GEF Operations and G-PAS Vision for the Pacific
DRAFT
WORKING PAPER
GEF PACIFIC ALLIANCE FOR SUSTAINABILITY
The World Bank
May 15, 2007
Table of Contents
SUMMARY.. i
1. BACKGROUND AND DETAIL OF THE GEF PACIFIC ALLIANCE FOR SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM 1
2. The Vision – Pacific Partnership for Action for the Global Environment 1
3. Situation Analysis: The Baseline for the Pacific Partnership. 1
3.1 Importance of the Pacific to the Global Environment 1
3.2 GEF Operations in the Pacific – Past and Current 5
3.3 GEF Operations in the Pacific: Success Stories and Lessons Learned (including barriers) 10
3.4 The GEF-4 Replenishment and the Resource Allocation Framework. 16
3.5 Absorptive Capacities of Eligible PICs. 19
3.6 Governance and Institutions. 20
3.6.1 The Pacific Islands Forum, the Pacific Plan and the Post Forum Dialogue. 20
3.6.2 GEF. 23
3.6.3 Implementing and Executing Agencies. 27
3.6.4 Regional Technical and Related Assistance. 29
4. Investment Planning – A Critical Step to Achieving the Vision. 30
4.1 Priorities of SIDS and PICs. 30
4.2 GEF Eligible National Priorities. 31
4.3 GEF Focal Area Strategies. 33
4.3.1 Climate Change. 33
4.3.2 Biodiversity. 34
4.3.3 International Waters. 34
4.3.4 Land Degradation. 35
4.3.5 Persistent Organic Pollutants. 35
4.4 Proposed Programmatic Approach – Reflecting National Priorities and GEF Programs 36
4.5 Proposed GEF Investment Portfolio. 40
5. Implementation Planning – Realizing the Vision. 43
5.1 Road Map (including consultation and project phasing) 43
5.2 Institutional Arrangements. 46
5.3 Capacity Enhancement 47
5.4 Monitoring and Evaluation. 48
5.5 Risks, and Potential for Success. 48
GEF-Pacific Alliance for Sustainability
SUMMARY
Introduction: This concept paper presents a strategy that begins to address the general criticism by the Pacific Island Countries (PICs) that GEF resources have been not been equitably accessible and hence their use has been below levels commensurate with the opportunities they 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. 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 3 to 4 years under the GEF 4 program implementation, although the activities themselves will very likely extend beyond this replenishment period.
Since its inception in 1991, the GEF has provided $86 million in grants for projects in 14 PICs. This sum is significantly less than required to address the global environmental issues faced by these countries and 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 – countries reporting requirements to international conventions – as well as 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 have achieved limited impact even as both global and linked national environment problems in these countries remain unresolved.
To use GEF resources more effectively, it is proposed that the PICs overcome a common set of barriers. These include: (i) balancing 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 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 the limited co-financing opportunities for environment-related projects in PICs as well as the importance of sharing expertise and information.
A program approach as opposed to a project approach
The GEF proposes the use of a comprehensive, regionally-coordinated and nationally-executed strategic investment program (SIP) that reflects country priorities for achieving national sustainable development goals (see figure 1 below) while also providing significant global environment benefits; and a program framework under a regional partnership with strong and involved national level activities that are anchored in and led by the PICs. The PIC institutions would catalyze and reinforce country level engagement and investments to generate greater impact on the ground across all the GEF Focal Areas, improve potential for sustainability and improve cost-effectiveness in a region where the average costs for investments are perceived as being high.
Figure 1: regionally-coordinated program of nationally and regionally executed activities that address country priorities for developing sustainability while delivering significant global environmental benefits.
This approach is the GEF’s response to addressing the constraints and for enabling greater efficiency in the use of its resources, by supporting a long-term programmatic approach for the implementation of a strategic and integrated set of investments and related initiatives. The program would be based on a strong partnership, not only of the PICs, but also of the GEF Agencies, regional organizations, bilateral aid agencies, the private sector and the 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 the investment program.
The Program would be embedded linked toin 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 regional strategies will also incorporate the relevant performance indicators and targets from the GEF Focal Area strategies, modified as appropriate, to reflect regional and national circumstances. It will be important to design an overarching capacity building program that addresses common capacity needs across GEF focal areas and countries. Similarly, recognition must be made of the Enabling Activities already completed, including the National Capacity for Self Assessment (NCSA), and where appropriate, integrate the strategies developed in the proposed investment programs. The program would also support existing GEF pipeline commitments that are consistent with the agreed investment strategy.
(a) The programmatic approach builds on existing GEF experience for umbrella projectsprograms, such as the Strategic Investment Program for SLM in Africa, the Black Sea Danube Partnership, Investment Funds for Large Marine Ecosystems and the China Sustainable Land Management (SLM) Partnership. 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 the amount for the entire project while delegating responsibility to the GEF CEO for approval of individual investment projects.[1] The project document presented to the Council at work program would contain the PIFs for sub-projects that have already been identified, while for those not yet identified, the work program document would establish a timeline within which the PIFs would be presented for review by the Secretariat and approved by the CEO.
As such, under the partnership framework the specific types of operations to be financed would be defined, such as country investment projects, technical assistance/capacity building, analytical work, innovative regional or multi-country programs and cross-cutting capacity building activities. Subsequently, investment projects would be sent individually for CEO Approval/Endorsement subject to satisfactory achievement of criteria specified under the partnership. The pipeline for each GEF Focal Area would be linked to regional strategies, reflect national and/or regional priorities, be consistent with GEF strategies such as the Resource Allocation Framework, and individual GEF Agencies would take responsibility based on agreed criteria for participation.
(b) It is important to note however, 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, and contribute to ensuring 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 favoured by NZAid and AusAid, the program will also facilitate harmonization of work programs across the GEF agencies active in the region.
(c) The design of the program is consistent with the five point sustainability compact recently announced by GEF. The compact is designed to increase the efficiency and impact of GEF investments in global environmental management. Along with the strategic investment program for sustainable land management in Sub-Saharan Africa, the program has the potential to be an early and substantive demonstration of the benefits of the new GEF compact for both developing countries and the global environment. The proposed program could also serve as prototype for additional comprehensive, regionally-coordinated and nationally-executed strategic investment programs.
Key Principles of the Partnership: The Partnership could be based on the following key Principles or Operational Framework:
Formation and or enhancement of a high-level advisory board that would speak on behalf of the PICs at the regional level, increase visibility of national concerns and expectations and guide the strategic direction of the overall program while allowing adequate flexibility for each country to set its national priorities, develop proposals and capacities for implementation
Set clear benchmarks for deliverables at the national and regional levels
Strengthened collaboration and coordination of the Pacific region’s technical agencies – with the result that there is consensus building through consultation
Building on past efforts and reflecting previous successes and lessons learned
Address all GEF Focal Areas
Ensure equal access to the GEF by all PIC countries, as well as partnering with the GEF Agencies that will be assisting the countries, in ways that reflect the Agencies comparative advantages;
Ensure that the lead agency will work with all the other GEF agencies to ensure that the GEF-financed activities are consistent with a programmatic approach and contribute to common corporate objectives;
Phased approach embedded in the Programmatic Approach. As an umbrella project the proposed program takes into consideration that although the Program is expected to commence preparation in all countries at the same time, it is expected that due to timing and capacity constraints, including preparation start-up speed, 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 on a country’s readiness to implement a project, bearing in mind the requirements of the RAF. In addition, the approach also allows for room to build proposals that would ensure and improve:
commitment to consensus building through consultations
appropriate engagement with all relevant stakeholders
willingness to adopt realistic and pragmatic approaches, in order to achieve timeliness and certainty while avoiding delays and diversions
ability to deliver win-win outcomes through efficient and effective processes that meet both national and global priorities.
Program Objectives
The program would have the overall objective to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of GEF support to PICs, thereby enhancing achievement of both global environmental and national sustainable development goals. The goal is to enhance and stimulate economic growth, sustainable development, good governance and security for Pacific countries through regionalism. One strategic objective is to contribute to sustainable development through improvements in natural resource and environmental management. In this respect, the program will facilitate international financing for sustainable development, biodiversity and environmental protection and climate change in the Pacific.
The Program provides the opportunity to address the main barriers preventing effective action by the PICs to safeguard their rich natural resource base. As a strategic partnership of all the GEF Agencies, the program would require adoption of a common set of goals and implementation framework which would enable more efficient and effective use of GEF resources. GEF involvement would help to leverage co-financing from other donors, such as the bilateral agencies and other partners, which would be very important as the GEF contribution would fall short of optimum investment needs. The partnership would catalyze action to more effectively implement existing regional strategies, strengthen long term cross-focal area and cross sectoral linkages, provide a framework for more effective stakeholder participation, and maximize the impact per GEF dollar invested.
Value Added by the Program
A review of GEF engagement in the Pacific (see pages x to x) illustrates that a business as usual approach would continue to provide sub-optimal results and unsustainable outcomes. The proposed programmatic approach has several advantages over the existing mode of operation. A Partnership Program can help to focus individual country investments while ensuring that shared objectives are met. It would also provide a stronger framework for overall donor cooperation and leveraging support from a potentially wider array of donors. The key differences between “business as usual” (the baseline) and the value added by the Partnership are set out below:
Business as usual (baseline)
Program value added
Inefficient use of GEF resources distributed among many (mostly Enabling) activities with little regard for sustainability and entailing high transaction costs for the GEF and limited benefits for the countries
Strategic:
· Adoption of a programmatic strategic approach focusing on national and regional priorities, and allocating resources based on a defined operational investment framework
· reduction in transaction costs as key GEF review criteria (e.g. program and policy conformity, incremental cost and public involvement policy) would be addressed in a more streamlined way;
Limited financial leveraging associated with a piecemeal project by project approach
Innovation: by bringing together the GEF Agencies and the countries in a partnership with a common framework, there is increased opportunity to mobilize co-financing from a multiplicity of sources, including the private sector and to gain access to improved technologies
Limited predictability in resources available to PICs
Equity: A programmatic approach requires GEF to make a long term financing commitment which means vulnerable countries such as the PICs get improved access to and concrete results from better use of limited resources
Little coordination among GEF Agencies and competition for resources
More effective support: An agreed operational framework and participation by GEF Agencies based on comparative advantage optimizes support to recipient countries and increases the efficiency of GEF support
Better coordination: A Partnership approach would entail more effective framework for cooperation by accepting common goals and strategies
Single focal area or sector approach
Cross-cutting: improved opportunities for strengthening the enabling environment and general cross-cutting support, including capacity building needs
Mainly enabling activities implemented, little opportunity for projects to build on lessons learned
Phased participation: improved scope for catalyzing action, replication and innovation
The role of the Partners
The different participating GEF Agencies would take on different roles at the regional and country levels. To support the equal access objective of the GEF proposed program by the countries and the GEF agencies, it is necessary to define some criteria based on which GEF agencies would operate in the program. It is proposed that the following principles be applied (these could be further refined with comments from the PICs and the GEF Agencies):
· comparative advantage of the agency – past experience
· global knowledge
· convening power
· presence in the Region
· country preference
· Potential to foster national leadership of programs
· Efficiency in use of resources
The high-level advisory board proposed would be the only addition to existing and planned institutional arrangements. This board would provide strategic and tactical guidance to both the GEF representative in the Pacific and, collectively, to organizations and countries in the Pacific Partnership. Importantly, the advisory board would add value to GEF operations in the Pacific, but would not add another administrative layer between the GEF and the countries.
The World Bank has been designated as the lead coordinating agency. Its role would be the following:
· Lead dialogue jointly with GEF SEC with countries, regional partners and other GEF agencies
· Jointly Lead the Strategic Vision of the program with GEF SEC – “set the stage”
· Implement in areas where it has comparative advantage only
· Not to Compete for Implementation Resources or activities
Monitoring and Evaluation: The programmatic approach that underpins PacPAGE 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.
Key Next Steps (dates to be inserted in revised paper)
Phase I: Finalization of country, regional and sub-regional priorities
Circulation of Concept Note to partners and incorporation of comments
Present the program concept to Operational Focal Points at the Constituency meeting in Manila May 30 -31, and agree on consultation timetable.
Prepare and submit PIF/PPG
Appointment of a high level Advisory Board (Composition to be determined)
Creation of an Inter-Agency Working Group (comprising GEF Agencies to coordinate preparation work, and meets periodically)
PPG used to finance the activities below. (Phase I activities directly coordinated/facilitated by World Bank, Phase II activities coordinated by World Bank but executed by individual IAs)
Teams (consultants plus OFPs) undertake individual country consultations to reconfirm country priorities linked to national sustainable development goals and GEF Focal Areas Strategic Priorities.
Similar consultations to reconfirm regional and/or sub-regional priorities.
Begin potential donor engagement
Resulting investment matrices from the above consultations presented at a regional workshop in September or October and criteria and guidelines for investment projects agreed.
Preparation of overall Partnership Framework (management and organization structure, communication framework, etc.) – roles and responsibilities for working in the partnership
Phase II: Preparation of investment portfolio (actual environmental and susatainable development activities to be financed):
Individual GEF Agencies take the lead in developing investment projects thematically or on a geographic basis (country or country groupings). IAs would be selected based on agreed criteria for participation (comparative advantage, preference by recipient country, etc.).
Investment portfolio comprising PIFs and PPGs prepared.
Preparation of overall M&E framework for partnership
Present partnership framework and investment portfolio to regional meeting
Overall program documents (partnership framework, investment portfolio) finalized and cleared by Working Group and Advisory Board, ready for presentation to GEF Council in June 2008
1. BACKGROUND AND DETAIL OF THE GEF PACIFIC ALLIANCE FOR SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM
2. The Vision – Pacific Partnership for Action for the Global Environment
The vision elaborated in this concept paper is of the GEF-Pacific Alliance for Sustainability – a comprehensive, regionally coordinated and nationally executed investment program for the Pacific region. It reflects country priorities for achieving national sustainable development goals, 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 preventing and adapting to climate change.
