Workshop Summary Report
Day 1: Wednesday, 25thJune 2008
Session 1: Welcome, Introduction & OverviewChair: Mr. Teofilus Nghitila, OFP Namibia
Vice-Chair: Mr. Henry Salazar, Program Manager, GEF Secretariat
Rapporteur: Mr. Nik Sekhran, Senior Technical Adviser - Biodiversity, UNDP
Presenter: Mr. Henry Salazar “RAF Update”
The GEF Secretariat (Mr. Henry Salazar) made a short introductory and welcome statement on behalf of the CEO of the GEF, Monique Barbut. Mr. Teofilus Nghitila, GEF Operational Focal Point for Namibia made opening remarks on behalf of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Dr. Kalumbi Shangula. He provided an overview of Namibia’s environmental policy framework and environmental management strategies, within the context of the larger national development vision. The GEF has made a major contribution towards the realization of Namibia’s policy agenda. There are currently five GEF financed full scale national projects, several regional projects and the GEF Small Grants Programme (SGP). Despite the opportunities provided by the GEF, challenges remain—most notably the continuing limited capacity to access GEF resources. He pointed out that the GEF Country Support Programme (CSP) was critical in helping build the capacity of the country to access GEF resources and understand GEF requirements.
The Country Support Programme (Ms. Tehmina Akhtar) summarized the four objectives of the workshop; these were based on recommendations provided by countries at the last Sub-Regional Workshop organized by the CSP in Nairobi in May 2007 for East and Southern Africa, and following feedback received through the circulation of a questionnaire to OFPs requesting them to list their priorities and concerns. It was noted that the group had requested clarifications on focal area strategies, the revised GEF project cycle and a chance to discuss national coordination strategies and the integration of GEF into national policies and plans, within the OFP peer group. The agenda had been crafted to cater to these requests. In addition the agenda responded to the concern expressed by Focal Points regarding the RAF and their desire to be fully involved in the Mid Term Review of the RAF.
A round of self- introductions by participants followed.
The GEF Secretariat (Mr. Henry Salazar) then made a presentation on the status of GEF programming, distinguishing between countries with individual allocations and those in the Group. Countries with individual allocations can programme up to 100% of their allocation. Countries in the Group may apply for up to US$ 1 million for projects up until December 31, 2008; after this date, all unexpended funds will be put into a common pot which will be open for applications from countries in the Group, up to a ceiling. The ceiling and criteria will be elaborated by the GEF Secretariat by the end of July, 2008.
Discussion / Questions & Answers
A question and answer session followed. The main issues were:
Lesotho(Mr. Stanley Damane) asked what criteria had been used in designing the RAF, particularly vis-à-vis countries in the group. The GEF Sec(Mr. Henry Salazar) provided by way of response a brief summary of the policies governing the RAF, and the criteria employed to determine country allocations.
Tanzania(Mr. Eric Mugurusi) queried if funds would be forfeited if they are not disbursed? UNDP responded that funds will be forfeited if they are not committed (project approvals); once approved, disbursement would occur according to the project disbursement schedule and will continue over the project life (extending beyond GEF 4).
A number of points of clarification were tabled concerning the new rules for allocating unspent funds for countries in the Group. These included the criteria governing the development of ‘programs’ which will govern access to Group resources in 2009/ 2010.
Namibia(Mr. Teofilus Nghitila) sought and received clarification that the new programs would not apply to countries with allocations. The GEF SEC confirmed that such countries would be able to programme projects that had been agreed with the GEF SEC and were clearly in line with country priorities.
Djibouti(Mr. Aboubakar Douale Waiss) sought clarification as to how successful GEF 4 had been to date, with regard to programming, and asked for an account of the challenges that had been encountered. The GEF SEC responded by stating that the evaluation office is undertaking a mid term assessment of the RAF, which will throw light on these matters.
Additional concerns were raised by countries with regard to the RAF. Botswana (Mr. David Aniku) questioned why there was such a rush to develop new rules for allocating funds to countries in the group, given that the GEF has only been open for business (viz submissions) for less than a year. Zimbabwe (Ms. Margaret Sangarwe) emphasized that in light of the misunderstandings regarding the RAF, and changing GEF rules and procedures, countries should not be penalized for not securing GEF resources and should be given time to develop eligible projects. In general countries expressed dissatisfaction with the RAF, in terms of circumscribing access to GEF resources from countries with the greatest need.
GEF Evaluation Office (Ms. Siv Tokle) responded by noting that Session 6 of the agenda was dedicated to seeking countries’ detailed feedback on the RAF and explained that the information provided would be considered within the framework of the ongoing Mid Term Review (MTR). She explained that the MTR will be considering all rules, barriers, as well as facilitating factors in relation to countries access to and utilization of RAF resources. She observed that the EO had noted some delays and problems in access of funds by countries and added that GEF Sec is trying to respond especially in the case of Group countries to increase access to funding available. She added that the Evaluation report of the RAF Mid Term review would be presented in November 2008 to GEF Council, and assured countries that the goal of the MTR is to improve the understanding of the RAF as well as to make recommendations on how to improve the RAF.
