GEF EXPANDED CONSTITUENCY WORKSHOP. South Asia and China WORKSHOP SUMMARY REPORT 5-7 APRIL 2011 SAIGON HOTEL DA LAT VIETNAM

Transcription

1 GEF EXPANDED CONSTITUENCY WORKSHOP South Asia and China WORKSHOP SUMMARY REPORT 5-7 APRIL 2011 SAIGON HOTEL DA LAT VIETNAM

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview... 3 Opening ceremony... 3 Workshop objectives, Agenda and Materials Resources:... 3 Session GEF - An Introduction (history, structure) GEF 5 System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR)... 5 Session GEF Project Cycle and the Programmatic Approach... 6 Session GEF and the Conventions... 7 Session Country Support Programme... 8 Session Session GEF Focal Areas and Cross Cutting Strategies GEF Agencies Panel Session Pre-PIF Process How to prepare a PIF Session Monitoring and Evaluation Session Closing Ceremony

3 OVERVIEW Welcoming Remarks Government of Vietnam GEF Secretariat Chair: Van Tai Nguyen, Vietnam OFP Dr. Tran Hong Ha - Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and Environment Mr. Nguyen Van Yen - Vice President of Lam Dong province William Ehlers Introduction to the Workshop Objectives, Agenda, Materials and Resources Chair: Van Tai Nguyen, Vietnam OFP GEF Secretariat William Ehlers OPENING CEREMONY The meeting was opened with welcoming remarks by the GEF Operation Focal Point from Vietnam, Van Tai Nguyen, followed by the opening speeches from H.E. Tran Hong Ha, Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and Environment, and Mr. Nguyen Van Yen, Vice President of Lam Dong province, where the workshop took place. The Deputy Minister first welcomed the participants to the country and expressed his gratitude to the GEF Secretariat and participating countries for accepting to have the meeting in Vietnam. He noted the importance of the GEF resources in the combat against climate change and biodiversity conservation in this sub-region, and encouraged participants to work towards efficient use of their individual country allocations. Mr. Nguyen Van Yen, Vice President of Lam Dong province, welcomed everybody to Da Lat, and pointed out the importance of the environment and natural resources in Lam Dong province, where forest coverage accounts for 70 per cent of the total area. Introductory remarks by the GEF Secretariat were presented by Mr. William Ehlers, who noted that the Expanded Constituency Meeting is taking place in the context of the record replenishment for the GEF5 (US $4.34 billion) and that it constitutes part of the reformed Country Support Program by the GEF Secretariat. He welcomed everyone to the meeting and urged participants to work together toward delivering quality projects and results. WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES, AGENDA AND MATERIALS RESOURCES: GEF Secretariat presented introduction to workshop objectives and agenda and noted the new feature of the meeting, which is bringing together not only GEF Operational Focal Points of the constituency, but also Rio Conventions (CBD, UNCCD and UNFCCC) Focal Points. The objective of the meeting is to keep these stakeholders abreast of GEF strategies, policies and procedures and to encourage coordination. The meeting agenda was approved by participants with one modification: it was requested that the 3

4 session 9 on GEF and Civil Society could be presented at the end of the first day, replacing session 5 on Small Grants Program, which would be presented at the end of the second day. GEF Secretariat indicated that all the material related to the different sessions of the meeting will distributed to the participants at the end of the second day on a flash drive. Participants were also invited to an Informal Anniversary Reception at the end of the day to celebrate 20th Anniversary of the GEF. SESSION 1 GEF - An Introduction (history, structure) GEF 5 System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR) Chair: Hem Kumar Pande, India OFP Rapporteur: Max Zieren, UNEP GEF Secretariat William Ehlers Chair: Hem Kumar Pande, India OFP Rapporteur: Max Zieren, UNEP GEF Secretariat Minna Kononen 1.1 GEF - AN INTRODUCTION (HISTORY, STRUCTURE) This session was dedicated to the introduction to the GEF followed by discussion. The presentation by the GEF Secretariat summarized the history and the role of GEF, its mission, the focal areas, cross cutting issues and their funding allocations, linkages with Global Environment Benefits (GEB), the LDCF and SCCF Funds, organizational structure of the GEF and the GEF Agencies. Questions and some concerns expressed included: Need for Capacity Building specifically to LDC countries, e.g. on access to Adaptation funds, SSCF and LDCF funding, as well as preparation of GEF concepts. However, most GEF projects do already involve capacity building as a standard practice. GEFSEC responded that countries can access the $44 million of set aside funds for capacity building; Given the rather small GEF 5 allocation to LD, an integrated Multi-focal-area approach is expected and advised in order to pay adequate attention to the severe problems and impacts of LD to the global poor (communities and local economies); More information and support needed on the delivery mechanisms on SCCF/LDCF funding of adaptation projects, including on how to combine with STAR resources; Concern that donor community, still partially, sets the direction of funding and its use, e.g. on LD 4