As indicated in Figure 1, a larger vision is for GEF-PAS to be one of several such regional partnerships, bringing together international and regional organizations, national and local governments, communities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the private sector.
3. Situation Analysis: The Baseline for the Pacific Partnership
This section describes the conditions and circumstances that provide the foundation for the future activities of the proposed Pacific Partnership.
3.1 Importance of the Pacific to the Global Environment
Biodiversity. While the PICs comprise a very small portion of the world’s land area, they represent unique coastal and marine ecosystems with high species diversity and a significant degree of endemism – reportedly exceeding 80% for many islands. Their rich fisheries, forests, and other natural resources have long supported the livelihoods of human settlements and formed the basis of their economies. They are host to many endangered plants and animals. The small sizes of most of the islands also means the total world populations of many of these species are naturally very small, making them vulnerable to any disturbance. This is well illustrated by their bird population – the Pacific has 15% of the world’s restricted range bird species in only 0.4% of global land area.
Figure 1. The wider vision – a Pacific Partnership, one of many possible regional partnerships, not all of which are included in the diagram.
In contrast, the vast oceanic waters of the PICs include the Western Pacific large marine ecosystem, covering 38.5 million square kilometers. The Pacific region hosts the most extensive and diverse reefs in the world, the deepest oceanic trenches and relatively intact populations of many globally threatened species, including whales, sea turtles, dugongs and saltwater crocodiles. The mountainous islands of Melanesia support large tracts of intact rainforests that are host to unique communities of plants and animals, many of which have yet to be described scientifically. This globally significant biodiversity is critically threatened, with up to 50 percent of the region’s total biodiversity at risk. Current threats are related to such factors as the over-exploitation of resources and destructive natural events. New and potential threats include those posed by living modified organisms and climate change. A recent analysis of global biodiversity hotspots indicates that the Polynesia–Micronesia hotspot is among those that can least afford additional habitat loss because of the existing fragility of ecosystems and species and also due to previous destruction. Bioprospecting is placing increasing pressure not only on the region’s genetic resources, but also on the communities who view these as part of their heritage.
The ever accelerating rate of biotic invasion in the Pacific is a major element of human-induced global change. Invasive organisms, pests and diseases threaten food and agricultural systems, as well as critical terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems and environmental services. Alien plant species, in particular, pose a well-confirmed and increasing danger to ecosystem integrity. After habitat destruction or modification, invasive species are responsible for more species extinctions than any other cause. Further, the rate of extinction of native species has been higher on islands than anywhere else in the world. Invasive species have also degraded native ecosystems. By way of ship ballast water, international maritime traffic has resulted in the introduction of economically debilitating species into otherwise natural ecosystems. This is the main vector for the transfer of aquatic (fresh and marine) invasive species to both the coastal and riverine waters of PICs.
Climate Change and Sea-level Rise. Many Pacific islands are extremely vulnerable to climate change and sea-level rise. This is forcing island populations to adapt and may lead to abandonment or relocation of populations. Not only are the low-lying atolls at risk. The higher islands also have coastal features and characteristics that also make them particularly vulnerable to variability and change in both climate and sea level. In addition to such significant coastal impacts, climate change will also affect the unique biodiversity, soils and water supplies of these islands. There is growing community and government concern about the need to reduce the vulnerability of the PICs and manage the risks posed by extreme events and long-term change. However, for a variety of reasons PICs find it extremely difficult to adapt to these changing conditions. Importantly, failure to adapt now to climate change can result in high social and economic costs in the near future.
Petroleum consumption is largely responsible for the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of PICs. These countries are currently heavily dependent on fossil fuels, with petroleum accounting for an estimated 90% of commercial energy consumption. The share of renewable energy (RE) in the power generation mix ranges from 0% in most PICs to more than 50% in a few. Petroleum import is equivalent to about 20% of the total exports of a few countries, to more than 40% in most. The transport sector utilizes almost 100% fossil fuel. Currently there are many technical, market, finance, policy, institutional and awareness barriers to renewable energy systems operating sustainably and being price competitive relative to fossil fuel-based systems. Many of the past renewable energy projects have been designed to demonstrate the adaptability of the technologies to the PIC environment and for rural development purposes. However, development of renewable energy in the PICs is now driven from two perspectives: (i) sustainable development; and (ii) sustainable environment, locally, nationally and globally. The present approach is considered more participatory and holistic, and has an improved chance of success.
Land Degradation. For most Pacific societies land resources are the basis for the majority of subsistence and commercial production activities. However, these are being affected by such pressures as high population growth rates and/or density, displacement of traditional land and resource management systems including introduced agricultural systems, land shortage and land tenure conflicts, mining, deforestation and poor development practices. The consequences include: (i) loss of vegetation and other habitats, with associated impacts on island biodiversity; (ii) extension of agriculture into marginal lands; (iii) excessive use of chemicals; (iv) overgrazing; (v) erosion of watersheds and downstream sedimentation impacts, including damage to lagoons and coral reefs; and (vi) introduction of invasive species. Many of these land degradation issues are closely related to forest exploitation on Pacific islands. While forest cover is highly variable across the Pacific, from virtually non-existent on some low islands to over 80% in Papua New Guinea, logging has been an important part of many national and community economies, especially in Melanesia.
International Waters. Healthy marine and coastal environments are fundamental to the long-term sustainability of Pacific island societies. As well as providing a basis for subsistence livelihoods they underpin commercial fisheries and tourism development, mainstays of many island economies. The Pacific is the world's most significant tuna fishing area, valued at up to $US2 billion and supplying a third of world tuna production. The largest tuna fishery occurs in the Pacific region, with nearly 70% of the world’s annual tuna harvest. Major spatial shifts in the skipjack tuna population, for example, can be linked to large zonal displacements of the warm pool that occur during El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events. The close association between skipjack tuna catch and ENSO is evidence that climate variability profoundly affects the distribution of tuna and resulting fishing opportunities. It is unclear how future changes in climate may affect the size and location of the warm pool in the western and central Pacific, but if more El Niño-like conditions occur, as is projected, an easterly shift of the centre of tuna abundance may become more persistent.
The sustainability of the fishing industries of some countries in the Pacific depends on the increasing use, and flexibility, of bilateral and multilateral fishing agreements, coupled with international stock assessments and management plans. Other threats to coastal and marine resources result from such factors as the discharge of nutrients derived from sewage, soil erosion, and agricultural fertilizers, improper solid waste disposal, over-exploitation of fisheries, and accelerated sediment discharge, as a result of land clearance and construction, for example.
Persistent Organic Pollutants. Due to their bioaccumulative nature, persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are especially problematic for PICs, in part due to their relatively small agricultural land base and relative dependence in the primary sector. Hazardous and persistent chemicals, including those currently listed under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, have been identified as needing special attention, as they are unable to be treated in-country. They include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) which are mainly found in transformer oils, and several pesticides that are very persistent in, and toxic to, the environment. Eradication of POPs, as well as intractable pesticides, is important for both local communities and for human health and the environment, nationally and globally. There is also a need to remove all the metal casings of the transformers and other equipment that has contained PCB-contaminated oils and other toxic substances. Several PICs are also affected by POPs that represent the residual effects of nuclear testing. There are also contaminated World War 2 shipwrecks in lagoons,
Opportunities. A meaningful investment portfolio built through coordinated regional action and integration with national priorities has the potential to deliver significant improvements, both nationally and globally, and in terms of conservation of biological diversity, prevention of land degradation, protection of international waters, sound management of chemicals, and mitigation of and adaptation to the consequences of climate change.
3.2 GEF Operations in the Pacific – Past and Current
Fifteen countries[2] in the Pacific are eligible for GEF funding as a result of being Parties to at least one, if not all, of the following five GEF supported Conventions and their related Protocols:
§ Convention on Biological Diversity;
§ Framework Convention on Climate Change;
§ Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants;
§ Convention to Combat Desertification; and
§ Montreal Protocol.
Pacific Island Countries eligible for GEF support have a combined population of more than five million, with a land area of over 500,000km2 and an exclusive economic zone of over 5,000,000 km2.
Despite the excellent analytical work that has been undertaken in the Pacific Islands, access to GEF funds to support follow-up action recommended in the studies has been limited. Since the inception of the Fund, $365 million has been allocated by GEF to 225 projects in Small Island Developing States (SIDS), attracting another $571.6 million in co-financing. Within that $365 million, approximately one third has been allocated to Pacific countries and the other two thirds to the Caribbean.[3] The key difference is the greater number of regional initiatives in the Caribbean.
Table 1 provides details of the GEF funding provided to the 15 PICs in the last 15 years. Almost 90% of GEF projects in the Pacific SIDS are enabling activities in the focal areas of biodiversity, climate change and persistent organic pollutants (POPs). They have focused on fulfilling international reporting requirements. Several countries have also received funding to conduct more detailed resource assessments while a few were supported to initiate renewable energy and community-based biodiversity conservation projects. In International Waters, countries received GEF financing to develop a regional strategic program to conserve and sustainably manage coastal and ocean resources and are to start a fisheries management project. In Land Degradation, countries are being supported to prepare their national action plans and identify possibilities for mainstreaming them. A major POPs project was funded by Australia. This was to identify, collect and ship toxic wastes, including POPs. GEF also funded some enabling activities related to POPs.
Progress in completing many of these projects and related activities has been slow relative to that in other regions, with a few countries still to conclude their projects.
Table 1: Past and Current Projects1
Country
Biodiversity
Climate Change
International Waters
Sustainable Land Management
Persistent Organic Pollutants
Mitigation
Adaptation
Cook Islands
Enabling activity (N)
National strategy
Invasive species management (R)
Conservation Program (R)
Climate change assistance project (R)
Expedited financing of enabling activities (R)
Climate Change training (Phase II) (G)
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)
Fisheries management project (R)
Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Toxic wastes collection
Renewables assessments (R)
Adaptation project (R)
Federated States of Micronesia
Enabling activities (N)
Community conservation & enterprise development
National strategy
Assessment of capacity of building needs
Invasive species management (R)
Conservation program (R)
Climate change assistance project (R)
Expedited financing of enabling activities (R)
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)
Fisheries management project (R)
Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Development of national implementation plans (G)
Toxic wastes collection
Renewables assessments (R)
Adaptation project (R)
Fiji Islands
Enabling activity (N)
National strategy
Clearing house mechanism
Additional funding
Invasive species management (R)
Conservation program (R)
Mangrove conservation project (G)
Climate change assistance project (R)
Climate change training (Phase II) (G)
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)
Fisheries management project (R)
Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Enabling activity, implementation of Stockholm Convention on POPs (N)
Toxic wastes collection
Renewables project (R)
Renewable energy hybrid power systems project (N)
Renewables assessments (R)
Adaptation project (R)
Kiribati
Enabling activities (N)
National strategy
Clearing house mechanism
Assessment of capacity building needs
Invasive species management (R)
Conservation program (R)
Climate change assistance project (R)
Expedited financing of enabling activities (R)
Climate change training (Phase II) (G)
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)
Fisheries management project (R)
Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Enabling activity, implementation of Stockholm Convention on POPs (N)
Toxic wastes collection
Renewables assessments (R)
Pilot adaptation project (N)
NAPA (N)
Marshall Islands
Enabling activites (N)
National strategy
Assessment of capacity of building needs
Invasive species management (R)
Conservation program (R)
Climate change assistance project (R)
Expedited financing of enabling activities (R)
Climate change training (Phase II) (G)
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)
Fisheries management project (R)
Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Enabling activity, implementation of Stockholm Convention on POPs (N)
Toxic wastes collection
Renewables assessment (R)
Nauru
Enabling activity (N)
National strategy
Invasive species management (R)
Conservation program (R)
Climate change assistance project (R)
Expedited financing of enabling activities (R)
Climate change training (Phase II) (G)
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)
Fisheries management project (R)
Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Enabling activity, implementation of Stockholm Convention on POPs (N)
Toxic wastes collection
Renewables assessment (R)
Niue
Enabling activities (N)
National strategy
Clearing house mechanism
Enabling activities (N)
Capacity building financing
Preparation of first national communication
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)
Fisheries management project (R)
Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Enabling activity, initial assistance for Stockholm Convention on POPs (N)
Toxic wastes collection
Renewables assessments (R)
Palau
Enabling activity (N)
National strategy
Invasive species management (R)
Conservation program (R)
Enabling activity (N)
Preparation of first national communication on UN Framework Convention
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)
Fisheries management project (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Enabling activity, implementation of Stockholm Convention on POPs (N)
Toxic wastes collection
Renewables assessment (R)
Papua New Guinea
Enabling activity (N)
Strategy & action plan
Community coastal & marine conservation (N)
Conservation & Resource Management project (N)
Forestry conservation project (N)
Invasive Species Management (R)
Conservation program (R)
Data management capacitation (G)
Country studies (G)
People, land management and environmental change (G)
Enabling activity (N)
Assistance project
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)
Fisheries management project (R)
Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
DDT alternative programs (R)
Development of national implementation plans (G)
Termite control program
Toxic wastes collection
Renewables assessment (R)
Renewables project (R)
Sustainable Energy Financing (R)
Teachers solar lighting project (N)
Adaptation project (R)
Samoa
Enabling activities (N)
National strategy
Clearing house mechanism
Additional funding
Marine biodiversity project (N)
Conservation program (R)
Climate change assistance project (R)
Expedited financing of enabling activities (R)
Climate change training (Phase II) (G)
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)
Fisheries management project (R)
Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Enabling activity, initial assistance for Stockholm Convention on POPs (N)
Toxic wastes collection
Renewables assessments (R)
Adaptation projects (N/R)
NAPA (N)
Community-based adaptation program (G)
Solomon Islands
Enabling activities (N)
National action plan
Clearing house mechanism
Invasive species management (R)
Conservation program (R)
Climate change assistance project (R)
Expedited financing of enabling activities (R)
Climate change training (Phase II) (G)
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)
Fisheries management project (R)
Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
DDT alternative programs (R)
Toxic wastes collection
Renewables assessments (R)
Sustainable energy financing (R)
NAPA (N)
Adaptation program (R)
Timor Leste
Sustainable development strategy (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Tonga
Enabling activity (N)
National strategy
Conservation program (R)
Enabling activities (N)
Preparation of first national communication
Capacity building financing
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)
Fisheries management project (R)
Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Enabling activity, implementation of Stockholm Convention on POPs (N)
Toxic wastes collection
Renewables assessments (R)
Adaptation project (R)
Tuvalu
Invasive species management (R)
Conservation program (R)
Climate change assistance project (R)
Expedited financing of enabling activities (R)
Climate change training (Phase II) (G)
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)
Fisheries management project (R)
Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Enabling activity, implementation of Stockholm Convention on POPs (N)
Toxic wastes collection
Renewables assessments (R)
NAPA (N)
Adaptation project (R)
Vanuatu
Enabling activities (N)
National action plan
Clearing house mechanism
Assessment of capacity-building needs
Community conservation management project (N)
Invasive species management (R)
Conservation program (R)
Climate change assistance project (R)
Expedited financing of enabling activities (R)
Climate change training (Phase II) (G)
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)
Fisheries management project (R)
Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Enabling activity, implementation of Stockholm Convention on POPs (N)
DDT alternative programs (R)
Toxic wastes collection
Renewables assessments (R)
Sustainable energy financing (R)
NAPA (N)
1 Projects and programs are classified as follows: N = National; R = Regional; G = Global
3.3 GEF Operations in the Pacific: Success Stories and Lessons Learned (including barriers)
Many of the success stories and lessons learned that are of relevance to the proposed Pacific Partnership for the Global Environment come from the following three GEF-funded projects that were implemented regionally and executed nationally:
§ The Pacific Island Climate Change Assistance Program (PICCAP), which involved ten PICs, commenced in June, 1997 and ran for four years. UNDP was the Implementing Agency (IA) and the South Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) the Executing Agency (EA). The aim of PICCAP was to strengthen the capacities of participating countries in terms of training, institutional strengthening and planning activities, thereby enabling them to meet their reporting obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC);
§ The South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Program (SPBCP) was a five year, 12 country program that began in 1992 and was subsequently twice extended, to a total of ten years. The SPBCP was co-funded by GEF and the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID). UNDP was the IA and SPREP the EA. The SPBCP was designed to develop strategies for the conservation of biodiversity by means of the sustainable use of biological resources by the people of the South Pacific. Seventeen community-based conservation areas in twelve Pacific Island countries were supported, and regional strategies to protect turtles, marine mammals and birds were developed; and
§ Inception and development of the International Waters Project (IWP) for the Pacific SIDS spanned a period of five years. Again UNDP and SPREP were the IA and EA, respectively. The long-term objective of the project was to conserve and sustainably manage the coastal and ocean resources in the Pacific Region. Project activities were designed to encourage comprehensive, cross-sectoral, ecosystem-based approaches to mitigate and prevent existing and imminent threats to international waters. Activities included preparation of a Strategic Action Program (SAP) and the formulation of a project document covering the Oceanic Fisheries Management (OFM) and the Integrated Coastal and Watershed Management (ICWM) components. Actions in the former component targeted the Western Pacific Warm Pool ecosystem, while those related to the latter component focused on freshwater supplies including groundwater, enhancement and development of marine protected areas, sustainable coastal fisheries, integrated coastal management including tourism development, and demonstration of waste reduction strategies.
