Samoa - A carbon-neutral holiday destination by 2008?

Well, all the world's leaders are in Bali discussing Global Climate Change impacts.

At the same time, discerning travellers are stating home or taking short flights only in order to avois all their carbon-emissions from their jet exhausts.

Well, Samoa, a small beautiful island nation in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with 300 volcanic cones, 300 villages, 300 lava tube caves, 300 waterfalls, 300 cultural activities and 6000 foot mountains, boasts an already (unofficial carbon neutral status).

Samoa has a new Greenhouse Gas Abatement Strategy (Dec 2007), it has just updated its second Greenhouse Gas Inventory (Dec 2007), but excluded jet emissions like the rest of the world (HELLO).

Anyway, with our G-PAS funding, we're going to try and correct all the negative impacts from Climate Change - with your help as visitors - just fill our planes to capacity, this way NOT adding to the jet emissions, well, not much anyway.

Secondly, we want a limit on the number of visitors to our islands, well, at least until Global Climate Change has been arrested.

And Samoa needs more trees - we just got 3 new National Parks approved by Government and 2 more lined-up. We are going to showcase SAMOA to the world, so come visit our National Parks, Marine Protected Areas, Village Fish Reserves, Community Conservation Areas, etc. and see the rarest bird in the world - the Punae or Samoan Moorhen - you'll need to climb to 6000 feet deep into the rainforests of Savaii Island (and you'll see another endemic bird species, the Samoan White-Eye, found only on one island in the world - Savaii Island), travel with a guide (Mose) who is dressed in barefeet, just a can of fish, no water, no tent, bo warm clothing against the early morning frosts - yes, here in the tropics - and stories that will keep you awake all night.

Samoa, just like Costa Rica, has forest cover increasing (but due to invasive tree species like Tamaligi – but we don’t need to tell the tourists that), and plans to repair our indigenous forests harmed by previous international commercial logging - now banned thanks to our progressive Government.

Costa Rica set 2021 to become a carbon neutral holiday destination, but Samoa plans to do it by 2010 - easy, we may already be carbon-neutral, but we need to do our GHG inventory research and add all jet emissions out-of Samoa (our national share).

The following article is excellent: 5:00AM Friday December 07, 2007

Climate Change

* Fran O'Sullivan: Sustainability dissent heats up
* Greenpeace in Bali

Costa Rica, a leader in eco-tourism and home to some of the world's rarest species, planted its 5 millionth tree of 2007 this week as it tries to put a brake on global warming.

President Oscar Arias shoveled dirt onto the roots of an oak tree planted in the grounds of his offices, reaching the milestone in the Central American nation's efforts to ward off what some experts say are the first signs of climate change.

By the end of the year, Costa Rica will have planted nearly 6.5 million trees, which should absorb 111,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, Environment Minister Roberto Dobles said.

(Samoa plans to plant a million trees over the next 10 years to help absorb 20,000 tonnes of carbon - either plantation forests or natural regeneration)

The country aims to plant 7 million trees in 2008 as part of the newly launched programme.

Along with other green-minded nations such as Norway and New Zealand, Costa Rica is aiming to reduce its net carbon emissions to zero, and has set a target date of 2021.

(2000 and when???????????)

"I don't know if we will end up being carbon neutral in 2021 as we have proposed, but the important thing is the audacity of the goal and the work we have to do," President Arias said.


Advertisement for Costa Rica (and SAMOA)


Costa Rica is a magnet for ecology-minded tourists who visit the lush national parks and reserves that cover more than a quarter of the country and are home to almost 5 per cent of the world's plant and animal species including exotic birds and frogs.

SAMOA HAS 10 ENDEMIC BIRDS, ENDEMIC ORCHIDS, EVEN AN ENDEMIC PLANT GENUS – AND OVER 20 FLORA AND FAUNA ALREADY ON THE IUCN ENDANGERED RED LIST. SAMOA needs to act now. Can you help?


Over the past 20 years, forest cover in Costa Rica has grown from 26 per cent of the national territory to 51 per cent, though environmentalists complain that loggers continue to cut down old trees and that the national park system is underfunded.

SAMOA’S forest cover has increased since 1997 from about55% to 65%, but we need more data, more payments for these ecological services and more tree-planting thanks to G-PAS.

Costa Rican authorities have blamed the loss of more than a dozen amphibian species, including the shiny yellow "golden toad", on higher temperatures caused by global warming.

Just listen to Pacific Island Countries raising their concerns in Bali this week – WHO CARES ABOUT PACIFIC ISLANDERS?


Experts also say climate change is behind a spike in mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. The number of dengue fever cases so far this year in Costa Rica's high-altitude central valley stands at 3487 cases - 86 per cent higher than in 2006.


(Thanks to G-PAS funding for 2008-2010, SAMOA will be able to help address many of these issues, and hopefully reverse the trends in SAMOA and other South Pacific Island Countries. SAMOA needs to act NOW, and thanks to GEF, we are finally getting the political clout we need to address some major issues affecting our sustainable livelihoods here in the Pacific. Now we need your support, as discerning travellers, take short trips only, even if it means Americans and Europeans are no longer being encouraged to visit the far-away South Pacific. Samoa is better-off marketing only to New Zealand and Australia (assuming Australia signs the Kyoto Protocol), attracting visitors from other carbon-neutral countries).