5 Although GEF 5 received a very good replenishment and is country driven, countries should realize that there is a great gap between need and available resources, and as such should carefully plan, execute and monitor projects and their expenditures, including their incremental cost reasoning. 1.2 GEF 5 SYSTEM FOR TRANSPARENT ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES (STAR) The presentation by the GEF secretariat gave a comprehensive overview of the new allocation system under GEF5, including a number of significant changes compared to the RAF under GEF 4. Participants were advised to contact GEF for more detailed information on how their national allocations were calculated. Questions centered around topics on requesting more clarification on set asides (how to apply, what is included and how much funding is available), on preparing and financing regional projects, and getting more clarification on flexibility rule. More detailed questions included a.o.: Principles behind the STAR allocation whether that is what a country does contribute to the global environment or rather what a country needs in order to do so? More clarity was requested on Set Aside Funds, their use and country application, including on facilitating multi-country/regional projects, any formula as against STAR (like with SFM)? Also whether country endorsement letters are needed on multi-country projects using SAF? Confusion whether the 10% cap set on STAR allocations has affected countries allocations? GEFSEC responded that in fact, this cap affects only one country. Meaning of first come first serve basis in constituting a Work Program, as countries became concerned that that may affect their chances of using their STAR allocation. It was clarified that this means projects are reviewed on rolling basis. More guidance on co-finance levels, what counts.. etc was requested. The GEF Secretariat mentioned that there will be a policy paper clarifying different issues related to co-financing. Are EA SAF funds on LD available for project activities or not (indeed meant for reporting). GEF NGO network coordinator noted that the level of access CSOs to GEF funding has dropped since introduction RAF during GEF 4, probably because GEF (4 & 5) is now more in hand of country governments, and NPFE may not always pay attention to this. It was recommended that GEF Secretariat and individual countries pay more attention to this matter. With regards to the calculating resource allocation it was also suggested to apply the principle of green accounting into the GDP-based performance index during the next replenishment of GEF. And a statement was made that in GEF countries who do well on the field of environment are not really awarded, e.g. Bhutan. 5

6 SESSION 2 GEF Project Cycle and Review Process and the GEF Programmatic Approach Chair: Chee Ching Wong, Malaysia Rapporteur: Jiang Ru, World Bank GEF Secretariat Ulrich Appel 2.1 GEF PROJECT CYCLE AND THE PROGRAMMATIC APPROACH A presentation was made by the GEF Secretariat on the process of preparing and submitting projects to the GEF as well as on Programmatic Approach. For Programmatic approach, the projects and programmes must compliment the priorities of the countries involved such as national strategies etc. GEF tries to verify this as they are working with the OFPs. Questions and answers session that followed focused on more detailed information on the co-financing requirements, different agency procedures (differences between e.g. The World Bank, UNDP, FAO) as well as on procedures and future changes in preparing Enabling Activities. Some of the questions included: What is the reason for the PIF to ask for information on project risks; would GEF not support risky projects? The answer was that the risk section was to better identify and thus mitigate the risks. It was also noted that GEF support many innovative activities which by nature are activities with higher risks. Does OFP need to endorse enabling activities and what templates should be used? GEFSEC confirmed that OFP s endorsement is necessary and there are two templates available: one used when the country applies for using the direct access approach and the other for using GEF implementing agencies. What are the frequencies of project review and approval and how long is the review process? GEFSEC clarified that PIF submission is on a rolling basis. For FSP, PIF will have to be approved by the Council through Work Programs, which are either organized for two Council meetings (one in April and another in November), or organized as intersessional between the two Council Meetings based on the approved GEF procedures. Resources are set aside after Council approval. It was also clarified that GEFSEC has a business standard for review time: 10 business days. How is the new MSP project cycle and does it apply if a PPG requested to GEFCEO? It was clarified that GEFCEO will see both PIF and PPG if PPG is required. If there is no PPG request, the country can submit the full project document for approval. It was also asked whether MSP limit 6