Success factors identified in these projects include:
§ A robust project design, based on regional coordination and cooperation, with national implementation; but the multiplicity of hierarchical layers makes it essential to define roles and responsibilities very clearly, with memoranda of agreement defining the relationships and operating procedures between organizations. Good communication and cooperation between agencies will occur where there is clear delineation of mandates and a strong record of working together already exists. The project design should include a strategy for monitoring and evaluation that depends on a feedback loop between those implementing the project and a project steering committee made up of knowledgeable individuals able to appreciate the issues being brought before them and provide the feedback, advice and direction necessary for the effective implementation of the project;
§ An initial focus on building in-country capacity, as required and in broadest sense. “Country teams” can play fundamental and critical roles;
§ Use of national and regional experts who received advanced training, allowing them to play critical roles while also reducing the need for international experts;
§ Use of fully functional and comprehensive information bases, including their use in building understanding across all sectors and key groups of the priority issues and appropriate responses;
§ Direct and indirect involvement of other countries, in order to share benefits more widely, through replication and uptake of approaches and findings.
These projects also provided the opportunity to learn many lessons of relevance to the proposed GEF-PAS, including:
§ It is often difficult to fulfill international obligations related to the Conventions and/or deliver global environmental benefits, while also meeting national priorities – the limited ability to do all three usually means clear priorities must be set;
§ The “tension” between meeting international on the one hand, and domestic priorities and policies related to the environment on the other, highlight the need for a focus on “no regrets” (i.e “win win”) approaches. There is also a need for a greater focus on beneficial on-the-ground actions, rather preparatory studies, and to recognize the costs of in-action;
§ Many national efforts designed to improve environmental performance, and to contribute to sustainable development, have been undermined because they are located in junior or weak ministries that have proven ineffective in influencing key ministries such as public works, finance and health;
§ Capacity building is often the most significant benefit, but in spite of impressive achievements the sustainability of such outcomes is not assured since it may be difficult to retain the trained, skilled personnel in government and other work places;
§ Resources made available by Governments to develop and maintain management and research capabilities are often inadequate. Instead, there is a tendency to rely extensively on international, regional and bi-lateral assistance programs despite these having their own funding constraints. Such a reliance on external funding support is untenable in the long term, especially for those sectors which are substantial revenue earners for the Governments. Rather it makes sense to reinvest some of this revenue in the administration and management of the sector to ensure its control and sustainability;
§ There is a need for improved understanding of GEF processes, objectives, procedures, etc, among current and prospective stakeholders;
§ A weak project design will usually necessitate significant subsequent changes to the objective, outputs and activities. Objectives need to be realistic, reflecting the boundaries of the project;
§ Distinct initiatives brought together purely as a matter of convenience will usually deliver few if any synergies between components, unless there are deliberate plans and activities to achieve these during implementation;
§ Despite specific project development guidelines and requirements, some projects had weak or no logical development from the identification of problems to the determination of their root causes, the setting of an objective, selection of outputs, and the planning of activities which ultimately address the root causes of the identified problems. This logic should be evident in a robust Logical Framework Matrix which includes objectively verifiable indicators that can guide those implementing the project. Performance indicators in the LogFrame Matrix are often not verifiable objectively and are not much help to those implementing or evaluating the project;
§ Project designs require clear identification of problem situations, along with their root causes. Projects should build on past achievements and learn from past experiences. They also need to emphasize strategic planning, preparatory work and implementation strategies. When risks are identified there should be clear risk management strategies in place;
§ IAs and EAs need to provide clear and comprehensive guidance to those implementing a project;
§ Community management planning needs to follow a coherent process. Overemphasis on outputs such as project preparation documents and management plans often comes at the expense of establishing and sustaining a process of management planning that engages communities and generates local "ownership". Local capacity for community management planning and implementation must exist or be built – plans prepared by outsiders will usually fail. The cadre of conservation area support officers established under SPBCP provides a good model of how to build experience and skills that can be widely used for multi-tasked, adaptive extension work at community level;
§ The circumstances of island life and livelihoods, and the complexities of customary land and sea tenure and use rights, highlight the importance of sustainable resource management approaches in a landscape context in which people's needs are addressed. Gender differences in management actions and impacts also need to be recognized and addressed; and
§ Many environment and resource management projects had little impact beyond the relevant Government “sector” of government. National economic development plans are a key tool by which such management policies and initiatives can be mainstreamed, gaining increased political participation and support and helping to ensure that the needs of rural and more distant communities are addressed, rather than just those of the capital islands.
A recent review of the effectiveness of GEF operations in the Pacific[4] has also identified a number of considerations that should also inform the design and implementation of GEF-PAS. These include recognition that:
§ Only a few medium-sized projects have been allocated in the Pacific. Issues connected with this limited experience include: (i) ’overheads’ perceived to be as large as those for full-sized projects and therefore comparatively higher, taking a larger proportion of time and budget, and squeezing the allocated funds; (ii) five years is considered too short a timeframe for a medium-sized project that requires major increases in understanding by communities and government, as well as significant changes in social behavior and management practices; and (iii) currently the medium-sized project scheme does not allow for a transition phase at the end of a project, including bridging or exit funding - removing the abrupt end to project funding might increased the change that project benefits already achieved can be sustained, rather than having them end due to the absence of a transition strategy; such issues will only be resolved if the activities countries undertake become an integral part of their own planning and financing; if, however, the financed activities are all seen as additional to national objectives and targets these issues will not be resolved; the situation is further aggravated by a lack of national and community ownership; thus country driven should also mean that a country places priority on these activities and views them as pertinent development issues;
§ All full-sized projects have been regional other than those implemented in Papua New Guinea. SPREP has been the main executing agency. Despite the GEF’s recognition of the special circumstance of SIDS, the large-scale programs in the Pacific have experienced several difficulties. Many relate to the vast scale of the Pacific and the inherent difficulty in simultaneously achieving strong ownership by communities, leadership by countries and the sharing of information regionally. Again ‘management system’ issues, such as short initial project timeframes and demanding reporting mechanisms, have worked against local community, country and regional ownership. One example from the SPBCP is the use of external consultants to develop local community plans. This was done to meet deadlines, but ignored the need for local ownership to be developed and fostered. Even when consultants operated in a participatory manner it was not the same as local communities developing their own plans, while perhaps calling on outside help to assist with writing up the resulting plans;
§ Co-financing requirements are very difficult for SIDS to meet, and especially in the Pacific where there is a relatively low level of donor input and national economies are small. Even in cases where all benefits have been identified as global, GEF still sets a co-financing ratio that can be difficult and time consuming to achieve, delaying project inception; and
§ There is no coordinated GEF program to promote and assist PICs to improve their understanding of and access to GEF; countries have indicated a preference for workshops and training run independently of activities conducted by the IAs.
GEF has recently completed evaluation of a portfolio of 18 projects implemented in Samoa and funded by the GEF during the period from 1992 to December 2006[5]. The findings lead to the recommendation that lessons from Samoa’s experience with the GEF should be taken into account when developing the current proposal for a regional programmatic approach for PICs for implementation in GEF4. The report recognized that, while no two countries are alike, and situations are different and the diversity of the Pacific region should be recognized, Samoa shares common problems with the rest of the Pacific Island States: limited capacity, high transaction cost of doing business, and high vulnerability and fragile ecosystems. The key lessons arising from the GEF experience in Samoa are:
§ Focus of GEF support to Pacific SIDS should be to assist countries to establish the foundation for policies and strategies and develop action plans, frameworks and priorities, primarily through enabling activities; when the foundation and priorities have been established, as is the case of Samoa, the focus of the GEF support should be on the implementation of these priorities and action plans that will generate global benefits;
§ There should be recognition of comparative advantages of the different GEF stakeholders (national, regional, and global); in particular, there should be a clear discussion and agreement of the roles and responsibilities of the GEF Secretariat, Council, SPREP, UNDP, other GEF agencies and bilateral donors in this programmatic approach; the GEF is a major player in the environment sector of the region, but it is not the only one;
§ There should be enough flexibility to recognize the different capacities of the various PICs - a one size fits all approach should not be proposed;
§ The case of Samoa confirms that high transaction costs are important in the Pacific region and should be taken into account; there are ways to reduce these costs, specially when GEF activities are considered within regular programs of GEF agencies already working in the region, as part of their regular programs and activities; stand-alone GEF projects should not be encouraged as this will help reduce transaction costs;
§ Harmonization needs to be strengthened across GEF stakeholders - the experience of NZAid and AusAid should be reviewed and recognized as a possible way forward;
§ GEF, in partnership with the Science and Technology Advisory Panel and PIC SIDS, should more specifically identify the global environmental benefits in Samoa and the Pacific; two areas which are unclear across the GEF system are: (i) global benefits of marine resources; and (ii) defining the role of the GEF on adaptation to climate change impacts.
In summary, there are numerous barriers to overcome if the proposed Pacific Partnership is to meet both national aspirations and GEF requirements. These are:
§ Balancing community-focussed actions, country drivenness, regional coordination and delivery of global benefits: not all these needs and requirements can be met simultaneously, without concessions being made; however, the need for give and take by all stakeholders and key players must not compromise the overall quality of the intended outcomes;
§ GEF modalities reflective of national and regional circumstances: countries are concerned with the limited recognition in the GEF modalities of operational conditions specific to SIDS, and to PICs in particular; these include limited in-country capacity to prepare proposals that meet complex requirements that are often seen as lacking relevance, lack of familiarity with donor requirements, inability to deliver sustained outcomes within short project cycles, and size and distance impeding delivery of outreach programs by the GEF;
§ Programmatic vs. project-based approach: GEF has recognized several benefits to a country if a programmatic approach is adopted[6], including: (i) stable, phased, and predictable resource flow from the GEF; (ii) a more strategic level of interaction with the GEF; (iii) increased opportunity to mobilize co-financing nationally and from a multiplicity of sources, including the private sector; (iv) reduction in transaction costs as key GEF review criteria (e.g. program and policy conformity, incremental cost and public involvement policy) would be addressed in a more streamlined way; (v) improved opportunities for strengthening the enabling environment and general cross-cutting support, including capacity building needs; (vi) improved opportunities for horizontal and vertical integration of environmental concerns into decision making; (vii) improved scope for catalyzing action, replication and innovation; and (viii) improved opportunity for donor co-ordination towards a more focused, priority set of interventions.
