursement with periodic review.
For a project to be eligible for grant funding there must be grant counterpart
funding; in kind or cash or a combination of both (the amount will vary
according to grant type). 92
PACT Endowment: no less than 5% of all revenues are deposited into an
Endowment Fund.93
Project Files All of the PACT’s projects files were submitted to the AFB and the “Grants
application and management guide” are available on their website.
PACT is one of Belize’s National Executing Partners for GEF. Since joining the GEF,
Belize received grants totalling USD 20,249,080 that leveraged USD 25,020,918 in
co-financing resources for 15 national projects.94
Project management
cycle
A Grant Management Software will be introduced to assist the tracking of
grantee progress and compliance with PACT Grant Policies.95
A Fund Management Policy will be developed and implemented based on
international standards and best practice.
Once a proposal is agreed between the grant applicant and the PACT Grants
Department, the two parties must approve an implementation plan,
benchmarks and a timeline, a disbursement plan, reporting procedures and a
M&E plan.96 The first disbursement from PACT is made upon signature of the
Grant Agreement and again at certain benchmarks.
The primary means for progress updates are through reports submitted to
PACT as scheduled in the Grant Agreement. Each report must include an
activity report highlighting accomplishments and challenges, a procurement
report of services, equipment and supplies purchased, and a financial report
with monthly bank statements and original receipts. PACT reviews and
approves the report within two weeks of submission.97
Once the report is approved, project implementation will continue. If the
report is questioned or unacceptable it is taken to the Board of Directors for
recommendation.
91 Diaz, N., et al., (2011), Grant Application and Management Guide, PACT. 92 Ibid. 93 Protected Areas Conservation Trust, (2010), About PACT. 94 The GEF, (2012), Belize Country Fact Sheet. 95 PACT, (2010), Strategic Plan 2011-2016. 96 PACT, (2011), Grant Application and Management Guide. 97 PACT, (2011), Grant Application and Management Guide.
20
REQURIED
DOCUMENTATION
PACT SUBMISSION
Periodic scheduled and unscheduled field visits are made by the Grants
Department.
An interim project audit and evaluation, including a review of the financial
management, is conducted by PACT following the first six months of small and
research grant allocation; one year for medium and large grants.98
Upon project completion, the grantee and Grants Department complete a
Project Completion and Assessment report within two weeks after the
approval of the Final Financial Report.99
Anti-Corruption
Evidence of anti-corruption efforts: a review of all internal fraud cases in the
last 5 years was undertaken including the minutes of meetings which were
submitted with the review.
Review of procedures addressing Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics /
Misconduct.
Capacity for self-investigation and addressing Board oversight, office of
contractor general and capacity to contract investigative resources.
Ministry of Finance commissioned institutional audit.
Accreditation by the AF
PACT received endorsement to apply for NIE status on 11 May 2011, submitted their formal application to
the AFB on 22 June 2011, received a formal information request by the AFB on 11 July 2011, and received
communication of official accreditation100 on 19 September 2011. Accreditation was awarded under the
following conditions:101
PACT should provide semi-annual progress reports on Adaptation Fund projects.
PACT should have in place to the satisfaction of the Accreditation Panel and before the approval of the
first project:
A formal annual internal control statement signed by its Executive Director and the Board and to
be issued with the financial statements;
A formal mandate for the Finance Committee of the Board to execute the functions of an audit
committee.
A public antifraud policy that demonstrates a zero tolerance attitude.
These conditions were deemed as not crucial to the accreditation of PACT as an NIE and the PACT Board
agreed to address them in a timely manner. The AF decided to accredit PACT conditionally because PACT’s
application was strong and the AFB recognised that the gaps in fiduciary standards could be filled through
additional controls and information mechanisms. Policies had to be adopted to address any wrongdoing or
fraud as well as an internal capacity to investigate and address fraud, public zero tolerance tone and
internal control document.102
PACT submitted a well prepared application and supporting documentation to the Adaptation Fund.
However, they still did not meet all expectations and were accredited conditionally while they improved
and developed certain processes. To date, the PACT has addressed the Adaptation Fund’s
recommendations:
98 PACT, (2011), Grant Application and Management Guide. 99 PACT, (2011), Grant Application and Management Guide. 100 Adaptation Fund, (2011), Report of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Adaptation Board, Adaptation Fund Board Meeting. 101 Adaptation Fund, (2011), Report of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Adaptation Board, Adaptation Fund Board Meeting,
Decision B.15/2, http://www.adaptation-fund.org/sites/default/files/AFB%2015%20report.pdf. 102 Ibid.
21
Belize’s Grant Agreement highlights the importance of progress updates to the PACT from grant
recipients. The Belize Marine Conservation and Climate Adaptation Project implemented by the
World Bank have been placed in the project pipeline for the Adaptation Fund. It is expected that
Belize will provide semi-annual progress reports to the AF.