7 has increased from $1 to 2 million, on which GEF Secretariat noted that the proposal was not approved by the Council; Could GEF Council review and approve the GEF implementing agency project cycles to streamlining GEF processing? It was clarified that this would not be possible, as different agencies have different project processing requirements; How to handle problems on changes in co-financing or project activities after PIF approval? It was explained that PIF has provided only indicative co-financing and outcome/outputs. At the CEO endorsement stage, any changes from the approved PIF should be well explained and justified Further information was requested on how the country could use GEF 5 policies to apply for direct access to enabling activities and how the grant agreement will be signed between OFP and GEF? GEFSEC explained that the procedures were yet to be finalized. However, it is expected that the processing will be similar to NPFE processes. In any case, the country would have to identify national institutions that could meet the requirements of FM and Procurement assessments. With regards to the two programmatic approaches(qualifying v.s. coordination), there was a question on how the country should select the best agency to work with. GEFSEC clarified the comparative advantages of agencies and how the country should review technical expertise, previous performance, and ongoing activities of each agency to make a selection. SESSION 3 GEF and the conventions: 1. Reports to the conventions 2. Technology Transfer 3. Adaptation Fund Chair: Chee Ching Wong, Malaysia Rapporteur: Barbara Cooney, FAO GEF Secretariat William Ehlers 3.1 GEF AND THE CONVENTIONS During this session the GEF Secretariat presented the technical aspects of technology transfer and the linkages between the different conventions on Climate Change, Biodiversity, Chemicals and Land Degradation, including the Adaptation Fund. The following discussion sought to clarify some of the issues relating to Enabling Activities, such as modalities and co-financing. GEF Secretariat responded that direct access will be available shortly for preparing Convention reports on Climate Change, Biodiversity and Land Degradation. Further clarification was provided that countries may access funding for the 7

8 National Communication through direct access, for sums up to 500,000 US dollars. For amounts beyond that they must go through an Agency. With regards to the Adaptation Fund, participants were interested in knowing more about differences and similarities between AF and SCCF/LDCF, and the accreditation process for organizations receiving money from the AF. SESSION 4 Country Support Programme Chair: Lal Shanker Ghimire, Nepal OFP Rapporteur: Huong Thi Nguyen, FAO GEF Secretariat Minna Kononen 4.1 COUNTRY SUPPORT PROGRAMME GEF Secretariat presented the renewed Country Support Program, that includes the National Portfolio Formulation Exercise, Direct Support to Operational Focal Points, Multi-stakeholder Dialogue, Expanded Constituency-level Workshops, Constituency Meetings, Knowledge management and Familiarization Seminars. Concern was expressed on the time it takes to process the NPFE citing the experiences of some of the countries in this sub-region. GEF Secretariat explained that whereas there are many steps to be followed, in accordance with the procedures of the World Bank Small grants, GEF Secretariat is working towards improved processing based on the experiences we have had until now. Participants also requested copies of the any NPFE s that have been carried out and GEF Secretariat confirmed that some examples (e.g. from Chile and soon from India) are available on the GEF website. Participants also wanted to know how to access the support for the Operational Focal points ($9,000), and what are the requirements. GEF Secretariat confirmed that the support is available on Annual Basis, based on an Annual Work Plan and pointed out that it needs to be submitted together with the progress report of the previous Annual Work Plan, and that it is important to see continuity and progress in activities carried out by the OFP. On the request to include someone from the region for the next Familiarization seminar, GEF Secretariat confirmed that there were many new people and that GEF would hold organize another Familiarization seminar in the middle of the year. All interested participants were encouraged to get in touch with the Country officer. 8

