GEF – SGP LATIN AMERICAN & CARIBBEAN REGIONAL WORKSHOP 11 TH -15 TH February, 2009 Panama

1. GEF – SGP LATIN AMERICAN & CARIBBEAN REGIONAL WORKSHOP11TH-15TH February, 2009Panama Please note: This presentation was put together in collaboration with resources and slides from Mr. Delfin Ganapin and Ms. Fumiko Fukuoka (CMPT).

2. Contents • Purpose • Workshop agenda • Graduation & Execution Options • Outcomes & Challenges • GEF-SGP Trinidad and Tobago

3. Purpose • To collectively discuss and consider a number of strategically important issues and the implications of SGP in GEF-4 and towards GEF-5.

4. Workshop agenda • Review of workplan, targets and strategic directions of GEF-4 • Follow-up to the Joint Evaluation, strengthening of M&E • Financial sustainability and graduation policy • Programmatic and administrative matters • Initial assessment of the challenges and opportunities SGP will face in GEF-5

5. Workshop target • To agree on a series of measures to address various strategic and programmatic matters of SGP to generate greater impacts and enhance effectiveness.

6. Participating Countries • Haiti (2005) • Honduras (2001) • Jamaica (2003) • Mexico (1994) • Nicaragua (2003) • Panama (2005) • Peru (1996) • Suriname (1995) • Trinidad & Tobago (1995) • Uruguay (2005) • New Countries to join in GEF-4: • Paraguay (mission June08) • Venezuela (mission Oct08) • Colombia • 22 countries and 1 sub-region • Argentina (2005) • Barbados & OECS: (1994) including • The British Virgin Islands, • The Leewards and Windward Islands • Belize (1993) • Bolivia (1992) • Brazil (1994) • Chile (1992) • Costa Rica (1993) • Cuba (2004) • Dominica (1994) • Dominican Republic (1993) • Ecuador (1994) • El Salvador (2001) • Guatemala (1996)

7. ‘Graduation’ • NOT an exclusion from GEF • Graduation = Upgrading of mature country programmes • Reform process to begin in GEF-5 • Process should lead to an SGP that is equitable, fair and independent • Improved cost-effectiveness, strengthened co-financing and links to larger GEF projects for an even more proactive SGP should be pursued

8. Categorization Country programmes to be categorized on 2 themes: - • Funding access criteria of different categories 2) Technical and substantive roles and responsibilities of different categories

9. Categories Category 1 - All SIDS, LCDs and those less than 5 years Category 2 - Those of 5-15 years Category 3 - Those more than 15 years

10. Upgrading Options • Upgraded country programmes would function in a more independent manner • Require Council approval and further development • 4 Options are being evaluated for upgrading

11. Option 1: Improved UNOPS Execution • Structure the same for core countries; consultations to discuss change for that of graduating countries • Increased efficiencies through ATLAS • Revised Risk Assessment System for prioritization of audits • Management of co-financing and other funds

12. Option 1: Pros and Cons • Pros: - modality has been successful - few changes thus few risks - no transition costs • Cons: - need for necessary change may not be met if potential for improvements and increasing efficiency is not done.

13. Option 2: NGO Execution • NGO or consortium of NGOs, after competitive bidding, with centrally negotiated contract with UNDP takes over global functions of UNOPS • NGO will establish a CPMT and management/technical support structures in each SGP country • Bidding criteria: detailed cost/benefit, due diligence review of legal status and accountability

14. Option 2: Pros and Cons • Pros: - reputable NGO could provide new ideas and new forms of technical support - NGO could have strong resource mobilization Capacity - may open door to new partnerships • Cons: - NGO may have difficulty meeting criteria: fiduciary, global reach, and local neutrality - loss of UN “hat” may limit impact and influence - large change means high risks