PACT have adjusted their Finance Committee Charter and developed an internal control document to
address the recommendations of the AF.
A formal mandate for the Finance Committee of the Board to execute the functions of an audit
committee. Although PACT has risk management procedures in place, PACT’s evidence was not fully
satisfactory for the AF Board. PACT needed to ensure that risk management is a separate and focused
element of various activities (and associated manuals)103.
A public antifraud policy that demonstrates a zero tolerance attitude. PACT submitted a review of all
fraud cases in the last five years, including meeting minutes, and was compliant with Finance and
Audit Act and Office of Contractor General. However, the Adaptation Fund recommended that PACT
develop their internal capacity, in particular to adopt policies to investigate and address fraud.
AF project application
Although it has NIE status, PACT has not developed its own project proposal but developed and submitted
in February 2013 a project proposal together with the World Bank, the GoB and three consultants (“Belize
Marine Conservation and Climate Adaptation Project”; worth USD 6 million). The project proposal was first
developed in 2011 with the World Bank as MIE and PACT as the executing entity. The proposal was rejected
twice by the Adaptation Fund because the creation of a Trust Fund was unprecedented104 and the
Adaptation Fund wanted clarification from the World Bank that the project could achieve its objective
through indicators and more sufficient information (Decision B.15/12).105 PACT since gained accreditation
and the project concept was endorsed in June 2012, after its third submission. The project is due to start in
September 2013 with USD 4.45 million from the Adaptation Fund and in-kind contribution from the GoB
and NGOs of USD 0.783 million.106
Key features from PACT’s accreditation process
PACT was very well prepared for the accreditation process, as highlighted above. However, their application
still did not meet all requirements. This demonstrates that accreditation applicants must explain and
present as much documentation as possible, and learn from other institutions that successfully completed
the process. The following key features are taken from PACTs lessons learned and observations from the
analysis above.
Institutional approach: One of PACT’s major success factors was the institutional approach; an organised
team effort (including three directors) in going through the accreditation process. Moreover, before the
application was prepared, the AF requirements were initially assessed in detail and compared with PACT’s
current institutional capacity, which allowed PACT to identify gaps and improve shortcomings before
sending out the application. This approach convinced the Board to fully support the process (e.g. providing
approval for disclosing and sharing internal/sensitive documents/information with the AFB.
Flexibility is needed to adjust and change the ways things were done in the past – already
before applying for accreditation: In order to comply with the standards of the AF there must be a
willingness to change procedures and processes and capacity to adjust and strengthen capacities. This
requires strong (management) leadership because often this affects processes or procedures that were in
place for some time already.
103 Belisle, K., and Young, C., (2011), Protected Areas Conservation Trust’s (PACT) Accreditation by the Adaptation Fund
Board: Our Experience, UNFCCC. 104 The project concept is to set up a Trust Fund to finance ecosystem-based adaptation to enhance the resilience of the
critical Barrier Reef ecosystem. 105 Adaptation Fund, (2011), Report of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Adaptation Fund Board, AFB/B.15/8. 106 Adaptation Fund, (2013), Proposal for Belize, AFB/PPRC.11/6.
22
Open communication process with the AF Board: Considering the AF requirements are not always
detailed or transparent enough for all applicants to understand the scale of information and
documentation needed, it is essential to have an open communication with the AF Board assigned advisor
from where an applicant can get valuable feedback from. By opening themselves for exchange, PACT
experienced at the end that communication with the AFB, and particularly informal feedback provided by
their AF assigned advisor as very helpful.107
Implementation of policies and manuals in the daily work is essential: The existence of policy is not
assumed to demonstrate proper execution or effectiveness;108 policy must also be demonstrated to be
effective in practice; an applicant needs to demonstrate that policies and procedures are implemented in
the daily work. This may require detailed explanations how respective policies are implemented. Ideally,
evidence is provided though copies of reports that are proving the implementation of policies are
supporting the application.
Independent external review, public disclosures and internal controls are important for the AF
Board: The conditions clearly indicated that reviews and disclosure are essential. And that systems need to
be in place for it. PACT was able to provide evidence for its review functions (e.g. large grants are
evaluated every 3 years and all finances are audited periodically by an independent firm). However, there
was no evidence that the internal control functions were systematically documented. Thus, a statement
concerning internal control functions became one of the AF Board’s conditions for accreditation.
There is potential for leveraging the capacity building/application efforts: The PACT accreditation
has increased the global image and reputation of PACT as an effective organisation. The process forced
PACT to strengthen its fiduciary management capabilities, which have improved national stakeholder
confidence in PACT,109 and thus the accreditation should also allow PACT to leverage additional resources
including additional climate finance.