§ Integrated vs. focal area approach: in small island countries the natural and human systems are highly integrated; the current focal area approach of GEF is not consistent with this reality;
§ National vs. regional projects is an important issue for the Pacific Island Governments. These national Governments are keen to see the resources flow into the countries, to build their capacity. They are reluctant to share funds with regional organizations. In the past regional projects have provided more than half of the total resources to the countries;
§ Planning vs. Action: Pacific Islanders are acutely conscious of the increasing pressures being placed simultaneously on both their own and global environments; they recognize the need for substantive, on-the-ground actions designed to decrease if not eliminate these pressures; they call for an end to studies which merely highlight the ongoing declines in environmental quality and in the well-being of the people who rely on the environment and natural resources to meet their daily needs;
§ Increased absorptive capacity: the enabling environment of PICs is typically weak, decreasing the cost effectiveness of investments designed to deliver global environmental benefits as well as achieve national sustainable development goals; little effective progress has been made in mainstreaming global environmental issues into national development plans and agency work programs; this is despite international recognition of such issues as the need to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, conserve biological diversity, prevent land degradation, protect international waters and manage POPs; absorptive capacity can be increased by strengthening relevant policy instruments, institutions and technology uptake and by ensuring that staff working for Government, NGOs and the private sector have the necessary knowledge and skills for participatory planning and implementation;
§ Limited co-financing opportunities exist for environment-related projects in Pacific SIDS;
§ Sharing expertise: Most PICs cannot provide satisfying career paths for the full complement of experts required to prepare and implement projects and programs that will deliver global environmental benefits while also contributing to the achievement of national development goals; as a result, expertise and experience must be shared between countries; a pool of regional experts is the preferred way to remove this barrier; and
§ Sharing information: Building understanding of the priority issues and appropriate responses across all sectors and key groups requires a willingness to share information; currently information sharing and coordination between government ministries is far from ideal in Pacific SIDS; similarly, government officials are often reluctant to share information with NGOs and the private sector; the success of GEF investments in the region depends in part on effective collaboration to share knowledge and other information.
3.4 The GEF-4 Replenishment and the Resource Allocation Framework
At the conclusion of the negotiations for the fourth replenishment of the GEF Trust Fund in June 2006, 31 donor countries agreed to replenish the Trust Fund with 3.13 billion dollars for the four year period, FY07-FY10. The GEF-4 replenishment was authorized on October 19, 2006. The agreed focal area allocations for GEF-4 are shown in Table 2. Following agreement on the GEF-4 replenishment, the initial indicative allocations under the Resources Allocation Framework (RAF) were publicly disclosed in August 2006. The RAF was approved in September 2005. It is designed to increase transparency in the process of allocating financial resources and to allow countries to know upfront the funds they can program. GEF Operational Focal Points (OFPs) were also given an increased role in facilitating consultations for national priority-setting. The starting point for the RAF is the focal area envelopes for biodiversity and climate change. Consultations have begun on identifying appropriate indicators to expand the RAF to other focal areas.
Table 2
GEF-4 Targeted Allocation to Focal Areas, Corporate Programs, and the Corporate Budget
Source: GEF Business Plan 2007-2010.
One of the major challenges in the implementation of the RAF is to program towards the targets agreed for the biodiversity and climate change focal areas for GEF-4. Projected outcomes and results have been proposed for each strategic objective under the focal areas. Achieving these outcomes and results is very much linked to the activities financed under each of the strategic objectives. A major challenge is to ensure that the aggregation of individual country programming leads to a portfolio that will achieve the outcomes and results projected in the focal area strategies.
The total resources available during GEF-4 for biodiversity and climate change focal areas are $1,000 million each. Of this, $50 million from each focal area is set aside for the Small Grants Program. In addition, $50 million from each focal area is also set aside for regional/global projects. Seventy five percent of the remaining $900 million in each focal area is allocated to individual countries, with the balance going to two groups of countries, one for each focal area.
For each four year replenishment period allocations to countries and to each group are based on a formula, with adjustments for ceiling and minimum allocations. The ceiling for each country is 10% of the biodiversity envelope and 15% of the climate change envelope. The minimum allocation for each country is $1 million for each focal area for the four year replenishment cycle. Only 50% of the four year allocation may be utilized in the first two years. Countries can carry over amounts not utilized in the first two years and utilize these resources in the final two years of GEF-4.
The allocation formula is based on ‘global environmental priorities’ and ‘country level performance’, as measured by the GEF Benefits Index (GBI) and GEF Performance Index (GPI), respectively. The GBI for biodiversity is weighted terrestrial 80% and marine 20%. The GBIs for biodiversity and climate change are determined separately based on indicators relevant to global environmental priorities in the respective focal areas. However, the same GPI applies to both focal areas. It is based on: (i) the relative success of GEF projects in the country’s project portfolio (10% weighting); (ii) an assessment of policies and institutions in the environment sector (70%); and on (iii) an assessment of a broad framework of policies and institutions largely focused on governance (20%). The last two criteria use the World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA).
The grouping of countries allows those with small allocations to pool their resources and thereby develop larger projects, when it is beneficial to do so. Most funding for regional projects will come from country and group allocations.
In the biodiversity focal area 57 countries have an individual allocation ranging from $3.5 million to $63.2 million for GEF-4. The remaining 93 countries are in a group and may seek project financing from a group allocation of $146.8 million, with a maximum of $3.5 million per country. In the climate change focal area 46 countries have an individual allocation ranging from $3.1 million to $150.0 million for GEF-4. The remaining 115 countries are in a group and may seek project financing from a group allocation of $148.6 million, with a maximum of $3.1 million per country.
Table 3 shows the allocation of financial resources to eligible PICs under the RAF. Only two countries (Papua New Guinea and Fiji) receive individual entitlements for biodiversity. In all other instances the entitlements are through allocations to the biodiversity and climate change groups.
Table 3
GEF Benefits Index and Initial GEF-4 Indicative Allocations for Biodiversity and Climate Change
Country
Biodiversity
Climate Change
GBI Index
%
$
GBI Index
%
$
Kiribati
10.6
0.1%
group
19
0.0%
group
Marshall Islands
10.8
0.1%
group
-
0.0%
group
Nauru
0.9
0.0%
group
41
0.0%
group
Niue
2.8
0.0%
group
-
0.0%
group
Palau
9.7
0.1%
group
80
0.0%
group
Tonga
3.9
0.1%
group
72
0.0%
group
Tuvalu
2.1
0.0%
group
-
0.0%
group
Cook Islands
12.4
0.2%
group
8
0.0%
group
Federated States of Micronesia
20.0
0.3%
group
-
0.0%
group
Fiji Islands
33.2
0.4%
5.1
796
0.0%
group
Papua New Guinea
183.7
2.4%
12.5
2451
0.0%
group
Samoa
12.8
0.2%
group
151
0.0%
group
Solomon Islands
29.6
0.4%
group
93
0.0%
group
Timor Leste
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Vanuatu
14.4
0.2%
g
213
0.0%
g
Source: GEF Secretariat
The complex requirements of the RAF may hinder the access of eligible PICs to the GEF. Specific concerns include: (i) the indicators, weights and formulas used in the RAF, including the adverse impact on the allocations of the 80% weight given to the terrestrial indicators compared to the 20% weight given to the marine indicator in the construction of GBI for biodiversity; (ii) the significant constraints imposed by the 50% rule for most countries with relatively small allocations; (iii) the impact on programs on adaptation to climate change; (iv) the impact on community- and civil society-driven projects and programs; (v) the impact on the Small Grants Program; (vi) the impact on regional and multi-country projects; (vii) modalities for changes to the RAF, including avenues through which the RAF system, its components and its implementation can be changed; (viii) the nature, scope and process associated with the mid-term review of the RAF; (ix) the status of specific concepts and projects under various stages of development, including whether these projects would be funded out of GEF-3 resources or would have to funded out of the indicative allocations in GEF-4; and (x) the processes involved; and how new projects would be handled compared to the projects already under development.
3.5 Absorptive Capacities of Eligible PICs
The previously cited review of the effectiveness of GEF operations in the Pacific[7] has also highlighted that low levels of in-country and regional capacity impede preparation and implementation of GEF-funded projects. The strength of environmental management within a government administration influences the capacities to participate in the GEF. Pacific countries tend to have slimly resourced government environmental agencies and NGOs. This reduces the opportunities for Pacific countries to stay familiar with GEF opportunities and requirements and to take the lead when designing and implementing successful projects. Several interconnecting requirements were identified by stakeholders as being vital, including:
§ nationally drafted and enforced environmental legislation;
§ environmental and other sustainable development considerations integrated into both national development planning and budgeting processes;
§ departmental skill levels and budget sufficient to implement legislation, especially when it comes to addressing the complex and technical aspects of GEF;
§ long-term rather than project-based funding of core departmental positions, allowing staff to be in positions long enough to build up a deeper and wider understanding of the GEF, and to prevent lessons learned from being lost due to a short institutional memory; project-based funding, which is the current GEF funding approach, actively works against developing institutional knowledge and retaining the memory and skills within departments and countries;
§ sufficient staff in both national and regional agencies to maintain adequate in-country staffing levels at all times, in order to provide continuous policy and practical advice and implement programs and policies;
§ relevant political leadership from the relevant Minister and ideally the Prime Minister;
§ sufficient locally-based and skilled NGOs and consultants;
§ strong NGO, community and government relationships; and
§ effective focal points - experience with focal points is that they cannot operate effectively unless their role is structurally recognized within their agency; they need to have adequate time available to fulfill their responsibilities and to be well resourced and supported by their own agency and by the agency with whom they need to liaise.
Such considerations have influenced the recent evolution in international development thinking by emphasizing the need for financial resources to be allocated preferentially to countries that have appropriate policies, institutions and procedures in place to ensure funds are used effectively and efficiently. The World Bank was the first to adopt a performance-based allocation framework. This is now the norm for many other international development banks and bilateral donors. The 16 criteria used by the World Bank’s CPIA can be grouped under economic management, structural policies, policies for social inclusion/equity and public sector management and institutions. As noted in Section 3.4, two elements of the CPIA (policies and institutions in the environment sector and broad framework of policies and institutions largely focused on governance) are used in the RAF’s GPI.
This information, along with that from National Capacity Self Assessment (NCSA) and related reports, was used to assess the absorptive capacity of PICs to implement the activities to be undertaken by GEF-PAS. The nine criteria used in the rating (Table 4) reflect the preceding discussion. The absorptive capacity ratings will assist in recommending a phasing of project implementation (Section 5.1). The information can also be used to guide the formulation and prioritization of activities designed to strengthen the absorptive capacities of PICs (Section 5.3)
3.6 Governance and Institutions
This sub-section does not aim to be comprehensive. Rather, it attempts to highlight the current and emerging aspects of governance and institutions that are of relevance to the proposed Pacific Partnership.
3.6.1 The Pacific Islands Forum, the Pacific Plan and the Post Forum Dialogue
The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) is the pre-eminent political organization and the political voice of the independent states of the region. Recently the Forum requested preparation of a Pacific Plan for Strengthening Regional Cooperation and Integration[8]. The Plan provides a framework for effective and enhanced engagement between Pacific Island Forum countries and their non-state actors and development partners. The goal of the Plan is to enhance and stimulate economic growth, sustainable development, good governance and security for Pacific countries through regionalism. One of the Plan’s strategic objectives is to contribute to sustainable development through improvements in natural resource and environmental management. Under this objective, the Plan identifies specific regional priorities and associated initiatives to be completed in the first three years of the Plan (2006 to 2008). One initiative of special relevance to the proposed Pacific Partnership is to facilitate international financing for sustainable development, biodiversity and environmental protection and climate change in the Pacific, including through the GEF.
Table 4
Country
Familiarity with GEF Opportunities & Requirements
Enabling Legislation and Appropriate Compliance & Enforcement
Environmental Considerations Mainstreamed in Relevant Policies and Plans, with Strong Political Leadership and Support; Appropriate Policy Instruments in Place
Appropriate Institutional Structures and Adequate Resourcing
Functioning Project Planning and Management
Procedures
Core Government Staff (not all project funded), Consultants and NGOs, all with Adequate Knowledge and Skills
Participatory Planning, based on Strong NGO, Community, Private Sector and Government Relationships
Strong Enabling Environment for Technology Development, Transfer and Uptake, including Traditional Technologies
Proven Track Record of Successful Implementation of GEF and Related Projects, with Sustained Outcomes
Cook Islands
M
H
M
H
H
H
H
M
H
Federated States of Micronesia
M
M
M
H
H
H
H
M
H
Fiji Islands
M
M
M
H
M
H
M
M
M
Kiribati
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
Marshall Islands
M
M
M
H
H
H
H
M
H
Nauru
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Niue
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
L
L
Palau
M
M
M
M
H
M
H
M
H
Papua New Guinea
M
L
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
Samoa
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
M
H
Solomon Islands
M
L
L
L
M
M
M
M
M
Timor Leste
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Tonga
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
Tuvalu
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
Vanuatu
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
M
1 H, M and L represent high, medium and low ratings, respectively.
An annual Post Forum Dialogue (PFD) was initiated in 1989, with the aim of inviting selected countries and organizations, which had an active and constructive involvement in the region, to participate in a dialogue with Forum members. The PFD process has provided the opportunity for Dialogue Partners to understand Forum members’ key concerns and an opportunity for Partners to discuss their own interests in the region. Forum Leaders have, on several occasions, reaffirmed their desire for the region to engage more widely with the international community. Most recently this was expressed in the context of the Pacific Plan.
From the original five Dialogue Partners there are now thirteen – Canada, China. European Union, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, United Kingdom and USA. In the recent past the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) has been approached by three prospective applicants to join as PFD members – Chile, Israel and Italy. Currently there is a moratorium on appointment new Partners, though a recent review[9] recommended this be lifted. The Thirty-Seventh Pacific Islands Forum held in 2006 endorsed this and other review recommendations, for implementation at the 2007 PFD, subject to further discussions.
