G-PAS Partnership Framework - 29-9-2007

NB: GEF has provided over $86 million in grants for projects in 14 Pacific Island Countries (PICs) since 1991 in order to address the global environmental issues faced by PICs. It is also low compared with GEF allocations to other regions of the world with similar characteristics. Moreover, 90% of these resources have been provided for Enabling Activities – to assist countries to meet their reporting obligations under international conventions – as well as for resource assessments and limited capacity building. Progress in completing many of these activities has been slow, with a few countries still to conclude their projects. As a result, GEF interventions to date have achieved limited impact. Thus both the global and associated national environment problems in these countries remain largely unresolved.


DRAFT

WORKING PAPER

GEF PACIFIC ALLIANCE FOR SUSTAINABILITY
(GEF-PAS)











Partnership Framework












September 29, 2007



Purpose of the Working Paper

This working paper scopes and details the modalities for operation of the Global Environment Facility’s Pacific Alliance for Sustainability (GEF-PAS) – the “Alliance”. The paper identifies the parties involved in the Alliance and describes their individual and collective roles and responsibilities with respect to the Alliance. The focus is on how the GEF agencies will work among themselves, as well as on their relationships with countries. The latter are of extreme importance since they will help ensure that the activities and outcomes of GEF-PAS are both country and demand driven. The working paper thus describes important modalities such as organizational and management structures, and communication frameworks.

Background

The Governments of most Pacific Island Countries (PICs) are concerned that Global Environment Facility (GEF) resources have not been accessible on an equitable basis. They consider that use of these resources in the Pacific is below levels commensurate with the opportunities their countries have to conserve global biological diversity, prevent land degradation, protect international waters, manage chemicals in a sound manner, and mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change.

Since its inception in 1991, the GEF has provided over $86 million in grants for projects in 14 PICs. As noted above, this sum is acknowledged to be significantly less than that required to address the global environmental issues faced by PICs. It is also low compared with GEF allocations to other regions of the world with similar characteristics. Moreover, 90% of these resources have been provided for Enabling Activities – to assist countries to meet their reporting obligations under international conventions – as well as for resource assessments and limited capacity building. Progress in completing many of these activities has been slow, with a few countries still to conclude their projects. As a result, GEF interventions to date have achieved limited impact. Thus both the global and associated national environment problems in these countries remain largely unresolved.

GEF-PAS is being proposed as a means to using GEF resources more effectively in the Pacific region, in part by assisting PICs to overcome a common set of barriers. These barriers include: (i) balancing and optimizing community-focused actions, country drivenness, regional coordination and delivery of global benefits; (ii) ensuring GEF modalities are more reflective of national and regional circumstances; (iii) adopting an integrated, programmatic rather than a focal area and project-based approach; (iv) balancing national and regional projects; (v) emphasizing on the ground action rather than planning and assessments; (vi) ensuring that countries and the region have the absorptive capacity required to undertake activities in an efficient and effective manner; and (vii) recognizing both the limited co-financing opportunities for environment-related projects in PICs and the importance of sharing relevant expertise and information.

GEF-PAS is to be based on a strong partnership, not only amongst the PICs, but also between the GEF Agencies, regional organizations, bilateral aid agencies, the private sector and civil society. The World Bank would provide the overall coordination. Collectively, and in conjunction with PICs, these agencies and organizations will help define and deliver an investment program.

The Program would be embedded in existing regional strategies such as the Pacific Plan, and the Micronesia Challenge. It would include coverage of each GEF Focal Area as well as additional cross-cutting initiatives, namely capacity enhancement, enabling activities and support for relevant initiatives undertaken by both civil society and the private sector. The emphasis on a cross-cutting design reflects the need for an integrated approach to address the pervasive nature of many of the issues facing PICs, the synergies that can be gained from a highly integrated approach, and the limited absorptive capacity in the region.

The proposed strategy has been estimated to cost approximately $100 million in grant funds. In addition to $25 million already committed under GEF 3, the GEF Secretariat has pledged $75 million over three to four years under the GEF 4 program implementation. However, the activities themselves will very likely extend beyond this replenishment period.