GOOD IDEA? Take advantage of Samoa's infamous 7-Island 10-Day Ecotours at $USD500 and $USD1000 per day per person fully inclusive, living in cute boutique village beach resorts with the locals or pampered in air-conditioned hotels along the way, respectively. Ecotourism can be a fantastic environmental management tool so test your travel ethics on this one. Doing ecotourism in a carbon-neutral holiday destination makes sense.

GEF-PAS Prepares Pacific Investment Portfolio

Dear GEF PAS partners,

Again thank you very much for all your contributions in Apia. The Bank values your cooperation and assistance to fulfill its mandate to lead preparation and implementation of the Pacific Alliance for Sustainability.

The understanding at the meeting was that the Bank would share, in the very short-term, the next steps with all stakeholders, as well as the TORs and the names of the consultants who will assist countries to provide the information required to prepare the GEF-PAS investment portfolio. This information is attached and is also available at http://www.gefcountrysupport.org/report_detail.cfm?projectId=207

I will also share the itineraries of the consultants as soon as these have been agreed by the countries.

As agreed at the meeting, we are contacting the Forum Secretariat to formally request their participation as we move forward to prepare the program. Their participation will help ensure that we take into account the regional and sub-regional initiatives that complement the national activities.

We are planning to call for an audio/video conference meeting with all stakeholders in the next week or so. We will be sending you an email next week with a choice of 3 dates. The most convenient one would be selected for the meeting, so please kindly respond to our email.

The Bank will also shortly share with you some draft criteria for project selection; these will be based mainly on the criteria included in the draft Framework. Once we receive your comments, we would develop these more concretely. The criteria will link in to the Monitoring and Evaluation indicators that will be used to assess progress with implementation of the investment portfolio. Please note that projects under the framework will be expected to also develop their own M&E systems and indicators. We will circulate a concept for the M&E strategy before we develop it in detail, in order to ensure that any concerns you might have will be addressed appropriately.

We trust that the information we are providing meets your current needs. Please feel free to send us your comments and suggestions, so that our next communication can reflect and respond to any concerns you might have.

This message will have attached to it the following documents:

Ø Next steps
Ø TORs for the consultants
Ø Grouping of countries and the respective consultants

I would like to end this mail with a request. To help us keep a manageable mailing list, may I please request that where there are more than two people from the same organization on the mailing list you let us which two people to maintain on the list. The idea then is that these two people would send the mail to a wider distribution list within their respective organization.

With kind regards,
Next Steps

GEF PAS Update on Key Next Steps in Project Preparation

Activity
Key Players
Timeline
Consultations with potential co-financiers
GEF Agencies, countries. Bi-lateral agencies, NGOs, private sector
Early October
Countries complete consultations and identification of priorities (national, sub-regional and regional) assisted by consultants
Countries, ‘CROP’ agencies
October 15
Parallel consultations with CROP and GEF agencies
The World Bank, with coordination by ForSec and with assistance provided by Joe Stanley
October
Establish GEF-PAS Working Group
ForSec and GEF-PAS Inter Agency Working Group
October
GEF-PAS website

The World Bank: We are investigating options: through UNDP who already have a site; or within the Bank. We will also be reviewing to ensure that we have a discussion space for the project.
October
Consultations with potential co-financiers
GEF Agencies, countries. Bi-lateral agencies, NGOs, private sector
September - January
Compilation and synthesis of priorities
GEF-PAS Working Group
October 15 - 22
Constituency Meeting in Manila (feedback on consultations)
Countries, GEF Agencies
October 24-25
Finalization of draft investment matrices
Countries with GEF-PAS Working Group
By end October
Distribute draft investment portfolio to countries, CROP and GEF agencies, donors and other stakeholders,
The World Bank
End October
Prepare overall program document
The World Bank
Begin October, draft distributed by December 15
GEF Agencies work with countries to prepare PIFs (for national, sub-regional and regional projects)
Countries, GEF Agencies, CROP Agencies
November to December 15
Countries and Agencies meet in Bali to review progress; organized by GEF Sec
Countries, GEF Agencies, CROP Agencies, Bi-lateral Agencies, NGOs
Early December
Circulation of draft PIFs
GEF Agencies
By December 15
Finalization of PIFs
Countries and GEF Agencies
By end January
Countries and Agencies meet to finalize/endorse submission to GEF Secretariat (venue to be decided) Organized by World Bank
Countries, GEF Agencies, CROP Agencies
End January
Finalization of the documents to be submitted to GEFSec
GEF-PAS Working Group
Early February
Submission to GEF Sec
World Bank
By February 29

Primary contact for information at the World Bank: Ms. Idah Pswarayi-Riddihough, Tel. +1 202 458178;
Fax 1 202 477-2733 email: Ipswarayiriddiho@worldbank.org

Please copy all correspondence to Mr. Samuel Wedderburn, Tel. 202 473 0443 Fax 202 522 3256;
Email: Swedderburn@worldbank.org

Member of the GEF Inter Agency Group based in the Pacific: Keneti Faulalo
Email: keneti.faulalo@unep.ch
GEF Pacific Alliance for Sustainability
(GEF-PAS)

Terms of Reference: Regional Consultants

Each consultant will contribute, individually and collectively, to country-driven, regionally-coordinated preparations of a program that will help ensure achievement of both global environmental and national sustainable development goals in the Pacific region. The focus will be on maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of GEF support to, and investment in, the 15 PICs eligible for such assistance. Specifically, the consultants will adhere to the following principles:

