Workshop Summary Report

Please note that all workshop materials and presentations are available on the GEF CSP Asia Sub-Regional Workshop 2010 webpage:

Day 1: Wednesday 10 March 2010

Session 1: Introduction & Overview
Chair: Dr. Van Tai Nguyen, Vietnam OFP
Vice Chair: Ms. Seemin Qayum, CSP
Rapporteur: Mr. Patrick Durst, FAO
Opening Remarks:
Mr. William Ehlers, GEF Secretariat
Vice Minister Nguyen Thai Lai, MONRE, Vietnam

The Chair, Dr. Van Tai Nguyen (Vietnam OFP), welcomed the participants to the Workshop and turned the floor to Mr. William Ehlers of the GEF Secretariat who introduced Vice-Minister Nguyen Thai Lai of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. The Vice-Minister’s opening statement to the delegates is available on the CSP website as indicated above. Mr. Ehlers continued by welcoming the GEF Focal Points on behalf of the GEF CEO and the GEF Partners.

Ms. Seemin Qayum of the CSP reviewed the major issues raised by the GEF Focal Points in the last GEF CSP Sub-regional Workshop in Bangkok, Thailand in 2009 and in their responses to the recent online survey regarding the content of this workshop. She then discussed the overall objectives of the Workshop and specified how the different sessions respond to Focal Point concerns.

The opening session concluded with a round of introductions by participants.

Session 2: Findings of the Overall Performance Study of the GEF
Chair: Mr. Long Rithirak, Cambodia
Vice Chair: Mr. Jiang Ru, World Bank
Rapporteur: Mr. Heinz Leuenberger, UNIDO
Presenters:
Mr. Aaron Zazueta, GEF Evaluation Office
- “Findings on the Overall Performance Study for GEF 4 (OPS4)”

The Chair opened this and each of the following sessions by introducing the speakers and their presentations, and making a few remarks on the theme(s) of the session. At the end of each session the Vice-Chair summarized the presentations and the main points emerging from the discussion.

Mr. Zazueta of the GEF Evaluation Office presented the findings of OPS4, which may be summarized as follows:

  • Funding gap for global environmental problems
  • GEF contributed to global environmental benefits (impact evidence based on UNDP, UNEP, World Bank)
  • GEF project performance is satisfactory but there is room for improvement:
  • Perception of GEF inability to deliver – has to do with pre-approval phase which needs to be shortened and streamlined, and move from focal area project support to national programming (in line with Paris Declaration) could also be beneficial
  • GEF partnership signifies added value and tensions should be addressed – GEF Council should provide guidance on roles
  • Governance of the GEF can be improved
  • Interaction between GEF and international conventions need to be improved
  • Fiduciary standards and fee system should be reformed
  • OPS4 supports highest level of GEF-5 replenishment

GEF Focal Point concerns in OPS4:

  • GEF could be more relevant to national priorities
  • Need for greater transparency in decision-making
  • Agency performance concerns need to be addresses
  • Roles and responsibilities must be better defined
  • Country monitoring and evaluation must be strengthened
  • Co financing requirements should be more flexible

Discussion and Q&A:

Philippines: Is GEF moving from project based approach to programme or cluster based approach? In terms of national programming, is it more in the direction of a business plan or should it be a formal process?

GEF EO: It is unclear what the implications would be, but would not advocate formal approach that requires going through national ministries of planning. GEF Secretariat is moving towards developing guidance for this process.

Indonesia: We support efforts to bring GEF closer to the decisions of the Paris Declaration. The results of OPS4 should be brought to the attention of the decision makers, especially the need for more funds.

UNDP-Vietnam: Short-term financing has a negative impact on the project results.

GEF EO: Yes, in OPS4 we noted that short-term funding can adversely affect sustainability of results.

Vietnam: We have to consider programming and Agency comparative advantage and the role of line ministries, and how to combine these so that everything works.

World Bank: Improvements in the fee structure would be very welcome given the very high travel, transaction, and supervision costs involved in GEF projects. Medium-sized projects (MSPs) have value, especially in terms of quality policy and dialogue engagement, but fee limitations make them prohibitive. Regarding national programming and STAR – which covers climate change, biodiversity, and land degradation areas – POPs and biochemicals are lost in the political process and funds, including funds for biodiversity, are all being diverted to climate change. This situation of limited resources requires further study for recommendations on national programming.

Regarding impact evaluation based on performance of only the 3 original Implementing Agencies, it would be important to include the other 7 Agencies especially since the GEF CEO is advocating for direct access by countries and other agencies.

The issue of GEF resources being limited to address global problems means that project objectives in the design phase are sometimes not realistic, and this needs to be addressed.

The World Bank would consider the move from project to programme-based programming to be a good direction. The WB conducts 3-4-year planning processes with countries, and the programme approach would allow including GEF and mainstreaming with WB’s lending programs.

Did OPS4 require a management response?