GEF-PAS Goal and Objectives

The goal of GEF-PAS is to enhance and stimulate economic growth, sustainable development, good governance and security for Pacific countries through regionalism. The overall objective is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of GEF support to PICs, thereby enhancing achievement of both global environmental and national sustainable development goals. A strategic objective is to contribute to sustainable development through improvements in natural resource and environmental management, in part by addressing the main barriers preventing effective action by the PICs to safeguard their rich natural resource base and heritage.
Expected Results
GEF-PAS will facilitate international financing for sustainable development, biodiversity and environmental protection, and climate change mitigation and adaptation in the Pacific. As a result, there will be accelerated achievement of national and regional targets for sustainable development, while also delivering significant global environmental benefits in terms of conservation of biological diversity, prevention of land degradation, protection of international waters, sound management of chemicals, and reducing and adapting to climate change related risks.

A strategic and integrated set of investments and related initiatives funded through a phased, multi-year commitment will address the highest national priorities for sustainable development while also delivering tangible and substantial global environmental benefits. The initiatives would cover not only the GEF Focal Area Strategic Priorities but would also include additional cross-cutting initiatives, namely capacity enhancement, enabling activities and support for relevant activities undertaken by both civil society and the private sector.

The Alliance will add value to existing efforts by focusing individual country investments while at the same time ensuring that shared objectives are also met. It will also provide a stronger framework for leveraging support from a potentially wider array of donors and for overall donor cooperation and coordination.

The proposed program has the potential to be an early and substantive demonstration of the benefits of the recently announced GEF compact for both developing countries and the global environment. It could also serve as prototype that influences the preparation of additional comprehensive, regionally-coordinated and nationally-executed strategic investment programs.

Key Principles for the Alliance

The key principles that would underpin the creation and operation of the Alliance are as follows:
§ The Alliance partners commit to coordinate their activities and work cooperatively, collaboratively and constructively to define and deliver a strategic investment program (SIP);
§ The SIP will reflect country priorities for achieving national sustainable development goals while also delivering significant global environment benefits through regionally-coordinated and nationally-executed initiatives;
§ The Program will be embedded in regional strategies such as the Pacific Plan, and the Micronesia Challenge and include coverage of each GEF Focal Area as well as additional cross-cutting initiatives such as capacity enhancement, enabling activities and support for relevant initiatives undertaken by both civil society and the private sector;
§ The programmatic approach will build on relevant GEF and other experience for umbrella projects, including the Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management (SLM) in Africa, the Black Sea Danube Partnership, Investment Funds for Large Marine Ecosystems and the China SLM Partnership;
§ The Alliance partners will strive to ensure equitable access to the GEF by all PIC countries; each GEF Agency will assist the countries in ways that reflect its comparative advantage, reflecting past experience, global knowledge, convening power, presence in the Region, country preference, potential to foster national leadership of programs, and efficiency in use of resources; the lead GEF agency will work with all other GEF agencies to ensure that the GEF-financed activities are consistent with a programmatic approach and contribute to common corporate objectives;
§ Preparation of project proposals under the framework of the Alliance will reflect a commitment to: (i) consensus building through consultation; (ii) appropriate engagement with all relevant stakeholders; (iii) identify and reflect national needs, concerns, proposals and capacities; (iv) build on past efforts and reflect previous successes and lessons learned; (v) use of realistic and pragmatic approaches in order to achieve timeliness and certainty while avoiding delays and diversions; (vi) adoption of clear and achievable milestones and timelines for outputs and outcomes, at both national and regional level; and (vii) deliver win-win outcomes through efficient and effective processes that meet both national and global priorities.
§ A GEF-PAS Advisory Group (GPAG) will help add value to GEF operations in the Pacific without adding another administrative layer between the GEF and the countries; it would guide the strategic direction of the overall program, taking into consideration national priorities set by each country; it would also act as an advocate for the PICs, increasing the visibility of relevant national concerns and expectations and promoting the mobilization of resources; and
§ The PIC institutions, and importantly the region’s technical agencies, would catalyze and reinforce country-level engagement and investments in order to: (i) generate greater impact on the ground across all the GEF Focal Areas; (ii) enhance the potential for project sustainability; and (iii) improve cost-effectiveness in a region where the average costs for development and environmental investments are perceived as being high.