The review also noted that, as the number of Dialogue Partners has increased, there has been growing concern about the practicalities of managing the dialogue process. A growing resource burden has been placed on the PIFS, which services the meetings; on the Forum panels and on the Forum meeting hosts. Meeting arrangements have become cumbersome and the content of the Dialogue discussions has not always been useful. As a result, the review also recommended that the present PFD arrangements with 13 separate meetings be abolished, to be replaced with a single Dialogue Partners Plenary meeting at Ministerial level. The agenda for the Plenary would be themed, featuring well prepared presentations on a priority issue for the Forum. A frank and open discussion between the Forum and Dialogue Partners would be encouraged. The value of the meeting would be enhanced by a briefing by the Forum Chair on the outcomes of the Leaders meeting, thus continuing part of the present arrangements. This new Plenary arrangement will enable more time for bilateral meetings between Forum Members and Dialogue Partners, agreed the most important aspect of the PFD process.
The review also acknowledged that some of the Dialogue Partners, particularly those whose principal link was through development assistance programs, found benefit in using the PFD process to discuss details of their aid program in the region. Given the intended purpose of the PFD as a consultation vehicle for common high level policy, the review recommended that such discussions should become part of the PIC/Partners meeting which follows the annual Forum Economic Ministers meeting,
A call to distinguish Dialogue Partners commensurate with the degree of their involvement and commitment in the region was also considered in the review. The idea of a formal two-tier system of Dialogue Partner membership was rejected on the grounds that it would be incompatible with the region’s mandate to enhance its relationship with the international community and would entail down-grading the present membership status of some Dialogue Partners, which was undesirable. The review recommended an inclusive but flexible approach which would leave present Dialogue Partner membership arrangements undisturbed while also acknowledging the higher level of commitment and greater contribution to the region of the major partners. It is recommended, therefore, that “core” partners be recognized by Forum Leaders, at their discretion, inviting one or more Dialogue Partners to attend the Leaders’ Dinner as special guests.
3.6.2 GEF
In the context of global environment, the Pacific region is far removed from the headquarters of the GEF Secretariat and the GEF agencies. As a result, their presence in the Pacific is comparatively weak. The Third Overall Performance Study (OPS3) of GEF recognized that, historically, and compared to other SIDS, the Pacific SIDS have found it difficult to gain access to the GEF. The OPS3 report states that 88% of GEF projects in the Pacific SIDS are enabling activities that have focused on fulfilling international reporting requirements, rather than benefiting countries or the environment in tangible ways. It also notes that national focal points do not have the resources to perform their roles, given the difficulties and expenses of travel and communication. It recommended that additional assistance be provided to implement activities developed or designed through enabling activities, build government capacity, and mainstream environmental issues in these countries. The RAF allocations in GEF-4 (see Section 3.4) offer increased opportunities for the 15 PICs to prepare and implement quality projects in the GEF focal areas.
Recently the GEF announced a five point sustainability compact[10] to increase the efficiency and impact of GEF investments in global environmental management. The compact addresses most of the opportunities and barriers highlighted in reviews of GEF operations in the Pacific (see Section 3.3). This will be achieved by delivering improvements in:
§ Strategy: Shifting from a project-driven to programmatic approach, including focusing the strategies on a clear set of priority issues for the global environment, building synergies, and applying a set of tracking tools and measurable indicators of global outcomes and impacts for all GEF projects;
§ Innovation: Using GEF funds as “seed money” for financing innovative and entrepreneurial efforts and technologies that lack a market base, allowing markets to develop technologies for wider use;
§ Equity: Leveling the global playing field, helping vulnerable countries get concrete results from the use of limited resources and finding ways to ensure that today’s beneficiaries increasingly have the opportunity to make financial contributions to the GEF;
§ Access: Appointing an “Ombudsman” in the GEF Secretariat to respond to country concerns or complaints; enhancing the effectiveness of GEF corporate programs such as Small Grants Program, National Dialogue Initiative, and Country Support Program and strengthening GEF’s corporate image and public communications; and
§ Focus: Introducing a redesigned project cycle where a proposal takes, on average, no more than 22 months from identification to start of implementation.
The proposed GEF-PAS has the potential to be an early and substantive example that demonstrates the benefits the new GEF compact for developing countries and for the global environment. The GEF is now even better placed to assist PICs to develop more sustainably, by improving the management of natural resources and the environment. As noted above (Section 3.1), such initiatives undertaken by PICs will also assist the GEF to fulfill its mandate to help countries address global environmental problems. The GEF defrays the added costs that arise when existing or planned development projects in developing countries (and those with economies in transition) are modified in ways that allow them to also deliver global environmental benefits. The GEF also finances regional approaches to environmental problems. Since GEF-financed projects are closely linked with national priorities they provide substantial and sustainable benefits for local communities. In this way, the GEF has already assisted PICs to address critical natural resource issues, such as the adverse economic, social and environmental consequences of climate change, biodiversity loss, degradation of land and waters and the use and storage of POPs. The new compact, as manifest in the Pacific Partnership, will result in a rapid increase in the efficiency and effectiveness of this assistance.
However, the requirements of the RAF are complex, potentially hindering access of Pacific SIDS to the GEF. Pacific Island Governments have recognized this problem and, after several discussions, requested that the GEF Secretariat provide a staff member in the region to strengthen their national capacity related to GEF procedures and programs. In turn, GEF has recognized the special circumstances of Pacific SIDS and the need to assist them to build government capacity and mainstream global environmental issues. As a result, a GEF Advisor is to be placed at SPREP in Samoa. Australia and New Zealand, as donors which recognize the weak presence of GEF agencies in the region, the significance of the unique ecosystems in the Pacific and the potential lost opportunities for GEF assistance, have agreed to finance the position and the associated costs for two years, with the possibility of a one year extension.
Currently there is some confusion as to whether the GEF Advisor will be GEF staff member under substantive control of the GEF, or a SPREP staff member operating as representative of the GEF. Regardless, it is expected that locating a GEF Advisor in the region will raise the Pacific SIDS’ capacity to engage with the GEF and its agencies. Such enhanced communication and training will help catalyze national governments to improve their own development policies and planning, and to better coordinate and integrate the presently fragmented efforts of national agencies dealing with natural resource and environmental management. The GEF Advisor will also help improve national understanding and capacity to address GEF procedures and focal area programs, will raise the quality of country and regional project proposals, will promote greater coherence across the region in terms of regional priorities and will help streamline the role of regional and GEF agencies. The Governments of PICs are dedicated to contributing to the achievement of global environmental objectives in a meaningful manner. Regional donors are also very supportive. Along with these commitments, the presence of a GEF Advisor in the region will contribute to addressing the constraints the Pacific SIDS are facing and will place the GEF in a better position to achieve its mandate in the Pacific region.
An important principle guiding GEF operations is that projects should be country-driven and/or reflect regional priorities. They should thus be consistent with plans and programs for achieving national, regional and international environmental objectives and priorities for action, and be supported by many national and/or regional stakeholders. The range of funding opportunities available through GEF include small, medium and large scale financial contributions. While some funding, such as support for enabling activities, is provided by way of straight grants, the majority of financial assistance is conditional upon co-financing. In addition to projects that are consistent with the GEF operational programs[11], financing may be available for short-term response measures. These are project activities which yield short-term benefits at a low cost, and are considered on a case-by-case basis. Funding for project preparation is available through project preparation grants (PPG), formerly known as PDF Blocks A, B and C grants.
UNDP administers the Small Grants Program (SGP). It was established to support the activities of NGOs and community-based organizations (CBOs) in countries that have ratified the Convention on Biodiversity and the UNFCCC, and which also meet the following eligibility criteria:
§ Environmental conditions warranting GEF intervention;
§ Government concurrence with GEF/SGP Operational Guidelines;
§ Government strategies and programs that address the environment;
§ A significant presence of civil society organizations;
§ Constructive Government–NGO relationships;
§ Prospects for effective partnerships with other organizations, including in-country resource mobilization; and
§ UNDP country office endorsement.
SGP funds have only recently been available to the Pacific even though the Program was launched in 1992. The SGP provides grants of up to $50,000, with a 25% co-financing requirement. The average grant is $15,000. NGOs and CBOs are the only eligible organizations. Special projects, such as those that influence national policy as well as undertaking activities at community level, may receive funding in excess of $50,000.
Timpson et al. (2003)[12] identified two main constraints for Pacific access to the SGP:
§ the overall limitation of extending the program to no more than 5 new countries a year globally; and
§ the complexity of identifying ways of adapting the SGP basic operating principles which have been key elements in the success of the program elsewhere to small countries where it is unlikely that the size of the potential program could justify the operational cost of such mechanisms.
The Country Support Program is a four year (2006-2009) three component program guided by an inter-agency advisory committee chaired by the GEF Secretariat. Component 1, which is implemented by UNEP, provides direct financial support to focal points. Components 2 and 3 address knowledge management and support regional exchange and training workshops, respectively. These components are implemented by UNDP. The Program has a total budget of USD 12 million, with just over half of the funds being allocated to Component 1.
Through a partnership with the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector arm of the World Bank, the IFC/GEF Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) Program was established in 1995. To date this program has had low visibility in the Pacific. The Program promotes development of SMEs engaged in environment friendly businesses, mainly in the areas which meet the operational objectives of the GEF, especially climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation. It finances projects that demonstrate a positive environmental impact and have basic financial viability, thus promoting private sector investment opportunities in developing countries. Since its inception, the SME Program has approved US$15.7 million to 23 financial intermediaries, NGOs or companies in 21 countries. These have provided financing to some 130 SMEs.
A new Environmental Business Finance Program (EBFP) now aims to build on the successes and lessons learned from the SME Program. It is based on the key tenet that any successful approach to sustainable SME development needs four key actors: (i) SMEs, to provide the vision and drive; (ii) Technical Assistance (TA) Providers, to help address supply and demand side barriers; (iii) Government and Donors, to assist in funding and capacity building; and (iv) Financial Intermediaries, to provide mainstream financing. The EBFP aims to develop strategic partnerships with the above-mentioned stakeholders and bring about holistic development of SMEs engaged in environment friendly businesses. It is designed to address key market barriers affecting the development of SMEs involved in environment friendly business areas which meet the GEF operational objectives.
3.6.3 Implementing and Executing Agencies
Until recently, GEF investments in the Pacific were made only through its three IAs - UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank. The GEF works with these agencies to manage GEF-financed activities and to facilitate cooperation in implementing GEF-financed projects (Table 5). UNDP has the largest portfolio of GEF-financed projects and other activities in the Pacific. This presence is reflected in UNDP having three offices (PNG, Fiji and Samoa) as well as a regional office in Malaysia. The main UNEP point of contact for the Pacific is Nairobi, but the Regional Coordinator for the UNEP-GEF Biosafety Unit, Division of GEF Coordination, is based in Apia. Recently a new UNEP position, also based at Apia, has been created to further UNEP's support for PICs activities and consolidate UNEP's partnership with SPREP by providing a one-stop link to all UNEP Divisions and activities, including UNEP’s Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (ROAP), located in Bangkok. This will include the design and delivery of UNEP's sub-regional strategy for the Pacific. The World Bank, with offices in Sydney and PNG, has a lending program with 11 PICs together with a growing GEF portfolio.
Table 5
Principal Involvement of Implementing Agencies in GEF-financed Projects in the Pacific
UNDP
UNEP
World Bank
Fiji, Palau, PNG, Tonga and regional Pacific for Climate Change activities
Niue, Kiribati for Climate Change activities
Samoa for Marine Protected Areas
Cook Islands, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Niue, PNG, Palau, Samoa and regional Pacific for Biodiversity
Solomon Islands and Vanuatu for Biodiversity and PNG as one country in a global Biodiversity program
PNG for Biodiversity and forestry and conservation
Samoa for POPs activities
Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, PNG, Niue, Vanuatu for POPs activities
Kiribati for adaptation to Climate Change
Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, PNG, Vanuatu, Niue, Cook Islands, FSM, Palau, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Nauru for Biosafety Frameworks
Pacific Region Energy Finance (climate change, awaiting GEF CEO endorsement)
In 1999 the GEF Council expanded opportunities for seven organizations to contribute to the implementation of GEF projects. These IAs include the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO).
A recent review[13] identified ambivalence over the role of IAs acting as agents for GEF in promoting projects in the Pacific, uncertainty about the role of IAs, particularly in determining or influencing projects and programs, and a wish for countries to take a greater role in project planning without jeopardising the subsequent approval process. In the Pacific there are questions as to whether the IAs are they promoting their own interests when facilitating the cooperation between GEF and Pacific countries, rather than being ‘honest brokers’. The following issues were offered as reasons for this questioning:
§ Government agencies and NGOs in the Pacific have patchy first-hand knowledge and information about GEF operations and procedures;
§ A sense that the ownership of environmental solutions that can be funded by GEF resides more with the IAs rather than with Pacific countries, and that Pacific perspectives are being filtered through IA lenses;
§ A sense that projects driven by an IA have a faster rate of processing for approval and implementation within the GEF system;
§ A perception that projects have been developed outside the region and then presented to the Pacific with the option of Pacific country sign-on;
§ A sense of losing control and momentum, for example as a result of the development phase of GEF projects taking a long time; project preparation times can range between one month and seven years; this is seen to be especially problematic with the UNDP, where there are often three checks and associated questioning - by UNDP offices at country regional and headquarters levels - before the proposals are submitted to GEF; these stages, along with the requirements for wide consultation at country level, create delays and some dissatisfaction about the performance of the IAs;
§ IAs often engage their own approved consultants to undertake proposal preparation and implementation; there is a sense that this actively reduces the opportunity for Pacific expertise to be used, including Pacific consultants and NGOs and, in turn, reduces the opportunities for country ownership and country/community benefit;
§ the IA-driven compliance costs for medium-sized projects (e.g. for supervision, auditing and reporting) seem to be disproportionate to the project budget, and can overload project costs and reduce tangible benefits to the communities involved;
§ uncertainty and lack of transparency about the level of funding that IAs gain for facilitating projects and programs; and
§ mainstreaming of projects within IA programs has resulted in some GEF projects being halted (e.g. The Mamagram Trust Fund supporting forestry conservation, which is part of the Papua New Guinea Government and World Bank Structural Adjustment Program for the forestry sector in Papua New Guinea).