GEF-NGO Network: Capacity and capability of the NGOs is crucial for the success of GEF projects. Referring back to Bangkok meeting with NGOs on OPS4 last year, GEF funding to NGOs was also discussed and NGOs directly implementing projects.

UNDP: National programming is welcomed, since this would promote the linkage of GEF funded programmes with on-going programmes in line with national/regional priorities. National programming should be linked to enabling activities (for example, NAPAs) and SGP, the idea being to look at successful small-scale activities than can be scaled up.

Regarding GEF’s reputation of non-delivery and the project identification process, once projects are identified they are generally successful. So if the identification process is shortened, this might have a detrimental effect on eventual success. Consultation and negotiation take time and are critical in the project design phase, and thus a lengthy identification period probably contributes to project success.

Will the GEF Secretariat write a management response to OPS4 and will Council ensure follow up?

Bhutan: We are concerned about the recommendation about changing from project to programme. Now that we have successfully implemented projects, we are asked to take on another approach. “Programme” sounds good, but we need more detail. The GEF should set clear targets and outcomes for releasing funds to countries; this would increase country ownership and ensure that GEF meets its objectives, and would also allow for getting around cofinancing issue. If it is just a matter of shifting from project to programme without dealing with all of this, it would not really be worthwhile.

GEF EO: Agree with comments on current fee structure.

On national programming, we need to look at tradeoffs as GEF moves to new modalities and consider seriously lessons and realistic applications. For example, SGP has many lessons that have relevance for the GEF system, especially on projects with the potential to influence national policies.

Agree that projects are often overly ambitious – this seems to be a disease of ODA – with projects tending to overstate their case and thereby creating problems for implementation. Adaptive management is a good approach to deal with this syndrome. What really matters is implementation and results, and in the EO quality of implementation reviews we have noted that more attention should be paid to timely restructuring of projects.

“Program” means different things to different agencies, and we were not precise about definitions. Perhaps the GEF Secretariat could address this point.

Yes, we need to understand better the meaning and purpose of cofinancing in the GEF process.

Regarding follow up to OPS4, the EO has to be careful not to be too prescriptive as the office will be conducting another evaluation in 4 years, but our role is to bring attention to issues that need to be addressed by the GEF partners and GEF Council. OPS4 does not require a management response but the Council will most likely ask the EO to track how the major recommendations are being addressed. In any case, OPS3 and OPS4 looked into previous recommendations, both the extent to which they continued to be relevant and the follow-up given to them. OPS5 will do a similar assessment.

GEF Secretariat: “Programming” is not the same as “programmatic approach.” The latter has been applied in the Pacific, Africa, China, and India, for example, and may be applicable and transfer easily to other countries or perhaps only large countries with significant resources received. For the time being the term voluntary national Business Plan has been replaced with Portfolio Identification Exercise (PIE). The idea of the PIEs is that GEF is giving a certain amount of funding and countries should now determine how best to use that funding to contribute to global benefits through broad stakeholder consultation. The GEF can encourage this process with some support, but it should be stressed that it is voluntary and should be considered a tool and not a new requirement.

FAO: We would be in favor of the proposal that 7 additional Agencies should also be evaluated. We appreciate not being scrutinized but would welcome the scrutiny as well because FAO works with countries in different ways. Even though we may have less experience and less interaction with countries vis-à-vis the GEF, evaluation would help us overcome these challenges. GEF should give more weight to the comparative advantage of the Agencies and countries should try to make more use of these strengths of the Agencies. It is true that transaction costs are often prohibitive. Cofinancing issues are not new, but nonetheless important to address. Overambitious design is a concern in that realistic proposals are often not viewed as interesting and competitive.

GEF EO: FAO will be a key player that is examined in the South China Sea study. Certainly agree that fees, overambitious project design, and cofinancing are perennial GEF issues of concern that need to be better understood and addressed.

Session 3: Update on GEF Policies and New Developments
Chair: Mr. Arief Yuwono, Indonesia
Vice Chair: Mr. Max Zieren, UNEP
Rapporteur: Mr. Jiang Ru, World Bank
Presenter:
Mr. William Ehlers, GEF Secretariat
- “Update on GEF policy and programming recommendations”
- “System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR)”

Update on GEF policy and programming recommendations

This first presentation by Mr. Ehlers of the GEF Secretariat highlighted that compared to the GEF-4 replenishment, the GEF-5 replenishment was expected to be a significant increase in terms of new resources contributed by donors. Two pillars of GEF-5 policy recommendations are enhancing country ownership and enhancing effectiveness and efficiency of the GEF. Proposals for enhancing country ownership will be reviewed by the June 2010 Council Meeting and include the voluntary country portfolio identification exercises (PIEs), national GEF steering committees, renewed country support programme to be managed by the Secretariat, and direct funding access for national communications to the conventions.