Membership of the Alliance

Members of the Alliance comprise the PICS, the GEF Secretariat, the IAs, and relevant EAs and relevant regional organizations (both governmental and non-governmental) and multilateral and bilateral donors.[1]

Organizational Structure

The GEF proposes a program framework under a regional partnership with strong and inclusive national level activities that are anchored in and led by the PICs. The proposed organizational structure for GEF-PAS is shown in Figure 1. As already stated, GEF-PAS brings together eligible PICS, the GEF Secretariat, the IAs, and relevant EAs and regional organizations (both governmental and non-governmental), as well as relevant multlaterial and bilateral donors. The GEF-PAS Advisory Group will provide strategic and tactical guidance to both the GEF and, collectively, to all members of the Alliance. The World Bank will be responsible for the coordination of the GEF-PAS activities. However, the implementation activities will be the responsibility of the GEF agency and the country. To help ensure that the program activities are within the agreed framework, the GEF agencies and the countries will prepare quarterly and bi-annual progress reports which would be shared virtually to all members of the Inter-agency Working Group and Inter-agency Coordinating Group. Depending on the issues arising, meetings would be called to discuss solutions and options for addressing these issues. Generally, systemic problems would be addressed to the Inter-agency Coordinating Group, for transmittal to the GEF-PAS Advisory Group for its consideration and recommendation. For the more day-to-day issues the Inter-agency Working Group would be expected to provide advice on possible solutions and options.

A Monitoring and Evaluation framework clearly spelling out the M&E responsibilities for each of the stakeholders during implementation will be prepared as part of the PPG. A communication strategy, showing how the various stakeholders (countries/donors/GEF agencies etc) will interact with each other will also be prepared as part of the Project Preparation Grant.

Figure 1. Organizational structure for GEF-PAS.

























Program Framework

As shown in Figure 2, GEF-PAS will prepare and execute a strategic investment program that comprises projects, enabling activities, capacity building and other initiatives (see Annex 1). These will all be executed regionally, nationally or at community level, as appropriate. The program would be based on a strong partnership, not only of the PICs, but also of the GEF Agencies, regional organizations, bi- and multi-lateral aid agencies, the private sector and civil society. Collectively, and in conjunction with PICs, these agencies and organizations will help define and deliver the strategic investment program.

Figure 2. Regionally-coordinated program of nationally- and regionally-executed activities that address country priorities for developing sustainability




















The proposed programmatic approach aims to identify and support implementation of a strategic and integrated set of investments and related initiatives that are funded through a phased, multi-year commitment. The proposed overall program will address the highest national priorities for sustainable development while also delivering tangible and substantial global environmental benefits. Figure 3 shows how these national priorities interface with the relevant GEF programs and objectives by way of 13 regional strategies. These would cover not only the GEF Focal Area Strategic Priorities but also include additional cross-cutting initiatives, namely capacity enhancement, enabling activities and support for relevant initiatives undertaken by both civil society and the private sector.

It is important to note that in many instances the prototype programmatic regional strategies already exist. These include the regional strategies and frameworks for climate change, disaster risk management, biodiversity, invasive species, offshore fisheries management and renewable energy. The proposed program would leverage these programs. This will help ensure that new GEF activities are optimally aligned with the regular programs and activities of the GEF agencies already working in the region. In recognition of the benefits of the joint programming now being favored by NZAid and AusAid, the program will also facilitate harmonization of work programs across the GEF agencies active in the region.

All GEF-PAS regional strategies would incorporate the relevant indicators and targets from the GEF focal area strategies, modified as appropriate, to reflect regional and national circumstances.

Limited absorptive capacity, especially at national level, has hindered the ability of countries to access GEF funds. Low absorptive capacity also results in investments often having less impact than might otherwise be the case. It is therefore important to design an overarching capacity building program that addresses common capacity needs across GEF focal areas and in response to national needs and priorities. Similarly, recognition must be made of the Enabling Activities already completed, including the National Capacity for Self Assessment (NCSA). Where appropriate, these should be integrated into the strategies incorporated in the proposed investment program.

Figure 3. Relationship between national priorities, GEF priorities and programs, the proposed 13 GEF-PAS regional strategies and the GEF-PAS strategic investment program.






















Capacity building is an integral part of all GEF projects. The other components of GEF’s approach to capacity building are: (i) conducting national capacity self assessments; (ii) targeted capacity building projects; (iii) enabling activities; (iv) support to civil society and the private sector through the Small Grants Program (SGP), the Development Marketplace and the Environmental Business Finance Program; and (v) country-specific programs for addressing capacity building needs in LDCs and SIDS. The replenishment agreement for GEF-4 specifies that the financial envelopes for both biodiversity and climate change include 5% for the SGP and for cross-cutting capacity building projects.