The review did highlight positive views, including the more effective working relationships that appear to have developed between some Pacific countries and the UNDP offices in Apia, Port Moresby and Suva. There was specific comment on the value of a Pacific staff member with environmental leadership responsibilities being located in the Apia office. That appointment was seen to have facilitated the processing of applications, for example around capacity assistance, and provided more accessible and useful information about the GEF, including its programs, requirements and opportunities.
3.6.4 Regional Technical and Related Assistance
The principal regional agencies providing technical, policy and capacity building services to PICs are the agencies represented on the Council of Regional Organizations in the Pacific (CROP), namely the:
§ Fiji School of Medicine (FSM);
§ Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA);
§ Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS);
§ Pacific Islands Development Program (PIDP);
§ Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC);
§ Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP);
§ South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC);
§ South Pacific Board for Educational Assessment (SPBEA);
§ South Pacific Tourism Organization (SPTO); and
§ The University of the South Pacific (USP).
The Thirty-Seventh Pacific Islands Forum also considered the findings of the Regional Institutional Framework Review[14] and agreed to establish a Taskforce to work through institutional issues related to the CROP agencies. The Taskforce will report back to Leaders at their 2007 meeting.
Specifically, the review found that current interagency coordination though CROP is insufficient, and that significant institutional change, rather than “tinkering”, is required. But the review also found that stakeholders were generally satisfied with the services of regional organizations and considered that most organizations had significantly improved the quality of their assistance in recent years. Some stakeholders put current concerns in perspective by pointing out that other international agencies and bilateral donors suffer from similar or greater coordination problems, which they are now trying to address through initiatives on donor harmonization and coordination.
Rather than create a single organization out of the major regional organizations, as proposed by some stakeholders, the review proposed a three-pillared regional institutional framework. The Pacific Islands Forum and its secretariat would remain essentially unchanged - some functions of the FFA would be assimilated and PIFS’ core business would be more clearly defined. In order to significantly strengthen the effectiveness of regional collaboration and coordination the other major technical agencies would be merged into one secretariat under the governance of the existing Pacific Community. Importantly, this would allow the non-Forum members to maintain their equal decision-making role within the new organization. The specialized functions of the agencies to be consolidated into the new organization would continue to be performed from their present locations, namely Apia, Honiara, Noumea, Pohnpei and Suva. The academic and training institutions would form the third pillar.
The review also recommended that the nexus between regional and national initiatives should be strengthened by establishing offices of the regional organizations, or by placing staff members, in each member country and each member territory. Formal institutional linkages between the two main organizations of the region would be maintained through the Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum and the Director-General of the Pacific Community Secretariat.
4. Investment Planning – A Critical Step to Achieving the Vision
GEF-4 resources are to be programmed in accordance with: (i) country priorities emerging from national sustainable development programs and global environmental commitments; (ii) the strategic directions as outlined in the GEF-4 focal area strategies; and (iii) the comparative advantage of the GEF agencies.
4.1 Priorities of SIDS and PICs
The Program of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States is the blueprint for SIDS and the international community to address national and regional sustainable development in SIDS. The needs identified take into account the economic, social and environmental considerations that are the pillars of a holistic and integrated approach to sustainable development. The Mauritius Strategy, which describes activities for the further implementation of the Program of Action, has several focal areas in common with GEF priorities, namely:
§ Climate change adaptation and sea-level rise;
§ Clean Energy projects to address the energy vulnerability of SIDS by promoting access to energy efficient technologies, renewable energy and advanced clean energy technologies;
§ Island Biodiversity conservation and sustainable use and facilitating fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of their utilization;
§ Freshwater supply protection, pollution reduction, and marine resources management;
§ Combating land degradation; and
§ Capacity development by incorporating development human and institutional capacity in all the above projects.
The specific priorities of PICs regarding improving environmental management and quality can be grouped into those which are GEF eligible (i.e. result in improvements globally in the GEF focal areas[15]) and those which are not GEF eligible (i.e. deliver only more local benefits or are outside the GEF focal areas). The information in both Tables 6 and 7 is based on an assessment of relevant national reports and regional syntheses, as well as consultation with the GEF operational focal points and other informed persons at national level.
4.2 GEF Eligible National Priorities
Table 6 lists indicative priorities of PICs which have the potential to be eligible for GEF funding due to the global environmental benefits that could result from appropriate investments.
Country
Biodiversity
Climate Change
International Waters
Sustainable Land Management
Persistent Organic Pollutants
Mitigation
Adaptation
Kiribati
Invasive alien species
Coastal and marine protected areas
Pilot activities
Ongoing MSP
Hazardous and persistent chemicals, including intractable pesticides and waste
Marshall Islands
Invasive alien species
Coastal and marine protected areas (Micronesia Challenge)
Renewable energy
Pilot activities
Waste management
Ongoing MSP
Hazardous and persistent chemicals, including intractable pesticides and waste
Nauru
Invasive alien species
Coastal and marine protected areas
Renewable energy
Pilot activities
Waste management.
Ongoing MSP
Hazardous and persistent chemicals, including intractable pesticides and waste
Niue
Invasive alien species
Coastal and marine protected areas
Pilot activities
Ongoing MSP
Hazardous and persistent chemicals, including intractable pesticides and waste
Palau
Invasive alien species
Coastal and marine protected areas (Micronesia Challenge)
Renewable energy
Pilot activities
Water management
Ongoing MSP
Hazardous and persistent chemicals, including intractable pesticides and waste
Tonga
Invasive alien species
Coastal and marine protected areas
Pilot activities
Water management
Ongoing MSP
Hazardous and persistent chemicals, including intractable pesticides and waste
Tuvalu
Invasive alien species
Coastal and marine protected areas
Pilot activities
Waste management
Ongoing MSP
Hazardous and persistent chemicals, including intractable pesticides and waste
Table 6
GEF-eligible Environment Related Priorities
Cook Islands
Invasive alien species
Coastal and marine protected areas
Energy efficiency
Pilot activities
Water management
Waste management
Ongoing MSP
Hazardous and persistent chemicals, including intractable pesticides and waste
Federated States of Micronesia
Invasive alien species
Coastal and marine protected areas (Micronesia Challenge)
Renewable energy
Pilot activities
Water management
Ongoing MSP
Hazardous and persistent chemicals, including intractable pesticides and waste
Fiji Islands
Invasive alien species
Protected area management
Energy efficiency
Pilot activities
Water management
Ongoing MSP
Hazardous and persistent chemicals, including intractable pesticides and waste
Papua New Guinea
Invasive alien species
Forest management
Coastal zone management
Renewable energy
Pilot activities
Water management
Ongoing MSP
Hazardous and persistent chemicals, including intractable pesticides and waste
Samoa
Invasive alien species
Coastal and marine protected areas
Renewable energy
Pilot activities
Waste management
Ongoing MSP
Hazardous and persistent chemicals, including intractable pesticides and waste
Solomon Islands
Invasive alien species
Coastal and marine protected areas
Renewable energy
Pilot activities
Waste management
Ongoing MSP
Hazardous and persistent chemicals, including intractable pesticides and waste
Timor Leste
Enabling activity
Enabling activity
Pilot activities
Enabling activity
Ongoing MSP
Enabling activities related to hazardous and persistent chemicals, including intractable pesticides and waste
Vanuatu
Invasive alien species
Coastal marine protected areas
Pilot activities
Waste management
Ongoing MSP
Hazardous and persistent chemicals, including intractable pesticides and waste
4.3 GEF Focal Area Strategies
GEF is currently preparing strategies for the five Focal Areas of relevance to PICs and for two cross cutting issues of sustainable forest management and sound chemicals management. The strategies will be more focused and streamlined, better integrated with each other, and will include measurable indicators of global outcomes and impacts. The following sections provide indicative summaries of the revised strategies.
4.3.1 Climate Change
The GEF will finance eligible enabling, mitigation activities, and adaptation activities. Enabling activities will continue to be a top priority, as national communications represent both a commitment of all countries under the UNFCCC and an opportunity for countries to lay the strategic foundation for both mitigation and adaptation activities in response to the challenges of climate change.
The focus of the mitigation funding will be to develop and transform the markets for energy and mobility in developing countries and economies in transition so that, over the long term, they will be able to grow and operate efficiently toward a less carbon-intensive path. This will include:
§ Energy-Efficient Buildings - promote widespread adoption of energy-efficient design, technologies and low-GHG emitting materials and practices in the building sector;
§ Energy Efficiency in Industry - promote the deployment and diffusion of energy-efficient technologies and practices in industrial production and manufacturing processes;
§ Renewable Energy - promote the supply of and demand for electricity from renewable sources;
§ Modern Energy from Sustainable Biomass - promote the sustainable utilization of biomass for energy services; and
§ Market Transformation for Sustainable Mobility - facilitate GHG reduction through market transformation for sustainable mobility in urban areas;
Adaptation funding, including the climate change adaptation funds, will assist developing countries in piloting how to address the adverse impacts of climate change, including variability. This includes supporting projects that: (i) identify and implement suitable adaptation measures; (ii) build adaptive capacity; and (iii) reduce vulnerability and increase ecosystem resilience to the adverse impacts of climate change, including variability. Piloting an operational approach to adaptation will involve support for pilot and demonstration projects that both address local adaptation needs and generate global environmental benefits in the focal areas in which the GEF works, especially in biodiversity, climate change, international waters, and land degradation. All projects are expected to combine technical assistance and capacity building with concrete actions.
4.3.2 Biodiversity
The goal of GEF’s biodiversity program is the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and the maintenance of the ecosystem goods and services that biodiversity provides to society. The strategy includes a range of interventions to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity that will yield positive conservation outcomes in the short-term while providing the basis for sustainable biodiversity conservation and improvements in human well-being over the long-term. The strategy, therefore, encompasses two complementary and mutually reinforcing objectives: (i) improving the sustainability of protected area systems, the most predominant and dedicated land-use globally for biodiversity conservation; and (ii) supporting the integration of biodiversity considerations into the actions of the production sectors that exert the greatest impact on biodiversity.
4.3.3 International Waters
The GEF strategy for international waters addresses sustainable development challenges faced by states sharing transboundary surface, groundwater, and marine systems. These cross-border challenges include pollution, loss of critical habitats, ship waste, alien species, overuse and conflicting uses of surface and groundwater, over-harvesting of fisheries, and adaptation to climatic fluctuations (and associated droughts, floods, reef bleaching, etc.). While other transboundary concerns could be addressed, the following three priority themes are of most relevance to PICs:
§ Depletion of coastal and marine fish stocks and associated biological diversity - where capacity is built and action programs agreed, GEF will support policy, legal, and institutional reforms and multi-agency partnerships that contribute to Johannesburg targets for sustaining fish stocks, including reforms in governance and access rights; other support includes investments in alternative livelihoods (such as aquaculture), habitat restoration and limited use designations, technical assistance, and less destructive gear to reduce stress on wild fish stocks and associated biological diversity; where SIDS share large marine ecosystems (LMEs) with continental states, they will be supported as active participants in GEF interventions as well as in adjacent areas of high seas; where capacity and agreement among states is not yet achieved for reducing depletion of living resources, an enabling environment for action will be created through foundational projects in states sharing a few additional LMEs. Targeted learning projects will be undertaken for the IW portfolio to enhance South-to-South experience sharing and learning, knowledge management (KM), and replication of good practices;
§ Nutrient enrichment from land-based pollution of coastal/marine waters leading to eutrophication and “dead zones” in (LMEs) - where capacity is built and collective action agreed, support will be provided for national/local policy, legal, institutional reforms to reduce land-based sources of nitrogen and other pollutants consistent with agreed transboundary action programs and the Global Program of Action (GPA); innovative demonstration partnerships, investments and financing options will be pursued (including use of revolving funds and investment funds) addressing agriculture, municipal, and industry sector pollution and for wetland restoration/enhancement (including use of ecological sanitation and simple sewage treatment in support of Johannesburg targets—especially in SIDS); where capacity is not yet built to address these GPA-related concerns, an enabling environment for action will be created though foundational projects for a number of new transboundary systems;
§ Ecosystem and human health risks from persistent toxic substances - a limited demonstration program will be supported to test the effectiveness of policies, innovative instruments, and technologies for reducing the releases of these toxic substances and to engage the business community in developing solutions that demonstrate cost-effectiveness and pollution prevention pays strategies in support of the GEF Sound Chemicals Management Strategy; protection of groundwater and surface water supplies of SIDS is a priority and possibly work to reduce land-based sources of toxic substances to their coasts in support of the Mauritius Strategy.
4.3.4 Land Degradation
GEF investments related to land degradation are designed to foster system-wide change to control the increasing severity and extent of land degradation. This change will be promoted through: (i) creating an enabling environment conducive to Sustainable Land Management (SLM) and (ii) upscaling all scales of SLM investments – global, regional, national and local. Emphasis is on supporting SLM policies and practices that simultaneously generate global environmental benefits and support local and national development; actions will be conducted utilizing cross-cutting opportunities for achieving impacts with an integrated ecosystem and landscape perspective. By also addressing cross-cutting issues such as sustainable forest management, adaptation to climate change and integrated chemicals management, the investments will foster co-benefits between both the global environment and local livelihoods in order to ensure sustainability, replicability and harmony, fully in line with national development goals.
The two strategic objectives are:
§ create an enabling environment that will place SLM in the main stream of development policy and practice at regional, national and local levels - promote policy reform and build competence and capacity in SLM in countries and regions where the drivers of land degradation are especially active, and populations that are affected are poor and vulnerable; and
§ generate mutual benefits for the global environment and local livelihoods through the up-scaling of SLM investments - promote initiatives that foster best practices for the control of land degradation and the measurable overall improvement in ecosystem services.