9 SESSION 5 GEF and Civil Society Chair: Altangerel Enkhbat, OFP Mongolia Rapporteur: Sanjaya Shrestha, UNIDO GEF Secretariat William Ehlers GEF Secretariat s presentation on GEF s Partnership with Civil Society Organizations outlined GEF policies on involvement with civil society organizations and highlighted the role the civil society organizations can play in the GEF projects for better performance and impact at the ground level. GEF NGO network coordinator, Mr. Faizal, briefly provided information on the key principles of the GEF public participation policy, enhancing engagement of CSOs in GEF 5 and some key concerns of CSOs. During the questions and answers session, there were queries primarily regarding the GEF NGO Network as well as on the different ways to involve CSOs in the project design and implementation. To the queries on the involvement of CSOs in the GEF projects, baseline and hosting of projects, GEF Secretariat clarified that CSOs should be involved in all GEF projects wherever possible and 20% of GEF projects have gone to CSOs and the rest to the Governments who again involve CSOs as partners in the projects. The CSOs are looking into critical problems including the baseline and are managing to leverage cofinancing from other CSOs in a number of countries. It s up to the Governments to decide how to work together with the CSOs in the projects. The World Bank representative, Mr. Jian Ru, provided some information on their experience dealing with the CSOs especially with the WWF in the implementation of conservation projects. He noted that the CSOs need to demonstrate their utility at the country level and at the same time respect country s decisions pertaining to the GEF projects. He expressed his views that both CSOs and NGOs are narrowly defined and there should be accreditation of CSOs by the GEF to ensure quality and wide variation for balanced representation. The representative from Sri Lanka stated that the Sri Lanka Nature Foundation have received funds from the GEF through the SGP and are looking funds from other agencies including IUCN. GEF NGO network coordinator expressed his views that he is also looking for similar network as the one in Sri Lanka. To the question on difference between a typical CSO project and government engaged CSO project, accreditation of CSOs and submission of projects, GEF Secretariat clarified that there is already GEF NGO Network representing CSOs and there is room for other CSOs to become a part of this network. The CSOs can share their information, expertise and experience through this network. The GEF doesn t have the capacity to follow up accreditation part so it s better that interested CSOs be part of the GEF NGO Network. On the issue of projects handled by CSO directly and indirectly through government engaged project, it s not that one is better than other. CSOs can be partner in any project and bring their experience and leverage funds. It was also clarified that the projects are to be submitted by CSOs through the GEF Focal Point. 9