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

Four regional consultants will work with the Operational and Political Focal Points, as appropriate, to assist each country in the respective sub-region (Table 1) to identify, rank and cost nationally that will contribute to achievement of national sustainable development goals as well as achievement of global environmental goals as reflected in the GEF Focal Area Strategies and Strategic Programming for GEF-4. Each country has also been requested to identify and rank regionally executed projects.
Table 1: Country Groupings for National Assistance
Sub-region
Country
Assistance Level
1
Cook Islands
2
Tonga
2
Samoa
1
Niue
2
2
Federated States of Micronesia
3
Marshall Islands
2
Palau
No assistance required
3
Papua New Guinea
3
Timor Leste
3
Vanuatu
2
4
Kiribati
2
Tuvalu
2
Nauru
2
Solomon Islands
2
Fiji Islands
2

The amount of assistance provided by a regional consultant to a given country will vary according the progress that country has made towards the completion the identification, ranking and costing of the nationally and regionally executed projects. The following might be used as guidance:

Assistance Level 1 – the country has already conducted appropriate consultations designed to identify and rank the proposed projects but may benefit from assistance related to the provision of information on project rankings and costs and to identification of the preferred GEF Agency. The country may also benefit from assistance and guidance on facilitating the involvement of the private sector and NGOs in the proposed projects [2 – 3 days in-country];

Assistance Level 2 – the country has already conducted limited consultations designed to identify and rank the proposed projects but may benefit from assistance to conduct further consultations related to the provision of information on project rankings and costs and to identification of the preferred GEF Agency. The country may also require significant assistance and guidance on facilitating the involvement of the private sector and NGOs in the proposed projects [3 – 4 days in-country];

Assistance Level 3 – the country has yet to conduct appropriate consultations designed to identify and rank the proposed projects and thus requires substantial assistance related to the provision of information on project rankings and costs and to identification of the preferred GEF Agency. The country would also benefit from assistance and guidance on facilitating the involvement of the private sector and NGOs in the proposed projects [5 or more days in-country];

Specifically, the regional consultant will assist each country to determine and describe the national consensus with respect to the following:

§ Priorities for proposed nationally executed investment projects and related activities that will contribute to the achievement of both national sustainable development goals and global environmental goals as reflected in the GEF Focal Area Strategies and Strategic Programming for GEF-4;
§ Initiatives that will ensure effective and efficient involvement of the private sector and civil society in the proposed investment projects and related activities;
§ Requirements and modalities for capacity building, enabling activities, and support to both civil society and the private sector in order to ensure their full and productive involvement in investment projects and related initiatives; and
§ Assess and report on the capacity in terms of readiness to undertake the proposed investment project in the near term or in the longer term once the absorptive capacity is strengthened, and the capacity building that is required, if any.

The regional consultants will also take the opportunity of their presence in country to brief relevant stakeholders on the GEF-PAS initiative. This awareness raising should make use of materials provided by the World Bank, including a generic PowerPoint presentation on GEF-PAS.

Outputs:

The regional consultants will assist countries to complete and submit templates[1] designed to describe and prioritize the national and regional projects each country considers worthy of inclusion in GEF-PAS.

Each regional consultant will also submit a brief written report on:

§ the processes used by each country to determine the proposed enabling activities, capacity building and investment initiatives that address the national priorities and are eligible for funding by the GEF; and
§ the awareness raising activities undertaken in each country.

The completed templates, supplementary information and a draft report will be submitted to a designated World Bank staff member by October 15, 2007. The final report will be submitted by October 31, 2007.

Estimated Input:

The estimated input by each regional consultant is up to 25 person-days between September 20 and October 31, 2007. In-country activities would need to be completed by October 15, at the latest. One or two of the available days should be reserved for finalization of the written report, upon receipt of comments from stakeholders. The submission of comments to each regional consultant will be coordinated by the World Bank.
[1] See Annex 1.[to be appended]

Comparative Advantages of GEF Implementing Agencies

NB: Samoa is selecting UNDP and ADB as its two main Implementing Agencies (IAs). However, after the programmatic approach/synthesis takes place in Bali tomorrow, it may pan-out that a more regional approach to selecting IAs is taken, including UNEP and World Bank, etc.

For example, UNDP has always assisted Samoa with matters pertaining to biodiversity, and now ADB have considerable experience regionally with energy projects. Anyway, these deliberations will be taking place over the next few days/weeks/months prior to the GEF Secretariat Mtg planned for April, 2008.