4.3.5 Persistent Organic Pollutants
The overall objective is to assist countries to reduce and eliminate production, use, and releases of POPs in order to protect human health and the environment. The GEF will also contribute to capacity development for the sound management of chemicals. The strategic objectives for the period of GEF-4 are:
§ Strengthening national capacities for implementation of National Implementation Plans (NIPs), including assisting those countries that lag farthest behind to establish basic, foundational capacities for sound management of chemicals - strengthen and/or build the capacity required in eligible countries to implement their Stockholm Convention NIPs in an effective and comprehensive manner, whilst building upon and contributing to strengthening a country’s foundational capacities for sound management of chemicals;
§ Partnering in investments needed for NIP implementation to achieve impacts in POPs reduction - activities supported will be in conformity with, and supportive of, the priorities identified in countries’ respective NIPs; projects will seek to reduce POPs production, use and releases through phase-out, destruction in an environmentally sound manner, use of substitute products and alternative processes, and application of best available techniques/best environmental practices; consistent with priorities identified under a NIP, an intervention might specifically address threats to international waters, the sustainable management of land, or an area of high biodiversity conservation value;
§ Development and update of the NIPs (enabling activities) - efforts will be made to ensure that the NIP development process is embedded in a country’s institutional framework for the Sound Management of Chemicals, thereby contributing to strengthening that framework; and
§ Generating and disseminating knowledge to address portfolio bottlenecks - support for projects that demonstrate alternative products to POPs or the substitution of materials and processes to prevent POPs formation; a limited number of targeted research activities will also be supported, where this would increase the quality and effectiveness of a significant portion of on-going and future GEF-funded POPs activities.
4.4 Proposed Programmatic Approach – Reflecting National Priorities and GEF Programs
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 2 and Table 7 show the relationships between, on the one hand, the national priorities as described in Section 4.2 and summarized in Table 6, and on the other hand, the relevant GEF programs and objectives. The proposed integrated program for GEF-PAS would be based on 13 regional strategies. These would cover not only the GEF Focal Areas 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.
In many instances the GEF-PAS regional strategies are already in existence. This includes the regional strategies for biodiversity, invasive species, offshore fisheries management and renewable energy. Other regional strategies can be based on existing regional programs of action, such as that for climate change. In some cases, as for energy efficiency, preparation of the regional strategy would require substantial consultation as well as a synthesis of many sources of information.
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.
Table 8 identifies relevant GEF-related activities already in the pipeline. These, along with the current projects (Table 1), can provide an early start up for the GEF-PAS work program.
Figure 2 Relationship between National Priorities, GEF Programs and the proposed 13 GEF-PAS Regional Strategies
Table 7
National Priorities, GEF-PAS Regional Strategies and GEF Programs and Objectives
Aggregated
National Priorities
Proposed GEF-PAS Regional Strategies
GEF Program
Relevant GEF Objective(s)
Long Title
Short Title
Invasive species
Prevention, Control and Management of Invasive Alien Species
Invasive Species
Biodiversity Focal Area
§ Mainstreaming biodiversity in production landscapes/seascapes and sectors
Protected areas – terrestrial and marine
Enhancing the Sustainability of Protected Areas and Associated Communities through Conservation, Sustainable Use and Benefit Sharing of Terrestrial and Marine Resources
Protected Areas
Biodiversity Focal Area
§ Catalyzing sustainability of protected area systems
Renewable energy
Increasing Use of Renewable Energy by Communities and the Private Sector
Renewable Energy
Climate Change Focal Area
§ Promote the supply of and demand for electricity from renewable sources
Energy efficiency
Transport efficiency
GHG Emission Reductions through Increased Sustainability of Transport and Energy Use
Energy Efficiency
Climate Change Focal Area
§ Promote widespread adoption of energy efficiencies in the building sector;
§ Promote energy-efficient technologies and practices in production and manufacturing processes;
§ Facilitate GHG reduction through market transformation for sustainable mobility in urban areas.
Adaptation to climate change
Addressing Urgent, Immediate and Strategic Requirements for Adaptation
Adaptation
Climate Change Focal Area
Support pilot and demonstration projects that address local adaptation needs and generate global environmental benefits
Waste management
Water security
Strengthening the Integrated Management of Water, Waste-water and Solid Waste
Water and Waste Management
International Waters Focal Area
Reduction of human and ecosystem health risks resulting from fewer releases of, and exposure to, persistent toxic substances
Depletion of coastal and marine fish stocks and associated biological diversity
Fisheries Management
Fisheries Management
International Waters Focal Area
Policy, legal, and institutional reforms and multi-agency partnerships that contribute to Johannesburg targets for sustaining fish stocks, including reforms in governance and access rights
Sustainable forest management
Sustainable agriculture
Sustainable Land Management
Land Management
Land Degradation Focal Area
An enabling environment that will place Sustainable Land Management (SLM) in the main stream of development policy and practice
Persistent Organic Pollutants
Sound Management of Chemicals
Chemicals Management
Persistent Organic Pollutants Focal Area
Reduce and eliminate production, use, and releases of POPs in order to protect human health and the environment
Capacity Building
Capacity Enhancement Program
Capacity Enhancement
Capacity Development Initiative and Country Support Program
Remove capacity constraints on compliance with UNFCCC, CBD, UNCCD, POPs Convention and relevant regional agreements
Strengthening the Private Sector
Environment Friendly Businesses
Environment Friendly Businesses
Small and Medium Enterprise Program
· Development Marketplace
Development of SMEs engaged in environment friendly businesses, mainly in the areas which meet the operational objectives of the GEF
Compliance with Multi-lateral Environmental Agreements
Enabling Activities
Enabling Activities
Enabling Activities
Facilitate compliance with UNFCCC, CBD, UNCCD and POPs Convention and relevant regional agreements
Improved livelihoods
Participation of, and Benefits for, Civil Society
Civil Society Engagement
Small Grants Program
Support the activities of NGOs and CBOs in countries that have ratified the Convention on Biodversity and the UNFCCC
Table 8
GEF-related Activities in Pipeline1
· GEF-PAS Regional Strategy
· GEF-related Activities Already in Pipeline
Invasive Species
· Pacific Invasive Species Management (R)
· Building Capacity and Raising Awareness in Invasive Alien Species Prevention and Management (G)
· Building Partnerships to Assist Developing Countries to Reduce the Transfer of Harmful Aquatic Organisms in Ships' Ballast Water (G)
Protected Areas
· Strengthening Capacity to Generate, Disseminate and Adopt Good Practices in Biodiversity Conservation (G)
Adaptation
· Pacific Islands Adaptation to Climate Change Project (R)
· Piloting Climate Change Adaptation to Protect Human Health (G)
Water and Waste Management
· Implementing Sustainable Integrated Water Resource and Wastewater Management in the Pacific Island Countries (R)
Chemicals Management
· Capacity Building by Exchange of Lessons Learned on POPs Enabling Activities through Regional Networks (G)Demonstrating and Scaling up Sustainable Alternatives to DDT, and Strengthening National Vector Control Capabilities in South Asia and Pacific (R)
1. G = global; R = regional
Table 9 is a compilation of regional and national projects and other initiatives that PICs have identified as being their priorities for GEF funding. For convenience, they are categorized under both the GEF focal areas and the proposed GEF-PAS regional strategies.
4.5 Proposed GEF Investment Portfolio
An investment portfolio would be designed to address the national sustainable development priorities and secure the global environmental benefits identified in the preceding sections. GEF has made $100 million available over the GEF-4 period (FY07-FY10). This includes allocations from all GEF-administered funds, as well as $24.5 million to be disbursed using GEF-3 resources. Such a high level of investment highlights the need for a phased approach that allows capacity to be enhanced in those countries which currently do not have the policies, institutions, personnel and procedures in place to ensure effective and efficient investment outcomes. Such an approach also provides an opportunity to secure greater returns on the investments as a result of synergies between projects, at both national and regional levels.
The only existing GEF investment allocations are under the Resource Allocation Framework (RAF) for climate change and biodiversity (see Section 3.4). For conservation of biodiversity the RAF provides individual allocations of $12.5 million and $5.1 million to Papua New Guinea and Fiji, respectively. Other PICs are members of a group of 93 countries that may seek funding for biodiversity-related projects from a group allocation of $146.8, with a maximum of $3.5 million per country. In the climate change Focal Area all PICS are part of a 115 country group. They may seek project financing from a group allocation of $148.6 million, with a maximum of $3.1 million per country.
Although new operational procedures under the proposed programmatic approach of GEF-PAS will bring many national, regional and global benefits, it is important that funding commitments already made by GEF be honored. However, 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 as this will help reduce transaction costs. In recognition of the benefits of the joint programming now being favoured by NZAid and AusAid, GEF-PAS will also facilitate harmonization of work programs across GEF agencies active in the region.
Table 9
Planned and Indicative National Initiatives[16]
GEF Focal Areas
Biodiversity
Land
Degradation
Climate Change
International Waters
POPs
Reg. Strategy
Countries
Invasive Species
Protected Areas
Land Management
Renewable Energy
Energy Efficiency
Adaptation
Water & Waste Management
Fisheries Management
Chemicals Management
Cook Islands
PISM
PACC
WMP
RFM
F.S. of Micronesia
PISM plus Micronesia Challenge
Draft MSP
PRUMIER
PACC
WMP
RFM
Implement NIP
Fiji Islands
PISM
Energy Financing;
Sustainable Transport
PACC
WMP
RFM
Kiribati
PISM
Impl. MSP
KAP-II
WMP
RFM
Implement NIP
Marshall Islands
PISM plus Micronesia Challenge
Sust. LM
Energy Financing
MSP
Climate Proofing
WMP
RFM
Nauru
PISM
PACC
WMP
RFM
Niue
PISM
PACC
WMP
RFM
Palau
PISM plus Micronesia Challenge
WMP
RFM
Papua New Guinea
PISM; National System of PAs; Ecosystem Management; Community Coastal and Marine Management; Biosafety; Forest Management; Capacity Building
Energy Financing
Rural Electrification
PACC
WMP
RFM
DDT Alternatives
Samoa
Forest & Marine Conservation
Implement MSP
Buildings, Transport & Fuels
PACC plus NAPA Implement.
WMP
RFM
Implement NIP
Solomon Islands
PISM
Energy Financing
PACC
WMP
RFM
DDT Alternatives
Timor Leste
Enabling Activities
Enabling Activities
Enabling Act.
RFM
Tonga
Implement NBSAP
Mitigation Activities
PACC
WMP
RFM
Tuvalu
PISM
PACC
WMP
RFM
Vanuatu
PISM
Energy Financing
Sustainable Transport
PACC
WMP
RFM
DDT Alternatives
PISM – Pacific Invasive Species Management; PACC – Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change; NIP – National Implementation Plan
WMP – Fresh Water and Waste Water Management; RFM – Regional Fisheries Management; MSP – Medium-sized Project
5. Implementation Planning – Realizing the Vision
This section describes in some detail the activities which will result in the establishment and implementation of GEF-PAS.
5.1 Road Map (including consultation and project phasing)
Table 10 lays out a proposed road map to achieve the goal of a Pacific Partnership that delivers a regionally coordinated and nationally executed program based on national priorities for achieving national sustainable development goals while also providing significant global environmental benefits.
The key considerations in preparing this road map are as follows:
§ Commitment to consensus building through consultation;
§ Appropriate engagement with all relevant stakeholders;
§ Identify and reflect national needs, concerns, proposals and capacities;
§ Build on past efforts and reflect previous successes and lessons learned;
§ Realistic and pragmatic approaches, in order to achieve timeliness and certainty while avoiding delays and diversions; and
§ Deliver win-win outcomes through efficient and effective processes that meet both national and global priorities.
Capacity constraints, nationally, regionally and for IAs and IEs, suggest that implementation of the program will be optimized if a phased approach is adopted. The startup year for a given project depends on both the national capacity to undertake a successful project (see Section 3.5) and on a country’s readiness to implement a project. Improved outcomes will also be achieved if the phased approach fosters synergies between projects. In addition, there is a constraint on the use of 50% of the RAF allocation being used in the first two years.
Table 10
Roadmap for Establishing and Implementing the Pacific Partnership
Activity
Output/Outcome
Key Player(s)
Time Line
Preparation of concept paper
Concept paper submitted to GEF Sec
World Bank
Mid May, 2007
Review of paper
Strategic financing and operational decisions; proposal
GEF Sec, IAs
Mid May, 2007
Consult with PIC ambassadors and IAs
Strengthened proposal and buy in
GEF Sec, PIC ambassadors, IAs
Mid – end May, 2007
Consult with PFPs and OFPs
Strengthened proposal and buy in
GEF Sec, PFPs, OFPs
Submit PIF and PPG Request to GEF Sec
PIF and PPG approved
GEF Sec, World Bank
End June 2007
Begin preparation of program proposal
Proposed program, including regional strategies (with indicators and targets consistent with GEF Focal Area strategies
World Bank and other IAs
Mid June, 2007
In-depth national and regional consultations
Strengthened regional strategies and programming
Countries, CROP agencies, IAs, EAs
August – October , 2007
Operational strategy revised and endorsed
Approved regional strategies and operational program
Inter Agency Work Group/Advisory Body
October, 2007
Technical Studies
Technical Papers
World Bank, IAs
September – December 2007
Draft Proposed Program
Draft document circulated and reviewed
World Bank, IAs, Inter Agency Working Group/ Advisory Body, GEF Sec
February – March 2008
Proposed program reviewed & endorsed
Approved program
GEF Council
June, 2008
Monitoring
Systematic measurements of the results and impacts of investments, using appropriate indicators.