10 GEF NGO Network Coordinator provided some required information on the part of CSOs to become eligible for participation in the GEF projects that include: non-profit nature, constitution, registered, track record of 3 years in the relevant field, willingness to work and share information for network, recommendation by GEF agency, financial status and peer review. GEF Secretariat explained that CSOs accredited by UNCCD should not be automatically part of other networks. Rather, there should be real contribution from CSOs. SESSION 6 GEF Focal Area and Cross Cutting Strategies Q&A GEF Agencies Panel Topic: Sustainable Forest Management Q&A Chair: Lonh Heal, Cambodia OFP Rapporteur: Nguyen Thi My Hoang, UNIDO GEF Secretariat Ulrich Apel, William Ehlers GEF Agencies Barbara Cooney, FAO; Martin Krause, UNDP; Jiang Ru, World Bank; Max Zieren, UNEP Chair: Lonh Heal, Cambodia OFP Rapporteur: GEF Secretariat GEF Secretariat Ulrich Apel, Minna Kononen GEF Agencies Barbara Cooney, FAO; Martin Krause, UNDP; Jiang Ru, World Bank; Max Zieren, UNEP 6.1 GEF FOCAL AREAS AND CROSS CUTTING STRATEGIES This session included 4 presentations by the Agencies. UNDP made a presentation on Climate change mitigation, UNEP talked about Biodiversity, FAO presented International Waters and the World Bank made presentation on Chemicals. Additionally, GEFSEC presented Land Degradation, Multilateral REDD- Plus financing as well as GEF strategic approach to Capacity Building. During questions and answers more clarity was requested on the type of projects that are eligible under Biodiversity focal area (e.g. tourism), on transportation projects, how to access funds available on Sustainable Forest Management etc. Some of the specific questions included: More details on the use of funds and areas covered under Biodiversity focal area? Could a project on tourism be developed under Biodiversity/ Ecosystem/Landscape? UNEP clarified that tourism project should make linkages with biodiversity to become eligible for the GEF funds. World Bank representative added that tourism integration should be shown in biodiversity including adaptation, removal of barriers, policy framework and partnership building in the 10

11 projects. He cited examples of two projects the World Bank is implementing on Ecosystems and referred to the website: Is there any biodiversity mapping done at the ground level available in any part of the world? Is there any technology to take care of top-soil without disturbing biodiversity? For this UNEP gave an example of Smith initiative on biodiversity stated that already 50 hectares of plot have under plantations. It was noted that the top soil can be taken out for mining activities; however, they need to be brought back after mining operation completion As research activities are excluded from the GEF funding, more details were requested on climate change activities funded by the GEF. UNDP responded that there are not enough funds to look into every aspect of technology development, demonstration, diffusion and commercialization for scaling up the application of renewable technology and energy efficiency measures. It was further added that the GEF basically invests on enabling activities that include removal of barriers on policy, market, technology, capacity; awareness etc so that the project can lead to a process of sustainability and replication of its efforts after the completion of the GEF projects. If markets are looking for some funding options, they can venture into CDM and other climate related funds. Should a project on transportation cover areas of energy, water and urban systems? UNDP informed that the GEF has realized that only a comprehensive transportation project can remove transport related barriers. The co-financing can cover other activities not directly linked to transportation per se but it s a component of the whole project. To a query on accessing knowledge created by the GEF projects, GEF Secretariat noted that the GEF fully agrees on the need for a comprehensive knowledge management strategy and they are sincerely working on it. It s already available in part at the GEF website. In response to applying for SFM incentives, GEF Secretariat responded that funds are available on the first come first serve basis, but the GEF will also look into other issues such as balancing geographic regions, avoiding overlaps, effectiveness in terms of GHG reductions etc GEF AGENCIES PANEL The second part of the session 6 was covered by the Panel discussion among Agencies on Sustainable Forest Management in this sub-region. The topic for the panel discussion was chosen based on the survey carried out by the GEF Secretariat before the workshop, and the objective of the session was to provide the Agencies an opportunity to talk about their comparative advantages with this important topic. The session was opened and moderated by the GEF Secretariat after which each agency discussed their existing projects and programs on SFM and REDD+ type of activities as well as opportunities and challenges for possible future activities. 11

12 SESSION 7 Pre-PIF Process and How to Prepare A PIF Chair: Asdaporn Krairapanond, Thailand Rapporteur: Simmathiri Appanah, FAO GEF Secretariat Ulrich Apel, Minna Kononen, GEF Agencies: Jiang Ru, World Bank 7.1 PRE-PIF PROCESS GEF Secretariat gave a presentation of the newly launched pre-pif tracking system available in PMIS. GEF Secretariat pointed out that pre-pif process was created at Council s request as a response to concerns and complaints from some of the countries that the Agencies are not very responsive to countries during the Project Concept preparation stage. The discussion that followed clarified the voluntary nature of the tracking system and sought more details of the process and its sequencing. Participants were encouraged to look at the demonstration video available on the GEF website HOW TO PREPARE A PIF This session presented by the representative from the World Bank, was practical session taking participants through the process for filling out the Project Identification Form (PIF). Questions asked were responded to with examples from existing projects by the Agencies. On the questions of what kind of co-financing can be reported in the PIF template, GEF Secretariat clarified that this includes all kinds of financing, e.g. cash, in-kind, and loans. SESSION 8 Monitoring and Evaluation Policy Progress Report on the Impact Evaluation of GEF support in the South China Sea and South East Asia Chair: Ahmed Saleem, Maldives OFP Rapporteur: Martin Krause, UNDP GEF Evaluation Office - Aaron Zazueta Chair: Ahmed Saleem, Maldives OFP Rapporteur: Martin Krause, UNDP GEF Evaluation Office - Aaron Zazueta 12