GEF-PAS provides further opportunity to mobilize and better utilize national, GEF and donor funds to assess and respond to capacity requirements at all levels (e.g. national, community) and across all dimensions (e.g. institutional strengthening, proposal preparation, monitoring and reporting). The goal would be to support and implement capacity building that is even more responsive to Pacific circumstances and needs. The Alliance offers an opportunity to support capacity building through a broader programmatic framework, thereby avoiding the tendency for project funding to undercut and inhibit capacity building due to constraints such as insufficient time for relationship building and for preparing and implementing work programs. A program of capacity building would allow more time for all parties and stakeholders to develop a shared understanding of issues and desired outcomes. It would also provide continuity across the transitional phases between projects, and on project completion.

Management Structure

A proposed management structure is presented in Figure 4. The roles of each participating GEF agency at both regional and country levels will differ, consistent with the comparative advantage of each. Project roles in areas of particular emphasis for the IAs are as follows:

§ UNDP plays a primary role in ensuring the development and management of capacity building programs and technical assistance projects, drawing on its experience in human resources development, integrated policy design and implementation, institutional strengthening, and non-governmental and community participation, on its network of country offices, as well as on its inter-country programming experience;
§ UNEP plays a primary role in catalyzing the development of scientific and technical analysis and in advancing environmental management in GEF-financed activities; its focus is also on normative development, the piloting of innovative approaches at all levels, and on provision of science-based guidance and knowledge services; UNEP thus provides guidance on relating the GEF-financed activities to global, regional and national environmental assessments, policy frameworks and plans, and to international environmental agreements; and
§ The World Bank play the primary role in ensuring the development and management of investment projects; in doing so the Bank draws on its investment experience in eligible countries to promote investment opportunities, leverage funding from other donors and to mobilize private sector resources that are consistent with GEF objectives and national sustainable development strategies.

The comparative advantages of the EAs in their project roles are as follows:
§ Regional Development Banks: Investment projects at the country or multi-country level and mobilizing private sector resources within their respective regions;
§ FAO: Persistent organic pollutants in the agriculture sector;
§ IFAD: Land degradation, with emphasis on smaller countries through community-based natural resource management and poverty alleviation and national execution arrangements; and
§ UNIDO: Persistent organic pollutants in the industrial sector.

The comparative advantages of the relevant regional organizations include:
§ The Pacific Islands Forum (formerly known as the South Pacific Forum), is the region's principal political institution; it brings together the independent and self-governing states of the Pacific in an annual leaders' summit. The Pacific Islands Forum is serviced by the Forum Secretariat (PIFS);
§ The Pacific Community (formerly known as the South Pacific Commission), is a non-political organization delivering development assistance to the territories and countries of the region; the Pacific Community is serviced by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC);
§ The Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), aims at enabling members to maximize benefits from the conservation and sustainable use of their fisheries resources;
§ The Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), promotes regional cooperation in environmental matters; and
§ The South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) assists members to assess, explore and develop their mineral and other non-living resources.

Figure 4. Proposed management structure for preparation and implementation of the GEF-PAS strategic investment program.



















A high level of cooperation and coordination will be required if GEF-PAS is to deliver coherent advice and assistance to PICs. An Inter-agency Coordinating Group, comprising senior representatives of the GEF Secretariat and Agencies, and chaired by the World Bank's Country Director for the Pacific, will further facilitate this cooperation and coordination. It will meet on an as needed basis. The Coordinating Group will provide strategic advice and guidance to its member agencies, as well as to Pacific Island Countries and Organizations. It will also encourage and facilitate preparation of project proposals that are consistent with the priorities of both the PICs and bi- and multilateral donors. For these and other tasks the Coordinating Group will be supported by an Inter-agency Technical Working Group. This has already been established. The Working Group acts as the secretariat and technical support unit for the Coordinating Group. It meets periodically by teleconference, as well as at relevant regional meetings.

The Inter-agency Coordinating Group will be advised by, and respond to, the GEF-PAS Advisory Group. The GEF-PAS Advisory Group would also provide strategic and tactical guidance to both the GEF representative in the Pacific and, collectively, to Alliance members. Importantly, the GEF-PAS Advisory Group would add value to GEF operations in the Pacific, but would not add another administrative layer between the GEF and the countries. Formally, the GEF-PAS Advisory Group could be established by, and report to, the Pacific Islands Forum or to another appropriate member of the Council of Regional Organizations in the Pacific (CROP). The choice of the Pacific Islands Forum would reflect its oversight role for implementation of the Pacific Plan. One of the initiatives in the Plan is to facilitate international financing for sustainable development, biodiversity and environmental protection and climate change in the Pacific, including through the GEF.

