1 / 22

Accessing Resources in the Adaptation Fund: GEF Familiarization Seminar (17-19 January 2012)

This presentation provides information on accessing resources in the Adaptation Fund, including background information, progress, and modalities for accessing funds directly. It also discusses the institutional arrangements and resources available.

lenardm
Download Presentation

Accessing Resources in the Adaptation Fund: GEF Familiarization Seminar (17-19 January 2012)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Accessing Resources in the Adaptation Fund Update to GEF Familiarization Seminar 17-19 January 2012

  2. Purpose of presentation • Background • Current state of progress with the Adaptation Fund • AF is fully operationalized • Direct access – a reality • Funding decisions worth US$ 109.3M since 2010 • How to access funds directly

  3. Background of the AF • Set up under the Kyoto Protocol of the UNFCCC • Goal: to finance the full cost of concrete adaptation projects/programmes, whose principal and explicit aim is to adapt and increase resilience • Financed from a 2% share of the CER proceeds on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) project activities and other sources of funding

  4. Governing Body: the AF Board • Composed of 16 members and alternate members representing: • 5 UN regions • LDCs • SIDS • Annex I Parties • Non-Annex I Parties • Equitable and balanced representation of Kyoto Protocol Parties • Legal capacity: Germany 2011

  5. Institutional Arrangements • Secretariat: GEF on an interim basis • Trustee: World Bank on an interim basis KP Parties discussed a review of the interim institutional arrangements in CMP7 (December 2011) and decided to complete the review in CMP8. CMP Secretariat (GEF interim basis) AFB Trustee (World Bank interim basis)

  6. Resources • Proceeds from monetized CERs: US$167.4M • Annex-I parties contributions: • Spain €45M, Monaco €10k, Germany €10M, Sweden SEK200M, Switzerland CHF 3M • Pledges: Australia AU$ 15M, Brussels Capital Region €1M • Funds allocated by December 31, 2011: US$ 109.3M • Estimated funds available by end-2012: • Medium estimate US$ 318M (low: 280M; high: 361M)

  7. Access modalities Direct Access Modality • Eligible Parties can submit their projects/programmes directly to the AFB through an accredited National Implementing Entity (NIE). Multilateral Access Modality • Parties can submit their proposals through an accredited Multilateral Implementing Entity (MIE). Regional Access Modality • A group of Parties may also nominate regional and sub-regional entities (RIE) as implementing entities.

  8. Access modalities (2) NIE, RIE and MIE shall: • Meet the fiduciary standards established by the AFB: • Financial management and integrity • Institutional capacity • Transparency, self-investigative powers and anti-corruption measures • Bear full responsibility for the overall management of the projects and programmes; and • Carry out financial, monitoring and reporting responsibilities.

  9. Access modalities

  10. Access modalities: The Accreditation Process - NIEs • Step 0: The government appoints a Designated Authority. The DA must endorse the accreditation application of Implementing Entity and all IE project/programme proposals. • Step 1: Submit application: • Description of how the organization meets the specific required capabilities • Attachment of supporting documentation • Step 2: Accreditation Panel Reviews Application. • Step 3: Panel can request additional information/clarification from organization. • Might suggest to Board that an on-site visit is required • Might suggest that technical support needs to be provided to an applicant to improve its capacity in order to attain accreditation • Step 4: Panel makes recommendation to AF Board. • Step 5: AF Board makes final decision on accreditation of entity

  11. Operationalization • Operational procedures development 2008-09 • January 2010: Accreditation Panel • March 2010: 1st accreditations (NIE/MIE) • June 2010: 1st funding decisions • January 2011: launch of 1st programme