13 8.1 MONITORING AND EVALUATION GEFG Evaluation office, represented by Mr. Aaron Zazueta, gave the presentation on the Monitoring and Evaluation Policies at the GEF, as well as a short presentation of the currently on-going impact evaluation of GEF support in the South China Sea and South East. The discussion that followed focused on the more specific information on the evaluation criteria, the role of the GEF Operation Focal Point in M&E activities and policies as well as Agencies performance. More specifically, What are the criteria used for evaluations, are livelihood and sustainability important criteria? Sustainability is an important criterion: The continuity of outcomes in terms of institutional, legal, financial, and stakeholder support are factors and elements to guarantee sustainability. What are the key performance criteria to evaluate GEF projects? Aggregation of results from terminal evaluations is very important, assessment of outputs and outcome achieved, and of course the soundness of the project s M&E system. Who is being evaluated? Normally evaluation teams come to assess only the project and not the agency. EO is assessing also the agency performance. Based on a random selection of several projects an exercise called project supervision review is conducted to assess the agency performance. How can we ensure that OFP participates in M&E exercises? Capacity development plan for OFP s M&E role is needed. EO agrees that OFPs should participate in M&E. EO will evaluate GEF agencies on how they involve OFP in M&E. What responsibility do CSOs have regarding M&E? And how can EO help CSOs on M&E? EO cannot support CSOs at this stage due to lack of capacity and funding. But EO can give advice. There is a GEF policy on civil society involvement which spells out all roles and functions. What is a good example showing when GEF focal points should take action as part of their M&E responsibilities? Steering committees could be used to identify such actions. India also suggested that projects should have a mid-term evaluation to track progress. EO agrees with this since the purpose of the M&E system is to help tracking progress. MTRs are happening, but EO is not interfering. EO is not a party to the process, it must maintain its independence. Bhutan also expressed their interest to share an experience on a MSP, where it was proven useful to have a MTR for a MSP Thailand expressed that they would like to see the convention focal point s involvement in M&E, but that capacity building and funds are needed for convention focal point involvement. GEF EO pointed out that OFP needs to keep all stakeholders involved in the M&E processes, including the convention focal points. 13

14 SESSION 9 GEF Small Grants Programme Chair: Lal Shanker Ghimire, Nepal OFP Rapporteur: Jiang Ru, World Bank GEF Secretariat William Ehlers GEF SGP National Coordinator The first presentation was by the GEF Secretariat on the scope, policies and results of the Small Grants Program. This was followed by the presentation of the national SGP coordinator from Vietnam, which also included a short description of the SGP from each of the countries present at the workshop. During the questions and answers session GEF Secretariat clarified how SGP is now linked to the STAR and a country can allocate more resources from its STAR allocation up to a point. It was also explained why some countries receive core funding from the SGP while others are required to use only their STAR allocation. It was also mentioned that UNDP continues to be the implementing agencies, except in Argentina and Chile where they have chosen to have the SGP be implemented by a national entity. The administration costs of running the SGP are high and the GEF sec would like to see these costs come down. CLOSING CEREMONY The China and South Asia Constituencies GEF Expanded Constituency Workshop was closed by the GEF Operational Focal Point for Vietnam. She expressed her gratitude to the representatives and the GEF for a well structured and well organized meeting. 14