Global Environment Facility
GEF/C.31/5 rev.1 June 18, 2007
GEF Council June 12-15, 2007
Agenda Item 11
COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES OF THE GEF AGENCIES
Approved Council Decision
The Council, having reviewed document GEF/C.31/5, Comparative Advantages of the GEF Agencies, notes the description of the comparative advantages of the GEF Agencies presented in the document as guidance for moving forward and requests the Secretariat, in agreement with the country concerned, to assess the comparative advantage of the GEF agency proposed to manage a project during the PIF review. In assessing an agency’s comparative advantage, an agency’s national or regional presence and the national context of the proposed project should be taken into account.
GEF agencies are requested to focus their involvement in GEF project activities within their respective comparative advantages. In specific cases of integrated projects that include components where the expertise and experience of a GEF agency is lacking or weak, the agency should be invited, on the basis of paragraph 28 of the Instrument and previous Council decisions, to partner with another agency and to establish clear complementary roles so that all aspects of the project can be well managed.
The Council agrees that that the categorizations and description of comparative advantages presented in the document should be regularly reviewed by the Council based on an analysis of additional information and assessments of agency and project performance to be generated through the performance and outcome matrix and other reports of the GEF Evaluation Office. The Council also agrees that the comparative advantages of the agencies will need to be reviewed in light of any changes in an agency’s mandate or the conclusions of the UN reform process.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. In December 2006, Council requested the Secretariat to elaborate on the comparative advantages of the GEF agencies, taking into consideration the evaluation of the experience of the Executing Agencies presented to Council by the GEF Evaluation Office. 2. In this paper the Secretariat proposes a typology for the roles and comparative advantages of the GEF agencies in relation to their preparation and management of GEF projects. The typology is based on the main types of GEF interventions as described in the GEF Instrument (i.e. investments; capacity building and technical assistance; and assessments, tools, standards and norms) versus the areas of GEF interventions as described in the GEF focal area strategies. 3. The proposed typology, summarized in paragraph 25 and visualized as a diagram in Annex L, intends to provide a basis for a more clear division of labor and a more level playing field in project activities among the GEF agencies. As decided by Council in December 2006, the actual comparative advantage of a GEF agency to manage a proposed project will be assessed by the Secretariat during the PIF review in view of the specific required expertise, context and external partners. 4. The analysis of the agencies’ comparative advantages is based on information they provided on their institutional mandate in relation to global environmental concerns, their actual capacity for managing GEF projects, and their field presence and contact networks. This information is summarized in annexes to this paper, providing a brief introduction to each agency’s role in the GEF partnership. Information on overall performance in project implementation has not been included in this analysis due to lack of comparable external performance assessments. 5. The categorization and description of the GEF agencies’ comparative advantages for the GEF will evolve over time and will need to be re-analyzed in the future, taking into consideration information generated by the emerging results based management framework for the GEF as well as the performance and outcomes matrix under development by the GEF Evaluation Office, to be presented to Council in December 2007. i
Table of Content
Background.................................................................................................................................... 1 Principles and criteria for assessing comparative advantages ........................................................ 2Approach to analyze the comparative advantages of the GEF agencies ........................................ 4Proposed typology of the roles and comparative advantages of the GEF agencies ....................... 5
Annex A. Asian Development Bank (ADB) ...............................Error! Bookmark not defined. Annex B. African Development Bank (AfDB)............................Error! Bookmark not defined. Annex C. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Annex D. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) ..Error! Bookmark not defined.Annex E. Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) ..................Error! Bookmark not defined.Annex F. International Fund for Agriculture and Development (IFAD) .. Error! Bookmark not
defined.Annex G. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) ...Error! Bookmark not defined.Annex H. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) ...Error! Bookmark not defined.Annex I. United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)Error! Bookmark not
defined.Annex J. World Bank ..................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.Annex K. Web References..........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.Annex L. Comparative Advantage by Focal Area and Type of Intervention............................... 9
BACKGROUND
1. Historically, the Implementing Agencies (UNDP, UNEP and World Bank) have operated according to broadly defined primary roles identified in the GEF Instrument1, whereas the Executing Agencies under Expanded Opportunities (ADB, AfDB, EBRD, IADB, FAO, IFAD and UNIDO) have been granted access to GEF resources through a sequence of Council decisions and have been assigned more definite roles based on specific business needs of the GEF (summarized in GEF/C.19/10, GEF Business Plan, FY03-05). 2. The Executing Agencies have felt constrained by the limited scope of their access to GEF resources under the Policy of Expanded Opportunities, and have found that their expertise and project experience would justify a much wider project role in the GEF. The Executing Agencies also found that a number of structural and procedural barriers hamper the utilization of their full potential as GEF partners. 3. At the Council meeting in December 2006, the GEF Evaluation Office presented an “Evaluation of the experience of Executing Agencies under Expanded Opportunities in the GEF” (GEF/ME/C.30/4). As background material for this evaluation, the Executing Agencies prepared summary descriptions of their respective mandates and capacity related to the GEF. 4. During consultations between the CEO and the agencies in Washington DC in October 2006, it was agreed to move towards a more level playing field in project activities among the GEF agencies. Based on these consultations, it was recommended to Council (cf. GEF/C.30/15) that: (a) The seven Executing Agencies under Expanded Opportunities are granted direct access to GEF project funding based on their comparative advantages. (b) The current corporate budget of the Implementing Agencies will cease to exist by July 2007. At the same time, the project based fee applicable to all GEF Agencies will be increased from 9% to 10%. (c) All GEF Agencies will contribute to the corporate activities of the GEF. (d) All GEF Agencies should focus their involvement in GEF project activities within their respective comparative advantages and assigned primary roles. (e) The comparative advantage of a GEF agency to manage a proposed project will be assessed by the GEF Secretariat, in consultation with the country, during the Project Concept Review. 1 Instrument for the Establishment of the Restructured GEF, May 2004, (Annex D, Paragraph 11, p.36). The primary role for each agency as written in the Instrument is as follows: UNDP “ensuring the development and management of capacity building programs and technical assistance projects”; UNEP “catalyzing the development of scientific and technical analysis and in advancing environmental management in GEF-financed activities”; and the World Bank “ensuring the development and management of investment projects.”