Session 2: GEF Focal Area Strategies & Funds Available for AdaptationChair: Mr. Parkinson Ndonye, Kenya
Vice-Chair: Mr. Nik Sekhran, UNDP
Rapporteur: Mr. Henry Salazar, GEF Secretariat
Presenters:
“GEF Focal Area Strategies & Funds Available for Adaptation”
-Mr. Jaime Cavelier, GEF Secretariat
-Mr. Ademola Salau, UNDP
-Mr. Sam Wedderburn, World Bank
The purpose of this session was to present an update on the Focal Area Strategies approved during June 2007 Council Meeting, as well as to provide a broad overview of the funds available for financing projects on Adaptation.
The GEF Secretariat (Mr. Jaime Cavelier) presented the Focal Area Strategies related to natural resources (Biodiversity, Land Degradation and International Waters), the Sustainable Forest Management cross-cutting initiative and the Persistent Organic Pollutants Focal Area Strategy; UNDP (Mr. Ademola Salau) presented the Climate Change Focal Area Strategy; and the World Bank (Mr. Sam Wedderburn) presented the Adaptation Funds. All the presentations were focused on delivering key and new information to the participants.
Discussion / Q&A
Following the presentation there was a discussion in plenary.
The Vice-chair (Mr. Nik Sekhran) noted that the GEF is concerned about delivering impact through clear targets and deliverables and observed that this was the rationale for the revision of the focal area strategies and introduction of Strategic Programs. He emphasized that it was critical for the countries to focus their priorities and complete their proposals in such a way that they were consistent with the Strategic Programs. In terms of the future, it was noted by the Vice-chair that the review of the focal area strategies will start this year. He touched upon the following specific issues:
-Biodiversity: the CBD hasprovided some specific recommendations for future programming. Major changes are unlikely though there may be some re-targeting within specific areas. Strategic Objective 2 opens the way for addressing needs of biodiversity outside of protected areas, while Strategic Objective 1 focuses on strengthening the protected area system. However, the definition of protected areas varies from country to country which can be challenging.
-Climate change: with the creation of new funds, the GEF mandate needs to be defined and the GEF has to be able to demonstrate its value added. There have not been enough proposals from the East and Southern African countries in this focal area, even though it is critical given the serious implications of climate change for the continent
-Land degradation: there are many proposals coming, but the majority of the funds are already committed.
-Cross-cutting issues: these are likely to become more important especially in respect to the need for climate proofing within other focal area projects.
The representative of Mauritius(Mr. Kresh Seebundhun) asked about: (a) the role of the GEF Sec in managing the Adaptation funds: (b) the use of non-grant financing; and (c) the status of the country regarding the NAPA, noting that Mauritius is one of the SIDS countries not qualified to develop a NAPA even though it is subject to severe climate change impacts. In response it was clarified that (a) the GEF SEC manages the SPA under the Trust Fund and the LDCF / SCCF under a different set of rules. Regarding the Adaptation Fund, the GEF SEC is the Secretariat of the fund on an interim basis; (b) the use of non-grant instruments was discussed during the last Council Meeting in April, and a document detailing the guidelines is available on the web. It was also recommended that countries should discuss their ideas with Agencies to take advantage of such opportunities; and (c) it was observed that the issue of Mauritius’ eligibility for the NAPA needs to be taken up in the appropriate forum – though Mauritius is a SIDS it is not an LDC which is the reason for its lack of access to the NAPA.
The representative of Zambia(Mr. Ephraim Mwepya Shitima) asked about: (a) clarification of the funding sources for the Adaptation Fund, noting that in addition to the 2% of proceeds from CDM it should also include voluntary contributions; and (b) the governance structure and new rules and regulations for the Adaptation Fund, noting that countries had demanded direct access to the fund. It was clarified that: (a) the sources for the Adaptation Fund will come from the 2% of the carbon emissions reductions (CERs), but the way by which the CERs will be monetized is under discussion at the Adaptation Fund Board meetings; and (b) as with the previous point, rules and regulations are being discussed by the same Board.
With regard to the issue of direct access, it was noted by the Vice-chair that direct access for countries would be dependent on meeting the minimum fiduciary standards and foresaw that some of the larger countries may be able to secure direct access. The World Bank (Mr. Wedderburn) also added that it may be necessary to see how direct access works in the context of the Adaptation Fund before seeing how it may be applied elsewhere. He noted that Adaptation is now recognized as a development issues which can be addressed by IDA within the World Bank, adding that two new funds had also been established for this purpose within the Bank: the Climate Resilience Fund and the Climate Investment Fund. He noted that UNDP had also established a fund for Adaptation and noted that in the future there should be more resources available for addressing Adaptation issues.