The important role the GEF-PAS Advisory Group will play in preparing and implementing the GEF-PAS strategic investment program suggests that its membership could most usefully include members of the Inter-agency Coordinating Group plus, say, three eminent persons from the Pacific Islands Region.

Individual PICs will identify the most appropriate organizational, institutional and management modalities for interfacing with the other members of GEF-PAS, in order to ensure efficient and effective achievement of the GEF-PAS goals and objectives. The arrangements will reflect national circumstances but will also recognize the need to coordinate activities across not only the GEF Focal Area Strategic Priorities but also include cross-cutting initiatives such as capacity enhancement, enabling activities and support for relevant initiatives undertaken by both civil society and the private sector.

The World Bank has been designated as the lead coordinating agency. Its role would be as follows:

§ Act as a secretariat to the GEF-PAS Advisory Group and the Inter-agency Coordinating and Working Groups, and in this way provide day to day coordination of the program;
§ Jointly with GEF SEC, lead the dialogue with countries, regional and international development partners and other GEF agencies;
§ Jointly with GEF SEC, develop the strategic vision, organization and management structures, and operational protocols for the program; and
§ Implement projects and other activities, but only in areas where it has a comparative advantage.

Importantly, the World Bank would not use this lead coordinating role to compete for implementation resources or activities.

To help ensure optimal involvement of the GEF agencies, as well as equitable access of countries to GEF assistance, a set of criteria will be used to determine how each agency will operate in the program, at country and regional levels. The following criteria are proposed for initial use. They can be further refined upon receipt of comments from PICs and the GEF Agencies, and to reflect experience:

§ Comparative advantage of the agency, based on its past experience;
§ Global knowledge;
§ Convening power;
§ Presence and experience in the Region;
§ Country preference;
§ Potential to foster national leadership of, and engagement in, programs; and
§ Efficiency of resource use.

Operational Protocols

Operational protocols are proposed for the key preparatory stages of GEF-PAS.

a) National and Regional Consultations

Early and meaningful consultations with PICs, at national, sub-regional and regional levels, are an essential and integral part of preparing an investment program that will maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of GEF support to PICs, and thereby enhance achievement of both global environmental and national sustainable development goals. Figure 5 is a schematic of the proposed consultation process.

Figure 5. The consultation framework


















The main aim of the consultations would be to revise and reaffirm national and regional priorities linked to national sustainable development goals and to the GEF Focal Area Strategic Priorities. In order to ensure country drivennes, and to facilitate integration of the findings, culminating in a regional consensus, the consultations should be undertaken using a sub-regional approach, with national activities. The proposed consultations should:

§ Build on, rather than duplicate consultations already undertaken at national and regional levels;
§ Use culturally and socially appropriate participatory methods, and ensure that the views of all relevant stakeholders are canvassed, and reflected in the consensus views which will be documented in a written report;
§ Synthesize and add value to the existing body of knowledge and understanding, rather than attempting to create fundamentally new information; and
§ Prepare documentation that ensures an appropriate level of understanding at higher levels, and thus informs decision making by regional and international organizations.

Discussions involving the GEF Secretariat, the World Bank and UNEP have resulted in a tentative agreement to set the planned country consultations against the framework of the GEF Country Support Program (CSP). The CSP provides financial assistance to focal points for coordination of GEF activities. Included among these is the holding of national consultations to determine national GEF priorities. None of the PICs has formally undertaken this exercise using CSP resources. The World Bank will coordinate with UNEP’s Samoa office to organize the consultations which form one of the first steps in identifying potential investment projects and activities under the Program.

b) Preparation of the Proposed Strategic Investment Program

Based on the agreed criteria for participation, individual GEF Agencies would take responsibility for project preparation and implementation. These agencies, individually or collaboratively, will take the lead in developing investment projects thematically, or on a geographic basis (country or country groupings). The involvement of specific agencies would be based on agreed criteria, including comparative advantage and preference of the recipient country.

The investment matrices that are a key output of the country consultations will underpin preparation of country and regional project implementation frameworks and project preparation grants. The pipeline for each GEF Focal Area would be linked to the GEF-PAS and other regional strategies, reflect national and/or regional priorities, and would be consistent with GEF strategies such as the Resource Allocation Framework. In this way, GEF-PAS will also contribute to achieving the objectives of overarching regional strategies such as the Pacific Plan, and the Micronesia Challenge. The individual investment projects would be integrated into a draft strategic investment program document.