1
5. Council, in its meeting in December 2006, approved these recommendations and requested the Secretariat to further elaborate on the comparative advantages of the agencies in GEF project activities in a paper to be presented to Council in June 2007. This paper has been prepared by the Secretariat in consultation with the GEF agencies. 6. While this document provides for a “level playing field” among the GEF Implementing and Executing Agencies for purposes of managing GEF projects, the Instrument recognizes that the GEF is to operate “on the basis of collaboration and partnership among the Implementing Agencies”. Indeed, the latter were core partners in the design and foundation of the GEF. During FY08, the Secretariat will engage the three Implementing Agencies to elaborate and clarify the basis of their fundamental corporate partnership, taking into account the evolution of GEF policies and procedures since the Instrument was adopted, as well as their unique overarching and global function with relation to development and the global environment. The CEO has agreed with the three Implementing Agencies to hold biannual “summit” meetings after each Council meeting, thus fulfilling paragraph 23 of the Instrument. Principles and criteria for assessing comparative advantages
7. At the corporate level, GEF is a partnership organization that brings together a wide range of experience, expertise and contact networks in order to achieve broader institutional and programmatic goals. All of this allows the GEF to have a broader outreach than would have been possible from one agency alone. Furthermore, the partnership facilitates an exchange of experience and ideas for the mutual benefit of all the agencies. 8. GEF’s actual interventions are, on the other hand, predominantly project based, and for the sake of efficiency the preparation and implementation of each project is normally assigned to a single agency. The conditions in terms of country context, needs for different types of expertise, external partners and sources of co-financing will change over time and will vary from one project to another. 9. The elaboration of the comparative advantages of the GEF agencies provided by this paper therefore focuses on agencies’ ability to develop and manage the different types of projects within the GEF portfolio, in order to establish a clear division of labor among the agencies. This does not by any means intend to create barriers for cross-fertilization and synergies among the agencies at the corporate level. 10. The Operational Strategy of the GEF emphasizes country ownership and stakeholder involvement as fundamental operational principles. The principle of country drivenness implies that the countries will have a strong influence on the selection of the most competent and relevant partners for a given project activity, in view of existing and envisaged national policies, programs, capacity, and capacity needs. The Resource Allocation Framework (RAF) will further strengthen the role of countries in project preparation and design. 11. The principles of country drivenness and project focus of the GEF interventions do not preclude defining a common set of guiding criteria for the assessment of the potential role of agencies in project preparation and implementation. Such guiding criteria should apply equally 2
to Implementing Agencies and to Executing Agencies, and they should be aligned with the objectives that reflect the value added to the GEF, as set forth in the Policy on Expanded Opportunities:
(a) Increasing the capacity of the GEF to address strategic operational needs, including in new and emerging areas, and to respond to country driven priorities and the requirements of the conventions; (b) Increasing the diversity of experience from which the GEF can draw for innovative interventions in operational program areas; and (c) Leveraging additional resources for the protection of the global environment by expanding the GEF’s capacity to mobilize financial and technical resources and co-financing for its projects.” 12. The GEF agencies’ comparative advantages in preparing and managing GEF projects should be assessed in consideration of the following elements: (a) The agency’s institutional role and core functions as described in its official mandate and mission statement and policies approved by its governing body; (b) The agency’s actual capacity, expertise and experience as reflected in its business plan and portfolio of completed and ongoing projects, GEF as well as non-GEF; (c) The agency’s ability to ensure delivery and management of projects through field presence or well-established contact networks at the national or regional level; and (d) The agency’s overall performance in implementing projects. 13. The GEF Instrument defines three major types of GEF interventions as a basis for assigning primary roles to the three Implementing Agencies: (a) Capacity building and technical assistance; (b) Technical and scientific analysis in the context of environmental assessments, development and demonstration of tools and methods and policy frameworks; and (c) Investment related interventions. 14. The distinction between these three types of interventions has become less evident as GEF projects and programs have moved towards more integrated approaches to achieve global environmental benefits through a combination of capacity building, assessment and investment. Nevertheless, the types of interventions listed above still reflect the diversity of the GEF portfolio, and most GEF projects will have a main focus in one of the three categories, although for instance investment projects will often also include elements of capacity building. For the purpose of defining comparative advantages, investment projects include interventions where GEF grant funding is linked to or mimics loan operations or guarantees on commercial or quasi3
commercial conditions. Similarly, interventions within the capacity building category could include building capacity in innovative financing schemes for e.g. payment for ecosystem services and market transformations. Likewise, interventions related to assessments and development of tools and norms would usually include elements of capacity building and technical assistance.
15. Another way of defining the roles and comparative advantages of the GEF agencies is by disaggregating the GEF portfolio along the focal areas. In December 2006, Council requested the Secretariat to lead a revision of the focal area strategies for GEF-4, in accordance with the policy recommendations for the Fourth Replenishment. Revised focal area strategies are presented to Council in a separate document (GEF/C.31/10) proposing a strategic focus within each focal area on a limited set of strategic programs for GEF-4. Approach to analyze the comparative advantages of the GEF agencies