Mr. Ehlers further noted that proposals for broadening GEF partnership will also be reviewed by the June 2010 Council Meeting and include a procedure for operationalizing paragraph 28 of the GEF Instrument to allow incorporation of additional national and international organizations which meet minimum fiduciary standards that may execute projects. Additional policy recommendations are (a) enhancing accountability to the conventions (by engaging country convention focal points in PIE and sub-regional GEF events); (b) streamlining the project cycle (by eliminating CEO endorsement requirement for projects implemented by GEF agencies with executive boards); and (c) strengthening further private sector engagement Promotion of programmatic approach, civil society engagement and results based management were also discussed briefly.

Reacting to the presentation, Bhutan sought clarifications on (a) corporate programme reform; (b) requirement of a national steering committee in the PIE process; and (c) how to track status of country submissions. The GEF Secretariat confirmed that (a) it proposed to directly manage the Country Support Programme in GEF-5; (b) there was no mandatory requirement for the national steering committee but GEF documents had suggested that at least a minimum number of related ministries and industries be engaged in the PIE process; and (c) country OFPs would have access to PMIS to track their submissions soon.

Following up on country access to PMIS, India questioned whether OFPs could directly input their endorsement into PMIS. The GEF Secretariat believed that as PMIS was still under testing it might not be feasible to open the system for too many users to input data directly in near term but could be explored later.

Vietnam raised questions on whether there were any guidelines on applying for support for PIE process and when the application could be submitted. Following up on the GEF Secretariat responses that PIE application would have to be done after the June 2010 Council Meeting approves the PIE procedure, Nepal asked whether costs of PIE could be retroactively financed and was advised that the country might be better off to prepare the PIE with its own resources if that would mean having PIE ready at the start of GEF-5.

On the PIE process, UNDP Vietnam asked and GEFSEC confirmed that PIFs could be submitted in GEF-5 before the completion of PIE. To maximize the benefits of PIE, UNEP suggested that PIE process should be considered together with other national-level UN consultations.

Nepal and UNDP inquired and GEFSEC confirmed that according to the GEF-5 reform proposals countries could work directly with GEFSEC on all national communications under GEF-5, which is currently managed by UNDP and UNEP under GEF-4.

In responding to Lao’s concern, GEFSEC confirmed that countries would lose their unutilized GEF-4 RAF resources. GEFSEC also confirmed to Bangladesh that all GEF proposals, including those for the private sector under the Earth Fund, should be endorsed by the countries through their OFPs.

System for Transparent Allocation of Resources

The STAR presentation introduced STAR methodology and forecasted country allocations under the $4.5 billion replenishment scenario and emphasized flexibility mechanisms introduced (e.g. mixed use of STAR allocation for countries with less than $6 million allocations).

Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam sought clarifications on (a) whether STAR allocations for different focal areas could be used together for a single project; and (b) whether set-asides reduce the shown STAR allocations to countries. GEFSEC confirmed that multi-focal area projects would be able to mobilize resources from multiple focal areas, set-asides were outside of STAR allocation, and noted that detailed discussion on STAR methodology could be found in meeting documents prepared for the November 2009 Council Meeting on the GEF website.

Sri Lanka asked whether the country could do NIP update under the POP focal area and but was informed that the decision would depend on actual replenishment level and the final allocation for the POP focal area.

UNDP Vietnam raised a question on (a) how regional projects would be proposed and how countries could participate in such projects, and (b) how POP resources would be allocated under GEF-5, in particular given that Vietnam had mobilized significant amount of POP allocation under GEF-4. In response, GEFSEC confirmed that regional projects could be proposed and countries could participate in those projects in the same manner as they did under GEF-4.

Session 4: GEF coordination at the national level: Good practices and lessons learned
Chair: Ms. Kunzang Namgyel, Bhutan
Vice Chair: Mr. William Ehlers, GEFSec
Rapporteur: Ms. Seemin Qayum, CSP
Presenters:
Ms. Nayanika Singh, India
- “Coordination and Programming: Experiences from GEF India”
Ms. Analiza Teh, Philippines
- “Philippine Experience on GEF Coordination”
Dr. Van Tai Nguyen, Vietnam
- “Vietnam’s Experience with Coordination and Priority-Setting in GEF 4”
Mr. Sameer Karki, UNDP
- “China Biodiversity Partnership and Framework for Action”
Mr. Max Zieren, UNEP
- “UNEP support to country GEF programming and alignment with the international environmental agenda”

India, Philippines, and Vietnam reported on well-established and well-functioning coordination processes and mechanisms, albeit with variations and particularities in each country. In India the GEF OFP is located within the Ministry of Environment and Forests as are the convention focal points. A GEF Empowered Committee and a GEF Cell that assists the OFP in coordination GEF India activities are operational and conduct GEF planning and programming. In the Philippines there is an organic link between the GEF OFP and the convention focal points in the coordination mechanism that also incorporates other government agencies and civil society. The challenge is the institutionalization and sustainability of GEF-related coordination over time. In Vietnam, an established coordination mechanism and process via a national GEF strategy successfully functioned in GEF-4. The challenge is the harmonization and collaboration among GEF Agencies and line Ministries for project identification. All three countries have already begun work on voluntary national business plans / portfolio identification exercises for GEF-5.