The proposed program would take into consideration the realities of timing and capacity constraints, including preparation start-up speed. As a result, while the investment program is expected to commence preparation in all countries simultaneously, it is anticipated that not all projects would be ready for investment at the same time. Hence, timing of individual country participation would relate to both the national capacity to undertake a successful project and a country’s readiness to implement a project, bearing in mind the requirements of the resource allocation framework (RAF).

The proposed program would be circulated for comment prior to the convening of a regional workshop to discuss a draft program document, including the partnership framework and investment portfolio. Subsequently, the program documents, including the partnership framework and investment portfolio, would be finalized and cleared by the Inter-agency Coordinating Group and the GEF-PAS Advisory Group. The approved program documents will be submitted to the GEF Secretariat, for submission to the GEF Council.

The program document presented to the Council would contain the project implementation frameworks for projects that have already been identified. For those not yet identified, the program document would establish a timeline within which the project implementation frameworks would be presented for review by the Secretariat, and approval by the GEF Chief Executive Officer.

The program would also support existing GEF pipeline commitments that are consistent with the agreed investment strategy.

It is also important that funding commitments already made by GEF be honored, even though the new operational procedures under the proposed programmatic approach of GEF-PAS will bring increased national, regional and global benefits, in a more cost-effective manner. Thus every reasonable effort should be made to ensure that such investments are fully aligned with, and supportive of, GEF-PAS. Importantly, stand-alone projects, both existing and new, can continue alongside GEF-PAS. This reflects the fact that there will always be investments that have high national importance, but which are not consistent with the overall programmatic approach of GEF-PAS. However, the high transaction costs for GEF and related investments in the Pacific region should be taken into account. Ways to reduce these costs include ensuring that GEF activities are considered within the regular programs and activities of GEF agencies already working in the region. Thus stand-alone GEF projects should not be encouraged given the high transaction cost of implementation outside an agreed framework. In recognition of the benefits of the joint programming now being favored by NZAid and AusAid, GEF-PAS will also facilitate harmonization of country-driven work programs that are implemented by the GEF agencies active in the region.

c) Approval and Implementation of the Partnership Framework and Investment Portfolio

Consistent with the new project cycle requirements for umbrella projects, and as the entire resource envelope is known upfront, the GEF Council would be asked to approve funding for the entire program, while delegating responsibility to the GEF Chief Executive Officer for approval of the individual investment projects.

The criteria used in approving these individual projects might include:

§ Country eligibility;
§ Country drivenness – including consistency with relevant national policies, plans, and reports, with communications to the relevant Conventions, with recommendations made at relevant regional meetings and with relevant regional agreements;
§ Contribution to overall goals of the GEF-PAS program;
§ The impacts of the project – i.e. difference between baseline and alternative scenario, in terms of environmental, socio-economic, institutional and policy/legal considerations;
§ Sustainability (including financial sustainability) – the actions to be undertaken, within and/or outside the project, to address factors that influence continuation of project benefits after completion of project implementation;
§ Replicability - the potential for repeating the project lessons and transferring the experience elsewhere;
§ Upscaling – the potential for the limited project-level activities and benefits to catalyze alternatively funded initiatives and/or wider benefits, at national, regional and global levels;
§ Stakeholder involvement - use of culturally and socially appropriate participatory methods which ensure that the views, needs and capacities of all relevant stakeholders (including minorities) are identified and accommodated in the proposed activities;
§ Intended Beneficiaries – clear identification of appropriate groups, including minorities, who are the target beneficiaries of the project activities;
§ Institutional frameworks and governance – the institutional and technical arrangements, legal frameworks, policies and governance structures and processes should allow for the project outcomes and benefits to be sustained; the proposed activities should also ensure that the required systems for accountability and transparency, and the required technical know-how, will be in place;
§ A project implementation plan – the project’s objectives and components should be clear, practicable and feasible within its timeframe; the project implementation mechanisms specified in the project should be clear and realistic so as to enable effective and efficient implementation, and should include mechanisms that allow project implementation to adapt to both internal and external changes during the life of the project;
§ A financing plan – this should include overall project costs as well as specification of costs by activity and sub-activity, and also specify the in-kind and in-cash commitments by co-financiers, supported by letters of commitment from co-financiers[2];
§ Cost-effectiveness - the goals and objectives should be achievable within the planned time frame and budget, which should in turn be comparable with the duration and costs of similar projects in similar contexts; and
§ A monitoring and evaluation plan – this should be based on the project logical framework, and include a budget, the organizational arrangements for implementing the plan, and the indicators and the means of measurement for evaluating the project objectives, activities, outputs and outcomes including intermediate benchmarks and milestones.