The representative of Sudan (Mr. Eisa YassinMohamed): (a) recognized the importance of the GEF but noted that developing countries faced many other problems as well and asked about the possibility to open up new focal areas; and (b) requested clarification on how the GEF is following the principles of the Paris Declaration. It was clarified that: (a) as mentioned by the Vice-chair, the review of focal area strategies is planned to start during 2008 which will result in some refinement of these strategies, however, this is not likely to result in a change of focal areas or the creation of new focal areas; and (b) the philosophy of ownership and partnership stated in the Paris Declaration has guided the GEF actions since its foundation. Sudan also noted for the record that countries are dealing with several priority issues and need additional support, for example they have limited resources to implement national plans developed in specific focal areas such as National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) and National Implementation Plans (NIPs) for POPs.
The representative of Namibia(Mr. Nghitila) asked about: (a) the status of funding for NCSA follow-up noting that it had submitted a follow-up project on capacity building; and (b) the availability of funds under the Adaptation Fund. It was clarified that: (a) the project of Namibia on Capacity Building is currently under revision and it is expected that within a few weeks, it will be posted on the web for Council review, it was also suggested that countries could reflect their interest in additional funding for capacity development activities through their Constituency to the GEF Council; (b) funds availability for the Adaptation Fund depends on the decision that the Board will take regarding the CERs’ monetization, as well on the rules and regulations that are expected to be adopted as a result of the ongoing meetings.
The representative of Djibouti (Mr. Waiss) commented on several issues: (a) the difficulties of coordinating the national needs with the GEF requirements; (b) the barriers that countries face under the RAF when they are within the group; (c) the paradox of knowing that the GEF-5 is already being conceived while the RAF is still under review; and (d) the obstacles represented by co-financing requirements for African countries. In response it was clarified that: (a) focal areas exist because indeed, it is necessary to provide guidelines on how to match national priorities with GEF possibilities for funding projects; (b) a specific session of the workshop agenda would be devoted to the RAF Mid Term Review with the specific objective of learning about country experiences in implementing the RAF including barriers faced; (c) the RAF Mid Term Review was requested by the Council during its approval phase; and (d) on the issue of co-financing, it was noted that Djibouti’s comment will be reflected in the minutes of the meeting and will be transmitted to the GEF Secretariat. It was also suggested that Djibouti should reflect its concerns through its Constituency to the GEF Council.
The representative of UNDP’s office in Comoros(Mr. Karim Ali Ahmed) supported the intervention of the representative of Djibouti, noting that in the case of Comoros as well co-financing was an obstacle as only one bilateral agency was active in the country. It was noted in response that co-financing would be specifically dealt with in the next session of the workshop where the challenges and good practices could be further discussed.
The representative of Zimbabwe(Ms. Sangarwe) expressed concern that the SCCF funds seem to be committed while few countries in Africa had benefited. She regretted that donors were not more interested in the SCCF – noting that while the SCCF was a Convention based fund, the Adaptation Fun was under the Kyoto Protocol. It was clarified that indeed the demand for funds surpassed the availability. However, the GEF Secretariat is doing as much as possible to get the pledges from donors considering the interest that this fund has created worldwide.
Final remark: it is critical to improve the performance of the Agencies in technically assisting the countries. The current situation shows that sometimes Agencies are reluctant to take some projects for different reasons (the size, the topic, etc.), while in other cases assistance takes so long that by the time the project is presented, it is either not relevant anymore for the country or the situation has changed so much that the document does not reflect the issues that need to be addressed by the project.
Session 3: The Revised GEF Project CycleChair: Mr. David Aniku, P/OFP Botswana
Vice-Chair: Mr. Nik Sekhran, UNDP
Rapporteur: Ms. Tehmina Akhtar, CSP
Presenters:
Mr. Henry Salazar, GEF Secretariat
-“Detailed review of new project cycle process and formats”
Mr. Ademola Salau, UNDP
-“Incremental cost”
Mr. Nik Sekhran, UNDP
-“Co-Financing”
Mr. Jaime Cavelier, GEF Secretariat
-“GEF Programmatic Approaches – an overview”
Mr. Sam Wedderburn, World Bank
-“Case-study of a programmatic approach: TerrAfrica/GEF Strategic Investment Program (SIP) for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan Africa”
The first presentation on “Detailed review of new project cycle process and formats” was presented by the GEF Sec (Mr. Henry Salazar). The presenter drew attention to the four main steps in the project cycle and emphasized that the project preparation time had been limited to 22 months. This period commenced when a Project identification Form (PIF) was approved and the full-fledged project document should be submitted and approved before the completion of the 22 month period.