15. Option 3: Country specific modalities • UNDP to oversee competitive process in each country to determine the most appropriate country-specific execution modality (National NGO, Env. Fund, International Executing Agency, Government Agency, Private Sector, UNDP CO) • Each country would be a separate project and would report separately to UNDP • UNDP to monitor execution in all countries (CPMT to be incorporated into UNDP structure)

16. Option 3: Pros and Cons • Pros: - adaptation to local conditions, hence local optimization and use of local opportunities - country ownership and drivenness would be raised • Cons: - weak capacity in some countries would lead to delays and reduced performance - lack of global coherence - large change means high risks

17. Option 4: Mixed global and country specific execution • Mixing option 1 or 2 with option 3 • Potential execution agencies the same as in option 3 for “high capacity” and for graduating countries; competitive process to be overseen by UNDP; SGP in each country to be managed as a separate project • Global execution either through Option 1 or 2 would be for those countries that do not have capacity or experience to establish execution arrangements

18. Option 4: Pros and Cons • Pros: - optimizes country drivenness and country adaptation where possible while lowering risks in lower capacity countries - allows for evolution – as countries evolve, the execution modality can evolve • Cons: - there could be lack of global coherence - less risky than options 2 and 3, but there are still risks

19. Criteria to analyze options • Country-driven/ owned decision-making • Impacts must be sustainable • Fiduciary standards met • Participative implementation • Global environmental benefits delivered • Overall programme cost-effective • Resource mobilization/ co-financing met • Deliver to local communities and credible with civil society • Global reach, coherence and country presence • Equitable and reach poorest and marginal communities • Grantee selection neutral and independent

20. Other Considerations • Corporate nature of SGP and linkages with FSPs/MSPs: SGP to expand its national participation in national GEF governance and planning structures; this includes SGP as delivery mechanism for or operator of FSPs/MSPs as well as path to access other funds • Transition management • Country context

21. Money will increase as capacity of the Operational Phase increases

22. Follow-up actions • Paper to be presented to Council in June 2009 • UNDP to procure and manage the consultants who will work with CPMT; draft paper to be commented on by SGP Steering Committee • Consultative process to be initiated with major stakeholders at both global and national levels

23. Challenges • Strategic challenge of efficiency measures – with budget cuts • Knowledge management – networking with national policy- making groups/ govt. • Meeting co-financing targets • T&T’s capacity to absorb more funds in the next Operational Phase

24. GEF SGP Trinidad & Tobago • Increase ratio of co-financing to GEF/SGP funds (half in cash, half in-kind) • Improve knowledge sharing & knowledge management • Greater public awareness • Communications strategies • Encourage corporate and private sectors to act socially responsible at this critical time • Capacity building and strengthening governance

25. Actions for SGP T&T • Set achievable goals • Regular site visits, accurate reporting & recording • Participation in events and ongoing knowledge management • Publications, regular website updates • Incorporate greater gender fairness & equal opportunity

26. Actions Con’t… • Knowledge Fair • Innovative fundraising • Look outside SGP-family for a market place - Building networks & establishing linkages between countries. • Making stronger links amongst the projects themselves, better use of resources • Think outside the box – be bold & take risks

27. Upcoming projects… • The Green Wave • The Flip Cam Project

28. The Green Wave http://greenwave.cbd.int/ • Global Biodiversity Campaign • 22nd May, 2009 at 10.00am • Convention on Biodiversity • International scope • All GEF SGP Country Programmes to participate • Empowering youth; facilitating action; Networking for biodiversity and for a better future

29. Planning for the Green Wave • Newspaper ads • Important & suitable species • Training - tree planting skills & conservation • Interaction with other schools globally

30. Flip Cam Project • UNDP international pilot project to show successful stories in the field • Flip Cam – easy to use video camera with high quality results • 20 countries participating • Broadcast on UNDP’s YouTube site & other international broadcasting companies • Improve M & E; Resource Mobilization tool • Promotion; Motivation for new Grantee Partners

31. THANK YOU Participants GEF SGP LAC Regional Workshop Panama