d) Summary of Program and Project Preparation and Approval Procedures

The following summarizes the steps that might be used for program and project preparation and approval:

§ Prepare country and regional project implementation frameworks and project preparation grants;
§ GEF Agencies, individually or collaboratively, take the lead in developing national and regional project implementation frameworkss for investment projects thematically or on a geographic basis (country or country groupings); involvement of specific agencies is based on agreed criteria, including comparative advantage and preference by recipient country[3];
§ Individual project proposals integrated into a draft program document which is circulated for comment;
§ Regional workshop convened to discuss draft program document, including partnership framework and investment portfolio;
§ Program documents, including partnership framework and integrated investment portfolio, finalized and cleared by Working Group and GEF-PAS Advisory Group, ready for presentation to GEF Council; and
§ Submission of proposal to GEF Secretariat, for Council submission.

Communications

Figure 4, and the associated description of the management structure for GEF-PAS, confirm that implementation of the GEF-PAS partnership framework will do nothing to compromise existing lines of communication between and amongst the GEF Agencies, the GEF Secretariat and PICs. To the contrary, GEF-PAS is founded on the principle of improved coordination and cooperation between these players.

However, to maximize the benefits of this improved coordination and cooperation, the GEF Agencies in particular will need to reflect on how best to handle communications with and between the various players. Given the coordination role that has been assigned to the World Bank, and consistent with Figure 4, it is proposed that the World Bank have responsibility for formal communications between the Inter-agency Coordinating Group on the one hand, and the GEF-PAS Advisory Group and the GEF Secretariat, on the other.

Activities

a) Short term

The key next steps, milestones and timelines leading up to the submission of the detailed work program to the GEF Council in April 2008 are as follows:

§ Countries decide on priority projects (parallel process involving CROP and GEF Agencies) – information submitted by October 15;
§ Harmonize national/regional priorities into a program of national and multi-country projects – draft sent to countries by October 31;
§ Countries, with assistance from preferred GEF Agency, prepare Project Identification Forms (PIFs) – submitted by December 15;
§ GEF Constituency Meeting, Manila – October 24 and 25;
§ Countries and Agencies meet at COP 13 in Bali – early December;
§ Distribution of draft umbrella program document and draft PIFs - December 15;
§ Countries and Agencies meet to finalise and endorse GEF-PAS program document – late January;
§ Finalization of all GEF-PAS documentation - submitted to GEFSec - end of February, 2008;
§ Decision on GEF-PAS by GEF Council – April, 2008; and
§ Preparation of individual project documents & signoff by GEF CEO.

b) Longer term

The investment projects and associated activities, including capacity building and enabling activities, would be implemented thematically or on a geographic basis (country, sub-regionally or regionally). The GEF agencies responsible for implementation would be determined using agreed criteria, including comparative advantage and preference of the recipient country. As noted below, monitoring and evaluation activities will form an integral part of the overall program of activities.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The programmatic approach that underpins GEF PAS represents an ideal opportunity to implement, demonstrate and evaluate a comprehensive, results-based approach to achievement of both national development objectives and global environmental goals. Importantly, the evaluation can consider an innovative investment portfolio that is integrated across all GEF focal and cross-cutting areas and which is also consistent with the newly focused, streamlined and more integrated GEF Focal Area strategies. The evaluation can also be based on the measurable indicators of global environmental outcomes and impacts that are currently under development for each of the Focal Areas.
Measurement of, and managing for, results is a major challenge for the GEF. The Secretariat and the GEF agencies have begun to develop a comprehensive results management framework for GEF-4, incorporating monitoring and reporting at three levels: (i) corporate level; (ii) programmatic (focal area) level; and (iii) project-level. Among other considerations, this framework will address: (i) progress towards/achievement of focal area targets; (ii) outcomes achieved by projects that have completed implementation; (iii) issues associated with implementation of the portfolio; and (iv) quality-at-entry of project proposals. The results of the review and revision of the GEF focal area strategies will include targets and indicators. These will be incorporated into the results-based management, monitoring and evaluation framework for GEF-PAS.
Annex 1