3.3.2. ACCREDITATION - PLANNING INSTITUTE OF JAMAICA (PIOJ)
Jamaica is a small island developing state (SID) located in the Caribbean with a 2011 GDP of USD 14,439
billion110 and a GDP per capita of USD 5,330 making it an upper middle income country. Jamaica has a
mixed economic system with prominent national activities as well as a thriving private sector. The major
sectors of the economy include: bauxite, tourism, agriculture and manufacturing with tourism and mining
leading the foreign exchange income.111
The main sustainable development issues in Jamaica are social (crime and poverty), economic (indebtedness
with slow and negative growth) and governance (institutional capacity, monitoring and enforcement and
no single sustainable development strategy). Environmental issues are the management of natural and
man-made hazards, land use management, biodiversity conservation, and climate change and sea-level rise.
Jamaica also recognises unbalanced regional development, forestry and watershed management, energy
(cost and supply), management of wastes and low and ineffective use of science and technology as
important sustainable development issues.112 60-75% of Jamaica’s population live within two km of the cost
and most of the major infrastructure, including two airports, hospitals and major roads are within the
coastal zone.113
107 Belisle, K., and Young, C., (2011), Protected Areas Conservation Trust’s (PACT) Accreditation by the Adaptation Fund Board: Our Experience, UNFCCC. 108 Belisle, K., (2012), PACT: Accreditation to the AFB: The Process and Experience, Presentation. 109 Ibid. 110 World Bank, (2012), Data: Jamaica, http://data.worldbank.org/, accessed February 2013. 111 Government of Jamaica, (2011), The Second National Communication of Jamaica to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, UNDP, UNFCCC, GEF. 112 Peterson, H., (2010), Jamaica’s Accreditation as a National Implementing Entity to the Adaptation Fund Board. 113 Ibid.
23
Climate Change Policy context of Jamaica
Jamaica signed up to the UNFCCC in 1995 as a non-Annex 1 Party although signatories to the Convention
are requested to report periodically on emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal
Protocol as well as details of activities undertaken to implement the Convention.114 Jamaica’s Initial
National Communication highlighted their vulnerability to climate impacts and adaptation assessments for
agriculture, water and coastal zone sectors. In the Second National Communication (2011), vulnerability and
adaptation assessments were undertaken for five sectors: water resources, agriculture, human health,
coastal zones and human settlements, and tourism.115 The recommendations from this study included
increasing and maintaining investment in monitoring and use through a national database, funding
research, developing appropriate modelling tools and awareness raising.116
The Jamaican National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) is an executive agency that integrates
environmental, planning and sustainable development policies and programmes guided by the UNDAF
Jamaica 2012-2016 which outlines UN assistance to meet development challenges and the actions set out in
Vision 2030. The Government of Jamaica (GoJ) is working towards their Vision 2030 Jamaica - National
Development Plan (V2030) developed by the Jamaican Planning Institute in 2009 and mandated by the
national government The V2030 identifies the following four strategic goals to achieve developed country
status by 2030:
Strengthen the education and social protection systems;
Promote good governance and strengthen public security;
Improve the business environment, develop infrastructure and promote the ICT sector; and
Sustainable management and use of environment and natural resources.
There are four national goals, fifteen national outcomes, and over fifty national strategies in place to
achieve these goals.117 The V2030 specifically references, in Goal 14, the improvement of climate change
issues and disaster risk reduction:118
Improve Resilience to all forms of hazards;
Develop measures to adapt to climate change;
Contribute to the effort to reduce global rate of climate change.
Selection process of an NIE
Jamaica was one of the first countries to secure accreditation as a NIE, along with Senegal, in May 2011.
The Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ), an agency of the Ministry of Finance and Planning, was selected by
Jamaica’s DA (a representative of the Meteorological Services) with an invitation issued by the AFB in
October 2009, the formal invitation for endorsement as a NIE candidate in February 2010.119
114 UNFCCC, (2013), Full Text of Convention. 115 Government of Jamaica, (2011), The Second National Communication of Jamaica to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNDP, UNFCCC, GEF. 116 Ibid. 117 The national goals include empowering Jamaicans to achieve their potential for society and the economy; national
outcomes include health, education and culture; strategies include, but are not limited to, law enforcement, promoting access to education, establishing and maintaining sustainable mechanisms to financially support the initiatives. Source:
Planning Institute of Jamaica, (2009), Vision 2030 Jamaica National Development Plan. 118 Planning Institute of Jamaica, (2009), Vision 2030 Jamaica National Development Plan. 119 Peterson, H., (2010), Jamaica’s Accreditation as a National Implementing Entity to the Adaptation Fund Board.