Countries, CROP agencies, NGOs, GEF Sec, IAs, EAs
FY 2007-2010
Project preparation
Approved program and projects
Phase 1 Countries, IAs
FY 2007
Project implementation
Achievement of sustainable development goals and significant global environmental benefits
Phase 1 Countries, GEF Sec, IAs, EAs, NGOs and CROP agencies
FY 2008
Project preparation
Approved program and projects
Phase 2 Countries, GEF Sec, IAs
FY 2009
Project implementation
Achievement of sustainable development goals and significant global environmental benefits
Phase 2 Countries, GEF Sec, IAs, EAs, NGOs and CROP agencies
FY 2009
Project preparation
Approved program and projects
Phase 3 Countries, GEF Sec, IAs
FY 2010
Project implementation
Achievement of sustainable development goals and significant global environmental benefits
Phase 3 Countries, GEF Sec, IAs, EAs, NGOs and CROP agencies
FY 2010
Evaluation
Adaptive management, learning and innovation for both projects and the overall program
Countries, CROP agencies, NGOs, GEF Sec, IAs, EAs
FY 2007-2010
5.2 Institutional Arrangements
The GEF operational framework is illustrated in Figure 4. Recent operational changes of particular relevance to implementing GEF-PAS include:
§ equal access to the GEF for all IAs and EAs;
§ each agency operates within the scope of the comparative advantages it brings to the GEF partnership;
§ IAs continue to play a strategic role in partnership with the GEF Secretariat due to the depth of experience of the GEF and its activities;
§ IAs assume a lead role to coordinate work on emerging themes or programs across the entire GEF partnership in areas where the agency has particular expertise or a leadership advantage; and;
§ the lead agency will work with all the other GEF agencies to assure that the GEF-financed activities are consistent with a programmatic approach and contribute to common corporate objectives.
Figure 4 GEF operational framework.
Other institutional changes of relevance to implementing GEF-PAS are:
§ the proposal to significantly strengthen collaboration and coordination by merging all of the Pacific region’s technical agencies other that the PIFS into one secretariat under the governance of the existing Pacific Community; and
§ locating a GEF Sec representative at SPREP.
An operational framework for GEF-PAS that includes all these planned and proposed institutional changes is shown in Figure 5. As indicated, GEF-PAS brings together the GEF Secretariat, the IAs, relevant EAs and the regional organizations (both governmental and non-governmental), to define and deliver an investment program that assists PICs to develop sustainability while also delivering global environmental benefits. This is achieved through projects that are implemented nationally and regionally, as appropriate. The only addition to existing and planned institutional arrangements is to establish a high level advisory board that provides strategic and tactical guidance to both the GEF representative in the Pacific and, collectively, to the member organizations of the Partnership. Importantly, the advisory board adds value to GEF operations in the Pacific, but does not add another administrative layer between the GEF and the countries.
Figure 5. Operational framework for the Pacific Partnership - GEF-PAS.
5.3 Capacity Enhancement
Limited absorptive capacity, especially at national level, has hindered the ability to access GEF funds. Low absorptive capacity also results in investments often having less impact than might otherwise be the case. 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 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 envelops 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 capacity requirements at all levels (e.g. national, community) and across all dimensions (e.g. institutional strengthening, proposal preparation and monitoring and reporting). The goal would be to support and implement capacity building that is even more responsive to Pacific circumstances and needs. The Partnership 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 relationship building and preparing work programs. A program of capacity building also allows more time for all parties and stakeholders to develop a shared understanding of issues and desired outcomes. It should also provide transitional phases between projects and on project completion.
5.4 Monitoring and Evaluation
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 things, 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 framework.
The programmatic approach that underpins GEF-PAS represents an ideal opportunity to implement, evaluate and demonstrate a comprehensive results-based management system in which performance at the level of both development and global environmental goals and outcomes is systematically measured and improved. Importantly, the evaluation can be undertaken for a comprehensive programmatic approach that is integrated across all GEF focal and cross-cutting areas and is consistent with the newly focused, streamlined and more integrated focal area strategies. The evaluation can also be based on the measurable indicators of global outcomes and impacts that are currently under development for each of the focal areas.
5.5 Risks, and Potential for Success
Table 11 identifies risks for investments made under each of the regional strategies, and indicates possible risk management strategies. The table also classifies the potential for success, based on implementing the risk management strategies and on the opportunities to build on capacities already built, lessons learned and previous successes.
Table 11
Investment Risks, Risk Management Strategies and Potential for Long-term Success
Regional Strategy
Investment Risks
Risk Management Strategies
Potential for Long-term Success
Climate Change
Renewable Energy
Small & immature market, with major uptake constraints; maintenance and other challenges to long-term sustainability
Apply lessons learned and success factors from enabling and pilot projects; maximize local participation and ownership
Moderate
Energy Efficiency
Lack of experience; low awareness of successful investment opportunities; small size of projects limit co-financing opportunities
Develop strong businesses case for each investment; draw on relevant experience from inside and outside the region; maximize local participation & ownership
Moderate
Adaptation - PACC
Difficult to climate proof components due to interactions within and between systems and sectors; technical requirements to ensure investment success not well understood, due to uncertainties and other factors
Adopt a sector and systems approach to adaptation as well as a rigorous risk-based approach
Moderate - High
Adaptation – NAPA plus RMI
As above
As above
As above
Enabling Activities
Few significant risks due to robust assessments of capacities and needs; need to adopt long-term and comprehensive approach to capacity building; challenge to retain experienced and skilled personnel
Apply lessons learned and success factors from other enabling activity projects; ensure that trained and aware personnel are recognised for their efforts and encouraged to follow appropriate career paths
High
Biodiversity
Invasive Species
Challenge to make significant impacts as problem large relative to resources available – in terms of both prevention and remediation
Smart investments required – high relative returns; apply the many lessons learned and success factors from relevant national and regional projects; maximize local participation and ownership
Moderate - High
Protected Areas
Communities dependent on natural resources need to see tangible benefits from conservation efforts
Adopt a comprehensive approach that increases the sustainability of both the natural ecosystems and the communities which are dependent on them; maximize local participation and ownership; apply the many lessons learned and success factors from relevant national and regional projects
Moderate - High
Integrated
As for both invasive species and protected areas
As for both invasive species and protected areas
Moderate - High
Biosafety
Weaknesses in national policies and regulations regarding biotechnology and biosafety, and limited experience in the transfer, handling and use of LMOs; low status of biotechnology development; little existing technical capacity on biosafety issues including risk assessment and risk management; barriers to continuation of activities after the end of the GEF support
Exploit opportunities for cost-effective sharing of limited resources, and for coordination between biosafety frameworks.
Moderate
Enabling Activities
Few robust assessments of capacities and needs; need to adopt long-term and comprehensive approach to capacity building; challenge to retain experienced and skilled personnel
Apply lessons learned and success factors from other enabling activity projects; ensure that trained and aware personnel are recognised for their efforts and encouraged to follow appropriate career paths
Moderate
International Waters
Fisheries Management
Weak monitoring and enforcement of regulations and lack of trained staff for surveillance; previous projects have generally failed to build on past achievements and learn from past experiences, or to identify problem situations adequately, including their root causes; multiplicity of hierarchical institutional layers makes it essential to clearly define roles and responsibilities were defined clearly; previous investments suffered from low level of stakeholder involvement and the almost total absence of participation by the public, NGOs and the private sector; need to ensure projects involve civil society in a manner which will reflect local mores, culture and sensitivities
Maximize local participation and ownership; apply the many lessons learned and success factors from relevant national and regional projects; adopt a comprehensive approach that ensures a strong enabling environment for successful commercial investment in the offshore fishery
Moderate
Water and Waste Management
Challenge to make the substantial investments required to follow integrated sector- and system-wide approaches as called for in robust assessments of capacities and needs
Smart investments required – high relative returns; apply the many lessons learned and success factors from relevant national and regional projects; maximize local participation and ownership
Moderate - High
Enabling Activities
Few significant risks due to robust assessments of capacities and needs; challenge to retain experienced and skilled personnel
Adopt long-term and comprehensive approach to capacity building; ensure that trained and aware personnel are recognised for their efforts and encouraged to follow appropriate career paths
High
Land Management
Implement National Strategy
Weaknesses in prioritizing the need for investment in specific aspects of sustainable land management; technical requirements to ensure investment success not well understood, due to uncertainties and other factors; weaknesses in national policies and regulations regarding sustainable agriculture and other low impact land uses; lack of trained staff for surveillance, monitoring and enforcement;
Apply the many lessons learned and success factors from relevant national and regional projects; adopt a comprehensive approach that ensures a strong enabling environment for sustainable uses of land, including agriculture and forestry; maximize local participation and ownership
Moderate - High
Enabling Activities
Few significant risks due to robust assessments of capacities and needs; challenge to retain experienced and skilled personnel
Adopt long-term and comprehensive approach to capacity building; ensure that trained and aware personnel are recognised for their efforts and encouraged to follow appropriate career paths
High
Persistent Organic Pollutants
Chemicals Management
Challenge to address both immediate issues relating to compliance with the Stockholm Convention and the longer-term chemical management issues resulting from the requirements of the Basel and Rotterdam Conventions, the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), and any future inclusion of new chemicals under the Stockholm Convention; limited inventories and assessments of chemical importation, transport, storage, use and disposal;
Ensure that the lessons learned and the benefits obtained during the preparation and initial implementation of individual country National Implementation Plans (NIPs) on POPs are recognized and disseminated among all countries
Moderate - High
Enabling Activities
Lack of robust assessments of capacities and needs; challenge to retain experienced and skilled personnel; weaknesses in national policies and regulations regarding safe use, storage and disposal of chemicals
Adopt long-term and comprehensive approach to capacity building; ensure that trained and aware personnel are recognised for their efforts and encouraged to follow appropriate career paths
High
Small Grants Program
Civil Society Engagement
Not all PICs participate in the SGP; overhead costs large and administrative procedures complex relative to the size of the grants; many investments have a large governmental component but grants are limited to NGOs and CBOs; adequacy of administrating organization; confusion over government or non-government control of the grant program; selection criteria not giving sufficient importance to links with existing national environmental action plans;
Apply the many lessons learned and success factors from other relevant countries implementing SGPs; increase awareness of program operational requirements, procedures and criteria; strengthen the administrating organization; simplify and streamline administrative procedures without reducing the quality of selection procedures and oversight of the grant program.
High
Capacity Building
Capacity Enhancement
Few significant risks due to robust assessments of capacities and needs; challenge to retain experienced and skilled personnel
Adopt long-term and comprehensive approach to capacity building; ensure that trained and aware personnel are recognised for their efforts and encouraged to follow appropriate career paths
High
Env. Business Finance Program
Environment Friendly Business
Not all PICs participate in this Program; PICs have very limited knowledge of, and experience with, the program; market for environment friendly businesses relatively small; government policies generally supportive, institutional support framework still in early stages of development; barriers to financial institutions lending to environment friendly SMEs include limited awareness of such sectors and SMEs, inadequate pipeline of proposals, perceived high risk of activity, and limited or no exposure to such SMEs for most mainstream financial institutions; capacity building environment restricted to fledgling industry bodies, small private enterprises or research institutions; small relative size of the financing facility; long lead times for processing of application
Recognize importance of key growth drivers such as proven technology, attractive value propositions, relatively well-developed value chain, abundant resource availability and active/ guaranteed market creation by the government; recognize multitude of profitable SME business models, range across primary producers, supply contractors, manufacturers, importers, processors, distributors and other service providers; address gaps in current levels of access to mainstream finance for SMEs; address constraints and barriers related to market creation, capacity building and the regulatory environment; promote holistic market development; facilitate regulation mandating/incentivizing use of environment friendly technologies; support targeted campaign to promote such technologies; facilitate technology transfer and the establishment of high quality standards, product testing and rating facilities; assist development of training programs for key stakeholders and players, including installers/ maintenance personnel; provide tax/tariff incentives to offset cost difference between current costs and costs using environment friendly technologies – e.g. green certification mechanisms; explore feasibility of creating new environment friendly SME business opportunities; promote technology and best practices transfer from other markets
Low - Moderate
[1] The term “Investment project” is used in a generic manner and refers to all types of GEF financing including for capacity building and technical assistance.
[2] 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.
[3] Includes likely allocations under the RAF.
[4] Views and Lessons: Effectiveness of the Global Environment Facility in the Pacific. Final Report, October, 2004. Delta Networks and Pacific Environment Consultants, 43pp.
[5] GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992-2007), GEF/ME/C.31/5, April, 2007
[6] GEF/C.17.Inf.11 The GEF Programmatic Approach: Current Understandings, April 12, 2001.
[7] Views and Lessons: Effectiveness of the Global Environment Facility in the Pacific. Final Report, October, 2004. Delta Networks and Pacific Environment Consultants, 43pp.
[8] The Pacific Plan for Strengthening Regional Cooperation and Integration. Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, October, 2005, 41pp.
[9] Review of the Post Forum Dialogue. A Report Prepared for the Pacific Islands Forum by Makurita Baaro,
Lucy Bogari, Lourdes Pangelinan, Adrian Simcock and Epa Tuioti, August 2006, 27pp.
[10] CEO Spells Out New Vision for the Global Environment Facility. Media Release, December 5, 2006.
[11] Four operational programs are in the biodiversity focal area, four in climate change, and three in international waters. The other operational programs are integrated ecosystem management, persistent organic pollutants and land degradation.
[12] GEF Small Grants Program (SGP), Mission to the Pacific Islands Region, April, 2003.
[13] Views and Lessons: Effectiveness of the Global Environment Facility in the Pacific. Final Report, October, 2004. Delta Networks and Pacific Environment Consultants, 43pp.
[14] Reforming the Pacific Regional Institutional Framework. A report to the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders, prepared by Kaliopate Tavola, Makurita Baaro, Lucy Bogari, Lourdes Pangelinan, Adrian Simcock, and Epa Tuioti. August 2006, 34pp.
[15] The relevant GEF focal areas are biodiversity, climate change (mitigation and adaptation), international waters, sustainable land management and persistent organic pollutants. Ozone depletion is not considered here as GEF assistance is available only to countries with economies in transition.
[16] Most enabling, capacity building, small grants and private sector related activities and initiatives not included; table to be completed through further national consultations.
Labels: G-PAS Vision, GEF Operations
posted by Steve @ 1:43 PM
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home