16. Based on information collected for each of the agencies, and reviewed and commented on by the respective agencies during the process, the Secretariat has developed a typology for the comparative advantages of the GEF agencies on the two-dimensional field defined by the types of GEF interventions according to the GEF Instrument versus the areas of interventions as expressed by the focal areas and strategic programs for GEF-4. 17. The first step of the analysis was to collect comparable information on the ten GEF agencies with respect to their institutional mandate and capacity to prepare and implement GEF projects. The contributions from the Executing Agencies to the “Evaluation of Experience of Executing Agencies under Expanded Opportunities in the GEF” (posted on the EO website as an annex to a technical background paper for the evaluation) was used as a basis. Comparable information was collected for the Implementing Agencies, based on the contributions from the Implementing Agencies during the preparation of previous Council documents on the comparative advantages and complementary roles of the GEF agencies. The information was corroborated by the Secretariat through an assessment of information available on the agencies’ websites. This information is summarized in annexes A – J to this paper. 18. These annexes do not primarily describe the agencies’ comparative advantages; rather they intend to provide relevant concise information about the agencies. The summary descriptions of the agencies’ mandate to work on global environmental issues has been validated by assessing their respective strategy and policy papers as approved by the governing bodies and posted on the organizations’ web sites. This gives a strong indication of how important and central global environmental issues are to the mission of each agency, as well as an indication of the coverage of this mission across the focal areas of the GEF. 19. The agencies’ capacity to develop and manage different types of projects relies not only on the agencies’ portfolio of GEF projects, but inasmuch on the expertise and experience derived from preparing and implementing projects outside the GEF as documented through the agencies business plans and annual reports. The existence of environmental and social safeguard procedures is an important aspect, especially for investment projects. Some of the agencies have fully developed safeguards policies that are accessible to the public while others have indicated that they have internal procedures or are in the process of developing explicit policies. 4
20. The Operational Strategy of the GEF emphasizes country ownership and stakeholder involvement as fundamental operational principles. The Resource Allocation Framework (RAF) will further strengthen the role of countries in project preparation and design. The agencies’ presence and contact networks at country level are therefore important criteria for assessing their capacity to assist countries in preparing and implementing GEF projects. 21. The annexes do not include information on the performance of the agencies. This aspect, although relevant for the assessment of comparative advantages, was excluded from this analysis following advice from the GEF Evaluation Office, pointing out the lack of comparable external performance assessments covering all GEF agencies. A Performance and Outcomes Matrix of the GEF Agencies will be presented to Council in December 2007 as requested at the replenishment negotiations. This matrix will be part of the GEF Annual Performance Report (APR) that provides most if not all the relevant performance measures. Annex D of the APR 2006, under discussion at this Council meeting, presents a first proposal for this matrix for Council discussion. The proposal covers 15 performance parameters in five major areas: Results, Processes affecting Results, Efficiency, Quality of M&E and Learning. Since this matrix will rate Agencies performance across their entire portfolio, it can only provide guidance for the assessment of comparative advantages. The performance and outcome matrix under development by the GEF Evaluation Office will only cover GEF projects; additional information on the overall performance of the agencies may be obtained from external sources, such as the MOPAN studies2 and the DFID assessment of multilateral organizational effectiveness.3 22. Based on the information on each agency provided in Annexes A - J and further corroborated by additional information provided by the agencies (references provided in Annex K), the comparative advantage of each agency was derived in terms of their ability to prepare and implement GEF projects with respect to the different types of projects and the different program areas of the GEF portfolio. 23. Each project will pose its own requirements in terms of expertise, experience and coordination, and the conditions in terms of country context, external partners and sources of cofinancing will change over time and will vary from one project to another. Furthermore, the principle of country drivenness implies that the countries will have a strong influence on the selection of the most competent and relevant partners for a given project activity, in view of existing and envisaged national policies, programs, capacity, and capacity needs. As a consequence, the strength of a specific agency to implement a specific project needs to be validated for each case. As decided by Council in December 2006, the comparative advantage of a GEF agency to manage a proposed project will be assessed by the GEF Secretariat, in agreement with the country, during the PIF Review, taking into account the country context, the agency’s relations with the country, and the co-financing and leverage provided. Proposed typology of the roles and comparative advantages of the GEF agencies
24. The proposed typology of the roles and comparative advantages of the GEF agencies vis-à-vis the types and areas of GEF interventions is visualized in the table shown in Annex L. The 2 The Multilateral Organisations Performance Assessment Network, Annual Synthesis Reports (2004, 2005, 2006). 3 Scott, Alison, “DFID’s Assessment of Multilateral Organisational Effectiveness: An Overview of Results” (2005).
5
matrix takes the three types of interventions defined in the GEF Instrument – capacity/technical assistance, assessments and scientific and technical analysis, and investments – and crosses them against each of the focal areas (and strategic programs for the large focal areas). It should be emphasized that such a schematic presentation can only give an approximate indication of the extent of each agency’s comparative advantage. It must also be noted, that the concept of comparative advantage by its very nature is relative – the absence of an agency in any of the cells in the table in Annex 12 does not imply that this agency has no expertise or experience in that particular field; it just implies that another agency seems to have stronger expertise and experience to prepare and implement GEF projects.