24
Table 9: Snapshot of Planning Institute of Jamaica (PIOJ)
The PIOJ is a statutory organisation established in 1984 and given a broader mandate than its predecessor,
the National Planning Agency. PIOJ's mission is formulating policy on economic and social issues and
external cooperation management to achieve sustainable development for the people of Jamaica.120 PIOJ
advises the government on major issues relating to economic, environmental and social policy for the
development of Jamaica and provides technical and research support and integrating decisions on
economic and social policy into the national development programme.121 The PIOJ also collaborates with
international development partners to identify and implement development projects, for example the
ongoing GoJ and UNEP Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction Project funded by the
European Union (EU).122 The PIOJ began by strengthening the management capability of the government,
including designing and implementing an early warning system and continuous monitoring of the
economy.
The PIOJ is a public institution under the Office of the Prime Minister; its funds come directly from the
Parliament and other money and property which are vested to the Institute.123
Project proposals may be submitted to the NIE from community-based organisations, NGOs, private sector
entities, and public sector agencies. Projects must be able to demonstrate that they contribute to poverty
reduction and national development. They must also be implementable within a three year period.124
Preparation process for the AF accreditation
The invitation to submit a NIE application was issued to the GoJ by the AFB in October 2009 and the
fiduciary standards were circulated. The PIOJ then discussed the requirements of the AF internally from
December 2009 – February 2010 with the aim of applying by March 2010.125
For preparation purpose and in order to ensure compliance with the AF standards, the PIOJ conducted staff
interviews, interviews with ministries departments and agencies and their IDPs as well as staff participation
in external courses at IBRD, European Union (EU), Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) and IDB. Their
application was in line with Jamaica’s Second National Communication to the UNFCCC, which highlighted
that the PIOJ is responsible for leveraging and coordinating international funding to maximise benefits
within the agricultural sectors126; National Climate Change Policy & Action Plan and Vision 2030 Jamaica
National Development Plan. The documents submitted with the applications are provided below (Table 10).
120 Planning Institute of Jamaica, (2008-12) Mission and Vision Statements, Government of Jamaica. 121 Planning Institute of Jamaica, (2008-12) Functions, Government of Jamaica. 122 Planning Institute of Jamaica, (2008-12) Policy Initiatives, Government of Jamaica. 123 PIOJ, (1985), The Planning Institute of Jamaica Act. 124 Peterson, H., (2010), Jamaica’s Accreditation as a National Implementing Entity to the Adaptation Fund Board, Presented at the UN Climate Change Conference 2010, COP 16, Mexico. 125 Peterson, H., (2010), Jamaica’s Accreditation as a National Implementing Entity to the Adaptation Fund Board. 126 Government of Jamaica, (2011), The Second National Communication of Jamaica to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/jamnc2.pdf.
25
Table 10: Summary of evidence/documentation prepared & delivered to AF by Jamaica
REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION
PIOJ SUBMISSION
Legal status and
mandate
The PIOJ Act (1984). This Act empowers the PIOJ to engage in activities that
foster sustainable development through collaborations with local and
international partners.
Governance Structure
Board of Directors (comprising private and public sector), Director General,
Committee of Management.
The PIOJ works together with various International Development Partners.127
The PIOJ’s divisional structure is made up of: Director General’s Office,
Economic Planning and Research; Social Policy, Planning and Research;
External Co-operation Management; Sustainable Development & Regional
Planning; Corporate Services; Corporate Affairs, Marketing and
Communication.
Financial Integrity &
Management
Planning Institute of Jamaica Act (1984)
The Financial Administration and Audit Act (1997)
Planning Institute of Jamaica Annual Report
PIOJ’s Specimen Detailed Trial Balance for 2009 for UNDP Project128
Their funds are managed and disbursed under the Financial Administration and
Audit Act, while their annual budget is submitted to the Ministry of Finance for
approval and also undergoes an internal and external audit.129
Manuals (accounting,
procurement, grants,
board)
Financial matters are undertaken through an accounting unit headed by a
financial manager.
The Planning Institute of Jamaica Accounting Systems & Procedures Manual.
Audited Financials
and Management
Letter
The Planning Institute of Jamaica Auditor’s Report & Financial Statement
Year ended December 31, 2008 was submitted.130
Internal & External Audits are carried out. The position of Internal Auditor
was advertised by the PIOJ with applications due by December 2012.131
The internal auditor must report to the Board.
Accounting software
PIOJ developed a system for the review of International Development
Partner-financed projects – quarterly, bi-annually, annually to address risk
factors likely to constrain attainment of development objectives.
Institutional Capacity
The PIOJ’s core competencies cover a range of issues, including: macro-
economy, real sectors, social sectors & external co-operation management
and sustainable development. These competencies are demonstrated in the
Vision 2030 – National Development Plan.
The PIOJ also co-ordinates international development assistance, for
example technical co-operation initiatives financed by multilateral &
bilateral agencies.
