GEF National Coordination Country Mechanisms, Processes, Experiences

1. Sub-regional Workshop for GEF Focal Points North Africa, Middle East, South & West Asia Bali, Indonesia, 2-3 December 2007 GEF National Coordination Country Mechanisms, Processes, Experiences

2. Overview • GEF Focal Points and their coordination roles • National coordination mechanisms • Elements of successful national GEF coordination mechanisms • Common challenges to coordination • Benefits of national GEF coordination • Country experiences with coordination

3. Why this presentation? • GEF Focal Points have consistently requested guidance on improving GEF coordination in their countries: • Through GEF National Dialogue process • During 2006 GEF Sub-regional consultations • In responses to GEF CSP questionnaire sent to Focal Points in late 2006

4. Sources for this Presentation • GEF National Dialogue Initiative and CSP study “GEF National Coordination - Lessons Learned” (2005) • Country presentations at Third GEF Assembly National Dialogue side-event on GEF coordination (2006) • Case studies prepared for CSP by national GEF Focal Points on GEF coordination (2007)

5. I. GEF Focal Points • Play critical coordination roles regarding GEF matters at different levels: • National • Regional • Global

6. GEF Focal Points (continued) • National coordination: • Sectoral coordination (inter-ministerial and inter-agency), including with convention focal points • Outreach to other national stakeholders (civil society organizations, academic/scientific institutions, private sector) • Liaison with GEF Implementing and Executing Agencies (IAs/EAs) • Linkages with other international cooperation agencies

7. Across range of sector activities / environmental issues From policy makers to local groups FPs help influence policy by upscaling lessons FPs facilitate coordination with sectoral agencies on integrating global environment into development plans FPs help inform, mobilize and Engage wide range of stakeholders

8. GEF Focal Points (continued) • Regional coordination: • Participation in GEF constituency meetings and activities • Engagement with regional cooperation frameworks • Involvement in regional projects and initiatives • Global coordination: • Liaison with GEF Secretariat • Constituency representation on GEF Council (on a rotating basis)

9. II. National GEF Coordination Mechanisms • Support Focal Points’ coordination roles • Different models and compositions • National GEF Committee most common • May include: Government, civil society, private sector, IAs/EAs, other donors • Provide sectoral expertise • Provide institutional continuity given FP changes

10. III. Elements of successful national GEF coordination mechanisms • Leadership by committed, informed, dynamic individuals • Broad participation by national stakeholders, including civil society • Clearly defined roles for IAs/EAs (whether as regular members, observers, or resources persons) • Informed about global environmental issues and up-to-date on GEF policies and procedures

11. Elements of successful national GEF coordination mechanisms (continued) • Means to integrate GEF and national priorities and strategies • Effective links with convention focal points and activities • Monitoring role of national GEF projects and portfolio and application of lessons learned • Capable of growth and evolution

12. IV. Common challenges to coordination • Focal Point personnel changes hamper continuity • Resource constraints • GEF procedures frustrate national stakeholders • Broad stakeholder participation proving difficult to achieve

13. V. Benefits of national GEF coordination Benefits specific to the GEF:  Facilitates endorsement of GEF project concepts by Focal Points  Increases awareness and appreciation of GEF and its mandates and activities • Encourages greater local, sectoral, and national involvement in GEF programs and projects • Promotes participation in monitoring of GEF projects  Fosters a shared commitment to goals of the GEF

14. Benefits of national GEF coordination (continued) Benefits integrating the GEF:  Enables better integration of GEF in broader national environment and sustainable development frameworks  Reveals commonalities and synergies involving national GEF portfolios and related government and donor activities and projects  Improves flow of information among stakeholders and quality of decisions made on global environmental matters  Encourages and sustains involvement of national stakeholders in the global dialogue on the environment

15. VI. Country experiences with coordination • Following examples show how countries have managed coordination challenges and the good practices that have evolved in distinctive national contexts

16. Country experience: Bolivia • Broad participation of national stakeholders in GEF Committee • Nearly equal representation of Government and civil society members • Five Vice-Ministries, including OFP and PFP • Two national NGO networks • Indigenous peoples’ organization • Ecology institute • Private sector organization • Potential benefits: • Transparent and democratic decision-making facilitated • Global environment goals and information widely disseminated

17. Country experience: Cameroon GEF National Consultative Committee Role • Identify and Prioritize Project Concepts • Provide technical and financial advice to identify and validate project concepts that comply with GEF priorities and strategies and reflect national priorities and plans • Facilitate GEF Focal Point endorsement

18. Country experience: China China GEF Office • Established by Ministry of Finance and State Environmental Protection Administration in 2000 • Composed of director and four technical staff • Objective “to better fulfill China’s roles and responsibilities under the international conventions with improved management of GEF projects” by: • Studying convention and GEF strategies and policies to propose government responses

19. Country experience: China (continued) • Capturing new GEF developments for translation and dissemination to national stakeholders as needed • Supporting potential project proponents • Providing GEF training to existing and potential government partners • Training project management offices in financial budgeting and reporting • Promoting and facilitating information exchanges between projects • Preparing documents for GEF Council meetings • Disseminating information about GEF in China to national stakeholders and the international community

20. Country experience: Colombia Coordination and Portfolio Monitoring • Small GEF Coordination Committee consisting of OFP (Ministry of Environment), Agency for International Cooperation, GEF IAs • Functions include: • Regular reviews of project execution • Tracking portfolio synergies and results