25. In terms of the types of interventions, for the three original Implementing Agencies, UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank, the type of project roles as specified in the Instrument have remained the same. For the Regional Development Banks (ADB, AfDB, IDB, ERDB), as for the World Bank, their comparative advantage lies in investment projects at the country or multi-country level. For all of the Banks, their comparative advantage will be weighed against the level of co-financing they provide, primarily through their own financial sources, secondarily from external sources. With respect to the specialized UN agencies (FAO, IFAD, UNIDO) their comparative advantages are categorized more strongly along the focal areas. With the exception of IFAD which has an additional role in investments, the UN specialized agencies’ project interventions fall within capacity building/technical assistance or assessment/scientific and technical analysis interventions. 26. Overall, the specific comparative advantage for each agency is as follows: (a) ADB’s comparative advantage for the GEF includes investment projects at the country and multi-country level in Asia as well as the ability to incorporate capacity building and technical assistance into its projects. ADB has strong experience in the fields of energy efficiency, renewable energy, adaptation to climate change and natural resources management including water and sustainable land management. (b) AfDB’s comparative advantage for the GEF lies in its capacity as a regional development bank. The AfDB is, however, in the initial stages of tackling global environmental issues. Its environmental policy has only recently been approved and is in the process of being integrated into operations. The AfDB will focus on establishing a track record for environmental projects related to the GEF focal areas of Climate Change (adaptation, renewable energy and energy efficiency), Land Degradation (deforestation, desertification) and International Waters (water management and fisheries). (c) EBRD’s comparative advantage for the GEF lies in its experience and track record in market creation and transformation, and ensuring sustainability through private sector (including small and medium-sized enterprises) and municipal environmental infrastructure projects at the country and regional level in the countries of eastern and central Europe and central Asia, especially in the fields of energy efficiency, mainstreaming of biodiversity and water management. 6
(d) FAO’s comparative advantage for the GEF is its technical capacity and experience in fisheries, forestry, agriculture, and natural resources management. The FAO has strong experience in sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity, bioenergy, biosafety, sustainable development in production landscapes, and integrated pest and pesticides management. (e) IDB’s comparative advantage for the GEF includes investment projects at the country and regional level in Latin America and the Caribbean. IDB finances operations related to the following GEF focal areas: Biodiversity (protected areas, marine resources, forestry, biotechnology), Climate Change (including biofuels), International Waters (watershed management), Land Degradation (erosion control), and POPs (pest management). (f) IFAD’s comparative advantage for the GEF lies in its work related to land degradation, rural sustainable development, integrated land management, and its role in the implementation of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. IFAD has been working intensively in marginal lands, degraded ecosystems and in post-conflict situations. (g) UNDP’s comparative advantage for the GEF lies in its global network of country offices, its experience in integrated policy development, human resources development, institutional strengthening, and non-governmental and community participation. UNDP assists countries in promoting, designing and implementing activities consistent with both the GEF mandate and national sustainable development plans. UNDP also has extensive inter-country programming experience. (h) UNEP’s comparative advantage for the GEF is related to its being the only United Nations organization with a mandate derived from the General Assembly to coordinate the work of the United Nations in the area of environment and whose core business is the environment. UNEP’s comparative strength is in providing the GEF with a range of relevant experiences, proof of concept, testing of ideas, and the best available science and knowledge upon which it can base its investments. It also serves as the Secretariat to three of the MEAs, for which GEF is the/a financial mechanism. UNEP’s comparative advantage also includes its ability to serve as a broker in multi-stakeholder consultations. (i) UNIDO’s comparative advantage for the GEF is that it can involve the industrial sector in GEF projects in the following areas: industrial energy efficiency, renewable energy services, water management, chemicals management (including POP and ODS), and biotechnology. UNIDO also has extensive knowledge of small and medium enterprises (SME’s) in developing and transition economy countries. (j) The World Bank’s comparative advantage for the GEF is as a leading international financial institution at the global scale in a number of sectors, similar to the comparative advantage of the regional development banks. The 7
World Bank has strong experience in investment lending focusing on institution building, infrastructure development and policy reform, across all the focal areas of the GEF.
27. GEF Agencies should focus their involvement in GEF project activities within their respective comparative advantages. As all ten GEF agencies acquire direct access to GEF project funding within their respective comparative advantages, they may involve external organizations in the preparation and execution of GEF projects, in accordance with paragraph 28 of the GEF Instrument. The involved GEF agency retains the primary responsibility for project preparation and execution. [In exceptional cases of integrated projects where the required expertise and experience cannot be covered by one GEF Agency alone, partnerships with other GEF Agencies must be established with clear complementary roles, so that all aspects of the projects can be well managed.] 28. The categorizations and description of comparative advantages presented in this paper will evolve over time, and will need to be reanalyzed periodically in the future. Agencies’ experience and expertise develop over time and new strategic program areas will be developed for each future replenishment period. In addition, the UN reform process is still in an early stage and is likely to further clarify and possibly modify the roles of the UN agencies. Furthermore, the performance and Outcome Matrix under development by the GEF Evaluation Office as well as the Results management framework under development by the GEF Secretariat will enable an inclusion of project performance in the basis for assessing the agencies’ comparative advantages. It is therefore suggested that the comparative advantages of the GEF agencies be re-assessed when the strategic programming areas for GEF-5 is determined. 8
ANNEX L. COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE BY FOCAL AREA AND TYPE OF INTERVENTION
FOCAL AREA INTERVENTION TYPE Investment Capacity Building/Technical Assistance Scientific and technical analysis, assessment, monitoring/tools, standards, and norms BIODIVERSITY Sustainability of Protected Area Systems ADB, IDB, AfDB UNEPProduction Landscapes/ Seascapes & sectors WB ADB, IDB, EBRD UNDP FAO UNEP, IFAD FAO Access & Benefits Sharing ADB UNEP Biosafety UNIDO, UNEP UNIDO CLIMATE CHANGE Energy-Efficient Buildings/Industry EBRD, IDB UNIDO, UNEP UNIDO Market Approaches Renewable Energy WB ADB EBRD, IDB, AfDB UNDP UNIDO, UNEP UNEP Sustainable Transport EBRD, IDB UNEP Biomass for Energy IFAD, IDB, AfDB IFAD, FAO, UNIDO FAO LAND DEGRADATION SLM Agriculture and Rangelands WB ADB AfDB UNDP FAO FAO SLM Forests IDB IFAD FAO UNEP FAO Innovative Approaches to SLM IFAD INTERNATIONAL WATERS WB, ADB, IDB, EBRD UNDP, FAO, UNIDO, UNEP UNEP FAO PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS (POPS) WB, ADB, IDB UNDP, FAO, UNIDO, UNEP UNEP, FAO OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES WB UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO UNEP SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT* ADB. IDB, IFAD, WB FAO UNEP, FAO INTEGRATED WB, ADB, IDB UNDP, FAO, UNIDO, UNEP UNEP, FAO
9
CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT Note: *Cross-cutting theme, not an independent focal area