127 The international development partners to Jamaica are: Caribbean Development Bank (CDB), Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA), DFID, EU, FAO, The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM), IBRD
(World Bank), IDB, WHO, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNRC, UNEP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF and USAID. Source: WHO, Jamaica,
Country Cooperation Strategy at a Glance. 128 Peterson, H., (2010), Jamaica’s Accreditation as a National Implementing Entity to the Adaptation Fund Board. 129 Peterson, H., (2010), Jamaica’s Accreditation as a National Implementing Entity to the Adaptation Fund Board. 130 The audited Financial Statements are in line with the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). 131 PIOJ, (2012), Job Summary.
26
REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION
PIOJ SUBMISSION
Budget
The PIOJ budget projections for financial year 2010 –2011.
Preparation of annual budget which is submitted to the Office of the Prime
Minister, Ministry of Finance for approval in the annual estimates of
expenditure.
Additional Control
Features
Contractor General Act.
There is a secretariat for the Pre-Selection Committee, which holds
responsibility for executing all project cycle management tasks and
undertaking financial and economic analysis of projects which are to be
included in the GoJ’s Public Sector Investment Programme.132
Project Files
Project Summaries submitted included:
Inner City Basic Services;
Montego Bay Convention Centre;
The Adaptation Fund Board required the project concept of Jamaica’s
Enhancing the resilience of Agriculture and Coastal Resources for Food
Security and Livelihoods Protection project including stronger links to the
recently completed project on improved land management and agriculture
adaptation to climate change.133
Project management
cycle
PIOJ’s project management cycle is: Identification, preparation, appraisal,
approval, implementation, evaluation, which ensures a well designed and
budgeted project with clear objectives and development impact goals.
PIOJ works directly with International Development Partners (IDPs) to
ensure any project concepts submitted to the PIOJ must align with the
national strategy.
The proposal must demonstrate logic and technical strength and must
demonstrate the fiscal impact.134
Procurement and Risk
Mitigation
GoJ Handbook of Public Sector Procurement Procedures.
Substantial experience in procurement using national procedures & IDP
procedures.
The Contractor General Act and the National Contracts Commission require that
the Office of Contractor General oversees the procurement procedure and that
the procurement procedures are consistent with international development
partner requirements, including the AF.
Monitoring and
Evaluation
PIOJ participates in M&E exercises led by multi-lateral & bilateral agencies.
Anti-Corruption
The Corruption (Prevention) Act 2000
Contractor General Act
Access to Information Act
The Procurement Committee plays a role in anti-corruption measures
132 Peterson, H., (2010), Jamaica’s Accreditation as a National Implementing Entity to the Adaptation Fund Board. 133 AFB, (2012), Proposal for Jamaica. 134 UNFCCC, (2011), The Adaptation Fund Accreditation – the experience of the Planning Institute of Jamaica, Panama.
27
Accreditation by AF
The invitation to submit an application for accreditation was extended to PIOJ by the AFB in October 2009
with the fiduciary standards circulated in December 2009. The formal invitation to PIOJ was submitted in
February 2010 and the application was submitted to the AFB in March 2010, with a field visit from experts
to PIOJ conducted in July 2010.135 The PIOJ was officially accepted as NIE in September 2010 (altogether an
11 month process) and accredited by the Adaptation Fund Board as an NIE in September 2010.
Accreditation was awarded with the following conditions:
Further evidence should be provided regarding the project-cycle management. Although PIOJ has
played a role in project-cycle management since its establishment in 1984, there was insufficient
documentation of project management internally. PIOJ formalised its project management processes
and produced a handbook detailing the procedures to be followed.136
AF project application
The PIOJ submitted a project proposal (Enhancing the Resilience of the Agricultural Sector and Coastal
Areas to Protect Livelihoods and Improve Food Security), which was approved in June 2012, 21 months
following its accreditation as NIE. The reason for the delay could be the fact that the PIOJ does not solely
focus on climate adaptation137, and the AFB may have wanted to ensure that the PIOJ can adequately
implement the project. The total project budget is USD 9,965,000, USD 3,451,897 having already been
transferred.138 The PIOJ is the implementing entity for the project with the National Environment and
Planning Agency, National Works Agency, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Ministry of Tourism as
executing entities.139
In 2009, PIOJ participated in the first meeting of pilot countries under the Pilot Programme for Climate
Resilience (PPCR), and the Caribbean Regional Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR).140
Participation at this meeting led to Jamaica’s inclusion in the PPCR. Since 2011, Jamaica has been
implementing a PPCR Project from the Strategic Climate Fund (a Climate Investment Fund) with the PIOJ as
executing agency141 and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) acting as administrator.
Key features from PIOJ’s accreditation process
This section draws upon a number of lessons learned highlighted by the PIOJ during the accreditation
process and were partly presented by Jamaica in Cancun in 2010,142 as well as observations from the analysis
above:
An extensive set of documented information must be provided to prove the applicant meets the
fiduciary requirements: Documented information is an important requisite for accreditation and must be
submitted to the AFB in a timely manner. The PIOJ had not been aware that the AFB required so much
supporting documentation. The AFB has a standard accreditation application pack and expects all
documentation to be delivered by the NIE candidate, with further information to be made available upon
request. Even if an institution has been conducting certain project management processes for years, if it
cannot provide documented evidence, it is assumed that these processes do not exist.