  12. Access modalities: Implementing Entities • 8 National Implementing Entities accredited: • Centre de SuiviEcologique (Senegal) • Planning Institute of Jamaica (Jamaica) • AgenciaNacional de Investigación e Innovación (Uruguay) • Fonds national pour l'environnement (Benin) • South African National Institute for Biodiversity (South Africa) • Protected Areas Conservation Trust (Belize) • Ministry of Natural Resources (Rwanda) • Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation (Jordan) • 1 Regional Implementing Entity • BanqueOuestAfricaine de Développement • 10 Multilateral Implementing Entities accredited: • The World Bank, ADB, AfDB, IADB, UNDP, UNEP, IFAD, WFP, WMO, UNESCO • Swift accreditation process: can be done in 3 months

  13. Why aren’t there more NIEs? Some identified issues: • The direct access modality and the role of the fiduciary standards not fully understood? • Identification of the most appropriate / most potential NIE within a country not simple? • Putting together documentation to support the accreditation application not easy? • Difficulties due to language barriers? • Lack of self-confidence? • Lack of awareness?

  14. Lessons Learned: Direct Access • Applications are evaluated by the Accreditation Panel on a case-by-case basis • Emphasis on demonstration and evidence of the application of policies and standards, which may pose challenges newly established organizations and highly centralized entities that are subject to frequent political changes (e.g. ministries). • Conditional accreditation can be used when there are a few non crucial gaps in the fiduciary standards • Importance of the role of the Designated Authority • Temporary measures to ensure funding for vulnerable countries given limited funds: cap per country – USD 10 M • Maintain swift processes to encourage accreditation • Senegal case: NIE accredited and first direct access project financed within 9 months

  15. Measures to encourage the Direct Access Modality • Total allocation for projects/programmes submitted by MIEs at each meeting cannot exceed 50% of cumulative resources available in the trust fund • NIE proponents can get a Project/Programme Formulation Grant for developing endorsed concepts to full proposals • The development of an Accreditation Toolkit in all UN languages (pictured)

  16. Financing Criteria • Funding provided on full adaptation costs basis of projects and programmes to address the adverse effects of climate change • AF will finance projects/programmes whose principal and explicit aim is to adapt and increase climate resilience • Projects/programmes have to be concrete: discussion on definition on-going, emphasis on impacts • Accommodation of different country circumstances: no prescribed sectors or approaches • Total allocation for projects/programmes submitted by MIEs at each meeting cannot exceed 50% of cumulative resources available in the trust fund • All projects/programmes must include a knowledge component

  17. Financing Criteria • Cap per country is set at USD 10 M. No separate project/programme cap. • For projects/programmes larger than USD 1M, a choice of a one step (full proposal) or two step process (concept approval and project/programme document) • For small-scale projects (below USD 1M) one-step process • NIE proponents can get Project/Programme Formulation Grant for developing endorsed concepts to full proposals • Proposals to be endorsed by a Designated Authority. As of today, over 70 countries have nominated one • Proposals need to be submitted at least 9 weeks before a Board meeting

  18. Project Review Criteria: emphasis on… • Consistency with national sustainable development strategies • Economic, social and environmental benefits • Meeting national technical standards • Cost-effectiveness and sustainability • Arrangements for management, financial and risk management, M&E, impact assessment • Avoiding duplication with other funding sources for adaptation • Stakeholder consultation: ensuring acceptance and incorporation of community views • Consideration of gender issues in project design

  19. Where are we now: Operations 17 funding approvals since September 2010 • Africa • Senegal • Eritrea • Madagascar • Mauritius • Tanzania • Asia • Maldives • Mongolia • Pakistan • Turkmenistan • Eastern Europe • Georgia • Latin America and Caribbean • Uruguay • Ecuador • Honduras • Nicaragua • Pacific • Cook Islands • Samoa • Solomon Islands Also: 10 endorsed project concepts

  20. Where are we now: Operations 38 project/programme proposals submitted since September 2010 • Variety of sectors: • Water management • Coastal management • Food security • Rural development • Urban development • Agriculture • Disaster Risk Reduction • infrastructure

  21. THANK YOU!! Thank you! www.adaptation-fund.org secretariat@adaptation-fund.org

More Related