21. Country experience: Costa Rica GEF National Consultative Council • Composed of convention and thematic focal points and SGP National Coordinator • Meets monthly to • Review project proposals and GEF pipeline • Monitor projects • Analyze GEF policies in terms of national needs • Is kept informed of GEF policies and procedures by Political Focal Point

22. Country experience: Egypt Coordination and National Capacity Self Assessment (NCSA) process outcome • To help overcome capacity constraints and integrate environment into sectoral plans requires: • Establishment of coordination mechanism: GEF National Steering Committee • Strategic planning • Monitoring and self assessment

23. Country experience: Federated States of Micronesia National coordination and consultation challenges and SIDS • FSM geographic and demographic situation presents biggest challenge • Each of 4 FSM states is semi-autonomous • Islands relatively isolated over a vast area of ocean • Lack of human and financial resources to travel to cover isolated islands • Majority of consultations through internet and e-mail (if available) • Consultations to develop GEF strategies and priority settings benefit from and contribute to existing mechanisms and networks developed since the FSM gained independence in 1979

24. Country experience: Ivory Coast Coordination mechanism and project review • Operational Focal Point is supported by a Technical Secretariat • Composed of representatives from • Ministry of Environment, Water, and Forests • National Bureau of Technical and Development Studies • National Coordinator of OFP housed in the National Investment Bank • Role is to review projects based on GEF criteria and national environmental policies

25. Country experience: Mauritius Coordination at project level • Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (OFP and PFP) ensures projects designed according to national priorities • Project development team, led by relevant line ministries and including NGOs, private sector, academia, creates project ownership • GEF project National Steering Committees, composed of high level representatives of key stakeholders, meet 4-6 times annually to monitor overall project implementation

26. Country experience: Mauritius(continued) Benefits of coordination mechanism: • Views of key stakeholders gathered and incorporated in project concepts and proposals • Duplication of work is avoided • National strategies, studies, priorities, and targets incorporated in project design • Cross-sectoral issues addressed • Project implementation workloads shared among various agencies

27. Country experience: Mexico Coordination and the RAF • National Coordination Committee (1999) designed to review and support proposals for GEF financing and promote interagency cooperation • Consensus on GEF interventions means: • Broad stakeholder consultations • Coordination mechanism • Ensure optimal use of limited and scarce resources • Comply with national strategies • Assess proposals, review stakeholder roles and avoid undesirable practices (“first come first served,” portfolios dominated by agency interests, conflicts of interest) • Review and approval - Guidelines, criteria, and priorities for July 2006 - June 2010 , including a methodology to assess global benefits • Project portfolio approval and endorsement by Focal Points

28. Country experience: Philippines GEF Coordination with Conventions • OFP developed coordination mechanism with Convention focal point agencies (FPAs) • FPAs organize multi-agency committees to oversee convention commitments including GEF projects • For RAF priority-setting • Biodiversity focal point convened core group of NGOs • Climate change focal point convened Interagency Committee for Climate Change

29. Country experience: Poland National coordination and EU accession • Government activities and policy debates dominated by process of joining European Union • Poland to graduate from GEF funding after joining EU • Government of Poland decided to decline new GEF resources in 2006 • National Steering Committee previously focused on country-driven projects, often co-financed by SGP and national environmental funds

30. Country experience: Poland (continued) • Committee will continue to monitor existing projects until completion • Committee plans to evaluate experience of cooperation with GEF • National Steering Committee includes representatives of: • Ministries of Environment, Economy, and Finance • Ozone Action Centre • Institute of Environmental Protection • EcoFund • National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management • Institute for Sustainable Development (NGO) • SGP National Coordinator

31. Country experience: Sri Lanka Coordination and National GEF Strategy • New coordination mechanisms needed to implement effectively National GEF Strategy • Support unit for OFP in Ministry of Environment • Sectoral Expert Committees (in GEF focal areas) to support OFPin project proposal review and evaluation • GEF coordinator network linking OFP and other GEF project implementing agencies

32. Country experience: Sri Lanka (continued) GEF National Steering Committee to support OFP to: • endorse projects for GEF funding • monitor and evaluate GEF funded projects in the country • review action/development plans and programmes at the national/sectoral/provincial level and identify areas best suited for GEF interventions including strategic directions • advise and assist NOFP to develop guidelines and coordination and dissemination mechanisms • provide directions for the GEF Small Grant Programme

33. Country experience: Uganda Coordination and Mainstreaming GEF and poverty reduction • All government-supported GEF activities must be consistent with and included in the relevant sector of the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) • GEF Coordination Committee includes convention focal points • Each convention focal point heads thematic subcommittee responsible for submitting potential GEF project concepts to full committee • Convention focal points required to take account of PEAP national priorities in developing potential GEF projects

34. Country experience: Vietnam Coordination and GEF National Strategy design process • Produce recommendations for effective collaboration and harmonization of GEF program for next five years by • Reviewing 10-year GEF portfolio • Reviewing coordination processes by different agencies for accessing GEF funding • Analyzing national priorities of key sectors to determine opportunities and priorities for GEF funding • Carrying out needs assessment for building capacity among key beneficiaries for implementing strategy • Establishing Steering Committee chaired by GEF Vietnam Chairman and including line Ministries to review and approve strategy