Institutional systems and procedures must be transparent: It is recommended by the AFB that
systems and procedures be described fully in the relevant documentation or manuals and involve the
required authorities as needed. It is also recommended that, to the extent possible under confidentiality,
this information be published on the institution’s website. The AFB also expects all procedures and systems
to be in line with international best practice.
135 The Adaptation Fund, (2011), The Adaptation Fund Accreditation – the experience of the Planning Institute of
Jamaica, https://www.adaptation-fund.org/event/workshop-accreditation-nies-latin-america-and-caribbean-region. 136 CDKN, (2012), Direct access to the Adaptation Fund: Lessons from accrediting NIEs in Jamaica and Senegal. 137 CDKN (2012), Direct access to the Adaptation Fund: Lessons from accrediting NIEs in Jamaica and Senegal. 138 The Adaptation Fund, (2012), Funded Projects, https://www.adaptation-fund.org/funded_projects, accessed Feb. 2013. 139 The Adaptation Fund (2012), Enhancing the Resilience of the Agricultural Sector and Coastal Areas to Protect
Livelihoods and Improve Food Security, Project Document (by Mimura, A.). 140 PIOJ, (2009), Annual Report. 141 PIOJ, (2012), Pilot Programme for Climate resilience in Jamaica Phase 1, Jamaica: Terms of Reference. 142 Peterson, H., (2010), Jamaica’s Accreditation as a National Implementing Entity to the Adaptation Fund Board, Presented at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2010, COP 16 and CMP 16, Cancun.
28
Support of international development partners is beneficial: Jamaica benefited greatly from the
support of their international development partners. The International Development Partners (IDPs) to
Jamaica include a number of multilateral and bilateral agencies.143 PIOJ’s previous experience collaborating
with their IDPs in identifying and implementing development projects, as well as managing external
cooperation agreements and internal auditing processes helped them in the accreditation process for the
AF.144 Representatives from IDB and CIDA met with the AFB team on a field visit to Jamaica and “gave a
positive assessment of PIOJ as the appropriate entity in Jamaica to be an implementing entity for the
AF”.145
Organisational good will is needed: PIOJ found that there is a need to develop organisational goodwill
to ensure the support of their delivery partners in the application process as well as a preceding reputation
of credibility and good governance. Internal support was also achieved through staff interviews, including
management, to provide clarity regarding the process the institution was going through. In addition to
developing organisational goodwill, it was also important for the PIOJ and the AF Accreditation Panel to
raise awareness of the AF at the national level to ensure that the country was aware of and understood
what the AF can bring to the country.
A multi-disciplinary approach is beneficial: PIOJ has a range of core competencies, including macro-
economy, real sectors, social sectors and external cooperation management, and sustainable development,
which demonstrates to the AFB that it has a network of stakeholders and can draw on knowledge and
experience from many competencies.146
Foresight should be used in recognising the opportunity for NIE accreditation: Jamaican officials
were made aware of the opportunity for NIE accreditation through their UNFCCC focal point.147 It is
important for a potential NIE entity to establish itself as the candidate to be recommended by the national
DA, as well as to have enough time and institutional capacity to prepare the necessary supporting
documentation.
143 CDB, CIDA, DFID, EU, FAO, GFATM, IBRD (World Bank), IDB, WHO, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNRC, UNEP, UNESCO, UNFPA,
UNICEF and USAID. 144 Peterson, H., (2010), Jamaica’s Accreditation as a National Implementing Entity to the Adaptation Fund Board. 145 Adaptation Fund, (2001), Report of the Third Meeting of the Accreditation Panel, AFB/B.11/4. 146 Peterson, H., (2010), Jamaica’s Accreditation as a National Implementing Entity to the Adaptation Fund Board. 147 CDKN, (2012), Direct access to the Adaptation Fund: Lessons from accrediting NIEs in Jamaica and Senegal.
29
4. EXPERIENCES AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
For developing countries (enhanced) direct access opportunities are increasingly important, as was stated by
the GCF Board at its last meeting in June 2013. However, gaining direct access to international finance can
be a formidable challenge. To become accredited under the AF and the GEF, an institution must meet
minimum fiduciary standards and prove that it is effectively applying them. All entities that were
successfully accredited by the AF and the GEF gained valuable experience which other countries could
benefit from, and are summarised below.
Using the guiding documents and examples of AF and GEF: While the GEF has more detailed and
specific information concerning the required supporting documentation, the AF provides definitions
without asking specifically which type of documentation must be provided. Institutions preparing for
the accreditation process may find themselves better prepared if they consult the guides from both
funds.