Description of GEF Funding Assistance and Support Activities

Enabling activity projects – these provide financing for the preparation of: (i) a plan, strategy, or program to fulfill commitments under a global environmental convention; and (ii) a national communication or report to a relevant Convention. The GEF currently finances enabling activities related to the conventions on biodiversity, climate change, and persistent organic pollutants. There are several categories of enabling activities. These are:

§ Non-expedited Enabling Activity involving GEF funding of at least $1,000,000; requires Council approval
§ Expedited Enabling Activity; all funding may be approved by the GEF CEO:
§ Climate Change Initial Communications - up to $350,000
§ Climate Change Additional Financing - up to $100,000
§ Climate Change National Adaptation Program of Action - up to $200,000
§ Climate Change Special Adaptation - up to $1,000,000
§ Biodiversity First National Action Plan - up to $350,000
§ Biodiversity Additional Financing - up to $100,000
§ Biodiversity Biosafety - up to $1,000,000
§ Persistent Organic Pollutants National Implementation Plan - up to $500,000
§ National Capacity Self Assessment (NCSA) - up to $200,000
§ Project Preparation Grant (NCSA) - actual cost

Medium-sized projects – these must satisfy the requirements of a GEF Strategic Priority and either a GEF Operational Program or Short-Term Response Measure. Medium-sized projects are limited to a maximum of $1 million in GEF funds. Proposals are submitted to the Secretariat on a rolling basis throughout the year. They go through a one-step approval of the final project document by the GEF CEO.

Full-sized projects – these must satisfy eligibility requirements under the Conventions, a GEF strategic priority and either a GEF Operational Program or Short-Term Response Measure. Full-sized projects receive more than $1 million dollars in GEF funds. Project proposals go through each step of the GEF project cycle, first entering the GEF pipeline as project concept. Proponents may request a Project Preparation Grants (PPG) to develop the concept into a full proposal. A project proposal is submitted for Work Program inclusion and approved by the Council during its regular meetings or, intersessionally. by mail.

Small Grants Program - provides support for community-level initiatives that contribute to conserving global biodiversity, mitigating climate change, protecting international waters, reducing impacts of persistent organic pollutants and preventing land degradation while generating sustainable livelihoods. The grants complement GEF full- and medium-sized project funding, by providing a window for the direct participation of NGOs, local communities, and other grassroot organizations. The Program is administered by UNDP in 70 country offices. To date, there are 80 countries participating, with 10 new countries being added each year.

Capacity building - the aim is to provide adequate support for nationally determined and prioritized capacity building needs, consistent with the relevant Conventions and the objectives of the GEF, and in a cost effective manner, with clearly identified indicators of progress and achievement. The capacity building pathways supported by GEF are: (i) a self assessment of capacity needs; (ii) strengthening capacity building elements in GEF projects; (iii) targeted capacity building projects; and (iv) country specific programs for addressing critical capacity building needs in LDCs and SIDS. The GEF National Dialogue Initiative aims to strengthen country ownership and involvement in GEF co-financed projects, as well as to build capacity of GEF national focal points through a multi-stakeholder dialogue process. National Dialogues on the GEF bring together key stakeholders representing a wide variety of national and local interests in sustainable development. The dialogues provide unique fora that facilitate the link between formal, professional knowledge and informal, local knowledge to address national GEF-related issues. The Country Support Program (CSP) is a comprehensive capacity building program. The UNDP and UNEP are implementing the CSP, working closely with the GEF Secretariat. The CSP chiefly helps countries fulfil their obligations to the global conventions on biodiversity, climate change, desertification, and persistent organic pollutants. It provides: (i) direct funding to support training, outreach and information sharing, and country-level coordination; (ii) assistance to develop a GEF country and constituency knowledge management framework; and (iii) targeted capacity building activities through information exchange and training workshops at the sub-regional level.



[1] Initial members of the Alliance include all 15 PICs eligible for GEF assistance (Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu), the GEF IAs (World Bank, UNDP, UNEP), relevant GEF EAs including ADB, FAO, UNIDO and IFAD, relevant regional governmental and non-governmental organizations including the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, SPREP, SOPAC, Forum Fisheries Agency and The University of the South Pacific, and relevant bi- and multilateral development partners including the European Union Commission for the Pacific (EU), Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), New Zealand's International Aid & Development Agency (NZAID) and United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
[2] A target ratio for cofinancing might be 1:3.
[3] This proposal preparation phase does not include finalizing the project brief. These may take up to one year to implement. However, PIFs for projects (national, sub-regional and regional) will be developed for submission with the program document, or within a timeframe specified in the program document.