G-PAS Project Identification Forms (PIFs)

Samoa has prepared its 6 national priority draft PIFs for consideration by the GEF Secretariat and relevant GEF Implementing Agencies (IAs) at the Bali UNFCCC Conference 4-12th December, 2007.


The following 6 GEF and Italian-funded proposals are:

1. Energy Efficiency in the Transport Sector (Italian funded)

2. Greenhouse Gas Abatement through Energy Efficiency in the Electricity and Building Sectors and Biofuel Applications

3. Integrated Climate Change Adaptation in Samoa

4. Sustainable Management of Forest Resources on Savaii Island

5. Sustainable Management of Coastal Resources at Vaiusu Bay

6. Sustainable Management of Chemical and Carbon Releases in the Tourism Sector

The Italian-funded proposal (Energy Efficiency in the Transport Sector) is to be funded separately from G-PAS and a decision may be made at the Climate Change Meeting in Bali in December 2007.

The other 5 G-PAS proposals may be further reviewed and re-synthesized again at this meeting in Bali at the G-PAS side-event. However, the following 6 postings display each draft PIF proposal as presented to G-PAS for consideration.

ACTIVITY 10 - Encourage inter-agency/ministry committee meetings

This G-PAS Country Support Programme (CSP) Work Plan Activity is addressed in this posting and will be constantly updated to help increase coordination among national agencies with a view to ensuring greater country ownership and a cohesive approach across the govt to global environmental issues and GEF support.

10. Establish and participate in inter-agency/ministry committee meetings

Samoa's G-PAS Country Support Programme Work Plan (2007-2011)

ANNUAL WORK PLAN adopted November 2007

COUNTRY: Samoa

MOU Reference No: GFL 2328-2780-4XXX-2201-ID XXX

Country activities
A - Increase awareness of the GEF strategic priorities, policies and programs

1. Develop more effective GEF related communication and outreach strategies

2. Prepare GEF national information packages

3. Access to and translation of GEF documents into Samoan language

4. Workshops on GEF policies and procedures

5. Media training for GEF Focal Points

6. Workshop to acquaint media personnel



B - Create institutional memory of GEF policies and programs in the appropriate government ministry

1. Organize workshops, training courses and field visits for respective Executing Agency (EA) staff

2. Create GEF information database in relevant EA (e.g. G-PAS Country Support Programme BLOG)

3. Conduct regular presentations on GEF projects in the relevant government ministries



c - Increase coordination among national agencies with a view to ensuring greater country ownership and a cohesive approach across the govt to global environmental issues and GEF support

1. Establish and participate in inter-agency/ministry committee meetings





Prepared and approved by the GEF Operational Focal Point for Samoa, Tuuu Dr. Ieti Taulealo
























Name: Tuuu Dr. Ieti Taulealo

Signed:


Approved by the designated officer of Ministry of Natural resources and Environment

Review of the Strategy for the Development of Samoa - Dec 2007

Samoa is currently reviewing its 3-Year Stategy for the Development of Samoa (SDS) 2005-2007, however, in the past this review process has only occurred once every 3 years. The new SDS (2008-2012) is a 4-Year document and is now to be reviewed annually because of the urgent need to harmonize all of Samoa's development projects, programmes and processes.

Because of G-PAS, and because Samoa has submitted over $USD10million worth of project proposals (see following postings), it is important that all the activities highlighted in these G-PAS Proposals are recorded or at least acknowledged within the new SDS (2008-2012).

In addition, Samoa has now become a recipient of the G-PAS Country Support Programme for the following 4 years (2007-2011), and a detailed WorkPlan has been approved in order to create greater awareness in-country of the current G-PAS endeavours over the next 4 years (see next posting).

This GEF-PAS Country Support Programme Blog, therefore, acts to help create the awareness of G-PAS activities and goals.