It would be helpful if accreditation standards for direct access to climate finance were
better coordinated and aligned, if possible, even standardised across international climate
funds: Besides efforts to demonstrate and improve capacities in developing countries, changes to
accessing international climate finance are also expected from the developing countries, for example
from direct to enhanced direct access or through the operationalisation of the GCF. Considering the
number of funds and various access requirements, more concentrated efforts should be made to
simplify complex administrative processes, align conflicting mandates, and maximise transparency and
accountability.148 ODI149 and some developing countries150 suggest that the minimum fiduciary
standards should be standardised across all international climate funds.
The GCF is currently considering preparing its own set of fiduciary standards and access modalities
(until September 2013). The rationale is that this would reflect the different capacities and needs of
countries. However, it would fail to respond to calls for streamlining from developing countries, which
actually have to go through the process. However, if the GCF decides to accredit NIEs already accredited
by the AF and the GEF, they may combine comparatively less rigorous standards with limited access
granted. It is argued in the Business Model Framework that the fiduciary standards applied by different
funds differ significantly in their content, and that a minimum level of standards should probably be
defined, while more ambitious standards could be applicable beyond certain thresholds, for fund
management functions or (for certain functions) after an initial grace period.151 This will be discussed at
the next Board meeting in September 2013.
Accreditation as a sign of quality: Meeting and demonstrating minimum fiduciary standards can be
challenging. Meeting this challenge by achieving accreditation puts countries in a better position to
mobilise finance from other international climate funds. For example, the Least Developed Countries
Fund (LDCF) is governed by the GEF and uses the GEF fiduciary standards. The Clean Technology Fund
(CTF) administers funds through MDBs, which also uphold the GEF minimum fiduciary standards (as
they are mostly also GEF Agencies), and similarly the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF)
administers Funds through three Delivery Partners,152 which uphold the GEF minimum fiduciary
standards.
Relying on one accredited NIE might prove difficult for the GCF and the countries in the
longer-term: Only one NIE per country can be accredited under the AF, and only one (national) Project
Agency can progress to Stage II of the GEF’s accreditation process. For its access modality, the GCF is
considering automatically qualifying NIEs that have been accredited by the AF or GEF, or MDBs and IFIs
with internationally recognised fiduciary standards for direct access to the Fund. The GCF Board needs
to consider this option carefully as long as no standardised fiduciary standards exist.
148 New York University and Abu Dhabi Institute (2010), Developing Countries and a Proposal for Architecture and
Governance of a Reformed UNFCCC Financial Mechanism (by Luis Gomez-Echevern, L.), in Climate Finance: Regulatory
and Funding Strategies for Climate Change and Global Development (by Stewart, R., et al (ed.). 149 ODI, 2011, Direct access to climate finance: experiences and lessons learned. 150 Frankfurt School-UNEP Collaborating Centre, 2013, Policy Brief: Policy Brief: Concerns and recommendations regarding
the design of the Green Climate Fund from participants in the UNEP NCFISP. 151 The Green Climate Fund, (2013), Business Model Framework: Access Modalities, GCF/B.04/05. 152 The Delivery Partners are: World Bank, IDB and UNDP, with FAO under consideration.
30
Reflecting the experience of PACT and PIOJ with regard to their accreditation application for the AF, it can
be concluded that extensive preparation and an institutional approach are key for successful
accreditation. However, also open communication with the AF Board appointed advisor is crucial.
More specific lessons learned from the two case studies are summarised below:
Identifying a suitable NIE is challenging: In selecting a NIE candidate, the national government
should select an existing institution with substantial experience - such as the PIOJ, which had more
than 50 years of experience as the National Planning Office before becoming an independent
institution - or PACT; a well-known and credible institution with good governance and transparent and
accountable processes. If a new institution needs to be developed, the minimum fiduciary standards
(Table 6) provide a good basis for the planning and could be used during the development of the
institution. However, some elements are hard to provide for new institutions; e.g. track-record in
implementing and managing projects. Hereby, concerted efforts of different organisation may be
needed to demonstrate required experience.
An institutional approach is needed: It is important for the accreditation candidate to form a team,
ideally composed of staff members from different departments, to review the accreditation process and
requirements of the Fund, engaging senior staff and conducting organisational introspection to
identify and resolve any capacity gaps.
Thorough preparation is key: It is fundamental for potential accreditation applicants to fully assess
each fiduciary requirement before investing time and money in the accreditation process. The PIOJ
stated after its accreditation that they were taken by surprise by the amount of supporting
documentation required. Before it began the accreditation process, PACT established a team to support
the process. However, despite this institutional preparation, which PACT benefitted from internally, it
received only conditional accreditation contingent on its further developing its capabilities.
Communication is key: Developing countries can help each other by sharing their lessons learned
from the accreditation process. Open communication between the applicant and the Fund during the
accreditation process is equally important, which has been confirmed by both Belize and Jamaica. It is
fundamental for the NIE applicant to fully and continually engage with the Fund to be able to
understand the accreditation process and all the requirements. This may involve an extensive review, a
resubmission of documentation, and it may also require a field visit by the AF.
Accreditation is only the first step towards accessing the funds. It remains to be seen how
these institutions manage to actually access finance from these Funds: Belize and Jamaica both
found that after successful accreditation, actually accessing the funds was the next challenge. Jamaica’s
project concept took 21 months after accreditation to be approved, while Belize’s project concept (with
the World Bank as MIE) is still in the approval process.
There are a number of institutions who have been accredited by the AF, but who have had varying
degrees of project implementation success. Argentina, who was accredited in March 2012, is the only
country with two approved projects, although only one is through the NIE (Unidad para el Cambio
Rural), the other is with World Bank as IE. To date, USD 2,322,273 has been transferred out of a total
project budget of USD 5,640,000.153 Belize on the other hand, has only recently had a project concept
approved, and the concept it submitted uses the World Bank as IE, because the AF needed proof that
the project could be implemented effectively. The Centre de Suivi Ecologique of Senegal (CSE), who
initially struggled because of its small size and was accredited in August 2012 , on the condition that it
agree to a more stringent reporting process, has since submitted half-year performance reports and is
the only NIE today to have received the total project funding.
153 The Adaptation Fund, (2011), Funded Projects, https://www.adaptation-fund.org/funded_projects.
31
ANNEX 1: ACCREDITED INSTITUTIONS UNDER THE AF AND GEF
Table 11: The Global Environment Facility (GEF) as of November 2013
ACCREDITED STAGE II STAGE I ONLY
GEF AGENCIES (NATIONAL)
VTB Bank – Russian
Federation (VTB)*
Fundo Brasileiro para a
Biodiversidade- Brazil
(FUNBIO)
Foreign Economic
Cooperation Office –
China (FECO)-conditional
approval to move to
Stage III
The Development Bank
of Southern Africa
(DBSA)-conditional
approval to move to
Stage III
National Environment
Fund – Peru (FONAM)-
rejected
Agencia Nacional de
Investigación e
Innovación – Uruguay
(ANII)
GEF AGENCIES
(REGIONAL) Asian Development
Bank (ADB)
African Development
Bank (AfDB)
European Bank for
Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD)
Inter-American
Development Bank
(IADB)
Banco de Desarrollo de
America Latina (CAF)
Banque Ouest Africaine
de Dévelopment (BOAD)
The Secretariat of the
Pacific Regional
Environment
Programme – Pacific
(SPREP)
Observatoire du
Sahara et du Sahel –
North Africa (OSS)
GEF Agencies
(NGOs) World Wide Fund
(WWF)Conservation-
moving to Stage III
International (CI)-moving
to Stage III
International Union for
Conservation of Nature
(IUCN)
International Federation
of Red Cross (IFRC) –
rejected
32
International
Organisations
/ UN Agencies
United Nations
Development
Programme (UNDP)
United Nations
Environment
Programme (UNEP)
United Nations
Industrial Development
Organisation (UNIDO)
Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the
United Nations (FAO)
International Fund for
Agriculture and
Development (IFAD)
The World Bank
UN World Food
Programme (WFP)
UN Human
Settlements
Programme (UN-
HABITAT)
* Russia is not a developing country in the climate finance context
33
Table 12: The Adaptation Fund (AF) as of November 2013
NIEs Planning Institute of Jamaica (Jamaica)
Centre de Suivi Ecologique (Senegal)
Agencia Nacional de Investigacion e Innovacion (Uruguay)
National Environment Fund (Benin)
South African National Biodiversity Institute (South Africa)
Protected Areas Conservation Trust (PACT) (Belize)
Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation (Jordan
Ministry of Natural Resources (MINIRENA) (Rwanda)
National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) (Kenya)
Mexican Institute of Water Technology (IMTA) (Mexico)
Unidad para el Cambio Rural (Unit for Rural Change - UCAR) (Argentina)
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (India)
Fundecooperacion Para el Desarollo Sostenible (Costa Rica)
Agency for Agricultural Development (Morocco)
International Cooperation Agency of Chile (AGCI)
RIEs West African Development Bank (BOAD)
MIEs Asian Development Bank (ADB)
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
United Nations World Food Programme (WFP)
World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development)
World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
African Development Bank (AfDB)
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
Frankfurt School - UNEP Collaborating Centre for
Climate & Sustainable Energy Finance
Frankfurt School of Finance & Management Sonnemannstrasse 9-11
60314 Frankfurt am Main
http://fs-unep-centre.org
www.frankfurt-school.de
E-Mail: [email protected]
Phone: +49 (0)69 154008-614